A Full-Circle Journey: Matthew Van Horn Returns to Washington to Be Admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court Bar

Before founding The Van Horn Law Firm, attorney Matthew Van Horn built his legal career in Washington, D.C., where he practiced law during one of the nation's most pivotal moments, the September 11 attacks. This year, he returned to the city where that journey began, this time to be sworn into practice before the Supreme Court of the United States alongside fellow North Carolina attorney Ashley-Nicole Russell. In this interview, Van Horn reflects on his early years in Washington, the experiences that shaped his career, and what it meant to return decades later for one of the legal profession's highest honors.

Q: You previously lived in Washington, D.C. Can you tell us about that experience?

Matthew Van Horn: I worked for a firm that had an office in the Watergate building. If you know history, you're familiar with Watergate, it ultimately resulted in President Nixon's resignation. It was pretty neat working in such a historic building.

The Watergate sits along the Potomac River near Georgetown, so it was a beautiful area to work in. I practiced there for about three years before returning to Raleigh. It was a large law firm, and I was only a year or two out of law school, so I worked a lot of hours. There were certainly some nice perks, they would deliver your meals, handle your dry cleaning, things like that, but the work itself was incredibly rewarding.

I represented large multinational companies, which gave me exposure to complex litigation very early in my career.

Q: What firm did you work for?

Matthew Van Horn: At the time, it was called Schmeltzer, Aptaker & Shepard. It was later acquired by Gray Plant Mooty.

One of our most interesting clients was the Dunkin' Donuts franchise system. Because the corporation and its franchisees were often located in different states, many of the disputes ended up in federal court. That gave me extensive federal trial court experience very early in my career.

The work involved much more than contract disputes. Franchise litigation touches property law, lease agreements, franchise contracts, federal regulations, and often counterclaims. Every case had a lot of moving parts.

I traveled all over the country, Arizona, Florida, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and many other states, working on cases in different federal jurisdictions. You also had procedural issues, like whether cases belonged in federal or state court, so there was always something new to learn.

Some franchise owners operated dozens of Dunkin' Donuts locations through separate LLCs. In Florida, for example, some owners controlled 60 or more stores. It created an interesting balance between a national corporation and sophisticated franchise operators, all while federal franchise regulations were designed to level the playing field.

Looking back, one of the most rewarding aspects of practicing in Washington was the opportunity to travel, experience different courts, and work with attorneys from across the country.

One experience, however, stands out above the rest.

Q: Shortly after September 11, you traveled to New York for a deposition. What was that experience like?

Matthew Van Horn: It was wild.

I took the train from Washington to New York. Before then, every time I had visited New York, the Twin Towers were always part of the skyline. I even have childhood pictures taken from the top of the World Trade Center.

The first thing that struck me was looking out the train window and realizing they were gone. You don't realize how much they define the skyline until they're no longer there.

I stayed at the Waldorf Astoria. Normally it's a very expensive hotel, but because so few people were traveling after 9/11, the room was only about $100 a night.

Getting to the deposition was another experience altogether. Ground Zero was blocked off over such a large area that my driver could only take me so far, and then I had to walk several blocks.

The attorney on the other side of the case was someone I had developed a good professional relationship with over time. After the deposition, his paralegal took me to a fire escape where we had a clear view overlooking Ground Zero.

When I returned home to Raleigh afterward, I realized just how different the pace of life was compared to Washington and New York.

Q: What was going through your mind during that trip?

Matthew Van Horn: I think I was just absorbing everything.

You're there handling the legal side of things, but you're also seeing history unfold around you. There was just so much to take in all at once.

Q: How did practicing in Washington compare to practicing elsewhere?

Matthew Van Horn: The biggest difference was the lifestyle.

North Carolina has a better work-life balance. In Washington, many of the attorneys I worked with earned salaries that would be considered very high in Raleigh, but they were still commuting 45 minutes each way and working incredibly demanding hours.

One senior partner told me that during a major international patent case, he didn't really see his youngest son for nearly three years except by looking down into his crib because he was constantly working.

At the same time, I was surrounded by exceptionally intelligent attorneys who were willing to mentor younger lawyers. That experience shaped me professionally.

Q: Fast forward to today, what was it like walking into the Supreme Court as someone about to be admitted to practice there?

Matthew Van Horn: It was remarkable.

I remember seeing the Supreme Court when I practiced in Washington years ago, but this experience was completely different.

When I came back more recently, I brought my children to Washington during spring break. We stayed near Union Station, and I took them to the steps of the Supreme Court. As a visitor, I found myself appreciating places I'd never taken the time to see before, like the Thomas Jefferson Memorial.

Being there as a tourist was one thing. Being admitted into the Court and seeing its inner workings was something entirely different.

We were served breakfast before the ceremony, and then Chief Justice John Roberts walked in to greet everyone. That alone was an incredible moment.

During the admissions ceremony, another attorney formally moved for my admission, and Chief Justice Roberts granted it.

Afterward, we remained for opinion announcements. We were told that several opinions would be read that day, and we were able to watch three different Justices deliver opinions from the bench. Those decisions had not yet been made public, so witnessing that process firsthand was something very few people ever experience.

It was an unforgettable day.

Q: Has practicing before the Supreme Court always been one of your goals?

Matthew Van Horn: It wasn't really on my radar for a long time, but when the opportunity came along, I knew I couldn't pass it up.

When you're in law school, constitutional law becomes a huge part of your first year. You study the history of the Court, how it functions, and how its opinions shape our legal system.

To go from studying the Supreme Court as a first-year law student to eventually being admitted to practice before it, that's something very special.

Q: Finally, what advice would you give to someone just beginning their legal career?

Matthew Van Horn: Law is a profession that asks a great deal of you, but it also becomes more rewarding the longer you're in it.

It's not something where you simply check boxes. It's a journey. As time goes on, you grow, you continue learning, and you become more confident in how you approach problems and make decisions.

I would tell anyone entering the profession not to take it lightly. The lows can be very low, but the highs are incredibly rewarding.

Have faith. Be patient.

There's something special about dedicating yourself to work that constantly challenges you intellectually and personally. The decisions you make carry real weight, and that responsibility never leaves you.

Authored by Diya Bhatia