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.
Over the three decades that I’ve been in and around the legal profession, one of the most interesting developments has been the rise of what I’d call “The Modern Attorney General.”1
Years ago, the typical state attorney general had a fairly sleepy role. Much of the job was reactive—enforcing criminal laws or defending state statutes in court—and focused on in-state developments.
Today, the office looks very different. State attorneys general have harnessed their powers to pursue aggressive affirmative agendas, from policing entire industries to serving as a check on the federal government. Many AGs are now national figures who play a major role in shaping law and policy—whether it’s red-state AGs suing the Biden administration or blue-state AGs suing the Trump administration.
As a proud resident of the Garden State, I’m especially interested in the New Jersey Attorney General’s office—one of the most powerful in the country. So I was delighted to interview Matthew Platkin, New Jersey’s 62nd attorney general. During his four years in office, which ended in January, Matt handled dozens of high-profile cases, including multiple matters that reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
Last month, Matt returned to the private sector and launched Platkin LLP, a mission-driven firm he co-founded with former colleagues from the New Jersey AG’s office. In Matt’s words, the firm will “hold the world’s most powerful corporations and institutions accountable when they break the law and harm the public.”
Thanks to Matt for his service as New Jersey AG—not without controversies, some of which we discussed—and for joining me on the podcast.
Show Notes:
Matt Platkin bio, Platkin LLP
Platkin: ‘I said from day one that I was going to pursue justice,’ by Briana Vannozzi for NJ Spotlight News
Former New Jersey attorney general launches new law firm, by David Thomas for Reuters
Prefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.
Sponsored by:
NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.
Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don’t alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.
David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I’m your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat.substack.com. You’re listening to the ninety-second episode of this podcast, recorded on Tuesday, February 24.
Thanks to this podcast’s sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.
As someone who grew up in New Jersey and moved back here five years ago, I take an interest in goings-on in the Garden State. So I’m pleased to announce my latest guest: Matthew Platkin, New Jersey’s 62nd attorney general. During his four years as AG, which ended in January, Matt handled dozens of high-profile, high-stakes cases—including multiple matters that made their way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Last month, Matt returned to the private sector and launched Platkin LLP. A mission-driven law firm that he co-founded with former colleagues from the New Jersey AG’s office, Platkin LLP will, in Matt’s words, “hold the world’s most powerful corporations and institutions accountable when they break the law and harm the public.” Without further ado, here’s my conversation with Matt Platkin.
Matt, thank you so much for joining me.
Matt Platkin: Thanks so much for having me, David.
DL: Tell us about your background and upbringing. Where did you grow up?
MP: I was born and raised in New Jersey. I’m actually living a few miles from where my great-grandparents raised my grandparents and, in the other direction, from where my dad grew up. So I’m very proud to be raising the next generation right here in New Jersey.
DL: What town did you grow up in?
MP: I grew up in Florham Park, and then we moved to Harding in Morris County. So I lived mostly in Morris County, a little west of where I live now.
DL: That’s actually the area where my husband grew up, and it’s not terribly far from where we are now in Union County. Where are you currently based?
MP: Montclair. I’ve been in Montclair for 11 years now.
DL: Turning to your career, did you have any lawyers in the family or any early exposure to law?
MP: My dad’s a lawyer. He practiced at a firm in Newark, which is where we’re basing our firm, and then he had an in-house career. And I always looked up to the New Jersey bar because it really is—and still is, to this day—a relatively close-knit community compared to a lot of other bars. So he exposed me to the law. My grandfather on my mom’s side wasn’t a lawyer but a career government servant—a naval officer who later worked for the Department of Energy. I always looked up to him in his public service career. So I’d say those two things were the big reasons why I ended up going into law and why I’ve spent most of my career in public service.
DL: When you went to law school, did you have in mind a career in government or public service? Or did you have a thought that maybe you would follow your father’s career path, in terms of a firm and in-house work? What were you thinking?
MP: I knew I wanted to go into public service. I was actually in public service before law school. In between law school, I spent some time in Washington, D.C., at the Brookings Institution. And then I actually went to San Antonio, Texas, to run my friend’s city council campaign when we were 23. And I’m very privileged—I had two great academic experiences, at Stanford for college and law school—but that time on the ground in San Antonio was probably the best educational experience I had about what government means to people.
So I knew I wanted to go into public service—and I knew I wanted to come back to New Jersey. Even though I went back to Stanford and the West Coast for law school, there was never a question that I’d be coming back to New Jersey. And during law school, I spent a lot of time engaged in various public service efforts and campaigns. I worked on Senator Booker’s 2013 Senate race, I worked on President Obama’s reelection in 2012, and I guess I caught the bug. So I knew that public service was going to be a big part of my career.
