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.

Marker is a managing partner of national plaintiffs’ firm Zimmerman Reed, which he joined in 2015 as a founder of both its L.A. office and its mass arbitration practice. Marker went on to try the first merits arbitration in the country alleging that a gig economy worker was an employee rather than an independent contractor: a case brought on behalf of an Uber driver seeking employee status. Since then, Marker has represented thousands of gig economy workers – particularly drivers for app-based companies like Uber and Lyft – who are seeking the benefits and protections of employee status in an employment landscape changing at a breakneck pace.

The law was unformed and untested in the area when Marker first pursued these cases, but in the ensuing years, the courts and the legislature have made new decisions – some of which help Marker’s clients, and some of which hurt them. His work in California is especially challenging since the passage of Proposition 22 in 2020, which classified rideshare and delivery drivers for companies like Uber, Lyft and Instacart as a new class of independent contractors rather than employees. While that battle roils in the Golden State, Marker and team are also pursuing justice for workers nationwide, in states including Illinois and Massachusetts.

As those new laws and precedents form, Marker has constantly sought out new and more effective legal pathways – and, in doing so, has shaken the entire arbitration space. Marker is a pioneer in mass arbitrations, where he brings the quality representation expected in a class action and applies it to thousands of individual arbitrations at a time.

“It’s been very rewarding because the clients tend to get much higher recoveries in a mass arbitration than they might as part of a class action,” Marker says. He recalls one client who was experiencing homelessness and had suffered deeply personal losses before receiving a six-figure recovery. “It was life-changing for her,” he says.

Now, the practice has exploded, and Marker is continuing to lead the charge. In 2024, he was appointed co-chair of the American Association for Justice’s new Mass Arbitration Group, which seeks to provide support for and communication with other plaintiffs’ lawyers in the rapidly developing practice.

Currently, Marker is taking on further employment misclassification cases against Amazon, representing the company’s Flex drivers who deliver packages to thousands of doorsteps every day.

“Those cases are a natural extension from the rideshare cases,” Marker says. “It’s a very large company utilizing technology to hire people for day labor, essentially – which is not a new idea, but it’s a new iteration of it.”

Marker and the Zimmerman Reed team have tried dozens of those cases in the last few months, and have hundreds scheduled for adjudication over the next year.

At the same time, Marker is also taking on noteworthy work outside the employment space. Currently, he is representing victims of the catastrophic L.A. fires in January 2025, which forced the evacuation of nearly 200,000 people and caused estimated losses of more than $250B. The tragedy hits home for Marker, a longtime L.A. resident – but it’s not his first wildfire case. In 2018, he began representing victims of the Camp Fire in California’s Butte County, the deadliest wildfire in California history. Marker went to Paradise, Calif. after the fire to inspect the damage firsthand, and has continued to represent victims since.

In other areas, Marker has represented survivors of sexual assault in headline-dominating cases, including one of the survivors in the Larry Nassar sexual abuse scandal at Michigan State, Marker’s alma mater. He also represents survivors in cases against rideshare companies – bridging his work in consumer and employment cases.

It always comes back to employment cases for Marker, who is a member of the Lawdragon 500 Civil Rights and Plaintiff Employment Lawyers.

“Our firm has a lot of autonomy for partners,” he says. “Everybody at our firm chooses to work on the cases they work on because they’re passionate about the case – they’re intellectually curious, or the cases feel righteous and meritorious. But somehow I always end up circling back to employment cases.”

Lawdragon: But you said employment law didn’t initially interest you in law school, did it? Why not?

Caleb Marker: It sounded like human resources, forms, things like that. So, I never studied it in law school, but it has been the majority of the work I’ve done in my career.

LD: What changed? Was it the Uber trial?

CM: I think it’s the people. It’s hearing their stories. I don’t think it’s any one particular case. I think it comes from a sense of fairness. When these laws were passed originally, back in the New Deal era, there was a lot of exploitation, and there was a big rebalancing that occurred where the risk associated with work, financial and physical risk, was shifted to the employer. That was the status quo for a very long time.

