The following is an excerpt from Practice Perspectives: Vault's Guide to Legal Practice Areas.
Steven Seigel has a proven track record representing plaintiffs and defendants across an array of complex subject matters. His portfolio spans intellectual property (IP), breach of contract, environmental torts, ERISA, consumer privacy, and other complex civil and commercial disputes. Seigel has faced off against industry titans including Apple, Samsung, Google, LG, Cisco, Ford, Nissan, GM, Tesla, BMW, and Toyota. He has briefed, argued, and won appeals, case-dispositive motions, claim construction battles, and critical discovery disputes. Steven effectively works together with expert and fact witnesses and has taken and defended dozens of depositions, eliciting critical admissions from high-level executives and seasoned experts alike.
Krisina Zuñiga successfully represents plaintiffs and defendants in all types of commercial litigation, including IP, antitrust, class action, insurance, fraud, and breach of contract cases. Krisina has tried cases in state and federal courts and recently represented the City of Baltimore in its litigation against opioid distributors and manufacturers that resulted in a $266 million verdict and over $400 million in settlements. Krisina has been recognized by the American Bar Association as one of the nation’s Top 40 Lawyers Under 40, by Texas Lawyer as one of fewer than 30 lawyers On the Rise, by Bloomberg as an Intellectual Property Fresh Face, and by The National Law Journal as a Rising Star of the Plaintiff’s Bar.
Describe your practice area and what it entails.
Krisina: I am a generalist. My practice is commercial litigation, which includes anything that could be characterized as a business dispute, from breach of contract cases to patent infringement suits and insurance class actions.
Steve: I am a trial lawyer. While I have a good deal of experience with patent infringement litigation in district courts, the International Trade Commission (ITC), and at the Federal Circuit, I still consider myself a generalist at heart.
What types of clients do you represent?
Krisina: All types of clients and parties on both sides of the “v.” My clients include individuals, companies, government entities, and classes. Some of my current clients include the City of Baltimore in its opioid litigation, a former executive of an oil and gas company in a breach of contract dispute, and the global sports and entertainment trading cards and collectibles company Fanatics in an employment-related matter.
Steve: I represent individuals as well as multibillion-dollar corporations, plaintiffs as well as defendants. To name a few: Vicor Corporation, Huawei Technologies, Zillow, and MIT.
What types of cases/deals do you work on?
Krisina: All types of cases. In 2024, I represented the City of Baltimore in a six-week jury trial against major drug distributors McKesson and AmerisourceBergen over the role they played fueling the opioid epidemic in the city. The jury awarded $266 million to the city, the only successful verdict any jurisdiction has obtained in opioid litigation against McKesson and AmerisourceBergen. The lawsuit involved a number of other defendants who settled pre-trial, resulting in $402.5 million in settlements for the city. In 2024, I also represented the sports and entertainment trading cards and collectibles company Fanatics in an employment-related appeal and filed a lawsuit on behalf of a former executive of an oil and gas company against his former employer and business partner.
Steve: Although the bulk of my work at Susman Godfrey has involved patents in some form or another, my practice is quite diverse. I currently represent a certified class of North Carolinians seeking damages for decades of chemical contamination by the Chemours Company and Du Pont. I just argued a Federal Circuit appeal of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision on behalf of patent-owner client Ancora Technologies, and I will argue two more appeals at the Federal Circuit on behalf of Zillow and MIT in 2025. This past April, I tried a case at the ITC on behalf of Vicor Corporation, a Massachusetts-based manufacturer of power modules, that resulted in an initial determination in favor of Vicor. I am currently representing Huawei in a complex case involving Wi-Fi patents and associated antitrust and RICO claims brought by NETGEAR in the Central District of California.
How did you choose this practice area?
Krisina: I came to Susman Godfrey because I wanted to be a trial lawyer and to stand up in court as quickly and as often as possible. I discovered in college that I really enjoyed oral advocacy and confirmed that during law school. I was attracted to Susman Godfrey because we offer stand-up opportunities early on and the firm focuses on the fundamentals of trial work and the facts of a dispute (e.g., the company, the technology, the industry, and the people)—not on any particular type of case. For me, being a generalist keeps things interesting and fun.
Steve: When I started at Susman Godfrey, I naturally gravitated towards patent work (including handling Federal Circuit appeals) given my earlier clerkship with Judge Taranto on the Federal Circuit. My first few years as an associate gave me a tremendous amount of experience managing the day-to-day work of patent infringement litigation, and it cemented my desire to make this a core part of my practice. At the same time, specialization can act at times like legal blinders; I believe very strongly that maintaining a non-patent practice helps sharpen legal skills, gives new perspective on how to attack what appears to be well-settled law, and improves your overall skill set as a trial lawyer. For that reason, I am grateful for the work I get to do in other areas of law, including class actions, commercial disputes, breach of contract cases, and other complex civil cases.
