In June, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a gun-industry challenge to New York’s first-in-the-nation firearms liability law. The decision closed one chapter in the fight over gun-industry accountability – and, for Mark D. Shirian, opened the next.

Shirian represents Ilene Steur, a victim of the 2022 Brooklyn subway shooting who was catastrophically injured with a Glock gun during one of the most violent attacks in New York City transit history. With the case now moving forward in federal court, Shirian is arguing that Glock should be held liable under New York law for the negligent marketing and distribution of its firearms.

“Gun manufacturers should not be able to look away from how their products are marketed and distributed,” Shirian says. “These are not easy cases, but this is cutting-edge litigation, and we are ready to keep moving forward.”

High-stakes litigation is familiar terrain for Shirian. Since founding his firm, Mark David Shirian, a decade ago, he has built a lean plaintiff-side practice. His cases span employment, personal injury, survivor claims, medical malpractice, nursing-home matters and sports-related litigation. As host of “The Millennial Lawyer Podcast,” Shirian also shares insights on personal injury law, legal mentorship and navigating today’s legal landscape.

“The law is changing, and the industry is changing,” Shirian says. “But the work still comes down to real people, real problems and real damages. You cannot lose the human compassion these clients and cases require.”

That discipline was forged long before Shirian entered a courtroom. Before law school, before founding his firm and before taking on cases against some of the country’s most powerful companies and institutions, Shirian was a wrestler. Litigation is not so different.

Lawdragon: What led you to a legal career?

Mark Shirian: I grew up on Long Island and went to Great Neck North High School. During my sophomore year, we were learning about HIV and AIDS in health class, and our teacher showed us the movie “Philadelphia.” Watching that really inspired me to become a lawyer.

What struck me was the advocacy – one person standing up for himself, and another standing up for his client in a case that other people may not have seen as meritorious at first. The employment-law piece also had a major impact on me. Tom Hanks’ character loses his job because his employer suspects he has AIDS, and that showed me how devastating workplace discrimination can be. 

Personal injury came into my life a little differently. In law school, one of my professors suggested it might be a natural fit given my background as an athlete. I interned at a personal injury firm, and it ended up being the right fit.

LD: Did you always know you wanted to start your own firm?

MS: When I first started out, I thought I would go to law school, work at a big firm and follow that traditional path.

But I graduated from NYU in 2009, during a very difficult economy. I saw smart, capable people losing their jobs because of the recession, and that uncertainty shifted the way I thought about security. I became less focused on working for someone else and more interested in building something of my own.

I was also fortunate in law school to work with young lawyers who had already started their own firm. For some people, security means working for someone else. I learned that, for me, security meant building my own firm, developing my own cases and making my own decisions.

LD: What has building the firm taught you?

MS: One of the biggest things I have learned is to be grateful for the challenges. When I first started out, I had this mentality of perfectionism. I thought I needed to be perfect in order to move forward. I have learned to have more grace with myself.

You are not going to spend 10 years building a business as a litigator in New York City and have everything go perfectly. But the challenges teach you, and the faster you learn those lessons, the better attorney and business owner you are going to be.

What struck me was the advocacy – one person standing up for himself, and another standing up for his client in a case that other people may not have seen as meritorious at first.

LD: Your firm has remained intentionally lean. What is the philosophy behind that structure?

MS: My middle name is David, and it is part of the firm name intentionally. One of my favorite stories is David and Goliath, and Malcolm Gladwell’s book “David and Goliath” really stayed with me when I read it before starting the firm.

What looks like an advantage is not always an advantage. What looks like a disadvantage is not always a disadvantage. That is how I think about the work we do. I thrive on David-and-Goliath matchups. Just because an opponent is bigger, has more resources or is represented by a large corporate firm does not mean they are going to win the fight.

Whether someone has been injured, discriminated against at work or forced to go up against an employer, insurance company or large corporation, it often starts as a David-and-Goliath fight. We are prepared for that fight, and we do not back down from it.

LD: How do you position your cases for success?

MS: It starts with intake and case selection. My rule of thumb is: If I would not hire myself for a case, I am not going to take that case. If we do not have the right expertise, I will refer it or reject it.

Because we take these cases on contingency, we do a thorough intake so we can understand the facts, the risks and whether there is a viable path to success. Once we take the case, we are thinking about the theme of the case, the lawsuit, the case law and where the pitfalls may be. We are also pushing discovery, scheduling depositions and using the tools available to us when defendants try to delay.

A lot of times, when you are pushing discovery, that is when cases resolve. It is also when you really begin to see what happened. By the time we get to trial, we want to be in a position where we can prove the case and be successful.

LD: How do you define the firm’s mission?

MS: People come to us when they are often at one of the lowest points of their lives. They have lost something: a loved one, their health, a job they wanted to keep or the security they should have felt at work. Our job is to help get them back on track.

Lawyers, if they are doing their job, should be promoting and providing justice. In civil litigation, the tool we have is compensation – in many cases, that is the only way to help make someone whole. But it is not just about money. A lot of people are looking for the opportunity to be heard. Having your day in court does not always mean going to trial. It can mean a mediation, a settlement conference with a judge or even a deposition.

Justice means different things to different people, but what you often see at the end is relief. That is what I want for my clients: a result that feels like justice and gives them enough peace of mind to move forward.

LD: How has your mix of cases changed in recent years?

MS: Over the last few years, changes in New York law have opened the door for survivors to bring claims that previously may have been time-barred. The Child Victims Act, the Adult Survivors Act and New York City’s amended Gender-Motivated Violence Act have allowed survivors to pursue claims involving abuse that happened years, and sometimes decades, ago.

That has allowed us to take on more sex-abuse and survivor cases, including cases involving conduct from the ’50s through the ’90s. These cases are different because they allow us to advocate for people who were silenced for a very long time.

We have also gotten more involved in medical malpractice and nursing home cases, including nursing home abuse, pressure-ulcer cases and scams targeting older adults. So the work has expanded, but the throughline is the same: representing people who have been harmed and need someone to advocate for them.

LD: Can you tell us about a particular survivor case? 

MS: One case that stands out involved a client who is now in his 70s. He was sexually abused as a child during a school trip to a farm in upstate New York. He had attended a public elementary school in the Bronx, but the school does not even exist anymore. At the beginning, the only proof we had was a school picture of him standing next to the teacher. We had the teacher’s name, the year and the school he attended. That was it.

With many of these sex-abuse cases, especially when the abuse happened decades ago, credibility is everything. This client was incredibly credible. He remembered what happened – how his mother tried to make sure the teacher and the person who abused him were held accountable, and how he later left that school.

We pushed for records that could help confirm what happened after the abuse, and the city eventually came to the table to discuss settlement. We were ultimately able to resolve the case for $1.5M.

That meant a great deal to the client. His mother, who is no longer alive, had tried so hard to advocate for him when he was a child. Decades later, we were able to help carry that effort forward and secure a measure of accountability for what happened to him.

The work has expanded, but the throughline is the same: representing people who have been harmed and need someone to advocate for them.

LD: Are there any other cases that have really stayed with you?

MS: I worked on a medical malpractice case involving a client who sustained an ectopic pregnancy that was not detected in time. There was a real question about whether she would ever be able to have children on her own, and IVF treatment was not something she otherwise would have been able to afford. We were able to obtain a very meaningful settlement for her, and she was able to pursue IVF.

One day, I got a text from her saying that she and her partner were expecting. Later, I received a photo of her baby daughter. She told me, “This would not have been possible without you and the work that you did.”

That was one of my proudest moments. Our mission is to right wrongs. She wanted to have a child, and the malpractice had set her back in a very serious way. We were able to get her the compensation she deserved, and that put her in a position to afford IVF. Now she is the mother of a beautiful baby daughter.

