"KSM," as he is referred to, made the statements to FBI agents on Guantanamo Bay four months after he arrived from CIA black sites where he was subjected to widely documented physical and psychological abuse.

On Friday, Air Force Lt. Col. Michael Schrama ruled that the prosecution failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Mohammad’s statements to the FBI were voluntary. He found the January 2007 FBI interview sessions – which he noted took place in a former CIA black site on Guantanamo Bay – “did not represent a genuine break from his past treatment.”

“The Commission finds that this environmental continuity effectively maintained the coercive psychological pressure established by the CIA,” Schrama wrote.

He described Mohammad’s treatment by the CIA over three-plus years as “extraordinary physical and mental abuse.”

“This treatment included at least 183 instances of waterboarding, prolonged standing sleep deprivation, nudity, rectal rehydration, and explicit threats to murder his child,” Schrama wrote.

The ruling is a major setback for the government's plans to use FBI-elicited confessions at trial. It is not the first.

Schrama’s predecessor on the case, Air Force Col. Matthew McCall, last year suppressed the confessions made to the FBI by Mohammad's co-defendant and nephew, Ammar al Baluchi. The prosecution of Mohammad and two other co-defendants, Walid bin Attash and Mustafa al Hawsawi, for the largest mass murder committed on U.S. soil has lagged behind al Baluchi’s because they attempted to exit the pretrial litigation and plead guilty, only to have the government withdraw from the deals.

Schrama presided over his first hearing in the convoluted case in December. In May, he heard closing arguments for the dwindling number of prosecutions in which the defense is seeking to suppress allegedly coerced statements in May. He is expected to rule on bin Attash’s and al Hawsawi’s motions to suppress in the coming weeks. (One of the five original defendants, Ramzi bin al Shibh, has been severed from the case after a finding of mental incompetency.)

The chief prosecutor for the military commissions, Navy Rear Adm. Aaron Rugh, said in an email to reporters on Friday that his office was reviewing Schrama’s ruling and “will make a decision on whether to appeal in the near future.”

That decision will impact the long and difficult road to trial for the 9/11 accused as the 25th anniversary of the attacks draws near. The defendants were arraigned in May 2012. Earlier this week, Schrama set a trial date for June 2028. Should the government appeal Schrama's ruling, that deadline would become an impossibility, as a practical matter.

Schrama put the prosecution of al Baluchi on hold after the prosecution appealed his suppression ruling – issued by McCall back in April 2025 – to the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review. A three-judge panel heard oral arguments in February and could issue a decision at any time. A separate review panel last year upheld the suppression ruling in the military commission against Abd al Rahim al Nashiri, accused in a different case of planning the USS Cole attack. 

The Commission finds that this environmental continuity effectively maintained the coercive psychological pressure established by the CIA,” Schrama wrote.

The prosecution team has long acknowledged that the CIA's treatment of the 9/11 defendants constituted legal "coercion" that elicited inadmissible statements. However, prosecutors claimed the FBI sessions were sufficiently attenuated from the prior coercion and were made voluntarily. 

The lead prosecutor on the case, Clay Trivett, told Schrama in May that the statements Mohammad gave to the FBI in January 2007 were “the qualitatively best” that the government had in its case against him. Trivett argued that FBI personnel repeatedly warned Mohammad that he did not have to participate in the sessions. Mohammad largely dictated the duration and pace of the interviews, Trivett claimed, deciding to end them before the FBI had completed the ground it wished to cover. 

In his ruling, Schrama found the FBI failed to give Mohammad Miranda warnings or any warning informing him “that the statements he had previously made under coercion to the CIA could not be used against him.”

In his ruling last year, McCall concluded that al Baluchi’s CIA treatment amounted to torture. Schrama did not teach that conclusion, instead describing “extraordinary” abuse Mohammad endured during his time in CIA captivity.

Mohammad, bin Attash and al Hawsawi continue efforts to revive their plea agreements. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled last year that the government could legally withdraw from the deals. However, the teams have filed challenges to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not decided whether to hear the dispute.

About the author: John Ryan (john@lawdragon.com) is a co-founder and editor at Lawdragon, where he helps oversee print and web content. John's coverage of proceedings on Guantanamo Bay has earned three New York Press Club Awards and his book on the case, "America's Trial: Torture and the 9/11 Case on Guantanamo Bay," came out last year.  

Ambassador Steggerda held key firm leadership roles since joining McGuireWoods in 2015. Leveraging his experience as a United States Naval Academy graduate and former aircraft carrier-based strike-fighter pilot, he was the founding leader of the firm's Defense, National Security and Government Contracting Industry Team and its growing government contracts practice. In 2018, he became the chair of the Government Investigations & White Collar Litigation Department and, during his four-year tenure, spearheaded the significant expansion of the practice, especially in Washington, and was instrumental in enhancing its reputation as a leading white collar litigation firm. In 2020, Law360 selected McGuireWoods as a White Collar Practice Group of the Year in recognition of its prominent work.

Ambassador Steggerda became deputy managing partner for litigation in December 2022 as the firm continued earning accolades for excellence across litigation practices. He later assumed the role of deputy managing partner for strategic development, overseeing the strategic reorganization of the firm's practice groups and industry teams. 

"Ambassador Steggerda was an extraordinary leader and trusted colleague whose efforts have strengthened McGuireWoods immeasurably," said McGuireWoods Managing Partner J. Tracy Walker IV. "While we will miss him, we are immensely proud that he has been called to serve our nation in this distinguished role.

“Willy is a standout appellate advocate and one of the most respected lawyers in the appellate bar,” said Paul, Weiss Chairman Scott A. Barshay. “We're thrilled to welcome him to Paul, Weiss, where he will be an invaluable resource for our clients.”

A former Supreme Court clerk and Assistant to the Solicitor General, Jay has delivered more than 100 oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court and federal and state courts of appeals. In addition to his work in appellate courts, he is regularly retained before trial to handle critical motions and steer strategy for eventual appeal.      

