A Top SCOTUS Litigator’s Major Lateral Move

Neal Katyal gave me the inside scoop on his move to Milbank from Hogan Lovells.

Neal K. Katyal (courtesy photo by Matt Sayles).

Welcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here.

---

One major story this week in two worlds I follow closely—Biglaw and the U.S. Supreme Court—was legendary litigator Neal Katyal’s move to Milbank.¹ If you’re a regular reader of Original Jurisdiction, you know plenty about Katyal, one of the country’s top SCOTUS advocates. But if you’re not familiar with him, here are some key facts:

• Katyal served as Acting Solicitor General of the United States, succeeding his old boss, Elena Kagan (who found something else to do).

• He has argued before the high court 52 times, more than any other minority lawyer in history (surpassing the prior record holder, a certain someone named Thurgood Marshall).

• Katyal’s SCOTUS wins include landmark rulings like Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), in which the Court rejected the second Bush administration’s use of military commissions at Guantanamo Bay; Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (2013), a key case about what can and can’t be patented; and Bristol Myers Squibb v. Superior Court (2017), an important precedent about personal jurisdiction.

For a deeper dive into Katyal’s life and career, check out our 2023 podcast conversation.

Hiring a top attorney like Neal Katyal, in the super-prestigious practice area of Supreme Court and appellate litigation, fits in perfectly with Milbank chair Scott Edelman’s plan of world conquest. And that plan seems to be on track: the firm had an excellent year in 2024, posting record results according to multiple metrics. Revenue grew by 23 percent to $1.86 billion, profits per equity partner rose by 33 percent to $6.8 million, and net income for equity partners increased by 36.5 percent to $1.16 billion, per Patrick Smith of The American Lawyer.

This level of profitability kicks off a virtuous cycle. By making bank, Milbank builds a war chest so it can go out and hoover up star laterals. These rainmakers take their talents and books of business to Milbank—which can often help grow them further, if Milbank is a superior platform to the firm that the lateral left behind. That generates mo’ money for Milbank—and the cycle begins anew.

And make no mistake: talent like Neal Katyal doesn’t come cheap. He has one of the highest billing rates in all of Biglaw: $2,465 back in 2022, so it’s surely higher now. And in addition to the revenue generated by him and his team, he brings in clients who create work for other practices.

So of course Katyal was paid handsomely; word on the street is that he was the highest-paid partner at Hogan Lovells, his professional home since 2011. But with profits per equity partner of “only” $2.7 million, Hogan Lovells can’t compete on comp with Milbank. (This was reflected in Hogan’s initial decision to pay below-market bonuses—a move I actually praised at the time, although the firm subsequently reversed itself.)

If I had to guess, Katyal was earning in the high-single-digit millions at Hogan Lovells. But in moving to Milbank, he’s likely joining what I like to call “The Eight-Figure Club”—the growing number of partners who earn $10 million or more a year.

As I constantly tell people, however, professional satisfaction as a lawyer isn’t all (or even mostly) about the benjamins. Do you enjoy the work that you do, on a day-to-day basis? Do you find it fulfilling in a deeper way? Do you have wonderful colleagues—people who aren’t just co-workers, but friends? These are all factors that can outweigh pay when choosing among opportunities.²

And non-monetary factors played a major role in Neal Katyal’s move to Milbank, as he explained to me in an interview. His joining Milbank was covered by seemingly every outlet, including the Dealbook newsletter of The New York Times (which broke the news), Bloomberg Law, The American Lawyer, Law360, Reuters, and Above the Law. But I believe his comments to me, which went well beyond Milbank’s press release, represent his most in-depth remarks to date about his jump.

David Lat: Congratulations on your move to Milbank. What did you find most compelling about the firm as a platform for your practice? [I did ask Katyal about his pay package—I’m nosy like that, it’s my job—but he declined to comment.]

Neal Katyal: I really never thought I’d leave Hogan Lovells. But Milbank made the impossible possible.

