2024 Lawdragon Magazine

The Ann u al Issue

A Tradition of Excellence

Congratulations to all the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America , including Robbins Geller attorneys 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.

LEADERBOARD RANK Name SCORE

46

16 LETTER FROM THE EDITOR AND PUBLISHER

18 ELITE, UNIQUE AND ENDURING IN REFI

Wachtell Lipton’s Restructuring and Finance Group has set the standard for lean and effective problem-solving.

28 BLOWING AWAY THE COMPETITION

The powerhouse plaintiffs’ firm Arnold & Itkin turns twenty this year, boasting two decades of astonishing results.

34 FIGHTING RESOURCE NATIONALISM IN AFRICA – AND BEYOND

Timothy Foden and Kristen Young of Boies Schiller Flexner are tapping into international treaties to set key precedents in international arbitration.

40 THE PHILOSOPHY OF BUILDING AN “EMPIRE”

The recruiters at Empire Search Partners have thrived in the role of career counselors who empower lawyers.

46 SENDING A MESSAGE

Pomerantz is working for women in the courtroom and in the boardroom.

53 AN INTRODUCTION TO LAWDRAGON X

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

This is our fifth annual guide dedicated to the leaders of this fascinating – and necessary – avenue of the legal profession. Featuring: 6 1 Michael Rozen and Hassan Murphy of TRGP Capital 28

59 GLOBAL 100 LEADERS IN LEGAL FINANCE

75 GLOBAL 100 LEADERS IN LEGAL STRATEGY & CONSULTING

Our 10th edition of this guide, whose members have had a dizzying ascent in the past decade as the law transformed into a global business. Featuring:

7 7

8 1

8 7

9 1

9 5

10 1

Natasha Innocenti

Nick Pournader

Derek Silva

Clay Steward

Michael Talve

Mary Copeland

105 THE HALL OF FAME

These 42 lawyers compromising the most recent class of inductees truly need no introduction. Featuring:

10 9

113

Jennifer Keller

Harold Nix

117 THE LAWDRAGON LEGENDS

The 2024 Lawdragon Legends are a razzle-dazzle class of 33 of the nation’s finest lawyers, overflowing with inspiring accomplishments from coast to coast.

128 THE LAWDRAGON 500 LEADERS IN AMERICA

We’ve got whistleblowers, plaintiff medical malpractice experts, energy infrastructure dealmakers, labor union leaders, pro bono heroes, white collar and antitrust aces galore. Featuring:

13 0

13 4

14 0

14 6

15 2

16 2

Milt Williams of Walden Macht

Danielle Tully of Cadwalader

Justin Shur of MoloLamken

Hannah Ross of Bernstein Litowitz and Rachel Skaistis of Cravath

Nicholas Gravante of Cadwalader

Natasha Romagnoli of Blank Rome

172 Jeremy Lieberman of Pomerantz

178 Lauren Varnado of Michelman & Robinson

18 4

19 0

19 6

2 0 4

Mike Lynn of Lynn Parker

Tara Sutton of Robins Kaplan

Kenya Davis of Boies Schiller

Shawn Rabin of Susman Godfrey

210 Ashlie Beringer and Michael Celio of Gibson Dunn

“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

J ames l ang F or D

LAWDRAGON PHOTOGRAPHY

l aura B arisonzi , s ara e ssex B ra D ley , J ustin c lemons , n ic K

c oleman , D ave c ross , r ory e arnshaw , g reg e n D ries , e li

m eir K a P lan , J e FF rey l u K e , m elissa l yttle , K en r ichar D son ,

F elix s anchez , t homas s tran D

Issue 30

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.

Seeger Weiss is a plaintiff’s law firm representing clients all over the United States. Since its founding in 1999, we have led history-making and record-setting cases on behalf of individuals, organizations, and states and local municipalities that have been injured or defrauded on an individual or mass scale. The selection methodology for the list can be viewed here: www.lawdragon.com/methodology/lawdragon-500-leading-litigators-in-america

No aspect of this or any advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey

Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future matter

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

HILE 2024 HAS BEEN AS EPIC AND CONSEQUENTIAL AS ANY OF US COULD HAVE PREDICTED, IT HAS ALSO FELT LIKE A PERIOD OF TRANSITION – A TURBULENT RIDE ON A VESSEL MERELY GETTING US TO A NEW PRECIPICE, A NEW PERIOD OF UNCERTAINTY. THAT WAS, NOT SURPRISINGLY, ESPECIALLY SO AS THE YEAR BEGAN TO WIND DOWN.

Without doubt, this was frightening to many people. But just as certain is that the lawyers on these pages provide comfort and confidence to so many people and entities with stakes in the various controversies that make up this historic moment.

As we do each year, we strive to highlight lawyers across an agnostic range of practice areas and positions. Emblematic of this effort are our opening features on Wachtell Lipton’s restructuring and finance or “ReFi” team – the literal definition of the elite corporate practice – and on plaintiff’s powerhouse Arnold & Itkin, whose founding partners have a habit of record-setting verdicts on behalf of the underdog. This issue’s guides to the best lawyers, legal consultants, and litigation finance professionals are an eclectic-as-ever mix of top talent from diverse backgrounds and expertise.

Our feature on Arnold & Itkin resonated internally as it explored their record of achievement in the two decades since the firm’s 2004 founding. We are turning 20 a year later, so in some ways will view the past year as the vessel that took us to the doorstep of one of Lawdragon’s most important milestones. But this issue of our Annual Magazine is proof that we can justifiably claim as great a 19th year as any of us could have dreamed in 2005. For that, we thank you.

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

Elite, Unique and Enduring in ReFi

$ <> % ±

WACHTELL LIPTON’S RESTRUCTURING AND FINANCE GROUP HAS SET THE STANDARD FOR LEAN AND EFFECTIVE PROBLEM-SOLVING.

Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz is a rare and remarkable force – a dominant player in corporate law with a single office in Manhattan, and fewer than 300 lawyers. In a world of global legal behemoths, it’s Wachtell that regularly gets the call from clients including Broadcom, OpenAI, RTX Corporation and even basketball legend Michael Jordan.

Its success derives from its culture that embraces small, tightly crafted practices that routinely work through multidimensional approaches to billiondollar puzzles. Take, for instance, its restructuring and finance expertise, which Wachtell offers clients as a one-stop shop handling everything from acquisition financing and capital structure design to liability management and corporate restructurings. And if anything ends up in court, the Restructuring and Finance group also includes litigation specialists.

“It is a relatively unusual structure in terms of having a group that covers the full spectrum from pure finance on one side to restructuring on the other and having litigators working side by side with transactional lawyers,” says Emil Kleinhaus, a partner in both the Litigation and the Restructuring and Finance groups.

Wachtell’s recent restructuring efforts have included the Chapter 11 reorganization of drugmaker Mallinckrodt and the purchase by Overstock.com of certain intellectual property of Bed Bath & Beyond out of the latter’s bankruptcy. On the financing side, the firm has recently advised clients including Salesforce, Hewlett Packard Enterprise and 3M on securities offerings and bank financings. In the emerging liability management space, Wachtell has advised principal constituencies in several of the most high profile transactions of the last couple of years, including Lumen, Envision, AMC and Team Health. Partner and finance expert Gregory Pessin was even part of the Wachtell team that helped

BY MATTHEW HELLER

X

Corp., formerly Twitter, prevent Elon Musk from terminating his agreement to acquire the social media platform for $44B, as Musk’s relationship with his financing sources was a major issue.

“The first place we go with a client is: What is the overall business and legal situation? How do we attack the problem?” says Michael Benn, a Restructuring and Finance partner. Once they nail down the possible menu of solutions, the firm’s unique structure provides a prime position to execute whichever strategy is chosen.

“We’re there,” Benn adds, “to give advice and to add value and to help clients along the way, as opposed to trying to push an agenda.”

Emily Johnson joined Wachtell as an associate in 2010 after graduating from Duke Law School. She was elected partner in 2018 and practices transactional law as part of the Restructuring and Finance group. Her clients have included NBA legend Michael Jordan, whom she advised on the $3B sale of his majority stake in the Charlotte Hornets last year.

“Rather than restructuring and finance, I think of us as all things debt,” Johnson explains. “Debt is really a life-cycle product, and understanding how you put it together for a healthy borrower informs your approach when times are tougher, and vice versa.”

Johnson’s practice extends all the way from investment-grade acquisition financing in support

of M&A to liability management. But, her practice tends to sit more on the healthy side of the ledger.

In Johnson’s early years at the firm, as is typical for a Wachtell associate, she handled a wide variety of matters, including on the restructuring side, which helped round out her understanding and engage with the full complexity of the capital life cycle. By seeing the healthy side and the restructuring side of this work, Johnson and her colleagues learn how to draft precisely, but strategically.

Working at this level of dealmaking, the technical precision of drafting a contract is paramount. “The contracts that we write often outlive the tenure of most of the people implementing them,” Johnson says, “so the drafting is so critical.”

In one of her more noteworthy matters, Johnson steered the financing aspects of the 2020 separation of industrial giant United Technologies into three public companies and its simultaneous merger with Raytheon. The existing $45B debt load was rebalanced among UTC/Raytheon, the separated Carrier heating and ventilation business and the separated Otis elevator business.

— Emily Johnson <>

“Rather than restructuring and finance, I think of us as all things debt. Debt is really a life-cycle product, and understanding how you put it together for a healthy borrower informs your approach when times are tougher, and vice versa.”

“It started as one company with a single capital structure,” she says. “But to do the separation you’ve got to, in essence, reallocate the debt among the three businesses and set up the new public companies’ inaugural capital structure. If you owned debt in United Technologies, I couldn’t just tell you, ‘Now you own debt in Otis, and now you own debt in Carrier.’ It’s a refinancing process, but it’s also a design process. What do these capital structures look like? What should they look like? And how do we incentivize holders to get that result?”

Wachtell worked for over a year on the United Technologies spin/merger, Johnson recalls. “How do you untangle a 100-year-old company? There’s a lot of detailed planning work on that. And then, just as we started to execute the bond deals for the spin companies in February 2020, Covid-19 stormed onto the scene requiring new methods and quick thinking to execute transactions.”

After Wachtell was founded in 1965, it initially followed the more conventional practice model of separating restructuring and finance. “The firm had a very strong bankruptcy practice that was focused on creditor committee representation,” says Josh Feltman, who chairs the Restructuring and Finance group. It did not have a major finance practice until the firm concluded that it was impractical to have a leading M&A practice if it was without a substantial finance practice.

According to Feltman, the practices merged into a

single entity as their focus on creditor representations and bankruptcy waned, and the emphasis on being able to service clients on the finance side of M&A deals waxed. By 2007, the Creditors’ Rights group had been renamed Restructuring and Finance. Ever since, the ReFi group, as it’s known within the firm, helps to underscore the firm’s singularity in the market as an elite strike force of dealmakers, able to tackle the most pressing legal issues from every angle and at every stage. While other firms may have attorneys from six or seven practice areas on a call to discuss liability management or out-of-court restructuring deals – such as separate specialists in securities, bank debt, bond debt and derivatives – Wachtell’s ReFi group is devastatingly lean and effective.

“The trend of the market over the last 15 years has dovetailed nicely with the design of our group,” says John Sobolewski, a partner in the group who is regularly tapped to handle the firm’s liability management work.

As Benjamin Arfa, who previously worked as an analyst at Goldman Sachs, says: “Having one set of people with expertise across practice areas enables us to deliver a superior result for clients who are looking for ways to put money to work safely or restructure investments in ways that achieve their aims.”

Wachtell’s approach is, first of all, to understand the client’s business. According to Benn, who recently advised The RealReal in liability management transactions related to its existing convertible notes, the first step with any client is to understand where the issues lie and explore the various avenues for solutions. He looks at whether the business has a short- or long-term problem, whether it requires a balance sheet restructuring or liquidity infusion, and if the latter, whether capital markets are open to them and, if not, whether private credit provides a path forward. Whatever the best route is, the Wachtell team can guide the client through it.

“We know how and when to capitalize on financing trends,” says Benn. “We have deep knowledge of and experience with the syndicated loan and high yield bond markets. We interface well with direct lenders.” In fact, there is very little that this team can’t do. For that reason, they frequently get called in to sort through the most complex, novel deals.

In one novel financing, Arfa and Benn helped put together a complex $250M credit facility in July 2023 for Rayonier Advanced Materials, a maker of cellulose specialty products, that included a “double dip” or “pari plus” loan with alternative investment firm Oaktree Capital Management. The dealmakers had handled the company’s existing debt financing, so

“Having one set of people with expertise across practice areas enables us to deliver a superior result for clients who are looking for ways to put money to work safely or restructure investments in ways that achieve their aims.”

— Benjamin Arfa

they knew the debt documents cold. They were able to go through them and show the client the seams, then engineer a transaction to raise the financing that they needed to get through a rough patch of the business. Finally, this past November, Rayonier Advanced Materials again tapped the Wachtell team to refinance existing debt maturities and unwind the “double dip” structure into a more conventional secured loan package.

According to Benn, some law firms might advise a similarly positioned company to explore bankruptcy. “That may be the immediate place where they go,” he says. “That’s not where we’re going to go. Bankruptcy is expensive. Bankruptcy brings a court into the equation right away. It’s a forum that’s adversarial by nature. We ask, ‘Is there still a deal to be done?’”

In a deal that closed in March of this year, Wachtell represented Lumen Technologies in the biggest liability management transaction of all time. The firm led the global telecommunications company in intense negotiations with creditors, who had initiated the talks after inquiring about the company’s debt maturities and what they described as an apparent default. Wachtell led the company through a comprehensive debt realignment transaction that secured new avenues for growth and expansion.

While bankruptcy was never on the table in the deal, the negotiations had a restructuring-style

$3B+ Secured I 1.5M+ Clients I 300+ Attorneys & Staff

Power on Your Side

Keller Postman puts power behind plaintiffs taking on the most formidable defendants in the world.

From our $60M NEC verdict to a $1.4 billion privacy settlement for the State of Texas, our results speak for themselves. Armed with cutting-edge, data-driven strategies, we hold corporate giants accountable - and win.

With a nationwide footprint and proprietary technology built for scale, our powerhouse team of attorneys, client advocates, and tech experts has represented over one million clients. We bring unmatched tenacity, urgency, and precision to every case and outwork the other side every time.

dynamic. It was non-linear, dealing with multiple counterparties, more like a heads-up negotiation rather than taking a proposal to the market like with a new issuance. “There were hawks and doves in the creditor group,” says Sobolewski, “and to some extent you’re balancing their interests against each other. You have to be sort of a restructuring ninja to navigate that type of a deal dynamic.”

The Rayonier and Lumen deals exemplify the types of bespoke problem-solving that the Wachtell ReFi group is primed to handle, time and again. They are hybrid deals where, to do it really well, you need the elite skills of both finance attorneys and restructuring attorneys. Silos won’t cut it.

Josh Feltman has been problem-solving at Wachtell since he joined the firm in 2002. He worked on Enron and WorldCom, then spent 2004 through early 2007 working almost exclusively on huge private equity, take-private deals with large financings, he recalls. Wachtell’s standard partner track is eight years, and the associate training is designed to show the young lawyer the spectrum of a business cycle. They are exposed to bankruptcy, out-of-court workouts and

restructuring deals, along with stalwart M&A and related investment grade and high yield financings.

This learning process, Feltman says, “gives you the toolkit” to do complicated stand-out deals like the July 2024 drop-down financial restructuring of AMC Theatres that enabled it to extend the maturity of up to $2.45B of its debt.

“We’re a small firm,” Feltman notes, “and everyone is exposed to multiple fields. The people who do public company M&A and private company M&A and spinoffs are not separate. Everybody does everything. And even if you’re not a perfect expert in something, you know who to go to, you understand what questions to ask.”

Wachtell used that toolkit in a precedent-setting case that arose from the financial troubles of Education Management Corp., a Pittsburgh-based operator of for-profit post-secondary educational institutions. With Wachtell’s help, EDMC came up with a plan to restructure about $1.3B in secured debt and $217M in unsecured notes, which had been issued by its subsidiaries, through an out-of-court exchange offer to its debtholders.

“That was a very unusual situation because the client really couldn’t file for bankruptcy because it was an education company that would lose government financing,” says Kleinhaus. “So we had to design a rather innovative structure for an out-of-court restructuring transaction.”

“We’re a small firm and everyone is exposed to multiple fields. The people who do public company M&A and private company M&A and spinoffs are not separate. Everybody does everything. And even if you’re not a perfect expert in something, you know who to go to, you understand what questions to ask.”

— Josh Feltman ±

A majority of noteholders supported the deal but two investors, Marblegate Asset Management and a related entity, sued EDMC, alleging the deal violated the Trust Indenture Act  (TIA) of 1939 by effectively depriving them of the practical ability to collect on the notes. EDMC, as the parent company of the issuers, had guaranteed the notes, which carried a high effective interest rate – nearly 20 percent per year – to compensate for the riskier nature of the unsecured debt.

A trial judge, while declining to enjoin the transaction, held that cancellation of the guarantee would violate the TIA. But in March 2017, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit overturned that decision, accepting Kleinhaus’ argument that the EDMC restructuring, even if it affected the practical ability of noteholders to recover, did not amend the “core payment terms” of the notes.

“Our litigators are really good at helping us structure transactions. Where some litigators will only look at the deal documents after there’s a dispute, our folks – Kleinhaus and his team – look at those documents with us at the outset, when we’re fleshing out those issues and we’re structuring to make sure we don’t get tripped up,” Benn says.

Wachtell’s Restructuring and Finance Group has been particularly busy of late amid a surge in restructuring activity due to higher interest rates and economic uncertainty. “While Chapter 11 filings increased more than 70 percent year-over-year [in 2023], companies also increasingly turned to ‘out-of-court’ solutions to extend maturities or restructure their balance sheets,” the firm reported in a January 2024 bulletin.

“We expect 2024 to be an active year as stressed and distressed companies grapple with a potentially ‘higher for longer’ interest rate environment and, in some cases, approaching maturity walls,” it added.

It’s also been a busy year on the financing side, reports Pessin. “The high-yield debt markets, for the first time in a long time, were sort of challenged, difficult, volatile, 18 months ago. Now they seem to be ‘back-ish,’ not to their peak by any stretch, but back in a certain way.”

Much of Pessin’s work is acquisition financing for the firm’s large, strategic, investment-grade clients. He’s finding that debt continues to be available for them to finance acquisitions in large scale. “We just signed up a very large LBO transaction for a private equity sponsor, one of the largest in many years,” he says. “And the debt was available and more expensive than in the [LBO] heyday, but not prohibitively so.”

Having the ability within one group to handle complex financings and restructurings means that, no matter which way the market leans, the group is always busy. “We’re built to be fluid,” says Sobolewski.

Feltman and his fellow partners believe the firm’s collaborative culture is a key to handling the ever-large workload. They have a bi-weekly lunch where they rotate cuisines and discuss the deals they’re working on, including the complexities and recent developments. An associate is tasked with ordering the food. “It’s not revealed who made the selection until the end of lunch, after we all have passed judgment,” quips Arfa.

The conversation around the lunch table might be about a particular financing structure or the way certain PIK loans have developed, or about litigation over whether or not a certain contract can be assumed under the given circumstances. It’s cross-disciplinary, always changing and never boring.

“We are an open-door place, and we spend a lot of time thinking with each other,” says Johnson. “The firm is very collaborative and not siloed, and we think about what is the client’s problem that we’re solving – not how do I solve my piece, but what is the global solution?”

The firm also has “Champagne Thursdays” and “ ReFriday” social gatherings to celebrate the arrival of a new employee, a staffer’s birthday or firm wins.

“The high-yield debt markets, for the first time in a long time, were sort of challenged, difficult, volatile, 18 months ago. Now they seem to be ‘back-ish,’ not to their peak by any stretch, but back in a certain way.”

— Gregory Pessin

The ReFi group now numbers 37 lawyers, including six litigators. “We’re not above doing anything, but by and large, our clients come to us for more significant problems, and we turn down a lot of work that doesn’t make sense given our model,” says Feltman.

The firm makes a major investment in developing its associates to keep the firm tight-knit and operating at the highest levels. Hiring is for the long term, with a goal of bringing on 25 to 30 first-year associates firm-wide each year. “Attrition for us, I don’t want to say it’s a debacle, but it is not a happy event,” says Feltman. “It’s rare for a Wachtell associate to lateral to another firm. But when they leave to go to private equity offices or academia or to move to California, we feel it,” he says. “It hurts.”

“Marty Lipton likes to talk about the firm as a family,” Benn observes, referring to the firm’s legendary founding partner. “And like every good family, we have disagreements from time to time. But when it comes down to it, we all really like each other, respect each other and enjoy the time we spend together.”

It’s a good thing, too, because the attorneys have never been busier or more in demand. As the markets shift, their nimbleness and dynamism mean there is never a slow quarter. And their ability to craft the most complex and novel financings and restructurings means they have a lot of Champagne Thursdays in their future.

BLOWING AWAY THE COMPETITION

THE POWERHOUSE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRM ARNOLD & ITKIN TURNS TWENTY THIS YEAR.

BY MEGHAN HEMINGWAY

Kurt Arnold and Jason Itkin founded the law firm of Arnold & Itkin with a simple goal –winning the best results for their clients, no matter what. Twenty years later, the firm boasts more than $22B in verdicts and settlements, a feat accomplished by outsmarting, outworking and outlawyering their opponents. Along the way, the firm has helped secure the futures of thousands of families and forced big companies to affect meaningful changes to how they do business.

Arnold and Itkin met as undergraduates, remained close throughout law school, and eventually began their careers at the same boutique trial law firm. Frustrated by the bureaucratic world of corporate litigation, they envisioned a more meaningful career. As the pair etched out the specifics, their goal became clear – they would build an elite trial firm and have fun while doing it.

In the early years, the duo may have known that a bright future was possible, but they couldn’t possibly have predicted the success they would achieve.

In 2023, Arnold & Itkin lawyers won three of the top 10 verdicts in Texas. Recent verdicts in the Roundup Litigation and highly publicized settlements for the crowd crush victims in the Astroworld litigation represent the latest achievements in a long line of record-breaking verdicts and settlements. Achieving results for families in need is the work that the firm is most proud of – this is why they love what they do.

THE EARLY DAYS

Upon graduating from law school from the University of Texas, Arnold and Itkin both found themselves working at Susman Godfrey and living in the same downtown lofts – the historic Rice Hotel in Houston. Arnold was on the seventh floor and Itkin on the tenth. Being young lawyers at the start of their careers, the duo would spend a lot of their free time together playing basketball, going for drinks, and imagining what it would be like if they were the ones calling the shots.

“We’d go out with friends and then and we’d be back to Kurt’s place afterwards, and talk about what it would look like if we started our own firm,” says Itkin. “What I didn’t realize at the time is that Kurt is the most organized person I’ve ever met. As we were talking, Kurt would be taking notes of all the things we needed to do to start our own firm.”

All that note-taking led to three very practical things they needed to get started – office space, someone to trust them to handle their case, and the ability to finance the case.

After being turned away by every major (and minor) bank in Houston, Itkin found a small bank in Las Vegas, New Mexico willing to give the start-up a small business loan. They then found a small office sublease in downtown Houston. The wheels were in motion, now all they needed was a case.

Arnold and Iktin spent days upon days driving around Houston, all around Texas, and even Louisiana. They would knock on the doors of established lawyers in various practice areas and bring them a pitch – the new firm would take on your worst case simply for the chance to show what they could make something of it. Eventually this tactic led to their first case – one that several firms had turned down. Despite serious legal and factual challenges, Arnold and Itkin secured a $1.75M settlement on the courthouse steps and the new firm was off to the races.

CREATING THE CULTURE

The early days were lean.

Kurt and Jason worked every job at the firm themselves –receptionist, filing clerk, secretary, copier and of course

trial lawyer. In those first five years, they put in the time, built the relationships and tried upwards of 50 cases.

“If someone was going to give us an opportunity, we’d drive for four hours and meet with them for lunch and drive four hours home,” recalls Arnold. “We started getting referrals from other law firms. We tried a lot of cases and were fortunate to win a lot of big verdicts, and eventually we built a great reputation.”

The dynamic between Arnold and Itkin is a big part of their success. They have an infectious energy and truly love the work. They’re not only connected to their clients, but they’re also connected to their employees and it shows in the tenure of many. Five of their lawyers have been with Arnold and Itkin for 13 or more years, and their Firm Administrator and both Arnold’s and Itkin’s Senior Paralegals have been with the firm nearly since inception. Beyond those, there are nearly two dozen employees who have been with the firm for more than 10 years.

Arnold and Iktin lead by example and have built a firm culture that celebrates people who work harder than most to win for their clients. There is a palpable energy inside the hallways of the firm that radiates an air of success – and a love for winning huge results for the underdog.

“Jason and I just wanted to work on cases that mattered with people we like being around,” says Arnold. “We didn’t go to law school to represent oil companies or insurance companies. It’s a lot more meaningful to represent widows than it is to represent big corporations.”

Making Things Right When Catastrophes Happen

In 2010, Arnold & Itkin was thrust into the national spotlight for the firm’s role in the Deepwater Horizon explosion litigation. Being in Houston, a major hub of energy and shipping, Arnold & Itkin built a reputation for winning cases for offshore workers, mariners, and workers in the oil and gas industry. When a catastrophic explosion caused the BP oil spill, the phone at Arnold & Itkin started ringing. The firm ultimately represented a third of the Deepwater Horizon crew, including crane operator Dale Burkeen who was tragically burned alive in the explosion. The firm ultimately secured the largest settlements in maritime history for its clients.

Since the Deepwater cases, Arnold & Itkin has been called upon to represent victims of other mass-casualty disasters – including the widows of mariners lost during the tragic sinking of the cargo ship El Faro, workers injured and killed in high-profile plant explosions including Williams Geismar Olefins in Louisiana; ExxonMobil in Baton Rouge, La.; Packaging Corporation of America in DeRidder, La.; ExxonMobil in Baytown, Texas, and many others.

“We are known nationwide as leaders in maritime law,”

says Arnold. “Right now, we represent about 50 crew members from two rigs that Noble and Transocean left out in a category 5 storm in 90-foot waves. Those families trust us because of the great results we’re known for, results that we’re able to build upon.”

Arnold & Itkin isn’t only known for maritime law. Their results across all types of personal injury litigation are staggering, routinely setting records across the country. In the last few years, they have won:

$8B verdict against Johnson & Johnson

$2.25B verdict for a Roundup cancer victim

$860M verdict for victim of fatal crane accident

$557M verdict against Union Pacific

$357M settlement for workplace accident

$222M wrongful death verdict

$209M wrongful death verdict

And the list goes on.

THE RECIPE FOR SUCCESS

Arnold’s and Itkin’s leadership has allowed the firm to grow from a small start-up to a juggernaut. The firm has recovered an astonishing $22B in the last 10 years and the founders are rightfully proud of the well-oiled machine that they’ve built.

The partners are no longer driving four hours each way for any meeting they can get. Now, lawyers across the country seek out Arnold & Itkin to be the lead trial lawyers on their most important cases. The partners are discerning, selective and intentional with the cases they take on.

“We’re not there to be everything to everybody,” says Arnold. “But we want to take the most important cases, the cases that need the most attention, that need the resources, and ensure that they get the best result.” The results are certainly speaking volumes. In the past 12 months alone, six different trial teams within the firm each achieved individual nine-figure results.

The culture at the firm dictates that if you were the one who wrote the brief or reviewed the documents, you should be the one arguing the motion or taking the deposition. “When it comes to work at the firm, everyone puts their egos aside to focus on winning the best result for the clients,” says Itkin. “There’s opportunities to succeed and fail on your own, and I think that’s helped build teams that stick together.”

Success as a plaintiffs’ lawyer at Arnold & Itkin relies on key traits that are a rare combination – one must be aggressive yet empathetic, smart and loyal, hardworking

and brutally honest. A true “no matter what” attitude and a continuous drive to improve.

That human element is heavily emphasized at the firm. “Nothing substitutes for hard work and being smart. But empathy is paramount,” says Itkin. “We’ve represented billionaires and we’ve represented people with less than $100 in their account. Bad things can happen to everybody. So you have to have a natural sense of empathy. Without it, you don’t succeed here.”

If an attorney is going to join the team at Arnold & Itkin, first and foremost they must have the ambition to become an incredible trial lawyer. They also must be relentless in their work ethic. They must outsmart their opponents and never back down from a challenge.

It’s a lot of pressure, it’s high risk when you’re working on the plaintiffs’ side – you have very real people relying on you to get the best results for their futures no matter the challenge. This is a responsibility the lawyers at Arnold & Itkin take very seriously.

INNOVATING THROUGH CULTIVATING

Never ones to lose sight of why they started the firm in the first place, Arnold & Itkin now looks to law schools to recruit the next generation of superstars. They’re looking for the best and the brightest, and they want to make sure that the next great legal minds know that there is a path in plaintiffs’ law that will help them to achieve their goals.

Law schools often push their students toward Big Law as the most desirable destination post-graduation, and those big corporate defense firms have robust recruiting teams that buoy that process. Arnold and Itkin are interested in disrupting that process, showing law students that Big Law doesn’t have to be the automatic next step or some rite of passage on one’s journey toward a fulfilling career. “We try to let these law students know that there is another path out there,” says Itkin. “A path where you can do right and still make a great living.”

When Arnold and Itkin were coming up, they didn’t have organizations like PALS (Plaintiffs’ Advocacy & Litigation Society) – a new student group that launched in October 2023 at the University of Texas that is focused on connecting students, alumni and practitioners working on behalf of plaintiffs, with a mission to spread education and awareness around opportunities for work on the plaintiffs’ side.

Itkin is impressed with the changes he’s seen since graduating from law school over two decades ago. “When Kurt and I were in law school, we didn’t know that you could do things that really make a difference in how industry behaves and help people who’ve

had something terrible happen,” he says. “It’s been eye-opening and transformational for us as we look towards the future.”

MAKING IT COUNT

Kurt and Jason, and their wives, Tara Arnold and Kisha Itkin, launched The Arnold & Itkin Foundation in 2015 as a way to expand the firm’s impact and outreach in the community. Each project that the Foundation takes on is rooted in their passion for improving the lives of people who have had something terrible occur.

There are problems that can’t be fixed by a courtroom victory, and for a firm that’s fueled by empathy, it can be heart-breaking to look at the myriad issues they are unable to help through the legal system. This foundation is their answer to these issues, and an attempt to help bridge the gap.

“When chemical companies poison people, you can take them to court and hold them accountable and hope you can get them to change,” says Itkin. “But if a child is born with terrible neurological problems and their parents need a place to help educate and care for their child – that’s not something you’re going to fix with a lawsuit.”

That’s where the Foundation comes in – to help people who need help beyond what the legal system can provide. Itkin says, “We wanted to find areas where there were gaps in funding where we could make a real meaningful difference.”

NO PLACE FOR COMPLACENCY

In 2023, the firm won more top Texas verdicts than any other firm, including a $860M verdict for a young woman killed by a crane collapse, a $557M verdict for a woman catastrophically injured in a train accident, and a $209M wrongful death verdict for the family of an oil and gas worker. The firm started 2024 in a similar manner with a $2.25B dollar verdict for a cancer victim. These numbers are a clear indication of just how far the firm has come in twenty years.

Clients call Arnold & Itkin on their worst day, when the unthinkable happens and they find themselves in the fight of a lifetime. It’s the firm’s job to help families secure the best possible future after a tragedy. When it comes to making things right for their clients, Arnold & Itkin never backs down.

For Arnold and Itkin, it’s deeply personal. The firm is inspired by the challenges that complex matters present and is always thinking about the next step – what can we do better? A commitment to winning, no matter what. And, if you ask Arnold and Itkin what’s next to come, they will say that they are still “just getting started.”

Fighting Resource Nationalism in Africa –and Beyond

Timothy Foden and Kristen Young of Boies Schiller Flexner are tapping into international treaties to set key precedents in international arbitration.

BY MATTHEW HELLER AND ALISON PREECE

International arbitration is a busy field these days, with many arbitral institutions seeing a record number of new cases in the last two years. Resource price booms and the political agendas of newly installed military juntas have fed into a trend towards resource nationalism in some countries and international investors who were once hesitant to bring claims against sovereign states have been increasingly resorting to international arbitration to vindicate their rights. As a result, investors are increasingly utilizing bilateral and multilateral investment treaties to sue governments over lost investments.

Boies Schiller Flexner, ever keeping in step with the needs of the disputes market, is currently handling a portfolio of commercial and investor-state arbitration valued at more than $13B, representing clients in disputes before all the leading international arbitral institutions. One of Boies Schiller Flexner’s current international arbitration stars, practice co-leader Timothy Foden, recently obtained a landmark $90M settlement on behalf of Australian mining company Indiana Resources against Tanzania. He also helped GreenX Metals obtain a multi-million pound award in an investment treaty claim against Poland over the obstruction of a coal project. Foden notes that the resource nationalism trend took root in Tanzania, spread across the “Coup Belt,” and is now catching on in parts of Latin America and even Europe. But, he says, “these countries are jumping on the trend without taking note of the consequences down the line.”

The international arbitration practice is by no means new for the firm. From its earliest days in the late 1990s, Boies Schiller Flexner has represented clients before all major arbitral institutions. Firm co-founder Jonathan Schiller, who co-leads the international arbitration practice, was part of a team that successfully represented Westinghouse Electric Corporation in an ICC arbitration in which the Philippines alleged that Westinghouse had bribed President Ferdinand Marcos to obtain a nuclear power plant order. The tribunal held that there was no evidence of corruption.

Foden joined the firm’s London office in 2022. He began his career with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and as an associate at Crowell & Moring in Washington, D.C. He moved to the U.K. in 2011 to work for Allen & Overy (now A&O Shearman), where he led the first investment arbitration claims against Spain under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) before spending several years at Quinn Emanuel and then acting as Managing Partner for the newly opened London office of the Swiss arbitration boutique LALIVE. At Boies Schiller Flexner, he has focused primarily on disputes in the mining and energy sectors including investment arbitration claims against sovereign states.

