2018 Lawdragon Magazine

T H E

W A R R I O R S

David Ring, Angela Agrusa, Max Tribble, Alejandro Gonzalez, Faith Gay, Philippe Selendy, Deneen Howell, Nicholas Gravanate, Anita Hill, Ty Cobb, Bill Reid, Robin Cohen, Rachel Skaistis, Alex Romain, Richard Heimann, David Anders, Noelle Reed

INSIDE THE DISRUPTORS AT KELLER LENKNER REID COLLINS & TSAI’S NEW FERRARI DECHERT’S GLOBAL WHITE-COLLAR TEAM GUIDES TO THE TOP LEGAL CONSULTANTS AND CORPORATE EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS ANITA HILL HEADLINES A HISTORIC LAWDRAGON 500 CLASS

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

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

Matthew Bergmann

Mats Carlston

Linda Coberly

Stephen D’Amore

Michael Elkin

Steven Gavin

Jeffrey Kessler

Thomas Patrick Lane

George Lombardi

Tom Melsheimer

Joel Rubinstein

Co-Chair, M&A Practice

Firm Vice Chairman

Co-Chair, Litigation Department

North America

Europe

Co-Chair, Finance Practice

Partner, Corporate Department

Dallas Managing Partner

Asia

winston.com

Managing Partner Chicago, Chair, Appellate & Critical Motions Practice

Co-Executive Chairman Co-Chair, Antitrust/ Competition Sports Law Practices

Chair, Capital Markets Practice

Co-Chair, Litigation Department

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

Kathi Vidal

Silicon Valley Managing Partner

{ CONTENTS } 16 LETTER FROM THE EDITOR AND PUBLISHER 18 A NEW LEADER FOR MANATT

Manatt launched a new era in 2018 by selecting Donna L. Wilson as its new Managing Partner and CEO – a remarkable choice that underscores a rapidly changing legal profession.

18

22 THE DISRUPTORS

After selling the world’s fastest-growing legal finance company, the Keller Lenkner guys decided to practice law. Some lawyers fear change; they don’t.

28 HOW TO BUILD A FASTER FERRARI

Reid Collins & Tsai’s addition of Marc Dworsky from Munger Tolles joins theoretical adversaries who always had more in common than at odds.

36 REDEMPTION ROAD

A Supreme Court victory for American Express offered more than redemption to one of America’s iconic companies, as well to the team of trial lawyers from Cravath who took a 10-year journey with their client.

28

44 DECHERT ROUNDTABLE: THE GLOBAL WHITE COLLAR PRACTICE

61

Many companies face scrutiny by multiple agencies within their home terrain and in the various jurisdictions in which they operate, creating a maze of regulatory and investigative hurdles – that’s where the Dechert whitecollar team thrives.

59 THE MOST POWERFUL CORPORATE EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS

87

Our 11th annual guide to 100 of the very best lawyers for employers also includes leaders in employee benefits, labor and employment, and immigration, along with “up and comers” and Hall of Fame members. Featuring:

61 David Long-Daniels of Greenberg Traurig 65 Julianne Story of Husch Blackwell 69 Stephen Hirschfeld of Hirschfeld Kraemer 75 Roger Quillen of Fisher Phillips

81 100 LEADING LEGAL CONSULTANTS AND STRATEGISTS From litigation funders and recruiters to publicists and technologists, we’ve assembled the most trusted of the legal world’s advisors to the world’s best lawyers. Featuring:

83 William P. Farrell and Michael A. Nicolas of Longford Capital 87 Anita Shapiro of Practising Law Institute 90 Mike Sitrick of Sitrick and Company 93 Lee Drucker of Lake Whillans 96 Gina Rubel of Furia Rubel Communications 4

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Lawdragon Honoree 2006 - 2018 Frank N. Darras, founding partner of America’s top disability insurance law firm, is humbled and honored by his continued inclusion in Lawdragon’s 500 Leading Lawyers in America.

Highly skilled professionals face unique insurance claim challenges when a disability threatens their livelihood.

As the preeminent disability law firm in the United States, DarrasLaw represents elite professionals in all types of disability insurance litigation.

These high-stakes disputes are not for the faint of heart, but DarrasLaw continues to triumph and resolve more bad faith disability cases than any other firm in the country.

The firm’s century of collective litigation and claims experience has yielded unparalleled results and insurance benefits for clients worldwide.

DarrasLaw is proud to offer free consultations on all disability insurance matters.

Toll-Free 800.458.4577 www.DarrasLaw.com

{ CONTENTS } 101 Zach Olsen of Infinite Global 103 Michael Talve of The Expert Institute 106 Eric Blinderman of Therium 109 John Hellerman of Hellerman Communications 111 Katharine Wolanyk of Burford Capital

122 138

115 THE HALL OF FAME In 2018, Lawdragon added 35 new members to the Hall of Fame for their

109 111

outstanding and sustained contributions to the legal profession. Featuring: Stephen Zack Thomas J. Nolan

137 THE LEGENDS Remember the iconic advertisement asking, “What becomes a legend most?”

This year’s class of 31 lawyers who made the Lawdragon 500 for a tenth time answers that question in full.

148 THE LAWDRAGON 500 LEADING LAWYERS IN AMERICA The most elite distinction in the legal profession also sets the standard for diversity in the most challenging political and social environment in decades.

Featuring:

148

153 Anita Hill of Cohen Milstein 165 Ty Cobb 167 Deneen Howell of Williams & Connolly 175 David Anders of Wachtell Lipton 181 Robin Cohen of McKool Smith 191 Patrick Quinn of Cadwalader 197 Richard Brand of Cadwalader 201 Philippe Selendy & Faith Gay of Selendy & Gay 207 Salvatore Graziano of Bernstein Litowitz 211 Jamie Boucher, Heather Cruz, Karen Hoffman Lent, Jeremy London, David Rievman and Donald Vieira of Skadden

165

6

219 Rachel Skaistis of Cravath 223 Tom Demetrio of Corboy & Demetrio 227 Angela Agrusa of DLA Piper 233 Alex Romain of Hueston Hennigan 237 Alan Futerfas of The Law Offices of Alan S. Futerfas 243 Patrick A. Salvi of Salvi Schostok 247 Patrick A. Salvi II of Salvi Schostok 251 Richard Heimann of Lieff Cabraser 255 David Ring of Taylor & Ring

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Max Berger New York

John Browne New York

Hannah Ross New York

Salvatore Graziano New York

Gerald Silk New York

Mark Lebovitch New York

David Stickney San Diego

Congratulations to Our Dragons Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP is one of the nation’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 world’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 $32 billion on behalf of defrauded investors.

Thank you to Lawdragon for recognizing the hard work and dedication of our senior partners.

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

SCHILLER FLEXNER

BOIES BOIES SCHILLER SCHILLER FLEXNER FLEXNERrecognized trial lawyers, crisis mana Internationally

BOIES BOIES SCHILLER strategic advisors, we are known for the creative an SCHILLER ernationally recognized trial lawyers, crisis managers, and FLEXNER of successrecognized for our clients.

FLEXNERpursuit Internationally trial and lawyers, crisis mana ategic advisors, we are known for the creative efficient

strategic advisors, we are known for the creative an rsuit of success for our two clients.

Over decades, our litigators have built a record LER pursuit of success for our clients.

Internationally recognized trial lawyers, crisis managers, and ternationally recognized lawyers, crisis managers, NER complex, trial groundbreaking matters for manyand of the wo strategic advisors, we known are known for the creative efficient er two decades, our litigators have built a record ofand winning rategic advisors, we are for the creative and efficient sophisticated companies, and are recognized forrecord preva Over two decades, our litigators have built a Internationally recognized trial lawyers, crisis managers, and pursuit of trial success forclients. our crisis clients. mplex, matters for many of stakes the world’s most David recognized lawyers, managers, and ursuit ofgroundbreaking success for our the odds are longest and the are many highest. ally recognized trial lawyers, crisis managers, and Dav complex, groundbreaking matters for of the wo strategic advisors, we are known for the creative and efficient ors, we are known for the creative and efficient phisticated andthe arecreative recognized for prevailing when dvisors, we companies, are known for and and efficient Jona sophisticated companies, are recognized for preva Jon pursuit of success for our clients.

Over two decades, our litigators have built a record of winning ess for our clients. euccess odds are longest and the stakeshave are highest. ver two decades, our litigators built a record of winning for our clients. the odds are longest and the stakes are highest.

Karen complex, groundbreaking matters for many of the world’s most Kare trial lawyers, crisis managers, and Boies omplex, groundbreaking matters for many of the David world’s most Over twothe decades, our litigators have built a record of winning sophisticated companies, and are recognized for prevailing when Karen known creative and efficient We congratulate our named Kare ades, ourfor litigators have built a record ofof winning ophisticated companies, and are for partners prevailing when ecades, our litigators have built arecognized record winning Jonathan Schil complex, groundbreaking matters for many of the world’s most the odds are longest and the stakes are highest. ients.

Nicho ndbreaking forfor many of of the world’s most Nich oundbreaking matters many the world’s most e odds are matters longest and the stakes are highest. roundbreaking Lawdragon 500: Karen Dunn sophisticated companies, and are recognized for prevailing when We congratulate our partners named to thenamed We congratulate our partners ompanies, andand areare recognized forfor prevailing when ed companies, recognized prevailing when Willia the have odds are longest andofthe stakes are highest. Karen DyerWilli gators built a record winning ngest andand thethe stakes areare highest. e longest stakes highest. 500: Lawdragon Lawdragon 500: Grava Harla Harl Nicholas matters for many of the world’s most Werecognized congratulate ourwhen partners named to the Luke Luke and are for prevailing William Isaacso We congratulate our partners named to the Lawdragon 500: Harlan Levy Sea he stakes are highest.

Sean

We congratulate our Lawdragons.

Lawdragon 500: gratulate our partners named theLuke NikasStuar atulate our partners named totothe Stua Stev Lawdragon 500: Steve Lawdragon 500: Sean O’Shea our partners named to the Stuart Singer SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP Steve Zack dragon 500:BOIES www.bsfllp.com

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER IES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP www.bsfllp.com

w.bsfllp.com

BOIES, FLEXNER LLP BOIES SCHILLER SCHILLER&FLEXNER www.bsfllp.com www.bsfllp.com OIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP

ww.bsfllp.com

LLP

David Boies Jonathan Schiller David Boies agers, and David Dunn Boies David Boies Karen Jonathan Schiller nd efficient Jonathan Karen DyerSchiller of winning Karen Dunn DavidBoies BoiesNicholas Karen Dunn Gravante David orld’s most Karen Dyer ailing when JonathanSchiller Schiller Karen Dyer William Isaacson Jonathan of winning Nicholas Gravante d Boies Karen Dunn Nicholas Gravante vid Boies orld’s most Levy Karen DunnHarlan William Isaacson athan Schiller ailing when Karen Dyer William Isaacson nathan Schiller Nikas Karen Dyer Luke Harlan Levy n Dunn Nicholas Gravante Harlan Levy Karen Dyer en Dunn Sean O’Shea Nicholas Gravante Christopher Caldwell Karen Dunn Luke NikasIsaacson 2018 Lawdragon n Dyer William d to the Luke Nikas en Dyer Stuart Singer Legend ller William Isaacson Sean O’Shea olas Gravante Harlan LevySteve Sean O’Shea holas Gravante Zack Harlan Levy Stuart SingerStuart Singer d toIsaacson the Luke Nikas am iam Isaacson Luke Nikas Steve SeanZack O’Shea Steve Zack an lanLevy Levy ante Sean O’Shea eNikas Nikas Stuart Singer on Stuart Singer Steve Zack an O’Shea n O’Shea Steve Harlan Levy William Isaacson NatashaZack Harrison art Singer rt Singer 2018 Lawdragon Legend ve Zack e Zack

agers, and nd efficient

Stuart Singer

Jonathan Schiller 2018 Lawdragon Legend

Nicholas Gravante 2018 Lawdragon Legend

Sean O’Shea

Steve Zack

Lawdragon Hall of Fame

Issue 19 LAWDRAGON INC. PUBLISHER/CHIEF

305 W. Broadway #239 New York, NY 10013

EXECUTIVE OFFICER K atrina D ewey katrina @ lawdragon . com

© Lawdragon Inc. 2018 All rights reserved.

Reproduction in whole or in part without written

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF/SENIOR VICE

permission is strictly prohibited. Please disregard all

PRESIDENT

solicitation, reprint and plaque requests from services

J ohn R yan

that do not use an “@lawdragon.com” email. These

john @ lawdragon . com

are unauthorized and fraudulent. We request that you purchase any desired services from Carlton Dyce at

VICE PRESIDENT, BUSINESS

carlton@lawdragon.com.

DEVELOPMENT AND SALES C arlton D yce carlton @ lawdragon . com

ART DIRECTOR S ammy E lfatrany sammy @ elfatranydesign . com

ASSISTANT EDITORS J eff S chult jeff @ lawdragon . com

J ames L angford james @ lawdragon . com

For editorial inquires or to pitch stories, contact John Ryan at john@lawdragon.com.

For reprints or other promotional materials, contact Carlton Dyce at carlton@lawdragon.com.

You can also purchase products at the Lawdragon Shop at www.lawdragon.com/lawdragon-shop.

EDITORIAL ASSISTANT M ichelle F ox michelle @ lawdragon . com

COVER DESIGN S tephanie B lackman sb @ blackmandesign . net

LAWDRAGON PHOTOGRAPHY L aura B arisonzi , A my C antrell , D ave C ross , L aura C rosta , R ory E arn S haw , E li M eir K aplan , M ichelle N olan , C hris R enton , K en R ichardson

10

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

CHRISTOPHER A. SEEGER

Christopher A. Seeger is widely recognized as one of the nation’s most versatile and accomplished plaintiff attorneys. He has led some of the most groundbreaking and prominent litigations in the U.S., including the NFL Concussion Litigation, where he served as lead counsel and chief negotiator in obtaining an uncapped settlement valued at over $1 billion on behalf of thousands of retired NFL players and their families.

Mr. Seeger's other leadership positions include Plaintiff's Steering Committee and the Negotiating Committee in the nationwide Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation, resulting in a $21 billion settlement; Chair of the Trial Committee in the Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Multidistrict Litigation (MDL), resulting in a $1 billion settlement; Co-Lead Counsel in the Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, resulting in a $4.85 Billion settlement; the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in the Depuy Orthopaedics ASR Hip Implant Products MDL, resulting in an almost $3 billion settlement; and the Syngenta Corn Litigation, resulting in a $1.5 billion settlement. He also serves as Co-Lead Counsel in the Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability MDL and Interim Co-Lead Counsel in the nationwide Intel CPU Litigation.

With offices in New York, New Jersey and Philadelphia, Seeger Weiss LLP is one of the preeminent trial law firms in the nation, representing clients in pharmaceutical injury, personal injury, medical malpractice, product liability, environmental 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 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 everything when everyone else is afraid.’”

SEEGERWEISSLLP DRUG AND TOXIC INJURY

PERSONAL INJURY

CLASS ACTIONS

55 Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 888.584.0411 212.584.0700 WWW.SEEGERWEISS.COM INFO@SEEGERWEISS.COM

WHISTLEBLOWER LITIGATION

COMMERCIAL DISPUTES

CONGRATULATIONS TO ROBBINS GELLER’S

2018 LEADING LAWYERS IN AMERICA: Darren Robbins, Paul Geller, Samuel Rudman, Spencer Burkholz, Daniel Drosman, Shawn Williams, Randall Baron, Rachel Jensen, and Mike Dowd, who was inducted into the Lawdragon Hall of Fame.

THE RIGHT CHOICE | www.rgrdlaw.com

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

DANIEL DANIEL DANIEL G.G.G. WHALEN WHALEN WHALEN Southern Southern Southern California California California DANIEL DANIEL DANIEL G. G. G. WHALEN WHALEN WHALEN

Super Super Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer 2013-2014 2013-2014 2013-2014 Southern Southern Southern California California California SC SC Super SC Super Super Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer 2004-2009, 2004-2009, 2004-2009, 2012-2016 2012-2016 2012-2016 Super MH MH MH AV AV AV Preeminent® Preeminent® Preeminent® Super Super Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer 2013-2014 2013-2014 2013-2014 Law Law Dragon Dragon Legend Legend Legend 2004-2016 2004-2016 2004-2016 SCLaw SCSuper SCDragon Super Super Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer 2004-2009, 2004-2009, 2004-2009, 2012-2016 2012-2016 2012-2016 Super Law Law Law Dragon Dragon Dragon Legend Legend Legend 2004-2016 2004-2016 2004-2016

STEVEN STEVEN STEVEN C.C.SHUMAN C.SHUMAN SHUMAN

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

BRIAN BRIAN J.J.HEFFERNAN J.HEFFERNAN HEFFERNAN ELIZABETH ELIZABETH ELIZABETH L.L.CROOKE L.CROOKE CROOKE BRIAN

RICHARD RICHARD RICHARD P.P.KINNAN P.KINNAN KINNAN

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

We We We Get Get We We WeGet Get Get Get Results Results Results Results Results Results and and andhave have havefor for for

and and andhave have havefor for for over over over40 40 40years years years over over over40 40 40years years years 10 10 10FIGURES FIGURES FIGURES 10 FIGURES FIGURES FIGURES in10 in10 in settlements/ settlements/ settlements/

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

GREGORY GREGORY P.P.WATERS P.WATERS WATERS STEVEN STEVEN STEVEN J.J.LIPSCOMB J.LIPSCOMB LIPSCOMB GREGORY GREGORY GREGORY P.P.WATERS P.WATERS WATERS SCSL SCSL SCSL Rising Rising Rising Star Star Star 2008-10 2008-10 2008-10 GREGORY STEVEN STEVEN STEVEN J.J.LIPSCOMB J.LIPSCOMB LIPSCOMB SCSL SCSL SCSL Rising Rising Rising Star Star Star 2008-10 2008-10 2008-10

ANDREW ANDREW ANDREW M.M.M. JACOBSON JACOBSON JACOBSON ANDREW ANDREW ANDREW M.M.M. JACOBSON JACOBSON JACOBSON

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

999FIGURES FIGURES FIGURES 9 9 9 FIGURES FIGURES FIGURES IN IN IN REFERRAL REFERRAL REFERRAL IN IN IN REFERRAL REFERRAL REFERRAL FEES FEES FEES PAID PAID PAID FEES FEES FEES PAID PAID PAID

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

BRITTAN BRITTAN BRITTAN N.N.N. CORTNEY CORTNEY CORTNEY BRITTAN BRITTAN BRITTAN N.N.N. CORTNEY CORTNEY CORTNEY

ERIC ERIC ERIC R.R.BELL R.BELL BELL ERIC ERIC ERIC R.R.BELL R.BELL BELL

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

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

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

ersonal Personal nInjury oitagInjury itiL| livProducts i|C xProducts elpmLiability oC Liability | ht|aeDMedical |lufgMedical norMalpractice W |Malpractice ecitcarp| laWrongful M| laWrongful cideMDeath | Death yti|libComplex ai|L sComplex tcudoCivil rP Civil Litigation | yrLitigation ujnI lanosreP

ersonal Personal nInjury oitagInjury itiL| livProducts i|C xProducts elpmLiability oC Liability | ht|aeDMedical |lufgMedical norMalpractice W |Malpractice ecitcarp| laWrongful M| laWrongful cideMDeath | Death yti|libComplex ai|L sComplex tcudoCivil rP Civil Litigation | yrLitigation ujnI lanosreP

ersonal Personal nInjury oitagInjury itiL| livProducts i|C xProducts elpmLiability oC Liability | ht|aeDMedical |lufgMedical norMalpractice W |Malpractice ecitcarp| laWrongful M| laWrongful cideMDeath | Death yti|libComplex ai|L sComplex tcudoCivil rP Civil Litigation | yrLitigation ujnI lanosreP

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

MEDIA COMPANIES THAT LIVE THROUGH THICK AND THIN IN A CONSTANTLY-EVOLVING CLIMATE LEARN EARLY NOT TO BE SUPERSTITIOUS, SO IT COMES AS NO SURPRISE THAT OUR 13TH YEAR FELT AS LUCKY AS ALL THE OTHERS – BEING ABLE TO CONVERSE DAILY WITH LEADERS IN THE LAW ON THE MOST IMPORTANT TOPICS, FROM THE #METOO MOVEMENT TO THE TRAVAILS OF REPRESENTING PRESIDENT TRUMP TO DISPUTES OVER PAST CIA TORTURE COMPLICATING THE SEPT. 11 CASE AT GUANTANAMO BAY. But we’d be remiss not to point out that 2018 at least felt a little different, with more overt threats to the rule of law and to the First Amendment. This past year might be remembered for churning up feelings of déjà vu while also confronting us with undeniably altered landscapes. For that reason, we saw no better choice to introduce our Lawdragon 500 guide than Anita Hill. Clearly, to some lawyers and other observers, the confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh revealed that troubling societal ills have not been cured. Yet it also occurred during a #MeToo movement that both brought and reflected real change; as Hill shows, grace and determination should prevail in noble professions.

These pages and Lawdragon.com highlight both the persistent excellence of the legendary greats – another victory by Cravath’s Evan Chesler, for example – and reinventions of renowned institutions, such as a nimble and savvy Manatt choosing Donna L. Wilson to guide its promising future. The father and son duo of Patrick A. Salvi and Patrick A. Salvi II prove the ongoing necessity of access to justice for the unprivileged, while the white-collar team at Dechert and Skadden’s regulatory leaders underscored the vast complexities of integrated legal representation in the global economy.

All of that is another way of saying that lawyers – and the journalists who cover them – need to be both in the weeds and high above the terrain, asessing developments from 30,000 feet. As we peer ahead at the landscape, whether at ground level or above, our inescapable thought is that we should all rest up – 2019 is going to be a wild year.

KATRINA DEWEY Publisher and CEO katrina@lawdragon.com

16

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | 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

A New Leader for Manatt

MANATT LAUNCHED A NEW ERA IN 2018 BY SELECTING DONNA L. WILSON AS ITS NEW MANAGING PARTNER AND CEO, WHICH WILL BE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2019. The head of the firm’s privacy and data security and co-chair of its financial services litigation practices will succeed the firm’s longtime leader, Bill Quicksilver.

“It is the greatest honor to be chosen to lead Manatt and to follow in the footsteps of Bill Quicksilver,” Wilson said. “What makes this firm so special is that we are extremely proud of our clients, our colleagues and our firm. You might say we have Manattitude – about who we are and where we’re going.”

The selection was a remarkable choice for a number of reasons that underscore a rapidly changing legal profession. Wilson was wooed to the firm as a lateral partner five years ago after a career that started with her putting herself through University of Virginia law school and then clerking for the late 9th U.S. Circuit Judge David Thompson in San Diego and the late U.S. District Judge Stanley Brotman of New Jersey. She is an inclusion advocate and active in the LGBTQ community.

“Donna has proven herself to be a leader since the day she joined Manatt,” said Quicksilver. “She has legal acumen, is a strong business developer and a team builder, and has the ability to execute. We are very fortunate to have her as our next leader.”

Wilson, a Lawdragon 500 member, will lead a firm that has changed dramatically in the past decade, transforming from one of Los Angeles’ leading political powerhouse firms into a unique, integrated business that pairs a law practice with a strategic business con-

18

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

sultancy through its Manatt Health and Manatt Digital divisions. Manatt now has nine offices with strong law practices in litigation, transactions and regulatory work; has been recognized as one of only 20 U.S. law firms on the American Lawyer’s “A List”; and has achieved perfect scores for its inclusiveness.

“What I’m most proud of over the last 11 years is the direction we are headed today, our strategic focus and the transformation of our firm. We’ve responded to what we see happening in the industry and in the economy and tried to get ahead of the pace of change to create a brand that distinguishes Manatt from our competitors,” Quicksilver said.

A thoughtful M&A specialist, Quicksilver knew Manatt needed to transform when he took the reins in 2007. The law firm world was being brought to its knees with the financial meltdown, and in California, the fight among firms to survive was brutal. Legal business plummeted and many firms either failed or were acquired. Under Quicksilver, Manatt took a different tack, engineering the expansion of its consulting services while deepening its legal bench in key emerging areas such as healthcare, digital media and privacy and cybersecurity.

“It’s a law firm so it’s like trying to basically turn a destroyer around. But once we embrace something we do it fast,” he said. Quicksilver understood that the two potential areas for more business were to take business from other firms – a tough proposition – or helping to create more business by focusing earlier in the food chain.

“The goal is to be viewed as essential to the client,” Quicksilver said. “If you’re not viewed as essential, then it’s a problem. It’s our job to provide unique value to every client we serve.”

He said the firm has succeeded in providing strategic consulting services for clients who later realize it’s best to stay with Manatt for the legal work to implement their vision.

“Our clients have embraced this strategy because what they want is their problems solved.”

That innovative spirit was what attracted Wilson to the firm. She recalls meeting with Quicksilver at Snug Harbor, a decidedly low-key hole in the wall in Santa Monica, and being immediately impressed with the thoughtful strategic changes he was leading.

“Today’s Manatt is very different from what people may think. For example, we have our historically strong practices in media and entertainment, financial services and healthcare, but we approach these industries and clients through the lens of the new economy. Our approach, inspired by our California roots, is demonstrably entrepreneurial and disruptive, as seen with the

PHOTO BY: AMY CANTRELL

BILL QUICKSILVER AND DONNA L. WILSON

development of our Manatt Health and Manatt Digital businesses,” Wilson said.

“Innovation – doing things differently – is a hallmark of Manatt. It’s always prided itself on having great lawyers but not being like all the other firms. And yet it’s a true partnership and conservatively managed,” says Bill Bernstein, who was recently elected to chair the Firm’s Board of Directors effective Sept. 1, 2018 and who established Manatt’s New York office in 2003.

“It exemplifies why people went West. Manatt brings together a different type of person.”

Manatt Health has been built under the leadership of Bernstein, who created it in 2007 to complement the firm’s health law services with strategic consulting on the ever-changing health landscape. It has 70 consultants at Manatt Health Strategies practicing alongside roughly 30 health regulatory lawyers and 60 additional lawyers from the firm who work on various health matters. Manatt Health has a blue-chip client roster that reads like a who’s who in health care today and is relied

Wilson’s election resulted from a new process undertaken by the firm’s Board of Directors. Under the leadership of litigation rainmaker Greg Pimstone, the Board established the Managing Partner Selection Committee, which consulted a wide and diverse range of stakeholders at Manatt to identify candidates. Quicksilver talked to those who considered it, advising them on what the job entails: a lot of listening, learning things you don’t know and leadership, among others.

“What was extraordinary to me about the process was there were very diverse people on the committee, it was not a popularity contest and it was very thoughtful,” says Bernstein. “Donna is a great choice and we feel it’s going to be a really great next chapter.”

Pimstone was particularly impressed with the collegiality of the candidates and the process, which when handled poorly can factionalize law firms. “But at all different levels – from partner to senior administrative staff to associates – everyone was engaged and the firm came together and rallied around the process. The goal was to “Today’s Manatt is very different from what people may be transparent and inclusive think. For example, we have our historically strong prac- and I think we achieved that.”

On June 9, 2018, Wilson tices in media and entertainment, financial services and presented her vision of the future Manatt to the Board healthcare, but we approach these industries and clients and Selection Committee.

The Board voted to approve through the lens of the new economy. ” Wilson as the new Managing Partner and on June 11 she was elected by Manatt’s on for everything from detailed strategic planning, to equity partners.

She will become Managing Partner large-scale transactions to major litigation. It is also on July 1, 2019, and will work with Quicksilver in the known for its in-depth knowledge of how the health meantime on the transition. policy landscape is changing and in the last three years The firm is recently riding a wave of strong results, has built a health analytics shop allowing it to use big from rising profits per partner and gross revenue to data to inform its business analyses. Lead attorneys and acquisition of big name lawyers including former White consultants in the practice include many with storied House Counsel Jack Quinn to its fabled Washington, backgrounds as major industry players.

D.C. office founded by Chuck Manatt and now led by Manatt Digital, meanwhile, is led by Lisa Suennen, a Doug Boggs. Another member of a fabled political leading venture capitalist who recently joined the firm. family, Kathleen Brown, joined the firm in Los Angeles It, too, grew from the firm’s strength in entertainment in 2013. and media law and the recognition of the consulting Few were surprised that the firm, which has always opportunities that would arise with the convergence been a meritocracy, chose Wilson as its next leader. of entertainment and media with new technologies Pimstone added that, throughout the process, there and platforms for content distribution and interface was an appreciation for the sweet spot Wilson brings. with clients.

“She’s been here long enough to know what aspects Today, Manatt’s business strategy consulting expertise of the firm should be preserved, she’s become intecompetes with McKinsey, Bain and Deloitte and serves grated, well known and appreciated; and at the same as a conduit for legal business to the firm’s 330 lawyers. time she brings fresh ideas and new perspectives based The strategy has also ensured the firm can continue to on her experiences elsewhere that will rejuvenate and strengthen other core values, including inclusiveness make the firm an even better place.” and a robust public interest and pro bono practice.

20

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

We wanted to be part of a law firm committed to legal excellence, partner diversity, associate training, and public service. So we built it.

When we launched Selendy & Gay in 2018, we didn’t think the world needed another law firm. We thought it needed a better one— one willing to rethink the way things have always been done. Yet while our culture may look different than most, our work is exactly as you’d expect: meticulous, creative, and, most of all, winning.

Selendy & Gay is proud to be recognized in LawDragon’s 500 Leading Lawyers in America.

selendygay.com | 212-390-9000

From left to right: Travis Lenkner, Ashley Keller and Adam Gerchen

The Disruptors After Selling the World’s Fastest-Growing Legal Finance Company, the Keller Lenkner Guys Decided to Practice Law

Lawyers fear change.

It’s ingrained. Required. Incrementalism is the law of the realm – take what’s been done before, find a way to make a new situation resemble it and you’re golden.

Nowhere is that alchemy honed and burnished as in the chambers of U.S. Supreme Court Justices. Travis Lenkner and Ashley Keller clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy there, finding ways to fit, fiddle and fuse hundred-year-old words with current dilemmas. Combine, contrast, churn and create, making what’s old new and what’s new forever.

Keller and Lenkner brought remarkable achievements to their time at 1 First St. NE, Washington, D.C. Lenkner had clerked for Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the D.C. Circuit, while Keller had clerked for the 7th Circuit’s Richard Posner. From there, the two would craft fast early success at, respectively, Gibson Dunn and Boeing; and Bartlit Beck and Alyeska.

In 2013, they joined with Adam Gerchen, whom Keller had met at Alyeska, where the two had invested in companies facing legal issues. They formed Gerchen Keller, a harder-edged, more clear-eyed upstart in the still uneven litigation funding world. The trio rocketed to success, raising more than $1B before selling in December 2016 to Burford, the London-listed standard bearer for the industry. The price tag? A cool $175 million.

After the requisite year at Burford the itch to build kicked in anew.

Strike that. Some lawyers fear change. And these guys, they don’t.

Gerchen was looking at the inflamed tweets of Elon Musk on August 7, when the CEO tweeted “Am considering taking Tesla private @ $420. Funding secured.”

Musk was in a battle with short sellers of his company’s stock, whom he tanked with those 52 characters. They lost hundreds of millions of dollars when Tesla rose by $45.57 to $379.57 in response.

Keller Lenkner filed suit. On August 10, Ashley Keller signed a complaint charging that Musk, the Company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Tesla violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading statements about taking Tesla private.

They claim Musk lied, and “Tweeted to decimate the Company’s short-sellers who were forced to cover their positions over the succeeding days at artificially inflated prices.”

The Tesla suit is one of a handful of inspired claims filed

by Keller Lenkner in its first year in business. Others are the appeal of a claim that Uber misclassifies its drivers as independent contractors; and a lawsuit on behalf of classes of purchasers of health insurance, including businesses and individuals buying on the Affordable Care Act

PHOTO BY: MICHELLE NOLAN

exchanges, against opioid manufacturers for flooding small towns throughout the Midwest with enough drugs to kill a hundred villages.

Add to that Travis Lenkner’s role helping Kavanaugh, his first law boss, win confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court and you start to understand that this is their time.

What they bring to the plaintiff bar is deep legal analysis, unparalleled understanding of the quality of various cases and lawyers – and cash. Their potential impact on the future of plaintiff litigation is profound, not only because of their close ties to a transforming judiciary, but also their vision of bringing the next generation to the fore. Not in ten years. Today.

From the beginning,

Gerchen, Keller and Lenkner have built their brand by marketing it to the lawyers on the front line, one lawyer at a time, finding a foothold in a firm and securing the battle line. They used the strategy in litigation funding, targeting plaintiff matters at defense firms. The gambit was so successful they ended up funding entire portfolios of litigation matters for firms.

Key to the strategy was the decision to not spend their time trying to persuade those with the most to lose – the senior, established trial lawyers leading the firms – of the need to embrace a new day. They lasered on the lawyers waiting for their shot.

“There has always been a natural inclination, on the funding side and now here on the legal side to be partnering as much as possible with our peers,” says Gerchen, a Goldman Sachs alum who is CEO of the firm. “There’s an opportunism and nimbleness that we describe ourselves with that tends to be shared more with the new guard as opposed to the old guard.”

A look at their co-counsel in their biggest suits thus far is telling: Eric George of Los Angeles’ Browne George Ross in Tesla; Michael Geibelson of L.A.’s Robins Kaplan in Uber; and Will Consovoy and Michael Park of Consovoy McCarthy in opioids. These are not the usual suspects.

Instead, they are the lawyers on the front line of the battle, and the new guard who are very likely about to change the plaintiff power structure.

Part natural affiliation through the social network of 30-somethings, and part strategy, Gerchen says the relationships reflect where they want to be in five years: Who are going to be the future leaders of those organizations, if they’re even still at those organizations?

“The first is just the natural world order and who’s on top of those organizations and whether they even want change. Do they even need to embrace change?” he asks. “Versus, the folks more on the front line who see the landscape shifting and realizing that this is a strategic

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

23

benefit to be thinking about having a risk-based culture.”

As a result, Gerchen says, the focus of their relationshipbuilding is not the “proverbial gray hair” partners but younger partners who can eventually effect change throughout an entire organization.

“We generally find that change can bubble up from beneath and there’s the power,” he says.

The opioid lawsuits –

in which the firm represents businesses and individuals who paid higher rates for insurance – demonstrate Keller Lenkner’s impact right out of the gate. “We’re proud of the fact that this was our idea,” says Keller, who conceived of the claim like an antitrust damages analysis – that everybody who is buying private health insurance is paying a higher premium as a result of what the defendants have done.

The suits claim that the defendant pharmaceutical companies misrepresented the addictive properties associated with their products and funded front groups that were supposedly relying on medical science, but in reality were just pumping product. As a result, the number of opioid prescriptions skyrocketed.

“You had thousands of pills going into towns that have hundreds of people,” Keller says. “It’s a terrible health and humanitarian crisis. People who were covered by these private health insurance plans received medical treatment that they otherwise wouldn’t have, had the misconduct not occurred.”

The firm has joined with Consovoy McCarthy for suits in 16 states. They’ve also formed good relationships with firms like Lieff Cabraser and others that represent the municipalities and counties in the more traditional suits over the crisis.

“We all have the same objective, which is to get a recovery and to ensure that this crisis is quelled and that opioids are only prescribed for appropriate purposes as opposed to a widespread substitute for Advil that they have become,” says Keller. “We’re in a position where, with respect to our clients, we’re providing the costs, and we’re fronting our time in exchange for a portion of the hoped-for recovery.”

The lure of a plaintiff firm that can pay its own way is substantial. Keller describes the firms they work with as “co-venture partners” – well-capitalized firms that can also put their dollars to risk.

At the heart of their disruption

is a reality anyone in the law business has known forever.

The law is a thing of beauty, allowing mere mortals to give justice in matters profound and mundane for clients of grace as well as malice. But its practice in these times is 24

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

that of a steel-trap leviathan ingesting whatever is large enough to get through its maw on the way to rewarding an ever-aging populace dependent on outsize salaries for a little thing we call law.

Insert irony. Because after pocketing their huge return from the sale of Gerchen Keller – and the lessons learned observing the current pack of plaintiff counsel as well as the inefficient structures of big law firms, Gerchen, Keller and Lenkner decided to create a law firm in which they are using the fruits of their successful bets on earlier plaintiff suits to fund their seats on the biggest claims around.

They say that running a high-end plaintiff-side contingency fee firm involves a similar skill set to being a high-end litigation funder.

“At the end of the day, you’re evaluating the risk-reward of an opportunity or case, and determining whether it’s going to produce a good outcome,” says Keller. “As a law firm, we are ethically bound to zealously represent our clients, so we’re taking a different role in approaching the same kind of monetary question, which is, ‘is this a good investment of firm resources’ as opposed to ‘is this a good investment of fund capital?’”

The switch brings the advantage of having much more of a strategic voice and open line of communication with the client. Keller says it’s also more exciting because as lawyers they gain access to more information – such as privileged materials they did not see as funders – enabling them to strike a better risk-reward calculation.

Their experience at Gerchen Keller was largely with plaintiff matters handled by big defense firms, giving them valuable insight on the needs of the defense bar.

Which they are now taking on.

What they saw as litigation funders and now is that, despite the proliferation of litigation funding, law remains an undercapitalized sector compared with most other service sectors. Despite the opportunity, Keller says the excitement comes from picking great cases and partners as opposed to merely providing capital.

Gerchen adds that the new firm will be able to avoid making decisions because they are over-leveraged; instead, he says, they can go “toe-to-toe with the whiteshoe firms.”

“If the merits are on our side, you’re going to get a meaningful recovery, because the other side can’t just bury us by throwing money at the problem,” he says.

“We can match that. That is a significant advantage that I think we bring to the marketplace.”

The firm is also moving in on

select appellate cases, as it’s done on Uber. Several years ago, Uber was sued over classifying its drivers as independent contractors. The company won a decision that

RE ID I COLLI NS I TSAI

LLP

We are proud to congratulate our founding partners William “Bill” T. Reid, IV, P. Jason Collins, and Lisa S. Tsai on being named to the 2018 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.

Keller Lenkner’s focus on appellate matters stems not so much from economics – appeals aren’t costly - as the group’s deep reach into the evolving mindset of the federal appeals bench.

Uber Black drivers are independent contractors. Keller Lenkner reached out to Sacks Weston Diamond, which handled the case at trial, and offered its services. The firm is now representing the drivers in partnership with the firm, arguing to the 3rd Circuit that the trial court made a mistake.

“Uber’s drivers should be classified as employees, or at a minimum, a reasonable jury could find that,” says Keller.

The national implications of the ruling are part of the appeal. Keller says the 3rd Circuit would be the first appellate court to address the classification issue, which has huge implications for Uber, Lyft and the gig economy generally. Joining the case for the appeal allows Keller Lenkner to bring its experience and expertise to bear when the stakes are highest.

Keller Lenkner’s focus on appellate matters stems not so much from economics – appeals aren’t costly - as the group’s deep reach into the evolving mindset of the federal appeals bench. It’s a situation where they think they can couch the arguments in the most compelling way possible and draw on their appellate experience.

The firm believes that injecting that perspective earlier into the process than is normally considered in a triallevel, plaintiff-side case can have massive implications, monetary and otherwise.

The amplitude of bringing a deep, conservative mindset to plaintiff matters can be seen in the firm’s recent addition of Warren Postman, who clerked with Keller and Lenkner at the Supreme Court for Justice David Souter, worked at Jones Day, then ran the appellate division at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “You’re talking about a person who understands quite well how big corporations think about issues and appeals-type work. We now get 26

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

to use his big brain for the forces of good,” says Keller.

Would it strike a plaintiff as a bit nuts to hire the former appellate head of the U.S. Chamber as counsel?

“To the contrary,” Keller says. “You’re making a very sane choice.”

He says it typically doesn’t matter whether a judge is a Republican or Democratic appointee – what matters is advocacy before thoughtful people who want to apply the law to the facts before them. For that reason, Keller says his team’s defense-side and corporate experience brings a huge benefit by resonating with different types of jurists.

“We have the ability to present and package our arguments in a fashion that are going to have appeal to the sorts of judges who wouldn’t normally be thought of as plaintiff-side judges,” he says.

One of the most mesmerizing components of Keller Lenkner’s practice is its entry into the plaintiff securities litigation arena. In part because of the financial chops Gerchen brings to the area, the firm is filing the occasional suit, like the one against Tesla.

Keller says the firm will not go after the simple and small stock-drop suits but instead pick their spots when they are “uniquely positioned” to pursue the claims.

Gerchen’s financial background will be key in identifying promising finance-oriented suits, and working their way through discovery. Another of the firm’s cases is a securities fraud suit against AbbVie for its Dutch tender, for which Keller Lenkner has been appointed lead counsel.

“We pride ourselves on the marriage of law and finance,” Gerchen says. “The qualitative side of identifying and managing talent, and the quantitative side of allocating our resources. That’s what we do.”

Congratulations to Lawdragon 500 Awardees

Elizabeth J. Cabraser and Kelly M. Dermody

Elizabeth J. Cabraser, PARTNER

San Francisco New York Nashville Seattle lieffcabraser.com

Kelly M. Dermody, PARTNER

HOW TO BUILD A FASTER

Reid Collins & Tsai Was Already a Force. It Turbocharged When It Added Marc Dworsky

BY KATRINA DEWEY

IN AN AGE OF SELF-ACCLAIMED LAW FIRM INNOVATION, IT’S ACTUALLY PRETTY RARE WHEN THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD. So it was eye-catching when one of the nation’s more ingenious, success-fee trial practices added a mastermind of legal defense to their already noteworthy ranks.

We’re talking, of course, about plaintiffs’ trial firm Reid Collins & Tsai joining forces with Marc Dworsky, a longtime Munger Tolles & Olson partner. Dworsky oversaw the global defense of Bank of America and Wells Fargo in the mortgage-backed securities litigation fallout from the 2008 financial collapse, while RCT, led by founder William T. Reid IV, has racked up well over $1B in victories.

“Imagine if you had a Ferrari and you strapped an extra engine in the front of the Ferrari, so you had one in the front and one in back and you doubled the horsepower – that’s what Marc is to RCT,” says Scott Ellington, Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel of Highland Capital Management L.P. “He is truly a unique guy. I’ve seen the best of the best all the way down to the worst of the worst, and those two guys can go toe to toe with anyone, and they do it with such aplomb.”

“I believe we have some of the brightest legal minds in the country solving an array of complicated legal problems spanning the globe,” said Reid. “Our legal issues present themselves in the form of a multidimensional chess board. I cannot think of anyone better to add to our team to help solve those problems than Marc. He is truly one of the most brilliant legal strategists I have ever encountered, and we are honored to call Marc our partner.”

Reid and Dworsky first faced off a decade ago.

Dworsky had represented UBS in a set of Ponzi-based mass and class actions. When the Ponzi litigation was resolved, Dworsky was hired by one of the plaintiffs’ firms prosecuting those cases to defend it in a malpractice claim. And Reid and his partner Eric Madden were the lawyers prosecuting that claim.

“I loved the way Bill approached the case. It was exactly what I’d always hoped to see from my adversaries because it’s how I litigate,” Dworsky recalls. “I believe in litigation on the merits, straightforward, no B.S.” Dworsky met with Reid and challenged aspects of the claim. “He told me why I was wrong or conceded when I was right.” Dworsky says. “And he gave me the documents I needed to see, and then we sat down for a mediation, and he put on a presentation for our client that, honestly, was devastatingly good. It really

gave me an insight to what it would be like to face a trial with him. So, we would fight during the day, and at night, we would go out and party together.”

It’s a mutual admiration society, says Reid. “Even as an adversary, Marc told us things like, ‘You guys do things differently, and I appreciate that. Most people in your shoes are not open and willing to concede what they believe to be bad facts, and certainly not willing to play all their cards in the way that you’ve played them.’”

Reid says his philosophy has always been to show an opponent his entire case. “I’m going to give you a draft complaint that I’m prepared to file, and I’m happy to be told that I’m wrong, or that I’m missing something,” Reid explains. “As a success-fee lawyer, I have to use my resources carefully. Intake is one of the most critical decisions we make as a firm. So, if a case has a latent defect and we made a bad intake decision, then I want to know as soon as possible.”

The relationship deepened as they got to know one another on a case for Highland, which turned into an unexpected boon. In February 2010, Ellington called Reid and asked him to evaluate a case against some appraisers that had the potential to become a dispute with Credit Suisse. He wanted a team that included heavyweights. While Reid already had an estimable reputation, his firm was then just threemonths old and had only nine lawyers. Reid asked if Munger Tolles would suffice.

Ellington’s response was a spicy variation of, “You’ve got to be kidding me.” Munger Tolles was an unlikely candidate to joint venture a contingency case with a plaintiffs’ firm. But the mutual respect Reid and Dworsky had formed as adversaries created the trust that led to what may have been Munger Tolles’ first-ever plaintiffs’ contingency-fee case.

“Marc’s reputation certainly was extremely well known, and his track record was impeccable,” said Ellington. While Munger Tolles exited the case after the initial appraiser claim was settled, RCT proceeded on its own to prosecute and try the Credit Suisse case over six weeks to a jury and a judge.

The result was a fraud and breach of contract judgment against the global investment bank that now exceeds $360M with interest.

Naturally, if you’re going to build a faster Ferrari, there is nowhere better to shake hands on it than at a Formula One event. After leaving Munger Tolles, and enjoying a brief but adventurous stint exploring life, his family, and the world, Dworsky was ready for a new challenge. He and Reid had mused many times about joining forces, and they poetically sealed the 30

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Marc Dworsky

deal at RCT’s annual Grand Prix party in Austin, where Dworsky and his wife shared a festive weekend with RCT lawyers and clients, and expectedly, felt right at home.

“Marc really respects our team, likes our approach, and wants to be a part of it for all the right reasons,” says Reid. “He basically said to me, ‘Bill, I want to work with you guys because I want to have fun in the remainder of my career. I want to do some cool stuff, I want to go take down some big cases over the next several years. And the bottom line is I’ll trust that you’ll be fair with me.’” Reid was flabbergasted, “Who does that in 2018? That is a guy I want on my team.”

For his part, Dworsky says he’s done everything anyone could hope to do in a defense-lawyer career.

“And I knew from then on, I would just be putting one foot in front of the other repeating it, only for the sake of money until they wheeled me off,” Dworsky says.

“And I just felt there had to be more to life.”

Having spent decades representing Fortune 100 companies at one of the most prestigious defense firms, Dworsky says he has a keen insight into the way big institutions think and approach high-stakes litigation. “I understand what drives an institution, healthy or unhealthy, in assessing the risks they face,” he says. On the flip side, “what typically happens

PHOTO BY: AMY CANTRELL

Bill Reid

with a plaintiffs’ law firm is they profess an ability and willingness to litigate, but it’s really just a choreographed dance, and everyone knows the steps, and you go through them.” But Dworsky observes that Reid’s upfront exercise shows that the willingness to litigate is authentic – “the hammer is real,” without any posing.

“It’s a hell of a model,” Dworsky continues. “They’re a brilliant bunch of people already. They don’t need me to generate opportunities. But I think that I can help them bring better opportunities and maximize the ones that they have and have fun at the same time.”

Ellington saw their effectiveness together firsthand, and has good reason for his belief that – call them what you will, a Faster Ferrari, or Seal Team 6 meets James Bond – they are a better mousetrap. Ellington manages 137 active firms globally in corporate transactions and litigation disputes, from single practitioners in Iowa handling shopping center foreclosures to Magic Circle firms in London working on complex international matters.

He compares Reid’s team to special-forces units who are dropped behind enemy lines with little intelligence or resources but still pull off miracles.

32

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

“That’s what Bill’s squad can do,” Ellington says. “I have matters where Bill, another partner, and a couple associates, have taken on literally 40 timekeepers.

And Bill’s squad is able to bring them to their knees just like a special forces unit can wipe out a battalion by hiding and sniping them.”

Ellington says that adding Dworsky to the mix, with his experience in navigating some of the most complex financial disputes in history, creates an even more formidable unit. “They will be truly lethal,” says Ellington.

He points out that most of Dworsky’s career has been devoted to being “the ultimate fixer” and “macro problem solver” for investment banks and other corporate clients, which gives him an unrivaled perspective. “Marc has already seen the inner workings and the sausage making of how any bulge bracket investment bank is going to approach the dispute,” Ellington says.

Ellington also praises Dworsky’s ability to evaluate what a case is worth – a skill Reid is looking forward to enhancing his team’s already formidable chops in that area.

“His ability to pinpoint what another party, the counterparty, will pay in terms of settlement or how they’ll view their risk is utterly invaluable,” says Ellington. Marc is a world-class expert in evaluating these types of issues and does it with the calmest, Zen-like manner that I’ve ever seen.”

“We are ready for the next wave of big cases. We want our fair share, and we’re going to be very selective. But we’re going to go hard after what we want, and Marc’s going to be a critical part of those efforts,” says Reid.

Their timing is impeccable. “As the next financial downturn unfolds, which I don’t think is far around the corner, with Marc on our side we are the perfect pitch team,” says Reid, who has his eye on looming problems in the financial sector.

He envisions the power of a pitch along the lines of, “Marc is one of the most brilliant legal strategists I’ve met as an adversary, now he’s on our team.

He allows us to tap into the mindset of our most formidable adversary who possesses the wisdom gained from a 25-year, top-of-the-heap, defense lawyer’s mindset.

“I have always been a big believer in group thinking,” he said. “I love the idea of having Marc be a part of that. I think we are destined for even greater success together.”

PHOTO BY: DAVE CROSS

LEADING THE WAY

From left: Bruce W. Bowman, Jr. Todd Shadle Donald E. Godwin George R. Carlton, Jr.

Three Godwin Bowman PC attorneys selected to the 2018 Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers plus a new selection to the Top 100 Most Powerful Employment Lawyers Since 1980, Godwin Bowman PC has successfully represented a remarkable group of clients, from Fortune 500 companies to individuals seeking trial and appellate representation. Our firm’s success has been built upon the outstanding courtroom skills of trial lawyers like Donald E. Godwin, who has achieved his fourth consecutive selection to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America* in 2018, Bruce W. Bowman, Jr. who has attained

his second selection to the list, and George R. Carlton Jr. who has been recognized among the Lawdragon 500 for the first time. 2018 also marks the first selection of Godwin Bowman PC attorney, Todd Shadle, to the ranks of the 100 Most Powerful Employment Lawyers*.

Congratulations to each of these exceptional attorneys!

*The Lawdragon 500, the 100 Most Powerful Employment Lawyers, and the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America Guide are compiled and published by Lawdragon, Inc.

GODWIN BOWMAN

PC

GODWINBOWMAN.COM | 214-939-4400

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

n o i t p

d a o R

icv t r ou C e e. m m e o r c p . Su ears to a Dewey S . aU r y Katrin o o f t n By path petitio e i d -or- ge com o d ed a ill chan s r e tw rav t a h h t t a x Crav or AmE f tory

R

m e ed

Redemption is not for the faint of heart. Because to find it means you lost something that mattered.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ohio v. American Express offered more than redemption to one of America’s iconic companies, as well to the team of trial lawyers from Cravath who took a 10-year journey with their client to taste sweet victory.

For AmEx, the case was a gutsy validation of its business model and of CEO Kenneth Chenault’s belief – not only in its exclusive card – but also in his Cravath team.

And for that team – Evan Chesler, Peter Barbur and Kevin Orsini – Ohio was the creation of a new body of antitrust law that will likely redefine competitive relationships for decades to come.

For Chesler, who has accomplished nearly everything a lawyer possibly could – Presiding Partner and now Chairman of Cravath; decades of recognition as one of the nation’s best trial lawyers – it added that rare, final piece: arguing and winning his first U.S. Supreme Court case.

To understand the measure of redemption exacted

by Chesler’s team, you need only know this: the week before the Court’s decision in Ohio, a Wall Street firm issued an advisory to short AmEx. You rarely see a sure thing like this on Wall Street. The loss will be profound to the AmEx business model … this is probably going to be a 30 or 40 percent impact on the value of the AmEx Corporation.

On June 25, the trio of Chesler, Barbur and Orsini sat in an office at 825 8th Ave. in New York playing Supreme Court Clue as the decisions trickled out toward the term’s denouement. They had learned the intricacies of anticipation over the past year as they consulted the top Supreme Court advocates and courtwatchers to prepare – and now await – the court’s ruling.

An important rule in divining which justice might be writing your opinion – and thus perhaps whether you’ve won or lost – is that one justice is assigned one opinion per sitting, and a sitting is a month. Courtwatchers – think of them as the birdwatchers of the judiciary – track who has already published opinions from each month then tick those justices off their list. If Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has already written an opinion from the month in which your argument was held, for example, she’s not writing your opinion.

“The question becomes who’s left?” says Chesler.

“We were driving ourselves insane,” says Orsini.

A second rule is that on a day when decisions are announced, the most junior justice who wrote an opinion delivers the first decision; if there are additional decisions they are given in ascending order of seniority.

The prior Friday, June 22, Chesler was flying home from Germany, when the court issued an opinion in Currier v.

Virginia – a double jeopardy case argued in February, the

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

37

same month as Ohio. And it was authored by the justice the team hoped would draw Ohio, Justice Neil Gorsuch.

“The world goes completely sideways,” says Chesler.

“There it goes. Gorsuch is gone.”

And now it’s Monday. Joined in misery and anticipation, Orsini is checking the Supreme Court site, and the Texas gerrymandering case, Abbott v. Perez, comes down.

Its author is Justice Samuel Alito, whom the team had staked its hopes on after Gorsuch came off the board.

No Alito, no Gorsuch. Five cases to go from the entire nine-month term and only one remaining from February: Theirs. They also now knew – a third rule of Supreme Court gamesmanship – that there was a second decision coming that morning. Not because the Supreme Court announces how many there will be; they don’t. But rather because the courtwatchers count the number of boxes carried into the courtroom.

“The rule that it couldn’t be Gorsuch didn’t apply to those other cases, it only applied to our case,” said Chesler. “So we’re sitting here saying ‘All right. Five cases left, one of which is ours. One more case coming down today. And whoever wrote the other opinion that is about to come out is senior to Justice Alito.”

That meant if the second case was Ohio, the author would have to be Justice Clarence Thomas for the team to prevail. “Because he’s the only justice senior to Alito who is likely to have decided on our side of the case,” Chesler said.

The team endured 30 minutes of angst to the tune of Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent in Abbott. Orsini remembers the background music as simply, “Refresh.

Refresh. Refresh.”

“And I’m sitting for 30 minutes saying, “Come on, Clarence. Come on, Clarence,” says Chesler.

And then the court announced that Justice Thomas would read the decision in Ohio v. American Express.

“I leaped out of my chair when it came down. ‘It’s Thomas,’” says the typically unflappable Chesler, recounting the moment like a World Series victory.

Which, in many ways, it’s bigger than. The two-sided markets theory the Cravath team persevered to wed with established antitrust law will likely change antitrust enforcement and competition in ways we can’t now envision. It’s certain to reverberate far beyond the creditcard industry.

Multibillion-dollar technology platforms like Google and Amazon also operate in two-sided markets, offering services to consumers as well as to businesses seeking to reach consumers. The AmEx decision may better insulate them from intervention by an increasingly skeptical Justice Department. As perhaps a first sign of this, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions held a meeting just three months after the decision with state prosecutors to 38

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

consider how antitrust law might apply to Silicon Valley giants. Because, in fact, most of the modern economy could be considered two-sided.

Economists had debated the two-sided market theory before Chesler latched onto it as a hail Mary for AmEx’s defense against the claims way back in 2010. He realized that it was do or die for AmEx to persuade as many jurists as possible that the only correct way to analyze AmEx – and much of the modern economy – is to not just look at the player, but to look at the game. In other words, markets had moved beyond a player’s impact on price, and what modern markets required was an examination of each of the markets in which the player competes. For AmEx, the whole market included both the merchants it charged higher fees to use its cards – while requiring them to not “steer” customers to the cheaper cards – as well as consumers, who have enjoyed huge expansions of benefits and choice, including a bounty of benefits for being AmEx customers. Who doesn’t need a titanium card? The team went so far as to construct a new term to describe the impact of a two-sided market: net fees.

“You can’t have a market in which only the merchant is included, because without the consumer, there’d be no transaction,” said Chesler. “It was that simple. We spent 10 years fighting about it, but it was literally that simple.”

Simple to say, not so much to litigate. And the stakes could not have been higher. With only 53 million cards, American Express was a decided underdog to MasterCard and Visa, which together account for 432 million of the credit cards used in the U.S. Soon after the first suit was filed in 2010, MasterCard and Visa settled. AmEx couldn’t afford to.

That’s because almost all AmEx customers also carry a MasterCard or Visa, but that river doesn’t flow both ways. If the market became a steering “free-for-all” with merchants allowed to “prefer” the cheaper cards, AmEx would lose.

Chenault “believed that to his toes, based upon his almost 30 years’ experience dealing with these issues,” said Orsini, who began working on the case in 2007, when he was an associate assigned to Chesler and the government had begun requesting documents from the companies.

AmEx debuted its two-sided markets case before U.S. District Court Judge Nicholas Garaufis in Brooklyn in October 2010, presenting an amalgamation of caselaw that required judging anticompetitive practices based on their effect on the “market as a whole” and economic literature that characterized payment services as a two-sided market.

While the services that AmEx provides to merchants and to cardholders are not interchangeable, Chesler explained, they are parts of a whole – just as pants and jackets are components of the market for men’s suits.

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC salutes this year’s Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America and congratulates our own honorees: Agnieszka Fryszman Anita Hill Betsy Miller Julie Goldsmith Reiser Joseph Sellers Daniel Small Steven Toll

Antitrust | Civil Rights & Employment | Complex Tort Litigation | Consumer Protection Employee Benefits / ERISA | Ethics & Fiduciary Counseling | Human Rights | Public Client Securities Litigation & Investor Protection | Whistleblower / False Claims Act

202.408.4600 | cohenmilstein.com CHICAGO, IL | NEW YORK, NY | PALM BEACH GARDENS, FL PHILADELPHIA, PA | RALEIGH, NC | WASHINGTON, DC

Evan Chesler and Peter Barbur

“This was really an effort to craft a doctrine to serve our client,” said Barbur of their inspiration, a little-noticed phrase from a 2nd Circuit decision from 1995, K.N.B. Warehouse Distribs., Inc. v. Walker Mfg. Co. “It’s fair to say when the court wrote ‘market as a whole’ it wasn’t thinking about a two-sided market. We really had to graft that in.”

Garaufis was not persuaded. He accepted the government’s position that the deciding factor should be the effect of AmEx’s practices on merchant fees.

“The judge concluded that that half was the whole, in fact, and therefore decided against us,” said Chesler. He was sure Garaufis’ decision marked the end of Cravath’s role in the case - that AmEx would hire a new team to handle its appeal, just as numerous firms had retained Cravath’s services in similar circumstances over the years.

“I got a call from Ken Chenault,” Chesler recalled, “and he said, ‘This didn’t turn out as we hoped. I need you to come down here and come with me to see the board next week.’”

“We walked into the boardroom and Ken Chenault said, ‘I just want to say to everybody that we didn’t lose this case because we were outlawyered. Our team completely outlawyered the other side. We lost this case because the judge just didn’t understand what the facts were, what the law was. And the people who are going to fix this are sitting right here.’ And he pointed to me,” Chesler said.

Let the journey down redemption road begin.

Six years later, on Sept. 26, 2016, Cravath took its first hill. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned and 40

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

stayed Garaufis’ decision finding it “does not advance overall consumer satisfaction.” The appellate panel found, “Though merchants may desire lower fees, those fees are necessary to maintaining cardholder satisfaction – and if a particular merchant finds that the cost of AmEx fees outweighs the benefit it gains by accepting AmEx cards, it can choose to not accept AmEx cards.”

The Cravath team had crafted its appellate argument to be relatable to real-world experience. At the argument, Chesler recalled, the presiding judge joked that he sometimes couldn’t open his mailbox because of all the credit card offers.

“Isn’t all of that competition?” he asked the government’s lawyer.

“That’s not in the market,” the attorney answered.

“That’s all competition, but it’s not in the market.”

The appellate court found Garaufis had ignored the benefits AmEx provided cardholders, benefits that had forced card issuers to work harder to win customers attempting to one-up rivals’ rewards programs by doubling or tripling points for purchases and, in some cases, issuing metal cards carrying increased cachet.

The next two years - from the appellate victory to the Supreme Court – only felt like 20, or, as Chesler assessed it, “the winning was much better than the preparing.”

Digging deep to his days as a schoolteacher, he returned to the ratio between preparation and classroom time. “It took longer to prepare a lesson, frankly, than it did to teach the lesson. That principle was expanded to absurd limits here,” he said.

PHOTO BY: LAURA BARISONZI

90%

of the

AmLaw 100 have worked with

Burford.

Here’s why: •

We have more capital and more capacity to finance law

•

Our respected team includes 50+ lawyers who add strategic value over the life of an investment relationship

•

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

Leading companies, firms and top litigation boutiques have sought funding from Burford.

What are you waiting for?

Greg McPolin Managing Director gmcpolin@burfordcapital.com (212) 235-6820 burfordcapital.com

The conventional wisdom was, ‘You’re right on the merits on two-sided markets, but the Court will never go for it. It’s just a bridge too far.’

Preparing for the Supreme Court requires not only mastery of one’s case, but also of all the arcane and peculiar rules of the idiosyncratic institution that’s the most powerful court on earth.

Among the most important rules of Supreme Court advocacy are that the client should drop the lawyers who got them there, and hire one of the elite Supreme Court advocates who know one another’s social security numbers. That happens to be a well-known irritant among U.S. trial lawyers.

Another rule is that in crafting your argument to the justices, you should look for familiar ground in the court’s jurisprudence rather than try to sell an entire new theory.

“You need to package this in a package that the Supreme Court will want to open excitedly on Christmas morning to see what’s inside the box,” says Chesler, whose team was told by the experts that their theory wouldn’t win. “When they opened the box and they find a two-sided market inside, they’re going to give it to their cousin Elmer like a fruitcake.”

Orsini agreed. “We were told to find the path of least resistance, the narrowest holding that can still preserve your ability to either maintain your victory or a path toward victory and the obvious logic to that. But from the day we got the first investigation from the Department of Justice, we felt you could not understand this case without looking at both sides of the marketplace. So trying to go for the narrow win, in our view, was the most 42

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

likely way to guarantee a loss because it wouldn’t match the reality of the facts in the marketplace.

“At the end of the day, whatever court it is is going to be more likely to side with you when you are actually presenting an argument that comports with the facts on the ground, particularly in an antitrust case where it’s all about competitive dynamics,” he said.

There was a lot of skepticism, said Barbur. “The conventional wisdom was, ‘You’re right on the merits on two-sided markets, but the Court will never go for it. It’s just a bridge too far.”

To Chesler, part of what made the preparation so difficult is “we’re just trial lawyers. And from our perspective the world was very simple, actually. We either won or lost this case by either winning or losing the two-sided market.

“We all believed in our souls that the only way we had a chance of winning was making the two-sided argument,” said Chesler. “Even if it didn’t prevail, there wasn’t an alternative that was better. There wasn’t a Plan B that was superior to Plan A. So we said ‘We’re staking out our ground and we’re going to die on this hill if we have to.’”