In the last few decades, it’s started to shift back away from that. So, the Uber and Lyft cases were interesting to me because while they involved new technology, it was an age-old tale: Are these people employees? The law has evolved, I think, in our favor, but the first cases were very difficult because that law didn’t exist.

LD: What was that like in those early days?

CM: The first case was under a completely different standard of law. The tests were very gray. I felt strongly that rideshare drivers are employees of the company, but the companies had good arguments. They were difficult cases when we brought them originally. Then, after our first cases, the California Supreme Court created a much clearer bright-line test in the Dynamex decision, which made the argument that these drivers are employees much stronger. Then it changed again because Uber, Lyft and DoorDash bankrolled Proposition 22 in California, which created a new class of worker. We’ve continued the fight in different states, but it was a frustrating time because the companies were able to write their own law and fund the campaign to pass it.

LD: To that end, the firm’s motto is, “We never forget who we’re fighting for.” What does that mean to you?

CM: We always want to feel like we’re on the right side of the “v.” I think every lawyer at our firm believes that about every case they’re working on, and that can result in very challenging cases. It doesn’t matter the type of client – we represent workers, consumers, borrowers, businesses, governments – but at the end of the day, we always feel we have the righteous, meritorious argument.

LD: One of the defining issues of your career has been leading the charge in mass arbitration. Tell me about how that developed.

CM: Everything changed in arbitration not long after I became a lawyer. The first half of my career was spent fighting against arbitration – fighting motions to compel and trying to keep cases in court. Then at some point we decided to embrace it. That’s where these Uber, Lyft and Amazon cases have been brought: in arbitration.

Mass arbitration is a very new phenomenon. We were among the first firms to build the practice about a decade ago, and it’s evolved a lot since then.

It doesn’t matter the type of client – we represent workers, consumers, borrowers, businesses, governments – but at the end of the day, we always feel we have the righteous, meritorious argument.

LD: Speaking of which, you have a new role as co-chair of the AAJ’s new Mass Arbitration Group. Tell me about that.

CM: It really came about because the mass arbitration field has expanded considerably, and a lot of other firms have gotten involved in the area. We saw an opportunity to share best practices and make sure that lawyers could help each other in this space, because defense counsel were doing the same. So, the group supports smaller firms that are active in this area and makes sure that everybody is working together to improve the law.

LD: Why is it important for you to uplift other lawyers and increase that communication? How does that help make everyone better?

CM: Small firms have fewer resources than the corporate defense firms. A lot of the people we’re trying to help – solo practitioners or small firms – are starting out, and they can’t afford the investments that we’ve made in this area. We’ve spent millions of dollars investing in technology and staff to build a practice that can operate successfully at scale, and small firms can’t do that. So, we’re trying to take some of the lessons learned and some of the resources we have and share that with others, so they’re able to obtain similar results.

LD: If so much has changed in recent years in terms of the attitude toward arbitrations, where do you see the future of arbitration agreements and mass arbitrations going from here?

CM: I think it’s still early. We’re in the third or fourth inning of it. Companies used to have very generous arbitration agreements, like the agreement at issue in the Concepcion case. Then, once they got what they were asking for in terms of forcing arbitration, they rewrote their agreements and made the arbitration process far more draconian. Courts have often found those agreements to be unconscionable. So, I think we’re still waiting for guidance from appellate courts and the Supreme Court as to what’s permissible. The defense lawyers I talk to say that mass arbitration is difficult, but they prefer it to class actions.

Personally, it’s been very rewarding because the clients can often get much higher recoveries in a mass arbitration than they might in a class action. I’ve had clients obtain settlements that they used to fund the down payment on a home. Because of the way employment and other laws are designed, with liquidated or statutory damages, some of our clients have obtained arbitration awards for three times the amount of money they actually earned while working for the company. If they earned $10,000 working for one company and we recover $30,000, for example, that can be life-changing for the average person.

Mass arbitration is a very new phenomenon. We were among the first firms to build the practice about a decade ago, and it’s evolved a lot since then.

LD: What about other cases on the consumer protection side – which stand out to you?

