Latham & Watkins

20th Century

The firm was founded in January 1934 in Los Angeles, California, by Dana Latham and Paul Watkins. Latham's practice focused on state and federal tax law, and he eventually served as Commissioner of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service under President Dwight Eisenhower. Watkins's practice focused primarily on labor. At first, the firm grew slowly, with only 19 attorneys employed as of 1960.

In February 1978, the firm expanded into Washington, D.C., by adding Carla Anderson Hills as a named partner. Hills had left her role as U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Ford administration the prior year, and she oversaw the firm's expansion into administrative law. This branch was initially staffed with a mix of attorneys drawn from the Los Angeles office and new hires from the upper ranks of federal agencies.

In the latter half of the twentieth century, Latham quickly expanded its national and international presence. The firm opened offices in San Diego (1980), Chicago (1982), New York City (1985), San Francisco (1990), London (1990), Moscow (1992), Hong Kong (1995), Tokyo (1995), Silicon Valley (1997), and Singapore (1997).

21st Century

In 2007, Latham became the first American law firm to attain more than $2 billion in yearly revenue.

Amid the global recession in 2009, the firm laid off 190 lawyers and 250 paralegal and support staff, representing twelve percent of the firm's total associates and ten percent of the support staff. At a time when many firms were conducting layoffs, the term "Lathamed" became slang for being laid off, in legal circles.

In 2018, Latham was the first law firm to report more than $3 billion in gross revenue. It was briefly the highest-grossing law firm in the world, but has since lost the number one spot to Kirkland & Ellis.

In August 2023, Latham announced the decision to close its Shanghai office amid consolidation of its operations in China.

Amid clashes at some college campuses, following the onset of the 2023 Israel-Hamas war, Latham & Watkins was among a group of law firms who sent a letter to 14 American law school deans denouncing anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and racism.

Supreme Court litigation

A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, on behalf of the family of a student with a disability. The Supreme Court unanimously sided with the family, holding that the "ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims based on educational services should be subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts."

Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, on behalf of the Andy Warhol Foundation. The litigation resulted from Warhol's unauthorized use of Lynn Goldsmith's photograph of Prince in his own artwork. In a divided opinion, the Supreme Court sided with Goldsmith, concluding that Warhol could not rely on fair use because his work and the photograph "share substantially the same purpose, and the use is of a commercial nature."

Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, on behalf of Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond. Drummond sued to prevent a religious school from operating as a public charter school. The Oklahoma Supreme Court sided with Drummond, holding that a religious charter school would violate the Establishment Clause. With Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused, the Supreme Court's ruling was 4-4, thereby allowing Oklahoma's ruling to stand.

Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, on behalf of Relentless, Inc. The Supreme Court's landmark decision overruled the principle of Chevron deference established in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, on behalf of Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana, his wife Sayra Iliana Gamez-Mejia, and their minor child. Urias-Orellana sought asylum on the grounds that he was being targeted by a hitman in El Salvador. The Supreme Court rejected his appeal in a 9-0 ruling.

Vega v. Tekoh, on behalf of Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department deputy Carlos Vega. In March 2014, Vega arrested Terence Tekoh, a hospital employee, on suspicion that he had sexually assaulted a patient. Tekoh then sued Vega under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting he violated his rights under Miranda v. Arizona by not warning him of his right to remain silent. The Supreme Court sided with Vega, holding that an officer's failure to read Miranda warnings to a suspect in custody does not provide basis for a claim of civil liability.