During the argument, Justice Elena Kagan challenged Chesler on the two-sided market theory, and asked about the impact on merchant costs. Chesler responded, “Your honor, with respect, you’re clapping with one hand,” as he waved his left hand. And Justice Thomas turned to Justice Stephen Breyer and laughed.

Four months later, he wrote the decision.

Winn

We congratulate Roger, Charles and Jeff for being recognized as three of the “Most Powerful Employment Attorneys�

Roger K. Quillen

Charles S. Caulkins

Jeff Weintraub

Chairman & Managing Partner

Management Committee Member

Partner Memphis

Roger K. Quillen | rquillen@fisherphillips.com | 404.231.1400 Charles S. Caulkins | ccaulkins@fisherphillips.com | 954.525.4800 Jeff Weintraub | jweintraub@fisherphillips.com | 901.526.0431

fisherphillips.com

THE GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE DECHERT LLP ROUNDTABLE

TRENDS IN WHITE COLLAR DEFENSE AND INVESTIGATIONS BY: JOHN RYAN

To say that a company’s or individual’s choice for white-collar defense counsel is an immensely important decision – perhaps among the most important in the life of a business or person – is hardly an overstatement.

As Neil Gerrard, the global co-head of Dechert’s white-collar practice, succinctly puts it: “Liberty and reputation are so important to people, and to protect these things you have to be steeped in white-collar practice and culture.”

Unfortunately for those facing a civil enforcement action, criminal investigation, or both, the choice of counsel has become increasingly complex and highstakes in the globalized economy. Many companies face scrutiny by multiple agencies within their home terrain and in the various jurisdictions in which they operate, creating a maze of regulatory and investigative burdens and potential pitfalls. Such scenarios, however, are exactly what the Dechert team is designed for – and where they thrive.

For this Roundtable, Lawdragon brings together London-based Gerrard and his fellow co-practice leader, David Kelley, who is based in New York; both were police officers earlier in their careers. Joining the discussion stateside is Hector Gonzalez from New York and Vincent Cohen from Washington, D.C.; like Kelley, both partners are former federal prosecutors, and Cohen is the former acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. London partners participating in the discussion include Caroline Black, who has helped build the U.K. team since joining Gerrard in 2011; Matthew Cowie, who was a prosecutor in the Serious Fraud Office before heading to private practice; and Roger Burlingame, another former U.S. federal prosecutor who established his private practice in London.

Lawdragon: Let’s start with what you are seeing with the state of the practice now – what appears to be its global and increasingly complex nature. Neil, as a practice co-chair, can you comment on this with a thought to how your work has changed since earlier in your career?

46

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Neil Gerrard: Throughout my career I have handled investigations and prosecutions of every type, and there is a marked difference in the nature of my practice now from when I started out as a lawyer. It is partly a matter of scale, and also partly one of scope. These investigations now span continents, take years to resolve and involve dozens, if not hundreds, of parallel and competing strands. The internationalization of investigations and prosecutions has been a very important change. You simply cannot now separate a domestic prosecution or investigation from what is happening elsewhere in the world, which is why clients need counsel who are culturally nuanced and have a geographically broad reach.

Lawdragon: And David, as another co-leader, I assume you have a somewhat similar view from the U.S. side – and do you have thoughts as to the cause of these developments?

David Kelley: Many of the matters in which I am currently engaged are related to compliance, as were many of the cases I handled in my early days of private practice. But as the enforcement environment has evolved over the years and has become much more aggressive, I have seen a much greater sophistication and compliance IQ than in past years. Consequently, I think many of the investigations and problems are much more nuanced and complicated than they were even four-to-seven years ago.

As for the global question, I think many factors are involved, and which led the other is a chicken-andthe-egg question. In many ways, what we are seeing is both a natural outgrowth of a global economy, and the realization by many markets that a corrupt market is not a sustainably profitable market. The United States has led the charge in bringing integrity to the marketplace, but other countries and international organizations have followed suit based in some part

on this realization. Multinational companies in turn have slowly come to the realization that not only is good compliance good business, but it also helps you better protect the company from the various enforcement authorities.

Vincent Cohen: I will add that white-collar investigations nowadays differ in a number of ways from when I started practicing 20-plus years ago. For one, the government has more resources and, as the government’s resources have expanded, so have the scope and complexity of white-collar investigations. Related to this, the government’s investigative techniques are also now more developed and complex. For instance, as I noted in May 2018, when I appeared on a panel during the Bloomberg Law Leadership Forum, the government’s use of technology is increasingly sophisticated.

Furthermore, investigations and prosecutions are increasingly complex and accelerated as multiple agencies collaborate and share information. Domestically, it is not unusual for multiple agencies such as the Department of Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, for instance, to collaborate on one investigation and bring parallel civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings.

Within agencies, the historic dichotomy between criminal and civil attorneys is blurring in favor of coordination.

For instance, nowadays it is the norm for civil attorneys within the DOJ’s Antitrust Division who notice something unusual to alert their criminal counterparts to investigate.

There is also a lot more international coordination with enforcement agencies in different countries, such as the U.S. and U.K. collaborating and sharing information during investigations. This means there continues to be a tremendous need for the solutions white-collar attorneys offer, but it also means that we need to keep up with the ever-changing techniques and strategies and continue to develop creative strategies to better protect our clients.

Lawdragon: To stay domestic for a minute: It sounds like President Trump’s more business-friendly rhetoric, or any sentiments less favorable to aggressive regulatory efforts, have not really had an impact?

Hector Gonzalez: Anecdotally, we have seen a decrease in the frequency and intensity of anti-corruption enforcement since the election. However, I do not see this as deliberate government policy. How would anticorruption initiatives be inconsistent with a businessfriendly environment? To my mind, it is more to do with the fact that the administration is struggling to

PHOTO BY: LAURA BARISONZI

Vincent Cohen

fill some senior positions. The vacancies often prevent projects from moving forward, and I think this is why we have seen less activity from the major agencies.

Lawdragon: Turning back to the U.K.: Roger, you bring an interesting perspective having been a senior federal prosecutor in New York and then taking your talents in private practice to Dechert in London. Was your move overseas rooted in these trends?

Roger Burlingame: When I was looking to make the switch to private practice, I thought there was a need for someone with my background in London. All of the U.S. regulators in the white-collar space are taking an increasingly international approach, and as one of the world’s three financial centers, London is a primary focus of that activity. As a result, for the last five and a half years, me and my London-based team of U.S. lawyers have been incredibly busy. We’ve worked on financial crimes – front running, antitrust, price fixing, money laundering and market manipulation (a lot of spoofing of late!) – as well as Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations, sanctions evasion, and tax evasion. Basically, all the areas where the U.S. comes after companies and people overseas. We’ve represented companies and individuals being investigated by or prosecuted in various jurisdictions throughout the U.S., and it’s been incredibly useful for our clients to have

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

47

prosecute companies and individuals for this behavior.

Corruption is a global issue, so it is not surprising that the response is becoming increasingly global.

There are also more prosecutions of individuals on a U.K. and international basis. In the U.K., we’re seeing an additional focus on money laundering and asset seizure following the passing of the Criminal Finances Act of 2017. This act provided for the use of unexplained wealth orders, which makes it far easier for authorities to pursue individuals and organizations suspected of misappropriating funds through potential criminal conduct. The act also provided for a corporate offense of failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion, bringing vicarious liability to companies for the actions of their employees and agents in respect of tax crimes.

Caroline Black

the same experienced white-collar practitioners that they would hire if they were sitting in New York or D.C. facing the same problem, but with all the advantages of having me and my team down the street (or at least in a much closer time zone).

Matthew Cowie: I would add that in the U.K. we’re seeing a resurgence of revenue recognition issues. That’s not surprising; we’re in a downturn in the economy, and we’ve had years of austerity with low growth.

Fraud can be countercyclical. In the downturn, there can be pressure on finance departments and CFOs within companies to deliver good results. We’ve seen a number of such matters in the U.K. in recent years – with Tesco and Autonomy – these types of cases tend to occur when people are under pressure to produce good results for shareholders, and revenue recognition is an obvious area where there could be financial manipulation.

Well over 50% of my cases involve multiple regulators, and there are always challenges in making sure that what a lawyer from one jurisdiction insists must be done in their jurisdiction does not cause problems in a different one. It’s critical to spot these issues early, and to understand how to motivate a diverse array of international lawyers, some of whom may not be versed in cross-border investigations with multiple regulators, to work in a way where everyone is truly committed to the best resolution for the client overall. It’s a dynamic I face in case after case after case, and while it can be hard, it’s incredibly gratifying to solve it and lead a truly international team of lawyers to work as just that – a real team.

On the corruption side, we’re seeing a number of the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries responding to overseas corruption. We are working with the French who have implemented their own deferred prosecution agreement system and are bringing cases. Nonetheless the U.K., U.S. and European deferred prosecutions are not the same; they have been implemented in different countries responding to their own particular legal cultures, which brings challenges to giving advice when you are working on a multijurisdictional case.

As a general matter the trend we see is growing flexibility of legal systems to deal with corporate liability and an uptick in enforcement in European countries.

Lawdragon: Caroline and Matt, can you also weigh in on what is occupying time on the London side of the practice?

Lawdragon: Overall, where is the market at for whitecollar work in the U.K. or Europe generally compared to the U.S.?

Caroline Black: There is a continued focus on bribery and corruption by the U.K. and U.S. authorities. What is notable is that authorities from countries in Europe and South America are also now involved, seeking to

Gerrard: Compared to the United States the U.K. market is still developing. If a client goes to a law firm in the U.S. they can expect a good level of experience, but there is more of a risk in the U.K. There are still

48

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

PHOTO BY: CHRIS RENTON

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 15 Lawdragons TOP 20 – IMMIGRATION

HALL OF FAME Leadership Hall of Fame

Cesar L. Alvarez

Employment Lawyers Hall of Fame

Jonathan L. Sulds

Employment Lawyers Hall of Fame

Peter W. Zinober

LAWDRAGON 500 LEADING LAWYERS Litigation

Hilarie Bass

Litigation

Lori G. Cohen

Martha J. Schoonover

Laura Foote Reiff

UP AND COMERS I.P. Litigation

Employment

Immigration

Ian C. Ballon

Todd D. Wozniak

Kate Kalmykov

Wendy Johnson Lario

David Long-Daniels

Terence P. McCourt

TOP 100 EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS

Charles S. Birenbaum

James N. Boudreau

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. ©2018 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. Attorneys at Law. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. Contact: David Long-Daniels in Atlanta at 678.553.2100. °These numbers are subject to fluctuation.

31229

best practices for companies and individuals – and what might be viewed as best outcomes for clients?

Black: We still see attempts to downplay or deny the seriousness of criminal conduct; corporations attempting to minimize problems or not wanting to investigate issues properly. This is a high-risk strategy and not one which we would commonly advise for a corporate, as criminality is brought to the attention of the authorities in an increasing number of different ways. Companies which have not properly investigated, remediated and reported any issues run a much greater risk of prosecution when the authorities do find out, and are in a weak position when seeking to negotiate a non-prosecution resolution. For individuals, seeking to minimize or ignore a problem is never a great way of dealing with it. We often encourage clients to take a proactive approach as far as possible, as waiting and doing nothing can often mean losing any chance to influence the direction of the case.

Hector Gonzalez

too many lawyers who are re-branded former litigators without a specialist white-collar background. Nothing is more important than having specialists: liberty and reputation are so important to people, and to protect these things you have to be steeped in white-collar practice and culture. I would say that the U.K. is currently five to seven years behind the U.S., and Europe is five to seven years behind the U.K. Lawdragon: Hector, to follow on what Caroline said, what are you seeing on the Latin American side?

Hector Gonzalez: There has certainly been an increased focus on anti-corruption compliance across Latin America in recent years. In Brazil, we have seen some very large-scale investigations, and that has created a sharper focus on anti-corruption for clients with interests there. Mexico enacted a new anti-bribery statute in 2017 and this has generated intense interest for our clients doing business in Mexico. There has been a focus on this issue in those two countries, but the effects of this trend are also being seen across the rest of Latin America.

Lawdragon: David mentioned an increased maturity on the compliance front. But what mistakes are you seeing with what companies still do? In commenting, can you also share some thoughts on what constitutes 50

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Kelley: In terms of best practices, companies should ensure they have a robust investigative function and protocol for quickly and effectively getting to the bottom of any credible allegations of misconduct. Having information from such a process will help make informed decisions at the earliest stages of a government investigation so a company can decide whether to cooperate or to fight; once you start down one of those two paths it is difficult to switch courses.

Best outcomes come to those companies that can best control the narrative through their own credible and thorough investigations. This has been particularly true in the wake of the Thompson memo (a 2003 memorandum providing guidance on when to charge corporations, authored by Deputy U.S. Attorney General Larry Thompson) and its various subsequent iterations which have caused the government to rely more heavily than ever before on the company’s own investigation rather than the government’s independent investigation.

Whether the government really does place a premium on cooperation that really benefits the cooperating company is open to debate generally and must be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Cowie: I would say that if you have a quiet outcome – that is, your client does not get charged, or there is low visibility of the outcome in terms of publicity, you’ve done a good job. Being quiet is the hallmark of success, because all of these matters damage the reputation of a company or a senior executive who may want to move on in their career after the matter is over. If you never see me again, then we’ve done a good job. Another

PHOTO BY: LAURA BARISONZI

sign of success is when our clients, whether they are general counsel or compliance officers of companies, move in the market and pick up the phone because they have a regulatory or enforcement problem in their new role and they want you to help them.

Gerrard: I think it is essential that a business conducts thorough risk reviews in foreign markets where it is active, so it can properly understand local practices and customs. Businesses need to be on the front foot with compliance, obtaining pre-emptive legal advice as early as possible from lawyers who are real specialists. Then when you create systems and processes to ensure compliance, they also need to link back to your home jurisdiction, and to the U.S. if you are engaged in international business. You cannot operate two separate compliance systems. So your lawyers need to be specialists in the U.S. and your home country, plus have the international reach to assist you elsewhere in the world when necessary.

Cohen: I would advise corporate counsel engaging in global business to keep in mind the government’s emphasis on corporate compliance. Government agencies expect compliance procedures to be well drafted and well developed, but also well implemented. It is not enough to have a thick corporate compliance manual, if the company’s culture does not reflect these compliance norms. Outside counsel can assist not only with drafting compliance procedures, but also with trainings and implementation. Thus, retaining outside counsel early on is a must. The more familiarity we have with the company’s culture and needs, the more quickly and effectively we can act when concerns arise.

Lawdragon: I want to go back to what David said about controlling the narrative, and what Matt said about “a quiet outcome.” Can you discuss the crisis-management element of the practice from your experience dealing with corporate raids and other traumatic events for corporations? Is it advisable to use outside crisis counselors? And how do you toe the line of being forthcoming – if this is a situation for doing so – and preserving client rights?

Kelley: In no case are there purely legal issues that we have to deal with, but you also have to be very mindful of how investigative and compliance decisions impact business operations and potentially cause reputational harm. The magnitude needs to be evaluated in each case and you always need to be open to the notion of bringing in an outside media consultant. As with any outside consultant you need to be mindful of – and

PHOTO BY: CHRIS RENTON

Neil Gerrard

structure the dynamic and dialogue in a way that gives you the best opportunity to protect – the relationship with the attorney-client privilege.

Cohen: This comes back to my advice that businesses need to ensure they have good counsel as early as possible in any situation. Outside counsel has the advantage of being specialists with greater resources and also being more removed from the situation and, often, more able to create and implement a response without distraction. Outside counsel is also adept at balancing complex considerations such as whether the benefits of disclosure, such as cooperation credit and keeping a governmental investigation narrow, are outweighed by the merits of invoking the company’s rights and avoiding waiver issues down the road. Such decisionmaking requires a rapid, on-the-ground assessment which is often more efficiently and effectively done by outside counsel, providing the company the ability to continue to concentrate on providing services to their clients. Businesses need to make sure they are engaging the services of experienced outside counsel at the earliest opportunity.

Gerrard: Many corporates will plan to some extent for crisis situations, but it is surprising how few properly plan for regulatory intervention. This is an area often under-resourced by corporates. It is imperative that cor-

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

51

tant to ensure that warrants are correctly granted and executed – and emergency legal challenges can be considered as an option.

Lawdragon: Let’s talk a little bit about what separates the Dechert team. We can touch more on the global talents and cooperation, but what about the type of lawyers you have – including those with significant trial experience and also time on the other side of the courtroom?

Cowie: Dechert offers a full service to clients, but it is a litigation specialist. Although we do corporate work, it is a litigation-led firm, and I think that makes us somewhat different to other top firms. When somebody has a corruption problem, they also might have other civil litigation to deal with, arbitrations or asset-freezing issues. Dechert is best placed in the market to give that full service to clients who face fraud, corruption or other financial misconduct issues.

Matthew Cowie

porates have plans to cope with and manage regulatory interaction. I was part of one of the first teams in the U.K. to offer raid training and raid management programs, and we were one of the first groups to recognize the importance of crisis public relations, and how it differs materially from peace-time PR. Black: I have managed numerous raids for various clients during my career. These have ranged from large, multi-premises raids to single office searches. It is always a high pressure, high emotion time for both the company and the authority. Mistakes can be made on both sides, so it is important for the company to have someone present who is familiar with the powers and limitations of search and seizure operations to ensure no lines are crossed. We frequently help our clients by providing raid training and putting together raid procedures to help plan for the initial stages of a corporate raid. Doing the wrong thing can be catastrophic – I have seen individuals find themselves in hot water for panicked actions. It’s best to be prepared and have a plan in place.

However, I would also suggest that as part of a corporation’s raid response plan they have experienced outside counsel on hand, who can ideally be on site within an hour to liaise with the authorities and oversee the operation on behalf of the company. It is impor52

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Gonzalez: Even if you are in cooperation mode and the matter is likely to be settled, the system is nevertheless still adversarial in nature. Therefore, it is essential that defense counsel has the ability to take a matter to trial if necessary. It not only ensures consistency in the unlikely event that the matter does end up in court, but also indicates to the regulators that you are not going to be pushovers. If your legal team doesn’t have that trial experience it alters the dynamic and makes it less of a fair playing field.

In this area, we have a very deep bench. Our firm’s chairman, Andy Levander, maintains an active whitecollar practice and has helped attract and develop a robust team of litigators.

Coming through the ranks we also have the likes of Jeff Brown, Jon Streeter, and Rebecca Waldman in New York, Vince in Washington, D.C., and other younger partners across the country, all of whom are considered to be rising stars in the white-collar field. We also have a strong group of associates across the U.S. and around the world.

Lawdragon: As the younger side of the practice, how has the London bench taken shape over the years?

Black: I joined Dechert in London in 2011, when the London white-collar practice was in its infancy. Neil, with whom I had worked for six years, was already at the firm and I followed him to help build the team in London. When shaping the team, I have consistently looked for professionals from diverse backgrounds within the criminal law. We recruit not only from fellow

PHOTO BY: CHRIS RENTON

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

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

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

L I P P M A N J U N G E R S L LC • 8 1 8 . 9 0 7 . 5 7 0 0 • W W W. L I P P M A N J U N G E R S . CO M

ties and qualifications. Then we might look at specific skillsets that will really add value for a client, which will include people who have served as U.S. attorneys and assistant U.S. attorneys, and as senior lawyers in other agencies and governmental bodies around the world, including the U.K.’s Serious Fraud Office and Financial Conduct Authority.

Roger Burlingame

white-collar firms, but also from traditional “high street” defense backgrounds, the criminal bar, prosecutors and regulators – including from the Serious Fraud Office, Financial Conduct Authority, Bank of England and the Foreign Office – as well as from in-house. Of course, we also work hard to develop and promote our own Dechert “born and bred” attorneys. We pride ourselves on leveraging these different skills when working on our cases in order to achieve the best possible outcome for the client. As you know, the Dechert team outside of London is also made up of attorneys from different backgrounds, including from international prosecutors such as the DOJ and SEC. This ensures we can provide a full-service team of the same strength and depth as our team in London.

Lawdragon: With far-flung and dispersed white-collar issues in multiple jurisdictions, how do you bring it all together and coordinate?

Gerrard: When we open any engagement, the lead partner will start by selecting a team to support the client in the most effective way. Our group is structured as a single global team, so we can draw upon professionals in New York, Washington, D.C., London, Paris, Hong Kong and Singapore. Not many firms have that breadth. We can choose the right people, based on their levels and type of experience, language capabili54

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

When clients have issues across multiple countries, this is where Dechert can really add value. We have lawyers on the ground in the U.S., Europe and Asia, and within all those offices the team is multicultural and multilingual. As a firm, we are structured along practice group lines, so lawyers in London, New York and Hong Kong all think of themselves as part of one team. One of our hallmarks is our ability to work with advisors in countries where we do not have an office, so we can manage the whole process for our client and deliver a single agreement. That experience in managing multi-office teams and the ability to operate in different jurisdictions is crucial. It can take years to build up the relationships with top firms and the best lawyers in dozens of places, but that is one of the benefits of being in this area for so many decades.

Cohen: Dechert is a firm with a truly global footprint.

Clients come to us specifically because we have the depth of experience and breadth of practice areas to solve problems and provide advice throughout the world. We have strong white-collar capability on both sides of the Atlantic, including U.S.-qualified lawyers on the ground in London. Our teams work together seamlessly to provide clients with a very high quality and consistent product.

To follow on what Neil said on staffing, the same flexibility and creativity I mentioned above apply. We assess the client’s needs, the scope of the problem, any deadlines on the horizon, and whether, for instance, engaging attorneys outside the white-collar space is appropriate for a well-coordinated response, and then we staff accordingly in a cost-efficient way. Working with the general counsel, the partners will put together a staffing plan, ensuring the client receives the most appropriate level of experience for all elements of our mandate. We strive to keep our teams lean and deliver constant partner input; this ensures more effective and responsive advice, and lower bills for clients.

Gonzalez: Based on these strengths, we find that a lot of clients seek out Dechert specifically for complex, highprofile white-collar work where there is a lot at stake.

We currently have a cross-office team working on one

PHOTO BY: CHRIS RENTON

Leaders in Complex Litigation and Arbitration Grant & Eisenhofer

U.S. and International Securities Litigation and Arbitration • Corporate Governance Merger & Acquisition • Asset Recovery • Antitrust • Bankruptcy • Intellectual Property False Claims • Consumer • Complex Pharmaceutical & Medical Device • Birth Injury

www.gelaw.com

There are very few places left where no one’s looking at how you operate your company.

Many investigations start with law enforcement, but as more and more companies realize they need to police themselves, and there are fewer and fewer companies that don’t understand about money laundering risks, bribery risks, sanction evasion risks, and so on, cases all around the world are also starting to come from self-reports. For financial markets, it’s always going to center around New York, London and Hong Kong, but banks know only too well that big problems can start in small places very far from these major centers. In the bribery space, it’s less about the jurisdiction than the businesses – healthcare, and industries like mining, oil and gas continue to draw a lot of attention.

David Kelley

of the longest and most wide-ranging investigations in FCPA history, and we are lead counsel in the largest regulatory investigation currently active in Europe. A few years ago, we were lead counsel for airbag manufacturer Takata in the largest automotive recall ever.

Lawdragon: Can we conclude with any parting thoughts about the future – do you envision continued growth in the practice based on the trends that got us to this point?

Burlingame: The U.S. white-collar enforcement apparatus grew exponentially in the wake of the financial crisis, and the rest of the world has realized they want to play the same game. So you don’t just have the U.S., but all the foreign regulators who have looked at the Department of Justice and said, we can do this too. It’s been a sea change for companies operating in EMEA (Europe, the Middle East and Africa) and around the world, and neither of these trends is going to end any time soon. As white-collar law enforcement in other countries begin to find their feet, we’ll see even more cases with prosecutors and regulators from multiple countries.

Most big multinational companies understand the dynamic, but even smaller companies that would have thought they were well below the radar of international law enforcement are seeing how aggressive the U.S. has been and the way other countries are following suit.

56

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Gonzalez: Yes, I do see potential for significant growth in this area. As I said, in my practice I have noticed large Latin American economies like Brazil and Mexico taking these issues much more seriously. The new Mexican government has a focus on corruption, and has enacted new anticorruption regulations, and I believe they will be eager to showcase early results. But even with these efforts, there is still plenty of room for maturation and a need to develop stricter compliance and enforcement programs across Latin America. Even if these initiatives are focused internally within a country, many companies in the region will still look to firms with substantial experience with the FCPA and the U.K. Bribery Act, since the benefit of that experience will help as companies navigate regulations like this for the first time.

Kelley: I think it will grow as business grows, but whether enforcement agencies continue to be as aggressive as in years past will depend on the appetite of a particular administration for enforcement and the rule of law. As always, I think the biggest challenges for multinational companies will remain in heavily regulated industries with multiple government touchpoints as well as emerging economies.

Cohen: The more the market develops in a globalized way, the better positioned Dechert is to provide the best advice possible to clients. Since arriving at Dechert, I have been very impressed with how there is a uniform work ethic and level of expertise in all of our global offices. Also, the fact that Dechert is structured by practice group, regardless of office location, helps to make sure we are integrated and work together effectively around the world. It is very important for me to know that when I reach out to colleagues in other countries, our client will get timely information and a consistent and high-quality service.

PHOTO BY: LAURA BARISONZI

YOUR YOUR PATH PATH TO TO BECOMING BECOMING A A LAWYER LAWYER The point is to remember the journey students take when The point is to remember students take when they dare to dreamthe of journey becoming a lawyer. they dare to dream of becoming a lawyer.

Your journey begins here.

Your journey begins here.

VISIT CAMPUS.LAWDRAGON.COM VISIT CAMPUS.LAWDRAGON.COM

We get excited every time one of our clients is recognized by Lawdragon 500. This time, with our own Burton Taylor included for the third time in the Top 100 Legal Consultants, we’re reminded how remarkable it is to work with such outstanding professionals in the legal community.

A D V E R T I S I N G | P U B L I C R E L AT I O N S | B R A N D I N G | D I G I TA L PROVENTUSCONSULTING.COM | 816.842.8111

THE LAWDRAGON 500

THE 100 MOST POWERFUL EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS Lawdragon is proud to present the 2018 Guide to the Most Powerful Corporate Employment Lawyers, the result of hundreds of law firm submissions and editorial research conducted over the past year. This is the 11th 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 sixth year, a Hall of Fame list.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

59

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

Lorie E. Almon

Seyfarth Shaw

New York

Michael L. Banks

Morgan Lewis

Philadelphia

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

Robert Brooks

Adler Pollock

Providence

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

60

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

DAVID LONG-DANIELS

BY JEFF SCHULT

MORE SO THAN WITH MOST LAWYERS,

one gets the feeling about David Long-Daniels that there cannot be much that he has not seen in a career of 30-plus years. He was a captain in the U.S. Air Force before ever attending law school; he has held public office in Alabama; and has had a full career as a law professor and teacher, all before coming to Greenberg Traurig, the largest U.S. law firm, where he is a shareholder, Co-Chair of the firm’s Global Labor & Employment Practice, Co-Chair of the Labor & Employment Practice’s Complex Employment Litigation & Trials group and Chair of the Atlanta Labor & Employment Practice.

Lawdragon: What influenced you in deciding to go to law school? Did you consider other career choices, such as remaining in the U.S. Air Force?

David Long-Daniels: My interest in law school started in my sophomore year of high school. A very good friend of mine, who happened to be African American, was arrested and charged with assault. His arrest was the consequence of a series of unfortunate circumstances. He was horsing around with a friend after work. At some point, the other young man jumped on the hood of his car and fell off. The fall resulted in significant injuries and the young man fell into a coma for a significant time.

My friend was arrested and accused of intentionally assaulting the young man and causing the accident. He had very little income so he remained in jail, pending the disposition of the case. He could not find a lawyer locally or in the next largest city, Montgomery, Alabama.

I and most other members of my high school basketball team were very concerned about my friend’s plight, but there was very little we could do to help.

Thankfully, the young man came out of his coma and readily admitted the accident was his fault. My friend was released from prison, but his temporary vulnerability made me want to go to law school. So I remained hopeful throughout my years as an Air Force officer that I would eventually be able to pursue this dream. I was a Captain in the Air Force and likely would have been promoted to Major “Below The Zone,” when I decided to take the opportunity to attend law school.

LD: Was there an early experience or mentor who really helped shape the course of your professional life?

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

DLD: I have been blessed to have a number of great mentors in my life. Coincidentally, several members of my family are first-generation lawyers. In fact, my brother, my uncle and several of my cousins are lawyers. My familial examples significantly impacted the shape and direction of my professional life.

In addition to my family, three of my former colleagues – General Ed Friend, Jack Held and Mason Davis – from my former firm, Sirote and Permutt in Birmingham, Alabama took a great interest in my career. Each of them exemplified the intellect, spirit and practice that I think drives the integrity of this profession. I still hold the three of them in the highest regard.

I have many fond memories and valuable lessons from each of those relationships. One of my favorite memories of General Ed Friend, a retired two-star General, however, occurred outside of the office. I remember when there was a rally against racism in downtown Birmingham, after a homeless AfricanAmerican was beaten to death by a few misdirected white men. I arrived at the rally a little late because of work assignments. I walked into the park and was pleasantly surprised when General Friend greeted me by saying, “What took you so long?” He demonstrated a dedication to justice that you cannot simply learn in a classroom or a courtroom. I was honored that he selected me as one of the pallbearers at his funeral.

LD: Why and how did you choose to focus on employment law? And what trends do you see emerging in your practice going forward and how do you strategically plan and adjust?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

61

NAME

LAW FIRM

LOCATION

John J. Coleman III

Burr & Forman

Birmingham

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

Lisa J. Damon

Seyfarth Shaw

Boston

Mike Delikat

Orrick

New York

Dennis P. Duffy

BakerHostetler

Houston

Brian West Easley

Jones Day

Minneapolis

Juan Enjamio

Hunton & Williams

Miami

Anne Marie Estevez

Morgan Lewis

Miami

Mark J. Foley

Drinker Biddle

Philadelphia

Gary D. Friedman

Weil

New York

Michael J. Gray

Jones Day

Chicago

Elizabeth P. Hardy

Kienbaum Opperwall Hardy & Pelton

Birmingham

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.

Wendy Johnson Lario

Greenberg Traurig

Florham Park, N.J.

Jennifer P. Keller

Baker Donelson

Johnson City, Tenn.

Tracey A. Kennedy

Sheppard Mullin

Los Angeles

62

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

DLD: My first love was constitutional law. Unfortunately, given the local area in which I practiced, there was very little opportunity to practice constitutional law. Thankfully, employment law was a close runnerup. I became an adjunct professor at the University of Alabama Law School and taught Individual Rights in Employment, as well as the Fair Labor Standards Act, for many years. Employment law is challenging because: one, it is about people; and two, how they react to each other. Those two forces create countless interesting fact patterns.

In my view, employment law will continue to be one of the most explosive areas of law going forward.

Employment law is always shifting because it is influenced by so many factors. It will always require forward thinking. Right now there is a lot of discussion about sexual harassment and sexual discrimination based on the current climate. I believe pay equity is the next logical focus in the demand for gender equality – the laws are on the books but the rate of compliance is deplorable. My team is currently preparing for that possibility by writing, researching and teaching on this issue across the country.

LD: You’ve been involved in a wide range of outside activities – pro bono, academic, nonprofit and political. Which have been especially meaningful to you?

DLD: While I enjoy all of my outside activities and take great pride in the work that I have done in various areas, academics is my first love. I loved serving as an adjunct professor at the University of Alabama Law School and serving briefly as an adjunct professor at my alma mater, Walter F. George School of Law at Mercer University. I thoroughly enjoy my interactions with the students and the purely intellectual discussions that are common in the academic arena. I relished the opportunity to ensure that my students understood not only the black-letter law, but also the respective rationales and purposes that underpin it. Having the opportunity to help develop the minds of young future lawyers is extraordinarily important to me.

LD: You were a professor of law for years. How has legal education changed since you went to law school and what changes do you see on the horizon?

DLD: I believe that legal education has changed in several respects. One of the most important shifts is the growing trend in all schools to make legal education more practical. I see many more practicums that are available today than were available during my law school tenure. The practicum programs are

valuable because they enhance the students’ law school experiences and simultaneously benefit the community. The practicums are great for students because they have a chance to apply their theoretical knowledge in the real world. Clients look for practical solutions to complicated problems. Oftentimes, pure classroom experience does not prepare students for this reality. The programs also benefit the communities because practicums typically provide legal services to many persons who have restricted or no access. I hope that law schools continue and expand this trend.

LD: Do you think there exists a heightened awareness of sexual discrimination resulting from the “#MeToo” movement, and is it having an effect on employers?

DLD: There is no question that there is a heightened awareness of sexual discrimination and sexual harassment. I believe many employers are proactively working to ensure that their employees are properly trained and complying with the law. I think there is a chilly wind blowing for those employers who fail to take advantage of this opportunity to improve.

LD: What is the most personally satisfying case or work experience you’ve ever had?

DLD: My most satisfying experience occurred when I was a summer associate at the Jones Day law firm in Atlanta. As a result of our work with the Legal Aid Society, I was given an opportunity to represent a single mom who had been involved in a car accident that destroyed her only means of transportation.

Unfortunately, she trusted the other driver’s promise and did not file a police report. The other driver reneged on his promise and refused to repair her vehicle. Through our team’s efforts, I was able to locate the other driver and the police officer who was present at the scene. We obtained a declaration from the police officer, and as a consequence, the other driver repaired our client’s car, plus a little extra. I have secured verdicts of well over $30 million, but that victory was my most satisfying win because I personally saw the impact of my efforts on my client’s ability to provide for her family.

LD: What keeps you excited about practicing law?

DLD: I am always excited about practicing law because good lawyers have to think. My mantra for my team is: “think, think, think.” We try to advance our client’s interests and the law. I find zealous advocacy exciting and challenging. There is always something new to learn.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

63

NAME

LAW FIRM

LOCATION

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, D.C.

Joseph C. Liburt

Orrick

Menlo Park

Jeffrey Londa

Ogletree Deakins

Houston

David Long-Daniels

Greenberg Traurig

Atlanta

Alison B. Marshall

Jones Day

Washington, D.C.

William C. Martucci

Shook

Washington, D.C.

Terence McCourt

Greenberg Traurig

Boston

Matthew T. Miklave

Robinson+Cole

Stamford, Conn.

Marko J. Mrkonich

Littler

Minneapolis

Daniel L. Nash

Akin Gump

Washington, D.C.

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

Jessica Perry

Orrick

Menlo Park

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

D. Michael Reilly

Lane Powell

Seattle

64

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

JULIANNE STORY

BY JOHN RYAN

JULIANNE STORY CAN ARGUE WITH

the best of them, as her courtroom record makes clear. But the Husch Blackwell partner believes that “being a good listener” is the foundation of her client service that aims to provide more comprehensive and valuable solutions for businesses. Story earned her law degree at the University of Kansas School of Law and practices out of the firm’s Kansas City office.

Her acclaimed practice has focused on representing employers in the healthcare, life sciences and education fields. Story also is a member of Husch Blackwell’s Executive Board.

Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the mix of work you do within the employment area?

Julianne Story: My practice is very much a hybrid between litigation and counseling. On the litigation side of my practice, I handle all types of kinds of disputes connected to the employment relationship – individual discrimination and harassment claims, breach of contract actions, and class/collective action wage-and-hour lawsuits. The scope of my counseling work is similar, and for me the variety of issues is what keeps it interesting.

LD: How did you develop a focus on healthcare, life sciences and education clients? Does this client pool have certain employment counseling needs that are unique to it in some ways?

JS: Husch Blackwell, my law firm, is organized in a unique way. While we maintain our expertise within our practice areas across the firm, we are also organized by industry groups. This isn’t just a market-facing or marketing approach – it’s the way our entire law firm, front to back, is arranged. This structure encourages greater engagement with our clients and a deeper understanding of their specific business challenges.

I have long-standing clients in the healthcare industry, and over the years, I’ve gained a great deal of insight into how employment disputes transpire within the healthcare industry; therefore, it made a lot of sense for me to focus on healthcare, especially when you consider the explosive growth and change the industry has experienced. There are new corporate structures that house everything from clinical care to research and diagnostics, and my clients are facing employment challenges that are new to them.

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

LD: What are some of the trends you are seeing in your practice?

JS: There has been a recent spike in activity in terms of sexual harassment, with the number of claims as well as in terms of clients who want to make sure their compliance programs are effective and sound from a legal and practical standpoint.

Many clients are revisiting their policies and procedures in light of the #MeToo movement, and these efforts span everything from basic employee handbook provisions to developing training programs aimed at every level of leadership within an organization.

Also, within the healthcare industry specifically, there is an ongoing process of consolidation occurring that presents unique issues relating to employment. More and more, healthcare organizations span multiple operations. Under the same corporate umbrella you might have a specialty physician group, a teaching hospital, or an ambulance service, and each of these operations have their own employment law

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

65

NAME

LAW FIRM

LOCATION

Michael Roche

Winston & Strawn

Chicago

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, D.C.

David Schwartz

Skadden

New York

Jason Schwartz

Gibson Dunn

Washington, D.C.

Jonathan A. Segal

Duane Morris

Philadelphia

Todd Shadle

Godwin Bowman

Dallas

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, D.C.

Jonathan Stoler

Sheppard Mullin

New York

Julianne Story

Husch Blackwell

Kansas City, Mo.

Steven W. Suflas

Ballard Spahr

Denver

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

Robert M. Wolff

Littler

Cleveland

66

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

TAKING ANY CASE TO TRIAL PRESENTS RISK, BUT IN EMPLOYMENT CASES, THERE IS PARTICULAR CONCERN BECAUSE MOST JURORS CAN RELATE TO HAVING OR LOSING A JOB. IN ADDITION, MISSOURI IS AMONG SEVERAL STATES THAT TEND TO BE PLAINTIFF-FRIENDLY WITH MANY HIGH-DOLLAR VERDICTS FROM COURTS IN THIS AREA, SO PUTTING A CASE BEFORE A JURY CAN BE A RISKY PROPOSITION. issues. It can be difficult for clients to manage it all, particularly when they are unfamiliar with a particular type of operation.

lot of work to do still, but I’d like to think that I’ve played a constructive role in helping other women lawyers to advance.

LD: Can you describe a recent case you’ve worked on?

LD: Do you have a philosophy of client service?

What does it take to successfully handle sensitive matters for employers?

JS: Most recently, I defended a large health system in a lawsuit in which the director-level plaintiff alleged a number of claims under state and federal law including gender, race, and national-origin discrimination and retaliation. We prevailed on most claims at the summary judgment stage, but we tried the seven remaining claims to a federal jury, obtaining a full defense verdict after a week-long trial.

LD: What were the key challenges of the case?

JS: Taking any case to trial presents risk, but in employment cases, there is particular concern because most jurors can relate to having or losing a job. In addition, Missouri is among several states that tend to be plaintiff-friendly with many high-dollar verdicts from courts in this area, so putting a case before a jury can be a risky proposition. Importantly, we were able to knock out the state claims under the Missouri Human Rights Act on summary judgment.

LD: What is the impact on the client or the industry from this matter?

JS: First and foremost, I think it shows that our client is willing to fight baseless claims, and it demonstrates that the procedures they have in place to address employee under-performance are sound.

Businesses go to a lot of expense and effort to design these procedures and to train their people in using them. This verdict provides validation that the effort is worth it.

LD: How has your practice changed since the early part of your career?

JS: Certainly, the context in the legal profession has changed. When I began practicing law, most of the other lawyers and judges were men. Now, there are female judges, female opposing counsel, female colleagues, and female clients. There is a

JS: My approach to client service is premised on being a good listener. Lawyers like to talk, and there’s a time and place for that, but listening to the client ensures that what you have to say is relevant. Counseling a client often touches on things more complex and subtle than merely providing a letter-of-the-law opinion. There are business objectives at play, and sometimes, there are organizational goals at stake.

Listening – and asking the right questions – makes you a better business partner and it ultimately will help provide a more comprehensive and valuable solution to the client’s problem.

LD: How would you describe your style as a trial lawyer?

JS: My individual style relies on being genuine, on being myself. I am courteous and polite, but also firm and direct. I am confident, but not a showboat. I am mindful that ultimately this isn’t about me – it’s about my clients and showing how they did the right thing. So I aim to be forthright, clear, and credible.

LD: Are you involved in any public interest or community activities that are special to you?

JS: I’m involved with the Kansas City Friends of Alvin Ailey, an organization with a long history in Kansas City. In addition to presenting the well-known Alvin Ailey dance company, KCFAA teaches critical life skills and arts appreciation to underserved youth using dance as the medium of communication. KCFAA also uses dance to bridge community and racial divides and to promote the values crucial to building the kind of civic culture that embraces diversity and inclusion. It is a wonderful organization.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

67

TOP 20: EMPLOYEE BENEFITS NAME

LAW FIRM

LOCATION

Steven G. Eckhaus

McDermott

New York

Stephen W. Fackler

Gibson Dunn

Palo Alto

Gary M. Ford

Groom Law Group

Washington, D.C.

Nancy Gerrie

Winston

Chicago

Paul M. Hamburger

Proskauer

Washington

Eric W. Hilfers

Cravath

New York

D. Ward Kallstrom

Seyfarth Shaw

San Francisco

David N. Levine

Groom Law Group

Washington, D.C.

Robert Newman

Covington & Burling

Washington, D.C.

Melanie Nussdorf

Steptoe

Washington, D.C.

Kevin O'Brien

Ivins Phillips

Washington, D.C.

Paul J. Ondrasik Jr.

Steptoe

Washington, D.C.

Nicholas J. Pappas

Weil

New York

Andrea S. Rattner

Proskauer

New York

David Rogers

Winston

Washington, D.C.

Myron D. Rumeld

Proskauer

New York

Howard Shapiro

Proskauer

New Orleans

Richard C. Shea

Covington & Burling

Washington, D.C.

Charles R. Smith

K&L Gates

Pittsburgh

René E. Thorne

Jackson Lewis

New Orleans

68

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

STEPHEN HIRSCHFELD

BY JOHN RYAN

INSPIRED BY THE WRITINGS OF STUDS TERKEL,

champion of the everyman, Stephen Hirschfeld built a career as one of the nation’s leading employment lawyers – with more than 100 trials and the nation’s largest employment law alliance to his name.

He has spent his entire career in employment law, and co-manages one of the nation’s best law firms focusing exclusively on counseling employers – San Francisco-based Hirschfeld Kraemer. His reputation has earned him numerous accolades, including a regular spot on Lawdragon’s Guide to the Most Powerful Corporate Employment Lawyers.

Hirschfeld’s passion for employment law predates his studies at George Washington University Law School, where he graduated in 1982. Building his own business has allowed Hirschfeld to maintain a firmwide focus on clients’ employment needs while also crafting a unique work environment dedicated to diversity and having a sense of humor. Hirschfeld is also the founder and CEO of The Employment Law Alliance, a network of employment law professionals spread across all 50 states and 135 countries.

Lawdragon: How did you first become interested in an employment practice?

Stephen Hirschfeld: My interest in employment law goes back to college, where I first read the book “Working” by Studs Terkel. This gave me a special appreciation for the importance of work and just how deeply intertwined it is with one’s identity. The value of work, human resources, and how organizations function were interesting to me. Employment law was a natural fit and today, I pride myself on helping companies operate more effectively in managing and empowering employees and creating systems for workers to express concerns in a constructive, amicable way, with litigation as a last resort.

LD: What do you find professionally satisfying about that type of practice?

SH: Everyone wants a great workplace – one that is mission-focused and helps employees grow and flourish. The HR department plays a key role in making this happen, and my practice is complementary to all they do. Together, we help keep businesses humming along and ensure employees are respected, motivated, and hopefully happy to come to work. People can be quirky and have their challenges, but working

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

with employers and employees towards harmonious workplaces is both enjoyable and challenging.

LD: Why did you found the Employment Law Alliance and can you explain what that company does?

SH: I’m a born entrepreneur – it’s been my passion since childhood. I love to build and run things, and I’m especially interested in unconventional approaches.

Twenty years ago, I left a “Big Law” firm and started my own labor and employment boutique. My goal was to combine innovative techniques with time-honored traditions to create cost-effective, timely solutions.

Many of my clients had operations in multiple states and countries, so as I was building the firm, I looked for creative solutions to deal with cross-jurisdictional employment issues. In the process, I kept meeting talented local labor and employment attorneys at firms large and small, all over the U.S., who were similarly dedicated to the same principles, but seeking access to a larger platform. And it wasn’t just U.S. lawyers, this was a global phenomenon – I discovered there were many outstanding, ethical, diligent, labor and employment attorneys worldwide looking to leverage a larger referral network in order to provide advice to multi-national employers. The entrepreneur in me kicked in, and I dreamed up and implemented a strategy to create a truly global and seamless provider of employment law services via the Employment Law Alliance.

There’s just nothing like having 24/7 access to local counsel who are experts in local law. ELA kept growing, and today we have over 175 member firms across the globe. The ELA holds regional and global client conferences and monthly webinars on a wide

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

69

TOP 20: LABOR & EMPLOYMENT NAME

LAW FIRM

LOCATION

Nicholas Anastasopoulos

Mirick O'Connell

Westborough, Mass.

M.J. Asensio

BakerHostetler

Columbus, Ohio

Howard E. Cole

Lewis Roca Rothgerber

Las Vegas

Louis P. DiLorenzo

Bond

New York

Patricia Dunn

Jones Day

Washington, D.C.

Angelo J. Genova

Genova Burns

Newark, N.J.

Clifford A. Godiner

Thompson Coburn

St. Louis

Betty Graumlich

Reed Smith

Richmond, Va.

J. Gregory Grisham

Ford Harrison

Nashville

Steven M. Gutierrez

Holland & Hart

Denver

Aparna Joshi

O'Melveny

Washington, D.C.

Michael Lebowich

Proskauer

New York

Neal D. Mollen

Paul Hastings

Washington, D.C.

Stuart Newman

Seyfarth Shaw

Atlanta

Theodore R. Opperwall

Kienbaum Opperwall Hardy & Pelton

Birmingham

Marilyn Pearson

McDermott

Chicago

Bernard M. Plum

Proskauer

New York

Richard F. Vitarelli

Jackson Lewis

Hartford, Conn.

Stanley Weiner

Jones Day

Cleveland

Anna Wermuth

Cozen O'Connor

Chicago

70

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

range of labor and employment law topics. Our joint clients have free access to an online Global Employer Handbook that provides comprehensive employment law guidance for all 50 states and over 120 countries around the world. We hold annual ELA member meetings, and we are constantly sharing employment law advice with each other. We regularly team together on a wide range of client projects including M&A transactions, multijurisdictional litigation, and trade union issues. We’ve created a fantastic camaraderie within our network so that we know clients will be well looked after, whichever jurisdiction they’re in.

Within our network, the ELA’s lawyers aren’t just business colleagues, they’re personal friends. Our goal has been to ensure that lawyers from around the world work closely together and develop deep and lasting friendships. My objective in creating the ELA was simple: “friends never let friends down.” For someone like me – a guy who’s obsessed with geography, culture, travel, and inherently curious about what makes people tick and what makes organizations work – the ELA has become a vital resource and a true passion.

We are a virtual United Nations of cultures and languages, connected by a shared commitment to the law and to outstanding client service, anywhere in the world, at any time – night or day.

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

SH: For companies of all sizes and in every industry, employee misconduct – including theft, violence, substance abuse and harassment – is destructive and requires both rigorous training and, at times, in-depth and thorough outside investigation. More than 25

The #MeToo movement has increased the onus on companies to ensure that internal controls and external resources are sound, and that employees are not only being heard, but are feeling confident in their HR departments. Trust in the system is key and can help both to address concerns effectively (and often internally) and to ensure that misconduct is not allowed to run rampant.

On the witness stand for three days during the Ellen Pao trial, after serving as outside investigator for Kleiner Perkins, I was cross-examined by the plaintiff’s counsel, a process that gave me a new perspective on how my investigations are viewed from the other side. I’m a better investigator because of it, and the trial reinforced that all of us at Hirschfeld Kraemer are doing the right thing – a conclusion with which the jury ultimately agreed.

LD: What are some keys to successfully representing clients in the employment context?

SH: The two keys to successfully representing our clients are, one, thinking creatively and unconventionally; and two, figuring out a way to say “yes” in order to accomplish our clients’ objectives within the bounds of the law.

For example, when a company is downsizing, there’s always a high potential for legal action. Restructurings are painful for workers, executives and boards alike. Above all, people need to be treated fairly, and a company needs to be transparent when facing an inflection point. Ensuring that morale stays afloat is a crucial challenge. To this end, the ELA has been a great asset, enabling Hirschfeld Kraemer to assist with restructurings in multiple jurisdictions and time zones simultaneously. With help from my ELA colleagues,

WITHIN OUR NETWORK, THE ELA’S LAWYERS AREN’T JUST BUSINESS COLLEAGUES, THEY’RE PERSONAL FRIENDS. OUR GOAL HAS BEEN TO ENSURE THAT LAWYERS FROM AROUND THE WORLD WORK CLOSELY TOGETHER AND DEVELOP DEEP AND LASTING FRIENDSHIPS. years ago, I noted that employee misconduct was on the rise and I developed a program to educate companies on how to investigate these issues. We still offer this valuable tool to our clients, updated for the times. Our goal is to educate our clients on changes in the law and equip them with resources, both in-house and outside, to help them identify and assess problems and make lasting reforms.

we have seamlessly implemented reductions in force while complying with local laws and customs resulting in minimal legal and public relations fallout.

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

SH: It felt like D.C. was calling me. The intersection of politics and the law is so important and instrumental

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

71

TOP 20: CORPORATE IMMIGRATION NAME

LAW FIRM

LOCATION

Daryl Buffenstein

Fragomen

Atlanta

Bo Cooper

Fragomen

Washington, D.C.

Matthew S. Dunn

Kramer Levin

New York

Jeremy Fudge

Berry Appleman & Leiden

Dallas

Carl Hampe

Fragomen

Washington, D.C.

Sameer Khedekar

Pearl Law Group

San Francisco

Mark D. Koestler

Kramer Levin

New York

Lynden Melmed

Berry Appleman & Leiden

Washington, D.C.

Christy Nguyen

Pearl Law Group

San Francisco

Deborah J. Notkin

Barst Mukamal & Kleiner

New York

Julie Pearl

Pearl Law Group

San Francisco

Eleanor Pelta

Morgan Lewis

Washington, D.C.

Thomas Ragland

Clark Hill

Washington, D.C.

Laura Foote Reiff

Greenberg Traurig

Washington, D.C.

Denyse Sabagh

Duane Morris

Washington, D.C.

Martha Schoonover

Greenberg Traurig

McLean, Va.

Suzanne B. Seltzer

The Seltzer Firm

New York

William A. Stock

Klasko Immigration Law Partners

Philadelphia

Bernard Wolfsdorf

Wolfsdorf

Santa Monica

Scott W. Wright

Faegre Baker Daniels

Minneapolis

72

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

in our lives. Of course, GW has always had a sterling reputation for launching successful legal careers, as well.

LD: Is this the type of law you imagined yourself practicing while in law school?

SH: I figured out early on that I wanted to practice employment law and work to positively impact the workplace, but I wasn’t sure which side I wanted to be on. Ultimately, I decided that helping employers is where I could make a more constructive contribution.

Lawsuits are expensive and they create animosity – we can have much greater impact by working to change their behavior from the inside. I like to tell employers to consider how they treat people and always focus on the question of, “What’s the right way to treat people?”

LD: Was there an early experience or mentor who really helped shape the course of your professional life?

SH: Rick Guarasci, my undergrad government professor at St. Lawrence University (and currently the President of Wagner College on Staten Island), encouraged me to read widely and taught me how to examine things from new angles. He enabled me to appreciate all the nuances of the employer/employee relationship. My commitment to thinking out of the box came from him.

LD: How has your practice changed since the early part of your career?

SH: I started out doing traditional labor law, but over the last 35 years, my focus has moved more toward the employment law arena, handling discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination and trade secret/ noncompete issues. I still have a very active union practice, covering a wide range of matters including union organizing, collective bargaining, and labor arbitrations. Interestingly, there seem to be fewer and fewer of us doing this work these days despite an ongoing need.

LD: What brought you out to California to practice?

Did you consider staying on the East Coast after law school?

SH: I wanted to live in California – specifically, San Francisco – since I first visited when I was 10. I just knew this is where I wanted to be. Now I can’t imagine living anywhere else.

LD: How did you come to start your own firm – why did you do that instead of joining or staying with another firm?

SH: Being part of a firm focused solely on employment law was and is important to me. Today, not only have I had the opportunity to co-found a great firm with three offices in Northern and Southern California, I also work in an environment with people who are both colleagues and friends.

LD: Can you tell us a bit about your work representing colleges and universities: How did you develop this focus and what is unique about this type of client?

SH: My first exposure to higher education law was during a law school internship at NACUA [the National Association of College and University Attorneys], where I was fortunate enough to meet one of my lifelong mentors, Mike Grier. Mike helped me understand the field, and over time, I have developed deep and lasting relationships with institutions across the country. Higher education is an exceptional area, legally speaking, and the issues arising at the various intersections of communities and boards, faculty and students are quite unique and challenging. My firm works with hundreds of colleges and universities across the country.

LD: What is Hirschfeld Kraemer like as a place to work?

SH: Hirschfeld Kraemer is a place for attorneys who want to focus exclusively on the employer-employee relationship. We work for employers, and we all do employment law, period. This concentrated focus is quite different from many firms, where employment law is often a service line and not top of mind. We pride ourselves on not cloning one another. Diversity is our strength. All of our lawyers have outside interests and passions and come from extremely varied backgrounds. We have one common denominator: We insist that all of our lawyers have a sense of humor.

We take our jobs seriously, not ourselves.

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

SH: I love art, food, wine, and adventure travel, especially train travel. Any time I can combine them all together, even better.

LD: What’s the most interesting or adventurous trip you’ve taken?

SH: Ever since my son Zack was born (29 years ago), my wife and I have taken him on some type of global adventure. A few years ago, he and I spent 23 days on the Trans-Siberian railway, an incredible and memorable experience.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

73

TOP 40: UP AND COMERS NAME

LAW FIRM

LOCATION

Sarah Adams

Groom Law Group

Washington, D.C.

Eric Amdursky

O'Melveny

Menlo Park

John M. Bagyi

Bond

Albany

Reginald W. Belcher

Turner Padget

Columbia, S.C.

Sabrina A. Beldner

McGuireWoods

Los Angeles

David Birnbaum

Jones Day

Chicago

Joanne Bush

Jones Day

Houston

Colleen L. Caden

Pryor Cashman

New York

Meredith S. Campbell

Shulman Rogers

Potomac, Md.

Jesse Cripps

Gibson Dunn

Los Angeles

Felicia Davis

Paul Hastings

Los Angeles

Neil Dishman

Jackson Lewis

Chicago

Edward Easterly

Norris McLaughlin

Allentown, Pa.

Daniel Fazio

Winston

Chicago

Adam S. Forman

Epstein Becker

Southfield, Mich.

Avi Friedman

Wolfsdorf

Santa Monica

Jeremy Glenn

Cozen O'Connor

Chicago

Malcolm A. Heinicke

Munger Tolles

San Francisco

Matthew Holt

Hurwitz Holt

San Diego

Julia Judish

Pillsbury

Washington, D.C.

Eliza Kaiser

Kramer Levin

New York

Kate Kalmykov

Greenberg Traurig

Florham Park, N.J.

Matthew C. Kane

McGuireWoods

Los Angeles

Fermin H. Llaguno

Littler

Irvine, Calif.

Michele Maryott

Gibson Dunn

Irvine, Calif.

74

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

ROGER QUILLEN

BY JOHN RYAN

FISHER PHILLIPS’ STATURE AS ONE OF

the nation’s best labor and employment firms has always been about more than attracting the best talent in the field – as important as that is. For Roger Quillen, the key has been sticking to the core principles espoused by the pair of firm founders, Ike Fisher and Erle Phillips. Quillen ought to know: The Atlanta-based partner has been Chairman and Managing Partner for two decades, during which time the firm’s size has more than tripled and its revenues quadrupled. Quillen earned both his bachelor’s and law degrees at Ohio State University.

Lawdragon: What sets your firm apart?

Roger Quillen: I am in my twentieth consecutive year as Chairman and Managing Partner of Fisher Phillips, and I am grateful to have led the firm during a period of growth from 115 to 380 attorneys, from five locations to over thirty, and from revenue of less than $50 million to over $200 million. After all these years, not much surprises me, but I admit I am fascinated by how well our firm remains true to the ideals of its founders and how valuable that has turned out to be in distinguishing us positively in such a crowded marketplace of management-side workplace lawyers.

LD: What were the ideals of the founders?

RQ: From inception, Fisher Phillips has lived by two guiding principles taught and modeled by its founders, Ike Fisher and Erle Phillips. Ike understood clients primarily as businesses with business goals and challenges. He knew instinctively that each business had its own definition of success and, more specifically, its own idea of what it meant to win. He exhorted the lawyers he touched to visit and learn about a client’s business and industry and to gain insights about a client’s unique philosophy. Most importantly he counseled lawyers to understand legal challenges, obstacles and threats through a client’s eyes – not as opportunities to showcase legal skills, but as business problems to be avoided or resolved consistently with an owner’s unique goals.

Ike enjoyed using the metaphor of the golf caddy to explain how he understood the relationship between a good lawyer and a client. The caddy’s job is to assist a golfer in getting the golf ball from the tee, into the fairway, onto the green and into the cup in as few strokes as possible. Sometimes, the golfer hits a shot into the rough. A golfer doesn’t want the ball in the rough. The caddy’s job is to assist the golfer in getting the ball back into the fairway, onto the green and into the cup as efficiently as possible. According to Ike, the rough is to the golfer what a legal problem is to a

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

client. The client doesn’t enjoy finding itself in a challenging legal problem, any more than a golfer enjoys being in the rough. The client wants to resolve the problem as quickly and efficiently as possible and get back to achieving its business goals. The good lawyer understands this.

No matter how intellectually stimulating a legal problem might appear to be for the lawyer, the good lawyer puts that aside to assist the client in achieving its goals.

LD: What about Erle Phillips?

RQ: Erle Phillips augmented Ike’s uniquely business-centered approach to practice with a commitment and dedication to excellent legal analysis and work product - not just sometimes or most of the time, but every time. If one of the two could be described as a brilliant legal scholar, it was Erle. He was blessed with a brilliant legal mind and strong work ethic, and to the discomfort of many, he held all of the firm’s lawyers to his high standards. Remarkably, as late as 1970, Erle still personally reviewed and approved every written piece of substantive legal work that was allowed to leave the firm. That became unworkable when the firm surpassed fifteen attorneys, but systems were immediately installed to ensure continued excellence.

Together, Ike and Erle planted the DNA of the firm, which has remained firmly in place for more than seven decades.

Today, in more than 30 locations and through hundreds of lawyers who never met the founders, this DNA is easily identifiable in the firm’s distinctive brand of promises.

Fisher Phillips promises to understand every client primarily as a business with business goals and challenges and to understand our role as helping the client to achieve its idea of success. And Fisher Phillips promises to deliver this outlook, as well as strong legal analysis and work product, everywhere and every time a client interacts with us.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

75

NAME

LAW FIRM

LOCATION

Kevin Miner

Fragomen

Atlanta

Cindy Schmitt Minniti

Reed Smith

New York

Ian Morrison

Seyfarth Shaw

Chicago

Kristen A. Page

Shook

Kansas City, Mo.

Sarah Peterson

SPS Immigration

Minneapolis

Renee Phillips

Orrick

New York

Carolyn Richmond

Fox Rothschild

New York

Seth J. Safra

Proskauer

Washington, D.C.

Salvador Simao

FordHarrison

Berkeley Heights, N.J.

Grant Sovern

Quarles & Brady

Madison, Wis.

Susan A.P. Woodhouse

Littler

San Francisco

Todd D. Wozniak

Greenberg Traurig

Atlanta

Denise L. Wheeler

FordHarrison

Fort Myers, Fla.

Becki Young

Hammond Young

Silver Spring, Md.

Joshua Zuckerberg

Pryor Cashman

New York

2018: HALL OF FAME NAME

LAW FIRM

LOCATION

Paula A. Barran

Barran Liebman

Portland

Barbara Jean D'Aquila

Norton Rose Fulbright

Minneapolis

Kim F. Ebert

Ogletree Deakins

Indianapolis

Robert Fleder

Paul Weiss

New York

Josie Gonzalez

Stone Grzegorek

Los Angeles

W. Carl Jordan

Vinson & Elkins

Houston

H. Ronald Klasko

Klasko Immigration Law Partners

Philadelphia

Ira J. Kurzban

Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt

Miami

76

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

NAME

LAW FIRM

LOCATION

Donald R. Livingston

Akin Gump

Washington, D.C.

Steven McCown

Littler

Austin

Theodore Ruthizer

Kramer Levin

New York

Robert Siegel

O'Melveny

Los Angeles

Jonathan Sulds

Greenberg Traurig

New York

Marc Van Der Hout

Van Der Hout Brigagliano

San Francisco

A. Martin Wickliff Jr.

Cozen O'Connor

Houston

John Wymer

Sherman & Howard

Atlanta

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 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

77

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 University

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

VIEW THE FULL HALL OF FAME AT: WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM/2018/04/15/CORPORATE-EMPLOYMENT-LAWYERS-HALL-FAME-2018

78

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Focus on winning the case.

We’ll find the expertise you need.

SOLUTIONS

Experts Referrals Comprehensive Background Checks Phone Consultations Voted #1 Expert Witness Provider By:

In-House Case Validation Expert Challenge Studies Record Review Expedited Search Options

NEW YORK CITY

|

LOS ANGELES

|

DALLAS

www.theexpertinstitute.com 888-858-9511

RECOGNIZED 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, PHILADELPHIA, CHICAGO

100

100 LEADING LEGAL CONSULTANTS AND STRATEGISTS

THE CHALLENGES FACED BY LAW FIRMS ARE A FUN-HOUSE MIRROR

of a first-world problem. Yes, there are children crying on the border, but what about profits per partner?

Got that. But if private law practice – or profit practice, as U.S. Attorney Chuck Rhoades played by Paul Giamatti in “Billions” calls it – is your calling, it’s a little tough right now.

The stratification between the haves and the have nots of private law practice is widening with the rich getting Crazy Wild Lawyer Rich and their regional competitors cobbling together odd bedfellows in efforts to compete. We’ll see.

What’s absolutely clear is that these are golden years for those who are paid by lawyers to either finance their cases or move them in lateral blocks to other firms. And for no industry is life more peachy keen than legal funders. While it seems only moments ago that folks like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce were gnashing their teeth about the subversion of justice wrought by outside capital entering litigation, those concerns have been rendered toothless by the power of Burford, which cemented its post as standard bearer of the industry with its 2016 acquisition of Gerchen Keller. The latter’s founders have since moved to their new plaintiffs’ firm, Keller Lenkner, but are included here for their pivotal role in litigation funding’s billion-dollar takeover of private law practice.

