Page 1

A SUPPLEMENT TO ACC DOCKET

THE YEAR IN

R EA Y : HE L USOF TONANGS S” L P S ATI KI IRM N RM N A F FI ND 1 R AW 17 W A IER T L 20 LA T ES “B


We are honored to be chosen among the best. BEST LAW FIRMS

BEST

BEST

LITIGATION — SECURITIES — TIER 1

CORPORATE LAW — TIER 1

SECURITIES REGULATION TIER 1

LAW FIRMS

LAW FIRMS

NATIONAL

NATIONAL

NATIONAL

2017

2017

2017

Murphy & McGonigle has once again been honored by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® as a National Tier One “Best Law Firm” in three practice areas. We thank our clients for their trust and confidence in a different kind of law firm.

We congratulate Steve Crimmins for being named the 2017 “Lawyer of the Year” for Securities Regulation in New York City. Founded in 2010, Murphy & McGonigle serves the litigation, enforcement defense, and regulatory counseling needs of clients across the full spectrum of the financial services industry – from national banks, broker-dealers, investment advisers, and hedge funds, to national and international securities markets and exchanges. Many of the firm’s partners formerly served in senior positions at the U.S. Department of Justice, SEC, FINRA, and CFTC and several served in senior executive positions in major financial institutions on Wall Street.

New York, NY

|

Washington, DC www.mmlawus.com

|

Richmond, VA


jacksonlewis.com


18 Righting Wrongs

IN THIS ISSUE

in Latin America

Not Your Father’s Law Firm

10

Did the EU Poison the Apple?

NEARLY A DECADE AFTER THE GREAT RECESSION, THE LAW BUSINESS IS ADAPTING TO CHANGE.

EUROPEAN REGULATORS CLAIM TECH GIANT OWES $14 BILLION IN BACK TAXES, BUT THE MOVE COULD SPUR MUCH-NEEDED REFORMS.

12

The Court Faces Its Own Campaign Season

16

No Scalia, Yet the High Court Makes Waves

28

President and Lawyer-in-Chief

32

Gitmo May Outlive Obama’s Presidency

OBAMA THE PRESIDENT PROVED MORE CONSERVATIVE IN SOME WAYS THAN OBAMA THE CANDIDATE.

THE PRISON AT THE NAVAL BASE IN GUANTANAMO BAY IS A SYMBOL OF A DARK CHAPTER IN AMERICAN HISTORY, BUT CLOSING IT HAS PROVEN HARDER THAN EXPECTED.

Brett Ziegler for USN&WR

6

ISSUES THAT PERMEATED THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ARE LIKELY TO SURFACE AT THE NATION’S HIGHEST COURT.

MISSING ITS CONSERVATIVE SOUL, THE SUPREME COURT STILL FINDS A WAY TO CREATE CONTROVERSY WITH SOME RULINGS.

Pat Sullivan/AP

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

iStock.com/beyhanyazar

IN AN EVER-MORE-GLOBAL SOCIETY AND ONE IN WHICH THE DEMAND FOR PROGRESS HAS REACHED ALMOST A FEVER PITCH, MOTIVATION TO RIGHT WRONGS, WEED OUT CORRUPTION, AND STRIVE TOWARD PEACE IS STRONGER THAN EVER.

COVER STORY

24

2

The Year in Review

36

FROM THE SUPREME COURT TO RACE, LEGAL ISSUES DOMINATED THE NEWS IN 2016.

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S

The Death Penalty Faces Its Last Rites

CONTROVERSIAL PUNISHMENT IS FACING STIFF OPPOSITION FOLLOWING DOUBTS OVER METHODS, FALSE CONVICTIONS, AND PUBLIC APATHY.

40

Can Training Really Stop Police Bias?

44

Arbitration and the Revolving Door of Bad Cops

PRIVATE TRAINERS AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAVE TRUMPETED NEW PROGRAMS AIMED AT REDUCING BIAS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT. WHETHER THEY WORK IS A DIFFERENT MATTER.

SOME COMMENTATORS SAY THE SYSTEM ALLOWS OFFICERS TO ESCAPE ACCOUNTABILITY, BUT THE TRUTH IS MORE COMPLICATED.

46

Dying by Choice

PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED DEATH IS NOW LEGAL IN CANADA… SORT OF.


T H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E

3


CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER: STEVEN NAIFEH PRESIDENT: PHILLIP GREER DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGING EDITOR: ELIZABETH PETIT DIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONS & CREATIVE SERVICES: MEREDITH HINSHAW-CHANEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: ALYSA CARMICHAEL, CPA FINANCE/HR COORDINATOR: HOLLY BOYNTON ACCOUNTS PAYABLE COORDINATOR: NICHOLAS ELSTON ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE COORDINATOR: PERSA RHODEN BUSINESS MARKETING ANALYST: ZACH PEARSON EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT: JULIA YIP BEST LAWYERS RESEARCH MANAGER: KRISTEN GREER SENIOR EDITOR & TRAINING COORDINATOR: DE’ANDREA YOUMANS EDITORS: JAMES MILEY, KAYLA PRUITTE EDITORIAL INTERN: MICHAELLA GRISSETT COUNTRY COORDINATORS: EMMA BROWN, ANTOINE VIGNÉ INTERNATIONAL EDITOR: NATHANIEL FOUTCH INTERNATIONAL EDITORIAL INTERN: ALLIS YANG BEST LAW FIRMS COORDINATOR: VALERIE SMITH SENIOR EDITOR: REBECCA BLACKWELL EDITOR: JENNIFER GILMORE MEDIA RELATIONS MANAGER: KATIE MORGAN R&D CONTENT EDITOR: KYLE SEMONES PUBLIC RELATIONS INTERN: RIDDHI PATEL LEGAL RESEARCH STRATEGIST: ELLEN ANDREWS COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER: LISA SPIRES PUBLICATIONS MANAGER:CHERYL RUCKER PUBLICATIONS MANAGING EDITOR: NICOLE ORTIZ PUBLICATIONS DESIGN MANAGER: ELENI TZINAKOS ART PRODUCTION EDITOR: CAROLINE KNECHT SENIOR GRAPHIC DESIGNER: WILLIAM LOCASTO PUBLICATIONS EDITOR: TESS CONGO PRODUCTION ASSOCIATE: JOHN CUSMANO PRODUCTION ASSISTANT: ROBYN CARTER IT MANAGER: LARRY MEADOWS SOFTWARE ENGINEERS: CAROLINE CHONKO, SHERMAN CULLER, KIMBERLY JACKSON, CHRIS MORGAN. KENNY QI PROGRAMMING INTERNS: SHAFARAZ HASSAN, PRIVA DUBAL LEGAL MEDIA SPECIALISTS: KELLY BROWN, MANNY CANDAL (SALES STRATEGIST), THOMAS FOSS, ROBERT GAULT, DONOVAN HESLOP, ANTHONY POLITO, CORINNE LANG, JOSH RUPALL (TEAM LEAD) NEW YORK OFFICE PUBLICATIONS & SALES 45 MAIN STREET, SUITE 820, BROOKLYN, NY 11201 718.509.6095 SOUTH CAROLINA OFFICE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 237 PARK AVENUE, SW, SUITE 101, AIKEN, SC 29801 803.648.0300

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN & EDITOR-INCHIEF: MORTIMER B. ZUCKERMAN CO-CHAIRMAN: ERIC GERTLER PRESIDENT & CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER: WILLIAM D. HOLIBER

PUBLISHER & CHIEF ADVERTISING OFFICER: KERRY DYER CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER: KAREN CHEVALIER CHIEF PRODUCT OFFICER: CHAD SMOLINSKI EDITOR & CHIEF CONTENT OFFICER: BRIAN KELLY EXECUTIVE EDITORS:

IN THIS ISSUE

48

Law Firms of the Year

50

Behind the Rankings Methodology

KIM CASTRO, MARGARET MANNIX, TIM SMART

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT & GENERAL COUNSEL: PETER M. DWOSKIN CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: NEIL MAHESHWARI SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, EDUCATION, NEWS & OPINION, B-2-B INSIGHTS: CHRIS DICOSMO VICE PRESIDENT, MANUFACTURING & SPECIALTY MARKETING: MARK WHITE DIRECTOR OF ADVERTISING SERVICES: PHYLLIS PANZA U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT EDITORIAL OFFICES

51

U.S. NEWS AND BEST LAWYERS HAVE AGAIN AWARDED “LAW FIRM OF THE YEAR” HONORS TO A SINGLE FIRM IN EACH OF 74 PRACTICE AREAS RECOGNIZED IN THE 2017 RANKINGS.

THE U.S. NEWS – BEST LAWYERS® “BEST LAW FIRMS” RANKINGS ARE BASED ON A RIGOROUS EVALUATION PROCESS THAT INCLUDES THE COLLECTION OF CLIENT AND LAWYER EVALUATIONS, PEER REVIEWS FROM LEADING ATTORNEYS IN THEIR FIELDS, AND REVIEWS OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY LAW FIRMS AS PART OF THE FORMAL SUBMISSIONS PROCESS.

National Tier 1 Rankings

554 U.S. LAW FIRMS WITH NATIONAL TIER 1 RANKINGS IN THE 2017 EDITION OF “BEST LAW FIRMS.”

1050 THOMAS JEFFERSON STREET, N.W. FOURTH FLOOR WASHINGTON, D.C. 20007 202.955.2000

ADVERTISING & CORPORATE OFFICES

4 NEW YORK PLAZA, SEVENTH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10001 212.716.6800

FOR REPRINTS OR TO ORDER COPIES, PLEASE CALL 718.509.6095 OR EMAIL INFO@BESTLAWYERS.COM

4

THE 2017 LEGAL ISSUE IS A SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE JAN/FEB 2017 ISSUE OF ACC DOCKET. TO ORDER ADDITIONAL COPIES, CALL 718.509.6095.

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S


U.S. News & Best Lawyers

T H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E

5


BUSINESS OF LAW

, Not Your Father s Law Firm BY NOREEN MARCUS Justin Kaplan never disconnected from his office in Florida during his month-long honeymoon in Asia this year. He sketched a settlement in China and drafted a document in Thailand. That mix of time off and e-output “would have been unheard of even 10 years ago,” he says. In February 2015 Kaplan, 35, left his father’s successful litigation boutique after seven years to open his own firm with two other lawyers. Their general commercial practice has offices in swanky Brickell in downtown Miami and a Gen-X vibe—the Kaplan Young & Moll Parron website lists favorite “jams” and “dream rides”—and already supports six attorneys. Kaplan happily negotiates fee arrangements that cap retainers based on various metrics or trade work product and counsel for a financial stake in a client’s future. For him and the profession, it’s not your father’s law practice anymore. Technology dominates as an indispensable aid and marketing

We’ve seen quite a few firms closing their small foreign offices. Foreign or domestic, it’s hard to make small branch offices profitable if they don’t become heavily integrated right away. ERIC SEEGER

PRINCIPAL OF ALTMAN WEIL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS

6

clincher as well as via practices that leverage privacy law, cyber challenges, and intellectual property. Lawyers creatively craft deals with and for clients. And business necessity is nudging diversity from aspirational goal to demonstrable fact. To underscore that point, Hilarie Bass, co-president of powerhouse Greenberg Traurig, cites “the number of Fortune 100 firms that say we want to see your diversity figures, not just in general but on our matters. It is making a difference; I tell them all the time when they ask.” This year Bass will become the eighth woman president of the American Bar Association. Accounts of her rise to the ABA’s top post focused less on her gender than did the 2013 reports of her ceiling-smashing leadership role at Greenberg Traurig. Of course, changing demographics is only part of the transformation of the legal business story. Last year, the legal industry made slight progress at recovering from its 2008 downfall. With about 1.3 million lawyers nationwide, the number, while inching upward, is still 55,000 shy of pre-Great Recession levels, according to a recent American Lawyer analysis of government labor statistics. That still leaves a business model where supply and expenses outpace demand and profits. Fewer millennials choose law school, while those that do battle tougher competition for fewer available slots: 86.7 percent of the class of 2015 found jobs, which is about five percentage points lower than the class of 2007, according to the National Association of Law Placement. Yet just as in grandad’s day, top

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S

Getty Images

Nearly a decade after the Great Recession, the law business is adapting to change.

Technology is changing the practice of law.

graduates command top dollar. When Cravath, Swaine & Moore announced last summer that it was raising first-year associate pay by $20,000 to $180,000, it set off a bidding war that rippled up the associate ranks. Within a week, 118 firms followed Cravath’s lead, Above the Law reported. The Thomson Reuters Peer Monitor Index for 2016’s second quarter weighed weakening demand against rising headcount and concluded that productivity suffered the biggest drop


in more than three years. Despite overhead growth at pre-2008 levels, Thomson Reuters scolded firms for hiking their technology spending to produce greater efficiencies while cutting budgets for proactive marketing and business development. Eric Seeger, a principal of Altman Weil management consultants, co-wrote a 2016 report based on completed surveys from 356 U.S. law firms. “Demand has returned to prerecession levels in only 38 percent of

law firms, so many are experiencing flat or eroding demand for their services. At the same time, they’re not able to command the kind of rate increases they were able to get prerecession,” he said. “So it’s putting a lot of financial strain on many firms.” Globalization, for decades a source of big guy bragging rights, has lost some charisma. This year DLA Piper announced unspecified cuts to its vast foreign operation: 60 branches staffed by two-thirds of the firm’s

4,300 employees. Markets in London, always the epicenter for U.S. firms with multinational profiles, are roiling from the Brexit vote and uncertainty over Britain’s future relationship with the continent. “We’ve seen quite a few firms closing their small foreign offices,” Seeger said. “Foreign or domestic, it’s hard to make small branch offices profitable if they don’t become heavily integrated right away.” Analysts and bar leaders say industry

T H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E

7


BUSINESS OF LAW

The law library at the capital building in Olympia, Washington.

economics can be improved, but that requires letting go of your father’s deeply held assumptions. They say white male lawyers aren’t the only ones who should be rewarded with authority and equity partnership because they bring in business through old boys’ networks. Also, minority lawyers aren’t interested in tokenism, and women don’t inevitably abandon the practice to bear and raise children. Bass said more women in their 40s and 50s are leaving firms, but often for the same reasons as men: “because of compensation issues or the perception there’s no future path to success.” Men respond by switching firms. “Women

8

feel their lack of success is due to institutional barriers,” she said, so they stop practicing law. Still, there’s considerable resistance to rethinking the basics. When The Wall Street Journal reported that New York’s Shearman & Sterling would demote equity partners who perform poorly, there was no rush to follow suit by other firms. John Kiernan appreciates the obstacles. A group he heads, the New York City Bar Association, recently conducted a local survey that shows 19 percent of the partners at 75 midsize and large firms are women and five percent are minorities. He said one

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S

big impediment to progress is “the arithmetic of how long it takes to clear out the old partners.” “There’s no question that, since the financial crisis, it’s been clearer that partners who were not able over a long period to get their careers on track, after extended efforts by the firm to help them get on track, could be subject to getting nudged out,” said Kiernan, of Debevoise & Plimpton. Yet he spoke about the wrenching process of dislodging senior partners, typically after 30-year careers. “When it’s done, it’s done with tremendous regret,” Kiernan said. Adapting to the new normal


David Johnson/Getty Images

requires flexibility and some downsizing of expectations. Government work employs a steady 12 percent of lawyers, and small firms offer the most opportunities for recent graduates, said James Leipold, executive director of the National Association of Law Placement. A background in a scientific, engineering, or other technical field can only help. “Increasingly that intersection of law and technology is going to be a sweet spot in the job market,” he said. It’s a sellers’ mart for on-the-move laterals who are team players with portable books of business, according

to legal recruiter Amy Levin. “Mid-career lawyers have to split their time between their own practices and supporting the other attorneys,” said Levin, managing director of The Legal Group in Sunrise, Florida. “The big firms are interested in mid-levels doing pro bono, business development, networking, and community service to get the firm’s name out there. Everybody has to do their part.” Midsize firms have shown resilience and a greater ability to rebound than the big boys. This year, California-based Nossaman, founded in 1942, joined the AmLaw 200 and appeared on The National Law Journal’s “Midsize Hot List” for the third year in a row. The 170-employee firm walks and talks diversity, starting with a website that showcases affinity groups for its female, Asian, Hispanic, and LGBT staffers. The philosophy enriches firm culture and attracts business, according to managing partner George Joseph. “We have, for example, a number of public agency clients, and in the public sector, the procurement process places an emphasis on diversity,” he said. The starting salary at Nossaman is $145,000—whether the associate works in Orange County, Austin, or Washington, D.C. “We don’t think it’s the road for us,” Joseph said of the move to $180,000. “With increased salaries come expectations about billable hours, and that’s not a model we’re looking to emulate, either.” He said Nossaman weathered the downturn with an array of services, including public agency infrastructure support and health care, environmental, and water law. “We had areas of the firm that continued to do well, and we’ve been conservative about growing, so there were no layoffs, and we don’t have a lot of debt so we were able to withstand that particular chapter.” Health care, a dependable growth area, also has been good for Sarah Coyne, the Madison, Wisconsin-

There’s no question that, since the financial crisis, it’s been clearer that partners who were not able over a long period to get their careers on track, after extended efforts by the firm to help them get on track, could be subject to getting nudged out. JOHN KIERNAN

OF DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON

based national chair of Quarles & Brady’s 40-lawyer health law group. She said specialization—even subspecialization—is crucial. “You can’t be a general run-of-themill lawyer anymore,” said Coyne, who guides her mostly small and rural hospital clients through compliance issues. Providing the more esoteric services matches in-house counsels’ cost-driven desire to avoid outsourcing ordinary matters. Coyne hones her rainmaking skills through an “old girls’ network” that she said is particular to the health care field. “There is something to be said for women connecting with women.” Mary Kay Furiasse, one of two lawyers in a Wheaton, Illinois elder law practice, operates in another arena. She draws upon her background as a nurse, associate at a big Chicago firm, corporate counsel, and consultant to a small physicians’ group. She takes Thursdays off to babysit her two grandchildren. Furiasse helps her clients navigate the “gray area” after their working lives. “It’s a holistic approach. We kiddingly say that we do family law, we just don’t do divorce,” she said. “I love my job.” Not everyone loves the job, but employing flexibility, creativity, and diversity produces rewards.

T H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E

9


TAX LAW

Did the EU Poison the Apple? BY THOMAS K. GROSE LONDON—There’s growing anger worldwide as evidence piles up that many multinational corporations have successfully used geography— mainly discrepancies within a global patchwork of legal tax laws and loopholes—to essentially game the system to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Three years ago, for instance, U.S. Senate hearings revealed that consumer electronics behemoth Apple paid only one percent or less on profits it made on overseas sales by transferring the rights of its intellectual property to subsidiaries set up in Ireland. Last summer, the European Commission, the European Union’s executive body, using the Senate’s findings as a starting point, ruled that from 2003–2014, a tax arrangement between Apple and Ireland gave Apple an edge over competitors and violated EU state-aid rules. It ordered Apple to pay Ireland as much as $14.2 billion in back taxes, plus interest. Margrethe Vestager, the EU competition commissioner, said that the “illegal tax benefits” Apple received from Ireland “enabled it to pay substantially less tax than other businesses over many years.” Both Ireland and Apple say they’ll appeal the ruling to the EU General Court. And the finding has also been criticized as overreach by the U.S. Treasury—a view also voiced by some proponents of efforts to curb abuses of transnational tax law, including one of Vestager’s predecessors, Neelie Kroes. Regardless of the outcome of the appeals process, which could take

10

three to four years, the Apple case will probably have less of an effect on the international tax system than reform efforts now underway to make the system fairer. But if the ruling’s upheld, there are concerns that it could spark an exodus of globespanning companies from Europe. “The risk of chaos is great,” says Eduardo Baistrocchi, an expert on tax law at the London School of Economics’ Transnational Law Project. The main vehicle for reform is a model set of tax guidelines known as the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project, or BEPS, which was published last year by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development at the instigation of the G-20 nations, which are the world’s largest economies. These new principles, which are rapidly gaining acceptance around the world, would close loopholes, erase inconsistencies in national laws, and promote greater transparency to make it harder for multinationals to shuffle profits around the world to avoid the taxman. “The old principles don’t work in today’s world,” says Erika Jupe, a tax partner at London law firm Osborne Clarke. “Now, greater transparency and PR has become important.” She calls BEPS a “good and speedy” response to concerns that the old system was out of date. And there is indeed a sense that the European Commission’s ruling also has a political component: that it’s a way for the EU to push back against the growing popularity of populist political parties that claim Brussels’ relationships with multinationals

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S

Philippe Huguen/AFP/Getty Images

European regulators claim tech giant owes $14 billion in back taxes, but the move could spur much-needed reforms.

have been too cozy. But if the commission is playing to the hoi polloi, it’s also unfairly only targeting U.S. multinationals, not European ones that use the same tax rules, says Elaine Fahey, an expert on EU law and global governance at London’s City Law School. “American companies are a convenient source of attack.” But Christiana HJI Panayi, a tax law professor at Queen Mary University of London, says that the EC can easily argue politics aren’t involved and that it’s only now dealing with what it sees as an instance of state-aid abuse because it only recently found out about it, thanks to the Senate hearings. If BEPS is successful, she says, “agreements such as Apple’s with Ireland would no longer be hidden.” Jupe also thinks the EC’s ruling is more a coincidence of timing than


The old principles don’t work in today’s world. Now, greater transparency and PR has become important. ERIKA JUPE

PARTNER, OSBORNE CLARKE

an outgrowth of the tax reform movement. But she also calls it a radical application of competition law to tax standards that have been legally used for decades. To be sure, Jupe says, the commission has linked tax agreements to stateaid in the past, but in this case—and in two other smaller, recent rulings involving Luxembourg and Fiat

Chrysler Automobiles, and the Netherlands and Starbucks—it’s focused on an aspect of tax law it previously ignored: transfer pricing, or advanced pricing arrangements that cover transactions between subsidiaries of the same company. “That is the novel bit in this ruling,” she says. It’s long been considered an area of set law, based on OECD models. Moreover, Jupe adds, the ruling also questions the right of individual EU member states to set their own tax rules. Kroes, the former commissioner, in a column in The Guardian last September1, argued against changing “the rules of the game through ad hoc state-aid enforcement” to seek “retroactive recovery for unpaid taxes. Doing so would be fundamentally unfair and would harm competition,

growth, and tax income in Europe.” As Baistrocchi says, Apple had “legitimate expectations” that its agreement with Ireland was legally sound. “The European Commission has launched an effort to rewrite Apple’s history in Europe, ignore Ireland’s tax laws, and upend the international tax system in the process … Apple follows the law and pays all of the taxes we owe wherever we operate,” Apple said in a statement. Baistrocchi says it’s possible that the appellate courts “might decide that this EC decision should be applied prospectively rather than retroactively.” And Jupe thinks that the EC will have a hard time proving in court that the Apple-Ireland agreement was illegal state-aid because it will have to demonstrate that Ireland applied the tax rules selectively to Apple. “Was it a sweetheart deal? That will be difficult to show,” Jupe says. That’s because the pricing arrangements are based on idiosyncratic circumstances within each company and are very flexible—OECD’s models allow for five different methods to calculate them. Panayi, however, claims that the EC “has a good case, that this is a natural evolution of [state-aid] law.” And, she adds, “it rarely loses appeals.” If the courts uphold the EC’s ruling, the impact could be more economic than legal, which is what worries Kroes and Baistrocchi. The fear is that companies may avoid locating subsidiaries in Europe—or relocate existing ones—if they think that accepted tax practices can be reexamined at some point in the future. But no matter what the courts decide, legal guidance to multinationals is already changing as greater transparency looms larger, Jupe says. But it won’t mean an end to advanced pricing arrangements, she insists. Instead, when tax lawyers draw them up, “they’ll make it clear they’re not sweetheart deals that give one company an advantage.” https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/ sep/01/eu-state-aid-tax-avoidance-apple 1

T H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E

11


COURT POLITICS

The Court Faces Its Own Campaign Season BY SUSAN MILLIGAN America’s nasty, brutish, and notso-short 2016 presidential campaign raised some painful issues about the nation’s democratic institutions and the treatment of people involved in them. Charges were made about voter fraud, “rigged” elections, and whether people’s ethnic or racial background makes them more likely to commit crimes. It was the sort of ugly dialogue justices on the U.S. Supreme Court can typically experience as interested observers, separated from the politics and immune from the fallout. But this year, a high court already hit with the collateral damage of legislativeexecutive branch politics may well be dealing with the aftermath of a painful election season. Voting rights, redistricting, and the fairness of the criminal justice system to racial and ethnic minorities are all topics likely to reach the high court, adding a judiciary sequel to the tense debates of the 2016 campaign season. “It’s going to go on forever, apparently,” quips David Coale, a partner at Dallasbased Lynn Pinker Cox Hurst who has been monitoring critical cases rooted in the Lone Star State. The high court already went through its own politics-related drama in 2016, hampered by the absence of a ninth justice after the death of Antonin Scalia in February. With the Senate refusing to confirm a new justice before the election, the Supreme Court

12

was left without a tie-breaking vote. While Justice Stephen Breyer noted on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that half of all cases are decided unanimously, there were cases in which the divided court was a factor. In United States v. Texas, a 4–4 tie left standing, without precedent-setting authority, a lower court ruling striking down President Barack Obama’s executive order shielding some five million undocumented immigrants from deportation and allowing them to work. In another case, Zubik v. Burwell, the high court by an 8–0 vote ordered the parties to find a compromise over how religiously-affiliated businesses handle the contraception coverage provision of the Affordable Care Act. Observers believe the order was a compromise among jurists who wanted to avoid a 4–4 tie on such a politically potent issue. Further, the court in 2016 appeared to be filling its docket at a slower pace, likely, says American University Washington School of Law professor Stephen Wermeil, because they knew certain cases would not get a majority vote. The Supreme Court famously got dragged into electoral politics in 2000 when its decision in Bush v. Gore delivered the presidency to George W. Bush after a disputed vote count in Florida. And in the coming year, the high court may be asked to decide election-related

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Issues that permeated the 2016 presidential campaign are likely to surface at the nation’s highest court.