LD:  On “The Millennial Lawyer Podcast,” you discuss personal injury law, legal mentorship and trial strategy. What kinds of issues are you focused on right now?

MS: In a recent episode, we discussed private equity in the personal-injury space and what that could mean for the industry, especially in the contingency-fee world.

For me, the question always comes back to values. I understand this is a business. But I started my firm because I wanted to work on my own cases and give clients the hands-on approach they deserve. This is not a cookie-cutter business where you can just come in and maximize profits. You are dealing with real people, real problems and real damages.

I think we are going to see a lot of change in this space over the next five years. Private equity could be beneficial in some ways, as long as the core values of the firm remain intact. But I would not get involved in anything if it meant selling out my clients or selling out my values.

LD: You are handling a case against Glock involving a victim of a 2022 subway shooting. What can you tell us about that case?

MS: We represent a victim of a 2022 subway shooting who was catastrophically injured with a Glock gun. 

For several years, there was a constitutional fight over the New York law that allows these kinds of claims to be brought against gun manufacturers. That law, New York General Business Law Section 898, was enacted in 2021 and allows plaintiffs to bring claims against gun manufacturers for the negligent marketing and distribution of their products.

The Second Circuit affirmed the constitutionality of that law, and the Supreme Court denied the gunmaker’s petition to review that decision. As a result, our case against Glock can now move forward.

The case is about accountability. Gun manufacturers should not be able to look away from how their products are marketed and distributed. These are not easy cases, but this is cutting-edge litigation, and we are ready to keep moving forward. 

This is not a cookie-cutter business where you can just come in and maximize profits. You are dealing with real people, real problems and real damages.

LD: How has your background as an athlete and coach shaped your work as a lawyer?

MS: Wrestling and litigation have a lot in common. Preparation is everything. You cannot be undone by setbacks. You have to stay mentally tough, stay focused and be quick on your feet.

Coaching taught me something different, but just as important. I coached at an all-boys private high school on Long Island, and I learned that you cannot coach everyone the same way. Some kids needed tough love. Some needed encouragement. Different people need different things.

That has carried over into my work as a lawyer and business owner. Clients are not one size fits all. Some need reassurance. Some need directness. Some need every step explained. Others just need to know you have it handled. Coaching taught me that if you want to get through to someone, you have to meet them where they are.

It has also shaped the kinds of cases I take on. I have handled cases involving soccer, baseball and wrestling, and we are currently representing clients in a hazing case against Seton Hall, which is in the discovery phase.

LD: Your firm is approaching its 10-year anniversary. What does that milestone mean to you?

MS: This August will mark a full decade of running my own firm. That means a lot to me. I am proud of my younger self for having the vision and wherewithal to start this business in the first place. Building a firm, keeping it going and weathering storms like the pandemic takes a lot.

I’m proud of my staff, my team and my brother, who has worked with me for the last five years. Working with him is like a marriage. At the end of the day, you love each other and you trust each other. Of course there are arguments, but you know that person has your back.

Together, we have done a lot of great work for our clients, and we have built something I really believe in. I am excited for the next 10 years.

Kendrick joins the firm as counsel after retiring as chief counsel for products liability at Boeing. Lassen, who served as the company’s senior counsel for products liability, joins as a partner. Together, they bring decades of experience in aviation product liability litigation, government investigations and complex commercial disputes to one of the nation’s leading litigation practices.

Their arrival deepens McGuireWoods’ formidable capabilities in product liability and aviation litigation, building on the elite team of nine partners who launched the firm’s Seattle office in February 2026. The Seattle team includes nationally ranked practitioners in aviation litigation, appellate advocacy and complex commercial disputes, featuring two former U.S. Supreme Court law clerks.

“Allison and David are exactly the caliber of talent we envisioned adding as we built out our Seattle office,” said Noreen Kelly, deputy managing partner and head of litigation. “They are proven leaders in aviation and product liability litigation who have managed some of the most consequential matters in the industry. Their addition reinforces our commitment to assembling the strongest litigation team on the West Coast and nationwide.”

With the addition of Lassen and Kendrick, McGuireWoods has 16 lawyers in its Seattle office, including 10 partners, five associates and one counsel.

“When we opened our Seattle office, we said we would build on the foundation with top-tier talent to deliver the highest level of service to clients in this region,” said Rike Connelly, managing partner of the Seattle office. “Allison and David are a perfect fit. They know this market, they know our clients’ industries and they share the commitment to excellence and collaboration that defines McGuireWoods. We are thrilled to welcome them to the team.”

Benjamin Hatch, chair of the firm's Environmental and Mass Tort Litigation Department, added: “Allison and David bring the kind of deep experience that sets McGuireWoods apart. Their extensive background handling complex aviation product liability matters — in private practice and at the world’s leading aerospace manufacturer — gives them a perspective that is tremendously valuable to our clients.”

Kendrick oversaw aviation product liability litigation for Boeing’s commercial airplanes and defense, space and security business units, as well as for Boeing’s subsidiaries. Kendrick also provided product liability counseling across the enterprise and advised Boeing personnel supporting civil, military and criminal accident investigations. She previously was a partner at Ashurst Perkins Coie, where she specialized in defending clients — including Boeing — in aviation accident litigation around the world.

“McGuireWoods has built something special in Seattle,” Kendrick said. “Having worked alongside many of these attorneys throughout my career, I know firsthand the quality of this team. Together, we will deliver the kind of coordinated, client-focused representation that companies facing high-stakes product liability matters need.”

Lassen co-managed product liability litigation for Boeing’s civil and military programs. Before his in-house role at Boeing, he spent nearly 15 years at Ashurst Perkins Coie, where he represented aerospace companies and other product manufacturers in U.S. and foreign courts.

“I am excited to join McGuireWoods at such a pivotal time for the Seattle office,” Lassen said. “The firm's strategic investment in the Pacific Northwest enhances its ability to serve clients in aviation, aerospace and defense. I look forward to contributing to the growth of this office and the firm's product liability practice.”

But there’s a rhythm to the chaos: the thrum of the war room, the flurry of the courthouse steps, the buzz that circulates in print, online and from person to person. It’s a rhythm that’s been mastered by the team at TLG Communications.

For the global strategic communications firm, high-stakes trials are where they thrive. With offerings spanning financial communications to restructuring to litigation support, the TLG team has a unique understanding of how stakeholder, legal and reputational concerns converge. They regularly bring this expertise to matters where they work at the direction of legal counsel to provide litigation communications support.

“We have really built the firm around this specialty so this is truly our expertise. We are fortunate to handle a lot of trials every year, and I think we're in a group of a relatively small number of firms who can say that,” says Senior Managing Director Kaye Verville, who joined TLG in 2017 as the second addition to its team.

They work at the direction of teams of litigators to craft a powerhouse communications strategy that supports legal and business priorities. “We see communication strategies as flowing from business objectives, including the litigation strategy, supporting and bolstering litigation arguments,” explains Verville. “That works best when the process is an integrated one. We always strive to make the jobs of the trial lawyers we work with easier.”

In addition to Verville, Managing Directors Kylie Munnelly and Sarah Mann are indispensable leaders on the litigation support team. Verville and Mann have both spent their entire careers in strategic communications for large companies and high-profile individuals. Munnelly, meanwhile, is a former television producer who is deeply familiar with how the media gathers information and crafts a narrative.

Just a few of their engagements include trial communications for major tech companies across industry-defining antitrust matters, product liability cases, and IP and competition matters. The trio regularly work with in house lawyers, communications and public affairs/government relations teams from Fortune 50 companies and outside counsel from the world’s top law firms to steer litigation communications strategy for high-profile trials on both sides of the "V."