“Willy’s rare combination of experience, judgment and composure has made him a star in the appellate arena,” said Michael Holston, co-head of the Litigation Department. “He is a great fit for our already strong department, and his addition will allow us to continue to deliver excellent results for our clients.”

Jay has extensive Supreme Court credentials. He has argued 19 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, briefed more than 65 Supreme Court cases on the merits, and briefed more than 150 cases at the certiorari stage. His practice spans a wide range of areas, including intellectual property, financial services, class actions and mass torts, administrative law, antitrust, securities litigation, and constitutional challenges to state law. He brings particular depth to appellate matters with intellectual property components, including patent, copyright and trademark cases, and has secured victories in several Supreme Court cases, including Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., and B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries. He is also a prominent advocate at the Federal Circuit.

“I am excited to bring my practice to Paul, Weiss, a firm that has long been known for the exceptional quality of its lawyers,” Jay said. “I have had the privilege to represent clients in the highest courts throughout my career, and I look forward to continuing that work with the support of the platform this firm provides.”

Named the nationwide “Appellate Litigator of the Year” by Benchmark Litigation in 2020, Jay has been widely recognized for his appellate advocacy over the years. He is listed in the “Hall of Fame” for The Legal 500’s Appellate category (2021-2026) and is ranked by Chambers USA in Band 1 for Appellate Law (2015-2026) and Intellectual Property: Appellate, one of only four attorneys to receive a Band 1 recognition in both practices this year. Jay is frequently recognized for his work at the intersection of appellate and intellectual property, appearing on Managing IP’s list of IP Stars and IAM Patent 1000’s list of top Federal Circuit appellate practitioners. Jay is also president-elect of the Edward Coke Appellate Inn of Court and a Fellow of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers.

Jay received an A.B. from Harvard College and a J.D. from Harvard Law School, where he was an executive editor of the Harvard Law Review. He is a frequent writer and speaker on the topic of appellate litigation, particularly where the practice touches on intellectual property and pharmaceuticals.

The Paul, Weiss Litigation Department regularly handles significant, high-stakes and complex litigations and enforcement actions for clients that include Fortune 50 corporations and other prominent companies in the financial services, investment, medical device, pharmaceutical, sports, technology, energy, media and insurance industries. The firm’s litigators have a long history of strength and success as trial lawyers, credibility with government officials and regulators, and a track record of courtroom wins and creative out-of-court resolutions.

This is the inaugural edition of this introductory guide to the swiftly emerging specialty combining bankruptcy and restructuring, finance, liability management and capital solutions for stressed and distressed companies. Included in that scenario are M&A situations in which there is hostile activity or proxy contests.

While crisis management and litigation are certainly tools in this scenario, those experts are well covered in other guides and not the heart of this one. Included, however, are those masters at transporting companies facing overwhelming liability from mass tort and other claims through bankruptcy or other reconfigurations.

Walied Soliman KC built his reputation in the room where deals get tense. As Canadian Chair of Norton Rose Fulbright, based in Toronto, he co-founded the firm's acclaimed Special Situations team and has become the lawyer boards call when an M&A situation turns adversarial, whether that means a proxy battle, a hostile bidder at the door, or a shareholder activist pushing for change. His range runs from restructurings and corporate finance to governance and structured products, and it was on full display in his multi-year defense of Parkland Corporation against Simpson Oil Limited and Engine Capital, a campaign that culminated in Parkland's $9.1B sale to Sunoco.

Jennifer E. Daly sits at the intersection of private credit and distress, a vantage point that makes her one of the busiest lawyers in the market. As Chair of the Private Credit and Special Situations practice at Paul Hastings in New York, she is lead counsel to an unusually broad client base, private credit funds, special situation and opportunistic funds, business development companies, hedge funds and major financial institutions, across leveraged buyouts, unitranche and first lien/second lien financings, mezzanine debt, DIP financings, rescues, exits and liability management transactions. She moves comfortably between performing credit and the finance side of both in-court and out-of-court workouts, and her client roster reads like a who's who of the space: Antares, Apollo, Blue Torch Capital, CVC, Blackstone Credit, KKR, Owl Rock, MSD Capital, Park Square Capital, Sound Point Capital and New Mountain Capital.

Amit Trehan has made a career of finding value where others see only losses. As Co-Head of U.S. Financial Restructuring at Freshfields in New York, he works to maximize recoveries across workouts, bankruptcies and liability management transactions, ranging fluidly across leveraged and structured finance, asset-based and bilateral lending, commercial real estate and derivatives. He served as counsel to the Administrative Agent on Radiate's $5B recapitalization, and his work advising Barclays as lender and/or agent spans some of the decade's most closely watched restructurings and financings, including Hertz, McDermott, PG&E, Windstream, Toys R Us, MattressFirm and Ultra Petroleum.

We selected this guide through our time-honed process combining your fantastic nominations, independent research and vetting with peers. Those designated with an asterisk are members of the Lawdragon Hall of Fame.

Golimowski represents businesses in high-stakes disputes, including post-merger and post-acquisition matters. His practice spans the full lifecycle of a deal, from counseling clients on asset protection during a transaction to enforcing holdback, indemnity and insurance rights after closing. He also represents Fortune 500 corporations and small-to-midsize companies in construction disputes involving highly regulated projects, including U.S. Department of Defense facility matters with exposure exceeding $150 million.

Baker guides clients through commercial construction and public contracts disputes. His construction practice focuses on energy, defense and infrastructure matters, including those involving change orders, delays, design defects and other issues arising on large-scale projects. He represents prime and subcontractors in the defense industry, handling disputes and advising on teaming agreements, subcontract formation, government investigations and federal contracts counseling. Golimowski and Baker come to McGuireWoods from Womble Bond Dickinson.

“Jeff and Jeremy are skilled litigators with proven track records in matters that carry significant financial and strategic consequences for clients,” said Noreen Kelly, McGuireWoods’ deputy managing partner and head of litigation. “Their experience in post-acquisition disputes complements our growing transactional practices and enhances our ability to deliver integrated, industry-focused solutions.”

