Author: TSA Press

Thanks to the novel coronavirus, America’s largest law firms have been forced to undertake severe cost-cutting measures. From salary cuts, to furloughs, to layoffs, these firms are doing everything they can to make sure they can survive the economic upheaval that’s been caused by the COVID-19 outbreak that’s swept across the country.

But law firms aren’t the only law-related organizations that are suffering.

It’s a whole new world out there for colleges and universities whose student bodies have migrated to online learning environments due to social distancing measures, and those with associated law schools are really feeling the financial pinch.

Today, we have news on the first law school to implement pay cuts and furloughs for faculty and staff due to the coronavirus.

Per the Arizona Daily Star, the University of Arizona — including the James E. Rogers College of Law — is expecting to face “extreme” economic consequences. The school is currently projected to lose as much as $250 million. Here’s the school’s plan:

Employees making at least $200,000 have to take a 20% pay cut, while those making between $150,001 and $199,999 have to take a 17% pay cut.

Those making between $75,001 and $150,000 will be required to take 39 furlough days, or 1.5 days per pay period, equivalent to a 15% salary cut; those making between $44,500 and $75,000 are required to take 26 furlough days, or one day per period, equivalent to a 10% cut; and those making $44,449 and under must take 13 furlough days, or a half-day per pay period, equivalent to a 5% cut.

Dean Marc Miller says he hasn’t heard of anything like this happening at other law schools. Arizona Law’s cuts are expected to begin May 11 and run through June 2021.

If your firm or organization is slashing salaries, closing its doors, or reducing the ranks of its lawyers or staff, whether through open layoffs, stealth layoffs, or voluntary buyouts, please don’t hesitate to let us know. Our vast network of tipsters is part of what makes Above the Law thrive. You can email us or text us (646-820-8477).

If you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Layoff Alerts, please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the layoff alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each layoff, salary cut, or furlough announcement that we publish.

University of Arizona sets furloughs, pay cuts lasting months amid pandemic [Arizona Daily Star]
Pay cuts and furloughs are on the horizon at Arizona law school [ABA Journal]

---

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 Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Are rainbow flags the same as swastikas or Confederate stars and bars? Asking for the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct, which just forced Judge Rosie Speedlin Gonzalez of Bexar County Court 13 in San Antonio to get rid of her pride flag after a complaint by a local attorney.

While the complaint has not been made public, criminal defender Flavio Hernandez told the San Antonio Express News that it was a simple question of fairness. How could he “in good conscience” subject his clients  “to the implied authority of this unofficial flag symbolizing the Judge’s personal bias?”

“Other flags expressing personal bias such as white supremacy (swastikas), or black slavery (confederacy) are also divisive and inappropriate symbols in our courtrooms,” Hernandez told the paper. “I may not be able to turn the dark tide of legalized immorality infecting our nation like a virus, but in my small way, I voiced my support of traditional American family values.”

That’s an odd analogy at a time when an actual pandemic virus is infecting the nation. But more to the point, I BEG YOUR PARDON??? If Mr. Hernandez was willing to express such naked bigotry to the media, exactly what did he say in the complaint to the Commission on Judicial Conduct? And if he didn’t allege any actual bias by Judge Gonzalez, the first openly gay judge elected in Bexar County, then why exactly did the Commission force her to remove not just the flag, but a rainbow pin, pen, mousepad, and eyeglasses, in addition to a Mexican serape?

Gonzalez told NBC that one county judge displays an Irish flag, while another wears a camouflage robe in the courtroom, without bringing down the ire of the Commission. There is even a rainbow on the wall of the family courtroom.

“If you don’t tell them to take their rainbows down, then it’s not about the rainbow, it’s about me,” she told NBC.

Gonzalez is appealing the Commission’s ruling.

“Judges all over the state of Texas have a right to express their First Amendment rights. They don’t lose that right when they become elected,” her attorney Deanna Whitley told the Express. “Judges might have a Mothers Against Drunk Driving emblem or they might have a cross or they might have a Bible or a flag with a thin blue line. There was no showing that Rosie was, in any ruling, biased in favor of or against anyone.”

The Express editorial situates Judge Gonzalez’s reprimand within a larger struggle between the Commission and the state’s anti-LGBTQ leadership. Columnist Gilbert Garcia writes:

Last November, the commission sanctioned Dianne Hensley, a Waco justice of the peace who had defied federal law by refusing to conduct same-sex weddings, even though she performs weddings for opposite-sex couples.

In response to that sanction, two voting members of the commission who were awaiting Senate confirmation found themselves summoned to meetings with Gov. Greg Abbott’s staff. Abbott subsequently withdrew their nominations.

