2017 Lawdragon Magazine by Lawdragon

T H E

I N N O V A T O R S

Cover spread from left to right: P. Jason Collins, Tara Sutton, Matthew Minner, Larry Stein, P. Anthony Sammi, Karen Dunn, Adam Emmerich, Alec Karakatsanis, Neal Manne, Sherrilyn Ifill, Bill Carmody, Lea Haber Kuck, Paul Zumbro, Thomas Patrick Lane

INSIDE CRAVATH’S ALL-FEMALE PARTNERSHIP CLASS SUSMAN GODFREY’S RISE TO THE TOP GUIDES TO LEGAL CONSULTING AND CORPORATE EMPLOYMENT LAW NEW LEGENDS AND HALL OF FAME MEMBERS LARRY STEIN’S SUBVERSIVE JOURNEY

S G Sher Garner Cahill Richter Klein & Hilbert, L.L.C., located in New Orleans, Louisiana is a nationally renowned full service law firm recognized for commercial litigation and transactions. Our talented team of attorneys provides our clients with the astute knowledge of a large firm practice, but with responsiveness, personal attention and sensible staffing of a smaller firm, all while delivering quality legal services effectively and efficiently. Clients receive the benefit of the firm’s proficiency across all disciplines, through handselected, integrated teams of experienced transactional and litigation lawyers. The hallmark of our service is our attention to the needs of our clients that goes beyond the rules of professional responsibility. When representation requires litigation, we are aggressive trial lawyers, who are not afraid to fight to protect our clients’ rights. We also believe in reasonableness and cooperation, however, and adjust our representation to suit the needs of any particular client. A client who brings us a transactional matter can expect an honest and accurate appraisal of the matter and a resolution in the most practical, direct and economically feasible manner.

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

Advocacy That Improves Lives. Not Just For Our Clients. For Everyone. Thomas Demetria

In the 1982 "Tylenol Murders," seven people died from ingesting Tylenol laced with cyanide. Corboy & Demetrio represented several of the victims' families. While the crime was never solved, that litigation resulted in tamper-proof packaging of over-the-counter drugs and numerous food products worldwide. T hroughout the years, our firm's litigation on behalf of victims has resulted in improved safety standards for products that have included airplanes, movable soccer goals and portable playpens. Currently, the firm is advocating for improvement in how airlines treat their passengers and for legislative action at both state and federal levels, which will enhance the rights of passengers - worldwide.

CORBOY & DEMETRIO Trial Lawyers

312.346.3191

33 N. DEARBORN

CHICAGO, IL

CORBOYDEMETRIO.COM

Winston & Strawn congratulates our elite team of lawyers listed among Lawdragon’s “500 Leading Lawyers in America”

Mats Carlston

Linda Coberly

Stephen D’Amore

Michael Elkin

Steven Gavin

Jeffrey Kessler

Thomas Lane

George Lombardi

Joel Rubinstein

Kathi Vidal

Co-Chair, Finance Practice

Partner, Corporate Department

Chair, Antitrust Competition Practice, Co-Chair Sports Law Practice, Firm Co-Executive Chairman

Partner, Corporate Department

North America

Europe

Chair, Appellate & Critical Motions Practice, Managing Partner Chicago

Managing Partner Silicon Valley

Asia

winston.com

Co-Chair, Litigation Department

Co-Chair, Technology, Digital Media, and Entertainment Practice

Dan Webb

Firm Co-Executive Chairman

Chair, Copyright Practice, Managing Partner New York, Firm Vice Chairman

Co-Chair, Litigation Department

XXX

{ CONTENTS } 16 LETTER FROM THE EDITOR AND PUBLISHER 18 THE LAW SCHOOL ROAD TRIP

Lawdragon Campus has visited every law school in the U.S. Among many lessons learned, let’s just say that there’s nothing like the drive from Albuquerque to Lubbock to remind you of how special it can be to make it to law school.

32 TALENT RISING: CRAVATH’S NEW PARTNERS

Cravath’s all-women partnership class for 2017 – Margaret Segall D’Amico, Rory A. Leraris and Kara L. Mungovan – followed the historic rise of Faiza Saeed to presiding partner.

41 THE MOST POWERFUL EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS

41 73

The nation’s best on the corporate side of the employment bar is our 10th annual guide and includes specialty listings for employee benefits, labor and employment law, and immigration – along with our Up-and-Comer and Hall of Fame members. Featuring:

43 Paul Lancaster Adams of Ogletree Deakins 47 Christy Nguyen, Sameer Khedekar and Julie Pearl of Pearl Law Group 51 Jonathan Segal of Duane Morris 57 William Cole of Mitchell Silberberg 59 Adam Levin of Mitchell Silberberg 61 Kevin O’Brien of Ivins, Phillips & Barker 67 Deborah Notkin of Barst Mukamal & Kleiner LLP 69 Peter Zinober of Greenberg Traurig

73 100 LEADING LEGAL CONSULTANTS AND STRATEGISTS Our 3rd edition is the definitive guide to those financiers, recruiters, marketing and communication gurus on whom the legal profession relies. Featuring:

102

75 Christopher Bogart, Jonathan Molot and Adam Gerchen of Burford Capital 79 Eilene Bloom of Eilene Bloom Group 84 Jamie Diaferia of Infinite Global 89 Mark Jungers of Lippman Jungers LLC 91 Burton Taylor of Proventus Consulting 93 Dan Binstock of Garrison & Sisson 97 Nancy Jessen of UnitedLex

102 DON’T MESS WITH TEXAS

With an incredible roster of trial lawyers in Houston and increasingly New York, Los Angeles and the Northwest, Susman Godfrey has become the nation’s best litigation firm. We followed them for three years and reveal how they did it.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LAWDRAGON LAWDRAGON 2006-2015 2006-2015 LAWDRAGON HONOREE, 2006-2017 2006-2017

rank N. Darras, founding partner of America’s top rank N. Darras, founding partner of America’s top

by his continued inclusion in Lawdragon’s 500 Leading by his continued inclusion Lawdragon’s 500 Leading Lawyers in America. Darrasinhas been an honoree for the Lawyers in America. Darras has been an honoree for the last 11 years in a row. last It 11only years in a row. takes a quick glance at the national It only takes a quick glance at the reputation Darras has established tonational understand his reputation Darras has established understand repeated recognition as a leadingto lawyer. Darras his has built repeated recognition as a leading lawyer. Darras has built the largest individual and long term disability insurance the largestpractice individual and long disability insurance litigation dedicated toterm helping the disabled and litigation practice dedicated to helping the disabled and

| Toll-free 800.458.4577 | | Toll-free 800.458.4577 |

DarrasLaw has put its 100+ years of collective DarrasLaw has put its 100+ years of collective insurance claims and litigation experience to good use insurance claims and litigation experience to good use by taking on and beating all major insurance companies. by taking on and beating all major insurance companies. The result is nearly $800 million recovered in wrongfully The result is nearly $800 million recovered in wrongfully Frank N. Darras has evaluated, litigated and resolved Frank N. Darras evaluated, andany resolved more disability andhas long-term carelitigated cases than other more and long-term care cases than any other lawyerdisability in the United States. DarrasLaw is America’s most lawyer in the United States. DarrasLaw is America’s most national results and its ability to change disabled lives, national results and its ability to change disabled lives, one client at a time. one client at a time.

| www.DarrasLaw.com | | www.DarrasLaw.com |

{ CONTENTS } 111 THE HALL OF FAME

This year to our esteemed Hall of Fame we add 45 lions of the law, including Ted Olson, one of the greatest Supreme Court and appellate litigators in history.

111

119 LEGENDS OF THE 500

It’s not easy making the Lawdragon 500 once, nevermind for a tenth time.

119

Seventeen lawyers from different segments of the national bar earned our ultra-elite distinction in 2017.

128 THE LAWDRAGON 500 LEADING LAWYERS IN AMERICA As fascinating a cross-section of the nation’s leading practitioners as you’ll

ever find, from perennial powers to stars of the next generation. Featuring:

128

244

131 Karen Dunn of Boies Schiller 134 Carolyn Lamm of White & Case 137 Alec Karakatsanis of Civil Rights Corps 143 Adam Emmerich and Robin Panovka of Wachtell Lipton 149 Joseph Shenker of Sullivan & Cromwell 159 Bill Carmody of Susman Godfrey 169 Theodore Stevenson of McKool Smith 173 Hannah Ross of Bernstein Litowitz 177 Paul Zumbro of Cravath 183 Matthew Minner of Hare Wynn 189 Jennifer Bragg, James Carroll, Lisa Gilford and Graham Robinson of Skadden 195 P. Jason Collins of Reid Collins 203 Mark Lanier of The Lanier Law Firm 207 Kirk Pasich of Pasich LLP 213 Tara Sutton of Robins Kaplan 217 Bobby Chesney of the University of Texas School of Law 223 Paul Geller of Robbins Geller 227 Joseph Power of Power Rogers 231 Richard Brand of Cadwalader 235 David Ring of Taylor & Ring 239 Thomas Patrick Lane of Winston & Strawn

244 KODACHROME: LARRY STEIN’S

CHARMED SUBVERSIVE JOURNEY

Part beach, part hard-nosed litigator, Larry Stein has made an indelible impact on entertainment law – and has no interest in slowing down.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Fighting Fire With Fire

Max Berger New York

Salvatore Graziano New York

Hannah Ross New York

Mark Lebovitch New York

Gerald Silk New York

Blair Nicholas San Diego

David Stickney San Diego

Honoring our Dragons Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP is one of the nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s leaders advising institutional investors on corporate governance, shareholder rights and securities litigation issues. On behalf of its clients, BLB&G has obtained more significant recoveries and precedent-setting corporate governance reforms than any other law firm representing shareholders in securities litigation. The integrity of our capital markets depends on meaningful checks and balances to curb fraud and misconduct. Since our founding in 1983, we have gone up against the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s largest and most powerful companies and law firms, representing our clients in a wide variety of high-profile cases arising out of financial wrongdoing and corporate misconduct, and we have won, recovering over $31 billion on behalf of defrauded investors.

Learn more www.blbglaw.com 800-380-8496

XXX

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER

Internationally recognized trial lawyers, crisis managers, and strategic advisors, we are known for the creative and efficient pursuit of success for our clients. Over two decades, our litigators have built a record of winning complex, groundbreaking matters for many of the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s most sophisticated companies, and are recognized for prevailing when the odds are longest and the stakes are highest.

We congratulate our partners named to the Lawdragon 500:

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP www.bsfllp.com

David Boies Jonathan Schiller Karen Dunn Karen Dyer Nicholas Gravante William Isaacson Harlan Levy Luke Nikas Sean Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Shea Stuart Singer Steve Zack

PUBLISHER/CHIEF

ART DIRECTOR

LAWDRAGON PHOTOGRAPHY

EXECUTIVE OFFICER

S ammy E lfatrany

L aura B arisonzi , A my C antrell ,

K atrina D ewey

sammy @ elfatranydesign . com

J ustin C lemons , D ave C ross ,

katrina @ lawdragon . com

E li M eir K aplan , M ichelle N olan , EDITORIAL ASSISTANT

K en R ichardson , F elix S anchez ,

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF/SENIOR

M ichelle F ox

T homas S trand , S cott W alz

VICE PRESIDENT

michelle @ lawdragon . com

J ohn R yan john @ lawdragon . com

COVER DESIGN S tephanie B lackman sb @ blackmandesign . net

VICE PRESIDENT, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND SALES C arlton D yce carlton @ lawdragon . com

Issue 18 LAWDRAGON INC.

without written permission is strictly prohibited. Please disregard all solicitation,

305 W. Broadway #239 New York, NY 10013

email. These are unauthorized and fraudulent. We request that you purchase

reprint and plaque requests from services that do not use an “@lawdragon.com” any desired services from Carlton Dyce at carlton@lawdragon.com.

We congratulate John Tarantino on being inducted into the “Lawdragon 500 Hall of Fame”

Learn more at www.apslaw.com ONE CITIZENS PL A ZA , 8TH F LO O R, PROV I D EN CE, RI 02903 / 401. 274. 7200 P R O V I D E N C E , R I / B O S TO N , M A / N E W P O R T, R I / M A N C H E S T E R , N H / W W W. A P S L A W. C O M

CHRISTOPHERA.A.SEEGER SEEGER CHRISTOPHER

Christopher Seegerisiswidely widelyrecognized recognized as as one one of of the the nation’s most HeHe Christopher A.A.Seeger most versatile versatileand andaccomplished accomplishedplaintiff plaintiffattorneys. attorneys. has led some of the most groundbreaking and prominent litigations in the U.S., including the Plaintiff's Steering Committee has led some of the most groundbreaking and prominent in the U.S., including the Plaintiff's Steering Committee

and NegotiatingCommittee Committeeininthe thenationwide nationwide Volkswagen Volkswagen Clean Diesel and thethe Negotiating Diesel Litigation. Litigation.He Hewas wasalso alsoappointed appointedCo-Lead Co-Lead Counsel on the NFL Concussion case, where he served as chief negotiator in obtaining an uncapped settlement onon behalf of of Counsel on the NFL Concussion case, where he served as chief negotiator in obtaining an uncapped settlement behalf

thousands retiredNFL NFLplayers playersand andtheir theirfamilies. families. thousands of of retired Seeger'sother otherleadership leadership positions positions include include Chair Chair of of the Mr.Mr.Seeger's the Trial Trial Committee Committee inin the the Chinese-Manufactured Chinese-ManufacturedDrywall Drywall Products Liability Multidistrict Litigation (MDL), and appointments as Co-Lead Counsel in Products Liability Multidistrict Litigation (MDL), and appointments as Co-Lead Counsel in the the InInrereVioxx VioxxProducts Products

LiabilityLitigation Litigationresulting resulting inin aa $4.85 $4.85 Billion Billion settlement settlement and and the Liability the Plaintiffs’ Plaintiffs’ Executive Executive Committee Committee(PEC) (PEC)in inthetheDepuy Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc. ASR Hip Implant Products MDL. He was also named as Co-Lead Counsel in the Testosterone Orthopaedics, Inc. ASR Hip Implant Products MDL. He was also named as Co-Lead Counsel in the Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability MDL. Replacement Therapy Products Liability MDL. With offices in New York, New Jersey and Philadelphia, Seeger Weiss LLP is one of the preeminent trial law firms in the With offices in New York, New Jersey and Philadelphia, Seeger Weiss LLP is one of the preeminent trial law firms in the nation, representing clients in pharmaceutical injury, personal injury, medical malpractice, product liability, environmental nation, representing clients in pharmaceutical injury, personal injury, medical malpractice, product liability, environmental pollution, consumer class actions and whistleblower/qui tam, among others. pollution, consumer class actions and whistleblower/qui tam, among others. The firm is known for leading some of the most complex and high-profile multidistrict mass tort and class action litigations in The firm is known for leading some of the most complex and high-profile multidistrict mass tort and class action litigations in the U.S., securing landmark verdicts and settlements. According to Legal 500, Seeger Weiss has “gained the respect the U.S., securing landmark verdicts and settlements. According to Legal 500, Seeger Weiss has “gained the respect of the plaintiffs and defense bar alike for its willingness to ‘always take on the tough cases’ and ‘jump right into the heart of of the plaintiffs and defense bar alike for its willingness to ‘always take on the tough cases’ and ‘jump right into the heart of everything when everyone else is afraid.’” everything when everyone else is afraid.’”

EEGERW WEISS EISSLLP LLP SSEEGER

DRUG AND TOXIC INJURY DRUG AND TOXIC INJURY

PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY

CLASS ACTIONS CLASS ACTIONS

77 WATER STREET, NEW YORK, NY 10005 8 8 8WATER . 5 8 4 . 0 STREET, 4 1 1 2 1 2NEW . 5 8 4YORK, . 0 7 0 0 NY 10005 77 W S4 E .E0G4E1R1W2E1I S 8 8W 8W. .58 2S . 5. C 8O 4M . 0 7I N0F0O @ S E E G E R W E I S S . C O M

W W W. S E E G E R W E I S S . C O M I N F O @ S E E G E R W E I S S . C O M

WHISTLEBLOWER LITIGATION

COMMERCIAL DISPUTES

WEWECONGRATULATE ATTORNEYS CONGRATULATE ALL ALL THE THE ATTORNEYS SELECTED 2017 SELECTEDTO TOLAWDRAGON’S LAWDRAGON’S 2017 LEADING INCLUDING LEADINGLAWYERS LAWYERS IN IN AMERICA AMERICA INCLUDING DARREN SAMUELRUDMAN, RUDMAN, DARRENROBBINS, ROBBINS,PAUL PAUL GELLER, SAMUEL RANDALL RANDALLBARON BARON&&RACHEL RACHEL JENSEN CONGRATULATEALL ALLTHE THE ATTORNEYS SELECTED WEWECONGRATULATE SELECTEDTOTO LAWDRAGON’S2017 2017LEADING LEADING LAWYERS ININ AMERICA: LAWDRAGON’S AMERICA: DARRENROBBINS, ROBBINS,PAUL PAUL GELLER, GELLER, SAMUEL SAMUEL RUDMAN, DARREN RUDMAN, RANDALLBARON BARON&&RACHEL RACHEL JENSEN RANDALL

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is widely recognized as a leading law firm advising and representing clients in

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is widely recognized as a leading law firm advising and representing clients in complex litigation, including litigation involving securities fraud, corporate takeovers, shareholder derivative claims, complex litigation, including litigation involving securities fraud, corporate takeovers, shareholder derivative claims, consumer fraud, antitrust claims, ERISA claims, insurance fraud and intellectual property, as well as whistleblower consumer fraud, antitrust claims, ERISA claims, insurance fraud and intellectual property, as well as whistleblower protection and qui tam suits. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities protection and qui tam suits. With 200 10 offices,year, Robbins Geller hasfirst obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries For lawyers the third in consecutive ranked in both the total amount recovered Robbins Geller Rudmanin&history. Dowd LLP is widely recognized as onethe of Firm the leading law firms advising U.S. and international class action recoveries history. For the third consecutive year, Firm ranked firstfirms inTop both total amount recovered Robbins Geller Rudman &and Dowd is widely as onethe of theinleading law advising U.S. and international for investors and theinnumber ofLLP shareholder class action recoveries ISS’s SCAS 50the Report. Robbins Geller institutional investors other clients in recognized complex litigation emphasizing securities fraud, corporate takeovers, for investors and the number of shareholder class action recoveries in ISS’s SCAS Top 50 Report. Robbins Geller institutional investors and other clients in complex litigation emphasizing securities fraud, corporate takeovers, attorneys have shaped claims, the lawconsumer in the areas of securities litigationinsurance and shareholder rights and have recovered tens of shareholder derivative fraud, antitrust claims, fraud, and intellectual property, as well as attorneys have shaped the law in the areas of securities litigation and shareholder rights and have recovered tens of shareholder fraud, antitrust claims, fraud, andGeller intellectual property, asofwell billions of derivative dollars on claims, behalf ofconsumer thetam Firm’s clients. Robbins Geller not only secures recoveries for obtained defrauded investors, whistleblower protection and qui suits. With 200 lawyers in insurance 10 offices, Robbins has many the as billions of dollars on behalf of the Firm’s clients. Robbins Geller not only secures recoveries for defrauded investors, whistleblower protection and quirecoveries tam suits.in With 200 inhelping 10in offices, Robbins hasmarkets obtained of the itlargest also implements significant corporate governance reforms, to the improve the Geller financial for many investors securities class action history andlawyers ranked first both total amount recovered for investors and itlargest also implements significant corporate governance reforms, helping to the improve the of financial forRobbins investors worldwide. Please visit rgrdlaw.com for in more information. securities class action history ranked both total amount recovered for investors and number of shareholder classrecoveries action recoveries in and ISS’s SCASfirst Topin50 Report for each the lastmarkets two years. worldwide. Please visit forinmore information. number shareholder class action recoveries inofISS’s SCASlitigation Top 50and Report for each of the last tworecovered years. Robbins Gellerofattorneys havergrdlaw.com shaped the law the area securities shareholder rights, and have tens of billions of dollars on behalf the in Firm’s clients. Robbins Geller not only secures recoveries defrauded investors, Geller attorneys have shaped theoflaw the area of securities litigation and shareholder rights,for and have recovered tens it also of strives to on implement reforms, helping to improve financial for markets for investors of billions dollars behalf ofcorporate the Firm’sgovernance clients. Robbins Geller not only securesthe recoveries defrauded investors, worldwide. visit rgrdlaw.com more information. it also strives Please to implement corporateforgovernance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Please visit rgrdlaw.com for more information.

Attorney Advertising

“Unquestionably the dominant force in the litigation finance industry.”

– Reuters, 14 December 2016*

Burford is a leading global finance firm focused on law and the world’s largest provider of litigation finance. More lawyers work with Burford because: •

We have more capital and more capacity to finance law

•

Our respected team includes 40+ lawyers who are fast and easy to work with

•

We’re publicly traded and trusted by lawyers for our consummate professionalism, ethical standards and careful approach to sensitive matters

•

We’re focused on meeting our clients’ unique needs with competitively priced solutions

Travis Lenkner, Managing Director tlenkner@burfordcapital.com www.burfordcapital.com +1 312 757 6070 *Reuters is a trademark of Thompson Reuters, which is not affiliated with Burford.

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

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

4 4 M O N T G O M E R Y S T ., S U I T E 1303, S A N F R A N C I S C O , CA 94104 •

PH:

415.433.4440 •

FX:

415.433.5440 •

M A R YA L E X A N D E R L A W . C O M

AAlaw srlaw eyfirm wfirm al lfeaturing aifeaturing rt gniruttrial atrial ef m lawyers lawyers rfi wal A AAlaw srlaw eypracticing firm w alsalfeaturing aeirfeaturing ratin nthe uittrial eareas ficm lawyers lawyers rcfiof practicing fofirm eghin tirnthe areas gatrial n itof arw p al A AAlaw srlaw eypracticing firm w alsalfeaturing aeirfeaturing ratin nthe uittrial eareas ficm lawyers lawyers rcfiof practicing fofirm eghin tirnthe areas gatrial n itof arw p al A practicing practicing fo saera in ehinthe t nthe i areas gn areas icitof cof arp

Bank Bank of America of America Plaza, Plaza, Suite Suite 3910 3910 101 101 East Kennedy Kennedy Boulevard Boulevard Bank Bank of East America of America Plaza, Plaza, Suite Suite 3910 3910 Tampa, Tampa, Florida Florida 33602 33602 101101 EastEast Kennedy Kennedy Boulevard Boulevard (813) (813) 222-8222 222-8222 Bank Bank of Florida America of Florida America Plaza, Plaza, Suite Suite 3910 3910 Tampa, Tampa, 33602 33602 www.yerridlaw.com 101www.yerridlaw.com 101 East East Kennedy Kennedy Boulevard Boulevard (813) (813) 222-8222 222-8222 Tampa, Tampa, Florida Florida 33602 33602 www.yerridlaw.com www.yerridlaw.com (813) (813) 222-8222 222-8222 www.yerridlaw.com www.yerridlaw.com

0193 etiuS ,azalP aciremA fo knaB 0193 detriauvSel,uaozaBlPydaecnirneemKAtsfoaEkn1a0B1 pm dravelu2o0B63y3deandnireoKlFts,aaE 10aT1 2F2f,2oap)k3m 0193 etiuS ,a2z0a6lP33a2ca2idr2eir8m n1a8T B( o-lA draveluoBmyodc2e.w n2n 2al8edK -i2rt2rse2ayE.)w31w 108w1( 206m3o3c.awdairldoilrFre,ayp.wmwaw T 2228-222 )318( moc.waldirrey.www

500

{

}

A NOTE FROM THE PUBLISHER AND EDITOR

S LAST YEAR’S ISSUE SHIPPED TO THE PRINTER, THE COUNTRY AND THE WORLD WERE STILL COMING TO GRIPS WITH DONALD TRUMP’S SHOCKING UPSET OF HILLARY CLINTON. WHILE THE RELEASE OF ANY ANNUAL MAGAZINE – IN OUR CASE, A BOOK, REALLY – IS A TIME TO STOP AND REFLECT, THE REALITY IS THAT LIKE THE REST OF YOU, WE PRETTY MUCH JUST KEPT OUR FOOT ON THE GAS. OR MAYBE WE FLOORED IT. As the outgoing president said, the world keeps turning, and in fact glass ceilings still get broken. That’s what our feature story on Cravath’s all-female group of new partners proves, as does the storied American institution’s election of its first-ever female presiding partner in Faiza Saeed. There are other significant changes reflected elsewhere in these pages. As always, our guides to the nation’s best lawyers recognize both steely veterans – like Sullivan & Cromwell’s Chairman Joseph Shenker, whose lengthy career in lawyering and leadership is astounding – and younger stars carving out niche high-end practices, like Karen Dunn, the renowned litigator, crisis manager and preparer of debate candidates. Then there’s Alec Karakatsanis, Harvard Law ’08, whose Civil Rights Corps is making revolutionary strides pursuing important reforms of our justice system’s most stubborn flaws. Karakatsanis teamed up with Susman Godfrey on a historic case in Houston federal court that held the Harris County cash-bail system unconstitutional. Few firms blend the old and the new as well as Susman Godfrey, which has established itself as the nation’s best litigation firm – and one exceptionally capable to take founder Stephen Susman’s achievements forward to succeeding generations, as we explore in “Don’t Mess with Texas.” Capturing the next generation of dedicated legal professionals, whether or not they ever end up making the Lawdragon 500, is one of the goals of our Campus site campus.lawdragon.com. We hope you enjoy reading a sampling of our “Law School Road trip” and check out online our Quixotic effort to visit and review every U.S. law school. We may forever be known best for the Lawdragon 500 guide that headlines each magazine – and the best in legal features and photojournalism that accompanies it – but you’ll also notice in Issue 18 our continuing efforts to build out the content of our other guides: The Most Powerful Corporate Employment Lawyers and the 100 Leading Legal Consultants & Strategists. These guides reflect the diverse talents and endless professional possibilities within the legal industry, along with our goal of capturing that immensity with a global platform that remains free to every reader. Always remember you can find the content in these pages on Lawdragon.com, and that you’ll never hit a paywall. That being said, we love taking up space on your coffee tables, desks and bookshelves.

KATRINA DEWEY Publisher and CEO katrina@lawdragon.com

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

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

“All Star Litigation Shop.” —LAW360

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

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

www.mololamken.com

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

P I R T D A O R L O O H C S THE LAW From Malibu To Maine

By Katrina Dewey

Last year, Lawdragon Campus decided to hit the road and visit every law school in the United States. The point of the Road Trip was to remember the journey students take when they dare to dream of becoming a lawyer. For some lifetime overachievers, the path may be a logical next step. However, for many others, it’s a goal that can seem out of reach. There’s nothing like the drive from Albuquerque to Lubbock to remind you of how special it can be to make it to law school. We visited 254 law schools on our journey, and talked to countless law students and educators. Two of those schools have since closed. Needless to say, it was a wild ride. But what we’ve seen, mostly, are people with dreams of becoming lawyers, and not for the sake of making lots of money. What has touched us most across thousands of miles are students in San Antonio, who want to work for immigrant justice on the border; in Austin, who won the job at Cravath as well as the opportunity to work for racial justice at home; in Irvine, who went from the first female Top Gun helicopter training pilot, to committed pro bono advocate who’s helped start a Veteran’s Law Clinic; 18

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

and in New York, where they work full-time and study at night for a chance to help their family by getting a job with the city as a tax lawyer. They are not statistics. They are real people with real dreams and goals, and they are the point of this crazy journey. Here is a sampling of the trip from various points around the U.S. UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO SCHOOL OF LAW TOWERS OVER ITS REGION The University of San Diego School of Law is easily the premier law school in San Diego – and with good reason. Led by Dean Stephen Ferruolo, a former Biglaw partner, the school takes seriously its mission of educating future leaders of San Diego’s legal and business communities, as well as its judiciary and government. It offers a first-class education in tax, energy and environment, and is hands-down the school of choice for San Diego’s legal elite. The University of San Diego School of Law could not offer a more stark contrast to its regional coun-

WALTER J. LACK MH AV Preeminent® WALTER J. LACK

DANIEL G. WHALEN Southern DANIELCalifornia G. WHALEN

Super Lawyer 2013-2014 SC Super Lawyer 2004-2009, 2012-2016DANIEL Southern California MH AV Preeminent® DANIEL G.G. WHALEN WHALEN WALTER WALTER J. LACK J. LACK Law Dragon Legend 2004-2016 SuperCalifornia Lawyer 2013-2014 SCMH Super Lawyer 2004-2009, 2012-2016Southern Southern California MH AV AV Preeminent® Preeminent® Dragon Legend 2004-2016 Super Lawyer Lawyer 2013-2014 2013-2014 SCLaw Super SC Super Lawyer Lawyer 2004-2009, 2004-2009, 2012-2016 2012-2016 Super LawLaw Dragon Dragon Legend Legend 2004-2016 2004-2016

STEVEN C. SHUMAN

STEVEN C.C.SHUMAN MH AV Preeminent® STEVEN STEVEN C. SHUMAN SHUMAN MH AV Preeminent® MHMH AVAV Preeminent® Preeminent®

ELIZABETH L. CROOKE

BRIAN J. HEFFERNAN

RICHARD P. KINNAN

MH AV Preeminent® SC Super 2010-16 CAL-ABOTA BRIAN J. Lawyer HEFFERNAN ELIZABETH L. CROOKE BRIAN RICHARD P.Associate KINNAN J. HEFFERNAN J. HEFFERNAN RICHARD ELIZABETH ELIZABETH L. CROOKE L. CROOKE BRIAN RICHARD P. KINNAN P. KINNAN MH AV Preeminent® SC Super Lawyer 2010-16 CAL-ABOTA Associate MHMH AVAV Preeminent® Preeminent® SC SC Super Super Lawyer Lawyer 2010-16 2010-16 CAL-ABOTA CAL-ABOTA Associate Associate

We Get We Get We WeGet Get Results Results Results Results and have for

and have for and and have have for for over 40 years over 40 years over over 40 40years years 10 FIGURES

1010FIGURES FIGURES 10 FIGURES in settlements/ BRIAN J. LEINBACH

BRIAN BRIAN J.J.LEINBACH J.LEINBACH LEINBACH BRIAN

STEVEN J. LIPSCOMB

GREGORY P. WATERS

ANDREW M. JACOBSON

ANDREW M. M. JACOBSON JACOBSON GREGORY P. WATERS P. P. WATERS STEVEN STEVEN J. LIPSCOMB J. LIPSCOMB SCSL Rising Star 2008-10GREGORY ANDREW M. JACOBSON GREGORY WATERS ANDREW STEVEN J. LIPSCOMB SCSL SCSL Rising Rising StarStar 2008-10 2008-10 SCSL Rising Star 2008-10

inin settlements/ settlements/ in settlements/ verdicts including verdicts verdicts including including verdicts including numerous numerous numerous numerous precedent-setting precedent-setting precedent-setting precedent-setting recoveries recoveries recoveries recoveries

9 FIGURES 9 9FIGURES FIGURES 9 FIGURES

IN REFERRAL ININ REFERRAL REFERRAL IN REFERRAL FEES PAID FEES FEES PAID PAID FEES PAID

MICHAEL P. LEWIS P. LEWIS MICHAEL LEWIS CHRISTOPHER CHRISTOPHER A.A.KANNE A.KANNE KANNE MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER

CHRISTOPHER A. KANNE

MICHAEL P. LEWIS

ERIC R. BELL R. BELL BRITTAN BRITTAN N. N. CORTNEY CORTNEY ERIC R. BELL BRITTAN N. CORTNEY ERIC

BRITTAN N. CORTNEY

ERIC R. BELL

Co-Counsel, Co-Counsel, Co-Lead-Counsel, Co-Lead-Counsel, && Referrals Welcome Welcome - Generous - Generous Referral Referral Fees FeesFees Co-Counsel, Co-Lead-Counsel, &Referrals Referrals Welcome - Generous Referral

Co-Counsel, 10100 Co-Lead-Counsel, &12th Referrals Welcome - 90067 Generous Referral Fees 10100 Santa Santa Monica Monica Blvd, Blvd, 12th Floor, Floor, Los Los Angeles, Angeles, CA CA 90067 10100 Santa Monica Blvd, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067

10100 Santa Monica Blvd, 12th /Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067 855-ELL-WINS 855-ELL-WINS / 310-552-3800 / 310-552-3800 WWW.ELLLAW.COM / WWW.ELLLAW.COM

855-ELL-WINS / 310-552-3800 / WWW.ELLLAW.COM 855-ELL-WINS / 310-552-3800 / WWW.ELLLAW.COM

terparts. Perched on a hill in Linda Vista, it is part of the beautiful USD campus, which is white-washed and Spanish Gothic with rolling green hills where students walk happily from class to class. The school itself is all dark wood and quiet walls with Spanish courtyards – much like what John Grisham would have concocted if he were in San Diego. It’s a beautiful, reflective place to study the law. Dean Stephen Ferruolo joined in 2011 as the school’s 10th Dean. He brought a Biglaw background, having been a highly successful corporate lawyer in the San Diego office of Goodwin Procter, where he also served on the executive committee. (Note to other schools: while it doesn’t always translate, the few schools that have had the bright idea to bring in someone who knows a thing or two about how law firms work to build the pipeline to those coveted jobs are on to something.) Ferruolo has assembled an impressive team in admissions, student affairs, academics and communication to ensure USD stays at the top of the market. (For more on the school, visit here.) And about that market: it’s a tough one. While San Diego has a population of 1.3 million, it’s pretty much

The University of San Diego School of Law

a mid- to down-market town. Sure, it has its own tech boom, which has spawned some Biglaw growth, but large firms generally don’t maintain a big San Diego presence. High billing rates aren’t sustainable, and much of the city revolves around the significant military presence. USD works hard to ensure its graduates get the region’s most coveted jobs, and most USD grads work in small to mid-sized firms. 20

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Its graduates easily comprise the power elite of San Diego law and business. Among the notable alumni are Steven Altman, former president of Qualcomm; Thomas Barrack Jr., CEO of Colony Capital; Theo Epstein, President of Baseball Operations for the Chicago Cubs; Thomas O’Brien, Paul Hastings partner and former U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California; Lynn Schenk, former member of the U.S. House of Representatives; Jan Goldsmith, former City Attorney of San Diego; and the late Robert Kardashian, who defended O.J. Simpson and is the father of the Kardashians. CALIFORNIA DESERT TRIAL ACADEMY IS THE INN-OUT OF LAW SCHOOLS The California Desert Trial Academy in Indio is an only-in-California law school type we’ll call the In-NOut. Drive to the outer fringe of Indio and you will find the Dolan Law Office. If you go around the back of the building, you will find the California Desert Trial Academy. (For bonus points, the Desert Center for Legal Education can be entered on a third side.) The school formerly held its classes at a nearby casino and attracts students from the growing Coachella Valley, where there is no other law school. So let’s say you’re hanging out at Coachella and get busted. It’s been known to happen. And you need a criminal defense lawyer who knows the ins and outs of the Desert Justice System. You just might hire John Patrick Dolan, who’s lived and worked in the desert for decades. He runs the Dolan Law Firm in Indio. Now depending on how things work out, you might decide to hang out in the Desert and maybe even go to law school. If so, you’re in luck. Dolan is also the Dean of the California Desert Trial Academy College of Law. In fact, after four years of hosting classes at the nearby Fantasy Springs Resort Casino and addiction centers, it recently got real headquarters – in a converted furniture store it now shares with the Dean’s Law Office! On its face, this law school can appear shady – mostly because it’s one of the 10 so-called Registered, Unaccredited Fixed-Facility Law Schools that the State of California allows to run as “law schools.” The RUFFLS, by the way, are one of five types of law schools the state permits, which also include Registered Unaccredited Correspondence Schools and Registered Unaccredited Distance Learning Schools. Our new friends RUCLS and RUDLS. Combined with the ABA accredited and State-accredited schools, that makes the California Desert Trial Academy one of a whopping 63 law schools in California, which just seems wrong.

The University of Texas Law School at Austin dominates a vast and important landscape like no other law school in America. On the other hand, Yale isn’t exactly sending its grads to Indio. The school is four years old, has a reputable faculty including thoroughly professional local lawyers, a judge and prosecutors, including the well-regarded Dean of Students, Sue Steding. While there are a surplusssage of Dolans, they appear to be well regarded in the community and to run the law school in a professional manner. The school had 37 students earlier this year (it can now accommodate

The California Desert Trial Academy College of Law

140). It graduated its first class recently – 11 students, and all intend to sit for the bar. They are mostly working in the Coachella area. One of them, Jennifer Madison, told a local reporter, “I’m a third generation here in the desert and to me, it’s a phenomenal thing that we have upper education law school here in the valley for students.” UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS LAW SCHOOL: A POWERHOUSE WITHOUT PEER The University of Texas Law School at Austin should be on every prospective student’s ‘consider’ list. The school is head and shoulders the best for more than 1,000 miles in every direction, with a passionate alumni base, academics, leadership, cost-effectiveness and job pipeline that are second to none. It

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

also happens to be in a state that is #2 in corporate headquarters and a city that is booming like almost nowhere else. We’re hooked. The University of Texas Law School at Austin dominates a vast and important landscape like no other law school in America. The nation’s second-largest state by population, Texas has by many measures the most promising economy for law jobs. And yet of its 10 schools, only UT is broadly considered in the elite ranks, with strong pipelines to clerkships and an array of great national jobs at the most affordable tab. Dean Ward Farnsworth is one of the best deans around, having assembled top teams in career services, student life and clinics – while maintaining first-rate academics and scholarship. Alongside him is yet another vaunted alum, John Beckworth, who joined as associate dean after a very successful career as a civil litigator. The school is on the large side, with 904 students paying $33,995 for resident tuition and $50,480 for non-residents. The tuition remains the lowest among what have long been considered the nation’s “elite” schools. UT provides scholarships to 91 percent of its students, and attracts a large number of transfers, taking 25 1Ls from competitors in the most recent cycle. Its heritage in energy law is peerless, having provided the first course in the topic in 1914. Remarkably, its leadership in clinics and other public interest pursuits is on par; the school started its legal aid clinic in 1941. And no summary would be complete without a nod to the revolutionary Center for Women in Law, led by Linda Bray Chanow and founded by a stellar group of alums and friends who wanted a more equal future. Its current students are a remarkable collection of individuals who feel empowered by the school to make a difference for victims of domestic abuse, those in need of immigration help, and for businesses looking for top-flight M&A or intellectual property counselors. We’ve returned to the school, and will be providing a more in-depth report in the future. The time we spent with students last spring left no doubt that when you are with UT law students, you are in the presence of future leaders.

Congratulations.

Congratulations to Richard Brand for being named to the 2017 Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America. We celebrate Richardâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s commitment to his clients, to our firm and to the legal profession.

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP www.cadwalader.com

And to judge by its past students? Take a look at UT’s alums and stand in awe. Let’s take lawyers in private practice first: Steve Susman, Neal Manne and Lee Godfrey of Susman Godfrey; the late Joe Jamail (who obtained the first billion-dollar verdict); Linda Addison, head of North America for Norton Rose, alongside Jonathan Skidmore, head of its Dallas office; Hilda Galvan, head of Dallas for Jones Day; Robert Walters, Dallas managing partner for Gibson Dunn; Mark Evans and Patrick Oxford, co-chairman of Bracewell; Wade Cooper, chairman of Jackson

AT&T; Thomas Mason of Energy Transfer Equity; Richard McGee of Plains GP Holdings; Marcia Backus of Occidental Petroleum; and Denise McWatters of HollyFrontier. And then there are some of the most illustrious federal judges in the country: Judge William C. Bryson of the Federal Circuit; Chief Judge Diane Wood of the 7th Circuit; Judge Edith Jones of the 5th Circuit; and Senior Judge Royce Lamberth of the D.C. Circuit. Among the other notables are Michael Levy, the founder of Texas Monthly; Kathryn Fuller of the National Museum of Natural History; venture capitalist Adam Dell; political commentator and consultant Paul Begala; Austin Mayor Steve Adler; Darren Walker, president of the Ford Foundation; and George P. Bush (son of Jeb). If we judge law schools on their ‘output’ – the careers of their alumni – UT wins summary judgment. NORTHWESTERN PRITZKER SCHOOL OF LAW IS SUPERB, MODERN LEADER

The University of Texas School of Law

Walker; David Beck, chairman of Beck Redden; David Dawson, chairman of Winstead; Mike McKool, founder of McKool Smith; Tom Melsheimer of Winston & Strawn; defense lawyer Dick DeGuerin; and one of the winningest Supreme Court advocates currently practicing, David Frederick of Kellogg Huber. (And while most of those lawyers practice in Texas, the school’s placement network is robust nationwide.) The who’s who includes a legion of historic Texas judges and politicians, from Sarah Weddington, who argued Roe v. Wade; to Tom C. Clark, who served on the U.S. Supreme Court; former Secretary of State James Baker; Vice Presidential candidate and four-term U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen; former Texas Governor John Connally and former U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. There is a remarkable, if not comprehensive list at Wikipedia. Business leaders? You bet. Texas is now the #2 corporate headquarters for Fortune 500 companies, with 54 of them. Among the general counsel or chief legal officers that hail from UT Law: S. Jack Balagia, formerly of Exxon Mobil; David McAtee of 24

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Northwestern Pritzker School of Law is a gem – and not some crusty big diamond hidden in a vault. True to its Chicago roots, it’s big and brash from its Streeterville locale on the shores of Lake Michigan. The school’s alums are a jaw-dropping roster of power in law firms, business, sports and politics – and not just in Chicago. We’ll key off with two U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justices (John Paul Stevens and Arthur Goldberg); revered presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson; former Illinois Governor and retired Winston & Strawn chair James Thompson; and Jenner & Block chairman Anton Valukas. And then there’s the Pritzkers, who donated $100M to improve the lives of students and enhance social justice. Northwestern Pritzker places more students in big law jobs than any other Illinois school, and sends its graduates in large numbers throughout the nation, including to California and New York. One of the things to love most about Chicago is its improbability. It does not have the brawn of New York nor the siren song of California. It’s cold, bitterly so, in the winter and especially on the shores of Lake Michigan. But that felt familiar to many immigrants from Eastern Europe, including Nicholas J. Pritzker, who left Kiev for Chicago in 1881 and sold shoes and newspapers to finance his studies at Illinois College of Law (now DePaul) to become a lawyer. He laid the foundation of an empire, and reportedly passed his philosophy to his family in a small tome with the message: “Your only immortality is the impact you have on your successors.” Nicholas Pritzker’s great-

LEADERS IN LAW Godwin Bowman & Martinez Places Three Among Lawdragon 500 Godwin Bowman & Martinez has successfully represented an exceptional range of clients, from Fortune 500 companies to individuals seeking trial and appellate representation. Our firmâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s foundation is built upon the remarkable work ethic of trial lawyers like Donald E. Godwin, who has achieved his third consecutive selection to the 2017 Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America*, as well as that of Jenny L. Martinez and Bruce W. Bowman, Jr. celebrating their first year of selection. Well done, team!

Donald E. Godwin Jenny L. Martinez

Bruce W. Bowman, Jr. *The Lawdragon 500 and the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America Guide is compiled and published by Lawdragon, Inc.

& GODWINLAW.COM | 214-939-4400 | DALLAS

grandson, J.B., graduated from Northwestern in 1993, and with his wife M.K. paid it forward magnificently with $100 million in funding – the largest single law school gift ever – to help students who struggle to pay for legal education.

Northwestern Pritzker School of Law

Northwestern Law School is much more than any one family or lineage. But the Pritzkers’ success from the hard work of an immigrant patriarch who became a lawyer illustrates the possibility of legal education. Northwestern Pritzker takes a practical approach to legal education, joined with a legacy of exceptional legal scholarship and true impact from its graduates and the communities they serve. It encourages students to work for at least two years before enrolling – and 70 percent of them do; 90 percent of students have worked for at least one year before enrolling, a pattern typically seen in business school.

The school is Illinois’ oldest, founded in 1859 as Union College of Law. The editors of the Northwestern University Law Review, founded in 1906, include Harvard Law School Dean Roscoe Pound; former Illinois Governor Daniel Walker; former FCC Chair Newton Minow; as well as Stevens, Goldberg and Stevenson. Northwestern publishes five other journals, including the widely read Criminal Law & Criminology. It started clinical education in 1910, pairing with the Chicago Legal Aid Society. Today’s Bluhm Legal Clinic opened in 1969 and involves 20 professors annually mentoring more than 120 students in a law-firm type setting helping real clients in need. The school is also known for its Center on Wrongful Conviction; Federal Appellate Clinic; Children & Family Justice Center; MacArthur Justice Center (through which Joseph Margulies served as counsel in Rasul v. Bush establishing habeas corpus rights for Guantanamo detainees); the Donald Pritzker Entrepreneurship Law Center; Center for International Human Rights; Investor Protection Center; and the Fred Bartlit Center for Trial Advocacy, which focuses on “changes in trial craft brought on by new technologies and compensation approaches.”The school’s advocacy training is first rate and its Bartlit Center Team recently won the National Trial Competition, besting 300 teams from 14 regions; it’s the fifth time Northwestern has topped the prestigious tournament. The school’s list of notable alums is one of the most impressive around, and includes Bartlit of Bartlit Beck; Dawn Clark Netsch, the first woman elected to statewide office in Illinois; her classmate, former Chicago Mayor Harold Washington, who was the only African-American student in the class of 1952; telecommunications guru Richard Wiley; W. Neil Eggleston; Ada Kepley, the first American woman to

If there’s an epicenter of legal education in the U.S., it’is New York City, and likely near Washington Square Park. Walk across the street to New York University School of Law, and gaze at the institution that has launched centuries of the most fabled names. 26

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Keller/Anderle LLP BUSINESS TRIAL LAWYERS

obtain a law degree, in 1870; William Jennings Bryan; and a host of judges and government leaders from Illinois to Hawaii, South Dakota and beyond. Others include Rita Fry, the first woman and African-American woman chief attorney for the law office of the Cook County Public Defender; noted blogger and George Washington Law School professor Jonathan Turley; Eddie Einhorn, owner of the Chicago White Sox; and Jerry Reinsdorf, owner of the Sox and Chicago Bulls; Mark Walter, founder of Guggenheim Partners and chairman of the L.A. Dodgers; Jay A. Pritzker, who co-founded the Hyatt Hotel chain, and J.B., who is managing partner of Pritzker Group Venture Capital; Robert R. McCormick, the legendary owner of the Chicago Tribune and founder of Kirland & Ellis; Matt Ferguson, president of Careerbuilder.com; Elbert Henry Gary, a legendary founder of U.S. Steel Corp.; Howard Tullman, the CEO of 1871, the Chicago tech startup incubator; Carole Bellows, the first female state bar president in the country; and federal judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, who served as the first Commissioner of Baseball. The school’s metrics are fantastic. It’s expensive, with a tuition of $59,850. The school’s fundraising under Dean Daniel Rodriguez, including the Pritzkers’ gift, allows 72 percent of students to receive scholarship with a high median of $27,000. The school is a comfortable 664 students, so each class has around 220. It’s 52 percent male and 32 percent minority with an exceptionally good student to faculty ratio of 6:1. A very high 25 students transferred in to the school for their second year (the average for all schools is 5). And who can blame them? The school was also the first elite school to offer an accelerated two-year J.D. The school’s employment outcomes are a very strong 94.8 percent, with 237 of 249 graduates getting jobs. Of those, graduates work for: law firms (199); business (25); government (8); public interest (12); clerkships (26). Those who went to work for firms work for: small (15); medium (13) and large (171) firms. That latter number is an exceptional one and shows the strength of the school’s network. It also places a significant number of students nationally, with graduates practicing in Illinois (106); New York (49); California (41); and other states (67). The school’s bar pass rate is one of its lesser metrics, at 85.8 percent. That’s well over the Illinois bar average of 80.8 percent, and possibly reflects that only 44.2 percent of graduates take the Illinois bar. Students considering enrolling at Northwestern Pritzker have a wealth of great options in the region (and nationally). There really aren’t many better 28

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

choices for legal education, particularly for students who plan to practice in Chicago and want to take full advantage of the marvelous network Northwestern Pritzker provides. It nicely combines vaunted legal scholarship (with which it competes with University of Chicago a few miles south) with more engagement with community and experiential and practical opportunities. NYU LAW SCHOOL OFFERS A GLOBAL CROSSROADS OF LEGAL EDUCATION If there’s an epicenter of legal education in the U.S., it’s New York City, and likely near Washington Square Park. Walk across the street to New York University School of Law, and gaze at the institution that has launched centuries of the most fabled names in New York politics and law. You want politics? Try LaGuardia, Koch, Giuliani and Raymond Kelly. Big law power brokers? How about the Chairman of Cravath, Evan Chesler, and all four name partners of Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz? The school’s Greenwich Village-adjacent location defines a New York state of mind, as does its price tag as the 2nd-most expensive law school in the U.S., with tuition at $61,622. That’s not quite so terrifying given that NYU’s job placement is tops in NYC, at a mark of 97.7

Washington Square Park, New York

percent, with most grads going to the nation’s most elite private firms. NYU excels in international, tax, corporate law, and public interest, for which it’s an undisputed leader in the U.S. But what it really does best? Serve as the legal crossroads of New York City.

��””””””””””””””””””””””””””�”” ��””””””””””””””””””””””””””�”” �”””””�”�”””””””�””””””””””�””””�”””””””””””””� �”””””�”�”””””””�””””””””””�””””�”””””””””””””�

�”””�”””””””””””””””��”””””””””””””””””�”””””””””””””””””””�”””�”””””””�”””” �”””�”””””””””””””””��”””””””””””””””””�”””””””””””””””””””�”””�”””””””�”””” ��”�””�””””””””””””��”””””””””””””””””�””””””””””””””””””””””””�””””””””””””” ��”�””�””””””””””””��”””””””””””””””””�””””””””””””””””””””””””�””””””””””””” ””�””””�”””””�”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””�””�”””””””””””””””””” ””�””””�”””””�”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””�””�”””””””””””””””””” �”””””�””””””””””””””””””””””””””�”””��”””””””””””””””””””””�””””��”�”””””” �”””””�””””””””””””””””””””””””””�”””��”””””””””””””””””””””�””””��”�”””””” ”””””””””””””””””””””””�””�””””””””””””””””””””””�”�”””�””””””””””””””””””””””””” ”””””””””””””””””””””””�””�””””””””””””””””””””””�”�”””�””””””””””””””””””””””””” ””””�””””””””””””””””””””�”””��””””””�”””””””””��””””””””””””””””�� ””””�””””””””””””””””””””�”””��””””””�”””””””””��””””””””””””””””�� ””””””�””””�””””�””””””””””””””��”””�””””””””��””�””””��””””�”””””�””�” �””””””�””””�””””�””””””””””””””��”””�””””””””��””�””””��””””�”””””�””�”

“I’m attered to be included in such distinguished company.” “I’m attered to be included in such distinguished company.”

””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””” ””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””” ”””””””�”””�”””””””””””””””””””””””””�”�”””””””””””� ”””””””�”””�”””””””””””””””””””””””””�”�”””””””””””�

The magic of New York is captured perfectly at New York University School of Law, which enrolls students in equal parts idealist and capitalist and produces power brokers of whatever realm they choose. With 1,369 students NYU is one of six U.S. law schools topping 1,000 students – four of them in New York. So if you’re ready for the reality of “If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere,” welcome home. NYU trains its students well to compete hard and to win – whether they are building two of the world’s most prestigious firms, in Cravath and Wachtell; mayors; judges; CEO’s like Southwest Airlines founder Herb Kelleher; Nobel Peace Prize laureates Elihu Root and Mohamed ElBaradei; the inspiring journalist Glenn Greenwald; movie producer Peter Guber; the former FBI Director Louis Freeh; NHL commissioner Gary Bettman; or the late, trailblazing New York judge and Skadden partner Judith Kaye. And we would be remiss not to mention the scion of an old dynasty, the late John F. Kennedy Jr., and the President’s current main man, Jared Kushner. NYU is the city’s oldest law school, established in 1835. It balances first-rate scholarship with a broad world interest. The school’s 10 student-run journals reflect that range, including the Journal of Law & Liberty; International Law & Politics; Environmental Law; and Law & Social Change. Its role as an international legal crossroads shows in dual degrees it offers with Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto; the National University of Singapore Faculty; and the University of Melbourne Law School. It offers joint programs with Oxford, the Harvard JFK School of Government and Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of public affairs. It also offers a vast array of Institutes and Centers, bringing specific focus to issues from policing to immigration. In addition to the famous Brennan Center for Justice, there is the Center for Cybersecurity; for Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging; for Financial Institutions; for Human Rights & Global Justice; the Migration Policy Institute; the Policing Project; and the Institute for Corporate Governance and Finance. And that is just a sampling. On the numbers, the school admits 29.8 percent, and 23.2 percent of those admitted enroll. Its bar pass metric is a strong 96.2 percent (84.5 percent of NYU grads take the NY bar, whose average pass rate is 78.1 percent). Of the 1,369 students, 51 percent are female and 30 percent are minority. The school’s student to faculty ratio is 9:1. Last year, 43 students transferred in – a large number compared with the 30

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

national average of 5. And 3.1 percent of 1Ls and 0.4 percent of 2Ls left. While the school’s tuition is very high, it provides scholarships with a median of $20,000 to 41 percent of the students. That’s on the low side. However, 114 students get full tuition. Those include recipients of the Root-Tilden-Kern Scholarships Program, which awards full-time tuition to 20 students committed to public service each year. NYU Law School has an exceptional job placement rate of 97.7 percent, placing 474 of 485 students in the most recent class. They joined: law firms (324); business (18); government (30); public interest (64); clerkships (37); and academia (1). Of those who went to work for firms, they joined small (9); medium (26) and large (289) firms. While most (344) stayed in NY, they also practice in California (35); Washington, D.C. (35) and other states and countries. Taking a look at how many NYU alums are partners in the city’s ultra-elite law practices, it’s a wildly impressive pack. While Columbia has a slight edge over NYU (216 to 197) in the 10 firms we sampled, you can’t go wrong either way. NYU’s big firm breakdown is: Latham (44); Skadden (37); Paul Weiss (25); Simpson Thacher (20); Davis Polk (19); Sullivan & Cromwell (15); Cravath (12); Wachtell (11); Boies Schiller (10); and Debevoise (4). They include Cravath’s Chesler and corporate governance guru John White; Boies Schiller’s David Boies, who earned his LL.M. at NYU; Paul Schnell and John Carroll of Skadden; Herbert Wachtell, Martin Lipton David Katz and the late Leonard Rosen of Wachtell; John Mead of Sullivan; Jennifer Hobbs and Lee Meyerson of Simpson Thacher; Arthur Golden of Davis Polk; and Greg Ezring of Paul Weiss. Equally impressive is the school’s impact through its Root-Tilden-Kern Scholars, whose first class graduated in 1954. A sampling of its alumni include: Thomas Buergenthal, former judge of the International Court of Justice; Christopher Meade, former General Counsel to the U.S. Department of the Treasury and now Chief Legal Officer of BlackRock; Julie Brill, former FTC commissioner and now a partner at Hogan Lovells; Derwyn Burton, Chief Public Defender of Orleans Parish; Colorado Congresswoman Diana DeGette; Mary Haviland, executive director of the NYC Alliance Against Sexual Assault; Sharon Hom, executive director of Human Rights in China; Dorchen Leidholdt, the director of the Center for Battered Women’s Legal Services at the Sanctuary for Families; and Lourdes Rosado, chief of the civil rights bureau at the New York Attorney General’s Office.

RE ID I COLLI NS I TSAI

LLP

We are proud to congratulate our founding partners William T. “Bill” Reid, IV, P. Jason Collins, and Lisa S. Tsai on being named to the 2017 Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America. Reid Collins & Tsai is a nationally recognized trial boutique that prosecutes high-stakes, complex business litigation on a success-fee basis. RCT’s team of trial attorneys includes former federal prosecutors, judicial law clerks, entrepreneurs, and forensic accountants. In 2016, the National Law Journal named RCT to the Litigation Boutiques Hot List and as Elite Trial Lawyers for financial institutions litigation. RCT represents bankruptcy trustees, creditor committees, and offshore liquidators in investigating

and

prosecuting

claims

against

directors

and

officers,

third-party

professionals, and financial institutions. RCT also represents public companies, fund managers, investment funds, and investors in pursuing claims against global investment banks, top-tier law firms, accounting firms, and other culpable third parties.

By Katrina Dewey

Talent Rising: Cravath’s 2017 Partnership Class 32

EIGHT DAYS AND 1.4 MILES.

That’s the gap in the 2016 storyline of breaking the highest, hardest glass ceiling. Just a stroll from Javits Center – where cracks were made on Nov. 8 – up 8th Avenue in New York to the headquarters of Cravath, an inspiring story played out last fall. On Nov. 16, 2016, the partners of America’s quintessential law firm admitted their new class. All women. That in and of itself is historic and one for the record books. It followed the July selection of M&A standout Faiza Saeed as Cravath’s 16th presiding partner – a legendary position held by male forebears whose names define power in the law. And while leadership and partnership at one of America’s greatest law firms is not the presidency, it undeniably embodies an institutional ascendance in one of the nation’s most powerful professions that’s been a long time coming. Cravath’s newest partners – Margaret Segall D’Amico, Rory A. Leraris and Kara L. Mungovan – joined the firm together in 2008 and eight years later accomplished the unthinkable. Champagne flowed, articles were written, and the moment framed. In months following the news, some reflection had settled in on the question of “How did they do that?” Their collective accomplishment may have provided the moonshot a legal profession in search of parity needs. Two decades after women first comprised 50 percent of law school classes, a dreadfully low number – roughly 18 percent – of law firm equity partners are women. Tens of millions of dollars have been spent by firms to support advancement of women. Women are given important titles and management positions; committee meetings are held; and corporate counsel require women be on their teams. All with roughly the same marginal results. But here’s a funny thing about equality – whether you’re talking gender, ethnicity, LGBTQ, socioeconomic or religious: Runners will run, and brilliant competitors will rise if given a level playing field. But for most U.S. law firms in these mutinous times, the most level surface an attorney will walk is the plank. Not Cravath. Its traditional, almost-no-laterals, sturdy rotation training and lockstep compensation system is precisely the fair, egalitarian system that allowed D’Amico, Leraris and Mungovan to excel. Saeed started at the firm as a summer associate, in 1990, and joined the following year. The Walnut Creek, Calif.-born Saeed studied molecular biology at Berkeley, and considered law school after adding a second major, in economics. That quantitative background helped her excel at dealmaking. She became a partner in 1998, served as co-head of M&A and made her mark working on some of Cravath’s biggest deals for clients like Time Warner, Morgan Stanley and Northrop Grumman. She was elected presiding partner in mid-2016 and became the firm’s first female leader this year. Cravath’s three new partners share many traits beyond their gender – they are all funny, expressive, thoughtful and determined. Other than stints before law school as paralegals, none have worked at any other firm. They cite male and female mentors in roughly equal measure. The three are entirely Cravath born and raised. “We were summer associates together,” D’Amico says. “We started as first-year associates within three weeks of each other. We’ve all been here together. There’s this slow build up to making partner. You know you’re getting good feedback and you know when the firm meeting is going

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

PHOTO BY: LAURA BARISONZI

FROM LEFT TO RIGHT: MARGARET SEGALL Dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;AMICO, KARA L. MUNGOVAN AND RORY A. LERARIS

to be. But when it actually happens it really settles in: ‘Oh my gosh, we got here.’” That shared pursuit makes Cravath a bit unique, says Leraris. “Cravath has a lockstep partnership,” she explains. “The firm also has a lockstep system for associates, and with that comes a team-oriented mentality because you all start together as associates. We don’t really bring in laterals; occasionally, but very rarely. It all feeds into a very collaborative place to work.” If they joined a shared path at Cravath, what brought them to their historic moment exemplifies the opportunity the law offers those with drive and an inclination for justice. They entered law school in 2005, alongside 48,132 other students – 22,582 of them women. D’Amico foretold her future when she was 17. The slightly argumentative, John Grisham-loving teenager was assigned to write her obituary by her English teacher in Ann Arbor, Michigan. She wrote: “I was a successful international lawyer in a New York law firm. I had traveled the world helping clients with their hardest problems.” She earned her undergraduate degree in History from Harvard in 2003, then moved to New York and worked for two years, first as a paralegal, and then in a graduate department at NYU to get a view into academic life, which seemed more solitary than what she was looking for. She enrolled at Harvard Law School, and ventured into on-campus recruiting. “The special part about Cravath that drew me in was the sense that everyone I met seemed to be genuinely interested and invested in what they were doing,” D’Amico says. “I wanted to be at a firm where people felt that way, because that’s how I thought I would feel about practicing law.” Leraris was raised in Northern Virginia just outside of Washington, D.C., and went to work as a legal assistant after earning her undergraduate degree in Psychology and Sociology from Amherst in 2003. No one in her family was a lawyer and she considered pursuing a graduate degree in Psychology. She decided to attend law school, enrolling at American University Washington College of Law, then transferring to the University of Chicago as a 2L. Before she took her first class at Chicago, she walked past Cravath’s sign-up sheet at on-campus interviews, saw an opening and walked in. “I didn’t have anything to do so I put my name down,” recalls Leraris. And there sat star litigation partner Sandra Goldstein. Game. Set. Match. Leraris didn’t know much about the firm, other than it had a great reputation. She and Goldstein ended 34

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

up talking all the way through the lunch break. “Poor Sandra. I think I actually said to her during the interview, ‘How do I get a job here? I really want to work here.’” Leraris got a call back, and appreciated Cravath’s full day of interviews, as opposed to the more customary half day. “The full day provided an opportunity to really get a sense of the place,” she said. She interviewed with star litigators Paul Saunders, Rowan Wilson and Rachel Skaistis and began to see the variety of role models she could find at the firm. As a summer associate, she worked for late presiding partner Bob Joffe, “an incredible role model.” Growing up in Canada, Mungovan thought she wanted to be a lawyer, but realized in high school and as a biochemistry major at Harvard College that she preferred math and science. After graduating from Harvard in 2004, she worked for a credit card consulting company for a year before enrolling in Harvard Law School, still not knowing if she wanted to practice. And then Mungovan walked into a tax class, and with the fortuity that D’Amico, Leraris and Mungovan all recognize in their career paths, Mungovan was hooked. She interviewed in the tax departments within a number of firms, but was particularly attracted to Cravath, where she summered in tax and corporate. “I just loved Cravath. I’m not sure I could have explained at the time why, but I was just very comfortable here.” When D’Amico, Leraris and Mungovan arrived as full-time associates in the autumn of 2008, they were part of a class of 106 associates. Despite the statistically long odds for partnership at any firm, Cravath associates have several built-in advantages. First, they are not expected to develop business, and are instead promoted based on the work they do during their rotations. Second, they do not have to worry about being bumped off by laterals, whom many firms hire because of their rainmaking or other expertise. The lockstep partnership also had great appeal. “I liked what it meant about the firm in terms of the way the partners treated each other,” Mungovan says. “In a system where everyone shares equally in the success of the firm, there is a shared goal in maximizing that success, which fosters a uniquely collaborative partnership. I thought that system would have trickledown effects on the firm culture, and I think it does.” And third – and perhaps most important – they rotate. The legendary Cravath rotation system is at the heart of the firm’s ability to endure as an ultra-elite world-class law firm with but one home office in New

Complex Litigation and Arbitration Counsel Tenacious Advocates • Significant Trial Experience • Landmark Achievements Groundbreaking Cases • Record-Breaking Results

Securities • Merger & Acquisition • Corporate Governance • Asset Recovery Appraisal • Antitrust • Bankruptcy • False Claims • Consumer

www.gelaw.com

“I just took it one step at a time at every stage and thought to myself, ‘I’ll stay as long as I’m happy and as long as they’ll have me.’” York and a London outpost, paying its attorneys on a lockstep compensation system in a cutthroat world. From the day they enter the doors of 825 8th Avenue, each attorney is assigned to a rotation in one of five practice groups (corporate; litigation; tax; executive compensation and benefits; trust and estates). They work with a partner or small group of partners within the department for a period of time, getting feedback, skills and an introduction to a variety of styles of excellence in lawyering. They then rotate to another group or specific partner within that department. The firm’s own description of the merits of its system may seem like a throwback. It explains that partnership decisions “are not based on the Firm’s immediate needs … but on each associate’s own proven record of accomplishment.” The Cravath partnership is based on “democratic and egalitarian principles,” and the one partner-one vote principle also applies to making new partners. To its 2017 partner class, the system resonated meritocracy. “Coming in, I liked the idea of working with one partner, knowing where your work was coming from, not being worried about politicking and who was the right person to work with,” says D’Amico. “I trusted the rotation system and the partners to invest in their associates because that’s who they have on their team.” Partners leading rotations ensured the associates were getting mutually beneficial experience and that associates could choose what to do next. “From one rotation to the next, that’s always the question that comes up at the end of the rotation period,” D’Amico says. “What have we done so far and what do we want to do next?” Leraris experienced four rotations, with illustrious litigation partners Evan Chesler (also firm Chairman), Rich Clary, Sandra Goldstein and Peter Barbur. “I just took it one step at a time at every stage and thought to myself, ‘I’ll stay as long as I’m happy and as long as they’ll have me.’ Before I knew it, I was on Sandra’s team and I was still happy at the firm and excited about the work. I just thought, ‘All right, I’m going to go for this.’” Mungovan’s rotations were slightly different, as they were all within tax. Like D’Amico and Leraris, she found a variety of role models, each of whom

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

offered their own style of lawyering excellence. She admired department head Steve Gordon’s technical proficiency, but also his ability to work through complicated issues with clients, especially in how he got a sense of the client’s goals and what was going on in the broader transaction. Lauren Angelilli’s career trajectory provided a relatable model for what Mungovan’s own career might look like, and her guidance and mentorship helped further shape Mungovan’s experience. “I think you need a lot of different role models with different styles,” says Mungovan. “There’s no one way to be a good lawyer.” And while you may meet one lawyer who is just like you and you can try to be just like them, “it’s more realistic to see a variety of really, really good lawyers who are all different, and from whom you can pick and choose from the ways in which they interact with clients, negotiate with the other side or approach technical issues in order to find your own style.” Come last November, and after eight years of rotations, all three knew it was time. “Maggie, Rory and Kara are each excellent lawyers and wonderful people,” Saeed says. “They were trained by Cravath partners through our rotation system and demonstrated not just their legal ability but their capacity to thrive in our client-focused culture. We are proud to have them join our partnership. Over the course of their careers here they will have the opportunity to train the next generation of Cravath lawyers and future partners, who will be so fortunate to work with and learn from them.” Leraris got the news, and rushed to D’Amico’s office a few doors down, where her new partner was on a conference call. “I just remember going over with my champagne glass because the associates came up to our floor to celebrate and ‘cheers’ing from behind Maggie’s desk,” says Leraris. Mungovan is on a different floor, but the news soon broke across the tax department as a crew of litigation associates crashed the area. Associates were jubilant, as were alumni. “I heard from alumni that they were very excited to learn of a partnership class of three women and that it was us,” said Leraris. A few weeks later, Mungovan rode

TRUSTED PARTNERS. GLOBAL PLACEMENTS. Lippman Jungers LLC is a global legal recruiting firm focusing on top tier partner and practice group placements and new office openings. Collectively, we have placed more than 500 partners and have opened more than 20 offices for law firms in new markets throughout the US, Europe, Asia and Latin America. We partner with firms and candidates nationally and globally. From offices in Los Angeles, Chicago, Milwaukee and New York, our domestic recruiting practice focuses on: California, Chicago and New York, as well as Washington DC, Texas, Miami, Charlotte, Phoenix and Atlanta.