DL: What was your first job out of Stanford Law School?
MP: My first job, actually, was at Debevoise & Plimpton. I thought what I wanted to do was to be a federal prosecutor. I’d spent a summer at the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District in New York. There were a few firms that had the most number of former AUSAs, and Debevoise was right at the top. Mary Jo White recruited me there. And there are people from my time at Debevoise with whom I’m still very close, including Sean Hecker and Dave O’Neil.
I had a great time, but I went there thinking I was going to go to government. And then shortly after I was there, through some friends from the Booker world, I ended up meeting Phil Murphy. At the time, he wasn’t really a candidate for anything; he had formed a policy organization, and so I started helping him. That ultimately put me on the path to coming back to New Jersey and public service.
DL: Where did you go after Debevoise?
MP: So I left Debevoise—and by the way, I loved my time there, I did really interesting work, both on white-collar cases and on some really meaningful pro bono cases—to go work as the policy director for an organization that Governor Murphy had started to advocate for middle-class issues. And then, ultimately, I became the policy director on his campaign in 2016, when he ran for governor. I was the first lawyer on that team.
And then when he was successful in November of 2017, I came on as his chief counsel—and New Jersey has the strongest governor, constitutionally, in the country, so governor’s counsel is a very important position in the state. You advise the governor, you handle all legislation, you handle all litigation involving him. It was a really interesting and challenging job. I did that for three years. So that’s the immediate period, five years or so, after I left Debevoise.
DL: How young were you when you became the governor’s chief counsel? Because as you mentioned, that’s a big job, and former occupants of it have gone on to some pretty distinguished careers. You must have been quite young.
MP: I guess I was 31 years old when I got that job.
DL: Wow. And was it stressful to have that kind of responsibility at such a relatively young age?
MP: I’ve been privileged to have a lot of opportunities relatively early in my career (though now it doesn’t feel that early). And the truth is, no one is really prepared entirely on their own for those jobs. Whether it was chief counsel or attorney general, you have to surround yourself with people who have skills and experience that complement yours.
And so that job in particular is incredibly challenging, because the responsibilities that the governor deals with on a day-to-day basis and the powers the governor has are extraordinary, but the team is actually quite small. So for thousands of pieces of legislation that you’re reviewing, you might have half a dozen people. You oversee about 50 state authorities. Most people don’t think much about the authorities, but the budgets of these authorities dwarf the state budget, so they’re really significant governmental bodies in our region—everything from the Port Authority to the water authorities to the Economic Development Authority to NJ Transit. So you have a lot of responsibilities that you have to manage in that job. And then, of course, the governor is a very busy person.
I loved my time there. It covered probably the most challenging period—I don’t think will come as a surprise, I know you lived this, David—it covered the beginning of the COVID pandemic, when I’d say it’s fair to say the legal questions that were confronting governors and their use of emergency powers were almost entirely cases of first impression. We had never seen them before.
I’m proud that none of the governor’s executive orders were struck down in court. I’m not sure if any other state can say that. We were very thoughtful about how we did it. And I’m proud of the work we did. The average tenure in that job’s about a year; I did it for about three years. So I really enjoyed it. It was a very challenging job, but I had a lot of fun.
DL: That brings us to a job that you recently completed your service in: you were the New Jersey Attorney General. And it’s interesting: you mentioned that New Jersey has a very powerful governor, and it also has a unique and very powerful Office of the Attorney General. Maybe you can talk a little bit about that.
MP: New Jersey got a new constitution in 1947. The drafters of it really liked strong executive power, so they created the strongest governor by constitutional authority in the country, the strongest chief justice by constitutional authority in the country—the complete administrator of all of our courts is the chief justice. And they created a very strong and independent attorney general, appointed by the governor, who—different from the head of the U.S. Department of Justice—once confirmed by the state Senate, has tenure and can be removed only by impeachment. So you have a fair amount of independence as AG.
The New Jersey Attorney General also has very broad authority. When you become an AG, you learn that every attorney general likes to talk about their relative authorities—and New Jersey has some of the broadest in the country. We had complete criminal jurisdiction, meaning we could take any case. We have no elected prosecutors in New Jersey; they all report to the attorney general. So you have oversight over the 42,000 law enforcement officers. So we have very broad criminal jurisdiction, which is somewhat unique relative to other offices—but we also have extremely broad civil jurisdiction. We were the lawyers for every state agency. We were the only office that could sue on behalf of the state—consumer protection, civil rights. We had a lot of things in our portfolio that you wouldn’t expect: we regulated gambling, alcohol, horse racing, boxing. Just about everyone who’s professionally licensed in the state—so almost a million people—run through our department. Our state police has about 8,000 people in total. They’re an incredible department and do incredible job.