Attorney General Ken Paxton, like Abbott an opponent of LGBTQ rights, refused to defend the commission in the lawsuit that Hensley filed against it.

So it looks like the commission bowed to anti-LGBTQ forces with a private warning to Gonzalez that it hoped would get no media coverage and would make the whole flag issue go away.

But Judge Gonzalez and her flag are not going away.

“I have no intention of being bullied off my bench,” she told NBC. “The conservative leadership needs to acknowledge we are a diverse state and things need to change.”

For now her pride flag sits outside her chamber door. Because putting it on the back of the courthouse transport bus would probably be just a little bit too on the nose.’

Garcia: State commission wants judge to banish rainbow flag [San Antonio Express News]
Texas judge says she was forced to remove pride flag from courtroom [NBC]

---

Elizabeth Dye (@5DollarFeminist) lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

With the bar exam short-circuited by the pandemic, interest in alternatives to the test have gained traction. After years of the monolithic exam cramping everyone’s imagination, new paths to licensing are finally being discussed in the open, with one state poised to make a leap, and students and legal educators across the country pushing other jurisdictions to follow suit.

At this point, the calls for reform are targeted at the current crop of law school graduates stuck with a sliding bar exam date and no guarantee they can even take the test when the world resumes. But there are those who see this as an opportunity to engage in a major long-term overhaul of the process, one that could include knock-on effects in law school reform as regulators are forced to take seriously the role of guaranteeing that law schools produce capable attorneys rather than pawn off problems on a bar exam three years and hundreds of thousands of dollars later.

The most popular bar exam alternative calls itself “diploma privilege plus” and requires law school graduates to jump through a number of theoretical and practical hoops to earn admission to the bar, including enhanced CLE obligations and a period of supervised practice. It’s a sound program for attorney licensing, which is why the National Conference of Bar Examiners desperately unloaded on it. But there is one nagging issue that needs to get cleared up if this is going to work: who is going to do all of this supervising?

This isn’t a problem for law school grads with jobs lined up in the industry. An associate’s first year is where most of an attorney’s practical education happens anyway. But for those not planning to work explicitly in the legal services industry or those planning to go solo out of the gate, where are they finding these positions? The law is already a harsh workplace of long hours and occasionally dictatorial personalities. Add in that there is already an unfortunate loophole in the labor laws that allows practitioners to employ lawyers without paying them a minimum wage and the risks to aspiring attorneys of handing considerable licensing power to their supervisors is obvious before we even broach the risk of sexual or racial harassment. Without a solution that protects law school graduates from exploitation, the diploma privilege plus regime will always have this lingering weakness.

Though it’s one that could be solved rather simply if the law schools were willing to revolutionize themselves too. If the third year class schedule got junked and replaced with a supervised practice system administered by the school, clinics would fulfill this function for those uninterested in taking private sector jobs, while both government and firm partners could take 3Ls on to learn practical skills while providing standardized feedback to the school that will ultimately issue the supervisory period approval.

It’s not easy. There are vested interests in the status quo, tangential reforms that law schools aren’t going to like, and new safeguards that need to be worked out and implemented. However, the opportunity is here for some industry self-reflection and for those unafraid of challenges, this could be the juncture where the profession is strengthened for the future. Reforming the law is a lot like stopping a cruise ship on a dime.

But much like stopping cruise ships, an infectious disease is more than up to the task.

Earlier: Law School Student Governments Petitioning For Diploma-Privileged Admission
First State Opts For Emergency Diploma Privilege Plus Admission
NCBE Trashes Diploma Privilege, Sprinkles In Some Racist And Sexist Conclusions
NY Bar Exam Encounters New Hurdle — Not Enough Space To Test Everyone

---

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

As this website has covered at length, COVID-19 has had a substantial impact on the legal profession. Economic conditions and practical concerns have especially impacted law students and individuals who will soon graduate from law school. Because of the depressed job market and economic conditions, many people have compared the situation of current law students to the circumstances faced by law students during the Great Recession. As an attorney who entered law school in 2009, I can attest to some similarities between these two periods. However, the plight of current law students is far worse than the situation of law students during the Great Recession in a number of ways.

Summer Programs

Many people remember how summer programs were impacted by the Great Recession. During that time, numerous firms canceled or reduced the number of associates in summer programs, and some shortened the time summer associates spent at a firm. In addition, the extracurricular offerings of summer programs were reduced from the high-flying times of the earlier aughts.

