That brings to five the number of confessions by Guantanamo detainees previously subjected to the CIA's so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" that the government has lost as evidence of their guilt at any future trials. There have been no rulings in support of the government's position despite years of advocacy seeking to sanitize the effects of the CIA's brutal, incommunicado detention.

Air Force Lt. Col. Michael Schrama on Wednesday suppressed statements made to the FBI by defendant Walid bin Attash, which followed his rulings for Mustafa al Hawsawi last week and Khalid Shaikh Mohammad in August. Defendant Ammar al Baluchi had his statements suppressed by the prior judge last year.

All four defendants spoke to the FBI in January 2007, about four months after their arrival on Guantanamo Bay from CIA black sites. FBI and Naval investigative agents also interviewed bin Attash again in October 2007 and February 2008. During closing arguments on the confessions' admissibility in May, the lead prosecutor, Clay Trivett, characterized the government’s “voluntariness” case for bin Attash as “over the top.” He contended that bin Attash had been excited to see the agents again in the subsequent rounds of interviews.

However, Schrama suppressed all rounds of statements given by bin Attash to law enforcement personnel, according to lawyers who have seen the ruling. Schrama cited bin Attash's conditions of confinement on Guantanamo Bay that were similar to those at the CIA black sites, and that he was questioned in a portion of the detention facility that was itself a former black site. At this location, the FBI questioned bin Attash "on topics he had previously been forced to discuss under coercion," Schrama ruled, according to an excerpt shared with Lawdragon.

The ruling was not yet public and first reported by The New York Times. The chief prosecutor for the military commissions, Navy Rear Adm. Aaron Rugh, said in an email that his office has not decided whether to appeal the ruling.

Prosecutors have already decided not to appeal the suppression of Mohammad’s statements to avoid potential delays in reaching the June 2028 trial date. (They also declined to file a notice of appeal for the al Hawsawi ruling.)The prosecution’s 2025 appeal of al Baluchi’s suppression order is pending at the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review. That court upheld the suppression of FBI statements in the separate case against Abd al Rahim al Nashiri, accused of planning the October 2000 attack of the USS Cole.

The FBI questioned bin Attash 'on topics he had previously been forced to discuss under coercion,' Schrama ruled.

Prosecutors have long described the FBI statements as among their best and most critical evidence, though they intend to use other evidence at trial, as well. In court proceedings, prosecutors have referred to secret recordings made of the defendants at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, intercepted phone calls prior to and after the attacks, and some documentary evidence involving transfers and assistance to 9/11 hijackers, among other evidence. Defense teams will also seek the exclusion of these categories of evidence, so their use at trial is not guaranteed. 

The suppression hearing for the five original 9/11 defendants began in September 2019. Prior to that, the defense teams and the government spent several years arguing over which witnesses and evidence from the CIA program would be available to the teams in making their suppression arguments. In 2023, the prior judge, Air Force Col. Matthew McCall, severed Ramzi bin al Shibh from the case after finding that he was not mentally competent to assist in his own defense. The government still intends to prosecute him if he is ever deemed fit to stand trial.

Over the past several years, the prosecution team has portrayed the FBI-led reinterrogations on Guantanamo Bay as “clean” of any taint from the prior CIA coercion. Both Schrama and McCall, however, rejected the prosecution’s argument that the detainees gave voluntary statements merely because they were told that they did not have to participate in the interviews. Agents did not provide Miranda warnings nor did they tell the detainees that what they told the CIA could not be used against them. 

In his April 2025 order, McCall described al Baluchi’s abuse by the CIA as constituting torture as well as cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Schrama has not made a similar conclusion in his three rulings, focusing instead on the government’s failure to sufficiently remedy the CIA’s earlier conditioning and coercion prior to the FBI interviews. In the rulings, he has described the CIA's treatment as "extraordinary" and "severe."

"The factual record establishes that Mr. bin Attash was subjected to extraordinary physical and mental abuse during his time in CIA custody from March 2003 until his transfer to [Guantanamo Bay] in September 2006," Schrama wrote in his Wednesday ruling. "This treatment included sleep deprivation, required standing, loud music, sensory deprivation, extended isolation, reduced quantity and quality of food, nudity, and rough treatment." 

Al Baluchi’s suppression case moved faster than his co-defendants because Mohammed, bin Attash and al Hawsawi exited the pretrial litigation in August 2024 after signing plea agreements with the government. Schrama returned them to the case last year after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that Sec. of Defense Lloyd Austin acted lawfully when he withdrew from the three plea agreements. The defense teams are seeking a review of that decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not yet decided whether to take 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.  

After graduating law school and working with the public defender’s office, Bala wanted to explore her options. She told a legal recruiter that she was open to a non-traditional legal career. Her recruiter, a former lawyer, said, “Would you ever think about doing what we do?”

Now with more than 15 years in the legal recruiting world – including a decade exclusively focused on elite law firm partner searches – Bala has made her mark on the legal industry by having those same kinds of honest, forward-looking conversations with partners. Known for her close, long-standing relationships with candidates and leadership at Am Law 50 firms, Bala builds connections with trust, honesty and unparalleled market knowledge.

Integrity and patience are the cornerstones of her practice. “I don’t do this to have repeat business with candidates,” says Bala. “I do this so that when I place somebody, their trajectory at their firm is a long and fulfilling one, where their needs are met.”

