Joe and Kathryn check in from the Above the Law bunker to discuss law schools and the virus. While many schools quickly adopted pass/fail grading options others have held out, hoping to maintain some sense of normalcy. Are there really employers who will look back at Spring 2020 grades and think they’re informative?
(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
On March 19, Hobby Lobby’s CEO David Green sent a letter to his “Hobby Lobby Family” thanking “God who will Guide us through this storm” and promising that “the Company’s leaders are doing all they can to balance the need to keep the Company strong and the needs of employees.” Green, whose net worth is north of $6 billion, said that his wife Barbara, “the prayer warrior in our family,” had consulted Jesus, who assured her that all employees should continue to report to work, health crisis be danged.
Less than ten days later, Business Insider reports, Hobby Lobby fired thousands of hourly employees via email, canceling their health insurance during a pandemic.
“We hope this layoff will be temporary, but we cannot predict how COVID-19 will affect Company operations,” employees were informed. “We encourage you to file for state unemployment benefits. We appreciate your service to the Company.”
Yours in Christ, etc.
“The managers have been instructed not to warn employees until it happens, and to not tell other stores at risk of closing down,” one Hobby Lobby manager told BI. “[This makes] it harder for employees to receive aid because it will come out of nowhere and they will go from ‘report back to work in a few weeks’ to ‘you’re fired.’”
But fear not, crafters, because “the Company” has figured out a way to get employees back to work despite those pesky stay-at-home orders meant to stop the spread of disease. What if Hobby Lobbys are an “essential business” because they sell fabric which could be used to make face masks? Or vital office supplies to keep American business humming with so many people working from home? Or … heck, managers just need to look at their states’ closure orders, and find some provision they can hang their hats on.
BI got the March 28 memo to store managers from Hobby Lobby’s VP of store operations Randy Betts entitled “Re: Talking with Local Authority”:
There are emergency orders in effect throughout the country. These could be issued by the state Governor, or the Country, or the city, and the federal government. In stores that are open, and there is an emergency order issued where that store is located, the DM needs to guide store management in how to respond and communicate if they are visited by a local authority that asks why we are open.
You and the DM must identify the specific reason within the emergency order that provides that store permission to be open.
The reasons could be: because we sell educational materials, because we sell products for home based businesses, or because we sell materials to make PPE (personal protective equipment.) Or other reasons that can be identified in an order. You must inform the manager why we are allowed to be open.
However, if visited by an authority the most important thing the manager must convey is a respectful tone. If they are told they need to close, it’s yes sir, yes ma’am, I will call my boss right now.
Yes, sir, just slap a sign in the window advertising “PPE Mask supplies, Educational Supplies, Office supplies, and various components for at Home small businesses,” as one North Carolina Hobby Lobby did, and that mandated closure is worth less than Christmas lights at Easter!
BI phoned stores around the country and found that “all 19 Hobby Lobby locations in Ohio were open as of Monday afternoon, as were 17 out of 20 stores in Wisconsin that were still listed as “temporarily closed” on Google.” At a store in Wisconsin which had been shut down by the police Monday, employees told BI that employees were “working on projects.”
Adding insult to injury, BI reports that the purveyor of essential pandemic crafting supplies isn’t even able to restock their shelves because the Hobby Lobby warehouse in Oklahoma is closed. And with so many hourly employees cut, “the Company” isn’t able to adequately clean stores to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
“We also don’t have the employees to do the extensive cleaning that they say we are doing on the website because payroll keeps telling management to cut hours,” one Ohio employee told BI. “I’m just very anxious about this whole thing and don’t understand why no one is helping us employees out with this situation.”
Well, not “no one.” Rest assured that “prayer warrior” Barbara Green is on the case.
In leaked letter, Hobby Lobby prepares to lay off employees and slash salaries to cut costs in states with mandated store closures due to the coronavirus [BI]
Leaked memo from Hobby Lobby reveals execs told managers to insist the company is ‘essential’ if law enforcement asks why stores are still open in states with coronavirus-related lockdowns [BI]
Hobby Lobby quietly reopened stores in at least 2 states, defying coronavirus-related shutdowns and prompting police intervention [BI]
Elizabeth Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.
What it feels like every time we re-read this story.
When it comes to scoring public relations points off of the troops, UVA Law is right in there. But when it comes to actually supporting the troops during a national emergency, the administration pops its proverbial collar and looks the other way.
Frannie Skardon of the Class of 2022 serves in the NY National Guard and was called up by Governor Andrew Cuomo on March 17. At the time, the mass migration to online classes hadn’t started yet so she wasn’t sure how it would work out, but in due course UVA joined the rest of the civilized world in offering online courses and her unit allotted her 6 hours a day to commit to law school studies so she’s not seen any interference with her ability to attend class or participate in class discussion.