Another prominent lateral hire, Kristen Young, joined Boies Schiller Flexner in February 2024 with more than 17 years of experience in international arbitration as an associate and then partner at White & Case in Washington, D.C., and Paris. During her career, she has successfully represented clients in billions of dollars’ worth of claims arising under numerous bilateral investment treaties, free trade agreements and the ECT, including the first two international treaty arbitrations dismissed on grounds of corruption. Young has extensive experience representing both respondent states and claimant investors across leading arbitration forums.

Lawdragon sat down with the two partners to discuss resource nationalism and their recent successes representing investors against sovereign states in international arbitration.

You’ve worked a lot in the mining sector in recent years. Can you talk about the trends that you’re seeing in that space?

Tim Foden: Since 2015-16, we have seen a 1970s-style resurgence in resource nationalism, particularly across Africa, and, to a certain extent, Latin America, but even in parts of Europe. We recently obtained a $331M award for a foreign investor in an arbitration against Poland where a change in government ultimately resulted in the nationalization of certain of the country’s coal assets. States can adopt a resource nationalistic model but, when this infringes on protected investments, you’ve got to pay the investors.

The resource nationalist trend in the mining sector in Africa kicked off in 2016 with the election of John Magufuli as the President of Tanzania. Other African countries followed suit. What Kristen and I are dealing with in large part now is the fallout from other countries trying to get in on that trend.

We’ve had a number of successes representing investors in treaty claims against Tanzania. In 2023, we obtained a $30M settlement on behalf of Winshear Gold, a Canadian mining company. Last year, we obtained a $90M settlement on behalf of Indiana Resources, an Australian mining company and a $27M settlement on behalf of Montero Mining, another Canadian mining company. We also issued a notice of dispute to Tanzania

Timing is key. So-called “treaty planning” is permitted before any dispute arises. Companies can structure and restructure their investments to ensure treaty protection and access to arbitration. But if a dispute has already arisen with the host state, you can’t restructure the investment “after the event.”

on behalf of another client for a $1.2B investment treaty claim in respect of a natural gas asset.

Whilst several countries have adopted a resource nationalist model inspired by Tanzania, they did not consider the price tag associated with that kind of approach. But we are now starting to see that the resource nationalist model is proving very costly for sovereign states.

Kristen Young: We’re doing a lot of work in Francophone Africa, particularly in West Africa, where there have been a series of coup d’états since 2020. What has accompanied these military juntas seizing power is both a nationalistic agenda and the need to fill Covid-sized holes in their budgets. Leaders are looking at revenues generated by the mining industry as a means to fill those holes. In Burkina Faso, for example, we have seen the military leader announce recently the withdrawal of mining concessions, asserting: “We know how to mine our gold.”

We’re currently working with clients to prepare for potential action that might be taken against their assets, and then bringing cases on their behalf when actions are taken. We recently commenced ICSID arbitration proceedings against Burkina Faso under the Canada-Burkina Faso bilateral investment treaty on behalf of Sarama Resources Ltd, a Canadian mining company whose mining assets were expropriated by the military junta in 2023.

Your win for investors against Tanzania on behalf of Indiana Resources was unprecedented. Could you talk about the importance of the decision and the message that it’s sending to investors and sovereign states?

TF: We obtained an arbitral award amounting to about $110M inclusive of interest for our client Indiana Resources in its dispute against Tanzania over the revocation of its nickel mining licenses. Tanzania sought to have the award annulled through fear that we would seek to enforce it by seizing national assets such as airplanes. We used the summary dismissal mechanism to get most of Tanzania’s grounds for annulment dismissed on the basis that they were manifestly without legal merit and it was the first time in ICSID history that preliminary objections have succeeded in an annulment proceeding. At that point Tanzania was left with few options: They could either hope and pray that they were going to get the rest of the award annulled or settle and pay a smaller amount in exchange for not having their assets that we had traced around the world seized to enforce the arbitral award. In a landmark settlement, Tanzania agreed to pay $90M to Indiana Resources.

The importance of this case is, when our client brought the claim, everyone said it was a waste of time and resources because they were going to lose. Then, when they won, everyone said, “well, you’ll never get them to pay.” When Tanzania opted to settle, it was proof of concept in Perth, Australia that if you bring a claim in the right way, you can win and you can get paid. You often advise clients about structuring their projects in ways that help protect their investments. Can you talk about the type of advice that you give them?

TF: We often analyze a project and advise on how best to structure (or restructure) an investment to ensure that our clients have treaty protection. It is surprising how many companies do not even consider the importance of this –they structure their investments in such a way to ensure the best

At that point

Tanzania was left with few options: They could either hope and pray that they were going to get the rest of the award annulled or settle and pay a smaller amount in exchange for not having their assets that we had traced around the world seized to enforce the arbitral award.

possible tax treatment, but the reality is that tax only matters when making a profit. If an investor loses their investment before making a profit, treaty protection and potential avenues for redress take precedence over tax treatment. So, it’s important to speak to us first to ensure that you’ve got sufficient treaty protection in place. A lot of companies don’t.

KY: Timing is key. So-called “treaty planning” is permitted before any dispute arises. Companies can structure and restructure their investments to ensure treaty protection and access to arbitration. But if a dispute has already arisen with the host state, you can’t restructure the investment “after the event.” Companies have tried and failed, with tribunals finding that such actions constitute an abuse of process. That’s why it’s critical to consider treaty coverage in a forward-looking way, before any dispute arises.

You two are really on the front lines here. What other trends are you seeing in investment treaty arbitration?

KY: In addition to a steady stream of disputes across Africa, we continue to see a large number of investment cases filed against Latin American states. We are currently representing mining clients in two investment treaty arbitrations against Mexico, one of the last legacy NAFTA cases and the first case to proceed under the new Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). We expect to see additional cases filed under the CPTPP against Mexico, particularly given President Claudia Sheinbaum’s recent announcement that her government will review a bill to ban open-pit mining.

We’ve also been working with clients across the Middle East and Central Asia. I have extensive experience in Central Asia and have been working closely with Tim and another terrific London partner, David Hunt, on a number of cases and potential matters, particularly in the energy sector.

What’s different about the way you approach cases at Boies Schiller Flexner, compared to other international arbitration practices?

KY:  We take a trial lawyer approach. Unlike many of our competitors, we’re not looking at international arbitration as an academic exercise. We’re looking to find the best evidence and most compelling arguments to persuade the tribunal to award our clients what they’re seeking. What really sets our team apart is our ability to locate the best evidence and then weave that evidence into a simple but compelling narrative for the tribunal.

Boies Schiller Flexner is really known for its litigation prowess so that must be a natural fit.

TF: Yes, completely. I’ll start off by asking, “What’s the story we’re going to tell at the hearing?” And Kristen knows where

we’re going to find the facts. We make a dynamic team.

Jonathan Schiller, who originally established the international arbitration practice at the firm, is a trial lawyer who has handled some of America’s more prominent international arbitration matters so we have that legacy with us and get to work with him on a daily basis.

In terms of training the next generation of Boies Schiller Flexner lawyers, what are the traits that you really want to cultivate so you would be comfortable passing this practice off to those attorneys?

KY: As our longtime chairman David Boies says, litigation is a team sport. When Tim and I see associates with talent, an interest in international disputes, and a drive to succeed, we try and give them responsibility very early on to help us put the case together and argue it at the hearing. We see our role as training and mentoring the next generation of trial lawyers in arbitration, and the best way to do so is through hearing experience.

TF: I have seen young advocates who have been thrown to the wolves at a hearing. I sit down with every one of our associates who are given an opportunity to do cross examination to talk them through it. Associates prepare a draft, and we’ll provide feedback, like “that’s not going to work, phrase the question this way, no, never ask that question.” At the hearing, we’ll sit next to them and talk them through it. We’re going to be their second chair, telling them the pitfalls they need to avoid and telling them that they’re doing a great job.

Do you tap the brain trust of heads of other practice groups at the firm? Or is it more a tight-knit group?

TF: We certainly work with other partners on some of our international arbitration matters. We see collaboration with partners who are not strictly speaking arbitration practitioners where, for instance, our disputes involve issues in specialized sectors. Earlier this year, David Hunt, Kristen and I represented a client in a mining dispute with a banking and finance element, which gave us an opportunity to bring in other partners who focus on that type of litigation. Cross-collaboration also comes in when our clients have other matters to attend to, and so we work, for example, with our investigations team and our U.S. litigation team to service them.

At the end of the day, our firm aims to have leading roles in the most interesting disputes happening within our profession. We love what we do, and yes, we all love trials and enjoy preparing cases for trial. Whether that takes us to the Coup Belt in Africa or takes our U.S.-based colleagues to the Supreme Court on difficult constitutional issues, we all work hard to deliver victories to our clients. And that’s the most rewarding part of what we get to do.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF BUILDING AN EMPIRE

The recruiters at Empire Search Partners have thrived in the role of career counselors who empower lawyers.

BY EMILY JACKOWAY

It was the early 2000s. Scott Yaccarino was a tax associate at a major New York law firm. And his phone was ringing. And ringing and ringing and ringing.

As a young associate, Yaccarino was experiencing his first calls from legal recruiters – and he was not impressed.

“It felt like used car salesmen,” says Yaccarino, “but it wasn’t a car; it was your career. It was your life. There are very few things more important.”

Fast-forward a few years, and tax and compensation attorney James McCormick was having the same experience: Sitting at his desk at a Big Law firm, he was fielding calls from recruiters he felt were trying to catch him on a bad day. Until one recruiter stood out.

“He took a different approach. He wasn’t selling me a job,” McCormick remembers. “There was this refreshing approach of, all right, I’m not just a commodity being traded from one employer to the next. Here’s somebody who’s paying attention to what is important to me.”

McCormick was so impressed that he continued talks with that recruiter and eventually made a move to another firm. It was a perfect match – if he had decided that being a lawyer was the correct path for him. When McCormick decided it was time for a larger career change, he was moved by his experience: He decided to become a recruiter himself. When he did, he joined the recruiter who had been by his side the whole time.

That recruiter? Scott Yaccarino.

“At

the end

of

the

day,

the

legal industry is all about

the talent. The product is the quality of the lawyers. So, the idea was even though the lawyers are not the ones that pay recruiter fees, if I represented the best people the way I knew it could be done –  by really maximizing the value add to the lawyer – that the law firms and companies that pay fees would line up.”

See, Yaccarino had an entrepreneurial spirit, and he knew that if he was frustrated by the calls he was receiving, other lawyers had to be, too. He realized he could work in a new way, as more of an agent for lawyers rather than a headhunter for the companies and firms.

“At the end of the day, the legal industry is all about the talent,” Yaccarino explains. “The product is the quality of the lawyers. So, the idea was even though the lawyers are not the ones that pay recruiter fees, if I represented the best people the way I knew it could be done – by really maximizing the value add to the lawyer – that the law firms and companies that pay fees would line up.” By serving as a trusted advisor to lawyers through leading with transparency, empathy and world-class knowledge, he’d also be the key to companies and firms’ access to the best talent – a win for the lawyers, for the firms and for Yaccarino and his team.

By the time Yaccarino reconnected with McCormick, he was two years into the launch of his legal search firm, Empire Search Partners, which he started with partners Jonathan Ross and Andrew Regan. The trio had worked together at a leading legal search firm for several years prior, and in 2006 decided to start their own practice based on those values that McCormick felt on his first reach-out from the firm – commitment, empathy and empowerment. The objective: to be an advisor that exists in the space between recruiter and counselor.

“My goal in launching Empire, and what I try to impart on everyone that I work with, is the responsibility of empowering the lawyers to make the best and most informed decisions they can make about their career,” Yaccarino explains. “And that’s what we do.”

Yaccarino, Ross and Regan opened the firm in New York, starting by working in a single room together in a shared office space. Their firm concept was quickly validated; combining empathy with effective execution yielded an impressive deal list within just the first couple of years. “We knew out of the gates that we had something,” says Yaccarino.

By 2008, when McCormick joined the firm, they had a full New York headquarters and were on the cusp of opening the firm’s second office in Washington, D.C. Regan, whose background is in in-house work, had worked internationally in London, Hong Kong and New York, and had developed relationships in D.C. with lawyers coming out of government practice – so he made the move to establish Empire’s presence in the nation’s capital. Today, the firm also has facilities in Miami and a newly robust office in San Francisco.

Over the last 18 years, the team – which now stands at 21 recruiters across those four offices – has built unparalleled relationships with high-profile law firms and companies, working across associate, partner and in-house platforms. Keeping the firm intentionally small but their reach tactfully broad, each recruiter is able to traverse practice areas and types, providing career counsel to top-flight attorneys through some of the biggest changes of their careers – and, therefore, their lives.

ANTI-SILOING, PRO-COLLABORATION

SCOTT YACCARINO

The firm is as entrepreneurial in structure as it is in spirit. Every recruiter has expertise in associate, partner and in-house recruiting. Then, rather than silo them to specific departments, each recruiter operates across departments and geographies. While every individual is based in a specific office and has deep roots in that market, they are free to call candidates and work with firms nationwide.

Similarly, while one recruiter may have more of a background in partner work and another more in in-house, no one is stepping on each other’s toes by working with either demographic. The team explains that this provides more opportunities for their clients, as well as flexibility and satisfaction in their recruiting careers.

“Selfishly, I like the novelty and freshness of needing to be able to be nimble,” says McCormick, who works fairly evenly across each space. He also explains that the firm’s flexible nature makes it uniquely adaptable to the ups and downs of the industry. Take the 2008 financial crisis, for instance. The firm was just two years old at that point. He explains that every recruiter’s broad expertise and ability to pivot toward in-house work was vital to the firm’s survival in that moment.

Stacey Alton, a managing director in the San Francisco office, joined the firm in 2023 – but had noted that determination from afar for years prior. “I really admire that tenacity,” she says. “This is a firm that weathers the storm.”

Working together has been vital to that strength. Everyone working in every area is a catalyst for collaboration. Natasha Innocenti, a partner In the Northern California office, says that the teams she works with are one of the most fulfilling parts of her career – explaining that every recruiter is able to help each other if something comes up in their personal lives, or when seeking advice on a placement.

That lack of competition between colleagues is upheld in the firm’s structure; unlike many recruiting firms, Empire operates on a fee-sharing model. “When you share fees, everybody’s incentivized,” says Innocenti. “The candidates and the clients are happier when I can tap in and cover for somebody else and they can tap in and cover for me. The clients benefit, the candidates benefit and our families benefit.”

It goes back to the name of the firm – Empire Search Partners. “It’s not an individual’s name,” says McCormick. “It’s really a collective. One of the things we talk about is the idea of the ‘collective we.’ There’s an element there of really building off the skill set and strength that we have collectively. I think it makes us an attractive platform for our clients because they get the package. They don’t just get one individual.”

Their close relationships with each other mirror the recruiters’ long-term relationships with clients and candidates. “I really value relationships,” says Alton, pointing to her approach tailored toward each individual, rather than shopping their resume around. “We really pride ourselves on not approaching people like they’re a transaction. I want to help you with your career,” she adds.

That attitude is ubiquitous in the firm, and not just in single interactions; recruiters who join Empire are taught that their approach should focus on the long game, acting as a kind of agent over the course of the candidate’s career rather than focusing on a single move. It’s about acting as a resource –whether that means the initial contact results in a move or not.

Providing candidates with information is one of the key pillars of Empire. When they started the firm, Yaccarino and partners realized that young lawyers were not only being approached by unethical recruiters, but they often weren’t provided with much access to information about the firms they’re being pitched to – or the industry at large.

They decided to change that at Empire, with a focus on access to data, research and institutional knowledge to empower lawyers to make informed decisions about their careers. They sit down with associates to discuss what day-to-day life will be like in various firms if they make partner, or if they

“One

of the things we talk about is the idea of the ‘collective we.’ There’s an element there of really building off the skill set and strength that we have collectively. I think it makes us an attractive platform for our clients because they get the package. They don’t just get one individual.”

James McCormick

“The number one thing is just being ethical. I put the interests of my clients and candidates first, and I look for a fit that is truly going to benefit both parties. If I can put that together, then I’m successful.”

Natasha Innocenti

don’t make partner; they advise lawyers leaving government positions on the current law firm landscape; they help inform law firm lawyers considering a possible move in-house. In the end, it doesn’t matter if the move is made in the moment or not – it’s about counseling and building a relationship for a time when a move does make sense. “It’s a very long-term view of the process,” explains Yaccarino.

Through nearly two decades of transparency and industry-leading knowledge, the team has built an impressive list of relationships with high-profile companies, firms and partners – with a high market share of exclusive searches for some of the most elite firms. It comes down to trust, the partners say, and top firms and companies rely on Empire recruiters to be their voice to candidates.

LOOKING AHEAD – AND REFLECTING

As the years have gone on, the firm has continued to develop; in 2022, the firm revamped its Northern California office, solidifying Empire’s bicoastal presence.

Firm leadership brought in Innocenti to spearhead development of the office. It was a perfect match: She had been a longtime admirer of the firm –particularly their work in tech and private funds – and was looking to expand her practice with the flexibility the firm’s model allowed. Meanwhile, she brought 20 years of expertise in the Northern California legal search industry, along with all the relationships she’d built over the years. Those relationships included partners: Innocenti built out a dynamite team of star Bay Area-based recruiters, including two recruiters she had worked with previously – Alton and Suzanne Kane – with Shumi Brody rounding out the office.

Much like the rest of the firm, Innocenti says that they don’t plan for the office to grow extensively – by design. “We want to maintain our conflicts so we can be the best providers to our clients and continue to have what we consider to be a candidate rep model, which is when an associate or a partner wants to move, they know they can come to us and we can represent them to the full market,” she explains.

It comes back to those foundational values. “The number one thing is just being ethical,” she says. “I put the interests of my clients and candidates first, and I look for a fit that is truly going to benefit both parties. If I can put that together, then I’m successful.”

Innocenti adds that the firm’s renewed energy in San Francisco comes at a strategically advantageous time, as many of the firm’s clients have started increasing their business on the West Coast in recent years. That includes firms that may have been in the area for a long time but had never been active in the lateral market. The development couples with a macro trend in the market, Yaccarino notes: As the demand for top talent increases among leading law firms that are only consolidating and becoming larger, more firms are embracing lateral hiring.

After 18 years, many of the young associates the team advised early on have key leadership roles at those prominent firms now. “It really happened very organically, and it’s been the ultimate validation of the model,” Yaccarino says.

Looking back on his turn from lawyer to recruiter, Yaccarino has no doubts about his decision. “It shifted things from practicing law to serving as that counselor, that agent, that consigliere to people as they navigate the twists and turns of their career. Serving in that capacity is very gratifying.”

As a fellow former lawyer, McCormick agrees. “I never intended this to be my career path,” he says. “But it’s been refreshing and very satisfying. And I would attribute that entirely to my experience at Empire.”

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

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

Sending a Message

The Women Attorneys Achieving Some of Pomerantz’s Greatest Successes

BY MEGHAN HEMINGWAY

Pomerantz is a preeminent law firm celebrated for representing defrauded investors and championing shareholder and consumer rights. Some of the firm’s most challenging and ultimately successful cases have been led by a triumvirate of powerhouse women partners: Emma Gilmore, Murielle Steven Walsh and Jennifer Pafiti.

In going up against deep-pocketed, powerful corporations over such issues as the Deutsche Bank “Know Your Customer” misstatements, the Wynn Resorts sexual abuse cover-up, and the scandal surrounding Petrobras, Brazil’s largest oil company, these women demonstrate fearlessness in their dedication to stand up and fight for what is right.

A Bank Turns a Blind Eye

Emma Gilmore, a partner at Pomerantz, was no stranger to high-profile cases when she filed a case against financial juggernaut Deutsche Bank. She had, after all, previously taken on Barclays in a closely watched securities class action over the bank’s use of so-called “dark pool” trading systems, among other highly challenging cases.

“We alleged that Deutsche Bank and its top executives misrepresented to investors that the bank had implemented a robust and strict Know Your Customer program,” says Gilmore. “In truth, what we found out was that Deutsche Bank’s executives repeatedly exempted high-net-worth individuals and politically exposed persons from any meaningful due diligence, enabling their criminal activities through the bank’s facilities.”

Gilmore’s investigations into the claims of the case unearthed some damning internal bank documents.

One particularly egregious example of Deutsche Bank’s misconduct was its preferential treatment of notorious child sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein, whom the Bank internally designated an “Honorary PEP” because of the millions in fees and referrals he was generating for the Bank. Unscrupulously, even after it learned that 40 underage girls had come forward with testimony of Epstein sexually assaulting them, Deutsche Bank’s Reputational Risk Committee agreed to keep Epstein as a client and was “comfortable with . . . continu[ing] business as usual” with Epstein, “not[ing] a number of sizable deals recently.” During the course of his relationship with Deutsche Bank, Epstein and his related entities withdrew huge amounts of money and wired millions of dollars to his victims for the stated purpose of covering hotel expenses, tuition and rent.

Deutsche Bank came to the table with fire, hiring top defense counsel with almost unlimited resources in an effort to challenge Pomerantz’s claims.

“One of the biggest challenges was surviving the defendants’ efforts to dismiss the case,” says Gilmore. “They fought really hard to dismiss the case at the preliminary stages because they knew they had very bad documents internally that they’d have to produce in discovery.”

When the judge denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims, Deutsche Bank settled quickly. Pomerantz pushed for a big settlement given the extreme nature of conduct that was involved and the judge’s order, finding that plaintiffs adequately alleged that the

bank and its executives knew that specific processes were being systematically undermined. The court’s opinion pointed to the bank’s pervasive practice of exempting ultra-rich and politically connected clients. Gilmore secured nearly 50 percent of the recoverable damages for investors – an extremely high premium for the palpable misconduct and an unusually high recovery percentage for securities class action settlements.

As a woman, Gilmore felt this win personally. “The Deutsche Bank litigation and settlement serve as important legal precedents aimed at deterring financial institutions from enabling the wealthy and powerful to commit crimes in return for financial benefits,” says Gilmore. “I believe that banks have learned that they can and will be held accountable for failing to implement appropriate Know Your Customer procedures, particularly with respect to ultra-wealthy clients.”

A Scandal That Rocked a Nation

In 2014 a massive scandal related to Brazil’s largest oil company, Petrobras, sent shockwaves through the country, when Venina Velosa de Fonseca – a female whistleblower – was brave enough to come forward.

At the time Fonseca shared her story, Petrobras was the fifth-largest company in the world – and 51 percent of it was owned by the Brazilian government. To say that she was putting her life on the line by speaking up is not an overstatement. The case involved politicians who appointed executives alleged to have colluded with a cartel in a massive, multi-billion-dollar kickback and bribery scheme that wiped out approximately $90B of the company’s value in the blink of six months.

In investigating the claims of the case, Gilmore traveled to Brazil to uncover evidence of fraud. She met with members of the Brazilian police and press and discovered several articles pointing to Fonseca’s account. At Gilmore’s request, Fonseca agreed to come to the U.S. to be deposed; she would wind up being the key witness in the case.

“Fonseca was really a big piece of why we were so successful in the case,” says Gilmore. “She certainly didn’t have to come to the U.S. for a deposition, but she felt like she was doing the right thing by going after the bad guys.”

Fonseca’s testimony exposed the company’s corruption, stating that she was threatened at gunpoint by an unknown assailant after revealing financial irregularities to the energy company’s governing board. She was reportedly then transferred by Petrobras from Brazil to Singapore and was ultimately fired in retaliation for speaking up.

“Not only was Fonseca threatened at gunpoint,” says Gilmore, “she was also receiving calls late at night, with threats being made against her and her daughter. She is a very brave woman and she is lucky to be alive.”

Partner Jennifer Pafiti was also a leading member of the Pomerantz team litigating against Petrobras. Dually qualified to practice law in the U.K. and the U.S., Pafiti was instrumental in convincing the Universities Superannuation Scheme (“USS”), the U.K.’s largest

misconduct against Wynn employees by their former boss, billionaire casino mogul Stephen Wynn. The disparity and imbalance of power between CEO and employee is one thing, but in this case, the CEO was backed up by management, and the complaints by female employees steadily streamed in for years.

“The Wynn case was very egregious,” says Steven Walsh. “The more we found out during the case, the more surprised we were. The behavior was covered up using hush money settlements for the victims, with management complicit.”

The complaints and cover-ups had been swept under the rug until 2018, when The Wall Street Journal broke a story recounting dozens of allegations of sexual misconduct against Steve Wynn. The exposé detailed several former employees’ accounts of sexual coercion

Gilmore recounts this win as being formative and galvanizing. Fonseca –a woman who had been through unthinkable horrors – with Gilmore’s help, was able to face her powerful and corrupt oppressors and come out on top.

private pension fund, to serve as lead plaintiff. Notably, it was the very first time that USS chose to participate actively in such a litigation. Pafiti worked closely with USS throughout the case, guiding them through the intricacies of the American legal system.

After years of hard-fought litigation, Pomerantz achieved a record-breaking settlement of $3B for defrauded investors. It was and remains the largest securities fraud class action settlement in over a decade and the largest settlement ever in a class action involving a foreign issuer.

Holding Corporations

Accountable for Executives’

Sexual Misconduct

The web of culpability was tangled in the high-profile securities class action case against Wynn Resorts Ltd., led by powerhouse Pomerantz partner Murielle Steven Walsh. The litigation revealed the company’s concealment of a long-running pattern of sexual

and pressure amounting to a decades-long pattern of misconduct, abuse of power and complicity. When the news broke, investor share prices tanked by 10 percent, Wynn stepped down – and Pomerantz stepped up.

“The case went on for six years, and a number of judges recused themselves, so we faced some pretty serious headwinds,” says Steven Walsh. “Ultimately we prevailed after obtaining a favorable discovery ruling and defeating the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. We achieved a $70M settlement, a significant financial amount for the class. But also important is that we established that this type of issue matters to investors. This case demonstrated in no uncertain terms that a CEO’s personal conduct is important to investors when it affects the company’s bottom line.”

Steven Walsh has always been drawn to needle-moving work. She likes to charter fresh territory and plant a flag before she leaves. Not that long ago, sexual misconduct by a corporation’s executives was not considered actionable in securities litigation.

“I’ve always been interested in taking on the cases that are a little bit more cutting edge,” says Stevens Walsh. “The ones where the law’s just not that settled.”

Advocacy From Within

Jennifer Pafiti is a partner and head of client services at Pomerantz, advocating for women both via casework and within the firm. But when she was a young lawyer in the U.K., the law was very much a boys’ club. It was a different time and Pafiti was well trained in the tools of survival in such spaces, as many women are.

“It was really male dominated, and I felt as a woman you had to work twice as hard to prove half as much,” Pafiti says.

That changed, in part, when Pafiti came to the U.S. where she observed a very different culture and one that has hugely improved in the last ten years, according to Pafiti.

Pafiti leads Pomerantz’s educational initiatives, which include its highly popular Corporate Governance

to speak specifically to Steven Walsh’s experience as a female newly navigating legal culture. To this day, Steven Walsh is passionate about paying it forward and mentoring young female – and male – associates as they come up. From her position at the firm, and experience in the courtroom, Steven Walsh likes to challenge the limitations that society likes to place on women. She sees her job as a mentor as being, in part, to inspire these newer lawyers to reach higher.

“The idea that you can’t do it all, I think, is a disservice to females in the workforce,” says Steven Walsh. “I think you can do it all. You’re just not going to get a lot of sleep and you’re not going to have a lot of downtime.”

Gilmore wholeheartedly agrees. She views mentoring the young women coming up in the firm as an opportunity to offer women advice and advantages

“As the administrative partner, I always have an eye out to make sure that our firm fosters an inclusive and welcoming and equal environment for everybody,” says Stevens Walsh.

“It’s important, especially in this day and age, that female attorneys get as much entoring as they need.”

Roundtables. These unite institutional investors and governance experts to discuss issues that affect institutional investors.

Pomerantz is devoted to fostering a supportive work environment with a team built on trust. With in-house hiring practices, mentorship, and comprehensive anti-harassment and discrimination policies in place, the firm is committed to ensuring the culture stays inclusive and healthy for everyone. A place where all lawyers are supported in an environment that facilitates the excellence that Pomerantz associates and partners are known for.

Paying it Forward

Steven Walsh, who has been with the firm since 1998, had a supportive female mentor when she started. This was invaluable, as the mentor was able

that she herself may not have received.

“I’ve always had an interest in promoting women into positions of power, including to partnership,” says Gilmore. “I believe there is nothing in the field of law that a man can do that a woman cannot do – it’s just about working hard.”

Pafiti’s mentorship of young attorneys demonstrates her commitment to nurturing the next generation of talent while cultivating an inclusive environment for all. Her collaborative spirit and willingness to listen make her an invaluable team member. She embodies the successful integration of a thriving career and motherhood, setting an empowering example for young women.

With powerful, successful women leading cases, shaping Pomerantz’s work culture, and advocating both in and beyond the courtroom, Pomerantz is impacting change on a deep level – one that can work towards positively reforming systemic structures.

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.

THIS IS OUR FIFTH ANNUAL GUIDE DEDICATED TO THE LEADERS OF THIS FASCINATING – AND NECESSARY – AVENUE OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION. They are founders of enterprising litigation finance firms, specialists in origination, underwriting and investment structure, patent and insolvency aficionados. Increasingly, they represent the emerging role that insurance plays in litigation finance, and include as well a few specialists in secondary markets and brokering deals.

After a few years in which it seemed everyone wanted in on the litigation finance market, it tightened up in the past year with significant players downsizing and otherwise shuffling the deck.

Some players exited the industry, while others started their own fledgling firms. A number of litigation finance veterans predict a further shakeout in the year ahead, as the economy and competition continue to present challenges.

Still, don’t cry too much for the litigation financiers, because – as Burford showed with its Argentinian windfall – when played well, the rewards can be stupendous.

Our guide is global and reflects the permutations of different jurisdictions, from Sydney to London and New York to Paris. We created this guide through our proprietary methodology that includes journalistic research, vetting by peers and clients and an ever-growing number of submissions. Also included here, designated with an asterisk, are esteemed members of the Lawdragon Hall of Fame.

We appreciate everyone who took the time to submit nominations and help us create what we hope is the best guide to the litigation funding world.

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION CONTRIBUTION

Stewart Ackerly Statera Capital Washington, D.C. Origination, Commercial Disputes

Charles Agee Westfleet Advisors Nashville Litigation Finance Broker

Cindy Ahn Longford Capital Chicago IP, Patent, Portfolio

Craig Arnott Burford Capital London CIO

John Astill Exton Advisors London Founder

Hasan Tahsin Azizagaoglu Bench Walk Advisors London Litigation Finance

Brandon Baer Contingency Capital New York Founder

Jonathan Barnes Woodsford London Co-Founder

Jim Batson Omni Bridgeway New York Co-CIO

Gavin Beardsell Omni Bridgeway Sydney Investment, Australia, New Zealand

Isabelle Berger Nivalion Steinhausen, Switzerland CIO

Rebecca Berrebi Avenue 33 New York Broker

Matthew Blumenstein Statera Capital Chicago Investment, Underwriting

Christopher Bogart Burford Capital New York Co-Founder

Stephen Bolster Litica London Insurance, Law Firm Finance

Olivier Bonavero Woodsford London Co-Founder

Anastasia Bondarenko Fortress Investment Group Paris International Arbitration

Régis Bonnan Profile Investment Paris Litigation Finance

MICHAEL ROZEN AND HASSAN MURPHY

BY EMILY JACKOWAY

FROM THE LATE ‘90S TO THE MID 2010S,

two enterprising lawyers were taking on generationdefi ning cases. Noted dispute resolution expert Michael Rozen was tapped to negotiate settlement funds resulting from tragedies including 9/11 and the BP oil spill. Litigator Hassan Murphy, in addition to a bustling commercial practice, was championing underserved communities in crises including horrific housing conditions at “Murder Mall” in Baltimore and contaminated water in a multigenerational Black community.

Over time, Rozen began to reimagine how his expertise could affect change on a broader scale. His answer: fusing that knowledge with capital. In 2015, he founded litigation finance firm TRGP Capital, with the core mission to create a funding firm that was the “ultimate ally” in funding, developing legal strategy and achieving results. With world-class lawyers and financial advisors at the helm, Rozen realized that he could provide an unparalleled service – one that

dovetails specific and in-depth legal expertise with substantial financial resources and strategy. He could see more cases through than he ever could as a practicing lawyer – and the challenge would be a thrill. All he needed was a team. His natural next step was to ask Murphy – a fellow self-described “challenge junkie” – to come on board. “The challenge was enticing – how we would both bring to bear our skill sets in a way that no one else in the industry really had,” says Murphy.

Together with their team of fellow celebrated lawyers and leading financial professionals, Rozen and Murphy have built one of the nation’s foremost funding providers, with a diverse portfolio including commercial disputes, intellectual property cases, environmental claims, law firm financing and more. Now, they’re expanding their gaze to provide relief to at-risk groups through social impact litigation – changing the landscape for litigants from entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley to multigenerational, underserved communities.

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION CONTRIBUTION

Clive Bowman Omni Bridgeway Sydney CIO

Fred Bowman Therium Capital London Investment

Lisa Brentnall CASL Sydney Insolvency, Commercial, Class Actions

Jarvis Buckman Leste Determinant Capital New York Investment

Simon Burnett Balance Legal Capital Sydney Litigation Finance

John Byrne Therium Capital London Co-Founder

Matthew Cantor Pretium New York Distressed, Insolvency, Large Cap

Marc Cavan Longford Capital Chicago IP, Patent, Portfolio

Wendie Childress Westfleet Advisors Houston Litigation Finance Broker

Dai Wai Chin Feman Parabellum Capital New York Commercial Litigation, Public Policy

Allison Chock Omni Bridgeway Los Angeles Litigation Finance

Adrian Chopin Bench Walk Advisors London Co-Founder

Heather Collins Omni Bridgeway Sydney Investment

Jeffery Commission Burford Capital Washington, D.C. Investor-State, International Commercial Arbitration

Tom Conlon Harbour London Investor Relations

Mike Cumming-Bruce Bench Walk Advisors London Litigation Finance

Andrew Curtis The Litigation Fund Mill Valley, Calif. Post-Judgment Financing

Owen Cyrulnik Curiam Capital New York Co-Founder

FROM LAWYERS…

Before entering the funding world, Rozen was renowned for resolving defense-side complex mass tort and mass disaster litigation, spending more than 20 years as a partner at prominent complex dispute resolution boutique Feinberg Rozen.

