Catherine S. Owens joined Larson in 2021, and her practice focuses on complex civil litigation, patent litigation, and white collar defense. Prior to joining the firm, Catherine served as a law clerk to Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. She earned her J.D. from the New York University School of Law and her B.A. from Bryn Mawr College, magna cum laude.
Before joining Larson, you worked at a large international firm. What about Larson influenced you to move to a smaller trial boutique?
While I really enjoyed the people and the cases at my previous firm, I wasn’t able to get the firsthand trial experience and the level of client interaction that I was seeking. Since joining Larson, I have taken numerous depositions, and led an arbitration, a bench trial, and a jury trial, none of which were opportunities at my previous firm.
I also wanted to focus my practice in the Los Angeles area. While it was interesting working on cases all over the world at my previous firm, I found myself wanting to work with clients in my local Los Angeles community. Last, I wanted to build a broad, general litigation practice, as opposed to being cabined by a specific practice group or area of litigation. Larson allows me to work on a variety of litigation cases that make me a more agile litigator.
You also previously clerked for Judge Gilstrap in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. What were the main benefits of your clerkship experience and in what ways did your experience influence your legal practice?
Clerking was a hugely valuable experience for me. I strongly recommend it to any attorney who wants to litigate cases. The clerkship experience provides lawyers with a critical understanding of the lifecycle of a case from start to finish, and it provides a unique window into how a judge thinks, issues rulings, and makes tough decisions, which I think is vital knowledge for a litigator.
I remember Judge Gilstrap having to sentence people who were convicted of crimes and those were the worst days for him. Sometimes we forget that judges are people too and they are responsible for making hard choices. I found it interesting to see the human element of the judicial process. Clerking also provided me with the opportunity to watch hundreds of lawyers in the courtroom. Just from watching, I learned what not to do, which I think has improved my ability to serve my clients because I understand the court’s perspective in a dispute.
How has your practice evolved since joining Larson?
Since joining Larson, I have picked up a lot of trade secret cases which is a new and exciting area for me to work in. I’ve also had several opportunities to work on cases involving government entities including the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). I love that I am able to work on a wide array of litigation and am not confined to one practice area.
What distinguishes your approach to litigation? Why do you think clients come to you and the Larson team?
I think one of my best traits is that I’m thorough. When I take a case on, I take the case on completely, and I put my whole self into it. I try to think of every way that I can help the client achieve their goal. I’m also particularly good at synthesizing a lot of information and thinking on my feet, which are two skills I’ve learned are hugely important in trial. Larson as a firm is unique in that our team is made up of lawyers who are able to adapt quickly and easily. When arguments are made in a courtroom, it’s important to be prepared and nimble in front of a judge and a jury. My colleagues at Larson are particularly skilled in this way.
What do you consider to be your most significant client victory so far?
I consider Alfa Consult SA v. TCI International, Inc. my most significant client victory for a few reasons. First, I had been involved in that case since Larson was retained, so I had been working with the client, Alfa Consult SA, for a significant period leading up to the trial itself and really got to know them and the issues at play. Second, I had the opportunity to serve as second chair during the trial which meant that I played a leading role in the trial and was able to participate in jury selection, deliver our opening statement, take witnesses, and interact with the jury afterward. Last, I really felt that our client in this case had been wronged which made me so determined to bring justice to them. When we were able to do exactly that by securing a unanimous jury trial victory, it was truly gratifying to see our client thrilled with the outcome.
What is something that someone wouldn’t know by looking at your professional bio?
I am a musician and I’ve played the piano for over 20 years. While I haven’t been able to practice as much as I used to (I used to practice two hours a day!), I still really enjoying playing the piano and find it to be a great stress reliever. I think that particularly in this profession, you need to do something that’s not related to law for your mental health, and for me that’s music.
Catherine Owens is an experienced litigator who has represented a wide range of clients in both state and federal courts. Her practice focuses on all aspects of complex commercial litigation and white collar defense. She has represented clients in a variety of industries, including social media, technology, and pharmaceuticals.
Download a printable PDF version of Catherine’s Q&A here.
