Law Firm & Life
May 12, 2026
By Emily Poler
A couple of weeks ago I started to write this post about the latest Serial podcast, which is titled The Idiot and narrated by New York Times opinion columnist M. Gessen. My aim was to use the story of Gessen’s cousin Allen, who was convicted of ordering a hit on his ex-wife, as a jumping-off point for talking about getting clients to face hard truths. I couldn’t quite finish what I was writing though; something just didn’t feel right.
As I sat on it, I listened to a discussion of prediction markets — platforms where participants can buy and sell shares based on their beliefs of the outcomes of future events — and whether these markets will be significantly regulated by the federal government (my prediction: no). While mulling that over, I realized what I wanted to write about was actually truth, justice, and the “American Way.” Or at least the values and rules that have traditionally underpinned those ideals.
As anyone who reads this blog with any regularity knows, I’m a litigator. That means I have regular interactions with the courts. It also means I spend a lot of time thinking about what’s fair and, while I don’t use this word in daily parlance, what’s just.
I’ve been pondering this a lot more lately because, simply put, it feels like the wheels are coming off the bus. Increasingly, attorneys and their clients are behaving badly, flouting court rules, pursuing arguments that contradict established precedent, and prosecuting opponents with accusations so bizarre and trivial as to seem insane. (If a client tries to involve me in anything like this, I tell them they need to find another lawyer.) Thankfully, in many cases judges and juries continue to do great work rejecting and even condemning such actions.
Or maybe it just seems like things are going in the wrong direction because of a certain person with a very loud megaphone who is pushing, for example, the second prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey for posting a photo on Instagram of the numbers “86 47” spelled out in seashells that he saw on a beach; the Trump administration claims that constitutes a threat against the president. Is it a coincidence that Comey led the initial investigation into Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia during the 2016 election?
The problem here is that as established rules are attacked and perverted, people start to believe that not only can they get away with anything, but that they are right to do so. Everybody else is doing it, so why not me? Look at the case of the Fort Bragg soldier who was involved in the planning of the U.S. military operation to capture Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro, and allegedly used his (obviously) classified information to bet on its timing in a prediction market and profit to the tune of more than $400,000.
And, circling back to The Idiot podcast, M. Gessen’s cousin Allen continues to vigorously deny hiring an assassin through an intermediary (actually an undercover FBI agent) to murder his ex-wife despite overwhelming evidence, including recordings of the hiring discussions, that that’s exactly what he did. Why do these people think they can get away with these illegal, immoral and disgusting actions? Because they believe they’re right to do so. That’s what we call delusion, a condition that seems to be on the rise and that no pharmaceutical company can create a drug to combat.
Getting back to what I’ve seen happening in courtrooms over the past few years, I’m not decrying lawyers advocating zealously on behalf of their clients, which we’re all supposed to do. Nor am I condemning attorneys for sometimes missing a deadline or making an honest oversight. What I’m talking about are people playing really fast and loose with the law or the facts.
This has always bothered me. I have a pretty strong sense of what’s right and what’s wrong, and I find it upsetting when people aren’t treated fairly and don’t behave toward others in a way that is equitable. And, while I certainly understand and acknowledge that there are often grey areas, I think (or I’d like to think) that most lawyers are also motivated, at least in part, by the idea of making sure things are fair. Now, though, when we’re barraged with pretty much daily examples of people and attorneys flouting the rules in really grotesque ways, I’m more troubled than ever.
Do these little transgressions matter? YES. In some ways, the legal system is a giant trust exercise, kind of like crossing the street in midtown. It only works because cars don’t go when there is a red light. In the case of the court system, it means you follow the rules: When you lose a case, you pay the amount the court says you owe, or when a court tells you to do something, you don’t do something else (or nothing at all). If rules and rulings are ignored, the system will slowly start to break down, and eventually stop working entirely. And while the consequences of that would be significant for an individual attorney like me, that’s nothing compared to what it will do to our society and every person in it.
That’s today’s rant. I’m curious to know if other attorneys have similar feelings (I can’t believe it’s just me). Let me know what you think!
January 7, 2026
By Emily Poler
Happy New Year! While I’m sure I’m not alone in hoping 2026 will bring some — any — improvement over 2025, it’s also fair to say 2025 wasn’t a total washout. There were some very positive advances, the biggest one, of course, being my partnership with Laura Trachtman to form the law firm of Trachtman & Poler Law LLC. It’s been a blast so far, with a sweet new office in DUMBO and a growing list of interesting clients! Equally important, Laura and I have both learned a lot from each other, sharing our unique experiences and perspectives to expand our individual knowledge and skills.
