Former Greenberg Traurig shareholder Angeles Garcia Cassin has joined Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton in Houston as partner in the labor and employment practice group.
Cassin defends companies against discrimination, retaliation, unpaid wages and misappropriation of trade secrets claims, among others. Her practice is focused on the healthcare, retail and e-commerce industries.
Cassin, a Latina and fluent Spanish speaker, also represents international clients in other types of commercial disputes. She is currently representing an American client with a Mexican subsidiary in a trade secrets, misappropriation and non-compete case. She previously spent three years representing a Mexican import and export company with some U.S. presence in a trademark infringement case.
“Angeles is a dynamic and talented practitioner and her focus on healthcare, retail and e-commerce fits perfectly with the strategic strengths in our labor and employment practice and will benefit our clients in Texas and firmwide,” Sheppard Mullin chair Luca Salvi said in a release announcing Cassin’s hiring.
Her addition “expands our healthcare team in two key markets and nationally,” Salvi added and nodded to three hires this year in Chicago.
Cassin is also a sought out speaker on diversity efforts in law. She is scheduled to speak at Texas Southern University’s Thurgood Marshall School of Law this week about diversity, equity and inclusion issues and the impact of the state Senate Bill 17 that banned diversity programs in public universities. Next week, she is slated to speak to the Houston nonprofit Somos Latina Lawyers about how the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on affirmative action in college admissions has affected law firms’ DEI and recruiting programs.
Cassin graduated from the University of Houston Law Center and was a member of the Houston Law Review. She worked at Greenberg Traurig for nearly eight years. Prior to that, she worked at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and Jackson Walker. Cassin serves on the Wellesley College Alumni Association Board of Directors.
Read more from Cassin’s interview with the Lawbook below. It has been edited for clarity.
Why is Sheppard Mullin a better fit for your practice at this time than Greenberg Traurig?
Well, first of all, Sheppard Mullin just has an incredibly impressive platform. They are very, very collaborative. Even the way that they bring on a lateral partner really creates excitement on both sides. I felt like I was already getting integrated before I even walked in the door.
Strategically, one of their best clients is one of my best clients except they don’t do employment work for this client, which I do. So, I’m really excited to grow that part of the relationship with this client. I wish I could tell you the client. Unfortunately I can’t. But it’s just a great company and it’s just a really great opportunity for my business and growing my practice.
I also do a lot of healthcare work, being in Houston especially, but I also have physician groups that I represent outside of Texas. [Sheppard Mullin has] a fantastic health care group nationally. So, it just makes sense because I’m the first, and so far only, employment partner in Houston. I’ll build the relationships with the healthcare group and serve as a resource for them.
The firm is really transparent when it comes to compensation. As a partner, I really feel like I need more information, not less, to make decisions about how best to serve clients in terms of rates and what makes sense with respect to my time. So the transparency is what first attracted me to Sheppard Mullin and then all these other things fell into place.
The last thing I’ll say is they are more competitive in terms of pay for associates. It’s getting harder and harder to attract associates and keep them in big law. It’s a better way to make sure I’m getting really great talent for my team and my clients.
We’re anticipating the FTC’s new rule on non-compete agreements any day now. Many expect a total ban. What do you think? And what do you anticipate will be the domino effect?
I think that’d be really, really bad for the market. I think it’s really important for companies to be able to protect their confidential and trade secret information. And that’s really the only way to do it. They can have confidentiality agreements, of course, but a big part of protecting private, confidential, proprietary information is through non-competes. I think it’s important to keep them reasonable. Certainly, it’s good for the market for people to move from one company to another. But it’s bad for the market for people to be able to move from one company to another in a way that just inevitably might disclose confidential, proprietary information.
I do think there might be a total ban. I really hope there isn’t one and I think we’ll just see an increase in litigation if there is one. I’m also curious to see whether it’s going to have retroactive implications.
I’ve also seen in California, when their law went into effect, where I think there’s a fine for employers who don’t revise their employment agreements to remove non-compete language. So I’m curious to see if the FTC does something similar.
I definitely think industry chambers would certainly find ways to file suits attempting to invalidate a total ban.
What types of questions are you getting from clients on the use of AI?
I haven’t quite gotten those types of questions. I think right now, where I’m seeing the questions arise, are within law firms themselves. How are we appropriately using AI in a way that cuts down on time and therefore legal costs for clients, but then also ensures client confidentiality?
One of the really great resources we have in large firms is Westlaw and Westlaw now has some pretty impressive AI assistants with research that kind of just simplifies the whole process. I think that’s a good thing.
I personally have never used AI for anything client-related. I don’t trust it. But I was just talking to a court reporter last week in a deposition I was taking and she was talking about how AI has really helped her streamline her work. There’s all sorts of programs to help populate information within a deposition that’s repetitive, like company names or the attorneys or what have you. So she was talking about how she uses that and finds it very helpful.
What are clients asking you about DEI programs, compliance and liabilities?
I’ve not had a ton of those questions. I certainly have had some. I think some clients just want to make sure that they’re not going to run afoul of creating a quota system or things like that. But those issues were around and I was, frankly, addressing those issues before the Supreme Court’s decision. To me, it didn’t really change things. Just, I think clients need to be careful about how they define “diverse” and I think if you’re using a more expansive definition of “diverse”, you’re OK, but certainly get the legal advice on how you’re defining. And then I’ve seen it even impact recruiting efforts. I think it’s great to want to attract diverse candidates, but you stay away from filtering for diverse candidates. It should just be kind of a plus. You should filter for the right experience and credentials and then the diversity can always be a plus factor. Nothing I’ve seen should make that unlawful.