The day after Thanksgiving, 2001, he was appointed by then-President Bush as Deputy Special Master of the U.S. government’s 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund. Rozen was responsible for allocating $7B to families of victims – a greater figure than Congress had initially proposed, and one that he and his team pushed to raise. They set up intake centers; Rozen ran the center near the site of the World Trade Center, personally meeting with nearly all of the 3,000 claimants as well as first responders and others affected by the tragedy. “We were helping solve problems; helping victims and their families,” Rozen says, adding that even in his private work, “though I was representing corporations who were alleged to have done wrong, the ultimate goal was to help the corporation survive while compensating victims fairly and timely.”

Rozen was a key party in other widely publicized disputes, as well. He was appointed by President Obama as Deputy Administrator of BP’s Gulf Coast Compensation Fund to resolve claims arising from the company’s infamous 2010 oil spill. He was outside resolution counsel for Penn State University during the fallout of the Jerry Sandusky sexual assault scandal. He mediated settlements following the tragic West Virginia Upper Big Branch coal mine disaster in 2010, in which 38 miners were killed.

Murphy, meanwhile, started out in corporate law before joining his father, legendary litigator and judge Billy Murphy, to start their own practice. Murphy is a third-generation African American lawyer from Baltimore. His grandfather, William H. Murphy Sr., grew up on the same street as Thurgood Marshall, and would become one of the first African American judges to preside in the state of Maryland. “It was in his blood to clap back at unfairness,” Murphy says.

Murphy decided to carve a slightly new path for himself, going into transactional law at a major New York fi rm. Until, one day, his father called with a major opportunity: He’d been hired by famed boxing promoter Don King to represent him in a federal criminal trial and wanted Murphy to join him. Initially hesitant, Murphy finally took a leave from his firm to work on the trial. He was instantly hooked. When it

was time to return to his firm, Murphy remembers, “’I said to him, ‘I won’t go back if you commit to building a first-class plaintiffs’ firm with me.’ And he was as eager and excited about it as I was.”

Within a year, they had a firm – Murphy, Falcon & Murphy. They took on major clients on both sides of the docket, including household names like Johnson & Johnson, Microsoft and H&R Block. His fi rm also achieved major victories for families of victims of police brutality, including obtaining a $6.4M settlement for the family of Freddie Gray, who was killed by Baltimore police in 2015. And, during all those matters, he was keeping an eye out for pro bono matters that would affect underserved communities, including representing African American victims of predatory lending, environmental justice matters and spearheading cases on behalf of those suffering from shocking housing conditions. They worked to be “on the side of the angels,” Murphy says.

…TO FUNDERS

Rozen and Murphy started their careers as litigators, and met as opposing counsel.

The thought process behind TRGP, Rozen says, began when he was young, sitting in corporate board rooms.

“I realized that there was a big gap between the most opportune outcome and the actual result” in most cases, he says. “So, the ideal versus the reality always left a big delta. And that delta was a lot of wasted money. I thought if money was going to be wasted, there had to be a way to invest in that. And that was the derivation of TRGP.”

Though Rozen and Murphy fi rst met working on opposite sides of a case, they quickly built a mutual respect and friendship. One day Rozen called Murphy to say he was leaving his fi rm to go into the litigation finance business, adding, “I think it is a real opportunity to jump to the next level.”

“He was the only person to whom I would have been receptive to such a cockamamie idea – to the notion that I would change my entire life and give up an enormously successful practice to venture into something nascent and untested,” Murphy says. But, intrigued by the challenge, he agreed.

One of the reasons they were so successful at the outset, the pair explain, is that they already had experience investing capital in litigation within their own firms. As Murphy was growing his firm, he says, it

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION CONTRIBUTION

Tom Davey Factor Risk Management London Co-Founder

Marla Decker Lake Whillans New York Litigation Finance

James Delaney Erso Capital London Co-Founder

Christopher DeLise Delta Capital Partners Chicago Founder

Brandon Deme Factor Risk Management London After The Event (ATE ) Insurance Broker

Patrick Dempsey Burford Capital New York U.S. Business Origination

Christiane Deniger Burford Capital London Investor-State, International Commercial Arbitration

Simon Dluzniak Therium Capital Melbourne Class Action, Antitrust, Insolvency

Kirstin Dodge Nivalion

Steinhausen, Switzerland North America, Southern Europe, Latin America

Lee Drucker Lake Whillans New York Co-Founder

Susan Dunn Harbour London Founder

Joseph Dunn Fortress Investment Group New York Litigation Finance

Timothy Farrell Longford Capital Chicago Co-Founder

William Farrell Longford Capital Chicago Co-Founder

James Foster LCM London Investment

Steven Friel Woodsford London Litigation Finance, ESG

David Gallagher The Litigation Fund Los Angeles Co-Founder

John Garda Longford Capital Dallas Commercial Disputes

“ TRGP’S INVESTMENTS HAVE SUPPORTED ENTREPRENEURS, MAJOR COMPANIES, WHISTLEBLOWERS, IP HOLDERS, LAW FIRMS AND MORE –BUT SINCE THE FIRM’S INCEPTION, ROZEN AND MURPHY HAVE ALWAYS WANTED TO RETURN TO THEIR ROOTS BY AIDING UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES WHO NEED HELP MOST.

became just as much about managing finances, risk and case selection as it was about litigating cases, as they operated on a largely contingent fee basis and invested tens of millions of dollars of their own capital. “It was what I was gravitating toward in my practice; less and less wanting to try cases, more and more wanting to figure out the most interesting, efficient and strategic path to doing things at a high level, maximizing resources,” he says.

As a result, in 2017, TRGP raised its first pool of discretionary capital – $300M – quickly. “We had already done the thing we were now seeking to do. Working on risk throughout our careers, investing our own capital toward a result to a high degree of success. That is what we do now as litigation funders,” Murphy explains. “I think it was readily apparent to the institutional investors, who ultimately became our investors, just how ready for this role as asset managers we were.”

DILIGENCE, EXPERTISE AND TRUST

As the firm’s capital grew, so did its powerhouse team. Before Murphy even fully transitioned from his law firm to TRGP they brought on managing director David Killalea, a complex litigation attorney with 25 years’ experience representing corporate clients with a specialty in insurance coverage.

Then, they added managing director Will Zerhouni, a former Florida Assistant U.S. Attorney and a patent litigator for Covington & Burling specializing in life sciences and technology companies. That tech knowledge extended past the law; he also spent years running tech companies and startups before joining the team at Murphy, Falcon & Murphy and then making the move to TRGP.

Ben Preziosi, another member of the team, spent 38 years as a practicing lawyer focusing on white-collar criminal cases and SEC investigations, as well as developing a world-class international arbitration practice.

Other managing partners include investment banker Charline Plessis, mass tort litigator Jeff Healy and appellate litigator Eric Citron. The firm also boasts four investment associates with backgrounds in investing, private equity, consulting and more. In all, they have 16 professionals, each of whom “is a star in the area they were in prior to coming to TRGP,” Rozen says.

The priority was building a team with diverse and deep sets of expertise. Rozen and Murphy were both litigators, but one more defense-oriented and the other more plaintiffs’-focused – which balanced themselves out to start. They multiplied that diverse perspective by hiring a team with deep and varied facets of institutional knowledge – and, always, people whose judgement they trusted. “Ultimately, this is all about judgement, right?” Murphy explains. “Because there are no hard and fast rules, and it is about how your experience informs your decision making. That is all judgement. That is the thing, I think, that differentiates us by orders of magnitude.”

That broad knowledge base also makes TRGP efficient: Rozen points out that while other litigation finance firms may bring on outside white-shoe firms to advise on a case, all of that knowledge comes in-house with the capital at TRGP, providing expert litigation insight and funding in one fell swoop. “I think the reputation we’ve gathered in the industry for being the most thorough with our diligence, the most thoughtful, the most insightful strategically means that we’re about a lot more than money. And it’s why parties seek us out,” says Rozen. The team also brings relationships they’ve built litigating cases over decades apiece across the country, combining knowledge with connections.

INVESTING IN FUTURE GENERATIONS

TRGP’s investments have supported entrepreneurs, major companies, whistleblowers, IP holders, law firms and more – but since the firm’s inception, Rozen and

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION CONTRIBUTION

Alexander Garnier NorthWall Capital London Founder

Ian Garrard Innsworth Advisors London Class Action, Large Cap

Russell Genet Longford Capital Chicago IP, Patent

Adam Gerchen Gerchen Capital Partners Chicago Founder

Adam Gill GLS Capital Chicago Patent Litigation

Tom Glasgow Omni Bridgeway Singapore Asia Pacific, International Arbitration

Stuart Grant* Bench Walk Advisors Wilmington Co-Founder

Lauren Harrison Law Finance Group Houston Investment Counselor, Legal Counsel

Oliver Hayes Balance Legal Capital London Deal Origination, Litigation

Jeff Healy TRGP Capital Stamford, Conn. Deal Sourcing, Portfolio Selection

Louise Hird Therium Capital Melbourne Competition, Bankruptcy, Litigation

Chip Hodgkins Statera Capital Chicago Co-Founder, Financing

David Icikson Parabellum Capital New York Investor Relations

Rosemary 'Rosie' Ioannou Fortress Investment Group London Managing Director

Tets Ishikawa LionFish London Litigation Finance

Charles Jeffery Harbour London Insolvency, Dispute Resolution

Sarah Johnson The D.E. Shaw Group New York Litigation, Insolvency

Murphy have always wanted to return to their roots by aiding underserved communities who need help most.

Last year, the fi rm founded Flashlight Capital – a dedicated change-making litigation fund with “the idea of being able to track positive social impact over time while also producing commercial returns for investors,” says Rozen.

“One of the things we both learned throughout our careers is that there are plenty of problems begging for a solution, and the courts often can be the only avenue to force change and award damages,”

Murphy says. But risk-averse lawyers aren’t always in a position to tackle those problems. “We have seen all manner of instances where problems that could be solved – but for resources and imagination –  go unsolved and become systemic blights with multigenerational impacts,” he explains.

A program like Flashlight had always been a foundational part of the firm plan. While the pandemic delayed the project, it remained a priority. With the world back on its feet, they are now in the final stages of their $250M raise for the fund.

The team selects Flashlight cases based on a rubric of demonstrable impact, measured by severity of the problem, number of people affected, the difficulty of the case and how lasting the impact might be –prioritizing community-based, multigenerational impact. Currently, they are involved in cases concerning human traffi cking, sexual abuse and environmental justice.

One notable matter they’re backing concerns the community along the UK’s River Wye, which has faced high levels of phosphorus pollution resulting from runoff of chicken excrement from a major multinational corporation’s nearby poultry farms. Murphy explains that the pollution has killed the river in multiple spots, diminishing the value of property along the river, depriving residents of leisurely use of the river, as well as killing businesses that once thrived along the river including fishermen and recreational providers like boat and kayak rentals. “That has a cascading effect throughout the community that surrounds the river to the tune of multiple hundreds of millions of dollars of impact,” he says.

Murphy looks back on his legal career for reference in thinking about Flashlight’s impact. Running his firm, he was able to pour millions of dollars behind cases that affected positive social change. One day, for example, he was reading the paper when

he saw a story about a Black community in Anne Arundel County, Md., whose water wells had become contaminated by coal byproduct. He was left with the question, “And? What is happening for these people?” The answer, he learned, was nothing. He’d never worked on an environmental case, but he reached out to a community organizer friend and prepared a multi-hundred-million-dollar action on behalf of the community. The case settled, and the residents received compensation, connection to public water and a new community center – all of which will aid them, their children and grandchildren.

While Murphy was able to take that risk, he recognizes that is not the usual course of action. “If you think about how the world thinks about remedies for poor folks, to change that paradigm and risk your own time and energy and money, most firms won’t do that – which is why I think Flashlight has such a vital role in providing support in instances like this,” Murphy says.

CHALLENGE: FULFILLED

Now nearly 10 years into TRGP’s founding, Rozen and Murphy find that their current work is the logical extension of their former practices. “I got to take all that I have learned and experienced and bring it to bear each and every day in making decisions about which cases, lawyers and litigants to support,” says Murphy. He adds that a broad part of the appeal for him is that they now get to impact more cases than they ever could as lawyers. “We are able to positively impact litigations across a multitude of case types and countries and legal systems. And that’s exciting to me in a way that outpaces the practice,” he says.

Rozen agrees. While a major litigation is something a practicing lawyer can focus on a couple of times a year, he says, “at TRGP we focus on it a couple of times a day and a couple of dozen times a week. And maybe 100 or more times a month.”

Rozen’s passion for taking on challenges has paid off. In making the bold decision to change his career path, he and the team he’s built have positively impacted the lives of untold numbers of claimants, from innovative entrepreneurs to victims of crimes and negligence.

And then there’s the positive impact on his own life. “The challenge is exciting, growing a business is exciting and working with really, really talented people – both within and outside of TRGP – is exciting and fun,” Rozen says. “Who wouldn’t want to do that?”

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION CONTRIBUTION

Aaron Katz Parabellum Capital

David Killalea TRGP Capital

Mark King Harbour

Stefan Kirsten

KRD Kirsten. Risk & Disputes

Lina Kolomoitseva LCM

Zachary Krug NorthWall Capital

Christoph Kuzaj Therium Capital

Tanya Lansky LionFish

John Lazar Burford Capital

Matt Lee Burford Capital

Chris Leonardo Gilbert

Matthew Lo Exton Advisors

Jeffery Lula GLS Capital

Andy Lundberg* Burford Capital

Jamison Lynch GLS Capital

Ellora MacPherson Harbour

New York

Co-Founder, Chief Investment Officer

New York Litigation Finance

London Litigation Finance

Düsseldorf

Founder, Dispute Resolution & Legal Finance Advice

Brisbane Litigation Finance, inc. Insolvency, IP

London Litigation Finance

Düsseldorf

Complex Corporate Litigation Finance

London Litigation Finance

London

Investment Structure, Global Arbitration

Sydney Litigation Finance, Australia

Washington, D.C.

London

Chicago

New York

Lawyer, Legal Finance Structure

Litigation Finance, esp. Law Firm Portfolio

Commercial, Arbitration, Portfolio

Insurance in Litigation Finance

Chicago Life Sciences, inc. Patent

London Managing Director, CIO

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION CONTRIBUTION

Ian Madej Asertis London Founder

Justin Maleson Longford Capital Chicago Portfolio Investments

William Marra Certum Group New York Litigation Finance, Academic

Hugo Marshall LCM London Energy, Insolvency

Jeremy Marshall Winward London Founder

Kim May CASL

Timothy Mayer LCM

Sydney Commercial, Insolvency, Human Rights

London International Arbitration, Insolvency, Commercial

Kevin McCaffrey Law Finance Group New York Finance

Ewen McNee Omni Bridgeway

Sydney Single Party, Portfolio, Class Actions

Lara Melrose Orchard Global Asset Management London Litigation Finance

Joel Merkin GLS Capital Chicago Patent Investment

Yasmin Mohammad Fortress Investment Group Paris Arbitration, Enforcement, Legal Finance

Patrick Moloney LCM London Litigation Finance

Jonathan Molot Burford Capital Washington, D.C. Co-Founder, Academic

Siobhan Moore CASL

Charlie Morris Woodsford

Sydney Indemnity, Professional Negligence

London ESG, Securities, Class Actions

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION CONTRIBUTION

Hassan Murphy TRGP Capital New York Founder

Philippa Murphy The Association of Litigation Funders of Australia Sydney Litigation Funding

Rosie Murray Orchard Global Asset Management London Litigation Finance

Jack Naylor Aristata Capital London Impact Litigation Finance

Jack Neumark Fortress Investment Group New York Specialty Finance, Legal Assets

Angela Ni Parabellum Capital New York Risk Management, Data Strategy

Michael Nicolas Longford Capital Chicago Co-Founder

Elizabeth O'Connell Burford Capital New York Strategy, Investment

Stephen O'Dowd Harbour London Class Action, Competition, Australia

Akram Ojjeh Swiss Legal Finance Geneva Switzerland, International Disputes

Quentin Pak Burford Capital Singapore Asia Litigation Finance

Kory Parkhurst Harbour Wichita U.S. Litigation Finance

Mohsin Patel Factor Risk Management London Co-Founder, International Arbitration, Insurance

Molly Pease Curiam Capital New York Litigation, Portfolio Finance

Michael Perich Lockton Chicago Insurance in Litigation Finance

David Perla Burford Capital

New York Litigation Finance, Technology

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION CONTRIBUTION

W. Tyler Perry Certum Group Austin Litigation Finance

Rein Philips Redbreast Litigation Finance The Hague Dutch Claims

Rocco Pirozzolo Harbour Underwriting London Underwriting, Insurance

Charline Plessis TRGP Capital London Deal Sourcing, Portfolio Selection

Ben Preziosi TRGP Capital New York Deal Sourcing, Portfolio Selection

Stuart Price CASL Sydney Litigation Finance, inc. Impact

Neil Purslow Therium Capital London Co-Founder

Robert Rothkopf Balance Legal Capital London Founder

Michael Rozen TRGP Capital New York Founder

Rob Ryan Aristata Capital London Impact Litigation Finance

Nick Sage Bench Walk Advisors New York U.S. Litigation Finance

Charles 'Chad' Schmerler Pretium New York Large Cap, Patent Litigation Finance

Grant Schrader Law Finance Group San Francisco Litigation Finance, Underwriting

Moshe Schwartz Parabellum Capital New York Investment Structuring, Pricing

Howard Shams Parabellum Capital New York Co-Founder

Ajit Singh The Litigation Fund San Francisco Co-Founder

Emily Slater Burford Capital New York Litigation Finance, Underwriting

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION CONTRIBUTION

Kristen Smith Omni Bridgeway

Mick Smith Burford Capital

Ben Smyth Therium Capital

Cristina Soler Ramco Litigation Funding

David Spiegel GLS Capital

Ruth StackpoolMoore Omni Bridgeway

Tom Steindler Exton Advisors

Susanna Taylor LCM

Harshiv Thakerar Asertis

Sean Thompson Parabellum Capital

Emily Tillett Burford Capital

Marjolein van den Bosch-Broeren Omni Bridgeway

Raymond van Hulst Omni Bridgeway

John Walker CASL

Ross Wallin Curiam Capital

Justin Ward LCM

Oliver Way Harbour

Melbourne Australian Litigation Finance

London European Litigation Finance

London Secondary Investment

Barcelona Litigation Finance, International Arbitration

Chicago Founder, Commercial Litigation, Arbitration

Singapore

Cross-Border Litigation Finance, Asia

London Litigation Finance

Sydney APAC Litigation Finance

London Investment

New York IP Investment

Hong Kong Insolvency, APAC

Singapore

Cross-Border Litigation APAC

Geneva Global Litigation Finance

Sydney Impact Litigation Finance

New York Co-Founder

Sydney Insolvency Claims Funding

London

Cross-Border Litigation, Australia, Brazil, Canada

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION CONTRIBUTION

Marcel Wegmüller Nivalion Steinhausen, Switzerland Co-Founder

Boaz Weinstein Lake Whillans New York Co-Founder

Wieger Wielinga Omni Bridgeway Amsterdam Sovereign Award Enforcement, EMEA, UK

Aviva Will Burford Capital New York Litigation Finance, Equity

Chris Williams Bench Walk Advisors London Investment

Katharine Wolanyk Burford Capital Phoenix IP, Patent Litigation

Andrew Woltman Statera Capital Chicago Co-Founder

Ayse Yazir Bench Walk Advisors London Origination

Louis Young* Augusta Ventures London Co-Founder

William Zerhouni TRGP Capital Stamford, Conn. Deal Sourcing, Portfolio Selection

Ella Zimmermann Swiss Legal Finance Geneva Litigation Finance

Trusted Partners

CenterPeak is the world’s premier legal search firm, renowned for our expertise in strategic expansion and high-impact partner and practice group placements.

For over 20 years, CenterPeak’s founders have been the driving force behind the most significant lateral partner placements, office openings, and group acquisitions across the United States and the world.

We’ve placed over 2,000 partners and opened more than 40 offices for Am Law 50 firms, with combined practices in the billions of dollars.

THIS IS OUR 10TH EDITION OF THIS GUIDE, WHOSE MEMBERS HAVE HAD A DIZZYING ASCENT IN THE PAST DECADE AS THE LAW TRANSFORMED UTTERLY AND PERMANENTLY INTO A GLOBAL BUSINESS.

This year’s guide salutes the recruiters who build and transform billion-dollar law firms, opening offices in treasured cities helmed by the most coveted talented. Hats off, as well, to the crisis communicators, marketing, PR and list gurus who conjure narratives and brands from mere mortals. At their side are the world’s best management consultants and diversity dynamos, who challenge law firm leaders to not just build bigger, but also better.

A measure of the transformation in the heavyweight status of those who advise law firms can be taken in the transformation of this guide: Just 24 members of the original 100 remain (and those are often as not included as permanent members in our Hall of Fame, denoted in these pages with as asterisk). While that number may be a bit low as the original guide also included legal financiers –who spun off to their own list in 2020 – it’s clear a revolution has occurred.

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION

Jacob Aitken Kidd Aitken London

Mike Androvett Androvett Dallas

CONTRIBUTION

Media – Directory Maven

Marketing, Crisis Communications, PR

Mark Annick Androvett Dallas Crisis Communications/PR

April Arias Androvett Houston Crisis Communications/PR

Scott Atlas* Atlas Counsel Search Houston Professional Recruiting

Divya Bala Avance Partner Search Los Angeles Professional Recruiting

Jenn Bankston Bankston Marketing Austin

Marketing & Communications

Louise Beeson Bell Yard London Crisis Communications

Deborah Ben-Canaan 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

& Communications

Hugh Burns Reevemark New York Crisis Communications

Paul Caminiti Reevemark New York Crisis Communications

Delia Cannan Reevemark New York Crisis Communications

NATASHA INNOCENTI

LEGAL RECRUITING CAN BE AN INDIVIDUALISTIC,

cutthroat industry. Natasha Innocenti, however, finds her strength comes from the opposite approach: forging authentic connections and building a dependable team.

As a philosophy student and daughter of academics, Innocenti spent her early career suspicious of corporate figures precisely because she assumed them to be competitive and aggressive. But while pursuing her master’s in philosophy in London, she began working as a personal assistant for an executive search firm – and that assumption was flipped on its head. She found herself amongst people she enjoyed, invigorated by the prospect of helping others find the job that was right for them. Inspired, she left the world of academia and moved to San Francisco, where she began working for executive search firms. Soon, she found the legal recruiting industry — and has never looked back.

Since then, Innocenti has been a key member of some of the nation’s most prominent legal recruiting firms, placing partners at top law firms and spearheading groundbreaking office openings. She spent 13 years with Major Lindsey & Africa, including as leader of its partner practice in Northern California. She then spent over five years at Macrae, where she continued her focus on elite partner recruiting. Then, in 2022, she was tapped by leading search firm Empire Search Partners to renew the firm’s west coast footprint.

With connections across her former firms bolstered by her passion for working collaboratively, Innocenti quickly built up the San Francisco office with star recruiters she knows and trusts. She and the team operate as a small but mighty office with a deep knowledge of the Bay Area market, but with the ability to conduct national searches. While she continues working with partners at the nation’s top law firms, Innocenti was attracted to Empire’s more entrepreneurial approach, which enables all recruiters at the firm to work at the highest end of both the law firm and in-house markets. Innocenti is passionate about bringing together and uplifting women outside of her working environment, as well. In 2009, she co-founded the West Coast chapter of the Women in Law Empowerment forum. She served on the organization’s board from 2010 to 2016, working to amplify the voices of women in the legal industry. In other community-oriented work, she also serves on the Executive Committee and Chair of the Fund Development Committee of the board of The Law

BY EMILY JACKOWAY

Foundation of Silicon Valley, a non-profit devoted to providing legal services for housing, health and families.

Lawdragon: Tell me about your first foray into the search world while you were in graduate school.

Natasha Innocenti: Because I could type, the best paying job I could get while I was in graduate school was as a personal assistant at an executive search firm. It was a boutique firm in London that was founded by big executive search firm refugees, kind of like a boutique law firm. I worked for one of the name partners, and I truly just loved the business. It was an extrovert’s dream!  Even as an assistant, I had the privilege of talking with a lot of our candidates and clients. I got to know the tempo of the business and the etiquette. There’s a grace in business that a lot of people don’t talk about. The more gracious you are, the more you get done. And although I had expected the industry to be a more cutthroat, profit-oriented space, especially working at the executive level, I found people to be polite, responsive, constructive and practical. The candidates were trying to get their next best job, and to help someone find that is a real joy.

LD: So, then you moved back to San Francisco and decided to pursue executive search. How did you end up in the legal industry?

NI: I interviewed with all the executive search firms, and I got a job at Heidrick & Struggles in San Francisco. After about a year, I got promoted and became the associate to a partner who did both investment banking and legal search work. So, I was 26, 27 maybe, and my first legal search was an M&A partner search for Shearman & Sterling in New York.

LD: Oh, wow.

NI: Which I was woefully unprepared to do. But I worked very hard on it.

LD: Since then, you’ve focused much of your career on partner work, but you’ve kept your practice areas broad. Tell me about that.

NI: Specializing in a level allows me to be a generalist when it comes to practice areas. So, we can do everything from IP to private equity to capital markets to construction litigation. I mean, you name it and we’ve probably done it. The diversification of my practice allows me to pivot in step with my law firm clients as the market inevitably moves. We aim to have that same balance of corporate and litigation in our portfolio.

LD: Absolutely. But are there any areas that you find yourself placing partners in more often?

NI: Working in the Bay Area, you get a chance to be adjacent to new technologies and innovation in a way that keeps it really fun and interesting. But the space that I very intentionally set out to know is private equity and funds in general, including venture. We don’t have a lot of hedge funds out here, but the private equity space has steadily grown in terms of the clients. We have more and more funds based in the Bay Area. First, we had venture, of course, and now we have a broader mix of venture, private equity and growth equity funds.  It’s a space that is difficult to penetrate, especially as a woman. But I knew that eventually we would have generations of homegrown private equity lawyers here. So, even before the diaspora in private equity began, I very intentionally built relationships with the general counsel and the chief legal officers, and then by virtue of that, the partners who were working in that space, knowing that I was going to have to play the long game if I wanted to actually make any money representing these people. And eventually, that started to happen. As a result, my team has developed a reputation for doing more

private equity legal search than anybody, and that now includes in-house.

LD: Speaking of women in your work, diversity is such an important focus in your practice. Tell me about developments you’re seeing these days.

NI: As diversity becomes a key focus for these firms, the more detail we see, the more differentiation we see, and frankly, the more success we see. It has to be a very intentional thing. When you put one woman on the executive committee, that’s a token. When you have three or four women on the executive committee and a woman running the firm, that’s a commitment.

LD: How did a focus on diversity in the profession become so important for you?

NI: One of my mentors was Marty Africa. She had an understanding of how to encourage women and teach them how to negotiate. What women have needed to do to be successful has changed. There was a time when you would not put your child’s soccer game on your calendar. That has changed, thankfully. Part of what’s changed is the top-down approach, but there’s also a bottom-up approach. These younger men, they want parental leave, they want to participate in their families, they want to put the soccer game on their calendar. That allows many more women to say, “I need to go pick my kid up from school.”

LD: What else did you learn from Marty Africa and your other mentors?

NI: I’m very fortunate to have had a lot of mentors. One of the things that she did was introduce me to people. And one of the things I learned was when a woman introduces you to somebody, follow through. After I had been introduced to all these powerful women by Marty and had really run with it, we looked back on our progress.  One of the women she introduced me to was Ida Abbott, who is a consultant to women lawyers, a luminary author in the advancement of women and women rainmakers, and a dear friend. Marty introduced us by email, and I invited her to lunch. Together, we worked with Betiayn Tursi to open up the Women in Law Empowerment Forum on the West Coast. I served on that board for years, and that led to so many opportunities for me to meet more women, to advance more women. Suddenly, I was in a position where I could invite women to speak on panels and get more visibility or be interviewed for articles.

Once you have the power to be an advocate in that way, it’s critically important that you do so, that you do it within your own organization, where you have

the internal stature to elevate women partners and diverse partners and to help them make partner, help them establish themselves, mentor them on the board, all of those things. When you have been given an opportunity and that opportunity in turn allows you to provide other opportunities, there’s an opportunity and an obligation to do that.

LD: Fast-forwarding a bit, tell me about your decision to move to Empire a couple years back.

NI: I had admired Empire from afar for a very long time. They have a stellar reputation working on elite law firm partner and associate searches, in addition to a stellar in-house client roster.  They’re not industryspecific, but their excellence in private equity, funds and tech is phenomenal. Empire has always prioritized client service and nimbleness over maximizing the number of recruiters at the firm.

The firm combines the best of a free market approach with a highly collaborative culture. When I began talking to the firm, I asked how they adjudicated split disagreements among their recruiters. They just laughed, “We don’t have disagreements, there is enough to go around.” And I have found that to be true. The client gets the best possible process at the highest level of professionalism.

LD: You were brought in to start the new West Coast office – tell me about that process.

NI: We opened the office with a full complement. Suzanne Kane, who was my partner at Macrae, came over. Suzanne and I are truly a team and do everything together as equal partners. We hired Shumi Brody with whom we had worked previously.  She is phenomenal and handles both partner and associate recruiting. We hired Stacey Alton, with whom I had worked at Major, Lindsey & Africa where she practiced in the inhouse practice in New York.  Stacey had moved back to the Bay Area, so the timing was perfect. Our fantastic Executive Assistant, Meghan Shannon, also followed us from Macrae. We put the team together based on what the clients wanted. We don’t plan to become a huge office. We want to maintain our conflicts so that we can be the best providers to our clients with specific recruiting needs, and continue to have what we consider to be a candidate rep model – when a law partner or associate wants to move, they know they can come to us and we can represent them to the firms that make the most sense for their practice and clients.

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

NI: Honest and ethical. I put the interests of my clients

and my candidates first, and I really look for a fit that is truly going to benefit both parties. If we can put that together, then we are successful. If you don’t take that approach, you just can’t last very long in this business because you have to live by your track record. I have managed to be successful on a lot of different platforms, and every one of those platforms had benefits to me. It was good for me to be in a bigger environment when I was a younger recruiter because I had more people to learn from. Now that I’m a more senior person, it’s my responsibility to mentor and develop the people around me. I make myself available to anybody who wants to talk, and I feel strongly about that because I was the beneficiary of those people’s times when I was earlier in my career.

LD: What advice do you find yourself giving those younger recruiters?

NI: In 2020 to 2022, we went through an overheated market, which has its own challenges, but it had the benefit of being lucrative for recruiters. We handled many office openings, which is particular to the Bay Area and a real art form. Then with the tech slowdown we had a softer market, and the Bay Area is a lagging indicator. I’ve lived through the internet boom and bust, the financial and real estate boom and bust, and then this more recent softness in tech. Now it is busier than ever again. My best advice is just getting on the phone, networking and adding value to clients and candidates with every interaction. Always focus on building relationships and playing the long game. Be as responsive to your clients as you imagine them to be to theirs. And when an ally gives you an opportunity, take it.

LD: Overall, what do you find most fulfilling about your career?

NI:  Building and participating in teams, without a doubt. Giving others opportunity, access to my relationships and a chance to grow in their career. And that cuts both ways. When I’m in a team and something comes up in my caregiving life, either because of an ailing parent, or the kids are home from school, I’ve got a team that will cover for me. There are enough of us that the client never feels any difference and my teammates get access to the candidates and clients for their own portfolio of relationships.

LD: That’s wonderful. And what do you do for fun outside your practice?

NI: I love to cook, garden, read and hike. I’m Italian, so we always have a vegetable garden, and I cook for the family every night.

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION

CONTRIBUTION

Jennifer Simpson Carr Furia Rubel 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 Johnson Downie Lippman Jungers Chicago Professional Recruiting

Mary Copeland Avance Partner Search New York Professional Recruiting

Timothy Corcoran Corcoran Consulting Charlottesville, Va. Management Consulting

Jerry Correia Johnson Downie Lippman Jungers 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 New York

Jamie Diaferia Infinite Global New York

Crisis Communications

Media & Communications

NICK POURNADER

WHAT GOOD IS A BRILLIANT STRATEGY

without exemplary execution? Lawyers know it all too well: The greatest of minds can come up with a fool-proof plan, built on extensive research with regional nuance, but if it isn’t expertly implemented –it’s a bad plan.

Nick Pournader, co-founder and CEO of management consulting firm P&C Global, built his company to fill the gap that he perceived in consultancies that service the legal sector and in particular, law firms. From his experience, too often they offer a plan without follow-through and their economic objectives are not aligned with their clients’. And he is all about the follow-through and aligned objectives.

Pournader’s CV boasts an eclectic mix of expertise –high tech, real estate and financial services, to name a few. He began working with law firms early in his professional career, and referrals from law fi rm leaders helped develop his efforts into a thriving division within the firm.

His background in high tech gives him a distinct advantage across all sectors – including a strong foundational understanding of modern AI technologies. Pournader and his partners have been early adopters of AI systems within their firm and their client’s firms, and they have been excited by the results.

While clearly revolutionary, Pournader still believes that even the smartest AI is only as strong as the very human hands it rests in. Implementation is everything. “We recognize that technology alone is not enough, our people are our greatest asset,” says Pournader.

“It’s this combination of cutting-edge technology and continuous professional development that keeps us ahead in delivering innovative, effective solutions to our clients.”

P&C has over 7,500 employees globally and Pournader will tell you the connective tissue is passion for client outcomes and humor. While big numbers and satisfied clients are paramount, Pournader – a member of the Lawdragon 100 Global Leaders in Legal Strategy & Consulting for three years running –is most proud of the culture that he’s cultivated.

Lawdragon: What inspired you to found P&C Global?

