Roman Martinez
---
---
2,510 views Oct 22, 2025 Lever Time
Most Americans want to overturn Citizens United v. FEC, the landmark 2010 Supreme Court decision that unleashed unlimited corporate spending on U.S. elections. But two new cases before the high court — including one spearheaded by now-Vice President JD Vance — are instead set to expand that ruling and turn America into a kleptocracy. For the next several episodes of Lever Time, we’re taking a deep dive into Citizens United and how it’s transformed our lives. In this first episode, David Sirota uncovers conservatives’ plan to deregulate the campaign finance system, their efforts to legalize bribery, and what options we have to stop them.
9:54
after the Trump administration bailed on
9:56
defending current law, who did the US
9:59
Supreme Court assign to defend the last
10:01
remaining threads of campaign finance
10:03
regulations? A conservative attorney
10:06
named Roman Martinez. He served as a
10:08
clerk for Chief Justice John Roberts in
10:11
2010, exactly when Roberts engineered
10:15
the original Citizens United ruling.
10:17
This same conservative attorney now
10:19
charged with defending the last
10:21
remaining campaign finance statutes. He
10:24
also recently helped the Chamber of
10:26
Commerce press justices to limit the
10:28
scope of federal anti-bribery laws.
10:32
Could somebody play that old Chevy Chase
10:33
clip here?
10:34
Isn't that a conflict of interest? Like
10:36
Citizens United in 2010, this new
10:38
Supreme Court case only questions a
10:41
narrow aspect of campaign finance law,
10:43
the part that governs how much money
10:46
political parties can spend in
10:48
coordination with their candidates. But
10:50
just like Citizens United, the court
10:52
could go way beyond the narrow issues in
10:55
this case and use the case as an
10:58
opportunity to create a whole new
11:00
president outlawing all campaign
11:03
contribution limits. The court is set to
11:06
hear the case during its current term.
11:08
Depending on how justices rule, by the
11:10
2026 midterm election, we could be
11:13
living under a whole new Citizens United
11:16
2.0 paradigm, where campaign donations
11:19
to candidates and the potential for
11:21
billionaires to buy elections are truly
11:24
unlimited. And even if this JD Vance
11:27
case fails, there's one more case also
11:30
on the horizon. It aims to make it
11:32
almost impossible for prosecutors to
11:35
enforce federal anti-bribery laws. We'll
11:38
hear more about that case after the
break....
break.
11:48
Welcome back to Lever Time. While the
11:50
Republican party pushes the Supreme
11:52
Court to overturn campaign finance laws
11:54
and kill campaign contribution limits,
11:57
the court is also being petitioned to
11:59
hear a separate case taking aim at
12:02
federal anti-bribery laws.
12:04
Former Cincinnati City Council member PG
12:06
Sittenfeld has just been sentenced to 16
12:09
months in prison. PG Sittenfeld was
12:12
arrested after an FBI sting caught him
12:14
accepting $20,000 of campaign
12:17
contributions as he supported a local
12:19
development project that donors wanted.
12:21
Sittenfeld, of course, was found guilty
12:23
on federal charges of bribery and
12:25
attempted extortion.
12:27
Sittenfeld was a rising Democratic
12:29
political star before all this unfolded.
12:31
He went from being the favorite in
12:33
Cincinnati's mayoral race to being a
12:35
convicted felon. He was convicted for
12:37
taking what prosecutors called a bribe
12:39
and he paid the price. The system
12:41
worked, right? Well, not exactly.
12:44
Sittinfeld was then pardoned by
12:47
President Donald Trump. And Sittinfeld
12:49
is now appealing his conviction. By his
12:52
own admission, he's the first person
12:54
ever to appeal a case after he's been
12:57
pardoned. And he's teaming up with a
12:59
Trump connected law firm. He's being
13:01
represented by Trump's former solicitor
13:04
general. and he has the support of an
13:06
army of former elected officials.
13:09
Clearly, this case is less about one
13:11
shady municipal deal in Cincinnati and
13:14
more about eliciting a whole new Supreme
13:17
Court president, making it even harder
13:19
to prosecute public corruption cases. If
13:22
Sittenfeld's appeal is approved by the
13:24
Supreme Court, it would join a decadel
13:27
long string of decisions overturning
13:30
bribery convictions. That includes cases
13:32
involving former Virginia Governor Bob
13:34
McDonald, aids to then New Jersey
13:36
Governor Chris Christie, associates of
13:38
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, and a
13:41
former mayor of Portage, Indiana. In
13:43
that former mayor's case, the court went
13:46
so far as to declare that a public
13:48
official reaping a payment from the
13:50
recipient of government contracts is not
13:52
necessarily engaging in illegal bribery,
13:55
but is really just accepting a legal
13:57
quote gratuitity. It kind of makes you
14:00
wonder why is the Supreme Court so chill
14:04
about bribery.