In the spirit of sharing, I thought I’d kick off the Year of the Horse by recapping some of the most valuable lessons I’ve learned and realizations I’ve come to that I wrote about here in 2025. It will help me remember to practice them in the new year (reinforcement is key!).
- I’ve spent years trying to work out the best techniques to help me do things I don’t like doing, like managing nervous clients or promoting myself. I think I’ve got it down now! Two key steps: identifying the problem, and determining its source. To identify the problem, pretty much the first thing every morning I write out, by hand, a list of what I want to get done that day, copying items from the previous day (or days) that I haven’t yet completed. This list lets me see the things that have carried over for a couple days (or, sometimes more, more!) so I can ask myself why I haven’t completed those tasks. Maybe it’s because it feels hard or scary, requires a difficult conversation with a client, or might reveal that I was wrong about something. Whatever the source, once I figure it out, I can do it, because it represents a challenge — and I love a challenge.
- Notwithstanding my 20-plus years litigating difficult disputes, I don’t enjoy confrontation. So how do I deal with it? By being true to who I am. When an opponent acts unprofessionally, shouting and threatening, I don’t scream, I don’t threaten. I respond calmly and in a measured way. If they keep banging on, and particularly if they insult me or my client, I will hang up the phone or walk away from the meeting. And if my opponent is one of those who likes to bend truth or ignore facts, I make sure I show up to every interaction, negotiation and trial 100 percent more prepared than they are, and armed with an arsenal of viable solutions. I’m here to help people by representing them, bringing my experience and expertise to achieve their desired goal. Pettiness, anger, and loud, loathsome behavior might work for some, but not me.
- Like many nascent attorneys, during law school I got a good internship after my second year, and took a full-time (really, ALL-time) job with them after graduation. Pretty much standard practice. Looking back, I was eager for stability and predictability, and my somewhat chaotic childhood motivated me to choose a well-mapped career path where I would never have to rely on anyone else for financial support. But it wasn’t long before I became less willing to prioritize financial stability over the miseries of working for BigLaw. Eventually, this led to me starting my own firm. That calculation is a key element that I think often gets overlooked by people when they’re mired in the day-to-day of their careers: How much predictability (and income) do you want, how much do you actually need, and how much are you willing to exchange in the short term for more control over your daily work and life and, eventually, long-term satisfaction and earning potential?
- It’s hard to find useful information on business development for lawyers. So I’ve spent a lot of time formulating my own! I’ve learned that the origin point is to give serious thought to a few questions: Who are you? What exactly do you want to do? How do you want to communicate that? Who do you want to work and network with? Perhaps the most important of those questions is, what exactly do you want to do? When I started my firm I worked on a very broad range of cases and matters, basically taking whatever came my way. Guess what? I ended up working on things I had absolutely no interest in and for people I didn’t enjoy spending time with. And in addition to being unhappy with that work, it tends to lead to getting MORE work I didn’t want to do. When I eventually started saying no to cases that didn’t interest me, my work (and my life) became much more satisfying. I was freed to take on interesting cases and work with people I was happy to represent. Plus, it left me time to further refine my skills and deepen my knowledge of the substantive legal areas that I wanted my practice to focus on.
- There have been so many fantastic benefits of my team-up with Laura, but perhaps the most significant to me is the realization that I no longer have to do everything on my own. My default mode in every situation had been, I got this — by myself. But now with a partner and (gasp) an actual employee, I’ve got support. A team! People I can turn to for help when I need it. Plus, having a second set of eyes on any question is especially valuable when the mind behind them brings a different and, often unexpected, perspective. We’re all unique humans and solve problems in distinct ways, and when our talents are combined, that can lead to new and improved results.
So there you have it. A quick recap of some of the positives I can look back on in 2025. Let’s hope for good things for all of us in 2026!
December 2, 2025
By Laura Trachtman
I really love being a litigator. I love the challenge, the intensity, the stamped copy of a document signed by a judge saying, “Oh no, she is absolutely right.” But not everyone feels that way. Litigation is all-consuming in terms of time, money, and energy. So why litigate?
Here is the caveat: Many of you know that I was raised by a litigator, my late, lamented father, Alan Trachtman. The story of the birth of my career as a litigator goes like this: The whole family was at my grandparents’ place out on Long Island to celebrate a holiday. My big brother, David, allegedly engaged in some conduct that displeased my parents. He was warned to stop once, then twice. After a third warning, he was sent to his room as a punishment for disobedience. At the ripe old age of two, I said to my parents, “David shouldn’t be sent to his room. He is a good boy. He didn’t understand that what he was doing was wrong, and even if he did, he’ll never, ever do it again.” My father, Chief of the Supreme Court Bureau in the Kings County District Attorney’s Office at the time, turned to my mother and said, “She just argued that case better than half of my assistants.” Accordingly, he trained me from a young age to cultivate this particular predilection by fabricating the following rules for my childhood: “If you want something, tell me why. If you throw a tantrum, you’ll never get it.” “Get good grades and I’ll reward you.” And finally, “You can be anything you want after you go to law school, [which later changed to “after you pass the bar” and then to “after you get admitted to practice].”. So obviously, this is the only life I have known and I adore it.