Nick Pournader:  I was driven by my vision to create a consultancy that transcends the traditional model. I saw a gap in the market where most

BY MEGHAN HEMINGWAY

management consultancies were delivering strategy without execution, often culminating in extensive presentations but lacking in practical implementation. This approach raised questions about the real value and accountability of consulting services.

I envisioned a firm where strategy and execution go hand in hand, where clients receive not just advice but tangible, actionable outcomes. At P&C Global, we’ve established a model of mutual accountability with our clients, ensuring that we’re not just strategists but partners in implementation. This commitment to delivering real, lasting benefits is at the heart of why I founded P&C Global – to make a meaningful difference in our clients’ success.

LD:  The firm serves an impressively diverse range of sectors. How and when did law firms come into the mix, and what do you enjoy about working with law firms specifically?

NP:  My initial exposure to the legal sector began with my role at Munsch, Hardt, Kopf & Harr in Dallas – fresh out of graduate school at the age of 18. This experience, along with my later work

at SunGard, gave me a unique perspective on the consulting landscape for law firms. I observed that many consultancies in this space, even today, are essentially product resellers masquerading as full-service consultants. They often focus on core technology solutions, driven by incentives to sell specific products from other companies, which can lead to a conflict of interest and a lack of genuine, broad-spectrum consulting expertise.

This realization highlighted a significant gap in the market. At P&C Global, we saw an opportunity to offer law firms something different – a consultancy with deep expertise across strategy, innovation, operations, technology, risk management, human capital and more, free from the bias of being a reseller. Our entry into serving law firms was driven by demand from my contacts in the industry, who were seeking comprehensive, unbiased consulting services. Our growth in this sector has been organic, driven by executive-to-executive referrals, underscoring our commitment to providing real value and transformative outcomes. Even to this day, we have zero marketing effort or spend in the law firm industry and our growth in the sector is purely based on client referral-driven demand.

Working with law fi rms is particularly rewarding because it allows us to apply our extensive expertise to an industry that is often at a crossroads of tradition and innovation. We help these firms navigate complex challenges, offering solutions that are not limited to technology but encompass a full range of strategic consulting services.

LD: Tell me about the firm’s expansion.

NP:  Our global expansion has been a strategic journey, driven by the goal of serving our clients in their key markets and leveraging local expertise. The decision to establish each of our offices has been a careful balance of strategic importance, client needs and the unique opportunities each region presents.

A standout example of this strategy in action is our Asian hub in Tokyo. Sandra Matasuki, who was originally based in our Toronto office, played a crucial role in this expansion. Living in Toronto with her Canadian husband, Sandra had a unique perspective on global business dynamics. Recognizing the potential in Tokyo, she presented a compelling business case for establishing our presence there. Her clear roadmap to leverage our growing client and employee base in Tokyo was instrumental in elevating this location to our Asian hub.

Under Sandra’s leadership, the Tokyo offi ce has become a cornerstone of our operations in Asia. Her foresight and strategic planning not only facilitated our successful expansion into the Asian market but also reinforced our commitment to being where our clients need us the most. Sandra’s journey from Toronto to Tokyo exemplifies our ethos at P&C Global –empowering our people to take initiative and lead growth.

As we look to the future, our expansion strategy remains dynamic and responsive to the evolving needs of our clients and the global market. We are excited about the opportunities that new markets and talents like Sandra will continue to bring to our firm and our clients.

LD:   Innovation is an underpinning of all the work at the firm. How do you and the team continue to stay on the cutting-edge of corporate innovation across sectors?

NP:  Our approach to staying at the forefront of innovation at P&C Global is twofold: strategic technological investment and a strong commitment to professional education. In 2016, we made a transformative decision to invest heavily in AI, a move that has signifi cantly enhanced the quality and consistency of our client service delivery and internal operations. This investment in AI has led to groundbreaking solutions for our clients and innovative technologies that power our firm, including our Proactive Pay Equity process, Uniform Engagement Approach, and 4D Engagement Methodologies. These AI-driven tools have become the standard behind our transformative client outcomes across all industries, including law.

Simultaneously, we recognize that technology alone is not enough. Our people are our greatest asset, and we invest over $65M annually in professional education to ensure our team members stay at the top of their respective fi elds. This investment in ongoing education, in partnership with top-tier global universities, ensures that our team not only understands the latest trends and technologies but also how to apply them effectively in realworld scenarios. It’s this combination of cuttingedge technology and continuous professional development that keeps us ahead in delivering innovative, effective solutions to our clients.

Our journey with AI and our focus on professional education exemplify our ethos of continuous improvement and adaptation. It’s about combining

OUR APPROACH TO STAYING AT THE FOREFRONT OF INNOVATION AT P&C GLOBAL IS TWOFOLD: STRATEGIC TECHNOLOGICAL INVESTMENT AND A STRONG COMMITMENT TO PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION.

technological advancements with human expertise to create a culture of innovation that drives success for our clients and our firm.

LD: The law firms and corporations that P&C Global works with are major players in their respective industries. What advice do you find yourself and the team giving law fi rms that can apply to fi rms of all sizes?

NP: Adaptability and embracing change are at the core of our advice to law firms, regardless of their size. This is best exemplifi ed by our work with a mid-sized law firm, which faced challenges in growth and competition.

When the firm approached us, they were grappling with stagnating growth and increasing market pressure. Our team conducted a comprehensive analysis of their operations, market positioning and client engagement strategies. We identifi ed a critical need for digital transformation, not just in their operational tools but in their overall approach to client engagement.

We guided the firm in implementing a sophisticated client portal, offering personalized legal services and automated client interactions. This innovation led to a 25 percent increase in client satisfaction and a 15 percent uptick in client retention within the first year. Additionally, by restructuring their internal processes for greater agility, the firm achieved a 20 percent improvement in operational efficiency, translating to annual cost savings of $7.5M USD.

The most impressive outcome was the fi nancial turnaround. Within a year of implementing our strategies, the firm reported a 30 percent increase in profitability, driven by enhanced client acquisition and operational cost reductions. This real-world example demonstrates the impact of our strategic advice, tailored to the unique needs of each firm, and underscores the potential for significant savings and growth through adaptability and strategic change.

LD:  Are there any misconceptions law firms have about working with consultants?

NP: A significant misconception in the legal industry is the belief that all consulting firms, especially those claiming to implement solutions, are equipped to provide comprehensive, unbiased advice. In reality, many of these firms, particularly those focused on technology, are often resellers with financial incentives tied to specific software and hardware companies. This creates a conflict of interest, as their recommendations may be more about selling products than addressing the unique needs of the law firm.

For instance, we encountered a situation where a law firm had engaged a ‘full-service’ consultancy that was, in essence, a technology reseller. The firm was advised to implement a suite of expensive software solutions. However, these recommendations were not aligned with the law firm’s actual operational needs and strategic goals. When P&C Global was brought in, we conducted an unbiased assessment and found that the proposed technology was not only unnecessary but would have been counterproductive. Our approach was to develop a strategy based on the law firm’s specific requirements, using our own proven frameworks that are free from such conflicts of interest. We focused on practical, actionable solutions that led to measurable improvements in the fi rm’s effi ciency and client service delivery, without the burden of unnecessary technology implementations. This example highlights the importance of choosing a consulting partner like P&C Global, which operates with integrity and expertise, ensuring that recommendations are solely in the best interest of the client, not driven by external financial incentives.

LD: What does your day-to-day look like in managing such an expansive firm? Do you find the breadth challenging, rewarding, or both?

NP:  Each day at P&C Global is a unique blend of strategic decision-making, team collaboration, and client interactions. Since I make it a point of leading two to three client engagements at all times, it’s like being in a high-stakes game of chess where every move counts, but thankfully, I’ve always been good at chess. I enjoy being close to our clients and our

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

Kelsey Eidbo Infinite Global San Francisco

Leika Ejiri Harpa Legal Marketing São Paulo

Marketing & Communications

Marketing & Communications

Marketing; Media, esp. Directories

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

Beau Falgout August Dallas

Deborah Farone Farone Advisors New York

Michael Farrant Farrant Group London

Michael Feldman FGS Global New York

Jeremy Fielding Kekst CNC New York

Ross Fishman Fishman Marketing Highland Park, Ill.

Jonathan Fitzgarrald Equinox Strategy Partners Beverly Hills, Calif.

Valerie Fontaine* Seltzer Fontaine Los Angeles

Evan Fox Long Ridge Partners New York

Joele Frank Joele Frank New York

Strategic Communications, Litigation

Strategic Marketing Consulting

Strategic Communications & PR

Crisis Communications

Crisis Communications

Strategic Marketing Consulting

Strategic Marketing Consulting

Professional Recruiting

Professional Recruiting

Public Relations & Investor Relations

Jason Gart History Associates Incorporated Rockville, Md. Historical Detective

Robert Gemmill Argyle Washington, D.C.

Stephanie Glover Edelman London

Strategic Communications & PR

Crisis Communications

HUMOR AT P&C GLOBAL IS LIKE THE UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE AMONG OUR 7,500+ EMPLOYEES SPANNING 73 NATIONALITIES.

JUST

ABOUT CRACKING

IT’S NOT

JOKES; IT’S ABOUT CREATING A BOND ACROSS THIS VAST AND DIVERSE TEAM.

teams, so I really love being on client teams and serving our teams and clients first-hand.

The breadth of managing such a diverse firm is certainly challenging – it keeps my coffee consumption high and my problem-solving skills sharp. But more than that, it’s incredibly rewarding. Seeing our strategies make a real impact across different industries and geographies is as satisfying as solving a complex puzzle.

I end each day being genuinely thankful for the opportunity to work with an exceptionally bright and committed team and for our loyal and truly incredible clients who trust us with their most vital initiatives.

LD:  You wrote a piece on humor in the workplace. Can you tell us a bit about why that’s so important to the firm’s culture?

NP:  Humor at P&C Global is like the universal language among our 7,500+ employees spanning 73 nationalities. It’s not just about cracking jokes; it’s about creating a bond across this vast and diverse team. Our culture, with its impressive scale and diversity, thrives on kindness and collaboration. Humor plays a pivotal role in this, ensuring that despite our differences, everyone can share a laugh and feel part of the P&C Global family. It’s a powerful tool that breaks down barriers and fosters a sense of unity and creativity.

Imagine the challenge of keeping a 7,500-strong, globally diverse team connected and engaged. Humor is our secret ingredient, ensuring that our workplace is not just a hub of innovation and excellence but also a place where each day is enjoyable. Seriousness about our work coexists with the joy of working together, where we value the power of a good laugh as much as we respect each other’s insights and expertise.

LD: What are you proudest of in the firm’s growth?

NP: I am proudest of the culture we have built and the team we have assembled. Our growth is not just

in numbers but in the depth of expertise and the positive impact we have made on our clients and communities. At the end of the day, the hundreds of client success videos and testimonials from the leaders of the world’s most respected brands is something we can all be proud of and deeply humbled by our clients’ trust.

LD: What do you enjoy most about the team you’ve built?

NP:  The diversity of thought, the passion for excellence, and the unwavering commitment to our values are what I enjoy most about our team at P&C Global. They are not just colleagues; they are a family committed to driving change and achieving greatness. Each member brings a unique perspective, enriching our collective wisdom and driving innovation.

What truly stands out for me is the way our team members embrace challenges with enthusiasm. It’s like they see every complex problem as a Rubik’s Cube – something to be solved with both intellect and creativity. This attitude is infectious and elevates our entire work environment.

Plus, some of them have a wicked sense of humor! It’s not uncommon to hear laughter echoing through our corridors, a testament to the camaraderie and light-hearted spirit that coexists with our serious commitment to our work. This blend of professionalism with a touch of humor makes our team not just highly effective but also a joy to work with.

Their dedication is refl ected in the extraordinary results we achieve for our clients. It’s incredibly rewarding to witness their growth and to see how their contributions make a real difference in the world. I am constantly inspired by their drive, their integrity, and their ability to turn visions into reality. This is the team that makes P&C Global not just a successful consulting fi rm, but a place where innovation, excellence and enjoyment go hand in hand.

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION

Steven Goldberg August Los Angeles

Nick Goseland Macrae Palo Alto

Marco Guasti Harpa Legal Marketing London

Philip Hall Portland London

Peter Headden Farrant Group London

Risa Heller Risa Heller Communications New York

CONTRIBUTION

Crisis Communications; Litigation Support

Professional Recruiting

Marketing; Media, esp. Directories

Crisis Communications

Strategic Communications & PR

Crisis Communications

Jon Henes C Street Advisory Group Washington, D.C. Strategic Communications

Bruce Hennes* Hennes Communications Cleveland

Eric Herman Teneo Chicago

Angela Hoague The Levinson Group Washington, D.C.

Eliot Hoff APCO Washington, D.C.

Paul Holmes FGS Global New York

Crisis Communications

Crisis Communications; Litigation Support

Crisis Communications

Crisis Communications

Crisis Communications

Vivian Hood Jaffe Jacksonville, Fla. Crisis Communications

Kay Hoppe Credentia Chicago

Melba Hughes Major, Lindsey & Africa Atlanta

Stacy Humphries Pye Legal Group Houston

Natasha Innocenti Empire Search Partners San Francisco

Terry Isner Jaffe Washington, D.C.

Martin Jenewein SMJ Partners Vienna, Austria

Professional Recruiting

Professional Recruiting

Professional Recruiting

Professional Recruiting

Legal Marketing, Business Development

Crisis Communications

DEREK SILVA

DEREK SILVA’S PASSION IS TRANSFORMATION.

As practice director of elite consulting firm P&C Global’s Law & Advisory Services sector, he is able to fulfill that passion by guiding leading law firms to new heights. Whether that’s through introducing novel technologies, initiating practice mix shakeups or planning a strategic merger, he is trusted to lead the world’s foremost firms into new chapters of innovation and growth.

Silva has the pedigree to back up his mission. With a B.A. in economics from Harvard, an MBA from Stanford Graduate School of Business and postgraduate certificates in Digital Transformation and Innovation from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, Silva was well-armed to begin his career – fi rst at Goldman Sachs. He went on to hold roles at two other prestigious firms –Deloitte and Rothschild & Co – before joining global powerhouse P&C Global, which was founded in 2012. As head of the firm’s worldwide law firm practice group, Silva manages teams across 15 offices, which span from San Francisco to Paris to Beijing; in fact, nine of those 15 offices are abroad. “Every day feels like a new episode in a global legal drama series, where the plot thickens with each cross-border project,” says Silva. “But unlike a TV show, there’s no script – just a talented team, a map of the world, and a whole lot of coffee!”

Across locations, Silva is a member of the Corporate Performance, Digital Transformation, Mergers & Acquisitions and Strategy & Innovation teams. Digital transformations, in particular, have become crucial in the last few years. Cybersecurity concerns have heightened, necessitating advanced protections; on the flip side, technologies like AI present unprecedented opportunities for firms. Silva and his team are there to guide law firms through technological investments that pay dividends. In one matter, he and his team led the digital transformation of an elite firm with a $1.8B annual revenue. P&C Global reported the initiative led to a 50 percent increase in operational efficiency, equating to a $1M earnings boost per partner. Crafting strategy that yields such results is what Silva finds most fulfilling about his work – and motivates him to continue finding new ways for already-exceptional firms to realize the next stage of their potential.

Lawdragon: How did you first start working with law firms?

BY EMILY JACKOWAY

Derek Silva: My journey with law firms began at Goldman Sachs & Co., where I was deeply involved in mergers and acquisitions. This experience provided me with a unique perspective on the strategic and operational challenges law firms face. My transition to Deloitte further solidifi ed my expertise in this area, as I led a team managing complex advisory projects for law fi rms. This blend of fi nance and consulting experience laid the foundation for my current role at P&C Global, where I lead our Law and Advisory Services sector. That practice includes our full spectrum of services for other leading global consultancies who solely rely on P&C Global for their internal strategy, operations, and technology strategy advice and implementations. And just for a bit of fun trivia, we probably have more law school graduates and former law firm leaders at our firm – including our CEO – than most mid-market U.S. law firms. We like to think of it as our own little legal ‘dream team’ –minus the courtroom drama, of course!

LD: It’s great to have consultants on board who really know the ins and outs of law firms. That includes practice area mix; you have had notable successes

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION

CONTRIBUTION

Jennifer Johnson Calibrate Legal Austin Management Consulting

Clint Johnson Johnson Downie Lippman Jungers Houston Professional Recruiting

Ron S. Jordan Carter-White & Shaw Chestertown, Md. Diverse Professional Recruiting

Melissa Jordan Jordan's Ladder Legal Placements New York

Mark Jungers Johnson Downie Lippman Jungers Chicago

Suzanne Kane Empire Search Partners San Francisco

Karen Kaplowitz* New Ellis Group New Hope, Pa.

Aleesha Khan Compass Legal Marketing Miami

Professional Recruiting

Professional Recruiting

Professional Recruiting

Business Development Advisor

Legal Marketing

Daniel Kidd Kidd Aitken London Media – Directory Maven

Michelle Calcote King Reputation Ink Jacksonville, Fla. 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.

Adil Lalani Macrae London

Elizabeth Lampert Elizabeth Lampert PR San Francisco

François Le Grand Harpa Legal Marketing São Paulo

Sang Lee Thine; Volta Talent Brooklyn, N.Y.

Leadership Development

Professional Recruiting

Legal Marketing, PR

Legal Marketing, Rankings

Professional Recruiting

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

A TECH OVERHAUL CAN SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVE YOUR FIRM’S MARKET

POSITION WHILE

DRAMATICALLY IMPROVING (AND OFTEN

RESETTING IT

VIA LOWER NON-BILLABLE LABOR COSTS) FOR YEARS TO COME.

in business mix optimization. What shifts in practice priorities have you seen recently?

DS: Recently, there’s been a significant shift towards technology and data privacy law, driven by the digital transformation of businesses and increasing data protection regulations. Conversely, traditional practice areas like real estate and tax law are seeing a relative downturn. Firms are now reallocating resources to build expertise in emerging areas like AI law and cybersecurity, which are rapidly growing in demand. It’s fun and intellectually challenging work helping law firms build and effectively launch these new practices and helping them acquire the talent they need to deliver these services.

LD: Speaking of technology, you also assist law firms looking to make digital transformations. What advice would you give to firms wondering if they might need a digital transformation or technology overhaul?

DS: Firstly, assess whether your current technology aligns with your strategic goals. If there’s a disconnect, it’s time for a change. Secondly, consider client expectations. In today’s digital age, clients expect speed, effi ciency and security – all of which are enhanced by technology. Lastly, don’t overlook the competitive edge. A tech overhaul can significantly improve your firm’s market position while dramatically improving (and often resetting it via lower nonbillable labor costs) for years to come.

LD: There’s a privacy component, as well, of course. How does your work in digital transformations help protect firms navigating increased concern around cybersecurity risks in the industry?

DS: Digital transformations are not just about adopting new technologies but also about enhancing security. At P&C Global, we integrate robust cybersecurity measures as a core component of our digital strategies. This includes advanced data encryption, secure cloud services and regular security audits. Additionally, adopting AI for predictive analytics plays a crucial role in preempting and mitigating risks.

Furthermore, our firm has an extensive cybersecurity practice, staffed with both defensive and offensive

cybersecurity experts who are among the top in their field, holding global standard certifications. Given our experience in servicing the world’s leading banks and airlines, the level of cybersecurity expertise we maintain internally is unparalleled in comparison to other technology firms in the law firm industry. This high standard of cybersecurity proficiency is embedded in our digital transformation projects, ensuring that our law firm clients are not only advancing technologically but are also fortified against the ever-evolving cyber threats. Our approach ensures that as we modernize and transform law firms’ operations, their security posture is strengthened, not just maintained, making them resilient in the face of cybersecurity challenges.

LD: Tell us about the international component of your work.

DS: Heading up a global practice group is both exhilarating and challenging. The joy comes from interacting with diverse cultures and legal systems, which broadens our perspective and approach. The challenge, of course, lies in navigating these varied legal landscapes and ensuring our strategies are culturally and legally sound across different jurisdictions.

LD: And your M&A practice – what work have you been taking on for law firms in that sphere recently?

DS: Recently, our focus has been on facilitating strategic mergers that enhance our clients’ market presence and service offerings. This includes due diligence, integration planning, and post-merger cultural alignment, ensuring that these mergers are not just financially sound but also operationally synergistic.

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

DS: The most fulfilling aspect is seeing the tangible impact of our strategies on our clients’ success. Whether it’s guiding a firm through a complex digital transformation or a strategic merger, knowing that our work contributes to their growth and resilience in a competitive market is incredibly rewarding. Ultimately, it’s the managing partner-to-managing partner referrals that grows our law firm practice.

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION

Winnie Lerner FGS Global New York

Linsay Leslie MD Communications London

CONTRIBUTION

Crisis Communications

Legal Directories, Awards and Client Growth

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

James Leviton FGS Global London Crisis Communications

Siobhán Lewington Macrae London Professional Recruiting

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

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

Sabina Lippman Johnson Downie Lippman Jungers Los Angeles Professional Recruiting

Christin Livesay Johnson Downie Lippman Jungers Dallas 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 Jeffrey Lowe Partners Washington, D.C. Professional Recruiting

Kerri Lyon SKDK New York Crisis Communications

Joe Macrae Macrae San Francisco Professional Recruiting

Tim Maltin Maltin PR London

Lana Jacqueline Manganiello Equinox Strategy Partners Los Angeles

Crisis Communications

Management & Leadership

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

CLAY STEWARD

CLAY STEWARD KNOWS HOW TO WIELD A STORY,

and he’s all about sticking the landing. The former lawyer initially fell in love with law because, at his core, Steward is a storyteller. Not only does he innately understand how to structure a good story – he’s adept in crafting a textured message, ripe with resonance, that lands with impact. So when Steward found a way to weave his legal background and strategic communications expertise, he knew it was the perfect fit.

While it’s been 16 years since Steward actively practiced law, he still speaks the language. He started his career as a litigator, then followed the bright lights of Hollywood to work in film financing before switching gears into the nonprofit world. He then pulled all of these strands together to serve as a public relations consultant in the legal sector, ultimately joining top-tier PR agency Infinite Global in 2021, where he helps lawyers and firms build targeted, high-impact communications campaigns, as well as anticipate and strategically shape public opinion. His varied background and position as a trusted advisor in active litigation and crisis situations has earned Steward a reputation as a savvy reputation manager.

“At Infinite Global, we have developed and honed strategies for helping lawyers understand the value of PR,” says Steward. “I think it’s an exercise in emotional intelligence. Our job is to meet them where they are, understand what they fear about PR, uncover their strengths and address any challenges.”

At Infinite Global, Steward has found an ideal professional home amongst ambitious yet collaborative colleagues who thrive in an organizational culture guided by four core values: integrity, agility, courage and compassion. The strategic law firm advisor places a premium on communicating authentically, with vulnerability and respect.

“If you want folks to come around to your argument and support you, you don’t talk about what you do or what you are good at,” says Steward. “Instead, you talk about the impact you’re having in people’s lives and the way you’re changing the system.”

Lawdragon:  What originally drew you to working in the legal industry?

Clay Steward:  From a very early age, I knew roughly that I wanted to be a lawyer. Mostly because I enjoyed writing, reading, public speaking, arguing and storytelling. I participated in speech, debate and mock trial in high

BY MEGHAN HEMINGWAY

school. I went to UC Hastings in San Francisco for law school and really enjoyed it. I spent the summer after my first year of law school working in D.C. at the Department of Justice, Office of Civil Rights, and then my second summer in the Federal Public Defender’s Office. It was really clear when I got to law school that I wanted to be doing more impact work, either pro bono or plaintiff-side advocacy, and I wasn’t going to go the corporate law firm route.

After law school I went to Los Angeles and spent my first two years as a litigator. I found that while the things that were interesting to me about the law were very interesting, the things that felt like a grind or a slog or too rules-driven were really mind-numbing for me. Working on cases that would drag on for years, being mired in delays, discovery battles and petty motion practice back and forth – I realized it wasn’t the way I like to operate.

Then I moved into transactional work in Hollywood, which was hugely fun and interesting. I helped put together financing deals with banks and distributors for independent films. I got to go to the Sundance Film Festival and the Independent Spirit Awards. As a film buff, those were great experiences. But in the end, I realized

I love entertainment for the storytelling and that I didn’t want to be pushing paper and helping secure a bank’s investment for the rest of my career.

At that point I decided I wanted to switch things up – time for a clean break from the law. First, I went traveling in South America for eight months, which provided me the space to think deeply about what sort of a career would both make me the happiest and help me have a greater impact on the world. When I returned from my South American adventure, on the heels of the 2008 financial crisis, I moved into nonprofit work. I wanted to tell a different type of story.

LD: Which nonprofits?

CS:  First, I worked at St. Joseph Center in Venice, California. It provides a variety of services to low-income and homeless individuals and families. That’s where I first learned that, if you want folks to come around to your argument and support you, you don’t talk about what you do or what you’re going to do or what you are good at. Instead, you talk about the impact you’re having in people’s lives and the way you’re changing the system. After a few years doing that, I transitioned to a nonprofit in downtown Los Angeles called Inner-City Arts. It’s one of the largest and most well-known nonprofit arts centers in the U.S., and it’s based just off Skid Row, adjacent to the arts district in downtown Los Angeles. This role really opened my eyes to the power of creativity.

LD: And how did you then transition into legal PR?

CS: I worked in-house for a year at a midsize, national law firm where my job was essentially to talk to partners and get them focused on their business development goals and explore how to better tell that story through content. I loved the work, but being in-house at a law firm didn’t completely match my personality and my commitment to work-life balance. I first went to a different professional services-focused PR agency, and worked there for about four years before joining Infinite Global about three years ago as a Vice President. My post-nonprofit career has been roughly eight years now, and it’s been almost exclusively doing PR and strategic communications for law firms, or legal-adjacent businesses, legal tech companies, some financial services companies, but mostly in the B2B space.

LD: What does the mix of your work look like?

CS: I would say about 50 percent of my time is focused on our law firm retainer accounts, where we’re working to help them build out their PR program and identify opportunities to position them with the press or place bylined articles. I’m managing probably six or seven teams in that respect.

Another 25 percent is litigation PR and crisis work. Some of the work comes in through my existing clients, litigationfocused firms. Sometimes it’s part of our monthly work with them, and sometimes it’s a separate engagement because, for example, it’s a major piece of litigation that is just about to be filed. They’ll bring us in to work on messaging and media relations, essentially from the inception of a lawsuit all the way through trial. We have a reputation now in terms of handling really high-profile litigation PR matters, whether it be for plaintiffs or defendants.

My background as a lawyer means I’m able to be pretty plug-and-play when it comes to working with litigators. I’m the guy they go to when they need to quickly ramp up and we need to start telling the story of the litigation to reporters that day. I can read through the complaint or legal documents and identify a strategy that will work relatively quickly. Then I also do some crisis consultation work if there’s any sort of reputational threat.

The last 25 percent is serving as one of the leaders of the organization. I serve on the global senior management team, focused on our marketing and business development efforts. I also serve on our hiring committee, which is a role that I really value. I also serve as a career manager and mentor, which I thoroughly enjoy. I always carve out some time for organizational development projects to make sure that we’re continuing to grow, not only in terms of size and reach, but in the way we cultivate a positive work culture.

LD: Sounds like you’re really part of the company’s growth.

CS: Yes, and I really enjoy that. We’re a midsize agency now. It’s no longer a small startup boutique. We have the resources and vision and bench strength to really deliver great results for a winning group of clients, but we’re not so big that we become cumbersome and can’t be agile. I think we’re at the right size. I know everybody at the agency, but I don’t work with the same people on every one of my accounts. I have the opportunity to work with the full range of people at the organization, which is great.

We have a team of folks that realizes that the best way to rise within the organization is to make everybody look good – not only our clients, but our colleagues. That’s what’s going to ultimately elevate them within the organization. We have a collegial culture that prioritizes asking questions, working hard, moving things forward and staying proactive. But do not be a jerk. We don’t hire jerks. I think that the cultural aspect of it is really important. We’re an organization guided by fundamental values. The four values that underpin all our work are integrity, agility, courage and compassion.

LD: What do you find most rewarding about this work?

CS: Here’s one example. We’ve been doing a significant amount of work on the plaintiff side for individuals who are bringing claims under the Adult Survivors Act. It has been hugely rewarding because we’re ultimately telling the story of somebody who has persevered through very difficult treatment, oftentimes in the workplace. A lot of those cases have been against very high-profile individuals and celebrities, and we’re threading the needle of managing a very sensitive situation while protecting the survivor. We make sure they’re not too out there in a way that’s going to make them vulnerable or exploit them, but also, it’s important that the matter stays in the news because you want there to be a reckoning. You want to keep it front of mind for people because you’re working for a survivor who has been told “no” every step of the way and has had their truth denied at every turn. You really become an advocate for them, and their position.

LD: That’s such a delicate balance.

CS:  We’ve also been doing more work in the sports space. I have a huge interest in sports, so that’s fun for me. More and more we’re seeing law, regulation, business and sports all colliding in this really interesting way. Whether it be gambling restrictions, private equity investment, internal investigations into teams that have done bad things in the workplace. One of the cases I worked on was on behalf of a firm that brought a class action against Major League Baseball on behalf of Minor League Baseball players seeking fair compensation. My role was to help sports reporters understand the issues. Because they are not legal reporters, they don’t write about things like overtime laws and federal preemption very often. So, I became the legal whisperer to the sports reporters. That was hugely rewarding. The case resulted in a $185M settlement that forever changed the way that minor league players will be paid. And now the Minor League Baseball players have developed their own players union and will participate in the collective bargaining process. It really transformed the business model of our oldest pastime in America.

LD: When is the right time for law firms to get PR involved?

CS: It’s never too early to consult with PR. On the plaintiffs’ side, attorneys are often very protective of their complaints and they don’t want anyone to see it while it’s in draft stage. But I’ll tell you, the sooner we can get in and start reviewing the complaint and understanding the intricacies of the case, familiarizing ourselves with the background, the better. If we can start talking a week to two weeks or even more before the case is filed – that’s great.

On the defense side, there are certain instances where you’re not aware of a case until your client is sued and you’re retained. So, the first step, if you’ve got a robust internal comms and marketing team, is for an attorney to speak with them. If there’s any inkling that because of the profile of the client or the stakes of the litigation that the press is going to be interested or that the plaintiff who’s suing you has some PR muscle and is going to benefit from wanting to make a big stink about this litigation, it’s a good idea to get PR involved. That way, when something does happen, we’re able to jump in quickly and get on the phone with a reporter and be able to speak about the case intelligently rather than be scrambling at the last second to get engagement letters signed and orient ourselves.

Attorneys are actually better storytellers than they give themselves credit for. Their ability to see the most salient points of a transaction or a piece of litigation, is strong. They just don’t always frame it in the right way. A lot of what we do is help to get their messages dialed in. Lawyers often resort to legalese and of course they’re very focused on the details and the rules and the precedent, but they don’t always realize that once this makes it into the press, people want to know what story is being told, why it’s important and why they should care.

LD:  You mentioned you’re a cinephile – is there a TV show or film about the law that you particularly love?

CS: I loved “Michael Clayton,” with George Clooney. It’s a very dark film, but essentially a lawyer has a bit of a breakdown working at a firm on a project, and George Clooney is brought in as a fixer to smooth it over. It’s very cynical, but it was such a thoughtful exploration of the way that legal and crisis communications come together right now in the corporate world.

LD: And what do you like about working with lawyers?

CS: I used to be a lawyer, so I tend to vibe with lawyers very well. One thing in particular that I like about lawyers is that they attack problems from all sides. They anticipate what’s coming next and they develop a plan for addressing it. That’s how I operate as well. I feel like I speak that language. When we’re speaking to a lawyer and trying to get them to embrace PR, if they’re hesitant, I don’t let that frustrate me because that’s how a lawyer’s brain works. They can be resistant to new things and somewhat risk averse. At Infinite Global, we have developed and honed strategies for helping lawyers understand the value of PR. I think it’s an exercise in emotional intelligence. Our job is to meet them where they are, understand what they fear about PR, uncover their strengths and address any challenges.

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION

Jeff McAndrews FGS Global Los Angeles

Ian McCaleb Blue Highway Advisory Washington, D.C.

Amy Leafe McCormack McCormack Schreiber Chicago

Abbie McDonough The Levinson Group Washington, D.C.

Brenda McGann Zumado Public Relations Los Angeles

Zack McKamie Androvett San Antonio

Eleanor McManus Trident DMG Washington, D.C.

CONTRIBUTION

Crisis Communications

Crisis Communications

Professional Recruiting

Crisis Communications, Litigation Support

Business Development, PR

Marketing & Communications

Crisis Communications

Bobbie McMorrow* McMorrow Consulting Summerland, Calif. Professional Recruiting

Deborah McMurray Content Pilot Dallas

Ryan McSharry Infinite Global London

Marcel Meijer Johnson Downie Lippman Jungers Houston

Doug Memel Miles Partner Placement Tustin, Calif.

Gary Miles Miles Partner Placement Tustin, Calif.

Sarah Morris Macrae Palo Alto

Patty Morrissy Morrissy Legal Search New York

Ellen Moskowitz Brunswick Group New York

Kylie Munnelly The Levinson Group Washington, D.C.

Seelin Naidoo Frontline St. Louis, Mo.

Marketing, Branding & Technology

Media & Communications

Professional Recruiting

Professional Recruiting

Professional Recruiting

Professional Recruiting

Professional Recruiting

Crisis Communications

Crisis Communications/PR

Legal Technology & Operations

MICHAEL TALVE

CASES CAN BE WON OR LOST BASED UPON

the performance, aptitude and strength of testimony from expert witnesses. Experts are permitted to testify at court due to their special, intimate knowledge in a distinctive space. But finding the right expert witness can be like finding a needle in a haystack.

Michael Talve is the CEO and Founder of Expert Institute, where he has spent the last 14 years building the robust expert witness company and perfecting their platform. Their latest innovation is Expert Radar, a state-of-the-art software solution that’s redefi ning the way attorneys research and conduct due diligence on expert witnesses.

Expert Radar not only makes lawyers’ jobs exponentially more manageable, but it is also leveling the playing field by democratizing access to critical information, whether for a large multinational law firm or a small boutique practice. Talve emphasizes that this software is already making a significant impact in the legal field.