But going to what I was saying before: no one person is going to have all of that experience wrapped into one. So you really have to build a strong team and rely on them. And I was very fortunate to work with some incredible public servants.
DL: How long was your service as Attorney General?
MP: I did my full term, a four-year term. I’m proud that I was the first AG in decades to complete a full term, which is hard to believe. And so I served from the start of the second term of the Murphy administration, February 2022, until last month, when I left office at the end of the Murphy administration.
DL: You mentioned earlier the independence of the Attorney General’s office, even from the governor. You had a couple of situations over your tenure where you and Governor Murphy actually parted ways or disagreed on some things, right?
MP: In terms of the job of a state attorney general—especially in this moment, for every attorney general—people expect the attorney general to be their lawyer, to be the people’s lawyer, to serve the interests of the people. The governor is an important client—we represent the governor’s office in the AG’s office, we work very closely with them, and obviously, on policy issues, we take a lot of direction from them—but there are times when independence comes into play.
I have tremendous respect for Governor Murphy. I’m always going to be grateful that I had the chance to serve in his administration. He was a terrific governor. But there are some times when institutions have different views—and that is how they set up the system. I recognize not everybody always likes that, but I took my job, and the independence of my job, quite seriously. And it’s important that people know that you’re making decisions based on what you think the law says and what you think is in the best interest of the residents of the state and nothing else. And I tried to do that every single day.
DL: As a New Jerseyan myself, I was very impressed when you made a decision that, I guess you could say, ruffled some feathers in the political establishment, and maybe even had some political implications for the governor’s wife. Again, this is all stuff that I’m familiar with as a resident of New Jersey, and also as someone who grew up here, but maybe you can briefly talk about that.
MP: New Jersey has a lot of unique features when it comes to our elections, including that we have elections constantly because our legislative and gubernatorial elections are off-year. We have 565 municipalities, in a state that’s a little bigger by population than New York City. So we’re constantly having elections; we really like elections in New Jersey.
And until a couple years ago, we also were the only state in the country that had a ballot design that essentially gave county political organizations—party bosses—control over the placement of candidates’ names on the ballot. So in many counties, you’d have a situation where the endorsed candidates would be up at the top or on the far left, visually most aligned with where a voter would be. And then the opponents would be somewhere... they actually called it “Ballot Siberia,” somewhere over here on the side, you had to sort of flip a page or look really far to find them. Unsurprisingly, the evidence was quite clear that as a result, challengers to incumbents essentially never won in our state. [Ed. note: This ballot feature was known as “The Line” because, as The New York Times explained, “the candidates officially endorsed by the leaders of the local [political] parties [would be] listed in a single column or row in a prominent position known as ‘The Line.’”]
So there were three different lawsuits. Two were filed before my tenure, which were making their way through the courts, and then one was filed during the Senate race involving now-Senator Andy Kim and First Lady Tammy Murphy—both of whom I have tremendous respect for, and I never talked to either of them about the case. Andy filed a preliminary injunction application in federal court and put forth a host of evidence supporting his claim that that ballot design burdened his associational rights, there’s a constitutional balancing test, and as the attorney general of the state, under the federal rules, I had the opportunity to weigh in. And I filed a letter saying that I did not think that statute could be defended in light of the evidence presented.
And we laid out real criteria for when a state AG could choose to not defend a statute. That’s an extraordinary step, and it should be reserved for very limited circumstances, because my job is not to inject my own personal or policy views; it’s to defend statutes. But there are certain times when the statutes become indefensible. The District Court and the Third Circuit both agreed with our assessment, and now that ballot design is no longer in place. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that, in the year and a half to two years since that’s happened, we’ve seen far more incumbents lose primary challenges than we had seen in my entire life before that. And that’s a good thing. We should not be afraid of democracy. People’s First Amendment rights are important, they should be able to exercise them, and we shouldn’t be putting thumbs on the scale. That’s what the Constitution says.
DL: Yes. I have to say, I really respect the stance you took against “The Line.” As a New Jersey voter, I can attest to how much of an advantage that gave incumbents, having seen those ballots. But let me ask you this: over your whole tenure as New Jersey AG, is there a particular accomplishment that you’re most proud of?
