Lawdragon Annual Print Magazine - Issue 28

BLACK BRILLIANCE LATHAM’S

INSIDE

THE LAWDRAGON 500 LEADING LAWYERS IN AMERICA

LEADERS IN LEGAL CONSULTING AND LITIGATION FINANCE

A SISTER ACT AT CRAVATH AND BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ

LAWDRAGON LEGENDS AND HALL OF FAME INDUCTEES

Sher Garner Cahill Richter Klein & Hilbert, L.L.C., located in New Orleans, Louisiana is a nationally renowned full service law firm recognized for commercial litigation and transactions.

Our talented team of attorneys provides our clients with the astute knowledge of a large firm practice, but with responsiveness, personal attention and sensible staffing of a smaller firm, all while delivering quality legal services effectively and efficiently. Clients receive the benefit of the firm’s proficiency across all disciplines, through handselected, integrated teams of experienced transactional and litigation lawyers.

The hallmark of our service is our attention to the needs of our clients that goes beyond the rules of professional responsibility. When representation requires litigation, we are aggressive trial lawyers, who are not afraid to fight to protect our clients’ rights. We also believe in reasonableness and cooperation, however, and adjust our representation to suit the needs of any particular client. A client who brings us a transactional matter can expect an honest and accurate appraisal of the matter and a resolution in the most practical, direct and economically feasible manner.

Sher Garner Cahill Richter Klein & Hilbert, L.L.C. Co-Managing Members, James M. Garner & Leopold Z. Sher 909 Poydras Street, Suite 2800, New Orleans, LA 70112 (504) 299-2100 • www.shergarner.com

Aelish Baig, Spencer Burkholz, Desiree Cummings, Stuart Davidson, Mark Dearman, Daniel Drosman, Thomas Egler, Jason Forge, Paul Geller, Tor Gronborg, Rachel Jensen, Chad Johnson, David Mitchell, Danielle Myers, Darren Robbins, Shawn Williams, and Debra Wyman

rgrdlaw.com | (800) 449-4900

8 9 Zach Olsen of Infinite Global 44 26 50

18 BLACK BRILLIANCE

How Latham & Watkins has built an extraordinary network of top black lawyers.

26 SISTER ACT

Sibling litigators Rachel Skaistis and Hannah Ross have both built careers headlining securities law.

32 FINDING LIKENESS IN VIOLENCE

Taylor & Ring strives to right wrongs in cases involving wrongful deaths.

38 THE DYNAMITE TRIO

Shapiro Arato Bach provides a head-turning alternative to Big Law

44 ADAPTING EXISTING LAW IN CRYPTO

Jordan Goldstein and Oscar Shine of Selendy Gay discuss the firm’s work at the forefront of an evolving practice.

50 AN INTRODUCTION TO LAWDRAGON X

Paul Lanois is a prime example of the nimble talent that defines the next generation of law.

56 GLOBAL 100 LEADERS IN LITIGATION FINANCE

These professionals have changed the balance in disputes worldwide through financial wherewithal. Featuring:

59 Cristina Soler of Ramco Litigation Funding

65 Ayse Yazir of Bench Walk Advisors

72 GLOBAL 100 LEADERS IN LEGAL STRATEGY & CONSULTING

These leaders represent the remarkable array of advisors who have helped the legal industry grow into a global business worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Featuring:

75 Stacy Humphries of Pye Legal Group

81 Ian McCaleb of Blue Highway Advisory

127

94 THE HALL OF FAME

The latest class of remarkable lawyers whose contributions to the profession will stand the test of time. Featuring:

9 9

Rusty Hardin of Rusty Hardin & Associates

103 Randy Johnston of Johnston Tobey

10 8

112

116

119

Jennifer Keller of Keller Anderle

Frank Lamothe of Lamothe Law Firm

Harold Nix of Nix Patterson

Robert Riley of Riley Safer

96 THE LEGENDS

Each of these top-tier 23 have been recognized with Lawdragon 500 distinction repeatedly – it is, as always, an illustrious group.

103 THE LAWDRAGON 500 LEADING LAWYERS IN AMERICA

Here’s to a great year of lawyering, with inspiring feats of courtroom brilliance, uncommon bravery, and a pursuit of justice for all. Featuring:

10 3 Kenya Davis of Boies Schiller

111

1 2 3

Jaren Janghorbani of Paul Weiss

117 Danielle Tully of Cadwalader

John Sobolewski of Wachtell

127 Deborah Chang of Athea

13 3

141 BJ Trach of Latham

147 Bill Reid of Reid Collins

15 9

16 5

16 9

193 Tara Sutton of Robins Kaplan 10 8

Nick Gravante of Cadwalader

Karin Demasi & Jed Zobitz of Cravath

Bijal Vakil of Allen & Overy

Erin Nealy Cox Kirkland

175 Steve Morrissey of Susman

181 Lauren Varnado of Michelman

187 Brian Timmons from Quinn Emanuel

“The special forces unit for complex litigation.” Lawdragon

RELENTLESS

REVOLUTIONARY

A national trial boutique that prosecutes high-stakes, complex business litigation on a success-fee basis, Reid Collins has recovered billions of dollars for our clients and created precedent to protect investors and hold wrongdoers accountabl e.

We are proud to congratulate three of our partners on being named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America.

Eric D. Madden | William T. “Bill” Reid IV | Lisa S. Tsai

To learn more about why sophisticated business plaintiffs choose Reid Collins, visit our website.

PUBLISHER/CHIEF

EXECUTIVE OFFICER

K atrina D ewey

K atrina @ law D ragon . com

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF/SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT

J ohn r yan

J ohn @ law D ragon com

VICE PRESIDENT, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND SALES

c arlton D yce

carlton @ law D ragon com

SENIOR EDITOR

a lison P reece

a lison @ law D ragon com

ART DIRECTORS

s te P hanie B lac K man

s B @ B lac K man D esign net

r egina F ran K

regina F ran KD esign @ gmail com

ASSISTANT EDITOR

e mily J ac K oway

e mily @ law D ragon com

EDITORIAL ASSISTANT

m ichelle F ox

michelle @ law D ragon com

CONTRIBUTORS

m eghan h emingway

m atthew h eller

LAWDRAGON PHOTOGRAPHY

l aura B arisonzi , a my c antrell , n ic K c oleman ,

r ory e arnshaw , J e FF rey l u K e , m alicote c reative c om P nay ,

m ichael P aras , r yan w en D ler

Issue 28

LAWDRAGON INC.

333 Washington Blvd. #467 Marina Del Rey, CA 90292

© Lawdragon Inc. 2025. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without written permission is strictly prohibited. Please disregard all solicitation, reprint and plaque requests from services that do not use an “@lawdragon.com” email. These are unauthorized and fraudulent. We request that you purchase any desired services from Carlton Dyce at carlton@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.

“one of the nation’s greatest plaintiff lawyers”

—LAWDRAGON

“a dealmaker”

—CHAMBERS USA

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

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

CHRISTOPHER A. SEEGER

The Modern Law Firm.

Refocused.

Insightful enough to reinvent the law firm paradigm.

Nimble enough to take on everything in our path.

Bold enough to recover $45 billion for our clients.

CONGRATULATIONS

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

MATTHEW F. BERGMANN

KOBI KENNEDY BRINSON

MATS G. CARLSTON

LINDA T. COBERLY

EVA W. COLE

STEPHEN V. D’AMORE

MICHAEL

ELKIN

THOMAS M. MELSHEIMER

A LETTER FROM THE PUBLISHER AND EDITOR

THIS IS ONLY THE SECOND OF OUR ANNUAL “LAWDRAGON 500” ISSUES SINCE 2007 FOR WHICH WE’VE ESCHEWED WHAT WE AFFECTIONATELY CALL “THE VANITY FAIR-STYLE” COMPILATION SHOT OF HONOREES IN FAVOR OF A PHOTO FROM ONE OF OUR FEATURE ARTICLES. (WE’VE ALSO DONE THIS FOR A FEW OF OUR PLAINTIFF ISSUE MAGAZINES OVER THE YEARS.) BUT THE IMAGE OF LATHAM’S “BLACK BRILLIANCE” IS ONE WE COULDN’T RESIST USING. IT CAPTURED THE EXCITEMENT AND SPIRIT OF OUR OPENING FEATURE – WITH LAWDRAGON 500 MEMBER BJ TRACH AT ITS CENTER – AND WAS, IN FACT, THE FIRST TIME SOME OF THESE LAWYERS FROM THE SAME FIRM HAD BEEN IN THE SAME ROOM TOGETHER. THAT TRUTH, OF COURSE, DOES NOT UNDERMINE THE POWERFUL NATURE OF THE FIRM’S NETWORKING THAT CAN SERVE AS MODEL TO ANY NUMBER OF BUSINESSES.

In other ways, this issue does what our print magazines always do – feature the best talent in the legal industry, drawing from a wide mix of practices both long-established and emergent. Indeed, “Sister Act” embodies the spirit of a recognition process that has always been agnostic in terms of the clients served by elite law firms – with siblings Rachel Skaistis (Cravath) and Hannah Ross (Bernstein Litowitz) litigating from opposite sides of the securities bar.

The dynamism of Lawdragon in recent years has had at its core the ongoing expansion of our guides to the best lawyers and consultants across an increasingly number of specialties. While it’s perhaps unfair to focus on any guide in particular, we felt compelled to tout The Lawdragon 500 X, which features the next generation that will be filing these pages for (we hope) many years to come – including international technology and privacy standout Paul Lanois.

But there’s a reason why we always end each annual magazine with photos and Limelights from a selection of our annual Lawdragon 500 honorees. The group in these pages rivals that of any prior issue. While we always look to the future – just as our honorees excel by operating on the cutting edge of the law – it’s fun for us to see how many of these firms have served as the bedrock of Lawdragon recognitions since our founding in 2005. That helps explain what makes a prototypical Lawdragon 500 member – continued excellence alongside a desire to meet the newest challenges. It’s also a reminder to us how lucky we are to have the support and participation from so many institutions that have defined the best of the profession.

KATRINA DEWEY Publisher and CEO katrina@lawdragon.com

JOHN RYAN Editor-in-Chief john@lawdragon.com

“It’s a go-to team for

—

CHAMBERS AND PARTNERS

BLACK BRILLIANCE

HOW LATHAM & WATKINS BUILT AN EXTRAORDINARY NETWORK OF TOP BLACK LAWYERS

IN MARCH 2023 , a remarkable group of Latham & Watkins lawyers gathered in London for a photo. The individuals were all part of the firm’s Black Lawyers Group, and all partners at the firm. Many had worked together in various ways over many years, others were new to the firm or new to the partnership. For some, it would be the first time they had joined so many other Black partners in a single room.

BY KATRINA DEWEY

Photo

This powerful network of brilliant Black lawyers within Latham & Watkins – itself a powerful global network of lawyers – brought together people from across the globe, from many backgrounds, and from a whole spectrum of practice areas through which they handle some of the legal industry’s most sophisticated matters and contribute to one of the world’s most impactful legal communities.

Understanding the conditions that made this photo possible requires an understanding of what makes Latham tick. Years ago, the firm’s then-managing partner Bob Dell articulated the firm’s aspiration: “To be the best global law firm, consistent with our culture.”

Latham’s culture – with hallmarks of collaboration, participation, mentoring and excellence – has created the conditions for success for many lawyers from many different backgrounds, including for many Black lawyers.

the diversity leadership committee would not be solely responsible for diversity, equity and inclusion, but would help set strategy, as indicated by the word leadership.

from Harvard Law School in 2004, clerked for First Circuit Court of Appeals Justice Sandra Lynch, and practiced at another firm prior to and then after joining the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Boston.

“The chance to be at this place that was really elite was something that was just impossible to pass up,” he says.

When he returned to Big Law from his role as a prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, he was undeterred by the scarcity of other Black attorneys back then. Which is not to say he didn’t notice. So, not long after he arrived at Latham, he helped develop the firm’s efforts to advance diversity within the firm.

True to form at Latham, the diversity strategy came from the ground up. For instance, Trach and colleagues advocated that the firm create a “Diversity Leadership Committee,” rather than establish a “Diversity Committee.” The subtle but important difference? The Diversity Leadership Committee (DLC) would not be solely responsible for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), but would help set strategy, as indicated by the word leadership. And the strategy would impact a broad cross section of the firm –created not just for those who identify as members of traditionally underrepresented groups, but for everyone, for the community. And importantly, the committee would involve the participation of senior leadership, signaling that everyone at the firm has a role to play in advancing diversity.

Trach served on the DLC for several years, became the chair, and then was elected to Latham’s governing nine-member Executive Committee.

The DLC model mirrored another innovative and effective committee at Latham – the longstanding Associates Committee. Rare in the industry, Latham’s Associates Committee, composed of both associates and partners, determines progression after robust and honest discussion among the group. Like other committees, the firm’s Associates Committee model helps foster trust and collaboration, which the firm views as a foundation for its success.

Several of Latham’s Black partners illustrate how these aspects of Latham culture have allowed them to flourish in their careers.

BJ Trach, a white collar and complex commercial litigator in Boston, joined the firm in 2012 because of Latham’s stature in the legal market.

“There was this handful of firms that were separating themselves from the pack,” says Trach, who graduated

Trach explains that, like the Associates Committee, “the idea was that we were not going to be solely responsible for diversity at Latham. We were going to spearhead the firm’s DEI strategy and work with all partners to strengthen and promote Latham as a workplace where the best and brightest professionals – including those underrepresented in the legal industry – could excel and find support to become firm and industry leaders.”

The DLC’s work within the firm helped to create excellent conditions for recruiting. Latham’s recruiting

team, well-aware that the firm attracts the best and the brightest, regularly reaches out into the market – sometimes with uncanny timing – to initiate discussions with potential laterals.

Sarah Fortt, one of the Global Co-Chairs of Latham’s ESG Practice, illustrates the point. Fortt graduated from Yale Law School in 2010. Coming from a family where the ministry was far more expected than the law, she found herself at law school and then in private practice somewhat unexpectedly. “I had always expected and wanted a quiet life, but my first years of practice lit a fire in me to fight for opportunities for those behind me. It was and is,” she says, “a different kind of ministry, but still a vocation.”

“ i had always expected and wanted a quiet life, but my first years of practice lit a fire in me to fight for opportunities for those behind me.”

– sarah fortt

Finding her voice as a corporate governance lawyer, her formative years as a Black lawyer in powerhouse law firms coincided with the birth of the ESG movement, which built on core debates within her field of corporate governance. “Corporations are fundamentally human communities. The desire to tell their collective story was immediately appealing to me,” she says.

Building one of the first ESG legal practices in the U.S., she drew on her experience and expertise in corporate governance, compliance and disclosure, becoming a top boardroom advisor on issues ranging from climate change to shareholder activism and crisis management. In 2021, after more than a decade in Big Law, she indicated in a conversation with a friend who was a legal recruiter that there was only one law firm she would consider making a move for: Latham. While they were speaking, another call came in and

went to voicemail. When Fortt hung up and checked the message, she realized the call had come from a Latham recruiter.

“There have been a few critical moments in my life of true kismet, and that was definitely one of them.”

Fortt joined Latham in January 2022.

“I think the Latham platform is undisputedly the greatest legal platform in the world.” Fortt cites three reasons: unparalleled quality of work, breadth of client representation, and the level of excellence across numerous areas of practice.

“Latham doesn’t just excel in two or three practices; it’s excellent across them all,” she says on that last point. “That is critical for any ESG leader. I am not in one practice area; collaboration is at the heart of what I do.”

Complementing her leadership role within the ESG practice, Fortt continues to find ways to support her communities within and outside of the firm, including by serving on the firm’s Pro Bono Committee and a number of prestigious advisory boards in her practice area. Like the firm’s other committees, the Pro Bono Committee consists of partners, counsel and associates, and drives the direction of the firm’s award-winning pro bono program, which takes on matters in nearly every area of public interest law.

While Trach and Fortt joined Latham well into their careers, other exceptional Black partners – like many of Latham’s other market-leading partners – have built their entire careers at the firm.

Nicole Fanjul started at Latham as an associate in 2009. Now she is the Co-Deputy Office Managing Partner of the firm’s largest office (New York) and advises market leading financial institutions on loan transactions. None of this was an obvious trajectory to her growing up in Westchester, N.Y. Her mom was a nurse, and her dad was from Virginia farming country, moving north and working as a systems analyst while running his own landscaping business on the side.

During her college years studying psychology at Duke University, a member of Fanjul’s family encountered the criminal justice system. This experience radically changed Fanjul’s focus as she and her family struggled to understand what was happening.

“I felt a complete powerlessness at this mass institution, these wheels churning, and people saying things in a room where you don’t know what’s happening. And then, all of a sudden, there’s an impact to your life and you just have to deal with it forever,” she says. The feeling of being ill-equipped and powerless focused her on the legal system and

the “laws that govern everything we do, every aspect of our society and our lives, whether we realize it or not.”

She went on to Harvard Law School and joined Latham in 2009 straight out of law school. From the beginning, she was particularly drawn to Latham’s unassigned program for new associates, through which associates are given the opportunity to take on work from different practices. She gravitated to transactional work because she “likes to find solutions where all sides are happy with the outcome.” A middle child, she’s a born mediator. She found her professional home in the bank finance group.

She joined thinking she would stay four years, tops, with no clear idea what she would do after that. “I think part of it is being a Black woman, and a firstgeneration professional. Big Law just didn’t feel like a world where I was going to thrive for the long term,” she says. But she wanted to get training, pay off her loans and be financially stable in the process. As a fourth-year associate, she was asked to join the firm’s Training and Career Enhancement Committee, and later served on the Associates Committee. As a mid-level associate, she met with senior leaders of the firm – including the managing partner who asked how he could be supportive. Then she was asked to be a leader in the New York office for the Black Lawyers Group. She came to understand “how much the firm really was sincere about all the things that they said were important, in terms of values, the focus on inclusion, and efforts in terms of DEI initiatives.”

More recently, she was tapped to become a Deputy Office Managing Partner of the firm’s New York office. “I look sometimes at where I am and what I’m doing, and I’m like, ‘How did I get here?’” She is particularly touched when junior associates reach out to say it makes a difference to see someone like her in leadership.

“At Latham, we say, ‘Belong as you are.’ This is very big to me, and that’s one of the things I’m most proud of about Latham’s focus,” Fanjul says. “You don’t have to be anything other than who you are. Be yourself at work. This job is very demanding, and I don’t have extra energy to try to pretend to be someone I’m not. I need to come in here, be who I am, say what I think. I felt that was always well-received, well-respected, and I was rewarded for that, in terms of being able to progress, being my authentic self here, I think that’s really incredible.”

The Latham culture that Fanjul thinks is incredible extends beyond New York, and even beyond the U.S. into all of Latham’s global offices.

Kem Ihenacho – who serves and has served in numerous leadership roles including as a current member of the firm’s Executive Committee, recent Chair of Latham’s Diversity Leadership Committee, current Global Vice Chair of Latham’s Africa Practice, and previously Global Vice Chair of the Private Equity & Investment Funds Practice – underscores the importance of the firm’s culture from his perspective in the London office.

Unlike others, who may not have envisioned a career in the law, Ihenacho had long heard from his Nigeria relatives that there were only three career choices available to him: doctor, engineer or lawyer. Ihenacho was raised by his cardiologist father and British nurse mother in Nigeria, Palo Alto, and the UK.

Social and criminal justice issues were major themes in the late ‘80s and ‘90s as the teenage Ihenacho moved from Nigeria to the UK for high school. Police brutality and oppressive treatment of minorities inspired him to study law at Cardiff University. He adapted to a more commercial track to win the training contract needed to qualify as a solicitor.

“ at latham, we say,

‘ belong as you are.’ ”

– nicole fanjul

✴

Right away, Ihenacho was taken with dealmaking at the firm he joined. Under the tutelage of a respected partner, his education was accelerated by the departure of the senior associate. In short order, Ihenacho learned how to win business, build client relationships and help clients achieve their business objectives. He had built a successful practice in private equity and made partner at a prior firm, when approached by Latham as it continued to invest in Europe.

What he found was that Latham offered a truly global platform and a commitment to its “one firm” ethos. Importantly, the appeal of Latham’s burgeoning global dealmaking platform was massive. And, says Ihenacho, “if I’m being completely honest, whilst I was encouraged by the other Black partners at the firm,

my main concerns were, ‘What’s the overall culture of the firm? Is it one that I’m going to thrive in, going to be supported with what I need to transition my clients and to build a business collaboratively with my partners?’ Those concerns were quickly allayed.”

He joined Latham in 2012. “My immediate observation was there was a real focus on inclusion from the top of the firm. The infrastructure that had been built around that seemed very advanced to me and complementary to the goal of advancing diversity,” he says. “It’s easily the best career decision I made. I feel very proud and humbled, candidly, to be part of this business and this enterprise that we’re all building.”

“ it ’s key to make sure that connectivity for our members is there, and the doors stay open to be able to access resources to learn and develop your expertise.”

– linzi thomas

Ihenacho represents many of the top players in private equity in a range of sophisticated and substantial investments and deals. And as a leader of the DLC, he played a leading role in ensuring a place for other Black and other underrepresented lawyers at the firm. He describes his approach simply: “I want to make sure that a young me knows that they have a place here, that they belong in the room and as part of the conversation.”

One such lawyer is Linzi Thomas. Thomas joined Latham as a private equity associate when Ihenacho came to the firm. Thomas became a partner at Latham in 2019. “Latham has really high standards about quality,” says Thomas. “But an incredible openness to the reality that quality comes from all different kinds of backgrounds.”

Thomas’ grandparents migrated to London

from Jamaica in the 1970s, just after the Windrush Generation.

Her dad, a sound engineer, and her primary school teacher mother instilled in Thomas the importance of finding her voice and being independent. This independence taught her to make sensible decisions about education. Thomas believed, “I could do anything I set my mind to.”

She researched and won admittance to an elite allgirls senior school and listened in as her classmates talked about their hoped-for careers. Her ears perked up as they talked about something called a corporate lawyer. “I became a lawyer because I met a young lady who inspired me. I wanted to be like her. And that’s why I think representation matters. If you can’t see it, you don’t know that you can do it.”

After graduating from King’s College London, she won her choice of so-called “vacation scheme” internships in corporate law at three of the five Magic Circle firms. She chose the firm where Ihenacho was a partner. She was entering her two-year training period in 2009 amidst the global financial crisis when prospects were tight, so she threw herself at every opportunity knowing only a portion of the roughly 120 trainee lawyers would be kept on. She met Ihenacho and enjoyed working with him, asking to sit in on meetings, and doing everything she could to secure a position in his firm’s Private Equity team. Six people applied, and two were selected. Including Thomas. “I was over the moon,” she says. “And since then, I haven’t looked back.”

But she has looked around and forward. Thomas recounts how a New York associate, a member of the Black Lawyers Group, reached out to her in London for help getting more meaningful assignments. Thomas connected with a New York partner who has gotten the New York associate involved in new work.

“I am happy to make connections,” she says. “I do it for Black associates, I do it for other associates. But if that New York associate didn’t have that connection with me, through the Black Lawyers Group, and someone she felt she could talk with, she may not have had the confidence to ask for help from someone else,” says Thomas. “It’s key to make sure that connectivity for our members is there, and the doors stay open to be able to access resources to learn and develop your expertise.”

One of the ways that happens is through internal training and networking. The firm has built on a longstanding program of “Academies” held in two-year intervals. More than a decade ago, Latham replicated this successful model with Women’s and Diversity

Leadership Academies, which are open to all lawyers, and foster powerful connections for attorneys to tap into a dialogue, build a supportive culture and be able to ask tough questions.

“In this critical mass of peers, you are able to speak to people about the various paths to progression, about how you create the circumstances for promotion at Latham, the things to do and the things to not do,” says Thomas. “Being [from] an underrepresented group, sometimes we find it harder to access that kind of information. And that is the key. It’s being able to have those conversations.”

From laterals to Latham lifers, from both sides of the Atlantic, the network of brilliant Black lawyers extends into all practice areas at Latham.

Brian Patterson, a lawyer who has developed a successful career as a Silicon Valley dealmaker, in an environment where Black lawyers are unusual, joined Latham in 2023, attracted to the firm’s unsurpassed breadth.

“I had a general understanding of the law firm landscape and where Latham sits in it,” he says. “And seeing that there were Black attorneys at Latham that had risen to that level at such a firm, that’s all I needed to hear or see.” Patterson met Trach and Ihenacho during his recruitment. “I wanted to lock arms and work alongside them, learn from and uplift one another.”

As a dealmaker, he was also plugging into a booming platform that had broken through the market in Silicon Valley. “The opportunity to leverage the depth and breadth of what Latham offers on a global scale, including practice areas that complement my broader network, was just something I couldn’t pass up. We are able to excel at representing the early stage start-up or emerging manager investment fund to the world’s largest multinational organizations. No matter is ever too complex and our clients will never outgrow us,” he says. He joined in February 2023 and serves as Global Vice Chair of Emerging Companies and Growth.

And so, Latham’s network of brilliant Black partners grows, most recently attracting Danielle Conley. She was serving as a Deputy White House counsel, when on February 25, 2022, President Joe Biden kept his promise to nominate a Black woman to the U.S. Supreme Court. And not just any woman.

“He nominated the smartest, most wonderful woman for the position,” says Danielle Conley, who was a part of the core team charged with shepherding the confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Conley earned her law degree from Howard

University School of Law in 2003, a school with a rich civil rights history that counts Justice Thurgood Marshall among its alumni. Before her role in the White House, she spent time in private practice and at the Department of Justice, serving as a deputy to Sally Yates.

Conley helped prep Brown Jackson for her hearings to become the nation’s third Black justice, following Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas. And on April 7, 2022, Conley reveled as someone who looked like her, and her daughters, was confirmed as an Associate Justice on the nation’s highest court.

That historic moment marked Conley’s time to return to private practice. After 18 months leading the White House Counsel team dedicated to civil rights, democracy and equity issues, she had her pick of law firms. She knew that she wanted to join a firm that would embrace her commitment to equity and where there was a strong representation of Black lawyers.

“ representation matters. if you can ’ t see it, you don ’ t know that you can do it.”

– linzi thomas

One firm in particular kept crossing her radar: Latham. It was different, former colleagues and friends told her, offering a partnership with extraordinarily accomplished and talented lawyers, including a strong community of Black lawyers who help each other. Whose presence and voices coalesced in a growing force in the powerhouse firm. She joined the firm as a partner in October 2022, where she now leads the Anti-Discrimination and Civil Rights practice.

“It is about so much more than numbers. It is about how people are represented within the organization, whether their voices are heard and whether they count,” says Conley. And, as the March 2023 photo of Latham’s Black partners demonstrated, the voices of Black lawyers can be heard at Latham. And they are multiplying.

Photo by Nick Coleman

Rachel Skaistis

Hannah Ross

SISTER ACT HR & RS

L itigators r ache L s kaistis and h annah r oss head L ine securities L aw.

In almost every aspect of their lives, sisters Hannah Ross and Rachel Skaistis are inseparable. As children, they shared a room in their small-town Pennsylvania home, where they were the oldest of six siblings. They’ve been living in the same apartment building in New York for over a decade, see each other nearly every day, raise their children together and go out for dinner whenever they get the chance. Then, they go to work.

BY EMILY JACKOWAY AND KATRINA DEWEY

Partners at two of the most prestigious securities firms in the country, Ross and Skaistis each epitomize what it means to be a high-powered female litigator – on opposite sides of the “v.” At  Cravath, Swaine & Moore, Skaistis advises and defends major multinational corporations when they are investigated by regulators or named in securities fraud class actions. Meanwhile, at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, Ross focuses on investigating and prosecuting those securities cases on the shareholder side. In the past two decades, the pair have helped forge a path for women in the historically male-dominated world of securities law.

The two weren’t always on this parallel track. Ross started out as a criminal prosecutor in the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office and an Assistant District Attorney in the DA’s office in Middlesex County, Mass., before joining Bernstein Litowitz in 2002.

at

actions and other business-critical litigation. In a highprofile global securities matter, Skaistis guided Telia Company through a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act investigation, which ended in a global resolution with the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Dutch Public Prosecution Service and the Swedish Prosecution Authority, without the need for a compliance monitor. Among many other matters, she has also advised a special litigation committee of the Board of Directors of Alphabet Inc. in connection with various shareholder legal proceedings related to workplace conduct and data privacy, and pharmaceutical companies Biogen and Novartis in False Claims Act and antitrust litigation, respectively.

Lawdragon: Looking back, how did you realize you were both heading down this same track?

Rachel Skaistis: It’s funny, I don’t think we were until much later in life.

Partners

As a partner and member of Bernstein Litowitz’s Executive Committee, Ross has steered massive actions to success, including recovering more than $2B for 35 institutional investors of the Allianz Structured Alpha Funds. Ross was also involved in a litigation against Bank of America which resulted in a $2.425B settlement – considered the largest recovery in a litigation arising from the financial crisis. In addition to her role as a litigator, where she has helped secure more than $7B for investors, Ross devotes a significant amount of her time to initial case identification and evaluation and  advising clients on their potential options. She is also one of the senior partners overseeing the firm’s Global Securities and Litigation Monitoring Team, examining current nonUS securities matters.

two

of

the most prestigious securities firms in the country

, r

oss

and s kaistis each epitomize what it means to be a highpowered female litigator – on opposite sides of the “ v.”

Skaistis, meanwhile, spent a number of years as a newspaper reporter before considering law school. In her reporting days, the crime beat was her favorite: “I really liked working with crime victims. So, I went to law school to be a prosecutor,” she says. At that point, she remembers, “I did not even know what a Big Law firm was.”

Since joining Cravath in 1997, Skaistis has made a name for herself in the defense bar. She is a vital resource to companies and their boards when she represents them in government and internal investigations, as well as shareholder and derivative

Hannah and I are from a family of doctors, and that was inspirational. When I started college, I was premed. Then, I switched to an English major when I realized that is where my talents are, and I worked as a reporter for a number of years. Law school was never even on my radar, and, at the time, it never occurred to me that Hannah would want to be a lawyer, either.

Hannah Ross: Our dad is an oncologist, and our mom also works as a counselor to families who are dealing with cancer and grief. They’ve always stressed to us the need to help people, so that was something I always saw in a future career.

I volunteered at the rape crisis center at college. I felt like I was making a difference in the victims’ lives, and I wanted to continue making sure their voices were heard. So, I went to law school to be a prosecutor.

I worked at the rape crisis and domestic violence hotline in law school, as well. When I graduated, I worked at the DA’s office in Middlesex County, Mass., and spent several years as a criminal prosecutor. I loved it. I was out there every day helping victims seek justice.

LD: How did you come to Bernstein Litowitz?

HR: Rachel was pregnant with her eldest, and my five siblings were all in New York City at that time. So, I realized, “Wait a minute. I want to be in New York.”

I looked into DA offices, but I also thought, “Well, maybe I should look at a private firm.” Both Rachel

and a headhunter I was working with suggested Bernstein Litowitz because they felt the firm’s values and practice areas would really align with what I was focused on, which was helping people who felt they had been aggrieved.

I interviewed here, met all the partners, and thought, “This is where I want to be.” And here I am, over 22 years later.

LD: Amazing. And Rachel, you were very supportive of Hannah going to the other side.

RS: Absolutely. Everybody needs counsel, and we are not doing our jobs as a profession if you don’t have that. I think very highly of Bernstein Litowitz, in part because Hannah has had a fantastic experience there. So, yes, I was very supportive.

LD: What was your path to Cravath?

RS: I worked at the Manhattan DA’s office for a summer, and I was thinking seriously about going to a U.S. Attorney’s Office. At least back then, it was important to have experience in a firm before you applied for that particular job. I had a clerkship two years out, so I thought I would come to Cravath for two years.

We want to make sure that our advice and recommended approach addresses the merits of the potential case as well as each client’s particular needs and litigation preferences.

access to any of the company’s internal information, we have to build our cases from the ground up and do our own investigations, which I’ve always loved doing. I’ve had the honor of working on some groundbreaking and historic cases during my time here. But over the past couple of years, I’ve been much more focused on the case identification and evaluation side. We’re analyzing potential cases and advising our clients on their options to protect their interests. We want to make sure that our advice and recommended approach addresses the merits of the potential case as well as each client’s particular needs and litigation preferences.

LD: So, how does it work with the two of you when your firms are working on opposite sides of a case?

To my total surprise even today, from the day I started working here in September 1997, I found this work exhilarating. I absolutely love the work, the firm, the people. I did leave to clerk, for Judge Shira Scheindlin in the Southern District of New York, which was an incredible experience, but I came right back. I never thought about doing anything else.

LD: Have you always been in investigations and corporate governance?

RS: No. At Cravath, we are all generalists in the Litigation Department. So, through almost all of my associate career and my first three years as a partner, I did traditional litigation of all sorts. I think I worked on my first significant SEC matter in 2008.

I’m also in the firm’s Office of General Counsel, and I do a lot of our employment-related work internally and for clients, and that involves a lot of investigations. So, over the past 10 to 12 years, investigations have become a focus of my practice.

LD: And Hannah, you have the same sort of practice, just on the flip side.

HR: Yes. We’re focused on and constantly investigating shareholder and investment-related cases. Because we do not get discovery until our complaints are sustained, and often do not have

RS: Both of us take our ethical and confidentiality obligations to our clients extremely seriously. If she ever gets a work call and I’m there, I’ll step out or she’ll walk out. When we’re on car trips together, we’re not talking to anybody on the phone. Occasionally we know what the other is working on because the matter is public, but nothing non-public or sensitive. We stay so far away from that line. It does sometimes mean that at family dinners Hannah is more able to talk about cases than I am. So, I think my family has a slightly skewed view of who is more active in practice.

LD: Right. And you’re like, “Could you pass the bread, please?”

HR: That is one of the advantages of a lot of the cases that we’re working on: Almost everything I do is public. So, I am much more able to talk about my work.

LD: It must be challenging, since you have, for the most part, shared the vast majority of your life on a daily basis. You must be very attuned to not going there when it comes to work.

RS: Yes, absolutely. I always tell my clients about her whenever I get on a case, and they are always fantastic about it. We’re both very proud of each other, so we are always happy to disclose that information, but we are really careful.

HR: That’s right. When I joined Bernstein Litowitz, Rachel was working on a case that our firm was opposite, so we have dealt with this from the moment I started.

LD: This also gets at a deeper issue: the “good guys” versus “bad guys” idea. You’re both leaders in your firms, and your firms are great at what they do.

But neither of you is fighting each other. You’re just both at the top of your game with top firms.

RS: One hundred percent; there is a lot of professional respect between each other and our firms.

LD: For each of you, what are you proudest of accomplishing in your career – and what are you proudest of your sister for accomplishing?

HR: Thinking back to when I first joined the firm, I came from a criminal prosecutor’s background and had very little substantive knowledge about this practice area. It was a steep learning curve for me.

I’m proud of what I’ve accomplished in terms of the cases I’ve worked on and the clients that I’ve been able to represent since then.

I’ve gotten here through incredible mentors at the firm, many of whom I still work side-by-side with to protect the interests of injured investors and lead our firm. I have also been fortunate to have very strong role models, and Rachel was a tremendous role model for me. I am so thankful for all the women, including Rachel, who brought me to where I am today, and I hope that I’m able to help other women lawyers at the firm as they advance in their careers.

RS: I have to jump in and say that Hannah really started doing this kind of litigation later than most people. I could not have been prouder when she became a member of the Executive Committee.

RS: Yes. I have been involved in a lot of our pro bono programs, which mostly means supervising our associates’ terrific pro bono work. I’m always incredibly moved by how much pro bono work our associates want to do on top of everything else, and it truly is an integral part of who we are as a firm. So, I feel like I absolutely owe it to them to be a supervisor on as many cases as they want to do, in all different areas. I love that they are willing and really wanting to take on that work.

And as a Co-Chair of our Diversity Committee, I am really proud of the firm’s efforts in this area, as well. I have been at Cravath for so long and have gotten to watch as we grow, learn and evolve. Seeing the number of phenomenal women and diverse lawyers explode over the time that I’ve been here has also been gratifying. It feels like home.

HR: Jumping off of that, I think one of the reasons we have been able to be so successful, both professionally as well as in our families, is we’re both at firms that value personal lives – while obviously making sure that you’re doing your work and doing everything you need to do for your clients.

We’re both at

firms that value personal lives – while obviously making sure that you ’ re doing your work and doing everything you need to do for your clients .

HR: And I think that Rachel is incredible because when you are a lawyer in New York, and probably a lawyer anywhere in the U.S., you know Cravath. I remember when she got her offer to join Cravath as an associate, and I remember when she made partner. I remember all of these incredible milestones, and now she’s serving in the general counsel’s office and leading tremendous litigation. I’m extraordinarily proud of her, but not at all surprised.

RS: That’s really sweet.

LD: Rachel, what are you proudest of?

RS: I am proud that I have gotten to a point in my career where I have established my own way of practicing. As Hannah said, I have had the privilege of working with such amazing lawyers, and I’ve gotten to learn from so many litigation styles. But it is nice to get to a point where you feel like you have found a style of practicing and advising your clients that is true to who you are.

LD: And then you’re both involved in pro bono work, as well?

At Bernstein Litowitz, family has always been so important to Max [Berger], the founding partner, and my fellow senior partners. They know it’s going to make you a better lawyer if you have a fuller life.

RS: I agree with that completely. I had my oldest daughter when I was a fifth-year associate, and I was completely supported – if you are at a firm that values family, it can absolutely be done.

LD: What kind of evolution have you seen over the course of your career in terms of that becoming more of the norm?

RS: It has been a huge evolution for sure. When I started, you focused on the work. If I was going to an event at my daughter’s school, I would just say I was “out of pocket.” But the truth is, people are terrific about it. It makes you more human to colleagues and to clients. And the younger generation coming in wants to know that you can do this job and have a life.

That balance is part of why I feel good about where I am now. I work really hard. I am absolutely there when my clients need me. But I love my family, I love my kids and I love my sister. And if we can both sneak out early and grab dinner on a Friday, we are absolutely going to do that.

Finding Likeness in Violence

Taylor & Ring Strives to Right Wrongs in Recent Wrongful Death Cases

BY EMILY JACKOWAY

ON

THE SURFACE, the deaths of Diego Stolz and Kurt Reinhold don’t seem to have much in common. Diego Stolz was a 13-year-old boy who died from injuries inflicted by bullies on the schoolyard. Kurt Reinhold was a 42-year-old Black man shot by deputy sheriffs.

But both were sudden. On a Monday morning in September 2019, eighth-grader Stolz left his home with his parents and five siblings to go to school.

A year later, Reinhold was leaving a convenience store carrying a can of iced tea. Both would be fatally injured within hours.

Both incidences were violent. The bullies punched Stolz in the face and the back of the neck, sending him headfirst into a nearby concrete pillar. He was on life support for nine days before passing away. Reinhold, meanwhile, was involved in a heated confrontation with deputies and was pinned down and shot twice, killed instantly.

Crucially, the attorneys at Taylor & Ring argue both deaths were entirely preventable – the result of systemic negligence.

Trying to give voice to something that’s wrong is extremely important.

–JOHN TAYLOR

It is not comfortable to sit with those images of violence. But that is what the attorneys at the Los Angeles-based plaintiffs’ firm do every day: face the stories that are too painful. Unable to change the tragedy, they try to provide a more just ending to the story. Something else that makes the two cases similar: The attorneys did just that.

This past June, Reinhold’s case came to a $7.5M close. Taylor & Ring says the settlement is the largest ever paid by the Orange County Sheriff’s Department. The case, led by John Taylor and Neil Gehlawat, was brought on behalf of Reinhold’s mother, Judy Reinhold-Tucker; his wife, Latoya; their 8-year-old son and their 7-year-old daughter. Then, in September of 2023, Gehlawat and partner Dave Ring achieved a precedent-setting $27M settlement for Stolz’s family. According to the firm, this is the largest settlement ever paid to a single plaintiff in a bullying case. What’s more, the litigation led to crucial legislation that opened access to more cases like Stolz’s in the future.

These significant results are representative of the firm’s frequent achievements. Founded by Taylor and Ring in 2002, the renowned plaintiffs’ firm has litigated a range of personal injury and wrongful death matters, with well-known sexual abuse and police misconduct practices. The firm’s attorneys have experience suing school districts like Stolz’s; many of the firm’s sexual assault matters concern abuse in schools. Last year, the firm secured a $102.5M jury verdict in a sexual assault case on behalf of a teenage girl who was repeatedly assaulted by her band instructor. Police misconduct cases have also been a part of the firm’s focus from the beginning; the attorneys have garnered millions of dollars in verdicts and settlements in police shooting cases alone.

For the attorneys, every story is uniquely impactful. “Trying to give voice to something that’s wrong is extremely important,” Taylor says.

These are two of those stories.

“THE ADULTS IN THE ROOM”

Diego Stolz’s parents died when he was a toddler. Ever since, he had been raised by his aunt and uncle, Juana and Felipe Salcedo, as their own. Stolz, his two biological brothers and his three cousins grew up as a happy family of eight – Stolz the beloved baby of the bunch.

Stolz had been a target of bullying since his seventh-grade year at Landmark Middle School, part of the Moreno Valley School District. “The family saw Diego’s personality change over those months,” attorney Dave Ring says. “He became very withdrawn, down and depressed.”

Things escalated at the start of eighth grade. On a Thursday, Stolz was suddenly punched in the back of the head. Shaken, Stolz and his adult sister met with an assistant principal the next day. Ring says the administrator told Stolz that the bullies would be suspended by the time he returned on Monday. But they weren’t. In a lunchtime assault, which was filmed by some of the bullies, Stolz was sucker punched, sending him headfirst into a concrete pillar.

Ring talks about watching the video with Stolz’s adopted parents. In the video, two bullies are seen – one to Stolz’s front and one to his side. Stolz is standing with his hands to his sides, defenseless. “His dad said, ‘I feel horrible. You know why he did that? I told him he can never fight at school,’” Ring remembers.

It’s far from Ring’s first case suing a school district; last year, he achieved a precedent-setting $10M settlement on behalf of a 9-year-old who was sexually

abused by a school bus driver. Ring litigates three main categories of school district cases: physical injury, sexual abuse and bullying. The sexual abuse and bullying cases can be more difficult to litigate, Ring says; the district can argue that the bad actor – the bully or the abuser – is solely at fault.

Ring and his partner on the case, Neil Gehlawat, see it differently. “Obviously, the boys who did it – it’s terrible what they did. I think that’s one piece of it,” says Gehlawat. “But the schools, they’re the adults in the room. We have an expectation – in loco parentis is the Latin phrase – but it basically means the school steps into the shoes of the parents. You act as though a parent would. And they acted nothing like that.”

Ring and Gehlawat emphasize that the assistant principal Stolz spoke with had not reviewed the surveillance footage of Thursday’s attack, had not suspended the students on Friday, and, in fact, was not at the school that Monday. In an email listing high-priority matters to take care of that day, Ring says, she did not list investigating Stolz’s attack the previous Thursday. “It was entirely preventable,” Gehlawat says. “He didn’t have to lose his life if the school administrators had done their jobs.”

“DO YOU SEE YOURSELF?”

Kurt Reinhold had been in San Clemente for about a month before he was approached by two Orange County Sheriff’s Department deputies. Allegedly, he was stopped for jaywalking.

The two deputies were Homeless Liaison Officers (HLOs) within the Sheriff’s Department. A letter detailing the Orange County District Attorney Office’s investigation of the “deputy-involved shooting” says that “the main goal of the HLO is outreach and getting homeless individuals services versus arrest.” The letter also explains that, as part of their

HLO training, the deputies “have been trained in outreach, crisis avoidance, dealing with individuals with mental health issues and drug issues.”

Yet, despite training to offer services rather than arrest, Taylor says that no services were ever offered. Instead, he argues, “The real reason they stopped him is because he is Black. They had no intention of rendering any sort of services to him. … There was nothing he was doing outside of being Black and in public in San Clemente.”

Police misconduct cases have been a central focus of both Taylor and Gehlawat in their careers. Taylor has litigated precedent-setting police misconduct matters since the ‘90s. In 1992, he achieved a milestone $2.3M verdict in a case involving the police shooting of a 16-year-old boy. “There is, at times, a recklessness with which deadly force is used by our officers,” Taylor says. “It’s an extremely difficult job and we get that, but there is training and, most of the time, if the officers follow the training they’ve been given, we don’t end up with a dead person.”

Gehlawat came to Taylor & Ring in 2020 after achieving several police misconduct awards out of Kern County. In one, he settled a civil rights case against the Kern County Sheriff’s Office for $3.4M after deputies asphyxiated an unarmed man during restraint. “Joining this firm gave me the opportunity to maintain my commitment to victims and impact the world to make it a safer place by changing the behavior of those institutions and entities that don’t like to change,” Gehlawat says.

Footage of the deputies’ encounter with Reinhold was publicly released after his death. The video begins with dashcam footage from the deputies’ car. They notice Reinhold, and one says, “Watch this, he’s going to jaywalk.” When the first deputy decides to

It was entirely preventable. He didn’t have to lose his life if the school administrators had done their jobs.

–NEIL GEHLAWAT

There was nothing he was doing outside of being Black and in public in San Clemente.

–JOHN TAYLOR

stop Reinhold, the second warns, “Don’t make case law.” In fact, Taylor and Gehlawat say, it was later determined Reinhold had not been jaywalking – the street was a dead end. Nevertheless, Taylor claims, “they used that as a pretext to perform some kind of criminal stop on him.”

When the deputies approach Reinhold, the audio cuts out for a while until one can be heard saying, “Hey, you need to stop. Are you going to stop or are we going to have to make you stop?” The argument escalates, and when Reinhold is told he is being arrested for jaywalking, he replies, “That’s ridiculous.” Reinhold repeatedly asks, “Do you see yourself?”

As the deputies continue to try to stop Reinhold, a physical altercation ensues, and the two deputies tackle him to the ground. In the scuffle, one deputy can be heard repeatedly saying, “He’s got my gun.”

Before releasing the video, the sheriff’s department superimposed a red circle around Reinhold’s hand at this moment in the footage, suggesting that his hand is on the officer’s gun. The second deputy then shoots Reinhold.

Taylor and Gehlawat argue that not only was Reinhold only flailing and attempting to leverage his weight rather than grab the gun, but that it would have been impossible to unholster the gun regardless. Gehlawat explains that the holster had three safety locking mechanisms – Reinhold would not have been able to remove the gun with brute force if he’d tried.

“NOT JUST A FEW BAD APPLES”

Both cases, while tragic individually, are emblematic of deeper systemic issues.

The bullying Stolz faced was not an isolated incident at Landmark Middle School. An investigation found that 14 police reports were filed at the school

in the months preceding his death. Gehlawat says that police had been called to the school around 100 times. Most significantly, a chillingly similar death occurred on campus more than 20 years prior: In 1998, 12-year-old Jerod Schroeder was punched in the head on the basketball court and later died from his injuries.

Yet, stronger anti-bullying measures were not put in place – partly, Ring and Gehlawat assert, due to pressure by the superintendent’s office to keep kids in school to maintain average daily attendance. The school district’s funding is partially determined by a school’s attendance number, and if attendance dips below a certain threshold – say, for suspensions or expulsions – the district can lose backing. “They prioritized funding for the schools over welfare of kids, including Diego,” Gehlawat says.

The Reinhold case, meanwhile, illustrates problems within police departments that have been at the forefront of public consciousness, particularly since the killing of George Floyd just months before Reinhold’s death.

As in the majority of the police misconduct cases the Taylor & Ring attorneys take on, the deputies were not criminally charged for their role in Reinhold’s death. Instead, the District Attorney’s office determined that “there is substantial evidence that [the deputy’s] actions were reasonable and justified under the circumstances when he shot and killed Reinhold.”

That’s where civil litigation comes in, the attorneys say. “If the agency and/or criminal arm of the legal system isn’t going to examine incidents of excessive force as carefully, then we’re able to do that in the civil system and get some measure of justice for the family,” Taylor says. That said, even though the public’s awareness surrounding police misconduct

has heightened in recent years, Gehlawat adds that jurors are still often inclined to trust officers first. “It’s easier for people to accept that there are some bad apples out there. That it’s not an institutional problem,” he says. “The reality is when it’s happening over and over and over, it’s not just a few bad apples.”

“RIGHTING WRONGS, INSPIRING CHANGE”

It’s rare that landmark change takes place midway through a litigation, but that’s what the Taylor & Ring attorneys accomplished during Stolz’s case.

At the time Ring and Gehlawat came to the case, California law stipulated that a wrongful death case could only be brought by the parents or siblings of the deceased. This meant that Juana and Felipe, though they had been Diego’s legal guardians nearly all his life, could not bring a case on his behalf.

So, the team partnered with local assemblywoman Eloise Reyes to draft legislation allowing legal guardians the same rights to sue as parents. After legislators heard Stolz’s story, the bill passed unanimously – allowing Juana and Felipe to be the plaintiffs on Stolz’s case, and all future guardians to be able to bring cases on behalf of the children in their care.

The school district also changed its anti-bullying policies during the course of the litigation, bringing in an outside training program and implementing more stringent disciplinary policies. The team recommends those changes to all school districts. Gehlawat emphasizes that districts need to invest monetarily in preventing bullying – starting with companies that provide anti-bullying forums and trainings for both students and staff.

Ring believes the case’s power will be lasting: “The legacy of this case is these parents,” he says.

“They wanted not just this school district to change, but they wanted to send a message to all school districts. And they did.”

The team also sees a clear path forward for preventing police misconduct, starting with an end to qualified immunity. Gehlawat says that having departments investigate themselves, or being investigated by DAs’ offices which work hand-inhand with those departments, is not a meaningful method of oversight. “There’s really no other discipline of work that gives this type of blanket immunity to their own,” he emphasizes.

Though the fight to uncover systemic problems in policing is ongoing, the attorneys are bolstered by the public’s shifting awareness of police misconduct. They attribute much of this new understanding to increased availability of video evidence. Between dashcam videos, body cameras and the ubiquity of cell phone camera access, it’s easier for the public to see events as they unfolded. In Reinhold’s case, community members took to the streets to protest his killing after the footage was released.

Though Diego Stolz and Kurt Reinhold lost their lives under very different circumstances, they are united in the justice Taylor & Ring’s attorneys were able to bring in their names. Of course, the attorneys know the families would give any amount of money to have their loved ones back with them. But the civil justice system doesn’t only yield money – it provides a venue for exposing systemic problems and tackling them head-on. That’s what the attorneys at Taylor & Ring live for.

Gehlawat says it best: “Civil lawsuits are the only way to fully uncover bad conduct on the part of defendants in these cases and really change behavior. It’s all about righting wrongs and inspiring change.”

They wanted not just this school district to change, but they wanted to send a message to all school districts. And they did.

–DAVE RING

The Dynamite Trio

SHAPIRO ARATO BACH PROVIDES A HEAD-TURNING ALTERNATIVE TO BIG LAW

BY EMILY JACKOWAY

TOGETHER, AN APPELLATE LAWYER, a criminal defense attorney and an entertainment and IP lawyer create a uniquely comprehensive perspective for a boutique firm. With that deep bench, Shapiro Arato Bach’s litigation experts, all former Big Law titans, rival larger firms’ heft.

In the last few years, the firm has been growing – but staying cutting-edge. The growth is dynamic, adding experience and new practice areas without sacrificing the firm’s boutique nimbleness or collaborative nature. “In terms of other boutiques in our space, there’s nothing quite like our firm,” says founding partner Alexandra Shapiro. “We run a wide gamut in terms of civil and criminal litigation.”

Originally classmates at Columbia Law, Shapiro and partner Cynthia Arato started their New York-based firm in 2009. They came together bearing pedigrees from Latham & Watkins and Gibson Dunn along with the skill, tenacity and vision to make it on their own. Shapiro, one of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s first clerks on the Supreme Court, heads up the firm’s appellate practice; she represents individuals and institutions in criminal and regulatory matters, as well as complex civil litigation. Not to mention, she’s the recent author of a novel, “Presumed Guilty” – borne out of a true appellate lawyer’s passion for demonstrating how the justice system does not always uphold the truth.

ALEXANDRA A.E. SHAPIRO

PARTNER

CYNTHIA S. ARATO

PARTNER

JONATHAN P. BACH

PARTNER

The desire for more opportunities in appellate work is part of why Shapiro wanted to start a new firm; in doing so, she has created a niche in the market. “I think our appellate practice is unique in New York, not just for boutiques, but even at large firms,” she says. “There aren’t very many law firms that specialize in appellate work. That tends to be mainly done by firms in D.C.”

It’s Arato, meanwhile, whose expertise lies in big-name intellectual property, entertainment and contract law cases. She has represented both artists and major corporations in copyright, defamation, trademark, fraud cases and more. A prominent thought leader in the ever-changing practice, she recently co-authored a White Paper on behalf of the News/Media Alliance detailing the concerning ways in which generative artificial intelligence models copy expressive works, like news articles.

In the years since we first spoke with the pair about their venture, the firm has expanded: Significantly, former head of Cooley’s New York practice, Jonathan Bach, joined the firm in 2019. Bach – who also happens

“I joined because I had watched the firm grow over a decade and I was jealous of the great work they were getting and the opportunities they had,” says Bach. He adds that the transition from Big Law to the specialized boutique firm has been even more seamless than he expected: “We get the same kinds of opportunities big firms get to have –bet-the-company cases, and the opportunity to appear in courts across the country, including in a number of very widely watched and high-profile matters,” says Bach. “It’s just nice to be able to do that in this setting.”

IN THE HEADLINES

The attorneys’ expertise across a range of practice areas unique for a boutique firm ensures those high-profile matters have been plentiful. Arato’s IP and entertainment practice, for instance, has a starstudded roster. Recently, she successfully represented the touring company for Grammy award-winning artist Lizzo in a Covid-related breach of contract case. Early

With his reputation for trial experience, Arato says, Bach’s entrance

“really helped establish us as a go-to litigation firm that will go the distance, with a deeper bench of lawyers who have experience in complex commercial litigation and high-stakes disputes.”

to be Shapiro’s husband – has brought his decades of experience in white-collar criminal defense and complex business litigation to the firm. A leader in his field and a known trial ace, Bach is a past president and current board member of the New York Council of Defense Lawyers. On the criminal side, he has successfully defended individuals and entities in a range of investigations and prosecutions; on the civil side, he has handled securities, contract, employment and trade secrets cases.

With his reputation for trial experience, Arato says, Bach’s entrance “really helped establish us as a go-to litigation firm that will go the distance, with a deeper bench of lawyers who have experience in complex commercial litigation and high-stakes disputes.”

pandemic closures affected everyone, and when a music festival Lizzo was headlining was canceled in 2020, the festival claimed that the artists were obligated to return their fees. Twenty depositions and a summary judgment win later, Arato puts it simply: “The Lizzo case was hard-fought,” she says. “The ruling was very gratifying.”

Her work in the music industry doesn’t stop there. Before the Lizzo case, Arato represented Cash Money Records and UMG Recordings in a fair use copyright litigation. The labels were sued along with recording artist Drake over his sampling of jazz musician Jimmy Smith’s spoken word piece “Jimmy Smith Rap” in Drake’s song “Pound Cake / Paris Morton Music 2.” Arato represented the labels in district court and in

Power Rogers is proud to announce that every one of our 14 partners was named to the Lawdragon 500 List.

R.

JR. for being named as Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America.

LAWDRAGON 500 PLAINTIFF CONSUMER LAWYERS

Joseph Balesteri

Devon Bruce

Kathryn Conway

Carolyn Daley

Sean Houlihan

Dominic LoVerde

James Power

Joseph A. Power Jr.*

Thomas M. Power

Larry R. Rogers Jr.

Larry Rogers, Sr.*

Thomas Siracusa

Jonathan Thomas

Robert R. Thomas (*) Lawdragon Hall of Fame

the 2nd Circuit where, in a rare win for musicians in sampling-based infringement cases use, the court ruled in favor of Arato’s clients, asserting that the song’s adaptation for a new artistic purpose constituted fair use.

