Conversation
-
Judicial Notice (08.02.26): Whither Wachtell?
source
The letterhead of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, as of March 2000 (photo by David Lat).This week’s Judicial Notice is sponsored by
With a presence in over a dozen cities across the United States and Asia, Lateral Link boasts an expert recruiting team of former practicing attorneys dedicated to sourcing top-tier legal talent for a diverse clientele, including major international law firms and Fortune 500 companies. To learn more about Lateral Link, please visit our website.
Greetings from the Garden State. Zach and I returned home to New Jersey last night, after spending a week up in Provincetown with our boys. We had a great vacation, which even some midweek rain couldn’t ruin.
The drive back from Massachusetts wasn’t fun, taking much longer than it should have—which partly explains this somewhat delayed edition of Judicial Notice. As usual when I publish JN on a Monday, this news roundup reflects developments through Sunday night, but not Monday (and, as usual, it bears Sunday’s date).
Now, on to the news.
Lawyers of the Week: William “Bill” Savitt and Sarah Eddy.
Star litigators William “Bill” Savitt and Sarah Eddy are having an exciting year. In May, they scored a huge victory for OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman in Musk v. Altman, successfully trying the case before a jury in Oakland (N.D. Cal.)—and, in Bill Savitt’s case, skillfully cross-examining Elon Musk. This was Savitt’s second major win over Musk; he previously led the Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz team that forced Musk to close his $44 billion acquisition of Twitter. (Disclosure: I once worked at WLRK, and I’m friendly with Savitt.)
Now Savitt and Eddy are in the news again. Along with four other litigation partners—Randall Jackson, Ryan McLeod, Anitha Reddy, and Brad Wilson—they left Wachtell Lipton and joined the New York office of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, where Savitt is now a co-chair of the litigation practice group. Savitt’s move was especially notable because he had been a co-chair of WLRK’s executive committee since 2023 and had worked at the firm since 2000, joining not long after clerking for the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. First reported by Oliver Barnes and Sujeet Indap of the Financial Times, Savitt’s move garnered coverage well beyond legal outlets—from the likes of Andrew Ross Sorkin and Lauren Hirsch of The New York Times and Erin Mulvaney of The Wall Street Journal (gift links).
The FT reported an interesting additional tidbit: “The group of defectors would have included Wachtell partner Nathaniel Cullerton, but his hiring was scrapped after he was filmed in a viral TikTok video in an apparent romantic embrace” with an associate in Central Park. According to the New York Post, Cullerton’s partner in the so-called “Wachtell lip-lock” was a junior associate who worked directly under him, on the same team—and having a relationship with someone who reported to him might have led to him losing his Gibson Dunn offer (and being placed on leave at WLRK).
And wait, there’s more: per the Post, Bill Savitt and Sarah Eddy were also in a relationship at one point. But this was less problematic than Cullerton’s situation, for a few reasons: (1) Savitt and Eddy are both partners; (2) Savitt was separated from his (soon-to-be-ex) wife when the relationship began, and Eddy, a divorcée, is single (Cullerton is married); (3) Savitt and Eddy are no longer together; and (4) Wachtell doesn’t have a non-fraternization policy, so their romance didn’t violate any firm rules. (A certain very senior partner at WLRK has married at least two former colleagues.)1
Here’s the other thing inquiring minds want to know: how much is Gibson paying Bill Savitt? The Post cited sources who tossed out the figure of $32 million a year, guaranteed for three years—but then quoted another source who said this wasn’t “even in the ballpark of close.” The WSJ was less specific, reporting simply that Savitt will earn “at least $20 million a year” at his new firm. According to The American Lawyer, the top of GDC’s partner compensation scale is just above $20 million (but that’s not dispositive, since sometimes laterals receive short-term guarantees that diverge from—and exceed—the hiring firm’s standard compensation scheme).
I have much more to say about this move, which raises broader issues for Wachtell Lipton, Gibson Dunn, and Biglaw. But I’ll stop here for now, saving my remaining observations for Law Firm of the Week and Move of the Week (see below).
Other lawyers in the news:
Last Wednesday, Dr. Anthony Fauci, former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, testified before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. After he invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 100 times, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a longtime Fauci foe, said he would call for a vote to hold Fauci in contempt of Congress. At one point in the proceedings, Fauci’s lawyer, David Schertler, tried to jump in to explain his client’s invocation of the privilege—but Senator Paul wouldn’t let him speak, ultimately ordering security to remove Schertler from the committee room. (Was Dr. Fauci justified in taking the Fifth as much as he did? Professor Michael Dorf, a leading liberal law professor, expressed some doubts.)
