As
has
always
been
the
case
at
Paul
Weiss,
the
path
to
equity
partnership
remains
eight
years.
In
some
cases,
seven
years.
Creating
a
nonequity
tier
has
not
affected
the
path
to
equity
partner.
While
the
vast
majority
of
elite
law
firms
have
seen
their
number
of
equity
partners
decrease
(or
remain
flat)
over
the
past
decade,
we
have
increased
our
number
of
equity
partners
by
nearly
50%
over
the
past
decade,
from
143
to
212.
I
expect
that
we’ll
make
at
least
as
many
equity
partners
this
year
as
we
have
in
recent
years.
—
Brad
Karp,
chairman
of
Paul
Weiss,
in
comments
given
to
the
American
Lawyer,
on
why
the
introduction
of
a
nonequity
partner
tier
at
the
firm
won’t
impact
the
minting
of
new
equity
partners
at
the
firm.
This
past
summer,
Karp
explained
that
for
associates
“who
fall
just
short
of
what
we
believe
is
required
to
become
an
equity
partner,
we
will
confer
a
nonequity
partner
title
…
and
we’ll
track
them
for
a
few
years
and
see
whether
they
develop
into
equity
partner
talent.”
Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on
X/Twitter
and
Threads
or
connect
with
her
on
LinkedIn.
After
a
series
of
financial
screw-ups,
California
decided
to
forgo
the
trappings
of
the
NBCE
and
trailblaze
with
a
cheaper
testing
alternative
led
by
Kaplan.
That
trail,
though
hopeful,
has
led
to
some
minor
burns.
Reuters
has
coverage:
The
State
Bar
of
California’s
plan
to
give
its
own
bar
exam
starting
in
February
hit
a
snag
on
Wednesday
when
the
California
Supreme
Court
denied
its
petition
to
make
that
change.
The
court
indicated
in
a
brief
docket
entry
that
the
state
bar
had
made
a
misstep
in
following
the
proper
procedure
for
moving
to
the
new
test.
The
court
said
the
state
bar
may
file
another
petition
to
win
approval
for
the
new
test
after
its
committee
of
bar
examiners
has
“considered
and
approved”
it.
California
would
have
never
made
this
mistake
if
they
signed
with
BARBRI.
This
is
what
happens
when
you
don’t
keep
it
mechanical!
The
mess-up
is
more
embarrassing
than
it
is
fatal.
While
the
Bar
“respects
the
court’s
decision,”
they
still
plan
for
the
test
to
be
live
come
February.
In
the
meantime,
it
would
behoove
both
aspiring
lawyers
and
the
California
Bar
to
brush
up
on
their
civil
procedure.
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.
Boies
Schiller
partner
Stuart
Singer
recently
added
day-to-day
firm
management
to
his
ample
list
of
tasks,
joining
Sigrid
McCawley
and
Matthew
Schwartz
as
co-managing
partners
while
David
Boies
transitions
out
of
his
role
as
firm
chairman.
It’s
a
lot
to
take
on
for
a
partner
still
busy
running
his
own
book
of
business
and
only
a
couple
years
removed
from
a
cancer
fight.
But,
as
he
told
Litigation
Daily,
when
he
was
asked
about
taking
on
the
added
responsibility,
he
told
Boies
and
Jonathan
Schiller
he
was
up
for
it
“if
they
thought
it
would
be
helpful
to
the
firm”
that
he
worked
at
for
the
last
24
years.
Before
taking
on
his
new
gig,
Singer
wrapped
up
a
job
helping
out
a
cause
he’s
cared
about
for
even
longer
than
the
last
24
years. Like
a
lot
of
prominent
attorneys,
Singer’s
professional
journey
started
with
competitive
policy
debate.
A
graduate
of
Miami
Senior
High
in
the
Little
Havana
neighborhood,
he
credits
his
access
to
debate
for
bringing
him
to
traditional
collegiate
debate
powerhouse
Northwestern.
That
decision
worked
out
well
for
him,
having
won
the
National
Debate
Tournament
for
the
Wildcats.
And,
in
turn,
his
time
at
Northwestern
propelled
him
to
Harvard
Law,
running
the
law
review,
clerking
for
Justice
Byron
White,
and
a
Biglaw
career.
