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.

“Peter and Tristan have broad experience across capital markets transactions, which will be very valuable to our clients,” said Angelo Bonvino, global head of the Paul, Weiss Corporate Department. “At a time when demand for sophisticated capital markets advice is increasing, Peter and Tristan further strengthen our bench in this area.”

“We are thrilled to have Peter and Tristan join us at Paul, Weiss,” said Brian Janson, global co-head of Capital Markets. “They are highly regarded, versatile capital markets lawyers handling a wide range of equity and debt offerings, strategic transactions and public company matters, and they will be excellent fits for our team.”

Byrne advises public and private companies and financial institutions on a broad range of capital markets matters, including IPOs, secondary and follow-on equity

offerings, debt offerings, debt exchange offers, tender offers and PIPE offerings. Byrne also counsels clients on general corporate and securities matters in relation to mergers and acquisitions, corporate governance issues, Exchange Act reporting obligations and stock exchange requirements. He has represented both issuers and underwriters on special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) IPOs, as well as acquirers and targets in de-SPAC business combinations.

His recent representations include advising quantum computing companies Infleqtion, Xanadu Quantum Technologies and IQM Quantum Computers in their going public processes by way of de-SPAC and concurrent PIPE financings; Cerberus Capital Management on its strategic investment in Eos Energy; Lexeo Therapeutics on its IPO; and Braze on its IPO. Byrne was recognized by The Legal 500 US for Capital Markets: Equity Offerings in 2025. He earned a B.A., magna cum laude, from Seton Hall University and a J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

VanDeventer focuses on a range of capital markets transactions, encompassing IPOs and follow-on offerings, including sponsor-backed IPOs; high-yield and investment grade debt offerings; convertible and exchangeable note offerings; PIPE transactions; and liability management transactions. He also represents clients in connection with other complex strategic transactions, including mergers and acquisitions, in addition to advising public company clients on compliance with securities laws, stock exchange rules and regulations, and corporate governance matters.

VanDeventer’s recent representations include the underwriters in the IPOs of Arxis and Lumexa Imaging Holdings; KinderCare Learning Companies in its IPO; The Duckhorn Portfolio in its IPO and multiple secondary offerings; McAfee Corp in its IPO and subsequent follow-on offering; and IQVIA in its offerings of senior high-yield notes and senior secured investment grade notes. He earned an M.A. from the University of St. Andrews and a J.D., magna cum laude, from Georgetown University Law Center.

Paul, Weiss’ global Capital Markets Group provides innovative and practical counsel on a wide variety of capital raising and securities law compliance matters for clients ranging from sponsor-backed private companies to established public companies.

“[Former Paul, Weiss Corporate Chair] Bob Schumer once said in an interview that the energy around a deal is similar to that of a political campaign, and I couldn’t agree more,” said Vogel. “It's that intensity, combined with the constant problem-solving, that makes this practice so compelling.”

Vogel advises on a range of private and public transactions, including mergers and acquisitions, leveraged buyouts, joint ventures, carve-outs and equity investments. A member of Lawdragon’s 500 Leading Dealmakers in America, Vogel has also received recognition for his work in the media and entertainment industries.

Vogel’s media and entertainment work includes advising the special committee of the CBS board of directors on CBS’s merger with Viacom to form ViacomCBS, a deal valued at more than $40B; Advance Publications, a major shareholder in Charter Communications, on Charter’s $34.5B combination with Cox Communications; and Jeffrey Katzenberg, a co-founder of DreamWorks, on the $3.8B sale of DreamWorks Animation to Comcast, among others.

On the private equity side, Vogel recently represented KPS Capital Partners in several major transactions, including its acquisition of a controlling stake in Ketjen’s refining catalyst solutions business from Albemarle, the €3.615B sale of its portfolio company Eviosys to Sonoco Products and the $4.4B sale of Howden to Chart Industries. He also regularly represents Ares Management funds, including in their $1B preferred equity investment in a newly formed railroad subsidiary of FTAI Infrastructure to support FTAI’s acquisition of The Wheeling Corporation, as well as their acquisition of Form Technologies.

In the public company space, Vogel recently counseled Warby Parker in its partnership with Google to develop AI-powered glasses; Nebius Group in several transactions enhancing its AI inference platform; and homebuilder MDC Holdings on its $4.9B sale to Sekisui House.

Vogel recently sat down with Lawdragon to discuss his career and practice.

Lawdragon: What trends in M&A and private equity are you seeing these days?

Michael Vogel: In the current market, as a general matter, we need to distinguish strategics from private equity. First, the megadeal is back, and we’re seeing lots of large-cap transactions. Both the United States and the world have acclimated to the regulatory environment, and corporates in particular are feeling more conviction amid regulatory shifts.

Without equity currency, private equity sponsors remain selective. Among other factors, high interest rates and global political uncertainty are forcing discipline. Without robust demand for assets, we are seeing longer hold periods and an increase in the frequency of alternative transactions caused by extended hold periods.

AI is also driving M&A, but “AI” is a superficial description. There’s a robust ecosystem supporting AI development – from dirt to power, construction services to repair services, CPUs (chips) to BTUs (air cooling) – meaning there is seemingly no industry untouched. With demand seemingly insatiable, the investment and growth in those businesses is getting a lot of attention up and down the economy.

LD: You have done a lot of work on media and entertainment deals. Are you seeing a lot of similar trends through your work in that space?

MV: Actually, the consolidation game in that space largely seems to be over. That said, while history doesn’t necessarily repeat, it echoes. Both technology and regulatory environments drive this space: both vertical integration and hardware-plus-content go in and out of fashion. What remains to be seen is whether the potential “big three” in streaming going forward – Netflix, Disney and the potentially newly formed Warner-Paramount – want to rejigger their content construction and what role the other technology giants want to carve out for themselves in this space. What streaming has made clear is that these assets are remarkably durable, but the other constant is that the corporate parents cycle through.

Our clients at the end of the day are people, and we have great relationships with talented, thoughtful leaders across industries. Working with and learning from people of that intelligence and capability is something for which I am deeply grateful.