Shelby Guilbert, chair of McGuireWoods’ Commercial Litigation Department, added, “When clients face post-closing challenges or massive delays, they need trial lawyers who understand the commercial engines behind their businesses. Jeff and Jeremy bring that exact blend of technical skill and business acumen to our team.”

McGuireWoods represents buyers, sellers, investors, sponsors, portfolio companies, founders, executives and other stakeholders in disputes arising from mergers, acquisitions, financings, joint ventures, strategic investments and other business transactions, including construction and government contract matters. The firm consistently earns nationwide rankings for commercial litigation from Chambers USA. McGuireWoods ranked among “The Most Feared Law Firms in Litigation” in BTI Consulting Group’s annual survey of corporate counsel.

“McGuireWoods has built a powerhouse commercial litigation practice with tremendous depth across industries,” said Golimowski. “I look forward to leveraging the firm’s platform to deliver even greater results for clients, particularly those navigating post-transaction disputes.”

Baker added, “McGuireWoods’ strength in construction and government contracts litigation, combined with its national trial capabilities, makes the firm an ideal home for my practice. I am excited to join a team that shares my focus on detailed preparation and creative problem-solving for clients.”

Jack L. White, managing partner of McGuireWoods’ Tysons office, said, “Jeff and Jeremy have built reputations as trusted advisers for clients in industries that drive our region’s economy, and we are delighted to welcome them to the firm.”

Trust ran deep. Medical malpractice claims were comparatively rare, and plaintiffs’ verdicts were rarer still. What juror wanted to alienate the only person for miles around who could treat their child’s tonsillitis, then bump into them in church, at the local grocery store or on the golf course and face a doctor’s scorn based on a verdict that included a finding of negligence which caused harm?

That backdrop made lawyers reluctant to take on such cases, especially in Alabama, where Shay Samples and Leon Ashford were beginning their law careers.

“It was very difficult for us to go into a small county, file a lawsuit against the local equivalent of TV’s ‘Marcus Welby, M.D.’, and win a verdict against him when half the jury was going to know him,” says Ashford, who’s now the managing partner of Hare Wynn, a plaintiffs’ firm in Birmingham that specializes in medical malpractice cases.

“Welby,” an ABC drama premiering in 1969, focused on a silver-haired California physician who made house calls; his “dad vibe” was a world away from the earthier appeal McDreamy or McSteamy brought to the hospital-based “Grey’s Anatomy” decades later.

The change in televised depictions of medicine in between the two shows, in many ways, mirrors the changes in the American public’s experience with healthcare providers.

“Down here in the South, doctors and nurses have always been put on a pedestal, and that has now crumbled a bit,” explained Samples, a medical malpractice lawyer who joined Hare Wynn in the 1990s. “There has been a loss of trust in the doctor-patient relationship, which is not as personal and as intimate as it used to be.” This shift in juror perception of doctors has definitely not simplified the decision about which medical malpractice cases meet their strict criteria for litigation. These lawsuits remain notoriously complex, often involving treatments, science, complications and terminology with which jurors are unfamiliar, touching on painful events from death to severe injury and loss of mental and physical capabilities. Ashford, Samples and the Hare Wynn team focus not only on obtaining justice for clients suffering from poor care but also on making the healthcare system safer and more reliable for future patients.

From Football Field to Courtroom

Among their recent achievements are a jury verdict for $6M in 2024 for the family of Anne Davis, who died when an undiagnosed infection following gall bladder surgery led to sepsis, and a $21M verdict against two physicians and a nurse practitioner at Jackson Hospital in Montgomery County for the death of a 14 day-old baby who was misdiagnosed and sent home with an intestinal obstruction which was revealed on x-ray and would have been easily treatable if seen by a surgeon. They also negotiated a settlement that provided lifelong care for Kathryn and Lane Hagan’s daughter, Libby, who received 100 times the prescribed dosage of insulin while in a hospital’s neonatal intensive care unit, sustaining brain damage and debilitating disabilities.

“We’re most often the last hope that these clients have,” Samples explained. “To handle these cases correctly, you have to invest the time and effort and money to do right by the clients. And we do that; we make that commitment.” 

Lawdragon: The two of you have worked together for a long time. Tell us what attracted you to the law and how you found your way to Hare Wynn.

Leon Ashford: Two law partners and I had started a small firm in the same building as Hare Wynn. We were on an adjacent floor, and the managing partner at Hare Wynn came down one day in 1980 and asked us what we wanted to be doing in 10 years. We were young and aggressive, and we said, "Well, we'd like to be plaintiffs’ lawyers. We might even want to take over your law firm." He just laughed and said, "The reason I'm here is to give you an opportunity to come with us." We all accepted the offer. I’m now in my 46^th year here, and it still seems like just yesterday that I joined. One of the consistent things about this law firm is how much better it is because of the men and women who are part of it and who believe, as Shay and I do, that it's bigger than we are. This firm has been around over 100 years, and we're at a point where I'm thrilled with the legacy we are a part of and the one we are leaving for the future.

LD: I understand your original career plan was somewhat different. You lettered at the University of Alabama under the legendary coach Bear Bryant, right?

LA: That’s right. I was a student trainer at the time and was getting ready to graduate. Coach Bryant came to me one day and asked what my plans were, and I told him I was going to be a trainer for the Saints. He asked me why in the world I would want to do that, and I told him I didn’t have the money to go to law school, though I’d always wanted to go. He asked me to come see him the next morning, and he arranged a scholarship for my first year of law school, then called the dean to set up a meeting with me. He actually got me into law school. Now, I didn’t know when I went to law school what kind of law I wanted to practice. At first, I couldn’t get out of my own way: I wanted to talk, to be on my feet, for people to hear me. I went to Montgomery, where I was an assistant attorney general for a year, and then wound up in a plaintiffs' firm in Birmingham, and I’ve been a plaintiffs’ lawyer for 52 of my 53 years of practice.