It’s
telling
when
someone
sporting
accolades
from
president
of
Harvard
Law
Review
to
Supreme
Court
clerk
to
Biglaw
managing
partner
isolates
one
high
school
experience
as
transformative.
And
for
the
last
several
years,
Singer
has
worked
to
make
sure
that
experience
remains
available
to
future
generations.
From
2017
until
earlier
this
year,
Singer
served
as
the
chairman
of
the
board
of
the
National
Association
for
Urban
Debate
Leagues,
an
organization
working
with
20
leagues
across
the
country
to
provide
inner
city
public
school
students
with
access
to
policy
debate
competition.
Traditionally
a
staple
high
school
extracurricular
offering,
debate
had
increasingly
become
the
province
of
private
schools
or
suburban
public
schools.
The
urban
debate
league
system
arose
to
reverse
that
trend
and
bring
programs
back
to
metropolitan
public
schools.
At
this
point,
NAUDL
and
its
affiliated
programs
reach
around
10,000
students
annually.
That
reach
matters
because
research
conducted
on
the
impact
of
just
having
access
to
debate
programs
finds
that:
For
each
semester
that
a
student
debates,
their
individual grades
improve
Urban
debaters
are
more
likely
to test
as
college-ready in
English,
Reading,
Math,
and
Science
Urban
debaters
have
both
a
higher
high
school
graduation
rate
Urban
debaters
have
a higher
rate
of
college
enrollment
Urban
debaters
are
more
likely
to
attend
a
four-year
college
And
as
an
urban
public
school
graduate
himself,
Singer’s
commitment
to
the
urban
debate
league
project
is
personal.
Debaters
don’t
have
to
become
lawyers,
of
course.
But
few
academic
endeavors
outside
of
debate
breed
the
nerdtastic
enjoyment
in
research
and
analysis
that
make
legal
work
a
thrill
rather
than
a
slog.
I
once
read
a
description
of
a
debate
in
the
1920s
between
American
and
British
students
that
said,
“The
Americans
prepared
their
case
like
lawyers
arguing
before
a
judge,
their
arguments
showed
factual
mastery
of
the
subject
and
were
well
organized;
the
Englishmen
made
clever
and
witty
speeches
which
amused
the
audience.”
That
sums
up
the
difference
between
the
two
national
traditions.
American-style
debate
still
isn’t
built
on
sounding
pretty
—
it
can
in
fact
alienate
an
unfamiliar
ear
—
instead
placing
all
its
emphasis
on
research
and
evidence
analysis.
Debate
does
more
to
reward
hours
scouring
electronic
research
and
briefing
out
fine
distinctions
between
conflicting
support,
tracking
the
motion
practice
and
litigation
strategy
skills
that
take
up
far
more
of
the
day
as
a
litigator
than
trying
to
charm
jurors.
As
Singer
notes,
debate
encourages
a
team
culture
of
celebrating
research
that’s
ideal
for
working
in
this
profession.
Boies
told
Litigation
Daily
of
Singer
“I
think
he
really,
genuinely,
as
I
do,
enjoys
what
we
do,”
and
firms
work
best
when
people
really
enjoy
the
mission.
Over
the
years,
Boies
Schiller
has
taken
advantage
of
that
culture.
Boies
debated
in
high
school
and
at
the
University
of
Redlands,
where
Singer
would
later
coach
while
in
law
school,
including
coaching
former
BSF
partner
Bill
Isaacson.
The
NAUDL
aims
to
keep
this
pipeline
open
for
students
at
schools
suffering
some
of
the
most
daunting
resource
challenges
in
the
country.
Earlier
this
year,
the
organization’s
annual
dinner
honored
Singer’s
tenure
with
a
short
video
with
appearances
by
Boies
and
Massey
&
Gail’s
Lenny
Gail.
(credit
National
Association
for
Urban
Debate
Leagues)
Singer’s
chairmanship
involved
navigating
urban
debate
leagues
through
the
COVID-19
pandemic.
It’s
not
easy
to
convince
a
high
school
student
to
give
up
their
weekends
bussing
to
some
far
off
campus
to
discuss
the
finer
points
of
infrastructure
policy
when
they
do
get
to
hang
out
with
a
bunch
of
like-minded
peers.
