Litigation

Describe your practice area and what it entails.

Scott: I am first and foremost a trial lawyer. I have first-chaired trials in federal and state court, and I have defended dozens of mass arbitration claims at full merits hearings. Although the legal subject matter of my caseload varies from year to year, I have litigated multiple cases involving trade secrets and anti-trust law, as well as contract disputes involving private equity and hedge funds. My practice varies between the plaintiff and defense sides.

Charlotte: I litigate trials, appeals, and arbitrations, with roughly an even split between plaintiff- and defense-side work. Over the past year, I represented clients in a federal jury trial, a high-stakes commercial arbitration, and multiple appeals. Looking forward to 2026, I am currently preparing for two multiple-month antitrust federal jury trials and trademark litigation before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

What types of clients do you represent?

Scott: Holwell Shuster & Goldberg counts many of the most successful and innovative companies in the country among its clients, as well as smaller ones in bet-the-company litigation. For example, I recently led the firm’s team that won an $81 million trade secrets jury verdict for aerospace startup Zunum Aero against Boeing in federal court in Seattle. I also helped secure a $70 million win in New York state court for investment fund Melody Business Finance against former hedge fund billionaire Philip Falcone, and I led the team defending Valve Corporation (which owns the Steam gaming platform) in mass arbitrations brought under antitrust laws. I am currently representing private equity firm H.I.G. Capital in its case against another private equity firm alleging fraud in an M&A transaction.

Charlotte: To Scott’s point on the diversity of our clients, in the past year alone, I have represented multiple Fortune 500 companies, a startup, a medical technology company, and an investment company. With Scott and others, I represented Zunum from early discovery through an $81 million jury verdict and successful appeal. Previously, I represented Chubb as a codefendant in a case arising from the Jay Peak Ponzi scheme, an online media company in a privacy-related putative class action, and a social media company in high-stakes arbitration. At the time of this interview, I am preparing to defend Visa in two major antitrust federal jury trials in 2026.

What types of cases/deals do you work on?

Charlotte: My caseload ranges widely, which I love. Last year, I examined witnesses at a federal jury trial concerning trade secrets in May and then tried a complex $5 billion contract dispute in private arbitration in December. This year, I argued a novel question of private international law before the Second Circuit and initiated administrative tribunal proceedings. In my pro bono practice, I have represented Medical Students for Choice—a nonprofit with over 300 chapters—in litigation concerning access to reproductive healthcare across the country, including before the U.S. Supreme Court. In partnership with the ACLU, I have also represented individuals in Title VII discrimination and §1983 excessive-force-in-arrest lawsuits.

Scott: In one sense, my cases have a more defined profile: I primarily work on business disputes with a strong likelihood of going to trial. I am a generalist, but my recent cases have included antitrust, trade secrets, financial services, contract disputes, restructuring-related litigation, and international arbitration.

How did you choose this practice area?

Charlotte: I was drawn to trial work early because it is intellectually challenging, demanding, and exciting all at once. It requires meeting with people, asking questions, discovering what happened, assembling the facts into a compelling story that fits the relevant legal framework, and then presenting the story in a way that is both true and persuasive.

Scott: I began my career at a larger firm working mainly on the defense side, where I learned a ton from a lot of great lawyers. I found myself drawn to Holwell Shuster & Goldberg, which has a more generalist practice and provides greater opportunities to work on both sides of the “v.” Like Charlotte, I found that I really love trial work, especially the art of crafting a narrative to fit the evidence and presenting it to a decision-maker in the most persuasive way possible.

What is a “typical” day like and/or what are some common tasks you perform?

Scott: This certainly hasn’t been true of my whole career, but for the past year, my typical day has been going to court or to an arbitration hearing. I haven’t done the math, but I bet I’ve been in court or an arbitration more weekdays than not! When I’m not doing that, I’m advising clients, working on briefs, and doing my best to help our associates become bet-ter lawyers. A lot of the really fun strategizing and mentoring happens sitting together in our (single) office.

Charlotte: The rhythm of my work changes from one month to the next. One month, I could be flying around the country taking and defending depositions. The next month, I could be drafting motions and appellate briefs. I enjoy this diversity of experiences; I make an effort to have both a pre-trial case and an appeal on my docket each year, along with meaningful pro bono work.

What training, classes, experience, or skills development would you recommend to someone who wishes to enter your practice area?

Scott: These may sound mundane, but if you want to be a litigator, I recommend Evidence and advanced Legal Research courses. If you come in with a solid grasp of the rules of evidence and the latest research tools, you will be a step ahead. This is only going to become more important as new AI tools transform litigation. I would also advise seeking out opportunities to be trained. Do not wait for an invitation. Volunteer to attend a hearing, sit in on a client call, or write the first draft of a brief.

Charlotte: You want to be ready to draft that brief that Scott mentions. As litigators, all of our advocacy starts with writing. Take courses with professors who will edit your writing, and ask for feedback. I also recommend moot court. All of the time spent preparing, practicing, and receiving feedback on your oral advocacy skills will make it much easier to argue a motion on short notice down the line.

What is the most challenging aspect of practicing in this area?

Scott: Our clients trust us with exceptionally high-stakes matters, and this means we routinely face the best lawyers in the country. Going against really good adversaries is hard, but that’s a good thing! It’s how we get better; I learn a lot watching how our opposing counsel work, and it makes our wins even more satisfying.

What misconceptions exist about your practice area?

Charlotte: I think there can be an incorrect perception (fueled by TV) that litigators are mean, overbearing, and borderline unethical. In reality, credibility with the court is everything for a litigator, and much of our advocacy happens outside the courtroom in negotiations with opposing counsel. An effective litigator can assess where the parties align, where they diverge but may reach a compromise, and where they have a genuine legal dispute that needs to be resolved in court.

What are some typical tasks that a junior lawyer would perform in this practice area?

Charlotte: Since our case teams often have only a few lawyers, even the most junior associate helps develop case strategy. By mastering the evidence and the law, a junior lawyer can quickly add value and become best-positioned to take on more opportunities. Depositions are good examples: As a junior lawyer, if you know every document, come up with the strategy, advocate for your ideas, and help a deposition run smoothly, you will have built trust and confidence in your ability to take a future deposition. You will also learn more. You’ll be able to pick up on nuances in a witness’ answers, brainstorm questions you would want to ask to tease out the best admissions for your case, observe the questioner ask even better questions, and start to develop your own skills, style, and approach.

How is practicing litigation in a boutique different from practicing in a large law firm?

Scott: The biggest difference is that litigation is the sole focus in our boutique, not simply one practice area among many. This means conflicts are much less of an issue: We can represent almost anyone against almost anyone. Boutiques also typically have lower associate-to-partner ratios. Since our teams are leanly staffed, I am able to spend time investing in the development of each associate on each of my cases. The smaller size of a boutique also reduces the potential for the development of silos and fiefdoms. It is possible to have great culture at a large firm, but boutiques have a structural advantage in fostering true collegiality. At Holwell Shuster & Goldberg, we hire each associate with the goal of helping them develop, succeed, and hopefully have a long career at the firm.

Charlotte Baigent, a Holwell Shuster & Goldberg associate, represents both plaintiffs and defendants in high-stakes commercial litigation, appeals, and arbitrations. She has litigated across the country, examining witnesses in a multiweek federal jury trial, arguing before the Second Circuit, and co-authoring briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court. Charlotte co-chairs the firm’s Associates Committee and maintains a substantial pro bono practice. Charlotte clerked in the Supreme Court of Canada and the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Born and raised in Canada, Charlotte earned her J.D. from the University of British Columbia and her B.A. from Concordia University.

Scott Danner is a Holwell Shuster & Goldberg partner whose practice focuses on trials and arbitration hearings on both the plaintiff and defense sides. On the plaintiff side, he has secured multiple eight-figure verdicts in bench and jury trials. Over the past year, Scott has spent more days in hearings across the country—precisely where he thrives and wants to be—than in the office. Scott leads Holwell Shuster & Goldberg’s relationship with the Office of Appellate Defenders and regularly mentors associates on pro bono appeals. Scott clerked on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and the New York State Court of Appeals. He received his J.D. from the Cardozo School of Law and his B.A. from Cornell University.

Describe your practice area and what it entails.

Jones Day’s business and tort litigation practice is a premier litigation group recognized for its depth of experience and success in handling complex, high-stakes disputes. We litigate commercial and business disputes in state and federal courts throughout the United States and advise corporate clients on key risk and litigation strategies from pre-dispute counseling through trial and appeal. This includes everything from getting claims dismissed to handling extensive complex discovery, preparing strategic summary judgment motions, taking cases to trial, and challenging adverse rulings on appeal.

What types of clients do you represent?

Kelsey: I defend Fortune 500 companies in a variety of industries, including transportation, pharmaceuticals, technology, and energy, against actions brought by other corporations and the government. In my pro bono practice, I assist survivors of human trafficking and immigrants in need of legal representation and work on related Jones Day firmwide initiatives that further these causes.

Chris: I handle a wide range of complex commercial and business disputes for large corporate clients spanning diverse industries, including energy, chemicals, healthcare, technology, and aerospace. I also maintain an active pro bono practice, assisting the underserved in Houston and along the southern border.

What types of cases/deals do you work on?

Kelsey: My practice has an emphasis on antitrust litigation, as I have led cases defending against allegations of antitrust conspiracy, monopolization, product hopping, and anticompetitive mergers. Most recently, I defended a client against price fixing conspiracy claims in two multidistrict litigations, and the court granted the defendant’s summary judgment dismissing the cases. I also enjoy defending against government challenges to our client’s M&A, which involve fast-paced discovery and trials. My practice also spans matters alleging statutory violations, contract disputes, and fiduciary duty disputes.

Chris: I have a broad-based litigation practice that includes class actions, construction disputes, environmental litigation, antitrust and unfair competition claims, and claims brought under FCRA. I was recently part of a trial team that secured a complete defense verdict following a month-long jury trial in a landmark antitrust lawsuit seeking more than $1 billion in damages.

How did you choose this practice area?

Kelsey: As a new lawyer, I joined a case team of Jones Day litigators working on a fast-paced antitrust merger challenge. In less than six months, we conducted extensive offensive and defensive discovery and prepared for and went to trial. Only a few months into practicing, I was helping prepare the client’s chief financial officer and CEO for deposition and trial testimony, working with experts, and drafting direct and cross-examination outlines. What made the exciting case even better was the amazing group of Jones Day lawyers with whom I was working. The team was down-to-earth, hardworking, and collaborative, and they found the right opportunities to play a few pranks that kept a smile on everyone’s faces in the midst of long days and weeks. I was hooked.

Chris: Jones Day recognizes that many graduating law students aren’t quite ready to commit to a practice group that might last an entire legal career. Accordingly, Jones Day welcomes our newest lawyers into the new lawyers group, which gives our associates the freedom during their first year of practice to try out projects spanning a wide variety of fields and practice areas and, ultimately, to find the right fit. After all, if you’re doing fulfilling work with people who support you, chances are you’re going to enjoy the ride and push yourself to succeed.

For me, I was always drawn to the business and tort litigation practice. I love storytelling and the art of persuasion. I also enjoy the fast-paced nature of litigation and the balance between legal research, written advocacy, and on-your-feet opportunities in the courtroom. Although I tested out a few other practice groups during my time in the new lawyers group, for me, litigation was a no-brainer, and I haven’t looked back since.

What is a “typical” day like and/or what are some common tasks you perform?

Kelsey: Every day is different, depending on where my cases are in the litigation process. Some days, I am negotiating the details of discovery with opposing counsel and preparing a motion to compel; other days, I am taking the deposition of a key witness; and on others, I am preparing for argument on a summary judgment motion. Most days I get to collaborate with great colleagues on case strategy, whether in-person, in the office, or by video with folks across the country and the world.

Chris: The stage of the most pressing case on my docket usually dictates what I do during a “typical” day. If it’s in the early stages, there’s usually a focus on overall strategy and case management. As the case progresses, the focus shifts to discovery, motion practice, and finding ways to limit the opposing party’s claims or defenses. On a good day, we spend time in the courtroom presenting our client’s position to a judge or jury. Regardless of the case, there’s typically time spent on various administrative tasks and business development.

What training, classes, experience, or skills development would you recommend to someone who wishes to enter your practice area?

Kelsey: Legal Research and Writing, Civil Procedure, and Evidence are critical classes for any litigator. Trial Advocacy and moot court also provide important on-your-feet experience.

Chris: For law students, I’d recommend focusing on classes covering procedure and legal writing, and I’d encourage them to join a journal and the mock trial team. Beyond the formal training, it’s amazing how far you can get with resilience, attention to detail, and a bit of common sense.

What misconceptions exist about your practice area?

Chris: One of the biggest misconceptions about litigation is the amount of courtroom time. Nearly all of what we do is advocacy, but this advocacy takes many forms and is often performed behind a desk, far from the courtroom steps. While jury verdicts might provide the sweetest taste of victory, many more cases are won on the papers or through crafty negotiation. Another misconception is the idea that everything we do is adversarial and combative. While litigation can sometimes be a zero-sum game, that’s not always the case. In my experience, lawyers who take a practical, reasoned approach to litigation can find success far exceeding what could be obtained through scorched-earth tactics alone.

What are some typical tasks that a junior lawyer would perform in this practice area?

Our junior team members are our experts on the facts and specific legal issues. They research questions of law that inform overall strategy. They are responsible for identifying key evidence and preparing factual outlines that support our case and that anticipate the other side’s arguments. They draft discovery requests and responses based on their knowledge of the evidence and later prepare outlines and exhibits for depositions and trial. Junior lawyers are critical to the success of a case, and their ownership over issues and witnesses can open doors to opportunities beyond their year. We love to see junior lawyers who master the evidence and take initiative to identify areas of strength and weakness and areas for further exploration.

What kinds of experiences can summer associates gain in this practice area at your firm?

At Jones Day, we focus on providing summer associates real experience on client billable matters in addition to work on pro bono matters. Summer associates interested in commercial litigation often assist with research into discrete legal issues for discovery or evidentiary motions and prepare first drafts of briefs. They also work on fact development by analyzing documents and discovery responses to identify key materials for strategic use. We ensure that summer associates have the opportunity to observe a hearing, deposition, or trial to learn from experienced litigators on their feet. We also provide summer associates with a deposition training experience where they take and defend a mock deposition and receive feedback.

What do you feel are the benefits of taking a generalist approach in litigation versus pursuing a more specialized practice?

Chris: Whether to home in on a particular specialty or take a generalist approach to litigation is an age-old question for litigators. I’ve opted for a jack-of-all-trades approach in my litigation career, and I’m grateful to have done so. In my view, a generalist approach can provide broader training, exposure, and flexibility, particularly early in a lawyer’s career. Working on various types of cases across issues and industries helps a lawyer develop the full range of litigation skills. A lawyer with a well-rounded background can be more effective at spotting issues from different angles and perspectives and can pivot more easily down the line through the twists and turns of one’s career. There’s always the option to fall into a particular specialty down the road, and the generalist approach just might help that transition by pinpointing the type of work one most enjoys.

Kelsey Bryan represents clients in a broad range of commercial disputes across a variety of industries and jurisdictions. Kelsey is adept at managing high-stakes complex litigation, including devising and implementing creative and efficient strategies to further clients’ goals.

Kelsey’s practice includes defending clients against allegations of monopolization, price-fixing, product hopping, and DOJ and FTC challenges to proposed acquisitions. Kelsey also represents clients in class actions, contract disputes, corporate and fiduciary duty disputes, and actions related to alleged statutory violations.

Chris Domingo is an accomplished trial lawyer with more than 15 years of experience litigating complex commercial and business disputes in state and federal courts throughout the United States. He represents clients in the energy, chemicals, healthcare, aerospace, tech, hospitality, and railroad industries, and he serves as a trusted advisor to clients from pre-lawsuit counseling through trial and appeal. Chris serves as the administrative partner of Jones Day’s Houston office.

