Moses Singer’s Avi Skoff Takes His Clients’ Problems Personally

For more than 25 years, litigator Abraham (Avi) Skoff has been a trusted advisor to companies and individuals seeking to protect their most valuable assets: their work.

Skoff has been a partner with historic New York firm Moses Singer since 2001. As Leader of the firm’s Trade Secrets, Noncompete & Unfair Competition Litigation Group and Co-Chair of the Employment Law Group, Skoff has been on the front foot of litigation and arbitrations brought by employers, employees and competing businesses, on claims from non-competition and non-solicitation agreements to trade secrets and unfair competition, to employee mobility issues. In addition to litigating, Skoff acts as a mediator between companies and their current and former employees, with a robust dispute avoidance counseling practice. His clients’ industries have run the gamut, from computerized medical equipment to product distribution, from entertainment industry clients to financial services. He has represented clients in the healthcare industry in matters including insurance and reinsurance litigation, practice and partnership arrangements, managed care structuring, disciplinary proceedings and more. He is also well versed in asbestos and toxic tort claims, defending hundreds of claims in the area over the years. 

Before coming to Moses Singer, Skoff served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney and Deputy Chief of the Civil Division for the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of New York, where he gained substantive trial experience. His broad base starting out means he is able to get smart on new legal theories quickly: Skoff filed one of the first cases under the U.S. Defense of Trade Secrets Act signed into law by then-President Obama in 2016, securing a temporary restraining order and immediate injunctive relief for his client.

That speed is a part of the draw for Skoff: In a fast-paced practice, he recognizes that immediate action is imperative for clients who are being brought to court, who urgently need to resolve tensions in the workplace, or who are working to prevent the work they’ve spent their lives building from being shared with competitors. Though Skoff’s clients’ problems may be work-related, they are deeply personal, and Skoff treats them as such: “With all of the formality of the courthouse and of legal proceedings, people sometimes seem to forget there is usually a basic human story at issue,” he says. “We become part of the client’s team, understand the client’s priorities, make their problem our own and seek effective results.”

A prominent figure in the employment law space, Skoff has been Co-Chair of the New York City Bar Association Trade Secrets Committee since 2022 and has co-chaired and spoken at Bar events on trade secrets law for the last two years. He is a member of both the Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America and the Lawdragon 500 Leading Corporate Employment Lawyers. 

Lawdragon: Over the course of your career, what has kept you excited about your work?

Avi Skoff: I have always found the work to be satisfying. We dive into the client’s problem. We become part of the client’s team, understand the client’s priorities, make their problem our own and seek effective results. Whether the process is bringing or defending a lawsuit, seeking or opposing urgent injunctive relief, or defending a client from government action, I have always found the work to be challenging, stimulating and professionally rewarding.

I also enjoy the fast-paced nature of the work. One morning, the CEO of a client called me and explained that three of their employees, located in a remote city, had gone to work for a direct competitor and were taking trade secrets and diverting customers. The CEO was extremely concerned. We drafted a temporary restraining order, obtained local counsel, and had the defendants served that evening, when they returned from their first day of work for the competitor.

In a similar case, I received another urgent call from a client. In that case, the employees quit on a Friday and we had them served with papers by Friday afternoon.

All the work is not on behalf of former employers. In many cases, our clients were the object of another party’s efforts at urgent injunctive relief, and it was no less stimulating to present our clients’ cases, in expedited circumstances, and to defeat efforts to enjoin.

There have been some gigantic verdicts, in the billions of dollars, prompting some clients to begin looking at trade secrets damage theories, because the numbers are so large.

LD: Out of all the work you’ve done in your career, what would you say is the most interesting matter you’ve handled?

AS: I have always found the trade secret and noncompete work, and the expedited injunctive proceedings, to be very interesting and stimulating. As is other work.

When I was just two years out of law school, I worked on a music piracy case involving John Lennon of The Beatles. I was a very junior lawyer on a three-person team and learned a lot from this extremely high-profile case.

Many years later, I represented the principal of a major rock band in a lawsuit against his agent, alleging the agent put him into an extremely disadvantageous deal that benefited only the agent. The case was arbitrated for eight days, and we ultimately emerged victorious and saved the client more than $51M.

There is, of course, a lot of mundane legal work. But so much of what we do, in so many industries, is interesting and stimulating, and I’ve had the pleasure of being involved in these cases.

LD: What is keeping you busy now – are there any trends you’re seeing in your practice?

AS: The trade secrets area has been very active recently. In 2016, Congress passed the Defend Trade Secrets Act, which ushered in a huge amount of litigation around trade secrets. There have been some gigantic verdicts, in the billions of dollars, prompting some clients to begin looking at trade secrets damage theories, because the numbers are so large. Pursuit of damages in the trade secrets context, as opposed to primarily injunctive relief, has become very significant. Regulation and litigation over noncompetes and other restrictive covenants has also become very active, and we expect this to continue.

LD: Looking back, how did your career as an Assistant U.S. Attorney impact your practice today?

AS: My time at the U.S. Attorney’s Office was a major influence and truly shaped the rest of my career. I wanted to become an Assistant U.S. Attorney because I’d heard in law school that it was an excellent experience. The job of Assistant U.S. Attorney required a much broader range of responses, and a much greater range of involvement than what I had seen in my prior job in Big Law – which was challenging, but much more limited in focus. As an AUSA, I gained a much larger focus and understanding of our legal system, and I was exposed to a much broader swath of the law and practice. I also had the benefit of exposure to many experienced and highly talented lawyers, judges and law clerks, who furthered my understanding of the process. It was a great experience, and I am glad I had the opportunity to do this work. I would recommend that experience to anybody seeking a career in litigation.

LD: Can you share some strategic plans for your practice or firm in the coming months or years?

AS: What happens in the future will likely depend on the economy, evolving technologies and the specific needs of our clients. Many aspects of all types of work, including legal work, will be affected by changing technologies, which will both require legal services to effectuate, and will reduce certain types of legal work. But my experience has always been that counsel who is committed to the client’s problem, and willing to pursue the effort, can make a real difference, regardless of the format. 

LD: What are the biggest lessons you take from your work?

AS: With all of the formality of the courthouse and of legal proceedings, people sometimes seem to forget there is usually a basic human story at issue. Tell the story. Judges and jurors are people, and they are looking to understand what happened, why they should take action, and what action they should take. Don’t get lost in the weeds; don’t be overly legalistic and formalistic. Tell your story, and why the judge or jury should help you. They will usually want to do what is just and appropriate, whether for the plaintiff or the defendant.