About 800 miles from Wall Street is Pomerantz’s Chicago office, where the firm continues its tradition as an innovator in securities litigation. Partner Joshua Silverman heads Pomerantz’s Chicago office. Throughout his nearly two-decade tenure as a partner, Silverman has spearheaded numerous high-profile securities class actions and secured historic court precedents, particularly concerning SPACs and other emerging issues. In a securities litigation against Grab Holdings, Inc. in 2025, Silverman secured an $80M settlement on behalf of the class – which is the second-largest settlement ever in a SPAC securities litigation.

Silverman also led ground-breaking litigation against Perrigo PLC, where he and co-counsel not only secured a $97M settlement for the class, but also set a historic precedent for investors in dual-listed shares when a U.S. federal court certified parallel classes of investors that purchased Perrigo shares on both the New York Stock Exchange and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. This was the very first time a court had certified a foreign purchaser class since the landmark Morrison decision limiting extraterritorial application of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Chicago Partner Omar Jafri also has an exceptional track record. Among other successes, he was an integral player in the Perrigo litigation, and led a securities class action against Forescout Technologies, Inc., which was dismissed twice before being revived by the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in a landmark decision that established important precedents favorable to defrauded investors. Last year, the Forescout litigation ultimately resulted in a $45M recovery for the class.

Lawdragon: Tell me about the history of this securities-oriented firm having an office in Chicago. 

Josh Silverman: The Chicago office was founded almost three decades ago. When I joined Pomerantz in 2006 there was just one partner, one associate and me. Today, there are two partners (Omar and me), two of counsel, three associates and a senior counsel. The senior counsel primarily focuses on pro bono work, and the rest of us are very actively prosecuting securities litigations. At any given time, we have a slate of between 20 and 30 active cases. 

LD: What types of cases is the office handling right now?

JS: Almost all are securities fraud cases. Occasionally, we get involved in a case that is not technically a securities fraud. For example, some crypto cases are not technically securities fraud because the underlying instruments are not technically securities. I’d say 99 percent of our work time is spent on federal securities fraud litigation.

LD: Why does having an office in Chicago make sense for a firm so dominated by securities litigation?

JS: There’s an immense amount of legal talent in Chicago, but not as much focus on securities litigation. In New York, many firms specialize in securities litigation, both on the plaintiff and defendant side. In Chicago, few do. That is both a plus and a minus. 

In the plus category, it means that there’s a wide talent pool available. But most are new to securities litigation, so we need to have a deep level of mentorship in our office. It’s something we have worked hard to develop.

SPAC litigation is another frontier where we have made big strides and made new law. 

LD: Omar, what brought you to Pomerantz?

Omar Jafri: I was fascinated by the fact that Pomerantz was the first firm in history to bring class and derivative actions on behalf of investors, and that our competitors followed later.

LD: What was the office like when you arrived?

OJ: I joined the office 10 years ago as an associate, just coming off a federal clerkship. I started working closely with Josh and Patrick Dahlstrom. Patrick was the co-managing partner of the firm at that time, and I learned a lot from him about our practice and how to litigate securities class actions.

Eventually I was made of counsel and then partner. Even while I was an associate and of counsel, Josh and Patrick gave me a tremendous amount of responsibility. I was often the lead litigator in some of the securities class actions assigned to me, and I did everything from developing theories of the case, interacting and negotiating with opposing counsel, and arguing in federal courts throughout the country. I argued more appeals as an associate and an of counsel than I have since becoming a partner.

Before being made partner, I handled six federal appeals in different Circuit Courts of Appeals. And that is experience that I would never have been afforded at a large defense law firm or maybe even in other plaintiffs’ shops. 

I feel very blessed in terms of the kinds of experiences that I have had and the leeway that I was given while at Pomerantz to become the kind of litigator that I wanted to be. I try to do the same with our associates and of counsel to help develop the next generation of talented plaintiff-side securities litigators.

LD: Can you tell me about some of the cases you’ve been handling?

OJ: Pomerantz has been at the vanguard of ground-breaking litigation post-Morrison, the Supreme Court decision which appeared to close U.S. federal courts to investors who purchased on foreign exchanges. Josh and I both worked on the Perrigo case, in which, persuaded by our arguments, the district court certified parallel classes of investors that purchased Perrigo shares on the New York Stock Exchange and on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. 

SPAC litigation is another frontier where we have made big strides and made new law. 

LD: Can you tell us more about why SPAC litigation is compelling?

OJ: In a SPAC-related merger, it is easier for companies to go public – the underwriting process is not as rigorous as for a traditional IPO. And obviously that means that there is a bigger risk that investors will be misled. 

SPACs have spawned a great deal of litigation. Josh and Brian O’Connell, who is of counsel in our office here, led the Grab litigation that settled for $80M a year ago – the second-largest SPAC-related settlement ever. I have also litigated and successfully resolved cases involving SPAC-related securities claims.

Some of the early SPAC cases filed by other firms raised claims only under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act or Section 11 of the Securities Act. But we as a firm, and the Chicago office in particular, take the position that claims under Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act should also be brought, because a de-SPAC transaction is fundamentally a merger as well as being like an IPO. 

With this approach, we have expanded the type and amount of damages that investors could recover, because there are more claims at stake. And I can affirm that in some of the cases we litigated, the damages increased because of the inclusion of Section 14 claims.

In many of our SPAC cases, all the claims were sustained and the litigations resulted in favorable recoveries for shareholders.

LD: Are there other significant areas where you’re litigating cases?

OJ: We have been involved in many cases against biopharmaceutical companies, especially newcomers to the industry attempting to bring novel drugs to market that aim to treat specific diseases or conditions that to date don’t have cures or have insufficient cures. So, cancers obviously, but also a host of other illnesses like ALS and MS. What we have noticed is that oftentimes defendants make representations about clinical trials or their communications with the FDA – which are almost always hidden from investors – that ultimately are not true or are misleading. 

Some drug executives hide problems from investors while trying to resolve issues privately with regulators. We represent those who are harmed by that trade-off.

LD: Why are so many of those cases popping up?

OJ: I think there are two reasons. One is that a lot of these companies are either one-trick ponies, or the drug is so critical to their operations that without it they may not have any business prospects.

The other reason is that there’s been a shift in the regulatory landscape. In the past, it was very difficult to get documents and information from the FDA. But very recently, in the previous six months for example, the FDA has started to release more information than it did before, including something called a Complete Response Letter, which is a document showing the FDA’s reasoning for rejecting a sponsor’s application.

We didn’t have access to that information before, and this change has given us new opportunities to find information that we wouldn’t have otherwise. 

LD: Does that information help you build stronger cases?

JS: Now that pharma companies can’t hide behind rules that make discovery so difficult, we do have a better record in these cases. And we are realizing just how common misrepresentations have been. Some drug executives hide problems from investors while trying to resolve issues privately with regulators. We represent those who are harmed by that trade-off, so we certainly are grateful for the government’s increased transparency. I won’t say the FDA is transparent yet, but it is getting better. It used to be a black box until a drug was fully approved, or until you got discovery in a case.

LD: Tell us about some of the major wins you’ve had out of Chicago in recent years.

JS: We have had a number of big wins in this office, from Perrigo to Grab to Forescout. Before that we inked settlements in cases like Aveo and MannKind. We also won the Groupon IPO case.