LIPPMAN JUNGERS LLC

â&#x20AC;˘

818.907.5700

â&#x20AC;˘

W W W. L I P P M A N J U N G E R S . CO M

“I heard from alumni that they were very excited to learn of a partnership class of three women and that it was us. I was so proud to work here when that happened.” the elevator with a woman who told her, “I was so proud to work here when that happened.” If the Cravath partners of 2017 prove to be Big Law’s Billie Jean King moment, most would say it’s about time. Over the past decade, women have ascended to the heights of the legal profession and now hold 24.8 percent of Fortune 500 general counsel posts; 31.1 percent of law school dean jobs; and 27.1 percent of federal and state judiciary posts (as of 2012, a number that has increased; the general counsel and dean metrics are from 2016). The lagging sector has been Big Law, where just 18 percent of the nation’s 200 largest firms are led by women, who also hold 18 percent of the equity partner positions. As of 2016, according to the ABA Commission on Women in the Legal Profession, women comprised 36 percent of all lawyers. Yet there are positive developments, even within Big Law. Just two weeks after Cravath’s decision, Pepper Hamilton selected four new partners – all women. By the end of partnership announcements, 21 Big Law firms had named partnership classes that were 50 percent or more women. Among them were Wachtell Lipton and Williams & Connolly, two ultraelite firms with more traditional structure, like Cravath. It’s always interesting to ask pioneers about the challenges they faced. And, true to form, Cravath’s new partners seem to have focused mostly on becoming excellent lawyers doing great work instead of any bumps along the way. The firm has a strong women’s initiative led by Julie North and Tatiana Lapushchik and numerous outstanding female partners who were role models. But as for whether they’ve seen the role of women in private practice change in their eight years, there is collective acknowledgment that they see more women at the table. D’Amico recalls being the only woman at a 2007 arbitration, as a summer associate, where the opposing party asked if she was the secretary. “I remember the Cravath partner I was there with saying, ‘She’s with Cravath.’ “The sentiment was, ‘I can’t believe you asked that question.’ Even then it was not unusual for women to be at the table, and that is fortunately the only 38

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

moment in my career where I can point to such an experience.” It’s rare for D’Amico, Leraris or Mungovan to be the only woman on a major case or transaction. And they are each occasionally on a team that’s all or mostly women. “I think the culture here is distinctive,” Leraris says. “I can’t speak to other firms because we don’t have that experience. With the fact that the three of us made partner, hopefully the strength of our culture is very apparent.” What they do know without any hesitation is how elated they were on the leadup to their own selection when Saeed was voted presiding partner. “I was actually by myself at home, sitting in front of a computer and I lifted up both arms, and said, ‘Awesome!’” says D’Amico. “A lot of firms talk about achieving these kind of things, but we were actually walking the walk.” To D’Amico, Leraris and Mungovan, they say what Cravath did right – from their training, partnership elevation and to the selection of Saeed – is simply “a people thing.” They all feel supported, not just as women, but also as people, by attorneys and staff. When D’Amico had her son the year before she made partner, lauded antitrust partner Christine Varney encouraged her that she was capable of being a good mom and a successful lawyer. Face time in the office was never the issue, her work was. “I felt I had people who knew me and supported me, who had invested in me and wanted me to continue to grow.” It didn’t matter when she needed to go home and put her son to bed, what mattered was the substance she offered when she got back online. “If you create a culture where people are supported and valued and you invest in people and train them, and people care about and support each other, I think good people rise,” says Mungovan. “Among those people there will be men and there will be women, and that’s exactly right. Our focus isn’t on women because they’re women, it’s on nurturing talent in all its forms – people who are talented and collaborative and who take pride in being a part of and contributing to our strong culture.”

ANNIVERSARY

2 0 0 0

A T T O R N E Y S

3 8

L O C A T I O N S

W O R L D W I D E˚

Greenberg Traurig is proud to congratulate our 12 Lawdragons HALL OF FAME Leadership Hall of Fame

Cesar L. Alvarez

LAWDRAGON 500 LEADING LAWYERS Employment Lawyers Hall of Fame

Peter W. Zinober

Litigation

Hilarie Bass

Lori G. Cohen

David Long-Daniels

Jonathan L. Sulds

TOP 100 EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS

Charles S. Birenbaum

James N. Boudreau

TOP 20 Labor & Employment

Terence P. McCourt

UP AND COMERS Immigration

Laura Foote Reiff

Todd D. Wozniak

Kate Kalmykov

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP | AT TORNEYS AT L AW | WWW.GTL AW.COM The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and our experience. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Greenberg Traurig is a service mark and trade name of Greenberg Traurig, LLP and Greenberg Traurig, P.A. ©2017 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. Attorneys at Law. All rights reserved. Contact: David Long-Daniels in Atlanta at 678.553.2100. °These numbers are subject to fluctuation. 29777

100 100 100 100

LEADING LEGAL LEADING LEADING LEADING LEADING LEGAL LEGAL LEGAL LEGAL CONSULTANTS CONSULTANTS CONSULTANTS CONSULTANTS CONSULTANTS AND STRATEGISTS AND AND AND AND STRATEGISTS STRATEGISTS STRATEGISTS STRATEGISTS

Big law marketing.

With a bench to match. This is big. Proventus has recently added significant depth to its bench. As a team that is dedicated to serving the legal industry, we now have the resources of a 60-member team with expertise in public relations, creative, digital and branding.

PROVENTUS PERSUASIVE LEGAL MARKETING A Trozzolo Company

In other words, weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve never been stronger. proventusconsulting.com

THE LAWDRAGON 500

THE 100 MOST POWERFUL EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS Lawdragon is proud to present the 2017 Guide to the Most Powerful Employment Lawyers, the result of law firm submissions and editorial research conducted over the past year. This is the tenth annual guide to leading corporate, defense-side employment lawyers we have produced in partnership with Human Resource Executive (HRE) magazine. In addition to the 100 Most Powerful Employment Lawyers below, you can also view the Top 20 in Employee Benefits; the Top 20 in Traditional Labor & Employment Law; the Top 20 in Immigration; 40 Up and Comers in the field; and, for the fifth year, a Hall of Fame list.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

THE 100 MOST POWERFUL EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS NAME

LAW FIRM

LOCATION

Nancy L. Abell

Paul Hastings

Los Angeles

Paul Lancaster Adams

Ogletree Deakins

Philadelphia

Rory Judd Albert

Proskauer

New York

Rosemary Alito

K&L Gates

Newark, N.J.

Lorie E. Almon

Seyfarth Shaw

New York

Michael L. Banks

Morgan Lewis

Philadelphia

Paula A. Barran

Barran Liebman

Portland, Ore.

Mario Barrera

Norton Rose Fulbright

San Antonio

Mark Batten

Proskauer

Boston

Joseph Baumgarten

Proskauer

New York

Scott C. Beightol

Michael Best

Milwaukee

Charles S. Birenbaum

Greenberg Traurig

San Francisco

Elise M. Bloom

Proskauer

New York

Sarah Bouchard

Morgan Lewis

Philadelphia

James N. Boudreau

Greenberg Traurig

Philadelphia

Paul W. Cane Jr.

Paul Hastings

San Francisco

Mark Casciari

Seyfarth Shaw

Chicago

Charles S. Caulkins

Fisher & Phillips

Ft. Lauderdale

Terri Chase

Jones Day

New York

Apalla U. Chopra

O'Melveny

Los Angeles

Vincent A. Cino

Jackson Lewis

Morristown, N.J.

Shauna Clark

Norton Rose Fulbright

Houston

Joseph T. Clees

Ogletree Deakins

Phoenix

William L. Cole

Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp

Los Angeles

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

PAUL LANCASTER ADAMS

BY JOHN RYAN

A STINT AS A LEGAL ASSISTANT DURING

his studies at Virginia Commonwealth University started Paul Lancaster Adams on a path to law school and his stellar career as a litigator. The 1993 Wake Forest School of Law graduate has excelled at representing employers in disputes, earning him numerous accolades, including recognition on Lawdragon’s Guide to the Most Powerful Employment Lawyers. Adams, based in Philadelphia, describes Ogletree Deakins as a unique place of “collaboration and synergy.” He also credits his time as Associate General Counsel and Chief Employment Litigator at Microsoft Corp. for making him a better lawyer in private practice. Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers what cases you tend to handle? Paul Lancaster Adams: I represent employers in federal and state employment litigation, class and collective actions, labor arbitrations and administrative proceedings. I also defend clients in investigations by government agencies such as the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, its state and local equivalents, the U.S. Labor Department and the National Labor Relations Board, and I conduct and oversee internal corporate investigations into various types of employment misconduct. LD: What do you like about your practice? PLA: I have always found what people do in employment settings fascinating. The stories are intriguing and create an environment that allows you to experience an array of case scenarios – you just can’t make this stuff up! LD: Is there a specific reason why you chose Wake Forest over another law school? PLA: An important reason was Wake Forest University School of Law’s reputation. Additionally, the professor-to-student ratio made it a preferred choice. Receiving an early admittance offer to attend also didn’t hurt. LD: Can you describe how you became interested in a law degree? PLA: Yes. The decision to go to law school was a natural inclination, fully embraced by my experience serving as a legal assistant while an undergrad. As a 20-year-old, I had the opportunity to work at Hill, Tucker & Marsh in Richmond, Virginia. While a full-

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

service law firm, the practice’s pioneering efforts in the civil rights arena were unparalleled. Founder Oliver Hill’s case, Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, was one of the five cases decided under the landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education and co-founder Henry Marsh participated in Quarles v. Phillip Morris, the nation’s first legal case involving racial discrimination in employment. At the time of my experience there, I was relatively clueless about law, but excited to have the opportunity to serve in any capacity at the firm. Hence, this translated into being a gofer, a researcher and simply doing anything that needed to be done at the firm. At times, I literally ran to the courthouse before the clerk’s office closed, trying to get that ever-important motion filed. (Note: I’m definitely telling my age, as this was long before there were electronic court filings.) Coming full circle, enough cannot be said about being motivated and stimulated by the firm’s history, the exposure I received and the inspiration of working with and being around such legal trailblazers. LD: Was there an early experience that helped shape the course of your professional life? PLA: Yes. While conducting my very first jury trial, many years ago, a critique involved a more senior attorney explaining to me that during the trial I took on some of the persona of opposing counsel. My adversary was loud and overbearing and apparently I focused too much on his behavior and antics. The feedback included the suggestion that I should always remain true to who I am, and that juries will be able to see the sincerity in me when advocating

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

NAME

LAW FIRM

LOCATION

John J. Coleman III

Burr & Forman

Birmingham, Ala.

Catherine A. Conway

Gibson Dunn

Los Angeles

Harriet E. Cooperman

Saul Ewing

Baltimore

Karen Corman

Skadden

Los Angeles

Joseph J. Costello

Morgan Lewis

Philadelphia

M. Carter Crow

Norton Rose Fulbright

Houston

Barbara Jean D'Aquila

Norton Rose Fulbright

Minneapolis

Lisa J. Damon

Seyfarth Shaw

Boston

Mike Delikat

Orrick

New York

Dennis P. Duffy

BakerHostetler

Houston

Brian West Easley

Jones Day

Minneapolis

Kim F. Ebert

Ogletree Deakins

Indianapolis

Juan Enjamio

Hunton & Williams

Miami

Anne Marie Estevez

Morgan Lewis

Miami

Mark J. Foley

Drinker Biddle

Philadelphia

Gary D. Friedman

Weil

New York

John P. Furfaro

Skadden

New York

Michael J. Gray

Jones Day

Chicago

Elizabeth P. Hardy

Kienbaum Opperwall Hardy & Pelton

Birmingham, Mich.

Gerald T. Hathaway

Drinker Biddle

New York

Lynne C. Hermle

Orrick

Menlo Park

Patrick H. Hicks

Littler

Las Vegas

Stephen J. Hirschfeld

Hirschfeld Kraemer

San Francisco

Robert W. Horton

Bass Berry & Sims

Nashville

Jerry M. Hunter

Bryan Cave

St. Louis

Maurice G. Jenkins

Jackson Lewis

Southfield, Mich.

W. Carl Jordan

Vinson & Elkins

Houston

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

MY IN-HOUSE EXPERIENCE AT MICROSOFT WAS PHENOMENAL. HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT THE COMPANY AND SEEING HOW LEGAL ISSUES DEVELOPED, AND BE PART OF THE SOLUTION AND DECISIONMAKING INTERNALLY, WHILE CONSIDERING BUSINESS IMPERATIVES, WAS INVALUABLE. and telling a story. Following that advice has led to success for me.

LD: How has your practice changed since the early part of your career? PLA: Typically, law school does not prepare you to have business acumen while practicing law. Through years of representing both small and very large clients, in various industries – all of whom have unique issues and challenges – I have learned the importance of business partnering and the value of understanding, from a client’s perspective, while not losing sight of critical legal concerns. LD: Can you discuss your time at Microsoft and how that has benefited your skills and ability in private practice? PLA: My in-house experience at Microsoft was phenomenal. Having the opportunity to represent the company and seeing how legal issues developed, and be part of the solution and decisionmaking internally, while considering business imperatives, was invaluable. The experience has allowed me to develop unique insight into client issues, while maintaining a practical perspective; and I believe having practiced at a law firm, going in-house and then returning to private practice keenly prepared me to be a better lawyer. I cannot tell you how many times a client has said to me, “Wow you really do get it” or “I know you fully understand the scope and the impact of the situation considering our business directives.” I believe Microsoft’s work culture also contributed to my legal maturation. The company always drove to continuously think of the next step, or the anticipated progression and evolution of any process or device, etc. How can we do it or make it better? How can we prevent further issues of concern going forward? What have we thought of that no one else has? These questions always lingered. And as all Microsoft employees were expected to operate in this fashion, and even annually reviewed on such, the lawyers were not exempt and strove to think similarly. This stretching of thought process while evaluating company legal issues improved my effectiveness as an advisor and counselor. In private practice, I continue to operate in this fashion.

In an era when organizations are seeking more efficiency and access to general information is more easily attained, via the internet and social media, among other things, not only is providing timely and specialized legal representation paramount, but the ability to consider broader impact and reasonably anticipated trends, I believe, makes you more useful as an advocate. LD: There are many high-quality firms out there. What do you do to try to “sell” Ogletree Deakins to potential recruits – how is it unique?

PLA: Since its creation 40 years ago, Ogletree Deakins has uniquely been a place of collaboration and synergy amongst all offices. That has benefitted our clients greatly and as we continue to grow, our focus has remained the same. It is a pleasure to work alongside such talented labor and employment attorneys dedicated to providing quality service and professionalism to our clients. Given the firm dynamics, it is not a hard sell. LD: What do you do for fun when you’re outside the office? PLA: I find this question very interesting as often we don’t get the opportunity to talk about this side of us, as attorneys. Fun is a relative term. As I have matured as a practitioner, work-life balance, which would involve having fun outside the office, has become more challenging; rather I do appreciate its importance. I believe it is helpful to distinguish the value of quality time verses quantity time. Quality time with family is a priority. The moments I enjoy most are when I can attend my daughters’ basketball and volleyball games. Having played sports growing up, watching them participate in organized sports is especially gratifying. Occasionally, I also like to go to the movies, attend live sporting events and the theater, travel and hosting gatherings in my home. Moreover, taking the time to simply unwind, although not always afforded, is something I strive toward – the occasional long weekend can be revitalizing. Lastly, I would be remiss if I did not thank my family and friends for their understanding of my work commitments and for being a great support system.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

NAME

LAW FIRM

LOCATION

Jennifer P. Keller

Baker Donelson

Johnson City, Tenn.

Tracey A. Kennedy

Sheppard Mullin

Los Angeles

F. Curt Kirschner Jr.

Jones Day

San Francisco

Jeffrey S. Klein

Weil

New York

Jeffrey Kohn

O'Melveny

New York

Jay P. Krupin

BakerHostetler

Washington

Matthew W. Lampe

Jones Day

New York

Kevin B. Leblang

Kramer Levin

New York

Adam Levin

Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp

Los Angeles

Robert G. Lian Jr.

Akin Gump

Washington

Joseph C. Liburt

Orrick

Menlo Park

Donald R. Livingston

Akin Gump

Washington

David Long-Daniels

Greenberg Traurig

Atlanta

Alison B. Marshall

Jones Day

Washington

William C. Martucci

Shook

Washington

Matthew T. Miklave

Robinson+Cole

Stamford, Conn.

Marko J. Mrkonich

Littler

Minneapolis

Daniel L. Nash

Akin Gump

Washington

Michael Patrick O'Brien

Jones Waldo

Salt Lake City

Camille A. Olson

Seyfarth Shaw

Chicago

Anthony J. Oncidi

Proskauer

Los Angeles

William P. Perkins

Seyfarth Shaw

New York

Laura R. Petroff

Winston & Strawn

Los Angeles

Charles M. Poplstein

Thompson Coburn

St. Louis

Roger K. Quillen

Fisher & Phillips

Atlanta

Colleen M. Regan

Seyfarth Shaw

Los Angeles

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

CHRISTY NGUYEN, SAMEER KHEDEKAR BY JOHN RYAN AND JULIE PEARL EVER SINCE LAWDRAGON FIRST BEGAN

researching our guide to the Most Powerful Employment Lawyers back in 2008, one name has consistently come up as among the most admired of immigration specialists – Julie Pearl of the Pearl Law Group in San Francisco. A former Deputy Attorney General in California, Pearl has been a leader in handling the immigration needs of employers and individuals since founding her firm in 1995. She also has been a pioneer in the field by developing software and products that streamline the delivery of services to clients. Pearl’s success has also come from building a talented and diverse team of attorneys with a wide range of life experiences. Among them are Sameer Khedekar, the firm’s managing partner, who was a green card holder into adulthood, and Christy Nguyen, a partner whose family first came to the U.S. as political refugees. Needless to say, the firm’s already busy workload was intensified with the election of President Donald Trump and his immigration policies. Lawdragon: For those not familiar with Pearl Law Group, can you summarize the range of services the firm provides, and to what type of clients? Julie Pearl: We secure immigration status for talent wherever it needs to be in the world, with offices in the Americas, Asia Pacific and EMEA [Europe, the Middle East and Africa]. Our corporate clients range from startups to Fortune 500. We also work extensively with entrepreneurs, investors and “extraordinary ability aliens” – that’s the official term! LD: Julie, what led you to start a firm in this practice area? Was this something you had always considered or did your tenure as a Deputy AG trigger the decision? JP: As an undergrad student at Stanford and a dual national of the U.S. and Canada, I was able to live in the International House where I met people from all over the world. Learning about the immigration challenges these incredibly smart people would face should they decide to build their careers in the U.S. left an indelible mark, and I vowed to dedicate myself to their cause. Like my grandparents, who

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

FROM LEFT TO RIGHT: CHRISTY NGUYEN, SAMEER KHEDEKAR AND JULIE PEARL

were all immigrants, these people are at least twice as likely as those born in-country to start enterprises and to make significant contributions to every field. Who wouldn’t want to spend their working days with such greatness? LD: What were some of the challenges in the early phase of the firm? Did it take awhile to get on solid footing? JP: Just the usual stuff about learning how to run a business, especially since few law firms provided a positive role model of culture, efficiency and other essential parts of a healthy ecosystem. Mentors abound in Silicon Valley, and several of them carried us through it. LD: Sameer and Christy, can you share why you decided to go to law school and specifically why you were interested in immigration law? Christy Nguyen: My initial interests in going to law school took root from the fact that I am a firstgeneration immigrant from Vietnam, and having grown up as a minority, I quickly identified with the plight of all minorities when I learned about the civil rights movement through my undergraduate history courses. Another seminal moment during my collegiate experience occurred when Fred Korematsu, a Japanese American civil rights activist, visited the University of California, Berkeley, campus and spoke about his own personal experiences during WWII

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

and the internment of Japanese Americans. While I am passionate about constitutional law, I felt that my upbringing as an immigrant, coupled with my interest in civil rights, eventually led me to practice immigration law. Sameer Khedekar: I saw law school as a means to understand the system of rules that govern how we all are allowed to operate, and then use that information to help people optimize their lives. My mom actually went back to India to have me, and as a result I had a green card into my adulthood. I’ve therefore endured my own immigration-related challenges and wanted to help others navigate bureaucratic and confusing processes and obtain a feeling of fundamental security and permanence in this country. LD: Can you also share why it turned out to be a good fit — what is rewarding about immigration work? CN: In my estimation, the greatest reward is knowing that I have made a positive difference in people’s lives by giving them an opportunity at achieving the American Dream for themselves. While my mother certainly wanted me to become a physician like my father, I, on the other hand, had other ideas. I might not be a doctor, but I can help bring doctors to the United States to cure cancer! SK: This field has been a win-win-win for me. I feel rewarded by helping companies achieve their business objectives by hiring the right people; helping our country by bringing the best and brightest to work regardless of nationality; and helping individuals find their way and settle in a new country. LD: Julie, what type of firm did you set out to create in terms of culture – what is Pearl Law Group like as a place to work, and what traits do you look for in young attorneys who may join the firm? JP: We always understood that the people we hire represent 99.8% of our success, given the right tools and support and training. So we looked for strong intellect and character, proactive and dedicated performers with a strong team ethic. LD: Sameer and Christy, what do you look for in younger lawyers? And what do you think it takes to succeed in this practice – how did you reach your level of excellence? CN: It is critical for young attorneys to bring passion and empathy to the field of immigration law. We, at Pearl Law Group, look for attorneys who work hard, are highly organized and are team players.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

SK: It’s also essential to have the drive to learn on your own. Immigration is complicated and requires a large amount of practical exposure and aspiring practitioners need to seek out this experience. We also look for naturally empathetic people who want to help others because they know what the experience can be like. LD: Can you also describe how and why you came to the Pearl Law Group. What do you think makes the firm unique? CN: When I was considering joining the team at Pearl Law Group, the word on the street was that it was extremely hard to “get in” and that there were so many “smart people in the firm.” That made me feel more than a little intimidated. When I was hired, I was ecstatic because everyone in the firm was warm, welcoming – and yes, smart – and certainly not at all what you would expect from a typical law firm. I believe we have kept that positive reputation over the years. SK: Our firm has a perfect blend of sophistication, genuineness and warmth. We have smart lawyers, strong partnerships with great clients, an innovative work environment, and best of all, really nice people. LD: What impact has the new administration and some of its intended policies had on your practice and client service? Perhaps each of you can focus on something specific as it relates to your practice. CN: To say it has been challenging in the field of immigration law since the election of Donald Trump is a vast understatement. Policies have been changing so dramatically that our clients – employers and employees alike – are tremendously anxious and confused. It is our job to decipher the policies and executive orders from the administration, then analyze the potential impact of said policies, and finally inform and guide our clients as expeditiously as possible. In all seriousness, we have become part lawyer, part therapist. SK: Recent developments have caused us to “play defense” more so than ever before. We are spending more time advising on compliance-related concerns, and have had to work hard on ensuring that our clients understand the true meaning of the litany of changes that are happening, like the travel ban, which freaked out many people. It’s our job to calm them down, and it’s fulfilling to see that people feel better after speaking with us.

JP: We’ve upped our communications substantially by issuing alerts within just a few hours, if not immediately, when actions are taken by the administration and when imminent actions have been leaked. Besides our usual email distribution, we’ve more fully embraced social media for communications. We’ve created a special section on our public website for monitoring developments and accessing important resources. Our primary audience in the past has been human resources and global mobility professionals at our client companies. We now need to reach a much broader community, including foreign national employees not necessarily being sponsored for immigration benefits, as well as their extended family members. In addition to increased communications, we’ve amped our pro bono activities, including volunteering at the airport for free legal services, taking additional pro bono cases and designing a free Artificial Intelligence-based tool (www.visabot.co) to help “Dreamers” file applications under President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) order. Finally, we’ve been helping companies consider and implement new policies to help protect data on company-issued devices (smartphones, laptops, etc.) and advising individuals on how to best prepare for increased scrutiny during immigration inspections. LD: Julie, as someone who’s had success as an entrepreneur, are there new strategies, technologies or business models you see as emerging from some of the uncertainty that has accompanied the Trump Administration? JP: More than ever, it’s now essential for C-suite executives to pay attention to immigration developments and understand the impact on their employees and their business. They should be relying on in-house professionals and outside counsel to spot the issues and support internal communications. A natural response to the uncertainties and antiimmigrant sentiment in the U.S. is also prompting many companies to look at operations in countries with more favorable immigration policies for top talent. For example, it’s been widely reported that American companies are exploring alternatives in Canada for their foreign national employees. LD: Staying with that, Julie, can you describe your motivation for starting ventures like Tracker Corp and Pearl Travel Tech? And how much of your time is spent on those companies? JP: Innovation is key to remaining competitive in this field, and technology helps us automate the

more routine aspects of our work, and facilitate efficient communication. Failure to keep track of critical deadlines, expiration dates and other milestone activities can have devastating results for clients, so as my practice grew, I knew I needed a technological solution. Since there wasn’t anything available on the market, I got the job done! The Tracker immigration case management system is now a leading product used by scores of companies, other law firms, and universities. Similarly, we started Pearl Travel Tech to address the unmet needs of employers with very large populations of international business travelers, to assess the immigration and tax aspects of their trips and avoid the potential for significant financial and reputation risks. LD: Did any of you have a mentor you can identify as having a particularly important impact on your career? CN: My high school English teacher immediately comes to mind, as he taught me how to write clearly, but succinctly. Communication is essential in our field, and it is especially important for us to present written information that is spot on, yet easily digestible by those for whom English is often not their first language. SK: Julie has been my most significant mentor, like a Big Sister. She teaches us all how to go the extra mile for our clients, and to never ever give up! My first boss also ingrained in me the importance of never taking no for an answer when your client’s life in this country basically is at stake. LD: Is there a client or experience that stands out as particularly memorable or representative of why you love this work? SK: When I first came to the firm 11 years ago, an employee of one of our corporate clients was in the process of getting his green card. Sadly, because of a terrible accident, there were a lot of challenges and delays in his immigration case. We supported him for many years, and he finally got his green card. I was glad to have had the opportunity to travel across the country to be with him at his green card interview and see the case to the end! CN: I have enjoyed working with companies that have grown from a handful of employees, with only a couple foreign nationals, to large organizations with hundreds of foreign nationals. It is also fascinating to witness the lifecycle of companies – i.e., from growth to slow down, layoffs and then regeneration – and then advise foreign nationals through the chal-

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

NAME

LAW FIRM

LOCATION

D. Michael Reilly

Lane Powell

Seattle

Theodore O. Rogers Jr.

Sullivan & Cromwell

New York

Jeremy A. Roth

Littler

San Diego

Paul Salvatore

Proskauer

New York

Terry E. Sanchez

Munger Tolles

Los Angeles

Eugene Scalia

Gibson Dunn

Washington

David Schwartz

Skadden

New York

Jason Schwartz

Gibson Dunn

Washington

Jonathan A. Segal

Duane Morris

Philadelphia

Samuel S. Shaulson

Morgan Lewis

New York

Patrick W. Shea

Paul Hastings

New York

Dawn Siler-Nixon

FordHarrison

Tampa

Grace E. Speights

Morgan Lewis

Washington

Jonathan Stoler

Sheppard Mullin

New York

Steven W. Suflas

Ballard Spahr

Denver

Jonathan Sulds

Greenberg Traurig

New York

Nigel F. Telman

Proskauer

Chicago

Joseph E. Tilson

Cozen O'Connor

Chicago

Joseph J. Torres

Winston & Strawn

Chicago

Julie Totten

Orrick

Sacramento

Jeff Weintraub

Fisher & Phillips

Memphis

A. Martin Wickliff Jr.

Cozen O'Connor

Houston

Robert M. Wolff

Littler

Cleveland

John F. Wymer III

Sherman & Howard

Atlanta

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

lenges they have faced in obtaining their green cards through these companies. This process can go on for years and we get to know our clients extremely well! SK: I also get tremendous satisfaction from the fact that we have our employees who’ve been with our firm for many years and continue to talk about how happy they are here. It makes me happy to know that they’re happy. LD: How do you expect immigration law to change in the longer term? What’s a broader trend you see that is not tied to changes in the administration? SK: We’re seeing more emphasis on efficiency and automation, to help drive down cost. But we’re very careful to keep the personal aspect of our service. I think we’ll also continue to see a trend in more global immigration, as regulations in the U.S. be-

JONATHAN SEGAL

come more restrictive and opportunities increase in other countries. CN: There has been a substantial increase in government compliance audits and a marked vetting of visa applications abroad.This is not just in the United States, but elsewhere, and it will likely continue for some time. LD: What do you all do to have fun and relax away from the office? CN: I love to spend time with family and friends. Traveling is a high priority for me. Paris has been and will continue to be my favorite destination! SK: When I’m not with my kids and my wife, you’ll find me on the golf course or binge-watching an amazing TV show. JP: Family time, running, most events involving food.

BY KATRINA DEWEY

PERHAPS THE FIRST CLUE IS OFFERED

by his fifth-grade teacher, who remembers young Jonathan Segal’s frequent objection that something was not fair. He thought a lot was unfair and argued a lot. Besides liking to argue about fairness, Jonathan had a deep interest in business, to which he came naturally from his beloved grandparents’ candy store in New Jersey. Later in life, Jonathan ended up working in another candy store for four years to help pay for college. Together, those inclinations produced a Duane Morris partner frequently honored as one of the nation’s best employment counselors, including as one of the Lawdragon Most Powerful Corporate Employment Lawyers. Segal loves getting real about workplace interactions, parsing through: What are the motivations? What signals are being sent by certain behaviors? How can we improve interactions for the good of employees and business? How can we improve gender equity? Those questions are at the heart of his advice to clients and his role as managing partner of the Duane Morris Institute. As near to his heart are his volunteer work in Holocaust remembrance and in animal rescue. Jonathan said that his experience of being in a family decimated by the Holocaust informs his world view. He also may have found the most productive outlet

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

ever for the stress of the law, turning his sorrow over the break up of his prior law firm into a bond with older, homeless pets, whom he learned how to help by making them more adoptable. As we’ve written many times, there’s a lot you can do with a law degree. And this story of employment law standout by day, and animal advocate by night is one that may help you rethink your troubles. Lawdragon: Tell me a little bit about you growing up. What was your path to becoming a lawyer? Jonathan Segal: I heard growing up from teachers starting in elementary school that I always was

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

TOP 20: EMPLOYEE BENEFITS NAME

LAW FIRM

LOCATION

Tristan Brown

Simpson Thacher

Palo Alto

Steven G. Eckhaus

McDermott

New York

Stephen W. Fackler

Gibson Dunn

Palo Alto

Robert C. Fleder

Paul, Weiss

New York

Gary M. Ford

Groom Law Group, Chartered

Washington

Thomas S. Gigot

Groom Law Group, Chartered

Washington

Paul M. Hamburger

Proskauer

Washington

Eric W. Hilfers

Cravath

New York

D. Ward Kallstrom

Seyfarth Shaw

San Francisco

David N. Levine

Groom Law Group, Chartered

Washington

Robert Newman

Covington & Burling

Washington

Kevin O'Brien

Ivins Phillips

Washington

Paul J. Ondrasik Jr.

Steptoe

Washington

Nicholas J. Pappas

Weil

New York

Andrea S. Rattner

Proskauer

New York

Myron D. Rumeld

Proskauer

New York

Howard Shapiro

Proskauer

New Orleans

Richard C. Shea

Covington & Burling

Washington

Charles R. Smith

K&L Gates

Pittsburgh

RenÃ© E. Thorne

Jackson Lewis

New Orleans

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

looking to either challenge something with which I didn’t agree, or argue something that I didn’t think was fair. I argued a lot. Too much. LD: Even as a child? JS: Oh yeah. I argued about not arguing. I’ve kept up occasional contact with one of my most wonderful teachers, from fifth grade. I think she was the first person who told me I would end up a lawyer. Sometimes the arguing was really speaking up. I grew up in a family where social justice was very important. There were no lawyers in my family. But, speaking up was what my grandparents and parents did. Speaking up was something that came naturally to me. A lot of the areas where I would confront or challenge were social justice issues, where I thought there were inequities or inequality. When Dr. Martin Luther King was murdered, my parents didn’t let me go to school. I am not sure if it was the day of the tragic loss or the funeral. I do know the best of my values come from my parents, I was brought up in a family where making stands on significant issues in a proper way was important. I also was told I had strong verbal skills, and they were much better than my sports skills. LD: Was there a particular reason your parents were motivated by social justice? JS: I think the fact that most of my family was decimated in the Holocaust created in my grandparents and parents a strong belief in social justice, which I acquired. I am not comparing discrimination to genocide but we don’t need to wait for the latter to tackle the former. That’s why I think of myself primarily as an EEO [Equal Employment Opportunity] lawyer. I have a particular emphasis on gender equality and that reminds me of a story. I can remember the phone ringing and someone saying to my mom, “Is the man of the house at home?” And, my mom saying, “Why are you asking for the man of the house? Why don’t you ask me?” Then my mom putting the phone down – I can visualize this, her hand on the phone – and saying, “Hank, I don’t know the answer to this, but I don’t want this person who’s sexist to know, so give me the answer!” My mom and dad both laughed but the message was clear: bias is wrong. What I grew up with in terms of gender equality really affected me, because then when I entered the real world and I saw how much gender stereotyping there was, it kind of blew me away. My brother, sister,

and I all got the same message at home: There’s nothing you can’t do because of who you are, and there shouldn’t be pressure to do anything because of who you are. That’s pretty lucky. LD: You went to University of Pennsylvania for both undergrad and chose it for law school. Can you talk a bit about your education? JS: In college I studied political science because I’m a political junkie. Now a disillusioned political junkie. I feel like I’m an endangered species, a moderate or centrist. I chose Penn Law because, number one, I liked being away but close enough to be home. I would often have dinner with my grandparents on Wednesday nights. I still wear my grandmother’s chai and my grandfather’s ring. I knew that I would not have my grandparents forever physically and I wanted to have that time. But they are forever part of me. The other thing was I had always heard, and it was true, that Penn was rigorous without being brutally competitive. It was demanding, but I didn’t find the students cutthroat. LD: Did you have notions about specializing in employment at that juncture? JS: So much of my life has been influenced by mentors, and some of them have been teachers. One of the two areas I was interested in was employment law. I had an amazing labor law teacher, Robert Gorman. He made labor law come alive, which piqued my interest. I think unions once served a valuable purpose. Today, I see more negative than positive. Still, when a client has a union, I enjoy making the relationship work for the client’s benefit. Also, growing up and seeing discrimination and knowing how intolerable it was increased my interest. I thought, “Wow, if I could work with corporations to mitigate a legal and moral wrong, that also would inure to the company’s benefit, being that discrimination’s also bad business, that would be cool.” I guess saying cool isn’t so cool. By the way having anti-Semitic hatred carved into our childhood home before we moved in still stays with me. Bad things happen; good people try to stop them. The other area I thought about was health law, because I found the public policy considerations very interesting. What ended up pulling me more toward employment law rather than health law was again mentors and I’m always grateful for the mentors in my life. When I started out at Wolf Block, Jim Redeker and Phil Garber were my two

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

primary mentors. I am sure others had as good but no one had better. I litigated for seven years early on, so I am a recovering litigator. I am grateful that I understand litigation so I know how things in the work world play out in the litigation world. But I don’t miss it … ever. LD: Were there cases or issues that stand out in being formative, both for your career and your desire to move more deeply into prevention, counseling and guidance? JS: I often saw two things. One was that management gets sued because the manager didn’t have the courage to confront the employee, until one day the manager would say, “Well now I’ve reached my limit.” It was unfair. It may not have been illegal, but it was unfair. It’s easy to make an unfair treatment claim into a discrimination claim by arguing: I was treated unfairly because of my: you insert the protected group. It’s easy to say to managers, “Well, you need to give employees feedback,” with the goal being for the employees to improve. The challenge for me was: How do you drill down to deal with this psychologically? It’s not one-size-fits-all and I still find today, when I deal with executive teams, that understanding the window through which they see the world is really important. For some, their window is cost, For some it’s time. For some it’s a concern you’ll be seen as weak if you don’t confront. For some, if you’re a really respectful person, it’s not respectful to not give the employee the chance. I also saw some inconsistencies. I don’t think people wake up in the morning and say, “I think I want to be inconsistent today.” What would happen is they would let things go, or they would act one way if they were friends with the person, another way if they weren’t. Was it unconscious bias? It may have been that the inconsistency was a product of unconscious bias. At the time, I didn’t know the term unconscious bias. Today, I spend a lot of my time bringing to executives conscious awareness of unconscious bias and what are the emotional triggers that it may be happening in the moment. I also deal with how systems can create the predicate for bias.

them earlier than I want to. And there’s a headcount issue so I’m going to be worse off. Therefore, I’m going to over-evaluate and then when the headcount issue goes away, I can terminate the employee.” As the lawyer, I try to drill down and say, “This isn’t a biased person. This is an artificial rule on headcount that’s resulting in inflated evaluations to keep people. Then, when the artificial rule goes away, they want to make a change. The evaluation is used against them.” That to me is systemic. It’s not a biased rule, it’s a bad rule that results in behaviors that make legitimate actions be perceived as biased. It requires problem solving and figuring out how you deal with it. I love business; I hate dumb rules just as much. LD: Can you talk a bit please about the inspiration for the Duane Morris Institute, which offers training and guidance from a business perspective to HR and related professionals? JS: I love the business of business. I think most people do have pretty decent intent. As a lawyer, if you don’t understand business, you’re worthless. For me, one of the most important things was to recognize that businesses need to run, and my job is to help companies achieve their goals and mitigate risk. For example, maximizing diversity and inclusion is not just a legal issue, it’s a business imperative. Study after study show that the more diverse your leadership team the better you do. But getting there is deceptively complex. With laudable goals, some employers still violate the law or take unnecessary risk. You can get there but you need to be thoughtful in how and not just assume the goal justifies the means. I love being a business advisor and one of the core areas is eradicating gender bias where we can.

LD: Can you give me an example of how this might work in practice at a corporate employer?

I had the honor after law school of working for Judge Norma Shapiro. She was the first woman to be appointed to the Third Circuit. She was on District Court, the first woman in 200 years. A lot of women talked about what an honor it was to be mentored by her as a woman, I’m really honored to say my first mentor and role model was this remarkable woman. I watched how she looked at cases. I learned that not every injustice is illegal and not every injustice is bad motive, But I also saw illegality. I also saw double standards. I saw how people responded to her versus the male judge next door. Until she passed away last year she remained a mentor and friend.

JS: They may have a manager who assesses, “If I overevaluate, I get to keep the employee. If I give the employee a bad evaluation, then I may need to terminate

LD: Can we talk about some of your outside interests, especially your work with animals and especially older animals?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

JS: My passion for animals came a little later in life. When I was much younger, a friend asked, “Can you take care of my mom’s cat? She has to go in the hospital for a number of weeks and my sister and I are both allergic.” I was like, “No, I don’t like cats.” Within three days I didn’t want to leave the house because the cat and I were best buds. There were a couple of things that influenced me. One, sometimes people say animals can’t speak. Sure they can. We just can’t understand them. What they can’t do is fend for themselves. And there is cruelty. One day, I watched a wonderful person doing pet store adoptions from the Montgomery County SPCA [Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals]. Twelve years later, I still volunteer doing hands-on adoptions. I joined the Board, too. I go in as often as possible, sometimes every week, sometimes more. I do my best if there are animals that are extremely upset, if they’re depressed, if they’re older, to try to convince people to adopt them. If someone says to me, ” I want to adopt a kitten,” I might say, “I understand that, but would you mind holding this cat for a second?” Then they go, “Oh, how old is this cat?” And I say, “Do you love the cat? He’s three.” To thine oneself be true: I push very hard because lives are at stake There is a great expression in the rescue world: Who rescued whom? When Wolf Block was collapsing, and I’m not judging people, a lot of people were going out drinking. I would go to the shelter and try to spend extra time with the animals, because I felt this dissolution of Wolf Block was a tragedy for all the staff that got hurt. I could not stop that, but I can rescue this animal’s life. If people see a dog in a cage who is scared, they’ll be less interested in adopting him. If they see that dog playing on my lap, they’re more likely to take him home. If they see a cat in a litter box, that’s not appealing. If they see me lying on the ground and that cat licking my face, it’s more appealing. LD: What other type of work do you do in the legislative area, including to help animals? JS: I do a lot of legislative advocacy work in the business world for business groups to try to get sensible regulations. I believe extreme regulation and no regulation are extremely wrong. I look at the FLSA [Fair Labor Standards Act], which is a large part of my practice. Values are great; the regulations, unacceptably complex, complex-plus state law. I love working at the federal and state level on public

policy issues to find the middle. In particular, I love the Society for Human Resource Management. It changed my life in so many ways. In the course of business public policy, I find issues involving animal welfare so important. There are bills that would create registries for abusers. Can we agree on that if nothing else? I hope to spend more time on animal advocacy in the legislative area when I have more free time. I also will return to litigation to go after animal abusers. Abusers should pay… big time. And animals do so much for people. I am passionate about giving vets a chance to serve again. Animals can help vets with PTSD. It’s just remarkable. One of my favorite quotes of all time is, “Until one has loved an animal, part of one’s soul remains unawakened.” I can’t say that money is irrelevant to me, or I’d be doing full-time work with animals. Money is a factor. Even though I love what I do, this feeds my soul in a way that makes me feel stronger and better and it gives me more resilience when I come in to fight the battles to do it in a hopefully respectful and strong way. LD: As we’ve talked, I think I hear a few friends with you. Would you mind telling me their names? JS: I just was at a client so I am now at home. Scotty is on my lap right now as we’re talking. His brothers Finny and Larry are near him. A client told me how calm I sound. Need I say more? LD: Once you have a cat or two cuddle up with you, and never leave your side, you know they’re not aloof. They’re just challenging you. JS: That’s right. But, you know what? I’m going to tell you an interesting parallel. Loving a cat in some ways isn’t different from a client. With a cat you need to go into their world and understand them before they will love you. Whereas, other animals may love you no matter what. With a client, you really need to go into their world, understand their business, understand their culture, understand their people, understand their finances. And when you go into their world, I think that’s when you develop the relationship. To me what’s great about employment law is not only that you’re dealing with people, but you also get to deal with people long term. In litigation when the case is over, I would miss that relationship. What I love about doing counseling with strategic planning is it’s a long-term relationship. Read the full Q&A at www.lawdragon. com/2017/08/13/lawyer-limelight-jonathan-segal.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

TOP 20: LABOR & EMPLOYMENT NAME

LAW FIRM

LOCATION

Nicholas Anastasopoulos

Mirick O'Connell

Westborough, Mass.

M.J. Asensio

BakerHostetler

Columbus, Ohio

Robert P. Brooks

Adler Pollock & Sheehan

Providence

Howard E. Cole

Lewis Roca Rothgerber

Las Vegas

Louis P. DiLorenzo

Bond

New York

Angelo J. Genova

Genova Burns

Newark, N.J.

Clifford A. Godiner

Thompson Coburn

St. Louis

J. Gregory Grisham

Ford Harrison

Nashville

Steven M. Gutierrez

Holland & Hart

Denver

Michael Lebowich

Proskauer

New York

Terence McCourt

Greenberg Traurig

Boston

Steven R. McCown

Littler

Austin, Texas

Neal D. Mollen

Paul Hastings

Washington

Stuart Newman

Seyfarth Shaw

Atlanta

Theodore R. Opperwall

Kienbaum Opperwall Hardy & Pelton

Birmingham, Mich.

Bernard M. Plum

Proskauer

New York

Robert Siegel

O'Melveny

Los Angeles

Richard F. Vitarelli

Jackson Lewis

Hartford, Conn.

Stanley Weiner

Jones Day

Cleveland

Anna Wermuth

Cozen O'Connor

Chicago

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

WILLIAM COLE

BY JOHN RYAN

OF ALL THE LAWYERS WHO MADE OUR

annual list of the 100 Most Powerful Corporate Employment Lawyers, few have the depth of experience of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp’s William Cole. The Los Angeles-based partner has counseled employers, many of them in the entertainment industry, on a vast range of matters and taken the lead on countless cases and negotiations. Cole, a 1977 graduate of Stanford Law School, says the diversity of his practice has kept it consistently satisfying over his 30-year career. Lawdragon: As a practice co-chair, what do you think sets the Mitchell Silberberg labor and employment team apart? William Cole: The MSK labor and employment team handles traditional labor matters, employment litigation, collective bargaining and individual and class litigation. Attorneys in the department are not pigeonholed into one area of the practice but instead gain experience in all of these areas. This makes the MSK labor team able to see and understand a wide range of issues that are often missed by attorneys in other firms who specialize solely in employment litigation or solely in traditional labor law. LD: What do you enjoy about the practice – what has kept you at it over the years? WC: The labor and employment practice requires me to utilize a wide variety of skills and provides a diverse and interesting practice. On one day my focus may be on answering complex client questions and providing legal and practical advice on handling real life and critically important personnel and business decisions. The next day could involve handling a labor arbitration, an employment arbitration, a complex class-action litigation or a single-plaintiff discrimination claim. Additionally, my practice involves dealing with a wide range of government agencies and administrative proceedings and handling complex and often contentious labor negotiations.

with the issues we face, it is critical to understand what motivates employee behavior and to be able to effectively communicate with employees in different parts of the client’s business. LD: Are there any trends you are seeing in your practice in terms of the types of matters keeping you busy these days? WC: We represent many employers in the motion picture and television industry. Currently, the major motion picture producers and networks are involved in a round of collective bargaining negotiations with the major talent unions — the Directors Guild, the Writers Guild and SAG-AFTRA. During these periods, we spend a considerable amount of time advising clients regarding a wide variety of issues which come up in bargaining as well as how best to prepare for any labor disputes which might ensue. LD: Is there a specific reason why you chose Stanford over another law school? WC: Stanford provided a unique law school environment because of its small class size as compared to many other schools, the opportunity to work closely with nationally known legal scholars and the generally collegial relationship among fellow students.

LD: What does it take to succeed in this practice? What do you look for in younger lawyers?

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

WC: We look for bright attorneys who have great people skills and an ability to understand and empathize with employees from all parts of society. In order to properly counsel employers and to effectively deal

WC: I was introduced to labor law during my summer associate work after the second year of law school. I highly recommend that students interested in private firm practice take a summer position in a firm which

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

TOP 20: IMMIGRATION NAME

LAW FIRM

LOCATION

Daryl Buffenstein

Fragomen

Atlanta

Bo Cooper

Fragomen

Washington

Matthew S. Dunn

Kramer Levin

New York

Josie Gonzalez

Stone Grzegorek

Los Angeles

Carl Hampe

Fragomen

Washington

H. Ronald Klasko

Klasko Immigration Law Partners

Philadelphia

Mark D. Koestler

Kramer Levin

New York

Ira J. Kurzban

Kurzban Kurzban Weinger Tetzeli and Pratt

Miami

Deborah J. Notkin

Barst Mukamal & Kleiner

New York

Julie Pearl

Pearl Law Group

San Francisco

Eleanor Pelta

Morgan Lewis

Washington

Thomas Ragland

Clark Hill

Washington

Laura Foote Reiff

Greenberg Traurig

Washington

Theodore Ruthizer

Kramer Levin

New York

Denyse Sabagh

Duane Morris

Washington

Suzanne B. Seltzer

The Seltzer Firm

New York

William A. Stock

Klasko Immigration Law Partners

Philadelphia

Marc Van Der Hout

Van Der Hout Brigagliano

San Francisco

Bernard Wolfsdorf

Wolfsdorf

Santa Monica

Scott W. Wright

Faegre Baker Daniels

Minneapolis

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

does a wide range of work so that it is possible to be exposed to areas they may never have thought would be of interest to them. LD: Was there an early experience or mentor who really helped shape the course of your professional life? WC: I was fortunate to have two mentors at MSK, Harry Keaton and Nick Counter. Both were titans

ADAM LEVIN

in the field but their personalities, approaches to

practice and the manner in which they worked were

very different from each other. This demonstrated to me that you need to develop your own style of

practice, taking on attributes and approaches which you like and that fit your personality, but not trying to copy the approaches of another lawyer.

BY JOHN RYAN

LAWDRAGON’S GUIDE TO THE MOST

Powerful Employment Lawyers features a subset of lawyers with a reputation for excelling at representing employers in the entertainment industry. One such standout is Adam Levin, who along with fellow list-member William Cole is a partner at Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp in Los Angeles and has handled a wide mix of cases, many of them high-profile. Levin, a yogi, says he considered securities litigation as a possible career focus at the University of San Diego School of Law before realizing labor and employment law was right for him. “I find that handling matters involving personal dramas and emotions can be more interesting and fulfilling than battling over boxes of corporate documents,” he says. Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the mix of work you do within the employment area? Adam Levin: I represent employers in the entertainment, advertising, music, garment and many other industries in all areas of labor and employment law. This includes jury and bench trials, class actions, arbitrations, administrative proceedings, labor negotiations and daily advice and counsel. LD: What do you like about it? AL: I enjoy the challenge of creating new and important precedent. In the late ’90s, I began to develop a defense to certain employment claims based on the 1st Amendment for which there was no direct precedent. In Lyle vs. Warner Bros. Television, we argued to the California Supreme Court that harassment claims under California’s civil rights laws could, under certain circumstances, infringe on an employer’s 1st Amendment rights. Though the California Supreme Court skirted the issue, ruling unanimously for our clients on other grounds, we have since prevailed

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

on a 1st Amendment defense in a variety of cases against media employers, including one currently pending before the California Supreme Court. LD: How would you describe your style as a trial lawyer? How do you prepare? AL: I have taken cues from my entertainment industry clients, and have incorporated into trial preparation many of the same considerations. Like a filmmaker, I want my audience to be captivated, focused, and follow along with the version of events that I am presenting. Much thought is given to the order of evidence, the usage of audio and visual media, and the appropriateness of physical demonstrations. LD: What matters are expected to keep you busy this year? Will you be in trial? AL: I’m currently handling Wilson vs. CNN, involving important issues pertaining to freedom of the press which is pending before the California Supreme Court. I’m also working on several cases involving a producer’s 1st Amendment right to make casting decisions without challenge under state law. Lastly,

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

TOP 40: UP AND COMERS NAME

LAW FIRM

LOCATION

Eric Amdursky

O'Melveny

Menlo Park

John M. Bagyi

Bond

Albany

Reginald W. Belcher

Turner Padget

Columbia, S.C.

Colleen L. Caden

Pryor Cashman

New York

Meredith S. Campbell

Shulman Rogers

Potomac, Md.

Jesse Cripps

Gibson Dunn

Los Angeles

Neil Dishman

Jackson Lewis

Chicago

Edward Easterly

Norris McLaughlin

Allentown, Pa.

Adam S. Forman

Epstein Becker

Southfield, Mich.

Avi Friedman

Wolfsdorf

Santa Monica

Robert F. Friedman

Littler

Dallas

Jeremy Fudge

Berry Appleman & Leiden

Dallas

Jeremy Glenn

Cozen O'Connor

Chicago

Malcolm A. Heinicke

Munger Tolles

San Francisco

Matthew Holt

Hurwitz Holt

San Diego

Julia Judish

Pillsbury

Washington

Kate Kalmykov

Greenberg Traurig

Florham Park, N.J.

Matthew C. Kane

McGuireWoods

Los Angeles

Sameer Khedekar

Pearl Law Group

San Francisco

Fermin H. Llaguno

Littler

Irvine

Michele Maryott

Gibson Dunn

Irvine

Lynden Melmed

Berry Appleman & Leiden

Washington

Kevin Miner

Fragomen

Atlanta

Cindy Schmitt Minniti

Reed Smith

New York

Ian Morrison

Seyfarth Shaw

Chicago

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

I’m working with several companies on labor issues relating to the industry negotiations with the Writers Guild of America and Screen Actors Guild.

LD: Can you discuss how life as a yogi has benefited your practice? Is there tension between that and being a litigator?

LD: What do you wish you had known or done differently in school?

AL: From trials, to hearings to negotiations, the work we do as lawyers can often times be stressful. Practicing yoga has taught me the importance of deep breathing and reflection.

AL: I should have learned Spanish. And then Japanese and Mandarin. Communications with clients and witnesses is critical to my practice, and a strong grasp of other languages can help. LD: Was there an early experience or mentor who really helped shape the course of your professional life? AL: Bill Cole has been a terrific mentor, teaching me early on that at the end of the day, people will remember you for your honesty, integrity and professionalism.

KEVIN O’BRIEN

LD: When did this interest begin, and how much time do you spend on traveling to retreats and teaching others? AL: I discovered yoga about ten years ago and was initially attracted to the physicality and exercise. Over time, I gained the additional benefits of meditation. I have attended about half a dozen retreats in India, Peru, Bali and Indonesia.

BY JOHN RYAN

OUR DECISION TO INCLUDE AN EMPLOYEE

benefits section in our guide to top employment lawyers made it very likely that a lawyer from Ivins, Phillips & Barker would be on the elite list of twenty. The Washington, D.C.-based firm, founded in 1935, focuses exclusively on employee benefits along with federal tax and estate and gift tax law matters. Within the firm’s excellent reputation, our research pointed us to Kevin O’Brien, who has practiced in the area of employee benefits since the early years of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA, passed in 1974). O’Brien worked at the Labor Department while getting his degree at the Georgetown University Law Center. Lawdragon: How did you first become interested in this type of practice? Kevin O’Brien: I attended Georgetown Law School and, as an undergraduate history major, I was surprised to find that I especially liked my federal tax courses. In the Spring of 1975, my corporate tax professor mentioned that the Labor Department was looking for part-time help to deal with ERISA, and that this was mostly tax law. I applied for the job and had the good fortune to be assigned to a tax lawyer who had recently been sent to the Labor Department from the Treasury Department to get the Department’s interpretative functions up and running. What was supposed to be an 8-hour-a-week job, morphed into a 30-hour-

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

a-week job while I was still attending law school. I worked on all kinds of projects that were well above my pay grade. I worked on the initial joint and survivor annuity regulations and the first prohibited transaction class exemption. I also wrote a number of background memos on the “top hat” plan exemption and drafted the procedure for requesting advisory opinions. LD: What are some aspects about this work that you find professionally satisfying? What has kept you at it over the years? KO: Employee benefits law and practice has changed considerably from my early days of practice. At the start of my career, ERISA was brand new, there was

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

NAME

LAW FIRM

LOCATION

Christy Nguyen

Pearl Law Group

San Francisco

Kristen A. Page

Shook

Kansas City, Mo.

Jessica R. Perry

Orrick

Menlo Park

Sarah Peterson

SPS Immigration PLLC

Minneapolis

Carolyn Richmond

Fox Rothschild

New York

John C. Romeo

Gibbons

Philadelphia

Seth J. Safra

Proskauer

Washington

Salvador Simao

FordHarrison

Berkeley Heights, N.J.

Brian Sinclair

Rutan & Tucker

Costa Mesa

Grant Sovern

Quarles & Brady

Madison

Denise L. Wheeler

FordHarrison

Fort Myers

Susan A.P. Woodhouse

Littler

San Francisco

Todd D. Wozniak

Greenberg Traurig

Atlanta

Becki Young

Hammond Young

Silver Spring, Md.

Joshua Zuckerberg

Pryor Cashman

New York

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

a constant barrage of new regulations and nonstop legislative changes. At this time, the agencies and the agency staffs wielded all the power. If there was a question about a particular provision, the question was, “What did Harry think?” – meaning Harry Conaway at the Treasury Department. When a plan document was drafted, the key question was whether the IRS would approve the plan wording in a determination letter review, and there was less concern as to whether a court might interpret the law differently.

change, particularly with the move to participant directed investments. As noted, the legal developments surrounding defined contribution fees has placed enormous pressure on plan committees to structure appropriate plan investment choices. Defined contribution plan designs have also become more standardized as a result of statutory changes designed to ease certain aspects of nondiscrimination testing, which has encouraged the use of master and prototype plans instead of individually designed plans.

All of that began to change about twenty years ago. As the pace of legislation died down and the law matured and employee benefit issues became more politicized, more of the key issues were addressed by the courts. An example was cash balance plans. The Treasury and IRS became paralyzed in addressing the age discrimination aspects of cash balance plans and IRS review of these plans ground to a halt. Only after the first court decisions came down did Congress amend the statute in 2006 to address these issues. The issue of same-sex marriage is another example of where the courts addressed a key question before the agencies or Congress had done so.

As for defined benefit plans, we are in the last throes of these plans, as plan sponsors look to de-risk and eventually terminate and annuitize these plans. The close out of defined benefit plans will have an important effect on some aspects of ERISA fiduciary practice, because it is the defined benefit plans that invest in venture capital funds, private equity funds, and other esoteric investments.

The waning regulatory influence also was seen with the development of defined contribution fiduciary law. For reasons that are still inexplicable, the Labor Department dallied in their study of Section 401(k) expenses, and it was only after the class action law firms challenged the size of investment-related fees in the courts, that the DOL required reporting and disclosure of direct and indirect investment fees. The 2017 fiduciary regulation represents the Labor Department’s attempt to reengage as a key player in this area, but we have yet to see how that will play out in terms of Washington, D.C. politics. LD: What are some other changes? KO: The way companies operate has also changed employee benefit law practice. Plan sponsors have reduced headcounts and no longer administer plans in-house. The outsourcing of plan administration and investment work has created an entirely new area of practice – the negotiating and drafting of outsourcing agreements. The outsourcing of plan administration work also means that there are far fewer in-house and outside lawyers who are conversant in key aspects of qualified plan law, such as the IRS nondiscrimination rules. The demise of defined benefit plans in favor of defined contribution plans has been another significant

LD: How did you come to arrive at Ivins Phillips? KO: I was told about Ivins, Phillips & Barker in 1975 when my mentor at the Labor Department mentioned the firm. When I interviewed with the firm I was struck that a firm so small in size had such a great client base, and that has continued to be the case through my forty-one years with the firm. Ivins, Phillips & Barker is one of the nation’s premier tax and employee benefits specialty firms. We represent a significant number of Fortune 100 companies, as well as many midsized and smaller employers, on employee benefits matters. Our Washington, D.C., base places us in the heart of the tax and employee benefits world. We have longstanding relationships with Internal Revenue Service, Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services, and Capitol Hill staff, many of whom are former colleagues of Ivins attorneys. LD: What else do you think makes the firm unique? KO: The size and make-up of our firm allows us to staff matters in a lean and efficient manner. Our partner compensation is lock-step, so our incentive is the same as our clients’ – to allocate work to the attorney who is most capable of performing it well. We expose all of our attorneys to a wide range of benefits work, instead of pigeonholing lawyers into narrow sub-specialties. Our ability to “see the forest for the trees” enables us to spot issues that other firms miss and craft creative approaches to solving problems.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

2017: HALL OF FAME NAME

LAW FIRM

LOCATION

Fred Alvarez

Jones Day

Palo Alto

Ned Bassen

Hughes Hubbard

New York

Greg Braden

Morgan Lewis

Washington

Lawrence DiNardo

Jones Day

Chicago

Brian Greig

Norton Rose Fulbright

Austin, Texas

Ellen Kearns

Constangy

Boston

John Langel

Ballard Spahr

Philadelphia

John Lewis

Baker Hostetler

Cleveland

Michael Lotito

Littler

San Francisco

Michael Patrick

Fragomen

New York

Lawrence Rosenfeld

Squire Patton

Phoenix

Bernie Siebert

Sherman & Howard

Denver

Richard Simmons

Sheppard Mullins

Los Angeles

Allan Weitzman

Proskauer

Boca Raton

Kirby Wilcox

Paul Hastings

San Francisco

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

I WOULD GIVE THE ADVICE GIVEN TO ME BY MY FATHER. I HAD BARELY STARTED LAW SCHOOL AND MY FATHER ASKED ME IF I HAD GOTTEN MY SUBSCRIPTION TO THE WALL STREET JOURNAL YET. HE SAID THAT I SHOULD STUDY THE FIRST PAGE OF THE PAPER TO SEE HOW THEY SUMMARIZE “WHAT’S NEW” – IT IS BRIEF AND TO THE POINT. Representing employers is the core of our employee benefits practice. Many of our competitors represent insurance companies, third party administrators, financial services firms, and other entities that service large employer plans. Our client base consists almost entirely of employers, which enables us to vigorously represent our clients without raising actual or perceived conflicts of interest. In short, we can provide our clients better service with less red-tape for in-house counsel to manage.

tions to their pension plans so as to reduce the level of PBGC [Pension Beneﬁt Guaranty Corp.] variable rate premium obligations, and then later recover the plan contribution without a plan termination if the plan funding level improves whether due to asset value increases or liability reductions due to future interest rate increases. This funding approach would require both Labor Department and IRS approvals, and we have had extensive and constructive discussions with both agencies on the idea.

LD: Can you describe a recent client matter that you’ve handled?

LD: What do you wish you had known or done differently in school? Or, put another way, do you have advice now for current law school students?

KO: I have been involved in a variety of significant projects in recent months. We have an employeeindependent contractor issue involving the status of certain insurance agents that is docketed in the Tax Court. I have also been working on a large tax refund claim involving qualified and non-qualified stock options of a technology company that went public fifteen years ago and that is just now utilizing the stock option deductions from the pre-IPO period. The issues involve the proper valuation of the company’s stock in the weeks before their IPO and conducting a survey to establish the basis for tax deductions attributable to disqualifying dispositions of ISO [incentive stock option] stock. I have also been working on a couple of matters of more widespread significance. I have an advisory opinion request before the Labor Department asking about the status of medical plan data under ERISA – the specific question is whether de-identified plan data is an ERISA plan asset. This is a highly important question in the development of data-based medical analytics. LD: Interesting. Anything else? KO: Another interesting project involves an idea to promote more aggressive funding of defined benefit plans. Many plan sponsors aggressively fund their pension plans to avoid the “trapped surplus” issue – at plan termination any plan surplus is subject to the Code Section 4980 reversion tax. The idea enables a plan sponsor to make large tax deductible contribu-

KO: I would give the advice given to me by my father. I had barely started law school and my father asked me if I had gotten my subscription to the Wall Street Journal yet. He said that I should study the first page of the paper to see how they summarize “What’s New” – it is brief and to the point. He said that businessmen don’t have time for long-winded memos. Many law students, particularly those with law review experience, are accustomed to a much different form of writing and replete with tons of footnotes and asides. Footnotes are fine for an academic piece, but they often just mask the writer’s indecision when wrestling with an issue. So my advice is: lose the footnotes and get to the point. LD: Is there a matter or client in your career that stands out as a “favorite” or one that is particularly memorable? KO: In the earlier part of my career, I spent a good deal of time on flexible compensation issues. One of my partners did the lobbying work on cafeteria plans and 401(k) that led to the enactment of these provisions in 1978. These provisions raised a host of interesting tax issues that involve the basic tenets of income tax law – the constructive receipt doctrine, the economic benefit doctrine, and the assignment of income doctrine. We organized the Employers Council on Flexible Compensation (ECFC) in 1981 to protect the interest of our clients who were the early adopters of these plans, and these plans are now firmly rooted in compensation packages nationwide.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

2016: HALL OF FAME NAME

LAW FIRM

LOCATION

Brian Clemow

Shipman & Goodwin

Hartford, Conn.

W. Melvin Haas III

Constangy

Macon, Ga.

Mark A. Hutcheson

Davis Wright

Seattle

Charles C. Jackson

Morgan Lewis

Chicago

Thomas G. Kienbaum

Kienbaum Opperwall Hardy & Pelton

Birmingham, Mich.

Thomas Y. Mandler

Hinshaw

Chicago

Armin J. Moeller Jr.

Balch & Bingham

Jackson, Miss.

Angelo Paparelli

Seyfarth

Los Angeles

James R. Redeker

Duane Morris

Philadelphia

Jeremy Sherman

Seyfarth

Chicago

2015: HALL OF FAME NAME

LAW FIRM

LOCATION

Jeff T. Appleman

Berry Appleman & Leiden

San Francisco

Lynne Deitch

Duke

Durham, N.C.

Zachary D. Fasman

Proskauer

New York

Baruch A. Fellner

Gibson Dunn

Washington

James C. Franczek Jr.

Franczek Radelet

Chicago

Willis J. Goldsmith

Jones Day

New York

Hunter R. Hughes III

Rogers & Hardin

Atlanta

Stephen A. Ploscowe

Fox Rothschild

N.J.

Ronald H. Shechtman

Pryor Cashman

New York

Gary R. Siniscalco

Orrick

San Francisco

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

DEBORAH NOTKIN

BY JOHN RYAN

WORKING FOR AN IMMIGRATION LAW

firm while she was completing her college degree at Rutgers is what led Deborah Notkin to a career in the field and her partnership at Barst Mukamal & Kleiner LLP, which dates to 1930 and is one of the oldest immigration law firms in the nation. At the New York-based firm, Notkin has earned her place among the nation’s leading corporate immigration lawyers and is a fixture on Lawdragon’s guide to the Most Powerful Employment Lawyers. The New York Law School graduate served a term as president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and is on its Board of Governors. Lawdragon: What type of corporate immigration work do you do? Deborah Notkin: All non-immigrant visas with a focus on H-1Bs (for speciality occupations), E-2s (for entrepreneurs), Blanket Ls (for companies looking to transfer manager and executive or specialized knowledge professionals). I also have a very large PERM (Program Electronic Review Management, used for processing labor certifications) practice, along with handling National Interest Waivers, EB-1 Extraordinary Ability petitions, and Outstanding Researcher or Professor petitions. LD: What do you like about your practice? DN: My employer client base is highly diversified and I am inspired by what they do for innovation in the U.S. and the American economy. It is also rewarding to help people who aspire to immigrate to this country and contribute. LD: Are there trends you are seeing in your practice in terms of the types of matters keeping you busy? DN: Infrastructure and energy innovation are on the rise. Also, the new U.S. administration is providing challenges requiring us to continually go the extra mile for our clients.

