The Work
Clients call Snyder when conventional approaches have failed and the moment requires brilliance, boldness, and creativity.
Our cases involve asymmetric information, misaligned incentives, time pressure, and institutional complexity.
These forces often shape the result long before a court rules.
Call Us When
— A trial is unavoidable and the stakes demand a first-chair lawyer who commands the courtroom and connects with juries.
— The situation appears impossible (humanitarian crises requiring extraction under fire, geopolitical constraints, or problems that defy conventional solutions).
— Corporate disputes have turned personal, bitter, and existential — where reputation, control, and survival are inseparable.
— Criminal exposure, regulatory enforcement, or parallel proceedings create cascading risk across multiple forums.
— The problem requires not just expertise, but a grown-up in the room who brings obsessive focus, relentless creativity, and clarity of purpose.
Trial as Strategic Endpoint
Snyder is a seasoned trial lawyer known for meticulous preparation, disciplined courtroom execution, and exceptional effectiveness before juries.
He prepares cases from the outset with trial in mind. When he opens a case file, Snyder’s first task is drafting the jury questionnaire. Defining the ultimate end point enables him to work backward — mastering the evidentiary record, identifying load-bearing facts, and anticipating strategic inflection points.
Before a jury, Snyder has a comfortable "old shoe" quality — able to connect with ordinary people without condescension. He earns trust through clarity rather than theatrics, guiding jurors to understand not just what happened, but why it matters.
In cross-examination, Snyder is precise and devastating. He exposes inconsistencies without excess and allows witnesses’ own words to carry the weight.
We go to trial with confidence. Trials exist to be won — and we prepare accordingly.
Discretion in Highly Sensitive Situations
Snyder represents high-net-worth individuals, executives, and principals in matters where legal exposure, reputational risk, and personal consequence converge.
These cases demand more than technical skill and assertiveness. They require judgment about what to file, when to remain silent, and how to resolve the problem instead of inflaming it.
Snyder does not publicize clients or outcomes because it is gauche to build a reputation rehashing events our clients are glad to have behind them.
The best representations end quietly with little trace.
Breaking the Impasse
Clients retain Snyder when standard approaches have failed.
In complex disputes, hesitation compounds risk. Diffused responsibility, hedging, and delay generate their own momentum. Many lawyers operate within institutional constraints that inhibit decisive action — partnership dynamics, committee approvals, and risk aversion shaped by limited exposure to high-stakes outcomes.
In moments of crisis, these constraints become paralyzing. Decision-making authority diffuses upward through committees even as events accelerate. Effective response requires someone positioned to act — with the judgment to see clearly and the independence to move decisively.
Snyder provides what the situation requires: clarity, direction, and decisive action grounded in judgment.
In these environments, leadership tends to emerge naturally — not because it is asserted, but because someone steps forward when others hesitate.
Why These Situations Are Different
In these matters, law operates as part of a larger system that includes capital, governance, reputation, incentives, and time.
Our work focuses on shaping the conditions around the dispute so that formal proceedings, if they occur, unfold on terms that are already constrained.
In these environments, the threat of litigation is ever-present. It shapes negotiations, alters incentives, and constrains what can be done, when, and by whom.
We integrate litigation awareness into deal strategy so agreements withstand pressure rather than invite it.
Sometimes we are not the right fit
We are not a fit for routine litigation, volume matters, or situations where the objective is to maximize activity rather than resolve uncertainty.
We are also not the right choice when strategy has already hardened, positions have calcified, and time has run out.
An early conversation can clarify whether strategic intervention will materially alter the outcome.
→ About