When corporate crises hit – government investigations, securities litigation, board investigations, reputational risk – companies turn to lawyers who can operate at the highest level, across multiple fronts, with no margin for error. Lawyers who know how to unravel the knot their clients find themselves in and make their arguments count. Tasha Thompson is one of those lawyers.
Thompson represents corporate boards, financial institutions, business executives and global companies in high-stakes litigation and investigations, guiding clients through moments where legal, regulatory and business risks converge – where judgment matters just as much as strategy.
“What motivates me most is helping a client get through a difficult moment as smoothly as possible,” Thompson says. “I want to help clients navigate unfamiliar systems that may not have been designed with their situation in mind.”
That motivation has influenced every chapter of her career – from sitting across the table as an advisor to first-generation students trying to navigate the college admissions process, to helping corporate boards steer through bribery scandals, plane crashes and federal investigations, to standing up for immigrants and survivors in pro bono matters.
At Sullivan & Cromwell, where Thompson spent her early years as a lawyer embedded in sprawling corporate crises, learning how power, money and law collide when everything is on the line, she was introduced to the machinery of elite litigation: how a single argument to a regulator can ripple through class actions, boardrooms and the court of public opinion. How loudly the truth speaks, if you know how to wield it.
“I don’t feel the need to pound the table when the law is on my side,” Thompson says. “Being firm and right is more effective than being loud.”
The desire for more autonomy over how to advise her clients then led Thompson to Kaplan Martin, the elite New York-based boutique firm co-founded by prominent commercial litigators Roberta “Robbie” Kaplan and Timothy Martin, where corporate defense, plaintiff-side litigation and public-interest work live side by side.
“Being able to engage in such a broad practice across industries and areas of the law with the same small group of talented attorneys enables us to be nimble and broadly informed in our advice and litigation strategy with all of our clients,” Thompson explains.
The move to an elite boutique was an evolution of her practice – one grounded in precision, strategic clarity and the desire for even more disciplined execution of complex matters.
Lawdragon: Where did you first get the idea to become a lawyer?
Tasha Thompson: Both my parents were lawyers, which is probably how I ended up becoming one – and also why I resisted it for so long. I grew up in a small town in Alaska where my dad was a general-practice lawyer who handled whatever the community needed, sometimes getting paid in tractors. My mom was the borough’s municipal attorney. Our dinner table was always full of legal discussions.
The opportunities for earlier case leadership are unique to a firm this size, as is the amount of collaboration. We’re able to serve large clients and matters because we’re nimble, creative and efficient.
I did debate in high school and mock trial in college, but for a while, I was determined not to follow in their footsteps. I majored in English, took the LSAT, then went home to work as a college and career counselor. I was one of only a few people from my high school class to attend a four-year college, so I wanted to give back and help people from my community navigate systems that weren’t built for them. But I still longed for a bigger intellectual challenge.
That combination of rigor and service is what finally drew me to law school, and specifically the “citizen lawyer” tradition at William and Mary Law School. It felt like a natural extension of what I was already doing: helping people understand the rules and move their lives forward. After law school, I joined Sullivan & Cromwell, knowing that S&C would provide excellent training and the opportunity to learn from exceptional attorneys.
LD: Is there a case that stands out as particularly memorable from your time at Sullivan & Cromwell?
TT: The one I was deeply embedded in until I decided to make the transition to Kaplan Martin was a multifaceted litigation involving a regional utilities company. It was a great example of how the generalist model that had drawn me to S&C was utilized in practice.
We represented the utilities company after its former CEO and other senior executives were accused of bribing a politician. It became a significant regional scandal in Ohio and triggered a cascade of issues for the company: employment disputes, criminal and regulatory investigations, securities litigation, consumer class actions and derivative suits. It was a full-blown corporate crisis.
Our firm came in after another firm had handled the initial response, and I was the first associate from our firm to really dig into the matter and to learn how all the facts and proceedings fit together. What made it so exciting was seeing how a move in one arena affected the others – our strategy with state industry regulators shaped our arguments in federal investigations, which in turn influenced the class actions, all against the backdrop of intense public and media scrutiny.