Bala took on a new adventure again in 2023 when she started her own firm, Avance Partner Search. The boutique firm continues her mission to make rewarding, unprecedented matches for top-flight partners and firms. In the last three years, Avance has been widely recognized for its ability to operate at the highest echelons of the market with integrity.

“We compete at the top of the market and we, with just a few people, are able to do more with less,” she says.

Bala has placed individual partners and groups in the nation’s most influential firms, bolstering firms’ current offices and expanding into new markets. Recently, Bala has made high-profile placements at firms like Sidley, expanding the firm’s New York, London and West Coast offices. Bala also received national attention when she spearheaded the move of a 17-lawyer group from Munger, Tolles & Olson to Baker McKenzie’s L.A. office in 2023. The group – who handled matters including acquisitions by Berkshire Hathaway and Intel at $11.6B and $9B respectively – are power players in a highly competitive industry, and finding the right match for a group of that scale required Bala’s unique industry insight and trust.

Though she has deep roots on the West Coast from her office in L.A., as law firms have become increasingly global, so has her work; much of the firm’s work is East Coast-based, and they’re making moves in London, as well. “In order to understand a global law firm you have to understand what is going on in their major markets,” Bala explains.

A partner’s career transition is an experience that Bala herself knows intimately, having taken leaps into the recruiting world and into her own firm. Remembering the importance of the conversation that changed her trajectory, she guides partners through difficult personal decisions to ultimately take the next step and find fulfillment on every level.

Lawdragon: What brought you to law school and a legal career?

Divya Bala: I was born in London, but then grew up in India for five years. My grandfather was a lawyer, and he and my grandmother were instrumental in raising me at that time. He had a home office, and I remember sitting in his lap as he was lawyering. I think that probably impacted me more than I thought.

I obviously did not realize that recruiting was an option when I became a lawyer. I actually came to hear about it as I was looking for a job. I went into a recruiter’s office, and she asked if I’d be open to doing what she did.

LD: How did she describe it to you?

DB: She said they worked with lawyers to matchmake. I was excited to do that work because it used some of the skills that I already had, both as a lawyer and a person.

LD: Which skills are those?

DB: You have to like listening and talking to people; you have to be really personable. You have to be willing to learn about what makes somebody tick, and on the other side, really understand what an opportunity looks like. You have to be pretty tenacious. It’s a lot of psychology.

LD: How do you determine what makes a person tick?

DB: By really getting to know somebody. Who they are, what motivates them, their practice, their clients – but also the softer pieces, like their family. Most of the partners I work with are in a great situation, and a lot of our job is about understanding what could make that even better, if that’s even possible, at different points in their career. So, it might not be now; it might be in three years or five years or even 10 years down the road. Having the ability to make that match, really getting to know them, and not doing it for a quick deal is important. Unfortunately, a lot of recruiters dabble in this work or they’re doing this for a quick fee. For me, I’ve been really lucky to have placed candidates at firms where they’ve grown into leadership positions and, in some cases, become part of the fabric of the firm and running the firm. Then, they become clients. That’s the goal.

In order to do that, you can’t have a quick phone call with somebody and call it a day. It has to be more than that. In some cases, I’ve met with candidates and their spouses. They’re making these big career decisions maybe once or twice in their lives, and you serve as a trusted advisor. They’re trusting you with some of the most important decisions of their lives. In some cases you become a friend. I keep in touch with a lot of the people that I’ve worked with.

Most of the partners I work with are in a great situation, and a lot of our job is about understanding what could make that even better, if that’s even possible ... in three years or five years or even 10 years down the road.

LD: How do you encourage candidates to open up so that you can discover exactly what it is that will be fulfilling for them?

DB: By bringing forth the most recent market knowledge and the best opportunities. A lot of partners that I work with have told me, “I returned your call because I feel like you were actually calling about something.” I’m fortunate to have relationships at the top of the Am Law with firm chairs, heads of practice groups, policy committee members, management committee members, et cetera. They’re going to take my calls because when I’m bringing something forward to them, it’s with a deep understanding of what is driving that need for the firm. For the partners that I’m calling, that relates to them, too.

Like I said, most often, I work with partners that are really happy. It’s about specific opportunities that exist for them in an ever-changing market. So, it’s critical for me to know and understand what’s going on in the market. That can be anything from upcoming leadership changes to compensation systems changing, and even changing strategy or philosophy within a firm and how that can impact someone’s opportunity at that time. It also helps that I do this nationwide, and increasingly in Europe and Asia. So, I know the market trends. Most, if not all, of the top firms are now global. So, instead of having a focus in a particular geography, it’s really important for a partner making a change to understand what is happening across offices. I think that helps with relationships too – it’s about understanding the trends not only from now, but from what happened five years ago and five years before that. Then, I convey that knowledge to people who are busy in their own way and therefore may not have that up-to-date information.

LD: Looking at your practice now, are there any practice areas you tend to work with the most, or is it more about the firm and the partner?

DB: The practice area for me is irrelevant; I enjoy working with people. Over my 10-plus years of doing partner placements, there have been trends. I’ve worked with groups, large and small – so, a couple partners all the way up to five to 10 partners. I’ve opened offices, which is a different but fun thing to do. Anytime you have more than one or two individuals involved in a decision, it just makes it more complex. Those deals are challenging and fun, and they require a lot more in terms of really understanding what makes each person tick.

LD: What do you enjoy about that bigger scope of challenge?