For one thing, it was not lost on me how they treat their associates—always as the nationwide leaders and first movers. For someone like me, who relishes hiring the very best associates and trying to treat them well and mentor them, this was huge. I like the values of the firm; they square with mine.

For another, I was blown away by the quality and experience of the lawyers at Milbank. It is so rare to have a New York law firm regularly doing five-plus trials a year; but Milbank has that, with a superstar set of lawyers who know how to try cases, including many of the best former S.D.N.Y. assistant U.S. attorneys. I can’t wait to advocate with them on behalf of clients.

That segues into something else that was critical to me: I was blown away by the decency and humanity of the lawyers at Milbank. This is a firm that prizes excellence in lawyering, but so, too, excellence in dealing with other people. I met more than 75 partners, and I came away liking every single one of them—to a T. That’s something I always emphasize to my students, that being a great lawyer does not and should not come at the expense of being a great human being. If anything, they work together. The culture of Milbank is living proof of that. In fact, my favorite law student ever (and sorry that I have favorites, but I have a few) is Nola Heller, a recent lateral to Milbank (and another former S.D.N.Y. alum). Nola embodies the best of the bar, as a lawyer and a person, and I’m beyond thrilled to work with her.

DL: Will your docket change? In prior interviews, you mentioned more Second Circuit work, for example.

NK: I have always had four buckets of work—Supreme Court, appellate courts, trial oversight, and advisory work—and I expect they will stay the same. The first two are obvious. But trial oversight is a critical part of the practice. We are regularly called on—mostly by other firms but sometimes by GCs—to oversee some of the nation’s most significant trials from an appellate perspective. We make sure the architecture of the legal defense is laced in at the start, for preservation reasons but also to put our best foot forward right away. This work always pays off for clients, and it’s great experience for my associates as well.

The advisory work is different and unique. When I came out of government, I had a two-year ethics ban that precluded me from almost all Supreme Court litigation. So I fell into another line of work: advising tech companies on hard legal problems, well before they become court cases. The problems span the gamut—regulatory, IP, torts, contracts, privacy, whatever. I love the work because it allows us to help a client build something, not just deal with something ex post. Sometimes we are literally helping them design (or not design) products for market. It’s another aspect of lawyering I love. Being able to speak for clients in court is such a privilege, but so too is quietly helping them think through their questions and concerns.

All of that is to say that I don’t think the practice composition will change much, but I do anticipate more Second Circuit work. That’s always been my home court, where I clerked for Judge [Guido] Calabresi, and I treasure it.

DL: Milbank has a lot of financial-services clients—maybe you’ll have more work in that sector?

NK: I certainly hope so! I had such a fun time arguing the Citibank miswire of $1 billion case, for example (and against a great advocate, Kathleen Sullivan). I also did the LIBOR appeals for all 18 banks, which was such an interesting exercise in working together.

DL: I know you’ll be officially based out of D.C., but will you spend more time in New York City?

NK: Yes. I’ve already begun to, and have an apartment there. I recently joined the Whitney Museum Board, and have been on the PioneerWorks Board in Brooklyn for several years, and I have so many dear friends in New York. And the rock music and theater scenes speak to me.

DL: How much of your work or client base is moving with you?

NK: It’s been amazing. Every client who called me over the last three days volunteered that they want to continue working with me. You never know until you get the call, and I was a bit nervous.

DL: What about Coinbase? They took a public stance against Milbank after it hired Gurbir Grewal [former head of the Enforcement Division of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, where he handled cryptocurrency issues—not always to the industry’s liking].

NK: I don’t want to get into the future of individual clients, but I’m a deep believer in the crypto industry. For the last three years, I’ve chaired the Advisory Board of Galaxy Digital, a leading company in the space. I spoke at the Bitcoin conference three years ago. And yes, I represented Coinbase in their two Supreme Court cases (the first two cases ever at SCOTUS to involve crypto). Milbank has recently hired Josh Sterling, a brilliant former CFTC director with serious experience and belief in crypto. I’m very much looking forward to working with the Milbank team to litigate and advocate for sensible crypto policy.