This firm has been around over 100 years, and we're at a point where I'm thrilled with the legacy we are a part of and the one we are leaving for the future.

LD: That's a fascinating story. Shay, tell me about your experience.

Shay Samples: I studied at Cumberland Law, at Samford University in Birmingham, then clerked for Hogan, Smith & Alspaugh, which competed with Hare Wynn. Roscoe Hogan, the senior partner, and Francis Hare Sr. were fierce competitors, although it was a healthy, respectful relationship. That firm was similar to Hare Wynn, handling strictly civil litigation. The only difference, really, was that we handled more medical malpractice cases. When Leon brought me to Hare Wynn in '94, I'd been practicing 18 years at the Hogan firm. I liked handling medical malpractice cases: They were challenging, and not many lawyers were taking them because they were so difficult and the defendants were winning 90 to 95 percent of the cases, which made it high risk. When I came here, I brought a practice with me that was primarily medical malpractice, and Leon got hooked on it, too. While our firm handles all kinds of civil litigation and complex matters, medical malpractice is our lifeblood now. We have a pretty impressive track record to back up our claim that we’re the best in the state.

‘The Darkest Times’

LA: Shay has clearly tried more medical malpractice cases than any other plaintiffs' lawyer in Alabama. I’m sure there are some defense folks who have been trying cases for 25 or 30 years who would have greater numbers, but on the plaintiffs’ side, Shay stands alone in terms of the number. And the truth is, you’re going to lose cases if you try them. Regardless of how good the case is, sometimes you're going to have a jury panel where there is not any way for us to win that case. That is something we don't control.

And at the same time, we also take the risk that is associated with losing those cases. We do the best we can. We don't ever back down. We go in and try them and give the families we represent the best we've got. They know it's risky because we tell them from the beginning.

These people come to us in the darkest times in their lives when they don't have anybody else to go to. They may have a death, they may have a child who’s injured at birth, they have no resources, and they are looking for accountability. You have to know in your heart, and from the heart, that you can take them by the hand and be what they are looking for you to be at that moment. The point, really, is that we see ourselves as part of that family, and we create a team approach to these cases that looks a lot like family relationships should look. And we share the good news and the bad news. I don't ever fail to tell clients the bad news. If I do, I set myself and them up for failure.

LD: Specializing in medical malpractice has obviously been one of the major ways the firm has changed over the past 30 to 45 years; tell me more about that.

LA: I became managing partner in 1996, and I remember the day I convinced the firm to take on medical malpractice cases. Mr. Hare hadn’t let us sue doctors in the past. He loved to play golf and cards with his doctor friends, and he would never let us sue doctors. I knew about Shay's success, and I knew how hard it was, but I just fell in love with that practice, especially after he came here. The truth is that if you ask people around the state to name the lawyers who really do a good job in these cases, we're going to be on that list. We're not the only ones on the list, but we're going to be on that list. I wouldn't change a thing about the opportunities that it's given us to become the lawyers we are. And I tell young lawyers this all the time: If you can learn to handle a medical malpractice case, as complicated as it is, as heartfelt as it is, as onerous as it is to handle the professionals that we have to handle, if you can do that, you will become a better lawyer quicker than any other way I know.

SS: Leon and I do it the right way. We are old-fashioned. We still look at the practice of law as a profession, as a calling – a higher calling, not just a business. One of the things that bothers both of us is that we've seen an erosion of professionalism over the past 50 or so years that is very disturbing and disappointing. The way lawyers treat each other and the lack of civility and professionalism have earned our profession a bad name. Leon and I are old school in that regard, and we try to teach younger lawyers that there's a right way, a professional way to handle things, and that should be the only way.  

You have to know in your heart, and from the heart, that you can take [clients] by the hand and be what they are looking for you to be at that moment. 

LD: What changes have you seen in medical malpractice cases during your careers?

LA: Covid, in particular, changed the way average jurors in the Southeast, especially Alabama, see litigation and see personal accountability.

A Number, Not a Person

SS: At one point, I was asked by our state trial lawyers’ group to give a talk about the effect of Covid on medical malpractice cases, and I predicted that the concept of heroes in scrubs would be embedded in the public psyche post-pandemic. I could not have been more wrong. Covid resulted in a further impersonalization of the medical profession.

Leon and I both grew up in small towns in Alabama where the doctor was still making house calls. That's obviously a relic of the past that's barely remembered. Most people view medicine now, unfortunately, as an assembly line, where you're a number, you're not a patient or a person.

I think jurors are more willing to hold healthcare professionals accountable in a malpractice case in Alabama today than 20 or 30 years ago because of that. The further you go back, the more difficult it was to win in Alabama because we're generally considered one of the three most conservative states in the country.

LA: People unhappy with the healthcare system today don’t have a problem hearing Shay or me stand up before a jury and say, "This is an important case because you can change the way medicine is practiced in this city and in this state, if you'll stand up and hold people accountable. I promise you the lawyer won't like the verdict, but that will be a better doctor or a better nurse if you'll hold them accountable." And we do that. We say that.

LD: That assembly-line system definitely creates a sense of dissatisfaction and distrust. Which cases stand out to you over the past several years?

SS: I learn more from cases that I lose than those I win, and that might sound odd. It’s become somewhat easier to get a plaintiffs' verdict in Alabama than it used to be, but the cases that bother me the most or that stick with me the most are the cases that I lost. There’s one in particular, maybe 40 years ago, before I came to Hare Wynn, in which a child’s brain was damaged due to lack of oxygen during delivery. The defense lawyers convinced the jury that the brain damage was the result of an issue with the parents, who were both deaf. That one still hurts me.

People unhappy with the healthcare system today don’t have a problem hearing Shay or me stand up before a jury and say, 'This is an important case because you can change the way medicine is practiced in this city and in this state.'