DB: So many things can happen in these deals, and that’s why they are complex; that’s why I like them. A lot of things are not in your control, because you’re dealing with people – and, as we know, people are not always in our control. You never know if somebody’s going to get cold feet, or maybe there’s a meeting that doesn’t work or what have you. So, in those deals, you control everything you possibly can, and then you hope that there is love on both sides – because there has to be a little bit of that for it to work. Whether you’re an individual or a group, you’re choosing to be partners with new people. Of course, everything else has to work – the compensation has to be right; the feeling has to be right; the ability to know that there’s an upward trajectory has to be right. But there’s also this gut feeling that happens. When that’s there, it’s a win-win.

LD: What trends are you seeing impacting your practice?

DB: Overall, firms are understanding that they’re not just hiring because they need more of one certain area or skill. They’re being opportunistic about building the next generation of talent. One trend we have seen is that virtually nobody is untouchable. Firms who were historically slow to bring in lateral talent are being forced to be commercial and hire the next generation of leaders.

LD: Interesting. What else is going into that shift?

DB: Obviously it’s a very competitive market now. Firms are having to change compensation models, and Wall Street firms are trying to be commercial and hire. Because nobody is untouchable, we are seeing partners we never thought would leave their firms doing so. There will be more law firm mergers. There will be more changes with AI, the billable model, etc., in the next 5 years. I wonder if retirement ages are even going to come into play. I think you’re going to see a lot of people leaving the law firm world earlier than they used to just because if you’re making $15M a year every year for 10 years, I don’t know that you need to work until you’re 65.

LD: That’s such an interesting point. And what changes are you seeing with AI?

DB: As AI comes more and more into play, many partners we work with are curious to understand what firms are doing with AI. We’ve been working on that internally, as well; we brought on a tech and data expert as a Knowledge and Innovation Manager. He is building databases to streamline our processes. We’ve used AI as everyone has, to have more hands and eyes on things that would otherwise take us longer to do and can allow us to focus on what is important, which is guiding and coaching the folks that we represent to the best decision possible. We get to things faster. Everything is much more at our fingertips. Because we’re small, it allows us to punch above our weight.

The compensation has to be right; the feeling has to be right; the ability to know that there’s an upward trajectory has to be right. But there’s also this gut feeling that happens. When that’s there, it’s a win-win.

LD: Speaking of the firm, tell me about the start of your firm, which has celebrated three years now. Does it look now how you planned?

DB: It’s been great. We are doing a lot of exciting work. I always tell partners I work with now that I’m empathetic to their situation because I’ve gone through it. At any stage of your career when you’re reevaluating, there is some self-doubt that always creeps into your mind. It did for me, certainly, in doing this. But I’m so happy that I did it because it was not worth the worry. It’s paid off immensely. Every year has been better than the last in terms of goals, revenues and thresholds we wanted to cross. It’s been a great three years and we are excited for what is next.

LD: Is there any advice you’d give a lawyer about working with a recruiter on the next stage of their career?

DB: I don’t envy lawyers because I know that they get a lot of recruiting calls. Most partners fall into two camps: There are partners who are skeptical of recruiters, and then there are partners who have had good experiences because they have found someone who actually adds value. It’s important to choose someone to work with who has connectivity to firm leadership, who really knows the market and whose deal sheet speaks to that.

LD: Lastly, what do you enjoy doing for fun outside of your work?

DB: I was a Division I tennis player in college, and I still play for fun. I’ve more recently taken up golf, which is a new challenge. My goal is not to be embarrassed to take a client to play nine holes. I exercise all the time. I also have two busy girls – a twelve-year-old and a nine-year-old. My husband is an ER doctor and equally busy, so we make it work. We love to travel as a family and spend time with our dog, Dr. Pepper!

Cave brings to O’Melveny more than two decades of high-level experience at the intersection of federal securities law, government enforcement, and private practice. In his most recent role as Chief Counsel of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, Cave served as the division’s principal legal and policy adviser and was responsible for providing strategic guidance on all aspects of investigations and related litigation within its national program. Earlier in his Enforcement Division tenure, Cave held several other leadership positions, including Associate Director. He has led teams of federal attorneys and accountants in hundreds of SEC investigations and related litigation—including matters involving complex accounting and disclosure violations; auditor, investment adviser, and broker-dealer misconduct; insider trading; market manipulation; Ponzi schemes; and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations. He also led the SEC’s Cross-Border Task Force, which focuses on international-based conduct and the role of gatekeepers.

Before entering public service, Cave worked in private practice as a litigation associate at Paul Weiss, where he represented financial institutions and corporations in a broad range of complex commercial litigation, regulatory matters, commercial arbitration, and internal investigations—with a focus on securities litigation and regulatory defense.

“Adding practitioners with extensive SEC experience is a strategic priority for us, and we are delighted to welcome Mark to our firm,” said O’Melveny chair Bradley J. Butwin. “Mark brings a comprehensive command of federal securities laws, deep relationships throughout the enforcement and regulatory community, and a long record of managing the SEC’s most consequential matters. His versatile skillset, combined with his well-established reputation for integrity and tireless advocacy, will immediately benefit our clients. It is a pleasure to welcome him aboard.”

“I’m thrilled to join O’Melveny’s award-winning White Collar team, and I can think of no better firm to call ‘home’ as I reenter private practice,” said Cave. “The current SEC regulatory and enforcement environment presents many unique challenges, and I’m excited to bring all of my knowledge and experience to bear as I work alongside my new colleagues to help our clients resolve their most pressing matters.”