There are many others here, as well, reflecting the global nature of legal practice and the consultants who facilitate it. From recruiters to publicists, directory mavens and technologists, we’ve assembled the best of the legal world’s consultants for our fourth annual look at the advisors to the world’s best lawyers.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

81

100 NAME

ORGANIZATION

LOCATION

CONTRIBUTION

Elonide Semmes

Right Hat

Chicago

Karen Kaplowitz

The New Ellis Group

New Hope, Pa.

Cari Brunelle

Baretz Brunelle

New York

Communication

Jamie Diaferia

Infinite Global

New York

Communication

Donna Greenfield

Greenfield Belser

Washington, D.C.

Communication

New York

Communication

Allan Ripp

Ripp Media & Public Relations

Branding & Marketing Business Development & Management

Anita Shapiro

PLI

New York

Continuing Legal Education

Jeremy Kroll

K2 Intelligence

New York

Corporate Investigations

Jules Kroll

K2 Intelligence

New York

Corporate Investigations

Lanny Davis

Trident DMG

Washington, D.C.

Crisis Communication

Jeremy Fielding

Kekst

New York

Crisis Communication

Andrew Frank

KARV Communications

New York

Crisis Communication

James Haggerty

PRCG Haggerty

New York

Crisis Communication

Washington, D.C.

Crisis Communication

John Hellerman

Hellerman Communications

Harlan Loeb

Edelman

Chicago

Crisis Communication

Ian McCaleb

Levick

Washington, D.C.

Crisis Communication

Ellen Moskowitz

Brunswick

New York

Crisis Communication

Michael Sitrick

Sitrick and Company

Los Angeles

Crisis Communication

Kelsey Eidbo

Infinite Global

San Francisco

82

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Crisis Communication & Marketing

100

WILLIAM P. FARRELL JR. AND MICHAEL A. NICOLAS

BY JOHN RYAN

WILLIAM FARRELL AND MICHAEL NICOLAS

first discovered the attraction of litigation finance nearly a decade ago – as litigation partners interested in business development. Their combined experience of 35 years of litigating cases underpins Longford Capital’s focus on investing in businessto-business disputes to allow law firms and corporate departments to share the risk and rewards of their litigation. With the vast majority of businesses involved in some type of litigation, Farrell and Nicolas see significant potential for growth with Longford Capital continuing to play a leading role in the industry.

Lawdragon: What are each of your roles and responsibilities at Longford Capital?

Michael Nicolas: Bill and I founded Longford Capital in December 2011, along with Tim Farrell. Bill and I are managing directors of Longford Capital responsible for the overall strategy and direction of the company. We are also directly involved in the sourcing, underwriting, structuring, documenting, and monitoring of each of our investments. Bill also serves as the general counsel of Longford Capital.

LD: Does Longford Capital focus on particular types of cases or controversies?

William Farrell: Our focus is on business-tobusiness disputes with more than $25 million in controversy, in cases involving one of three broad substantive areas of the law: commercial disputes, including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, partnership/joint venture disputes, qui tam actions, and others; antitrust and trade regulation claims; and intellectual property actions, such as infringement of patents, trademarks, and copyrights, and theft of trade secrets.

Before launching Longford Capital, Mike and I practiced law for many years representing companies involved in controversies in these areas, so we focus on these broad areas because we are quite familiar with these types of disputes and are comfortable analyzing these types of cases. We have expanded our team to include other former partners of major law firms who have also litigated and tried cases in these subject-matter areas. Each

of our investments concerns highly meritorious claims which may be pursued in state and federal courts throughout the United States and abroad.

We also consider investments in domestic and international arbitrations and cases before regulatory bodies. The demand for our capital is strong – and growing – in each of these areas and we see no need to expand our focus.

LD: Does Longford Capital finance law firm portfolios or corporate legal departments?

MN: Longford Capital has always been at the leading edge of commercial litigation finance in the United States. We were one of the first managers to focus on litigation finance in the U.S. in 2011, and we are one of the largest managers in the asset class, with more than $550 million in assets under management.

We have helped lead the expansion of litigation finance from single-case investments, to law firm portfolios, and, most recently, corporate portfolios.

Earlier this year, for example, we announced a $67-million portfolio investment with a top litigation firm, the largest of our portfolio investments so far. Leading law firms and large corporations are finding great benefit from sharing litigation risk with Longford Capital. This expansion is being driven by increased interest from law firms that are looking to expand their litigation practices, and from companies seeking alternative and flexible forms of specialty financing under many different circumstances.

LD: What is your philosophy on financing of legal matters when it comes to deciding what claims you choose to finance?

WF: First, we invest only in the outcome of highly meritorious cases. Second, we focus on large business-to-business disputes where the underlying controversy falls within one of the substantive areas of law with which we are intimately familiar. Mike and I and our team of former partners from leading law firms have litigated and tried hundreds of cases in these broad subject-matter areas. Third, we only work with great lawyers and we ask those law firms to align interests by putting skin in the game; they must share some risk and reward. In other words,

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

83

100

owners appreciate our approach and so do leading law firms.

LD: Once invested in a matter, what is the firm’s involvement as the claims move forward?

WF: We are passive investors, we are not involved in setting litigation strategy or making settlement decisions. We don’t look over the lawyers’ shoulders.

But, if corporate claim owners or their law firms seek our input, we are ready to help. Mike or I have litigated cases very similar to those for which we now provide capital, and our input is often requested and always appreciated. This is an example of the value we provide beyond our capital.

LD: How did you first become interested in litigation finance and start thinking about switching to this work from a litigation practice?

William Farrell

the lawyers will be paid based on performance, not only on how many hours are invested in the case. Finally, we work with companies that we believe deserve access to the legal system and the necessary financial backing to pursue important and worthy claims.

LD: What is the firm’s niche or strength in litigation funding?

MN: We believe that Longford Capital’s greatest strength is the deep, diverse, and complementary skills of our team. We have former litigation and trial lawyers who were all partners at leading law firms – Kirkland; Finnegan; Jenner; Nixon Peabody; and Neal Gerber. And our leadership team includes former CFO, COO, and CEOs from business, private equity and a top global banking institution. We are well prepared, responsive, and bring value beyond our capital. We always conduct ourselves pursuant to the highest ethical standards. Corporate claim

84

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

MN: In 2009, Bill and I were working together as partners in the commercial litigation department at Neal Gerber & Eisenberg in Chicago. We learned of the practice of litigation finance in Australia and the UK and became fascinated. At first, we perceived litigation finance as an exceptional tool to be used for business development at our law firm. At that time, we had experienced numerous examples of corporate clients seeking alternatives to the billable hour billing model. Tim Farrell, who had more than 20 years experience as a senior corporate executive, was equally intrigued about litigation finance from the perspective of C-suite executives who would prefer to avoid the costs of litigation without foregoing meritorious legal claims. After two years of research and analysis, we concluded that litigation finance was going to experience rapid growth in the United States and we saw a great opportunity to develop the market for litigation finance in the U.S. LD: Did you have any reservations about entering the field given its somewhat uncertain status not too long ago?

WF: For two years we considered a lot of questions and conducted exhaustive research on the idea of litigation finance. We are conservative decision makers and we were very patient in evaluating this opportunity. Once we were confident that litigation finance would be accepted in the U.S., we still had to make the significant decision to resign our rewarding partnerships at our law firm, which Mike and I had worked very hard to achieve over many, many years. We made the right decision.

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

100

LD: Can you identify certain factors that have led to such an explosion in the litigation finance market in a relatively short period of time?

MN: Litigation finance has experienced rapid and increasing growth in the U.S. and many other jurisdictions in the past ten years. The awareness and acceptance of litigation finance is exploding because it serves the purposes of all affected groups – companies involved in a legal dispute; law firms representing those companies; investors in litigation finance; and the legal system itself. Companies can avoid the high cost of litigation without abandoning meritorious legal claims. Law firms can satisfy client demand for alternatives to the billable-hour model without absorbing the full risk of a contingency arrangement. Investors can gain exposure to an uncorrelated and diversifying asset class. And the legal system performs better when access to justice is facilitated and disputes can be resolved on a level playing field.

LD: Are there still risks you see in the industry?

WF: I don’t perceive existential risks on an industrywide level. Regulation of one sort or another may emerge at state or federal levels, but I believe that thoughtful regulation will serve to enhance the use of litigation finance. For example, some courts have considered mandatory disclosure requirements. While the manner in which a company pays for its lawyers is largely not relevant in litigation, the disclosure of our participation would likely increase awareness and acceptance of litigation finance and, thereby, increase the demand for our capital.

LD: What do you enjoy about working with claimants and law firms? What keeps you excited day to day?

MN: We really enjoyed practicing law and working in the courtroom. Our day-to-day responsibilities at Longford Capital enable us to stay close to what we know and love about complex commercial litigation. It is exciting to help a business owner achieve justice after his invention has been stolen or his contract has been breached. And, it is rewarding to be at the leading edge of the development of a new asset class and one that helps deserving companies.

LD: Are there aspects about this type of work that you feel newcomers in the market or law firms

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

Michael Nicolas

still have misconceptions about or do not fully understand?

WF: Awareness and acceptance of litigation finance is growing at a rapid pace, but we have a long way to go. Most companies and most lawyers are not familiar with litigation finance, but this is changing. Once a lawyer understands what we offer at Longford Capital, he usually wants to talk about opportunities to work together.

LD: Within the market, what areas of growth do you see for the next decade?

MN: We expect that the litigation finance industry will grow across all sectors. At Longford Capital, we are pursuing initiatives with private equity funds, research universities, and with companies in bankruptcy or distressed situations. We believe that law firm portfolios and corporate portfolios will continue to become more common.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

85

100 NAME

ORGANIZATION

LOCATION

CONTRIBUTION Crisis Communication & Mar-

Vivian Hood

Jaffe

Washington, D.C.

Marcia Horowitz

Rubenstein

New York

Terry Isner

Jaffe

Washington, D.C.

Andrew Longstreth

Infinite Global

New York

Zach Olsen

Infinite Global

San Francisco

Ron Glass

Glass Ratner

Atlanta

Crisis Turnaround

Ian Ratner

Glass Ratner

Atlanta

Crisis Turnaround

Liam Ferguson

The Claro Group

Los Angeles

E-Discovery

Ashish Prasad

eTera Consulting

Chicago

E-Discovery

Eric Schwarz

Ernst & Young

Dallas

E-Discovery

George Socha

BDO

Minneapolis

E-Discovery

Michael Talve

The Expert Institute

New York

Expert Witnesses

Linda Bray Chanow

Center for Women in Law

Austin

Inclusion

Mehrnaz Vahid

Citi Private Bank

New York

Law Firm Finance

Phillip Hampton

LogicForce

Nashville

Legal Administration Services

Silvia Coulter

The Lawvision Group

Manchester, UK

Legal Consulting

Michael Short

The LawVision Group

Washington, D.C.

Legal Consulting

Gerald Abila

Barefoot Law

Kampala, Uganda

Legal Entrepreneur - Technology

86

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

keting Crisis Communication & Marketing Crisis Communication & Marketing Crisis Communication & Marketing Crisis Communication & Marketing

100

ANITA SHAPIRO

BY JOHN RYAN

MANY LEGAL PROFESSIONALS RECOGNIZED

by Lawdragon excel on the cutting-edge of their practice areas or specialties. Anita Shapiro’s task is to make sure her nonprofit education organization stays on the leading edge of almost every conceivable legal topic, including those that continue to evolve in real time. The Practising Law Institute, or PLI, is also an industry leader in the delivery of education content to meet the varied demands of many different types of consumers in the legal space. A law graduate with a background in dance and classical music, Shapiro’s career could have gone in any number of directions. She has thrived in her long stint at PLI, an 85-year-old organization that also boasts a strong commitment to pro bono education.

Lawdragon: Can you describe why you joined the organization more than 17 years ago? Did you expect to stay for so long?

Anita Shapiro: When I joined PLI, I had no idea I would stay here this long. Before coming to PLI, I spent over a decade with West Publishing, now owned by Thomson Reuters. I worked in the Westlaw Division in the mid-to-late ‘80s when its online legal research platform was just starting to expand in the U.S. At the time, the ability to do legal research by computer was quite novel. There was no internet, no Google, no word searching, nor the ability to check cases to see if they had been overruled. Though it’s hard to imagine now, using a computer with an external modem at a 1200 baud rate was pretty “cool”!

After ten years at Westlaw, I was asked to move to its headquarters in Minnesota. While a great opportunity, I felt that New York City was my home, and decided to leave the company. This happened right around the dot-com boom and my brother, a technology entrepreneur, suggested that I join a dot-com startup. Although the business was quite interesting, the instability of a startup was not my cup of tea. It was a tremendous shift from being in an established corporation. And, stock options were not a big motivator for me. This is when I was lucky enough to find PLI. LD: What are some aspects about the legal education space that keep you excited about your job?

AS: What’s incredibly exciting for me is being at the cutting edge of delivering the most current and rel-

PHOTO PHOTO PROVIDED PROVIDED BY

BY THE THE FIRM FIRM

evant content in today’s evolving legal marketplace.

Prominent lawyers and business professionals, both in the U.S. and around the world, are on our faculty and ensure we are ever current.

The law changes frequently as issues evolve – new cases are decided and legislation is passed on issues that didn’t even exist years ago. Cybersecurity, artificial intelligence and blockchain are only a few examples of this. Legal challenges continually emerge and a key tenet for PLI has always been to stay attuned to the marketplace and try to anticipate what could be next. Our goals are to teach and train lawyers through our broad spectrum of programs so they can best represent their clients.

Most people are familiar with our outstanding programs. In addition to the programs, PLI has many departments such as our multimedia production team streaming courses from our state-of-the art conference center, our publishing division editing content published in our treatises, our legal information services team that indexes and processes PLI Plus content, as well as a division of professionals who use instructional design to create interactive and immersive programs.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

87

100 NAME

ORGANIZATION

LOCATION

CONTRIBUTION

Nancy Jessen

UnitedLex

Overland Park, Kan.

Legal Services Delivery

Vivek Maru

Namati

Washington, D.C.

Legal Services Delivery

Julia Salasky

CrowdJustice

London

Legal Services Delivery

Eric Blinderman

Therium Capital

New York

Litigation Funding

Christopher Bogart

Burford Capital

New York

Litigation Funding

Allison Chock

Bentham

Los Angeles

Litigation Funding

Adrian Chopin

Bench Walk Advisors

London

Litigation Funding

Dan Craddock

Vannin Capital

London

Litigation Funding

Lee Drucker

Lake Whillans

New York

Litigation Funding

Susan Dunn

Harbour Litigation Funding

London

Litigation Funding

William Farrell

Longford Capital

Chicago

Litigation Funding

London

Litigation Funding

Steven Friel

Woodsford Litigation Funding

Adam Gerchen

Keller Lenkner

Chicago

Litigation Funding

Jay Greenberg

LexShares

Boston

Litigation Funding

Rosemary Ioannnou

Vannin Capital

London

Litigation Funding

Aaron Katz

Parabellum Capital

New York

Litigation Funding

Jim Kearney

Lake Whillans

New York

Litigation Funding

Ashley Keller

Keller Lenkner

Chicago

Litigation Funding

Travis Lenkner

Keller Lenkner

Chicago

Litigation Funding

Hugh McLernon

Bentham

Perth, Australia

Litigation Funding

Jonathan Molot

Burford Capital

New York

Litigation Funding

88

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100

LD: How does PLI make sure its programs and materials are always of the highest quality and respond to what attorneys truly need?

AS: Our staff of program attorneys ensures that the roster of speakers, as well as the content and materials for all PLI programs, are of the highest quality.

Every evaluation form is reviewed, whether the attendee came to a live program in person, watched a live webcast at the office or watched an on-demand program at home. We depend on the feedback from our program attendees, which we incorporate to continually improve what we offer. Our program attorneys speak with our faculty regularly to hear what issues their clients are facing. In addition to the depth of our faculty’s expertise, they strive to engage audiences and present content in the most informative way. Whether through a hands-on negotiation, a mock cross-examination or a drafting session, our programs provide practical advice that lawyers can immediately implement.

LD: Are there certain types of legal issues or practice areas that your organization has sensed a greater demand for in recent years?

AS: We’ve noticed a significant increase in interest in privacy, cybersecurity, tax, employment law and immigration. Corporate and securities law has always been in high demand.

In addition, there is a growing emphasis on “professional skills” training that’s not driven by any particular legal topic. We provide programs on topics such as enhancing business development techniques, delivering compelling presentations and providing clients with efficient representation in a highly technological era. A successful lawyer needs to bring all of these skills to bear in this increasingly competitive legal market.

LD: How has PLI evolved in its approach to providing multiple avenues for attorneys to learn? Are there trends or developments in the delivery facet of the work, either with technology or consumer demand that you are seeing?

AS: PLI excels in our ability to deliver content in a variety of ways. Our philosophy is to let the customer decide which delivery option works best for them.

We’ve always had full-day live programs, as well as full-day live webcasts. We also offer self-paced on-demand segments of programs accessible any time the user wishes to watch – they can watch just one hour or a full day. Attendees can listen on their

smart phones, read program content electronically or actively engage in programs offered through our Interactive Learning Center (ILC). Everyone has a different learning style and we continue to develop ways of delivering programs and content to meet the broad spectrum of needs.

We continue to see growth in both our live programs as well as our online programs, and we’re very proud of that!

LD: Part of PLI’s mission is to prepare attorneys to fulfill their pro bono responsibilities. How does PLI implement this part of its mission?

AS: Pro bono has always been an integral part of our mission as a nonprofit. Our founding trustees felt a strong responsibility to give back to the community and that continues today. We are dedicated to providing lawyers with the necessary training to help those in need of access to justice. PLI has more than 50 distinct pro bono programs, which include such topics as immigration, human trafficking and mortgage foreclosure, among others. Attorneys seeking to represent pro bono clients can take a broad array of courses to prepare them for this representation.

LD: What led you to a career in the law? What did you expect to be doing with your degree when you were at Temple?

AS: My background is actually quite unusual given my current role. I studied classical music (flute), ballet and modern dance from elementary school straight through college. I was very fortunate to have attended the Alvin Ailey American Dance School for dance classes and spent a summer at the Aspen Music Festival. In college, I took courses in French, art history and literature. My background is one based in the liberal arts and in retrospect I would not have changed a thing. I think it gave me a multidimensional foundation that has helped me in all stages of my career. In fact, there are no lawyers in my family. My dad was an engineer and my mom managed special events and public relations for a number of museums in New York City.

After college, I took a job as a paralegal at a large law firm in Philadelphia. I really enjoyed my experience at the firm and decided to apply to law school.

When I graduated from law school, I practiced at a mid-sized litigation firm in New York City.

LD: Having had such varied jobs, you must have an interesting viewpoint: Are there ways in which you’ve

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

89

100 seen parts of the legal industry change since the beginning of your career? Any themes that stick out?

AS: I think the cost of tuition, combined with a potentially long road to partnership, has led individuals to think carefully before deciding to go to law school. With the increase in technology in legal practice, however, there are lots of new ways to use a law degree. I’ve also seen a tremendous effort by lawyers who want to make a difference in society.

Many gravitate toward jobs in public interest groups and with nonprofit organizations instead of going the traditional law firm route. There are avenues for everyone and paths continue to evolve.

LD: How about the public interest or community side? Please discuss any issues or other organizations you are involved with and what you find meaningful about the work.

AS: I have always believed it’s our obligation to give back to the community. I’m involved in supporting small organizations in Dutchess County, Columbia County and the Berkshires. Whether it’s supporting organizations that help the elderly who are homebound, supporting farmers markets where proceeds go to a local community center, or helping a local arts organization that supports individuals with autism, I feel that I am able to make a difference, even if in a small way.

MIKE SITRICK

LD: What is the most rewarding part of your job?

AS: This role brings with it tremendous responsibility from both a leadership perspective as well as a personal perspective. I feel a sense of responsibility for our more than 275 employees to be sure that they feel a sense of community and feel appreciated for their hard work. There are goals that must be met and it’s my responsibility to set the right tone. I’m continually raising the bar for myself and striving to inspire others to do the same. Every day my role challenges and pushes me to aim high.

I’m a big believer in continually learning and finding new avenues for education. This is probably why PLI is a wonderful environment for me. I find myself reading many business articles on management, strategy, culture and the like. I frequently participate in CEO peer groups to learn how to enhance my leadership skills and to lead by example.

Mentoring young professionals is very rewarding for me. This role gives me many opportunities, both inside and outside PLI, to do that. The core of PLI’s success and one of the most rewarding aspects for me personally is the community we have built here.

We have created an environment in which people are highly motivated to work together to provide the highest quality educational experience for our customers. I feel very appreciative of the opportunity to lead such a unique organization.

BY JOHN RYAN

TO STATE THE OBVIOUS: THE WORLD OF PUBLIC

relations and crisis communications have had few legends like Mike Sitrick, the founder and CEO of Sitrick and Company. For decades, the Los Angelesbased media expert has been wielding his talents and influence in disputes ranging from the highest of high-profile to the potential embarrassments forever kept under the rug. Sitrick himself once considered a career in the law before starting out in journalism for a brief period in the late 1960s.

“I was offered a journalism job at $125 per week and a PR job at $160 per week,” Sitrick recalls. “I liked journalism, but preferred eating.”

But Sitrick, who is also the author of the books “Spin” and “The Fixer,” has the instincts and savvy of an experienced newshound.

90 L A W D R A G O N I S S U E 1 9 | W W W . L A W D R A G O N . C O M PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

100

“The most important component of what I do – other than judgment and creativity – is understanding what makes news, whether in dealing with the media or any other constituent,” he says.

Lawdragon: Can you describe the range of matters that Sitrick and Company works on?

Mike Sitrick: We have an extensive practice in litigation support, both on the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ side – primarily as it relates to dealing with the media.

We also have a significant mergers and acquisitions practice and corporate governance practice.

Matters with which we have been involved span the spectrum. They include litigation support of all kinds – including intellectual property matters, allegations of stock manipulation, wrongful termination, claims involving contract disputes, allegations of fraud and fraudulent inducement, wrongful death claims, allegations of illegal drug use, a variety of white-collar crimes, criminal and civil cases against companies and their executives for such things as price fixing, insurance fraud, options backdating and antitrust violations, race and sex discrimination, sexual harassment, racism and #MeToo matters. We have also done extensive work combatting short sellers and dealing with data breaches. Other issues include extremely sensitive environmental matters, racketeering cases, family disputes and high-profile divorces.

LD: What do you like about what you do?

MS: I like the ability to work with very smart people and come up with a strategy which will bring about the desired results for our mutual clients. For example, our efforts in combatting short sellers contributed to one company increasing its market cap by more than $1 billion in one year and $3 billion in four years, and another which was split in half increasing its market cap in five or six years from around $100 million to over $10 billion.

In another example, the strategy we developed and implemented in a patent infringement lawsuit we handled the litigation support for resulted in so much media and market pressure that the defendant settled less than two days after the complaint was filed, saying if our client would stop the publicity the plaintiff would pay all back fees, interest and all legal and PR fees. We achieved the same result for another client, though it took about a week or so for them to settle, in a similar matter.

Lawyers for the defendants in yet another case, where our client was considerably smaller than the plaintiff’s

company, were all but ignoring our client’s attempts to settle. We placed a front-page story in the Wall Street Journal on the case, and that changed their mind. The case was settled shortly thereafter. Today, the company and its CEO are household words.

LD: When you think about all those types of disputes you’ve worked on, does one stand out?

MS: It’s impossible to pick one with all of the various cases we have had. But these four would rank among the top.We represented Pattie Dunn, the former chairman of HP who was indicted for “spying on her board.” She was depicted in the media as the personification of corporate evil. We put her on 60 Minutes, on the front page of the WSJ and she was featured in a story by James Stewart in the New Yorker. Not only did her image change, but all charges were dropped. We not only developed and ran the communications effort but pulled together the entire team.

Another of our clients was faced with liquidation because its lender refused to extend its line of credit.

We developed and implemented a strategy that, in less than a week, “convinced” the lender to not only extend the line of credit but reduce the interest rate.

The entity is still operating today.

A lender’s refusal to provide previously agreed upon exit financing from a Chapter 11 caused that company to begin plans for liquidation, an act that would have caused 29,000 people to lose their jobs. This time it took two weeks, but a strategy we developed and implemented resulted in the lender “changing its mind” and providing the financing allowing the company to continue operating.

We developed and implemented the withhold campaign for Roy Disney against Michael Eisner, then the chairman and CEO of The Disney Company.

We created a “SaveDisney.com” website and held a “SaveDisney.com” annual meeting the day before The Disney Company annual meeting. Forty-five percent of the company’s shareholders voted to withhold their vote. If it were counted the way proxy contest votes are counted, I am told it would have been 54 percent. Mr. Eisner stepped down as Chairman at that annual meeting and he retired as CEO the next year.

We have been fortunate enough to work on some of the biggest and most interesting cases in the world. I am fortunate that I still love what I do – most of the time.

LD: Are there any trends you are seeing in current work?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

91

100 MS: The impact of social and digital media continues to grow. And of course, we are seeing a lot of activity in the #MeToo matters.

LD: What’s a recent matter you’ve worked on?

MS: The attorney for the filmmaker who created “Icarus” came to us voicing a concern that the whistleblower in a documentary could become the target of an attempt on his life to silence and discredit him before the film came out exposing Russian doping during the Sochi Olympics. There was also a concern about the inability to come out with the film, let alone sell it without corroboration of what he was saying. We brought the story to one of the world’s leading newspapers which had its reporters do due diligence and reporting and then ran a major story on its front pages. The film won an Oscar, was sold for a record amount and the whistleblower is safe in witness protection. The Russians were also temporarily banned from the Olympics LD: What are some of the challenges about handling something so intense?

MS: Doing our own due diligence before we brought the story to a media organization; ensuring that we got the story out without “giving away” the story of the film; coordinating what we were doing with the myriad of lawyers and others who were involved – balancing their needs with the goal of implementing the strategy we developed.

LD: You mentioned being a journalist for a while.

What was your educational path and what other jobs did you have prior to founding your own firm?

MS: I have a degree in Business Administration with a major in Journalism. I worked a very short time as a journalist and then moved to public relations. My jobs included serving in the Richard J. Daley administration, working as an assistant vice president at an old-line Chicago public relations agency, as head of public relations for a Fortune 500 company and then as senior vice president for communications and a member of the senior management team of a Fortune 50 company before founding my current firm, Sitrick And Company, in 1989. When I left the corporate world, company executives and lawyers would call me and ask for my help. This was before I had decided to start a firm. It kind of just happened.

In our first year in business, we were among the top 15 independent firms and in the second year the top 10.

LD: What advice would you give to young folks who wish to have a similar type of career?

92

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

MS: Learn your craft, be willing to make the personal sacrifices necessary to get the job done – including working evenings, weekends and holidays, and never stop learning.

LD: Was there an early experience or mentor who really helped shape the course of your professional life?

MS: My father has always been my mentor, but I have also had the opportunity to work for and with some of the smartest people in the world.

LD: How has your profession changed since the early part of your career?

MS: The speed of communications and the effect on people’s lives and businesses of those communications have both been dramatically increased.

LD: What does it take to thrive in your area?

MS: Doing your due diligence, expertise in your craft, creativity, integrity, judgment and understanding your clients’ objectives – and then using all of your skills to achieve those objectives. It is also important that you understand that winning in the court of public opinion does not do you any good if what you do compromises the legal case or causes you to lose in the court of law. You also have to understand the client’s real objective and develop a way to help him or her achieve it.

LD: What advice would you give potential clients on how to most productively work with an outside advisor?

MS: In order to do our job, we need to understand both the client’s objectives and the legal strategy so that we can augment both.

LD: What are some current challenges in your leadership role running the firm?

MS: The biggest challenge is finding the right people.

Most of my top executives are ex-journalists, reporters and editors from the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Bloomberg, Forbes, The LA Times and CBS and NBC Television News – to name just a few.

I find it easier to teach a journalist PR than a PR person what news is. Having said that, we have former attorneys in the firm and have had success with a handful of former PR people. And, not all journalists can make the transition.

LD: There are many high-quality firms out there that operate in the same field as yours. What do you try to “sell” about your firm to potential clients – how is it unique?

100 500

MS: Almost all of our clients come through referral – from former clients, investment bankers and attorneys. We believe what makes us unique are the results we achieve for our clients.

LD: How have management challenges changed since the start of your career?

MS: As a manager, you need to make sure that you and your people stay current on what is required to achieve your clients’ results.

LD: What do you do outside the office, whether for fun or community involvement?

MS: I spend time with my family, vacation in Hawaii

LEE DRUCKER

and have returned to playing the guitar. I also serve on the Board of a hospital, and we do pro bono work for worthwhile causes.

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

MS: “The Man to See” [the biography of Edward Bennett Williams].

LD: If you weren’t in your current job, what would you be doing now?

MS: I probably would be doing in politics what I do for my clients.

BY JOHN RYAN

LITIGATION FINANCE MAY BE A BURGEONING

area but the truly experienced and successful firms still form a finite group. Among them is Lake Whillans, cofounded by Lee Drucker, an honoree on our 2018 guide to the 100 Leading Legal Consultants & Strategists. In fact, Drucker has been working in the space since its very early days in the United States when he joined up with one of the litigation-finance pioneers. Launched in 2013, Lake Whillans has stayed lean, allowing claimholders and lawyers direct access to a team that excels at creative and quick solutions.

Lawdragon: You became involved in litigation finance before getting your law degree. How did that happen?

Lee Drucker: My first involvement in litigation finance came in the summer of 2008, between my first and second years of the JD/MBA program at NYU. I secured a summer internship position with a partner at Latham & Watkins who had reached the mandatory retirement age at the firm, and he had turned his interest towards creating a business that served the legal industry. That summer we looked into various businesses, from legal process outsourcing to legal tech platforms, but I was most interested in our discovery of a financial product that was just beginning to take hold in the United Kingdom: litigation finance.

Lawdragon: What did you find interesting about litigation finance and promising about its potential? What hooked you in those early days?

Drucker: When viewed through the lens of an investor, a legal claim is a unique asset in that, one, the marketplace for legal claims is largely inefficient, and two, returns

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

should be uncorrelated with the broader market. In 2008, before litigation finance had taken hold in the U.S., if a company was faced with bringing a litigation or arbitration it generally had two options: fund the legal proceeding from its balance sheet or engage a law firm on a contingent-fee basis.

Oftentimes, companies seeking to bring a litigation or arbitration have had their underlying businesses damaged by the counterparty to the lawsuit, and, as a result, are not in a good position to fund new and costly line items in the form of litigation fees and expenses. These companies may need to raise capital to simply sustain

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

93

100 NAME

ORGANIZATION

LOCATION

CONTRIBUTION

Michael Nicolas

Longford Capital

Chicago

Litigation Funding

Leslie Perrin

Calunius Capital

London

LItigation Funding

Carolina Ramirez

Vannin Capital

New York

Litigation Funding

Nick Rowles-Davies

Chancery Capital

London

Litigation Funding

Andrew Saker

Bentham

Perth, Australia

Litigation Funding

Howard Shams

Parabellum Capital

New York

Litigation Funding

Mick Smith

Calunius Capital

London

Litigation Funding

Max Volsky

LexShares

New York

Litigation Funding

Boaz Weinstein

Lake Whillans

New York

Litigation Funding

Mark Wells

Calunius Capital

London

Litigation Funding

Katharine Wolanyk

Burford Capital

Chicago

Litigation Funding

Phil Hall

The PHA Group

London

Litigation PR

Charlie Potter

Brunswick

London

Litigation PR

Melanie Riley

Bell Yard

London

Litigation PR

David Sugden

Edelman

London

Litigation PR

Alex D'Amico

McKinsey & Co

New York

Management

Suhrid Gajendragadkar

McKinsey & Co

Washington, D.C.

Management

Norm Rubenstein

Zeughauser Group

Washington, D.C.

Management

Robert Algeri

Great Jakes Marketing

New York

Marketing

Spencer Baretz

Baretz Brunelle

New York

Marketing

Deborah McMurray

Content Pilot

Dallas

Marketing & Communications

94

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

100

operations (which we can also be helpful with). At the same time, the group that would be best positioned to lend support to these companies is hamstrung in their ability to do so. Legal ethics preclude law firms from financially supporting their clients, and from raising funds from capital markets to optimally grow a contingent-fee practice.

The notion that the returns from litigation finance should be uncorrelated with the broader market is relatively straightforward. The monetization or value of a claim, whether by settlement or judgment, should not be implicated by prevailing interest rates, the performance of stocks, or any other broad metric of economic performance.

Lawdragon: Can you describe to our readers what types of cases your firm tends to invest in, and when in the litigation process?

Drucker: We invest in both claim portfolios and individual cases. In individual cases, we look for commercial disputes in excess of $15,000,000 with robust documentary evidence that support a narrative of a “good-guy” vs. a “bad-guy.” Those cases tend to take the form of breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, breach of fiduciary duty, or other business torts. We get involved in cases throughout the litigation process – from prefiling to post-judgment.

Lawdragon: Your team still seems pretty lean. How do you evaluate a potential investment, and what role personally do you play in that process? Can you share a few key ingredients to doing this successfully?

Drucker: We go through a standard process for each opportunity that we evaluate. The first step is an intake call or email, which I typically handle. I will determine whether the case falls within our general bailiwick (e.g., type of case, jurisdiction, size of claim, rough amount of financing being sought). If the opportunity satisfies our initial criteria, we will enter into a non-disclosure agreement, and our team will have a “deep dive” call with the claimholder and/or counsel.

Assuming that the opportunity is of interest, we will then offer a term sheet outlining the structure and economics of the potential investment. Once we have reached agreement on the term sheet, we dive into due diligence; we will review the factual documents and correspondence, relevant pleadings, briefs and opinions.

Throughout the process, our full underwriting team, including myself, vets and discusses the investment and participates in the diligence process. A lean team provides claimholders and counsel direct access to

decision-makers from day one, which fosters real-time collaboration as we evaluate opportunities.

Lawdragon: Once invested in a matter, what is the firm’s involvement as the claims move forward? Has this changed over time in the firm’s history?

Drucker: Contractually, we are entitled to updates on material events; we do not typically have any control over litigation strategy, tactics, or decisions regarding settlement. In practice, a successful diligence process tends to create a positive and cooperative relationship between our team and the claimholder and its counsel.

As a result, we are often included in discussions about the case. We have intimate knowledge of the facts and the big picture objectives, and we often serve as a sounding board for the legal team that is more intimately involved in the case.

Lawdragon: Given litigation finance’s somewhat uncertain status in the states, at least not too long ago, did you have any reservations about diving in so fully? Are there still industry-wide risks that you see, aside from risks associated with individual cases?

Drucker: As part of the diligence process, we’ll consider the legal landscape for litigation finance, and in some rare cases, we haven’t made investments because of the legal risk. Fortunately, as of today most of the commercial centers for litigation in the U.S. never have had or have removed obstacles to commercial litigation finance.

I don’t see risk that the industry won’t be permitted to operate; litigation finance is quickly becoming an important tool to gain access to justice and to the business of law. It may be inevitable that more systemic rule-making or regulation will take place, particularly in the area of disclosure of litigation financing arrangements. I don’t necessarily think that’s a bad thing, so long as it is done thoughtfully and without prejudice to claimholders.

Lawdragon: Can you identify certain factors that have led to such an explosion in the litigation finance market in a relatively short period of time?

Drucker: I think that what we are seeing in the litigation finance industry is what happens when you make capital accessible to an industry or asset class that has been underserved. As I noted above, the legal claims market was inefficient almost by design. The entry of litigation finance companies that are more capable of evaluating, funding, and bearing the risks associated with a legal claim allows for companies to allocate their own resources to their highest and best use. If your readers are interested in the economics that drive litigation finance, we have a white paper that more fully delves into the topic.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

95

100

500

GINA RUBEL

BY JOHN RYAN

AS A LICENSED LAWYER AND FORMER LITIGATOR,

Gina Rubel gets to pursue both her passions by providing marketing and public relations services to law firms.

The coupling does more than make her job enjoyable – it’s critical to her reputation as one of the best in her field. In fact, the founder of Furia Rubel Communications recommends that law firms hiring media specialists set the same types of standards and expectations that are expected of them by legal clients. Once that happens, however, Rubel believes that generally the best policy is to let the experts like her do their job when it comes to implementing broad strategies or responding to crisis situations.

Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the types of services you provide within the legal industry and to whom?

Gina Rubel: My agency, Furia Rubel Communications, supports law firm growth through integrated legal marketing, public relations, and content marketing. I work with law firm leaders on business strategy, business development, high-stakes public relations, media training, crisis planning, and incident-response support, including high-profile litigation media relations.

LD: How did you first become interested in providing this type of professional service?

GR: I am a third-generation attorney in my family. My grandfather, Edward W. Furia Sr., practiced law and became the first Italian-American U.S. Magistrate in Pennsylvania. My father, Richard F. Furia, was a Philadelphia trial lawyer with whom I practiced law early in my career. However, before going to law school, I worked in the public relations and marketing sectors and my undergraduate degree is in corporate communications.

I had the opportunity to marry my two career loves, and I ran with it. I like to say that in both the practice of law and legal marketing and public relations, you communicate a strategic message to a targeted audience to elicit a specific response. It’s the means and the mediums that are different.

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

GR: There are many things I find satisfying about the legal marketing and public relations profession. For one, I enjoy working with attorneys and legal marketers who understand the value of what we bring to the table. For instance, we currently serve as the agency of record for 96

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

an AmLaw 200 firm for which we handle everything from business of law stories to crisis planning and media training. The attorneys and associates alike have taken the time to get to know how we can support them, their clients and help them to provide the best client value possible. What we do often enhances a law firm’s client advocacy – and this client, in particular, appreciates that.

Another reason I like working with lawyers is that they are smart and are not afraid to ask questions. Lawyers challenge every recommendation. While that may seem daunting, it causes us to work smarter and more strategically. One thing is for sure: I am never bored or unchallenged.

LD: Out of all the work you’ve done in your career, what would you say is the most interesting matter you’ve worked on for a legal client?

GR: This is a tough question. I have worked on heaps of interesting and thought-provoking matters. On the crisis communications side, I’ve dealt with hostile takeovers, mass layoffs, corporate restructuring and lateral departures. I’ve handled communications regarding a law firm partner who represented a high-profile global institution in a sexual harassment case which garnered nationwide publicity. I oversaw messaging and internal

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

100

management in several matters after it was discovered that a senior officer had misappropriated client funds. I have handled employee and client communications for various law firms and other clients who lost power and/ or facilities during hurricanes and other natural disasters.

Further, I have managed crisis communications during various public rallies, protests, and demonstrations for retail facilities, municipalities, and legal matters including death penalty cases.

On the more proactive side of public relations, I find every attorney and almost every matter exciting. Some of my favorite assignments have been in the intellectual property, natural resources, energy, banking, toxic torts, MDL, and business sectors. I enjoy working with law firms and other businesses such as banks on their strategic planning as it relates to proactively communicating mergers and acquisitions, C-level successions, and other major business developments.

LD: Are there any trends you are seeing in your area of consulting or advising in terms of the types of matters keeping you busy these days?

GR: The legal marketing industry has changed dramatically since I founded Furia Rubel Communications more than 16 years ago. When I started, there was no such thing as social media and people were still using faxes to communicate information. Now, the speed with which we communicate information and turn around work is exponential. That has affected the consulting industry in many ways – in particular, the need for law firms to have well-thought-out crisis communications plans (a.k.a. incident-response plans) and trial-publicity plans. These are the things that are keeping us most busy – even though the majority of our clients rely on our full-service, integrated-marketing expertise.

working within its outside counsel’s media policy of “no comment.” The matter has since been dismissed by the court, and the resulting media coverage set the record straight. This is what I consider a success story.

LD: What were some of the challenges of navigating that successfully?

GR: The key challenges in this matter were, one, we had little time to craft the proposed messages because we found out about the case through a reporter’s inquiry – this meant we were in a reactive media relations posture as opposed to a proactive stance; and two, the outside counsel’s law firm maintains a “no comment” media policy which meant our client had to be in the driver’s seat with message management. A blanket “no comment” media policy is almost never the best media relations approach.

LD: What was the final result from your point of view?

GR: In this case, the client is the law firm and the impact is that they got a fair shake with the media. The good news is that the majority of the legal trade and other business trade media are fair and prefer accurate reporting. We don’t deal with a ton of sensationalism in business-to-business media. There are certainly legal tabloids and various blogs that we have to contend with, but all-in-all, our client got a fair shake and their reputation did not suffer.

LD: Is there a specific lesson or take-away from this matter?

Gone are the days that you could respond to a journalist within 12 to 24 hours. Now it’s minutes. As a result, it is important for law firms to plan, consider their strategy, and determine what is in the best interests of their firm and its clients.

GR: This is a great example of why law firms need to include media relations and public relations strategy in their high-stakes, high-profile matters. As a former litigator turned publicist, I walk a tight-rope, and I’m often in conflict with myself. My PR mind says one thing, and my traditional, conservative lawyer mind says another. In the end, I find that I often come out in the middle – with the most strategic way to manage the court of public opinion while making sure the matter plays out properly and ethically in the court of law.

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

LD: Please discuss your career path. What were some of your earlier jobs that got you here?

GR: We recently handled media relations strategy for a law firm client which found itself in the cross-hairs of an absurd lawsuit. The law firm was accused of wrongdoing by a former employee who had been fired for justified and well-documented cause. The former employee filed a pro se complaint against our client – a story of which was sensationalized by some members of the media. We worked with the firm to craft messages and devise a strategy to respond to the matter in kind, while

GR: I earned my J.D. from Widener University School of Law and was admitted to practice in Pennsylvania – a license I continue to maintain. During law school I clerked for the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, and for nearly two years I handled crisis communications, risk management and international media relations while serving as the law clerk on highly-publicized death penalty appeals. I then spent several years as a litigator. My work as a judicial

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

97

100 NAME

ORGANIZATION

LOCATION

CONTRIBUTION

Burton Taylor

Proventus

Kansas City

Marketing & Communications

Peter Pochna

Rubenstein

New York

Marketing & Technology

Jaron Rubenstein

Rubenstein Technology Group

New York

Marketing & Technology

Deborah Farone

Farone Advisors

New York

Pippa Greze

Pippa Greze Consulting

Aldershot, UK

Media - Directory Maven

Daniel Kidd

Kidd Aitken

London

Media - Directory Maven

Lloyd Pearson

393 Communications

Brighton, UK

Media - Directory Maven

Dawn Schneider

Schneider Group Media

New York

Media & Communications

Scott Atlas

Atlas Counsel Search

Houston

Professional Recruiters

Dan Binstock

Garrison & Sisson

Washington, D.C.

Professional Recruiters

Eilene Bloom

Eilene Bloom Group

New York

Professional Recruiters

Amanda Brady

Major, Lindsey & Africa

New York

Professional Recruiters

Kay Hoppe

Credentia

Chicago

Professional Recruiters

Mark Jungers

Lippman Jungers

Sherman Oaks, Calif.

Professional Recruiters

Sabina Lippman

Lippman Jungers

Sherman Oaks, Calif.

Professional Recruiters

Bobbie McMorrow

McMorrow Consulting

Summerland, Calif.

Professional Recruiters

Mestel & Company

New York

Professional Recruiters

Jane Sullivan Roberts

Major, Lindsey & Africa

Washington

Professional Recruiters

Keith Wetmore

Major, Lindsey & Africa

San Francisco

Professional Recruiters

Paul Williams

Major, Lindsey & Africa

Chicago

Professional Recruiters

Gina Rubel

Furia Rubel

Doylestown, Penn.

Public Relations

Mary Rosenfeld D’Eramol

98

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Marketing, Branding & Communication

100

law clerk pointed me back in the direction of public relations and crisis communications – so I married my two degrees, law and corporate communications. I transitioned into communications and human relations at a video-on-demand start-up. In less than a year, I successfully generated national publicity in the trade press and regional television.

I then became head of public relations at a direct marketing firm. When they interviewed me, the founder asked, “Why would someone with an attorney’s background want to work in direct marketing?” I can still quote verbatim my answer: “Lawyers communicate a targeted message to a targeted audience to elicit a specific response. Isn’t that what direct marketers do?” We as lawyers obviously have to understand legal theory and case law, but ultimately, whether in a brief or a courtroom argument, we have to analyze our audience and come up with the most effective message – this is the same type of communications analysis handled by marketers.

That was my epiphany of how to combine the law and corporate communications. I was hired to direct public relations for the agency, pharmaceutical, and consumer product accounts. I worked in two additional agencies supervising public relations and crisis communications for pharmaceutical, biotech, nonprofit and manufacturing accounts. In 2002, I decided to go out on my own to bring sophisticated marketing and public relations services to law firms. The rest is history.

Having a law degree and experience as a trial attorney has helped to legitimize me and the company in the eyes of lawyers and law firm management. That is precisely why the company niches in legal marketing and public relations.

LD: Did any experience from your undergraduate work push you towards this type of career?

GR: As a student at Drexel University, I had the opportunity to work in three co-op positions, each for six months. My co-op experience pushed me in the direction of communications. My first co-op was as an assistant editor with Physician’s News Digest where I found my love for writing and storytelling. My second co-op was with an electronics distribution company where I developed their internal communications initiative including an internal newsletter that was launched at their global sales meeting. My final co-op was with a nonprofit where we handled internal and external communications, sponsorship relations and fundraising.

LD: Was there a course, professor or experience that was particularly memorable or important in how your career turned out?

GR: While all of the corporate communications and law courses shaped my career, there are two that stand out: psychology and trial advocacy.

All of the psychology courses I took helped me to be a better listener, a more effective communicator, and to understand the importance of emotional intelligence (EQ) as it relates to life in general, serving as an employer, and serving our clients.

Trial advocacy was similar. We had to learn how to communicate with co-counsel, judges and jurors. We had to learn voir dire and how to identify physiological and sociological traits that could create bias. And we had to learn how to present an argument in such a way that we could advocate effectively on behalf of our clients, which is something I do every day.

LD: What advice do you have now for current students or young professionals who want to do communications for law firms?

GR: Legal marketing and public relations is a legitimate profession which starts with having a solid understanding of business in general and the business of law in particular. My first piece of advice is to take every psychology, organizational behavior, statistics and data analysis class possible. All of these things will make you a more effective and efficient communicator. My second piece of advice is to join the Legal Marketing Association (LMA) and learn from people who have been in the industry for the last 30-plus years. There are many idiosyncrasies in our industry – LMA provides the network and resources communicators need to be more successful.

LD: You touched on this before with social media, but how has your profession changed since the early part of your career?

GR: Legal marketing has been legitimized – that’s first and foremost. Put another way, in August 2018 the American Bar Association was 140 years old while the Legal Marketing Association was 33 years old. When I started in the profession, the courts didn’t have formal email accounts, there was no e-filing, there was no such thing as social media, cell phones came in bags that weighed several pounds, there was no such thing as Wi-Fi, and the facsimile had revolutionized how we communicated in law and public relations.

What it comes down to is moving away from a tactical approach to marketing to focusing on strategy. Legal marketing and business development must be discussed at the firm management level to help law firms accomplish their overall business goals of client satisfaction and profitability.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

99

100

WHEN IT COMES TO LAW FIRMS, IF THEY ARE GOING TO HIRE AN OUTSIDE ADVISOR, THEY SHOULD VET THEM THE SAME WAY THE LAWYERS EXPECT TO BE SCRUTINIZED BY THEIR CLIENTS. SET EXPECTATIONS, BE RESPONSIVE, ASK QUESTIONS, AND COLLABORATE OPENLY. LD: What makes a client or type of matter stand out as a favorite for you?

GR: There are always clients that rise to the top of the list – that is because they value and respect the strategic counsel and services we provide. They give us a seat at the strategy table. They communicate regularly and efficiently with us, and they don’t micromanage.

LD: How would you describe your style or philosophy as a professional service provider? What characteristics does it take to thrive in your area?

GR: My philosophy is to lead with integrity. The characteristics that I believe one must have to thrive in legal marketing and law firm communications include, one, the ability to understand the types of matters that the lawyers handle and the demands placed on them by their clients. Two, we need to listen to the lawyers and in-house legal marketing and business development teams we serve and respond with well-thought-out feedback based on quantifiable data whenever possible. Other characteristics critical to success include the ability to write effectively and efficiently; to collaborate, empathize and negotiate; and finally, to be able to breathe and not take anything personally.

LD: Do you have any negative experiences in advising lawyers that taught you new approaches, or caused you to reconsider working with lawyers?

GR: Professional services providers, and especially lawyers, are some of the most demanding clients – and yet, they can also be the most rewarding. As a lawyer, I’ve never reconsidered working within the profession but there are certainly days that I get great satisfaction from serving clients in the various other industries that we support.

LD: What advice would you give potential clients in terms of how to most productively work with an outside advisor?

GR: When it comes to law firms, if they are going to hire an outside advisor, they should vet them the same way the lawyers expect to be scrutinized by their clients. Set expectations, be responsive, ask questions, and collabo100

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

rate openly. Read the reports. Ask for quantifiable results whenever possible, and check in regularly. And might I repeat, be responsive. We shouldn’t have to follow up two or more times to get an approval on something the law firm expects us to complete in a timely manner.

LD: Are there lawyers or firms you won’t work with again and if so why?

GR: Absolutely. There is good business and there is bad business. We have had to resign an account or mutually agree to dissolve a contract from time to time. These have typically been smaller law firms run by attorneys who believe that they always know better. They did not respect the experience or counsel that we brought to the table nor did they wish to collaborate. These are the same firms that often asked us to pitch media stories about topics they believe to be important but the media would never cover. These types of accounts tend to do unto others as they would prefer others do not do unto them.

LD: Why did you decide to go out on your own instead of joining or staying with another company that also did media work for law firms?

GR: When I launched Furia Rubel Communications, we were the only legal marketing agency in Pennsylvania. I capitalized on the opportunity to serve an industry that I loved while creating a solid foundation for a viable business. Since then, many providers have come into the legal marketing space, many of which do not have former practicing attorneys at the helm.

LD: What do you think makes your company unique?

GR: Furia Rubel is a full-service agency deeply experienced at helping B2B clients create strategies and execute tactics to meet their objectives. We are clientfocused and data-driven, and our legal and ethics expertise provide compliance-industry and high-risk businesses like law firms with an added layer of efficiency and protection.

We have a wealth of experience in legal communications having worked with many law firms over the course of

100 500

16 years. We build strategic partnerships with clients for business growth and stability, having helped many achieve their goals through the conception and execution of strategic marketing and public relations. We also are known to deliver exceptional client service right from our renovated barn-office in the suburbs of Philadelphia.

Furia Rubel is ranked among the top regional agencies and the top 50 women-owned businesses by the Philadelphia Business Journal. The agency also has the unique distinction of being listed in The Legal Intelligencer’s Hall of Fame and among the top agencies ranked by National Law Journal, New Jersey Law Journal, New York Law Journal and the LegalTimes.

As a boutique agency, we maintain a low volume of high-quality relationships and are mindful not to find our agency in conflict with work handled on behalf of our existing clients. We treat every client the way we expect to be treated – and our executives are involved every step of the way.

In addition to our professional credentials and expertise, we are a certified women-owned business.

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

GR: As a working mother, any time I’m not working, I try to be with my family. We spend time on our historic Bucks County, PA farm gardening and caring for our animals. I also enjoy traveling with my family and sup-

ZACH OLSEN

porting our children in their various academic and sports endeavors – and always with my camera in hand.

LD: Are you involved in any community or public interest activities?

GR: Over the years, I have had the opportunity to serve on various boards and be involved in many community and public interest initiatives. Currently, I serve on two committees of the Legal Marketing Association, as an advisory board member to Women Owned Law, and as a volunteer and child sponsor for a family in the Philippines with Pearl S. Buck International.

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

GR: There are few books or movies about the law that I have enjoyed. When you live something every day, it’s difficult for me to find the subject matter entertaining.

However, as a South Philadelphia Italian-American, I will always laugh when watching Marisa Tomei, Joe Pesci and Ralph Macchio in My Cousin Vinny. I still remember seeing it for the first time. I was on an outing with the Italian-American lawyers club called The Justinian Society at law school. It was 1992, and I knew then that they had a classic.

LD: If you weren’t in your current job, what would you be doing now?

GR: If I weren’t in my current job, I’d be the host of a travel show and a travel writer like Rick Steves, or I’d be a wildlife photographer for National Geographic.

BY JOHN RYAN

AS OUR RESEARCH FOR THE 100 LEADING

Legal Consultants & Strategists guide made clear, the talented individuals who are truly trusted in the area of crisis communications for law fi rms is a relatively small group. That thorny area is the expertise of Zach Olsen, the San Francisco-based president of Infinite Global. The UMass Amherst graduate held a variety of odd jobs before landing at Infinite, where he clearly found his knack – earning the trust of law firms and lawyers along with other clients the company serves.

Lawdragon: For those not too familiar with your company, what types of services do you provide and to whom?

Zach Olsen: Infinite Global provides a diversity of PR and communications, branding, and content creation services. Our clients include law firms, public

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

101

100

I WAS CONSIDERING GOING TO LAW SCHOOL UNTIL I TOOK THE LSATS AND REALIZED I MIGHT BE BETTER OFF IN A MORE “CREATIVE” FIELD. I WAS LUCKY ENOUGH TO COME ACROSS AN OPPORTUNITY TO JOIN INFINITE AS AN ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE, AND I WENT AFTER IT. and private companies, non-profits, individuals and other professional service organizations.

ing our clients anticipate and prepare ahead of time for crises.

LD: How did you first become interested in doing this type of work?

LD: Can you tell us a bit more about your career path. What types of jobs did you have before arriving at Infinite?

ZO: I was considering going to law school until I took the LSATs and realized I might be better off in a more “creative” field. I was lucky enough to come across an opportunity to join Infinite as an account executive, and I went after it.

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

ZO: I am extremely lucky because at this stage in my career I am surrounded by opportunities to make a difference and find professional satisfaction.

I enjoy working with lawyers because I’m comfortable not being the smartest person in the room and I find that even though I’m often not, most of our clients appreciate and value my expertise and the counsel I provide.

Outside of the client work, I find enormous satisfaction from observing and taking part in the growth and development of our younger employees. They are the real heart and soul of our organization and seeing them learn and grow together as individuals and as a team, is the part of the job I cherish most.

ZO: I have absolutely no business working for, much less leading, a PR firm. I graduated from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, with a degree in Sociology and Criminal Justice and had a series of unrelated, dead-end jobs in the service, sales and wine industry before landing at Infinite. If nothing else, those jobs prepared me for a career in PR by forcing me to learn how to handle rejection and listen to and interact with a variety of people from a diversity of backgrounds. I think that experience probably helped shape the way that I interact with our clients, prospects, employees and the journalists that we rely on to help tell our stories.

LD: Was there a mentor in the field who really helped shape the course of your professional life?

LD: Are there any trends you are seeing in crisis communications, reputation management or related issues?

ZO: I wouldn’t be where I am today without the mentoring and guidance of Infinite’s founder, Jamie Diaferia, and his former partner, Nick Gaffney. Jamie and Nick had wildly different styles of communicating, selling, training, and supporting me in the early stages of my career. I was able to learn from their successes and create my own style which has helped me become successful in my own right.

ZO: Most of the trends we are seeing and the majority of my work recently can be bundled into the general category of “emerging risk.” These include data breaches and cybersecurity incidents, sexual harassment matters, public-facing litigation and other crises that require thoughtful communications strategies. In addition, we are doing an enormous amount of risk mitigation work which includes help-

ZO: My philosophy is relatively straightforward – do good, be honest and work tirelessly on behalf of the clients and the employees that rely on and trust me. That trust is enormously hard to earn and very easy to lose and it is the single most important asset I have as a person and professional.

102

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LD: How would you describe your style or philosophy as a professional service provider?

100 500

MICHAEL TALVE

BY JOHN RYAN

IT’S HARD TO ARGUE WITH CEO MICHAEL

Talve’s assessment that these are “very exciting” times for his company, The Expert Institute. The New York-based firm, which assists nationwide law firm clients on thousands of cases each month, is growing in significant markets, including the West Coast, Texas and Canada. The Expert Institute provides carefully vetted experts for both plaintiff and defense firms, including those who may become witnesses during trials.

A born entrepreneur, Talve seeks to develop long term relationships that will keep law firms working with The Expert Institute for decades to come.

Lawdragon: Can you describe to our readers the services that The Expert Institute provides and its mission?

Michael Talve: The Expert Institute is a legal-tech firm that uses data-driven methods to pair attorneys with the best subject matter experts for any role in any case. Our mission is to fundamentally change the way that attorneys work with expert witnesses.

In addition to our technology, we’ve also invested in a world-class team, so we can serve our clients in a more holistic capacity than traditional providers.

Our staff includes fifteen medical doctors, as well as experienced multidisciplinary researchers, who provide preliminary reviews of case specific records for our clients and help them hone in on the exact expertise needed for a given case. Our aim is to provide comprehensive support throughout every stage of the litigation process.

Our firm has provided experts on dozens of ninefigure cases, and we’re proud to support many of the nation’s leading trial lawyers.

LD: Is there a breakdown between experts provided with intent to give testimony versus those that are provided to assist with a case more generally?

MT: It varies by case type and firm.Typically our clients engage us in a consultative capacity early on in the process and often before they elect to take on a case. By engaging us at the onset of a case, our clients have the opportunity to get an upper hand on any technical issues that might be present in the file. A significant portion of our client base utilize our service to vet prospective cases for merit, ensuring they pursue cases with a high likelihood of having

PHOTO PHOTO PROVIDED PROVIDED BY

BY THE THE FIRM FIRM

a successful outcome.

We also offer our clients the freedom and flexibility to speak with a number of experts in a given field, which can substantially reduce their learning curve. Many times, these consulting experts go on to become testifying experts when necessary. Engaging the right expert early on provides a number of benefits and often yields more desirable results.

LD: If possible, can you share some scale or numbers for size – perhaps total number of cases the firm might assist on at any given time, or number of experts provided?

MT: We work on a few thousand cases each month.

Many of these cases require multiple experts across a variety of specialty areas. We typically turn these projects around in three to five business days, some faster, some slower, depending on the needs of our clients.

LD: Is there any split between assisting with the plaintiff or defense side? Are there certain types of firms that tend to use your services more than others?

MT: We work with the premier plaintiff and defense firms nationwide. Historically, we’ve been strong in mass torts, personal injury, medical malpractice and

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

103

100 general liability, evidenced by the fact that we have a large team of MDs on staff, full time, overseeing all medical research engagements.

On the other hand, members of our multidisciplinary research team have backgrounds across a wide range of industries, from engineering to finance.

These researchers identify experts for attorneys in all practice areas – intellectual property, securities, white collar, commercial litigation, just to name a few.

LD: What was missing from the market in this area – what issue are you helping to solve?

MT: I saw an opportunity to bring the same methods and tools that had been pioneered in the tech industry to the expert search process, and empower attorneys to work with the best possible experts on every case.

To me, there was an obvious need for improvement in the expert search process. As an example, a traditional expert search handled by a law firm internally might begin with one partner emailing all of his colleagues asking for a referral. An associate then runs a Google search, while a paralegal reads through industry literature. They may make a few cold calls, often with limited success.

To streamline this method, we use technology to take a holistic view of all available data: litigation and challenge history, past case outcomes, deposition transcripts, publications and lectures, board sanctions, malpractice claims, criminal records, and more to determine which candidates are best qualified for a given case.

This ensures our clients are consistently matched with the best experts. And the success of this refined process is evident: many of the most successful litigators in the country rely on our service.

LD: What is the technology or approach that has allowed the company to become so successful in matching experts with cases?

MT: How we work with data - and we are constantly optimizing our matching platform using a datadriven decision making process. In terms of the technology used, it’s a unique mix of systems. Our technology aggregates data from hundreds of thousands of sources, including private and government databases, institutional directories, court filing systems, physician rating platforms, professional organizations, and others, which gives us the information we need to say that an expert is, objectively, the best choice.

104

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

We use a variety of continuous improvement methods, so incremental enhancements are constant.

We’ve also developed APIs (application programming interfaces) to access information on a live basis, which enables us to monitor the whole landscape of expert witness data points and respond in real time.

LD: Also, with such a large roster, can you discuss what the vetting process involves?

MT: Our vetting process includes a number of elements: background checks, references, past litigation history, board sanctions and malpractice claims, phone interviews, writing samples, trial and deposition transcripts, confirming credentials for validity, reviewing corporate affiliations, comparing individuals against their peers to ensure they’re industry leaders and much more. This compliance process has been developed over many years and is the most rigorous in the industry.

As another note, the same compliance framework is used for all of the experts we refer, including individuals who we go out and recruit specifically for a single case. We’re not bound to an existing roster or network like many of the traditional expert services.

LD: Can you describe the staff a bit in terms of size, and what subject area expertise or skill set is featured?

MT: We have over 100 employees between three offices in New York, Dallas and Los Angeles. Despite the distance between each of these offices, all of our employees work together as a single unit. Everyone works within our unified internal system and collaboration between staff members in each office is seamless. Our research team, which is focused on locating, screening, and vetting experts, is comprised of physicians and multidisciplinary researchers.

More than fifteen members of our research team are MDs, and they work closely with many of the top medical malpractice and pharmaceutical litigation attorneys nationwide.

Our business development and account management teams are completely focused on customer service and, as a result, they’re constantly on the road visiting with clients. In 2018 so far, our team has visited more than 100 cities across the U.S. We make great efforts to visit with all of our clients, no matter how big or small. There’s a lot of value in developing meaningful, long lasting relationships, and we view each client relationship as a 10-, 20-, or

100

THIS BUSINESS IS FASCINATING. WE WORK WITH SOME OF THE MOST DEVOTED AND PASSIONATE PROFESSIONALS I HAVE EVER MET, AND EVERY DAY THE LANDSCAPE OF WHAT WE ARE WORKING ON CHANGES. 30-year business opportunity – it’s a very long term approach towards business development.

I plan to expand this business for many years to come, our goal is to become an integral, long-term partner with all of our clients. Many of the firms we support are family businesses in a sense - with two or even three generations working together at a law firm. I plan on supporting future generations, too, and we have a long term partnership mindset with all of the folks whom we support.

LD: What is professionally satisfying about working within the legal industry?

MT: This business is fascinating. We work with some of the most devoted and passionate professionals I have ever met, and every day the landscape of what we are working on changes. Right now, we are working on a case involving a major automobile manufacturer, a large global investment firm, cases involving significant pharmaceutical interests and consumer products, professional athletes, billionaire business owners, rare art, and more. It’s deeply rewarding to gain exposure to all of these industries through the work that we do here.

We are exposed to so many incredible cases and TEI’s involvement is often critical. Our team realizes that the work we do is very, very important – and they treat each case as if it were their own. When we work with a plaintiffs’ firm on a significant matter and the case resolves for $50 million, $100 million, $500 million or more, our team takes great pride in knowing that we have contributed to the success of our clients and the parties involved.

Our clients tend to be very entrepreneurial as well.

They’re investing substantial sums of money, time and firm resources in their cases. It’s not terribly different from traditional venture capital investing – you need to have a diverse portfolio of investments, or cases, to be successful as a trial lawyer. Sure you need a few home-run opportunities, but you also need a healthy docket of singles, doubles and triples to ensure the sustainability of your firm.

LD: Do you have any plans for growth or change?

