Law School Raising Money For Out-Of-Work Staff. If It’s Not Your School… It Should Be.

While transitioning to online classes, arguing with admins over grading policy, and trying to get a responsible solution to the bar exam problem are all stressful, law students aren’t facing the same sort of stress that school staff have to deal with right now.

Many of the people who really make the school go are out of work right now and institutions haven’t been great about helping them out. Harvard got heaping helpings of deserved scorn when they just fired everybody rather than invade their $8B endowment for a couple of weeks, but other schools face the same pressures and legitimately didn’t have the cash on hand to keep people on.

Some UVA Law professors have started a GoFundMe drive to help out the contract workers and other employees — like the folks who work in the cafeteria and coffee shop — who are hurting during the school’s physical shutdown. The campaign set a goal to raise $20K and… blew past that in two days!

They’ve upped the effort to a $30K goal and keep raking in donations.

We give UVA a lot of ribbing here — mostly because they channel their insecurity over our jabs into high art — but UVA has really stepped up and shown everyone what a good community does in times of crisis. From the student outpouring to protect one of their own from the whims of bureaucracy to raising money for staff members, the UVA community is the example that every school should be following.

So kudos to UVA Law. Thanks for taking time from your Vineyard Vines shopping spree to help out.

The rest of you should get on that.

Support for the Scott Commons and UVA Community [GoFundMe]

Mega Firm Announces Bonus Delays Amid COVID-19 Uncertainty

(Image via Getty)

The COVID-19 economic upheaval is coming for us all. Even the legal profession, which many perceive as staid and somewhat insulated from market fluctuations, has seen layoffs, furloughs, and associate salary cuts aplenty. As the days of social distancing and quarantine start adding up, even the very top of the Biglaw heap has implemented austerity measures, with Am Law 50 firms Bryan Cave and Orrick announcing pay cuts.

Now we’ve learned that the mega firm of Dentons has some cost-cutting moves on the horizon. Tipsters at the firm report that 2019 bonuses, which were due to be paid in full this month, will be delayed in part. The firm is paying 50 percent of attorneys’  2019 bonuses on schedule and delaying the second half until the second half of 2020. A more specific timeframe than that is unknown.

When reached for comment, a Dentons spokesperson had this to say:

Like many firms, we confirm that Dentons US is undertaking proactive steps to ensure the continued financial security of the Firm and our people. If there are early lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic, the wisdom of prudent and resilient preparation is certainly one of them.  As part of that effort, we have adjusted the timing of bonus payments for our lawyers.  We remain focused on our people, clients, strategy and strength of the future.

Hopefully this move will prevent even more severe cuts, like layoffs.

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.


headshotKathryn 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).

Not Satisfied With Layoffs, Am Law 200 Firm Cuts Partner Draws And Kills Retirement Match

(Image via Getty)

Biglaw firms continue to cut costs wherever they can in the wake of the coronavirus crisis to keep their firms afloat. Some firms thought that layoffs would suffice, but even that wasn’t enough, and they now find themselves making additional cuts — this time to partner draws and benefit programs.

You may remember that last month, Goldberg Segalla conducted staff layoffs “in large numbers,” according to our sources. Apparently that wasn’t enough, and now, the firm has turned its eyes to partner draws and benefits. We’ve been told that Goldberg Segalla will be reducing its biweekly partner draws by 10 to 20 percent, effective with the May 8 payroll. Sources also say that the firm has terminated its 401(k) matching program.

We reached out to the firm for confirmation, and this is what a spokesperson told us:

The reduction in draw does not reflect a decision with respect to overall compensation. In addition, the firm will be suspending the 401(k) match for a period of time. These are temporary measures we expect to institute in the short-term while operating in the COVID-19 environment.

Let’s hope Goldberg Segalla can save jobs through these additional reductions.

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 ZaretskyStaci 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.