LA: Winning favorable verdicts for a client definitely makes a difference, but it’s not the only pathway to success. A jury verdict for monetary damages stops right there; the hospital can keep right on doing what it’s been doing. The doctor can do the same. But if you settle a case, sometimes you have the opportunity to effect long-lasting change. One example might be the way a hospital delivers a medicine or how it confirms that it’s the correct medicine. If I can negotiate a settlement that ensures a baby gets the right medicine ordered by the right pharmacist in the right dose, perhaps by establishing a new procedure, that might be something we couldn’t accomplish by trying the case in court.

Fighting for Safer Healthcare

LD: That’s an interesting point, and it’s probably one that most people don’t think about.

LA: I like to think what Shay Samples and Leon Ashford bring to the practice of law is an understanding that each case we take is the most important case to the family bringing it, to that injured baby, that injured child or that injured person. If we simply make sure that we don't ever lose sight of that, we'll have the right conversations, we'll make the right choices, we'll make informed decisions.

SS: I think Leon and I both share the feeling that the most rewarding thing in our professional lives is that we’ve made a difference and we have improved the safety of patients in Alabama, and we have spurred changes in hospital policies and procedure so that whatever tragedy occurred in an individual case that we've handled doesn't occur in the future. To make a real significant difference in the safety and integrity of the system itself is something that you can't put a price tag on. It’s worth more than all the money in the world if you can save one individual's life or prevent a permanent catastrophic injury from occurring.

Zarghamee brings more than 20 years of experience and a broad-based environmental practice to O’Melveny. He counsels clients on a variety of corporate transactions and financing matters, including performing compliance audits, devising remediation strategies, responding to government investigations, defending against enforcement actions, providing transactional due diligence, and advising on SEC requirements. Additionally, he advises US and international corporations on allocating environmental liability in complex real estate and corporate transactions—from acquisitions and dispositions to greenfield and other infrastructure projects.

Zarghamee has deep experience in the arena of chemical regulation and emerging contaminants, which encompasses a wide range of federal statutes—such as the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)—as well as state laws. He devotes a significant portion of his practice to handling matters related to PFAS or “forever chemicals,” advising on PFAS rulemaking and advocacy, and conducting internal audits of client exposure to PFAS. He is also a respected authority on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws for plastics and packaging and has been on the forefront of advocacy efforts on the part of industry.

Zarghamee, who joins O’Melveny’s Project Development & Real Estate Practice, comes to the firm from the Washington, DC office of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, where he was a partner in that firm’s Environmental & Natural Resource Practice and co-chair of its PFAS Task Force. His arrival accelerates O’Melveny’s strategic growth. He is the 55th lateral partner to join the firm since 2023, and the seventh to join O’Melveny’s Project Development & Real Estate Practice since 2020.

“We are delighted to welcome Reza to O’Melveny and to our growing Project Development & Real Estate team,” said O’Melveny chair Bradley J. Butwin. “Reza is a respected environmental lawyer and a trusted corporate adviser with extensive experience and a versatile skillset that will be an immediate asset to our clients—especially those in the chemicals, energy, and infrastructure fields. It is a pleasure to welcome him to our firm.”

“I’ve long admired O’Melveny from afar, and I’m excited to join the firm and work alongside such a talented group of lawyers,” said Zarghamee. “O’Melveny has a premier global platform, a reputation for providing superior client service, and a collegial, collaborative culture that’s second to none. It’s an ideal fit for my clients and my practice.”

Zarghamee earned his J.D. from Harvard Law School and his B.A. from Columbia University. He also holds a Ph.D. in Ancient History from the University of St. Andrews in Scotland.

“We are emergency room doctors to distressed companies,” said Eaton, Deputy Head of the Capital Solutions & Restructuring Group at Paul, Weiss. “It’s fast-paced. It requires creativity and problem-solving.”

One of the Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Bankruptcy and Restructuring Lawyers, Eaton has been a problem-solver for many clients facing corporate reorganization and bankruptcy matters, specializing in postpetition financings, exit financings and specialized finance structures. Her practice is evenly split between company-side and creditor-side matters, giving her a comprehensive perspective on the challenges and opportunities both sides face. In addition, her role as Deputy Head of the Capital Solutions & Restructuring Group allows her to work closely with the group’s co-heads to help set goals and objectives, which include working on the most complex and high-profile restructuring matters, maintaining the firm’s high standards as a go-to advisor for major restructurings and recruiting top associates practicing in the space.

Eaton’s recent company-side matters include advising iRobot on its prepackaged Chapter 11 restructuring; Rite Aid, LLC, on its Chapter 11 reorganization; and Revlon and certain subsidiaries in their Chapter 11 cases and an out-of-court exchange offer. Her recent creditor-side matters include advising an ad hoc group of secured and unsecured creditors of Bausch Health; crossholders in the Chapter 11 restructuring of Endo Pharmaceuticals; an ad hoc group of crossholders of Talen Energy Supply in the company’s Chapter 11 cases.

Eaton recently sat down with Lawdragon to discuss her career and practice.

Lawdragon: How is the recent rise in liability management transactions outside of the Chapter 11 court process impacting your practice?

Alice Eaton: The LME cases tend to be difficult once they get to Chapter 11, because all the parties are fatigued due to ongoing liability management transaction negotiations. There’s a lot of history among the parties and a lot of disappointment among the creditors, because the liability management transaction did not result in a sufficient opportunity to restructure the business. Moreover, capital structures have often become complex as a result of liability management transactions, and the businesses subject to these restructurings are often relatively liquidity-constrained and operationally constrained. There’s less value to go around, in part because the parties have already allocated certain value amongst themselves in the liability management transactions. So the Chapter 11 cases we’re seeing are just more challenging.

LD: What other trends are you seeing in bankruptcy and restructuring?

AE: There’s also a trend toward out-of-court transactions, because the costs and publicity associated with the Chapter 11 process can often be prohibitive. That’s been the trend for the past couple of years and will continue.

LD: You’ve had the chance to represent both companies and creditors across the several types of restructuring transactions you mentioned. How do you think working on both sides has benefitted your career?