MP: Oh, we could spend an hour. I’m proud that we did exactly what we said we’d do. I got into public service, going back to high school, because I grew up in the Columbine generation. I never wanted to see my kids grow up in a country where gun violence is their most likely cause of death. So we did a lot on gun violence. We drove gun violence to the lowest levels they’ve ever been at in New Jersey, three years running. In the 10 years before I took office, we averaged 1,300 shootings a year in the state. My last year, we drove it down to 559. That’s a 60 percent reduction.
And I think a big part of that is because I created the first office of its kind in the country dedicated to suing bad actors in the firearms industry. And we filed more lawsuits, more affirmative lawsuits… by the way, as we do with every other industry. There is no other industry where we just say, “if you break the law, we’re not going to hold you accountable”—but guns were getting a free pass. So we brought more of those cases than any state in the country. No surprise that that’s happening. And by the way, it’s happening now across the country. Literally, as I was getting on here, my good friend, AG Keith Ellison, who’s been dealing with an extraordinary amount of challenges in Minnesota, just let me know they’re settling a really important case.
I’m proud of the cases we led on behalf of consumers, particularly against big tech companies. We were the lead state taking on Apple in the largest antitrust case ever filed. We sued Meta and TikTok for harms against kids. We were the first state to sue Discord for the harms they’re causing kids. We were really active on those cases. We settled the single largest environmental case ever by a single state—$2.5 billion against DuPont, the largest ever non-Medicaid healthcare-fraud case by a state. So we’re really active on behalf of our consumers. We brought back billions of dollars to the state and put really strong injunctive terms in place.
And then for a last item, I would just say, because this one doesn’t always get looked at: I’m really proud of what we did in Paterson, the third-largest city in our state. I mentioned broad authority: I took over the Paterson Police Department back in March 2023, and we fundamentally transformed policing in that city, brought in professional leadership—and crime is way down, and trust is up. It was on the brink of, frankly, a crisis of confidence back in 2023, and the transformation has been just tremendous. So I’m really proud of all that.
And obviously we didn’t even talk about the cases against the Trump administration, which I’m sure will come up. But I’m very proud of those too, standing up for the rule of law.
DL: Actually, let’s talk about some of those. In fact, if I recall correctly, the famous case about challenging universal injunctions involved the state of New Jersey, and your extremely talented solicitor general, Jeremy Feigenbaum, argued that before the high court. And there are a couple of cases involving New Jersey that are currently pending before the Court. There’s the New Jersey Transit case. [Ed. note: That case, Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp., was decided by the Court this morning.] There’s First Choice Women’s Resource Center. Tell us about New Jersey and the Trump administration—because in some ways, state AGs have been some of the actors in the system who have been willing to take on the federal government.
MP: It’s just a fact: it has been the 23 Democratic AGs across the country. This work started well before January of 2025. It started in early 2024, when a number of us came together and said, “Some of the things that are being said would definitely break the law and would really hurt our states, and we can’t be caught flatfooted.” And so we put a lot of time and effort into preparing for things that possibly might never have happened. And I actually think that was us doing our job.
You mentioned Jeremy—he was very involved. Angela Cai, who works with me now in my firm, was very involved in setting up some of the structures. And AGs across the country really leaned in—some of the best public servants I’ve ever had the chance to work with. I can’t speak highly enough about them; I talk to these folks probably more than I talk to anybody else at this point. They are truly believers in standing up for the rule of law and for the public.
Think about birthright citizenship. At 8 p.m. on the president’s first day in office, he signed an executive order purporting to rewrite the 14th Amendment for the first time at 157 years, and at 11 a.m. the next day, we sued. That doesn’t happen by accident—and we litigated that all the way up to the high court. And here’s one thing gets lost about that Supreme Court argument: yes, it ended up being focused on nationwide injunctions, but notwithstanding some of the rhetoric of the decision, it actually was a favorable decision for states. So I want to be clear about that: states’ ability to seek nationwide injunctions was preserved in that decision. Sometimes it got a little lost in the coverage. But that case went up there on the shadow docket—and so in very short order, we had to prepare to argue every aspect of that case, and so it just happened to be that they ended up focusing on the nationwide-injunction issue. But that’s one of the challenges with the shadow docket.
So we’ve had dozens and dozens of suits. Birthright was the first. Week two was the funding freeze—$3 trillion—and then it was just sort of off to the races from there. New Jersey is litigating phenomenally the Gateway funding freeze now. New Jersey is at the forefront in a way that it was not necessarily all the time in the first Trump administration—and that’s because we have leaned in and brought in tremendously talented lawyers to stand up for the rule of law. And we’ve returned tens of billions of dollars to the state of New Jersey, which is a pretty important factor.
DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It’s not easy, especially if your benefits don’t match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits@nexfirm.com.