Many of these cuts are also being experienced by current law students as firms cancel or shorten summer programs to contend with COVID-19. However, some firms seem poised to make their summer programs mostly virtual, since numerous attorneys are working from home in the current environment. No one can blame firms for instituting more virtual summer programs, but this will make it harder for summer associates to socialize, build relationships, and yes, have fun before they begin the grueling experience of working as a full-time associate at a firm. Of course, these restrictions only apply to law students lucky enough to score a coveted summer associate position, but the truncated summer associate experience will impact these students in ways not experienced during the Great Recession.

Campus Closures

Anyone who went to law school during the Great Recession can relate how the situation on campus was sometimes unpleasant. People were extremely jealous of those who had interviews and job offers because of the depressed employment market, and this made some social interactions difficult. In addition, there was a sense of impending dread about what people will do after graduation, especially if they did not have interviews or job offers.
Nevertheless, at least my classmates and I were able to be on campus. Law students during the Great Recession attended bar reviews (happy hours, which were tons of fun at my alma mater Georgetown Law!), got to participate in campus clubs, and were able to experience the full on-campus experience. However, law students are unable to be physically present on campus, and must get by with virtual classes. At the same time, they still likely have the same sense of dread and uncertainty that law students experienced during the Great Recession, and this must be an extremely difficult situation.

Bar Exam Issues

As detailed in prior articles on this website, there is much uncertainty about the summer bar exam. Some states have pushed the bar exam to September, while other states have allowed for emergency diploma privileges to contend with the current environment. A few commentators have suggested that if the situation with COVID-19 does not improve, the summer bar exam may be postponed even further or canceled altogether in some states, forcing students to wait until the winter of 2021 to take the bar exam.

No law student during the Great Recession had to worry about whether the bar exam would occur within a few months after graduation or contend with the uncertainty the current situation creates. In addition, delays in receiving law licenses can affect when law school graduates are able to start their careers. Bar exam challenges is a unique set of issues faced by recent graduates, and veterans of the Great Recession cannot comprehend the trepidation of current law students because of this environment.

Job Search Fairness

Even though the job search was tough for law students during the Great Recession, we all knew the rules of the game. Everyone would take set courses during our first two semesters of law school, which would be graded on a curve. These grades would be used to determine who would be offered summer associate positions, which would impact the firm we ended up at after graduation. As a result, all students had a fair opportunity to compete for jobs under an established set of rules.

However, for current law students, the established rules are being rewritten in the middle of the game. Many law schools have switched to pass/fail options in the middle of the semester to deal with issues posed by COVID-19. In addition, some law schools have delayed on-campus recruiting to later in the next academic year, presumably to give students the chance to show two semesters of full grades before being evaluated by employers. While we can understand why law schools have implemented these measures, such initiatives are not necessarily fair to students who have worked hard to set the curve this semester. In any case, unfairness in how students will apply for jobs differentiates current law students from those a decade ago.

All told, the legal industry has seen economic downturns in the past, and it is easy to compare the current plight of law students to the Great Recession. However, current law students are not merely struggling with economic troubles, but many practical issues and uncertainty as well. As a result, current law students face challenges not experienced by any crop of students in recent memory.

---

Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.

This… is not what you want to see. Especially not after the last few Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) scores gave everyone so much hope. After seeing scoring on the rise in 2019, the average score on the MBE is down for the February 2020 administration of the exam. And not just down compared to the banner 2019 scores. We are talking about an all-time low. According to the developers of the test, the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE), the average MBE score was a dismal 132.6, down 1.4 points from 2019.

And as Judith Gundersen, president of NCBE, told Law.com, the decline in MBE scores likely means we’ll see a hit to bar exam pass rates:

“It’s obviously disappointing to see this decline after last year’s mean increases in February and July,” said national conference president Judith Gundersen on Monday. “Although the MBE isn’t the only factor that affects bar passage rates, we will probably see a decline in pass rates for February 2020.”

According to the NCBE, of the 19,112 people taking the February exam, approximately two-thirds were repeat test-takers, meaning they’d already failed the exam previously. The February administration is usually dominated by repeaters, as July is the traditional time for new law school graduates to take the test. (Awww… remember when we had the bar exam in July? Good times.) And, according to Gundersen, it was repeat test-takers pulling down the average:

“The February mean is always driven by repeat test-takers; this February, the decrease in the mean score among likely first-time takers was relatively small, while the decrease was larger for likely repeaters,” she said.

Jurisdictions are currently in the process of releasing results. We’ll have to wait to see just how bad this early indicator is for overall pass rates.

---

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. 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).

Logistics. It is “the detailed coordination of a complex operation involving many people, facilities or supplies.” There are people who have advanced degrees in logistics, but I wonder how many lawyers, how many judges, how many court administrators have such degrees. We’ve all experienced occasional courthouse closings due to various disrupting events, including earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and other happenings out of the ordinary. But the closings have usually been short, nothing like what we are experiencing now. Most courts, at least state courts here in California, have been closed for a month or more.