LD: What most interests you about working in media and entertainment?

MV: Two things, really. The first is the deep personal investment of the people behind these businesses. Founders and creators of independent companies care intensely about what they’ve built, but that same passion extends to the conglomerates, where executives are genuinely protective of the brands and content under their roofs.

The second is the social and strategic dynamic of the industry itself. Media and entertainment have undergone a complete transformation over the past several years, and I’ve had a front-row seat to how the assets move as the landscape shifts. My clients are sophisticated businesspeople thinking constantly about how to unlock the greatest value from a given portfolio.

Since the 2019 ViacomCBS recombination, we’ve watched content increasingly follow the technology that delivers it. Entertainment itself is a living, breathing enterprise. What changes is how audiences consume it, and that question drives almost every deal in the space.

LD: Speaking of which, I imagine your work representing the special committee of the CBS board of directors in CBS’s merger with Viacom to form ViacomCBS has given you a unique perspective on the media and entertainment space. Would you say it’s the most memorable deal in your career?

MV: Yes, it was amazing to be part of that deal. There was a lot of navigating history, including past ownership and past conflicts. At that time in media, there was also the belief that more content needed to be held under a single umbrella in order to drive a direct-to-consumer experience, which would ultimately drive revenue. The legacy intellectual property was as, if not more, valuable than the new production pipelines. Having assets under one umbrella with CBS’s size and the legacy companies was viewed as an important bringing together of assets. It also set up a dynamic where the Redstone family ultimately exited a tightly controlled business and put it in the hands of a technology-focused group thinking of ways to transform assets.

That deal is personally memorable because it’s the largest deal I have done as a partner at Paul, Weiss. It’s also the first deal I did as a partner with Bob Schumer, and he has been a great mentor to me.

LD: On that topic, what are the most important lessons you’ve learned from Bob and other mentors you’ve had?

MV: Lessons big and small – where to focus my attention in a transaction and what truly matters commercially, but also how to build a career and cultivate relationships, both inside the firm and out. Above all, I’ve learned the value of consistently doing top-tier work and how to take genuinely complex problems and make them feel simple.

LD: What advice would you give to young M&A and private equity lawyers now?

MV: First, it’s a relationship business. Within the firm, it’s important to have mentors and mentees and to build teams. But doing top-tier work requires having top-tier clients, and building those external relationships can be quite rewarding.

Second, don’t take the opportunity for granted. A platform like Paul, Weiss offers something you simply won’t find elsewhere: The opportunity to develop your craft – not just legal expertise, but the dealmaking instincts and commercial judgment that define a great practitioner – is second to none. Take full advantage of it.

Third, embrace your tools, including AI. You can do the best work the fastest when you leverage all the tools available to you to the maximum degree possible. 

A platform like Paul, Weiss offers something you simply won’t find elsewhere: The opportunity to develop your craft – not just legal expertise, but the dealmaking instincts and commercial judgment that define a great practitioner.

LD: What does Paul, Weiss provide as a platform for your work, and what do you appreciate about the firm?

MV: It’s the people. Our clients at the end of the day are people, and we have great relationships with talented, thoughtful leaders across industries. Working with and learning from people of that intelligence and capability is something for which I am deeply grateful.

That holds true within the firm too. I can pick up the phone and talk to partners who are going to jump at the opportunity to help. It runs from the partnership deep into the associate pool. There are many wonderful, intelligent people who are awesome to work with.

LD: It sounds like you work with some excellent clients. Are there any that stand out to you besides the ones you’ve already mentioned?

MV: Thanks to another mentor, [Paul, Weiss Global Head of the Corporate Department] Angelo Bonvino, I’ve been working with KPS since I joined the firm, and he’s supported and promoted my growth as one of its lead deal partners from the beginning. My work with KPS has been everything you want to build in a career. Similarly, shortly after making partner, I began working closely with Ares Opportunistic Credit thanks to another mentor, [Paul, Weiss General Counsel and partner] Ken Schneider. That team has been a leader in opportunistic credit, and it has been quite rewarding to work through novel issues with them. And maybe a bit of recency bias, but my work with Nebius this year has been super interesting, particularly working with the upper echelons of tech talent in a global political environment skeptical of AI. Honestly, I feel a bit bad having to choose among clients. It is really a privilege to work with all of them.

LD: Switching gears, what are some things you do for fun outside the office?

MV: In addition to spending time with my kids, I play basketball about once a week. It’s a window I’ve boxed out for my mental health.

LD: From what you’ve told us, it sounds like you were set on being a lawyer from the beginning. But if you had to have a “dream job” outside of law, what would it be?

MV: I’ve always said that being the second baseman for the New York Yankees was the only other option, but my genetic pool was not going to permit that. Jalen Brunson is also making the Knicks point guard spot look attractive, but again, genetics. 

LD: It sounds like that hasn’t stopped you from finding a fulfilling career. What do you enjoy most about your work in M&A and private equity?

MV: I love the sport and energy of it. I love the problem solving and opportunities for creativity. I love that it is project-driven – there are consistently things to celebrate. You also have the opportunity to work with great people and build connections over time. That’s what’s most attractive to me: it’s long-term relationships and short-term, challenging projects.

“Ian’s work across the entire spectrum of life sciences transactions will be incredibly valuable to our clients as we continue to support them on their most complex deals and commercial agreements in the sector,” said Angelo Bonvino, global head of the Paul, Weiss Corporate Department. “We are thrilled to welcome him to the firm.”

“Ian brings a stellar track record of providing the sophisticated counsel that life sciences companies need to execute pivotal transactions, including licensing and collaboration agreements,” said Jeffrey Osterman, global co-head of Intellectual Property & Technology Transactions and chair of Life Sciences Licensing & Collaboration Transactions at Paul, Weiss. “He is a terrific lawyer whose commercial and strategic approach will strengthen our growing IP practice.”

Edvalson has been recognized by Chambers USA for Life Sciences: Corporate/Commercial – California since 2021 and previously from 2007 to 2014. He earned a B.A. in Korean and B.S. in Molecular Biology from Brigham Young University, and a J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School.