New Jersey legal circles being as small as they are, I know a number of the folks who you served with in the AG’s office, including Jeremy and Angela, and you really did build a great team. And as we talked about earlier, you have a lot to show for it.
But some of your moves were controversial. For example, a judge dismissed your corruption case against George Norcross, who is kind of notorious here in New Jersey as a Democratic power broker in the southern part of the state. Was that an overreach on your part?
MP: I’ve said publicly about as much as I’ll say about any criminal case, particularly that one. But what I’ve said and what I stand by is that case, as with all of our cases, was investigated and pursued and ultimately prosecuted by career professionals in our department and in partnership with federal officers.
So as a general matter, there is a massive problem in this country with corruption. It is true in New Jersey; it is true in Washington. And there is, unsurprisingly, also a related problem in that we have the lowest trust in government since the Civil War. Any case can go sideways; that happens. You do what you think is the right thing to do based on the information presented to you by career people. You don’t pursue cases for reasons other than that. And frankly, you hold everyone to the same standard. So choosing to bring a case under a higher standard or a lower standard, simply because of who they are or how powerful they may be—either way would be wrong.
I had a lot of successes against powerful people, too, and I’m proud of that. But most importantly, I’m proud that whether it was the “Line” case, corruption cases, or taking on powerful companies, we thought about one thing: is someone breaking the law and hurting people in the state? And if the answer was yes and the evidence supported it, we pursued the case. And more often than not, far more often than not, we were successful. But I would just say, as to anyone who’s taken on tough fights, if you don’t have a setback or two, then you’ve probably not taken on many tough fights. You certainly don’t seek them out; that’s not why you go into this. But you also have to be unafraid of bringing important cases when you are presented with facts and law that support it.
DL: I think you’re totally right, and that’s so true: if you’re winning every fight you’re in, you’re probably not taking enough stances. But let me ask you this. We talked earlier about the Supreme Court. You are actually a named party in First Choice Women’s Resources Center, Inc. v. Platkin. This is a First Amendment case arising out of subpoenas that your office issued to faith-based pregnancy centers. I’m curious: are you still the litigant or respondent in this case, or has your successor as AG, Jennifer Davenport, taken over as the respondent in this case?
MP: I actually don’t know; I assume it will be changed. And by the way, I have to give a shout-out to Attorney General Davenport. I’ve worked with her for many years. She’s an extraordinary public servant, with a distinguished law enforcement career, and just a great person, so I’m really thrilled for her. And I don’t know if it’ll be First Choice v. Platkin or First Choice v. Davenport. It was a little weird sitting in the Court listening to your name be thrown around, but it’s one of the many things you have to endure as an attorney general of a state.
But that case is another example. Honestly, what was at issue in that case is very routine. It was an administrative subpoena issued to a crisis pregnancy center, which was based on concerns that donors and individuals were being misled about the services provided there. If it wasn’t in the abortion context—which this one happens to be—this would be the most ho-hum of things that we did. I do think it is exceptional that the Supreme Court took this case on in this posture. I don’t think they would be doing it for virtually any other activity, but certain rights—reproductive rights, gun rights—are treated differently by the Supreme Court than other rights, I think it’s fair to say at this point. And we’ll see what the Court does. But the issuance of an administrative subpoena, a non-self-executing subpoena, or in some cases, a civil investigative demand—it’s very, very common. I couldn’t tell you how many, but probably tens or hundreds of thousands a year are issued across the country. So I was proud that we litigated that case. It was an important case. Sundeep Iyer, who’s now still in the office, did an exceptional job. It was his first argument before the Supreme Court, and I’m very proud of him.
DL: It can be a dangerous business trying to predict these things, but it did seem that the justices were somewhat skeptical of the position that you took. Again, it’s a pending case, and maybe you’re limited to what you can say about it, but do you have any thoughts on how this might come out or anything of that nature?
MP: You gave me the opportunity, so I will say that it is a pending case, and I’m limited in what I can say. But I stand by what the state did in that case. And by the way, I don’t sit and write investigative demands. It’s always funny when people think, “Oh, you did this.” No, career folks in the Division of Consumer Affairs are the ones doing this, based on concerns that were valid, so it’s a routine act. We do it for all sorts of industries. If this were, say, a pharmacy suggesting certain medical products were safe when they weren’t, and we issued them the same administrative subpoena, if those medical products were about headaches instead of abortion care, we wouldn’t be talking about this case. I think it’s plain and simple. And by the way, we issued a lot of administrative subpoenas on that or a very similar set of facts. You’ve never heard about them. We’ve never talked about them. It’s because I do think this is an exceptional case, or is being treated like an exceptional case, when really it’s actually quite ordinary. So we will see what the Court does—but again, it was well argued, and I’m proud of what the state has done.