At some point, the courts will reopen and then what? What a backlog will greet them.

Once courts reopen, who will be allowed in the courthouse, let alone the courtrooms? Will there be testing before entry into the courthouse? Will there be testing once in the courthouse along with the present security measures? Hopefully, there won’t be any tantrums like the attorney who pulled off his pants because he was asked to remove his belt at the security checkpoint (and that was several months ago). Will there be temperature checks? Who will do them?

Right now, testing kits are not readily available, as they should be and will need to be. Right now, test results are not readily available on a moment’s notice. Will people have to wait for results before they can enter? How long will that test result be good for? We are told that you can test negative and then subsequently test positive. Will people need to be tested before even going to the courthouse? Will they need a doctor’s note or some similar verification? Unless you have had the virus or are immune, we all know that there are lots of people who are asymptomatic. What do you do about those people going to court?

Let’s assume that you have made it past the security checkpoint (leaving aside the testing issue). We know now (or we should know, and if we do not, shame on us) that most, if not all, routine court appearances can be handled by videoconferencing of one sort or another. Hooray for the reduction in the client’s expense, but maybe not so hooray for the attorney who used to be able to bill for travel time and the time spent cooling heels in the courtroom. So, unless judges refuse to get with the “new normal,” this may be one possible positive result of COVID-19 for the client.

Change the scenario. There are jury trials to be had, and criminal trials take priority. I would imagine that there will be lots of criminal defendants who will raise speedy trial issues and that because the trial did not take place within the statutorily mandated time, the case should be dismissed. I am not a constitutional law maven, but I would hazard a guess that the state’s actions could pass the “strict scrutiny” test. There still will be trials, but, as before, most criminal cases will result in pleas.

But what if the parties ask, “Ready for trial?’ How will that happen given the social distancing and other provisos that will still be in place? Will there be a jury assembly room? If so, social distancing could be well-nigh impossible in that situation. We have an “on-call” juror system here, so jurors are only called if there is a need for a panel.

But you still must “assemble.” Will that “assembly” be remote? What happens when your juror ID number is called, and you need to report to a courtroom? Logistically, how will that work? Normally (I must stop using that word) you would go to the courthouse, go through security, and proceed to the courtroom. Will that still be the process if you “assemble” remotely?

What about courtroom staff? How will they be protected? The clerk, the bailiff, the court reporter, and of course, the judge. Is there six feet of separation among them now? What about counsel? Is there six feet of clearance at counsel table so that counsel can fit? I would guess that there is going to be some choreographing of how this will all work, at least there should be.

How will the courtroom be reconfigured to allow jurors? My guess is that the entire courtroom will be used for juror spacing, and that the spectator area will be a thing of the past, at least for the foreseeable future. (Goodbye open courtrooms.) What do you do about the jury room? What if the jury must be excused while the lawyers and the court discuss certain issues? Are they out in the hallway six feet apart? What if there is more than one jury out in the hallway at the same time? How will that work?

Finally, yes, because my head is about to explode, how will jury deliberations be handled? Jury rooms are notably close quarters (only dinosaurs will remember the movie 12 Angry Men. If you have never seen it, you have time to see it now). Will jurors be permitted to deliberate in the same way as they have in the past? It is the give and take in the jury room that is so essential to deliberations and reaching a verdict.

Biglaw is adjusting to a new normal, and ATL is covering the changes extensively, but it’s not just Biglaw, it’s every firm of every shape and size. It’s also law schools and law students, whether graduating and ready to take the bar, whenever that is, or just starting.

The judiciary will need to adjust as well. How the public will access the justice system once courts reopen? There are tough logistical times ahead. We can whine all we want, not that it will do much, if any, good. Now is the time for us to pull up our big kid pants and help access to justice however we can, and that will mean developing the patience that we are not known for.

---

Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.

It seems that COVID-19 austerity measures are the new normal for Biglaw firms of all stripes. From salary cuts to furloughs to layoffs, some of the nation’s most prominent law firms are doing what they can to protect their businesses from the economic fallout that’s been caused by the coronavirus outbreak.

The latest firm to make cost-cutting moves may be one of the wealthiest, but it’s still tightening its belt to weather the financial storm to come.

Numerous sources tell us that McDermott Will & Emery, currently in 30th place in the latest Am Law 100 rankings with $1,172,114,000 gross revenue in 2019, has been conducting layoffs. Both staff and associate positions have been eliminated, and Above the Law tipsters say entire departments have been gutted. We’ve been told that the latest cuts included associates, administrative assistants, paralegals, and long-term contract attorneys. In addition to the layoffs, some staff members have also been furloughed to a tentative July 2020 date.