The courtroom at the U.S. Supreme Court.

The whole question of what states can do and how far they can go in imposing voter eligibility requirements is a critically important issue and one that’s in many ways way up in the air. STEPHEN WERMEIL

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF LAW PROFESSOR


matters that go far beyond a single campaign for president. “For me, the big imprint is democracy and the laws of democracy,” says Wendy Weiser, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. Legal experts are still watching to see what, if anything, the Supreme Court justices will do with several voter-access cases that arose out of the court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which weakened aspects of the Voting Rights Act. That ruling said that the “preclearance” a number of jurisdictions needed

before making changes to their voting laws was outdated, since the criteria identifying those states and localities was based on decades-old data. With the preclearance part of the law (section 5) effectively gutted, states moved ahead to change their laws without asking for permission first, altering everything from voting hours to identification requirements to straight-ticket voting. “The whole question of what states can do and how far they can go in imposing voter eligibility requirements is a critically important issue and one that’s in many ways

way up in the air,” says American University’s Wermeil. The laws—several of which are in traditional presidential election battleground states—have been challenged and largely weakened by lower courts. The Supreme Court did not rule definitively on any of the cases before Election Day—quite predictably, Supreme Court watchers say, since the court doesn’t want to appear to be influencing election results. But because several states have used the Shelby decision to make dramatic changes in the way people vote, “it’s really hard to believe they’re

T H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E

13


COURT POLITICS

The nation’s highest court often makes history.

not going to take some of those cases up,” says Henry L. Chambers Jr., a constitutional law professor at the University of Richmond School of Law. Chief among them is a case out of North Carolina where a strict voter ID law, purportedly intended to crack down on voter fraud, was largely thrown out by a federal district court, which accused state lawmakers of attempting to suppress the AfricanAmerican vote “with surgical precision.” The law had eliminated one Sunday of early voting (hampering the traditional “souls to the polls” efforts by black church-goers) and imposed strict ID laws for in-person voting, calling for identification documents far more likely to be held by white people than African-Americans. After a loss in federal district court, North Carolina appealed to the Supreme Court for a pre-election stay, but was denied in a 4–4 vote, leaving the underlying court’s decision intact. Since the short-handed high court could not deliver a majority either way, experts expect a fully

14

constituted Supreme Court to take up the matter again. A strict voter ID law in Texas was softened by a federal court, which ordered the state to allow more forms of identification as proof of voter eligibility and was upheld by a federal appeals court. The original law, critics said, disenfranchised young people and racial minorities with the sorts of ID demanded (allowing gun permits as ID, for example, but not student IDs). Texas is now appealing the lower federal court order to the Supreme Court, hoping it will reinstate the stricter law. In Wisconsin, opponents of a voter ID law lost the final lower court fight to stop the law before the elections. Critics say some 300,000 Wisconsinites, largely minorities and students, lack the kind of identification needed to vote. That case, too, could wend its way to the Supreme Court, experts say. Those cases go to the heart of campaign season complaints about a “rigged” election. Critics say cases of

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S

fraudulent voting are miniscule and not worth imposing rules that could keep large swaths of Americans from casting a ballot. But the court may nonetheless end up giving leeway to states, which control their own elections, including for president and other federal offices. “Even though there is no serious evidence of serious voter fraud, if the public is afraid of voter fraud, the state may have the right to put the laws in place,” Chambers says. Redistricting is another issue that had both parties complaining in the 2016 challenging district lines in North Carolina and Virginia. In both cases (congressional district lines in North Carolina and state legislative lines in the Old Dominion), challengers of the lines say legislators “packed” the districts with minority voters. The practice of making some districts heavily populated with minority voters gives a minority candidate a better chance of winning that district, critics say, but then makes other districts so overwhelmingly white that a minority contender wouldn’t


Even though there is no serious evidence of serious voter fraud, if the public is afraid of voter fraud, the state may have the right to put the laws in place. HENRY L. CHAMBERS JR.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND SCHOOL OF LAW

have a good shot there. Another redistricting case—not yet before the high court—could mark the first time in more than a decade that Supreme Court justices weighed in on partisan gerrymandering. The courts have generally given a lot of leeway in allowing state legislators to draw lines to partisan advantage, says Michael Kimberly, a partner in Mayer Brown’s Supreme Court & Appellate practice who is arguing the case for the plaintiffs. The Maryland complainants make an unusual First Amendment challenge, arguing that lawmakers unconstitutionally used information about people’s party registration to redraw lines for the sixth district. The new lines added suburban neighborhoods to the otherwise rural, GOP-leaning areas, making it a winnable seat for Democrats, Kimberly says. On race, too, the high court is weighing in on issues that became bitter points of contention this election cycle: whether African-Americans and Latinos are fairly treated by the

system. In one case, Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, a Hispanic man claims he did not receive a fair trial because one of the jurors reportedly insisted that the man’s ethnic background made him guilty. Miguel Pena-Rodriguez was arrested for allegedly fondling two teenage girls at a racetrack. The case relied heavily on the girls’ identification of him as the molester, and he had an alibi: another Latino who said he was in another barn with Pena-Rodriguez at the time. The jury initially deadlocked, then convicted him on lesser charges after deliberations so loud and angry that people could hear the shouting outside the jury room. A juror later told attorneys that one of their group, a former police officer, said Pena-Rodriguez had to be guilty “because he's Mexican,” that “Mexican men … think they can ʻdo whatever they want’ with women,” and that where he used to patrol, “nine times out of 10 Mexican men were guilty of being aggressive toward women and young girls.” The juror also reportedly said that the alibi witness was not credible because “he’s an illegal,” even though the witness said he was in the country legally. The case—which recalls the controversy of Donald Trump calling Mexican immigrants “rapists”—raises the legal question of whether a court inquiry into alleged racial bias among the jury interferes with the integrity of the jury system and its longstanding tradition of independence and secret deliberations. The court could also

decide that a racially biased juror violates defendants’ right to a fair trial. “The stakes are ‘high’ on both sides of that” case, Coale says. Courts typically “take enormous pains in making sure lawyers don’t stick their noses” into jury deliberations and their sacrosanct privacy. But defendants also rightfully say, “I’m entitled not to have a bunch of racists on my jury,” he adds. In another case, Buck v. Davis, an African-American man was sentenced to death after an expert witness— oddly offered up by the defense—said the convicted killer was more likely to present a future danger because of his race. In Texas, juries in the sentencing phase of a capital murder are required to prove “future dangerousness” unanimously before they can sentence someone to death. The case goes before the Supreme Court on a highly technical matter: whether the defense is procedurally barred from raising a claim of ineffective counsel. But the case also dredges up the painful and sometimes deadly clashes during the 2016 campaign season over the Black Lives Matter movement and whether police have an inherent bias against African-American citizens. They are all issues that could exacerbate national debate over race, equal justice, and the integrity of the election system. But ideally, experts say, the high court will serve the role it is intended to serve: that of an independent arbiter that calms the emotions whipped up by campaigns and elections. “Some would argue that the court did put their hands on the scale and tipped it,” says Randolph M. McLaughlin, professor of law at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University and co-chair of the civil rights practice at Newman Ferrara LLP in New York. But “the court could put some of these divisive issues to rest.” In many ways, that has happened in recent years with the court’s ruling on same-sex marriage and other social issues that dominated prior political campaigns. This year may well see whether the acrimony that dominated the campaign trail finds its way into the hallowed halls of the nation’s highest court.

T H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E

15


SCOTUS ROUNDUP

No Scalia, Yet the High Court Makes Waves Missing its conservative soul, the Supreme Court still finds a way to create controversy with some rulings. BY SUSAN MILLIGAN Justice Antonin Scalia was a powerful influence on the Supreme Court, serving as one of its most ardent and intellectual conservative voices. Even after his startling death in February 2016, the late justice continues to have an influence on the high court. Without Scalia, the court found itself at an impasse on several critical cases in 2016, leaving lower courts and litigants without a definitive ruling on such politically loaded matters as contraception, immigration, and public-sector unionization. A fourth case, involving affirmative action, likely would have been deadlocked if Scalia had cast a vote, resulting in the same ruling, but without precedentsetting authority. And court-watchers also believe the high court slow-walked its acceptance of cases to hear, aware that some would result in 4–4 ties. As the election approached, “it seems like they are filling their docket at a slower pace,” said Stephen Wermiel, professor at the American University Washington College of Law, where he teaches constitutional law and a seminar on the Supreme Court. While it’s unknown why the court chose not to hear certain cases (or even why some would-be appellants chose not to petition the court), “the slower pace presumably is at least in part because they are worried about avoiding 4–4 ties,” he says. About half of Supreme Court decisions are decided unanimously, Justice Stephen Breyer noted on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” in October, playing down the drama of the divided, even-numbered court. And just about a fifth is decided by a 5–4

16

vote, with the swing vote varying, he added. “I know that [the news] profession believes they’re all the most important, but for the average person, I would say some are pretty important, of course. But I would say a lot of those unanimous cases are also very, very important,” he added. Still, there’s no dispute that the absence of a ninth justice had an impact on justice in America. On immigration, President Barack Obama was dealt a major blow when the high court upheld 4–4 a lower court ruling, upending his Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program. Created through executive order, Obama meant the program to protect the undocumented parents of U.S. citizens from deportation and would have allowed them to work legally. It would have affected up to five million undocumented immigrants. A coalition of 26 states, led by Texas, challenged the plan, arguing that the president had unconstitutionally gone around Congress to get his way on a topic that was at a legislative impasse. A federal district court judge issued an injunction halting the program, and the injunction was upheld on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. When the Supreme Court was faced with a government appeal in the case United States v. Texas, it upheld the injunction. While the votes are undisclosed (the high court does not reveal individual votes on 4–4 decisions), court watchers believe an Obama-appointed justice would have backed the administration. Since the tie ruling does not set precedent, it is likely the matter will come back to the

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S

court when it is at full strength. Organized labor, meanwhile, got a legal break because of Scalia’s death. The case Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association challenged a decades-long precedent that says public employees can be required to pay an “agency fee” to the union representing them even if they do not themselves join the union. The money is to cover the cost of items like collective bargaining that have implications for the entire public workforce, even those who choose not to join the union. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco upheld the collective bargaining fee, and the plaintiff, teacher Rebecca Friedrichs, appealed to the high court. Court observers were confident after January oral arguments that the appeals court ruling would be overturned, delivering a devastating hit to public sector labor unions. But without Scalia, the court was deadlocked 4–4, giving an important (but not precedent-setting) win to the teachers union. Another Obama initiative, a requirement under the Affordable Care Act that employers cover contraception in their company health care plans, also dodged a bullet because of the divided court. In Zubik v. Burwell, the court was asked to determine whether religious, nonprofit colleges and other employers are exempt from the contraception requirement under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Conflicting lower court rulings made the issue ripe for a final decree from the Supreme Court. But instead of delivering a definitive ruling, the high court punted, telling lower courts that they should give the federal government and employers another chance to work it out themselves. That decision was widely viewed as a way to avoid a 4–4


A portrait of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is displayed during a memorial in the Supreme Court.

and rumored presidential hopeful, Robert McDonnell, was convicted on corruption charges for helping out an Old Dominion businessman who gave lavish gifts to the governor and his wife. The state allowed gifts to governors, but a jury determined that the exchange amounted to a payoff. The high court vacated his conviction, ruling 8–0 in McDonnell v. United States that prosecutors had used too broad a definition of “official act” to convict the former governor.

Getty Images/Pool

CRIMINAL JUSTICE

tie on the matter, a ruling that would have been especially problematic because lower court decisions were inconsistent. The lower courts could then be faced with another challenge, and the issue might well be in front of the Supreme Court again. Even hamstrung with the absence of a ninth justice, the high court indeed issued some noteworthy opinions, including:

ABORTION

In its first major decision on the matter in nearly a decade, the Supreme Court struck down a 2013 Texas law that required doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and that clinics meet hospital-like standards for outpatient surgery. Texas officials said the law was necessary to protect women’s health, while foes said the law was meant to shut down clinics providing abortions. The rules would have reduced the number of clinics in the state to about 10, making it hard for rural women especially to obtain abortions. In a 5–3 decision, the high court in Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole struck down those rules, calling them “a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions” and “an ʻundue burden’ on their constitutional right to do so.”

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

In another case out of the Lone Star State, Fisher v. University of Texas,

the high court upheld affirmative action policies in the public university system. The plaintiff was a white woman, Abigail Fisher, who says she was denied acceptance to the University of Texas in Austin because of her race. Texas’s public university system has a 10-percent rule, allowing admittance to a public university for the top 10 percent of Texas high school graduating classes, with some variation. Remaining students can be admitted on a broader test involving family circumstances, leadership, talent, and race. The court upheld the constitutionality of the rule by a 4–3 vote. Justice Elena Kagan, who had worked on the case previously, recused herself from the case.

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES

A New Jersey police officer was demoted—unfairly, he said, arguing that the step-down occurred because his superiors mistakenly assumed the officer was backing the mayor’s political opponent. He sued on First Amendment grounds, and the high court, by a 6–2 vote, agreed, saying he had the right to challenge his demotion on the ground that his right to free speech and free association were violated. The case is Heffernan v. City of Paterson.

PUBLIC CORRUPTION

It was the hottest local politics story near the nation’s capital: a former Republican Virginia governor

Timothy Foster, who is black, spent nearly 30 years on death row in Georgia, convicted of murder by an all-white jury. During Foster’s appeal process, documents obtained through an open-records request showed that prosecutors had deliberately eliminated African-American jurors, whose names on the potential juror list were marked with a green highlighter and the letter “B” next to them. The African-American potential jurors were also ranked (as #B1, #B2, #B3) with a note indicating which would be preferable to the prosecution. The Georgia Supreme Court ruled that the jury selection was not intentional racial discrimination. The high court in Foster v. Chatman disagreed, ruling 7–1 in Foster’s favor. He can now go back to the Georgia Supreme Court and ask for a new trial. The single dissenter in the case was the Supreme Court’s only AfricanAmerican justice, Clarence Thomas. In another case involving capital punishment, Hurst v. Florida, the Supreme Court ruled 8–1 against a Florida law that allows a judge to issue a sentence of death on the recommendation (but not unanimous vote) of a jury.

VOTING RIGHTS

Congressional districts are drawn based on the number of residents in each district. But should the borders be determined instead according to the number of eligible voters? No, an 8–0 Supreme Court said in Evenwel v. Abbot. Such districts would exclude from the equation people who are legal residents but not citizens (and therefore not eligible to vote).

T H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E

17


Yuri Cortez/AFP/Getty Images

WORLD POLITICS

18

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S


In an ever-more-global society and one in which the demand for progress has reached almost a fever pitch, motivation to right wrongs, weed out corruption, and strive toward peace is stronger than ever. That sort of change is strongly coursing through one region in particular: Latin America.

RIGHTING WRONGS IN

LATIN AMERICA

BY EVELINA BURNETT

Crowded street of Mexico City. T H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E

19


WORLD POLITICS

The number of countries there tackling the “big” issues right now— corruption, constitution, conflict—is striking. So much of the conflict in the area—and around the globe, for that matter— has some rooting in unequal distribution of work, wages, and ability to attain a higher standard of living.

20

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S

Carl De Souza/Getty Images

The 2016 Olympics closing ceremony in Rio de Janeiro.


Brazil Brazil has witnessed some wideranging changes on the legal front in just the past few years. The massive bribery scheme known as Operação Lava Jato, or Operation Car Wash, has shaken the country economically, politically, and legally and has also ensnared some of the country’s top political and business leaders. Lava Jato was an estimated $3 billion bribery scheme involving the statecontrolled oil company Petrobras. The scheme got its nickname because the investigation began with a moneylaundering investigation at a car wash. It has since led to more than 160 arrests. “The Lava Jato investigation is definitely a landmark in terms of criminal procedures” in recent history, says Antonio Corrêa Meyer, a partner at Machado, Meyer, Sendacz e Opice Advogados in São Paulo. He says, prior to Lava Jato, there was a sense that powerful people weren’t punished for wrongdoing. Now, with influential politicians and businesspeople in jail, that has changed. “No one in good sense expects the

Lava Jato to abolish corruption in our country,” Meyer says. “However, it is an important move toward a better society with a higher ethical level of behavior [in] its politicians and entrepreneurs.” The controversy has also shined a light on corporate compliance. Brazil passed a Clean Companies Act in 2013, providing a guide to businesses about their legal responsibilities. But the law was not truly enforced until Operation Lava Jato, says Tania Maria do Amaral Dinkhuysen, a partner at Advocacia Amaral Dinkhuysen. “With the Operation in progress, enterprises are investing more in corporate compliance, seeking to comply with the standards and to avoid future problems,” she says. According to a survey by Deloitte1, more than 60 percent of Brazilian companies now have internal legal compliance departments, twice as many as in 2013. The investigation has also generated an increase in asset transactions, Meyer says, as the companies involved in the controversy shed assets to generate cash. Finally, a new Code of Civil Procedure was approved in Brazil in

With the Operation in progress, enterprises are investing more in corporate compliance, seeking to comply with the standards and to avoid future problems. TANIA MARIA DO AMARAL DINKHUYSEN

PARTNER AT ADVOCACIA AMARAL DINKHUYSEN

2014 and enacted last year. The code, which has been in force since March 2016, is intended to streamline the overloaded judicial system, which, according to some estimates, exceeds 105 million cases—that’s one case for every two people. It encourages mediation, underscores the importance of court precedent, and allows appellate courts to resolve similar cases at one time. Overall, it’s hoped this new code will help speed up the judicial process and make it more effective for everyone involved. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazilcorruption-compliance-insight-idUSKCN0WQ1G1 1

Joedson Alves/AP

Anti-government protestors in Brasilia, Brazil.

T H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E

21


America Rocio/AP

WORLD POLITICS

According to the National Statistics Institute, 51 percent of Mexican citizens are worried about public corruption.

Mexico Mexico, too, is tackling corruption head-on, though it’s too early to say if these efforts will have a large-scale impact. One of the main challenges will be overcoming the skepticism with which many see these efforts after years of debilitating corruption1. A survey earlier this year by the National Statistics Institute found that 51 percent of Mexican citizens are worried about public corruption. In 2014, a survey found that 78 percent of people think corruption is the most damaging factor to the economy2. Still, there is some reason for optimism: the Secretary General of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) applauded the reforms, noting that “perhaps the most important game changer of the reforms is that they reach beyond the federal level and include all levels of government. Indeed, the new legislation requires the Mexican states to follow suit with their own local anticorruption systems, thereby tackling some of the strongest footholds of corruption in Mexico.”

22

The anticorruption efforts began in Mexico in 2012, when the Federal Law Against Corruption in Public Procurement3 was passed. But this law offered little in the way of enforcement, and it was not until three years later that lawmakers passed a number of constitutional reforms that strengthened and expanded anticorruption efforts. This included the creation of a National Anticorruption System, which provided the mechanism for enforcement, including an independent prosecutor for corruption issues, a special court, and an auditing agency. Mexican lawmakers had until this year to pass secondary laws to implement the new anticorruption system. A citizen initiative known as “ ley 3de3,” or 3for3, gathered 630,000 signatures on a draft of these laws, five times the number needed for the initiative to be discussed by Congress. Lawmakers eventually passed a version of the legislation, but they had expanded the 3de3 requirement—disclosure of assets, interest, and taxes—to contractors and other private citizens. Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto vetoed this version, and Congress approved a

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S

new version in July. The final legislation limits the disclosure to public officials only, though it does allow them to disclose privately in some cases, which some supporters of 3de3 consider a way of getting around the intent of the legislation. In fact, Alfonso M. Lopez Melih, an attorney with López Melih, Facha y Estrada, S.C., says the secondary legislation added “procedures, methods, and authorities that will complicate” the effectiveness of corruption prosecutions. Among these, he explains, the legislation says prosecutors in corruption cases will be appointed by the president, and judges on the independent court will also be appointed by the president and ratified by the Senate. “For this and many other reasons, [the] National Anticorruption System has major challenges,” he says. http://www.forbes.com/sites/riskmap/2016/06/14/ anticorruption-rhetoric-echoes-mexican-votersdisenchantment-with-political-class/#7c1626a75b7a 1

http://www.as-coa.org/articles/five-pointsley-3de3-and-battling-corruption-mexico 2

https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/fcpa_lf_ mexicocracksdownoncorruptioningovtcontracting_ 12oct12 3


In Colombia, a historic but uncertain peace deal could end 50 years of conflict, dramatically affecting the country politically and economically. The legal framework of this peace process, and the legal and legislative steps that need to be taken to make sure it holds if it eventually goes through, are the issues that attorneys in Colombia cite as among the most pressing today. The peace talks between the government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, guerillas began in 2012, in Havana, Cuba. In August, the two sides came to an agreement on a final deal that includes a timetable and a process by which some 7,000 former FARC fighters will demobilize and become a part of the country’s civilian life. There have also been deals on land reform, drug trafficking, political participation, and war crimes. However, in a required referendum on the deal, 50.2 percent of Colombians voted to reject the deal, creating uncertainty about what will happen next. The country remains divided about the deal, with some against it because of the amnesty given to guerilla fighters. Those in favor argue it will end a half-century of conf lict that has taken 220,000 lives and displaced millions of people. If the peace process is able to continue, it could lead to massive transformations in Colombian society. Diego Felipe Valdivieso Rueda, a partner and labor law specialist at VS+M Abogados in Bogotá, notes Colombia currently has an unemployment rate of 8.8 percent. Informal employment is at 58.9 percent, and there are some concerns the peace process could trigger even higher rates of both, as guerillas and possibly soldiers find themselves unemployed. The peace deal is also supposed to mean the end of illegal mining, extortion, and drug dealing, as well as some international aid, pushing even more people into unemployment or informal

Mario Tama/Getty Images

Colombia

Soldiers keep watch during the referendum on a peace accord to end the 52-year-old guerrilla war between the FARC and the state in Bogota, Colombia.

employment. This has the potential, he says, to raise unemployment and informal employment “dramatically.” Valdivieso Rueda believes that the labor reform the peace process requires would necessitate a number of “structural transformations,” such as differentiating the minimum wage by region. Tax and international trade specialist Carolina Rozo Gutiérrez, a partner at Philippi, Prietocarrizosa Ferrero DU & Uría in Bogotá, believes a tax reform will also be needed in order to finance reparations for victims, rural development, and the costs associated with reintegrating guerilla fighters into civilian life and the legal economy. But, she says, a tax reform is likely to be met with some concern. “We have faced a tax reform every two years [over] the last 10 years,” she says. “The tax framework has no stability whatsoever, and both local and foreign investors who based their decisions on specific tax provisions are being surprised by new tax rules that are modifiable and uncertain.” There remains a considerable amount of uncertainty in Latin America over whether the major

The tax framework has no stability whatsoever, and both local and foreign investors who based their decisions on specific tax provisions are being surprised by new tax rules that are modifiable and uncertain. CAROLINA ROZO GUTIÉRREZ

PARTNER AT PHILIPPI, PRIETOCARRIZOSA FERRERO DU & URÍA

changes sweeping through many countries will hold. Will peace come to Colombia? Will corruption decrease in Mexico and Brazil? As we watch and wait to see how all of these changes unfold, one thing is clear: there are many people throughout the region, working with diligence, conviction, and passion every day to improve their countries, and we know that in the end, that is what will make the difference.