Legal Recruiting In The Time Of COVID-19

(Image via Getty)

It is funny how a couple of weeks can not only change the world but this column. When I was mulling over topics for my next Above the Law entry, I thought I wanted to discuss students at certain elite law schools protesting some Biglaw firms during recruitment dinners because of those firms representation of oil companies that are, rightly, seen as contributing to the existential global crisis known as climate change. While I hope to come back to that topic in the not too-distant future because it is important and  interesting — though I am not exactly sure what my take would be on the subject, other than students should protest if they want while other students should attend the recruiting dinner if they want — a discussion of one existential global crisis has been overtaken by the need to discuss another existential global crisis. Whether you refer to it as the coronavirus, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, or some geographic nomenclature like “Wuhan Virus” because you are a terrible person, this global pandemic has fundamentally changed the lives of almost everyone in the United States and the rest of the world for at least the short-term, if not longer. Odds are that those reading this, be they lawyer, law student, or somewhere in-between, have been quarantined inside their own residence for a period of time with no real end in sight — an exception here might be for those Above the Law readers who reside in South Korea, kudos to you all for having a competent government. Those of you in the rest of the world have probably become an expert in Zoom and, depending on the number of small children also marooned in your residence, have either taken up several new hobbies, binged most of the offerings from the Peak TV era, wondered if there is a limit to the number of times you can read Isaac Chotiner vivisect Richard Epstein in The New Yorker (there is not), scoured the internet for news on the status of Above the Law founder and COVID-19 survivor David Lat, or have just tried to make it through each day with your sanity intact.

The abject chaos that COVID-19 has wreaked is not just limited to individuals. Entire industries have been turned on their heads. While not facing the cataclysm that has befallen the restaurant or retail industries, the legal industry has started to feel some of the effects. Stories of firms cutting salaries across the board, including partner draws, have started to trickle in, but one must assume it will quickly become a torrent. While many private firms have put themselves in better financial positions than they might have been prior to the Great Recession, there is no real way to cushion yourself for an economic climate in which 10 million Americans filed new unemployment claims over the past two weeks and where Q2 GDP could contract by 34%(!!!!).  While the impact of COVID-19 will be felt throughout the legal profession, I want to talk about legal recruiting where seemingly totemic pillars of how law students get jobs and how legal employers attract new talent have been completely upended over the span of several weeks.

First and foremost, while I have some ideas about how this might play out, it is important to realize that no one can speak with any sort of definitiveness, and anyone who claims they know exactly what will happen with legal recruiting over the next several weeks and months is lying.

The legal industry has dealt with economic downturns. It has faced once-in-a-generation financial crises. A once-a-century global pandemic and resulting economic calamity? That’s uncharted territory. But the fine folks at Breaking Media do not pay me the big bucks to write a column that is one giant shrug emoji, so how might the fallout from COVID-19 impact legal recruiting? I think the best way to approach the question is by looking at various classes of law student.

For current 3Ls, the Class of 2020, if you already have a job, as of now you should expect to start that job this fall. While firms have been cutting salaries and furloughing nonattorney staff, there have not yet been the deep cuts to attorney ranks that were seen during 2008-09. What is unclear is how long this COVID-induced economic recession/depression will extend and what the recovery will look like. If we can all emerge from our national house arrest in the next month or so and the ensuing economic recovery looks like the letter V, then attorney levels can likely stay stable. If we are in our caves for an extended period of time or if the recovery takes on more of a U or, even worse, an L shape, then cuts are likely. One of the many benefits of having a site like Above the Law in the legal blogosphere is that no firm wants to be the first to announce cuts to an incoming associate class and be engulfed by the public relations firestorm that would follow.

For those in the Class of 2020 who are still looking for employment, that quest is probably going to take longer than it might have. While private sector employers are not yet shedding attorneys in vast numbers, there is definitely not a strong appetite to bring on new hires, with some notable exceptions.  Any 3L looking for post-graduate work should be expanding their search to governmental opportunities as well as clerkships, be it at the federal or state level. These paths can serve as potential havens whose opportunities are not as tied to the broader economic reality.

