A Practice of Precision with Rollo Baker, Founding Partner of Elsberg Baker & Maruri

Rollo Baker is known for spectacular results – precedent-setting results. In the first ever Covid-era busted deal case, Baker and his colleagues took a failed $6B deal and turned it into a win for his clients. Affirmed on appeal by the Delaware Supreme Court, the case set a precedent on ordinary course covenants in deal documents. In another “bet-the-company” case, Baker established a precedent in Delaware concerning the test for legal insolvency, when they won a trial victory on behalf of Athilon Capital and its board of directors.

It’s easy to see why Baker is so highly sought after and heavily decorated, but the litigation powerhouse will tell you that these victories are no accident – they’re born of dedication, work ethic and an impeccable exactitude he learned early in his career.

His latest endeavor – the launch of new firm Elsberg Baker & Maruri – is proof positive of Baker’s continued stellar track record. The elite commercial trial, litigation and arbitration firm is going nine months strong, and the team is dedicated to trying cutting edge cases with top tier talent. Baker, having had a hand in building the firm stone by stone, takes great pride in its early success.

“It's been a very nice financial year, but it's also been a professionally exciting year in terms of the new clients and cases and associates,” says Baker. “The thesis so far has worked out as we were hoping.”

Baker brings to his new firm extensive and comprehensive experience in the Delaware Court of Chancery, but his secret weapon may be the fact that he got his start as a clerk for former Chief Judge Mary Ellen Barbera, of Maryland’s highest court. It was through her leadership, precision and perfectionism, that Baker learned that excellence was the surest path to success.

“I don't think there are any shortcuts as a litigator,” says Baker. “Whether you've been doing it for 30 years or one year – you’ve got to be willing to put in the work.”

Lawdragon: What made you want to go into law? Do you have lawyers in your family?

Rollo Baker: No lawyers in my family. My dad was a teacher in Baltimore City and my mom was an editor. But I always enjoyed being able to make arguments on behalf of a party or a client or an issue. Everyone always said when I was growing up that I would be good at being a lawyer, and as I got older, it just seemed like a natural thing to do.

I'm from Towson, Maryland. I went to law school and then I clerked for Justice Barbera for a year. She was the first female Chief Judge of the Maryland Supreme Court, and she has been an excellent mentor. She demanded perfection in everything, which was a very good perspective to have. You had to be extremely precise, but then you develop that level of focus as a routine. When I started to practice law, it was that much easier because I spent a year understanding what it means to try to achieve perfection. You follow that forward and you don't ever let that go. It’s sort of agonizing, but it helps in a big way. I learned work ethic and to demand a lot of myself from Judge Barbera.

LD: How did you come to be at Quinn Emanuel?

RB: I ended up applying to Quinn during my clerkship because I had a friend from law school who was telling me about the firm’s cool culture and frequency in going to trials. I interviewed with some great partners there, including Robert Loigman, and was convinced that it would be a good fit for me.

LD: Quinn really develops their associates as litigation generalists, right?

RB: Correct. Which is also what we're doing here at Elsberg Baker & Maruri. The idea is to train young lawyers to be really good trial lawyers first, so they understand how to work with the facts to tell the most compelling story to the judge or the jury. Then whatever special practice area comes in, if you have those general trial skills already locked in, it's easier to get up to speed on whatever the area of law is. If it's highly refined or highly technical, you can partner with a specialist outside the firm, but as a generalist, you're putting yourselves into the shoes of the fact finder. We're approaching it in a similar fashion to how the judge is going to approach the issue. Which means we can have a more successful perspective in conveying the key points.

The idea is to train young lawyers to be really good trial lawyers first, so they understand how to work with the facts to tell the most compelling story to the judge or the jury.

LD: You were just in court, what can you tell us about that case?

RB: It was a case for Fairstead, one of the largest affordable housing companies in the country, before Vice Chancellor Laster, in Delaware Chancery Court. It's a breach of fiduciary duty and employment dispute involving two former executives, but it also dealt with concepts of “stabilization” and various loan products which became relevant in assessing the scope of equity interests. That’s the great thing about being a generalist –you get to learn about and develop expertise in a wide variety of industries.

It is always fun to do a trial before Vice Chancellor Laster. He reads everything, is very active and carefully evaluates the witnesses. He asks a lot of hard questions. It's a great courtroom to be in – as is the Delaware Court of Chancery generally.

