Former WilmerHale litigator Matthew Wollin uses a New York Times essay to argue that five years in Big Law revealed a conflict between public‑interest work and profit‑driven litigation. Firms like WilmerHale dominate Supreme Court filings and supply most federal judges, reinforcing a legal ecosystem that privileges top clients. The concentration of talent and billing power translates into multi‑billion‑dollar revenue streams, shaping recruitment and corporate governance.

Wollin describes brief‑writing as a lesson in narrative framing: the “facts” section is already filtered by selective inclusion, order and language. He says this habit turns sophisticated analysis into a tool for preserving wealth rather than correcting systemic injustice. He cites pro bono wins on Ohio reproductive rights and Virginia voting access as rare counterweights. These contradictions fuel growing attrition among associates.

The essay culminates with Wollin’s departure in 2025 after a Trump administration crackdown that issued executive orders targeting firms aligned with political opponents. Only four firms, including WilmerHale, sued and prevailed, exposing the fragility of a system that tolerates unconstitutional mandates. His account underscores why senior lawyers increasingly question the viability of traditional Big Law careers.