CM: There’s been this rise of online advertising for wellness companies essentially selling snake oil on social media. These online advertisers are making a lot of claims that are not supported by science, and they are taking advantage of people’s vulnerabilities and insecurities. We’re taking on a lot of those cases in the arbitration space. But right now my focus is really on employment cases for workers, cases for survivors of sexual assault, and the California wildfire litigation as well.

LD: Tell us about the wildfire litigation. Being in L.A., how are these cases particularly impactful for you to work on?

CM: It was personal for me because I love L.A. I’ve been here for 15 years now, and my family evacuated during the fires, which got pretty close to my home, although thankfully we didn’t suffer any significant damage. The Department of Justice has also filed a case against the utility company at issue. It is frustrating because wildfires are made worse by climate change, so it’s a problem that’s going to get worse before it gets better. But it’s satisfying to work on cases where you can help people in your own community.

LD: And what are the next steps in the litigation?

CM: We’re continuing to develop damages. The first trials are scheduled for early 2027, and there’ll be a bellwether process. So, it’s still early. We’re still gathering evidence, and I think everyone’s waiting for the investigating authorities to release their findings on what happened. The DOJ moved pretty quickly here, which was appreciated because their investigations can often take longer.

LD: To that end, are there any other trends that you’re seeing lately?

CM: Mostly that it hasn’t stopped. It’s disheartening that companies will continue to violate the law after losing case after case after case. They can treat it as the cost of doing business instead of doing the right thing. And that signals a need for class actions and government action. We’re in an era where you can’t always count on government enforcement to protect ordinary people, workers and consumers. That’s really highlighted the role of private enforcement.

LD: Then, as far as your role as managing partner within the firm, how do you see yourself as a leader?

CM: The role of a managing partner is to work to define and continually refine firm strategy and vision, and to make sure all the different parts of the firm work together harmoniously. My goal is to always try to figure out what’s next for the firm. It’s about spending a lot of time focusing on what our long-term vision is, and then figuring out what kind of support people need to get there. We have a lot of great lawyers doing really good work and working very hard, so we need to make sure that everybody’s set up for success with the resources we have, while also determining what capabilities we will need down the road.

LD: And then how would you describe your style as an attorney, whether that’s in trial and arbitration or when working with your clients?

CM: I always aspire to develop a professional, respectful working relationship with opposing counsel. I’ve found it benefits my clients’ interests. We litigate against some of the same defense firms routinely, and usually I can find something about the person on the other side that I admire. It makes it easier to litigate the case hard and still resolve it when the time is right.

LD: Finally, what do you find most fulfilling about your practice?

CM: Helping people. It’s that simple. I feel good about the work I do, and there’s always this sort of David versus Goliath satisfaction that comes out of representing a single client against a large corporation. That especially rings true if that person’s had a much more difficult life than I have had, and I’m able to be part of the solution to enforce the law and protect their rights. We’re able to really talk to people, to understand their experiences, how they see their job, how they see the world, and how they’ve been personally impacted.

“Rachel is an accomplished capital markets lawyer with deep experience advising companies on some of the most significant and complex transactions in the market,” said Angelo Bonvino, global head of the Corporate Department at Paul, Weiss. “We are pleased to welcome her to the firm.”

“Rachel brings sophisticated transactional experience that will be a tremendous asset to our clients,” said Brian Janson, global co-head of Capital Markets. “Her particular expertise advising issuers, underwriters and selling stockholders on IPOs and follow-on offerings will further strengthen our team’s abilities.”

Phillips has represented a diverse client base, including public company issuers, private equity sponsors and their portfolio companies, underwriters, and selling shareholders on transactions ranging from large-scale cross-border IPOs to registered direct offerings.

Phillips has been recognized by Legal 500 and IFLR1000 for her capital markets worksince 2023. She earned an A.B. from Princeton University and a J.D., magna cum laude, from Boston University School of Law, where she served as Executive Editor of the Review of Banking and Financial Law.

The Paul, Weiss 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.

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.