Chris’ cases include class actions, construction disputes, environmental litigation, antitrust and unfair competition claims, and claims brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). His focused and practical approach has led to significant client wins, including a recent defense verdict following a month-long jury trial in a landmark antitrust lawsuit seeking more than $1 billion in damage.

Describe your practice area and what it entails.

MoloLamken focuses exclusively on high-stakes litigation. Beyond that focus, we do not have strictly defined practice groups. We handle trials, arbitrations, appeals, and investigations across the United States for clients all over the world. Our cases cover a broad range of subject matters, including business litigation, class actions, IP, antitrust, bankruptcy, and white collar. Lawyers across the firm routinely work on civil and criminal matters, appellate- and trial-level cases, and on both sides of the “v.” The firm strongly believes that high-stakes advocacy has more to gain than to lose from expertise across a wide array of substantive practice areas. We are advocates first and subject matter specialists second.

What types of clients do you represent?

As a boutique, MoloLamken has fewer conflicts than law firms with hundreds of attorneys. This affords the firm the ability to represent a wide variety of clients, including foreign sovereigns, Fortune 500 companies, hedge funds, and private equity firms. Through the firm’s white collar practice, we represent a variety of prominent individuals, including legislators, high-ranking federal and state officials, and an array of CEOs and C-suite executives in congressional, criminal, and civil matters. We also represent plaintiffs in class actions. At any given time, we might be representing an investment manager seeking to recover on unpaid sovereign bonds, defending a high-profile government official in a criminal prosecution, conducting a targeted internal investigation for a company, and representing a patent holder in the U.S. Supreme Court.

What types of cases/deals do you work on?

Thomas: My practice at MoloLamken has reflected the diversity of the firm’s clients and cases. At the trial level, I have been part of MoloLamken teams representing a major cosmetics company defending against adversary claims in federal bankruptcy court, a prominent art museum asserting trademark claims over an unauthorized pop-up exhibition, a chicken producer defending against antitrust claims concerning alleged supply restraints, and a state prison inmate asserting Eighth Amendment claims against the prison’s medical staff. At the appellate level, I have represented a patent owner in appeals from inter partes review proceedings in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, plaintiff classes asserting antitrust claims against a major sports league and related entities, and a software company in a trademark and contract dispute that proceeded to trial. I have also assisted in drafting petitions for writs of certiorari in cases involving patent laws and securities laws.

How did you choose this practice area?

Sara: We don’t choose our practice areas; they choose us. MoloLamken encourages associates to be advocates first and subject matter specialists second. This gives us the unparalleled ability to work on matters as varied as consumer class actions and individual criminal investigations. I chose MoloLamken because this case diversity promised to help me develop my creative problem-solving skills while also offering numerous opportunities to flex my muscles as an advocate. This year alone—after only a year of practice under my belt—I led a case representing a group of student-athletes in objecting to the high-profile settlement in a major case on compensation in college athletics In re College Athlete NIL Litigation (N.D. Cal.). I also had multiple hands-on drafting and deposition-taking opportunities in commercial litigation cases as varied as a New York state court breach of contract case and Elon Musk’s suit against OpenAI, Sam Altman, Microsoft, and other defendants in the Northern District of California. No other firm would have a practice area covering so many diverse subject matters.

What is a “typical” day like and/or what are some common tasks you perform?

Sara: Reflecting the diversity of MoloLamken’s caseload, there is no “typical” day at the office. One week, I draft summary judgment briefs under an expedited schedule. Another week, I fly across the country to take a deposition. Every month has a different focus that depends not only on the demands of my cases at the time but also on the enormous level of responsibility we are entrusted with as associates. We contribute to both the tactics and the strategy of our cases. Sometimes, this means spending days in deep legal research to draft the first cut of an appellate brief. Other times, this means assembling witness deposition lists with an eye on their strategic importance at trial. The common thread is that every single task I perform pushes the case forward.

What training, classes, experience, or skills development would you recommend to someone who wishes to enter your practice area?

Sara: There is a reason we call what lawyers do a “practice.” Advocacy requires knowledge and application. Litigators should take every chance to apply their knowledge. Experiential courses that allow you to practice your oral advocacy skills are critical. I was in the immigration law clinic in law school, which was an invaluable experience. The clinic was the first time I had the opportunity to get on my feet and deliver an argument in a case with real stakes. It was also the first opportunity I had to apply my skills in preparation, strategy, research, drafting, and public speaking to a case I built from beginning to end. As for knowledge, aspiring litigators should take Federal Courts in law school. For me, learning the core elements of complex civil procedure and jurisdiction and the variety of rationales that underpin these seemingly arcane rules was a skeleton key that unlocked a deeper level of under-standing of all other legal subject matters.

What is the most challenging aspect of practicing in this area?

Thomas: The most challenging aspects of practicing at Molo-Lamken are the variety of cases and the level of responsibility associates are given. No case feels routine. Associates regularly encounter tasks, issues, and areas of procedure that are entirely unfamiliar. This means we are always facing new learning curves. It also means we get to hone our litigation skills, such as drafting briefs, taking depositions, and communicating with clients and opposing counsel, in a variety of contexts. This is not just fun; it helps make us better, more well-rounded lawyers. Because MoloLamken staffs cases leanly, associates are also required to think both big and small. From day one, we are expected to help develop case strategy and exercise independent professional judgment, which creates terrific opportunities for growth. We also have to manage projects and execute assignments with a rigorous level of detail. All these demands are tempered by the ability to rely on thoughtful colleagues who are eager to help each other and the firm succeed.

What is unique about your practice area at your firm?

Attorneys work on all aspects of a case both above and below their level. For example, associates draft dispositive motions, lead meet-and-confers, take depositions, and argue in court. They are also expected to pitch in on document review, regardless of seniority. At MoloLamken, each attorney having hands-on experience with every aspect of a case is crucial to our ability to deliver superlative results for our clients. Our well-rounded approach to client service also supports our professional development. Our flat structure allows us to learn from one another while developing our litigation skills in parallel. No associate is hidden away in a support role. If we work on a motion or brief, our names are on the filing—every time.

What are some typical career paths for lawyers in this practice area?

Thomas: Unlike firms with high associate-to-partner ratios, MoloLamken is not built on an up-or-out model. The firm hires associates with the expectation that they could eventually become partners. This policy requires that the firm’s hiring practices be highly selective to ensure good fit. For example, an associate candidate must interview with several dozen attorneys across all three offices before receiving an offer. From there, the firm invests in its associates through formal and informal mentorship and by involving them in business development and various efforts to improve the firm. When attorneys leave the firm, they often serve in high-profile government positions or work for firms with more niche practices, but the firm maintains strong professional ties with many alumni, including through professional referrals or even co-counsel relationships.

How is practicing litigation in a boutique different from practicing in a large law firm?

Every lawyer on a case team is essential. Boutiques like MoloLamken cannot afford to waste valuable associate time spinning wheels. Instead, associates are trusted—and in fact encouraged—to take ownership of every case and resolve thorny problems quickly and creatively on their own. The result is that compared to associates in large law firms, boutique associates develop their small- and big-picture litigation skills at an accelerated rate. Associates are also given responsibility and stand-up opportunities in billable cases much earlier in their careers than they might at large law firms. Junior associates at MoloLamken, for example, routinely face off against senior opposing counsel from large law firms.

Thomas Schubert’s practice focuses on complex civil litigation, white collar matters, and appeals. His experience covers a broad range of subject matter areas, including intellectual property (IP), antitrust, business torts, and securities, and he has briefed complex disputes before the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal courts of appeals. Prior to joining MoloLamken, Thomas served as a law clerk to the Honorable Rebecca Pallmeyer, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. He received his A.B. from Brown University and his J.D. from Stanford Law School.

Sara Tofighbakhsh’s practice focuses on complex civil litigation at both the trial and appellate levels in state and federal courts. Her practice spans a variety of issues as diverse as complex business litigation, class actions, and white collar criminal defense. Prior to joining MoloLamken, Sara served as a law clerk to the Honorable Gerard E. Lynch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the Honorable Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. She received her B.A. from Rutgers University and her J.D. from Columbia Law School.

Describe your practice area and what it entails.

As a general litigator, I have an intentionally broad practice that encompasses a wide range of areas including healthcare, entertainment, employment, business torts, insurance defense, congressional investigations, and First Amendment litigation. The common theme is that each case for which I’m retained is likely heading toward trial or arbitration since clients particularly value the extensive trial experience I’ve obtained throughout the course of my career in government and private practice. I am typically retained either at the outset of a dispute that is expected to proceed to trial or arbitration, or I am brought into existing matters specifically to prepare and conduct the trial or arbitration. Because of this focus, my practice involves mastering complex factual and legal issues, developing strategic litigation plans, preparing witnesses and witness examinations, and determining how best to present the evidence to the fact finder.

In addition to this work, I conduct internal investigations and advise clients on sensitive internal matters, including allegations of misconduct, discrimination, and other workplace issues. In this capacity, I help clients navigate high-stakes situations where reputational and legal risks abound.

What types of clients do you represent?

I’ve represented clients in almost every major industry and across almost every litigation practice area. I’ve represented Chubb, the largest publicly traded property and casualty insurance company in the world. I’ve also represented American Airlines, Samsung, FedEx Ground, Elevance Health, UnitedHealth Group, NBCUniversal, Warner Bros., an NFL franchise, various higher education institutions, and many others.

What types of cases/deals do you work on?

Over the past year, I’ve handled a False Claims Act case involving a health insurer’s Medicare Advantage risk adjustment practices under Part C of the Medicare program, a business-interruption insurance coverage dispute arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic, a case involving allegations of public nuisance and deceptive trade practices filed by a municipality against a large chemical manufacturer, a dispute between a Brazilian and Indonesian company concerning the enforceability of a foreign arbitration award in the United States, and an internal investigation involving allegations of discrimination at a higher education institution.

How did you choose this practice area?

Funnily enough, I went to law school with the goal of working in politics. While there, however, one of my professors asked if I’d be interested in trying out for the mock trial team. Little did I know that my participation on the team would alter my career trajectory. I fell in love with the strategy involved in persuading individuals from completely different backgrounds to see the case through my client’s perspective. That strategy involves determining how to organize the evidence, frame the narrative, and present the facts in a way that resonates with individuals who would often much rather be spending their day doing something other than sitting in a jury box. It’s one of those rare legal roles that’s not just about knowing the law; it’s about understanding human nature, communication, and psychology. As a result, I decided to structure my career path with that destination in mind.

What is a “typical” day like and/or what are some common tasks you perform?

While no day is ever the same, I usually spend my time counseling clients on urgent questions or case updates, working on trial or appellate briefs, conducting witness interviews, performing fact development, or planning deposition or trial strategy. I like the variety because it keeps things fresh and exciting.

What training, classes, experience, or skills development would you recommend to someone who wishes to enter your practice area?

I recommend getting legal experience and taking classes that require you to be on your feet rather than sitting behind a desk. Consider joining moot court, mock trial, alternative dispute resolution teams, or a legal clinic where you’ll represent real clients in a courtroom setting. In addition, look for internships or externships with a prosecutor, public defender, or a judge so you can observe attorneys who are routinely meeting with witnesses and presenting to judges and juries.

What is the most challenging aspect of practicing in this area?

One of the most challenging aspects of practicing law as a general litigator is the constant need to learn new and unfamiliar areas of the law. Because my practice isn’t limited to a single practice area, each case often presents legal issues, regulations, or procedures that I may not have encountered before. It’s demanding but keeps me intellectually engaged and forces me to expand my legal acumen.

What misconceptions exist about your practice area?

I think the biggest misconception is that generalists do not thrive in big firms since those firms are often organized by specific practice groups. But most complex litigation involves multiple practice areas and disciplines, so a general litigator who knows how to synthesize those areas and disciplines is extremely valuable. This is especially the case in trial matters because those with the most trial experience often gained it across multiple practice areas.

What are some typical tasks that a junior lawyer would perform in this practice area?

In litigation generally, junior lawyers perform legal research, draft discovery requests and responses, review materials produced in discovery to find evidence that can be used to our client’s benefit, and take the first pen on motions and witness outlines.

What do you feel are the benefits of taking a generalist approach in litigation versus pursuing a more specialized practice?

There’s always a unique challenge in each case, and the variety of cases prompts you to become a more versatile strategic thinker. General litigators tend to spot cross-disciplinary issues, which leads to more creative litigation strategies. In addition, you’ll rarely need to tell a client, “No, I don’t handle those matters.”

A former Assistant U.S. Attorney and DOJ trial lawyer, Anwar Graves is a seasoned litigator and courtroom advocate with a broad litigation practice that spans a variety of areas, including healthcare, entertainment, employment, business torts, insurance defense, congressional investigations, and First Amendment litigation. Clients routinely turn to Anwar to not only represent them in high-profile litigation but also to advise them on sensitive internal matters, including allegations of misconduct and discrimination. Anwar has represented notable corporate clients such as NBCUniversal, Warner Bros., an NFL franchise, American Airlines, Samsung, FedEx Ground, Elevance Health, and UnitedHealth Group.

Describe your practice area and what it entails.

Trials. Our firm does not have subject matter specialists. We focus on handling the highest-stakes business litigation happening in trial courts throughout the country across industries and practice areas.

What types of clients do you represent?

Like our practice, our client list is diverse. We’ve represented individual consumers, investors, inventors, whistleblowers, and entrepreneurs. We’ve represented leading companies such as Uber, Flutter Entertainment, and General Electric. We’ve brought class actions, and we’ve defended against class actions.

We represent anyone who needs best-in-the-business commercial trial lawyers.

What types of cases/deals do you work on?

Our cases run the gamut. We both have active class action practices. We were especially proud to work together to secure a $307.5 million settlement for a class of life insurance policyholders who challenged AXA’s 2016 rate hike on hundreds of elderly insureds.

Other recent highlights for Halley include an appointment as interim Co-lead Class Counsel in a nationwide antitrust class action on behalf of healthcare providers alleging that major health insurers colluded with a pricing intermediary to unlawfully suppress payments for out-of-network services. She also represents major corporations, including Penske Media Corporation and Chegg, in antitrust lawsuits against Google related to AI Overviews.

Mark frequently represents hedge funds and other investors in shareholder and securities litigation. He is also currently litigating several high-profile antitrust cases, including a nationwide consumer class action against Apple based on its anticompetitive practices with respect to the iPhone.

How did you choose this practice area?

Halley: I got hooked on SG early on. I spent part of my 2L summer interning in our New York office. That summer, I saw firsthand how much responsibility the firm gave even the most-junior associates and decided I wanted that experience for myself. When I rejoined the firm post-clerkship, my cases offered the quintessential SG experience right away. In my first few weeks, I jumped at the opportunity to take multiple depositions in a breach of contract case, going up against lawyers with decades of experience. The evidence I developed in those early depositions came full circle when I examined the same witnesses at trial (which we won!). Working the full life cycle of this case confirmed that I wanted to do that over and over as a trial lawyer.

Mark: I was lucky enough to have a trial run at trial work. I spent a gap year at SG before leaving to clerk for Justice Ginsburg. In that brief window, I went to trial with a group of impossibly talented SG lawyers from around the country. Even though I was the least-senior lawyer on the team, the senior partners went to bat for me to make sure I got stand-up opportunities and the chance to present a witness at trial. It was no special favor, just the SG way. I loved every minute of it, leaving no question in my mind that I wanted to be a trial lawyer.

What is a “typical” day like and/or what are some common tasks you perform?

Nothing is “typical.” On any given day, we might be arguing in court, examining witnesses at trial, writing or revising a brief, taking or defending depositions, conferring with opposing counsel, running internal team strategy meetings, or reviewing documents. As partners, we’re also vetting new potential cases on a regular basis.