T H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E

23


COVER STORY When historians cast their gaze back at the United States in 2016, they’ll no doubt focus considerable attention on the unusually contentious presidential contest. It was memorable for a host of reasons, not least how easily a nation's traditional legal norms seemed to be casually tossed aside in some of the campaign rhetoric. That included threats by one candidate to soften American libel law protections so as to punish critics and suggestions that the terms of longstanding international treaties might blithely be ignored.

THE YEAR IN From the Supreme Court to race, legal issues dominated the news in 2016.

24

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S


Immigration Policy

BY JOHN ETTORRE ndeed, the law and legal developments occupied a central narrative in the public sphere all year, intertwined as they were with the election, but also with so much more.

I

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

The continuing vacancy on the high court in turn drove an important development in federal immigration policy—or perhaps, more accurately, a crucial non-development. In 2014, the Obama administration took executive action to expand the reach of two immigration programs: the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and Deferred Action for Child Arrivals (DACA). Together, these moves would have shielded as many as five million undocumented immigrants to the U.S. from forced deportation, or nearly half of the estimated 11 million now living in the country. Those presidential actions were later challenged in court. When the Fifth Circuit

The statue of “Authority of Law” by Earle Fraser outside the U.S. Supreme Court.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

It began in February with the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the longestserving high court justices. Elevated to the court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 and confirmed by the Senate in a 98–0 vote—a level of acclamation that could scarcely be achieved today—he went on to become a lightning rod for conservative causes, helping push the court to the right for a generation and becoming a celebrity in a way the court had perhaps never seen before. Almost immediately, the White House nominated a replacement. Hoping for swift Senate approval, President Barack Obama named widely admired federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland, a political moderate. But the Republican-led Senate refused to move on the nomination, failing to even schedule committee hearings, let alone approve

a vote by the full chamber. Instead, the nominee went on dozens of traditional courtesy visits to various senators, a majority of whom refused to do anything more to act on his nomination, arguing that the next president should be given the right to choose their own nominee to the court. The White House called this an “unprecedented level of obstruction,” citing the Senate’s solemn responsibility to do its duty embedded in the Constitution: to provide advice and consent on court nominees. It also pointed to six Supreme Court justices that have been confirmed in presidential election years since 1900. Democrats and other supporters and surrogates even launched an aggressive months-long social media campaign, imploring Senators to “do your job,” all to no avail thus far.

John Moore/Getty Images

Supreme Court Vacancy

federal appeals court in New Orleans refused to uphold their legality, the administration appealed to the Supreme Court. But without a ninth justice to break a tie, in June the court issued a split 4–4 decision in U.S. v. Texas, thereby effectively affirming the lower court’s decision, rendering the White House unable to shield these immigrants from being deported and allowing them to work in this country. The court provided no explanation for its ruling, issuing only a curt statement with its decision: “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court.” It prompted a former U.S. solicitor general, Walter Dellinger, to observe that “seldom have the hopes of so many been crushed by so few words.”

A man looks through the border fence between Mexico and the U.S.

T H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E

25


COVER STORY THE YEAR IN REVIEW

Sexual Harassment

Libel Law

26

Elizabeth Livermore/Getty Images

the public is beginning to seep into the courtroom. Perhaps the biggest case involved Gawker, a collection of provocative online-only news and gossip websites. In 2012, it posted a sex video involving wrestler Hulk Hogan that was viewed by an estimated seven million people. He sued, claiming violation of his privacy, and a Florida jury awarded him $140 million. The case took an unexpected turn when it was revealed that the

Getty Images

For half a century, American libel and defamation law has been largely a settled matter, dominated as it is by the landmark 1964 Supreme Court ruling in Sullivan v. New York Times, which considerably raised the bar for aggrieved parties to prove harm in such cases. Under the rubric established in that case, public figures must prove a defendant acted with reckless disregard for the truth in publishing or broadcasting allegedly libelous or defamatory material. In the decades since, it has proved to be a notoriously difficult legal threshold to achieve. There have been occasional setbacks along the way, including a 1990 Supreme Court ruling in the Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. case that gave hope to claimants suing over published opinions that seemed more like factual assertions than mere hyperbole. But in general, the U.S. legal system has become a bulwark in this area, sometimes causing aggrieved parties to go venue shopping, suing in Great Britain, where weaker legal protections are in place for speech. But 2016 was a bad year for libel law in the U.S. Donald Trump’s oft-stated threats to reopen libel laws so as to weaken media protections didn’t help matters, setting a generally hostile tone for media liberties in certain parts of the culture. But a trio of high-profile court cases lost by prominent media institutions had an even more deleterious effect, suggesting that the media’s oft-noted unpopularity with

lawsuit had been financed by Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Theil, who had himself been the subject of an earlier unwanted Gawker article about his sexual orientation. In October, a jury awarded a total of $9 million to an agent of the State Bureau of Investigation that had been the subject of an investigation by the Raleigh News & Observer. Because of state caps on maximum court awards, the payout would be limited to $6 million if the case survives appeal. But it has nonetheless raised alarms among First Amendment advocates for the way plaintiffs’ attorneys used the paper’s own internal communications against it. A federal jury in Virginia also awarded $3 million to an administrator at the University of Virginia who sued for defamation over an article in Rolling Stone magazine about an alleged gang rape at the university.

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S

Perhaps not since the milestone Anita HillClarence Thomas Senate hearings in 1991 has sexual harassment figured so prominently in the news as it did this year. Two particularly highprofile cases helped focus renewed public attention on the issue. Bill Cosby and Roger Ailes have been two of the more durable public figures in American life over the last half century. Cosby has been a leading comedian and comic actor since the 1960s, and his eight-year stint as a TV dad on “The Cosby Show,” which ran from 1984 to 1992, has even been credited with making white America comfortable enough with black families to elect a black president. For his part, Ailes famously served as a media adviser to Richard Nixon before becoming the chief architect of a network that has forever changed politics: Fox News. More recently, they shared a less lofty distinction, as both were on the receiving end of an avalanche of accusations of sexual misconduct. More than 50 women

have publicly accused Cosby of sexual misconduct, including allegations of drugging them before initiating sex. But he has been criminally charged in only one case, involving a Temple University employee who alleges he drugged her in his home before sexually assaulting her. A number of other women have filed civil lawsuits against him, and Cosby has lodged more than a half dozen countersuits, alleging defamation. Fox News’ Roger Ailes was accused of sexual misconduct by more than two dozen women. But the case that probably brought him down in the end was filed by Gretchen Carlson, a 50-year-old former Miss America who had served as an anchor for the program “Fox & Friends” before being demoted. For more than a year, Carlson taped Ailes’ private comments to her, including a pointed suggestion that they should have a sexual relationship. Meanwhile, campus activists and others concerned about the issue of sexual consent continued to push what they considered an important tweak in California’s “No Means No” law, first enacted in 2014. The law shifted the burden of proof in campus sexual assault cases from accusers to the accused. Recently, however, supporters have pushed for a change to a more positive slogan than the one long used by sexual assault prevention activists. “Yes Means Yes” is now the preferred phrase among many.


Information Security

If information security was once the exclusive province of techies and of limited concern to the wider public, that’s certainly no longer the case. Edward Snowden, WikiLeaks, and massive data breaches of corporate, academic, and government IT systems have seen to that. The multilayered fallout from revelations of massive government intrusions of privacy, first revealed by government contractor Edward Snowden—which some call the Snowden effect—continued in 2016. More WikiLeaks data dumps have similarly helped focus the public’s attention on the larger problems of data privacy and information security. But so too has the fact that giant data breaches that compromise tens of millions of people’s private information have become routine. Among the more highprofile data breach targets this year were the payroll company ADP, from which

hackers stole payroll tax and benefit information on 640,000 clients, and the IRS, where hackers compromised the personal information for 700,000 taxpayers. But a whole new level of alarm was touched off by a breach of the Office of Personnel Management, the federal government’s HR department, which was the subject of an apparent state-sponsored attack by hackers from China. Among the information acquired in the breach is confidential personal information on 22 million people, including the highly sensitive information contained on applications for security clearance. That raises massive new possibilities for potential espionage. Meanwhile, the European Union’s new data privacy rules, passed this year and set to take effect in 2018, will affect any large organization in this country doing business with any European entity or individual.

Brian Blanco/Getty Images

Kirill Kudryavtsev/AFP/Getty Images

Activists block traffic in Charlotte, North Carolina following the death of Keith Scott in July 2016.

Race A string of deadly police shootings, many captured on amateur cell phone video, retaliatory shootings of police, and an especially bruising presidential campaign left racial tensions in America perhaps higher this year than at any time since the late 1960s. It didn’t help matters any that law enforcement officers generally avoided legal penalties for their decisions to use deadly force, even when seemingly persuasive video evidence of questionable actions existed. Police officers in Baltimore, Cleveland, and Ferguson, Missouri were eventually exonerated for racially charged shootings. But the federal government, through the Department of Justice, intervened in several places. The department found unlawful patterns and practices of policing in Ferguson and Cleveland violated citizens’ constitutional

rights and ordered appropriate remedies. And in a sweeping report issued in August, the department found that Baltimore police routinely used excessive force and conducted unlawful stops of citizens. Issued in response to the 2015 death of Freddie Gray while in police custody, which touched off severe riots in the city, the report noted that the city’s police practices “perpetuate and fuel a multitude of issues rooted in poverty and race” and encourage police to engage in “unnecessary, adversarial interactions with community members.” The report renewed attention on so-called stopand-frisk procedures. Civil libertarians had already sued New York City over the use of those police tactics, which they maintain amount to unlawful racial profiling. Police unions appealed, to no avail, and these procedures are now being revised under remedial court supervision in America’s largest city.

T H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E

27


POTUS

President and Lawyer-in-Chief Obama the president proved more conservative in some ways than Obama the candidate. BY TIMOTHY PHELPS As a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, Barack Obama was a favorite of his students, though his pedagogy was not that suggested by his background as a community activist, civil rights lawyer, and politician representing a largely minority district in the Illinois state legislature. Teaching courses in racism and the law, voting rights, and due process— all topics fraught with political implications—he defied expectations by challenging the impacts of iconic liberal legal victories, like those ordering school desegregation and expanding voting rights. “When I walked into class [on racism and the law] the first day I remember that we thought we were going to get a very left-leaning perspective on the law,” Jesse Ruiz told The Record, the law school’s alumni magazine, in 2009. “But he was very middle of the road. In his class we were very cognizant that we were dealing with a difficult topic, but what we really got out of that class was that he taught us to think like lawyers about those hard topics even when we had issues about those topics.” So it should be no surprise that looking back on Obama’s eight years as lawyer-in-chief, the legacy that emerges is one of pragmatism that at times disappointed liberals as well as conservatives. He transformed the face of the federal judiciary, both in terms of ideology and diversity, and in his first two years in office appointed two liberals to the Supreme Court. He appeared to care most particularly about prison and

28

criminal justice reform, commuting the sentences of a record number of prisoners and overseeing a dramatic change in prosecutors’ use of mandatory-minimum prison sentences. But his administration came to the table late, in his second term, limiting his accomplishments. Stymied in his legislative agenda by Republicans, he added to an expanding view of presidential authority, setting a precedent that his successor, Donald Trump, may choose to emulate. In particular, he claimed sweeping powers to shield millions of illegal immigrants from deportation and allowing them to work. Much of that program was rejected by federal courts. After initially expressing some reservations about same-sex marriage, Obama in 2011 made the heady and unusual decision that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional and should not be defended in federal court, leading eventually to the historic Supreme Court decision in 2015 making it legal nationwide. The Obama administration followed up by issuing a host of regulations aimed at easing life for gay couples. Later it told the states they were required to honor the bathroom and locker room preferences of transgender students. Obama successfully appointed 11 openly gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender judges, compared to one for his five predecessors combined. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were strong advocates for womens’ rights, wrangling with the Catholic Church and evangelicals over regulations requiring religious institutions to provide contraception coverage in their health plans and

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S

aggressively going after colleges or universities the administration deemed were too lax in protecting students who said they were victims of sexual assault. Faced with the devastating ruling by the Supreme Court in 2012 striking down a key section of the Voting Rights Act, Obama’s Justice Department aggressively fought new restrictions on voting in Southern and other states, winning many on a case by case basis. Under Attorney General Eric Holder, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, which had been languishing and ineffective under President George W. Bush, was rejuvenated and became much more aggressive in taking abusive police departments to court, even before the wave of police killings of unarmed black men dominated the news. That gave the Justice Department credibility to step into new situations and calm protestors with assurances their grievance’s would be heard. The division’s massive report on wrongdoing by the tiny Ferguson, Missouri Police Department in 2015 vindicated long-standing grievances by blacks around the country that they were being targeted by racist cops and systemic discrimination. “I think that he has really in many, many respects restored the importance for the rule of law and respect for the rule of law in our country,” said James M. Cole, Obama’s former deputy attorney general. “A lot of people thought he took the law into his own hands. But so many times he proposed legislation and Congress would do nothing with it, so the administration did what it was allowed to under the Constitution. He was very mindful, particularly having been a constitutional law professor, of the importance of the rule of law, the need to follow the law.’’ But on national security issues,


Scott Goldsmith – Aurora for USN&WR

University professor Barack Obama teaches a class at the University of Chicago Law School.

[President Barack Obama] has left a whole bunch of precedents for the next president and it looks like the next president will be more hawkishly inclined than Obama to use unilateral war powers. JACK GOLDSMITH HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR

many liberals and some conservatives say his legacy is a dangerous expansion of the executive’s authority

to kill people overseas without judicial process, to conduct mass surveillance at home and abroad, and to charge people under the Espionage Act who leaked secrets to reporters, not to foreign governments. Those precedents may be exploited by his successor, they say. Of particular concern was the targeted killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki, an American citizen, in a drone strike in Yemen in 2011. “I think the administration has been sensitive to civil liberties concerns in many different areas,” says Jameel Jaffer, a law professor at Columbia University and the author of a new book on Obama’s drone program, “The Drone Memos.” But not, Jaffer said, on national security issues. “We now have a bureaucratic and

legal infrastructure that allows the president to order the killing of anyone deemed to be associated with Al-Qaeda or an affiliated force without ever presenting to any court evidence to justify the killing. It’s a very dangerous thing.” The legal legacy of any president is measured foremost by any appointments to the Supreme Court and the rest of the federal judiciary, because they have lifetime tenure. His first Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, has been a fiery and articulate champion of minorities and the oppressed, and with her Puerto Rican heritage, a beloved role model for Hispanics. His second, Elena Kagan, represented a more pragmatic effort to nominate someone from the legal

T H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E

29


establishment (she taught law with Obama at Chicago before moving to Harvard University) who, though still liberal, could reach out to and negotiate with more conservative justices like Anthony Kennedy. His unsuccessful nomination of middle-of-the road Democrat Merrick Garland was partly a bow to the political realities of the Senate, but was also revealing in representing Obama’s own cautious approach to the law. Because Garland was picked to replace ultra-conservative Antonin Scalia, the choice had the potential to be the most impactful on the court in a generation. Taken together, his three nominations, of a fiery liberal, a cautious liberal, and a moderate Democrat, perfectly represent his pragmatic approach to the law. In the lower courts, Obama achieved dramatic change, setting records for diversity and changing the ideological balance of a majority of the federal appeals courts. Over 40 percent of his judges are women, twice as many as President George W. Bush and over a third more than President Bill Clinton. Obama also appointed twice as many minority judges to the bench proportionately than Bush—more than one out of three—and topped Clinton in this regard by 50 percent. But the Obama White House got a painfully slow start to judicial nominations, and in those people it did manage to nominate, initially bowed to Republican opposition by nominating middle-of-the-roaders rather than out-and-out liberals. White House insiders said later that the administration was preoccupied in its first two years with the Sotomayor and Kagan nominations as well as by the emphasis on finding diverse candidates. But critics said lower court judges were just not a priority at the White House until Kathryn Ruemmler took over as White House Counsel in June 2011. Of course, implacable Republican opposition to Obama nominees in the Senate also hampered the effort. When Democrats controlled the Senate, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.,

30

President Barack Obama introduces his Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, who was confirmed by the Senate and became the first Hispanic justice.

allowed any Republican to block a nominee from their home state, and for the last two years, Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, put the brakes on further. By the time of the elections in November, there were 108 judicial vacancies, half of them without nominations from the White House. Still, judges appointed by Obama now make up a third of the appeals court judges across the country. When Obama took office, only three of the 13 appeals courts had a majority of judges nominated by Democrats. Late in his last term, Democratic nominees controlled nine. In particular, the confirmation of three Obama nominees in 2013 to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is often the last word on regulatory issues, gave Democrats a majority on the few hot button cases that tend to divide that court along party lines. Obama lost some key environmental regulation decisions there before getting his nominees in place.

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S

If the judiciary is a president’s greatest legal responsibility, the criminal justice system that feeds it and houses its prisoners may be the second. Obama named Eric Holder Jr., an experienced prosecutor and liberal African-American passionate about racial justice, as attorney general, raising expectations of major change. But in the first term Obama’s White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel kept a tight lid on new initiatives by Holder, who was initially seen in the White House as a political loose cannon. Holder, meanwhile, was consumed by battles with Congress, including the controversy over a failed gun trafficking sting that allowed illegal guns to flow freely into criminal hands. The controversies seemed to absorb all his attention, insiders say. Some liberal advocates were deeply disappointed by his performance. But with political restraints diminished after Obama’s reelection

Scott Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

POTUS


I think the administration has been sensitive to civil liberties concerns in many different areas. JAMEEL JAFFER LAW PROFESSOR AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

in 2012, Holder, who had been expected to step down, instead sought and received from Obama backing for a more activist agenda. The following summer Holder announced to the American Bar Association in San Francisco that he had directed his prosecutors not to seek mandatory minimum prison sentences for low level, nonviolent drug offenders. It was a serious attempt to cut back on the burgeoning prison population and particularly the number of AfricanAmericans in prison. In 2014 the Justice Department unveiled the most ambitious federal clemency program in 40 years, inviting an estimated 7,000 prisoners serving long prison sentences for crimes whose punishments had since been reduced to apply for presidential mercy. By the election Obama had already granted more commutations than the previous 11 presidents combined. But because of bureaucratic delays in processing applications, the number was far less than expected. Obama was less inclined than many of his recent predecessors to issue pardons. In 2016, the Justice Department announced it would phase out the use of private prisons, where some of the worst abuses had occurred. But the administration failed to achieve its primary goal: broad legislative reform of sentencing and parole guidelines, despite bipartisan support for the concept in both the House and Senate. Wrangling over the legislation brought it too close to the flame of the 2016 presidential election. Faced with the reality of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and terrorism

spreading around the globe, Obama the president proved more conservative on national security law than Obama the candidate, and has earned enduring criticism. Determined to get most U.S. troops out of those countries, he turned to a model the administration called “light-footprint warfare,” relying on drones and other airstrikes that put few American soldiers in jeopardy but often led to innocent civilians being killed. Much of the criticism has focused on Obama’s flexible legal interpretations of the congressional authorization for the use of military force against Al-Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks, as well as earlier war power acts and the constitution itself. “His most consequential legal legacy [in national security] was extending the 2001 authorization for use of military force to include the Islamic State, which has expanded the war in ways that many people in his defense department think is going to take decades to finish,” says Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law professor who worked on these issues in the Bush administration after 9/11. “When we are fighting this war against ISIS in 15 years we will look back on this as his most significant legacy.” Hillary Clinton, while secretary of state under Obama, pushed for a more aggressive foreign policy than Obama was comfortable with, particularly in Syria. “He has left a whole bunch of precedents for the next president and it looks like the next president will be more hawkishly inclined than Obama to use unilateral war powers,” Goldsmith said. Jaffer, formerly a top national security advocate for the ACLU, says that Obama ran roughshod over civil liberties in some other areas as well, notably surveillance and freedom of the press. “Leaks are another problematic aspect of President Obama’s legacy,” Jaffer says. “This administration has prosecuted more people under the Espionage Act than all previous administrations combined. More troubling is that he has collapsed

the distinction between individuals who disclose information to foreign intelligence services and individuals who disclose information in the public interest to the press.” Obama also earned criticism from the left and some on the right for continuing mass surveillance of telephone calls and emails and other communications. While the public outcry after Eric Snowden released details of the program led Congress to enact some modest restraints, the Obama administration for the most part defended the programs first initiated by his predecessor. How did a liberal legal activist end up as a hawk on national security legal strategy? “I started every morning with a threat briefing finding out about all the people who are trying to kill us, and there were a lot,” Cole says. “We in the government have this responsibility to make sure we are keeping the country safe, but we have to balance that by protecting our civil liberties. There will always be criticism on how we maintain that balance.” Jaffer says one explanation is that there wasn’t a political constituency for reform of national security policy as there was for gay rights or racial justice. But what happened is not just Obama’s legacy, but that of the country as a whole, he argues. The terrible sense of responsibility that any president feels is part of the explanation, Jaffer says, but “it doesn’t explain why we as a country did what we did.” Neither the courts nor the Congress fulfilled their roles as a watchdog on the executive in this area, he says. And when Obama did try and do “the right thing,” such as prosecuting 9/11 defendants in civilian courts and closing Guantanamo, he got slapped down by Congress, Jaffer says. “Overall, I think he’s been a great president in many different ways. I feel confident history will see it that way,” Jaffer says. “I just hope that won’t obscure what I think he has done to the international human rights framework and even to the Constitution by creating very broad policies related to targeted killings.”