LD: Can you go into more detail about how the Trump Administration has had an impact on your practice? DN: It has become more challenging. We have to provide more legal foundation and solutions in a governmental environment looking for reasons to deny and fomenting a culture of no. We need to explain to existing clients that what may have been easy last year has additional challenges this year.

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

They are concerned about their ability to retain key employees, especially in the science, technology, mathematics and engineering fields (STEM) with an administration with an extreme anti-immigrant bent. LD: Was there an early experience or mentor who really helped shape the course of your professional life? DN: My father. LD: How has your practice changed since the early part of your career? DN: I started out primarily doing permanent resident visas and labor certifications and it quickly developed into a full-service business practice. LD: What advice do you have for younger lawyers hoping to excel in the immigration law field? DN: Join the American Immigration Lawyers Association. They provide everything you need to get started. LD: What do you do for fun? DN: I play tennis, cook a variety of ethnic foods and spend time with my spouse and daughters, one of whom got married on August 12. LD: Have you been involved in any pro bono or public interest activities? DN: I work with AILA on liaison and policy in the business immigration area and give support to several pro bono efforts. In the past, I worked closely with a Central American Community organization in Brooklyn and was part of the effort initiated by then Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to rid New York of the unauthorized “immigration consultants” problem.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

2014: HALL OF FAME NAME

LAW FIRM

LOCATION

L. Robert Batterman

Proskauer

New York

Barbara B. Brown

Paul Hastings

Washington

Francis X. Dee

McElroy Deutsch

Morristown

Mark S. Dichter

Morgan Lewis

Philadelphia

Charles C. Foster

Foster Quan

Houston

Howard Ganz

Proskauer

New York

William J. Kilberg

Gibson Dunn

Washington

Demitrios M. Moschos

Mirick Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Connell

Worchester

Stephen A. Ploscowe

Fox Rothschild

Roseland

Michael Reiss

Davis Wright

Seattle

Peter Wolfson Zinober

Greenberg Traurig

Tampa

2013: HALL OF FAME NAME

LAW FIRM

LOCATION

R. Lawrence Ashe Jr.

Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs

Atlanta

Austin T. Fragomen

Fragomen

New York

Alan V. Friedman

Munger Tolles & Olson

Los Angeles

Theodore R. Groom

Groom Law Group

Washington

Paul Grossman

Paul Hastings

Los Angeles

C. Lash Harrison

FordHarrison

Atlanta

Garry C. Mathiason

Littler

San Francisco

Bettina B. Plevan

Proskauer

New York

Patrick L. Vaccaro

Jackson Lewis

White Plains, N.Y.

Jay W. Waks

Kaye Scholer

New York

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

PETER ZINOBER

BY KATRINA DEWEY

PETER ZINOBER IS NOT ONLY ONE OF THE

nation’s top employment lawyers, he’s also a bit of a throwback to a different era – a Renaissance lawyer, if you will. Trained as a labor lawyer through what used to be a customary few years at the National Labor Relations Board, he moved home to Tampa with the Board, and then left to learn the broader employment law field, at which he’s excelled.

And it’s not just in the practice of law. The Greenberg Traurig partner shares a passion with his wife, who is executive director of a museum in Tampa which recreates America’s Gilded Age. He also plays instruments from the Renaissance era, and has been performing on multiple brass instruments to large audiences since junior high school. Good training for a trial lawyer. Zinober is also a dedicated University of Florida grad, having spent nine years in Gainesville and chairing and serving on the Board of Trustees of the University of Florida Law School. Lawdragon: You attended undergrad, graduate school and law school at the University of Florida. You must have great memories of Gainesville. Peter Zinober: In my last year of law school, I had an opportunity to teach humanities because I played in a baroque musical group for eight years. One of the people who attended periodically was the dean of what was called the University College, which was six mandatory courses for undergraduates. One of the mandatory courses was humanities, and two of the law students were given a chance to teach to make extra money, which I needed because I attended school throughout my career by working and with loans. So I got a job teaching humanities for a year while I was in my last year of law school. I taught four days a week in my section and it was sort of an aggregation of literature, art history, music history, philosophy, religion, and architecture. LD: That’s so cool. Were you teaching in Gainesville? PZ: Yes, at the University of Florida. At the same time, I was playing in several different musical groups. Also in that last year, I had won a school-wide election to be the Chancellor of the Honor Court. I think my most rewarding professional accomplishment was probably being elected and working as chancellor of the Honor Court, which was a jury system for all students of the student

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

body. We handled cheating, theft, bad checks, and we were also the appellate court for the student civil code at the University of Florida. It was a very, very responsible activity, and I truly loved what I did there. LD: Did you have decision making authority as the chancellor? PZ: Yes. I was the judge, the chief justice. We had a jury system comprised of students who were elected to serve as representatives to the honor court. They would decide guilt or innocence, and then I would impose the penalty, and I would preside over the trials. LD: It’s easy to see how you got the trial bug with handson experience in law school. After law school, where did you go to practice? PZ: I went to Washington, D.C., and worked for the Office of the Solicitor at the U.S. Department of Labor for about two years. Then I worked for the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board for about a year. During that period, I received a master’s degree in labor law from George Washington University. LD: At what point did you decide to specialize in labor and employment law? PZ: I actually knew in my second year of law school that that’s what I wanted to do. I took all five courses in the labor and employment law area. To me, it was a combination of dealing with human problems that were real life, not just dealing with documents. Combined with that, there were more labor cases argued each term before the U.S. Supreme Court than any other civil area of the law and more than any other area except criminal. I knew that it was a

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

YOU HAD A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF PRIVATE FIRMS WHO WERE TAKING ON EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASES, FILING IN FEDERAL COURT AND LITIGATING. A LOT OF LAWYERS WHO HAD ORIGINALLY GONE INTO LABOR LAW REALLY DIDN’T WANT TO GET INTO JURY TRIAL WORK. I THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS A REAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ME TO GET IN ON THE GROUND FLOOR OF LEARNING HOW TO BE A JURY TRIAL LAWYER IN THE EMPLOYMENT LAW AREA. combination of socially relevant work and intellectually challenging work. LD: In D.C. what type of issues were making their way through the government that you had early involvement with? PZ: The large majority of the cases in the appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court had to do with the National Labor Relations Act and the National Labor Relations Board. I graduated in 1969. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act wasn’t passed until 1964, and it wasn’t until 1972 that private parties had a right to sue. Labor law was largely the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act, which was passed in 1938, and that was a wage and hour law. Union activity was a major factor. I transferred in January 1971 to the National Labor Relations Board’s Florida regional office in Tampa. I worked there for a year and a half, the purpose of which was to get the experience of going to trial on NLRB cases. I got a lot of experience doing that. Then in May 1973, I was recruited by Carlton Fields to join their labor practice. I stayed there for 15 years. I was on the board and the executive committee for 12 of the 15 years and chairman of labor and employment law between 1979 and 1988, when we left to form Zinober & McCrea. LD: During that era what were some of the employment law matters you worked on? PZ: A new emphasis on discrimination litigation evolved starting in 1972 and moving through to when I left. You had a significant increase in the number of private firms who were taking on employment discrimination cases, filing in federal court and litigating. A lot of lawyers who had originally gone into labor law really didn’t want to get into jury trial work. I thought that this was a real opportunity for me to get in on the ground floor of learning how to be a jury trial lawyer in the employment law area. LD: Do you remember your first trial once you got into court?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

PZ: Well, I had a lot of NLRB trial experience though that was not jury trials. One of the memorable trials that I had was the second case I ever went to trial on at the NLRB. I was the prosecutor in the case against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and the lead lawyer on the other side was a lawyer who became a friend, Larry Cohen of Sherman, Dunn, Cohen, Leifer & Yellig. He represented the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and was probably one of the top five or six labor lawyers in the country. It was my second trial, and he taught me a real lesson in that case, and beat the tar out of me, actually. LD: What lessons did you learn from him? PZ: Well, the lesson that I learned is that very often cases are won or lost before you ever get to trial because of investigation and preparation. That was probably a case that never should have gone to trial. LD: At Carlton Fields as you moved to jury trials, how did that change your experience, and what kind of cases do you most recall from those years? PZ: I represented what was, at the time, the CBS affiliate in Tampa during the time of Gloria Steinem and the Women’s Liberation Movement. We had a group of women broadcasters at WTVT who were offended by the news director and the evening anchor. They filed discrimination charges against him, and took him to court in two trials. I defended the station in both cases. We won both cases, and I was very pleased because the lawyer on the other side was a very dedicated civil rights lawyer who later became the chairman of civil rights and pro bono work at Holland & Knight. In one of the trials there was a very senior federal judge presiding, Ben Krentzman, who was listening to the testimony of the plaintiff , Sarah Golinveaux. She was asked by her lawyer to describe what it was like working in the newsroom under Hugh Smith, who was the news director and evening anchor. Of course, she described what a difficult guy he was and how much of a bully he was. The judge stopped her testimony and said, “This

sounds a lot like the Mary Tyler Moore Show.” Our trial was reported every day on the front page of the local section of the paper, but that comment was reported in the television section of Part D of the paper. That was really very funny. Those two cases were among the first jury trials that I had. LD: Those cases really exemplify how employment law is often one of the first practices to grapple with societal change. PZ: Exactly. You may remember the National Organization for Women was very active. They decided to encourage working women to take off for a day on what they called Alice Doesn’t Work Day. Sarah Golinveaux, the plaintiff, was not involved in any of the organizations. She just decided she would take a stand and get up in the news director’s face but, unfortunately, Nelson Rockefeller was coming into town on that very day with his entourage, and so the television station called everybody back. They canceled everybody’s days off. They canceled everybody’s vacation. They even told one of the reporters he had to work and he would have to postpone his wedding. Sarah decided she would make a point, and they warned her, and they told her that if she took off, she was at risk of losing her job but she decided to challenge that. She spent the day on her houseboat, and the next day she was fired. We made newspapers all over the country and The New Yorker published an article about our case. In a bench trial, the court decided that Golinveaux consciously decided to put her principles before her job and that was fine, but found that the station did not discriminate against her, so that was that. LD: What other changes have you seen in law practice after you left Carlton Fields, formed your own firm for 19 years and now are at Greenberg Traurig? PZ: I am one of a disappearing breed of lawyer in the sense that I came up at a time when what’s called traditional labor law, meaning NLRA, wage and hour, collective bargaining, arbitration, constituted the large majority of practice of a labor lawyer. Now, probably fewer than five percent of all lawyers who consider themselves employment lawyers do any traditional labor law. I’m one of a very small group of lawyers who do everything, a generalist. Right now virtually everybody does employment law. A certain number of them are willing to do jury trials, although that’s still a minority. Jury trial work is very unique because in addition to the background, you

also have to have the willingness to go on the firing line and to submit yourself to the scrutiny of 12 jurors, often in representing an unpopular client. LD: How did you get comfortable going before a jury? PZ: For some of us, we got to that point in unusual ways. I had been a performing musician since the sixth grade. During college, I was the primary soloist for the University of Florida Symphonic Band for three years on tour, and I had to stand up in front of audiences of anywhere from 500 to 3,000 and perform. When you have to do that night after night, you learn to get used to the pressure of performing in front of an audience. LD: What is your instrument? PZ: I play a lot of them. In the University of Florida Symphonic Band, I was the principal euphonium player. I also play trumpet, French horn, and a whole group of Renaissance instruments, including recorders. If you’re a performer, if you’re an actor or an actress or a debate specialist, you develop those personality qualities that provide a background for you to do jury trial work. LD: What other professional accomplishments do you take the most pride in? PZ: I’ve argued probably 25 or 30 cases before the 11th Circuit and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and briefed another 40 or so. I’ve had nine cases in the United States Supreme Court. I’ve never had an argument, but I’ve had nine cases go up there. There are a lot of decisions that are published that have my name on them in various courts around the country and that’s been a really gratifying thing because what it means is that I’ve been able to become part of the evolution and development of labor and employment law. I’ve received the same satisfaction from serving as an editor of “The Developing Labor Law,” published by BNA/Bloomberg, for more than 30 years. I was chairman of the Board of Governors of the Florida Orchestra and General Counsel for 12 years. I was chairman of the Board of Trustees at the University of Florida College of Law, and I’ve been on the Board of Trustees for about 15 years. Beyond the law, I have four children and 10 grandchildren, and I try to spend as much time as I can with them. My wife and I, as a matter of fact, last night took our 12-year-old grandson, Peter, to Brooks Brothers to buy his first tailor-made sport jacket. My wife Cynthia, is the executive director of the Henry B. Plant Museum here in Tampa and we are kindred spirits in the world of culture and the arts.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

6 DECADES OF 7 AND 8 FIGURE RESULTS

For over ﬁve decades, the Walkup Firm has represented individuals who have been seriously injured in trafﬁc accidents, defective products, dangerous property, and government negligence.

$2.5 Billion

ASR HIP LITIGATION National Settlement

$52 Million

PROPANE EXPLOSION Jury Verdict

$25 Million

NORO VIRUS CLASS ACTION Jury Verdict

$38.6 Million

FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE Jury Verdict

$23.2 Million

OBSTETRICAL NEGLIGENCE Jury Verdict

“They held us by the hand and walked us through the entire sequence. The settlement was more than we expected. The attorneys did the best job I could ever imagine. They pulled me through this whole miserable time and stood by me.”

—Past Client

650 CALIFORNIA STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 • PH: 415.889.2919 • FAX: 415.391.6965 • WWW.WALKUPLAWOFFICE.COM

100

100 LEADING LEGAL CONSULTANTS AND STRATEGISTS

THE LAWDRAGON 100 LEADING LEGAL CONSULTANTS & STRATEGISTS

is the definitive guide to those financiers, recruiters, marketing and communication gurus on whom the legal profession relies. This is our 3rd edition of the guide, which we resumed last year in response to overwhelming demand after a hiatus. Consultants and strategists have reached an inflection point for the legal profession, as legal services (and many of the lawyers who provide them) have seen their practices commoditized and marginalized. With everyone searching for the edge that elevates their law practice to premium status, it’s no wonder lawyers have sought the guidance of these leaders. Featured in this year’s guide are the litigation funders whose big pockets have redefined modern legal combat. How much more evidence could one need of their importance than Burford Capital’s $160M acquisition of high-flying upstart Gerchen Keller, which was only three-years old? And, naturally, no guide to consultants would be complete without those communications specialists who guide firms through their most difficult hours, and recruiters whose every phone call reshapes an industry, as firms form, dissemble, and – for the lucky ones – move ever forward. We hope you enjoy the 3rd now-annual 100 Leading Legal Consultants and Strategists.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100 NAME

ORGANIZATION

LOCATION

CONTRIBUTION

Elonide Semmes

Right Hat

Chicago

Branding & Marketing

Burkey Belser

Greenfield Belser

Washington, D.C.

Communication

Cari Brunelle

Baretz Brunelle

New York

Communication

Jamie Diaferia

Infinite Global

New York

Communication

Donna Greenfield

Greenfield Belser

Washington, D.C.

Communication

Richard Levick

Levick

Washington, D.C.

Communication

New York

Communication

Allan Ripp

Ripp Media & Public Relations

Crisis Communication &

Vivian Hood

Jaffe

Stephenville, Texas

Marcia Horowitz

Rubenstein

New York

Terry Isner

Jaffe

Stephenville, Texas

Zach Olsen

Infinite Global

San Francisco

CrisisÂ Communications

Linda Bray Chanow

Center for Women in Law

Austin, Texas

Diversity

Stephen Cirami

Garden City Group

Lake Success, N.Y.

Legal Administration Services

John Sweeney

LogicForce

Nashville

Legal Entrepreneur- Technology

Gerald Abila

Barefoot Law

Kampala, Uganda

Legal Services Delivery

Elena Donio

Axiom

San Francisco

Legal Services Delivery

Mark Harris

Axiom

San Francisco

Legal Services Delivery

Nancy Jessen

UnitedLex

Overland Park, Kan.

Legal Services Delivery

Vivek Maru

Namati

Washington, D.C.

Legal Services Delivery

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Marketing Crisis Communication & Marketing Crisis Communication & Marketing

100

HOW THE FINANCIERS OF BURFORD CAPITAL ARE TRANSFORMING THE BUSINESS OF LAW

BY KATRINA DEWEY

AFTER A DECADE OF SEEKING ITS VOICE,

litigation finance has found it – and it’s Burford Capital, the legal finance powerhouse with a deeply thoughtful and experienced team whose mashup of finance, corporate and platinum law firm credentials is helping lawyers worldwide become savvier about business. Burford has definitively ended any debate about the merits of financing individual cases, and turned the conversation to transforming how lawyers think about the economics of their practice. It was just a year ago that Gerchen Keller Capital debuted in these pages as the upstart legal finance savants shaking up the “third-party funding” industry. In December 2016, they joined Burford. Adam Gerchen walks into the same conference room where we met a year earlier, looking just a bit tired. Ten days ago, he and his wife welcomed their third child. Seven months ago, he and GKC’s other co-founders, Ashley Keller and Travis Lenkner, sold the business to Burford. In one year, Gerchen, a 2009 Harvard Law graduate who has never billed an hour, went from intriguing entrepreneur to President of a legal finance behemoth that is ten times larger than the next largest publicly traded litigation financier. “Scale matters tremendously in this business,” says Gerchen, as we start to discuss how the match with Burford occurred – and what the acquisition means for the lawyers with whom it works.

The GKC partners had been approached by other suitors, but they found a true match in Burford – which likewise saw GKC as a perfect complement. GKC had thrived as a private lawfocused investment manager, with $1.3 billion in assets under management and roughly $1 billion in total commitments across 80 investments. Burford, meanwhile, was the industry’s standard-bearer – a publicly traded company with a seven-year track record and well over a billion dollars committed to commercial litigation and arbitration. Burford’s founders, Christopher Bogart and Jonathan Molot, were eager for growth that would

yield advantages for the firm’s clients. The marriage of Burford and GKC did just that. Put simply, the ability to draw on public and private capital gives Burford an edge in innovation and pricing that it can pass on its clients. “Our product breadth and the resources we can put into an investment now are unmatched in the industry,” says Gerchen. The deal was also a meeting of minds: The respective companies’ founders knew and respected one another, and their respective staffs quickly came together post-merger as a unified team of ridiculously smart, change-the-world lawyer quants with impeccable credentials. Burford’s founders began their ascent to being the premier legal finance company in the world in 2009. Christopher Bogart and Jonathan Molot saw the need for smarter and more flexible financing options for legal matters. The duo’s experience and credentials gave them unique insights into the problem and its solution. Bogart had been general counsel of Time Warner and an attorney at Cravath, Swaine & Moore. As Time Warner’s general counsel at the age of 34, Bogart led a team of 350 lawyers and saw for himself the potential of legal finance. While overseeing Cravath’s legal work for Time Warner when it merged with AOL, he got the illustrious firm to agree to do the deal for what was at the time the largest alternative fee arrangement in history. If the merger did not close, Cravath would not make any money. If it did, however, its partners stood to pocket a significant premium. “The reason for doing that was all about the accounting treatment of those fees in connection with the merger transaction,” Bogart said. “It wasn’t just a way of getting a discount in fees. It was all about transcending those very basic things that I still see lots of companies doing – just negotiating hourly rates – instead of thinking about what you’re doing, what your value proposition is, and how to deal with that in a financially advantageous way.”

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100

talked to an old college friend, Robert Volterra, then an arbitration partner at Latham & Watkins, whose clients were seeking financing options. Latham could not see its way past billable hours, so Bogart set up a small fund to help his friend. “I had no intention at the time of this being a business or an industry,” said Bogart. But when other firms heard what Bogart had done, the phone began to ring. In 2009, Molot published his seminal piece on legal finance, “A Market in Litigation Risk,” in the University of Chicago Law Review, explaining how litigation risk can interfere with productive business activity. The two met at a Rand conference, discovered their mutual interest, and soon thereafter raised the capital to fund Burford Capital. After opening its doors in the early autumn of 2009 – smack in the midst of the financial crisis – Burford quickly showed the market what was possible through legal finance. It overcame caterwauling critics and dubious competitors to immediately begin posting exceptional results. On October 21, 2009, it listed on the London Stock Exchange.

Jonathan Molot, CIO, Burford Capital

For his part, Molot had clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, worked at Cleary Gottlieb and Kellogg Hansen, and taught at George Washington University and Georgetown University law schools. In his scholarship, Molot was intrigued by how economics affected litigation incentives and outcomes. That led to an initially academic interest in legal finance, and then, in 2005, his own company, Litigation Risk Solutions, to provide capital to companies whose deals were being buffeted by litigation risk. “The deal-by-deal approach I was using was really difficult,” said Molot. “You needed a dedicated pool of capital because law firms or businesses would come to you for a solution. You didn’t have the time to come up with a solution to their problem and then scramble to get the capital together.” Around the same time, Bogart, who had left Time Warner and was running a venture capital fund,

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

In no small part, Burford built acceptance for legal finance by assembling a team that resembled the law firm clients they aimed to attract: They hired from Latham, Debevoise and other AmLaw 50 firms. “We have always been about attracting talent that is equal to the people we finance,” said Molot. “The clients recognize that we are an asset not just because of the finance we supply, but because of the assistance we can provide in how they’re managing the case. There’s no substitute for those relationships.” Gerchen, Keller and Lenkner opened GKC’s doors in 2013 with some platinum resumes of their own. Keller and Lenkner had met as law clerks for Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and discovered a shared interest in litigation finance. The trio came together when Keller and Gerchen, who had worked at Goldman Sachs, met at Chicagobased investment fund Alyeska. Since the two firms joined forces in December 2016, Burford’s success has skyrocketed. It now has $3.6 billion invested and available to invest in law worldwide, with its public balance sheet business overseen by CEO Bogart, its private funds business overseen by Gerchen, and Molot serving as Chief Investment Officer.

PHOTO BY: ELI MEIR KAPLAN

100

The evolution they are leading will likely change how law is practiced forever. Never has the market been so ripe for legal finance. Law firms have suffered a particularly nasty undertow in recent years – compressed by clients, and facing surging compensation demands from lawyers and a perceived need to be global. The planet’s wealthiest firms are getting richer, and the revenue per lawyer elsewhere is sinking fast. Without a fundamental change in the structure of their finances, it’s a game firms can’t win. “The challenge that the law firms have is that they don’t have capital resources,” says Bogart. “They don’t run balance sheets. And so, the only way for a law firm to defer payment and take on risk is by cutting partner cash compensation.” Molot explains how this hinders law firm growth by pointing to tech companies like Google. Imagine if Google could only invest in R&D by asking every employee to take a ten percent pay cut. “You know that Google would underinvest because it comes from their own pockets,” he says. Law firms look at it just that way. “You’re saying to them, ‘Let’s take a pay cut this year to give this good client an alternative billing arrangement because five years from now we might end up making money,” he explains. “And you’ve got a partner sitting there three years from retirement who’s never going to see a payoff.” Molot acknowledges lawyers have faced a steep learning curve to “get used to the idea that litigation is a financeable asset. And that just like any other receivable a company might have on its balance sheet, a lawsuit is something that can be financed,” explains Molot. “That initial instinct took some time for people to get used to.” Many factors accounted for that early skepticism. Like any new industry, the array of participants ranged in quality. Some law firms had what could be called institutional resistance to engage with litigation finance based on understandable but unfounded concerns about control and attorneyclient privilege. But as litigation finance was written about in the trades and lawyers could read about more and more firms becoming involved – namebrand, Am Law 200 firms – the comfort level increased. Partners began to see litigation finance as a tool to be more entrepreneurial, and to meet clients’ needs.

PHOTO BY: LAURA BARISONZI

Christopher Bogart, CEO, Burford Capital

As Burford and others grew and showed consistent institutional-level credibility, interest increased rapidly. Clients were continuing to pressure firms on fees, and law firms felt the pain. It was a perfect storm for the legal quants. Since 2013, there has been a 414 percent growth in the use of litigation finance by U.S. law firms. Today, 36 percent of U.S. lawyers say their firms have used litigation finance. Among corporates, 26 percent of global general counsel say their companies have used it, and a further 36 percent say they expect to in the next two years. “It caught on even faster than I would have expected,” said Molot. “Law firms are fairly quickly realizing that taking finance from Burford could help them offer true alternative billing arrangements to clients. They get that being able to offer this proactively is very attractive to clients and helps the lawyers expand their practices while at the same time ensuring that lawyers can pay their bills and continue to earn the level of income that they’re earning.”

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100

finance” – in which the asset value of a pending high-value claim serves as the basis for a nonrecourse investment – and it is still the case that most of its new clients come in the door looking to fund a specific matter. But lawyers quickly get excited about the possibilities of portfolio finance after that initial experience. And that is just the beginning of a paradigm shift that could transform every law practice worldwide. Gerchen saw firsthand the power of Burford’s combined platform when he raised a $500 million fund after the merger. A key attraction is the larger growth a fund can achieve from aggregating individual cases: “If we look at ten cases to invest in and we would have done all ten of those investments had they come to us over the course of a year, represented by that same law firm, they why on earth would we not do it in one large portfolio transaction that we can cross-collateralize?” For firms intrigued by the possibility of transforming their portfolios from cost centers to assets, Bogart advises looking at your “real-world balance sheet. What is it that you have sitting out there and would it really work on a risk-adjusted basis? “

Adam Gerchen, President, Burford Capital

Burford’s leaders are ambitious in envisioning all the ways outside financing can help lawyers transform the economics of law. They have helped a Financial Times Stock Exchange 20 company (identified in the press as BT Group) finance a portfolio of high-value cases with $45 million in funding – transforming the litigation department from cost center to profit center. They provided $35 million in financing to help global plaintiffs’ firm Hausfeld expand into Germany and meet increased client demand for competition claims. And they provided two additional AmLaw 20 firms with portfolios of $50 million and $100 million to expand their practices and invest in firm growth. The growth in Burford’s portfolio finance business is staggering: In 2014, Burford made 63 percent of its new litigation finance investments in portfoliobased and complex arrangements, a percentage that grew to 88 percent in 2016. Burford remains committed to the single-case model that most lawyers recognize as “litigation

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Gerchen hopes law firms will turn to Burford to “make the shift that’s already affecting the game demanded from their clients to much larger feearrangement portfolios and running risk-based balance sheets, which is what contingency arrangements are.” Some of the most successful law firms have made out-sized returns running risk-based balance sheets. By becoming a financial partner in the transaction, Burford can “accelerate the percentage that your ultimate revenues are going to be generated from contingency cases by partially using our balance sheet as a riskmanagement tool,” he says. No matter how pervasive legal finance becomes, Burford’s leaders remember that every claim that gets rolled up into a portfolio is someone’s most important concern. “At the end of the day, however financial you are about law, law’s fundamentally about clients and their claims,” says Bogart. The underlying driver of the legal industry is getting a resolution in a civil way for clients. “It’s fine to aggregate lawsuits, but every single individual lawsuit is important to somebody, and I think that needs to be remembered when you’re thinking about what the core of the business is.”

PHOTO BY: MICHELLE NOLAN

100 500

EILENE BLOOM

BY JOHN RYAN

THE LEGAL INDUSTRY MAY BE AWASH IN

legal recruiters, but only a tiny fraction enjoys the impressive reputation that Eilene Bloom has developed over the past 15 years in the business. The founder of New York-based Eilene Bloom Group first came into contact with the trade on “the buy side” when she helped build an in-house legal team at Reliance Group Holdings, where she became the first woman vice president in the company’s history. Since building her own business, Bloom has thrived at helping both candidates and law firms become better at the recruiting process. Lawdragon: Can you share a few thoughts about the recruiting profession and what it takes to be successful in it? Eilene Bloom: There is no better foundation for being an effective recruiter than starting out as the client of recruiters. In my prior life, as head of administration for a public company, we brought on all types of talent from support staff up to the C-suite executives. We built our own in-house law firm for the company. I worked with numerous recruiting companies, some great and some not so great. I first learned what not to do and from there, what to do. It’s hard to put into words what makes me successful – partners tell me my emotional intelligence is off the charts. I think I have good instincts, and I am business savvy – those are hard skills to teach. We understand the task at hand and we don’t complicate it. We know who we are – we are in the recruiting business, specializing in the legal market. In many ways, we are matchmakers at the intersection where emotions meet business. We are good listeners and we respond to others’ priorities. We are in the part of the business where the matchmaking process is long, the decisionmaking careful, and the risks are weighed even more closely than are the opportunities. There was a time when that wasn’t the case. Back in the late 1980s, when a partner left his or her firm, the decision was emotional and prolonged. Of course, over the years, leaving and hiring became far less fraught – too easy, in fact. We are back to seeing a lot more thinking on all sides. We are process-oriented and patient. As a dealmaker and a business person, I would like the cycle to be faster and more predictable. That’s not going to

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

happen. We are dealing with people’s careers. A lot of the lawyers we advise would prefer for things to work out at their current firms; they take a long time to cut the cord. A few “serial laterals” move every three years. That’s the exception. Most people who are dissatisfied wait quite a while, some too long – hoping that the firm or their fit with it will improve. We understand that. LD: How has the profession changed since the beginning of your career? EB: When I started in this business, the data were a few heavy volumes of Martindale-Hubbell, a phone, a Rolodex and a typewritten profile of the lawyer. Law firm websites and the Internet have changed everything. The more we dig, the more good information we find about lawyers and firms. We know a lot about law firms and individual lawyers. I recognize people on the street that I know only from having studied their firm’s website. The hallways of law firms are hushed these days because most all communications have shifted to email. But the telephone is a constant. Our office is noisy. We are on the phone all day long. You have to dial the phone a lot to be successful in this business.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LOGICFORCE CONGRATULATES JOHN SWEENEY ON BEING NAMED TO LAWDRAGONâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S 100 LEADING LEGAL CONSULTANTS AND STRATEGISTS FOR 2017

SINCE 2007, MORE THAN 2,000 MID-SIZED LAW FIRMS HAVE MERGED OR CLOSED SO WHAT’S THE SOLUTION?

IMPROVE YOUR LAW FIRM’S PROFIT PER PARTNER AND NEW CLIENT ACQUISITION RATIO

The LOGICFORCE New Style of IT has revolutionized the way law firms use and pay for their IT, Cyber Security and eDiscovery ecosystem to gain competitive advantage. • • • • •

Gain efficiencies with new applications Enable more effective attorneyclient collaboration Become a strategic data driven organization Become a fully mobile organization Enter into new markets for additional revenue opportunities

Unleash productivity firm wide and achieve your desired business outcomes. To learn more, view John Sweeney’s Law Dragon profile or visit our website: www.logicforce.com.

SERVING MORE THAN 100 INSTITUTIONAL LAW FIRMS

100 NAME

ORGANIZATION

LOCATION

Julia Salasky

CrowdJustice

New York

Legal Services Delivery

Charles Agee

Westfleet Advisors

Brentwood, Tenn.

Litigation Funding

Christopher Bogart

Burford Capital

New York

Litigation Funding

John Byrne

Therium Capital

London

Litigation Funding

Allison Chock

Bentham

Los Angeles

Litigation Funding

Lee Drucker

Lake Whillans

New York

Litigation Funding

Susan Dunn

Harbour Litigation Funding

St James's, London

Litigation Funding

Adam Gerchen

Burford Capital

Chicago

Litigation Funding

Ernest Getto

Burford Capital

New York

Litigation Funding

Charlie Gollow

Bentham

Perth, Australia

LItigation Funding

Jim Kearney

Lake Whillans

New York

Litigation Funding

Ashley Keller

Burford Capital

Chicago

Litigation Funding

Travis Lenkner

Burford Capital

Chicago

Litigation Funding

Jonathan Molot

Burford Capital

New York

Litigation Funding

Neal Purslow

Therium Capital

London

Litigation Funding

New York

Litigation Funding

Selvyn Seidel

Fulbrook Capital Management

CONTRIBUTION

Howard Shams

Parabellum Capital

New York

Litigation Funding

Boaz Weinstein

Lake Whillans

New York

Litigation Funding

Wieger Wielinga

Omni Bridgeway

Amsterdam

Litigation Funding

Kathryn Wolanyk

Burford Capital

Chicago

Litigation Funding

Tom Clay

Altman Weil

Newton Square, Pa.

Management

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100

WHEN I DECIDED TO START MY OWN BUSINESS, I WAS DETERMINED THAT WE BE RECOGNIZED AS DIFFERENT. TO ME THAT MEANS HAVING IMPORTANT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT FIRM AND PRACTICE GROUP STRATEGIES, OPERATIONS AND CULTURE. LD: Can you discuss what you did before recruiting and how your time at Reliance Group Holdings influenced you? EB: Recruiting is a second career for me. I started my career working for the legendary corporate dealmaker Saul Steinberg. I was at his side throughout the wild 1980s and ‘90s. He was the audacious financier who took over Reliance Group and tried to take over Chemical Bank and the Disney Company. I headed administration for the corporation and was the first woman vice president in the company’s history. As I said earlier, we built an in-house law department and assembled a team of dozens of lawyers who handled everything from A to Z. We found many of those lawyers with the help of outside recruiting firms. That was my introduction to the recruiting industry. I liked recruiters who were creative, responsive and thought out of the box. Take those attributes to the extreme, however, and other words like incredible, implausible and pushy come to mind. My experience as a recruiter’s client has stayed with me. I’ve been a recruiter for 15 years during a time of great change in the legal industry. Having worked at the leading recruiting agencies, I saw close up how recruiters approach their work, both the good and the less good – and apply those lessons learned. I’ve recruited practice groups, arranged firm mergers and placed hundreds of individual partners. LD: What was your goal when you started out on your own? EB: When I decided to start my own business, I was determined that we be recognized as different. To me that means having important knowledge about firm and practice group strategies, operations and culture; acting with emotional intelligence and integrity; adding value as coaches and advisors to individual lawyers and law firms, and understanding law firm finance. “Good enough” is not the standard I’m aiming for.

My goal is to surround myself with eclectic, likable, smart, ethical recruiters who help each other out. I’ve put in financial incentives and set a tone to ensure that collaboration happens. That’s not typical in this business. Yet blending the resources and perspectives of multiple people can get a better result for a firm or a candidate than will the work of a lone ranger. We compete and we help each other out. A lot of “deals” start and only a few close. You’ve got to work in a supportive environment because it can be a frustrating business. It helps to have nice colleagues. We have all the technology we need, are very smart about research, spend time coaching lawyers, and advise firms on how to be a more attractive destination for the people they want. And we know lawyers – lots of lawyers – and meet more every day. This business can turn anyone into an extrovert. LD: How have you worked with firms for them to become better at recruiting? EB: We meet with law firms every week. For the most part, the firms describe themselves in similar ways and are looking for similar candidates. We push for a deeper level of information so that we can tell a good story. We approach these meetings as if we are the agent for that firm; we are, essentially, agents. We ask probing questions and help firms articulate a vision of the opportunity for a candidate. I’m still surprised by the inability of many firms to differentiate themselves and give a candidate a reason for choosing them. While we place people in all kinds of firms, we work closely with a group of firms. That deepens our knowledge and makes us more effective agents for them. The fi rst thing a fi rm should do is address what a candidate may perceive as risky. A good client delivers a clear, concise message to the candidate throughout the interview process and has done its homework. One partner said he chose a firm because at the initial meeting, the firm showed

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100

500

him a written plan about how his practice would fit in. Another partner liked the fact that everyone she met at a firm was consistent in describing the firm’s goals and direction. Just today, a partner left an initial meeting reassured and impressed because the people he met with had read up on his cases on Pacer in advance. Time is your enemy in recruiting. A firm needs a streamlined, methodical process that builds momentum and the relationship so that the lawyers can visualize working together as colleagues. LD: What about the other side – helping partners be better candidates? EB: We coach candidates, even those partners who control a significant amount of business. Candidates

JAMIE DIAFERIA

are completely prepared for their meetings and deliver a clear and concise message about their priorities, practice, and the value they could bring. We try to manage expectations for the candidate and the law firm, and we are good at discussing comp. In the initial meeting, the first question I ask a candidate is: “Why are you here? What are you hoping to change?” I take notes and remind the candidate of these stated criteria as we go forward. I want to like coming to work every day, have enough deal flow so that we conclude a good number and get paid, and earn “good word on the street” about us. That means being authentic and respectful and generous with our knowledge. People’s careers deserve our utmost care. They have different priorities and thrive in different situations. One size does not fit all.

BY KATRINA DEWEY

BABY LAMB ON THE OUTSIDE, GALVANIZED

steel within. Those are the gloves as well as technique embraced – if you will – by those rare birds top lawyers consider their elite media advisors. You can count on one hand those who have earned the trust of elite lawyers and firms, and the person currently setting the pace is a scrappy and charming upstart, Jamie Diaferia. Whether pitching and working through a career-building story or facing down an Enron or Penn State crisis, Diaferia of Infinite Global has attracted a legion of fans spanning star reporters to the best CMOs in the legal field. He’s created that reputation over 20 years, pairing a legal education with an irresistible savvy. Long a gem known mostly among Dragons and other legal elite, he greatly expanded his platform a few years back, merging with the UK’s Spada. These days, he’s the go-to call for lawyers from Mountain View to Manhattan and on to the Magic Circle. Lawdragon: Jamie, you are one of the most respected counselors in media, litigation and crisis communications strategies for top lawyers. What do you like most about that role? And what is most challenging about simultaneously having a dozen lawyers in crisis mode as clients? Jamie Diaferia: With the exception of timesheets, I like everything about what I do. I’m at the perfect

PHOTO L A W D R A BY G OTHE N IFIRM SSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM 84 PROVIDED

point in my career where I have more options in terms of how I can spend my time each day: media relations, client strategy, business operations, etc. Variety is important or you’ll burn out, and fortunately I can ﬁnd different challenges in tasks that are new to me. The hard part is structuring my days in a way that is

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

100

most useful to the company, and then developing systems to keep it all straight. I’ve had to learn how to juggle 20 to 30 different tasks a day – and then adjust when a client crisis blows up. I make a lot of lists and I don’t sleep all that well. LD: Let’s talk a bit about your path to specializing in high-value lawyer communications. What did you study in undergrad, and why did you choose The University of Connecticut School of Law? JD: I’d love to tell you I had a plan, but if I did it was pretty vague. In college, I studied the subjects I enjoyed the most, which all happened to involve writing and research. I didn’t know it at the time but I gravitated toward developing core skills rather than studying more substantive subjects like science and math. In that sense, I prepared myself for what I do now. I ended up graduating with a double major in English and sociology with a concentration in legal studies. The flaw in my plan was that I took so many English classes I needed special permission from Bucknell to graduate, because I hadn’t met their core curriculum requirements. Recently, I found an old yearbook from sixth grade where I wrote that I planned to be a lawyer when I grew up, and for a while that was my goal. I always enjoyed the law, and I was a nerd who grew up reading news articles about great lawyers like Floyd Abrams. Now he’s a client of ours. The logic of the law appealed to me, so I went straight from college into law school in Connecticut where I got in-state tuition. The mistake I made, which I’ve never made again, was to be arrogant. I did well in college and I was positive that would carry over into law school. During my first week of school I realized that everyone around me was just as intelligent as I was – and in many cases a lot smarter. The best students were legal savants in a way that I never would be. They were the kinds of students who are now my clients, the upper echelon of lawyers. So, in my first semester I decided I’d better figure out a Plan B that didn’t involve finishing at the top of the class, and that plan was to marry my backgrounds in journalism and law. LD: If I have this right, you began working in lawyer communications, of a sort, while in law school, as publisher of j.d. magazine. Can you tell us how you got involved with that publication and any lessons learned?

JD: I first started earning money as a journalist while I was in college, and even though it wouldn’t have been lucrative in the real world, it paid a lot more than I earned working at a Chinese restaurant managed by a guy who had to return to prison at the end of his shift each day (true story). I continued to make side money as a writer during law school until 1997, my last year in law school, when another student and I created a national magazine for law students called j.d., the law student’s survival guide. The focus was on educating law students about the business of law: What does an entertainment lawyer actually do each day? How do you pay off your loans? Stuff like that. It was a weird time to be starting a publication because the Internet was just becoming a thing, but it wasn’t so advanced that we could use it as a viable platform for our magazine. And eventually we ran out of money. What I learned, though, is that I loved being my own boss, and even though it didn’t pan out, I should trust my instincts. LD: The legal communication field has a rich history, led by a handful of notables. Have you benefited from mentoring from any of the folks who were early leaders in this area and if so what lessons did you learn? JD: I’ve had so many mentors along the way, and I can see in my career the infl uence of each of them in distinct ways. Nick Gaffney read an article about me in the National Law Journal when I started my magazine, and he took an interest in my success. There was nothing in it for him – that’s just how Nick is. He’s one of the most curious and generous people you’ll meet. In 1998 Nick also brought me into Richard Levick’s startup PR firm, which produced some of the smartest people in the business. Among other things, Richard taught me how to bring in business. When I left to form Infinite PR in 2001, a gentleman named Allan Ripp, who ran his own legal PR firm, lent a hand, and one could argue I wouldn’t be in business today if not for his early support. I wasn’t a safe choice for any large law firm and Allan attended new business pitches with me and shared his wisdom, which gave me a fighting chance and legitimized me. And then there are friends I respect immensely like Despina Kartson, Sally Feldman John Hellerman, and Josh Peck – successful men and women in the industry who have helped me purely out of kindness. You’ll often read that you can’t be nice in business or you won’t succeed, and it’s 100% not true.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100 LD: You started your own ﬁrm, Inﬁnite PR, in 2001. That was a bold move. What was the biggest risk you thought you were taking, and what actually proved most challenging?

LD: Can you please explain what makes a great lawyer client and a terrible one – and name names if you can! We’d like lawyers to understand how best and worst to work effectively with a top communications team.

JD: I never felt like I was taking a risk. I spent three years at Levick, and even though I had a lot of ﬂexibility I was starting to chafe at some basic aspects of working for someone else. Being my own boss suits my personality, and in that sense starting another company was inevitable. A month before I quit, I was living in New York City when 9/11 happened and it really affected me. Although I was making a good living, I decided I’d rather have more control over my future, even if it meant living hand-to-mouth for a while. I knew that if it didn’t work out, I’d still have a good story to tell in job interviews, so I didn’t agonize about the decision as much as you’d expect.

JD: Clients need to buy in to what we do. In the sales process, I don’t want to make two sales: the concept of PR itself and then whether to hire us. The good clients make that decision on the front end and commit to a program. Michael Coston, head of marketing and BD at McKool Smith, is a great example – he told us his ﬁrm was ready to dive in, and they did, so that’s been a fun ride. They value and appreciate what we do, they’re some of the smartest and nicest people around, and we’ve developed a perfect partnership in my opinion.

I probably should have been scared but I just put my head down and worked, slowly learning how to run a business every day. Also, my dad owned his own company, so I bounced a lot of ideas off him, which was more useful to me than getting an MBA. The biggest challenge in the early days was getting those first few clients and making myself and the company a safe choice to prospects. Lawyers are notoriously conservative, and marketing directors needed to know they wouldn’t lose their jobs for hiring us over a more established agency. McGlinchey Stafford, a fantastic firm that is still a client, took a chance on me in 2002, and I leveraged each new client win to earn additional business. Eventually Cooley hired us in 2006 and that made all the difference. Getting new clients was a lot less difficult after that. So, thank you, Cooley. LD: How do you go about attracting clients when what you’re selling oftentimes is crisis? JD: Historically, law firm clients found us by word of mouth, which led to crisis referrals. Recently, with the addition of brilliant people like Andrew Longstreth we’re doing more thought leadership around a range of topics, and that’s bringing in leads. Our president, Zach Olsen, spent the past two years getting us on insurance panels too – no small feat – and that’s paying off. There are advantages and disadvantages to crisis work. I t’s exciting and often high profile, but it’s also a choppy business model, so having core retainer clients is important.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Paul Geller at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd is another. I’ve worked with Paul for 15 years and he’s always inherently gotten what we do. In fact, he routinely tells me he’s better at my job than I am. On the ﬂip side, the less successful relationships involve a lack of planning at the top, poor responsiveness by the attorneys, and micromanaging that bogs down our work. We’ve gotten a lot better at turning down jobs we know will end badly. We’re not doing anyone any favors if we try to force a relationship to work. LD: Today is all about content. What are some of the leading-edge techniques you use to create awareness for your clients? JD: Our approach to content is rooted in journalism: identifying and building on solid themes, great storylines and concepts that resonate with decision-makers. A lot of the hype around content involves the latest distribution tools that promise results with minimal investment of time. There are always going to be new channels and evolving technologies, but it’s important to remember that it starts with quality writing. Each new generation of search-engine algorithm is better able to differentiate original, quality content from shoddy, click-baiting garbage. Google wants the same thing as its users – to get to the most accurate, thoughtful and relevant content in as few clicks as possible. For that, there’s no substitute for good writing and subject matter expertise. We stay current on the latest tools, but we focus on quality writing ﬁrst. LD: What about the opposite side, with strategies or campaigns you feel are outdated? What’s on your “don’t” list? JD: In the very early days we were basically a onetrick-pony. Regardless of the clients’ needs, PR was our

100

OUR APPROACH TO COMMUNICATIONS IS TO RUN INTEGRATED CAMPAIGNS, SO WHEN A LAW FIRM DESCRIBES ITS GOALS, WE OFFER THE RIGHT SOLUTION, NOT JUST PR. THAT’S WHERE THE INDUSTRY CAN DO BETTER BY ELIMINATING SILOS THAT GET IN THE WAY OF A COORDINATED MARKETING PROGRAM. solution, and I knew that wasn’t good enough. We spent a lot of time listening to our clients to better understand how we could help them, which is how we ended up with the industry’s first content center staffed with topnotch journalists. It’s also how we ended up entering the UK market. And more recently it’s how we ended up with a branding and design team. Our approach to communications is to run integrated campaigns, so when a law firm describes its goals, we offer the right solution, not just PR. That’s where the industry can do better by eliminating silos that get in the way of a coordinated marketing program. LD: A few years back, you merged with the UK’s Spada and now offer robust representation throughout the U.S. and in the UK. Was there a business mandate for that deal and what has been the impact on your business? JD: It was on my mind to enter the UK eventually, because we had clients with a presence in both markets and they were increasingly asking us whether we could help them outside the States. The opportunity fell into my lap before I was totally ready for it, but sometimes you have to roll with things. The founder of Spada approached me and said that after 20 years in the UK, he was looking to establish a presence in the U.S. too. Zach and I took a trip to London and decided that if we liked the team and felt they had the same high standards we do, we’d keep talking. If not, we’d walk. On our first night in London, we attended a black tie event with three of my current UK directors, Tali Robinson, Scott Addison and Ryan McSharry. There was a lot of alcohol, so we really got to know them. It was obvious by the end of the night that they shared our values and culture, and a few months after that we agreed to merge.

The impact has been exactly what we hoped – with some additional benefits we didn’t expect. We offer clients a seamless international experience now, which was the primary goal, but we also inherited an incredible design and branding team. There’s more demand for those services in the UK, but I’m confident the U.S. market will evolve with time. The best part, though, has been the people. They’re smart, eloquent, funny and so good at their jobs – both sides complement one another perfectly. Creating a culture that reflects a business’ core values is not easy, but we’ve managed to do it here and I’m proud of that. I love that I’m surrounded by people I genuinely like and respect, and that I get to run the business with someone like Zach, who is as good as it gets. LD: What is a typical day for you? JD: It’s evolving. Since the merger the business has doubled in size, so a lot more of my time is spent on operations. I’m still learning new things every day about running an international business, and having more employees and clients means we have to make more decisions. The rest of my time is spent on business development, crisis and data breach responses, and other client work. If I’ve done anything right it’s that I’ve surrounded myself with the smartest, best team in the industry. It frees me up to focus on activities that add the most value to the business. LD: What do you like to do outside of work? JD: I’d love to give a more interesting answer – that I attend Furry conventions dressed as a llama or that I’m a nationally ranked unicycler – but I’m super boring. My daughter, Hayden, is my world. She’s 11-years old and we share a love of music, so lately we’ve been listening to Broadway soundtracks and attending shows together. I enjoy live music at places like City Winery in New York – so many great bands pass through there. And it combines my other big interest: wine.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100 NAME

ORGANIZATION

LOCATION

CONTRIBUTION

Timothy Corcoran

Corcoran Consulting

Lawrenceville, N.J.

Management

Alex D'Amico

McKinsey

Summit, N.J.

Management

Dan DiLucchio Jr.

Altman Weil

Newton Square, Pa.

Management

Ron Friedmann

Fireman & Company

Washington, D.C.

Management

McKinsey

Washington, D.C.

Management

Mark Greene

Market Intelligence

Nashville

Management

John Remsen

The Remsen Group

Atlanta

Management

Norm Rubenstein

Zeughauser Group

Washington, D.C.

Management

Jack Walker

Zeughauser Group

Los Angeles

Management

Tony Williams

Jomati Consultants

London

Management

Mary K. Young

Zeughauser Group

Cabin John, Md.

Management

Peter Zeughauser

Zeughauser Group

Newport Beach

Management

Kent Zimmerman

Zeughauser Group

Chicago

Management

Robert Algeri

Great Jakes Marketing

New York

Marketing

Dallas

Marketing

Highland Park, Ill.

Marketing

Dallas

Marketing

Suhrid Gajendragadkar

Mike Androvett Ross Fishman Pat Rafferty

Androvett Media and Marketing Fishman Marketing Androvett Media and Marketing

Dan Johnson

Content Pilot

Dallas

Marketing & Communication

Deborah McMurray

Content Pilot

Dallas

Marketing & Communication

Burton Taylor

Proventus

Mission, Kan.

Marketing & Communication

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100 500

MARK JUNGERS

BY JOHN RYAN

MARK JUNGERS MADE HIS INITIAL MARK

in legal recruiting not in one of the big cities with seemingly endless streams of lateral moves, but in the more subdued city of Milwaukee – where he had to build his practice from scratch, one phone call at a time. The former litigator proved a natural at the job and found his way to a senior position at national recruiting firm Major Lindsey & Africa. In 2011, he and his wife Sabina Lippman – herself a veteran of Watanabe Nason – founded what quickly became one of the nation’s best placement firms, the powerhouse Lippman Jungers LLC. Lawdragon: First off, can you talk a little bit about where you are based, how you split your time and how this may reflect the mix of clients you and the firm take on? Mark Jungers: I split my living time between our homes in L.A. and Milwaukee. The focus of my recruiting is split between Chicago and New York and, at times, other major cities. My time is generally broken up into thirds between L.A., Milwaukee, and “other.” Most of our clients have offices and strategic needs in all of the major markets. I’m currently working on a major deal in London that came out of something that we started in New York, and one in D.C. I’m traveling to New York soon at a client’s request with one of our other recruiters to do a search for several of their offices. LD: What did you think you would do when finishing up your education and how did you find your way into recruiting? MJ: From when I was a child, I always wanted to be a lawyer, maybe because my best friend’s dad when we were growing up was one and he drove a Ferrari. I was reminded of this recently when I saw “The Pursuit of Happyness” when Will Smith’s character sees a guy get out of one – the same one my friend’s father had, a 308 GTS – and asks him, “What do you do and how do you do it?” Anyway, after undergrad at The University of Wisconsin I went to law school at the University of Texas and enjoyed some of that experience but I did not enjoy the experience of being an associate at a big firm in Milwaukee. Two things led me to consider being a recruiter: Number one, two friends of mine had been recruiters relating to careers they had invested substantial time, energy and education in and really enjoyed the job; and

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

two, I had recruiters calling me all of the time and I thought that they were not very good and I could do it better. LD: Once you started working in the area, what hooked you in? MJ: What we do every day is to convince people to do things that they are not inclined to do but that are in their best interests. We do this all day, every day and it’s a challenge – I like that. Someone I used to work with once said that I could “see a deal,” and I do have a pretty good sense for putting big deals together and enjoy that challenge. LD: Did you start working on bigger partner placements and expansions early on or did you transition to it? What does it take to make that type of transition into the more sophisticated deals? MJ: When I joined what was the largest search ﬁrm in my home city of Milwaukee we had no candidates and no clients so I had to build that from scratch while learning the nuts and bolts of how to be a recruiter. So, I got on the phone and started to talk to friends, and friends of friends and built relationships. I was always interested in the differences between ﬁrms – I was the law student who would read The American

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100

BOTH SABINA AND I HAD GOTTEN TO THE POINT IN OUR RESPECTIVE CAREERS THAT WE HAD BUILT OUR OWN BRANDS THAT WERE DISTINCT FROM OUR FIRMS. Lawyer – and that interest proved useful when moving associates to new firms. I focused on associates at first – I was basically a third-year associate myself – but that changed when I somehow got to know the people at McGuire Woods in Charlotte, N.C. They were my first major repeat customer and asked me to do a bunch of partner work there that led to doing partner work for them in D.C., Tysons Corners and New York. It was through that relationship that I became known to what was then Major Hagen & Africa. LD: Can you discuss your time at what is now Major Lindsey & Africa? Was there a mentor who was influential in your career or can you share any lessons or experiences that stand out as particularly meaningful? MJ: Carter Brown, the CEO of Major Lindsey & Africa, cold-called me one day in August and a few months later MLA had a Milwaukee office! I enjoyed my time at MLA and got to work with some great people like Chuck Fanning in San Francisco and also got to mobilize teams of recruiters to do some pretty cool projects in Florida, Texas, Arizona and elsewhere. Part of being in a large organization is that you are exposed to a wide variety of styles and experiences and skills and talents and you can add those tools to your own tool box. LD: What led you and Sabina to start your own business instead of staying with established firms? Can you share what some of the biggest challenges have been? And what about any advice for recruiters who might be interested in following your path? MJ: Both Sabina and I had gotten to the point in our respective careers that we had built our own brands that were distinct from our firms. We also had ideas about how we wanted to do some things differently in an organization. I don’t think that we really have had any challenges with respect to actually doing the job of recruiting and, in fact, both Sabina and I have substantially increased our practices from where they were at our prior firms. Sometimes it is challenging to be a small company and deal with things like Payroll 90

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

and IT and such but that is a small price to pay for the profitability and freedom that we enjoy. Finally, as anyone who starts a business knows, finding and hiring talent – particularly recruiter talent – is a challenge. As for advice, I would say that it can be a lonely job to do on your own so look for a small group of people that you get to know and trust before just going on your own. LD: In your practice, what does it take to successfully help firms with major complex matters like mergers or expansions with lots of money on the line? MJ: Trust is one of those things that is hard to earn and easy to lose, and we are cognizant of that. We are lucky enough to work with a cast of clients that we have worked with for a long period of time. We have history with most of our clients and that history is largely good. Helping them add good people who have stayed and been more productive than expected – that’s what we try to do and that is how we have earned the trust of our clients. LD: When it comes to these deals or individual placements, are there common mistakes you see firms and partners make almost every time? MJ: Absolutely. We try to help both sides of the equation to see where things are likely to go off the rails before they actually do but we are not always successful. We are agents of change and that is hard for people and also it’s hard for organizations, and that is a persistent challenge – helping both sides deal with a fear of change. I’m not sure this qualifies as a “persistent mistake” but deals consistently die because both sides – candidate and firm - want to allocate too much risk to the other. LD: Are there trends you are seeing in your work in terms of the types of matters you are helping firms with this year? MJ: Our firm does 20 to 30 transactions a year covering 50-100 total lawyers in about 10 different markets so it’s a good sample size but I’m not sure that I see any 2017 trends. We move significant partners and they are always in demand, no matter where they are or what their area of practice is.

100 500

LD: With placing government officials, what unique issues are involved with doing these successfully? How are these different than partner placements? MJ: I love placing government officials and have done quite a bit of it throughout my career. When we are working with the typical lateral partner candidate, the most common alternative to the firms that we are presenting is staying put at their current firm. That alternative is typically not the case with government officials – they have typically decided to leave the government for one of many reasons and, in fact, most officials that I have worked with knew that they would be in the government for only a limited time before returning to private practice. That said, the biggest difference between representing a typical law firm partner with a portable book of business and a government official – even a highly placed, influential government official – is that the later has only their experience, skills, and reputation to trade on versus those things plus Xmillion dollars in business. For the government official, it is about convincing the firm that the future is very bright and we have been pretty good at that over time. LD: Also, is this cyclical work based on changes in administrations, or are you seeing anything out of the ordinary in terms of people already wanting to leave the Trump Administration, given some of the turbulence? MJ: We have not yet worked with any Trump administration officials although we do know several of them

BURTON TAYLOR

and also have friends and former candidates playing the waiting game as the administration continues to fill important legal positions. It is worth noting that the employment prospects for all but the most senior members of the Obama administration legal team were very challenging after the election. LD: What do you do for fun outside the office? Are there certain ways you tend to spend your vacations or days off? MJ: I like to play tennis and do so on a regular basis and I very much enjoy food and wine. Each summer Sabina and I take one husband and wife vacation and one vacation with our children so those are fun trips. LD: Our “best of” guides are somewhat biased towards the biggest U.S. cities. I’ve heard great things about Milwaukee but have not spent much time there. Can you share a few things about it that you like? MJ: Milwaukee, like many cities in the Upper Midwest, is a great place to be from. People are very friendly here, there really isn’t any traffic and life is pretty easy. Everyone knows me and us, and that is, for the most part, kind of nice. The weather is beautiful for six months out of the year and for those other six, I’m never more than a couple of weeks from time at home in L.A. with Sabina. Milwaukee offers a wonderful contrast to the hustle and bustle of L.A. home and also New York where I spend 40-plus days a year.

BY JOHN RYAN

BURTON TAYLOR PROVES THAT NICE GUYS

can finish at the top of their profession, and also that operating out of the big coastal cities isn’t necessary to reach the elite level. Taylor is the founder and CEO of Mission, Kan.-based Proventus Consulting, which provides marketing, public relations and business development services to law firms, lawyers and clients in other industries. A former journalist, Taylor started his own company in 2012 after a stint as media relations manager for Shook, Hardy & Bacon. His highly regarded work for law firms and overall outstanding reputation secured Taylor a place on Lawdragon’s most recent 100 Leading Legal Consultants & Strategists guide, composed of the nation’s most trusted advisors to the legal industry. Lawdragon: We knew you for a while at your past firm, Shook Hardy. Can you discuss what led you to start your own firm with Proventus?

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100

I STARTED MY CAREER AS A NEWSPAPER REPORTER WHO HAD AN ITCH TO BE MORE INVOLVED IN THE NEWS. Burton Taylor: As a guy who has always had an interest in starting his own business, it did not take long for me to work alongside the attorneys at Shook who were growing their own practice before I developed an overwhelming urge to start mine. I learned countless lessons from the partners at Shook that instilled in me a work ethic, commitment to value and appreciation for clients that I continue to carry with me today. In fact, I am constantly reminded that I would not be doing what I am doing today if not for the opportunity provided to me by that firm. I continue to be grateful to them for trusting me to lead their national PR efforts. LD: What about going back farther? What led you to want to work in marketing and public relations with a focus on having law firms as clients? BT: I started my career as a newspaper reporter who had an itch to be more involved in the news. In turn, I jumped into PR for a United States Attorney who has been a mentor to me ever since. In fact, in addition to the first opportunity to serve as his PR guy when he was U.S. Attorney, he gave me a second “break” when he and his law partner hired me and became one of my very first clients. I’ve remained in legal PR throughout my career because I enjoy the challenges presented in this space both in terms of the legal issues involved, as well as the nature of the matters at stake. LD: What has kept you at it – what do you like about working with lawyers? BT: I respect the legal industry’s work ethic, attention and commitment to detail and its dedication to being considerate of and anticipating the consequences of an action. We act similarly in PR. I also enjoy the relational aspects of the law – we often say that relationships are King in legal – which I enjoy because of the opportunity it creates to get to know and enjoy so many uniquely accomplished individuals. LD: More specifically, is there something in particular you like about working with lawyers in the Midwest? BT: We are fortunate to work with attorneys and clients from coast to coast, but we certainly have a 92

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

connection to those attorneys we’ve come to know as we’ve grown our business from the Midwest. In fact, we’ve modeled our business after theirs to some degree. For instance, Shook, Hardy & Bacon’s chair John Murphy used to reference that the firm’s “back-of-the-house” function was based in Kansas City, which created efficiencies for its clients. As an agency serving as the marketing and PR department to our law firm clients, we see ourselves similarly – as their back-of-the-house service function. LD: There still can be a bias towards the big city coastal markets. Is it more challenging to get PR and editorial attention from national publications for clients in the Midwest? BT: We have never found that bias to hold true. For instance, I have had the privilege to work with Lawdragon since it was founded and your founder always embraced us for our interest in being involved. In my experience, in fact, we have been received well by the coastal media for the fact that we bring a new level of engagement and dialogue to legal industry news. LD: You have a reputation for being one of the nicest guys in the business. Do you see this as an advantage, or can you otherwise discuss your approach or mentality for the services you provide? BT: I talk to my team frequently about my intent as it relates to relationships – the bottom line is that I consider the people I work with as friends. I look at my relationships with the media in the same manner. And, in turn, I get personal enjoyment from treating the people I work with as such. Like any business, we face challenges in our work together, but strong relationships and the respect we have for one another make overcoming those challenges rewarding and enjoyable. LD: Can you discuss some of the biggest changes in your job since the early days of providing these services to firms? BT: When I started Proventus Consulting, I was a PR guy and I continue to consider myself the same, but with even more passion for the job. My role has certainly changed in that I have also learned to operate and grow a business, which was something I

100 500

naively didn’t realize would take so much dedication. That said, we have been blessed to find success as a relatively new startup legal marketing agency, and we continue to consider it a privilege to work within this industry. LD: For younger folks interested in this type of work, what is a lesson you learned early on in your PR and marketing career? BT: I learned very early on that your personal credibility is everything in this business. Whether it’s in regard to the promises you make, your attention to detail and/or your representation of your experience, if you lose credibility, you lose trust. We are fortunate that we have and we’ve been able to maintain the trust of our clients and the trust of our friends in the media. LD: What mistakes or shortcomings do you see most often with how lawyers and firms handle their communications and public relations needs? BT: The industry has traditionally always been “reactive” in terms of PR and, since the beginning of my career, I’ve advocated that lawyers flip the script on that approach and take a “proactive” approach

DAN BINSTOCK

whenever possible. And while I certainly respect that there are instances when you may be inclined to rely on “no comment” as your response, I try to encourage attorneys to separate what they cannot say on a matter from what they can say and focus your conversation on those messages as a way to participate with the media. LD: Where do you see your business heading in terms of the types of services or advice you’ll be providing to clients in the legal profession in the years ahead? BT: While we focus a great deal on our core strength – national legal PR — we have expanded our services to include client feedback initiatives and surveys, which has been exciting for our PR team as we consider client communications a form of public relations where the stakes are at their highest. It’s under these circumstances where our team excels. We also ﬁnd tremendous reward in helping our clients identify ways they can enhance services to theirs. We know through experience the value of a client relationship and client feedback initiatives can do a great deal to protect those bonds.

BY JOHN RYAN

DOING THE RIGHT THING – SUCH AS

advising lawyers to decline an offer or accept another – can cost a recruiter serious money. But that’s also how a recruiter develops a reputation for trustworthiness and for making noteworthy placements that stick. Such is the case with Dan Binstock of Garrison & Sisson in Washington, D.C., who has handled some of the most significant placements in the D.C. legal market. In our research for the leading consultants guide, Binstock earned high praise for his professionalism, collegiality and keen understanding of what makes a great match between lawyers and ﬁrms. He chairs the Ethics Committee of the National Association of Legal Search Consultants. Lawdragon: What type of placements do you tend to handle? Washington, D.C., is obviously a huge market. Do you generally focus your work there? Dan Binstock: I focus on placing partners and practice groups in the Washington, D.C., market. I also stay involved in associate level recruiting and have

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100 NAME Keith Wewe Jaron Rubenstein

ORGANIZATION Content Pilot Rubenstein Technology Group

LOCATION

CONTRIBUTION

Dallas

Marketing & Communication

New York

Marketing & Technology

New York

Media & Communication

Dawn Schneider

Schneider Group Media

Lloyd Pearson

393 Communications

Jacob Heller

Casetext

San Francisco

Open Law-Technology

Daniel Lewis

Ravel Law

San Francisco

Open Law-Technology

Nik Reed

Ravel Law

San Francisco

Open Law-Technology

Scott Atlas

Atlas Counsel Search

Houston

Professional Recruiters

Jonathan Benjamin

RedLaw

London

Professional Recruiters

Dan Binstock

Garrison & Sisson

Washington, D.C.

Professional Recruiters

Eilene Bloom

Eilene Bloom Group LLC

New York

Professional Recruiters

Amanda Brady

Major Lindsey & Africa

New York

Professional Recruiters

John Cashman

Major Lindsey & Africa

Chicago

Professional Recruiters

Kate Cassidy

Lotus Legal Search

Dallas

Professional Recruiters

Deborah Dempster

RedLaw

London

Professional Recruiters

Janet Downie

Johnson/Downie

Houston

Professional Recruiters

Matt Feuer

McClure Feuer

San Francisco

Professional Recruiters

Princeton, N.J.

Professional Recruiters

Princeton, N.J.