“One of our clients recently secured the largest singleevent verdict in Kentucky – $44M – thanks to insights gained through Expert Radar,” Talve says. “We’re hearing stories, just like this one, every day – from the 4,000+ law firms already working with Expert Institute. The most prominent trial lawyers in the country count on ExpertIQ – it’s mission critical information.”

This landmark verdict was reached, in part, through leveraging the Expert Radar platform, which makes use of AI and machine learning to cut through the noise and laser-target the relevant facts. “Expert Radar provided pinpoint research on an opposing defense expert by fi nding written opinions that supported the standard of care the plaintiff’s case was based upon,” says Mark D. Alcott, counsel for the plaintiff. “After being cross-examined with his written opinions in his deposition, defense counsel decided to not call him as an expert witness at trial. Nonetheless, we played his video testimony as part of the plaintiff’s proof!”

Expert Institute’s team of 250 professionals, spanning product development, research, engineering, marketing and sales, is dedicated to pushing the boundaries of legal technology. The company has approximately 40 team members focused exclusively on product development, where engineers harness AI to collect and integrate vast amounts of data into

the Expert Radar system. With its advanced search capabilities, this data becomes an invaluable asset for any litigator aiming to strengthen their case.

“Now, even small law firms have access to the same level of information as the world’s largest and most sophisticated firms,” Talve says. “This is how technology should be used – empowering every attorney, regardless of their resources.”

Talve has emerged as a leading innovator in legal technology, evidenced by the success of Expert Radar and the growing demand for the platform. With over a million experts in its network and nearly 200,000 expert searches completed, Expert Institute is truly in a league of its own.

2024 has been an exciting year for Expert Institute, highlighted by a major investment from Levine Leichtman Capital Partners (LLCP), which acquired a majority equity stake from Spectrum Equity in October. LLCP’s recognition of Expert Institute’s transformative role in the legal tech market positions the company to accelerate its growth and further expand its innovative data platforms, such as Expert

EXPERT RADAR IS AN INDUSTRY-CHANGING TECHNOLOGY THAT’S ALREADY

HAVING A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON LITIGATION BY PROVIDING ATTORNEYS WITH CRITICAL ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND COURT DATA.

Radar. “Partnering with LLCP marks an exciting new chapter for Expert Institute,” says Talve. “With their support, we are better positioned than ever to expand our offerings and continue delivering cutting-edge solutions that empower our clients to achieve exceptional results.”

Lawdragon:  Congratulations on launching Expert Radar! What can you tell us about it?

Michael Talve: Expert Radar is transforming the way attorneys review and understand the complete legal and professional history of expert witnesses. It allows attorneys to adopt a data-driven approach to their cases. On the platform, attorneys can easily see how many times a witness has testified as an expert, in what types of cases, whether they’ve faced any formal challenges, and the outcomes of those challenges. Under federal rules, an expert’s testimony is considered evidence, and attorneys can formally challenge that testimony based on the expert’s methodology or qualifications. This is a critical data point for attorneys, and Expert Radar uses AI to compile detailed descriptions of relevant cases, including links to the actual court documents – accessible with just a click. Attorneys using Expert Radar have all the supporting legal data and documentation they need to conduct thorough research.

This is a deeply comprehensive data product that’s becoming an essential tool for attorneys in their practice. When dealing with an opposing expert, having access to every deposition transcript is invaluable, and Expert Radar makes that possible.

LD: Do you specialize in any particular practice area?

MT:  We work with lawyers and firms across a wide range of practice areas. Historically, we’ve had a strong focus on medical malpractice and personal injury; but with Radar, we’ve found there’s a very strong fit for a much wider swath of the legal market. We’re heavily involved in commercial litigation, securities and intellectual property cases. Our expertise spans just about every major litigation you hear about in the news – from mass tort cases

involving pharmaceutical drugs or medical devices to high-profi le incidents like the large container ship collision in Baltimore or the Camp Lejeune water contamination case. Additionally, we handle thousands of single-event cases each month across all 50 states – many of which don’t make headlines. In every practice area, we’ve successfully connected our clients with top expert witnesses, helping them secure favorable outcomes.

Expert Radar is an advanced platform that aggregates vast amounts of otherwise hard-to-access data, organizes and distills it, and delivers actionable insights to our clients in an efficient manner. Without Expert Radar, gathering and organizing this information would cost millions and be nearly impossible – certainly not economically viable for any individual law firm to endeavor on their own. I’m incredibly proud that we’ve developed a tool that does all this in such an efficient, scalable way, leveling the playing field for any law firm. Now, even a small law firm has access to the same data and insights as the largest and most sophisticated firms, leveraging technology in the way it was meant to be used.

LD: Can you tell us a bit about how the technology works?

MT:  Expert Radar is an industry-changing technology that’s already having a significant impact on litigation by providing attorneys with critical access to information and court data. It’s poised to become the industry standard for researching expert witnesses, judges, opposing counsel and even other participants in litigation.

The information Expert Radar provides is otherwise incredibly difficult to get your hands on. First, you need to know: Who is this person? What are their professional credentials? A resume or CV offers some details, but those need to be verified. Beyond that, many expert witnesses are thought leaders in their fields – they may have published hundreds of articles, been interviewed many times, appeared on television, lectured at conferences, made presentations or written books. The volume of data is overwhelming,

RELYING ON A COLLEAGUE’S RECOMMENDATION OR ASKING AROUND WITHIN YOUR NETWORK FOR INFORMATION ON AN EXPERT WITNESS OR DEFENDANT IS SIMPLY NOT A RELIABLE OR PROFESSIONAL APPROACH TO SUCH

A CRUCIAL TASK.

with numerous inputs, allowing it to become more intelligent over time. This helps us to A) identify all relevant information and B) dismiss anything that isn’t relevant.

We’ve also trained the model to interpret court documents in the same way. Now, it can determine an expert’s position in a case, assess their opinion, and identify whether their testimony was challenged or dismissed, as well as the specific issues they addressed. It can even locate deposition transcripts. This creates a comprehensive narrative about everything an individual has done as an expert witness. Not only does this enhance the research capabilities of Radar, but it also strengthens our core business – helping us find the perfect expert witness for our clients with even greater precision and effectiveness.

LD: Tell us more about Expert Institute and why this business has been so successful.

MT: I was aware of businesses in the financial services sector that were conducting expert-related research and consultations for hedge funds and private equity firms. When I realized that this level of sophisticated information gathering didn’t exist in the legal space, it struck me as a unique and exciting opportunity to explore.

It’s been a thrilling journey. We’ve been involved in nearly all the biggest cases happening in the country at any given time – from major train derailments and explosions to high-profile shipping accidents, like the one in Baltimore. We’re deeply engaged in the largest pharmaceutical cases, such as the opioid litigation, as well as significant one-off cases, including personal injury, medical malpractice, shootings and other tragic events. While these cases often involve unfortunate and sad circumstances, they are some of the most critical and impactful legal battles in the world, and I feel a deep sense of responsibility to help ensure the justice system works as it’s intended to.

There aren’t many businesses that can make such

an impact on thousands of lives. While our clients are lawyers, we, as an organization, feel compelled to give it 110 percent every single time – because we’re really working on behalf of individuals who’ve suffered unimaginable tragedies – and they only get one shot at justice.

LD:  What trends are you seeing emerge in the industry?

MT: It’s becoming increasingly clear to litigators that the right expert witness can make or break a case. Relying on a colleague’s recommendation or asking around within your network for information on an expert witness or defendant is simply not a reliable or professional approach to such a crucial task.

Take, for example, the case in Kentucky where the attorney represented the family of the woman who died from an infection. If he had lost that case, that would have been the family’s only chance at justice. Nothing can ever bring back a family member, which is the most heartbreaking part. To not do everything possible to A) find the best expert witness, and B) conduct exhaustive research to gather every piece of information available on the opposing expert or the defendant, would be tantamount to professional negligence – or even legal malpractice. At the very least, we believe our platform levels the playing field, enabling both small and large law firms to compete fairly by providing equal access to critical information.

LD:  How do you see the company fitting into the future of the legal industry?

MT:  We initially saw ourselves as disruptive – a company that was changing the way litigators approached their cases, conducted due diligence and performed research. But we’ve since outgrown that phase and have become a well-established player in the legal field. Our role is substantiated by the trust placed in us to work on the most significant legal matters across the country. It’s a great place to be, and we’re proud to contribute to the future of the industry.

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION

CONTRIBUTION

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

Sydney Ann Neuhaus FGS Global New York

Idan Nishlis Nishlis Legal Marketing Tel Aviv

Crisis Communications

Legal Marketing, Strategy, Branding

Rachel Nonaka Macrae Washington, D.C. Professional Recruiting

Kathy O'Brien Rubenstein New York

Zach Olsen Infinite Global San Francisco

Ruth Pachman Kekst CNC New York

Scott Parks Androvett Dallas

Lloyd Pearson Pearson Communications Brighton, UK

Marketing & Communications

Crisis Communications

Crisis Communications

Marketing & Communications

Media – Directory Maven

Sarah Peters Bell Yard London Crisis Communications

Susan Peters Greybridge PR New York

Marketing & Communications

Adrienne Petz Petz Consulting Alexandria, Va. Crisis Communications

Peter Pochna Rubenstein New York

Marketing & Communications

Charlie Potter Brunswick Group London Crisis Communications

Barry Pound Androvett Dallas

Nick Pournader P&C Global Toronto

Blane Prescott MesaFive San Francisco

Pat Rafferty Androvett Dallas

Melanie Riley Bell Yard London

Allan Ripp Ripp Media/Public Relations New York

Crisis Communications/PR

Management Consulting

Management Consulting

Media & Communications

Crisis Communications

Media & Communications

AS THE SYSTEM EVOLVES WITH AI, IT CONTINUES TO IMPROVE AND REFINE ITS CAPABILITIES.

NOW, YOU CAN SIMPLY TYPE IN THE NAME OF AN EXPERT WITNESS AND INSTANTLY GATHER COMPREHENSIVE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT PERSON.

and it would be impossible for a human to gather and organize it all on their own.

If this person is your expert witness, you need to ensure they’ve never said anything that could undermine your case or be used against your client –anything that contradicts the position they’re taking now. Conversely, if you’re researching the opposing expert, you need to uncover everything that could give you an upper hand.

Expert Radar launched about a year and a half ago, and as the system evolves with AI, it continues to improve and refine its capabilities. Now, you can simply type in the name of an expert witness and instantly gather comprehensive information about that person. Our platform systematically mines all relevant data and organizes it in a way that’s never been done before. Expert Radar is already revolutionizing the way litigators conduct research in cases like these.

LD:  Tell me about some of the impact you’ve seen so far.

MT:  One of our clients recently won the largest single-event verdict in Kentucky’s history – a $44M decision. This victory was entirely due to the information uncovered using Expert Radar. And this isn’t an isolated incident; we’re seeing similar outcomes in many high-stakes cases. Lawyers often call us saying, “Without Expert Radar, I never would have found this information, and I might have lost the case.”

In this particular Kentucky medical malpractice case, a woman underwent a stem cell transplant surgery. Post-surgery, her immune system was severely compromised, and according to the standard of care, she should have been given a specific antibiotic to prevent infection. Unfortunately, the treating physician did not administer it, and tragically, she passed away. The defense expert testified that the doctor had acted within the standard of care. However, using Expert Radar, the plaintiff’s attorney was able

to search the defense expert’s past publications and discovered a textbook chapter the expert had written 20 years earlier. In that chapter, the expert explicitly stated that the standard of care was to administer this very antibiotic.

During the trial, the attorney presented the textbook, turned to the relevant chapter, and asked the expert, “This is your name, correct? Did you write this chapter?”

The expert confi rmed he had. The attorney then highlighted the passage where the expert stated the standard is to administer the antibiotic and asked, “So if this was your patient, she’d be alive today because you would have given her the antibiotic, correct?” He said, “Yes, she would be.” This revelation unfolded in front of the jurors, and the expert’s credibility was shattered on the witness stand, leading to a decisive loss for the defense.

This is exactly what Expert Radar empowers our clients to do. Without it, even a well-resourced lawyer with a team of associates and paralegals wouldn’t be able to identify, locate and sift through every relevant book chapter. And even if they did, the texts wouldn’t be searchable. Expert Radar makes this kind of in-depth research not only possible but efficient, which is why it’s been so successful.

LD: How has AI impacted this product?

MT:  Without AI, sifting through vast amounts of information to identify relevant details would be incredibly time-consuming and prone to errors, such as false positives or negatives. For instance, typing an expert’s name into a search engine will yield countless results, many of which are irrelevant. Expert Radar leverages AI and machine learning to efficiently filter through that noise, ensuring that we’re focusing on the correct individual. By repeatedly training our model, we can cast a wide net, then meticulously refine the results to include only the information pertinent to the expert in question. This is a complex process, but the key lies in refining the search method by continually improving the model

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION

CONTRIBUTION

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

Cari Robinson August New York Crisis Communications

Howard Rosenberg Baretz+Brunelle New York Talent Intelligence & Acquisition

Gina Rubel Furia Rubel 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 Caldwell Semmes* Ravir New Orleans Marketing & Branding

Michael Short LawVision Washington, D.C. Legal Consulting

Michael Sitrick* Sitrick and Company Los Angeles Crisis Communications

Monica Smith Integer Columbia, S.C. Crisis Communications

Warren Smith Smith Legal Search Toronto Professional Recruiting

Renée Soto Reevemark New York Crisis Communications

Clay Steward Infinite Global Fresno, Calif. Media & Communications

Michael Talve The Expert Institute New York Litigation Consultant

Jeffrey Taufield Kekst CNC New York

Crisis Communications

Marci Krufka Taylor Mantra Legal Consulting Sedona, Ariz. Management Consulting

MARY COPELAND

IT WAS ALMOST A YEAR BEFORE MARY COPELAND

and the other recruiters on her team found the perfect home for the first candidate she placed in the legal industry –  and that’s not atypical. In the elite partner recruiting world Copeland inhabits, placements can take months to years. Time is invested in building a relationship with the candidate: meeting family, identifying goals and digging deep to find the perfect match. But making that placement doesn’t mean the work is over.

The longevity is Copeland’s favorite part of the job. In her previous recruiting career in the corporate finance industry, the conclusion of that yearlong search would have been the end of the candidate-recruiter relationship. But after this first placement in the legal sphere, Copeland was thrilled to discover that the team was able to continue working with the candidate at the new firm. In top-flight partner recruiting, former candidates become clients, looking to bring on new team members and get a feel for the market. Relationships form and branch out over years. “I had this ‘aha’ moment,” she says. “There’s so much more relationship-building with this field. It’s all cumulative, and I found that to be really rewarding.”

That first placement was more than five years ago now. Since then, Copeland has become a force in the world of legal partner recruiting – conducting searches and aiding in office openings for high-level firms nationwide. She has placed partners in diverse practice areas including M&A, capital markets, litigation, bankruptcy and employment, forming connections with the nation’s most influential firm leaders.

Copeland’s love for the bonds created in the legal recruiting field is evident in her style; approachable, humorous and empathetic, Copeland is a trusted ear for partners. Simultaneously, she combines that downto-earth quality with premier connections and a razorsharp knowledge of emerging market developments.

Initially, Copeland’s work was focused on the New York legal market. But with a recent career shift, she is now conducting searches nationwide. Last fall, Copeland joined mentor and partner Divya Bala at Bala’s new firm, Avance Partner Search. “I was ready to take the next step in my career – just as we advise people that we work with to do,” says Copeland. “It felt like a natural fit.” While Copeland is still based on the East Coast, she has now worked extensively with firm offices in Chicago, L.A., San Francisco and Silicon Valley.

BY EMILY JACKOWAY

Lawdragon: Tell me about your recent move to Avance Partner Search with Divya Bala.

Mary Copeland: We are similar to lawyers we work with – we end up working a lot. We’re working when it’s convenient for people to talk. So, that’s throughout the day, but oftentimes that’s also at night and on the weekends when they’re not working and it’s more convenient for them. Divya was really great about helping me find the balance that I think lawyers are also trying to find. I got married and started a family all in the past six years that I’ve been doing this career, and Divya was really helpful in terms of saying, “Hey, this is how you should approach your maternity leave. This is how I have balanced having young kids and doing this career and being successful.” I think having that type of female mentorship specifically was really beneficial. She really was a guiding light in terms of how to do this job and have a young family.

LD: Why is it important to have two women at the forefront of this new firm?

MC: Female partners definitely look at us and feel commonality. We’re relatable. There was a time very early on in my career where I rarely ever represented female

partners. I would say about 40 percent of the partners I’m representing now are women. It’s not something I could have said five years ago. Times have changed over the six years that I’ve been doing this.

LD: What did you learn from her about the ins and outs of legal recruiting itself?

MC: I learned a lot from her stylistically. She brings that personal element to every relationship that we have, and she helped me learn how to slow down and say, “Let’s take the time to really get to know someone and build that connection.” She, too, is a very open and transparent person, and she has a lot of integrity. Those are just core values of my own, and she is able to weave that so beautifully into how she does this work.

LD: Long-standing client relationships are a defining feature of Avance’s work. Tell me about that – how do you get to know them so well?

MC: You have to have so many touch points with somebody when they’re considering whether they’re looking at the market or they’re making a move, right? There are countless meetings for them between firms, and then of course, when you dig into the LPQ. So, I try not to just jump in and be like, “Okay, let’s just get right to business.” I think it’s about the way that you build that type of rapport, because it can be very transactional if you want it to be.

LD: So, you’re very personal – how else would you describe your style as a recruiter?

MC: I am known for having a sense of humor. These processes can get so heavy, and I think it’s nice to occasionally be just a little bit more lighthearted. I also think it’s about leading with integrity and transparency – being honest when something doesn’t work, cutting to the chase and not wasting people’s time.

LD: Looking back, what brought you to a career in legal recruiting from corporate finance recruiting?

MC: I had a connection to somebody adjacent to the legal recruiting industry, and they suggested that I should make a switch over to legal recruiting. I thought about going to law school right after I graduated from undergrad – it was a field that had always interested me. The rest is history.

LD: What do you enjoy most about working with lawyers?

MC: I’m a very detail-oriented person. I enjoy getting into the weeds and I know that most lawyers do, too, so I find there’s an easy commonality there. Being detailoriented is innate for them.

LD: Tell me a bit about the placements you make. Are there any practice areas or geographies you focus on?

MC: Well, I was focused in New York for five years – that was my market at my last firm. So, by default, I did a lot of corporate transactional placements. So, people in private equity, people in M&A, capital markets, finance –those were my core practices. With that being said, it’s great now to be able to do the whole country. Being in any major metro market is definitely a divergence in the best way possible from just being in New York. So, previously I was definitely more corporate transactionalheavy, but that’s not the case anymore. I would say it’s actually 50/50 at this point, but that’s based on market trends; I’m just following the market.

LD: Are there any placements that stand out?

MC: The first placement that I did as a recruiter from inception to completion stands out, but maybe not for the most obvious reasons. It was a niche industry and based in New York. The bar of people that did that work in New York was small – we were looking for a very specific type of person. I was able to find that needle in the haystack for this firm, and it ended up being this really quick placement. It happened in three months, maybe even less. He’s still happy at that firm, as well. It’s notable to me because it felt like, “Wow, this is really easy.” But, actually, that’s the exception to the rule. More often than not, people do a market check; they talk to a couple of different firms. It’s a longer process. So, that one always stands out to me because it was the first one I really did on my own, and I found a unicorn.

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

MC: The thrill of placing somebody where they didn’t think that they were going to go. Then, they go, and then their practice takes off on that platform. A lot of times, partners are busy working – they’re not looking at the macro trends that are happening in the market. That’s a differentiating factor for us at Avance. Our job is to know the market and to discuss the market with you, and sometimes that’s bringing you opportunities that you might not have considered. That just comes from us having the knowledge to share.

LD: The firm has been around nearly a year now, which is exciting. What’s next on the horizon?

MC: We’re really just continuing to grow. We’re letting people know that we’re here, we’re revved up, we’re ready, we’re excited. We’re at a place where we can really pick and choose what we want to work on, which is a good place to be. I almost wish there were more hours in the day.

FULL NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION CONTRIBUTION

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

Joan Vollero ICR

Melinda Wallman Macrae

Larry Watanabe Watanabe

London Marketing; Media, esp. Directories

New York Strategic Communications

London Professional Recruiting

Solana Beach, Calif. Professional Recruiting

Dan Wilson Mercury Washington, D.C. Crisis Communications

Noah Wortman NRW Consulting Philadelphia Strategic Consulting, Investment Litigation

Gulam Zade Frontline Nashville Legal Technology & Operations

Sara Zahoryin

Johnson Downie Lippman Jungers

Houston Professional Recruiting

Kent Zimmermann Zeughauser Group Chicago Management Consulting

Hall of Fame

We are honored to announce the latest Lawdragon Hall of Fame class. These lawyers truly need no introduction. But we’ll give you a little taste anyhow.

Susman Godfrey has become appreciated near and far as a trial juggernaut, its financials the envy of the nation’s most elite corporate firms and its hiring in the rarest of air. The late, great Steve Susman, of course, founded the firm with fellow Hall of Famer Lee Godfrey. But it is two lawyers honored here – longtime managing partner Neal Manne and rainmaker extraordinaire Bill Carmody – who led arguably the most successful generational transition in law firm history.

A host of environmental lawyers are also recognized –among them Michael Gerrard, Rodney Brown and John Cruden – representing the pioneers who recognized the earth and its bounty, often including people, as something to be preserved. They laid the framework of today’s focus on climate change and doing better for this rock we call home.

Dealmaker Daniel Neff of Wachtell joins his fellow Executive Committee co-chair Ed Herlihy in the Hall of Fame this year, an astounding pairing that led one of the world’s most unique and illustrious law firms and only recently tapped those who will follow in their stead. Finally, no where will you find more formidable litigators –be they plaintiff lawyers or corporate consiglieres – than at Lawdragon. And our Hall of Fame representatives are magic: Tom Melsheimer and Kimball Anderson of Winston; Sandra Robinson of The Cochran Firm; Beth Wilkinson of Wilkinson Stekloff; Daniel Brockett of Quinn Emanuel. We could go on, but we’ll leave some of the fun to you. While this guide is selected largely based on our editorial judgment and the assessment of fellow members of the Hall of Fame, we do accept nominations. Those selected here have generally been included many times on a variety of Lawdragon guides, almost always including The Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America.

The Inductees

NAME FIRM CATEGORY

Sanford Ain Ain & Bank Family

Eleanor Alter Alter Wolff Family

Kimball Anderson

Winston & Strawn Litigator

Patricia Barmeyer King & Spalding Environmental

Sarah Borders King & Spalding Litigator

Greg Breedlove Cunningham Bounds Plaintiff Litigator

Daniel Brockett

Rodney Brown

Yvette McGee Brown

John Burris

Bill Carmody

William Chandler

John Cruden

Quinn Emanuel Litigator

Cascadia Law Group Environmental

Jones Day Investigations, White Collar

Burris Nisenbaum Civil Rights

Susman Godfrey Litigator

Wilson Sonsini Delaware

Beveridge & Diamond Environmental

Scott Dettmer Gunderson Dettmer Dealmaker

Michael Gerrard

Arnold & Porter Environmental

NAME FIRM CATEGORY

Theodore Grossman Jones Day Litigator

Mark Hansen Kellogg Hansen Litigator

Brian Hennigan Hueston Hennigan Litigator

James W. Johnson Labaton Sucharow Plaintiff Litigator

Jay Kasner Skadden Securities Litigator

Debra Katz Katz Banks Kumin Employment

Jennifer Keller

Keller Anderle Scolnick Commercial Litigation, White Collar

Ken Klee Klee Tuchin/UCLA Bankruptcy

Ira Leesfield Leesfield Scolaro Plaintiff Litigator

Michael Lehmann Hausfeld Antitrust Litigator

Richard Levin Jenner Bankruptcy

Victor E. Long Regan Zambri Long Plaintiff Litigator

Neal Manne Susman Godfrey Litigator

Keith Martin Norton Rose Fulbright Dealmaker, esp. Projects

Randy Mastro King & Spalding Litigator

Tom Melsheimer Winston & Strawn Litigator

NAME FIRM CATEGORY

Tom Methvin

The Beasley Allen Law Firm Plaintiff Litigator

Daniel Neff Wachtell Dealmaker

Harold Nix Nix Patterson Plaintiff Litigator

Cheryl Forest Perkins

Whetstone Perkins Fulda Plaintiff Litigator

Sandra Robinson The Cochran Firm Plaintiff Litigator

Samuel Seymour

Daniel Small

Hector Torres

Jim Walden

Sullivan & Cromwell Litigator, esp. White Collar

Cohen Milstein Antitrust Litigator

Kasowitz Litigator, esp. Antitrust

Walden Macht Litigator, esp. White Collar

Jack Walker Zeughauser Group Leadership

Rob Walters

T. John Ward

Beth Wilkinson

Gibson Dunn Litigator, esp. Antitrust

Ward Smith & Hill Litigator, Judge, IP

Wilkinson Stekloff Litigator

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!

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!”

6 DECADES OF 7 AND 8 FIGURE RESULTS 6 DECADES OF 7 AND 8 FIGURE RESULTS

Consistently ra nked as one of the Leading Personal Injury Firm s in America every year, 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 2024 LawdragonLegends

It is among our greatest honors every year to announce The Legends.

The 2024 Lawdragon Legends are a razzle-dazzle class of 33 of the nation’s finest lawyers, overflowing with inspiring accomplishments from coast to coast.

They include the plaintiff lawyers who help victims of sexual abuse and harassment find pathways to justice; who champion victims of predatory lending and pharmaceutical destruction; and who wrest claims against financial villains who too often escape public justice.

Featured here are also white-collar gurus and others who defend the accused, be they corporations, individuals or other organizations facing the gravest of accusations. In addition to the astonishing litigation talent from both sides of the courtroom, this year’s group includes elite lawyers from the technology,

restructuring and financial practices.

These lawyers have formed new firms and built them to great heights, carved elite Supreme Court practices, reached the pinnacle of lawyering in the White House and America’s elite money machines, forged new pathways for women and minorities and crafted new styles of leadership at the nation’s most powerful law firms.

The Legends are comprised of lawyers who have been recognized with the Lawdragon 500 distinction repeatedly, typically 10 times or more. We recognized our first class of Legends in 2015, our 10th anniversary. As a group they embody what Lawdragon believes is the best a lawyer can be.

You can view the full Legends online: www.lawdragon.com/lawdragon-500-all-the-legends.

Kurt Arnold

ARNOLD & ITKIN – HOUSTON

The founding partner of one of the nation’s top plaintiffs’ firms has netted more than $20B in recoveries for injured victims and their families.

Photo provided by the firm

Paul M. Basta

PAUL WEISS – NEW YORK

Basta co-chairs a renowned restructuring group and is a master at handling complex matters for both debtors and creditors.

Photo provided by the firm

Johnine P. Barnes

GREENBERG TRAURIG – WASHINGTON, D.C.

Barnes has been one of the most sought-after labor and employment lawyers – for businesses of all sizes and types – for more than two decades.

by Eli Meir Kaplan

LaBarron

Boone

BEASLEY ALLEN – MONTGOMERY, ALA.

This trailblazer has set the standard for excellence in consumer protection, product liability and dedication to one’s community.

provided by the firm

John D. Buretta

CRAVATH – NEW YORK

Companies, boards and individuals all turn to Cravath’s practice leader for their most important and complex investigations and regulatory matters.

Photo provided by the firm

Vincent H. Cohen Jr.

DECHERT – WASHINGTON, D.C.

A veteran standout of Dechert’s worldclass white-collar team, this former federal prosecutor has also ascended the ranks of firm leadership.

Photo by Laura Barisonzi

Michael Carlinsky

QUINN EMANUEL – NEW YORK

Carlinksy has helped lead Quinn Emanuel to new heights as co-managing partner while continuing to excel on both sides of the V. in court.

Photo provided by the firm

Stephen D’Amore

WINSTON & STRAWN – CHICAGO

The latest chairman of Winston & Strawn had long been one of the firm’s most successful litigators in complex commercial cases.

Photo provided by the firm

Karin A. DeMasi

CRAVATH – NEW YORK

Managing partner of one of the very best litigation groups, DeMasi excels in all manner of high-stakes cases for the world’s leading institutions.

Photo provided by the firm

Gregory G. Garre

LATHAM – WASHINGTON, D.C.

This former U.S. Solicitor General and clerk to Chief Justice Rehnquist has been one of the nation’s most effective appellate lawyers for decades.

Photo provided by the firm

Diane M. Doolittle

QUINN EMANUEL – REDWOOD SHORES, CALIF.

The co-chair of Quinn Emanuel’s national trial practice is hands-down one of the best and most prolific trial lawyers in the country.

Photo provided by the firm

Elizabeth “Beth” Graham

GRANT & EISENHOFER – SAN FRANCISCO

Graham’s negotiation of the $600M settlement over the train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, is emblematic of her career fighting for the injured.

provided by the firm

Erica Harris

SUSMAN GODFREY – HOUSTON

Harris has earned her place as one of the best trial lawyers anywhere on the planet with an endless string of successes in energy and other complex cases.

Photo provided by the firm

Rachel Jensen

ROBBINS GELLER – SAN DIEGO

Jensen’s reputation in courtrooms and the community led to Gov. Newsom appointing her to the San Diego Superior Court bench.

Photo provided by the firm

Jason Itkin

ARNOLD & ITKIN – HOUSTON

The widely admired trial lawyer has built one of the longest records of recordbreaking – and near record-breaking –verdicts and settlements.

Photo provided by the firm

Christopher Keller (1970-2025)

LABATON SUCHAROW – NEW YORK

Keller served as chairman of the storied plaintiffs’ firm and played a role in many of its biggest cases before his tragic death from cancer.

Photo provided by the firm

Kathy Love

MCGINN MONTOYA – ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.

Love’s life is proof that dedication to the most vulnerable through trial practice and community service can save and improve countless lives.

Photo by Kip Malone

Donald A. Migliori

MOTLEY RICE – MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.

From Big Tabacco to asbestos, from Mesh lawsuits to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Migliori has played a key role in some of the biggest cases in U.S. history.

Photo provided by the firm

Edward Micheletti

SKADDEN – WILMINGTON

A renowned Delaware corporate litigator, Micheletti is a big reason behind Skadden’s prominence in the Court of Chancery.

Photo provided by the firm

Sharon Nelles

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL – NEW YORK

The managing partner of Sullivan’s esteemed litigation practice, Nelles is one of the most trusted protectors of the world’s corporate giants.

Photo provided by the firm

Sean F. O’Shea

CADWALADER – NEW YORK

A former federal prosecutor of uncommon talent, the chair of Cadwalader’s trial practice thrives before juries like few others in the land.

by Dave Cross

Brian A. Ratner

HAUSFELD – WASHINGTON, D.C.

Ratner has exemplified the spirt and force of the “Hausfeld” name by operating at the highest end of the global plaintiffs’ practice in financial matters.

Stephanie E. Parker

JONES DAY – ATLANTA

The trial lawyer of choice for R.J. Reynolds has an unbeatable resume in product liability, patent, mass tort and other complex cases.

Photo provided by the firm

Noelle M. Reed

SKADDEN – HOUSTON

The leader of Skadden’s Houston office is one of the behemoth’s litigation standouts, excelling across a range of civil and criminal controversies.

William T. Reid IV

REID COLLINS – AUSTIN

The word “legendary” applies to Reid’s relentless pursuit of recoveries for his clients as well his stewardship of one of the world’s best litigation firms.

Photo

by

Dave Cross

David Ring

TAYLOR RING – MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIF.

Ring is one of the most admired personal injury attorneys of his generation with unparalleled contributions in the area of sexual abuse litigation.

Photo provided by the firm

Lorin L. Reisner

PAUL WEISS – NEW YORK

Reisner has relied on his deep experience with the DOJ and SEC to build one of the best white collar and regulatory defense practices in the U.S.

Photo provided by the firm

Kathryn Ruemmler

GOLDMAN SACHS – NEW YORK

Ruemmler’s in-house move was another notch in a career that included stints as Obama’s White House counsel and chair of Latham’s white-collar group.

provided by the firm

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT – AUSTIN

Boasting a doctorate in molecular biology, Shishima has built an elite practice in patent prosecution, portfolio management and litigation.

Jeroen van Kwawegen

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ – NEW YORK

Van Kwawegen operates at the apex of the securities litigation field, having secured billions in recoveries along with critical corporate governance reforms.

ROBINS KAPLAN – MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. Sutton serves as chair of Robins Kaplan’s mass torts group and has had a hand in many of the plaintiff class actions that have defined the practice.

Milton Williams

WALDEN MACHT – NEW YORK

A trial lawyer to tap when the stakes are at their highest, Williams has excelled for decades in a diverse mix of criminal and civil cases.

DEBEVOISE – NEW YORK

A true elite in the white-collar practice, Yannett is a trusted advisor on the most senstive investigations for corporations and individuals.

THE LAWDRAGON 500

We are thrilled to present The Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America.

They embody the restless spirit of the law in America these days. A haven, looking for a home.

In addition to the redoubtable Milt Williams, here you’ll find three young Susman Godfrey  partners leading a team who took on Dominion Voting Systems, a manufacturer of voting machines. Their target? The powerful Fox News Network.

Nearby is the Leawood, Kans., plaintiffs’ lawyer who decided to do something about sky high commissions home buyers were required to pay under rules constructed by the National Association of Realtors.

Or the Willkie Farr litigator who led a team representing two Georgia election workers who were heartlessly defamed by America’s former Mayor.

We’ve got amazing lawyers from throughout the land: whistleblowers, plaintiff medical malpractice experts, energy infrastructure dealmakers, labor union leaders, pro bono heroes, white collar and antitrust aces galore. They are 41 percent women and 28 percent inclusive.

As longtime readers of this guide know, it is selected through year-round journalistic research by a team of professionals who find lawyers fascinating. That’s supplemented by a bounty of nominations – more than ever, thank you everyone! – and vetting with experts. Lawdragon now publishes an array of guides, most of them more focused on standout practitioners in a variety of global practices. But this 500 remains our original.