14:05
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is
14:07
responding to growing criticism about
14:09
his lavish trips funded by a major GOP
14:12
donor.
14:13
Justice Samuel Alo also accepted lavish
14:16
gifts from another conservative
14:18
billionaire and didn't disclose it.
....
---
---
off bs
"Always wants the best for us and advocates for us. He is very measured, very calm and very thorough."
Chambers USA 2025
"Master strategist and court whisperer. He understands how to triangulate between the arguments the client wants to make and the argument the court wants to hear."
Chambers USA 2025
"He writes clear, understandable persuasive briefs and he is someone I'd be happy to send into court to argue in front of any court, SCOTUS included."
Chambers USA 2025
"His briefing and oral advocacy and strategic thinking were exceptional. I have never worked with someone as excellent as Roman."
Chambers USA 2025
Band 1 – Appellate Law
Chambers USA 2025
Leading Partner – Dispute Resolution: Appellate: Courts of Appeals & Supreme Courts (State and Federal)
Legal 500 US 2025
"Roman Martinez is fantastic."
Chambers USA 2024
"He takes complexities and draws out a broader theme that will engage the Court and get them to think about the broader issue."
Chambers USA 2023
"He has a tremendous command of the material and displays real confidence in oral argument."
Chambers USA 2023
"He's got a presence about him that is reassuring to clients and courts."
Chambers USA 2023
"Always wants the best for us and advocates for us. He is very measured, very calm and very thorough."
Chambers USA 2025
Profile
Roman Martinez, Global Chair of the firm’s Supreme Court & Appellate Practice, represents clients in their highest-stakes appeals in the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as in federal and state appellate courts around the country. He previously served as Deputy Office Managing Partner of the Washington, D.C. office.
Roman handles civil and criminal matters involving a wide range of constitutional, statutory, and administrative law issues.
Roman has argued 15 cases in the Supreme Court, including important cases in the fields of the First Amendment, administrative law, arbitration, copyright, patent law, criminal law, civil rights, employment, and civil and criminal procedure. In addition, he has argued dozens of appeals in the D.C., First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Federal Circuits, as well as in New York, California, New Jersey, Ohio, and Tennessee appellate courts, among others. Roman also regularly participates in district court litigation raising complex questions of federal law.
During the Supreme Court’s 2023 term, Roman secured a significant victory for one set of petitioners in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, in which the Court overruled the Chevrondeference doctrine. He regularly represents clients bringing constitutional and Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenges to unlawful agency action. The Court recently appointed him as amicus curiae to brief and argue a major First Amendment campaign-finance case in defense of the judgment below.
In the 2022 and 2024 Supreme Court Terms, Roman prevailed in Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools and A.J.T. v. Osseo School District, in both of which the Court expanded legal protections for children with disabilities. His other recent victories in the Supreme Court include ZF Automotive v. Luxshare, in which the Supreme Court clarified that US courts lack authority to grant discovery for use in private commercial arbitrations conducted abroad, and Vega v. Tekoh, in which the Court clarified the scope of civil liability for violations of Miranda v. Arizona.
In the 2020 Term, Roman was part of teams that successfully represented Facebook and the Government of Guam in unanimous Supreme Court victories under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Comprehensive Environmental, Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). In 2020, he successfully persuaded the Court to invalidate portions of TCPA under the First Amendment.
Roman has prevailed in 31 of the last 36 cases he has argued to a decision in the federal appellate courts. His wins have included:
- Fourteen victories in securities or ERISA cases, in the First, Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits
- Eight victories in the Ninth Circuit, including a 6-5 Ninth Circuit en banc victory upholding a forum selection clause limiting derivative claims to Delaware court
- Victory overturning a US$37 million adverse jury verdict based on asbestos-related product liability claims, in the New Jersey Appellate Division
- Victories overturning a US$31 million adverse jury verdict based on fraud and contract claims, in Tennessee Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
- Victory overturning a US$23 million adverse jury verdict based on a defamation claim arising from a shareholder proxy fight, in the Fourth Circuit
- Victory in an antitrust class action alleging extraterritorial violations of the Sherman Act, in the Second Circuit
- Victory overturning trial court’s rejection of L.A. County pension fund’s plenary authority to control personnel and administration under California Constitution
- Federal Circuit en banc victory unanimously overturning (11-0) circuit precedent restricting veterans’ rights to challenge unlawful action by the Department of Veterans Affairs
In 2016, Roman rejoined Latham after serving as an Assistant to the Solicitor General at the US Department of Justice. Earlier in his career, he served as a law clerk to Chief Justice John G. Roberts of the Supreme Court of the United States and to then-Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of the D.C. Circuit.
