{"id":151108,"date":"2026-05-13T15:52:23","date_gmt":"2026-05-13T23:52:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/05\/13\/a-federal-judge-praises-susman-godfrey-for-letting-a-young-associate-cook\/"},"modified":"2026-05-13T15:52:23","modified_gmt":"2026-05-13T23:52:23","slug":"a-federal-judge-praises-susman-godfrey-for-letting-a-young-associate-cook","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/05\/13\/a-federal-judge-praises-susman-godfrey-for-letting-a-young-associate-cook\/","title":{"rendered":"A Federal Judge Praises Susman Godfrey For Letting A Young Associate Cook"},"content":{"rendered":"

We\u2019ve written a lot about what makes Susman Godfrey unusual in the Biglaw landscape \u2014 the equity-only partnership<\/a>, the top-of-market compensation<\/a>, the willingness to fight Trump\u2019s executive order<\/a> rather than capitulate, the radical decision to treat law students like human beings during recruiting<\/a>. But the thing that actually defines the firm\u2019s identity, the thing all those other choices flow from, is the trial work. Susman is, at its core, a firm that tries cases. And trying cases means putting lawyers in front of judges. Young lawyers.<\/p>\n

Which brings us to a federal courtroom recently, where Judge Jon Tigar of the Northern District of California stopped proceedings to deliver what amounted to a public service announcement to the entire bar.<\/p>\n

As reported by<\/a> Law.com, the subject of his remarks was Dylan Salzman, a Susman Godfrey associate in his first year at the firm. A University of Chicago Law School class of 2023 grad who brought brought two clerkships to the table (one at the district court level, one at the Seventh Circuit) before joining Susman less than a year ago. He is not a raw rookie, but he is, by any standard measure, a young lawyer. And Judge Tigar was paying attention.<\/p>\n

The judge walked through Salzman\u2019s credentials methodically \u2014 the Chicago JD, the clerkships, the less-than-a-year tenure at Susman \u2014 before delivering his verdict: \u201cAnd nonetheless, the firm thought it would be a good idea for you to argue in the federal court. And what I want to say to Susman Godfrey is: Good for you. Good for you, really.\u201d<\/p>\n

Salzman\u2019s performance apparently earned those kudos. \u201cHe had the argument, and he just \u2026 knocked it out of the park,\u201d said partner Rohit Nath, who argued alongside him. Nath was quick to note that this wasn\u2019t a special occasion or a calculated risk \u2014 it was just how the firm operates. \u201cThis was really kind of our standard practice. If we have an argument, there are some arguments that the senior lawyer handles. There\u2019s some big arguments that the junior lawyer will handle entirely on their own.\u201d<\/p>\n

That philosophy, partner Justin Nelson explained, goes all the way back to the firm\u2019s founder. \u201cIt stems from, really, Steve Susman himself, who taught me and others at the firm the importance of giving younger lawyers the opportunity to really, really excel.\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s worth pausing on that framing, because it stands in fairly sharp contrast to how most of Biglaw operates. The dirty secret of large firm litigation is that the word \u201clitigator\u201d covers an enormous range of actual courtroom experience \u2014 or more accurately, the frequent lack of it. At most large firms, associates spend years doing research and drafting motions that partners argue. The path to real courtroom experience is long, indirect, and far from guaranteed. The Biglaw model, broadly speaking, is to hire large classes of talented young lawyers, extract their labor on document review and brief writing, and promote a small fraction of them while the rest leave for in-house roles or boutiques. Developing people for the courtroom is not really the point.<\/p>\n

Susman\u2019s model rejects that explicitly. The firm is small by design \u2014 the smallest member of the Am Law 100 by headcount, with roughly 200 attorneys \u2014 and it is selective precisely because it intends to develop the people it hires rather than churn through them. The clerkship pipeline<\/a> exists because the firm wants lawyers who already understand how federal courts work. The reformed recruiting model<\/a> exists because the firm wants to hire people who genuinely want to try cases, not people who made a panicked decision with half a semester of grades. And putting Salzman up to argue, giving him the argument to own, not just to observe, is the whole model in action.<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of\u00a0The Jabot podcast<\/a>, and co-host of\u00a0Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email\u00a0her<\/a>\u00a0with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post A Federal Judge Praises Susman Godfrey For Letting A Young Associate Cook<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