Verville, Munnelly and Mann’s expertise is recognized in The Lawdragon 100 Global Leaders in Legal Strategy & Consulting. They spoke with Lawdragon recently about viewing communications through a multi-stakeholder lens, the necessity of on-the-ground comms in trial and their working relationship with the world’s top legal teams.

Lawdragon: How do you describe litigation communications to clients who are interested?

Kaye Verville: We encourage clients to think about trial communications as starting before trial. In an ideal world, we approach these matters from the outset, when a complaint is first filed. We’re helping them think through foundationally how we’re talking about this legal matter, and how we’re tailoring it to different stakeholders. So, when we think about trial communications, we are working closely with trial counsel who is directing communications support, and we all certainly think about it as more than day one in the courtroom.

What happens in the filings and in the courtroom can also affect a business’ operations and reputation outside the legal track. We work on large matters in consequential trials where there are potential monetary damages in the billions or injunctive relief that could be foundational to a company's market value. So, we make sure that the legal track is aligned with how the client is talking to the market, to customers, to employees, to the media and to the public.

LD: If you have longstanding clients, are you involved even before a litigation is filed?

Kylie Munnelly: Most certainly. We have a lot of experience on both sides of the "V." So, if you are supporting the plaintiff’s legal counsel and you are planning to file a complaint, there are many considerations before there's an active matter. We are helping the clients and counsel decide whether and how they're going to take a proactive stance in introducing their narrative to the world along with the filing. On the defense side, we often work with counsel to advise clients around potential litigation risk and the resulting reputational considerations, understanding the trends that are impacting the industries that we support.

LD: That’s interesting. Can you talk a bit more about what your working relationship is like with legal teams throughout the process?

Sarah Mann: Absolutely. In these circumstances, we are always engaged to work at the direction of legal counsel. One thing that we focus on is taking a step back with the legal and in-house communications teams and thinking through how the court filings really do tell a story. They serve as a tool, not just for the purpose of the legal strategy, but also for the communication strategy. A lot of the role we play is as a translator – helping take the materials that the legal team is putting together, which are very sophisticated and are geared towards a specific legal audience, and shaping them into messages and strategies that resonate for different audiences. We distill the heart of a matter in a way that is easily understandable for a company’s key stakeholders.

KM: It is also so important to set up a strong communications and legal infrastructure that is integrated from the outset – so that is very important to how we work with our law firm partners. We help quarterback the right working group, creating a cadence of collaboration and decision-making processes to be able to plot out the timeline of a litigation and anticipate key moments so the client can be front-footed. Getting that strong, integrated set of processes in place enables us to effectively support the litigation team through every stage of the litigation – and if the case ends up going to trial, we bring that same infrastructure to the war room so we can be nimble and proactive.

We distill the heart of a matter in a way that is easily understandable for a company’s key stakeholders.

LD: Speaking of high-profile matters, how do you help guide your clients through that media scrutiny, especially on that day-to-day level? How are the considerations different when you're handling that amount of press?

KV: Preparation and expectation-setting is important. Many of the clients we work with are very sophisticated organizations and have been through these types of trials many times. That said, there are many who have not. We help companies understand and plan for what the stakeholder environment around a trial will be, and how we can manage those dynamics to preserve operational and reputational stability throughout it. We also help expectation-set internally with their C-suite and Board about what the information environment and communications strategy will look like during trial, too.

KM: Right. And it’s really important to have an understanding of what motivates of the other side. Having a communications team that’s worn both hats and studied the dynamics of how the other side is engaged in communications I think is a big value add to the legal team and adds to that partnership.

LD: Can you tell me about what your role looks like from the courtroom?

KV: It can really differ, interestingly, courtroom to courtroom and case to case. In all of these circumstances, we are working at the direction of counsel. The day to day logistical elements do make a big difference in how a case is reported on publicly. For instance, in some courts, devices are allowed and anyone (including media) can send emails and live updates from the courtroom. In others, however, you can't even bring electronics into the courthouse. Things like that change the information landscape. 

KM: Just like a legal team, we have the team who is offering support in court and the team behind the scenes. Ours is monitoring to make sure that we're seeing all of the coverage and commentary that either needs to be fact-checked or is helpful to flag to the legal team. That’s why I think having a team that not only understands the legal process and arguments, but also is extremely close to the facts of the case, is so important. We can be the first eyes on any reporting or any public commentary that needs to be corrected. We're making sure that there are not differing narratives between the courtroom and the public sphere.  

LD: To touch on reputational risk more specifically, what does that look like in trial, especially if you're dealing with a massive corporation from that multi-stakeholder lens?

KV: We think of reputational considerations as really being business concerns. Those can differ across stakeholder groups. We’re helping explain to the market, to shareholders, to analysts, “Here's how, as a company, we're thinking about the outcomes and what the cost and impact might be to future business.”

Similarly, there are internal concerns or internal reputational considerations. That could be employees being distracted by the attention, but also oftentimes maybe it's a particular business unit that's at issue in that trial and the employees in that business unit feel uncertain. Maybe they're looking for other jobs. So internal communications become important from an operational stability to ensure your workforce can stay focused and motivated.  

Then, of course, there’s customers. It depends on the company and the case, but you have to make sure that you're communicating in a way that preserves customer trust, particularly in product liability or mass tort setting.

We think of reputational considerations as really being business concerns.

LD: And, as you mentioned with social media, the channels through which information spreads have expanded exponentially in the last 15 years or so.

SM: Trials are certainly affected by the democratization of information and reporting. In general, anyone can be a reporter. Anyone can stream something. Anyone can post. We see a lot more reporters and commentators outside of traditional media outlets who are covering blow-by-blows of legal cases and trials on niche outlets or their own Substacks. That just changes how companies communicate. Engaging with media and engaging through those mediums is still very important. But it's also more important than it's ever been that companies are able to communicate directly to stakeholder groups through owned channels as well.

LD: One trend now is the growth of mass torts and consolidated MDLs. Tell me about how that’s influencing your work.

KM: As that work expands, law firms themselves are investing in mass torts and product liabilities. We're seeing firms really ramp up capabilities in this area and being able to partner with them through these matters is something that we pride ourselves in and is important.

KV: Product liability and mass torts related to product liability really strike at the heart of customer trust and business operations. Often there are very human stories behind those cases, which are effective communications tools for the plaintiffs. So from the company’s standpoint, it's very important to be able to communicate its values, safety procedures, and commitment to customers very strongly through all of that.

And there's also just the scale of it. In a mass tort case or an MDL, the scale of that is huge. The monetary damages can be huge. It's often extremely prolonged. So that's one where it's like you're really buckling up for the long haul with counsel and making sure that the litigation communications strategy and infrastructure supports that.

LD: I was going to ask how your strategy differs between a single case and a longer mass tort process.

KV: To start, you have trial after trial after trial all focused on the same issue, which in turn creates ongoing headline after headline on that issue.

LD: Do you also have to look with a longer lens in terms of, “Okay, how is what we say now going to affect this company not just during this trial, but five years down the line?”

KV: Absolutely. And to Sarah's point earlier, we see our goal as making sure that we're supporting all possible strategies of the litigation team. And sometimes that is to settle a case. So, we have to make sure we’re talking about the litigation before we go to trial in a way that conveys confidence and willingness to make these arguments at trial while also making sure that you're not foreclosing other possibilities including options for resolution. If a case is resolved before or during a trial, businesses often want to ensure the rationale for doing so is understood by the markets and by customers if it is possible to do so.

LD: That makes sense. And finally, what do you enjoy most about working with legal teams?

KV: My favorite thing is watching litigators at trial. Maybe it’s the middle school debater in me coming out! When there is a major case going to trial, a company is going to hire the best lawyers that they possibly can. It’s really fun and motivating to see the best of the best doing that work, and I love being able to support them.

KM: There is nothing like seeing a top litigator in their element at trial. As Kaye said, it's like watching a live production of a movie – maybe a thriller, depending on the spiciness of the testimony.