MT: Given the substantial amount of growth we’ve seen since starting the business, the legal-tech space has garnered growing interest from the likes of private equity and venture capital firms. At the end of 2017, we partnered with Spectrum Equity, a growth focused private equity firm with over 25 years of experience that has raised $7 billion since inception. This marked a significant step forward for our business and has provided our team with the resources and additional business acumen to ensure we continue to scale at a rapid pace.

We are also focused on expanding on the West Coast where we were recently voted the #1 Expert Witness Provider by The Recorder, which is California’s most important legal publication, as well as Texas, where we see a substantial amount of opportunity.

We’re also expanding quickly in Canada, where in the past six months our team has spent several weeks visiting with firms in Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Calgary and Vancouver. It’s a great market opportunity, and we project that we will grow by more than 300% in Canada this year.

LD: Is there a big-picture trend where you see companies in your space moving?

MT: Like I said earlier, the main problem that I see with traditional expert providers is a lack of innovation. We see this as an opportunity to change the entire paradigm for this industry and redefine how attorneys work with experts - and in large part, the way litigators approach cases.

What I see for The Expert Institute’s future is a truly seamless integration of technology throughout the process of finding and retaining an expert, with the end goal being a substantial increase in the quality of expert witness testimony available to all attorneys.

We want to have a positive impact on the legal process and think that applying tech-driven efficiency is a great way to do that. I believe the legal-tech space as a whole is working towards that goal, there are a lot of things to be excited about.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

105

100

500

ERIC BLINDERMAN

BY JOHN RYAN

ERIC BLINDERMAN’S PATH TO LEGAL

finance was an adventurous one – a track entirely fitting for an ascent within the burgeoning litigation funding industry that has seen tremendous growth in recent years. Prior to becoming CEO of Therium’s U.S. operations in 2016, Blinderman launched and owned a pair of highly regarded restaurants in New York City’s trendy West Village, served as a lawyer for the U.S. government in Iraq between 2004-2006, including a stint advising the tribunal that prosecuted Saddam Hussein and others for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes (a passion he has continued to pursue in his ongoing efforts to assist refugees who have fled conflict areas), and was also international litigation counsel at Proskauer Rose LLP. The talented multitasker says that his decision to join Therium is rooted in his ongoing desire “to build something.”

“At no point did I envision myself owning and operating restaurants, serving in war zones, working at a large corporate law firm, or becoming the chief executive officer of a finance company,” Blinderman says. “It has been a long and winding career path of which I would not change a single thing.”

Lawdragon: Can you tell us about Therium and the services it provides?

Eric Blinderman: Therium provides litigation finance services to law firms, corporations, and individuals who want to convert a litigation interest – which is an illiquid asset – into capital. Put another way, we invest in meritorious lawsuits in exchange for a return, and the lawsuit is the collateral. Most of our financial products are non-recourse, which means that we only get our money back and take a return if the case wins. If the litigation doesn’t succeed, we take nothing.

One of the most exciting things about being at Therium is that the products and services we offer are rapidly evolving and expanding. While the industry primarily started out funding legal fees for litigation – which is still the bulk of our business – the structures can be more complex and the underwriting is becoming more nuanced as we create new legal finance products, including allowing large companies to seek off-balance sheet financing to leverage growth; engaging with law firms seeking to grow their business or transfer risk; and working with smaller companies with litigation or regulatory risk seeking 106 L A W D R A G O N I S S U E 1 9 | W W W . L A W D R A G O N . C O M PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

financing to navigate such challenges and become financially viable.

LD: How did you get interested in litigation finance?

EB: When I was at Proskauer, I represented a series of litigation financiers and became immersed in the underwriting, structuring, and financial elements of legal funding. I was especially captured by the industry because it enabled me to use not only my legal expertise, but also tapped into my desire to build something and employ the skills I had developed in running my restaurants and other business endeavors.

When Neil Purslow and John Byrne of Therium – who were at that time my clients – approached me about coming on as CEO in the Americas, it was a no-brainer.

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

EB: To be frank, I most enjoy underwriting and structuring deals. Underwriting allows me to test a case’s strengths and weaknesses with smart, committed and sophisticated lawyers and claimants. In the process, I get to learn how the attorneys and clients approach tough questions, which is critical to making a sound investment decision and also forges an essential relationship with the team that will be handling an investment, often for several years. Structuring deals

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

100

also is immensely satisfying for me. Devising the optimal deal structure requires a deep understanding of what is driving a particular transaction and is critical to the success of an investment.

Therium is always a passive investor in the claims it finances: control of the case – including whether, or if, to settle – remains in the hands of the litigant and the litigant’s counsel. We structure our transactions in such a way that the interest of all constituencies (i.e., litigants, legal counsel, and funder) are aligned, enabling everyone to drive toward the same goal of a successful resolution of the case, resulting in a win-win-win for all. We at Therium serve as our clients’ financial partner, not just a capital source. This being so, finding the proper structure that best serves our clients’ needs – which sometimes can require more than a bit of creativity – is our primary objective.

LD: Looking back on your career, what would you say is the most interesting thing you’ve done?

EB: I served in Iraq from 2004 to 2006 – first, as an Associate General Counsel of the Coalition Provisional Authority (“CPA”) and later, as Chief Legal Counsel and Associate Deputy to the Regime Crimes Liaison’s Office (“RCLO”). During my time in Iraq, I advised senior members of the United States, Coalition, and Iraqi governments on matters of public international law, commercial law reform, international criminal law, and constitutional matters. While working for the RCLO, I assisted and advised the Iraqi High Tribunal (“IHT”) as it tried members of the former regime for gross atrocities committed against the Iraqi people. More specifically, I served from October 2005 until December 2006 as the principal U.S. attorney responsible for advising the IHT on all matters of law and procedure in the trial of Saddam Hussein and others for crimes against humanity. Hands down, trying members of the former Iraqi regime for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes committed against their own people was the most interesting and personally rewarding matter I have worked on.

LD: Fascinating. Please discuss your educational and career path that led you there and after.

EB: My career path has taken a number of detours, all of which were unexpected but welcomed. I started out somewhat typically in that I joined a large commercial law firm straight out of law school, but it was short-lived: I quit just two weeks later when I was offered a scholarship to obtain a Master’s degree at the University of Oxford. From there, I clerked for a federal judge and then rejoined my prior firm. While

working as a mid-level associate – which by itself can feel like more than a full-time job – I made it a point to continue writing about international law and also started a small business, a restaurant in the West Village called “Mas (farmhouse)” which I opened in 2004. Much to my surprise, the restaurant succeeded beyond all of my expectations, even in New York City’s ultra-competitive culinary market. I eventually opened a second restaurant in 2011. Needless to say, I was always multitasking while at the law firm.

Things got even more interesting when a close friend from law school asked if I would leave New York to join the U.S. government in Iraq, which I did. In fact, I landed in Baghdad on the very day my first restaurant opened. After about three years in Iraq, I returned to the firm to build out my litigation and arbitration practice, which included advising litigation-finance entities. In yet another twist of fate, Therium was a client of mine before they asked me to join them as CEO of their U.S. operations.

LD: Was there a course or professor that was particularly memorable or important in how your career turned out?

EB: A former business partner suggested that I take the course”Value Investing” at Columbia Business School, and that value-investing view of the world has framed nearly every aspect of how I operate Therium in the U.S. The coursework was based upon the most basic of premises: Your uncle has just bequeathed $5 million to you. Your neighbor owns an ice cream shop and wants you to invest that $5 million to expand the ice-cream business. What factors do you need to understand in order to make the investment? What I found most fascinating was that this simple premise provided an investment framework that could be applied to nearly any asset class, including equities, debt, real estate, or litigation finance investments. My time at Columbia also afforded the opportunity to engage with a reading list covering finance heavy-hitters from Benjamin Graham to Philip Fisher to Warren Buffett, and to then grapple with and apply their ideas. This exposure to the world of value investing has proven tremendously helpful in my litigation-finance career.

LD: How about any mentors you had after becoming a professional?

EB: I have had countless mentors and experiences that have shaped the course of my life, and couldn’t possibly name them all here. Having said that, I owe an immense debt of gratitude to my partners in London, John Byrne and Neil Purslow, for entrusting me

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

107

100 with the responsibility of launching, managing, and growing Therium’s operations in the United States.

LD: What advice do you have now for those who wish to have a similar type of career?

EB: Any young professional who reads this should understand that careers will last decades and that they should not be afraid to take risks to accomplish the goals that are most meaningful and important to them, as opposed to what friends, colleagues, and others might think is appropriate. While I can’t guarantee that taking risks will always result in rewards, I do know that I would have missed out on all of the best parts of my career if I had played it safe. I’ve found that, most often, the reward is in the risk taking itself and the journey that follows. That’s why I have never made a single career choice based upon the desire for financial gain alone. Instead, what drives me is my desire to build, to contribute, and to effectuate change. So, my advice is to make career decisions based upon the individual drivers that are unique and satisfying to you. And don’t be afraid or intimidated by what everyone else might think.

LD: How would you describe your style or philosophy as a professional service provider?

EB: One of Therium’s greatest strengths is that we are a nimble and user-friendly team that values thoughtful and creative approaches to problem solving while also being decisive and minimizing the impact of finding financing on the lawyers and litigants with whom we work. Our entire U.S. team is comprised of former BigLaw litigators, so we understand the many pressures that our clients face. Lawyers have to prosecute cases and litigants have businesses to run: they have important work to do, and our goal is to be a financial partner that enables them to achieve better, more efficient, and more effective financial outcomes – not to make them spend countless hours spinning wheels with underwriters. Therium gets to the heart of a matter quickly so that it can approve a financing transaction as rapidly as possible. By remaining respectful of the pressures our counterparties face – pressures we fully understand because we have experienced them firsthand, – we develop relationships that, thankfully, keep our clients coming back to us.

LD: What advice would you give potential clients in terms of how to most productively work with an outside advisor?

EB: For lawyers and/or clients seeking to work with a litigation-finance company, I would advise that they approach their financial partner with candor. No case 108

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

is foolproof. All claims have weaknesses and proactively raising such issues at the outset of the potential engagement will establish credibility, shorten the underwriting process, and allow the litigation finance company to better assist and serve its client.

LD: Can you discuss a few other factors in wanting to become CEO of Therium in the U.S.?

EB: I can explain my motivation for taking on the role of Chief Executive Officer for the United States and the Americas as part and parcel of my desire to build something. At various points in my career, I have been tasked with building things. For example, in Iraq I was among those to construct from nearly scratch a judicial organ which was designed in part to hold individuals accountable for horrific deeds.

At the same time, there was an element of this job which looked to the future and attempted to create an institution which would frame how the country’s judicial system might operate prospectively.

Likewise, I have built and designed a restaurant enterprise (which now functions as a real estate holding company) and a law practice. This desire to build led me to Therium. My partners in London have given me the tools to build an institution which is quickly establishing itself as a market leader in the United States, which is not surprising as Therium has long been a preeminent market leader abroad. This opportunity was second to none, so I naturally joined Therium when I was asked to lead its operations on this side of the pond.

LD: What are some current challenges in your leadership role? Can you share some strategic plans for your firm in the coming months or years?

EB: The current challenges I face at Therium are many, but thankfully we have a really great team both here in the U.S. and abroad and ample resources and thus can meet all potential obstacles head-on. Increased capital continues to flow into the litigation finance market. Regulatory pressures – often uninformed – continue to impact the litigation-finance industry. To cope with increased competition, Therium positions itself as nimble and creative in the products it provides.

I also serve as part of an industry group which seeks to educate judges, legislators, and others about how litigation finance operates so that any regulation is approached intelligently. Most importantly, I try to surround myself with individuals who are immensely hardworking and smarter than me. I then simply try to provide them with a platform to succeed and stay out of their way.

100

LD: What do you try to “sell” about Therium to potential clients?

EB: Salesmanship is not necessarily a natural part of my DNA. Notwithstanding, I do try and instill a corporate culture where principles and values matter. These goals apply to every aspect of Therium’s work and, when translated to our interactions with our clients, distinguishes Therium from other firms.

Stated differently, it is important for Therium to treat its counterparties with fundamental fairness and for Therium to take with abject seriousness our role as funders. Given that I have a background in public service and given that Therium is primarily staffed with attorneys who take this responsibility to heart, we hope and expect that our clients and potential clients recognize these characteristics as important when choosing Therium as opposed to another firm.

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

EB: Outside of the office, I try to get in the occasional run. In addition, as I mentioned, I owned and operated restaurants for years, which is tremendously fun and rewarding. Being a restaurateur in New York City, you meet really interesting people from all walks of life, which I suppose is also true of being a lawyer. I also have an interest in a film-production company which makes documentary films and is great fun.

JOHN HELLERMAN

LD: Are you involved in any community or pro bono work – perhaps those related to some of your other legal interests?

EB: Besides my work for Therium, I assist refugees fleeing war zones. Specifically, I provide legal assistance to foreign nationals who worked as drivers, translators, and logisticians on behalf of the United States military or government and are now looking to find safe haven in the United States or elsewhere.

Given that I served nearly three years in Iraq assisting and advising the Iraqi High Tribunal to hold members of the former regime accountable for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, it is important to me that I continue to serve even though I am now in the private sector. Thus, I apply my legal training to assist those who risked their lives to keep me and my colleagues safe while we served. As a lawyer, there is probably no higher calling than helping someone in danger find peace, safety, and security.

LD: If you weren’t in your current job, what would you be doing now?

EB: If I were not in my current job, I would probably be out in a conflict zone trying to assist refugees or otherwise trying to prevent or punish those responsible for perpetrating gross atrocities upon others.

BY JOHN RYAN

A CHANCE ENCOUNTER WITH AN ASSOCIATED

Press reporter – and a realization he had the legal connection to help the journalist – is what convinced John Hellerman that he could take his then-early public relations career to a higher level. Within the legal space, Hellerman later received top-notch grooming from established leaders in the field like Jay Jaffe and Richard Levick before going out on his own to found Washington, D.C.-based Hellerman Communications. In addition to providing excellent service, Hellerman is employing innovative techniques to foster win-win relationships with clients with results-driven contingency pricing.

Lawdragon: Can you talk a bit about your company and what you do?

John Hellerman: My corporate communications agency, Hellerman Communications, provides a wide variety

PHOTO PHOTO PROVIDED PROVIDED BY

BY THE THE FIRM FIRM

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

109

100 of consultative services to professional service firms’ executive leadership, and we often work on behalf of individual partners at those firms to credential their expertise – such as via earned media, awards, social sharing, etc. – and help them own their markets by becoming sought after influencers and thought leaders.

Aside from the business development work, a significant part of our practice is crisis and litigation communications consulting. We are often brought in to help firms navigate their bad news or the media interest around one of their clients’ matters.

LD: What drew you to this type of work?

JH: I organically discovered “thought leadership” – the power and value of dealing in expertise with the media. When I was young and just starting out in PR, I did a lot of consumer work – promoting restaurants, office-equipment manufacturers, hotels, casinos, etc.

Although on occasion it was great fun and I did some very significant projects, including the Chicago Holiday Parade, the Church of the Angels and others, oftentimes there was absolutely no value to what I was pitching. I really was just trying to get a share of “free advertising” for something inconsequential.

However, one day, while managing media for the Chicago-O’Hare Hilton Hotel during the 1996 Major League Baseball labor negotiations (to end a strike) that the hotel hosted, I was on the dais and happened to overhear an AP reporter complain to his AP photographer colleague that the current head of the National Labor Relations Board was not talking. It so happened that I had one law firm client at the time – in those days, we did Page 6 type stuff to promote the attorneys, “movers and shaker who’d you go to lunch with” type articles.

The day before I had met their newest lateral partner, a gentleman who happened to have been a recent head of the NLRB. I casually introduced myself to the AP reporter and explained that I had overheard his conversation and was sorry for his frustration and asked if speaking to a former head of the NLRB might offer him some insight into what the current one was thinking. When his eyes lit up and he exclaimed, “F-yeah! When?” – I knew that working for lawyers and other professionals to help them market their expertise was far more rewarding and useful than what I was currently doing. It totally changed the whole dynamic between me and the media; I had expert sources that could add value to reporter’s stories.

In facilitating these source relationships, I was offering the reporter equal value.

110

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LD: What else do you like about what you do?

JH: I like the fact that our clients are brilliant and, in being so, they are often involved in the most interesting work and cases. So no day is the same and I always go to bed feeling a bit smarter than when I woke up.

LD: Can you flesh out for us what you do by describing a recent matter that you’ve handled and some of the challenges involved?

JH: We successfully helped a private school discharge a beloved but problematic head of school. The school was small and had an engaged community of parents and alumni, as well as some regionally prominent business owners as members of its board. There was tremendous concern by the board that their actions to remove the head would be seen negatively and the fallout would not only potentially impact staff retention and recruitment and school enrollment, but also the board members’ businesses and status in the community.

LD: What’s a lesson to take from that work?

JH: The importance of being transparent – the act of being forthright and communicating regularly with stakeholders builds enormous trust capital and mitigates many of the typical problems that occur when circumstances change for the worse during a drawn-out project or news cycle.

LD: Can you tell us a bit more about your career path.

What were some of your earlier jobs that led you to this?

JH: I was a writer in a Chicago law firm personally hired by a prominent partner to help promote her practice.

One of her clients owned a leading PR boutique and offered me a job. After my organic discovery of the value of thought leadership I mentioned earlier, I found Jaffe Associates – a pioneering firm in professional services marketing at the time – and landed a job working closely with Richard Levick. In 1998 we left Jaffe and started Levick Strategic Communications where I served as EVP. In 2001, I left Levick and started Hellerman Communications, which has become a premier firm in our field.

LD: What advice do you have now for students or young professionals who want to do something similar?

JH: Write well. Keep connected.

LD: To the extent your business involves innovation in the legal industry, what is it you are trying to achieve that will help your clients in their business?

JH: We’re quickly getting to the point where the impact of every activity will be measured and anything that can’t

100

be measured won’t even be considered. I want my clients to understand the value of their business development efforts so they can allocate their resources more strategically. For instance, we use a proprietary, patent-pending, “Results System” called “Points,” whereby we do not bill for time or effort spent engaging in media relations.

Instead, a partner’s or practice’s strategic campaign is designed by assigning values to an acceptable universe of desired outcomes – for example, media, awards, clients, etc. – based on the importance of each to them.

Points are deducted from their account when – and only when – the specific outcomes are achieved.

Points isn’t just another way to pay for PR services. Our results system offers certainty regarding PR deliverables and enables firms to allocate their marketing and public relations resources more accurately and effectively. And, by scoring outcomes according to their strategic value, we’re able to benchmark their practices and partners against their peers and competitors, and make the campaign’s impact exceedingly clear to the firm’s leaders.

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

KATHARINE WOLANYK

JH: I have three children (ages 8, 10, and 12) and I enjoy watching them in all their various activities. I like to drive and sail, and lately have been watching a lot of documentaries about different aspects of the Kabbalah.

LD: Are you involved in any community or public interest activities?

JH: I serve as an Officer and Trustee of my temple and as a Trustee and Board Member of my children’s school.

I’ve always felt that when you’re part of a community you should get really involved in it. Working through significant issues and mitigating problems with brilliant people is rewarding – I always walk away with a new insight.

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

JH: I was really young when it came out, but “The Paper Chase” is still the best.

LD: If you weren’t in your current job, what would you be doing now?

JH: If I hadn’t done what I did, I might have been a Political Consultant, Movie Producer, Media Pundit, or Uber driver.

BY KATRINA DEWEY

THE JOURNEY FROM WORKING ON THE stealth bomber to financing litigation isn’t one that Katharine Wolanyk planned.

In hindsight, the Burford Capital Managing Director can see how one step led to the next: She always had a knack for being on the cutting edge of innovative solutions. Wolanyk now finds herself in a role that spans the worlds of business, law and engineering. As the leader of Burford’s Chicago office and IP business, she helps law firms and their clients finance complex commercial and IP litigation.

“Legal finance is a critical tool for law firms and patent holders,” Wolanyk says. “For organizations with significant patent portfolios, legal finance allows for value to be extracted from what are often unused assets. For law firms, the process allows them to take on risk in a managed way – regardless of the firm’s billing structure. It’s a tool that has begun to bridge a large gap between law firms and their clients, and it has empowered lawyers to become better business partners and grow their books of business.”

PHOTO PHOTO PROVIDED PROVIDED BY

BY THE THE FIRM FIRM

Burford sees the business-building benefits of legal finance as a novel solution to another persistent problem, one that is even wider than the gap between law firms and their clients: the gender gap in law. To help in closing that gap, Burford has recently introduced a

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

111

100 groundbreaking effort called The Equity Project. The initiative earmarks $50 million of capital for financing commercial litigation and arbitration cases led by women.

The impact of that commitment is magnified by Burford’s status as the world’s leading litigation finance company.

“There are so many incredibly talented women litigators who might not have thought of pitching business as the lead counsel,” Wolanyk says. “Now, they can go in and do that with our help.”

Lawdragon: Tell us more about how you reached this point in your career. You bring a fascinating background to your work overseeing intellectual property matters worldwide at Burford.

Katharine Wolanyk: I often refer to my career path as non-linear. If you had asked when I was starting out where I would be now, I don’t think I could have predicted legal finance. My first job was working as a systems engineer in the defense industry with Hughes Aircraft Co. in Los Angeles. I spent several years there, working on the radar system for the stealth bomber, which was still in development. I’m sure it seems odd that I ended up practicing law, but my work as an engineer was essential to becoming intrigued by patents.

LD: That’s a fascinating background to prepare you for law school. After graduating from the University of Chicago Law School, you joined Latham & Watkins.

What kind of work did you do there in the early years?

KW: I graduated in the mid’90s, when tech was exploding. At Latham, I worked primarily as a corporate attorney, and I touched anything that involved technology companies, whether via initial public offerings, mergers and acquisitions or high-yield finance. Eventually, I took advantage of an opportunity to jump into the technology world by taking a job in-house, where I worked for a venture capital firm that was focused on the tech industry.

With the acquisition of that business experience, I rode the wave of the dot-com bubble. Namely, I took an opportunity – with some financial backing – to become the CEO of Soverain Software, an e-commerce enterprise software company that had a large, pioneering patent portfolio. We saw the opportunity as twofold: to reinvigorate the software business and to license the patent portfolio. Later, as we were winding down that company, I had the opportunity to join Gerchen Keller Capital, which was later acquired by Burford.

LD: How did the opportunity to work in legal finance arise? Did you have any awareness of litigation finance before being introduced to Gerchen Keller?

112

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

KW: Gerchen Keller was based in Chicago, as was I. Ashley Keller and I had gone to the University of Chicago Law School, so we knew each other from our time jointly serving on the Visiting Committee. As I was contemplating my next career move, not really knowing for certain what it would be, Ashley and I started talking and, well, the rest is history.

LD: So, even from the onset, your domain there was intellectual property – was that a carryover?

KW: Correct. I had spent the last 10 years pursuing expensive, high-stakes patent litigation in which I had used a variety of self-financing and contingency arrangements with counsel. I joined Gerchen Keller with a client’s view of the challenges of those models – legal finance felt like an elegant solution to those problems.

The background I brought was something that Ashley thought would resonate with law firms and clients, and fortunately it did.

LD: What are some typical challenges faced by clients and law firms? How does Burford solve them?

KW: Litigation is full of risk, and someone has to shoulder it. In the IP space, where matters take especially long to resolve and can be extremely expensive to litigate, clients often ask their law firms to take on that risk – not only via contingency, but also by seeking coverage of costs. That’s a huge request, particularly because most firms still rely on the hourly billing model. But, even when the firm does offer contingencies and AFAs, coming to a financing arrangement can strain the client-law firm relationship, and relationships, ultimately, are essential to law firms’ businesses. At Burford, we can absorb risk by providing non-recourse capital, which means the law firm or client owes nothing if the matter is unsuccessful.

The tool is powerful because it allows both the client and firm to feel that they can properly pursue or litigate their meritorious claims, knowing that they’ll have capital for the long haul. It improves business outcomes and helps law firms maintain relationships.

LD: As a tool, legal finance sounds like a huge competitive advantage for law firms, but it must also be a huge advantage for individual lawyers. Was that part of the impetus for The Equity Project? How did the team at Burford come up with this initiative?

KW: Women make up a significant portion of our executive leadership here at Burford. At the start of 2018, one of my colleagues, Aviva Will, had been looking at the number of matters brought to Burford by women. When she realized it was below 10% of all matters brought to us, that’s when the lightbulb went off, so to speak. When

100

we actually sat down as a team and thought about what we could do to make a difference, we realized we’d need to leverage economics and business incentives to make a real impact. Ultimately, that’s what the pool of capital is intended to do – it will help make women lawyers more competitive, and it will incentivize law firms to put women lawyers on funded cases.

LD: How exactly does one qualify for Equity Project funding?

KW: In addition to passing our diligence process, Equity Project matters will need to meet one of five criteria: a woman litigator is first chair; a woman serves as plaintiffs’ lead counsel or chairs the plaintiffs’ steering committee; a women-owned law firm is representing the client; a woman litigator earns origination credit; or a woman partner is the client relationship manager.

LD: If the cases still need to pass Burford’s diligence process, are there any other factors you and your team are considering that would make it easier for women to receive funding?

KW: Absolutely – and this is a question many people have asked about the project. It should go without saying, but we simply can’t invest in matters that aren’t meritorious. The matters still need to be strong, but we’re absolutely going to be giving women a leg up in the process. We’re open to considering smaller cases. To back the project and amplify its reach so that women know about and can tap into the capital, we’ve added Equity Project Champions, a group of leading women lawyers at top firms and corporations. We’re going to make the project highly visible and use our relationships to drive better access for women. And most importantly, we’re going to hold ourselves publicly accountable, reporting back on our results and sharing insights to ensure that we’re moving the ball forward and that women are receiving this funding.

LD: That’s a brilliant idea – so many initiatives are percentage-based: “Let’s make sure 10 percent of business goes to women, or let’s aim for 20 percent female partners.”

Those sorts of initiatives have led to incremental gains, but they also lead to the realization that if you want more significant progress, you have to hold yourself accountable and you need to use financial incentives.

KW: I agree. There’s a lot of appetite and motivation in corporate America to have legal counsel be more gender diverse. But in the end, when push comes to shove and it’s the big-dollar litigation, companies and law firms often look to the senior-most male lawyer at the firm to represent them. With the Equity Project, we’re empowering women litigators, and we’re doing it by giving them a competitive financial edge in addition to lending our expert team and leveraging our relationships. And, regardless of whether a matter receives funding, our diligence process is hugely beneficial for the lawyers with whom we work. We brainstorm and strategize with counsel as they’re thinking about how they should pitch business, what types of matters would be interesting and a good fit for legal finance, and what types of analysis and material are needed not only to satisfy their firms but also to gain capital from Burford.

That’s one of Burford’s greatest value adds, and we’re going to ensure that more women than ever before have access to it.

LD: Large law firms have made progress, but there are so many talented women for whom institutional barriers haven’t let up. Once you empower women, as Burford is in the process of doing, we might find that a whole new model for women lawyers remains – a paradigm shift for how we can help women lawyers become equally represented amongst law firm leadership.

KW: That would certainly be a dream for us. But before that can become a reality, we hope simply to leverage an incredible tool in legal finance to help women lawyers achieve better outcomes. We’ve put a lot of work into this project, and we’re going to be spreading the word over the weeks and months to come. Even if we just plant a seed and spur a rising female lawyer to say, “Why not me? Why not this matter” We feel that that could have an enormous impact.

100 LEADING LEGAL CONSULTANTS AND STRATEGISTS

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

113

FOR US THERE ARE NO SURPRISES With almost 300 years of combined legal experience, our personal injury lawyers have seen the defense playbook.

WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY AND SCHOENBERGER congratulates senior partner MICHAEL A. KELLY for his selection to this year’s Lawdragon 500. During the past year, Mike was appointed as co-lead counsel in

the Northern California JCCP litigation brought on behalf of homeowners in Napa, Sonoma, Lake and Mendocino counties as a result of the October 2017 wildfires. Mike continues to lead the firm by example, having obtained significant jury verdicts in the last year against both Golden Gate Transit and SuperShuttle. The firm excels in the areas of product liability, catastrophic injury, medical negligence, dangerous pharmaceuticals, traumatic brain injury, wrongful death and national mass torts. Four of our partners are listed among the top 100 lawyers in Northern California. We are acknowledged as a “top tier” firm nationally and locally

by U.S. News. Our mass tort team is involved in litigation arising from defective orthopedic devices, IVC filters and cancer-causing pesticides. Walkup lawyers have achieved recognition for their skill and achievement with election to preeminent organizations including the Inner Circle of Advocates, the American College of Trial Lawyers, the American Board of Trial Advocates, the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, and the International Society of Barristers. Walkup attorneys are active in the community working with the homeless and disadvantaged. They teach, lecture and mentor other lawyers locally and across the country.

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

Hall of Fame Launched in 2015, the Lawdragon Hall of Fame celebrates lawyers whose mark on the legal profession is indelible. This year we have added 35 lawyers to the permanent group of honorees, including Cheryl Little (above), the co-founder and executive director of Americans for Immigrant Justice, a leader for decades in public interest law. Additions also include stalwart dealmakers and litigators of the corporate bar and leaders on the plaintiffs’ side of the courtroom.

PHOTO BY: JOSH RICHIE

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

115

500

THE LAWDRAGON 500

500

Arthur Abbey - Abbey Spanier The Chairman of the Board of New York Law School has built one of the nation’s best records in securities litigation, with billions of dollars of verdicts and settlements on behalf of investors.

Robert Baron - Cravath Baron boasts a long string of successes in securities and other business disputes for the firm’s major corporate clients such as Akorn, IBM, Time Warner, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse and many others.

Martha Bergmark - Voices for Civil Justice Bergmark has made incredible contributions to the cause of access to justice as a lawyer and in leadership positions at Legal Services Corp., Mississippi Center for Justice and her current organization.

Bruce Broillet - Greene Broillet A member of the Inner Circle of Advocates, the classy Broillet has long been one of the most successful and admired plaintiffs’ lawyers on the deep bench of the Southern California bar.

Richard Clary - Cravath The firm’s former Head of Litigation has excelled at the trial and appellate levels across a wide range of cases while earning numerous public service accolades for pro bono and community work.

Martin Flumenbaum - Paul Weiss Powerhouse clients like Hollinger International, AIG, Skanska, Weight Watchers, Fitch Inc. and IBM have all turned to Flumenbaum – a onetime firmwide chair of litigation – for their most important disputes.

Jay Goffman - Skadden Among the most honored restructuring attorneys in the history of the profession, Goffman has long been considered a pioneer in prepackaged restructurings – and recently completed a prepack for Roust.

116

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500 David Gordon - Latham Through his past leadership of the New York office, and in successful terms as firm vice chair and other posts since 2000, Gordon has been a key figure in Latham’s transformation into a major international power.

Russ Herman - Herman Herman Herman epitomizes law in the Big Easy, having achieved massive results in leadership roles for plaintiffs in Big Tobacco, Chinese Drywall, Vioxx and other epic cases.

Christy Jones - Butler Snow A leading light of the Mississippi bar and a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, Jones has litigated bet-the-company cases for corporate clients in the pharmaceutical, healthcare and medical device industries.

Stasia Kelly - DLA Piper One of the nation’s leading corporate governance experts, Kelly’s reputation for excellence has accompanied her through four general counsel positions and her current role managing DLA Piper’s Americas practice.

Kenton King - Skadden King has one of the most accomplished corporate practices in the history of the Silicon Valley, with many of the biggest transactions in the technology space under his belt.

David Levi - Duke Law School Levi served as a U.S. attorney before becoming a U.S. District Court Judge – eventually Chief Judge of the Eastern District of California – and then serving a remarkable 11-year term as Dean of Duke Law School.

Cheryl Little - Americans for Immigrant Justice The co-founder and executive director of AI Justice is respected globally as one of the most dedicated and effective advocates for the human rights of immigrants through three decades of work.

Colleen Mahoney - Skadden Fifteen years at the SEC, including time as deputy director for enforcement and acting general counsel, prepared Mahoney for her role as head of Skadden’s powerhouse enforcement practice.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

117

500

William McLucas - WilmerHale A former director of enforcement for the SEC, McLucas is the bedrock foundation of WilmerHale’s practice guiding clients through all manner of crises and investigations.

Carlos Mendez-Penate - Akerman The Cuba-born corporate partner has an impressive list of international transactions under his belt; he co-chairs the firm’s Latin American and Caribbean practice while managing the New York office.

Sara Moss - Estee Lauder A former federal prosecutor with experience in private practice, Moss is one of the nation’s most admired general counsel through her work at Pitney Bowes, Estee Lauder and her public interest endeavors.

Robert Mueller - U.S. Department of Justice Special Counsel History will likely be kind to Mueller’s pursuit of the truth in the most difficult and bizarre circumstances ever conceived – an unexpected crescendo to a career devoted to public service.

Tom Nolan - Latham As genuine and likeable as they come, Nolan has been one of the nation’s best trial lawyers with an uncommon ability to deliver results in any type of complex civil or criminal case.

Eileen Nugent - Skadden A longtime member of Skadden’s unparalleled corporate bench, Nugent has handled leveraged buyouts and other complicated transactions totaling in the many billions of dollars.

Bernard Nussbaum - Wachtell Lipton Nussbaum’s remarkable career has included stints as federal prosecutor, a staff member on the committee investigating Watergate and counsel to President Clinton.

Debra Pole - Sidley Pole has been a trailblazer as a litigator and practice leader, compiling one of her generation’s best records in MDLs and other complex litigation in the areas of products liability and mass torts.

118

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500 Pete Romatowski - Jones Day A former chief of the Southern District of New York’s securities and commodities fraud unit, Romatowski has been a pillar of the defense bar with phenomenal results in complex criminal and civil cases.

Gloria Santona - Baker McKenzie / McDonald’s Santona has taken her unique expertise and experience to private practice after her long tenure as the top lawyer for McDonald’s, where she was a legend among the nation’s in-house ranks.

Paul Schnell - Skadden This unstoppable M&A force was one of the first dealmakers to make the Lawdragon 500 ten times for regularly accumulating more billion-dollar transactions in a single year than most do in a lifetime.

Rodd Schreiber - Skadden Another Skadden stalwart with uncommonly deep billion-dollar bonafides, Schreiber is the transactional star of choice for many of the firm’s elite roster of corporate giants.

David Schulz - Ballard Spahr Schulz is quite simply one of the best friends the First Amendment has ever had, with more than three decades serving journalists and news organizations both stateside and at Guantanamo Bay. Christian Searcy - Searcy Denney The president and CEO of Searcy Denney has built one of the strongest records in the history of personal injury litigation with more than four decades of sevenfigure verdicts and settlements.

Brad Smith - Microsoft Smith has thrived in an astonishing 25-year career at Microsoft through his leadership at the tech giant, for the industry at large and in public interest initiatives.

Steven Sunshine - Skadden Sunshine heads one of the world’s best antitrust and competition practices and has excelled for decades at guiding clients through complex mergers and defending them in court.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

119

500

Donald Verrilli - Munger Tolles Munger Tolles chose wisely in tapping Verrilli as the foundation of its Washington, D.C., office following his hugely successful stint as solicitor general that included the defense of Obamacare.

Herbert Wachtell - Wachtell Lipton Wachtell leveraged his talents as a litigator and leader to build a business that became the world’s most profitable law firm without losing the value and meaning of partnership.

William Whitehurst - Whitehurst Harkness A registered pharmacist and supremely effective trial lawyer, Whitehurst has amassed huge verdicts and settlements for injured plaintiffs while extending legal services to the poor.

Stephen Zack - Boies Schiller Raised in Cuba and Miami, Zack was the first Hispanic American to serve as president of the American Bar Association – one of many impressive turns in an amazing career as a trial lawyer.

Hall of Fame

120

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

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

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

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

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

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

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

500

STEPHEN ZACK IF THERE IS AN “ONLY IN AMERICA” lawyer, it may well be Stephen N. Zack of Boies Schiller Flexner.

The Detroit-born, Cuba- and Miami-raised lawyer has traveled the world as the first Hispanic-American president of the American Bar Association, at times accompanied by former U.S. Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer and Sandra Day O’Connor, and other fellow legal luminaries.

But that’s not how it started for Zack, who remembers all too well the night he decided to become a lawyer.

He was being detained in Cuba, a 13-year-old boy, alone and incommunicado, after his family was jailed as they tried to leave. He was terrified, wondered what might happen to him, and whether he would ever see his family again.

It is little surprise that he became a lawyer after that harrowing experience. That he went on to play a name name seminal role in Bush v. Gore; that he represented

FIRM FIRM FIRM (CITY)

122

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

BY KATRINA DEWEY a constellation of Governors, Senators and Florida powerhouse politicians and institutions, including Governor Bob Graham and the Florida Senate, as well as Fortune 500 companies, such as National Geographic, Chevron and Altria; that he created a powerful program to assist lawyers who fled Cuba and made their way to Florida; and that he promoted diversity and inclusiveness in the law – among many, many other accomplishments – is a testament to the remarkable energy, savvy, smarts and skill of this Lawdragon Hall of Fame member.

Lawdragon: Steve, I know you traveled the world for the ABA to spread the word about our legal system.

Do you have particular memories that reflect the world view of the American justice system and can you share what you’ve learned along the way?

Stephen N. Zack: I traveled many miles and to 22 countries. I remember giving a speech to a graduating law school class of 1,000 students in China right after the Bush v. Gore decision. The students asked me three

PHOTO PROVIDED BY FIRM

500

questions at the end: What did I think of No Child Left Behind? Is American justice as prejudiced as reflected in the movie “Crash”? And the third one, which was supposed to be a killer question. I remember vividly the young man who asked it. He stood up, and said, “Mr. Zack, what did you learn by losing Bush v. Gore?”

You might think this was a difficult question – but for some reason it wasn’t for me. And I answered that I had learned as an American that when we have a problem, we turn to our lawyers, not our generals.

And there was a loud “oooh…” from the crowd. At that point, the political officer who had been following me around campus got up and left.

What we do in America is watched by the rest of the world. We often fail to appreciate how our legal system and our justice system serve as models to all.

LD: Any other themes you’ve seen?

SNZ: Another common theme is the importance of women in the law, and that’s not just in the United States, where over 50 percent of law students are women. When I visited Vietnam, where they had just formed an independent bar like the American Bar Association, I met with them, and was disappointed that the council consisted of mostly older men, and yet they relied on women lawyers to get the work done. Increasing the diversity in law, including in Big Law, is one of the reasons I am proud to head Boies Schiller Flexner’s diversity initiatives.

I got a chance to chat with people around the world about the practice of law and the importance of an independent judiciary. Independent courts are not common in most countries, and it may be the single most defining aspect of our democracy. Our judiciary is threatened by today’s lawmakers who don’t view the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government.

In some states, disrespect for the judicial system is obvious when the judicial branch always receives 2 percent or less of the budget. No co-equal branch is a co-equal branch absent funding.

LD: You’ve seen and been a part of a lot of changes.

SNZ: I’m not that old, but when I was a student at the University of Florida, we went down to Cedar Key and they had “white only” and “black only” water fountains.

In Gainesville, I actually had a cross burned in front of my room because I was Jewish. Someone even asked me, in all seriousness, if Jews had horns – he had never before met a Jewish person.

I became the first Jewish President of the Fraternity Council, which helped overcome some misconcep-

tions and prejudices. I saw and helped contribute to a lot of changes.

LD: Can you take me back to your aspirations when you graduated from law school? What was the plan?

SNZ: My strong belief is that man plans and God laughs. I had planned to practice law, and I was going to accept a job at a law firm. The day I was supposed to meet with the firm partners was the day of the homecoming game at UF. I broke my ankle, so the meeting was cancelled. Life has so many twists and turns. Instead, I went to the Blue Key Banquet on crutches, where, as Blue Key past President, I was seated with Senator Claude Pepper, which ultimately led to his offer to me to serve as his legislative aide.

I had never planned to do that; I wanted to practice law. But I accepted his offer and ran his congressional campaign in 1972.

After he won, I told him I really loved him, but still wanted to practice law. That night, he went to a Miami Dolphins football game and sat next to Bill Frates in Joe Robbie’s box. When their conversation turned to available young lawyers, Senator Pepper told him about me, which resulted in an early morning phone call from Frates asking that I come in for an interview that same day. That was the beginning of 20 years with the Frates, Fay & Floyd firm, where eventually I became a named partner.

I later became general counsel for Governor Bob Graham and then the first Hispanic and youngest President of the Florida Bar. My successor, Jim Fox Miller, introduced me to his best friend, David Boies.

The two of them attended my investiture, and we worked on a few minor cases together.

LD: And then came the 2000 election contest between Al Gore and George Bush.

SNZ: The night of the Bush v. Gore election, I was watching TV and received a call at about 8 p.m. from Vice President Gore, who I knew. He said, “Steve, we’re missing a ballot box in Broward County.” Well, I knew the sheriff of Broward County, so I called him, they found the ballot box, and I thought that was it. Bush was declared the winner, so I went to sleep around 11:30 p.m.

And then I got another call from the Vice President.

He said, “Steve, it looks like we’re going to need some lawyers in Florida.” I replied, “I’d love to help you, Mr. Vice President, so I’ll find some lawyers for you, but I, personally, am too busy. I’m in the middle of preparing for several trials.” Can you believe I said

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

123

500 ...I WAS VERY INVOLVED WITH THE OPENING OF RELATIONS IN CUBA UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA AND I WAS IN CUBA FOR THE OPENING OF THE EMBASSY. LATER, PRESIDENT OBAMA NAMED ME ALTERNATE U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TO THE 68TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS. I’VE BEEN BLESSED IN SO MANY DIFFERENT WAYS. that? No one really understood what was about to happen.

The first Bush v. Gore hearing was in front of Judge Don Middlebrooks here in the Southern District. He and I were friends at UF. That morning, I told my wife I’m just going to walk down to the courthouse to see what’s going on. As it turned out, I got the last seat in the courtroom, next to my old friend, Kendall Coffey, who was representing the Democratic Party in Florida.

He told me they lost the day before in the canvassing committee. “We would like you to re-argue it for us,” he said. What I didn’t know was that the Democratic Party, nationally, had hired David Boies to be its attorney.

So I said to Kendall, “I’m really too busy. I just can’t do it.” And he replied, “It will only take 15 minutes of your time.” So I said OK. Well, that 15 minutes turned into three months.

LD: What happened next?

SNZ: I went to the canvassing committee – which consists of usually four people wearing tennis shoes, working in a closet. Incredibly, this time there were 150 TV cameras, live from around the world. I didn’t realize that David was watching in Tallahassee. I argued, they reversed their decision and agreed to a recount.

As I walked out of the courthouse, David called my cellphone and said he was very happy I got them to reverse, and wanted me to come to Tallahassee right away and try the case with him. I would do anything for David Boies – carry his briefcase if need be, so I didn’t even ask him what he wanted me to do. I ended up questioning the expert witnesses, including the voting-rights experts.

Remember, a big issue in the case was that votes weren’t counted because the paper – the chads – weren’t completely pushed through. I took the deposition of the man who designed the Votomatic and asked him if he had applied for a patent on anything else. He said, “Yes, a stylus, so you won’t have chads.”

124

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

I didn’t think much of it, but I called a lawyer in my office and asked whether there were any other patents pending.

I have never been more afraid of doing a person’s cross examination. This guy looked like Moses and had quite an elegant demeanor. And I had nada, nothing.

I was later told there were ten million people around the world watching my cross examination on television. One of the reasons was because it was during the NFL playoffs and people were switching back and forth from the trial to the playoffs.

As I sat down after questioning a witness, I found a white manila file on the table next to me. I will never know how it got into the sealed courtroom. Security was intense – we had to be taken every day by police into the courtroom because of death threats. But I opened this file and inside was an application for a new Votomatic machine. I was walking to the podium as I read it. The first five pages were Greek to me, but on the fifth page, about a third of the way down, there was a line that said, “In a close vote, you need a hand recount, so that’s why I’m applying for this new patent.”

And that was supposed to be the end of the case. You know the rest of the story and what the Supreme Court did.

LD: Right, you won in the Florida Supreme Court but the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision ending the recount, resulting in George Bush being elected. And that’s how you came to join Boies Schiller Flexner?

SNZ: David and I decided that we really liked working together. He had about 130 lawyers in his firm and I had 30 in mine. He wanted a bigger presence in South Florida. We have just started our 17th year together. It’s been wonderful.

LD: Can we talk a bit more about Cuba?

SNZ: Yes, I was very involved with the opening of relations in Cuba under President Obama and I was in Cuba for the opening of the Embassy. Later, President

500 Obama named me Alternate U.S. Representative to the 68th General Assembly of the United Nations. I’ve been blessed in so many different ways.

SNZ: When they intervene, they tell you you’re an enemy of the state and put you in jail. So we drove straight to the airport with the clothes on our backs.

My mother was born in Cuba, but you have to go back another generation to really understand. It is a story as current as today’s immigration issues. My grandfather came from a family of 22 children born in the Ukraine. The first 11 ended up in Detroit. In those days, you had no obligation to bring your entire family out, but you had an obligation to bring the next one in line. However, the United States said no more Jews.

My grandfather was the 12th and they wouldn’t let him in the United States. He couldn’t get here, so he ended up in Cuba.

Andy Garcia had a movie, “The Lost City,” which very accurately portrayed Cuba. They had something called La Pescarilla, a big, giant glass room with metal chairs in the middle. As you walked in, they made you take off any wedding ring or watch, and they called you a cockroach because you were leaving the country.

My father was staying behind to try and make sure everything was OK. My mother, brother, sister and I went into what was called “The Fish Bowl”, where everyone was sitting on metal chairs and crying.

I like to say he got on the wrong boat, which started a long Zack tradition of getting on the wrong boat. Because he didn’t speak Spanish or English, he thought he was in Detroit. And by the time he knew he wasn’t, he already had a pushcart and was selling ice cream from it. Well, he was a very enterprising guy who noticed that when people ate ice cream it would melt and get on their ties. So, he started selling ties with the ice creams.

From there, he opened a cloth store where they sold materials. From there, he bought factories and ended up with three leather factories and two shoe factories.

He was very successful and helped build a synagogue in Cuba, The Patronato. When I went there the last time, I sat in the seat where I last sat with my grandfather when I was 13-years old.

LD: Were you born in Cuba?

SNZ: No, I’m an anchor baby. My father was a very wise person and insisted that my mother come to the United States for the birth of each child. He told me that my passport must read I was American, which he was, but my mother was naturalized. He said the passport tells where you were born, not just your citizenship. He didn’t want it to read Havana, Cuba, but rather Detroit, Michigan. Then, at two-months old, I started going to Cuba.

We lived in an area called Miramar. When Castro came in in 1959, he promised everybody shoes. And our family made the shoes, so we knew we were in a lot of trouble. The day came when we received a call from one of the factories saying the military was there.

The government called it an “intervención” because that way they didn’t have to pay you anything since eventually you were supposed to get it back.

LD: You didn’t stay and try to do something about the “intervención”?

126

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

The military called out our names and asked us to go with them. Their KGB is called the G2. The main office is in Old Havana but they had an office at the José Martí Airport. We were held incommunicado and put in separate rooms.

LD: And what happened?

SNZ: The next morning they reunited us and took us to the main police station. My father was there with a Swiss Ambassador, since the U.S. Ambassador already left. They put us under house arrest for a couple of weeks. They then let us leave the country in July 1961 with other Cuban refugees. We left everything behind.

In Cuba, we had an unbelievable life, and now, we were sleeping on mattresses on the floor. We first thought we would someday go back to Cuba and this would only be temporary. We never even unpacked until after the Bay of Pigs.

LD: What an incredible life, and incredible story. And you ended up helping lawyers who also left Cuba and other countries and were unable to practice law in Florida?

SNZ: I helped set up a program 42 years ago at the University of Florida for Cuban lawyers when they came to the United States. They were great Cuban lawyers working as waiters and gardeners. The program allowed them to fly to the University of Florida on the weekends and learn how to pass the bar. Most returned to Miami to practice and they contributed in making Miami a great international city.

My story started 60 years ago and is as recent as today’s headlines. In 1960, President Kennedy wrote a book “A Nation of Immigrants” which should be read today. It is no accident that the greatest country in the world is also the most diverse. I am so fortunate and grateful to be a part of this story and this nation.

“Winning means you’re willing to go longer, work harder, and give more than anyone else.” —Vince Lombardi

“Successful law firms, like the greatest sports teams, have the best talent, a clear vision and sense of purpose, and unwavering determination...” —Kay Hoppe From the beginning Credentia established a reputation as the best legal search firm in Chicago. This reputation has been strengthened over the last three decades as we have adapted our methodology and resources to meet new challenges in an ever changing and evolving profession.

We developed a corporate culture based on hard work, careful listening and enough irreverence and non-conformity to be effective.

We dedicated ourselves to the core aspects of our business: research, relationships and reputation. Our business is based on one simple principle: provide service of unexcelled quality.

We would like to thank Katrina Dewey and Lawdragon for their efforts on behalf of the legal community. We are proud to have been chosen for their Global 100 Leading Legal Consultants and Strategists.

100

LEADING LEGAL CONSULTANTS AND STRATEGISTS

CREDENTIA, INC.

500

THOMAS J. NOLAN IF YOU WERE CASTING THE CINDERELLA

story of lawyers, you’d have to give consideration to Thomas J. Nolan, world-class trial partner at Latham, whose rise from night school at Loyola Los Angeles to the biggest cases on the planet personifies against all odds.

He scaled the ranks of global litigators starting in the Los Angeles U.S. Attorney’s office, forming his own firm, becoming Chair of West Coast Litigation at Skadden and now a partner in Latham’s Complex Commercial Litigation & Trial Practice. He has represented corporate giants including Litton Industries, International Paper, Toyota Motor Corp., MGA Entertainment, and most recently, CashCall, in their biggest cases helping clients win more than $1B in trial verdicts and defeating claims of more than $15B. He’s also made extraordinary public interest contributions, while always staying so very human.

A Lawdragon Legend for his 10-plus years as a member of the Lawdragon 500, he’s a member of our Hall of

128

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

BY KATRINA DEWEY

Fame alongside many, many other honors. His story is one of incredible accomplishment, inspiring personal narrative and deep reflection on what it takes to rise all the way to the top.

Lawdragon: You are having a trial lawyer’s dream career.

What are your takeaways at this point for those who’d like to enjoy the same type of success?

Thomas J. Nolan: I’ve had enormous opportunities that catapulted me into cases where occasionally, while sitting in a boardroom or in a courtroom with millions at stake, I would think, “Boy, for a kid who the nuns had great concerns as to whether or not I would ever make it to college, this is a pretty amazing ride.”

I never lost sight of how fortunate I have been and how lucky I was to have mentors at each stage of my career who pointed me in the right direction. So one of the takeaways would be to create the path you want to take in life, not only as a lawyer but also as a human being. I’d like to think over the course of my career I

PHOTO BY HUGH WILLAMS

500

always focused on the humanity of any situation that I was dealing with.

If you wish to become a successful trial attorney, I would suggest you ask yourself a simple question; a brief test.

Are you as comfortable talking with the people in the copy room of whichever law firm you are working at as you are in talking to your most important clients?

The answer is relevant as it provides an insight as to how authentic you as an aspiring attorney are in your various relationships. To be a success in the courtroom, you have to be an authentic advocate. You can’t fake authenticity, and if you try to, the jurors will reject the pretense. If you don’t take the time to talk with the copy room personnel and other staff as part of an ordinary day, you can’t possibly relate to jurors.

You can best measure a young lawyer’s authenticity by observing how they treat their co-workers, regardless of their status. It’s disturbing how often attorneys can sit in conference rooms preparing for a trial and yet never acknowledge the kitchen help that bring in a fresh pot of coffee or clear away the lunch dishes. The reality is that the kitchen worker has a greater chance of ending up on a jury than any of the attorneys sitting around the conference room table. Show me the attorney who knows the kitchen worker’s name and acknowledges them, and I will show you someone who might be able to relate to jurors.

LD: One of the most remarkable things about you, having known you for 30 years, is that you’ve never lost sight of who you are. How do you teach that to lawyers, as it’s so easy to get swept up in self-importance with the world of law firms and big client matters?

TJN: This career has the potential of altering your values the higher you climb and the more you make. Unfortunately, you can’t win every trial so the valleys can be pretty deep. It requires that you constantly monitor your humility barometer. I used to meet with Skadden’s first-year lawyers during orientation, and would warn them to stay authentic and remain humble. After welcoming them to Skadden, I pointed out that as First Year Attorneys in Big Law, before they billed a single hour, they were being paid more than 99 percent of the nation. I suggested “If you ever wake up thinking that you are actually worth what we are paying you, please consider going to another law firm.”

I explained that it had been my observation that those young associates who came to the firm with a healthy sense of entitlement were destined to fail. I encouraged them to leave their diplomas at home, because, although they all graduated from prestigious law schools,

within two years nobody will care where they went to school. Rather, while an associate at Skadden they would be judged by the quality of their work, their work ethic and by how they treated their colleagues and related to the staff.

It’s frustrating to watch attorneys who have no business standing before a jury pretend to be sincere, because you can’t fake authenticity. So another takeaway is remain focused on being an authentic storyteller who the jury will trust not to allow them to do an injustice in the case. Every trial is a “morality play” which requires the trial attorney to remain focused on persuading the jury that her or his client is more worthy and deserving of a favorable verdict.

LD: And what is it that you need to stay focused on?

TJN: If you want to be a trial lawyer, you need to be passionate about mastering the basics of trial advocacy.

I ask associates whether they ever follow trials reported in the press, and whether they were ever curious enough to understand how the jury returned its verdict that they pulled the reporters’ transcripts of the opening and closing statements of a particular trial. Or curious enough to go online and download a video of the cross examination of the key witness?

I confess that I have always been fascinated by trials and enjoy reverse engineering how verdicts came about. A recent example of my fascination was the second firstdegree murder trial of the former New England Patriots receiver, Aaron Hernandez. I was driving down to the beach with my family when I heard on the radio that Hernandez was acquitted of first-degree murder after he’d already been convicted of first-degree murder in an unrelated prosecution, in another case of murder.

I was intrigued that our justice system could produce twelve impartial jurors, all of them knowing about Hernandez’s prior conviction and yet they acquitted him of all charges in the second trial. Rather than walking to the beach, I stayed behind and downloaded Jose Baez’s opening and closing arguments. It was better than any movie, and Baez’s argument was a masterpiece – both in content and style. The importance of the acquittal that Baez obtained for Hernandez was made all the more poignant with the news a few days later that Hernandez had committed suicide in his cell.

An aspiring trial attorney has to be passionate about mastering the art of persuasion. If you’re going to make it as a trial attorney you need to put in the hours to learn the basics of advocacy.

LD: Can you explain those to us please?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

129

500 TJN: Study the masters and read accounts of famous trials. At a very early age, I knew I wanted to be a trial attorney. When I was a freshman in high school, my first book report was on Louis Nizer’s, “My Life in Court.”

In my senior year of high school, our civics teacher, Frank Ward, assigned the class to read the famous case of Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad. I am not certain what the purpose of the assignment was, but at Glendale Law Library, I pulled everything I could find about the case.

When we had the discussion in class, it was obvious to Mr. Ward that I had spent a lot of time studying the Palsgraf decision and the concept of duty and foreseeable risk. After listening to my discussion in class, Mr. Ward turned to the class and said, “How many think that Tom Nolan should be a lawyer?”

That was my first validation as an advocate. And, I remember to this day that very moment, the classroom and what row I was sitting in when I talked about the Palsgraf case. I did it without any notes, and, to the dismay of my colleagues, I still deliver opening and closing statements without notes as I find them to be distracting. It’s a weakness I wish I could overcome, but notes distract me. If I was having dinner with a friend and recounting a story, I would hardly pause to refer to a note or two. I feel the same way standing before juries.

LD: Can you tell us about two or three of your favorite cases and what makes them memorable?

TJN: I was very fortunate that after graduating from law school I was hired into the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles.

One of the early cases I was assigned to was a rare federal murder trial conducted in the Central District.

up as the defendants planned to rob another mail truck.

The informant drove the Cadillac get-a-way car, which had been heavily wired by the U.S. Postal Inspectors.

Unfortunately, the recording device was concealed under the front seat of the Cadillac, immediately adjacent to the front seat’s electrical motor. As luck would have it, as the monitored mail truck proceeded down the alley the defendant sitting in the front seat started to fiddle with the electric front seat just as he stated, “Let’s get this guy just like we did the other white guy.….”

At the exact moment, the killer made the incriminating statement a train went by only a few yards from where the Cadillac was parked. After the arrest, the Postal Inspectors retrieved the tape-recording device only to learn that the incriminating statement, made over 27 seconds, was inaudible because of the audio contamination caused by the electrical motor and the sound of the train roaring by.

In 1978 when the case was tried, neither the U.S. Postal Service nor the FBI had the expertise to filter out the background noise of the electrical motor and train.

However, the agents located a sound technician who was developing a method to digitalize analogue tapes, which then would allow any competing audio signals to be separated. He was hired to work on the 27 seconds of our tape recording, for which the cost was approximately, $25,000. That was a huge amount to spend those days; however, it was well worth the expense, as we were able to play the dramatic 27 seconds before the jury, which led to the conviction of the two defendants who are both serving consecutive life terms.

LD: What a way to start your practice. What other cases come to mind?

I DID IT WITHOUT ANY NOTES, AND, TO THE DISMAY OF M Y C O L L E A G U E S, I S T I L L D E L I V E R O P E N I N G A N D C L O S I N G STATEMENTS WITHOUT NOTES AS I FIND THEM TO BE DISTRACTING. IT’S A WEAKNESS I WISH I COULD OVERCOME, BUT NOTES DISTRACT ME. A U.S. Postal Inspector was murdered at the last stop on his collection schedule. In those days, Post Offices often carried substantial amounts of money, which would be collected by designated postal trucks. He was murdered during an armed robbery of his mail truck. We turned an informant, and a stakeout was set

130

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

TJN: When I left the U.S. Attorney’s office, I joined Stephen Miller who started his own small boutique criminal defense firm. We were hired to represent the son of a well-known tax lawyer, who was also President Ronald Reagan’s alter ego. The son had schizophrenia and had tragically raped and killed his mother. As part of our

500

trial preparation, I met with the incarcerated son on nearly a daily basis. We became quick students of the insidious mental illness of schizophrenia. At trial, I was assigned to cross-examine the coroner with the goal of establishing that at the time of the sexual assault, his mother was dead. He was found not guilty by reason of insanity. As I was cross-examining the coroner I thought to myself, “God please do not let my mother walk into this courtroom.” Our client was found not guilty of firstdegree murder by reason of insanity. He was acquitted on the charge of rape, as it is not a crime in California to rape a corpse.

limited to the damages phase. In the damages retrial, Honeywell added to its defense team another iconic antitrust lawyer, the late Max Blecher. We skirmished on pre-screening jurors and tried it again. The jury came back in an hour-and-a-half and awarded Litton $250 million. A juror came to me later and apologized that it took so long explaining that the clerk had taken his time bringing the trial exhibits back to the jury room.

Another example that I must have been born under a lucky star.

The memory of that case is seared in my mind since I had to sit down with the father and tell him that in addition to his son being charged with killing his mother, he was going to be charged with the rape of his mother.

I recall that day as my heart broke while delivering that horrific news. Shortly after delivering the news, our office receptionist came into the conference room and announced that the White House switchboard operator was calling, as President Reagan wanted to express his condolences to his long-time counselor.

TJN: It did, and I don’t think anyone knew it was my first civil trial. So in my first two civil trials we had achieved a $234-million verdict followed by a $250-million verdict. Judge Pfaelzer accepted the second verdict and awarded Litton $40 million in attorney fees. With the verdict trebled plus the attorney-fee award, we had obtained a $790-million judgment which was settled for $400 million while on appeal. We had an incredible trial team with the old-guard antitrust lawyers setting aside their own egos to help an upstart antitrust lawyer.

LD: That’s a tough day.

TJN: Another memorable case was my first civil trial.

I was a partner in the Los Angeles office of the D.C. firm, Howrey & Simon when I got a call from one of Howrey’s senior antitrust partners. He explained they had an antitrust case scheduled to be tried in front of L.A. federal judge Mariana Pfaelzer, Litton v. Honeywell.

It was a battle that had taken on a life of its own, had endured 10 years of litigation, and they wanted me to meet with the general counsel of Litton Industries, in part because I knew Judge Pfaelzer. The general counsel of Litton, John Preston, was there. I made the presentation, and he asked me, “When was your last trial?” I told him about a case I had just defended involving criminal charges against a Hassidic rabbi. John left, and my partners glared at me wondering why I talked about a criminal trial; but he had asked me a question, and I answered it.

The next day John said that I would have to try the case.

He’s another person who made a great difference in my life. I had never tried a civil case in my life, which I don’t think anybody knew at the time. That led to a huge trial with Gibson Dunn’s antitrust legend, Bob Cooper.

I bought the book “Antitrust in a Nutshell” and started reading it because I had not studied antitrust in law school. The jury came back with the verdict of $234 million. Judge Pfaelzer was clearly disappointed by the verdict and granted Honeywell’s motion for new trial

LD: Did that mark your move to handling more civil cases?

After I moved to Skadden, I was fortunate to work with Jay Kasner, a well-respected and senior partner at Skadden. Jay was the lead attorney on a team of approximately 40 other Skadden attorneys who were representing J.P. Morgan and a syndicate of other underwriters of bonds issued by WorldCom. Jay and I became fast friends and I moved back to New York for five months as we prepared for trial. I also became fast friends with a jury consultant, Steve Lybrand. Circumstances led to us having to settle the case the evening before jury selection. I will always regret not having had a chance to try that case to verdict, but the case is a good example of how some cases are just too large to try. The underwriters’ exposure was $10 billion. Although we were doing well with focus groups, $10 billion of shareholder equity was too great to risk and the Board voted to settle the case on the eve of jury selection.

As I was walking out of the JP Morgan Board Room. I was feeling pretty low as we had worked so hard to get the case prepared for trial. However, I had a flashback and reflected on how far I was from my civics class in Burbank, but it was also another example where so many talented colleagues set aside their own egos to ensure that I was as prepared as much as possible to master the defense of the WorldCom underwriters. I am sure many felt they were more qualified and deserving to be sitting next to Jay at counsel table; however, that was one of the qualities of being a Skadden partner. Jay

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

131

500 WE WERE HIRED AND LINED UP AGAINST A TEAM FROM QUINN EMANUEL, LED BY JOHN QUINN. IT WAS LIKE DRINKING FROM A W A T E R H Y D R A N T. W E W E R E F A C I N G A P P R O X I M A T E L Y 90 O P E N DISCOVERY ISSUES AS THE TRIAL DATE WAS FAST ADVANCING. IN THE END, THE TRIAL COURT GRANTED US A THIRTY-DAY CONTINUANCE BUT WE WERE CONSTANTLY UNDER SIEGE. was generous with his time, and he was instrumental in my integration as a Skadden partner. I was fortunate to work closely with Jay on several other major securities cases filed in the Southern District of New York. Amazing things happened for me while at Skadden as I had amazing cases, including the defense of Wells Fargo in a rare trial involving violations of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, the defense of Toyota against allegations of unintended acceleration in their vehicles equipped with fuel-injection systems, the defense of UBS in a billion-dollar mortgage-backed securities trial and of course the Barbie v Bratz doll wars jury trial.

