Latham & Watkins has handily transitioned from its image as a California-headquartered focused on corporate work. Although the firm did see its origins in the Golden State and has a coveted corporate practice, Latham has also gained a well earned reputation as an undeniable litigation powerhouse whose footprint has not only reached national levels but boasts litigation heavyweights in nearly every one of its US offices across a diverse spectrum of practice areas. “I see Latham everywhere because they are so big,” confirms a peer, attesting to the firm’s domestic dominance. The “so big” litigation bench got even bigger in August 2025 with the addition of all-purpose trial ace
David Marriott, formerly with Cravath, a significant augmentation to Latham’s trial horsepower; Marriott has been one of Benchmark’s Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America for three consecutive years. The firm’s New York office also got a boost from the arrival of Margaret Graham, a former prosecutor who attends to white-collar and enforcement work as well as commercial litigation. One peer notes, “She just left the office of the Southern District to join Latham!”
Latham’s antitrust credentials were on display in a decisive victory secured by San Francisco’s
Chris Yates and New York’s Larry Buterman for the athletic governing body US Soccer Federation in a high-profile antitrust action filed in the Eastern District of New York. North American Soccer League (NASL) claimed that US Soccer conspired with the Major League Soccer (MLS) to exclude NASL from Division I and II professional soccer and monopolize these markets through US Soccer’s Professional League Standards. Following a three-week trial, the Latham duo persuaded a 10-person New York jury to unanimously find for US Soccer and MLS. The jury's verdict affirmed that NASL’s market definition was contradicted by pre-litigation business records, and that NASL's failures were self-inflicted. A peer confirms, “Chris Yates is one of the few people cornering that intersection of antitrust and sports!”
Chicago’s Sean Berkowitz, said by peers to “still be crushing it,” chieved dismissal of a shareholder suit filed against Walmart over disclosures related to an investigation concerning opioids, similar to those files against dozens of other entities for their roles in the prescription opioids supply chain. In 2018, Walmart began disclosing these litigations and investigations, warning investors that it could not provide any assurance to the scope or outcome of the investigations—or whether its business, financial condition, or results would be materially and adversely affected. Shareholders brought a securities class action after Walmart’s stock price traded down following Walmart’s lawsuit against the DoJ, seeking a declaration that it had not violated the Controlled Substances Act, and the DoJ then sued Walmart civilly, asserting it had. Berkowitz moved to dismiss the lawsuit explaining that Walmart and its executives timely and accurately disclosed the DoJ investigation and its consequences. The court agreed with and dismissed the plaintiffs’ amended complaint, closing the case.
Michele Johnson, in the Orange County office, is a frequent presence in the securities litigation capacity, and is recognized as one of the people in this practice to have tried cases. Johnson won a complete dismissal of a $300 million complaint against cardio device entity Edwards Lifesciences in Delaware Court of Chancery, in a decision recently upheld by the Delaware Supreme Court. Edwards acquired Valtech and its Cardioband valve repair device in 2017, with up to $350 million in milestone payments contingent on regulatory and sales achievements over a 10-year period. Dissatisfied with Cardioband's progress, former Valtech shareholders sued Edwards for $300 million, alleging a failure to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop the device. Plaintiffs appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court, and Latham successfully defended the lower court’s decision and reasoning to the Delaware Supreme Court, which affirmed the Court of Chancery’s decision. Johnson also acted with DC intellectual property partner
Michael Morin for Sarepta as trial counsel in a major patent and antitrust dispute in Delaware. After a one-week two-phase trial, a Delaware federal jury invalidated the opposing party's patent, upheld Sarepta’s patent, and awarded Sarepta $116 million in lost-profit damages. Johnson also acted with San Francisco’s
Melanie Blunschi in securing a first-round dismissal with prejudice for Apple, its five named executive officers, and its board of directors in a lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York. On the eve of Apple’s 2023 annual shareholder meeting, the plaintiff, a Teamsters union and Apple shareholder since 2005, filed a lawsuit challenging Apple’s 2023 Proxy Statement and asserted a derivative claim, alleging the board breached its fiduciary duties by awarding “excess” compensation. The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding no indication that the plaintiff could cure the deficiencies in the complaint. Jamie Wine in the New York office also is a noted figure in the securities space, with a practice that also encompasses general trial work – Wine is a noted Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. “I continue to be impressed with Jamie,” declares a New York contemporary.