DL: As a resident of New Jersey, I keep getting these random flyers from some unidentified source—no one is putting their name to these—that are basically just attacking you. I have one of them here. I’ve thrown a bunch of them out already, because I’ve gotten more than one, and this one says, “Legislators are working overtime to prevent someone with Platkin’s inexperience from becoming attorney general ever again.” What do you know about these mailers? Who keeps on bombarding us with these mailers—and why?
MP: If you’re a Yankees fan, Reggie Jackson once said, “They don’t boo nobodies.” I left office a month ago; the fact that someone is still sending these mailers…. First of all, many of the things said on these mailers are patently false, so let’s just be clear about that. I don’t spend any time thinking about them. I’ve signed autographs for people who have asked me to do it. And look, a lot of the language on them mirrors some of the same language from people who I’ve had big cases against. And again, I don’t apologize for taking on corruption; that was my job. I didn’t go to Trenton over a decade ago to make friends—I’m sorry, I didn’t. And if people in Trenton didn’t like that, so be it. I went to Trenton to do what I thought was necessary to help the state.
If you want to disagree with me about things I did and cases I brought, do it all day long. That’s what you sign up for as attorney general. But nobody can credibly say I did things for corrupt purposes or for anything other than what I thought was right. And when you spend years and a lot of money trying to attack someone who’s not even in an office, you might want to think about your own priorities at that point. And I’ll just leave it at that.
DL: Okay, fair enough. And again, I got this mailer just the other day, and you have left office. So let’s turn to what you’re up to today.
MP: Autograph pen is available to you, David, anytime you want!
DL: Maybe I will save one of these mailers, and when we meet up in person, you can sign one for me! I hadn’t thought about that; I’ve just been recycling these.
Let’s turn to the launch of your new firm, Platkin LLP. What led you to decide to launch your own firm, instead of joining an established firm? You previously worked at Debevoise, and there are many fine firms here in the Garden State. What led you to want to go off on your own?
MP: I like taking on tough fights—and in this moment, I decided that I wanted to build something. First of all, I wanted to build it here in New Jersey, based in Newark—I’m very proud of that. And I wanted to build something with what I thought were some of the best lawyers that I’ve ever worked with, that was premised on the idea that we’re unafraid and conflict-free and taking on important fights.
Look, I worked at Debevoise, I worked at Lowenstein—they’re both great. I had no issue with the people at those firms. But we have to be honest: the legal profession over the last year has had a bit of a reckoning. And a lot of lawyers, people I work with, have met the moment, and others have understandably—or less understandably, in some cases—decided that this isn’t the time to stand up or speak out. And I didn’t want to ever be hamstrung in that way.
And there are types of cases that I think are quite promising that I knew I wanted to do. I knew I wanted to do cases against the gun industry. There’s a reason why our logo has orange in it. That is not an accident; it’s tied to the gun violence prevention movement. And I knew I wanted to do cases against corrupt actors, including people who might be closely associated with this presidential administration. I knew I wanted to take on big consumer cases, including against the tech industry. And most of what we do is plaintiff’s side, but not all of it. And so I’m really, really proud of what we’ve started in just about a month.
I mentioned Angela Cai—she’s joined me at the firm, and she’s an exceptional litigator, in both trial and appellate courts. I’ve brought in Ravi Ramanathan, another exceptional litigator, who ran our SAFE [Statewide Affirmative Firearms Enforcement] Office when I was AG, the gun-violence office I mentioned that brought all those civil lawsuits. I’ve brought in Aaron Haier, who oversaw my consumer case work when I was AG. And we’re hiring here at the firm. We’re working on interesting things. We’re a mission-driven firm, we’ve already filed our first action yesterday, and we’re preparing lawsuits that will be coming in the not-too-distant future. We’re very eager to work with anyone who has a challenging legal problem, but we’re also really good litigators who are unafraid of tough fights.
DL: Tell us about that first case.
MP: The first action we filed was actually a complaint with the Commerce Department’s Inspector General. We partnered with Democracy Defenders and Norm Eisen on that. It was a letter laying out some serious concerns that are tied to the president or his family’s actions with respect to crypto and the chip sales to the United Arab Emirates. I think that’s the first of many actions you’ll see on this front, there are some really troubling facts in there, and Commerce should be looking at this—or others should be, should they decide the facts are worthy of investigation.