I referenced earlier Steven Lybrand, a jury consultant I met during WorldCom. I was fortunate to recruit Steven to accept an in-house position at Skadden. Steven joined forces with Aaron Shorr, a courtroom technician I brought over with me from Howrey. Every client I worked with and every juror I interviewed after a verdict, described Aaron as a magician with technology.

Aaron was with me for seventeen years and became so close that he would anticipate a point I was about to make, before I made it. He clearly had the hardest job as I notoriously never follow a prepared script or outline. After Steven joined Skadden, he and Aaron formed a powerful in-house machine that distinguished Skadden’s trial capability from their competitors. I was was so fortunate to have spent the last ten years of my time at Skadden teaming up with Steven and Aaron as there was never an occasion where I didn’t have them at my side. Although we would also use outside jury consultants, Steven and Aaron would be the last I would listen to before walking into court. When it comes to picking a jury, Steven has a special genius of identifying how jurors think. Steven and Aaron also served as great mentors to younger attorneys who wished to master the art of persuasion. I am fortunate to consider Steven and Aaron as close personal friends who would also be brutally honest when they thought I needed to step up my game. So another piece of advice for

132

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

anyone wanting to become a trial attorney is to surround yourself with colleagues who are independent thinkers who resist “group think” and will not hesitate to offer constructive feedback.

LD: Can you tell us a bit more about the epic “doll wars trial” which pitted Mattel against MGA? How did that come about?

TJN: I have two daughters but neither played with dolls, so I had no idea what a Bratz doll was when I got a call from MGA’s General Counsel. Nor had I ever tried a trademark or copyright case. I met with Isaac Larian, the CEO of MGA, and he pressed me on whether we could be trial ready within four months. Apparently, the other law firms Isaac was considering had said they wanted a continuance of at least three months just to evaluate the case before they could decide if they would accept the engagement. I had the advantage of having a number of Skadden colleagues with whom I had tried cases. I told Isaac that if he wanted us as his trial counsel, we were prepared to jump in the deep-end with him and we would learn how to swim. We were hired and lined up against a team from Quinn Emanuel, led by John Quinn. It was like drinking from a fire hydrant. We were facing approximately 90 open discovery issues as the trial date was fast advancing. In the end, the trial court granted us a thirty-day continuance but we were constantly under siege.

In addition to learning trademark and copyright principles, I had to learn everything I could about a Bratz doll.

Our girls never collected dolls when they were young, but - as they always did during other trials - they were supportive. Whenever they had friends sleep over, I would use them as my early focus groups helping me prepare to explain to a jury how Bratz dolls differed from Barbie dolls. They taught me the intricacies of the Bratz unique fashions. I would show them Bratz dolls and their various fashions. My daughter’s high school friends became my first jury focus group for the Bratz trial.

500

For Bratz, I learned everything I could about copyright and trademark, and the rest is history. We tried the case and lost the first phase of the trial. The jury found that the Bratz dolls were designed by a Mattel designer working on his own time at night. We were devastated by the verdict, but we had to prepare for the damages phase. There was no time to lick our wounds. We had to keep pushing. I remember it was during the Summer 2008 Olympics, and while sitting in my hotel room, I watched Michael Phelps win one of his gold medals by his sheer force of will. Phelps lunged for the wall at the very last minute and outreached the other swimmer.

He won the Gold even though 5 yards from the finish he was destined to finish in second place.

I asked our trial team to watch a rerun of the race on a TV in our hotel conference room and asked them to commit to continue to out-work the Mattel team. In the end, we had to exceed Mattel’s reach for a $2-billion prize. I asked them to do what Phelps did – never give up. That became our mantra. It also reminded me of the importance of staying in touch with the humanity of a stinging loss.

In the second phase of trial, Bill Price of Quinn asked the jury to award Mattel $2 billion in damages. The jury came back and awarded $100 million, which was a lot of money. However, it was less than what industry consultants had predicted. The Wall Street Journal reported the outcome with the headline, “Barbie Wears Black: Mattel’s Damages Come in Way Low.” Losing the first phase of Bratz was probably the lowest point in my career.

LD: You’re not a trial lawyer if you haven’t lost a case.

Can you tell us a bit more about your first trial, which you lost? The defendant had been a prison inmate who did not return from furlough, and the jury acquitted him because he claimed he was abused by prison gangs.

TJN: Oh man, the memory of that loss still stings. I was pretty full of myself, as I had just been hired as an Assistant U.S. Attorney straight out of night school at Loyola Law School. I thought I had reached the top of the mountain I had started to climb early in high school. However, I soon realized there were many more mountains I would need to climb. That first loss framed how I had to prepare for a trial. That was my first encounter with not only the fear of losing, but the reality of a loss. The reality of losing. I felt like I was against all odds.

For me, the fear of losing had become a reality in my first trial. Personal. Was I doomed to be a failure? All of

my hopes and dreams were in jeopardy. My personal challenge was that I feared I would always be marked as a loser. Upon reflection, losing my first trial was the best thing to have happened to my career. I hated to lose, and I willed that I would do everything necessary to avoid that experience. I would not simply walk away just because I was hit in the face.

And, if you talk to any of the great trial lawyers, I bet you in their souls they would say the same thing. At the end of the day, it’s not as much about winning or losing, but rather how did you prepare for the case. In the end, you need to reflect on how you performed before the jury.

Did you give every ounce of your being to the cause?

I submit that another hallmark of a trial attorney is the power of self-reflection. You can fool some people but you can’t fool yourself. It is critical for trial attorneys to be prepared to embrace people along the way who will make you a better lawyer, and more importantly a better person. Count on family, friends and colleagues to keep you authentic.

LD: You’ve been at a small firm, a big firm that collapsed and two of the world’s greatest law firms. Do you think firms are a great thing or a necessary evil?

TJN: Big law firms are often described as “necessary evils”. However, the connotation is unfair as they bring power to circumstances where access to social justice is under siege.

In the WorldCom case, I was fortunate to work alongside a brilliant lawyer who had been battling for several years the AIDS virus. We became close friends and during the long lead up to the WorldCom trial date we would often talk about a myriad of subjects, from trial evidence rules to discrimination, and everything in between. On a Saturday morning several months after the WorldCom settlement, I received a call from David. After ”hello” he said, “Tom, I’m going to die and I need a favor.”

And he told me he had a case that he wanted me to take over in the event he died. The case involved a high school girl who was gay and outed and harassed by her classmates. The school district did nothing to stop the harassment, so David took on the case and sued the school district. Six months later, David died. I went to New York and got ready to try the case and we went to a court-mandated mediation. The mediator advised us what he thought the case was worth as he doubted Skadden would front the expense of a trial when a reasonable settlement was in the offering. I explained that he was grossly underestimating both Skadden’s and my resolve to see the case through trial and an

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

133

500 appeal if necessary. I explained that I wanted to meet with the school district’s General Counsel and his trial counsel. At the meeting, I relayed my last conversation with David and my promise to him, which was fully endorsed by Skadden’s Chairman. I told them that we were prepared to take the case to trial and would fight them with every ounce of my being and the power of Skadden Arps.

So the case settles. And as I’m leaving the conference room, the lawyer from the agency asked, “Are you happy with the result?” Someone else mentioned it was the second-highest settlement for that type of case. I couldn’t suppress my Irish heritage nor my competitive spirit, so a bit peeved, I turned and asked, “Who had the highest?” And they advised that it had been achieved by David. That’s the power of Big Law. I am proud to be now at Latham where the same commitment to ensuring access to justice for the most needy exists. So for those that view Big Law as a “necessary evil”, my response is “hog wash.”

LD: Do you have superstitions as a trial lawyer?

Fast forward some 49 years later when I was interviewing with Skadden Arps, my last interview was with the legendary Joe Flom, and he asked me, “Why are you hesitating?” I said, “I don’t know, this is the Big Leagues, Joe. I’m a kid from night school.” And he looked at me and said, “Tom, do you know why we formed this firm?

Because in 1948, if you were a Catholic or a Jew, you could not be hired in a law firm.”

I was born in 1948, so that gave me the answer I had been searching for. My dad was an Irish Catholic and the many doors that were held open for me, were closed shut to him and so many other Catholics and Jews.

LD: It must mean so much to you knowing how you carried on from your father.

TJN: I hope so, but I always feel I am on an endless journey hoping to earn his approval. My last trial as a Skadden partner was for UBS in New York, involving mortgage-backed securities, and several billion dollars were at stake. I was dizzy with the opportunity to try a case in the Southern District of New York, situated

MAYBE THE LIFE LESSON IS TO NEVER FORGET WHO YOU ARE A N D N E V E R P R E T E N D Y O U A R E S O M E T H I N G Y O U’R E N O T. J U S T B E A U T H E N T I C A N D B E P R E P A R E D T O W O R K Y O U R T A I L O F F. I N T H E E N D, B U C K L E U P A S T H E R I D E I S G O I N G T O B E A M A Z I N G. TJN: After my win in the Litton case, my older sister gave me a memento, my father’s college ring. I carried the ring in my suit pocket in every case that I tried after Litton. Unfortunately, a few years ago our home was burglarized and the SOBs stole my wife’s jewelry along with a couple of my watches and my father’s college ring.

Two years later, they arrested the person, and I went to the arraignment and talked to the defense lawyer. I told her that I’d do everything I could to help her client if she just helped me get my father’s ring back. I never got it back. That ripped me up.

LD: Tell me about your Dad, who passed away when you were six. He and your Mom are a touchpoint of almost everything you say and do.

TJN: My father went to Fordham Law School and after graduation became an FBI agent. After that, he became the head of security for a liquor distillery and then died of a heart attack - he was only 39-years old. A burning question for me as I grew up was why my father didn’t practice law.

134

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

in the heart of Foley Square, where my father was an FBI agent, where my mother worked at the FBI and met my father.

The night before I was to deliver the opening statement, I went out and had an Uber driver take me to Pelham, New York, just outside of Westchester, to my father’s grave. It was a beautiful evening and I just sat down next to his gravestone appreciating the fact that my father couldn’t have gotten a job in a New York law firm and now his son was about to deliver the Opening Statement in a trial with a couple of billion dollars on the line. I didn’t need any closure, I just wanted to share the moment with him out of respect. So I just said a silent prayer in gratitude and ended with, “Hey Dad, this is pretty cool.”

Maybe the life lesson is to never forget who you are and never pretend you are something you’re not. Just be authentic and be prepared to work your tail off. In the end, buckle up as the ride is going to be amazing.

Congratulations.

Christopher Cox, Patrick Quinn and Richard Brand

Congratulations to our partners Christopher Cox, Patrick Quinn and Richard Brand for being named to the 2018 Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America.

We thank our clients for the opportunity to serve them on their most important transactions and matters — and for being a part of our 225-year history of professional excellence.

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP www.cadwalader.com

500

Advocates for Workplace Fairness

Rachel Bien

Katherine Blostein

Wendi S. Lazar

Wayne N. Outten

Molly A. Brooks

David Lopez

Kathleen Peratis

Lori L. Deem

Tammy Marzigliano

Peter Romer-Friedman

Cara E. Greene

Ossai Miazad

Jahan C. Sagafi

Darnley D. Stewart

Adam P. Klein

Laurence S. Moy

Justin M. Swartz

Outten & Golden is honored to be so well represented among our esteemed colleagues on the inaugural Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Employment Lawyers list.

Our Practice Groups • Executives & Professionals • Financial Services • Sexual Harassment & Sex Discrimination

• Family Responsibilities & Disabilities Discrimination • Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & Queer Workplace Rights

• Discrimination & Retaliation • Whistleblower Retaliation • Class & Collective Actions • WARN Act

New York • Chicago • San Francisco • Washington, DC

www.outtengolden.com

The Legends Remember the iconic advertisement asking, “What becomes a legend most?” For lawyers, it’s greatness at winning iconic trials, bringing litigation that reshapes industries or saves lives and making deals that change the course of industry. Lawdragon annually recognizes Legends of the legal industry who have 10 times been honored with the acclaimed Lawdragon 500 recognition.

This year’s class of 31 stars of the legal world includes Oklahoma City bombing prosecutor Beth Wilkinson; the first female presiding partner of one of America’s quintessential law firms, Faiza Saeed; and a Texas litigation star who rose to run the U.S. contingent of one of the world’s largest law firms, Linda Addison.

There are men, as well, led by recent White House Counsel Ty Cobb, who faced down daily constitutional crisis between President Donald Trump and Special Counsel Robert Mueller; one of the nation’s foremost rainmakers and white-collar ace, Nicholas Gravante; and a plaintiffs lawyer who was co-lead counsel in the largest class action ever, against Big Tobacco, and is now taking on the Opiod crisis, Steve Berman.

While most practice in New York and Washington, D.C., they practice from Orlando to Seattle, include two U.S. Supreme Court justices and a few of the best lawyers to ever argue before them.

We proudly present to you the 2018 Lawdragon Legends.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

137

500

THE LAWDRAGON 500

500

Linda Addison NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT – NEW YORK

A litigator who has excelled in all manner of complex cases, Addison also has left an indelible imprint on her firm from her tenure as managing partner of the U.S. practice.

David Anders W A C HTE LL LI P TO N – N E W Y O R K

This former federal prosecutor has been a bedrock of Wachtell’s litigation corps for his skillful handling of white-collar and regulatory matters.

Photo by Laura Barisonzi

Photo by Jennifer Pottheiser

Steve Berman H A GE N S B E R MA N – SE A T T L E

The fearless Berman has amassed billions upon billions of dollars in recoveries for injured investors, employees and consumers in many high-profile class actions.

Photo provided by the firm

Steve Bochner W I LS O N S O N S I N I – P A LO A LTO

A former CEO of his firm, Bochner has enjoyed a legendary career advising many of the world’s most famous and transformative companies in IPOs and other transactions.

Photo by Gregory Cowley

138

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Ted Boutrous

David Braff

GIBS O N DU N N – L O S A N G E L E S

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

Boutrous is an amazingly adept litigator, one of the nation’s best in any appellate arena with a penchant for high-profile wins across a vast array of legal areas.

Photo by Dave Lauridsen

For more than three decades, the leader of Sullivan & Cromwell’s litigation practice has built a stellar track record – whether in court or behind the scenes on the most sensitive civil and criminal matters.

Photo provided by the firm

John Branca ZIFFREN BRITTENHAM – LOS ANGELES

Susanna Buergel PAUL WEISS – NEW YORK

Among the most powerful entertainment lawyers to ever practice, Branca has always boasted an unparalleled roster of music clients from the Rolling Stones to Michael Jackson.

Buergel achieved elite status as a litigator through amazing results for financial institutions facing securities claims as well as scrutiny by the Department of Justice and the SEC.

Photo by Hugh Williams

Photo by Gregg Delman

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

139

500

James Carroll

Paul Clement

S KA DDE N – B O ST O N

KIRKLAND & ELLIS – WASHINGTON, D.C.

Photo by Ken Richardson

Photo by Eli Meir Kaplan

Ty Cobb

Robin Cohen

The head of Skadden’s Boston office excels at defending class actions and other complex civil litigation across a range of industries, including healthcare and pharmaceutical.

WASH IN G T O N , D.C.

President Trump made a wise move in choosing Cobb, who had spent three decades at Hogan Lovells, as special counsel – a tenture that may ultimately prove to have been too brief.

Photo by Eli Meir Kaplan

140

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

The highly acclaimed former Solicitor General under President Bush, from 2005 to 2008, has an incredible track record in nearly 100 cases argued before the Supreme Court.

M C K O O L S M I TH – N E W Y O R K

A talented trial lawyer and the leader of the nation’s best insurance recovery practice, Cohen has recovered more than $5B for clients.

Photo by Laura Barisonzi

500

Karen Dyer

Stuart Grant

B O IE S SCH IL L E R – N E W YO R K

GRANT & EISENHOFER – WILMINGTON

Photo by Laura Barisonzi

Photo by Andrew Kahl

Nicholas Gravante

William Isaacson

Boies Schiller has benefited from Dyer’s litigation skills from its earliest days – a tenacious advocate on the firm’s biggest cases, she is among the firm’s leaders.

B O IE S SCH IL L E R – N E W YO R K

A trial lawyer’s trial lawyer, Gravante can net massive plaintiffs’ verdicts, defend against bet-the-company claims and kill a prosecution before you hear about it.

Photo by Laura Barisonzi

The renowned firm co-founder and expert in Delaware law is one of the nation’s most accomplished litigators in securities actions on behalf of wronged investors.

BOIES SCHILLER – WASHINGTON, D.C.

It’s nearly impossible to find a more reliable antitrust litigator than Isaacson, who has successfully handled several of the most high-profile cases in the past two decades.

Photo by Stephen Voss

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

141

500

Jeffrey Klein

Jeffrey Lamken

WE IL – N E W YO R K

M O LO LA M K E N – W A S HI N G TO N , D . C .

Photo by Gregory Cowley

Photo provided by the firm

Carolyn Lamm

Steve Molo

The steady and reliable Klein may be the most sought after employment lawyer in the U.S. among major corporations looking to beat back or resolve their most sensitive issues.

WH ITE & CASE – W A SH IN G T O N , D.C.

A past president of the American Bar Association, Lamm has remained at the top of the legal profession in the area of international arbitration, litigation and trade proceedings.

Photo by Patricia Blumenthal

142

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

The firm co-founder and former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has amassed a phenomenal appellate record between government service and private practice.

M O LO LA M K E N – N E W Y O R K

Molo should be on the short-list for any company or individual facing a big case, having excelled in the full gamut of complex civil cases to high-profile criminal matters.

Photo by Gregory Cowley

500

Francis Patrick Murphy CO RBOY & DE ME T R IO – CH ICA G O

Faiza Saeed C R A VA TH – N E W Y O R K

A passionate advocate for injured plaintiffs and their families, Murphy has done immeasurably good over nearly four decades with more than 50 verdicts and settlements over $1M.

One of the firm’s stalwart corporate partners handling the elite roster of clients, Saeed became Cravath’s first-ever woman presiding partner in January 2017.

Photo provided by the firm

Photo provided by the firm

Jonathan Schiller

Allison Schneirov

BOI E S SCH IL L E R – N E W YO R K

SKADDEN – NEW YORK

The co-founder and name partner has spent a career outmaneuvering opponents in court and has been an undeniable master at successfully handling international arbitrations.

The leader of Skadden’s New York M&A Group has a deal list that is second to none – an endless string of massive transactions for the world’s top companies and funds.

Photo by Gregory Cowley

Photo by Laura Barisonzi

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

143

500

Roman Silberfeld

Gerald Silk

ROBINS K A PL A N – L O S A N G E L E S

B E R N S TE I N LI TO W I TZ - N E W Y O R K

The reputation of Robins Kaplan as one of the nation’s elite trial firms has been built in no small part on this consistent heavyweight who anchors the firm’s Los Angeles office.

Silk is simply unbeatable at helping institutional clients assess their potential claims and then pursuing them aggressively, with billions of dollars in recoveries under his belt.

Photo by Dave Lauridsen

Photo by Laura Barisonzi

Daniel Slifkin

Sonia Sotomayor

CRA V A T H – N E W YO R K

U.S. SUPREME COURT – WASHINGTON, D.C.

Photo provided by the firm

Photo by Steve Petteway

The London-born, Oxford and Harvard Law-educated Slifkin heads Cravath’s esteemed litigation group and has been a dominant force in securities, antitrust and general commercial cases for decades.

144

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Judges on any court would benefit from the diverse legal positions that Sotomayor held on her way to becoming the first Hispanic justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

500

Clarence Thomas

Beth Wilkinson

U.S. SUPREME COURT – WASHINGTON, D.C.

WILKINSON WALSH – WASHINGTON, D.C.

In his own (mostly) silent and stubborn way, Thomas has become a determined intellectual force on the bench with carefully crafted conservative opinions.

Photo by Steve Petteway

A former award-winning federal prosecutor who worked on the Oklahoma City bombing case, Wilkinson has long since been one of the top bet-the-company trial lawyers in the land.

Photo by Steven Freeman

Greg Williams RICH A R DS L A YT O N – W IL MIN G T O N

The Legends

Williams is a true legend in Delaware’s tight but elite corporate bar as the most trusted of advisors for corporations, their officers and directors.

Photo by Andrew Kahl

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

145

KA

Keller/Anderle LLP BUSINESS TRIAL LAWYERS

CHICAGO’S PREMIER

PLAINTIFFS’ PERSONAL INJURY LAW FIRM

AN UNPRECEDENTED

8 CONSECUTIVE 1st PLACE FINISHES

For the past eight years, Power Rogers & Smith has obtained the most dollars in recoveries for its clients according to the Chicago Lawyer Annual Settlement Survey.

Over $4 billion recovered in

verdicts & settlements since inception

Best Law Firms 2018

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

The Nation’s Top Litigators

312.236.9381 // 70 West Madison | 55th Floor | Chicago, llinois 60602 // www.PRSLAW.com

500

500 Anita Hill

COHEN MILSTEIN (WALTHAM, MASS.)

148

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Think We are moving past warp speed. Few know that as do the members of this year’s Lawdragon 500. The year began with #MeToo ascendant and a turgid hope things would be all right.

How’s that goin’ for you?

You better think Think about what you’re trying to do to me Think Let your mind go, let yourself be free.

THE WARRIORS We chose Anita Hill to represent this year’s 500.

She told us 27 years ago what we could not hear.

What we still won’t hear. Maybe some can’t.

People walking around everyday Playing games, taking scores Trying to make other people lose their minds Ah, be careful you don’t lose yours, oh What happened last week feels a million miles away.

And yet the sexual assault warriors, antitrust geniuses and M&A mavens featured here continue to lead us forward somehow.

This year’s 500 is 20 percent diverse, 34 percent women and 100 percent exceptional. The confirmation hearings of Brett Kavanaugh were a moment, and we talk about that here with Hill.

Her focus is forward on a better day where everyone enjoys respect.

Think Think about what you’re trying to do to me, ooh You need me And I need you Without each other there ain’t nothing people can do.

PHOTOS OF ANITA HILL BY: KEN RICHARDSON

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

149

500

500 Matthew Abbott

Samuel Alito

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

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

Nancy Abell

David Anders

PAUL HASTINGS LOS ANGELES

WACHTELL NEW YORK

Linda Addison

Antonia Apps

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT NEW YORK

MILBANK NEW YORK

Angela Agrusa

Stephen Arcano

DLA LOS ANGELES

SKADDEN NEW YORK

Michael Aiello

Kurt Arnold

WEIL GOTSHAL NEW YORK

ARNOLD & ITKIN HOUSTON

Tom Ajamie

Clifford Aronson

AJAMIE HOUSTON

SKADDEN NEW YORK

Charla Aldous

Lisa Arrowood

ALDOUS WALKER DALLAS

ARROWOOD PETERS BOSTON

Mary Alexander

Kim Askew

MARY ALEXANDER & ASSOCIATES SAN FRANCISCO

K&L GATES DALLAS

Rosemary Alito

Baher Azmy

K&L GATES NEWARK, N.J.

CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS NEW YORK

.

150

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Andrew Bab

Scott Barshay

DEBEVOISE NEW YORK

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Maria Baldini-Potermin

Charlene Barshefsky

MARIA BALDINI-POTERMIN & ASSOCIATES CHICAGO

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Corinne Ball

George Bason

JONES DAY NEW YORK

DAVIS POLK NEW YORK

Karen Ballack

Hilarie Bass

WEIL GOTSHAL REDWOOD SHORES, CALIF.

GREENBERG TRAURIG MIAMI

Ian Ballon

Paul Basta

GREENBERG TRAURIG EAST PALO ALTO

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Peter Barbur

Jack Baughman

CRAVATH NEW YORK

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Randall Baron

Phil Beck

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

BARTLIT BECK CHICAGO

Judy Barrasso

Candace Beinecke

BARRASSO USDIN NEW ORLEANS

HUGHES HUBBARD NEW YORK

Michael Barry

Karima Bennoune

GRANT & EISENHOFER WILMINGTON

UC DAVIS LAW SCHOOL DAVIS, CALIF.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

151

Anita Hill COHEN MILSTEIN (WALTHAM, MASS.)

500

ANITA HILL BEFORE #METOO, THERE WAS ANITA HILL. In 1991, the scholarly law professor told her story. Of her early years as a lawyer in Washington, D.C., working for a powerful, ascendant government lawyer.

How he acted. What he said.

How she felt.

She had worked so hard to become a lawyer. From small-town roots in Lone Tree, Okla., one of 13 children, she graduated from Oklahoma State University and then Yale Law School. After one year in private practice in D.C., she got what she thought was her big break. She became an advisor to Clarence Thomas, then Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. She joined him when he became chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1982.

She testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a watershed hearing that opened the doors on sexual harassment. We learned the words for things that were happening in workplaces from restaurants to fancy law firms. And we learned we were not alone.

She, meanwhile, returned to being a somewhat quiet but candid law professor at the University of Oklahoma College of Law. Over the last 27 years she has been interviewed and written widely, including her necessary book, “Speaking Truth to Power.” She is now of counsel at Cohen Milstein and a Professor of Social Policy, Law, and Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Brandeis University.

The last time the majority members of the Senate Judiciary Committee themselves questioned a woman in uncomfortable circumstances was their attack on Hill.

The generation of women entering the workplace with high hopes of equality and achievement watched Hill’s grace and determination and we vowed never again.

She was lecturing at the University of Idaho Law School in October 2017 when the reawakening occurred. She remembers it well because news of Harvey Weinstein broke near the anniversary of the 1991 hearings. In the year since then, of course, another powerful, ascendant man was nominated and confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lawdragon: Do you recall how you felt, where you were when the Harvey Weinstein story broke? I can’t imagine being you watching the emergence of the #Metoo era into the broad public consciousness.

PHOTOS BY: KEN RICHARDSON

BY KATRINA DEWEY Anita Hill: When I really absorbed the full brunt of the Harvey Weinstein story, it was October 11 or 12 and I was in Idaho doing talks at the University of Idaho Law School, which is split between Moscow and Boise. I was traveling and realized that it was the anniversary of the hearing from 1991. The whole idea of sexual harassment becoming part of the public discourse was heavy on my mind.

One of the two sessions, at least, was really about 1991, but more importantly what we’ve learned since then.

So, of course when I heard about the Harvey Weinstein story and all of the people who were coming out, I thought not just about him but really about a culture that seemed to accept him and systems that were put in place to protect him.

It all reminded me, one, that we’ve been through this before. We thought that we had resolved the issues.

And to some extent we’ve made headway, we’ve made some gains. But we still haven’t resolved all of the problems. Because many of the things that were coming out have happened clearly since 1991. As more and more of the stories came out, I realized that a whole new generation and eventually young men as well were living through the experience of sexual harassment as much as I had in the workplace.

LD: I graduated law school in 1986 and it was shocking to me in 1991 what you had experienced early in your career, in the early ‘80s. We know comparing harassment is never productive, yet the Weinstein story felt as though your experience from an earlier era had metastasized and become so much larger and more grotesque, if that’s possible.

AH: You used the word metastasized. I think of these kinds of abuses more like they’re viral, so they go through a period where they are being confronted and people are doing things. And just like a virus, people are developing immunities to it or having a response to it. But then it turns into another generation of the same problem, and it gets stronger. So, it goes around and, for a while it seems like the virus is at least reduced, if not eliminated.

But then it comes back in almost like a fuller force – and that’s exactly what we’ve learned from the Harvey Weinstein revelations - that it came back in a stronger form in part because there were now systems in place that hadn’t been in place in the 1990s. And those tools or systems included these mandatory non-disclosure agree-

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

153

500

500 154

Max Berger

Alexander Blewett

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

HOYT & BLEWETT GREAT FALLS, MONT.

Matthew F. Bergmann

Steve Bochner

WINSTON & STRAWN CHICAGO

WILSON SONSINI PALO ALTO

Barry Berke

David Boies

KRAMER LEVIN NEW YORK

BOIES SCHILLER ARMONK, N.Y.

Steve Berman

Mary Bonauto

HAGENS BERMAN SEATTLE

GLBTQ LEGAL ADVOCATES & DEFENDERS BOSTON

Erica Berthou

Cheryl Bormann

KIRKLAND & ELLIS NEW YORK

LAW OFFICES OF CHERYL BORMANN CHICAGO

Vineet Bhatia

Andre Bouchard

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

DELAWARE CHANCERY COURT WILMINGTON

Robert Bingle

Jamie Boucher

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

SKADDEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Nigel Blackaby

Ted Boutrous

FRESHFIELDS WASHINGTON, D.C.

GIBSON DUNN LOS ANGELES

Lisa Blatt

Bruce Bowman

ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER WASHINGTON, D.C.

GODWIN BOWMAN DALLAS

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

ments that sort of mushroomed in the 1990s after the Supreme Court decision allowing mandated arbitration.

Of course, there’s always been arbitration, but employers putting these clauses in their contracts had grown.

And those had been sanctioned by the law. So, where people had stopped accepting sexual harassment as normal behavior, all those things were good and true. But we hadn’t anticipated that there would be formalized a way of avoiding the consequences of harassment or even avoiding being held accountable at all under the law.

LD: Twenty-seven years after you testified in Clarence Thomas’ confirmation hearings, it seems ironic that while your experience helped shape laws that protected from harassment and discrimination, it also led to structures that protected harassers. Maybe ironic is not the right word.

thought. These ideas that we should sort of push aside or try to cover up or hide these violations rather than confront them.

We’re starting to learn that it’s not helpful to do so.

We’re starting to learn that there’s real harm that is being done to individuals. There’s real harm that’s being done to our workforces. And that, then, ultimately, the people that have been trying to avoid these consequences, their organizations are harmed and they’re being harmed. That there are losses that are incurred because people in their workforces are sexually harassed. And the losses are not just about litigation costs.

The losses are due to the reception and the effectiveness of the people who exist in the workplace.

To put it another way, no one gains when harassment exists in a workplace. You might ultimately think that somehow there might be some gain from it, but when

I THINK THE LAW EVOLVES. WE’VE GOT TO CHALLENGE IT ON DIFFERENT FRONTS. I TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES THAT HAVE COME INTO PLAY TO PROTECT HARASSMENT. WE NOW HAVE DIFFERENT SYSTEMS THAT ARE COMING INTO PLAY TO PROTECT OUR WORKFORCES AGAINST HARASSMENT. AH: Right. Well, it was a response. I believe there’s a reason that these kind of agreements were not in place before to effectively change the way we’ve enforced civil rights law. The reason they weren’t in place is because we did see a rise in the number of complaints. People started taking advantage of the law that was there to protect and so as a counter to that, the forces that weren’t really interested in change, that weren’t interested in the kind of accountability that was becoming possible, developed around putting in place ways to avoid that accountability. I don’t think it was an accident. I think it was a reaction. You can call it a backlash, but whatever it is, we know that the law is really a tool and it’s the tool that gets used that often undermines other laws.

And that’s what we are witnessing. So, for all of the social movement that was occurring, there was a legal movement response to it. I think, though, what we have started to come to terms with in this generation is that it’s not legally helpful in the ways that people

you do all of the calculations, you realize that harassment harms everyone. We’re seeing that play out in a big way, whether it’s Fox News with Roger Ailes, or some of the other media companies that have had to deal with reputational losses as well as financial losses in the wake of #MeToo. LD: What do we do about the law – it’s like policing the police, you know? How do we get the law to police itself and to really provide a fair workplace for everyone?

AH: I think the law evolves. We’ve got to challenge it on different fronts. I talk about the differences that have come into play to protect harassment. We now have different systems that are coming into play to protect our workforces against harassment. And that involves shareholder suits, plaintiff’s litigation, victim’s litigations. It also involves rules and resolutions by the ABA such as Resolution 302 that was passed last year.

[It expands a policy adopted in 1992 with new components for enforcing protections against harassment and retaliation based on gender, gender identity and

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

155

500

500 sexual orientation.] There was ABA Rule 8.4G [defining harassment as misconduct]. So those are tools.

And I believe that the law, in terms of what the courts are saying, is also evolving. I would also add that I understand that the federal court system has put together a committee to evaluate harassment policy within the judiciary. All of these things have to happen, because we’re not talking about individual behavior. Of course, we’re addressing individual behavior, but we’re also understanding how the systems have been working to undermine the law.

The more we know about how to confront this in a systemic way, the more effective I think we will be.

That’s one thing that’s different from what happened in 1991. We really didn’t understand the problem from a systemic point of view. We responded from a behavioral point of view. And yes, it was important that we pass the Civil Rights Act of 1991, that was a start, but to a large extent it was still legislation that was to protect an individual from another individual’s behavior. It didn’t challenge the systems that were in place.

We’re just at a different place now in our understanding of how entrenched a problem it is that we’re addressing.

LD: Let’s take the case of the disgraced former 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski as an example of the power structures in law. A case like Judge Kozinski - and manifestations of that as it has been addressed in the media and by the federal judiciary - it really can maybe enlighten us about some of these entrenched power structures and what it takes for individuals to be heard sometimes.

Which I guess you know better than anybody.

AH: Absolutely, the Kozinski case is a case study on why don’t people come forward. Well, how do different cultures suppress people from coming forward?

The story that was told about the Kozinski situation was that what happens in judicial chambers is very private and it’s sort of, I won’t say entirely secretive, but it’s held closely by the people who are in that chamber.

They rely on each other.

And if you listen to what was being said about it, you find that in other cultures, too. It’s not just that it exists in the judiciary. Those kinds of close relationships WHITE &allCASE D.C.) exist in workplaces over.(WASHINGTON, And that then cultivates a culture of silence that is harmful to anyone who has a claim; that culture gets imposed. And we see that over and over again.

CAROLYN LAMM

We also see in those cultures a real threat of retaliation.

And I’m not saying direct and deliberate always, but sometimes. So, for example, the people who work in

156

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Judge Kozinski’s chambers needed references. And so, if they start to complain, Judge Kozinski probably isn’t going to say – I’m putting words in his mouth, I won’t. Judge Kozinski or someone else in this position probably will not likely say, “This person brought a sexual harassment complaint against me.” They’re more likely to say, “Well, maybe this person isn’t a good team player.”

And so that is what you hear and you never get the full story. But reputations can be ruined because of the way the culture supports keeping bad behavior a secret. So, I think there’s a lot to learn from this example. And I think there are lessons that apply not only to the judiciary, but I’m hoping that when it’s all said and done, other people will understand that these are happening in workplaces all over. You could say the same thing about a law firm, because the bar is relatively small in most locations.

LD: It is.

AH: And so a person may leave because of a problem they’re having, but they may choose not to disclose that problem because they realize that they’re going to need references or at the very least, they’re going to need for partners in the law firm not to give them bad references. There are lessons there.

There are also lessons from academia. The National Academy of Sciences just did a big report on sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in the Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine. And when you look at that report, what you see is some of the same kinds of issues and practices that go across professions. And also some of the different systems like professional organizations that can either help stop the behavior or that can become complicit in it. So, we’re learning as a society how we can engage to get rid of these problems of conduct in our workforces. But what I think is that the law has a special obligation to really foster that learning, model that learning to be an example. We are sworn as lawyers to uphold the law.

LD: Right. That we as lawyers should be leading this.

AH: We should be leading it. And we should be modeling it. And not only modeling it for our own workforce, but modeling it for our clients and the society at large.

LD: For students or young people out there thinking about what profession they can enter to be treated fairly and make a difference, can law really be that?

AH: Absolutely. And for litigants who are coming before the court. Understand that this is a judicial system that treats people fairly internally.

500

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

157

500

500 158

David Braff

John Browne

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL NEW YORK

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

Jennifer Bragg

Andrew Brownstein

SKADDEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

WACHTELL NEW YORK

John Branca

Rhonda Brownstein

ZIFFREN BRITTENHAM LOS ANGELES

SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER MONTGOMERY, ALA.

Richard Brand

Jacob Buchdahl

CADWALADER NEW YORK

SUSMAN GODFREY NEW YORK

Stephen Breyer

Susanna Buergel

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

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Brad Brian

John Buretta

MUNGER TOLLES LOS ANGELES

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Loren Brown

Karen Burgess

DLA NEW YORK

RICHARDSON & BURGESS AUSTIN

Paulette Brown

Spencer Burkholz

LOCKE LORD NEW YORK

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

Walter Brown

Elizabeth Cabraser

ORRICK SAN FRANCISCO

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

LD: That you’re not before a judge who’s harassing his interns.

AH: Harassing his interns or in any way assuming that they are above the law that they’re then trying to impose on people who come before them.

LD: I hate to ask you to go back to the Brett Kavanaugh hearings.

AH: Yes, but it’s important.

LD: Did you experience a sense of deja vu watching the Kavanaugh hearings? And did you find yourself questioning whether it was worth it for you to have gone through what you went through?

AH: No, I have learned over the past 27 years not to necessarily compare my situation with others. I don’t think it’s fair to anyone. What I’ve learned in the cases that I’ve looked at is just the experiences that I’ve heard about even from the #MeToo movement is that we each deserve to be treated as our own story. And so, I didn’t see it necessarily as deja vu in the sense of my being compared to Christine Blasey Ford. But, I did see a sense of deja vu in terms of senators and their conduct.

And I do want to make that clear. Because what I saw were the same – in some cases the very same people – being resistant to even acknowledging the importance of the testimony that was about to be given. And certainly then to respond in virtually the same way as in the 1991 hearings – it was really not anything like what one would describe as fair and impartial. Though they may have had doubt, they felt they could move on and really not move from any position they had before they put her through the testimony and the whole process.

LD: Absolutely. And one of the things that struck me while watching after having read your book is that while I think that the media narrative of the hearing changed, progressed perhaps, from 1991 to 2018, as did some other things incrementally, the thing that had probably changed the least is how the Senators treated her.

AH: I’ll call it the sham of bringing in someone to question her instead of doing it themselves. That was just sad. That they had avoided responsibility or accountability by bringing in a woman to ask tough questions, was just being irresponsible and neglecting their duty to her as a witness as well as to the general public. Because the general public has a right to know what their representatives are saying and thinking and to hear it from them. Not from some party that they delegate their work to. It was just irresponsible and it was an insult really to the process and to the American public that was listening to it. But certainly an insult

to any of us who have ever been a witness before the Senate and any of us who has ever experienced sexual violence of any kind.

If they couldn’t stand and face the American public and ask the questions that they wanted to ask, maybe the question shouldn’t be asked at all.

LD: Because some of the things that they obviously asked you, and also approached with her, are kind of unspeakable. To be treated as though you were doing something wrong because you were questioning this great man, right? When you were just telling your experience.

AH: Right, and I think even before they brought Christine on to testify and before they brought me on to testify, there was a clear indication that they didn’t believe that they should have to even be bothered with this. Because to them one important man has chosen another important man and that should be the end of it.

LD: How would you envision it working and what difference could it have made if sexual assault experts were added to the testimony?

AH: Not to question her, but to help the public understand what sexual assault survivors go through. How difficult it is; why for example, a girl who is 15-, 16-, 17-years old would be afraid of coming forward and why that would live with her for her entire life. There were different ways that they could have approached this. But they chose none of the better ways, and chose all of the ways that were just cowardly and unhelpful and I would say dereliction of their duties to the American public. Let alone to the witness.

LD: The tableau was presented as a kind of he saidshe said, and so to your point, having sexual assault experts come in as witnesses would have changed or modulated the entire tone.

AH: With the whole concept of he said-she said most people who investigate these kinds of claims know that these situations rarely are just one person’s word against the other. You do a thorough investigation, you will be able to provide context, you will be able to provide circumstances surrounding a charge, you will be able to weigh motives and none of that was possible in the way that the questioning took place.

And also, the fact that they limited the investigation afterwards to make this sort of his word against hers, they only interviewed two people. Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh.

To set up that dynamic, so the American public is left with that belief that there’s never a provable claim.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

159

500

500 160

Peter Calamari

Bill Carmody

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

SUSMAN GODFREY NEW YORK

Chris Caldwell

James Carroll

BOIES SCHILLER LOS ANGELES

SKADDEN BOSTON

Tim Cameron

Leon Carter

CRAVATH NEW YORK

CARTER SCHOLER DALLAS

Joshua Cammaker

Douglas Cawley

WACHTELL NEW YORK

MCKOOL SMITH DALLAS

Raoul Cantero

Jonathan Cedarbaum

WHITE & CASE MIAMI

WILMERHALE WASHINGTON, D.C.

Craig Cardon

Neel Chatterjee

SHEPPARD MULLIN LOS ANGELES

GOODWIN MENLO PARK

Mike B. 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

George R Carlton, Jr.

Bobby Chesney

GODWIN BOWMAN DALLAS

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF LAW AUSTIN

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

That is really dangerous, that has a potential for silencing witnesses. When you’re dealing with a situation like the Kavanaugh hearing where the public has been impressed for weeks with what an outstanding individual he is, and he has been endorsed by political leaders and others in the room - in the hearing room, in the public school room - the chances that she will be believed are severely limited.

LD: That’s right. As with your hearings, Kavanaugh came in already cloaked in endorsement from those in power. So even with a good effort, it’s very difficult to create a fair environment to get to the facts.

AH: And even if she is believed, his importance, his stature, his position, his nexus to power; very often it says, “But it’s more important for him to be able to continue on with his career and his ambition.”

LD: Right. Not what about hers?

AH: And, tragically, the court and the integrity of the judicial system suffers.

LD: That was, one of my takeaways that day, obviously thinking of you, is the impact the Kavanaugh hearings will have on this generation of women, and of young women entering the law. Like you, I’m from a small town and one of my best childhood friends, her

members of that committee as reflecting the sentiment of the American public.

And not even the majority of the American public, certainly not a significant portion of the American public. And I believe that not only were we offended, but I think the public will respond. They will respond politically and if 1991 is any indication, women will be elected because people in general will feel that they are more representative.

LD: I think it was the week after the Kavanaugh hearing I was in New York and there was a grey-haired couple walking by me and the woman had on her parka a good old-time political button: “I believe Anita.”

AH: I have had lots of support since then because it did resonate with people and they did look back and think about what 1991 was and what it meant. And I would say that after the hearings of 1991, a significant majority, 70 percent or so, of people believe that Clarence Thomas should be confirmed. It’s simple as that; some of them believe that because they thought it was his right, some believed because they thought I had lied and that I was insignificant in terms of the grand scheme of things; and some believed that behavior that I had testified about, even if it were true was insignificant.

YES, WE GIVE UP AND THEN WE WONDER WHAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED IF WE HADN’T GIVEN UP. IF WE HAD JUST SOMETHING THAT WE COULD HOLD ONTO THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO KEEP PUSHING UNTIL WE GOT CHANGE. daughter’s now going to UVA Law School. And her daughter has worked so hard and is embarking on the legal profession. After the hearings, she tweeted something like when will this ever stop? And it’s what I would have written had I been able in 1991. Because as women, and as people in the legal system, we see both what you said about the man in power being moved forward by other men in power, and the woman and a woman’s viewpoint on this being completely shut down.

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

And the surveys now after the Kavanaugh hearings show a very different feeling amongst the American public. And I think that is the emerging sense of what’s happening and what should be done and how we should be addressing these issues. So that gives me hope. It’s not instant, it’s not even immediate satisfaction, but it does give me hope.

LD: That’s what we need because otherwise we give up.

AH: Yes, we give up and then we wonder what might have happened if we hadn’t given up. If we had just something that we could hold onto that would allow us to keep pushing until we got change.

LD: In addition to sexual harassment experts as witnesses, what should be the other key changes?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

161

500

500 AH: I will say that I am convinced that the Senate Judiciary Committee’s process could have been different.

That they could have had a thorough investigation, they could have had it done by a neutral party. It didn’t have to be done and controlled by the White House whose interest in confirming their nominee is clear.

So, that could have been done, to bring in investigators who have not only been informed about sexual assault, but also about trauma investigations. What are the right questions to make sure that you have all of the information that you need to get to what is a reasonable and documentable conclusion.

And I’d pull back the lens a little bit and remind people that when you’re dealing with the U.S. Senate and they are asked to hold someone accountable for sexual misconduct, you are dealing with a body that has not itself been subject to accountability for sexual misconduct. There is no rule governing the U.S. Senate.

Those members are not accustomed to the whole idea of accountability.

LD: It’s so sad when you put it that way. Because the way that the hearings were set up as she said-he said, with Brett Kavanaugh mustering his fiery defense for the audience of one in President Trump who himself got to office over multiple assertions and facts of sexual harassment, in front of Senators who are accountable to nobody except the electorate.

AH: I’m also deeply troubled by the use of language that was absolutely inappropriate in this setting. This is a political proceeding, and to interject language about innocent until proven guilty into that political proceeding, was, I believe, a denigration of the whole concept – which lawyers know applies in a criminal proceeding where there’s a risk of loss of life or loss of liberty, where the government might in fact take away a right from an individual. We need to protect this idea of innocent until proven guilty in the concept of a criminal proceeding. To guard against wrongful prosecution. We need it. It should not be used as cover for political choices that people make.

So when you have the senators using it, it’s really dangerous on two fronts. It’s dangerous in terms of its use as political cover, but it also reduces the integrity of the concept when it comes to criminal proceedings where it rightly belongs. And so that language I found, as a lawyer, quite offensive. I also found it offensive as an individual who’s seen how important it is and believes in its importance in criminal proceedings.

To sort of use it loosely and sort of throw it around without regard to where it should be used was again

162

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

one of those things that the Senators started to use whatever they had, not to get at the truth. But to cover for their own inadequacies.

LD: That explains better what was so troubling about the standard. The Senators set up the she said-he said context, and then they interject a standard where she said-he said means there is no …

AH: He wins. That he wins.

LD: Right? Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

AH: Right. And so, all of this is again the wrong message from our elected officials about the experiences that happen to women and to which they can find no recourse. Either political or legal in many cases. And I can’t tell you how many people I have encountered who felt that very deeply that they did not have the right that other people had, that their rights were not being honored in the way they should have been in that political arena. And whether or not that was going to then extend to other arenas as well is a real concern that’s out there.

LD: But I assume that the people who have come to you, it’s because women and others who’ve experienced assault and powerlessness are now speaking up and feeling the impact of #MeToo. And that is fusing with political movements in a way that could portend political change.

AH: It might and if history’s any indication, it will. And maybe we’ve already had some indication of that in this election. It’s hard to know how much of the activity was linked to Kavanaugh or within the candidates or just the times or what was the source of people’s energy for getting out to vote in November and some of the choices that were made. It’s hard to know where that came from. But it’s also not unthinkable that some of it came from the Kavanaugh hearing.

LD: As with 1991, people really cared about the hearing, and having watched the horrible sausagemaking of it where - as it neared hindsight - it felt that “Oh my God, we just fed her through the blender for a show where it looked like she/many of us were being heard but ultimately were not.”

I think you’re right there is hope because people watched again this year with their own eyes and felt even if this came out as it did, there was greater awareness that the way the Senators treated her was wrong. I think there’s more focus on how to not let this happen again. But I don’t know. I fear it will happen again.

500

AH: I think there is cause for hope, but let’s not underestimate ourselves. The awareness of the problem of sexual violence in all of its forms from harassment, verbal harassment, to psychological harassment, to physical harassment to sexual assault and rape, the awareness has just been increased in the past decade I would say. We are a different public than we were in the 1990s and certainly than in 1991.

I think we as a public take it more seriously and we’re willing to learn what it is we need to know because we know this happens, and we know victims of this.

And we can think of October of 2017 for reminding us that these stories are true and they’re real and they’re happening and they have happened to someone near you.

And so if people ask me has anything changed? I say well, certainly some people in the Senate Judiciary Committee haven’t changed, but we have changed, we have changed. The public has changed since 1991.

Now, we just have to figure out what that change means. And whether it is that we are willing to make what some people think are hard decisions about what the consequences should be. And what our systems need to be to catch up with that change.

LD: So would you say you’re still an optimist about the law’s ability to lead in this arena?

AH: I’m optimistic because I know that among lawyers, there are many people who believe that and are willing to take it on. I am realistic enough to know that we’re not 100 percent behind this. That some of the cultural myths or social myths or biases that cultivate the problem exist within our rank. So I know that.

But I also know that we have gone through change in the past. The practicing bar has been out doing work.

For example, the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights was organized around members of the practicing bar getting behind the protection of civil rights in the Kennedy administration.

So we have examples of how we have done this historically. Even to organize a whole set of institutions of lawyers around the country and nationally. We’ve done this before. So that gives me hope. And it doesn’t mean that every lawyer got behind the Lawyer’s Committee, but a lot did and continue to. So I always look for some evidence of why I should be hopeful.

But I look at examples from the past. We have many lawyers in civil rights organizations, not just the Lawyer’s Committee, but it strikes me as the model not just because I’m on the Board of the local bar Lawyer’s

Committee but also because it was an effort to engage, not only civil rights organizations, but the practicing bar as a whole and the ABA was very involved with it early on. So we have some examples of when we’ve stepped up to change the way the world is operating and to put all of the skills and the tools that we learn as lawyers behind that positive change.

LD: Which is what these times call for.

AH: Absolutely. Absolutely. You cannot look at the numbers – whether it’s the number of women lawyers who have been facing sexual harassment, and all of that is contained in the guidebook that’s done by the ABA. But also if you look at just the way society has been impacted. If you look at not only the statistics, but also if you look at the anecdotal evidence, the quantitative and the qualitative evidence suggests that we now have a problem that rises to the level of a great social concern if not a health and safety problem in our workforce. And we should be responding with laws.

I keep reminding people we’ve learned a lot in the last 30, 40 years. But there’s still some pockets that we haven’t confronted. We still have yet to understand - whether it’s in law or in society - the interactions of other identity factors, other than gender, on how people experience harassment and how they are responded to by society. There’s a study that has not to do with lawyers, but women of color astronomers and harassment of women of color astronomers and discrimination in general. But what they found was that women of color astronomers were more likely to experience sexual harassment than white women astronomers. And they were more likely to experience racial harassment than men of color astronomers. Now that’s a small study, but I think it’s worth looking into and we just don’t have the evidence.

Plus, the law is not necessarily geared to try to figure out what do we do about people who are being discriminated against on multiple factors? And so we’ve got a ways to go and more to learn and to me, that’s not a reason to quit. It’s a reason for us to double our efforts.

LD: I wholeheartedly agree. The size of the problem and its very many facets can’t stop us from working toward a solution and a better day.

AH: Exactly. You can’t just throw up your hands and say, “It’s too big. There’s too many problems.” That’s not the option that we can afford to take.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

163

500

500 Ken Choe

Linda Coberly

HOGAN LOVELLS WASHINGTON, D.C.

WINSTON & STRAWN CHICAGO

Apalla Chopra

Jay Cohen

O’MELVENY LOS ANGELES

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

James Clark

Lori Cohen

CAHILL GORDON NEW YORK

GREENBERG TRAURIG ATLANTA

Shauna Clark

Mary Louise Cohen

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT HOUSTON

PHILLIPS & COHEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Kristen Clarke

Robin Cohen

LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS WASHINGTON, D.C.

MCKOOL SMITH NEW YORK

Tracy-Elizabeth Clay

Vincent Cohen, Jr.

TEACH FOR AMERICA SAN FRANCISCO

DECHERT WASHINGTON, D.C.

Jay Clayton

Jason Collins

SEC WASHINGTON, D.C.

REID COLLINS & TSAI AUSTIN

Paul Clement

James Comey

KIRKLAND & ELLIS WASHINGTON, D.C.

COLLEGE OF WILLIAM & MARY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Ty Cobb

James Connell

ATTORNEY AT LAW WASHINGTON, D.C.

CONNELL LAW LAS VEGAS

name name FIRM FIRM FIRM (CITY) 164

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

PHOTO BY: ELI MEIR KAPLAN

500

Ty Cobb ATTORNEY AT LAW (WASHINGTON, D.C.)

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

165

Deneen Howell WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY (WASHINGTON, D.C.)

500

DENEEN HOWELL INSPIRED BY HER MOTHER AND LEGAL

dramas such as “L.A. Law” and “Hill Street Blues,” Deneen Howell decided to become a lawyer. At the outset, she was eager to translate her love of performance, drama and film to the practice of law as a trial attorney.

She majored in Film Studies at Yale University and studied the impact of the Rodney King video for her senior thesis. She then took a gap year to work as an Investigation Coordinator within the Child Abuse Bureau of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, where her interest in law and film could come together in support of children who might need to tell their stories via videotape testimony, before matriculating at Stanford Law School where she earned her J.D. But life, as we know, is what happens when you’re busy making other plans. And that’s just what happened a little farther down the road when she joined Williams & Connolly and met Bob Barnett.

The rest, as they say, is her story. Today, Howell co-chairs two practice groups at the elite D.C. firm, Employment Counseling and Litigation as well as Transactions and Business Counseling and enjoys being part of the nation’s leading practice advising former government officials; authors, ranging from Barack and Michelle Obama to Madeline Albright to James Patterson; media professionals, ranging from producers to correspondents to anchors working in broadcast, cable, radio and digital media; and senior executives assuming roles with major corporations, both publicly and privately held; as well as foundations, colleges, and universities.

Lawdragon: Can we talk about who or what inspired you to become a lawyer?

Deneen Howell: I’d have to say one of my primary inspirations has to be my mom. She was a college professor, with her Ph.D. in sociology, and taught courses in criminology and juvenile justice when I was growing up. She had pursued joint degrees when she was in college at Temple University, and initially enrolled in both the law school and in the Ph.D. program for sociology. She ended up focusing on her Ph.D. and after we moved from Pennsylvania to Massachusetts, she taught at Massachusetts College of Art and Design and then she taught for a few years at Wellesley College. She finished her career with a joint appointment at Suffolk University in Boston at both the undergraduate school and the law school. So, like many children, my decision to go to law school was influenced by mom’s interests and thoughts

PHOTO BY: ELI MEIR KAPLAN

BY KATRINA DEWEY about what she might have done if she had continued to study the law.

LD: I can see why she was your inspiration.

DH: I also just love the drama of law, and I loved talking with my mom about her work. She and I both loved watching the popular legal dramas of the day, like “Hill Street Blues” and “L.A. Law.” I also was inspired to go to law school because of something you might find less obvious: the theater. I was really into drama in high school. I lettered in drama, I even got the letterman jacket. It was a little strange to some, I suppose, that I wore a letterman’s jacket because it wasn’t for a sport, but I proudly displayed my comedy/tragedy face pin where others might have a football or a basketball.

I think my mom still has that jacket somewhere. To me, and I’m not alone, the drama of the courtroom has overtones of the theater. It seemed a natural extension of what I’d been busy doing on stage growing up, to transition that into the law. Of course, life being what happens when you’re busy making other plans, I never did become a trial lawyer. But I’m still drawn to the drama that a career in the law can bring. Now, I would say my practice focuses on the drama of real life.

LD: What led you to study film at Yale?

DH: The film major at Yale is more like an English major on celluloid. I took a couple of classes in photography and videography, but the vast majority of the course load there is studying the text of the film, and then writing about it. I had the opportunity to write my senior thesis on a topic that brought law and film together: the 1991 beating of Rodney King by four Los Angeles police officers captured on video by chance.

I graduated college in 1993, and that videotape and the ensuing trials, lawsuits and riots had been the focus of national attention. Now cameras are ubiquitous, there’s a cell phone camera everywhere, but having videotape of that beating was unique. And it was a case of first impression, to a degree, as to how it could be used in the courtroom.

Was it appropriate or ethical to freeze-frame the video and analyze, frame by frame, what actions were culpable and which were not? I found that really compelling, a first in the ethical implications of technology and film in the courtroom.

I deferred attending Stanford for a year because I didn’t want to go straight from college to law school. Many of us benefit from something of a gap year, or real-life experience, before going to graduate school. I found a

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

167

500

500 168

George Conway

Cari Dawson

WACHTELL NEW YORK

ALSTON & BIRD ATLANTA

Philip Harnett Corboy, Jr.

Catherine Dearlove

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

RICHARDS LAYTON WILMINGTON

Nina Cortell

Ariel Deckelbaum

HAYNES BOONE DALLAS

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Christopher Cox

Makan Delrahim

CADWALADER NEW YORK

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

Heather Cruz

Karin DeMasi

SKADDEN NEW YORK

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Steve D’Amore

Thomas Demetrio

WINSTON & STRAWN CHICAGO

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

Lisa Damon

Mark Denbeaux

SEYFARTH BOSTON

SETON HALL SOUTH ORANGE, N.J.

Frank Darras

Kelly Dermody

DARRASLAW ONTARIO, CALIF.

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

Susan Davies

Jack DiCanio

KIRKLAND & ELLIS WASHINGTON, D.C.

SKADDEN PALO ALTO

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

one-year position as an investigation coordinator in the child abuse bureau of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, so I moved to New York. It was, of course, important work to me, to be involved in the process of trying to protect children.

I also picked that office because there was a little room in the back with a video camera for purposes of taking child testimony because it was permissible under New York law for victims to have their testimony videotaped so they didn’t have to be in the courtroom and see their abusers. And that was an interesting question, too, that the fundamental right of a defendant to confront their accuser is deferred in that way, in the interests of the child. After that year before going to law school, exploring yet another way film can intersect with law, I went to law school.

learning how to be an effective leader as we worked to publish each issue. How to see the big picture of what we’re trying to accomplish and also address the small details. Sometimes that meant enforcing deadlines and even cutting pieces of professors whose manuscripts had been accepted but who couldn’t get their final drafts completed in time. For the most part, it meant working with and supporting my team to manage internal and external expectations, develop a workable schedule and make sure that our output was excellent. In my practice, I aspire to do the same. With each of my clients, I work to understand their big picture, and then sweat the details of the pieces to make sure that the contract terms are workable and fit within their lives while also facilitating their livelihoods.

LD: So there’s always been this storytelling theme running through your career?

LD: Is your work on the Law Review partly what led you to the Times Mirror Co.?

DH: Yes, absolutely. I love stories, whether translated on screen or on the stage, or shared in person. And the practice of law, at its root, depends on the art of crafting and telling stories. When advising my clients, most of whom are individuals, as opposed to companies, I have the opportunity to make personal connections and learn about their individual stories and figure out how to best weave those stories into our negotiations. It might be an employment story (why someone is the best person for a particular job (and should have a commensurate contract with certain terms and conditions)), or it might be a licensing story (why a particular author is the best person to write a certain book and why that book should be published). It all resonates around storytelling, and trying to help people figure out what story they’re trying to tell. I’ve even had the pleasure of working with clients who are directly involved in film and theater, advising playwrights and authors on film option deals. So it all gets to come back together in this practice, which is probably why I’ve been doing it for as long as I have.

DH: I’m sure that I was attracted to Times Mirror because of my work on the Law Review and that I could be instrumental in a legal counsel role, working to support the business of getting the Los Angeles Times printed and published. I also was attracted to the company because of one particularly unique thing about Times Mirror at that time – namely, that, among a department that was relatively small, numbering fewer than ten attorneys, there were two who preceded me that also had come to the company straight from law school. Because of them, I could be confident that I would have opportunities to grow as an attorney. And I had wonderful experiences there. However, after about a year in Los Angeles, and after having already spent three years in California for law school, I felt the draw to come back to the East Coast.

I love working with my clients to help them make their lives work, to advise them about the choices they have and what the consequences of making particular decisions might be. Should I sign this contract or that contract? What will this clause mean for me? How will it affect me in my life? Looking at my own origin story, it might seem that I was headed to a place very different from where I wound up, but, the common theme is a love of stories and storytelling.

LD: What did you take away from your experience as President of the Stanford Law Review?

DH: What I loved most about serving as President was working together with an excellent Managing Board and

LD: Time to go home.

DH: Yes. Or, at least closer to home, and to where I would have gone had the opportunity to go to Times Mirror never arisen, but to join a practice I likely wouldn’t have had I not spent a year with Times Mirror.

At the same time that I got the offer from Times Mirror, I also received an offer to join Williams & Connolly. I had targeted the firm because of its reputation as a litigation powerhouse. But, I also anticipated that I might wind up in-house and, ultimately, I was persuaded to try that first.

But, fast-forward a year, I called Heidi Hubbard, then chair of the hiring committee and now on our executive committee, and asked if the firm would consider having me come then. Happily, she said yes!

That was in 1998 and after Heidi said, “Sure, you can still come,” I asked, “Can I talk with the people who are practicing corporate and transactional law?”

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

169

500

500 170

Patricia Dodge

Daralyn Durie

MEYER UNKOVIC PITTSBURGH

DURIE TANGRI SAN FRANCISCO

Diane Doolittle

Brian Duwe

QUINN EMANUEL REDWOOD SHORES, CALIF.

SKADDEN CHICAGO

Bill Dougherty

Shay Dvoretzky

SIMPSON THACHER NEW YORK

JONES DAY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Joe Drayton

Karen Dyer

COOLEY NEW YORK

BOIES SCHILLER ORLANDO

Anthony Dreyer

Jay Eisenhofer

SKADDEN NEW YORK

GRANT & EISENHOFER NEW YORK

Daniel Drosman

Khaled M. Abou El Fadl

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

UCLA LAW SCHOOL LOS ANGELES

David Drummond

Dianne Elderkin

GOOGLE MOUNTAIN VIEW

AKIN GUMP PHILADELPHIA

Karen Dunn

Michael Elkin

BOIES SCHILLER WASHINGTON, D.C.

WINSTON & STRAWN NEW YORK

Thomas E. Dunn

Adam Emmerich

CRAVATH NEW YORK

WACHTELL NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

Although I did have opportunities to get into court while working at Times Mirror, I learned that I most enjoyed my role as a counselor, treading the intersection between law and business realities, and also valued the opportunity to deal with a wide variety of legal issues, including questions of First Amendment, copyright and trademark law, employment and securities matters as well as mergers and acquisitions.

So, while I was still interested in litigation when I joined the firm, and early-on worked on some great employment and media-related litigation teams, I wanted to make sure I could also continue to develop my skills as a counselor advising clients on business and transactional matters. And then I met Bob Barnett, and in many ways …

LD: The rest is history?

DH: Yes. LD: What did you think when you met him?

DH: I don’t think I fully appreciated him for the legend he was then, and still is. What I loved about him, personally, was just how warm he was, and how appreciative he could be, as a mentor and partner who was guiding my career and providing opportunities for me to learn and hone my craft. He would do small things. When reviewing my early assignments for him as a junior attorney, he would send notes back to me, inter-office, with feedback on my work that would say, simply, “Good Work!” adorned with a smiley face. It was really endearing. He also modeled for me: He taught me the importance of providing positive and constructive feedback early and often to the people you’re working with.

He also has set an excellent example for me in terms of trying to achieve that elusive balance between work and family. He would always take calls from his wife and daughter when they wanted to reach him during the day. We would be on a call with a client, or in a meeting, and his cell phone would ring and he would excuse himself and take the call. That level of devotion and making time for his family during the workday, and the way in which that has evolved to encompass his devotion to his three grandkids, has been phenomenal and has helped me make space and time to develop and be committed to my own family.

To work in an environment in which I am encouraged to be involved in my children’s lives, and in my husband’s life, while also pursuing my career – those things are invaluable.

LD: That’s a great role-model story. Do you remember the first book or high-profile project that you worked on with him?