Cave is the 59th lateral partner to join O’Melveny since 2023. And his arrival follows the recent additions of lateral partners David Leviss, James R. Burns, Brant K. Brown, and Todd M. Beaton, Jr., who will work seamlessly together to help clients navigate evolving securities regulations and defend them in enforcement proceedings.

Cave earned his J.D. from New York University School of Law and his B.A. from Duke University.

The trial judge, Air Force Lt. Col. Michael Schrama, ruled on Friday that the government failed to establish that Mustafa al Hawsawi gave voluntary statements to the FBI in January 2007 following his prior three-plus years in CIA custody – marking the third defendant whose statements have been ordered suppressed in the case.

Schrama made a similar ruling in favor of the accused plot mastermind, Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, on Aug. 28, citing his “extraordinary physical and mental abuse” by the CIA. The judge’s predecessor on the case, Air Force Col. Matthew McCall, last year suppressed the statements given to the FBI by Mohammad’s nephew, Ammar al Baluchi.

Schrama is expected to rule on the confessions of the fourth remaining defendant, Walid bin Attash, in the coming weeks. The next pretrial session is scheduled to last for two weeks beginning Dec. 7.

Walter Ruiz, the lead lawyer for al Hawsawi, did not immediately provide comment on the ruling, which was first reported Friday by The New York Times and not yet public. Defense lawyers have long claimed that the CIA tortured and conditioned their clients into cooperating with their interrogators. Prosecutors have insisted that the FBI-led sessions commencing in January 2007 were sufficiently attenuated from the prior CIA coercion, even though the agents provided neither Miranda warnings nor access to counsel.

Schrama rejected the prosecution's contention that changed circumstances at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility – including visits by delegates of the International Committee of the Red Cross – were sufficient.

“Mere ICRC visits are insufficient to dispel the impact of years of isolation from family and other detainees while simultaneously being made completely vulnerable to government captors who are, demonstrably, willing to employ abuse and operant conditioning to obtain cooperation,” Schrama wrote, according to a lawyer who has seen the ruling.

Schrama also wrote that the prosecution had the legal burden of establishing that the FBI interviews “were not inherently coercive in their own right,” even if he accepted the argument that the taint of the CIA program had dissipated by January 2007. In this evaluation, Schrama concluded, the prosecution failed to establish voluntariness by a preponderance of the evidence.

The prosecution appealed McCall’s April 2025 order suppressing statements by al Baluchi to the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review, which has yet to issue a ruling. However, prosecutors opted not to appeal Schrama’s recent ruling suppressing statements by Mohammad, which came just days after the judge set a June 2028 trial date. Navy Rear Adm. Aaron Rugh, the chief prosecutor, did not immediately comment on whether his office would appeal Friday’s ruling.   

Al Hawsawi is alleged to have provided money and other forms of assistance to some of the 9/11 hijackers. After he was captured in March 2003, he spent several months at a notorious black site referred to as Location 2, or Cobalt, where he was subjected to the CIA’s so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Ruiz has argued in court that al Hawsawi’s torture included sodomy and rape through an unnecessary rectal exam that left him with permanent damage.

The CIA later transferred al Hawsawi to a portion of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility that it used as a black site between 2003 and 2004. The government has acknowledged that this is the same location where the FBI conducted its reinterrogations of the 9/11 suspects in January 2007. In his closing arguments in defense of the al Hawsawi FBI statements, in May, one of the prosecutors, Army Col. Joshua Bearden, told Schrama that none of the enhanced measures had been used on al Hawsawi during his first stay on Guantanamo.

Another of the five original defendants in the case, Ramzi bin al Shibh, was also earlier held at the CIA black site on Guantanamo Bay. Bin al Shibh is currently severed from the 9/11 prosecution over a finding that he lacks the mental competency to stand trial.

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.  

Longtime labor & employment counsel to Amazon in Kentucky, LaToi Mayo of Littler Mendelson has a busy docket with a handful of new employee cases against the commerce behemoth in the past year. She is known for her shrewd work enforcing employment arbitration agreements and defending companies against discrimination and wage and hour claims. She is the co-chair of the firm's Healthcare Industry Group, and serves on the Kentucky Bar Association's Board of Governors where she was appointed to its Trial Commission for 2024 to 2028.

Julie Totten is at the forefront of litigation over AI's impact on hiring. Head of Orrick's Global Employment Law and Litigation Practice Group, she and partner Erin Connell are leading a case for Workday over allegations that the HR software platform uses AI in a way that discriminates against job applicants based on race, sex, age and disability. The Orrick team narrowed the claims of the case early on, securing dismissal of the intentional discrimination claims, and won a notable 2026 ruling shielding Workday's attorney-directed bias-testing data from discovery. The ongoing case, Mobley v. Workday, is being closely watched in the Labor & Employment space to determine whether AI hiring tools can create discrimination liability through disparate impact. 

Co-chair of Paul, Weiss's Executive Compensation Group, Larry Witdorchic led the executive compensation aspects last month for a group of New Fortress Energy bondholders in a restructuring and recapitalization deal that eliminated $5.7B in third-party debt – one of the largest consensual UK restructuring plan transactions on record. He has an expansive practice structuring the executive and equity compensation and employee benefits features of mergers, exits, IPOs and other transactions, working with large public companies and private funds. His counsel extends to tax, accounting and securities law as they intersect with compensation and employment agreements. 