First published in 2005, it is a 500 lawyers of the year, if you will. Those lawyers we’d like to have at a vast, rambling dinner party with discussions long into the night of the year in law that was. We’d have to toast at least one other interesting development from 2023: the ascension of Texas on the national legal stage. The Lone Star State now ranks #2 on this guide, with 83 lawyers, just one ahead of Washington, D.C. (But of course New York, you’re still sitting proud with 201.)

It was a year of chaos, making the law and those remaining totems of order and something like respect all the more important. As we turn our face to the sun of 2024, we hope you enjoy this look at the hope and promise of America’s legal profession. It’s an honor to recognize each and every one.

MILT WILLIAMS

MILT WILLIAMS TRULY HAS DONE IT ALL.

His distinguished career has spanned decades, specialties and courtrooms. From private to public, Manhattan D.A.’s Office, in-house to outside counsel, to the U.S. Attorney’s Office (SDNY) and most everywhere in-between. Having tried upwards of 60 cases, Williams has amassed a wealth of knowledge that can only be born of experience, but it’s his dynamism that truly sets him apart.

The former federal prosecutor has deep roots in the white-collar world. He’s worked for some of the biggest corporations in the world. The seasoned litigator actively works in employment, regulatory, criminal, and complex commercial litigation. For a man of so many talents in so many arenas, it’s shockingly simple for Williams to distill what truly matters when it comes down to it.

“You can’t take weak facts and turn it into something magnificent,” says Williams. “You’re only as good as the facts you have. The jury and the judge are far more important than the lawyer.”

Williams didn’t set out to become a renaissancelawyer. Instead, he based his career choices on deeply personal reasons – a healthy split between what would feed his interests, as well as his family.

“My career was based on making choices to do what I thought was interesting and to be able to make enough money to support my family,” says Williams. “I had no idea that my career would take some of the paths or the avenues that it did. It happened organically.”

Working in-house at Time Inc. over the years, Williams wore many hats as Deputy General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer. Amidst the vast range of his responsibilities, Williams managed a wide span of employment law matters; handled restrictive covenant, whistleblower, race, age, disability and gender discrimination cases; as well as white collar, independent contractor and intellectual property matters. Working in-house – where he actually litigated and tried the cases himself – meant that Williams handled pretty much everything that came through, which taught him a lot about how to be more effective as outside counsel, too.

“It’s really important for the outside counsel to realize that they’re fungible,” says Williams. “Their

BY MEGHAN HEMINGWAY

real job is to make the in-house counsel look good to whomever he or she may be that they’re answering to.”

Williams has more than earned his place on the masthead at his firm, recently rebranded Walden Macht Haran & Williams after the partners all unanimously voted

Lawdragon:  Congratulations on getting on the masthead!

Milt Williams: Thank you. It was Jim Walden’s idea –I am very appreciative that my partners approved this proposal. He came to me in December and proposed the idea, and that was the basic genesis of it. I don’t think anything much will change. I’ve been involved in the firm heavily since I got here. I started May 8th, 2017, so I’m right at my seventhyear anniversary. It’s a real honor.

Jim started the firm because he wanted a certain culture that was in line with his vision of how a firm should be. And most of that is based on building collegiality. For lack of a better word, a culture of niceness, kind people and the absence of difficult personalities. I think that we’ve done a good job in achieving that. It’s still a workplace, it’s a complex ecosystem so obviously it’s not perfect, but I’ve worked at a number of different places, both in the government, private sector, and companies as well as law firms – and I would say that this firm culture is one of the very best.

LD:  We’d love to hear about your mix of practice. What does it look like currently?

MW:  My practice has been very eclectic. I had two huge white-collar trials back in 2018. I do a lot of Employment Law on both sides – plaintiffs and representing companies. I had an interesting defamation case, I have had an antitrust matters. I currently have a case in the commercial division involving satellite telecommunication spectrums. That’s a case with a lot of physics, and a lot of expert information, in the commercial realm. I also do advising. I’ve advised in some antitrust matters, more advisory in terms of a smaller, mid-sized company being pushed out by a bigger company that was basically trying to establish a monopoly.

I still have a varied scope of practice. For the first five years that I was at Time, Inc., there was an initiative

by the company to have experienced litigators who could actually handle and try the cases themselves to reduce outside counsel costs. So we did about 85 percent of the litigation in-house at Time, Inc. There were three of us who were former assistant U.S. attorneys from the SDNY, and we did the actual work in-house and there were occasionally some matters where we hired outside counsel. For the first five years I was there, that was the model. Then a new GC came in and that model changed. And just around that time, I got a hold of a big internal white-collar investigation which resulted in me becoming Chief Compliance Officer.

LD: As someone who has spent significant time working in-house, what mistakes do you see outside lawyers making in terms of dealing with in-house counsel?

MW: The biggest one, to be very blunt, is that some outside counsel don’t always realize how fungible they are. There are a ton of excellent lawyers out there. It’s important from an in-house counsel’s perspective, to have a firm that is literally going to jump off the roof for you, to protect you. There’s a lot of really good lawyers and sure, there may be a couple of situations where you need a particular lawyer – their particular name, expertise or their prominence – but that doesn’t happen in many cases.

For the most part, in order to retain business, it’s really important for the outside counsel to realize that they’re fungible and that their real job is to make the in-house counsel look good to whomever it may be that they’re answering to. The outside counsel must of course do a good job, but they must be able to give the credit to the in-house counsel.

LD: Interesting. Can you talk to us about the trends you’re seeing currently in employment law?

MW: The big thing on the horizon is whether or not the proposed ban on restrictive covenants and non-competes is going to come through.

LD: What effect would it have if it goes through?

MW: Well, it would mean that companies essentially could not stop employees at a certain level from being able to immediately move from one job to another and basically compete against their former employers right away.

LD: How about in your broader practice? Is there a recent win in the last five years that stands out to you as particularly memorable for one reason or another?

MW: In 2018 I tried two cases. The U.S. Attorney’s Office, where I used to work in Manhattan, was investigating Andrew Cuomo and the Chamber. They ended up indicting his right-hand man in this overarching scheme. And one part of the indictment was based on honest-services fraud, and my client and other businessmen, were accused of bribing the Governor’s right hand man to get special favors done in the state government. The second part of it which involved the same client was an indictment for bid rigging on Governor’s signature Buffalo Billion construction project.

They had two schemes in one indictment and the indictment got severed, so there were two separate cases now. One of those cases was a trial that lasted eight weeks and we were fortunate that our client was acquitted. The second part was the bid rigging trial and the client got convicted on the right-tocontrol wire fraud theory. Both cases went to the U.S. Supreme Court eventually. I argued the one where my client got convicted in the 2nd Circuit and we lost. I didn’t argue in the Supreme Court; it was argued by a former solicitor general, Michael Dreeben, who did a fabulous job. He was the guru, he did all the key Supreme Court arguments. He took both cases and got them reversed. So my client’s conviction on right-to-control wire fraud theory was reversed by the United States Supreme Court. That was a big win for him.

LD: With your deep trial experience, what high-level advice do you have for lawyers in the courtroom?

MW: If I had one piece of advice I’d say – a lawyer is only as good as the facts that he has. You can’t transform weak facts and turn them into something magnificent. You’re only as good as the facts you have. The jury and the judge are far more important than the lawyer.

LD: You have had a pretty unique career path. Was that by design?

MW:  Not entirely, no. My career was based on making choices to do what I thought was interesting and to be able to make enough money to support my family, but I had no idea that my career would take some of the paths or the avenues that it did. That includes some of the outside activities that I’ve done, boards I’ve been on, as well as being co-chair of the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption. It just kind of happened organically, so to speak.

Matthew Abbott

PAUL WEISS

NEW YORK

Paul Lancaster Adams

OGLETREE DEAKINS PHILADELPHIA

Robin Adelstein

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT NEW YORK

Temidayo Aganga-Williams

SELENDY GAY

NEW YORK

Lyn Agre

GLENN AGRE SAN FRANCISCO

Joseph A. Ahmad

AZA HOUSTON

Michael Aiello

WEIL NEW YORK

Charla Aldous

ALDOUS WALKER/ATHEA TRIAL LAWYERS

DALLAS

Mary Rose Alexander LATHAM CHICAGO

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

Lorie Almon SEYFARTH NEW YORK

Parvin Aminolroaya

SEEGER WEISS RIDGEFIELD PARK, N.J.

Kay Anderle

KELLER ANDERLE SCOLNICK IRVINE, CALIF.

David B. Anders WACHTELL NEW YORK

Lauren Angelilli CRAVATH NEW YORK

Stephen F. Arcano SKADDEN NEW YORK

Patrick M. Arenz

ROBINS KAPLAN MINNEAPOLIS

Kurt Arnold

ARNOLD & ITKIN HOUSTON

Keri Arnold

WILKINSON STEKLOFF

WASHINGTON, D.C.

James ‘Jim’ Asperger

QUINN EMANUEL

LOS ANGELES

Andrew L. Bab

DEBEVOISE

NEW YORK

Rebecca Weinstein Bacon

BARTLIT BECK

CHICAGO

Aelish Marie Baig

ROBBINS GELLER

SAN FRANCISCO

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

Amy Coney Barrett

U.S. SUPREME COURT

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Scott A. Barshay

PAUL WEISS

NEW YORK

Chad Baruch

JOHNSTON TOBEY BARUCH

DALLAS

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

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?

Barry Berke

KRAMER LEVIN NEW YORK

Sean M. Berkowitz LATHAM CHICAGO

Nicole Berner JAMES & HOFFMAN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Erica Berthou KIRKLAND NEW YORK

Landis C. Best

CAHILL GORDON NEW YORK

Vineet Bhatia SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

Andy Birchfield

BEASLEY ALLEN MONTGOMERY, ALA.

Michael J. Blankenship

WINSTON & STRAWN HOUSTON

Lisa Blatt WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Angelo Bonvino PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Rebecca Boon BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

Brian D. Boone ALSTON & BIRD CHARLOTTE, N.C.

LaBarron Boone

BEASLEY ALLEN MONTGOMERY, ALA.

Gary Bornstein CRAVATH NEW YORK

Talmage Boston SHACKELFORD BOSTON

Andre G. Bouchard PAUL WEISS WILMINGTON

Theodore Boutrous Jr.

GIBSON DUNN LOS ANGELES

Stephen L. Braga BRACEWELL WASHINGTON, D.C.

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

Richard Brand

CADWALADER NEW YORK

Kenneth Breen

CADWALADER NEW YORK

Kobi Kennedy Brinson

WINSTON & STRAWN

CHARLOTTE, N.C.

Davida Brook SUSMAN GODFREY LOS ANGELES

Jay W. Brown SHACKELFORD

HOUSTON

Alex Brown

LANIER LAW FIRM

HOUSTON

Walter Brown

PAUL WEISS

SAN FRANCISCO

Benjamin D. Brown

COHEN MILSTEIN

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Reginald J. ‘Reg’ Brown KIRKLAND

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Devon C. Bruce POWER ROGERS CHICAGO

David R. Buchanan SEEGER WEISS RIDGEFIELD PARK, N.J.

Jacob W. Buchdahl

SUSMAN GODFREY NEW YORK

Russell Budd BARON & BUDD DALLAS

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

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.

MOLOLAMKEN (WASHINGTON, D.C.)

JUSTIN SHUR

LAST WEEK, I SAW BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN

perform live. The show did not disappoint. Of course, as a lifelong fan, I may be a little biased. I still remember the first time I heard Springsteen. I was in seventh grade and my older sister played a live bootleg recording of “Thunder Road” – I was hooked. Throughout the years, and many musical phases, Bruce has remained a constant in my life, or at least my playlists. Still, in all that time, I never made a connection between “The Boss” and my work as a trial lawyer – until last week.

The day of the show, I was invited to pitch a client who was in search of counsel to try a complex, highstakes case. As we walked from the reception area to the conference room, the client shared that he too had tickets to see Bruce that night. As Springsteen fans do, we enthusiastically traded stories about the concerts we had been to over the years. But as soon as we sat down, the client turned to the business at hand: “What do you think makes an exceptional trial lawyer?” he asked.

I started to rattle off a list of skills: The ability to navigate the courtroom with ease and confidence. The ability to conduct surgical cross-examinations, and deliver a mic-dropping closing argument. The client cut me off – “I understand all that,” he said. “What I want to know is, assuming a lawyer possesses all those skills, what puts him or her over the top with a jury? What is the X-factor?” My answer: Authenticity.

The client looked at me skeptically, understandably so. Authenticity is one of those buzzwords that is frequently overused, often without much meaning. To be clear, I explained, I’m talking about the ability to convey a sense of genuineness that allows you to communicate with people in a way that resonates with them. “Like Bruce?” the client asked with a slight grin. Admittedly, while certain leaders came to mind when I thought about authenticity in this context, the leader of The E Street Band hadn’t been one of them. But it dawned on me: The client, even if only teasing, was on to something. So I went with it.

“Bruce is a perfect example,” I said. Five decades into his career, Springsteen continues to genuinely connect with people from all walks of life and across generations. My teenage daughters even know, dare

BY JUSTIN SHUR

I say like, Bruce’s music. (Of course, it didn’t hurt that Taylor Swift performed onstage with Springsteen lyrics written across her arm for inspiration.) The key to Bruce’s appeal all these years: Authenticity. The same authenticity that is essential to winning at trial. Intrigued, the client said “Okay, I’m listening.”

“IN BRUCE WE TRUST”

Authenticity at trial is vital, I explained, because it’s inextricably linked to trust. And trust is crucial to persuading jurors. Each day in the courtroom, the jurors are sizing you up. They’re asking themselves: Can I trust this person? If you’re able to win that trust, jurors will undoubtedly be more receptive to your views and arguments or at least more willing to engage with them.

But earning the jury’s trust is no small feat. After all, we’re talking about a group of strangers who are often cynical about the legal process and lawyers in particular, viewing them through the lens of negative stereotypes – slick, arrogant, or worse. While unfortunate, and largely undeserved in my experience, this can be a significant barrier to building trust with jurors. Authenticity breaks down that barrier. For one thing, I explained, exhibiting authenticity requires being open and transparent, which instills a sense of trust with any audience.

Take Springsteen, for example. Over the years, Bruce has been open and transparent with his audience. He talks not just about his successes, but his struggles too: from his fraught relationship with his late mentally ill father and his own battle with depression to his fears and insecurities as an artist, husband and parent. That type of honesty resonates with people. As one fan in a Springsteen documentary summed it up: “In Bruce we trust.”

The same principle applies at trial. There is a natural tendency to focus on the strengths of your case. And for good reason. But it’s just as important that you’re open and transparent with the jury about the challenges too – whether a bad fact or legal obstacle. Only by authentically owning those vulnerabilities and addressing them head-on will you earn the jury’s trust.

Of course, the converse is also true. If jurors see you as holding back the truth, you’re doomed – they

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

Greg Care Brown

GOLDSTEIN LEVY BALTIMORE

Jessica S. Carey

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Robert Carey

HAGENS BERMAN PHOENIX

Michael B. Carlinsky

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

Mats Carlston WINSTON & STRAWN NEW YORK

James Carroll SKADDEN BOSTON

E. Leon Carter CARTER ARNETT DALLAS

James Carter THE COCHRAN LAW FIRM METAIRIE, LA.

Thomas P. Cartmell WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL KANSAS CITY

Michael Celio

GIBSON DUNN PALO ALTO

William H. Chamblee

CHAMBLEE RYAN DALLAS

Deborah Chang CHANG | KLEIN/ATHEA TRIAL LAWYERS LOS ANGELES

WHETHER IT’S TAKING IMPROMPTU SONG REQUESTS FROM THE CROWD OR INVITING FANS ONSTAGE TO SING OR PLAY WITH THE BAND,

IT’S IN THESE UNSCRIPTED MOMENTS THAT THE AUDIENCE IS MOST ENGAGED.

will distrust you and, by extension, your case. I saw this play out in a recent trial, where our client was accused of making unlawful political contributions. A key issue in the case, I explained, was whether our client was aware of the campaign finance rules he supposedly violated. Typically, campaigns provide donors with a contribution form to educate them on those rules. Our client, however, was never given that form – a critical fact the government hid from the jury, hoping it would never come to light. But we made sure it did, delivering a significant blow to our opponent’s case as reflected by the verdict.

In every trial, the lawyers are competing for the jury’s trust. If jurors perceive you to be authentic, you will win that contest. The jury will see you as a trustworthy guide who they can follow. They will look to you for the facts and how they should be understood. And that can make all the difference.

“RISK BEING YOUR TRUE SELF”

Authenticity, I explained, also enhances your ability to grab and hold the jury’s attention. This, of course, is critical to success at trial. After all, you may think you’ve scored points by impeaching the other side’s key witness on cross-examination or by exposing, in summation, a flaw in your opponent’s theory of the case. But none of that matters if the jury isn’t paying attention and engaged.

Springsteen is a master of audience engagement. One of the things that makes his shows so engaging is his willingness to go off-script to connect with the audience. Whether it’s taking impromptu song requests from the crowd or inviting fans onstage to sing or play with the band, it’s in these unscripted moments that the audience is most engaged. Because they’re real and authentic. Or because, as Bruce likes to say, you “risk being your true self.” For the same reason, unscripted moments can be a

powerful tool at trial. Take, for example, our closing argument in a multi-defendant securities fraud case. In advance of the argument, I explained, we had developed a meticulous plan. That included using timelines, graphs and other charts to help the jury make sense of the thousands of exhibits and months of witness testimony in the case. But then, just like Bruce, we called an audible (well, maybe not just like Bruce).

On the day of the argument, due to delays beyond our control, it wasn’t until after five o’clock that I stood to deliver our summation – after the jury had already heard hours of argument from the other lawyers in the case. As I approached the jurors, I could see they looked tired and irritated. And when they saw all the charts, their reaction was palpable: One juror folded her arms as her eyes glazed over, while another closed his eyes and slouched down in his seat. So I ditched the charts altogether, and instead opted for a presentation that felt more like an intimate, one-on-one conversation. As the argument progressed, there was a noticeable change: The juror who slouched down in his seat now sat up and was making eye contact, and the juror whose eyes glazed over had unfolded her arms and was now leaning in to listen.

Don’t get me wrong: At trial, it’s important to have a thoroughly, even obsessively, prepared game plan. But it’s equally important to be able to pivot and improvise when the situation calls for it, whether it’s responding on the fly to a curveball (like an unexpected evidentiary ruling or surprise piece of witness testimony) or the need to leave your mental script to recapture the jury’s attention (as was the case in that securities fraud trial). By embracing those moments, you can create the type of authentic engagement where jurors feel invested and will listen to you and your case – not because they have to, but because they want to.

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

Paul D. Clement

CLEMENT & MURPHY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Stephanie D. Clouston

WINSTON & STRAWN

DALLAS

Linda Coberly

WINSTON & STRAWN CHICAGO

Jeff Cody NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT

DALLAS

Dan Cogdell

COGDELL LAW FIRM

HOUSTON

Lori G. Cohen

GREENBERG TRAURIG

ATLANTA

Robin Cohen

COHEN ZIFFER NEW YORK

Vincent H. Cohen Jr. DECHERT

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Eva Cole

WINSTON & STRAWN

NEW YORK

Danielle Conley LATHAM

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Melinda R. Coolidge HAUSFELD

WASHINGTON, D.C.

TO PERSUADE A JURY, YOU NEED TO DO MORE THAN JUST MARSHAL THE FACTS. YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO CONVEY THOSE FACTS IN A MEMORABLE AND MEANINGFUL WAY. STORYTELLING

CAN DO JUST THAT, SO LONG AS IT FEELS AUTHENTIC.

THE “MAGIC TRICK”

Perhaps most importantly, I explained, authenticity is essential to effective storytelling. To persuade a jury, you need to do more than just marshal the facts. You need to be able to convey those facts in a memorable and meaningful way. Storytelling can do just that, so long as it feels authentic.

Springsteen’s songs are authentic storytelling at its best. He calls this his “magic trick.” To perform it, he utilizes several techniques. For starters, Bruce employs relatable themes that resonate broadly: from coming-of-age angst and rebellion (“Growin’ Up”) to the transformative experience of parenthood (“Living Proof”) to confronting mortality (“Last Man Standing”). Building your story around a relatable theme can be equally effective at trial – especially in a complex case.

A few years back, I explained, we were hired to try a patent infringement case. When I first asked what the case was about, I received a lesson in the application of wave-particle duality. Huh? Not only was it difficult to understand (without an advanced degree in physics), it was deathly boring. But we were able to make our case accessible and appealing to the average juror by presenting evidence in the context of a relatable theme: a David vs. Goliath tale, where our client, a small company, was battling for their rights against an industry giant who stole their idea.

Another hallmark of Springsteen’s storytelling is his use of imagery. His vivid lyrics transport listeners to mythical places like the “rattlesnake speedway in the Utah desert” (“The Promised Land”). And bring to life such colorful characters as “Madame Marie,” who “the cops finally busted … for tellin’ fortunes better than they do” (“Sandy”). By employing the same technique at trial, you can create an immersive experience empowering the jury to not only see the world through your client’s

eyes, but to empathize with their situation and ultimately align with their position.

Bruce’s stories also resonate emotionally. Whether it’s the grief experienced after the loss of a loved one (“You’re Missing”), the strong bonds of friendship (“Blood Brothers”), the bittersweet state of nostalgia (“Glory Days”), or just the frustration of not being able to find something to watch on TV (“57 Channels And Nothin’ On”), Springsteen’s stories tap into the emotions of his audience. So must your story.

In any trial, to persuade jurors you need to connect with them on an emotional level (yes, even in a case involving quantum physics). Because whether we like to admit it or not, we’re all emotional by nature. Juries are no exception. In making decisions, jurors don’t rely on logic and reason alone. But through the “magic” of authentic storytelling, you can reach jurors’ hearts and minds.

And just like that, my time was up. The pitch ended with the client thanking me and telling me he would be in touch. Of course, that evening as I made my way to the show, I played it all back in my head –much like the way I do during jury deliberations –wondering if my message had landed. But I didn’t have to wait long.

Later that night, I received a text: “What did you think of the show?” the client asked. “One of the best,” I replied, although I couldn’t quite put my finger on why. Maybe it was the thrill of seeing Bruce and the band live for the first time since the pandemic. Or maybe it was the joy of watching my daughters experience their first Springsteen show (they even knew the words to some of the songs – thanks, Taylor!)

But when I looked down at my phone again, I saw the client already had the answer: “The power of authenticity.”

HANNAH ROSS & RACHEL STAISKIS

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 multi-national 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.

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.

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 actions and other business-critical litigation. In a high-

BY EMILY JACKOWAY AND KATRINA DEWEY

profile 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.

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

Philip Harnett Corboy Jr.

CORBOY & DEMETRIO

CHICAGO

Kelley Cornish

PAUL WEISS

NEW YORK

Todd G. Cosenza

WILLKIE FARR

NEW YORK

Gregg J. Costa

GIBSON DUNN

HOUSTON

Eric R.I. Cottle

K&L GATES

NEW YORK

Trey Cox

GIBSON DUNN

DALLAS

Stephen B. Crain

BRACEWELL

HOUSTON

Chelsea Crawford

BROWN GOLDSTEIN LEVY

BALTIMORE

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 FLEXNER WASHINGTON, D.C.

Cari Dawson

ALSTON & BIRD ATLANTA

Barbara Dawson

SNELL & WILMER PHOENIX

Mark J. Dearman

ROBBINS GELLER

BOCA RATON, FLA.

Karin A. DeMasi CRAVATH NEW YORK

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.

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 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?

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

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

Alexander C. Drylewski SKADDEN NEW YORK

Christopher Duffy VINSON & ELKINS NEW YORK

Karen L. Dunn PAUL WEISS WASHINGTON, D.C.

Kendall Dunson BEASLEY ALLEN MONTGOMERY, ALA.

Brian Duwe SKADDEN CHICAGO

Ryan J. Dzierniejko SKADDEN NEW YORK

Mary Eaton FRESHFIELDS NEW YORK

Sarah K. Eddy WACHTELL NEW YORK

Thomas Egler

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

Michael Elkin WINSTON & STRAWN NEW YORK

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Tara D. Elliott

LATHAM

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Dennis S. Ellis

ELLIS GEORGE CIPOLLONE LOS ANGELES

David Elsberg

SELENDY GAY ELSBERG NEW YORK

Adam O. Emmerich WACHTELL NEW YORK

Courtney E. Ervin

HICKS THOMAS HOUSTON

Dawn Estes

ESTES THORNE EWING & PAYNE

DALLAS

Miguel A. Estrada

GIBSON DUNN

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Theane Evangelis

GIBSON DUNN

LOS ANGELES

Karen Evans

THE COCHRAN LAW FIRM

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Gregory A. Ezring

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Eric B. Fastiff

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

Bibi Fell

FELL LAW/ATHEA TRIAL LAWYERS SAN DIEGO

Mark Ferguson

BARTLIT BECK CHICAGO

Michael Ferrara

KAPLAN HECKER & FINK NEW YORK

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.

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

John Fiske

BARON & BUDD SAN DIEGO

Fidelma L. Fitzpatrick

MOTLEY RICE PROVIDENCE, R.I.

Ellen Kaye Fleishhacker

ARNOLD & PORTER SAN FRANCISCO

Jodi Westbrook Flowers

MOTLEY RICE

MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.

Kobie Flowers FLOWERS KELLER WASHINGTON, D.C.

David Flugman

SELENDY GAY NEW YORK

William V. Fogg CRAVATH NEW YORK

Jason A. Forge

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

Sarah Fortt LATHAM AUSTIN

James J. ‘Jim’ 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

Jonathan Gardner

LABATON SUCHAROW NEW YORK

James Garner

SHER GARNER NEW ORLEANS

Gregory G. Garre LATHAM WASHINGTON, D.C.

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.

Faith Gay

SELENDY GAY

NEW YORK

Paul Geller

ROBBINS GELLER

BOCA RATON, FLA.

Eric George

ELLIS GEORGE CIPOLLONE

LOS ANGELES

William T. Gibbs

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

Douglas G. Gibson COVINGTON WASHINGTON, D.C.

Maria Ginzburg

SELENDY GAY

NEW YORK

Daniel Girard

GIRARD SHARP SAN FRANCISCO

Robert J. Giuffra Jr.

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL

NEW YORK

Brendan Glackin

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

Andrew Glenn

GLENN AGRE NEW YORK

Asheesh Goel KIRKLAND CHICAGO

Sandra C. Goldstein KIRKLAND NEW YORK

Elaine Golin WACHTELL NEW YORK

Bryan Goolsby WINSTON & STRAWN DALLAS

Andrew G. Gordon PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Neil Gorsuch

U.S. SUPREME COURT

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Kieran Gostin

WILKINSON STEKLOFF WASHINGTON, D.C.

Michael J. Gottlieb

WILLKIE FARR

WASHINGTON, D.C.

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

Ilene Knable Gotts

WACHTELL

NEW YORK

Elizabeth ‘Beth’ Graham

GRANT & EISENHOFER

WILMINGTON

Nicholas Gravante

CADWALADER

NEW YORK

Salvatore Graziano

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ

NEW YORK

Mark I. Greene

CRAVATH

NEW YORK

David C. Greenstone

SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER

DALLAS

Ernest LaMont Greer

GREENBERG TRAURIG

ATLANTA

Joseph S. Grinstein

SUSMAN GODFREY

HOUSTON

Udi Grofman

PAUL WEISS

NEW YORK

Tor Gronborg

ROBBINS GELLER

SAN DIEGO

Nicholas Groombridge

GROOMBRIDGE WU

NEW YORK

Benjamin Gruenstein CRAVATH

NEW YORK

Phara Guberman

CADWALADER

NEW YORK

David Gunn

BECK REDDEN HOUSTON

Melinda Haag

PAUL WEISS

SAN FRANCISCO

Richard Hall

CRAVATH

NEW YORK

Sean Haran

WALDEN MACHT HARAN & WILLIAMS

NEW YORK

Erica Harris

SUSMAN GODFREY

HOUSTON

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.

NATASHA ROMAGNOLI

WHETHER YOU ARE A FORTUNE 500 COMPANY

or a sole practitioner, there may come a time when things don’t go as planned. Where life delivers the unthinkable and we are left asking ourselves, “What do I do now? How do I fix this?” That is why both Fortune 500 companies and individuals alike purchase insurance – to protect themselves from these types of calamities. But as we all know, getting your insurer to pay is often no easy feat. That is when policyholders look to Natasha Romagnoli –when it comes to “bet the company” litigation over insurance proceeds.

Romagnoli, who has 25 years of experience in commercial litigation, is a partner in Blank Rome’s Insurance Recovery Group, one of the few practice groups in the country that exclusively represents policyholders in sophisticated insurance matters. Romagnoli’s insurance litigation and advisory practice runs the gamut from commercial general liability to employment liability, directors and officers liability to professional liability, property and business interruption to cyber, and more. She regularly steps in at the eleventh hour to help clients navigate everything from sex abuse scandals to mass shootings, to the murder of a college freshman and racially biased assaults on campus, and the attendant public relations crises and internal investigations that often follow. This is tough stuff, but Romagnoli is passionate about the fight.

Her clients describe her as “brilliant,” “sharp,” “fearless” and a “highly effective advocate.” The resounding sentiment though is how no-nonsense she is and how good she is on her feet. The past five years have seen Romagnoli ranked on countless industry lists, including Chambers, which ranks the best insurance coverage lawyers in the market. There aren’t many women on the list, but Romagnoli is one of them, and in some instances she is the only woman included on lists ranking policyholder lawyers. She is also a member of the esteemed Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America.

When we sat down to interview Romagnoli, she was in her New York office, still running on adrenaline, having only recently argued a case that has the potential to clarify New York law on bad faith and deceptive trade practices claims against insurers. There was a suitcase on her floor, and a box of binders

PHOTO BY LAURA BARISONZI

BY MEGHAN HEMINGWAY

had just been delivered to her office for several motions still to be argued in another case that month. One of her four teenage daughters had just stopped by to have a quick lunch with Romagnoli across from her at her desk. In a few hours she was catching a last-minute flight to lead mediations on a sex abuse case that had had intensified, for which she had been retained only three weeks prior.

That is Romagnoli in action – dedicated and devoted to prevailing for her clients in their most challenging cases, every moment of the day.

Lawdragon: How did you first decide you wanted to be a lawyer?

Natasha Romagnoli:  I grew up in a small town in Central Connecticut. My father owned a metal stamping factory but even in the best of times we only scraped by. Then, when I was in law school, we lost everything. So I always felt like I was an underdog, and I knew that hard work would not be enough. I had figured that out pretty quickly when I went off to Smith College and immediately joined the debate team. We traveled around the East Coast competing against the most prestigious schools that had debate teams that were decades old and had formal training programs lead by coaches. Anytime I made it to a final round against one of these schools in front of dozens if not hundreds of other debaters, and had to respond to arguments on the fly, I realized that prestige and pedigree only went so far.

Success in advocacy comes from being able to break down complex issues to get to the heart of what the decision makers need to care about. That often means tapping into someone’s sense of what is fair and then pivoting and adjusting depending on what is resonating with your audience. It came naturally to me, and I loved it. I knew in those early years that legal advocacy was what I wanted to do for the rest of my life.

LD: What were you like as a young lawyer?

NR: That sense of being the underdog persisted. I always felt very self-conscious about where I came from in a world where, at least in the beginning of a career, pedigree can matter so much. I didn’t want anyone to doubt that I was capable and so I worked as hard as I could, and then figured out ways to work even harder. The hard work wasn’t just

Jonathan Harris

HARRIS ST. LAURENT NEW YORK

Sarah M. Harris

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Robin L. Harrison

HICKS THOMAS HOUSTON

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

Tricia “CK” Hoffler

THE CK HOFFLER LAW FIRM ATLANTA

Ryan S. Holcomb BRACEWELL HOUSTON

Ellen Holloman CADWALADER NEW YORK

Patricia Brown Holmes

RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA CHICAGO

Michael Holmes

VINSON & ELKINS DALLAS

Hillary Holmes

GIBSON DUNN HOUSTON

Deneen Howell

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY WASHINGTON, D.C.

I HAD TO BE TOUGH AND RESILIENT AS A YOUNG FEMALE ATTORNEY CONTENDING WITH FAR MORE EXPERIENCED OPPOSING LAWYERS. I REMEMBER DURING ONE ANNUAL

REVIEW SESSION BEING CALLED BOTH A “WORKHORSE”

AND A “PIT BULL.”

about the hours at the office that I spent preparing. It also was about working smarter and faster – to always be the most prepared, to be several steps ahead of opposing counsel, and to spend time really questioning why things were done the way they were and figuring out whether there was a better way to do it. I also had to be tough and resilient as a young female attorney contending with far more experienced opposing lawyers in high-stakes commercial litigation matters in New York City. I remember during one annual review session being called both a “workhorse” and a “pit bull.”

LD: What an interesting combination. How did that view of you affect how you viewed yourself as a litigator?

I felt like my hard work and dedication began paying off early on and continued. I took my first witnesses at trial when I was a second-year associate. I had three trials in the next two years. And from there, I became the go-to associate for dropping into cases to take depositions or do arguments. What set me apart was my ability to digest immense amounts of information quickly and to strategize and outperform opponents who were far more familiar with the case file.

LD: When did you first starting practicing in insurance recovery?

NR: I was a complex commercial litigator for many years. I was already a partner at Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman working on a wide variety of litigation matters when I was introduced to Robin Cohen, who at the time was the head of the insurance recovery group at Kasowitz. She had a client who was embroiled in a real estate dispute, not involving insurance at all, and whose attorney in that case had just passed away. It turned out the attorney had not conducted any discovery, and the

case was set to go to trial in three weeks. The judge refused to postpone it. I remember getting the call from Robin asking me to do what I had become used to at that point – coming in at the last minute on cases and taking depositions. It was intense, but after a demanding stretch of long nights, the case settled a week before trial with a home-run outcome for our client, who did not have to pay a dollar and instead received almost a full recovery on its counterclaim.