I am someone who loves getting into the details and really understanding and unpacking the facts of a matter. And the legal teams that we work with are so deeply ingrained in the facts of a case. They truly become the experts and we get to become experts with them. I find that really fun. We get to learn all about niche industries, how they work, and what's important to that business. And then we get to apply our own expertise about the communications landscape on top.  We are always learning something new because every case and every client and every trial is different.

SM: I really enjoy the thoughtfulness, collaboration and attention to detail that the legal teams we work with bring to every engagement. They’re just as focused on getting the facts right outside the courtroom as they are when they’re presenting evidence or examining a witness, and it plays a huge role to have partners like that when you’re trying to make sure stakeholders hear the right information about what’s happening in a case or at trial.

“We are thrilled to welcome Jakarri Hamlin to Hogan Lovells Cadwalader,” said Wes Misson, Global Managing Partner – Finance. “He’s a versatile lawyer with an exceptional track record of success in NAV and back leverage facilities. Our clients and colleagues alike will benefit from his blend of experience in fund finance, structured finance and derivatives. It’s great to have Jakarri back in the fold.”

A legacy Cadwalader alumnus who began his career in the firm’s financial services practice, Hamlin advises financial institutions as well as asset managers across all asset classes in financings such as NAV, hybrid and subscription facilities, structured and asset-backed financings, holdco loans, mezzanine loans, margin loans, and other forms of back leverage. Hamlin also has substantial experience structuring and negotiating ISDA documentation, as well as prime brokerage, repurchase, and other trading agreements; he began his career in structured finance and derivatives before shifting into fund finance.

Hamlin, who has been recognized as a 2026 “Banking & Finance Visionary” by Business by LA Times Studios, is the latest addition to a growing transactional practice in the firm’s Los Angeles office. Mike Maddigan, Hogan Lovells Cadwalader’s Office Managing Partner for Los Angeles, noted “Jakarri’s arrival, which comes shortly after welcoming fellow Banking & Loan Finance partner Bob Hayes this summer, reflects our commitment to providing clients based in or doing business on the West Coast – and around the globe – with the best possible talent to achieve their business goals.”

“I’m excited to rejoin my old colleagues as part of a new, one-of-a-kind global law firm,” said Hamlin. “Hogan Lovells Cadwalader is laser-focused on being the preeminent firm for finance, including the rapidly growing fund finance sector in California. I’m looking forward to being part of this platform and community.”

Hamlin earned his J.D. from New York University School of Law and his B.A. from Colgate University.

The team works with companies, institutions and individuals to investigate facts, assess risk, pursue recovery and prepare matters for litigation when necessary. Its lawyers draw on experience across business litigation, intellectual property and technology, antitrust, healthcare, internal investigations and other practices to address problems that rarely fit neatly within a single legal discipline.

A Practice Built for Complex Problems

The Robins Kaplan Fraud, Investigations & Recovery team took shape in stages. Bahram Samie was the first to join, returning to a firm where he had once been a summer associate. Allen Slaughter came next, followed by Carla Baumel and Lauren Roso.

The four came to Robins Kaplan from the Department of Justice and other public-sector roles, bringing complementary investigative, litigation and trial experience to an already deep bench at the firm.

They joined lawyers including former U.S. Attorneys B. Todd Jones, Brendan Johnson and Tim Purdon, giving the firm additional depth in complex investigations and high-stakes litigation.

The newer members of the team also knew one another’s work well before joining Robins Kaplan, giving the group an immediate foundation of trust.

“This is a group of people who were trained alike,” Baumel says. “We trust each other. We understand how to build something.”

Slaughter brings trial leadership and investigative judgment; Samie, experience with complex civil matters and organizational systems; Roso, litigation involving sensitive and contested factual records; and Baumel, intellectual property, antitrust and technology disputes.

What emerged was not a conventional white-collar group housed within a single department, but a team embedded across Robins Kaplan’s trial practices and able to draw on those distinct strengths depending on the demands of each matter.

“We’re calling it Fraud, Investigations & Recovery,” Slaughter says. “It sounds like a lot of words, so I just call it FIR for short.”

Slaughter’s shorthand – pronounced “fire” – captures a practice designed to move quickly across legal disciplines. FIR helps businesses, institutions and individuals uncover misconduct, respond to allegations and pursue recovery from fraud or other wrongdoing.

A matter may begin with suspected fraud, an intellectual property dispute or indications of internal misconduct, then raise questions involving cybersecurity, privacy, regulatory compliance, antitrust or other business risks. The group can investigate facts, work with forensic experts, build proof and assess how a case will withstand scrutiny from judges or juries.

“Clients don’t want to view a legal problem in isolation,” Baumel says. “They want to understand a holistic solution that gets them to the business outcome they want.”

A Trial Culture That Fits

For Samie, Baumel, Roso and Slaughter, Robins Kaplan offered a natural place to apply their investigative and litigation experience.

Founded in 1938 by two Jewish lawyers who had faced exclusion from established firms, the firm built an identity around trial advocacy, access to justice and representing clients on both sides of consequential disputes.

The firm’s commitment to trial work is tangible. Robins Kaplan maintains a dedicated advocacy center and technologically equipped courtroom used for mock trials, witness preparation, oral argument practice and jury research. Cases are evaluated and developed with trial in mind from the outset.

'Clients don’t want to view a legal problem in isolation,' Baumel says. 'They want to understand a holistic solution that gets them to the business outcome they want.'

For Baumel – a lawyer accustomed to building cases from investigation through verdict – that trial culture was central to her decision to join.

“I am a trial lawyer first, and there is no better place to be a trial lawyer than Robins Kaplan,” Baumel says. “Going to trial is not a game of chicken that we lose."

“You learn to assess complex facts quickly and make tough decisions, often without all the information you would prefer to have,” says Slaughter. “You’re always stress-testing the evidence – asking how it will play in front of a jury or withstand scrutiny from a judge.”

Making Complexity Persuasive

“It’s one thing to build a case, but then you have to translate it to a jury,” Baumel says. “We synthesize that knowledge, we learn it, we study it, we master it. And then we present it in a way that people can understand and find compelling.”

Across her career, Roso has often worked with incomplete and contested factual records, reconstructing what happened and building the case from there. “Through all of it, you’re essentially doing the same thing – investigating, building and trying cases,” she says.

Baumel sees a direct line between that discipline and the complex commercial matters she handles today. The subject matter may be different, but the central task is the same: mastering a dense record, identifying what matters most and presenting it with enough clarity and force to persuade.

Going to trial is not a game of chicken that we lose.

Trial strategy, appellate risk and the possibility of related litigation also shape how she develops a case from the outset.

“What’s going to happen next is never far from a trial lawyer’s mind,” Baumel says.

Looking Beyond the Immediate Conduct

Over years of complex litigation and investigative work, Samie developed a perspective that misconduct rarely begins and ends with an individual actor. Understanding a problem often requires looking beyond the immediate conduct to the systems, policies and accountability mechanisms surrounding it.

“I take a holistic view and assess the contributing causes of misconduct,” Samie says. “Context and nuance matter a great deal when conducting a credible investigation.”

That systems-level perspective gives Robins Kaplan’s FIR team a framework for investigating not only individual acts of wrongdoing, but the policies, incentives and failures of oversight that may have contributed to them.

A Cross-Disciplinary Approach

That same willingness to follow the facts across disciplines shapes the team's commercial work. Slaughter sees opportunity for affirmative litigation involving fraud, fiduciary misconduct, civil RICO and False Claims Act matters.

Baumel is applying the same cross-disciplinary approach to intellectual property, technology, antitrust and other complex disputes. Her work at Robins Kaplan reflects the broader premise behind FIR: Clients increasingly need lawyers who can see how a matter may move across litigation, regulatory and business concerns before those risks harden into separate crises.

