Attorney and activist, Aarthi Manohar, joins host Julie Owsik Ackerman, writer/storyteller/lawyer, for this month’s episode of our new series, Behind the Bio. Each month, Julie interviews a different lawyer to explore the many directions one can take after law school and learn more about the turning points that shaped these notable careers.
In this episode, Julie talks to Aarthi, an attorney at Kohn Swift, to discuss how her career was affected by the death of Eric Garner and the Black Lives Matter movement, how her legal career intersects with her journalism training, and the lawsuit she filed on behalf of Philly residents whose cars have been subjected to Philly’s infamous “courtesy tow.”
Julie:
Hi, everyone, welcome to Behind the Bio. This is our series where we interview a different lawyer each month. As a lawyer-writer, I meet so many attorneys who have really interesting career paths, and I often wanna ask, you know, for kind of the stories behind how they got to where they are. So we’re gonna be doing that each month with a different lawyer. My name is Julie Owsik Ackerman. I am the Communications Manager and one of the lead writers here at LISI. And today I’m very excited to welcome Aarthi Manohar. She is an attorney at Kohn Swift here in Philadelphia. Welcome, Aarthi.
Aarthi:
Hi, thank you for having me.
Julie:
Yeah, I’m delighted, really. I actually helped to write your bio for the official bio for the website. So I am especially excited to hear a little bit about behind your bio in particular. That’s not always the case with my guests. So, all right, so for anybody who’s new and for Aarthi, we’re gonna be talking about three turning points in her career. And then we’re gonna do just a couple fun questions at the end. But before we dive in, Aarthi, can you just tell us and the listeners just a little bit about what you do at Kohn Swift?
Aarthi:
Sure. So our practice is primarily a plaintiff-side class action practice meaning we represent large groups of people who have been harmed by a specific entity or group of people. My practice focuses primarily on civil rights, sex abuse, and trafficking cases. I also do some consumer protection and antitrust work.
Julie:
When you say trafficking, you mean human trafficking?
Aarthi:
Yes, human trafficking.
Julie:
Yeah, yeah, okay. Sure, okay, great. Well, thank you. So you had sent me a few turning points, just a couple thoughts last week. And so I’ll just start with the first one. I was really interested, you said your first turning point was the death of Eric Garner, and I would love for you to just tell me how that affected you.
Aarthi:
Sure. So I had gone to law school, graduated in May of 2014, had a really challenging time in school as many people do, and felt pretty confused by what I wanted to do afterwards, and didn’t feel particularly fulfilled by sort of my coursework or the summer associate positions I had held. I knew I had always wanted to tell people’s stories, that was the reason I had gone to law school. I hoped that what I would do is be able to find a position where I would be able to give voice to people who might not otherwise have the opportunity to be heard. And when I didn’t find sort of what I was looking for in that respect in law school or in my summer associate work, I decided to pivot and go to journalism school, which had always been an interest of mine.
And so it was immediately after I took the bar exam that I moved to New York to go to journalism school. And a few days after I had moved, I was on the subway in the morning, reading the paper about how Eric Garner had died. And I looked around the car and I saw that everybody had the same newspaper and the front page story was on everything that everybody was reading. And what struck me so much about the Eric Garner case was that this was somebody who was brutalized by the police and denied his most basic right. He said, “I cannot breathe. I can’t breathe.” And it is a basic, you know, human thing, breathing, that we take for granted, that he was denied. And I thought to myself like this, this was a person who was literally denied his voice. This was somebody who was literally denied the opportunity to be heard. And that was what I had always wanted to fight for.
And over the next week or so, I was in New York and in Times Square for some of the Black Lives Matter protests and I got to see firsthand how angry people were, how frightened people were, how outraged and horrified people were, myself among them. And I knew that I would never forget being at that particular place in time for the rest of my life. And that I would never forget somebody saying, “I can’t breathe.” And so I, even today when I’m working in sort of the subsequent years when there have been other incidents of police brutality that have made national news, I’ve always come back to thinking about that phrase “I can’t breathe.” George Floyd said it when, you know, the police were kneeling on his neck in 2020. He said, “I can’t breathe.” And so, yeah, I think that’s something that’s really infused my work, just the idea of basic human dignity and respect and, you know, the ability to speak for yourself. And I always hope that in whatever work I do, that I am keeping that in mind and hoping that I’m speaking for people who might not otherwise have the opportunity to be heard.