Professional Recruiters

David Garber

Mary Clare Garber

Princeton Legal Search Group Princeton Legal Search Group

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Brighton, East Sussex

Media-Directory Maven

100

handled occasional in-house searches over the years. Given the nuanced and sizeable Washington, D.C., legal market, I find that it takes most of my time to stay on top of it. That said, when clients request our assistance with searches in other cities, we are happy to assist them. LD: Why did you get your law degree? What did you think you would be doing as a lawyer when you were a law student? DB: During college, I worked as a pianist, including as accompanist for the musical and political satire troupe, The Capitol Steps, and upon graduation worked as an entertainment agent. I attended law school with the goal of becoming a copyright attorney and protecting the intellectual property of musicians. I was also drawn to the attorney skillsets of persuasive advocacy and negotiation. After beginning law school, however, I quickly realized that if I didn’t reside in Los Angeles, New York, or Nashville, my options for being a copyright lawyer would be severely limited. I remained interested in intellectual property and, at the time, the internet and trademark law were rapidly expanding areas. One evening during law school, while playing piano at an event, I began speaking to the managing partner of a trademark practice at an IP boutique. I expressed my desire to focus my future practice on intellectual property law, and that opened the door to an opportunity to work as a trademark law clerk in that firm. During my last year of law school, I worked as a student associate for a national IP boutique, Finnegan Henderson, and thereafter joined as an associate. LD: Tell us about your career path. What led you to start a career in recruiting after having an IP practice, and what led you to Garrison & Sisson? DB: Finnegan Henderson was a terrific place to practice law. During my tenure there, I recognized that the part of my practice I most enjoyed was interacting with clients and colleagues, which wasn’t always possible given the nature of a largely administrative practice. I received many recruiter calls and, over time, noticed that instead of focusing on the opportunities they were presenting, I zeroed in on how the recruiters were approaching their cold calls. I would hang up the phone and think to myself, “If he or she had only taken more time to explain XYZ, it would have had a larger or more positive impact on me.” I was aware that recruiters played an important role in the lateral market; however, I found most recruiters too

slick and lacking a fundamental understanding of the practice area beyond the obvious buzzwords. At the same time, I was considering returning to school to become a psychotherapist, which would build on my undergraduate psychology and counseling studies. I ultimately decided to combine my interests in law and psychology by becoming a legal recruiter. In May 2004, I took the leap. I started my recruiting career in the Washington, D.C., office of a national search firm. It was a great place to begin recruiting, but I had routinely heard about Garrison & Sisson’s reputation and track-record. In 2010, after my practice began focusing on partners, I determined that Garrison & Sisson would provide a deeper platform. Plus, Martha Ann Sisson and Nancy Palermo, two of my partners, did a good job of recruiting me over the years in a patient yet persistent manner; it was the right choice. LD: Can you share a few aspects about this work that you find satisfying or rewarding? Also, what do you find most consistently challenging year after year? DB: Attorney recruiting – when done at the highest level – is multifaceted and nuanced. It requires an appreciation of ethical obligations, discipline, discretion, a strong memory, the ability to connect what may appear to be unrelated dots, scrutiny to detail, the resilience to deal with rejection, emotional intelligence, creativity, patience, practice area knowledge, financial and business acumen, and strong oral and writing skills. For me, the ability to think three-to-five steps ahead during a transaction is essential. The complexity of balancing all these factors is highly satisfying and rewarding. In contrast, what I find challenging at times is the fact that I can do everything “right,” but for a particular reason unrelated to anything I did or failed to do, an offer and/or placement does not occur. This is a high-risk, high-reward business. LD: Is there a placement or other experience early on that convinced you that this was the right move for you? DB: Actually, it was just a gut feeling that I would embrace and take to this profession. There are definitely areas in my life in which I struggle and could benefit from more confidence, but I never doubted that I would succeed in recruiting. When there’s an inherent fit with your personality and natural strengths, it’s like riding a bicycle on a downward slope.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100

GIVEN HOW SOPHISTICATED MY CLIENTS ARE, THEY ARE LOOKING FOR SOMEONE WITH DEEP KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE MARKET AND THE LATERAL PROCESS. LD: People and groups representing large practices put their trust in you. What does it take to earn that trust and succeed in this type of work?

day or night. I get a lot of gratiﬁcation by anticipating both logistical and emotional speedbumps and nipping them in the bud.

DB: Given how sophisticated my clients are, they are looking for someone with deep knowledge about the market and the lateral process. Partners, in particular, are reassured when a recruiter is well-versed in law ﬁrm economics, including analyzing ﬁscal health beyond the obvious, and the inner-workings of credit and compensation models. Other qualities I believe clients value include sound judgment, practical insight, and candor. Early in my recruiting career, I read the book, “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People” by Stephen Covey. The book had an exercise called The Eulogy, in which I was to imagine my own funeral and envision what I would hope my professional colleagues would say about me as I laid in a casket. (Nice visual, huh?)

LD: Can you share a few tidbits from your book, “The Attorney’s Guide to Using (or Not Using) Legal Recruiters” – such as common mistakes attorneys might make when working with recruiters?

I boiled it down to: “He was sharp, never cut corners, and always did the right thing.” I use that as my guide whenever I am faced with a decision. Over the years I have advised countless people to stay put or accept a different offer, even if it meant my losing thousands – sometimes hundreds of thousands – of dollars. Doing the right thing, regardless of whether I immediately beneﬁt, dictates my actions and allows me to sleep well at night.

DB: The book includes numerous checklists and charts addressing what attorneys should consider when working (or not working) with a recruiter, and how the factors change depending on the type of search or specific context. In terms of a specific topic, most attorneys do not realize that the legal recruiting profession is unregulated. There is no bar to entry. This fact, combined with the allure of significant money for a successful placement, attracts both skilled and unskilled recruiters who may have an appealing phone manner but lack knowledge about the lateral search process or the legal profession. I think it’s unfortunate when extremely bright attorneys neglect to perform basic due diligence when selecting a potential recruiter.

LD: Does your undergraduate degree in psychology assist you with some of the advising you have to do?

All too often, someone ﬁnds out that they have aligned with a recruiter who does not bring value to them or to their process. Having an ineffective and inexperienced recruiter is embarrassing at best and destructive at worst. It may seem obvious, but performing the proper due diligence on a recruiter is critical before embarking on a search.

DB: Absolutely. For my candidates, moving jobs is an extremely personal and emotional process. Aside from family, their careers are the most important and cherished things in their lives. The lateral process typically has highs and lows, even if the “lows” are the guilt and dread one feels when giving notice to a longtime employer that almost feels like family. One of the most rewarding aspects of my job is to guide people not only through the logistical aspects of the lateral process, but also to help them maintain the right perspective – and not make stupid mistakes – at times when emotions run high and their best judgment can be compromised. It is not uncommon for me to speak with the same candidates or clients several times a

DB: Both the candidates and employers are more sophisticated. Firms have been burned by lateral partners who didn’t deliver as promised, and candidates have been burned by ﬁrms who fail to follow-through on their promises. There’s also a heightened recognition that effective integration is not only a best practice but also an essential practice for partners and associates. Furthermore, partner due diligence is now more bidirectional as opposed to unilateral. I can’t count the number of times a partner has said, “I know it’s unlikely, but I want to make sure this isn’t another [insert dissolved ﬁrm name].” Sophisticated partners are asking

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LD: Looking back, are there ways in which the lateral market changed since you started in 2004?

100 500

firms to open their books beyond what’s reported in the American Lawyer. And most firms expect – and respect – this type of appropriate diligence. LD: Does your career encompass aspects in addition to recruiting? DB: We also are hired by law firm clients to consult on topics such as lateral-partner interviewing best practices and lateral-partner due diligence methodology. Because we have a perspective that is rarely seen by the law firm itself, we offer strategies and best practices that can be incorporated immediately. Consulting is a small part of our practice, but we enjoy it. LD: How are you involved in the legal community outside of recruiting? DB: I currently Chair the Ethics Committee of the National Association of Legal Search Consultants (NALSC),

NANCY JESSEN

which is responsible for enforcing the NALSC Code of Ethics. I also enjoy presenting on legal recruiting trends at industry conferences such as the NALP Annual Education Conference. Along with my colleagues from Garrison & Sisson, I serve as a Washington, D.C., market advisor to a number of top law schools, including Harvard Law School and Georgetown Law. LD: What do you do for fun outside the ofﬁce? Are you still interested in or involved with musical or other performance endeavors? DB: When not working, I spend time with my wife, two daughters, and our ﬁve-month-old Cavapoo puppy. I remain involved with music, and serve as a music director-pianist for local musicals. Other interests include comedy, podcasts, graphic design, photography, and any television series that comes remotely close to “Fargo” or “Breaking Bad.”

BY JOHN RYAN

TO REACH THEIR FULL POTENTIAL,

corporate law departments must go beyond delivery of legal services – while keeping costs under control – to embrace innovation in a way that proactively contributes to the institution’s strategic goals. That’s the message from Nancy Jessen, Senior Vice President of Legal Business Solutions at UnitedLex, who has decades of experience in helping law departments “become a true business partner” to their company’s success. Jessen joined UnitedLex after stints at Huron Consulting, Arthur Andersen and Altman Weil, and has had a passion for working with lawyers since she worked at a law ﬁrm during high school. Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers how your work at UnitedLex ﬁts into the broader mission of the company?

Nancy Jessen: UnitedLex is modernizing the legal industry. We are a company of over 2,000 employees – attorneys, engineers, financial analysts, and consultants – operating throughout the United States and abroad. United by an abiding commitment to strengthening our clients, we meld our passion and resources to their goals and aspirations – creating a standard of excellence otherwise unattainable.

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

LD: Let’s talk about your career path. When you were at Iowa State, what did you expect to do with your degree? NJ: I graduated with an MIS (Management Information Systems) degree, the ﬁrst year it was offered. The

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100 NAME

ORGANIZATION

LOCATION

CONTRIBUTION

Amy Hambleton

RedLaw

London

Professional Recruiters

Kay Hoppe

Credentia

Chicago

Professional Recruiters

Clint Johnson

Johnson/Downie

Houston

Professional Recruiters

Mark Jungers

Lippman Jungers

Chicago

Professional Recruiters

Jon Lindsey

Major Lindsey & Africa

New York

Professional Recruiters

Sabina Lippman

Lippman Jungers

Los Angeles

Professional Recruiters

Jeffrey Lowe

Major Lindsey & Africa

Washington, D.C.

Professional Recruiters

Barbara Mayden

Young Mayden

Nashville

Professional Recruiters

Sari McClure

McClure Feuer

San Francisco

Professional Recruiters

Bobbie McMorrow

McMorrow Consulting

Summerland, Calif.

Professional Recruiters

Lynn Mestel

Mestel & Company

New York

Professional Recruiters

Russell Newhouse

Newhouse Noblin

Dallas

Professional Recruiters

Kelly Noblin

Newhouse Noblin

Dallas

Professional Recruiters

Major Lindsey & Africa

New York

Professional Recruiters

Mark Rosen

Mark Bruce International

New York

Professional Recruiters

Amber Shockey

Young Mayden

Dallas

Professional Recruiters

Paul Williams

Major Lindsey & Africa

Chicago

Professional Recruiters

Ken Young

Young Mayden

Charlotte

Professional Recruiters

Jay Greenberg

LexShares

Boston

Technology

Tim Hwang

FiscalNote

Washington, D.C.

Technology

Max Volsky

LexShares

New York

Technology

Jane Sullivan Roberts

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100

combination of business and computer science fit perfectly with my interests and natural aptitude. Iowa State had a fantastic placement office which brought many Fortune 500 companies to campus for interviews to join large IT departments. I couldn’t see myself being “a cog in the wheel that turned the crank.” I jumped at the opportunity to join a small software development company that focused on law firm accounting. It was the perfect fit by bringing together my MIS degree, my experience working in a law firm since high school, and my public speaking and teaching experience through Dale Carnegie. LD: How did you begin to develop an interest in the legal side of consulting? NJ: From my first job at age 16, I have always worked with lawyers. At that first job, I was engaged on both the substantive side of the legal work – doing deposition abstracts and preparing trial exhibits, as well as helping organize the firm and leverage technology by creating an expert witness database. At my first job out of college at the software company, I worked with law firms to implement practice management systems and to understand their economics – how to interpret management reports to understand the impacts of staffing and utilization on profitability, practice groups and even at the legal-matter level. It became obvious, even back in the early 90’s, that lawyers needed to increase their business acumen in order to make more informed decisions about serving clients. LD: What eventually brought you to UnitedLex? Can you talk about some of the jobs you held beforehand and how they prepared you for your current role? NJ: Although I have focused my almost 30-year career entirely on legal consulting, I have had the opportunity to work for organizations ranging in size and strategic focus. Each contributed to my understanding of how to move the legal industry forward and my own best fit. I have been in-house at a law firm, with a small boutique consulting firm, a global accounting and professional services firm, and growing niche players. UnitedLex is where it all comes together for me – a compelling vision, drive for innovation, commitment to execution, and strength of leadership. People who have known me in the industry for years comment on how I glow when describing UnitedLex and the

opportunity we have to make a meaningful impact on the legal industry. LD: What excites you about your work? NJ: I love learning a client’s unique culture, business objectives, industry and stage of evolution. Becoming absorbed into each client allows me and my team to provide objective guidance that is tailored and relevant to them. It is why I never tire of legal consulting – each client, each engagement is a new opportunity to be innovative and impact a department’s value contribution and the legal team’s professional satisfaction. LD: What are some of the biggest challenges law departments are facing these days – are there commonalities among clients’ needs or trends you are seeing? NJ: Emphasis on cost cutting that became dominant starting in 2008 has driven good changes in behavior and thinking about the business aspects of legal services, but also created a pendulum swing in staffing and resource decisions driven more by cost than value contribution. General counsel that I work with are looking to increase the effectiveness of the department and highlight how the department contributes to the company’s success. LD: Have these issues changed since earlier parts of your career? You’ve mentioned in some of your thought leadership that expectations are higher for law departments than merely focusing on costsavings and creating contracts. NJ: The law department must understand the company’s business, strategy, financials, industry, and competitive landscape. It is only with that backdrop that a department can be a true business partner and translate its advice into actionable recommendations. Today, departments must not just be proactive, but also preemptive – solving root-cause problems to minimize the demand for legal services. LD: Once UnitedLex begins working with a law department, what is your team like in terms of the types of professionals and different skillsets provided to the client? NJ: Our Law Department Consulting team is a mix of strategists, process experts, financial analysts and technologists – overall really smart people that love to take on new challenges. We value a focus

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100

TO AVOID THE REPUTATION THAT CONSULTING CAN BE TOO THEORETICAL, WE INCORPORATE TANGIBLE APPROACHES AND LITERAL EXAMPLES OF HOW THE DEPARTMENT CAN DRIVE VALUE. on client service, which includes being a learning organization, innovative and forward thinking, as well as developing customized solutions to change the legal environment. We start every project with a deep dive into the company and the department and an open discussion on the tolerance for change. I often say that it is an indicator of success that a client may only implement a portion of our recommendations in the short-term. That means we stretched their thinking and presented new ideas, not just reiterated what they already know. We bring this type of thinking into every project, whether it is a system design and implmentation, an internal resource optimization, or external vendor management project. LD: How do you get law departments to reimagine or retrain some of their thinking? Do you encounter resistance? NJ: To avoid the reputation that consulting can be too theoretical, we incorporate tangible approaches and literal examples of how the department can drive value. Using logic and consistent deﬁnitions helps move lawyers away from using outlier examples of risk or as the reason they can’t change. We challenge and train the leadership team to model businessthinking processes as a way to set a new expectation and tone of the department.

It is hard for senior people to admit that what they know and do can be routinized and translated into a system for client self-service or use by a more junior resource. It also requires taking those senior people away from day-to-day client work to codify their tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge for use by others – the ultimate goal of knowledge management. LD: Are there common mistakes you see even wellrun departments make when it comes to using metrics or messaging to demonstrate their value to the company? NJ: Too often metrics overly focus on counting the volume of work or are ﬁnancially oriented. These only become meaningful if they are shown in context of trends over time and against initiatives that have been put in place to drive change. We have developed an approach to metrics that focuses on how the department delivers value: One, facilitating risk management and protection; two, advancing strategic direction; three, increasing the speed of business; and four, controlling costs. LD: Are there any other big-picture trends that you think will affect your clients and potential clients in the years ahead?

LD: On the more practical side, what types of technology solutions do you bring to departments to improve efﬁciencies or other outcomes? Are there challenges that stand out when it comes to getting departments to implement these changes?

NJ: The legal industry is following the path of the medical industry – there is a range of providers whose qualiﬁcations and cost are tied to their role and involvement in the service delivery. We will see the legal equivalent of surgeons, general practitioners, physician’s assistant, nurse practitioner, certiﬁed nurse assistant, medical technician, and on and on.

NJ: Most departments have focused on the “managements” – matter management, document management, contract lifecycle management, etc. While these are important technologies to track legal work, investment needs to be made in technology that actually enables the completion of legal work and captures the knowledge of experienced resources.

Both law departments and law ﬁrms need to revise their stafﬁng model from the assumption that all positions enjoy career development that leads to a senior role or partnership. To stretch the concept even further, the legal industry may evolve to the point that lawyers practicing law in today’s traditional structures may become the minority.

100

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

WE HELP OUR CLIENTS REDUCE AND TRANSFER RISK, AND MAXIMIZE THE VALUE OF THEIR INSURANCE AND RISK MANAGEMENT ASSETS. Whether it be risk review, the design of new insurance and risk management transfer concepts, insurance claim submission, litigation management, or the pursuit, when necessary, of arbitrations, lawsuits, and appeals, we help clients navigate tumultuous legal and business issues. We provide a practical vision, based on our collective decades of experience, to help our clients minimize risk and maximize recoveries from insurers and other third partiesâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;all while striving to maximize efďŹ ciency, minimize cost, and ease the burden that legal issues so often present.

Insur ance Advice and Counseling

Insur ance Recovery Litigation and Arbitr ation

International Issues

LO S ANGE LE S

1100 Glendon Avenue, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90024

m a nhat ta n beach

1201 Morningside Drive, Suite 105 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266

Insur ance and Risk Tr ansfer Design

Commer cial Litigation

ne w York

757 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, New York 10017

www.pasichllp.com

DON’T MESS WITH How Susman Godfrey Became America’s Leading Trial Firm By Katrina Dewey

FROM LEFT TO RIGHT: PARTNERS GEOFFREY HARRISON, VINEET BHATIA, SHAWN RAYMOND, ERICA HARRIS, NEAL MANNE, LEXIE WHITE AND MAX TRIBBLE.

Judge Lee Rosenthal’s Houston courtroom was packed earlier this year, largely with troops of drab-suited

bureaucratic lawyers defending Harris County’s practice of jailing thousands of low-risk folks arrested for minor charges like unpaid tolls - and then holding them for months by setting bail amounts they could not possibly pay. Across the aisle, Alexandra “Lexie” White, a Susman Godfrey partner, was one of four pro bono lawyers challenging the constitutionality of this bail system. Representing those who had been arrested, she showed a video of a probable-cause hearing at which a

PHOTO BY: FELIX SANCHEZ

homeless man charged with sleeping under a bridge had his bail set at $5,000. She quietly rose to examine the county’s expert witness who supported the practice. So, sir, she asked, is it true that you see the cash bail system as a “budgeting tool for the poor,” helping a person by keeping her cash resources out of reach? This was not White’s first rodeo. White grew up in courtrooms in Baton Rouge. She remembers sitting in front of counsel table, in a chair to the side, watching her father preside over a civil court dispute in which a lady was suing her landlord for emotional distress because a cleaning crew had forgotten a boa constrictor in her apartment while she was away.

Though White’s family has roots in the law, her upbringing was “a lot of love” but not a lot of money. She used her talent as a competitive swimmer to win a scholarship to college and then returned to Baton Rouge where she set new marks in almost every class she took at Louisiana State University Law School. She graduated first in her 2004 class, clerked for the 9th Circuit, and then joined Susman Godfrey. Within months of joining, she went to trial – her second – with the one and only Steve Susman, with whom she collaborated to prepare every witness and craft every argument. When the judge asked Susman on the first day of trial if he was ready to give the opening statement, Susman rose, smiled, and drawled, “Your Honor, Ms. White will be delivering the opening.” After taking a deep breath, she did. “We like to take risks,” says Neal Manne, Susman Godfrey’s Houston-based managing partner. That attitude has made Susman Godfrey the nation’s most elite litigation firm. Pick your metric – money, U.S. Supreme Court clerks, bet-the-company cases, percentage of partners in trial annually – the firm runs circles around everyone else. In fact, with 93 percent of its attorneys having held federal clerkships (that’s 96 of 103 lawyers and all of its partner-track associates) it beats by a handy margin even the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court’s own mark of 66 percent. In 2016 alone, Susman Godfrey won more than $1 billion in verdicts and settlements for its clients. And it posted a remarkable “in-trial” rate of 44 percent, meaning a staggering 44 percent of its partners and associates were in trial in 2016. Compare that with your average litigation firm. To explain Susman Godfrey to Big Law is a little bit like trying to explain Lyle Lovett to fans of the Beastie Boys. You have to be able to hear what you’re listening to and understand where it comes from in order to understand why Susman Godfrey is unique, special and without peer as an American law firm that excels in courtroom battle. You also have to know about a little boy named Louis, and why partners wander over to baseball fields for no particular reason. You need to understand a brotherhood that includes sisters and how loyalty and fun can create more profitability than any fancy-ass, hourly-billing law firm consultant could ever conjure. Read on and you will. The firm plays off the board, as it has since maverick Steve Susman opened his doors in 1980. Watching Steve Susman in trial – such as when he represented Frank McCourt in his divorce - you know you are in the presence of greatness. He is of an era that produced two or three enduring legends, among the best ever at their craft. That’s indisputable. Where Susman 104

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

stands alone is in founding a firm that has become much better than its original footprint. He started out clerking for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black and teaching at University of Texas Law School before helming an antitrust case for purchasers of corrugated boxes. He won $550 million and understood that his success should come from his results rather than his effort. There’s a sturdy Chevy truck in that recipe: federal clerkship, Texas and bet on yourself, even if there are today Rauschenbergs hanging on the wall. Others quickly signed on. Rather than joining the big Texas firms, Lee Godfrey, Parker Folse, Mark Wawro, and a rustle of other smart graduates of, primarily, the University of Texas School of Law, bought into the Susman vision in the early days. It was big and bold, like Susman, and leavened by the elegant Godfrey. The contingent fee work had swagger, but necessitated the firm taking some small, not necessarily good cases to keep the lights on and everyone occupied. The vision was awesome, but the business model was a work in progress. Enter Neal Manne. From the year the firm opened, Susman had his eye on the fellow Texan. Typical Susman, he would not let go. Manne had grown up in blue-collar Baytown and set things on fire in Austin during law school. Manne was graduating in 1980, and Susman called and asked him to come interview. Manne was flattered but told Susman no. “I’m not going to practice in Houston. You’re busy and I’m busy. I don’t want to waste your time or mine.” Not even remotely deterred, Susman responded, “Fine. But at a certain point you’ll change your mind, and call me, and we’ll talk about it.” Manne clerked for 9th Circuit Judge William Norris, then moved to D.C. where he worked at a Big Law firm before eventually becoming Chief Counsel to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittees on Juvenile Justice and on Constitutional Law. He then became Chief of Staff to Senator Arlen Specter. “During my six years in D.C.,” Manne recalls, “I would periodically get a random phone call from Steve Susman, who I still had never laid eyes on, and he would bark into the phone, ‘Manne, are you ready to get a real fucking job yet?’” In 1988, Manne said yes, joining Folse, his best friend from law school, in Houston. Manne brought not only political dexterity but a polish and sophistication that would amplify the firm’s corporate base, creating tremendous ballast for its expanding caseload of contingency work. He has an extraordinarily broad litigation portfolio, including Chevron, for whom he is helping lead the defense in the climate change litigation. For more than a decade he has been one of Wal-Mart’s go-to litigators, having tried major cases for it across the country and in Puerto Rico. His partners elected him a managing partner in 2011 and have re-elected him ever since.

Susman Godfrey has exported its trial expertise from deep in the heart of Texas to offices in California, Washington and New York.

Somehow, the added responsibilities of managing the firm have not cut into his career-long devotion to pro bono and public interest cases. In the last three years alone, Manne has defeated an effort by the State of Texas to block Syrian refugees from resettling in the state, successfully represented an exonerated Death Row inmate in having his prosecutor disbarred for life, and led the bail reform case against Harris County – resulting in the release of thousands of low-risk defendants and the overturning of the unconstitutional system. Max Tribble, another young lawyer, also joined Susman in 1988 after graduating from Harvard Law School. The die was cast for the next era of winning at the firm, pairing Susman’s own penchant for swinging for the fences with a turbo-charged group of risk takers who loved calculated risk and brought a set of skills and swagger that are unsurpassed. Tribble, Geoffrey Harrison, and Vineet Bhatia are the dream team for whom any major firm would trade its current 50-year-old partner ranks. And with good reason; they are the bank. Over two decades of practicing together, they have formed an enduring friendship. Their families all have second homes in Telluride because they like to hang out together. They are unique as individuals and a powder keg as trial lawyers. Tribble is the most senior of the three, and combines a technical mind with a special appreciation for risk taking. He grew up on the East Side of Houston, the only child of a couple who ran a chain of bowling alleys. He learned to count cash at the age of four, rolled a million quarters from the pinball machines, and learned to ride a bike in the bowling alley. His interest in business and entrepreneurship came honestly and led him to study business at Harvard and then go to law school. As he was graduating in 1988, he heard about a unique young firm in his hometown that liked to take risks. “Susman Godfrey was revolutionary,” he says, recalling the norm for most serious firms was lockstep compensation for partners. “We’ve always valued business genera-

tion, performance and results. We structured everything about the firm based on winning for clients.” Tribble has handled hundreds of disputes, many of them involving patents and intellectual property, and is also handling the world’s largest trust dispute, representing a grandson of the late J. Howard Marshall. Among his strokes of genius was the realization, while representing Emerson Electric in the early 1990s, that Susman Godfrey could carve out a huge niche by adding its courtroom panache to the toolkit of patent litigation. “I felt our firm would have a real competitive advantage because, while very smart and knowledgeable about the technology, many patent lawyers at the time did not have our level of experience in front of juries and judges.” That approach has led him to slice a hefty swath through technology-driven litigation, both in joint ventures with patent firms and independently, winning more than $1B in patent litigation. He’s taken on Apple, Samsung, American Express, Google and Intel – the latter on behalf of MicroUnity for which he won $300M in licensing fees. He represented Barcelona-based Fractus, S.A. against the entire cell phone industry to enforce Fractus’ antenna patents. While the rest of the industry paid to license the patents before trial, defendant Samsung unwisely chose to fight. Tribble won $38M against them. To date, Tribble has recovered over $100 million in settlements and licenses for the company. In the next year, he has trials scheduled for House Canary against Title Source Inc., and the Marshall trust battle. Harrison, possessed of a “dare me” personality and a business-driven mind, came to Susman Godfrey at the urging of the guy he calls “Big Daddy Susman.” After studying business at Penn (where he was a champion debater), he went to University of Chicago Law School, where he was a moot court champion. A professor in the law and economics program and 7th Circuit Judge, Diane Wood, invited her fellow Texas alum Steve Susman to lecture, and he figured he’d seek out the best 1L while he was there. Courtesy of the law review managing editor, Susman reached out to Harrison and asked him to clerk with the firm the following summer. The two are kindred spirits, and Harrison has reveled in the trials he’s handled with Susman, Godfrey, Manne, and others since the day he joined in 1993 following a clerkship for the chief judge of the 11th circuit. He made partner in 1996, early and in record time. Whereas Steve Susman gave Lexie White little notice that she would be delivering the opening statement, Lee Godfrey gave Harrison an entire lunchtime of notice that he’d be taking the next witness in one of his earliest trials. “Usually, people have plenty of notice. But sometimes opportunities present themselves. The question is: Are you the kind of person who will rise to

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

105

the occasion or shrink from it?” says Harrison. “Around here, we rise.” Northeast-born and Texas-raised, Harrison has compiled an astounding track record of wins mixing commercial litigation and public interest cases. He was named Houston’s Hero in 2015 for his work upholding Houston’s Equal Rights Ordinance in a lawsuit seeking its repeal. He has won hundreds of millions of dollars in verdicts and settlements, netting $50M for Apache Deepwater in an offshore well-abandonment case in the Gulf in 2015. Harrison and his team of Bill Merrill, Ashley McMillian and Abby Noebels took on Texas legend David Beck in the case. And true to the Susman Godfrey playbook, Harrison carefully cultivated meaningful roles for every member of the team, including its most junior member, Noebels, whose witnesses kept getting cut. The Sunday

of a lawyer when he enrolled at Columbia Law School in 1987. He was one of a couple Indian law students. A skilled debater, he won admiration at Wachtell early on but found himself drawn to the plaintiffs’ side of cases. Although he and Wachtell typically represented defendants, he had a rare chance to work as plaintiff’s counsel for Philip Morris when it sued ABC for reporting it had spiked its cigarettes with nicotine. When Bhatia decided to move to Susman in 1995, his work for Philip Morris was an issue. Susman was considering representing the state of Texas as a plaintiff in the Tobacco Wars. Ultimately the firm solved the potential conflict by defending Philip Morris instead, marking one of its first major forays into big defense work – and locking up one of the nation’s soon-to-be best trial lawyers. The relationship resulted

before the last week of trial, Harrison was home when he received a revised witness list that showed Noebels’ final witness was gone. He called her immediately. “She had noticed and she didn’t say but you could tell she was disappointed. So she was mighty pleased when I said, ‘Why don’t you take one of my witnesses?’” recalls Harrison. “That, I think, is a part of Steve Susman’s continuing influence on how I, and I believe others, view our roles in the firm: to bring along the generation behind us as stand-up trial lawyers.” Harrison has three jury trials and two arbitrations set for 2018, with hundreds of millions of dollars in dispute. In a comment that would be startling elsewhere but underscores the ties at Susman Godfrey, one partner said of Harrison, “I’d take a bullet for him.” Bhatia is the only lawyer to have lateralled between the nation’s two most exclusive law firms – moving from Wachtell to Susman in 1995. Born in Lucknow, India, to a family of doctors, he had no perspective on the job

in Bhatia serving as one of the lead lawyers defending Philip Morris, and also provided Susman Godfrey with its earliest experience using large fixed fees in defense cases rather than hourly billing – a practice that is now a mainstay of the firm. Bhatia has gone on to play a key role in building up the firm’s defense practice for clients including Genworth Financial, Equitas, Lyondell, and Kellogg Brown Root, while winning over $1B in verdicts and settlements for clients including Lyondell and Masimo. He’s currently preparing for trial in Northern California in early 2018 on behalf of a hosting provider that claims Machine Zone – maker of Game of War and Mobile Strike – defrauded his client. “What I would say about our firm is that our work in plaintiff’s cases teaches us to be lean and to focus on the issues that really matter. That translates into how successfully we handle defense cases,” says Bhatia, who brought experience and Fortune 500 clients from Wachtell.

106

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

His first big contingency win was for Lyondell, where he won a $22M award at age 37. With a 30 percent contingent fee, for roughly $300,000 in lawyer time he obtained a fee of more than $6M for the firm. Under the firm’s compensation system, Bhatia was paid the lion’s share of that fee, and he was off and running. The trio of Tribble, Harrison, and Bhatia, anchored by Manne, catalyzed Susman’s risk taking into a durable machine that now has more than 30 partners who generate multimillion-dollar fees year in and year out. As Lee Godfrey retired and Steve Susman reached his mid-70s, Susman Godfrey has transcended the persistent question of firms founded by legendary lawyers: Does anything come next? For the Susman Godfrey of 2017, the answer is a resounding yes from a firm well stocked with big rainmakers in four nationwide offices who handle a diversified mix of cases for plaintiffs and defendants, most of it on various non-hourly arrangements. Even most of its defense work, for mega-clients like General Electric, Chevron and Wal-Mart, is done on monthly fixed-fee arrangements rather than by the hour. Each partner can determine her or his portfolio of risk, allowing room for partners who are less risk tolerant while letting those who go big put all their chips on the table. It also built out from its Texas base, spurred in part by the tort reform that swept through Texas in the 1990s. One of its earliest stars, Parker Folse (a clerk to then-U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist), moved to Seattle to open the firm’s first non-Texas office in 1995. The firm opened in Los Angeles in 1998 under class-action powerhouse Marc Seltzer, and in 2006, the firm opened in New York, where it has flourished under Bill Carmody and collected Supreme Court clerks as if it were a hobby. The firm has evolved, but what has not changed at all is the raw desire to win. To win to make money. To win to help your client. To win to be the best. To win because it’s so fun to celebrate. To win. Winning Susman Godfrey style is bigger, badder, and more fun than at any other firm. It’s celebrated in grand style in far-flung places by entire trial teams after a trial victory or big settlement. It’s celebrated with an annual good-natured, unofficial competition among the TribbleHarrison-Bhatia-Robert Rivera crew, with Bacchanalias at Carbone and other outrageously amazing restaurants and resorts. It’s the lifeblood of the firm. In most cases, the partner who brings in the win gets a huge cut of the payout. And, unlike other major law firms, there are neither 100 partners upstream stepping on the haul nor the sense that such windfalls will never happen again. There may be no better illustration of the larger-thanlife nature of law practice at Susman Godfrey than Bill

PHOTO PROVIDED BY FIRM

Los Angeles partner Kalpana Srinivasan

Carmody, whose own story as an audacious outsider rivals that of his firm. The former Tulsa bartender and Merchant Mariner became Susman Godfrey’s least likely partner – no clerkship – through big trial wins, risk-taking, and wooing of Steve Susman. After practicing for years in Dallas, including at his own firm, Carmody agreed to move to Susman’s fledgling New York office in 2007. What started as a couple cubbyholes somewhere on Park Avenue is today the swankiest office on 6th Avenue, from which Carmody, Jacob Buchdahl, and a host of other stars represent GE, Dan Loeb and, most recently, lead Uber in its battles with Waymo. “When I got off the plane at LaGuardia, I only had one good friend in New York: Daniel Boulud. Daniel is one of the best chefs in the world, but he wasn’t going to give us any legal work. So the truth is, I didn’t have many wild dreams at that point,” says Carmody. “Susman Godfrey lawyers had handled cases across America – including NYC – but we had no beachhead here. For the first bunch of years, Steve, Jacob Buchdahl, and I were completely occupied with the challenge of the moment, which was getting to the point where we had our legs underneath us – the challenge of letting the best legal market in the country know that the best trial firm was in town and open for business.” Since then, owing to its people, the New York office has found nothing but success, says Carmody. Of the 24 lawyers in the New York office, six have clerked for the Supreme Court, and a seventh is on his way to clerk for Justice Elena Kagan. “All of our New York lawyers are of the highest caliber, and are all incredible people too. And their efforts on behalf of our clients are unsurpassed. When the pressure is on, it’s 24/7, where all of us are making personal sacrifices for the good of our clients. When you add the

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

107

Seattle partner Parker Folse

fact that we genuinely like and respect each other, too, you couldn’t ask for more,” says Carmody. And, to bring things full circle, the firm’s epic holiday party for the legal community each December is catered by Carmody’s old pal, chef Daniel Boulud. The gatekeeper for entry into the nation’s most elite lawyer club is Erica Harris, a longtime Houston partner. She only interviewed with Susman Godfrey at the urging of her UT classmate, Steve Susman’s son Harry, and she has watched as the firm has become a ridiculously impossible place to get a job. “Harry came up to me one day when I was in my suit and said, ‘My dad’s got this firm and they don’t have enough women signed up to interview. Would you do me a favor and just take a half an hour? You could fit in here.’” From the start, in a sea of firms that all seemed alike, Susman Godfrey struck her as different. She flew to Houston and had dinner with Neal and Nancy Manne. Neal is a fairly persuasive lawyer, of course, but absolutely no one can resist Nancy. Because she liked the couple and wanted to build a friendship, Erica decided to accept a summer job. After graduating second in her class from Texas in 1996, she clerked for Judge Rosenthal and then completed a fellowship at University of Virginia Law School, thinking it would bolster what she thought would become a career in legal academia. Instead, she was drawn back to law practice, and in 1998 joined Susman Godfrey. Joining Susman Godfrey meant she was making $10,000 less than her other options. “That was a big deal to my household, which was a ‘what do we have in the refrigerator’ home. My parents didn’t understand,” she says. Her first week, she got on two trial teams and argued a motion with Rivera. And she never looked back. She’s invalidated trademarks, won hundreds of millions 108

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

for clients, and has been called “the best damn lawyer in Houston.” She epitomizes the firm’s philosophy of allowing each lawyer to calibrate her own risk as a trial lawyer, while at the same time overseeing recruiting, including the 13 lucky lawyers who joined this year. While they are all standouts (and federal clerks), she noted one lawyer’s answer when she asked: Why him? “I have grit,” he said. He liked sitting down and staying with a problem until it was figured out. That was the right answer. If you want to talk grit, you need look no further than Los Angeles standout Kalpana Srinivasan, a 2004 Stanford Law School graduate who started her professional life as a policy reporter with the AP in Washington, D.C. She clerked for 9th Circuit Judge Raymond Fisher, then chose Susman Godfrey because she wanted a firm where she could have more impact early on. Her fellow clerks went to big firms and dug into discovery; Srinivasan flew to Minnesota. As she tells it, Manne called her shortly after she joined the firm, looking for help in a statewide class action he was defending for Wal-Mart. His strategy involved finding some good store-level witnesses from Northern Minnesota. Says Srinivasan, “I was sort of stunned that, sight unseen, the managing partner of the firm was like, ‘Go find and pick out the trial witnesses for my case.’ I said, ‘Okay, here I go.’” In her large, rented SUV, she spent weeks traversing the frozen tundra from Shakopee to White Bear Lake to Owatonna, eating pie late at night with WalMart employees. But here’s what sets Susman Godfrey apart: when the case was tried the next year, Srinivasan presented the witnesses at trial. That latitude, as well as the people, was what attracted her to Susman Godfrey. Before she joined, she flew to Houston to meet the partners and was struck by their caliber as lawyers and more. “They excel in so many different things. They’re incredible lawyers. They’re also great skiers. Some of them are first-class runners. And I realized this group just has a passion for so many things,” she says. Law, of course, among them. To keep such a talented and driven group of people focused and incentivized, money matters. The firm pays top dollar of $300,000 or more for Supreme Court clerks. Under the firm’s system, partner compensation has nothing to do with seniority; there are no points or shares. On January 1 of each year, every partner starts out even, and compensation for that year depends solely on the partner’s performance - and results - for the year. No one keeps track of vacation time, and each partner decides for herself how much to work and on which cases. Part-

PHOTO BY: JEFFREY LUKE

ners can earn seven figures without bringing in any business at all but, since the firm has few long-term clients, there is a very strong incentive for rainmaking. In this meritocracy, where each year stands alone, it’s not uncommon for a very young partner to be among the most highly paid. And that says a lot at a firm where, because of its extraordinary business model, there have been many years where a partner made $5 million, $10 million, or even substantially more. The firm’s monetary engine – and its democracy – is on full display every Wednesday at noon, Houston time. That’s when all lawyers have a phone call about potential matters and decide which cases to accept. The bar is incredibly high, since the firm is deciding whether to invest its contingent time, and often its out-of-pocket cash. Despite the high stakes, the decisions are one person one vote; an associate who has been at the firm two weeks gets the same vote on these decisions as Susman or Manne – and is expected to take the responsibility seriously. Manne calls it “one of the ways we try to make our lawyers feel personally invested in the success of the firm, right from the start.” While he was elected to lead a firm that was already abundantly successful, the understated Manne never viewed staying the course as the goal. “Businesses are organic. Law firms have to grow or you can’t keep attracting the very best people – who are the only people we want,” he says. His two primary goals when he became a managing partner were to re-calibrate the already entrepreneurial compensation system to make it more transparent and objective, and to “make the firm look different” in terms of gender and ethnic diversity. The first was achieved quickly, and there has been steady progress toward the second. The firm’s mix of fee arrangements has moved steadily away from hourly work. More than 80 percent of the firm’s revenues now derive from contingent, monthly-fixed or hybrid fees, with less than 20 percent coming from traditional hourly fees. And then there’s the personal. Manne and his wife Nancy are an emotional core of the firm, where family is a center rather than a burden. At Susman, family provides real values you go home to at night, values that resonate in who you are, as a person and a law firm partner. Which brings us to King Louis. King Louis is not Steve Susman’s password. He is, instead, a very real little boy who had a very, very rough first 82 days of life. He’s three now and really likes when Dad reads him Goodnight Moon. He especially likes negotiating with Dad on an extension to each day’s statute of limitations. Dad is partner Shawn Raymond, who learned firsthand what the legal system looked like growing up. His

dad was an algae specialist in Hawaii. He moved the family to Colorado, where he tried to build an oyster farm. Huh? For Raymond, this meant that the first appellate decision he read was one deciding whether it was OK that the bank took away his family’s livelihood and his Dad’s dream. Raymond joined Teach for America for two years and lived in a rural town in the Mississippi Delta called Sunflower, where he was later inspired to create the Sunflower County Freedom Project to help kids who truly have nothing. After winning moot court championships in his first two years at UT Law School, Raymond won a fellowship that allowed him to advocate for children in Mississippi. In 2000, Manne persuaded Raymond to join the firm. But first, Manne gave him a little negotiating tip: Raymond needed to ask Susman Godfrey to help Raymond buy a plot of land in Sunflower, Mississippi, so that his Sunflower County Freedom Project could take root and flourish. Like a signing bonus from the heart. Raymond has grown into one of the firm’s up and coming leaders. He’s won big trial verdicts and won acclaim for his community service. And he and his wife Alicia have four sons. Some afternoons Bhatia will just stroll over to the baseball field to see how the Raymond boys are swinging that day. That’s how the Susman crew rolls. And it shows in every line of the words Raymond wrote to the firm as he visited the critically ill Louis over his first 82 days of life. Louis suffered an array of life-threatening illnesses, most pointedly a chronic inability to breathe on his own. Over the ensuing weeks, four people were allowed to be designated permanent visitors and, not surprisingly, Susman Godfrey was well represented. The visitors included Neal and Nancy Manne (limited to four permanent visitors, Raymond persuaded the hospital that Neal and Nancy were only one person, a tribute to his skills as an advocate but also an apt metaphor for the Mannes). The firm’s attorneys would come by at all hours as Raymond spent his evenings with Louis, writing a string of email updates to the firm during his endless hours at the hospital. On May 8, 2014, Raymond gave the toughest closing argument of his life. Drawing inspiration from John Belushi’s “Nothing Is Over Until We Decide It Is” classic in Animal House, Raymond told Louis he had a tough day ahead. His 83rd on this planet, for those keeping score. “If you can’t start breathing on your own tonight, these kind folks are going to perform a tracheotomy tomorrow morning.” That night, King Louis took over his own breathing. And the Susman Godfrey team cheered like it had won another billion dollars.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

109

CHICAGO’S PREMIER

PLAINTIFFS’

312.236.9381 70 West Madison | 55th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60602 WWW.PRSLAW.COM

PERSONAL INJURY LAW FIRM

LEADING ALL OTHER CHICAGO PERSONAL INJURY LAW FIRMS IN RECOVERIES FOR

THE PAST SEVEN CONSECUTIVE YEARS Power Rogers & Smith has been the top performing firm in results for its clients for the last seven consecutive years

according to the Chicago Lawyer Annual Settlement Survey, leading its competitors by more than half a billion dollars.

Joseph W. Balesteri

Thomas M. Power

Devon C. Bruce

Larry R. Rogers

Kathryn L. Conway

Larry R. Rogers, Jr.

Sean M. Houlihan

Carolyn Daley Scott

Brian LaCien

Thomas G. Siracusa

James Power

Todd A. Smith

Joseph A. Power, Jr.

Jonathan M. Thomas

Hall of Fame The Lawdragon Hall of Fame celebrates lawyers whose mark on the legal profession is indelible. This year we have chosen 45 additional lions of the law whose impact ranges from Richard Posner, one of the most brilliant jurists of all time, to a Los Angeles lawyer who won the O.J. Simpson murder trial and was a trailblazer through courtrooms for African-American lawyers. And, letâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s not forget the one and only Ted Olson. Because only Olson could both win Citizens United and secure marriage equality.

PHOTO BY: ELI MEIR KAPLAN

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

111

500

THE LAWDRAGON 500

500

Cris Arguedas - Arguedas Cassman In the Bay Area, few attorneys have had a better reputation than Arguedas for convincing prosecutors not to bring charges – or for dismantling their cases in court, in all types of criminal matters. Sam Baxter - McKool Smith Unquestionably the Dean of the trial bar in the Eastern District of Texas and one of the best intellectual property litigators of his generation, Baxter’s track record of massive verdicts is hard to beat. Jere Beasley - Beasley Allen A passionate advocate for the injured and their families, Beasley has been a leader in the courtroom and the community for more than half a century.

David Beck - Beck Redden It’s no surprise that blue-chip companies have trusted their most important cases to the boutique co-founded by Beck after he left Fulbright & Jaworski – the veteran litigator has led an impressive corps of trial lawyers for 25 years. Ralph Campillo - Sedgwick Campillo earned a sterling national reputation for being one of the nation’s very best lawyers for complex pharmaceutical and medical device litigation.

Johnnie Cochran - The Cochran Firm (1937-2005) The attention given to Cochran’s deft handling of the O.J. Simpson criminal case has tended to drown out other achievements in an astonishing career that left a tremendous legacy in civil rights and access to justice. Richard Cohen - Southern Poverty Law Center Recent events only underscore the importance of Cohen’s tireless fight against intolerance and hate since joining the SPLC in 1986, where he has been both a savvy litigator and fearless leader.

112

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500 William T. Coleman - O’Melveny Coleman lived an extraordinary life to the age of 96 – from his work on Brown v. Board of Education to his richly deserved Presidential Medal of Freedom award, he shined as a lawyer and a person. Robert Denham - Munger Tolles The dealmaker of choice for Warren Buffet and Berkshire Hathaway, among many others, Denham is one of the greatest transactional stars of his generation.

Mike Dowd - Robbins Geller Highly lauded for his work in private securities cases and his public service with two stints as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, Dowd has netted billions of dollars for wronged investors. Lolis Edward Elie (1930-2017) Elie is one of the most admired civil rights lawyers in U.S. history, having played a key role in the desegregation of his home city of New Orleans among many other storied achievements. Howard Ellin - Skadden Ellin has earned repeated accolades for a continuous string of massive transactions for clients including Google, McDonnell Douglas, IBM, News Corp., 21st Century Fox, Walt Disney and countless others. Patrick Fitzgerald - Skadden Before bringing his litigation savvy to Skadden, Fitzgerald was the longest serving U.S. Attorney in Chicago’s history and among the most recognizable nationally for prosecuting Rod Blagojevich and Scooter Libby. Gary Fox - Stewart Tilghman A mainstay of the Florida bar for four decades, Fox earned his place in the Inner Circle of Advocates with more than 100 verdicts and settlements in excess of $1M.

Richard Godfrey - Kirkland The classy stalwart of Kirkland’s powerful litigation team has excelled at representing corporations for nearly four decades at the trial and appellate level, in all types of complex cases.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

113

500

Dicky Grigg - Spivey & Grigg Grigg has long since earned his reputation as a passionate advocate for plaintiffs across personal injury, wrongful death and civil-rights cases – and one who can succeed in any courtroom. Kris Heinzelman - Cravath No one was better than Heinzelman, a former head of Cravath’s corporate department and also of its securities practice, at representing investment banks in complex domestic and international transactions. Valerie Ford Jacob - Freshfields Jacob was a much-admired trailblazer at Fried Frank, a firm she led for nearly a dozen years, before taking her esteemed capital markets practice to Freshfields.

John Keker - Keker Van Nest Blending a tough-as-nails approach with a heart of gold, Keker has been one of the nation’s best trial lawyers for decades by excelling in a diverse range of civil disputes and criminal cases. Steven Lane - Herman Herman This top family-law attorney is one of New Orleans’ most impactful lawyers for serving as managing partner of Herman Herman & Katz, which played leading roles in helping victims of Hurricane Katrina and the BP oil spill. William Lee - WilmerHale You would be hard-pressed to find a more revered intellectual property litigator than William Lee, a giant in the field for more than four decades with hundreds of trials and appeals under his belt. Eduardo Leite - Baker & McKenzie Few firm chairs have presided over the type of global expansion that Leite steered Baker & McKenzie through from 2010-2016, with 11 new offices opened across eight countries and a 25% increase in revenues. Andrew Levander - Dechert A former federal prosecutor and current chair of the firm’s policy committee, Dechert earned his place in the American College of Trial Lawyers by being among the nation’s very best white-collar defenders.

114

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500 Simon Lorne - Millennium Corporation The former general counsel of the SEC became one of the financial world’s most admired in-house lawyers and experts on corporate governance, helping steward Millennium as chief legal officer and vice chairman. Greg Markel - Seyfarth The widely respected Markel has been a leader in securities litigation for decades, also excelling in antitrust, M&A and other bet-the-company cases for major corporate clients. Michele Coleman Mayes - New York Public Library Mayes is a legend in philanthropic and legal worlds for her commitment to diversity and her excellence as a general counsel for Pitney Bowes, Allstate Corp. and – since 2012 – one of New York’s greatest institutions. Gary Naftalis - Kramer Levin One of the nice guys who can stare down any prosecutor or regulator, Naftalis has been the smart bet for any corporation or individual in a thorny situation.

Steven Newborn - Weil The former director of litigation at the FTC became one of the most prominent antitrust lawyers in modern history, excelling as a litigator and helping to guide a vast number of transactions to completion. Ronald Olson - Munger Tolles A titan in the Los Angeles legal world as name partner of one of the city’s seminal firms, Olson has been the litigator of choice for Berkshire Hathaway, Mark Zuckerberg, the founders of Google and countless others. Ted Olson - Gibson Dunn From Bush v. Gore to overturning California’s gay-marriage ban, from his time as solicitor general and in private practice, Olson has simply been one of the greatest Supreme Court and appellate litigators in U.S. history. Mike Papantonio - Levin Papantonio Also a member of the Trial Lawyers Hall of Fame, Papantonio is an outspoken critic of corporate wrongdoing who has guided his renowned firm to billions of dollars in recoveries for injured plaintiffs.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

115

500

Diane Patrick - Ropes & Gray Patrick has made a tremendous impact as one of the most respected employment lawyers in the land, serving as Massachusetts first lady to Gov. Deval Patrick and advocating against domestic abuse. Richard Posner - 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals There’s not much more that can be said of America’s most prolific and provocative jurist-author, other than we expect his definition of retirement is less mute button and more megaphone. John Quinn - Arnold & Porter Quinn earned every recognition lavished upon him in his 50-year career as a litigator, becoming one of the most beloved members of the Los Angeles legal world through his dedication to the profession and the arts. Gordon Rather - Wright Lindsey Admitted to practice law in Arkansas in 1968, this gracious gentleman is arguably his state’s most accomplished defense-side litigator and has boasted a preeminent national trial practice for decades. Frank Schreck - Brownstein Hyatt Apollo Global Management, TPG, Caesars Entertainment, Wynn Resorts and many other companies and individuals have relied on Schreck – a true giant in his practice – for their legal needs in the gaming industry. Paul Smith - Jenner & Block Among the most influential lawyers of his time thanks to an astounding appellate career with victories like Lawrence v. Texas and significant achievements in First Amendment law. Broadus Spivey - Spivey & Grigg Spivey has a 50-year track record of scoring big for plaintiffs and other clients in cour – a record he has added to since winning the Texas Trial Lawyers Association’s first Lifetime Achievement Award back in 2006. Myron Steele - Potter Anderson One of the greatest legal minds in the history of Delaware and corporate law, Steele’s influence is hard to quantify with 400 opinions from his time on the Delaware Superior Court, Court of Chancery and Supreme Court.

116

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500 John Tarantino - Adler Pollock Among the rarest breed for making the Lawdragon 500 more than ten times, Tarantino earned his status as the most famous lawyer in Rhode Island for his masterful handling of high-profile criminal and civil matters. Chilton Davis Varner - King & Spalding For more than three decades, corporations have trusted their most threatening mass tort cases to Varner, who has been a trailblazer in the law since becoming her firm’s first female litigation partner in 1983. F. Joseph Warin - Gibson Dunn An accomplished practice leader and trial lawyer, Warin has been among the most sought-after white-collar defenders since his award-winning stint as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Justice Department’s D.C. office. Dan Webb - Winston & Strawn The former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, Webb sits at the top of the Chicago bar as one of its finest litigators across all stripes of highprofile cases and as his institution’s longtime leader. Mary Jo White - Debevoise & Plimpton From tackling terrorism as U.S. Attorney in Manhattan to being one of the longest-serving Chairs of the SEC – and great stints in private practice in between – White has amassed one of the most impressive careers imaginable. Roger Wilkins - George Mason University (1932-2017) This mentee of Thurgood Marshall reflected the highest principles of the law and our country through his work as a civil rights leader, prosecutor, professor, journalist and author.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

117

500

The Legends One of the best decisions we ever made at Lawdragon was launching “The Legends” guide in 2015, our 10th year anniversary. Each year, when making our final selections, it is painfully obvious how hard it is to make the Lawdragon 500 – which represents far less than one percent of all U.S. lawyers. What, then, to say about the lawyers who have made our guide 10 times? The challenge is highlighted by this year’s tight-knit group. After 50 attorneys to initially make the inaugural guide, we added 41 last year and just 17 for this year – including Weil’s Diane Sullivan, a litigator of truly legendary stature. Whatever the size, it’s an astonishing group that represents the very best of the profession.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

119

500

THE LAWDRAGON 500

500

Scott Barshay PA UL W E ISS – N E W YO R K

The global head of Paul Weiss’ M&A practice has worked on an incredible array of multibillion-dollar deals over his career, including Anheuser-Busch InBev’s $107B acquisition of SABMiller.

Scott Edelman M I LB A N K – N E W Y O R K

Many corporations and individuals trust their biggest cases to the steady Edelman, who wins case after case while also chairing his firm. Photo by Hugh Williams

Photo provided by the firm

Jay Eisenhofer GRA N T & EISE N H O FE R – N E W YO R K

120

Patricia Glaser G LA S E R W E I L – LO S A N G E LE S

It’s hard to find a more sought after plaintiffs’ litigator for complex securities and corporate governance matters. Over the years, Eisenhofer has brought in many billions in recoveries for his clients.

Quite simply the go-to litigator in Los Angeles for business litigation and other high-profile cases for clients like the late Kirk Kerkorian, Paula Deen, Conan O’Brien and Harvey Weinstein.

Photo by Hugh Williams

Photo by Amy Cantrell

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Jamie Gorelick WILME R H A L E – W A SH IN G T O N , D.C .

Mark Greene C R A V A TH – N E W Y O R K

Jared Kushner was the latest in a line of prominent clients to turn to one of Washington’s most admired litigators, who is a former Pentagon General Counsel and long-serving Deputy Attorney General.

The head of Cravath’s corporate team has taken the lead on many deals from the firm’s elite client roster, long since earning the reputation as one of his generation’s best transactional attorneys.

Photo by Eli Meir Kaplan

Photo provided by the firm

Nina Gussack

Kenton King

PE PPE R H A MIL T O N – PH IL A DE L PH IA

S K A D D E N – P A LO A LTO

Since Lawdragon opened its doors in 2005, no attorney has been better than Gussack at defending pharmaceutical and medical device companies in complex litigation.

When people think of the world’s most powerful law firm and the Silicon Valley, they think of Kenton King – master dealmaker in the technology and semiconductor worlds.

Photo provided by the firm

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

121

500

Colleen Mahoney

Pat McGroder

S KA DD E N – W A SH IN G T O N , D.C.

G A LLA G HE R & K E N N E D Y – P HO E N I X

Individuals and company boards make Mahoney their first call for investigations by the SEC, where she spent 15 years, and for handling internal investigations. Photo provided by the firm

In the Southwest, McGroder’s name is synonymous with passion, justice and integrity. The fierce litigator has well over 100 verdicts and settlements worth in excess of $1M. Photo by Eric Cassee

Mark Morton POTTE R A NDE R SO N – W IL MIN G T O N

Morton is an institution in his state, among the nation’s very top experts and most trusted counselors for advice on Delaware Corporation Law. Photo by Hugh Williams

Brian Panish P A N I S H S HE A – LO S A N G E LE S

His skills as a trial lawyer and advocate for the injured are rare, much revered and get better with age. Panish has netted hundreds of millions of dollars for clients in the past several years alone. Photo by Hugh Williams

122

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Christian Searcy

Joseph Shenker

S EA R CY DE N N E Y – MIA MI

S U LLI VA N & C R O M W E LL – N E W Y O R K

The veteran plaintiffs’ attorney has earned every accolade in his 43-year career. Searcy won his first $1M verdict at age 29 and never slowed down. Photo by Josh Ritchie

A nimble dealmaker with a diverse range of transactions under his belt, Shenker is also a much admired leader providing a steady force atop one of the world’s most influential firms. Photo provided by the firm

Diane Sullivan W E IL – PR IN CE T O N , N .J .

The trial lawyer’s trial lawyer is as good in court and arbitrations for corporate clients in mass tort and other complex cases as any advocate in the country. Photo by Laura Barisonzi

Jonathan Turley G E O R G E W A S HI N G TO N U N I VE R S I TY LA W S C HO O L – W A S HI N G TO N , D . C .

Scholar, advocate, expert witness, TV commentator, Turley has done everything during his acclaimed career, boasting one of the sharpest legal minds on any issue. Photo by Sean McCormick

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

123

500

Leigh Walton B A SS B E R R Y – N A S HVI LLE

Walton has remained steadfast as one of the region’s best dealmakers and drawn national acclaim for building one of the best healthcare practices. Photo by Hugh Williams

The Legends

124

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

(RECOGNISED) EXPERTS IN PR, BRANDING AND CONTENT FOR THE LEGAL SECTOR… … AT YO U R S E R V I C E .

infiniteglobal.com NEW YORK, SAN FRANCISCO, LONDON, RESEARCH TRIANGLE, CHICAGO

GIR ARDI

KEESE

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

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

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

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

Amy Cantrell

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

G K

GIR ARDI

KEESE

LAWYERS

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

fax: 213.481.1554 www.girardikeese.com

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

500

500 Karen Dunn

BOIES SCHILLER (WASHINGTON D.C.)

128

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

The 2017 Lawdragon 500 reflects the uncertainty of the past year, wrapped around the lawyers and judges who define our rights, our property and our futures. There are some new notables, like U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, alongside the veteran appellate lawyers who argue in front of him, like Neal Katyal of Hogan Lovells and Williams & Connolly’s Kannon Shanmugam.

THE INNOVATORS Also among the D.C. standouts is Karen Dunn, who prepared Hillary Clinton for last year’s presidential debates and who boasts one of the finest litigation/crisis-management practices in the country. Dunn is part of the 34 percent women lawyers on this year’s guide, a record; there are also 15 percent minority lawyers, and a resurgent public interest force. Dunn represents the generation of lawyers to come after the mainstays that dominated our list for the first decade, and who will guide us through an increasingly turbulent – and exciting – legal landscape no matter what the future holds.

PHOTO BY: ELI MEIR KAPLAN

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

129

500

500 130

Arthur Abbey

Mary Alexander

ABBEY SPANIER NEW YORK

MARY ALEXANDER & ASSOCIATES SAN FRANCISCO

Matthew Abbott

Rosemary Alito

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

K&L GATES NEWARK, N.J.

Nancy Abell

Samuel Alito

PAUL HASTINGS LOS ANGELES

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

Khaled M. Abou El Fadl

LaBella Alvis

UCLA LAW SCHOOL LOS ANGELES

CHRISTIAN & SMALL BIRMINGHAM, ALA.

Linda Addison

David Anders

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT NEW YORK

WACHTELL LIPTON NEW YORK

Michael Aiello

Antonia Apps

WEIL GOTSHAL NEW YORK

MILBANK NEW YORK

Tom Ajamie

Cynthia Arato

AJAMIE HOUSTON

SHAPIRO ARATO NEW YORK

Charla Aldous

Stephen Arcano

ALDOUS WALKER DALLAS

SKADDEN NEW YORK

Joseph Alexander

Kurt Arnold

DLA MIAMI

ARNOLD & ITKIN HOUSTON

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

KAREN DUNN ANYBODY WITH AN INTEREST IN POLITICS

and law has to marvel at – and admit to some envy of – Karen Dunn and her truly incredible career.

She served as an advisor to Sen. Hillary Clinton for four years before attending Yale Law School, and later clerked for D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Merrick Garland and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. She served as associate counsel to President Barack Obama before a stint as a federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia. Dunn helped Obama with debate preparations in 2012 and did the same for candidate Clinton in 2016. Dunn has also excelled in court since joining Boies Schiller Flexner, winning key jury verdicts for clients Apple and Oracle. She even found time to score a significant pro bono victory with her husband, Mayer Brown partner Brian Netter, that affirmed the Washington, D.C., Council’s budget autonomy. Dunn says that Boies Schiller is the perfect fit for her acclaimed practice that mixes high-stakes litigation with crisis management. Lawdragon: In recent years, you’ve worked on some very high-profile cases as well as on the Clinton campaign’s debate prep, among other matters. Can you describe how you divide your time between cases and working with individuals on preparation for testimony or other appearances? Karen Dunn: At any given time, my work includes a mix of large litigation matters for companies and work with individuals – sometimes that means preparing them for trial testimony, congressional testimony or, in the case of political figures, for public debates. LD: Are these starkly different roles, or is the preparation and skill set more similar than one might imagine? KD: The preparation and skill set are incredibly similar – sometimes even identical. Techniques that I have used to prepare Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for presidential debates often make their way into my witness preps for trial and jury addresses, and of course my preparation of top executives for congressional hearings. These things are about reducing complicated concepts to ideas that real people can relate to. And once you have helped someone prepare for a televised event that 100 million people will be watching, no audience is too daunting.

BY JOHN RYAN LD: During your first stint working for then Sen. Hillary Clinton, what led to your interest in going to law school as opposed to staying in D.C. and politics? What did you want to do with a law degree at the time? KD: I can actually remember the day I decided to go to law school. I was sitting at my desk in the Russell Senate Office Building, thinking that I loved working for the government and also the part of my job as Hillary’s press secretary that allowed me to translate policy concepts into terms reporters would write down. I wasn’t interested in policy work myself but decided that a good future job for me would be one where I could work for the government in enforcement and do trial work – I decided to become a prosecutor. LD: You clerked for two very highly regarded judges. Can you share something you learned from one or both of them, or perhaps a memory or two that stands out from the clerkships? KD: It was such a privilege to clerk for these two incomparable jurists – I could not have been luckier on this front. I am grateful for their encouragement, personal and professional. With Judge Garland, my strongest memories are that he performed my wedding ceremony and he and his family were our first visitors at home after our first child was born. My strongest clerkship memory is standing next to him at a standing desk in his office overlooking the Capitol as he went through each word of the opinions we wrote, no detail too small, making sure the final product was exactly right. With Justice Breyer, I also remember most strongly the craft of writing the opinions. We would exchange drafts – you would do a draft, he would rewrite it entirely, and then you would edit – with no track changes! I also thought, “Wow, I am erasing the words of a Supreme Court Justice.” The Justice was always able to see connections in cases long before anyone else could. LD: Can you discuss what it was about your experience as an Assistant U.S. Attorney that confirmed for you that you wanted to be a trial lawyer? KD: Being an AUSA is one of the best jobs in the law – you get up every day with one goal, to do justice. Also, in that job, I realized how much I loved talking to juries, especially in closing argument after you

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

131

500

500 132

Clifford Aronson

Randall Baron

SKADDEN NEW YORK

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

Lisa Arrowood

Robert Baron

ARROWOOD PETERS BOSTON

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Kim Askew

Judy Barrasso

K&L GATES DALLAS

BARRASSO USDIN NEW ORLEANS

Baher Azmy

Scott Barshay

CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS NEW YORK

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Andrew Bab

Charlene Barshefsky

DEBEVOISE NEW YORK

WILMERHALE WASHINGTON, D.C.

Maria Baldini-Potermin

George Bason

MARIA BALDINI-POTERMIN & ASSOCIATES CHICAGO

DAVIS POLK NEW YORK

Corinne Ball

Hilarie Bass

JONES DAY NEW YORK

GREENBERG TRAURIG MIAMI

Karen Ballack

Jack Baughman

WEIL GOTSHAL REDWOOD SHORES, CALIF.

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Peter Barbur

Phil Beck

CRAVATH NEW YORK

BARTLIT BECK CHICAGO

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

and the jury have been in a hermetically sealed environment for weeks watching all the facts come out. LD: Once the 2012 campaign had wrapped up, what eventually led you to consider private practice as opposed to possibly returning to prosecutorial work? And why Boies Schiller Flexner instead of other suitors? KD: When I was asked to do the Obama debates in 2012, I felt that it was the right thing to do to resign my career post as an AUSA. Then, immediately after the debates, I had my second child and didn’t go back to work immediately. Even though I missed working for the government, the distance from work led me to think more about going to a firm, or even in-house at a company. BSF was a perfect fit for me: Trial work and crisis management is in their DNA. When I visited, everyone seemed energized about their work but also informal, friendly and low key. I never thought I would go to a law firm at all, much less love it there, but that’s what happened. LD: The D.C. budget autonomy case certainly involved some interesting issues, and led to a D.C. Superior Court judge upholding the Budget Autonomy Act giving the District control over spending of local funds. But what was the motivation for you and your husband taking it on? And for free? KD: The case was a perfect mix of legal issues of first impression, politics, and a goal no one thought could ever be achieved. Also, I love D.C., having lived here since college. As we got into the case, and did archival research at Howard University and the Library of Congress, we learned what an important civil rights issue budget autonomy was since the fight for home rule in the District. We even interviewed all living former Members of Congress who worked on the original Home Rule Act and persuaded them to write an amicus brief. It was less of a case and more of a crusade. Working on this case with my husband was very fun for us – less so for our kids, who had to listen to us talk about it all the time. I used to say that no one was more opposed to budget autonomy than our daughter. LD: We hear a lot about debate prep during the campaigns. To an outsider, what does it take to be good at this role? How have you ascended to the top of this type of niche service? KD: Figuring out what makes a good debate is very similar to figuring out what makes a good trial. First,

your goal is to persuade people, in language that resonates and moves them. Second, both can be thought of as a series of “moments” – the things that stick with people after the whole thing is over and much of it becomes a blur. Part of my job is thinking hard about what the moments will be and how the issues will be joined in a way that makes everyone say, “Oh, now I get what’s really going on here.” And then third, both are about predicting what the other side is going to do and how to use that to your advantage. For both, I think it helps to be a lawyer who, as I did in my last professional life, focused on communications. But in the end, I prefer trials because I get to talk to the audience myself! LD: There definitely seemed to be a consensus that Hillary Clinton did very well at the debates in 2016, despite what appeared to be a double-standard of Clinton having to excel and Trump having to meet a more minimum threshold. Are you satisfied with how these debates went? KD: Yes! LD: I’ve read that you were pregnant with your third child during a period in 2015 in which the Oracle trial, the primary campaign and the Benghazi hearings were all going on, among other work I’m sure. Looking back, do you have any secret for how you were able to do all that? KD: I don’t think I am unique in this respect. Fortunately, times are changing and there are more and more women juggling these sorts of jobs and kids. Somehow we all manage – partially by force of will. Lucky for me, my husband is incredibly supportive and my kids think it is normal. They always come to trial for a few days. At the last trial, the trial team set up an elaborate Hot Wheels track for my kids. At a certain point, I was not sure who was enjoying it more, my kids or my colleagues. LD: In looking over your career path, it’s been a pretty incredible string of positions over a relatively short period of time. Is there anything beyond what you’re doing now that you’ve always wanted to do, either to add in the mix now or as a later-career move? KD: I truly love the job I have now. I get to work on some of the best and most interesting cases in the country. I represent some of the most innovative companies in the world. I get to go to trial. And I get a lot of support from my firm and my colleagues, who happen to be some of the best lawyers in the country.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

133

CAROLYN LAMM WHITE & CASE (WASHINGTON, D.C.)

500

Barbara Becker

Erica Berthou

GIBSON DUNN NEW YORK

DEBEVOISE NEW YORK

Van Beckwith

Vineet Bhatia

BAKER BOTTS DALLAS

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

Candace Beinecke

Robert Bingle

HUGHES HUBBARD NEW YORK

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

Karima Bennoune

Lisa Blatt

UC DAVIS LAW SCHOOL DAVIS, CALIF.

ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER WASHINGTON, D.C.

Max Berger

Jeff Bleich

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

DENTONS SAN FRANCISCO

Martha Bergmark

Alexander “Zander” Blewett

VOICES FOR CIVIL JUSTICE WASHINGTON, D.C.

HOYT & BLEWETT GREAT FALLS, MONT.

Barry Berke

Molly Boast

KRAMER LEVIN NEW YORK

WILMERHALE NEW YORK

Sean Berkowitz

Steve Bochner

LATHAM CHICAGO

WILSON SONSINI PALO ALTO

Steve Berman

David Boies

HAGENS BERMAN SEATTLE

BOIES SCHILLER ARMONK, N.Y.

PHOTO BY: PATRICIA BLUMENTHAL

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

135

ALEC KARAKATSANIS CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS (WASHINGTON, D.C.)

500

ALEC KARAKATSANIS FEW LAWYERS IN THE LAWDRAGON 500

are having as significant an impact on our justice system as Alec Karakatsanis, the founder and executive director of Washington, D.C.-based Civil Rights Corps. The 2008 Harvard Law graduate and his 10-lawyer team are leading challenges to the business-as-usual injustices that Karakatsanis witnessed in his years as a public defender. This year, his organization, along with The Texas Defense Project and pro bono counsel Susman Godfrey, won a massive victory in Houston federal court with a ruling that the Harris County cash-bail system for low-level offenses was unconstitutional. (The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has since heard oral arguments on the county’s appeal.) The class action represents one major prong of the Corps’ work – ending systemic pretrial detentions of people who cannot afford to pay bail. Other pillars of the core mission are lawsuits that challenge forprofit probation systems, the incarceration of people who cannot pay court fees and fines, and police raids that traumatize families. Most recently, Civil Rights Corps launched its “Prosecutor Project” to challenge prosecutorial abuses. In October, it partnered with the ACLU to sue the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office, alleging an unconstitutional policy to coerce and imprison crime victims and witnesses. Lawdragon: Can you talk about why you founded this organization? Alec Karakatsanis: You can study in books and articles in an abstract way about all of the injustice in the criminal system. You can know the statistics and develop views about it, but it’s very hard to appreciate how crushing and unjust the American criminal system has become until you see it firsthand - and it’s a whole other level for our clients and their families who experience it. I don’t want to make it sound like I have any notion of what it’s like to experience it, but as a public defender, you develop these very strong relationships with human beings, and you watch them crushed in an extraordinarily unjust process, in a society that is caging people at rates that are unprecedented in the recorded history of the modern world. In order to accomplish that mass human caging, the government had to create systems to process people very efficiently and effectively. It’s actually a pretty impressive bureaucratic achievement. As a public defender, you get to watch that machine operate, and

PHOTO BY: ELI MEIR KAPLAN

BY JOHN RYAN you get to feel what it’s like. It was an extraordinarily difficult experience for me in the year-and-a-half I was a public defender in Alabama, and the three years I was a public defender in Washington, D.C. LD: Even though you had read about these issues, you were surprised at what you saw? AK: I knew at some intellectual level what the system was doing. You just can’t have a society that has 2.3 million human beings in cages without appreciating that that means 11 or 12 million times a year police are coming to people’s homes, churches, schools and jobs, and putting metal handcuffs on them, taking them away and feeding them into this machine that then gives them criminal records – and they lose their houses, their jobs and medical care, and traumatic things happen to them in jail. You know all of these things are happening, but it’s very different to sit in a jail cell with someone as she talks about being separated from her children because she couldn’t pay a traffic ticket. And to have someone crying, not knowing when or if she’s going to see her kids again, because she’s stuck in a jail cell that is covered in feces, blood and mucus, and sharing an open toilet with eight other people when three days ago she was sitting on her couch with her one-year-old. LD: How did this feed into your group’s mission? AK: We want to attack injustices in the American criminal system in several key ways. First, by using the stories of the people affected by these practices to change the narrative about what our legal system is and what it’s doing to people, what its purposes are, and what its purposes should be – to re-sensitize people to the enormous brutality inherent in the way the American criminal justice system operates every day. Second, to use civil rights litigation to tell those stories, and to bring really intellectually rigorous legal cases that vindicate rights, and that make real changes and create real pressure on the system to be different. We’re interested in challenging systemic injustice, and the most obvious ways in which the system is unjust is the way that it treats marginalized, impoverished people, and people of color. People who, in many ways since the founding of this country, our legal system has been designed to oppress. LD: Most people would find the facts of some of your cases – a life ruined over a ticket – as ludicrous,

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

137

500

500 138

Mary Bonauto

Stephen Breyer

GLBTQ LEGAL ADVOCATES & DEFENDERS BOSTON

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

Andre Bouchard

Brad Brian

DELAWARE CHANCERY COURT WILMINGTON

MUNGER TOLLES LOS ANGELES

Jamie Boucher

Laura Brill

SKADDEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

KENDALL BRILL LOS ANGELES

Ted Boutrous

Paulette Brown

GIBSON DUNN LOS ANGELES

LOCKE LORD MORRISTOWN, N.J.

Bruce Bowman

Andrew Brownstein

GODWIN BOWMAN & MARTINEZ DALLAS

WACHTELL LIPTON NEW YORK

David Braff

Rhonda Brownstein

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL NEW YORK

SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER MONTGOMERY, ALA.

Jennifer Bragg

Jacob Buchdahl

SKADDEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

SUSMAN GODFREY NEW YORK

Richard Brand

Susanna Buergel

CADWALADER NEW YORK

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Gregory Breedlove

John Buretta

CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS MOBILE, ALA.

CRAVATH NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

and see the injustice. Do these practices persist because most people don’t know what’s going on?

these terrible problems. Is there a way we can do something more systemic?”

AK: I think the biggest problem is that ordinary Americans just don’t know what the system is doing in their name. For example, if you tell people that in Tennessee you can get a traffic ticket, maybe because of the color of your skin, or let’s say it’s for running a stop sign. Because of the state’s reliance on fines and fees, there’s a minimal fine, and then a number of fees and costs that are associated with it. Let’s say it ends up being $250 or $300. If you can pay that right away, like I could probably, then you’re basically done. Your case is closed, you go on with your life.

We also have people who are incarcerated and their families reaching out to us all the time, as well. It’s a real balancing test. It’s a question of: Where can we make the most difference? Where can we tell a story that will have an impact on the most people? Where can our limited resources be leveraged to create real change? Where do we have really good local partners who can help ensure that we don’t just bring a one-off court case for the sake of winning a case, but where we can start a movement that changes the practices for good?

If you can’t pay it – and this is actually what happened to someone in one of our cases – you’re put on private probation for the purpose of paying off your debt. Instead of getting help with this, or services so that you can get a job or a higher paying job, you’re told “You’re going to owe $45 a month in addition to the ﬁne, just for the privilege of being on probation, and anytime we want to drug test you, that’s another $20 you have to pay.” After a year, maybe you’ve scrounged up from your food stamps and Social Security beneﬁts, or a minimum wage job, so you’ve now paid $500 toward your debt when you only owed $250. And all of that money has been taken by the private probation company, so you still owe your initial ticket. So your probation is revoked, you’re thrown in jail, and you’re put back on another year of probation, with extra fees attached for the time you were in jail and your revocation.

LD: Where does the litigation focusing on police raids ﬁt into what you do?

I don’t think a lot of Americans understand that there are thousands of people who are just stuck on perpetual probation where money is being extracted from them. LD: How have you decided what cases to bring? AK: When I first started doing this work, I would just go around from town to town, and sit in the back of courtrooms, and watch and take notes. I would interview people as they were coming out of court, or in jails, and try to design challenges to these systems. A few years later, now that we’ve done this in dozens of places, people know who we are and the case-finding process is a lot different. Now, we get contacted by community groups, lawyers, even sometimes government officials saying, “We’ve got real problems here. Can you come help us? Can you investigate this? Can you look into this?” Or corporate law firms contact us, and say, “Through our pro bono work in these communities, we’ve seen

AK: One of the main themes of our work is challenging things that are so normalized, and such an everyday part of the criminal system, that they’re often overlooked. Police home raids are one of those things. Most Americans don’t experience a violent police home raid. In the District of Columbia, where we brought seven cases, 99.5% to 100% of these raids are happening in the homes of black families, according to the Washington Post and our own research. Because nothing is found in most of these raids, there is never even a criminal case against these people. So there is no criminal case in which someone ﬁles a suppression motion to challenge what happened. And, in a lot of these cases, there isn’t any kind of serious injury that might prompt a regular civil lawyer to take the case for money. It’s just the everyday. Because the voices of the people who it’s happening to aren’t thought of as relevant or powerful in our discourse, people don’t really know about it. No one challenges it, and so it becomes normalized. We try to take on system-wide policies and practices that, until they’re challenged, people don’t recognize them as abhorrent or brutal. The militarization of police, the police home invasion work that we’ve done on behalf of black families in D.C., is just another example of our work trying to use the experiences and stories of people in the community to educate the broader public on what our government ofﬁcials are doing in our name. LD: How do these efforts expand – is it by like-minded groups doing similar cases ? AK: I think so. We need such dramatic changes, we need so many of these cases and so many local movements, that we couldn’t ever hope to be involved in

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

139

500

500 140

Karen Burgess

Bill Carmody

R ICHARDSON & BURGESS AUSTIN

SUSMAN GODFREY NEW YORK

Elizabeth Cabraser

James Carroll

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

SKADDEN BOSTON

Peter Calamari

E. Leon Carter

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

CARTER SCHOLER DALLAS

Bradley Caldwell

Douglas Cawley

CALDWELL CASSADY DALLAS

MCKOOL SMITH DALLAS

Tim Cameron

Jonathan Cedarbaum

CRAVATH NEW YORK

WILMERHALE WASHINGTON, D.C.

Joshua Cammaker

Trina Chandler

WACHTELL LIPTON NEW YORK

VINSON & ELKINS HOUSTON

Raoul Cantero

Neel Chatterjee

WHITE & CASE MIAMI

GOODWIN MENLO PARK

Mike Carlinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

UNIVERSITY OF CALIF., BERKELEY, LAW SCHOOL BERKELEY, CALIF.

Mats Carlston

Evan Chesler

WINSTON & STRAWN NEW YORK

CRAVATH NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

all of them. We’re just hoping to play a small role, as a catalyst, and then as a resource for other people who are bringing these cases and want to benefit from some of the work that we’ve done. In an ideal world, we’ll continue doing our cases. We’ll continue as much as possible with our partnerships, with organizations and lawyers all over the country. But we certainly hope that many, many more people would be involved in this without even working with us. LD: What’s the Prosecutor Project about? AK: That’s a new project that we just started this year that we hope will expose ways in which a fundamental lack of accountability has corrupted the pursuit of American justice. We’ll be focusing on a lot of the patterns and practices of illegal prosecutorial misconduct, such as the withholding of exculpatory evidence, that characterize the way cases are prosecuted in virtually every American jurisdiction. Another component of the project will be working with prosecutors themselves to develop better policies. There’s a new wave of prosecutors who are more conscious to some of the ways in which they create these problems and genuinely want to improve their policies. We do have a lot of great conversations with prosecutors around the country about simple things they can do policy-wise to dramatically improve the lives of people in their community, and to improve their own mission of community safety. Part of it will involve having prosecutors develop a broader notion of what community safety is, so that it means something different from the very narrow definition of the term. In our view, a safe community is one in which all human beings can flourish, and it’s free of coercion in all of its forms – free of racial, economic, government-sponsored violence. One in which there is accountability and healing for trauma that occurs, but not punishment for the sake of punishment that actually makes us less safe. We want to change the way prosecutors think about things like bail, and fines and fees, the money-based aspect of the system, and combating this growing movement of revenue-generating diversion programs that many DA’s offices have started to run around the country whereby they tell people that they will prosecute them unless they pay them a certain amount of money. We’re going to be challenging things like that, and also lifting up the work of prosecutors who are doing really good things for their community. LD: You wrote in your article for the Harvard Law Review about a problem you see with the distribution

of legal work. Is it that, contrary to common perception, there are not enough lawyers given that many people who need one can’t get one? AK: I don’t think I would ever say that there are not enough lawyers. I think the problem is more with the distribution of legal labor. Even in our clients’ cases, what’s so fundamentally demoralizing is that they can have really great lawyers who are helping them out with this one particular issue, but they are facing all kinds of other problems for which they really need civil legal services. Maybe it’s losing a child, or a problem with their landlord, or immigration issues, or someone wronged them in some way and they have no way of taking advantage of the legal system, or just needing advice to create a contract with someone for their business. Or maybe they have a job, but their boss in the company is not paying them fairly, or not complying with safety regulations. There’s so many areas in which the poor just don’t have access to our legal system, and so the rights that we’ve created in our society aren’t meaningful because there is no one there to enforce them. The same is true in a criminal context. We have a twotiered legal system. We have a society in which, if a rich person is charged with a crime, they can get the best defense money can buy. If you’re poor, in a lot of cities, you’re one of three- or four-hundred cases that an overworked public defender has. Nobody even expects that anyone will lift a finger to do a single minute’s worth of investigation in your case. You’re thrown into a factory that manufactures guilty pleas, and so all of this is crying out for the kind of zealous advocate that the Constitution requires in criminal cases, and for the kind of zealous advocate that our society should provide in important civil cases. LD: And there are enough lawyers to do this. AK: There are a lot of lawyers out there. Some of my law firm friends have joked to me that on some of their cases there’s eight or nine lawyers when probably one lawyer is required. There are whole courtrooms, every single day, in every single American city where dozens and dozens of people would really benefit from one lawyer. I think, fundamentally, our legal system and the distribution of lawyers corresponds to the broader set of inequalities that characterize our society. In a very, very unequal society, you are likely to find a very, very unequal distribution of lawyers. It would be nice if lawyers could help take the lead in trying to create a society that’s more consistent with our values than the one that we have.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

141

500

500 Robin Panovka and Adam Emmerich WACHTELL LIPTON (NEW YORK)

142

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

ADAM EMMERICH AND ROBIN PANOVKA ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT LUNCHING

at a fab place like Le Bernardin is that it’s mind blowing. The art, the elegance, the service, the ﬁsh, Eric Ripert. A person could swoon even without a glass of wine. But that’s not really how business is done now, is it? What’s way more fun is to paw one’s way through one dish after another trying to keep up with two of the most dynamic and smartest partners around – the impossibly suave Adam Emmerich and the elegant Robin Panovka. They rule the REIT practice at Wachtell Lipton, which means they are the Rulers of REIT M&A, which is really big business. They are also noted global dealmakers and leading real estate strategists. Together, they helped Silverstein Properties redevelop the World Trade Center site after 9/11, in addition to advising leading REITs on their biggest deals and most complex and sensitive matters. Since the early ‘90s, they have been key players and innovators helping to fuel the growth and consolidation of REITs. REIT legislation was signed by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1960, creating a vehicle that combined the best attributes of real estate and stock investment. Since then REITS have grown into a $2 trillion asset class, which is expected to continue its fast-paced growth in the next decade. In 2016, REITs were carved out as an 11th sector of the S&P 500. If you’re reading this sitting in an ofﬁce building, it’s likely owned by a REIT. If you’re going to a shopping mall later, it’s almost certainly owned by a REIT, and if it’s less than full, it’s probably being considered for a data center or an elder care facility. If you’re talking on a cell phone, it’s bouncing off a tower likely owned by a REIT. If you work in a big corporate headquarters, it’s likely been sold to a REIT or is on its way. Real estate is so 1950s. More salmon rillette, anyone? Yes, please. Lawdragon: How did you get involved with REITS? Robin Panovka: In the early ‘90s, REITs were starting to emerge, and it was clear to us that they were going to grow fast and consolidate into larger companies. That growth and consolidation - and the inevitable M&A and large-scale deal activity - seemed like an interesting opportunity for us at Wachtell Lipton. So

PHOTO BY: LAURA BARISONZI

BY KATRINA DEWEY

Adam and I, along with our tax partner David Einhorn, formed our REIT M&A task force to focus on the area. Adam O. Emmerich: We realized quickly that REIT M&A deals are best handled by a multi-disciplinary team with expertise in REITs and real estate, corporate law and public company M&A, and of course tax. The deals are complex, and we’ve found that we can best add value if we bring to bear all of these areas of expertise in a cohesive, seamless way. Our firm is structured perfectly for this kind of approach; we’re flexible and we work well in teams focused on achieving the best results for our clients. LD: What made REITs grow so quickly? RP: REITs brought to the real estate markets something they desperately needed – liquidity, transparency and good corporate governance. Real estate is a capital intensive industry, so the logic of moving the industry from Main Street, so to speak, to Wall Street, was just too compelling not to work. REITs are, in essence, liquid real estate that generates a steady flow of dividends, which, particularly in the yield-starved world we still live in, is a very compelling idea. LD: And why the consolidation into bigger companies? AOE: Well, when we got started, the industry was incredibly fragmented, like many emerging industries. Think automakers in 1920. There were a large number of very small REITs, and the advantages of scale quickly became evident. One of the most important advantages is the lower cost of capital and the financial flexibility enjoyed by larger REITs. REIT combinations also deliver synergies, and often result in better run, more transparent, efficient and liquid vehicles. LD: So how did you get started developing Wachtell’s REIT M&A practice? AOE: At the beginning we didn’t know much about the area – we weren’t really involved in regular REIT work or IPOs, so we started reading and getting educated. Then, as we gained expertise, we got to know key players in the space and started getting involved in deals. RP: We were fortunate in that one of our first key clients in the space hired us to help them buy significant stakes

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

143

500

500 144

Bobby Chesney

Linda Coberly

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS LAW SCHOOL AUSTIN

WINSTON & STRAWN CHICAGO

Ken Choe

Jay Cohen

HOGAN LOVELLS WASHINGTON, D.C.

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

James Clark

Lori Cohen

CAHILL GORDON NEW YORK

GREENBERG TRAURIG ATLANTA

Bernard F. ‘Buddy’ Clarke Jr.

Mary Louise Cohen

HAYNES BOONE HOUSTON

PHILLIPS & COHEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Richard Clary

Robin Cohen

CRAVATH NEW YORK

MCKOOL SMITH NEW YORK

Jay Clayton

Cindy Cohn

SEC WASHINGTON, D.C.

ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION SAN FRANCISCO

Paul Clement

Jason Collins

KIRKLAND & ELLIS WASHINGTON, D.C.

REID COLLINS & TSAI AUSTIN, TEXAS

Jerry Clements

Dean Colson

LOCKE LORD DALLAS

COLSON HICKS CORAL GABLES

Ty Cobb

James Comey

THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON, D.C.

HOWARD UNIVERSITY WASHINGTON, D.C.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

AFTER WE ESTABLISHED OURSELVES IN THE SPACE AND DEVELOPED RELATIONSHIPS WITH KEY PLAYERS, DEALS FOLLOWED DEALS AT A VERY FAST PACE. IT’S BEEN A VERY PRODUCTIVE AND REWARDING PRACTICE AREA FOR THE FIRM, AND VERY INTERESTING. IN MANY CASES, WE REPRESENT THE CONSOLIDATOR IN A PARTICULAR SECTOR, AND HAVE HANDLED MANY DEALS FOR THEM AS THEY HAVE GROWN OVER THE YEARS. in a number of REITs in different sectors over a couple of years, so we had the opportunity to learn about how the target companies were structured, figure out how they should be restructured and recapitalized, and get to know their boards and management teams, as well as the investment bankers and others working in the space. It was a great introduction. LD: How did the practice evolve? AOE: After we established ourselves in the space and developed relationships with key players, deals followed deals at a very fast pace. It’s been a very productive and rewarding practice area for the firm, and very interesting. In many cases, we represent the consolidator in a particular sector, and have handled many deals for them as they have grown over the years. The deals started out fairly small when the industry was small, but at this point they are quite sizeable. For example, we just completed a $15 billion merger of two shopping center REITs, and over the last few years have handled many similarly sized mergers involving hundreds of billions of industrial, healthcare/senior housing, self-storage, office, mall, apartment, single-family homes and other real estate. RP: In addition to mergers, we’ve also advised on several large REIT spin-offs – both REITs spinning off other REITs and regular businesses spinning out their real estate – as well as takeover and activist defenses, private equity buyouts, governance matters, and various strategic transactions. It’s been busy. LD: Are activists as much of a factor for REITs as other public companies?

AOE: Yes, increasingly so. REITs are increasingly being targeted, and it’s important for REITs to be prepared, and to be in essence their own activists, generating ideas and considering alternatives. In most cases, activist attacks on REITs demonstrate short-term thinking and ideas that are already under consideration – like selling assets when the REIT is trading below the value of its assets – but once in a while the outsider’s perspective can spotlight an interesting opportunity. So it has to be handled on a thoughtful, case by case basis. LD: How are REIT mergers different than other mergers Wachtell handles? RP: REITs have a number of unusual features that come into play in M&A deals, like the so-called UpREIT structure that utilizes an operating partnership, and so-called excess share ownership restrictions in REIT charters. And of course there are the REIT tax rules, which can have signiﬁcant impacts and ripple effects on deals. REIT deals represent a marriage of real estate and corporate deal cultures, customs and technologies, as well as some different valuation and accounting metrics, so they can’t be approached in a rigid corporate framework. And of course, the boards and CEOs often come from the entrepreneurial real estate world, which for me makes it a lot of fun. LD: Are there hostile deals involving REITs? AOE: Deﬁnitely. There are probably fewer hostile deals in REIT-land, largely because of the smaller takeover premiums that are typical of REIT transactions, but structurally REITs are no more takeover proof than any other public companies. The con-

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

145

500

500 146

Creighton O’M. Condon

Lisa Damon

SHEARMAN & STERLING NEW YORK

SEYFARTH BOSTON

Jayne Conroy

Catherine Dargan

SIMMONS HANLY CONROY NEW YORK

COVINGTON & BURLING WASHINGTON, D.C.

George Conway

Frank Darras

WACHTELL LIPTON NEW YORK

DARRASLAW ONTARIO, CALIF.

Philip Harnett Corboy, Jr.

Susan Davies

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

KIRKLAND & ELLIS WASHINGTON, D.C.

Richard Cordray

Cari Dawson

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU WASHINGTON, D.C.

ALSTON & BIRD ATLANTA

Nina Cortell

Catherine Dearlove

HAYNES BOONE DALLAS

RICHARDS LAYTON WILMINGTON

Todd Cosenza

Makan Delrahim

WILLKIE NEW YORK

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON, D.C.

John Crockett III

Karin DeMasi

FROST BROWN LOUISVILLE

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Steve D’Amore

Thomas Demetrio

WINSTON & STRAWN CHICAGO

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

ventional wisdom that REITs are takeover proof is, well, conventionally wrong. LD: What about the real estate that’s owned by regular corporations, like headquarters buildings? How does that fit in with REITs? RP: You’re touching on an interesting area. We’ve been involved in a number of transactions in which corporate real estate has been moved into REITs – for example the spin of a gaming REIT out of a gaming company and the creation of a REIT to own and lease back retail properties – and we expect these kinds of transactions to continue. Companies that own significant real estate assets which aren’t adequately valued by the market sometimes want to consider strategies to “unlock” the real estate value. There are a number of strategies to be considered, and in some cases creation of a REIT or a sale-leaseback might make sense. LD: Have there been bumps in the road as the REIT industry has grown, or has it been a straight line? AOE: The financial crisis was quite a big bump. REIT stocks joined the rest of the market in losing tremendous value, and that made their debt loads look heavy. But only one REIT filed for bankruptcy, and the REIT market fared much better than the private real estate market. In the end, the financial crisis probably strengthened the REIT industry, in that it caused REITs to recapitalize and showed the advantages of the REIT structure. REITs have now been battle-tested and emerged with flying colors. LD: How has technological disruption affected REITs? RP: As in other areas of the economy, there’s been a tremendous impact and my guess is that we’re just getting started. The so-called “bricks versus clicks” disruption has been most evident in the retail/ shopping center sector, but it’s having an impact everywhere. Just think Airbnb (hotels), WeWork and the mobile work force (office), not to mention self-driving cars, drone deliveries, altered reality and technologies we haven’t even dreamed about. Some of the biggest and fastest growing REITs today are driven by technology, like cell tower REITs, data center REITs, and industrial/warehouse REITs that facilitate online shopping. REIT boards need to be nimble and keep an eye on these trends, now more than ever. LD: What do you enjoy about the REIT M&A work?

AOE: For one thing, the fast-paced growth and innovation. Also the relationships we’ve formed with the leaders of REITs who we’ve been working with for many years. These are often remarkable people who founded the company or took it from nothing to an S&P 500 company. REITs are often incredibly flat, lean organizations, and that’s a nice thing to deal with. It’s a very dynamic, interesting practice. RP: In many cases, we’ve been working with companies for more than a decade or even two, since they got started and made their first acquisition, so we have a real personal interest in them and their success. LD: So what comes next for the REIT industry? RP: It seems almost inevitable that the strong flow of properties into REITs, both in the U.S. and abroad, will continue, which obviously involves lots of deal activity. The U.S. REIT market is already over $1 trillion, and the European and Asian markets, which developed later, have already grown beyond $200 billion each. There’s tremendous room for growth abroad, but even in the U.S. significant growth is expected, part of it from continuing consolidation by the existing leading REITs, part of it from fastgrowing tech-REITS, and part from the expansion of REITs into new property types and the movement of corporate real estate into REITs. There is still a tremendous amount of real estate outside of REITs that might be better positioned in a REIT solution. AOE: No question, we expect a steady flow of M&A deals as REITs continue to get bigger and consolidate their sectors. The 30 REITs now in the S&P 500 – up from zero 16 years ago, by the way – already have an average market cap of about $20 billion and represent 55% of the REIT market. The big are getting bigger, but still have tremendous runway. LD: How does your work rebuilding the World Trade Center fit in with the REIT practice? RP: It’s really part of our broader strategic real estate practice. In addition to REIT M&A we advise on major development or city-building projects, joint ventures, private equity fund formations, and other high-stakes matters. Our firm spent many years working on the WTC rebuilding effort, starting days after 9/11, and we are proud of the role we played in this important effort and of course very gratified at the progress at the WTC and downtown.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

147

Joseph C. Shenker SULLIVAN & CROMWELL (NEW YORK)

500

JOSEPH C. SHENKER HE IS PRETERNATURALLY COOL, IN AN

intense sort of way. Which may be exactly what makes Joseph C. Shenker the ideal chairman for Sullivan & Cromwell, inarguably the impresario of American internationalists when it comes to legal affairs. The Brooklyn-born, night-school educated accountant wielded brilliance, competitiveness and dynamism to rocket to the top of what’s considered one of the top three elite U.S. firms. He developed real estate finance for Goldman Sachs, then deployed it for one of Sullivan’s largest assets: its own headquarters on the waterfront of Lower Manhattan. He handled several of the biggest sports deals of all time, helping Frank McCourt sell the Los Angeles Dodgers to Guggenheim Baseball Management for a jaw-dropping $2.15 billion. His Dodgers jersey hangs on the wall, #2.15, and the backstory of the sale – which we sadly can’t tell here – involves a movie called “Bad Santa,” a tuxedo, Magic Johnson, and a dash to Cipriani. If we don’t yet have your attention, there’s this: He’s an orthodox rabbi in a firm where that would have been considered unlikely when it was founded in 1879. The firm’s imprint on the U.S. economy is legendary – from advising John Pierpont Morgan on the formation of Edison GE to the founding of U.S. Steel; from advising European bankers who financed America’s railroads and infrastructure to helping create the Securities Act of 1933; from filing the first major registration under that Act to handling Ford Motor Co.’s $643M offering in 1956. The firm’s global footprint is perhaps larger still. Try this: When Shenker visits Panama, Sullivan & Cromwell is thanked for the Canal. His views on leading Sullivan & Cromwell are postcontemporary – reflecting a deep emphasis on the brand, reach and technology – paired with retro values that come from sustaining a jewel of a firm in an era of law firm undertow. His mantra is simple: recruit and train the best lawyers to deliver perfect work to the world’s most interesting clients. Accustomed to looking out toward the world’s far horizon, Shenker is currently contemplating a vista that has bent in surprising ways. The world’s social unrest is on his mind, as is the imperative for a society of laws in these trying times. Lawdragon: Joe, can you talk about your path to joining Sullivan & Cromwell and what attracted you to the legal profession?

PHOTO BY: LAURA BARISONZI

BY KATRINA DEWEY Joseph C. Shenker: What a lawyer really does is look at a situation, analyze the issues, and try to solve the problem. And that’s something I was always pretty good at. I like problem solving: I like pulling apart issues in order to understand and analyze the problem; I like trying to see and understand each protagonist’s point of view; and I like articulating and advocating for solutions that work. I was doing that way before I went to law school, just going through life. LD: Did you debate in high school or college? JCS: Growing up in Brooklyn . . . I always enjoyed verbal sparring, debating, and advocacy. So I probably debated my entire life. But again, debate in the sense of working to understand every individual’s point of view, as opposed to pre-judging, or arguing or debating for only one side. It is important for a lawyer to put himself/herself in the other “side’s” shoes, to understand there is no one necessarily true path and your preconceived notions might not be correct, to have an open mind and the ability to get into someone else’s head and understand their point of view. For example, when doing a deal in China you need to understand the Chinese counterparty’s culture and the way they approach problems and solutions and not jump to conclusions based only on your prior experience elsewhere. That’s really important in both practicing law and in managing your organization. You should not be fixated on your own ideas; you have to be open to hearing other points of view. It doesn’t mean you can’t at the end of the day be decisive, but it’s a mistake to be closed-minded. LD: What is distinctive about Sullivan & Cromwell to you? JCS: What is unusual, I think, about this place is first, we really believe in the “pursuit of excellence.” That matters. The perfect isn’t the enemy of the good. Intellectual excellence, as well as excellence in client service; both IQ and EQ: really caring about the intellectual problem and pushing the analysis to its furthest, no matter how much time it takes, and having the EQ to empathize with the people you’re dealing with, and to recognize and relate to all the players – whether they are on your side or on the other side, or are the judge, regulator or investigator. Second, S&C is a dynamic firm in terms of our practice: the areas and mix are constantly changing. Part

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

149

500

500 150

Mark Denbeaux

Daralyn Durie

SET ON HALL SCHOOL OF LAW NEWARK, N.J.

DURIE TANGRI SAN FRANCISCO

Kelly Dermody

Brian Duwe

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

SKADDEN CHICAGO

Jack DiCanio

Karen Dyer

SKADDEN PALO ALTO

BOIES SCHILLER ORLANDO

Patricia Dodge

Scott Edelman

MEYER UNKOVIC PITTSBURGH

MILBANK NEW YORK

Diane Doolittle

A. Clifford Edwards

QUINN EMANUEL REDWOOD SHORES

EDWARDS FRICKLE BILLINGS, MONT.

Bill Dougherty

Jay Eisenhofer

SIMPSON THACHER NEW YORK

GRANT & EISENHOFER NEW YORK

Anthony Dreyer

Dianne Elderkin

SKADDEN NEW YORK

AKIN GUMP PHILADELPHIA

David Drummond

Michael Elkin

GOOGLE MOUNTAIN VIEW

WINSTON & STRAWN NEW YORK

Karen Dunn

Adam Emmerich

BOIES SCHILLER WASHINGTON, D.C.

WACHTELL LIPTON NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

of the reason for that is our roots on Wall Street, the investment banks – who are always innovating. We have to be ahead of the curve. LD: Any other traits that are distinctive to Sullivan & Cromwell? JCS: Every firm has its DNA. Some firms and some clients have pushed for the lowest cost per product unit through extreme specialization, mechanization and routinization. Clients will say, “Okay, for a certain segment of my work, that’s all I need. The perfect is the enemy of the good.” That’s not our philosophy. We can’t take the chance. A client once told me, “If the contract is 80% good, but a lot cheaper, in certain circumstances it’s good enough.” I responded, “That all depends on what 20% you’re missing.” Our job is to do the perfect. We have flexibility on what to charge and we can only charge what makes sense, but we don’t have flexibility on doing the best we can – and that requires pushing our thought processes and analysis to the fullest. LD: Can you talk about one of your early experiences that demonstrates the unusual nature of the firm? JCS: I joined as a summer associate after my second year at Columbia Law School. We were asked to choose practice areas we might be interested in and I chose both tax and “general practice.” General practice covers a multitude of evils: everything that’s not litigation, estates or tax. It includes many subgroup specialties – which are permeable. When I came back as an associate, I was asked to choose between tax and general practice. I love the intellectual part of tax, but since I like the people element and negotiation, in addition to the problem solving, I chose general practice. What’s neat in general practice at S&C is you are really also working at tax and everything else too. Once I chose general practice, I was in the pool for any type of transaction assignment. Goldman Sachs was then, and still is, a major client. In 1981 they decided to build a new headquarters at 85 Broad Street. We were assigned to it. And there I was, a rising second year working on this very innovative assignment for Goldman Sachs. LD: And that was your first big deal? JCS: The first one on which I had major responsibility. Goldman wanted to do it creatively. They were first

buying the land, which was a complicated assemblage, involving closing a city street: Coenties Alley. And they wanted to do everything themselves - in other words, as developers – and they had never developed before. Because they wanted to learn it. So it was all in-house, with us as counsel, and recognizing that neither of us had really done this before. First we dealt with the city on closing the alley. If you go across the street today, though it’s no longer Goldman’s headquarters, you will see a crooked brick path that goes through the lobby and that is Coenties Alley. It was part of our deal with the city to preserve the outline of it. Goldman also wanted to test out pioneering construction financing. They were not in the real estate investment banking business at the time and subsequently went into it. But this was their first try at it so they wanted to push themselves. They said, “Let’s finance this in the securities market, in the commercial paper market” - which had never been done for real estate. Today it’s the norm, but this was the first time it was done. We developed a commercial paper program with them based on work we had done to finance nuclear fuel for utilities and continuous casters for steel companies. We adapted what we did there to finance real estate in a first-time ever transaction that became the pioneering transaction for the securitization of real estate, and for Goldman Sachs which became dominant in the field. LD: You must have felt a very visceral gratification of actually being able to see the product of your work. JCS: My kids used to laugh because I walked around New York City with them saying, “Oh, we bought that building. We sold that building. We financed that building.” The interesting thing is that we were given the responsibility. And not being wedded to one thing, to preconceived methods, was the key. If we had been wedded to traditional construction financing, we wouldn’t have been the right people. Goldman took a chance on us but they were taking a chance on themselves. And it worked. From there, we went on to pioneer the whole area of securitization of real estate: we did the first ever Euro-dollar real estate financings, the first ever Liborbased/interest rate swapped real estate financings, the first-ever rated deals, and so on. We literally helped

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

151

500

500 152

Miguel Estrada

Jodi Flowers

GIBSON DUNN WASHINGTON, D.C.

MOTLEY RICE MT. PLEASANT, S.C.

Ward Farnsworth

Will Fogg

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS LAW SCHOOL AUSTIN, TEXAS

CRAVATH NEW YORK

D. Cameron Findlay

C. Parker Folse

ADM CHICAGO

SUSMAN GODFREY SEATTLE

Bill Finnegan

Amy Forbes

LATHAM HOUSTON

GIBSON DUNN LOS ANGELES

Cole Finnegan

David Frederick

HOGAN LOVELLS DENVER

KELLOGG HANSEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Jeffrey Fisher

Todd Freed

STANFORD LAW SCHOOL STANFORD

SKADDEN NEW YORK

Ora Fisher

Joe Frumkin

LATHAM PALO ALTO

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL NEW YORK

Fidelma Fitzpatrick

Agnieszka Fryszman

MOTLEY RICE PROVIDENCE

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Jayne Fleming

Vijaya Gadde

REED SMITH NEW YORK

TWITTER SAN FRANCISCO

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

I WORK WITH MY PARTNERS TO LEAD THIS FIRM IN THIS WORLD. IT’S A DOMINANT GLOBAL FIRM AND RIGHT NOW THE WORLD’S KIND OF UPSIDE DOWN. pioneer the whole area, which was Goldman’s goal in trying it out on themselves. LD: Let’s talk a bit about managing the firm, which probably brings a similar array of constituencies and moving parts against a backdrop of a world in turmoil. JCS: I work with my partners to lead this firm in this world. It’s a dominant global firm and right now the world’s kind of upside down. In our lunches with our associates we often try to address this. We explain that we build for the long term and try to minimize the craziness that we’re going through at any moment. I tell them we are living in the most complicated, volatile, political and social situation that I’ve lived through. That obviously impacts business. And what’s even more unusual is that’s true all over the world. It’s true of the developed countries, whether the United States or Great Britain. It’s true in the developing countries of Brazil, obviously Venezuela, Argentina. China has serious social issues it will have to deal with. So we are dealing with tremendous social unrest and probably consequent protectionism worldwide, and that will likely be exacerbated with increasingly rapid technological change. Because that will cause massive job shifting, uncertainty and the need for retraining. Notwithstanding this, we are huge believers in being citizens of the world, in free trade and in building for the very long term. That’s our business. The way economies grow best is through the free flow of goods, services, people and ideas, and the places and institutions that welcome that will be the survivors. And, interestingly, despite the recent uncertainty and protectionist winds, business enterprises are behaving as globally as ever. LD: If you have a mantra, it’s to hire the best people to do the most interesting work. Can you explain how everything comes back to that for you? JCS: We always want to recruit the best people. You are not going to recruit the best people unless you’re offering them a creative, dynamic, diverse, open and

welcoming platform. Our practice is not pigeonholed; we call it “general practice” for a reason – as opposed to a real estate department, an M&A department, etc. When you eliminate “departments” you help avoid pigeon-holing and silos. We want that kind of free flow of ideas, creativity, knowledge, experience and innovation. I even expect to see the boundaries between litigation and general practice further eroded. All legal work at its core is the same: You are analyzing a problem and trying to arrive at a solution by understanding your client’s and its counterparty’s (whether contractual, counterparts, regulator, investigator, etc.) viewpoints, and needs; you then have to articulate your position and solution orally and/or in writing, and advocate successfully for it. LD: You hope to focus on the broader Conflict Resolution? That’s certainly consistent with the cross-cutting creativity you’ve achieved with General Practice. JCS: Intellectual property disputes are a good example of exactly that. You might see a lawsuit, a licensing agreement or a lawsuit that results in a licensing agreement - which is usually what happens. What we need are lawyers who are trained to think as counselors to be able to move fluidly between strategies and approaches. We need to create people who can cross lines and think with IQ and EQ. You obviously need specialized knowledge, and that’s not going to go away. Everyone here has an area of specialized knowledge, but everyone also needs to be trained in broad areas of general knowledge to bridge it so they can be a true advisor. Call on specialties, but understand the whole thing. That to me is the key to the practice and the key to successful recruiting. Technology and artificial intelligence have made and will undoubtedly make our lives easier with respect to document discovery, production and drafting. That results and will continue to result in making our practice more interesting, because it allows us to focus on multi-disciplinary strategic advice and counseling. That way you are the winner as opposed to the loser, from technological advances.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

153

500

500 154

Kat Gallagher

Paul Geller

BECK REDDEN HOUSTON

ROBBINS GELLER BOCA RATON

Sergio Galvis

Heather Gerken

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL NEW YORK

YALE LAW SCHOOL NEW HAVEN

James Garner

Glenn Gerstell

SHER GARNER NEW ORLEANS

NSA FORT MEADE, MD.

Gregory Garre

Robin Gibbs

LATHAM WASHINGTON, D.C.

GIBBS & BRUNS HOUSTON

Deborah Garza

Lisa Gilford

COVINGTON & BURLING WASHINGTON, D.C.

SKADDEN LOS ANGELES

Steven Gavin

Benjamin Ginsberg

WINSTON & STRAWN CHICAGO

JONES DAY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Faith Gay

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

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

Karen Gaylord

Tom Girardi

JENNINGS HAUG PHOENIX

GIRARDI | KEESE LOS ANGELES

Lee Gelernt

Robert Giuffra

ACLU NEW YORK

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

LD: Which mirrors the challenges we see in society? JCS: Society’s challenge is to make sure we figure out how everyone is a winner from technological change. It should be so, because technology enhances productivity. It makes your life more pleasant, but it does cause job displacement. And we have to figure that out. Being global also allows us to always solve different new problems, to work with different people and learn new things. I’m in China several times a year, and I love it. I’ve learned a lot about China that I didn’t know before. I love understanding the culture and what makes things tick. How the system operates on a practical level. What their issues are and how you bridge the cross-border gaps. I’ve given a lecture at Beijing University about exactly that. A global practice adds interest. You’re learning new cultures, new areas, doing business in different places, with different standards and in different industries: that’s part of the fun of being a lawyer. It creates a virtuous cycle of recruiting the best, which leads you to the most interesting problems from the most interesting clients which leads you back to recruiting the best. How do you recruit the best? You offer the most interesting practice and the best and broadest training. Whether they stay here or go somewhere else, we want to work with our lawyers to prepare them for whatever career path they later choose. That’s also why we created our Career and Alumni Resource Center. The Center’s services are available to all of our lawyers and alums at any point in their careers, and include career counseling, placements with legal and non-legal employers and networking opportunities. LD: That’s a different dialogue from how we used to talk about the relationship between an attorney and the firm. JCS: People often talk about joining a law firm as golden handcuffs. We actually think of it as wings. That you’ve been at Sullivan & Cromwell even for three years means you can go anywhere.

gal spend has become too high. Part of it is just bad behavior. LD: Can we talk about the firm’s market-leading practice in crisis management? That also seems very of the moment. JCS: It is a reflection and the epitome of our multi-disciplinary approach. When Bernie Madoff was arrested, we got a call from the president of Yeshiva University saying “We have a real problem”; Madoff was their treasurer and chairman of the Syms Business School. We worked hand-in-glove with our client to deal with this crisis: communicating with all constituencies: the students, the faculty, the Attorney General, the courts, alums, donors, the board. Today our lawyers are working with Volkswagen and Fiat-Chrysler on their emissions cases. Our global footprint and multi-disciplinary approach are particularly helpful in crisis management because you never know what will hit you as you navigate the crisis and allows us to work with interesting clients on all types of matters. LD: With your emphasis on listening to the disparate voices in the market, what changes have you detected over the past few years? JCS: The financial crisis was tough. The stress on financial institutions was extensive. Our job really was to figure out how to add value in those circumstances. We are not looking to build a huge empire of leveraged lawyers who then just go out and churn work. That undermines perfectionism. Our goal is to create and maintain an exciting place to work which the next generation will be as enthusiastic about as I am. And, as part of that, you also have to be doing good: helping people and institutions that people care about. LD: In this changing world, few things are as valuable as a platinum brand. Let’s talk a bit about the value of the Sullivan & Cromwell brand.

LD: I know you think a lot about the society of laws, and that there is nobility in this profession. Do you see a loss of that in society and some ﬁrms with the business and societal pressures?

JCS: We own this building, for example, right? It’s a great asset; a million and a half square feet worth perhaps a billion dollars – but it doesn’t compare to the value of our brand. It took us 139 years to create our brand and you can lose it in an instant. The only way you don’t lose it is to keep to that pursuit of excellence.

JCS: I do. Part of it has come from the law becoming a bit of a commoditized business; part of it is fee pressure, which is understandable and fair as le-

The other thing that goes to our brand is client service. I remember I was dealing with a CFO of a major public company who said to me, “You know Joe,

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

155

500

500 156

Patricia Glaser

Elaine Golin

GLASER WEIL LOS ANGELES

WACHTELL LIPTON NEW YORK

Steve Glover

Rudy Gonzales Jr.

GIBSON DUNN WASHINGTON, D.C.

HILLIARD MUNOZ CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS

Donald Godwin

Ervin Gonzalez (1960-2017)

GODWIN BOWMAN & MARTINEZ DALLAS

COLSON HICKS CORAL GABLES, FLA.

Jay Goffman

David Gordon

SKADDEN NEW YORK

LATHAM NEW YORK

Louis Goldberg

Jamie Gorelick

DAVIS POLK NEW YORK

WILMERHALE WASHINGTON, D.C.

Andrew Goldman

Neil Gorsuch

GOLDMAN ISMAIL CHICAGO

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

David Goldschmidt

Ilene Knable Gotts

SKADDEN NEW YORK

WACHTELL LIPTON NEW YORK

Sandra Goldstein

Elizabeth Graham

CRAVATH NEW YORK

GRANT & EISENHOFER WILMINGTON

Tom Goldstein

Stuart Grant

GOLDSTEIN & RUSSELL BETHESDA, MD.

GRANT & EISENHOFER WILMINGTON

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

you’re a really good lawyer, but there are probably five other lawyers who are as good as you. But what gives me a lot of comfort is I know you worry. When you go to sleep at night I know you’re still worrying about me.” It’s that kind of extra empathy in client service that is important. You have got to recognize it is a client service business, it’s not some academic pursuit. It is a part of our brand that we worry about it. LD: It is so rare for a law firm leader to get brand like you do. That it differentiates you from 10,000 other law firms. JCS: “It’s never about you” is a point you have to understand as a lawyer. It is a service business. For example, your client can sometimes come to you with a problem that another law firm, another lawyer did not handle well. There is sometimes a perhaps fleeting tendency to kind of enjoy that. But that is the wrong thing to be doing to the client. It reflects poorly on you, and it’s not what the client is looking for. You’re there to solve the problem. LD: It’s your victory that the client came to you in failure. JCS: But it’s not about you; it’s about helping them. Your attitude has to be “Okay, how do I solve this?” As opposed to, “Jeez, I can’t believe that happened.” LD: How do you assess your global performance during your leadership starting when you got involved with management in 1996 and became vice chairman in early 2006? Just in time for the financial crisis. JCS: What I am most proud of is to have an environment, a workplace and a practice where our people are happy to come to work and new people want to join us. That comes from creating a stimulating and respectful environment, having our people awake and fully engaged during the day, and asleep at night. That’s Nirvana. It’s not always accomplished. But that’s the goal. LD: So not money, not profits, you measure your success by having the best work, the best people. JCS: That creates the money in the process. That’s the best business plan. LD: And how does the firm’s global footprint play into that, especially in these times? JCS: The philosophy of the firm always - going back to before we helped get the Panama Canal built - was to just do interesting things. The Panama Canal was done because we had a French client who

was competing with another consortium for whether it should be built in Panama or Nicaragua. So William Nelson Cromwell organized the secession of Panama from Colombia. They still recognize us because of that, and we helped our client whose goal was to have French engineering used to build the canal. So we were always a global firm, but that’s not the goal. Our goal is simply to pursue the best, most interesting work from the best clients. That’s what leads us to be global as opposed to saying, “Oh I want to be global. I’ve got to have an office in XYZ place.” That’s not the way we approach it. LD: What are you most proud of during your leadership? JCS: Not messing it up, to tell you the truth. I always say, “My job is to hand the firm over to the next generation of lawyers in at least as good a shape as I found it.” I’ve been happy pretty much every day I’ve walked into this place. There are a lot of stresses, but I love my job. I want that for the future of this firm and for everyone who works here. LD: How do you think the firm will be different in five years? JCS: I don’t want to prescribe that. I just know we should continue our pursuit of excellence. Push the edge, find the most interesting clients, the most interesting work, make sure we’re the most invested in technology and are always investing for the long term. Hire the best people; the rest takes care of itself. We develop new practices and new geographies to respond to client business and economic need. That’s how you innovate. That was true whether it was the development of real estate securities or opening new offices. We just opened in Brussels, even though I always said it was unlikely I would open a new office. But Brexit happened, with a lot of cross-border work and the increase in regulatory scrutiny by the European Commission, and we felt we needed it. “Five-year plans” never work and we don’t do them here. But we are always listening for trends, changes and developments. You have a strategy, and you have a vision, but most important you have core principles and you’ve got to live by those core principles. Those core principles are: recruit the best, train them the best, treat them the best, and good things will happen. That’s the goal, that’s the brand.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

157

Bill Carmody SUSMAN GODFREY (NEW YORK)

500

THE PRODUCERS: BILL CARMODY

BY KATRINA DEWEY

Lawdragon is presenting a series looking at lawyers who produce vast amounts of business for their ﬁrms, typically $20M and up per year. Rare air. We had a chance to talk to Bill Carmody, who combined his outsider’s hustle, brilliant out-of-the-box thinking, and infectious joie de vivre to become Susman Godfrey’s main man in New York.

IT’S DECEMBER IN MIDTOWN

Manhattan, and the place to be isn’t Rockefeller Center or Radio City Music Hall. A few blocks over and a world away, an exclusive list of guests ascend the elevators at 6th Avenue and 52nd Street for the annual event that tops them all: Susman Godfrey’s famed NYC holiday party. World-renowned chef Daniel Boulud has just flown in from Tokyo to cater the swinging affair. But the real impresario is Susman Godfrey’s New York leader, and one of its most unlikely partners. To this over-the-top affair – and everything else in his life – Bill Carmody brings the skills of a world-class trial lawyer, the story of a legend, and the soul of a fixer. Carmody has amassed a collection of trial wins and huge settlements as striking as the modern art splashed across the New York office interiors he designed. He recently recovered record settlements of $465M for the whistleblower in the Novartis qui tam litigation, and federal courts routinely appoint him as lead counsel in America’s biggest antitrust class actions. While he made his bones as a bigdollar plaintiffs’ lawyer, he has also become go-to defense counsel for hedge fund titans like Dan Loeb and Louis Bacon as well as Fortune 10 companies like General Electric. In fact, the New Jersey Court of Appeals just upheld a summary judgment that he and his team won for the activist hedge fund, Third Point, when it was sued for $8 billion in the mammoth Fairfax litigation. Those results make him rare enough, but it’s Carmody’s unconventional career path that makes him a legend. Virtually all of his peers at Susman Godfrey received elite educations and had prominent federal clerkships; Bill’s launching pad to the top, meanwhile, was made of degrees from the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and The University of Tulsa College of Law. In a profession that values conformity, this unabashed maverick in everything from his dress (jeans over suits) to his speech (folksy over refined) made it on hustle. After scrapping to win a hardearned audience with Steve Susman, he secured his legendary status by earning a partnership at what is

PHOTO BY: LAURA BARISONZI

easily one of America’s top two or three trial firms. But for now, let’s say top. At every step, Carmody has flourished because of an uncanny ability, born of creativity and influence, to play the fixer. Whether it’s clients with billions on the line who need a quick and quiet fix to rid them of dangerous exposure before it becomes front page news, or colleagues who need prime tables at the world’s most sought-after restaurants, Bill gets the call. From three-star Michelin destinations like the French Laundry in Napa Valley to NOMA in Copenhagen to New York’s hottest hole-in-the-wall of the moment, he can make it happen. And when Carmody makes it happen, the experience is always over-the-top. It shouldn’t be any surprise that this unconventional legal figure relishes the chance to gamble on his own performance. He has become the leading evangelist for Susman Godfrey’s results-based fee deals. Or as the plain-spoken Carmody would put it, he likes to bet on himself. On the rare occasions he loses, he cries alongside his clients, and they flip to see who’s buying the soup. But when Carmody wins, he wins big. Is it any surprise that New York is Susman Godfrey’s fastest-growing and most-profitable office? Lawdragon: Bill, let’s go back to the beginning. Where did you grow up and how did you start out in the Merchant Marine? Bill Carmody: I was raised on Long Island and went to college there at the United States Merchant Marine Academy, where I studied marine engineering. It’s a great school, but as much as anything else, I ended up there because the price was right. Like the other federal academies, it was free. After my graduation from Kings Point I sailed on tankers for Mobil Oil but soon realized that seafaring, while adventurous and fun, wasn’t my long-term calling. LD: Was engineering your first passion in terms of a profession? BC: Well, it was pretty simple. It wasn’t like I had a lifelong passion to be an engineer, but when I went to Kings Point there were only two majors, marine

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

159

500

500 160

Nicholas Gravante

Richard Hall

BOIES SCHILLER NEW YORK

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Salvatore Graziano

Doug Hallward-Driemeier

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

ROPES & GRAY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mark Greene

Geoffrey Harrison

CRAVATH NEW YORK

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

Joseph Gromacki

Janice Hartman

JENNER & BLOCK CHICAGO

K&L GATES PITTSBURGH

Benjamin Gruenstein

Michael Hausfeld

CRAVATH NEW YORK

HAUSFELD WASHINGTON, D.C.

Dan Grunfeld

Edward Herlihy

RAND LOS ANGELES

WACHTELL LIPTON NEW YORK

Nina Gussack

Russ Herman

PEPPER HAMILTON PHILADELPHIA

HERMAN HERMAN NEW ORLEANS

Lucas Guttentag

Steve Herman

STANFORD LAW SCHOOL STANFORD

HERMAN HERMAN NEW ORLEANS

Melinda Haag

Lynne Hermle

ORRICK SAN FRANCISCO

ORRICK MENLO PARK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

engineering and what was called nautical science. Cadets were trained either to be engineering or deck officers on commercial ships. I chose the former path because I was always good at math and science and thought that engineering would have a broader application when my sailing days ended. There’s not much of a demand for navigators on shore. LD: That’s funny. I bet you use some of that engineering knowhow on your cases. BC: You’re right. The real-time problem solving skills that I used as an engineer serve me every day as a trial lawyer. LD: How long was it from when you ended your career as a Merchant Mariner until you enrolled in The University of Tulsa College of Law? BC: About five years. After a short stint sailing for Mobil, I was laid off. Once my sailing days ended, I was having way too much fun living in Miami running a nightclub and thankfully realized it was time to get serious and go to law school. I had planned on going to Georgetown but didn’t account for the fact that I would meet a girl who lived in Tulsa – and I was going wherever she was. It turned out there was no lasting love connection between her and me, but there was between me and Tulsa. I love TU, still have great friends in Tulsa and always enjoy returning there. LD: While you were in law school, did you just focus on school or did you have other interests as well? BC: I was always doing things outside of law school. I really got to know Tulsa because, to support myself, I began tending bar at a local restaurant. Then, in the summer between my first and second year, and no longer dating the girl who took me to Tulsa, I considered transferring to a more prominent law school. But, making what was probably my smartest move, I decided to stay. I realized I was getting a fine education in a place that I had come to love. I got rid of the chip on my shoulder and convinced the then-owners of the restaurant to change the concept to a nightclub. We called it the Sunset Grill, and it became the hottest place around. So, in the last two years of law school, I had fun, made money and, during daylight hours, I interned for the Federal Magistrate and later the Chief Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma. LD: What was your plan coming out of law school? BC: Had the economy been better in Tulsa I might have stayed, because I really enjoyed it there. But, I

looked around and Texas, which was still doing fine, became the logical choice. I went with Fulbright & Jaworski which was then the largest firm in Texas. It had great broad-based training for litigation associates. But, ultimately I felt confined by the big-firm environment. So after about three-and-a-half years, I left with another bright-eyed Fulbright associate, Tim Robinson, to start our own trial firm in Dallas, Robinson Carmody. LD: Didn’t Robinson Carmody have some pretty big success? BC: Yeah, we were lucky. When we started in ’92, it was before tort reform decimated plaintiffs’ work in Texas. So, we were able to get some quick hits. We handled personal injury cases as well as business litigation – the same type of work we did at Fulbright. Frankly, we were trying to model ourselves after Susman Godfrey. After a few years, though, it became clear that Tim was more interested in the personal injury side, and I was more interested in business litigation. So, we parted as friends and headed in different directions. LD: Tell me about your first big win? BC: In ’96, I hit Chevron for $61 million dollars, which that year was the second-biggest jury verdict in Texas. Chevron viewed it as a simple million-dollar contract case after it stiffed my contractor client for that amount. His small company had done some work at a Chevron refinery and Chevron claimed the work wasn’t up to snuff. What really happened is my client had refused to allow his workers to keep working inside crude towers at the refinery after they had suffered rashes and respiratory problems from sulfur-dioxide exposure. My client insisted that OSHA come in and give the towers a clean bill of health before he was going to let his workers go back in. So, Chevron locked out my client’s workers and brought in another company to finish the job. The key to winning big was changing the focus of the trial from the quality of my client’s work to Chevron’s disregard for worker safety. I surprised them by not trying a straight contract case, but instead a tort case – one where Chevron misrepresented the working conditions inside the towers, and one where my client was a hero trying to protect his workers. Normally my client wouldn’t have had any legal standing to complain of his workers’ injuries, but a light bulb went off in my mind. I realized that the same injuries that the workers suffered also caused my client to incur damages in the form of increased

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

161

500

500 162

Bob Hilliard

William Isaacson

HILLIARD MUNOZ CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS

BOIES SCHILLER WASHINGTON, D.C.

Marielena Hincapie

Tarek Ismail

NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER LOS ANGELES

GOLDMAN ISMAIL CHICAGO

Jennifer Hobbs

Jason Itkin

SIMPSON THACHER NEW YORK

ARNOLD & ITKIN HOUSTON

Eric Holder

Jameel Jaffer

COVINGTON & BURLING WASHINGTON, D.C.

COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL NEW YORK

Shawn Chapman Holley

Rachel Jensen

KINSELLA WEITZMAN SANTA MONICA

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

Heidi Hubbard

Jeh Johnson

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY WASHINGTON, D.C.

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Matthew Hurd

Christy Jones

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL NEW YORK

BUTLER SNOW JACKSON, MISS.

James Hurst

Nora Jordan

KIRKLAND & ELLIS CHICAGO

DAVIS POLK NEW YORK

Sherrilyn Ifill

Elena Kagan

NAACP-LDEF NEW YORK

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

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

IN THE EARLY ’90S, WHEN TIM AND I HAD OUR OWN TRIAL FIRM, WE HAD TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MARKET IT. AND WE HAD THE GRAND IDEA OF SENDING OUT LAW FIRM BROCHURES TO EVERY LAWYER IN TEXAS, ALL 70,000 OF THEM. workers’ comp premiums. That got us past a standing barrier. Even better, it let us try a not-so-interesting contract case within the backdrop of the more riveting workers’ personal injury cases.

Yale game is more his speed.” Having some friendships with former Dallas Cowboys, I was able to get the great Dallas Cowboy and Yale alum, Calvin Hill’s tickets to the Yale Bowl.

To drive the point home, I had a huge model section of the crude tower erected inside the courtroom to illustrate the unsafe working conditions. By doing that, the jurors could see how Chevron’s conduct hurt both my client and his workers, and we were able to get a big verdict.

We were all set to go to, but on the eve of the game, Steve called to blow me off. Undeterred, I refused to let go of that bone, and a few months later we were set to watch the Super Bowl together. Just before that happened, Steve cancelled yet again. Finally – and surely out of pity – he called me up and said, “Hey, Carmody, I’m heading up to Dallas so let’s get together over dinner.”

But, as frequently happens at Susman Godfrey, former adversaries become our clients. In fact, Chevron is now one of our firm’s most-valued clients. LD: Tell me how you met Steve Susman and your path to joining Susman Godfrey. They almost never hire laterals and are strict about only hiring those with the very best pedigrees. BC: I certainly didn’t have the pedigree to get into Susman Godfrey out of law school, but I was somehow lucky enough to sneak in the backdoor years later. In the early ’90s, when Tim and I had our own trial firm, we had to figure out how to market it. And we had the grand idea of sending out law firm brochures to every lawyer in Texas, all 70,000 of them. I remember returning from lunch one day to see one of those pink call slips – if you remember those relics from before the computer age. One of the missed calls was from the legendary Steve Susman. He had obviously received one of our glossy brochures. I almost ran into my office to return his call, but when I reached him it was classic Susman: his aloof persona where he acted confused as to who I was and why he had called me. Then he dismissively passed me off to his secretary. But I was like a hungry dog who had just latched onto a big bone. I wasn’t going to let this potentially life changing intro get away. So, I began thinking of how I could meet and impress him. Knowing I could get access to Warren Moon’s personal tickets at the Astrodome, I asked his secretary if Steve liked the Houston Oilers. After a long pause she suggested, “Maybe the Harvard/

When we actually met, it was epic. I mean, great hustlers like Steve love to be hustled, so I pulled out all the stops. I took him to the hottest place in Dallas where I had the chef call the iconic Tony’s in Houston to replicate Steve’s “Tuna Tartar Susman,” Steve’s namesake appetizer on the menu there. Over way too much food and wine we became fast friends. That led to really getting to know Steve and other Susman lawyers and working cases together. Through our friendship and joint venturing cases with Susman Godfrey, I was somehow able to establish my bona fides, overcome my unconventional pedigree and ultimately get my chance to join the firm. LD: When did you guys make it official? BC: I joined Susman Godfrey in late 2000. LD: How do you differ from other lawyers in your approach to working cases? BC: I try to avoid getting bogged down by all the peripheral facts and issues that seem to predominate pre-trial discovery these days. So many lawyers run down every last rabbit hole, relevant or not, and depositions unnecessarily drone on for hours and hours. Instead, I focus on identifying and developing the very few issues that are going to move the needle with the jury. I fancy myself as a good movie director who, on the front end, envisions what the end product needs to look like – sees where the win is. Once real film mak-

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

163

500

500 164

Allan Kanner

Skip Keesal

KANNER & WHITELEY NEW ORLEANS

KEESAL YOUNG LONG BEACH, CALIF.

Stacy Kanter

Jennifer Keller

SKADDEN NEW YORK

KELLER/ANDERLE LLP IRVINE

Roberta Kaplan

Jennifer Keller

KAPLAN & COMPANY NEW YORK

BAKER DONELSON JOHNSON CITY, TENN.

David Kappos

Michael Kelly

CRAVATH NEW YORK

WALKUP MELODIA SAN FRANCISCO

Alec Karakatsanis

Stasia Kelly

CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS WASHINGTON, D.C.

DLA PIPER WASHINGTON, D.C.

Brad Karp

Erika Kelton

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

PHILLIPS & COHEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

David Karp

Richard Kendall

WACHTELL LIPTON NEW YORK

KENDALL BRILL LOS ANGELES

Neal Katyal

Anthony Kennedy

HOGAN LOVELLS WASHINGTON, D.C.

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

David Katz

Thomas Kennedy

WACHTELL LIPTON NEW YORK

SKADDEN NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

ers know the movie in their head, they don’t have to do 20 takes of the same scene. Directors like Clint Eastwood get the actors set up to do a scene in one take and then move on to the next scene. Likewise, real trial lawyers don’t waste expensive and unnecessary hours in trial depositions. They elicit the key testimony in short order knowing that their video depo clips are ready for prime time.

Our result-based fee deals are as varied as our clients and cases, but there’s one thing common to all of them. Regardless of what side of the docket we’re on, we want to make sure our fee deals align our interests with those of our clients. That’s been a big selling point for us, because while other ﬁrms may pay lip service to this approach, when push comes to shove, very few actually want to bet on themselves.

LD: Can you give me an example of how this approach played out in an actual case?

So, at the start of an engagement we have a candid talk with our potential client about what winning means in their particular case. Then we craft a fee deal where we’re actually partnering with the client by betting on the results we get for them. If we get a big win, we’re going to get paid a whole lot more than our hourly rates. But, if we lose, we’re going to get much less than our hourly rates or nothing at all.

BC: Sure. The essence of this approach rang loud and clear in a big defense win we had a few years back. The result in that case confirmed how very little of what happens before trial actually makes a difference in the jury’s verdict. It was a bet-the-company class action where we defended a small insurance company. The case had gone on for about five years, and I stepped in just six days before trial. I remember getting the call on a Friday night with jury selection beginning the following Thursday. I knew that with less than a week to get ready, there was no way my team and I could master the voluminous record. So we did what any great film maker would do, we envisioned what the winning movie needed to be. We focused only on the most important aspects of the case – the few issues that would really matter to the jury. And we presented those key facts to tell a simple and persuasive story. It obviously worked, because after eight days of trial, the jury returned in 35 minutes with a total defense verdict. LD: That’s a great way of explaining the art of trial lawyering. Let’s talk about your success as a mega producer of business. How do you do it? What role does your use of alternative fee agreements play in that? BC: It’s no secret that the very best way to get new business is to win cases. Our track record at Susman Godfrey and reputation for winning always puts us on a short list for would-be clients with significant litigation. But I think what separates us from our competitors is our desire to bet on ourselves. You used the term “alternative fee arrangements,” but that’s not how I refer to our fee deals. That’s because sophisticated buyers of legal services know “alternative fee arrangements” has really become code for non-standard hourly billing. For example, reduced and blended hourly rates or hourly rates that have been capped at some point. But those aren’t fee deals where the law firm’s success is actually tied to the client’s success.

LD: Your clients must be thrilled with those arrangements. It makes Susman one of the few firms that doesn’t really need to market. You must have more clients than you can possibly represent. BC: Yes and no. The truth is we’re not for every client or for every type of case. I mean, we don’t handle big corporate investigations or do any white-collar criminal work. On the other hand, we excel in one-off, bet-the-company cases. The sort of cases that even the biggest companies don’t have many of. We’re like brain surgeons, we either fix them or kill them. So, we’re always looking for new case calls directly from potential clients as well as referrals from other law firms when they have significant cases that warrant our help. LD: How did you decide to move to New York? BC: It was a really easy decision. I was in our Dallas office when Steve called and made me an offer I couldn’t refuse. Initially, he had decided he was going to open the New York office and stay here. But, at some point he realized he didn’t want to be a full-time New Yorker. He was looking for a partner to move here and lead the young office. I remember that call vividly. I made a split-second decision and remember calling Neal Manne just to make sure my head was screwed on right. He said, “Yeah, I think it’s a fabulous decision.” I arrived in New York on January 4th, 2007 and have never looked back. LD: You’re the senior partner of SGNY which has been a hugely successful office. How have you been able to achieve so much success here in such a short time? BC: Well, I’ve certainly pushed and prodded to make our NY office a success, but by no means can our

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

165

500

500 166

Orin Kerr

Linda Klein

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL WASHINGTON, D.C.

BAKER DONELSON ATLANTA

Jeffrey Kessler

Ethan Klingsberg

WINSTON & STRAWN NEW YORK

CLEARY GOTTLIEB NEW YORK

Farhana Khera

Edwin Kneedler

MUSLIM ADVOCATES OAKLAND

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL WASHINGTON, D.C.

