Unrivaled 2025: Lynn Neuner of Simpson Thacher

You successfully represented TD Bank in $13 billion litigation related to convicted financier Allen Stanford’s multibillion dollar Ponzi scheme. After defeating plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and securing the dismissal of the majority of claims during summary judgment, you reached a favorable settlement for TD Bank in February 2023, just days before the start of trial, for less than 10% of the claimed damages. Can you tell us about your trial strategy?

This case involved the second largest Ponzi scheme in the history of our country. Allen Stanford and a close circle of allies ran a massive investment scheme out of a bank in Antigua, selling fictitious CDs to 17,000 investors around the globe promising an attractive rate of return and a careful investment strategy.

In reality, Stanford had only a fraction of his $7 billion in assets under management invested with valid money managers and used the rest to fuel the scheme and support his lifestyle. The investors sued five banks that provided financial services to Stanford. None of the banks knew about the scheme; neither did the SEC nor the IRS, which both conducted intensive audits of the Stanford organization.

Interestingly, TD Bank faced a nearly identical suit in Canada by the Antigua Liquidators of the Stanford estate. The Canadian court rendered judgment entirely in TD’s favor, rejecting the Liquidators’ effort to hold TD Bank responsible.

TD aggressively litigated the case pre-trial and had several significant wins. We defeated plaintiffs’ efforts to certify a global class action when the Texas court ruled that the investors’ issues were too individual to be litigated as a class. Plaintiffs were forced to proceed through a committee of investors, which created certain standing problems for them. We also succeeded during the summary judgment phase to have plaintiffs withdraw four of their seven claims.

Just prior to trial, plaintiffs abandoned yet another claim, leaving just two for the jury to decide (aiding a fiduciary breach and aiding violations of the Texas Securities Act). We filed a barrage of motions and appeals and buckled down for trial.

Can you describe a major hurdle that happened on the road to trial and how did you overcome it?

We pursued multiple avenues to impose judicial discipline on the proceedings as we were facing a three-month trial on a multibillion-dollar case where plaintiffs had zero evidence that the banks knew about Stanford’s fraud. The entire case turned on circumstantial evidence and plaintiffs’ assertions that the banks should have figured it all out. But the plaintiffs’ only two remaining claims required heightened knowledge, and they did not have it.

Plaintiffs were relying on the jury to feel sorry for the investors, while we were counting on the jury to evaluate the evidence and see that the banks did not know about the fraud—we were just as deceived as the SEC and IRS and the investors themselves.

One of our trial presentation challenges was to keep the banks coordinated and aligned. We had a highly talented group of trial counsel, and no one was casting stones sideways. Ultimately, each bank decided to settle before jury selection.

TD Bank had the longest banking relationship and the greatest exposure and agreed to the highest settlement. While $1.2 billion is a significant sum, it was less than 10% of the risk in the case. Personally, my team and I wanted to try the case and had strong confidence in our witnesses and trial plan, but sometimes business considerations are paramount.

When did you first know you wanted to be a trial lawyer? What clicked for you?

I knew I wanted to be a lawyer since I was in fifth grade. My teacher selected me to be the student judge of a pet contest, and it set my mind ablaze on what it meant to be a lawyer and a judge in our community.

In law school, I gravitated to trial classes, clinics, and activities. I loved the trial as a crucible of fact and law, where conveying your client’s story was key to a successful outcome. I was in the Prize Trial for our mock trial competition in front of Judge Wapner. It was a standing-room only event – everyone wanted to see the original star of People’s Court.

I chose Simpson Thacher because of its standout litigation department. I was lucky to learn trial skills from some of the greats – Roy Reardon, Barry Ostrager, and Chuck Koob. I learned about preparation, talking straight to the jury, and courage in the courtroom. As the youngest of nine, I think some of this came to me naturally—I learned from a young age that appealing advocacy meant better outcomes!

What are the major keys to winning over a jury or a judge?

Be reliable, know the record extraordinarily well and don’t exaggerate the facts. Earning the trust of the judge or jury is one of the most important strengths you can have as a trial lawyer—the finder of fact must believe that your facts are credible, and your story is truthful. Weave the facts into your trial arc and speak authentically on behalf of your client.

What is the best advice you give young trial lawyers?

“Your most important job is to synthesize a complex record into a compelling narrative. The equities of a case should be top-of-mind, as judges and juries are always guided by what is fair under the circumstances.”