The Paul, Weiss Intellectual Property & Technology Transactions Practice brings together corporate lawyers with technical and legal expertise across all types of IP asset classes, and a strong understanding of how IP assets fit into the overall deal structure. The firm leverages this knowledge to address our clients’ critical intellectual property needs, devising transactional strategies to identify opportunities and unlock the hidden value of intangible assets.

About Paul, Weiss

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP is a global law firm of more than 1,500 lawyers focused on helping clients navigate their most complex legal and business challenges. Known for the depth and excellence of its corporate, litigation and restructuring practices, Paul, Weiss works collaboratively to deliver commercial and innovative solutions, supported by a firmwide commitment to developing and empowering exceptional legal talent and an unwavering dedication to client service. The world’s largest and most important public and private corporations, asset managers and financial institutions look to the firm for advice.

This is the 3rd edition of this guide to advisors who specialize in real estate worldwide – its development, finance, leasing, REITs, construction, disputes and litigation. They are an amazing group whose work impacts everyone – from the offices we work in, to our homes, from affordable housing to the most swank Las Vegas resorts.

Ann Peldo Cargile is a partner in Bradley's Nashville office. A veteran of the entire range of real estate law, she served as president of the prestigious American College of Real Estate Lawyers in 2023. She handles commercial real estate leasing, finance, joint ventures and distressed properties. Among her deals, she represented Global Medical REIT in more than $900M in healthcare facility acquisitions; MetLife in its $93M acquisition of One Bellevue Shopping Center in Nashville; and a client in its $32M sale of the historic Cannery Row complex in Nashville to Thor Equities Group.

Jannelle Seales is Co-Head of Weil’s Real Estate practice. Based in New York, she advises clients on the full spectrum of commercial real estate transactions, including acquisitions and dispositions, joint ventures, financings, restructurings, workouts, and complex debt and equity transactions. She represents lenders, borrowers, investors and joint venture partners across the capital stack in some of the market's most sophisticated real estate matters. She recently advised on the restructuring of more than $2B in aggregate across a range of real estate finance and restructuring matters. She partners with Weil's M&A team to provide strategic real estate counsel on transactions such as MGM Resorts International’s $17.2B sale of MGM Growth Properties to VICI Properties; Veris Residential’s $3.4B sale to an investor consortium led by Affinius Capital in partnership with Vista Hill Partners; and Six Flags Entertainment Corporation’s $331M sale of seven parks to EPR properties.

Michael J. Baum is co-president of Greenberg Traurig, which has one of the world’s most prominent real estate practices. Based in Chicago, he is also Co-Chair of its Global Real Estate Practice. He particularly focuses on bringing together multidisciplinary teams to provide comprehensive legal counsel to maximize the value of the firm’s global real estate platform for its clients. He specializes in forming real estate opportunity funds, joint ventures, acquisitions, developments, financings, leasing, and dispositions of data centers. His work is worldwide, from representing Walton Street Capital and its Brazilian partner, Banco BTG Pactual, in the financing of the development of a shopping center in São Paolo to representing Corus Bank, N.A. in the origination of several billion dollars of construction loans for residential condominium, office and hotel projects in New York City, Las Vegas, Los Angeles and Miami.

These are just three of an amazing wealth of real estate advisors at the top of their game recognized on this year’s guide. We selected 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.

Sharon Mahn understands the ecosystem of a deal: the rainmaker, the firm, the spouse, the whispered possibility of a move and the enormous business that may follow.

For more than two decades, Mahn has lived inside that world. A former trial lawyer turned founder and CEO of Mahn Consulting, she has moved major partners, helped build teams and brokered deals that shift millions in revenue and alter the future of a practice. She has done it through instinct, nerve and a relationship network built the old-fashioned way – one cold call, one lunch, one leap of trust at a time.

“It was about building a career and a life that felt more aligned with who I am,” says Mahn. “The best placements are not just transactions. They are relationships that continue to build over time.”   

Mahn is clear-eyed about how much the business around those relationships has changed. As Big Law has grown larger, richer and more mobile, legal recruiting has grown with it – into a high-stakes market where information can be as valuable as the move itself. Mahn has seen that evolution from every angle: as a lawyer, as a recruiter, as an entrepreneur and now as a commentator co-anchoring The Exchange Briefing from the floor of the New York Stock Exchange with veteran journalist Jane King.

Mahn has built an exceptional career by understanding power in all its forms: who has it, who is trying to move it and what is at stake when it changes hands. Her own story is proof of what can happen when women insist on keeping theirs.

“Nobody is coming to save you,” Mahn says. “You have to stand up and fight for the life you want.”

Mahn, an industry leader for 25 years, is named to the 2026 Lawdragon 100 Global Leaders in Legal Strategy & Consulting.

Lawdragon: Where did you grow up?

Sharon Mahn: I was born in Manhattan and raised in New Jersey. People keep leaving for Florida, but New York has always had my heart. I love the energy, the neighborhoods, the water, the fact that it keeps changing. Once you spend any real time here, you’re a New Yorker.

LD: What drew you to recruiting?

SM: I came to recruiting as a lawyer, and that has always shaped the way I look at the work. I understood what lawyers were weighing when they considered a move – their clients, their firms, their compensation, their families, their fears and their ambitions.

Recruiting is about judgment, timing and trust. You are helping someone make a decision that can change the direction of their career and their life.

I have worked on major placements and combinations, watched lawyers grow into positions of real power and helped people make moves that changed their lives. I love that part of the work. The best recruiters do more than make introductions. They help people see what is possible.

LD: How did you get comfortable building a career around cold calls?

SM: I am extremely social, and I always wanted to meet everyone. I loved being in New York. I loved coming to work every day. I loved going out, meeting people, going to games, concerts, dinners – all of it.

So it never really felt like cold calling to me. It felt like building relationships. I became good friends with my clients and candidates, and over time those relationships became real friendships. People I met 25 years ago are still in my life now.

At the time, legal recruiting was much more secretive than it is now. People were afraid to be seen with a recruiter. They would say, “Do not tell anyone I am talking to you.” Some people used fake names. It felt very old-school and private.

