There are cases that resolve disputes. And then there are cases that change the law itself. Alexandra Sadinsky has built her career on the latter – work where the outcome doesn’t just affect the parties before the court, but reshapes how judges evaluate decision-making and how future disputes are litigated. Drawn to complex legal questions, exacting judges, and judicial forums like the Delaware Court of Chancery, Sadinsky gravitates toward matters defined by rigor, precision and disciplined judgment.
That instinct has placed Sadinsky, now a partner at Elsberg Baker & Maruri, at the center of some of the most consequential litigation in the country, spanning corporate governance and M&A disputes, securities and commercial litigation, and more recent cases involving claims of fraud and trade secret misappropriation. Across those matters, her approach is marked by a balance of creativity and restraint – pressing hard where it matters and exercising judgment about which arguments will carry the greatest weight.
“Advocacy isn’t about saying everything you can – it’s about knowing what matters, what will persuade, and how to exercise judgment on behalf of clients whose businesses and futures are on the line,” Sadinsky says. “Every claim or defense you bring should move the case toward a desired result.”
In IAC v. Match, Sadinsky helped develop legal arguments in a dispute over a controlling stockholder transaction – litigation that asked how courts should evaluate deals where an insider stands on both sides of the transaction. The arguments advanced in that case later informed legislative reforms that reshaped Delaware’s standard of review for those transactions, affecting how similar deals are structured and challenged going forward. In Twitter v. Musk, she was part of the team that navigated one of the most closely watched corporate disputes in recent memory – an expedited fight over whether a buyer could walk away from a multibillion-dollar merger agreement that unfolded under intense public scrutiny, where precision at every step was essential and missteps carried immediate consequences.
“The louder the noise around a case, the more disciplined you have to be,” Sadinsky says. “You have to be deliberate about how you plead your claims and defenses, how you sequence discovery, and how you build a record that will matter when it counts.”
Underlying Sadinsky’s practice is an acute respect for how decisions are made – an understanding shaped early by her clerkships with Judge Denny Chin of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and Judge Claire C. Cecchi of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Seeing firsthand the work and care that go into judicial decision-making taught her to pressure-test every argument, separate legal analysis from emotional appeal, and appreciate the responsibility that comes with representing clients whose legal disputes can affect the future of their business.
She brings those lessons to her advocacy and mentorship. Sadinsky prioritizes rigor over volume, clarity over cleverness, and a disciplined insistence on understanding not just what works, but why. It’s a philosophy she applies equally to cases and to developing more junior lawyers – treating judgment, preparation and care not as instincts, but as skills that must be taught, practiced and passed on.
Lawdragon: You recently made a move from Wachtell to Elsberg Baker & Maruri. Talk to us about what inspired the change.
Alexandra Sadinsky: I made the move about a year and a half ago, though the idea had been taking shape for several years. A close friend of mine, who is a partner at Wachtell Lipton, recognized early on that a trial-focused boutique would be a good fit for me, given how much I gravitated toward expedited, court-facing matters.
The challenge was finding the right place. I was looking for a firm with a robust commercial litigation practice, meaningful courtroom experience, and the chance to work alongside seasoned trial lawyers, all within a structure that offered a serious path to partnership. Just as important was whether I genuinely clicked with the people. I loved my time at Wachtell and trusted the people there and their judgment. Wherever I landed, I wanted to feel that same way about the people I’d be working with, which is why I focused my search on firms with a strong Wachtell connection.
At Elsberg Baker & Maruri, that connection was David Elsberg. One of my Wachtell mentors, Elaine Golin, is a close friend of his and encouraged me to apply. EBM was the first firm I spoke with – and I knew soon after that it was where I wanted to be.
EBM is a young firm – not just in its age but in its energy. The lawyers here are ambitious and genuinely excited about building something exceptional together. That sense of shared purpose reminded me of what drew people to Wachtell in its early days. I was looking for an environment that was intense and demanding, but also energizing – a place where people care about the work and about one another.
EBM is a young firm – not just in its age but in its energy. The lawyers here are ambitious and genuinely excited about building something exceptional together.
I was also drawn to the firm’s one-office, collaborative culture, which echoed what I valued most at Wachtell. I like knowing what everyone is working on, being able to talk through issues in real time, and operating in a close-knit litigation group where people step in to support one another. That kind of collaboration allows teams to focus on doing excellent work. That combination – shared ambition, collaboration and exceptional lawyering – is what brought me here.
LD: What kind of cases are you currently handling?
AS: I’ve been working for the past year on a fraud case in the Delaware Court of Chancery – In re Decision One. Our client acquired a company based on the sellers’ representations about its financial condition, and shortly after the deal closed, the business began to fail. The company went through an out-of-court restructuring, and we brought claims alleging the sellers misrepresented the company’s financials to induce the sale. The litigation has been contentious, making the factual development work especially demanding.