DL: So you are taking on issues of public interest, but you are a private law firm. You’re no longer the Office of the Attorney General, and you don’t have the powers of that office. What types of lawsuits will you file to vindicate some of these rights, now that you’re back in the private sector?
MP: Our experience in the AG’s office is quite valuable. We have literally led some of the largest lawsuits in the country. We’ve produced some of the largest settlements. We’ve led multi-state coalitions in some of the largest lawsuits. I’ve been in many of those rooms, and our teams have written the briefs and argued them in court. So I think there’s literally no case we couldn’t handle. But we are representing a number of public and private entities, or intend to represent a number of public and private entities, across the country—governments and nonprofits and individuals who have been harmed by powerful interests.
People sometimes forget there are really strong state laws that protect your rights, even if the federal government won’t enforce them. And as AG, I certainly relied on some really skilled outside counsel in many of our most complicated cases. I hope that we will continue to do that on behalf of states across the country. But we’re also representing nonprofits, individuals, and businesses; we’re open to the gamut. We are a litigation shop, we are prepared to litigate, we are in fact already litigating—and we are very, very excited to be up and running.
DL: Tell us about the team you’ve assembled so far.
MP: I mentioned Angela Cai, who was my executive assistant attorney general. She also was a deputy solicitor general. In the office, she was involved in all of the cases involving the Trump administration. She handled our Second Amendment docket. Her last act was arguing en banc in the Third Circuit in the Koons matter challenging our sensitive-spaces law. She did an exceptional job. And she also oversaw all of our civil portfolio, defensive and affirmative cases for the state of New Jersey. So she had an incredibly important job.
I mentioned Ravi Ramanathan. He was another experienced litigator who came in principally to run our SAFE Office, which brought all the lawsuits against the gun industry. I should note, by the way: we’ve been successful. We hadn’t had a single case dismissed. We’ve had three settlements, summary judgments, surviving motions to dismiss in multiple cases. We’ve separately sued SIG Sauer. So we’ve taken on some big fights in that industry, and we’re winning them. Ravi oversaw and led those litigations.
And then Aaron Haier, who was my senior counsel overseeing our consumer work, everything from our tech cases to our healthcare cases—he was intimately involved in the ones I mentioned before. So those are the three folks who have joined me, as well as Jae Troche, who’s our incredible office and operations coordinator.
But we are hiring. And I will tell you, it’s really interesting: lawyers right now—especially folks beginning or in the earlier stages of their careers—want to do work that matters. They want to do impactful work. And you’re seeing a moment where the idea of smaller law firms that can be nimble and more conflict-free is very appealing.
And we’re very efficient, I will say. We are extremely efficient, as former government lawyers. We are used to turning around complaints in less than 24 hours; we are quick. And so we’re going to give folks opportunities to get involved in meaningful cases, to get into court across the country, to get their hands dirty doing things that really matter. And we’re seeing tremendous interest. So we are hiring. I suspect we’ll have some more folks on board very soon. If you’re interested, reach out to us at platkinllp.com.
DL: I was about to give the domain name, if you weren’t going to, and I’ll include that in the show notes. It’s a great opportunity for people to work in the private sector while at the same time advancing important public causes.
So let me just ask you one last question, before we go to my speed round of four standard questions. Clearly you have a longstanding commitment to government and public service. Is it possible that you might return to the public sector at some point in the future?
MP: I hope so, at some point. Public service was a big part of my life. I loved it. What we’re building with this firm is a chance to continue to work on things that matter. I’ve got two young kids, so I’m looking forward to spending more time with them. My son’s a little concerned that he doesn’t have the same kind of “take your child to work”-day experience as he used to have when I was AG. He was three when I became AG, so his frame of reference is a little different. And I’m excited to be able to partner with a lot of folks that I worked really closely with in government. So I’m very excited about what we’re doing now. But sure, you never say never.
I loved every day in public service. The most challenging days in private practice, candidly, don’t compare to the most challenging days in public service. Those days were extraordinarily difficult, but you also felt like you were really changing the course of the history that you were confronted with. And I feel like we’re doing a little bit of that right now—but sure, I never say never.
DL: Turning to my speed round, these are four standard questions, which are the same for all my guests. And my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as an abstract system.
MP: It’s how sometimes legal debates—and frankly, sometimes when courts consider legal issues—they become purely abstract concepts, divorced from the real-world implications of what they’re doing. I’m very much a real-world practitioner. I’ve spent my time in law with my feet on the ground, and I’ve seen the impact of what legal changes can mean in people’s lives. Sometimes we lose that. That’s why the firm that we’ve built is really about, “How do we use the law to help people, in cases for individuals, or cases that affect millions of people?” And so sometimes I get a little frustrated when we have these theoretical debates.
