David v. Goliath: A Conversation With Julia Woog

Ed. note: This is the second installment of a series of interviews with accomplished attorneys concerning “David vs. Goliath” scenarios and the strategies and innovations lawyers use — including litigation finance — to help level the playing field. This series is sponsored by Lake Whillans Litigation Finance.

Tell us a bit about your background and practice.

I am a litigation partner at Yarmuth Wilsdon PLLC.   I practice with 14 other dynamic, savvy, and seasoned litigators. Our firm is small—a David you could say. But my colleagues and I all previously worked at either large top-notch law firms or for the U.S. Attorney’s Office—so we bring some of Goliath’s secrets to our fighting arsenal. I litigate complex civil and commercial matters for plaintiffs and defendants, about 50% on intellectual property matters and 50% on business, contract, and securities disputes. I have been named a “Rising Star” in Washington Super Lawyers Magazine for the past three years, and as one of “The Top Women Attorneys in Washington” in Seattle Metropolitan magazine in 2014.

Before joining Yarmuth Wilsdon I worked at Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton in New York City. I am a Stanford Law School graduate (a.k.a. law school in paradise). I currently sit on the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees for Crisis Clinic, a Seattle-based non-profit.  And last but not least, I am the mother of two truly spunky daughters—2 and 4—so I regularly get to practice my skills of persuasion on a pretty tough audience.

What are your views on trends in litigation which are “leveling the playing field” through technology, funding alternatives, other innovations?

In terms of technology, I think the playing field is being leveled just by the incredible access to information that exists these days—much of it for free. In the first years of my practice, litigators did “research” only in a legal research database, and might have hired investigators to dig up witnesses and facts. But now internet searches provide rich data for litigation—you can find out what people on the opposing side have said in social media, find out what other lawsuits the opposing parties have been involved in, and you can save cost-sensitive clients money by starting legal research in Google. I think this era of low-cost access to information has allowed clients without great resources to get through early stages of litigation for a lower cost and gain leverage that may help facilitate early settlement even before getting through costly discovery (which often is the best option for a client without great resources).

In terms of funding alternatives, the introduction of third party litigation funding really offers an expansion of the contingency model. Lawyers have long been taking cases that have merit, but would not otherwise get to the courtroom, on a contingency basis. But a meritorious case still might not go forward with the traditional contingency option. For some cases the costs (as opposed to legal fees) might be so high that the clients can’t afford to cover even that piece of the litigation—particularly in this digital age when document discovery is often voluminous and discovery costs extensive. And in other instances, a law firm that sees merit in a case might not be able to take it on because of the firm’s own case load or cash flow concerns. The arrival of litigation finance in the market helps pick up these cases and means that a strong claim should never be frustrated just for a plaintiff’s lack of resources.

Sponsored

Can you share with us account of a “David & Goliath” case, where a party was able to leverage new approaches to succeed against a seemingly better resourced opponent?

My firm recently represented a group of over a hundred investors who had been cheated out of their money through investments in illegal unregistered securities. These individuals’ investments ranged from $25,000 to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The losses to these individuals were real—many of them had been encouraged to invest all of their savings in these fraudulent securities. It would not have been economically feasible for most of these individuals to pursue their claims; not only were the individual claims relatively small, but many of them could not cover the costs of litigation. Through some creative financing solutions to cover costs, we were able to represent this group of investors and file a direct action and thirteen derivative actions against a well-funded defendant. We got a crucial ruling in our favor on summary judgment, and weeks before trial the defendant offered a hefty settlement amount—which our clients accepted. It was particularly meaningful to see how much our clients appreciated not just the monetary recovery, but also the vindication and validation they got through the legal system. The idea that litigation financing can also help other deserving parties achieve this kind of victory is pretty exciting.

                                                                                                                                     

This column is one in a series by Lake Whillans Litigation Finance. To learn more about us, and litigation finance generally, visit us at our website,  lakewhillans.com. To ask a specific question, suggest a topic, or simply say hello, drop us a line at inquiry@lakewhillans.com.

Sponsored