Wigdor’s Lawrence Pearson: A Steadfast Employee Advocate from Inside Companies and Out

Raised in a strong union household, Lawrence Pearson has understood the necessity of robust workers’ rights protections since childhood. For almost that long, he’s also known he would devote his career to employment law.

Throughout his more than 20 years as a litigator, Pearson has worked to move the dial on better conditions for employees, both on the employer and employee sides. He spent a decade representing companies as both a litigator and an advisor, guiding employers through dispute resolution, workplace policy creation and compliance and more. Now, he vigorously represents employees in workplace harassment, discrimination, whistleblower and contract claims as a partner at high-profile employment litigation firm Wigdor.

A dedicated trial lawyer, Pearson’s verdicts, arbitration awards and settlements have totaled more than $50M. On the plaintiffs’ side, he achieved a standout $1.34M award in a sexual harassment suit against the infamous “Taxi King,” Evgeny “Gene” Freidman, who at one point owned more than 800 taxicab medallions in New York City. Pearson’s client came forward during the rise of the #MeToo movement in 2017, contributing another voice to claims against powerful employers at a pivotal moment.

Pearson has also represented both employers and employees on the defense side. In a 2018 arbitration, he obtained a complete dismissal of breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims brought against a senior-level employee – saving the employee from repaying a staggering $2.5M in incentive compensation, as well as interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.

Though the majority of his current practice is employee-side, Pearson continues to advise certain companies, including providing training seminars on employment law compliance as well as prevention of and ethical response to discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace. It’s a vital space to occupy: Pearson sits at the intersection of representing employers and employees, able to provide employees with insight into company policies or strategies in court, and able to help employers prevent workplace harms before they happen. His knowledge of both sides betters his representation of each – and in every interaction, he is always fighting to prevent future harms.

Pearson has been named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Employment & Civil Rights Lawyers for the last five years.

Lawdragon: What does the scope of your practice look like?

Lawrence Pearson: The vast majority of our clients are individuals who have experienced and are pursuing legal claims regarding discrimination, harassment and retaliation including whistleblower matters, breach of contract, or sexual assault. We also represent people in a smaller number of civil rights, torts and other cases that present facts or legal issues of particular interest to the firm. Our approach and stock in trade is that we do not take on clients unless they have legal claims that we have a roadmap to trial for, and the clients have committed to going to litigation if that is necessary because a matter has not been resolved.

LD: Before joining Wigdor, you exclusively represented companies. How does your work representing executives in employment claims influence the advice you're able to give companies, and conversely, how does your intimate knowledge of high-level businesses impact your representation of employees?

LP: Having represented many executives and talked with many more as potential clients gives one a lot of insight into how situations develop into legal disputes and what drives people to seek legal assistance and start thinking about whether they have legal claims against a company. The importance of simple communication, inclusion, tone, and being careful to foster a feeling of respect and mutuality is key in avoiding having an employee feel cornered, helpless, or forced into things, when often all someone wants is some runway and not to be embarrassed if an employment relationship has to end. 

That type of experience can very much help in explaining to plaintiff clients the employer’s and defense counsel’s motivations, how decisions are made, and their tactics or strategy, when an employee client understandably can feel attacked or insulted during negotiations or discussions. Helping a client understand a company’s perspective comes into play for example if you get a lowball settlement offer or a company is making arguments that may seem or are disingenuous or if they are taking a while to get back to you on something, and having been on the other side gives you credibility in explaining that, too.

My goal from the start of a new client relationship is to find the truths that tie all the details and emails and such together into a theme and throughline, even when they seem contradictory.

LD: When you’re advising companies now, what topics are you covering most frequently? Has the advice you’ve provided changed over the years? 

LP: Human resources executives and in-house lawyers want careful, proportionate counsel on employee discipline, handling employee complaints and investigations, and how to mediate disputes in the workplace. Many employers also are updating their leave policies and ensuring that their accommodation processes are appropriate. The employers I work with want good relationships with employees, are not looking towards termination as a first resort, and want to not just appear to be in line with contemporary sensibilities and the law, but to have policies and practices that treat and give employees respect and autonomy that helps head off larger problems. Employers want to avoid disputes, have employees feel heard, and most understand that dealing with employee issues does not have to be adversarial, especially if they are competing to be an employer of choice.

LD: Whether you’re working with employees or employers, how would you describe your style as a lawyer?

LP: My goal from the start of a new client relationship is to find the truths that tie all the details and emails and such together into a theme and throughline, even when they seem contradictory. I like to think that I’m collaborative if there is the opportunity for that, and if not then I lean into the structure of a case and the legal standards as far as prosecuting it. I have several gears as far as how I work with opposing counsel, and if being collaborative doesn’t work there are other ways to get a case to and through trial.

LD: Is there a matter that stands out to you as a favorite over your career?

LP: I would not say a “favorite,” necessarily, but you always remember fondly cases you win, and it was very satisfying winning a verdict in federal court on Long Island on behalf of a man who was targeted for disability discrimination and retaliation by his employer. I remember vividly the initial sinking feeling when the first cause of action or two on the jury verdict sheet did not go our way, and then the relief when the others did, and the terrific feeling of teamwork that our group had during that whole experience, especially the intense few days of trial itself.

