Geralyn Trujillo and Carrie Syme have followed similar professional trajectories to reach their current roles as partners in the Antitrust and Competition Litigation Practice Group of DiCello Levitt in New York. After graduating from law school, both joined Big Law firms – Trujillo at Skadden and Syme at Patterson Belknap – before breaking from that career track to serve in government enforcement roles. Trujillo spent five years in the antitrust bureau of the New York State Attorney General’s office and nearly a decade at the Federal Trade Commission, while Syme served 13 years in the antitrust division of the U.S. Department of Justice, prosecuting price-fixing, bid-rigging and market-allocation conspiracies.
Both recently returned to private practice, joining DiCello Levitt, a powerhouse plaintiffs’ firm with some major wins in recent years in class action, antitrust and other complex litigation. “The experience you get in government to really investigate and develop a case is very similar to what we do here at DiCello Levitt,” Trujillo says, “and we get to continue enforcing the antitrust laws.” After years of seeing “too much about corporate America to want to represent them,” Syme says, plaintiffs’ work feels like a natural continuation of their mission to hold powerful actors accountable.
That commitment now drives them in cases ranging from alleged anticompetitive conduct in the streaming television market to novel antitrust theories aimed at protecting vulnerable populations – work they believe could help expand the Sherman Act’s reach.
Lawdragon: What did each of you do while you were in public service?
Geralyn Trujillo: I was at the New York Attorney General's office in the antitrust bureau before moving to the Federal Trade Commission. At the New York AG, I worked mostly on conduct investigations and litigation and, on occasion, investigated and opposed anticompetitive mergers. At the FTC, I spent much of my time investigating and challenging mergers and acquisitions, although I handled a fair amount of conduct matters as well. My most recent matter was Amazon's proposed acquisition of iRobot, a deal the parties abandoned after the investigation revealed significant concerns about the transaction’s potential competitive effects.
LD: Why did you want to work in government?
GT: Mostly to seek justice for consumers and businesses who were harmed by anticompetitive conduct and to oppose mergers that were anticompetitive. So, really, to right wrongs. I found it to be more fulfilling than being on the defense side. The defense side was terrific. I got a lot of great experience, and we had great clients, but I was really angling to work on behalf of consumers.
Carrie Syme: I started at the Department of Justice in the antitrust division in 2011, after a decade or more of commercial litigation at a firm in New York. Most of my time in the antitrust division was spent in the criminal program focusing on criminal charges against people who did price fixing, bid rigging and market allocation. In my first two years at the division, however, I did mostly civil work because I served on the eBooks team, which was a price-fixing case against Apple and some of the nation's major publishers.
LD: What motivated you to go from private practice to government originally?
CS: It was a long-simmering personal desire to do prosecution work. It is something that I thought about when I graduated from law school, but there's something very, very attractive about Big Law, or at least “medium law” practice in a legal market like New York City. If what you want to do is be a litigator, the idea that, instead of doing misdemeanor cases or something like that as an assistant DA, you could be doing depositions and high-stakes federal cases and that sort of thing. Like Geralyn, I have no problem with the years that I've spent on the defense side or being at a medium or large firm, but I didn't scratch the itch of being a prosecutor, and that had never left me. I had to give it a shot.
Even if you don't agree on which mergers should be stopped, everyone agrees you shouldn't commit crimes.
LD: What drew you both to DiCello Levitt?
GT: First of all, there are terrific people at this firm, some of whom I’ve known for years. In fact, I worked very closely with David Straite, who's now a partner in DiCello Levitt’s Privacy, Technology, and Cybersecurity group, when I was at Skadden Arps back before my government service. And I've known the head of the antitrust group, Greg Asciolla, for many years through the New York State Bar Association. They were a big part of the draw.
Also, the founders of the firm are very interested in building and supporting the antitrust practice. They've been very supportive of me and the rest of the group. And after years in government, it is exciting to litigate cases as a private enforcer. In government, there is a lot of time spent investigating and less time litigating. So the chance to be a class action antitrust lawyer was a great opportunity.
CS: I can't say that I knew that much about plaintiffs’ law firms, but I made up my mind somewhere midway through my government career that when I was ready to leave the government, I was not interested in looking at the defense side. Frankly, I've just seen too much about corporate America to want to represent them. Almost nobody commits antitrust violations as a private citizen. These are corporations. Plaintiffs’ work seemed much more aligned with what I had been doing and enjoying doing at the government.