The other substantial issue facing the Class of 2020 is, regardless of your job status, actually becoming an attorney by taking, and passing, a state bar exam. As of this writing, four states have announced the July exam has been “postponed” to the fall. Tennessee announced an interesting approach in which applications for the July exam will still be taken but can be transferred to either a fall exam or the February 2021 sitting. In addition, test takers will be able to practice under the supervision of a barred attorney for a longer period of time pending exam results. This makes sense at a time in which facilities large enough to serve as bar exam locations are uniquely suited to serve as field hospitals, see, e.g., New York City’s Javits Center. Most other jurisdictions will likely follow suit and postpone their July exam. The key word there is “postpone” rather than cancel. As of now, graduates will not have to wait until February 2021 to take a bar exam, though that could obviously change four times over the next 48 hours. For graduating students who are already employed, a delay of a couple of months will likely not have that much of an impact. However, for students looking for a job with smaller private firms that typically only hire after bar passage, such a delay could be significant. For this reason, along with the simple fact that the bar exam is a completely unpleasant experience that bears no relation to an applicant’s ability to be a successful lawyer, students across the country should be clamoring for the diploma privilege currently enjoyed by those who graduate from Wisconsin-based law schools, allowing them to practice without taking a bar exam. However, much like we need bold thinking from our government in tackling our present economic calamity, 3Ls should also think boldly when it comes to the diploma privledge. Do not just limit it to students who went to school in a particular state, but rather, any student who graduated from ANY ABA-accredited law school should be admitted to practice. Perhaps with an online state law exam for those who went to an out-of-state school, though to be frank, especially for those students at the nation’s top schools, the amount of state law you learn in law school is limited at best.

Thankfully, current 2Ls, the Class of 2021, have another year-plus before they have to worry about the bar exam; unfortunately, however, this class might well be the one facing the largest COVID-19 impact. For those with summer associate plans already in place, there is no sign yet that those opportunities are disappearing in large numbers. Much like no firm wants to be known for being the first to lay off a number of incoming associates, no Am Law 50 firm wants to be known for killing off its entire summer class. Plus, even in extraordinarily lean economic times, Biglaw firms will still need new associates in Fall 2021. That being said, there will likely be significant changes to the summer associate experience. The grandiosity in recent years that had started to approach pre-Great Recession levels is likely gone. Think fewer three-star restaurant lunches and more brown bag “lunch and learn” opportunities. The length of the summer program will likely also be pared back or shifted to remote work for at least the beginning, if not a significant portion, of the season. Pay is also likely to be impacted. While summer associates benefit when firms raise associate salaries, they are likely going to feel the impact of a salary cut as well.

Perhaps most important is the question of how the macroeconomic climate will impact postgraduate offers. As the NALP chart below indicates, offer rates from summer programs have reached historic highs in recent years.

(Chart via NALP)

A massive contraction of demand for legal services likely means these numbers will fall. The hope is that they do not reach Summer 2009 levels. Given the extent to which legal employers have prepared themselves in recent years for what was seen as an inevitable economic downturn, such a limited impact is possible. But it is worth recognizing that even in the summer of 2009 offer rates didn’t fall to 0%, but rather to 69%. While that’s a long way from the mid-to-high 90s, it still means that well over a majority of those with summer associate positions landed a position for after graduation.