Now managing partners call because they want to know what is happening in the market, what is happening at their own firms and how to think about talent. I have watched lawyers go from young partners to chairs, managing partners and leaders of major firms. Now I get to share what I have learned over 25 years – how to build business, how to position yourself, how to make good career decisions and how to think long-term. That is really exciting to me.

I get to share what I have learned over 25 years – how to build business, how to position yourself, how to make good career decisions and how to think long-term. That is really exciting to me.

LD: What have been some of the most significant placements of your career?

SM: I have worked on very large deals, including the merger of a major firm where I moved about 150 lawyers. Those matters are interesting because of their scale, complexity and impact on the market.

But I really do think every deal is interesting in its own way, because you are helping someone make a life-changing decision. Of course, the big lucrative deals are wonderful for your bottom line. But even a smaller placement can have tremendous impact. You may be helping someone get a better opportunity, more money, less stress or a clearer path to build a book of business.

I see my role as going beyond simply placing someone in a job. I help candidates market themselves and think about their careers long-term. Sometimes that means making personal introductions. Sometimes it means putting them on my show at the Stock Exchange. Sometimes it means connecting them with business contacts or helping them understand how to position themselves in the market. When my candidates grow, I grow with them. If they build business, become more successful and develop stronger practices, that is good for everyone. The best placements are not just transactions. They are relationships that continue to build over time.

LD: Tell us more about your show. You’re co-hosting The Exchange Briefing from the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. How did that come about?

SM: I teamed up with my friend Jane King, who I’ve known for 20 years. Jane is a powerhouse – she’s a national financial reporter, a former anchor on CNN and Bloomberg, and she is at the New York Stock Exchange early in the morning doing financial reporting. In between all of that, we fit in our show.

It’s called The Exchange Briefing, and we bring guests to the Stock Exchange to talk about the legal market, what their clients are doing and the broader trends they’re seeing. We’re targeting managing partners, practice leaders and people who are very high up in the industry. The show gives us a way to bring in lawyers and business leaders who can speak to what’s happening in real time.

Most of what you see from the Stock Exchange is finance or tech. We’re saying, “Let’s also talk about the legal implications.” There are all these emerging growth companies, especially in AI and digital assets, and the market is moving so quickly. Companies that were started three years ago are being sold for billions of dollars. It’s hard to keep up, even when you’re trying to keep up.

LD: As Big Law has grown, how has that changed the stakes in legal recruiting?

SM: The stakes are enormous now. Legal recruiting is not what people may imagine it to be. This is not just someone sending a résumé and making an introduction. In the partner market, you may be talking about lawyers with $50M books of business. If a major partner or team moves, that can change the financial picture of an entire firm.

Law firms are not like public companies. Their value is tied very directly to their lawyers, their client relationships and their revenue. If you take out a major team, you are not just moving people. You are moving business. You are moving institutional knowledge. You may be shifting a meaningful percentage of a firm’s bottom line.

That is why law firms need to be much more sophisticated about how they work with recruiters and what they share. If a recruiter knows that one office has a need, or that one partner may be vulnerable, or that a practice group is under pressure, that information can be used in ways the firm may not expect. And because the industry is not meaningfully regulated, there is very little in place to prevent that.

LD: What should lawyers understand before they speak candidly with a recruiter?

SM: Speaking with a recruiter is not the same as speaking with a lawyer. There is no attorney-client privilege. There may be a relationship of trust, and there are many recruiters who take that very seriously, but as an industry matter, candidates should not assume that everything they say is protected.

That matters because candidates often tell recruiters deeply personal information – compensation, conflicts, health issues, family pressures, internal firm problems and why they are afraid to leave. A good recruiter needs context to help someone position a move properly. But where does that information go? Who sees it? Is it accurate? Can it be shared, sold, hacked or used later in a way the candidate never intended?

Law firms are not like public companies. Their value is tied very directly to their lawyers, their client relationships and their revenue. If you take out a major team, you are not just moving people. You are moving business.

Those questions are even more serious now because of AI. Information that used to sit in one database may not stay there forever. Once data is aggregated, searched or processed by new tools, the candidate may have no control over it and no ability to correct it.

People think legal recruiting is simple. It is not. There is an entire world behind it, and lawyers need to understand that before they share information that could affect their careers, their reputations and their firms.

LD: How does AI affect the way sensitive recruiting information can be collected, stored and used?

SM: AI raises the stakes because it can process and amplify information without necessarily understanding whether that information is true, complete or fair. It does not have judgment. It can read what is public, what is repeated, what is best marketed or most visible – but that does not always mean it is the most accurate information.

That is why I keep coming back to oversight. Recruiting has always involved sensitive information, but the technology has changed the scale. Information can move faster, travel farther and be interpreted by systems that do not know the people involved. A human recruiter may understand nuance. AI does not necessarily understand context.

The question is not just whether AI will help or hurt the recruiting industry. The question is: What duties do we have when we collect, store and use information about people’s careers? Because if the information is wrong, and it gets amplified, the harm can be very real.

LD: How should we be thinking about regulation in legal recruiting?

SM: I think there should be a licensing component, an ethics board and some form of enforcement authority. I say that as someone who is a lawyer by background. Lawyers answer to the bar. Doctors, financial professionals – there are systems in place. If you mishandle money, client information or professional obligations, there are consequences.

In recruiting, we are handling incredibly sensitive information, but there is no comparable oversight. There are industry organizations with ethics rules, but they do not have real enforcement power, and not every recruiter or recruiting company is even subject to them. So the question becomes: Who is actually regulating the industry?

I have lived through this myself, and it has made me think seriously about what happens when there is no meaningful check on the industry.

To me, regulation is about protecting everyone – candidates, law firms, clients and recruiters – who are trying to do the work the right way. The legal market has changed. The money has changed. The technology has changed. The oversight needs to change too.

LD: Tell us about rebuilding your career after leaving Major, Lindsey.

SM: When I left, I had already learned the business and had been very successful. I was one of the top producers. But the environment had become too big, too competitive and too cutthroat for the kind of life and business I wanted to build.

