The following is an excerpt from Practice Perspectives: Vault's Guide to Legal Practice Areas.
Nathaniel Amann advises clients on a wide range of antitrust and competition-related matters, with expertise in guiding clients through the entire transactional life cycle, from counseling during inception to navigating regulatory regimes, addressing inquiries by the FTC and DOJ, securing transactional clearances, and advising on post-closing integration. Nathaniel has also faced the FTC and private parties in litigation.
Nathaniel maintains an active pro bono practice helping immigrants in reaching a path to citizenship. He received his J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center, where he graduated cum laude. In law school, Nathaniel served as managing editor of the American Criminal Law Review, where he also published his note on restitution and the excessive fines clause.
Anna Rathbun represents companies in high-stakes antitrust litigation and investigations, including business-to-business litigation; merger challenges; government investigations by the Antitrust Division of the DOJ, the FTC, state attorneys general, and global antitrust regulators; and class actions.
Anna maintains an active pro bono practice, which includes leading the Latham trial team that, after a week-long evidentiary hearing, secured federal habeas relief for an inmate on Alabama’s death row, for which the team received the 2022 Robert M. Dell Prize for Extraordinary Pro Bono Service. Before law school, Anna served as a Peace Corps volunteer in the Kyrgyz Republic.
Describe your practice area and what it entails.
Anna: My practice focuses on antitrust litigation, which involves representing clients in a wide array of disputes related to competition law, including bet-the-company trials. My role requires a deep understanding of both legal and economic principles as antitrust cases often hinge on distilling complex analyses of market dynamics and competitive behavior into compelling presentations that judges and jurors understand. The practice keeps me intellectually stimulated, as it involves crafting arguments that align with both statutory law and evolving case law.
Nathaniel: My practice primarily focuses on antitrust merger control, which involves guiding clients through the antitrust aspects of the deal process—from the initial assessments of a transaction to obtaining federal clearance after second requests and defending clients (and deals) in court if necessary. Because my practice encompasses the regulatory aspects that stem from the entire life cycle of a deal, the matters I work on range widely in size and complexity.
What types of clients do you represent?
Anna: My client base spans multiple sectors, but I have a particular focus on the sports industry. I represent clients such as the U.S. Soccer Federation, the Atlantic Coast Conference, and NASCAR. Sports antitrust litigation presents unique challenges and opportunities as the legal issues in sports antitrust cases often intersect with broader commercial and regulatory concerns, such as, for example, the questions surrounding name, image, and likeness that we’ve seen emerge the past few years.
Nathaniel: Due to the nature of my work, I work with a diverse range of clients, including those in Big Tech, AI, energy, and life sciences. One common thread is that my clients tend to be either involved in significant mergers or operate in rapidly evolving industries of interest to regulators. Working with clients across sectors requires me to stay abreast of market trends and regulatory developments to provide effective legal counsel.
What types of cases/deals do you work on?
Anna: I handle business-to-business disputes, merger litigation where the government may attempt to block a merger, and class actions. One unique feature of the types of cases I work on, especially in the sports sector, is the navigation of public relations as these matters can garner significant media attention.
These cases require a strategic approach, balancing legal advocacy with public relations considerations. The complexity and high stakes of these cases make them both challenging and rewarding as they often set precedents in antitrust law. Each case provides an opportunity to influence the development of legal standards in the industry.
Nathaniel: I handle a wide variety of deals, from large bet-the-company mergers to smaller licensing transactions. Each deal presents a completely new competitive landscape, regulatory posture, and economic facts that must be explored and properly contextualized to ensure that the deal receives the best shot at clearance possible. For example, I have worked on high-profile mergers involving major players in the tech and energy sectors, which often involve complex negotiations with regulatory bodies sensitive to prevailing social concerns, requiring strategic legal and economic analyses and arguments. These cases provide opportunities to influence industry standards and contribute to shaping market dynamics.
How did you choose this practice area?
Anna: My journey into antitrust was somewhat serendipitous. I didn’t initially plan to specialize in this area as I hadn’t taken antitrust courses in law school or studied economics in undergrad. However, when I joined Latham, I began in the firm’s unassigned program and took advantage of working on matters across as many practice areas as I could. When I was assigned to an antitrust litigation case under the supervision of the great Maggy Sullivan, I found the work incredibly engaging. I liked the blend of applying the broad body of antitrust case law to new applications in emerging markets and industries and knew I had discovered where I would focus my practice.