DH: One of the earliest and most memorable projects was the first book deal that I worked on for Secretary of State Madeline Albright. We’ve now done, I think, seven books together. Her most recent is “Fascism: A Warning,” which I negotiated the terms for just last year. That book came out a few months ago and has been a fantastic success.

I remember when I was an associate, and I would raise questions or concerns that required us to get input from the client, Bob would say, “OK, give her a call. Here’s her number.” To have conversations with the likes of a former Secretary of State, who showed me respect and deference for my craft and who would ask for and take my advice, was stunning. That is one of the most amazing things about the practice that I lead, because I do have this unique opportunity to interact with and provide value to an incredibly impressive array of clients.

The level of humanity and the respect that they each have shown me, as a lawyer and counselor, is hugely rewarding.

And when there are clients that are happy enough with you, they refer you to new clients. That’s the principal way I have grown my practice: making one client happy enough to tell friends and colleagues that they should call me, too. That is beyond gratifying. That just tells you that you are doing well, that you’re doing right by your clients.

LD: Can you explain a bit the difference between a lawyer and an agent. Where are the dividing lines?

DH: I would say the principal difference, the practical difference, between my practice representing authors, media executives and media talent and that of a literary agent is that I don’t work on commission. I charge for my time, for the hours that I spend working on my clients’ behalves. My fee structure has no bearing on what my client might stand to earn or actually earn. Literary agents typically charge a commission of between 15 percent and 20 percent of the author’s gross proceeds. Media talent agents typically charge 10 percent of gross proceeds. I am not financially incentivized to make sure my clients make a deal making it easier for me to help my clients decide if it’s the right deal or if the best choice is to make no deal at all.

LD: You, of course, have the most high-profile publishing practice in the country. Can you talk a little about some of the other pressures?

DH: I have to be, like anyone, careful about the writers whom I represent. I would hate to have a client incur legal fees, only to be unsuccessful in finding them a publisher.

Or, if I did find them a publisher, to see their advance consumed by my fees. None of us can afford to spend a lot of time trying to place a book and not succeed.

Authors who are just starting out, who maybe haven’t

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

171

500

500 172

Miguel Estrada

Mark Fowler

GIBSON DUNN WASHINGTON, D.C.

DLA EAST PALO ALTO

Ward Farnsworth

David Frederick

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF LAW AUSTIN

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, R.I.

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Jayne Fleming

Alan S. Futerfas

REED SMITH NEW YORK

LAW OFFICES OF ALAN S. FUTERFAS NEW YORK

Jodi Flowers

Vijaya Gadde

MOTLEY RICE MT. PLEASANT, S.C.

TWITTER SAN FRANCISCO

Will Fogg

Kat Gallagher

CRAVATH NEW YORK

BECK REDDEN HOUSTON

Parker Folse

Kenneth Gallo

SUSMAN GODFREY SEATTLE

PAUL WEISS WASHINGTON, D.C.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

yet been approached by a publisher, who don’t have a proven track record as a writer, they can be a gamble for anyone. Like any agent or other author representative, you might turn down a project because you’re concerned that it just doesn’t make economic sense.

On the flip side, there are many authors who do have a proven track record. A number of our clients are well-established authors who had been represented by agents in the past and whose agent perhaps retired or left the business and who recognized the considerable cost savings they can achieve by switching from an agency to a law firm. Authors such as these no longer need an agent to open doors for them or the editorial support that a literary agency might provide. I can’t necessarily say that every author in the world who is represented by an agent should fire their agent, and hire me. There has to be a personal connection and the individual has to feel well served by their choice. I have greatly valued the connections I have made to date and look forward to making many more.

LD: We’ve talked about Secretary Albright. Are there other projects you’ve worked on where you feel like, “Wow, I can’t imagine doing anything more interesting or important than this?” or “This is why I love what I do?”

DH: Certainly. It’s incredibly rewarding to work with authors like Wilbert Rideau, who wrote “In the Place of Justice;” and Khaled Hosseini, author of “The Kite Runner,” “And the Mountains Echoed,” “A Thousand Splendid Suns,” and a new book that we just did a deal for this year, “Sea Prayer,” which came out of his writings on the Syrian refugee crisis. I love to read, and it’s been enormously rewarding to represent authors who write books that I can’t put down, from James Patterson who is a master at writing well-paced and compelling thrillers, to the other authors we’ve mentioned who have made contributions to literature that will outlive all of us.

In the end, I became a lawyer because I want to connect with and help people, and I love my practice because I get to help so many different people do so many different things. I work with upwards of 100 different individual clients in any given year. It might be a series of cookbooks, like those we’ve done for restaurateur Lidia Bastianich. There are also the books that are just fun to read, like the spy thrillers written by Alex Berenson, who moved to novel writing after starting his career as a reporter for the New York Times; and books by Mary Simses, who writes love stories and is on her third novel after having written “The Irresistible Blueberry Bake Shop & Café,” for example. I enjoy all of their books, and I also enjoy each of them as people.

So while it’s particularly inspiring to get to represent some of the household names that I’ve gotten to represent, I don’t need for my clients to be famous or infamous.

I just need to connect with them, and for them to connect with me, and to help them navigate the pieces of their lives where a lawyer can be most helpful.

LD: So what are you reading now? In your personal time?

DH: Mostly I’m reading books to my kids.

LD: How old are your kids?

DH: My kids are 5 and 8, so my son is reading for himself, but still loves to be read to, and my daughter is starting to read, but we’re still mostly reading to her. They have wide-ranging tastes. Right now, we are reading “The Magician’s Nephew,” which is the first book in the Narnia series. I never read that book as a kid, so I’m finding it’s really fun, actually, to read some things to them that I missed and also to read what is popular today.

My son is obsessed with the Gregor series and Dave Pilkey books, my daughter loves the Magic School Bus and the Princess in Black series, and both of my kids are really into Roald Dahl books. We started to read the Harry Potter series, but it got a little scary for them, so we put those down. My son then picked up Stuart Gibbs’ Spy School series, and he devoured those in about six days.

Over the course of the last six months, because he has started to read so independently, I find that I’m now picking up books that he has already read. But, he also still loves to be read to, as does my daughter, so I spend as much time as I can reading aloud with them each night.

LD: It’s enchanting, how books are a thread that runs through your personal life and your career.

DH: My kids often ask me, “What’s your favorite thing, Mom? What’s your favorite thing to do?” And I tell them, “Reading out loud with you is at the top of my list.” I get to resurrect a bit of my theatrical past and take on the characters and give them different voices and personality, and also just enjoy spending that time together.

LD: I couldn’t envision a life where books were not, and stories were not, an integral part of it. And it’s wonderful that you shaped your life and an amazing law practice around this thing you love so much.

DH: It is. I will mourn the day when my kids don’t want me to read to them anymore. I think I have a few more years, though, before that happens. And, in the meantime, I will continue to enjoy working with my clients, whether they are writing books or embarking on a new career opportunity, to understand and help them craft and tell their stories.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

173

David Anders WACHTELL LIPTON (NEW YORK)

500

DAVID ANDERS SCORING A PERFECT TRIAL RECORD AS

an assistant U.S. attorney in the nation’s most elite prosecutorial branch, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, will invariably have its benefi ts – including options of where to take your rarefied set of skills in private practice.

David Anders chose the ultra-elite Wachtell Lipton where, not surprisingly, he has thrived alongside what he considers the best peers you can find in the profession. Anders joined the firm in 2006 and became a partner less than two years later, handling investigations (by outside agencies and internal) and civil matters for the firm’s esteemed roster of clients. A proud and active alum of Fordham Law School, Anders also represents indigent defendants by serving on the Southern District’s Criminal Justice Act (CJA) panel.

Lawdragon: Can you describe to our readers the mix of matters you’re typically working on these days? Do any trends in the white-collar or regulatory space stand out right now?

David Anders: I tend to handle high-profile, highly complex and highly intense matters, which fall into one of three buckets: responding to government investigations, anything from DOJ to SEC to state AG investigations; conducting internal investigations – I do a lot of work for the NBA, so that would be an example of a purely internal investigation with no governmental component; and giving advice in connection with M&A transactions where there is a government/regulatory component. On top of those areas, I frequently handle civil cases – securities class actions or other disputes – that are related to or stem from a government investigation.

And I’m on the CJA panel for the Southern District of New York, so I represent indigent individuals charged with crimes in that district. I’m currently scheduled for trial this Fall in a matter representing a defendant charged with the interstate transportation of stolen property.

I can’t exaggerate my good fortune to be doing all of this at Wachtell Lipton. I benefit not only from being part of a superb team, but from the renown and relationships that the firm’s excellence and intensity over many decades have made possible, which al-

PHOTO BY: LAURA BARISONZI

BY JOHN RYAN lows me to help address the most difficult problems of many of the world’s biggest and most interesting companies, financial institutions and organizations.

As for trends in the white-collar/regulatory space, the new area that I’m seeing is cyber. Companies are becoming more aware of the risks posed by cyberhackers, and are seeking advice both on governance and regulatory issues and how to handle breaches.

A cyber attack can cause a true corporate crisis, so the time and effort that companies devote to improving their defenses and planning their response to such an event is certainly time well-spent.

LD: Has your practice seen changes as a result of the change in administrations, either from less aggressive pressure or problems with staffing? Is the environment notably different in terms of negotiating with prosecutorial or regulatory agencies?

DA: The pendulum certainly seems to have shifted from the intense regulatory pressure that many companies felt over the last decade or so. And it may be fair to attribute some of this shift to politics, although not necessarily in the way you describe. For years, it felt as if DOJ and the SEC were under constant political pressure, largely emanating out of the financial crisis, to bring more and more cases and impose higher and higher penalties and fines. I have thought for years, going back to my days as a prosecutor, that politics and prosecution don’t mix well – political interference leads to unjust and unfair results. More recently, DOJ and the SEC seem to be under less pressure to bring cases, allowing those agencies, which are fi lled with people of integrity, to reach just results based solely on the facts and the law and not some outside political influence.

LD: You seem to have gone straight from Dartmouth to Fordham Law. When did you decide to become a lawyer, and why? Was it during undergrad or was this a goal that developed earlier?

DA: I decided I wanted to be a lawyer in undergrad.

Dartmouth is on trimesters and requires students to work or study off campus for one term during the school year. I spent my off-term in Washington, D.C., working at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering. I was

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

175

500

500 176

Sergio Galvis

Lisa Gilford

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL NEW YORK

SKADDEN LOS ANGELES

James Garner

Benjamin Ginsberg

SHER GARNER NEW ORLEANS

JONES DAY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Gregory Garre

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

LATHAM WASHINGTON, D.C.

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

Steven Gavin

Tom Girardi

WINSTON & STRAWN CHICAGO

GIRARDI | KEESE LOS ANGELES

Faith Gay

Robert Giuffra

SELENDY & GAY NEW YORK

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL NEW YORK

Karen Gaylord

Patricia Glaser

JENNINGS HAUG PHOENIX

GLASER WEIL LOS ANGELES

Paul Geller

Rita Glavin

ROBBINS GELLER BOCA RATON

SEWARD & KISSEL NEW YORK

Glenn Gerstell

Donald Godwin

NSA FT. GEORGE G. MEADE, MD.

GODWIN BOWMAN DALLAS

Robin Gibbs

Louis Goldberg

GIBBS & BRUNS HOUSTON

DAVIS POLK NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

fortunate to be assigned to work for a young associate named Steve Cutler, long before he became well-known as the Director of Enforcement at the SEC or chief legal officer at JP Morgan. I worked closely with him on a variety of securities litigation matters he was handling at the time; he tolerated my hanging around him all day and soaking in everything he did. He taught me many of the good habits that are necessary to be a successful lawyer.

And I was fascinated by the work – I loved reading cases, even as a college student, and finding support for arguments. So that’s when I knew I wanted to be a lawyer.

LD: Was there any course, professor or experience at Fordham that was particularly influential to how your career turned out?

DA: I participated in a prosecution clinic my third year of law school. It was a full year clinic at the U.S. Attorney’s Offi ce in Brooklyn. The Eastern District of New York had a student practice rule, which allowed law students to appear in court; so, in addition to working with an AUSA on his or her cases, we handled petty offense cases on our own. Students from New York University Law School, who were in a federal defender clinic, represented the defendants (opposing counsel included one of my best friends from college and my now sister-in-law). I was fascinated with the work and knew from that experience that I wanted the opportunity to be an AUSA. Everything I did in my early career after that was guided toward trying to get that chance.

LD: You have stayed active with Fordham after graduating. Can you share some thoughts about what makes the school special or why you developed a fondness for it?

DA: I taught first-year legal writing at Fordham for eight years and am now the President of the Fordham Law Alumni Association. So, yes, I have tried to stay active with Fordham after graduating. One of Fordham’s best attributes is the loyalty and collegiality among its alumni. It is in many ways more like an undergraduate school than a graduate school in the way that graduates support each other. That support helped me greatly early in my career and I have tried to return the favor to younger alumni as I got older.

LD: You had some high-profile cases during your tenure, including the WorldCom and the Quattrone prosecutions. Are there any cases or experiences that stand out from your time in the office, even if it’s one we did not hear about?

DA: While I really loved my entire 7-plus years at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and can remember vividly everything from my very first bail argument to my first trial, the highlight for me was the 18-month period toward the end of my career during which I tried the Quattrone case twice, as the first trial ended in a hung jury; a death penalty case in which Judge Jed Rakoff had first ruled the death penalty unconstitutional until the Second Circuit reversed that decision; and the Bernard Ebbers case, which was the culmination of the WorldCom investigation.

I was lucky enough that trial schedules worked out to allow me to do all those trials. The array of witnesses I dealt with during that period demonstrates the breadth of the opportunities and the rewarding nature of the experience of working at the office. I went from prepping and putting on as witnesses at trial a series of lawyers, to a series of drug dealers, to a series of accountants. It was 18 months of non-stop work – but I wouldn’t have traded it for anything.

LD: Was there a mentor in the U.S. attorney’s office who was critical to your development as a trial lawyer?

DA: Judge Richard Sullivan was the Chief of Narcotics when I did three narcotics trials. He gave me great advice about how to try cases, how to put together a case for trial, how to structure direct examinations of difficult witnesses, and how to act in front of the jury, and he gave me confidence in my ability to do so.

LD: I read you had a perfect trial record as a prosecutor. Can you share a few ingredients that you think are key to your courtroom success?

DA: Without a doubt, the most important skill of a trial lawyer is preparation. Taking the time to master the discovery and prior witness statements and think through witness examinations is the most valuable thing a lawyer can do to be successful at trial. Beyond that, I believe I was successful because I was able to connect with juries. Juries are just 12 random people from the community – people you’ve never

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

177

500

500 178

David Goldschmidt

Stuart Grant

SKADDEN NEW YORK

GRANT & EISENHOFER WILMINGTON

Sandra Goldstein

Nicholas Gravante

KIRKLAND & ELLIS NEW YORK

BOIES SCHILLER NEW YORK

Tom Goldstein

Salvatore Graziano

GOLDSTEIN & RUSSELL BETHESDA, MD.

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

Elaine Golin

Mark Greene

WACHTELL NEW YORK

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Chuck Googe

Nicholas Groombridge

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Jamie Gorelick

Benjamin Gruenstein

WILMERHALE WASHINGTON, D.C.

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Neil Gorsuch

Nina Gussack

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

PEPPER HAMILTON PHILADELPHIA

Ilene Knable Gotts

Lucas Guttentag

WACHTELL NEW YORK

STANFORD LAW SCHOOL STANFORD

Elizabeth Graham

Melinda Haag

GRANT & EISENHOFER WILMINGTON

ORRICK SAN FRANCISCO

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

spoken to before and likely will never see again. Yet a trial lawyer needs to be able to connect with these people in a way that the jury trusts what you’re saying. I found little things like keeping things simple, making eye contact and being earnest go a long way in getting good results.

LD: Are there certain ways that you would describe your style as a trial lawyer or a negotiator? Can you identify ways in which these approaches have changed since joining Wachtell?

DA: The U.S. Attorney’s Office provided great training for the work I do today, as I use many of the same skills that I developed as a prosecutor to handle my current matters. Things such as mastering a complex set of facts, developing case strategies and effectively negotiating with adversaries. The biggest difference in my approach today is that I have to apply these skills within the broader context of a client’s business. So while the skills themselves are in many the ways the same, I always try to be mindful of the bigger picture and the other issues a corporate client is necessarily facing.

LD: Given your accomplishments as a prosecutor, you would have had many options. Why did you choose Wachtell?

DA: Wachtell Lipton is a law firm with extremely high standards comprised of some of the smartest and best lawyers in the country. More than any other firm, Wachtell Lipton reminded me of the U.S. Attorney’s Office – each had about the same number of lawyers; each required lawyers to work in small teams and each was filled with lawyers who prided themselves on working hard to achieve great results. Likewise, the collegial atmosphere and the team approach to working on cases at Wachtell Lipton mirrored what I had experienced at the U.S. Attorney’s Office. For all of those reasons, it was a natural transition for me.

LD: Since joining the firm, you’ve had some matters with a high public visibility, such as the NBA work with the Donald Sterling dispute, but many more that the public has never heard about. Is there a case or representation or client at Wachtell that has become a favorite, or especially meaningful, based on the challenges, the people or issues involved, or the result?

DA: Naturally, like my children, I love all my clients the same. But if I have to name one, the NBA is a

special client. The people who work there – from former commissioner David Stern to current commissioner Adam Silver, to the general counsel Rick Buchanan and so many others – are just so smart.

And the matters are challenging in ways that are different from almost all other matters, in part because of the added microscope of media scrutiny. While I’m never happy for the NBA to be in difficult situations where they need my help – and given how well they are run, there have not been many crises over the years – it has been satisfying to help the league navigate those situations, from crooked referee Tim Donaghy, to the racist owner Donald Sterling, to players who commit domestic violence.

Besides the NBA, I have been very fortunate to work closely over the years with many terrific in-house lawyers to solve difficult problems. It is satisfying not just to have had the opportunity to work with such talented internal lawyers to solve complex problems, but I’ve also become friends with many of them.

LD: As someone who has spent a lot of time in court, is there a book, movie or TV show about the justice system that you really like or feel gets it right?

DA: I wish I had a great answer to this question, but the reality is that given my work at Wachtell Lipton, I spend a good chunk of my day and night working for or thinking about my clients. So when I do get to decompress by watching TV or movies or reading books, I tend to do so with things that are a bit more “escapist” in nature. I’ve obviously seen all of the great law movies and watched some of the great legal TV shows, but it’s hard for me to say that any one of them really gets it right.

LD: How do you spend your time away from the office – whether for fun, family stuff or for community involvement?

DA: I have the good fortune of being married to a wonderfully talented woman, Mimi Rocah. Mimi is a former AUSA (we met at the U.S. Attorney’s Office) and, among other things, is now a legal analyst on MSNBC. So let me revise my prior answer – whenever Mimi is on, that TV show “gets it right.” Given mine and Mimi’s hectic schedules, when we’re not working, we try to make time for each other and to spend time with our daughter and son. Beyond that, I know it probably sounds somewhat cliché, but I love to play golf whenever I can.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

179

Robin Cohen MCKOOL SMITH (NEW YORK)

500

THE PRODUCERS: ROBIN COHEN

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 Robin Cohen, who pairs a personality that will not be denied with a business savvy seeded by her father and elevated by her to a level of success that is all her own.

IT TAKES ROUGHLY 0.1 SECONDS AFTER

meeting McKool Smith partner Robin Cohen to understand she is a force of nature.

Her effusive focus on whatever is before her that moment – her firm, her family, and often as not her worldclass insurance recovery practice – packs a wallop.

She is regarded as one of the most brilliant insurance recovery lawyers in the world – with more than $5B in insurer assets to her credit for clients including Verizon, Cushman & Wakefield, New Jersey Transit and Givaudan Fragrance in claims ranging from asbestos to Superstorm Sandy to employee dishonesty.

She is one of the most successful female rainmakers anywhere – which is to say she’s one of the most successful producers period. But for Cohen, it’s worth talking a bit about women in these times. Like many of the world’s most successful women lawyers, the discussion of them as a separate species is more than a little demeaning. However, with the curtain so recently ripped back on the path women have traveled, Cohen wants to add her powerful voice to the discussion.

Her journey has been atypical in that she learned early to be comfortable with her path, no matter how much that varied from perceived wisdom. The Philadelphia-area native earned her undergrad and law degrees at University of Pennsylvania, where she caught on quick that the best practicing lawyers are often not those with straight As. She began practicing with Anderson Kill, which was unusual because every attorney there was a partner. She has never practiced as an associate, which in her estimation was probably a good thing.

She crafted her entire career her way, and stayed true to form when she moved her practice to McKool Smith a few years back. She researched the best firms for her group, and picked up the phone and cold-called Mike McKool.

“Hi, this is Robin Cohen,” she said in a message for McKool. “You may not know me, but I’d like to talk to you about an opportunity.” And talk they did.

PHOTO BY: DAVE CROSS

She’s been mentored by men and practiced with brilliant women, and no mentor has been more profound than her father, the 85-year old and only recently retired CFO of Penske Corp. Yes, she has been to an auto race or 300.

And perhaps that’s really at the heart of her overdrive. Because when she’s behind the wheel, there’s no question who’s in charge.

Lawdragon: What are your earliest memories of becoming interested in being a lawyer?

Robin Cohen: Before high school, I was incredibly shy. But I still took advantage of a fifth-grade program in my Philadelphia-area school that allowed students with high enough grades to design a creative-studies course in which we could pursue a particular passion. I persuaded my father to drive me into the city where I knocked on the doors of judges’ offices until one agreed to let me join law students observing court proceedings.

For someone who was shy, I was sort of intense and tenacious. I watched murder trials, rape trials, I got exposed to the court system and got passionate about the law. I knew from a very early age that I wanted to be a lawyer.

LD: Do you carry any memories from those early courtroom experiences with you today?

RC: I was blown away by the court system. I was also blown away by how fair my judge was, and how the system seemed to work. You had talented people on both sides. I was particularly impressed with the prosecutors. I remember one case that definitely affected me in which a girl around 18 had been raped and it was her word against the defendant’s. He was convicted, and it just seemed to me that the law was a fair way of proceeding and that our system was a pretty dynamic and amazing one.

My impression of it was it was interactive. I was impressed with the quality of the lawyering and the quality of my judge. It really drew me in.

LD: Did the victim testify?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

181

500

500 182

Richard Hall

Lynne Hermle

CRAVATH NEW YORK

ORRICK MENLO PARK, CALIF.

James Harrington

Anita Hill

HARRINGTON & MAHONEY BUFFALO

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Geoffrey Harrison

Bob Hilliard

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

HILLIARD MUNOZ CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS

Natasha Harrison

Marielena Hincapié

BOIES SCHILLER LONDON

NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER LOS ANGELES

Marcia Hatch

Jennifer Hobbs

GUNDERSON DETTMER ANN ARBOR, MICH.

SIMPSON THACHER NEW YORK

Michael Hausfeld

Eric Holder

HAUSFELD WASHINGTON, D.C.

COVINGTON WASHINGTON, D.C.

Richard Heimann

Hillary Holmes

LIEFF CABRASER SAN FRANCISCO

GIBSON DUNN HOUSTON

Edward Herlihy

Arash Homampour

WACHTELL NEW YORK

THE HOMAMPOUR LAW FIRM SHERMAN OAKS, CALIF.

Steve Herman

Deneen Howell

HERMAN HERMAN NEW ORLEANS

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY WASHINGTON, D.C.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

RC: Yes, and it was very traumatic. I remember that she was crying, and that she was incredibly believable. That was just one of many cases that I saw, but that definitely affected me. The program was such a great program because it allowed you to tap into things that you thought you might be interested in.

As you get older, you’re never happy every day, but I love what I do. I think if you can figure out what you want to do and actually go for it, it’s great. I got a taste of it, and it just fit well with me. It was a great program and a lot of schools should consider it, frankly.

I was in the program for two years. Later, when I went to college, I was a sociology major. I took a lot of criminal law and psychology classes about the law. I always knew I wanted to become a lawyer at the end of the day.

LD: Tell me more about your early years. What was your childhood like? What were your other interests?

RC: I grew up in the suburbs. I was the third child, and by far the one who was babied the most. I have a sister who’s two years older who is now a lawyer, a public-interest lawyer in Philadelphia. She started a not-for-profi t called the Legal Help Center that helps underprivileged women keep their homes and advocates in court every day in Philadelphia. I am, I guess, the financier of the not-for-profit. I tell everyone I’m going to heaven on her coattails.

LD: Were you involved in any sports?

RC: I did track, I did swimming, I played volleyball, I did gymnastics, I did everything. I was the fastest kid in the school, both boys and girls, OK? I thought I was the cat’s meow. Then I got to seventh grade, and my seventh grade had a much larger student body. At my first track meet, I came in last place.

Last. I learned early that it’s better to be a big fish in a small pond.

LD: What did you parents do?

RC: My father was the CFO of Penske Corp., the transportation company run by racing legend Roger Penske that fields an auto-racing team. I used to work at the race tracks in Michigan and in the Poconos, when they would have a race. He retired at about 85. He’s a workaholic like me; he’s worked his whole life.

My mother was a housewife, which by the way probably was, in hindsight, the worst thing for her, because she had so much energy that she really

needed to work outside the home. If she were in our generation, she would have done so.

LD: I can imagine – I think there are many women like that. When you were deciding what law school to go to, was Penn just the obvious choice? Did you think of others?

RC: I went to the best one I could get into. I loved law school, and in fact probably most of my closest friends today are from law school and my first year at Anderson Kill, because that’s when you’re working the hardest, and you’re sort of in the trenches with other attorneys. I didn’t find law school as much of a pressure cooker as a lot of other people. As a child, I wasn’t really impacted by what people thought of me, and when I was in law school, I found it intellectually interesting and challenging. I felt I was lucky to get in, so I didn’t feel the intensity of getting straight As. You always hear the story that the people who got the straight As, they actually became professors.

The middle didn’t really do that well, and the people on the bottom, basically, were the most successful.

I’m probably a very good candidate for that. I did fine, I wasn’t on law review, but I did fine. And I loved it. My thought process was much more scattered before law school, and it trained me to think in a much more logical, coherent, more linear way.

LD: Did you clerk for Anderson Kill during the summer, or did you look at some other firms also?

RC: I was in Philadelphia at a firm called Saul Ewing.

After getting married, I moved to New York, and it was the late ’80s, and you really could pick your firm. What was interesting – and this sort of clued me in a little bit about how I could stand out and make my mark – is that if I was interviewed, I rarely did not get the job. My friends who were law review, top 5%, they didn’t get the job offers that I received.

I learned at an early age that your emotional intelligence was as important as your raw intelligence.

Because I was a little bit shy when I was kid, I didn’t realize how important your personality was, and your ability to read audiences and be receptive to people. I learned that through the interview process at the various law firms.

The reason I picked Anderson Kill was that everybody was a partner. I realized pretty early that I’d probably make a lousy associate but a great partner.

My whole career, I’ve been a partner. Anderson Kill

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

183

500

500 I LEARNED AT AN EARLY AGE THAT YOUR EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE WAS AS IMPORTANT AS YOUR RAW INTELLIGENCE. BECAUSE I WAS A LITTLE BIT SHY WHEN I WAS KID, I DIDN’T REALIZE HOW IMPORTANT YOUR PERSONALITY WAS, AND YOUR ABILITY TO READ AUDIENCES AND BE RECEPTIVE TO PEOPLE. was full of very eclectic, interesting, dynamic people.

I gravitated to Anderson Kill because I found them more interesting than all the other firms that I had interviewed. I loved Gene Anderson, I love Jerry Oshinsky. To give Jerry and Gene their due, they recognized that no one is great at everything. They saw pretty early on that I was good in a courtroom or in a deposition. I was doing things that my friends at other firms and my colleagues from law school were not doing.

In fact, I brought three or four friends from other firms into Anderson Kill. They thought, “If they’re going to let RC do it, they’re going to let me do it.”

My friends were basically reviewing documents, and I was arguing in the Southern District of New York.

I instinctively picked Anderson Kill because I loved the people and I just thought it was a great firm. It turned out to be probably the best professional decision I made.

LD: Understanding so early that your emotional intelligence was what was going to set you apart is a realization about something that I think derails a lot of lawyers. They think it’s all about the academics. Just by choosing a firm where you were going to be a partner, because you knew that maybe you wouldn’t be the best associate, you took a very smart approach.

RC: And when I got to Anderson Kill, who did I share an office with? Liz Sherwin, the best brief writer in the country, in my view. I teamed up with her immediately, and we’ve been together ever since. What’s great about the firm is that they encourage you to work with people you get along with well. There are a lot of leaders who came out of Anderson Kill.

It was a place that honored who you were.

I will tell you, because I know this is a hot issue, that it was a great place for women. Because you did not

184

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

feel any of the subtle forms of discrimination that my friends felt at the top firms. Not at all. In fact, if anything, it was to your advantage, because Gene and Jerry loved working with women. They loved promoting women. I felt supported by the firm, and I didn’t feel like I wasn’t getting the court assignments or the great cases because I was a woman.

LD: Do you remember what your first big trial was, or the first big legal matter that you handled at Anderson Kill?

RC: I do. I got assigned to Randy Paar and Jerry Oshinsky because they were handling an appeal to the Fifth Circuit for W.R. Grace. My job was to basically write the brief. We had won below, and I was going to prepare Jerry for the argument. It went along seamlessly, I loved working with Jerry and Randy; it was a terrific process. We got to the argument, and the Fifth Circuit was hostile to our position. Jerry basically couldn’t get out a word. I had spent six months preparing him, so this was a big deal for me. The plane ride home was not nearly as good as the plane ride going there. We ended up losing, and one thing I learned from this experience is I am a terrible loser. I was home for four days. I was devastated, to the point where the client had to call me to let me know it was OK. Many successful litigators, they hate losing. That’s what pushes them so hard. I realized through that experience – it was a tough experience – that I really hated losing.

Probably my most seminal experience was working for Phillip’s Electronics on a major coverage case.

One of the in-house attorneys at Phillip’s was going on maternity leave, and they asked if I could come and fill her place for three months while keeping my salary at Anderson Kill.

I remember the first day I was there, everyone left at 5 o’clock, so I went outside and literally, I had no

500

idea what to do with myself. It was like I had another day within a day. I took a cooking class, and I tried all sorts of stuff. I was terrible at all of it. The day I was leaving, they took me out to lunch and instead of making a send-off, they started to talk to me about a $300 million case that Anderson Kill was handling for them. The next thing I knew, they had the amazing idea, or terrible idea, that I should now lead the charge for the case. I was six or seven years out of law school.

LD: Wow. Those are the kind of opportunities you can never see coming.

RC: I mean, it was crazy. We had an amazing local counsel at Potter Anderson and I basically used him as my co-counsel. What happened in that case was, when I took it over, I sat down with the general counsel, and I asked him what he would consider a successful year, what three things he would need.

One of them was that he wanted to settle with a carrier. There were more than three-dozen carriers, and no one had settled. I ended up settling with one carrier that year; by the time of trial, we ended up settling with 32 of the 40 before trial. Our case was one of the first cases that ever went to trial for a policyholder. We ended up settling with the other eight in the middle of the trial because we were kicking ass. The client gave us a party at the Rainbow Room.

It was an unbelievable experience. The reason I’m bringing it up is that’s how I really started producing business: The general counsel and the head of litigation from Phillip’s promoted us and told everybody about what had happened. As a result of that, as a result of what I would consider a pretty significant win, I started building a real practice.

LD: That’s incredible. It strikes me that there are several important points in that narrative, one of which is that, when you were given the task of turning things around, you sat down and asked, “What’s the successful outcome here?”

RC: I’d love to take the credit for that idea, but it was my dad’s idea. I’m close with him, so I told him what had happened. He said, “If you want to be a business lawyer, you want to sit down and figure out what the business people need to accomplish.”

I took his advice. It turned out to be great advice.

LD: That’s so smart. From then on, not only did you have validation of your dad’s wisdom, but you had a client as a cheerleader.

RC: In those days, you didn’t market your wins. It was really word of mouth. Winning sells. It was so funny, because right before the trial, everyone said, “Oh, it’s going to settle, because these coverage cases always settle.”

Well, I got a sense that it might not settle. I was the only one from both sides that brought in a real trial lawyer to help me try the case. The other side didn’t really have that many trial lawyers. You had a real trial judge, and the trial judge was shaking his head, like “What’s going on?” So I’m in the courtroom and my co-counsel said, “Look, the first time you go up for sidebar, I’ll go up with you,” because I had never put on a witness. I went up to the sidebar, and this was a couple of days into the trial, and no one was laughing, everyone was taking it very seriously, including the jury.

I walked up to the sidebar and there was a bookcase, and by accident I knocked over the bookcase.

All of the books were falling and I was picking up the books. After I picked up the books, I sat down right next to the judge. The judge said to me, “I’m sorry, Ms. Cohen, but I think that seat is for the court reporter.” I said to the judge in a soft voice, “I’m so sorry, Your Honor, you probably don’t know, but this is my first sidebar.” He goes, “Oh, we know.”

The jury overheard and everyone started laughing.

One thing I did learn through that trial was, again, using the force of your personality is really important in a courtroom. Being likable, being prepared, having integrity, having a rapport with the judge, is as important as being the smartest person in the room.

LD: And being real, right? I mean, you were just you.

They got it. You weren’t trying to be like, “Oh, I know everything in the universe.” That’s a huge thing that you, because of who you are and the path you’ve taken, found the ability to be you and to not feel that in order to be successful as a lawyer, like, “Oh, I need to learn to act like a guy,” or “I need to be somebody that I’m not.”

RC: I totally agree with that. And I believe it applies in all walks of life, but particularly in the practice of law. The more authentic you are, the more people are going to be able to relate to you.

You can’t change who you are. I tell people, “Don’t be me at trial, be you.” Everybody has to work within their own style. I try cases across the country and I will do mock exercises in Louisiana or Texas to see how I’ll play, because the one thing I have learned

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

185

500

500 186

Heidi Hubbard

Rickey Ivie

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY WASHINGTON, D.C.

IVIE MCNEILL LOS ANGELES

Scott Humphries

Jameel Jaffer

GIBBS & BRUNS HOUSTON

COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL NEW YORK

Matthew Hurd

Rachel Jensen

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL NEW YORK

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

James Hurst

Jeh Johnson

KIRKLAND & ELLIS CHICAGO

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Michelle Ifill

Nora Jordan

VERIZON BASKING RIDGE, N.J.

DAVIS POLK NEW YORK

Sherrilyn Ifill

Elena Kagan

NAACP-LDEF NEW YORK

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

William Isaacson

Meredith Kane

BOIES SCHILLER WASHINGTON, D.C.

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Jason Itkin

Allan Kanner

ARNOLD & ITKIN HOUSTON

KANNER & WHITELEY NEW ORLEANS

J. Eric Ivester

Stacy Kanter

SKADDEN NEW YORK

SKADDEN NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

in life and in trials is that if you’re not authentic in who you are, then it’s very hard to win.

LD: As long as I’ve known you, and from some of these early experiences you’ve recounted, you’ve been very authentic. It’s great advice to other lawyers who are figuring out how to find their own success.

RC: I have never really felt like a woman lawyer. I felt like a lawyer. Part of it was because I was at Anderson Kill, a place where individualism was valued. I grew up there. I felt none of the subtleties that everybody else was feeling. Then when I got in front of a court, in front of a judge, I didn’t feel that I was looked at any differently because of being young or a woman. If anything, especially when I was younger, I would get a benefit because the other side would feel bad, it would look bad that they were beating up on me. I lived a very charmed life for a very long time, professionally. I didn’t experience some of the stuff that others experienced.

LD: Tell me a little bit about leaving Anderson Kill.

How long were you there, and why did you leave?

RC: I was there for 10 years, and it wasn’t my decision to leave. It was Jerry Oshinsky’s. He wanted to leave, and I was part of his group. It was his play, but it was a great opportunity for me because part of the deal was that I was going to be the managing partner of Dickstein Shapiro’s New York office. When I got there, again, just like when I got to McKool, they really tried to get to know me and my group.

LD: Did you enjoy it?

RC: Oh, I loved it. I love building things, so I loved building the office, and I loved knowing everybody.

I loved building a team. One of the things that I tell people when I’m pitching them is, “You will find other attorneys, coverage attorneys or other trial lawyers, that are as talented as me, but I don’t think you’re going to find a better team.” My team is deeper, we’re more cohesive, we’re more supportive. When you’re on one of these billion-dollar cases, it’s as important for the client to know that my lieutenant, or the person right below the lieutenant, is as good as me or at least part of me.

One thing that many people don’t do, and that’s why they can’t produce, is that they don’t know how to delegate, and they have not built a great team.

The secret to success is to have a great team and be supportive of them and give them credit when they do something great.

LD: That’s good advice. With the business background that you picked up from your dad, then having the opportunity to join Anderson Kill, by the time you got to build a team at Dickstein, it probably just felt like it all came together for you.

RC: It did. You know, I had an interesting experience that crystallizes how I approach things a little differently. I had an important meeting with a client’s board. They were mostly business people, and they were peppering me with very significant questions.

I don’t have a lot of caveats when I answer questions.

I pretty much answer the question. I tend to be very direct, so at the end of the board meeting, the most senior person there said, “I just have one last question.” He asked, “Are you sure you’re a lawyer?” I said to him, “What do you mean?” I wasn’t sure if it was that I was a woman, or what, I wasn’t sure what he meant. He said, “I have never been around a lawyer who had so few caveats and actually answered the questions that we posed.”

I thought that was interesting. That comes partly from watching my dad, and partly from being who I am, but you know what? The more direct and honest you are, the more you answer the questions, the better off you are. I’m more a business lawyer than a lawyer’s lawyer. I’m more practical, I’m more strategic. I tend to talk in terms of the bottom line and maximizing the dollars. If you put me in a room with a bunch of business people, like the chief financial officer, I tend to do better than most lawyers that I compete with.

LD: I’m sure that accounts for a part of your success: You’re not trying to find what corner to cut here or there. You’re just using your intellect and your judgment and your analysis and you’re saying what you think, which we all need more of.

RC: A lot of lawyers are afraid to take responsibility or to take a position, because if things go south, they’ll be blamed, but that’s exactly what the business people hate. They want to hear what your advice is. You can give them options and give them pros and cons, but at the end of the day, they want to know what you believe is the right course. You can’t say, “Well, I don’t know all the factors and so it’s really your decision.” Business people hate that.

I have been in a lot of beauty contests where I believe we won in large part because my team was much more direct, came in with a very clear strategy and stuck with that strategy.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

187

500

500 188

Roberta Kaplan

Jennifer Keller

KAPLAN HECKER NEW YORK

KELLER/ANDERLE IRVINE

David Kappos

David Kelley

CRAVATH NEW YORK

DECHERT NEW YORK

Alec Karakatsanis

Michael Kellogg

CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS WASHINGTON, D.C.

KELLOGG HANSEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Brad Karp

Michael Kelly

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

WALKUP MELODIA SAN FRANCISCO

David Karp

Erika Kelton

WACHTELL NEW YORK

PHILLIPS & COHEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Neal Katyal

Anthony Kennedy

HOGAN LOVELLS WASHINGTON, D.C.

U.S. SUPREME COURT (RET.) WASHINGTON, D.C.

David Katz

Thomas Kennedy

WACHTELL NEW YORK

SKADDEN NEW YORK

Skip Keesal

Jeffrey Kessler

KEESAL YOUNG LONG BEACH, CALIF.

WINSTON & STRAWN NEW YORK

Christopher Keller

Sang Kim

LABATON SUCHAROW NEW YORK

DLA EAST PALO ALTO

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

I THINK A LOT OF WOMEN HAVE TO COMPARTMENTALIZE THEIR LIVES, BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY FACTORS, SO MANY THINGS GOING ON AT THE SAME TIME. AND ANOTHER THING, AS MEN RISE, THEY BECOME MORE LIKABLE. AS WOMEN RISE, THEY DON’T BECOME MORE LIKABLE. LD: I think as lawyers, we’re trained and we’re taught – and at some firms, it’s reinforced – to minimize risk.

Minimize risk for the lawyer and the law firm by not saying what you actually think, by giving that over to the client. To reverse that is kind of like, “Whoa, my lawyer has an opinion.” And clients appreciate it.

RC: When I was in college and in law school, everyone was bright. It was hard to see how to distinguish yourself. I learned my talent and how I was going to differentiate myself as I started to work. I realized that I approached things a little differently than the people in my class, and I saw what my talents were. A lot of really talented litigators have really great strengths, and succeeding requires focusing on those strengths and using them to distinguish yourself. That’s the advice I would give to all young attorneys. Figure out what makes you different, and then really exploit it in a good way.

LD: It’s very interesting, that clarity about yourself and what you bring to a law practice and to clients.

It sounds like neither of your mentors at Anderson Kill, Jerry and Gene, were “typical” male law firm mentors, that they had taken a different path and that they probably had pretty high emotional intelligence.

RC: And Randy Paar, who passed away. She was comedian Jack Paar’s daughter. She was, perhaps, the best person I’ve ever seen in a courtroom.

LD: Really?

RC: In the first place, she was more articulate in a courtroom than outside a courtroom. People had a hard time understanding what she wanted outside, but in a courtroom, even before a judge or in front of a jury, she was the best. Partly why I am who I am today is watching her and working with her. She was amazing, really, truly. She was an outside-the-box sort of person. I was assigned to both her and Jerry together at Anderson Kill, so I worked with her for

10 years, and I brought her over to Dickstein. She passed away two months before we were supposed to go to a trial, actually, and she was the lead trial counsel.

We didn’t get an extension on the trial, but that was a very challenging time, between dealing with her death and getting prepared for trial. It turned out to be my biggest win, ever, but it was really a team effort. Actually, the trial was two days after my daughter’s bat mitzvah. My team came in for the bat mitzvah, they went back to Delaware, and then I met them. It was a crazy time.

LD: But you did it, right? That was your job and you just focused and you got it done. You know, talking about the issues women have to deal with in the workplace and with balancing conflicting roles in their lives isn’t that interesting with many women lawyers because they talk around it. I don’t really have any interest in a discussion like that. You talk about it in a way that I think is really helpful.

RC: I think a lot of women have to compartmentalize their lives, because there are so many factors, so many things going on at the same time. And another thing, as men rise, they become more likable. As women rise, they don’t become more likable. They become a little more threatening. I experienced that: I was very well-liked at Anderson Kill, but after moving, I definitely ruffled some feathers. As I moved up the compensation chart and started surpassing the men who were very talented, but weren’t producing the way I was producing, I realized that women’s experience is different than men’s.

I don’t feel that at McKool Smith. When I got here, I told everyone what I thought I had as the business base, and I turned out to be right. So I don’t feel any of that resentment, I think partly because I’m much more senior now, but also because I was honest with what I thought I had. And I had it.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

189

500

500 Patrick Quinn CADWALADER (NEW YORK)

190

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

PATRICK QUINN PAT QUINN IS A CADWALADER LIFER.

He summered at the firm and joined it for good when he graduated from the University of Virginia Law School in 1988. And read that “for good” in every sense of those words – as not only has he stayed and helped build the firm’s renowned securitization practice through tides high and low, as a firm leader he’s also displayed a quiet courage in charting a course characterized by a laser-sharp focus on the firm’s “natural client base” of financial institutions, corporates and funds; a commitment to core values; a focus on profitability over raw size; and a future that is far more inclusive and with expanded pro bono partnerships with clients.

If you had to sum up Quinn, you’d be likely to use the same word that drew the Queens native to the firm: “gritty.” That can seem a bit of a paradox for a firm long considered one of the most rarefied, but it’s actually grit that helped the firm survive and thrive after the financial crisis.

“For such an old firm, with such a great name and such great tradition, we have never had any sense of entitlement,” says Quinn, who joined the management committee in 2006 and became managing partner in 2015.

Quinn says his firm was founded on grit. Wall Street’s oldest law firm was founded in 1792 by John Wells, a self-made man from Otsego County, N.Y. Orphaned at a young age, Wells worked his way through Princeton University, then ran the business by himself for 26 years before teaming with George Washington Strong, a prominent New Yorker, to form one of America’s first law partnerships.

Quinn learned quickly that succeeding at Cadwalader “was much more about hard work and great results than about who you knew or where you were from. He says: “We’re not a firm where anyone is going to tell you, ‘That idea is too outside-the-box,’ or ‘That’s not what we’ve done in the past, so we can’t consider it now.’”

As a result, under his leadership Cadwalader has been distilled from more than 500 lawyers to a tight 400, while increasing its profits per partner by 19 percent in 2017. The firm’s values are about much more than money, yet it’s that improved financial performance that has the firm back in growth mode with recent hires of top partners like dealmaker Steve Fraidin and offering associate billing bonuses that top even Cravath.

It’s a new day for a very old firm.

PHOTO BY: DAVE CROSS

BY KATRINA DEWEY Lawdragon: How does the firm’s history influence your leadership today?

Patrick Quinn: The history of the firm is a wonderful thing. It’s truly a unique asset. You might think of a firm that’s 225 years old as having so much history that it’s bogged down by tradition. And we are anything but.

People ask, “How does a law firm or any institution exist for such a long period of time?” We can’t continue to exist and thrive without innovating, without changing with the times, without being a little bit out in front of trends. That is something that we really pride ourselves on. It’s always about, “What is the next thing, and how do we do it a little bit better, a little bit different?” And it’s always with our clients in mind: how do we distinguish ourselves in the eyes of our clients by thinking about what’s next for them?

LD: Do you feel the firm has the best of both worlds, then, with the storied history as well as innovative drive for today’s challenges?

PQ: That’s right. This is not the sort of place where people think, “Well, I’m at Cadwalader, and therefore, I can just sit in my office and the clients will come knocking. We have always been - I’ll use the word “gritty” – in terms of our approach to client development. It is very much a part of the ethos of Cadwalader, that even with clients for whom we have worked for decades, every new matter is treated as though it’s our first chance to make a great impression on the client.

LD: I love that. Gritty Cadwalader. And that certainly distinguishes the firm from many other historic firms.

Is that part of what drew you to the firm?

PQ: We don’t back away from that. Cadwalader has this long history, but one of the things most people don’t know is that the founding partner of Cadwalader was a self-made man who was orphaned at a young age.

He did not come from a big, prominent family, though some later partners did. I don’t know if it’s the spirit of John Wells or what, but that really has influenced the way the partners think about their practices in the firm.

Looking back, there were a number of factors that attracted me to Cadwalader out of law school, but there is no doubt that the gritty attitude was a draw. It influenced my decision to join as a summer associate and has kept me here ever since.

LD: What was your vision of the lawyer you wanted to be when you decided to go to law school?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

191

500

500 192

Susheel Kirpalani

Lea Haber Kuck

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

SKADDEN NEW YORK

David Kistenbroker

M. Natasha Labovitz

DECHERT CHICAGO

DEBEVOISE NEW YORK

Adam Klein

Walter Lack

OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK

ENGSTROM LIPSCOMB LOS ANGELES

Gayle Klein

William Lafferty

MCKOOL SMITH NEW YORK

MORRIS NICHOLS WILMINGTON

Jeff Klein

David Lam

WEIL GOTSHAL NEW YORK

WACHTELL NEW YORK

Ethan Klingsberg

Jeffrey Lamken

CLEARY GOTTLIEB NEW YORK

MOLOLAMKEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Edwin Kneedler

Carolyn Lamm

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL WASHINGTON, D.C.

WHITE & CASE WASHINGTON, D.C.

Linda Kornfeld

Thomas Patrick Lane

BLANK ROME LOS ANGELES

WINSTON & STRAWN NEW YORK

Josh Krevitt

Mark Lanier

GIBSON DUNN NEW YORK

LANIER LAW FIRM HOUSTON

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

PQ: I’m the first lawyer in my family. Youngest of a big family. We had other professionals in my older siblings.

We had doctors and teachers and musicians, but I was the first lawyer. I wanted to be a lawyer at an early age, but I’m not sure I really understood what that meant until I got to law school, and then probably not fully until I actually began practicing.

very young age. We’ve recognized him by making him co-chair of the corporate department.

LD: Do you remember any of your early experiences at Cadwalader that informed your beliefs about it and convinced you to stay?

PQ: Securitization provides much more efficient financing. It provides efficiency by tapping the capital markets to finance things like people’s homes or commercial real estate or those growing companies that you’re talking about. The broad capital markets can match up many different investors with different appetites for yield, risk and duration in order to provide financing with efficiencies that no single capital source could provide on its own.

PQ: I remember those very first transactions I worked on in the early days of securitization. I really enjoyed that. First of all, I liked the clients and the other lawyers that I was working with. But the transactions were challenging in a particular way because everything was new. The transactions were – and still are – complex.

Back then, because many of those transactions were firsts of their kind, there was a lot of room – and a lot of necessity – to really be creative in how you structured the transactions. And because the area was so new and was evolving so much, by the time I was a second- or a third-year associate, I really started to feel like I had some expertise.

LD: Who were the senior partners who were leaders in developing securitization and why did it happen at Cadwalader?

PQ: The late Rod Dayan, who was then chair of the firm and a great mergers and acquisitions lawyer, was considered to be one of the real leaders and innovators in securitization. Freddie Mac was a very early client in this space, and there were a few others. I think Cadwalader was just the right combination of creative lawyers, really innovative clients and a position as one of the premier Wall Street firms working for the large financial institutions that were creating the market. We were excited about embracing something that was brand new.

LD: At what point did you start taking a leading role in projects? When you were still an associate?

PQ: Oh absolutely, yes. And I was not unique. We have always been a firm that is not hierarchical in terms of what young lawyers can achieve. That’s absolutely true of us today. If you’re a really high-achieving second- or third-year associate, no one’s going to tell you, “No, you can’t do that. That’s only senior associate work, or that’s partner work.”

If you look at our partnership, the success that our youngest partners are having is emblematic of the approach that we take to the practice overall. Richard Brand, for instance, is extraordinarily successful at a

LD: On securitization, can you explain how that was rewarding for you as a lawyer? With M&A, you create a larger corporation that fosters efficiency and gets more products to more people and more resources. What does securitization do?

LD: Are there some transactions you’ve worked on that you consider particularly memorable?

PQ: I’m certainly very proud of the transactions that we worked on that helped restart the capital markets coming out of the credit crisis.

The crisis really hit every firm and every business. The fact that we had a substantial practice in securitization probably gave us a clearer view of what was coming than other firms may have had. And it gave us an opportunity to recognize a challenge and take it head on and do what needed to be done, both to continue to service our clients and for the careers, frankly, of the young people who were coming up. What I’m proud of is that the firm recognized that securitization was a discipline that was going to continue to exist – even though there was a much-diminished deal flow – and that securitization structures were going to be one of the really important elements of bringing the economy back. We didn’t lose a single partner.

We kept the team together and then, as the market started to recover, we were there helping our clients restart the markets.

LD: Was there ever a feeling that the firm was threatened by the financial crisis? What was your perception, as a partner, of what the road forward would be?

PQ: Look, it was a huge challenge for every business, not just law firms. It would be silly to say, “No, we never worried about anything.” I think there was, certainly, a core confidence in the firm’s ability to innovate and adapt to changing markets that kept everybody together. If you’re in a healthy practice and you have established clients and they’re keeping you busy, that’s a wonderful thing. When things are choppier and you

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

193

500

500 YOU DON’T SPEND 30 YEARS WITH THE KIND OF INTENSITY OF COMMITMENT THAT WE HAVE WITHOUT HAVING A LOT OF VERY CLOSE, PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS. SO YES, MY PARTNERS ARE AMONG MY BEST FRIENDS. VERY IMPORTANT PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS. get a chance to band together with your partners to solve hard problems, to go visit new clients, to essentially recreate a practice, it’s particularly gratifying.

We learned some lessons about collaboration that we haven’t forgotten. They still inform the way we think about the practice and the way we think about working together today.

LD: What are some of those lessons?

PQ: The biggest one is that we produce better results for our clients if we can field diverse teams of partners and bring in all the expertise across practices. It’s crosspollination of ideas. Even as we’ve gotten busier and busier, we have been careful to make sure we have structures and processes that encourage partners to sit down – away from deal documents, away from active client matters – and just talk about what they’re seeing and what opportunities are emerging for our clients and for us.

LD: What is your focus today when you think about the firm and where you want it to go? What areas do you most want to strengthen?

PQ: Well, the firm wouldn’t exist if not for our clients.

You have to start with Cadwalader’s traditional, natural clients. We have a great roster, and we serve industries that have tremendous opportunities and a tremendous need for creative lawyers.

We represent virtually every major bulge-bracket financial institution and lots of other financial institutions.

We advise a lot of large corporations. Increasingly, we work with a lot of funds, whether private equity funds or hedge funds. We think about who those clients are, how they view Cadwalader, the kinds of assignments they will look to Cadwalader for, and then work to get even deeper and even broader in our ability to service those needs. We’re emphasizing practices that service financial institutions, corporates and funds – their transactional needs as well as regulatory and litigation

194

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

needs. We have great teams in all of those areas, but we’re also looking to get deeper and broader because I think there are opportunities and challenges for our clients in all those areas.

We are very focused on organic growth: We made nine new partners last year. But we also have a healthy population of partners who joined the firm from other firms, and I think every time we have one of those partners join us, we get smarter.

LD: What role do your international offices play?

PQ: They are a reflection of the practice strengths of the firm as a whole. In our London office, we’ve grown in practices where the firm was already recognized.

We grow opportunistically to serve the firm’s core clients. Of course, our financial institution clients have international operations, which we serve primarily from our London office. Many of the larger fund clients and large corporates are in London. We are bullish on our opportunities there. A key differentiator for us is that we don’t have any ambition to be in every world capital. We think our current footprint is actually very well designed to service the kinds of work that our clients look to us for.

LD: Are some of the attorneys that you worked with as a summer associate still there?

PQ: Yes, absolutely. Cadwalader has a core of lawyers who have devoted their entire careers to the firm.

We have lots of lateral partners as well, but it’s a great balance. I recently celebrated my 30th anniversary at the firm. You don’t spend 30 years with the kind of intensity of commitment that we have without having a lot of very close, personal relationships. So yes, my partners are among my best friends. Very important personal relationships, much more so than just professional relationships.

LD: What would you say are the accomplishments you’re most proud of so far?

500

PQ: At the top of the list, I’m very pleased with the progress we’ve made around talent development, and particularly around diversity.

For four or five years we’ve been developing our sponsorship program. Virtually every firm has a mentorship program that matches young associates with mentors.

Sponsorship is different. Sponsorship is a program where we have identified senior non-partners who are clearly partner candidates and who are women or otherwise diverse. And they are matched up with sponsors who are senior partners at the firm. It is the sponsor’s responsibility to make sure that protégés are being positioned to earn partnership. Not that we’re going to earn it for them, not that we’re going to hand it to them, but they are put in a position where they can work on high-profile deals for high-profile clients. Once they do, if they succeed, the sponsor’s responsibility is to make sure everybody else knows about it.

LD: How do you convey to the sponsors that this isn’t just a “good” thing, it’s an important business strategy?

PQ: That’s a big part of any talent-development program, explaining to our partners that it’s a business imperative for a number of different reasons. Clearly, clients are way ahead of the industry and saying to law firms generally, “What’s wrong with you guys? Why have you not gotten the memo?”

Well, we’ve gotten the memo, we’ve read it and we’ve acted on it. That message is becoming louder and more prominent and coming from more senior places.

Attracting talent – whether it’s from the law schools or laterally – has always been insanely competitive and that’s not getting any easier. I am very proud that, in recent years, we have earned some of the highest grades in the legal industry for associate satisfaction and for our summer program – for the quality of work we do, for the way we collaborate and work, for diversity and so on.

LD: Whenever you stop leading Cadwalader, what will they say your era was about? What was your stamp on it?

PQ: I hope it will be a purity of purpose in terms of business strategy and what we’re trying to accomplish on behalf of our clients. Knowing who our clients are and what their needs are and growing in ways that meet those client needs.

From a cultural standpoint, we’ve made some nice strides toward becoming more diverse, but the job really isn’t going to be done until the management of the firm is truly diverse. Once you have a firm where the

leadership looks the way that we want the whole firm to look, that ought to be self-perpetuating.

One of the ways we’ve attacked the challenge of developing diverse leaders is by reimagining our affinity networks. Instead of those groups being on vehicles for lawyers who come from the same diverse backgrounds to support each other, we wanted ours to be platforms to develop leadership. So we said to every one of our affinity networks, “We want you to have a business plan that describes what you are going to do for the firm.

How are you going to make an impact on business development? What are you going to do for us on talent development? What are you going to do on pro bono?

How are you going to help us on diversity recruiting?”

And, boy, have they responded. Very talented young lawyers have stepped forward and done great things.

Here is one example: Our Black and Latino Association established an Immigration Clinic a few years ago.

One of the most dedicated leaders was, at the time, a second-year associate named Osvaldo Garcia – himself an immigrant from Cuba. He worked with other members of the community network and the firm to develop a training program so that lawyers whose day job is to handle financial matters could also do immigration work – asylum applications, those sorts of things. To date, we have handled nearly 40 cases. It was a real passion project for him and it still is.

It worked so well that we decided to start partnering with our clients around some of our signature pro bono programs. In this case, we’re partnered with Goldman Sachs, so lots of the immigration cases are co-staffed with a Cadwalader lawyer and a Goldman Sachs internal lawyer. It’s pro bono, which is a professional obligation of every lawyer to start out with; it’s diversity, because we’re pushing this through the diversity networks; and it’s client development. All for doing something that our lawyers were very passionate about anyway.

LD: You develop more ties with lawyers who work for your clients, and everybody rises.

PQ: Absolutely. We have nearly a dozen different large pro bono projects that we are working on, through our affinity networks, with six major clients. We get to work with in-house lawyers on these pro bono matters whom we may have never gotten to know from billable assignments. So you have more people within our clients who know Cadwalader, see our lawyers in action and have good things to say about Cadwalader to colleagues within their company. How could that be bad?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

195

Richard Brand CADWALADER (NEW YORK)

500

RICHARD BRAND CHANCES ARE, YOU’VE HEARD OF RICHARD

Brand’s work. As a partner and co-chair of the corporate group at Cadwalader, Brand has advised publiclytraded companies, private equity firms and hedge funds on high-profile matters. The list is long and impressive and includes: investor Paul Hilal’s Mantle Ridge LP in its investment in CSX Corporation and successful effort to install the late Hunter Harrison as the company’s CEO; 3G Capital in its $28 billion acquisition, together with Berkshire Hathaway, of H. J. Heinz Company; activist investor Bill Ackman’s Pershing Square Capital Management in its partnership with Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. to make an approximately $54 billion unsolicited takeover bid for Allergan, Inc.; and The Howard Hughes Corporation in a Rule 144A/Reg S offering of $800 million aggregate principal amount of senior notes and concurrent tender offer and consent solicitation for $750 million aggregate outstanding principal amount of senior notes of another series.

The prolific Brand also represented D.E. Shaw & Co. in connection with its investments in EQT Corporation and Lowe’s Companies, Inc.; investors Nathan Miller and Peter O’Malley in their successful effort to replace the entire board of directors of Destination Maternity Corporation with a majority-female slate; Hudson Executive Capital in connection with its investment in Cardtronics plc; Pershing Square Capital Management in its acquisition of an 8% stake in ADP and proxy contest seeking to elect three directors to the board; Marcato Capital Management LP in its acquisition of a 6% stake in Deckers Outdoor Corporation and proxy contest seeking to elect 10 directors to the board; Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc. in its approximately $1.27 billion unsolicited proposal to acquire FelCor Lodging Trust Incorporated; Darwin Deason in his successful effort to amend the terms of Xerox’s spinoff of Conduent; Marcato Capital Management LP in its acquisition of a 9.9 % stake in Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. and its successful effort to elect three directors to the company’s board in a proxy contest; Pershing Square Capital Management in its acquisition of a 9.9% stake in Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and subsequent agreement with the Company to add four new board members; and so on.

“We are really proud to have worked on a number of significant matters that have broken new ground,” Brand says.

PHOTO BY: DAVE CROSS

BY JAMES LANGFORD Lawdragon: How is your practice today different from the options that existed when you started your career? The trend of practices that combine traditional corporate work with activist representation seems fairly recent. Were the two separated in the past, with different firms or practices specializing in each?

Richard Brand: Law firms can move slowly in terms of adjusting to market realities. There were a number of significant corporate law firms that didn’t want to touch bankruptcy work. And then there were firms that didn’t want to touch hostile M&A work, whether it be on the bidder side or the target side. There were firms that didn’t want to represent private equity for a long period of time because of a perceived conflict with banks since private equity firms borrowed money for their acquisitions. Today there are no law firms that would refuse to take on significant bankruptcy work, there are no law firms that would refuse to represent a bidder or a target in an M&A transaction, and there are no law firms that would refuse to take on a private equity client.

LD: Can we talk a bit about the recent expansion of Cadwalader’s corporate M&A practice?

RB: We have one of the top M&A groups in the country in terms of experience, reputation and team composition We are extremely busy in that area. We think public M&A and private equity are extremely important practice areas and we’re completely committed to continuing to grow and develop them. Our bringing back of leading M&A partner Chris Cox after a few years in a senior corporate role and our hiring of Steve Fraidin, who is really a pioneer in the M&A world, underscores that continuing effort.

LD: Can you talk a little bit about Steve’s mentorship of you in an earlier life and what that meant to you to be able to help recruit him to the firm?

RB: Steve has been an incredibly important mentor to me in my career. I started working with him at Kirkland & Ellis when I was an associate. Together, we worked on probably 100 or more projects.

His practice is a broad practice – he tends to represent companies and private equity firms in really large transactions – and I’ve learned a ton from him. One of the things I really missed about my time working with Steve was being able to walk down the hallway and sit down on his couch and ask him questions. Being able to do that again is enormously helpful to me and to our colleagues in the corporate group, and it’s

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

197

500

500 198

David Lash

Stuart Liner

O’MELVENY LOS ANGELES

DLA LOS ANGELES

Travis Laster

David Lira

DELAWARE CHANCERY COURT WILMINGTON

GIRARDI | KEESE LOS ANGELES

Wendi Lazar

Judith Livingston

OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK

KRAMER DILOFF NEW YORK

Alejandro Gonzalez Lazzeri

Derek Loeser

SKADDEN NEW YORK

KELLER ROHRBACK SEATTLE

Mark Lebovitch

George Lombardi

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

WINSTON CHICAGO

Michelle Lee

Jeremy D. London

STANFORD LAW SCHOOL STANFORD

SKADDEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Karen Hoffman Lent

Kathy Love

SKADDEN NEW YORK

MCGINN MONTOYA LOVE & CURRY ALBUQUERQUE

Sandra Leung

Jonathan Lowy

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB NEW YORK

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

Harlan Levy

Paola Lozano

BOIES SCHILLER NEW YORK

SKADDEN NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

ALL OF THE PARTNERS IN THE GROUP HAVE EXPERIENCE AS SECURITIES LAWYERS, AS PRIVATE EQUITY LAWYERS, AS PUBLIC M&A LAWYERS AND ON FINANCE MATTERS. THAT’S THE WAY THAT WE PRACTICE, THAT’S THE WAY THAT CADWALADER HAS ALWAYS BEEN. enormously helpful to the clients that we are working with. He’s a world-class dealmaker. He’s working on major matters and working with clients, rolling up his sleeves and continuing the practice that he has maintained for his career. His addition to the firm is a huge boost to our efforts to grow in M&A. LD: What do you particularly enjoy about your role as a leader of Cadwalader’s corporate practice?