Throughout his career, Gravante has remained self-directed, moving toward the work, clients and platforms that made sense to him rather than any fixed institutional or political lane. When a new platform could allow him to build at a higher level – for his clients, his teams and the firms he has helped shape – he has been willing to make the move.

He left white-shoe Cravath for the trial trenches with famed criminal defense titan Gerald “Jerry” Shargel. He folded his own litigation boutique into Boies Schiller after a now-legendary dinner with David Boies. He later left Boies Schiller to help build the global litigation group at Cadwalader.

His latest move, to Mintz, is different. It elevates his practice while sharpening his focus.

Gravante joined the firm in February with a team of longtime colleagues from Cadwalader, including Philip Iovieno, Sean O’Shea, Michael Petrella, Matthew Karlan and Mark Singer. The move followed Cadwalader’s planned combination with Hogan Lovells, which created conflicts for the group’s specialized antitrust opt-out practice. At Mintz, Gravante sees room for both growth and a renewed concentration on business origination and client relationships.

“My focus now is to bring in clients, expand my existing relationships across the firm, and continue to practice law and try cases at the highest level,” says Gravante.

The scope of that practice remains characteristically wide. Gravante is currently handling commercial disputes, confidential investigations, pardon requests and long-running matters for institutional and individual clients, often in cases where the stakes are personal, financial, reputational or politically charged.

“Once I agree to take on a case, my client’s politics are irrelevant to me,” says Gravante. “I’m happy to take on liberal causes if the right opportunity presents itself, and I’m happy to represent conservative individuals or institutions if the right opportunity presents itself.”

Lawdragon: Congratulations on the move to Mintz. What prompted the change?

Nicholas Gravante: Law is a business, and Cadwalader’s management made a business decision to pursue a strategic combination with a much larger law firm. I wish them all the best and believe the merger will be good for Cadwalader. But for my group, it created conflicts that the law does not permit us to work around. We can’t litigate against our long-standing, loyal and dedicated clients.

Once we realized we needed to find a new home, we were heavily recruited by a number of outstanding firms. We narrowed it down to three finalists and, in the end, we were incredibly impressed with Mintz. The firm could not have been more enthusiastic about our joining forces with them, and that enthusiasm was infectious. It permeated our entire group.

Mintz is an ideal fit for my practice and the group we brought over. We added substantial depth to Mintz’s already outstanding New York litigation bench, and Mintz offers us something equally important: a full-service firm that can serve the broader needs of our clients.

In joining Mintz, one of the things I was most looking forward to is the partnership and capabilities outside of litigation that I can offer to my clients. The firm’s platform has significant depth in intellectual property (particularly for life sciences and technology companies) and is highly regarded at the ITC. Mintz has a robust healthcare regulatory practice that combines industry leaders with regulatory and litigation attorneys, sophisticated employment counseling and litigation capabilities, as well as lawyers who counsel venture capital and emerging companies through their lifecycle and private equity funds in their suite of complex legals needs.

These cross-selling and horizontal integration opportunities have never been available to me and, in the six months I’ve been at Mintz, they are already paying substantial dividends. And I’m enjoying getting to know my new colleagues.

In joining Mintz, one of the things I was most looking forward to is the partnership and capabilities outside of litigation that I can offer to my clients.

My clients have always been just that, my clients. They are as loyal to me as I am to them. I have built strong relationships starting at Barrett Gravante that have continued to Boies Schiller to Cadwalader and now to Mintz. I am already introducing clients I have represented for years – and in some cases decades – to Mintz lawyers who can serve other aspects of their businesses. Mintz’s bi-coastal geographic scope, particularly with its Florida and California offices, is also greatly beneficial to me.

LD: Tell us about the team that moved with you. These are lawyers you have worked with across several stages of your career.

NG: Yes, and that continuity matters. Phil Iovieno, now one of the country’s top antitrust specialists, continues to lead our antitrust opt-out practice, working closely with Sean O’Shea and Mark Singer. Mark was counsel at Cadwalader and joined Mintz as a partner. He is Phil’s right hand, managing the opt-out cases on a daily basis. Sean, who is probably one of the most aggressive and effective trial lawyers I know, will team with Phil to try the cases.