At the same time, my mother was very sick. She had leukemia and died when she was only 62. I was going to Sloan Kettering every week while I was working, and watching someone you love go through that changes your perspective very quickly. It makes you realize that time is not guaranteed.

So when I left, it was not just about starting another recruiting business. It was about building a career and a life that felt more aligned with who I am. I wanted to do excellent work, but I also wanted to enjoy my life, protect my relationships and work with people in a way that felt personal and human.

The legal market has changed. The money has changed. The technology has changed. The oversight needs to change too.

What I learned is that you have to love your life while you are living it. I came to New York in my 30s, and now I am pushing 60. It goes by fast. Every day counts. Every day is an opportunity to meet someone new, help someone, make a connection, see something, do something different.

That is how I rebuilt. I kept working. I kept making placements, kept helping people and stayed close to my candidates, my clients, my lawyers, my friends. I served on boards. I run marathons. I try to connect as much as I can back to charity, service or helping other people.

Every day you spend feeling sorry for yourself is a day you are not out there connecting with people or doing something good. Nobody is coming to save you. Whatever your circumstances are – illness, litigation, divorce, heartbreak, professional setbacks – you have to stand up and fight for the life you want, and surround yourself with the top, most ethical people in your industry. You have to stay hopeful, stay positive and keep going.

LD: Looking back on your career, is there anything you would change about your journey?

SM: I wouldn’t change a thing, because I think you have to go through everything you have gone through in order to be where you are now. You make the best decisions you can with the information you have at the time, and then you keep moving forward.

Of course, there are hard moments. I do not know anyone who has reached a high level and has not failed or been knocked down in some way. If that has never happened to you, maybe you have not pushed hard enough. The key is not to stay down.

I am inspired by women who keep going. When you are younger, you want to believe everything is fair and just. But as you get older, and as you become more successful, you see how hard it still is for women to get to the top. So I do think there is value in refusing to disappear.

One of the best pieces of advice I received was, “Do not hide. This does not define you. It is a moment in time.” At first, that sounds easy. But sometimes you have to fake it until you make it. You get up, you go back out into the world, and every day you keep pushing forward until you get where you need to be.

Failure is an opportunity to learn. You get back up. You keep going. That is resilience.

Ostrander helps energy companies navigate federal regulatory matters — from structuring transactions and securing agency approvals to managing compliance risk and enforcement defense. His clients span the energy value chain, including electric generators, energy marketers, large commercial users, wholesale power suppliers and interstate natural gas pipelines.

Ostrander has significant experience negotiating complex and novel agreements across the energy sector, including power purchase agreements for wind, solar and battery resources; commercial contracts for securing and managing interstate natural gas pipeline capacity; gas supply agreements; and agreements governing interstate petroleum liquids pipeline capacity.

Ostrander’s career includes senior in-house roles with a leading wholesale power provider and a large interstate pipeline operator; associate and partner positions at international law firms; and service in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Office of Enforcement. He comes to McGuireWoods from Rock Creek Energy Group, a D.C. firm focused on FERC matters.

“Mustafa’s arrival underscores our commitment to serving clients in all sectors of the energy industry, where success requires seamless execution on both the transactional and regulatory fronts,” said Gerald V. Thomas II, McGuireWoods’ deputy managing partner and head of corporate.

Elaine Sanderlin Ryan, chair of the firm’s Regulatory and Compliance Department, said, “Mustafa brings a rare combination of regulatory, transactional and in-house experience that will immediately benefit our clients. As energy markets become increasingly complex, he enhances our ability to help companies manage risk and capture new commercial opportunities.”

McGuireWoods’ Energy Enforcement & Regulatory Counseling Practice Group represents utilities, generators, independent power producers, trading houses and other industry clients in proceedings before FERC, state public service commissions and every regional transmission organization. The group draws on the agency experience of team members, including a former FERC commissioner and former top FERC enforcement officials.

“Mustafa knows firsthand how energy businesses operate and how regulators evaluate complex issues, and that dual lens will help clients anticipate regulatory expectations rather than react to them,” said Todd Mullins, co-leader of the firm’s Energy Enforcement & Regulatory Counseling Practice Group.

McGuireWoods earned nationwide rankings for its energy regulatory, litigation and transactional capabilities in the 2026 editions of Chambers USA and the Legal 500 United States. 

“McGuireWoods has built a premier, full-service energy practice,” Ostrander said. “The firm’s expansive reach and deep bench provide the perfect platform to help clients achieve their goals in an evolving regulatory climate.”

“Mustafa brings the blend of agency insight and business acumen our D.C. office is known for,” added Elizabeth Hogan, managing partner of the firm’s D.C. office. “His perspective gives clients the clear sightlines they need to act with confidence.”

This simple question has guided Brian Hermann in his professional decision-making for decades. Alan refers to Alan Kornberg, a renowned restructuring lawyer who founded Paul, Weiss’s restructuring practice and led it for more than 30 years. His kindness, compassion and sensible approach to highly complex situations made an indelible mark on Hermann, now a co-head of the Restructuring & Debt Capital Solutions Group at the firm.

“I learned everything from Alan,” said Hermann. “Most of what I learned, I just learned from observing him. He taught me how to be a good lawyer, how to be courteous and treat people with respect, even if you’re fighting with them, and how to make winning arguments in court and negotiate.”

Starting from his days as a young lawyer under Kornberg’s watchful eye, Hermann has developed his own storied career. He has become not only a restructuring practice leader, but also a trusted industry voice and mentee to many young restructuring lawyers. He has represented both company-side and creditor-side clients across industries nationwide in complex out-of-court restructurings and Chapter 11 cases, as well as complex litigation resulting from Chapter 11 cases. An expert on restructurings for music, media and entertainment companies, he also serves as a key member of Paul, Weiss’s Media & Entertainment Group and its Sports Group.

Hermann’s recent company-side representations include advising Diamond Sports Group in its successful Chapter 11 cases filed in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas; MSG Networks in its successful out-of-court restructuring of more than $800M of funded debt and its media rights agreement with its team partners; NEOTech on financing and lender relationship aspects of its acquisition by Arkview Capital; and Forever 21 in its Chapter 11 case in the Bankruptcy Court in the District of Delaware.

