When a Judge Becomes a Practitioner: Former Justice John Higgitt on His New Role as a Quinn Emanuel Partner
Who better to join the recent flurry of distinguished partners starting at Quinn Emanuel than a highly respected appellate judge steeped in New York State commercial litigation?
John R. Higgitt, most recently an associate justice in the First Department of New York State Supreme Court’s Appellate Division, starts at the firm today as a partner in the New York office. Higgitt brings more than two decades of experience in the state’s courts, in a variety of roles, and knows every aspect of the high-stakes commercial disputes the firm often takes on.
In addition to his insight into commercial litigation itself, his unique perspective on how cases are won and lost before one of the nation’s most esteemed state appellate courts – and one with a great deal of Quinn Emanuel foot traffic – will prove invaluable to us and our clients.
We asked John about his mid-career move, what drew him to Quinn, litigation trends he’s observed, the dynamics of the lawyer-judge relationship, and how they can affect the outcome of a case.
Why the Move?
Welcome to the firm, John! (And let the record reflect that we tried to address you as Judge and you wouldn’t let us.) Why did you decide to leave the bench at the height of your career and go into private practice?
I turned 50 this year, which felt like a good time to reflect on where I was, personally and professionally. I wanted to fill a gap in my experience in the law. Deeply involved as I have been in civil litigation throughout my career, and as much as I’ve enjoyed the opportunity to hear the perspective of so many practitioners, I myself have not served as an advocate. I knew that privilege was exciting and dynamic and would give me a complete view of civil litigation. I found a compelling opportunity with Quinn Emanuel, and I’m excited to take it.
And why Quinn Emanuel in particular?
I need to like and respect the people I work with, as I have in the courts, and I wanted to work at an innovative firm with an extraordinary reputation, challenging cases, and sophisticated clients. I also wanted a strong, consistent appellate practice. Very few firms met all those criteria.
Quinn Emanuel has such a dynamic practice before both New York’s Commercial and Appellate Divisions. I was always impressed by the quality of the firm’s lawyering and the frequency with which the firm appeared in our state’s courts.
Latest Litigation Trends
What trends have caught your attention lately?
I’ve noticed an uptick over the last couple of years in challenges to governmental actions, determinations, and regulations. And I think it will grow, given the differing approaches of New York City and state governments, on one hand, and the federal government on the other. I expect government-facing litigation to continue to proliferate, in New York and elsewhere, involving private entities attempting to comply with conflicting regulations and parties challenging government action. I think, too, that we have only just begun to identify and address the mass of issues, substantive and procedural, relating to AI.
Judge vs. Practitioner
As you make this big move, what would you say is the essential difference between a judge and an attorney, or advocate, in how they look at a case?
Advocate is the key word. As an appellate judge I was bound, for good reasons, by the issues raised before the trial judge, preserved, and then presented on appeal. The job is awesome in responsibility, but you’re confined to considering what’s before you. That process, I have found, leads to the informed development of the law.
As an advocate you’re a driving, creative, innovative force. You take a basic set of facts, sometimes before there’s even a dispute, develop those facts further, identify potential theories both offensive and defensive, chart a procedural course, and shepherd the client toward its objective.
How have you seen that show up in your courtroom?
Strong legal analysis must be communicated persuasively. The advocate should understand the relevant audience. In many courts, certainly in the downstate courts with which I am particularly familiar, judges have huge case volumes, and their attention is a finite commodity. How does the advocate attract it, and keep it? That’s an art as opposed to a science.
A strong point can get buried in a brief and never see the light of day. Or an otherwise strong point may not be made clearly. The advocate, employing the art of persuasion, needs to present the material – facts, law, arguments, and conclusions – in a clear, concise, compelling manner.
As you suggested a little while ago, you’re in good company here, at a firm of trial lawyers known for meticulous preparation and looking at a matter from every angle until they know what will win in court. We imagine you’ll miss being a judge, even as you begin this exciting new chapter.
I've been very lucky not just to be a judge, but a judge who has sat on a number of different courts, most recently on the First Department, which has a pretty significant reputation in the national judiciary. We heard so many fascinating cases, as our appeals came from the Manhattan and Bronx trial courts, including disputes litigated in the Commercial Division.
No doubt you’ll be busy at Quinn Emanuel. But you’ve also published a lot of fascinating legal articles in your time on the bench, and we look forward to more, once you’re settled in at the firm. Our attorneys are publishing more thought leadership, from litigation risk in the financing of AI data centers to the latest trends in IP counterfeiting to the legal implications when AI agents conduct transactions, and more.
We’re so happy you’re joining us, John. Welcome!
Read the press release announcing John’s arrival at the firm here.