We were also extraordinarily fortunate to have brought over Mike Petrella and Matt Karlan. Mike is a phenomenal lawyer with whom I’ve worked for decades. We were partners at Boies Schiller and then at Cadwalader, and continue to work closely together. Matt is one of the brightest young lawyers I’ve worked with in years. He worked on many of my matters at Cadwalader, so his move to Mintz made my transition seamless.

But the team that came over can’t possibly handle all the work coming our way, so we have happily turned to our new colleagues. I can’t overstate how impressed I have been with the talent we joined at Mintz. Dominic Picca, Peter Chavkin, Jason Halperin and Amanda Asaro, just to name a few, are not only brilliant litigators, but also a pleasure to work with. I look forward to working with many others.

LD: You have held major leadership roles throughout your career. Where is your focus now?

NG: I ran my own firm, Barrett Gravante, before we merged with Boies Schiller to become its New York City office. At Boies, at one time or another, I served as managing partner, administrative partner, general counsel, and for well over a decade as a member of the firm’s executive committee. I then co-chaired the global litigation group at Cadwalader for almost five years. I have done all of that administrative work, and more, over the last 30 years, and I’m glad I did it and I enjoyed it. But enough is enough.

I will always do my fair share of recruiting, mentoring and other administrative tasks expected of senior partners. Those are things all partners should do, and I will do them with enthusiasm. But my main focus now is to bring in new clients, expand my existing client relationships with other Mintz partners – especially corporate and transactional partners – and continue to practice law and try cases at the highest level. I would be lying if I told you I was going to miss the administrative responsibilities.

LD: What kinds of matters are keeping you busy now?

NG: Currently a wide variety of matters. I’m representing Authentic Brands Group and Travel & Leisure in a civil case, handling a foreclosure action against the American Irish Historical Society, and representing key witnesses in a matter involving Jay-Z and another in a dispute between Clorox and Cognizant Technology.

I continue to represent my alma mater, Poly Prep Country Day School, in certain Child Victims Act cases. I resigned as a Poly trustee after my term as board chair expired because that was the most effective way of my continuing to serve the school. Those cases remain active and keep me busy.

I’m representing Golden West, which manufactures ice cream bars, in a contract dispute with a Kellogg subsidiary and Ferrero, which recently acquired the Kellogg subsidiary, in a suit we filed in Federal District Court in New York. I’m representing the former mayor of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey on an appeal of an arbitration result to the First Department in New York. I am also representing a former Goldman Sachs banker in connection with a criminal matter.

LD: Interesting. What about your less-public matters?

NG: As usual, I have a number of confidential investigations pending for individuals and companies I cannot identify. One of my greatest strengths as a lawyer over the course of my career has been to represent clients under investigation and advocate on their behalf before charges are filed. When I’m successful, nobody even learns that my clients were under investigation. But they know who they are and they are eternally grateful.

I’m also representing several individuals seeking pardons from the Trump administration. Those clients range from individuals recently convicted to individuals convicted decades ago who have long since served their sentences. Given my successful representation of several Trump Organization employees, including Allen Weisselberg and Matthew Calamari, and my relationship with Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, my former partner at Cadwalader, clients recognize that I have credibility with the government. None of that guarantees an outcome, but it does ensure that my clients’ petitions will be presented and viewed credibly.

I have been extremely selective in choosing clients for whom I seek pardons. Two of my favorites are a married couple, now in their 80’s. I represented the wife and Jerry Shargel represented her husband over thirty years ago when they were convicted of tax offenses. She received probation and he served several months in jail. I believed the legal system was unfair to them thirty years ago and still believe that today. They have both led successful lives ever since that debacle and are now seeking pardons for one simple reason: They do not want to die as convicted felons. To them, it is a matter of dignity.

When I’m successful, nobody even learns that my clients were under investigation. But they know who they are and they are eternally grateful.

LD: How do you think about politics in relation to your practice?