From 2002 to 2005, Roman served as an advisor on the Iraqi political and constitutional process, in various roles at the White House, at the US Embassy and Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, and at the US Department of Defense. He received the Secretary of Defense Medal for the Global War on Terrorism and the US Department of Defense Distinguished Public Service Award for his service in Iraq.
Roman serves on the US Chamber of Commerce’s Administrative Law & Government Litigation Advisory Committee, on the Advisory Council of the Federal Circuit, and the Federalist Society’s Administrative Law & Regulation Practice Group. He previously served as a member of the D.C. Circuit’s Advisory Committee on Procedures and the US District Court for the District of Columbia’s Committee on Grievances.
Roman’s commentary has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and other publications, and he has appeared on PBS NewsHour and other television programs to discuss the Supreme Court.
Read Less
Experience
Roman’s representative experience includes:
US Supreme Court
- Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo & Relentless Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 603 U.S. 369 (2024) (Chevrondeference) (argued for Relentlesspetitioners)
- A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, 145 S. Ct. 1647 (2025) (disability discrimination) (argued)
- Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, 598 U.S. 142 (2023) (disability discrimination) (argued)
- Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, 598 U.S. 508 (2023) (copyright infringement) (argued)
- ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd., 596 U.S. 619 (2022) (availability of discovery for use in foreign private commercial arbitrations) (argued)
- Vega v. Tekoh, 597 U.S. 134 (2022) (scope of Section 1983 liability) (argued)
- Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, 591 U.S. 610 (2020) (First Amendment challenge to Telephone Consumer Protection Act) (argued)
- Babb v Wilkie, 589 U.S. 399 (2020) (federal-sector age discrimination) (argued)
- Guam v. United States, 593 U.S. 310 (2021) (CERCLA statute of limitations) (briefed)
- Facebook v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021) (scope of TCPA liability) (briefed)
- Pivotal Software v. Tran, Sup. Ct. No. 20-1541 (applicability of PSLRA discovery stay to state-court securities actions) (briefed)
- Independent School District No. 283 v. E.M.D.H. ex rel. L.H. and S.D., Sup. Ct. No. 20-905 (IDEA statute of limitations) (briefed)
- Seldin v. Estate of Stanley C., Silverman, Sup. Ct. No. 20-895 (enforceability of arbitration awards) (briefed)
- Vermont National Telephone Co. v. Vermont Dep’t of Taxation, Sup. Ct. No. 20-1159 (tax situs) (briefed)
- Gray v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2764 (2019) (reviewability of agency action by Department of Veterans Affairs) (briefed)
- Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sup. Ct. No. 19-1166 (2020) (Rule 19 joinder in APA actions) (briefed)
- Kisor v. Wilkie, 588 U.S. 558 (2019) (deference to agency interpretation of regulations) (amicus brief on behalf of National Organization of Veterans Advocates)
- Connecticut v. Skakel, 586 U.S. 1068 (2019) (ineffective assistance of counsel) (briefed)
- Provident Savings Bank, FSB v. McKeen-Chaplin, 138 S.Ct. 471 (2017) (Fair Labor Standards Act “administrative” exemption) (briefed)
- Fry v. Napoleon County Schools, 580 U.S. 154 (2017) (exhaustion under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) (argued)*
- Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. 93 (2016) (Patent Act enhanced damages) (argued)*
- Simmons v. Himmelreich, 578 U.S. 621 (2016) (liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act) (argued)*
- Musacchio v. United States, 577 U.S. 237 (2016) (criminal jury instructions and statute-of-limitations defenses) (argued)*
- United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 575 U.S. 402 (2015) (Federal Tort Claims Act) (argued)*
- Yates v. United States, 574 U.S. 528 (2015) (Sarbanes-Oxley Act obstruction of justice provision) (argued)*
- Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness Inc., 572 U.S. 545 (2014) (Patent Act attorney fees) (argued)*
- Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, S. Ct. No. 580 U.S. 386 (substantive standard of liability under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) (briefed)*
- Michigan v. EPA, 579 U.S. 903 (2016) (Administrative Procedure Act challenge to regulatory action under the Clean Air Act) (briefed)*