We’re also actively involved in the management of our firm. Specifically, we run our firm’s Docket Committee, which means we’re keeping up on the status and needs of cases across the firm and the availability, skills development, and practice interests of associates across the firm.

What training, classes, experience, or skills development would you recommend to someone who wishes to enter your practice area?

Seize any opportunity to hone your writing skills. For example, enter a moot court competition with a brief-writing component, or clerk for one (or two, or three!) federal judges; you will read countless briefs and draft dozens of judicial opinions and memos. Although our firm is known for taking cases to trial, so much of our case development happens outside the courtroom and centers on writing, such as crafting a persuasive complaint that advances a novel legal theory or drafting winning briefs on dispositive legal issues at both the trial and appellate levels. Our practice depends on excellent written advocacy.

You should also look for opportunities to take initiative and ownership of your work. This might mean running for a journal position, participating in a law school clinic, or leading a law student organization. At SG, we entrust junior lawyers with an enormous amount of responsibility on their cases. We expect these lawyers to help develop case strategy, pursue discovery, handle important depositions and witnesses at trial, argue at hearings, and craft our clients’ stories for judges and juries. The most successful associates don’t wait around for more-senior lawyers to assign them tasks; they actively think about how to advance the ball in their cases and execute on their ideas.

What misconceptions exist about your practice area?

A misconception is that to be a litigator, you have to be overly aggressive or present yourself in a certain way. At SG, we know that there’s no one-size-fits-all approach to litigating. We encourage every lawyer to develop their own authentic style and to be themselves in front of judges and juries. Our most successful lawyers have very different styles—from the Broadway star to the scholarly law professor and the quiet killer.

What is unique about your practice area at your firm?

We’re a trial firm at heart, so we litigate every case as if it’s going to trial. This colors every aspect of our case strategy. Even before we file a case, we’re thinking about how the choices we make in drafting the complaint or choosing a venue and the claims to assert will affect a client’s chances of success at trial. There’s rarely a time when an SG lawyer doesn’t have a trial on the horizon, so distilling a case to the essential elements and zeroing in on trial themes is always on our minds. Our weekly trial team meetings give our lawyers the opportunity to connect on day-to-day tasks and time to discuss big-picture strategy and themes that we need to develop to deliver a successful result for our clients.

What are some typical career paths for lawyers in this practice area?

We tend to attract associates who are interested in spending their careers at SG. We hire associates we can see as our future partners and invest in their development so that they have a real path to partnership. Those who leave rarely go to other firms. Some change careers entirely, a few go in-house, and two recently became federal judges!

How is practicing litigation in a boutique different from practicing in a large law firm?

For some litigation matters, clients need the Navy. Clients call SG when they need Navy Seals—the elite special operations force that knows how to execute the highest-stakes missions.

As an associate, this means early substantive experience. Our lean trial team structures and belief that trial lawyers learn by doing mean that associates get real responsibility from day one and participate in every aspect of a case. In their first year at the firm, associates can expect to take and defend depositions, argue in court, research and draft full briefs, interact with clients on a weekly basis, and much more.

Everyone at SG is encouraged to work smarter, not harder. Unlike larger firms that typically bill by the hour, SG has been a pioneer in alternative fee arrangements that align our interests with our clients’ interests and reward us for success instead of hours.

Halley Josephs represents clients in complex litigation around the country. Named one of the Top Women Lawyers in California by The Daily Journal, a Next Generation Leading Lawyer by Lawdragon, and a Rising Star of the Plaintiffs’ Bar by The National Law Journal, Halley regularly secures major wins for her clients. These have included a $307.5 million settlement for a certified class of life insurance policyholders who challenged AXA Equitable’s increases to cost-of-insurance charges, a $16 million deal to resolve a whistleblower lawsuit against Walgreens, and a major win in a confidential arbitration for a well-known sports agency. Halley previously clerked for Judge Patty Shwartz (Third Circuit) and Judge Anita Brody (Eastern District of Pennsylvania). She earned her J.D. from Yale Law School and her B.A. with distinction from the University of Virginia, where she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa.

Mark Musico is a trial and appellate lawyer whose clients include the country’s leading lights in finance, technology, and industry. Landmark wins include an award valued at over $2 billion for Flutter Entertainment after a widely followed arbitration against Fox Corporation, multiple high-value wins for the global alternative asset management firm Saba Capital Management, and a $307.5 million settlement for a class of life insurance policyholders in connection with AXA Equitable’s cost-of-insurance rate hike. After graduating first in his class from Columbia Law, Musico clerked at every level of the federal judiciary—for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Michael Boudin on the First Circuit, and Judge Douglas Woodlock in the District of Massachusetts.

Describe your practice area and what it entails.

My job is to help businesses navigate their trickiest disputes: the high-stakes, high-profile conflicts you read about in the news every day. We help our clients steer through disputes with all types of entities, including other companies, consumers, and government regulators. We guide our clients through every stage of the litigation process, including at the trial level and on appeal. Whether it is providing strategic counsel, winning in court, or developing innovative solutions outside litigation, we work to protect our clients’ interests and chart the clearest path forward to help our clients achieve their most important goals.

What types of clients do you represent?

Our practice group works with clients across a wide range of industries and business sectors. Much of my work focuses on major consumer goods companies, including some of the largest food and beverage brands in the world, such as PepsiCo and Tropicana. I work closely with clients in the sports industry, including players’ unions, individual athletes, universities, consultants, and big-brand sponsors. I enjoy working with clients that are in the public eye to help them not only prevail in litigation but also protect their brand and image.

What types of cases/deals do you work on?

The best part of my practice is the mix of cases; every dispute and every day is a little different. When I’m working with my consumer goods clients, which include some of the biggest food and beverage brands in the world, I help them address complex marketing and advertising questions. Our team works with our clients to help them navigate the web of federal regulations and business objectives to ensure that the labeling and marketing of their products are clear and effective, and we defend these clients if a government regulator or consumer challenges their ads as misleading in a class action or other type of lawsuit.

On the sports side, I work with players’ unions, athletes, and other sports industry clients on issues that cut to the core of sports governance and athlete well-being, including fair pay, player safety, and protections against abusive or discriminatory practices. For example, I served as lead counsel for the National Women’s Soccer League Players Association and conducted a 14-month internal investigation into allegations of abuse and misconduct in women’s professional soccer. This was an opportunity to work closely with the players to under-stand and reshape the league and team dynamics in a way that would ensure success and player safety for years to come.

From consumer goods to sports and across our entire commercial litigation practice, the focus is always on protecting what matters most to our clients and making a real difference in high-impact and high-profile situations.

How did you choose this practice area?

I watched a lot of Law & Order as a kid! I was fascinated by Jack McCoy and loved the idea of being in the courtroom and having to develop the winning argument when the pressure is on. Because I knew I wanted to be in a courtroom, I joined the mock trial team as soon as I could and competed through high school, college, and law schooI. I always knew litigation was the right path for me.

Even though I knew I wanted to be a litigator, I didn’t plan to specialize in any particular area or industry. As a summer associate, I worked on a consumer class action that involved “all natural” labels on potato chips, and I found it fascinating because it was so grounded in real life—how actual people shop, read labels, and understand product marketing. That experience showed me how much I enjoyed litigation that connects directly to people’s every day experiences, and I’ve enjoyed building my understanding of the industry and consumer habits ever since. As for sports, I’ve always been passionate about it, and I made sure to share that with folks I worked with and to seek out as many opportunities as possible to work in the field.

What is a “typical” day like and/or what are some common tasks you perform?

A typical day in complex litigation is a mix of research, writing and strategy. The bread and butter of our work is understanding the statutes and case law that shape our clients’ obligations and then using this knowledge to persuade a court that our client’s position is the right one. We spend a lot of time drafting briefs, motions, and other written work because clear, persuasive writing is at the heart of effective advocacy. The best quality for a litigator is to be a good storyteller, and we spend every day working to refine our client’s story to make sure we are advancing their goals.

What training, classes, experience, or skills development would you recommend to someone who wishes to enter your practice area?

Seek out opportunities to think on your feet, communicate clearly, and hone those storytelling skills. Trial Advocacy, Appellate Advocacy, moot court, clinics, and externships all give you the chance to develop these skills.

Growing these skills is incredibly important because, as a junior lawyer, you are expected to be ready to analyze issues quickly and explain your reasoning clearly to the team. Being able to respond thoughtfully under pressure is incredibly valuable. Writing also matters enormously, so any class or experience that sharpens your writing and argument skills will give you an edge when you start practicing. Look for opportunities where you have to know your case inside and out and be ready to respond to questions from judges, professors, or opposing counsel.

What is unique about your practice area at your firm?

What makes our practice unique is the range of issues and industries we handle and the mix of matters to which we get to contribute. In today’s legal market, many lawyers focus narrowly on one area of law, but as complex commercial litigators, we step in wherever disputes arise. We collaborate with colleagues across antitrust, M&A, patent, and securities, and we handle everything from business-to-business disputes to class actions and internal investigations, which gives us a broad perspective and lets us bring the right expertise to each case.

This variety keeps the work dynamic and interesting, and it also allows us to understand our clients’ businesses from every angle. Because we see the full spectrum of their legal and business challenges, we can offer more holistic and strategic advice, which makes us better counselors and problem solvers.

What are some typical tasks that a junior lawyer would perform in this practice area?

For a new lawyer, your job would be to start researching tricky questions right away. I count on junior attorneys to become experts in the statutes that are at issue. You are often the first person to dive deeply into the facts and the law, and your work shapes how the team thinks about the case. Even though you may not be arguing in court as soon as you arrive, you are playing a critical role in building our arguments and telling the client’s story in a clear and compelling way.

Take the food and beverage space as an example. There are very specific rules about when a company can use labels such as “no artificial flavors” or “low sugar.” I count on junior attorneys to dig into those statutes and regulations and learn how courts have applied them. This expertise will help us decide what our best arguments will be to defend against claims challenging our client’s labeling and will also help us advise the client on strategies for product marketing going forward.

How do you see this practice area evolving in the future?

The business landscape for our clients is only going to get more complex. Companies face more regulations, faster-moving technology, and a rapidly changing legislative environment. This means the questions we handle will become more challenging as well.

To meet this challenge, we will need to stay nimble and keep expanding our understanding of our clients’ businesses, industries, and goals. Our role is to help them navigate uncertainty and find practical solutions, and this will require even stronger problem-solving skills and deeper collaboration across disciplines. In short, the future of this practice is about being adaptable, creative, and relentlessly focused on what our clients are trying to accomplish.

What do you feel are the benefits of taking a generalist approach in litigation versus pursuing a more specialized practice?

One of the biggest benefits of taking a broad approach in litigation is that you gain a 360-degree view of your client’s business. This perspective makes you a stronger and more strategic counselor. For example, when I work with a food and beverage company, it is not enough to understand only one narrow area of law. By looking across multiple areas, including regulatory, litigation, and business considerations, we can help them think through their toughest challenges and make decisions that advance their long-term goals.

This broader approach also allows us to build deeper and more lasting partnerships with our clients. Because we understand how the legal issues fit into the bigger picture of their business growth, public perception, and internal priorities, we can offer advice that is both practical and aligned with their overall strategy.

Arianna Scavetti is a partner in Weil’s Washington, DC, office who focuses on complex trial and appellate litigation in state and federal courts nationwide. She represents public-facing corporate clients across a wide range of commercial disputes and at all stages of litigation. In the consumer products space, Arianna frequently defends companies in class actions alleging consumer fraud and deception under state and federal law, achieving significant victories in cases challenging product labeling and marketing as false or misleading.

She also advises companies on ESG commitments and marketing. Arianna provides strategic guidance on sustainability-related product labels and marketing materials and defends clients against claims involving global supply chain practices, including public nuisance and greenwashing allegations. Through both litigation and preventive counseling, she helps companies manage sensitive legal and reputational challenges while ensuring compliance with evolving consumer protection and ESG regulations.

Arianna also handles litigation and internal investigation matters for clients in the sports industry, including representing players’ unions and athletes on issues related to player safety, compensation, and well-being, and represents leading brands and universities on governance, contract, sponsorship, and other disputes.

Describe your practice area and what it entails.

Allison: Wilkinson Stetkoff specializes in taking cases to trial. We take matters at all different stages and litigate them with an eye toward how the evidence will be presented at trial and how a judge or jury will receive the evidence. To this end, we focus on taking a massive record and distilling it into a cohesive, compelling narrative.

Neil: We are a boutique trial firm with no departments or tracks. We all practice civil litigation, with an emphasis on trial work, at all stages: Sometimes we are hired before a complaint is filed, and sometimes we are hired on the eve of trial after summary judgment is denied. Everything we do is with an eye to trial, and our strategic decisions are often shaped by what would benefit the client most should we find ourselves at trial. This is fairly unique in the litigation practice area. We often have co-counsel that focus on discovery or brief writing so we focus on our comparative advantage: trial strategy.

What types of clients do you represent?

Allison: The firm represents a variety of clients across multiple practice areas including big companies such as Cargill, Visa, 3M, Medtronic, and HPE as well as sports associations such as the NCAA and NFL. We also represent pro bono clients and have been recognized for it, consistently earning a top spot in Law360 Pulse’s pro bono rankings and being named to the Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll each year. Because the firm is small, we can have a more hands-on relationship with our clients.

Neil: We represent clients that are leaders in their respective industries, often household names such as Amazon, Cargill, ExxonMobil, Medtronic, the NFL, Valve, and Visa.

What types of cases/deals do you work on?

Allison: The firm takes a variety of cases and focuses on cases that are likely to go to trial. These cases include antitrust, products liability, and sports matters, along with pro bono cases from criminal appeals to Supreme Court amicus briefs. In my first few months at the firm, I worked on a contract dispute, multiple antitrust matters, a pro bono Voting Rights Act case, and a pro bono criminal appeal.

Neil: I work on two main matters. I am part of the firm’s trial team in a products liability litigation representing a major medical device manufacturer and on a team representing a multinational corporation in consumer protection litigation brought by various state attorneys general and municipalities.

At the time of this interview, multiple 2026 trials are set for the former, and we are in the early stages of discovery for the latter.

How did you choose this practice area?

Allison: I like trial court litigation because it requires telling a compelling story to win over a jury. I worked in communications before law school, so I like putting that skill set to use in a different context. Plus, trial court litigation is fast-paced, and there are always new problems to solve; it keeps you sharp!

Neil: Watching Law & Order as a kid made me want to be a lawyer. I was interested both in the law generally and in trial work specifically. When searching for a firm, I was especially interested in litigation-only trial firms, and Wilkinson Stekloff is just that!

What is a “typical” day like and/or what are some common tasks you perform?

Allison: There really is no typical day for trial court litigation. Depending on the stage of the case, a day could include researching a tough legal question, preparing a deposition outline, writing a motion, prepping a witness for examination, or appearing in court. The variety of work involved in this type of practice keeps things interesting.

Neil: What’s typical is that nothing is typical (and that’s just the way I like it). Assuming I am not at trial or in a deposition or hearing, I usually have two or three meetings with a client or witness or am in a team strategy meeting. I’m usually working on a deposition or trial examination outline, researching or writing on an issue, writing a legal memo for the team, or preparing slides for a mock jury exercise.

What training, classes, experience, or skills development would you recommend to someone who wishes to enter your practice area?

Allison: If a person thinks they may want to do trial court litigation, clerking can provide a lot of insight into what the job is like. The more you can see lawyers stand up in court—good and bad—the more you’ll learn what it takes to be an effective advocate. Taking pro bono cases can also provide opportunities for new lawyers to get into court and get experience early. I also recommend joining clinics in law school for more real-world experience before you graduate.