A Platform for High-Stakes Problems

For the FIR team, Robins Kaplan offers a firm grounded in trial advocacy, strengthened by trusted colleagues and broad enough to serve clients on every side of a consequential dispute.

When the facts are complex and the stakes are high, Robins Kaplan brings together the investigative discipline, trial experience and cross-disciplinary perspective clients need to understand the problem, assess their options and determine the best path forward.

Protecting investors also means protecting the whistleblowers who risk their reputations, their relationships and their livelihoods by exposing corporate misconduct. Lee and Feller have been prominent champions of the SEC’s Whistleblower Program for years. Lee, who served as an SEC Commissioner from 2019 to 2022 and as Acting Chair from January to April 2021, consistently advocated for whistleblower protections in policy negotiations. Feller, who served with Lee in the agency’s enforcement division and later as her counsel, shares that commitment.

For both lawyers, the move is a natural continuation of their public-service careers.

The lawyers and the firm share a clear purpose. “[Labaton’s] mission is exactly the same as what we are trying to accomplish: investor protection,” says Lee. Advocating for whistleblowers – whom Lee describes as “partners in law enforcement” – is a core tenet of that shared mission. “Whistleblowers see [fraud] in real time,” she explains. “They can stop something in its tracks and reduce the damage.”

For more than 60 years, Labaton has championed the rights of investors and consumers, earning a distinguished reputation for excellence in securities, shareholder rights, consumer protection and data privacy litigation.

“Establishing a dedicated whistleblower practice is a natural extension of our mission to protect investors, promote corporate accountability and strengthen the integrity of the financial markets,” said Eric J. Belfi, Chairman of Labaton Keller Sucharow. “Allison and Andrew have helped shape the SEC’s enforcement priorities and whistleblower framework from the inside. Combined with our decades of experience investigating complex fraud and litigating high-stakes matters, we are creating one of the nation’s premier practices for whistleblowers seeking trusted counsel and exceptional advocacy.”

Feller and Lee have worked together for nearly 20 years, though they followed very different paths to the law. Feller began his career in Silicon Valley handling capital markets work for startups before the dot-com bubble burst. He joined the SEC’s Division of Enforcement as the financial crisis unfolded. Lee earned her undergraduate degree in mineral management and began her career in the oil business as a “landman.” She later pursued her longtime goal of attending law school, including as a single mother while continuing to work. After making partner at a large Denver firm, she joined the SEC’s Division of Enforcement a few years before Feller.

Both were among the founders of the SEC’s Complex Financial Instruments Unit, working on consequential cases arising from the 2008 financial crisis. Early in his SEC tenure, Feller began investigating Citigroup in a major case involving the company’s exposure to subprime mortgage-related assets. His work also included matters involving UBS, Goldman Sachs and two Morgan Stanley retail representatives accused of taking money from an elderly client.

Lee investigated a case against JPMorgan and Credit Suisse involving the banks’ sale of residential mortgage-backed securities. The investigation resulted in the banks paying nearly half a billion dollars combined. In another matter, she prevailed on appeal multiple times in a case involving a New Mexico stockbroker and “cloak-and-dagger” bribery of the state treasurer. That work brought Lee into contact with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Albuquerque, where she spent a year as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney on loan from the SEC. She later served as counsel to Commissioner Kara Stein in Washington, D.C., before being appointed an SEC Commissioner and later Acting Chair, during a record-breaking year for the SEC Whistleblower Program.

Upon leaving the SEC, Lee and Feller moved together into private practice on the plaintiffs’ side – a departure from the more typical path. “It was important to both of us to find a way to continue to advance the mission of the agency,” says Feller. “That’s not intended in any way to cast aspersion on the defense bar. It’s simply what we preferred to do and a path we wanted to show people was available.”

That path has now led them to Labaton, where they are hitting the ground running with active engagements while building the practice to work synergistically with the rest of the firm. “It’s a unique moment in the history of law enforcement, when whistleblowers are more valuable than ever,” Lee says. “It’s more important than ever to provide a port in the storm for them. And that’s what we are at Labaton.”

“I could not be more thrilled,” she adds. “Every day, I become more impressed and more confident in our decision – and so pleased that Labaton wanted to build this practice with us.”

Lawdragon: Allison, as a Commissioner, you consistently voted to uphold whistleblower protections and described whistleblowers as “partners in law enforcement.” Why were whistleblowers so important to your work at the SEC, and why is it important to continue advocating for them in private practice?

Allison Herren Lee: When I call them partners in law enforcement, that is exactly what they are – at the SEC or anywhere else. Fraud, by its nature, is concealed. You usually do not discover it until the damage is done. Whistleblowers see it in real time. They can stop something in its tracks and reduce the damage.

In my view, one of the most valuable contributions whistleblowers make – no matter which side of the aisle you are on – is advancing individual accountability. It is deeply unsatisfying when serious misconduct results in charges only against a company, even when individuals were responsible. But proving the required mental state – the scienter element of a fraud case against an individual – can be difficult. That is where whistleblowers are extremely valuable. They can give investigators information about who knew what, who said what, and when. They often provide information that would otherwise be unavailable, and they provide it earlier, before all the damage has been done. They also help investigators assess liability where it frequently belongs: with the individuals.

One of the reasons I so appreciate whistleblowers is the risk they take. It is a gut-wrenching decision. Sometimes there will be a reward at the end; sometimes there will not. They do not know when they come forward, and we do not know when we take on their representation. It takes tremendous courage, and they bring tremendous value to law enforcement.

Andrew Feller: The Whistleblower Program has been enormously effective, and the numbers bear that out.

LD: The Whistleblower Program has grown significantly since you started at the SEC.

AF: Yes, as well as the expansion of similar programs across the government. I think that's a pretty clear testament to its effectiveness.

AHL: For me, representing whistleblowers in private practice aligns perfectly with my experience and, more importantly, with the SEC’s mission to protect investors. Having served both as a Commissioner and as an enforcement lawyer for many years, that mission still means a great deal to me, and it always will.

LD: How does your SEC experience shape the guidance you can provide to whistleblowers?

AF: The process is not a black box to us. We understand what happens when information reaches the agency and how the staff evaluates it. Our experience as former enforcement attorneys who also worked at the policy level allows us to take a holistic view – considering both the legal merits and the broader context. We can assess how a matter fits the agency’s priorities and resource allocation.

One of the reasons I so appreciate whistleblowers is the risk they take. It is a gut-wrenching decision.... It takes tremendous courage, and they bring tremendous value to law enforcement.

AHL: Everything Andrew said is exactly right. I have profound respect for the lawyers in the whistleblower bar, many of whom have deep expertise and have brought a great many cases. What differentiates Andrew and me is that we have seen hundreds of these matters. Enforcement cases come before the Commission for a vote every week, and we also helped shape policy. Understanding the process from the agency’s perspective is different. We know how to present a case in a way that will engage the staff and how to guide it through the rest of the Commission’s process. That is invaluable to our clients.

LD: What brought you to Labaton, what kind of practice do you intend to build, and what are you most looking forward to?

AHL: Labaton was a natural fit. It is a deeply sophisticated firm, full of outstanding securities lawyers. The team has extraordinary depth and a well-earned reputation for excellence. The culture is also genuinely welcoming.

Our mission in representing whistleblowers aligns perfectly with Labaton’s mission in securities litigation. It is another way to address the harm caused by corporate misconduct, while giving the firm’s clients a wider range of potential options. Our work can complement what the rest of the Labaton team is doing.

AF: They have been tremendously supportive and are genuinely excited to build this practice. With the backing of a sophisticated institution like Labaton, its in-house capabilities, and its depth of experience, I am looking forward to building a world-class practice here. We are also excited to collaborate with the broader Labaton team.