Michael Kim

Steven Kobre

KOBRE & KIM NEW YORK

Kenton King

Josh Krevitt

SKADDEN PALO ALTO

GIBSON DUNN NEW YORK

Susheel Kirpalani

Lea Haber Kuck

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

SKADDEN NEW YORK

Adam Klein

M. Natasha Labovitz

OUTTEN GOLDEN NEW YORK

DEBEVOISE NEW YORK

Gayle Klein

Walter Lack

MCKOOL SMITH NEW YORK

ENGSTROM LIPSCOMB LOS ANGELES

Jeff Klein

David Lam

WEIL GOTSHAL NEW YORK

WACHTELL LIPTON NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

success be credited to any single person. Aside from Steve’s unstoppable vision and drive, it’s been a remarkable team effort by so many lawyers, the most senior of whom are Steve, Jacob Buchdahl and me. We’ve been fortunate to assemble an elite group of the best-trained and most competitive trial lawyers who, like the Navy Seals, can parachute in on short notice to try a client’s most important case. Our group now has a 10-year track record of outstanding results. LD: You’ve been extremely successful in trying cases from coast to coast. What is it about your style of lawyering that consistently appeals to so many different types of clients? BC: I think the appeal I have to clients probably comes from my straight talk with them. No matter who the client is, I’m always brutally candid in giving advice, even when it’s not what they want to hear. That’s because I’m always focused on the long game. My philosophy is to act in our client’s long-term business interest even if it’s going to cost us some easy, short-term fees. I frequently turn away questionable plaintiffs’ cases. Even when I have clients who want to pay big money to prosecute those cases, I know that in the long run those clients are going to be disappointed by a losing result and then be disappointed in me. On the defense side I often dissuade clients from protracted and expensive litigation when the smarter course is to quickly and quietly make their exposure disappear. As much as I love to try lawsuits, I’ve learned the only certainty in the trial process is uncertainty. So no matter what side of the docket my client is on, it’s always about ﬁguring out where the win is and how to get there quickly. LD: Is there a lesson you’ve learned in defeat that you’ve put into practice? BC: Well, back in ’99, I tried a signiﬁcant case that the National Law Journal called the case of the year. Which all sounds good, except that I had the dubious distinction of being on the losing side. After that loss, I spoke with the jurors who revealed my plaintiffs just weren’t likable. It was a real wake-up call. My clients’ likability – or lack thereof – stemmed from abuses they suffered as adolescents while they were captive patients in the defendants’ psychiatric hospitals. They had been through a lot and were rough around the edges. And the truth is, by the time of trial, I didn’t like my

clients much either. Perhaps because I was ashamed of my own feelings, I failed to address with the jury why my clients might not be so likable. My lesson from that case was learning how to get comfortable with myself and to embrace and reframe any potential problem, whatever it may be. Now in a do-over, I would have conducted the jury selection process very differently and would have openly addressed my clients’ likability problems. I would have had a frank discussion of why my clients were the way they were. That way, I might have been able to take the sting out of that issue early on and not let it be one that was left for the jurors to consider, without my guidance, for the first time in deliberations. LD: That’s a great lesson. That’s so like you to delve deeper into the humanity of a case. And speaking of humanity, will you talk about your wide array of interests, from your family to your friendships with world famous chefs? BC: Absolutely. My credo has always been one of working hard and playing hard. Playing hard for me revolves around spending time with my wife, Catherine and our extended families. We love travel of all kinds as well as just holing up in our summer house where we all chill. As you mentioned, a big part of playing hard for me is dining. That includes dining around the globe, from high-end places to obscure local holes-in-the-wall. Catherine and I recently returned from San Sebastian, Spain, where we had so much fun exploring the pintxos, the local tapas bars. What matters most to us is not the style of dining, but the restaurant’s authenticity. And because I’m such a foodie, I’ve come to know some world-class chefs and the wonderful people in the business who help make dining out one of my favorite pastimes. Since that’s no secret, I find myself regularly making a fair amount of restaurant reservations for friends, and friends of friends, and friends of friends of friends. If I ever wash out as a trial lawyer, I’m certain I could find employment as a slightly argumentative concierge. LD: That sounds like a great back-up plan. If you were to have one last meal, what would it be? BC: Probably something really simple. I love eating all things, but to me there’s still nothing better than good old comfort food. So, I’d have a great cheeseburger cooked rare and an ice-cold draft beer. And if it were really my last supper, I’d channel back to my childhood refrigerator and finish with a sleeve of Thin Mint Girl Scout cookies and a tall glass of milk.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

167

500

500 Theodore Stevenson MCKOOL SMITH (DALLAS)

168

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

THEODORE STEVENSON THEODORE STEVENSON WAS EARNING

his mechanical engineering degree at Northwestern University when he realized he did not want to work directly in the discipline as an engineer.

“I worked one summer during college assisting a mechanical engineer draft blueprints for a pipe mill,” Stevenson says. “That just wasn’t for me. I wanted something a little more competitive and interpersonal.” As anyone who’s seen him operate in front of a jury can tell you, Stevenson made the right move. He has used his law degree from the University of Virginia to become one of the best patent litigators in the country, operating out of McKool Smith’s Dallas office for regular clients like Ericsson. Among the secrets of his success in the courtroom are preparing witnesses to act natural and never underestimating juries. Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the mix of cases you tend to handle? Theodore Stevenson: For the last 20 years, it has been almost exclusively patent infringement, trade secret, and unfair competition cases. I typically handle complex disputes that have diverse technologies at their core. LD: How did you first become interested in a litigation practice focused on patent and technology cases? TS: I have always had a passion for deciphering how things work, and for tactics of persuasion. Patent litigation fuels both of those passions. LD: What specific types of cases are keeping you busy these days? TS: Over the last five years, I have been involved in a number of competition cases related to standard essential patent (SEP) licensing. The typical fact pattern is an impasse in licensing negotiations, after which the putative licensee contends the patent owner breached its commitment to offer Fair, Reasonable, and Non-discriminatory (FRAND) license terms, violated federal and state antitrust laws, and committed various common law competition torts. These cases involve high stakes and litigation around the globe – usually the licensee is a global cellular handset manufacturer. A court is typically asked to set a royalty rate consistent with FRAND, and when there are large worldwide sales volumes, a variance in

PHOTO BY: JUSTIN CLEMONS

BY JOHN RYAN the royalty rate of just 1/10th of a percent can cause a swing of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties owed. The amount at stake makes these hard fought cases with no holds barred. I have had four of these cases go the distance through trial or arbitration, and several more settle, over the last five years. The wins and settlements have resulted in billions in royalties for my clients. LD: Among some of your recent high-profile cases, can you describe one of your courtroom victories? TS: One memorable trial for McKool Smith was the case of Ericsson v. DLink. It involved five wifi patents asserted by our client, Ericsson. We tried the case to a jury in Tyler (in the Eastern District of Texas) in a packed courtroom with more than 100 observers every day – electricity was in the air and it was standing-room only most days. That trial was memorable for several reasons. The presiding judge, Leonard Davis, was regarded as one of the best and most experienced patent trial judges in the country, and he did not disappoint. During our trial, Judge Davis tested a new procedure in which he let the jurors ask questions of each witness. The questions were in writing and passed to the judge, and naturally the tenor of the questions gave us an insight into what the jurors were thinking after every witness. I was shocked at how relevant and sophisticated the questions were. The jury could sense this was an important case, and they stayed fully engaged through the trial, to the point where they even requested to see the source code for the accused products during deliberations! Another reason the case was memorable was that the defendant, Intel, intervened in the case to try to make new law related to the licensing of standard essential patents, advocating for royalties of less than a penny per wifi chip. Intel ultimately lost its gambit, but had it prevailed, Intel’s position threatened to change the landscape of patent licensing dramatically for hundreds of standard essential patent owners. We ended up winning a verdict of infringement and damages of 15 cents per wifi device on three patents for Ericsson. LD: What do you do at trial that sets you apart from other lawyers? TS: I work very hard with witnesses before trial to make them great communicators. As trial lawyers, we

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

169

500

500 Jeffrey Lamken

Michelle Lee

MOLOLAMKEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

U.S. PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE ALEXANDRIA, VA.

Carolyn Lamm

Heather Lennox

WHITE & CASE WASHINGTON, D.C.

JONES DAY NEW YORK

Thomas Patrick Lane

Sandra Leung

WINSTON & STRAWN NEW YORK

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB NEW YORK

Mark Lanier

Harlan Levy

LANIER LAW FIRM HOUSTON

BOIES SCHILLER NEW YORK

Daryl Lansdale

Stuart Liner

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT SAN ANTONIO

DLA PIPER LOS ANGELES

David Lash

David Lira

Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;MELVENY LOS ANGELES

GIRARDI | KEESE LOS ANGELES

Travis Laster

Cheryl Little

DELAWARE CHANCERY COURT WILMINGTON

AMERICANS FOR IMMIGRANT JUSTICE MIAMI

Wendi Lazar

Judith Livingston

OUTTEN GOLDEN NEW YORK

KRAMER DILOFF NEW YORK

Mark Lebovitch

George Lombardi

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

170

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

WINSTON & STRAWN CHICAGO

500

set the table by picking a good jury and by setting up the themes and story lines in our opening statements. But, once the evidence begins, it is all about the witnesses. Talking to jurors after verdicts, they uniformly focus on the witnesses and their demeanor as being the turning points in their decisions. Not only do I spend a huge amount of time selecting our witnesses and working with them to testify well, but I also make sure we “draw the sting” out of any bad facts before our witnesses get crossed. LD: What makes for a good witness? TS: Plain and simple: answer the damn question! So many witnesses do well on direct, but then on cross they start arguing, or evading, or ﬁlibustering to the point where every answer becomes “Yes, but . . ..” It frustrates everyone in the courtroom. Jurors appreciate and remember witnesses who give them the information they need to decide the case through direct answers to questions. It is also basic respect for the jury and the trial process. Sure, there will be some bad facts or some awkward documents that will be used in cross-examination, but I always tell my witnesses to just answer directly, honestly, and without evasion. Jurors really perk up when they sense a witness is nervous – and jurors are very good at picking up on body language. Witnesses worry too much about giving the perfect answer. A natural and direct answer, even if not perfectly phrased, is usually the best and – the lawyers can always come back on redirect to clean up any misimpressions if necessary. LD: After getting your engineering degree, why did you choose the University of Virginia over other schools? TS: I visited the campus and was overwhelmed. University of Virginia is the most beautiful campus in the country. As an aside, I visited the campus again with my oldest daughter on an undergrad visit, and she had the same reaction. She just started at UVA and I am so proud! LD: Is this the type of practice you imagined yourself practicing while in law school? TS: Yes and no. Yes, I always knew I would be a trial lawyer. But, I had no idea I would be standing before judges and juries asking them to award my client hundreds of millions, or billions, of dollars on a patent infringement claim. But now I do that routinely, which I never would have believed when I was in law school.

LD: What led you to join McKool Smith? TS: When I joined McKool Smith as a lateral in 2002, it had a unique business model. Back then, most patent infringement cases were staffed with a patent firm and a trial firm. McKool Smith was one of the first firms to combine technical competence with first-class trial lawyers. This was a perfect fit for me. This is now commonplace, but it wasn’t 15 years ago. LD: How has your practice changed since the early part of your career? TS: For the first few years of my practice, I handled general trial matters. I was game to try any type of case, and I did. I tried a divorce case, a death penalty habeas corpus case, multiple landlord tenant cases, a computer software breach of warranty case, an oil and gas case, two securities fraud cases, and a products liability case. LD: Did you have a mentor who was particularly important for the course of your career? TS: I have had several. I’ve been very lucky. When I was a young lawyer, David Godbey, a registered patent lawyer who is now a federal district judge for the Northern District of Texas, persuaded me to specialize in intellectual property law. More recently Doug Cawley and Sam Baxter, my partners here at McKool Smith and the two best trial lawyers I have ever seen or worked with, taught me how to try a case to a jury. Perhaps the biggest impact on my career has been a jury consultant from Midland, Texas, named Don Nichols. Don has been in the foxhole with me for at least a dozen jury trials. Don has an uncanny knack for how jurors think and how to persuade. He has run hundreds of jury studies for patent cases and has sat through hundreds of jury trials. He is one of the rare individuals in the trial consulting arena that really, really gets it. Don claims to be retired now – but I would say semi-retired. LD: Can you share the name of a lawyer you have come up against in a case that you admire, and why? TS: Henry Bunsow, who has a firm in San Francisco. I’ve tried two jury trials to verdict against Henry. Henry is a scalding cross examiner and every trial against him is a fight to the end. But, when it is over, Henry will have whisky and a cigar with you and trade courtroom stories until the wee hours. Old school professionalism. That’s how it ought to be. Read the full Q&A at www.lawdragon.com/2017/09/24/ lawyer-limelight-theodore-stevenson.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

171

Hannah Ross BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ (NEW YORK)

500

HANNAH ROSS THE MOVE TO SHAREHOLDER-SIDE

securities litigation was a natural for Hannah Ross after a stint prosecuting complex financial-fraud cases for the state of Massachusetts. And when it came time to choose the right home for her private practice, Ross chose the firm where her passion for fighting injustice could have the greatest impact – Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, which tallies the most partners on the Lawdragon 500 of any plaintiffs-side securities litigation firm. Since joining the firm in 2002, Ross has helped secure billions of dollars for clients in several of the largest fraud cases in history. She credits her success, in part, to finding and trusting her own voice as a litigator during her early days as a prosecutor and learning from Bernstein Litowitz’s stable of mentors. Lawdragon: Why did you pursue a career in law in the first place? Hannah Ross: From a young age, my parents instilled in me and all of my five siblings the importance of helping others and giving back, building community wherever we may be. Through numerous internships and volunteer programs before, during, and after college, including at a domestic violence and rape crisis center, I decided I wanted to stand up for victims – I wanted to help bring about justice for them and hopefully prevent other people from being victimized in the same way. Law school therefore seemed like the right choice, and I knew from day one at Penn State that I would use my law degree to help people who were victimized and who needed their voices to be heard. LD: Can you share some skills or any lessons you learned during your time as a prosecutor?

HR: Being a criminal prosecutor was a natural fit for me. I loved being a prosecutor – I spent my days fighting to attain justice for victims and make our community safer. For the first couple years of my career, I was in court every day, handling arraignments, arguing motions, and trying cases. It was an incredibly hard and demanding, yet fulfilling, career choice. No matter how tired I was at the end of each day, I went to sleep knowing I worked my hardest to make sure that victims’ voices were heard and that wrongdoers answered for their crimes. As I gained more experience, I took on more complex cases and prosecuted more serious crimes. In

PHOTO BY: LAURA BARISONZI

BY JOHN RYAN particular, I focused on larger financial and insurance fraud cases. Unlike the crimes that I handled earlier in my career where the police were primarily responsible for developing the evidence, these major fraud cases required that I – along with other members of our law enforcement team – develop and build each case from the ground up. We directed our own investigations, strategized on how to pursue and shape each case, issued subpoenas, applied for and executed search warrants, presented cases to the grand jury, and then prosecuted those cases. That experience prosecuting complex fraud cases is invaluable to what I do today because it taught me the importance of building a case and how to move from one stage to the next while keeping focused on our end goals. The standards for pleading a securities fraud case are very high, and drafting our complaints is one of the most critical parts of what we do. As the case progresses through discovery and evidence gathering, proving our allegations becomes the imperative. The skills I developed in building a case when I was a prosecutor are the foundation of how I shape, investigate and prove my cases as a private securities litigator today. LD: How did you become interested in a private practice targeting financial fraud? What specifically led you to Bernstein Litowitz? HR: I was drawn to plaintiffs-side securities work because it is the civil analog to being a criminal fraud prosecutor. It was a natural progression in my career. BLB&G was the only plaintiffs’ firm that I looked at; the firm has, throughout its history, focused on the most significant and most impactful fraud litigation. What truly resonated with me was the very important work that BLB&G does to help people recover the hard-earned savings that they lost as a result of other people’s greed. The lawyers at BLB&G fight every day to protect the retirement funds of teachers, police officers, fire fighters, laborers and others around the country and abroad. I could see from my first meeting how much the BLB&G partners and associates believed in this work and how committed they were to it. I knew it was the right place for me and here I am fifteen years later. I am immensely proud of the tremendous work the firm has performed and the landmark recoveries the firm has achieved on behalf of injured shareholders.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

173

500

500 174

D. Patrick Long

Katharine Martin

SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS DALLAS

WILSON SONSINI PALO ALTO

Kathy Love

Jenny Martinez

MCGINN CARPENTER ALBUQUERQUE

GODWIN BOWMAN & MARTINEZ DALLAS

Jonathan Lowy

Mark Martins

BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT HANDGUN VIOLENCE WASHINGTON, D.C.

OFFICE OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS NORTHERN VIRGINIA

Paola Lozano

Marco Masotti

SKADDEN NEW YORK

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Martin Lueck

Joseph Matthews

ROBINS KAPLAN MINNEAPOLIS

COLSON HICKS CORAL GABLES, FLA.

Colleen Mahoney

Colette Matzzie

SKADDEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

PHILLIPS & COHEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Neal Manne

Alejandro Mayorkas

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

WILMERHALE WASHINGTON, D.C.

David Marriott

Darin McAtee

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Craig Martin

Brian McCarthy

JENNER & BLOCK CHICAGO

SKADDEN LOS ANGELES

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

LD: Did you have a mentor at the firm who was instrumental in your development as a litigator? HR: One thing I have always loved about the firm is my good fortune in having not only one trusted mentor, but several. Max Berger, who is a founding partner of the firm and actively litigates to this day, has fostered an opendoor environment that allows the case teams to work cooperatively and closely together, and encourages the interchange of ideas and the sharing of strategic thinking among all the lawyers. As a result, from the moment I joined the firm as a young associate, I had the privilege to work closely with and learn from extraordinarily talented senior lawyers. They each taught me, in their own ways, how to become a better lawyer, giving me guidance on how to improve my legal writing and hone my strategic approach to securities fraud cases. They also provided me with countless opportunities to chart and direct my future at BLB&G. From founding partners Max and Edward Grossmann, to the firm’s management committee of Jerry Silk, Sal Graziano, and Blair Nicholas, the firm’s leadership sets the tone and works hard to maintain a closeknit, open atmosphere that provides a great way for lawyers to grow and thrive at BLB&G. I cannot thank my many mentors and all the partners at the firm enough – they have helped me become an experienced and open-minded practitioner capable of and eager to continue the mentoring tradition. I am honored to now be a mentor for the up-andcoming lawyers at the firm. LD: The percentage of women in senior positions at law firms is still low relative to their overall numbers in the profession. Do you have any lessons from your experiences, or have you drawn any conclusions about what firms need to do to promote more women into senior roles? HR: It’s a continuing challenge for law firms in general to court and retain women lawyers. That said, I do believe that law firms recognize how important it is to have female lawyers and the valuable perspectives and insights they offer. On a macro-level, we are focused on recruiting and retaining top legal talent, including women. We feel that one of the best ways we can do this is by continuing to bring the most meaningful and precedent-setting securities fraud and corporate governance cases because the best lawyers want to work on the important, impactful cases. In addition, on a more micro-level, I, along

with my partner Katie Sinderson, are dedicated to serving as resources and mentors to the firm’s female attorneys. We hold lunches, dinners, and meetings to share experiences and lessons we have learned that are unique to female plaintiffs-side litigators. Collectively, Katie and I have over 26 years of working at the firm on securities fraud cases; we both love to pass along our wisdom, advice, and support to the younger female lawyers at BLB&G. My advice to young women lawyers is to always be yourself and do things in your own voice. I have been successful by practicing law in a manner that is reflective of who I am as a person – I don’t pretend to be someone I am not. When I was a young criminal prosecutor right out of law school, I encountered numerous experienced attorneys who tried to intimidate me or tell me that there was only one way to handle a particular matter. It took some time and some stumbles, but I learned to stake out my own ground and express my ideas in my own way. I found my own path to being a strong, forceful, and effective advocate. Young lawyers need to develop confidence in their own skills and analytical abilities and not allow themselves to be intimidated by the more senior lawyers or feel that they need to adopt a certain manner or persona to be successful. Young lawyers should learn from their more senior, experienced colleagues, but they should also believe in their own talents and cultivate their own voice. This is especially important for young female lawyers in this highly competitive and still male-dominated field. LD: What do you like to do to get away from the practice of law? HR: The most fulfilling part of my life when I am not practicing law is spending time with my family and friends. I am the proud mom of an eight-year-old daughter, Marlowe, and a six-year-old son, Kol. My husband Sacha, who is a corporate partner at Cooley, and I spend most of our free time running around from activity to activity – baseball, softball, guitar, soccer, just to name a few – with our kids. While we are both usually completely exhausted by Sunday, we wouldn’t trade anything in the world for the opportunity to watch our kids grow up and experience life. Sacha and I are both from large families so we also love to spend time with our parents and our siblings and their families, several of whom live in and around New York City. Read the full Q&A at www.lawdragon.com/lawyer-limelight-hannah-ross.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

175

Paul Zumbro CRAVATH (NEW YORK)

500

PAUL ZUMBRO IT’S ONLY NATURAL THAT CRAVATH’S

unsurpassed excellence in corporate and litigation work would extend to situations in which the firm’s clients or their competitors found themselves in difficult financial straits. That element of Cravath’s holistic counseling is guided by Paul Zumbro, head of the Financial Restructuring and Reorganization Practice and a true master of distressed financings and M&A bankruptcy transactions. Zumbro enjoys the blend of dealmaking and litigation required to navigate the terrain that he describes as “M&A flipped on its head” – maximizing value in difficult situations. Lawdragon: Please discuss how you came to develop a practice focused on restructurings and reorganizations. Did this begin at Columbia Law or once you arrived at Cravath? Paul Zumbro: Definitely after I arrived at Cravath. At Columbia Law, I knew I was interested in corporate law, but the focus on restructurings and reorganizations came through the deal and litigation experience I gained at Cravath. Relatively early in my career I worked on a transaction that, while I didn’t recognize it as such at the time, was a distressed M&A transaction. Our client was on the brink of bankruptcy and was very much a “motivated” seller, and there was a very aggressive law firm on the other side of the deal. Though our client wasn’t necessarily in a position to negotiate on terms, it was an interesting challenge to find pockets of leverage within the deal negotiations. When I became a partner in 2005, my practice was focused primarily on leveraged acquisition financing transactions. Even then, I found it most rewarding to navigate the challenges that arose when a deal ran into trouble and needed to be restructured. I’ll never forget the call I got from a banker client informing me that Tropicana Entertainment, an LBO I had worked on for the client, had lost its gaming license in New Jersey, resulting in the company losing 50%-plus of its EBITDA (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization). Not surprisingly, that led to a bankruptcy filing and the first section 363 auction and sale process I worked on in my career. When the financial crisis hit a few years later, several large financing transactions that I had worked on at Cravath ended up in litigation or facing threats of litigation, and I became the liaison between the

PHOTO BY: LAURA BARISONZI

BY JOHN RYAN corporate department and the litigation department as we defended our bank clients in several highprofile disputes. I enjoyed it immensely, and that was what got me interested in focusing on restructuring work with its blend of deal making and litigation. LD: Can you discuss more what you like about this type of practice? PZ: This hybrid nature of the work – and the fact that restructuring and insolvency touches all aspects of corporate law – is what I like best about the restructuring practice. The multilateral nature of negotiations in the restructuring space – working with multiple parties, each with varying agendas and goals – makes the successful completion of those matters all the more rewarding. Bankruptcy is also an area that tends to make people somewhat uneasy – the fear of the unknown – and so effective counseling is at a premium and there is a rewarding sense of partnership between counselor and client. Whether there is a corporate client looking to ring fence liabilities relating to a troubled business segment or worried about its relationships with a distressed commercial counterparty, or an executive client concerned about properly structuring a personal loan or the implications of a bankruptcy filing on an employment contract, a skilled restructuring advisor can add real value. LD: How does the firm’s associate rotation system work for the practice? PZ: Cravath’s unique training system is one of the keys to the firm’s long-standing success, and the restructuring practice fits right into that tried-andtrue model. Associates rotate between corporate practice areas, focusing not just on bankruptcy, but also other types of corporate transactional work. The restructuring practice also draws associate resources from the litigation department, where the firm has a number of active bankruptcy litigation matters and a deep pool of bankruptcy litigation experience. Teaching our associates about bankruptcy work, not only as a stand-alone subject, but also in relation to other corporate and litigation areas, is the unique aspect of being a restructuring lawyer at Cravath. The breadth of experience our associates amass by working through Cravath’s rotation system is an enormous benefit – especially when many restructuring practitioners have a rather narrow

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

177

500

500 178

Donald McGahn

Tom Melsheimer

WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON, D.C.

WINSTON & STRAWN DALLAS

Randi McGinn

Mark Mendelsohn

MCGINN CARPENTER ALBUQUERQUE

PAUL WEISS WASHINGTON, D.C.

Patrick McGroder

Carlos Mendez-Penate

GALLAGHER & KENNEDY PHOENIX

AKERMAN NEW YORK

Mike McKool

Jane Michaels

MCKOOL SMITH DALLAS

HOLLAND & HART DENVER

William McLucas

Ed Micheletti

WILMERHALE WASHINGTON, D.C.

SKADDEN WILMINGTON

John Mead

Kerry Miller

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL NEW YORK

BAKER DONELSON NEW ORLEANS

Christopher Meade

Matt Minner

BLACKROCK NEW YORK

HARE WYNN LEXINGTON, K.Y.

Richard Meadow

Ted Mirvis

LANIER LAW FIRM HOUSTON

WACHTELL LIPTON NEW YORK

Ted Meadows

Steve Molo

BEASLEY ALLEN MONTGOMERY, ALA.

MOLOLAMKEN NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

focus. Cravath lawyers know the basic rules, but more importantly can provide strategic guidance in the field of restructuring that draws on this breadth of experience. More generally, seeing what happens in the real world when things go wrong is an invaluable tool no matter what area an associate ends up specializing in later in her or his career. I vividly remember one of our senior M&A partners making the observation during the financial crisis that it is the “stuff at the back of the document” that really becomes critical when things go wrong, and a rotation through the restructuring practice gives our associates the ability to see this first hand. LD: What is the importance of a bankruptcy and distressed finance practice in a world-class law firm like Cravath? PZ: Cravath’s commitment to serving its clients has been a hallmark of the firm since its founding, and having top-notch capabilities in the restructuring space allows us to continue that level of service when a client finds itself, or one of its counterparties, in distress. When one of our regular M&A clients is interested in acquiring a competitor that has filed for bankruptcy, our world-class M&A team partners with our restructuring group to get the deal done. Our premier syndicated lending and debt and equity capital markets practices also feed into the restructuring practice, in the form of in- or out-of-court loan workout transactions and debt exchange and other liability management transactions. Things like debtor-inpossession and exit financings are generally handled by the restructuring group, but similarly we draw on expertise from the financing practice. Our litigation department works on complex claims and derivatives litigation in the bankruptcy court, and also handles bespoke restructuring litigation work like our work on the Argentina case. LD: Can you talk a bit more about the firm’s work on the Argentina case, in which the firm structured a settlement with bondholders to bring the country back to the capital markets? How was the firm able to achieve a great result for the client so quickly, after many years of the situation dragging on? PZ: The Argentina litigation settlement and restructuring were immensely complicated and there was a great deal of history in the case before we got involved. We needed to get up to speed on the situation quickly in order to help the new

Argentine administration achieve its goal of putting the “holdout” litigation behind the Republic. Given the great deal of bad blood between parties, we also needed to be mindful of the history of the situation, but not let that history get in the way of accomplishing the new administration’s goals. Our litigators did a masterful job in gaining the confidence of the court and setting up the situation procedurally so that the injunction that had been imposed on Argentina for so long was lifted. This allowed Argentina to return to the global capital markets for the first time in 15 years. On the restructuring side, we focused on making sure that the agreement in principle to settle the dispute was successfully implemented. The devil is always in the details, but the level of distrust that had developed between the parties over the course of many years of acrimonious litigation required a heightened degree of detailed negotiations relating to things that, in another context, might have been thought of as mechanical, such as procedures governing the funding of the settlement payments. Because the deal was at risk of falling apart at any time, it was critical to ensure that the bond issuance proceeds and settlement payments could go forward without risk of attachment or other problems. As this matter demonstrated, a deal can come together quickly – the initial agreement in principle to settle the litigation was handwritten on a single piece of paper – but actually getting the deal done requires lawyers that are commercial and pragmatic and able to navigate waters that at times can be extremely choppy. Achieving this successful result for Argentina in a very short period of time required close coordination between Cravath’s litigation and restructuring teams. This coordination is crucial to foster, because I believe our clients get meaningfully better results when litigators are actively involved in the restructuring process from the outset – as opposed to just stepping in for specific courtroom tasks. LD: Are you seeing any patterns in your practice with the types of matters occupying your time that comment on any broader economic trends? PZ: The oil and gas industry seems to have largely completed its most recent bankruptcy and recovery cycle, and we are seeing more “exit” financings than debtor-in-possession (bankruptcy) financings in that sector these days. Retail continues to be a challenged sector, and the “Amazon effect” and other challenges in the retail sector will inevitably spill over to other sectors, such as mall owners and

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

179

500

500 180

Thomas Moore

Blair Nicholas

KRAMER DILOFF NEW YORK

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ SAN DIEGO

Mark Morton

Luke Nikas

POTTER ANDERSON WILMINGTON

BOIES SCHILLER NEW YORK

Sara Moss

Tom Nolan

ESTEE LAUDER NEW YORK

LATHAM LOS ANGELES

Elizabeth Mulvey

Eileen Nugent

CROWE & MULVEY BOSTON

SKADDEN NEW YORK

Jeff Munoz

Clare O’Brien

LATHAM HOUSTON

SHEARMAN & STERLING NEW YORK

Francis Patrick Murphy

Sean O’Shea

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

BOIES SCHILLER NEW YORK

Scott Musoff

Regina Olshan

SKADDEN NEW YORK

Daniel Neff

Wayne Outten

WACHTELL LIPTON NEW YORK

OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK

David Nevin

Brian Panish

NEVIN BENJAMIN BOISE

PANISH SHEA LOS ANGELES

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

REITs and other commercial real estate businesses. One thing I’ve found interesting in the retail space is that the challenges cut across the entire sector, from low-end retailers to those on the very high end. Of course this type of distress can bring about opportunities. One of our clients in the retail space engaged in an M&A process a year or so ago with one of its competitors. That deal didn’t end up happening, but when the competitor filed for bankruptcy, our client was able to go in and purchase the stores it wanted in a bankruptcy section 363 process. It’s that seamless transition of capabilities – where Cravath moves from a straightforward M&A team to a bankruptcy M&A team – that allows us to really deliver the best of the firm to all of our clients, no matter what the situation. Thinking ahead, while it’s always difficult to predict the future, determining what the actual “Trump effect” will be on the U.S. economy seems particularly difficult to predict. On the one hand, if the Fed allows interest rates to rise, that would tend to increase restructuring activity as overleveraged businesses will be forced to deal with an increased interest burden. On the other hand, deregulation tends to reduce costs on businesses, which would point in the opposite direction. It’s really too early to tell, but deregulation can have a significant impact on the restructuring cycle in certain industries – think airlines and the serial bankruptcies in that space following deregulation. Rightly or wrongly, business sentiment seems positive at the moment, but given the uncertain geopolitical environment, that could change quickly. LD: What are some of the issues that arise in global bankruptcy cases, and how did you learn to navigate those complexities? PZ: Global bankruptcy cases often give rise to complicated jurisdictional and choice of law issues, and the need for careful coordination and preparation. A U.S. lawyer tends to think in terms of Chapter 11 and how restructurings are affected under that framework, but it is certainly not the case that all jurisdictions have statutory regimes that encourage or even permit reorganization. Certain jurisdictions may not have a statute or any procedures relating to insolvency at all, though that is atypical. In many other jurisdictions, the debtor’s management is replaced by an administrator and the assets are liquidated. That said, an increasing number of non-U.S. jurisdictions are moving to permitting Chapter 11

type reorganizations. A recent court decision dealing with the issue of where a foreign debtor had its center of main interests in the context of the debtor seeking recognition under Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code of a Cayman Islands proceeding captured both the spirit of Chapter 11 and this development in international law well: “It is the premise of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, and the law of an increasing number of jurisdictions, that reorganization of a potentially viable entity (as opposed to liquidation) may be value maximizing, benefitting creditors, employees faced with the prospect of the loss of employment, and other public and private interests.” This is what restructuring is all about – maximizing value. I think of it as regular-way M&A flipped on its head – whereas non-bankruptcy M&A is about bringing assets together in the hopes of increasing value on a prospective basis, restructuring is about salvaging the most value possible where things have not worked out as expected. The same set of skills, plus a lot of specialized bankruptcy knowledge, is necessary to effectively accomplish that goal, whether in a purely domestic context or in a global deal. And lastly, because insolvency laws are very jurisdiction specific, it is also important to know, and to know how to effectively work with, restructuring counsel in the specific jurisdictions involved in a particular matter. At Cravath, we practice New York and U.S. federal law, but we maintain a robust network of “best friend” firms internationally, allowing us to bring best-in-class talent to cases around the world. LD: Do you foresee the bankruptcy and distressed asset practice growing in the next few years? PZ: I do expect the restructuring practice will grow over the next few years, though that is not necessarily reflective of a market prediction. Cravath has historically done a great deal of restructuring work – going back even to the days of Paul Cravath, who was one of the leading restructuring lawyers of his day – and we have continued to focus on building out our restructuring capabilities in a manner that is integrated with and supported by the firm’s preeminent litigation, capital markets, syndicated lending, mergers and acquisitions and tax groups. I believe our focus on extending those market-leading practices will allow us to serve our clients’ needs in a way that is holistic across all corporate practice areas – a benefit no matter what the state of the market may be.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

181

Matthew Minner HARE WYNN (LEXINGTON, K.Y.)

500

MATTHEW MINNER FEW LAW FIRMS DEDICATED TO

representing plaintiffs have a track record like Hare Wynn Newell & Newton, which was founded in 1890. Among the firm’s second century roster of stars is Lawdragon 500 member Matthew Minner, who is managing partner of Hare Wynn’s Lexington, Kentucky, office. “The law provides an incredible opportunity to serve others, and it is a duty that we take very seriously,” Minner says. “It’s always bigger than ourselves.” The Vanderbilt Law graduate brings that spirit to his activities outside of the practice of law, as well. An active member of his church, Minner is President of the firm’s charitable arm, the Hare Wynn Foundation. He and his wife, Joy, also founded Cure KY Kids, a nonprofit group that raises funds for cancer research and provides support to sick Kentucky children and their families. Lawdragon: Can you describe the mix of work you do and how that fits into the firm’s mission? Matthew Minner: We are 100% a plaintiffs’ litigation firm with cases and clients that range from some of the most complex litigation in the country to single event matters. I am coming off of a stretch where I spent a great deal of time in the western part of the country, including Alaska and in Montana in cases against Merck. We had a great team on those cases and achieved record results. As a firm, Hare Wynn recently completed the first Syngenta corn trial. That case resulted in a $217 million verdict on behalf of the class of Kansas corn farmers that we represent. In the next several months the firm along with coleads will be moving toward helping corn farmers in the trial of the next state class – the Arkansas and Missouri class claims. LD: Are there any new areas or other trends in the firm’s cases? MM: We are constantly being invited to evaluate cases and whether there is an opportunity for Hare Wynn to help our potential clients achieve the results they are after. We invest a tremendous amount of time up front in evaluating potential cases and are very selective in the ones with which we choose to involve our firm. Now is no different. Attention has turned to the opioid addiction epidemic in many parts of the country and the role some pharmaceutical companies have played in creating and

PHOTO BY: SCOTT WALZ

BY JOHN RYAN feeding that epidemic. It is a national problem that is destroying lives and costing states hundreds of millions of dollars. In the single event realm, we are on a campaign to improve the quality of long term health care available to and received by the elderly. Our country’s “Greatest Generation” is aging and are finding themselves victims of abuse and neglect in nursing homes at an alarming rate. Certainly not all, but many, nursing homes have become nothing more than profit centers that treat the residents like cattle. The federal government is the biggest funding source of nursing home care, mostly through Medicaid, a joint federal-state health care program for those with financial needs, and Medicare, the federal program for elderly and disabled people. In order for a facility to receive that funding, they are required to follow certain standards and regulations. Those federal health and safety standards are designed to protect nursing home residents from abuse yet year over year reports of abuse are increasing. Most states do not have the resources necessary to oversee and enforce those regulations. That’s why private enforcement is becoming a critical element to raising the overall level of care for our Greatest Generation. LD: What do you find professionally satisfying about the work you do? MM: The teams that we are able to assemble at Hare Wynn make the work for our clients incredibly satisfying. Oftentimes, plaintiffs assume the role of “David” – and the ability to go toe-to-toe with some of the biggest opponents in the world and win is quite satisfying. In a recent case, “Goliath” had four national firms representing them. One firm from Texas handled the offensive discovery, a Philadelphia firm handled their defensive discovery, a Chicago firm handled the nuts and bolts litigation and Skadden handled most of the oral arguments and oversaw the operation. These were all excellent defense lawyers at very respected firms. It is rewarding professionally to put a team together to compete against that level of defense and to achieve the desired result for our clients. The satisfaction you ask about starts with having the fire and the desire to compete at the highest level. In college football the best coaches and teams want to compete against Alabama, in college basketball they want to match up with and beat Kentucky. The teams at Hare Wynn thrive on that level of litigation.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

183

500

500 LD: Why did you go into law in the first place? MM: I was raised in a military family where a cornerstone of life was service to something greater than yourself. My father served for over 20 years and through two wars. My mother taught high school for 35 years. There are few greater examples of servant leaders than our teachers and veterans – everything they do and are committed to is about others – that’s just how I was brought up. That cornerstone is also a biblical principle that really guides my life and is something I hope that my children adopt as well. The law, and in particular plaintiffs’ work, provided me an opportunity to live that out professionally. Every case is about someone else whether an individual, a business or even the citizens of states that I have represented. Every case provides an opportunity to help someone through a tragedy or to effectuate a positive change or to simply right a wrong. LD: Why did you choose Vanderbilt Law over other options you might have had? MM: I could talk for quite a while about Vanderbilt Law School. It provided everything I needed to become a trial lawyer. The team at Vanderbilt went above and beyond at every stage of my time in law school. The ability to connect with people and to understand people has always been important to me. At Vanderbilt, they invested in the student at a level I had not seen at other schools I considered. I’ll give you an example from before I even started my first class. I was the only one from Kentucky in my incoming class and I didn’t really know anyone going to Vanderbilt. I received a call from the admissions office – I knew them all on a first name basis – and the caller said, “We don’t really act as a placement office for roommates but there is a new student coming in who is a wrestler at Harvard and the two of you just seem to be a perfect fit to go through the rigors of the 1L year together. If you aren’t lined up with a roommate yet, we think you should give him (Chris) a call.” I did and we did end up being roommates for that 1L year and throughout law school and remain close friends to this day. In order to “connect and understand” you first have to genuinely care. Vanderbilt did that before I began and continued to show that personal commitment and connection to its students throughout my time there. The admissions office that invests the time and has the intuition to know enough about incoming students to be able to examine personalities, work habits, and mutual interests and to reach out in that

184

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

manner in matching a boy from Kentucky and another from Massachusetts really spoke volumes to me. That intimate knowledge of the students and investment in their personal growth and success from the administration, faculty, and placement ofﬁce continued throughout my time at Vanderbilt. I cannot say enough positive things about how well Vanderbilt prepared me for the practice of law. The opportunities to get on your feet and advocate were limitless and that was important to me as an aspiring trial lawyer. There also was just something different, something special about the students Vanderbilt drew from across the country – and in law school your peers can make the difference in a rough three years and a great three years. In an inherently competitive environment like law school, the collegiality at Vanderbilt was unmatched. My closest colleagues were from or went on to practice in places like Boston, New York, Nashville, Ohio, Phoenix and D.C. Why is that important? Because as a trial lawyer or a corporate dealmaker you have to understand, get along with and relate to people from all walks of life and from all corners of the country. You need to genuinely like people in order to succeed and enjoy your role as a trial lawyer. Vanderbilt gave me the opportunity to grow and to be challenged in so many ways that I truly needed at that point in my life. LD: What advice would you give to current law students? MM: Get on your feet, pick a side or a point and persuade every chance you get. Moot court, trial teams, trial advocacy, appellate advocacy and numerous other similar opportunities are available at every school. There were excellent training tools at Vanderbilt and they provided a top notch experience for me. I hear from young lawyers every day that they just cannot get into the courtroom. Get all of the experience you can while it’s there for the taking during school. Even out of school, teach your Sunday school class, speak to high school students, speak at seminars or conferences – do whatever you can to get on your feet. Presenting your case whether to a judge or jury is like anything else, you can’t be very good at it if you don’t do it regularly. LD: What brought you back to Kentucky? MM: You might think bluegrass, thoroughbreds, bourbon, or basketball but the truth is Hare Wynn’s footprint was growing nationally and Kentucky was one of the places where we had seen a lot of success for years before I returned home to lead that

500

MANY CLIENTS I JUST LOVE, SOMETIMES IT’S THE PRINCIPLE OF WHAT WE’VE STOOD UP FOR, SOMETIMES IT’S THE SUCCESS IN THE CASES THAT OTHERS WOULDN’T TOUCH. office. In 2012, when we opened, we had recently completed a pharmaceutical case on behalf of the Commonwealth of Kentucky that was resolved for $25 million and later that year we led a great family to a significant nursing home verdict in Louisville. Soon thereafter we launched our Kentucky office and haven’t looked back since. LD: Please tell us about a few of your favorite cases in your career.

in a settlement with one defendant and a jury award against the others in the amount of $37,500,000. LD: Congratulations. Any others? MM: There are other cases that presented interesting challenges. We always work hard to ﬁnd a way. Oftentimes we are brought into cases that have encountered signiﬁcant obstacles as trial approaches. One of those cases involved a Ford automotive business entity and that case took me all the way to Ghana, Africa, to secure key testimony that helped break the case open. That testimony was taken in a building surrounded by barbed wire and machine gun yielding guards. As trial approached, that case settled for about 50 times the settlement offer that was presented before our involvement.

MM: Wow, there are so many that mean so much to me for many different reasons. Many clients I just love, sometimes it’s the principle of what we’ve stood up for, sometimes it’s the success in the cases that others wouldn’t touch. Let me give you an example, one Friday afternoon I had a mother and father come and sit down in my office. I knew they were there because their son, a young police officer with a promising career, life and family ahead died tragically on the job. The young officer responded to a call involving a domestic disturbance involving a manager at a restaurant. When he arrived and exited his vehicle that manager ran at him through the front door firing a weapon and hit the officer in the leg. The officer returned fire from the pavement of the parking lot and, on the fourth shot, his weapon malfunctioned and jammed, leaving him immobile and defenseless. The assailant walked across the parking lot to the officer, aimed at point blank range and took that young police officer’s life.

In another interesting single event case I was asked to represent an African-American Forestry Commission employee in a small pocket of the deep south where others didn’t believe he could receive justice. He had been severely burned in a fuel fed fire while fighting a forest fire during drought conditions. He sat in an enclosed operator’s compartment of his John Deere tractor when the fuel line beneath the operator’s seat burned through shooting flames into the operator’s compartment like a fire hose. He struggled through the fire to release the door on the operator’s compartment and fell from the burning tractor but not before he was burned over 65% of his body.

His mother and father had been escorted to my office before I walked in and, when I did, they had placed photos of their son across my desk, headline newspaper articles showing political dignitaries and lines of officers in dress blues attending his funeral. Those photos were side-by-side with family pictures of him as a boy growing up. With tears in their eyes, they explained what had happened and how they had not been able to find representation and their time was running out. The criminal case was clear but the civil case was a different story. “We were sent to you because we were told you can help in difficult cases like this,” they said. A lawsuit involving the gun manufacturer and a combined dram shop action followed. Two years later, that case resulted

Testing showed that the fuel line on John Deere’s “fire fighting” tractors burned through to the heat of a simple match in less than 1 second. At trial, important witnesses “disappeared” and other landowner locals backtracked on their testimony and bent over backwards to help the manufacturer in an effort to ensure that my client and friend was awarded nothing. They claimed that he operated the tractor too close to the fire and that his own carelessness was to blame for his burn injuries. That case was tried in a very small town, in a beautiful antebellum court house on the square. This may have been the biggest case to ever come through that courthouse. The community was divided but, by the end of that two-week trial, the jury was not and everyone in the courthouse knew it. The

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

185

500

500 186

Robin Panovka

Richard Pepperman

WACHTELL LIPTON NEW YORK

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL NEW YORK

Arrie Park

Kathleen Flynn Peterson

HELLMAN & FRIEDMAN SAN FRANCISCO

ROBINS KAPLAN MINNEAPOLIS

C. Allen Parker

Roberta Pichini

WELLS FARGO SAN FRANCISCO

FELDMAN SHEPHERD PHILADELPHIA

Stephanie Parker

Jonathan Pickhardt

JONES DAY ATLANTA

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

Kirk Pasich

Debra Pole

PASICH LLP LOS ANGELES

SIDLEY LOS ANGELES

Michael Paskin

Jonathan Polkes

CRAVATH NEW YORK

WEIL GOTSHAL NEW YORK

Brian Pastuszenski

Karen Popp

GOODWIN NEW YORK

SIDLEY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Kathy Patrick

Benjamin Powell

GIBBS & BRUNS HOUSTON

WILMERHALE WASHINGTON, D.C.

Harriet Pearson

Joe Power

HOGAN LOVELLS WASHINGTON, D.C.

POWER ROGERS & SMITH CHICAGO

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

result changed his life and, a testament to the man he is, even after his award he went right back and returned to work with the Forestry Commission. It’s certainly not me and the Hare Wynn team changing their lives, it’s them changing mine. LD: Did you have any mentors who were important over the course of your career? MM: I have been blessed to have had the opportunity to spend time with several great lawyers and judges that certainly have shaped my career. As a teenager, I used to help do yard work for a great appellate judge. After, I would sit on his front porch

that are ﬁghting pediatric cancer each day. Cancer is the leading cause of death by disease among children. Approximately 13,500 children are diagnosed with cancer each year and efforts involving research and treatment remain vastly underfunded. In Kentucky, there is approximately $10 million budgeted for inmate dental care but zero budgeted for pediatric cancer so the need is really there. As an organization we recently hit a home run for the kids by establishing the Curing Childhood Cancer license plate in Kentucky. We have an outstanding board of directors and together with volunteers and families from across the state we all worked with

I HAVE BEEN BLESSED TO HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEND TIME WITH SEVERAL GREAT LAWYERS AND JUDGES THAT CERTAINLY HAVE SHAPED MY CAREER. and over a glass of sweet tea he would share war stories that piqued my initial interest in the law as a career. I’ve taken a piece of so many with me as my career has developed. My federal clerkship with a tough, perfectly detailed, always prepared, fair, hard-working and well respected judge. I learned more in that year with Judge Lynwood Smith than in any other comparable period of time in my career. I really cannot look through the lens of hindsight without seeing that clerkship year playing such an important role in my career. As a young lawyer at Hare Wynn I had the incredible opportunity to learn from litigators who were pioneers in establishing the practice of plaintiffs’ law nationally as we know it today. I trained under the lawyers that are truly the best in class. To learn from the same lawyers that uncovered the proﬁts over safety “smoking gun” memo in the Ford Pinto case and litigated numerous other renowned cases has been priceless. Lawyers like Alex Newton and Leon Ashford invested in me personally as a young lawyer and I’m forever grateful for them providing me with the opportunity to succeed. LD: Please discuss some of your charitable work. MM: Several years ago, my wife and I founded Cure KY Kids – a non-proﬁt organization inspired by the thousands of Kentucky’s children and their families

the Department of Transportation in order to meet the requirement to make this happen. A portion of each plate purchased goes to provide support and services for children in Kentucky battling pediatric cancer. This is going to be a real difference maker in raising both awareness and funds. In addition, I have been the President of the Hare Wynn foundation – the charitable arm of the firm which is very important to us. As a firm, we believe it is our duty to support the communities where we practice. LD: What do you do for fun outside of the office? MM: When I’m not practicing law you may find me hitting fly balls to little league baseball players at the neighborhood field or calling a double reverse or hitch and go on the football field. I enjoy working with kids and enjoy getting to know their families through coaching. It’s probably easier to get me to talk about back to back to back Lexington Junior Super Bowl Championships than it is to discuss a recent success in the courtroom. That’s something I’ve done since my years as a young lawyer. As I mentioned earlier, giving back is important and this is one way to stay involved in your community. If we spend all of our time with lawyers, how are we ever going to connect with and be able to see the world through the lens of jurors or our clients?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

187

Jennifer Bragg Jennifer Bragg (WASHINGTON, D.C.)

ANGELES James LOS Carroll (BOSTON)

Lisa Gilford

Graham Robinson

(LOS ANGELES)

(BOSTON)

500

JENNIFER BRAGG, JAMES CARROLL, LISA GILFORD AND GRAHAM ROBINSON: BY KATRINA DEWEY AND JOHN RYAN NEW FRONTIERS IN HEALTHCARE AND LIFE SCIENCES IN AUGUST, GILEAD SCIENCES ANNOUNCED

it was acquiring Kite Pharmaceuticals for $11.9B. The deal was noteworthy for its size and the fact that it came amid a decline in healthcare and life sciences deals that had settled in during the earlier part of 2017. Lawdragon had the opportunity to talk to key players from Skadden’s healthcare and life sciences team, including partner Graham Robinson, who heads Boston’s Mergers and Acquisitions Group and represented Gilead in the deal; partner Jennifer Bragg, a regulatory and litigation specialist operating out of Washington, D.C. and former Associate Chief Counsel at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration; Boston ofﬁce leader James Carroll, a litigator who has secured important wins for many healthcare and pharmaceutical clients in securities class actions, among other areas; and Los Angeles-based partner Lisa Gilford, an expert at defending consumer class actions, including for major pharmaceutical clients. Healthcare and life sciences is a vibrant and evergrowing space that presents a range of issues and opportunities for companies as they navigate economic and policy challenges related to the delivery and accessibility of healthcare and life-saving medications. With a new administration vowing sweeping changes to the healthcare system and an aging population with persistently mounting healthcare costs — along with dazzling developments in technology that extend lives — there’s never been a more interesting time to be on the front lines of legal practice in this arena. Lawdragon: Graham, it was recently announced that your client, Gilead Sciences, is buying Kite Pharmaceuticals for $11.9 billion. Can you tell us what this transaction says about the current state of deal-making in the pharma and biotech sector? Graham Robinson: The Gilead transaction is the biggest deal in the U.S. pharma and biotech arena this year, and it’s signiﬁcant relative to overall deal volume, which is down. Companies in this sector have to develop products or acquire them in order to stay in business. Many will not be able to develop enough products internally, which translates into a long-term need for acquisitions. You might ask, “If that’s true, why have we seen a reduction in deal volume this year?” I believe it’s a short-term issue, relating to uncertainty about corporate tax reform, potential changes to the

PHOTOS OF JENNIFER BRAGG BY ELI MEIR KAPLAN; JAMES CARROLL AND GRAHAM ROBINSON BY KEN RICHARDSON; AND LISA GILFORD BY AMY CANTRELL.

Affordable Care Act, and medium-term stability of the reimbursement regime in the U.S. These factors may lead to uncertainty by buyers trying to accurately value a potential target. That said, there is a sizable inventory of companies to be acquired, which is exciting for dealmakers. Hopefully, the Gilead deal is a catalyst for other transactions. I have confidence that, as these regulatory issues are resolved, we’ll eventually catch up to previous years’ deal volumes, if not exceed them. LD: Jennifer, given your D.C.-based regulatory practice, what challenges do you see as being most prevalent for companies in the health care and life sciences space, more broadly? Jennifer Bragg: Graham mentioned the role that these companies’ products play in driving M&A activity. Currently, the costs of our clients’ products are a key focus for the government, which has been looking closely at programs offering physicians and patients reimbursement support for treatments. For many novel therapies, providing such support is key to commercial success. Many companies also provide other forms of financial support for patients struggling to afford their medicines — co-pay support, coupon programs and the like — and these programs also are coming under scrutiny. Some tension exists between insurance companies seeking to address the rising costs of products and companies wanting to find more ways to facilitate their products’ use. The Department of Justice fundamentally doesn’t like these kinds of programs, and is looking for theories to argue that they might violate applicable law. Overall, companies continue to believe there is a strong imperative to offer these programs, and the government has an equally strong imperative to scrutinize them. LD: Jim, you handle high-profile litigation matters, including in this industry. What is your assessment of the landscape? James Carroll: When a company announces the existence of a government investigation, it’s almost always followed by a securities fraud class action. Plaintiffs will allege that the company failed to disclose facts and circumstances that would have put investors on notice that the company was engaging in a business practice the government might determine

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

189

500

500 in a federal multidistrict litigation or a state analog coordinated action? And if so, where should that be? There’s no one-size-ﬁts-all answer to these questions, but we work with our clients to determine how to most effectively manage what could be a large volume of matters focused on a single set of issues. Bragg: Lisa mentioned an important development — the much closer relationship that is forming between plaintiffs’ lawyers and government entities, including attorneys general. Attorneys general have budgets that are increasingly strapped year after year, and some of their casework — for example, consumer protection work — is now falling to plaintiffs’ lawyers who typically are very well funded. Jennifer Bragg

to be unlawful. As Jen suggests, product pricing is under increasing government scrutiny, and there’s no reason to think this will change under the current administration. We are likely to see even more of this type of civil litigation. There also has been a continued up-swing in stock-drop securities fraud class actions. The financial performance of many public companies in the pharma and biotech space depends on one or two drugs or pipeline prospects, and a bit of bad news from the FDA can send their stocks plummeting. The judiciary has gained a greater sophistication about these kinds of cases, and as a result, more and more of them are tossed out at early stages. But that hasn’t slowed the plaintiffs’ bar — they keep filing them. The pharma and biotech space is the hottest in the securities litigation arena right now. LD: Lisa, what have you seen from the consumer product class-action side? Lisa Gilford: Pharma and medical device companies have always had product liability dockets. What has changed over the course of my 25 years of practice is, first of all, the speed with which a publicized issue with a product — for example, a recall — results not just in litigation, but a large volume of litigation that needs to be managed carefully and dealt with across a variety of jurisdictions. I also have observed increased collaboration between government enforcement mechanisms and the private plaintiffs’ bar, with civil penalty statutes being used to mount a litigation challenge against a company. A lot of my practice focuses on the initial strategic considerations, which are key when facing this kind of litigation. For example, should the litigation be aggregated in a specific forum? Can it be aggregated

190

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Gilford: I think that trend will continue to grow. Civil law is an additional means of regulating industry, and that’s particularly true in times when there may be a change in the regulatory landscape or a lesser focus on enforcement at the government level. Private lawyers step into the breach in those situations. LD: Jim, you mentioned not seeing much of a difference in the Trump administration — whereas the posture has been one of less regulation, along with staffing concerns at certain agencies. Have you noticed any decrease in fervor within that environment? Carroll: No. There are quite a number of vacant U.S. Attorney spots throughout the country, but those positions will presumably be filled in the coming weeks and months. There is no significant reason to predict the Department of Justice is going to slow down its efforts or that state AGs — who are hard-pressed to fill holes in their budgets — are going to back down. In the space where I work, there seems to be an increasing, unprecedented level of cooperation between the FDA and the SEC. The SEC, particularly here in the Northeast, is paying close attention to what pharma and biotech companies are publicly disclosing about their pipeline process and the regulatory status of drugs that they have in development. They work very closely with the FDA in enforcement cases. Bragg: The FDA’s new commissioner, Scott Gottlieb, has given every indication that he will continue to put forward all or many of the enforcement priorities that preceded him. So to Jim’s point, with respect to cooperation between the SEC and the FDA in securities cases, we’ve also seen a willingness by the new administration to be forward-leaning with respect to its enforcement priorities. LD: A few follow-up questions on these collaboration trends. Lisa, back to you, with state agencies and the

500

plaintiffs’ bar working together, does it change your approach to defending a case? Gilford: Historically, the best-known example of this type of collaboration is the tobacco cases, which really brought the power of the government to bear in litigation. We’re now seeing the tobacco litigation model rolled out across a variety of different industries, including health care and, in particular, the medical device and pharmaceutical sectors. When you’re in front of a jury and the other side stands up and says, “We are here on behalf of ‘the People,’” or “the state of California” or “Kentucky,” that assertion carries a credibility that an individual plaintiff might not have and raises the stakes associated with a particular litigation. When the government acts on its behalf, it’s interested in an outcome that is focused on operations of the company going forward and consumer protection and injunctive relief. However, when you introduce private lawyers into the mix, there are added ﬁnancial considerations because those lawyers have sunk substantial resources into a case and need to be repaid. This can make cases more difﬁcult to settle.

James Carroll

LD: And Jim or Jennifer, what about with the SEC and FDA combining forces? How has that changed things from your or your clients’ perspective?

LD: What excites each of you about working in this industry?

Carroll: I’ll give you a concrete example. There’s a case here in Boston where the SEC is suing the former CEO, Chief Medical Ofﬁcer and CFO of a publicly traded drug company that was in the business of developing cancer drugs. The FDA had recommended that the company conduct a second study on one of its products. The company moved forward with its NDA, and eventually its application was turned down. Subsequently, a securities case was ﬁled against them in which the plaintiffs alleged inadequate disclosure of the communications from the FDA. The SEC is now also bringing a private civil action to effectively bar these individuals from working with publicly traded companies, and their key witnesses will include FDA employees. I think the collaboration between these agencies is here to stay. And this shift is not happening as a result of traditional rulemaking or legislation. Bragg: That theme plays out in a lot of the work we do from an enforcement point of view. The traditional ways to create new rules are: (1) Congress could pass a law and the president could sign it, or (2) agencies can use the legislative rulemaking process if they intend to implement a new policy or regulation. Because rulemaking can be expensive and time-

consuming, agencies in this space are more frequently using enforcement to enact new policies, and this is very difﬁcult for companies to keep track of. It has all the expected perils of trying to sort out whether a settlement agreement in one place should be taken into account by a company making compliance and legal decisions.

Bragg: I have given a lot of thought to this question recently, as we’ve been in the process of recruiting summer associates and are often asked how we ended up doing the work we do. It strikes me that we are in a very fortunate space, working with companies on the front lines of many important policy questions. What kind of health care should we be delivering? How should it be accessed? What should be the continued role of capitalism? How should that be balanced against the need for a broad number of people to have access? We are, at a very granular level, part of these important conversations about innovation, policy, law and regulation. We also have witnessed breathtaking, transformative advances in science and technology. Robinson: To Jennifer’s point, these developments of new products and signiﬁcant scientiﬁc advancements have tangible, often life-changing human impacts. Health care is a business, but the people who run health care and life sciences companies are focused on patients as the key constituents. Pharma and biotech executives deliver value to shareholders by developing an actual therapy that works well for patients. It’s very rewarding to work with people in this industry, given how important those human factors are in the boardroom and at the senior executive level.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

191

500

500 LD: What’s your forecast for where we’re heading, and what advice are you preparing to give clients? Where do you see needs arising? Carroll: More aggressive enforcement by the government will result in more ﬁghts that go the distance rather than settling — particularly where the individuals have indemnity rights and insurance protection. Historically, the pressure from the government to settle a case has been enormous, but the increased volume of litigation means some people will put on a defense and try and win.

Lisa Gilford

LD: What do you look for when you bring people into the firm in this practice? Carroll: I look for candidates who have demonstrated an exceptionally strong work ethic, someone who has attempted something difficult and stuck with it over a period of time. I’ll take the candidate who worked themselves through school at night or had a significant full-time job during law school over someone from a more prestigious school or with a particular kind of work experience. And hopefully they’ve done something that requires a lot of teamwork, not necessarily as team captain, but at least to have contributed to a team effort, whether it’s an athletic endeavor, playing in a band or something else that requires working closely with others. Robinson: Ambition and intensity are key; I also look for people who have a creative bent. That’s a hallmark of Skadden. Clients tend to bring us, and we provide, work that is not just muscle memory but that necessitates innovation on behalf of our clients. Gilford: I’m looking for someone who’s going to be excited and geeked out by the science. You have to be able to ask coherent questions of highly scientific and technical witnesses. You have to understand how a product is made, why it’s made and what it does. You don’t necessarily need a background in science to excel at what I do; sometimes it helps to be the layperson asking questions and translating very complex information to people on juries who are not scientifically and technically minded. But you have to like the subject matter, you have to find the technical information interesting, and you have to be willing to dig in.

192

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Bragg: That’s a great point, and something we’ve already seen. The government historically has used the leveraged threat of company exclusion to extract settlements, but recently more individuals who are wrapped up in those investigations have chosen to take the case to trial. What we’ve learned through those outcomes is that it’s much harder to convict an individual than it is to get a jury to convict a company. The government’s litigation risk changes appreciably when there’s an individual defendant on the other side. LD: Graham, how about from the transactional side? Robinson: Scientific innovations like gene therapy, where regulatory exclusivity is a big part of the picture, has altered transactions by making regulatory expertise like Jennifer’s more important. Over the next few years, regulatory advice is going to be front and center in key transactions. Intellectual property issues have traditionally determined for how long and in what ways can companies maintain exclusive market rights to a product, but the importance of regulatory exclusivity is increasing in certain areas. Bragg: On that point, increasingly it’s no longer sufficient to think there will be regulatory exclusivity without also asking who’s going to pay for your product. With the rising cost of products and in situations where there are multiple products for a therapy, reimbursement is not the guarantee that it once was. This is particularly the case in the medical device space. More companies are now focused not just on their regulatory pathway to exclusivity, but are paying a lot more attention to “What is the reimbursement picture going to be?” LD: Lisa, any forecast for your practice or specific to California? Gilford: The number of class actions focused on cybersecurity and data breaches is likely to increase, as are innovative theories about why they should proceed beyond the pleading stage. Plaintiffs thus far haven’t been very successful getting beyond the

500

threshold issue of standing and whether consumers have been harmed by a data intrusion. But, as was just mentioned in the context of securities class actions, that doesn’t stop them from trying. There have been enough small wins to keep the plaintiffs’ bar very focused on this industry, in particular, because of the kind of information companies store and the nature of medical devices that are part of the internet of things. Bragg: Cybersecurity issues impact efforts to provide more reimbursement support for health care professionals and for patients. Often companies that would not otherwise have HIPAA-protected information end up having it because they’re providing that extra level of support for reimbursement. It makes them much more vulnerable to security breaches and the civil and criminal liability that goes along with them. LD: Let’s talk a little bit more about firm dynamics and how lawyers with different specialties work together within the practice. For example, if you could discuss what happens internally at the firm when there is proposed legislation that would have a massive impact on clients. Do you get together as a team and develop a task force to look at issues that might affect their compliance? How do you all get on the same page in terms of the changing landscape? Bragg: You essentially described our approach to the Affordable Care Act when it was being considered and when it was ultimately put into law. First, we need to understand what is in any particular piece of legislation and what range of clients are going to be directly impacted. Then we look at the implications for transactions, securities, tax, regulatory, etc.; and we provide guidance to our clients in a sensitized way. Further customized advice is provided in small-group or one-on-one conversations with clients, with representatives from multiple practices throughout our firm. Carroll: At the risk of sounding immodest, cross-practice coordination is one of the things Skadden does exceptionally well. Our clients have access to someone like Jennifer with a background at the FDA, Lisa who’s a real pro in the consumer class actions in this space, and M&A experts like Graham. We can provide advice on new legislation or a sector development from all of the angles that will be key to our clients’ businesses. I can easily call upon Jennifer to walk me through the nuances of FDA policies, procedures and people, as we’ve been doing recently for a case that requires us to take discovery from the FDA. She has worked at the FDA and has a much better sense than I ever would, sitting in Boston as a litigator, of how best to draw

Graham Robinson

information out of that organization when they don’t particularly want to give it to me. Bragg: Lisa and I are working together with partners in our Chicago office on a case for Purdue Pharma with a number of litigations underway against them and other members of the extended-relief opioid manufacturing class. That case requires that we have counsel across the country. Having the right people with the right experience across offices makes us extraordinarily well-positioned to defend these complicated cases. LD: All of you are in the U.S. How difficult is it to manage similar issues for clients in international jurisdictions? Robinson: We work very hard to make sure that on every matter we find the best lawyer at Skadden for each particular aspect of an engagement. Only about a third of the work I do is for companies based in the United States. We are a global firm, and we all make an effort to build strong relationships and often work with partners, counsel and associates from different practices in our offices all over the world. As a firm, we are committed to ensuring that every client, no matter where in the world they are located, no matter how big or small they are, gets the very best that Skadden has to offer. Bragg: It’s ultimately a product of our firm’s culture and how we have grown over time. We don’t acquire practices, and we don’t acquire firms. When we decide to bring on new people, we find the right person to integrate into Skadden’s culture. It really doesn’t matter if that person is sitting in Tokyo, Brussels or Beijing. It is crucial to us that our collaboration is seamless. On so many of these large, complex matters, it’s essential to providing the highest quality client service.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

193

P. Jason Collins REID COLLINS (AUSTIN, TEXAS)

500

P. JASON COLLINS IT’S HARD TO IMAGINE REID COLLINS

& Tsai LLP name partner P. Jason Collins as anything but a lawyer. His grandfather was an in-house lawyer with an insurer and his father was an in-house labor and employment lawyer at UPS. Growing up outside Atlanta and then in Texas, Collins’ father would come home each evening and, over the dinner table, ask Collins and his two brothers how they would handle an employment or other legal issue that arose in his father’s workday.