Currently, Arato is representing TV show P-Valley showrunner Katori Hall in a pending copyright infringement matter.

Arato isn’t the only one whose cases center around pop culture touchstones. Currently, Bach is

paying former public officials to use their influence to lobby the government.

WHAT’S SHIFTING

The court has narrowed the scope of fraud laws in the last decade, leading to some high-profile convictions being overturned in recent years. For appellate lawyers like Shapiro, that means cases like the Buffalo Billions appeal, or a recent victory in the

“The most significant cases that I've worked on in the last 10 years have involved big questions about the scope of federal criminal statutes,” Shaprio says. “I think the victories we’ve had have raised interesting questions for what comes next and how prosecutors may try to push the fraud laws in the future.”

representing a rare book dealer who is one of several defendants in a criminal case surrounding the alleged theft of original handwritten notes for the lyrics to The Eagles’ song “Hotel California.” After Bach’s client and others arranged to sell the lyric sheets, they were met with several charges including attempted criminal possession of stolen property. Bach and the other defendants’ lawyers filed motions to dismiss and have argued that the lyrics were not stolen to begin with.

In another hot-button matter, Shapiro recently represented two Syracuse developers on corruption claims related to the New York economic development program known as “Buffalo Billion.” The executives at COR Development were accused of rigging the selection process to choose which developers could bid for projects in Syracuse. The two men, along with two other defendants, were originally convicted of fraud under the “right to control” precept. But, in May of 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in Shapiro’s clients’ favor and overturned their convictions, limiting the scope of the government’s ability to bring fraud charges on the “right to control” theory moving forward. Shapiro also won another victory in a related case also decided by the Supreme Court in May, which overturned one developer’s conviction for so-called “honest service fraud” and limited the government’s ability to bring corruption charges for

2nd Circuit involving securities trading based on so-called “political intelligence” (predictions about what a government agency might decide) are a major trend in her practice. “The most significant cases that I’ve worked on in the last 10 years have involved big questions about the scope of federal criminal statutes,” she says.

Now, Shapiro says, she is curious to see where the changes in scope will lead: “I think the victories we’ve had have raised interesting questions for what comes next and how prosecutors may try to push the fraud laws in the future,” she says. Currently, she is representing an individual who worked for NFT trading website OpenSea. Her client was charged with wire fraud for trading NFTs featured on the company’s website – but, she says, “that appeal is going to raise some interesting questions about whether, in fact, the wire fraud statute can be applied in that context.” She adds that the SEC’s recent aggressive stance on crypto and other digital assets will be another facet to the trend: “There are a variety of interesting and novel legal questions about whether the SEC has authority to bring some of those cases, and I expect we’re going to see more challenges of that as well,” she explains. The firm’s scope means they have their finger on the pulse of trends across the legal industry. Bach adds that trade secrets cases are also surging;

attorneys are litigating those cases across the country. “Laws about employee non-competition agreements are going out of existence,” Bach explains. “Employees are allowed to move companies. So, claims that you would formerly think were ripe for an employment lawyer are now being recast in terms of trade secrets.”

AI, meanwhile, is the major trend in Arato’s practice. “I think it’s going to grow in all areas of the law – not just copyright, but privacy and competition,” she says. “It’s a trend we see both in the litigation challenges to the models that fuel AI, but also with how law firms are struggling with the best ways to incorporate AI into their practices.”

WORKING TOGETHER

As a 14-lawyer firm, the practice is all about the people. Shapiro and Arato’s duo becoming a trio wasn’t an expected move – but it’s one all three attorneys are grateful for. “Both Alexandra and Jonathan share this ability to just get things done,” Arato says. “The number of things they are able to get done in a very quick, efficient, focused way is really impressive.”

Bach, meanwhile, credits the firm’s leadership to Arato and Shapiro: “I just walked in, but they really continue to make the key decisions and run the place. I’m just delighted that I get to participate. They’re both really good at handling the firm, at creating a culture and environment that younger lawyers want to be practicing in.” Shapiro adds that much of the dayto-day management focus lies with Arato, who she credits as keeping the firm running from the outset.

remaining as collegial and collaborative as ever. “We are all extraordinarily busy with our own practices, but that does not get in the way of collaborating at our firm,” says Bach. “We rope each other in all the time.”

That includes the associates; notably, two former associates have grown into the partnership rank, which Arato says has helped the firm flourish. “I think the reason why the partnership works so well and we’re all really happy here is that we trust each other’s judgment and legal skills,” adds Arato. The trait that unites everyone in the firm? “People who really like being litigators,” she says.

“It’s marvelous to see all of these lawyers getting to do all kinds of incredible things,” Bach says. In just the last few months, two firm associates have argued in front of the 2nd Circuit. “They’re not just taking depositions, but they’re really getting sucked into all areas of responsibility,” he adds. “It’s a lot of fun to see them do it and to see them do it so well.”

“We look for people who really want to take ownership of what they’re working on,” Arato says. “That way they get to do a lot more on matters than lawyers at larger firms maybe do. That helps us; it helps them. It gives a lot more value to the clients.”

The key trait that unites new associates at the firm is intellectual curiosity and the drive to work on many kinds of matters. “I think we have lawyers here who really like being litigators, so we have people here who really enjoy what they do,” Arato says. “There’s just a level of job satisfaction here that I think you don’t see across big firms.”

In the last few years, the focus on the full team has allowed the firm to build a reputation that extends

“We look for people who really want to take ownership of what they’re working on,” Arato says. “That way they get to do a lot more on matters than lawyers at larger firms maybe do. That helps us; it helps them. It gives a lot more value to the clients.”

Following Bach’s addition, the firm continues to expand; the partners just leased a new, larger office space in Manhattan. But, despite a larger firm and unique specialties, the attorneys are intent on

past the partners’ earlier Big Law work; they’ve created a new stamp in the industry. “It’s not just about us,” says Bach. “The firm is taking on a life of its own with good people.”

JORDAN GOLDSTEIN

ADAPTING EXISTING LAW IN CRYPTO

RAPID ADVANCEMENTS IN FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES , like crypto-assets, have at times appeared to outpace the law governing those innovations. Those shifts are driving huge fluctuations in the markets and, increasingly, headlineproducing bankruptcies. For crypto, in particular, billions of dollars and the industry’s legitimacy and future are at stake.

That’s where Selendy Gay comes in. The firm has gained recognition as a driver of the legal challenges against allegedly improper practices of crypto exchanges and digital token issuers, and is poised to spur greater regulation and stability in the cryptocurrency market. The firm operates as a “complementary” force to the SEC examiners and other regulators applying broader scrutiny.

BY EMILY JACKOWAY

OSCAR SHINE

NOT EVERY INVESTOR IS RIGHT AND NOT EVERY CRYPTO COMPANY IS A SCAM. HAVING LAWYERS WHO UNDERSTAND THE INDUSTRY AND ARE COMFORTABLE WORKING ON EITHER SIDE CAN BE VERY HELPFUL.

JORDAN GOLDSTEIN

The New York-based firm was founded in 2018 as an alternative to Big Law. Partner Jordan Goldstein says the goal was to develop “a cutting-edge legal practice where the lawyers take on both plaintiff-side and defenseside cases.” Because the firm is prepared to bring cases to trial, when in the client’s or public’s best interest, they are often selected by clients to bring cases in emerging areas of the law.

Goldstein, a graduate of both Harvard Business School and Harvard Law, held former roles as both a federal prosecutor and a corporate M&A lawyer. His deep financial background combined with experience across sectors has led him to be one of the top lawyers in the crypto space.

Partner Oscar Shine is similarly involved in the firm’s crypto practice, but brings a different background. Shine worked in Silicon Valley before law school and brought that to bear in securities class action defense cases, product liability MDLs and government enforcement matters opposite the SEC, DOJ and CFTC before arriving at Selendy Gay Elsberg soon after the firm’s formation.

Now, the firm is at the forefront of crypto litigation, with headline-grabbing cases defining this new area of law – uniquely, on both sides of the V.

On the plaintiffs’ side, the firm has filed class actions against major cryptoasset exchanges and token issuers on behalf of crypto-asset purchasers – often retail investors and small-dollar traders taken advantage of by “unscrupulous actors,” as Shine says.

“We think there’s a real public service in trying to hold people accountable. That is a virtuous use of the class action mechanism,” says Shine. It’s an area so new that even the earliest cases are still being litigated. Currently, the firm is helping spearhead a class action against crypto exchange Bitfinex and Tether, creators of the stablecoin Tether – a case that is garnering national attention.

On the defense side, the firm represents crypto-issuers in high-profile contract, securities and RICO claims. While the media may focus on the cases the firm is bringing to trial, their defense practice is just as robust. “Sometimes, because of the profile of our plaintiffs’ cases, we are unfairly pegged as anti-crypto. We’re not anti-crypto. We are anti-fraud,” says Shine. “We view blockchain technology as something promising and innovative, but any technology can be abused.”

Shine and Goldstein discuss the intricacies of navigating an emerging area of law – and what may come next.

Lawdragon: When did crypto first start appearing on your radar as a new area of litigation?

Oscar Shine: I have always had an interest in technology and had been monitoring blockchain and Bitcoin at a distance. It was a natural evolution for our practice since so much of what we do involves the financial services sector, including financial technology and payment systems. So, it was clear that this was both an exciting and interesting new technology and also a fertile ground for disputes.

LD: Mr. Goldstein, what drew you to this work?

Jordan Goldstein: The idea of applying legal principles – some of which were developed 50 or more years ago – to new technologies. Part of the appeal is trying to make analogies to courts, and eventually to juries, in terms of how to understand these technologies and how to apply legal frameworks to subject areas that no one had conceived of back in the 1940s. The premise is that a lot of those principles apply fully – you just have to adapt those brick-and-mortar concepts to the digital world.

Congratulations to Lieff Cabraser’s LAWDRAGON 500 Lawyers

Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers

Kevin R. Budner, Kenneth S. Byrd, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Mark P. Chalos, Douglas Cuthbertson, Nimish R. Desai, Paulina do Amaral, Dan Drachler, Wilson Dunlavey, Steven E. Fineman, Melissa Gardner, Rachel Geman, Lexi J. Hazam, Richard M. Heimann, Roger M. Heller, Andrew Kaufman, Michael Levin-Gesundheit, Jason L. Lichtman, Sarah R. London, Annika K. Martin, Robert J. Nelson, Phong G. Nguyen, Jonathan D. Selbin, Michael W. Sobol, David S. Stellings, Fabrice N. Vincent

Plaintiff Financial Lawyers

Katherine Lubin Benson, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Lin Y. Chan, Daniel P. Chiplock, Nimish R. Desai, Nicholas Diamand, Eric B. Fastiff, Steven E. Fineman, Rachel Geman, Brendan P. Glackin, Dean M. Harvey, Lexi J. Hazam, Richard M. Heimann, Sharon M. Lee, Bruce W. Leppla, Michael Miarmi, Robert J. Nelson, David Rudolph, Jonathan D. Selbin, Daniel E. Seltz, Michael W. Sobol, David S. Stellings

Plaintiff Employment & Civil Rights Lawyers

Lin Y. Chan, Kelly M. Dermody, Rachel Geman, Dean M. Harvey, Daniel M. Hutchinson, Michelle Lamy, Michael Levin-Gesundheit, Anne B. Shaver, Tiseme Zegeye

WE ARE VERY SELECTIVE AND TARGETED ABOUT THE MATTERS THAT WE BRING ON THE PLAINTIFFS’ SIDE, AND WE LITIGATE THOSE WITH THE SAME LEVEL OF DILIGENCE AND SOPHISTICATION THAT WE BRING TO OUR DEFENSE-SIDE REPRESENTATIONS.

OSCAR SHINE

LD: What do people most often misunderstand about crypto?

OS: People tend to think of cryptocurrency in an undifferentiated way. When the label “crypto” gets slapped onto something, that actually conceals tremendous variation in the underlying technology, in the way that various actors in the cryptocurrency space are structured legally and whether they’re incorporated in the United States or offshore or some combination of the two. There is enormous variation between the different cryptocurrency actors. Because we know the space intimately, we see those differences. Whereas when we see people who are less involved talk about crypto it tends to be in very general terms. They reach conclusions like, “It’s all a scam,” or, “It’s the future of money,” or these kinds of very sweeping pronouncements when, really, it’s much more nuanced than that.

JG: That’s an excellent point. It really depends on the facts and what the allegations are. We’re seeing more disputes within the industry as it matures that aren’t simply investor versus issuer, which may be how it started. And even there, it’s not necessarily black and white. Not every investor is right and not every crypto company is a scam. Having lawyers who understand the industry and are comfortable working on either side can be very helpful.

LD: That’s a great advantage of working both on the plaintiffs’ and defense side, as your firm does. What are some of the challenges of your practice?

JG: One place crypto issues can be more novel is on just basic issues of service of process, like how you start a lawsuit with a defendant that may be located in Singapore without any real basic operations. Folks can be difficult to reach, even if their actions are within the U.S. and even if there’s a basis for personal jurisdiction over them in the U.S. Just affecting service to start the lawsuit, which is obviously crucial, can be a challenge.

So, we’ve had to file, win, and, in some cases, contest motions before the court by seeking alternative service abilities, such as serving someone through Twitter or email or another non-traditional method. The courts have shown that they’re willing to adapt to that. We have to be creative, because it can certainly be difficult to figure out which country’s laws apply at times.

OS: Another challenge is that because crypto assets are so novel, there have been and continue to be classification challenges that both private actors and the government are wrestling with as to whether a particular asset is a security or a commodity or something else. Then, depending on that classification, we can ask what cause of action is available to the plaintiff and what defense is available to the defendants. Those are almost all questions of basically first impression that are still very much being litigated right now. There’s a lot of uncertainty in the bedrock legal questions surrounding cryptocurrency.

LD: What gives the firm an edge in this space?

OS: On the plaintiffs’ side, we are not a volume shop. We are very selective and targeted about the matters that we bring on the plaintiffs’ side, and we litigate those with the same level of diligence and sophistication that we bring to our defense-side representations.

JG: And not only are we selective in terms of what cases we bring, but we’re selective within those cases in terms of what claims we bring. For example, you’ll see cases where someone sues an exchange and says everything the exchange sells is a security without real regard to the particular tokens at issue. They sort of lump it all in together. In our view, that’s not persuasive. It doesn’t keep your credibility with the court to say everything’s a security, when it’s not.

So, within a case, we will ensure that the claims we’re bringing are defensible at each level. We’re not simply throwing a lot of claims out and hoping something sticks. We think that’s exactly the wrong approach when you litigate a case. Your credibility to the court is of paramount importance.

LD: Obviously credibility is important when working in any space, but why particularly in crypto litigation?

OS: Crypto cases get a very high degree of scrutiny from the courts. My sense is that judges are very cognizant of the fact that they are adapting existing law to this emerging area. The basic doctrinal questions are not fully settled in some cases and courts want to get it right. So, they’re very careful and scrupulous in their review of the party’s submissions, which means that we have to rise to that challenge and make sure that everything that we file is also getting it right.

LD: What is it like having so much media attention on these cases?

OS: It’s very vindicating. It suggests to me that we are onto something and that we are litigating a case that is worth paying attention to.

LD: Tell me about some of the cases keeping you busy now.

JG: One is a case against Jump Trading, an algorithmic trading company. The allegation is that Jump aided the Terra Foundation in manipulating a different stablecoin known as Terra, which de-pegged from the dollar. The allegation in the class-action complaint is that Jump aided Terra’s manipulation of the price. That case is at an early stage.

LD: You’re working on these cases while the SEC is concurrently trying to navigate this new space. Tell me a bit about that dynamic.

JG: The SEC cannot be everywhere at once. Congress has passed laws that permit private litigants to bring claims that vindicate many of the principles that the SEC might also pursue. So, we do see our role as complementary to the SEC.

That said, the SEC is not always correct. Our firm has a vigorous whitecollar practice that has shown that at times. So, the goal is to be textured and nuanced. We can be a complementary force to the SEC, but it really does depend on the case.

LD: Are you seeing developments in that area in the few years that you’ve been working in the space?

OS: There has certainly been an explosion of enforcement activity. In the earliest days, particularly around the so-called ICO boom around 2019 and some of the early Bitcoin bubbles, I think regulators were not sure what to make of what was going on, and they were perhaps a bit slow in taking on some of these cases. That has changed a lot. We have seen a very aggressive enforcement posture not just from the SEC, but also from the CFTC and from the Department of Justice.

LD: With the market volatility and so many changes over the last few years, how do you keep abreast of all the new developments?

JG: We all follow the industry closely. Our firm has analysts, many of whom are previously from banks, who can be extremely helpful. But ultimately, we just spend a lot of time trying to immerse ourselves in the industry.

LD: What’s coming next?

OS: As we were discussing earlier, we’re going to be sorting out these disputes about what these terms mean, as applied to digital assets –what’s a security and what’s not a security and what constitutes an offer and what constitutes a sale. Over time we will get answers, but it is not going to be immediate.

THE SEC CANNOT BE EVERYWHERE AT ONCE. CONGRESS HAS PASSED LAWS THAT PERMIT PRIVATE LITIGANTS TO BRING CLAIMS THAT VINDICATE MANY OF THE PRINCIPLES THAT THE SEC MIGHT ALSO PURSUE. SO, WE DO SEE OUR ROLE AS COMPLEMENTARY TO THE SEC.

JORDAN GOLDSTEIN

LAWDRAGON AN INTRODUCTION TO THE NEXT GENERATION

OUR LATEST GUIDE SHINES A LIGHT ON THE FUTURE OF LAW – AND ITS EXCITING PRESENT. X

At many firms, the future is now.

The achievements and pace at which these lawyers have vaulted to the forefront of the legal profession is remarkable. They represent the tried and true paths worn by those who came before them – clerking for prestigious judges, anchoring law reviews. Then have blown down the walls of private practice, amassing courtroom victories, leading deals and protecting IP and civil rights.

This is our inaugural guide dedicated to those who will define where the legal profession of our country goes. Whose leadership will be called upon by businesses and individuals when they face their crossroads. After reviewing thousands of candidates for what we informally call LDX500, we’re confident the future is in good hands.

We received a record number of submissions for this guide, and appreciate the time and care put into them.

To those, in our time-honed Lawdragon selection protocol, we added hundreds of hours of independent research across the nation’s leading firms – from global

corporate powerhouses to the top plaintiff firms coastto-coast. We then vetted these lawyers with their peers, resulting in this guide.

We encourage you to check out the sprawling representation of this guide on many fronts, available here: www.lawdragon.com/guides/202307-07-lawdragon-500-x-the-next-generation. It’s demographically more in line with law school graduates of recent years and the population in general, with 45 percent female and 21 percent inclusive. It represents a wide range of private practice as well as tremendous geographic diversity (hello Texas!). And, these graduates hail from more than 100 law schools.

The joys of releasing this guide included new “Lawyer Limelights” on these younger standouts, including our first of this batch: Paul Lanois. We hope this is a profound reminder of what the law can provide, if we allow it. A stable framework on which to go forth and build, create, compete and seek to ensure that the law works for everyone.

LDX 500 HONOREE PAUL LANOIS DISCUSSES PRIVACY IN A NEW AGE

BY EMILY JACKOWAY

FROM FRANCE TO SWITZERLAND TO HONG

Kong to the Bay Area, the world of data privacy and cybersecurity is changing – and fast. Just ask globetrotter privacy and security lawyer Paul Lanois.

French native Lanois started his legal education at the Panthéon-Sorbonne University in Paris before moving to the U.S. to attend the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Never in one place for long, he then set out as a U.S. associate in the London and Luxembourg offices of several top law firms before moving in-house as senior legal counsel at Credit Suisse in Switzerland. While there, he also worked in Hong Kong testing cutting-edge digital banking technology.

In 2019, Lanois moved back into the law firm environment: He is now a Director at Fieldfisher’s Palo Alto office. With locations in 12 countries, including all those Lanois has worked in, Lanois was attracted to the firm’s strong European data protection practice.

His move back to private practice was initiated in part by Europe’s revolutionary General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), enacted in 2018. With major companies rushing to comply with updated international data privacy regulations, Lanois’s unique experience made him the perfect legal consultant.

Now, Lanois helps companies from tech startups to the world’s largest corporations develop their data privacy policies for new technologies while complying with the GDPR and other major regulations that have rolled out in the last five years. Those regulations continue to develop: With advancements in tech products – take AI, cryptocurrency and virtual reality – changing data privacy and cybersecurity expectations daily, companies with new products must take those regulations into account and foresee what may come next.

In addition to his international background, Lanois’s love of technology makes him uniquely able to look into the future. He loves the hands-on approach to new tech and works to understand how privacy works on a real-world product level. In many cases, the products he works with make him question the very laws he advises on: “You’re dealing in gray areas where new technologies were not imagined by legislators, which raises a number of issues,” he says. “You definitely have to think outside of the box.” Though he is an LDX500 member, Lanois is inspired even by those lawyers who have come after him. Since the beginning of his career, Lanois has taught outside of his practice; currently, he teaches privacy compliance at University of California College of the

Law, San Francisco (formerly UC Hastings College of the Law). While his expertise is beneficial for new lawyers, he finds that he learns as much as his students: “Students ask questions in class, and it allows you to look at things from a new perspective,” he says.

What first brought you to the law?

I wanted to combine my love of economics and technology with the legal side. You get to explore and discover new technology without focusing on selling it. You’re also involved in the development of new products from the early stages, incorporating privacy and security by design. So, we all get more exposure to the product itself without being engineers.

Tell me about some of your earlier work in that area – working on mobile banking apps with Credit Suisse in Hong Kong.

Over there, people view their phones a bit differently: They use them for everything. You have those apps which are a bit like what Elon Musk is trying to emulate now with X, where he says that he wants X to be used for everything. You already have that in Asia. Certain apps are used for universal purposes rolled up in a single app, such as chat, payment and as a search engine, among many other things.

As a result, when testing new mobile banking apps, it’s ideal to test in Asia because people are already using their phones for everything. People there are going to find specific use issues more quickly.

That’s interesting. What brought you to that inhouse transition, and what brought you back to private practice?

I made the transition back in 2014 when I joined Credit Suisse at the headquarters in Zurich. One of the fascinating things about banks is that security is the product that you’re selling. If the data gets stolen from the bank, that’s it, you can close shop. So, in a way, security is even more important than privacy for a bank – especially in Switzerland.

Is that where you started building up your privacy and security practice, or were you doing that work before going to Credit Suisse?

I was doing it in the law firms that I was at, but things have fundamentally changed since the introduction of the GDPR. Now, every medium and large-size organization has someone in charge of privacy. Even small organizations need to reach out to privacy counsel in ways they didn’t before. Now, law firms all have privacy departments – before, it was a niche practice.

“WHEN TESTING NEW MOBILE BANKING APPS, IT’S IDEAL TO TEST IN ASIA BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE ALREADY USING THEIR PHONES FOR EVERYTHING. PEOPLE THERE ARE GOING TO FIND SPECIFIC USE ISSUES MORE QUICKLY.”

Was it the explosion of privacy and security departments after the GDPR that brought you back to the law firm environment?

Yes. I wanted to come to the U.S., and I thought that I’d be able to leverage my international background more in a law firm setting.

How so?

Because I’ve worked in so many different countries, I can understand the complexities that organizations are facing.

The work that I do now is twofold. First, there is still a huge chunk of work in relation to complying with the GDPR, privacy directives, new requirements, new case law and so forth. But then the other aspect of the work is, how do you comply with privacy globally speaking? Can we adopt some higher-level principles instead of looking at privacy from a state-by-state or countryby-country basis? For most organizations, they see what the global standards are, try to comply with the higher requirements, then apply those worldwide. Of course, there may be some local variations.

Interesting. What does your day-to-day look like?

I’m not sure there is a typical breakdown. That’s what makes privacy interesting: There are so many changes happening. It’s not like some other areas of law where things are more settled and you have a routine.

“THINGS ARE CHANGING SO QUICKLY. YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO KEEP ABREAST OF NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND TECHNOLOGIES. IT’S NECESSARY TO SPEND A COUPLE OF HOURS EVERY DAY FOLLOWING WHAT’S GOING ON IN THE NEWS – WHETHER THAT’S IN NEW LAWS AND REGULATIONS BEING INTRODUCED, OR IN DISCUSSIONS AND TRENDS.”

What are some areas keeping you busy right now?

Data transfers from the EU to the U.S. is a huge topic which came up following a decision from the European Court of Justice, and afterwards cases in the surrounding world. Companies want to know how they sign up for those transfers and if they meet the requirements.

AI is also a huge topic. Lots of organizations are looking into it, and they’re at different stages. Some of them have a solution in place and it’s now more about working on the necessary disclosures, transparency and so forth. Other organizations are just starting to look into it and are exploring the pros and cons. Other organizations haven’t yet made a decision. What are the most common discussions surrounding AI?

Building an internal AI acceptable use policy is a big topic of conversation. Some organizations would

authorize internal AI use in certain areas; others would have a wide ban on it.

Why would they ban it?

Once you start uploading content into some of those platforms, it can be used to train generative AI. Therefore, do you still have copyright over that material? Do you still have ownership? IP-wise, it’s debatable.

Then, some organizations may not necessarily be using AI as part of their core fundamental products or services, but are thinking, “Well, maybe we can have a chat bot; maybe we can have ancillary solutions which help customers.” There is still some privacy work to be done in relation to that, because there may be data collection and monitoring, which trigger a number of different laws and regulations.

AI has exploded as a topic of conversation recently. How long has it been something that you’ve been concerned with in your work?

With non-generative AI – which I tend to call traditional AI – it’s been quite a while. For example, when I was working at Credit Suisse, we were working on global advisory solutions whereby you can get personalized investment advice from an app without human intervention. That was entirely automated, so that was an AI as well.

For lots of organizations, including those with assisted driving and video games, AI existed before the huge AI boom that we’ve seen in recent months with ChatGPT and other generative AI solutions – but it has definitely attracted more interest now.

That’s especially true in the tech space, where people tend to congregate towards the new trends and buzzwords. Before, it was cryptocurrencies, blockchains and NFTs. I’m not saying that those are dying; I do think that there were very compelling use cases which are still being developed. It’s just that they have attracted less interest now. The organizations that are really helping build new things are the ones who focus not just on the trendy buzzwords just to attract investors, but look at new technologies to assess whether they can help the business.

What do you enjoy about the breakneck pace of this space, or what do you find challenging about it?

It’s really challenging. Things are changing so quickly. You always have to keep abreast of new developments and technologies. It’s necessary to spend a couple

of hours every day following what’s going on in the news – whether that’s in new laws and regulations being introduced, or in discussions and trends.

Tell me about some of your work in specific sectors –I was interested, for example, in your privacy work in the video game industry.

One of the more interesting video game matters I’ve worked on was in relation to anti-cheat solutions.

With online multiplayer games, as you can imagine, it becomes a bit competitive when rankings are involved, and there is this temptation to cheat. In one scenario, you might be cheating alone and nobody else is playing with you, but you just want to complete the game. You can do whatever you want in your own room if you don’t disturb others.

But if you have rankings and competitions, players who cheat disrupt the game for others. So, a number of companies have been working on anti-cheat solutions so that the game is enjoyable for everyone.

Obviously, that involves collection of data: Are there any processes being run on the device that are interfering with the game and trying to change certain values? So, the challenge of those anti-cheat solutions is collecting only the right amount of data. You don’t want to be sucking up, for example, an open window with an email that I’ve been typing in Word. You don’t want to be collecting any personal data, or any personally identifiable information.

Outside of anti-cheat solutions, there’s also work in relation to new devices, like virtual reality headsets. You might say, “It’s a device, why is privacy involved?”

But when you’re putting on those devices, they are collecting data on the composition of your room in order to detect, for example, how close you are to the device. Is there anything in front of you which may cause you to stumble, and so forth? So, then you have those cameras, and you need to factor in those privacy considerations as well.

Fascinating. And are you still doing financial work?

Yes. The great thing about working in a law firm is that you get to work with different industries, you get different perspectives on how things are being done and it helps to inform clients as to trends across different industries.

What new technologies have you been most intrigued by?

Like many people, I’m intrigued by generative AI

“I’M INTRIGUED BY GENERATIVE AI BECAUSE IT HAS HUGE POTENTIAL. BUT I WOULD SAY THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE GUARDRAILS IN PLACE. YOU CANNOT FULLY RELY ON IT.”

because it has huge potential. But I would say that you need to have guardrails in place. You cannot fully rely on it. For example, for research, it can save you time by doing some initial research for you. But that should only be seen as a starting point because you still have to verify the sources and check whether they even exist. There have been instances where AI has hallucinated and invented legal cases which aren’t real.

The same is true in relation to AI-generated content, like drawings. In many cases it produces a very good result. It’s a great starting point. But then is it sufficient? Probably not in all cases – especially because there’s always a transparency issue. As an artist, say, it’s fine if you want to use AI as a starting point, because maybe it helps you to do things that you could not. But then you cannot pass off the AIgenerated content as your own. It’s the same for text produced by ChatGPT – you can’t pass that product off as your own. Transparency is fundamental.

Do you see AI becoming a big component of your work, at least in the short-term?

It is taking on a big role. But is it going to replace everyone and everything? Maybe, but not at the moment. I think that it would be a mistake for organizations to rush and implement something just because it’s the trendy thing to do without having carefully considered the pros and cons. There is a lot of scrutiny going on, and I would say that we’re just one misstep away from a new law which could come in to regulate the space.

THESE PROFESSIONALS HAVE CHANGED THE BALANCE IN DISPUTES WORLDWIDE THROUGH FINANCIAL WHEREWITHAL. FAR FROM ENCOURAGING LITIGATION, THEY HAVE ENSURED CASES CAN BE FAIRLY FOUGHT ON BOTH SIDES. THEY HAVE DEVELOPED PRODUCTS AND MARKETS THAT HONE THE BATTLEFIELD AND PROVIDE A TRUE CONDUIT TO ACCESS TO JUSTICE.

The world of litigation finance has come so far in a relative moment’s time – something like 20 years. That’s when Harbour’s Susan Dunn became one of the world’s first litigation funders setting forth to create a market that didn’t exist. And while what we’ll call background noise persists, fueled by growth pains at individual funders and the market, it’s best not to lose sight of the big picture. Billions upon billions of dollars are flowing into dedicated litigation funders worldwide, alongside growing divisions of massive private equity and other funds. Large firms increasingly rely on funders to finance their entire litigation portfolio, and spinoff firms are created routinely because of the availability of funding.

The heart and soul of litigation funding remains in London, where risk entrepreneurs are helping lawyers pay bills while developing secondary markets in litigation finance. It’s no accident that the longstanding ability of consumers to bring claims from fraud to anti-competition in U.S. courts is finding a hold throughout the world.

Our guide features the remarkable 20 or so trailblazers of litigation finance, alongside the booming talent coming from finance, law and insurance that are carrying it forward, including Ayse Yazir of Bench Walk Advisors. Also included here, designated with an asterisk, are esteemed members of the Lawdragon Hall of Fame.

We selected those recognized here through Lawdragon’s proprietary process combining journalistic research, peer vetting and submissions. Lawdragon is an advocate of inclusion in the legal profession, and this guide is 32 percent women and 17 percent inclusive.

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION

LOCATION

Cindy Ahn Longford Capital Chicago

Pierre Amariglio Tenor Capital New York

Craig Arnott Burford Capital London

Hasan Azizagaoglu Bench Walk Advisors London

Brandon Baer Contingency Capital New York

Jonathan Barnes Woodsford London

Jonathan Barnett Nivalion Vienna

Jim Batson Omni Bridgeway New York

Gavin Beardsell Omni Bridgeway Sydney

Isabelle Berger Nivalion Steinhausen

Matthew Blumenstein Statera Capital Chicago

Christopher Bogart Burford Capital New York

Stephen Bolster Litica London

Erik Bomans Deminor Luxembourg

Anastasia Bondarenko Fortress Investment Group Paris

Clive Bowman Omni Bridgeway Sydney

Fred Bowman Therium Capital London

Lisa Brentnall CASL Sydney

Simon Burnett Balance Legal Capital London

John Byrne Therium Capital London

CRISTINA SOLER

SIX YEARS AGO, CRISTINA SOLER’S MORE

than two decades as an international litigation and arbitration lawyer took her down an untrodden path. In 2017, she co-founded Ramco Litigation Funding – taking on cases from a whole new angle.

Born and raised in Barcelona, Soler is a trailblazer in Spain’s third-party funding market. While funding is a new industry worldwide, Soler got in on the ground floor of its development in the region. The firm, based in Spain, regularly works across international borders –particularly in Portugal and Latin America. The firm also handles litigation in foreign jurisdictions including the U.S. and Germany in cases when a Spanish entity is the claimant. In just the last six years, Ramco has been involved in funding claims that exceed $4B.

In her funding work, Soler pulls from her experience defending and advising on complex litigation and arbitration matters internationally across sectors, including oil and gas, construction and infrastructure. Her legal expertise makes her all the more suited to quickly and effectively analyze cases for funding. “I loved being involved in complex cases with large multidisciplinary teams of lawyers and experts,” Soler says.

She continues to work on complex cases like those she saw as a lawyer in her funding practice. In competition disputes, Ramco is one of the main Spanish backers in a case seeking antitrust damages on behalf of hundreds of Spanish dairy milk producers against an alleged milk cartel. Ramco has structured the financing for the claimants, amounting to more than €300M.

“Ramco has been a pioneer and leading innovator in the Spanish market and, on a personal level, having the opportunity to contribute to and drive innovation is wonderfully fulfilling,” Soler says.

Soler is active in analyzing and contributing to the next stages of the third-party funding industry: She is a co-author of the Spain chapter of the 6th edition of litigation and arbitration funding reference guide “InDepth: Third Party Litigation Funding” (formerly “The Third Party Litigation Funding Law Review”).

Soler was recognized as one of the Lawdragon 100 Global Leaders in Litigation Finance in 2022 and 2023, the only Spanish leader on the guide. She discusses Ramco’s presence in the ever-evolving third-party funding industry, as well as current trends including increased activity in the energy sector and

BY EMILY JACKOWAY

in international arbitration, and the EU’s proposal for a directive to regulate third-party funding.

Lawdragon: What brought you to a career in the law?

Cristina Soler: I was born in Spain, in a small city near Barcelona, where there was an intense cultural and literary life. I loved writing and telling stories. Even in my youth, I won several literary prizes. There were no lawyers in my family at that time (there are now four of us!) but I thought that law would allow me to combine writing with creativity in strategy and the search for solutions. Besides, I had always felt a sense of justice and saw advocacy as a profession that would allow me to contribute to helping improve things.

LD: What kinds of matters did you handle as a lawyer?

CS: I studied law at the University of Barcelona, and then worked as a lawyer for more than 20 years in top-tier international law firms, always with a clear international component and often collaborating with firms in several jurisdictions. At the beginning of my career, I spent some time in the London office of Lovells White Durrant, now Hogan Lovells, as a visiting lawyer in the litigation department. It was a fantastic experience.

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION

Matthew Cantor

Marc Cavan

Wendie Childress

Dai Wai Chin Feman

Allison  Chock

Adrian Chopin

Heather Collins

Jeffery Commission

Tom Conlon

Mike Cumming-Bruce

Owen Cyrulnik

Tom Davey

LOCATION

Pretium New York

Longford Capital Chicago

Validity Finance Houston

Parabellum Capital New York

Omni Bridgeway Los Angeles

Bench Walk Advisors London

Omni Bridgeway Sydney

Burford Capital Washington, D.C.

Harbour London

Bench Walk Advisors London

Curiam Capital New York

Factor Risk Management London

Robin Davis Woodsford New York

Marla Decker

Lake Whillans New York

James Delaney Erso Capital London

Christopher DeLise

Brandon Deme

Patrick Dempsey

Simon Dluzniak

Delta Capital Partners Chicago

Factor Risk Management London

Burford Capital New York

Therium Capital Melbourne

Kirstin Dodge Nivalion Steinhausen

As a litigation lawyer I was involved in commercial disputes and complex litigation and arbitration matters, representing clients in international environments in high value-added areas. We are now looking at these types of cases as third-party funding has numerous advantages for such high-value disputes and is an increasingly important source of capital and risk mitigation for companies due to the costs and complexity of cases in these areas.

LD: On a related note, how does your experience as a lawyer help you when analyzing cases now?

CS: Certainly the 20-plus years of experience I gained as a litigation and arbitration lawyer comes into play when I am evaluating the strengths and risks of a case. I have perspective on the type of action, the chances of success, the duration of the proceedings, as well as the legal basis and quantification of the case. Moreover, when I was in private practice, most of my work was on the defense side. So, when I evaluate a case, I always try to figure out how the defense is likely to attack. It should also be noted that I had a very generalist background as a litigation and arbitration lawyer which is very useful to me nowadays, as we look at cases in a variety of areas, from tax claims to patent infringement proceedings.

LD: What matters do you handle the most frequently? And is there an area you find most interesting to work on?

CS: We focus our activities on high-value-added areas such as natural resources and energy, regulatory markets, banking and financial markets, renewable energy, capital projects and infrastructure, antitrust and intellectual property. We have been helping companies and law firms to optimize their legal assets in all their forms, including single-case and class action litigation, as well as monetization of claims and awards.

While we may have noted a majority of litigation cases, the number of international arbitration cases has grown particularly in recent years. In addition, we have recently been very active in private competition law enforcement cases, for example, antitrust damages claims such as the milk cartel damages claims, as well as in the monetization of claims.

LD: What inspired you to enter litigation funding?

CS: I became acquainted with the business through one of my main clients, Steve Remp, who had required funding for a large investment treaty arbitration case. I immediately liked the industry and thought that it would be very interesting to build a company to develop litigation funding in Spain. That was in 2017, when it

was still an emerging market and from then on Ramco has managed to expand to other jurisdictions given its internationally intrinsic nature.

LD: Tell me about Ramco’s start and evolution.

CS: Third-party funding structures have evolved in a major way since 2017. When I look back at the company’s early deals and compare them to what we’re doing today, it’s remarkable how far things have come. Recent years have seen litigants not only looking to fund the costs of litigation or arbitration, but also, in certain cases, a growing market interest in the monetization of claims, judgments or arbitral awards. There have also been developments in other innovative forms of litigation funding, such as the funding of litigation portfolios or the funding of law firms. Certain areas, such as competition, insolvency and restructuring and intellectual property are also becoming market segments.

LD: You mentioned that the use of third-party funding in international arbitration has grown in recent years. Why do you think that is?

CS: Increasingly, companies are submitting disputes to arbitration – especially in sophisticated cases – in areas such as in the infrastructure, construction and energy sectors. The ICC reached its 27,000th arbitration case in May 2022 and the CEA recorded a 12 percent increase last year.

A clear example of this increase is in energy arbitration, which is one of the sectors in which it is most prevalent, due to the increase in disputes arising in light of the various international energy transition policies. This growing typology of cases is particularly attractive for third-party funding when it comes to building sophisticated financing solutions. Among other reasons, this is because this sector requires very comprehensive and sophisticated technical reports and therefore involves high costs. Also, the size of the cases benefits from bespoke financial solutions for the realization of maximum asset value. In addition, the purchase of arbitration portfolios has been gaining momentum in this sector. From the claimant’s point of view, third-party funding ensures access to justice and is also a way for the company to mitigate and share risk by monetizing contingent assets.

LD: Speaking of international interests, what do you think of the EU’s proposal for a directive to regulate third-party funding?

CS: The proposal for a directive presented together with the resolution of it on Sept. 13, 2022 has been highly controversial and has received some criticism

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION

LOCATION

Lee Drucker Lake Whillans New York

Joseph Dunn

Fortress Investment Group New York

Susan Dunn Harbour London

Allen Fagin

Timothy Farrell

William Farrell

James Foster

Validity Finance New York

Longford Capital Chicago

Longford Capital Chicago

LCM London

Steven Friel Woodsford London

David Gallagher

John Garda

Alexander Garnier

Ian Garrard

Russell Genet

Adam Gerchen

Julia Gewolb

Adam Gill

The Litigation Fund Los Angeles

Longford Capital Dallas

North Wall Capital London

Innsworth Advisors London

Longford Capital Chicago

Gerchen Capital Partners Chicago

Validity Finance New York

GLS Capital Chicago

Tom Glasgow Omni Bridgeway Singapore

Stuart Grant*

Laina Hammond

Robert Hanna

Bench Walk Advisors Wilmington

Validity Finance Houston

Augusta Ventures London

from litigation funding experts. In my view, the proposal is introducing over-regulation with rigid structures that represent a step backwards for the development of third-party funding in the countries in which it will be applied (maximum rate of return, the funder being ordered to pay adverse costs, etc.). We believe that this proposal should be revised and assessment sought from experts and entities specialized in thirdparty funding that could provide experience on the needs of these types of transactions. In the coming year, we will be closely following the developments of this proposal that will certainly have an impact in the European litigation funding arena.

LD: Are there any specific matters you can discuss that stand out as particularly memorable?

CS: I would like to mention one of the first milestones we achieved at the beginning of our activity in Spain in 2017. We obtained the judicial authorization to finance a landmark lawsuit for damages to be filed by a bankrupt company against a public company for abuse of dominant position and infringement of competition law. The future defendant was one of the creditors of the insolvency proceedings and persistently opposed the financing of the claim. However, the arguments of the future defendant finally failed and the funding was approved by the court as the lawsuit was the most valuable asset of the company in bankruptcy.

LD: What advice would you give to law firms considering seeking out third-party funding?

CS: My advice would be that when selecting a funder the law firms should not only take into account the financial offer, but they should also consider that the funder will be a partner throughout the duration of the litigation and arbitration proceedings and should be flexible enough to understand the procedure and add value as well as to be able to adapt to the different situations that may arise during the procedure.

LD: What do you wish more lawyers and claimants knew about the opportunities of third-party funding?

CS: Third-party funding can be useful for companies of different sizes and profiles. It is not a mechanism only for companies that may have solvency problems. Third-party funding improves a company’s liquidity and mitigates the accounting impact of litigation or arbitration by turning its costs into an opportunity to generate revenue. For its part, the funder is interested in financing matters with a high chance of success that also meet a series of parameters, which can occur regardless of the size of the company.

LD: How do you see Ramco evolving going forward –do you plan to grow in size, or in scope of matters?

CS: We plan to continue growing in size, widening the scope of cases and providing innovative litigation funding solutions to law firms, companies and individuals. In any case, we hope we can continue to lead the litigation finance market in Spain and contribute to energizing the legal system.

LD: What about the litigation funding industry overall –are there any changes you see on the horizon?

CS:  In general, the market has been growing exponentially year on year and this trend is expected to continue in the coming years as acceptance and understanding of third-party funding will continue to grow across the legal community. That’s already happening, and the trend will certainly continue.

Given that the third-party funding industry is still relatively young in comparison to other asset classes, there is still a lot of room for innovation. For example, we expect to see continued development of defense funding offerings as the industry continues to expand and evolve.

LD: Are there any particularly hot areas or trends you’re seeing?

CS: In terms of trends, the energy sector is of particular interest, due to potential disputes connected to the energy transition policies. We foresee, for example, among other cases, an increase in arbitrations in the LNG (liquefied natural gas) sector, due to energy market volatility on gas prices and other contractual disputes and an increase in investment arbitrations and commercial arbitrations arising from the implementation of ESG regulations in different jurisdictions.

LD: What do you find most fulfilling about your work?

CS: The work itself is incredibly exciting and fun, and because the industry is still relatively new, there’s a lot of room for innovation and discovery. Being involved in cases where justice is served and valid claims are vindicated can be professionally rewarding. But what I find most satisfying is to see that apart from being a company whose aim is to make a profit, we not only stimulate the economy but also facilitate access to justice in claims that are brought as a result of having funding. Examples include the claimants of antitrust actions who do not have contact with specialized lawyers and experts, or of large arbitration cases which have been brought by companies thanks to obtaining funding.

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION

Lauren Harrison

Oliver Hayes

Louise Hird

Chip Hodgkins

David Icikson

Rosemary Ioannou

Tets Ishikawa

LOCATION

Law Finance Group Houston

Balance Legal Capital London

Therium Capital Melbourne

Statera Capital Chicago

Parabellum Capital New York

Fortress Investment Group London

LionFish London

Charles Jeffery Harbour London

Sarah Johnson

Aaron Katz

David Kerstein

David Killalea

The D.E. Shaw Group New York

Parabellum Capital New York

Validity Finance New York

TRGP Capital New York

Mark King Harbour London

Stefan Kirsten

KRD Kirsten. Risk & Disputes Düsseldorf

Thomas Kohlmeier Nivalion Munich

Lina Kolomoitseva

Zachary Krug

Christoph Kuzaj

John Lazar

Matt Lee

LCM Brisbane

Signal Capital Partners

London

Therium Capital Düsseldorf

Burford Capital

Burford Capital

London

Sydney

AYSE YAZIR

AYSE YAZIR’S EARLY CAREER IN INSURANCE

taught her how to spot a good investment. Now, as a litigation funder, she sorts through securities cases, class actions and more that come to her from across the globe, searching for the cases her firm’s funding can make into headline successes.

Yazir is based in London, where she is the Head of Global Origination at leading litigation funding fi rm Bench Walk Advisors. Originally from Turkey, Yazir’s understanding of legal industries globally is vital to a role where the team frequently sees cases in the U.S., U.K. and across Europe – including in Spain, Holland, Italy and Germany. Before joining Bench Walk in 2018, Yazir worked as a senior technical underwriter with a company acquired by Buford Capital, getting in on the ground fl oor of the litigation funding industry. “No one knew about funding,” she remembers of those early days in the fi eld. Today, the industry has exploded – and Yazir has kept pace.

Yazir’s background in insurance ensures that the team places its trust in successful cases. Still, she is most passionate about helping lawyers and law fi rms who otherwise might be unable to fi nance firm-defining cases. Using funding to finance worthy cases against significant opponents, Yazir explains, opens up worlds of opportunities.

In addition to educating more lawyers about the benefits of working with a funder, Yazir is excited by seeing the new ways litigation funding continues to develop. Last fall, she was a driving force behind Istanbul Arbitration Week, which brought global leaders together in Turkey to discuss matters vital to arbitration, including the now-expanding area of arbitration funding. The event was a success, and  Yazir and her team are already planning to gather those minds in Turkey again this year, October 2 to 6.

Yazir is a member of the Lawdragon 100 Global Leaders in Litigation Finance.

Lawdragon: Tell us a bit about your practice at Bench Walk.

Ayse Yazir: Because Bench Walk is a smaller team, we are different from other funders: We don’t have separate departments. We all do a bit of everything. With some funders, there are the origination, due

BY EMILY JACKOWAY

diligence and drafting teams. Here, I mainly bring the cases to Bench Walk, so I originate cases. But, at the same time, I review if the cases are good enough. I train staff members while I’m also doing my daily job. I also work on closing the documents, dealing with the insurance and monitoring the cases.

LD: What is your team like?

AY: Adrian Chopin and Stuart Grant are co-founders. Adrian is an ex-investment banker. He’s very experienced in structuring deals and developing creative financial solutions. Then we have Stuart, a legal brain which adds so much value. Others are ex-lawyers and bankers. We have a bit of everything on the team.

Then there is me, and my background is mainly in insurance. I used to do risk assessment. I would work on 400 cases a year, which gave me an idea about which cases were good.

LD: Bench Walk is a leader in the litigation funding fi eld. Why do you think that is – what makes you different?

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION

LOCATION

Alex Lempiner Woodsford Philadelphia

Chris Leonardo Gilbert Washington, D.C.

Joshua Libling Validity Finance New York

Andy Lundberg* Burford Capital New York

Jamison Lynch GLS Capital Chicago

Ellora MacPherson Harbour London

Ian Madej Asertis London

Hugo Marshall LCM London

Kim May CASL Sydney

Timothy Mayer LCM London

Kevin McCaffrey Law Finance Group New York

Ewen McNee Omni Bridgeway Sydney

Yasmin Mohammad Fortress Investment Group Paris

Patrick Moloney LCM London

Jonathan Molot Burford Capital Washington, D.C.

Siobhan  Moore CASL Sydney

Charlie Morris Woodsford London

Hassan Murphy TRGP Capital New York

Pip Murphy CASL Sydney

Rosie Murray Orchard Global Asset Management London

“

“IF YOU ARE INVESTING IN A PERSON STARTING A FIRM, YOU ASK, “WHAT IS THEIR REPUTATION? ARE THEY WELL-KNOWN IN THE MARKET? ARE THEY GOING TO EXPAND?””

AY: We are effi cient, keep our promises and are creative.

A small team of bright people makes us quick, and we all own the cases. If a lawyer goes to anyone at Bench Walk, that person will know what’s happening with their case.

LD: Do you find that you are taking on mostly plaintiffs’-side cases, or is it a mix?

AY: About 99.9 per cent of our work is plaintiffs’-side. We’re doing many securities, competition and class action matters lately. We are involved in truck cases, groundbreaking competition cases, and commercial and investor-state arbitration cases. These cases are worldwide: We are involved in cases in Holland, Italy and Germany. We are now looking into one in Spain.

LD: Do you ever do any structural funding? For example, if a fi rm is wanting to expand or move into new offices or markets, can you supply them with funds to get that going?

AY: Absolutely. We work on setting up new law firms and expanding their departments.

LD: What’s that process like? Is it different investing in a case versus a firm?

AY: It is the same due diligence – you’re just looking at the person and their background. In a case, you think, “What elements of the case can get my money back?” If you are investing in a person starting a firm, you ask, “What is their reputation? Are they wellknown in the market? Are they going to expand?”

You look at how many cases they’ve won and how many cases they’ve lost. You look at what their clients think about them and how many clients they will take with them when they set up their own business.

LD: Do you think you might expand into defense funding at some point?

AY: Defense work is diffi cult because it’s hard to define success on the defense side. I don’t see us expanding there.

The most signifi cant growth area we are seeing

is competition and class actions. There’s lots of movement happening in U.S. securities actions, and I have seen many really good cases from continental Europe, especially in Holland, Italy and Germany.

LD: How do those cases come in for you? Do you seek them out?

AY: We don’t, to be honest. We are very lucky because we have a good reputation, so we usually get cases by word of mouth.

Everyone craves a litigation funder who is fast, efficient and has enough money to fund the cases. When you work on a few cases, those clients introduce you to other offices and their colleagues introduce you to other colleagues in different countries.

LD: Tell me about your transition from insurance into legal funding. What was that like?

AY: The first time I heard about litigation funding was around 2009. Then, I realized that funding cases is no different from reviewing insurance cases. You look at quite similar things. The only difference that I’ve found between insurance and funding is the premium. You don’t need to worry about the fund having assets in insurance because the client pays you the premium in insurance.

LD: How did your career expand once you found litigation funding?

AY: I wanted to get more exposure to case origination, meet the lawyers and learn more about other litigation funders. I joined Gallagher’s for a year and a half as a technical manager, working with funders worldwide. I started with four contacts in law, and I left with 300 contacts, giving me quite an extensive reach. I always create strong bonds with my clients and take ownership of my cases; that is why.

LD: So, you were thrown into this world when it was very new! The industry has changed so much since 2009. Can you talk about that front-row view of this explosion?

AY: It was very weird because Burford Capital came to market and said, “We’re going to do funding,” but

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION

LOCATION

Jack Naylor Aristata Capitol London

Jack Neumark

Angela Ni

Fortress Investment Group New York

Parabellum Capital New York

Michael Nicolas Longford Capital Chicago

Stephen O’Dowd Harbour London

Emily O’Neill

Akram Ojjeh

Quentin Pak

Deminor London

Swiss Legal Finance Geneva

Burford Capital Singapore

Kory Parkhurst Harbour Wichita

Mohsin Patel

Molly Pease

Factor Risk Management London

Curiam Capital New York

Michael Perich Lockton Chicago

David Perla

Rein Philips

Burford Capital New York

Redbreast Litigation Finance The Hague

Stuart Price CASL Sydney

Neil Purslow

Robert Rothkopf

Michael Rozen

Rob Ryan

Nick Sage

Therium Capital London

Balance Legal Capital London

TRGP Capital New York

Aristata Capitol London

Bench Walk Advisors New York

“

I LIKE NOT BEING TIED TO ONE AREA OF THE LAW. I NEED TO KNOW ALL KINDS OF LAW, INCLUDING STATE ARBITRATION, COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION, COMPETITION CLASS ACTION AND CASES WORLDWIDE.

no one knew about funding. We used to get one case probably every four months for funding when I first joined. The main job we were doing was insurance.

But as more law fi rms became aware of litigation funding – not just arbitrations, nor UK high courts –  we got more cases. And it wasn’t just in the UK, but globally.

Then, today, I got three cases in my inbox this morning. It’s getting busier and busier. People are more aware of funding, and lawyers realize that we are not fighting against them – we support them.

LD: How are general counsel and in-house counsel when it comes to legal funding – is that still an area of education?

AY: It is. We mainly get our cases from lawyers, and I still see lots of in-house counsels who don’t know funding that well. They usually say, “Oh, why will I get your money? I can get a loan. It’s cheaper.”

I tell them, “Well, it can look cheaper, but if you lose a case, you must repay the loan.” When you use litigation funding, you only pay that money back if your case is successful and if you recover your money from the defendant.

That’s very important because many listed companies don’t want to start a claim or a legal action because they don’t want to have debt. But the way to cushion that is litigation funding.

LD: Do you have any tips for lawyers still unfamiliar with litigation finance?

AY: I’d tell them you need to learn about funding because you will get clients with potentially significant cases and need money. If you say, “Sorry, you must pay my fees,” you will miss opportunities.

It’s not only that we pay all the fees for legal expenses and asset tracing but also insurance to cover the defendant’s costs. We ring-fence the budget and put them in an SPV so their budget for the case is protected from beginning to end.

My advice for lawyers is: Present the case well when applying for funding. The main things we look at are

enforcement, damages, merits of the case and the quality of the lawyers involved.

LD: What advice do you have for lawyers or other professionals who are thinking of legal funding as a career?

AY: This career isn’t suitable for every lawyer because you must be decisive and understand the numbers. You need to have a business mind and some confidence in originating cases. Some lawyers can be shy when discussing new business because they find it embarrassing. But you need the courage to say, “Hey, this is me. Do you have any cases? How can I help you?”

Conversely, if the case is terrible, you must say during the meeting, “This case doesn’t work for us.” Lawyers respect a quick “no” more than a yes months and months after. The best funders are quick and decisive ones.

LD: Do you have any new products or services that you’re launching?

AY: We have a sovereign state defense product that is relatively new. If a claim is brought against a defendant state, we often look at the amount of damages they may have to pay the other side. If the case is successful, we get paid through sovereign state bonds.

LD: What do you like most about this work?

AY: I like meeting different people. I like not being tied to one area of the law. I need to know all kinds of law, including state arbitration, commercial arbitration, competition class action and cases worldwide. I love that.

I find this work fascinating because the industry is constantly changing, and the trends in the legal industry are changing, too. I like learning different things and using my intuition about cases.

I am meeting many impressive people, some of whom are becoming very good friends.

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION

Andrew Saker

LOCATION

Omni Bridgeway New York

Charles ‘Chad’ Schmerler Pretium New York

Grant Schrader Law Finance Group San Francisco

Moshe Schwartz

Howard  Shams

Parabellum Capital New York

Parabellum Capital New York

Nicole Silver Validity Finance Washington, D.C.