LD: Why is this the right moment to build a whistleblower practice?

AF: Government agencies are being asked to do more with fewer resources and, in some instances, a narrower enforcement focus. As a result, agencies increasingly rely on whistleblowers to bring forward cases that advance policy priorities and help fulfill their core missions. It is also more important than ever for whistleblowers to work with experienced counsel because the processes are becoming harder to navigate and whistleblowers face heightened scrutiny. As Allison said, people take substantial risks. They need experienced counsel to help protect them and position them to receive the rewards these programs are designed to provide.

AHL: The program is a market-driven solution. In other words, financial markets run on incentives, period, full stop. So, you would think free-market supporters would be very supportive of a market-driven solution to misconduct that ends up helping level the playing field, making it more fair for the people who play by the rules. I feel it's a strength that it taps into exactly how financial markets run. That's why it works.

There's a lot of scrutiny on whistleblowers. Having experienced counsel to navigate that is important because … people take big risks and they need to be best positioned to be protected and rewarded.

LD: You have worked closely together for years. How would you describe your working relationship?

AF: My wife and I were recently at Allison’s house in Denver, where we shared great meals and a lot of laughs. We talked about what we are building together, as well as kids, grandkids and music. It is that kind of relationship. We toasted this new chapter and reflected on the fact that, when I went to work for her in 2019, neither of us could have predicted where it would lead.

AHL: We are friends and colleagues, and the trust between us is complete. That is a real luxury.

LD: As you begin building the practice, what are your first priorities and what types of matters do you expect to handle?

AF: We will continue representing our existing clients, so we are hitting the ground running. At the same time, we are putting the pieces in place to build something viable for the long term. The funny thing about this practice is that you can be busy around the clock, and when someone asks what you are doing, you have to say, “I cannot tell you. I cannot point you to anything – but trust me, I am very busy.”

LD: What types of concerns do you expect whistleblowers to raise in the coming years, and what trends are you seeing now?

AF: The government is expanding whistleblower programs beyond the SEC model. FinCEN has proposed rules addressing money laundering and sanctions evasion. The DOJ has programs focused on antitrust and health care fraud, and the IRS program has also reported strong results. While our background is at the SEC, we expect to advocate for whistleblowers across the government because much of that experience is transferable. I have also worked with the whistleblower bar to submit comments on behalf of whistleblower groups in response to FinCEN’s rule proposals. The broader trend is clear: Whistleblowers will be important across a growing number of programs, and we hope to be positioned to assist them.

AHL: I expect a continued rise in greenwashing cases. Investors want this information, and if it is not regulated as originally anticipated under the climate rule, we are likely to see more greenwashing. Will more employees witness this conduct and report it? I believe they will. Whistleblowers will be an important source of information as law enforcement works to root out misconduct throughout the energy transition.

AF: You can also imagine a crossover between greenwashing cases and the current AI boom. Investors are keenly interested in the environmental impact of AI and data centers. Greater transparency would likely prompt many more questions.

I appreciate the chance to help protect [whistleblowers] and guide them through a frightening process. They are providing an important service, potentially at great personal cost, and we can make that process easier for them.

LD: Finally, what do you find most fulfilling about representing whistleblowers?

AHL: I appreciate the opportunity to protect whistleblowers and guide them through a daunting process. They are providing an important service, potentially at great personal cost, and we can make that process easier while protecting them and their information – and helping law enforcement. The work could not fit me better. My clients mean a great deal to me, and protecting them matters to me on a deeply personal level.

AF: I am not sure I can improve on that. I meet people with deep conviction about what they are doing, and I remain engaged with the government, which has been central to my career and is something I believe in deeply.

The U.S. trial bar is without peer throughout the world. And these are its stars.

When we founded this guide five years ago, our intention was guided by the perceived wisdom that trial titan ‘Litigators’ were principally from fancy firms and working on behalf of the defense. Well, it takes two – or 200 – to tango. And as we’ve traveled thousands of miles talking to a like number of lawyers, we can only think of Roy Scheider as he understood what he was facing.

“You’re going to need a bigger boat.”

He, of course, was referring to Jaws, and we are referring with the utmost regard to the 4,000 lawyers honored here who have one thing in common: They excel at the art of advocacy before juries, judges and other decision makers on behalf of their clients.

They represent securities litigators on both sides, mass tort defenders and plaintiffs, criminal defense lawyers and white-collar experts. There are appellate artists, class action stars, energy experts and IP and trade secret lawyers. Among many, many others.

The guide still follows the path of ‘500’ lawyers in each of those and other expertise you can sort by ‘practice.’ As Lawdragon fans know, it’s a brand that has in many cases grown from a number. And that’s to allow us to honor the brilliant lawyers who bring justice to life.

Michael F. Williams is a partner in the litigation practice of Kirkland & Ellis in Washington, D.C., and one of a handful of former Supreme Court clerks who regularly tries cases to juries. He is national coordinating and lead trial counsel to BASF in talc litigation that at its height involved some 600 cases in state and federal courts, and led Tronox's defense of a first-of-its-kind FTC challenge to its acquisition of the Saudi National Titanium Dioxide Company. He also works both sides of the "V," recovering $665M for Huntsman Corporation arising from fraud in its acquisition of Rockwood Holdings. Named Kirkland's Pro Bono Lawyer of the Year in 2022 for his leadership in death penalty and civil rights litigation, he secured a settlement that moved the government to decide roughly 18,000 stalled asylum applications from Afghan evacuees.

Karen Friedman Agnifilo is leading the defense of Luigi Mangione, who is facing state and federal charges in ongoing litigation over the killing of Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare. Agnifilo, of counsel at Agnifilo Intrater, has navigated the media firestorm around the case while notching significant wins for her client, including dismissal of the terrorism charge in New York and the death penalty in the federal case. A former Manhattan prosecutor who rose to serve as chief assistant district attorney, she helped develop several specialized units at the D.A.’s office including Human Trafficking and Hate Crimes, and was instrumental in the development of the city’s first Mental Health Court. Agnifilo also served at General Counsel for NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, worked as a legal analyst for CNN, and serves as a legal consultant for Law & Order. She joined her husband’s white collar criminal defense firm in 2024.

Orlando R. Richmond Sr. is a partner and executive committee member in the Ridgeland, Miss., office of Butler Snow. He is an all-star of the defense bar in product liability and mass torts claims against companies including Meta, Monsanto and Johnson & Johnson. He entered the Marine Corps while attending Jackson State University, graduated from Georgetown Law School and joined the Judge Advocate General Corps, which he served until joining Butler Snow in 1994. He also serves as a pastor of Northside Christian Church in West Point, Miss., and is an advocate for diversity in the profession. His background and skills combine in a veteran trial demeanor that plays well in the toughest of plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions. This July, he persuaded a Florida teen to drop his bellwether claims of social media harms – with prejudice – against Meta Platforms five days before the trial was set to commence. He performed a similar disappearing act for Monsanto in 2024, winning summary judgment on all but one claim over the Roundup weedkiller in Philadelphia, leading the plaintiff to withdraw.

We selected this guide through a record-breaking number of submissions, alongside our original journalistic research and vetting with the nation’s leading trial lawyers. There are a record 4000 lawyers honored here, representing a ‘500’ of class actions, securities litigation, antitrust and so forth. Researching the talent of firms large and small is a joy, providing deep appreciation of the work and skills lawyers undertake to perfect their craft.

Those lawyers denoted with an asterisk are members of our esteemed Hall of Fame.

Thank you to Androvett Legal Media & Marketing, Blue Highway Advisory and TLG Communications for their support of this guide. 

