Matthew Fox is a partner at the New York office of Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff focused on M&A litigation. He joined the mid-size firm last year from Quinn Emanuel.
In this week’s New York Brief Q&A, he told me about defending Elon Musk and the career advice he’s glad he ignored.
MV: Which of your past cases keeps you up at night?
MF: Twitter v. Musk. I was part of the team representing Elon Musk — it was an incredibly formative experience. I had litigated fast-paced and important cases, but nothing to that extent and certainly nothing everyday people were so interested in before. There’s a lot I learned in that gauntlet for better or worse, and definitely a lot of things I would do differently now, a few years more experienced later.
Which real individual, living or dead, comes to mind for you as “the reasonable person”?
MF: Sherlock Holmes, final answer. His superpower is being the most reasonable person: gathering the evidence then drawing his conclusion, instead of drawing his conclusion and then gathering evidence in support.
Your biggest mistake in early years of practice was—?
MF: Not trusting my gut enough. I went straight from college to law school to big law, and found myself surrounded by such immensely talented and experienced lawyers that I found myself — not a naturally shy person by any definition — to be self-conscious in sharing my views on strategy.
I then remember getting my review as a third year from a partner that would become one of my mentors, where one piece of collective feedback was something like “shoots from the hip too much; lacks experience.” He read that critique and said to me, “I’d actually ignore that; keep shooting and the experience will follow.” I have.
How much do you consider the specific judge or panel you’re in front of when prepping?
MF: Probably not as much as you would think. Of course you need to know your audience to some extent, and perhaps I’m still a little naive, but I think logic and equity are universal concepts, and that all judges and juries are trying to sort through the noise and just figure out who is right and what’s fair. And my role in guiding them towards that answer isn’t going to be enormously different as between different courts or different judges.
It’s the court lunch break and you’re famished. Where are you going?
MF: Nowhere! When in court I run on a liquid diet of water and iced coffee.
I suppose I like the hunger in my belly to keep me on my toes. One of my mentors would have our war rooms stocked with caffeinated jellybeans. Maybe I’ll start adding those.
This interview has been condensed and edited. Read last week’s Q&A with Harris Trzaskoma’s Anna Estevao here. Email me to participate at mvilensky@bloombergindustry.com.