We\u2019ve written a lot about what makes Susman Godfrey unusual in the Biglaw landscape \u2014 the equity-only partnership<\/a>, the top-of-market compensation<\/a>, the willingness to fight Trump\u2019s executive order<\/a> rather than capitulate, the radical decision to treat law students like human beings during recruiting<\/a>. But the thing that actually defines the firm\u2019s identity, the thing all those other choices flow from, is the trial work. Susman is, at its core, a firm that tries cases. And trying cases means putting lawyers in front of judges. Young lawyers.<\/p>\n

Which brings us to a federal courtroom recently, where Judge Jon Tigar of the Northern District of California stopped proceedings to deliver what amounted to a public service announcement to the entire bar.<\/p>\n

As reported by<\/a> Law.com, the subject of his remarks was Dylan Salzman, a Susman Godfrey associate in his first year at the firm. A University of Chicago Law School class of 2023 grad who brought brought two clerkships to the table (one at the district court level, one at the Seventh Circuit) before joining Susman less than a year ago. He is not a raw rookie, but he is, by any standard measure, a young lawyer. And Judge Tigar was paying attention.<\/p>\n

The judge walked through Salzman\u2019s credentials methodically \u2014 the Chicago JD, the clerkships, the less-than-a-year tenure at Susman \u2014 before delivering his verdict: \u201cAnd nonetheless, the firm thought it would be a good idea for you to argue in the federal court. And what I want to say to Susman Godfrey is: Good for you. Good for you, really.\u201d<\/p>\n

Salzman\u2019s performance apparently earned those kudos. \u201cHe had the argument, and he just \u2026 knocked it out of the park,\u201d said partner Rohit Nath, who argued alongside him. Nath was quick to note that this wasn\u2019t a special occasion or a calculated risk \u2014 it was just how the firm operates. \u201cThis was really kind of our standard practice. If we have an argument, there are some arguments that the senior lawyer handles. There\u2019s some big arguments that the junior lawyer will handle entirely on their own.\u201d<\/p>\n

That philosophy, partner Justin Nelson explained, goes all the way back to the firm\u2019s founder. \u201cIt stems from, really, Steve Susman himself, who taught me and others at the firm the importance of giving younger lawyers the opportunity to really, really excel.\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s worth pausing on that framing, because it stands in fairly sharp contrast to how most of Biglaw operates. The dirty secret of large firm litigation is that the word \u201clitigator\u201d covers an enormous range of actual courtroom experience \u2014 or more accurately, the frequent lack of it. At most large firms, associates spend years doing research and drafting motions that partners argue. The path to real courtroom experience is long, indirect, and far from guaranteed. The Biglaw model, broadly speaking, is to hire large classes of talented young lawyers, extract their labor on document review and brief writing, and promote a small fraction of them while the rest leave for in-house roles or boutiques. Developing people for the courtroom is not really the point.<\/p>\n

Susman\u2019s model rejects that explicitly. The firm is small by design \u2014 the smallest member of the Am Law 100 by headcount, with roughly 200 attorneys \u2014 and it is selective precisely because it intends to develop the people it hires rather than churn through them. The clerkship pipeline<\/a> exists because the firm wants lawyers who already understand how federal courts work. The reformed recruiting model<\/a> exists because the firm wants to hire people who genuinely want to try cases, not people who made a panicked decision with half a semester of grades. And putting Salzman up to argue, giving him the argument to own, not just to observe, is the whole model in action.<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of\u00a0The Jabot podcast<\/a>, and co-host of\u00a0Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email\u00a0her<\/a>\u00a0with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post A Federal Judge Praises Susman Godfrey For Letting A Young Associate Cook<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

We\u2019ve written a lot about what makes Susman Godfrey unusual in the Biglaw landscape \u2014 the equity-only partnership, the top-of-market compensation, the willingness to fight Trump\u2019s executive order rather than capitulate, the radical decision to treat law students like human beings during recruiting. But the thing that actually defines the firm\u2019s identity, the thing all […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":151109,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-151108","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/IMG_5243-1-scaled-e1623338814705-620x568-uVhdps.jpg?fit=620%2C568&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151108","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=151108"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151108\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/151109"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=151108"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=151108"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=151108"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}