In the past year, we had $134M plus worth of settled cases. 

We litigate some small cases as well. I’m grateful for that, because it allows us to give our associates a leadership role under close supervision. We tell the associate: “This is your case. I’m the supervising partner, or Omar’s the supervising partner, but this is your case. You’re developing the theory of law. We’ll have dozens of conversations about it, but this is yours to develop.”

LD: What trends are you seeing in securities law?

JS: There are two themes we’re seeing. The first is probably related to a drop-off in enforcement from the SEC itself. There’s very little corporate-level enforcement these days, so I think a lot of companies are underreporting related-party transactions or known-sales impediments. I expect that private litigation will fill the gap as the government shrinks its formal enforcement role.

LD: Do you think that approach will continue? 

JS: It’s difficult to answer that question without knowing the composition of the SEC in 2028. It has been a fait accompli from the moment that Paul Atkins was appointed. He and Commissioner Peirce routinely dissented to enforcement actions, even against companies that were engaged in rather obvious frauds. So as he took control of the SEC, it was no surprise that enforcement receded to a lesser role.

I would like to see a strong enforcer leading that division of the SEC, even if that reduces our work. I believe it’s good for the country and our securities markets.

LD: What is the second trend? 

JS: The second is something that we have pushed hard against in this office and I’m proud of the results we’ve achieved. For the past few years, many executives have tried to manipulate corporate bankruptcies for their personal benefit. When a company goes bankrupt, the bankruptcy courts are supposed to protect the debtor corporation. Usually claims would proceed against the non-bankrupt executive defendants. But recently, bankruptcy attorneys have been pushing for courts to stop or release claims against the non-bankrupt executives as well. It’s very dirty – they do this because the executives they are trying to protect from personal liability are the same ones who hire counsel for the bankrupt company. 

Worse, many bankruptcy courts have gone along with the ploy. And when they do, the impacted investors get none of the protections that Article III courts afford absent class members. They do not even get the robust notice you would see in a securities class action. As a result, many are stripped by bankruptcy courts of valuable securities claims against non-bankrupt executives.   

Many of our peers are reluctant to get involved in bankruptcies and prefer to try to pick up the securities litigation after the bankruptcy is resolved. We took the opposite approach.

We see that as a blatant misuse of the bankruptcy law. The Supreme Court took an important step in the Purdue bankruptcy, which said a non-consensual release couldn’t release third-party liability. But there’s still debate about whether an opt-out release is consensual, and frequent abuse of the bankruptcy stay to halt litigation against non-debtors.

LD: What have you done to combat that tactic? 

JS: We’ve fought these vigorously through the course of numerous bankruptcies. It comes up all the time.

LD: What is your approach in these circumstances?

JS: We don’t hesitate. If there’s a bankruptcy involved, we will fight tooth and nail against any abuse we see. This happened to me a few weeks ago, in a securities class action against two executives who misled investors in Spirit Aviation.

Because the corporation was already in bankruptcy, we did not name it as a defendant. But the two executives – who helped retain bankruptcy counsel and oversee the restructuring – had the corporate debtors file an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court seeking a preliminary injunction preventing us from litigating the securities fraud action against the executives.

Many of our peers are reluctant to get involved in bankruptcies and prefer to try to pick up the securities litigation after the bankruptcy is resolved. We took the opposite approach. We immediately hired bankruptcy counsel and began drafting an opposition to the proposed injunction. Fighting in the bankruptcy court can be an uphill battle because they generally favor debtors. But we crafted a strong brief demonstrating that the injunction sought was not permissible under either securities law or the bankruptcy code. When the debtors in the bankruptcy received our opposition, they dropped their motion for preliminary injunction. They withdrew it entirely, which we think was the proper outcome.

LD: Tell me a bit about how you came to focus on securities fraud litigation for your practices?

OJ: I always wanted to be a plaintiffs’ lawyer from the start. Like most people do out of law school, I first went to a big defense firm, but my primary interest was to be on the right side of the “v.” I was also interested in financial litigation.

And what was terrific about Pomerantz is that it had this office in Chicago, and I had a priority to relocate to Chicago after my federal clerkship ended in Atlanta. Chicago was familiar because I had practiced here before, and I went to law school at the University of Illinois.

LD: And how about you, Josh? Before joining Pomerantz, you represented a future commercial commission merchant in commodities fraud and civil RICO cases.

JS: Yes, I primarily did defense-side work for the Chicago office of a national firm. But as my career progressed, I began to feel that I was fighting for the wrong side. I wanted to help people wronged by fraud, not to help people get away with it. I was already familiar with Pomerantz, and it was always my first choice, especially given my interest in securities. It has been a great fit ever since.

LD: Can you tell me about how your office operates in Chicago?

JS: We are very interactive. We do not stay in our own offices with doors closed, doing our own thing. We continually bounce ideas off each other, and that’s why I value us being in the office at least four days a week. Even our Fridays, which are remote-optional, are filled with phone calls connecting to discuss new ideas or case strategy.  

LD: And it sounds like you are committed to giving associates deep training early on.

OJ: Yes, that is why we litigate a variety of cases. But even in cases where Josh or I are the lead litigators, we try to give significant responsibility, including depositions and arguments in court, to all members of the litigation team.

JS: I agree with Omar. While I think both of us love to do arguments and depositions ourselves, we realize that it is often more valuable to expose the rest of the team to those experiences – with a good deal of preparation. For example, we will generally do multiple mock arguments, or dry runs through deposition outlines. It’s time-intensive, but well worth it. Few things are more rewarding than watching our associates and of counsel not only hold their own against leading partners from top defense firms, but outshine them.

LD: What’s next for you, and the Chicago operation?

JS: As long as there is still securities fraud, we will be here to fight it. I’m very happy with the Chicago team we have now and am grateful to work with such a strong group.

Li’s experience spans the full spectrum of wage and hour matters and representative actions under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). He has successfully defended domestic and foreign employers across industries, including industrial manufacturing, distribution and logistics, education, insurance, aerospace, retail, restaurant, hotel, natural resources and professional environmental services. Li comes to McGuireWoods from Seyfarth Shaw.

In a notable victory, Li helped defeat class certification in a series of wage and hour class and PAGA lawsuits brought by more than 25,000 delivery drivers against a California pizza company in a consolidated action. The California Court of Appeal affirmed multiple trial court orders denying class certification, and the California Supreme Court declined review in February 2025, ending the consolidated action after more than a decade of litigation.

“Leo enhances our capabilities in one of the nation's most active venues for employment litigation. His significant experience in wage and hour defense complements the strengths of our California team,” said Elena Marcuss, chair of the firm’s Labor & Employment Department.

Li's accomplishments have earned widespread recognition. Law360 named him a “Rising Star” for employment law in 2025, the Daily Journal selected him as a “Top 40 Under 40 Lawyer” in 2024, and Best Lawyers in America recognized him as “One to Watch” for management-side labor and employment law for three consecutive years.

“Leo excels at guiding companies through complex wage and hour cases and helping them manage risk,” said Noreen Kelly, McGuireWoods’ deputy managing partner for litigation. “He is an important addition to our West Coast practice at a time when employers need skilled advocates more than ever.”