Convincing
them
to
throw
themselves
into
research
so
they
can
Zoom
from
home
is
a
whole
other
level.
And
yet
the
urban
debate
league
program
survived
the
lockdown
and
continues
to
thrive
with
support
from
Boies
Schiller,
White
&
Case,
and
other
Biglaw
and
boutique
firms
represented
on
the
board.
But
it
can
always
use
more
help
and
if
there’s
a
local
chapter
in
your
area,
consider
helping
them
out
directly.
Photo
by
Collection
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
United
States
via
Getty
Images
Today,
the
Department
of
Justice
announced
the
indictment
of
Alaska
man
Panos
Anastasiou
on
nine
counts
of
making
threats
against
a
federal
judge
and
13
counts
of
making
threats
in
interstate
commerce.
According
to
the
indictment,
Anastasiou
engaged
in
a
17-month
campaign
of
threats
towards
six
Supreme
Court
justices
and
two
members
of
their
families.
(The
specific
justices
and
family
members
threatened
were
unidentified
by
the
DOJ.)
The
defendant
sent
465
messages
through
a
public
website
filled
with
vile
rhetoric
—
as
described
by
the
indictment,
“violent,
racist,
and
homophobic
rhetoric
coupled
with
threats
of
assassination
via
torture,
hanging,
and
firearms,
and
encouraged
others
to
participate
in
the
acts
of
violence.”
Anastasiou
threatened
to
murder
one
justice
by
“providing
the
rope”
to
“hang[]…from
an
Oak
tree.”
Anastasiou
threatened
to
kill
another
justice
by
“putting
a
bullet
in
his
[…]
head.”
All
told,
he’s
alleged
to
have
threatened
to
“assault,
kidnap,
and
murder”
six
different
justices.
“We
allege
that
the
defendant
made
repeated,
heinous
threats
to
murder
and
torture
Supreme
Court
Justices
and
their
families
to
retaliate
against
them
for
decisions
he
disagreed
with,”
said
Attorney
General
Merrick
B.
Garland.
“Our
justice
system
depends
on
the
ability
of
judges
to
make
their
decisions
based
on
the
law,
and
not
on
fear.
Our
democracy
depends
on
the
ability
of
public
officials
to
do
their
jobs
without
fearing
for
their
lives
or
the
safety
of
their
families.”
If
convicted,
Anastaiou
faces
10
years
for
each
count
of
making
threats
against
a
federal
judge
and
five
for
each
count
of
making
threats
in
interstate
commerce.
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].
Great.
Phenomenal.
Strong.
These
are
all
words
you’d
like
to
hear
someone
use
to
describe
your
law
practice.
And
if
you
haven’t
heard
it
from
others,
there’s
no
rule
that
stops
you
from
describing
yourself
that
way.
But
being
your
own
biggest
fan
has
its
limits:
putting
“amazing
attorney”
on
your
manifest
wall
is
fair
game,
but
writing
that
on
Avvo
will
get
you
in
trouble.
ABA
Journal
has
coverage:
“Aaron
Korson
is
the
best
attorney
I
have
ever
met.”
That
sentence
was
in
a
review
posted
to
Korson’s
profile
page
on
Avvo,
an
online
marketplace
for
legal
services.
The
author
was
Aaron
Korson,
according
to
an
Aug.
29
ethics
complaint
filed
by
the
Illinois
Attorney
Registration
and
Disciplinary
Commission.
It
was
one
of
at
least
28
five-star
Avvo
reviews
that
Korson
gave
himself
over
a
period
of
nearly
five
years,
the
complaint
alleges.
Korson
isn’t
just
accused
of
patting
his
own
back,
he’s
also
accused
of
thumbing
the
scale
against
others.
The
complaint
also
accuses
Korson
of
leaving
negative
reviews
for
an
attorney
who
took
over
one
of
his
cases.
It
takes
a
special
brand
of
petty
to
weaponize
Laywer
Yelp™.
Let
your
good
deeds
stand
on
their
own.
If
you
end
up
getting
some
praise
from
others,
great,
but
if
you
get
caught
sniffing
your
own
farts,
everyone
will
make
a
big
stink
of
it.