Ajit Singh

Sindhu Sivakumar

The Litigation Fund San Francisco

Innsworth Advisors London

Emily Slater Burford Capital New York

Kristen Smith

Omni Bridgeway Melbourne

Mick Smith Burford Capital London

Ben Smyth

Cristina Soler

Therium Capital London

Ramco Litigation Funding Barcelona

David Spiegel GLS Capital Chicago

Ruth Stackpool-Moore

Tom Steindler

Tania Sulan

Omni Bridgeway Singapore

Exton Advisors London

Omni Bridgeway Adelaide

Ralph Sutton Validity Finance New York

Susanna Taylor LCM Sydney

Raymond Tellini

Delta Capital Partners Chicago

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION

LOCATION

Harshiv Thakerar Asertis London

Sean Thompson Parabellum Capital New York

Emily Tillett Burford Capital Hong Kong

Marjolein van den Bosch-Broeren Omni Bridgeway Singapore

Raymond van Hulst Omni Bridgeway Geneva

David Walker Deminor London

John Walker CASL Sydney

Ross Wallin Curiam Capital New York

Justin Ward LCM Sydney

Oliver Way Harbour London

Marcel Wegmüller Nivalion Steinhausen

Boaz Weinstein Lake Whillans New York

Wieger Wielinga Omni Bridgeway Amsterdam

Aviva Will Burford Capital New York

Katharine Wolanyk Burford Capital Phoenix

Andrew Woltman Statera Capital Chicago

Allen Yancy LexShares New York

Ayse Yazir Bench Walk Advisors London

Louis Young* Augusta Ventures London

Ella Zimmermann Swiss Legal Finance Geneva

TRUSTED PARTNERS. GLOBAL PLACEMENTS.

Lippman Jungers LLC is a global legal recruiting firm focusing on top tier partner and practice group placements and new office openings.

Collectively, we have placed more than 500 partners and have opened more than 20 offices for law firms in new markets throughout the US, Europe, Asia and Latin America.

We partner with firms and candidates nationally and globally. From offices in Los Angeles, Chicago, Milwaukee and New York, our domestic recruiting practice focuses on: California, Chicago and New York, as well as Washington DC and Texas and our international recruiting practice focuses on Greater China and London.

WE ARE DELIGHTED TO INTRODUCE THE 2023 LAWDRAGON 100 GLOBAL LEADERS IN STRATEGY AND CONSULTING, OUR 9TH EDITION OF THIS GUIDE.

These leaders represent the remarkable array of advisors who have helped the legal industry grow into a global business generating hundreds of billions in revenues. From the recruiters who help firms amass armies of top talent, to marketing professionals whose magic creates awareness and to crisis communicators who can spin a narrative that helps some deals live and some trials succeed while others crash and burn.

A part of the mystique of this group is not just their skills, but their ways with top lawyers –a notoriously perspicacious group. While they can be, often justifiably, a bit of know-it-alls, the best legal leaders have evolved to accept advice from those who know their field cold. Those are the strategists and consultants represented here.

To select them, we received a record number of fabulous submissions for what has become an industry standard guide. We combine those with our essential journalistic research into individuals and organizations, an ongoing river that flows through Lawdragon every day of the year. For each big placement, we look for the recruiter who made it; for a trial that gets headlines, we dig for the spinmeister behind it. Finally, we vet candidates with a board of their peers, looking for those whose work represents sustained excellence and respect from competitors.

Lawdragon is an advocate for the importance of inclusion in the legal profession. This guide is 50 percent women and 17 percent inclusive.

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION CONTRIBUTION

Jacob Aitken Kidd Aitken London Media – Directory Maven

Mike Androvett Androvett Dallas Marketing & Communications

Mark Annick Androvett Dallas Crisis Communications/PR

April Arias Androvett Houston Crisis Communications/PR

Scott Atlas* Atlas Counsel Search Houston Professional Recruiting

Jenn Bankston Bankston Marketing Austin Marketing & Communications

Louise Beeson Bell Yard London Crisis Communications

Deborah BenCanaan Major, Lindsey & Africa Washington, D.C. Professional Recruiting

Brandy Bergman Reevemark New York Crisis Communications

Dan Binstock Garrison Washington, D.C. Professional Recruiting

Katherine Bosley The Levinson Group Washington, D.C. Crisis Communications

Howard Breuer Newsroom PR Los Angeles Media & Communications

Robert Brigham Major, Lindsey & Africa Palo Alto Professional Recruiting

Cari Brunelle Baretz Brunelle Huntersville, N.C. Marketing & Communications

Bria Burk Androvett Dallas Marketing & Communications

Hugh Burns Reevemark New York Crisis Communications

Paul Caminiti Reevemark New York Crisis Communications

Delia Cannan Reevemark New York Crisis Communications

STACY HUMPHRIES

A SEASONED LEGAL RECRUITER WITH AN

in-house focus, Stacy Humphries draws upon her own personal experience as a general counsel to understand the needs of her clients and candidates.

Humphries began her career as a healthcare M&A lawyer at Vinson & Elkins right out of law school. After a few years, she envied the varied practice she saw her clients’ in-house lawyers taking on, and she began exploring that world – soon spying an opening as inhouse counsel for the Houston Rockets organization. Delighted to earn an interview and then a job offer, she was hired for what she describes as “one of the greatest jobs for a lawyer in Houston.” In her four years there, Humphries handled multiple transactions and joint ventures and led the legal side of developing and opening the Rockets’ current arena, Toyota Center. She also guided the company through day-to-day legal questions and risks.

When it was time for a career change, the legal recruiting profession seemed a natural fit for someone as passionate about working with people as Humphries. What she thought would be a short break from legal practice has turned into twenty years of placing lawyers in-house with the nation’s top companies – following her own path from years before. Humphries is passionate about both the close relationships in-house recruiting requires, involving storytelling both on behalf of the candidate and the companies she spends years working with. In-house recruiting, Humphries explains, is “a holistic assessment of a potential candidate – the lawyer’s skills, their personality, their motivation and their potential cultural fit within the company. It’s a highly consultative practice.”

Humphries joined her current recruiting firm, Pye Legal Group, in 2010 and has led the Texas-based group as President since 2019. She notes the uniquely collaborative nature of the firm: “Our entire team meets every Monday morning and talks about every search that we’re working on,” she says. “ We give each other advice and new ideas … it really improves the quality of our work.” Humphries has been named a member of The Lawdragon Global 100 Leaders in Legal Strategy & Consulting for the last three years.

Lawdragon: You transitioned in-house with the Houston Rockets after working at Vinson & Elkins. What advice would you give to other lawyers who might want to transition in-house?

BY EMILY JACKOWAY

Stacy Humphries: The biggest barrier to overcome for your first in-house job is that you don’t have in-house experience. So, I advise lawyers trying to go in-house to think about what they actually do each day and discuss their skills and experience at a more granular level, rather than simply say that they worked on a $5B deal. Companies don’t do giant M&A deals every day. What they do every day is run their business and address legal questions or risks that come up in the course of that business. So, you need to figure out what transferable skills you have such as problem-solving and quickly getting up to speed on something you didn’t know a lot about previously.

LD: That’s great insight. At what point did you start realizing that recruiting might be interesting for you?

SH: Well, serving as Vice President of Legal for the Houston Rockets organization was fascinating and exciting, but it was also an extremely demanding job –  a public-facing position with a lot of pressure and a schedule even more demanding than the schedule I had as a Big Law lawyer.

Around that time, I had my first child, and I found

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION CONTRIBUTION

Jennifer Simpson Carr Furia Rubel Communications Doylestown, Pa. Marketing & Communications

Verdell Christophersen Androvett Dallas Marketing & Communications

Robert Clemons Miles Partner Placement Tustin, Calif. Professional Recruiting

Andrew Cole FGS Global New York Crisis Communications

Jeffrey Conta Lippman Jungers Bala Chicago Professional Recruiting

Mary Copeland Lippman Jungers Bala New York Professional Recruiting

Timothy Corcoran Corcoran Consulting Charlottesville, Va. Management Consulting

Jerry Correia Johnson Downie Dallas Professional Recruiting

Michael Coston Coston Consulting New York

Marketing & Communications; Diversity & Inclusion

Silvia Coulter* LawVision Manchester, Mass. Legal Consulting

Alexander Coxe Alexander Coxe Communications New York

Angelica Crisi Coston Consulting New York

Marketing & Communications

Marketing & Communications; Diversity & Inclusion

Michael Crittenden The Levinson Group Washington, D.C. Crisis Communications/PR

Ellen Davis August New York

Crisis Communications; Litigation Support

Lanny Davis* Trident DMG Washington, D.C. Crisis Communications

Ray DeLorenzi Rebuttal PR New York Crisis Communications

Jamie Diaferia Infinite Global New York

Media & Communications

that the job and being a mother were somewhat incompatible. So, I decided that I needed to look for something that, at least temporarily, would be important, but less urgent in terms of its demands on me. I had been involved in recruiting at Vinson & Elkins, where I had the great opportunity to interview on campus at my alma mater (Harvard Law School).

LD: Okay, so that early experience came back.

SH: Exactly. I also served on and chaired an associates’ committee that supported the official hiring committee of the firm and really enjoyed that process. I also knew a few recruiters and knew a little bit about what they did and thought I might enjoy that as well. At that point I had a pretty large network of lawyers in Houston, so I thought I at least had the foundation to potentially be good at recruiting. At the time I thought, “Well, I’ll just do this for a few years and then I’ll go back to the practice of law.” But now it’s been almost 20 years.

LD: What inspired you to stay?

SH: Recruiting is a lot of fun, and I turned out to be really good at it. People usually stick with things that they’re good at. But what I love most about recruiting is counseling clients and candidates. Working with a wide range of companies on a full spectrum of legal and compliance positions, we have a 10,000foot market view that allows us to provide expertise on how to build a legal team, hiring trends, market compensation and challenges to hiring for particular roles. We also pay a valuable role in putting candidates forward for the right positions, helping them prepare for interviews, and addressing any questions or red flags that come up during the hiring process.

LD: When you were at Vinson & Elkins, what did you enjoy about being involved in the hiring and recruiting process?

SH: I’ve always been very curious about people and what makes them happy, what makes them tick, what makes them good at their jobs. I also enjoy feeling that I’m improving someone’s career.

I think a very under-recognized aspect of recruiting is telling the story of your client – in my case, the companies that we are recruiting on behalf of – to get people excited about why they might want to work there. When we work with a Fortune 20 company, the name brand speaks for itself. We don’t really have to do a lot of educating. But if we are working for a startup, a brand-new IPO company, a private family wealth office, or just a company that is not a brand name, part of our role is to tell potential candidates the story of

what the business is doing, why it’s exciting and why someone should want to work there. So, an important component of recruiting is marketing the company.

At the same time, the hallmark of a credible recruiter is one who does not only tell you the good stuff. We are not just about placing someone in a job and moving on. We are about placing someone in the job who will then hopefully stay with the company for many years to come, eventually become a hiring manager and come back to us again as a client. So, if we only sell the good stuff, someone’s going to get there and go, “Well, I didn’t realize this or this about the company. This is really not a good match for me and if I’d known this, I wouldn’t have come here.” So, it’s really important that a credible recruiter say, “Here are some of the things that may not be ideal for you. Are you okay with that?”

LD: Are there any stories that you can tell about times you were especially thrilled to tell a story of a certain company to a potential hire?

SH: There are many. One that just popped into my head is a company that had no in-house counsel when we first started working with them. They were a brand-new renewable energy company with about 40 or 50 employees and planning to grow. The name was unknown to just about anyone we called. I got to know the CEO and several other employees at the company and was able to really sell the growth plan for the company, the culture that they were trying to build and the opportunity of being part of that culture by joining early. Now, I believe they have six lawyers and a couple hundred employees.

LD: That’s amazing. How long ago was that?

SH: That’s probably over the last five years.

LD: Wow, great. Speaking of which, tell me about the increase in hiring in the renewables space in the last few years.

SH: Renewables has been a huge growth area over the last few years. We as a firm were founded in Houston, and Houston is a city where many energy companies are based, so that sector has been a large component of our business. The energy sector is complex and highly regulated, so energy companies tend to have robust in-house legal departments.

There are several reasons renewables has been such a growth area in the last few years in particular. One is that many traditional energy companies have expanded to pursue new or clean energies to grow their portfolio beyond traditional fossil fuels. There are also many new players in renewables that were never

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION CONTRIBUTION

Justine Donahue Macrae

Washington, D.C. Professional Recruiting

Lauren Drake Macrae Washington, D.C. Professional Recruiting

Jesse Dungan Infinite Global San Francisco Marketing & Communications

Kelsey Eidbo Infinite Global San Francisco Marketing & Communications

Carter Eskew FGS Global Washington, D.C. Crisis Communications

Deborah Farone Farone Advisors LLC New York

Michael Farrant Farrant Group London

Strategic Marketing Consulting

Strategic Communications & P.R.

Michael Feldman FGS Global New York Crisis Communications

Jeremy Fielding Kekst CNC New York Crisis Communications

Jonathan Fitzgarrald Equinox Strategy Partners Beverly Hills, Calif. Strategic Marketing Consulting

Valerie Fontaine* Seltzer Fontaine Los Angeles Professional Recruiting

Evan Fox Long Ridge Partners New York Professional Recruiting

Joele Frank Joele Frank New York

Public Relations & Investor Relations

Jason Gart History Associates Incorporated Rockville, Md. Historical Detective

Robert Gemmill Argyle Washington, D.C.

Strategic Communications & P.R.

Stephanie Glover Edelman London Crisis Communications

Steven Goldberg August Los Angeles

Crisis Communications; Litigation Support

in traditional energy. Whether that’s private equity money or an outgrowth of other kinds of infrastructurefocused companies that are experienced in project development – now they’re moving into renewable project development. Then, of course, in the last year or two the federal government has put a large amount of money behind the renewable industry to try to accelerate the growth of our renewable energy in America. So, with growth usually comes the need for more lawyers.

LD: What other areas have similar growth?

SH: There’s been a demand for in-house lawyers in data privacy. It is a newer area of the law, so it can be difficult to recruit for those positions because there are not a lot of lawyers with dedicated data privacy experience. So, we are often looking for people who have maybe a little bit of exposure to it and who would like to make data privacy more of their specialty. Some law firms do have it as a practice focus, but there are not enough of these lawyers at law firms either, so sometimes those law firm data privacy lawyers are highly valued and don’t want to leave to go in-house. So, it is a difficult area to recruit for, but definitely one in high demand. By extension, I expect legal issues around artificial intelligence will be a big growth area going forward.

LD: What do you tell lawyers about why it might be a beneficial transition to go in-house?

SH: I always try to explain to law firm lawyers who may not have considered going in-house how different your day-to-day experience can be as an in-house lawyer. In my mind, those are positive differences. Obviously, there are some lawyers who really are comfortable in a law firm and never want to leave, and I completely understand that. But the benefits of being an in-house lawyer include partnering more closely with your clients, being closer to the business, more diverse work and better control over your schedule. You also don’t have to bill your hours and you don’t have to generate your own clients. They’re right there down the hall. The other thing I usually tell people is that as a law firm lawyer, I felt that I only ever got to read the middle of the book. A client would come to you with a transaction they wanted to do, and very rarely did they fill you in on, “Here’s how we got here. Here’s how we decided to do this deal.” Instead, it’s, “Here’s the deal. You handle the agreements and other documents.” Then the deal would close, and I wouldn’t hear from the client again until they had the next deal.

When I went in-house, all of a sudden, I got to read the whole book. I got to read the foreword and the first few chapters. Then, in the middle of the book, I got to that section that I used to get to see as the outside lawyer. Then, the deal closes or whatever you were working on goes to bed. But you see what happens after. You see, “Was this actually a good deal for the company? Did it get absorbed the way we thought it would get absorbed? Or did it have unforeseen side effects that we didn’t anticipate? How could we do better next time to anticipate those?” You really get to see the whole picture.

LD: That’s great. Are there any challenges in convincing law firm lawyers to come over?

SH: The salary wars at the big law firms over the last couple of years have made our job as recruiters a little more challenging because we have to educate law firm lawyers about the value of going in-house. The best time to move in-house is generally between four and eight years of practice. That’s where we see the most jobs for people who’ve not already had inhouse experience. After eight years of practice, a lot of companies will go, “Well, I’d rather have somebody who has already tried in-house and knows that they succeed there.” For candidates with less than four years of experience, a lot of companies cannot adequately train a young lawyer. So, four to eight tends to be the best time to move in-house.

But with the big law firm salaries, four to eight years is a very large pay difference from what they’re making in a law firm to what they would make in-house. So, I want to remind law firm lawyers not only of the work benefits that we’ve already talked about, but when looking at an in-house job, to consider the total compensation – not just the base salary. There’s salary, there’s a bonus potential, there might be stock, there might be a retirement benefits or pension plan. Companies typically have better health insurance and other benefits than law firms do. So, they need to think about the total package. It may be a short-term setback in pay, but it’s still generally very nice compensation.

LD: Looking outside of your practice, what do you enjoy doing for fun away from work?

SH: I am a dedicated fan of my sons’ sports. I’m also a huge Astros fan, which may be controversial. Houston also has one of the best restaurant scenes in the United States. So, I try to get out and explore our new restaurants whenever I can. We also enjoy traveling; before the pandemic, we took a trip to Machu Picchu with the whole family, and I’m hoping to take another big trip next summer.

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION CONTRIBUTION

Nick Goseland Macrae Palo Alto Professional Recruiting

Marco Guasti Harpa Legal Marketing London

Marketing; Media, esp. Directories

Philip Hall Portland London Crisis Communications

Bruce Haynes FGS Global Washington, D.C. Crisis Communications

Peter Headden Farrant Group London

Strategic Communications & P.R.

Risa Heller Risa Heller Communications New York Crisis Communications

Bruce Hennes* Hennes Communications Cleveland Crisis Communications

Eric Herman Teneo Chicago Crisis Communications; Litigation Support

Angela Hoague The Levinson Group Washington, D.C. Crisis Communications

Eliot Hoff APCO Washington, D.C. Crisis Communications

Paul Holmes FGS Global New York Crisis Communications

Vivian Hood Jaffe Jacksonville Crisis Communications

Kay Hoppe Credentia Chicago Professional Recruiting

Melba Hughes Major, Lindsey & Africa Atlanta Professional Recruiting

Stacy Humphries Pye Legal Group Houston Professional Recruiting

Natasha Innocenti Empire Search Partners San Francisco Professional Recruiting

Terry Isner Jaffe Washington, D.C. Crisis Communications

Martin Jenewein SMJ Partners Consulting Vienna, Austria Crisis Communications

IAN CHRISTOPHER MCCALEB

WHEN A LAWSUIT IS IN THE PUBLIC EYE,

a client may need more than a legal strategy. For individuals and companies facing disputes that threaten their reputation, a media strategy is an essential component of their recovery plan. For underserved communities like artists, that need is often amplified.

Ian Christopher McCaleb is uniquely situated to advocate for artists, companies and individuals facing high-profile litigation. A musician himself, McCaleb has worked as spokesperson for the Department of Justice, put in a handful of years as a strategist for the U.S. intelligence community, has been around the world as a journalist, and has held senior editorial positions at both CNN and the Fox News Channel. He has built a reputation as a legal PR virtuoso, as passionate as he is strategic.

McCaleb started his PR firm, Blue Highway Advisory, in 2022, naming it after an autobiographical travel book published in 1982 by William Least Heat-Moon. Highways in the old Rand McNally maps were marked with blue if they were off the beaten path, indicating the roads less traveled. The name resonates with McCaleb, who was never one to stick to a rote path.

“It’s very intentional, because frankly, the people who would know the history of the reference are amongst a wide group of creators who are really suffering mightily right now,” says McCaleb, who represents a variety of clients, but has a particular zeal for creators’ rights. “So many artists, or the estates of artists who are no longer with us, are being left behind in regard to proper compensation, most especially as their works are replicated, reproduced and reissued through varieties of mediums, often without their knowledge or consent.”

In addition to representing whistleblowers and clients in various industries facing high-profile civil and criminal cases, McCaleb is known for his work with recording artists, filmmakers, authors and others facing or filing lawsuits over contracts, compensation and other fundamental issues that often boil down to their very economic viability and survival. He works in conjunction with his client’s attorneys to place highimpact media narratives that help fortify their cases, well before a jury assembles.

When high-profile clients – like hip hop artist Pras

BY MEGHAN HEMINGWAY AND ALISON PREECE

Michel, a former member of the Fugees – face highstakes litigation and need help crafting and delivering their narratives, McCaleb believes long-form, in-depth, investigative journalism is the best way forward. He knows the power that a well-placed narrative can wield in a world where the trials of public opinion start long before anyone sets foot inside a courtroom.

McCaleb is a member of the Lawdragon Global 100 Leaders in Legal Strategy and Consulting.

Lawdragon: You’ve had a fascinating career trajectory. How did you get started?

Ian McCaleb:  I always knew I wanted to go into journalism. At 22, I landed a bit of a dream job reviewing movies and video games for a now longdefunct national monthly magazine. The office had its own home theater system. It was certainly a great way to ease into the working world. This was the age of the newsstand cycle for magazines, roughly the late ‘80s. The magazine lasted about two years.

My next step was at a newsletter mill in D.C. called Phillips Business Information, where I ran a couple titles aimed at niche tech industries. Things jumped

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION CONTRIBUTION

Jennifer Johnson Calibrate Legal Austin Management Consulting

Clint Johnson Johnson Downie Houston Professional Recruiting

Melissa Jordan Jordan’s Ladder Legal Placements New York Professional Recruiting

Mary Jummati Morae Chicago Management Consulting

Mark Jungers Lippman Jungers Bala Chicago Professional Recruiting

Suzanne Kane Empire Search Partners San Francisco Professional Recruiting

Karen Kaplowitz* New Ellis Group New Hope, Pa. Business Development Advisor

Daniel Kidd Kidd Aitken London Media – Directory Maven

Michelle Calcote King Reputation Ink Jacksonville Marketing & Communications

Jacquelyn Knight Major, Lindsey & Africa New York Professional Recruiting

Paul Kranhold FGS Global San Francisco Crisis Communications/PR

Lauren Krasnow Lauren Krasnow West Hartford, Conn. Leadership Development

Adil Lalani Macrae London Professional Recruiting

Sang Lee Thine Brooklyn Professional Recruiting

Ann Lee Gibson* Ann Lee Gibson Consulting West Plains, Mo. Management Consulting

Winnie Lerner FGS Global New York Crisis Communications

Molly Levinson The Levinson Group Washington, D.C. Crisis Communications

James Leviton FGS Global London Crisis Communications

Scott Lindlaw FGS Global Washington, D.C. Crisis Communications

forward when I was poached by UPI, United Press International, as an international desk editor. I still think of UPI as the best job I ever held. The pay was low and the hours were long, but it was just the greatest bunch of people to toil in the trenches with, and the greatest learning experience I ever had. I eventually worked my way up to a Correspondent’s position in the House of Representatives.

LD: Were you always interested in politics?

IM:  I was always interested in geopolitics, if I can make that distinction. This started early. I was a big shortwave radio hobbyist as a kid – tuning in the weakest signals I could find, always interested in international journalism. With UPI, I got my feet wet with a fair amount of national and some international travel. But there was always a need in Washington for good editors and good reporters, so I never was never away for very long.

After UPI, I was a managing editor with McClatchy Newspapers, and was based at the News & Observer in Raleigh, then a Senior Editor for Congressional Quarterly. I was poached by CNN as a political correspondent, and a short number of years later I was scooped up by the Fox News Channel, where I was a senior producer in charge of defense, intelligence, federal law enforcement, the Federal courts, and terrorism coverage – my beat footprint there was long and wide. After I left Fox, I moved over to the Department of Justice.

LD:  You worked as the senior spokesman for the Criminal Division at the DOJ, correct?

IM: Yes, and I had zero knowledge of how PR – even at the government level – might work, when I took that position. As a reporter, you’re used to getting calls from PR reps while you’re on deadline, and quite bluntly, you’re also very used to hanging up on them. So, I never saw myself going into that role.

LD: How was the learning curve?

IM:  It was tough. As a journalist in transition to the other side, you go into a job like that thinking you understand how to shape descriptions of big cases –and you’ll instinctively do so with a reporter’s eye and flair for description and language. Unfortunately, and this is no criticism at all of the DOJ, I found that messaging priorities inside the department were a little different. I had very little power helping the big machine of the Public Affairs Office develop the way it was presenting its cases to the world at large. They have a locked down, rote, very prescribed manner

of doing things, usually by simply issuing a gigantic press release when an indictment is issued, then going quiet until the end of a case.

You’re discouraged from saying much to reporters in the way of detail, and as you would expect, a great deal what you do day in, day out is necessarily approved by layers of lawyers. Your work goes through various changes as it circulates through career officials’ and political appointees’ offices. It’s a difficult system to navigate, especially if you’re looking at the process from an effectiveness-of-messaging standpoint. I used to joke to my colleagues that in the morning, I’d craft an on-the-record statement for somebody, it would wind its way through the department, and by the end of the day it was whittled down to, “No comment.”

LD: How long were you there?

IM: I resigned on my one-year anniversary. I was there from the end of ‘08 to the end of ‘09 – right at the end of the second Bush administration. The attorney general at the time was the short-lived Michael Mukasey. I had no particular political leanings at the time so I was brought in on a career track. I moved over to the Obama Justice Department when the transition happened.

LD: Right during the financial collapse.

IM:  Yes, and I had been at two television networks prior, so I knew the depth to which the networks and the major dailies would be covering the story, and what they were looking for. I felt like I had the skill set to disseminate really solid messages about what was being done, or how a number of issues related to the unfolding financial collapse were being considered inside the department, but the department just wasn’t used to speaking publicly about those things, even with the daily flood of inquiries. I got to the point where I felt like I couldn’t really make a difference.

LD: Where did you go from there?

IM:  After I resigned, I immediately took a position as an outside, sole-source consultant to the Defense Intelligence Agency, and was there for five years, two of which were on the multi-agency WikiLeaks Task Force. This was 2010, when the first set of WikiLeaks postings consisted of leaked military field reports from Iraq and Afghanistan. My portion of the operation was really intended to consider what the media’s general attitude was, how they were processing the material in terms of their daily output, and in certain instances, how they might report stories related to leaked materials if they were to get hold of them. The aim was

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION CONTRIBUTION

Jon Lindsey* Major, Lindsey & Africa New York Professional Recruiting

Sabina Lippman Lippman Jungers Bala Los Angeles Professional Recruiting

Harlan Loeb Argyle Chicago Crisis Communications

Andrew Longstreth Infinite Global New York Media & Communications

Jennifer Loven FGS Global Washington, D.C. Crisis Communications

Jeffrey Lowe Major, Lindsey & Africa Washington, D.C. Professional Recruiting

Kerri Lyon SKDK New York Crisis Communications

Joe Macrae Macrae San Francisco Professional Recruiting

Tim Maltin Maltin PR Covent Garden, London, United Kingdom Crisis Communications

Lana Jacqueline Manganiello Equinox Strategy Partners Los Angeles Management & Leadership

Myron  Marlin FTI Consulting Washington, D.C. Crisis Communications

Jeff McAndrews FGS Global Los Angeles Crisis Communications

Ian McCaleb Blue Highway Advisory Washington, D.C. Crisis Communications

Amy  McCormack McCormack Schreiber Chicago Professional Recruiting

Zack McKamie Androvett Austin Marketing & Communications

Eleanor McManus Trident DMG Washington, D.C. Crisis Communications

Bobbie McMorrow* McMorrow Consulting Summerland, Calif. Professional Recruiting

“IN THE END, MY JOB IS REALLY THAT OF AN EDUCATOR. REPORTERS ARE STRAPPED, SO I’M DOING EVERYTHING I CAN TO FULSOMELY WALK THEM THROUGH AS MUCH DETAIL AS I CAN IN A WAY THAT DOESN’T FRUSTRATE, MISLEAD OR OVERWHELM.

to gain an understanding of where public coverage would go over time, and subsequently where public perception would go if a decontextualized piece of intelligence was reported. It was an opportunity to blueprint some of the work I had wanted to do at DOJ – to relate a deeper understanding of press priorities and functions.

LD: You founded Blue Highway Advisory in 2022. What does your workload look like these days?

IM: A fair amount is either crisis or litigation comms for law firms or for individuals. I tend to work in direct conjunction with law firms almost exclusively. Usually big-ticket cases. Blue Highway is in its ‘small but growing’ phase, but the company is a really perfect marriage of all of my work experience, and all of my reporter and law firm connections. This is work I want to devote real time and passion to –including artists’ rights and rights of creatives in regard to accounting issues, (think of the age-old term “Hollywood Accounting”), royalty recovery, the integrity of their output, their ongoing work, their history and their catalogs, and their absolute foundational rights to be paid fairly for their priceless contributions to this complicated world of ours.

I tend to work a little differently than a lot of bigger firms do. I will do very precise but sometimes not so routine litigation comms. I help reporters work their way through the docket, and I help clients tell their story through their lawyers. In turn, I help lawyers see and understand the necessity of targeted or surgical press. Many attorneys love the idea, but sometimes are very cautious. So, I’m there to manage attorneys’ expectations and appetites, as well as those of the end-client.

My specialty is long-form investigative journalism, working with reporters who take the time to do very deep pieces on a case or client. I do targeted media outreach – legal trades, Tier Ones, newspapers and television – but alongside that I’m able to nurture a giant magazine piece or an investigative TV piece

from pitch to publication. That’s where the bulk of my work goes.

LD:  How does that process look when it comes to representing an artist?

IM:  I don’t want to give too much away about my processes, which I’m still perfecting, but there’s a remarkable, almost beautiful ease in working with varieties of journalists on behalf of a musician, author, filmmaker, digital or visual artist. Journalists who are struggling through their own uncertain experiences of this changing world share a range of commonalities with creators, and there is a tremendous amount of overlap between both worlds. That commonality, in turn, translates almost seamlessly with a reading or viewing audience. We all have a recording, a book, a film or an artwork, or several, that have inspired us to do better, to dream, to close our eyes and feel the world around us, most especially during the hardest of times. I don’t know of too many people out there who can’t get behind the concepts of fair pay, fair compensation and a workable standard of living for those thousands of creators who have unquestionably made the experience of life bigger and better for all.

LD:  What made you interested in advocating for artists’ rights?

IM: Among other things, I have been a “fits and starts” musician over a long period of time. I was also a published rock critic and I am a voracious consumer of music of all kinds. As far as I’m concerned, the appreciation of the creative output of my fellow human beings is really one of the most important things I can apply myself to – not just music, but film, books, art in all forms. I don’t know how I would’ve gotten through certain periods of my own life and my career without music, literature and film in particular.

And let’s be very clear: From the standpoint of commodification, the arts are under-valued, misunderstood and under-appreciated. There isn’t one person who will read this who doesn’t retreat at

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION CONTRIBUTION

Deborah McMurray Content Pilot Dallas

Marketing, Branding & Technology

Ryan McSharry Infinite Global London Media & Communications

Marcel Meijer Johnson Downie Houston Professional Recruiting

Gary Miles Miles Partner Placement Tustin, Calif. Professional Recruiting

Sarah Morris Macrae Palo Alto Professional Recruiting

Patty Morrissy Morrissy Legal Search New York Professional Recruiting

Ellen Moskowitz Brunswick New York Crisis Communications

Kylie McKenna Munnelly The Levinson Group Washington, D.C. Crisis Communications/PR

Seelin Naidoo Frontline St. Louis Legal Technology & Operations

Victor Neary Robert Half St. Petersburg, Fla. Professional Recruiting

Sydney Ann Neuhaus FGS Global New York Crisis Communications

Kristin Nutt Mueller Johnson Downie Dallas Professional Recruiting

Kathy O’Brien Rubenstein New York

Marketing & Communications

Zach Olsen Infinite Global San Francisco Crisis Communications

Ruth Pachman Kekst CNC New York Crisis Communications

Scott Parks Androvett Dallas

Lloyd Pearson Pearson Communications Brighton, East Sussex, United Kingdom

Marketing & Communications

Media – Directory Maven

some time another into the creative work of another to find solace, inspiration, fellowship or escape. Still, so many artists are being left behind in regard to proper compensation, especially as their works are reproduced and reissued. It’s an epidemic really. For every Bruce Springsteen, who can sell off his catalog to an investment firm for nine figures, there are 1,000+ other artists who at some point or other in their careers were known just well enough to sell some records and sell out some venues. Then Covid took so much more of their livelihoods away. I have thrived and been inspired by so many others through all phases of this life. I simply want to do what I can to give something back.

LD: Tell us about your work with Pras Michel.

IM: There may be no better example of the complexity, sensitivity and effect of the way I try to do this work than the Pras case, which is still hacking through its own weeds, and has been continually described by legal observers as closely aligned with an overused metaphor involving bats. In the lead-up to trial, I worked with several feature reporters, the most notable of which was the investigative group at a glossy, international business weekly, in a concentrated effort to see that Pras’ role in the overall 1MDB matter was portrayed accurately, for the very first time. That was followed immediately by a personal profi le spread of Pras in the April, 2023, issue of Rolling Stone, which gave us a 1-2 punch of case details and humanization that was an absolute necessity in the face of a prosecutorial effort that presented him as the central mastermind of the whole scandal.

Many other very favorable pieces followed through the five-week trial, and despite the fact that I had to extract myself from the engagement for a variety of reasons after trial, (and anyone who has followed that situation since knows this), that case has taken on a Jelly-of-the-Month club character, as it has been the gift that just keeps on giving well into 2024. Obviously, there’s more interesting stuff to be unpacked here, perhaps at a later time.

LD:  How would you describe your philosophy or method when it comes to litigation PR?

IM: I don’t believe in set strategic plans going into a new engagement – everything I do demands detailed customization that is dependent on the client and the sector. In instances of litigation, no case is simple, and reporters are absolutely strapped. They don’t have beats anymore. Most reporters covering courthouses have to cover every case of interest that is working its way through their designated venue simultaneously.

You just cannot get the depth and the detail that a client and the legal team really needs with any sort of ease, thanks to nearly 50 years of steady media industry contraction. Some vilify reporters for the jobs they do – I see a very different dynamic. I see professionals who are expected to file multiple stories per day on any variety of subject, always appearing as experts. They’re overworked, have to absorb way too much information, and have to play multiple roles at once, be they print, broadcast or online journalists.

This is why I’m all-in on long-form journalism as an absolute necessity. Long-form takes work and time, but if you can hit a sweet moment before trial where the mechanics and details of a case are described in a “table setter” – via the likes of the New York Times, or the Journal, or via Time or Newsweek, or even 60 Minutes –that can be enormously helpful. Especially when you’re dealing with an adversary in a prosecutorial situation and their story is told by their pretrial press release, which is often very long but not necessarily impactful.

In the end, my job is really that of an educator. Reporters are strapped, so I’m doing everything I can to fulsomely walk them through as much detail as I can in a way that doesn’t frustrate, mislead or overwhelm.

LD:  Is AI affecting your practice?

IM: I’m going to be kept very busy in the age of AI. A lot of people are going to suffer, as much as we all see AI as an indeterminate benefit in these early stages. I speak to painters, illustrators, digital designers and others who work in visual mediums who are all extremely worried at present. For the moment, visual art is the easiest medium to duplicate, and frankly to steal from. Recorded music is also under threat, and I’m gearing up to strategize on behalf of creators from disparate sectors who may want to push back against an unchecked spread of AI.

LD: What advice would you give a lawyer who finds themselves in the middle of a really high-profile litigation?

IM: Don’t be afraid of long-form coverage. Don’t be afraid of detail – it will only help magnify, expand and enhance your own strategies on behalf of your clients.

A story that shows up in print and online, if told accurately, can live forever. What differentiates my approach is my willingness to dive into absolute microscopic detail and work with either one reporter or a team of reporters toward a long, thoughtful, comprehensive piece that ultimately provides a foundational definition for a case or client.

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION CONTRIBUTION

Sarah Peters Bell Yard London Crisis Communications

Susan Peters Greybridge PR New York

Marketing & Communications

Adrienne Petz Edelman Washington, D.C. Crisis Communications

Peter Pochna Rubenstein New York

Marketing & Communications

Charlie Potter Brunswick London Crisis Communications

Barry Pound Androvett Dallas Crisis Communications/PR

Nick Pournader P&C Global Toronto Management Consulting

Blane Prescott MesaFive San Francisco Management Consulting

Pat Rafferty Androvett Dallas

Media & Communications

Melanie Riley Bell Yard London Crisis Communications

Allan Ripp Ripp Media & Public Relations New York

Media & Communications

Jane S. Roberts Macrae Washington, D.C. Professional Recruiting

Gina Rubel Furia Rubel Communications Doylestown, Pa. Public Relations

Andy Russell Macrae London Professional Recruiting

Aidan Ryan Edelman Washington, D.C. Crisis Communications

George Sard FGS Global New York Communications

Dawn Schneider Schneider Group Media New York

Media & Communications

Gay Rineberg Schreiber McCormack Schreiber Chicago Professional Recruiting

Elonide Semmes* Ravir New Orleans

Marketing & Branding

ZACH OLSEN

ZACH OLSEN’S WORK CENTERS AROUND

aiding people in crisis. He advises prominent public and private companies through data breaches, assesses and alleviates reputational risk, and aids entities navigating active litigation. His mission is singular: To guide individuals and corporations through emergencies and restore calm.

Sounds a lot like being a lawyer.

Unlike a lawyer, however, his forum is not behind the closed doors of courtrooms, but in the public eye of the media. As President of noted communications firm Infinite Global, Olsen heads up the firm’s San Francisco office and its crisis response and reputation management group. He is the words man in a crisis, giving strategic voice to his clients in the court of public opinion.

Though his practice isn’t in the law, lawyers and law firms are a constant in Olsen’s work. He and his team operate in tandem with a client’s legal counsel, crafting a message that is, in the event of active litigation, successful in both the justice system and the media. It’s the human element of the work that speaks most to Olsen. For all the prestige of his client base and nuance and intricacy of their communications needs, they are people seeking counsel during some of the most trying moments of their careers. Along with knowledge of the legal industry, empathy is the key to Olsen’s success. He says of his clients, “You can see it on their faces when they know that they have somebody that can help them figure out what to say, who to say it to, and in what forum. That’s just a huge relief for them, and that’s very rewarding for me.”

Not only does Olsen regularly advise clients through media relations during active litigation, but many of the firm’s clients are law firms themselves, seeking communications experts during mergers and other firm changes. Olsen has been a member of the Lawdragon 100 Leading Legal Consultants and Strategists for the last five years.

Lawdragon: Tell me about your early days in communications. How did you pick this as a career?

Zach Olsen: I think it picked me, actually. I was a sociology major in college, so I graduated with zero job prospects. I was lucky enough to meet my current partner, Jamie Diaferia, who hired me without any experience whatsoever. He showed me the ropes and invested in me.

BY EMILY JACKOWAY

I was really fortunate to meet Jamie and fi nd this company in its very early stages. I had wanted to go to law school, and finding an opportunity where I could blend the work I wanted to do in sociology with the law ended up being a really good fit for me.

LD: How have you seen the firm grow and change since you started?

ZO: It’s been crazy. I started in 2006, so I’ve been with the company more than 17 years now, and we’ve evolved from a startup to a very successful mid-size communications firm.

It’s been a lot of trial and error and a lot of getting lucky in picking the right people to help grow the company. We were very fortunate in that we found people that cared about the company and wanted to help us find people with similar beliefs, attitudes and morals. We invested in them, and they invested in us. It’s that foundation of talent that’s helped us get to where we are today.

LD: How would you define those beliefs?

ZO: It’s about being human beings and treating each other with respect, empathy and care. It’s about investing

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION CONTRIBUTION

Michael Short LawVision Washington, D.C. Legal Consulting

Michael Sitrick* Sitrick Los Angeles Crisis Communications

Warren Smith Smith Legal Search Vancouver Professional Recruiting

Renée Soto Reevemark New York Crisis Communications

Michael Talve The Expert Institute New York Litigation Consultant

Jeffrey Taufield Kekst CNC New York Crisis Communications

Jon Truster Macrae New York Professional Recruiting

Paul Verbinnen FGS Global New York Crisis Communications

Kaye Verville The Levinson Group New York Crisis Communications

Fernanda Vitarelli Harpa Legal Marketing London Marketing; Media, esp. Directories

Melinda Wallman Macrae London Professional Recruiting

Larry Watanabe Watanabe Solana Beach, Calif. Professional Recruiting

Dan Wilson Mercury Washington, D.C. Crisis Communications

Gulam Zade Frontline Nashville Legal Technology & Operations

Sara Zahoryin Johnson Downie Houston Professional Recruiting

Saira Zaki The Levinson Group London Crisis Communications/PR

Kent Zimmermann Zeughauser Group Chicago Management Consulting

not in us as individuals, but in each other and helping each other grow. Our team cares so much about the work they do and about the clients. People take the job very personally and seriously and want to succeed on behalf of each other and the clients.

LD: Outside of the team, what sets your firm apart from other communications firms?

ZO: We have a reputation for knowing how to work with lawyers, law firms and professional services firms broadly.

LD: Which is unique.

ZO: I think it is unique. We’ve been working with lawyers and law firms for more than two decades and we know the ins and outs of how they think, how they work and what works for them.

We are also willing to take chances. In the past five years, especially, we’ve grown out our capabilities to provide our clients what they need in terms of digital marketing, new media and video. As our clients have grown more sophisticated with respect to how they talk about themselves and their businesses, we have as well.

It’s not without hiccups. We’ve had to be willing to make mistakes and pivot. I think that ability to be flexible and take chances has helped us be successful.

LD: Going back to your early career, what matters impacted you and let you know you were in the right line of work?

ZO: When I was about a year in, we had Dewey & LeBoeuf as a client during their implosion. That was a feet-tothe-fire, intense experience from a communications perspective – especially for me, a guy that didn’t really know what he was doing.

I wasn’t working on it by myself, but being able to see the impact that communications could have on a very serious situation – how it could go well and how it could be a detriment to the firm if it wasn’t pulled off properly –  was really instructive. It made a huge impression on me as far as the power of the job and how important it is to get it right. It made me realize how much people are relying on us to help them through difficult situations.

Another early matter that comes to mind is working on the merger of Cooley and Kronish Lieb. Cooley was a big client of ours, and we helped them prepare for and roll out all of the communications around their merger.

That was a similarly intense experience, and I got to see from beginning to end the process of preparing for a really important event – shaping the communications and the messaging around it, working on the rollout

and helping people see why the merger was a good thing. Again, I got a peek behind the curtain as to why and how this could be such an important job. That’s what got me hooked.

LD: That sounds exciting. What matters are keeping you busy these days?

ZO: About half of my time is spent on crisis and litigation PR. Recently, we’ve been doing a lot of data breach incident response. So, helping companies – not just law firms, but helping any sort of company, public or private – navigate ransomware attacks and talk about the impact to their employees, customers and stakeholders.

LD: What kinds of companies are you working with?

ZO: We’re hired by professional services firms on behalf of universities, FinTech companies, healthcare companies – anywhere that’s holding private health, financial or personal information. Those are the ones getting attacked. A lot of HIPAA-protected information, for example, is getting leaked on the dark web.

LD: How recently did this start ramping up as a key area of focus?

ZO: It’s been about seven years now. We’ve been doing data breach response work pretty aggressively.

It’s a very good niche for us. Some of our bigger competitors do this work, as well, but I think we’re the best because we know how to work with lawyers in this very nuanced practice. Knowing how to talk about matters like these in a way that minimizes litigation risk and harm to the brand is important.

LD: Can you give me an example of a recent project in that area?

ZO: We recently worked on behalf of a university that experienced a ransomware attack on the servers that held their students’ sensitive information. While that wasn’t unique in and of itself, the university administration was in the middle of a contract negotiation with their faculty and faculty union, and the faculty union members were feeding information to the media about the ransomware attack in an effort to make the administration look bad. So, that was a very interesting and complicated communications challenge.

LD: What are some of the key lessons you learned?

ZO: You never know who you can trust. And, certainly, that anything you say to people who are “internal” to your organization can end up external. You have to know that whatever you say, even if it’s within the confines of your business or organization, could end up in the media.

LD: What other pieces of advice to you give lawyers and other clients in terms of interfacing with the media?

ZO: The lawyers, for the most part, are pretty good at talking to the media. Certainly, the litigators have a gift for that, as you can imagine.

If anything, sticking to the script is probably the number one advice we give to folks. Make sure you go into an interview with your three key messages that you want to get across, and make sure you have quotable sound bites, so you can make it easy on the reporter to quote you on that subject. Be prepared for difficult questions and know how to bridge away from those and back into something that you want to talk about.

LD: How can lawyers stand out through their communications efforts?

ZO: Pick your lane and stick to it. Develop a brand around a certain area of expertise or a certain industry. We also really try to push people to stand out by being human, whether it’s on LinkedIn or in a video or a blog. There are probably a thousand people who can do the same job. Figuring out a way to connect with clients and potential clients in a way that seems real and personable can help you generate goodwill and show people who you are and what you care about.

LD: So, about half of your time is spent in crisis communications. What’s the other half of your time?

ZO: About 25 percent of it is managing the business. My partner I mentioned, Jamie Diaferia, is our CEO, and our COO, Issy Podda, is based in London. The three of us spend a good bit of time making sure the business is being managed properly – that we’re setting our strategic goals, meeting them, finding new and creative ways to generate revenue and hit our targets, looking at our staffing and retention numbers and basically keeping the business moving forward.

Then there’s also mentoring our staff. I try to spend time with everybody to help them figure out where they’re headed and what kind of skills they need to develop to get to the next level. I like to be a sounding board for them as they’re figuring out how to address challenges and opportunities as they grow in their careers.

LD: What do you enjoy about centering your communications practice around litigation?

ZO: Lawyers are smart people, so they are as good at their jobs as I am at mine. When I go into a new project, I can be pretty sure the person working alongside me on the legal team is going to know what they’re doing. We’re going to have some symbiosis. It’s going to be collaborative,

and we have the opportunity to get creative together. So, between us, we can do good work for our clients.

LD: Speaking of your clients, you are guiding them through major crises. How do you help put them at ease during those stressful times?

ZO: That’s one of the best parts of my job, which may have something to do with my interest in sociology early on. There’s a huge therapeutic component to the work that I do on the crisis communications side – helping people feel like everything’s going to be okay.

LD: How do you do that?

ZO: Being responsive, thoughtful and able to have the emotional intelligence to understand what people need in the moment.

Oftentimes the people I’m working with are C-suite execs, who, while they are very smart and accomplished people, are not necessarily experts in communications. Oftentimes, it’s the worst weeks of their lives. They’ve spent their entire careers building a business, and they’re worried that it might fall apart in front of their eyes. Having to say something, especially when it’s about something that’s not good, is panic-inducing. If they feel they have someone like me on their side who knows how to do that and can help them do that in the best way possible, that relieves so much stress and anxiety from their lives.

LD: That’s wonderful. So, we touched on data breaches –  what other trends are you seeing emerging?

ZO: Everybody’s stressed about AI.

It’s going to be interesting to see how the next year or so plays out and how people respond to the threats to their intellectual property, their businesses and their reputations. Trying to figure out what’s real and what’s not is going to be a huge problem for everyone, but probably an opportunity for us, as well, if we can figure out how to get a toehold in there. An AI crisis is a crisis just like any other. You have a problem that you need to figure out how to communicate with people about.

We also need to figure out how to incorporate AI into our work, if there are ways that we can use it productively on behalf of our clients or our firm in a way that is sensitive to the fact that some of the information we have is confidential.

LD: Looking outside of work, what do you like to do for fun?

ZO: I’m an avid skier and mountain biker. Living near Lake Tahoe, I spend a lot of time outside with my family –boating, hiking, biking and bear-spotting.

We thank L awdragon for recognizing more than half of Macrae's recruiters as 2023 Global 100 Leaders in Legal Strategy & Consulting: Justi ne D onahue, L auren Drake, Nick Go seland, A d il Lalan i, Jo e Macra e, Sar a h Mo r ri s , Ja ne S. Robe r ts, An d y Russel l , Jon T r u s ter, a nd Me linda W allman.

WE HAD A VISION seven years ago of becoming a new kind of recruiting firm.

AN IN-SYNC TRANSATLANTI C TEAM perfectly aligned with the needs of top-tier clients and candidates in the world's most important legal markets.

AN INDUSTRY INNOVATOR powered by shared global intelligence, a collaborative spirit that celebrates the contributions of ever y individual, and a relentless drive for: taking law firms and careers to the next level.

AN

UNPRECEDENTED

PARTNERSHIP

that exemplifies how the whole truly can be greater than the sum of its parts.

(And we're pretty darn excited about it.) NO

DOUBT about itMacrae is that firm.

Hall of Fame

We are honored to introduce the 2023 class of the Lawdragon Hall of Fame.

Where else will you find such an array of remarkable lawyers whose contributions to the law range from civil rights leadership to trailblazing female litigation partners; a barrier-denying state Supreme Court Chief Justice to lawyers who helped elevate Silicon Valley; and pioneers who brought new thought to environmental protection, national security and plaintiff advocacy?

Virtually all of these lawyers have devoted roughly 40 or more years of their lives to the law, in most cases representing clients whose lives, livelihoods or businesses depended on a great lawyer.

Judy Barrasso founded Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarver in New Orleans in 2003, building a top litigation firm hired for the toughest cases. She has

tried cases in more than a dozen states and routinely wins defense verdicts in cases alleging vast liability. She represents a path similar to that of a number of the women selected for the Hall of Fame this year, who used their skills to break down walls and excel in the law on their terms.

We’re particularly proud of the dimension of this year’s class, most of whom we’ve gotten to know over the years as we’ve watched them practice their craft in areas ranging from employee benefits to discrimination, accounting liability to corporate dealmaking, going from private practice to public service and creating new laws and protections to keep up with our rapidly evolving world.

We founded our Hall of Fame in 2015. The full list of Hall of Fame members can be found here: www.lawdragon. com/the-lawdragon-hall-of-fame

The Inductees

NAME FIRM CATEGORY

Judy Barrasso Barrasso Usdin Litigation Defense

David Berry BAL Employment, Immigration

Michael Blair Debevoise Dealmaker

Jamie Boucher Skadden Financial Regulation

David H. Braff Sullivan & Cromwell Litigation, esp. White Collar

James S. Bramnick Akerman Employment

Eugene  Brown Jr. Hinshaw Business Litigation

M. Malissa Burnette Burnette Shutt McDaniel Plaintiff Employment, Civil Rights Litigation

Larry A. Campagna Chamberlain Hrdlicka Tax Litigation

Ricardo G. Cedillo Davis Cedillo & Mendoza Litigation

Robert Clifford Clifford Law Offices Plaintiff Litigation

Richard Climan Hogan Lovells Dealmaker

Robert L. Corbin Kendall Brill Litigation, esp. White Collar

Gordon K. Davidson Fenwick  Dealmaker

William Dougherty Simpson Thacher Dealmaker

NAME FIRM CATEGORY

Karen Dyer Cadwalader Remembered; Litigator

Gary Ford Synergos Employment

Dennis J. Friedman Gibson Dunn Dealmaker, M&A

Glenn Gerstell Center for Strategic & International Studies National Security

Robert V. Gunderson Gunderson Dettmer Dealmaker, Venture Capital

Rusty Hardin

Randy  Holland

Rusty Hardin & Associates Litigation

Wilson Sonsini/Delaware Supreme Court Remembered; Corporate Governance

Sherrilyn Ifill Ford Foundation/ NAACPLDEF Civil Rights

Randy  Johnston Johnston Tobey Legal Malpractice

Marc E. Kasowitz Kasowitz Benson Torres Litigation

Jennifer Keller Keller Anderle Scolnick Commercial Litigation, White Collar

Frank E. Lamothe III Lamothe Law Firm Plaintiff Litigation

Bradley M. Marten Marten Law Environmental Law

Darin P. McAtee Cravath Litigation

Richard Mithoff Mithoff Law Plaintiff Litigation

Charles W. Mulaney Jr. Skadden Dealmaker, M&A

NAME FIRM CATEGORY

Linda Myers

William H. Narwold

Ron Peterson

Carl L. Reisner

Robert H. Riley

Jeffrey J. Rosen

Paul N. Roth

S. Shay Samples

Leah Ward Sears

Joseph M. Sellers

William R. Sieben

Grace E. Speights

Sally Thurston

Arthur Wolk

Kirkland Dealmaker, Private Equity

Motley Rice Plaintiff Financial Litigation

Jenner & Block Bankruptcy

Paul Weiss M&A, Dealmaker

Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila Litigation

Debevoise M&A, Corporate

Schulte Roth & Zabel Investment Funds

Hare Wynn Plaintiff Litigation

Smith Gambrell & Russell Leadership; Litigation

Cohen Milstein Civil Rights & Employment Litigation

Schwebel Goetz & Sieben Plaintiff Litigation

Morgan Lewis Employment

Skadden Tax

The Wolk Law Firm Plaintiff Litigation

Michael R. Young Willkie

Financial Litigation, esp. Accounting, Securities

RUSTY HARDIN

RUSTY HARDIN IS A LEGENDARY TRIAL

lawyer working at the top of his game, so, of course, he’s no stranger to the press. In a headline heard around the world, Anna Nicole Smith famously remarked “Screw you, Rusty!” The cry came after Hardin struck a particularly sensitive nerve in the courtroom during a trial in which he successfully fought for the family of Smith’s deceased husband. Hardin harbors no hostility. He maintains, “Trial law is about people and their stories.” It is these stories that have interested Hardin throughout every chapter of his life and career. A former history teacher, Hardin has always been invested in understanding the people, society, events and problems of the past; it’s a big part of what makes him so outstanding in the courtroom, where he represents people dealing with problems

of the present.

BY MEGHAN HEMINGWAY

Where some might find the microscopic gaze of the press unbearable, Hardin has the constitution for it. He successfully represented Roger Clemens when the MLB superstar was accused of using performance enhancing drugs – and Hardin adamantly defends the player to this day. “That was in federal court, and it occurred within the spotlight of a media and public glare. And you have to figure out how you can get a jury to go beyond that,” he says. Figure it out he did – the player was found not guilty.

Hardin refuses to let the public attention phase him –he instead continues to be interested in the people and their real stories. The best journalists and the best trial lawyers share one vital trait according to Hardin: “They know how to truly listen.”

“I learned to disregard many of the hallowed rules of trial work. e contention, ‘Don’t ever ask questions you don’t know the answer to.’”

Hardin was inducted into the Lawdragon Hall of Fame this year.

Lawdragon:  Before law school you worked as a history teacher. What inspired that?

Rusty Hardin:  I loved teaching and I love history. My major was American History. I started out as a schoolteacher, but in the back of my mind I always thought I would ultimately be applying to law school. Teaching is what I did in the interim. This was in the middle of the civil rights era. I arrived in Montgomery, Ala., in August of ‘65, and Selma to Montgomery had just happened in February of ‘65. The Voting Rights Act was still before Congress.

One of the children that I taught was the son of a federal judge named Frank Johnson, who was a legendary and incredibly significant federal district judge in Montgomery. He was the judge that allowed The Selma to Montgomery March. He made many of the decisions that the 5th Circuit later affirmed that have had such an impact on civil rights. I got to know him, and he wrote a letter of recommendation for me when I was applying to law school years later.

LD: That’s amazing – but not before you joined the Army, right?

RH:  That’s right. I quit teaching only because I was going to enlist in the Army. It was in the middle of Vietnam, in May of ‘66. I went home to the draft board in the beautiful little North Carolina town I grew up in and said, “I’ve given up my teaching job, I don’t want y’all to draft me right now, but take my word, I’m going to enlist in September.” I said, “A lot of these guys aren’t coming back, so I’m going to play golf every day until the weather gets to the mid 50s. When the weather hits the mid 50s, I don’t like the cold or the wind to play in, I’ll enlist.”

LD: So, you were really preparing for the worst.

RH: That’s right. You prepare for the worst so when the best happens you can enjoy it even more.

LD: How did you make the leap from the Army into law school?

RH: I came back from Vietnam and started applying to law schools and didn’t get invited. There used to be a trivia contest in the District Attorney’s office in Houston: “What senior prosecutor was rejected by 22 out of 23 law schools?” That was me.