After that, I joined Robin’s insurance practice group. At the same time, Linda Kornfeld joined the group, bringing with her the Penn State Sandusky case. That was the very first insurance coverage case I ever worked on. Sandusky was an assistant coach at Penn State University who was arrested in 2011 and charged with 52 counts of sexual abuse of young boys over several decades. It was a turning point moment both for me personally to work on that as an attorney but also for the insurance industry in terms of how they started thinking differently about coverage for sex abuse claims.

Incredibly, even though Linda and I both left Kasowitz several years later to go to separate firms, she and I reunited when I joined Blank Rome in 2019 right as the last dispute with an insurer in the Penn State case was finally going to arbitration, so I got to finish what I started with her many years earlier.

LD: That is a pretty infamous case to cut your teeth on as an insurance coverage lawyer. There has always been such polarization over whether Penn State, and in particular Joe Paterno, covered up the abuse for all those years.

NR: It was a constant uphill battle to disabuse people of this reductionist narrative that this was an open and shut case about a university that cared more about its football program than about protecting

Heidi Hubbard

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Hamish Hume BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER WASHINGTON, D.C.

James Hurst KIRKLAND CHICAGO

Michael Hurst LYNN PINKER HURST & SCHWEGMANN DALLAS

Melissa J. Hutson KIRKLAND NEW YORK

Phil Iovieno CADWALADER NEW YORK

William A. ‘Bill’ 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

Rachel Jensen ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

M. Janine Jjingo SKADDEN NEW YORK

Michele D. Johnson LATHAM COSTA MESA, CALIF.

Chad Johnson ROBBINS GELLER NEW YORK

Emily D. Johnson WACHTELL NEW YORK

Jeffrey Jonas BROWN RUDNICK NEW YORK

young children. The most emotional part for me was when I stood up to start the closing argument in what was the last proceeding of a coverage case that had been litigated for almost a decade. By then, I had visited the campus dozens of times.

For years, I had a routine of going for an early morning walk all over campus, during which I would constantly refine how to explain who this place was to a jury (or an arbitration panel), to get past the preconceived notions so many people held. So fast forward years later, and in that instant before I said the first words of my closing, I saw flash before me what felt like all of those walks on campus, the conversations with people who had worked there, and all the in-depth strategy discussions with Linda – and I felt such a sense of responsibility to tell the story of what had happened.

And, even though it was the end of that case, it was the beginning of my time at Blank Rome, and nothing prepared me for how impressed I was with Linda and our partner Dave Thomas, who worked so closely with Linda on the case, and the rest of the practice group that I was quickly getting to know. I felt like I had just joined a brain trust with respect to insurance coverage law and actually felt quite intimidated with the amassed decades of experience housed in the Blank Rome insurance coverage group! It was just a really overwhelming intersection to have a case that had meant so much to me ending just as I was embarking on a new stage in my career at Blank Rome.

LD: What did you say in the closing?

NR:  Unfortunately, it was a confidential arbitration so I cannot discuss any of it.

LD:  What was it about insurance coverage that appeals to you even more than doing general commercial litigation?

NR: What I didn’t appreciate before I started doing the coverage work was how intellectually challenging the coverage issues are in most cases coupled with having to constantly learn about the client’s business or operations and the internal and external pressures they have to contend with. But what I find most invigorating is that in almost every single case the odds seem stacked against the policyholder, either because it is smaller than the insurance company or because it is outnumbered.

I was just in Delaware on a case where I sat at counsel table with Dave, with whom I have

continued to work on my largest sex abuse cases, and I turned around to look behind me just before starting on four hours of argument on roughly half a dozen motions. There was my client and the couple other members of the Blank Rome team, not even filling one row of benches. And, on the other side to my right, the two counsel tables couldn’t even fit all of the attorneys for the insurance companies who spilled over to fill the entire side of their courtroom. There could not have been a more striking visual at that moment of what a dogfight it often is between a policyholder and the insurance companies.

LD:  It’s that feeling you had from when you were younger of being the underdog?

NR:  Absolutely. There’s something special about an insurance policy, even though at the end of the day it’s just a contract. For the most part, people only expect to call on those policies when they are in crisis and need immediate support and guidance from their insurer and funding to pay for defense costs, settlements, and potentially judgments in the underlying actions. There was something that spoke to me about how fundamentally unfair it is where you have a contract that is designed to protect you when you are at your most vulnerable – when you’re in dire straits – and so often you have insurers who deliberately avoid that obligation. That’s a horrible situation and fundamentally unfair.

You see the harms most pronounced when you have smaller policyholders who are not used to litigation. Maybe they have never even looked at their insurance policy before because they haven’t had a crisis.

But without fail, it doesn’t matter the size of the institution or the company or how much money they have, they are always dealing with an event that’s not planned for in terms of being sued or having demands made against them. Then you have the insurers who are supposed to be arm-in-arm with them, who instead often open up another front of litigation that my clients have to then fight.

LD: How often do you find yourself suing insurers for bad faith?

NR: I will not include that claim just for the sake of including it or to try to gain some tactical advantage. There has to be real consideration given before pursuing a bad faith claim about whether the policyholder’s claims just amount to breach of contract. Otherwise, you risk your credibility with

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

Perlette Michèle Jura

GIBSON DUNN LOS ANGELES

Elena Kagan

U.S. SUPREME COURT

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Roberta A. Kaplan

KAPLAN HECKER & FINK NEW YORK

David C. Karp WACHTELL NEW YORK

Brad Karp PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Andrew A. Kassof KIRKLAND NEW YORK

Jacquelyn M. Kasulis KIRKLAND NEW YORK

Neal Katyal HOGAN LOVELLS WASHINGTON, D.C.

David A. Katz WACHTELL NEW YORK

Brett Kavanaugh

U.S. SUPREME COURT

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Ashley Keller KELLER POSTMAN CHICAGO

Christopher Keller

LABATON SUCHAROW NEW YORK

I DO NOT SHY AWAY FROM CHALLENGING THE STATUS QUO. THINKING CREATIVELY AND BEING WILLING TO CONFRONT

“THE WAY THINGS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN DONE” HAS LED TO

A LOT OF SUCCESS FOR MY CLIENTS AND ADVANCES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW.

the court. That being said, I think the concept of bad faith is fascinating as it plays out in the insurance coverage context.

Since I came to insurance recovery after more than a decade of practicing as a complex commercial litigator, I look at what gets described in shorthand as a claim for “bad faith” by insurers as what it really is: a breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. That refocusing to think about what an implied duty claim means doctrinally, initially divorced from the type of contract out of which it arises, helps in so many aspects of pursuing that claim against insurers. Implied duty claims are always about frustration of purpose and depriving the other party of the benefit of their bargain. That’s a really straightforward concept, but the slight reframing of arguing how that concept has been applied generally across all different types of contract cases, which is completely appropriate considering that an insurance policy is just another type of contract, makes a huge difference in getting away from talking about “bad faith” as if it is some cheap litigation tactic by policyholders merely to gain some leverage over insurers.

I am really excited about the cases I’ve been involved in recently developing and advocating interpretations of implied duty claims in multiple jurisdictions. Drawing on more universal contract or tort principles to assert implied duty claims rather than limiting myself to traditional applications of bad faith law, such as in the duty to settle context, has so far benefitted my clients. And it’s confirmation for me that my approach to insurance law from a classic contract or business tort perspective, borne of years of doing general litigation rather than being steeped in insurance coverage litigation from the time I was a junior associate, is what works best for

me as an advocate for my clients.

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

NR:  I do not shy away from challenging the status quo. Thinking creatively and being willing to confront “the way things have always been done” has led to a lot of success for my clients and advances in the development of the law. I’m probably a little bit less formal in my presentations than a lot of attorneys. I’m happiest during an oral argument when I’m opposing a motion or when it’s a hot bench. I always work really hard before oral argument to distill down the cases and the argument to the points that are most intuitive and resonate in a sense of what is fair.

I have colleagues who tease me good-naturedly about my aversion to using PowerPoint slide decks to click through during argument. I’m much happier coming into court with a couple of huge, old-fashioned boards that I can put up on a tripod and walk over to during argument to breakdown for the court what is really at stake in the case, both legally and practically, and what the ramifications are for adopting the insurers’ position over my client’s. We had a case a few months ago where I kept telling the team to print the board bigger and bigger before I had actually seen it, and had asked for an 8 foot by 10 foot board in my exuberance as I got more and more excited about our chances of winning. Thankfully, someone pointed out I would have needed a ladder to stand in front of such a big board and talked me down to a normal size board.

LD:  That sounds like the type of exuberance that led one of your clients to describe you as a “fiery advocate.” Do you think that’s an accurate description?

NR:  I’d agree with the characterization of me as “fiery” insofar as it means that I’m passionate about my clients’ needs and interests. In terms of how I

David N. Kelley

O’MELVENY NEW YORK

Erika A. Kelton

PHILLIPS & COHEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Karen M. Kennard GREENBERG TRAURIG AUSTIN

Michael Ketchmark

KETCHMARK AND MCCREIGHT

LEAHWOOD, KANS.

Rakesh Kilaru

WILKINSON STEKLOFF

WASHINGTON, D.C.

John Kim

THE KIM LAW FIRM

HOUSTON

Daniel S. Kirschner

CORBOY & DEMETRIO

CHICAGO

Chérie R. Kiser

CAHILL GORDON

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Ashley McKeand Kleber

GIBBS & BRUNS

HOUSTON

Gayle R. Klein FRESHFIELDS NEW YORK

Adam Klein OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK

Jamie Kocis KRAMER LEVIN NEW YORK

Ben Koenigsberg NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT NEW YORK

Michelle M. Kohut

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

Kim Koopersmith AKIN GUMP NEW YORK

Linda Kornfeld BLANK ROME LOS ANGELES

Michael Kosnitzky PILLSBURY MIAMI

Meredith Kotler FRESHFIELDS

NEW YORK

comport myself when I litigate, however, I always endeavor to be the calmest person in the room, whether it’s a conference room or a courtroom. But I also endeavor to be the most prepared and the most dedicated, which leads to me being relentless in how I represent my clients.

The preparation isn’t just about reading all the cases or knowing the record backwards and forwards. It’s about really getting to know my clients and their operations so that I am as invested as they are in the outcome of the case. I don’t ever lapse into thinking that this is just a job that I’m doing or this is just another case to get through. Many of my clients I get to know on a personal level, at least with respect to how the crisis of not having their insurers pay is affecting them, how it is making their own jobs much more difficult, and in some extreme situations, how it is threatening the very existence of the institutions or companies they love so much. So when I show up to advocate for them, whatever the stage of the case or whomever the audience is, I won’t stop until I’ve exhausted everything I can do to help them so that I can look them in the eye and say I’ve done my best.

LD: Natasha, tell us about your mix of practice within the insurance space.

NR: Obviously, a large part of my practice involves representing universities, secondary schools and non-profits in sex abuse coverage cases. Because of the reviver statutes that have been passed across the country, a lot of the cases I have had in the past few years deal with instances of abuse that occurred 70 or 80 years ago. But at this point, any institution that deals with children is susceptible to these types of lawsuits, and I see that in more recent cases where I represent corporate policyholders who are facing similar resistance from their insurers to cover these claims.

The work on the sex abuse cases can be emotionally draining at times, although not as much for me as for my clients. Thankfully, through my work with universities and colleges, I also deal with a lot of coverage disputes involving Title IX and race discrimination cases. Those cases are not so dissimilar to the sex abuse cases because most times, the school does not want the coverage fight to become public, which only serves to keep open what is usually a very sensitive chapter of their school’s history behind them. When coverage litigation ensues, especially after the underlying cases are settled, it doesn’t let

anyone move forward, including often times the victims. So as much as I love the fight in the courtroom with the insurers, in a lot of instances, depending on the policyholder and their unique circumstances, it’s about securing coverage as quickly as possible.

Some of my coverage cases do not involve liability insurance at all, such as property insurance and business interruption, which are an entirely different world and complex in different ways.

LD:  How is Blank Rome for you as a platform for your practice?

NR:  Blank Rome has a lot to offer that no other practice group that does policyholder-side work in the country can offer. When I first started doing coverage at my previous firm, I kept hearing about many of the attorneys at Blank Rome, and in particular hearing stories of what phenomenal trial lawyers they were. To get to work with people who had such a depth of coverage experience and were bona fide trial lawyers was a huge consideration for me. Blank Rome is also the premier practice in the country for sex abuse cases as a result of the tireless efforts of our practice group leader, Jim Murray, and the team he has built over many decades of practice, and because that part of my practice was really taking off at the time, there was a synergy with Blank Rome at the time that I could not have found anywhere else.

LD: You have built this thriving practice that requires you to work long hours and weekends, to travel and be away for extended periods of time, and yet you have four teenage daughters. How did you manage that and what advice do you have for young attorneys who are concerned about work-life balance?

NR: I find the phrase “work-life balance” to be counterintuitive. It implies that our work is separate from our lives. My work is a huge part of my life, and I am lucky that I love my work and my clients. My daughters have known from a young age that as much as I love being their mother, I also love being a lawyer. Too often people – especially women – seem to feel the need to apologize for being dedicated their jobs, and at times, putting their jobs first. So my advice for young attorneys is to try to find work that you truly feel passionate about, because there’s nothing wrong with your job, which inevitably takes up a huge chunk of your life, being a source of real meaning and enjoyment.

JEREMY LIEBERMAN

WE KNOW BY NOW THAT ALEXA IS LISTENING.

We might even know that once the floodgates are open, there is no official “off” switch when it comes to companies collecting our data. But Jeremy Lieberman believes that if we knew more about how our data was being repurposed, leveraged, and wielded in the wild west of our modern tech era, we might be a little angrier about it. We might even demand compensation.

“They’re selling access to us. They’re selling us, and we don’t have a whole lot of control on how that’s being done,” says Lieberman. “And if we don’t understand it, have we really even consented to it?”

As Managing Partner of Pomerantz – a firm famous for its dedication to representing defrauded investors and championing shareholder and consumer rights –Lieberman is a natural leader. He’s been with the firm for over 20 years and his vast portfolio boasts corrective corporate governance and front-page securities class action suits, securing billions of dollars in results for his clients.

Lieberman is trailblazing many headline-making cases featuring the ubiquitous tech giants we’re all familiar with. Lieberman’s current case against Amazon alleges that the company deceived investors through the anti-competitive misuse of confidential third-party seller data. According to Lieberman, the data collected from competitors was used to directly benefit Amazon’s private-label business. These claims raise poignant questions as to the legitimacy of a business model that seems obviously in breach of antitrust laws. Further discovery also revealed disturbing insight about the nature of the company’s data collection methods.

“Information came out in our case against Amazon, that Alexa was actually listening to our conversations even when it was off, she was still collecting data,” says Lieberman. While some of us may be familiar with the idea that we are the product in any free service, Lieberman is urging less complacency, and has concrete ideas about how to reset the balance. “They’re making a whole lot of money for giving it to us “for free,” but at what cost – and why aren’t we participating in the profits?”

With a new administration making waves on the world stage, Lieberman is interested to see how – and if – Big Tech will be held to task. Lieberman’s current cases

BY MEGHAN HEMINGWAY

against Alphabet, Nikola Electric Trucks and Bed Bath & Beyond, among others, are highlighting big issues of privacy, bubble valuation, consolidation and thirdparty data sharing.

“The FTC has been active and brought a lot of these cases to light, as have the state attorney generals. On the one hand, I think there’s a lot of appeal to attacking Big Tech,” says Lieberman. “On the other hand, all these tech companies just gave millions to the inauguration committee.”

Lawdragon: Let’s jump right in. What can you tell us about the Google case?

Jeremy Lieberman:  Google has become such a household name. Colloquially if we’re searching for something online, we “Google” it. Our case deals with how Google basically served in an exchange both as a purchaser of ads and the seller of ads. They are kind of on all three sides of the transaction, as it were. Our case alleges that Google used their dominance in the field of internet searches, and its related advertising business, to disadvantage web publishers and advertisers who use competing products. The case details the company’s failure to disclose those issues. There were even statements made to Congress saying they were not engaged in such practices and that it didn’t matter which exchange you used, if it was Google or another exchange, but it turned out that Google was clearly favoring its own exchange where it could make more money and charge its own prices.

LD: And how about the case against Amazon?

JL: Similarly, our case against Amazon is regarding the access they had to their sellers’ manufacturing and sales point data that they used in order to compete against the sellers. They also made statements to Congress and to the DOJ saying that they weren’t engaged with such practices, but it turned out they were and are now facing heavy scrutiny as a result.

LD: What attracts you to these types of cases?

JL:  You have to look at these tech companies and ask why they are making so much money. It’s not a crime to make a lot of money, but what’s the business model? They’re not manufacturing anything and most of the services are free. The only way they’re making this money is from our information. They’re essentially selling our personal information – so how much are they doing that and how much are they profiting

Mark M. Kovacich

KOVACICH SNIPES GREAT FALLS, MONT.

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.

Kyle Krpata WEIL REDWOOD SHORES, CALIF.

Richard Krumholz

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT DALLAS

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

W. Mark Lanier LANIER LAW FIRM HOUSTON

Daryl L. Lansdale NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT SAN ANTONIO

Tatiana Lapushchik CRAVATH NEW YORK

Monica Latin CARRINGTON COLEMAN DALLAS

Lisa Laukitis SKADDEN NEW YORK

from it and at whose expense? Are we really aware as to how our information is being used, what’s being tracked, what’s not being tracked?

They’re selling access to us. They’re selling us, and we don’t have a whole lot of control on how that’s being done. So that’s really the attraction for me. These tech companies are darlings of the U.S. economy, but you have to understand that the source of their money is really advertising revenues that are based upon our information, our habits, what we say and what we write. I could be talking on the phone to someone about buying furniture and boom, I magically see an advertisement for furniture on whatever website I’m next on. I don’t think that’s a coincidence. The issue there is really that we don’t fully know how we’re being manipulated and used. So if we don’t understand it, have we really even consented to it? I think if anyone really, fully understood how their information can be used, they probably would not consent to it.

In our case against Facebook, they used to get access to Apple’s user IDs for their consumers on the Apple app. At some point, due to a lot of scrutiny, Apple ceased giving Facebook that access. The 14 version of the iPhone had a new feature that made it so consumers needed to consent in order for Facebook to access that data. Eighty-five percent of customers said, no, they didn’t want to share that data with Facebook. That’s very telling. Most people don’t want this. There’s a whole lot of money being made off of our backs without our consent. Probably if we really understood it, we wouldn’t consent. That business model is really the problem with Big Tech and it’s something that has to be explored. Should we share those profits? It is our customer ID and they’re making revenues on it, so should we get a piece of that? When you raise that question, a whole host of other questions arise.

Information came out in our case against Amazon, that Alexa was actually listening to our conversations even when it was off, she was still collecting data and information. It’s so ubiquitous, we’re all using this stuff, we can’t function without these technologies in our modern society. On the other hand, they’re making a whole lot of money for giving it to us “for free,” but at what costs and why aren’t we participating in the profits?

The power is huge. The consolidation of the industry alone – certain people own so much of the industry. Elon Musk starts with Tesla, then he buys Twitter which becomes X. Now he’s trying to buy Open AI.

I’m not trying to weave any conspiracy theories, but that’s certainly a situation where there’s a whole lot of concentrated power and money – and the money’s being made off of the consumer’s back. So there’s definitely concerns and that has to be properly fought. If they can defend properly what their actions are, then sure, go ahead, that’s fine. The thing is if you properly challenge it, you might really hurt the business model of some of these companies. They might have to offer you money in exchange for your data. Shouldn’t Google tell us how much money they made off of us?

LD:  That’s brilliant. How would you rate the federal government’s enforcement of Big Tech?

JL:  We will really have to see, right? This is a monumental shift in administration. I think tech has been getting a lot of scrutiny – you can’t say that no one’s on the watch. The FTC has been active, the state attorney generals have been active, and whatever the administration ends up doing, I’m sure state AGs will continue to be active, and we will continue to be actively putting some scrutiny on these things and shedding some sunlight on a lot of these activities. On the one hand, I think there’s a lot of appeal to attacking Big Tech. On the other hand, all these tech companies just gave $1M to the inauguration committee – they wanted to make sure there was a good party for the inauguration. I think the idea was maybe pay $1M and you’ll evade some scrutiny.

Sometimes I feel like the SEC has been asleep. They focus on certain things and they haven’t felt it’s their mission to really weed out fraudulent companies. Their view seems a little more limited and they’re mandated, which creates a need for the type of work we do. But I feel to some degree that the SEC is failing the American investor and the American public. The SEC looks at it as a disclosure mandate, they’re not looking to see whether or not a company is actually viable. They’re not really regulating in the sense of the marketplace. The result is a lot of companies that have just gone public, like X, have no real value other than a lot of people that are good at marketing and good at stock promoting.

If you look at all the Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPAC) IPOs, the average performance of a SPAC is about negative 80 percent. Those are billions of dollars that have been lost in investments. Who’s taking responsibility for that? The SEC should have some type of responsibility to the investors. It’s just not taking a real critical look at the companies and

Wendi Lazar

OUTTEN & GOLDEN

NEW YORK

Lewis LeClair

MCKOOL SMITH

DALLAS

Kenneth E. Lee

LEVINE LEE

NEW YORK

Edward J. Lee

KIRKLAND

NEW YORK

Jennifer Leete CRAVATH WASHINGTON, D.C.

David Lender

WEIL

NEW YORK

Karen M. Lent

SKADDEN

NEW YORK

Theodore Leopold

COHEN MILSTEIN

PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLA.

Seth Levine

LEVINE LEE

NEW YORK

Andy Levy

BROWN GOLDSTEIN LEVY BALTIMORE

Mark K. Lewis BRACEWELL WASHINGTON, D.C.

Jeremy A. Lieberman POMERANTZ

NEW YORK

Chris Lind

BARTLIT BECK CHICAGO

Joshua S. Lipshutz

GIBSON DUNN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Robert Little GIBSON DUNN DALLAS

Zoe Littlepage

LITTLEPAGE BOOTH/ATHEA TRIAL LAWYERS HOUSTON

Judson O. Littleton SULLIVAN & CROMWELL WASHINGTON, D.C.

Derek W. Loeser

KELLER ROHRBACK SEATTLE

asking the question, “Are we protecting the American public by allowing this security to be traded publicly?” I think if they asked that question, a lot of these stocks would not be put to market.

LD: Do you see that changing?

JL:  I think this SEC is definitely going to be more permissive. I think we’re all going to see a lot more crypto and more SPAC. I think it’s bad for the market, but it’s good for big business. I think the mandate is to let more companies go forward to allow crypto to do its thing. Crypto was a very big player in the elections, and I think they’re going to get their investment back. I think you’re going to find that there’s a much more permissive ecosystem for a lot of these companies. And who knows when those chickens actually come home to roost.

LD: Catch us up on the Bed Bath & Beyond case?

JL:  It’s been a very interesting case. We were able to successfully get through a motion to dismiss based upon the smiley moon emoji, but the class certification was denied. It was based upon the short amount of trading time in between the losses and misstatements, and Ryan Cohen building up a big position. Right now we’re now asking them to reconsider the denial of class classification, so we’ll have to see where the case progresses from there.

LD: How about the Nikola electric truck case?

JL:  Nikola – the electric truck that went down a mountain in neutral and took the entire company with it – is still being litigated. The company founder and former CEO Trevor Milton has been convicted of securities fraud by the DOJ, by a jury in the Southern District of New York. That case is proceeding in discovery and we’re really seeing that pandemic rush in a nutshell – a bubble company valued at $13B drops down to having absolutely zero value, basically overnight. Everyone rushed in to invest and GM didn’t want to lose a foothold and presumably didn’t do due diligence in making sure that there was actually something real there as far as the technology – so it was never a viable business. Unfortunately in those cases, when they go bankrupt the fraud case is too good, and the ability to collect therefore becomes a problem. If you don’t have a deep pocket to go with you, you’re going to have to collect the judgment potentially against the executives – and that becomes a very long, drawn-out process.

The question is, why didn’t the SEC scrutinize that before they allowed the company to go public and

now trade in? Shouldn’t they have looked to see if there was a real business model there? Maybe there should be some type of rule that unless the company has a real business model or real prospects and there’s been some examination of that, then they have to remain private for a long period of time. A lot of people would want to assassinate me for making that suggestion, but on the Hong Kong exchange, they actually interview the companies. They ask for more information. It’s more of a rigorous process in making sure there’s a real company there.

LD: Are you receiving pushback on the cases you’re trying to bring?

JL:  I think it’s too early to say – it’s a real wild west. Usually when you have a wild west situation, you can get lawsuits and cases brought, but the space is just too underdeveloped. People still don’t really understand how our data’s being used, and AI is really in its infancy too.

Sometimes courts will claim we’re just piggybacking on antitrust complaints, or defendants might convince the court that it doesn’t really belong in a securities fraud class action, though we clearly think it does –like with the Alphabet issues. As far as other tech, it really will depend, everything’s so judge dependent, in a way. Certain judges themselves are concerned about how technology is being abused and so they’re sympathetic. Other judges might feel differently. Another issue is if the government gets involved, now there’s the question of, is it politically motivated? So judges might think that certain AGs have their own agenda. We’ve seen some cases where various AGs have brought allegations and the company says, “You can’t trust what he said.”

LD:  Did you ever worry about a judge’s political leanings when you started practicing law?

JL: It’s funny. When I first started, I didn’t understand why everyone would ask me who’s the judge of a certain case. I’d say, it doesn’t matter, it’s all about the facts and the judge will apply the law. I didn’t understand it. As I’ve matured, I realized how important that is. People might think that certain judges from certain parties are better and more favorable than other judges from other parties. I find that the exceptions, a lot of times, outweigh the rule –but it’s a concern generally as even our courts these days are becoming more partisan.

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 office of Michelman & Robinson 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 doesn’t happen again? As an advocate for change, Varnado believes it starts with listening to the whole story, not just the headlines.

BY ALISON PREECE AND MEGHAN HEMINGWAY

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, the way they do it is one judge on their Supreme

Frank Lopez

PAUL HASTINGS NEW YORK

Kathy Love

MCGINN MONTOYA ALBUQUERQUE

Jane Love

GIBSON DUNN NEW YORK

Paola Lozano SKADDEN NEW YORK

Michael Lubowitz WEIL NEW YORK

Kenneth Lumb

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

Felix Gavi Luna PWRFL SEATTLE

Loretta E. Lynch

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Mike Lynn

LYNN PINKER HURST & SCHWEGMANN DALLAS

Michael P. Lyons

LYONS & SIMMONS DALLAS

Christopher Machera WEIL NEW YORK

Eric D. Madden REID COLLINS DALLAS

Robert M. Manley

MCKOOL SMITH DALLAS

Courtney Marcus WEIL DALLAS

Jeffrey D. Marell PAUL WEISS

NEW YORK

David R. Marriott CRAVATH NEW YORK

Michael Marsh AKERMAN MIAMI

Peter Martelli KIRKLAND NEW YORK

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.

LD: Of course!

Annika K. Martin

LIEFF CABRASER NEW YORK

Katharine ‘Katie’ Martin

WILSON SONSINI

PALO ALTO

Stacey Martinez NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT AUSTIN

Jenny Martinez

MUNCK WILSON DALLAS

Marco V. Masotti

PAUL WEISS

NEW YORK

Shaun J. Mathew

KIRKLAND NEW YORK

Colette G. Matzzie

PHILLIPS & COHEN

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Sigrid McCawley

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER FORT LAUDERDALE

Heather K. McDevitt

WHITE & CASE

NEW YORK

Valecia M. McDowell

MOORE & VAN ALLEN CHARLOTTE

Sean X. McKessy

PHILLIPS & COHEN

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Scarlet McNellie

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT DALLAS

Jelena McWilliams CRAVATH

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Richard D. Meadow

LANIER LAW FIRM HOUSTON

Pallavi Mehta Wahi

K&L GATES SEATTLE

Brian Melton

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

Mark F. Mendelsohn

PAUL WEISS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Christopher G. Michel

QUINN EMANUEL

WASHINGTON, D.C.

LV:  She was amazing. That’s really what I envisioned – fi ghting 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 fl exible 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!

MIKE LYNN

MIKE LYNN IS A TRAILBLAZER IN THE TRUEST

sense: Whether he’s pathfinding on The Appalachian Trail or ascending the ranks in commercial litigation, he’s known for fearless leadership, grit and excellence.

The founding partner and Chairman of Dallasbased Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann left his beloved mentor in 1993, sensing that it was time to take his practice into his own hands.

“I thought I could do better on my own,” says Lynn. “And I did.”

Lynn would go on to lead the firm in securing one of the largest verdicts ever seen in Dallas – a number just shy of $1B for Energy Transfer Partners. The seasoned and celebrated litigator has tried more than 120 criminal and civil jury cases to verdict and an additional 100 non-jury matters. And while the firm certainly boasts the highly specialized merits of being a boutique, it is anything but small with about 50 attorneys.

The firm’s impressive growth is something that Lynn takes pride in. It’s been an organic build, but not without intention. Lynn has a somewhat unconventional approach when it comes to seeking out new talent. He likes to “hire losers” – the people who can handle the setbacks of trying and losing cases because they love the practice.

Lawdragon: Tell us a bit about your early career and the start of your own firm.

Mike Lynn:  I started the firm in 1993. Prior to that, I had been mentored by Jack Hauer at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. Towards the end of his career, I found that the cases that we’d been working on that I thoroughly enjoyed were fewer and further in between. I love Jack and we tried huge oil cases out in East Texas. At one point, he asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up and I said I want to be just like him. He told me there was no way I could do that if I stayed, I couldn’t try enough cases. He encouraged me to go to the DA’s office in Dallas.

Henry Wade had been the chief prosecutor here for 30 odd years. He was involved in the Lee Harvey Oswald case. He ran a very tough and fairly large office. Jack told me to go down and sit outside his door until he hired me. For two weeks – I got there at 8:00 in the morning and stayed until 5:00 in the afternoon. Sure enough, Mr. Wade hired me in the second week. I

BY MEGHAN HEMINGWAY

tried about 60 jury trials in a little over a year – small cases, nothing you would consider major.

I came back to Akin Gump after a year and was really ready to try cases. I volunteered to do all the temporary restraining order and injunction work. I got a lot of experience and enjoyed it a lot. Jack was fading, and I decided that they were not hiring the correct kinds of people to try cases. I thought I could do better on my own, and I did. I left in 1993. I was 43 years old.

LD: How did you get the firm started?

ML:  All my clients, except one, moved with me. We were very fortunate to win several of the cases we tried right at the beginning. That led to more cases – we became a fixture in Dallas very quickly. We got a major case for Visa USA where they were sued for $1B and we ended up zeroing out the plaintiffs’ lawyers. That led to a variety of other cases. The first three to five years were a death march – we were working 3,000 hours a year and barely had time to live.

There were times when I’d shower at the YMCA because I’d been up all night. I would get shirts out of my desk, go back to work and would not sleep for 72 hours at a time. For about five years in the very beginning, it was pretty much like that – drinking out of the fire hydrant. One thing led to another and we started becoming more or less respectable because we were trying cases. We ended up trying more cases than all the other major firms in Dallas combined. I ended up winning over $1B, just me and my team. We also defeated over $1B in claims in juries.

LD: When it comes to the firm’s growth, how has that process been?

ML: It’s been organic. My general view is there are a lot of people who want to be trial lawyers. Just like there are people who want to be actors. Some of them come straight out of school and expect to get the starring role. Well, they’re not going to get it. You have to go pay your dues. As a trial lawyer you have to try a lot of cases – you have to work the off-Broadway circuit or the traveling musical before you get your shot at Broadway.

I was on a panel with a bunch of managing partners and they asked everybody, “What is your trade secret for hiring?” Everybody said the same thing – “We hire from these schools, and we only look for people with this grade point average.” Things like that, they went

Edward Micheletti

SKADDEN WILMINGTON

Donald A. Migliori

MOTLEY RICE

MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.

Kerry J. Miller FISHMAN HAYGOOD NEW ORLEANS

Scott D. Miller

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL NEW YORK

Betsy A. Miller

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Lori G. Mince

FISHMAN HAYGOOD NEW ORLEANS

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

Sarah Morgan VINSON & ELKINS HOUSTON

Juan Morillo QUINN EMANUEL MIAMI

Stephen Morrissey

SUSMAN GODFREY SEATTLE

Laurence Moy

OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK

Veronica Moyé GIBSON DUNN DALLAS

Marc Mukasey

MUKASEY YOUNG NEW YORK

William Munck

MUNCK WILSON DALLAS

Francis Patrick Murphy

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

IF YOU HIRE SOMEBODY WHO’S PLAYED SPORTS FROM THE TIME

THEY WERE SIX AND LEARNED TO LOSE ON SATURDAYS AND STILL COME BACK AND PLAY THE NEXT WEEK BECAUSE THEY

REALLY LOVE THE GAME, THEY’RE MORE LIKELY TO BE ABLE TO SURVIVE THE UPS AND DOWNS OF TRYING CASES.

on and on, it was very boring. What I said is that I try to hire losers – that shocked everybody. What I mean is that if you hire somebody who’s played sports from the time they were six and learned to lose on Saturdays and still come back and play the next week because they really love the game, they’re more likely to be able to survive the ups and downs of trying cases. That’s how you find people who are relentless and who are able to withstand the difficulties associated with a practice that is so binary. People who really enjoy getting on the stage and risking it all to produce a story that might be acceptable to a jury – that’s what we look for.

They almost always have clerked for a federal judge or the Texas Supreme Court. They always were on law review, many of them were in the top 10 percent, but they also have this additional feature that others don’t look for, which is what I’ve learned to call grit. I didn’t know that there was such a thing until I read a book called “Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance,” by Angela Duckworth. Her thesis is that grit defines successful people more than almost any other trait of success.

To this day, we start out by telling candidates all the terrible things we think they will encounter and all the weaknesses in my personality and the firm’s personality. If they still want to come, then we’ll consider them. That relentless spirit and the ability to lose three in a row and then come in on your fourth one to stand on your own two feet and win, is what we are trying to develop. That grit, I think, is why we’ve been successful. It’s not your normal recruiting style.

LD: How would you describe the culture at your firm?