Put
another
way,
don’t
get
caught
pulling
a
Musk:
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.
When
Special
Counsel
Jack
Smith
appealed
Judge
Aileen
Cannon’s
dismissal
of
the
Trump
documents
case,
his
goals
were
modest.
He
simply
asked
the
11th
Circuit
to
affirm
that,
yes,
special
counsels
are a
thing,
and
send
the
case
back
to
the
trial
court.
He
pointedly
did
not
ask
the
appeals
court
to
disqualify
Judge
Cannon,
despite
her
multiple
bizarre
rulings
and
noticeable
hostility
to
the
government.
But
outside
amici
are
less
modest,
and
yesterday
two
sets
of
them
filed
briefs
urging
the
panel
to
kick
Cannon
to
the
curb.
The
first
brief,
filed
by
former
government
officials,
including
New
Jersey
Governor
Christie
Todd
Whitman,
Deputy
AG
Donald
Ayer,
head
of
the
DOJ
Civil
Division
Stuart
Gerson,
FEC
Chair
Trevor
Potter,
and
the
omnipresent
George
Conway,
largely
engages
with
the
merits
—
or
total
lack
thereof
—
of
Judge
Cannon’s
dismissal
order.
It
gestures
briefly
in
the
direction
of
United
States
v.
Torkington,
874
F.2d
1441,
(11th
Cir.
1989),
the
relevant
Circuit
precedent,
and
urges
the
panel
“to
exercise
its
supervisory
authority
under
28
U.S.C.
§
2106
to
reassign
the
matter
to
another
district
judge
on
remand.”
It
ends
with
a
footnote
gently
noting
that
“This
Court
may
reassign
the
matter
sua
sponte,”
and
citing
to
a
Second
Circuit
decision.
In
contrast,
Citizens
for
Responsibility
and
Ethics
in
Washington
(CREW),
along
with
former
federal
judge
Nancy
Gertner
and
judicial
ethicists
Stephen
Gillers
and
James
Sample,
came
out
swinging,
devoting
most
of
their
brief
to
reading
the
trial
judge
for
filth.
“If
the
Court
reverses
Judge
Aileen
M.
Cannon’s
ruling
in
this
matter,
it
will
be
the
third
time
in
under
three
years
that
it
has
had
to
do
so
in
a
seemingly
straightforward
case
about
a
former
president’s
unauthorized
possession
of
government
documents,”
they
argued.
“A
third
reversal
now
will
come
after
Judge
Cannon
dismissed
this
case
in
a
decision
that
hinged
on
ignoring
the
plain
text
of
four
federal
statutes
and
dismissing
as
‘dicta’
a
landmark
Supreme
Court
opinion
confirming
the
Attorney
General’s
power
to
appoint
a
Special
Counsel,”
they
continued.
“A
reasonable
member
of
the
public
could
conclude,
as
many
have,
that
the
dismissal
was
the
culmination
of
Judge
Cannon’s
many
efforts
to
undermine
and
derail
the
prosecution
of
this
case.”
Judge
Cannon,
who
was
confirmed
to
the
bench
after
Trump
had
already
lost
the
election,
did
her
damnedest
to
prevent
this
indictment
ever
being
filed.
In
2023,
she
invented
a
new
theory
of
jurisdiction
to
justify
a
challenge
to
the
warrant
that
kicked
up
more
than
100
classified
documents
stashed
at
the
former
president’s
private
social
club
in
his
shower,
ballroom,
and
personal
office.
The
Eleventh
Circuit
jammed
a
dunce
cap
on
her
and
told
her
to
knock
it
off,
and
she’s
been
marginally
less
outrageous
since
the
case
landed
back
on
her
docket.
But only
marginally.
Judge
Cannon
has
repeatedly
gotten
confused
about
the
difference
between
discovery
and
trial
exhibits,
blithely
allowing
Trump’s
lawyers
to
put
unredacted
witness
statements
on
the
public
docket
at
will
simply
by
attaching
them
as
exhibits
to
motions.
She’s
also
threatening
to
instruct
the
jury
that
the
act
of
stealing
a
document
evinced
the
former
president’s
intent
to
declassify
it
and
turn
it
into
a
personal
record,
and
that
such
a
decision
could
never
be
challenged
in
court
—
dooming
the
case
at
a
point
when
jeopardy
will
have
already
attached,
ensuring
that
it
can
never
be
re-tried.
