Hello again from the New York Brief, where we hear directly from New York lawyers, who shed light on who they are and what makes them tick.
This week, I heard from O. Andrew F. Wilson, a partner at Emery Celli Abady Brinckerhoff Ward & Maazel, a New York boutique litigation firm.
Wilson specializes in complex commercial and civil rights cases. He’s at work on litigation against New York City and NYPD officers who allegedly forcefully removed the hijabs of two women at a pro-Palestine protest. The suit seeks to block police from removing religious head or hair coverings as a crowd control method. The city hasn’t responded to it yet.
On July 11, Suffolk County reached a $225,000 settlement with Wilson’s client in a similar case. Marowa Fahmy, a Muslim woman, said she’d been forced by police to remove her hijab and held in custody without a head covering. The Long Island county denied wrongdoing.
He told me about getting an expert to admit he was basically guessing, and where he goes for banh mi if he can eat.
Q: What’s the biggest challenge facing attorneys in 2025?
AW: Having the courage to bring cases challenging the federal government. In particular larger firms that used to do more pro bono work are pulling back from cases that they perceive may make them targets for government retaliation. They fear commercial consequences for their clients and their lawyers. That concern is not unfounded — but it must be subordinated to the important work of supporting the fight for the rule of law.
Q: Your biggest mistake in early years of practice was—?
AW: One lesson I learned early is that no aspect of litigation is “unimportant.” I remember finding the most senior member of our team in a complex commercial matter on the floor surrounded by documents and marveling at a video of bottle manufacturing. Great lawyers invest themselves in all aspects of their cases from the ground up.
Q: What book is on your bedside table?
AW: “Loose Sallies,” a collection of spirited essays on legal topics and personalities, by one of my partners, Daniel J. Kornstein. Dan is a wonderful writer, both as a litigator and author.
Q: Is it better to be a bulldog in the courtroom or underestimated?
AW: The best courtroom persona is your own. We all have a range of temperaments that should be calibrated to the circumstances. And sometimes you benefit from the unexpected.
One of my most dramatic cross-examinations was of a valuation expert. There were several remarkable moments — including a report the expert prepared for a different client with a different value on the same subject — but the crescendo came from a line of questions to set up a video deposition impeachment where the expert acknowledged his valuation was “almost guesswork” and that he was not much more qualified to do the valuation than anyone else.
Q: What’s the last thing you believed beyond a reasonable doubt?
AW: The need for empathetic understanding. I have represented many clients who wear religious head coverings, like hijabs, turbans, or yarmulkes. To prevail, it’s been necessary to convey the importance of a religious practice for the wearer’s identity and dignity to others who do not initially appreciate its significance.
Q: It’s the court lunch break at 500 Pearl St. and you’re famished. Where are you going?
AW: Thái So’n for a banh mi. But when I’m on trial, I lose my appetite.
Read last week’s New York Brief Q&A with Teny Geragos here.