Kuczynski assists public charities, including hospitals and educational institutions and their affiliated foundations, private foundations and other tax-exempt organizations with federal tax and governance advice, formation and structuring guidance; mergers, acquisitions and dispositions; joint ventures and strategic collaborations; internal reorganizations; and tax-efficient organizational structures. He draws on his background in law, finance, tax consulting and health system leadership to provide clients with business-focused solutions.

Kuczynski comes to McGuireWoods from Polsinelli. Before practicing law, he served as executive director of tax for Georgia’s largest health system and worked in the exempt organizations tax practice of a Big Four accounting firm, where he advised clients on tax, governance, compliance and Affordable Care Act matters. Kuczynski chairs the American Health Law Association’s Tax and Finance Practice Group.

“Michael’s rare combination of legal, financial and operational experience — including his background as a health system executive and nonprofit adviser — enhances our ability to deliver sophisticated, business-focused solutions to clients,” said Gerald V. Thomas II, McGuireWoods’ deputy managing partner and head of corporate.

McGuireWoods’ Nonprofit & Charitable Advisory Services Practice Area serves clients including universities, schools and other educational institutions and their affiliated foundations; hospital and healthcare organizations; medical research organizations; community foundations; donor-advised funds and supporting organizations; family, corporate and hospital conversion private foundations; museums; trade associations; and religious organizations. The team is part of McGuireWoods’ Private Wealth Services Practice Group, which consistently ranks among the nation’s top practices in Chambers and Partners’ High Net Worth Guide.

“Michael doesn't just analyze tax law; he understands the operational reality of running a tax-exempt enterprise,” said Taylor French, chair of the firm’s Tax & Employee Benefits Department. “He has a practical understanding of the challenges our clients face every day, and that insight makes our team stronger.”

Ryan Buchanan, managing partner of McGuireWoods’ Atlanta office, added: “Atlanta is a hub for major nonprofit organizations and healthcare systems. Michael's practice is a natural fit for the needs of our clients in this market.”

Kuczynski is the third tax partner to join McGuireWoods in 2026, following the arrivals of Andrew Chan and Marc Nickel in San Francisco.

“I understand firsthand the governance, compliance and strategic challenges that tax-exempt organizations face on a daily basis,” Kuczynski said. “McGuireWoods’ nationally recognized platform and deep commitment to this sector provide the ideal foundation to deliver the kind of thoughtful, solutions-oriented guidance that helps organizations achieve their missions.”

Everyone needs a good lawyer. But not every lawyer has the client roster of L.A. defense heavyweight Michael Freedman.

In the six years since the former federal prosecutor left the U.S. Attorney’s office, he has taken on some of the nation’s most high-profile, high-stakes cases in Los Angeles and nationwide. Just a few names in his client list: Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Trey Songz and Ippei Mizuhara, translator for Dodgers star Shohei Ohtani.

“I’m very passionate about defending people and helping them through a crisis, whether high-profile or otherwise,” says Freedman. “As a Los Angeles native, I feel very lucky to have built a practice doing just that in my hometown, where it just so happens that some of the people who have trusted me to represent them are high-profile.”

Even so, the bulk of his practice as founder and managing partner of The Freedman Firm is on the quieter side – serving those out of the public eye. The Freedman Firm represents executives, doctors, lawyers and corporations involved in criminal, civil and white-collar litigation. 

His caseload is steadfastly nonpartisan: Freedman has represented both a Jan. 6 defendant and an anti-ICE protester. Recently, he defended former L.A. Deputy Mayor Raymond Chan in a complex federal RICO and corruption trial.

Freedman’s firm aims to provide its clients with aggressive, creative and personalized service. Last year, Freedman took on a partner – with an eye toward growth commensurate with the work they’re seeing come in – and the firm now has five lawyers and recently celebrated its fifth anniversary this year.

Freedman earned a B.A. in history at the University of California, San Diego, and a masters in Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard before getting his law degree from the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco. 

He externed and clerked for several federal judges before becoming an attorney with Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow. He spent almost four years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, and then joined Werksman, Jackson & Quinn as a partner. He started The Freedman Firm in 2021.

Lawdragon: You have represented a lot of famous and notorious people in cases that have made headlines in the press. Was that your goal?

Michael Freedman: My goal has always been to practice criminal defense at a sophisticated level and with independence. I think there is a lot of room in the Los Angeles legal market for that kind of practice, handling high-stakes cases that might make bigger, full-service firms a bit squeamish. It just so happens that some of the people who need that kind of representation themselves have a high profile or attract headlines. 

LD: Is having a press strategy important when trying a high-profile case?

MF: My strategy is always based around how I can best defend my client and get them through an investigation, prosecution or crisis. So, for my purposes, having a press strategy isn’t necessarily high on the list of priorities, unless it’s something the specific client needs. And even then, I can’t think of a case where the press strategy actually improves the legal strategy. I’m very much of the view that “less is more” or “first, do no harm.”

LD: Do you have to coordinate with PR teams?

MF: Yes. If clients need to put out a statement because of their own business or reputational needs, I have relationships with several excellent communications professionals who can advise them on that. I often use a medical analogy: My job is to be the brain surgeon, and we want you to be comfortable in the recovery room, but I’ve got to be focused on the brain surgery. If I lose sight of the most important thing, I’m not doing my job. But we need PR professionals in only a very small percentage of cases.

LG: So besides what we see in the press, who does the firm represent?

MF: I’m lucky to represent a lot of very smart, accomplished people, which is not only an honor, but something I find immensely helpful in my work because they’re engaged and involved in their own defense. That is a great thing because you really get to partner with them and learn from them. In representing individuals from the community, I like to joke that I feel like a country lawyer, but the country happens to be Los Angeles, which is the center of industries like entertainment, health care and sports. So, being from here and in the mix is only natural and part of the practice.

LD: Why do you take the cases you take?

MF: I like standing up for people. I like helping people through a crisis. I'm a very empathetic person, and I like the challenge of being up against the government or defending people being attacked in the public square. It's my personality to not be afraid of a challenge, which has allowed me to take on tough cases, like trying a murder-for-hire or RICO case. 

In representing individuals from the community, I like to joke that I feel like a country lawyer, but the country happens to be Los Angeles, which is the center of industries like entertainment, health care and sports.

LD: Your father was a federal prosecutor. Did that influence your choice to become a lawyer?

MF: For sure. My dad was a DA and an AUSA before becoming a civil litigator, so I grew up hearing about trials and courtroom tales. I always liked standing up and talking and also helping people. My mom was a teacher and school psychologist, so helping people in the community and in crisis was her focus, too. I got it from both sides.

LD: But your plan was to get a PhD. in Middle Eastern history. How did that evolve?

MF: I started college right after 9/11. I was drawn to what was on the front page and wanted to understand it better. I went to grad school but, for a variety of reasons, I decided that academic life didn’t tick all the boxes in terms of the career I wanted to have. So, like for a lot of people, law school was a backup. I enjoyed it. It quickly came together that criminal law, in particular federal criminal law, was my area of interest.

LD: What did you like about criminal law?

MF: The first summer after law school, I externed for a federal judge in San Francisco and just being in the federal courthouse and seeing that level of practice and high-stakes trials was great. I watched the death penalty phase of a RICO trial, and I was struck by the intensity, the big stakes, the big cases. You’re dealing with human nature and all its varieties. From that point on I knew I wanted to be a federal criminal trial lawyer. It’s a perfect fit.

LD: Did you join the U.S. Attorney’s office to get trial experience? 

MF: Yes. I started at an excellent litigation boutique in L.A. that had a lot of former prosecutors whose practices really inspired me. I felt like going to the U.S. Attorney’s office would help me get the kind of trial experience they had. When I was fortunate enough to get hired there, I made it my goal to try as many cases as I could. In three and a half years, I had eight trials: a huge two-month mafia trial, a health care fraud trial, a national security trial and I got to work on a wide variety of cases – everything from drugs and gangs to environmental crimes and fraud cases. It was an incredibly good opportunity, and I felt like being an E.R. resident where they just throw you in the deep end every day.