Neil: Put yourself in settings where you have to advocate both orally and in writing for or against a position (especially if it is not a position of your choosing). Take clinics where you have your own clients and need to think strategically about the best way to meet their goals. Choose as wide a range of black-letter law courses as you can.

What do you like best about your practice area?

Allison: I love the fast pace and energy of trial court litigation. I like the challenge of always having a new problem to solve. Having trial as a guiding force helps give the work clear purpose and a concrete goal. Seeing the case transform from a trove of documents and deposition transcripts into a compel-ling narrative to be presented to the jury is really rewarding.

Neil: I like that we have matters at various stages and various time horizons. We typically have an active or impending civil lawsuit or administrative proceeding, and we tend to be on the defense side, so our clients are repeat players. We get to think about big-picture trial strategy and let it inform the small-picture decisions we make daily.

What are some typical tasks that a junior lawyer would perform in this practice area?

Allison: Junior associates at the firm have good opportunities to do substantive work. In my first few months at the firm, I served subpoenas, led meet-and-confers, helped interview and retain experts, prepared deposition outlines, and worked on a brief submitted to the Supreme Court. Junior associates also draft motions, prep witnesses for depositions, prepare slide decks for jury exercises, and help develop the theory of the case.

Neil: Junior lawyers are often the first set of eyes on key documents and the first drafters of briefs, factual and legal memos, and deposition/trial examination outlines. They may compile a key admissions checklist for a deposition or cross-examination at trial, recommend selections for an exhibit list, or work with others on a slide deck for a jury exercise or opening statement. They participate in strategy meetings and discussions and are valued for their fresh perspective.

What kinds of experiences can summer associates gain in this practice area at your firm?

Allison: At smaller firms like ours, summer associates are integrated into the team. They might attend trial or a jury exercise, research tough legal questions, draft portions of motions, observe and help with depositions, and generally participate in all phases of litigation. Summer associates get to experience what it’s like to work at the firm.

Neil: Anything and everything an associate does, a summer associate does. If the firm is at trial or a mock jury exercise during the summer, we have summer associates there. Summer associates are assigned to one or two case teams, similar to associates, and are assigned their own, real work, often tag-teaming with an associate for guidance and support. They are part of team and client meetings and should expect to voice and defend their perspectives!

How is practicing litigation in a boutique different from practicing in a large law firm?

Allison: The size of the firm is great because everyone knows each other. Although you’ll work on specific case teams, you’ll get to interact with everyone at the firm. Because the firm is small, case teams are small, so you get more opportunities to develop skills, interact with clients, and work closely with partners and more-senior attorneys.

Neil: We all know one another—at every level of the firm, attorneys and non-attorneys alike—and generally know what everyone else is working on. We are assigned to a small number of case teams that each have regular meetings and a teamwide task list. Every member of a case team gets to know the client. Unlike large firms that may handle a large number of matters for a given client, we generally are hired only where we are needed most for the key litigation that matters most to the client. We do not bill by the hour; we work out a different fee structure for each case based on its individual needs, so associates are neither required nor expected to keep track of how much time they spend on things. What matters for us is output, not input, which is more fulfilling than the typical BigLaw model and is better for our clients. The firm feels personal, not bureaucratic.

Neil Alacha attended Yale Law School, where he served as a Coker Fellow for a Constitutional Law course and was the co-recipient of the Harlan Fiske Stone Prize (best oral argument by a student in moot court), the Potter Stewart Prize (best overall and written advocacy in moot court), and the William K.S. Wang Prize (recognizing superior performance in corporate law).

Before law school, Neil earned an M.Phil. in international relations from the University of Oxford, which he attended as a Rhodes Scholar. He was the Top Individual Taster at the 65th annual Oxford-Cambridge varsity blind wine-tasting match. Neil earned his undergraduate degree summa cum laude in social studies from Harvard College, where he was captain of the National Championship Mock Trial Team and president of Harvard Model Congress.

Before joining the firm, Allison Walter was a trial attorney in the Federal Programs Branch of the DOJ. Prior to this, she completed a fellowship at the Campaign Legal Center and clerked for Judge David W. McKeague of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Allison attended the Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. She was an editor of the Law Review, a member of the National Moot Court Team, and a participant in an immigration law clinic. She also served as a teaching assistant for legal writing and as a research assistant to Professors Daniel Epps and Travis Crum.

Describe your practice area and what it entails.

Madison: I work on a diverse range of commercial litigation matters in federal and state court, as well as arbitration. My practice spans the full life cycle of cases, from the plead ing stage through discovery, dispositive motions, trials, and appeals. I am currently focused on preparing for a two-week arbitration hearing in Delaware, an eight-week trial in the Southern District of New York, and an appeal before the Second Circuit.

Priyanka: My practice is focused on high-stakes commercial litigation of all kinds on both the plaintiff and defense side. Lately, my docket happens to be focused on antitrust defense matters.

What types of clients do you represent?

Priyanka: We are fortunate to count many of the most successful and innovative companies in the country among our clients, such as the payment card network Visa, the insurer Chubb, and the video-game company Valve. We represent smaller companies as well, often as plaintiffs when they are going up against much larger companies. For example, HSG has represented a small New York home goods supplier against Walmart and an aerospace startup against Boeing.

What types of cases/deals do you work on?

Madison: When I started at HSG about a year ago, I joined the Visa antitrust defense team at an exciting stage of the case: litigating to enforce a $5.5 billion settlement in various tagalong suits while gearing up for trial in October 2025 against merchants that opted out of the settlement. I am also working on an arbitration in which we represent an industrials company as the claimant in a breach of contract dispute.

Priyanka: In 2024, I was one of the two lead trial lawyers in a three-week jury trial against Walmart. The trial took place in Arkansas, Walmart’s home turf, and we won a $101 million jury verdict. That was a classic breach of contract case with a compelling storyline but with a twist: Walmart brought counterclaims that had elements of product liability and fraud, which made it a highly complex case to litigate. In 2022, I was co-lead in contract litigation for a hedge fund against the former billionaire Philip Falcone. We won a $69.8 million award in a damages trial.

I also have a trial coming up this year. Madison and I are both on the HSG trial team defending Visa in a hotly anticipated antitrust case brought by six large retailers challenging certain rules and processes at the heart of the modern-day payment system.

How did you choose this practice area?

Madison: I began my legal career in the financial restructuring group at Akin. I loved the complexity and fast pace of Chapter 11 proceedings, but I especially enjoyed diving deep into the businesses and stories at issue in each case to creatively and effectively advocate for our clients. After my clerkships, I was eager to replicate the rigor of my prior firm experience while expanding my practice to encompass a broader range of commercial disputes. At HSG, I am working on a rewardingly diverse set of litigation matters.

Priyanka: Earlier in my career, I had a mentor who was a senior antitrust attorney and an innately brilliant trial lawyer. As I learned the ropes, his example ultimately motivated me to deepen my study of antitrust law (while continuing to flex my muscles as a generalist) and to get as much experience as I could on my feet at trial.

What is a “typical” day like and/or what are some common tasks you perform?

Madison: The beauty of my job is that there is no typical day, but I generally split my time between substantive workstreams and big-picture case management. I am almost always working on some type of written work product—lately, deposition and trial examination outlines, an appellate brief, and discovery requests. I have been given the opportunity to take on a leadership role in my cases, so I also actively participate in strategy calls internally and with co-counsel and help manage case priorities.

Priyanka: My day starts before dawn, a couple of hours before my kids wake up. I set priorities for the day, coordinate priorities with my teams, and work on pending drafts. In the office, the bulk of my time is taken up by strategy meetings and conference calls with colleagues and clients. In the evenings, I review drafts and catch up on email. Importantly, I try to carve out a couple of days every week for deep work. On those days, I try to avoid calls and meetings (to the extent possible) so I can immerse myself in the facts of my cases.

Then, of course, there are the weeks when I am either at trial or in the run-up to trial, and those weeks look very different!

What training, classes, experience, or skills development would you recommend to someone who wishes to enter your practice area?

Priyanka: It is important that all trial lawyers find their own authentic style. Early on in your career, you should observe as many different styles of taking depositions and witness examinations as possible. Different lawyers, different firms, different levels of experience—it’s important to see that there are many ways it can be done well. I would also encourage aspiring trial lawyers to get on-their-feet experience as early as possible. Take advantage of programs that bar associations offer, such as trial training and seminars. At HSG, we make it a priority to give our associates early experience on their feet arguing in court or taking depositions.

What are some typical tasks that a junior lawyer would perform in this practice area?

Priyanka: At HSG, we do not look at class year that closely when assigning projects. Junior lawyers who show that they are capable of punching above their weight will get those assignments early. They might take the pen on drafting important motions and briefs, second-chair depositions, and in many cases, take their first deposition in their first few years at HSG. We have had junior lawyers play central roles on our trial teams, including working closely with witnesses.

What kinds of experience can summer associates gain at this practice area at your firm?

Priyanka: HSG tries to give summer associates the most realistic experience possible. We assign summer associates to a home team for the duration of their time with us. That means they attend all meetings and participate in team workstreams, just like our full-time associates. If there is a court appearance or deposition during their time at the firm, they would attend (and contribute to the preparations) as well.

But they certainly are not restricted to what their home teams are working on, and our summer associates will work on projects across a variety of matters. We want our summer associates to work with as many people as possible within HSG and get exposure to a diverse range of assignments. They might write amicus briefs along with our four former Supreme Court clerks, for example. They also could travel to assist a partner in arguing a motion on a case or deposing a witness.

What do you like best about your practice area?

Madison: As a generalist commercial litigator, there is nothing rote about my practice. I love that I am always encountering new legal issues and case twists that keep me in constant learning mode.

Priyanka: I love trial work because it is fundamentally about storytelling—weaving the facts and law together into a nar rative that is intended to persuade. I also love trial work because it involves working closely with people: witnesses, clients, and team members alike. You form strong bonds and truly connect, not merely as an incident of the work but because those relationships put you in the best place to win.

How is practicing litigation in a boutique different from practicing in a large law firm?

Madison: The ethos of a boutique like HSG is divide and conquer: Case teams are flat and lean, and from first-year associates on up, every member of the team takes ownership over substantive parts of a case. At HSG, associates are expected to play an active role not only in the execution of tasks but also in case strategy and problem-solving: No one is simply coasting! This fosters a collaborative, tight-knit work environment and enables associates to achieve major career milestones on expedited timelines, including early client exposure.

As a boutique, HSG’s open-door culture is quite literal. I regularly find myself in impromptu brainstorming sessions at my desk with passersby. Our nimble size enables us to have events like firmwide monthly luncheons for associates and partners to keep lines of communication open and help ensure everyone is empowered to succeed. And those successes are shared and celebrated widely because everyone is invested in the firm and our colleagues. It is a wonderful place to be.

As an associate at HSG, Madison Gardiner advises both plaintiff- and defense-side clients in complex commercial cases.  She also has experience with matters involving corporate restructurings and has represented creditors’ committees and other parties in large Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.  She served federal clerkships at the U. S.  Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the U. S.  District Court for the Southern District of New York. Madison graduated from Harvard Law School and received her B.A. from Vanderbilt University.

Priyanka Timblo is a partner and trial lawyer at HSG who represents clients in high-stakes commercial litigation and arbitration on both sides of the “v.” She has particular experience in antitrust and contract disputes and has secured eight- and nine-figure judgments on behalf of her clients in bench and jury trials.  Priyanka also serves on HSG’s Hiring Committee.  She graduated from McGill University Faculty of Law and received her B. A.  from the University of Miami.

Describe your practice area and what it entails.

My practice at Jones Day is called business and tort litigation. We focus on the defense of clients facing bet-the-company litigation and other high-stakes matters, including multidistrict litigation, class actions, wrongful death litigation, and commercial disputes across a variety of industries such as automotive, aviation, energy, intellectual property, consumer products, pharmaceutical, and medical devices. The business and tort litigation practice works with Jones Day’s other disputes practices like issues and appeals to deliver top results for our clients in all stages of litigation. We have so many talented litigation attorneys at Jones Day, making us one of the top firms that companies turn to for their most challenging litigation. I truly believe that it’s been the ability to work alongside and learn from those standout attorneys that has made me the lawyer I am today.

What types of clients do you represent?

I focus the majority of my practice on defending companies in products liability actions brought by users of those products. Throughout my career, that has meant representing clients in industries ranging from pharmaceuticals to consumer home goods. Outside of the products liability sphere, however, I have represented and advised clients in a wide array of industries from healthcare systems to public utilities and appliance manufacturers.

What types of cases/deals do you work on?

The bread and butter of my practice is my work representing clients in products liability jury trials across the country. Over the past decade, I’ve served as a trial team member and chaired counsel in over 15 multiweek products liability jury trials in both federal and state courts. I’ve also recently defended companies in cases involving general negligence and employment-related claims.

How did you choose this practice area?

I’ve always loved writing and public speaking and even considered working as a political speech writer before I made the decision to go to law school. When I learned that a career in litigation meant that I could channel those passions into my day-to-day practice, I suspected it was the right area of the law for me. And then, after I actually had an opportunity to shadow a senior litigator at a few depositions and attend my first trial, I was hooked, and there was no turning back. And with so many exceptional trial lawyers at Jones Day, I had the ability from the very beginning of my career to practice with and learn from the very best litigators in the country.

What is a “typical” day like and/or what are some common tasks you perform?

No two days are the same in my practice so it’s hard for me to describe a “typical” day. Instead, I’ll describe what a typical week could look like. On Monday, I might spend the day reviewing key documents and background materials in preparation for a deposition of an expert economist, historian, or treating medical provider that I take on Tuesday. Midweek, I could be spending time on the phone or Zoom with clients advising them regarding product recall questions or pending discovery disputes, or I could be reviewing a draft motion for summary judgment due later in the week. And on Friday, I could be appearing (virtually or in person) before a court in a case management conference for a jury trial about to start in the next couple weeks in either federal or state court pretty much anywhere in the United States.

What training, classes, experience, or skills development would you recommend to someone who wishes to enter your practice area?

The best experience is practical experience. Civil litigation clinics, moot court, and appellate advocacy groups and competitions are all excellent on-your-feet training for what I do. I’d also highly recommend taking advantage of local internship opportunities. While in law school, I interned at the Ohio Supreme Court, where I spent most of my time reading and researching arguments in briefs submitted to the court. I also interned at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Ohio. Both of those experiences allowed me to see what litigation—and great legal advocacy—looked like in the real world. What’s more, after I started at Jones Day, I was given opportunity after opportunity to sharpen my litigation and oral advocacy skills, including managing my own pro bono cases from very early in my career (with senior attorney oversight and guidance, of course) as well as taking advantage of firm training initiatives like deposition and motion workshops and multiday mini-trial programs.

What is the most challenging aspect of practicing in this area?

At this point in my life (as a mom to two little girls), the most challenging aspect of my practice is being gone for long stretches at a time for trials. Most of my trials last from three to five weeks, and it’s not usually practical to come home on weekends. But since I typically have only one or two trials a year, good planning and preparing my girls in advance that I’ll be gone (along with some well-timed family visits) have made it manageable for my whole family.

What do you like best about your practice area?

The variety of my job keeps every day in the office interesting, but nothing really compares to standing up and saying, “May it please the court” before I start a critical motion argument or an opening or closing statement. Likewise, the adrenaline rush that comes along with starting a direct or cross-examination—knowing that no matter how well-prepared I am (and we always are), I’m never quite sure how it’s going to go—simply can’t be beat.

As a law student during the interview process, I was looking to work at a top-tier law firm where I would be given actual in-court roles and speaking opportunities early in my career. Jones Day absolutely did that for me. I was a team member on my first jury trial within six months of starting, and now—over a decade and some 20 jury trials later—I’m often called on to be chaired trial counsel in high-stakes litigation.