ML: Entrepreneurial. Oftentimes, we’re out-personed by a lot. We will continue to put people into the case, but not at the same rate as our opponent simply because we often don’t have as many people as they

do. Also, the last person hired here has to be the smartest person in the firm. That’s really important because it pushes everybody else up a notch and shows respect for the person being hired – it tells them that they’re important. That’s what we tell them, that it doesn’t say partner or associate on their bar card. It says “lawyer” – and they need to start acting like one. That responsibility includes learning the business of law as well as the game of law. The first 10 years are built learning the craft of law – how to tell a story and what the procedures are like. The next 10 years are learning the business of law. And the third 10 years is basically learning that law is about human beings and that you’re really trying to solve problems for people.

LD:  Would you say you encourage your people to participate in the direction of the firm?

ML: The cement is not yet set on the firm. We tell them they can mold it into what they want it to be. We are looking for participants. That’s important. People are very much responsible for their own development. If folks remain in their comfort zone, they will always be half a lawyer. I guess my job is to push them out of the nest and see if they fly.

LD: Is there a case that stands out to you as particularly memorable?

ML:  I was asked to represent a paralegal who had moved on to become vice president in charge of a real estate operation in Arlington, Texas. These men that she worked with needed her to keep things organized. She basically was acting as chief operating officer. She used her paralegal experience and organizational skills to document everything and make sure that these guys knew what they were doing because they were sloppy in a lot of ways.

In return, she was promised a piece of the action for the real estate that had been purchased. These were

Scott Musoff

SKADDEN

NEW YORK

Saee Muzumdar

GIBSON DUNN

NEW YORK

Danielle Myers

ROBBINS GELLER

SAN DIEGO

Frederick R. Nance

SQUIRE PATTON

CLEVELAND

Erin Nealy Cox

KIRKLAND

DALLAS

Sharon Nelles

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL

NEW YORK

Justin A. Nelson

SUSMAN GODFREY

HOUSTON

Robert J. Nelson

LIEFF CABRASER

SAN FRANCISCO

Sonia Nijjar

SKADDEN

PALO ALTO

Crystal Nix-Hines

QUINN EMANUEL

LOS ANGELES

Conrad C. Nowak

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

Andrew Nussbaum WACHTELL NEW YORK

Jeannemarie O’Brien WACHTELL NEW YORK

Jack O’Neill

PIERCE & O’NEILL HOUSTON

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

I WANT THE JUDGE TO UNDERSTAND AND TRUST THAT I’M NOT GOING TO GO BEYOND THE RULES. THE ONES WHO KNOW ME KNOW THAT I GET CHALK ON MY COAT, BUT I DON’T GO OVER THE LINE. I’M VERY GOOD ABOUT NOT VIOLATING THE RULES.

relatively small buildings and small investments and shopping centers and things like that, but the money was huge – tens of millions of dollars. Her percentage of it was rather small but was important to her because she was looking toward retirement. I took the case on contingency, which was crazy, but I thought she couldn’t afford it and I liked her. We went through depositions, and she testified quite forcefully.

I was against a lawyer who was a very aggressive, cantankerous, rude, difficult person. In the middle of the case, during one of the negotiating sessions, he said he’d learned that I had it on a contingent basis and that he was going to burn me out. He was going to make it so expensive that I couldn’t stay in the case. I thought about it for a while, and I talked to my client and said, “I can’t let that stand for the firm and I can’t let it stand for you.” We can’t have a reputation where somebody says they’re going to burn me out and that I settle. I just can’t do that. So I basically told him that we would never settle the case after that threat.

For the rest of the trial case, the cantankerous lawyer tried to get me to settle, and I told him we wouldn’t talk about settlement. Eventually we were forced into mediation, and I told the mediator we weren’t going to settle. I had already been through this with him, and he had threatened me with burning me out – we’re not going to settle. We ultimately ended up trying the case and the jury came back in about 45 minutes and awarded her all her money, and  attorneys’ fees on top of that. She ended up having a nice retirement as a result. We preserved the reputation of the firm and also the reputation of this lady and got her what she deserved. It was a very expensive bet, but I felt like we did a good job as lawyers.

LD:  How would you describe your style in the courtroom?

ML: I want everybody to have fun. I want the judge to understand and trust that I’m not going to go beyond

the rules. The ones who know me know that I get chalk on my coat, but I don’t go over the line. I’m very good about not violating the rules. The second thing is that I want to have fun. What we’re doing is a reaffirmation of humanity. We’re all getting together and we’re solving a human problem.

I’m also really good at cross-examination, because I think that opening statements and closing statements tell people what to do. The problem is that increasingly, you have a whole group of the population who does not like to be told what to do. My goal is basically to empower people to make decisions.

LD: Are there any trends that you’re seeing in energy litigation these days?

ML: We represent a lot of midstream companies. The problem with the midstream companies is they’re the people who manufacture the pipelines. First of all, they have to put in enormous amounts of capital in order to build a network of pipes and get the rights of way and that sort of thing. Those pipelines make it so it’s efficient to move gas around the country.

So these midstream companies take an enormous economic risk to build a pipeline not knowing whether or not they can fill it up. They have to get contracts that last a long time – sometimes 30 years. It’s a little like getting married. Some of the marriages work out, and then some of them don’t. We’re involved in a lot of litigation involving the contracts that don’t work out. People spend enormous amounts of money trying to figure out how to break the contracts.

LD: I hear you hiked the Appalachian Trail?

ML:  I decided that I needed to get out and do something where your money no longer counts and your station in life no longer counts, and you have a completely different name. You have your trail name that you go by – my trail name is Tinman. A friend of mine is trying to get me to go for a major hike in Turkey. I might succumb. We’ll see.

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.

Yvette Ostolaza

SIDLEY

DALLAS

Krysta Kauble Pachman

SUSMAN GODFREY

LOS ANGELES

Jennifer Pafiti

POMERANTZ

LOS ANGELES

Brian Panish

PANISH SHEA

LOS ANGELES

Robin Panovka

WACHTELL

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.

Jason L. Peltz

BARTLIT BECK

CHICAGO

Luis R. Penalver

CAHILL GORDON

NEW YORK

Moira Kim Penza

WILKINSON STEKLOFF NEW YORK

Gregory Pessin WACHTELL NEW YORK

Kimberly C. Petillo-Décossard

WHITE & CASE NEW YORK

Joseph Petrosinelli WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Rebecca Phillips

LANIER LAW FIRM

HOUSTON

Noah Joshua Phillips CRAVATH

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Jesse Pierce

PIERCE & O’NEILL

HOUSTON

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

Andrew J. Pitts

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Christopher V. Popov

VINSON & ELKINS

HOUSTON

Christopher D. Porter QUINN EMANUEL

HOUSTON

Laura Posner

COHEN MILSTEIN

NEW YORK

Russell Post BECK REDDEN

HOUSTON

Warren Postman KELLER POSTMAN 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

Patrick Quinn CADWALADER NEW YORK

John C. Quinn KAPLAN HECKER & FINK 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

Jennifer Recine KASOWITZ 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.

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

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

Michael T. Reynolds

CRAVATH

NEW YORK

William Ridgway

SKADDEN

CHICAGO

David M. Ring

TAYLOR & RING

LOS ANGELES

Mike Ringler

SKADDEN

PALO ALTO

John Rizio-Hamilton

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ

NEW YORK

Darren J. 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

James Rosenthal

WILKINSON STEKLOFF

WASHINGTON, D.C.

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,

Benyamin Ross

GIBSON DUNN

LOS ANGELES

Hannah Ross

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ

NEW YORK

Andrew Rossman

QUINN EMANUEL

NEW YORK

Antony L. Ryan

CRAVATH

NEW YORK

Faiza J. Saeed

CRAVATH

NEW YORK

Kelli Sager

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE

LOS ANGELES

Kaam Sahely

VINSON & ELKINS

AUSTIN

Anjan Sahni

WILMERHALE

NEW YORK

Susan Saltzstein

SKADDEN

NEW YORK

Patrick A. Salvi II

SALVI SCHOSTOK & PRITCHARD

CHICAGO

P. Anthony Sammi LATHAM NEW YORK

Mary Kathryn ‘Katie’ Sammons

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

David Sanford SANFORD HEISLER SHARP

NEW YORK

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

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

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 FLEXNER

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

Stephen Shackelford

SUSMAN GODFREY

NEW YORK

Kannon K. Shanmugam

PAUL WEISS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Dena Sharp

GIRARD SHARP 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.

SHAWN RABIN

SHAWN RABIN IS IN A LEAGUE ENTIRELY OF

his own. He hails from Texas, where the litigation powerhouse cut his teeth, started his practice and gained the most valuable of all courtroom tools – trial experience. And a lot of it.

In 2008, when elite trial firm Susman Godfrey committed to growing its office in New York City, Rabin jumped at the opportunity. But a nagging question seemed to keep finding him from various corridors: Can a Texas trial lawyer really make it in New York?

Perhaps the naysayers spurred him on, but the whispers have long since ceased. In the last 20 years, Rabin has built a high-profile client list and an enviable track record, leading him to be consecutively recognized as a Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigator in America and Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyer, dating back to 2019. His career is consistently compelling, and his wins do more than astound – they speak to the core of who Rabin is as a lawyer.

“I don’t really believe in the hourly billing model – my success hinges entirely on the success of the case,” says Rabin. “When my clients win, I win. If my clients lose, I lose. I love that.”

And when they win, they win big – Texas big.

Rabin represented WeWork founder, Adam Neumann, against Softbank when they withdrew a $3B offer, resulting in one of the largest ever individual litigation claims of the century. Weeks before trial, the case settled as reported by media outlets throughout the world.

In an epic trade secret case that was closely followed by the press and legal insiders, Rabin and partner Bill Carmody represented Uber against Google’s Waymo over the technology behind self-driving cars. The team fought a hard-won battle and then successfully resolved the case during the first week of trial.

In the Southern District of New York, Rabin argued on behalf of General Electric in a breach of contract dispute with the Nebraska Investment Finance Authority. It took the jury just two hours to return a verdict valued at over $160M in General Electric’s favor.

“I like to think of myself as a trial specialist,” says Rabin. “Getting a case through discovery and into trial is what I specialize in, which is unique. Very few lawyers in New York have actually tried a complex case in front of a jury.”

BY MEGHAN HEMINGWAY

Rabin’s achievements point to a degree of excellence that the experienced litigator brings to all of his cases. He and his colleagues now regularly get called in to SDNY and EDNY to take high-impact cases to trial, and do plenty of work in Delaware Chancery, too. Nearly 15 years after coming to the Big Apple, it’s clear his Texas trial roots were never something he had to overcome, but a superpower that puts him at the front of the pack.

Lawdragon:  What was your path to becoming a lawyer?

Shawn Rabin:  I grew up in a relatively small Texas town, about an hour north of Houston. I knew nothing about law or the legal profession, I have no lawyers in my family. I initially thought it’d be fun to be an international diplomat because I always wanted to travel internationally when I was a kid. I went to Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service in Washington, D.C. – one of the best schools you could go to for being a diplomat. But, I quickly realized that the life of a foreign service officer was not for me.

Fortunately, I had an incredible professor who taught an undergraduate course in international law and also taught classes at Georgetown’s law school. He encouraged me to take his class and I absolutely loved it. I was fascinated by how various international laws interacted, but more important, how lawyers think. Going to Georgetown and being in Washington cemented two things in my mind: One is I really wanted to be a lawyer, and two is I wasn’t ready to leave Texas, I really missed it.

So, I went to the University of Texas for law school. I had a great time and learned a lot about the law and how to think like a lawyer. From there, I interviewed broadly across many firms, including in New York, London and Texas. I was introduced to Susman Godfrey as a summer associate and quickly realized it was where I wanted to practice. I saw early on that it was very entrepreneurial, a firm where you could really build a practice.

I then clerked for a year in Puerto Rico on the 1st Circuit, and then returned to Texas to litigate at Susman. I tried to get as many in-court opportunities as I possibly could. Anytime there was an opportunity to go to trial or to stand up at a hearing, I would take it.

LD: Susman has really grown since you started, would you say they still have that entrepreneurial mindset now?

Vic Sher

SHER EDLING SAN FRANCISCO

Gina N. Shishima

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT AUSTIN

Gregory M. Shumaker JONES DAY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Justin Shur MOLOLAMKEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Michael S. Shuster

HOLWELL SHUSTER NEW YORK

Anne McClain Sidrys KIRKLAND CHICAGO

Gerald ‘Jerry’ Silk BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

Jeffrey B. Simon

SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER DALLAS

Katherine ‘Katie’ Sinderson BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

Stuart Singer

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER 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

Sherrese M. Smith PAUL HASTINGS WASHINGTON, D.C.

Grasford Smith AKERMAN WEST PALM BEACH, FLA.

SR:  Absolutely. That’s one of the reasons I loved moving to New York to help grow the office. I thought I’d never leave Texas again, but I loved the opportunity to build an office. And that entrepreneurial feel is still a big part of the firm to this day.

LD: What was it like building out a new office in New York?

SR: It was great. We immediately had two advantages that set us apart from other firms. First, we did not represent banks, which is something that’s rare in New York and so we were getting a lot of referrals. And, second, New York lawyers typically don’t go to trial very much, whereas in Texas, we went to trial a ton. So, there was a very limited number of lawyers in New York that had a lot of experience trying cases to juries. And because of that, and our ability to sue banks and big financial institutions, we had far more work than we could ever do in a year. We quickly started growing the New York office, and we still haven’t hit a saturation point. We encourage our young lawyers to bring in business, and because we rarely work by the hour, we’re able to put together fee deals and other alternative fee arrangements that clients love. I don’t really believe in the hourly billing model. My success hinges entirely on the success of the case. When my clients win, I win. If my clients lose, I lose. I love that.

Other than maybe politics or professional sports, litigation is one of the only careers where, at the end of the day, there’s a winner and a loser. I love the competition of litigation.

LD:  Do you consider yourself a generalist in your practice?

SR: Yes, I consider myself a generalist in terms of topic areas, but a specialist in terms of presenting those topics to a judge or jury. It is far easier to learn a new subject than it is to learn how to effectively present a case to a judge or a jury. Currently, my biggest cases involve the laws of Taiwan, privacy rights, breach of contract, and complex antitrust law. That’s something I love about litigation – you get to learn new industries and learn about various things that I previously had no idea about, and then figure out how to explain those concepts to a judge or a jury.

I am often brought in right before trials because we have that unique expertise. Getting a case through discovery and into trial is what we specialize in, which really sets us apart from other lawyers.

LD:  Is there a trial from early on in your career that made you think – this is what I’m made for?

SR: My first trial was a state class action in Minnesota. We were on the defense side representing Walmart, and it was particularly memorable because I was tasked with building our trial witnesses, and that meant that I had to visit every Walmart in the state of Minnesota to interview potential witnesses – the employees. It was fascinating because it made me understand and appreciate the human side of litigation. These people were incredible – outrageously smart. They worked themselves up from bagging groceries to being the managers of these stores. Learning their stories was fascinating. Then, from the legal aspect, figuring out how to take their stories and turn them into a trial presentation was amazing.

This case was the most memorable because, as luck would have it, the first witness in this several month trial was someone I was assigned to cross examine. The courthouse was filled with media, and I realized walking up to the podium that all of the eyes were on me and I had never even seen a cross-examination in court before – much less conducted one. It went exactly how I had hoped it would – the witness gave me great admissions that set the tone for the rest of the case. It was very rewarding having had the opportunity to build the case from the start and then taking it through to a trial and then a judgment that was extremely favorable for our client.

LD: You’ve been with Susman 20 years now, right?

SR: Yes, ever since I finished my clerkship.

LD:   Is it true that Susman requires lawyers to have done a clerkship before they’ll hire them?

SR:  Yes! At Susman we require every lawyer to clerk for a federal judge before we’ll hire them. We believe learning how the judicial system works is the best way to figure out how to pitch a case to a judge and explain it in a way that makes sense. When clerking, you read a ton of briefs, see a lot of oral arguments, and then you get to see from inside the chambers what persuaded a judge to rule a certain way. That experience is so valuable as a practicing lawyer. I’d encourage anyone that can do it to clerk. Getting the chance to see how the judicial process works from the inside will make you a fantastic lawyer. It’s such a valuable tool.

LD:  Can you tell us about a recent trial that was particularly fun or memorable?

SR:  I tried a case a few years ago in the Southern District of New York before Judge Lorna Schofield. It was a jury trial where we represented General Electric as a plaintiff against an entity called the Nebraska

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.

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.

Kosta Stojilkovic

WILKINSON STEKLOFF

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Elizabeth Stotland

WEISWASSER WEIL

NEW YORK

John B. Strasburger BOWS HOUSTON

Leo E. Strine Jr. WACHTELL

NEW YORK

Lary Stromfeld

CADWALADER

NEW YORK

Jonathan Su LATHAM WASHINGTON, D.C.

OTHER THAN MAYBE POLITICS OR PROFESSIONAL SPORTS, LITIGATION

IS ONE OF THE ONLY CAREERS WHERE, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THERE’S A WINNER AND A LOSER. I LOVE

THE COMPETITION OF LITIGATION.

Investment Finance Authority. We were brought in to replace another big New York firm who was not as confident in the case as we were.

It was essentially a breach of contract case where the facts were extremely complicated and extremely boring. It involved guaranteed financial contracts – the details of them would put anyone to sleep quickly, and we had to find a way to make it interesting and fun for the jury to understand our theory. It ended up being riveting and fun for the jury. We held a four-day trial and won an outstanding verdict valued at over $160M. Several of the jury members came up to us at the end of the trial to say how much fun they had, and thanked us for making their jury service interesting

LD:  What do you appreciate about Susman as a platform for your work?

SR:  Steve Susman built the firm with the view that the firm was your family, and he really meant it. Both Steve and Lee Godfrey’s kids became partners in the firm. They always had that mentality of including your family in the firm and having the firm as part of your family. Steve believed that your work takes commitment and sacrifice, and when your whole family is committed to it, it’s a successful venture. My best friends are people within our firm because we spend so much time together and we really enjoy each other’s company.

Jumping back to building the New York office – it was important for me to bring that mentality up here. Anyone we hire for our office – attorneys, receptionists, support staff – I will meet before we hire them. I really want to make sure we continue that family atmosphere. It’s so important to me to maintain that tradition that Steve started.

LD:  What advice would you offer a young person who wants to be a trial lawyer?

SR:  I want to say not to take your work home with you, but I always do. I think about my cases all the

time, I think about ways I could do better for the case, and because I feel ownership of it, I want my clients to succeed, and I really want to succeed. And I’ve found that when young lawyers similarly take ownership of what they’re doing and care about it, their work product is just outrageously that much better. So that’s probably the first thing – care about what you are doing.

The second thing I always tell people is take advantage of every opportunity you can to work with as many exceptional lawyers as you can. When I hear about a big trial that’s going on, I will run down to the courthouse to watch it to see how other lawyers present their cases to a jury. You can constantly learn from talented trial lawyers and their different approaches. Maintaining that thirst for learning is important.

The last thing I’d say is get yourself out there. I learned quickly that going to bar events wasn’t my cup of tea –I didn’t love the mingling aspect. But you can find something you love, like a charity or some activity that gets you out to meet new people, tell them about what you do, and that eventually generates business. It takes time, but it comes.

LD: Any advice for a Texas litigator looking to make the move to New York?

SR: The question I faced when I came up here was, “Can a Texas litigator make it in New York City?” Would the trial skills translate? What I soon found is not only do they translate, but I had an advantage because I had so much trial experience and trial experience is a rare asset that is useful in any courtroom regardless of location. Now I do a ton of work in New York’s Commercial Division and in trial courts across the country, including Delaware’s Chancery Court as that is where some of the biggest cases in America are often filed. So my advice is – do not look at such a move as a climb up a learning curve, rather think about the skills you have that will set you apart in the courtroom.

ASHLIE BERINGER AND MICHAEL CELIO

GIBSON DUNN (PALO ALTO)

BY EMILY JACKOWAY

FOR MORE THAN 130 YEARS, THE LEGAL

world has had a constant: Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. The premier firm, which boasts nearly 2,000 lawyers across 21 global offices, maintains a reputation for excellence that has withstood the test of time.

As the firm has thrived, the world has changed. In Palo Alto, Gibson Dunn’s tech-focused office operates in areas of law that couldn’t have been conceived of in the 1990s, never mind the 1890s. As novel technologies like AI and cryptocurrency develop, new laws and regulations are coming down at a breakneck pace – and Silicon Valley is at the center of it all. Adaptability, creativity and speed are necessary traits for thriving in the region.

“For some 130-year-old law firms, there’s a certain inertia,” says the office’s partner-in-charge, Michael Celio. “That’s not Silicon Valley.”

Celio, partner Ashlie Beringer and leadership throughout the firm have proven that’s not Gibson Dunn, either.

Six years ago, there was a shift in the firm’s Silicon Valley branch: A series of retirements brought about a natural turning point to the Palo Alto office. At the time, Celio was a partner at his previous firm, where he’d spent the last 17 years carving out a unique practice representing high-level Silicon Valley venture capital firms and their portfolio companies in difficult-to-define litigation. He didn’t intend to move, but when the opportunity came to bring that practice to the international stage at Gibson Dunn, Celio took the plunge – primarily because the firm’s leadership was offering him a chance to build out his vision for the definitive, next-generation Silicon Valley office.

Beringer shared a similar vision when she returned to the firm in 2020 as co-chair of the Privacy, Cybersecurity and Data Protection Practice Group

WE SHARED A COMMON ENTHUSIASM ABOUT BUILDING AN INDIGENOUS PRACTICE THAT SERVED INDIGENOUS CLIENTS, BUT

WITH A GLOBAL

CAPABILITY.

and the founder and co-chair of the Crypto Taskforce. For Beringer, it was a homecoming; she had been with Gibson Dunn from 2008 to 2013, mainly in the Palo Alto office. In that time, she handled precedentsetting matters in the burgeoning digital space, including issue-defining wins for major companies like Apple, Yelp and Facebook. After defending Facebook in one of the first FTC privacy actions at Gibson Dunn, the company brought her in: She served for seven years as Facebook’s deputy general counsel and a member of the core management team, representing the company during a vital period of change and regulatory scrutiny.

While at Facebook, Beringer noticed gaps in the market for Silicon Valley law firms. As the client, she wanted to find a single firm that could provide “an integrated solution set to our very critical problems, who understood our technology, who understood the regulatory landscape on a global scale,” she explains. “I could get specialists in one market, but they couldn’t traverse.”

Informed by her experience in private practice and building a 180-person global team at Facebook, she set her sights on the same goal as Celio: building the office that would redefine operating in Silicon Valley.

Together, the pair had the expertise and passion required to realize that vision for a revitalized office. By bringing their vision to Gibson Dunn, they were able to dovetail the firm’s strengths: its longevity and its capacity for innovation.

The crux of the model comes down to what Beringer terms “the electromagnet.” The pair say that Silicon Valley as a whole was very inward-looking when they began practicing – but, over the years, it has exploded in global prominence. The electromagnet synthesizes the benefits of both those internal and external focuses within the microcosm of Gibson Dunn’s Palo Alto office. By concentrating on the office’s internal atmosphere and vision, they create a self-perpetuating energy that provides both a synergistic, exciting working environment internally

and a dynamite team of lawyers navigating the globe for the world’s top tech interests.

The formula, the pair explain, is built on three pillars: people, place and practice.

The “place” tenet shifted last fall. For the first time in 25 of the firm’s 45 years in the area, they moved the office from its home on Page Mill Road – the traditional Big Law row – to downtown Palo Alto. “Mike was a champion for getting out of the old world and into the center of life and vibrancy,” says Beringer. The shift downtown keeps pace with many of the attorneys’ clients, as venture capital firms and others move to more urban areas. It also generates a vibrant, communal office environment in an era where in-person collaboration is on the downtrend.

As for the “practice” aspect, recent victories prove the electromagnet is a success. Last year, Celio and team achieved a landmark 9-0 victory on behalf of Slack in the U.S. Supreme Court. The win is precedent-setting for companies and investors and has drawn attention to the high-level work the office is undertaking. Beringer, meanwhile, has repeatedly deflected FTC and other regulatory actions for clients facing high stakes, multi-jurisdictional investigations, and is a go-to strategic advisor for myriad public company boards and executive teams on regulatory, product, AI and cybersecurity risk and strategy.

As far as “people,” Celio, Beringer and the team they’ve brought together are the heart of the office.

Lawdragon: Tell me about meeting each other. How did you know you wanted to realize this vision together?

Ashlie Beringer: When I met Mike, I immediately saw that he and I together would be greater than the sum of our parts. We shared a common enthusiasm about building an indigenous practice that served indigenous clients, but with a global capability.

Michael Celio: When I met Ashlie, I thought, “Yes, this is exactly who I need to build the next step.”

I knew she was special because of her in-house

Diane Sullivan WEIL

PRINCETON, N.J.

Scott Summy

BARON & BUDD DALLAS

Tara D. Sutton ROBINS KAPLAN MINNEAPOLIS

James R. Swanson FISHMAN HAYGOOD NEW ORLEANS

Christina Swarns

INNOCENCE PROJECT NEW YORK

Katherine M. Swift

BARTLIT BECK CHICAGO

Sam E. Taylor

LANIER LAW FIRM HOUSTON

John C. Taylor

TAYLOR & RING MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIF.

Roland Tellis

BARON & BUDD LOS ANGELES

Anita Wallace Thomas NELSON MULLINS ATLANTA

John B. Thomas HICKS THOMAS HOUSTON

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

James D. Thompson III VINSON & ELKINS HOUSTON

Robert I. Townsend III CRAVATH NEW YORK

BJ Trach LATHAM BOSTON

Max Tribble SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

Lisa Tsai

REID COLLINS AUSTIN

Danielle Tully CADWALADER NEW YORK

experience – she knew how to see things from the client’s side – but she was also of this place. Silicon Valley is unique. We wanted to build an office that really understood Silicon Valley, but that could also leverage the brilliance that exists at our firm more broadly on behalf of our incredible clients. We like to think of ourselves as sort of the yeast to help a firm that was obviously incredibly successful before we got here to continue to be successful growing.

In law firms, there’s an awful lot of things that people do because it’s the way it’s always been done. What Ashlie brought us from Facebook is the ability to ask, “Why do we do that?” She was the seed of it, but the rest of us have taken on the mantle of being thoughtful about why we do things so we can provide the best client experience.

LD: Okay, so great lawyers, knowledge of the area and expanding out to a global presence. What else is involved in making that great Silicon Valley firm?

MC: It’s the electromagnet. I loved that term from the second I first heard Ashlie say it. It’s the idea that if you hire people who are the best at what they do and who love what they do, there’s an infectiousness and a joy you can build around that to create something absolutely electric.

AB: Mike and I are big believers in in-office culture –the alchemy of innovation that is enhanced by being together in person. But I was rejoining the firm in the depths of Covid. So, we decided that during that time we were going to build for the future, because there was going to be a surge of opportunity with this intense need for people to reconnect. So, we started meeting once a week to design the blueprint for the future of the office. Every time we would get together, there would just be this infusion of energy around this vision. We really locked on this idea that we’re going to flip the switch on the electromagnet –creating an office with people that have this energy, this shared vision, and that would develop its own internal catalytic engine – which is exactly what happened.

We each went out and found people that fit that model to become part of that electrical core. I hired Vivek Mohan, who had been in-house at Apple and had actually been my outside lawyer when I was at Facebook. Vivek is intensely practical, incredibly strong on the tech, and one of the sharpest lawyers I’ve ever worked with on any issue. We recognized the power of bringing in ex-in-house tech lawyers and executives, and hired Jane Horvath, who was

Chief Privacy Officer at Apple. We continued to build the team out so that we had ex-regulators as well as ex-in-house. We were bringing in people who had that same energy and vision and created this momentum that we’ve continued to capitalize on, and it cascades down through the entire office.

MC: I found one of my great competitors, Jessica Valenzuela, who I’ve been pitching against for years, but who I knew to be an absolutely spectacular lawyer. She’s really the next generation of talent. By drawing in the right people, you expand opportunities and joys.

LD: Then, tell me about location. You moved from Page Mill Road to a new office in downtown Palo Alto.

MC: So, it was the people, but it was also the place. We moved out of Page Mill Road, where so many firms were. Page Mill is this long, five-lane road with big buildings, with no creature comforts, and with no reason to ever be there. Instead, we are now in the heart of the central street of the central city of Silicon Valley.

You read these articles where firms are saying, “Oh, we can’t get people to come back into the office.” We’ve got the opposite problem. We have days where we’re full up. We’re turning conference rooms into offices. I spend zero time chastising associates for not being in the office because we created something that’s enjoyable. We created a place where people get an experience they can’t have in their pajamas at home. Then, you have to be working on the most interesting cases, too.

LD: Tell me about taking that model to the global stage.

AB: Both Mike and I are leaders in global practices. So, although the electromagnet was turned on in Palo Alto, we have global teams that support the tech industry. I’ve led several global regulatory investigations into AI providers, focusing on the ways that they train their models. That is the kind of issue that not just the FTC and the California AG and the new CPPA are interested in, but also the European data protection authorities and the European Commission, each focused on a different angle. We have successfully been able to achieve what other firms have not: a globally coordinated strategy that deflects and resolves regulatory interests around the globe because we have built out a team that has such strong lawyers in D.C., Europe, the UK and Asia, where the most active regulators sit.

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

FLEXNER NEW YORK

Carol Villegas

LABATON SUCHAROW

NEW YORK

Jonathan Waldrop

KASOWITZ REDWOOD SHORES, CALIF.

Peter Walsh Jr. POTTER ANDERSON WILMINGTON

Johnny Ward WARD SMITH & HILL LONGVIEW, TEXAS

Jessie Weber BROWN GOLDSTEIN LEVY BALTIMORE

Eric J. Wedel PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Stephen Weiss SEEGER WEISS

RIDGEFIELD PARK, N.J.

Alexandra ‘Lexie’ White SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

Conlee S. Whiteley KANNER & WHITELEY NEW ORLEANS

Douglas H. Wigdor WIGDOR LAW NEW YORK

Ed Willer

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

Gwyn Williams LATHAM BOSTON

WE LIKE TO THINK OF OURSELVES AS SORT OF THE YEAST TO HELP A FIRM THAT WAS OBVIOUSLY INCREDIBLY SUCCESSFUL BEFORE

WE GOT HERE TO CONTINUE TO BE SUCCESSFUL GROWING.

I meet regularly with my colleagues around the world to build out this unprecedented map of AI risks and requirements that are mapped to global regulation and risk vectors that are regionalized. But it’s not only mapped globally; it’s done in a way that is useful to our clients because it’s actually mapped to the product features and issues that drive their internal strategies, as opposed to just dry recitations of the law. It’s grappling with the intersection of the law and the technology and doing that at a global scale. So, although we are indigenous in our practice, we are exporting that throughout the firm.

LD: Looking more specifically at those major matters, tell me about representing Slack before the Supreme Court last year.

MC: That’s a perfect example of the exact place in the market we want to be. Slack was backed by several of my big venture clients, but we still had to go in and pitch against the very best firms in the world for that case. Everybody understood that it was the first company to go public through a direct listing, which is an innovative way to go public.

The challenge that you’re up against in litigating a case like this is that you’re making an argument that can be seen as somewhat technical. Your client needs you to be good at the law, but that’s not enough. There are plenty of people who know the law. You need to know why it matters. What we had to explain was, why is it a good thing that direct listings exist? Why is this pro-social? Why does this advance human thriving? Translating that to an argument that the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court ultimately could accept was a real challenge. We were really proud we were able to do that. That has become our calling card for litigating the biggest, most cutting-edge cases, and that’s part of the electromagnet.

LD: Ashlie, what cases have you been working on that utilize that human, storytelling element?

AB: I can’t get into too much detail, but I defended a client that is a major priority of the Biden administration and was subject to a top-priority

FTC investigation that swept every aspect of the company. Ultimately, after two years, we were able to convince them to stand down and focus on peers of our client rather than our client. That is truly an unprecedented outcome, and it speaks to our ability to tell a compelling story that puts our clients’ innovation at the center. To build empathy and enthusiasm for the challenges of breaking ground in a new industry. You win by both understanding the law and jurisdictional authority of your regulators deeply, and also by winning their hearts and minds.

LD: Looking ahead, what trends are you seeing in your practice and in Silicon Valley overall right now?

AB: We are seeing regulators shift very heavily into a focus on generative AI, which is catalyzing new legislation. Our clients are also either already being investigated by enforcing agencies who are grappling with how they’re going to hone their powers, or we are advising clients on strategies that will help them be on the front foot as these new laws come online.

LD: And how is the firm adapting to this new world of tech?

AB: We have an incredible new team leading our tech efforts across the firm. We are building best-inclass AI-based bots to create tools that are trained on our proprietary knowledge base, which is entirely unique. We are betting on our inputs, modeling our fluency with tech by building AI tools that are best in class for our area of the law.

MC: There are people in our industry who are scared of AI because they think, “Oh, it’ll take our jobs.” It’s never going to replace the people who partner with our clients. The thing that AI so far has not been able to do, and I suspect probably never will be able to do, is that human component. It’s what we’ve been talking about: Creating that thing that makes life and the practice of law so much fun.

Milton Williams

WALDEN MACHT HARAN & WILLIAMS

NEW YORK

Shawn A. Williams

ROBBINS GELLER SAN FRANCISCO

Donna L. Wilson MANATT LOS ANGELES

Jamie L. Wine LATHAM NEW YORK

Janette Wipper

SANFORD HEISLER SHARP

PALO ALTO

Marc Wolinsky

WACHTELL

NEW YORK

Michael Wolitzer

SIMPSON THACHER

NEW YORK

Jennifer Wu

GROOMBRIDGE WU

NEW YORK

Debra J. Wyman

ROBBINS GELLER

SAN DIEGO

Debra Wong Yang

GIBSON DUNN

LOS ANGELES

Bruce E. Yannett DEBEVOISE NEW YORK

Julia York SKADDEN

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Angela C. Zambrano SIDLEY DALLAS

John Zavitsanos AZA HOUSTON

George ‘Jed’ Zobitz CRAVATH

NEW YORK

Paul H. Zumbro

CRAVATH

NEW YORK

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