AE: It makes me a better company-side lawyer because I understand how creditors are thinking, and it definitely makes me a better creditor lawyer because I can speak with conviction and credibility about how a board or company thinks about a transaction. That opportunity to balance both aspects of my practice is unique and valuable.

Our strengths lie with our ability to work across all aspects of restructuring matters, at the highest level, in any type of market conditions.

LD: Looking back on your career, is there a matter that stands out?

AE: On the company side, Revlon filing for bankruptcy in 2022 stands out. Revlon entered the Covid-19 pandemic having just done one of the first liability management transactions ever and was about to refinance the debt, but because of supply chain disruptions and growing liquidity needs in 2022, it became clear that the company’s debt would need to be addressed through Chapter 11. Revlon is a longtime Paul, Weiss client, and I had worked with the company over many years on different transactions, but this was really the moment when it became clear this company was going to have to file for bankruptcy.

Under very extreme circumstances, we got the company into and out of bankruptcy in under a year, one of the quickest free fall turnarounds ever. In spite of the company having to file for bankruptcy without a deal with its creditors, we managed to work closely with the creditors to achieve consensus and guide the company to emergence. Many companies and creditors complain about bankruptcy being a lengthy, expensive and value-destructive process, but we were very proud that we were able to deliver Revlon out of bankruptcy with great speed and poised to continue its operational turnaround, to the benefit of the company and all its stakeholders.

LD: What do you appreciate about Paul, Weiss as a platform for your work?

AE: Paul, Weiss is a law firm capable of great transformation, while still maintaining the highest quality and attracting the best clients. Our department, in particular, is emblematic of that ethos. We are market leaders in all aspects of restructuring because we have amazing talent at all levels of seniority, and everyone in the group is dedicated to their careers, their clients and tackling the difficult challenges presented in restructuring. Our strengths lie with our ability to work across all aspects of restructuring matters, at the highest level, in any type of market conditions.

LD: Your career direction has involved taking on leadership roles, as you currently serve as Deputy Head of the Capital Solutions & Restructuring Group. How would you describe your leadership style?

AE: I have only been deputy head for a couple of years, so my leadership style is developing. For the most part, I try to lead by example and incorporate the work ethic and dedication of the co-heads of the group. Together we are focused on maintaining our high standards of quality, working tirelessly to achieve great outcomes for our clients, attracting the smartest associates to our practice and helping them develop their careers.

LD: How have you personally contributed to the practice’s goals around career development?

AE: I stand on the shoulders of many wonderful mentors, and I try to be an active mentor now. I’m hopeful that the associates with whom I interact with daily are able to get the benefit of what I’ve learned, so they don’t have to make the same mistakes I made, as well as the benefit of whatever career guidance I can impart. I enjoy being their champion and their advocate within the firm.

LD: What career guidance would you give to young restructuring lawyers now?

AE: Restructuring is an incredibly rewarding practice. But we are responding to urgent problems, and the pace, the dedication required, the timing, and the disruptions on weekends and to personal events can be hard to manage for a young lawyer. Your career is a long game, so you need to think big picture and long term. Until you become better versed in the practice, it can feel challenging to balance your personal life with your professional life. Be patient; it takes time, but you figure out what’s important in life, what’s important at work and, over the course of your career, it does get easier.

Together we are focused on maintaining our high standards of quality, working tirelessly to achieve great outcomes for our clients, attracting the smartest associates to our practice and helping them develop their careers.

LD: Your first exposure to restructuring actually occurred before law school. Can you share how your family helped shaped your career path?

AE: My dad was a restructuring banker, so I grew up with knowledge and understanding of the field. I saw how much he enjoyed his career and, since I like to think I’m very similar to my dad, I thought that if he enjoyed it, I’d enjoy it too. Some might say that lacked creativity on my part, but I learned very quickly that I found my professional home in the restructuring world. I appreciate the collaboration, the teamwork, the problem solving, the creativity and the pace.

I’m not an adrenaline junkie, but I do like the adrenaline rush of being able to navigate the complex litigations and corporate transactions we find in restructuring. That’s what I’ve always enjoyed and continue to enjoy.

LD: What do you enjoy in your time outside the office?

AE: I am blessed that I come from a very large extended family, and I try to spend my spare time catching up with them and with close friends. I also am a perpetual beginner golfer, and I’d like to at some point improve, but that might have to wait until retirement. More than anything, though, I enjoy spending time with my son, my husband and my extended family.

LD: I understand that one of your favorite movies is a legal comedy. Can you share what it is?

AE: I have rewatched "My Cousin Vinny" no fewer than a thousand times and could probably quote most of it with badly done accents. I find it pure joy to watch the comedy, and I’ve been told by my litigator friends that the cross-examinations scenes are on point. Anytime it’s on, it’s a great escape.

I want to start this piece by acknowledging something that doesn't get said often enough: The game has, in many respects, been raised. The Chief Marketing Officers, Chief Business Development Officers and Chief Client Officers I meet today are more strategic, more commercially fluent and more integral to their firms than at any point in my career. Some of the sharpest thinking I hear about where the legal market is heading now comes from the business side of the house, not the fee-earning side.

This year I have spent considerable time sitting in rooms full of some of the most sophisticated legal businesses on the planet, with a familiar knot in my stomach. Because for all the progress, one thing has barely moved: law firms still do not truly trust people who are not lawyers. That distrust is baked into the language, the pay structures and the governance of the industry. And until it is dismantled, it will act as a ceiling on growth that no amount of strategy away-days can lift.

How far the profession has come

This discipline is still relatively young. Lawyer advertising was only legalized in the United States in 1977, with the Supreme Court's decision in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona. The first full-time in-house legal marketer in America was reportedly hired in 1981, and the Legal Marketing Association itself was only founded in 1985. For most of the period since, "marketing" in a law firm meant brochures, holiday cards, directory submissions and event logistics. Useful work, but firmly below stairs.

