I joined Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight in the fall of 2014 after clerking for two federal judges. It was, in some sense, the best of times. The firm was riding high after the Novartis gender verdict and the Novartis wage and hour settlement.

But 2014 was also a very difficult time. The U.S. Supreme Court had just struck blows against the theories that the firm had pursued in both the Novartis cases. In Walmart v. Dukes, the Court dealt a serious setback to class action practice, ruling that many of the employment class actions that had been the focus of the firm’s practice could no longer be brought in their then-existing form. In addition, in Christopher v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., the Supreme Court ruled that pharmaceutical sales representatives would be exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act wage and hour protections. And, finally, in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, the Supreme Court charged ahead with the enforcement of arbitration agreements that are generally bad for consumers and for the public.

All of this left us with some question about what the next 10 years would look like. Many lawyers in the position of our firm leaders would have wound down their practice, put their money in passive investments, and retired. Not here. The principals of this Firm doubled down on the belief that now more than ever this country needs the work that we do to enforce the laws, represent clients, and further the public interest.

At the time I joined Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight, the firm assigned me to two cases. The first was a gender discrimination class action against a large pharmaceutical company. We generally alleged that our plaintiffs were subjected to discrimination in pay and promotions based on their gender and their pregnancies with several eventually being forced to leave the company. This case was in some sense a holdover from the pre-Novartis days to see how we could continue to right these wrongs. I worked closely with a great team of colleagues to take dozens of depositions, produce an expert report that looked at statistical disparities in compensation at the company, and brief class certification and summary judgment. Early on, the firm entrusted me with significant responsibilities that both showed me the real-world impact of our work on our clients and taught me valuable litigation skills. This faith was rewarded when we eventually resolved the case, and I appeared at the final approval hearing with our lead plaintiff. Few feelings compare to watching her weep as the court approved the result.

The second case the firm entrusted me with when I joined was a False Claims Act case against a pharmaceutical device manufacturer. We generally alleged that the company failed to manufacture the device to specifications rendering it a defective device that caused grave injury to patients, while the company enriched itself through government reimbursements. We initially lost a motion to dismiss in the District Court, but the firm gave me the honor and privilege of leading our briefing and delivering argument in the First Circuit, even though I was, at that point, only four years out of law school and the Big Law partner on the other side was approaching his fourth decade of practice. Our appeal was a resounding success resulting in a complete reversal. I took away from this experience both the Firm’s willingness to entrust lawyers with responsibilities for which they are ready as well as the determination that we should not be intimidated by the strength of our adversaries or their years of practice.

These cases also set the parameters for my tenure at the firm. I have continued to shoulder a mix of employment discrimination cases—with their attendant emotional toll—as well as whistleblower cases designed to tackle the ever-evolving web of fraud against the government. I have also continued to teach myself new things in an ever-increasing range of subject matter areas. My caseload has included not only discrimination and whistleblower cases, but, a legal malpractice case, and an ERISA case surrounding the dissolution of an ESOP.

The Firm has also entrusted me with ever-growing responsibilities, promoting me first to Senior Litigation Counsel, then to Managing Partner of the New York Office, and now to General Counsel of the Firm. This has given me a front row seat to the firm’s growth from three offices to six, from 50 employees to over 100, and from a couple of practices areas to a full array. In the process, I have watched legal assistants become lawyers and our lawyers become leaders.

Throughout it all, I have appreciated the firm’s can-do spirit, dedication to pursuing justice, and drive to innovate. I, like many of my colleagues, became a lawyer because of the promise of lifelong learning. I became a public interest lawyer, because I wanted to use my talents for good. And I joined this firm because of the similar talent and drive I see in my colleagues. Nine years later, I have not been disappointed.