NG: The short answer is: I don’t. I have never picked my clients or cases based on politics. I’m happy to take on liberal causes if the right opportunity presents itself, and just as happy to represent conservative individuals or institutions if the right opportunity presents itself. Once I accept a case, politics are irrelevant to me. I prefer to focus on winning.

LD: Your practice has always moved between complex civil litigation and criminal defense. How do you define your niche?

NG: My niche has always been the same. I was blessed to start my career working at Cravath for David Boies, who I consider to be the best civil litigator of our generation. I then went to work for Jerry Shargel, who I consider to be the best criminal defense lawyer of his generation. With mentors like that, there’s got be something wrong with you if don’t end up as a highly effective litigator and trial lawyer.

David taught me how to think through and litigate the most complicated civil disputes, as I started my career working for him on the Texaco/Pennzoil case. Jerry taught me how to try cases, how to stand in front of a jury, how to own a courtroom. Both taught me that nothing is more important than maintaining credibility before a judge and jury. Both taught me that there is no substitute for hard work. Both led by example.

I was fortunate to have tried many cases alongside both of them many years after I worked for them. And I continued to learn from them during those trials. That training was the foundation for my practice. It allows me to try a criminal case one month and a complex civil case the next.

LD: Let’s talk inflection points. Your career has had several major turns. Which ones stand out most when you look back?

NG: I can think of three off-hand. The first was leaving Cravath to work for Jerry Shargel, which was a very unorthodox move in 1990. Cravath associates simply did not leave to work for criminal lawyers like Jerry, who at that time was more known for defending organized crime figures than he was for representing white collar clients—even though he always successfully represented both. My move was even more controversial because I had declined Rudy Giuliani’s offer to become an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York. It is interesting to note that, later in Jerry’s career, associates from prestigious white-shoe firms would compete for positions working for him. But when I made the move, it was unusual and shocked many in the New York legal community. I took a chance, never looked back, and it turned out to be a great move for me.

The second inflection point was in 2000, when I was running Barrett Gravante, a small litigation boutique that was beginning to thrive and grow. One night, I had dinner with David Boies and his sons, Christopher and Jonathan, at Chin Chin in Manhattan. The dinner was intended simply to catch up. By the end of dinner, and after many Mai Tais all around, David and I agreed that Barrett Gravante should become Boies Schiller’s New York City office. Less than two months later, we merged. That was another great move.

The third was my decision twenty years later to leave Boies Schiller, where I was elected as one of two new managing partners and was David’s heir apparent as firm chair, to run and build the global litigation group at Cadwalader. I enjoyed my years at Cadwalader, made many friends there and was disappointed to leave, but the firm’s decision to merge with Hogan Lovells created conflicts for our group that could not be worked around. I’m a firm believer that everything happens for the best, and I’m thrilled that we quickly found a welcoming new home at Mintz.

LD: When you look back across your many significant cases, is there one that stands out for reasons people might not expect?

NG: So many of my cases have received publicity over the years – my fifteen years of work and two successful trials for Hank Greenberg, the AriZona Iced Tea trial victories, the big Texas verdict against Trinity Industries, the trial victory for Otto Penzler in Los Angeles, my work for Hunter Biden, Kanye West, Allen Weisselberg, former Islanders owner John Spano, and the acquittal of a young boy in a false confession arson case. But one case I still often think about is the Stephen Kovacs case.

Kovacs, an Australian national, had plead guilty to a relatively minor insurance fraud years earlier and already served his probationary sentence. The case had been in the rear view mirror for years as he led a successful life and built a thriving business in Florida. But later, unintended immigration consequences arose from that conviction as federal authorities tried to deport him. Those consequences were disproportionate to his offense and contrary to the advice he had relied upon in taking his plea. More significantly, they threatened to separate him from his wife, children, grandchildren and the successful business he had built for decades in Florida.

On constitutional grounds, we were able to challenge and have his conviction vacated years after his case had been over. That case has stayed top of mind with me because it reflects something I see in a lot of criminal matters: Sometimes the conviction or sentence is not the only problem. Sometimes the unintended consequences that flow from a conviction are what truly become unfair. But where there’s a will, there’s often a way. The best lawyers are accustomed to thinking out of the box and there is almost always a way to remedy injustice.

