In 1969, Cravath opened a satellite office in White Plains, New York, a move out of character for the Manhattan fixture. But it was in response to a typical assignment for the Firm: the representation of a client in a hugely consequential matter. In this case, it meant defending International Business Machines Corporation in an antitrust suit that threatened to break up the company. 

The outpost proved to be lasting, as the suit carried on for a staggering 13 years, concluding when the government dropped its case. It was a win for IBM, as well as the attorneys who had worked on the trial for more than a decade—many of whom considered the matter to be career defining, and difficult to explain to those who had not devoted years to the same mammoth experience.

Then-partner Ronald Rolfe explained to The New York Times in 1982: “Each of us came to Cravath because we thought it was the best firm in the country. There was something beyond us; the Cravath name drove us to places we wouldn’t normally have gone.”

The IBM case was a landmark matter not only from a legal perspective but also a practical one, due to its complexity and size. Along with the tall mandate to preserve IBM’s business model, the staffing needed for the case—The New York Times reported that the government action alone took more than 700 trial days—contributed to an expansion of the Firm’s Litigation Department, which grew to about the size and scale that clients know today.

As then-partner Paul Saunders told The Washington Post at the conclusion of the case: “A lot of the things we set up have become standard operating procedure in terms of managing big lawsuits. But we didn’t have any guideposts. We wrote the book.” 

The Firm’s approach, which included creating a computerized system to organize and retrieve an immense trove of documents, provided a model for how law firms might tackle other complicated and long‑running litigation in the United States. But in many ways, it was also business as usual for how Cravath handles the bet‑the‑company client matters it is known for: allocating whatever resources are necessary and pioneering through uncharted terrain to get the job done. 

More than four decades later, that same spirit of resourcefulness and innovation still drives the antitrust group. 

Today, the practice is led by Christine Varney and Noah Phillips, both former Commissioners of the FTC, with Christine also having served as U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust at the DOJ. Together, they oversee a full-service global practice anchored in Manhattan and Washington, D.C., which represents clients in matters across the entire spectrum of the regulatory landscape.  

Cravath’s attorneys draw inspiration from a long line of precedent-setting antitrust matters that have been pivotal in the careers of so many at the Firm, and among the ranks of its alumni, while they continue to adapt to meet the needs of clients in an increasingly active and complex environment. 

The group boasts an unmatched repository of competition agency experience and significant depth of bench—including Andrew Finch, the former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Acting Assistant Attorney General in the DOJ’s Antitrust Division, who joined the Firm earlier this year—and it remains at the forefront in handling cases that are constantly reshaping the landscape for competition.

“Much of how we approach counseling our clients is grounded in the basic principle of helping them to ‘see around corners’ and prepare for all possible outcomes,” explains Christine. “Our goal is to help them spot potential challenges and guide them to the best possible outcome.”

Complex antitrust litigation remains a hallmark of the Firm’s work, covering everything from defending merger challenges to managing class actions sprawled across the country. And like the case against IBM, the Firm continues to excel at critical enforcement actions, with an exceptional track record trying and winning cases against the government.  

In time, the specifics of the cases may change, but Cravath’s approach—to which teamwork and breadth of experience are crucial—remains the same. 

“Close collaboration is essential to everything we do in our practice group and across the Firm,” Noah explains. “The way we advise on regulatory matters by necessity requires it; the work could not be done at the standard that our clients expect without this level of cooperation.”

Christine adds: “Our antitrust practitioners are expert in the field and also have extensive breadth of knowledge and experience in other areas. That wide range of exposure is invaluable.”

That approach has been tested and proven across Cravath’s more than 200 years, through various iterations of the regulatory landscape and the pivotal client matters that have shaped the experiences of each generation. 

No matter the year, the Firm continues to operate at the forefront of antitrust—and perhaps the most time‑tested tradition of all is the practice’s willingness to establish guideposts as they go.