His recent creditor-side representations include advising an ad hoc group of Serta Simmons lenders excluded from a 2020 debt restructuring deal in the significant victory in the appeal of the opinion of the 5th Circuit; an ad hoc group of first lien noteholders of AMC Entertainment in a transaction with the company settling the group’s New York state court lawsuit around a 2024 refinancing transaction; an ad hoc group of DISH Network convertible noteholders in strategic transactions completed by EchoStar, DISH’s parent company; Brookfield Asset Management in the Chapter 11 cases of solar energy developer Pine Gate Renewables, including its acquisition of certain Pine Gate assets via a 363 bankruptcy sale and its role as lender for one of Pine Gate’s three separate debtor-in-possession loans; and certain affiliates of Brookfield Asset Management in their capacities as agents and lenders under a $600M first lien back-leverage loan facility to PosiGen, including in connection with PosiGen’s Chapter 11 cases.

Hermann has been named to several Lawdragon guides, including the 500 Leading Lawyers in America, 500 Leading Global Bankruptcy & Restructuring Lawyers and 500 Leading Global Entertainment, Sports & Media Lawyers. He recently sat down with the outlet to discuss his career and practice.

Lawdragon: What types of opportunities are you currently seeing in restructuring?

Brian Hermann: Where we’re seeing dislocation and opportunities is really in retail and other places that are being disrupted, whether by technology or government changes or regulatory changes. There have also been opportunities in the auto industry because of tariffs on auto parts. Renewables companies have also been impacted by changing laws and have become a lot less viable in their business models as a result.

LD: Do you foresee these opportunities and the market for restructuring changing throughout 2026?

BH: If there is any softness in the economy given higher prices, unemployment ticking up, consumer confidence going down and AI disrupting the economy, we could see a good amount of economic dislocation, and if that happens, more restructurings. But that’s hard to predict.

I just try to be nice, fair and decent to everybody and make sure I impart to people what I’ve learned so they can have a similar experience.

LD: Some of the industries you’ve covered most often in your career have been music, sports, media and entertainment. How did you get involved with those matters?

BH: I was kind of lucky to be honest. The firm used to do work for Warner Music, and when I started, I was placed on one of the music-related restructurings for a well-known international artist. Like any company that goes bankrupt, the artist had too much debt and no money. We got called in to help, and Alan [Kornberg] and I basically treated it like it was any other restructuring, even though it was a personal balance sheet rather than a corporate balance sheet. That experience led to other entertainment-related experiences, and the rest is history.

LD: What do you like most about working on media, sports and entertainment-related restructurings?

BH: It’s not often that you’re working with artists who are in a completely different world than the one we see on a day-to-day basis. You’re dealing with a unique set of issues, personalities and people, and I just kind of like the variety.

LD: Is there a sports- or entertainment-related restructuring you’ve done that stands out to you?

BH: The Diamond Sports Group restructuring was probably the hardest one I’ve done – not because it was the most complex legally, but because we had the challenge of trying to fix the business and manage a bunch of different constituencies in the case.

LD: What other matters have you worked on that are particularly memorable for you?

BH: Another one that stands out was representing the California Public Utilities Commission in the first Chapter 11 case of PG&E Corporation. It was three years of constant fighting, and it was super consequential because it involved the future of the largest utility in California and the largest public utility in U.S. history to file for bankruptcy. There were rolling blackouts in California at the time, and people didn’t have power. It was really at the forefront of deregulation in the power industry and the challenges that came along with it.

We all take it for granted, but power is one of the things you can’t live without. If you’re living in a house where you don’t have power and can’t turn the lights on, put the heat or air conditioning on, or cook, life becomes pretty miserable. To experience that in San Francisco and other parts of California was kind of unthinkable.

LD: You’re now a co-head of the Restructuring & Debt Capital Solutions Group at Paul, Weiss. What do you appreciate most about the firm?

BH: The Restructuring & Debt Capital Solutions Group is unique within Paul, Weiss. We’re a bit more scrappy and entrepreneurial because we have to get a lot of the work on our own rather than off the firm’s platform.

Having said that, a lot of clients like to use us because we’re part of Paul, Weiss. The brand is enormous and the ability to sell other practice areas is easy. It’s easy for me to call clients and refer them to our litigation or M&A partners, for example, because of how great those practices are. The other great thing about Paul, Weiss is that it’s super collaborative and a true partnership, so people are willing to help each other. It doesn’t matter whether it’s my client or someone else’s – we just put a team together and go do it. In that sense, it’s the best platform I can imagine.

The great thing about Paul, Weiss is that it’s super collaborative and a true partnership, so people are willing to help each other. It doesn’t matter whether it’s my client or someone else’s – we just put a team together and go do it.

LD: Given your role at the firm, I’m sure you’ve developed some philosophies around leadership. How would you describe your leadership style?

BH: I probably tend to be more hands-off than most leaders, but I like to think we set a pretty good direction for the practice in terms of our goals and how best to achieve them. That’s very clearly communicated to our partners. It’s a very collaborative style, not a top-down kind of mandate, where we all think about what makes sense for the group and figure out the best way to accomplish it. I really like to put people in position to succeed.

LD: How do you work to put people in position to succeed?

BH: I had the greatest mentor anybody could have in Alan Kornberg, who put me in a position to succeed by letting me play to my strengths as a lawyer. I make an effort to model that behavior with younger partners and play to people’s strengths. I know the whole group and what people are best at and try to put them on matters and with clients where I know they’re going to do well. From there, I let people learn and grow and try not to get in their way.

LD: How did having Alan as a mentor impact your own approach to mentoring?

BH: I always try to ask how Alan would deal with an associate or another partner or how he would approach a situation with other people. Then I try to emulate what he would do.

Fortunately, it kind of comes naturally to me because he and I think about things very similarly. I think I have a similar compassion and empathy, so it’s not like I’m straining to do it or it’s unnatural. I just try to be nice, fair and decent to everybody and make sure I impart to people what I’ve learned so they can have a similar experience.