That’s why the pardon cases I’m doing right now are so important to me. Clients do not always understand what a conviction will mean years later. In Kovacs, I was able to find a path after lawyer after lawyer said it was too late. And the Second Circuit did the right thing. It dispensed justice and reunited a wonderful family. That kind of work is incredibly meaningful.

LD: That makes a lot of sense. What changes in the profession are you watching most closely right now?

NG: When I was coming up the ranks as a young lawyer, we were in the office five to seven days a week. We rolled up our sleeves and often worked 12 to 16 hour days. That was how you learned - by being around more senior lawyers, watching them work, having informal late night meals discussing cases with them in conference rooms, being randomly pulled into conversations for which your presence was unnecessary. You learned through osmosis on a daily basis by taking advantage of all of that informal mentoring. I worry that many young lawyers are not getting that experience in a profession that has become much more accustomed to working remotely.

The other major issue is AI. I am hardly a technology whiz, but I have seen firsthand how powerful a tool it can be as a starting point for factual and legal research as well as drafting. You have to check, double check and triple check everything, but AI can eliminate days, if not weeks, of work by instantaneously generating productive leads. I often wonder what that will mean for so many future young law school graduates. So much early training has historically come from carefully doing one’s own factual and legal research and drafting documents from scratch.

LD: Are you still involved in community work these days?

NG: I’m doing some work for my communities in Florida and Pennsylvania, but I’m largely done serving on the boards of non-profits, except for fund raising and personal volunteer work. I was recently appointed as an honorary life trustee of the Community Service Society of New York and still try to help the organization any way I can. I have agreed to introduce my former partner, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, when she is honored at the CSS gala in October.

As you know, over the years, I’ve served as board chair of several non-profits – Poly Prep Country Day School, Community Service Society of New York, Brooklyn Public Library, and the Lords Valley Country Club. Each of those positions took a tremendous amount of time and effort. At this stage of my life and career, as I mentioned before, on a professional level, I am singularly focused on practicing law and building out and expanding my practice at Mintz. On a personal level, I am focused on my family. My wife Jackie and I are fortunate to have three parents in their 90s who we look after and our three boys are still in school. So I’m keeping plenty busy and also looking out for my health by playing tennis as much as possible. I’ve had a great run, but have no intention of retiring or ending my practice of law, either voluntarily or involuntarily.

This is our 9th edition of this guide to the courageous advocates who are there for victims of discrimination, sexual abuse, police misconduct, civil rights violations and other unconscionable behavior. And right now, we maybe should give them a hand. They continue to fight the fight in some very bleak times – at least for those of us who believe in equality, civility, opportunity and all that.

Cathy Harris is a partner at Correia & Puth and embodies the sense and sensibility of those we honor here. After starting her career as an assistant district attorney in New York City, she moved to Washington, D.C. and became a dedicated advocate for employees, including federal employees, in individual and class actions and chaired Kator Parks Weiser & Harris’ Sexual Harassment and LGBT practice sections. President Biden appointed her to a 7-year term as a member of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, which adjudicates appeals by federal workers. The Senate confirmed Harris and she was sworn in as a member of the Board on June 1, 2022. She was acting chairman until 2023 when the Senate confirmed her as Chairman. And then came 2025. On his first day in office, President Trump removed her from the chairman post and weeks later fired her without cause, effectively shutting down the ability of federal employees to challenge their mass terminations, layoffs and other indignities. Harris sued and initially won her job back in federal district court. After a year of appeals, her case ended when the Supreme Court denied cert in June 2026, at the same time it overruled longstanding precedent regarding independent federal agencies. She now practices civil rights and employment law at Correia & Puth.

Earl S. Ward is a standout criminal defense and civil rights attorney at Emery Celli. Based in New York, he has dedicated himself to his practice and related volunteer efforts to improve the community. He began his career with the criminal defense unit of the Legal Aid Society then worked as a staff attorney at the New York Civil Liberties Union, where he handled police abuse and First Amendment litigation. He worked at the Neighborhood Defender Services of Harlem until he entered private practice in 1996. He practiced at his own firm – handling serious felony matters including homicide, death penalty and federal civil rights cases – before joining Emery Celli in 2012. There, he fights the fight for the wrongly accused, whether children or corporate executives.