We selected the honorees for this guide with our proprietary process, combining independent research, submissions and vetting. Those individuals marked with an asterisk are permanent members of our Hall of Fame.

Michael is a seasoned trial lawyer who represents plaintiffs and defendants in complex commercial disputes across the technology, energy, real estate, and professional service industries. He currently represents a leading global technology company in a major advertising technology antitrust matter, as well as Am Law 50 and 100 law firms in legal malpractice defense matters. Michael helped secure a complete take-nothing jury verdict for NewQuest Properties in a case seeking more than $80 million in disgorgement and punitive damages, and represented Enterprise Products in litigation that settled for $115 million following a three-month bench trial. He also helped secure an $11.1 million arbitration award for Jonah Energy in a product-defect dispute.

Michael is recognized in Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch, Thomson Reuters’ Texas Super Lawyers “Rising Stars,” and Lawdragon’s “500 X – The Next Generation.” He graduated with highest honors from The University of Texas School of Law, where he was Grand Chancellor, Order of the Coif, and Chief Articles Editor of the Texas Law Review. Following law school, Michael clerked for Judge Gregg Costa of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Conor is an accomplished appellate advocate and trial lawyer who handles high-stakes commercial disputes spanning antitrust, financial services, energy, natural resources, real estate, commercial contracts, and trade secrets. He has helped secure significant victories in the Texas Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit, and Texas appellate courts, giving clients strategic advocacy at both the trial and appellate levels.

In 2026, Conor helped secure a unanimous Texas Supreme Court victory for Cockrell Investment Partners in a precedent-setting groundwater dispute. He also helped obtain a complete appellate reversal and take-nothing judgment for two defendants in a $22.5 million tortious-interference dispute. Conor’s current docket includes representing Fannie Mae in a Second Circuit appeal arising from $800 million LIBOR litigation, and he recently represented 17 national retailers in $20 billion-plus antitrust litigation against Visa and Mastercard.

Conor is recognized by The Legal 500 US for his work in complex commercial disputes and has also been recognized by The Best Lawyers in America, Texas Super Lawyers, and Lawdragon. He earned his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center, where he served as Senior Administrative Editor of The Georgetown Law Journal. Before joining Gibbs & Bruns in 2019, Conor practiced in the appellate section of Vinson & Elkins LLP. Earlier in his career, he contributed to merits briefing before the U.S. Supreme Court in Elonis v. United States and was a regular contributor to SCOTUSblog.###

With more than 25 years of experience spanning private practice and distinguished public service, Leviss brings a rare combination of expertise from his work at the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the US Department of Justice (DOJ), and the US House of Representatives. Most recently, he served as the SEC’s first Associate General Counsel for Oversight and Investigations, where he built and led the agency’s Oversight & Investigations Group. In that role, he was the principal legal adviser on all government oversight matters and prepared senior officials—including the SEC chair and division directors—for congressional testimony.

Before his recent government service, Leviss spent 11 years at O’Melveny. He joined the firm in 2011 as special counsel and was promoted to partner in 2013. During his initial O’Melveny tenure, he helped develop the firm’s leading FCA and health care enforcement teams and co-chaired the firm’s Congressional Investigations group. Earlier in his career, Leviss served the US House of Representatives as Chief Oversight Counsel to the Energy & Commerce Committee and Senior Investigative Counsel to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. In those roles, he planned, supervised, and executed oversight and fraud investigations, and directed numerous high-profile public hearings. He also spent seven years as a trial attorney in the DOJ’s Civil Fraud section, where he investigated and litigated complex FCA cases—including those involving allegations of improper health care reimbursement under Medicare and Medicaid.

“We are delighted to welcome Dave back to O’Melveny,” said O’Melveny chair Bradley J. Butwin. “His exceptional experience at the SEC, DOJ, and on Capitol Hill—along with his proven track record as a partner at our firm—makes him uniquely positioned to guide our clients through an increasingly challenging and uncertain regulatory landscape. Dave’s return strengthens our nationally recognized Health Care Practice and our stellar Congressional Investigations team at a pivotal time for our clients.”

“I am thrilled to come ‘home’ to O’Melveny,” said Leviss. “This is an incredible opportunity to rejoin the firm where I spent so many wonderful years and to practice alongside outstanding colleagues I know and respect. With its health care prowess, collaborative culture, and deep Washington legacy, O’Melveny is again the ideal platform for me to help clients successfully manage high-profile government investigations and enforcement matters presenting enterprise-wide challenges. I look forward to contributing to the firm’s continued growth in these critical areas.”

With Leviss’s arrival, 58 lateral partners have joined O’Melveny since 2023. And he is the third partner to join the firm’s Health Care Practice since 2025, following the May 2025 arrival of lateral partner Kevin Barstow and the January 2026 promotion of partner Anne Steinberg.

Leviss earned his J.D. from New York University School of Law and his B.A. from Amherst College.

Late last December, while most of New York was winding down for the holidays, Robbie Kaplan and the Kaplan Martin team were just getting started. Minutes earlier, only an hour before the court in the Southern District of New York was set to close for Christmas, the U.S. Department of State announced on X: “WE’VE SANCTIONED: Imran Ahmed” for being part of the “censorship-NGO ecosystem.” Ahmed is the founder of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) – a nonprofit that researches online hate, misinformation, and child exploitation, and pushes for greater transparency and accountability from Big Tech platforms – as well as one of Kaplan's clients. In retaliation for his constitutionally-protected speech, Ahmed, a British-born lawful permanent resident of the United States (with an American wife and two American daughters), faced immediate detention or removal.