McGuireWoods has a nationwide team of experienced litigators who defend and resolve wage and hour class and collective actions for employers of all sizes — from small businesses and nonprofits to governmental entities and Fortune 500 companies. The firm earned a nationwide ranking for labor and employment in the 2025 Chambers USA guide and national Tier 1 rankings for labor and employment litigation and management-side employment law in the 2026 edition of Best Law Firms.

“McGuireWoods has a national reputation for excellence in wage and hour and class action litigation. I am excited to be part of this thriving practice," Li said. “The firm's collaborative culture and commitment to building a premier West Coast practice make it the ideal platform to serve clients facing today's most challenging employment disputes."

Li’s arrival follows the recent additions of private equity partner Zachary Shub-Essig and securities enforcement partners Gary Leung and Jodi Lopez in the firm’s Los Angeles office. McGuireWoods also recently launched a Seattle office led by a nationally recognized litigation team.

"Leo’s talent and energy make him a perfect fit for our office," said Alice Youngbar, managing partner of the Los Angeles office. "Our clients will benefit from his practical approach to resolving disputes and his commitment to understanding their businesses from the inside out."

They inspire and lead as never before. They are impassioned, inclusive and represent a new era of what it looks like to lead a law firm.

They steer global enterprises whose success is measured in the billions; local law firms in a family’s third generation; midsized firms intensely competing for survival; and plaintiff firms finding the right cases and pathways to achieve lasting success.

There are tens of thousands of law firms in all shapes and sizes. All of which require the ability to manage independent-minded legal professionals who are recruited on an ongoing basis. All of which is made significantly more difficult by the hostile winds blowing through the global economy and the legal profession.

E. Leon Carter is the founder of Carter Arnett in Dallas and one of the leading lights of the estimable Dallas trial bar. A native of Carthage in East Texas, he has assembled his expertise in more than 100 trials, starting as a Dallas County Assistant District Attorney and Assistant Attorney General for the state of Texas. He became a partner at Jackson Walker before founding his own firm, which has 15 attorneys handling a wide array of business litigation.

Jennifer A. Post is Managing Partner of Thompson Coburn’s Los Angeles office, a member of the firm’s Management Committee, and leads its Emerging Companies practice. The first openly gay person to lead an office at Thompson Coburn, she has championed inclusion, mentorship and professional advancement for underrepresented groups. For more than three decades she has advised lenders, investors and high-growth companies in transactions, helming her own transactional law practice in Beverly Hills before joining Thompson Coburn in 2016. She has played a key role in firmwide initiatives that support diverse attorneys and create pathways to leadership within the corporate and finance practices.

Georgia Dawson became Senior Partner of Freshfields in 2021 – the first woman in the firm’s nearly 300-year history to hold the post. She drives the firm’s global strategy with an ambitious vision for the future. She began her career in Sydney, joining Freshfields in Hong Kong and London in 2004. Before her selection as Senior Partner, she was Asia Managing Partner and the Asia practice group leader for dispute resolution. She specializes in litigation and investigations across borders and jurisdictions, including money laundering, bribery and human rights breaches. A champion for diversity and inclusion, she fosters a progressive workplace and supports pro bono efforts that address structural inequality.

These leaders and others recognized here reminded us once again of the critical importance of leaders willing to embrace a positive vision of the future and find ways to achieve it. For some, that’s measured in dollars or footprint in global markets. For others, inclusion, opportunity and well-being. For others still preserving a legacy.

We truly appreciate the submissions from so many firms and the innovation, focus and drive nominated lawyers bring to their firms. We paired those submissions with our journalistic research to create this guide. Those individuals shown with an asterisk are members of Lawdragon’s Hall of Fame.

Weniger-Araujo and Sirabionian also counsel clients on reporting requirements, corporate governance matters, stock exchange rules and ongoing securities law compliance. In addition, Sirabionian has also represented entities in acquisitions and divestitures, spinoffs, joint ventures and “going private” transactions. Weniger-Araujo and Sirabionian join McGuireWoods from Loeb & Loeb.

“Alex and Andrei’s combined experience in SPAC transactions, IPOs and complex securities matters strengthens our ability to serve clients across the full spectrum of capital markets work,” said Richard W. Viola, deputy managing partner of the firm's corporate practice.

Before entering private practice, Weniger-Araujo led product development for a legal technology company, founded a real estate analytics SaaS platform and served as general counsel at a New York-based venture development firm focused on Seed to Series A stage companies.

“Alex and Andrei have built reputations as go-to advisors for SPAC transactions,” said Lake Taylor, chair of the firm’s Securities & Capital Markets Department. “Their ability to guide companies through the lifecycle of going public reflects the kind of comprehensive counsel McGuireWoods is known for delivering.”

McGuireWoods' Capital Markets Practice Group handles sophisticated securities transactions, including initial public offerings, follow-on equity offerings, debt offerings, SPAC IPOs and business combinations, private placements and PIPE financing transactions. The firm consistently earns top rankings for debt and equity issuances in authoritative league tables.

Weniger-Araujo and Sirabionian rejoin Los Angeles tax partner Shahrooz Shahnavaz, who arrived at McGuireWoods from Loeb & Loeb in 2025. The trio has collaborated extensively, with Shahnavaz advising on tax structuring for SPAC transactions and “de-SPAC” business combinations. The team is a mainstay in the SPAC ecosystem and has developed collective and deep-seated experience forged through the execution of a substantial and diverse transaction set.

“McGuireWoods' deep bench and diverse client base position the firm to deliver seamless, sophisticated counsel to guide clients through complex capital markets deals, including SPAC IPOs, operating company IPOs and, in particular, the nuances of SPAC business combination transactions,” Weniger-Araujo said. “This is a perfect fit for my practice.”

Sirabionian added: “McGuireWoods has an innovative and entrepreneurial corporate practice that excels at mobilizing cross-disciplinary teams to serve clients. That agility provides real advantages in today’s capital markets environment.”

Weniger-Araujo and Sirabionian continue McGuireWoods' expansion in New York and build on the firm's growing corporate and capital markets capabilities, said

Jeffrey Chapman, managing partner of the firm's New York office.

“We are delighted to welcome Alex and Andrei,” Chapman said. “Their arrival underscores our commitment to attracting top-tier talent with the skill and strategic vision to help clients achieve their goals.”

After three grueling years of law school, most new lawyers are happy to see the back of a classroom.

Not James Pullos.

Just after graduating from DePaul’s College of Law, he decided to turn right back around and attend the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business for his MBA – even as he was beginning a career in the Criminal Prosecutions Bureau of the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office.

“I wanted another challenge,” Pullos explains.

Driven by an insatiable thirst for knowledge and new perspectives, Pullos would drive straight from the courthouse during the day to his classroom at night, never telling his colleagues for fear they’d question where his heart lay – always, with the law. The secret didn’t come out until his wedding four years later, when Pullos’ best man mentioned his recent graduation from UChicago’s business school. Many of his State’s Attorney’s Office colleagues, dumbfounded, found out for the first time through that speech.

There’s a reason none of them knew: Pullos did his job, and he did it well. A passionate advocate for victims, Pullos quickly ascended through the ranks at the State’s Attorney’s Office, spending seven years in the Criminal Prosecutions Bureau before moving to the Civil Actions Bureau, where, within a year, he was promoted to Supervisor of the Torts and Civil Rights Division before becoming Supervisor of the Labor and Employment Division. Within those 14 years, he reached the heights of every department he joined, learning about every area of law he could.