The trajectory since then has been remarkable. Consider Deborah Farone, the first person hired to build a marketing function at Cravath, Swaine & Moore, where she spent fourteen years as CMO after holding the same role at Debevoise & Plimpton. At Cravath, she built a client and industry intelligence unit modeled on what she had observed at investment banks: a function that generated new business opportunities, shaped practice development plans and prepared partners for high-stakes pitches. That is not support staff work. That is the commercial engine room of one of the most profitable law firms in the world, designed and run by someone without a law degree.

In the most forward-thinking firms, the CMO now owns client feedback programs, pricing input, lateral integration, key client teams and the entire client journey. The best of them are, in everything but name, chief commercial officers.

The evidence shows this works. McKinsey's research on the C-suite found that among outperforming Fortune 500 companies, six in ten have a marketing, customer or growth leader sitting on the executive committee, and that companies with a single, empowered growth role reporting to the CEO grow up to 2.3 times faster than those where the responsibility is fragmented. Forrester’s research found that organizations with aligned revenue operations grow 19 percent faster and are 15 percent more profitable than their peers. None of this surprises anyone who has worked in any other professional services sector. It only surprises lawyers.

So yes: the game has been raised. The CMOs raised it. Which makes what follows all the more frustrating.

The trust deficit

Law firms, as institutions, extend full trust only to people who have passed a bar exam. Everyone else, however brilliant, however commercially indispensable, operates on a form of probation that never ends.

You can see it in the data. An American Lawyer survey of marketing leaders across the AmLaw 200 found that 38 percent had lasted less than four years in their previous role, and that 62 percent said their job would be easier if partners simply had a better understanding of what marketing is for. Spencer Stuart's long-running tenure studies consistently show the CMO role to be the shortest-tenured seat in the C-suite across industries, and legal makes a hard job harder. One anonymous law firm CMO in that American Lawyer survey put it perfectly: lawyers think marketing means getting work tomorrow, when marketing is about positioning, and the work may arrive three years down the road. Partnerships pull the plug on marketing leaders with a speed they would never apply to an underperforming practice group.

Chief Marketing Officers of substance should be treated on the same terms as equity partners. The same pay. The same perks. The same profile in the firm's communications.

You can see it, too, in how authority is granted. In most firms, the CMO's seat at the management table is not carried by the title; it is earned project by project, pitch by pitch, and can be withdrawn the moment a powerful originating partner grumbles. Compensation is tied to budget and headcount rather than to the revenue the function influences. The partner who wins a matter off the back of a client intelligence briefing, a coached pitch and a two-year relationship-nurturing program collects the origination credit; the professionals who built that machinery collect a salary and, if they are lucky, a thank you.

Contrast that with what the Big Four have done. Deloitte has had a Global Chief Growth Officer for years, and that person sits on the Global Executive Committee, shaping strategy alongside the practice leaders. The Big Four are not sentimental organizations. They did this because it makes them money. They are also slowly eating into legal services work year after year, and one of the reasons is precisely this: They trust their business professionals with real power, and law firms do not.

The deficit is cultural, and culture reveals itself in language. Which brings me to a word I had hoped, by now, never to hear again.

The dirtiest word in law

For over a decade I have been arguing that the term "non-lawyer" should be banished from the vocabulary of every law firm, legal publisher and bar association on earth. I have made the argument in print, on panels and, more times than I can count, over dinner tables. So you can imagine my disappointment when, on my recent trips to New York, I heard the term bandied around as freely and unthinkingly as it was twenty years ago. Including from people who would consider themselves progressive leaders of modern legal businesses.

Let us be clear about what this word does. It defines half of a firm's people, sometimes more, entirely by what they are not. No hospital calls its nurses, radiographers and chief executives "non-doctors." No accountancy firm speaks of "non-CPAs." Ralph Baxter, the former chairman of Orrick, tells the story of the moment Norm Rubenstein joined the firm as CMO and, at the very partner meeting where he unveiled the firm's new marketing mission, took Baxter aside to share his disappointment that his team were referred to as "non-lawyers." His observation, as Baxter recalls it, was that no one wants to be defined in the negative. That was more than twenty-five years ago. Since then, the industry has just shrugged.

The damage is not merely a matter of hurt feelings. When Husch Blackwell announced Paul Eberle's appointment, the American Lawyer's headline described the incoming chief executive, a man with twenty years of executive experience, as a newly employed non-lawyer. The legal marketing community rightly erupted, and the episode prompted a wider reckoning, with the American Lawyer itself later examining what the reaction to the term revealed about caste systems inside law firms: a hierarchy in which lawyers look down on the very business professionals whose advice they are paying for. Bob Glaves of the Chicago Bar Foundation has been running a one-man campaign to send the term off into the sunset for years. 3 Geeks and a Law Blog have called its use by legal journalists lazy. And still it persists.

Words are recruitment policy. The next generation of brilliant marketers, technologists, pricing analysts and client listening specialists have choices. They can go to a bank, a consultancy or a technology company, where they will be professionals; or they can come to a law firm, where they will be a "non." Every time the term is used in a town hall, a job advert or a trade publication, it tells the most talented business minds in the market that legal is a place where they will always be second class. The firms wondering why they struggle to attract and keep elite commercial talent should start by listening to how they describe it.

Same pay, same perks, same seat at the table

Which brings me to the argument that will get me the angriest emails, and the one I believe most strongly: Chief Marketing Officers of substance should be treated on the same terms as equity partners. The same pay. The same perks. The same profile in the firm's communications. And a permanent, voting seat on the executive committee, not a standing invitation to present for twenty minutes and then leave the room while the grown-ups talk.

For over a decade I have been arguing that the term "non-lawyer" should be banished from the vocabulary of every law firm, legal publisher and bar association on earth.