On Christmas Eve, Kaplan and her colleagues filed an emergency complaint on behalf of their client. “We did not sleep much,” Kaplan recalls. “The team worked overnight and somehow got it done. It was exceptional work – I honestly don’t know if it would have been possible anywhere else.”

Then, minutes after midnight on Christmas morning, they had the answer they were hoping for: a temporary restraining order that ensured Ahmed would remain in the United States, free with his family, while the court considered the merits of his constitutional claims. It also signified something more: a high-profile challenge to the use of government power to punish speech protected by the First Amendment.

It was not the first time Kaplan had faced down the Trump administration at a moment of crisis, and it would not be the last. Kaplan and her team still represent Ahmed, as they fend off the prospect of federal action against him and defend the fundamental constitutional principles at issue in his case. This September, the district court issued an order, noting that “without a hint of irony, the Secretary of State determined that rendering Mr. Ahmed deportable on account of his lobbying and advocacy efforts was necessary to protect American ‘freedom of expression’” and acknowledged that Ahmed “very well may have valid causes of action.” However, she concluded that the district court did not have jurisdiction. Kaplan's team immediately filed emergency motions with both the 2nd Circuit and the district court, winning another stay in the district court pending resolution by the 2nd Circuit.

Ahmed’s case is, in every sense, a classic Kaplan Martin case – urgent, exacting and built for the moment. Kaplan has assembled the kind of elite litigation team that clients turn to during existential moments – a tireless Seal Team Six that does everything it takes to win, including working around the clock to devise the most effective and creative strategy to succeed.

That grit has run through Kaplan's entire career. She pursues ambitious cases that shape the law – from United States v. Windsor, the landmark Supreme Court victory that gutted the Defense of Marriage Act paving the way for nationwide marriage equality, to the $26M civil verdict against white supremacist organizers after the violent Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. More recently, in the E. Jean Carroll cases, she successfully defeated a series of appeals by President Donald Trump which sought to overturn two unanimous federal jury verdicts against him.

Trained as an elite commercial litigator with the heart of a street fighter, Kaplan today operates on equally high-pressure terrain, including litigating more than a dozen lawsuits to preserve New York’s congestion pricing program. Whether the stakes are personal, financial, societal or constitutional, the throughline is always the same: Kaplan takes on powerful adversaries, builds records that hold up on appeal and delivers victories on behalf of her clients.

It’s impossible to fully convey E. Jean Carroll’s bravery or what an extraordinary person she is. She personifies the courage it takes to stand up and fight back, even against the most powerful person in the world.

Lawdragon: Congratulations on your firm’s success, as well as your individual recognitions from The American Lawyer, New York Law Journal, Financial Times, Forbes and right here at Lawdragon! Kaplan Martin is winning hugely impactful cases.

Roberta Kaplan: Thank you. We are. Especially today, we need to do that. The stakes are too high and the consequences too dire for lawyers to sit on the sidelines.

LD: Was that your vision for Kaplan Martin?

RK: When I left Paul, Weiss in 2017, I wanted to build a civil litigation firm that did genuinely interesting work – a true generalist practice with many types of clients – and to do it the way I’d been taught: at the highest level, creatively, always looking for new ways to guide clients through major challenges.

That’s what Kaplan Martin is all about. With my incredible partner and old friend Tim Martin, we built something that is just different. We’re a firm of exceptionally smart lawyers who have worked together for years, share the same values, and genuinely admire and like each other a lot. Two of the best senior associates from my old firm came with me and are now partners at Kaplan Martin. And we have truly ingenious counsel and associates for whom the sky is the limit.

We also have exactly the mix of work I had hoped for. We have incredibly meaningful public interest work alongside high-stakes commercial litigation and everything in between. Our phones keep ringing because of the important work we do, the way we do it, and what we accomplish.

There’s not a day that I don’t look forward to coming into the office. Since litigation is inherently stressful, it makes no sense to do it if you don’t enjoy it and you don’t enjoy the people on your team. That’s what we have at Kaplan Martin.

LD: Where does the E. Jean Carroll litigation stand? Those verdicts were so significant.

RK: I sincerely hope people see it that way. Two separate juries – unanimously – agreed with E. Jean. The first found that Donald Trump sexually abused and defamed her; the second found that he continued to defame her in ways that caused her real harm. Unfortunately, those facts can get lost in today’s chaotic media environment.

Procedurally, the first, $5M verdict is now final and cannot be challenged in any court, since the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, twice. President Trump was ordered to, and has now paid, E. Jean $5M plus interest.

Trump also appealed the second verdict – the $83M based on defamatory statements he made about E. Jean while President – to the 2nd Circuit and lost. He then sought rehearing en banc, which the court declined. And now he is again seeking review by the Supreme Court.

It’s been a long road for E. Jean, who is 82. But Trump’s endless appeals will not deter her. And we will never stop fighting on her behalf.

LD: There’s been buzz about the E. Jean documentary.