That leaves us with the 1Ls, the Class of 2022.  This is where things get a bit weird. At most law schools, 1Ls are joining their 2L and 3L classmates in a pass/fail grading system for the Spring 2020 semester. But while this might just mean a slightly more relaxed exam period for upperclass students, it completely wreaks havoc on the recruiting timeline for the Class of 2022.  While 1L summer hiring has picked up in recent years, by and large, most legal employers are not keen on making long-term hiring decisions based on one semester’s worth of grades and another semester that is a collection of Passes. Thus the seemingly sacrosanct fall recruiting cycle is seeing a shift. Columbia and Harvard were among the first to move their 2L recruiting to Winter 2021, and most elite law schools, including Vanderbilt, have announced a similar move. Any remaining holdouts will likewise shift their calendar — rest easy antitrust warriors, there has been no coordination, or even guidance, from any governing entity, nor collusion among law schools.  Ironically, having the 2L hiring cycle take place after three semesters, rather than two, is objectively better for both law students and legal employers, but the inertia of the existing system has been too much to overcome, until now. Does this new hiring timeline mean that current 1Ls can take the summer off from job-related concerns? Probably not. What I envision happening is a more pronounced version of what has been the case in recent years. While employers are going to want two semesters of grades from most students, exceptions will be made for the top of the class at the nation’s elite law schools. Thus a two-tiered system unfolds wherein employers, particularly Biglaw, use the summer to engage in a mad dash to snap up the most-coveted students (think the law review staff at the top 20 schools) while Winter 2L OCI becomes a battle among students hewing closer to the median for a smaller number of summer slots.

What about 0Ls, those set to attend law school or even just thinking about it?  The bad news is that no one has any idea when this will all come to an end. Are we going to be stuck inside until there is a viable vaccine? Would that be 2020 or 2021? March saw the largest single-month increase in American unemployment since January 1975, and that only accounts for a fraction of the above referenced 10 million unemployment claims. But there is good news. Before COVID-19 decended on the United States, the legal economy was the strongest it had been in recent memory, if not ever. And unlike the Great Recession, an underlying rot in the broader economy is not coming to the fore. This contraction is strictly caused by the fact it is hard to have a robust economy when everyone is stuck inside. Once our front doors reopen, legal hiring should rapidly pick up. Plus, law school remains one of the great countercyclical destinations for recent college graduates.

Living in the time of COVID-19 is quite the juxtaposition. While sheltering in place, days can move exceeding slowly and even blur together, but the pace of the news and global developments is exceedingly quick. This rapid change is also evident in the realm of legal recruiting. What seemed impossible at the beginning of the month is now widely accepted. It’s entirely possible, if not likely, that everything I have set forth above will look foolishly out of date come the summer, but at least for now, it is a look at how COVID-19 will change legal recruiting in the present, and possibly the future.


Nicholas Alexiou is the Director of LL.M. and Alumni Advising as well as the Associate Director of Career Services at Vanderbilt University Law School. He will, hopefully, respond to your emails at abovethelawcso@gmail.com.

Counsel At Prominent Biglaw Firm Dies From Coronavirus Complications

(Image via Getty)

We have some unfortunate news today from New York, where an beloved member of the legal profession passed away due to complications of coronavirus.

Steven M. Edwards worked as an of counsel attorney in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. Recall that Quinn Emanuel was one of the first New York firms to close its doors after a partner tested positive for COVID-19 in early March.

According to the firm, Edwards died sometime on April 8, 2020. Quinn Emanuel described Edwards as a “superb lawyer,” “a wonderful human being,” and “a passionate champion for social justice” in a kind memorial on its website, where his professional accomplishments were carefully curated:

A graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law, Steve started his career at Cravath, Swain and Moore after which he started his own firm, Davis Weber & Edwards, which became the New York office of Hogan & Hartson (now Hogan Lovells), where he headed the Litigation Group in New York.

Steve was a long standing fixture in the legal community serving, among other things, as the President of the Federal Bar Council from 1998 to 2000, Chair of the Antitrust Section of the New York State Bar Association, President of the Federal Bar Council American Inn of Court, sitting on the Advisory Committee for Civil Rules of the United States District Courts of the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, and was the founder and editor emeritus of the Federal Bar Council News.

Edwards was also an avid musician, with accolades like being a member of the Iowa Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and writing the rock opera “Something Afoot.” He often played bass with his band, the Law Dogs.