I’m a 50-year overnight sensation. I went to law school and then joined the District Attorney’s office in the mid ‘70s. I wanted trial experience and they asked for a three-year commitment. I thought at that time I wanted to be exclusively a criminal defense lawyer. I learned that I tremendously loved being a prosecutor. I enjoyed representing the state and trying to help victims of crime as much as I later enjoyed representing people who were accused of crime.

LD: How did your experience as a prosecutor help in your private practice?

RH: Those 15 years were invaluable to me. If you want to learn to try cases, a prosecutor’s offi ce is the best place to learn how. The trial practice was tremendously significant. In the state system, the defendant doesn’t really have any discovery obligations. You could be in a trial as a prosecutor, think you had the right person, think you are going to get a conviction – then all of a sudden, the defense lawyer brings in five alibi witnesses you didn’t even know existed.

I learned to disregard many of the hallowed rules of trial work. The contention, “Don’t ever ask questions you don’t know the answer to.” That’s crazy. You might very well have somebody on the stand you didn’t even know existed until 20 minutes ago. If you didn’t ask questions you didn’t know the answer to, you couldn’t ask any questions. You can’t run from asking “why” questions. Juries want to know why. Is it dangerous? Of course it is. But that means that you have to know your case extremely well to know when to take those chances. It helped me learn to cross-examine.

LD: What drove your desire to be a lawyer?

RH:  The contact I had with Judge Frank Johnson was significant for me. I had tremendous admiration for him. He became a U.S. Attorney in the early ‘50s. Eisenhower appointed him because the competition wasn’t very heavy. There weren’t any Republicans in Alabama at that time. He became a very young federal judge and by the time I met him, he had already become a very popular but polarizing figure. His mother’s house was bombed. He himself had an FBI car parked down the street as his protection. He was a pariah in his own town for his civil rights decisions, and he was a fascinating man in many areas. Carter appointed him to be the FBI director in ‘77, but then he had an aneurysm, and his nomination was withdrawn. He was later put on the 5th Circuit. He was an incredible man and had a big impact on me.

LD: What do you enjoy about trials, specifically?

RH: I enjoy trying to convince a group of strangers to whatever my point of view is about the case. I enjoy jury selection. I enjoy meeting 40 people I’ve never met before and finding out about them. Trial work is about people and their stories.

The best training to be a trial lawyer is to grow up in a small town and go to public schools. A small town is not segregated the way a large city is. In a small town, you might live next door to somebody of very limited means with very little education and then maybe 600 yards down the street, there’s a very wealthy family. You grow up around and go to school with a bigger cross section of people.

LD: How do you take the complex concepts in these cases and make them understandable to this cross section of people that sit on the jury?

RH: You look for what the case is about. You ask, “Well, how would your aunt react to that? How would your grandmother? How would the guy in the grocery store? How can I make that understandable?” There’s no issue too complicated for a jury to understand. It’s really only lawyers and witnesses that make it that way. You’ve just got to be interested in people

and be able to listen.

Maybe two years after I became a prosecutor, I was interviewed on a TV show for the fi rst time. The interviewer is engaged when the camera is on them, then as soon as I’m answering, the camera turns to me, and the talk show hosts look down at their notes for their next question – they stop listening. I realized that’s what happens with lawyers who don’t pay attention in the courtroom. They ask a question and then they look down for the next question. They’re not listening, and they don’t hear the witness say things that could be really good to follow up on.

LD: Interesting.

RH: How the trial lawyer hears the evidence and what they pick up on from the witness is crucial. You can only do that if you’re listening. The biggest failure of trial lawyers is the same failure of professional journalists, and that’s the failure to listen. If the reporter is not truly listening, they’re not going to get the true story. They’re not going to get beyond what the speaker just said. There are always layers underneath what they said. If you’re not a listener, if you’re just trying to perform, you’re not going to be a good trial lawyer.

LD:  You’ve had so many cases that have garnered a lot of public attention. How does that spotlight affect the work?

RH:  The Anna Nicole Smith case and representing Arthur Andersen during the Enron deal came just about a year and a half apart. I actually saw some of the same media people from around the country on both of those trials; they hadn’t changed. Those cases represented a couple of similar traits, believe it or not. Anna Nicole was about getting the jury to understand why they should rule in favor of the heirs of a 90-year-old man that was foolish enough to marry a 20-something-year-old woman. That jury started out on Anna Nicole’s side during jury selection.

With Arthur Anderson – which we lost at the trial level, and then was reversed unanimously and won

“I enjoy meeting 40 people I’ve never met before and nding out about them. Trial work is about people and their stories.”

“I’ve been very fortunate with the media, but that is the media that has rules, and that tries to get not just one side, but both sides.”

at the Supreme Court – we had the first of the Enron institutions going to trial. A huge number of citizens lost their life savings because of what happened within Enron and the feelings were very strong against them. Both of those are highly publicized cases that involved very high media interest and unpopular people or unpopular issues.

It’s a matter of trying to figure out what you think the truth was, and then figuring out how to convince people. We convinced them in one, we didn’t in the other. Ten years later it was Roger Clemens – where everybody assumes that anybody accused of using steroids must have done it. Nobody believed his denials. I always believed that a jury would ultimately believe us, but it takes a long time to get there. In the meantime, he’s demonized by all sports figures, and he’s now still out of the Hall of Fame – and he didn’t do it. When a jury heard it all, they were totally convinced. It wasn’t like they said the government didn’t prove their case, they went much further privately and unanimously in their decision.

LD:  What are the challenges of dealing with the media in those cases?

RH: It depends on who all you include as being media. The media has changed tremendously. As a blogger, there are no rules. Are they part of the media? Is the media simply the transfer of the message, or is it what we used to think of it as? There are no rules in social media, as you well know. We don’t even know if the person posting these views is really that person. We don’t know whether somebody’s manipulating.

Deciding who to talk to is incredibly difficult. I used to talk to everybody in the media. Clemens was probably the first tabloid case I had where subscription fights were going on, and the case you have is used as a ploy to try to get ahead. The New York Daily News and The New York Post were both racing to have the more attractive headline and they weren’t really looking to see what was true and what wasn’t.

LD: So, you’ve seen a big change over the last decade or two.

RH: I was probably interviewed by a reporter for the first time in 1976. To this day, I’ve still never been misquoted and I’ve never been quoted on the record with something I said was off the record. I’ve been very fortunate with the media, but that is the media that has rules, and that tries to get not just one side, but both sides. That’s the media that looks behind the allegations, whether they’re civil or criminal – that’s who I consider legitimate media. They may come from a particular perspective, but they’re going to try to get it right. That is a different animal than the people that are rushing to beat everybody else to the headline.

LD: Tell me a little bit about the founding of the firm. What did you want to build?

RH:  I wanted people that wanted to make a difference. I wanted a law firm where people look forward to going to work each morning. When you start looking forward to Friday or dreading Monday, it’s time to do something else.

You should never, as a lawyer, be doing something you don’t enjoy, because you can find something that you do enjoy. The variety of things to do with a legal degree are so widespread. I don’t want a firm that has lawyers that are dreading what they’re about to do. I want them to look forward to it, I want them to enjoy it, and I want them to enjoy being around each other doing it.

LD:  What keeps you excited when you get up in the morning?

RH: Helping somebody that makes me have, what I call, “freeway moments.” That’s when you’re on the freeway, heading home, and you did something that day that made a difference in somebody’s life. It could be a criminal defendant; it could be the defendant’s family. It could be the victim or the survivors of a tremendous trauma. It could be a million things, but you felt like when you went home that day that you did something good. You made a difference in somebody’s life. That’s what makes it fun, and it doesn’t hurt to get paid for it.

RANDY JOHNSTON

HEROES DON’T ALWAYS SEE THEMSELVES FOR WHAT THEY ARE.

Although Randy Johnston had built his own law fi rm and made a name for himself as a litigator specializing in professional misconduct cases, he often found himself ruminating on the dreams of his youth, writing novels and playing the blues guitar.

The founder of Dallas-based Johnston Tobey Baruch vividly recalls the mental jolt he got when he described his frustrations to his late friend Mark Pollock, a guitarist who toured with Eric Clapton, Freddie King and Muddy Waters, after resolving an insurance claim over a high-priced amplifier for him.

Waxing eloquent on the music of Stevie Ray Vaughan, with whom Pollock had also played and

whom Johnston viewed as a near god, he wound himself up to a fever pitch.

Finally, he turned to Pollock and said, “God, I don’t want to die having been nothing but an asshole lawyer.”

For a few minutes, the statement hung in the air, neither man uttering a word.

Then, Pollock turned to Johnston and said, “Well, I’m kind of glad you are an asshole lawyer.”

The universe, perhaps, wasn’t quite sure Johnston got the message.

Years later, he and his son Coyt – now a partner in Johnston Tobey Baruch – were talking with former Navy SEAL Mark Owen, whom Johnston was representing in a legal malpractice case involving BY

“I have been trying to acknowledge more the role I have in other people’s lives and not just beat myself up because I can’t play the guitar like Stevie Ray Vaughan.”

the U.S. government taking the proceeds of his book, “No Easy Day.”

The U.S. Department of Justice had accused Owen –a member of SEAL Team Six, the special ops group that carried out the raid in which terrorist leader Osama bin Laden was killed – of failing to obtain required clearances before the book’s September 2012 publication.

The volume offers a firsthand account of the May 2011 raid, which occurred nearly 10 years after the Sept. 11 attacks in which the al-Qaida leader masterminded the hijacking of commercial airliners that were flown into the World Trade Center’s twin towers in New York City and the Pentagon.

Johnston ultimately negotiated a settlement with the lawyer and law firm who advised Owen not to submit the book to a prepublication review.

The ex-SEAL “is one of my heroes,” Johnston recalls telling his son in front of Owen. He remembers Owen’s response vividly.

“Do you guys not realize that you were my SEAL Team Six?” the former chief special warfare operator responded.

“It shocked me when he said it, but I realized that many of us – and certainly many lawyers – undervalue what we do for other people,” Johnston said. “So I have been trying to acknowledge more the role I have in other people’s lives and not just beat myself up because I can’t play the guitar like Stevie Ray Vaughan.”

Which isn’t to say that Johnston can’t play. He and Pollock went on to form the band Blue Collar Crime. Although it later broke up as people moved away, Johnston remains a passionate guitarist, and in 2022, he even wrote and recorded a song about his career.

He has also authored a book, “Robbed at Pen Point,” about bringing malpractice claims against professionals from doctors to lawyers, stockbrokers and accountants.

Lawdragon: So which came first, the lawyer or the musician? Were you involved with music as a child?

Randy Johnston: I grew up living with my grandparents in Shamrock, Texas, a little town of 3,300 on Route 66. They owned a radio and television repair shop and also managed a string of jukeboxes on three different routes, one of which served a variety of bluesy juke joints. My grandmother read Billboard magazine to see which songs were popular and would play, and every two weeks, we would get in the car after they closed up the shop at 5 or 6 p.m. and go out to service one of the three routes. We would trade out the records, and my grandmother and I would count the nickels, dimes and quarters and roll them up and then split it with the owner. My granddad changed out the records and the labels inside the jukebox and fixed anything that had been broken in the last month.

So from the time I was 7 through the age of 12, I was listening to music. Now, in the country western honky-tonks on their routes, I was just in the way and I was ignored. But in the Black-owned establishments, the owners would come over and bring me a Dr. Pepper and a red pickled sausage, and I felt like royalty. I just fell in love with the music coming out of the jukeboxes in those establishments.

LD: And you eventually decided you wanted a guitar. Did you save up your money to buy one?

RJ: It happened like this. In my granddad’s shop, it wasn’t uncommon for people to bring in a radio or television to be fi xed and then not be able to pick it up because they couldn’t afford the repairs. He used to have a sign that said, “Repairs left over 60 days will be sold.” One day, a man came in wanting to trade a guitar for his radio, which had been in the shop for a month or two. My granddad asked me if I wanted it, which I did, and he made the trade. I got this blonde archtop Stella guitar, and I knew nothing about it. I didn’t know how to tune it, didn’t know how to play it. I had a rope that I tied to it for a guitar strap so I could hold it on my shoulder. It was

more a prop for me to pretend I was Elvis Presley, shaking my hips.

LD: But you eventually learned to play. Did you stick with music from then on?

RJ: Not exactly. By the age of 12, I had grown interested in sports. I was a good athlete and so I pretty much ignored music until I got into high school. Then I saw immediately how cool it was to be a musician, so I started trying to get back into it. By the time I was in college, I had moved from the blues into folk music. I loved The Kingston Trio; Peter, Paul and Mary and all of that kind of music. I got an athletic scholarship to college and played guitar in a couple of folk groups.

Now, everyone who learns to play the guitar comes to a point where they’re around people who are a lot better, and they don’t seem to be making any progress. It started to look like I was never going to be good enough to satisfy myself. And then I got married and went to law school and I had to concentrate on other things. The guitar just went under the bed. I can say with complete accuracy –and a slight exaggeration of importance – that my marriage to my fi rst wife and my relationship with the Mormon Church both ended when I took my guitar out from under the bed. I started playing again and by then, I could afford to buy any guitar I wanted. I bought the Martin acoustic I had always wanted. By then, I was totally in love with James Taylor and I started playing and performing that kind of music. It was like I rediscovered a brother I had been separated from along the way who gave me comfort every day.

LD: When did you and Mark Pollock start Blue Collar Blues? I know the two of you were friends even before that. Did you know him growing up?

RJ: No, I met him here in Dallas. He owned a Charley’s Guitar Shop, and I used to introduce him as the guy who pierced Stevie Ray Vaughan’s ear.

LD: Is that true?

RJ: It is. I asked him one day, “Do you know anyone that would be willing to play lead guitar if I put together a band? I don’t think I’m ever going to get better if I’m not playing with other people who demand the precision of being on the beat.” He says, “Well, hell, I’ll do it.” And I went, “Are you kidding me?”

LD: You’re like, “You’re hired.”

RJ: Absolutely. I was talking with a friend about that recently, and he said, “On your tombstone, they’re going to write that you brought Mark Pollock out of retirement.”

LD: You’re clearly passionate about music. How did you end up practicing law?

RJ: When I went to college at Brigham Young University people would ask, “What are you going to be? Why are you here?” The answers my classmates gave most often were doctor, lawyer or engineer. I knew I didn’t want to be a doctor, and I’d had too much trouble in Algebra II to be an engineer so I always replied, “lawyer.” Of course, the only thing I knew about lawyers was that my mother hired them five times for her five divorces. I eventually majored in English and decided I wanted to become a writer, but at the start of my senior year, I took the LSAT anyway. When I got my results back, I was in the 98th percentile of the nation.

LD: That would change things.

RJ: It did. Three law schools immediately sent me acceptance notices. I don’t think I had even applied to them and so I thought, “Maybe I’m good at this. Maybe I should be a lawyer.” One of the law schools that accepted me was the University of Texas. I still didn’t know what I wanted to do, but that closed the fewest doors. The first year, maybe even the first half-year of law school, for the first time in my life, I had a revelation. I knew exactly what I wanted to do for a living: I wanted to be a trial lawyer. I felt that all of the secrets of the kingdom were suddenly being exposed to me and I understood how the system worked: how to hold bullies accountable and make

“ e rst year, maybe even the rst half-year of law school, for the rst time in my life, I had a revelation. I knew exactly what I wanted to do for a living: I wanted to be a trial lawyer.”

“You don’t need partners, you need clients. And if you have clients, you can have all the partners you want.”

the world fairer, the way I thought it should be.

Whenever I’m asked who my childhood heroes were, I talk about walking down Main Street in Shamrock, Texas, with a quarter to get into the Texan Theater to watch westerns. I didn’t have a father around, so I learned how to be a man from Audie Murphy and Roy Rogers and Gene Autry and Randolph Scott in all of those westerns.

They, by golly, stood up for the little guy and had principles and moral standards. That’s where I learned what life was about. When I went to law school, it was like, “Aha, this is a way to do what they did.”

LD: Did you always know you wanted to have your own firm?

RJ: Not at all. When I got out of law school, I landed a job with what I still consider one of the best law fi rms in the world, Baker Botts in Houston. When I interviewed, they had a public utilities department that basically represented a natural gas production company in rate cases in Washington, D.C. It was the dullest work I could imagine. But when I’d interviewed, I made the mistake of saying something like, “Oh, that sounds like really interesting work,” trying to be polite.

After I was hired, I learned I had been assigned to that department and I thought, “Oh my God.” I knew I had to tell the firm that it was a mistake, which would mean my career was over before it even started. I met with the managing partner and explained that regulatory law wasn’t where my career was going; I wanted to be a trial lawyer. He was royally irritated. He said, “We have all the trial lawyers we need, but we’ll put you in the Labor Department. They’re trying lawsuits.” So I became a labor lawyer handling employment discrimination cases for all of the major petrochemical companies up and down Houston Ship Channel.

After about four years, I moved to Dallas and joined a young firm where I stayed about two and a half years. Ultimately, I came to the very reluctant realization I didn’t fit in at these silk-stocking firms – and that the

firms weren’t to blame. So I went out on my own. Now, everyone says, “Oh, wow, that was such a statement of independence,” but it wasn’t like that at all. I felt like an utter failure that I could not fit their mold.

LD: Right. Because you had succeeded in everything in law school. You were golden. And the profession teaches that big firms are the pathway to success. If you can’t do it and you’re out there with your own shingle, you think, “What did I do wrong?”

RJ: Exactly. I have this speech that I give from time to time called 10 Things Every Young Lawyer Should Know That They Don’t Teach in Law School. And one of the 10 things is that lawyers don’t need partners. You’re taught in law school that your goal is to be a partner at a big firm. And the more partners you have, the better the lawyer you are. But I’m telling you, you don’t need partners, you need clients. And if you have clients, you can have all the partners you want.

LD: So how did opening your own firm go? In the beginning.

RJ: Basically, I was handling what little business came with me and waiting for the phone to ring. One day, it did. My old firm called and said, “This prominent divorce law firm here in town has jumped their lease.” This was in the 1980s, when Dallas was undergoing a real estate boom – new buildings were going up all over town. They used to say that the state bird of Texas was the construction crane. There wasn’t that much need for new buildings, however, and the only way the developers could fill them was by luring tenants from old buildings. They were offering three years of free rent on a five-year lease just to get businesses to move, and the law firm in question surrendered its moral compass, took one of those offers and moved out in the middle of the night. The previous landlord had a 10-year lease and wanted to sue. So I told my old firm that I’d be happy to handle it, and the real estate partner at my old firm said, “Thank God, Randy. I’m so grateful. I haven’t been able to get another lawyer who’s even interested in suing another law firm.”

All of the pride I felt about my old law firm referring

business to me went right out of the window at that point. I’d been thinking, “They’re going to send all their business to me.” But no, they tried everybody else before me.

I couldn’t believe that the lawyers my firm had contacted before me had that level of hypocrisy. It had always frustrated me, and still does, when cops won’t give another cop a ticket and will lie for them; and when doctors won’t testify against another doctor, even if they know it’s negligence. And here I was, in my own profession, facing that same hypocrisy: lawyers who wouldn’t sue other lawyers. So I said, “I’ll do it.” I sued and got a judgment. I didn’t even have to do any marketing, any advertising afterward. Overnight, I became known as the lawyer who sued other lawyers. It was just business disputes at first, but I eventually expanded into malpractice.

I figured as a lawyer, you can’t really be surprised that you’re being held to the same standards as everyone else, but the lawyers I sued in these cases were. It turns out that lawyers virtually never admit that they made a mistake. And with some rare exceptions, they never forgive the fact that you have sued them. I realized that to succeed, I would have to do what I thought was right without worrying whether people would some day forgive me.

LD: And that was the practice area that eventually led you to the Navy SEAL case.

RJ: It was. Mark Owen had been the team leader on the helicopter that crashed in the courtyard of bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan, and he was the second one through the door of the room that bin Laden was in. He’d been in the SEALs for about 13 years and was at the end of his operating days. In all likelihood, he was going to be moved into an instructor’s role and that wasn’t what he wanted. He wanted to write. He saw that former CIA Director and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was writing a book and he had sent SEALs and CIA operatives to help with production of the movie “Zero Dark Thirty.” So Owen decided to write his own book, focusing on the SEALs.

He knew because of the confidentiality contracts he had signed over the years that he had to have the book cleared for security purposes. He hired a former JAG Corps offi cer with special operations teams experience who had helped another former military officer and author get a couple of books cleared. The lawyer told him that because he was no longer an active-duty SEAL, he didn’t need to submit the book for pre-publication review, though he would

still have to ensure he didn’t disclose confidential information or expose any government secrets. The lawyer agreed to review the book for Owen and remove anything that shouldn’t be included. And then, as soon as the book hit, Owen received a letter from the Department of Justice notifying him that he had violated a contractual commitment to submit the book for pre-publication review and that he might have violated the Espionage Act.

LD: What happened then?

RJ: The government sued him and threatened him with multiple criminal prosecutions, all of which were ultimately dropped. And I sued the lawyer who gave him that advice. The case went on for four years, but in the end, after his law firm spent a million dollars of insurance defending the claim, they gave us all of the rest of the insurance money to reimburse Owen. He used most of it to reimburse the government for the balance of what he owed. But one of the conditions of settlement was that the firm had to admit what they had been denying for four years, that they were the ones who advised him not to file for a pre-publication review, and that they were wrong, and that everything he went through was their fault. They did, in the end, because I was going to get a larger award than their insurance covered if they didn’t.

LD: That’s powerful.

RJ: There are two cases that I will remember and talk about on my deathbed, and that’s one of them. The value for Mark wasn’t the money, although that got him out of debt with the government. The value was that statement in the dismissal papers where the law firm admitted that it was their fault. His children will have that forever.

LD: That situation sounds a bit like some of the cases you describe in your book in which people were injured by professionals they trusted. “Robbed at Pen Point” also covers malpractice cases and scams, right?

RJ: Right. The book came out in 2008, so the specific things that I cautioned against are out of date now, but the underlying behavior continues. Every time I’m interviewed, the interviewer asks, “What’s the next big scam going to be?” And my answer is, “Who knows?” Whatever it is, you don’t know it or it wouldn’t be a scam. No one predicted Bernie Madoff’s billiondollar Ponzi scheme, and at the time he was sent to prison. Who envisioned the accusations that Sam Bankman-Fried ripped off billions of dollars through cryptocurrency? One thing is certain though, new scams are coming.

JENNIFER KELLER

BY EMILY JACKOWAY

JENNIFER KELLER, A NAME PARTNER

at Keller/Anderle, is one of the most successful trial lawyers of her generation. While some attorneys build a career by focusing on one or two areas, Keller has always been drawn to cases where she’s covering new ground, learning new subject matter – and often setting precedent along the way.

She began her career as a deputy public defender in California, where she was among the fi rst to successfully use the intimate partner defense in a murder trial, at a time when much less was understood about the psychology of domestic violence victims.

When she moved into private practice, Keller wielded her dexterity in cross-examination and jury rapport in the defense of a wide variety of professionals, corporations and state entities in both civil and criminal cases, frequently in the public eye. She won a not-guilty verdict for Kevin Spacey in a sexual abuse trial; defended the city of Costa Mesa against the proliferation of unlicensed sober living homes; and secured an acquittal for a developer, Jeffrey Burum, in one of the largest corruption prosecutions in California.

Keller famously stepped in at the eleventh hour in the retrial of Mattel v. MGA, nicknamed in the media as “Barbie versus Bratz,” in which Mattel was claiming copyright over the wildly popular new Bratz line of

dolls. Keller wasn’t familiar with copyright law and had to catch up at light speed on the facts of the case. She managed a stunning turn-around result for MGA: The jury returned a verdict of $85M against Mattel, with the judge adding another $85M, plus $139M in attorneys’ fees. And MGA retained full ownership of the Bratz dolls.

Keller was inducted this year into the Lawdragon Hall of Fame.

Lawdragon:  Tell us about swooping in at the last minute in Mattel v. MGA. To what do you attribute your success in that case?

Jennifer Keller: It was a real fire drill, but it all comes down to storytelling. It was fairly easy to identify who the bad guy was, and it wasn’t my client.

It was, in some respects, an advantage for me to learn

copyright law just ahead of the jurors, because that allowed me to explain it a little better to them. In fact, I told the jurors to not feel bad because when we started the trial, I thought that having a copyright meant you had a little C with a circle around it that the government gave you. But, I said, it’s something we can all learn.

I also spent many years as a criminal defense lawyer, so I was used to cross-examining government witnesses where I had very little discovery. You’d have discovery consisting of a paragraph or two in a police report, and this person would be on the stand testifying for half the day before you got to cross. So I was used to doing things on the fly.

It also ended up being advantageous to come in at the last minute because the witnesses were being prepped very thoroughly by Quinn Emanuel based on their depositions and written discovery. I hadn’t even had a chance to read most of that. So my questions, as far as they were concerned, came out of left field, and they weren’t ready for that.

I remember the CEO of Mattel being very, very angry. I could hear him yelling at his lawyers that they hadn’t prepared him for some of the questions I was asking. The universe of information they had didn’t include me.

LD: You were able to use the element of surprise.

“The only ones who matter are those 12 good people in the jury box. The pundits can say whatever they want.”

JK:  Yes. Some of the turning points were their witnesses’ answers to questions, very human questions that I asked, but they weren’t prepared to act human. They were prepared to spit out the answers that they’d rehearsed.

LD:You mentioned your criminal defense days. The intimate partner violence defense in murder trials was fairly new, wasn’t it?

JK: In those days, it was referred to as the battered women’s defense, but it was fairly new. My case  was a murder trial in Orange County, a gut-wrenching case. I managed to prevail, but that was an agonizing case because I liked my client and it had taken me forever to draw out of her what had really happened. I had to earn her trust. At the end, she sent me a wonderful letter and some flowers telling me that she had not believed that, as she wrote, “A rich white woman like you would care about a poor Black woman like me.”

Well, I wasn’t rich, I was a starving young lawyer in the Public Defender’s Office. But to her, I was. She had been a clerk at a grocery, and her husband had physically abused her throughout their marriage and would come to the market, take her paychecks, and blow them on toys and other women. She was just a wonderful person, salt of the earth. She absorbed a lot of abuse. But when he first physically assaulted one of her girls, that was it.

At the time, the dynamics of intimate partner violence were not that well-known. It had not been previously possible to argue for manslaughter based on “imperfect self-defense,” in that you had an honest belief – even if unreasonable – that you were about to be subjected to abuse again.  The law had been that if you had other options, if you could have left, called the police, etc., you had to use them. Now, we know that people can develop PTSD from repeated intimate partner violence, not believe they have those options, and that you can react much more quickly and forcefully to potential violence than one without that background, because you’re expecting another

violent onslaught at any moment. She was looking at life without parole, and that would’ve just killed me. We actually didn’t have to go to verdict because the DA was taking such a drubbing, and the judge was moved by her story. Even the court reporter, who was always on the side of the DA, one day stood up and walked over to the DA, put her hands down on the desk in front of him and said, “You’re on the wrong side of this one, Pat.” He ended up allowing her to plead to voluntary manslaughter, and then the judge sentenced her to essentially time served. So she was able to go back to her teenage girls.

LD:You’ve done a lot of cases that have been covered closely by the media, including the defense of Kevin Spacey in the sexual battery civil case brought by Anthony Rapp here in New York. How does your approach to litigation change when the whole world is watching?

JK:  Well, it doesn’t change very much, other than you must bear in mind that your client is being tried in the court of public opinion, too, when it comes to his career. As to the courtroom part, lawyers who haven’t handled high-profile cases often mistakenly believe that those cases are won or lost in the media, and they’re really not. The only ones who matter are those 12 good people in the jury box. The pundits can say whatever they want. In Spacey, the pundits were saying that Kevin was going to be found liable and everybody knew “it was an uphill battle.” My trial strategy was being criticized. This one lawyer who probably doesn’t even try jury trials was saying, “Keller’s taking a risk here going after Anthony Rapp and aggressively cross-examining him because she’s taking an all-or-nothing approach.”

What does that even mean, an all-or-nothing approach? My client said it didn’t happen. And from the physical evidence and everything we’ve reconstructed, it’s clear it didn’t happen. So what am I supposed to say, that maybe a little bit happened,

or it happened, maybe, but the damages weren’t as bad? That’s absurd. It didn’t happen. So of course, you’re going to aggressively cross-examine and go for a complete victory. You just have to tune out that kind of criticism.

Tom Mesereau is a good friend of mine, and when he was trying the Michael Jackson case, I saw the same thing. We were talking throughout that trial, and it sounded to me like the trial was going really well. Meanwhile, the pundits were all saying that it was going to be a terrible loss. They were measuring Michael Jackson for the prison cell. And of course, he was acquitted. You have to just focus on the jurors, as Tom did. They’re the ones who matter, not the armchair quarterbacks.

LD: You’ve had such a successful career in the courtroom. What would you say are the qualities that make an effective trial lawyer?

JK:  The biggest thing is just being a human being. Trying to make sure there are as few barriers between you and the jury as possible. So don’t use stiff language like, “Sir, did you have occasion to observe…?” Stay away from technical jargon and speaking in acronyms. You would never talk like that to your next-door neighbor. It sends the message that you consider yourself a very important person using specialized lingo. That’s the last thing you want to do.

Be a nice person. Also, let them know you’re not perfect either. If you screw up a question, don’t say “Strike that.” Because court reporters don’t even strike it anymore, they just type out “Strike that,” and it all lives on in the transcript. It’s distancing language that jurors don’t ever use in their own lives. It’s not a smart move. Just say, “Oh, that was a bad question, let me ask a better one.” And don’t talk down to jurors. Remember that you had to learn everything for the first time at some point, too.

Show your humanity, every chance you get. One trial, I was going through a particularly unpleasant

perimenopause. All of a sudden, I could feel myself turning beet red, sweat just pouring down my face. The jurors looked scared, and probably thought I was having a heart attack. I walked over to counsel table, grabbed a bunch of Kleenexes, patted my face dry and looked up and said, “Ladies and gentlemen, what can I say? I am a woman of a certain age.” They all laughed with relief, and completely loosened up. It really broke the ice, and they were in my corner after that.

The best compliment I ever got was from some jurors after trial, who said, “We all agreed that you remind us of our favorite high school teachers.” Interestingly, my male colleague thought it was sexist. But I thought it was great. The person that you look back on with a lot of affection and who taught you, who you learned things from, who you still remember today as a positive force – that’s a great thing for a jury to say about you.

LD:What inspired you to become a lawyer?

JK: I wanted to be a trial lawyer since I was around 12 years old. Perry Mason had a lot to do with it, and Nancy Drew: Girl Detective. She wasn’t a lawyer, but she could have been. She was the one who figured out all the mysteries and put the bad guys away. But there were very few women trial lawyers in those days. My parents supported me, but it wasn’t commonly seen as doable. Women weren’t supposed to aspire to such things. People would say to me, “Oh honey, you can marry a lawyer and maybe be a legal secretary for a while.”

But then, when I was 16, I became my high school’s representative to something called the District Attorney’s Youth Council. And the only woman in the DA’s office was put in charge of it. Her name was Alicemarie Huber, later to become Alicemarie Huber Stotler. She was young, maybe 12 years old than I. That was a revelation to me, like aha, this is possible. I always looked up to her. She was a terrific lawyer and was also fun to be around. She wasn’t stuffy,

“The best compliment I ever got was from some jurors after trial, who said, “We all agreed that you remind us of our favorite high school teachers.””

“I was told by one firm that they would love to hire me, but their secretaries would never take orders from a woman.”

either. She ended up first becoming a state court judge, then a federal district court judge, and finally the Chief Judge of the Central District of California.

LD: Did you fi nd other female mentors once you started your career?

JK: Most of my mentors were male, because there just weren’t that many women trial lawyers. My first bosses were very encouraging. The Public Defender’s Office was a real meritocracy – all they cared about was that you get out there, try cases, and win. They wouldn’t care of you were a giraffe, they just wanted you to win. One time, I was complaining bitterly about some horribly sexist thing a judge had said to me, and my boss was like, “Oh yeah, that’s terrible. What an asshole. Well, get back in the ring, kid.” That was all I needed.

LD:Do you remember what the judge said?

JK: Oh yes. It was my first homicide trial. The judge was a real jerk. He called me into chambers with the DA and said, “Let me tell you something. I don’t believe in lady lawyers.”

LD: Oh god. Like you’re a leprechaun.

JK:  Right. What an idiot. I tried to be lighthearted and said, “Well, we exist. Here I am, a living proof.” He said, “You know darn well what I mean.” And then, “If you ever try to use your feminine wiles during this trial or bat your eyelashes or anything, I’m going to put a stop to it.” So again, I tried a little humor and said, “Well, thanks, your Honor. That’s the first time anybody’s even accused me of having feminine wiles.” That just made him more infuriated.

But that’s what it could be like in those days. When I was interviewing for jobs, people would ask what kind of birth control I used. They wanted me to guarantee that I wouldn’t have children for X period of time. I was told by one firm that they would love to hire me, but their secretaries would never take orders from a woman. Another one said that their wives wouldn’t put up with it. Like they were a bunch of dreamboats

and I would be trying to rip their clothes off.

LD:Wow. Did all that factor into your decision to open your own firm with Kay Anderle?

JK:  Not really. Much of that atmosphere had dissipated by the time we opened our office. Sexism now is far more subtle. A judge pulling that today would end up in front of the Commission on Judicial Performance. I just always wanted to be my own boss, and so did Kay. We’re way too independent to thrive in hierarchy where we have to take orders.

Kay had been my opponent in the DA’s office. She’s a top-notch trial attorney with a lot of common sense, and we became close friends. No woman is an island, and I haven’t been able to do the things I’ve done without great support all around me. And the number one source of that support is Kay. She handles the management side of the firm and she’s just incredible at it. She also pitches in on trials every time we need her. She can do it all.

My partner Chase Scolnick is also fantastic. I tried the Spacey case with him. He has tremendous energy and enthusiasm, and is one of the few young trial lawyers who’s tried over 50 jury trials to verdict as lead counsel. All of them have been in federal court, and his win/loss ration is astounding, especially given that he was a federal public defender.

You don’t tend to achieve success all by yourself. We’ve built the firm to have a mix of outstanding people, from the criminal justice system and from Big Law, and we try to nurture everyone’s various talents. A lot of the lawyers in our firm are absolutely brilliant, so I’ve achieved my goal of being surrounded by people smarter than I am.

Civil litigation is a team effort. I’m always delighted when people learn how good the rest of our lawyers are. There’s nothing I like better than hearing a client is no longer calling me, but is now calling one of my colleagues instead. They deserve to have that kind of trust reposed in them. And it gives me a break, too!

FRANK LAMOTHE

FRANK LAMOTHE’S WIFE TELLS HIM HE ONLY HAS TWO SPEEDS: ON AND OFF.

“Off is when I’m asleep,” he half-jokes.

As he tells this story, the titan of the Louisiana plaintiffs’ bar sits at his desk next to a bust of Gandhi. Around the statue’s neck hang multiple medals marking Lamothe’s participation in a host of high-intensity bicycling races. Cycling, a sport he picked up during the pandemic as a quarantine-friendly alternative to his other athletic love, Krav Maga, has never been a simple hobby. “I couldn’t just ride in the park and come home. I had to go the whole way,” he says.

A believer in the idea that hard work requires a degree of suffering, Lamothe says, “I’m willing to suffer in cycling, as well. But that’s part of pushing yourself. You have to learn to push boundaries at all

BY EMILY JACKOWAY

times. That’s also true of what we do in law.”

The intensity of an athlete and the empathy of Gandhi –  a representation of Lamothe’s nearly 50-year career in service of those who need his help most.

Right out of law school, Lamothe sought ways to benefit the highest number of underrepresented people he could, leading him to the New Orleans Legal Assistance Corporation. After entering private practice, Lamothe’s wide-ranging career took him from maritime litigation to bringing cases against the nation’s largest oil giants to, more recently, landmark work taking on the clergy on behalf of survivors of sexual abuse.

In his first of those matters, Lamothe represented men who were abused as children – boys ages six to 13 – while at youth homes Madonna Manor and

“I’m not going to say I don’t do well with authority, but I prefer to be the authority. You want to set your values and make your work something you can believe in.”

Hope Haven. The men who spoke up had abuse claims dating as far back as the 1940s. After hearing from more than 50 survivors, in 2009 the Archdiocese reached a $5.1M settlement.

On cases like this, Lamothe says, “Our focus is on making people’s lives better. I can’t make anybody’s life perfect, but we can make it better for them.”

The legendary trial lawyer was inducted into the Lawdragon Hall of Fame this year.

Lawdragon: Tell me about your early work as a personal injury attorney.

Frank Lamothe: After my time at the New Orleans Legal Assistance Corporation, I wanted to keep finding ways to help people who didn’t have the resources to have their problems addressed. So, I went to work in a law firm that did plaintiffs’ personal injury work.

LD: What kinds of cases were you taking on at first?

FL: Back in those days, maritime cases were always popular. We’re a port city. We have offshore activity tied to maritime work. Then, you had your full-service tort matters. People who needed help.

LD: Which early cases cemented your love of what you did?

FL: One of my great early cases was an aviation case involving a church in North Louisiana called the Church of Christ, a large evangelical church with a worldwide presence.

They were erecting a radio tower in Martinique to broadcast their message, and they had a singleengine airplane flying around the area looking for a site for the tower. The plane’s wing fell off, the plane crashed and a handful of people were killed. We ended up trying that before a jury in Arizona and received a significant award.

LD: What were some of the challenges of the case?

FL: We sent an aircraft accident investigator to Martinique, and he found parts of the aircraft that

were not previously found in the jungle. The French government has secured the wreckage and sent the parts to Paris for destructive testing. They wouldn’t release their test results or the parts, but they gave us crash site photos. So, we tried the case off photos, plus what we found in the jungle.

But we had great success, and it went up all way to Arizona Supreme Court.

LD: Wow. Then, tell me about the founding of your firm. What led you to want to hang out your shingle?

FL: To be independent.

I’m not one of these people who likes to be a lawyer in a row and have some other, more centralized authority that I have to answer to. I’m not going to say I don’t do well with authority, but I prefer to be the authority. You want to set your values and make your work something you can believe in.

LD: How would you describe your values?

FL: We emphasize quality. We have to be better than the firms we litigate against. We want to outwork them and outthink them and be prepared to try the cases if they need to get tried.

LD: Tell me about what you enjoy about being in court.

FL: Well, you’re alive.

It is an intense environment where I feel I do something at my best, which is trying a lawsuit. It’s gratifying to feel that you presented your client’s cause in the best way it could possibly be presented. That’s what we’re after.

LD: How did the firm develop? What practice areas started first?

FL: It’s changed over time. We did a lot of maritime work. Now, we do a lot more sex abuse cases than before. In fact, when I started practicing law, I don’t think I’d ever heard of a sex abuse case before. Later, our society had more awareness that this was a terrible, unaddressed problem.

LD: What first brought that to your attention?

FL: Obviously, there were a series of clergy scandals around the country bringing things to light. Locally, there was a serious matter involving Madonna Manor, which was a Catholic school and residential environment for young boys.

I had a lawyer reach out to me who said he needed a good trial lawyer, and he asked me to help him with these cases. So, we put together a team, and the cases have kept coming and are still alive today.

We didn’t realize, when we started, how many cases there were. Hundreds of people were abused in this environment. We started out with 18 people, but that was just the beginning.

LD: Was that your first sex abuse case?

FL: It was. Now we handle sex abuse cases, not just with clergy, but we’re dealing with schools and we’re dealing with work environments, because, unfortunately, it’s ubiquitous. If I could get put out of business in that area, I’d be happy, but it seems to keep coming.

LD: Tell me about working with your clients in those cases.

FL: We hate to even call them clients, because we speak of these people as survivors.

It’s a different type of relationship than working with somebody who got in an automobile wreck or who got hurt at work. These people have a lot of emotional issues, and we have to have a special understanding of them and care for them. We see people show up with drug addiction problems. Some of them have been to jail. They cannot maintain relationships. They have no trust because their trust has been breached.

We’ve had people call up and tell us they were going to take their lives and we’ve had to talk them out of it. I’ve had people sit in an office with me and tell me that they were thinking about doing that. You have to tell them you love them. You care for them. And you would hope that they would not do such a

thing. So far, none have. This is not something you learn in law school.

LD: That’s tragic, and emotionally trying for you and your team, as well.

FL: Some people say, “Does it wear on you?” I say, “Well, it does in a certain way,” but at the same time, it makes me feel very fulfilled if I help them.

LD: How else do you go about supporting them outside of working on their case?

FL: Well, we do everything we can to support them. It’s not just, “Okay, you’re our client, we’re going to try to get you some money.” We try to make them feel that they have human worth and that we believe in them, we believe in their story and that we’re there for them.

A lot of times, they want more than money. They want validation. They want acknowledgement of a wrong. So, we help them get that.

LD: Outside of the Madonna Manor cases, what other cases stand out to you in that area?

FL: Right now, we’re involved with the Archdiocese of New Orleans. They filed bankruptcy because of the number of cases that were being brought involving clergy abuse.

We represent a large group of survivors – more than any other single law firm in the bankruptcy. We’re intimately involved in the process, and working towards, hopefully, some adequate outcome for all the survivors in the case.

LD: You recently visited the Louisiana Supreme Court as they weighed the constitutionality of a suggested lookback window in the state. I know that you’ve been an advocate for those lookback windows and for removing statutes of limitations.

FL: We have been. Studies show that most survivors don’t come forward until they’re in their early 50s. It’s a terrible, dark thing that’s happened to them, and they have difficulty coming out and saying, “This is what happened.”

“It’s a terrible, dark thing that’s happened to them, and they have di culty coming out and saying, “ is is what happened.””

I had one client who came to our offi ce under a pseudonym. He also created a fake email address. Once he came here and got a little more comfortable, he told me who he was.

So, these lookback windows are to give these people who are lost and forgotten in our society a chance to come forward, if they choose to. This legislation has been passed in a number of states. Ours was challenged on the grounds of constitutionality and had a hearing on May 1st of this year, but the court decided to not rule on constitutionality and remanded back to the trial court for some additional proceedings. We should have addressed the issue of constitutionality. It’s postponing the inevitable. But obviously, that was the opinion of the court. We had to accept it. But it’s disappointing for people that have waited a long time for an answer.

LD: Tell me about going up against the archdiocese and other major organizations in your practice. What are some of the challenges there?

FL: The challenges are always going to be resources, because they’re hiring large law firms and paying them a lot of money for representation. So, they’re David versus Goliath battles.

But we are able to go around the corners as quickly as they go around the corners. We have strong commitment, smart people and expertise. So, we can do everything we need to do to produce good outcomes for our clients.

LD: What other cases throughout your career stand out to you, in your sexual abuse practice or in any other practice area?

FL: I did another aviation case as a young lawyer. They threw me into the breach. I didn’t carry anybody’s briefcase. I carried my own briefcase.

We had an aviation crash that involved a corporate King Air prop aircraft. On takeoff, it hit trees 43 feet high off the end of the runaway. Obviously, it didn’t gain any altitude.

There were a number of theories as to why that happened. The defense claimed that the pilot had a condition known as sarcoidosis of the liver, which could impact the nerve bundle in the heart. So, I hired the world’s expert on sarcoidosis who debunked that theory. And we successfully resolved the case.

LD: That must have been appreciated – taking that kind of initiative as a young lawyer.

FL: Well, young lawyers need to learn to reach for the stars. Don’t be timid. Go ahead and get the very best and work with them.

LD: What other advice would you give to early career lawyers?

FL: You have to work hard. Everybody needs to suffer. I know people don’t like to hear that they have to suffer, but they do. It’s like being an endurance athlete. You have to suffer, because part of your success is the ability to suffer and persevere.

It’s a calling. I don’t like lawyers who are just wellrounded. I want someone who’s capable of being intense, who’s capable of focusing and who has a sense of commitment.

LD: Tell me about some recent memorable cases.

FL: We recently concluded a local case involving the Seacor disaster. They had a special-purpose vessel that was caught in bad weather, and it capsized. A number of people, unfortunately, went down with it and died horrible deaths. Others were able to get out, float with life vests and be rescued.

We had a client who was fortunate enough to be able to get out, but it was extremely harrowing for him. They were trying to break a window with a fire extinguisher in the room he was in – which was still above water, thank goodness – but they couldn’t do it for 15 or 20 minutes. Finally, it broke, he got out and he was in violent seas for four hours before he got picked up. He was just lucky to be found by someone. It was getting close to nightfall. If nightfall had come, he would not have survived the night.

LD: How would you describe the attorneys at your firm? What makes the firm unique?

FL: All of us have a commitment to helping people who are disadvantaged. We’re not here just to find a way to make money. The fact that clients make it to our office is a huge accomplishment for a lot of these people. It wasn’t easy for them to do that. But they made it, and they have an opportunity to tell a story that’s been burning inside of them for all these years. We listen to their stories, and then we effectively tell their story to help them.

We’re willing to sacrifi ce for that goal with some long hours on occasion – to keep persevering when we’re tired. But you got to have to keep going. It’s that last 10 miles of the marathon. You have to just push through. That’s what we do.

HAROLD NIX

IF YOU THINK THE SLEEPY, 2,500person town of Daingerfield, Texas isn’t where you’d expect the birthplace of a nationally acclaimed plaintiffs’ firm to be, you think very differently from Harold Nix.

Born and raised in the same small area where he still resides, the renowned commercial and personal injury litigator founded his firm, Nix Patterson, in Daingerfield in 1985. Today, they’re still operating with that smalltown feel – on a national scale. In the last four decades, Nix and his team have recovered more than $25B for plaintiffs in high-profile class actions, securities litigation, toxic torts, individual personal injury cases and more. The firm now operates out of Texarkana, Texas – as the name suggests, along the border of Texas and Arkansas – along with offices in Austin and Oklahoma City, serving clients across the country.

BY EMILY JACKOWAY

Nix is perhaps best known for his work in a landmark 1995 tobacco litigation, where Nix Patterson, along with four other firms, represented the State of Texas against major tobacco companies. The team came to the case after Big Tobacco had seen more than 800 litigation victories; famously, Nix and partners were the ones to bring them to heel. Together, the plaintiffs’ team achieved a settlement of more than $17B – which the firm says was the largest civil litigation settlement in history at that point. “Our handling of the Texas Tobacco cases was without doubt history-making and the highlight of our careers,” says Nix.

In another prominent ‘90s litigation, Nix and partner Cary Patterson spent more than a decade representing steelworkers at Lone Star Steel Mill. The workers suffered from cancer and breathing conditions after

“ ere were no lawyers in my family of farmers and working people and having the experience of seeing lawyers perform live in that courtroom made all the di erence.”

years of exposure to silica and asbestos, and the Nix Patterson team brought a monumental toxic tort litigation that resulted in a $90M settlement for the injured steelworkers.

Nix’s passion for serving the disadvantaged has been a core tenant of the firm. He has been firmly committed to pro bono work throughout his career, and he is a dedicated philanthropist. His philanthropy focuses on local issues, as well as education, cancer research and women’s rights. The firm has worked with entities including the Women’s Center of East Texas and family shelters in the area.

Nix was inducted to the Lawdragon Hall of Fame in 2021.

Lawdragon: Was it ever challenging to operate at a high level in a small town? What drew you to stay there all these years?

Harold Nix: I was born a mile south of the city limits of Daingerfield. Shortly thereafter, we moved to the community of Jenkins, where my father worked in a sawmill and we lived in one of the owners’ tenant houses. I attended the Daingerfield Schools from first through 12th grades. My father started working for the local county sheriff as the deputy sheriff in the early ‘50s and continued to work there throughout my youth and formative years. That’s important to my early history because the Morris County Courthouse and District Judge and County Judge’s offices were directly across the street.

During those years, my father would take me to the courthouse and sheriff’s office where I met numerous lawyers and judges. Early on in the ‘50s I became known around the courthouse as “Little Guy Boy,” a take-off on my father’s name – Guy. More importantly, I started being exposed to lawyers, courtrooms, judges, hearings, trials, early on in my life. The rest is history.

That brings me to your important question: Was it ever challenging to operate at a high level in the small Texas town of Daingerfield? Challenging, yes, but important and necessary for the making and building of our

outstanding Nix Patterson firm we have today. And on the question of what drew me to stay all these years, I’ll give you the short and simple answer: My love of family, friends, neighbors, clients, the poor, the afflicted, the oppressed and the direction from the Lord!

LD: So your inspiration to become a lawyer started from childhood?

HN: Yes; I first decided I wanted to be a lawyer in those early days of hanging out around the Morris County Courthouse and sheriff’s office. Any time my dad had the opportunity to take me to the courtroom to watch a hearing before the court, he did so. By the time I reached junior high, I was a seasoned observer of lawyers and saw how good lawyers could and did make a difference. There were no lawyers in my family of farmers and working people and having the experience of seeing lawyers perform live in that courtroom made all the difference. Reflecting back, I don’t remember exactly when it was during those formative years that I decided I wanted to be a lawyer, but I dreamed about it by the time I entered high school.

LD: Was there an early win in your career that made you realize you were going to be successful in this field?

HN: Yes. In fact, there were two cases early on. Interestingly enough, both were criminal cases and both pro bono; one was a murder case in Morris County and the other a case of rape in Mt. Vernon. Both had all the evidence and trappings of guilt. The latter had the sheriff of Franklin County, a local county in our Judicial District, as the star witness. The other case was a double murder case in Daingerfield and the defendant was the son of a local farmer, a family friend who I had known since childhood. Without detailing the chilling facts of the double murder of the two unarmed victims sitting in their car, a guilty verdict was anticipated by all but me and my client. Looking back, those were the early two cases that gave me complete confidence that I could and would become a good trial lawyer.

LD: Why did you decide to start your own firm?

HN: My dream from the day I started at Baylor Law

School on a full-tuition scholarship was to someday have my own firm. Right out of law school, I took a job with a small firm that wanted me to start a litigation practice for them in Lufkin. After about three months of doing nothing but abstract and property work, my wife, baby daughter and I packed everything in our old car and drove the 75 miles to Daingerfield. That ended my work for another firm and the rest is history.

LD: What is your leadership style?

HN: I would have to say that my leadership style in the Nix Patterson firm has been to depend on my partners to hire great young partners (and they do that) and to stay out of the way. That’s been highly successful and makes my job easy.

LD: How about in the courtroom – what’s your style there?

HN: I strive to be myself, connect with the jury and show kindness to all; no notes, no airs, freewheeling. And to not be pushed around!

LD: Out of all the work you’ve done in your career, is there a particular case that stands out as a favorite or is otherwise most memorable?

HN: Yes, without question – this is an easy one! We still refer to it as the Texas Tobacco Litigation Case, the case in which we obtained millions of dollars from the tobacco industry for the State of Texas and its school children after a long and difficult fight. Our team of lawyers was headed up by my Baylor Law School classmate Walter Umphrey of Beaumont. The litigation team included John O’Quinn of Houston, another Baylor Law School classmate John Eddie Williams of Houston, Wayne Reaud of Beaumont, my partner Cary Patterson and me. It’s my favorite case and certainly the most memorable.

LD: How is it different representing a sovereign state, as you did in that litigation, versus citizens or companies? How does your approach change?

HN: That’s a good question but with a simple answer. Assuming you have a normal type of representative of the state – i.e. attorney general, state rep., governor, etc.

– the approach changes very little. The main difference is that normally there’s already a good relationship with the representatives of the state; otherwise you won’t be representing the state in the first place. You can depend on it. The approach is simply to strengthen the relationship.

LD: You’ve been practicing for over 50 years. How has the industry changed since you were a new lawyer –  the good, the bad and the ugly?

HN: Law practice has become much more technical and diverse but also more rewarding. On the other hand, it’s become more difficult and demanding. But in recent years, I note the hostility and lack of civility among lawyers that I never saw in those “old days.” As with society itself, there is an anger and hostility in the air among lawyers and in the judiciary that we never saw in those earlier times. It’s sad! Especially to an old lawyer like me.

LD: You are an active philanthropist. How do you decide what causes to pursue?

HN: I’m a strong believer in good causes! I always prefer to help our local needs and the needy first. However, education, cancer research, and women’s rights are right there at the top of the list.

LD: Is the firm still pursuing pro bono work?

HN: Our pro bono docket is now in the hands of our younger lawyers for the most part, who are encouraged to handle any and all they may have time for.

LD: What advice do you have for young lawyers today who want to build a name for themselves in the law?

HN: Reflecting on my career and the early years of practice, I got up early every morning and went to work in my little two-room frame office next to the Daingerfield courthouse. So, the first requirement is to dedicate oneself to hard work. The other necessary requirement is to find the right partner to have on the journey to success. I hired Cary Patterson from Texarkana to join me as my partner just a few years into my practice; the rest is history.

“I strive to be myself, connect with the jury and show kindness to all; no notes, no airs, freewheeling. And to not be pushed around!”

ROBERT RILEY

BY EMILY JACKOWAY

IF YOU ASK A FOUR-YEAR-OLD WHAT they want to be when they grow up, you’ll probably receive an answer like:

“Firefighter.”

“Dinosaur expert.”

“Ballerina.”

At that age, Bob Riley wanted to be a lawyer. He looks back on his earliest memories, before he had even started elementary school, and sees his father standing in the well of a courtroom. “I don’t know what case he was arguing or why I was there. Maybe my mom and I were just meeting my dad for lunch,” remembers Riley. “But the courtroom left an indelible impression on me. Growing up, I had this notion that that’s what I was born to do. I never seriously considered another path.” From day one, Riley has been a trial lawyer, through and through.

Right out of law school, he sought that trial experience at Schiff Hardin, where he’d spend the next three decades of his career. Riley built an impressive defense practice representing clients in complex product liability, white-collar, mass tort and environmental cases, developing a substantial appellate practice, as well. From early product liability and mass tort litigations to chairing the firm for ten years, Riley built a career defined by exceptional advocacy and

leadership. Then, in 2016, it was time to continue that standard of excellence in a new way.

He and a group of attorneys at the firm, including Ron Safer, Patricia Brown Holmes and Joe Cancila, saw the chance to create a law firm from scratch – a pillar of excellence defined by service to the client and the attorneys who worked there. A firm where diversity would be integral to excellence. A firm where pro bono clients would be treated with the same level of respect and dedication as Fortune 500 clients. They created Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila.

“I admired everyone’s courage in pulling together in the pursuit of this idea that we could create a firm that’s different from every other firm out there,” Riley says. In the last seven years, the firm has grown from a group of 22 attorneys with a vision to a firm with five offices in Chicago, San Francisco, New York, L.A. and Ann Arbor,

Mich. tackling major white-collar litigation. In the first year after the firm’s founding, Riley successfully argued two cases in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Lawdragon Hall of Fame member says that a career trying cases has matched his childhood dreams. “There’s nothing like it,” Riley says. “The role of a lawyer in a jury trial is the epitome of what we’re supposed to do: serve our clients and serve the system of justice as officers of the court. It’s everything I wanted it to be.”

Lawdragon: Your firm started with this idea of a blank slate – creating an inclusive place that would make people happy to practice there from the ground-up. How did you go about achieving those principles?

Robert Riley: Whether we’re achieving them is determined in the eyes of all my colleagues. But we started the firm to be one with an uncompromising commitment to professional excellence in the service of clients. A lot goes into that. For example, our commitment to diversity.

LD: Tell me about that.

RR: Diversity is part of our commitment to professional excellence, which we define as tapping a wide range of exceptionally talented people who are empowered to bring their diverse perspectives and backgrounds to benefit our clients.

As diverse as we are, we all have the same mission. We serve clients at the highest conceivable professional

“I view this as a service profession at all levels. You’re serving your client; you’re serving the court; you’re serving a jury who’s charged with this awesome responsibility.”

level, and we believe our diversity empowers that, as opposed to it being some goal that’s independent of the core mission of the law firm.

LD: What do you look for in bringing on people who will commit to that vision?

RR: That may be the most important question for the firm over the long-term. We want to continue to attract, identify, recruit, develop and retain people who share that common set of characteristics.