RK: Yes. It’s a wonderful documentary called "Ask E. Jean" about E. Jean’s amazing life and career that premiered at Telluride. It really captures who she is – her charm, charisma, eccentricity and brilliance. The film had serious challenges finding distribution, which I think says something about the moment we’re in – people are wary of stepping into anything controversial right now. But the film was picked up, with theatrical showings in 90 cities and 30 states. It’s now available for streaming on Kinema. E. Jean also wrote an excellent and very funny memoir, called "Not My Type: One Woman vs. a President," about her cases against Trump, which has got to be the only truly laugh-out-loud funny book about trials for defamation and sexual assault. She is currently writing what I’m sure will be another both hilarious yet sobering book about all the ways that the world as we know it could end.

I’m not usually at a loss for words, but it’s impossible to fully convey E. Jean’s bravery or what an extraordinary person she is. She personifies the courage it takes to stand up and fight back, even against the most powerful person in the world.

LD: You’re litigating another very high-profile matter – defending New York’s congestion pricing program. What has that fight looked like?

RK: We are so honored to represent the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA) in many lawsuits across federal and state courts, aimed at stopping the program. There have been more than a dozen different efforts to enjoin the program. We’ve been lead counsel both as plaintiff and defendant to preserve the program and its funding.

The underlying lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice, but that cannot undo the emotional costs to Jay-Z and his family – or the more than $150M in economic losses.

To date, we’ve beaten back all the efforts to impede congestion pricing. Courts have consistently allowed it to proceed and upheld its legal foundation, even as the noise continues. At one point, the President posted on Truth Social that he was going to “shut it down.” While I generally don’t post anything on social media, I have to admit I felt like saying, “There’s a court order in place. Mr. President, you can’t really do that right now.”

We have also seen that congestion pricing works. People resist it at first, and then they come to recognize its benefits: less traffic, better flow, and a dedicated revenue stream for critically-needed transit projects, not to mention improvements in air quality. In its first year, New York’s program raised over $550M in revenue, which is being used to rebuild and repair NYC’s subway system which really needs it. It’s not just about traffic – it’s about the long-term viability of an aging subway system that millions rely upon every day.

LD: Tell us about your other clients, Robbie.

RK: We are representing Kituwah, the investment arm of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and its CEO in a dispute about the breakup of the Sports Illustrated-branded resorts venture. With more than 25 claims that involve intellectual property, defamation, breach of contract and an alleged RICO conspiracy, the matter is an example of massive multi-district litigation that a Big Law firm with an army of lawyers would typically handle. But this is exactly the work we excel at, and we are delivering results with a far leaner team than that.

LD: Anything else that has been in the headlines recently?

RK: We filed a lawsuit on behalf of Oona Sperr against Texas oil billionaire Sid Bass. At its core, it's a case about broken promises. Oona spent more than a decade as Sid’s partner, giving up her own career and devoting herself to the life they built together. She managed their homes, cared for him, and organized her life around his repeated promises that she would share in their property and be taken care of for the rest of her life. Sid honored and reaffirmed those commitments for years, then abruptly ejected Oona, who is 64, from their home and their shared life. Another woman, Althea Viafora Kress, entered his life and, we allege, induced him to break his promises to our client. We are seeking to recover what Sid promised her.

LD: Any other high-profile clients to share?

RK: Well, yes – there’s another big one. I’m honored to represent Jay-Z, who for a short period faced false sexual assault claims. You can imagine what that did to him and his family. I am a parent, and I cannot imagine having to sit down with my child and explain why someone had publicly accused me of something so horrific. The underlying lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice, but that cannot undo the emotional costs to Jay-Z and his family – or the more than $150M in economic losses.

We’ve been representing Jay-Z in his ongoing lawsuits against several attorneys who we allege were behind false demand letters and a complaint aimed at lining their own pockets. It’s a good example of the legal profession missing the mark when the motivations are wrong. My partners Ellen, Chris and I, along with co-counsel, are all proud to work on Jay-Z’s behalf to set the record straight, once and for all.

LD: Do you think the role of lawyers has shifted since Trump took office again?

RK: No question. One of the strongest pillars of democracy from the first Trump administration and continuing through today has been the courts. They’ve continued to step in to enforce the law and the Constitution. You’re seeing that in the lower courts, in the Circuit courts, and even at the Supreme Court, particularly when the stakes are highest like the threats to mail-in voting. I expect we’re going to see a lot more of that as we approach the midterm elections.

One of the strongest pillars of democracy from the first Trump administration and continuing through today has been the courts. They’ve continued to step in to enforce the law and the Constitution.

Unfortunately, not every part of our society has stepped up the way people might have expected or hoped. But the judges have. The Founders got that right – giving federal judges lifetime tenure was a brilliant idea. They’ve shown real courage and intelligence, even in the face of extremely serious threats to their own personal safety. And for them to do that important work, they need truly committed lawyers building well-reasoned arguments they can rule on. It’s especially clear when you look at other institutions people expected to step up; I’m sad to say I don’t think they have done so in the same way.

I was a Russian history major in college, and one of my professors, Richard Pipes, an eminent historian, had a theory about why Russian governments – whether under the tzars, the Soviets or now Putin – tended to take the same form over time. His view was that it came down to the absence of independent institutions and a real civil society.

As he explained, there was never an independent church in Russia. Similarly, even the aristocracy wasn’t independent; your status could change in a minute at the whim of the Tsar. And there weren’t independent professions – like lawyers, doctors or journalists – the way we have them here in the United States.