That case was the clearest expression of what I loved about S&C: being able to work across disciplines, from regulatory strategy to litigation to board advisory, and to use a single, integrated approach to navigate something incredibly complex and high-stakes. It was also the moment when I could really see the kind of lawyer I was becoming.
My practice at S&C ended up mirroring a lot of the firm’s broader work – corporate crisis management for some of the largest corporate crises in the country.
LD: What prompted your move to Kaplan Martin?
TT: A lot went into the decision. I truly loved my time at Sullivan & Cromwell. I met wonderful people there, I had incredible mentors, and it’s where I learned how to be a lawyer.
At the same time, once I became more experienced as an attorney, I wanted to be in a position where I could more fully be an individual advocate for my clients. S&C is intentionally – and very successfully – a large, highly integrated firm. You’re part of a collective, which is one of its great strengths. But looking ahead, I found myself wanting more space to develop my own voice, my own judgment and my own practice as a lawyer.
I had also long admired Robbie Kaplan and her work. She also came from the Big Law world, getting her start and legal training as a leading commercial litigator at Paul, Weiss, and eventually became interested in going smaller to a firm where she would have more freedom to use her own, powerful voice and ideas for her clients. I had always been intrigued by the idea of helping to build something from the ground up, so when I heard she was starting a new firm with Tim, that really caught my attention. I have spent a lot of time thinking about what makes teams – and firms – work well: how you train people, how you set expectations, how you build culture. To be part of creating that at a brand-new firm with such strong leadership was incredibly appealing.
I have spent a lot of time thinking about what makes teams – and firms – work well: how you train people, how you set expectations, how you build culture. To be part of creating that at a brand-new firm with such strong leadership was incredibly appealing.
When I met the partners at Kaplan Martin, they were not only impressive lawyers but thoughtful, inspiring people with deeply interesting backgrounds and experiences and strong ideas about how to most effectively and meaningfully use their legal talents. I could see that this was a place where I would be able to grow in new ways, take on a broader range of cases, work more directly with clients and continue to expand the definition of the kind of lawyer I want to be.
The move was about building something new and taking the next step in my own development. So far, it’s been incredibly rewarding.
LD: How has your practice changed since you've moved to Kaplan Martin?
TT: The really sophisticated commercial litigation work is still there and perhaps one of the more noteworthy things about the firm is that despite its smaller size, it handles the same sized clients and matters as Big Law firms. The opportunities for earlier case leadership are unique to a firm this size, as is the amount of collaboration. We’re able to serve large clients and matters because we’re nimble, creative and efficient – and that’s because every member of the team is read in on all the details and steps up to contribute.
I’m on the plaintiffs’ side sometimes now, too, which is new for me – and meaningful. Representing individuals who’ve been harmed has brought a more human, emotional dimension to my work, and it’s made me a better advocate overall. My practice is also broader, with more employment and discrimination matters, alongside complex commercial defense cases that feel familiar from my earlier days. Kaplan Martin is often asked to advise companies before an issue becomes a full-blown legal matter, so I also have a more active advisory role now, helping boards assess risk and strategy before a situation becomes a crisis.
LD: How do you advise clients when it comes to high-profile cases?
TT: This is something I really learned from the partners at Kaplan Martin. I think they are more willing to think outside the usual “toolbox” that litigators use and strategically leverage different resources – including the press – to help shape or advance their clients’ causes.
It always starts with the client. How public you are in an active litigation depends on how much the client wants – or is able – to engage with the press, and it has to be handled very carefully.
The press can be a useful instrument for our clients – not just something to manage but a critical tool that can help explain what’s happening and support a client’s broader interests. It’s important to remember that our clients are never dealing with legal issues in a vacuum; they are dealing with them in the context of other business or personal decisions. Sometimes the press can provide a new avenue to message to their stakeholders or to shape a narrative. Considering press strategy throughout your work can make the work more dynamic, because you’re not only thinking about how you write briefs or make legal arguments in court, but also how those arguments will play in the court of public opinion.