And,
as
CREW
points
out,
she
resolved
basically
none
of
the
pretrial
motions
in
the
13
months
the
case
languished
in
her
courtroom,
suggesting
that
she
never
intended
to
bring
it
to
trial
at
all,
hoping
that
Trump
would
win
in
November
and
kill
it
from
the
Oval
Office.
They
conclude:
Although
Judge
Cannon
sometimes
has
appeared
to
be
forging
a
parallel
legal
universe
for
former
presidents,
there
is
one
respect
in
which
Trump’s
unique
status
and
global
visibility
ought
to
influence
the
reassignment
analysis:
Those
factors
arguably
make
it
more
important
than
in
any
prior
case
that
“justice
should
not
only
be
done,
but
should
USCA11
Case:
24-12311
Document:
33
Date
Filed:
09/18/2024
Page:
50
of
53
35
2746660
manifestly
and
undoubtedly
be
seen
to
be
done.”
White,
846
F.2d
at
696
(emphasis
in
original).
Meanwhile,
Trump
asked
for
and
received
a
30-day
extension
on
the
time
to
turn
in
his
homework.
He’s
real
busy
in
DC
where
he
has
to
huddle
up
in
a
SCIF
to
review
classified
evidence
in
the
election
interference
case,
they
insisted.
(When
was
the
last
time
he
was
in
DC?)
Plus
he
has
to
explain
to
the
Second
Circuit
why
he’s
entitled
to
remove
his
New
York
criminal
case
to
federal
court
two
months
after
the
jury
convicted
him.
Trump’s
reply
is
now
due
a
week
before
the
election.
After
which
…
???
US
v.
Trump
[11th
Circuit
Docket
via
Court
Listener]
We
have
some
sad
news
to
report
out
of
Washington,
D.C.,
where
a
Biglaw
firm’s
co-managing
partner
recently
passed
away
following
a
lengthy
illness.
Larry
Gesner,
66,
who
served
as
co-managing
partner
of
Am
Law
100
firm
Venable,
had
worked
at
the
firm
for
more
than
20
years,
and
served
as
its
one
of
its
leaders
since
2016.
The
National
Law
Journal
had
additional
details
on
his
life:
“Whether
it
was
navigating
business
challenges
for
the
firm
or
confidentially
helping
someone
with
a
professional
or
personal
challenge
in
life,
Larry
was
all
in
and
entirely
focused
on
what
was
in
front
of
him,”
Dan
Moylan,
who
worked
alongside
Gesner
as
co-managing
partner
of
Venable,
said
in
a
statement
on
Wednesday.
Gesner
focused
on
structuring
and
negotiating
complex
financing
transactions,
representing
clients
such
as
Fannie
Mae,
according
to
his
firm
bio.
Stu
Ingis,
Venable’s
chairman,
spoke
highly
of
Gesner,
calling
him
“truly
extraordinary
and
unique
among
us
for
his
decency,
goodwill,
patience,
kindness,
intelligence,
good
temperament,
and
above
all
friendship.”
We
here
at
Above
the
Law
extend
our
condolences
to
Larry
Gesner’s
family,
friends,
and
colleagues
during
this
difficult
time.
Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on
X/Twitter
and
Threads
or
connect
with
her
on
LinkedIn.
Profitsolv’s
TJ
Kerr,
for
example,
remembers
retaining
a
law
firm
for
advice
on
an
employment
contract
—
and
then
being
asked
to
pay
a
retainer
through
a
wire
transfer.
“I
literally
had
to
try
to
figure
out:
How
does
a
wire
work?
Where
do
I
start?
What
do
I
do?”
he
said
on
a
recent
episode
of
the
Non-Eventcast.
So
what
payments
should
a
firm
accept?
According
to
Kerr,
firms
should
accept
as
many
types
as
possible.
But
the
key
is
to
integrate
them
into
an
automated
system.
“When
you
have
an
integrated
payment
solution,
everything
is
all
centralized,”
he
said.
“It
removes
all
the
middle,
hands-on,
manual
process
work
that
normally
would
take
place
to
reconcile
the
books.”