T H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E

31


LEGAL SPOTLIGHT

Gitmo may Outlive , Obama s Presidency The prison at the naval base in Guantanamo Bay is a symbol of a dark chapter in American history, but closing it has proven harder than expected. BY JOSEPH P. WILLIAMS It was one of the earliest promises Barack Obama made after entering the White House in 2009—one that had also been made often on the campaign trail—to close the U.S. Detention Center at the naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a military prison he called a “stain” on a nation whose founding principle is the rule of law. So just days after taking office, President Barack Obama ordered a study on how to close Gitmo, as it is known. Its existence and reputation for abuse, he argued, was a recruiting tool for terrorists and, therefore, a threat to national security. But as his groundbreaking administration fades into history, Gitmo is outliving Obama’s good intentions. Nearly a year ago, the president again vowed to close the center, submitting the latest among several failed plans to Congress. As expected, it again fell prey to political realities: opposition from lawmakers, the Pentagon, and leaders within his own party. “This is about closing a chapter in our history,” Obama said in February 2016, repeating the same idealistic arguments he’s made since he announced his first White House campaign nine years earlier: it’s expensive, unnecessary, and contradicts U.S. ideals. “Keeping this facility open is contrary to our values. It undermines our standing in the world,” he told reporters gathered in the White House’s East Wing. “It is viewed as

32

a stain on our broader record of upholding the highest standards of the rule of law.” On cue, House Speaker Paul Ryan, the top Republican in Congress, poured a bucket of cold water—again— on Obama’s plan to bring Gitmo’s remaining inmates, ones who can’t be repatriated or stand trial, to the U.S. “After seven years, President Obama has yet to convince the American people that moving Guantanamo terrorists to our homeland is smart or safe,” Ryan said in a statement. “It is against the law—and it will stay against the law—to transfer terrorist detainees to American soil. We will not jeopardize our national security over a campaign promise.” Though there was plenty of partisan topspin in his statement, experts say Ryan’s response encapsulates why some repressive regimes Washington has criticized, including Russia, say Gitmo is synonymous with American do-as-Isay hypocrisy. It’s also why experts say the world’s most infamous prison will probably exist for years, perhaps decades, beyond Obama’s tenure. The president’s crusade to darken Gitmo, a facility that costs U.S. taxpayers nearly half a billion dollars each year, is hamstrung by a complex web of conflicting priorities. That includes wary lawmakers and anxious voters more worried about threats from locking up suspected terrorists in U.S. prisons—no matter how secure—than they are about Guantanamo as a beacon for antiAmerican terrorists. The hurdles, however, also include

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S

the facility’s ugly legacy of detainee abuse—actions that all but invalidate criminal evidence against some of them—and its unstable, builton-the-fly justice system, which can’t guarantee speedy trials or meet constitutional standards of jurisprudence. Others, however, say the president’s failed promise to close Gitmo stems from nearly a decade of backbiting within segments of the Obama administration, including the White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department, as well as Obama’s internal battle among his ideals, his duties as commander in chief, and his reluctance to use political muscle on an unpopular decision. “It’s absolutely insane,” says Chris Anders, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington Legislative Office, ticking off arguments for closure, including Guantanamo’s $455 million annual bill for taxpayers and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s use of it as a rebuttal to U.S. criticism of totalitarian states like his own. “There are good reasons to close it. It hasn’t closed because of political infighting and score-settling,” Anders says. “It’s basically a question of

Keeping this facility open is contrary to our values. It undermines our standing in the world. It is viewed as a stain on our broader record of upholding the highest standards of the rule of law. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA


John Moore/Getty Images

The prison at “Gitmo” houses suspected terrorists and has become the scene of a political battle between the White House and Congress.

political will and courage.” But the administration says closing Guantanamo is an imperative that has bipartisan support. The White House “worked for several months” to examine options “and finalize a comprehensive plan to responsibly and securely close the detention facility,” says Emily Horne, a White House National Security Council spokeswoman, in an email interview. “As the president said in his remarks in February, keeping this facility open is contrary to our values. It undermines our standing in the world. It is viewed as a stain on our broader record of upholding the highest standards of rule of law.” Situated on a 45-square-mile U.S. naval base on land leased from Cuba since 1903, Guantanamo was initially

intended to become a facility for “the worst of the worst”: men captured on the post-9/11 battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighters considered too dangerous for transfer to federal prisons. They include Mohammed al Ansi, described as Osama bin Laden’s former bodyguard; Khalid Ahmad Qasim, a suspected Al-Qaida subcommander; and Salman Yahya Hassan Muhammad Rabeii, who has “expressed hatred for the U.S.” and “has expressed an interest in becoming a martyr,” according to a military assessment. Almost immediately after Gitmo opened, however, there were problems. Human rights advocates said the center violated the Geneva

Conventions for prisoners of war. Civil liberties groups argued that indefinite detention without charge, standard operating procedure at the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, was unconstitutional. Dozens of inmates were found to have either been handed over to the U.S. military by warring third parties or were caught in the wrong place at the wrong time; others reported military guards and CIA interrogators tortured them into confessions of hostile or terrorist acts. As the wars ground on, the detainee population grew to 780 by the mid2000s. What had been an open-air prison camp in the Caribbean was subsequently transformed into a hardened permanent facility, more like a standard, high-security prison

T H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E

33


LEGAL SPOTLIGHT

34

A prisoner walks to an outdoor area of the “Gitmo” maximum security detention center at Guantanamo Bay.

more than 500 inmates, pushing through objections in Congress and negotiating with other countries to accept former detainees when their home countries, fearing terrorism, refused. And when he succeeded President George W. Bush in 2009, Obama moved to make good on his promise of closing Guantanamo with all deliberate speed. But when the new president proposed transferring some Gitmo detainees into the same system that dealt with Reid, Abdulmutallab, and Lindh, Congress balked, including most Republicans and many Democrats, such as Senator Harry

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S

John Moore/Getty Images

than a military installation. White House attorneys and top Pentagon brass scrambled to create a justice system for inmates like suspected 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed—men who weren’t traditional POWs or members of an armed force. They came up with military tribunals, a jury of three to seven armed forces officers hearing evidence with a presiding judge, also in uniform. Under the procedures, a defendant “would receive many, but not all, of the due process protections” guaranteed in a U.S. court, according to the Constitutional Rights Foundation. While they include the presumption of innocence and the right to defense counsel, the tribunals are closed to the public, the prosecution need only convince two of three fellow military officers for a conviction, and a defendant’s right to appeal is sharply limited. Critics say the commissions are slow and ineffective, taking an average of eight years to conclude. Military prosecutors and defense lawyers wrestle over mountains of classified evidence, including statements made under torture. Just three detainees have been convicted in 13 years, while Mohammed has been on trial, on and off, since 2007. By comparison, Richard Reid, the so-called “Shoe Bomber,” and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to detonate an underwear bomb, both were tried and convicted in federal court not long after their arrests. Though many of his Muslim comrades in arms ended up in Gitmo, John Walker Lindh, an American captured in Afghanistan fighting with the Taliban, is doing time in a federal prison under a plea deal. “The problem is [military commissions] are a broken system— it’s a made-up form of justice,” the ACLU’s Anders says. The military judges “are doing their best” to ensure fair trials, he says, but they—the defense lawyers and the prosecutors— all are navigating uncharted legal territory that may not survive a Supreme Court challenge. Under pressure, the Bush administration cleared and released

Reid, a top Obama ally. Bravo, said voters. A CNN/ORC poll conducted early this year, just after Obama submitted his latest plan, found that 56 percent think closing Guantanamo Bay is a bad idea, while 40 percent support it. But overall support tilts to one side, with 83 percent of Republicans saying it shouldn't be closed, up sharply from 76 percent in 2015. Meanwhile, the already-low odds that Congress would go along with Obama and shut down Gitmo sank to almost nil when the GOP won the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014. Adding to the opposition was a new


There are good reasons to close it. It hasn’t closed because of political infighting and score-settling. It’s basically a question of political will and courage. CHRIS ANDERS

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION’S WASHINGTON LEGISLATIVE OFFICE

intelligence report late last year that found some repatriated inmates had returned to the battlefield. Reacting to the news, the House in September voted to block the president from transferring any of the remaining Guantanamo Bay detainees out of the facility, even banning him from sending them to foreign countries who’ve agreed to take them. The bill probably won’t go far, but it was another public reminder that Obama’s pledge to close Gitmo had been, in the most favorable analysis, an uphill battle with few political allies. The report in question comes from the office of the Director of National Intelligence, which confirmed that two detainees released since Obama took office have returned to “terrorist activities.” Further, the report says, nine of 161 inmates released since January 2009, whose identities are classified, are now supporting terror groups, and 11 are “suspected” of fighting U.S.-led forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. But Horne, the White House spokeswoman, says that’s the exception, not the rule. Releases happen, she says, only after “the best judgment of U.S. government experts, including counterterrorism, intelligence, and law enforcement professionals” determine that the detainee isn’t likely to become a threat. “Since President Obama signed Executive Order 13492, less than six

percent of former detainees have been confirmed, and less than seven percent of former detainees are suspected of reengaging in terrorist activity,” Horne says. “The rigorous interagency review process put in place by this administration has resulted in a measured, responsible, and thoughtful approach to transfers that places the safety of Americans paramount.” Nevertheless, there are at least 43 inmates who pose the thorniest challenge: intelligence reports declare they’re too dangerous for release, but they can’t be legally tried for various reasons, including evidence against them that was obtained through torture, which is inadmissible in court. Though indefinite detention violates both the Geneva Conventions and the Constitution, the Bush administration argued that it didn’t apply to Guantanamo; rather than POWs from a national army, the camp houses stateless “unlawful enemy combatants” who aren’t considered prisoners of war and aren’t on U.S. soil. It’s clear, however, that the “forever detainees” probably aren’t going anywhere: the military is preparing to care for Gitmo’s remaining population over the long haul, and Obama has quietly acknowledged they may never be freed. “There’s going to be a certain irreducible number that are gonna be hard cases, because we know they’ve done something wrong and they are still dangerous,” he told CNN in 2014. “But it’s difficult to mount the evidence [against them] in a traditional [federal] court. So we’re going to have to wrestle with that.” In September, a Guantanamo spokesman told The Miami Herald that the base is spending $2.6 million renovating its infirmary to include cardiac equipment, an MRI unit, and a dialysis machine. With 10 detainees between ages 50 and 60, the spokesman said, the investment is an attempt to answer the “broader questions raised by an aging population” that can’t be treated in America. Last summer, an investigation by

Connie Bruck, a reporter for The New Yorker, found that, on election night in 2008, elated prisoners and staff chanted Obama’s name and held an impromptu party. But a recalcitrant Congress, White House divisions, and high-ranking Pentagon skeptics quickly quashed the new administration’s plan for an orderly, bipartisan shutdown. “The attempt to close the prison has entailed tense negotiations with foreign officials, heated confrontations during meetings in the White House Situation Room, and, especially, a long-running fight with the Pentagon, which outplayed Obama for years,” Bruck wrote. “For those who worked to implement his policy, often without support, the frustrations were acute. ‘You need White House backing,’ a senior Administration official told me. ‘If something went wrong, the risk was all ours. Gitmo was a potential career-ender.’” But the ACLU’s Anders says the buck also stops with Obama: he didn’t quash the West Wing infighting, didn’t use his commander-in-chief powers to bring the Pentagon to heel, and when faced with annual military funding bills in which lawmakers inserted language blocking Guantanamo’s closure, the veto pen stayed in his pocket. “That’s why it has stayed open,” Anders says, “and I think that it will survive his presidency.” Obama also came to understand that Gitmo, which one government attorney described as the legal equivalent to outer space, will do serious damage to his legacy. White House officials are scrambling to meet the deadline of January 20, Obama’s last day on the job, and Obama himself is mindful of his own missed opportunities Last March in Cleveland, a seventh grader “asked what advice [Obama] would give himself if he could go back to the start of his Presidency,” Bruck writes in The New Yorker. “Obama said, ‘I think I would have closed Guantanamo on the first day.’ But the politics had got tough, he said, and ‘the path of least resistance was just to leave it open.’”

T H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E

35


CRIMINAL JUSTICE

The Death Penalty Faces Its Last Rites

Controversial punishment is facing stiff opposition following doubts over methods, false convictions, and public apathy. BY JOSEPH P. WILLIAMS Proponents call it just punishment for the worst of the worst—men and women whose criminal acts were so heinous, atrocious, or cruel that 12 jurors and a judge agree they’ve forfeited their right to live. Opponents say it’s state-sanctioned murder that delivers retribution instead of justice, harms black defendants more than whites, and sticks taxpayers with an eight-figure bill for every person sent to the death chamber. Yet both sides of the heated, emotional debate agree: the death penalty, arguably the most divisive issue in the county’s criminal justice system, could be headed for its last rites, condemned by an organized opposition, rising public opposition, and a series of botched executions that resurrected Constitution-level questions about cruel and unusual punishment. In November’s general election, residents of four states voted on referendums that ranged from enshrining the death penalty in its constitution (Oklahoma) to banning it outright (Nebraska). California, considered a national harbinger on the issue, asked voters if the Golden State should mend it—lift a decadeslong moratorium on executions and streamline death-sentence appeals— or end it by closing the death chamber for good. They embraced the former and rejected the latter. “I have as much confidence as anyone that the death penalty is on its way out,” says Evan Mandery, a professor and chair of the Department of Criminal Justice at City University of New York’s John Jay College of Law. “It’s just a question of how long it’s going to take.” But a divided electorate, along

36

with pushback from prosecutors and victims’ rights advocates could keep capital punishment from going the way of public hangings and firing squads. Proponents argue the death chamber is an irreplaceable sentence for intolerable crimes like child murders and cop killings, and Republican-dominated, law-andorder legislatures in the South and Southwest overwhelmingly agree with them. Michael Ramos, a San Bernardino County prosecutor and chair of the National District Attorneys Association, argues that those who want to eliminate the death sentence are pushing the criminal justice system towards a slippery slope. “There’s a trend. And people are watching,” says Ramos. The opposition’s plan is obvious, he says: flip California, the nation’s most populous state, and other capitalpunishment states will fall like dominoes, undermining justice in the process. “Make no mistake, there is a blueprint in place: ‘if we can get the death penalty removed, then we can go after it in another state,’” he says, describing his view of organizations who want to shelve the practice. “They’re going after the death penalty in America, [and] if you look at prison reform, they’re looking at getting rid of life without parole,” an invitation, he adds, to Charles Manson-style mayhem and endless suffering for victims who won’t get the justice they deserve. Resurrected by a Supreme Court ruling in 1976, 34 states adopted the death penalty, but in recent years, five states—New Mexico, Illinois, Connecticut, Maryland, and Nebraska—have abolished it,

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S

opting instead for a sentence of life imprisonment without parole; other states, like California, have declared moratoriums on executions. Of those that continue the practice, more than a third of the states are in the South: in the 40 years since its reinstatement, Texas has executed 538 death-row inmates, the most in the nation by far, followed by Oklahoma (112) and Virginia (111). Since 1976, meanwhile, the ACLU and other civil liberties organizations repeatedly argued in court that the death penalty doesn’t pass Constitutional bans on cruel and unusual punishment. Multiple studies have found that the poor and African-American defendants are far more likely than whites to get a death sentence in a capital case. Using DNA evidence, the Innocence Project found an alarming number of death-row convicts were wrongfully convicted, and Illinois put executions on hold after investigative journalists found widespread malpractice in death-penalty cases: police running roughshod over defendants’ rights, inept defense lawyers nodding off during trials, and prosecutors and judges cutting corners to win convictions.

Make no mistake, there is a blueprint in place: ‘if we can get the death penalty removed, then we can go after it in another state.’ MICHAEL RAMOS

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY PROSECUTOR AND CHAIR OF THE NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION


Pat Sullivan/AP

The gurney in Huntsville, Texas where inmates are executed by lethal injection.

“The widespread perception is that criminal justice in the United States is broken,” says Mandery. “My guess is DNA exonerations changed the discussion. But of course that intersects with racism, too, right? Exoneration correlates with race— it’s poor black men” who are being condemned to death, largely for killing whites. Meanwhile, celebrities like Danny Glover and Elvis Costello, along with Pope Francis, Sister Helen Prejean, and other high-profile religious figures have spoken out against capital punishment. And groups like the Death Penalty Information Center are highlighting testimonials from

people like Ronald Carlson of Fort Worth, Texas, who said his experience with eye-for-an-eye justice was cold comfort at best. Witnessing the 1998 execution of the man who killed his sister, Carlson wrote in a recent editorial, “left me with horror and emptiness, confirming what I had already come to realize: capital punishment only continues the violence that has a powerful, corrosive effect on society.” The galvanized opposition has had an impact: a recent Pew Research Center poll found that, since it was reinstated in 1976, support for the death penalty has plunged to a fourdecade low of 49 percent, down by

nearly half from 80 percent in 1995. The nose-dive is “historic and eye-opening,” Mandery says. “Is it fast enough for abolitionists? No, but you’re coming from a high level of support. There’s a lot of correcting of miseducation [about capital punishment] that is to be done.” Death-penalty opponents say that includes reversing the idea that executions are quick, ethical, painless, and humane. That view is vanishing quickly, especially now that states are having trouble finding the combination of drugs used to kill the condemned without brutality or suffering. As states sought more compassionate

T H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E

37


alternatives to the gas chamber and the electric chair, the Supreme Court also approved a three-drug injection that knocked inmates unconscious, then stopped their hearts. But the pharmaceutical companies that manufactured sodium thiopental, a key anesthetic in lethal injections— many based in Europe, which largely views the death penalty as barbaric— stopped exporting it under pressure, and U.S. executions ground to a halt. States determined to put convicts to death, however, found a workaround: new experimental drugs that were intended to mimic the three-drug cocktail. The disastrous results, however, gave death penalty opponents a fresh argument for ending the practice, and one execution in particular spoke loudest. Sentenced to die for a 1998 kidnapping, rape, and murder—a crime spree so vile, one victim was still breathing as he buried her— Oklahoma inmate Clayton Lockett was strapped to a gurney and wheeled into the death chamber in April 2014. Lacking the approved execution cocktail, officials chose to kill Lockett with a lethal but untested drug protocol, developed in secret. But as the chemicals entered his bloodstream, Lockett gasped for air and bucked in agony against the restraints, horrifying a panel convened to witness the execution. His graphic, involuntary struggle against death continued for several minutes until corrections officials, scrambling to end the macabre scene, shut the curtains to the viewing chamber. Lockett, 38, eventually died of a massive heart attack, 45 minutes after a nurse inserted the executioner’s needle into his groin when they couldn’t find a useful vein in his arm. The grisly fiasco made international headlines, put Oklahoma officials on the defensive, and led to another Supreme Court cruel-and-unusualpunishment challenge in a separate case, particularly after news surfaced of similar botched executions in Arizona, Alabama, and Georgia. Finding a way around the drug shortage has become “just such a hassle for states to deal with—they get so little bang for the buck,” Manderey

38

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post/Getty Images

CRIMINAL JUSTICE

says. “It’s very hard to find a humane way for the state to kill someone.” Nevertheless, a sharply divided Supreme Court in June 2015 upheld Oklahoma’s use of the new drugs, voting 5–4 dismissing arguments that it violated the Eighth Amendment. And despite declining national support and Lockett’s horrible death, a slim majority of the public—49 percent—agrees with the death penalty. At the same time, the death penalty isn’t likely to disappear in the red-state South, where law-and-order Republicans hold legislative power. In Florida, for example, Republican Governor Rick Scott and his allies have tried repeatedly to lower the bar for death penalty cases, most recently by enacting a law allowing 10 of 12 jurors to impose a death sentence, rather than requiring a unanimous verdict. The state Supreme Court

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S

The widespread perception is that criminal justice in the United States is broken. EVAN MANDERY

PROFESSOR AND CHAIR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AT CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK’S JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF LAW

struck down that law, which had been drafted after an earlier high court ruling found that judges had too much power in sentencing convicts to die for their crimes. Still, Ramos, the San Bernardino County prosecutor, and other proponents reject the racial-bias argument, insisting the punishment is meted out in a case-by-case basis. They view the botched executions as


aberrations, but also point out that the victims of outrageous, unspeakable crimes suffered far worse. Others say the Bible is on their side, including R. Albert Mohler, resident of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who calls capital punishment “an affirmation of human rights and human dignity” supported by scripture. Anyone who takes a life “forfeits his own right to live,” Mohler wrote in a recent essay. “But the Bible is also very clear; and here the Old Testament is very specific. The evidentiary requirements, the requirement for the burden of proof by evidence for the application of the death penalty is very, very high—as it should be, as it must be.” Amen, says Ramos, who was a driving force behind getting Proposition 66 on California’s ballot. The measure was designed to cut the

length of time between an inmate’s conviction and his or her final appeal, hastening the trip to the death chamber and saving taxpayers millions of dollars. Although California has the most inmates on death row, it takes about 15 years for a convict’s appeals to be exhausted. The state hasn’t executed anyone since 2006 and only 13 people since 1976, but a recent study found that it spent roughly $306 million for each one, including appellate, legal, and administrative costs. Ramos agrees the system is broken, but in a way that punishes victims, not perpetrators. “It hurts families that suffered crimes against their loved ones,” Ramos says, arguing that three hotsand-a-cot (an exercise yard, TV, and free lifetime health care)—even behind bars—is too good for depraved, ruthless criminals. “Cop killers, killers of

children, serial killers, rapists: these are people for whom justice equals the death penalty,” he says. Ramos describes how he won a capital-murder conviction against Keith Taylor, an ex-con who stabbed and strangled Marilyn Mishak, a mentally disabled 33-year-old woman, while out on parole. Ramos says the victim’s father, who discovered her body inside her apartment, wanted vengeance so badly that authorities put metal detectors outside the courtroom to keep him from smuggling in a gun. “I made a commitment to Mr. Meshak: ‘Let the system do its job. We will get justice for you,’” says Ramos, noting Taylor is still on California’s death row. “The last thing I want to do is call Mr. Meshak and tell him we got rid of the death penalty. That would just be horrendous. There’s no justice there.”

T H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E

39


LAW ENFORCEMENT

Can Training Really Stop Police Bias?

A training session at Close Quarters Defense on the Eastern Shore of Maryland.