From those roots, Collins developed a love of law and business, leading him to earn his CPA, which he used at Arthur Andersen, before attending the University of Texas School of Law. A thoughtful and tireless litigator, Collins was recently selected to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America. He particularly loves getting into the grit of a business failure to find those culpable for dissolutions, bankruptcies or other demise. And word to the wise, this church elder especially loves taking on those who defraud public pensions that are entrusted with the retirement funds of teachers, police officers, firemen and other public servants. His persistence and dogged pursuit of justice also make him the ideal Managing Partner of the highflying Reid Collins & Tsai – which has more than made its mark on the legal landscape in record time. From assessing the merits of cases the firm is considering to ensuring the cohesion of its lawyers, Collins is one of the keys to the firm’s success. Collins joined a litigation boutique out of law school, before forming Reid Collins & Tsai in 2009 with fellow partners Bill Reid and Lisa Tsai. According to fellow partner Bill Reid, “A good lawyer who is also a good businessperson is a rare animal, and Jason is an extremely uncommon combination – he is a truly first-rate trial lawyer, who is also an excellent businessman.” He added that “Jason’s financial acumen and business abilities coupled with his first-rate legal skills enable him to operate at the very top of the commercial plaintiff’s bar,” and that “on any metric, Jason’s leadership of our firm as Managing Partner has led to spectacular results.” Lawdragon: Can you describe your background? P. Jason Collins: My practice is focused at the center of law and finance. And my background as a CPA is very much part of everything I do as a lawyer. I grew

PHOTO BY: DAVE CROSS

BY KATRINA DEWEY up wanting to be a lawyer, my father and grandfather both went to law school and I knew that I wanted to follow suit from an early age and do the same thing that they did. My studies of accounting and finance were borne more out of practical advice from my father than anything else. He encouraged me to study something that would be useful to my practice as a lawyer – and business certainly qualifies as that, but he may also have been concerned that my legal dreams may not pan out, and he wanted me to have something marketable in terms of a skill. Either way I fell in love with accounting and finance during my undergraduate and graduate school experience so much that I pushed on to become a CPA and work as an auditor for a couple of years prior to going to law school. LD: What did you love about accounting and finance? PJC: Well it made sense to me and intrigued me. Accounting is very much about classification, including properly interpreting and reflecting what has happened. It’s the language of business. I wanted to understand how businesses work, why certain transactions are done in a particular way, and how to create and monitor a profitable enterprise. My study of finance at the graduate level helped me to understand how businesses are valued and why certain investment decisions are made in addition to how the overall economy works from a money and banking perspective. I wanted to figure out how this whole business world works, and studying accounting and finance revealed a lot to me. Getting to the bottom of how business works and what drives value in a commercial context, is something that I was passionate about doing all through school and then certainly as an auditor, I became fascinated with trying to uncover what was motivating certain transactions, particularly if they appeared to be motivated by a wrongful purpose. LD: You developed an interest in law through your dad? PJC: Growing up, we would have dinner table discussions about whatever matters my Dad was working on at the time. So I heard about every type of employment-related scenario you can think of. I enjoyed considering how he should handle a case; whether the employees were in the wrong; and what he as a labor manager and employment lawyer should do about it. Dad has always had a keen

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

195

500

500 sense for justice and a desire to do what is fair in any situation. Interacting with him about labor and employment matters showed me how legal work could be both interesting and meaningfully pursued in a virtuous manner that impacts people’s lives. He obviously inspired me to continue heading down the legal path, I just had a brief detour into finance and accounting. LD: At what juncture as a CPA and auditor did you decide it was time for law school? PJC: I always knew that I wanted to become a lawyer, the question was how long to continue down the accounting path before pulling the plug to go to law school? I needed at least a year of experience to qualify as a CPA, and I certainly wanted that credential, but I stayed longer because the experience was extraordinarily valuable. I had a fantastic boss named Lynn Loden who allowed me to take on as much as I was willing to take on and who explained the nuances of synthetic leases, sale-leasebacks, and securitizations to me. I was working long hours and getting a ton of good experience. I don’t know if you know about the career of a young auditor? LD: Not at all. Tell me about it. PJC: Young auditors at big accounting firms work very long hours and they get absolutely wonderful experience in terms of understanding the language of business and how transactions work. It was fascinating to me, and I was learning so much. I was in a group that specialized in auditing sophisticated financial transactions. From project to project, I would be working in relation to a different client who had engaged in some complicated transaction that our audit team was supposed to evaluate and determine whether the client was accounting for it properly – and whether or not based on the underlying economics and the legal structure, the financial statements were fairly stated. Often, the projects involved prospective transactions where the client wanted to know if we would approve of a given accounting treatment for a transaction while it was still being negotiated. That gave me experience working directly with the lawyers who were involved in structuring the transaction, who were often trying to convince us that the proposed accounting treatment was accurate despite our suspicions otherwise. That led to a lot of back and forth and even negotiations regarding additional ways in which the structure of the transaction needed to change for us to be comfortable

196

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

with the accounting treatment. In those situations, I was able to play a role at a very young age in the structuring of transactions involving tens of millions of dollars, including everything from the financing of huge off-shore drilling ships and airplanes to the securitization of commercial lease receivables and stadium seat licenses. That experience was very educational and helpful because I knew at the time that I would eventually pursue a legal career, but learning about these transactions helped me see the potential in a legal practice focused on issues arising out of sophisticated financial transactions. At Andersen, I learned how such deals are put together and even how they can be manipulated for wrongful purposes. LD: So even before law school, you were getting a first-hand look at the kind of work you do now? PJC: Absolutely. As an auditor, my job was to look at transactions from a skeptical vantage point. My team had to evaluate whether or not a transaction, as structured by the lawyers and advocated by the client, actually met the requirements that it had to meet from a financial accounting perspective. It’s very similar to the perspective that I need to have as a commercial plaintiff’s attorney. I scrutinize business dealings to determine how and why the parties did what they did, and determine whether or not they engaged in any wrongful conduct. The most important thing that this background has provided me is the ability to understand the underlying transactions that give rise to a given dispute. I don’t have to necessarily rely upon what any particular witness is telling me about a deal. I have a sufficient educational background and experience to analyze the deal on my own. LD: How did you choose UT Law School? PJC: I was working as an auditor in Houston, and I was madly in love with my now wife Lisa, who was still in school at Texas A&M University where we met. We both wanted to stay in Texas and The University of Texas School of Law is a world-class law school. I considered myself blessed that they were gracious enough to accept me as a law student. In addition to the regular curriculum they have at the law school – which includes classes on such things as business associations and trial advocacy that are related to what I do today – they also allow you to take at least two courses at other graduate schools within the overall university. I used that opportunity to take

500

a corporate governance class over at the McCombs School of Business, as well as something that’s even more relevant, which was a graduate level course on Fraud Examinations. As a CPA who wanted to work on ﬁnancial fraud cases, that course was highly relevant to my career and proved to be very helpful.

homework on the front end you would have known to be a losing proposition – you’ve got a real problem. And, apart from whether or not it makes for a good business decision for the ﬁrm, it’s critical to ensuring that you provide good advice to a client regarding whether to pursue or not pursue a given case.

LD: What does Reid Collins & Tsai bring to the table that has made it successful?

Clients want to know where their case is headed on day one. They always ask that question, and we’re in a position where we’re ﬁnancially incentivized to make sure that we’re doing our very best to get that answer right. We have zero reason to try to incentivize a client to pursue a case that has a low likelihood of success.

PJC: One thing is that we have a focused practice. We’re not trying to be all things to all people. We’ve really focused on what we believe that we’re good at and what we know that we have a lot of experience doing well, which is the pursuit of claims arising out of financial fraud. Given that we do so much of this work, we know an awful lot about how to successfully pursue cases arising out of financial fraud and company collapses that our competitors who dabble in this area simply can’t bring to the table. The other thing is that we are innovative in our approach. We don’t handle cases or even bring the types of cases that other people do in a standard sort of way. That gives us the flexibility to evaluate cases from different angles and to pursue them, even sometimes in non-legal business ways, that I don’t think institutional firms can entertain. And we certainly have the flexibility to handle cases on fee terms that other firms would simply never consider. We do most of our work on some form of a contingent or success-fee basis. We generally only get paid if we add value by making recoveries for our clients. So at each step of the way – and this is what I personally spend a great deal of my time doing – we’re evaluating claims and making determinations on the front end about how we predict potential claims are going to turn out. We do an abnormal amount of due diligence before we even agree to pursue a case. In many ways we’re investing in our cases. We’re investing with our time and oftentimes our money to pursue claims to the exclusion of other opportunities. So, it is critical for our firm’s success for us to make wise decisions regarding the cases that we agree to take on. Historically, we have made very good decisions and done great work for our clients. That has been the key to our success. LD: It’s rare for a law firm to have such an intense focus on case intake. PJC: That’s one of my favorite aspects of the job. In many ways it’s like running a private equity fund that is making investment decisions. If you choose to deploy your people on a case that – had you done sufficient

LD: Is that true whether the potential client is a whistleblower or a trustee or a liquidator? PJC: The decision-making regarding whether or not a claim has a high or low likelihood of success, is the same no matter which type of client you’re dealing with. It’s either a good claim or it’s not, and the answer to that question means the same thing to a trustee or receiver as it does to a whistleblower or governmental entity. We’re not going to – and our whistleblower clients do not want to – invest a significant amount of time or energy pursuing a claim that has a low likelihood of success. LD: Does the firm’s fee structure vary depending on the nature of the claim? PJC: We have all different types of fee structures. The key factors include the size of the case, the strength of the evidence, the legal framework, and the defendant’s ability to pay if you are successful. Our clients are generally very sophisticated parties. They are not going to pay the same percentage fee on a recovery in a case where there’s very little risk, as that client can or should be willing to pay you in a case where there’s more risk in relation to any one of those factors. What you find is that the more complicated and risky a case may be in terms of timing and recovery, the higher the percentage of the recovery that we negotiate and build into our arrangements. The easier the case, and hence in some ways the less interesting the case in my view, the lower the potential fee will be because we are not bringing the same level of value to the table. We also structure fee arrangements differently in terms of whether we are able to make a pre-suit recovery as opposed to a recovery following three or four years of hard-fought litigation. I believe the reason we have so much repeat business is that our clients view us as being value-oriented in

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

197

500

500 198

Timothy Powers

Alison Ressler

HAYNES BOONE DALLAS

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LOS ANGELES

Marvin Putnam

David Rievman

LATHAM LOS ANGELES

SKADDEN NEW YORK

John Quinn

David Ring

QUINN EMANUEL LOS ANGELES

TAYLOR & RING LOS ANGELES

Abid Qureshi

Darren Robbins

LATHAM WASHINGTON, D.C.

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

Intisar Rabb

John Roberts

HARVARD LAW SCHOOL CAMBRIDGE

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

Noelle Reed

Graham Robinson

SKADDEN HOUSTON

SKADDEN BOSTON

William T. Reid IV

Cristina Rodriguez

REID COLLINS & TSAI AUSTIN, TEXAS

YALE LAW SCHOOL NEW HAVEN

Thomas Reid

Pete Romatowski

DAVIS POLK NEW YORK

JONES DAY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Lorin Reisner

Anthony Romero

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

ACLU NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

our billing and they are able to see the value that we bring to any particular case. LD: Let’s talk about some of your cases that are particularly meaningful to you. PJC: One case that just wrapped up with our client being very happy is what we refer to as the pallet case, which involved a failed start-up company that was involved in the pallet business. These are the typical pallets that are used to move goods around with forklifts at every major big box store. This particular company had come up with a way to create what it regarded as a better pallet, made of different material and with a specific chip where the pallets would not be broken or lost early on as we alleged in our complaint. They ran into trouble early on because the pallets were both breaking and getting lost. What was really interesting to me, and why I really enjoyed the case, is because it provided this textbook example of the way that financial fraud works, because financial fraud has been around for a very, very long time and in so many instances that we see it, it’s the same old story, it’s just different names. And this was a textbook example of how a company and its operators get themselves in a position whereby the entire organization collapses and it starts with just a failure to perform in a small way. What happens is that people are unwilling or unable to own up to the fact that they haven’t been able to reach the metrics or success hurdles that they originally set out for themselves and advertised to others, so they ignore or even cover up early failures. No one likes to admit failure. And what starts as a small misstep can quickly turn into a massive business failure. In this particular context, the company’s managers ignored early signs that the business model was flawed. Instead of halting additional investment and operations when the writing was first appearing on the wall, they allowed the situation to spiral out of control to the point that the company lost hundreds of millions of dollars in investor money in one of the largest start-up failures in history. It was a textbook case for analyzing the overall psychology associated with corporate failure. It usually starts very small and is often related to someone refusing to own up to a mistake. Then, what was initially a small oversight or even cover-up sets the stage for a spectacular collapse that leaves investors and creditors with massive losses. LD: That seems like a lesson that you probably learned from your dad over dinner.

PJC: Both of my parents taught me what can happen when you don’t own up to mistakes. But it’s true that the same issues that lead to the corporate and fund failures that I investigate are central to the labor and employment issues that we discussed at the dinner table. People lie, cheat, and steal. The consequences can grow considerably when they don’t own up to their mistakes early and often. LD: Any other cases come to mind? PJC: I currently represent the State of Tennessee’s Consolidated Retirement System in a case against the major investment banks arising out of the collapse of the residential mortgage-backed securities market. The case deals with the securities that were at the center of the major financial crisis of our time. I’m absolutely fascinated with the case because of the way that the investment banks knowingly structured and sold securities based on blatant misrepresentations, causing a tragic loss for so many people around the world, particularly the state pension funds. My work for Tennessee follows similar work that I have had the privilege to do for other state pension funds. I’ve really enjoyed this work because of what it reveals about the nature of the fraud that adversely affected so many people. It’s easy for us to understand that something horrible went wrong to cause the global financial crisis, but what I enjoy the most is digging into the specific transactions that occurred and understanding why it is that they led to such a tragic failure, and why the representations that were associated with those securities were false, and how we can show that the people who made the representations knew that they were false at the time. LD: Can you walk us through where you start to piece together the bigger picture on these cases? PJC: I work on these cases with a truly top-notch consulting firm named Integra REC, which has a team of data scientists. We look into the specific securities that the client suffered significant losses on and analyze whether the representations that were made about those securities by the underwriters were false. This requires significant work to review and analyze the securities, including the mortgage loans that were pooled in order to form those securities. Our allegations in these cases are that the investment bankers who served as underwriters to describe the securities to investors knew that the securities were far riskier than they were representing them to be in the relevant offering documents. We are seeking to prove

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

199

500

500 200

Jeffrey Rosen

Miles Ruthberg

DEBEVOISE NEW YORK

LATHAM NEW YORK

Steven Rosenblum

Antony Ryan

WACHTELL LIPTON NEW YORK

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Rod Rosenstein

Robert Sacks

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BALTIMORE

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LOS ANGELES

Hannah Ross

Faiza Saeed

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Daniel Rottier

Kelli Sager

HABUSH HABUSH ROTTIER MADISON, WIS.

DAVIS WRIGHT LOS ANGELES

Joel Rubinstein

Susan Saltzstein

WINSTON & STRAWN NEW YORK

SKADDEN NEW YORK

Kim Rucker

Patrick A. Salvi Sr.

TESORO SAN ANTONIO

SALVI SCHOSTOK & PRITCHARD CHICAGO

Sam Rudman

Patrick A. Salvi II

ROBBINS GELLER MELVILLE, N.Y.

SALVI SCHOSTOK & PRITCHARD CHICAGO

Kathryn Ruemmler

Hollis Salzman

LATHAM WASHINGTON, D.C.

ROBINS KAPLAN NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

that the underwriter banks knew that the statistics that they published about the underlying mortgage loans were false at the time that they published them.

lucrative target. I appreciate being able to use my background and skills to help these types of victims.

Representing and doing work on behalf of governmental entities is particularly satisfying because fraud against the government is fraud against us all. It particularly gets me fired up when the fraudsters are taking advantage of our teachers, policemen, firemen, and other public servants by ripping off their pension funds. The various state versions of the False Claims Act, which is how the Tennessee case originated, is a law that allows private citizens to file suit to address these frauds on behalf of the government. It’s a much needed and critical tool to fight fraud because the government truly needs our help to bring these frauds to light. There are simply not enough government regulators and agents to prosecute and police fraud on the scale that occurs in the context of our massive government budgets. Nor do we want there to be that many government agents and regulators walking around. At the end of the day, the act allows everyday citizens to perform what is ultimately a vital public service in bringing fraud to light and limiting its impact on the government.

PJC: I like the ability to face new problems and situations each day that are very much like a puzzle. I continue to love the opportunity that we have to try to understand why people have done certain things and structured transactions in certain ways, and why it is that particular companies have failed in a spectacular fashion. But most of all, it’s the opportunity that I have as a lawyer to pursue justice and fairness for investors and creditors who have been defrauded. That’s what makes this job a true joy as opposed to just another way to make money.

LD: It sounds like that’s particularly satisfying to you, and I know to the other partners at Reid Collins & Tsai. PJC: That’s why we really enjoy what we’re doing. We all have a passion for justice and the rule of law. We recognize that we’re just a very small part of the overall machine of pursuing justice and ensuring that we have rule of law, but we love playing that small role particularly with respect to fraud in the context of private hedge funds and government pension funds. There is a lack of significant regulatory oversight when it comes to hedge funds. I view our work in the context of pursuing cases arising out of failed hedge-funds as playing a vital role in establishing rule of law in that sector of the economy. Investors and creditors need to be able to seek recoveries when they are defrauded to continue to invest and lend. Our ability to investigate and recover money on their behalf when funds fail for improper reasons helps to keep capital flowing. And when it comes to the pension funds, we’re passionate about the work that we do there because of the nature of the victims that we’re talking about. The size of these funds are very large and they need to invest a significant amount of money on a recurring basis. So, the people who cook up all sorts of financial schemes obviously view these funds as a

LD: What do you like most about being a lawyer?

LD: What do you enjoy doing outside of law practice? PJC: I am happily married 17 years this year. Spending time with my wife is obviously at the top of the list and she is an amazing woman. We have five children. We have a large family and so I spend a lot of my time hopefully mentoring in a good way, young people who will be the next generation of financial fraud litigators. Honestly, my wife and I probably spend too much of our time doing middle school algebra at the moment. I’m also a Christian who’s heavily involved in my local church community here in Austin, Texas, and in the context of that church community, I do a lot of work in helping people in the community with conflict resolution. LD: Would you mind telling us the name of your church and a little bit more about your efforts there? PJC: Sure. I’m one of the elders at Providence Church. And the conflicts I try to help people work through involve everything from business conflict, marital conflict, and difficult personal issues. It really spans a wide spectrum of subject matters, but as we were talking about earlier, it doesn’t really matter what scale it is, whether it’s something that leads to a billion-dollar loss and the collapse of a company or something that’s an interpersonal dispute between two people over something seemingly small, they all tend to originate and escalate in the same manner. The difference is that I believe far more can be done in the church context than just a return of money. I often get to see people experience a much fuller version of reconciliation. They admit their failures, apologize, and truly seek to work through the issues with each other in the context of our shared faith and church community. I have yet to see one of my corporate litigation defendants make a formal apology and show genuine concern for a victim.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

201

Mark Lanier THE LANIER LAW FIRM (HOUSTON)

500

MARK LANIER IN LEGAL AND CORPORATE CIRCLES,

Mark Lanier is known as one of the nation’s top trial lawyers with a hard-to-beat record of massive recoveries for injured plaintiffs. Last year’s pair of federal-court verdicts totaling $1.5 billion against DePuy Orthopaedics over defective hip implants followed a long line of successes since he founded The Lanier Law ﬁrm in 1990.

But it’s likely most people who are familiar with Lanier’s oratorical skills saw him not in court but teaching a large Sunday school class in Houston – lessons also available for the whole world to watch at www.Biblical-Literacy.org. The Baptist pastor and Texas Tech University School of Lawgraduate credits the firm’s success to “the simple fact that we love what we do.” “I love being in trial,” Lanier says. “I love getting ready for trial. When you love something, it passes from being work to being fun.” Lawdragon: How did you first become interested in a litigation practice that often focuses on massive claims for plaintiffs? Mark Lanier: I was trying a case as a defense lawyer and it never really occurred to me at the time, but we were wrong and owed the money. All I was thinking was, “I think I can win this thing!” I was blind to whether winning was the right thing to do. I lost that trial – can I say, “thankfully”? – my first trial loss. Driving home, a thought struck my brain like a thunderbolt: What if I had used my gifts and skills to deprive someone of justice? The thought appalled me. I knew then what I would need to do. I would need to shift and start taking cases where justice was on our side and I could help people. That is where the decision began in my head to move to plaintiffs’ work. Of course being a Texan, I was always under the understanding if you’re going to go, go big! So the “do big cases” decision was only natural. LD: What do you like about it? ML: I love making a difference. It brings a deep satisfaction to help desperate people find help and relief. I also love the pursuit of truth, and when the truth comes out, I have a sense of moral vindication. A third love comes from working with fantastic people. The trial teams I lead have some of the most

PHOTO BY: FELIX SANCHEZ

BY JOHN RYAN dedicated and talented people I know. It is a great joy to team up with them. LD: Out of all the high-profile matters you’ve worked on, does one stand out? ML: The first Vioxx win will always stand out. Merck wanted to try the first case against me because I was an unknown in the field of pharma litigation. Still, I had tried a bunch of cases at that point in my legal career, so to me the Vioxx case was just another product liability case. The case was right, justice was on our side, and it was so much fun unfolding the case before the jury. The press attention was massive, so that made it memorable and high energy. The result of $253 million was icing on the cake. LD: How would you describe your style as a trial lawyer? Does your work as a pastor and teacher play into this? Does it also go the other way – has being a lawyer made you better at your other endeavors outside the law? ML: I like to think I am one person. So the lawyer in me is the pastor in me, and vice versa. Everything I do, then, makes me more experienced and better in each area. Without a doubt, the fact that I write a PowerPoint, use an Elmo, and give a 45 minute “closing argument” in the form of a class at church each week makes me well-tuned for the trials that come. Similarly, from the trials I get a good bit of stories to use as examples in teaching at church. LD: What advice do you give younger trial lawyers? ML: Be genuine. Search for truth. Work to present the truth. Develop your skill set in every way you can. And come to my litigation-training seminar in September! I open the vault and give out all my tricks of the trade. LD: Can you share another litigator you have come up against that you admire? ML: I admire every litigator I come up against, because trying a case is not easy. You leave a chunk of you behind in each case. Your ego is involved, your reputation is on the line, you have clients you care about, you have deep economics and job security on the line, and that is a lot of pressure. So when someone steps into the cage we call a courtroom, I have nothing but admiration.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

203

500

500 204

P. Anthony Sammi

George Schoen

SKADDEN NEW YORK

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Gloria Santona

Rodd Schreiber

MCDONALDS OAK BROOK, ILL.

SKADDEN CHICAGO

John Savarese

Ray Schrock

WACHTELL LIPTON NEW YORK

WEIL GOTSHAL NEW YORK

William Savitt

Steve Schulman

WACHTELL LIPTON NEW YORK

AKIN GUMP WASHINGTON, D.C.

Eric Schiele

David Schulz

CRAVATH NEW YORK

BALLARD SPAHR NEW YORK

Jonathan Schiller

Robert Schumer

BOIES SCHILLER NEW YORK

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Ivan Schlager

Ronald Schutz

SKADDEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

ROBINS KAPLAN MINNEAPOLIS

Allison Schneirov

Christian Searcy

SKADDEN NEW YORK

SEARCY DENNEY WEST PALM BEACH, FLA.

Paul Schnell

Chris Seeger

SKADDEN NEW YORK

SEEGER WEISS NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

LD: Tell us a little bit about your career path. Why did you decide to start your own ﬁrm as opposed to staying at a larger practice?

LD: Do you think there will be something particularly memorable about the case that will stand out? ML: Memorable? $1.5 billion! Seriously, I have been so impressed with the care and attention of our jurors in those cases and others. The jury system is an amazing invention.

ML: I was working for a large international ﬁrm and had a chance to go work for a personal hero/mentor of mine in a small plaintiffs’ practice. I loved my job at the big ﬁrm, but couldn’t pass up a chance to learn from one of the best. After about a year working for this gentleman, I thought, “I can do this!” So I went out on my own. It has been a blast every step of the way. I enjoy the business side of being on my own. It adds something to practicing law.

LD: Why did you choose Texas Tech University School of Law over other options?

LD: What are you working on these days?

LD: Did you know what you wanted to do back then?

ML: I am working hard at spinning plates. I like diversity, and it is a lot more fun to work on a wide variety of things. So these days, I am still spinning the plate of Pinnacle hips, but I also have some good commercial cases, several IP cases, some general tort work, and some other mass tort business.

ML: In law school, I really had no idea about what I would do. Once we won nationals in moot court, I ﬁgured I would be in a courtroom, but I didn’t know enough to know what a practice might look like. I was just glad to have a job!

LD: Can you describe a recent litigation you’ve handled? ML: I had two hip implant trials last year in federal court. One group had five plaintiffs with implants, the second group had six implanted plaintiffs. The jury returned a verdict slightly over $500 million for the first group and $1 billion for the second group. Both are on appeal. LD: What was challenging about the litigation? ML: The biggest challenge in these cases is overcoming the obstacles from the defense attorneys. For example, the lawyers are adept at pushing the envelope to open doors to evidence that wouldn’t normally come in. Then once the doors are open, the evidence comes in, and the defense attorneys howl “unfair” and use the admission as a point of appeal. Similarly, the lawyers will push the judge through walking back on agreements made before the bench, trying to goad the judge into making errors that can be used on appeal; fortunately, our judge had the patience of Job. All of this is on top of the general chore of presenting a case that the jury will learn and remember over the course of a three-month trial. LD: What is the impact of the litigation? ML: The impact is unknown at this point. Hopefully when all is said and done, the clients will get a measure of justice and the industry will change the way they do business, to the benefit of everyone.

ML: I was from Lubbock and had good knowledge about the school. Also I could live at home and the tuition was four dollars an hour!

LD: Did you have a favorite class or professor that was particularly influential in your career? ML: My moot court coach Don Hunt taught me much of what is involved in being a good lawyer who works hard and maintains a life outside of the practice. LD: Why did you go to law school in the first place? ML: I took an aptitude test in 9th grade that said I should be a preacher, a lawyer, or a politician. I always wanted to preach, but never cared for the money side of religion. So I figured if I practiced law, I could preach because I wanted to, and not because I had to. I could do it without financial strings. LD: Can you talk a little bit about your extra practice activities related to your faith? How much time is spent preparing and teaching Sunday school? ML: I love what I do at church. I spend a good 10 to 20 hours a week working on classes I teach. They are watched often on the internet, and it is a joy to get to be a part of something that has a global reach. Check it out at www.Biblical-Literacy.org! LD: What led you to start the Lanier Theological Library? ML: I wanted more books! The only way to justify what I wanted for selfish reasons was to make it something for the community and even the world. So it was a natural place to build. Plus, the Vioxx cases settled, so among lawyers I call the library, “The House that Merck Built!”

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

205

500

500 Kirk Pasich PASICH LLP (LOS ANGELES) 206

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

KIRK PASICH KIRK PASICH HAS ALWAYS RUN HIS

own race. That explains why he recently finished the marathon in Venice, Italy, running through the Riviera del Brenta, along the Guideca Canal and to the Piazza San Marco. Why as a young attorney at Paul Hastings in Los Angeles in the 1980s, he built dual practices in entertainment law and insurance coverage. And perhaps why since then he’s traversed the trends of law firm practice – big firm to boutique to bigger and back again.

It may also have something to do with how he found his entertainment practice tragically back in the news this year after his friend and client Chris Cornell, the lead singer for Soundgarden, died in questionable circumstances on tour in Detroit. Pasich in August launched Pasich LLP, a boutique insurance recovery and entertainment firm in Los Angeles, Manhattan Beach and New York, and already has more than 80 clients. He and his team have defined insurance recovery practice for many years – collecting more than $7B - and are one of a tiny handful of elite lawyers in the massive specialty. After their most recent home, Liner LLP, merged with DLA, the team decided that not only to control their own destiny, but also to protect their clients’ interests “you’ve got to be in a position where you don’t have to worry about forces external to your practice and what you do for your clients upsetting that balance,” says Pasich. The law firm is complemented by a record label he started, Blue Élan, which is the home of a number of legendary artists enjoying a new tune in their careers. Lawdragon: Kirk, tell me a bit about your new firm, Pasich LLP? You’ve gone back and forth with big firms and your own firm several times, which I suppose reflects trends in Biglaw practice. Kirk Pasich: I joined Paul Hastings out of law school and may have been one of the last people who thought they were joining a law firm and staying forever. It was a great firm but decided that it would be better not to have a broad-based fight-everyinsurance-company-in-the-world kind of practice. As a young partner, I was on the committee looking at the issue and actually drafted the report that Paul Hastings transition away from insurance coverage in its long-term plans. And then I voted against the plan.

PHOTO BY: PAULO TORRES

BY KATRINA DEWEY It was a very amicable departure because our group was doing something to help the firm in the long run, and the firm actually sent work with us that we didn’t originate, so it was a great start. Since then our practice has been attractive to big firms, but as firms have merged and gotten larger, it’s been incompatible with our practice of suing insurers. That’s what happened at Liner, where we were most recently, which merged with DLA. We need the ability to control what our practice can and can’t be, and if there’s going to be any conflicts that are created, it’ll be on our watch, our responsibility. We are dedicated to representing insurance policyholders, and not representing insurance companies, insurance brokers, insurance agents or their affiliates. I think we’re pretty damn good at it. LD: Can you explain to our readers who might not be familiar with insurance recovery what the practice entails? KP: Very few people come out of law school saying, “I want to be an insurance coverage lawyer.” And most when you tell them you do insurance run from it. What we do is really a specialty that sweeps through almost every practice area, every business area, on the planet. When we represent insureds it’s not just looking at their insurance policies. It’s not the mundane stuff about having insurance policies and revising them, although we help clients with that. It is taking a look at risk management in its broadest sense. Risk management is not just, “Oh, what kind of insurance do we buy?” But it’s, “How do we get the most out of that asset called insurance?” Think of it as a bank account and for corporate America it can be a billion-dollar bank account. The history of alleged sex abuse by priests, or a school district with coaches, or intellectual property that goes back in time, all of these things can involve looking back decades. Corporate acquisitions and mergers, historical practices, or events today like Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma – they all have vast insurance implications, not just for people who suffered property loss from the effects of those hurricanes, but the ripple effect through the economy. Construction price increases, labor shortages, gas price increases, the cancellation of professional

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

207

500

500 208

Andre Segura

Gina Shishima

ACLU HOUSTON

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT AUSTIN, TEXAS

Philippe Selendy

Roman Silberfeld

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

ROBINS KAPLAN LOS ANGELES

Joseph Sellers

Jerry Silk

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

Karen Patton Seymour

Stuart Singer

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL NEW YORK

BOIES SCHILLER FT. LAUDERDALE

Kannon Shanmugam

Rachel Skaistis

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY WASHINGTON, D.C.

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Alexandra Shapiro

Daniel Slifkin

SHAPIRO ARATO NEW YORK

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Joseph Shenker

Brad Smith

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL NEW YORK

MICROSOFT REDMOND, WASH.

Leopold Sher

Deborah Alley Smith

SHER GARNER NEW ORLEANS

CHRISTIAN & SMALL BIRMINGHAM, ALA.

Paul Shim

Johnathan Smith

CLEARY GOTTLIEB NEW YORK

MUSLIM ADVOCATES WASHINGTON, D.C.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

sporting events and college sporting events, high school events, the drop in attendance at theaters and plays. We worked on the same thing after 9/11. It is all aspects of society and insurance is a driver behind the economy, so for us our practice is helping clients recover what they’re owed and, frankly, rediscovering assets they didn’t know that they had. Taking things that they may think they have no financial protection for and developing financial protection for it. It’s insurance. It is what we call alternative risk transfer, which is who do you protect against a risk when insurance isn’t available? You want to do some sort of risk sharing. You want to hedge your bet, so to speak. LD: Is all of your work negotiating for coverage or suing when coverage is denied? KP: Not at all. We work on the design of products that are not traditional insurance products. They may have come from financial sources. They may be indemnities. They may be built into the structures of major corporate transactions. For us, it’s litigation, yes. It’s appellate work, yes, but it’s also business deals with this particular focus on insurance and how to manage the transfer and assumption of risks — too often overlooked in transactions. People ask me, “How do you just enjoy just doing insurance?” I say, “Well, just doing insurance is like just doing litigation.” I mean, it’s a specialty, but I can start my morning working on a case for the Los Angeles Lakers that we have before the 9th Circuit, involving an event that happened at some of their sporting events. I can go from there to addressing the effects of Hurricane Harvey, and how that impacted businesses in Texas; and then I can move from that to looking at a complex transaction that took place in Bermuda and whether Bermuda proceedings were appropriate or not; to dealing with a real estate class action lawsuit in the state of Washington; to looking at a trademark infringement matter; to looking at a banking transaction with certain fees involved and then whether those fees were appropriate or not; to looking at how one major concert promoter handles its website; to dealing with issues over whether one song infringes upon another song. That’s what I do. If someone says that’s boring, then I’ll take it. Every day is a different issue and a different segment of the industry. We have handled things from government interference with coal contracts in Indonesia to

Thailand flood losses to the impact of substances on banana plantation workers in 17 foreign countries to flood losses in France to, of course, the earthquakes, the civil unrest after the Rodney King verdict in Los Angeles, Superstorm Sandy. I think we tried the first Superstorm Sandy insurance coverage case. We get to make the law by the appellate arguments we do - and I’ve been involved in more than 60 at this point - and I’ve done probably an equal number of 60 arbitrations and trials. If one wants to get into the courtroom, one wants to get appellate experience, to be on the cutting edge so to speak, honestly, I don’t think there is a better practice to be in. LD: Can we talk a bit about your other passion, music and your entertainment practice? It’s kept you in the news a lot this year. KP: I’ve been the primary spokesperson for Chris Cornell’s family, and it’s really the second time where I’ve been in the news a lot. As I said, it’s not something I try to do for me. The representation of our clients is about our clients and it’s not about me. The number of high-profile clients we’ve represented would probably surprise a lot of people. My first foray into the news was one of these things where I was at Paul Hastings in 1987. I was still an associate, and I got a phone call from one of our partners in our Washington, D.C., office desperately looking for someone in Los Angeles to help in a matter for a jazz musician. He’d been referred the matter by a lawyer who had once been in the band led by Woody Herman. I took the case, and I realized that Woody Herman was a jazz legend. He’s a Grammy winner and had 40 or 50 top 10 songs in his day. He was being evicted from his home for failure to pay rent. He was under 24-hour nursing care. He was in an oxygen tent, and so we needed to go in the following Tuesday after a September holiday weekend and try to stop his eviction. We reached out to The L.A. Times and they were, “Not interested.” In those days, there was The Herald Examiner. LD: The good old days. KP: That Monday I come into the office. It’s a holiday and the receptionist who was there hands me a stack of messages, and they’re all these reporters calling, and so she said, “Have you seen the paper today? You’re in The Herald Examiner.” I went back

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

209

500

500 downstairs and bought a Herald Examiner. The story about Woody Herman was on the front page with the headline above the fold. The saga involved what we did to keep him in his house. We ended up ﬁghting in a legal proceeding over whether the IRS, which had sold his house, had complied with its procedures. We ended up proving that it had not, so we got his house back, and then it was sold for a fair price, and we set up a foundation to raise money for him and other ailing musicians. That foundation eventually formed the seed donation to “MusicCares,” which is probably the largest music support organization through the National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences. You had this situation where nobody wanted to work the weekend. We worked the weekend and I ended up being on the cover of The American Lawyer for this work. Then you ﬂash forward to 2017, and Chris Cornell’s untimely passing. I had worked with Chris and his family for 10 years. We had become friends over that time and we had lengthy conversations about music and kind of what his direction was going to be. I think the last time Chris and I had lunch was at the Beverly Hills Hotel and it turned into a seven-hour lunch. And I don’t think we talked about the law one iota. LD: What did you talk about? KP: What he wanted to do after Temple of the Dog and Soundgarden, and Audioslave, and his solo stuff, his thinking for the future, how excited he was about various plans that he had. He was kind enough to invite me to a Temple show that they did at the Forum. I went to a private party out in Malibu that he and Sting performed at together. We just talked about a wide range of things, including his deep love for music and his love for his family, for his kids, and so with his death it was kind of a shock to all of us because that wasn’t the Chris Cornell that we knew. LD: Explain your contacts with him around the time of his death and how that transpired. KP: I’d been in touch with Chris just a couple of days earlier. We had a project in mind for Chris that he and I had started to talk about that would have been a duet with one of the artists on our label. It would have taken Chris in a little bit different direction, but with his death in Detroit, I ended up as sort of the point person at the family’s request with the media and on the legal issues.

210

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

One of our partners in New York, Jeff Schulman, is very close with Chris and his family as well, and has known Chris over the years, and so we’re coordinating for the family. It gave rise to some questions. And some wondered why in the world is some insurance recovery guy representing Chris Cornell? Is this to get to his life insurance policy for his family? Some speculated that there’s a suicide exclusion in his life insurance policies, so maybe this is just all kind of a game to get the coverage, but it wasn’t. Chris did have life insurance. It did have a suicide exclusion, but that exclusion was for something like three years after policy inception and these policies had been around for a long, long time. It had nothing to do with that. It had to do with being tasked with ﬁguring out, and sharing, what really happened in that Detroit hotel room that night. That’s what the family asked us to do and there was a lot of speculation out there in the media, on social media, things that were just wrong. It was important to protect the privacy of his wife and his three children. I ended up being the primary spokesperson. I wasn’t the only spokesperson, but I ended up doing a lot of the talking. To this day, I think a lot of people still wonder how is it that somebody who specializes in insurance ended up working and speaking on behalf of the family, and one of rock’s icons. But, I’ve been involved in music and working with artists for several decades now. It’s the relationship and that experience that counted here. LD: What work did you do in addition to serving as a spokesperson for the Cornells? KP: I met Chris originally through insurance, but we shared a common love of music and as our friendship developed over the years, we spent so much more time talking about music and the early days of rock, and what he liked and what I liked. When Vicky, his wife, contacted me, I think it was within a few minutes after his death, we stepped in not really as lawyers. We did legal work, but Jeff and I as friends of the family were just people who were helping others in their time of need. I had to be more at the forefront than, frankly, I’m comfortable being, but this was really about Chris and his legacy, and his kids. In the social media world, it’s really hard to protect kids and others from rumors and speculation, and just some of the nastiness that’s out there on the Internet. We tried to tell the story as it was, and to

500

IF CHRIS CORNELL TOOK HIS LIFE, AND THERE ARE STILL QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER IT MAY HAVE BEEN ACCIDENTAL, IT WAS NOT WITH HIS NORMAL JUDGMENT, HIS NORMAL MENTAL FACILITIES OR EVEN HIS NORMAL PHYSICAL FACILITIES. WHEN ONE LOOKS AT THE CONCERT TAPE THAT NIGHT, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE CHRIS CORNELL THAT’S PERFORMING THERE IS NOT THE CHRIS CORNELL THAT PEOPLE KNEW. make sure to convey that for the family and for people that knew Chris and for the members of the band that committing suicide was just not Chris Cornell.

of drugs in Chris’ system that would have impaired his mental judgment, his mental capacity, and his physical capacity.

This isn’t what he’d do. He had very strong feelings about people who would commit suicide when they had kids, very strong negative feelings about it. It was deeply troubling to him when people would do it, so we always thought there was more to the story than Chris Cornell killed himself. One of the things that we said early on was we don’t know what all the answers are. We want to see what the toxicology report says because we don’t believe that Chris Cornell would have knowingly, understandingly intentionally taken his life.

If Chris Cornell took his life, and there are still questions as to whether it may have been accidental, it was not with his normal judgment, his normal mental facilities or even his normal physical facilities. When one looks at the concert tape that night, you can see that the Chris Cornell that’s performing there is not the Chris Cornell that people knew. He was slurring words. He was forgetting lyrics. He had loss of balance. He was stumbling. All of these things were not Chris Cornell. We know he took some Ativan and we know from the toxicology report he had other drugs in his system apparently ingested likely after the concert, so what people saw at the concert was exacerbated by what was taken after it.

When the tox reports came back, the medical examiner’s conclusion was, in essence, to the effect of “Well, he didn’t die from a drug overdose. He died from the noose around his neck that caused asphyxiation. We have no evidence that anyone put that exercise band around his neck other than Chris himself, so we call that suicide.” I don’t think that means it’s suicide from anybody else’s point of view. LD: What steps did you take to get more information? KP: We retained two of the country’s leading experts, a toxicologist and a pathologist, to do an independent review of the medical reports, not to come to a preordained conclusion. We didn’t say, “Hey, we want you to see if you can confirm X.” We said, “We have unanswered questions. We don’t think the medical examiner was looking at the question of the impact of the drugs that the toxicology report identifies on Chris’ mental state or his physical state. We want you to look at and tell us what do you think? Just give us your independent opinion.” We now have those reports and they confirm that there was a combination

And it’s confirmed by the toxicology report, but that’s been lost a little bit in the shuffle because all people hear is “suicide, suicide,” and Chester Bennington’s death on Chris Cornell’s birthday just magnified that. Chester was the godfather to Chris’ son and so he was close to the family. Whatever the circumstances were that led to Chester’s death it, too, was reported as a suicide, and so people were talking about Chris Cornell’s death as a suicide. Our role wasn’t to try to drive the narrative of the media. It wasn’t to espouse a certain view. It was to say from the start, “We want to see the toxicology report because we think there is more to the story than what’s being told so far, and the family has a lot of questions that we think the toxicology report and the review of those reports will answer those questions.” Now, here we are several months later and we now have answers for the first time.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

211

500

500 Tara Sutton ROBINS KAPLAN (MINNEAPOLIS)

212

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

TARA SUTTON NOT EVERY SECOND-YEAR ASSOCIATE

gets to work on a historic case like the Big Tobacco litigation of the mid-1990s. For Tara Sutton, the experience was a formative one and laid the ground work for her becoming one of the nation’s leading plaintiff-side product liability attorneys. Sutton also had experience in general business and intellectual property litigation when she became chair of Robins Kaplan’s mass tort group in 2004. Since then, her track record in complex cases against pharmaceutical and medical device companies has been second to none. Her passion for the job is rooted in her desire to “help ordinary people achieve some level of justice” for one of the worst events they or their families will ever face. “It is a privilege to show my clients that everybody is entitled to justice, not just the rich and powerful,” says Sutton, a 1992 University of Iowa College of Law graduate. “It doesn’t work out perfectly all the time, but there is usually something that we can do to help.” Lawdragon: What did you start out doing as a litigator and how did you begin to develop your current practice focus? Tara Sutton: I have had an extraordinary opportunity to work in a variety of practices during my 25 years at Robins Kaplan. I started out in our business litigation group, focusing on representing mid-size companies in mainly contractual disputes. When I was a second-year associate, I got very lucky. I was asked to join a very high-proﬁle litigation team that was devising a novel legal theory to pursue the tobacco industry on behalf of the State of Minnesota for the costs of treating smoking-related illnesses. At that time, in 1994, the tobacco industry had been in litigation for ﬁfty years and never lost a single case and had turned over only 4,000 pages of documents in discovery. This case really changed everything for me. I was involved in every aspect of the case – including being the only associate – in the well of the courtroom during a highly-publicized trial. After four years of litigation – including unearthing more than 30 million pages of internal documents, litigation of crime-fraud issues, more than a dozen unsuccessful interlocutory appeals by the tobacco industry, including two to the U.S. Supreme Court, and four months of trial – the case settled on the

PHOTO BY: THOMAS STRAND

BY JOHN RYAN eve of jury deliberations for $6.6 billion and unprecedented injunctive relief. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who actually attended a portion of our trial, called the Minnesota tobacco litigation one of the most significant public health achievements of the 20th century. LD: What came after that? TS: After playing in the Super Bowl of litigation, I had to decide what to do next. Tobacco was a tough act to follow, but I soon discovered the rewards of a corporate practice, representing Medtronic in a number of high stakes intellectual property battles in the early 2000’s regarding coronary stent and catheter technology. It was quite a shift but really gave me insights into the other side of the aisle and business considerations behind litigating versus settlement. I also developed a keen interest in medical treatments that made my next career move – chair of Robins Kaplan’s Mass Tort group – a more natural fit. In 2004, when I was a junior partner and mother of two young children, the executive chairman of the firm asked if I would be willing to take over the department. Part of the thinking was I could cut down on my travel, which makes me laugh now as I have yet to have a year where I didn’t make some elite airline status. Robins Kaplan had been a pioneer in developing the field of mass torts, starting in the late 1970’s when the firm represented over 500 women suing A.H. Robins over the Dalkon Shield IUD birth control device. I was taking over a department with a storied reputation and stellar lawyers. My days taking on the tobacco industry had given me a keen sense of justice and fair play that made taking on big corporations on behalf of injured individuals an easy choice. The challenge was taking the practice to the next level in a moving environment exploding with a proliferation of MDLs and new plaintiffs’ firms swarming to the practice. LD: Your practice involves being able to understand and explain complicated medical issues, drugs and products. What are the challenges associated with being able to do that effectively? TS: As I tell my colleagues who practice in the intellectual property space, the scientific issues involved in mass tort cases are just as complicated and daunting as those I faced as an IP litigator. I have found that the most successful approach is to bring on key

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

213

500

500 experts in the field from the beginning, preferably before we even initiate suit. Because mass tort cases involve high risk-high reward, I am a strong advocate for employing experts from the onset who explain and help understand the path to proving medical causation. The experts can also help shape discovery requests and assist in developing the liability story. I ultimately have to be prepared to explain these difficult concepts of pharmacology, mechanism of action and causation to a jury, and have found it very helpful to explain by analogy. For example, in a recent case involving severe GI effects from a hypertension medication, we were able to rely on a light-switch type analogy as the GI effects subside rapidly upon cessation. It is also extremely helpful to use experts that have had first-hand experience with the side effect at issue. They are powerful, credible advocates for cases and well-versed in explaining how this might happen to lay persons. LD: More generally, how would you describe your style as a trial lawyer? TS: I just try and be myself. My style is not to be bombastic or accusatory. That isn’t comfortable for me. I strive for a conversational or educational tone and am polite with opposing counsel. Whether before a jury or a judge, I try to be authentic and tell a story that demonstrates how my clients were harmed and why they are entitled to recovery. I also think it is important for the jury to see how much I believe in my clients and how hard I am willing to fight for them. I also am not the type of lawyer who feels comfortable “winging it.” I spend a tremendous amount of time on preparation and making sure I have complete command of the record and the exhibits. Being able to pull out the perfect exhibit to use on re-direct or cross examination from memory is invaluable in the complex cases I work on involving millions of pages of documents. Although I might not have tried as many cases as my adversary, I always feel like my level of preparation puts me at an advantage. I also like to think it gives me a high level of credibility with the court and the jury, which is essential. LD: What does it take to effectively manage such huge MDLs and other large cases that can last years? TS: MDL litigation has exploded. More than 30 percent of cases on the federal docket nationwide are part of an MDL, with mass torts comprising a vast proportion. As a result, developing an effective plaintiffs’ leadership structure from the outset is a hallmark of

214

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

whether a case will languish or proceed efficiently towards resolution. Plaintiffs’ leadership battles are often rough and tumble. For too long, there were so many repeat players in plaintiffs’ leadership it felt like breaking into the “club” was impossible. Fortunately, the courts and also the plaintiffs’ bar – spearheaded by strong women leaders – are making great strides to address this problem of diversity in leadership. But that is only part of the issue in managing huge MDLs. Another necessary skill set is the ability to work cooperatively and collaboratively with other attorneys from other firms. Economically, it is nearly impossible to prosecute a huge MDL on your own. Shared costs and shared risk are a necessary component to taking on large pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers with far greater resources. Because we are unrelenting competitors by nature, you have to have the diplomatic skills and organizational skills to direct this incredible energy on the opponent so that success will result for everyone involved. LD: Of your cases from recent years, can you discuss one that stands out as particularly memorable? TS: Early in my career I was focused almost solely on the fight but an equally valuable skill is envisioning the path to settlement. One of my favorites was the Stryker Rejuvenate/ABG II defective hip litigation from a few years ago. It was a case involving more than 4,000 claims where the product had been withdrawn from the market. Along with my co-leadership, we agreed from the outset to engage in a bellwether mediation program while conducting parallel fact discovery. Typically, neither side is motivated to even bring up the word “money” until we have worn each other down in discovery and motion practice. Rather than viewing resolution discussions as a weakness, both sides – with the help of the coordinating judges – agreed to engage in a front-loaded resolution process. Much like we select bellwether cases for trial, 21 cases were selected for mediation, representing a range of injury categories. We agreed to mediate the cases before just two mediators, so neither side could claim that a particular result was an outlier due to a runaway process. In the end, 20 of 21 cases mediated settled. This process then led immediately to global resolution discussions, with both sides armed with important information about the value of the various cases at trial. After four months of negotiations, we announced an uncapped settlement program valued at approximately $1.4 billion.

500

Thus, in just over two years a massive mass tort case was settled. LD: Is there a case from earlier in your career that is especially meaningful to you, either for establishing your reputation, proving your trial skills or the benefit achieved for the client? TS: I would definitely say the Mirapex products liability litigation against Pfizer and Boehringer Ingelheim. The case involved a very novel injury – the development of compulsive gambling compulsions as the result of dopamine agonist therapy. The patient population involved suffered from Parkinson’s disease – a dopamine deficiency disease – and Mirapex treated the disease by activating dopamine release in the brain. The trouble was the drug not only activated dopamine in the movement region of the brain impacted by Parkinson’s, but it also activated dopamine in the reward center, where addictive behaviors are triggered. Although there were reports of the side effect in the medical literature and a very plausible biological explanation for why gambling behavior could occur, the case was viewed with skepticism. Unlike other mass tort MDLs where multiple plaintiffs’ firms flock, Mirapex was an anomaly – our firm was virtually alone from beginning to end. As lead trial counsel, our team ultimately won a verdict of $8.27 million, including $7.9 million in punitive damages, on behalf of a retired police officer from Wisconsin who lost $175,000 while gambling on Mirapex. That verdict ultimately led to resolution of every case in the MDL and helped enhance our reputation of taking on the hard case and winning, even when we were on our own. LD: Is there a mentor who played a big part in how your career evolved? TS: Yes – Roberta Walburn. She is the person who asked me to join the tobacco litigation team – as a core member – when I was a relatively unexperienced lawyer. Roberta is one of the great legal minds in the country and the hardest working, most dedicated lawyer I have ever come across. She taught me that no detail should be overlooked, that every battle was an important one, and also that the legal practice can be exciting and cutting-edge. These are lessons that I try to follow every day. Roberta not only gave me the opportunity, she showed me how to do it. LD: Was being chair of the mass tort group something you had been interested in doing as a younger lawyer?

TS: I wasn’t looking to become the chair of the mass tort group. I was the relationship manager for one of our largest corporate clients at the time and was concentrating more on expanding that relationship and my personal trial expertise. But when I was asked, it just seemed like a great opportunity to work with a set of lawyers committed to taking on David vs. Goliath battles, while at the same time staying within the comfort and support of my existing firm. Now, 13 years later, I can’t imagine not running a practice or assisting in firm management. LD: You did both your undergrad and law school at the University of Iowa. Did you grow up in the area? Were you ever tempted to move out of the Midwest and take a position in one of the coastal cities? TS: I grew up in a small farming community in West Central Illinois. My parents eloped when they were 18 and just out of high school. My father worked in a gas station repairing tires and they struggled greatly. By the time they were in their early thirties, they had managed to save enough money to buy a tire store across the Mississippi River in Iowa. It was truly a family-run business, with my earliest memories being as a 6-year old sitting on a bar stool making change from the cash register for customers. I worked at the store every Saturday and every summer for nearly my entire childhood, alongside my mother, father and brother. My parents’ hard work allowed me to attend undergrad and law school about 90 miles away, at the University of Iowa. I was the first person in my immediate family to graduate college. Going to law school in Iowa meant that you most likely were bound to leave the state, as the legal community there is quite small. University of Iowa is a great recruiting ground for firms from around the country, but I focused on the Midwest. Chicago seemed a bit daunting for a small-town kid, whereas Minneapolis seemed more comfortable while also cosmopolitan. I clerked for Robins Kaplan in 1991 and have been here ever since. Even though we do not have extended family in Minnesota, it really feels like home. The fact that Robins Kaplan represents everyone from individuals all the way to some of America’s largest corporations brings a unique perspective and flavor to the firm that I have never felt I wanted to leave. Plus, the firm has given me a platform to prosecute cases all over the country, so I have never felt regionalized in any sense. Read the full Q&A at www.lawdragon.com/ lawyer-limelight-tara-sutton.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

215

Bobby Chesney UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF LAW (AUSTIN)

500

BOBBY CHESNEY AS MUCH AS HE LIKED DAVIS POLK,

where he worked as a litigator, Bobby Chesney always planned to end up in academia. As the University of Texas School of Law professor explains, however, “it took a few tries.” Before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Chesney found a “lukewarm reception” among school hiring committees to his interests in critical national security issues like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. But the demand changed after 9/11, and Chesney considered himself lucky to get his ﬁrst position at Wake Forest Law. “What an amazing community,” Chesney says. “I was teaching evidence, civil procedure, and constitutional law for them, but they were very supportive of my scholarly focus on national security.” The San Antonio-born Harvard Law grad was even more thrilled to get a position at Texas Law in 2008. He has been one of the leading minds in national security law through his scholarship, teaching the next generation of lawyers and co-founding the immensely popular Lawfare blog. Chesney and fellow law professor Steve Vladeck also elevate the debate on current issues through their humorous and insightful National Security Law Podcast. He serves as the law school’s associate dean for academic affairs and directs the university’s Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law, which among other endeavors is building out a multi-disciplinary approach to teaching cybersecurity issues. Lawdragon: I assume that becoming an expert in national security law, and teaching it, is different than with other areas of law given the variety of issues involved.

Bobby Chesney: The conventional approach for a new law professor is to spend your pre-tenure years building out your expertise and learning the ropes in a speciﬁc domain of legal study such as criminal law, or international law, and so on. That is: going deep in one area of law that might apply to a wide range of particular topics. I didn’t want to do that. I wanted to focus on a particular topic – counterterrorism – and develop broad familiarity with how a bunch of different areas of law all pertained to that issue, and how those areas brushed up against and overlapped with one another in fascinating ways. This proved to be a very good strategy. As most of us appreciate by now, the policy challenges of the post-9/11 period

PHOTO BY: JENNIFER HANCOCK

BY JOHN RYAN were – and still are – deﬁned by their blending and blurring of criminal law enforcement, military action, covert action, intelligence collection, and the like. It seemed to me that what was really interesting, and where an academic could maybe add a little bit of value, would be to think about where all the seams were between those areas. LD: So I also assume you have to teach it a different way, as well. BC: Yep. One thing I love about the various national security law courses I teach is that they all require engagement with multiple areas of law. That makes for a great upper-level law school experience. I also think it’s very important to build into the teaching a serious amount of focus on the underlying policy problems themselves, as well as an understanding of the various institutions, mostly government but some non-governmental, that address those problems. You can’t study the legal aspects in isolation, in other words. It would be like trying to understand environmental law without knowing or caring anything about pollutants, polluters, or the EPA. You wouldn’t just sit there and memorize the Clean Water Act. LD: What led to your switch from Wake Forest to the University of Texas School of Law? BC: I deeply and truly loved Wake Forest, and turned down some early lateral inquiries because of it. We’d really liked living in New York City before that, and it was a blast to live in the Boston area during law school. But my heart was always in Texas. My wife and I both are from San Antonio, our families were still there, and so were many friends. Plus the warm winters and the Tex-Mex food. We are Texans through and through, and we always felt that the only school that would seriously tempt us to move would be UT. It always seemed like a pipe dream. You can’t just pick one school and expect them to be interested, after all. But in the spring of 2008, to my utter surprise and delight, UT reached out. It turned out that they were interested in hiring an early-career person who did more or less what I did. I agreed to do a one-year visit with no guarantee of an offer at the end. It was basically a nine-month job interview, which wasn’t too fun. But all’s well that ends well. At the very end of the academic year, it worked out and we got to stay. The whole thing felt like divine intervention, and

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

217

500

500 we feel very, very blessed that it worked out. We are now Longhorns through and through! LD: One of the issues we cover in-depth at Lawdragon is the military commissions at Guantanamo, which Lawfare and the podcast also cover. Can you discuss some of your views of this type of justice? I know that, as a general rule, you are not opposed to them. BC: A properly-constituted military commissions system can be very useful, and certainly legal, in the right circumstances. It’s especially important to have the option in the traditional, historical context in which military operations are underway in a place in which there is no realistic alternative option for criminal adjudication for some set of persons. The problems with Guantanamo’s military commissions, from this perspective, are two-fold. First, this doesn’t fit the traditional mold of a situation in which you need the commissions in order to have some plausible mechanism for trials. And second, the commissions after 9/11 started off with a level of procedural and evidentiary safeguards that may have been tolerable in the mid-20th Century, but were never going to fly in the 21st. Those procedural and evidentiary shortcomings have been substantially corrected over the years, of course, but the initial problems left a seemingly-indelible stain on the reputation of the system, which is a very critical factor however much it no longer may be deserved. And meanwhile, there have been a seemingly-endless number of further challenges, large and small, that collectively function as sand in the gears. All that is in contrast to the incredible efficiency and capacity that’s been demonstrated for the civilian Article Three courts, which get the job done expeditiously and with maximum legitimacy. I think we all understand that a big part of counter-terrorism is bound up in the perceived legitimacy of how you’re acting, so this consideration carries a lot of weight for me. LD: You’ve also said it’s legal for the U.S. to hold detainees at Guantanamo, at least so long as the U.S. continues to use the Periodic Review Board – the interagency parole board that assesses whether detainees remain threats or can be released. BC: There is no question that the United States has been and continues to be involved in an armed conflict with a variety of groups in a variety of places, though there are plenty of tough boundary questions of course. With the armed conflict come the laws of armed conflict, including the authority to resort to

218

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

lethal force. There should not be – and there isn’t – such a thing as an armed conflict where it’s lawful to try to kill someone as a first resort, but not to hold them in non-criminal detention for the duration of hostilities or at least for such time as they continue to be an imminent security threat. But whenever you are dealing with non-POWs – that is, proper soldiers fighting for a state who may be held for the duration of hostilities – it is important, and I think required by the law of armed conflict, that there be a periodic review process of some kind, focused on continually asking: do we still really need to detain this person? LD: As a candidate, President Trump vowed to fill Guantanamo with “bad dudes,” but practically, right now there doesn’t seem to be any way that would happen. BC: Current circumstances don’t create many opportunities for that sort of thing. We have been doing our level best, for years, to act by, with, and through local partner forces in all sorts of locations, including the combat zone situations like Iraq and Syria. We don’t run any large-scale detention-capable facilities overseas, and Guantanamo itself is a political and legal minefield at this point, no matter what was said on the campaign. So the model for many years has been that when there’s been a capture situation, the disposition plan is “That’s for the locals” – we don’t administer it ourselves. There are strategic, operational, and political reasons that encourage this approach. There is another consideration that we’ve talked about a lot on the podcast. If you can prove someone is an al Qaeda member, or an Afghan Taliban member, then you know from caselaw that the courts will support the detention if you have evidence. But what’s not at all clear, because we’ve never had Guantanamo detainees raising the test case is, is the same thing true for someone from al Shabaab, AQAP [Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula], ISIS, etc.? There’s never been a case to test the proposition that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, which states the detention standard that currently governs, and the 2001 AUMF [Authorization for the Use of Military Force] apply in such cases. So, from that point of view, it’s risky for the administration to potentially put that into court by bringing a detainee of that stripe to GTMO. If the answer is no, then suddenly you have a tremendous problem, for example, for our use of air power against those groups. For now, the status quo is no detainees, no litigation, no courts telling you that you don’t have

500

the legal foundation you think you do. I think this looms very large in explaining why we haven’t had ISIS detainees brought to Guantanamo yet. LD: The ongoing, big-picture debate has always been whether to view anti-terrorist campaigns in a criminal context or a war context. You seem to support a ﬂexible approach. BC: I think it’s as simple as this: Terrorism isn’t an either/or proposition. It doesn’t have to be a binary choice, such as: Terrorism is war and therefore the law of war applies to all terrorism, or, terrorism is not war and therefore the law of war never applies to terrorism. Terrorism can happen outside the context of armed conﬂict, and it can happen in the middle of

and Law. It’s a university-wide, multi-disciplinary research unit, and part of my charge is to be entrepreneurial in looking for issues that beg for a multi-disciplinary approach and ﬁnding ways to address them. Cybersecurity is such a perfect ﬁt for that mission. It’s important for lawyers to better understand the relevant technology, policy architectures, and business considerations. It’s important for computer scientists and engineers to know the law, policy, and business aspects better. And so on, around the horn. Our aim is to pioneer courses that provide a sophisticated, but smartly-accessible interdisciplinary cross-understanding. It will be one of the ways UT-Austin will distinguish itself in this area in the years ahead.

TERRORISM ISN’T AN EITHER/OR PROPOSITION. IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE A BINARY CHOICE, SUCH AS: TERRORISM IS WAR AND THEREFORE THE LAW OF WAR APPLIES TO ALL TERRORISM, OR, TERRORISM IS NOT WAR AND THEREFORE THE LAW OF WAR NEVER APPLIES TO TERRORISM. an armed conflict – where you have sufficient organization in the terrorist group to where it could qualify as an organized armed group, and if the nature and intensity of the violence running both directions is sufficient. Thus, there’ll be some terrorism that’s under the cover of the law of armed conflict, but some that is not. Who would deny that the law of armed conflict is applicable in Iraq and Syria today in operations against the Islamic State, which is currently the most prominent terrorist group? That’s an obvious case. The harder questions are: What if somebody’s ties to the Islamic State are not clear? Or if not ISIS, what is the nature of the organization in the conflict? LD: Talk a little bit about your approach to teaching cybersecurity – what’s your approach here and what does the school offer? BC: At UT we are strongly committed to making an innovative contribution to education relating to cybersecurity. It’s a central aim of the center I direct, the Robert Strauss Center for International Security

LD: How do you teach an evolving ﬁeld? BC: It’s so much work, but I will admit it’s a royal pain to create and properly sustain the course materials. You can’t just take a casebook off the shelf or use someone’s materials developed for a lawonly, or policy-only, or business-only audience. You have to make some very careful decisions about what is in-scope and what is out-of-scope, based on a clear-eyed understanding of what you really want to accomplish with the course. I don’t want it to just be a haphazard run-through of various hot topics. I want there to be a method to the madness, a conceptual framework that makes sense and that the students can use as their mental map of the ﬁeld. Then you have to comb through the massive amounts of scholarship, government documents, news articles, and the like, finding a good mix of the intriguing and the necessary, which aren’t always the same thing. We’ve got multiple pilot courses underway right now, and shortly we’ll start sharing the syllabi and other materials so others can use them as much

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

219

500

500 220

Leslie Smith

Bryan Stevenson

KIRKLAND & ELLIS CHICAGO

EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE MONTGOMERY, ALA.

Todd Smith

Ted Stevenson

POWER ROGERS & SMITH CHICAGO

MCKOOL SMITH DALLAS

Abby Cohen Smutny

David Stickney

WHITE & CASE WASHINGTON, D.C.

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ SAN DIEGO

Kathryn Snapka

Christina Storm

THE SNAPKA LAW FIRM CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS

LAWYERS WITHOUT BORDERS NEW HAVEN

Amy Solomon

Adam Streisand

GIRARDI | KEESE LOS ANGELES

SHEPPARD MULLIN LOS ANGELES

Sonia Sotomayor

Leo Strine

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

DELAWARE SUPREME COURT WILMINGTON

Richard Stark

Cassandra Stubbs

CRAVATH NEW YORK

ACLU CAPTIAL PUNISHMENT PROJECT DURHAM, N.C.

Larry Stein

Diane Sullivan

DLA PIPER LOS ANGELES

WEIL GOTSHAL PRINCETON, N.J.

Cate Stetson

Kathleen Sullivan

HOGAN LOVELLS WASHINGTON, D.C.

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

as they might like, most likely posting them at a high-visibility outlet like Lawfare blog. LD: What’s the importance of that blog to you? And the podcast? BC: For many years now, the most timely and interesting national security law conversations have taken place in the blogosphere. Lawfare, which I co-founded alongside the amazing Ben Wittes of Brookings and Jack Goldsmith of Harvard, has now been around for more than seven years. There was nothing like it at the time, but though we knew we were filling a niche we never dreamed how big it would become. We were more than satisfied when it got to the point where it became standard reading for people in the field, but now it’s leapt to a more-or-less mass audience, fueled by the intense amount of interest surrounding all things Trump and the fact that much of the Trump news cycle tends to concern national security. I’m just immensely proud of it because I think on a daily basis we’re elevating the dialogue and showing that people can disagree about these extremely important and highly sensitive issues, but they can do it respectfully and with real rigor and expertise. The National Security Law Podcast is the direct result of UT’s decision to hire my dear friend Professor Steve Vladeck, who is an all-around amazing person. We share a passion for national security law issues, but we’ve had many years of practice disagreeing with each other, and one day it occurred to us that our daily hallway debates about the latest developments just might be of interest to others. So, with very, very little preparation, we started up a podcast. For better or worse, the National Security Law podcast is pretty much a cross between “The MacNeil Lehrer News Hour” and “Car Talk,” with the security focus. We cover all the most important recent developments, we go down into the legal weeds as far as we can, we are quick to point out disagreements and then explore them in a friendly way, we laugh too loud and too often, and we wrap every episode with entirely irrelevant trivia regarding Game of Thrones, the NBA, or whatever we’ve been reading lately. Our goal is for it to be accessible and useful for anyone, whether a legal expert or simply an interested person. And we aim for it to be entertaining enough to keep you tuned in for the full hour every week. So far, it’s working. We’ve been at it since January, and get between six and seven thousand downloads every week.

LD: How and why did you become interested in legal education from the admin side as an associate dean – looking at the quality of the school as a whole – as opposed to just teaching your own courses? BC: Several years ago we had a leadership turnover at the school. The academic affairs associate dean position was open, and I was asked to take it on a short-term basis. I resisted. I didn’t want to be taken out of the classroom even a bit, and I certainly didn’t want to disrupt my scholarly agenda. But in the event they talked me into it, and I very quickly discovered just how worthwhile the administrative work can be. One of the core responsibilities of that position is the curriculum, and as a result you soon come to appreciate in a deep way the wide range of amazing things that all your colleagues teach, including all sorts of areas that are far-removed from your own. You come to understand how important these other topics are to the students, to employers, to your colleagues, and then you begin to see how all these separate parts work together – and how they might be improved. It’s fascinating. You ﬁnd out even more about how interesting your colleagues are, and I love that. You’re also going to have a seat at the table when at least some of the important issues that come through the dean’s ofﬁce are decided. If you care about the life of your institution – and I certainly do – this is priceless. There’s also the unexpected, one-off problems that emerge on a daily basis, challenges that somebody has to deal with. Sometimes those are unpleasant, but usually there’s a way of looking at it where it is, at bottom, a puzzle to be solved, one that can make life better for the students, or a colleague, or one of our fabulous staff members, and so on. If you can look at it that way, even the annoying stuff becomes rewarding. This may actually be the part that keeps me in the job, more than all the rest. The downside of all this is that I have much less time than I would like for my scholarship. I am still very actively engaged, though, especially during summer. I’m nearing completion of a book project that has been my occupation for many years, a deep dive into the long-term history of the laws relating to detention and lethal force in the national security setting prior to 9/11. As for teaching, I still teach the same amount as I ever did. It’s the core of the job, and I just didn’t want to walk away, even temporarily, from any of my courses.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

221

Paul Geller ROBBINS GELLER (BOCA RATON, FLA.)

