FTI’s Ex-Star Economist, Goldman and the Talent War That Became a Lawsuit
FTI Consulting just reminded everyone that professional services isn’t so much a marketplace as an all-out battlefield where poaching a rainmaker morphs into a fiduciary duel. The firm’s blockbuster lawsuit against its departed top economist isn’t just paperwork, but a declaration that talent wars now come with high-stakes litigation, not just LinkedIn blog posts and handshake dinners.
According to FT, the crux isn’t merely “he left.” FTI alleges he plotted a breakaway with backing from Goldman Sachs, and then managed to siphon off clients and colleagues. That’s not an exit. That’s a hostile takeover.
The FT article reports that FTI consultant Jonathan Orszag (pictured) was able to raid the firm’s talent ranks by offering equity to defectors, “backed by Goldman Sachs’ valuation and its expected investment”. Without its assistance, “Mr Orszag would not have been able to attract the large number of [FTI’s] employees needed to start his new firm”.
This drama intersects with a deeper reality for clients, recruiters, and rival firms increasingly treat senior professionals like chess pieces rather than legal strategists. When a name brings revenue, everyone wants a slice of that brand equity.
And when one firm actually captures it, the lawyers end up in court arguing over trade secrets and fiduciary duties rather than deals.
The bigger picture for law firms is clear, showing that this isn’t just some boutique firm rancour, but major, lateral pressure. The law firm lateral battles show how intense the human assets moved about the chess board really are, particularly in London law. AI threat narratives, and corporate brands monetising human capital all mean your rainmakers are liability and asset — and the measure of that balance is now legal argument.