Not everyone was raised by Alan Trachtman, however, so it helps to explain how I approach the topic of litigation in discussions with my clients. The first thing I say is that “in litigation, the only people who win are the attorneys.” And generally speaking, this is true: We get paid regularly or we leave the case, while the parties need to wait for either a judgment or a settlement to get paid. And even then, the relief they fought for is not always guaranteed. However, litigation is sometimes what a client needs, for whatever reason. I want to do the best job possible for my own sake if not for my client’s, and that entails navigating three distinct areas: litigating effectively, litigating through uncertainty, and handling aggressiveness in litigation.
How do I litigate effectively? Honestly, it basically comes down to paying attention. I have had maybe two motions to dismiss granted on complaints that I have authored in my entire career, because properly pleading is not hard, it is just time-consuming. The most important part of litigating is having the discipline not to rush, no matter how much you may want to. You need to take your time to ensure that you are doing everything correctly. This has been a struggle for me (I am sure you are clutching your pearls right now as I admit to impulsivity and lack of patience). But as I grow older, it becomes easier to be patient.
How do I deal with the uncertainty of litigation? When a client asks me a question and I am not sure about the answer, I use three simple words: “I don’t know.” It is amazing how freeing it is to simply admit lack of knowledge instead of bluffing and possibly getting yourself into trouble. I used to hate admitting that I did not know something; I felt like a failure. But as I tell the children in my life, it is okay to admit that you just don’t know. The important part is knowing how to get the answer. So, when a potential client wants me to take on a case that is not necessarily in my wheelhouse, I tell them upfront that this is not an area I know already, but I can either get myself up to speed or make a referral to another attorney.
How do I deal with the aggressiveness of litigation? This is where my lifelong legal training comes in. It helps that I have a naturally aggressive disposition (and again, I’ll pause for you to clutch your pearls). But as my mother always said: “Not every fight is a fight to the death.” Again, as I grew older, I learned that her wisdom is valid. While I am happy eviscerating opposing counsel, one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar, and so I always try to start with a cooperative approach. Once I have good cause to go for the jugular, I’ll avail myself of the opportunity, but until then, I remain civil. This has helped my clients on more occasions that I can count. This has also helped me: It takes more effort to point out the errors of others in excruciating detail than it does to communicate diplomatically. So by not constantly taking someone’s head off, I get to conserve my energy and foster a more positive exchange. It is a win-win.
All of that to one side, litigation is exhausting, even for someone like me who loves it. At some point, I am going to have to decide whether I want to continue down this path or switch to a less impactful form of practice. Luckily, that day is not today. And if you’ll excuse me, I have to go gleefully explain to a judge how opposing counsel is totally and utterly wrong.
November 11, 2025
By Emily Poler
In a recent post, I talked about how I dislike conflict despite working in a profession built on adversarial relationships — and how I’ve learned to manage obnoxious opponents on my own terms. Doing that well is a super important skill. You know what skill is equally valuable for us litigators (and really, everyone)? Effectively dealing with things that feel hard or uncomfortable to do and that, as a result, we procrastinate over, ultimately making them even harder to accomplish.
It’s a topic that doesn’t get a whole lot of attention and is certainly not taught in law school, which is really about legal theories, statutes, and precedents. Of course, after graduation you can take courses to learn how to write a good brief, handle a difficult witness, or trawl the darkest depths of the Federal Rules of Evidence, but there’s very little institutional knowledge about how to handle the non-legal tasks, like managing nervous clients or promoting your own firm, that don’t come easily — and, for everyone, there’s always something that doesn’t come easily.
(Side note: While I haven’t been able to find any recent statistics, there have been studies suggesting that alcoholism is pretty common in the legal profession. It’s not crazy to speculate that there’s some causal relationship between the lack of training about how to manage the stressful aspects of being a lawyer and heavy drinking.)
Ok, so boozing aside (which I don’t do), what are the techniques I’ve learned to help me when I have to do something, whether as a lawyer or business owner, where I don’t feel comfortable? It comes down to two steps: Identifying the problem, and then determining its source.