- United States v. June, 575 U.S. 402 (2015) (equitable tolling of claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act) (briefed)*
- West Virginia, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 136 S. Ct. 1000 (2016) (statutory and constitutional validity of Clean Power Plan (opposition to application for stay)*
- Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc., 572 U.S. 559 (2014) (standard of appellate review for Patent Act attorney fees) (briefed)*
- Moores v. Hildes, 135 S. Ct. 46 (2014) (Section 11 liability under Securities Act) (certiorari-stage amicus brief)*
- Ridley School District v. M.R., J.R., as parents of E.R. 135 S. Ct. 2309 (2015) (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act “stay-put” provision) (certiorari-stage amicus brief)*
- Vance v. Ball State University, 133 S. Ct. 2434 (2013) (Title VII retaliation) (briefed)
Other Federal Court
- Mollaei v. Otonomo Inc., 9th Cir. No. 23-16079 (privacy class action) (argued)
- Heckman v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., 120 F.4th 670 (9th Cir. 2024) (arbitration agreement in antitrust class action) (argued)
- Bartling v. Apple Inc., 9th Cir. No. 22-16164 (consumer class action) (argued)
- Home Depot USA v. NLRB, 8th Cir. No. 24-1406 (First Amendment & NLRA enforcement action) (to be argued)
- Lawrence General Hospital v. Continental Casualty Co., 1st Cir. No. 23-1286 (COVID-related insurance coverage) (argued)
- Grae v. Corrections Corp. of America, 6th Cir. No. 22-05312 (sealing of records in securities class action) (argued)
- Fluor Corp. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 8th Cir. No. 21-3389 (insurance) (argued)
- IAM Nat’l Pension Fund v. Farfetch, 2d Cir. No. 21-2752 (securities class action) (argued)
- Home Depot U.S.A. v. Lafarge North Am., 3d Cir. No. 22-1122 (MDL procedure) (argued)
- Lee v. Fisher, 70 F.4th 1129 (9th Cir. 2023) (securities derivative action) (argued to panel and en banc)
- Roeder v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 2d Cir. No. 21-0552 (civil rights class action) (argued)
- Salim v. Mobile TeleSystems PJSC, 2d Cir. No. 21-839 (securities class action) (argued)
- In re Imerys Talc America, Inc., 3d Cir. No. 20-3485 (bankruptcy) (argued)
- Birnbaum v. General Electric Co., 2d Cir. No. 20-01741 (securities class action) (argued)
- Puma Biotechnology v. Eshelman, No. 20-1329 (4th Cir.) (defamation) (argued)
- National Organization of Veterans Advocates v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Fed. Cir. No. 20-1321 (2020) (review of agency action by Dep’t of Veterans Affairs) (argued en banc)
- Koshy v. Barbarosh, 788 Fed. Appx. 536 (9th Cir. 2019) (securities derivative suit) (briefed)
- Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 932 F.3d 843 (9th Cir. 2019) (Rule 19 joinder) (briefed)
- Wada v. United States, No. 19-2983 (2d Cir.) (criminal fraud) (to be argued)
- South Carolina Retirement Systems Group Trust v. Eaton Corp. PLC, 791 Fed. Appx. 230 (2d Cir. 2019) (securities class action) (argued)
- Biocad JSC v. F. Hoffman-La Roche, 942 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2019) (extraterritoriality of Sherman Act) (briefed)
- Steamfitters Industry Pension Fund v. Endo International PLC, 771 Fed. Appx. 494 (2d Cir. 2019) (securities class action) (argued)
- Graham v. Fearon, 721 Fed. Appx. 429 (6th Cir. 2018) (ERISA class action) (argued)
- ABS Entertainment v. CBS Corporation, 908 F.3d 405 (9th Cir. 2018) (copyright) (amicus brief)
- City of Almaty v. Khrapunov, 9th Cir. No. 15-56628 (forum non conveniens) (argued)
- Gamero v. Koodo Sushi Corp., 752 Fed. Appx. 33 (2d Cir. 2018) (Fair Labor Standards Act) (briefed)
- National Organization of Veterans Advocates v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 710 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (challenge to VA regulation) (argued)
- Walgreen Co. v. Drug Enforcement Agency, D.C. Cir. No. 12-1397 (Administrative Procedure Act challenge to agency enforcement action) (briefed)
State Appellate Court
- Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Assoc. v. County of Los Angeles, No. B326977 (Cal. Ct. App., 2d App. Dist.) (California pension law) (argued)
- Milan Supply Chain Solutions v. Navistar, No. W2018-00084-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. S. Ct. 2021) (affirming reversal of US$31 million fraud verdict) (argued)
- Milan Supply Chain Solutions v. Navistar, 2019 WL 3812483 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019) (overturning US$31 million fraud verdict) (argued)