One would expect the school to cook up a glowing press release touting the member of the law school community saving lives and serving her country while still earning her law degree. You know, like Columbia already did.
But UVA Law isn’t here for any of that “common sense.” As Skardon explains in her petition to fellow students, after she informed the school that she had been activated, the administration responded:
To my surprise, the administration responded to my email and stated that I am in violation of Academic Policy I.H., which deals with employment while attending Law School. This policy states that “students may not engage in employment in excess of what is compatible with a full-time commitment to the study of law.” As a result of my unit’s activation, the administration has determined that I cannot complete the remainder of the semester.
The school has gone so far as to say they won’t issue a waiver of their dogged commitment to this nonsense because Skardon is being paid by the Army while activated. They want her to retake all of her classes in Spring 2021 and throw off her whole law school track even though she’s empirically keeping up with her studies, blunting the only semi-rational argument UVA can cobble together.
Skardon did not reach out to Above the Law, but approximately every other UVA student did in the span of about 30 minutes. It’s the kind of outpouring that gives you hope.
UVA Law, meanwhile, has given her a total of 24 hours to appeal to the Academic Review Committee. 24 hours?!?! In a time of crisis, only the most arbitrary of exploding deadlines will do!
If you’re one of those people who see how foolish this is — which I have to assume is most of you — there’s a petition available here. According to the petition, Skardon would also “appreciate any letters of support sharing why you think an exception should be granted and how COVID-19 has impacted your life.” I’ll go one better and make a special appeal to any veterans out there among lawyers or law students who can speak to what this kind of snub means. You can address these to the Academic Review Committee… Jason Dugas is apparently the chair.
UPDATE: Because I’ve not spoken with the student because she’s not talking to media, the original version of this article included her email because it was in the petition — that’s been changed.
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.
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai unveiled plans for telehealth funding on Monday. His proposal would set aside $200 million to help healthcare providers purchase technology and broadband connectivity for telehealth services.
Congress appropriated $200 million to the FCC for this effort last week, as part of its $2 trillion Covid-19 relief package under the CARES Act. The program still must be approved by the FCC’s five-person commission.
Federal agencies have pushed to loosen telehealth restrictions in an effort to minimize transmission of Covid-19. Last week, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services loosened limitations on telehealth reimbursement, allowing seniors to receive telehealth appointments at home. Many private insurers have also been directing members to telehealth services.
Health systems that already have telehealth systems in place have been able to quickly repurpose those tools to care for patients with chronic conditions that might be wary of walking into a hospital right now. They’ve also been rolling out digital tools to triage patients, keeping those with symptoms resembling Covid-19 away from other patients with urgent conditions.
But for practices that are implementing these tools for the first time often face difficulties with varying state regulations and the cost of implementation. Hospitals and outpatient practices especially face losses as elective procedures are cancelled to reserve space and equipment for Covid-19 patients.
Under the program, healthcare providers would submit streamlined applications to the FCC. Those selected would receive full funding for eligible telehealth services and devices. The FCC would continue to award funds on a rolling basis until the $200 million fund runs out or the pandemic ends.
“As we self-isolate and engage in social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth will continue to become more and more important across the country,” Pai said in a news release. “Our nation’s health care providers are under incredible, and still increasing, strain as they fight the pandemic. My plan for the COVID-19 Telehealth Program is a critical tool to address this national emergency.”
Pai also is seeking approval for a separate pilot program that would make funds available over a longer term to help offset the cost of telehealth services. The program would designate $100 million for connected care services provided to low-income patients and veterans. It’s proposed as an extension of the Universal Service Fund, which is normally used to provide internet and cell service to rural areas, schools and low-income households.
If approved, it would cover 85% of the costs needed for broadband connectivity and IT services needed to provide telehealth to the intended patient group.
Photo Credit: Chip Somodevilla, Getty Images
Layoffs and furloughs and salary cuts, oh my!
It’s been one of those days. The ravages of the novel coronavirus continue across the U.S., impacting both the health and financial stability of the country. Law firms — even those that consider themselves well-positioned — are feeling the pinch.
So, what’s the latest economic downturn news in the legal industry?
Fifteen percent salary reductions, that’s what’s going on at IP boutique Fross Zelnick. And partners are taking an even bigger (though the specific threshold is undisclosed) hit to their payday. The firm has framed the cuts as temporary, but as they say in an honest firmwide email, no one is able to predict at this point when we’ll return to normal.
Read the firm email below.
Hopefully, these measures mean the firm won’t be forced to layoff any employees.
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.
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).