The first step is critical because I can’t deal with headaches that I haven’t identified. The difficulty I had producing this blog is a perfect example. Before I started regularly writing this blog, I spent a long time wanting to do it. I had mental plans to do it. Plenty of good intentions. I just didn’t get started. Every morning I would come into the office believing that day was going to be the day, and everyday I would skulk home under a cloud of failure. Facing what was making me avoid this task was a crucial part of doing it.
More recently, I’ve implemented a strategy to avoid this problem, or at least minimize it. Pretty much the first thing every morning I write out, by hand, a list of what I want to get done that day, copying items from the previous day (or days) that I haven’t yet completed. For whatever reason, writing this by hand seems to be the key for me to focus and internalize information.
Obviously, there are days where things don’t get done because I’m on a deadline on another matter or in court. However, this list lets me see the things that have carried over for a couple days (or, sometimes more, more!) and ask myself why I haven’t completed those tasks. Is it because there’s something about the work that feels hard or scary? Is it because doing something is going to require a difficult conversation with a client? Is it because it might reveal that I was wrong and might have to change my position?
I can also flip back through my lists to see if there are common factors among the types of projects I tend to avoid.
So, staying with my struggle to start this blog as an example. Once I realized the pattern, I asked myself, why am I not doing it and what’s stopping me? Asking this question, I realized that I didn’t feel comfortable with my writing voice and there was a good dose of imposter syndrome lurking. This let me get some help and figure out ways around the problem. (Thanks Gregg Lieberman.)
So, now that I had a clue about why I was avoiding this particular task, I did it! Why? Because the easiest way to get me to do something is to tell me I can’t do that thing. I love a challenge.
These steps have been incredibly helpful. More than that, I’d say that by repeatedly going through this process and finishing tasks I had avoided, I’ve learned that things I thought were scary or hard weren’t actually scary or hard. And, even more importantly, the results have proved to be a lot more positive than I ever thought they would be.
And with that, I’m off to write something else I’ve been avoiding!
September 30, 2025
By Emily Poler
Both kinds of people — lawyers and non-lawyers — often tell me they could never be a litigator. Why? Because they hate confrontation. Well, here’s a secret for you: Notwithstanding my 20-plus years litigating difficult disputes, I don’t enjoy it much myself. But of course, it comes with the territory. So how do I deal with confrontation? And, also, why be a litigator if I’m not so keen on the conflict part of my job?
First, let me make one thing clear: Not every relationship with opposing counsel is contentious. There are many cases when I have a good working relationship with opposing counsel, at least most (or some) of the time. In such cases, there will certainly be moments where opposing counsel and I push and shove or throw an elbow. However, there is usually a level of mutual respect that keeps things relatively cool. Plus, we usually share the understanding that our respective clients naturally have opposing views and, despite that, it’s our job to move the case toward a resolution.
Unfortunately, however, those occasions when I have an amicable working relationship with opposing counsel make up the minority. Matters are usually more antagonistic, and while I certainly try to be respectful of my adversaries in those cases, I’m only human — and if someone tries to dunk on me, I will give as good as I get.
However, that doesn’t mean that I hit back the same as how they come at me. Or, put bluntly, when an opponent acts unprofessionally, shouting and threatening, I don’t play like that.
One of the best ways I’ve found to deal with cranky opponents is to be true to who I am. I realize the word “authenticity” has been overused to the point of meaninglessness, but it’s pretty apt here. I am not a screamer. It’s just not how I communicate. There are a couple of reasons for this, and maybe an exploration of why could be a post for another time, but basically, any attorney who aggressively rants and raves makes me embarrassed for our profession. And I am not going to pile on that kind of undignified behavior.
As a result, I deal with unpleasant adversaries on my terms. If someone screams at me, I will respond calmly and in a measured way. If they keep banging on, and particularly if they insult me or my client, I will hang up the phone or walk away from the meeting.
Similarly, as will surprise nobody alive in the year 2025, some people are more comfortable bending facts or ignoring them all together. Again, I am not one of those. Instead, being a great big nerd, my approach is to show up to every interaction, negotiation and trial 100 percent more prepared than my adversary, in touch with reality, equipped with foreknowledge of potential problems and armed with an arsenal of viable solutions.
While an obnoxious adversary can drive anyone to distraction, throughout the battle I really, really, really try to keep my eyes on the ultimate prize my client is after. And that is what I view as being at the heart of my role in every case and, to answer the question I raised in the first paragraph, the heart of why I’m a litigator. I’m here to help people, doing a job, representing my clients, and bringing my experience and expertise to achieve their desired goal. Pettiness, anger, and loud, loathsome behavior won’t get us to the results we want.
And, to quote Mr. Dylan, it ain’t me, babe.