Another matter I worked on here was Jane Street v. Millennium, a trade secrets case. We represented two former Jane Street traders who left for Millennium and were sued alongside their new firm. It was a complex case that required an enormous amount of work in a short time. I had just a couple of months to get up to speed on algorithmic options trading and how it operates in a foreign market. Learning an entirely new subject matter on a compressed timetable was demanding, and a lot of fun – especially because I was doing it alongside my colleagues at EBM.
LD: Are those two cases representative of the type of work you’re most interested in?
AS: Absolutely. I’m drawn to high-stakes matters where people are invested in their positions and the outcome matters. That said, I’ve also done – and enjoy – a wide range of corporate governance disputes and bet-the-company cases.
IAC v. Match is a good example. That case required us to engage with the history and evolution of Delaware controlling stockholder jurisprudence, and to think carefully about how doctrine should develop in that area. The issues litigated in IAC later informed legislative amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law that clarified the standard of review for those transactions. That experience reshapes how you approach the law because it forces you to understand where the law has been and where it is going, in order to advocate effectively.
Practicing in Delaware itself is also a privilege. The judges are exceptional, the legal issues are sophisticated and the court really tests you. Twitter v. Musk was one of the most closely watched corporate disputes in years, and I was involved early and saw the case unfold from start to finish. I also litigated against my now-partner, Silpa Maruri, which is still funny to think about. Now we work closely together, and I’ve learned an enormous amount from her.
One of the unexpected benefits of joining EBM has been exposure to different styles of lawyering. My colleagues come from varied backgrounds, and watching how they approach problems – strategy, briefing, depositions and client communication – has sharpened my skills in ways I didn’t fully anticipate. That’s been a rewarding part of the transition.
LD: Is there a case that stands out as particularly memorable?
AS: IAC v. Match, for several reasons. I worked on multiple dispositive briefs in both the Delaware Court of Chancery and the Delaware Supreme Court, including briefing before the Supreme Court sitting en banc. My Wachtell mentor – and one of the most effective oral advocates I’ve ever encountered – Theo Mirvis, together with clients who have since become friends, gave me a rare opportunity, as a mid-level associate, to argue a $5B motion to dismiss. We won, and it was one of those moments that crystallized exactly what I wanted my career to be.
The decision was later reversed, but the legal framework we advanced informed legislative amendments adopted by the Delaware legislature. Being part of a matter that contributed to the evolution of the law in that way is something I’ll always be proud of. The case gave me a deep understanding of the legal architecture governing controlling stockholder transactions – how that framework developed, why it matters, and how a century of doctrinal thinking converged in a single dispute.
Twitter v. Musk was formative in a different way. The public scrutiny surrounding the case was relentless, which meant every pleading, brief and deposition had to be airtight. One moment that still stands out – and makes me smile now with the benefit of hindsight – was leaving the office late one night on my birthday, just before our complaint was filed, exhausted but energized by the work and high stakes of the case. That kind of pressure changes how you practice. You have to be disciplined about how you think, how you strategize and how you decide what will advance your client’s position. You learn to stay focused on the work in front of you and block out the noise.
LD: What trends are you seeing in your practice these days?
AS: A few things stand out. First, board oversight is increasingly under the microscope. Courts are scrutinizing how boards actively manage corporate risk, particularly around executive compensation and emerging issues like AI. Litigation often turns on how that oversight was exercised and documented – what boards discussed, how often those discussions took place, and the quality of contemporaneous records and disclosures.
Delaware fiduciary duty law continues to evolve and still drives corporate transactional and litigation strategy. Staying current on how the courts are applying and refining these principles is more critical than ever. We’ve seen recent reaffirmations by the Delaware Supreme Court of the demanding standards for aiding-and-abetting liability, emphasizing that plaintiffs must plead actual knowledge of both the primary breach and the alleged abettor’s own wrongful conduct – making those claims particularly difficult to establish. Recent amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law addressing controlling stockholder transactions likewise reflect an ongoing effort to provide greater clarity and predictability in this area, reinforcing the importance of thoughtful deal structuring and procedural protections from the outset.
Another major trend is the growing focus on sale process in M&A litigation. Litigation risk increasingly turns not on price but on how the deal was structured and executed. Courts are closely scrutinizing process choices, conflict management, and the timing and effectiveness of procedural protections, which makes early – and continuous – attention to deal design essential. For example, in recent oral argument in the EngageSmart litigation, Vice Chancellor Laster focused heavily on a mid-process shift from a non-control transaction to a control sale. The court questioned whether MFW’s protections could still apply once the fundamental premise of the transaction changed, suggesting that such a pivot may reset the analysis and require directors and special committees to reassess the process in light of that new reality.
Trade secret and fraud claims also face higher bars at the pleading and injunction stages. Courts are dismissing trade secret claims where plaintiffs rely on access or opportunity rather than concrete evidence of misuse. Fraud claims, too, are being tested rigorously for particularity and reliance, especially where they overlap with contract disputes or failed transactions. Early case strategy – both in framing claims and challenging them – matters more than ever, and in our recent matters, that approach has led to early wins and favorable resolutions.
