Earlier this month, Elizabeth “Liz” Ryan left Weil, Gotshal & Manges to join Gibson Dunn as a partner in its litigation and trials practice group. She recently answered some questions from The Texas Lawbook about why she made the move and what she’s looking forward to in this new chapter of her career.
Why is Gibson Dunn best for your practice right now?
My trial practice is national, but my heart is in Texas. The judges, juries, and trial lawyers here are outstanding, and while I love stepping into any courtroom, I’m especially proud of stepping into a Texas courtroom. Gibson Dunn is a national firm that has enthusiastically recognized Texas’s prominence and importance. Seizing on the growth across industries that we’ve witnessed in the last decade, Gibson Dunn’s Texas offices are not only thriving, but growing. Gibson Dunn is betting that the future of industry — and the top-tier legal talent that supports it — is here. Now, as Dallas is on the cusp of explosive growth, was the right time for me to double down on that bet and join an exceptionally talented team.
Can you tell us about a few of the cases you worked on with Gibson Dunn attorneys as co-counsel and what was your impression of the firm from those interactions?
The first such case remains my most memorable. In 2017, several partners and associates in the Dallas office, including my now-partner Russ Falconer, joined me in a Northern District of Texas trade secrets and copyright trial. Our mutual client was a global technology company and sophisticated legal services consumer that retained Gibson Dunn as appellate counsel before trial. I worked with the Gibson Dunn team day in and day out for several months and was continuously impressed by their thoughtful guidance, high-caliber work product, and collaborative attitude.
What is one of the biggest or most gratifying cases you’ve worked on that you can discuss?
I have a soft spot for just about every case I’ve tried, but the first case on which I worked from intake to final judgment remains a cherished experience. In my second year of practice, Trey Cox and Chris Schwegmann tapped me as the sole associate on a large fraudulent transfer case for a financial services company. A former company employee had run a Ponzi scheme, obtained a credit line from a Fort Worth bank to fuel it, and then stole from his employer to repay the credit line. Trey and Chris trusted me not only to dig into the documents — which involved following a complicated money trail spanning years — but to prepare deponents, take depositions, and participate in trial. During the process, they taught me invaluable practice skills. The case was very emotional for the client, as many of the fraudster’s colleagues had lost their entire savings through investments. Those witness interviews were particularly heartbreaking. But we developed a solid case against the bank that wrongfully obtained funds. After a multi-week trial, the jury awarded our client the full measure of its damages. The client representative was moved to tears when the jury read its verdict. I remember an overwhelming feeling of vindication: twelve people had resoundingly confirmed the legal and factual narrative our team spent years building. It was a powerful feeling that I’ve chased with every jury trial since.
What trends are you seeing in your practice area?
I primarily represent the large companies on whose advancements and work our modern lives are built: the companies that develop smart phones, power the electronic media on which we rely, fuel our homes and cars, and help us engage in everyday commerce. Despite the many innovations with which those companies have endowed us, strong anti-corporate biases permeate juror pools in numerous jurisdictions. Those biases exist regardless of a case’s subject matter and irrespective of whether the company is a plaintiff or defendant. Be it antitrust, contract, patent, or personal injury, jurors are now primed to distrust and dislike large companies. More than ever, companies must carefully select their courtroom representatives, including both counsel and witnesses. Humanizing the company is paramount and selecting counsel and witnesses who are relatable and compelling is essential.
At a micro level, jurors are craving more personal, less screen-based, interactions. Today’s jurors are inundated with videos and slideshows in their everyday lives. Using “old-school” techniques can be hugely effective. I am a tremendous fan of flip charts, physical demonstratives, and using the Elmo — along with a healthy dose of highlighters and markers — to display and narrate trial exhibits, and have used those techniques to great effect in recent trials.