Laura L. Ho of Oakland’s Dardarian Ho Kan & Lee has a similarly illustrious lineage of decades perfecting her employee, civil and consumer rights protection practice. From the Asian Law Caucus, she joined the ACLU Immigrants Rights Project, then became a partner at Goldstein Demchak/Goldstein Borgen before joining Dardarian Ho. She has recovered hundreds of millions for workers in California and nationwide from companies in the technology, home improvement, retail and gig sectors. She has represented tens of millions of consumers in successful class actions winning monetary judgment and significant reforms. Ho has also been instrumental in enforcing the California Voting Rights Act in cities including Anaheim, Palmdale, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale.

The research for this guide in particular is always uplifting, but often hurtful to know that we recognize roughly 600 lawyers on this guide, and there are thousands more who fight on. That’s in a time when more than 95,000 Black women have lost their federal employment since 2025, as have vast numbers of others who had dedicated their careers to the government to advance a common good. Let’s hold on and believe gold plated busts are not forever, and some of that lucre can go to protecting the least among us.

We selected these lawyers through our time-honed process combining independent journalistic research with a wealth of submissions. Our submission process is growing, and we are grateful for everyone who took the time to share their thoughts on lawyers deserving recognition here. We also vet candidates with peers and clients. Those denoted with an asterisk are members of our esteemed Hall of Fame. 

Williamson’s practice focuses on representing sponsors, private and public borrowers, financial institutions and other investors in a variety of financing transactions, with a focus on energy and infrastructure. Williamson’s practice covers acquisition financings, investment-grade lending, cash flow-based lending, asset-based lending (including reserve-based lending and securitizations for oil and gas transactions), mezzanine financings, private credit, and subordinated debt financings. She joins McGuireWoods after nearly a decade in Kirkland & Ellis’ Houston office, where she was a partner. 

“I am very excited to be joining the collegial team at McGuireWoods,” said Williamson. “I look forward to collaborating with my new partners and colleagues to help our clients achieve their business goals and objectives.”

Williamson’s arrival further expands the firm’s energy and infrastructure team in Houston. Last month the office welcomed deal lawyer David Aaronson, who represents domestic and international exploration and production (E&P) operators, middle-market private equity sponsors and their portfolio companies, energy services and infrastructure developers, and financial institutions. Mundo de la Fuente, who advises energy, infrastructure and data center developers, joined in January.

“Michelle’s experience financing transactions in energy, infrastructure and other industries will complement a host of corporate areas in Houston and around the country,” said Gerald V. Thomas II, deputy managing partner of the firm’s corporate practice.

“We are delighted that Michelle is joining our team,” said Kevin McGinnis, who chairs the firm’s Debt Finance Department. “She is known for mastering the details of her clients’ businesses, which is a key to earning critical trust needed in complex debt transactions.”

“Michelle’s acumen in financing and energy will bring tremendous value for our clients,” said Tyler VanHoutan, managing partner of the firm’s Houston office.

McGuireWoods’ Energy M&A and Finance Practice Group — ranked nationally by Chambers USA, the Legal 500 United States and Best Law Firms — combines focused industry knowledge, regulatory fluency and practical, business-driven solutions to ensure clients complete strategic transactions, secure financing and advance critical projects across the country.

McGuireWoods LLP is a leading international law firm with 1,000+ lawyers in 21 offices worldwide. It continuously ranks among the top firms in Financial Times’ prestigious North America Innovative Lawyers report. The firm has been recognized 20 times on BTI Consulting’s Client Service A-Team — elite firms singled out for client service excellence based on unprompted feedback from clients in major companies. Its full-service public affairs arm, McGuireWoods Consulting LLC, offers infrastructure and economic development, strategic communications and grassroots advocacy, and government relations solutions. For more information, visit www.mcguirewoods.com.