What is a “typical” day like and/or what are some common tasks you perform?
Krisina: There is no typical day. It varies depending on the cases I’m working on and what stage those cases are in. Typical tasks, however, include writing a brief, digging into the key documents, discussing discovery issues with other lawyers on my team or opposing counsel, preparing for or taking a deposition, and preparing for or arguing at a hearing—in other words, building the case for trial. Some years, like this past year, I am in trial and get to see the case-building finally come together.
Steve: As trial lawyers in complex civil cases, the vast majority of our time is focused on shaping our cases for trial. And that shaping breaks down into two broad categories of work: the strategic part (thinking and collaborative conversations about how to frame the case, develop evidence in line with core thematic points for trial, and how best to posture your client before the court and, eventually, jury) and the execution part (writing briefs, arguing motions, taking depositions, drafting discovery and discovery responses, and eventually trying the case). Although I’d love to say I spend my day cross-examining witnesses at trial, the reality is that I spend most of my days preparing to try cases, so that when the time comes, all the pieces are in the right place.
What training, classes, experience, or skills development would you recommend to someone who wishes to enter your practice area?
Krisina: I always recommend participating in a clinic in law school. Clinics often give law students real-life experience that will serve them well when they start a career in litigation. My first opening statement and examination of a witness was in a criminal trial while I was a third-year law student. Another thing I always recommend is a judicial clerkship. Clerking for a judge not only gives you the opportunity to learn directly from a seasoned jurist but also to observe all kinds of advocacy and assess what works and what doesn’t. For me, my two clerkships further provided me with wonderful mentors and friends in my former bosses. I will forever be grateful to them.
Steve: Writing, writing, writing. So much of our work is communicated through writing, and I am always working on improving it. Raising your hand at every opportunity to write briefs is the best way to develop this skill early on, but the quest for improvement never stops. As for other skills—depositions, taking witnesses at trial, oral argument—those really require learning by doing. Susman Godfrey expects its associates will be able to figure out how to take on these roles, and the firm is lucky enough to have a stable of seasoned veterans who are eager to offer their advice on how to do it right.
What is the most challenging aspect of practicing in this area?
Krisina: One challenge that comes to mind is how long cases can take to resolve. Because we typically handle complex, high-stakes cases, the road to trial can be long. The case I tried this year for the City of Baltimore against opioid distributors McKesson and AmerisourceBergen, for example, was filed over six years ago. The journey can be frustrating, and maintaining momentum can be challenging. But we are trained at Susman Godfrey to be efficient and to keep pushing cases forward, and the years of hard work make winning that much more satisfying.
What do you like best about your practice area?
Steve: Learning. Because we’re a firm of generalist trial lawyers, we’re always learning new areas of law, new technologies, new businesses, and new clients. That process—getting up to speed and coming to master a specific issue or technology or area of law—means that the work is always interesting. There is a common misperception in the patent world that you need to have a technical background. I do not. I majored in English and political science. And I view my lack of a technical background as a strength. Like most jurors that we try cases before, I don’t have a master’s in computer science or engineering. As a result, I spend a great deal of time trying to learn the subject matter of a given case so that I can explain it in terms that nonspecialists (like me) will understand.
What is unique about your practice area at your firm?
Krisina: Because of the smaller size of our firm and trial teams, the firm feels like a family. Even as the firm has grown, I know every lawyer at our firm and consider many to be close friends. Also, to be an associate at Susman Godfrey, you must complete at least one federal clerkship. That means that every attorney’s career path at our firm includes clerking for a federal judge. Most join right after their clerkship(s). I clerked, came to the firm for a year, clerked again, returned to the firm, and have happily been here ever since.
Steve: What separates being a trial lawyer at Susman Godfrey from other firms is a collective sense that trial is FUN. Trial is the party we are all working so hard to attend. Sure, it involves long days, no sleep, gallons of coffee, and huge spikes of cortisol. But when you’re in the thicket with colleagues who love trial work as much as you do, you can’t help but have a good time.
What are some typical tasks that a junior lawyer would perform in this practice area?
Krisina: At Susman Godfrey, any task that a senior lawyer would perform. We believe in training by doing and are known for trusting lawyers with substantive tasks from day one. Even summer associates get the opportunity to do (or at least see) pretty much anything a Susman Godfrey lawyer may do on any given day. We have our summer associates help with conducting legal research, writing briefs, preparing witnesses for depositions, and mooting lawyers for arguments or examinations. This past summer, while a team of Susman Godfrey lawyers, including myself, prepared for trial in Baltimore, a summer associate joined us and helped with the trial prep.
Steve: I’ll flip it and say that at Susman Godfrey there is no task that we think a new associate can’t handle.