Speaking of Senate drama, what’s the latest in the confirmation process of Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, nominated by Donald Trump to serve as the permanent AG? It’s unclear. Senators John Cornyn (R-Tex.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who must vote for Blanche in order for his nomination to make it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, didn’t immediately declare their support, citing concerns over (1) Trump’s Anti-Weaponization Fund and (2) the scope of an additional agreement to shield Trump and his associates from tax audits. In response, Trump dug in his heels, threatening on Saturday to revive the fund if Blanche isn’t confirmed. But on Sunday night, Blanche posted two documents on social media, which appear to provide written assurances that (1) the $1.8 billion fund “is rescinded and shall have no force or effect,” and (2) only Trump, two of his sons, and the Trump Organization would be immune from tax audits. [UPDATE (4:43 p.m.): Earlier today, Senators Cornyn and Tillis announced their support for Blanche, based on his written assurances “addressing concerns that multiple of our Republican colleagues share.”]
In more positive news for the Trump administration, the Senate confirmed Jay Clayton as Director of National Intelligence, by a vote of 51-47. And the judges of the Southern District of New York appointed James M. McDonald to succeed Clayton as U.S. attorney (S.D.N.Y.). Because Jamie McDonald was Trump’s pick for the role, having represented Trump while practicing at Sullivan & Cromwell, he wasn’t immediately fired (which is what has happened when judges have selected U.S. attorneys not in line with Trump’s wishes).
As expected, former Supreme Court advocate Tom Goldstein filed a notice of appeal in his criminal case. Last week, he was sentenced to six years in federal prison for tax and false-statement offenses.
Judges of the Week: Judges Joan Ericksen, Timothy DeGiusti, Karin Immergut, Kenneth Karas, and Sara Lioi.
Judges Joan Ericksen (D. Minn.), Timothy DeGiusti (W.D. Okla.), Karin Immergut (D. Ore.), Kenneth Karas (S.D.N.Y.), and Sara Lioi (N.D. Ohio) serve in judicial districts across the country. What do they share in common? They’re all members of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, with Ericksen serving as its chief judge.
The what? As explained on the ATRC’s website, “In 1996 Congress created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court as a specialized court and authorized the Chief Justice of the United States to designate five U.S. district court judges to review applications for the removal from the United States of alien terrorists.”
It’s understandable if the ATRC doesn’t ring a bell. As noted by Adam Liptak in The Docket (via Howard Bashman’s How Appealing), until last month the court hadn’t heard a case since it was established three decades ago, in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing. But as reported by Josh Gerstein of Politico, that just changed: the Trump administration has turned to the court to try to deport Haji Zada, a 47-year-old mother of seven from Afghanistan. The government alleges that Zada is “the matriarch of an ISIS-sympathizing family aiding in a plot to launch a mass casualty attack on American voters on Election Day.” (Zada’s son and son-in-law, arrested before the scheme was carried out, both pleaded guilty to terrorism-related offenses.)
Why has the Trump administration decided to resurrect what some have called a “zombie court”? The procedures of the ATRC allow the government to do things it can’t normally do, such as rely upon unlawfully obtained evidence or not share all of its evidence with the defendant. But are these procedures constitutional? At a hearing last Thursday before Chief Judge Ericksen, assistant federal defender Matthew Farley, counsel to Haji Zada, argued that “[t]his entire scheme is a violation of due process and unconstitutional.”
Will judges agree? We shall see. Litigants who lose before the ATRC can appeal to the D.C. Circuit—and, ultimately, to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In other news about judges and the judiciary:
The Ninth Circuit isn’t the liberal bastion it once was. It’s now split 16-13, in terms of Democratic versus Republican appointees. Of the 13 Republican appointees, 11 were appointed by Trump—and the Trump appointees are quite prolific, writing separate opinions more frequently than those of other presidents.
Judge Thomas Ludington (E.D. Mich.), who pleaded no contest earlier this year to a misdemeanor drunken-driving charge, was accused of violating the conditions of his probation by not completing court-ordered drug testing during his probation’s first week. But it appears that Judge Ludington is now compliant, so the probation-violation charge against him was dismissed last week.
In memoriam: Judge Rya Zobel, the first woman to serve as a federal judge in the District of Massachusetts, passed away at 94. May she rest in peace.
Job of the Week: an opportunity for a litigation associate in Los Angeles.
Lateral Link is leading the search for an Am Law 100 firm seeking a litigation associate (2nd-4th year) for its Los Angeles office. This role offers broad litigation exposure, including hands-on experience with written discovery, motion practice, and briefing, as well as strong mentorship and professional development. The firm is open to candidates from firms of any size; what matters is litigation experience, writing and analytical skills, and the ability to juggle deadlines—not a specific pedigree. Clerkship experience is a plus, but not required. The firm offers highly competitive compensation and flexible-hours tracks. For immediate consideration, please email Ata Farhadi at afarhadi@laterallink.com or Jon Dunn at jdunn@laterallink.com.