I watched the death penalty phase of a RICO trial, and I was struck by the intensity, the big stakes, the big cases. You’re dealing with human nature and all its varieties. From that point on I knew I wanted to be a federal criminal trial lawyer.

LD: How did you learn the right way to practice? 

MF: I spent a lot of time seeking out senior mentors who were very, very experienced trial lawyers. I would just sit with them and ask questions like, “How do you introduce evidence?” “How do you organize witnesses?” “How do you deal with issues that pop up during jury deliberations?” “How do you get over the nerves?” I asked them about the different styles of defense lawyers. What works, what doesn’t. And I tried to get into court as much as I could to figure out what worked for me personally, because you need to be authentic and develop your own style.

LD: What else did you learn at the U.S. Attorney’s office? 

MF: I learned that not everyone wants to do what I wanted to do — representing individuals, focusing on trials, handling any type of criminal case — and that helped me realize that’s there’s a lot of fertile terrain in the market in L.A. and nationwide for a practice like that. I’m gratified that so many of my colleagues and friends have trusted me with referrals for those types of cases.

LD: What’s it like having your own firm?

MF: I love it for so many reasons. It’s allowed me to learn how to build and run a business, which helps me better understand my clients who have done the same in various industries. Personally, the independence allows me to take on a wide variety of cases and trials, which gives me the opportunity to grow and improve. I’ve been out on my own now for longer than I was a prosecutor. I’ve kept up my trial practice, with four federal criminal trials in the last four years, and several more trials and arbitrations on top of that. There’s a lot more challenges and lessons to learn on the defense side, and I relish every chance I get to keep learning and improving as a trial lawyer and a defense lawyer.

LD: How do you approach trying a case?

MF: There's always a theme – and you don't want to lose sight of that theme. You may have been through gigabytes upon gigabytes of discovery and motions may have changed the tenor of the case. There’re all kinds of developments, but it's often helpful to go back to the start and think, "What's this case about?"

I tell clients all the time, "I'm thinking of the closing argument in the first meeting.”

LD: What kind of personality do you want the firm to have?

MF: I pride myself on being very client-focused and want the firm to reflect that spirit. Every client's different and every case is different, but every case is equally important to the client, and we must keep that front and center and earn and keep their trust by fighting for them. You must really explain options and strategies, but also listen to their concerns, goals, risk tolerance, timelines and other issues in their lives and design the defense accordingly. As the firm grow, it’s a real privilege to be able to show younger lawyers this kind of practice and help train them to provide this level of client-focused representation.

LD: Are you attracting the kinds of cases you expected? 

MF: Yes. It took a few years, but when I look now at the variety and complexity of cases I’m handling, it’s the kind of practice I always dreamed of. At the same time, the market has changed since I went out on my own, so you must be responsive and flexible. Some people will say there's less white-collar work under the Trump administration, which is accurate. But from where I am in the market, focused on representing individuals in investigations and prosecutions, there's still plenty of white-collar work. For me, the white-collar practice is busier than ever.

I tell clients all the time, 'I'm thinking of the closing argument in the first meeting.'

LD: What other kinds of cases are you taking on? 

MF: There are always a lot of health care fraud cases in L.A. Recently, I’ve had a lot of SEC cases representing financial professionals. Then, in state court, I have quite a variety right now of public corruption cases the D.A.'s office is bringing. 

But it runs the gamut. I have a homicide case, an assault case and then I have a novel Labor Code felony prosecution and an Iranian sanctions case. On top of that, it starts to blend into the civil practice where I have False Claims Act cases and a crypto securities fraud class action.

Right now, in L.A., the U.S. Attorney's office is investigating homelessness fraud. And by pure coincidence, I happen to have several different clients in those cases. They're all unrelated, but it’s a new priority area that didn't even exist a year ago.

LD: What’s the biggest challenge you face in your cases?

MF: When you're dealing with the federal government, everyone says the same thing: You can get buried in discovery because of the nature of these investigations. By the time they charge a client, they've had years to collect phones and interview witnesses. And it can be very hard in this day and age to cut through it all while not losing sight of the big-picture themes that are at the center of any case.

LD: Do you have to hire more lawyers to deal with the caseload?

MF: We’re now up to five lawyers and two support staff. We are getting bigger to keep up with the work and I'm trying to keep it going so that I can practice the way I want and respond to client demands and stay as busy as possible, but in a way that feels the same as it always has been. We've been lucky to be so busy. It's still funny to look around and be like, "Oh, now it's a real law firm. All these people here are working together to help our clients.”

LD: It sounds like you’re enjoying life at the firm. Is that right?

MF: It's nice having started my own firm because I can truly make independent decisions about my practice while also getting to work with lots of great lawyers and now getting to mentor younger lawyers as well and help train them. There's a great network of former prosecutors at smaller firms around the country, and I am lucky to have developed a network of peers and mentors. I’ve been very involved in the Federal Bar Association and the American Bar Association for many years, which is such a strong community of white-collar practitioners.

LD: You said your clients are often going through life-altering situations. How does that affect your approach?

MF: One of my first mentors used to say, “Winning is never as good as losing is bad,” and I really get that. Even when the outcome is not ideal, you must find a way to keep fighting for your client. Sometimes, that means avoiding a worse outcome or stopping the bleeding. I had a case last year where the government was seeking over seven years. Through years of litigation, the client got probation. We keep in touch and we talk about how the strategy worked. I had another case where we beat a murder charge. I took my client for coffee after we left court for the last time, and he told me about the new company he was going to start. He’s a young guy, and to see the difference you can make in someone’s life through hard work, strategy and a little bit of luck is really fulfilling.

LD: Would you say that brings you satisfaction?

MF: I feel incredibly lucky to have built a practice and a firm that allows me to help people every day and keep growing as a lawyer. 

related securities laws and regulations.

“Eric has extensive experience advising funds clients on their most important regulatory and transactional issues, and he will be a strong addition to the firm,” said Angelo Bonvino, global head of the Corporate Department.

“We are excited to welcome Eric, who will enhance our team’s funds regulatory capabilities,” said Marco V. Masotti, global co-head of the Investment Funds Group. “His fluency across funds-related regulatory and compliance matters will be a tremendous asset to our clients as they navigate their most critical issues.”

Perelman represents leading global private funds and alternative asset managers on cutting-edge and complex SEC regulatory and compliance matters, including investment adviser registration, ongoing disclosure and securities reporting obligations, and material non-public information and insider trading issues across examinations, enforcement inquiries and adviser structuring matters. He advises on the formation, offering and governance of private equity funds, general partner-led secondaries vehicles, co-investments, venture capital funds, credit funds, managed account platforms and other investment products. He also counsels private fund sponsors on compliance and regulatory issues pertaining to their minority investment and control-sale transactions, in addition to regulatory considerations for capital markets and M&A transactions.

Prior to entering private practice, Perelman served as a law clerk in the Division of Investment Management at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. He earned a B.A., magna cum laude, from New York University and a J.D., with honors, from The George Washington University Law School.

The Paul, Weiss Investment Funds Group leverages its extensive market knowledge and deep, long-term relationships to help private equity and alternative asset management clients attain their most important investment goals. The firm has been at the forefront of some of the industry’s most creative and innovative investment product developments, helping clients set market trends instead of reacting to them. The firm’s Private Equity Group advises the world’s largest and most sophisticated alternative asset management firms and their portfolio companies, as well as up-and-coming investment funds, on their most complex M&A transactions, minority investments, financing and capital markets solutions, and fund formation matters. Leveraging vast experience across sectors, geographies and investment strategies, the practice provides counsel across the full investment lifecycle.