BY ALAN NEUHAUSER The video is grainy, but the incident seems painfully clear. A man lunges for an officer’s gun. The officer shoves him away. As the man falls back to the ground and lies there, the officer opens fire—first two rounds, then a third. It’s over in six seconds. The officer, a Special Forces veteran, lowers his sidearm. The camera swoops in for questioning. “He was attacking you from the ground?” an interrogator asks. “No, he was not on the ground when he started to make his move back to me,” the officer replies. “He was still standing—he made his move; I shot him.” “You did not shoot him while he was just lying there?” “Not that I recall,” he answers. The video, however, shows otherwise. “That’s murder,” Duane Dieter says later. Dieter is a trainer who’s coached everyone from police to military special forces to spooks from “the agency” (“We all know who that means,” he says). He was sharing a video from Close Quarters Defense, or CQD, his training compound on Maryland’s Eastern Shore about 90 miles from the nation’s capital. The shooting was a live-action simulation, featuring real guns with paintfilled bullets. And it illustrated a phenomenon disrupting police and

40

cities across the nation: black men shot by police in what appear to be the most inexplicable of circumstances. There are many examples. Charles Kinsey, the North Miami therapist shot after complying with an officer’s orders to lie down in the street; Samuel DuBose, the driver fatally shot during a traffic stop near the University of Cincinnati; Laquan McDonald, the teenager gunned down as he walked away from officers in Chicago. And the videos of the incidents that emerged contradict the sworn accounts given by the officers involved. There’s more to the story than untruthful officers and racial bias, Dieter points out. There’s another factor that might answer the question of why these events unfolded the way they did, and one he believes is given too little attention: fear. “The stress of what it feels like to be that close to death or that close to injury, it can create this feeling of chaos, and that can create a sense of rage,” he says. Experts have long known that peril can blind people to their surroundings and allow them to mistake a common object, like a wallet, for a weapon, or a hesitation as a sign of an impending attack. They also know that such fears can be fueled by racial bias, something studies have found affects both whites and blacks. Dieter says he’s found one solution, a way to teach de-escalation not through talk or classrooms, but

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S

Brett Ziegler for USN&WR

Private trainers and the Justice Department have trumpeted new programs aimed at reducing bias in law enforcement. Whether they work is a different matter.

by exposing officers to all levels of stress, from mundane tasks like giving directions to the most intense encounters imaginable, like ambushes and shootouts. It’s a method he developed himself, and it’s very different from the programs rolled out by the Justice Department this summer and the training used by the nation’s roughly 18,000 police departments and other private training companies. In the past 30 years, about 5,000 officers have gone through Dieter’s program, he says, the cost—$100 to $300 per officer per day for courses that can last from three days to several


weeks—is typically paid for by their departments or through federal grants. There’s no way to tell how well Dieter’s program works, and there are questions, too. If an officer’s reactions are driven by bias—implicit associations, the fear of black men as dangerous—does stress-based training solve the problem? And if so, can it be an antidote to what one police chiefs’ group recently called the “historical mistreatment” of minorities by police? Is training even the answer? “Training isn’t going to fix when we send people to do these things,” says Phillip Atiba Goff, president of the Center for Policing Equity at the

John Jay College of Criminal Justice. “Treating me like a threat is different than treating me like someone who is threatened. You’re setting people up to fail if you train them that a situation that you’re in is always life and death.” But it’s also, perhaps, a wake-up call. When shown videos of the simulations later, some officers who underwent the training—longtime veterans, training officers, and department leaders—broke down crying. Plunged into simulations mimicking the situations in North Miami or St. Paul or South Carolina, they often discover they react just like the officers they’ve condemned: they

shot the unarmed suspects, too. The entrance to CQD is unmarked, its classrooms, gun ranges, and tactical houses hidden by pastoral woods and farmland. Since opening in 1981, tens of thousands of police officers and Special Forces operators have gone through the program, as well as women taking self-defense classes and executives assigned to offices in volatile countries overseas who want training on how to rescue family members taken hostage. Tiger Woods, after the death of his father in 2006, reportedly flew in by helicopter1 and spent time leaping

T H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E

41


LAW ENFORCEMENT

walls and kicking down doors alongside Special Forces operators. Commenters in anonymous forums online have hailed Dieter’s techniques and derided them. Although he’d trained Navy Special Forces since 1989, Dieter lost that contract in 2011 when the Navy Special Warfare group made a controversial switch to techniques focused on mixed-martial arts, a move that senior naval officers say was a nod to the evolving nature of combat techniques. With the ambush-style shootings of two police officers in Iowa on November 2, the number of officers killed this year rose to 115, up from 100 at the same time in 2015, a year that ultimately saw 123 officer deaths in the line of duty. Similar ambushes of cops in Dallas and Baton Rouge in July and in Brooklyn at the end of 2014 have fueled fear in law enforcement circles of a violent backlash against police, perhaps driven by tense community relations and accusations of bias. Line-of-duty deaths, however, remain at historic lows: 41 officers died last year as a result of felonies, such as shootings or assaults, according to FBI data 2. Another 45 died in accidents. Statistically speaking, the job is far less perilous than, say, logging, which regularly tops the Labor Department’s list of most dangerous jobs in America. Police academies and private training centers, which officers often attend on the taxpayers’ dime, commonly urge cops to open fire if they ever feel imperiled. De-escalation may be a virtuous goal, but hesitation can kill—and academies reinforce the message by showing video after video of officers getting maimed or killed. “All of that can unintentionally confuse the message,” says Seth Stoughton, a former police officer and assistant professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law. “If instructors are talking about accurately assessing risk, but everything around the officer is telling them, ‘Everything is always really risky,’ that can send a mixed message.” Dieter screened a similar slate of videos during a visit this spring. It showed clips of officers

42

getting stabbed or shot to death, of officers beating civilians, plus live demonstrations by trainers of how quickly things can go wrong. Dieter said his point, however, was not to emphasize policing’s inherent risks but to illustrate the countless ways cops’ training can fail and also ignites explosions of violence. Dieter points to two incidents that allegedly began with physical altercations not caught on video: a white California Highway Patrol officer who was filmed punching a black woman at least 10 times as he straddled her on the side of a highway in July 2014, and a white South Carolina cop recorded gunning down a black man as he ran away in April 2015. (The first officer was cleared, the second, Michael Slager, is on trial for murder.) “He remembers what the person did [before the altercation], not what he’s doing now,” Dieter says. “We have hundreds and hundreds of hours of this craziness.” This is where courses like “The Bulletproof Warrior,”3 the course Officer Jeronimo Yanez who gunned down unarmed Philando Castile during a traffic stop in Minnesota this summer, attended in 2014. These courses so often get the idea of being a “warrior” wrong, he says. The focus shouldn’t be on the capacity for violence or the idea of battle. It should be about restraint: “the effort it takes to control yourself,” Dieter says, as well as confidence in your own ability to protect yourself and that there’s no need to panic, one of the results his course aims to cultivate. Dieter sees his Close Quarters Defense program as a kind of fix to the warfighter mentality. His main training tool is a simple black hood, kind of a cross between a windsock and surplus gear from Guantanamo. One hangs in each training room in the main building; the rooms are outfitted to look like city streets, back alleys, black-walled interrogation chambers, and rudimentary woodframed homes. A trainee stands near the middle of the room, and the hood is lowered to his head. When the simulations begin—lights set low, speakers rumbling—the hood is

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S

Duane Dieter trains police and other law enforcement personnel at the Close Quarters Defense training compound in Maryland.

We have to ask the community, how do you want to be policed, and incorporate that into the protocols of policing. KHALIL MUHAMMAD

PROFESSOR OF HISTORY, RACE, AND PUBLIC POLICY AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY’S JOHN F. KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT

suddenly yanked away, and the trainee is confronted by any number of men standing in the room, near or far, armed or not, asking for directions or yelling obscenities. It is up to the trainee to figure out how to react. Most people flunk their first time through, many spectacularly. Grizzled Special Forces operators and rocksteady officers shoot civilians or forget a straightforward goal like “escape,” instead panicking and tackling a


Brett Ziegler for USN&WR

partner or the nearest “suspect.” Some even try to hide by cowering behind an instructor. But the experience doesn’t start with peak stress. Dieter puts students through mundane tasks, like giving directions or helping a girl with a twisted ankle, before ratcheting up the intensity over the course of a program that can last a few days or a whole summer. The ultimate goal is to be able to recognize a threat in as little as 0.2 seconds and let that guide all the actions that follow. “The idea is, when they get out to their workplace, they don’t think of anything else but what they see: if it’s a threat, it’s a threat; if it’s not, it’s not; and if it’s not a threat one second, the next it can be, and vice versa,” Dieter says. “That’s why we’re trying to build the tactical officer, so he’s sharp and understands what’s best for protecting him and the suspect and the community.” The officer at a South Carolina gas station who asked a man filling his car

to retrieve his license then shot him as he reached into the vehicle and the case of 12-year-old Tamir Rice who was killed by a police officer two seconds after arriving at the scene show how the police officers’ actions can be sparked perhaps by racial bias, fed by an inability to distinguish an actual threat, then inflamed by panic and irrational fear. It’s still no excuse: “The military or police or any person authorized to enforce the law should be held to a higher standard of discipline,” Dieter says. “Other people can get killed by acting wrongly.” “Of course stress alters perception,” says professor Maria Haberfeld, a former Israeli police officer and codirector of the NYPD Police Studies Program at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. “Your frame of mind is completely different.” And that stress can go into overdrive when what you’ve been assured should subdue a suspect—a Taser shot, a punch, or a blast of pepper spray— doesn’t work the way the coaches promised during training. “If you say, ʻOK, I know this weapon will work most of the time, and it will take real special circumstances for it to not work,’ and then it doesn’t, you think, ʻThis must be those very special circumstances! This guy must be very amped up or especially dangerous,’ ” says Jonathan Wender, a former cop and a sociologist at the University of Washington who studied police behavior for the Defense Department. “Panic produces dysfunctional responses.” Add implicit bias, and the scenario quickly deteriorates. Whites and blacks alike more quickly associate African-Americans with risk or danger, studies have found. Officers also more readily stop AfricanAmerican men and more quickly resort to violence. And that bias becomes even more pronounced under pressure when the mind relies on evolutionary shorthand (stereotyping) to make snap decisions. Add sleep deprivation, as common to cops working 12-hour shifts as heartburn and bad precinct coffee, and that can make the brain even more dependent on its neural shortcuts.

“Stereotypes are a cognitive mechanism to deal with a lot of information,” says Itiel Dror, a cognitive scientist at University College London who has advised police departments and the Air Force on how to prevent errors. “You do want police officers to learn from experience—the problem is that it can cause bias.” The implicit bias training programs rolled out this year by the Justice Department aims to attack this issue. Dieter says his training, which forces cops to focus on threats alone, gets around bias entirely. But no matter the approach, training by itself isn’t sufficient. “We have to ask the community, how do you want to be policed, and incorporate that into the protocols of policing,” says Khalil Muhammad, a professor of history, race, and public policy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. “If we don’t, we’re going to see this strange universe of reforms producing oppression and failure.” Prior attempts at reform, like instituting mandatory minimums for certain crimes, were in part an effort to make the justice system more equal by limiting the potential influence of bias in sentencing decisions. But black communities ultimately bore the brunt of the result: mass incarceration. “If we train them better, if we train them not to see race, then they’ll do a better job, the harvest of all that is in fact mass incarceration,” Muhammad says. Bias training, use-of-force training, teaching restraint, and de-escalation—all that is positive, he adds. But it doesn’t necessarily reconcile with the “perspectives of people in the communities that they’re going to put that new training on—unless there’s more collaboration to see the humanity of the people first and foremost.” http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/ id/15278522/how-tiger-woods-life-unraveledyears-father-earl-woods-death 1

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pressreleases/fbi-releases-2015-statistics-on-lawenforcement-officers-killed-and-assaulted 2

http://www.startribune.com/officer-in-castile-caseattended-bulletproof-warrior-training/386717431/ 3

T H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E

43


LAW ENFORCEMENT

Arbitration and the Revolving Door of Bad Cops

Some commentators say the system allows officers to escape accountability, but the truth is more complicated.

BY ALAN NEUHAUSER One man was gunned down on New Year’s Eve. Another was shot three times in the back as he ran away. Both men were unarmed. Both were men of color. And both were killed, just seven months apart, by rookie Oakland Police Officer Hector Jimenez. Jimenez was fired after the second shooting, one that the city paid $650,000 to settle a wrongful death lawsuit. Yet just three years later, in 2011, Jimenez was back in uniform, reinstated with full back pay and benefits. He’d challenged his termination, appealing the decision to an independent arbitrator who would have final say over his fate at the department. The arbitrator found that Jimenez had not violated department policy and concluded that the city should not have fired him. The dead man’s family was dismayed, civil rights activists outraged. Three years later, after an arbitrator reinstated another Oakland officer who was fired for having heaved a tear gas grenade into a crowd of protesters1 tending to an

to an informal tally by attorney Will Aitchison, who represents police unions and is director of the Labor Relations Information System, which offers training sessions and seminars and monitors labor trends. However, he and others emphasize, the picture is far more complicated than that number suggests. In most police departments with union contracts that permit arbitration, the union—not the officer—decides whether to appeal a reprimand, a suspension, or any other kind of discipline to an arbitrator. One notable exception is California, where individual employees, not their unions, make the call. As a result, arbitration—which is less expensive than a lawsuit but still not cheap—is exceedingly rare. A single arbitration can cost anywhere from $12,000 to $30,000, and that’s without expert witnesses or complicated allegations. “Police unions are not careless in their decision-making. They want a case where there’s a reasonable chance of prevailing,” Aitchison says. In 34 years of working with the Portland Police Association, which represented about 950 members in Oregon, for example, Aitchison handled just seven arbitrations out of an estimated 3,000 disciplinary actions handed down by lieutenants, captains, and chiefs. But what’s the explanation for the most egregious cases, when truly “bad cops”—those who lie or are reckless or merely incompetent—are handed back their guns and badges? The investigation in Oakland blamed not the arbitrators, but the city and the police department. The department’s policies were “vague or inconsistent,” and the agency’s leadership “did not make it

There are a lot of city attorneys and county attorneys who deal with all sorts of stuff—landuse, contracts—and don't know squat about police disciplinary matters. ARNOLD ZACK

FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ARBITRATORS AND A LECTURER AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL

44

injured demonstrator, a federal judge cited both cases2 when he ordered an investigation3 into why Oakland police officers kept seeming to escape discipline and accountability, raising broad questions about the city’s management of arbitration cases. From 2010 to 2015, arbitrators in Oakland had upheld just seven of 26 disciplinary actions, the inquiry found. And that city wasn’t alone. In another investigation in Philadelphia, arbitrators were found to have reinstated 19 of 26 officers fired between 2008 and 2014. Arbitration is a common clause in union contracts—both for the nation’s 18,000 some-odd police departments and for organized labor at large. It’s a speedier and less costly alternative to lawsuits, and the system is generally seen by both unions and management as an effective way to resolve disputes. Yet as fatal shootings by police have inflamed a nationwide debate about race, bias, police, and accountability, some civil rights activists and commentators have said the arbitration system has failed by too often allowing bad officers back on the force. “In theory, due process before a neutral arbiter could even protect blue whistleblowers from wrongful termination. But in practice, too many cops who needlessly kill people, use excessive force, or otherwise abuse their authority are getting reprieves from termination,” said a report in The Atlantic 4 in the wake of the 2014 protests in Ferguson, Missouri, its headline declaring “How Police Unions and Arbitrators Keep Abusive Cops on the Street.” Arbitrators in the U.S. have eased or reversed discipline in favor of police officers in about 60 percent of cases since the 1980s, according

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S


Lydia Chebbine for USN&WR

Police monitor demonstrations in Philadelphia.

a priority to fix the system,” despite repeated criticism by arbitrators, the report found. Internal investigations were often “inadequate.” And the city attorney’s office, responsible for arguing to uphold the discipline in question, regularly “demonstrated neglect and indifference” by blowing crucial deadlines and “waiting until the last minute” to prepare or assign cases to attorneys. Those factors caused the city to lose arbitrations “time and again,” the cases undermined by flimsy arguments and evidence submitted too late to be allowed at all. “Arbitrators follow due process as closely as the judicial standard,” says arbitrator Arnold Zack, former president of the National Academy of Arbitrators and a lecturer at Harvard Law School. “It is more important to have the process operating properly, even at the price of an inequity in a particular case. That overrides the bad apples.” Unions, however, have helped make the process more complicated, lobbying for state bills that have established special labor protections for law enforcement that effectively set traps for city attorneys who not only may not specialize in labor law but haven’t pored over the sometimes Byzantine rules for police officers. In California, for example, the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act bars police

Police unions are not careless in their decision-making. They want a case where there’s a reasonable chance of prevailing. WILL AITCHISON

ATTORNEY REPRESENTING POLICE UNIONS AND DIRECTOR OF THE LABOR RELATIONS INFORMATION SYSTEM

supervisors from questioning any officer suspected of misconduct without first telling that officer he’s being investigated. That may sound straightforward, but imagine there’s been an altercation involving an officer, and a man is in handcuffs. When a sergeant gets to the scene, the sergeant can ask the officer, “What happened?” But if the sergeant were to get to the scene, and the person in custody began yelling that the officer beat him after he was handcuffed, the sergeant may no longer be allowed to ask the officer simply, “What happened?” Instead, the sergeant has to realize—amid the yelling and anything else happening—that the question may now have to be phrased another way to tell the officer upfront there’s been an accusation. “This guy says you beat him. Want to tell me what happened?”

“There are a lot of city attorneys and county attorneys who deal with all sorts of stuff—land-use, contracts— and don’t know squat about police disciplinary matters because that’s not what they deal with on a regular basis,” says attorney Martin Mayer who specializes in advising law enforcement as a partner at Jones & Mayer, a public sector law firm in California. “And on the other side are guys like Rocky Lucia, who know this stuff cold because that’s what they do.” He was referring to one of the best-known police union attorneys in the country, a partner at Rains Lucia Stern, which itself is one of the largest law firms in the nation to represent police officers. Lucia notes that the rigid, paramilitary work environment in which police work takes place grants great authority to superiors and that arbitration protects individual officers from retribution or capricious discipline. It’s a process he insists is objective: both sides are presented with a list of five or seven arbitrators, and they take turns striking one at a time, working their way until there’s one left. “It isn’t slanted in favor of anybody,” Lucia says. “In some places the cops get disciplined and fired without much due process, and that’s what arbitration is: due process.” In one study of public-sector arbitration in Minnesota, arbitrators sided with employers in more than half of the 2,055 cases from 1982 to 2005. But even with every regulation upheld and each deadline met, some outcomes may still seem inexplicable, whether in arbitration or in court. “Just picking up a newspaper and looking at the results, you would say, ʻHow did that happen?’” Aitchison says. “You will find aberrations with any system of justice.” http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2014/07/30/oaklandpolice-officer-fired-over-occupy-incident-is-reinstated/ 1

http://www.mercurynews.com/2014/08/14/judge-ordersinvestigation-into-oaklands-police-arbitration-losses/ 2

http://sfappeal.com/2014/08/judge-questions-whyoakland-is-losing-police-arbitration-cases/ 3

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/ how-police-unions-keep-abusive-cops-on-the-street/383258/ 4

T H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E

45


MEDICAL LAW

Dying by Choice Physician-assisted death is now legal in Canada…sort of.

Who Can Choose to Die?

Daphne Jarvis, partner at Health Law Group, believes the bill’s language was derived from “very

46

high quality and thoughtfully considered” input and consultation. The protections prevent suicide by people who are mentally ill, in crisis, or unable to make a rational choice, according to Jarvis. “The general sense is that [the law] has struck a reasonable compromise,” she says. “The government’s intent was seemingly not to restrict MAID only to those whose death is imminent because of a fatal or terminal disease. But as the language used is open to interpretation, it could benefit from some legal clarification.” Under C-14, in order to utilize medical assistance, a person needs to meet these criteria: 1. have a serious, incurable illness, disease, or disability; 2. be in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability; 3. endure intolerable physical and psychological suffering; and 4. their natural death has become reasonably foreseeable. Tucker takes issue with that last point. “There are issues with physicians finding the definition of ‘reasonably foreseeable’ overly vague,” she says. “This vagueness effectively operates as a form of prior restraint—risk-

It is hoped that the legislation might have a significant effect on expanding all of the options for care at the end of life.

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S

DAPHNE JARVIS

PARTNER AT HEALTH LAW GROUP

Getty Images

BY MARGARET PIERCE On June 17, 2016, Canadian Bill C-14 received royal assent, allowing—for the first time—some Canadian adults to choose to end their lives with medical assistance without assisting pharmacists, doctors, nurses, or family members being prosecuted. Bill C-14 changes the Canadian criminal code to allow for medical assistance in dying (MAID). But the controversial bill contains many caveats, including a limitation of the assistance to the incurably ill, and is sure to be subject to many legal challenges. “Bill C-14 was enacted following the 2015 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Carter v. AG Canada, which held that the Criminal Code’s blanket prohibition against assistance with dying was contrary to the constitutional right protecting life, liberty, and security of the person,” says Sheila Tucker, associate counsel with Shapray Cramer Fitterman Lamer in Vancouver, Canada. “Unfortunately, the terms of Bill C-14 are more restrictive than the court decision— which means some … continue to be deprived of their rights.” Julia Lamb, 25, who has spinal muscular atrophy, and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association are challenging MAID, contending that the law’s restrictions run counter to the Supreme Court ruling. Lamb, whose disease has left her wheelchair-bound, wants the option to avoid years of suffering, but under the new law she can’t pursue medical channels for ending her life. The Canadian Bar Association has called on the legislature to remove the restrictions.

adverse physicians will decline to assist in cases involving patients who quite arguably do come within the eligibility parameters of C-14.” Other restrictions limit access to MAID. • Only Canadian citizens are covered. • Informed consent must be provided. • Advanced directives are not allowed, disqualifying people with degenerative mental diseases, such as dementia.


• There is a required reflection period of at least 10 days after the individual signs a written request. (If death is imminent, the reflection period can be reduced.) • Family and friends have no authority to authorize or prevent a physicianassisted death.

Now What?

The politics of C-14 still rage in various branches of government, and the social influences that created the

conditions for this change are likely to continue to grow as individuals exercise their rights, says Tucker. “Autonomy in terms of medical decision-making has strongly come into its own in Canada in recent decades,” she says. “Our society now substantially comprises individuals who are accustomed to making decisions about what and how much health care they want.” Jarvis agrees. “It is hoped that the legislation

might have a significant effect on expanding all of the options for care at the end of life, including palliative care and terminal sedation, because of the focus that it has brought to bear on end-of-life issues,” she says. Countries with laws that protect the right of individuals to take their lives with medical assistance include Switzerland, Colombia, the Netherlands, Belgium, the United Kingdom, and Luxembourg, plus Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Vermont, California, and Montana in the United States.

T H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E

47


2017 BEST LAW FIRMS

Getty Images

LAW FIRMS OF THE YEAR

2017

Law Firms of the Year 2017 U.S. News – Best Lawyers

“Best Law Firms”

Law Firms of the Year U.S. NEWS AND BEST LAWYERS have again awarded “Law Firm of the Year” honors to a single firm in each of 74 practice areas recognized in the 2017 rankings. These firms have demonstrated exceptional performance in our research, a combination of client feedback, reviews by other attorneys within the same practice area, the firm’s collective contribution to each practice area and input received by the industry’s firm leaders. “We have been ranking law firms for seven years now,” says Steven Naifeh, CEO and co-founder of Best Lawyers. “We are proud that we have undertaken this challenging and important task so diligently and with such care that the legal profession has come to view our tens of thousands of rankings each year with widespread respect.”

48

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S


ADMIRALTY & MARITIME LAW

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

ADVERTISING LAW

EQUIPMENT FINANCE LAW

COZEN O'CONNOR

MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP

ANTITRUST LAW

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

APPELLATE PRACTICE

MAYER BROWN LLP

BANKING AND FINANCE LAW

MCGUIREWOODS LLP

BANKRUPTCY AND CREDITOR DEBTOR RIGHTS / INSOLVENCY AND REORGANIZATION LAW

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP

BIOTECHNOLOGY LAW

GOODWIN

COMMERCIAL LITIGATION

JONES DAY

COMMUNICATIONS LAW

MAYER BROWN LLP

CONSTRUCTION LAW

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP VEDDER PRICE P.C.

FDA LAW

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP

FINANCIAL SERVICES REGULATION LAW

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

FRANCHISE LAW

NIXON PEABODY LLP

HEALTH CARE LAW

MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

IMMIGRATION LAW

FRAGOMEN, DEL REY, BERNSEN AND LOEWY, LLP

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LAW

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

INSURANCE LAW

REED SMITH LLP

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION - COMMERCIAL

PECKAR & ABRAMSON, P.C.

HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP

COPYRIGHT LAW

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION - GOVERNMENTAL

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

CORPORATE LAW

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP

DERIVATIVES AND FUTURES LAW

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

EMPLOYEE BENEFITS (ERISA) LAW

ALSTON & BIRD LLP

EMPLOYMENT LAW MANAGEMENT

JACKSON LEWIS P.C.

ENERGY LAW

BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.

