Samidh Guha recently joined Venable as a partner in the firm’s Investigations and White Collar Defense group. In this Q&A, Samidh looks back over his career as a federal prosecutor, some of his most interesting cases and pro bono work, and his view on Venable culture.
Q: Before entering private practice, you spent several years working as a federal prosecutor. Can you speak about how that experience informs the way you build a defense today?
Samidh: When I was considering taking the job as a federal prosecutor, one of my biggest hesitations was that my friends always joked I had more of a defense mindset than a law enforcement one. But a friend who encouraged me to go to the Southern District of New York (SDNY) said something I’ve always thought was perceptive—that the office, and the government more broadly, needs people who are skeptical as well as those who are all in. He told me it would be a good experience because it would help me understand how prosecutions are built, and, at the same time, the office would benefit by having people who don’t just buy in completely. Ultimately, my five years at the U.S. Attorney’s Office was invaluable in teaching me how prosecutions are constructed—their strengths, weaknesses, and the fault lines that can emerge.
Q: Looking back, you’ve handled a lot of cases, including some high-profile ones. Are there any that stand out to you?
Samidh: On the white collar side, one of the most interesting cases I handled was a matter from 2009 involving the first use of a wiretap by the SDNY in an insider trading prosecution. At that time, wiretaps hadn’t been used in white collar cases. I was the architect of the wiretap defense in that matter. It was an amazing experience—fascinating legally and factually—and to this day, I still believe that the wiretap should have been suppressed, as do many people who know that space well.
Q: Why was using a wiretap controversial in that case?
Samidh: When wiretap legislation was first enacted in the late 1960s, it sparked a lot of public debate because it was viewed as incredibly intrusive. In our client’s case, the SDNY sought a wiretap on his cell phone, believing that’s how he was receiving alleged inside information for his hedge fund. It was a very public move, meant to send a message to Wall Street. Our core argument in this case was that the government had strayed from the original, limited purpose of wiretaps. There were plenty of traditional investigative techniques available and being used successfully in other insider trading cases. The court’s opinion ended up being very critical of the government’s conduct, but ultimately still allowed the wiretap to stand. That was disappointing, but it was an extraordinary case to work on.
Q: In your line of work, you’re often meeting clients when they’re facing prosecution and potential prison time. How do you go about helping clients navigate such stressful circumstances?
Samidh: Some clients don’t want to acknowledge the seriousness of the allegations and hope it will all just go away. Others become completely overwhelmed. So, you have to tailor your approach accordingly. Our job as lawyers is to help them navigate that emotional terrain and get to a place where they can be active participants in their own defense. I always tell clients, they’re the ones who truly know what happened; I need them to be my best asset. And I also remind them that just because the government makes an allegation doesn’t mean it’s true. Experience has taught me that not every assertion holds up under scrutiny.
Q: You’ve done quite a bit of pro bono work. Can you talk a little about that?
Samidh: Pro bono work has provided me with some of the best and most meaningful experiences of my career. Early on, I did a lot of work related to domestic violence through Sanctuary for Families, representing women who were survivors of sexual violence. I also handled some immigration matters, mainly political asylum cases, but that was a smaller part of my practice. And I’ve served on the Criminal Justice Act Panel in the SDNY for many years and have represented several defendants who didn’t have the resources to hire their own counsel. I love that work. It’s meaningful, and it’s also a great opportunity for our younger attorneys to get hands-on experience.
Q: Finally, you joined Venable quite recently. What attracted you to the firm, and what have you liked about being here so far?
Samidh: After six great years at my own firm, I reached a point where I missed being part of a larger team. I realized how much I value collaboration on challenging, high-stakes matters. My colleagues were phenomenal, but I didn’t have peers with twenty-plus years of experience to bounce ideas off. So, after a really rewarding run, I decided it was time to do something different, and Venable felt like the right place. I’ll admit, I usually roll my eyes when people talk about “firm culture” because it’s such a vague concept. But here, it’s tangible—the way people treat each other, the way they collaborate, it really stands out. I couldn’t be happier to be here.
Learn more about Samidh and Venable’s Investigations and White Collar Defense Practice.