LD: What advice can you give to young restructuring lawyers?

BH: If you want to be a good lawyer, the key is to work hard, develop good lawyering skills and pay attention to detail. Even if you think it doesn’t matter, proofread the email before you send it or read the document again to make sure the comma is in the right place or see if you can say something a little bit better or ensure you’ve captured what a provision really says. When you have that discipline, that will pay dividends throughout your career.

For young lawyers, it’s really just about developing good legal skills, even the most basic skills, observing as much as possible, being a sponge and trying to take on as many different kinds of matters as you can so you see the variety of the things that we do. Once you have that foundation, the job, while it never becomes easy, becomes easier.

I always tell people that at every stage of your career, you shouldn’t look at the person who is 30 years older than you, but the person who is five years ahead of you. When you look at the person who is five years ahead of you, ask yourself if you want to be that person. If the answer is yes, keep going. If the answer is no, you might want to find something else, because it becomes harder and harder as you get older to make a career out of something if you don’t like it. If you do things in bite sizes like that, then you can consistently strive to get to the next level. Before you know it, you’ve got all the building blocks necessary to be successful. If you want to be a lawyer for your career, you’ll get there if you follow that path.

Exposed to the work at the start of her career to the crash of a Colgan Air plane in Buffalo, N.Y., Brammeier has been part of the team representing families of victims in the U.S.’s most disastrous airplane catastrophes. She’s currently working on cases stemming from the crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 (one of the flawed Boeing 737 Max8 jetliners) in 2019 and a wrongful death lawsuit resulting from the 2025 midair collision of an American Eagle flight and an army helicopter in Washington, D.C. 

Brammeier says that because air travel is thought of as safe, when something goes wrong, it is especially traumatizing.

“With aviation cases, there's a sense of betrayal because there's such a huge system that is supposed to make travel by plane safe and safer than any other method of travel,” she says. “You have so, so many people and so many resources and so much money devoted to keeping aviation safe that when something goes so wrong, as I've seen now multiple times in the last decade, it's like, ‘How can this happen?’” 

Those situations also show that following the regulations is not enough, and that legal action can force changes needed to prevent similar tragedies in the future.

Brammeier joined Clifford as a law clerk while still a student at Loyola University School of Law and has been with the firm since 2011. While she remembers being underestimated as a young lawyer, more than a decade into her career, the tide has changed. Time and again, she has held massive companies accountable when they don’t live up to their responsibilities.

That’s true outside of transportation injury cases, as well: In 2023, Brammeier obtained an Illinois record $4.3M settlement for a dog-bite case. Her client was a 61-year-old woman mauled by a pit bull. The previous high for a dog-bite case was $1.3M.

Brammeier was the chair of the Chicago Bar Association’s Young Lawyers Section, and currently serves as a host of the Bar Association’s podcast, @theBar. She is also part of a team of volunteers for the 100 Club – a 50-year-old organization that provides 24-hour support to families of first responders in Cook and Lake County.

She is recognized on three Lawdragon guides – the 500 Leading Lawyers in America, the 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers and the 500 X – The Next Generation.

Lawdragon: You’ve become an expert in aviation cases. What was the first one you were involved with?

Tracy Brammeier: The very first aviation case that I worked on was when I was a law clerk. It was the last really major crash in the United States, which was when a Colgan Air plane crashed in Buffalo, New York. 

When you're a law clerk, it's maybe a slight exaggeration to say I really worked on it, but I bring it up because it definitely made an impression on me – the case and the seriousness of it. 

LD: What were some of the other aviation cases you were involved with after that?

TB: Luckily, there was not a major plane crash in the United States for a very long time. I continued to work on our aviation matters, but they were generally smaller or maybe less consequential for many years. We did work for one of the families who was on MH370, which was Malaysian Airlines Flight 370, which disappeared. That was very interesting.

And then in 2018 the first Boeing 737 Max crashed. Clifford Law was not involved in that crash, but I do remember when it happened because we were talking about it here and about whether it was caused by a defect in the airplane or not.

And on March 10, 2019, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashed in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. I remember where I was when that plane crashed. I had gone skiing with friends, and we were driving through the Rocky Mountains on the way back to Denver Airport to fly home. We got a news alert and, in that moment, I remember thinking, "My life is about to change."

LD: The criminal charges against Boeing in that case were dismissed in March. Where do the civil suits stand?

TB: Our last case was a trial that we began and settled during jury selection in January this year. There are civil cases pending here in Chicago involving three decedents. We don't represent any of those three individuals or their families, so I've sort of concluded at this point, although I still have a toe in the water, so to speak. But for the most part we're no longer involved. 

We got a news alert and, in that moment, I remember thinking, 'My life is about to change.'

LD: More recently, there was the 2025 crash over Washington, D.C. Where does that case stand?

TB: That case is very tragic. 67 people died. There were three people in an Army helicopter and 64 people on a regional jet.

We represent nine people in that case, and I personally am very involved in the day-to-day management of litigation. The case is set for trial in April 2027. 

These aviation cases are different because there are many more plaintiffs and many more lawyers, but also there's a lot more to do. 

LD: Are fatal airline crashes particularly tough emotionally for clients?

TB: When somebody dies in any sort of sudden or traumatic circumstance, there's always this intense grief from the family. But with these aviation cases, and it doesn't matter if it's ET302 or if it's this case, it's a different grief experience for people in that situation.

LD: What do you think makes it different?

TB: It is such a mass media event. I’ve worked with clients who have the media literally on their doorstep in the immediate aftermath of the crash and that's something that's really difficult for them to go through.

Also, you're going through it with all these other people, it's like a group trauma and that's a unique experience that happens with each of these crashes.

I think that with aviation cases, there's more a sense of betrayal because there's such a huge system that is supposed to make travel by plane safe and safer than any other method of travel. You have so, so many people and so many resources and so much money devoted to keeping aviation safe that when something goes so wrong, as I've seen now multiple times in the last decade, it's like, "How can this happen?" 

LD: Are companies like Boeing being held accountable as crashes have increased in the last decade?