Julie:
Uh-hmm. Wow, thank you, yeah. Yeah, I was really struck reading about the Eric Garner case recently about how many times he had been harassed by police before that happened before he was actually killed, and for, like, selling loose cigarettes, you know?
Yeah, it was very upsetting, to say the least. And yeah, breath being, like, literally the most basic thing needed for life, right? Like, it does not get any more essential than that. Yeah, thank you for telling us a little bit about that. So you had just moved to New York for journalism school, but you had mentioned taking the bar exam. So did you take the exam right before journalism school, or how did that work?
Aarthi:
I did, I had applied to journalism school in this, I guess, fall of my 3L year. I still decided to go through and take the bar in July. And I found out I had passed while I was in journalism school in, I think it was like October 18th or something of 2014. So yeah, I think I had wanted to make sure I kept my options open career-wise. I didn’t wanna be studying for the bar while I was in school, and I didn’t wanna put it off too long when the material was still somewhat fresh in my head. So, yeah.
Julie:
Yeah, okay. So then… So, but you finished your journalism degree, right? And then, sort of how did you… What did you do next, I guess, that’s my question?
Aarthi:
Yeah, so I had cast a really wide net in terms of positions. I was looking at jobs in journalism, and I was also looking at legal jobs. I was really just concerned at sort of the end of it about getting a job. And the first position I was offered was at a firm in Philadelphia, a law firm doing Social Security hearings in front of administrative law judges. So that’s representing people who are disabled to the point where they’re unable to work and they have to apply for government funds for, you know, basic housing, necessities, things of that nature. So my first job was a job I didn’t really expect. I was in court, albeit sort of administrative law judge court, every day for, I don’t know, 16 months, sometimes multiple times a day. And the thing that I’ve realized sort of over the course of my career is that as an attorney, you have the ability to surprise yourself.
I never thought when I was in law school that I was going to become a litigator, never thought I wanted to see a courtroom. I always thought of myself as more of a behind-the-scenes person. And that was in large part because I grew up very painfully shy. And so I never thought I’d want to speak in front of people or let alone a judge, but I was, you know, doing this job and I was in front of different judges every day and I was sort of speaking on behalf of these people with disabilities and I think I realized that I was able to find my own voice and my own confidence doing that work on behalf of other people. So I think that was, you know, those initial court appearances were some of the sort of game changers in terms of what I wanted to do and sort of how I found myself where I am.
Julie:
Yeah, and you had, that was sort of like your third turning point, was your first time appearing in court. Do you have specific memories about that first time that you actually went?
Aarthi:
I don’t have specific memories about the first time I went. I think it was sort of bits and pieces over the first year that I was doing that, things that were particularly memorable. And I think what you realize when you’re in court of any kind is that you have to think on your feet. You have to sort of go with the flow of whatever the judge is thinking or doing, with whatever the witness is thinking or doing. So I think, you know, as I kept doing them, I got better at it, and then I sort of decided I had the confidence to pursue actual litigation.
Julie:
Now did you have a lot of… I mean, did you have some, you know, supervisor helping you out in those early months? Or were you kind of just like thrown into the, thrown into it?
Aarthi:
Yeah, so I think the first couple of hearings that I attended were like shadowing people, and then I was kind of put in a deep end and was doing them on my own. From a legal perspective, Social Security hearings are not necessarily very difficult. They’re very fact-specific. And so it wasn’t like a huge learning curve, but it was more the experience of putting myself out there and getting over my shyness, and… Yeah, so that was sort of the big test for me.
Julie:
Now, I worked in immigration court for a while. I’m wondering if… And in the immigration court, the rules of evidence were very… How can I put this? Sometimes applied, sometimes not so much applied. Was that the case at the Social Security court? Or were they more kind of strict about that?
Aarthi:
Yeah, absolutely. It’s my understanding that the administrative law judges are not required to abide by the Federal Rules of Evidence, but they’re supposed to use them as like guiding principles. So oftentimes, they were not applied at all, or sometimes judges were more sticklers than others about the rules. So it was very much a, you know, you find out what you’re dealing with when you get there kind of a situation.
Julie:
And how many… Are there a lot of Social Security judges in Philly, or… I don’t have any sense of that.
Aarthi:
Yeah, there are two… No, three big offices in the Philadelphia area. There’s one in Elkins Park, one in Center City, and then one, I guess, across from where my office is at 16th Market, or at least those were the offices when I was doing them. That was like seven years ago now.