Everyone we look at is smart and has credentials, but what we’re looking for, in addition to that, are the intangibles. What have they confronted and overcome in their lives? How have they demonstrated resilience? What’s their level of commitment?

We rely on everybody being all in because everybody bears a lot of responsibility for the success of a young and growing firm. That gig isn’t for everyone, and that’s fine. But we want somebody who’s courageous enough to say, “I get what you’re doing. I want the challenge.” And believe me, you find those characteristics in a widely diverse group of people.

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

RR: I would be the worst person in the world to describe my own style. If you try jury cases, you know what matters is what the jury takes away about the client’s cause. You’re the vehicle through which the client and the case are viewed. It’s important to understand the humility that requires because you’re not really in charge. The judge is in charge of the courtroom and the jury is in charge of the outcome.

So, I view this as a service profession at all levels. You’re serving your client; you’re serving the court; you’re serving a jury who’s charged with this awesome responsibility. Your job is not just to be an advocate, but to empower the jury to do the right thing. If you think about it that way, it helps you avoid that narrow view of a lawyer’s job solely as the mouthpiece of the client.

LD: We spoke with Ron Safer last year, and he described you as strategic and dogged.

RR: Well, Ron is the trial lawyer everyone aspires to be. He has an unmatched commitment to the process and to our clients. He is a generational talent in the courtroom and an extraordinary leader in our firm and in the profession.  He is also one of the best people I know.

LD: What do you admire about the other named partners?

RR: Patricia Brown Holmes is a force of nature. She is a brilliant lawyer and strategist. There’s not much in the law she hasn’t done. Her judgment is impeccable. She is a powerful presence in any room in which she sits. Yet, I suspect she’d be the last person to claim that that’s true.

Joe [Cancila] is the quintessential lawyer’s lawyer. He is analytically precise and deeply dedicated to the client’s cause. He doesn’t leave a stone unturned, a thought unconsidered. He is careful, deliberate and has an outstanding legal mind.

I am proud of the fact that all of the lawyers in our firm have an unparalleled commitment to professional excellence that mirrors the commitment of Ron, Patricia and Joe. My colleagues are not just smart, they embody the resilience, commitment, courage and drive that differentiate lawyers who can and will try a case to verdict.

Ed Casmere is a great example.  I tried a case with Ed when he was a first-year lawyer.  Along with every other task imposed by the trial, I gave him two witnesses to examine, and he never flinched.  He is immensely talented, has a natural touch with a jury, and has never stopped pushing himself up the learning curve.

LD: What initiated your decision to start a firm together?

RR: A multi-generational group of us said, “We can continue to practice at the highest level, but we can do it in a law firm that walks and talks differently.”

We think clients want a law firm that is more closely aligned with the priorities of the people we serve. Large institutional firms are powerful for a reason, but they can be inward-looking because you have to run a big organization in a certain way. Starting a law firm from

scratch allowed us to focus almost exclusively on what serves the client.

LD: What has changed since the firm’s start?

RR: We quadrupled the size of the firm in a relatively short period of time. There’s an imperative that we continue to grow because we’re fortunate to have clients who demand our services, and we have to be positioned to meet those demands. That means that we need to continue to attract multi-generational talent so that whoever shows up from Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila at whatever level of experience is going to be the best lawyer at that level of experience you’ve ever seen.

LD: Tell me about that emphasis on multi-generational talent. Why is that so key?

RR: Unlike a lot of firms that start with a couple of contemporaries, we started with people whose ages ranged from their 30s to their 60s. That gives you a breadth of perspective. It also tells clients right out of the gate that the people founding the firm have a long view.

If the firm has a legacy, it’s going to be the people who emerge over time as lawyers with a full skillset –amazing lawyers who can carry the firm forward long after I’m a distant memory. That’s what you hope for; that’s what you form the law firm to become; that process has already started.

And if I have any legacy in the practice of law, it resides in the people that I’ve practiced with from their first days out of law school. If I have made any contribution to their careers, it has been to trust them with opportunities that have allowed them to make themselves into exceptional professionals on every level.

LD: Would you say then that mentorship plays a significant role in your practice?

RR: I hope it does. Again, the people who would judge that are the people I’m working with.

The real learning happens in the trenches. I try to lead by example. Being part of a team where everybody brings his or her best to the table in the service of the

client – that’s where the real mentorship takes place.

The practice of law is an apprenticeship model. I’m working with some young lawyers now who are amazing. They’re talented and gritty and committed. Hopefully, they recognize that you’re always going to be learning; you’re always going to be trying to improve your craft. If that takes root relatively early in a lawyer’s career, it’ll never leave that lawyer, in my experience.

LD: Do you have any specific examples of learning that takes place on your feet?

RR: One is being able to hear yourself in court or a deposition with “transcript ears.” It’s not what I thought you said – it’s what you actually said; it’s what I actually ask. The precision that demands as a questioner who frames clear questions and insists on clear answers, is a cardinal lesson.

LD: Taking a step back, which cases you’ve tried during your career really stand out in your memory?

RR: They all do.

I’ve spent a career trying complex cases across the country – cases that lasted for months at a time against extraordinarily gifted lawyers on the other side. I’ve tried cases against the late Ron Motley, Mark Lanier and Perry Weitz, who are some of the most accomplished people in the plaintiffs’ bar. I’ve worked on cases with incredibly talented lawyers outside my own law firm, like W.G. Watkins from Mississippi, Bruce Shaw from South Carolina and Steve Johnson from the Pacific Northwest. I learned a great deal about my craft in every one of those experiences.

LD: What did you learn?

RR: I learned about the weight of responsibility imposed by a client’s trust to stand in the well of a courtroom on their behalf. I learned about the importance of credibility in doing so. I learned you can disagree without having to be constantly disagreeable. You can forge relationships even with people who are on the other side of the bar. I’m proud to say I have developed

“Being part of a team where everybody brings his or her best to the table in the service of the client – that’s where the real mentorship takes place.”

“The point is to try to persuade the bench to consider the path that’s going to lead to the result that your client needs, while shaping the law in a rational way.”

relationships with people on the other side of cases where we fought hard and long. I want to practice with the best lawyers I can find, and I want to test myself against the best lawyers in the profession.

LD: What else has made your cases fulfilling?

RR: Whether you’re trying a case in a big city or a small rural community, there’s something common about a jury trial. You have to find a way to establish credibility in the courtroom with a judge you’ve never seen before and with a jury of people who come from that community.

LD: How do you do that?

RR: You have to be your authentic self. If I were to try to affect a voice mimicking those around me, I’d be phony and everybody in the room would know it. I tell them who I am and try to convey that I’m going to try to earn the right for them to listen to me. You have to earn your credibility, and there’s a certain humility that comes with that.

LD: Tell me a bit about your substantial appellate practice.

RR: That’s been a tremendously rewarding part of my career because it’s gotten me in front of the Illinois Supreme Court on multiple occasions, as well as the highest courts in New York, Oregon, Maryland, Wisconsin and other states. I have argued repeatedly in various Federal Courts of Appeal.  I’ve had the same kind of national scope in my appellate practice as I have in my trial practice. The same amount of preparation and hard work is required. The burden of the client’s trust is the same. Your command of the facts and the law has to be complete.

LD: What are the differences between your trial practice and your appellate practice?

RR: Oral advocacy in an appellate case is not about arguing with anybody. The point is to try to persuade the bench to consider the path that’s going to lead to the result that your client needs, while shaping the law in a rational way.

When I’m asked to talk about appellate advocacy, I always try to explain to people that a question from an appellate panel, even if it sounds hostile, is a gift. It tells you what the court’s concerned about and gives you the opportunity to address that, which you should embrace. Once, a judge said, “It sounds like you expected that question.” My response was, “Your Honor, I hoped for it.”

LD: How did you learn to look at appeals that way?

RR: The first time I argued in the 7th Circuit, I was interrupted between saying “good” and “morning.” I got questions nonstop, and they were not softballs. When my time ran out, the chief judge of the 7th Circuit looked down at me and he said, “Counsel, was there anything that you had wanted to say?” I smiled and I said, “As a matter of fact, there was, Your Honor.” He said, “Why don’t you take a couple of minutes to say it?”

LD: That’s great.

RR: That was Judge Cummings. He’s going to live in my heart forever because, as a kid lawyer, he gave me that little bit of leeway.

LD: What continues to excite you every day about your practice? Has it changed since the beginning of your career?

RR: Having the privilege of representing a client in a system of justice I revere is what’s motivated me through my entire career, and that’ll never change for me. I was lucky to find that path early in life and commit to it. I’m proud that, from where I sit now, I can say that with conviction.

LD: What else are you proud of?

RR: I’m proud of my wife and my kids. I’m proud of the people that my kids have become. I’m proud of my grandchildren. My family has been central to me throughout my life. I’m proud of my professional life and what I’ve tried to achieve, but my family’s always been first to me.

6 DECADES OF 7 AND 8 FIGURE RESULTS 6 DECADES OF 7 AND 8 FIGURE RESULTS

Voted the #1 Personal Injury Firm in San Francisco for the third consecutive year in 2022, the Walkup Personal Injury team has exited the Covid-19 court lockdowns with energy, optimism, and newly minted remote litigation skills. Our trial lawyers have resisted widespread surrender to “trial by zoom” and stood by our clients over the last 30 months to achieve fair and just trial, arbitration, and mediation results.

We boast three firm members selected to the Lawdragon 500, as well as the top vote-getter in the Super Lawyers “Top Ten“ ranking for all of Northern California. Our trial team includes five members of The American College of Trial Lawyers, four members of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, five members of the International Society of Barristers, and five past-Presidents of the San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association.

We teach for USF School of Law, Berkeley Law and Stanford Law School, NITA and ABOTA.

Our skills improve and evolve with every case we prosecute. With seven and eight-figure recoveries in cases involving cerebral palsy, sexual abuse, toxic poisoning, paraplegia, brain damage, thermal burns, wrongful death, bicycle and pedestrian accidents, we are leaders in the tort field. Our lawyers hold leadership positions in the JUUL litigation, Paraquat MDL, PG&E fire litigation, and Pacific Fertility Clinic litigation.

We accept referrals from counsel across the nation. We pay referral fees consistent with State Bar rules. We are prepared and zealous advocates for clients in cases across California and the West.

The Legends

These Legends range from the remarkable Barry Berke of Kramer Levin, counsel to CBS, Democrats in the Donald Trump impeachment proceedings and countless accused financiers, to Taurie Zeitzer of Paul Weiss, global co-chair of Paul Weiss’ powerhouse M&A practice.

Each of these top-tier 23 have been recognized with Lawdragon 500 distinction repeatedly, typically 10 times or more. It is an illustrious group, which we began recognizing in 2015 when we celebrated our 10th anniversary.

Also included are one of Texas’ top trial lawyers, Tom Melsheimer of Winston & Strawn, as well as Norton Rose’s Global Chief Executive Gerard Pecht.

We’re particularly thrilled at the powerful representation of women lawyers in this year’s Legends –lucky 13! They include Latham’s Jamie Wine, Williams & Connolly’s Heidi Hubbard, Hogan Lovell’s Cate Stetson, and another Paul Weiss standout, Melinda Haag.

We’re grateful at the opportunity to recognize each and every one of these amazing lawyers for their inspiring work as leaders in the legal profession.

Barry Berke

GIBSON DUNN NEW YORK

His work as the U.S. House’s chief impeachment counsel in Trump’s Senate trial was just the latest high-profile matter for one of the nation’s top white-collar lawyers.

Photo by Laura

Barisonzi

Mats Carlston

WINSTON & STRAWN NEW YORK

The co-chair of Winson’s finance practice has long been one of the nation’s best dealmakers when it comes to complex financings.

Photo provided by the firm

Andrew R. Brownstein

WACHTELL NEW YORK

A mainstay of Wachtell’s team, Brownstein’s deal-list tally for the world’s leading businesses totals well into the trillions of dollars.

Photo provided by the firm

Brian Duwe

SKADDEN CHICAGO

Abbott Laboratories, Philip Morris, Kraft Foods, Cardinal Health and US BioEnergy Corp. and countless others have relied on Duwe for his dealmaking wizardry.

Photo provided by the firm

Howard Ellin

SKADDEN NEW YORK

Ellin continues to engineer an endless list of multibillion-dollar transactions, handling many of the biggest in the media and technology industries.

provided by the firm

Ilene Knable Gotts

WACHTELL NEW YORK

The former FTC attorney has among the most accomplished records in handling antitrust complications to major transactions.

Photo provided by the firm

Fidelma L. Fitzpatrick

MOTLEY RICE PROVIDENCE

She has been one of the nation’s most effective advocates for people and governments harmed by defective products in the medical and consumer spaces.

provided by the firm

Benjamin Gruenstein

CRAVATH NEW YORK

This standout of the white-collar bar steers corporate clients through the thorniest investigations and civil claims.

provided by the firm

Photo

Photo

Photo

Melinda Haag

PAUL WEISS SAN FRANCISCO

This former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California makes one of the most sough-after trial attorneys high-stakes cases.

Photo provided by the firm

Jameel Jaffer

KNIGHT FIRST AMENDMENT INSTITUTE

NEW YORK

A former deputy legal director of the ACLU, Jaffer is a true legend as an advocate and thought-leader in the media space.

Photo provided by the firm

Heidi Hubbard

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY WASHINGTON, D.C. Hubbard’s track record in complex litigation is astonishing, placing her among the most elite advocates for Corporate America’s giants.

Photo provided by the firm

Erika A. Kelton

PHILLIPS & COHEN WASHINGTON, D.C. Kelton is unquestionably one the most prolific and successful whistleblower attorneys in American legal history.

Photo by Eli Meir Kaplan

Gayle

R. Klein

FRESHFIELDS NEW YORK

A master at complex financial cases, Klein is excels on both sides of the “v” with massive recoveries alongside defense verdicts.

Photo provided by the firm

SKADDEN NEW YORK

The co-chair of Skadden’s Latin America Group has built a massive deal portfolio while leading one of the region’s best corporate practices.

Photo provided by the firm

Wendi Lazar

C-SUITE STRATEGIES NEW YORK

The former Outten & Golden partner’s mark in the field of employment law is indelible as one of the nation’s most admired employee advocates.

Photo by Laura Barisonzi

Tom Melsheimer

WINSTON & STRAWN DALLAS

Melsheimer is of the greatest trial lawyers of his generation, having won every almost every type of complex civil and criminal case possible.

by Justin Clemons

Paola Lozano

Photo

Gerard G. Pecht

PECHT LAW FIRM HOUSTON

The former Global CEO of powerhouse Norton Rose Fulbright has been a fixture in the litigation and arbitration bar for more than four decades.

Photo provided by the firm

Antony L.

Ryan

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Ryan has been an unstoppable force in corporate litigation for decades, handling bet-the-company matters for the firm’s elite clients.

Photo by Laura Barisonzi

Hannah Ross

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

Ross has long been a standout at the nation’s top plaintiff-side securities litigation firm, recovering billions for shareholders.

Photo by Laura Barisonzi

Rachel G. Skaistis

CRAVATH NEW YORK

In many ways the flip side of sister and co-Legend Hannah Ross, Skaistis maneuvers clients through their most sensitive cases and investigations.

Photo by Laura Barisonzi

Cate Stetson

HOGAN LOVELLS WASHINGTON, D.C.

The co-head of Hogan Lovells’ appellate practice is an uncommonly gifted writer and presenter of arguments before any court.

provided by the firm

Jamie L. Wine

LATHAM NEW YORK

Wine has saved her firm’s corporate clients untold billions of dollars with dismissals, favorable settlements and courtroom victories.

by Greg Endries

Taurie M. Zeitzer

WHITE & CASE NEW YORK

Zeitzer is a true maestro of complex financial transactions with a nearly unrivaled record of achievement in private equity deals.

Photo provided by the firm

Photo

Photo

Kenya Davis

BOIES SCHILLER (WASHINGTON, D.C.)

THE LAWDRAGON 500

Congratulations to each member of this issue’s Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America.

In his remarkable guide, we especially celebrate more than 60 women who have founded their own law firms or lead historic corporate or plaintiff firms nationwide. They are at the forefront of a new wave in a legal profession that at times seems assertively inclusive and in other ways feels largely unchanged. Perhaps that’s just life in 2023, a clash of the hopes and beliefs of one generation against the tried and true pathways forged by many who came before.

Among the women who paved the way for today’s female leaders are many included in our Hall of Fame, including Glaser Weil’s Patricia Glaser; Goodwin Procter’s Regina Pisa; Kramer Diloff’s Judith Livingston; McGinn Montoya’s Randy McGinn; and of course Pillsbury’s Mary Cranston, perhaps the first female managing partner of a corporate firm, Pillsbury, in 1998.

Today’s corps also include Barbara Becker, the first female chair in Gibson Dunn’s 131-year history; Deborah Chang, a remarkable force in the plaintiff bar who drew together five other forces to create Athea Trial Lawyers; Faith Gay and Jennifer Selendy who formed Selendy Gay; Beth Wilkinson of Wilkinson Stekloff; Roberta Kaplan of Kaplan Hecker & Fink; Kim Koopersmith of Akin Gump; and so many more.

It’s a moment, and an important one. But just one of the remarkable rivers running through this year’s group of 500 amazing lawyers who made their impact as never before. As ever, we are grateful for the bounty of amazing nominations that fueled our journalistic research for this year’s 500. The group is 41 percent female and 26 percent inclusive.

Here’s to a great year of lawyering, with inspiring feats of courtroom brilliance, uncommon bravery, and a pursuit of justice for all.

KENYA DAVIS

KENYA DAVIS WALKS IN DIFFERENT WORLDS

united by a common thread. The echoes ring across seven years in Big Law, 13 as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in D.C., and now nearly two years as a partner with Boies Schiller Flexner: Davis fosters a world where a commitment to human rights is both paramount and achievable.

Her work has often centered around human trafficking, representing victims of sex abuse and helping companies create compliance pathways for safe labor practices. During her time in government, Davis channeled her passion for equitable justice into 50 trials and more than 100 grand jury investigations. She also served as the human trafficking coordinator and co-chair of the D.C. Human Traffi cking Task Force, a 75-person group focusing on prosecuting more traffi ckers, aiding victims and preventing future trafficking. Davis takes on similar problems from a different angle as a partner in Boies Schiller’s global investigations and white-collar crime group, including a focus on environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, where she brings her expertise in human traffi cking issues to bear by helping companies root out labor trafficking two or three times removed within their supply chains. She has handled investigations and implemented compliance strategies for increasingly (and necessarily) stringent guidelines coming down both nationally and internationally.

Crediting Boies Schiller’s emphasis on humanitarian cases as part of her reason for joining the firm, Davis continues to represent victims of sex trafficking and sexual abuse in private practice. Currently, she represents a group of snowboarders who sued a former coach for sexual abuse, as well as U.S. Ski and Snowboard and the U.S. Olympic Committee for covering up the alleged abuse. That coverup, Davis explains, can include trafficking implications: “It is basically an exchange: For the athlete’s compliance with and silence around the sexual abuse and exploitation, they get the once in a lifetime chance to continue to pursue medals,” she says. “Of course, those medals effectively turn into money for the Olympic Committee, and for Ski and Snowboard.” The coach who allegedly perpetrated the abuse has been suspended by the U.S. Center for SafeSport.

BY EMILY JACKOWAY AND ALISON PREECE

The Adult Survivors Act, a window for adult victims of abuse to submit new claims in New York (and California’s similar Sexual Abuse and Cover Up Accountability Act), has driven much of her recent sexual abuse practice. Recently, Davis fi led suit against L.A. Reid, the famed former CEO of Epic Records, who has worked with artists such as Usher and TLC. Davis represents Drew Dixon, a former employee of Reid’s whose claims include sexual assault. Dixon alleges that Reid harassed and assaulted her repeatedly and retaliated against her when she successfully avoided his sexual advances, leaving her unable to sign critically acclaimed artists and excel within the music industry despite a stellar track record.

In her time at Boies Schiller, Davis has also leveraged her trial experience on major cases, particularly the fi rm’s recent victory on behalf of shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The case centered around claims that the Federal Housing Finance Agency used amended stock purchase agreements to funnel profits to the Treasury just as the companies were returning to profi tability in 2012, after recovering from the 2008 financial crisis. It became known as the Net Worth Sweep. Davis joined the litigation in the final few months of a decade-long case. After the first trial resulted in a hung jury, the team reshuffl ed their approach, with Davis giving the opening statement and the team winning a unanimous verdict in August 2023. Shareholders were awarded $612.4M as well as prejudgment interest estimated to be over $200M

Lawdragon: What was it like coming to the Fannie and Freddie case almost in the 11th hour?

Kenya Davis: It was challenging and invigorating! But I had a lot of support to get up to speed from my teammates, especially our lead attorney Hamish Hume, my fellow partner Sam Kaplan, as well as our able co-counsel from Kessler Topaz, BLBG, Grant & Eisenhoffer and Cooper & Kirk. There were no shortcuts. Our challenge involved explaining to the jury how the economic conditions in the housing market changed from 2008 to 2012, and how our opponents knew that the conditions had changed and because of that wanted to take a different approach to the projected profi tability. That required really understanding the accounting

YOU HAVE TO RESPECT THE FACT THAT JURORS ARE ENGAGED IN CRITICAL THINKING AND WORKING HARD TO UNDERSTAND UNFAMILIAR CONCEPTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF

THE PARTIES AND FOR NO GAIN OF THEIR OWN. THEIR TRUST IN YOU IS PARAMOUNT.

concept of deferred tax assets and the indicators of restored profi tability.

I’m thankful for the opportunity to have been part of the trial team that presented the case to the jury and part of the strategic steering committee for the case. That took a lot of trust, because that case was 10 years old by the time I arrived. I’m grateful that they recognized my unique skill set honed during my time investigating and trying cases in the government and allowed me to take on a pivotal role.

LD: As a former prosecutor, you’re known for your experience with juries. How did that come into play with this case?

KD: It’s important to remember that, just as with a judge, with a jury, you need to establish and maintain trust. You have to respect the fact that jurors are engaged in critical thinking and working hard to understand unfamiliar concepts for the benefi t of the parties and for no gain of their own. Their trust in you is paramount. They have to know that you will tell them the truth about everything. The facts are the facts. There is no such thing as an insurmountable fact. I tried very challenging cases during my time as a prosecutor. Trials that involved difficult witnesses that no one liked or admired and even more difficult facts. The Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac trial involved large entities that received aid from the government and so there were people who despised the companies from a policy perspective and in turn despised their shareholders. As a trial attorney who wants to garner trust with the jury you have to shoot straight and give them the good, the bad, the ugly. You do not run from the unpopular opinion of the case, but instead you walk the jury through why you view those facts the way you do. Anything you perceive as a problem with your case needs to come out of your mouth first.

When I am teaching, I love to use those ambiguous images that look like two different things depending

on how you view them. Much like those pictures, in a trial, we have to highlight certain features in the facts that allow the juror to see that the opponent has a viable perspective, but that perspective is the wrong one to have in this instance for a number of reasons. Through the lens of good faith and fair dealing, nothing about what FHFA and Treasury conspired to do with the Net Worth Sweep could be justice. So, the difference is made in the lens through which the jury is brought into the story. It is not lost on me that trials are unpredictable, but there is a science to it, and I respect our jury system as one of our fairest and most democratic forums in the world.

LD: Interesting. What other insights do you have for lawyers on working with a jury?

KD: Members of a jury, like society, like congress, are far apart from each other. People don’t really agree on anything anymore. One way to get people to compromise is to find that common human thread. Then, you weave that thread into every part of the story, which is not the easiest thing to do when you’re talking about an implied covenant, the only theory of liability that Judge Lamberth would allow us to argue. Getting the jury to understand the concept within the context of their own individual lives – that takes skill. That takes art. That takes translation to build a bridge to the heart of the matter. I think that’s the principle that has remained the same, whether I’m in a corporate space or in a prison talking to the women incarcerated there. That sense of, “Is it fair? Is it right? Is it moral? Is there integrity there?” Those human concepts still, even in our very polarized society, ring true.

People ask, “How do you explain diffi cult legal concepts to regular people?” I don’t like to use that term. We’re all regular people. Having a high level of humility about whatever subject you’re teaching a jury is important. The Fannie/Freddie jury was going to be learning, in two weeks, what the lawyers,

GETTING THE JURY TO UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT WITHIN

THE CONTEXT OF THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL

LIVES – THAT TAKES SKILL. THAT TAKES ART. THAT TAKES TRANSLATION TO BUILD A BRIDGE TO THE HEART OF THE MATTER.

congressmen, agency heads and judges took 10 years to unravel.

LD: What brought you to Boies Schiller?

KD: It’s the maverick nature of the practice here. My colleagues are so creative, brilliant, and their approach fits with the way I approach cases. I guess it is the debater in me that thrives here. We represent plaintiffs and defendants. It is a rare approach, but one that gives you undeniable skill and insight. A base level understanding of the state of the law, how the statutes are currently interpreted, is where many lawyers stop. Here that is where our analysis begins, and it will often go far beyond that. This is a place for people who see crisis differently and are really interested in complex, difficult problems that need solving. Being able to hone and refine that approach with David [Boies], Jonathan Schiller, the late Donald Flexner, and the types of lawyers that they were able to attract to this very novel way of practicing law is a privilege. There’s a spirit of tenacity and bravery. I’m from the South, I’m a woman, I’m a woman of color, and my practice fi ts here. All of those identities put together make me very different than most of the people who practice law in this country. So, I needed to fi nd a place that would embrace that difference, not just tolerate it. The managing partners, Sigrid McCawley, Matthew Schwartz, and Alan Vickery, understand the utility of my skill set not only for trials, but for the benefi t of companies looking to assess risk and head off problems. I have been able to jump in and help tackle issues outside my core practice areas.

LD: Can you tell me a bit about your career path? Where did you go after law school?

KD: I started off under the tutelage of Mary Jo White and Lorna Schofield at Debevoise & Plimpton in New York. The case that took up the most time when I was there was representing women who had

been sexually assaulted by correctional officers in New York State prisons. It was a civil rights class action. I could work on high-level securities cases while also working with these women in prison. Best of both worlds. I find the common thread is an ability to not be afraid of hard issues and to find the humanity in every story. When you do that, you can get across to very different constituencies.

LD: Were you assigned to that prisoner case, or did you put your hand up for it?

KD: I put my hand up for it. One of the things that was great about working at Debevoise, which is also great about being a partner at Boies Schiller, is that those kinds of cases are valued at the highest level. Excellence in serving the client, every client, is expected and pursued. I truly believe the notion of, “you do good, you do well.” So, if you are investing the time and energy in those humanitarian pursuits, in a way that will build your skills and tenacity, then those skills are going to translate over into cases like Fannie and Freddie.

LD: Where did that humanitarian impulse come from for you?

KD: My mother was a social worker. My grandmother was an Atlanta bus driver, head of the Atlanta Beautification Project, and known in the community for feeding people. They both believed that there is no one who doesn’t deserve help. Human dignity is not something that you earn. Even in dealing with defendants as a prosecutor, I never thought of them as people who did not deserve proper representation, people who did not deserve dignity and respect.

LD: And you grew up in Atlanta?

KD: Atlanta, Georgia. I started competing in policy debate tournaments when I was 13 in summer programs at Emory University. That’s where the Urban Debate Leagues started, with our director, Melissa Wade, and coaches from urban high schools, Betty Maddox and Dr. Moss. Atlanta public school

Matthew Abbott

PAUL WEISS

NEW YORK

Paul Lancaster Adams

OGLETREE DEAKINS PHILADELPHIA

Charla Aldous ALDOUS WALKER/ATHEA DALLAS

Mary Rose Alexander LATHAM CHICAGO

Samuel Alito

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

Gloria Allred

ALLRED MAROKO

LOS ANGELES

Lorie Almon

SEYFARTH NEW YORK

Catherine Amirfar

DEBEVOISE

NEW YORK

Kay Anderle

KELLER ANDERLE SCOLNICK

IRVINE, CALIF.

David B. Anders WACHTELL NEW YORK

Lauren Angelilli CRAVATH NEW YORK

Stephen F. Arcano SKADDEN NEW YORK

Keri Arnold

WILKINSON

STEKLOFF

Kurt Arnold

ARNOLD & ITKIN

HOUSTON

James Asperger

QUINN EMANUEL

LOS ANGELES

Andrew L. Bab

DEBEVOISE NEW YORK

Rebecca Weinstein

BACON BARTLIT BECK

CHICAGO

Aelish Marie Baig

ROBBINS GELLER SAN FRANCISCO

EVEN IN DEALING WITH DEFENDANTS AS A PROSECUTOR,

I NEVER THOUGHT OF THEM AS PEOPLE WHO DID NOT DESERVE

PROPER REPRESENTATION, PEOPLE WHO DID NOT DESERVE

DIGNITY AND RESPECT.

students were given an opportunity to participate in policy debate and tackle very complex issues, at the middle school level. Policy debate is evidencebased and has one speed, FAST. To compete one has to rise to the occasion. There was no watering it down for us, and it clearly worked: My high school debate partner, Ed Lee, is currently the Director of the Barkley Forum at Emory University, one of the most highly regarded collegiate debate teams in the country.

LD: How did you move from Debevoise into government work?

KD: I wanted to try cases, and at large law firms many cases settle. To get more trial work, a lot of litigators go to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and thankfully, my husband is from D.C., so we moved here from New York.

There was no shortage of trial work that needed to be done. What is unique about the U.S. Attorney’s Office here in D.C. is that you try both federal and local cases. Whether you’re in Superior Court or District Court, you’re going to run into the same jury pool. These juries ponder national security cases and some of the largest antitrust matters alongside homicides and domestic violence matters. The juries in D.C. are highly educated. They are well-connected. You’re going to have at least one lawyer on every jury; there’s no avoiding it. They are not easily swayed. And the public defender service is the best in the world. It is the best training ground for a trial lawyer, you sink or swim extremely well.

LD: Now that you are back in private practice, tell me about the ESG work you are doing.

KD: I served as co-chair of the D.C. Human Trafficking Task Force when I worked in government, giving me deep experience with the issues involved in ensuring that companies have a supply chain that meets antitrafficking regulatory standards. That is the first tier

of my practice – what I’ve come here to do.

Our ESG practice is growing. Companies are looking closely at the issues from not only a risk, but a profit generating perspective. My message to companies has been, “Start with your values. Start with the things that make your company good at its core.” Because usually, if you’re starting there, you’re going to meet the international labor standards. You’re going to meet the new standards for the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. You’re going to meet the standards for the SEC labeling rules. It sounds simple and naïve, but a large corporation with multiple entities attached, much like an unwieldy case in court, needs a throughline message. Something that workers on the factory floor and that the C-suite executives can get behind. As a firm we help companies pursue these first steps or develop a strategy after a plan-altering event to address the problem and communicate to law enforcement or an agency or a group of plaintiffs or to the public at large that this company is set apart.

When scrutiny arises, the government is looking for what steps you’ve taken. What have you done to show that you’re willing to do the work? That doesn’t mean you have to fi x issues by tomorrow. But companies need to be able to show their due diligence, and that’s where we can help. We understand the differences in standards across the global marketplace and work to ensure that companies will be in compliance.

Clients who are willing to make that investment will also find they have better employee engagement. They have a story to tell, a true narrative for their customers. Because that’s the other piece of this: Customers are paying attention to whether or not companies are following labor standards, and the bottom line can be affected by a poor perception of how workers both in the United States or abroad are treated.

Jon A. Ballis

KIRKLAND

CHICAGO

Lisa J. Banks

KATZ BANKS KUMIN

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Peter T. Barbur

CRAVATH

NEW YORK

Johnine P. Barnes

GREENBERG TRAURIG

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Barry Barnett

SUSMAN GODFREY

HOUSTON Neil Barr

DAVIS POLK

NEW YORK

Amy Coney Barrett

U.S. SUPREME COURT

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Scott A. Barshay

PAUL WEISS

NEW YORK

Paul M. Basta

PAUL WEISS

NEW YORK

Martine Beamon

DAVIS POLK

NEW YORK

Barbara L. Becker

GIBSON DUNN

NEW YORK

Matthew Bergmann WINSTON & STRAWN

CHICAGO

Ashlie Beringer

GIBSON DUNN

PALO ALTO

Barry Berke

KRAMER LEVIN

NEW YORK

Sean M. Berkowitz

LATHAM CHICAGO

Erica Berthou

KIRKLAND

NEW YORK

Landis C. Best

CAHILL GORDON

NEW YORK

Vineet Bhatia

SUSMAN GODFREY

HOUSTON

Jaren Janghorbani

PAUL WEISS (NEW YORK)

JAREN JANGHORBANI

A PARTNER IN PAUL, WEISS’S RENOWNED

Litigation Department and co-chair of the firm’s M&A Litigation Group, Jaren Janghorbani is a standout and prolific trial lawyer, especially soughtafter to first-chair complex and high-stakes M&A litigation and mass tort cases. She has played a leading role in many of the firm’s signature litigation successes and is one of a handful of lawyers to have taken multiple multibillion-dollar cases to trial.

Jaren has recently led some of the most significant M&A litigation and other complex shareholder disputes in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

She won a resounding trial victory – including one of the largest damages awards in the Court of Chancery in recent years – representing blockchainpowered startup Symbiont.io in its “David v. Goliath” dispute with financial data analytics giant IHS Markit and its subsidiary Ipreo Holdings. She won another major trial victory for Channel Medsystems as plaintiff in a high-stakes dispute in which Boston Scientifi c unsuccessfully sought to terminate its acquisition of Channel. And, representing the former CBS independent directors, she secured the favorable settlement, just weeks before trial, of shareholder class and derivative actions concerning the blockbuster CBS/Viacom merger.

Jaren also leads Paul, Weiss’s representation of IT services provider Atos Syntel in several transactionrelated and other high-value lawsuits, helping her client win a major appellate victory in 2023, when the Second Circuit vacated an adverse $570M verdict in a trade secrets dispute.

Jaren’s work in mass tort and environmental litigation has been equally impressive.

Representing plastic pipe manufacturer JM Eagle in a $1B False Claims Act lawsuit as replacement counsel after the company had been found liable in the liability phase of trial, she engineered a remarkable turnaround, eventually winning the dismissal of the case in its entirety. She previously represented ExxonMobil in one of the largest environmental cases in New Jersey history: a lawsuit brought by the state claiming a record $8.9B in damages due to the alleged discharge of hazardous substances from multiple ExxonMobil refinery operations over more than 100 years. After an eightmonth-long trial, the case settled for $225M.

And in a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, Jaren was a key member of the Paul, Weiss team that won a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in  United States v. Windsor (2013), paving the way for marriage equality for same-sex couples.

For her M&A and other complex commercial litigation expertise, Jaren is named in Lawdragon’s  500 Leading Lawyers in America  and  500 Leading Litigators in America

Lawdragon: How would you describe your style as a litigator? Or, how do others describe you?

Jaren Janghorbani: I believe that storytelling is key. My background in theater actually informs to a certain extent how I approach courtroom proceedings. Whether you’re arguing before a judge or a jury, or you’re performing on stage for an audience, at the most basic level you’re telling a story. So, it is imperative that you tell the most compelling story possible – and that they can hear you clearly in the back row.

LD:  What would you say is your greatest strength in the courtroom?

JJ: Listening. You can prepare what you’re going to say all you want – and you should, of course. But courtroom proceedings are not a solo show: there are other players involved, and what they say is important. If you don’t pay close attention to what answers a witness gives or what questions a judge asks, for instance, you’re asking for trouble. So, I take pride in listening well – to what others are saying, how they are saying it, and what may be lurking beneath what they say – and responding as appropriate. You can’t tell your story effectively if you ignore the other players in the room.

LD: How did you first decide to become a litigator?

JJ: During the dot-com boom, I was working in the arts, including serving on the board of a nonprofit organization. During one of several meetings with a large New York firm we were privileged to have as pro bono counsel, a tax partner good-naturedly said to me that this must all be pretty boring stuff. On the contrary, I replied: I found it really interesting. So, he suggested I go to law school, which I did, thinking I would become a law professor. The final piece that led me to litigation was my clerkship at a trial court, which was fascinating. I’ve been arguing in court ever since.

Frances Bivens

DAVIS POLK

NEW YORK

Lisa S. Blatt

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Angelo Bonvino

PAUL WEISS

NEW YORK

Rebecca Boon

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ

NEW YORK

LaBarron Boone

BEASLEY ALLEN

MONTGOMERY, ALA.

Gary Bornstein

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Andre G. Bouchard

PAUL WEISS

WILMINGTON

Richard Brand

CADWALADER

NEW YORK

Kenneth Breen

CADWALADER

NEW YORK

Kobi Kennedy Brinson

WINSTON & STRAWN

CHARLOTTE

Daniel L. Brockett

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

Alex Brown

LANIER LAW FIRM HOUSTON

Benjamin D. Brown

COHEN MILSTEIN

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Reginald J. Brown

KIRKLAND

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Walter Brown

PAUL WEISS SAN FRANCISCO

Yvette McGee Brown JONES DAY COLUMBUS, OHIO

John C. Browne

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

Andrew R. Brownstein

WACHTELL NEW YORK

I TAKE PRIDE IN LISTENING WELL – TO WHAT OTHERS ARE

SAYING, HOW THEY ARE SAYING IT, AND WHAT MAY BE LURKING BENEATH WHAT THEY SAY – AND RESPONDING AS APPROPRIATE.

LD:  You have significant clerkship experience, including on the Supreme Court. Can you share what it was like working for the Hon. Stephen Breyer? Any major lessons you learned from that time?

JJ:  Working for a good boss goes a very long way toward making your job a rewarding experience –especially a job in which the stakes are almost always extremely high, as is the case in the Supreme Court. Simply put, Justice Breyer was an exceptional boss. In his own character, combining wisdom with humility and strong convictions with a consensusdriven pragmatism, he provided the best possible example for a younger lawyer to learn from. And he is a phenomenal teacher; he had been a professor before becoming a judge, and you could tell. My writing, for one thing, improved by leaps and bounds that year.

LD:  What was the first M&A litigation you worked on? What attracts you to this practice area?

JJ:  Early in my career, while working on a transaction-related matter, I defended the deposition of Paul, Weiss partner Bob Schumer, who is one of the nation’s preeminent M&A lawyers and was longtime chair of our Corporate Department. He became a mentor and encouraged me to stay in the area. I did and ended up working on many of the most significant M&A-related disputes nationwide. One of the things I enjoy about M&A litigation is that these cases are not often resolved on a motion, so you have ample opportunity to go to trial.

LD: Do you have a win that you can point to that set an important precedent? Or one that’s particularly memorable for some reason?

JJ: It’s hard to overstate the significance of  United States v. Windsor. I had the rare privilege, relatively early in my career, to second-chair our representation of Edie Windsor before the Supreme Court. Edie spent 44 years together with her spouse,

Thea Spyer, whom she married in 2007, but was forced to pay a large amount in federal estate tax when Thea passed away because, as a result of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal government did not recognize their marriage. Had she been married to a man rather than a woman, Edie would not have had to pay any federal estate tax at all.

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in June 2013 finding DOMA unconstitutional was one of the most significant civil rights developments in decades and precipitated a sea change in U.S. law, leading the way to marriage equality.

In the realm of transaction-related litigation, I would mention our win in a merger disclosure lawsuit against our client, speech and imaging software provider Nuance Communications, following its $19.7B acquisition by Microsoft. Obviously, this case does not have the cultural significance of the  Windsor decision, but it was a rare dismissal in this type of meritless but ubiquitous case, and a boon for defense lawyers.

The complaint alleged that Nuance violated federal securities laws by omitting certain pieces of information in its proxy statement ahead of the transaction. These lawsuits are commonly filed and frequently settle for nominal sums after the companies agree to supplement their proxy statements with additional details. However, one shareholder refused to dismiss his complaint following Nuance’s 4 filing of supplemental disclosures, and sought $250,000 in attorneys’ fees for his “efforts” in securing the supplemental disclosures.

In contrast to virtually every other acquired company in recent years, Nuance litigated the motion, arguing that the proliferation of such meritless lawsuits confers no benefi ts on shareholders, serves only to enrich plaintiffs’ firms and effectively constitutes a tax on corporate transactions. The court adopted

Devon C. Bruce

POWER ROGERS

CHICAGO

David R. Buchanan

SEEGER WEISS

RIDGEFIELD PARK, N.J.

Jacob W. Buchdahl

SUSMAN GODFREY

NEW YORK

Susanna Buergel

PAUL WEISS

NEW YORK

William A. Burck

QUINN EMANUEL

WASHINGTON, D.C.

John D. Buretta

CRAVATH

NEW YORK

Karen Burgess

BURGESS LAW

AUSTIN

Paul Burgo

KASOWITZ

NEW YORK

Spencer Burkholz

ROBBINS GELLER

SAN DIEGO

Reuben Camper Cahn

KELLER ANDERLE SCOLNICK

IRVINE, CALIF.

Andrew Calder

KIRKLAND HOUSTON

Timothy G. Cameron CRAVATH NEW YORK

Joshua R. Cammaker WACHTELL

NEW YORK

Gretchen Freeman Cappio

KELLER ROHRBACK SEATTLE

Gregory Care

BROWN GOLDSTEIN LEVY BALTIMORE

Michael B. Carlinsky

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

Mats Carlston

WINSTON & STRAWN NEW YORK

Bill Carmody

SUSMAN GODFREY NEW YORK

AS A JUNIOR ATTORNEY, I WAS STRUCK BY HOW FEW WOMEN THERE WERE IN POSITIONS OF LEADERSHIP WITHIN THE PROFESSION – AND THE SAME WAS TRUE FOR ATTORNEYS FROM OTHER UNDERREPRESENTED GROUPS.

our arguments and denied the motion in its entirety. Given defendants’ reticence to litigate such claims, federal court decisions on the merits in these cases have been vanishingly rare.

LD:  What trends are you seeing in M&A litigation lately?

JJ:  Controller transactions and the scope of the “entire fairness” standard of review are very much on corporate boards’ and Delaware practitioners’ minds these days, given recent developments and an upcoming Delaware Supreme Court decision.

In its 2014 decision in  Kahn v. M&F Worldwide (MFW), the Delaware Court of Chancery articulated two conditions that, if met, would allow corporate defendants to justify a take-private transaction involving a conflicted controller under the “business judgment” standard rather than the more exacting “entire fairness” standard. These conditions are the approval of the transaction by a special committee of independent directors and by the majority of the minority stockholders.

Since then, the Court of Chancery has broadened the reach of the  MFW framework to include not just take-private deals but other transactions as well. This so-called “ MFW  creep” is at issue in a closely watched case concerning the spinoff of Match Group from its controlling stockholder. The Delaware Supreme Court recently took the unusual step of ordering supplemental briefing on an issue that had not been raised at the trial court: whether satisfaction of only one of the  MFW  criteria – approval either by a special committee of independent directors or by the majority of the minority stockholders – is sufficient for the “business judgment” rule to apply in nontake-private deals.

The Delaware Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications for corporate dealmaking and the protections minority shareholders enjoy.

LD:  You have served in many leadership roles at Paul, Weiss, including as a member of the firm’s Management Committee, and you have also mentored several rising stars in litigation. Can you please share your approach to mentorship and why it is so important for firm leaders to foster the next generation of trial lawyers?

JJ: My graduating class at Columbia Law School was the first one that included more women than men. And yet, as a junior attorney, I was struck by how few women there were in positions of leadership within the profession – and the same was true for attorneys from other underrepresented groups. I also remember, early in my career, attending a meeting in another firm’s cavernous conference room. Among several dozen lawyers present, I saw only one other woman. Things have certainly improved, but there’s still a long way to go. In big conference rooms I may see more women now, but if the meeting fits around a table, I am still often the only woman present. Thankfully, we have a much better understanding across the industry these days that diversity is a virtue, both in its own right and because it leads to better results. But diversifying the profession’s ranks, especially at the leadership level, takes concerted effort; it is my duty, and a great pleasure, to contribute to this effort on a daily basis along with the Co-Chairs of the Litigation department who are all diverse. In my leadership roles including my service on Paul, Weiss’s Management Committee and as I co-chair our Partnership and Recruitment committees, I work with a signifi cant number of women partners and women leaders every day as I remain keenly focused on the firm’s efforts to recruit, train, retain and promote talented attorneys. Within my case teams and in unofficial interactions, I take pains to ensure equitable staffing and to train, empower, give feedback and provide leadership opportunities for all attorneys, including women and lawyers of color.

Danielle Tully

CADWALADER (NEW YORK)

DANIELLE TULLY

DANIELLE TULLY HAS BEEN DREAMING OF

a life in law for as long as she can remember. Her childhood game of choice? Conducting mock trials during her 5th grade summer break. Her practice has paid off – her childhood ambitions, now a reality.

Now, Tully isn’t just at the top of her game, she is changing the game. Intellectual property and patent law are historically male dominated spaces but Tully is etching a new narrative. She recently led her team at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft to a huge victory in a post-trial win for their client, AngioDynamics, in a long and labyrinthine patent dispute.

Tully’s triumph marks the first time since 2019 that a federal judge in Delaware has ruled to set aside a jury win for being contrary to the law. The judge ruled in favor of Tully and team, unable to deny the evidence they so deftly displayed, letting the facts and figures and well – the law – do the talking.

The impact of this win isn’t lost on Tully. She says, “It’s an important victory not only because we’ve finally been vindicated after all these years, but because AngioDynamics’s products remain available to people who need them the most.” AngioDynamics designs innovative and vital medical devices that elevate the standard of care for patients and are used by healthcare professionals in vascular, peripheral vascular and oncology medicine.

Tully has been on the case since it started, back when she was an associate – from document collection to closing arguments, she has touched every corner. Tully explains, “It’s really a unique opportunity that allowed me to know the case as well as I do, and to have a say in the strategy that came from a place of really understanding the facts.” This multi-tiered intimacy with the case details is precisely what made Tully such a successful leader in this litigation.

Over the years, the case evolved alongside her career, holding hands with her own growth within the industry and seeing her move from protégé associate to partner, team leader and mentor. Tully is an esteemed member of the 2023 Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America.

Lawdragon: Congratulations on the AngioDynamics case. What a victory!

Danielle Tully: Thank you. It really is.

LD:  Could you tell us about your rise to leadership in that case?

BY MEGHAN HEMINGWAY

DT:  I had been working on the case since the beginning. I was an associate and then slowly got promoted along the way. Eventually I was promoted to partner and became one of the lead partners at trial. It was an exciting opportunity that I don’t think comes along all that often for associates, and it was one that I was very grateful for.

LD: And what was at issue in the case?

DT: This case had been going on for a number of years, but the issue at its core was a patent infringement dispute where we did not believe any of the patents were valid. Bard asserted several patents directed to identifying a power injectable port using a radiographic marker and an ID card that gets sold with the port. The FDA didn’t approve ports for power injection until 2006, right around the same time Bard filed its patents, and it wasn’t until that point in time, that the industry started marketing and labeling their ports as power injectable. But that didn’t mean that their ports that were sold before were not power injectable. In fact, both Bard’s and AngioDynamics’ prior ports were capable of being used for power injection. And the evidence at trial showed that both companies’ ports were used for power injection.

So on the basis of that evidence, the court ultimately held that Bard’s patents were invalid because both Bard’s own ports and our ports invalidated their patents. The judge found that the evidence showed that both AngioDynamics and Bard were really using their own old technologies here.

LD:  Can you tell me about the importance of this victory for the client?

DT:  It’s a big victory for our client because not only do they get to continue to sell their products and keep them on the market, but it gives people in the healthcare industry the ability to choose our client’s products. Our client has important technologies that are incorporated in its products and now those products can stay on the market and clients will benefit from AngioDynamics’ innovations. It’s an important victory not only because we’ve finally been vindicated after all these years, but because the products remain available to people who need them the most.

LD:  This is the first time since 2019 that a Delaware judge set aside a jury verdict to invalidate patent claims as a matter of law, correct?

James Carroll

SKADDEN

BOSTON

E. Leon Carter

CARTER ARNETT

DALLAS

James Carter THE COCHRAN LAW FIRM METAIRIE, LA.

Amy Caton KRAMER LEVIN

NEW YORK

Deborah Chang

ATHEA TRIAL LAWYERS

LOS ANGELES

Peter Wilson Chatfield

PHILLIPS & COHEN

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Ting Chen

CRAVATH

NEW YORK

Doris Cheng

WALKUP MELODIA

SAN FRANCISCO

Benjamin Chew

BROWN RUDNICK

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Apalla Chopra

O’MELVENY

LOS ANGELES

Shauna Clark

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT

HOUSTON

Taj J. Clayton KIRKLAND DALLAS

Tony Clayton TONY CLAYTON & ASSOCIATES

NEW ORLEANS

Paul D. Clement

CLEMENT & MURPHY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Linda Coberly

WINSTON & STRAWN CHICAGO

Jeff Cody

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT

DALLAS

Joel Cohen

GIBSON DUNN

NEW YORK

Lori G. Cohen

GREENBERG TRAURIG

ATLANTA

DT:  That’s right. After the jury verdict came in, the judge reversed it and said that the evidence did not support the jury verdict and that no reasonable jury could have found for Bard.

LD: Wow. So, can you talk a little about the steps that you and the team took to convince the court?

DT: It was through a careful presentation of evidence at trial. We made sure that the evidence showed that the prior ports were in fact power injectable. We did that by pointing to Bard’s submissions to the FDA that demonstrated that at least one of Bard’s prior ports sold before it filed its patents was in fact power injectable. So, we were able to point to those admissions from Bard itself, and we were also able to point to our own internal evidence showing that our ports were in fact power injectable before the priority date of any of Bard’s patents. And each of these ports was readily identifiable both on X-ray and based on items sold with it, like ID cards.

On top of that, we pointed to other evidence of practitioners using both our ports and other ports for power injection before the priority date. After trial we put forth our best arguments in briefing and at oral argument. We focused on all of the evidence that had come in, and then on some of the gamesmanship that went on at trial. The judge was receptive, and in his opinion noted that Bard actually reconstrued the claims at trial and, we believe, that led the jury to discount the evidence in the way that it did.

LD: Interesting. Can you talk a bit about the case from a career perspective? Did you know that this would be the case to make you partner?

DT:  I never thought that this was the case that would make me partner, but I did take ownership of everything, and I did come up with ideas and pursue those ideas. I’d present my ideas to the partners who led the case early on, and I would make the projects that sprung from those ideas my own. I think that was part of what led me to make partner – I showed my abilities. I’ve done everything from document collections to the closing arguments at trial on this case. It’s really a unique opportunity that allowed me to know the case as well as I do, and to really have a say in a strategy that comes from a place of really understanding the facts.

LD: Did you always know you wanted to do IP?

DT:  Yes, I actually have. I have a biology degree and I always wanted to stay in the sciences but go into law. IP was the perfect marriage of my STEM

background and my love of litigation. I was fortunate enough to end up at an IP boutique called Morgan & Finnegan when I graduated law school. I had some great mentors and they gave me the opportunity to work on some excellent matters there. They took me under their wings and then I went with them to join Cadwalader where I could continue to grow in my practice. We moved over to Cadwalader as a group and started the IP practice group here.

LD:  And how has Cadwalader been as a platform for you as a trial attorney?

DT: It’s an excellent litigation platform. We have a good base of support with excellent attorneys at all levels, and we’re continuing to grow. Within the IP group, nearly all of our attorneys, including our associates, have been to trial or have some kind of trial experience. We’re an experienced group. We know how to run matters lean, but well, and a lot of that is because of our depth of experience and the way we’re able to put our teams together.

LD:  How have you seen the practice change since you started?

DT: Patent litigation used to be something that people saw as a very highly technical slog, but in recent years, it’s become an industry driver. It’s important for companies to secure their IP and protect it in the marketplace. You used to see more companies protecting traditional assets, like patents, copyrights and trademarks, but now they’ve expanded what they consider their IP – it’s grown into AI and data protection. It’s really continued to evolve. I find the evolution very exciting and always interesting.

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

DT:  I’m very collaborative. I believe that litigation especially is a team effort, and the team is only as good as all its members are. So, I strive to involve the team frequently and early. We bounce ideas off one another, and we enjoy working together and make it fun. It also really helps with mentorship and developing junior lawyers. We don’t want group think, but we want everyone’s thoughts in the group. I think that the team appreciates that effort, and we get really good results because of it.

LD: It sounds like you enjoy being a mentor.

DT:  For sure. In addition to everyday collaboration, I am a mentor in the Cadwalader sponsorship program. The sponsorship program focuses on making sure that women and diverse attorneys get opportunities within the firm. I was a protégé in that group. You get

Mark S. Cohen

COHEN & GRESSER

NEW YORK

Robin Cohen

COHEN ZIFFER

NEW YORK

Vincent H. Cohen Jr. DECHERT

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Eva Cole

WINSTON & STRAWN

NEW YORK

Melinda R. Coolidge HAUSFELD

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Philip Harnett Corboy Jr.

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

Kelley Cornish PAUL WEISS

NEW YORK

Todd G. Cosenza

WILLKIE FARR

NEW YORK

Eric R.I. Cottle

K&L GATES

NEW YORK

Erin Nealy Cox KIRKLAND DALLAS Trey Cox

GIBSON DUNN DALLAS

Desiree Cummings ROBBINS GELLER NEW YORK

Katie Curry MCGINN MONTOYA ALBUQUERQUE

Stephen D’Amore

WINSTON & STRAWN CHICAGO

Frank Darras DARRASLAW ONTARIO, CALIF.

Stuart A. Davidson

ROBBINS GELLER

BOCA RATON, FLA.

Kenya Davis BOIES SCHILLER

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Barbara Dawson

SNELL & WILMER PHOENIX

hands-on mentoring from different partners across the different practices. It’s everything from informal meetings, to working together with somebody on a brief or some other assignment. I went through that program and graduated from it when I became partner, and now I give back to that program by mentoring in it. I work closely with our protégés. There’s an associate in our group who just entered into the program and I’m very excited to get to mentor her. It’s a very rewarding program and I’m very happy to give back.

LD: How did that program affect your trajectory?

DT:  It was such a great opportunity for me. It introduced me to so many partners here at Cadwalader that I might not have had a chance to meet so early on in my career. It’s important to make sure that women especially feel supported in their roles and have exposure to many different people. That’s really how you learn. It’s also really how you get promoted within your own firm – the more people who know you and know your capabilities, the greater chance you have of being promoted. That’s an important part of making sure that we not only retain excellent, diverse talent, but that we promote it within too.

LD: Do you find patent law to be better or worse as a practice for women?

DT:  I’ve been very fortunate in my career that I’ve worked with great mentors who always supported me, whether they were men or women. I’m actually still lucky enough to work with my first mentor. One of my now-partners did my on-campus interview way back when, worked with me at my first firm, and encouraged me to join Cadwalader when the IP group was first formed. We’ve continued to work together over the years and just worked on the AngioDynamics case together. I’ve continued to form new mentoring relationships at every point in my career, including now. Mentors are invaluable. They just want you to succeed, and they’re very supportive. And that’s what I hope I can give to the next generation of women lawyers – the kind of support that allows someone to perform at their best.

Still, I know that in the patent field, women tend to be underrepresented. I’m glad to see that some things are changing. Cadwalader is definitely leading the charge. Our team that just won the post-trial victory for AngioDynamics was 50 percent women. So, I think that says a lot about us as a group and Cadwalader’s dedication to promoting women and other diverse attorneys. We want everybody to succeed here, and we are focused on growing our diversity, and I think

that shows. We get great results because of it.

LD:  What’s the biggest lesson you’ve learned in your career?

DT: I’d say perseverance. Over the years we’ve gotten some great rulings in our favor, and we’ve also had some not-so-great rulings that went against us. But throughout that time, we just kept marshaling our evidence and sticking to our arguments and really honing them under the law, adapting to the different rulings that we got. And that’s what has taken us to where we are now. At the end of the day, what’s most important is to make sure you know the record, you know your facts, keep doing what you’re doing, keep persevering and you’ll get great results for your clients.