LD: How did you decide to start this new firm and how has that process been?

RB: I was happy at Quinn. I liked my clients, the cases and my colleagues. In the back of my mind though, I always thought it would be really cool to start something from scratch because I hadn't had the opportunity to do that. When this concept came up with David, Silpa, Jared, Vivek and Mike, I knew it was something I wanted to do. It's been a challenge for sure, but a good challenge. My whole life perspective is – don't make change when you're unhappy. Make change when you're happy, and you don't need to make the change. If you don't have the stress of needing to do something, then you're able to really focus all your attention on maximizing the outcome.

Everything you achieve professionally, and personally, requires work and it requires you to overcome something in order for it to count. You're starting everything from scratch – your campus recruitment strategy, lateral recruitment strategy, talking points for interviews, pitch materials for different types of clients and industries. You don't have that stuff, so you have to create it. But in doing that, you're able to put your touch on everything – and I think it’s more compelling in pitches when you're speaking from that sort of level. It’s been a ton of fun.

LD: What does your ideal associate look like?

RB: There are a couple of things we're looking for in our associates. Top grades are very important. A demonstrated interest in litigation and a sense that the person really wants to be the best and is willing to take ownership and do the hard work to get there. I don't think there are any shortcuts as a litigator, whether you've been doing it for 30 years or one year. If you're getting ready for trial, that takes a lot of time and dedication. We're looking for people who are humble enough to realize that it takes a lot of work, effort and teamwork to get a good result. They’ve got to be willing to put in that time – and in exchange for that, they’re going to get paid above market and they're also going to get really substantive experience early on. And that latter part is fundamental to the DNA of our firm.

Every time we've gone to trial or arbitration this year, we've had associates stand up and do key examinations and get glowing reviews. They don't have to sit around for years before they get to do something significant and notable. It keeps everyone engaged – and that’s ideal – and judges love to see it, too. Life's too short to do otherwise.

Everything you achieve professionally, and personally, requires work and it requires you to overcome something in order for it to count.

LD: Tell us about a case that’s been busy this year.

RB: One of the cases was Jane Street. v. Millennium. Quinn represented Jane Street and we represented two former portfolio traders at Jane Street, Douglas Schadewald and Daniel Spottiswood, who went to Millennium. Jane Street sued in April and tried to get a TRO and we beat that back and proceeded to discovery. The case was covered extensively in the financial press and was recently resolved on mutually agreeable terms.

LD: How do you navigate the folks who might think that you’re too small to go up against Big Law firms like Quinn Emmanuel?

RB: When we get work, we're always competing against major law firms. We’ve been asked whether we have the capacity to go against a major Big Law firm. And it’s a good question, with a very good answer. When you look at case teams in major litigation, there's going to be five to six people on any team who are actually critical and core to the case. Then you're going to have the 10 or so additional people who, while helpful, are on the periphery.

For us, we have a group of five to six people who are a hundred percent engaged. They want to win, they're being treated the right way, they have a vested interest in the case. If you go with us, you're going to have that core team that is just absolutely focused on getting the best possible outcome for the client and you're going to pay less on balance given the leaner teams we staff. You're going to get great work product, from folks who are focused on winning, and you're going to have a team that is economically efficient – and that's a pretty good value proposition.

Another differentiating factor is that our lawyers here have done both plaintiff and defense side work, and that gives us a unique perspective. When I'm representing a hedge fund in a securities opt out case, for example, going against a name-brand, big firm, I know exactly what's going to happen by the time we hit depositions based on what their witnesses say in the deposition. It’s a huge advantage to understand both sides of the case.

We’re in Delaware Chancery Court a lot. Our peers who are there a lot typically follow the same sort of playbook – a technical defense, not being out there with an affirmative story. When we go into Delaware Chancery Court, we come in with some passion, excitement and storytelling – and we’re making it about life. In the end, humans are doing these things and humans are deciding the cases. You can get much better results when you bring the facts to life. And you can do so even when you have difficult documents, difficult facts, etc., because it is the rare case where the law is so unambiguous that the outcome is pre-ordained.

LD: What do you do in your spare time outside of work?

RB: I have four kids between the ages of two and ten, so I pretty much hang out with them and my wife, who is a nurse practitioner.