ENTERTAINMENT LAW - MOTION PICTURES & TELEVISION

MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP

ENTERTAINMENT LAW - MUSIC

WHITE & CASE LLP

INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND FINANCE LAW

HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

LABOR LAW - MANAGEMENT

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.

LAND USE & ZONING LAW

GOULSTON & STORRS PC

LEVERAGED BUYOUTS AND PRIVATE EQUITY LAW

COOLEY LLP

LITIGATION - ANTITRUST

LITIGATION - CONSTRUCTION

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP

LITIGATION - ENVIRONMENTAL

HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP

LITIGATION - ERISA

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

LITIGATION - FIRST AMENDMENT

LEVINE SULLIVAN KOCH & SCHULZ, LLP

LITIGATION - INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

PERKINS COIE LLP

OIL & GAS LAW

THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP

PATENT LAW

ROPES & GRAY LLP

PRIVATE FUNDS / HEDGE FUNDS LAW

ROPES & GRAY LLP

PROJECT FINANCE LAW

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

LITIGATION - LABOR & EMPLOYMENT

FORDHARRISON LLP

LITIGATION - MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS

BALLARD SPAHR LLP

RAILROAD LAW

STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

REAL ESTATE LAW

LITIGATION - PATENT

SECURITIES / CAPITAL MARKETS LAW

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

LITIGATION - REAL ESTATE

GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP

LITIGATION - REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT (SEC, TELECOM, ENERGY)

HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

SECURITIES REGULATION

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

SECURITIZATION AND STRUCTURED FINANCE LAW

DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP

CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP

LITIGATION - SECURITIES

SPORTS LAW

GIBSON DUNN LLP

PROSKAUER ROSE LLP

LITIGATION - TAX

TAX LAW

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

MASS TORT LITIGATION / CLASS ACTIONS - DEFENDANTS

BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP

TECHNOLOGY LAW

VENABLE LLP

KING & SPALDING LLP

TIMBER LAW

MASS TORT LITIGATION / CLASS ACTIONS - PLAINTIFFS

TRADEMARK LAW

WEITZ & LUXENBERG P.C.

MEDIA LAW

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

LITIGATION - BANKING & FINANCE

MINING LAW

O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP

NATURAL RESOURCES LAW

PUBLIC FINANCE LAW

MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS LAW

LITIGATION - BANKRUPTCY

DENTONS

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

GIBSON DUNN LLP

GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP

NATIVE AMERICAN LAW

JONES DAY

JACKSON KELLY PLLC

MUTUAL FUNDS LAW

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP

TRANSPORTATION LAW BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER,

COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP

TRUSTS & ESTATES LAW

HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP

VENTURE CAPITAL LAW

COOLEY LLP

DECHERT LLP

LOEB & LOEB LLP

T H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E

49


NATIONAL TIER 1 RANKINGS

2017 BEST LAW FIRMS

The U.S. News – Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms” rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes the collection of client and lawyer evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys in their field, and review of additional information provided by law firms as part of the formal submission process. To be eligible for a ranking in a particular practice area and metro region, a law firm must have at least one lawyer who is included in Best Lawyers in that practice area and metro. For more information on Best Lawyers, please visit www. bestlawyers.com. For the 2017 “Best Law Firms” list, the methodology for the initiative remained the same as in the previous five years. Clients were asked to provide feedback on firm practice groups, addressing expertise, responsiveness, understanding of a business and its needs, costeffectiveness, civility, and whether they would refer another client to the firm. Clients also had the option to write in the names of law firms with which they’ve worked on other matters and within practice areas beyond those on which they were asked by the submitting firm to comment. Some clients chose to write comments about their experiences with the law firms. These comments are for reference only and were not used as

50

data points in the formal evaluation process. Lawyers also voted on expertise, responsiveness, integrity, cost-effectiveness, whether they would refer a matter to a firm, and whether they consider a firm a worthy competitor. We asked this group to vote on law firms that have preeminent national presence within specified legal practice area(s) they know well. For the third year, a Law Firm Leaders Survey was implemented to provide personal insight on the legal landscape surrounding the nationally ranked practice areas. In addition to information from these surveys, the rankings incorporate the 7.3 million evaluations of 55,000 individual leading lawyers collected by Best Lawyers in its most recent annual survey. In addition to lawyer and client feedback, law firms were asked to provide us with general demographic and background information on the law firm and attorneys, and other data that speaks to the strengths of a law firm’s practice areas. All of the quantitative and qualitative data were combined into an overall “Best Law Firms” score for each firm. This data was then compared to other firms within the same metropolitan area and at the national level. Because firms were often separated by small or insignificant differences in overall score, we use a tiering

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S

iStock.com/Yuri_Arcurs

Behind the Rankings Methodology

system rather than ranking law firms sequentially. The first tier in each metropolitan area includes those firms that scored within a certain percentage of the highestscoring firm(s); the second tier, those firms that scored within a certain percentage of the next highest scoring firm(s), and so on. The national rankings were based on metropolitan rankings as well as on the number of offices each firm had with a metropolitan ranking and on the level of legal activity in each metropolitan area. The number of tiers included in each practice area or metropolitan area ranking varies. Of the 13,803 firms that were eligible to submit information for the ranking process, 13,044 firms, including a large number of one-person firms, received rankings, and 8,144 of those firms received first-tier national and/or metropolitan

rankings. Metropolitan areas are defined by assessing the population of eligible law firms geographically to guarantee enough comparative data to produce accurate results. There are eight states that had high percentages of eligible law firms located in one large metropolitan area. Because there were also eligible law firms outside of those metropolitan areas, but not enough to create accurate results for separate metropolitan rankings, results were produced for the entire state. The states that fall into this category are: Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Utah. Practice area rankings were produced both nationally and within 186 metropolitan areas across the United States. Because some


National Tier 1 Rankings 2017 U.S. News – Best Lawyers

“Best Law Firms” Tier 1 National Rankings The 554 U.S. law firms that received national Tier 1 rankings in the 2017 edition of “Best Law Firms” are featured below. Across all tiers, a total of 2,005 firms received national rankings. In addition, a single law firm in each of the 74 national practice areas was designated “Law Firm of the Year,” a measure of the exceptional feedback each of these firms received and their impressive overall performances in the evaluations of a given practice area. These firms have been listed in red throughout the national rankings section. Visit bestlawfirms.usnews.com to view nationally ranked firms in all tiers. practice areas have minimal presence in particular legal markets, or because there was not enough data garnered for proper evaluation, some practice areas that are covered in our research are not represented in the national rankings or various metropolitan rankings. The 2017 “Best Law Firms” national rankings cover 74 practice areas, while as many as 122 practice areas are covered on the metropolitan lists. For the fifth year, one law firm in each of 74 practice areas will receive the prestigious 2017 “Law Firm of the Year” recognition. Law Firms receiving the “Law Firm of the Year” designation have an impressive overall performance in our research of a given practice area, representing a significant showing in the 2017 U.S. News – Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms” initiative.

CLIENT COMMENT

MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS ADVERTISING LAW We work with Linda Goldstein, and she and her entire team at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips are fantastic. Not only do they have knowledge of the law, they have taken the time to learn our business; and as a result, they can give practical advice very quickly. They are always responsive and consistently turn high quality work around very quickly.

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP Loeb & Loeb LLP

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP Perkins Coie LLP Proskauer Rose LLP Reed Smith LLP Venable LLP Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP ANTITRUST LAW

Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP Bryan Cave LLP Covington & Burling LLP Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP Marshall Dennehey Warner ADMIRALTY & MARITIME LAW Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP Coleman & Goggin, P.C. Burke & Parsons Dechert LLP McLaughlin & Stern, LLP Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP Gibson Dunn LLP Nicoletti Hornig & Sweeney Cozen O'Connor Hausfeld LLP Seward & Kissel LLP Freehill Hogan & Mahar LLP Hogan Lovells US LLP Squire Patton Boggs LLP Friedman, James & Buchsbaum LLP Jones Day Thompson Coburn LLP Gilmartin, Poster & Shafto LLP K&L Gates Vedder Price P.C. Goodwin Kaye Scholer LLP Watson Farley & Williams LLP Hill Rivkins LLP Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton Hill, Betts & Nash LLP ADVERTISING LAW LLP Holland & Knight, LLP Kirkland & Ellis LLP Crowell & Moring LLP Keesal, Young & Logan Latham & Watkins LLP Davis & Gilbert LLP Kennedy Schmidt EnglishfirmsFrankfurt Mayer1Brown LLP TheLillis 505 U.S.& law that received Tier rankings in the Kurnit Klein & national Selz, PC Law Offices of David L. Mazaroli McDermott Will & Emery LLP Keller and below. Heckman LLP “Best Law Firms” are featured Across all tiers, a total of 1,858

2016 U.S. News – Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms”

NATIONAL TIER 1 RANKINGS

2016 edi firms rec national rankings. In addition, a single law firm in each of the 74 national prac areas was designated “Law Firm of the Year,” a measure of the exceptional fee H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E 51 each of these firms received and their impressive Toverall performances in the evaluations of a given practice area. These firms have been listed in red throu


NATIONAL TIER 1 RANKINGS Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

Morrison & Foerster LLP O'Melveny & Myers LLP Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Ropes & Gray LLP Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP Sidley Austin LLP Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP White & Case LLP Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC Winston & Strawn LLP APPELLATE PRACTICE

Akerman LLP Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend LLP Altshuler Berzon LLP Arnold & Porter LLP Baker & Hostetler LLP Baker & McKenzie LLP Baker Botts L.L.P. Bancroft, McGavin, Horvath & Judkins, P.C. Barnes & Thornburg LLP Beck Redden LLP Bennett & Secrest, PLLC Bracewell LLP Brault Graham, LLC Bryan Cave LLP Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP Carlton Fields Covington & Burling LLP Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP Dechert LLP Degani & Galston LLP Dennis A. Fischer Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP Duane Morris LLP Edward J. Horowitz Eric S. Multhaup Farella Braun + Martel LLP Forde Law Offices LLP Gibson Dunn LLP GrayRobinson, P.A. Greenberg Traurig LLP Greene Smith & Associates, P.A. Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP Hall Prangle and Schoonveld LLC Haynes and Boone, LLP Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein, P.A. Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP Hogan & Hogan LLP Hogan Lovells US LLP Holland & Knight, LLP Horvitz & Levy LLP Jenner & Block LLP Joel S. Perwin P.A. Jones Day Keker & Van Nest LLP

52

2017 BEST LAW FIRMS

Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C. Kendall Brill & Kelly LLP Kenny Nachwalter, P.A. Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP King & Spalding LLP Kirkland & Ellis LLP Latham & Watkins LLP Law Office of Barry Fischer PLC Law Office of Robert S. Gerstein Law Offices of Michael T. Reagan Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Lightfoot Steingard & Sadowsky LLP Locke Lord LLP Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Mayer Brown LLP

MoloLamken LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP Norton Rose Fulbright O'Melveny & Myers LLP Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP Perkins Coie LLP Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Podhurst Orseck, P.A. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP Reed Smith LLP Riordan & Horgan Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP Ross & Girten PA Russo Appellate Firm P.A. Schiff Hardin LLP Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP Schonbrun Seplow Harris & Hoffman, LLP Severson & Werson, P.C. Seyfarth Shaw LLP Sidley Austin LLP Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP SmithAmundsen LLC Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP The Appellate Practice of Robert S. Glazier The Law Offices of Ephraim Margolin Vinson & Elkins LLP Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman, P.L. White & Case LLP Wiley Rein LLP Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP Winston & Strawn LLP Wright & Close, LLP Yetter Coleman LLP Zuckerman Spaeder LLP BANKING AND FINANCE LAW

Alston & Bird LLP Andrews Kurth LLP Arnold & Porter LLP Blank Rome LLP Bracewell LLP Bryan Cave LLP

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S

Buchalter Nemer PC Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP Covington & Burling LLP Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP Debevoise & Plimpton LLP Dechert LLP Duane Morris LLP Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP Gibson Dunn LLP Goodwin Greenberg Traurig LLP Holland & Knight, LLP Hunton & Williams LLP Jones Day K&L Gates King & Spalding LLP Kirkland & Ellis LLP Latham & Watkins LLP Locke Lord LLP Luskin, Stern & Eisler LLP Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP Mayer Brown LLP McDermott Will & Emery LLP

McGuireWoods LLP

Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP Miles & Stockbridge P.C. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP Otterbourg, P.C. Paul Hastings LLP Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP Reed Smith LLP Shearman & Sterling LLP Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP Sidley Austin LLP Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Squire Patton Boggs LLP Stinson Leonard Street LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Sullivan & Worcester LLP Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP Troutman Sanders LLP Vedder Price P.C. Venable LLP Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP White & Case LLP Williams Mullen Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP Winston & Strawn LLP BANKRUPTCY AND CREDITOR DEBTOR RIGHTS / INSOLVENCY AND REORGANIZATION LAW

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Alston & Bird LLP Andrews Kurth LLP Arent Fox LLP Arnold & Porter LLP Baker & Hostetler LLP Ballard Spahr LLP

Blank Rome LLP Brown Rudnick LLP Bryan Cave LLP Buchalter Nemer PC Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC Cole Schotz P.C. Cooley LLP Covington & Burling LLP Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Dentons DLA Piper LLP Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP Duane Morris LLP Dykema Gossett PLLC Foley & Lardner LLP Fox Rothschild LLP Gibson Dunn LLP Goodwin Greenberg Traurig LLP Haynes and Boone, LLP Holland & Knight, LLP Hunton & Williams LLP Jenner & Block LLP Jones Day K&L Gates Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Kaye Scholer LLP King & Spalding LLP Kirkland & Ellis LLP Latham & Watkins LLP LeClairRyan Mayer Brown LLP McGuireWoods LLP McKool Smith PC Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP O'Melveny & Myers LLP Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP Pepper Hamilton LLP Perkins Coie LLP Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Proskauer Rose LLP Quarles & Brady LLP Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP Reed Smith LLP Ropes & Gray LLP Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP Sidley Austin LLP

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Squire Patton Boggs LLP Stinson Leonard Street LLP Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP Thompson & Knight LLP Thompson Hine LLP Troutman Sanders LLP Venable LLP Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP White & Case LLP Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLP Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP


Winston & Strawn LLP Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP BIOTECHNOLOGY LAW

Arnold & Porter LLP Cooley LLP Foley & Lardner LLP Foley Hoag LLP

Goodwin

Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP Jones Day K&L Gates Kaye Scholer LLP McDermott Will & Emery LLP Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. Morrison & Foerster LLP Perkins Coie LLP Ropes & Gray LLP Sidley Austin LLP Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP COMMERCIAL LITIGATION

Akerman LLP

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Alston & Bird LLP Arnold & Porter LLP Baker & Hostetler LLP Baker & McKenzie LLP Baker Botts L.L.P. Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC Ballard Spahr LLP Blank Rome LLP Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP Bryan Cave LLP Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP Cooley LLP Covington & Burling LLP Cozen O'Connor Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Debevoise & Plimpton LLP Dechert LLP Dentons Dickinson Wright PLLC Dinsmore & Shohl LLP DLA Piper LLP Dorsey & Whitney LLP Faegre Baker Daniels LLP Foley & Lardner LLP Gibson Dunn LLP Goodwin Greenberg Traurig LLP Haynes and Boone, LLP Hogan Lovells US LLP Holland & Knight, LLP Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP Hunton & Williams LLP Jenner & Block LLP

Jones Day

K&L Gates Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Kaye Scholer LLP Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP

Ropes & Gray LLP Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. Sidley Austin LLP

Lawler, Metzger, Keeney & Logan, LLC Lerman Senter PLLC Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby, LLP

Mayer Brown LLP

CLIENT COMMENT

GOODWIN BIOTECHNOLOGY LAW Mark Heller and team at Goodwin Procter are the best in the business.

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Norwick, Schad & Goering Sidley Austin LLP Telecommunications Law Professionals PLLC Wiley Rein LLP Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP CONSTRUCTION LAW

King & Spalding LLP Kirkland & Ellis LLP Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP Latham & Watkins LLP LeClairRyan Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP Locke Lord LLP Mayer Brown LLP McCarter & English, LLP McDermott Will & Emery LLP McGuireWoods LLP McKool Smith PC Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. Squire Patton Boggs LLP Stinson Leonard Street LLP Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Susman Godfrey LLP Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP Thompson & Knight LLP Thompson Hine LLP Troutman Sanders LLP Vinson & Elkins LLP Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP White & Case LLP Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP

CLIENT COMMENT

PECKAR & ABRAMSONE CONSTRUCTION LAW Peckar & Abramson have distinguished themselves as a leader in the construction legal world. They possess an incredible depth of construction industry knowledge which combined with exceptional legal skills make them a valued business partner. Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP Nixon Peabody LLP Norton Rose Fulbright O'Melveny & Myers LLP Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Pepper Hamilton LLP Perkins Coie LLP Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Polsinelli PC Proskauer Rose LLP Quarles & Brady LLP Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP Reed Smith LLP

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP Winston & Strawn LLP Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP Zuckerman Spaeder LLP COMMUNICATIONS LAW

Baker Botts L.L.P. Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP Covington & Burling LLP Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP Holland & Knight, LLP Jenner & Block LLP Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C. Latham & Watkins LLP

Akerman LLP Alston & Bird LLP Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP Coats Rose, PC DLA Piper LLP Duane Morris LLP Gallet Dreyer & Berkey, LLP Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP Greenberg Traurig LLP Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP Holland & Knight, LLP Ice Miller LLP Jones Day K&L Gates Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Kraftson Caudle Lane Law Services Levy, Tolman & Costello, LLP McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP Moore & Lee, LLP Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

Peckar & Abramson, P.C.

Pepper Hamilton LLP Perkins Coie LLP Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Schiff Hardin LLP Seyfarth Shaw LLP Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC Smith, Currie & Hancock Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. Stoel Rives LLP Thompson Hine LLP Troutman Sanders LLP Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, L.L.P. Weinberg Wheeler Hudgins Gunn & Dial LLC Zetlin & De Chiara LLP COPYRIGHT LAW

Ballard Spahr LLP Covington & Burling LLP Cowan Liebowitz & Latman, P.C.

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

DLA Piper LLP Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, PC Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C. Greenberg Traurig LLP

T H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E

53


NATIONAL TIER 1 RANKINGS K&L Gates Kenyon & Kenyon LLP King & Spalding LLP Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, LLP Merchant & Gould Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Norton Rose Fulbright Paul Hastings LLP Perkins Coie LLP Thompson Coburn LLP CORPORATE LAW

Akerman LLP Alston & Bird LLP Arnold & Porter LLP Baker & Hostetler LLP Baker & McKenzie LLP Baker Botts L.L.P. Ballard Spahr LLP Barnes & Thornburg LLP Bracewell LLP Bryan Cave LLP Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP Choate Hall & Stewart LLP Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP Cooley LLP Covington & Burling LLP

Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP Debevoise & Plimpton LLP

2017 BEST LAW FIRMS

Holland & Knight, LLP Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP Hunton & Williams LLP Jones Day K&L Gates Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Kaye Scholer LLP Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP King & Spalding LLP Kirkland & Ellis LLP Latham & Watkins LLP Locke Lord LLP Lowenstein Sandler LLP Mayer Brown LLP McDermott Will & Emery LLP McGuireWoods LLP Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP Miles & Stockbridge P.C. Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP Murphy & McGonigle Nixon Peabody LLP Norton Rose Fulbright Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Paul Hastings LLP Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Pepper Hamilton LLP Perkins Coie LLP Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

CLIENT COMMENT

ALSTON & BIRD EMPLOYEE BENEFITS (ERISA) LAW Alston & Bird understands our business and how our employees work, and this shows in the advice they provide. Their legal counsel is practical; they take business realities into account and are a valued partner of our company. Most of their attorneys have taken the time to work (on a non-billable basis) for a few days in our operation, which helps them understand our company. They have provided employee benefits representation to us for almost 20 years. Their employee benefits practice is very deep. They have excellent connections with the agencies in DC and are also an advisor to our public affairs group. Dechert LLP Dentons DLA Piper LLP Dorsey & Whitney LLP Duane Morris LLP Faegre Baker Daniels LLP Foley & Lardner LLP Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP Gibson Dunn LLP Goodwin Greenberg Traurig LLP Hogan Lovells US LLP

54

Polsinelli PC Proskauer Rose LLP Quarles & Brady LLP Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A. Ropes & Gray LLP Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP Shearman & Sterling LLP Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP Sidley Austin LLP Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Squire Patton Boggs LLP Stinson Leonard Street LLP Stoel Rives LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Sullivan & Worcester LLP Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP Thompson & Knight LLP Thompson Coburn LLP Thompson Hine LLP Troutman Sanders LLP Venable LLP Vinson & Elkins LLP Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP White & Case LLP Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC Winston & Strawn LLP Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP DERIVATIVES AND FUTURES LAW

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP Foley & Lardner LLP K&L Gates Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP Paul Hastings LLP Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP Sidley Austin LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP

Sullivan & Cromwell LLP

Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP EMPLOYEE BENEFITS (ERISA) LAW

Alston & Bird LLP

Baker & McKenzie LLP Bryan Cave LLP Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP Conner & Winters, LLP Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP Debevoise & Plimpton LLP Dechert LLP Dentons DLA Piper LLP Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP Foley & Lardner LLP Fox Rothschild LLP Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP Gibson Dunn LLP Greenberg Traurig LLP Gunderson Dettmer Stough Villeneuve Franklin & Hachigian, LLP Hogan Lovells US LLP

Holland & Knight, LLP Hunton & Williams LLP Jones Day K&L Gates Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Latham & Watkins LLP Mayer Brown LLP McDermott Will & Emery LLP McGuireWoods LLP Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Paul Hastings LLP Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Perkins Coie LLP Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Proskauer Rose LLP Seyfarth Shaw LLP Shearman & Sterling LLP Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Steptoe & Johnson LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP Thompson Coburn LLP Vinson & Elkins LLP Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP EMPLOYMENT LAW MANAGEMENT

Baker & Hostetler LLP Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC Barnes & Thornburg LLP Blank Rome LLP Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC Bryan Cave LLP Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP Cozen O'Connor Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Dorsey & Whitney LLP Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. Fisher Phillips LLP Foley & Lardner LLP FordHarrison LLP Gibson Dunn LLP Greenberg Traurig LLP Holland & Knight, LLP Hunton & Williams LLP Husch Blackwell LLP

Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jones Day K&L Gates Littler Mendelson P.C. Locke Lord LLP McGuireWoods LLP Michael Best & Friedrich LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP


Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP Nixon Peabody LLP Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Paul Hastings LLP Perkins Coie LLP Proskauer Rose LLP Quarles & Brady LLP Seyfarth Shaw LLP Sherman & Howard L.L.C. Squire Patton Boggs LLP Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP Thompson Coburn LLP Troutman Sanders LLP Venable LLP Vinson & Elkins LLP Winston & Strawn LLP Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP ENERGY LAW

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Alston & Bird LLP Andrews Kurth LLP

Baker Botts L.L.P.

Bracewell LLP Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Day Pitney LLP Dentons Hogan Lovells US LLP Hunton & Williams LLP Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, PLC Jones Day K&L Gates King & Spalding LLP Latham & Watkins LLP Locke Lord LLP Mayer Brown LLP McCarter & English, LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP Norton Rose Fulbright Perkins Coie LLP Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Schiff Hardin LLP Sidley Austin LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Stinson Leonard Street LLP Stoel Rives LLP Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP Thompson & Knight LLP Troutman Sanders LLP

CLIENT COMMENT

SIDLEY AUSTIN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW I rely on the team at Sidley Austin, and my key contacts in particular, to be knowledgeable of the law and the system in which it is applied. They always respond quickly with both knowledge and practical options. Van Ness Feldman LLP Vinson & Elkins LLP Winston & Strawn LLP ENTERTAINMENT LAW - MOTION PICTURES & TELEVISION

Bloom Hergott Diemer Rosenthal LaViolette Feldman & Goodman Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Del, Shaw, Moonves, Tanaka, Finkelstein & Lezcano Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, PC Franklin, Weinrib, Rudell & Vassallo, P.C. Gang, Tyre, Ramer & Brown Gibson Dunn LLP Greenberg Traurig LLP Hansen, Jacobson, Teller, Hoberman, Newman, Warren, Richman, Rush & Kaller, L.L.P. Holland & Knight, LLP Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert LLP Law Offices of George Sheanshang Loeb & Loeb LLP

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP O'Melveny & Myers LLP Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Rosenberg & Giger P.C. Schreck Rose Dapello & Adams LLP Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP Steven M. Hayes PC Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP Ziffren Brittenham LLP ENTERTAINMENT LAW - MUSIC

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Eastman & Eastman

CLIENT COMMENT

JACKSON LEWIS EMPLOYMENT LAW - MANAGEMENT As an in-house counsel that manages a multi-state business, Jackson Lewis has not only met my every expectation for expert support and counsel across the country, it set the bar for the other nonemployment firms with which I work.