Pullos doesn’t just gain knowledge – he finds new ways to put that knowledge into practice. With a career spanning both public and private practice and criminal and civil litigation, he has always looked toward the next challenge, the next idea – and, most importantly, the next way to help people in pain.

Being a lawyer, first and foremost, Pullos says, “is an incredible opportunity to be helpful to people who are in distressing, life-changing situations.”

Pullos carried on fulfilling that mission in private practice when he joined celebrated Chicago personal injury firm Clifford Law Offices in 2017. In the near-decade since, he has secured more than $100M for injured individuals and grieving families, with cases ranging from medical malpractice to trucking and motor vehicle collisions to sexual abuse and assault claims.

In 2024 alone, Pullos achieved a $1.5M result for a survivor of sexual assault by a sports coach and a $1.5M result for a mother who alleged that correctional officers could have prevented her son’s suicide; that year, he and his partners also achieved a $15M medical malpractice result for the parents of a baby who sustained a permanent brain injury and obtained $16M for the parents of a child killed in a semi-truck crash. In all of those cases, he is trial-ready, bringing more than 50 cases to verdict throughout his career – experience that has compounded from his earliest days as a lawyer.

“It is fulfilling to live up to our clients’ expectations – to be able to earn the trust that they give us,” Pullos says.

His exceptional advocacy for plaintiffs at Clifford has earned Pullos a spot on the Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers guide four years in a row.

Lawdragon: What first brought you to a career in the law?

James Pullos: I'm the youngest of six, and I was the first in my family to be able to go away to college and graduate from a four-year university. When I was a kid, I saw through civic and community leaders that lawyers are able to provide legislation that changes people's lives for the better, and they're able to fight for people inside a courtroom. I wanted to be someone who makes a difference in society. I also thought that if I could take a career path that would take me into the law, I'd be able to make my family proud.

LD: How did your first job with the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office play into that goal?

JP: It all really came together there. I was now in a position where I could stand up in court and speak on behalf of the community, and on behalf of the victims of crime or the families of victims of crime who are unable to speak for themselves. I was able to lend a voice to help empower them in a way that was so professionally satisfying. That's where I really knew that this is what our profession is, and this is why I was really proud to have gravitated toward it.

LD: You were there for 14 years, which is a long time in public practice. Tell me about your journey through those years.

JP: You could almost split my career there into two separate halves. For the first seven of those 14 years, I was working my way up on a criminal track to get to felony trial. Because of the way that promotions and movement work there, reaching the level of felony trial was always a destination as a criminal prosecutor. Once you make it into a felony courtroom, you're able to handle the most serious of the crimes. They're the most complex. They're the most challenging. They need a lot of technical expertise.

Eventually, I was right on the cusp of being promoted to be a first chair in the felony trial courtroom. But I ended up finding that the Office’s civil bureau was a chance to get a lot of experience and exposure to different practice groups, including federal and state torts and civil rights. It would be an extension of my trial experience from criminal courts over into the civil courtroom, and I'd use that as eventually a stepping stone so that I could go into private practice.

LD: Then what happened?

JP: Once I got down to the Civil Bureau of the State's Attorney's Office, there was a trial going against a big law firm in Chicago where we would be representing the sheriff’s office and deputies who were accused of excessive force. The trial was going to be in six weeks. It was a federal case, a giant file. But as I got involved, I realized that I knew these kinds of cases. From my time prosecuting aggravated battery to police officers, in prosecuting resisting arrest, I knew exactly what the evidence and the arguments were going to look like in order to show that these law enforcement officers didn't do anything wrong. I was able to bring the framework of my experience from criminal law into the case, and I ended up basically becoming the first chair on that trial.

Later, I became the supervisor of the Torts and Civil Rights Unit. I did that for three and a half years. After that, I was promoted to Supervisor of Labor and Employment; I wanted to learn more about the office and government.

 LD: Wow. That’s quite a journey. Do any cases stand out from your time there?

JP: One of the cases that stood out to me is when we prosecuted an individual who, in a case of mistaken identity, opened fire on our victim's car. The intended car was believed to have been involved in a dispute between two warring factions. Unbeknownst to them, rather than the people that they were targeting, the car contained three innocent people. The person sitting in the front seat on the passenger's side was shot and lived. But there was an eight-months pregnant woman in the passenger-side rear of the car, and she was shot and ultimately died. The evidence showed that there was a baby seat that had been placed in the driver’s-side rear seat. The area she was trying to get to had been blocked by the very car seat that was placed there for her prospective child. It was incredibly emotional.

LD: That’s heartbreaking. What were the biggest challenges in that case?

JP: With a case like that, we ended up dealing with a lot of witnesses who didn't want to cooperate. But we had a witness – the victim that survived – who, at the risk of his own personal safety, came forward and offered his testimony. As a prosecutor, you get the technical experience – the standing up, the decorum, the ability to think on your feet, the way to construct a direct examination, cross-examination, opening statements, closing arguments. But the thing that you also get out of those experiences is that you're dealing with people who are at the intersection of some of the most catastrophic events of their lives. They’re living with it. Even some of the witnesses are living with it. When you're interacting with those people, you see what everyday people are dealing with. You understand that, as a lawyer, your two greatest tools are being incredibly confident and being able to listen.

LD: How did all of that experience – on both the criminal and civil sides – feed into the work that you do now as a personal injury lawyer?

JP: At the end of the day, it's not just about punishment for the wrongdoing; it's about accountability, but it's also about making sure that the family gets just compensation. It's that the family is able to have answers to their questions and have some level of closure. Certainly, if you were to draw a fine line, my experience as a prosecutor provided the foundation. But eventually, as you are working on these cases, that experience keeps building on itself.

When you're interacting with those people, you see what everyday people are dealing with. You understand that, as a lawyer, your two greatest tools are being incredibly confident and being able to listen.

LD: Your personal injury cases run the gamut. What do you enjoy about that broad spectrum of work, and what do you find the keys to success are with that kind of widespread practice?

JP: Professionally, I like the challenge of being able to handle a diverse area of litigation. But I also will say that the exposure to diversity makes my case development better. You have to remain humble and show some humility for every case so that you don’t go into it saying, “I’ve done this before.” You have to be willing to reevaluate and reassess all the time.

LD: That makes sense. Then, once you entered private practice, what brought you to Clifford Law Offices?

JP: I wanted to work here because I knew that this law firm had a standing that was second to none. It’s personally and professionally an incredible privilege for me to work here. The draw for me was being able to work with my colleagues on cases involving some of the most important types of life situations. I feel really honored to be a member of the team.

LD: Are there any cases in particular that stand out to you from your time with the firm?

JP: We represented a family of a two-year-old who was brought to a daycare with no pre-existing health problems. When the child was dropped off, it was any other day. Early in the morning, the infant was recognized to have been unresponsive and leaning into a toy bin. He ended up passing away.

Our belief and our theory of the case is that this child died due to positional asphyxiation – the child was reaching into a deep toy bin, and the child, with shorter arms and a smaller body, positioned himself in such a way that his airway was cut off.

LD: That's horrible.

JP: That case was heavily litigated. Of course, the only just outcome would be that we go back to the day before this incident ever took place. Unfortunately, we can't do that. Because we can't do that, the only means of justice that we can give to our clients is financial compensation.