Julie:
Yeah, yeah. Okay, yeah. All right, so then you’ve decided, maybe I wanna pursue litigation, and then what next?
Aarthi:
Yeah, so the next job I took was at a primarily plaintiff-side employment discrimination practice. So we were doing everything from disability discrimination to sex discrimination to equal pay, race, religion. And that situation, I was really starting from the ground up because I had never done any litigation work. I was still sort of figuring out sort of the rules of civil procedure, the rules of evidence, and I was doing a lot more sort of back-end work: the writing, the research, the discovery. I had some courtroom work and some deposition work, but not a ton.
Julie:
Okay. And then did you come to Kohn Swift after that? Or how did you come to Kohn Swift?
Aarthi:
Yeah. I had taken a while off after that position because I think I had a little bit of a career crisis in terms of deciding, you know, is this really what I wanna do? I think a lot of times when you work in a law firm, you get sort of siloed into your particular activity, and you find yourself doing it over and over and over again. And you improve and you get better, but if you’re an associate, particularly a starting associate, there’s a lot of time that has to pass before you get to start doing things on your own and having a little bit of autonomy. And I found that challenging.
So when I found Kohn Swift, I was really excited by the idea of working for a small firm where the associates were going to be given a lot of work upfront. And, you know, I wasn’t right away, like in court or doing depositions or anything, but I found that I was able to make some decisions on cases on my own. I found that my input was really valued, and I was just really excited to work on the variety of cases that we work on. Our practice is really unique. We have some really high-profile cases. And we have a specific practice area that, to my knowledge, no other firm has. We have a cold case practice area, and that is taking up a big part of my time these days.
Julie:
Hmm. Tell me about that.
Aarthi:
Yeah, so we represent survivors of cults. We have two large cases right now, one on behalf of the survivors of the NXIVM cult, if you’re familiar with that. NXIVM was an organization housed in upstate New York, run by a man named Keith Raniere. It was marketed as a sort of professional and personal development program and a wellness program, but in reality, it was a Ponzi scheme and a sex trafficking ring. Eventually, Keith Raniere and some of his associates were indicted and are serving lengthy prison sentences currently, but we represent many of the survivors of that cult, and… Yeah, actually I had a big hearing on that last Wednesday, so…
Julie:
How’d it go?
Aarthi:
It was a long hearing. It lasted about three and a half hours, and we have a lot of work ahead of us, but it did not go badly.
Julie:
Oh, that’s good. So these are civil cases, like what kind of damages are you guys doing for. I’m curious about, you know, what the format is or what the…
Aarthi:
Yeah. So cold cases often have very similar fact patterns. So the claims are often very similar. They’re sort of common law tort claims, but there are also RICO claims, which were sort of the laws designed to capture the mafia, as well as human trafficking claims. And the bulk of what I do is the work on the human trafficking aspect of these cases.
Julie:
Uh-hmm, okay. So it’s like a traditional tort case. I mean, in some, like, in certain respects, it’s like a traditional tort case.
Aarthi:
Yeah, in some respects, uh-hmm.
Julie:
Yeah, wow, that’s really interesting. And how did you find Kohn Swift? I’m just curious how that happened?
Aarthi:
How did I find the firm? I don’t recall-
Julie:
Or how did it find you?
Aarthi:
I think it was just an employment listing. And I had been interested in class action work. I knew I wanted to stay on the plaintiff side. I think what I had realized was that what I wanted to sort of transition into doing was sort of a bigger impact litigation, and that was why class action work was more appealing to me. I really wanted to see sort of the lifespan of a case through and then see if actual policy changes were implemented or if they had the ability to trigger legislation or sort of catalyze some larger social change. So, yeah, I came in and I think I interviewed with just about everybody in the firm, and I got to know more about the practice areas. And I think when I realized what I’d be working on, that was kind of it.
Julie:
Yeah, yeah. Yeah, for listeners who don’t know, we, LISI, did help Kohn Swift. We developed a new website for Kohn Swift, and so I was able to learn a lot about the practices as I was trying to describe them for the website. And yeah, I was just really struck by what incredible work the firm does, really. I mean, and unusual, you know, like it’s lots of personal injury lawyers and class action lawyers, but you guys really seem to also have that focus on social justice and civil rights and… Yeah, it’s just, I imagined… I can see how it could be a really fulfilling place to land. I’m glad you found it.
