During the Cold War, the “Fulda Gap”—a strategic intersection of West and East Germany—was the theorized location of a massive (and potentially apocalyptic) battle between the United States and its NATO allies, and the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies. Both world powers had imposing armies of tanks, tactical nuclear weapons and countless troops poised to clash in what many predicted would be the start of World War III. The notion of that type of warfare, in today's world of drone strikes and special operations forces, is an anachronism.

The world of high-stakes litigation has not quite caught up to the conceptual changes in warfare, but it should—and we believe it will. While the classic legal “superpowers,” with their clout and unlimited resources, are still the common choice for most larger companies and wealthy clients, increasingly, smaller, more agile law firms, with their more reasonable fee structures and their ability to adapt quickly to any situation, have proven to be equally formidable and worthy adversaries, especially in cases that threaten the very existence of the company.

Such was the case when we undertook the representation of (now) Pennsylvania Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman in attacking the National Collegiate Athletic Association over its unprecedented $60 million fine imposed against the Pennsylvania State University in July 2012 as part of a consent decree. The concept of suing a powerful organization represented by one of the largest and most prestigious law firms in the country seemed a daunting task. Indeed, as expected, the attorneys working for the NCAA (and Penn State) proved to be consummate professionals who zealously advocated for their clients until the last shots were fired. In the end, we managed to negotiate a settlement of the litigation on the eve of trial in January 2015 (two years after we began).