And perhaps most importantly, clients are hiring lawyers for trial credibility. There’s a growing premium on experienced trial advocacy in complex commercial disputes, and clients want to know that a firm presents a credible trial threat – not just strategic sophistication, but a demonstrated willingness and ability to take cases through trial. A core part of our culture at EBM is giving junior lawyers meaningful trial roles early, reflecting a broader shift in client expectations toward lawyers who can perform in the courtroom, not just in discovery and motion practice.
A core part of our culture at EBM is giving junior lawyers meaningful trial roles early, reflecting a broader shift in client expectations toward lawyers who can perform in the courtroom, not just in discovery and motion practice.
LD: Tell us about your experience clerking.
AS: Clerking was the most formative experience of my career. I recommend it to anyone who has the opportunity. I clerked for Judge Denny Chin on the 2nd Circuit and Judge Claire Cecchi on the District of New Jersey, and I still keep mementos from both of them – gifts from 10 years ago – on my desk.
I’m a proud Fordham Law graduate, and both of them are as well. Judge Chin was a legal writing professor at Fordham, and Judge Cecchi was a student in his very first legal writing class. From the start, there was a sense of continuity – almost a family connection – that made the two clerkships feel especially meaningful.
Judge Chin has been on the bench for more than 30 years and is extraordinary – brilliant, an exceptional writer and a genuinely good person. He treats his clerks like family. I remember early in my clerkship thinking this is the kind of lawyer – and person – I want to be. I took his legal writing class and then interned for him my 1L summer, and when he mentioned that he sometimes hired former interns as clerks, I knew immediately that it was an experience I wanted to pursue.
Judge Cecchi is equally impressive. She is thoughtful, exacting and profoundly fair, with an incredible command of both the record and the law. She cared intensely about precision and pushed her clerks to earn every word on the page. I remember spending hours with her refining a single footnote – not to make it clever, but to make it right. She taught me how much discipline it takes to produce work that holds up.
They remain my closest professional mentors. When something goes well, or when I need perspective or advice, they are the people I call. Working in their chambers shaped not just how I practice law, but how I think.
Clerking taught me how judges decide cases – what persuades, what falls flat and what can actively hurt your position. It forced me to think critically about how arguments are evaluated. Judge Cecchi would often ask us to list the strongest arguments on each side of a single page, a deceptively simple exercise that underscored how difficult – and essential – it is to grapple honestly with the law. That experience has stayed with me as an advocate, informing how I pressure-test my own arguments and anticipate how they will be received.
Beyond the technical training, both judges modeled thoughtful leadership and mentorship. They showed me that leadership means investing in people, exercising judgment with humility, and thinking beyond yourself. That’s the kind of lawyer and mentor I strive to be. Following in their footsteps, I taught legal writing at Fordham for two years and now serve on its Alumni Association board, where we work to support students and graduates and strengthen the Fordham community.
LD: Are you an active mentor now?
AS: I am. At Wachtell I co-led a women’s group and had many mentees, and I take mentorship just as seriously here at EBM. I’m intentional with associates I work with, giving concrete, specific feedback and taking the time to explain the why. High-level comments only go so far. What really helps people improve is showing them exactly how something could be better and explaining why it works.
Mentorship doesn’t have to be formal. It’s just as important to be available – to give advice, help people navigate difficult situations and take the time to talk things through when it matters.
When I joined the firm, there were fewer women than there are now, and I spent a lot of time with junior female associates. That mattered to me because it’s what I had looked for early in my career – mentors I could relate to. At the same time, it was powerful to join a firm where Silpa Maruri’s name is literally on the door. Having a woman at the top of firm leadership sends an important signal about what’s possible and reinforces that women’s voices belong at the center of the conversation. It’s important that women feel confident speaking up, that their contributions are recognized, and that their perspectives are taken seriously. That’s essential to the success of any firm, and it can be especially challenging early in a legal career.
Having a woman at the top of firm leadership sends an important signal about what’s possible and reinforces that women’s voices belong at the center of the conversation.
I’ve been incredibly lucky to have outstanding mentors who genuinely cared about me, and I take my responsibility to mentor just as seriously. To me, mentorship is one of the most direct and lasting ways a lawyer can contribute to the future of the profession.
LD: What's the top advice you would offer a young female lawyer just starting out?
AS: I’d say be intentional early on. Figure out where you feel confident and begin making contributions in those areas. You don’t have to speak on every topic in every meeting. Take the time to think things through, pressure-test your ideas, and when you’re confident, make the point—and make sure it’s heard. That might mean asking for a few extra minutes at the end of a meeting or following up afterward with a quick email to flag something you think is important.
If you’re not ready to raise a bigger idea in the room, try talking it through first with peers or friends you trust at the firm. The first few times can feel uncomfortable, but it gets easier quickly. Your confidence builds, and eventually it becomes second nature.
And remember: You don’t have to be perfect in a team meeting. The goal isn’t to arrive with the right answer fully formed; it’s to get to the best outcome together. That happens by hearing different perspectives, challenging each other, and working through the nuances as a team.
That openness is very much part of the culture here at EBM. People are ambitious, engaged and focused on getting to the right result. It leads to better outcomes – and honestly, it’s more fun that way.