- Lanzo v. Imerys Talc America, No. A-005711-17 (N.J. App. Div.) (overturning US$37 million product liability verdict) (argued)
- Navistar v. Dutchmaid Logistics, Ohio Ct App. No. 2020 CA 0003 (fraud) (argued)
- Mahar v. General Electric, N.Y. Supreme Ct. App. Div. No 2019-05203 (securities class action) (argued)
- Martz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 447 P.3d 1085 (Nevada Sup. Ct. 2019) (stay of securities class action (briefed)
- Ramirez v. Bridgestone/ Firestone, Inc., 414 S.W. 3d 707 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (forum non conveniens) (argued)
*Matter handled prior to joining Latham
Read More
Qualifications
Bar Qualification
- District of Columbia
- New York
Education
- JD, Yale Law School
- M.Phil., Cambridge University
- AB, Harvard College
summa cum laude
---
duck 10 25
- The Federalist Society
https://fedsoc.org › bio › roman-martinez
Roman Martinez - Federalist Society
Roman Martinez is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Latham & Watkins. As a member of the firm's Supreme Court and Appellate Practice, he focuses primarily on appeals in the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Courts of Appeals, and state appellate courts.
- Only include results for this siteRedo search without this siteBlock this site from all resultsNEW
Share feedback about this site
martinezroman.com
Martinez Roman Law Firm | Martinez Roman
Martinez Roman defends uninsured employers against workers' compensation claims. Navigating Florida workers' compensation law as an uninsured employer can be both challenging and frustrating. Our attorneys will also assist in compliance issues and make recommendations that allow you to focus on your business rather than potential litigation.
- Only include results for this siteRedo search without this siteBlock this site from all resultsNEW
Share feedback about this site
https://www.linkedin.com › in › roman-martinez-v
Roman Martinez - LinkedIn
Liked by Roman Martinez I talked to Bloomberg last week about judicial nominations: Trump's selections typically attended a variety of law schools. Both administrations… Liked by Roman Martinez
- Only include results for this siteRedo search without this siteBlock this site from all resultsNEW
Share feedback about this site
The Appellate Project
https://theappellateproject.org › news-and-voices › all-posts › roman-martinez
Community Profiles | Roman Martinez — The Appellate Project
As Partner at Latham & Watkins LLP, Roman Martinez has represented multiple clients at the Supreme Court and federal and state appellate courts across the country. Most recently, Roman successfully argued the Supreme Court case Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, a case that raises important issues related to the rights of students with disabilities. Prior to his role at Latham, Roman served as ...
- Only include results for this siteRedo search without this siteBlock this site from all resultsNEW
Share feedback about this site
Oyez
https://www.oyez.org › advocates › roman_martinez
Roman Martinez | Oyez
Roman Martinez Cases argued A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279 (2024) Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce (2023) Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith (2022) Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, et al. (2022) Vega v. Tekoh (2021) ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd. (2021) Babb v ...
- Only include results for this siteRedo search without this siteBlock this site from all resultsNEW
Share feedback about this site
The Legal 500
Roman Martinez > Latham & Watkins LLP > United States | Lawyer profiles
Benchmarking excellence in law since 1987Roman Martinez, former Deputy Office Managing Partner of the Washington, D.C. office, represents clients in their highest-stakes appeals in the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as in federal and state appellate courts around the country. Roman handles civil and criminal matters involving a wide range of constitutional, statutory, and ...
- Only include results for this siteRedo search without this siteBlock this site from all resultsNEW
Share feedback about this site
Jacksonville Daily Record
Roman Martinez shares an inside view of U.S. Supreme Court
May 9, 2025The former law clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts, and head of appellate practice at Latham & Watkins, shares insights with the JBA. Roman Martinez, global chair of the Supreme Court and Appellate Practice group at Latham & Watkins in Washington, D.C., was the keynote speaker for the Jacksonville ...