LD:  Where did you first get the idea to become a lawyer?

DT:  I grew up in New Jersey and I was doing mock trials and moot court since I was in elementary school. I was really passionate about it, and my mom actually found a program for me when I was in 5th grade where I could go to a summer program and do mock trials. Then when I was in high school, I was on the mock trial team and that really cultivated my love for the law. My interest in science was also since I was a kid. I remember I got a chemistry set for Christmas one year, and all I ever wanted to do was make potions and experiments. So, it was such a natural fi t to go into IP law for me.

LD: That’s really cool. Outside of work, what do you do for fun? What do you do on the weekends?

DT: I have two young daughters, so they take up most of my weekends. My older daughter is 16, so we’re just getting started looking at colleges for her. We’re headed up to Boston this weekend to start looking for schools for her. My younger daughter is 11, and about to go into sixth grade. They are very involved in dance and school activities. They keep me very busy, and fortunately they also share a love for STEM. One is going to be a camp counselor and one is going to be a camper in the Patent Office’s summer camp – I call it patent camp, but it’s really the National Inventors Hall of Fame Camp Invention that they put on throughout the country.

LD: That’s adorable.

DT:  I’m very lucky that they’re as interested in what I do as I am. They always want to come to work. They love to ask questions about it. My little one is always asking me to come into school and talk about it. So, I’m glad that they’re proud because it means that I’m doing something right.

John Sobolewski

WACHTELL (NEW YORK)

JOHN SOBOLEWSKI

IT’S FAIR TO SAY JOHN SOBOLEWSKI CHOSE

his profession based on the advice of a computer, though he did so years before the era of ChatGPT and generative AI.

The on-point counsel that would eventually lead him to become a partner at the legendary New York firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz and to a career shaped by landmark deals, including T-Mobile’s merger with Sprint came, instead, from a rudimentary program that suggested potential careers to Sobolewski and his seventh-grade classmates in computer science. All the students had to do was type in subjects that they found interesting, and the software program would identify related jobs, says Sobolewski, who grew up in Connecticut.

“Whenever anybody asked me what I was going to be after that, I said, ‘I’m going to be a corporate lawyer in New York.’” The dream first became reality when, after attending Harvard Law, he joined Cravath as an associate in 2008. It was the same year history would later recall as the apex of a global financial crisis that included the failure of investment bank Lehman Brothers, the loss of trillions in stock market value, widespread layoffs and massive government bailouts meant to avert economic collapse.

Sobolewski weathered the storm, working his way through Cravath’s corporate rotations program. Then in 2012, he jumped at an opportunity to join the restructuring and finance group at Wachtell Lipton. While Wachtell’s restructuring practice, founded by Len Rosen, was already an institution, the firm was still in the process of building out its finance expertise.

“It was an opportunity to be in a growth practice at the marquee corporate law firm, and that was an exciting space,” he says.

Lawdragon:  Amazing timing. Tell me about some of the deals that have shaped your career since then.

John Sobolewski:  T-Mobile was a formative experience for me. I began working with that client through Deutsche Telekom, its controlling owner, in 2012 in connection with T-Mobile’s merger with MetroPCS. I was still an associate at the time. That work led to me representing Deutsche Telekom and T-Mobile in financing matters in connection with T-Mobile’s merger with Sprint, which was signed in 2018, my first year as a partner.

BY JAMES LANGFORD AND KATRINA DEWEY

It was a huge matter – $38B of financing commitments – and it epitomized what we can do as a firm in the acquisition financing world when we represent major corporate borrowers. We negotiated best-in-class terms, and integrated a really complicated financing structure into an equally complex M&A deal. The transaction included, for example, a rare ratings condition, as our deal was premised on T-Mobile being able to issue secured bonds that would qualify for investment grade ratings (and in turn enable access to the deep investment grade market).

LD:  And you also worked on financing for Gap, the clothing retailer, during the pandemic, didn’t you?

JS:  I did. I had not worked closely with Gap until the Covid crisis, but with the closing of most of their stores due to lockdowns, Gap needed a cash war chest to withstand the uncertainty. That was truly an “in the trenches” experience. I was working day in and day out with an incredible team at Gap on a transaction where failure was not an option.

LD: And it was happening amid social conditions most of us hadn’t seen in our lifetimes.

JS: Those social conditions were definitely wild.... I probably don’t need to remind anyone, but none of us had really used Zoom two months earlier, and then all of a sudden we were on it with one another 24/7, working collectively on a really tricky matter. And as to results, Gap was able to get the war chest it needed: We helped them structure new financings around their core assets, an ABL supported by typical retail assets including inventory and accounts receivable, and bonds backstopped by Gap’s unique real estate portfolio. Those new financings added up to more than $4B altogether, where previously the company had less than $2B of simple, investment-grade style debt.

LD: Those experiences can build lasting relationships.

JS: Definitely. You really get the opportunity to know the team, which makes the work that much more satisfying. I formed relationships that I really value with folks on the finance and legal teams at Gap, who are sensational, as well as with folks who have taken on senior roles at other great companies since then.

LD:  You’ve really worked on a wide variety of deal types. Can you describe your pathway to this point?

JS:  When you’re a mid-level associate and a partner calls you and says, “I’ve got a matter,” you jump on it.

Cari Dawson

ALSTON & BIRD

ATLANTA

Mark J. Dearman

ROBBINS GELLER

BOCA RATON, FLA.

Karin A. DeMasi CRAVATH NEW YORK

Mylan Denerstein

GIBSON DUNN

NEW YORK

Stefan dePozsgay

GIBSON DUNN

NEW YORK

Kelly M. Dermody

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

Jack P. DiCanio SKADDEN PALO ALTO

Abigail Dillen

EARTHJUSTICE SAN FRANCISCO

June Dipchand SKADDEN

NEW YORK

Diane M. Doolittle QUINN EMANUEL

REDWOOD SHORES, CALIF.

Daniel S. Drosman

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

Christopher Duffy VINSON & ELKINS NEW YORK

Brian Dunn THE COCHRAN LAW FIRM LOS ANGELES

Karen L. Dunn PAUL WEISS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Kendall Dunson

BEASLEY ALLEN MONTGOMERY, ALA.

Brian Duwe SKADDEN CHICAGO

Ryan Dzierniejko SKADDEN NEW YORK

Mary Eaton

FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS NEW YORK

I don’t know if it was happenstance or design, but I ended up getting calls more about matters involving leveraged finance, both sponsor-driven matters and leveraged corporate borrowers. Some of them were extremely complex and involved heavy negotiation –not sharp elbows, but not gentle either. The nature of the practice swept me up, and I think it was lucky for me, because it’s a field that’s just continued to get more interesting. And today, you’ve got “liability management” transactions that are super complicated – and often litigated – and you get a lot of opportunities to add real world value as a lawyer when you’re doing that kind of matter. So it’s just been a fun place to be.

LD:  You mentioned liability management, which is something we hear about a lot these days. How would you say the leveraged finance world has evolved since you started practicing?

SB:  When I started doing finance, we were in the early days of the sponsor-driven debt adaptations where sponsors picked their form rather than using the bank’s form. They would really push for maximum flexibility on future covenants, etc., because they had an earlier understanding of the value of that flexibility than some other players in the market. That was the new wave. At Wachtell we took the position that there was no reason that flexibility should be exclusive to our sponsor clients. We fight hard for our sponsor clients, but we fight equally hard for that flexibility, those bestin-class terms, for our corporate borrowers.

What’s happened since then is that the documents, the credit agreements and bond indentures, have gotten more complex and more flexible. Meanwhile, bank loan investors – which used to just be a small group of literal banks – now come in a lot of varied shapes and sizes, and those investors focus on their own individual interests and incentives. The result is a new dynamic in lender/borrower relations – an environment where, when a borrower faces business or market challenges, lenders compete to be the most thoughtful and creative, and those are the folks that the borrowers transact with.

For me, it’s been fun to represent, over the past few years, some of the most creative lenders as well as borrowers that are in need of flexibility in tough times, for example, as we did with Travelport, a travel business significantly impacted by Covid. The company was having an intense dispute with its lenders over a “drop-down” financing, and we had two main tasks: first, vigorously counter the lenders’ default arguments, and second, work on a settlement transaction pursu-

ant to which the lenders would provide the financing Travelport needed and the litigation relating to the drop-down would be resolved. Our hard work on the former facilitated our success in achieving the latter.

LD:  Getting a successful result in a complex situation like that must give you a tremendous sense of accomplishment.

JS:  It’s very satisfying. These are fluid situations and they require the best of you as a lawyer on multiple fronts: covenant analysis, consideration of how the matter might play out in court, and a really strong sense of lender dynamics. You’re negotiating to get the best possible outcome for your client, but you’re also trying to reach something, ultimately, where the dust will settle and there will be a final resolution, not a dispute stretching into perpetuity.

LD:  That evolution has really made the role of the lawyer and the dealmaker so much more interesting and competitive. What do you like most about being a dealmaker at Wachtell? How does it compare with the dream of that kid who said, “I’m going to be a New York corporate lawyer?”

JS: I guess I got really lucky I took that quiz. It’s turned out great. Wachtell, specifically, is an amazing place in the sense that the culture was built here by the founders, who are still leading the firm on an everyday basis. If you want to live and breathe the work that we do, Wachtell Lipton can’t be beat. From our first-year associates to our senior partners, everybody’s all in.

I’ll give you a specific example. The former head of our group, a true luminary of the restructuring world, retired about five years ago. He is living in Colorado skiing 100-something days a year, as he absolutely should be doing, living the life. But when we had a very intricate issue come up a few months ago on a liability management transaction and my colleagues and I had exhausted each other, we said, “All right, let’s call our old colleague in Colorado, he’s the only one who can break this tie.” So we called him and he was immediately locked in, and he ultimately was the deciding voice in that issue. You would have thought that we walked into his office, that he was still in the building. That ethos is what I love about this place. Everybody, even when they’ve moved on to the skiing lifestyle, lives for the complexity and the problem-solving and the fun of doing what we do.

Deborah Chang

ATHEA TRIAL LAWYERS (HERMOSA BEACH, CALIF.)

DEBORAH CHANG

DEBORAH

CHANG KNOWS THAT WOMEN ARE

excellent trial lawyers. They’re masterful storytellers. They have a lens through which they see the world that accentuates the textures and intricacies that even a highly-skilled man might overlook. Chang believes that women know a love story when they see one and pick up on nuances that might otherwise be lost amongst the facts and figures, numbers and data.

Chang knows too that female litigators have been cast to the side, underutilized and immobilized by a heavily male dominated industry – a culture that is long overdue for a course correction. She also recognizes that, “it’s one thing to talk about it, it’s another thing to do something about it.” This is a big part of why she created Athea Trial Lawyers, a groundbreaking collective of top-of-their-field female litigators – Chang inherently knew that this was the way to move forward while also giving back.

“When you start with a law school class that is over 50 percent women, and then when you have a poll from the California bar showing you that less than 20 percent of practicing lawyers are women, you start getting a little concerned,” Chang explains. Which is precisely why she is all about evolving the narrative, supporting women in law and “reaching back to pull women up.”

Chang, who started out on the defense side, is one of the most successful trial lawyers of her time, having broken culture-shifting ground in cases like the first class action for prisoners with AIDS that shored up their rights and protections. She was also the first person to bring a case based on the Violence Against Women Act. She has long been an advocate for women and is a regular on the teaching circuit, discussing topics from gender-motivated violence to the empowerment of women in the workplace.

Chang left a firm she loved and went out on a limb to carve a path that would cement her own contributions to the field and, more importantly, blaze a trail for the women that will follow her. Some might see this as a risky move, but for Chang it was unequivocally the correct course.

Lawdragon: You’ve been busy – Chang Klein and Athea Trial Lawyers were both born in the pandemic.

Deborah Chang: Honestly, if you would’ve told me, “You’re going to start your own firm during the pandemic,” I would’ve laughed in your face. I am fortu-

BY MEGHAN HEMINGWAY

nate that my essential team came with me so we didn’t miss a beat. And building Athea, watching it all come together, has been such a dream. Each of the Athea women also have their own firms. We have some cases that are either of such importance or sheer volume that it necessitates being a full Athea case, and then there are others that may start out in our individual firms with help from each other.

LD: Alongside you at Athea is Randi McGinn, Zoe Littlepage, Lisa Blue, Charla Aldous and Bibi Fell, correct?

DC: That’s right. I can’t tell you what a great resource it is to have the six of us. We can do things quickly and efficiently, talk to each other about problems or issues, rely on each other’s superpowers, get feedback, input and creativity from the country’s top trial lawyers, and co-fund or co-try cases.

LD: Will you tell us about the inspiration for Athea?

DC: I was happily practicing at Panish, Shea Boyle & Ravipudi. I was lucky because I was able to work on great cases, and I had great trial experiences. I was part of the Michael Jackson wrongful death team. I was part of the team that won over $160M in Las Vegas for a man who had a brain injury after being attacked by security guards at a nightclub. I had a great practice. But then I started hearing from other women who did not have that experience. Women at some of the most prestigious firms in America were unhappy, and the way they were being treated by their male counterparts in their own firms, in depositions and at trials was just intolerable. They weren’t given their due, they weren’t allowed to do their own trials, their male counterparts were getting all the good cases, and they were leaving the law in droves. They didn’t even want to start their own practices; they were just turned off.

When you start with a law school class that is over 50 percent women, and then when you have a poll from the California bar showing you that less than 20 percent of practicing lawyers are women, you start getting a little concerned.

One day in a seminar, I was asked, “What’s the biggest issue facing plaintiffs’ trial lawyers right now?” So I asked all the women in the room who have tried at least one case, to please stand. Then I said five cases, 10 cases, 20 cases. You could see the difference in the room. So I said, “There’s your answer – we are not using women in trials, and that is the biggest problem that we have to face.” People started writing about it

Sarah K. Eddy

WACHTELL

NEW YORK

Michael Elkin

WINSTON & STRAWN

NEW YORK

Tara D. Elliott

LATHAM

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Dennis S. Ellis

ELLIS GEORGE CIPOLLONE

LOS ANGELES

David Elsberg

SELENDY GAY

NEW YORK

Adam O. Emmerich

WACHTELL

NEW YORK

Miguel A. Estrada

GIBSON DUNN

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Theane Evangelis

GIBSON DUNN

LOS ANGELES

Karen Evans

THE COCHRAN LAW FIRM

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Christian Everdell

COHEN & GRESSER

NEW YORK

Eric B. Fastiff

LIEFF CABRASER

SAN FRANCISCO

Bibi Fell FELL LAW/ATHEA

SAN DIEGO

Mark Ferguson

BARTLIT BECK

CHICAGO

Chantale Fiebig WEIL

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Steven E. Fineman

LIEFF CABRASER

NEW YORK

Julie E. Fink

KAPLAN HECKER & FINK

NEW YORK

Alice S. Fisher LATHAM

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Fidelma L. Fitzpatrick

MOTLEY RICE

PROVIDENCE, R.I.

and encouraging women to leave their firms and start their own firms. I started thinking, it’s one thing to talk about it, it’s another thing to do something about it.

LD: What’s the vision for Athea?

DC: We’re trying to shift the narrative and motivate women to believe that they do have an important place at trial and in the legal profession. We started Slide Girl to develop key visuals for trial, and Virtual Courtroom. I do a lot of slides for women and when it comes time to pay me back because they got a good settlement, I say, “Just keep it and pass it on.” We do a lot of work for women who are on their own, scared to death. We make sure that they realize they’re not alone. They call Zoe Littlepage all the time, and she guides them through depositions and trials. She offers to do depositions for them. Or they ask Randy McGinn for some insight that only she can give because she is such an amazing storyteller.

During the pandemic we had more time to meet, and we would learn skills together, like how to do slides or use Keynote. Because I never ran a law firm before, I would ask them stupid questions, like, “Do you take a salary,” or “How much did you spend on a case?” Athea is a great think tank – a brainstorm center. It’s the most creative, powerful women you’ll ever meet working on cases together.

LD: How did you first decide to become a lawyer?

DC: I come from a family of doctors. My mother was a pediatrician, my father was a radiologist and I just somehow knew I never wanted to be a doctor. My skills seemed to be more in a set of reading and writing and persuasiveness and speaking. To me it was logical and it almost felt rebellious because my older brother and sister were impossible to follow. Neither one of them knew what it was like to get anything but an A. It wasn’t until I went to law school that I found myself. Then I started working for a lawyer who did everything – criminal, civil. I appreciated working with people at their very worst moment. I loved seeing them through to the end and providing something good and positive at the end of our journey together.

Through all my years in law school, I always had a job working in the real world as well, which really prepared me. When I finished law school, I went to Connecticut and clerked for the chief judge of the appellate court. When I started my career on the defense side, I went to the largest law firm in Connecticut, now called Day Pitney – it was very intense. We were the largest and considered the best. And then I just progressed from

there, becoming a partner at another firm, traveling the country as national counsel for a number of manufacturers and insurance companies.

But even while on the defense side, I also took on cases on behalf of plaintiffs in huge causes. And even in my defense cases, I always got caught up in the plaintiffs’ stories and once, Ervin Gonzales, a very accomplished trial attorney in Miami, said to me, “You really belong on the plaintiff’s side.” Right after that, we lost the case in Miami and I was so devastated, and it was all over the news. I was in the grocery store and someone said, “Didn’t I see you on TV?” And then Brian Panish in California, who was my friend and read about the case there, called me and said, “Stop thinking about that trial. You need to get out of Miami and come help me and Boyle in our trial.” They had just left their law firm and started Panish Shea & Boyle and this was their first trial. And I thought, what a good idea!

LD: A necessary change of scenery.

DC: Exactly. It was a case against the city of San Francisco and it was an amazing experience. Brian’s closing was incredible. I’d never seen a closing like that. People were flying up from L.A. to San Francisco just to see it, and they were turning people away from the doors. It was completely packed and it was a large courtroom. It was like The Beatles! I’d never seen anything like that. We won $27M and that was his first case for his firm. Pretty great. For a while, I was going back and forth from Florida but then I took the California Bar and I went to work for Brian. It was a big deal because I had really established myself on the defense side by then. So I just kissed it all away and started brand new in California.

LD: So starting over isn’t something that scares you?

DC: Well, it was something that I passionately believed in. When I was a first-year associate at the defense firm, I was teaching a moot court class at the University of Connecticut Law School. The professor who ran that program, Mike Sheldon, who is now a judge, pulled me in and said, “With great power in being at the largest firm in Connecticut comes great responsibility. You need to give back. I want you to do a pro bono case.” He wanted me to do a 1983 action to let one of his former clients, who had AIDS, leave prison. This was back in the ‘80s when people didn’t know a lot about AIDS. I went to the prison and they started screaming, “AIDS, AIDS,” because he had a red dot on his file. They all came in biohazard suits and it scared me to death. Inside, the uneducated, scared baby lawyer was like, “Do you have any other biohazard suits?”

Ellen Kaye Fleishhacker

ARNOLD & PORTER

SAN FRANCISCO

Jodi Westbrook Flowers

MOTLEY RICE

MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.

Kobie Flowers

BROWN GOLDSTEIN LEVY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

David Flugman

SELENDY GAY

NEW YORK

William V. Fogg

CRAVATH

NEW YORK

Jason A. Forge

ROBBINS GELLER

SAN DIEGO

James J. Fox

VINSON & ELKINS

NEW YORK

Raquel Fox

SKADDEN

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Andy Freeman

BROWN GOLDSTEIN LEVY

BALTIMORE

Agnieszka Fryszman

COHEN MILSTEIN

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Keith Fullenweider

VINSON & ELKINS

HOUSTON

Robert Fumerton

SKADDEN

NEW YORK

Peter Furci

DEBEVOISE

NEW YORK

James Garner

SHER GARNER

NEW ORLEANS

Gregory G. Garre

LATHAM

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Faith Gay

SELENDY GAY

NEW YORK

Paul Geller

ROBBINS GELLER

BOCA RATON, FLA.

Eric George

ELLIS GEORGE CIPOLLONE

LOS ANGELES

LD: Wow. But you went in to see him?

DC: Yes – Joe Mack was his name, I will never forget him. He told me, “I don’t care about my 1983 action.” He said, “I want to bring an action on behalf of prisoners with HIV/AIDS. I’m not going to live long enough to get out of here, but I can help everyone else.” He proceeded to tell me that when you’re a pretrial detainee or a sentenced inmate with AIDS, you are sent to ward nine and you don’t have access to the laundry, or to jobs which get you out earlier, or the library, or anything. You are stuck in this leper colony with no treatment because, he said, the doctors were practically veterinarians, they didn’t know what to do.

It was just the most horrifying, scary thing. I was crying on my way back. I went to the head of my trial department, and he said, “Absolutely not. You don’t have enough time.” It bothered me so I went to talk to Alan Taylor, who had clerked for the U.S. Supreme Court. He took it to the executive committee and they overruled the trial head and we took it on pro bono, and thus was born the first class action on behalf of prisoners with HIV/AIDS.

LD: That’s incredible.

DC: The staff at the prison got so used to seeing me that they would talk to me about everything. Once we had a prisoner who was 19 years old and was a pre-trial detainee who had taken a car radio – he was dying and all he wanted was to go home and hug his children. I filed for a temporary restraining order in our case in federal court requesting the removal of his chains because they were hurting his bony ankles and wrists. To die while chained like an animal without being able to hug your family goodbye when he weighed less than 100 pounds and was too ill to be a flight risk was something I could not even fathom. But I lost, and I remember sobbing hysterically in the bathroom and then this woman came up to me and she said, “I can help you. Let’s write legislation to fix this issue.” It happened to be Eileen McGann, a lobbyist who was married to Dick Morris, who was a political consultant for Clinton. So, with her help, I wrote a draft of a statute that eventually became law in Connecticut. They had hearings on it, and the entire prison staff came to testify on its behalf to allow prisoners to go home to die with dignity. He was the first prisoner allowed to go home.

By caring so much about the prisoners and the staff, something amazing happened. I gained the trust of the staff, the guards, the nurses, the medics and even the doctors who worked there. They knew I was really trying to help. And they gave deposition testimony

that was so moving and compelling, and all of this led to a landmark settlement in our class action case that changed the way prisoners with HIV/AIDS were housed and programmed, and vastly improved medical care. I didn’t realize how monumental it was back then, but it became the model for prisoners throughout the country. It was cited with approval by the Bush administration and adopted as policy.

LD: What an impact, right out of the gate.

DC: That was my first year as a real attorney. I came to the office one day and the phone kept ringing, like, “CNN is downstairs asking for you.” It was all over the country. So while I was still doing defense, I was already bringing causes.

LD: In a recent Athea case, the family of a renowned Ugandan women’s rights activist, Essie Nakajjigo, was awarded $10.5M for her gruesome and wrongful death – the largest verdict from a federal judge in Utah history. Why was it important, in this case, to have women representing her in the courtroom?

DC: I believe that women trial lawyers are innate storytellers. We are incredibly detail oriented. We leave no stone unturned. For example, and I don’t want to be insulting to men at all, but a man may not see this case, at first blush, as an incredible love story. We told the love story between Essie and her husband. I think our hearts beat differently and our minds think differently. We bring an entirely different type of perspective to cases. Women have a different way of doing things. We could see things more from Essie’s point of view –why things were important to her, why she dedicated her life to these causes. It’s important to understand where women come from and the slights they have had to overcome. We were able to represent Essie in a way that only women can.

LD: It really was a perfect case for your firm.

DC: I think the case kind of epitomized why we put Athea together, and that is not only to promote and encourage women, but to give us the opportunity to work with other wonderful women for a common cause. And to do it for someone like Essie, who stood up for the rights and gender equality for all women and girls throughout the world, meant everything to us.

I have this tendency to always gravitate towards these causes, elevating cases into causes. That’s kind of our thing. I believe in the tremendous impact that even the simplest case can have on people and places because I’ve seen it. A case that no one initially wants and everyone says no to – that case can change the world.

Nicholas Gravante CADWALADER (NEW YORK)

NICHOLAS GRAVANTE

IT’S WHAT TRIAL LAWYERS LIVE FOR.

Early this year, Nicholas Gravante Jr. was everywhere, all at once. As lawyer to Trump CFO Allen Weisselberg, Gravante appeared in news accounts worldwide accompanying his client, who was being fed into a wood chipper in pursuit of The Don. As in, former President Donald Trump.

A true loyalist, Weisselberg would not flinch. He either would not or could not truthfully testify against the former President. We may never know which. But he did testify against his former employer, The Trump Organization, in the New York criminal trial against two Trump companies accused of paying personal expenses for Weisselberg and others without reporting the income. Pursuant to a deal Gravante negotiated, Weisselberg pled guilty and, at the age of 75, served 100 days in Rikers Island. He received the benefi t of that universally-acclaimed sweetheart deal after being found by the court to have testifi ed truthfully at trial. Weisselberg’s testimony did not implicate any individual whose last name began with a capital T. The Trump companies on trial were found guilty and are appealing the convictions.

Gravante says the Weisselberg representation was the second-trickiest of his career. The first? It involved a day in court in Brooklyn, his mother and dead horses. And that day was 9/11.

Any trial lawyer who wants to dance in the spotlight of the American justice system these days could take notes from Gravante, whose prodigious career in recent years has also involved Hunter Biden and Kanye West. Now there’s a Bingo card you probably didn’t have.

But Gravante did, thanks to years in the trenches alongside legends from Cravath to the late Jerry Shargel and, for much of his career, David Boies. He’s often quoted as saying he was lucky to have the best criminal lawyer (Shargel) and best civil litigator (Boies) of our generation as mentors. Now the Co-head of Litigation at Cadwalader, Lawdragon named Gravante a Legend in 2018. In addition to high-profile engagements, he’s also shuttling among numerous business disputes while helping build out Cadwalader as a destination litigation firm.

Lawdragon:  Nick, what are you working on these

BY KATRINA DEWEY

days?  You’ve had such a busy last few years with high-profile matters.

Nicholas Gravante:  Several matters right now – all busy at once it seems, but thankfully I’ve got a great support team.

In the civil area, I’m defending a major New Yorkbased real estate firm in an antitrust, class action case recently filed against most of the industry in Tennessee Federal Court. I’m involved in two antitrust actions pending against Google in the Central District of California. My work with Phil Iovieno, one of the best antitrust lawyers in the business, also continues in price-fixing actions pending throughout the country on behalf of, among others, clients, B.J.’s, McDonalds, Costco, Wendy’s, Target, Kraft-Heinz, Panda Express, Darden Restaurants (which recently acquired another of our clients, Ruth’s Chris) and Winn-Dixie.

In the white-collar area, I can only describe matters of public record. My defense of Susan Gore, heiress to the GORE-TEX empire, in connection with a D.C.based federal grand jury investigation is taking up a fair bit of my time. So is my defense of a New Yorkbased construction company against a bid-rigging indictment in New York Supreme Court.

Typical of my white-collar practice, I’m also representing clients in pending investigations whose identities I can’t disclose. Hopefully no one will ever learn of those matters because I will put them to bed. That’s an unusual, yet typical, feature in the life of a white-collar criminal defense lawyer. Often you can’t talk about – and no one ever learns about – many of your most successful matters.

LD:  Anything else you can tell us about the alleged Wyoming spy ring that Susan Gore is being investigated in connection with?

NG: Unfortunately, there is little more I can discuss about Susan Gore aside from what has already been reported in the press. My partner, Phara Guberman, and I are representing her in connection with an ongoing federal grand jury investigation. Project Veritas, political espionage, former MI6 operatives, and spying on political opponents all make for interesting reading, but Susan is a lovely woman who has not broken any law. Like many of my clients, she was referred to me by a satisfied, former client.

Adam Gerchen

KELLER LENKNER CHICAGO

Michael A. Gerstenzang

CLEARY GOTTLIEB NEW YORK

William T. Gibbs CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

Douglas G. Gibson COVINGTON

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Maria Ginzburg

SELENDY GAY NEW YORK

Robert J. Giuffra Jr.

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL NEW YORK

Brendan Glackin LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

John Gleeson

DEBEVOISE NEW YORK

Asheesh Goel

KIRKLAND CHICAGO

Sandra C. Goldstein KIRKLAND NEW YORK

Elaine Golin WACHTELL NEW YORK

Andrew G. Gordon PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Neil Gorsuch U.S. SUPREME COURT

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Ilene Knable Gotts WACHTELL NEW YORK

Elizabeth Graham GRANT & EISENHOFER WILMINGTON

Nicholas Gravante CADWALADER NEW YORK

Salvatore Graziano

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

Mark I. Greene CRAVATH NEW YORK

ANY TRIAL LAWYER WHO WANTS TO DANCE IN THE SPOTLIGHT OF THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM THESE DAYS COULD TAKE NOTES FROM GRAVANTE, WHOSE PRODIGIOUS CAREER IN RECENT YEARS

HAS ALSO INVOLVED HUNTER BIDEN AND KANYE WEST.

LD:  You were in the headlines frequently in the past year for your universally-acclaimed successful representations of former Trump CFO Allen Weisselberg, former Trump COO Matthew Calamari, Sr., as well as his son, Matthew Calamari, Jr. Can you discuss those representations in greater detail now, as I think you no longer represent them? What was most important to you about your work representing Weisselberg? You’ve mentioned his age and grandchildren as motivating factors for you.

NG: With respect to Allen Weisselberg, he’s one of those guys who, once you get to know him, he’s impossible not to like and respect. Not that he didn’t make mistakes, which he admitted to by pleading guilty, but given his age, health and the nature of the offenses with which he was charged, he shouldn’t have been put through that ordeal. Unfortunately, we all know why he was. He was textbook collateral damage. Watching his wife, sons and grandchildren rally to support him through those difficult eight months, from the day he plead guilty to the final day of his 100-day sentence, was a beautiful thing. Allen is blessed with a wonderful family.

My representation of Trump Organization COO Matthew Calamari and his son, Matthew Calamari Jr., the company’s Director of Security, was much less dramatic, but also successful. My job on their behalf was not that difficult because neither did anything unlawful. My team made a compelling case demonstrating actual innocence on behalf of Matt Sr., and the DA’s Office declined to pursue charges. Matt Jr. was given complete immunity and testified before the grand jury. The Calamaris are another wonderful family.

LD:  What was it like threading the needle between prosecutors who very much wanted Weisselberg to testify against Donald Trump and his refusal and or truthful inability to do so. Is that the most difficult balance you’ve had to strike as a lawyer?

NG: The Weisselberg case was probably the second

most tricky criminal case of my career. And, as you know, in 38 years of practice, I’ve dealt with more than my fair share of tricky matters.

Never before have I had a witness prepared for his trial testimony by both the prosecution and defense. It was a difficult needle to thread, but because I worked with attorneys on both sides of the case who possessed the utmost skill and integrity, we got the job done. I just can’t say enough about the professionalism of Trump Organization defense counsel, Alan Futerfas, and the District Attorney’s lead prosecutor, Susan Hoffinger. The judge was also a man of his word.

LD: So, you know I have to ask. What was the trickiest criminal case if the CFO of a former President’s private company is the runner-up?

NG: Without a doubt it was the arson case I tried in 2000. I represented a young boy who, after 18 hours of intense interrogation, falsely confessed to starting a fire at a Brooklyn stable that killed 21 horses. The trial was complicated and even interrupted right in the middle by the tragic events of 9/11. I remember it like it was yesterday.

I brought my mother to court that day because she wanted to watch me cross examine a few witnesses. I remember being somewhat perturbed when the clerk told me trial was going to be adjourned that day because a plane had flown into the World Trade Center, traffic was a mess and some jurors would likely have trouble getting to the courthouse. At that point, knowing nothing, I thought we should have waited to see if all the jurors arrived and, if so, plowed forward. I figured that someone flying a private plane probably had a heart attack.

It wasn’t until I got back into the car with my mom and turned on the radio that I realized the situation was much more serious. A second plane had hit the towers, but I still didn’t fully get it. I remember hearing on the radio that a tower had collapsed. I

Ernest Lamont Greer

GREENBERG TRAURIG

ATLANTA

Udi Grofman

PAUL WEISS

NEW YORK

Tor Gronborg

ROBBINS GELLER

SAN DIEGO

Benjamin Gruenstein

CRAVATH

NEW YORK

Phara Guberman

CADWALADER

NEW YORK

Melinda Haag

PAUL WEISS

SAN FRANCISCO

Richard Hall

CRAVATH

NEW YORK

Caitlin Halligan

SELENDY GAY

NEW YORK

Erica Harris

SUSMAN GODFREY

HOUSTON

Sarah M. Harris

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Geoffrey Harrison

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

Stephen S. Hasegawa

PHILLIPS & COHEN

SAN FRANCISCO

Robert D. Hays

KING & SPALDING

ATLANTA

Lexi Hazam

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

Sean Hecker

KAPLAN HECKER & FINK

NEW YORK

Dara Hegar

LANIER LAW FIRM

HOUSTON

Damaris Hernández

CRAVATH

NEW YORK

Eve Hill

BROWN GOLDSTEIN LEVY

BALTIMORE

ONCE I AGREE TO TAKE ON A CASE, MY CLIENT’S POLITICS ARE IRRELEVANT TO ME. I TAKE ON ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE CASES I AM OFFERED, BUT A CLIENT’S POLITICS HAVE NEVER BEEN A MATERIAL FACTOR IN DECIDING WHICH TO TAKE ON.

told my mother “a tower couldn’t have collapsed, they must mean there’s a fire and a few pieces of the building are falling off.” It wasn’t until I got home and turned on the television that I truly realized what was happening.

The interruption of the arson trial because of 9/11 presented a logistical challenge, but that’s not why the case was tricky. The case was tricky because, during the course of my client’s marathon interrogation, he volunteered – completely on his own – to take a lie detector test to prove his innocence. The police then gave him a polygraph test in the middle of the night and, after conferring privately with the examiner, told him he had failed. They also told him that, because he had failed, no jury would ever believe his denial or alibi once jurors learned that he had failed the polygraph. Naturally the boy, who was 17 at the time he was interrogated, had no idea that polygraph results are inadmissible in court. So he made up a story about being at the stable that night and confessed to having started the fi re by accident. That “confession” was false for several reasons, including because he was nowhere near the stable that night and because incontrovertible evidence demonstrated that the fire was set intentionally.

At the first pretrial conference, I told the prosecution, in open court and on the record, that I intended to introduce the polygraph data and results into evidence at trial. The judge at the conference, who did not end up being the trial judge, snidely asked me how long I had been practicing law. What they didn’t know was that I had already sent the polygraph evidence to one of the country’s foremost polygraph experts, who lived in Alaska and trained Secret Service polygraph examiners, and he had concluded definitively that my client had passed the polygraph with flying colors.

Although there was nothing unlawful about the police lying to a suspect under interrogation – even

about the results of a polygraph test – the expert’s trial testimony helped the jury understand how my client had been tricked into giving the false confession. Indeed, my client testified that, once the police convinced him that he had failed the test and that it would be damning evidence if he went to trial, making up a story about having started the fire accidentally seemed like his best option. The expert testimony, my client’s testimony, and the testimony of several alibi witnesses, all of which was corroborated by a complicated set of beeper and cellphone records, led to a unanimous not guilty verdict in less than two hours.

LD: From a 10,000 foot level – or perhaps an historic perspective – how do you think the litigation involving Donald Trump will be seen? And what was it like as a lawyer having a part in this rather unbelievable series of lawsuits and prosecutions?

NG: I think that we will look back at these politically motivated prosecutions, as well as the weaponization of our criminal justice system, as one of the darker chapters in our nation’s history. It needs to end – on both sides of the aisle and once and for all – so we can all get back to focusing on the real problems facing our country. Convicting Donald Trump or Hunter Biden is not going to help our nation’s problems with immigration, poverty, homelessness, or our difficulties with China.

LD:  Can you remind our readers of your work representing Hunter Biden? I believe he was sued in connection with the purchase of a hedge fund?

NG: Sure. Many years ago, I represented Hunter in a lawsuit alleging that he and his uncle, James Biden, who is President Biden’s brother, had perpetrated a complex financial fraud in connection with that deal. There really wasn’t any evidence to support those allegations and, without boring you with legal details, I was eventually able to have the case dismissed. But even way back then it was interesting to see how national politics could impact the legal system.

THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF JOURNALISTS ARE ETHICAL AND PROFESSIONAL. EVEN WHEN YOU CAN’T TALK ABOUT A MATTER, RETURN A CALL AND EXPLAIN WHY, RATHER THAN SIMPLY IGNORING AN INQUIRY.

At the time that case was filed, Joe Biden was running for president. For that reason, the plaintiff and his counsel clearly believed they had Hunter over a barrel. They believed that his family, particularly his father, would be anxious for him to settle. Boy, were they wrong!

I started defending the case vigorously and Hunter refused to pay anything – not a cent – to make the case go away. Then, a funny thing happened. Joe Biden dropped out of the presidential race. And suddenly, the case went dormant – nothing happened for month after month. Quite clearly, the plaintiff lost interest because he believed he had lost his leverage. And, it wasn’t until Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination – and Joe Biden was picked to be his running mate – that the plaintiff rose from the dead and the case came back to life. Of course, the court saw through it and knew exactly what was going on. The reincarnated case was soon dismissed.

LD: At one point, I believe, you were simultaneously involved in representing Mr. Weisselberg and Kanye West. I assume that’s something that law school didn’t prepare you for. The ability to handle the media aspects of high-profile cases has become a key tool for lawyers. What are some of your lessons as a lawyer who’s respected both for your courtroom skills and your ability manage the media?

NG:  You are indeed correct that, in high-profile cases, the ability to deal with the media is often essential, both for protecting clients and for advocating on their behalf. To my knowledge, law schools and even law firms with robust associate training programs typically neglect this area of advocacy. There are many lessons to be taught about interacting with the media.

First, never treat the media with disrespect. Just like lawyers, journalists have a job to do. The overwhelming majority of journalists are ethical and professional. Even when you can’t talk about

a matter, return a call and explain why, rather than simply ignoring an inquiry. Recently, notwithstanding voluminous documents my team reviewed and many interviews we conducted in a particular case, I learned a critical piece of information from a reporter while returning her call about a completely unrelated matter. Dealing with the press is not always a oneway street.

Second, lawyers have to learn how to speak to the press. I’m amazed at how even some experienced practitioners don’t understand the difference between talking “off the record,” “not for attribution,” and “on the record.” Many lawyers don’t understand that the ground rules in dealing with the press are negotiated in advance and can sometimes change, even on a question-by-question basis, during the course of an interview.

Third, when alerted to a damaging story the press is prepared to run about your client, a lawyer has options. If the allegations to be reported are demonstrably baseless, point that out to a reporter and explain why. Respectable journalists would rather kill a story than run a potentially inaccurate story. Even when a negative story can’t be killed, it can often be balanced.

Finally, although it takes considerably more skill and experience, at times you can generate a story that is helpful to a client – and their legal situation – when there are non-confidential, newsworthy facts you can bring to the attention of a trusted journalist.

LD:  For a moderately liberal Brooklyn Democrat, you’re finding yourself involved in some pretty intense Conservative circles. Is that a reflection of where we’re at in this country in terms of the legal system’s role in a time of great divide?

NG: My so-called “involvement” in conservative circles is overstated and simply a matter of coincidence. I don’t consider any of my cases to be political in nature. Once I agree to take on a case, my

client’s politics are irrelevant to me. I take on only a small percentage of the cases I am offered, but a client’s politics have never been a material factor in deciding which to take on. And I believe that’s been borne out throughout my career. Many lawyers would not have represented senior officers of the Trump Organization. Many would not have represented Hunter Biden. But I enjoyed the challenges in each of those matters. I’ve never had a second thought about taking any of them on.

LD:  How’s it going as co-head of Global Litigation and head of Commercial Litigation at Cadwalader? The firm seems to be developing great depth in its trial bench.

NG:  Our Litigation Group at Cadwalader is truly on a roll. I think we’re the busiest group at the firm right now. Over the 30 months I’ve been here, we have added key lateral partners, key lateral associates, as well as promoted from within. We are rapidly growing in size and stature, but are being careful to grow responsibly.

The types of matters our litigators take on continue to diversify, as does our client base. Younger partners are being mentored in the art of hunting as more and more clients are retaining the firm for the first time – solely for our litigation capabilities. We’ve had a staggering number of trials over the last few years. We have more on the horizon with over a half dozen scheduled to go in the next year. We have a rapidly deepening bench and many young partners on the cusp of becoming first chair trial lawyers.

It’s been exciting to watch us grow, but the real exciting thing is that it’s going to continue. We continue to promote the best and brightest from within. We continue to recruit and hire top lateral associates in key areas. And we remain interested in meeting lateral partner candidates whose practice is consistent with our strategic plan. For litigators, there’s never been a more opportune time to join Cadwalader. Our commitment to growth presents unparalleled opportunities.

I’ve had a lot of fun over the last 30 months and I’m proud of what we’ve accomplished. My Co-Head of Global Litigation, Jason Halper, got the ball rolling long before I arrived. We are both fortunate to have the strong support of our transactional partners, who are equally committed to growing the firm’s litigation practice.

LD: What are you looking forward to this summer?

NG:  To be honest, a little peace and quiet –particularly after how busy I was last summer. But just when I thought things would finally slow down, several new opportunities I couldn’t pass up came out of the woodwork. I was recently retained to serve as an expert witness for the first time in my career. Giving that expert testimony was a challenge I really enjoyed. More recently, I was retained as a party arbitrator for the first time. No matter how much you think you’ve learned in this profession, there’s always a lot more to learn. I enjoy the fact that new opportunities are always coming at me from different, unexpected directions.

LD: How has your work-life schedule adapted to the post-Covid era? I find it interesting that you and other high-powered lawyers are working from home more than ever before and have adapted to that approach successfully.

NG:  Post-Covid protocols have been tricky to implement, but our firm has done a nice job balancing the competing interests. People are not required to work in the office as often as they used to be. And many lawyers have used their increased work-from-home opportunities to increase efficiency and better balance their work and personal lives. But particularly for younger lawyers who want to learn quickly, there is no substitute for being in the office and taking advantage of the impromptu mentoring opportunities presented on a daily basis. Despite my difficult travel schedule, I try to be in the office as much as possible. I enjoy interacting with younger partners and associates eager to learn about how to best serve the firm’s clients.

LD: How’s the family?

NG:  Doing incredibly well, and thanks for asking. Jackie and I are proud of our three sons and the paths they are now on. One of my 21-year olds is interning for Mayor Adams for the third straight summer. He loves what he’s doing and will graduate from Fordham next year. After talking for years about acting and writing screenplays, our other 21-year old took a single law class in college. Now he is interested in juvenile justice and thinking about law school. And our little guy, who just graduated from high school, is excited about starting college at Bucknell next month. As a parent, you spend countless, sleepless nights worrying about your kids. Then, all of a sudden, sometimes things just seem to fall into place.

Bj Trach LATHAM (BOSTON)

BJ TRACH

WHEN BJ TRACH JOINED LATHAM & WATKINS

in 2012, he was moved to do so based on the firm’s emphasis on kinship. The idea that being there to help support your colleagues was given as much currency and import as any other aspect of the job, resonated with Trach. The collegial nature and collaborative culture felt familiar to the former Assistant U.S. Attorney.

Trach was adopted into a large family, in which he was not only the only Black member of the family, but he was also the second youngest of his six siblings. He knows all about fitting into an established ecosystem. So while in 2012, like many firms at the time, there were only a few Black partners at Latham, that wasn’t a deterrent for Trach. “I was very used to being the only Black person in the room, and I was taken with the idea that the firm was driven by a commitment to work well together,” says Trach.

Trach studied economics as an undergrad at Harvard. He loved school and knew he wanted to go back after getting his undergraduate degree, but wasn’t sure what he wanted to study. A quest for inspiration found Trach researching options, and visiting different types of schools. While visiting law schools in particular, he noticed something unique, something that deeply impacted him.

“I was struck by everyone who spoke – the students, faculty members, administrators. They all had this incredible clarity of speech and thought,” says Trach. “I didn’t know exactly what I wanted to do, but I knew that was something I wanted.”

The language of law inspired him to take a leap into the legal realm. And after just a few years in private practice, Trach found himself at the U.S. Attorney’s Offi ce for the District of Massachusetts, stepping into the courtroom. It was a steep learning curve for the young and fairly green lawyer, but soon enough, Trach found his footing. He found his own voice by listening to strong mentors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office and, later, private practice, and always elevated his practice by embracing his team.

Mindful communication is an ethic Trach has brought with him throughout his career, and one that has permeated the culture at Latham. One of the first things Trach recalls when he joined the Diversity Leadership Committee at Latham was how critical language can be in clarifying the task at hand.

BY MEGHAN HEMINGWAY AND KATRINA DEWEY

“We called ourselves the Diversity Leadership Committee, not the Diversity Committee,” Trach says. “The idea was that we were not going to be solely responsible for increasing diversity at Latham. We were going to be responsible for ensuring that leadership at every level was taking diversity into account as a strategic priority.”

Under Trach’s leadership, the issue of diversity wasn’t siphoned off to one committee to be dealt with in a vacuum. Rather, the committee was there to spearhead the firm’s DEI strategy and work with all partners and leaders to strengthen and promote Latham as a workplace where the best and brightest professionals – including those underrepresented in the legal industry – could excel and find support to become firm and industry leaders.

Trach’s direction with this initiative, along with the firm’s existing ethos of camaraderie, is a big part of why Latham has seen such success in its diversity efforts. No longer the only Black person in a mostly white room, Trach has innovated strategies that have impacted change and altered that narrative for the firm – a wellearned point of pride for the accomplished attorney.

Lawdragon:  Where did you grow up and what brought you to law school?

BJ Trach:  I grew up in a very small town called Baldwinsville, in New York. It’s about 15 miles west of Syracuse and it’s a very blue-collar town. My dad was a factory worker and my mom stayed home and raised six kids. I was always a good student and I knew that I wanted to be a professional, but exactly what I wanted to do, I wasn’t sure about.

My first job out of college was for the Boston Red Sox, working in the marketing department. I loved it but I knew quickly that I missed being in school and I wanted to go back. I wasn’t sure exactly what I wanted to do so I started to go and visit different types of schools to get a sense of what they might be like. Whenever I would go and visit law schools, I was struck by everyone who spoke – the students, faculty members, administrators. They all had this incredible clarity of speech and thought. I didn’t know exactly what I wanted to do, but I knew that was something I wanted. That’s largely why I ended up deciding to go to law school.

LD: How did you decide to become a prosecutor?

Jennifer Hobbs

SIMPSON THACHER NEW YORK

Tricia “CK” Hoffler THE CK HOFFLER LAW FIRM

ATLANTA

Ellen Holloman CADWALADER NEW YORK

Hillary Holmes GIBSON DUNN

HOUSTON

Michael Holmes

VINSON & ELKINS

DALLAS

Patricia Brown

HOLMES RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA CHICAGO

Deneen Howell WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Heidi Hubbard WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Hamish Hume BOIES SCHILLER

WASHINGTON, D.C.

James Hurst KIRKLAND CHICAGO

Melissa J. Hutson KIRKLAND NEW YORK

Phil Iovieno CADWALADER NEW YORK

William A. Isaacson PAUL WEISS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Jason Itkin ARNOLD & ITKIN HOUSTON

Shauna Itri SEEGER WEISS PHILADELPHIA

Ketanji Brown Jackson U.S. SUPREME COURT

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Dani R. James KRAMER LEVIN

NEW YORK

Jaren Janghorbani PAUL WEISS

NEW YORK

BT:  I had such a strong connection with the case method, being a litigator was what I wanted to do from the beginning. My third year in law school I wrote my law review article on criminal sentencing. And then I was out clerking on the 1st Circuit, and very similar to my decision to go to law school, I remember being struck by the lawyers who were coming from the Department of Justice and from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in particular. They would come and argue, and they were uniformly excellent.

I decided while clerking that I wanted to go to a firm, do white collar work as an associate and try very hard to get to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. So that’s what I did. I worked at a firm in Boston for a couple years doing white collar and then got the opportunity to go to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. I loved doing criminal work, but I loved trying cases the most. That’s how I realized I really wanted to be a trial lawyer.

LD: What do you recall about those days?

BT:  It’s interesting because being a prosecutor is so different from the way we practice at a large firm. You are handling the case from beginning to end and you’re doing all the prep work, you’re doing all the standup work – and you’re doing it for the first time.

I think I argued one motion in my two years as an associate before getting to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Then, once I started there, on day three I got a case and had to go to court and represent the United States of America. The learning curve is very steep.

LD: Can you recall the first case you tried?

BT: I was in the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force unit. I primarily handled big, complicated drug trafficking cases. The first one, I remember working with my trial partner who had much more experience than I did, and he was a fantastic mentor to me. We won that case and that gave me the confidence that together we could accomplish what we set out to. It was a fantastic experience.

LD: What brought you back to private practice?

BT: When I went to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, I always knew I would go back to private practice eventually. I always loved being in private practice. I loved collaborating with a large group of really smart, hardworking people. And I loved working with clients. I love that people come to us because they have really complicated problems that they can’t solve themselves and they need our help and expertise. In fact, it’s the thing I love most about being a lawyer, and it’s not something you get when you’re a prosecutor.

LD: And what made you choose Latham?

BT:  I got a real sense of this culture of cooperation and collaboration at Latham that worked perfectly with my personality and style. I remember from back when I was interviewing with the then-chair of the firm, Bob Dell. He told me that the most important thing I needed to understand about Latham was that if another Latham lawyer called and said they needed help, I had to treat it as though my number one client called. I just thought – that’s the kind of place I want to be. I want to be at a place where the most important thing you do is support your partners. If that’s how everybody thinks at the firm, then it’s a place I’d be excited to come to work every day.

I also felt that Latham was on this incredible upward trajectory and there were a handful of firms who were really separating themselves from the pack in 2012 – I felt like Latham was in that elite group. It was really just impossible to pass up.

LD: Was diversity a factor in your decision making?

BT:  Look, it certainly was. And there were not a ton at the time, but I did speak to the Black partners that were at the firm and they were extremely welcoming and had positive experiences at the firm. There were also a lot of women in senior leadership roles at the firm and I loved what I was hearing from the Executive Committee – that strengthening diversity was an enormous strategic priority for the firm. And that was absolutely the case. Latham has continued to maintain diversity as a strategic priority and has been more successful than any other firm at making strides in that. It’s one of the things I’m proudest of, being at Latham over the last 11 years.

LD:  You’ve been such a leader in the diversity effort. Can you tell us a bit about why it’s been so successful?

BT:  I believe that most partners at most firms genuinely have a desire for the firm to become more diverse and are trying to do things to make that happen. But it is really difficult and not a short-term or singlesolution problem.

I think Latham has been successful in large part due to our very flat management structure. For a firm of our size, we have a relatively small Executive Committee –just nine members. And Latham has a culture of service within the firm, the expectation is that you will devote time to service of the partnership. The Executive Committee sits at the top of the firm, but the committees underneath have lots of autonomy to make decisions to help manage the firm’s strategic priorities.

Rachel Jensen

ROBBINS GELLER

SAN DIEGO

M. Janine Jjingo

SKADDEN NEW YORK

Chad Johnson

ROBBINS GELLER NEW YORK

Emily D. Johnson WACHTELL NEW YORK

Michele D. Johnson

LATHAM

COSTA MESA, CALIF.

Julie H. Jones

ROPES & GRAY

BOSTON

Megan E. Jones

HAUSFELD

SAN FRANCISCO

Michael Jones

KIRKLAND

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Phyllis A. Jones

COVINGTON

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Roscoe Jones Jr. GIBSON DUNN

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Avi Josefson

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ CHICAGO

Elena Kagan U.S. SUPREME COURT

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Michael Kaplan DAVIS POLK

NEW YORK

Roberta A. Kaplan

KAPLAN HECKER & FINK NEW YORK

Brad Karp PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

David C. Karp WACHTELL NEW YORK

Jay Kasner SKADDEN

NEW YORK

Andrew A. Kassof KIRKLAND

NEW YORK

Soon after I got to the firm, I was asked to be a part of the newly revamped diversity committee. We were given carte blanche from the Executive Committee to decide how we were going to do that work and we were given lots of resources to capitalize on the ideas that we had. The first thing we decided was that we were going to call ourselves the Diversity Leadership Committee, not the Diversity Committee. The idea was that we were not going to be solely responsible for diversity. We were going to be responsible for ensuring that the leadership of Latham at every level was taking diversity into account as a strategic priority. A lot of what we did was to educate people who were not on the committee, and give them the necessary tools to be successful.

LD: Brilliant. So the committee was encouraging leadership to step up and be accountable?

BT:  Right. That was a critical part of the success that we’ve had as a committee. After a couple of years sitting on the committee, I became one of the leaders and then the Chair.

A lot of the initiatives that we have implemented within the firm were designed to ensure that we were appropriately investing in, developing, and promoting talent, including those from traditionally underrepresented backgrounds and representing a diversity of perspectives. That has led to an incredible number of internal promotions from the associate ranks to counsel and partner. So it’s really that combination of strategic lateral hiring and really focused efforts at investing in the associates – such as through our Diversity Leadership Academies, our Pipeline Programs, and our Global Affinity Groups, to name just a few – that has led to the vast expansion of Black lawyers at the firm.

LD: How has the committee affected firm culture?

BT:  One of the things we did when we started the Diversity Leadership Committee was we realized we needed to have associates as full participants on the committee. What that gave us was a really comprehensive perspective of what the firm could be doing to better support our traditionally underrepresented associates and really create a sense of community. One of the first really big initiatives was our Diversity Leadership Academy, which I mentioned previously. Our academies are a critically important part of the Latham culture.

We already had a Third Year Academy where all the third-year associates come together for several days of training, orientation and community building. So we added the Diversity Leadership Academy to follow

immediately after Third Year Academy, where we invite all of our third year associates and also fly well over a hundred law school students in at the same time. We provide a lot of very personal panels where partners get up and talk about their path and the challenges that they had and how they overcame them. We have executive coaching and team building skills. We always have a keynote speaker. And then there’s a lot of community building, mentor opportunities, getting partners and associates and law school students together.

In my experience, oftentimes what happens when we lose talented associates, is the demands of the work and the demands of life get sufficiently difficult at certain points in people’s career that they decide it’s time to make a change. What I’ve found is that if people have really strong relationships and a sense of community and belonging, they are able to power through the more difficult times and feel like this is a home for them.

LD:  That sense of community can really make the difference with keeping people around.

BT: Yes. I mentioned our Affinity Groups; they are also open to all. And the first time we did a Black Lawyers Group retreat was 2017, then we did another one in 2019. Then Covid-19 hit and we weren’t able to do in-person retreats again until last fall. We had our Black Lawyers Group retreat in Chicago. There were somewhere between 80 and 100 lawyers sitting in the room and I was scheduled to speak on a panel, and I scrapped what I had planned to say and just spoke off the cuff because I was so emotionally moved by looking around the room and seeing this incredible diversity of lawyers from all over the world. From first years to those on the verge of promotion to partners. There’s virtually no other firm in the world that has this many Black lawyers in it.

LD: That’s incredible.

BT: I’m an optimistic person by nature, but sitting in that room, I have never felt more optimistic about the future of Latham & Watkins and our diversity efforts. Among all of the amazing associates at Latham, there is this incredible engine of Black associates who have been extremely successful, who are very driven, and who have grown up with the ethos of Latham & Watkins. They understand that a critical part of what we do is support the other lawyers within the firm. That’s what our culture is. And they’re committed to doing that and they’re real leaders. I love that about our associates, and I’m so excited to see where they take us.

Bill Reid

REID COLLINS (AUSTIN)

BILL REID

HE IS, TO STATE THE BLAZINGLY OBVIOUS, CONTRARIAN.

By nature. By temperament. By discipline. He embraces the path not taken – a byway worth billions for his firm.