In
this
episode
of
the
Non-Eventcast,
Kerr
is
joined
by
host
Jared
Correia
and
Profitsolv’s
Joyce
Brafford
in
discussing
all
things
law
firm
payment:
from
the
security
risks
of
paper
checks
to
the
ethics
of
accepting
cryptocurrency.
Tune
into
their
full
discussion
here.
(The
exchange
in
this
post
starts
around
the
10-minute
mark.)
On
March
26,
a
containership
named
for
Spanish
painter
Salvador
Dalí
lost
power
after
leaving
the
Port
of
Baltimore
and
collided
with
the
Francis
Scott
Key
Bridge.
The
resulting
collapse shut
down
traffic
to
and
from
the
Port
for
months
and
killed
six
maintenance
workers
who
were
on
the
structure
at
the
time
of
the
collision.
Five
days
after
the
accident,
the
Singaporean
owners
of
the
Dalí
filed
a
Petition
for
Exoneration
from
or
Limitation
of
Liability
in
the
District
Court
of
Maryland.
Grace
Ocean
Private
Limited,
which
owns
the
ship,
and
Synergy
Marine
PTE
Ltd,
which
managed
it,
disclaim
all
liability.
But
if
Judge
James
Bredar
somehow
manages
to
find
them
culpable,
they
seek
to
cabin
their
losses
at
$44
million
dollars:
In
the
alternative,
if
the
Court
determines
that
Owner
and/or
Synergy
is
liable,
that
such
liability
be
limited
to
the
value
of
the
Vessel
and
its
pending
freight
in
connection
with
the
voyage,
and
that
Petitioner(s)
be
discharged
therefrom
upon
the
surrender
of
such
interest,
and
that
the
money
surrendered,
paid,
or
secured
to
be
paid
be
divided
pro-rata
among
the
claimants
that
are
successful
in
proving
their
claims,
reserving
to
all
parties
any
priorities
to
which
they
may
be
legally
entitled,
and
that
a
decree
may
be
entered
discharging
Petitioner(s)
from
all
further
liability;
The
City
of
Baltimore
and
the
other
parties
harmed
by
the
bridge
collapse
and
the
massive
economic
fallout
caused
by
shutting
down
the
port
for
weeks
have
other
ideas.
They
want
all
the
money
the
Dalí’s
owners
have
now
or
will
have
for
the
rest
of
their
lives.
And
so
does
the
US
government,
which
yesterday
filed
a
$100
million
counterclaim
alleging
that
the
Dalí
was
literally
shaking
itself
into
pieces
when
it
attempted
to
navigate
to
open
waters
via
the
Patapsco
River.
The
feds
claim
that
the
constant
vibrations
were
known
to
its
operators,
that
the
multiple
technical
failures
that
let
to
it
hitting
the
bridge
were
totally
predictable,
and
that
the
disaster
was
compounded
by
the
Dalí
crew’s
numerous
errors.
The
federal
cleanup
effort
involved
the
Navy,
the
Coast
Guard,
the
Army
Corps
of
Engineers,
and
the
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration.
The
Labor
Department
also
got
involved
through
federal
grants
to
displaced
workers.
“The
United
States
incurred
losses
and
damages
as
a
result
of
Petitioners’
negligence
in
the
total
amount
of
approximately
$103,078,056,”
the
Justice
Department
wrote,
demanding
reimbursement
for
negligence
under
the
General
Maritime
Law,
as
well
as
violations
of
the
Rivers
and
Harbors
Act,
and
the
Oil
Pollution
Act.
“Out
of
negligence,
mismanagement,
and,
at
times,
a
desire
to
cut
costs,
they
configured
the
ship’s
electrical
and
mechanical
systems
in
a
way
that
prevented
those
systems
from
being
able
to
quickly
restore
propulsion
and
steering
after
a
power
outage,”
Principal
Deputy
Associate
Attorney
General
Benjamin
Mizer
said
at
a
press
conference
in
DC
announcing
the
filing.
“As
a
result,
when
the
DALI
lost
power,
a
cascading
set
of
failures
led
to
disaster.”
The
feds
want
punitive
damages,
too.