- Only include results for this siteRedo search without this siteBlock this site from all resultsNEW
Share feedback about this site
Latham & Watkins LLP
https://www.lw.com › en › news › mvp-lathams-roman-martinez
MVP: Latham's Roman Martinez - lw.com
Nov 20, 2024By Ryan Boysen Law360 (November 19, 2024, 12:02 PM EST) -- Latham & Watkins LLP's Roman Martinez outdid himself this year, helping to tear down the Chevron deference doctrine on behalf of his client, Relentless Inc., in a landmark Supreme Court case and upending existing precedent in another win on behalf of a $70 billion retirement fund, making him one of the 2024 Law360 Appellate MVPs.
- Only include results for this siteRedo search without this siteBlock this site from all resultsNEW
Share feedback about this site
Original Jurisdiction
https://davidlat.substack.com › p › roman-martinez-latham-watkins-scotus-relentless
A Relentlessly Successful SCOTUS Advocate: Roman Martinez
Jul 24, 2024Show Notes: Roman Martinez bio, Latham & Watkins Roman Martinez profile, Chambers and Partners 40 Under 40: Roman Martinez, Washington Business Journal Prefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below. Sponsored by: NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners.
- Report Ad
[
Thumbtack
https://www.thumbtack.com › pro-bono-lawyer › San Jose](https://duckduckgo.com/y.js?ad_domain=thumbtack.com&ad_provider=bingv7aa&ad_type=txad&click_metadata=NWEC5lXxFTdUr%2DXxVF%2DIovFUThED9S8GV6HZ12Cunmb%2DY_QV4W8EENoeX9NsewWm_na0xa%2Di0XcGQGruX3%2DyEacLfYdzhm6vF523mGdxtfwe09Poaho%2DF8BQVr%2Dj0vO1.FiVBVgJP1l4LNqX7RaWvnQ&eddgt=iJBakY9ojLpWN4_YfeXgDQ%3D%3D&rut=8c2fd8a68e4db072fa2fc6dd0c4321d498a86366bd582474c83fc0ad79670e8f&u3=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Faclick%3Fld%3De8j3AhsSHEd5fOAAIl0J3rSDVUCUwV5XrBrTwnI2VZ2m07cxec0tAQqOXo3bf6MP7yE7x9wWkMOi_4QOmeDrqvcUfjxeEq6Pr1qVt5VwBwz8%2DQR2xtD2p0W9qFiOOBhzUZrXsEDVDcu0%2DPAQCwaj89PH3ODKtInl7hljT7yhiQw81SWhhronfsEaLG4uzmGhGgKv4c5tgiS%2DA7Wluwfe9fzhZU4gUFXR2C706d1SNvifuko4DXPd7DGpEMpj3PbMMI0Lmc1zZ_s3th6fmLotOk8lUj01mKc2WDxXgfMNUJJsZyLu7pKOsdantfNQRJaInhagW3i3_3ztYpJkctGCq9Pgt0Ii7esg54ZNqo%2D26mt3Qx4cFmyhZMXA4W7bpQYXr0f08MFItLVLWmMs_uu5WGNhnXl3P2j1RXLFLMPaJ%2DuP6vUwcZloW8AVBQkcxhyKw71PMwJipenpP_xb6kDAT2pDkQQuxJ0e0Xl0tv6qZUpx1Z95oqrBVS_rA1dqjF0yqiFP821iMOaY0roSCW3qE%2DWqDSkMlPskW_NvssDJMlxxl8QlYkKhafsCVtI45hwC_4ZuU3POUTBcV7lEOMVuEYNUEa1nPIDMeAs0i%2DLioJGdEpeAY4lI4d7xTsxnpRlJtvgjJiPnmDAtkMXRT5EnErxXfVP4kEziQS4aGL7icnHMoBLw5UgX9OE%2DuEzVXuzGvIoNLU4UiHCcpiFNv6qLJP37fkU8FwY3ygttkaiwHsiXBd4hPggPNAN5wKhlpG0hLExhEw9w%26u%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%26rlid%3Dd6ca8c9d36921ede683ce463b9bb9d3c&vqd=4-283133040118834727121612908232877684792&iurl=%7B1%7DIG%3D2760AB5CA78E4C70A60C4EBBCDE90AAF%26CID%3D1C949C641C2B6200298F8AF51D4463C1%26ID%3DDevEx%2C5046.1)
Hire A Pro Bono Lawyer - Trusted By Over 10M People
Child custody · Bankruptcy attorneys · 30,000 Requests Daily
Criminal Defense Attorney - **$200.00** - Prices may vary per case •View more items
---