What are some typical tasks that a junior lawyer would perform in this practice area?

Junior lawyers should be the masters of the facts for any litigation matter they are working on, which means taking the time to learn all the documents and read everything they can (depositions, medical records, expert reports, and supporting materials) with an eye for detail. Senior associates and partners usually have to devote their time and energy to preparing the case for trial and making major strategic decisions, so having reliable junior associates that know the case backwards and forwards when called upon really makes those associates invaluable team members.

What do you feel are the benefits of taking a generalist approach in litigation versus pursuing a more-specialized practice?

I’m never totally comfortable as a generalist litigator. Each case that comes in the door is unique, and there are always new things to learn about whatever industry, product, or claim I’m being asked to litigate. Don’t get me wrong, specializing in certain products or industries can be extremely helpful. Clients value my expertise in a given area or industry, and the institutionalized knowledge that I’ve acquired through working on multiple similar cases allows me to apply what I know to create creative, nuanced arguments. But keeping an open approach to what I’m willing and able to do makes me, in my opinion, a better lawyer as I’m constantly having to learn and stretch my skills.

Jackie Pasek focuses her practice on defending companies in complex product liability and mass tort lawsuits spanning a variety of industries. She has been a team member and trial counsel in more than 20 high-stakes jury trials brought to verdict in federal and state courts throughout the country, including in Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, New York, and Oregon. She also has other significant litigation experience, ranging from wrongful death litigation, multidistrict litigation, and employment and tortious interference actions to insurance recovery cases.

Jackie represents clients in all phases of high-stakes litigation and alternative dispute resolution, from responding to the initial complaint to litigating the case through trial and on appeal. At trial, Jackie has presented opening and closing arguments and conducted direct and cross-examinations of fact and expert witnesses with a vast range of specialties (including historians, economists, psychologists, pulmonologists, oncologists, epidemiologists, and treating physicians).

Jackie is also a leader in the Cleveland community. She is active in the firm’s pro bono practice and is presently serving her second term on the Board of Directors for Children and Family Advocates of Cuyahoga County. Jackie is the co-leader of the Jones Day Cleveland office’s new lawyer group.

The views and opinions set forth herein are the personal views or opinions of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect views or opinions of the law firm with which they are associated.

Describe your practice area and what it entails.

Evelyn: The litigation group at Kirkland & Ellis offers a wide variety of practice opportunities. These opportunities range from incredibly complex commercial cases (i.e., antitrust class actions and multi-district litigations) to bankruptcies involving major companies to fast-paced arbitrations and more. Because Kirkland & Ellis follows an open assignment system, litigation associates can—in fact, are encouraged to—work on cases that range in type and subject matter.

Grace: I work on litigation matters that come in the door at various stages of the case, from pre-complaint fact development work through discovery, pre-trial, and trial work. I often find myself working on tasks at all stages of the discovery lifecycle, from scoping the potential facts and relevant witnesses in order to understand the story early in the case, to intensive document, deposition, and expert discovery, to trial preparation and trial.  

What types of clients do you represent?

Evelyn: All thanks to the diversity of cases that Kirkland & Ellis gets, my clients range significantly. On one end of the spectrum, I help represent a Fortune 500 company tackling everything from small breach-of-contract disputes to sprawling class-action suits. On the other end of the spectrum, I recently represented a young mother in her civil suit against state actors. 

Grace: At any given time, I usually represent a varied slate of clients, ranging from large companies to individuals. I have represented defendants in large multi-district litigations, clients facing class action lawsuits, companies navigating chapter 11 bankruptcies, and companies litigating post-bankruptcy disputes. I have also represented individuals or companies who are under investigation by various government bodies.

In my pro bono practice, I have represented individuals on death row in habeas proceedings and evidentiary hearings.  

What types of cases/deals do you work on?

Evelyn: I spend most of my time working on breach-of-contract disputes. One was featured in The American Lawyer. In that case—Endless River Tech. v. TransUnion—Kirkland was retained just months before a federal jury trial. With persistent motion practice and creative legal strategy, we were able to turn a $55 million damages claim into a zero damages judgment.  

Pro bono is also very important to me. I was part of a trial team that secured a $19.3 million verdict for a single plaintiff in a Section 1983 case involving sexual abuse at an Illinois female prison. This historic verdict was featured in the Chicago Tribune and The American Lawyer.  

Grace: As a general litigator, I work on many different types of cases. I really appreciate Kirkland’s focus on training its litigators to develop litigation skills early that can be applied across varied issues and matters.   

How did you choose this practice area?

Evelyn: In law school, I gravitated towards the opportunities that put me closest to real trials—working at the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Federal Public Defender’s Office. I found these internships to be the most exciting and substantively engaging parts of law school. While I was certain that I wanted to work in litigation, Kirkland also provided me with the flexibility as a summer associate to try out restructuring work and to participate in a mock corporate negotiation. 

Grace: I found myself drawn to the practice area based on discussions with lawyers who practiced in litigation and really seemed passionate about their practice and their cases. I also found that I enjoyed a lot of the litigation-focused classes and skills-based experiences in law school, like mock trial.

What is a typical day like and/or what are some common tasks you perform?

Evelyn: A typical day depends heavily on the key cases you are working on and the procedural posture of those cases. When cases are pre-litigation, a normal day would involve critically thinking about case strategy and weighing options informed by case law research. As a case moves on to the fact discovery period, associates are frequently given the opportunity to take and defend depositions. And before a trial, I’m drafting pre-trial motions, preparing exhibits and witness outlines, and jury testing.  

Grace: It’s hard to describe a “typical” day. I tend to be in trial prep or at trial at least once a year, if not more. Of course, those pre-trial and trial days are anything but typical. At other times, cases are in active discovery and involve a lot of travel and depositions as we’re deposing or defending witnesses. Whether we’re on the road or in the office, I’m often checking emails to be sure I’m up to date on the latest case developments, questions, or thoughts from clients or team members, and putting together some to-do lists for myself and my teams. While the days can be unpredictable, the variety keeps them interesting.

What training, classes, experience, or skills development would you recommend to someone who wishes to enter your practice area?

Evelyn: At Kirkland & Ellis, associates are given substantive opportunities right out of the gate; taking courses that mirror litigation work, legal writing courses, moot court, or trial advocacy courses are particularly helpful. Clinics typically offer another great opportunity to get stand-up litigation experience while in law school. There is no need to limit yourself to your school’s offerings; volunteering with local legal aid organizations or shadowing attorneys at public defenders’ or prosecutors’ offices can be extremely valuable, too.  

Grace: Get involved in skills-based classes or activities, like moot court or mock trial, and devote the time and energy to those activities to make them as educational—and fun—as possible. I joined a mock trial competition during my 1L year in law school. I really enjoyed it and continued to compete in mock trial competitions throughout law school, which are absolutely some of my favorite memories. It’s a fantastic way to get on-your-feet experience, so much so that Kirkland does a mock trial training program with its litigation associates every year as part of its Kirkland Institute for Trial Advocacy (KITA) training program.  

What is the most challenging aspect of practicing in this area?

Evelyn: Figuring out how to say “no.” Junior associates have so many options—be it with the types of cases they can take on or the partners they can work for—that it can be hard to know when to turn an option down. Being able to focus and commit to a core set of cases will allow you to dig in deeply and provide value to your team. Luckily, this is a challenge for many litigators, and partners at Kirkland & Ellis are more than open to helping associates navigate it.  

What misconceptions exist about your practice area?

Evelyn: One common misconception about being a litigation associate is that you spend the first several years performing legal research and document review. At Kirkland, this could not be further from the truth. Several friends at the firm were given the opportunity to take depositions when they had only been practicing for one or two years, and others were able to direct examine or cross examine witnesses at trial as juniors.  

What is unique about your practice area at your firm?

Evelyn: It’s Kirkland’s commitment to excellence. At every step, the firm provides associates with the tools and encouragement to be the best lawyers they can be. This includes formal training programs like the KITA where junior associates can practice running trials in front of a live jury, and robust formal mentoring that starts with summer associates and continues throughout your time at the firm.

How do you see this practice area evolving in the future?

Evelyn: With every case, our firm pushes the bounds of litigation further with new strategies and techniques. I’m excited to see how the litigation landscape evolves, but more importantly, the role Kirkland & Ellis plays in that evolution.

Evelyn Cai, Associate, and Grace Brier, Partner—Litigation

Evelyn Cai is a fourth-year litigation associate at Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago, focusing on litigating complex commercial cases. She has represented clients at both trial and appellate levels in suits ranging from single-plaintiff claims to far-reaching antitrust class actions. Evelyn graduated from Yale Law School and received her B.A. in Economics and Philosophy from the University of Chicago.  

Grace Brier is a litigation partner in the Washington, DC, office of Kirkland & Ellis. Grace’s practice focuses on complex civil disputes in federal courts, state courts, and arbitrations across the country. She has experience representing clients in matters involving contract disputes, class actions, fraud claims, restructuring matters, and government-facing litigation and investigations. Grace also maintains an active pro bono practice.

Describe your practice area and what it entails.

My practice focuses on high-stakes corporate and commercial litigation primarily in the Delaware Court of Chancery and the Delaware Supreme Court. I have experience in shareholder disputes, busted mergers, and expedited litigation, as well as in advising both international and domestic boards, special committees, and independent board members in investigations and litigation in Delaware’s federal and state courts. Kobre & Kim is often called upon to be lead counsel in high-stakes trials and to litigate other commercial disputes that require global strategies and cross-border execution where Delaware law plays a key role.

What types of clients do you represent?

I am fortunate to represent a wide variety of clients all over the world, from Fortune 100 corporations to individual founders, directors, and officers. I represent companies, boards, directors, and special committees, as well as large-scale stakeholders such as private equity funds and high-net-worth individuals. At Kobre & Kim, lawyers at every stage of their careers have the privilege of working with a diverse and sophisticated clientele.

What types of cases/deals do you work on?

The diversity of the clients I represent is reflected in the variety in my practice. Beyond my work related to challenges to M&A and other transactions under Delaware law, I often work on breaches of fiduciary duty and other statutory claims under the Delaware General Corporate Code and alternative entity acts, such as contested elections, books and records, and advancement. In a recent case, I represented a South Korean cosmetics company on its joint venture partnership in the United States, which was litigated simultaneously in New York State Court and the Delaware Court of Chancery. Our team obtained multiple favorable opinions from the Delaware Court of Chancery concerning the judicial dissolution of the partnership.

How did you choose this practice area?

I chose to pursue this practice area because it is a perfect blend of my interests in litigation, finance, and business. I did my undergraduate studies in finance, and I am able to leverage that experience to better drive litigation outcomes for clients and their businesses.

What is a “typical” day like and/or what are some common tasks you perform?

My practice is dynamic, and every day looks different as I collaborate with my Kobre & Kim colleagues across practice areas and locations around the world on a wide range of nontraditional matters. A typical day may involve client meetings and strategy sessions, perfecting briefs and trial strategy, appearances in court, or arguing dispositive motions. Each day presents a new challenge, each of which is approached with a commitment to achieving the goals of each client.

What training, classes, experience, or skills development would you recommend to someone who wishes to enter your practice area?

Financial literacy is key. Attorneys who are interested in corporate litigation in Delaware must have deep knowledge of finance, from how to interpret basic financial statements to understanding the structure of debt financing and equity strategies a company may use to fund operations, finance acquisitions, or restructure its balance sheet. While Delaware law is ubiquitous in the corporate world, it is extremely nuanced. Practitioners need to master the corporate governance regimes set out in the Delaware General Corporate Law and the various alternative entities acts.

What do you like best about your practice area?

Whether I am working with a Fortune 500 company or a closely held startup, the outcomes of my cases not only deeply affect the lives of everyone involved but also the broader economic landscape of the United States. The standing of Delaware corporate law often drives business outcomes and behaviors that impact the way people do business worldwide.

What is the most challenging aspect of your practice area?

The cases I handle are high-stakes and often determine the control and trajectory of business decisions and billions of dollars of assets. The optimal outcome is rarely black and white, so achieving the best outcome for each client and their business requires creative thinking and bespoke strategies. In addition, Delaware corporate law covers nearly every industry in the world, so no two cases are alike. Frequently, I need to quickly develop expertise in a new industry to effectively litigate a case.

What misconceptions exist about your practice area? What do you wish you had known before joining your practice area?

A major misconception is that corporate litigation is cold and impersonal. Behind each case are people, their work, their passions, and their livelihoods. Corporate litigation matters are deeply personal to those involved because of the years of hard work and reputations earned over decades that are often at stake—the outcomes of which are determined by the effectiveness of my advocacy in the courtroom.

What is unique about your practice area at your firm, and how has it evolved since you have been at the firm?

Since joining Kobre & Kim, my practice has grown to foster creative and strategic outcomes rather than simply the rote application of Delaware law. We foster a culture of innova- tion and collaboration and a deep commitment to delivering exceptional results. Kobre & Kim is one integrated firm across all our locations, so our Delaware team works seamlessly with our colleagues around the world, and the work we do is an integral part of a broader, global strategy.

Jacob Kirkham is an experienced trial litigator who focuses his practice on complex corporate and commercial disputes, deal litigation, busted mergers, expedited litigation, and other corporate and commercial litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery and the Delaware Supreme Court. He also has deep experience litigating statutory actions under the Delaware General Corporation Law, the LLC Act, and the Partnership Act including appraisal, advancement and indemnification, books and records demands, and director election contests.

Jacob has extensive expertise in advising both international and domestic boards, special committees and independent board members in investigations and litigation under Delaware law. He also has substantial experience representing private equity funds and investors in both defensive and offensive actions, with a strong track record in Delaware’s federal and state courts.

Before joining Kobre & Kim, Jacob practiced at Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, where he focused on complex corporate litigation, including statutory actions, M&A litigation, and internal investigations.

Describe your practice area and what it entails.

Jess: I specialize in managing cases from discovery through trial and providing expertise to teams on litigation strategy. I have particular expertise in trade secret litigation and related soft IP claims, as they’re sometimes called. This includes managing forensic reviews related to trade secret cases.

Laura: I serve as Global Vice Chair of Latham’s CCL practice, which can include anything from breach of contract and trade secret claims to business-to-business disputes. While many firms will litigate the case and then have another firm come in for trial, we try to take the case from beginning to end and often will come in for other firms to take a case to trial.

What types of clients do you represent?

Jess: The CCL practice and trade secret cases specifically allow me to work on both the plaintiff and defendant sides. This area of law spans various sectors and industries, including technology, education, and real estate. There isn’t a specific industry that trade secret cases impact; rather, it’s about the specialized skill set required, which can be applied across different industries.

Laura: In addition to my general CCL practice, I work in the firm’s entertainment, sports, and media practice. The only difference between the two is that you may have heard of the companies or high-profile individuals I handle matters for. I work with celebrities, studios, and media companies.

What types of cases/deals do you work on?

Jess: I joined the CCL practice around my third year and, since then, have often worked on cases involving trade secret and trade dress disputes, false advertising, noncompetes and nonsolicitation clauses, and copyright claims. These cases are often fast-moving business disputes involving requests for injunctive relief at the outset of the litigation. Otherwise, I work on managing cases involving business disputes, contract claims, class actions, and other high-stakes litigations.

Laura: With companies, I often work on business-to-business disputes, including trade secret claims, copyright disputes, or the occasional trademark infringement or right of publicity claims. For individuals, I handle defamation claims and deal with serial plaintiffs.

How did you choose this practice area?