RB: If you’re a lawyer who wants to work in an exciting, fast-growing place where you’re working on large matters, the team is entrepreneurial, and the practice is growing, this is the best firm you could possibly be at. We’re not starting from scratch either. Cadwalader has an extremely strong reputation in the corporate world and had an incredibly strong corporate practice even before Steve and I joined. We have something very special here.

LD: With all the activity of building the group and completing deals, how do you hold it all together?

What is a normal day for you?

RB: I’m really, really fortunate because every day is different for me. One day, I’m working on a securities offering for a Greek shipping company, the next day I’m working on a proxy contest for a high-profile activist, and then I’m working on a take-private transaction for a private equity firm. Like I said, I love my job, I love to come to work, I really enjoy what I do.

been. We prefer well-rounded lawyers who have a broad range of experience and can act as go-to advisers, rather than specialists in one particular area. We think that our clients are better served that way. It also comes from the way that we develop relationships with our clients. We tend to have a smaller number of clients that we do a lot for. Our relationships are broad and deep and not narrow.

We have corporate clients where we do their M&A, we do their corporate governance, we help them with their securities offerings, and we help them with their finance. The firm does their litigation and their employment matters.

It’s probably more expensive to train associates in that manner, because it takes more time for them to become fully versed in different practice areas.

By the time they’re mid-level and senior associates, they have a broader range and are more confident in a number of areas. Clients clearly benefit from that range. We recognize that a number of other firms have gone in a different direction of having lawyers be ultra-specialized, but we think this is the right way to train our lawyers and we think this is the right way to practice law. It works very well for us and especially for our clients.

LD: How do you acquire the skills to handle all the different deals that you do in a given day or a given week?

LD: That’s interesting, and it goes back to the illustrations of your work that you talked about at the beginning, where you really seem to bring a broad perspective on what it is you’re helping clients achieve, whether on the activist side or on the corporate side.

RB: One thing that sets Cadwalader apart from a number of other firms is that the partners in the corporate department are generalist corporate lawyers. All of the partners in the group have experience as securities lawyers, as private equity lawyers, as public M&A lawyers and on finance matters. That’s the way that we practice, that’s the way that Cadwalader has always

RB: We think it’s common sense. You’re more useful to your clients if you bring a broader range of experiences to the table. That’s consistent with our approach to activism, too. We think that if you represent a few select activists in their matters, you’re going to be more effective representing companies in responding to activists and you’ll be more effective as an M&A lawyer.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

199

Philippe Selendy & Faith Gay SELENDY & GAY (NEW YORK)

500

PHILIPPE SELENDY AND FAITH GAY IT’S ALWAYS NEWS WHEN PERENNIAL

Lawdragon 500 members leave their long-held positions at prominent institutions to start their own firms.

Early in 2018, two such renowned partners decided to make the jump together when Philippe Selendy and Faith Gay departed the New York office of litigation powerhouse Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan. They and their initial stable of lawyers plan to make Selendy & Gay “a different type of spinoff” for both clients and the lawyers they continue to attract.

Selendy developed a national reputation at his former firm for excelling in complex financial litigation, most notably as lead counsel for the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) in claims against Wall Street banks after the financial crisis. Gay co-chaired Quinn Emanuel’s national trial practice and is relied on by Fortune 500 companies and individuals for their most important cases and sensitive investigations. The partners expect Selendy & Gay to have a balanced blend of plaintiff and defense work covering “every conceivable substantive area” that may interest the firm’s lawyers, with public interest and pro bono work serving as one of the foundations.

Lawdragon: How did you come to realize that you shared a similar philosophy and should start your own firm?

Faith Gay: Philippe and I first worked together over a decade ago, and I recognized immediately that he was a shining star. His diligence, deliberation, creativity, moral compass and emotional intelligence made me sit up and take notice. As our careers developed, our friendship and mutual respect grew even as we concentrated on different areas of substantive law, and as we built practices on offense and defense that complemented each other and exhibited a high degree of symmetry.

We discovered, quite organically, that our views on how one might organize a professional community, the areas of substantive expertise that excited us and the values that informed our approach to law practice were a close match. The essence of what we hoped to create, and are creating, is an immersive and collaborative partnership that privileges service, legal excellence and purposeful diversity over the traditional metric of profits per partner and growth for growth’s sake. At the same time, we are devoted to nurturing the aspirations of each of our attorneys, and to creating career paths that maximize their success.

PHOTO BY: LAURA CROSTA

BY JOHN RYAN

Philippe Selendy: What makes Selendy & Gay a different kind of spin-off is, in part, that we launched with ten star partners; we are now twelve. We share a foundational conviction that, in this dark era, we can do better.

Our partnership has a very long vision that is rapidly becoming concrete: to reinvent law firm practice; to collaborate with, teach, and learn from our associates and each other; to build a strong professional community within the firm, with our clients, and more broadly; and to take responsibility to ensure that the character of the firm reflects our own character and values. Faith and I saw the creation of our firm as inevitable, and she is an ideal partner for me – an extraordinary talent with a very different practice, history, and approach, whose goals are still singularly aligned with my own.

LD: What types of associates and staff have you been hiring?

FG: We are fortunate that there is a high level of interest in our firm among law students and clerks. We are not only looking for the best and brightest, but for applicants who are deeply interested in the craft of trial and appellate practice, who see litigation as a service opportunity, and who are committed to using the law to add positive value rather than merely churning out hours at high rates. We want committed advocates, not just highly trained global knowledge workers. We also want applicants to be interested in building a close-knit law firm community in which they will be active participants and thought leaders.

PS: We want brilliant associates who love and respect the practice of law, and who understand the special privileges and responsibilities of lawyers in a country that is still governed by the rule of law.

LD: What about on the client side?

FG: We have a robust mix of litigation and investigations for existing and new clients in a wide-range of substantive areas. We already have the depth to take on the most complex matters, and we are absolutely committed to maintaining quality control even if it means we have to occasionally turn away matters we would love to take on.

PS: We designed our firm and selected our partners to ensure that we would have deep and complementary areas of expertise in virtually all areas of complex litigation. While we have taken a highly disciplined approach to growth, including setting extraordinary requirements for our associate applicants, we are now large enough

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

201

500

500 202

Martin Lueck

Jenny Martinez

ROBINS KAPLAN MINNEAPOLIS

MUNCK WILSON DALLAS

Andrew Luh

Mark Martins

GUNDERSON DETTMER REDWOOD CITY

OFFICE OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS NORTHERN VIRGINIA

Peter Lyons

Samuel Matchett

FRESHFIELDS NEW YORK

KING & SPALDING ATLANTA

John Majoras

Colette Matzzie

JONES DAY WASHINGTON, D.C.

PHILLIPS & COHEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Neal Manne

Darin McAtee

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

CRAVATH NEW YORK

David Marriott

Donald McGahn

CRAVATH NEW YORK

FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL WASHINGTON, D.C.

Michael Marsh

Randi McGinn

AKERMAN MIAMI

MCGINN MONTOYA LOVE & CURRY ALBUQUERQUE

Craig Martin

Patrick McGroder

JENNER CHICAGO

BEUS GILBERT PHOENIX

Katharine Martin

Mike McKool

WILSON SONSINI PALO ALTO

MCKOOL SMITH DALLAS

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

to run multiple trials and appeals at the same time. Our clients are a strong mix of new and long-term relationships, and we are fortunate in being able to select the cases we believe in.

LD: What you are doing with firm management and operations to promote efficiency and innovation?

PS: Our starting premise is that litigators are often good students of their clients, but rarely turn their analytical skills to their own profession. We have designed our firm from the ground up to allow our lawyers to practice at the highest levels, with upfront investments in technology and the training of all personnel, compensation structures that reward strategic thinking and collaboration, transparency of planning, data, and management, and relentless self-criticism to test how we can advance further.

cases. When inheriting a case in distress or on life-support, I know when to insist on perfection, and when not to make the perfect the enemy of the good. I also try to shut off the received learning in my own head and to resist the urge to quickly offer a clever solution in favor of really listening to my clients’ hopes, dreams, priorities and deep knowledge of the facts. That matters more than almost anything else in quickly setting the stage to amplify the best narrative and to achieve the best possible result.

FG: The breadth and sophistication of matters we are attracting exceeds my prior experience at QE and elsewhere. My view is that we will continue to have an almost even split of plaintiff and defense work, and that it will be spread across every conceivable substantive area including those where we had not anticipated a deep portfolio of cases in our first year such as intellectual property and bankruptcy.

PS: I would encourage younger lawyers not to underestimate what is possible, what can be learned, and what can be won. Extraordinary results require extraordinary commitment at many levels, but if you are willing to play a very long game – and systematically develop your talent, experience, and critical assessments of market developments and litigation opportunities – the landscape will open up before you. Trials are uniquely demanding because so many elements are in play. My own approach is to ask for very high levels of critical thinking from everyone on the trial team, to work together on a radical simplification of themes and points while mapping out every element of the case, to develop multiple parallel lines of attack and defense, and to ensure the integrity and credibility of every part of our proof. Of course, everything we do, from the first steps of preparing or answering a complaint onward, is shaped by the expectation of taking our cases to trial.

LD: How about with the fee structuring for clients so far, or what you expect to happen with that going forward?

LD: Did either of you have a particularly important mentor early in your career?

PS: We are open to any structure of interest to our clients.

FG: I didn’t have a single mentor. I did have a variety of adults – both in and outside law – who took an interest in me. Some of these folks were peers or just a few years ahead of me. Some were icons of the bar. I can’t think of a single person I’ve encountered that I haven’t learned from although I treasure examples of moral leadership over and above the fabulous tutoring I received in the substance and craft of trial law. Valerie Caproni, Nate Eimer and Rosemary Barkett all influenced my approach to the practice of law, and I still learn from them every time we cross paths.

LD: What did you learn at Quinn Emanuel that helps you predict where litigation business will come from in the future? What mix of work do you see shaping up now?

LD: The firm is starting out with a 50/50 gender split in name partners and management. Do you think this will enable you to avoid the gender disparity found at other firms and is this an important goal for the firm?

FG: It is a significant goal of our firm, and one that we think evolves naturally when we focus on merit and the qualities I have outlined above. We have a deep commitment to gender parity, and we intend to devote the resources necessary to meet that goal now and in the future. Our clients want it, the courts want it, and we want it. Without it, a firm cannot function at the highest level of excellence.

LD: How would you describe your style as a trial lawyer and what advice do you have for younger lawyers?

PS: I am still a student. Like Faith, I find that I continuously learn from others – something that I hope will never change. Paul Dodyk, Frank Barron and my wife Jennifer Selendy, who always loved the law, were important early mentors to me when I was a young associate at Cravath figuring out what I would make of this profession. (Jennifer Selendy also departed Quinn Emanuel and is managing partner of Selendy & Gay.)

FG: Much of my career has been devoted to making a way out of no way in handling allegedly unwinnable

LD: Can you name someone you’ve come up against in court that you admire, and why?

PS: I believe that one of the more direct ways to overcome bias is to share power. Our partnership and firm management is, and will be, egalitarian and fair.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

203

500

500 204

Christopher Meade

Matt Minner

BLACKROCK NEW YORK

HARE WYNN LEXINGTON, KY

Richard Meadow

Ted Mirvis

LANIER LAW FIRM HOUSTON

WACHTELL NEW YORK

Tom Melsheimer

Steve Molo

WINSTON & STRAWN DALLAS

MOLOLAMKEN NEW YORK

Roger Meltzer

Michael Mone

DLA NEW YORK

ESDAILE BARRETT BOSTON

Mark Mendelsohn

Michael Mone, Jr.

PAUL WEISS WASHINGTON, D.C.

ESDAILE BARRETT BOSTON

Jane Michaels

Mike Moore

HOLLAND & HART DENVER

MIKE MOORE LAW FIRM FLOWOOD, MISS.

Ed Micheletti

Thomas Moore

SKADDEN WILMINGTON

KRAMER DILOFF NEW YORK

Donald Migliori

Mark Morton

MOTLEY RICE MT. PLEASANT, S.C.

POTTER ANDERSON WILMINGTON

Betsy Miller

Francis Patrick Murphy

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C

CORBOY & DEMETRIO CHICAGO

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

PS: I like having intelligent and formidable adversaries, and there are many lawyers I respect and admire in our singular profession. A fair list would be a long one!

Two great examples from the last few years are Sharon Nelles at Sullivan, and Brad Karp at Paul Weiss, who both proved to be highly agile, thoughtful, and honest opponents in our FHFA wars.

FG: Bruce Zimet, one of the deans of the criminal defense bar in Florida. Bruce is the best “cold” crossexaminer I’ve ever seen. He can read a witness he’s never seen before and for whom he has little or no evidentiary clues. He knows exactly how far to go and how much risk to take simply by focusing exclusively on the essence of the person. He manages to convey respect for the witness on the stand while examining them within an inch of their life. He also reads the room so that he always leaves the jurors wanting more rather than dying of boredom or overkill.

LD: What is the firm’s philosophy for pro bono work?

Has a vision materialized, or do you imagine any particular types of emphasis?

FG: We see public interest litigation and pro bono service as a cornerstone of the profession and of our firm.

More to the point, the opportunity to provide worldclass service to all is the reason many of us practice law. Our lawyers will have the opportunity to serve the clients and interests that inspire their brilliant and creative advocacy. My particular interests are indigent and immigrant defense, access to education and health care, workplace equality, religious freedom and LGBT rights.

PS: The need is greater than ever for private, profitable law firms to make major contributions through pro bono work. We have been taking on certain significant pro bono matters already, since our February 15 launch, but we will greatly expand our efforts as we complete the project of building the foundations of the firm. We are open to all areas of pro bono of interest to our associates and partners, and we are particularly interested in public-impact litigation and related ways in which we can meaningfully leverage our power to advantage the public good.

LD: Faith, how did you come to help launch the American Immigration Representation Project? Can you share any information on how that is going in terms of being able to meet the demand that is out there?

FG: I read that U.S District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin was leaving the bench and returning to private practice.

I suggested to my friends and former partners Sheila Birnbaum and Kathleen Sullivan that we invite Judge Scheindlin to lunch to explore how we might work to-

gether in the private sector. During lunch, one of the things we discussed was how the private bar might help detained immigrants who are facing deportation without the assistance of counsel. That became AIRP, which is thriving in large part due to the dogged efforts of Judge Scheindlin. As I’m sure you know, the need is endless. Only a tiny fraction of detained immigrants have counsel to assist them in navigating one of the most complex areas of law. Having counsel in detention proceedings almost always produces a more positive and humane outcome.

LD: Philippe, it seems like some of your public interest work has had an environmental flavor, including your work for Vote Solar, which advocates for clean-energy policies and programs. Can you discuss how these interests emerged?

PS: Yes, I have a strong interest in environmental litigation, including work that advances sustainable energy; I see this as the foundation for our future. Equally, I would like to advance, through pro bono litigation or otherwise, cases that serve related public interests: for example, to help our democracy remain stable and renew itself with each generation, to protect educational opportunities and healthcare for children, to strengthen our middle class, and to keep our country’s historic but challenged openness to immigration.

LD: Do you think the demand for Selendy & Gay will overcome the one-office goal? Do you see a tension there and how do you plan to manage it?

FG: I won’t speak in absolutes but I can share our aspiration: We want to be in one place as a professional and intellectual community practicing law together. We think that better serves clients and makes for a much more satisfying professional life. My vote would be to constrain demand before I would materially alter that model LD: When thinking about the one-year anniversary of your launch, what are some benchmarks you need to hit to say: “This has been a true success”?

FG: First and foremost, satisfaction by all of our clients that we have fully addressed their needs and added value to their most treasured enterprises. Separately, I want every lawyer in our firm to develop personally and professionally in ways they could not have imagined before joining our firm. If we can accomplish these two objectives all other metrics will follow.

PS: I would like our clients, associates, and partners to agree we are redefining state-of-the-art as well as professional responsibility with a litigation shop that we are all proud to call our own.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

205

Salvatore Graziano BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ (NEW YORK)

500

SALVATORE GRAZIANO LOOK NO FURTHER THAN SALVATORE

Graziano to find the type of veteran litigator that has allowed founding partner Max Berger to develop and maintain the nation’s most renowned securities litigation firm. The son of immigrant parents and a New Yorker to his core, Graziano has spent his entire career pursuing wrongdoing, first as an assistant district attorney in Manhattan. Joining Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann after government service was a natural move for Graziano, who has helped recover billions of dollars for investors while providing a measure of accountability for corporate misconduct.

Lawdragon: Can you discuss some of the cases that are taking up your time this year?

Salvatore Graziano: This year, I, along with numerous others at my firm, have spent a significant amount of time working on the Wells Fargo securities litigation (Gary Hefler et al. v. Wells Fargo & Company) pending in the Northern District of California. Representing lead plaintiff Union Asset Management Holding on behalf of a class of Wells Fargo shareholders, we successfully opposed defendants’ numerous motions to dismiss, with U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar upholding our complaint and refusing to dismiss the bulk of our allegations against the bank and its former and current executives. Thereafter, Union reached a proposed classaction settlement of $480 million with the defendants, subject to final approval by the District Court, which would represent the fourth-largest recovery ever in the Ninth Circuit. Considering the substantial risks we would have faced in continued litigation and at trial, including proving loss causation and demonstrating damages, it is an excellent recovery.

Among other cases, in contrast to the proposed resolution of the Wells Fargo case, our litigation against SunEdison, Inc. (In re SunEdison, Inc. Securities litigation) pending in the Southern District of New York, continues apace.

Briefly one of the largest renewable energy companies in the world, we allege that SunEdison’s former officers, directors and underwriters misled investors concerning the Company’s financial condition, including through a preferred share offering raising $650 million at $1,000 per share, less than one year before being worth zero after SunEdison’s bankruptcy filing. The case is a tough fight and has proceeded to a fully briefed motion for class certification and merits discovery with numerous depositions scheduled through the early fall of 2018.

PHOTO BY: LAURA BARISONZI

BY JOHN RYAN LD: Could you share your view on current trends and the state of the securities litigation practice?

SG: The state of our firm’s practice is, and has always been, highly unpredictable. There are economic research firms out there who run the numbers and attempt to find meaning and trends each year, but these analyses do not predict much and are often merely a summary of the most recent prior events. We react to fraud, and while we have been doing this a long time and put very significant resources into monitoring the markets for misconduct, we are always surprised by what we find. The wrongdoing takes many forms – from accounting gimmickry, to deceptive and anti-shareholder business practices, to brazen self-dealing in the boardroom, to outright lying regarding a company’s financial reporting. Corporate insiders are constantly developing new ways to try and get around the laws which keeps the field dynamic and interesting for a litigator.

Judges who have seen enough of these cases tend to see the misconduct and perhaps become inured to the various nature of some of it so, at times, it can be a challenge demonstrating to them how each case is unique, with important distinctions in the specific fact patterns. Interestingly, lay juries who have less “experience” with these cases accept them as standalone cases and typically see the fraud at work quite clearly even absent insider selling or other expected checklist items.

LD: Do you expect any shifting of trends with respect to the types of claims filed or the industries targeted?

SG: If I could predict any of those trends, I would be a far better investor. There is no crystal ball to any of this in my experience. We are forced to keep our monitoring of the markets as comprehensive and rigorous as possible for exactly that reason.

LD: Has the current administration’s overall view towards regulation affected access to the courts?

SG: So far it has not come to pass, but the rhetoric is as threatening as it’s ever been, and the risk is high. It is quite remarkable. Some members of SEC and Treasury staff have stated positions in favor of eliminating investors’ rights to sue for violations of the securities laws in favor of forced arbitration. The Trump Administration has endorsed a bill to roll back parts of Dodd Frank which looks to me like a solution in search of a problem.

Corporate profits and the market are at all-time highs. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it? The President has also asked the SEC to study reducing quarterly earnings report-

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

207

500

500 208

Scott Musoff

Wayne Outten

SKADDEN NEW YORK

OUTTEN & GOLDEN NEW YORK

Henry Nassau

Brian Panish

DECHERT NEW YORK

PANISH SHEA LOS ANGELES

Daniel Neff

Aaron Panner

WACHTELL NEW YORK

KELLOGG HANSEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Jerry Neuman

Robin Panovka

DLA LOS ANGELES

WACHTELL NEW YORK

David Nevin

Jackie Park

NEVIN BENJAMIN BOISE, IDAHO

DLA LOS ANGELES

Luke Nikas

C. Allen Parker

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

WELLS FARGO SAN FRANCISCO

Sean O’Shea

Stephanie Parker

BOIES SCHILLER NEW YORK

JONES DAY ATLANTA

Regina Olshan

Kirk Pasich

SKADDEN NEW YORK

PASICH LOS ANGELES

Kevin J. Orsini

Michael Paskin

CRAVATH NEW YORK

CRAVATH NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

ing to twice a year and even The Wall Street Journal editorial page – no friend to regulation – has spoken out against that. The head of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB), Mick Mulvaney, told bankers in an amazingly brazen moment that, as a congressman, his position was: “If you’re a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you. If you’re a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you.” So the rhetoric and the spirit of the ideas coming from government is indeed in a new and worrying place. We must remain vigilant to protect investor access to the courts.

LD: Is morale at a low point in the investor community?

SG: Morale is not low. Investors are by nature optimistic and, if anything, not sufficiently concerned about the risks ahead. Corporate profits and stock markets are at all-time highs, and the business lobby is actively calling for – and obtaining – further deregulation of corporate conduct and the elimination of key investor protections.

The last two times we experienced this dangerous mix – in 2000 and 2008 – we saw an explosion in corporate fraud and the market indices cut in half. Did the dotcom and subprime crises teach us nothing?

LD: Have you come to any conclusions about the likelihood of another dramatic event in the market?

SG: No. It’s the right question to be asking, but while the signs are concerning to me, events always seem to surprise.

LD: Going back to the start of your career, why did you want to become a DA, and when?

SG: My public path emerged as a result of an intensive third-year law school clinic where I practiced criminal law. It was entirely unexpected, but, in hindsight, how I really learned to understand what judges needed to know and what jurors expected to see at trial. It was a crash course on litigation that cannot be replicated any place else.

LD: How did this lead you to a private practice focusing on securities litigation?

SG: I began my career as a criminal prosecutor. Upon leaving that office it seemed strange to me to start defending companies and individuals accused of wrongdoing. Not that there is anything wrong with that at all, it just seemed natural to me to keep going after wrongdoers. Practicing securities litigation on behalf of investors has been the right fit for me and a wonderful experience. As a private prosecutor, I feel that I am playing a meaningful role being involved with important civil cases that the government would not have sufficient resources to focus on.

LD: What do you like about this type of work? What has kept you at it over the years?

SG: I like holding wrongdoers accountable. I think the world presents everyone with plenty of obstacles and imbalances and it is gratifying to address misconduct and perhaps make a small difference in checking abuses of power. I love the challenge of proving our cases. It is very difficult – they are more complex than a straightforward criminal case and conveying their facts and import to judges and juries requires serious preparation and the appropriate presentation. Because our cases always involve different industries and subjects, we must learn and master new materials and this keeps the work fresh and engaging. And of course I enjoy the challenge of facing off against the best of the private bar. Unless you bring yourself to the expert level of your adversary, you will not be successful.

LD: Why did you join Bernstein Litowitz in 2006?

SG: I joined Bernstein Litowitz in 2006 because I considered the firm the best of the bar. Over time, working with my excellent colleagues, my view on that has never changed. Our senior founding partner Max Berger sets the tone with his unparalleled commitment to excellence and integrity and it is very gratifying to be a part of this team. It’s also humbling and motivating to join an enterprise that was already outstanding and work to maintain and improve upon it. I know we are always trying to, and I hope that we are achieving it.

LD: You did both your undergrad and law school in the City. Are you a life-long New Yorker or did you come here for school?

SG: I am a lifelong New Yorker, raised by immigrant parents. I did not learn to speak English until attending public school in New York City and I could not imagine living anywhere else. I live near a federal courthouse in NYC and see many people lining up for their naturalization hearing, as my parents once did. I can point them to the building before they finish asking me where it is. I hope their children continue to have the same opportunities I had 50 years ago.

LD: What do you do away from the office – whether for time with family and friends or community activities?

SG: I love to travel. I have two teenage daughters and my wife and I have taken them to every country in the world on our bucket list. I wonder how it will affect them. One of my daughters traveled alone to Europe as a minor and I asked her if she was fine doing that.

Her response was, “Why not, it’s just a six-hour flight.”

I like that.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

209

David Rievman (NEW YORK)

Jamie Boucher

Karen Hoffman Lent (NEW YORK)

Jeremy London

(WASHINGTON D.C.)

(WASHINGTON D.C.)

Donald Vieira

Heather Cruz

(WASHINGTON D.C.)

(NEW YORK)

500

JAMIE BOUCHER, HEATHER CRUZ, KAREN HOFFMAN LENT, JEREMY LONDON, DAVID RIEVMAN AND DONALD VIEIRA OF SKADDEN ON THE EVOLVING REGULATORY LANDSCAPE

BY JOHN RYAN

TODAY, IT SEEMS, THE ONLY THING CERTAIN

which we would not have anticipated such scrutiny being an issue under the prior administration. While in previous years, the risk of a having an injunction sought against a vertical merger would have been small; this year, we saw deals such as AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner challenged in court by the Department of Justice.

The current volatility observed in seemingly every arena has placed even greater importance on the advice of experienced, forward-thinking and innovative counsel. We spoke with David Rievman, tax partner and head of the firm’s regulatory practices globally; Karen Hoffman Lent, head of antitrust/competition in New York; Jeremy London, a Washington, D.C.-based M&A partner; Heather Cruz, a New York partner who represents investment advisors and investment banks; Jamie Boucher, head of the firm’s Financial Institutions Regulatory & Enforcement Group from Washington, D.C.; and CFIUS and national security partner Don Vieira, also D.C.-based.

Karen Hoffman Lent: We’re observing a continuation of the Obama level of enforcement and have been given no clear indication as to whether we can expect a decrease in intensity. On the antitrust front, typically we predict less significant antitrust regulation and more of a pro-business bent from a Republican administration.

is uncertainty. That was the clear consensus from a group of Skadden’s leading regulatory experts who came together to discuss the current regulatory environment and its impact on practices from mergers and acquisitions to CFIUS, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

From the unexpected – the challenge of the AT&T merger with Time Warner – to the predictable – decreased enforcement from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) – these lawyers who have seen it all explain the impact of uncertain times on lawyering and their experiences in successfully navigating such an environment.

Lawdragon: Can you begin by describing the current regulatory landscape and how it is impacting your clients?

David Rievman: Most attorneys across our firm have not observed the decrease in regulatory oversight or government enforcement activity that was expected with the change of administration. Instead, clients are seeking guidance to help navigate this extremely partisan environment in which the government’s agenda could quickly change.

Jeremy London: In the M&A arena, we’ve had to increasingly focus on whether a deal might be challenged or met with litigation, even for situations in

PHOTOS OF DAVID RIEVMAN, KAREN HOFFMAN LENT, JAMIE BOUCHER AND HEATHER CRUZ BY DAVE CROSS; DONALD VIEIRA AND JEREMY LONDON BY ELI MEIR KAPLAN.

Jamie Boucher: Anti-money laundering and economic sanctions activities also have continued and, in some cases, increased in recent months, in part because of congressional pressure to use sanctions and the threat of secondary sanctions against nonU.S. entities. Russia is considering and the EU has a blocking statute similar to our anti-boycott laws, to counter the U.S.’s sanctions programs. This raises conflict of law issues for clients doing business across borders.

On the other hand, there has been a decrease in enforcement on the consumer financial services side, because the CFPB is not as active under the Trump administration. This has led state financial services agencies and state AGs to become more active, to fill what they perceive as a void in consumer protection oversight.

Don Vieira: I echo what has been said: The current government has been more aggressive in its approach to national security and trade concerns than expected. Three years ago, Chinese inbound FDI [foreign direct investment] to the United States was skyrocketing month to month, with huge deals happening that were effectively and successfully able to navigate the CFIUS process. Today, we see the CFIUS process being leveraged, with bipartisan support in Congress, by the administration and national security

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

211

500

500 agencies in new ways to limit Chinese investment in the U.S. At the same time, the number of non-Chinese entities that are seeking to shift some of their investments to the United States is increasing, possibly because they perceive the U.S. FDI market to be less expensive than when they were competing with very high offers from Chinese entities.

Heather Cruz: Our investment management group increasingly is collaborating with Don and the firm’s national security/CFIUS team when advising clients on raising private funds. For fundraising vehicles that feature investors from multiple international countries, we now must ask whether the presence of these investors might cause the fund to have limitations on what it can invest in, as a result of national security implications.

LD: Don, having worked on some of these national security issues from within the government, from your perspective is the current government activity you just described unprecedented?

Vieira: Yes. CFIUS and other trade tools have been at the disposal of our executive branch for a while, but they are country-neutral; in other words, they’re not tools that were designed solely to address U.S. relations with China. Nevertheless, we are seeing the CFIUS process applied at a greater scale right now and much more broadly than ever before, and with specific focus on curtailing Chinese investment in the U.S. The U.S. government also has expanded the scope of what it considers to be a significant national security concern, and we have seen this play out during CFIUS reviews. We’re well beyond only considering investments into areas involving assets like missiles, bombs and defense work — instead, for example, personally identifiable personnel information, the physical location of real estate and the existence of software on international data networks now can factor into the issues that regulators evaluate when analyzing a proposed transaction.

LD: And, more broadly, does this high level of uncertainty with regard to the administration’s agenda feel unprecedented, as well?

Rievman: Some of the uncertainty we are experiencing is due to the volume of key decision-making positions that remain unfilled in the current administration.

Without the ability to consider the agendas of specific individuals, it is difficult to discern what are and will be the policy objectives of the regulatory agencies.

That said, in the tax arena specifically, the uncertainty has much more to do with questions raised by the

212

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

far-reaching 2017 Tax Act and with questions around the “stability” of the new rules than with unfilled positions in the administration. IRS and Treasury are fully engaged in the process of promulgating guidance on the new tax law provisions, but it is a massive exercise, and a large number of policy and technical decisions need to be made. And since it is already affecting taxpayers, there is tremendous time pressure to issue guidance and to get it right. Because tax planning or business planning — like the decision to locate a new plant in or outside the U.S. — takes a lot of lead time and has significant long-term consequences, uncertainty in the stability of the new regime is a very big deal. These things don’t turn on a dime, and as a result I think we’ve seen many businesses proceed quite cautiously.

Boucher: The U.S. isn’t the only jurisdiction experiencing and contributing to this uncertainty — Brexit and global trade issues are additional factors impacting many of our practices, including tax and financial regulation. The increased tensions among the U.S., Europe and other allies is unprecedented in terms of what I have experienced historically in my practice. The U.S.’ unilateral decision to step out of the Iran agreement has consequences for other allies whose businesses have reengaged in that country and are now facing the risk of U.S.-imposed secondary sanctions.

LD: Following up on Jamie’s statement that the U.S. is not the only country contributing to an environment of uncertainty, can you discuss the global regulatory landscape and how it is impacting your clients and practices?

Cruz: The increasingly global nature of the regulatory overlay is one of the biggest recent changes I have observed as a private fund lawyer. When I started my career, the main areas of focus were the SEC and the Advisers Act. Now regulatory regimes in Europe, Asia and the Middle East are more active, and clients wishing to offer their private fund globally must consider how to navigate multiple jurisdictions’ regulations from the outset of product development.

Despite these new considerations, we are still seeing an increased level of private fund formation. Capital is being raised, and it will be sitting on the sidelines when the market moves in one direction or another.

Lent: Enforcement and merger review across the world has become more complex and involved. It used to be that the U.S. and the EU were the primary jurisdictions of concern when assessing the

500

competitive impact of transactions. Over the past year, China has become much more aggressive in its review of mergers and application of theories of competition, and new competition agencies are emerging and beginning to assert authority in other locations around the globe. The ASEAN jurisdictions (Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia, Vietnam, Philippines, Myanmar, Indonesia, Laos, Brunei) have all been ramping up their competition enforcement, establishing regimes and regulators where previously there were none, and improving and strengthening those regimes that already existed. In particular, merger control and enforcement in Singapore, the Philippines and Vietnam has become more stringent lately. These jurisdictions are expected to become more active in policing local conduct as well, which has long lagged in the region.

Treasury guidance and possibly corrective legislation.

There is a tremendous burden on U.S. and non-U.S. corporations to understand and comply with the new law, wrestle with its ambiguities, model its impact on their ongoing operations, understand potential planning pitfalls and opportunities, and identify where it may make sense to restructure. This has resource implications as well.

Vieira: We’re seeing something similar in the national security space. Historically, the United Stated has taken the lead, through CFIUS, among Western countries in evaluating the national security concerns raised by FDI. Though the British and French have always had processes of their own, they have not utilized it as aggressively as the United States. In recent months, however, we have started to see a greater interest among even more Western nations, not only France and the U.K. but also Canada and Australia, in policing FDI through increased national security reviews.

Lent: Clients whose businesses are becoming increasingly international now need to be cognizant of global regulatory implications, beyond those in the U.S., that hadn’t been on their radar when they were focused domestically. As corporate entities extend their global platforms, their foreign conduct at times is subject to U.S. regulation, depending on whether it is directed toward or has a substantial effect in the U.S., as well as the oversight of other jurisdictions’ regulatory bodies. I have seen examples of this among my many clients in the professional sports world — the NBA is doing a lot more business in China, and the NFL is having games in London and Mexico.

LD: Jeremy, on the deal side, is this environment affecting dealmaking?

London: My general sense is that the trade war, increased tariffs and the 2018 midterms, among other issues, have affected deal activity. While businesses are still thinking about innovative ways to increase their bottom lines, companies appear to be taking a more conservative approach to strategic decisionmaking. Instead of swinging for the fences on M&A right now, clients appear to be focusing on steadily hitting singles and doubles for the near term. There also are added considerations for cross-border M&A as a result of U.S. tax reform, such as where to domicile the surviving entity and how to structure the combined enterprise’s supply chain.

LD: What are some of the other specific areas in which regulatory developments or implications have created new issues for clients?

Rievman: The 2017 changes to the U.S. tax code are far-reaching and there are many crucial aspects that will need to be further interpreted through IRS and

Boucher: I would also mention the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation. It assigns penalties for data breaches that, because they’re tied to global revenues, are very significant. “Data” is very broad — including what you’re writing on your notebook and what’s in your computer — so now we must ensure that both our client interactions as well as the guidance we give them on specific matters are compliant with this new piece of legislation.

Brexit has added an additional layer of antitrust review. Companies cannot solely consider how the EU competition authority will view their deal, but also now must contemplate how the U.K. might weigh the transaction. It remains to be seen what the mechanism will be for review in the U.K. and what the policy priorities will be.

Boucher: And as a result of Brexit, global financial institutions now have to decide where they are going to domicile and must determine whether they will need to be separately licensed in the United Kingdom. Germany, France and Ireland are actively courting a number of U.K. lending-based investors.

Deciding whether to re-domicile has practical, human considerations based on a city’s infrastructure, as well as regulatory implications to consider.

LD: What about Dodd-Frank issues? There seemed to be some excitement around potential reform, which was followed by a lack of satisfaction with what’s been proposed. Where are we at now?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

213

500

500 David Rievman and Heather Cruz

Boucher: On the one hand, regulators have what they consider to be legitimate concerns — to ensure that financial institutions and systematically important participants in the system are adequately capitalized in the event of another financial crisis. At the same time, when you look at the level of assets at which congressional requirements should kick in, most of the focus thus far has been on the community and regional banks, which feel overburdened as a consequence of issues primarily associated with much larger asset class financial institutions. This tension has resulted in significant partisanship in Congress about what degree of reform is needed, and it has become very difficult to move new legislation forward.

Cruz: It’s very similar from a Volcker Rule perspective. In May of this year the Federal Reserve Board solicited comments on a proposal to simplify and tailor compliance requirements of the Volcker Rule.

The proposal contained over 400 questions and solicited 163 responses from the industry. However, to date we have not seen the agencies adopt any form of these proposed simplifications to the Volcker Rule.

214

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

LD: To tackle another big topic: It seems like a lot of your clients are dealing with a complex nexus of issues related to technology, data privacy, cybersecurity and even possibly espionage. How do you help your clients navigate these complicated, evolving issues?

Vieira: The firm provides cybersecurity incident response and crisis management advice on how to navigate these sensitive issues, often prior to an actual incident, but also in response to standard cybersecurity- and cybercrime-related events. That said, many of our clients are sophisticated companies that already have significant investments in defending their systems and usually can deal with day-to-day cyber issues on their own. With these clients, we advise on matters of increased complexity and sensitivity, many involving nation-state actors who have the resources and capabilities to penetrate sophisticated defenses.

In these situations, we also help manage the resulting engagement with the U.S. government or foreign governments that are sometimes implicated.

London: Cybersecurity due diligence also has become a big part of the advice we provide on M&A transactions, because cybersecurity issues are inher-

PHOTO BY DAVE CROSS

500

ited when one company buys another. As Don said, many of our clients have become very sophisticated about cyber issues and expect a heightened level of sophistication from their counsel — regardless of the focus of their practice. Boards are proactively raising the issue of cybersecurity contingency planning more often, already with a detailed understanding of what this means and what systems and processes they have in place.

Vieira: I agree. We often are enlisted at the behest of the board, the general counsel, the CEO or some combination of them to help plan for the future. That often involves walking through mock scenarios along with their incident response personnel and outside security vendors.

Cruz: Our private fund clients also are increasingly focused on cybersecurity. From the institutional investor perspective, when they’re conducting operational due diligence, they want to understand what systems are in place to address data privacy concerns. Similarly, there is a need to know how the cybersecurity standards of a fund’s service providers have been vetted and what due diligence has been implemented. All of these proactive inquiries help our clients be prepared should an actual cyber incident occur.

Boucher: This due diligence process with regard to potential investors goes beyond a cybersecurity inquiry. Our clients also want to make certain that none of their potential co-investors is subject to U.S. economic sanctions or are from a jurisdiction where there’s a high degree of corruption and money laundering.

LD: Karen, what about from the competition angle — are your clients facing new challenges associated with technological innovation, and what might that mean for competition in an industry?

Lent: In the EU, and to some extent in China, there has been more aggressive enforcement based on innovation theories of merger control, where a company’s research and development efforts might generate a result that appears anti-competitive. We have seen the European Commission rely on innovation and R&D theories to drive major divestiture decisions in global deals, such as the Dow/DuPont merger and GE’s acquisition of Alstom’s power and grid business. Issues involving conglomerate effects also have played an outsized role in certain cases, including in high-tech industries where a strong position in a “neighboring” market rather than a strict horizontal

PHOTO BY ELI MEIR KAPLAN

Donald Vieira

overlap or vertical relationship has led to remedies for global transactions that received unconditional approval in the U.S. (such as the now-defunct Qualcomm/NXP transaction). Historically, the U.S. government has focused more on whether a proposed merger may result in a company obtaining too high of a market share and less on issues that arise from innovation, data and technology.

LD: Jamie, getting back to the topic of sanctions, does this stand out as a substantially more active time than years prior?

Boucher: Absolutely. Congressional legislation in response to concerns about Russian election tampering and the use of the Global Magnitsky Act, which is a tool that we’re seeing used by the government to designate individuals for human rights abuses and corruption, has resulted in increased sanctions. Both Russia and Iran are very large economies, so navigating those issues can be very involved and nuanced, particularly because Russia is now responding with blocking statutes that prohibit companies that are active in Russia from complying with the U.S. sanctions. The last round of individuals designated under

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

215

500

500 tingencies as clients are facing right now, day-to-day operations can be affected if there isn’t a careful plan for how to allocate internal resources. As a result, companies are increasing their focus on diversifying their risks. For example, businesses have committed substantial resources to model the effects of the new tax law on their ongoing operations and on proposed mergers, acquisitions and divestitures. Under the new law, such transactions can potentially impact the business’ tax position in significant and unexpected ways.

These exercises are complex, and often require businesses to run multiple scenarios to take into account alternative outcomes with respect to ambiguous or unaddressed aspects of the new law. This can be an intricate and time-consuming exercise.

London: The increasing importance of the diversification of risk has impacted the dealmaking environment. For clients that would have pursued an M&A transaction alone three or four years ago, we now might discuss with them structuring the deal as a joint venture, thereby sharing the risk while still advancing their specific business goals.

Jeremy London

the Global Magnitsky Act were identified because of alleged corruption; and with respect to other jurisdictions, certain Burmese generals, for example, have been included because of human rights abuses.

This means that, short of actually finding someone guilty of corruption in a court of law or through an investigative proceeding, the U.S. government now has the tools to impose penalties through designation — their assets are frozen and U.S. persons can’t conduct business with them.

Cruz: Sanctions also are a focus from a private funds perspective because of the issues they raise when a fund is considering deploying capital in a particular jurisdiction. Our investment management practice works very closely with Jamie and others to understand whether a particular investment by the fund is permissible and whether the fund can accept capital from a particular investor.

LD: For most of your clients, it sounds as if you constantly have to engage in multilevel contingency planning, anticipating different scenarios?

Rievman: Contingency planning has always been important, but when there are as many different con-

216

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Vieira: Understanding and addressing CFIUS risk has become a more critical part of navigating the deal process. As a result, we are often engaged by the board and the highest levels of management to work with investment bankers and others to develop transaction scenarios aimed at maximizing value in a manner that addresses that risk.

LD: Let’s go deeper into how the different disciplines at Skadden work together. Do you consider the regulatory landscape through the lens of a particular client matter, collaborating across practices as needed? Or, do you first form multidisciplinary groups to tackle the implications of regulatory changes?

London: I think there’s a bit of both. Often, when we identify a new regulatory development as one that may potentially impact our clients, we assemble across practices to determine which clients will be affected and in what ways, and how proactively to educate them and advise them on how to prepare and respond. Similarly, when clients come to us for advice in a particular area or on a specific transaction, we often mobilize a global, cross-practice team to provide guidance that addresses all of the regulatory issues implicated by the underlying matter.

M&A, for example, brings all the regulatory disciplines to bear, both as a diligence matter and as a forward-looking planning matter. So all members of the regulatory teams, together with the lead transac-

PHOTO BY ELI MEIR KAPLAN

500

Karen Hoffman Lent and Jamie Boucher

tional lawyers, work on the project and coordinate their analyses.

Cruz: For our investment advisory clients, our global network is essential, as they must consider the implications of the often-global regulatory regimes in which they operate as an investment adviser as well as the multifaceted tax and regulatory regimes their funds face as buyers and sellers of portfolio companies across the globe.

Boucher: On the financial institutions compliance and enforcement side, for example, we might work on a matter involving a non-U.S. company that is cooperating in an investigation with a variety of different government agencies. Our proposed solutions often require a global, cross-practice team to ensure compliance with local law pertaining to data protection and banking secrecy, among others.

Lent: Different regulatory bodies have different priorities, and a transaction might have an easier time obtaining regulatory approval in one jurisdiction than another. Our clients are able to access a global network of antitrust and competition attorneys, as well as our unparalleled M&A team, subject matter

PHOTO BY DAVE CROSS

specialists — including tax, investment management, CFIUS and national security — and deep bench of litigators. In each of our locations, we have teams with extensive experience before each of the key regulators. This makes a huge difference both for merger control, where a global deal might have filings in 20 jurisdictions, and for cartel advice, where companies must often consider the implications of conduct (and leniency) in various countries around the world, given that regulators increasingly cooperate among jurisdictions.

Rievman: Our mandate is to ensure that our clients make decisions that reflect a correct understanding of the facts on the ground and how these facts are applied within the complex, and evolving, worldwide regulatory landscape. Increasingly, there isn’t much precedent to apply to a particular set of circumstances and assess the risks imposed by new regulatory controls. Excellent judgment, the depth of our capabilities across practices and regions, and the collective experience of the firm — which includes that of former government officials who were involved in developing many of the regulations we touched upon today — become critically important.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

217

Rachel Skaistis CRAVATH (NEW YORK)

500

RACHEL SKAISTIS THE PATH TO BECOMING A TOP INVESTIGATIONS

lawyer – one of the hottest practices on the planet right now – typically involves years as a federal prosecutor and then a move to a leading firm. That’s not the road traveled by Rachel Skaistis, who started out as a newspaper reporter in Fort Worth, clerked in the Manhattan DA’s office and then joined Cravath.

She assumed she’d leave to get those prosecution credentials. Instead, she took a year to clerk for renowned jurist Shira Scheindlin, returned to Cravath and has been leading the defense of global corporates ever since.

She’s currently defending Novartis Pharmaceuticals in a qui tam action and recently argued and won a motion to dismiss a shareholder derivative lawsuit against Qualcomm executives in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

One of her biggest matters to date was helping Telia settle a vast Foreign Corrupt Practices Act investigation without being required to hire a compliance monitor.

She’s also a leading public interest and diversity advocate.

She was honored by Sanctuary for Families for her work on a legal brief on domestic violence issues that must be considered in Hague Convention abduction cases and is currently representing an Innocence Project exoneree who had been wrongfully arrested and convicted, despite having no involvement in the relevant crimes, in litigation against the City and State of New York.

Lawdragon: What drew you into the legal industry originally?

Rachel Skaistis: Before law school, I worked as a reporter for a daily newspaper in Texas. For most of that time, I was assigned to cover crime stories, and I really enjoyed working with law enforcement officers and doing what I could to help crime victims and their families. I decided to go to law school to become a state prosecutor; I saw it as a more direct way to be part of the criminal justice process, and not just primarily an observer of the process.

LD: And how did you end up at Cravath?

RS: Good question; this is definitely not what I had in mind when I went to law school.

I spent my first year summer at the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and absolutely loved it. For my second summer, I figured that since I planned to spend my career as a prosecutor, I should try a law firm just to see what it was all about. I really didn’t know the first thing about law firms. I come from a family of doctors,

PHOTO BY: LAURA BARISONZI

BY KATRINA DEWEY so law – and especially corporate law – was all new to me. As it turned out, I enjoyed firm work just as much as the DA’s office, so I decided to join Cravath after graduation. But, even then, I still imagined I would leave Cravath after a few years for a state or federal prosecutor job. Clearly, that never happened. I was working hard, learning every single day from amazing lawyers and extremely happy. At some point I realized that Cravath was where I wanted to stay. Period.

LD: You have a fascinating practice in the investigations area. How did you come to focus on investigations?

RS: About 10 years ago, I became involved in my first matter before the SEC. It was an investigation by the agency into a client’s accounting practices. I found the work different and challenging, and was able to use all the litigation skills I had worked hard to develop during my generalist training at Cravath, but in a new way. Since then, my practice has focused in large part on investigations work, including government, board and internal investigations, although I always try to keep some traditional litigation work in the mix.

LD: What do you find rewarding about the investigations space and what are some of the major challenges?

RS: Both traditional litigation and investigations involve a mix of skills – legal analysis, fact analysis, creativity, judgment, pragmatism and common sense.

What I find both rewarding and challenging about investigations is that they tend to require a heavier dose of things like pragmatism and common sense.

We are generally not in an area where there is much legal precedent to rely upon.

Investigations also require a great deal of balancing.

We need to conduct a thorough investigation to ensure that we have unearthed all material relevant facts, but we also need to be aware that our clients’ resources are finite and that there is a difference between finding out every single fact, and finding those facts that are important to a board or management determination. Another example of balancing is figuring out how to interact with regulators. You generally want to help regulators gather and understand the facts, but you also want to be a strong advocate for your client.

LD: What role does a white collar/investigations practice play at a firm like Cravath?

RS: I think it plays exactly the same role as our other practice areas. We are a full-service firm, and when

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

219

500

500 220

Brian Pastuszenski

Steven Quattlebaum

GOODWIN NEW YORK

QUATTLEBAUM GROOMS LITTLE ROCK

Kathy Patrick

John Quinn

GIBBS & BRUNS HOUSTON

QUINN EMANUEL LOS ANGELES

Harriet Pearson

Patrick Quinn

HOGAN LOVELLS WASHINGTON, D.C.

CADWALADER NEW YORK

Luis Penalver

Intisar Rabb

CAHILL GORDON NEW YORK

HARVARD LAW SCHOOL CAMBRIDGE

Kathleen Flynn Peterson

Vered Rabia

ROBINS KAPLAN MINNEAPOLIS

SKADDEN NEW YORK

Stacy Phillips

Brian Ratner

BLANK ROME LOS ANGELES

HAUSFELD WASHINGTON, D.C.

Jonathan Polkes

Ricky Raven

WEIL GOTSHAL NEW YORK

REED SMITH HOUSTON

Karen Popp

Noelle Reed

SIDLEY WASHINGTON, D.C.

SKADDEN HOUSTON

Joseph A. Power

Thomas Reid

POWER ROGERS & SMITH CHICAGO

DAVIS POLK NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

our clients face situations that require internal investigations – or are facing investigations by regulators – we want to provide them with the best quality legal representation in these areas.

Because investigations can come in a variety of forms, we do find ourselves collaborating with our partners in many other practice areas, including our corporate and tax partners.

In fact, our approach to investigations is fundamentally interdisciplinary. And our core white collar team is comprised of both litigators, most of whom have significant government experience, as well as corporate advisory lawyers.

I think another thing we do that is relatively unique in the investigations space, but consistent with the general approach Cravath takes in all its practice areas, is that we staff our investigations very leanly. That way each person on any given investigation is really an expert in the facts and circumstances of the matter.

When I make a presentation to a board or a regulator, I like to be able to say, “I sat there with the person and heard about this experience myself, and I found it credible for the following reasons.” If my audience has questions, I can usually answer them directly. And if I don’t know the answer, one of the people sitting next to me definitely does.

LD: On the back of the group’s work this year, are there any particular trends you have noticed?

Although Telia ended up paying a substantial fine, the authorities did not impose a monitor, something that was very important to our client.

These types of global joint investigations are likely to become increasingly common, and I feel fortunate to have had this early experience.

LD: Are there particular lawyers who have mentored you at Cravath or in the legal industry generally?

RS: If I gave you a list of all the Cravath lawyers who have mentored me during my career – and who continue to mentor me – I would be like one of the actors at the Academy Awards whose speech is so long they start playing music. I am thankful every day for the caliber of lawyers I work with both at the partner and associate level.

Outside the firm, my clerkship with Judge Shira Scheindlin was also a formative part of my career. She is an incredible legal mind and talent and it was an honor to serve in her Chambers.

LD: You are also a member of the Firm’s Office of General Counsel, Co-Chair of the Firm’s Diversity Committee and active in a number of public interest efforts, including serving as a firm liaison officer for the Montefiore Children’s Hospital and the Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital. What about these efforts drives you to go the extra mile?

RS: I consider the firm-related work part of my responsibility as a Cravath partner. We all take on different roles here, and I have been able to focus on issues for the Firm that I care deeply about.

RS: Foreign Corrupt Practices Act cases continue to be a high-growth area, along with cases involving sanctions and money laundering. There is also an increased number of monitorships, which grow out of FCPA and other types of enforcement actions – Cravath is handling the monitorship of the Takata airbag recall, for example.

As for the pro bono work, I think that is part of my more general responsibility as a lawyer – and perhaps a way to satisfy the desire to do public service that led me to choose law school in the first place.

LD: You have had a broad litigation practice over the course of your career. Tell us about a recent investigation you’ve worked on that stands out in your mind.

LD: What are your other interests outside of work?

How do you maintain balance with your responsibilities to your clients?

RS: From approximately March 2014 through September 2017, my partner Dave Stuart and I represented Telia, a Swedish telecommunications company, in connection with corruption investigations by the U.S., Dutch and Swedish authorities.

RS: I am a firm believer that to be a good and effective lawyer, you have to have an outside life. Nothing makes me happier than spending time with my family, and especially my three children, who help put everything in perspective.

It was incredibly interesting work in light of the number of jurisdictions involved, the facts at issue and certain legal questions that arose during the course of the investigation. We worked closely with Telia’s Swedish and Dutch counsel, and had meetings, including joint meetings, with U.S., Dutch and Swedish authorities.

I am also pretty devoted to fitness; I run or train several mornings a week. It helps clear my head and get me set for the day. It is also a terrific opportunity to spend time with people who work in other professions.

When you spend all day every day with lawyers, the occasional break is not a bad thing.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

221

500

500 Thomas Demetrio CORBOY & DEMETRIO (CHICAGO) 222

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

THOMAS DEMETRIO THERE IS A GR ACE IN SYM ME TRY, a poetry in a life incredibly well-lived. And electricity when the wisdom of the past illuminates an unknown future.

Corboy & Demetrio founding partner Thomas A. Demetrio at 71 is one of the country’s most renowned lawyers, and privately one of its most reflective. He’s been famous in Chicago for decades, as well as within every elite trial lawyer organization you can find. He has won trailblazing verdicts from juries and has acquired over a billion dollars in verdicts and settlement.

He started his career in the wake of his brother’s death during a botched emergency appendectomy, for which a lawyer who had previously worked for Philip Corboy acquired $750,000 for the family, then the largest medical malpractice settlement in Illinois. What inspired him to be great was Corboy himself, a courtroom master who took Demetrio under his wing and taught him to soar, seating him alongside the nation’s masters who taught him all their secrets.

Demetrio is the rare courtroom giant who is more focused on forecasting the future than burnishing the past. That’s due in part to the serendipity of a videotape watched hundreds of millions of times, in which Dr. David Dao was forcibly removed from a United Express flight at O’Hare Airport. More than a year later, Corboy & Demetrio still receives phone calls every day from passengers claiming abuse at airports from O’Hare to Tokyo Narita.

Lawdragon: I was thinking back to when you’d go to court and watch trials when you were starting out. That there’s a connective tissue between why someone becomes a trial lawyer and the reverence with which you studied the great trial lawyers who came before you.

Thomas A. Demetrio: You know, that’s right on. Before I started out, I went to IIT-Chicago Kent College of Law, a law school of which I am now chairman of the board.

My trial advocacy instructor was an associate with Philip H. Corboy and Associates. His name is Richard J. Phelan.

He was a very, very good trial lawyer and his course got me interested in it. I thought, oh boy, this is fun.

As luck would have it, right out of law school, after the bar exam, I took the Illinois bar then the Florida bar, I started work for Corboy. Now that’s November 1973 and Corboy was pals with all the greats: Bill Colson in Miami, Bruce Walkup in San Francisco, Ted Warshafsky in Milwaukee, Lex Hawkins in Des Moines, Iowa,

PHOTO PHOTO BY: BY: MICHELLE MICHELLE NOLAN NOLAN

BY KATRINA DEWEY Melvin Belli in San Francisco, Scotty Baldwin in Texas, Jack Fuchsberg and his brother Abe in New York. I got to spend time with these gentlemen. I read many of Colson’s final arguments as well as those of other great early trial lawyers.

LD: You studied the greats – with them!

TAD: Oh, my Lord, yes. The great thing about trial lawyers is plagiarism is expected. You’re a fool if you don’t take advantage of that. I did.

LD: Is it true Phil had a philosophy of taking every case?

TAD: Yes. You see, he didn’t have partners, he had young guys and all these crummy cases. He had good ones, too, but I never saw those. And this is back in contributory negligence days in Illinois, where if a client was one percent at fault, she got nothing. It was a challenge for a lawyer to try these cases – and they all got tried because Allstate, State Farm, etc., refused to offer money.

Phil’s view was twofold: One, in taking this case, that’s one more doctor you’re going to meet, it’s one more policeman you’re going to meet, it’s one more judge you’re going to be in front of, it’s one more defense lawyer you’re going to befriend. It’s a people business we’re in and that’s how you get your next case. That police officer may refer you his brother. That was Phil’s marketing strategy.

The second reason was it was an opportunity to have young lawyers stand up to pick a jury, etc., and gain confidence. Fast forward to the ‘80s. Law schools across the country were doing an exceptional job training future trial lawyers. Advocacy programs were becoming more and more vital to the law school experience. So young lawyers would get out of law school and say, “I’m going to be a trial lawyer!” At boutiques like ours, they were able to try a lawsuit sooner rather than later. But, at one of the big firms, the kids never saw the inside of a courtroom. If they ever did it was to bring a document to the senior partner.

Yet, law schools are continuing to teach trial advocacy.

Chicago Kent is well known for its trial advocacy program. That’s going to continue. At Corboy & Demetrio, we only use law students, we don’t use paralegals. Our hiring pool is from the five local schools. One clerk will always stand out. They’re here for two years, and they learn our way of life. We want that youthful enthusiasm.

I fear most law students are going to be disappointed when they go out into the world, because they’re not going to be trying lawsuits like I was able to do.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

223

500

500 224

William T. Reid IV

Darren Robbins

REID COLLINS & TSAI AUSTIN

ROBBINS GELLER SAN DIEGO

Julie Goldsmith Reiser

John Roberts

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

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

Lorin Reisner

Graham Robinson

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

SKADDEN BOSTON

Alison Ressler

Cristina Rodriguez

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LOS ANGELES

YALE LAW SCHOOL NEW HAVEN

Michael T. Reynolds

Alex Romain

CRAVATH NEW YORK

HUESTON HENNIGAN LOS ANGELES

Michael T. Reynolds

Anthony Romero

CRAVATH NEW YORK

ACLU NEW YORK

Joe Rice

Steven Rosenblum

MOTLEY RICE MT. PLEASANT, S.C.

WACHTELL NEW YORK

David Rievman

Rod Rosenstein

SKADDEN NEW YORK

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

David Ring

Hannah Ross

TAYLOR & RING MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIF.

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

LD: What inspired you to go to law school?

become trial lawyers, they’re not going to sit back and accept, without a fight, inappropriate judicial activism.

TAD: Honestly, I went to law school so I wouldn’t have to go into the real world. But a week before I started, my older brother died unnecessarily through a medical goof up. I’m often asked, “Did you take this path doing medical negligence work because your brother died?”

No, that’s not why I did it. It was a bad time, but I separated it. I wasn’t saying, “I’m going to go get bad doctors.” The reality is at our firm, for a variety of reasons, we reject 21 out of every 22 medical negligence cases that come to us. The irony is doctors don’t appreciate we’re their first line of defense. Now fast forward to current times. And this is not limited to Chicago. Trial by jury is becoming a dinosaur.

We spend a lot of money politically, we spend time and energy on behalf of our clients only to have a trial judge take away what 12 people with hundreds of years combined experience in life decided a particular case was worth? That’s not right. It tells a lawyer and client maybe we’d better mediate and settle so we don’t have to worry about some judge taking away a great verdict That’s my fear. I must say the world of civil law is a necessity. People don’t really appreciate that until they need it. But, when they do need it, they get it. All in all, it’s been a very satisfying way to spend a professional life – being a trial lawyer.

LD: Let’s talk about that a bit. What is the cause of that?

LD: You must have so many examples of that.

TAD: What’s taken over our niche is mediation. Many of the judges at our courthouse across the street, after they retire, become mediators. Mediation now represents, as far as dispositions go, 80 percent of our business. Every case gets mediated. The good news is the client gets his or her money sooner rather than later. Thus, no risk of a jury or Appellate Court doing something silly. And that applies to both sides now – the insurance company worried about a runaway jury or a plaintiff worried about a stingy jury.

TAD: You know, I’ve seen so much, including a young lady who served in the Navy and was rendered a quadriplegic when she was blown off a porch in hurricane winds. A family friend of hers (who happened to be a lawyer, no less) started dating her and she got pregnant, which in the world of quadriplegia is rare. She went to the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago to learn how to perform motherly duties in her disabled state. The man brought a lawsuit against her seeking sole custody of their child on the grounds she could not – as a quadriplegic – be a fit mother! I was asked to represent this woman, which I gladly did on a pro bono basis. It was she who was awarded custody and has proven to be the mother of the century to her son.

LD: What other changes do you see that portend a different future for trial lawyers than the career you’ve had ?

TAD: I believe we have too many lawyers. It’s a problem I see, and I have no problem stating it. What’s happened is plaintiff law firms are now like Starbuck’s. They’re everywhere. They’re popups. I get a sense that a lot of cases are settling in mediation because the electric bill has to be paid. I’m not being cynical, it’s just the reality I see now.

LD: We really should talk about Dr. Dao. You’ve had many more cases since then – including the Aeromexico crash this year – but you became famous worldwide with the Dr. Dao case.

I spoke at an Illinois Trial Lawyers Association seminar earlier this year and chastised two trial judges who remitted two very significant cases, one of which was ours.

We won a $22-million verdict for the death of a young mother leaving a baby and a husband. $20 million of it was for non-economic damages for the loss of love and affection. The trial judge said, “You know, while this does not shock my conscience at all as a judge, I think it’s too much money. I’m going to reduce it to $10 million.” The second case was an $8-million jury verdict, and the judge arbitrarily reduced it to $4 million.

TAD: We knew what to do with the Dao matter. While a lot of my peers think the media is our enemy, we held a major press conference which was viewed worldwide.

Indeed, it was the media who helped spread our message that corporate America needed to start treating the consumer with respect. The media picks up what it wants to pick up. If the shootings in Florida had happened at the same time, nobody would know who Dr. Dao was. If it had not been captured on video, nobody would know who Dr. Dao was. To obtain significant media coverage, everything’s got to be a perfect storm in our little world.

I told my audience they needed to become proactive, like the kids who marched out of their classrooms in Florida over school shootings. They also needed to get angry and take action. When those Florida kids

TAD: You bet. Once you’re not, what’s the point? Read the full Q&A at www.lawdragon.com/2018/10/21/titanof-the-trial-bar-plaintiffs-lawyer-thomas-demetrio.

LD: You’re having fun.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

225

Angela Agrusa DLA PIPER (LOS ANGELES)

500

ANGELA AGRUSA ANGELA AGRUSA OF DLA PIPER PRACTICES

law the way it should be practiced - with conviction, clarity and intellect. One of the nation’s top trial lawyers, Agrusa may seem like a conundrum but to those who know her personally and have observed her in the courtroom, she is consistent and uncompromising in her belief that there are two sides to every case and that a lawyer worth her salt should be able to make compelling arguments even in the face of unpopular sentiment. Her loyalty to her clients is as fierce as is her commitment to the intellectual pursuit of the truth.

She has a gift for presenting arguments to judges and juries that are as unorthodox as they are convincing - and that often appeal to issues larger than the individual case.

BY KATRINA DEWEY tion directed at their personal lives, putting at risk their businesses and professional reputations. I have tried a case against the State of California arguing that the government, like individuals, has to be accountable for its contracts and promises. Again, the press following and reporting on our every litigation move.

What I most love about my practice, is the ability to defend my corporate clients who are interfacing with their customers in delivering products and services that we use every day. With a number of my consumer-interfacing clients, I am able to defeat and/or resolve claims against them across the country with potentially hundreds of millions in damages at stake, while still preserving the clients’ brand integrity. That’s key for the companies I defend.

She has parlayed her meticulous initiative into a career as a leading trial lawyer with a specialty in bet-thebrand litigation for companies and individuals from Dannon to Peter Frampton to Hilton Hotels. But it was her star turn as one of Bill Cosby’s lead defense lawyers, winning a hung verdict for him on criminal charges, that made Agrusa herself a global brand.