We here at Above the Law would like to extend our sincere condolences to Steven Edwards’s family, friends, and colleagues during this difficult time.

Announcement: In Memory of Steven M. Edwards [Quinn Emanuel]


Staci ZaretskyStaci 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.

Notre Dame Law School Doubles Down On Hare-Brained Grading Scheme

This is not depicting a touchdown, it’s a depiction of throwing up hands in frustration with this policy.

It probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

When Notre Dame decided on its amended grading policy for this semester, there was a lot of uncertainty out there. The T14 hadn’t yet fully coalesced around a single standard. The overwhelming majority of law schools hadn’t yet fully followed suit. Employers and judges hadn’t yet started publicly admitting that they weren’t going to use Pass/Fail grades against anyone this semester. The school was in uncharted waters when they decided to offer students an optional Pass/Fail that would apply to the whole semester, but only exercisable before grading.

It’s a bad policy. It exposes law students to undue scrutiny by signaling to employers that anyone who took a Pass this semester must have thought themselves “at risk” of a bad grade which is as bad as just getting a subpar grade, but even worse because it may or may not reflect reality — particularly if the student has excelled in most classes but opted for Pass/Fail because one specific class is being taught by a professor who is struggling with distance learning or something. But in uncertain times, we shouldn’t be afraid to make mistakes. The policy sounded good at first blush, but now that everyone’s had a chance to game this idea out and we have input from the wisdom of crowds (and make no mistake, all the other law schools at least considered this policy before thinking through all its repercussions and going with mandatory Pass/Fail) there’s no excuse for clinging to it other than pride.

Which is, Notre Dame should know, one of the seven deadly sins.

But a message to students last night from assistant dean Kevin O’Rear clarified that the institution isn’t going to confront the mountain of evidence piling up around it and will double down on their policy like it was Ptolemaic Geocentrism, baby.

Do only a third of students prefer the mandatory Pass/Fail option? If they did, that was a long time ago. A poll taken this week with 74.53 percent participation (76 percent if you only count JD students) showed a whopping 80 percent oppose the current policy with 58 percent preferring to follow the rest of legal academia to mandatory Pass/Fail and 42 percent preferring the optional Pass/Fail after seeing grades model. The poll doesn’t show how many of that 42 percent would be fine with mandatory Pass/Fail in a pinch but it’s safe to say it’s a decent chunk.

So what were these “underlying considerations” that the school feels they have to stick with?

He’s really leaning on this “the students don’t want it” canard. When you’re getting clowned on argument number 1, it doesn’t bode well for the rest of the brief. Did the employers express that preference? Maybe. Have they lately? Probably not. A lot of the thinking about all this has changed over the last couple weeks. “There is no reason to believe that employers will agree… to wait until January to interview”? Um, the economy is in freefall. Employers are laying people off and canceling summer associate programs. They aren’t going to be in a position to know what they need in August. And let’s not overlook that whatever the employers might say, early interviews will happen whenever the top 30 law schools damn well please. A Midwestern regional firm is going to load up on Notre Dame students in September and then hang an “all full” sign when Northwestern and Michigan open up for interviews? Good luck with that. He’ll later say that, without grades, Fall interviews will be difficult to conduct which begs this very question.

Wow. Then he cites the struggling economy and employment market — in direct, glorious contradiction to the considerations he’d just finished making.

And then he concludes by claiming the school has a moral and ethical duty to provide letter grades. Except… they’re letting students optionally take Pass/Fail. So it’s more of a “situational moral and ethical duty,” I suppose.

What a mess of an argument. Honestly, I haven’t seen Notre Dame go down in flames like this since… oh. Too soon.

Four hours after sending this around, O’Rear sent another only slightly less coherent email:

Dear Students: I have received notes from many of you about the grading policy and the message that Dean Cole asked that I share earlier this evening. Based on those notes, it is clear to me that right now, the most helpful thing will be a discussion about ANYTHING OTHER THAN GRADES. Let’s have another story time.