Jess: I joined as a second-year associate after clerking. Within two months, I was placed on a trial team, which marked the beginning of my path towards CCL. The assignment was a three-month trial in West Virginia, and I absolutely loved it. The fast-paced environment, where you constantly think on your feet, strategize about witness preparation, and tackle new challenges daily, was exhilarating. As a junior associate, having such a significant role in trial strategy was incredibly rewarding and provided me with invaluable hands-on experience. Thanks to Latham’s unassigned program, I was able to try out five other practice groups. CCL ultimately aligned with my interests in fact development, writing, and trial strategy. It also allowed me to gain experience in a broad array of subject matters without being confined to one type of law, which I found appealing.

Laura: Honestly, it started with what I do now, listening to a judge. Initially, I thought I would become a prosecutor. However, during my 1L summer, I interned with a judge who suggested instead that I enter BigLaw. I had no idea what that entailed, so I began researching firms and considering what I wanted to do. I knew I wanted to pursue litigation because I love the courtroom and ultimately ended up in Southern California. As a junior associate, you don’t have much say in the matters you’re assigned to, so I looked for firms with a bit of entertainment work because it seemed interesting. I had no real understanding of what that meant, but being in LA, I assumed there would be plenty of matters to sink my teeth into. As a younger associate, I took the initiative to express interest in cases that involved entertainment and media companies that I recognized and grew my practice from there.

What is a “typical” day like and/or what are some common tasks you perform?

Jess: I cycle through different cases throughout the day. In the morning, I might work on discovery responses or attend a meet-and-confer with opposing counsel. In the afternoon, I could be managing a team of junior associates conducting document review. In the evening, I might be drafting and editing a brief. The next day, I could be preparing deposition outlines, attending client calls, or putting together an exhibit list for trial. The work is diverse and depends on the progress of each matter. As a case moves closer to trial, more time is devoted to that matter, but until then, my days involve addressing the needs of each case as they arise.

Laura: As a partner, there’s no typical day. I could receive a call or email from a client at any moment requiring immediate attention and unexpectedly reshaping the day. Generally speaking, if I’m involved in a high-profile matter and we have a briefing scheduled, I’ll likely have a team meeting, review or edit a brief, and handle numerous client calls and emails.

What training, classes, experience, or skills development would you recommend to someone who wishes to enter your practice area?

Jess: I would recommend taking as many civil procedure classes as possible. Civil Procedure, Conflicts of Laws, and Federal Courts are subjects I use on a day-to-day basis. Concepts like jurisdiction come up far more often than you might expect. Additionally, clinics and any type of mock trial or hands-on experiences allow you to understand how a case works in the real world, beyond the classroom setting.

Laura: Latham runs a trial advocacy program that I participated in as a sixth-year associate, and I found it to be the best training program I’ve ever done. For the CCL skill set, it’s crucial that our associates are trained to take cases to trial. The program is a fascinating exercise where you get a case and prepare to go to trial, receiving feedback from partners. What’s really cool is that you prepare with a partner, do openings, direct cross-examinations, and receive feedback in the room. Then, you go into a different room with another partner to watch the video, which is illuminating because you see things on the video that you didn’t notice before, and the partner providing feedback is seeing it for the first time as well. I found this to be an excellent way to train associates as it allows you to see yourself and reflect on your performance.

Another important training is the deposition training program. It’s crucial for associates to understand the importance of developing these skills for cases we take to trial. The deposition record is all you know about a witness, and if not done properly, you risk not knowing everything or having a witness give an inaccurate answer. You then have to find a way to get the correct answer during trial without making the witness appear inconsistent or not credible. In my mind, both of these trainings are critical for success in this practice.

What do you like best about your practice area?

Jess: I enjoy the ability to strategize on each of my CCL matters. In many areas of law, you often find yourself in a reactive position. With CCL cases, particularly given there is work on both the plaintiff and defendant sides, there is a significant opportunity to strategize and impact the case in a way that’s less reactive and more creative.

Laura: There’s so much variety in what I do. For instance, I was in a mediation yesterday that took many twists and turns. Afterward, I returned to an email and had a call about a client issue, which was quite interesting. The best part of this job is the variety it offers; working at a quality firm like Latham, handling high-profile matters, whether in entertainment or other areas, is quite remarkable. The work we do has impact.

What are some typical tasks that a junior lawyer would perform in this practice area?

Jess: Latham handles a very significant number of trials and trial-like proceedings every year. Junior associates are always needed for these cases as they are the key building blocks of the trial process; they are the ones who know the facts best, gather all the documents, write the outlines, and prepare the witnesses. They master the story and the facts.

Document review is also a common task for juniors. Although it often gets a bad rep, I personally love document review. It’s a fantastic way to become a fact master and essential for advancing to the next level as a key team player. CCL specifically offers juniors a wealth of hands-on roles besides trial, including creating deposition outlines, making document chronologies, drafting discovery responses, and conducting research for briefings and writings. You’ll also prepare partners for arguments, create talking points for client calls, and comb through the fact record for key legal arguments and facts needed by the case team.

Laura: For summer or junior associates, there’s a significant amount of research involved. I often have junior associates write a section of a brief, whether it’s a pro bono case or a straightforward motion to dismiss for frivolous actions filed against our clients. If we’ve already had a case dismissed and the complaint is amended, it’s a great opportunity for a junior associate to draft the first version of the response. They can refer to our prior work to understand the stylistic and content expectations, allowing them to draft a complete motion.

Additionally, we often allow summer associates to shadow us. For instance, I once invited a first-year associate to observe an argument in federal court through the shadow program. This experience is invaluable, as many junior associates have never been to court and may not understand the logistics, such as navigating traffic in LA, entering a federal court, or even the importance of having a business card. 

What are some typical career paths for lawyers in this practice area?

Laura: A law firm like Latham offers numerous career paths. Many people assume that being a litigator limits opportunities to move in-house, but that’s not the case. In fact, several individuals work at Latham for a few years and then transition to other roles. Others choose to work for the government, which is a common path. They spend a few years at a law firm to pay off their loans, then transition to government work. Some eventually return to private practice at firms like Latham, or they leverage their experience to secure in-house positions, as many companies now have in-house litigation departments. These roles involve managing outside law firms and offer the advantage of not dealing with billable hours.

What do you feel are the benefits of taking a generalist approach in litigation versus pursuing a more specialized practice?

Jess: I love being a generalist across subject matters because I can still develop a specialty in trial work and in managing every aspect of a case that’s headed towards trial. When people think of specialties, they often consider areas like antitrust, securities, healthcare, or data privacy. However, you can be a specialist in a skill set that applies across industries. I can manage and work on any case going to trial, regardless of the practice area, which allows me to gather a wealth of information and knowledge about various industries. I’ve handled a wide variety of subject matter cases, yet I’ve applied the same skill set to all of them.

Jessica Saba, a Washington, DC, associate, primarily handles complex commercial litigation (CCL) and trial work and has represented clients in state and federal courts at the trial and appellate level, as well as in arbitrations, in jurisdictions around the country. She has particular expertise in high-stakes trade secret litigations, including managing forensic investigations and reviews related to those disputes. In addition to her trade secret practice, Jessica has practiced in commercial and corporate disputes, false advertising litigations, sexual abuse allegations, contract disputes, class actions, and white collar defense, including those related to the False Claims Act.

Laura Washington is the Global Vice Chair of the firm’s CCL practice. She is also a member of Latham’s entertainment, sports, and media practice. She represents high-profile clients in complex business disputes and intellectual property (IP) litigation. Laura serves as the partner advisor for Latham’s Global Black Lawyers Group, and she previously served on the firm’s Recruiting Committee. She also serves on the Board of Teach Democracy (formerly the Constitutional Rights Foundation), a nonprofit, nonpartisan, community-based organization dedicated to educating young people about the importance of civic participation in a democratic society.

Describe your practice area and what it entails.

MoloLamken focuses exclusively on high-stakes litigation. The firm’s practice is nationwide and often involves cross-border issues. We concentrate on complex commercial litigation, white collar work, and intellectual property matters at every level of the judicial system, from trial courts to the Supreme Court of the United States. The firm does not have strictly defined practice groups.  Lawyers across the firm routinely work on civil and criminal matters, appellate and trial-level cases, and on both sides of the “v,” representing plaintiffs and defendants. The firm strongly believes that high-stakes advocacy has more to gain than to lose from expertise across a wide array of substantive practice areas. We say we’re advocates first and subject matter specialists second.

What types of clients do you represent?

MoloLamken’s clients span the globe and reflect the firm’s breadth of practice. We are relatively conflict free compared to large law firms, enabling us to pursue a variety of opportunities. We represent Fortune 500 companies, hedge funds, and private equity firms as both plaintiffs and defendants. We represent foreign sovereigns, patent holders, entrepreneurial startups, and household Wall Street firms. Through the firm’s white collar practice, we also represent a variety of prominent individuals, including legislators, high-ranking federal and state officials, and an array of CEOs and C-suite executives in congressional, criminal, and civil matters. On any given day, MoloLamken attorneys might try a nationwide class action, defend an internationally renowned executive in a criminal prosecution, and argue the merits of an inventor’s intellectual property rights in the U.S. Supreme Court. 

What types of cases/deals do you work on?

My personal practice reflects the firm’s varied workload. At the appellate level, I’ve argued issues before the U.S. Solicitor’s General’s office, briefed merits cases before the United States Supreme Court, and worked on a variety of federal appeals concerning patent law, criminal law, civil procedure, and antitrust. In one case, we successfully defended on appeal the outright dismissal of a complaint. In another, we secured a reversal on mandamus of an unfavorable district court ruling. I am also part of teams representing numerous executives and high-profile individuals in criminal and civil investigations brought by the DOJ, SEC, CFTC, and other federal and state regulators. In one such matter, we enabled several clients to avoid prosecution altogether despite significant focus on them in one of the most high-profile criminal investigations of the past year. In another, we successfully obtained a non-prosecution agreement from the Department of Justice on behalf of a banking executive.

How did you choose this practice area?

MoloLamken was an obvious choice. Coming out of my second clerkship, I wanted my practice to embrace some of the things I loved about clerking. I valued the comradery of chambers, the varied substantive docket, and the no-holds-barred intensity that were features of my clerkships. I wanted a serious workplace with well-adjusted people where I could grow through hands-on experience. And if that wasn’t specific enough, I wanted to work across substantive practice areas. MoloLamken was the only place in the country that fit the bill. Nowhere else allowed associates to work on Supreme Court merits cases and white collar criminal matters simultaneously, much less actively encouraged that broad practice as a means of associate development.

What is a typical day like and/or what are some common tasks you perform?

Each day brings its own surprises. Because we work on a wide variety of matters at all stages of litigation—from investigating a complaint to final appeal—attorneys have to employ different skills on an hour-to-hour basis. On any given day, I might prepare a client pitch, interview a witness in an investigation, present to the DOJ, or draft an appellate brief. The firm works in small teams and is highly collaborative across all three offices. While we avoid the large, weekly update meetings that weigh down larger case teams, we communicate often. I am virtually always calling colleagues across the firm’s three offices to leverage their expertise and experience. Very little work is ever unnecessarily duplicated as a result, and no experience goes unutilized. That dynamic makes the firm feel interconnected, even though we often work in teams of twos and threes.  

What training, classes, experience, or skills development would you recommend to someone who wishes to enter your practice area?

Develop oral and written advocacy skills. Those skills are the currency of litigation, and they are not simply taught. You must find ways to practice them. I would encourage law students to participate in clinics, trial advocacy programs, moot court teams, writing competitions, and any other experiential learning opportunities they can find. Junior associates should explore bar association programs, inns of court, and other formal and informal professional groups that will provide similar opportunities to further develop their skills. Attorneys at large firms looking to move to a litigation boutique should also seek out matters where they will have an opportunity to take ownership of a whole case or a substantial piece of one. Learning how to simultaneously manage strategic issues, make judgment calls, and execute on specific legal tasks will help emulate the responsibilities those associates will have at a boutique like MoloLamken.

What is the most challenging aspect of practicing in this area?

The most challenging aspects of practicing at MoloLamken are also the parts I enjoy the most. No two cases are alike, which requires associates to constantly employ a wide range of skills. Attorneys must frequently shift between managing complicated discovery disputes, engaging with clients, drafting briefs, and fielding calls from opposing counsel or the government. The firm’s small teams also require associates to think big and small simultaneously. Even at a junior level, associates are required to make judgment calls and develop case strategy. That high-level thinking requires an appreciation for a variety of legal and practical interests. But attorneys are also required to be detailed oriented in executing specific assignments and understanding the factual and legal issues unique to each case. Luckily, the demands of the firm’s challenging practice are tempered by working with thoughtful mentors who are more than willing to invest time and resources in associates.   

What are some typical career paths for lawyers in this practice area?

Unlike many law firms, MoloLamken hires associates with the expectation that they will become partners. It makes investments in its attorneys, both personal and professional, with that goal in mind. And it lives up to the promise. While not every associate makes partner, the firm regularly promotes from within. The business model is centered around developing talented attorneys and having them continue to build on the firm’s success as partners. That commitment generates low attrition rates. But when attorneys do leave, it is usually to serve in high-profile government positions or pursue unique opportunities such as working in-house at cutting-edge startups. One example is that an attorney recently left to become the Solicitor General of Indiana. While we would have loved for him to stay, it is hard to begrudge anyone that opportunity. 

What is unique about your practice area at your firm?

MoloLamken’s commitment to attorney development is unique. The firm adheres to the edict that lawyers learn by doing. And it provides an excellent education. From day one, associates can expect to be handed substantive, on-your-feet opportunities. In my first month, on two separate matters, I had significant speaking roles in advocacy presentations to the U.S. Solicitor General’s office and leaders in the DOJ’s Criminal Division. That early experience set the tone for the rest of my time at the firm, where I’ve regularly had a significant role in court hearings, advocacy presentations, and depositions. Few places make such an effort to put associates and junior lawyers in the spotlight, as opposed to the back drafting room. That approach is also cyclical. Because junior partners at MoloLamken have generally benefitted from that same development, they often have far more first-chair experiences than counterparts at other firms. As a result, they are eager to provide high-quality substantive opportunities to associates.   

How is practicing litigation in a boutique different from practicing in a large law firm?

There are too many differences to count. Unlike large law firms, where practice groups often depend on large institutional clients or are limited to certain types of matters, MoloLamken has the flexibility to pursue a wider variety of complex disputes. The firm is largely conflict free, enabling it to pursue quality contingency work, represent high-profile individuals, and engage in other work that is usually off-limits to larger firms. The firm also avoids the hyper-specialization that usually comes with the size of today’s largest law firms. The greatest differences, however, are felt on an interpersonal level. Rather than having numerous tiers of attorneys and a corporate bureaucracy, MoloLamken employs a lean and flat structure, where the founding partners are personally invested in the firm’s cases, its management, and associate development. That structure puts more organizational responsibilities on the senior members of the firm. But it results in a collegial, tight-knit environment, where even the most junior attorney regularly interacts with the most senior partners—often working together on case teams without any intermediaries. Those close ties build trust and genuine friendships across the firm, which are critical to our success both inside and outside the courtroom. 

Walter Hawes’s practice focuses on white collar criminal defense, complex commercial disputes, and appeals.  He litigates in a variety of federal and state forums, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Hawes also represents clients in criminal, civil, and congressional investigations. 

Mr. Hawes regularly advocates for clients in court and before high-ranking government decision makers, including the U.S. Solicitor General’s office and other components of DOJ leadership. His experience covers a broad range of subject matter, including administrative and constitutional law, criminal law, antitrust, and intellectual property.

Prior to joining MoloLamken, Mr. Hawes served as a law clerk to the Honorable Richard J. Leon of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and then-Chief Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Mr. Hawes previously worked as a litigation associate at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP in New York City.

Describe your practice area and what it entails.