The daycare involved had limited insurance, but it took all of that litigation to force them to pay the million dollars available. To me, that should have been done before we even filed suit. We were able to secure the full amount of the insurance coverage, which, quite frankly, was not enough, because we were firm and resolute, and the clients were firm and resolute and prepared to try this case without any compromise.

It really starts with [firm founder] Bob Clifford – that position that we are not willing to compromise. We're going to do the right thing. And the right thing in that situation was to hold the line to make sure that they get that full million dollars.

LD: Right. And because the firm has that reputation for trial readiness, does that act as a strong negotiating tool?

JP: Absolutely. Back to the diversity of my work, being trial-ready on a host of cases across the spectrum provides a unique readiness and competency that ultimately only drives for the best results.

LD: To that end, what do you find most satisfying about your work?

JP: In a small way, and with the greatest amount of modesty, to be able to make a difference in incredibly trying circumstances. I understand that the relationship we develop with our clients is forced. The clients do not want to be there. They don't want to be talking to us. They've just had something catastrophic happen to them. And now here they are with us, trusting us. It is fulfilling to live up to their expectations – to be able to earn the trust that they give us.

LD: That’s a great point. Then, finally, what keeps you busy outside the office?

JP: I'm one of the coaches on my son's eighth-grade basketball team, which just won the South Suburban Basketball League championship. Then, spending time with my family. I'm married, and I have three children – a senior in high school, a sophomore and an eighth grader. As they're getting their independence, I have a little independence – so, weather-permitting, I like to get outside and be active.

Trial lawyer Rogge Dunn is known for his wide-ranging expertise and passions. A lifelong learner, Dunn is a dedicated student of psychology, geopolitics, history – and, of course, the law. He researches and writes about the psychology of persuasion for D CEO Magazine. He has traveled to Kyiv, Ukraine, to advocate for the Ukrainian cause, raising significant funds for charities Mental Help Global and The Borderlands Foundation. And, as a dedicated history buff, his office displays his eclectic personal collection of rare art and historical artifacts that are part of the permanent collections at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, the Smithsonian Institution and the Victoria and Albert Museum in London.

While they may not seem directly connected, these numerous passions make Dunn a truly singular lawyer. 

Founder of Dallas-based trial boutique Rogge Dunn Group, Dunn’s multifaceted practice encompasses seemingly every polar opposite within civil law. He represents both plaintiffs and defendants at a nearly even split; his clients are both individuals and companies. As a sixth-generation Texan, he represents clients located in his home state, but also throughout the U.S. and as far as Scotland and Qatar. He is one of fewer than 30 attorneys in Texas Board-Certified in both civil trial law and labor and employment law. And just a few of the areas of law he’s successfully practiced over the years include employment, sports and entertainment, whistleblower and qui tam, sexual harassment and abuse, FINRA, business disputes and trade secrets. Altogether, he has secured more than $2B (net) for his clients in his 35-plus year career.

What unifies his practice and his out-of-office pursuits: a mission to find new ways to help people. As a student of history, Dunn believes that we are doomed to repeat it if we don’t make a change. In all of his work, no matter the practice area or side of the V, he strives to do just that.

Dunn has consistently taken on challenging, high-profile work to stand up for underdogs. Last December, Dunn made history when he secured the first successful trial win under a new Texas law making individual business owners and employees personally liable for sexual harassment, rather than requiring plaintiffs to sue the company exclusively. In a six-day trial, Dunn argued that his client suffered traumatizing sexual harassment, assault and retaliation at the hands of her employer's CEO, a well-known Dallas-area real estate mogul. Dunn won $5.75M, reported as the third-largest sexual harassment judgement for a single plaintiff in Texas history.

In a similar matter, Dunn and partner Collin Quigley are currently litigating a gender discrimination and Equal Pay Act case against advertising heavyweight Omnicom Group, alleging that a former high-level female executive was consistently paid less than her male counterparts over her two-decade career.

If it’s a David versus Goliath matter, Dunn is always prepared to fight: Looking back to 2009, when defendant Goldman Sachs offered his financial advisor clients $60,000 in a wrongful discharge and deferred compensation suit, Dunn pushed ahead – and was eventually awarded $7.9M at arbitration.

Then, there are his celebrity clients; just a few of the other individuals he’s represented: former Dallas Mavericks President and GM Donnie Nelson, Houston rapper Bun B, Kidd Kraddick Morning Show co-host “Big Al” Mack, Basketball Hall of Famer Larry Brown and former MLB Manager Buck Showalter.

In recognition of his wide-ranging work, Dunn is a member of four simultaneous Lawdragon guides: The Lawdragon 500 Plaintiff Financial Lawyers, The Lawdragon 500 Leading Corporate Employment Lawyers, The Lawdragon 500 Leading Civil Rights & Plaintiff Employment Lawyers and The Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers.

Lawdragon: Does your career now look how you imagined it might when you first started out in the law?

Rogge Dunn: I always enjoyed trial work – the hand-to-hand combat. I would say the only thing that changed is when I started out, I wanted to be a lawyer's lawyer, so I didn't spend any time on business development, which actually was good for me because 110 percent of my time was on learning the craft of being a lawyer. Later, I started putting the effort and thought into developing business to give me greater opportunities for going out on my own. That’s how I developed my own set of Fortune 500 clients as well as some of the top C-level executives in both the corporate world and in the sports and entertainment arena, which is one of the areas I’m most excited about – helping young athletes, coaches and sports executives.

LD: What do you enjoy most about representing those folks?

RD: Well, first of all, they're interesting people. Second, the sports industry is dynamic and growing. I've handled a number of these cases including winning a summary judgment for Texas Tech against Coach Mike Leach in his $20M+ lawsuit and representing the Title IX Coordinator who blew the whistle on the gang rapes at Baylor University. I've handled NIL matters on the college front. It's exciting because, in sports law, every day you face new and unique legal issues. I love addressing cutting-edge legal issues. I also represent entertainment personalities. They have a lot of interesting stories, experiences, and legal issues, as well. They're fun people. 

LD: You’ve spoken extensively about the psychology of working with the jury, but what about with your clients? How do you use your psychological research when you're working with them, as well?

RD: You always have to remember that if you want to help your clients, you need to be able to effectively communicate with them. I don't believe in using psychology to persuade the clients toward a particular course of action. I believe in educating them so they can make an independent, informed choice. “Here are two or three paths that you can take regarding your legal problem. Here are the pros and cons and cost of each one of those paths.” 

LD: They're also going through some of the highest-stress moments of their lives. How does your understanding of psychology help you manage that with them?

RD: It helps to be understanding of and empathetic to those clients. Lawyers are notorious talkers and bad listeners, so you've got to listen to those clients to understand their problems, and, to a certain extent, let them vent. Now, I do tell my clients when they start venting, “Look, I’m happy to listen all day, but I’m charging you $1,750 an hour, and I’m not the most touchy-feely guy. Your money would be better spent talking to a counselor who’s going to be $400 or $500 an hour.”

LD: Right.

RD: I always think of the long run. If you give clients a path for a good, prompt resolution, with a minimum of attorney's fees, guess what? You get multiple repeat clients and multiple referrals. If you take a path of, “How much can I charge?” that’s not ethical and you end up with a one-time client. I think one of the reasons for my success is I practice law the right way. I listen to the clients, understand their goals, and then I try to achieve their goals quickly, confidentially and cost-effectively.