LD: What has it been like to help shape the culture at a new firm?
TT: The culture here is collaborative. I have always believed that the best teams are the ones where everyone feels comfortable speaking up about strategy, next steps, even the wording of a brief. In big firms, hierarchy can get in the way of that, so I’ve always tried to create a more open, collaborative environment. Here, it’s natural. We all sit on the same floor, so decisions happen in real time, often as a result of a quick hallway conversation or a moment ducking into someone’s office. That closeness makes collaboration quick and easily achievable, and it makes us better advocates for our clients.
It always starts with the client. How public you are in an active litigation depends on how much the client wants – or is able – to engage with the press, and it has to be handled very carefully.
In addition to always having a candy bowl and an open door, I also helped start our “lunch and learn” sessions where associates can talk about skills, questions and professional development in a relaxed, collaborative setting. When associates know their ideas matter, they take ownership of the work in a different way.
LD: How would you describe your style as a litigator?
TT: At the core of my practice is really knowing my client – understanding their motivations and letting that shape our strategy. This goes back to not counseling clients in a vacuum – all the attorneys here make a point of viewing our clients and their matters within the context of their ventures and goals. Being a litigator means more than just arguing to a judge or a mediator. It also means helping your client stay focused on their real goals and not get pulled into issues that don’t serve them. In that sense, you’re advising on both sides of the table.
My style was shaped at S&C and has been honed at Kaplan Martin. I believe being firm and right is more effective than being loud or aggressive. I’m friendly but direct with opposing counsel, and in court I don’t feel the need to pound the table when the law is on my side. That tone shifts when I’m with my client, where the focus is on guidance, clarity and trust.
LD: What trends have you seen recently in terms of the types of cases that are keeping you busy?
TT: It’s a pretty wide range. A series of consumer class actions is keeping me the busiest right now, which reflects more traditional defense-side class action work. I’m also working on a lot of individual representations, which are challenging but meaningful.
On the legislative side, now that New York City has recently renewed the Gender Motivated Violence Act, which reopened a lookback window for abuse claims and otherwise strengthened the pre-existing law – I expect that to generate a significant amount of work as well. Many people in New York and across the nation watched our work with E. Jean Carroll and know we go to great lengths to fight for abuse victims. That’s an area I’m watching closely.
LD: Is there a type of case or a practice area that you would like to tackle next?
TT: One type of case I’d love to do more of again is financial litigation. I’ve always been drawn to the technical complexity of those cases – the rules, the structures, the details. And with our growing financial institutions practice since the arrival of Ellen Holloman, who has years of experience in that space, I anticipate that more opportunities will be coming my way.
That said, I’m very happy with the range of work I have now. And like everyone here, I’m always eager for more time in the courtroom. Trials are energizing.
LD: You have a really active pro bono practice. What are the areas that really are important to you?
TT: Pro bono has always been very important to me. I serve on the NYLAG Pro Bono Associate Advisory Board to help make pro bono easier and more accessible for firms, so they can take on more of it. In my own work, I like a mix. I care deeply about direct-service cases – immigration matters, for example – where helping one person fill out a few forms can genuinely change their life. That kind of crisis-moment support feels like the purest form of pro bono.
I’m also drawn to broader-impact public interest work, and it’s something this firm has always taken seriously. Being at a place that has the flexibility and the will to take on politically charged public-interest matters is something I really value.
LD: What keeps you motivated in your work?
TT: I get a lot of my energy from the work itself – helping clients untangle whatever crisis they’re in and figuring out the right path forward. I’ve always thought of this job as problem-solving under pressure: listening with empathy, advocating with clarity and making sure our writing captures not just the law but the client’s real story and motivations. At the end of the day, what motivates me most is helping someone get through a difficult moment as smoothly as possible.