Nathaniel: I’d say that antitrust chose me! My interest in antitrust began in law school, where I offhandedly took a course that ended up sparking my passion for the field. When I joined Latham, I sought out antitrust matters, got on one supervised by Hanno Kaiser and Kelly Fayne, and the rest is history. I enjoy that the practice offers a unique blend of legal and economic challenges, allowing me to engage with a wide range of industries and issues. It also allows me to work on cases that have significant implications for competition and consumer welfare.
What is a “typical” day like and/or what are some common tasks you perform?
Anna: I would describe the typical day as dynamic. I might start the day with legal research and writing, focusing on analyzing complaints or drafting motions; move into client counseling, advising on litigation strategy, and working with clients on antitrust compliance programs; and cap off the day by interacting with government regulators.
Nathaniel: My day is similarly dynamic and typically involves diving into my clients’ businesses. Comprehensively understanding how a client sees themselves and their position is paramount to being able to render effective advice, regardless of where a client may be in their dealmaking process. I also provide clients with day-to-day guidance on regulatory processes, coordinate responses to ongoing investigations (which also vary widely), and keep up with significant developments in antitrust law.
What training, classes, experience, or skills development would you recommend to someone who wishes to enter your practice area?
Anna: For aspiring antitrust litigators, I recommend focusing on developing strong storytelling, communication, and legal writing skills. We must convey the stories of our clients and distill complex economic arguments in a way that’s comprehensible and persuasive to judges and juries, so the ability to build out a narrative always represents a plus.
While a background in economics can be helpful, it’s not essential. The key is to be open to learning and to work closely with experts who can provide insights into economic concepts. Engaging in moot court or other advocacy programs can also be beneficial in honing your litigation skills.
Nathaniel: I agree with Anna that while antitrust classes certainly can prove beneficial, they’re not a prerequisite to building a successful antitrust practice. It’s much more important to commit to understanding the material and developing critical and lateral thinking skills; antitrust matters very rarely have the same fact patterns, so being able to translate and analogize across fact sets are valuable skills. Engaging in internships or clerkships that offer exposure to antitrust issues can also be valuable as they provide practical experience and insights into the field. Building relationships with mentors and colleagues can also offer guidance and support.
What misconceptions exist about your practice area?
Anna: A common misconception is that you need a strong background in economics to succeed in antitrust. While understanding economic principles certainly comes into play, the practice encompasses much more, from legal analysis to strategic thinking and effective communication. I tell incoming associates not to let a lack of economic expertise deter them from exploring antitrust, as once you learn and gain more experience, these skills—navigating the economics of a case included—develop over time.
What is unique about your practice area at your firm?
Nathaniel: Our practice is industry-agnostic compared to others, requiring us to deeply understand the workings of various markets, which keeps our work intellectually stimulating and dynamic. Antitrust is one of the most fact-specific practice areas you can build a career in: Every deal or lawsuit must be contextualized in the face of the broader markets that the relevant companies are operating in, which requires us to be able to shift gears and grasp key industry concepts quickly. At bottom, an antitrust lawyer should be able to speak intelligently about a client’s business with that same client at any time.
What are some typical tasks that a junior lawyer would perform in this practice area?
Nathaniel: This is a practice area where you can dive into the substance early on in your career and develop a deep understanding of antitrust principles in action. Junior lawyers can expect to take the first cut of market research to examine the impact of a proposed transaction on competition or analyze a business to understand their business and positioning. For more-involved matters, such as a second request, a junior associate may find themselves tackling the first draft of responses for eventual submission to the federal government or discussing with client employees the aspects of the client’s business workings.
On the litigation side, junior lawyers can expect a lot of research and writing, particularly centered around the analysis of complaints and motions. One aspect of the practice that’s quite fun is the real-world component of fact finding. Because of our clientele, associates often conduct research beyond the traditional legal sense; they’re examining social media and news coverage to gain a better understanding of how our clients are perceived amongst the public and their market impact.
What are some typical career paths for lawyers in this practice area?
Anna: Many antitrust lawyers transition into government roles at agencies like the DOJ or FTC, where they can shape policy and enforcement. Others move into in-house positions as companies increasingly focus on competition law, and this will likely continue as a trend given the rise of antitrust enforcement activity in the past few years and its status as a bipartisan priority. Because experience in antitrust issues is so highly sought out in the current market, the skills gained in antitrust prove valuable for a variety of career paths and provide opportunities to work across sectors.