Extreme times call for extreme measures. That’s true in any crisis, but especially right now, when hospitals and medical professionals are doing everything they can to keep up with the exponentially increasing cases of COVID-19 until we manage to flatten the curve. The struggle has meant new policies and measures to keep patients and medical personnel as safe as possible.
Of course, there are other medical needs right now besides treating COVID-19 patients. Just like before, a lot of people are giving birth to babies! On that front, the COVID-19 measures have been, for some, terrifying and traumatizing. A number of hospitals have taken to banning all nonmedical providers in the delivery room, aside from the person actually giving birth -– meaning that not even a spouse or partner is allowed in. (Stories like this one of a man hiding symptoms before entering the hospital to be with his delivering wife, and then likely infecting her, are not helping!) And when it’s a surrogacy birth, hospital policies may also prevent the intended or genetic parents — the people who will actually raise the child – from being there for the birth of their child, the summit of their fertility journey
This past week, New York took action in support of those giving birth, announcing an executive order that would require hospitals to allow one support person in labor and delivery settings, if the patient so desired. But what if you are expecting to deliver a baby, and in one of the other 49 states without an executive order addressing strict hospital policies?
Can Anything Be Done?
I spoke with attorney Indra Lusero, founder of the Birth Rights Bar Association, and long-time advocate in the birth realm. Despite many intended parents’ and birthing persons’ belief, or at least hope, that they have a right to be in, or have someone else in, the delivery room during the birth, Lusero explained that the law is on the hospital’s side. In the short-version of a complicated history of not-always-beloved hospital policies, the law has long favored the protection of hospitals and medical personnel over individual rights.
A Little History.
Historically, hospitals were charitable organizations, and protected by the Doctrine of Charitable Immunity, which meant that courts had to value the overall good that hospitals provided, and defer to their policies to protect the public. Luse ro explained that years ago it was not uncommon for a hospital to have a policy banning others –- even a spouse –from being in the delivery room. (For a great analysis of analogous legal issues related to hospital policies banning VBACs –- vaginal births after C-sections, check out this Law Review article by Lusero.)
In one of the few published decisions in this area, in 1975, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit heard a challenge to a policy restricting hospital guests in Fitzgerald v Porter Memorial Hospital. There, the hospital had a policy “prohibiting the presence of any person or persons in the Delivery Rooms located in the Obstetrics Ward other than members of the Medical Staff and Nursing Staff.”
In Fitzgerald, the plaintiffs were couples wishing for their spouse to attend the birth. They brought civil rights claims challenging the hospital’s policy under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth amendments to the Constitution. The plaintiffs’ claims were grounded in the right to privacy and marital privilege. However, a majority of the Court held that the “so-called right of marital privacy does not include the right of either spouse to have the husband present in the delivery room of a public hospital which, for medical reasons has adopted a rule requiring his exclusion.” The Court further was unmoved by the assertions that the policy caused unconstitutional impairment to the doctors’ rights to practice medicine free of unreasonable governmental restraint.
Unconstitutionally Cruel?
For those currently expecting, either for their own family or through surrogacy, the dissent’s language may resonate. Judge Sprecher, a Nixon appointee who passed away in 1982, argued that the “moment of delivery is a crucial psychological milestone in the life of the mother. It is probably equally crucial to those fathers who are allowed to be present. In any event, to deny the right of her mate’s presence when she desires it at a critical time is unnecessarily, and I believe, unconstitutionally, cruel to the expectant mother.”
What Alternatives Are There?
Lusero explained that with little ability to challenge the crisis-driven hospital policies, some are turning to birth centers and home-birth options. Others are steeling themselves for an isolated and separated hospital birth. But Lusero also points out that it was public pressure and changing norms that led to fathers being commonly included in the delivery room, and public pressure led to New York’s executive order requiring hospitals to adjust their no-accompaniment policies. Advocates can continue to press for pandemic-appropriate accommodations for this “crucial psychological milestone.”
Another approach, recommended by Dr. Alison Wilson, a psychologist with a specialty in fertility issues, is that intended parents write a letter to their child. In a moving passage of an example letter, Wilson writes, “We could choose despair or we could celebrate your birth even from afar. Are we scared? Of course. Do we know what’s coming? Of course not. But we have to look back at the world and the first ‘test tube’ baby. The world held its breath to see if this miracle could actually happen. And it did. Here we go. Holding our collective breath to see what will happen.”
Surrogacy professionals like myself are holding our collective breaths with you — for the medical providers risking their lives every day, creating the policies to protect lives, with sometimes painful consequences. We hold our breaths for those expecting, and the new babies and families coming into being in difficult times. And now, more than ever, we hold our breaths that hospitals can find the right balance when creating and adjusting the policies integral to one of the most meaningful moments in human existence.