I believe in educating [clients] so they can make an independent, informed choice.

LD: Does that involve picking your battles to a certain extent, especially in a longer case?

RD: Sure. Well, picking the battles that produce results. I always tell clients, “I can be extremely aggressive and play hardball. But when you throw that fastball at a hundred miles an hour, if they hit it back, it’s going to be coming back at you 200 miles an hour. Get ready and understand that there’s a lot of cost to playing hardball.”

LD: Stepping away from the courtroom, tell us about your work in Ukraine and with Ukrainian war veterans. What drove that specific interest?

RD: I traveled to Ukraine with General Petraeus on a charity mission. I've always fought for, believed in, and rooted for the underdog. I think about what Putin and Russia have done, and as a student of history, if we don't stand up and stop it, the next thing you know, he may attack other European countries. Plus, I saw firsthand what the Ukrainians are going through. 

LD: What stories stick with you the most from your visit there to Kyiv last May?

RD: My guide took me out into some of the war-torn areas. She sends a care package every month to the troops. She said, “Rogge, what do you think they want the most?” I said, “Cigarettes.” She said no. I said, “Well, let's see. Socks.” She said, “No. Toilet paper.” And I thought to myself, we all go home at night, hug our families, and get into a warm bed. And here are these troops on the front lines, away from their families, in the freezing cold, many of them knowing that guy or gal next to them is going to die. And they don't even have enough toilet paper.

LD: Obviously it is very different from your legal practice, but do some of the themes of why you care about that work come up in your legal work, as well?

RD: Yes. It’s the courage of people to fight against long odds, not give up, and to stand up to a bully like Putin. Just to give you a perspective, when I was there, every day, the sirens went off, and every day there were drone attacks. They would start the attacks at three in the morning and go till nine in the morning. Let's say you're in an apartment building with young kids. Well, you’ve got to go down to the basement with a 2-year-old, a 6-year-old, 10-year-old, after waking 'em up at three in the morning. They're among dozens of crabby, crying and screaming kids. Nobody can sleep. And then you have to try to get the kids off to school. You have to go to work sleep deprived. So it's very psychologically effective warfare. It breaks your spirit. It also reduces the productivity of the workforce. They go to work and they're tired, operating at 60, 70 percent of their mental acuity and making mistakes.

LD: Wow. And speaking of people standing up for themselves, that’s been true for many of your cases. Looking at your recent sexual harassment case that concluded in December, tell me about how that kind of work has been a part of your practice and how you became involved in the case.

RD: It's always been part of a significant part of my practice, both for plaintiffs and defense-side for companies. This case was a labor of love; I took it on pure contingency. I spent more than $180,000 of my own money in litigation expenses. And they fought it hard. We had, I think 10 or 12 depos, and now he's fighting the judgment, so unfortunately, neither my client nor I has seen any money yet. But I would gladly spend another $180,000 and do it all over again, because the good news is I vindicated my client. We have a groundbreaking ruling in place. I don't know that he'll ever change, but hopefully other executives like him will see this and change.

I think one of the reasons for my success is I practice law the right way. I listen to the clients, understand their goals, and then I try to achieve their goals quickly, confidentially and cost-effectively.

LD: On that note of change, tell us about how this case fell under the new 2021 law that held the defendant personally liable instead of just the company, and how that law is going to help other survivors as well.

RD: We started by suing both him and his company. First of all, the normal sexual harassment law only applies to employers with 15 or more employees. If a company has 10 employees, you can't sue the company for sexual harassment, but now you can sue the individual. Then, his company declared bankruptcy, so the only avenue we had was to continue the lawsuit against the executive. So, one of the reasons this law is so important is it gives you an avenue to pursue a sexual harassment claim against an individual in addition to or instead of a company. Individuals are less likely to want to declare personal bankruptcy to try and wipe out a judgement. And, more importantly, if an individual's reputation is on the line, they or the company may be more likely to come forward and resolve it early. That's a really powerful law.

LD: This case was the first verdict under this law. Did the newness cause any challenges?

RD: It required some thought as to the interplay between defendants when we were in the stage of suing both the company and the individual. At the time of trial, the company had been dismissed because it had declared bankruptcy. But until then, yes, the challenge was determining strategy for where we wanted to put our emphasis.

LD: This result has been reported as the third-largest single-plaintiff sexual harassment judgement in Texas history. What did that mean to you?

RD: It was extremely gratifying to me. This has always been a subject near and dear to my heart.

LD: Where else are you focusing your attention now?

RD: I'm handling whistleblower, Sarbanes-Oxley and qui tam cases. I’m also working on mass tort cases representing consumers who contracted cancer after using Roundup and talc. I'm particularly proud of that work because I'm helping consumers and employees regarding the health, safety and public welfare issues – whether it's pollution, selling a cancer-causing product, misrepresenting the nutritional components of food or anything else. I recently represented a Wall Street whistleblower, a financial advisor who blew the whistle on deceptive and misleading tactics by a huge financial Wall Street firm. That was really important, and that's one of the biggest cases I had last year. I certainly felt good protecting the public and investors in that case.

Lionberger brings more than 15 years of experience advising clients on their most significant transactions and complex corporate matters. He represents both issuers and underwriters in public offerings, including traditional IPOs, follow-on offerings, and de-SPAC transactions. He also advises on M&A deals, private equity transactions, and securities law matters. The Legal 500 US has recognized Lionberger as one of the nation’s top corporate lawyers, and his work spans a range of industries that align with O’Melveny’s strengths, including energy, transportation, infrastructure, and technology.

Lionberger comes to O’Melveny from the Houston office of Holland & Knight, where he was a partner in several of that firm’s practices, including Corporate Services, Public Companies & Securities, Mergers & Acquisitions, Private Equity, and Energy. His arrival accelerates O’Melveny’s rapid expansion in the Lone Star State. He is the sixth lateral partner to join the firm’s Houston office in two years. And since 2021, O’Melveny has added 90 lawyers—including 32 partners—across its offices in Houston, Dallas, and Austin.

“Doug is a fantastic addition to our fast-growing Houston office and to our talented Capital Markets team,” said O’Melveny chair Bradley J. Butwin. “Our clients in Texas and beyond will benefit from Doug’s deep experience and versatility across capital markets and M&A transactions, especially in the energy and transportation sectors. It is a pleasure to welcome him to O’Melveny.”

“I’m delighted to join O’Melveny and excited to be part of the firm’s rapid expansion in Houston,” said Lionberger. “I was drawn to the firm’s broad platform, sterling reputation, and collaborative approach to client service. I’m looking forward to working alongside O’Melveny’s top-notch Capital Markets lawyers, and to making this firm my professional home for years to come.”

The addition of Lionberger further propels O’Melveny’s continued strategic growth. He is the fourth lateral partner to join the firm’s Capital Markets team in the past year—following the arrivals of Houston partner James R. Brown earlier in March and New York partners Andra Troy and David Ni in 2025. And Lionberger is the 48th lateral partner to join O’Melveny since 2023, including 29 corporate partners.

Lionberger earned his J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law and his B.A. from Texas A&M University.