Bill Reid founded Reid Collins & Tsai 14 years ago. A unique private fi nancial prosecution practice, it’s without question one of the great litigation boutiques in America, bringing novel lawsuits against institutional defendants for investors and trustees and winning billions for clients – with a healthy cut for the firm.

We’re sitting in the backyard of his new house in the hills outside Austin, where he’s throwing a ball to his dogs and I’m marveling at the family’s pet bunny rabbits. His son has tried to teach Reid the nuances of the language of teenage boys, circa 2023, on the drive home from school. His daughters are busying around the house with his wife, Misty, who’s packing up the whole crew to fly to the Caymans, where they have recently closed on a house. Reid has been handling litigation in the islands for nearly 23 years and is eager to open an office there.

Cayman litigation is one of those niches he’s mined brilliantly. Finding opportune jurisdictions and claims that other firms wouldn’t take or didn’t understand is one of his trademarks. Thirdparty claims arising from insolvency, accounting malpractice, and representation of offshore liquidators all grew from his work on the $325M InverWorld Ponzi scheme, which sent him to the Caymans early in his career. He continues to maintain a docket of Caribbean-related litigation and has also added a multi-billion-dollar practice pursuing foreign appraisal rights actions in Cayman and Bermuda, where his firm serves as a litigation manager and funder all in one.

Legal malpractice is also on his shortlist, a practice that flourished mostly because other law firms traditionally wouldn’t touch it. Although the size of such claims is often modest when compared with Reid’s financial cases, there’s no question they are showpieces for his trademark tenacity and bad-assery.

At 56, he’s achieved wealth, built a great law firm, and created a work-life balance that he

BY KATRINA DEWEY

revels in. His underdog ethos gives him the mien of someone a decade younger, as does his dedication to a paleo diet and a rigorous physical regimen involving regular workouts as well as hunting at his Texas ranch and Idaho elk lease. Big-game hunting is a particular thing –and not just the Am Law 100 firms of the world.

The past few years, he has added professor to his dossier, teaching a class he created called Complex Financial Litigation at the University of Texas Law School, and developing his thoughts about the legal profession – more specifically, how law schools funnel students to Big Law and how to be a happy lawyer.

Lawdragon: Were you born contrary?

Bill Reid: I guess so. I am often skeptical and a contrarian, but I’d like to think there is a bit more to the story. By nature, I am a creative thinker and see multiple sides to every situation. I surround myself with smart people so that I can group-think optimize every decision in business or law or life. I think that along the way, I have consistently been willing to reevaluate the course of my career while keeping satisfaction and enjoyment as my only true North Star. This approach has allowed me to be nimble in the practice of law.

LD: As a lawyer, there’s clearly some benefit to your approach. I’m thinking of early in your career, in 1992, while others were competing for East Coast clerkships, you headed to the border with 5th Circuit U.S. Judge Reynaldo G. Garza – himself a noted iconoclast.

BR: To be honest, Judge Garza was my first clerkship interview and I instantly bonded with him –so it was less strategic choice and more personal chemistry and luck. When he offered the job at the end of my weekend-long interview, I immediately accepted and never looked back.

I did, however, recognize that a NYC Big Law career was not for me. So, after my post-grad summer clerkship in Dallas, I chose to start my private practice at Hughes & Luce in Dallas, despite not knowing a single person in the State of Texas. When I felt that I needed more trial experience, I moved to Del Rio, Texas, to become an Assistant U.S. Attorney, even though I was a single 29-year-old with absolutely no contacts or friends there.

Gina M. Kastel

FAEGRE DRINKER

MINNEAPOLIS

Jacquelyn M. Kasulis

KIRKLAND NEW YORK

Neal Katyal HOGAN LOVELLS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

David A. Katz

WACHTELL

NEW YORK

Debra S. Katz

KATZ BANKS KUMIN

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Brett Kavanaugh

U.S. SUPREME COURT

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Ashley Keller

KELLER LENKNER

CHICAGO

David N. Kelley

DECHERT

NEW YORK

Erika A. Kelton

PHILLIPS & COHEN

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Karen M. Kennard

GREENBERG TRAURIG AUSTIN

Christianne Kerns

HAHN & HAHN PASADENA, CALIF.

Rakesh Kilaru

WILKINSON STEKLOFF

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Daniel S. Kirschner

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

Cherie R. Kiser

CAHILL GORDON

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Ashley McKeand Kleber

GIBBS & BRUNS HOUSTON

Adam Klein

OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK

Gayle R. Klein

SCHULTE ROTH NEW YORK

Jamie Kocis

KRAMER LEVIN

NEW YORK

FOR SOME [YOUNG LAWYERS], A SHORT STINT AS A PROSECUTOR COULD BE VERY GOOD EXPERIENCE – BUT BEYOND A FEW YEARS IT CAN QUICKLY BECOME A ONE-WAY

STREET TO A LIFELONG CAREER IN CRIMINAL WORK.

In short, in the early days when I saw the opportunity to pursue trial experience, I pursued it blindly regardless of the consequences to my personal life. After my three years as an AUSA, additional experience became less important, and I could truly focus on the enjoyment of law. After a decade at my former firm, I started my own firm in 2009. I simply wanted to have more fun, which was easier if I created the ideal practice for me – which is what I set out to do. Along the way, an incredible group of people have bought into our approach.

Each step I took, I was willing to bet on my own ability and I was willing to risk failure. Those are not common traits among many lawyers.

Over time I have become more convinced that my path is the right path for me and that the path so many other lawyers follow is not for me – and frankly it is likely not right for many of the people that choose it. And I’m talking about Big Law of course.

LD: Let’s talk a little about your own lessons along the Big Law path that led you to fi nd a different route. First, what was your experience at St. John’s University School of Law. Did you feel funneled to Big Law then, as so many students are today? Did you already have a flickering that you might want to become a plaintiff lawyer?

BR: St. John’s was a great law school. It gave me a lot of knowledge and it had some truly great professors. I don’t think it overtly directed me to Big Law, although back then there was an institutional bias against plaintiffs’ law – and there still is. The problem is that the legal education system defaults to Big Law because students (and many lawyers) put starting salary as their North Star. Once you do that, you necessarily are led toward Big Law. So, it’s the quest to maximize starting salary that ultimately leads to careers that leave many lawyers feeling dissatisfied. Fortunately for me, I saw through the façade of the Rogers & Wells summer clerkship and realized that a full-time job at a NYC big law firm would be miserable,

even though it would have paid a lot of money.

LD: You worked at Hughes & Luce in Dallas from 1993 to 1997 and then at Diamond McCarthy from 2000 to 2009. Do you consider those to be Big Law experiences? If you had a do over as a happy lawyer, would you still have spent time at Big Law?

BR: Hughes & Luce was a 175-lawyer full-service firm when I joined in 1993. The litigation department was about 40 people. So, I am not sure it was truly Big Law, but I take your point. It was a full-service firm, which in those days would have made it “big,” yes. Hughes & Luce gave me a chance to work on interesting cases and gave me experience on my feet in court and exposure to both sides of the V. I learned quickly that I preferred to be a plaintiff than a defendant. In the end, though, I had the itch to get more trial experience and become an AUSA because of the trials I witnessed at the district court in Brownsville during my clerkship with Judge Garza. Regardless of whether Hughes & Luce was Big Law, it gave me something few other big law firms actually provide – real responsibility and experience. Diamond McCarthy was a litigation boutique of about 40 to 50 lawyers during the time I was there. It was formed by a bunch of former Hughes & Luce lawyers, and it was categorically not Big Law. There just came a time when I disagreed with the way the fi rm was managed and wanted to chart my own course with a focus on contingency-fee work.

LD: And, of course, your time as a prosecutor trying 25 cases in Del Rio was critical to your trial skills. Do you encourage your students to spend time as a prosecutor? Would you have been happy as a prosecutor for your entire career?

BR: I think young lawyers need to be aggressive about getting trial experience. For some, a short stint as a prosecutor could be very good experience –but beyond a few years it can quickly become a oneway street to a lifelong career in criminal work. And

Michelle M. Kohut

CORBOY & DEMETRIO

CHICAGO

Kim Koopersmith

AKIN GUMP

NEW YORK

Linda Kornfeld

BLANK ROME

LOS ANGELES

Michael Kosnitzky

PILLSBURY

MIAMI

Kalpana Kotagal

COHEN MILSTEIN

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Meredith Kotler

FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS

NEW YORK

Daniel Kramer

PAUL WEISS

NEW YORK

Josh Krevitt

GIBSON DUNN

NEW YORK

Sharon Krevor-Weisbaum

BROWN GOLDSTEIN LEVY

BALTIMORE

Leslie Kroeger

COHEN MILSTEIN

PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLA.

Robert K. Kry MOLOLAMKEN

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Walter J. Lack

ENGSTROM LIPSCOMB & LACK LOS ANGELES

William M. Lafferty

MORRIS NICHOLS WILMINGTON

David K. Lam WACHTELL NEW YORK

Jeffrey A. Lamken MOLOLAMKEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Brent Landau HAUSFELD PHILADELPHIA

Mark Lanier

LANIER LAW FIRM HOUSTON

Daryl L. Lansdale

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT SAN ANTONIO

FOR ME PERSONALLY, MY HEART WAS NOT IN PROSECUTING DRUG CASES. I FELT THEN AND STILL BELIEVE TODAY THAT OUR DRUG LAWS ARE EXTREMELY UNFAIR BECAUSE THEY DO NOT PENALIZE THE GREED FACTOR FAIRLY.

I would not recommend a lifelong career in criminal work to most people.

For me personally, my heart was not in prosecuting drug cases. I felt then and still believe today that our drug laws are extremely unfair because they do not penalize the greed factor fairly. In other words, white-collar crime is frequently committed by wealthy, educated people who take money that simply provides them with additional luxuries, whereas most drug crimes are committed by people who have very limited alternatives to make money. The white-collar kind of greed is far more nefarious in my view, yet the drug crimes normally lead to lengthier penalties. The work I do today, prosecuting financial wrongdoing against bullies and Goliaths, is far more rewarding to me than prosecuting drug dealers. Often times, there is no other means by which to penalize financial wrongdoers if someone like me is not going after the institutional actors who perpetrate the types of wrongs my firm pursues. And, by the way, I could never have been happy within a bureaucracy long term. I pride myself on creating a firm that has virtually no bureaucracy.

But honestly, I lost my fear of being in the courtroom as an AUSA, but it was not until I met Dr. [Don] Nichols that I really began to learn the skills I needed to be a good trial lawyer. Judge Garza, a former plaintiffs’ trial lawyer, and Don Nichols were extremely important mentors to me. They both imparted their enormous wisdom to me, and I tried to absorb as much of it as I could. Bottom line, getting a great mentor is critical to career development.

LD: What caused Dr. Nichols to have such a big impact on your career? I think you’ve said you have never tried a case without him since you met.

BR: I have not had a jury trial in the 23 years since I left the government without Dr. Nichols at my side. He’s like my trial security blanket, and we are close friends on a personal level. Even though he

is not a lawyer, he has a PhD in communications and has assisted lawyers in hundreds of trials in his career, which gives him a wealth of trial wisdom. Additionally, he has an uncanny ability to distill facts and produce themes. Thinking through what I call the multi-dimensional chessboard of complex litigation with him is very helpful to me as a trial lawyer. And quite frankly, the amount of wisdom that Dr. Nichols has bestowed upon me is too much to list in a sentence or two.

LD: What do you consider your greatest hits before Reid Collins?

BR: My first big case was InverWorld, where I singlehandedly pursued a complicated accounting malpractice case against Deloitte for about fi ve years and ultimately settled for $25.8M. I had just left my job in Del Rio and taken a month-long crosscountry trip on a motorcycle, and in my first week at Diamond McCarthy I began to work on InverWorld. I got on a plane to Cayman my first week on the job and have been going there ever since.

My first big civil contingency-fee case in which I got the client and led the show was the Grey Goose Vodka case, filed in Delaware Chancery Court in 2004. With Eric Madden and Lisa Tsai, I represented Grey Goose’s former in-house lawyer in his claim involving the $2.3B sale of Grey Goose Vodka to Bacardi, which settled.

And, although they were small, I did stumble into my first legal malpractice cases while at Diamond McCarthy. I realized instantly that there was a great opportunity in these claims because the firms that I viewed as my competition were largely unwilling to handle legal malpractice cases.

LD: You’ve also mentioned the $30M to $40M in settlements from law firms and accounting firms you wrested in the USA Capital case, alongside Madden and Tsai. Tell us more about that case, and how it led to you meeting Marc Dworsky, now one of your partners.

Tatiana Lapushchik

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Lisa Laukitis

SKADDEN NEW YORK

Wendi Lazar

OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK

Mark Lebovitch

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

Edward J. Lee

KIRKLAND NEW YORK

Jennifer Leete

CRAVATH WASHINGTON, D.C.

Karen M. Lent

SKADDEN NEW YORK

Theodore Leopold

COHEN MILSTEIN

PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLA.

Andrew Levy

BROWN GOLDSTEIN LEVY

BALTIMORE

Jeremy A. Lieberman POMERANTZ NEW YORK

Chris Lind

BARTLIT BECK CHICAGO

Robert Little

GIBSON DUNN DALLAS

Zoe Littlepage

LITTLEPAGE BOOTH/ATHEA HOUSTON

Derek W. Loeser

KELLER ROHRBACK SEATTLE

Frank Lopez

PAUL HASTINGS NEW YORK

Jane Love

GIBSON DUNN NEW YORK

Kathy Love

MCGINN MONTOYA

ALBUQUERQUE

Paola Lozano

SKADDEN NEW YORK

THE “VISION” I HAD IN THE BEGINNING WAS NO MORE AMBITIOUS THAN SIMPLY TO BE ABLE TO SURVIVE PRACTICING LAW FROM AUSTIN, TEXAS – WHERE WE LAUNCHED THE FIRM

WITH LITERALLY NO WORK.

BR: USA Capital was a $1B Ponzi scheme involving a mortgage broker/servicer and some related funds. The crown jewel of the litigation assets held by the bankruptcy trustee was a legal malpractice case against the largest law firm in Las Vegas at the time. Marc, who was then with Munger Tolles, acted as lead defense counsel to the law firm. We had mutual respect for one another and, after we settled the case, we committed to working together. Frankly, I wanted to deselect Marc as an adversary. Today, we are partners and he is our resident naysayer. If we can overcome Marc’s doubts, we generally know we are on the right path. Meanwhile, the fact that our friendship grew out of an adversarial encounter shows that your opposing counsel does not need to be your mortal enemy.

LD: And then in 2009, you founded Reid Collins & Tsai. What was your vision then of the firm you wanted to create and what’s your assessment of it now, 14 years later?

BR: First of all, the “vision” I had in the beginning was no more ambitious than simply to be able to survive practicing law from Austin, Texas – where we launched the firm with literally no work. Our group had a pretty good run of about five years leading up to 2009, but we had no certainty where our clients would come from and we had no strategic clients coming with us, much less any guarantee that we could make it on our own.

As the fi rm began to gain traction as a national boutique around eight years ago, I began to realize that we were truly unique in a lot of ways, and that we were being recognized for it. From any vantage point, we have vastly exceeded any expectation that we could have imagined for ourselves. My assessment today is that what we have been able to achieve is due to a number of factors: a great business model, flawless execution, our willingness to take risk, and a really top-notch team.

LD: Of what cases are you most proud at Reid Collins?

BR: We had a massive $288M win for Highland Capital against Credit Suisse in the early days that put the firm on the map. Sadly, appeals have whittled the recovery to the bone, but the jury’s finding that Credit Suisse committed fraud still stands.

Our $300M direct-pay settlement for shareholders in the Renren derivative-securities litigation was also a big deal. It was a novel case that required the execution of an extremely difficult legal strategy that showed the strengths of our team.

The case that I am most proud of, however, was the acquittal that I got for Olga Hernandez in San Antonio federal court. Olga was a 66-year-old grandmother who was charged with bribery in connection with her position as a board member of the Bexar County School District (in San Antonio). My former office was prosecuting her, and it was my first (and only) criminal defense case in the 23 years since I left the government. My good friend and mentor, veteran San Antonio trial lawyer Alan Brown brought me in to first-chair the trial. It was truly an honor to represent such a courageous client and there is no close second to that case in my career. It was a pro bono win for a client who stood to lose everything, and the case changed her life.

LD: We have to talk about legal malpractice cases, of course. Back then, it was really frowned upon for one law firm to sue another. What was your first legal malpractice case and how did you weigh whether to go ahead and sue?

BR: InverWorld had a large legal-malpractice component to it, but I did not play a big role in it because I focused on the accounting claim. Shortly thereafter, however, I got a small bankruptcy case in which the trustee sued four law firms. The case presented a conflict paradigm that I have seen over and over: a dominant personality running an entity to the entity’s detriment but to his own personal benefi t. For the lawyers in that case, and many others since, the inconvenient truth is that when the

Kenneth Lumb

CORBOY & DEMETRIO

CHICAGO

Loretta E. Lynch

PAUL WEISS

NEW YORK

Eric D. Madden

REID COLLINS

DALLAS

Neal Manne

SUSMAN GODFREY

HOUSTON

Jeffrey D. Marell

PAUL WEISS

NEW YORK

Nina Marino

KAPLAN MARINO

LOS ANGELES

David R. Marriott

CRAVATH

NEW YORK

Michael Marsh

AKERMAN

MIAMI

Peter Martelli

KIRKLAND

NEW YORK

Annika K. Martin

LIEFF CABRASER

NEW YORK

Katharine Martin

WILSON SONSINI

PALO ALTO

Jenny Martinez MUNCK WILSON DALLAS

Stacey Martinez

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT AUSTIN

Tammy Marzigliano

OUTTEN & GOLDEN

NEW YORK

Colette G. Matzzie

PHILLIPS & COHEN

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Sigrid McCawley

BOIES SCHILLER

FORT LAUDERDALE

Heather K. McDevitt

WHITE & CASE

NEW YORK

Jami McKeon

MORGAN LEWIS

PHILADELPHIA

THE PREVAILING VIEW TODAY AMONG DECISION MAKERS IS

MUCH MORE FAVORABLE TO SUING LAW FIRMS WHO HAVE DONE

WRONG

– ALTHOUGH THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO STILL CLING TO THE “OLD VIEW” AND LOOK DOWN THEIR NOSES AT US.

entity is the client, its interests must be prioritized over and above those of its majority shareholders and directors. When those interests diverge and the law firm follows the direction of the dominant personality, as so often happens, you have the classic conflict paradigm.

And yes, suing law fi rms was viewed negatively by many lawyers and judges when I began down this path. In fact, 20 years ago some clients would refuse to pursue their lawyers for wrongdoing out of some deranged sense of loyalty. I’m comfortable with it. I felt then and still feel today that a fiduciary is obligated to pursue a valid claim for legal malpractice. In other words, fiduciary duties override friendship or any sense of professional loyalty. I think that the prevailing view today among decision makers is much more favorable to suing law firms who have done wrong – although there are some people who still cling to the “old view” and look down their noses at us. To me, as a former accountant, I see no difference between suing accountants and suing lawyers. As it turns out, there is plenty of opportunity to do both.

LD: How many malpractice or other claims against law firms have you brought over the years?

BR: Frankly, I have lost count, but I have pursued at least 50 claims against law firms.

LD: What firms do you consider the greatest villains among law firms? Assuming you won’t name names, what are the traits of law firms that you most like to hunt? Do you have an observation, coming full circle, about the types of behavior that gets lawyers sued and the unhappiness that pervades Big Law?

BR: I enjoy holding institutions accountable for their wrongdoing, particularly where regulators or other law firms would not pursue them. I have a healthy dislike for the institution of Big Law, but there are many lawyers that work at Big Law firms whom I consider friends. As I mentioned, conflicts of interest

are the number one reason that law firms get sued, although there are a number of cases where abuse of the hourly-billing model has been the primary cause of the litigation. And, you’re right. I won’t name names.

LD: What’s it all about for you?

BR: Justice, purpose, and a sense of accomplishment. If I don’t feel that my client deserves to win, I don’t take the case – that is not something every lawyer can say. By the way, I also love the strategy behind complex financial litigation, which I call the “threedimensional chessboard.”

I get immense pleasure out of solving the riddle. I really enjoy being with my team and working through the legal and practical obstacles together. I love the camaraderie and the open and active exchange of ideas that lead to a successful outcome. I also love mentoring now almost as much as anything I do in my career, which led to my teaching.

LD: Through your firm and your teaching, you’ve become a bit of an evangelist for finding a way to enjoy practicing law. Part of your message is to create a conversation about what no one at law school or at on-campus interviews tells you about the real practice of law.

BR: I think law school suffers from too much theory and too little of what students really need to understand to fi nd joy and satisfaction in the law. In part, I created my class to fill that gap. My class is a case study approach to law, which is rich in real world advice. Because I can only reach 20-30 students per year teaching, I am now writing a book entitled, “How to Love the Law” with the hope that I can reach a wider audience.

More to the point, no one in legal education sits students down and makes them think about what they want to do with their career, much less what will truly inspire them. A law degree is just a passport to travel: It’s the destination you want to get to that’s

THERE’S NO ONE ASKING

STUDENTS BASIC QUESTIONS LIKE:

WOULD YOU PREFER TO BE A PLAINTIFF LAWYER OR DEFENSE LAWYER? NO ONE DESCRIBES THE REAL-WORLD DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO.

important. Guidance counselors are well intentioned, but few of them have actually practiced law, much less enjoyed it. There’s no one asking students basic questions like: Would you prefer to be a plaintiff lawyer or defense lawyer? No one describes the real-world differences between the two. And yet there’s a whole world of different types of plaintiff and defense lawyers, each of which might interest or repulse an individual student, depending on a whole range of factors. How can students know what they’d like to do if they do not know what choices they have and the implications to choosing one career path over another?

We teach legal ethics, but it’s rule based and rigid. Maybe we should teach the philosophy of law instead, and ask questions like, “You’re about to spend three years and lots of money on your legal education. Would you like to use all the knowledge you’ll acquire to assist bad actors to evade responsibility, or would you rather hold those people accountable?”

Take tobacco lawyers, opioid lawyers, and toxic tort lawyers. In general, they do amazing things in changing the behavior of really harmful companies and products, but if you go into that kind of work, you’re representing victims and family members of those who have suffered some injury or wrong. Is that something you’d be excited to do? It’s not for me. It’s diffi cult and demanding emotionally, but I have great respect for those who take those types of cases on. Also, the complexity that I crave in financial litigation is generally absent in toxic tort cases. Bottom line, students and young lawyers need to think through what will motivate them and inspire them as they pursue their careers.

I think law school should force students to think through questions like these. They should explore the different avenues of law they could pursue so that they can make better choices about their career path – which almost certainly would lead

fewer lawyers to fall back on the default route into Big Law. In order to effectively accomplish this, law schools would really need to bring in practicing lawyers on the front lines and ask them detailed questions about their practices.

When you do not go through that thought process, you become an accidental tourist in the law. You go to a big firm because you maximize your starting salary, and then you go in-house at a company because you worked for the company while at the big firm. All the paths you go down in your career are dictated by where you start.

LD: So how would you advise students to become happy lawyers?

BR: To focus their North Star metric on something that will motivate them other than money. The money will come, so don’t worry about it. Stay focused on your North Star. For most happy lawyers, it comes down to finding a practice area or areas that they are passionate about. Once a lawyer finds their passion in the practice of law, they are truly on their way to becoming happy lawyers.

LD: What do you envision as the future of law practice?

BR: I think the future will be very different with the advent of AI/ChatGPT/quantum computing. I actually think there will be a premium on issue spotting and strategy and people skills. All of those are critical now – but they may be all that is left after AI/quantum computing get truly going. This will be the biggest change we will have seen in our careers. Once these new technologies pervade the practice of law, I think the hourly-based model will have to undergo substantial change, which will fundamentally challenge the foundations of Big Law. I also think that most litigation will be handled by smaller teams who will be much more efficient. Imagine a machinelearning tool that could produce a first draft response to a motion to dismiss or answer the question: what

did the board know about the drilling project on X date? These are the sorts of tasks that currently require lots of hours. In the very near future, they will not take nearly as much time or as many people. For a thousand-lawyer, billable-hour firm, that prospect is pretty terrifying. For a boutique firm of 40 lawyers that operates on a success fee and thereby benefits from efficiency, it’s exhilarating.

LD: Reid Collins & Tsai is a pretty great test of your philosophy about law practice. How did you recruit such an amazing group of lawyers and support them in creating their own achievements?

BR: We are fortunate to have an amazing team. I think having Austin as the main office helps –we actually do very little local work there – but it is really about giving young trial lawyers what they really want, which is opportunity and responsibility, and then mentoring them along the way.

Like everything else, we do it our way. I created the kind of trial law firm that I wanted to work for, and I think that resonates with the right candidate. If we have a team go to trial, our young lawyers can count on the rule that everyone gets to take a witness at our trials: There are no bag carriers.

We spend a lot of time ensuring that the candidates we hire will fi t our philosophy. In fact, cultural fi t is my number one priority in making any hiring decision.

All lawyers who come to us as potential hires must do a mock oral argument. Think about that. How many law firms require their candidates to perform on their feet? And although it’s true that the mock oral argument is in part a rite of passage, it says a lot about who we are as a firm. I think our track record speaks for itself.

To be honest, our recruiting process is somewhat self-selecting. We try to paint as accurate a picture as we can of what we do so that we can both attract the right person and dissuade the wrong one.

LD: Every time we talk, I’m struck with the fact that you are a particularly happy lawyer who seems to be living his best life. And appreciating that fact. What did you do right?

BR: Wow, that’s a big question. I am a big believer in carpe diem. I try to attack every problem with all of my energy and strength. And I’m guided by keeping justice, purpose, and fun as my North Stars. I think my life-work balance is really critical to my happiness, but true to my North Star – I am

passionate about my cases because I found a niche practice area that I love – holding institutional bad actors accountable.

My belief in group problem-solving and teamwork has absolutely helped our success and the buy-in across the board. I was fortunate enough to have some amazing mentors along the way, particularly Judge Garza (a former plaintiff’s lawyer), Don Nichols, and Alan Brown. I was also very focused on getting as much trial experience as I could get as soon as I could get it – hence moving to Del Rio in 1997 at the age of 29 – and it has served me well. I feel sorry for the next generation of lawyers because the opportunities for trial experience are dwindling (as is the jury trial itself).

LD: What are you working on now? What do you think 10 years from now looks like?

BR: Now is the typical bag of interesting insolvencyrelated litigations, a half dozen legal malpractice cases, a cool docket of litigation against AT&T and several other fiduciary-duty type cases in Delaware, a new case that looks like Renren II, my docket of foreign appraisal rights claims (now several billion dollars in dispute), my law-school class, and my book.

The future will be far less labor intensive due to AI and quantum computing. Fraud and greed will not go away. It will take on new forms and infect new technologies and industries – but it will keep us busy for sure. And as long as we remain atop the national contingency-fee boutique heap, we will get our share of opportunities.

LD: And can lawyers ever truly be happy?

BR : I think there are a lot of people who end up accidental tourists in the law and never find their true passion. That makes it very difficult to be happy. There are others who get sucked into Big Law, become disenchanted, and quit the profession altogether. Of course, there are many successful Big Law lawyers and I presume at least some are happy. But lawyers who prioritize what they are passionate about can find very rewarding careers in the law –and yes, happiness. The key is to really think through what they want to do and make deliberate choices, rather than just drifting with the current. You can tell from the working title of my upcoming book that it’s intended to encourage students and young lawyers to pursue happiness by doing just that. For now, I’m calling it: “How to Love the Law.”

Jed Zobitz and Karin DeMasi

CRAVATH (NEW YORK)

KARIN DEMASI & JED ZOBITZ

FINDING TALENT IS ONE THING. GROWING AND KEEPING IT, IS ANOTHER.

There are many ways to attract young lawyers, fresh from school or a clerkship, looking to begin their careers. All firms have their ways of pursuing and wooing potential associates. But how do you ensure they stay – and continue developing – after they’ve initially cut their teeth, begun to carve their paths and have every offer and opportunity at their disposal?

For Cravath, with its long and storied history, a central part of that answer is the fi rm’s hallmark rotation system. The unique system of training rotates associates through different teams within their department on a steady schedule, and teaches lawyers to quickly delve into new ground and use broad-based skillsets – at every level – to master new areas. If you ask Karin A. DeMasi, managing partner for the litigation department, this high-octane training ground is a big part of what attracted her to the firm in the first place, and made her want to stay.

“It was really formative for me in terms of my development and my confidence,” says DeMasi, a member of the Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America and Leading Global Litigators. “It is an experience that really fuels growth and never becomes repetitive, because each rotation means you are facing situations where the law is new, the client is new, the framework is new.”

Cravath has long been considered among the most elite fi rms in the United States, in part because of this thoughtful and thorough approach to developing young lawyers. The firm has long set the standard for keeping associates happy with their industry-leading associate compensation structure. Recently, the firm made headlines when they implemented a salaried, non-equity partner tier, providing additional avenues for growth for their senior-level talent. The last several years have also seen the firm increase its focus on well-being, with initiatives bringing awareness to the topic as well as dialogue around work-life balance and best practices for self-care.

And while Cravath continues to evolve with the marketplace, their approach to talent seems to stand the test of time and suit the lawyers the firm attracts.

BY MEGHAN HEMINGWAY AND EMILY JACKOWAY

“A lot of our people are just curious by nature – it’s one of the things we look for when we hire,” says Jed Zobitz, managing partner of the firm’s corporate department and cohead of the finance practice, and one of the Lawdragon 500 Leading Dealmakers in America and Leading Bankruptcy & Restructuring Lawyers. “They’re smart. They want to learn. And if you keep it fresh and interesting with pathways for growth and a focus on holistic development, we believe there is a distinctive value proposition for lawyers who want to work with clients at the level we do. It’s certainly a big part of what made it the right place for me personally, which remains true to this day.”

Lawdragon: What brought each of you to Cravath?

Karin DeMasi:  The thing that really drew me to Cravath, like many associates, is the rotation system. I came to the firm from a clerkship, where you are in a very small environment, working very closely with a judge. It is effectively an apprenticeship that enables you to grow, develop relationships and really learn from the judge that you are assigned to, which I appreciated.

The rotation system seemed to be an incredibly similar format. Cravath places associates on small teams where they develop direct relationships with their assigned partners and all of the work comes through the partners and the core team. They rotate across teams on a set schedule depending on the department in which they are practicing. There is no competition inherent in this model; there is instead a holistic focus on learning and development. There is a mutual incentive, for the partner and the associates on each team, to ensure that every lawyer develops strong skills and has opportunities to grow.

Jed Zobitz:  I also came to Cravath because of the rotation system, though I didn’t initially anticipate that I would be drawn to a firm like Cravath. I thought it was going to be a little too stuffy and “white shoe” for me. But when I came to interview here, it was very clear that there are so many different kinds of people – and kinds of lawyers – at the firm, and the rotation system allows you to work closely with many of them. On the corporate side, you are likely to work with somewhere around 70 to 75 percent of the partners during your time as

an associate. I didn’t know exactly what I wanted to do when I started, so I thought it would be a great way to figure out my career path.

LD:  How have you benefited from the rotation system?

JZ:  Each group I rotated into on the corporate side allowed me to develop distinct skills that were critical to my becoming a well-rounded corporate lawyer. Some rotations included work that was more focused on contract drafting, some on disclosure drafting, some on negotiation – collectively they were all skills that I needed to develop, and every experience was substantive and interesting.

The rotation system also sets up an environment where you regularly see different styles of lawyering and receive feedback from different senior perspectives – it helps you hone the style that works for you. Cravath is really the best postgraduate education you can get. It was the mentors I had along the way at Cravath who really enabled me to be the best lawyer I could be.

KDM: What makes the rotation system unique is that you have partners responsible for your development and growth who see the whole picture. In a lot of firms, associates work with a partner who identifies things you are good at and you continue to do those things. The rotation system allows us, within each team, to see the whole lawyer and develop many different aspects of their skillset. We know what our associates are really great at and what they still need to develop, and we focus on their developmental priorities by providing them the right targeted opportunities at each stage of their career. This way, they’re able to build on their existing skills, and are still constantly learning.

LD: How do you ensure the success of the rotation system? Have you looked to change or adjust it in any way?

KDM: Cravath created the rotation system, so we believe in it deeply, but we aren’t rigid about it. It is an apprenticeship model that we adhere to, but we can also be adaptable when we need to be. For example, we have a full trial team that has been stationed out in California for a client, and we have extended several rotations so that those associates could see that trial through to its finish, which was an experience they very much wanted.

JZ:  The system has always evolved around the edges, but I think the core program really works,

and we do not expect that to change. Other firms do not commit to it like we do because it is hard – it takes a lot of partner time and commitment to make sure it works well, as well buy-in from our clients, who experience rotations on their matters just as we do internally. That said, we see the tangible benefits and believe strongly in our investment.

LD: What are those tangible benefi ts for the firm?

KDM: We are in the lawyer development business. That is what we ultimately give to our clients – the best legal service we can possibly provide. The vast majority of our lawyers come in from law school or out of a clerkship, so we are training people from the ground up, and the rotation system yields extraordinary lawyers.

Because of the number of things our associates face through their rotations, and the substantive responsibility they take on, they have to constantly stretch themselves outside their comfort zone, learn new things, and get up on their feet. This allows our associates to develop quickly and gain confidence. We often see our associates dealing with much more senior lawyers – whether as opposing counsel, co-counsel, or counterparts at other fi rms. The rotation system allows our associates to get fantastic experience and to get it sooner.

JZ: I agree. An important part of our system is to get associates in front of clients and opposing counsel, and so our associates tend to develop and gain more practical experience more quickly than they would elsewhere.

Our system is also built to incentivize collaboration, both within the team that is working together, but also across any given associate class – associates rely on their peers to help get them up to speed in new rotations and help them think through new issues.

At the firm level, and from the perspective of our clients, we have a remarkably deep bench of excellent lawyers, and that’s driven by the rotation system and the culture it fosters. As Karin said, it’s an important part of what we offer clients and ultimately contributes to the success of the firm.

LD:  What do you look for in terms of bringing on new talent?

JZ:  Aside from the usual stuff – hardworking and smart – I look for people who have had to act on their feet and make decisions under pressure. It helps to see experience where someone would not have had the opportunity to call a ”time-out” or

CRAVATH PLACES ASSOCIATES ON SMALL TEAMS WHERE THEY DEVELOP

DIRECT RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEIR ASSIGNED PARTNERS

AND ALL OF THE WORK COMES THROUGH THE PARTNERS AND THE CORE TEAM. THEY ROTATE ACROSS TEAMS ON A SET SCHEDULE DEPENDING ON THE DEPARTMENT IN WHICH THEY ARE PRACTICING.

reset, and where they may have had to navigate tough situations.

An extension of that is that we look for a wide range of backgrounds and experiences – the diversity of perspective and experience is critical to our ability to respond to our clients’ complex legal challenges, and it also contributes greatly to our culture.

KDM:  I would add intellectual curiosity and creativity. There is an intellectual curiosity that motivates smart people to want to learn new things. We also look for a high level of emotional intelligence to support our approach to problemsolving.

At the end of the day, the lawyers that do well in this environment are really creative. We rarely get matters from clients that are rote; in the matters that come to us, there often isn’t a clear answer. We need creativity to figure out what the client’s goal is and how we can best advocate to achieve that goal. Lawyers who are idea generators really excel here.

LD: Can you talk a bit about what training looks like day-to-day at Cravath?

JZ:  There is formal training and then there is informal training. For formal CLE (continuing legal education) training, we do everything in-house. We often have a unique way of looking at things and it is important to us that we teach that, so our partners develop topical CLE programming directly for associate audiences.

Informal training is really where the best learning happens, and that’s the stuff we do every day through the rotation system. The way we’re organized on the corporate side is in small groups, which allows for close relationships where partners

learn quickly what associates are doing well, what they need to work on and what experiences they need that they have not yet had. A new associate will work with a small group of partners for 18 months or so, and those partners will be focused on the associates’ development during that period. They will offer very pointed feedback every day. It’s a unique set-up that requires investment at all levels, including from our clients, and there are not many firms that handle development in this way.

KDM: It is similar in litigation. We have a formal education training process that takes place for all of our associates in their first year. Everyone goes through that full training, handled by our own partners, and then we have advanced CLE training as you become more senior.

The real training happens within the rotations, as Jed described for the corporate department. In litigation, associates go through a series of rotations by partner. So, unlike in corporate where our partners work in groups and associates are assigned to a group, in litigation our partners are a little more individualized, and associates are assigned to a particular partner.

An associate rotating through partner assignments will be exposed to all different kinds of litigation, different aspects of litigation, and different stages of litigation, which really helps them to grow and learn in a variety of areas. The vast majority of our partner teams practice general litigation. We do have a few discrete groups for associates who are interested in more specialized areas, including investigations, IP and antitrust/regulatory.

Alongside the substantive practice training – both formal and informal – we also have an internally

Sean X. McKessy

PHILLIPS & COHEN

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Scarlet McNellie

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT

DALLAS

Jelena McWilliams CRAVATH

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Christopher Meade

BLACKROCK NEW YORK

Richard D. Meadow

LANIER LAW FIRM H OUSTON

Pallavi Mehta Wahi

K&L GATES

SEATTLE

Tom Melsheimer

WINSTON & STRAWN

DALLAS

Brian Melton

SUSMAN GODFREY

HOUSTON

Mark F. Mendelsohn

PAUL WEISS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Nicole Levin Mesard DEBEVOISE NEW YORK

Edward Micheletti SKADDEN WILMINGTON

Donald A. Migliori MOTLEY RICE

MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.

Betsy A. Miller

COHEN MILSTEIN

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Scott D. Miller

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL NEW YORK

Matthew Minner MINNER VINES LEXINGTON, KY.

David W. Mitchell ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

Steven F. Molo

MOLOLAMKEN NEW YORK

A. Elicia Montoya MCGINN MONTOYA ALBUQUERQUE

developed series of courses addressing professional skills. So, while every associate – regardless of department – is getting the experience of the apprenticeship model, they are also being trained across the board by Cravath partners on how to be the most effective professional and the most effective attorney.

LD:  Can you speak to the younger generation of associates and what differences you’re seeing in terms of what they are looking for in their experience?

KDM:  This generation cares deeply about workplace experience and well-being, and it is something that has benefi tted our entire firm.

Discussion around diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging has been enhanced significantly. Our affinity groups are active and thriving, and it has been amazing to see our people inspired to make a difference, both within our firm and in the wider community. Our affinity groups have taken the initiative to bring in outside speakers who offer diverse perspectives on topics of interest. These opportunities provide a forum for our lawyers to have greater dialogue around their personal backgrounds and experiences and to foster opportunities for meaningful connection across the firm.

Additionally, over the last five or so years, the desire for well-being-related benefits and services has really contributed to what is now a suite of offerings that Cravath offers in this area. We have a longstanding Employee Assistance Program which provides free mental health counseling and other work/life resources to employees and their families, and we also make available numerous well-being offerings: meditation benefits, Citi Bike memberships, on-site physical exams, concierge memberships for primary physician care, gym memberships and more. We also bring in well-being speakers to talk to our people about sleep, nutrition, anxiety and stress at work and how to manage those things in a positive way, to help you to better show up for your job, but also to show up for yourself. These have been really great enhancements for the firm and something we are really proud of.

JZ: I second everything that Karin has mentioned. I would add that pro bono work has always been an important part of our practice at Cravath, and it is something that law students are increasingly focused on as they explore opportunities to begin their legal careers. From day one, our newest

associates are provided pro bono opportunities that support their training and professional development. Having a sophisticated pro bono program in place has been an important part of our culture, offering lawyers at all levels the chance to help those who may not otherwise have access to legal assistance while practicing at the level we do.

LD:  Have there been any other recent changes at Cravath relevant for associate development?

KDM:  One thing that has become much more robust is our developmental review process across all departments. Every year, every associate has an annual review with their assigned partner that reviews all of the various competencies, both hard and soft skills, that we want our lawyers to develop. We identify individual priorities for each associate for the coming year and give them feedback to help them progress.

LD:  What about at more senior levels? Can you tell me a bit about how you look to develop senior talent?

JZ:  We are fortunate to have a number of very talented and experienced senior lawyers. We developed our “of counsel” role and, more recently, our salary partner role to recognize their skill and experience. It has enhanced our ability to retain a group of exceptional lawyers, who are not only providing excellent legal service to our clients, but also helping to train and develop our more junior cohorts. It was a shift tied not only to our ability to provide excellent service, but also to our continued focus on developing talent and creating long-term career pathways for our people.

LD:  So much of the associate development experience at Cravath focuses on apprenticeship and mentorship. What do you enjoy about mentoring?

JZ:  It’s incredibly rewarding when you work with somebody and have that personal connection, then to see them develop – see them get better – and their confidence grows and they’re able to take on greater leading roles with clients and within the firm.

KDM:  The way we run our teams, we are able to develop such close relationships and we really get to experience more than just the work side of that relationship. As Jed mentioned, seeing someone’s growth and development is incredibly rewarding. We are so grateful for the hard work that goes into our client matters, but I think another special aspect of the way we practice is the culture of teamwork and collaboration that comes with it.

Bijal Vakil SKADDEN (PALO ALTO)

BIJAL VAKIL

IT’S EXCEEDINGLY RARE THESE DAYS FOR A

technology dispute or transaction to exist within just one set of borders. The deals are almost always international, and, for those existing in the crypto space, the geography is even more amorphous.

Bijal Vakil’s work puts him at the forefront of complex technology matters, working worldwide with the biggest players in the space. And he’s the right man for the job.

Vakil is a first generation American. Traveling back and forth to India to visit extended family growing up, he developed a strong sense of the power technology has to improves lives. He also saw firsthand that the world was interconnected.

Vakil’s practice at Skadden in Palo Alto is primarily focused on technology disputes, including complex and cross-border patent litigation. He’s known for his innovative approach to addressing the most challenging legal issues facing technology cases – in many instances unchartered waters. For example, Vakil helped form the Cryptocurrency Open Patent Alliance, a ground-breaking consortium of companies that helps reduce the risks of patent litigation in the crypto industry.

Lawdragon: Where did your interest in technology came from? How did you come to focus your practice in that sector?

Bijal Vakil: I’m one of those rare tech lawyers who doesn’t have something like an engineering degree. I was a social science major. I’ve just always been interested in technology. I grew up in the U.S., with all my extended family in India. Going back and forth so often, I saw the power technology has to really be life changing. Fortunately that gap is much smaller now, with the internet and other advances changing lives for many.

LD: How did you come to the law?

BV: I was an only child for many years, and my parents said, “You like to argue all the time, you should be a lawyer.” Turned out to be a good fit. I like having the ability to take complex technology and make it understandable, for the judge, the jury, even the board members when we’re presenting about a case. Interestingly enough, my great grandparents were lawyers in India, which I didn’t find out until much

BY ALISON PREECE

later. I never met them. They had a very difficult path to it, getting shipped off, literally by ship, from India to England, because we were under British rule. They learned the Common Law and went back to practice and act as judges on small disputes.

LD: That’s incredible. Where did you start out as a lawyer?

BV: I started off practicing law in Los Angeles, but I quickly realized that in order to really do tech law, I had to move up here. So I moved up to the Bay Area and worked at a patent boutique where I really started honing in on the skills for all aspects of a solid tech practice from patent litigation to all things technology related. I believe you’re really a well-rounded lawyer when you can counsel on industry-specific issues. You have to know the whole life cycle from how you get patents, what happens to them, and then at the end, 99 percent of the cases settle, so you learn how to settle them in unique and creative ways.

LD: I saw that you teach sometimes at Berkeley Law and UC Davis. Can you tell us why that’s important to you or what you find enjoyable about it?

BV: I’ve really enjoyed learning fresh and new perspectives from students. So much of law is founded in policy, and when you have the chance to hear different perspectives as to why policy goals may have shifted or why they’re different, it’s very interesting.

For example, when I was in law school, we learned that patents are good because they encourage companies to create and innovate. Which is very true. But if you were in law school during Covid, you might start to question patent protection rules. That shift in thinking might lead to exceptions or changes in policy down the line. It’s a great perspective to be around students.

LD: Let’s talk crypto. The market has been volatile lately. What are your thoughts there?

BV: It is volatile right now. People are a bit anxious, but I don’t believe there’s any change to the longterm view that crypto is here to stay. It’s just a matter of how we embrace it.

LD: Do you think there’s certain regulatory updates that we need to help stabilize the market?

BV: There’s no doubt that regulations will come

Sarah Morgan

VINSON & ELKINS

HOUSTON

Juan Morillo

QUINN EMANUEL MIAMI

Laurence Moy

OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK

Veronica Moyé

GIBSON DUNN

DALLAS

Marc Mukasey

MUKASEY & FRENCHMAN

NEW YORK

William Munck

MUNCK WILSON

DALLAS

Susan W. Murley

WILMERHALE

BOSTON

Francis Patrick Murphy

CORBOY & DEMETRIO

CHICAGO

Scott Musoff

SKADDEN

NEW YORK

Saee Muzumdar

GIBSON DUNN

NEW YORK

Danielle S. Myers

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

Frederick R. Nance

SQUIRE PATTON CLEVELAND

Daniel A. Neff

WACHTELL

NEW YORK

Sharon Nelles

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL

NEW YORK

Robert J. Nelson

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

Sonia Nijjar SKADDEN

PALO ALTO

Sabastian V. Niles

WACHTELL

NEW YORK

Crystal Nix-Hines

QUINN EMANUEL

LOS ANGELES

TAKE IT UPON YOURSELF TO SPEAK UP AND SHOW UP. THINK

ABOUT THE PARTNERS YOU WORK FOR AS YOUR CLIENTS. IT IS A GAME CHANGER.

about, tax reporting will come out, there’ll be tax consequences and the like. And regulation is not a bad thing. It legitimizes crypto. But there certainly needs to be a better way of democratizing payments around the world. It’s too difficult right now. Crypto is the solution, or at least one solution.

It’s a mind shift that needs to happen. Gen Z sees it now. They want a way to make payments cross border, and they want it to be easier. At some level, it’s a failure of our own financial systems that everything was made so difficult. Back in the day, my parents had to take money and go to Western Union or get a bank note and it wouldn’t get cashed in India. It was crazy.

LD: Tech companies have been experiencing lower valuations in the past year or so. What do you think accounts for that, and do you think the trend will continue?

BV: If I had a crystal ball, I might not be practicing law. What I do know is that lower valuations in the tech industry also create a lot of opportunities. For M&A deals, as well as opportunities to prioritize certain investments. It’s not all a bad thing.

LD: What advice do you give to those young lawyers who might feel like outsiders in the profession?

BV: You need to recognize that lawyers are advocates for others. If you’re going to build a career advocating for other people, you must be able to advocate for yourself. So, take it upon yourself to speak up and show up. Think about the partners you work for as your clients. It is a game changer. As a manager, if someone’s not going to advocate for themselves, then I don’t want them on my teams because how good of a job are they going to do?

I also tell young lawyers and law students to be intellectually curious. Take business classes, because so much of law is the business of law and building relationships, which is not taught in law schools. Law schools are not practical. Business school helps you become more well-rounded.

Early on in my career, I had a large case before the International Trade Commission. It was probably one of the most complex ITC cases and involved many parties. That’s where I really homed in on the balance that you need between the technical issues and the business issues in order to resolve these complex matters.

LD: Final question: How would you describe your style as a lawyer?

BV: Direct, clear and policy driven.

LD: Investors seem to be demanding more ESG metrics across industries. How are you seeing that play out in the tech sector?

BV: It is absolutely a hot topic, we talk about it all the time. In almost every context, we have to think about the environmental, social, and governance aspects of the deal, transaction or project. Again, it’s one of those issues that’s not talked about in law school, but should be.

LD: Why did you decide to join Allen & Overy?

BV: I joined A&O because it had an amazing global footprint where it was already number one in tech. We came to join a leading technology practice globally. Long gone are the days when technology issues are only in one jurisdiction. Tech companies in Silicon Valley, they want to walk to my office in Palo Alto and get help with their issues in England, France, Germany and China. And all on the same day, because the products are launched the same day. The iPhone 14 comes out everywhere at once. So you need to be able to address those with a consistent framework and consistent messaging on the same day.

With patent litigation, a lot of patent cases get filed in the U.S. because it’s a big country with a lot of people, so you have big damages awards. But Europe as a unit, plus or minus England, is larger in population. So we’re seeing now, it’s doing your clients a disservice if you don’t think about a European component to any patent issue.

Erin Nealy Cox KIRKLAND & ELLIS (DALLAS)

ERIN NEALY COX

CERTAIN PEOPLE ARE TRULY EXTRAORDINARY.

They not only possess the passion and drive to do great things, but they’re also able to execute those things in real time, in the real world. These rare individuals have the capacity to impact change for communities, bring about reform in antiquated systems and even re-shape culture. Erin Nealy Cox is one of them.

Nealy Cox has mastered the art of remaining nimble. Ever-questioning, ever-listening, she can pivot when called upon. As U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas in the Department of Justice – a role that Nealy Cox calls, “the experience of a lifetime,” – her work was highly impactful and downright inspiring. She honed in on domestic violence through hyper localized gun control initiatives and built the North Texas Trafficking Task Force in an effort to abolish human trafficking.

“These are huge issues,” Nealy Cox says, “and it’s such a great privilege to be able to work on them.”

Though growing pains cause discomfort, Nealy Cox believes in the power of remaining curious about new experiences. “I think you have to be really receptive to not staying on the well-trodden path,” Nealy Cox says, “and allowing yourself to experience these great opportunities.”

Nealy Cox has led by example in her expansive career, which included being at the forefront of the thennascent world of cybersecurity breaches. Over the years, her vast scope of practice has included fraud, national security, public corruption, workplace compliance and governance. Now, as partner in the Dallas office at Kirkland & Ellis, the accomplished trial lawyer works mainly with corporations who face potentially devastating disputes and complex investigations.

An exemplary advocate who is working to be the change she wants to see in the world, Nealy Cox is an esteemed member of The Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America.

Lawdragon:  You’ve had such a fascinating career. What does your current mix of practice look like?

Erin Nealy Cox:  I represent companies when a regulatory entity has inquiries. It could be a DOJ subpoena, or it can be as simple as the SEC called and they have questions. I help with all sorts of internal investigations as well, but my work goes more towards companies that have big problems. I put it under the larger umbrella of white-collar work.

BY MEGHAN HEMINGWAY AND ALISON PREECE

LD: Where are regulators focusing these days?

ENC: The Department of Justice has really focused on corporate criminal responsibility. That is an area that I spend a lot of my time in. And it’s expansive. It can be anything – financial fraud, public corruption, any regulatory misconduct that the feds are interested in. It’s a very interesting area to be practicing in.

And of course, I still love doing cyber work, but I really like making sure that’s not all I’m doing. The bigger the problem, the more you want to dig in and really help your clients figure out how they’re going to deal with it and resolve it successfully. When you’re able to help clients do that, it’s really satisfying work.

LD:  How much of your career path was planned? It’s been quite diverse.

ENC: I believe you should always be open-minded to great opportunities and challenges in your career. You don’t want to find yourself on a rote path. I had great opportunities put in front of me and I was willing to consider them. I got the opportunity to be a federal prosecutor and I loved every minute of it. Then, I had the opportunity during the Bush administration to work in Main Justice on high priority policy initiatives with Congress and the White House. That meant my husband and I had to move our two-year-old to D.C., but it was this wonderful opportunity and well worth it.

When I came back, I went into cyber investigations consulting – something that I knew very well and was very comfortable with from my work as a prosecutor. During that time period, everybody was just learning about these massive breaches – Target, Home Depot, Neiman Marcus. Now, breaches get announced every day, but back then it was a really big event for a company. It was a great opportunity to be in this fast-moving, new, technology-driven business that was adjacent to what I had been doing throughout my prosecutorial career.

Then I had an opportunity to go back into government as a high-level DOJ appointee. I was responsible for a big portion of Texas and was tasked by the Attorney General to be on the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee, an assignment which meant I was up in D.C. every six weeks. Again, a great opportunity that allowed me some very unique experiences that if I had been holding to a typical track I might not have gotten. I think you have to be really receptive to not staying on the well-trodden path and allowing yourself

Robert T. Novick

WILMERHALE

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Victoria Nugent

COHEN MILSTEIN

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Heather S. Nyong’o

CLEARY GOTTLIEB

SAN FRANCISCO

Jeannemarie O’Brien

WACHTELL

NEW YORK

Sean F. O’Shea

CADWALADER

NEW YORK

Kevyn D. Orr

JONES DAY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Kevin J. Orsini

CRAVATH

NEW YORK

Gregory E. Ostling

WACHTELL

NEW YORK

Yvette Ostolaza

SIDLEY

DALLAS

Jennifer Pafiti

POMERANTZ

LOS ANGELES

Brian Panish

PANISH SHEA

LOS ANGELES

Robin Panovka WACHTELL

NEW YORK

Donna Parisi

SHEARMAN

NEW YORK

Stephanie E. Parker

JONES DAY

ATLANTA

Michael A. Paskin

CRAVATH

NEW YORK

Kathy D. Patrick

GIBBS & BRUNS

HOUSTON

Matthew F. Pawa

SEEGER WEISS

NEWTON, MASS.

Gerard G. Pecht

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT

HOUSTON

to experience these great opportunities.

LD: That must have been fascinating to get in on the ground floor of cybersecurity.

ENC: Yes. After 9/11, when the Department of Justice was putting together the pieces and realizing the nexus between counterterrorism, anti-terrorism and cyber securities, they started asking people to go into these cyber sections and help. As a public servant, I had a call to serve and I just wanted to help – to do whatever I could. I did that. I had no technical background, but I knew how to ask questions and I learned from some of our best cyber experts. After a while, you start speaking the language and really understanding what’s happening.

LD:  What has surprised you about working in cybersecurity over the years?

ENC:  It’s an interesting area because clearly the companies that are being hacked are victims. They are victims of a criminal act. But in many ways, we don’t really think of them as victims. And they do have a responsibility to do better, no doubt, but they are victims of a crime as well. My career has been around helping victims and so it was easy for me to work with companies that were victimized by bad actors, like hackers that are often well-funded and operate ruthlessly.

No company, nor even the federal government can make themselves invincible – there’s no silver bullet. It is a process of constantly being vigilant, and working around the clock to keep your network secure. Many companies are doing the best that they can do against a very well-resourced threat actor – especially when it’s a state-sponsored threat actor. The hackers are very successful and they’re not going away. I think it’s really about trying to do the best you can in the environment that we live in.

LD: What did it mean to you to be appointed as United States Attorney in Texas for the Department of Justice?

ENC:  It was the privilege of a lifetime. I returned to the office that I essentially grew up in and I was put in charge. I worked very closely with all the federal law enforcement agencies, FBI, DEA, Secret Service, Marshalls, you name it. Then to have that close connection to D.C. – it was an experience of a lifetime.

When you’re a U.S. Attorney, even though it’s a political appointment, once you’re in the job it becomes very apolitical. You have to be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. No doubt there’s politics involved in that. However, once you’re appointed into

the top law enforcement position in your district, you have to become an apolitical leader and deal with some very difficult challenges for the community. National security, public corruption, rising violent crime, the increasing opioid and fentanyl crises – these are huge issues, but it’s also such a great privilege to be able to work on them to better the community.

LD: It seems like you were really effective while you were there. Are there certain accomplishments that stand out to you?

ENC: I’m so proud of the work that we did on human trafficking and the work that we did with respect to domestic violence victims. We did some amazing work on public corruption cases in the city of Dallas. I worked with a talented team – the best and the brightest lawyers, and we were all rowing in the right direction. The common denominator throughout my career has been a combination of unique challenges and leadership opportunities.

LD: Were those issues that were mandated for you by Main Justice when you took on the position?