Erin: My practice covers the product life cycle, focusing on high-stakes litigation and mass torts. I counsel clients throughout the product life cycle, from advising them in product development on how to mitigate product liability exposure to high-stakes litigation and product recalls. Clients look to me to coordinate their overall product liability strategy, and I serve as trial and national coordinating counsel in class action cases and multi-jurisdictional and multidistrict proceedings. I also maintain a robust advisement practice, drawing on my litigation experience to counsel clients on product development, risk assessments, product labeling, and risk mitigation strategies to help them avoid and defeat product liability claims. Finally, I advise clients on crisis management and guide them through product recalls.

Victor: In my practice, I handle all sorts of complex commercial disputes on behalf of our clients. These can include class actions, business disputes, arbitrations, and international disputes, to name a few. On a day-to-day basis, I help manage litigation, whether it be motion practice, court hearings, discovery, or other needs of a case.

What types of clients do you represent?

Erin: I represent clients in a variety of industries, including consumer technology, digital health, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals. My clients also have innovative products in the technology and AI sector, such as autonomous vehicles, sensors, robotics, and AI-enabled consumer devices.

Victor: We represent all types of clients. Most recently, I’ve been helping represent Apple in a class action suit. However, in the past, I’ve represented individuals, public companies, government contractors, manufacturers, tech companies, and Fortune 10 companies.

What types of cases/deals do you work on?

Victor: I work on class actions, business disputes (in federal and state courts), arbitrations, and international disputes. Occasionally, I also work on government and internal investigations (e.g., inquiries led by the DOJ, SEC, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the Federal Reserve).

How did you choose this practice area?

Erin: I started out as a mass tort lawyer litigating aviation and pharmaceutical cases. I loved the complexity of having to manage hundreds or thousands of cases at a time combined with the intellectual challenge of learning the science and technology that goes into determining causation and damages in those cases. Over time, I also started counseling clients who wanted to avoid product liability risk. That part of my practice has grown, and the counseling practice allows me to develop true partnerships with my clients and help them achieve their business goals.

Victor: I’ve always known I wanted to be a litigator. I went to law school knowing that I enjoyed arguing and persuasive writing. When it came down to picking a practice group, complex litigation was an easy choice. I also have zero interest in transactional work.

What is a “typical” day like and/or what are some common tasks you perform?

Erin: I spend a lot of time talking with clients about their legal issues, whether it is a litigation matter or an advisement matter. I also spend a lot of time with associates discussing cases and mentoring them. I was fortunate to have phenomenal mentors who pushed me to step outside my comfort zone through each stage of my career. They were willing to help me build practices in the fields that I found fascinating. As a partner and practice group leader, I have worked to model to my teams that you should love what you do. If you don’t, it is time to make a change. I am dedicated to being the mentor to my teams that I was fortunate enough to have.

Victor: I don’t know that there is a typical day. Yesterday, I had to finalize and file an answer to a class action complaint in federal court, work on a client presentation, and draft a motion to extend a deadline, and I had a couple of meetings about the status of some of my cases. More “common” tasks include updating clients on the status of a case, drafting motions, and managing discovery.

What training, classes, experience, or skills development would you recommend to someone who wishes to enter your practice area?

Erin: So much of what we do is learning and teaching on the job, so I would really focus on finding value from things you can’t learn at a law firm, like doing a judicial externship or clerkship or working on a law review. The relationships that you develop will be invaluable as you develop your career. They’re things that you can’t go back and learn once you start working at a law firm. That said, if you have time and interest, I recommend taking Administrative Law. Researching and interpreting regulations is one of the hardest things that we ask our junior associates to do, and it’s something that is hard to just figure out by doing research on Westlaw.

Victor: I would recommend taking Evidence, Federal Courts, an advanced course on civil procedure, and a Securities Regulation course (even if you’re not interested in transactional work or securities because a lot of our clients are public companies that are subject to SEC regulation; it’s helpful to know the lingo).

What do you like best about your practice area?

Victor: It’s fun. Discovery can be a pain, but it’s also incredibly interesting to uncover facts that undercut the other side’s argument/theory of the case. It’s also very collaborative; I am rarely (if ever) handling anything on my own. That helps take the pressure off and allows me to focus on the task at hand rather than on whether I think I’m doing a “good” job.

What are some typical tasks that a junior lawyer would perform in this practice area?

Victor: At MoFo, there really aren’t any junior-level tasks. Depending on the needs of the case, document review is likely, but so is brief writing, handling depositions, presenting to clients, making court appearances, and even arguing motions.

How do you see this practice area evolving in the future? Victor: Litigation is litigation. But what makes it fun and interesting is that the world, and thus our clients and their businesses, is constantly changing. That means new theories of liability, new factual scenarios, and new arguments to develop. Rarely am I applying the law to the same set of facts.

What do you feel are the benefits of taking a generalist approach in litigation versus pursuing a more specialized practice?

Erin: Nowadays, we do ask our attorneys to pick a specific area of litigation to focus on. It helps our associates develop their personalized brand both inside and outside the firm. That said, I would encourage young attorneys to keep an open mind about taking assignments outside of their specialty. You might pick up a new area of interest or find additional mentors who you want to work with.

Victor: It’s exciting. You never know what type of case will fall on your desk or where it could lead.

Erin Bosman co-chairs Morrison Foerster’s global litigation department and founded and co-heads the firm’s artificial intelligence group. Clients in the technology and life sciences industries value her business strategy and litigation acumen, particularly with respect to new technology and uncertain legal landscapes. She provides comprehensive counsel throughout the product life cycle, focusing on high-stakes litigation and mass torts. The Legal 500 continues to recognize Erin as a Leading Lawyer in Dispute Resolution: Product Liability, Mass Tort and Class Action. She is a three-time recipient of the Product Liability Lawyer of the Year, an America’s Women in Business Law Award from Euromoney. She was also named a Top Healthcare Lawyer by the Daily Journal.  Erin is a member of the Product Liability Advisory Council.

Victor Lopez is an associate in the complex litigation and advisement group of Morrison Foerster’s New York office. His practice focuses on complex civil litigation and cross-border internal and government-facing investigations, and he has particular experience in matters involving Latin America. Victor has represented government contractors, financial institutions, and multinational companies in consumer and shareholder class actions, complex commercial disputes, mediations, and government investigations (including enforcement actions led by the DOJ, SEC, and the Federal Reserve). He has represented clients before federal and state courts.

Describe your practice area and what it entails.

Clients turn to me to help them navigate their business-critical challenges, including bet-the-company litigation, significant regulatory enforcement matters, and sensitive internal investigations. I help them avert, manage, and mitigate legal risk in complex crises that could fundamentally impact their businesses, from devastating court rulings and regulatory actions to damaging media coverage and congressional scrutiny. 

What types of clients do you represent?

I regularly represent global financial institutions, sports leagues, and Fortune 50 companies. My client roster includes major sports organizations like the NFL, MLB and the NHL; banks like Citigroup, TD, UBS, Morgan Stanley, and JPMorgan; and alternative asset managers like Apollo, Blackstone, and KKR. I also work with major tech companies like Meta and Nikola, as well as real estate firms, industrial manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and more.

What types of cases/deals do you work on?

I serve as lead counsel for the NFL in the league’s most consequential legal challenges, including in several discrimination lawsuits brought by former NFL coaches and employees that have recently been making headlines. I previously represented the league in landmark multidistrict concussion litigation. Recently, I secured a favorable outcome for the independent directors of CBS in multiple lawsuits stemming from its merger with Viacom; won a key appellate victory for Blackstone blocking a state attorney general’s attempt to intervene in a $50 billion lawsuit; and won the dismissals of multiple lawsuits against Nikola over alleged misstatements about the company’s technological capabilities.

How did you choose this practice area?

Growing up in a family of attorneys, I always knew that I wanted to be a litigator. I was drawn to Paul, Weiss’ reputation for handling the most challenging and important cases, as well as for its deep and very public commitment to impactful pro bono work. I joined the firm as a summer associate and never looked back. The opportunity to learn from legendary trial lawyers Judge Simon Rifkind and Arthur Liman helped mold me into the lawyer I am today.

What is a “typical” day like and/or what are some common tasks you perform?

One constant is that every day presents new and interesting challenges. At Paul, Weiss, we handle our clients’ most complex matters and strive to exceed their expectations every day by finding novel, creative solutions to their issues, and that means that opportunities for growth are endless.

What training, classes, experience, or skills development would you recommend to someone who wishes to enter your practice area?

Our litigators come from diverse academic and professional backgrounds, but the through line is a track record of academic excellence, which is the baseline for future success in the law. Once you are at a firm, so much of what you learn in litigation is via on-the-job training, working alongside talented, committed lawyers, listening and watching and learning how they do what they do. I always encourage law students to prioritize firms like Paul, Weiss that offer superior training, professional development opportunities, and the chance to work with and be mentored by the world’s best trial lawyers.

What is the most challenging aspect of practicing in this area?

Our practice is always evolving, and our work involves a great deal of complexity. Because many clients turn to us once a situation has hit a crisis point, our cases often attract intense public, government, and media scrutiny.

These days, a major challenge is addressing the legal implications for our clients of the staggering growth in AI. It’s absolutely imperative that we as litigators keep abreast of developments in the tech space so that we can provide our clients with unparalleled guidance on emerging, first-impression issues, as well as on how to take advantage of important business opportunities presented by the technologies.

What do you like best about your practice area?

There is nothing I find more fulfilling than finding innovative solutions to my clients’ complex challenges. It’s incredibly rewarding for me personally, and it means that our clients can focus on their business and strategic objectives.

What is unique about your practice area at your firm?

Paul, Weiss’ litigation department handles a remarkably broad variety of matters. This means that we are focused on making sure our litigators have strong foundational skills like writing briefs, taking depositions and the like, as well as the confidence to take on any type of litigation or to jump into a case right before trial. Because nearly all of our litigation partners have worked on a wide range of cases, our junior lawyers also have many people to turn to for advice.

We are also, first and foremost, trial lawyers; every case is prepared as if it will go to trial. So litigation associates at the firm have ample opportunities for hands-on courtroom experience, working alongside the best trial lawyers in the country.

Brad S. Karp is one of the country’s leading litigators and corporate advisers. Brad has successfully guided numerous Fortune 100 companies, financial institutions, sports leagues, and others through bet-the-company litigations, regulatory matters, internal investigations, and crises. He has received dozens of industry recognitions for his legal achievements and for his leadership within the legal profession. Brad is active in the community, serving on numerous public interest, educational, cultural, and charitable boards. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School and has spent his entire professional career at Paul, Weiss.

Describe your practice area and what it entails.

I represent clients in litigation and arbitrated disputes, regulatory inquiries and enforcement actions, and internal investigations that involve accounting, financial reporting, or financial valuation issues. This work includes advising clients on the risk of litigation and litigation strategy; conducting fact investigation; preparing witnesses to testify in depositions, at trial, and in regulatory proceedings; working with expert witnesses; writing and arguing dispositive and other motions; preparing offensive and defensive discovery; managing substantial electronic reviews and productions; and examining and cross-examining witnesses and the delivery of statements at trial.

What types of clients do you represent?

My clients include private and public companies, professional services firms, and individuals. A significant portion of my practice involves representing the world’s largest professional services firms, including the Big Four accounting firms and many other large accounting firms. I have also handled multiple internal investigations (on behalf of governance bodies) of private and public companies.

What types of cases/deals do you work on?

I handle disputes that are in pre-litigation or arbitration, federal securities class actions, state and federal civil litigation matters involving various business torts, and enforcement matters initiated by federal and state regulatory bodies. I have represented

• The Big Four and other professional services firms in multiple securities class actions involving claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and civil litigation involving claims of negligence, fraud, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty, among other matters.
• A major professional services firm in an arbitrated dispute involving claims of unfair competition and misappropriation of trade secrets with a full defense judgment.
• Special committees of the boards of public and private companies in conducting internal investigations into a variety of issues, including employment-related matters, compliance with safety protocols, and financial reporting.
• A large public accounting firm and an individual auditor before a state licensing board and in state court litigation involving alleged breach of contract and professional negligence, securing favorable outcomes in both matters.
• Large publicly traded companies through internal investigations and SEC enforcement matters involving whistleblower claims and allegations of price fixing, fraud, potential violations of environmental regulations, and improper accounting.

How did you choose this practice area?

I have always been drawn to litigation. I enjoy written and oral advocacy, legal research, the fact development process, the development and execution of creative strategies and solutions in an adversarial context, and of course, appearing in court. But most of all, I enjoy the interpersonal work that is required to be an effective advocate. Early in my career, I was fortunate to have the opportunity to support the preparation of multiple fact and expert witnesses in regulatory and civil litigation matters. The process of building trust and preparing a witness whose reputation or license is at stake is deeply personal and rewarding to me, and it remains a core component of my practice and a source of job satisfaction.

What is a “typical” day like and/or what are some common tasks you perform?

My day starts early, and I typically spend the morning on work that requires deeper focus—writing and editing briefs, reviewing factual records in preparation for depositions or witness preparation, and digesting case law. As the day progresses, my work typically shifts to meetings and telephone calls with clients and colleagues regarding active matters or firm initiatives. Absent a pressing deadline, my evening work is mostly dedicated to taking stock of what needs to be accomplished in the coming day, mapping timelines for completion, and drafting any emails that can be sent to colleagues, clients, and others the following morning.

What training, classes, experience, or skills development would you recommend to someone who wishes to enter your practice area?

Develop strong legal research skills and hone persuasive writing abilities. Pay close attention to how other more-experienced lawyers write, compare styles, and use this information to develop and continuously improve your own style. Seek mentorship from experienced litigators who are committed to developing other lawyers to gain insight and guidance both on the practice of law and the market forces that impact lawyers. Take the time to become proficient in using legal technology tools for case management, e-discovery, and document review. And be proactive about learning your clients’ business and the industry in which they operate.

What misconceptions exist about your practice area?

One misconception about my practice is that the stakes primarily concern companies, firms, and other large institutions. In fact, most of my matters involve situations where the stakes for individual professionals are enormous—potential reputational harm, loss or suspension of professional licenses, material financial penalties, and the emotional hardship of being a successful career professional whose diligence, judgment, and/or integrity is called into question. This is why, as I noted earlier, the work of preparing a witness for testimony is deeply personal and meaningful to me. Even the most seasoned professionals can become nervous or afraid when asked to provide testimony under oath, particularly in an adversarial setting. And I get to support and advise them through the process in a way that instills and cultivates confidence while also making sure they fully appreciate “the good, the bad, and the ugly” aspects of the record they might be confronted with.

What are some typical tasks that a junior lawyer would perform in this practice area?

Junior associates in my practice support our clients by conducting legal and factual research to support case preparation and strategy; drafting various forms of documents, including motions, pleadings, briefs, and discovery requests; training and supervising document review teams and assembling key materials from the factual records; preparing case updates and legal research summaries for clients; developing and delivering mock examinations in connection with witness preparation; and assisting at hearings in ways that range from managing exhibits to arguing motions.

What kinds of experience can summer associates gain at this practice area at your firm?

Our summer associates largely perform the same work that would otherwise be performed by our junior associates. The key difference is that we try to contain the scope of any one summer associate project to allow our summer associates to work with multiple practitioners. This means that a summer associate who is focused on the litigation practice will have the opportunity to engage with a large number of practice area teams, including commercial litigation, regulatory enforcement, white collar, employment, data privacy, commercial competition and antitrust, and product liability.

What are some typical career paths for lawyers in this practice area?

Litigators at Sidley who decide to leave the firm go on to pursue a range of opportunities. The most common include transitioning to an in-house legal position focused on litigation and regulatory matters, joining a regulatory agency or the DOJ, or moving into the legal aid and nonprofit space. Our alumni network is fantastic, and it is always a joy to see my former colleagues, learn from their perspectives, and celebrate their successes.