LD: Looking back, what first brought you to a legal career?

LP: Being a lawyer seemed to combine things I enjoyed doing for school and also felt I was good at, such as writing, being an advisor, researching to find answers and arguments, while also being a job that was involved in people’s lives and solving problems for them, and making a decent living while doing it (something my dad emphasized).

LD: And what inspired you to pursue employment law specifically?

LP: My father’s proud construction union membership, tons of overtime work and encouragement to be a lawyer played a large role in what I do and how I do it. I also learned from a union lawyer I worked with during law school, Charles Joyce, that you can be a tough lawyer and advocate but not be a jerk to less senior team members and your opponents and be a good person to be around.

LD: Did any experience from your undergraduate work push you towards a career in the law?

LP: Yes. Along with reading “Which Side Are You On?” by Thomas Geoghegan about the struggles of people in labor unions and working as a union lawyer in the 1970s and 1980s for a class freshman year of college, I also regularly took the opportunity to research and write on labor-related subjects whenever we got a choose-your-own-subject project in class. And somewhere along the way I heard or read that labor and employment law was a “recession-resistant” practice area.

LD: So, safe to say this the type of practice you imagined yourself having while in law school?

LP: Yes – I wrote my law school admissions essay about my interest in employment issues, tracing it all the way back to knowing even when I was a kid that my father was a union member and talking with union stewards on a construction site where I was a temp office assistant one summer during college.

Penn Law has a well-known history of having a strong labor and employment law focus, with a journal focusing on it and a few renowned professors on the subject.

LD: What about after undergrad – did you have any jobs before law school?

LP: I graduated from college in Washington, D.C. one semester early, and went full-time in what had been my part-time job, which was working as a researcher and assistant at a trade organization for the distilled spirits industry. I also worked for the summer before law school as the office manager for an architectural firm in Philadelphia. They literally contributed to me going to law school by even somewhat defraying how much I had to borrow for college and law school, but also were key to getting me better acclimated to office environments and being part of a team.

LD: It sounds like you never wavered much in your chosen career, but if you weren’t a lawyer, what work do you think you’d be doing now?

LP: I’m not sure; I don’t have some path not taken that I regret and think about much. There are lots of things I think I could still do or that would’ve been fun, like writing fiction or being a freelance magazine reporter or essayist. There’s definitely a world where I went to work as a federal government analyst for an agency dealing with international affairs. Certainly, I love photography and used to draw quite a bit as a kid and student. I abandoned thoughts of being an archeologist or a doctor (pediatrics, specifically) pretty early on.

LD: Why did you choose to attend your law school, the University of Pennsylvania?

LP: I was familiar with Philadelphia by visiting friends there throughout college, and Penn Law has a well-known history of having a strong labor and employment law focus, with a journal focusing on it and a few renowned professors on the subject, including Bob Gorman and Clyde Summers (both of whom I was lucky enough to study with). I also really liked Penn Law’s smaller class sizes, great clinical and student practice programs, and was impressed by their career services office. Some financial aid was the cherry on top!

LD: What advice do you have now for current law school students?

LP: Use law school to gain practical experience. Take advantage of clinics, volunteer or pro bono programs and student practice opportunities. Take a good number of classes that include lots of exercises in examining witnesses, arguing and negotiating.

LD: Looking to your practice today, are you noticing any trends?

LP: There continue to be more individuals, mostly women, who are now feeling safe or determined enough to come forward to seek legal representation regarding sexual assault. Public education and support are extremely important in fostering an environment where someone will feel safe enough to come forward. Whistleblower clients also seem more and more prepared with their homework done when they come to us about the retaliation they have been targeted for and their legal claims.

LD: Can you talk a bit about your pro bono work?

LP: I provide pro bono advice and counsel to a few non-profit organizations in their employer capacities. Helping those organizations grow and get through the craziness of the pandemic, dealing with different issues and policies to avoid problems that would come up, and equip the organization’s people to better serve employees makes it concrete to me the ways employment lawyers can help people.

LD: Do you have a favorite book or movie about the justice system?

LP: “A Civil Action” by Jonathan Harr gave me some of my first real ideas of what the week-to-week work of litigation would actually be during my first year of law school. There are still scenes from that book that I quote to associates (and myself).

Then, as I mentioned, freshman year of college, “Which Side Are You On?” by Thomas Geoghegan literally put me on the path I’m on and got me hooked on labor and employment law. It’s just a gripping, infuriating, and hilarious read in general for anyone who likes stories about Americans trying to get by and dealing with daunting odds.

I also love a song from the Gilbert & Sullivan operetta HMS Pinafore, sung by a character (Sir Joseph Porter) who is the head of the Royal Navy and started his career as a copyist in a law office, became a lawyer and then went to Parliament:

“I always voted at my party’s call /

And I never thought of thinking for myself at all /

I thought so little, they rewarded me /

By making me the ruler of the Queen’s Navy!”

LD: What do you enjoy doing for fun outside the office?

LP: Walking in Central Park and checking out the new exhibits at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the New York Historical Society – those are happy places. While going between work, meals and trips to the theater, I also just love snapping photos of cool things that you always spot around New York City.