ENC:  No, those were my initiatives. In Dallas, violent crime rates and homicide were going way up. We started to look at the gun crime laws and how we could prevent the greatest number of homicides. And it wasn’t even close. The gun crimes that result in the most homicides are those involving felons. Anyone convicted of a misdemeanor in domestic violence that then possesses a gun, statistically the chances of violence skyrockets.

In my mind, that was an easy place for us to make a dent in violent crime in our community by enforcing laws against gun crimes that were already on the books. That was where we could focus our resources to make the biggest impact. We worked hand in hand with ATF to support victims and police departments and to make sure they knew they could refer these types of crimes to the feds. We ended up naming our initiative Operation Ty – after a pregnant woman who was a victim of a domestic dispute. Her boyfriend shot her in her stomach, killing her and her son. The son’s name was going to be Ty. It was emotional for everyone, but he became the spirit and inspiration for our initiative.

LD: Wow. Sounds like such meaningful work.

ENC:  Yes. And that’s just the gun crime. The district that I represented had a lot of human trafficking – both sex trafficking of girls and adult human trafficking. I partnered with Homeland Security to create a task force to work with the state and locals, because the

Jason L. Peltz

BARTLIT BECK CHICAGO

Luis R. Penalver

CAHILL GORDON NEW YORK

Gregory Pessin WACHTELL NEW YORK

Kimberly C. Petillo-Décossard

CAHILL GORDON NEW YORK

Joseph Petrosinelli

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Christopher V. Popov

VINSON & ELKINS

HOUSTON

Warren Postman

KELLER LENKNER

WASHINGTON, D.C.

A. Michael Pratt

GREENBERG TRAURIG

PHILADELPHIA

Hilary Preston

VINSON & ELKINS

NEW YORK

William Price

QUINN EMANUEL

LOS ANGELES

Peter Prieto PODHURST MIAMI

Therese D. Pritchard BRYAN CAVE

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Patrick Quinn CADWALADER NEW YORK

Shawn J. Rabin

SUSMAN GODFREY NEW YORK

Brian A. Ratner HAUSFELD WASHINGTON, D.C.

Sarah M. Ray LATHAM SAN FRANCISCO

Shawn L. Raymond

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

Barrett H. Reasoner

GIBBS & BRUNS HOUSTON

state of Texas has great human trafficking laws. They helped us to find cases that involve lots of money or criminal organizations or where smuggling victims were being trafficked into the state for a big event. And we shut down large businesses that were engaging in human trafficking.

LD: Can you talk a bit about what drew you to Kirkland?

ENC:  Kirkland’s an amazing platform. It’s a highly reputable firm with amazingly talented lawyers and it’s world renowned for its standards of excellence. I think that’s what made it attractive to me. And the firm is relatively new in Texas – the Dallas office is not even five years old. Being able to come to a firm like Kirkland, but in a new and growing area for the firm – this was exciting for me. I was also very interested in building out the firm’s white-collar practice in the state of Texas and that was an aspect that appealed to me as well. Kirkland is the type of environment where we are constantly mentoring and developing our young lawyers. What I have chosen to spend a lot of my time on is helping to develop female lawyers here at the firm and helping folks in the white-collar practice grow, learn and develop. That’s where I most feel like I can add value to the firm. And to be clear, I am learning a lot here too. When you are in an environment like Kirkland, surrounded by the talented people that work here, you are going to learn a lot. I have been the happy beneficiary of that learning opportunity.

LD:  Would you say white collar is a tougher area for women compared to other practices?

ENC:  It can be. I mean, I think it can be tougher for women just because it’s still a male-dominated space when you look at CEOs, especially in public companies. But that also provides a great opportunity because women bring a unique perspective to problem solving. What we’re finding that is best for our clients, is putting together teams of highly talented lawyers that have a diversity of opinion and thought and perspective such that we can help them with their most complex high-profile problems.

LD:  Could you share your advice for young female lawyers who want a career in white-collar and investigations?

ENC: My first piece of advice is to be thoughtful about what you want to do with your career and make sure that what you devote yourself to in your career is what drives you. If it’s not, you’re always going to second guess yourself when you have to make tough choices. My second bit of advice is if you’re going to pick a

partner, you need to pick a partner that is just as focused on your goals as you are. I married another lawyer, Trey Cox, and we are a team. He prioritized my professional choices as much as I prioritized his. And we divided up our family duties in ways that made it possible for us to excel at our careers. Sometimes that meant he was working hard and I was handling family matters, and other times it meant I was working hard and he was handling family matters. I never second guessed my career choices because my husband was always supportive of them. And it made all the difference to me in my career. Everyone needs a good teammate to help them through – choose wisely.

LD: Is there a case or a matter that stands out for you while you’ve been in private practice that is sort of a favorite or particularly memorable?

ENC:  Well, I have a list of cases that I absolutely love and that have been highly successful. The first big assignment I got shortly after I joined Kirkland, I was hired as an independent counsel for the city of Dallas. They had a major data security and deletion event, and it impacted quite a bit of the Dallas police department’s criminal files. The city council needed to hire independent counsel to advise them and to investigate it, and then create a report that would be released to the city to inspire confidence that the City was doing the right thing. I was very lucky to get picked for that, and it was a lot of work, and I think the team at Kirkland did a great job. I believe we presented the city council, the mayor, and all the stakeholders in a way that I am proud of. And we released our findings to the public, and got a lot of positive feedback.

LD:  What are you most excited about in your work right now?

ENC:  We started a program here where we were working with the DA’s office on human trafficking and domestic violence victims and helping them work to expunge their records. Certainly, domestic violence victims get caught up in similar charges. And human trafficking victims are often charged with prostitution, theft – a whole host of charges. It really restricts their ability to get their life on track, get a job, get clean credit, get somewhere to live. Having a record that is expunged from these types of crimes when they are eligible is really important. So we’ve got a bunch of lawyers here that are interested in working closely with the DA’s office on that effort. We call it Project Second Chance here internally at the firm. I’m proud of that. It’s just getting started, but I am proud of the people we have helped.

Steve Morrissey SUSMAN GODFREY (SEATTLE)

STEVE MORRISSEY

IN MARCH 2016, RESIDENTS OF FLINT,

Mich., filed suit against two engineering firms and multiple government entities, alleging they were liable for their roles in exposing the predominantly Black community to toxic levels of lead in its drinking water. Since then, the litigation over the Flint water crisis has swollen to epic proportions, with more than a dozen law firms, and more than two dozen attorneys, representing plaintiffs claiming exposure to the contaminated water. To date, their efforts have yielded a $626M settlement with the State of Michigan, the City of Flint and other government entities – the largest civil settlement in Michigan history.

A class trial of professional negligence claims against one of the engineering firms, Veolia North America, is scheduled for February. According to the plaintiffs, Veolia failed to identify the lack of any corrosion control system and corroding water pipes that caused the contamination, instead making the problem worse by recommending that the City of Flint double the dose of highly corrosive ferric chloride that it added to the water supply. Jurors in August 2022 were unable to reach a verdict over the liability of Veolia and another engineering firm, Lockheed, Andrews & Newman, causing a mistrial in a case brought by individual plaintiffs. LAN reached a settlement of the claims against it earlier this year.

Steve Morrissey, a Seattle, Wash.-based partner with the national litigation firm Susman Godfrey, has been involved in the plaintiffs’ team almost since the beginning of the litigation. As a member of the Executive Committee for Interim Class Counsel and co-chair of the Expert Committee, he has helped shape the legal strategy for challenging the conduct of the engineering firms and government officials and seeking compensation for lead poisoning, property damage and other injuries resulting from the contaminated water.

Morrissey is no stranger to complex litigation. He’s currently serving as co-lead counsel in ongoing class actions for North Carolina residents seeking compensation from Chemours and DuPont for the contamination of the water supply in the Cape Fear River area with PFAS. He’s also representing members of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and Chicago Board of Trade, claiming rights in CME’s electronic trading floor. He’s represented Flutter in

BY MATTHEW HELLER AND ALISON PREECE

a multi-billion-dollar arbitration with FOX over FOX’s right to invest in FanDuel, won a jury trial against Beats Electronics involving the design for Beats headphones, and sued Spotify for infringing the rights of music copyright owners.

Morrissey also recently helped win a confidential settlement worth hundreds of millions of dollars for investors in a cryptocurrency and blockchain startup. He has also defended clients in complex litigation matters, including the NASDAQ stock exchange in a fraud action brought by the Jefferies & Co. investment firm.

In terms of toxic tort litigation, though, it doesn’t get much bigger than the Flint water crisis cases. Lawdragon caught up with Morrissey as he prepares for the Veolia trial.

Lawdragon: How did you become involved in bringing legal claims on behalf of Flint residents?

Steve Morrissey : It was kind of convoluted but another lawyer we work with picked up on the role of the engineers [in the Flint water crisis]. We investigated that claim for a number of months and were initially planning to focus on a class case against the engineering firms. But then over time, as the case got organized, we added the claims against the state and city defendants as well, took on a role as part of the lead group for the class plaintiffs, and the team here has managed large aspects of the litigation since, including the governmental claims and the engineering claims. And now we have a certified issue class against the Veolia engineering firm that is set for trial in February.

LD: How did you figure out that the state had a big role here and had liability?

SM: Well, it was clear the state had a big role to play from the beginning. Navigating the qualified immunity issues was difficult and we obtained a good ruling from the appellate court on that several years ago. And that prompted the legislature to push toward a settlement of the claims against the governmental defendants. It took, I think it was 18 months, for the whole settlement process to work itself out. And then once the settlement was approved, there was an appeal process from objections to the settlement that took another couple of years. So it’s been a very drawn out process.

LD: Why was this was such a protracted struggle?

Jennifer Recine

KASOWITZ

NEW YORK

Noelle M. Reed

SKADDEN

HOUSTON

William T. Reid IV

REID COLLINS

AUSTIN

Julie G. Reiser

COHEN MILSTEIN

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Lorin L. Reisner

PAUL WEISS

NEW YORK

Alison Ressler

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL

LOS ANGELES

Ana C. Reyes

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Michael T. Reynolds

CRAVATH

NEW YORK

William Ridgway

SKADDEN

CHICAGO

David Ring

TAYLOR RING

LOS ANGELES

John Rizio-Hamilton

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ

NEW YORK

Darren Robbins

ROBBINS GELLER

SAN DIEGO

John Roberts

U.S. SUPREME COURT

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Sharon Robertson

COHEN MILSTEIN

NEW YORK

Larry R. Rogers Jr.

POWER ROGERS CHICAGO

Christine G. Rolph

LATHAM

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Alexis Ronickher

KATZ BANKS KUMIN

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Steven Rosenblum

WACHTELL

NEW YORK

SM: My cases all seem to tend to take a long time. We have a case in North Carolina where I’m co-lead, involving chemical dissemination of the water supply in the Cape River Basin from a DuPont plant. And that case has been going on since 2017, I think. So it’s not unusual for these environmental cases to take a long time. And the Flint water crisis, when it happened, was front page news nationwide. You had lead at these concentrations affecting children in a concentrated area for a discrete period of time with no real explanation for how anyone could have let it happen. You had levels of incompetence and terrible advice at various levels that led to it happening. And there was the failure to deal with it once it started happening. It all sort of cascaded and led to it being very high profile and obviously a lot of litigation.

LD : What were some of the hurdles that you encountered in the case and how did you overcome them?

SM: There were hurdles in terms of where the case would be litigated – state court versus federal court, what kinds of claims would be litigated, state claims versus federal claims. There were various remands and removals and then fights over how it would be organized and structured and which group would end up having it. That all took more than a year, maybe closer to two, for it to sort itself out. Then there were motions to dismiss. There was an appeal from a decision finding that claims against the state officials could proceed notwithstanding their qualified immunity defense. There’s obviously a lot of discovery. There are parallel criminal proceedings in state court that everyone had to pay attention to. As a result, we had witnesses who would show up for depositions and take the Fifth because they were subject to the criminal case. And then Covid happened, so that obviously slows down discovery and everything else. There was the settlement process and figuring out when cases would be tried. The court ultimately certified a class for portions of the case, but then others were not in a class. So we’re working together with co-liaison counsel who are representing individual personal injury plaintiffs. And we’ve generally worked together well with them, but we haven’t always agreed on how to proceed. Ultimately the judge decided to have a bellwether case with four of the individual plaintiffs and set that as the first case to go to trial. It did ultimately go to trial in 2021. The trial took about six months and then the jury hung, and that was after the settlement of

the case against the governmental defendants. So now the bellwether case is going to be retried after our trial in the Veolia case, which is set for February.

LD: It sounds like the defense side tried to use some procedural feet-dragging tactics. Do you think there an element of waiting it out, hoping people would stop paying so much attention?

SM: I think that’s a part of it. With the governmental defendants, the settlement was really driven by the change in government in Michigan. When [Gov. Gretchen] Whitmer won and the legislature turned over, there was suddenly a real impetus for coming up with a reasonable amount of money to help solve this problem.

As for Veolia, there are really a couple parts to their strategy. One is just delaying things as long as possible and hoping people get tired, move on to other things. Another is pointing the finger at everyone else and saying, “Look, our role is very narrow. The government wouldn’t have listened to us even if we’d given different advice.” There’s also the way tort law is structured in Michigan. There’s something called a non-party at fault statute where a tort defendant can allocate responsibility for damages among other people who were involved in the incident. A big fight we’re having right now is over how this non-party at fault issue will be narrowed down for the trial.

LD: You’re a member of the Executive Committee and you co-chair the Expert Committee. How were you appointed to those roles?

SM: Ted Leopold at Cohen Milstein and I initiated the case together and decided he’d take one of the colead roles, and then the class plaintiffs’ group decided, with the court’s approval, to have two co-leads, the other being Mike Pitt. Pitt’s group had initiated the first case against the governmental defendants. Our group had brought the first engineering case. So it kind of made sense to split it up that way. And then on the Executive Committee, it’s a group of folks. We have a team of lawyers from Susman Godfrey who have been doing various aspects of the case and I think have handled much of the key briefing arguments working with experts. My partner, Sean Raymond, was particularly involved in the settlement negotiations with the state. We’re looking forward to playing a key role at the trial that comes up in February.

LD: How would you describe your leadership role in these cases?

James Rosenthal

WILKINSON STEKLOFF

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Benyamin Ross

GIBSON DUNN LOS ANGELES

Hannah Ross BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

Andrew Rossman

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

Barbara Rubin

GLASER WEIL

LOS ANGELES

Antony L. Ryan

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Faiza J. Saeed

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Kelli Sager

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE

LOS ANGELES

Kaam Sahely

VINSON & ELKINS

AUSTIN

Susan Saltzstein SKADDEN NEW YORK

Patrick A. Salvi II

SALVI SHOSTOK & PRITCHARD CHICAGO

P. Anthony Sammi LATHAM NEW YORK

Mary Kathryn ‘Katie’ Sammons

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

Christina Guerola Sarchio DECHERT

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Lynn Lincoln Sarko

KELLER ROHRBACK SEATTLE

John Savarese WACHTELL NEW YORK

Joseph Saveri

JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM SAN FRANCISCO

William Savitt WACHTELL NEW YORK

SM: We do a lot of cases where we’re the only firm involved. So it’s different to have to engage in this sort of herding of cats that has to happen in complex litigation like this, where you have a bunch of different lawyers and law firms with different kinds of cases and different thoughts on how the cases should be handled. It requires much more diplomacy between us and other lawyers to smooth over disagreements. Fortunately, part of our firm’s culture is to get along well with everyone, both opposing counsel and cocounsel. And I think that helps a lot in this context.

It’s really a model of how teams need to be put together in complex litigation and how you can bring together a diverse group of people for a common end. And here we’ve got a mix of people from all over the country trying to get to a good result for this community at the end of the day.

LD: Was there a race to be the first firm to file a case?

SM: No, it wasn’t really a race. Cases had been filed against governmental defendants and the lawyer I’d worked with had this idea from reviewing the materials that “It doesn’t look like anyone sued this engineering firm. They clearly play a significant role.” And so I followed up on that along with others here and we crafted that theory of the case based on Veolia’s involvement. We were the first ones really to bring a case about Veolia’s conduct. And then it ultimately got consolidated with everything else and litigated in parallel.

LD: Can you give me an overview of your practice these days?

SM: It’s a mix, split fairly evenly between complex commercial litigation, just one plaintiff suing one defendant or any sort of commercial dispute and environmental cases like Flint and the Cape River Basin case. I also have a takings case in the Court of Federal Claims involving Navy Growler aircraft on Whidbey Island [in Washington State] that involves the increased noise and its impact on property values. And the biggest commercial case I’ve had recently is an arbitration between the Flutter online gaming company and Fox’s sports betting business.

LD: Is this the type of practice that you imagined that you were going to have back when you were in law school?

SM: I knew I wanted to do complex litigation but I didn’t really appreciate that I would like trial lawyering as much as I do. I actually like being in court, cross-examining witnesses, making arguments,

and have gotten a chance to do it more often than I thought I would. I initially went to Munger Tolles out of law school and was on the defense side of a lot of antitrust cases. The reason I decided to come to Sussman is it looked like the plaintiff side of cases was a lot more fun and I ended up going to trial more often and had a more entrepreneurial sort of approach to the practice of law.

LD: Has it lived up to what you thought it would be?

SM: Yes, it’s been fantastic. Can’t imagine being anywhere else.

LD: Can you talk about how your past wins are going to be helpful pursuing the Veolia firm in the Flint litigation? Or is it very different?

SM : It’s not really that different. The claim is a professional negligence claim. They had a contract. The contract has provisions that are helpful to us on their scope of duties, there’s a bunch of documents that are helpful. So piecing together the case and our story and how to present it to a jury is the same as any other complex case. And we’ve been figuring out which of their witnesses are going to be the ones we want to call at trial, we’ve been taking depositions in a way that you can use them at trial. We need to tell our story through adverse witnesses, and you often need to develop that case for trial through the depositions rather than at the trial itself. And so we’ve gone through the depositions thinking of them as putting together our case in chief for trial.

LD: The national media conversation about Flint often came back to racism and how this is a majority Black community. Is that something that you use in your legal strategy at all?

SM : It’s definitely an undercurrent. This is a predominantly Black community, a very poor city, under-resourced. We do have that kind of David-andGoliath aspect to this trial. We have a community of people who were harmed by poisoned water that corroded pipes, damaged homes, destroyed their community, and Veolia is a French company that’s worth billions of dollars. They were hired to help the city try to fix the problem, and we claim they gave bad advice that led to this problem and they could have averted it had they given the correct advice.

LD: Do you have any takeaways in terms of getting diverse groups to work together towards a goal?

SM : It’s really about communicating regularly, respecting everyone’s input, and if there’s ever a problem, speaking up earlier rather than later.

Lauren Varnado

BROWN RUDNICK (HOUSTON)

LAUREN VARNADO

LAUREN VARNADO ALREADY HAD HER

concerns about Judge David Hummel when she entered his 2nd Circuit courtroom in West Virginia back in March of 2022. She says she’d experienced his machismo, chauvinism and bullying in the past. She and her colleagues had tried unsuccessfully to get Hummel recused from their case due to a confl ict of interest, but the system dictated otherwise. So as she entered the courthouse, she knew to expect a certain level of pushback. What she didn’t expect was to wind up on the wrong side of the barrel of a handgun. The judge turned her workplace – the courtroom – into a harrowing scene by pointing a Colt 45 at her.

For Varnado, a partner in the Houston offi ce of Brown Rudnick and a seasoned attorney who has worked in the oil and gas industry in Texas and throughout the South for many years, dealing with bullies is all too common. “The judges, that type of corruption,” Varnado says, “it speaks to a brazenness that’s disturbing. It’s particularly bad in some of the rural places. It’s like they aren’t afraid at all.”

It turns out this wasn’t the first time Hummel had shown erratic behavior: He had multiple complaints filed against him by the West Virginia Judicial Disciplinary Counsel (JDC) over fi rearms in the courtroom and other ethical violations. Late last year, Hummel entered into an agreement with the JDC in which he accepted the counsel’s finding that he violated the firearm code and resigned from the bench. He also agreed not to seek judicial office in the state again. This past March, the West Virginia Supreme Court revoked his law license.

The question of workplace safety is one thing, but the nuances involved leading up to and surrounding this event are far more complex. They point to a deeper issue within the justice system about ensuring the impartiality and ethical conduct of sitting judges. “We shouldn’t be discouraging counsel from coming forward with good faith questions about a judge’s potential conflicts,’’ Varnado says. “If judges would disclose in the first place, this wouldn’t be an issue.”

How should the recusal process be reformed? How do we ensure this type of situation doesn’t happen again? As a passionate advocate for change, Varnado believes it starts with listening to the whole

BY ALISON PREECE AND MEGHAN HEMINGWAY

story, not just the headlines.

Lawdragon:  This incident with Judge Hummel sounds terrifying. Was it a difficult decision to come forward about his conduct?

Lauren Varnado:  Yes. I was not going to come forward for many reasons. After the trial ended in March, it wasn’t that I didn’t want to report him, but there were many reasons we were scared to, especially for my co-counsel who lives in West Virginia. I had been talking to the FBI, but I didn’t think anything would happen at the time, even after we reported the incident to federal authorities.

So time went on and in May an investigator for the West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission called me and said they heard something happened at our trial. They were already investigating the judge on completely different complaints and wanted to know what happened. They would need to interview not only my co-counsel, but my partner who was at trial with me that morning. And I will tell you, there were people on my team who were pretty traumatized by the whole thing, and I did not want them to have to speak to investigators. I expressed concern for my colleagues and they said I could provide sworn testimony in lieu of them having to talk to everybody. That was when I prepared my affidavit. I gave it to the JDC. And then I called the Daily Beast, who was already investigating the judge.

LD:  And we’ve seen the headlines, but walk us through what led to this moment. Your team had made a motion for a recusal, correct? Because of a conflict?

LV:  Yes, so he is a party to an oil and gas lease agreement with my clients. His parents receive the royalties, but when they pass, he will receive the royalty payments. It appeared to constitute a direct financial interest, a clear conflict. Not only that, but his cousin is also the lead plaintiff in a statewide class action case that I’m lead counsel on. We believed that was a potential conflict also. That’s a first degree relative of his who’s suing in a statewide class action, saying my client steals from people. And he can be impartial in this case?

We moved to have him disqualified. We had voluminous records of support and a signed oil and gas lease with his name on it. We certainly thought that was enough evidence, but in West Virginia,

PHOTO BY FELIX SANCHEZ

Eric L. Schiele

KIRKLAND NEW YORK

Allison Schneirov

SKADDEN NEW YORK

George F. Schoen

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Richard Schoenberger

WALKUP MELODIA SAN FRANCISCO

Robert B. Schumer

PAUL WEISS

NEW YORK

Ronald J. Schutz

ROBINS KAPLAN NEW YORK

Matthew L. Schwartz

BOIES SCHILLER NEW YORK

Chase A. Scolnick

KELLER ANDERLE SCOLNICK

IRVINE, CALIF.

Jennifer Scullion

SEEGER WEISS

RIDGEFIELD PARK, N.J.

Craig P. Seebald

VINSON & ELKINS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Christopher Seeger

SEEGER WEISS NEW YORK

Jennifer Selendy

SELENDY GAY NEW YORK

Philippe Selendy

SELENDY GAY NEW YORK

Dana Seshens

DAVIS POLK NEW YORK

Karen Patton Seymour

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL NEW YORK

Kannon K. Shanmugam

PAUL WEISS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Robert Shapiro

GLASER WEIL

LOS ANGELES

Gina N. Shishima

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT AUSTIN

the way they do it is one judge on their Supreme Court decides. That’s concerning to me. That power shouldn’t be in one justice’s hand. The reviewing justice found that we did not meet the standard to have Judge Hummel disqualified on the face of our motion and he ordered us to have a hearing. That’s fine. But the hearing should be presided over either by justices on the West Virginia Supreme Court or by the one justice who decides the matter, but certainly not the judge you’re seeking to disqualify.

We were ordered to appear before Judge Hummel after we moved to disqualify him, then had to argue to him why we believed he should be disqualified. I know every state’s procedure is different, but I do think it’s a broader issue that arises when you move to disqualify a judge.

LD:  Right. That’s awkward to say the least. So, he decided he didn’t need to be removed. And then he held a grudge about you bringing the motion in the first place?

LV:  Yes. He was so mad. He called a status conference, and the very first thing – he looked me dead in the eye and said, “Nice try.”

LD:  Based on some of his comments, this judge sounded quite chauvinistic, too.

LV:  Oh, yes. Absolutely, yes. My first thought when the gun was drawn – because my co-counsel, Jenni Hicks, she’s a partner at Babst Calland in Charleston, West Virginia, and she’s my age, a beautiful blonde woman – I looked at her like uh-oh, he’s going to make us go back to chambers. My initial concern was something different. My brain went there because of his demeanor and him flashing the gun around. In a way, trying to impress, or be a big man, kind of thing. “Aren’t me and my guns enough for you?”

LD:  Wow. So what changes do you think we need to see to the recusal process to avoid this type of situation?

LV:  There has to be a better way. I mean, how intimidating. We shouldn’t be discouraging counsel from coming forward with good faith questions. If judges would disclose in the first place, this wouldn’t be an issue. Maybe there needs to be more stringent disclosure rules or a reform of the review process. Because I will tell you, the responses have been overwhelming since I came forward with this. Not just about Judge Hummel, but from lawyers across the United States who have had really insane things happen in court by judges who were just bullies.

LD:  It seems to be a growing conversation, about the impartiality of judges. They’re still people, after all.

LV:  Right. And not every judge is doing the right thing and declining to preside over a case where they have a financial interest. It’s particularly bad in some of the rural places that I practice. There is serious corruption happening in some of these courtrooms. People have complained and felt that nothing would ever happen, there were no consequences. These guys get emboldened to act worse and worse. It speaks to a brazenness that’s really disturbing. It’s like they aren’t afraid at all.

LD:  Has all this media attention around this incident changed anything in terms of the types of client calls you’re getting?

LV: People are definitely more interested in talking to me! I am top of mind when it’s a very nasty case. I’m viewed as maybe a little more on the aggressive end. I’ve earned some credit. But the truth of it is – that’s what our client needed. They asked us to move for disqualification, so I’m going to do it. To me, it’s not a tough question, but I know for a fact that there are large law firms, very respectable ones, that have been in similar situations with a client and refused to sign the motions.

LD: Stepping back a bit, what is the general mix of your practice?

LV:  I represent oil and gas producers, energy companies, pipeline and midstream companies, and, at times, companies in other industries, in high stakes contract disputes, tort claims, fraud or trespass. I also help them try to avoid litigation. I do cradle to grave –or, in upstream litigation terms, a wellhead to royalty remittance – audit to make sure that the oil and gas company is complying with not only state law and regulations, but to just generally mitigate risk. I do a lot of class action defense and I’m also a complex litigator. It’s a nitty-gritty business.

LD:   Is it the type of practice you imagined you would have back in law school?

LV:  When I went to law school, I wanted to be a prosecutor, a DA. But then, I didn’t find myself very interested in criminal law. I loved contract law and civil procedure. I did mock trial during law school and always viewed myself as being in the courtroom. I wanted to be a trial lawyer when I was 12. The blonde woman on Law & Order, who was the DA – I wanted to be her.

Gregory M. Shumaker

JONES DAY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Justin Shur MOLOLAMKEN

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Anne McClain Sidrys KIRKLAND CHICAGO

Gerald Silk BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

Meg Simonian DILLON & FINDLEY

ANCHORAGE

Stuart Singer

BOIES SCHILLER FORT LAUDERDALE

Thomas Siracusa POWER ROGERS CHICAGO

Hezekiah Sistrunk THE COCHRAN LAW FIRM

ATLANTA

Rachel G. Skaistis

CRAVATH

NEW YORK

Steven Sklaver SUSMAN GODFREY LOS ANGELES

Rodney E. Slater

SQUIRE PATTON

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Daniel Slifkin CRAVATH NEW YORK

Grasford Smith AKERMAN

WEST PALM BEACH, FLA.

Sherrese M. Smith PAUL HASTINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Orin Snyder GIBSON DUNN NEW YORK

David Sochia MCKOOL SMITH DALLAS

Audra J. Soloway PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Sonia Sotomayor

U.S. SUPREME COURT

WASHINGTON, D.C.

LD: Of course!

LV:  She was amazing. That’s really what I envisioned – fighting for justice in some way. I am really passionate about advocating for change. I think about the things that I’ve experienced and encountered, and I am passionate about those things changing. Especially for younger women who want to do what I do. And I don’t think there’s many of us because trial work is really hard. It’s grueling. But I want to make it easier for the next generation.

LD:  Is there a formative case that you can recount, from early on in your career?

LV:  Yes. In some ways it’ll always be my favorite case. I was a very junior associate and I had worked so hard to become a master of the case. It had been, and this was 10 years ago, seven years of litigation and close to $400M in alleged damages, related to the production of crude oil in Syria. The plaintiffs were related to President Assad of Syria. We represented what was Shell Oil Company’s historical international affiliate, Pecten Company. Shell Oil Company discovered and were the first producers of light crude oil in Syria.

It was such an interesting case. I was second chair at the jury trial. My mentor and the head of the energy litigation team at my fi rm was fi rst chair. The fi rst witness that the plaintiffs presented at trial just so happened to be my witness. So this is a huge case, and I’m the first one out the gate to do a cross-examination.

It went great. The judge presiding over the trial was a woman and she was so smart. Patricia Kerrigan –she was honored with the distinction of Texas State Court Trial Judge of the Year for several years. I respected her a lot. We went all the way to verdict and won a full complete defense verdict. Afterwards, the judge stopped the jury to make a few remarks, with all the lawyers and parties present. On the other side, it was all older male lawyers and she made a point to say how meaningful it was to have watched me second chair in the trial.

LD: Oh wow.

LV:  When she retired from the bench, she mentioned me in her speech. She said it was one of the things that she will always remember because one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers was a famous plaintiffs’ lawyer here in Texas. He has had more than a few billion dollar jury verdicts. He was the one who presented the first witness that I cross-examined.

In her retirement speech, Judge Kerrigan said, “I’ll just never forget the look on his face, when a young female attorney just wiped the floor with his witness.”

LD: That’s amazing.

LV:  In the hard times and the times when I’m discouraged, I remember her encouraging words. Particularly after the trial, she said, “You have a gift and this is what I think you should be doing – trying cases.” I still keep in touch with her.

LD: That’s so meaningful.

LV: Especially from someone you respect so much. I love to try cases. That’s my passion. I love being in the courtroom, which is why I am so passionate about getting up on my soapbox and telling the truth of what happened in former Judge Hummel’s courtroom that day.

LD: You’re managing partner of the Houston office. Can you talk to me about your leadership style?

LV:  I try to lead by example. We are flexible with work from home, which is certainly important to younger attorneys. You can get really high value, brilliant candidates who are looking for a little more flexibility because a lot of the large law firms won’t provide that. At the same time, when thinking about coming back into the workplace and the value for young attorneys being in the office, I want to create a bit of FOMO – fear of missing out. We eat lunch together in our office at least once a week. We get together for happy hours after work. We have bigger group meetings where we openly discuss matters and cases. I want the people that work with me to want to be at work and engage in open discussion. I do think that younger attorneys learn that way, not only from listening to it but from engaging in it. And we have a good time, we have a lot of fun.

LD:  And what are you excited about at work these days?

LV: Our new head of the Dallas office, Ashley Moore. We tried cases together at my prior firm. She is a brilliant patent litigator and an electrical engineer. I don’t know many women who are patent trial attorneys. If the legal industry is male-dominated, you can times that by 10 for patent law. She’s literally a white whale. I am so glad that she’s here. It is a testament to our fi rm – the only fi rm that I know of, where all our Texas offices are run by women. Women are running Texas right now!

Brian Timmons

QUINN EMANUEL (WASHINGTON, D.C.)

BRIAN TIMMONS

BRIAN TIMMONS THOUGHT ABOUT

becoming an economist or a physicist, but once he decided to become a lawyer, the type of law he would practice was obvious: complex commercial litigation.

The Quinn Emanuel partner had long been adept in both math and science and, having attended Duke University on a football scholarship, he was naturally competitive.

“I considered pursuing a Ph.D. in econometrics and my interest in that field definitely impacted my legal career,” says Timmons, who studied at the London School of Economics before graduating with honors from Harvard Law.

In the end, he chose a career in law over a more quantitative path because it offered something that appealed to him – a more personal, human element.

“I have always found joy in helping people,” says Timmons, a member of the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America. “As a first-generation college graduate, I didn’t have any lawyers in my family, but I had an impression – from watching movies and reading books – that lawyers in our country possess certain skills, knowledge and understanding that empower them to help other people.”

When Timmons envisioned himself as a lawyer, he says, he consistently imagined leveraging his study of math and economics to better serve his future clients.

It was a vision that has led him to this point in his career at Quinn Emanuel, where he serves as the Global Head of Complex Litigation. He also chairs the firm’s Private Investment Firm litigation practice.

Timmons has gained national recognition, trying cases in jurisdictions from New York and Delaware to California, and many places in between. He also has represented clients internationally, in venues like Hong Kong, England, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, the Cayman Islands and throughout much of Europe.

Earlier in his career, he served as court-appointed counsel to criminal defendants, through the federal indigent defense program, and was an associate at Latham & Watkins, where he was elected an equity partner in just seven years. He joined Quinn Emanuel in 2004, after a brief stint as CEO of a tech start-up during the peak of the dot-com boom.

BY JAMES LANGFORD AND EMILY JACKOWAY

Lawdragon: You’ve really had a variety of experiences. How has that shaped your career?

Brian Timmons: Life experience is perhaps the greatest of all teachers. Looking back on my life, even before college and law school, I had so many different jobs and unique experiences growing up. I was raised by a young, single mother with limited means in rural Idaho. We moved around a lot. I attended over 11 different elementary schools before age 12. I found my first job when I was only 8 years old. And from then on, I never had any trouble finding work after school or during the summer. I worked in so many different settings – on farms and ranches, paper routes, restaurants, construction sites, automotive repair shops, etc. – doing so many different tasks. Many of these jobs required hard physical labor, unimaginable by young people today. But these experiences taught me the value of hard work. They also taught me a lot about people and human behavior.

And because we moved around so much, I was often confronted by bullies as the new kid in town. I was forced to learn how to defend myself. I was an outgoing, friendly kid with a kind disposition, but still gained a reputation as one of the schoolyard brawlers. I never picked a fight, but then seldom backed down from one either, even when I should have ... and I instinctively came to the aid of others, often to my own demise.

My training to become a trial lawyer thus really began in those rough and tumble days of rural Idaho, long time before I ever even attended law school.

LD: Even after law school and a successful early career in Big Law, you took a foray into the tech world as a senior executive. Why?

BT: By then I was married and had a growing family. The personal sacrifices required to be successful in Big Law can be taxing at times. I wanted to try something else for a while and to spend more time with my family.

It was also the middle of the dot-com boom. So many friends and clients were becoming wealthy overnight, without working the long hours I was accustomed to working. So when the opportunity arose, I decided to take it.

LD: How did you end up back in Big Law and at Quinn Emanuel?

Alex Spiro

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

Kalpana Srinivasan

SUSMAN GODFREY LOS ANGELES

T. Eiko Stange WACHTELL NEW YORK

Ann Beth Stebbins SKADDEN NEW YORK

Brian Stekloff

WILKINSON STEKLOFF WASHINGTON, D.C.

Karl Stern

QUINN EMANUEL HOUSTON

Cate Stetson

HOGAN LOVELLS WASHINGTON, D.C.

Bryan Stevenson

EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE MONTGOMERY, ALA.

Amy M. Stewart

STEWART LAW GROUP

DALLAS

Kosta Stojilkovic

WILKINSON STEKLOFF WASHINGTON, D.C.

Leo E. Strine Jr. WACHTELL NEW YORK

Lary Stromfeld CADWALADER NEW YORK

Arun Subramanian

SUSMAN GODFREY NEW YORK

Diane Sullivan WEIL

PRINCETON, N.J.

Tara D. Sutton ROBINS KAPLAN MINNEAPOLIS

Christina Swarns INNOCENCE PROJECT NEW YORK

Katherine M. Swift BARTLIT BECK C HICAGO

John C. Taylor TAYLOR RING MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIF.

BT: That’s a good question. I enjoyed the experience as a tech entrepreneur, and I was also able to spend more time with my family, but the dot-com bubble burst not long after I had taken the job. It was a short two-year run, and I learned a lot. In the end though, there was too much risk and volatility given the needs of family, and I missed practicing law. This time, however, I wanted to work for a law firm that was focused on litigation instead of deal work. After two years in the tech world, I was also smitten by the entrepreneurial spirit. Going to a firm that was smaller and more innovative, a place where I could have a greater personal impact, was a big draw.

Quinn Emanuel was the ideal place. At that time, there were only about 125 lawyers in the firm, mostly based in California. We had just opened a New York office, but the firm was still relatively unknown in New York and the rest of the world. Today, New York is our largest office. We have more than 1,000 lawyers and 33 offices around the globe. We consistently rank among the top law firms in the world in nearly every category, including profi ts per partner, and we are the firm most fear to face in court, according to an annual survey of in-house counsel.

We have come a long way in the last 25 years since I joined the firm. To watch and participate in this rapid growth has been an incredible experience.

LD: Was your practice affected by Quinn’s global expansion?

BT: Yes. Almost immediately upon joining Quinn, I focused on developing a national and international practice. Given my specialization in litigation matters involving corporate governance, broken deals, complex corporate finance and accounting, I spent a lot of time litigating in New York, Delaware and other places around the country. I am a member of the New York and Washington, D.C., bars, in addition to California, and work from our offices in all three locations. My practice also includes representing clients from around the globe in U.S. courts and representing U.S.-based clients in disputes throughout the world.

LD: Going back to your early years as a lawyer, what are some of the cases that stand out to you?

BT: One is my former firm’s representation of Sallie Mae, which back then was a government sponsored entity created to facilitate and service the federal student loan program. Sallie Mae had issued very

exotic, structured notes that were purchased by the elected Treasurer of Orange County, Calif. The Treasurer had made a bunch of rogue, risky investments using taxpayer funds. As interest rates began to rise, the County experienced massive losses and it was forced to file for bankruptcy. At the time, it was the largest bankruptcy ever filed by a municipality and it made national headlines. The taxpayers were going to have to fund all the losses. To help recover some of those losses, the County sued several parties including our client, Sallie Mae. In order for us to represent Sallie Mae effectively and to get the right outcome, we needed to find a way to explain these incredibly complex structured notes – a type of financial derivative –in simple terms. And to do that, we needed to understand them thoroughly. I was just a mid-level associate when staffed as the second chair on that case, and yet it really piqued my interest and played into my strengths. We achieved an early and great outcome for the client.

LD: What was your takeaway from that experience?

BT: I learned that in complex commercial disputes –really any legal dispute – mastering the facts is critical to achieving a successful outcome. When the stakes are high, those facts are usually complex and technical. It is not easy to master them, especially in the limited time frames within which we operate. But it’s essential.

LD: That knowledge must be extremely useful in your role as the Global Head of Complex Litigation. Tell me more about that role.

BT: A big portion of the work we do at Quinn Emanuel is to represent clients in high stakes, fast moving disputes that arise from agreements involving complex financial products, complicated financial transactions, technical accounting or financial reporting problems, and battles over corporate governance.

Although each of these may be the subject of their own discrete practice areas within our firm, they all fall under the broader category of complex commercial litigation.

Our practice groups are organized by the voluntary association of lawyers who specialize in these areas rather than a top-down formal management and reporting structure. As a result, the focus of every lawyer in the group is to improve their skills and experience and the quality of our service,

Anita Wallace Thomas

NELSON MULLINS

ATLANTA

Clarence Thomas

U.S. SUPREME COURT

WASHINGTON, D.C.

John B. Thomas HICKS THOMAS

HOUSTON

James D. Thompson III

VINSON & ELKINS

HOUSTON

Mary B. Touchstone

SIMPSON THACHER

NEW YORK

Robert I. Townsend III

CRAVATH

NEW YORK

Max Tribble

SUSMAN GODFREY

HOUSTON

Lisa Tsai

REID COLLINS

AUSTIN

Danielle Tully

CADWALADER

NEW YORK

Jeroen van Kwawegen

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ

NEW YORK

Gregory Varallo

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ WILMINGTON

Camille M. Vasquez

BROWN RUDNICK

IRVINE, CALIF.

Krishna Veeraraghavan

PAUL WEISS

NEW YORK

Liza M. Velazquez

PAUL WEISS

NEW YORK

Alan Vickery

BOIES SCHILLER

NEW YORK

Jim Walden

WALDEN MACHT

NEW YORK

Jonathan Waldrop KASOWITZ

REDWOOD SHORES, CALIF.

Peter Walsh

POTTER ANDERSON WILMINGTON

rather than to jockey for power within the firm. We collaborate and share work product with one another, across many industries, jurisdictions and fact patterns. We spot trends on the cutting edge and then share that information with one another and with our clients. I see my role as basically trying to help facilitate all of this.

The other thing I try to do is to ensure that our younger lawyers who wish to practice in this area are given the opportunity to do so. I try to help them link up with the partners working in this realm, wherever the need may arise in the world.

LD: Are there any pieces of advice that you find yourself giving younger associates particularly often?

BT: My recurring advice to associates these days falls under two themes – communication and ownership. That is especially true in the post pandemic world of more virtual (or hybrid) work experiences.

I am constantly reminding associates of the need to communicate with their supervisors – to express their interests, their challenges, to speak up if they’re drowning in work, not getting enough work, or are not getting the right kinds of opportunities, to ask questions when they don’t understand, and to express their skepticism or alternative views when so moved. This is the best way to learn. And the key to any well-functioning relationship is communication. I also encourage associates to take ownership and control of their careers. They should proactively seek assignments that interest them and that will serve their career interests, look for ways to improve their knowledge, skills and training, to market themselves to partners within the firm and eventually learn to market themselves – and the firm – to clients and potential clients outside the firm. Instead of seeing themselves as employees, waiting for the law firm to cater to their unique needs and preferences, they should think of themselves as individual entrepreneurs – small business owners – working within a larger business organization. Too many young lawyers wait for their law firms to provide them with a career path rather than striving to make their own.

LD: Is your practice devoted exclusively to complex commercial litigation for large businesses and financial in institutions?

BT: Well, they comprise a big part of my client

base. But my clients also include high net worth individuals – celebrities, tech billionaires, investment firm founders, sports team owners, professional athletes, philanthropists, etc. They call upon me to help them navigate a variety of thorny legal and strategic challenges.

LD: But the names of these individuals are not included among your published list of clients?

BT: Exactly. They know they can trust me to put their interests above my own. They know I won’t trade on their celebrity or financial status.

LD: You mentioned trends earlier. What developments are you seeing in your practice and across the firm?

BT: We are very fortunate in that the demand for our services has never been higher – around the globe. The number of high stakes disputes that are being filed in Delaware Chancery Court has increased signifi cantly. Also, as markets cool and we head into a recession, we are starting to see an uptick in business failure litigation, financial reporting and restructuring litigation, and other financial litigation typical of cyclical downturns. Rising interest rates and market volatility has strained certain financial products and trading strategies and we can see the storm clouds of litigation gathering on the horizon. Many of my corporate and private investment fund clients are gearing up for battle.

LD: Even though you mostly represent large investment firms and corporations today, do you still feel that you’re able to find that human element and connection?

BT: Absolutely. I wouldn’t be doing this today if I didn’t feel a personal human connection. Behind every business and investment firm client, is a person – or group of people. Given the gravity of the situations we encounter, the level of trust and commitment becomes very profound and personal. Although the context may be business, the needs become very human. More than anything else, that’s what motivates me. Helping people – employees, members of management, stakeholders and the stakeholders’ stakeholders. Ultimately, up and down every inanimate organization, these complex legal problems come down to real people with real lives involved. For me, there’s a human story behind every case.

Tara Sutton

ROBINS KAPLAN (MINNEAPOLIS)

TARA SUTTON

MASS TORT LITIGATION CAN BE A DAUNTING

challenge for any attorney. But it’s become bread and butter for Tara Sutton, a partner in the Minneapolis office of Robins Kaplan who cut her teeth as an associate in cases against Big Tobacco and is now chair of the firm’s Mass Tort Group.

In the Big Tobacco litigation, Sutton was part of a Robins Kaplan trial team that represented the State of Minnesota and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and broke new ground by alleging antitrust and consumer fraud claims against cigarette makers. Hours before a jury was to begin deliberations, the defendants, which included Philip Morris Cos. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., agreed in May 1998 to a historic $6.6B settlement.

After a few years working on patent cases, Sutton agreed to head up Robins Kaplan’s mass tort practice. In that role, she was lead trial counsel in the bellwether products liability trial alleging the Parkinson’s drug Mirapex caused compulsive gambling, winning a jury verdict of $8.2M in July 2008; helped to negotiate $590M in settlements for Native American tribes in a national opioid litigation against drugmaker Johnson & Johnson and the three largest U.S. drug distributors; and, earlier this year, tried a case for the State of Minnesota over the marketing practices of e-cigarette maker Juul that settled for $60.5M on the eve of closing arguments.

Sutton’s current caseload includes a lawsuit that alleges the manufacturer of a compressed gas product used to clean computer keyboards is liable for a fatal auto accident that allegedly was caused by a driver losing control of his vehicle after “huffing” gas from a canister of CRC Industries’ “Duster” product. A Minnesota judge in September denied the defense team’s motion for summary judgment.

Hoffl er recently spoke to Lawdragon about the “huffing” case and other highlights and challenges from her career as a mass tort litigator.

Lawdragon: What inspired you to become a lawyer?

Tara Sutton: When I was in junior high, I think sixth grade, they had us write down what we wanted to be when we grew up in an envelope. And they let us open that envelope when we graduated from high school. The letter in the envelope said I wanted to be a lawyer. So I think it’s something that I always

BY MATTHEW HELLER

wanted to be. For some reason, I just thought it would be a great career because I love to read and I love to write, and I like to, frankly, argue and win. So it just seemed to fi t with my personality, even though I didn’t have a very good idea what a lawyer did growing up. And I kind of held onto that dream throughout college. I knew I was always headed to law school.

LD: What areas have you practiced in at Robins Kaplan?

TS: I started out in business litigation and then I had the opportunity when I was a second-year associate to join the tobacco litigation team at Robins Kaplan. For four years, my life was completely subsumed by working on what was then a very cutting-edge, revolutionary case against the tobacco industry on behalf of the State of Minnesota and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota. That took literally working more 3,000-plus hours a year and through our trial in 1998, which we settled on the eve of closing arguments. At that time, taking on the tobacco industry was a monumental task. They had never paid a single dime in damages to anyone and, even in the late nineties, they were still denying that cigarette smoking had ever injured a single person or that it was addictive. It was very intense and allconsuming litigation, and I did it as an associate.

Then, after I was done with that, I did patent litigation for five years. I had a number of trials and was part of our intellectual property department. Then, in 2006, I took over the mass tort department at Robins Kaplan, and I’ve been doing that ever since.

LD: What do you find most fulfilling about working on mass torts?

TS: I think it’s the most rewarding legal work that I have done because you are getting to help people in situations where probably the single worst thing has happened to them. Whether I’m representing people who are injured or, as I’ve been doing lately, representing parents and family members of people who have lost a family member because of a horrible accident, you’re helping people through that process. You can never provide complete justice but you’re helping them come to some peace with what happened to them and allowing them the resources, hopefully through a settlement or a trial, to have a fresh start or take care of their needs.

Johnny Ward

WARD SMITH & HILL

LONGVIEW, TEXAS

Stephen Weiss

SEEGER WEISS

RIDGEFIELD PARK, N.J.

Tony West UBER SAN FRANCISCO

Alexandra ‘Lexie’ White SUSMAN GODFREY

HOUSTON

Conlee S. Whiteley

KANNER & WHITELEY

NEW ORLEANS

Douglas H. Wigdor

WIGDOR LAW

NEW YORK

Beth Wilkinson

WILKINSON STEKLOFF

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Bart H. Williams

PROSKAUER

LOS ANGELES

Gwyn Williams

LATHAM

BOSTON

Milton Williams WALDEN MACHT

NEW YORK

Shawn A. Williams

ROBBINS GELLER SAN FRANCISCO

Donna L. Wilson MANATT LOS ANGELES

Jamie L. Wine LATHAM

NEW YORK

Marc Wolinsky WACHTELL

NEW YORK

Michael Wolitzer

SIMPSON THACHER

NEW YORK

Joanna Wright

BOIES SCHILLER

NEW YORK

Debra J. Wyman

ROBBINS GELLER

SAN DIEGO

Debra Wong Yang

GIBSON DUNN

LOS ANGELES

LD: What was it like working on the tobacco case as such a young lawyer?

TS: Initially, we were not as big of a team as you would’ve thought representing the State of Minnesota. It was two partners and me. It obviously grew over time – more than a dozen attorneys at Robins Kaplan ended up working on the case – but as an associate, trying to make sure that I had a position of responsibility was very important to me. So, from the very beginning, I tried to know all aspects of the case, work overtime, so I got some of the best work on the case and got to be involved in the critical decisions and strategy from the outset. I was the only associate in the well of the courtroom during the trial on either side. It was an amazing opportunity, but it took a lot of work to get that opportunity.

LD: What were some of the challenges you faced?

TS: One of them was the attorney-client privilege. We sensed that the tobacco companies were hiding critical scientific research behind lawyers. And they were. Major law firms were directing the scientific research into health effects and addiction of cigarettes, and they were directing it in order to call it privileged in litigation. So the battle that lasted years was the argument that the tobacco companies were using attorney-client privilege to shield discoverable information. And we eventually won that argument and established the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege, which was very difficult. That battle eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court during the middle of our trial. And we prevailed. The tobacco companies, as a result, handed over 30,000 pages of documents that were previously being withheld on claims of privilege. The documents revealed in greater detail what the tobacco companies knew and when they knew it. The documents showed that the tobacco industry knew that nicotine was addictive and tobacco was causing cancer before the medical community, before even the Surgeon General’s report of 1964. But they’d been hiding it behind lawyers and law fi rms. And it was a real mic-drop moment in my career, and really for the whole litigation, and something that is still talked about today.

LD: You also worked on the mass tort litigation over Juul’s marketing of e-cigarettes?

TS: Yes, and what I’m proud about with the Juul case is we didn’t wait decades to bring it. Juul came into the market in Minnesota in 2017 and we filed our

litigation in 2019. And I think that really slowed down Juul’s efforts to market to kids and it felt like we got on top of that problem very quickly. Minnesota was the first state to go to trial against Juul – and the only state to take the tobacco industry to trial in the 1990s. So it was very déjà vu, but in a very good way.

LD: Why is it so important for cases like these to reach trial?

TS: The best way to get information to be made public about what’s happening behind closed doors in a corporation, especially a corporation that’s targeting children, just like the tobacco companies did, is to have a public airing of that information before a jury. Even though defendants like Juul and the tobacco companies don’t like that, that’s the way our system works. If you want to get things made public quickly, the best way to do it is in a courtroom with jurors.

LD: Are you one of those lawyers that’s really passionate about going to trial, really enjoys going to trial?

TS: Yes, I love it. What I love about trial is it’s one time in your life where you can focus on one thing. In order to be a successful trial lawyer, you have to shut out everything else, which can be tough on your family and your spouse. But you’re all in. You live, breathe, sleep your case. And there’s just the adrenaline of being in a courtroom, and you have to make decisions very rapidly. You can’t agonize over them. It’s all split-second. And it’s fun and it’s really hard, but there’s no experience quite like it. You’re always in the moment, and that’s what’s so incredible about it.

LD: Like the tobacco case, the Juul case settled during trial. What did you think about that?

TS: It would’ve been really fun to have taken the case to verdict but, like in tobacco, it was in the best interest of the client – the people of Minnesota –to settle the case when we did settle it and get the injunctive relief that we were able to achieve. Ensuring that Juul and its partner Altria wouldn’t be able to market e-cigarettes in the way that they had marketed them in the past was really critical.

After the tobacco settlement, all the billboards came down. The advertising in the convenience stores came down. Advertising in magazines stopped. Juul was a little different because the social media aspects of what they were doing is a different marketing tool, and probably a more

Bruce E. Yannett

DEBEVOISE

NEW YORK

Julia York

SKADDEN

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Taurie M. Zeitzer

PAUL WEISS

NEW YORK

Jed Zobitz

CRAVATH

NEW YORK

Paul H. Zumbro

CRAVATH NEW YORK

effective marketing tool than even what the tobacco industry did. Getting that shut down, their social media presence aimed at children, was really, really important to the state. They would “seed” their product on social media with influencers and celebrities. It’s just a whole different way of marketing than tobacco companies had done. Unfortunately for young people, they were really good at it.

LD: How did you get involved in the opioid litigation?

TS: We have a tribal practice where we represent tribes mostly in the Upper Midwest and Great Plains states on all sorts of matters. And we had heard from our clients very early on about how the opioid epidemic was devastating Indian Country. The tribal nations were not part of the tobacco litigation, so they were not part of that settlement or that recovery. We felt really strongly that that was a mistake that needed to be corrected in the opioid litigation, that tribal nations needed to have a voice, they needed to have their own settlement separate and apart from the states and the cities and the counties. And it needed to be a culturally sensitive settlement that allowed the money that came from the opioid manufacturers to be used for needs that were unique to Indian Country, which is what we were able to do.

LD: Are there any other cases that maybe don’t get as much press but that you are really excited about?

TS: It’s not a mass tort but over the past year and a half, I’ve been litigating over something that I feel really passionately about, and that people don’t appreciate the risks of. It’s called electronic dusting spray, the product that you use to spray crumbs off your computer keyboard. What a lot of people don’t understand is that this product contains a chemical— difluoroethylene, or DFE. It’s 100 percent DFE, which is an intoxicant. If you huff it, that is, spray it in your mouth, you get this immediate feeling of euphoria. And most times when you do this, you’ll pass out. So you get this immediate high and then you lose consciousness. It’s an almost completely unrestricted product that’s sold in big box stores and it’s the cheapest high that’s out there, cheaper than alcohol or drugs. A can costs a couple of dollars. And it is a growing public health epidemic. It’s mostly young people who purchase this product, not to use it to clean their keyboard, but to get high. And because it’s so addictive, they typically go into

a Walmart or a Home Depot, get in their car after they purchase it, huff it, and start driving.

So, the cases that we’ve been doing tragically involve horrible accidents where someone huffs while driving and they strike and kill an innocent bystander. I’ve been representing a dozen families who have lost family members because of these huffing accidents. We’ve been suing the manufacturer in those because the misuse of this product is foreseeable and known by the manufacturers for decades. So far, we’ve been able to resolve a number of our cases on behalf of victims of huffing. We are just slowly chipping away at the problem using accepted tort law principles to attack a unique but devastating problem.

LD: What trends have you been seeing recently in the mass tort space?

TS: The cases, I think, are being fought harder and longer, and all sorts of bankruptcy techniques are being used to try to evade liability. In the past, I felt like both sides could come together to find an earlier resolution and settlement of cases. Now the tail on these cases has become much longer and more costly and less efficient, and that’s a trend that I’m concerned about, and I think judges are concerned about.

LD: You’ve been with Robins Kaplan since you were a summer associate. What’s kept you at the firm your whole career?

TS: The reason I chose Robins Kaplan at the beginning is it had a commitment to providing the best legal services not just to companies, but to individuals. You don’t hear that from every law firm, and I knew that Robins Kaplan was different. It was really a baked-in part of the culture of the firm, that everyone deserves the best lawyers. Not just companies, but people too. That really resonated with me, and it’s proven to be correct at every stage, and that’s why I stayed here.

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

TS: I try to be very transparent and I don’t like to play games. Hopefully, people know where I stand, and I think that’s helped me in settling cases. That’s kind of my reputation – being a fair broker and recognizing both the weaknesses and strengths of my case. I think that if you ask my peers, they would tell you that I’m extraordinarily straightforward and I don’t play games or hold things back.