In terms of DiCello Levitt specifically, I definitely was looking for a firm with a stellar reputation, that was well thought of in the antitrust space. That gave me a small list of firms, and DiCello Levitt was on it.
LD: Could each of you tell me about your current practices, what they look like, and what cases you are working on?
GT: Most of our cases are class action antitrust cases. I am very focused on the health care space, which was also my big focus when I was in government. One case I'm excited about is Mass Laborers v. Boehringer, where we allege a drug company improperly listed device patents in the Orange Book, where only drugs are supposed to be listed, essentially preventing entry from generic pharmaceuticals. We survived the motion to dismiss and are into discovery.
While I'm particularly interested in challenging anticompetitive conduct in the health care and pharmaceutical industries, I'm also very interested in price-fixing cases more generally, especially the use of algorithms to fix prices, which a lot of firms are doing to coordinate their behavior.
LD: Carrie, does your practice look a little different than that?
CS: I'm primarily working on a matter that was filed before I came here. That's the case against Disney. We represent a class of FuboTV subscribers who have alleged a number of Sherman Act and related claims about how Disney has been wielding its power in the streaming television market, namely with respect to its ownership of ESPN. Essentially, when the price of ESPN goes up, everybody's streaming TV subscriptions go up.
I also have a case against RealPage, the company that produces the RealPage app and the landlords that use that app, alleging they essentially fix prices for rentals for certain types of units. The Kentucky Attorney General brought that, and we are working with them.
I'm very interested in price-fixing cases more generally, especially the use of algorithms to fix prices.
We’re working on a couple of exciting cases that could expand how the Sherman Act is applied – one tackling a market that has long posed challenges for antitrust enforcement, and another using antitrust in a novel way to protect a vulnerable population. The second idea grew out of my work at the DOJ on foreign exchange prosecutions, when revelations about traders colluding to move currency prices sparked intense debate over how a concept like price-fixing or bid-rigging could be molded to fit a novel situation.
LD: You’ll have to keep us posted on those cases. What antitrust trends are you seeing right now? Do you think the new administration is going to impact antitrust enforcement?
GT: So far, I am encouraged by [FTC] Chairman Ferguson’s statements about continuing the commission’s work to vigorously enforce the antitrust laws. He announced that the FTC would continue to implement the 2023 merger guidelines, and the commission is continuing to pursue their cases against big tech companies. But I am concerned about the disruptions on the staffing level, which has resulted in lawyers and economists leaving the commission. Eliminating staff or encouraging staff to leave may have a real impact on the FTC’s level of enforcement. If you don't have the people to do the work, it can be hard to have an aggressive antitrust agenda. But we're still too early in this administration to see what's going to really happen, and antitrust enforcement is an area that typically enjoys broad bipartisan support.
CS: I came into the DOJ during Obama, and I stayed through the first Trump administration, then through Biden, and then a tiny bit of the second Trump administration. Even if you don't agree on which mergers should be stopped, everyone agrees you shouldn't commit crimes. So there was not expected to be a lot of impact on the criminal side of antitrust with a new administration. And that was generally true until this one. But I agree, in terms of substantive change and approach toward antitrust, it's too early to tell.
LD: If the government does slow down on enforcement, does it fall to private practice to pick up the slack? Or does it shrink private practice too?
GT: I can’t see it shrinking our practice because we're so active and we've brought so many cases that aren't based on government investigations. A slowdown in government enforcement might make a difference in the merger space. I think that program might be less aggressive – with the agencies more willing to settle merger cases with consent decrees. I think the agencies will still go after the mergers that are most impactful, that are more in the news, that are more of a problem, but there are going to be smaller, less noticeable transactions that are still pernicious and can result in anticompetitive effects. Stopping those may fall by the wayside if enforcement slows down. I think the agencies will continue to pursue bad conduct like price fixing.
LD: What do you both do for fun outside of the office?
GT: I mostly just try to get exercise, see my friends, and go to great restaurants with my significant other. I love to eat, and I like to try different restaurants and cuisines in New York. That’s really it. Carrie’s hobby is more interesting.
CS: Well, I am a film fan, particularly horror films. Not only in terms of just watching a lot and going to film events, but I occasionally write about horror films, analytical pieces. I have a bunch of friends in the horror academia space. So that takes a lot of time and is really a lot of fun.