DL: As Scott Edelman acknowledged, appellate isn’t an area where Milbank historically has had a big presence. Will any of your Hogan colleagues follow you, or will you staff your matters with existing Milbank talent?

NK: I am so grateful that so many phenomenal lawyers have asked to work with me at Milbank in the last few days. It’s beyond exciting. If I have one talent, it’s finding the best legal talent and getting them to work together with me. I promise them a phenomenal experience and that I will mentor them, and it’s a privilege. For example, a couple of weeks ago, I had an associate argue a major Supreme Court case, Barnes v. Felix. And sitting with him was Zoe Jacoby, a new assistant solicitor general who used to work with me as well. It was the first SCOTUS argument for both of them. And it reminded me of why I’m in this profession and what I want to do: help identify and develop the next generation of great oral advocates.

I also want to say a word about Scott Edelman. He made this whole thing possible. I was astounded by his hands-on leadership and the fact that he’s a top-flight lawyer who does trials at the same time as he is chairing the firm. His attention to detail is impeccable—he’s listening to the oral arguments of people on my team and commenting on them. In many ways, he reminds me of the phenomenal CEO who brought me to Hogan 13 years ago, Warren Gorrell. I know some say lawyers suck as managers. These two put the lie to that.

DL: Thanks for connecting with me, Neal, and congrats again on joining a great firm!

1. No, I haven’t forgotten that I promised you a new Supreme Court clerk hiring roundup. I was planning to publish it this week, but in light of all the news—in addition to Katyal’s move, the showdown between Danielle Sassoon and Emil Bove—I decided to bump the hiring report to next week.

My earlier offer still stands: if you provide me with an October Term 2025 hire that I don’t already have, I’ll give you a complimentary, six-month paid subscription to Original Jurisdiction (which will allow you to view the full clerk lists when I publish them). Here are the justices whose OT 2025 hires I’m missing, in whole or in part: Chief Justice Roberts (but not Billy Eisenhauer or Brynne Follman), Justice Alito (any clerk), Justice Barrett (but not Kate Rhodes or Matt Phillips), and Justice Kennedy (the one clerk he’s entitled to as a retired justice). I have complete OT 2025 clerk rosters for Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Jackson, and Breyer.

To submit a hire, please email me, at davidlat dot substack dot com, or text me, at 917-397-2751 (texts only—not a voice line). Please include the words “SCOTUS Clerk Hiring” in your email or text message, perhaps as the subject line of your email or the first words of your text. Thanks!

2. In an excellent essay for Law.com, “Beyond the Compensation: Advice from Top Law Firm Leaders to Lateral Partners,” prominent legal recruiter Dan Binstock asked leaders of law firms for the advice they’d give to lateral partners. One recurring theme among the responses is the importance of looking beyond just monetary factors.

Here’s what one law-firm leader told Binstock: “Truly take the time to learn everything you possibly can about the firm you are considering joining. The goal should not be simply to increase the size of your paycheck. You are joining a new professional family, one that you should hope will be a better professional and cultural fit.”

At the same time, star laterals sometimes ask Binstock in response, “While I am encouraged to look beyond compensation, how often does that same principle apply in the other direction?” So while Binstock doesn’t deny the importance of non-financial considerations, he correctly notes that when it comes to lateral moves, “profitability is often the driving factor—for both the partner making the move and the firm doing the hiring.”

---

Thanks for reading Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to my paid subscribers for making this publication possible. Subscribers get (1) access to Judicial Notice, my time-saving weekly roundup of the most notable news in the legal world; (2) additional stories reserved for paid subscribers; (3) transcripts of podcast interviews; and (4) the ability to comment on posts. You can email me at davidlat@substack.com with questions or comments, and you can share this post or subscribe using the buttons below.