In some ways, this moment feels like a real test of Professor Pipes’ hypothesis and the strength of our own civil society here in the United States. It’s paramount, of course, for lawyers to defend their clients. But we also have a role in defending the rule of law and the Constitution. And that matters right now, probably now more than ever.

LD: What drew you to the law?

RK: When I was a little kid, I’m told that I liked to talk a lot. At a certain point, I realized that as a lawyer you could actually get paid to talk, and I thought: "That's the job for me." Then, in high school, Sandra Day O'Connor was the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court, and that galvanized my thinking about my future career. I realized there was a real opportunity for me and other women like me to succeed in the law.

LD: Where do you look for inspiration?

RK: It's going to get sappy, but I care very much about the world that my son is living in, and God-willing, his children will live in. What matters to me is that he is able to live in the kind of world that I was able to live in, even with all the challenges, and that he won’t be living in some kind of techno-totalitarian state right out of a science fiction novel. Believe it or not, I consider myself to be very religious. I really believe that the whole point of our finite time on this planet is tikkun olam, or repairing the world.

The best way my colleagues and I can do our part in repairing the world is by standing up in court for what is right. That’s what I believe to be the whole point of our finite time on this planet and what Kaplan Martin was built to do. We will keep on doing our part to help to repair the world no matter what.

This esteemed group of lawyers practice in one of the world’s most beautiful and wealthy locales.

Few jurisdictions punch above their weight like Cayman. A small island with outsized financial muscle, it is home to some of the world's most sophisticated funds, finance and restructuring work, and to the disputes, frauds and insolvencies that inevitably follow the money.

Now in its third edition, the Cayman 100 is anchored by the leading British and offshore firms that speak the language of international finance fluently. Alongside them stand elite advocates from U.S. and global firms who are called in when the biggest financial disputes and asset recoveries land. It is a small, highly specialized bar, and that makes a place in it all the more prized.

Nick Hoffman is managing partner of Harneys' Cayman Island office and global head of Dispute Resolution. A member of the firm’s Executive Committee, he is a preeminent litigator. He began practice in the London Bar before moving to the Caymans in 2011. Harney has handled some of the most significant matters in the Cayman courts, with a particular expertise in landmark cross-border litigation. He recently led the Harneys team in the Trina Solar appraisal case and played a pivotal role in the restructuring of Luckin Coffee, underscoring his and Harneys’ reputation as a leader in Asia-related restructuring and insolvency litigation. His focus spans insolvency and restructuring, financial services litigation, fraud and asset recovery.

Anna-Lise Wisdom is a partner in Conyers' Cayman Island practice. She specializes in fund finance, including subscription finance, fund-level finance Net Asset Value (NAV) financing and General Partner and management fee facilities. An active speaker and writer on Cayman funds finance, she provided Cayman law analysis in connection with the structuring, formation and launch of Fortitude Carlyle Asia Reinsurance, Ltd. and its affiliated holding entities by Fortitude Re in its strategic expansion into the Asian life and annuity market.

Christie Walton is a partner in Maples Group’s Funds & Investment Management team in the Cayman Islands. She specializes in the structuring, formation, restructuring and maintenance of Cayman Islands hedge and private equity funds. She advises on commingled funds, managed accounts and investment fund platforms and acts for clients ranging from large financial institutions and investment managers to smaller, start-up investment managers.

We selected this guide through nominations paired with independent journalistic research. We speak to lawyers based in the Caymans, as well as those who regularly practice there.

Chambers USA, The Legal 500 US, Lawdragon, The Deal, and IFLR have all recognized Jensen as one of the nation’s top bankruptcy and restructuring lawyers. Over the course of nearly two decades, she has represented creditors and lenders—administrative agents, ad hoc and steering committees, and individual financial institutions—in an array of complex multijurisdictional bankruptcy and insolvency matters, including chapter 11 and chapter 15 proceedings and out-of-court restructurings. Jensen also advises bidders in distressed-asset sales. Her experience spans a wide range of industries that align with O’Melveny’s strengths and strategic priorities, including electric power, energy, and manufacturing.

Jensen comes to O’Melveny from the New York office of Linklaters, where she was a partner in that firm’s Restructuring & Insolvency Practice. She is the second lateral partner to join O’Melveny’s Bankruptcy & Restructuring Practice in just the past month—following the September 2 arrival of New York partner David Botter.

“We are delighted to welcome Penelope as the newest addition to our award-winning Bankruptcy & Restructuring team,” said O’Melveny chair Bradley J. Butwin. “Penelope has a proven track record of successfully guiding a wide range of stakeholders through distressed situations. Her deep experience representing banks and other large institutional creditors aligns well with our strategic objectives, and her impressive talent and enthusiastic approach make her a perfect addition to our firm. It is a pleasure to welcome her aboard.”

“I’m thrilled to join O’Melveny as I start this exciting new career chapter,” said Jensen. “Not only is O’Melveny’s Bankruptcy & Restructuring team renowned for providing superior client service, but the firm’s emphasis on thoughtful expansion and its commitment to promoting a genuine culture of collaboration were huge draws. O’Melveny is an ideal fit for my clients and my practice.”

Jensen’s addition continues O’Melveny’s strategic growth, marking the 57th lateral partner and 37th corporate partner to join the firm since 2023.

Jensen earned her J.D. from St. John’s University School of Law and her B.B.A. from Hofstra University.