500

PAUL GELLER PAUL GELLER’S STRATEGY FOR EARNING

massive recoveries for consumers and investors in complex cases might be boiled down to a simple mantra: always over-prepare. It’s a philosophy the founding partner of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd has employed throughout his life, from his outstanding career in the law to Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu competitions. The Boca Raton-based litigator started out on the defense side in the courtroom after graduating from Emory University School of Law. The perennial Lawdragon 500 member has since excelled on the plaintiffs’ side, earning billions across a regular stream of high-profile cases – including the $15Bplus settlement with Volkswagen over its attempts to dodge emissions standards. Lawdragon: As someone who started on the defense side, what drew you to the plaintiffs’ side? Was there a particular case or experience that triggered the switch, or was it more of a slow accumulation? Paul Geller: As a second-year law student, I fell prey to a phenomenon that exists at law schools across the country: The top students, those with the book awards and on the Law Review, tend to interview with and join large defense firms. Part of it may be due to a shortsighted attraction to the structured summer programs and impressive starting salaries of the large firms, and part of it may be that the top plaintiffs’ firms seem to hire more laterals than brand new lawyers. In any event, I started at a defense firm called Steel Hector & Davis that at the time was regarded by many, including my law school’s career services adviser, as the top litigation firm in Florida. I was assigned to work under some fantastic lawyers, including some who are now federal judges, and I learned a great deal. But we were representing large corporations in cases brought by groups of individuals, including defending drug companies against claims by hemophiliacs, many of them children, who were given HIV-tainted blood treatments. I felt early on that I was on the wrong side. I wanted to help the kids, not the company. I wanted to fight for David, not Goliath. LD: Has your undergraduate work in psychology played any role in your success as a lawyer? PG: Definitely. At bottom, psychology majors have an interest in two things: human behavior and helping

PHOTO BY: STARLA FORTUNATO

BY JOHN RYAN people. There are a lot of smart lawyers out there and a lot of hard-working lawyers. There is a smaller sub-set of smart, hard-working lawyers. If you have a smart and hard-working lawyer who also has insights into understanding or even predicting human behavior and an internal drive to help others, that is a recipe for a successful lawyer. My interest in people, my desire to connect with others and to empathize with and understand them – from clients to co-counsel to opposing counsel and even to judges – has absolutely contributed to my success as a lawyer, and more importantly, to my personal fulfillment in doing what I do. LD: What does it take to succeed in this type of practice, in which you are going against large corporations and bigger law firms in cases that can last several years? PG: Just today, I had calls with opposing counsel in three different cases, and they were, respectively, senior partners at Sullivan & Cromwell, Skadden, and Boies Schiller. This is our world – we are always challenging the largest corporations, and those corporations have the ability to hire the biggest and best law firms. To succeed in this practice, which in my mind means maximizing financial recoveries for the classes of defrauded investors or injured consumers that we are entrusted to represent, a firm must have the human and financial resources to go toe-to-toe with the top defense firms. And to do that, a firm must have an appetite for risk and must excel at every aspect of complex litigation: the research, the briefing, the strategic vision, the oral advocacy, the desire to try cases to a jury, and the ability to defend or bring appeals. A telling example is a case we recently concluded after more than 14 years of hard-fought litigation. My firm alone represented the class – not just “sole lead” counsel, but literally “sole counsel.” The defendants, the mortgage servicing arm of HSBC and several of its officers and directors, were represented by a plethora of mega-firms including Cahill Gordon; Skadden; Bancroft; Williams & Connolly; Wachtell Lipton; Milbank Tweed; McDermott Will; and Katten Muchin. My firm spent over 130,000 hours on the case, took more than 85 depositions, won a six-week jury trial, briefed and argued appeals to the Seventh Circuit, and spent over $35 million in actual out-of-

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

223

500

500 I AM A VERY COMPETITIVE PERSON BY NATURE AND I REALLY DO WANT TO WIN, BOTH FOR MY CLIENTS AND FOR MY EGO, BUT I WILL NEVER COMPROMISE MY ETHICS OR MY INTEGRITY. I FORM AND MAINTAIN VERY GOOD RELATIONSHIPS WITH MY OPPOSING COUNSEL, MANY OF WHOM HAVE BECOME FRIENDS. pocket expenses. The case started as a run-of-themill securities fraud case but our trial team turned it into a record-breaking $1.575 billion recovery. Trust me when I tell you, having been a founding partner of both a relatively small class-action boutique and the largest class-action firm in the world, the reality is that a small firm with limited resources can’t truly compete in this space. LD: How would you describe your style as a litigator? PG: I think I do a pretty good job of seeing both the forest and the trees in my cases. By that I mean that I always try to keep a big-picture perspective and develop an overarching strategy for the case. But I also think it’s imperative to understand the details; to appreciate the nuances; to know the documents; to take certain depositions; and to read every word of every transcript carefully. I over-prepare for court. That’s just who I am – I used to over-prepare for exams in school, I over-prepare for martial arts tournaments, and I over-prepare for every court argument, whether it’s a discovery dispute, a dispositive motion, or a trial. I am a very competitive person by nature and I really do want to win, both for my clients and for my ego, but I will never compromise my ethics or my integrity. I form and maintain very good relationships with my opposing counsel, many of whom have become friends. More than anything else, I want them to know they can trust me. But I also want them to know that when they see my name on a complaint, they should tell their client to buckle up because it’s going to be a rough ride. LD: What do you think sets the firm apart from other firms that practice in the large securities and consumer litigation areas? PG: Results. There are a number of firms that practice in this space, but plaintiff class-action law firms are not fungible. One of the frustrations I have is that some clients – even sophisticated institutional investors – and some judges – even well-respected brilliant judges – seem to think that class-action law firms are interchangeable. But they’re not. All of the

224

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

lists I see that rank firms based on the sizes of recoveries, whether in absolute dollars or as a percentage of recoverable damages, consistently rank Robbins Geller at the top. Not only do we have a very deep bench of talented attorneys, but we have a sort of “chip on our shoulder” culture. We want to litigate against the biggest and best Wall Street firms and we want to beat them. To do so takes great lawyering, tenacity, and the resources to match wealthy corporations and their large defense firms. We’re also not shy about trying cases. We make it a point to try cases. We have former federal prosecutors who joined our firm after leaving the government specifically because they want to continue trying cases. There was a period last year where we had four trial teams simultaneously ready to go. Prior to jury selection, we settled cases against Pfizer in New York for $400 million, Psychiatric Solutions in Nashville for $65 million, St. Jude in Minneapolis for $50 million, and the fourth went to trial. We won $148 million for the class in the case against Dole in Delaware. That was an exciting time for our firm. LD: You’ve obviously handled a diverse mix of highprofile cases in recent years. Is there a case that you think will continue to stand out as very memorable years from now, either because of the challenge or the impact it had? PG: I had the privilege of representing a class of shareholders who bought the stock of a coal extracting company called Massey Energy. The company’s SEC filings always talked glowingly about safety ratings and awards. Well, the stock tumbled after a horrific explosion at a coal mine that took the lives of 29 miners. The company had been lying about its safety ratings, and had sacrificed safety to maximize profits. In fact, we learned that when government inspectors, those who provide safety grades, showed up to inspect the mine, a guard would use a special signal to warn supervisors, who in turn instructed miners to hide accumulated coal dust and quickly throw up missing roof supports. Although

500

we recovered nearly $300 million for shareholders, that case still leaves me with a pit in my stomach. It was about much more than just money. Lives were lost and families were destroyed as a result of corporate greed. I’d be remiss if I didn’t also mention the Volkswagen clean diesel case that I have the privilege of being a large part of. That case is meaningful because of its scope and the brazen nature of the deception. It is also special because it enabled me to work closely with a “who’s who” team of lawyers that I respect and admire, lawyers like David Boies, Elizabeth Cabraser and Chris Seeger, along with the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and so many others to achieve a nearly $16 billion settlement, the largest consumer class action recovery in U.S. history. LD: Did you have a mentor who was instrumental in the course of your career? PG: I’ve been lucky to have worked under many exceptional lawyers, and as a young lawyer, I tried to learn as much as I could from them. Someone that really sticks out as a mentor is Howard K. Coates, who is now a state court judge here in Palm Beach County, Florida. I was Howard’s associate for a number of years and was essentially attached at his hip for a good three or four years, whether in the ofﬁce, in client meetings, in depositions, in mediations, in trial, and unfortunately even in karaoke bars; Howard loved karaoke. Howard was a particularly gifted writer and was in all aspects a perfectionist. He was also very demanding of his associates. I think in many ways my leadership style with younger lawyers mirrors Howard’s, and I share his mantra that the goal of brief writing is not only persuasion, but perfection. Howard and I tried cases together both for plaintiffs and for defendants, and I believe it is under Howard that I really matured as a litigator. In fact, it was after winning a very large probate litigation trial in 1996 or 1997 that I told Howard I was leaving to become a plaintiffs’ lawyer. Howard was disappointed and a bit hurt, and he told me I was committing career suicide. Several years later, my old boss, Howard, sent me his resume and subsequently joined my then 30-lawyer ﬁrm, Cauley Geller, as a partner. That was a gratifying moment for me. LD: As you handle a range of cases, do you expect any type of case to be taking up more of your time in the years ahead? Or are there any other practice trends you wish to comment on?

PG: As advances in technology occur at a record pace, data breaches and privacy invasions will lead to more class actions. I was lead counsel in one of the first successful privacy cases over a decade ago, and it had to do with a violation of a federal law protecting private information held by the division of motor vehicles. That law was passed after the actress Rebecca Schaeffer was murdered by a stalker who obtained her home address from the California DMV. Since that time, we’ve been involved in a host of other privacy cases and we are currently litigating a case against Yahoo! involving the largest data breach to date, as well as a cutting-edge case against Facebook regarding its use of facial-recognition technology in its “tag” feature. LD: As someone who went to school in the South and has practiced there, did you ever consider going to one of the larger coastal cities? PG: That’s an interesting question. If you haven’t been here, Boca Raton is very much a suburb of New York. It’s certainly not Small Town, USA. A fly on the wall of my office here in South Florida would never confuse my practice with that of a slow-paced country lawyer in a charming southern town. And I’m not knocking that type of practice; in fact it certainly has great appeal. The reality is that my practice is national in scope, and where my office is has very little to do with where my cases are. I also spend quite a bit of time in New York, where we have two offices, and California, where we also have two offices. LD: What do you do away from the office to relax or blow off steam? PG: I’m a big proponent of the mental and physical benefits of intense exercise. For the past 15 years I have been very serious about Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. I’ve trained in Rio de Janeiro and have competed at a pretty high level. Though I still love it and think it is the most effective martial art for self-defense, as I’ve gotten older I’ve come to realize that “self-defense” must also include defending oneself against stress, fatigue, and illness. So in addition to Jiu-Jitsu, I am now studying Taoist meditation, Qigong and Tai Chi for their spiritual, calming and restorative benefits. I also try to spend as much time with my family as possible. If I let it, my job can really take over my life. Being a classaction lawyer is what I do, but not who I am. While I strive to be the best lawyer I can be, I won’t do it at the expense of failing to be the best father and husband I can be.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

225

Joseph A. Power Jr. POWER ROGERS (CHICAGO)

500

JOSEPH A. POWER JR. KEEPING THINGS “SIMPLE” IN COURT

has worked like a charm for Joseph A. Power Jr. The Chicago trial lawyer and perennial Lawdragon 500 member has one of the best courtroom scorecards in the nation with more than 200 verdicts in excess of $1 million – winning his ﬁrst at age 28 – and an unbeaten record in medical malpractice cases. The excellent reputation also extends to his ﬁrm, Power Rogers & Smith, which has earned billions for injured clients and their families.

The firm’s genesis dates to Power’s days at Loyola University Chicago School of Law, when his car happened to need servicing at the gas station. While there, he got to talking with one of the employees, Larry Rogers, who as it turned out was on leave from law school. Power encouraged him to head back to the books, advice he took on his way to having his name on the door next to Power. Those are the kinds of real people and Chicago heart that have come to define Power’s career. Lawdragon: When did you first know you wanted to go to law school? Was it during undergrad at Notre Dame or did you know earlier? Joseph Power: I generally thought of going to law school in my teenage years. It was in college at Notre Dame that I committed myself to obtaining that goal. LD: As a student at Loyola, what did you think you would end up doing with your degree? JP: While a student at Loyola University Chicago School of Law, I became a law clerk with a prominent personal injury lawyer by the name of John D. Hayes. It was working with Mr. Hayes while in law school when I first realized I wanted to represent individual tort victims. As a result of working as a law clerk for John D. Hayes, I decided to pursue a plaintiffs’ practice rather than becoming a defense attorney. It seemed to be natural for me. Larry and I became friends while I was in law school. We later practiced law together and eventually became partners. Todd Smith later joined our practice after leaving another law firm as a partner. LD: What is it about your work that has kept you motivated over the years? JP: I am committed, most importantly to my clients and the people in our law firm. I find it very satisfying to obtain justice on behalf of my clients. That is the

PHOTO BY: MICHELLE NOLAN

BY JOHN RYAN ultimate reward for hard work. I have tried many types of cases with success being my ultimate satisfaction. LD: Do you remember your first multimillion-dollar verdict? Do you recall how you felt during jury deliberations or afterward? JP: I remember every seven- or eight-figure dollar verdict, of course. The most memorable is when at age 28, I obtained my first million-dollar verdict. My wife, Sue, was pregnant with our first child, but helped me by writing on a poster board the figures for the decedent’s future wage losses. After closing argument and before the jury returned with the verdict, the plaintiff decedent’s teenage son David said, “Whatever the verdict, I am just proud that you are our lawyer.” I really appreciated his thanking me, especially as a young lawyer, before we knew the outcome. They only offered $75,000 and ended up paying every penny plus interest after we prevailed on appeal. LD: With so many trials under your belt, do you still get nervous? JP: It is not so much being nervous as tense. Typically, I first experience tension right before I learn who the judge is assigned to the case; second, when I view the entire venire; and third, between the point when the buzzer rings that the jury has a verdict, and the announcement of the verdict. Awaiting the jury’s verdict is always tense because of my deep concern for my client’s welfare. My concern for my client is what drives me through the trial. LD: Obviously, with such success in court, you have been able to relate to jurors. Is there any particular way you characterize your style as a trial lawyer? JP: I like to keep the case simple. Even the most complex medical malpractice case can be simplified to the point where it can be easily understood. This is mostly done through demonstrative evidence, as well as effective use of analogies and examples. Affecting the credibility of the defendant, as well as the defendant’s experts is also very important to your client’s success in the courtroom. LD: You’ve had a number of high-profile cases. Is there any case that stands out for you as especially memorable or meaningful, either for the result, the challenges of the case or unusual circumstances involved?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

227

500

500 228

Brian Sun

David Tolbert

JONES DAY LOS ANGELES

INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE NEW YORK

Steven Sunshine

Steve Toll

SKADDEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Steve Susman

Robert Townsend

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Tara Sutton

Max Tribble

ROBINS KAPLAN MINNEAPOLIS

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

Dona Szak

Lisa Tsai

AJAMIE HOUSTON

REID COLLINS & TSAI AUSTIN, TEXAS

Clarence Thomas

Jonathan Turley

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

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL WASHINGTON, D.C.

Peter Thomas

Jonathan Tycko

SIMPSON THACHER WASHINGTON, D.C.

TYCKO & ZAVAREEI WASHINGTON, D.C.

Sally Thurston

Bob Van Nest

SKADDEN NEW YORK

KEKER VAN NEST SAN FRANCISCO

Mary Ann Todd

Christine Varney

MUNGER TOLLES LOS ANGELES

CRAVATH NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

IN THE EARLY YEARS, CASES WERE SIMPLE. TYPICALLY EACH PARTY CALLED ONE EXPERT WITNESS WHO COVERED THE GAMUT OF SPECIALTIES IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASES. IN OTHER TORT CASES, SINGLE EXPERTS TESTIFIED ON BEHALF OF EACH SIDE. NOW, CASES HAVE BEEN MADE MUCH MORE COMPLEX, AND IT IS NOT UNUSUAL TO SEE SIX OR MORE EXPERTS ON EITHER SIDE OF A CASE. JP: Probably the Willis case where I represented six children of a minister who were burned to death. It was a very complex case involving strict liability regarding a defective fuel tank on their van, a poor weld on the taillight assembly on the trailer which fell off the truck and struck the plaintiffs’ fuel tank, and the intermodal system involving multiple defendants that in the end was determined to be a joint venture that included the illegal truck driver as its agent. We took over one hundred depositions. Ultimately, it concluded with a $100-million recovery for the family and 74 criminal convictions, including the former Governor, who went to jail. It also resulted in over 2,000 truck drivers either giving up their Commercial Driver’s Licenses, or retaking the Commercial Driver’s Exam. The case involved the payment of bribes for licenses by candidates for CDLs and the driving schools that trained them. These bribes were cloaked as political contributions. In the Willis case in particular, the driver involved and the driving school paid a bribe as a political contribution to the people who tested him for the CDL, which led to their convictions and prison terms. That driver never showed for a retest, and ultimately gave up his commercial driver’s license.

the gamut of specialties in medical malpractice cases. In other tort cases, single experts testified on behalf of each side. Now, cases have been made much more complex, and it is not unusual to see six or more experts on either side of a case. Expert witnesses has become a cottage industry. In addition, we have become much more involved politically in helping candidates who support the 7th Amendment right to trial by jury in civil cases. Our practice has been politicized tremendously as compared to the past. LD: Your firm has incredible results year after year. Why is that? JP: Our firm has obtained these results year after year due to the hard work of the firm’s employees. Typically, the harder one works, the more productive they are. People who work hard and are productive are compensated accordingly. We also provide excellent benefits. People rarely leave except to retire. LD: Please talk about your community involvement or extra-practice activities. Are there certain subject areas, issues or organizations you have tended to focus your time on?

The former Governor and his administration were involved in obstructing justice, including suppressing records which we later obtained from ﬁred investigators who became witnesses in the criminal trial. Our investigation ultimately helped lead to the criminal convictions.

JP: There is not a lot of time after the law and politics. I have been on various school and charitable boards and have contributed my share to various charitable organizations as well as the schools from which I have graduated. A lot of my time has been involved in assisting public servants who are supportive of the rights of victims of tortious conduct.

LD: Are there big-picture ways in which your practice has changed since the early years?

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

JP: In the early years, cases were simple. Typically each party called one expert witness who covered

JP: If I weren’t a lawyer, I would most likely be a history professor or some sort of fundraiser.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

229

Richard Brand CADWALADER (NEW YORK)

500

RICHARD BRAND HAD THINGS TURNED OUT DIFFERENTLY,

you would probably know Richard Brand as an award-winning journalist. The former Miami Herald reporter expected to return to the beat after NYU Law School, but instead he got hooked on corporate law while working as a summer associate at Cravath. Brand has since developed a diverse and acclaimed practice that blends traditional transactional work with shareholder activism and defense, representing corporate boards and hedge funds. He brought his practice from Kirkland to Cadwalader in 2015, and became co-chair of the corporate group the next year. Lawdragon: You seem to handle a unique mix of corporate matters. How would you describe your practice? Richard Brand: I am very fortunate to have a law practice where I work on different types of matters every day. One day I’ll be handling a sell-side M&A assignment from a public company client, the next I’ll be advising an activist investor running a proxy contest to obtain seats on a corporate board, the next I could be helping a celebrity sell a liquor brand to a conglomerate, and the very next I might be off to Europe, advising a Greek shipping company in a capital raise. What ties it all together is that my clients are looking for creative and actionable advice that pulls in experience in multiple corporate practice areas – M&A, corporate governance, finance. In addition, many of my matters involve boardroom battles and other related corporate disputes, and so I work closely with Cadwalader’s litigators, frequently using litigation as a tool to help my clients achieve their business goals. My practice is many things, but it isn’t dull. I’m extremely lucky in that regard. LD: What was the genesis of developing this type of practice, where you handle traditional M&A, takeover preparedness and both sides of shareholder activism? RB: During the early stages of my career, I worked at law ﬁrms and with more senior lawyers whose corporate practices were very broad in nature. At Cravath, where I started my career, corporate lawyers rotated through M&A, securities, ﬁnance and corporate governance practices, and in some cases, they didn’t stop rotating until they retired.

PHOTO BY: DAVE CROSS

BY JOHN RYAN At Kirkland, I worked with partners David Fox and Steve Fraidin, who also had well-rounded corporate practices, and their clients sought them out for help well beyond traditional M&A. But times have changed and, as a result of the increasing ultra-specialization of transactional work and practice, there are fewer and fewer transactional lawyers who maintain those types of broad practices. In my view, Cadwalader has it right. The ﬁrm’s more traditional, broad approach to corporate practice is both a better way to practice corporate law and more valuable to clients. Another way my practice is unique is that I maintain a broad corporate practice and will still unapologetically represent an activist hedge fund. Shareholder activists tend to be extremely highquality, sophisticated clients who generate extremely interesting, challenging and important work. At Cadwalader, we tend to represent only the largest of these investors – funds that control billions of dollars in capital and who are responsible and serious in their approach. Building off the strength of our activism practice, we are frequently engaged by public company boards to advise them responding to activist investors. Our experience on both sides provides a valuable perspective to all of our clients. Last year, for example, in a high-profile matter, we helped the board of Ashford Hospitality Prime prevail in litigation and a months-long proxy contest with an activist hedge fund. Our experience representing large investors was very useful in achieving that outcome. Similarly, when we are advising investors, we can provide insight into how a company and board is likely to react to a strategy. Activists aren’t always right, but they aren’t always wrong either. We take a commercial approach to this issue. LD: What else excites you about your practice? RB: There is a ﬁne line between excitement and stress, and in my practice I experience my fair share of both. I care deeply about my clients and their matters and so pay a lot of attention to things. It can be a lot of fun – though very stressful – when you are helping a client develop a strategy that is critical to the success and future of their business, their careers. There is little room for error.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

231

500

500 232

Donald Verrilli

Ted Wells

MUNGER TOLLES WASHINGTON, D.C.

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Kathi Vidal

Tony West

WINSTON & STRAWN MENLO PARK

UBER SAN FRANCISCO

Helgi Walker

William Whelan

GIBSON DUNN WASHINGTON, D.C.

CRAVATH NEW YORK

John ‘Jack’ Walker

William Whitehurst

MARTIN WALKER TYLER, TEXAS

WHITEHURST HARKNESS AUSTIN, TEXAS

Leigh Walton

Conlee Whiteley

BASS BERRY NASHVILLE

KANNER & WHITELEY NEW ORLEANS

Cecillia Wang

K. Craig Wildfang

ACLU SAN FRANCISCO

ROBINS KAPLAN MINNEAPOLIS

Maurice Watson

Beth Wilkinson

HUSCH BLACKWELL KANSAS CITY, MO.

WILKINSON WALSH WASHINGTON, D.C.

Seth Waxman

Greg Williams

WILMER HALE WASHINGTON, D.C.

RICHARDS LAYTON WILMINGTON

Jason Webber

Steven Williams

WHITE & CASE NEW YORK

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

LD: Are there trends you are seeing in any facet of your practice? RB: On the private equity side, there is a lot of capital, or dry powder, waiting to be deployed by investors – but investment opportunities are few and far between. As a result, I think we will see private equity sponsors become more aggressive in their approach to sourcing deals, including by adopting activist investor strategies, like taking toehold positions in targets to put them in play. LD: Why did you join Cadwalader as opposed to staying at Kirkland? RB: Kirkland is a great firm, and I had a terrific experience there, learned a lot and made many close friends. Cadwalader is such a well-known firm, with a remarkable 225-year history, and it was a better fit for me with its smaller size and focus on financial industry clients, including banks, insurance companies, broker-dealers and, of course, hedge funds. Cadwalader offered me a great opportunity at a younger age to play an important role in the future direction of my practice area and in the future direction of the firm. LD: Going back farther, what did you think you would end up doing with your life when you went to college at Princeton? RB: I thought I would be a newspaper reporter, so I took a job reporting for The Miami Herald right after graduating Princeton. For a 22-year-old, there is no better job. You write a lot, meet interesting people and learn something new every day. It can also be a bit head-inflating. Mayors, senators and all sorts of famous people would return my phone calls. They don’t anymore now that I’m a lawyer! LD: How did your interest in being a journalist develop? RB: When I was in high school, I wrote for the school newspaper – where I met my wife, a fellow young reporter. In college, I worked as an on-campus stringer for various news organizations, including The Associated Press and The New York Times, covering Princeton sports and other news, including politicians and sometimes controversial speakers coming to campus. In the summers, I worked at AP bureaus abroad – in Madrid and Caracas. I met Hugo Chavez. I was certain this was what I wanted to do for the rest of my life. I left journalism to go to law school with the plan that I would return to The Miami Herald

after I graduated. Things didn’t turn out that way. I really enjoyed my experience as a corporate summer associate at Cravath – and decided to change course. I still miss the newsroom, but I love what I do. LD: Was there a course, professor or experience at NYU Law that pushed you towards a transactional practice instead of another area? RB: I took David Katz’s M&A course when I was at NYU Law. David is a senior M&A partner at Wachtell and a legend in the field. He was also a great teacher. That class was an important reason why I pursued transactional work, M&A in particular. David made it sound very fun. Today, David and I sometimes work together on matters. I recently represented hedge fund Pershing Square in its investment in and agreement to refresh the board of directors of Chipotle. David represented Chipotle. It was a pleasure to work across from him and his team. LD: Did you have mentors at Cravath or Kirkland whom you can discuss as having played a key role in your development as a lawyer? RB: The most important mentor I have is Steve Fraidin, who was a partner of mine at Kirkland & Ellis and is now the Vice Chairman at Pershing Square, a client. Steve took an interest in my practice and my development as a lawyer and took me under his wing. We worked on a number of important projects together, and I learned so much from him during every one of them. He is so smart, also a great teacher. One of the best things that ever happened to me was having Steve as a mentor – it has made a huge difference in my career. Other lawyers who have been there with advice and support through the years include John Gaffney at Gibson Dunn; David Fox, Sarkis Jebejian and Edward Sassower at Kirkland & Ellis; Alison Ressler and Alan Sinsheimer at Sullivan & Cromwell; Chuck Nathan at Latham; Steve Arcano and Richard Grossman at Skadden; and, of course, my colleagues here at Cadwalader, especially Chris Cox and Bill Mills. These are people who I have worked with or across the table from, and who have become important sounding boards for me in my practice. They are the people I call when I am seeking a sanity check or thoughts on a tough situation. Read the full Q&A at www.lawdragon.com/lawyerlimelight-richard-brand.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

233

Dave Ring TAYLOR & RING (LOS ANGELES)

500

DAVE RING DAVE RING ADMIRES THE COURAGE

of sexual abuse victims who come forward to pursue claims against the perpetrators and the school districts that allowed the terrible abuse to occur. Once the difficult decision to pursue justice is made, Ring is among the very best advocates in the nation for the difficult course of litigation. Among his many successes, the name partner of Los Angeles-based Taylor & Ring negotiated a $14 million settlement in 2014 with the Moraga, Calif., school district for two women who had been abused in the mid-1990s by a man who was then their middle-school teacher. Ring also is currently representing an individual who alleges that she was raped by media mogul Harvey Weinstein. Another high-profile case that remains on Ring’s docket is the sexual abuse scandal involving prestigious Marlborough School and its teacher, Joseph Koetters. Of course, Ring, like his partner John C. Taylor, is also well-known for handling other personal injury cases, with a long list of multimillion-dollar verdicts and settlements to his name. The graduate of USC and USC Law School is the former president of the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles. Lawdragon: I know it is an ongoing and sensitive matter, but is there any comment you can make about the Weinstein allegations? Will you wait for the criminal matter to conclude before filing civil claims? Dave Ring: Any time there is the potential for a criminal case, I do my very best to allow the criminal case to reach a conclusion before pursuing a civil lawsuit. But sometimes the impending statute of limitations forces the filing of a civil case. The Weinstein matter is fresh, with many moving parts. It is difficult to predict how things will progress at this point. LD: In terms of current cases, is there a recent case that you want to highlight? DR: I have lived with the Marlborough School case [involving claims of sexual abuse by a teacher at a Los Angeles school] since 2014. It is high-profile, demanding, and work intensive. The opposing lawyers are outstanding. The two women I represent are inspirational. We have been through many ups and downs in this litigation but it is a very important

PHOTO BY: RAFFI ALEXANDER

BY JOHN RYAN case and it has raised awareness across the country that teacher sexual abuse can and does take place in even the most elite of private schools. LD: Backing up: How did you first become interested in a plaintiff’s practice? And within that, to begin focusing on these very difficult abuse cases? DR: I started out as an insurance defense lawyer. I gained valuable experience doing that, but within the first year I knew I wanted to become a plaintiff’s lawyer. I identified with the victims and their lawyers sitting across the table from me. I knew I had to switch to the plaintiff’s side, and I soon did so. At my first plaintiff’s law firm, we took on a sexual abuse case in which a male teacher abused an adolescent boy. This was in the mid-1990s. No one specialized in those cases. There were few, if any verdicts. Most of those cases back then were settled for modest amounts. My former law partner Patrick McNicholas and I decided to take this particular abuse case to trial because the settlement offer was low. The jury returned a verdict over $10 million. The stage was set. Several other similar cases came my way after that. And, sadly, these cases still continue now, twenty years later. At some point, schools better make it a priority to end teacher-student sexual abuse. LD: What other types of cases are keeping you busy these days? Are there trends you are seeing in your practice? DR: There is a perception that I only handle sexual assault and abuse cases, but the reality is that my firm and I also handle very significant personal-injury and employment cases as well, anything from serious vehicular accidents, construction-site accidents, police-misconduct cases, sexual harassment in the workplace, and a wide variety of other injury-related cases. I know that handling different types of cases has made me a much better lawyer. It is true, though, that a big part of my law practice is representing victims of sexual abuse or assault. My clients range from age 7 to 37. Many are adults who were victimized as children. California’s extended statute of limitations allows some adult victims to file suit even in their 20s or 30s. I am privileged to represent these victims. They are vulnerable, but strong. They are willing to take on the fight against

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

235

500

500 Jamie Wine

Steve Yerrid

LATHAM NEW YORK

THE YERRID FIRM TAMPA

Michael Wishnie

Michael Young

YALE LAW SCHOOL NEW HAVEN

WILLKIE NEW YORK

Christopher Wolf

Steve Zack

HOGAN LOVELLS WASHINGTON, D.C.

BOIES SCHILLER MIAMI

Marc Wolinsky

Hassan Zavareei

WACHTELL LIPTON NEW YORK

TYCKO & ZAVAREEI WASHINGTON, D.C.

Debra Wong Yang

Taurie Zeitzer

GIBSON DUNN LOS ANGELES

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Bruce Yannett

Damien Zoubek

DEBEVOISE NEW YORK

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Sally Yates

Paul Zumbro

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL WASHINGTON, D.C.

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Lawrence Zweifach GIBSON DUNN NEW YORK our pro bono work in these communities, we’ve seen corporate law firms contact us, and say, “Through you investigate this? Can you look into this?” Or real problems here. Can you come help us? Can sometimes government officials saying, “We’ve got get contacted by community groups, lawyers, even the case-finding process is a lot different. Now, we in dozens of places, people know who we are and systems. A few years later, now that we’ve done this or in jails, and try to design challenges to these interview people as they were coming out of court, of courtrooms, and watch and take notes. I would go around from town to town, and sit in the back AK: When I first started doing this work, I would just LD: How have you decided what cases to bring? tracted from them. on perpetual probation where money is being exthere are thousands of people who are just stuck I don’t think a lot of Americans understand that time you were in jail and your revocation. year of probation, with extra fees attached for the you’re thrown in jail, and you’re put back on another owe your initial ticket. So your probation is revoked, taken by the private probation company, so you still only owed $250. And all of that money has been you’ve now paid $500 toward your debt when you Social Security benefits, or a minimum wage job, so you’ve scrounged up from your food stamps and another $20 you have to pay.” After a year, maybe tion, and anytime we want to drug test you, that’s to the fine, just for the privilege of being on probatold “You’re going to owe $45 a month in addition that you can get a job or a higher paying job, you’re debt. Instead of getting help with this, or services so vate probation for the purpose of paying off your to someone in one of our cases – you’re put on priIf you can’t pay it – and this is actually what happened

236

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

And, in a lot of these cases, there isn’t any kind of a suppression motion to challenge what happened. So there is no criminal case in which someone ﬁles is never even a criminal case against these people. Because nothing is found in most of these raids, there ing to the Washington Post and our own research. are happening in the homes of black families, accordwe brought seven cases, 99.5% to 100% of these raids police home raid. In the District of Columbia, where things. Most Americans don’t experience a violent often overlooked. Police home raids are one of those everyday part of the criminal system, that they’re lenging things that are so normalized, and such an AK: One of the main themes of our work is chalraids ﬁt into what you do? LD: Where does the litigation focusing on police

done. Your case is closed, you go on with your life. right away, like I could probably, then you’re basically it ends up being $250 or $300. If you can pay that of fees and costs that are associated with it. Let’s say and fees, there’s a minimal fine, and then a number a stop sign. Because of the state’s reliance on fines of the color of your skin, or let’s say it’s for running Tennessee you can get a traffic ticket, maybe because in their name. For example, if you tell people that in Americans just don’t know what the system is doing AK: I think the biggest problem is that ordinary

changes the practices for good? ning a case, but where we can start a movement that just bring a one-off court case for the sake of winlocal partners who can help ensure that we don’t create real change? Where do we have really good Where can our limited resources be leveraged to story that will have an impact on the most people? we make the most difference? Where can we tell a a real balancing test. It’s a question of: Where can families reaching out to us all the time, as well. It’s We also have people who are incarcerated and their

because most people don’t know what’s going on? and see the injustice. Do these practices persist

something more systemic?” these terrible problems. Is there a way we can do

500

ANY TIME THERE IS THE POTENTIAL FOR A CRIMINAL CASE, I DO MY VERY BEST TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL CASE TO REACH A CONCLUSION BEFORE PURSUING A CIVIL LAWSUIT. BUT SOMETIMES THE IMPENDING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FORCES THE FILING OF A CIVIL CASE. THE WEINSTEIN MATTER IS FRESH, WITH MANY MOVING PARTS. big school districts – backed by very big insurance companies – and the perpetrator who abused them. That takes courage. I truly admire these survivors of abuse because they are dedicated to righting the most serious of wrongs.

well-publicized matters. I’ve handled many cases that generated local and national media coverage. The Marlborough School case generated a Vanity Fair story that drew a lot of attention. Another case resulted in a story on CBS’ 48 Hours.

LD: What do you wish you had known or done differently in school? Or, put another way, do you have advice now for current law school students?

If I had to select one case that really had it all, it would be the 2014 case against the Moraga School District, which is located in a very nice neighborhood east of San Francisco. The conduct by that school district in the 1990s was beyond outrageous – truly shocking. The district literally knew it had a science teacher engaging in sexual activities with 7th- and 8th-grade girls, and did nothing. We proved it. Then, when the teacher was ﬁnally busted, he killed himself, and the district covered up its knowledge by lying to everyone. Sixteen years later, after an investigative journalist wrote a remarkable story about what had occurred, we ﬁled suit. It was a longshot of a case because so much time had passed, but we brought it to a successful conclusion with a record-setting settlement of $7 million for each victim.

DR: I attended USC Law School in the early 1990s. Back then, I can’t remember a single time when anyone mentioned becoming a plaintiff trial lawyer representing injured people. The culture was everyone wanted a job with the “blue chip” big corporate law firms. Those were the only firms that interviewed on campus. I got sucked into that mind-set, and went to work for such a firm – and found that it was not for me. I wish back then I had been exposed to the importance of trials, and what it took to be a trial lawyer, and what type of cases typically went to trial. But, fortunately, it all worked out down the road. I think law students are so much better informed today about the choices they have in the law. I see many new lawyers fresh out of law school who “get it.” They understand the importance of being able to try a case in front of a jury, how much work that entails, how important a skill it is. Trial lawyers are a dying breed simply because in the big scheme of things younger lawyers don’t get many opportunities to try cases. But, if a new lawyer wants to be a trial lawyer, they can make it happen either on their own or in the right law firm setting. LD: Is there a case in your career that stands out as particularly memorable? DR: Our firm has handled many high-profile cases since we opened our doors in 2002. John C. Taylor and I have been fortunate to represent clients on

LD: Handling such tragic cases, it must be very important for you to have some activities outside the office. DR: I have always made it a point to have balance in my life. I find it completely unhealthy to be a “workaholic.” I have two boys who fill up my weekends with activities. I am a tennis-junkie; I love playing tennis. My new passion is golf … but I have a long way to go with that sport. I really enjoy sporting events: Lakers, Dodgers, and Rams. Sports are a lot like trials. You compete hard; you play within the rules; but you don’t give an inch. You give it everything you have. Some days, that is enough to be successful. Other times, it isn’t. Just like in sports, trials have clear-cut winners and losers. There is very little margin for error. I enjoy competition both in sports and in the courtroom.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

237

500

500 Thomas Patrick Lane WINSTON & STRAWN (NEW YORK)

238

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

THOMAS PATRICK LANE

BY KATRINA DEWEY

EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE, YOU MEET

fortunate enough to get one of two litigation offers in a class of 19. I turned it down. I wanted to serve the public, and to be in a courtroom trying cases.

That’s the case with Winston & Strawn partner Thomas Patrick Lane, who has one of the most fascinating digital media and IP practices around. The firm’s co-head of IP, the bi-coastal Lane started life as a prosecutor, which turned out to be just the experience called for when Prince (or more precisely one of his associates) had need of a criminal lawyer back in 1996. Lane has never looked back, trying the first Internet music case to a jury and the first Digital Millennium Copyright Act safe harbor case to a jury.

I spent ﬁve years as a prosecutor, serving communities in the highest crime areas in New York, during a period of time when we were experiencing thousands upon thousands of homicides a year. But there was a point, when my witnesses one day would be my victims the next, and when I became a bit immune to reacting to autopsy or crime scene photos. Then I knew I was ready for a new challenge – and I returned to the ﬁrm I left.

a lawyer who doesn’t just give lawyers a good name, he does people as well.

He’s also the only lawyer in mankind to appear on Broadway in Kinky Boots – wearing the boots! – and throw out the opening pitch at Fenway Park, coached by Pedro Martinez. Bucket list? You bet, but that’s also living the dream for this extraordinarily politically engaged and active public interest lawyer who works as hard for the LGBTQ community and encouraging law firm diversity as he does raising money for a wide range of causes near and dear to his heart. Lawdragon: Tom, can you tell us a bit about your path to becoming a lawyer? What was your early role model of a lawyer? And how did you choose Tulane, and your first jobs? Thomas Patrick Lane: One of my earliest memories – I was probably about 6 - was sitting directly in front of our giant black and white TV watching, of all things, the Watergate hearings. Of course, largely I didn’t understand any of it, but I loved the questioning and the seriousness of purpose. From that point, I knew I wanted to be either a lawyer or an unimpeached president. For undergrad, I went to Hamilton, in upstate N.Y. An incredible school, but I knew for law school I wanted to experience a larger university in a diverse environment. Tulane, with a lot of great clinical programs, and New Orleans, perfectly fit the bill. Mardi Gras, in which I’ve been riding for over a decade, didn’t hurt Tulane’s pitch. How did I became a prosecutor? I was a summer associate at an old-line New York/D.C. corporate firm. It was in the midst of the early ‘90’s recession, and I was

PHOTO BY: DAVE CROSS

LD: If you obviously could have gone down the transactional or corporate route, why did you choose litigation? TPL: I chose litigation because I was born a fighter. I don’t say that lightly, I say it literally. I was born over two months premature. I fought for life then, and I fight now. I’m an Irish Catholic adopted kid, and have experienced hemophilia and homophobia my whole life. Neither concept is simple. I played baseball against every wish of my parents and doctors because I wanted and needed to be in the game, bruising and bleeding denied. But I did it, and loved it. The same is true with litigation. And that’s why diversity in the law, and in law firms needs to exist. We cannot know what our clients experience in their own story; we just must be open and accepting to all stories. Look at people and imagine their worst day, their worst client, their worst employee. Then express compassion. And make that important. Make that your focus. Make that vital. Because those stories are. We do not exist without our clients, and we should not. LD: How did you gravitate to intellectual property, and what do you enjoy about representing new media companies? TPL: An unusual path to be sure, from homicide to copyright. I returned to Reid & Priest in January, 1996. We had a partner join a few months later with a very significant and fascinating entertainment practice, Michael Elkin, who is now Winston’s vice-chairman. One day he walked into my office and said “I understand

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

239

500

500 you have some criminal experience.” I responded “well, I’ve never been arrested but I have put a lot of people in jail.” The matter involved an employee of a brilliant musician who was then known as TAFKAP (the artist formerly known as Prince). That matter turned into a fusillade of additional entertainment and IP matters. The most exciting and enjoyable thing about representing new media companies is how fluid and creative they are – and having to advise in that realm as the law struggles to catch up. Having tried the first internet music case to a jury, and the first DMCA safe harbor case to a jury, not to mention the circuit appeals, it’s been an extraordinarily exciting space to be in. And no doubt it will continue to be. LD: You are from the Boston area and recently threw out the opening pitch at Fenway Park – in a Red SoxYankees contest! How did that happen? How did it go, and did Pedro Martinez coach you?

240

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

TPL: I was born in Boston, and as a kid I had four posters in my room: (a) an old RFK campaign poster; (b) Farrah Fawcett blue (no idea); and (c) one each of Carl Yastrzemski and Jim Rice. Today it would be Big Papi and Pedro Martinez. The opening pitch came about because I’ve been involved in the Pedro Martinez charity, serving children and education in the Caribbean. As a result, I had the opportunity to throw out the ﬁrst pitch against the Yankees (with him judging from directly behind me). He told me to throw high: I threw low. I wouldn’t exactly call it a strike – but Sandy Leon, the catcher, didn’t need to move. So that counts. LD: You are very involved in politics. Where did that involvement begin, and what inspires it? Who are some of the politicians and candidates you admire and why? TPL: Growing up Irish-Catholic in Massachusetts, politics was discussed far more than religion at the supper table. And I saw in politics a way to support

500

GROWING UP IRISH-CATHOLIC IN MASSACHUSETTS, POLITICS WAS DISCUSSED FAR MORE THAN RELIGION AT THE SUPPER TABLE. AND I SAW IN POLITICS A WAY TO SUPPORT AND ADVOCATE FOR PROGRESS. I SPENT TIME PLACING LAWN SIGNS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, AND DRIVING A BUS IN IOWA GETTING OLDER VOTERS TO THE POLLS. and advocate for progress. I spent time placing lawn signs in New Hampshire, and driving a bus in Iowa getting older voters to the polls. But certainly my most formative experience was working for Senator Ted Kennedy in Washington. Folks could disagree with him for a variety of reasons, but he was one of the most successful legislators in our history in reaching across the aisle. Politics and law always intersect, but no more so than the day both William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia walked

into the office together while I was manning the front desk. “Do you guys have an appointment?” Ha. LD: You are also very involved in LGBTQ issues. What is important for the legal profession to understand about LGBTQ diversity, and what role do you play as a leading partner at a major firm who speaks out? TPL: More and more often, as LGBTQ awareness increases, clients make it a fundamental part of any RFP or pitch. And that makes complete sense. Clients want their lawyers to reflect their workplace and

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

241

500

500 Just be. Who you wanna be: Tom Lane performing on Broadway in Kinky Boots, far right, ﬁrst row.

their marketplace. It’s vital for lawyers and folks in the administration of firms to understand this. It is a process of education and hopefully enlightenment. Coming out at a major law firm isn’t easy. Coming out at a smaller firm can be even more difficult. The message straight and LGBTQ leaders in law firms need to send is not just one of acceptance – it is one of encouragement. That you are important and vital to our success. That’s my message.

242

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LD: And, of course, there is the fabulous “Kinky Boots”! How did you become involved with the production, how many times have you seen it, and what’s your favorite song? TPL: Ah, Kinky Boots. I initially read the book and score and was immediately touched by the words, the story, the music. Cyndi Lauper was a fundamental part of my high school prom, for the better... she’s just such an incredible talent in all respects. I

500 haven’t the slightest idea how many times I’ve seen it but I can identify the cities: New York, Boston, London, Toronto, Melbourne, Sydney, Los Angeles...and to a town near you soon! As for my favorite song: At times “The History of Wrong Guys,” which always brings laughter, but more often than not I’d go with the finale of “Just Be,” which always brings the crowd to its feet and has got such a positive message of inclusion and acceptance. LD: Tell us about wearing the boots! You appeared on stage earlier this year – almost certainly the only lawyer to throw out the opening pitch at a Red Sox game and wear the boots in New York and Australia in the same few months. Your appearance raised funds for True Colors shelter for LGBTQ kids in New York. I know you are also involved in other important groups, including the Tyler Clementi foundation. What’s meaningful to you about being involved in these groups? TPL: The damn boots are hard. I did wear them on stage in New York for a few choice hours, and again at the Australian equivalent of the Tony Awards. It takes a recovery period of weeks, and any man who doesn’t respect folks who regularly walk in those heels is lost. I try to combine my social activities with charitable endeavors. With Kinky Boots, we raised money for the Theatre Development Fund and True Colors Shelter. With the Sox, for the Pedro Martinez charity. With Winston’s pro bono efforts for Tyler Clementi and the Legal Aid Society, we are hopeful to continue to do great work. As lawyers, we frequently forget how truly blessed we are. Blessed not only by our friends and our loved ones, but by our skills and status. We always need to remember not only to use those skills for those who can afford experienced legal talent, but also to make sure that our success can be used to aid the success and survival of those among us who cannot afford big law. LD: You’ve also spent time in a director’s chair. What’s the story? TPL: Well, there’s the confluence between the law and creativity. The law can be a rigid, yet at times undefined, field. Both allow for expression in very different ways. The law should hopefully protect, just as the creative arts should hopefully inspire. I’ve had a small production company, focused largely upon independent films, with an LGBTQ focus. Sitting in the chair is always a rush, but never better than being in a courtroom.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

243

Larry Stein's Charmed Subversive Journey Throw everything you think you know about Hollywood lawyers out the window. Because though Stanton ‘Larry’ Stein has never been to the Oscars, Emmys or Grammy’s, he’s been fighting for and winning protection for top-level talent and other artists since he went to work for Jane Fonda when she released a then-novel exercise videotape. His is a path of fortuity and roads taken and not. And somehow, of finding a way to advocate for the underdog, even if that person happens to be the most powerful talent in Tinseltown.

Raised in one of those swaths of the San Fernando Valley that are most distinctive for not being distinctive, Stein found a skill for debate that pulled him away from his dreams of attending liberal UC

PHOTOS BY: AMY CANTRELL

Berkeley. Instead, he won a debate scholarship to the more conservative USC, where he also earned his law degree. He hoped to rejoin his liberal path at

West L.A.’s prestigious Wyman Bautzer law firm, which

did something “stupid, actually” and – with a wife, child and no business plan – struck out on his own.

A car accident and 10,000 connections later,

he’s changed Hollywood for the better, tipping

planned to open a public interest arm in Watts. The

the scales to the talent who populate and make

a pro bono law firm that became Public Counsel.

industry in ways that underpin today’s digital en-

Watts outpost didn’t happen, so Stein instead started His work for pro bono clients brought him squarely

up against his firm’s powerful founders –who regularly called him on the carpet for suing its clients. So he

its magic. He’s also changed the structure of the

tertainment, finding rights in reality TV formats and protecting ubiquitous personalities across an endless media universe.

His success is based in a simple life lived far beyond the Polo Lounge, at a house across from the beach, where he plays volleyball every weekend. What’s important, he says, is to know the box, and then think outside it. Because once you follow your passion, you never know what you might find. Lawdragon: Larry, can you explain how you came to be the go-to lawyer in Hollywood for performers seeking to protect their rights – and how it started out with your desire to be a civil rights lawyer? Stanton ‘Larry’ Stein: I should do a book. I come from a family where nobody had a college education. I started out in West L.A., but by the time I was in the 5th grade I was moved to the San Fernando Valley, to Sun Valley, which is not a very good neighborhood. I was a disciplinary problem in grammar school and actually flunked the 1st grade. LD: What kind of disciplinary problem? SLS: I just wanted to goof around. I liked pulling girls’ hair, and disrupting class. I was really a terrible student all the way until junior high school. Then, I was still a bad student, but there was a science fair, and I won first prize, which turned me around a little bit. I scored high on a test when I went into high school, so they were going to give me honors English. They wanted to talk to my parents and recommend I pursue either speech or journalism. I thought, “It’s easier to talk than write, so I’ll take speech.” That introduced me to a mentor. That’s why I like talking to students, and being involved with them. There are people who can totally change your life. LD: Tell me about your mentor? SLS: I was fortunate to have one mentor by the name of Bob Arnold. He was, what seemed to me like an ancient guy. At the time he was probably in his early sixties. I thought, “This is the oldest guy I’ve ever met.” Believe it or not, he lived with his mother, and he used to bring an old brown bag. His mother would pack him lunch every day. He was a former Shakespearean actor who loved public speaking. He found kids in this lower socioeconomic, poor academic neighborhood, who he thought could become successful as communicators. I was in his class, and he decided I was going to be a debater. I went from a C, D student to a straight A student by my senior year of high school. I was ranked nationally in debate. He would put us in his old Ford, and drive us all over the state to compete in tournaments. 246

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

I was determined to go to Berkeley, because I wanted to be part of the Free Speech movement. There was another mentor who was a Civics teacher named Omerberg, at John H. Francis Polytechnic High School. He’s the one who got me involved in politics. LD: Tell me about your career as a debater. SLS: The head of the debate program at USC saw me debate and came out to my little house on Laurel Canyon in Pacoima. We didn’t have a dining room. We just had a kitchenette area. He sat at the kitchen table with my parents. I’ll never forget. He said, “I want your son to come to USC. I’ll give him a full ride, a full scholarship.” He said, “If he comes to USC, he’ll be a national debate champion.” My parents said, “Done.” I said, “No, no, no. I’m going to Berkeley. You don’t understand. USC’s a conservative school. I have no interest in it. I’m going to Berkeley.” They said, “No you’re not, because we can’t afford to send you to Berkeley. If you’ve got a full scholarship at SC, that’s where you need to go.” That’s where I went. I debated at SC, and I was captain of the debate team. We did exceptionally well. We won nine out of 15 national tournaments in my junior year. I got a scholarship to USC Law School. LD: Is that how you ended up attending USC Law School? SLS: Yes. I wanted to be a civil liberties Lawyer. After my first year, I worked for the Federal Defender’s office. I was on law review, and everybody else on law review was going to the big firms. I was going to the Public Defender’s office. One day I was reading, I think it was Time Magazine, and I read about this law firm called Wyman Bautzer. They had just hired an African American Rhodes Scholar, named Stan Sanders. They were going to start a Watts Office and my honors thesis had been on the Watts Riots. They wanted to help people in Watts, so you had to spend half your time providing legal services to the poor, and half of your time working for the firm. LD: How did that work out? SLS: I went there, assuming I’d be able to practice public interest law. They never opened the office. I was feeling very guilty working at a large Beverly Hills law firm. So I started thinking what I could do, and I decided I would form an organization. I got together with another lawyer named Fred Nicholas and a friend named Ira Yellin, and we got all of the guilty associates from the big firm side to give free time

to public interest work. We formed the L.A. Council of Lawyers, which was a public interest group of all Westside associates who felt guilty about making the sort of money we were making, and working for the sort of companies they were working for. And once we joined with the Beverly Hills Bar Association, that was the start of Public Counsel, whose first director was my friend Stan Levy. LD: Were you at Wyman Bautzer during all of this? It was one of the most prestigious West L.A. firms, and while it was very politically connected, it also represented lots of big business. SLS: Yes, and that’s where the problems develop, because every time I would start a [public interest] case, the Wyman Bautzer firm would be on the other side. I would file a suit on Friday, and Monday morning [founding partner] Gene [Wyman] would call me in and say, “What’d you do?”

He introduced me to Jane and I got actively involved. Wyman Bautzer had an entertainment practice and those partners thought I’d be good in entertainment because of my personality. But the most powerful partners were Frank Rothman and Mariana Pfaelzer, and they thought I’d be a litigator. So I mostly did securities litigation. LD: Another one of those fortuitous things that just happen. SLS: Another fork in the road where I ended up going one way instead of another, and ended up being a litigator. Jane introduced me to her lawyer, Barry Hirsch. He was a very established entertainment lawyer and a liberal . Barry and I hit it off. When I handled a case for Jane, and Barry saw what I was capable of doing, he had other clients like Bob Redford, and Francis Ford Coppola. LD: What did you do for Jane Fonda?

Barry Hirsch and Jane Fonda got me involved in film. How I got in television is Bob Kahan, who has been my partner for a zillion years. We were in a building in Century City, and he backed up into somebody’s car. We sued the telephone company for the Lifeline users and Wyman Bautzer ended up representing the company. I just said to myself, “This is not the right place for me.” After three-and-a-half years, with a wife and a child, and no economics of any kind I left the firm to go out on my own. Which was kind of stupid, actually. My whole life is filled with that. I went out and started my own practice. I was very active politically. I got friendly with Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden. LD: How did you meet them? SLS: There was a guy who came from New York who did some legal work for Jane, and he happened to end up in our suite. Then, he needed some litigation done.

SLS: The very first thing, I think, was the video. LD: Her aerobics? SLS: She did exercise videos. When we started getting lawsuits from people who hurt themselves doing the exercises. I was like, “Oh boy.” She did something called the “weed picker” and it turns out it’s a terrible thing for your back. She was very reasonable and took care of people. Once that happened, I represented all the Fondas and private participants in claims about their share in “On Golden Pond.” Barry Hirsch and Jane Fonda got me involved in film. How I got in television is through a strange circumstance meeting Bob Kahan, who has been my

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

247

partner for a zillion years. We were in a building in Century City, and he backed up into somebody’s car. A lot of people would have just left, because no one was around. But he left a note saying, “I’m sorry. I backed into your car.” Turned out that he backed up into the car of a business manager, and she was really impressed with his honesty. She said to him, “If I can ever do anything for you, let me know.” He said, “Well, my partner’s starting to do some entertainment stuff, and you are a business manager in entertainment. Could you introduce him to somebody that might need his services?” There was a firm called Sloan & Kuppin. She introduced me to them. LD: What came from that introduction? SLS: The first thing I did for them was a Director’s Guild of America arbitration. I had no idea what the

that is that some of these people become highly known and successful as a result of a series. Were they to go to some other series, they’d be making a lot more than what they’re making on TV, or in film, or in endorsements. Once a show is successful, it goes into syndication, and the studios and networks make a ton of money off syndication. The artist, who’s responsible, at least partially for the success, is still making what they were making initially, which is minimal. So we decided that we would just tell our clients not to perform. LD: What was the consequence of that? SLS: It’s sort of a breach of contract, but we looked at the economics and said, “If the artist says they’re not going to perform unless they get paid more money the producers are going to pay them more

I always look at the fairness of situations, and the economics. In my Entertainment Law class at USC I explain to students to follow the money. Check the economics of it. What are the acts that are relevant? What are the issues, and what policy do you want to accomplish? I was trying to accomplish a more fair treatment of help. DGA was. I won. Okay? They started giving me work. That really led to us doing the walkout on television in the late ‘70s and ‘80s. In television you have what’s even standard practice today. As talent, you sign a pilot agreement, which has six one-year options. The options are the production company’s options, not yours. You’re not signed up for seven years. You’re signed up for one. Then, if they want to pick you up, they pick you up. The reason why it’s six plus one, seven, is that there’s a seven-year rule in California, which means you can’t have a personal services contract in excess of seven years. What the pilot option says is, you’re going to work at a certain set fee and then if we pick you up the next year you’ll get a 5% increase, and the next year 5%, and so on. The problem with

248

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

money, because the show is generating tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.” The economics demand that they will pay them. Our first client was Gary Coleman, the little kid on “Diff’rent Strokes.” And then we represented John Schneider and Tom Wopat of “The Dukes of Hazzard” and Erik Estrada with “CHiPs”. Those cases turned into standard renegotiation of episodic television contracts. Every single television show that goes more than a couple of years, the talent comes back in and renegotiates the contract. LD: How did you come to represent the talent, the Gary Coleman’s? SLS: It was because of our relationship with talent agents. Sloan & Kuppin were transactional entertainment lawyers who represent a lot of TV talents and

negotiate their contracts. When they couldn’t figure out how to renegotiate, they said to me, “Is there anything we can do about this situation?” I said, “Technically, you could not show up. If you didn’t show up, they could sue you.” Usually there was a basis for not showing up. If you look closely enough, the producers have violated the contract in a number of ways. We would look for a breach by them, and then based on a breach by them, we would not show up. It was really an economic negotiation. Now, it’s just standard practice in the industry. Everybody renegotiates. Before we started doing it, nobody ever renegotiated. LD: Where did you get the idea to do it that way? SLS: I always look at the fairness of situations, and the economics. In my Entertainment Law class at USC I explain to students to follow the money. Check the economics of it. What are the acts that are relevant? What are the issues, and what policy do you want to accomplish? I was trying to accomplish a more fair treatment of talent. In my class, when I explain the walkout,the students will say, “Well, I don’t know whether that’s the right thing to do ...” so I say, “OK. Here’s what I’m going to do. When you graduate, I’ll hire you and I’ll pay you this minimum salary. I’ll have six one-year options on you at 5% increases. If you happen to generate a $1-million-a-year client, that’s irrelevant. OK? If you happen to become the best lawyer in the world, that’s irrelevant. What I’m going to do is pay you 5%, even though I’m making millions of dollars off you. How many of you are signing up for that?” There’s unequal bargaining positions, in my opinion. There’s an unequal bargaining position between talent, when they’re starting on a television show, and a production company. You have to realize it’s an unfair situation. Firstly, it’s an unfair bargaining position. I don’t feel badly about it, because I think we’re doing what’s right. In fact, it’s now standard practice in the industry. They should have been willing to renegotiate people’s contracts, as a matter of fairness. They weren’t. I had to find a way to do that, so that’s what we did. LD: So you used your philosophical beliefs to change Hollywood? SLS: My sense of justice. I used my sense of justice to come to the conclusion, “What was the right thing

to do?” I’ve done that with almost everything when I’ve created different areas of practice. What drives me is that I see a situation that’s not fair, and I try to find a way of rectifying it. I use the law as a way of accomplishing a goal that I’m trying to achieve. LD: You’ve done that in television and film? SLS: Yes and music. What I do is I start practicing in the area, and then I see what I consider to be inequities. Because of my civil liberties background and inclination, to me, representing the individual against the company, satisfies that aspect of my personality. If I were on the other side representing the big guy against the little guy, it wouldn’t work for me. It would be inconsistent with my world view. Everything I do fits into that pattern. I started looking at profit participations and saw that the accounting was not fair and reasonable. I started doing audits and doing profit participation lawsuits just to make sure that the talent received the fair compensation that they’re entitled to in their contracts. It comes out of the first area, ensuring episodic fees are reasonable. Then as the talent started to obtain profit participation in those shows, I became actively involved in helping transactional lawyers negotiate for profit participation saying, “Doesn’t it make sense if they’re helping to create this income, that they should participate in it, in success?” In profit participation if you’re not successful, you don’t get anything. It’s only in success that you get to participate. Shouldn’t they be getting their fair share in the success? We start negotiating profit participations. Then, we had to negotiate better definitions in the contract, because your definitions can determine whether you make any profit. LD: How does that work? SLS: The way that you define - well they don’t call them profits anymore - they call them adjusted gross receipts or they call them receipts instead of profits, because of the way that they account. You could have a highly successful project, which generates no profits in one sense, because against the profits you have overhead, and expense, etc. If you make those items large enough, you’re actually not going to be paying anything to the profit participants. That’s why you see some of these accountings where a movie, for instance, makes $500 million and it’s still $25 million in the red.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

249

There is no gap accounting, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, in entertainment. They use what’s called contract accounting. Whatever the parties agree the definition is going to be, that’s what binds you. Again, the profit participants usually don’t have the power to negotiate a fair definition. The problem is that the studio has all of the information. It’s very expensive to have an audit done. It’s even more expensive to have a lawsuit over profits in accounting. The reality is, the studio generally gets away with accounting in a fashion that’s most favorable to them. Most profit participants never really take the case to conclusion to get what they’re entitled to. LD: What was the first situation you were involved with, at least publicly, that challenged profit participation? SLS: Probably “On Golden Pond.” In television, probably Gary Coleman’s case or the “Dukes of Hazzard.” Then, in 1993 they eliminated the fin-syn rules, [the Federal Communication Commission’s Financial Interest and Syndication rules, which prohibited a television network from owning or sharing in profits from programs aired in prime time]. That allowed production and distribution to be owned by the same company, like ABC and Disney. That meant that they could make sweetheart deals, and engage in self-dealing. Anytime you have a sweetheart deal, the profit participant sees their participation is decreased. LD: What was the first major case in that area? SLS: Your standard structure for television shows, previously, was you would have a production company that was independently owned. And they would license a show to a network. The network would pay a certain amount of money for the show ( a license fee). That would entitle a network to air the show one or two times, or whatever, on the network. Generally, the amount that the network would pay to the production company was less than what it would cost to produce the show. The production company was in a deficit for a while. And the profit participant shares in the production company. As a show becomes more successful, the production company can charge the network more for the airing. The network can get more money in advertising and the profit participant begins sharing in the revenues that were paid by the network to the production company. 250

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Each year you would see the license fee paid by the network go up. In the “Home Improvement” case, after the 7th or the 8th season, the fin-syn rules were eliminated, and ABC and Disney combined. For the first time, the license fee went down. We asked, “How can that be?” It goes down because ABC And Disney have consolidated financial statements. The more they pay the production company, the more ABC pays Disney, the more goes out of profit participation to my client. They want to keep the license fee low, so my clients get less. LD: Wow. SLS: Everybody said to me, “There’s nothing you can do about that.” I said, “Don’t be ridiculous.” It’s wrong. It’s just wrong. I liken it to a real estate agent that you hire to sell your house. The production company and the profit participants were on the same side of the equation, just like you and the agents are on the same side. You know the agent’s going to sell for the highest possible amount, because the agent’s going to get a percentage of what they sell it for. Unless, they sell it to their brother, or their mother, or their aunt, or uncle. Then, they have an incentive not to sell for the highest possible price, because they’re motivated by something else. So I started bringing what are called vertical integration lawsuits, which are if a company’s vertically integrated and they’re dealing with themselves, their self-dealing to the disadvantage of the profit margins shouldn’t be right. Everybody told me there’s no basis for it. The contract doesn’t say it. I came up with a violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing instead. We brought the first suit for the producers on Home Improvement, and it settled, and then we brought the next one for David Duchovny on X-Files and it settled. Then, we brought one for Alan Alda on MASH. Each time we would bring these suits, the studios would fight us until it came time to go to trial, and then they would settle rather than going to trial. Now vertical integration lawsuits are common in every industry. Most of the time it gets taken care of before it even gets to trial, because once the accountants and auditors go in and look at it, and see what they’ve done, adjustments are made, and it gets resolved. LD: How do you come up with these theories? Does it help that you know the studios and how they work?

SLS: It’s knowing the industry, and then it’s not thinking within the box. Lawyers, unfortunately, I think the training we get is the antithesis of creativity. We’re taught to think a certain way. One of my strengths is that I don’t think about it in that way. I have people around me who think that way, and think very much like lawyers. I always put a mosaic together. Everybody has different skills, and talents. Some write well. Some speak well. Some think well. Some research well. They all have different talents, and then I combine them all together. It’s like watching “Mozart in the Jungle,” and I’m the maestro.

a litigator, I should be eating red meat, but I don’t eat red meat. LD: Whatever you’re doing, it’s working. SLS: When I was a vegetarian 50 years ago, people thought I was nuts and my parents thought I was going to die. First, I decided to eat fish, and then I went back to chicken. We eat very simply and healthy. I exercise a lot. I met my wife over 50 years ago in registration at USC and we’ve been together ever since. We have two kids and five grandkids. They all live within a block of me. My wife is very aesthetic. She was a professional dancer and choreographer. She plays

I always put a mosaic together. Everybody has different skills, and talents. Some write well. Some speak well. Some think well. Some research well. They all have different talents, and then I combine them all together. It’s like watching “Mozart in the Jungle,” and I’m the maestro. I may not be as good at any of them at the particular things they do, but I’m able to use their skills and bring it all together. LD: You recently became a partner at DLA when Liner Law merged into it. And you are still practicing with boundless energy while taking on Hollywood on an ongoing basis. What accounts for that? SLS: I seem to have the same energy level that I had when I was young. I think it comes from how I live my life. Friday mornings I play tennis with my son, and we have breakfast together. Every Saturday and Sunday I play beach volleyball for three-anda-half hours starting at 9 a.m., finish at 12:30. I’m down at the beach watching the sunset three nights a week with my wife. Especially when it’s light out, I’m always there. I don’t drink, except for wine, and I have a glass of wine at night with my dinner. I eat healthy. I stopped eating meat 50 years ago. I know people think, I’m

guitar. She has no interest in material things at all. She’s a very good balance for me. I’m attracted to physical things. I love quality items, art, and cars, and fine watches, things like that. LD: Shiny objects? SLS: Buddha says it’s not our preferences that are a problem. It’s our attachment to them. You can have preferences as long as you can let them go and they don’t become too important to you. People ask what matters in life. I think that you have to work hard and be prepared, but you have to be lucky. I’ve been very fortunate. If you look at life you’ll see that, actually there are probably five or six decisions that determine, really, where you go in life. It is hard to be successful if your health isn’t good, or something else happens to someone else in your life. You have to be very, very lucky to be successful, I think. I feel very blessed. I feel very lucky to have had the run I’ve had. And it’s not over yet.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 18 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

251

Advocates for Workplace Fairness

Congratulations to Wayne Outten, Adam Klein, and Wendi Lazar for inclusion in the 2017 Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America

Outten & Golden focuses on a global scale on advising and representing individuals and groups in employment, partnership, and related workplace matters. The firm counsels individuals on employment and severance agreements; handles complex compensation and benefits issues (including matters involving I.R.C. Sections 409A and 280G, bonuses, commissions, and stock and option agreements and awards), and advises professional partners (including accountants, doctors, and lawyers) with contractual and strategic issues.

Our nine practice groups

It also represents employees with a wide variety of claims, including discrimination and harassment based on sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, race, disability, national origin, religion, and age, as well as retaliation, whistleblower, and contract claims. Outten & Golden is also at the forefront of family leave issues and veterans’ workplace rights. The firm handles some of the largest class action and impact litigations in the United States involving a wide range of employment issues, including economic exploitation, gender- and race-based discrimination, wage-and-hour violations, violations of the WARN Act, and other systemic workers’ rights issues.

• Class & Collective Actions

• Executives & Professionals • Financial Services • Sexual Harassment & Sex Discrimination • Family Responsibilities & Disabilities Discrimination • Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & Queer Workplace Rights • Discrimination & Retaliation • Whistleblower Retaliation • WARN Act Wayne N. Outten is the Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Outten & Golden and Co-Chair of its Executives & Professionals Practice Group. Adam T. Klein is the Deputy Managing Partner of Outten & Golden, Founder and Co-Chair of the Firm’s Class Practice Area, and Co-Chair of its Class Action Practice Group. Wendi S. Lazar is a Partner of Outten & Golden, Co-Head of the Firm’s Individual Practice Area, and Co-Chair of its Executives and Professionals Practice Group.

New York • Chicago • San Francisco • Washington, DC www.outtengolden.com

LAWDRAGON