The Bruen decision is a great example of this. The Supreme Court created a process for Second Amendment claims called analogical reasoning going back to, maybe it was the founding of this country, maybe it was the Reconstruction Era—and at the end of the day, we’re talking about guns, which kill more kids than any other cause of death. And I just feel like that is sort of forgotten in the historical debate about whether there was a regulation in 1790 that relates to a regulation we have today. I recognize that’s the law of the land: we follow it, we adhere to it, and we were very successful arguing under it. But if you take a step back, it’s pretty obvious that that’s divorced from the reality of what Americans are dealing with today.
DL: I totally understand where you’re coming from. My second question is, what would you be if you were not a lawyer?
MP: I think, probably, point guard for the Knicks. I think I can say that with confidence. We got a pretty good one right now.
I think I would’ve been doing similar things as a non-lawyer. I think I would’ve been in government, and I would’ve been addressing public-policy issues. I honestly didn’t know I was going to go to law school, basically, until I went. I took a couple of years off. So public service and this type of work would have been infused in some way in what I was doing.
But I will say no profession likes to be self-critical more than the legal profession. I love being a lawyer, I’m really glad I’m a lawyer, and I’m able to help a lot of people as a result of being a lawyer. And that doesn’t get said enough. I remember when I was going to law school, someone said to me, “If you want to help people, be a doctor.” You can help people being a doctor; we need more doctors, and we need to make medical school cheaper and make it easier. But you can help a lot of people being a lawyer, too. And I hope that folks don’t lose sight of that.
DL: Well said. I’ll be interested in hearing your answer to my third question, because you are launching a law firm, which in many ways is like a startup—it’s very demanding—and you have two kids. So my question is, how much sleep do you get each night?
MP: I should note that I’m also a distinguished scholar at a center formed by Vanita Gupta at NYU Law School, the Center for Law and Public Trust, something that’s near and dear to my heart. So I’m spending time doing that. So I have my law firm, I have two kids, and I love to run marathons. So the answer is, I don’t get much sleep.
But to be honest with you, when I came off of being attorney general, people were saying, “Oh, take six months off.” I couldn’t do that. First of all, my kids will starve. Second of all, this moment we’re in is so important. There are so many questions being asked by and for lawyers that are really critical, and I just couldn’t sit that out. I’m somebody who isn’t good about sitting on my hands. I love actually being able to roll up my sleeves in a way that, as attorney general, I didn’t get to do all the time, and address problems clients have and solve legal problems. And write—I’ve done more writing probably in the last month than I did in the four years as AG, first-draft writing—I’m really enjoying that again. So I like the balance we have. And I coach baseball. I’m very active in my kids’ lives. And so it’s nice to have a little bit more flexibility, too.
DL: Give me a number here, though. Are you talking four, five, six hours on average? I know it’s going to vary.
MP: I have to admit something: so I’ve been decompressing, I’m a big Love Is Blind fan—and the last couple of days I’ve been up late because I’ve been binge-watching the last season. So that eats into it. I’d say I try to get six hours a night. I think that’s okay.
DL: Okay, that’s fair; that’s not terrible. And my last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?
MP: This applies to lawyers really at any stage of their career, but especially as they’re getting going: if you see interesting opportunities, don’t look for reasons to say no. Law is a risk-averse profession, which I understand. And I particularly understand it given the debt load, as somebody who still is dealing with that. But the best decisions in my career have been the ones that probably didn’t make a ton of sense to a lot of other people, including the one that I’m doing right now. I’ve never regretted that, but I know a lot of folks who regret not doing it.
And obviously you can’t be reckless; you have to make sensible decisions. But if an opportunity seems exciting and it’s something you want to do, passionately, it will work out. If Phil Murphy had lost in 2017, I would’ve found a place to go practice law. And I wouldn’t be standing here talking to you, David, as the former attorney general, probably, but I do think sometimes taking those calculated risks in our profession gets overlooked.
DL: Speaking of opportunities, I’m so glad to have had the opportunity to speak with you, Matt. Thank you so much for joining me.
MP: I’m a huge fan. I really appreciate you having me on.
DL: Thanks so much to Matt to joining me, thanks to him for his service as New Jersey Attorney General, and congratulations to him and his colleagues on the launch of Platkin LLP.
Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com to learn more.
Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat@substack.com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.
If you enjoyed today’s episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don’t already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, but it’s made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.
The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, March 18. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects.
Yes, this is a shoutout to the Major-General’s Song from The Pirates of Penzance. What can I say? I’m a big fan of musical theater.
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.