I can already hear the objection, because I have heard it in every one of the thirty years I have worked in this industry: The bar rules say they can't be partners in the U.S. Rule 5.4, professional independence, fee-sharing, and so on. Yes, yes. I know. The ABA reaffirmed its position on non-lawyer ownership as recently as 2022. But let us be honest about what this objection really is: a convenient shield. Because none of the following is prohibited by any bar rule anywhere:

Paying your CMO at the level of an equity partner. Nothing in Rule 5.4 stops a firm setting its CMO's total compensation at the equivalent of an equity point, structured as salary and bonus. Firms find creative compensation structures for star laterals every single week; the ingenuity deficit here is one of will, not regulation.

Giving your CMO the perks and status of partnership. The seat at the table, meaningful involvement in partner retreats, the business-class travel policy, the profile on the website that doesn't bury them under a tab marked "professionals." These are choices.

Putting your CMO on the executive committee. There is no rule of professional conduct in any jurisdiction that prevents a business professional sitting on, and voting in, a firm's management body. The firms that haven't done it, haven't done it because they don't want to.

There are numerous conversations about faceless private equity ownership in law firms, but there’s still resistance to senior executives from those firms having ownership and sharing the rewards of success.

And where the rules genuinely do bind, the direction of travel is against them. The District of Columbia has permitted “non-lawyer” partners since 1991, and a number of D.C. firms have partners who are lobbyists or communications professionals. Arizona and Utah have opened the door to alternative structures. Here in the UK, the Legal Services Act 2007 created Alternative Business Structures precisely so that firms could bring business professionals into ownership; the Act's own explanatory notes list, among the benefits, that firms would be able to reward business talent in the same way as lawyers. Irwin Mitchell became the first top-50 UK firm to convert. Newly merged Ashurst Perkins Coie is an ABS. Several UK firms are now publicly listed. The sky has not fallen.

So when a U.S. managing partner tells me the rules prevent them from treating their CMO as an equal, my answer is simple: The rules prevent you from giving them the title. Everything else – the money, the perks, the power, the respect – is entirely within your gift. If Deloitte can put its Chief Growth Officer on its global executive committee, a law firm can put its CMO on its management board. The question is not whether it is permitted. The question is whether the partnership actually believes its business leaders belong there. And too often, the honest answer is no.

The growth that trust would buy

Let me end where the skeptics live: the numbers. This is not an argument about kindness, inclusion or modern management fashion, though it would be justified on all three grounds. It is an argument about money.

The legal market is consolidating. The gap between the firms at the summit and everyone else widens every year. Clients rate law firms dismally at business development; general counsel routinely score firms below five out of ten on how they sell, and their consistent plea is for firms to understand them better. Understanding clients, positioning firms, building relationships at scale: this is exactly the work that world-class CMOs and their teams exist to do. McKinsey's finding bears repeating: a single, trusted, empowered growth leader on the executive committee correlates with growth multiples that any managing partner would crawl over broken glass to achieve.

Every firm says its people are its greatest asset. Very well: prove it. Strike the word "non-lawyer" from your vocabulary, your policies and your pitch decks, and correct it, politely but every time, when you hear it in New York, London or anywhere else. Pay your chief commercial leaders what you pay the partners whose books of business they help to build. Give them the seat, the vote and the profile. Treat them, in every respect the regulators allow and a few the regulators have never even considered, as owners of the business, because in every sense that matters, they already are.

A few years ago I asked the legal marketing profession to raise its game. It did. The lawyers are now the ones holding things back. Time, at long last, for the partnership to raise theirs.

“We are excited to welcome Joanna to Hogan Lovells Cadwalader,” said James Doyle, Global Head of the Corporate & Finance practice group. “As the collateralized loan obligation (CLO) market continues to rapidly evolve, her diverse experience in these securitizations will be highly valuable to our clients.”

Suna focuses her practice in structured finance, with significant experience in CLOs and structured products, including synthetic credit-linked repackagings and rated note feeders. She has guided clients on a wide range of transactional and regulatory issues involving CLOs, securities repackagings, and other types of complex structured products. She also has experience in different types and uses of swaps in such transactions, as well as in warehousing and funding facilities and secondary repackagings of related products. Suna is a legacy Cadwalader alumna, having worked for the firm on two separate occasions, including immediately prior to joining Mayer Brown.

“As the second Structured Finance partner to join us in the past month, Joanna’s arrival reflects our commitment to invest in areas where we are market leaders,” said Stu Goldstein, the firm’s Deputy Regional Managing Partner – Americas and Global Structured Finance and Derivatives Co-Practice Leader. “CLOs are clearly one of those areas: We’ve advised on over 110 CLO deals valued in excess of US$50 billion in the past year, and welcoming Joanna back into the fold is a sign of even greater things to come for our clients and our firm.”

“Our New York office is synonymous with our decades-long leadership in structured finance. Having Joanna return to a familiar office that’s part of a brand new, one-of-a-kind global platform is something we’re all very excited about,” said Bill Mills, Office Managing Partner of Hogan Lovells Cadwalader’s New York office.

Suna added, “I am thrilled to be part of Hogan Lovells Cadwalader – which feels both intimately familiar and like a new chapter in the firm’s rich tradition of leading many of the market’s benchmark CLO deals.”

Suna received her JD from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, her LLM in Taxation from the New York University School of Law, and her BA from Cornell University.

About the Hogan Lovells Cadwalader New York Office

Our New York team advises many of the world’s most influential financial institutions, Fortune 100 companies, investment funds, and emerging industry leaders on their most complex legal and business challenges.

Our team brings together deep experience across transactional, regulatory and disputes matters, including finance, mergers and acquisitions, investment funds, structured finance, securitization and derivatives, litigation, arbitration and investigations, tax, employment and regulatory matters. We offer market-leading capabilities in areas central to New York’s economy – including banking and financial services, high-end real estate, restructuring, and corporate governance – while also supporting clients in fast-evolving sectors such as technology, life sciences, consumer, and media.

As part of a fully integrated global firm, our New York team works closely with colleagues across the U.S., Europe, Asia, and the Middle East to support clients pursuing opportunities or navigating challenges across jurisdictions.