About O’Melveny

It’s more than what you do: it’s how you do it. Across sectors and borders, in board rooms and courtrooms, we measure our success by yours. And in our interactions, we commit to making your O’Melveny experience as satisfying as the outcomes we help you achieve. Our greatest accomplishment is ensuring that you never have to choose between premier lawyering and exceptional service. So, tell us. What do you want to achieve? Visit us at www.omm.com; learn more in our firm at-a-glance; and find us on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube.

These amazing advocates find pathways to justice for investors who have been defrauded, companies who have been blocked from fair competition and consumers who have been duped, hornswoggled and otherwise had their rights trampled on by ruthless corporations, from social media to pharmaceuticals.

This is our 9^th edition reporting on leading lights of the plaintiff financial bar. This guide and the practices it represents have grown exponentially since 2007, when we first published a guide to plaintiff lawyers. Resumed in 2019, it reflects the astounding scale of wealth and, some would say, greed that permeates big business.

Year by year, the accomplishments of these lawyers astound in both the sheer size of the financial compensation they achieve and in the perseverance and legal skill required to succeed in these cases.

Sharon K. Robertson of Cohen Milstein in New York is a standout in pharmaceutical antitrust litigation, among the range of class action matters she handles. Based in New York, she leads the firm’s innovative pay-for-delay lawsuits alleging pharmaceutical brand manufacturers entered into non-compete agreements with generic manufacturers to delay entry of lower-priced generic products. She also leads claims that some generic drug manufacturers conspired to inflate prices of their drug products. She was part of the trial team that won a $400M verdict in In re Urethanes Antitrust Litigation, which was trebled to $1.2B – the largest price-fixing verdict in U.S. history. She was also on the team that won Public Justice’s 2024 Trial Lawyer of the Year award for their work holding Exxon Mobil accountable for atrocities committed by its contractors on Indonesian villagers.

W. Mark Lanier of Houston’s Lanier Law Firm brings his powerful advocacy to the courtroom winning groundbreaking verdicts time and time again. Recently, he won a breakthrough battle to begin to hold social media accountable, leading a team that won $6M for an individual against Meta and YouTube for intentionally building an addictive social media platform. He has won more than $20B in verdicts, including a $650.6M jury verdict against retail pharmacies including CVS, Walgreens and those operated by Walmart for failure to follow guidelines when dispensing opioids. He won his first eye-popping verdict, for $480M, in 1990 for Rubicon on its claim Amoco wrongly backed out of a contract to buy Wyoming oil fields. He is also a pastor, founder of the Christian Trial Lawyers Association and a Sunday School teacher on Biblical literacy to 700 members of the Champion Forest Baptist Church.

Kara M. Wolke is co-chair of Glancy Prongay’s Securities Litigation practice. The Los Angeles-based Wolke served as lead counsel in In re: Alibaba Group Ltd. Securities Litigation, winning $433.5M for investors who claimed they were misled in disclosures about the company’s antitrust regulatory risks and compliance. She also was on the team that successfully defeated the claim of copyright ownership to the song “Happy Birthday to You” on behalf of artists forced to pay licensing fees. They won $14M and the song was put in the public domain. She leads the firm’s pro bono efforts and is a volunteer attorney for KIND (Kids In Need of Defense), representing unaccompanied immigrant and refugee children in custody and deportation proceedings, and helping win legal permanent U.S. residency status.

We selected members of this guide through our time-honed process of submissions, independent research and vetting. We are extremely grateful for the submissions we received. Members of the Hall of Fame are denoted with an asterisk.

Before entering the legal profession, Lauren Smith studied Ancient Greek and Latin – disciplines that demand exceptional precision and intellectual discipline. That early academic foundation cultivated in Smith both a facility with complex systems and a lasting respect for rigorous analytical thinking.

These qualities naturally led her toward the practice of law, which she says appealed to her for “the intellectual rigor of legal practice and the opportunity to apply analytical thinking to real-world challenges.” Smith began her law career in commercial litigation before moving in-house in the real estate sector. Over time, her focus shifted from the combative cadence of litigation to the strategic architecture beneath it.

“Ultimately, the more adversarial and routine aspects of litigation came to outweigh the strategic thinking and problem-solving that I found most energizing,” Smith says.

After nearly a decade in practice, she made the move into legal recruiting – a path that, she says, “provides the ideal opportunity to bring these strengths together in a dynamic, relationship-driven environment.”

Today, Smith is a Senior Partner at CenterPeak, where she advises preeminent partners across M&A, private equity, real estate, antitrust, regulatory, litigation and white-collar crime & investigations in major markets nationwide. The firm is known for its work on strategic expansion and complex partner and practice group placements for elite law firms. For more than a decade, Smith has guided lawyers through pivotal career decisions – aligning ambition with opportunity and building substantive, enduring relationships.

Lawdragon: Tell us about your career path. You began your career in practice. How does that experience inform the way you advise both partners and firms today?

Lauren Smith: I began my legal career at Venable, first as a paralegal and later, after graduating from law school, as a commercial litigation associate in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. As an associate, I worked on large, complex matters, frequently involving real estate transaction disputes and other commercial business disputes and also gained experience with regulatory issues in the transportation and international trade practice areas. I subsequently moved to an in-house role at a private real estate company in the Los Angeles area before returning to Washington, D.C. and transitioning into legal recruiting.

I believe that my experience practicing law provided the foundation and credibility that was essential to my success in legal recruiting. Specifically, my law practice gave me the opportunity to understand how a law firm functions and also how partners interact and build relationships with their colleagues and their clients. 

LD: Looking back, how did your undergraduate and legal education prepare you for the advisory role you now occupy?

LS: I was a double major at Cornell University, where I studied Classical Languages and Government. That interdisciplinary foundation exposed me early to rigorous modes of thinking and analysis. The study of classical languages demands precision and close textual analysis, which strengthened my attention to detail and sharpened my writing. At the same time, my studies in Government encouraged me to think critically about institutions and the systems that shape them.

I later earned my law degree from William & Mary Law School. My legal education further developed my analytical skills and gave me a deeper understanding of law firm culture and professional identity. It also introduced me to a network that continues to inform and enrich my work today.

Together, these experiences shaped my ability to think carefully about both the intellectual and institutional dimensions of legal practice – a perspective that is essential when advising lawyers on pivotal career decisions.

My law practice gave me the opportunity to understand how a law firm functions and also how partners interact and build relationships with their colleagues and their clients. 

LD: You work with elite partners and firms across major markets. How would you describe your role in the lateral marketplace?

LS: I work with preeminent partners with robust practices across a range of areas, including M&A, private equity, real estate, antitrust, litigation and white-collar crime & investigations at elite law firms. I have made significant partner placements in Washington, D.C., New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco and Boston, among other major markets. In doing so, I have built meaningful, long-term relationships and developed a carefully tailored approach to each representation. I continue to build and maintain this network of relationships on a daily basis with both candidates and clients.

LD: What made you see recruiting not simply as a career change, but as a natural extension of your experience in practice?

LS: I unknowingly became involved in recruiting when I was practicing law at Venable by co-leading the Summer Associate program for two summers. In addition, I was actively involved in the lateral process.  At that point, I realized that recruiting was something I enjoyed, but did not consider it as a professional option. I moved into recruiting after practicing law because I was seeking a new career path that would continue to leverage my knowledge of the law, law firms and my professional network, while also integrating my sales acumen and genuine enjoyment of working with people. Legal recruiting has provided me with the ideal opportunity to bring all of my strengths together in a dynamic, relationship-driven environment.