And
that
$103
million
doesn’t
even
include
the
damage
to
the
bridge
itself,
which
is
owned
and
operated
by
the
State
of
Maryland.
Other
claimants
have
until
Tuesday
to
file
their
own
accounting
with
the
court.
On
March
26,
a
containership
named
for
Spanish
painter
Salvador
Dalí
lost
power
after
leaving
the
Port
of
Baltimore
and
collided
with
the
Francis
Scott
Key
Bridge.
The
resulting
collapse shut
down
traffic
to
and
from
the
Port
for
months
and
killed
six
maintenance
workers
who
were
on
the
structure
at
the
time
of
the
collision.
Five
days
after
the
accident,
the
Singaporean
owners
of
the
Dalí
filed
a
Petition
for
Exoneration
from
or
Limitation
of
Liability
in
the
District
Court
of
Maryland.
Grace
Ocean
Private
Limited,
which
owns
the
ship,
and
Synergy
Marine
PTE
Ltd,
which
managed
it,
disclaim
all
liability.
But
if
Judge
James
Bredar
somehow
manages
to
find
them
culpable,
they
seek
to
cabin
their
losses
at
$44
million
dollars:
In
the
alternative,
if
the
Court
determines
that
Owner
and/or
Synergy
is
liable,
that
such
liability
be
limited
to
the
value
of
the
Vessel
and
its
pending
freight
in
connection
with
the
voyage,
and
that
Petitioner(s)
be
discharged
therefrom
upon
the
surrender
of
such
interest,
and
that
the
money
surrendered,
paid,
or
secured
to
be
paid
be
divided
pro-rata
among
the
claimants
that
are
successful
in
proving
their
claims,
reserving
to
all
parties
any
priorities
to
which
they
may
be
legally
entitled,
and
that
a
decree
may
be
entered
discharging
Petitioner(s)
from
all
further
liability;
The
City
of
Baltimore
and
the
other
parties
harmed
by
the
bridge
collapse
and
the
massive
economic
fallout
caused
by
shutting
down
the
port
for
weeks
have
other
ideas.
They
want
all
the
money
the
Dalí’s
owners
have
now
or
will
have
for
the
rest
of
their
lives.
And
so
does
the
US
government,
which
yesterday
filed
a
$100
million
counterclaim
alleging
that
the
Dalí
was
literally
shaking
itself
into
pieces
when
it
attempted
to
navigate
to
open
waters
via
the
Patapsco
River.
The
feds
claim
that
the
constant
vibrations
were
known
to
its
operators,
that
the
multiple
technical
failures
that
let
to
it
hitting
the
bridge
were
totally
predictable,
and
that
the
disaster
was
compounded
by
the
Dalí
crew’s
numerous
errors.
The
federal
cleanup
effort
involved
the
Navy,
the
Coast
Guard,
the
Army
Corps
of
Engineers,
and
the
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration.
The
Labor
Department
also
got
involved
through
federal
grants
to
displaced
workers.
“The
United
States
incurred
losses
and
damages
as
a
result
of
Petitioners’
negligence
in
the
total
amount
of
approximately
$103,078,056,”
the
Justice
Department
wrote,
demanding
reimbursement
for
negligence
under
the
General
Maritime
Law,
as
well
as
violations
of
the
Rivers
and
Harbors
Act,
and
the
Oil
Pollution
Act.
“Out
of
negligence,
mismanagement,
and,
at
times,
a
desire
to
cut
costs,
they
configured
the
ship’s
electrical
and
mechanical
systems
in
a
way
that
prevented
those
systems
from
being
able
to
quickly
restore
propulsion
and
steering
after
a
power
outage,”
Principal
Deputy
Associate
Attorney
General
Benjamin
Mizer
said
at
a
press
conference
in
DC
announcing
the
filing.
“As
a
result,
when
the
DALI
lost
power,
a
cascading
set
of
failures
led
to
disaster.”
The
feds
want
punitive
damages,
too.
And
that
$103
million
doesn’t
even
include
the
damage
to
the
bridge
itself,
which
is
owned
and
operated
by
the
State
of
Maryland.
Other
claimants
have
until
Tuesday
to
file
their
own
accounting
with
the
court.
Staci
Chris
Kathryn