We reached out several times to McDermott for comment, but have yet to hear back.

If your firm or organization is slashing salaries, closing its doors, or reducing the ranks of its lawyers or staff, whether through open layoffs, stealth layoffs, or voluntary buyouts, please don’t hesitate to let us know. Our vast network of tipsters is part of what makes Above the Law thrive. You can email us or text us (646-820-8477).

If you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Layoff Alerts, please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the layoff alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each layoff, salary cut, or furlough announcement that we publish.

---

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 Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

If you have been following the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), you’ve heard that the $349 billion allocated for small business forgivable loans ran out in less than two weeks. You may know a few lucky people who got this loan. But you probably know a lot more who didn’t get their application approved in time.

There have been many accusations — including a few lawsuits — of banks putting its best customers first in line for these loans instead of the many struggling small businesses who desperately needed the money. The most notorious examples of this are the large loans given to the popular restaurant chains Ruth’s Chris Steak House and Shake Shack (which later returned the money).

From what I read and heard, it appears that almost all of the people who were able to secure a PPP loan did so through a connection they had with a banker, particularly a small bank. But a lot of these people did not have large bank accounts. Nor did they pay large amounts of fees and interest to the banks. They simply had an existing account with the bank and either got advance word through their bank’s e-mail advisory, or the banker called them personally.

Most of us don’t know a banker because we don’t need one on a regular basis. We contact one on the rare occasion where we need a loan or if we want to start a bank account. But even without this relationship, some people were still able to secure a loan through their accountants, attorneys, or financial advisors. They knew about the PPP before the SBA started accepting applications and were able to connect their clients with the right people who could help them. But because the funding is scarce, they are providing these services as a courtesy to their existing clients before helping others.

Unfortunately, this left many people who had to apply on their own. They thought that their large, nationally recognized bank would have the resources and the clout to process their loan applications and get them funded quickly. Instead, many of them were left in the dark with no status updates or any communication for days. When the banks eventually emailed them, they were told that many other applicants were ahead of them. By that time, they had nowhere else to turn because the smaller banks were no longer accepting applications and eventually the funding was exhausted.

If this sounds unfair, you are not wrong. Some people who really didn’t need this loan got it through their connections. While others who truly needed the money were shut out because their bank got into the game very late, their bank’s application process was very impersonal, and their bank had more customers than it could handle.

This shows how important professional relationships are. Especially now, it can mean the difference between survival and closure. The right people can help you in your time of need or can connect you with others who can.

It is not too late to make these connections. Now with more people out of work, people have more time to reach out and get to know you. Thanks to social distancing, you can meet people without leaving your house. For some introverts who don’t like to get out, this could be your chance to shine.

Don’t be afraid to ask for assistance. If you are ignored, ask someone else. Eventually someone will offer to help you.

But more importantly, while you are asking around in the chat room or Facebook group, be friendly. And be helpful to those who have questions or concerns. Most people have this weird habit of remembering people who help them in their time of need and returning the favor. Others will also notice your willingness to help and will also reciprocate. So save your elevator sales pitch for better days or when someone asks for it.

The federal government is expected to issue another round of PPP funding in the coming days. And it is very likely that the funds will again be depleted quickly now that more people are aware of the program, loan processing is more likely to be automated, and more unconventional loan servicers (such as Lendio and PayPal) are filling the gaps that banks could not. You can try applying on your own (and being customer number 102,399 on their online application service). Or you can make an effort to connect with someone who can get your loan processed — and get you your money — quicker.

---

Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and resolve tax disputes. He is also sympathetic to people with large student loans. He can be reached via email at sachimalbe@excite.com. Or you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) and connect with him on LinkedIn.

Three years ago, Jana Partners’ Barry Rosenstein finally finished the three years’ worth of work and Sahara desert’s worth of sand needed to make the then–most expensive home in the country (and still the Hamptons record-holder) habitable. The owner of the grandest 18 acres in all of East Hampton certainly had no need of a puny 1.5 acres in the same town, and announced he’d be glad to part ways with it for a mere $70 million.

Alas, as for Steve Cohen’s East Side apartment, there were no takers, giving the neighbors something to commiserate about. Since listing the old place in 2017, however, Rosenstein’s done pretty well for himself, and so a man who once sued over a rounding error on a $147 million house is happy to let some COVID-19 refugee stretch his or her legs in the lap pool or garage-office down the block from Grey Gardens for just half what he asked for three years ago.