Posted by Authored by Joseph “J.J.” Nelson
When the term “prestige” is invoked in discussions about the legal profession, it is often associated with Big Law—firms that employ hundreds if not thousands of attorneys and bring in billions of dollars in revenue. This was certainly true for me early in my career. Like many law students and young attorneys, I equated professional success with the visible markers of large defense-side firms: offices on the top floor of the tallest skyscrapers, global reach, high compensation, and polished branding that so often define public perceptions of status in the legal profession.
Over time, however, my understanding of prestige has changed. Experience has taught me that this narrow perception of prestige overlooks the essential role played by plaintiffs’ law firms, which are no less sophisticated, influential, and integral to the functioning of the legal system than their defense-side counterparts. When I began to view the profession through the lens of real-world impact of legal advocacy, plaintiffs’ firms emerged as, in many instances, the driving force behind accountability and meaningful change.
Plaintiffs’ firms take on the cases that reshape industries, expose systemic wrongdoing, and secure justice for people who lack the resources to challenge powerful corporations on their own. They pursue accountability when regulators fall short, uncover internal documents that might otherwise remain hidden, and secure life‑changing compensation for families harmed by negligence, discrimination, fraud, or abuse. A firm’s headcount and annual revenue should not be the sole measures of its standing in the legal profession. The courage to take on difficult cases and the change those cases achieve should count, too.
Yet plaintiffs’ firms often undersell themselves. Large defense firms command attention through polished marketing, established recruiting pipelines, and a professional culture that too often equates size and early compensation with excellence. Meanwhile, plaintiffs’ firms secure billion‑dollar settlements, drive national policy changes, and litigate complex disputes involving civil and human rights, antitrust, and data privacy. The work demands intellectual rigor, strategic judgment, and sustained commitment. Two cases illustrate what that work can accomplish.
Consider Jien v. Perdue Farms, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-2521-SAG, 2020 WL 5544183 (D. Md. Sept. 16, 2020). That class action involved poultry-industry employees, many of whom drawn from vulnerable populations, including migrant workers, refugees, asylum seekers, and prison laborers. Id. at *2. The plaintiffs alleged that employers controlling approximately 80% of U.S. poultry-processing production conspired to suppress hourly wages by exchanging their wage data and meeting in person to discuss their compensation practices, in violation of federal antitrust laws. Id. at *1, *2. According to the complaint, those practices depressed compensation across the poultry industry. Id. at *2.
The case eventually settled for $398 million, which the court described as “the second-largest recovery in a wage-fixing case in the United States.” 2025 WL 3725489, at *2 (D. Md. June 5, 2025). The plaintiffs’ lawyers built the case through their own investigation. As the court acknowledged: “Unlike many antitrust class actions, Plaintiffs’ Counsel identified and investigated the allegations in this case without the benefit of a prior government investigation.” Id. Their work illustrates the importance of private enforcement in bringing misconduct to light and obtaining relief for those affected.
The same commitment can advance the law in areas far removed from the workplace. In In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litigation, 956 F.3d 589, 596 (9th Cir. 2020), the plaintiffs alleged that Facebook tracked their browsing activity after they logged out and used their personal data for its own benefit. The data gave Facebook access to sensitive information about users’ habits, interests, and communications, raising serious concerns about digital privacy and consumer rights. Id. at 599. After initial dismissal by the district court, the plaintiffs obtained a precedent-setting appellate decision recognizing that their alleged entitlement to profits Facebook earned from their data was sufficient to establish Article III standing. Id. at 600.
The litigation ultimately yielded a $90 million settlement and injunctive relief requiring Facebook to delete the data it had improperly collected. 2022 WL 16902426, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2022).
These groundbreaking, precedent-setting cases highlight the societal impact of plaintiffs’ firms. Investigating conduct before the government acts, advancing legal theories through appeal, and securing meaningful relief require grit and determination—qualities necessary to bring lasting change.
If prestige reflects professional excellence, then the grit and determination behind these results deserve a place in how we define it. There is prestige in representing workers whose wages were suppressed, consumers who were deceived, patients who were harmed, and communities injured by environmental harm. There is prestige in building cases from the ground up, investing in them for years, and prevailing against opponents with formidable resources.
Plaintiffs’ firms are an essential pillar of a legal system that protects the public, advances civil rights, and holds powerful institutions accountable. For law students choosing a path, young attorneys considering their next move, and experienced lawyers assessing the profession, the question should extend beyond a firm’s size or name recognition to the work it does and the difference it makes. Plaintiffs’ firms already have much to be proud of. They should claim that prestige with conviction.
Joseph “J.J.” Nelson is an associate at DiCello Levitt’s Chicago office, where he practices complex litigation, including class actions and commercial disputes. He is also Recruitment Officer for the Chicago Bar Association’s Young Lawyers Section.
Before joining DiCello Levitt, J.J. clerked at various levels of the judiciary, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and the Supreme Court of Ohio.
J.J. earned his law degree from Cleveland State University College of Law, where he served as editor-in-chief of the Global Business Law Review and regional moot court director for the Black Law Students Association.