Karim Basaria represents individuals, corporate clients, and professional services firms in high-stakes litigation, internal investigations, and regulatory enforcement matters. As a former certified public accountant, Karim’s practice focuses on disputes involving financial accounting and reporting issues, federal securities class actions, internal investigations that present complex financial issues, and enforcement matters brought by the SEC and Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. His combination of legal and accounting skills has enabled him to play a leading role in recent litigation wins for public accounting firms.

Karim has also served in various leadership roles within Sidley. As an associate, he co-chaired the Chicago Associates Committee and was a member of the firm’s Associate Diversity Council in Chicago. He currently serves as Co-chair of the firm’s Summer Committee in Chicago, which oversees the firm’s summer associate program each year, and he is actively engaged in Sidley’s recruiting, training, and mentoring initiatives.

Karim also plays a leading role in the legal community, serving as a board member of three legal non-profit organizations: the Illinois Equal Justice Foundation; the Chicago Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights; and Illinois Legal Aid Online, for which he also serves as Treasurer.

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.

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.

As a commercial litigator, I’m engaged in all facets of dispute resolution before U.S. state and federal courts. I advocate for clients who are either seeking relief for certain wrongs committed by other parties or defending clients against claims of wrongdoing. Because White & Case is a global firm with multinational clients, my practice tends to focus on cross-border litigation, meaning that the disputes are often multi-jurisdictional and involve navigating the interplay between different legal systems.

What types of clients do you represent?

My clients cross different industries, including financial institutions, energy companies, e-commerce platforms, and food and beverage companies. Additionally, given White & Case’s global client base, I have represented individuals and companies from all across the globe who need assistance with

U.S. litigation.

What types of cases/deals do you work on?

I work on a lot of cross-border litigation matters. A few recent cases include the following:

• An ongoing case on behalf of a Romanian food and beverage company to confirm and enforce an arbitral award against Romania in federal court in the District of Columbia.
• A case on behalf of a financial institution seeking to enforce a contract for the sale of a bankruptcy claim against a fund in liquidation in the British Virgin Islands.
• An appeal before the federal appeals court in the DC Circuit on behalf of a Chinese bank defending against claims relating to the expropriation of property in China.
• An action on behalf of two Anguilla-based companies in New York State Court to enjoin the assets of a Caribbean bank pending the resolution of ongoing arbitration.

How did you choose this practice area?

I enjoy being an advocate for others, whether it be through preparing a strong written submission or arguing in court. I also enjoy the strategic and creative thinking that goes into deciding how to prevail in a dispute by winning over a judge or a jury. No case is the same, and the opportunity to dive into new facts and potentially new areas of the law are what keep the practice of litigation fresh and interesting.

What is a “typical” day like and/or what are some common tasks you perform?

No day is the same. There are days where I will be in the office advising clients, writing or editing briefs, or participating in team meetings where we catch up on the status of a particular case or brainstorm about case strategy. On other days, I may be visiting a client or attending a deposition or a hearing. And then, there are the days or weeks when I may be traveling because of a trial or hearing in a different location.

What training, classes, experience, or skills development would you recommend to someone who wishes to enter your practice area?

Developing a good foundation in U.S. civil procedure is a good start, though you may not understand the full import of the civil procedure rules until you start litigating. It would also be helpful to take a legal writing course or any class that requires you to work on an extensive writing project. Opportunities to practice oral advocacy through mock trial or moot court are also extremely helpful.

What is the most challenging aspect of practicing in this area?

It can be harder to build a book of business in litigation because your clients may not be repeat customers in the same way that they would be if you were a deal lawyer. With the exception of large corporate clients who face more constant litigation exposure, a legal dispute may be an out-of-the-ordinary and one-time occurrence for your client. This means that it is even more essential as a litigator to focus on being a good lawyer and a great advocate, as it is your reputation and the positive experiences that your existing clients can attest to that will open the door to more opportunities to advocate for others.

What do you like best about your practice area?

I enjoy thinking about case strategy and finding creative solutions to client problems. I also enjoy the fact that each case presents an opportunity to dive into new facts, new problems, and perhaps even a new industry. Finally, I also like to think about crafting the overarching narrative for the case—the story that you are going to tell the judge or the jury. That story may evolve as new facts come in, and you may continue to tweak it all the way through to trial.

What are some typical tasks that a junior lawyer would perform in this practice area?

As a junior lawyer, you will be responsible for learning the facts of the case and keeping track of the key documents and testimony that both help and hurt your case. You may also be participating in depositions and hearings. You will also be involved in researching legal issues and helping to develop legal arguments with more-senior associates and partners.

What do you feel are the benefits of taking a generalist approach in litigation versus pursuing a more specialized practice?

As a generalist, you enjoy a larger variety of work across different clients and industries. You are not called upon for your expertise in a particular industry or discipline but rather for your ability to develop effective litigation strategies for the case at hand. The judge or the jury may not be experts in the issues that are being presented, and as a generalist, part of your job is to make sure that the story being told is one that will resonate with the people who will make the decisions about the outcome of your case.

Jacqueline Chung is a partner in the commercial litigation practice. She has extensive experience litigating business disputes that involve complex cross-border issues. She helps foreign clients navigate state and federal court litigation in the United States. She also develops coordinated and effective strategies for clients facing litigation in multiple jurisdictions across the globe.

Jacqueline focuses on finding creative solutions to her clients’ problems. She has obtained substantial judgments on behalf of clients pursuing claims in U.S. courts and secured more than $100 million in total cash recoveries. She has also successfully defended corporate clients facing significant reputational and financial risks in high-profile disputes.

Jacqueline has extensive experience litigating judgment enforcement actions, commercial fraud claims, fraudulent conveyance claims, contract disputes, and actions alleging violations of state and federal consumer protection statutes and false claims acts.

Her clients span a number of industries, including the financial services, pharmaceutical, energy, and food and beverage sectors.

Jacqueline has an active pro bono practice that includes the representation of wrongfully convicted individuals and victims of anti-Asian hate. Jacqueline also serves on the board of New York Lawyers for the Public Interest.

Jacqueline was recognized as a Rising Star by the Minority Corporate Counsel Association in 2023.

Describe your practice area and what it entails.

Deon: We are a trial litigation boutique that can take any case to trial. Our attorneys have tried more than 200 cases, including over 20 trials since the firm opened. While we take cases at every stage of litigation, we are often hired to represent clients as cases are ramping up for trial. Our job is to focus on taking what is often a very broad record and simplify it into a compelling, persuasive narrative.

Roxy: We are a litigation boutique with a particular focus on trial practice. While we handle cases in a variety of stages, we do so with an eye toward success should the case proceed to trial. While many lawyers view trial as a last resort, we are thinking about our presentation to the jury from the moment a case first comes to the firm, which is sometimes before a complaint is even filed. We develop our trial themes early and use them to guide our decision-making at every stage; we do everything, from depositions to document discovery to the briefing of dispositive motions, with an eye toward our ultimate trial strategy. We strive to think long term and make decisions that will make our case come alive for the jury or judge. We also focus very strongly on diversity in the firm as it is our goal that our attorneys be reflective of the juries to whom we are presenting.

What types of clients do you represent?

Deon: The firm represents a wide variety of clients including large companies (Altria, Bayer, Microsoft, Glenmark, 3M, Cargill, Medtronic, Plaid, Allergan, and Georgia Pacific), sports associations (the NFL and NCAA), criminal defendants, and pro bono clients. The pro bono cases are some of the most rewarding, and Chambers & Partners has recognized the firm as having one of the two best pro bono programs of all law firms in the country, large or small.

Roxy: I have represented clients across industries from entertainment and media to oil and gas and from sports to pharmaceuticals. I am currently representing Visa Inc. against claims by the DOJ that Visa is monopolizing the debit card market. I am also representing ExxonMobil in climate litigation across the country. Recently, I was part of the team that successfully represented the NFL and its 32 member clubs in a class action brought by subscribers of NFL Sunday Ticket in the Central District of California and secured judgment as a matter of law for the NFL on all claims following a jury trial. Our clients and their legal challenges are wide-ranging and present a lot of great opportunities for our legal team.

What types of cases/deals do you work on?

Deon: Like all attorneys at our firm, we work on cases headed toward trial. In terms of subject matter, there is no single type of case on which we work. Over the past several years we have had antitrust, class action, criminal, products liability, and sports-related trials. Everybody at the firm floats between these areas and is exposed to all aspects of trial litigation.

Roxy: I’ve worked on a variety of cases, including merger investigations, criminal and civil antitrust lawsuits, breach of contract, copyright infringement, product liability, white collar crime, and tort matters.

How did you choose this practice area?

Deon: I discovered my passion for trial work during my district court clerkship. Working in a trial court was an incredible experience. The motion practice, the attorneys, and even the courtroom drama drew me in. I also admired the judge for whom I clerked, who was a trial attorney before joining the bench. His war stories and insights into trial strategy were inspiring and left a lasting impression on me. Trial work offers an endless variety of challenges and opportunities to grow, which keeps me energized and excited about my career.

Roxy: I did a lot of mock trial before starting my law practice—all the way back to high school. I enjoyed it so much that I thought, “If I am willing to volunteer so much of my time to this activity, maybe I should make it into a career!” That interest continued through law school and my federal clerkship, where I knew I wanted to focus my practice on litigation and oral advocacy.

What is a “typical” day like and/or what are some common tasks you perform?

Deon: My day always starts with an Americano—but beyond that, there is rarely a typical day. Every day brings new challenges and opportunities. For example, in a trademark case our firm handled for Plaid, the judge ordered supplemental briefing after summary judgment. We pivoted to meet the new briefing schedule and poured ourselves into the task. While not every day involves a surprise like that, the unpredictable nature of trial work—such as responding to a flurry of motions from opposing counsel—is a constant. It is this variety and intensity that make the work so rewarding.

Roxy: The best part of the job is that there is no such thing as a “typical” day. Some days involve a lot of strategy discussions, including many calls and meetings. Some days involve focusing on one specific legal issue and researching it or briefing it. And some days—the best days, I would say—you’re prepping

[space]for or are at trial where you can spend a lot of time with your witnesses and juggle a lot of tasks, making the long days fly by.

What training, classes, experience, or skills development would you recommend to someone who wishes to enter your practice area?

Deon: A trial lawyer’s ultimate audience is the jury, and juries value authenticity. They can sense when someone is not genuine, so the best advice I can give is to be yourself and connect with people on a human level. Beyond that, there is no single path to becoming a trial lawyer—many roads lead to Rome. My district court clerkship inspired me to pursue this career, but incredible trial lawyers like Beth Wilkinson prove that clerkships are not a prerequisite. What truly matters is having a strong interest in the work and the work ethic to master it.

Roxy: Any chance to get into the courtroom—whether it is to observe or in a speaking role—is an opportunity to learn more and absorb new skills as a litigator. Pro bono work is also extremely valuable for getting opportunities, especially for more-junior lawyers. I would suggest finding a cause that you are passionate about and figuring out ways to partner with com- munity advocates to get courtroom opportunities in that area.

What do you like best about your practice area?

Deon: What I like best about being a trial lawyer is having the opportunity to do it at Wilkinson Stekloff. Our named partners are still in their prime, leading by example and setting the standard. Beyond that, what makes trial work so exciting is the creativity it demands. There is no single practice area for a trial lawyer—we tackle cases across a wide range of subjects. Every trial is different: the judge, opposing counsel, subject matter, and client all change.

Roxy: The variety is the best part of the job. Each new case provides an opportunity to learn about a new industry and client and deep dive into their world for a bit. Our clients present interesting legal and business challenges, and it’s a privilege to work alongside them to address these issues. Then, taking this knowledge and breaking it down for the jury in a cohesive presentation poses intellectual and creative questions that challenge us to think outside of the box. There is nothing more rewarding in the practice of law, in my opinion, than seeing months of hard work come together at trial.

What are some typical tasks that a junior lawyer would perform in this practice area?

Deon: As a junior lawyer, I can confidently say the work is as substantive as it gets. In my first few months at the firm, I drafted portions of summary judgment motions, co-led the development of a slide deck for a jury exercise, crafted the theory behind and drafted a pre-trial motion, and handled ser- vice to the court and opposing counsel. Trial work at this firm offers junior attorneys the chance to dive right into meaningful, high-level tasks.

Roxy: Our juniors are part of critical strategy meetings—both internally and with our clients. They always have a seat at the table during witness preps. And they get to author briefs and trial outlines from the get-go. We think that better ideas flourish and our clients are best served when everyone has a voice and shares their ideas. The partners say they founded this firm to train the next generation of trial lawyers. And that is evident in the experience that our associates get.

What kinds of experience can summer associates gain at this practice area at your firm?

Deon: In my last case, two summer associates were staffed as integral members of the team and treated like junior associates. Law students come to Wilkinson Stekloff because they are passionate about trial work, and we make sure they get hands-on experience. A summer associate might attend a trial, participate in a jury exercise, or observe depositions and hearings. They also contribute to drafting motions, conducting legal research, cite-checking, and managing the essential nuts and bolts of litigation. It is a true immersion in trial practice, offering a clear glimpse into life as a junior attorney at the firm.

Roxy: Summer associates are treated as regular associates and brought into matters as if they’ve always been at the firm. Many of our summer associates have become integral members of our trial teams with the same opportunities as junior associates. In our NFL trial, which coincided with the summer program, we had a summer associate at the trial site the entire time. He participated in witness preps and strategy meetings, drafted trial outlines, and worked on the opening and closing arguments. And, of course, he also got opportunities to observe the trial and be in the courtroom.

How is practicing litigation in a boutique different from practicing in a large law firm?

Deon: At a boutique, the work feels more impactful, the stakes are higher, and the responsibility comes earlier. Having worked as a junior lawyer at a large firm, as a judicial law clerk, and now at a boutique, I see the boutique experience as much closer to clerking. Like clerking, boutiques place a premium on substance. Junior lawyers are deeply involved in meaningful, high-stakes matters and are trusted to contribute significantly. At a large firm, you are often part of a much bigger machine, handling smaller pieces of massive cases.

Roxy: Access and opportunities. A boutique firm allows you to feel really plugged in—both in our cases and in the firm community. There is never an unfamiliar face walking down the halls or on our case teams. Associates feel comfortable participating in meetings and contributing to case strategy, developing their skills early on. A smaller firm also allows us to really recognize talent, so associates can get opportunities as soon as they demonstrate that they are ready for them. And at our firm, you don’t have to sacrifice working with large clients that have interesting legal issues. You can have a high-caliber practice comparable to the best large law firms, while getting the environment of a smaller boutique firm.

Roxana (Roxy) Guidero is counsel at Wilkinson Stekloff. She has represented corporate clients and individuals in an array of industries and specialties, including entertainment and media, sports, antitrust and competition, product liability, and white collar crime. With a wide breadth of experience across the spectrum of trial strategy and preparation, Roxy has helped her clients navigate some of their most challenging and complex legal issues in courts from coast to coast and provided strategic counseling to international clients. Committed to equal justice and legal access for all, Roxy maintains an active pro bono practice. Roxy received the Los Angeles Center for Law & Justice’s Pro Bono Partner of the Year award following her work as lead trial counsel for a domestic violence survivor. She also served as a pro bono prosecutor with the Redondo Beach City Attorney’s Office, successfully trying multiple jury trials. Roxy is a lecturer in law at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, teaching courses on contracts and antitrust.

Deon McCray is an associate at Wilkinson Stekloff. Before joining the firm, Deon was a law clerk to Judge Richard M. Gergel of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. Deon attended Georgetown University Law Center, where he received the Dean William M. Treanor Achievement Award for outstanding leadership. Deon was also named Chapter Leader of the Year for his service as president of the Black Law Students Association. During law school, Deon was an articles editor for The Georgetown Law Journal. He conducted research under Professors David Vladeck and Paul Butler. Deon interned for Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter of the FTC. Deon was also a member of the Civil Litigation Clinic.