Aarthi:
Yeah, I think I’ve been very fortunate here. You know, this is an office where people are good to each other, people really care about the cases and our plaintiffs. And I think the thing that was sort of most surprising to me was, you know, how sort of topical everything we work on is. Everything we do is informed by the news. We select our cases based on, you know, things that we hear about in the news. We get plaintiffs who have read about our cases in the news. So I think a lot of it really dovetails with the interest that I had in the journalism career.
Julie:
Oh, yeah. Yeah, that’s interesting, yeah. So a couple other cases I wanted to ask about. One is, you guys represented some of the protesters for the Black Lives Matter, the protests after George Floyd was killed, is that right? Are you still involved in that?
Aarthi:
Yeah, that litigation is coming to a close, and I can’t comment on it further at this time, but… Yeah, when we got that case, it really felt like a full circle moment for us because we were, you know, we were defending protestors who were tear-gassed by the Philadelphia police and the Pennsylvania police during the George Floyd protests in 2020. That was another, you know, I-can’t-breathe story, that was another protest that I had attended. I had friends who were harmed at the protest, so… And then I, you know, living in Philadelphia saw the aftermath of it and was, again, just really struck by, you know, how strongly people felt. I think there are these moments, you know, when there are news stories that just really sort of shake the public consciousness and sort of get people out of their sort of collective, you know, complacency, for lack of a better word. And, you know, I wish it were under much better circumstances, but I think that was another moment where I really felt invigorated and inspired to do, you know, good work on this kind of a case.
Julie:
Yeah, yeah. I can understand that. Okay, the one last thing I wanted to ask you about because I did read about this in the news, is the courtesy tow case. Can you tell our listeners, just explain what that means, the courtesy tow, and how you guys are involved with that?
Aarthi:
Sure. So for those who are not Philadelphians, courtesy tow is a term of… I don’t know the origin of it, but it’s used to describe the city of Philadelphia’s practice of relocating private vehicles without pre or post-tow notice to the vehicle’s owner or operator. Sort of the practical application of that is the city will just tow people’s cars without telling them where they are. And then that person whose car it is will accrue tickets and fines because oftentimes these cars are towed to illegal or metered spaces. So not only do people have to run around the city looking for their cars after a tow, they have to pay fines that they acquired through no fault of their own.
So we filed a class action lawsuit against the city in May of 2021, alleging that the city’s policy practice and custom of courtesy towing vehicles violates the constitution, specifically the Fourth and 14th Amendments. We were hoping that the city would be inclined to fix the problem right away, given that there are really simple solutions. It could be as simple as, you know, looking up somebody’s address from their vehicle registration and knocking on their door saying, “We’re about to tow your car.” It could be as simple as having a website that people can go to to look up where their car might have ended up, or even just putting a piece of paper on someone’s car after they’ve towed it, telling PPA not to ticket or fine it.
These are very, very simple solutions to a very complicated problem, but the city was not inclined to go forward with any policy changes. In fact, the city’s position throughout this case has been that, you know, they don’t courtesy tow vehicles and that it’s actually private tow operators who sort of go around and move cars willy-nilly throughout the city. We know that not to be true, and we’ve continued litigating our first case and ended up filing a second, hoping to put some increased pressure on the city based on the volume of the problem. We’ve heard from dozens and dozens of people who have been courtesy towed, oftentimes with very serious consequences.
For example, we had one plaintiff whose vehicle was courtesy towed, she reported it to the police. The police told her, we can’t find it, so you should report it stolen, which is often the case in these situations. She later found the vehicle and told the police, “My vehicle’s found, please take it out of stolen car status.” And then a couple of months later, she was driving her car in New Jersey and was pulled over at gunpoint for driving her own stolen vehicle because the Philadelphia police had never taken it out of stolen status. So sort of the chain of events in these situations can be really dire. It’s not just the hassle of losing your car, it’s the, you know, potential consequences you have for driving it. We also have people who have never, like, to date, have not found their cars and they still may be around the city somewhere. So it’s a pretty bizarre situation that to my knowledge is unique to Philadelphia.
Julie:
So one of those unique to Philly things we’re not so proud of.