TB: There's a tradition of companies saying, "As long as we're complying with the regulatory requirements, then we are meeting the safety standards." We're seeing that sometimes that's not true. Sometimes just because you're in compliance doesn't mean that you're "safe" and you might know that. 

LD: Which case is keeping you particularly busy now?

TB: Definitely this case of American Airlines 5342. There's a lot to do and a little bit of time on that case. 

I'm still working on the Alaska Flight 1282 case, which was another Boeing 737 Max problem. We represent the flight attendants.

LD: Right, the plane where the door plug blew out. What makes that case distinctive?

TB: My clients, the flight attendants, are expected to trust the system every day for their livelihoods and they're supposed to take care of other people on an airplane when something goes wrong. I think that that's a case where there's this sense of deep betrayal.

LD: Your dad was an attorney, and as a high school student, you tracked down a Chicago Seven juror and interviewed her at her house. But you didn’t go into the law at first. What happened?

TB: My father was a criminal defense lawyer. He was a prosecutor and then a defense lawyer. I'm the oldest of four children and I was the one that he always was like, "Maybe you're going to follow in my footsteps."

I was never dead set on it by any means. After college I decided to see if there were other things that I might want to do and I ended up in the marketing communications department of Claire's Corp. I had a great experience there, no complaints. But I realized pretty quickly that climbing the corporate ladder was just not going to be for me. 

My clients, the flight attendants, are expected to trust the system every day for their livelihoods and they're supposed to take care of other people on an airplane when something goes wrong.

LD: What do you enjoy about being a lawyer?

TB: Sometimes it's nice to be super deep into something. You almost get an adrenaline rush when you're intensely working on something in this particular job in a way that I never experienced in my short time in corporate life. 

It's been nice for me to have this to share with my dad over the last – how long have I been practicing now? – 12 years. It's been something that's turned out to be a nice part of our relationship.

LD: Did being at Clifford change the kind of law you wanted to practice?

TB: When I first went to law school, I was thinking I was not going to be a litigator. I came to work here and I was like, "Oh, actually this is pretty great."

LD: Do you remember what convinced you? What did you fall in love with?

TB: It was a little bit of everything. This work can be really exciting. You work really hard, but you drive at a really fast pace also, so you're never bored. You're never sitting still.

I think that’s because we don't bill by the hour and that's one of the reasons that we work at a really fast pace. You still have the same expectations and responsibilities to do excellent work. 

And then also, I work with great people here. I work pretty closely with Bob Clifford and Kevin Durkin. Kevin really took me under his wing when I first started here and has been my mentor since the moment I arrived. They're great to work with.

LD: What have you learned from Kevin Durkin?

TB: What haven't I learned from him? He's incredibly dedicated. He works really hard, but also at the same time, he has fun doing the job. We do serious work, and we never lose sight of that, but also, he's somebody who relishes the work at the same time. So, working with him is fun.

LD: And what about Bob Clifford?

TB: Everybody knows Bob. He's a titan of the industry. It's been quite the honor to be able to work so closely with him and see him in action and learn from him. 

He does things that nobody else could do. It’s been great having a seat in the room to see him in action. He's provided me with a lot of incredible opportunities that I'm really grateful for. He takes mentorship and the legacy of his work very seriously. And he makes sure that the younger lawyers are a part of the conversation and are “in the room,” so it speak, in a way that I don't know that all my colleagues at other law firms have experienced. 

Because of that, there's a certain amount of learning by osmosis. You're there for the conversations; you're observing the dynamics. When he deals with a major issue that comes up in the middle of a witness giving testimony, you see how he deals with that. Maybe it's not the same way I could deal with it because I'm not Bob Clifford, but I'm learning about different ways to approach this, there's different outcomes and it's really informing the way that I grow and develop as a lawyer. 

LD: So how would you describe your approach or your style?

TB: I had a client tell me recently that, when they were referred to me, they were told I was very intense. I guess that’s true. I think I tend to be pretty task-oriented, task-focused. I'm the one who's always making sure that I'm driving our team in a very intentional way. I guess it's a different leadership style than my bosses.

LD: What else have you learned in your time at the firm? 

TB: One thing that I've learned from Bob and Kevin is that you don't get the best result for your client without being willing to go to a jury on a case. In certain cases where we knew that there was a better result to be gotten than the one that was being offered, we had to prove that time and again. You always want to get the best result for any client. And sometimes that means that you have to be in front of a jury.

LD: Was being ready to go to trial a key in any of the cases you tried?

TB: Yes. There's one that immediately comes to mind. In 2018, Bob Clifford, Kevin Durkin and I were on trial for a young woman who was hit by a truck. She lived, but she had severe injuries, and we tried the case for a week before we finally were offered the limits of the available insurance on the case.

That's absolutely a case that we had to prove we were willing to take it all the way and get one week through the trial before we were able to get the maximum amount for our client.

LD: Can you tell me about some of the cases outside of aviation that have stuck with you?

TB: I've worked on a couple of drowning cases that left big impacts on me. The first is I was given an opportunity here to be a part of a trial team for the case of a six-year-old boy who drowned at a public pool. It was just a horribly tragic case. We had to go all the way to a verdict in order to get the best result for the client there.

I had another case of a young woman in her 20s who was on a boat on Lake Michigan that sank. That case settled shortly before trial. I think when you spend so much time with certain mechanisms of death, it leaves an impression on you.

LD: How do you take care of yourself through all that? I imagine that's a struggle in the profession.

TB: Yeah. I think people can understand it better if I say it's kind of like if you're an ER or ICU doctor. It's your work and it's important and you compartmentalize. You care about your clients, and you care about your cases, but you also have to be a professional.

LD: At the end of the day, what’s most fulfilling about this work for you? 

TB: I think this job really changes people's lives in a way that I get to see directly. When something horrible happens to somebody, we can't fix it. But we can help them at least be in a place where they can start to make peace with it themselves and move on. That's a really fulfilling aspect of this job. Also, seeing changes be made by corporations or with a change in the law in order to prevent those types of things from happening again in the future is very fulfilling.