Story time.

And he’s not joking. A two-and-a-half page account of the first law professor at Notre Dame who turned out not to be licensed to practice law — I assume because he’d taken classes Pass/Fail — and the rest of his family who lived in Deadwood. The whole thing is like watching the Chewbacca Defense except this is real life.

Look, the school did what it thought was in the best interests of the students. It turns out that none of their arguments hold water. At some point, part of training lawyers is training them to abandon bad arguments when the evidence starts piling up. In criminal defense, at a certain point the evidence can get so overwhelming that it’s time to change course and start talking deal for the good of the client.

It’s one of those “moral and ethical duties.”

Earlier: Law School Creates Worst Of All Possible Grading Policies For No Good Reason


HeadshotJoe 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.

Larry Kudlow Breaks Historic Streak Of Untrue Statements

Morning Docket: 04.09.20

(Photo by David McNew/Getty Images)

* A federal judge has upheld an Ocean City, Maryland rule banning women from being topless on beaches. It would be amazing if this case ends up at the Supreme Court… [Baltimore Sun]

* Some attorneys in Minnesota need to be sworn into the bar curbside because of social distancing guidelines. Check out the pictures in the article, it looks like an interesting process. [Fox News]

* An Egyptian lawyer is filing a multi-trillion dollar lawsuit against China over damages allegedly incurred because of COVID-19. Hey, stop taking ideas from American lawyers! [Daily Sabah]

* The Massachusetts Attorney General has launched an investigation of a retirement home over a COVID-19 outbreak that led to dozens of deaths. [Boston Herald]

* Costa Cruises is facing a class action lawsuit alleging that the company allowed a ship to sail knowing that it was a “ticking coronavirus time bomb.” [Fox News]

* An Oklahoma City attorney and her boyfriend have been linked to a triple homicide. Hopefully, she’ll put her law degree to good use. [Oklahoman]


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.

Zimplats gets exception to Zimbabwe order – The Zimbabwean

Impala Platinum arm Zimplats was issued government permission to remain in operation at its mines in Zimbabwe, despite other mines in the country remaining idled under a country-wide order through April 19 to help stave off COVID-19 spread

Zimplats’ mines were permitted to stay in operation during Zimbabwe’s idle period

Mining Magazine is making some of its most important coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic freely available to readers. For more coverage, please see our COVID-19 hub. To subscribe to Mining Magazine, click here.

The miner, which was originally part of the 21-day lockdown order by government officials supported by Mines and Mining Development minister Winston Chitando, applied for and was granted a permit for the continuation of mining and processing operations. Officials said it has allowed the company to “continue relatively uninterrupted” during the lockdown.

“Zimplats supports the decision taken by the government of Zimbabwe to help flatten the curve of the COVID-19 infection rate and is committed to contributing where it can to the country’s socio-economic stability,” the company said.

“Zimplats’ primary focus is on protecting the lives and livelihoods of its employees, contractors, service providers and communities by doing all it can to sustain the financial viability of its business and its contribution to the national wellbeing of the country.”

It has also taken additional protection measures, including heightened risk mitigation measures through early COVID-19 detection, a greater focus on pandemic awareness and workplace hygiene as well as medical surveillance, additional personal protective equipment, medical supplies and the isolation and treatment of suspected and confirmed cases.

To date, Zimplats has not seen any of its workers diagnosed with the virus, and added that its medical facilities stand at the ready to assist if needed.

The miner did confirm that it received notification of a force majeure from parent Impala Platinum in regard to its offtake agreement. The notice notwithstanding, the company said it will continue to mine and process so it may supply Impala once the force majeure is lifted.

“Zimplats has issued force majeure letters to contractors working on capital projects and other financial institutions, to legally suspend contractual obligations under existing contracts with them until the end of the current lockdown period or any extension thereof,” it added.