Franklin, Weinrib, Rudell & Vassallo, P.C. Greenberg Traurig LLP Grubman Shire & Meiselas, P.C.

Loeb & Loeb LLP

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP Proskauer Rose LLP Schreck Rose Dapello & Adams LLP Sukin Law Group ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

Akerman LLP Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Alston & Bird LLP Arnold & Porter LLP Baker Botts L.L.P. Ballard Spahr LLP Barnes & Thornburg LLP Beveridge & Diamond PC Bryan Cave LLP Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP Covington & Burling LLP Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP Dentons Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP Foley & Lardner LLP Gibbons P.C. Gibson Dunn LLP Goodwin Greenberg Traurig LLP Haynes and Boone, LLP Hogan Lovells US LLP Holland & Hart LLP Holland & Knight, LLP Hunton & Williams LLP K&L Gates Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Kazmarek Mowrey Cloud Laseter LLP Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP Latham & Watkins LLP Lathrop & Gage LLP Manko, Gold, Katcher & Fox LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Norton Rose Fulbright O'Melveny & Myers LLP Perkins Coie LLP Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Proskauer Rose LLP Quarles & Brady LLP

Saul Ewing LLP Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Sidley Austin LLP

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C. Squire Patton Boggs LLP Stoel Rives LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Sullivan & Worcester LLP Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP Troutman Sanders LLP Van Ness Feldman LLP Venable LLP Vinson & Elkins LLP Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP White & Case LLP Williams Mullen Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP EQUIPMENT FINANCE LAW

Clifford Chance LLP Duane Morris LLP Holland & Knight, LLP Mayer Brown LLP Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP Norton Rose Fulbright Sidley Austin LLP

Vedder Price P.C. White & Case LLP FDA LAW

Arnold & Porter LLP

Covington & Burling LLP

Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, P.C. King & Spalding LLP Sidley Austin LLP Williams & Connolly LLP FINANCIAL SERVICES REGULATION LAW

Arnold & Porter LLP Bracewell LLP BuckleySandler LLP Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP Covington & Burling LLP Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP Debevoise & Plimpton LLP Jones Day K&L Gates Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP Sidley Austin LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Stinson Leonard Street LLP

Sullivan & Cromwell LLP White & Case LLP

FRANCHISE LAW

Bryan Cave LLP Cheng Cohen LLC Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

T H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E

55


NATIONAL TIER 1 RANKINGS Dentons DLA Piper LLP Foley & Lardner LLP Genovese Joblove & Battista, P.A. Gray Plant Mooty Greenberg Traurig LLP Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, P.C. Kaufmann Gildin & Robbins LLP

Nixon Peabody LLP

Plave Koch PLC Polsinelli PC Quarles & Brady LLP Schiff Hardin LLP Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. Steinbrecher & Span LLP Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse & Hirschtritt LLP Zarco Einhorn Salkowski & Brito, P.A. HEALTH CARE LAW

Akerman LLP Alston & Bird LLP Arent Fox LLP Baker & Hostetler LLP Bricker & Eckler LLP Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC Covington & Burling LLP Crowell & Moring LLP Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Dentons Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP Duane Morris LLP Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. Foley & Lardner LLP Greenberg Traurig LLP Hall, Render, Killian, Heath & Lyman, P.C. Hogan Lovells US LLP Holland & Knight, LLP Hooper, Lundy & Bookman, P.C. Jones Day K&L Gates Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP King & Spalding LLP Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

McDermott Will & Emery LLP

McGuireWoods LLP Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. Nixon Peabody LLP Norton Rose Fulbright Polsinelli PC Proskauer Rose LLP Reed Smith LLP Ropes & Gray LLP Seyfarth Shaw LLP Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP Sidley Austin LLP IMMIGRATION LAW

Barst Mukamal & Kleiner LLP Benach Collopy LLP Berry Appleman & Leiden LLP Bretz & Coven, LLP Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC Duane Morris LLP

Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen and Loewy, LLP

56

2017 BEST LAW FIRMS

Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP Gibney, Anthony & Flaherty, LLP Glinsmann Immigration Greenberg Traurig LLP Hammond Young Immigration Law LLC Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP Laura Kelsey Rhodes, LLC Lichtman & Elliot, PC Maggio Kattar Nahajzer + Alexander, P.C. Masliah & Soloway Mayer Brown LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Odin, Feldman & Pittleman, P.C. Pryor Cashman LLP Reina & Bates Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke Seyfarth Shaw LLP The Law Office of Cheryl R. David The Seltzer Firm, PLLC Trow & Rahal, P.C. Waxlaw Wormser, Kiely, Galef & Jacobs LLP

Barnes & Thornburg LLP Blank Rome LLP Chadbourne & Parke LLP Clyde & Co LLP Covington & Burling LLP Cozen O'Connor Dentons DLA Piper LLP Duane Morris LLP Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP Hogan Lovells US LLP Holland & Knight, LLP Jenner & Block LLP Jones Day Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman LLP Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Locke Lord LLP McDermott Will & Emery LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP O'Melveny & Myers LLP Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Perkins Coie LLP Proskauer Rose LLP

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LAW

Robins Kaplan LLP Sedgwick LLP Sidley Austin LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Squire Patton Boggs LLP Steptoe & Johnson LLP Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP Troutman Sanders LLP White and Williams LLP

Arnold & Porter LLP Covington & Burling LLP Cowan Liebowitz & Latman, P.C. DLA Piper LLP Fenwick & West LLP Gibson Dunn LLP Greenberg Traurig LLP Locke Lord LLP Mayer Brown LLP

Morrison & Foerster LLP

Moses & Singer LLP Perkins Coie LLP Peter Brown & Associates PLLC

Reed Smith LLP

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION COMMERCIAL

American University Washington College of Law

CLIENT COMMENT

MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY HEALTH CARE LAW McDermott Will & Emery has been instrumental in assisting us through our merger with a large national ASC management company and a local health system. We could not have completed the transaction in a timely manner without their guidance and expertise. Jennifer Vecchio is an expert in her field and has gained the trust of our physicians and executives!

Ropes & Gray LLP Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP INSURANCE LAW

Anderson Kill, P.C.

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S

Arnold & Porter LLP Astigarraga Davis Baker & McKenzie LLP Chaffetz Lindsey LLP Covington & Burling LLP Debevoise & Plimpton LLP

Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP Mark A. Kantor Sidley Austin LLP Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP White & Case LLP

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION GOVERNMENTAL

Baker & McKenzie LLP Chaffetz Lindsey LLP Craco & Ellsworth, LLP Debevoise & Plimpton LLP Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

White & Case LLP

INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND FINANCE LAW

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Alston & Bird LLP Baker Botts L.L.P. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP Greenberg Traurig LLP

Hogan Lovells US LLP

Holland & Knight, LLP Hunton & Williams LLP McDermott Will & Emery LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Perkins Coie LLP Shearman & Sterling LLP Sidley Austin LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP White & Case LLP LABOR LAW - MANAGEMENT

Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. Baker & Hostetler LLP Barnes & Thornburg LLP Blank Rome LLP Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP Cooley LLP Cozen O'Connor Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. Fisher Phillips LLP FordHarrison LLP Gibson Dunn LLP Greenberg Traurig LLP Holland & Knight, LLP Hunton & Williams LLP Jackson Lewis P.C. Jones Day K&L Gates Littler Mendelson P.C. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP Nixon Peabody LLP

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Paul Hastings LLP


Perkins Coie LLP Proskauer Rose LLP Putney, Twombly, Hall & Hirson LLP Quarles & Brady LLP Reed Smith LLP Saul Ewing LLP Seyfarth Shaw LLP Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP Sherman & Howard L.L.C. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Squire Patton Boggs LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Thompson Coburn LLP Venable LLP Vinson & Elkins LLP

Foley & Lardner LLP Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP GoldmanHarris LLC Goodwin

Goulston & Storrs PC

Greenberg Traurig LLP Holland & Knight, LLP Hunton & Williams LLP K&L Gates Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP Latham & Watkins LLP Law Offices of Susan R. Diamond, P.C. Lerch, Early & Brewer, Chartered Linowes and Blocher LLP Mayer Brown LLP McGuireWoods LLP Meltzer, Purtill & Stelle LLC Morrison & Foerster LLP Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP Perkins Coie LLP Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP Stinson Leonard Street LLP Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP The Sohagi Law Group, PLC Troutman Sanders LLP Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley & Walsh, PC Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

LAND USE & ZONING LAW

Akerman LLP Ballard Spahr LLP Briscoe Ivester & Bazel LLP Broad and Cassel Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP Cohen & Perfetto, LLP Cooley LLP Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP Davis Wright Tremaine LLP DLA Piper LLP Dykema Gossett PLLC Farella Braun + Martel LLP Filippini Law Firm

LEVERAGED BUYOUTS AND PRIVATE EQUITY LAW

Cooley LLP

Covington & Burling LLP Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP Debevoise & Plimpton LLP DLA Piper LLP Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP Goodwin K&L Gates Kaye Scholer LLP Kirkland & Ellis LLP Latham & Watkins LLP Lowenstein Sandler LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Proskauer Rose LLP Ropes & Gray LLP Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP White & Case LLP Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP LITIGATION - ANTITRUST

Arnold & Porter LLP Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP Baker & McKenzie LLP

Baker & Miller PLLC Baker Botts L.L.P. Bryan Cave LLP Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP Covington & Burling LLP Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP Dechert LLP DLA Piper LLP Dorsey & Whitney LLP Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP

Gibson Dunn LLP

Hausfeld LLP Hogan Lovells US LLP Jenner & Block LLP Jones Day K&L Gates Kaye Scholer LLP Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP King & Spalding LLP Kirkland & Ellis LLP Mayer Brown LLP McDermott Will & Emery LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP Norton Rose Fulbright Ober Kaler Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Paul Hastings LLP

We Weknow knowwho whoto totalk talkto, to,where whereto tofind findthe theanswers, answers, and andwhat whatsteps stepsare arenecessary necessaryfor foryour yoursuccess. success. ¢ PRESIDENT New York State

¢ PRESIDENT

Trial Lawyers PRESIDENT Association

Long Island Affiliate of the New York State Trial Lawyers Association

New York State Trial Lawyers Association

¢ APPOINTMENT to the New York State Governor’s Medical Malpractice Task Force

PRESIDENT

Long Island Affiliate of the New York State Trial Lawyers Association

REPRESENTING REPRESENTING NEWYORKERS YORKERS NEW

SINCE1980 1980 IN IN MATTERS SINCE MATTERS INVOLVING: INVOLVING: ¢ Medical Malpractice ¢ Medical Malpractice ¢ Construction Site Accidents ¢ Construction Site Accidents ¢ Dangerous Buildings ¢ Dangerous Buildings Auto/Truck Negligence Negligence ¢¢Auto/Truck SeriousPersonal Personal Injuries ¢¢Serious Injuries

APPOINTMENT

to the New York State Governor’s Medical Malpractice Task Force

JOSEPH P. AWAD AND JOSEPH MIKLOS BACK ROW: ANNA LIVSHITS, DANIEL P. MIKLOS, MARIANNE C. BURKE, MICHAEL LAUTERBORN, JAMES E. BAKER

FRONT ROW: ROBERT A. MIKLOS, OLGA SIAMIONAVA, JOSEPH P. AWAD, JOSEPH MIKLOS, CHAN H. PARK, ALEXANDRIA AWAD

*Ranked Tier 1 in New York City

*Ranked– Tier 1 in New York City – Plaintiffs’ Medical Medical Malpractice Law and Malpractice Law Personal Injury Litigation

SILBERSTEIN, AWAD & MIKLOS, P.C. P.C. SILBERSTEIN, AWAD & MIKLOS, 140 Broadway, New York, NY 10005 ¢ 212.233.6600 140 Broadway, New York, NY 10005 ¢ 212.233.6600 600 Old Country Road, Garden City, NY 11530 ¢ 516.832.7777 600 Old Country Road, Garden City, NY 11530 ¢ 516.832.7777 Toll Free1-877.ASK4SAM 1-877.ASK4SAM¢¢www.ask4sam.com www.ask4sam.com Toll Free

T H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E

57


NATIONAL TIER 1 RANKINGS

2017 BEST LAW FIRMS

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Perkins Coie LLP Ropes & Gray LLP Sidley Austin LLP Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Susman Godfrey LLP Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP White & Case LLP Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP Winston & Strawn LLP

Holland & Knight, LLP Jones Day K&L Gates Kaye Scholer LLP Kirkland & Ellis LLP Latham & Watkins LLP LeClairRyan McKool Smith PC Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP Norton Rose Fulbright

LITIGATION - BANKING & FINANCE

Perkins Coie LLP Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Proskauer Rose LLP Reed Smith LLP Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP Sidley Austin LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Squire Patton Boggs LLP Stinson Leonard Street LLP Thompson Coburn LLP Venable LLP Vinson & Elkins LLP Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLP Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP Winston & Strawn LLP

Akerman LLP Alston & Bird LLP Baker Botts L.L.P. Ballard Spahr LLP BuckleySandler LLP Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP Covington & Burling LLP Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP Goodwin

Greenberg Traurig LLP

Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. Holland & Knight, LLP Hunton & Williams LLP Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP McGuireWoods LLP McKool Smith PC Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. Morrison & Foerster LLP Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Squire Patton Boggs LLP Stinson Leonard Street LLP Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Webster Book LLP Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP LITIGATION - BANKRUPTCY

Akerman LLP

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Baker & Hostetler LLP Ballard Spahr LLP Blank Rome LLP Brown Rudnick LLP Bryan Cave LLP Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered Cole Schotz P.C. Cooley LLP Dentons DLA Piper LLP Duane Morris LLP Foley & Lardner LLP Gibson Dunn LLP Greenberg Traurig LLP Haynes and Boone, LLP

58

O'Melveny & Myers LLP

LITIGATION - CONSTRUCTION

Adams and Reese LLP Akerman LLP Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Alston & Bird LLP Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC Bean, Kinney & Korman, PC Carlton Fields Coats Rose, PC Cokinos, Bosien & Young, P.C. Conway & Mrowiec David E. Montgomery DLA Piper LLP Duane Morris LLP Foley & Lardner LLP Frost Brown Todd LLC Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP Greenberg Traurig LLP Harris Winick Harris LLP Hinckley Allen Holland & Knight, LLP Ice Miller LLP Jenner & Block LLP Jones Day Jones Walker LLP K&L Gates Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Kraftson Caudle Laurie & Brennan LLP LeClairRyan

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S

McGuireWoods LLP Moore & Lee, LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Murtha Cullina LLP Nexsen Pruet, LLC Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Pepper Hamilton LLP Perkins Coie LLP

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

Schiff Hardin LLP Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP Seyfarth Shaw LLP Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. Stein Ray LLP Stinson Leonard Street LLP Stites & Harbison, PLLC Stoel Rives LLP Troutman Sanders LLP Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, L.L.P. Weinberg Wheeler Hudgins Gunn & Dial LLC Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLP Williams Mullen Zetlin & De Chiara LLP LITIGATION - ENVIRONMENTAL

Alston & Bird LLP Arnold & Porter LLP Baker Botts L.L.P. Ballard Spahr LLP Barnes & Thornburg LLP Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. Beveridge & Diamond PC Bryan Cave LLP Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP Covington & Burling LLP Dentons DLA Piper LLP Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP Gibson Dunn LLP Goodwin Greenberg Traurig LLP Greenwood Environmental Counsel PLLC Haynes and Boone, LLP Holland & Hart LLP Holland & Knight, LLP

Hunton & Williams LLP

Jones Day K&L Gates Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Kazmarek Mowrey Cloud Laseter LLP King & Spalding LLP Latham & Watkins LLP Lathrop & Gage LLP Marzulla Law LLC McDermott Will & Emery LLP McGuireWoods LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr, P.C. Norton Rose Fulbright Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Perkins Coie LLP

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Proskauer Rose LLP Quarles & Brady LLP Saul Ewing LLP Sidley Austin LLP Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C. Squire Patton Boggs LLP Stoel Rives LLP Sullivan & Worcester LLP Troutman Sanders LLP Van Ness Feldman LLP Venable LLP Vinson & Elkins LLP LITIGATION - ERISA

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Alston & Bird LLP Arent Fox LLP Bailey & Ehrenberg, PLLC Baker Botts L.L.P. Covington & Burling LLP Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP Gibson Dunn LLP Goodwin Greenberg Traurig LLP Groom Law Group, Chartered Harkins Cunningham LLP Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Mayer Brown LLP McDermott Will & Emery LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP Norton Rose Fulbright Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. O'Melveny & Myers LLP Roland G. Simpson, LC

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Steptoe & Johnson LLP Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP Trucker Huss, APC LITIGATION - FIRST AMENDMENT

Baker & Hostetler LLP Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP Bryan Cave LLP Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Dechert LLP Dentons Holland & Knight, LLP Jackson Walker L.L.P. Jassy Vick Carolan LLP Jenner & Block LLP Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, LLP MDR Capital Partners, LLC Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Nixon Peabody LLP Pepper Hamilton LLP Perkins Coie LLP Prince Lobel Tye LLP Proskauer Rose LLP


Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP Sidley Austin LLP Williams & Connolly LLP Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP LITIGATION - INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Alston & Bird LLP Baker & Hostetler LLP Baker Botts L.L.P. Ballard Spahr LLP Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. Barnes & Thornburg LLP Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP Bryan Cave LLP Carlton Fields Cooley LLP Covington & Burling LLP Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Debevoise & Plimpton LLP Dechert LLP DLA Piper LLP Dorsey & Whitney LLP Duane Morris LLP Fenwick & West LLP Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Fish & Richardson P.C. Foley & Lardner LLP Gibson Dunn LLP Goodwin Greenberg Traurig LLP Jones Day K&L Gates Kenyon & Kenyon LLP Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP King & Spalding LLP

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Latham & Watkins LLP Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, LLP Locke Lord LLP Mayer Brown LLP McDermott Will & Emery LLP McKool Smith PC Michael Best & Friedrich LLP Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP Norton Rose Fulbright O'Melveny & Myers LLP Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP Paul Hastings LLP Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Perkins Coie LLP Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Polsinelli PC Proskauer Rose LLP Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP Reed Smith LLP Robins Kaplan LLP Ropes & Gray LLP

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP Sidley Austin LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Steptoe & Johnson LLP Susman Godfrey LLP Venable LLP Vinson & Elkins LLP Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP White & Case LLP Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP Winston & Strawn LLP Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP

Kraus & Zuchlewski Littler Mendelson P.C. Mark Risk, PC McGuireWoods LLP Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C. Miller Canfield LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP Nixon Peabody LLP Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. Outten & Golden LLP Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP Paul Hastings LLP Perkins Coie LLP

CLIENT COMMENT

FISH & RICHARDSON LITIGATION - PATENT Michael Zoppo, Dave Francescani, and the other patent litigators at Fish & Richardson are always looking out for the best interests of the company; they are not in it for the billable hours. These litigators are more than just exceptional practitioners; they are wonderful partners that we look forward to working with as the occasion arises. LITIGATION - LABOR & EMPLOYMENT

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Baker & Hostetler LLP Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC Bracewell LLP Bryan Cave LLP Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP Cozen O'Connor Curley, Hurtgen & Johnsrud LLP Davis & Gilbert LLP Davis Wright Tremaine LLP DLA Piper LLP Dorsey & Whitney LLP Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. Fisher Phillips LLP Foley & Lardner LLP

FordHarrison LLP

Friedman & Anspach Gangemi P.C. Gibson Dunn LLP Gladstein, Reif & Meginniss, LLP Greenberg Traurig LLP Holland & Knight, LLP Hunton & Williams LLP Husch Blackwell LLP Isler Dare PC Jackson Lewis P.C. Jackson Walker L.L.P. Jones Day K&L Gates

Polsinelli PC Proskauer Rose LLP Quarles & Brady LLP Reed Smith LLP Ritz Clark & Ben-Asher LLP Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP Seyfarth Shaw LLP Sherman & Howard L.L.C. Sidley Austin LLP Squire Patton Boggs LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP Venable LLP Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP LITIGATION - MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS

Baker Botts L.L.P. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP Forman & Shapiro LLP Greenberg Traurig LLP Hogan Lovells US LLP Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Proskauer Rose LLP Sidley Austin LLP

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Vinson & Elkins LLP

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP LITIGATION - PATENT

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Alston & Bird LLP Baker & Hostetler LLP Baker Botts L.L.P. Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. Cooley LLP Covington & Burling LLP Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP Dechert LLP Desmarais LLP DLA Piper LLP Dorsey & Whitney LLP Duane Morris LLP Fenwick & West LLP Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP

Fish & Richardson P.C.

Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto Foley & Lardner LLP Gibson Dunn LLP Goodwin Greenberg Traurig LLP Jones Day K&L Gates Kaye Scholer LLP Kenyon & Kenyon LLP King & Spalding LLP Kirkland & Ellis LLP Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP Latham & Watkins LLP Locke Lord LLP Mayer Brown LLP McDermott Will & Emery LLP McKool Smith PC Michael Best & Friedrich LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP Norton Rose Fulbright O'Melveny & Myers LLP Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Paul Hastings LLP Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Perkins Coie LLP Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Proskauer Rose LLP Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP Reed Smith LLP Ropes & Gray LLP Sidley Austin LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Steptoe & Johnson LLP Susman Godfrey LLP Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP Winston & Strawn LLP

T H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E

59


NATIONAL TIER 1 RANKINGS LITIGATION - REAL ESTATE

Adams and Reese LLP Akerman LLP Baker Botts L.L.P. Ballard Spahr LLP Blankingship & Keith, PC Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP Carlton Fields Cozen O'Connor Dentons Dickinson Wright PLLC Dykema Gossett PLLC Faegre Baker Daniels LLP Fennemore Craig, P.C. Foley & Lardner LLP Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP Goulston & Storrs PC

Greenberg Traurig LLP

Greenspoon Marder Holland & Knight, LLP Jackson & Campbell, P.C. Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman LLP Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP Kranjac, Tripodi, & Partners LLP Lerch, Early & Brewer, Chartered Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP Linowes and Blocher LLP McKool Smith PC Quarles & Brady LLP Reed Smith LLP Richman Greer, P.A. Schiff Hardin LLP Sherman & Howard L.L.C. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. Stinson Leonard Street LLP Stites & Harbison, PLLC Venable LLP Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLP Williams & Connolly LLP Zuckerman Spaeder LLP LITIGATION - REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT (SEC, TELECOM, ENERGY)

Baker Botts L.L.P. Butzel Long Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP

Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP

Debevoise & Plimpton LLP Dechert LLP Gibson Dunn LLP Goodwin Holland & Knight, LLP Jones Day Keker & Van Nest LLP Kirkland & Ellis LLP Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP Latham & Watkins LLP Law Office of Stephen L. Braga, PLLC Locke Lord LLP McDermott Will & Emery LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP

60

2017 BEST LAW FIRMS

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Sidley Austin LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Thompson & Knight LLP Vinson & Elkins LLP William D. Dolan, III, PC Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP LITIGATION - SECURITIES

Arnold & Porter LLP Baker Botts L.L.P. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP Cooley LLP Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP Debevoise & Plimpton LLP Dechert LLP DLA Piper LLP Foley & Lardner LLP Forman & Shapiro LLP

Gibson Dunn LLP

Greenberg Traurig LLP Hogan Lovells US LLP Jenner & Block LLP Jones Day Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Kaye Scholer LLP King & Spalding LLP Kirkland & Ellis LLP Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP Latham & Watkins LLP Mayer Brown LLP McCarter & English, LLP McDermott Will & Emery LLP McGuireWoods LLP McKool Smith PC Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP Murphy & McGonigle Paul Hastings LLP Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Perkins Coie LLP Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Proskauer Rose LLP Ropes & Gray LLP Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP Sidley Austin LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Susman Godfrey LLP Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP Vinson & Elkins LLP Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP LITIGATION - TAX

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Alston & Bird LLP

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S

Baker & Hostetler LLP Baker Botts L.L.P. Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Aughtry Cooley LLP Covington & Burling LLP Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP Greenberg Traurig LLP Hochman, Salkin, Rettig, Toscher & Perez, P.C. Holland & Knight, LLP Ivins, Phillips & Barker, Chartered Jones Day K&L Gates Kostelanetz & Fink, LLP Latham & Watkins LLP McDermott Will & Emery LLP McGuireWoods LLP Miller & Chevalier Chartered

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP Musick, Peeler & Garrett LLP Paul Hastings LLP Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Roberts & Holland LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Steptoe & Johnson LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP Thompson & Knight LLP Venable LLP Williams & Connolly LLP

MASS TORT LITIGATION / CLASS ACTIONS - DEFENDANTS

Adams and Reese LLP Baker Botts L.L.P. Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC Balch & Bingham LLP Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP Bryan Cave LLP Carr Maloney P.C. Darger Errante Yavitz & Blau LLP Dechert LLP DeMoura Smith LLP Dentons Dinsmore & Shohl LLP DLA Piper LLP Farella Braun + Martel LLP Gibson Dunn LLP Gnarus Advisors LLC Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP Greenberg Traurig LLP Harris Beach PLLC Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP Jones Day K&L Gates Kaye Scholer LLP

King & Spalding LLP

Latham & Watkins LLP LeClairRyan Liskow & Lewis APLC Lynch Daskal Emery LLP Mayer Brown LLP

McGuireWoods LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Nixon Peabody LLP Norton Rose Fulbright O'Hare Parnagian LLP Phillips Lytle LLP Pierce Atwood LLP Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP Reed Smith LLP Rubin and Rudman LLP Schiff Hardin LLP Sedgwick LLP Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. Sidley Austin LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Tekell, Book, Allen & Morris, L.L.P. Thompson Hine LLP Troutman Sanders LLP Tucker Ellis LLP Venable LLP Winston & Strawn LLP MASS TORT LITIGATION / CLASS ACTIONS - PLAINTIFFS

Aaron M. Levine & Associates Anapol Weiss Ashcraft & Gerel, LLP Belluck & Fox, LLP Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C. Cooney & Conway Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP Dana B. Taschner David B. Baum Early, Lucarelli, Sweeney & Meisenkothen Eisenberg, Rothweiler, Winkler, Eisenberg & Jeck PC Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock & Dodig LLP Gair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf Girardi Keese Kline & Specter, P.C. Kreindler & Kreindler LLP Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman Levy Konigsberg LLP Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Motley Rice LLC NastLaw LLC Phillips & Paolicelli, LLP Power Rogers & Smith, P.C. Purvis Gray Thomson, LLP Quadra & Coll, LLP Rodman, Rodman & Sandman, P.C. Seeger Weiss LLP Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC Strange & Butler The Lanier Law Firm The Locks Law Firm Thornton Law Firm LLP

Weitz & Luxenberg P.C.

Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer P.A.


MEDIA LAW

Cooley LLP Covington & Burling LLP

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

Gibson Dunn LLP Irell & Manella LLP Jassy Vick Carolan LLP Jenner & Block LLP Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, LLP Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP Sidley Austin LLP Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP Williams & Connolly LLP MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS LAW

Alston & Bird LLP Baker & Hostetler LLP Baker Botts L.L.P. Bryan Cave LLP Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP Cooley LLP Covington & Burling LLP Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP Debevoise & Plimpton LLP Dechert LLP

DLA Piper LLP Faegre Baker Daniels LLP Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP Gibson Dunn LLP Greenberg Traurig LLP Holland & Knight, LLP Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP

Jones Day

K&L Gates Kirkland & Ellis LLP Latham & Watkins LLP Lowenstein Sandler LLP Mayer Brown LLP McGuireWoods LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP Norton Rose Fulbright Paul Hastings LLP Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Pepper Hamilton LLP Perkins Coie LLP Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Reed Smith LLP Ropes & Gray LLP Shearman & Sterling LLP Sidley Austin LLP Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP Venable LLP Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP White & Case LLP Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC Winston & Strawn LLP Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP

Sidley Austin LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Sullivan & Worcester LLP Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

MINING LAW

Dentons

Bryan Cave LLP Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC Crowell & Moring LLP Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP Dinsmore & Shohl LLP Fennemore Craig, P.C.

Jackson Kelly PLLC Jerry L. Haggard, P.C. Nossaman LLP

MUTUAL FUNDS LAW

Dechert LLP

Goodwin K&L Gates Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Ropes & Gray LLP Shearman & Sterling LLP

NATIVE AMERICAN LAW

Arlinda F. Locklear Greenberg Traurig LLP Hobbs, Straus, Dean & Walker, LLP Holland & Knight, LLP K&L Gates Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Law Offices of Bruce R. Greene & Associates, LLC Poust Law Powers Pyles Sutter & Verville PC Resch Polster & Berger LLP Sixkiller Consulting Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, LLP Van Ness Feldman LLP NATURAL RESOURCES LAW

Baker Botts L.L.P. Beck Redden LLP

We stand for our clients.

John Simmons John Simmons

Paul Hanly Paul Hanly

Jayne Conroy Jayne Conroy

With With over over 70 70 attorneys attorneys in in six six offices offices across across the the United United States, States, Simmons Hanly Hanly Conroy Conroy has has obtained obtained justice justice for for thousands thousands of of Simmons individuals, individuals, families families and and businesses businesses throughout throughout the the country. country. Learn Learn more more about about the the firm’s firm’s commitment commitment to to its its clients clients and and co-counsel co-counsel partners at simmonsfirm.com. partners at simmonsfirm.com.

National Tier 1 ranking for Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Plaintiffs, U.S. News – Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms” 2017

Asbestos Asbestos & & Mesothelioma Mesothelioma • • Dangerous Dangerous Drugs Drugs & & Medical Medical Devices Devices • • Environmental Environmental Litigation Litigation • • Consumer Consumer Protection Protection • • Other Other Mass Mass Torts Torts & & Complex Complex Litigation Litigation New York New York

Los Angeles Los Angeles

San Francisco San Francisco

Chicago Chicago

St. Louis St. Louis

Headquarters | One Court Street , Alton, IL 62002 | 866-468-8631 | simmonsfirm.com Headquarters | One Court Street , Alton, IL 62002 | 866-468-8631 | simmonsfirm.com

T H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E

61


NATIONAL TIER 1 RANKINGS Bracewell LLP Bruchez, Goss, Thornton & Meronoff, P.C. Crowell & Moring LLP Dinsmore & Shohl LLP Jackson Kelly PLLC Jackson Walker L.L.P. Jay Donald Kelley Latham & Watkins LLP McCollam Law Firm, PC Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP Norton Rose Fulbright

Perkins Coie LLP

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP Steptoe & Johnson LLP Stoel Rives LLP Sullivan & Worcester LLP Thompson & Knight LLP Van Ness Feldman LLP Vinson & Elkins LLP Watt Thompson & Henneman LLP OIL & GAS LAW

Andrews Kurth LLP Baker Botts L.L.P. Bracewell LLP Cogan & Partners LLP Jackson Walker L.L.P. Jones Day Latham & Watkins LLP Law Offices of Allen D. Cummings Liskow & Lewis APLC Locke Lord LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Norton Rose Fulbright Pierce & O'Neill, LLP Porter Hedges LLP Reed Smith LLP

Thompson & Knight LLP

Vinson & Elkins LLP Watt Thompson & Henneman LLP PATENT LAW

Alston & Bird LLP Baker & Hostetler LLP Ballard Spahr LLP Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. Barnes & Thornburg LLP Brinks Gilson & Lione Cooley LLP Covington & Burling LLP DLA Piper LLP Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP Fenwick & West LLP Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Fish & Richardson P.C. Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto Foley & Lardner LLP Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP Goodwin Greenberg Traurig LLP K&L Gates Kaye Scholer LLP Kenyon & Kenyon LLP

62

2017 BEST LAW FIRMS

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Kirkland & Ellis LLP Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP Leydig, Voit & Mayer, LTD. Locke Lord LLP Mayer Brown LLP McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. McDermott Will & Emery LLP Michael Best & Friedrich LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP Norton Rose Fulbright O'Melveny & Myers LLP Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Perkins Coie LLP Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Proskauer Rose LLP Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP Reed Smith LLP

Ropes & Gray LLP

Sidley Austin LLP Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. Winston & Strawn LLP Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP PRIVATE FUNDS / HEDGE FUNDS LAW

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Alston & Bird LLP Chadbourne & Parke LLP

Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP Seward & Kissel LLP Sidley Austin LLP Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP PROJECT FINANCE LAW

Andrews Kurth LLP Bracewell LLP Chadbourne & Parke LLP Clifford Chance LLP DLA Piper LLP Haynes and Boone, LLP K&L Gates

Latham & Watkins LLP

CLIENT COMMENT

ROPES & GRAY PATENT LAW Ropes & Gray provides very creative solutions to complex problems. They have developed a real specialty in PTAB proceedings. Mayer Brown LLP Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP O'Melveny & Myers LLP Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Sidley Austin LLP

CLIENT COMMENT

THOMPSON & KNIGHT OIL & GAS We have been dealing in a country that is very new to Oil & Gas exploration and to have Thompson &Knight's team sitting at the table with us through all aspects of this opportunity has been priceless. Their experience is unmatched and I for one know we wouldn't have been able to accomplish what we have without them. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP Cooley LLP Debevoise & Plimpton LLP Gibson Dunn LLP Goodwin K&L Gates Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Kirkland & Ellis LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Proskauer Rose LLP

Ropes & Gray LLP

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S

Chapman and Cutler LLP Dentons Dinsmore & Shohl LLP Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC Foley & Lardner LLP Gilmore & Bell, PC Greenberg Traurig LLP Hawkins Delafield & Wood LLP Hunton & Williams LLP Ice Miller LLP K&L Gates Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Kutak Rock LLP McGuireWoods LLP Miles & Stockbridge P.C. Miller Canfield LLP

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Vinson & Elkins LLP White & Case LLP PUBLIC FINANCE LAW

Andrews Kurth LLP Arent Fox LLP

Ballard Spahr LLP

Bracewell LLP Bryant Miller Olive P.A. Butler Snow LLP

Nixon Peabody LLP Norton Rose Fulbright Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP Polsinelli PC Sidley Austin LLP Squire Patton Boggs LLP RAILROAD LAW

Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC Boyle Brasher LLC Brown, Dean, Wiseman, Proctor, Hart & Howell, LLP Burns White LLC Burr & Forman LLP Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas & O'Neal, LLP Donna Law Firm, P.C. Gray, Ritter & Graham, P.C. Harkins Cunningham LLP Jackson Walker L.L.P. Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford P.C. Law Offices of H. Daniel Spain Mayer Brown LLP Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, LLP Sidley Austin LLP

Steptoe & Johnson LLP

Sweeney & Masterson, P.A. The Law Offices of McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, PC Thompson Coburn LLP Williams Venker & Sanders LLC Yaeger & Weiner, PLC REAL ESTATE LAW

Akerman LLP Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Alston & Bird LLP Baker & Hostetler LLP


Baker Botts L.L.P. Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC Ballard Spahr LLP Blank Rome LLP Bryan Cave LLP Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC Burr & Forman LLP Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP Carlton Fields Cooley LLP Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Dechert LLP Dentons Dickinson Wright PLLC DLA Piper LLP Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP Dykema Gossett PLLC Faegre Baker Daniels LLP Foley & Lardner LLP Fox Rothschild LLP Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP Gibson Dunn LLP Goodwin Goulston & Storrs PC GrayRobinson, P.A. Greenberg Traurig LLP Haynes and Boone, LLP

Holland & Knight, LLP Hunton & Williams LLP

Husch Blackwell LLP Jones Day K&L Gates Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Kelley Drye & Warren LLP Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP King & Spalding LLP Kirkland & Ellis LLP Latham & Watkins LLP Locke Lord LLP Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP Mayer Brown LLP McCarter & English, LLP McGuireWoods LLP Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP Nixon Peabody LLP Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Paul Hastings LLP Perkins Coie LLP Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Pircher, Nichols & Meeks Proskauer Rose LLP Quarles & Brady LLP Reed Smith LLP Reno & Cavanaugh PLLC Ropes & Gray LLP Saul Ewing LLP

Seyfarth Shaw LLP Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP Shutts & Bowen LLP Sidley Austin LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. Squire Patton Boggs LLP Stinson Leonard Street LLP Stoel Rives LLP Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP Sullivan & Worcester LLP Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP Thompson Hine LLP Troutman Sanders LLP Venable LLP Vinson & Elkins LLP Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLP Winstead PC Winston & Strawn LLP Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP SECURITIES / CAPITAL MARKETS LAW

Alston & Bird LLP Arnold & Porter LLP Baker Botts L.L.P. Ballard Spahr LLP

Bracewell LLP Bryan Cave LLP Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP Cooley LLP Covington & Burling LLP Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP Dechert LLP DLA Piper LLP Dorsey & Whitney LLP Foley & Lardner LLP Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP FTI Consulting Gibson Dunn LLP Greenberg Traurig LLP Hogan Lovells US LLP Holland & Knight, LLP Jones Day K&L Gates King & Spalding LLP

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Latham & Watkins LLP Mayer Brown LLP McDermott Will & Emery LLP McGuireWoods LLP Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP

Experienced Trial Lawyers. Exceptional Results. Over the past 30 years, Davis & Crump has recovered more than $750 million for our pharmaceutical and medical device clients. At Davis & Crump, our attorneys are experienced and proven leaders, serving in key positions in various consolidated litigations throughout the country. This dedication to our clients has paved the way for our track record of success. Phone 228.863.6000

DavisCrump_7x4.75"_BestLawyers.indd 1

To l l Fr e e 1. 8 0 0 . 2 7 7. 0 3 0 0

Whether you are an individual client or a referring firm, your case will get our full attention. Because at Davis & Crump, every client matters.

Fa x 2 2 8 . 8 6 4 . 0 9 0 7

w w w. d a v i s c r u m p . c o m

10/3/16 4:49 PM

T H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E

63


NATIONAL TIER 1 RANKINGS

2017 BEST LAW FIRMS

CLIENT COMMENT

BAKER & MCKENZIE TAX LAW Baker & McKenzie always brings the highest level of service, expertise, and knowledge to bear in all transactions that they help us with. Norton Rose Fulbright Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP O'Melveny & Myers LLP Patomak Global Partners LLC Paul Hastings LLP Perkins Coie LLP Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Ropes & Gray LLP Shearman & Sterling LLP Sidley Austin LLP Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Squire Patton Boggs LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Thompson Coburn LLP Troutman Sanders LLP Vinson & Elkins LLP Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP Williams & Connolly LLP Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC Winston & Strawn LLP SECURITIES REGULATION

Akerman LLP Alston & Bird LLP Arnold & Porter LLP Baker Botts L.L.P. Bryan Cave LLP Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP Cooley LLP Covington & Burling LLP Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP Crowell & Moring LLP Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP Foley & Lardner LLP Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP Gibson Dunn LLP Goodwin Greenberg Traurig LLP Hogan Lovells US LLP Holland & Knight, LLP Jones Day K&L Gates Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C. King & Spalding LLP Lawrence, Kamin, Saunders & Uhlenhop LLC Mayer Brown LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP Murphy & McGonigle

64

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Perkins Coie LLP Proskauer Rose LLP Shearman & Sterling LLP

Sidley Austin LLP

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Sullivan & Worcester LLP Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP SECURITIZATION AND STRUCTURED FINANCE LAW

Alston & Bird LLP Ashurst

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Chapman and Cutler LLP Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP Dechert LLP Dentons DLA Piper LLP Holland & Knight, LLP K&L Gates Kaye Scholer LLP Mayer Brown LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP Sidley Austin LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Troutman Sanders LLP Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP SPORTS LAW

Covington & Burling LLP Foley & Lardner LLP Mayer Brown LLP Meister Sports Management Ltd Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

Proskauer Rose LLP

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Sports Law Associates, LLC Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP TAX LAW

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Alston & Bird LLP

U. S.NE WS & WORLD REPORT / BE S T L AW YER S

Arnold & Porter LLP Baker & Hostetler LLP

Baker & McKenzie LLP

Baker Botts L.L.P. Ballard Spahr LLP Bracewell LLP Bryan Cave LLP Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Aughtry Cooley LLP Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP Dentons Dickinson Wright PLLC DLA Piper LLP EY LLP Foley & Lardner LLP Fox Rothschild LLP Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP Gibson Dunn LLP Greenberg Traurig LLP Holland & Knight, LLP Husch Blackwell LLP Jones Day K&L Gates Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP King & Spalding LLP Kirkland & Ellis LLP Kostelanetz & Fink, LLP KPMG, LLP Latham & Watkins LLP Locke Lord LLP Loeb & Loeb LLP Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP Mayer Brown LLP McDermott Will & Emery LLP McGuireWoods LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP Nixon Peabody LLP Norton Rose Fulbright Paul Hastings LLP Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Proskauer Rose LLP Reed Smith LLP Ropes & Gray LLP Sidley Austin LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Steptoe & Johnson LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP Venable LLP Vinson & Elkins LLP Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP Winston & Strawn LLP Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP TECHNOLOGY LAW

Arnold & Porter LLP Baker & Hostetler LLP Baker & McKenzie LLP Bryan Cave LLP

Cooley LLP Dentons Greenberg Traurig LLP Holland & Hart LLP Irell & Manella LLP Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Kirkland & Ellis LLP Loeb & Loeb LLP Mayer Brown LLP Norton Rose Fulbright O'Melveny & Myers LLP Perkins Coie LLP Peter Brown & Associates PLLC Proskauer Rose LLP Sidley Austin LLP The GigaLaw Firm Thompson Coburn LLP

Venable LLP

Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP TIMBER LAW

Morrison & Foerster LLP

Perkins Coie LLP Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP TRADEMARK LAW

Alston & Bird LLP Arent Fox LLP Baker & Hostetler LLP Baker Botts L.L.P. Ballard Spahr LLP Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP Bracewell LLP Brinks Gilson & Lione Covington & Burling LLP Cowan Liebowitz & Latman, P.C. Davis Wright Tremaine LLP DLA Piper LLP

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Fish & Richardson P.C. Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto Foley & Lardner LLP Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, PC Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C. Greenberg Traurig LLP Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Kaye Scholer LLP Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP King & Spalding LLP Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, LLP Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP Leydig, Voit & Mayer, LTD. Loeb & Loeb LLP McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP Merchant & Gould Michael Best & Friedrich LLP Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP Nixon & Vanderhye P.C. Norton Rose Fulbright


Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP Perkins Coie LLP Quarles & Brady LLP Reed Smith LLP Ropes & Gray LLP Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C. Stites & Harbison, PLLC Troutman Sanders LLP Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP Young Basile Hanlon & MacFarlane P.C. TRANSPORTATION LAW

Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP Covington & Burling LLP Harkins Cunningham LLP Holland & Knight, LLP Norton Rose Fulbright Slover & Loftus LLP Steptoe & Johnson LLP Thompson Hine LLP Trusts & Estates Law Arnold & Porter LLP Baker & Hostetler LLP Blank Rome LLP Bryan Cave LLP Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Aughtry Cooley LLP

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Day Pitney LLP Dentons DLA Piper LLP Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Norton Rose Fulbright Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Proskauer Rose LLP Quarles & Brady LLP Reed Smith LLP

CLIENT COMMENT

BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF TRANSPORTATION LAW Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff is a timely, very practical, and knowledgeable firm. Foley & Lardner LLP Fox Rothschild LLP Furey, Doolan & Abell, LLP Greenberg Traurig LLP

Holland & Knight, LLP

K&L Gates Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Kozusko Harris Vetter Wareh Duncan Loeb & Loeb LLP McDermott Will & Emery LLP McGuireWoods LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Nixon Peabody LLP

Ropes & Gray LLP Schiff Hardin LLP Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP Stinson Leonard Street LLP Sullivan & Worcester LLP Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP Thompson Coburn LLP Venable LLP White & Case LLP Williams Mullen Withers Bergman, LLP

VENTURE CAPITAL LAW

Choate Hall & Stewart LLP

Cooley LLP

DLA Piper LLP Faegre Baker Daniels LLP Foley Hoag LLP Goodwin Greenberg Traurig LLP Gunderson Dettmer Stough Villeneuve Franklin & Hachigian, LLP K&L Gates Latham & Watkins LLP Mayer Brown LLP McDermott Will & Emery LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP Norton Rose Fulbright Perkins Coie LLP Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Pryor Cashman LLP Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A. Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP Thompson Hine LLP Vinson & Elkins LLP Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC

T H E 2 01 7 L E G A L I S S U E

65


T

om Girardi knows he can’t reverse the horrible inflictions suffered by his clients, but his quest for justice over the past five decades has proven that he can certainly do a lot to help. “I can’t get a leg back or undo a heart attack, but the money goes a long way,” says the founder of Girardi Keese, who’s no stranger to complex, high-profile cases that garner national media attention. Take the recent case of a baseball fan who was severely beaten and sustained brain damage after a game. By proving the stadium was at fault

for insufficient security, Girardi won $18 million for the victim, whose aging parents no longer have to bear the responsibility of his round-theclock care. “After that case, I got calls from five other firms who represent stadium owners across the country, wanting to know how they can take corrective measures so this doesn’t happen again,” says Girardi. “The work we do doesn’t just benefit the people we represent today but also people down the road.”

LEFT TO RIGHT FRONT ROW: HOWARD B. MILLER, JAMES G. O’CALLAHAN, THOMAS V. GIRARDI, AMY F. SOLOMON, JOHN A. GIRARDI. LEFT TO RIGHT BACK ROW: JOHN K. COURTNEY, KEITH D. GRIFFIN, DAVID R. LIRA AND ROBERT W. FINNERT Y

A Renowned Legacy of Justice FIGHTING FOR MORALITY Girardi Keese has exposed numerous corporations that have knowingly endangered the public for the sake of profit. One well-known pharmaceutical case, which involved anti-inflammatory medication that caused heart attacks, garnered a $4.85 billion settlement. Another famed case, involving personal injuries suffered by employees of a global IT company, earned a $785 million verdict. Girardi was also the

attorney behind the $333 million toxic tort settlement that inspired the film “Erin Brokovich.” “There’s good money to be earned as a plaintiff attorney, but the job only pays about a dollar an hour,” Girardi jokes. “It requires an awful lot of time, and understanding people is massively important. Jurors are smart. You have to emphasize your positives but also admit your weaknesses.” And although his victories are deeply gratifying, Girardi says it’s not just the end result that matters: “We keep

clients up to speed throughout the process—the good, the bad, and the ugly. They know we’re in their corner, and that makes a huge difference in their experience.” Though he’s earned near-celebrity status in the world of trial litigation, Girardi graciously credits much of his firm’s success to the exceptionally talented support staff and highly specialized attorneys with whom he works. “Their dedication is unbelievable,” he says. “The main reason our firm is so great is because I get to work with great people.”

1126 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 PHONE 213.977.0211 FA X 213.481.1554

155 West Hospitality Lane, Suite 260 San Bernardino, CA 92408 PHONE 909.381.1551 FA X 909.381.2566

www.girardikeese.com

The Legal Issue 2017  
The Legal Issue 2017