Yeah, I was just gonna say, when I was reading the article, I was thinking like, you know, if my car were to disappear, like, I mean, that would be a true hardship. And you know, for people who, like if you need to drive to go to work and you go out one day and your car’s just not there and… I mean, that’s like… Yeah, I mean, that could have very extreme consequences in people’s lives beyond the fees, you know, like you lose your job and then on and on.
Aarthi:
Yeah. Yeah, again, it’s a really complicated problem with some really dire and devastating consequences. And there are very simple solutions, but the city just has not been willing to engage in them.
Julie:
Did you guys file a case in federal court or Commonwealth Court or where’s that?
Aarthi:
Yeah, these are federal constitutional claims, so their cases are filed in federal court.
Julie:
Okay, okay. And then that’s ongoing?
Aarthi:
Yes. The two cases we filed are both ongoing.
Julie:
Okay, okay. I’ll be very interested to see how that plays out. I know a lot of people in our region will be interested to see how that plays out.
Aarthi:
Yep, more to come for sure on that case.
Julie:
Yeah. Okay, so thanks so much. I’ve really enjoyed this conversation. Before we go, I wanna do just like a couple little fun questions to lighten it up a little. Let’s see. Oh, what is your favorite children’s book?
Aarthi:
Hmm, that’s a good question. I loved the Laura Ingalls Wilder series, like “Little House on the Prairie.” I loved the “Harry Potter” series. I even liked the Enid Blyton series about, you know, young girls in boarding school. Those are some of my favorites.
Julie:
Okay, have you been to Universal Park, Harry Potter World?
Aarthi:
I have not, it’s on my to-do list.
Julie:
Yeah. I have an 11-year-old, we went last year and it’s… His quote when we got to Diagon Alley, he looked at me and said, “This is jaw-dropping, bro.”
Aarthi:
I think that’s the best response you could have hoped for.
Julie:
But I mean, really, we both were like… I mean, it really is, it’s pretty amazing if you’re a fan. I would definitely recommend. Okay, oh, just so you see, I’m just pulling. I have a bunch of questions in here. I’m just pulling them out at random, so…okay, what profession other than your own would you like to attempt?
Aarthi:
I mean, I would… I imagine often what my life would’ve been like had I become a journalist. I still love writing. I am a news fiend. I, you know, probably to my detriment, consume too much of it. So yeah, I think I would be very happy writing and sort of chasing stories and putting things out there for people to see.
Julie:
Uh-hmm. Yeah, I could definitely see that, just given what you’ve told me so far. Okay, last one. What is your favorite quality in a person?
Aarthi:
Hmm. My favorite quality in a person is kindness. I think, you know, we fall into our routines and a lot of times we sort of develop a sense of apathy towards other people who are just passing through our lives. And I’m always surprised by the daily interactions that I have where people are just kind in an unfettered way. And I think Philly gets a bad rap for being a bad mood city, but I don’t think that’s the case. I think we’re all secretly very nice.
Julie:
I was just thinking of that as you said, people being kind to you that, yeah, I’m a lifelong Philly resident too, and… Yeah, I’m like, we’re… You know, people tell it like it is here, but you know, there’s like a gruffness maybe to a lot of people. But I think that, yeah, I also find just a lot of kindness in community in our city, which does not get as much press, if you will.
Aarthi:
Uh-hmm, yep, agreed.
Julie:
If you’re going to write, maybe one day. Well, thank you so much, Aarthi. I’ve really, really enjoyed our conversation. It’s been a delight getting to know you a little bit better. And if people have, if they have one of these courtesy tow situations or you know, one of the other things you guys are working on, how can they contact you or the firm?
Aarthi:
Yeah. I guess our telephone number is (215) 238-1700. We also have a website of course that you designed, kohnswift.com. Those are the easiest ways to reach out, and we get back to people very quickly, so feel free to reach out. Yeah.
Julie:
And that’s K-O-H-N-S-W-I-F-T.com, Kohn Swift.
And it’s beautiful, I have to say. I’m very proud of the website we did for you, guys.
Aarthi:
Yeah, it looks great.
Julie:
Yeah, oh good, I’m glad you like it. Okay, so I hope you and other people will come back to meet the other interesting lawyers we’re gonna be talking to this year. Next week, our latest podcast, One More Thing, will drop wherever you get your podcasts. And I will be back in March speaking to another really interesting lawyer. Thank you for being with us today, bye-bye.
Aarthi:
Sure, thank you for having me. I’m very flattered you asked.
Julie:
Oh, thanks, Aarthi.