I love the challenge of defending clients against provocative, headline-making accusations, through highly deliberate legal strategies and nuanced messaging, often in the voice of my client’s own brand which is not necessarily intuitive to lawyers.

These days she’s helping a who’s who of corporations that value her in-depth strategic analysis, her proven abilities as a courtroom warrior and a take on risktaking that is all her own.

AA: In my practice, it makes all the difference. Honed since my earliest years in the courtroom while the media watched, I have not only developed a unique ability to handle public-relations strategies in the midst of litigation, but the ability to utilize those strategies to influence today’s first tier of decision makers – the court of public opinion.

Lawdragon: You’ve been a brand whisperer from long before lawyers talked about branding, serving as lead class-action counsel for Hilton Hotels and White Wave (makers of Horizon Organics and Silk Brands).

How did that come about?

Angela Agrusa: I’ve had this quintessential brand crisis practice before people even called it brand crisis.

From my earliest years as a lawyer, I have represented clients, both high- profile individuals, corporations and municipalities, in highly sensational cases, defending their business practices and reputations, both in the courtroom and in the court of public opinion; a dual discipline practice. My first jury trial was defending a major oil company against crude-oil price-fixing allegations brought by the State of California. Pre-internet, reporters from the Wall Street Journal, LA Times and NY Times were in the courtroom daily. From there, I represented the parent of a maker of silicone-gel implants defending through grant of summary judgment thousands of breast-implant actions. I have represented celebrities and financial wizards in litiga-

PHOTO BY: AMY CANTRELL

LD: Does successfully articulating your clients’ message make the difference?

Today, legal claims and accusations are repeated, reported on and spread through Twitter and Facebook before they ever get to the judge, let alone a jury.

Clients have to react quickly to protect their brands without jeopardizing the legal defenses yet to play out in the courtroom. Protecting a client’s brand in the midst of litigation is a delicate balance and message discipline is critical. It’s crucial to understand how the media - including social media - can influence an outcome.

When I file briefs today on behalf of clients we are cognizant of and often even playing to the multiple levels of audiences. Today it is not just the judge and jury that are making critical decisions about the claims, but our audiences also include our client’s customers, competitors, and their industries at large.

My approach is to defend my clients on the law, but conveyed in a voice and manner that is consistent

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

227

500

500 228

James Rubin

Ed Ryan

BUTLER RUBIN CHICAGO

GUANTANAMO MILITARY COMMISSIONS WASHINGTON, D.C.

Joel Rubinstein

Frank Ryan

WINSTON & STRAWN NEW YORK

DLA NEW YORK

Kim Rucker

Elizabeth Sacksteder

TESORO SAN ANTONIO

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Sam Rudman

Faiza Saeed

ROBBINS GELLER MELVILLE, N.Y.

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Kathryn Ruemmler

Susan Saltzstein

LATHAM WASHINGTON, D.C.

SKADDEN NEW YORK

Walter Ruiz

Patrick A. Salvi

RUIZ LAW ARLINGTON, VA.

SALVI SCHOSTOK CHICAGO

Rick Rule

Patrick A. Salvi II

PAUL WEISS WASHINGTON, D.C.

SALVI SCHOSTOK CHICAGO

Miles Ruthberg

Hollis Salzman

LATHAM NEW YORK

ROBINS KAPLAN NEW YORK

Antony Ryan

P. Anthony Sammi

CRAVATH NEW YORK

SKADDEN NEW YORK

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

with their own brands and that will respond to their customer’s expectations. This means that my briefs may not read like the ones taught in law school writing classes or that my recommended settlement approach may not reflect the same pattern of other class settlements. As those who work with me know, never tell me that I cannot pursue an idea or a strategy because “that is not how it is done.”

What I do for my clients is not just resolve the litigation favorably, but navigate the litigation in a way in which we can protect their brands and reputations, assets in which they have invested millions and millions of dollars.

LD: Sounds like you have a cool, analytic ability to look down the road and identify risks, roadblocks and identify exit strategies. Where did you learn that?

AA: I am a bit of a law nerd. I have always liked to study law and society to try to predict litigation trends.

About a decade ago, as the economy was shifting, Obama was coming in, and the tobacco cases had run their course, I saw lawyers with a lot of false advertising experience and shrinking case inventory. I also saw expansion in food products — the organic market was growing, supplemented foods were becoming more prevalent, and the new First Lady was creating a platform for food safety.

Observing those things caused me to think this was an area that very well could be changing the landscape of the law. While I had defended food companies in traditional brand-related actions, I began to speak to them about the risks of false-advertising claims.

That insight and outreach resulted in my being hired in a significant multidistrict litigation by a company that wanted a woman who might resonate with a jury talking about food safety for children. It was a perfect storm of experience and opportunity.

Since then, clients have sought me out.

LD: How has that practice continued to develop?

AA: Consumer marketing litigation is all about the human experience, and there are a lot of opportunistic lawyers in this country who file lawsuits because it looks like they will be lucrative. Certain things go on in the advertising world that are unfair. I intervene to help clients make smart decisions and to defend them against opportunists.

LD: Can you explain that tension a bit, for makers of foods and beverages that claim health benefits? We all want to have healthy products these days, so it’s a great marketing tool.

AA: There’s an interesting dichotomy for my clients between the legal and the creative. They want to be compelling and have their product stand out, but they still have to comply with the law. I see this often with supplemented products, as Americans today want to be able to get their vitamins from sources other than whole foods.

My clients need to comply with the Food & Drug Administration; the Federal Trade Commission; and then act in adherence with case law. The agencies can only do so much. Courts now step in to fill the gap. There’s lots of inconsistency in food litigation and it’s hard for clients to guide themselves.

I’m also working with brand loyalty. Our culture now is about rewarding loyalty — people have relationships with the brands they like. As companies solidify the ways they reward that loyalty, it gives rise to privacy and disclosure litigation. I apply my experiences and insights to guide my clients as they make those decisions.

LD: Another area of expertise for you is privacy litigation, which you’ve successfully handled for hotel brands like Omni, Hilton and The Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas, and municipalities like the City of Los Angeles, including through appellate court litigation. Can you tell us about that?

AA: My work for these entities is also about brand protection. I have represented them in telephone privacy class litigation in which claims were asserted that customers’ privacy rights have been violated in their communications with the brands that they have otherwise loved and frequented. The violations plead in those cases carry business-staggering penalties and damages. Over the years, in the face of multiple cases, we have defeated class certification and achieved summary judgment. Because settling these cases is so difficult for a brand’s integrity, particularly when the damages are so high, I enjoy working with clients who see the business necessity to defend their business practices in order to maintain and preserve customer loyalty. In fact, my focus in consumer litigation right now is the difficulty that faces defendants in trying to settle these cases.

LD: How do you resolve cases for a defendant who doesn’t want to spend millions litigating?

AA: Many plaintiff lawyers don’t understand how to settle and get benefits to the class. So, I’ve been coming up with unorthodox and unique ways to do so that have been approved by the courts and which are also very advantageous to clients.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

229

500

500 230

Lynn Lincoln Sarko

Ronald Schutz

KELLER ROHRBACK SEATTLE

ROBINS KAPLAN MINNEAPOLIS

John Savarese

Chris Seeger

WACHTELL NEW YORK

SEEGER WEISS NEW YORK

William Savitt

Andre Segura

WACHTELL NEW YORK

ACLU HOUSTON

Shira Scheindlin

Philippe Selendy

STROOCK NEW YORK

SELENDY & GAY NEW YORK

Jonathan Schiller

Joseph Sellers

BOIES SCHILLER NEW YORK

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Ivan Schlager

Karen Patton Seymour

SKADDEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

GOLDMAN SACHS NEW YORK

Allison Schneirov

Kannon Shanmugam

SKADDEN NEW YORK

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY WASHINGTON, D.C.

George Schoen

Nina Shaw

CRAVATH NEW YORK

DEL SHAW LOS ANGELES

Robert Schumer

Carney Shegerian

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES SANTA MONICA

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

TODAY, I SEE THIS INTERESTING COLLISION ON THE SUBJECT OF SPEECH. SETTING ASIDE QUESTIONS OF POLITICS AND ACCUSATIONS OF FAKE NEWS, IN THE LEGAL WORLD, WE SEE MORE AND MORE COMPANIES BEING HELD TO HIGHER STANDARDS OF ACCOUNTABILITY IN THEIR ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION PRACTICES. LD: So, I have to ask, with a career firmly established in the world of civil law, what made you want to defend Bill Cosby?

AA: People continue to ask me how I decided to represent Cosby. There is no denying that the Bill Cosby brand was iconic, but I actually opted to take on the representation for a number of reasons.

I am the daughter of a police officer and an early feminist. My parents impressed on me the importance of independence, justice and accountability for our acts. I grew up with a strong sense of justice, an appreciation for the law and the belief that my own voice mattered.

I have always been an advocate for the underserved, and a feminist. At 13, I was writing letters to the editor of my local newspaper and at UCLA, I was one of the first 100 women to graduate from the Women’s Study Department. My first actual legal job was an internship at the ACLU during law school.

phone records, travel documents, and timelines to raise reasonable doubt.

I think the polarities inherent in my life experiences have given me the ability to see things from a number of perspectives and to empathize. I understand that there are nuances and complexities that aren’t always evident at first blush. Attorneys whose mindsets are fixed and linear may not be able to diverge from one belief pattern. I don’t see things as simply either/or.

My understanding that the world is a complex and complicated arena allows me to make unpopular accusations defensible.

Whether their position is popular or not, I am a fierce advocate for my clients.

LD: You are so skillful at looking down the road. What do you see ahead for your practice?

I’m a steadfast believer in our constitutional protections. I believe in the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, the concept of innocent until proven guilty, and the right to face one’s accusers. In Cosby’s case, he was a blind black man facing accusations dating back half a century, and he was being tried and determined guilty in the court of public opinion – before he ever had his day in court.

AA: Today, I see this interesting collision on the subject of speech. Setting aside questions of politics and accusations of fake news, in the legal world, we see more and more companies being held to higher standards of accountability in their advertising and promotion practices. We live in a visual society of instant gratification and demands for new and different stimulus. Innovation and choice drives our commerce.

Advertising and promotion has to demand our attention and make us think before we spend.

I felt that if the Constitutional protections could be abandoned for this wealthy man, the rights of voiceless others were at risk. I believed in my own ability to navigate my ACLU and feminist principles to uphold an accused’s rights while never stooping to the “victim shaming” tactics to which many alleged accusers of sexual assault are subjected. Throughout the trial, I cross-examined the women who came forward with respect and actually implemented civil litigation strategies by resorting to examination on

But when you apply the sometimes amorphous “reasonable consumer” standard in consumer fraud and false-advertising litigation, companies are often left to the mercy of ambitious lawyers and the prospect of expensive litigation. Consumer marketing litigation is all about the human experience, and I am convinced that we are nowhere near the end of consumer class litigation. So, I will continue to intervene to help clients make smart decisions and to defend them when those decisions are challenged.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

231

500

500 Alex Romain HUESTON HENNIGAN (LOS ANGELES)

232

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

ALEX ROMAIN AS A CLASSICALLY TRAINED PIANIST

and experienced litigator, Alex Romain sees similarities between music and the law – not least of all in the extensive preparation required to excel before an often-difficult audience. That’s an insight we can trust, given that many clients view Romain as the virtuoso of choice for their most difficult cases and investigations. Romain, a University of Michigan Law School graduate, was a partner at Williams & Connolly in Washington, D.C., for 10 years before making the move to Hueston Hennigan and Southern California in 2016. Among his community efforts, Romain serves on the board of directors for Alliance for Children’s Rights.

Lawdragon: Please talk a little bit about your practice – what keeps you excited about it?

Alex Romain: Although I frequently represent large corporations, for much of my career, my clients have been individuals – in securities cases, white-collar criminal cases, and administrative proceedings. I appreciate the bond that I have formed with each of my clients. Every case is traumatic for the litigants, especially if they go to trial, and I have deemed it a privilege to help my clients to clear their names. My job is not merely to advocate for them; it is to steer them through an often terrifying process, and to help them come out on the other side with their dignity intact. Working with an individual client highlights the joys of being a trial lawyer – complete devotion to one person’s cause, a deep understanding of your client and his or her industry, and a bond that lasts long after the litigation and trial. I enjoy all of it – the counseling, the advice, and the advocacy. The law is a people profession, and I love people.

LD: I assume the enjoyment of working with people also applies to those within your firm.

AR: Yes. I also enjoy mentoring junior lawyers as they embark on their own journeys in the law. As one example, I still remember my first deposition – it was great – and now, every time a junior lawyer walks into my office to seek advice on his or her first deposition, I get just as excited. Ours is a noble profession that relies on meaningful mentorship and sponsorship.

PHOTO PHOTO BY: BY: AMY AMY CANTRELL CANTRELL

BY JOHN RYAN LD: Can you talk about a recent litigation you’ve handled to some type of resolution?

AR: As lead counsel, I recently defended an international consulting company in an $830 million actuarial malpractice case brought by the City of Houston.

After three years of litigation, and shortly before the case was scheduled for trial, the City settled for 5% of its initial demand.

LD: Interesting. What were some of the challenges or big issues involved with the case?

AR: The case was challenging because the subject matter was complicated, but a $6 billion pension deficit – for which the City blamed my client – is easy to understand. To prevail, we had to drill into the actuarial science and hundreds of pages of expert reports, identify the flaws in the City’s analysis, and expose it in our Daubert motion to exclude the City’s expert. Simplicity was the key: distilling the expert analysis to make it accessible, and then setting it within a compelling narrative to prove that my client had done a good job and had not done anything wrong.

In addition, in a litigation that was at the center of Houston’s public discourse about the pension crisis and how to address it, much of our work was done – and remains – under seal. As a result, the citizens and potential jury pool knew only of the City’s 20-year old pension crisis, but had little information about the facts of the case.

The case was watched closely within the actuarial profession and by other firms that provide actuarial services to public pension funds, as the verdict could set a wide precedent. In summary, the City claimed that my client’s forecast of pension costs over twenty years was negligent. Had the City’s theory prevailed, it would have greatly expanded the potential scope of liability for numerous companies in the industry.

LD: Looking back towards the start of your career, can you identify a mentor who turned out to be critical to how your professional life turned out?

AR: After college, I worked at a law firm in Boston, my hometown, before applying to law school. I was assigned to work for a young law firm partner named Deval Patrick. His considerable personal and pro-

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

233

500

500 234

Joseph Shenker

Tom Siracusa

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL NEW YORK

POWER ROGERS & SMITH CHICAGO

Leopold Sher

Rachel Skaistis

SHER GARNER NEW ORLEANS

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Paul Shim

Daniel Slifkin

CLEARY GOTTLIEB NEW YORK

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Gina Shishima

Daniel Small

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT AUSTIN

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Roman Silberfeld

Johnathan Smith

ROBINS KAPLAN LOS ANGELES

MUSLIM ADVOCATES WASHINGTON, D.C.

Dawn Siler-Nixon

Leslie Smith

FORD HARRISON TAMPA

KIRKLAND & ELLIS CHICAGO

Jerry Silk

Todd Smith

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ NEW YORK

POWER ROGERS & SMITH CHICAGO

Stuart Singer

Abby Cohen Smutny

BOIES SCHILLER FT. LAUDERDALE

WHITE & CASE WASHINGTON, D.C.

Joe Siprut

Robyn Minter Smyers

SIPRUT PC CHICAGO

THOMPSON HINE CLEVELAND

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

MY JOB IS NOT MERELY TO ADVOCATE FOR THEM; IT IS TO STEER THEM THROUGH AN OFTEN TERRIFYING PROCESS, AND TO HELP THEM COME OUT ON THE OTHER SIDE WITH THEIR DIGNITY INTACT. fessional gifts were immediately evident, and he became a significant role model for me. I still carry many of the lessons he taught me.

Patrick combined respect for everyone with a candor that was sincere and disarming. He consistently said that we should all focus on the many things that unite us, and he genuinely understood and respected the views of those who disagreed with him. And Patrick espoused these views long before he moved into public life – first becoming the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights and later the Governor of Massachusetts.

Later, when I worked for him in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, he provided me with extraordinary opportunities to shine and the opportunity to be recognized. Deval’s sense of authenticity and accountability resonated with me because they are the same principles my parents instilled in me.

LD: Is there a case or client that stands out over the years as especially memorable?

AR: Yes, the Baltimore Ravens. We represented the Ravens in connection with the National Football League’s investigation led by Robert Mueller into the Ray Rice domestic violence incident, the response to various media inquiries about the incident, and the grievance that Rice filed after the Ravens terminated him. The Ravens immediately appreciated the seriousness of the domestic violence incident that occurred with Rice and his wife, who were both long-time members of the Ravens family. And part of what stands out for me is the integrity and decency of the various individuals within the organization as they worked to do the right thing.

It was not a typical legal case: The media’s inquiries do not follow any script; the NFL’s collective bargaining agreement is not drafted like a statute; and the arbitration was widely publicized in both news and sports media. As counsel for the Ravens, it was necessary to consider all of these elements in helping the organization to navigate the crisis.

LD: Among the biggest cases in your career was the exoneration you helped win for former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens after his 2008 corruption conviction.

The dismissal got a huge amount of attention because the federal judge determined that prosecutors withheld evidence. Do you have any take-aways or thoughts about how the Sen. Stevens case unfolded and finally concluded?

AR: It has been 10 years since Senator Ted Stevens was exonerated, and at least two things still stand out to me today. First, the case and many individuals, including Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, helped to enact tremendous change – from training regarding Brady disclosure obligations to increased disclosure by many prosecutors. That change has helped to ensure that many additional defendants are able to get a fair trial. Second, Stevens was an extraordinary man and public servant.

As time has passed, I have a growing appreciation for Stevens’ resolve to stand firm and clear his name – even though it was unpopular to do so – without any guarantee that it would happen. Such fortitude is uncommon and it has had a lasting impact.

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

AR: I am a husband, father, musician, and trial lawyer.

And when I am not in the office, I spend my spare time enjoying my kids – who are 10 and 8 years old – before they stop thinking that I am cool! I am also a classically-trained pianist, and I have been somewhat obsessed with the piano and music since I was six years old. I see many similarities between the practice of law and music: the meticulous preparation; the pressure – and gratification – of a live performance; and the emotional arc generated by a rhetorical phrase or a musical performance. Both the lawyer and the musician appeal to a listener’s heart as well as his mind, and they try to transport their listeners, whether a jury or an audience member, to some inevitable conclusion or place.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

235

500

500 Alan S. Futerfas THE LAW O FFICES OF ALAN S. FUTERFAS (NEW YORK)

236

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

ALAN S. FUTERFAS LONG REGARDED AS ONE OF THE FINEST

criminal defense lawyers in New York City, Alan S. Futerfas has become one of the most famous lawyers in the country for his role representing The Trump Organization in a variety of high-profile matters, including investigations by various congressional committees and the Office of Special Counsel (Mueller), as well as an investigation by the Southern District of New York overseen by the Hon. Kimba Wood. In addition, he is currently defending the Donald J. Trump Foundation in an action brought by the New York Attorney General.

Futerfas began building a reputation as one of New York’s savviest criminal defense lawyers three decades ago. While earlier in his career he defended high-profile organized crime cases, in the late 1990’s he transitioned to largely handling white-collar cases, SEC investigations and other regulatory matters.

We talked to him about how his training and experience have come together for what’s considered a stellar performance for The Trump Organization thus far.

An accomplished bass-trombonist who graduated from The Juilliard School, Futerfas began legal work in the 1980s, while he was still a student at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. His first law-related job, in 1985 and while a law student, was transcribing tapes of recorded conversations for a trial involving the Genovese family.

The techniques were strictly old school, preceding the era of laptops or speech-recognition software, and the environment was unorthodox: an exotic dancer talent agency. One of the charges in the case was that the defendant was skimming proceeds from his nightclubs.

Lawdragon: How did you end up there?

Alan Futerfas: No law firm had the space to have a dedicated office for me and a paralegal to sit all day listening to the tape recordings. This was not the Computer Age. We would sit there and listen to cassette tapes all day – 10 to 12 hours a day – and transcribe them by hand and give them to secretaries to type. The client, as it happened, owned a number of strip clubs, and the women for all the strip clubs were auditioned at the talent agency, which was also his company. He had an extra room there, and they cleaned it out, painted the walls and put in a large table. They brought us legal pads and pens and all the cassette tapes were sent there for our review and transcription. Needless to say, it was a scene out of the movies.

PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE FIRM

BY KATRINA DEWEY LD: That must have been quite an experience.

AF: It was. And working on that case, I had the opportunity to meet some of the best criminal defense lawyers in New York at the time: Jay Goldberg, Gerald Lefcourt (who actually got me the job), Gerald L. Shargel, Judd Burstein, Fred Hafetz, Gus Newman and others. By January 1986, when that case was proceeding to trial and my transcription work was completed, Gerald Shargel reached out to me and said he could use a paralegal or a law student. I started working for him that month.

While an undergraduate at Juilliard, I worked in construction over the summers renovating commercial space to become lofts. In law school, I considered going into real estate, but the tape transcription experience was so interesting and the defendants (and some of the lawyers) were such characters, that I found the field fascinating.

Of course, working with Jerry was extraordinary.

LD: Jerry Shargel was, of course, one of the most elite criminal defense lawyers in New York and famous for his work defending Mafia characters as well as providing a training ground for star lawyers. How long did you work for him?

AF: About six or seven years. While in law school, I was working there all the time. We later became partners.

LD: Experience really is the best teacher. What was your first trial?

AF: I was very fortunate to receive experience that was almost unparalleled. In my second year of law school, I worked on Second Circuit appeals briefs as well as pretrial motions in a number of criminal cases. Before graduation from law school, I second-seated two trials.

One was a three-week tax fraud trial.

The other was the “Westies” trial, a very famous case involving the Irish mob. We represented the leader of the Westies, Jimmy Coonan. I prepared the exhibits, worked on the cross-examinations, and wrote the pretrial motions, the requests to charge – everything. And, second-seated the four-month trial before the great Hon. Whitman Knapp. An unbelievable experience.

LD: Had your music fallen by the wayside at that point?

AF: Pretty much. During law school, I was working and studying. There was little time for anything else, including sleep. But I was learning so much and getting truly unique experience. One was winning an issue of first impression in the Second Circuit. In 1986 or so, the New

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

237

500

500 238

Teresa Snider

Ted Stevenson

BUTLER RUBIN CHICAGO

MCKOOL SMITH DALLAS

David Sochia

David Stickney

MCKOOL SMITH DALLAS

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ SAN DIEGO

Amy Solomon

Christina Storm

GIRARDI | KEESE LOS ANGELES

LAWYERS WITHOUT BORDERS NEW HAVEN

Sonia Sotomayor

Adam Streisand

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

SHEPPARD MULLIN LOS ANGELES

Grace Speights

Lawrence Sucharow

MORGAN LEWIS WASHINGTON, D.C.

LABATON SUCHAROW NEW YORK

Richard Stark

Diane Sullivan

CRAVATH NEW YORK

WEIL GOTSHAL PRINCETON, N.J.

Ann Beth Stebbins

Kathleen Sullivan

SKADDEN NEW YORK

QUINN EMANUEL NEW YORK

Cate Stetson

Steve Susman

HOGAN LOVELLS WASHINGTON, D.C.

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

Bryan Stevenson

Tara Sutton

EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE MONTGOMERY, ALA.

ROBINS KAPLAN MINNEAPOLIS

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

York Attorney General brought a civil action against one of our clients under RICO. Now, I had the extraordinary Telford Taylor for constitutional law at Cardozo and he spent a lot of time on the doctrine of standing. So, when Jerry gave me the Complaint and asked my view, I said, “How does the state AG have standing under the federal RICO law to bring this case?” Jerry said, “Sounds good, write the motion.”

We wrote a motion to dismiss and won. When the Attorney General appealed, I wrote the brief to the Second Circuit and we won there as well. I was in my third year of law school and my name was on the brief.

LD: Incredible. Any other early cases come to mind?

AF: I was graduated in 1987 and admitted to the bar in 1988. One of my early trials was representing Salvatore “Sally Dogs” Lombardi, a capo in the Genovese family.

That was a four-month trial before the Hon. Maryanne Trump Barry in the district court in New Jersey. Eight or nine guys were on trial and he was the lead defendant.

I was all of 28, maybe, and working with eight or nine New Jersey lawyers who were very experienced. They were absolutely helpful and supportive. We obtained an excellent verdict for the defendant. While he was charged with a number of murders and murder conspiracies, he was acquitted of all such charges. As I recall, he was convicted of conspiracy to commit gambling and conspiracy to commit extortion – just those two counts and predicate acts. When the jury came back with the verdict, the prosecutor, a very nice guy, put his head down on the desk.

LD: Those were some crazy days.

AF: They were. Sally Dogs was a character. He would come to court in a white T-shirt, black shoes without socks and short pants. He had a girlfriend who would sit right behind him in the courtroom. The jury is in the box, testimony is being heard, and Sally completely ignored all of it and talked to his girlfriend the whole time.

LD: Like, “Do not make my life harder.”

AF: You know, it’s the way it is. You have just got to roll with it. The thing is, though, when you have been in the trenches with difficult people, difficult clients or difficult cases, it gives you a greater level of confidence. You are much less likely to be intimidated, whether by a client or an adversary.

LD: Any other early trials you recall?

AF: Sure. Just a year or two later, I tried the six–month long “Windows” case before the outstanding jurist, the Hon. Raymond J. Dearie, in the Eastern District of New

York. I was once again fortunate to be surrounded by great trial lawyers representing other defendants – Susan Necheles, Fred Hafetz, Ben Brafman, Bruce Cutler, Peter Driscoll and Jeff Hoffman. A number of defendants were acquitted, including my client.

And in 1996, I represented an individual in a nine-month trial in state court in the famous “Carting” case. Representing another defendant was the extraordinary trial lawyer, Ronald P. Fischetti, and we were before the Hon. Leslie Crocker Snyder. Having as mentors and co-counsel some of the finest trial lawyers anywhere, and being on trial for months at a time in very complex cases, was training and experience that I doubt can be replicated today.

LD: You know, there was so much formative law and prosecution in those years, and the style and the grittiness is fascinating. What you were doing is what really attracts people to the law. You’re in a courtroom battling for people’s freedom, and you win or lose based on your skills. Are there any experiences from those years that help you out now?

AF: Experience is a very important asset, but each case is unique. Your strategy has to reflect both the person you are representing, their interests and the unique facts you have to work with. And, very important, you have to understand your adversary and the court you are before.

For example, in 2000, I argued a prisoner’s rights case before the United States Supreme Court. I spent months analyzing each of the Justice’s decisions and relevant Supreme Court cases going back decades. What was clear to me was that arguing the case as a “prisoner’s rights” case was not going to win the day. I chose to reposition the case as a state’s rights case, arguing that the new federal statute at issue was infringing on each state’s right to control its own post-conviction procedure. We won 9-0 with Justice [Antonin] Scalia writing the opinion.

One other thing that experience teaches - being the tough-guy lawyer is easy. The smarter lawyers have learned that listening is really important. Hearing what your client is saying and truly understanding their concerns is just critical. Same with your adversary. Often by understanding your adversary’s concerns and having credibility with your adversary, you can craft a resolution that obtains the very best result for your client. And, of course, if you need to litigate, we do that very, very well.

But our adversary already knows that so it is an unspoken part of the equation.

LD: With such a remarkable background, what led you to transition to more white-collar matters, SEC investigations and the like? What were some of the challenges of that transition and what do you like about that type of practice?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

239

500

500 240

Bonny Sweeney

David Tolbert

HAUSFELD SAN FRANCISCO

INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE NEW YORK

Dona Szak

Steve Toll

AJAMIE HOUSTON

COHEN MILSTEIN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Errol Taylor

Robert Townsend

MILBANK NEW YORK

CRAVATH NEW YORK

John C. Taylor

William Treanor

TAYLOR & RING MANHATTAN BEACH

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL WASHINGTON, D.C.

Tina Tchen

Max Tribble

BUCKLEY SANDLER CHICAGO

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

Anita Wallace Thomas

Lisa Tsai

NELSON MULLINS ATLANTA

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

Danielle Varnell

SKADDEN NEW YORK

JONES DAY WASHINGTON, D.C.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

AF: In the 1990’s, there were many securities fraud prosecutions locally based on new and evolving theories of criminal liability. I had many of those cases and enjoyed learning how the securities business worked. From those cases, I began handling all types of business crime investigations. I truly enjoyed crunching the numbers, working with financial and tax experts and one particular securities consultant (who is the best), and understanding how common practices in a financial industry could be viewed skeptically by prosecutors and agents. Sometimes, the best lawyering was simply educating prosecutors that what they were investigating was lawful and part of the practice of a particular industry.

Some years later I was hired in a very messy takeover battle involving a privately held company. The client had spent years defending motion practice and no discovery had taken place. In my first appearance, in open court, I demanded an immediate trial. When the adversary complained that no discovery had occurred, I responded by asking, “When in a criminal trial do I receive depositions and interrogatories? – I am ready to go.” Needless to say, the case advanced quickly and we obtained the desired financial resolution. Also, the client remained the CEO of the company. That experience made clear that the litigation skills of an experienced criminal lawyer who has tried large, complex criminal cases, are very powerful in a civil context.

We represented an NRSRO [nationally recognized statistical ratings organization], a ratings agency, in a multiyear litigation with the SEC and obtained an excellent result on the eve of trial. The owner of the company is a brilliant credit analyst and this litigation occurred in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis – which he called correctly. Learning about the ratings and credit industry, and the regulatory structure by which it is governed, particularly in the wake of the financial crisis and while Dodd-Frank was being implemented, was just fascinating. We also filed papers litigating the propriety of the SEC administrative system years before that issue became widely known.

The transition to white collar or business litigation, civil and criminal, was organic and really a function of what the government was focusing on and what cases were coming in the door. I enjoy learning how a business operates and how its economics function, and figuring out how to position the matter for the best result.

LD: Can you tell us about a few of your favorite, more recent cases other than the Trump matters?

AF: There are a lot of them. In the last few years, we represented the Associate Head of School of Poly Prep,

a highly regarded private school in Brooklyn. A former administrator had made public allegations against him.

We sued her for defamation and filed a 115-page complaint containing all of his many accomplishments and rebutting the allegations. This was a tumultuous time for him and his family and we guided them through it and reached an excellent resolution with everyone, including the school.

In 2015, we tried a False Claims Act case brought by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, Civil Division. The government had alleged thousands of false job placements and damages in the tens of millions of dollars. In its verdict, the jury found only 13 false placements and just $13,000 in damages.

This was a significant vindication for our client, the Director of the non-profit, and the organization itself.

We recently obtained a sentence of probation on a federal tax case which began as an investigative claim of $13M in unreported income. We worked with a forensic accounting team which showed that the IRS analysis was incorrect and resolved the case with an employment tax plea. Needless to say, the client was very pleased.

In another matter, we represent an individual who owned a company which provided financial and administrative services to athletes. When some of the investments cratered and the athletes lost a portion of their portfolio, he was the focus of an intensive U.S. Attorney’s Office and SEC investigation, which lasted years. We resolved the USAO investigation with no charges being filed and just recently inked a favorable SEC resolution.

We often represent officers and directors. In a typical matter, we represented the CCO (Chief Compliance Officer) of a financial institution under an intense, multiyear SEC investigation. The investigation just concluded.

The company entered into a settlement with the SEC and two officers were charged in SEC public actions.

No action was taken against our individual client – a very successful result.

On the offense, we sued a hedge fund which had defrauded our client, an investor in the fund. We presented a comprehensive case file to the SEC, and worked closely with them. They brought their own case and froze assets under management - assets eventually returned to our client. The SEC has used our litigation in seminars as an important example of its enforcement function.

There are others, of course, and we have many representations that remain under the radar and where the matter is quietly resolved. Read the full Q&A at www.lawdragon. com/lawyer-limelight/alan-futerfas.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

241

Patrick A. Salvi SALVI SCHOSTOK (CHICAGO)

500

PATRICK A. SALVI SALVI, SCHOSTOK & PRITCHARD PRIDES

itself on “extraordinary results,” and it’s hard to argue with the impressive record the firm has amassed since Patrick A. Salvi founded the firm in 1982. The firm, which has offices in Chicago and Waukegan, Ill., has earned hundreds of multimillion-dollar verdicts and settlements totaling more than a billion dollars for clients in personal injury, medical malpractice, product liability and wrongful death cases. Salvi earned a spot on this year’s Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers guide, as did his son, fellow University of Notre Dame Law School graduate Patrick A. Salvi II. The father-son pair won a $148-million verdict in August 2017 for a woman paralyzed by a fallen shelter at O’Hare International Airport.

Lawdragon: How did you first become interested in representing injured plaintiffs?

Patrick Salvi: Early on in my practice, I did a general practice of law but wanted to be in court representing my clients. I soon found the most interesting and intriguing area of practice is in the civil area involving personal injury cases brought by plaintiffs, as opposed to criminal law or a similar practice.

LD: Can you share a few aspects about this work that you find professionally satisfying?

PS: The main part of my legal practice that I find most satisfying is that we have an opportunity to help people in some of their most desperate times, after they have suffered a terrible injury or the loss of a loved one. We have the ability to relieve the financial burden that clients would have, and that gives them great comfort.

Also, each case is very different. So as a personal injury attorney, you can learn about many different things other than the law, whether it be a certain disease process or surgical procedure in a medical malpractice case, or certain principles of science, engineering or physics in a product liability case or transportation negligence case.

These interesting parts of the practice have kept me at it over the years.

PHOTO BY: MICHELLE NOLAN

BY JOHN RYAN LD: Looking back, is there a case from your career that stands out as especially memorable?

PS: I handled a case about 20 years ago where I represented a very seriously injured baby in a medical malpractice case in a very rural community that I was told was very conservative and favorable to doctors and hospitals. But I worked very hard on the case and not only won the trial and a record verdict, but the case went on appeal on various issues that to this day are frequently cited in cases. The family and myself became very close and we stay in contact to this day.

LD: How would you describe your style as a trial lawyer?

PS: I always like to believe I am the most prepared lawyer in the courtroom. I am a little bit old school. I act like myself and try to be conversational with the jury, but I may be a little more formal in interacting with my opponents or the court.

LD: Do you have any special routines before or during a trial?

PS: I have a very specialized way I prepare a case and a routine of planning my preparation leading up to the trial. During the trial, I try to remain flexible in terms of knowing that things are not going to go precisely as expected. But my routine would be to try to win every day, if you can.

LD: Why did you choose Notre Dame over other options you might have had?

PS: I always thought Notre Dame was one of the best law schools in the country. We also have a close familial relationship with Notre Dame. So my loyalty and affection for the university, together with their reputation, were the reasons I chose to attend Notre Dame for law school.

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?

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

243

500

500 244

Christine Varney

Ted Wells

CRAVATH NEW YORK

PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

Kathi Vidal

Tony West

WINSTON & STRAWN MENLO PARK

UBER SAN FRANCISCO

Donald Vieira

William Whelan

SKADDEN WASHINGTON, D.C.

CRAVATH NEW YORK

Wanji Walcott

Lexie White

PAYPAL SAN JOSE

SUSMAN GODFREY HOUSTON

Jim Walden

Conlee Whiteley

WALDEN MACHT NEW YORK

KANNER & WHITELEY NEW ORLEANS

Leigh Walton

Doug Wigdor

BASS BERRY NASHVILLE

WIGDOR LAW NEW YORK

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

Gregory Williams

WILMER HALE WASHINGTON, D.C.

RICHARDS LAYTON WILMINGTON

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

500

PS: I don’t know that I would do anything differently. Except, the conventional wisdom in some circles back in the day was that political science – or some kind of similar study – was a natural course of study prior to law school. I don’t really think that is the case now. I think you can be in any field of study. In fact, the broader area of knowledge that you have, whether it be medicine, engineering, business, or even another language would be extremely helpful. So if I had to do it over again, I would have had a broader area of study going into law school rather than focusing in on political science.

LD: How has your practice changed since the early part of your career?

PS: I would say the personal injury field is much more competitive and detail-oriented these days.

There is more TV, billboard, and other advertising than ever before. Overall, I think it has hurt the reputation of personal injury lawyers.

The internet also plays a very important role in terms of people finding lawyers and just being more sophisticated in regards to cases, lawyers, and how verdicts and settlements work. The jurors are much more sophisticated and not in any means intimidated by the process, lawyers, or even the judge.

LD: Did you have a mentor who was particularly important for the course of your career?

PS: I didn’t really have one mentor, except maybe my father who kind of steered me in the direction of practicing law as a profession. I would say that the lawyers I admired the most were prominent personal injury lawyers. I thought they were the best lawyers and had the most charisma and competency. That drew me to that area of practice.

LD: What led you to start your own firm?

PS: I started my own law firm because I wanted to be my own boss, do things my way, and be responsible only to myself and my clients.

LD: What advice would you give to lawyers looking to start out on their own?

PS: You have to plan well in advance and be prepared for some lean times. Additionally, you

have to make sure that you are well capitalized and have malpractice insurance. But if you really want to do it and you plan it right, don’t be afraid of the risk. You eventually have to make the leap.

LD: There are many high-quality firms out there.

How is your firm unique?

PS: At Salvi, Schostok & Pritchard, we try to emphasize the fact that since we specialize in an area, we insist on producing extraordinary results – results that only a small handful of firms could ever expect to produce. That is very important. We make sure all the lawyers and staff understand that the client is golden and has to be treated accordingly with great respect, affection, and compassion as well as getting them a great result.

LD: What do you look for in young lawyers or staff who may join?

PS: I look for people with a great work ethic who are team players, competitive, friendly, highly competent, and think no job is too big or too small. We want somebody who is proud to be in the firm and will do whatever is necessary to make the firm great and take care of the clients.

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

PS: I love to work out, travel with my family and with my wife, and just do stuff with my family locally, whether it be a play, movie, family dinners, or anything of that nature. Family get togethers are a great joy for me.

I also own and operate professional minor league baseball franchises and that is a great deal of fun and enjoyment. It is very different and separate from the law firm, so I enjoy learning the business of sports.

LD: What pro bono or public interest activities is the firm involved with?

PS: We are involved in pro bono legal work and legal charitable organizations that provide legal services to the poor. We try to remain involved in other public interest activities, including politics because that is part of what is necessary to maintain the integrity of your practice.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

245

Patrick A. Salvi II SALVI SCHOSTOK (CHICAGO)

500

PATRICK A. SALVI II MANY LAWYERS HAVE SONS AND

daughters who enter the profession, but few parentchild combinations are as potent in the courtroom as the Salvis. Last year, plaintiffs’ lawyer Patrick A. Salvi II, just 10 years into his law practice, joined his father Patrick A. Salvi on the Lawdragon 500 guide for earning massive recoveries for injured clients and their families.

Among his recent successes, the younger Salvi won a $148-million verdict in August 2017 for a young woman paralyzed by a fallen shelter at O’Hare International Airport. Also in 2017, Salvi became managing partner of Salvi, Schostok & Pritchard’s Chicago office. His brother, Brian, and Brian’s wife Eirene are associates at the firm.

Lawdragon: Of course, you had a great role model in your dad, but when did you know for certain that you also wanted to have a plaintiffs’ practice?

Patrick Salvi: It took time. I knew during college that I wanted to go to law school. But in my mind, I figured that could land me at my dad’s firm or I could become a sports agent or something in politics. I took a liking to trial work while in law school, so that directed me to Salvi, Schostok & Pritchard. For the first few years, I considered whether this was the right work for me. As the work became increasingly important, and certainly as I started trying cases, I knew I wanted to completely devote myself to helping victims achieve justice in the most remarkable way I can imagine – trial by jury. It’s a beautiful thing that I will fight for as long as I’m breathing.

BY JOHN RYAN Jeff Kroll, and of course my dad, Pat Sr. Each of these four attorneys have distinct styles, from all of which I have taken a little piece for part of my arsenal. I mix in my own style and figure the recipe isn’t quite done being perfected yet.

LD: How would you describe your style as a trial lawyer?

PS: I used to be a bully for opposing witnesses – bad idea. I have learned a lot, both by reading anything I can get my hands on and by failing miserably. Perhaps most importantly, I developed the confidence to be myself.

I would describe my style as being friendly, prepared, and altruistic. I try to instill in the jury a sense of altruism, where they can render a verdict that is fair for the case, good for the community, and in line with what most people believe are important values. I want to be the most prepared lawyer in the courtroom. I also want to be the most energetic lawyer in the courtroom. I want the jury to look forward to my turn with the witness, or in opening, or in closing. I try to be short so as to not waste the jurors’ time.

I’m not as interested in getting the jury to see things from my client’s perspective as I am in having the jury see how what happened to my client fits in with a society of rules, and whether the jury wants to do anything about that. At the end of the day, the jury system is an important function of democracy, and our country, and in that sense the world is shaped in part one jury verdict at a time.

LD: You’ve had an impressive string of large jury verdicts. Can you share a few factors that you feel have been key to your success in recent years?

LD: Can you describe a recent case you’ve tried? The O’Hare incident leading to the $148-million verdict must have been memorable.

PS: I’m blessed to be at a firm where I have received amazing tutelage. We also are able to handle important cases. We have the resources to hire the best experts and put on the best presentation at trial. I have become very involved at the American Association for Justice, which has opened my eyes to incredible trial lawyers and strategies that have improved my ability to communicate. I have a long way to go, but I think I have done a fair job at taking the incredible gifts I’ve been given as a relatively young lawyer – I can’t believe I’m already out 10 years – and trying to capitalize by becoming as good at trial work as I can. I have read many books, other lawyers’ closing arguments, and I have had the benefit of working with some great lawyers directly on cases: the late Mike Schostok, the recently-retired David Pritchard, relatively new partner (almost 4 years)

It was really an honor to represent this young woman.

She suffered perhaps the most horrific long-term injury a human being can suffer. While our opponents tried the case admirably, we were fortunate to get an amazing group of citizens as our jury – not because they were open to big numbers (obviously they were) but because

PHOTO BY: MICHELLE NOLAN

PS: The $148-million verdict was a special case. I was fortunate enough to have the confidence of the trial team to have been brought on the case about a month or two before trial. I was given the privilege of picking part of the jury. I also was given the privilege to get to know and ultimately present at trial all of the family members, except one sister. That was my primary role.

I was also involved in some of the strategic decisions, like how much money to suggest to the jury or what video to use during opening.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

247

500

500 they paid attention and viewed the case as human beings. People that are paralyzed and have daily chronic pain live a very difficult life, though thankfully there aren’t too many people with such a devastating injury.

But, as I say about this practice, there should be less cases and bigger verdicts. What I mean by that is insurance companies, corporations, and individuals should behave in a safe manner such that these things don’t happen – but when it does, harm should be expensive.

It should be expensive to cause pain, suffering, disability, and disfigurement to another human. It should be expensive to tear away a person’s hopes and dreams at the age of 24 and subject the individual to a lifetime without the ability to walk.

LD: What were the key challenges of litigating the case?

PS: Her biggest challenge was simply putting her family, friends, and doctors through the trial. It was also hard on her. She deals with enough on a daily basis. It was difficult for her to know that the case meant that people would have to fly in from around the country and that her doctors would have to take time from their practices on her behalf. Even though every single witness of ours was eager to testify on Tierney’s behalf, she still – to this day – does not like burdening others.

LD: What is the impact on the client or the industry?

PS: That remains to be seen. Hopefully, the matter comes to a successful conclusion, because as of yet, no money has been paid. We are currently in the posttrial phase. At the very least, this verdict should mean that people act more safely with public, and private, structures, and that if something like this happens, they know that a jury will award what is true value to the enormity of the loss.

LD: Is there a specific lesson you drew from this case?

PS: Push the envelope on damages. If you present your case correctly for a worthy victim, they’ll get it. Being injured is rotten. Pain is devastating. People get that.

Less cases, bigger verdicts.

LD: Obviously, there is a family connection, but why did you choose Notre Dame over other options? Was there a close second?

PS: My fall back was Loyola, which is a great school. I was fortunate to have been accepted, and I would have gone there if not Notre Dame. Notre Dame, when I was accepted, was basically the family’s favorite football team. Now, it’s a part of our family fabric. Four of the five boys have degrees from there, with the one that did not going to Loyola and still a big fan. Two of my broth-

248

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

ers played football. Brian, who practices with me, is a “double-domer.” I like to think I had a hand in starting that trend, but at the time, it was a special connection with my dad, a great school, a football team I already cheered for, and close to home – two hours away, versus University of Colorado for undergrad. The bond only deepened from there.

LD: Did you have a favorite class or professor that was particularly influential in your studies or future career?

PS: John Gallo has to be one of the most admirable guys I know. He taught white collar crime. A former partner, head of litigation at Sidley, now executive director at the Legal Aid Foundation in Chicago. Formerly a prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s office, who rose to a very high level before leaving for the private sector.

He made class fun, much like how I want to make trial fun for the jury – to an extent, it’s serious but it needs to be interesting. He has been and continues to be influential in doing the right thing, working hard, and having a smile all the while. He’s awesome.

LD: What makes Notre Dame a great law school?

PS: The people are just incredible. When I showed up, I graduated from Colorado with a decent GPA, felt like I was kind of smart, and figured I could keep pace. I realized quickly that my fellow classmates were Rhodes scholars, Peace Corps members, NCAA athletes, had already been successful with prior employment, and on and on. That motivated me to pick it up and become a better student. The professors are top notch. Even though I’m quite liberal politically, and Notre Dame is not, they still foster an environment of open discussion and mutual respect.

LD: What advice do you have for students who want to have a plaintiffs’ practice like yours?

PS: Go to trial, read everything you can get your hands on for trial advocacy, watch great lawyers, and find a mentor. To accelerate your abilities, you have to do all of that. There is no shortcut to becoming a great trial lawyer.

LD: What was your first multimillion-dollar verdict or other significant result from early in your career?

PS: My first case as first chair was in 2009. It was a case where my client broke her leg badly and her knee, as well. The defense offered $350,000. We went to trial. I picked part of the jury, opened, put on the important witnesses, and closed. I remember writing on a piece of paper “$750,000?” and motioning with my thumb “above or below” to my dad before the verdict was read.

The verdict was almost $1.3 million. The client was ec-

500

static. She started crying. I started crying. Even though I still didn’t know much, it made me want to get to trial more. I’ll never forget the feeling that night sitting at my parents’ house with my mom and dad.

A young girl, whose tibia had been broken so badly it went through the skin and needed a rod, received just compensation for the life-altering leg injury she suffered. The insurance company didn’t understand that, but the jury did. I had a small part in making that happen. I say small, because the client and what he or she has gone through is always the biggest piece to the jury trial puzzle.

LD: Can you describe the case and any memories that stand out, or lessons you learned?

PS: I learned that it’s the little things that make the difference. For example, the treating doctor did not give a very favorable deposition, because he said she would not have arthritis in her knee. This was a key issue. With great preparation and extensive discussion with my expert, I determined a fool-proof way to get the doctor to admit there was arthritis in the knee during his testimony, and he did. That was a key development during the trial. That doesn’t happen without attention to detail and execution.

LD: Do you have any special routines for trials?

PS: I prepare a lot, and probably spend too much time contemplating every little area of every witness examination philosophically when I could be more efficient.

I’m working on that. But my favorite thing to ask my trial team is the night before jury selection, I look at the office window and say, “Somewhere out there, 12 people are going to bed tonight who are going to decide my client’s case.” What an amazing system we have. That always gets me excited.

LD: We notice a few other Salvi names on the firm masthead. What’s it like to practice with family members?

PS: I love it. Brian and I are very close. His wife, Eirene, is awesome. She is a terrific lawyer and person, and very easy to work with. At the end of the day, it’s mutual respect. We may disagree at times, but with mutual respect, it should always end well. My dad and I have grown from a mentor-mentee relationship to something closer to a mutually beneficial professional relationship, though I still have dad when I have that tough question to which I don’t know the answer. We all mutually benefit from one another, and as long as that mutual respect exists, which includes working hard, respecting others’ opinions, and eagerly wanting to learn from one another, the work together is both professionally satisfying and fun.

LD: What do you do for fun?

PS: I hang out with my wife, son, and newborn daughter.

After that, my brothers. I have four of them, so that’s a lot of friends to begin with. Family is #1 no matter what. Work obligations take up a lot of time, which is of course necessary to provide for my family, but when the bell rings, I can’t wait to see Julianna, Patrick III, and Victoria. I also began playing the guitar earlier this year, which is a trip. I love it. I’m a huge Grateful Dead fan. I also play hockey, though that’s become a little trickier lately. I try to find some fun day to day, because as we know from this line of work, life can change in an instant. Always enjoy what you have, even if it’s just what you have left.

LD: Are you involved in any pro bono or public interest activities?

PS: I used to serve on the board of a large Catholic school on the southwest side of Chicago, St. Agnes, though I recently stepped down. I remain supportive of several organizations, such as St. Agnes, Michael Matters (for people with brain tumors; named after Michael Schostok, who died of a glioblastoma), and some others periodically. But this is one area of my life that needs a little more action. John Gallo’s recent appointment as Executive Director of the Legal Aid Foundation has motivated me to do more, and that is one organization I want to become more involved in, especially under his leadership. Helping others in need is important, and it’s time for me to do more than what I’m doing.

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

PS: “Rainmaker” is up there. Little guy, Matt Damon, against a defense-oriented judge (until he passed away and Danny Glover took over), a big health insurance company, and the big-bad defense lawyer played by Jon Voigt. The courtroom scenes aren’t entirely an accurate portrayal of what would be allowed or what would happen, but the story can be spot on with respect to what we see in some parts of the state or in some cases depending on who is defending the case. John Grisham captures the plaintiff-defense dichotomy very well in that story.

“Puncture” is another movie, starring Chris Evans, about a young lawyer, who is troubled with addiction but very talented, who uncovers a massive scandal in the healthcare industry. Similarly, it’s big guy versus little guy and that resonates with me. Both of these movies tell me – someday it will be your moment, so be ready.

And as I told my dad, I can’t have the biggest verdict in my career at the age of 35. Until the next case with that much verdict potential, I’ll have to keep my eyes open.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

249

Richard Heimann LIEFF CABRASER (SAN FRANCISCO)

500

THE PRODUCERS: RICHARD HEIMANN

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 Richard Heimann – a rare public defender turned plaintiffs’ class-action champion at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein - whose victories against Big Tobacco and Wells Fargo are as big as they get.

YOU JUST NEVER KNOW WHO’S GOING to become a monster plaintiffs’ lawyer. Case in point: Richard Heimann.

Easy to be fooled by his low-key, almost quiet persona when you meet him. But don’t tell that to Big Tobacco or Wells Fargo, from whom he’s wrested vast amounts of ill-gotten gain on behalf of consumers.

His path to preeminence at one of the nation’s most successful class-action firms started in Philadelphia, where he worked as a public defender. It wasn’t the guilty clients that bothered him; it was the innocent ones. The ability to achieve justice for them in a grueling system was imperfect, to say the very least.

So he headed to San Francisco, and – after a detour as a prosecutor – found himself in private practice.

Then, destiny called.

A huge real estate fraud had been committed in Napa Valley, and Heimann was one of the class-action lawyers in on the case. His competitors? Among them, Robert Lieff and Elizabeth Cabraser. Three decades and billions of dollars later, he’s found a more perfect justice.

Lawdragon: Where did this notion of becoming a lawyer come from?

Richard Heimann: That goes back to when I was in elementary school. I had an uncle who was a lawyer – not a very good lawyer, as it turned out, but I didn’t know that at the time. Somehow I got enamored with the notion of being a lawyer very early on; it got fixated in my mind, before I was a teenager, and I never deflected from it.

I wanted to be a tax lawyer, though I had no clue why. My uncle wasn’t a tax lawyer, and I didn’t know any tax lawyers. It was probably the stupidest idea I’ve ever had, but that’s what I had in mind even through undergraduate school. I didn’t get dissuaded from that until I got into law school. But it was easy to be dissuaded of it once I got there.

LD: How were you dissuaded?

PHOTO BY: RORY EARNSHAW

RH: The first year of law school, at least when I went, was very Socratic in method. You’re required to get up on your feet and talk, and I loved that. I quickly reviewed my expectations and aspirations. As a result of that, more than anything else, I immediately decided “no tax law for me,” because you don’t go into court. I wanted to be a court lawyer.

LD: Your first job as a deputy public defender in Philadelphia – did you enjoy the criminal trial practice?

RH: I did for a while. I don’t know if this is true of everyone, but it was certainly true of me: It burns you out, and for a couple of reasons. One, you’re dealing with some really awful people, and I’m not just talking about the defense side. The whole milieu is terrible. And Philadelphia was, in those days, a very difficult place. Frank Rizzo was the mayor, Arlen Specter was the DA. They were very hard on criminal cases. It also burns you out, because, at least for me, I didn’t mind defending people that I knew were guilty or thought were guilty, but when I was defending somebody who I was convinced was innocent, that puts an awful lot of pressure on you.

It really grinds after a while.

LD: You later worked as an assistant district attorney for Tulare County, Calif. Is that what brought you out West? And how did you end up with a civil practice?

RH: When I came out here, it wasn’t to be a DA, I can promise you that – it was to be in San Francisco.

I was pestering a solo practitioner who I had been introduced to over in Oakland, Ed Fitzsimmons, who was quite a character. I just kept writing him and phoning him to try to get a job with him. After a yearand-a-half or so down at the DA’s office, he relented and gave me a job. And so that’s when I moved from the criminal to the civil side. That would have been in the mid ‘70s. I was with him for about five years.

His principal client was a bank that no longer exists called Central Bank, which got sued all the time.

Most of my practice was trying cases for the bank, defending the bank. We had other cases as well, but that was probably at least half of the practice.

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

251

500

500 Shawn Williams

Sally Yates

ROBBINS GELLER SAN FRANCISCO

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL

Steven Williams PAUL WEISS NEW YORK

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Steve Yerrid THE YERRID FIRM TAMPA

Donna Wilson MANATT LOS ANGELES

Jamie Wine LATHAM NEW YORK

Hassan Zavareei TYCKO & ZAVAREEI WASHINGTON, D.C.

Taurie Zeitzer PAUL WEISS

Richard C. Witzel, Jr. SKADDEN CHICAGO

Marc Wolinsky WACHTELL NEW YORK

NEW YORK

Damien Zoubek CRAVATH NEW YORK

Paul Zumbro Debra Wong Yang

CRAVATH

GIBSON DUNN LOS ANGELES

NEW YORK

Bruce Yannett DEBEVOISE NEW YORK

252

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

Lawrence Zweifach GIBSON DUNN NEW YORK

500

LD: How did you find your way to Robert Lieff and Elizabeth Cabraser, and to starting develop the type of plaintiffs’ practice you have now?

RH: I left Fitzsimmons around 1980 or so and formed my own firm with another lawyer who had also worked for Fitzsimmons. I got a case that was the biggest we ever had, representing 100 or more individuals who had been defrauded in a real estate scam. Lieff and Cabraser, who had offices in Napa Valley at the time, also had brought in a class action for a group of folks who were defrauded.

So we ended up first being competitors, and then ultimately allies, in that case, which settled after a year or two of litigation. It was by far and away the biggest result I had ever had. That’s what led me to team up with Bob and Elizabeth.

LD: What types of cases did you focus on at the outset?

RH: Securities fraud and other financial fraud cases.

Not stock-drop cases, but partnership cases, Ponzi scheme and pyramid-scheme cases as well as federal securities cases. That was basically what we did for a good many years. That was certainly the lion’s share of our practice for the first five or six years that we were together.

LD: How did it evolve from that focus to other kinds of massive cases and class actions?

RH: There’s no rhyme or reason to that. As we expanded the number of attorneys in the firm, we just organically began to get involved in other types of cases besides the financial fraud cases. Opportunistically, it just made sense that we were going to get into other areas. Today our attorneys are pretty specialized in some respects. That’s a more recent phenomenon. Back in the earlier days, we were mostly jack-of-all-trades in terms of the lawyers, but we were able to expand the areas of practice. I don’t think we did that deliberately in the sense that we thought that we needed to expand and diversify.

We just did. Later, you could see in retrospect how smart it was in terms of the outcome, but I don’t know that we saw that at the time.

LD: Let’s discuss some of your most historic cases.

In the Scorpion Technologies litigation you obtained a $5.5 million settlement from Grant Thornton, the company’s accounting firm, and then years later in 2002 won a $170 million verdict against Edasco Ltd. for helping Scorpion set up phony companies to boost sales numbers. Does anything stand out in that trial?

RH: One of the key pieces of evidence in the case was a letter that had been signed by Edasco that attempted to explain away an accounting problem.

The letter was written by people at Scorpion but they had Edasco people sign it, which purported to explain why there was no problem. Every sentence in the letter was a lie. In my opening statement, I told the jury: “I’m going to show you a letter in this case that these people signed, and I am telling you now that every single sentence in the letter is a lie, one after the other.” In my closing argument, I reminded them of this. I remember what I said to them in closing: “I’m sure most of you said at the outset that this lawyer is going to be off his rocker.”

The funniest part was when the jury returned their verdict, which included $165 million in punitive damages. In federal district court, the clerk reads the verdict in civil cases. She was maybe not the brightest star in the room. She starts to say, “And punitive damages of 16 point-” and the foreman of the jury stands up and says, “No, $165 million.”

LD: Of course, there was also your work on the landmark $206 billion settlement in 1998 in the Tobacco litigation. Is there any experience or lesson you drew from working on such a massive effort?

RH: Yes, the importance of team work. Prior to the tobacco cases we, Lieff Cabraser, primarily worked alone, meaning without other plaintiff firms on our cases. In the tobacco litigation from the outset we worked with literally dozens of other plaintiff firms.

First in the class case, that was called Castano. And then in the state cases on a theory of recovering Medicaid expenditures by the states for treating tobacco-related disease. Both of those cases were cutting edge, one might even say novel in terms of the legal theories we were advancing. We had the facts, the fraudulent conduct of Big Tobacco, but we were in search of a viable legal theory. But joining together, working with many other tough plaintiffs’ lawyers gave us a gravitas we would not have had working alone.

LD: More recently, you represented a class against Wells Fargo in the overdraft-fees case in San Francisco federal court, which led to a $203 million judgment in 2010 that was more recently upheld through the appeals.

RH: That was a bench trial before U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup over the fact that Wells Fargo reordered their debit-card transactions for their

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

253

500

500 customers so that the bank would maximize the number of overdraft fees that it could collect when an overdraft occurred. The bank’s story was that this system was what their customers wanted because it meant there was less of a chance that large transactions, like a mortgage payment, would end up being bounced for insufficient funds. We said, “No, that had nothing to do with the reason. The real reason is to maximize the amount of fees they can generate.”

There were documents that showed that’s exactly what they thought, and why they were doing it. Just as importantly, there were documents that showed they knew which of their customers were most affected by this practice. It was poor people, those who are new to banking who don’t understand and don’t keep track as well as everybody else.

We got more response from class members in that case than in any case I’ve ever been involved in, and they were just so tickled that the bad guy got stuck in the end. And it’s not like it’s a lot of money. We’re talking about a few hundred dollars, at most, for individuals who had been stiffed this way. But they were really, really responsive. It was very gratifying.

LD: Is there any other case from your career that stands out for you that you wish to discuss?

RH: Well, one of the cases I most enjoyed was the securities fraud case against McKesson. We represented what was then a very large mutual fund managed by Merrill Lynch. They had taken a hit of over $100 million when the fraudulent bookkeeping at a software firm that McKesson had acquired was publicly revealed. Our case was filed in state court, the class case was in federal court here in Northern California. We teamed up with the class plaintiffs in discovery. We were able to get a trial date in our case in advance of the federal class action. We had a viable claim for punitive damages, which the federal case did not.

When it came time for settlement negotiations it was clear to me that McKesson could not afford to take a chance on trial of our case given the strength of the merits and the real possibility of a runaway jury.

We settled for literally more than our clients’ actual damages, 100-plus %.

LD: What’s keeping you busy now? Will you be in trial this year?

RH: Most of my time these days is devoted to the Wells Fargo derivative case over the phony account

254

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

creation scandal that has rocked the bank. We don’t often do derivative cases. In fact, this is only the second one I have ever been involved with. Despite the obvious fraudulent conduct by the bank, the case is a difficult one against the officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duty, primarily because of the high hurdle that Delaware law creates in its corporate-friendly jurisprudence. Trial is set for next year if we are unable to settle.

LD: Do you love going to court still?

RH: Yeah, I do. It’s hard work, particularly when you’re getting ready for trial. But the best thing about it, and it has been over the years, is how diverse the experience is. We don’t do cookie-cutter cases. One of the great things about this firm and for me personally is the diversity of the work. It seems that everything’s different, and you’re recreating the wheel every time.

I could not survive being at a defense firm and being a specialist. Most folks in those law firms are. I don’t know how you find much pleasure out of practicing in a firm with several thousand lawyers located not only all over the country, but the world. And you’re basically just a cog in that giant corporate machine.

It doesn’t appeal to me at all.

LD: It seems that both you, and the firm generally, thrive on a more entrepreneurial spirit or mentality.

RH: We have, in our junior ranks, a number of lawyers that began with the big defense firms. And the tales they tell of what it’s like to toil inside those firms and how many hours you’re expected, not expected but required to work and bill on an annual basis, it’s just a totally different existence. There’s a totally different state of mind amongst the lawyers here. The lawyers we have are risk-takers Not only just monetarily, but professionally. They take on new things and are anxious to do that, to take on new responsibilities. The mindset of folks in the big firms on the defense side is completely different.

It would never have suited me to simply get paid an hourly wage. Even when I was working for Fitzsimmons, one of the things that he did for me that I thought was great was he gave me pieces of cases, where he had cases on the plaintiffs’ side or on contingency, and he had the good sense to cut me in. And that was my first big paycheck, actually, a contingency that came through like that. Really since then I didn’t understand any other way.

PHOTO BY: AMY CANTRELL

500

Dave Ring TAYLOR & RING (LOS ANGELES)

LAWDRAGON ISSUE 19 | WWW.LAWDRAGON.COM

255

KAREN KARENKAPLOWITZ KAPLOWITZ IS IS HONORED HONORED TO TO BEBE RECOGNIZED RECOGNIZED ASAS A TRUSTED A TRUSTED ADVISOR ADVISOR TO TO LAW LAW FIRM FIRM PARTNERS PARTNERS ON ON BUSINESS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY STRATEGY

THE THE NEW NEW ELLIS ELLIS GROUP GROUP IS IS PROUD PROUD TO TO JOIN JOIN AND AND SALUTES SALUTES THE THE

LAWDRAGON LAWDRAGON2018 2018

100 100LEADING LEADINGCONSULTANTS CONSULTANTSAND ANDSTRATEGISTS STRATEGISTS AND AND CONGRATULATES CONGRATULATES ALL ALL THE THE 2018 2018 LAW LAW DRAGONS DRAGONS ON ON THEIR THEIR ACCOMPLISHMENTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS

100 100 LEADING LEADINGLEGAL LEGAL CONSULTANTS CONSULTANTS AND ANDSTRATEGISTS STRATEGISTS

WWW.NEWELLIS.COM WWW.NEWELLIS.COM

Advocates for Workplace Fairness

Congratulations to Wayne Outten, Adam Klein, and Wendi Lazar for inclusion in the 2018 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