LD: What do you find most rewarding about advising lawyers at pivotal moments in their careers?

LS: Every engagement is different, presenting new challenges as well as opportunities to learn something new. I am constantly meeting new people, gaining insight into their practices and identifying ways I can help them grow.

When my interests align with a lawyer’s goals, the relationship becomes a true partnership. Over time, I am able to develop deep, lasting client relationships. Lawyers are a pleasure to work with – they are intelligent, driven and highly motivated. This work is also extremely rewarding professionally.

LD: What is one placement or strategic transition that stands out as particularly complex or impactful?

LS: One of the most interesting experiences of my recruiting career occurred early on, when I helped merge a small national security firm into a larger firm. That transition significantly elevated the lead partner’s practice, as well as that of his supporting partner. It was an invaluable opportunity for me to work closely with a group and gain firsthand insight into the many complexities involved in such a process.

LD: Did you always imagine yourself in an advisory role?

LS: Early in my career, I envisioned myself as a trial lawyer, and for a time I genuinely enjoyed that work. Over time, however, I came to realize that the more adversarial and procedural aspects of litigation began to outweigh the strategic thinking and problem-solving that I found most rewarding. Ultimately, I was drawn to a role that allowed me to engage more directly in advising and strategy. A career that combines advisory work with the dynamic, relationship-driven elements of business development has proven to be an ideal fit.

Lawyers are a pleasure to work with – they are intelligent, driven and highly motivated.

LD: Were there mentors or formative influences who shaped how you approach your career?

LS: I was fortunate to have two remarkable mentors during my undergraduate years at Cornell: my Latin professor, David Mankin, and my advisor and Constitutional Law professor, Jeremy Rabkin. Both played an important role in shaping my intellectual development and personal growth during that time, and I remain deeply grateful for their guidance. They were – and remain – extraordinary scholars, and their influence has stayed with me throughout my career.

When I first entered the recruiting profession, Amanda Ellis was also instrumental in opening doors and helping me find my footing in the field. Amanda is a truly remarkable recruiter and an exceptional person, and I learned a great deal from her example.

There are, of course, many others to whom I am grateful as well. At different stages of my career, I have benefited enormously from the generosity, mentorship and encouragement of people who were willing to invest their time and insight in my development.

LD: What advice do you have now for current students or young professionals who wish to have a similar type of career?

LS: My advice would be to pursue courses that are intellectually rigorous, explore a broad range of interests and focus your education on substantive learning. I also recommend striving for the strongest academic performance possible – whether in undergraduate or graduate school – as strong grades preserve optionality and open doors. Equally important, pursue work you genuinely enjoy; the financial rewards tend to follow. Finally, remember that relationships drive careers today. Do not underestimate the value of a strong network – stay in touch with people, invest in those connections and make your interactions meaningful.

LD: How would you describe your style of philosophy in this work? What characteristics does it take to thrive in your area?

LS: My advice would be to focus on building deeply substantive, long-term relationships with both candidates and clients, with the goal of becoming a trusted and indispensable resource. That means consistently providing real value so that people return to you over time and view you as their first call when they have questions about the legal market, are considering a career move, or need help with hiring.

Success in this field requires a combination of strong communication skills, excellent time management, patience, discipline and organization, along with sound business development instincts. But just as important is the ability to build and sustain meaningful professional relationships over time. The most successful recruiters are those who approach their work with a long-term perspective and invest in relationships that continue to grow and evolve throughout their careers.

LD: What advice would you give potential clients in terms of how to most productively work with a legal recruiter?

LS: To achieve the greatest success, I strongly encourage clients to approach the relationship as a true partnership. This means being highly responsive, providing prompt and clear feedback on submitted candidates and fostering a relationship built on trust so that both sides benefit. As recruiters, we are experts in our field and our ability to deliver optimal results depends on receiving timely, complete and thoughtful information from our clients. 

This extraordinary group of lawyers bring their skills in international arbitration, infrastructure development, M&A, energy finance, investigations and many other specialties to a region in the global spotlight. The lawyers recognized here work in many cases at firms that are among the world’s most powerful, based in the U.S., South America or elsewhere. They chiefly represent corporate interests, which is the criteria for this guide.

However, each of them deals with the ripples from the impact of a raft of other actions, many of them allegedly extra-judicial. That matrix involves some of the world’s top civil rights, criminal defense and other lawyers whose legal work will have vast implications in this region. Standout criminal defense lawyer Barry Pollack of Harris St. Laurent in D.C. is defending deposed Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro on charges of narco-terrorism conspiracy. Baher Azmy of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York alongside the ACLU is suing on behalf of those killed in boat strikes in the Caribbean. At this writing, Cuba is still under threat of being taken over.

Against this quickly shifting geopolitical backdrop, the lawyers, as ever, continue the work.

Among this year’s honorees for this guide is Nicole Duclos, the head of Covington’s Latin America Initiative. Based in New York, she is a renowned international arbitrator who has worked on disputes in a vast range of jurisdictions and before countless boards and authorities. Her Latin America portfolio of projects has involved construction of toll roads in South America, a post-M&A dispute involving the majority shareholder of a Latin American financial institution, a Korean engineering company in a dispute with a South American State agency over a major infrastructure project in South America, and leading mining companies in arbitrations arising out of major mining projects in South America. Born in Chile, she earned her law degree from the Universidad de Valparaíso then received her LL.M. from Harvard Law School.

Augusto ‘Gus’ E. Maxwell is head of the Cuba practice at Akerman in Miami. A Cuban American, he has worked since 2003 on efforts at normalization, helping Fortune 500 and other businesses develop viable interests in Cuba. He helped a home-sharing company successfully launch its Cuba operation, represented JetBlue in becoming the first U.S. air carrier to regularly travel to and from the island, and helped Stonegate Bank become the first U.S. commercial bank to form a correspondent relationship with a Cuban bank. Recently, he has advised on the Trump Administration’s travel ban and other developments throwing the region into uncertainty.

J. Mathias von Bernuth is an M&A partner in Skadden’s São Paulo office. He provides New York law advice to a range of Brazilian, Latin American and international companies; works on cross-border investigations for entities and boards of directors; and handles massive debt and equity offerings and restructuring. He received his Dr. jur. From the University of Munich and his LL.M. from Columbia University Law School. Among his notable M&A work is representing the board of directors of the educational tech company Arco Platform Limited in taking the company private, Embraer S.A. in its contemplated $4.2B sale of 80 percent of its commercial aircraft and services company to Boeing and Hidrovias do Brasil in the acquisition of the South American shipping business of Imperial Logistics Ltd.

We selected this guide seeking lawyers practicing in South America as well as global lawyers whose practices either largely focus on South America or whose cases or deals include some of the biggest matters on that continent. We used our time-honed process combining fabulous nominations (gracias! Obrigado!) with journalistic research and discussions/vetting with peers and experts.

As with our prior 100 lists, this is our take on the leading lights across a sampling of firms and practices. It is our 2^nd edition of a snapshot guide to lawyers that corporate America needs to know in one of the world’s most vibrant regions, with treasure troves of resources, people and, of course, lawyers.

Those with asterisks are members of our Hall of Fame.