Ellen Trachman is the Managing Attorney of Trachman Law Center, LLC, a Denver-based law firm specializing in assisted reproductive technology law, and co-host of the podcast I Want To Put A Baby In You. You can reach her at babies@abovethelaw.com.
The recently passed CARES Act included a number of provisions providing tax and student loan relief. And free money. On today’s column, I look at a few pieces of the new legislation that can be used to maximize tax savings and minimize student loan payments for those on IBR and PSLF payment plans.
For 2020 Only: Student Loans Can Be Paid With Pre-Tax Money
For 2020, employers can pay up to $5,250 of an employee’s student loans and it will be tax-free to the employee. Since this is only effective for one year, take advantage of this if you can. The employer must pay the student loan lender directly. It can be paid in a lump sum or can be spread out monthly.
This provision will greatly benefit employees with multiple part-time employers, each of whom can pay up to $5,250 toward their student loans tax free. It will also benefit high-income taxpayers who will not only get a bigger tax break but are also in a better position to pay the full $5,250.
Solo practitioners who have set up a corporation for their practice should have the corporation pay the student loan lender to take advantage of the tax savings. The corporation can take a business deduction for the payment while the solo-shareholder does not have to recognize the payment as W-2 income.
On the other hand, those with lower incomes are likely to be disadvantaged. Because they are in a lower tax bracket, their tax savings will not be as big. Also, most probably work for small firms and their employers may not want to make their payroll more complicated by paying someone other than the employee. And if the employee has no discretionary income after paying for food, shelter, and transportation, they cannot take advantage of this provision at all. Lastly, even if they could, if they have six-figure loans, paying $5,250 spread out over the remaining months of 2020 will barely put a dent on the principal.
I suggest that this provision be integrated with the existing student loan interest deduction and allow a combined maximum student loan (principal and interest) deduction of $7,750.
Should Married Couples File Jointly Or Separately? It’s Even More Complicated
One of the highlights of the bill is that each person will be eligible for a stimulus payment of $1,200. But this payment amount will start to decrease if their adjusted gross income (AGI) as shown on their 2019 tax return (or 2018 tax return if 2019 is not filed yet) is greater than $75,000. The payment will decrease by $5 for every additional $100 of income. If the taxpayer’s AGI exceeds $99,000, they will not be eligible for any payment.
Married couples filing jointly can qualify for the full $2,400 payment if their combined AGI is under $150,000. If their AGI is above $150,000, the payment amount will decrease. And if their AGI is above $198,000, they will not be eligible for any payment. Those filing separately will be treated with the same eligibility rules as single people.
Married couples should file jointly if their combined AGI would qualify them for the full refund as opposed to filing separately. For example, suppose one spouse has an AGI of $90,000 and the other’s AGI is $60,000. If filing separately, the spouse with $90,000 would get a stimulus payment of $450 while the spouse with $60,000 will get the full $1,200 for a total stimulus payment of $1,650. But if filing jointly, they would be eligible for the full $2,400 since their joint income is within the $150,000 limit.
But some couples don’t file jointly even if it results in lower taxes and a larger stimulus payment. This is because doing so will increase their IBR student loan payments and the increase can offset any savings they receive by filing jointly.
Federal Student Loan Payment And Interest Accrual Are Suspended
The CARES Act suspends monthly payments and interest accrual of federal student loans until September 30, 2020. For those on IBR and PSLF repayment plans, even though the payment requirements have been suspended, they will still be treated as if they made timely payments during those months. So those on PSLF should take this blessing and stop making payments immediately until the suspension period is over.
Even for those on other types of payment plans, this gives no incentive to continue making monthly payments. Instead, the money should be saved until the end of the suspension period which could be extended beyond September 30. The saved payments could be used for emergencies. Or they can be used to pay down the loan which includes additional principal.
The suspension of payment and interest accrual does not apply to private loans.
Tax Return Filing Deadline Extensions Can Result In Avoiding Higher IBR Payments for 2019
Lastly, the IRS has extended the tax return filing and payment deadlines until July 15, 2020. An extension to the filing deadline (not payment) is also allowed, which will push the extended due date to January 15, 2021. Most states have followed the IRS’s lead.
This deadline extension is useful for those on IBR or PAYE plans who face higher monthly payments because they will report a higher AGI on their 2019 returns. Since the monthly IBR payment amounts is determined in part by a borrower’s AGI, if the borrower’s 2019 AGI is higher than his or her 2018 AGI, they will be better off filing an extension to push the filing due date to January 15, 2021.
In conjunction with the federal loan payment suspension mentioned above, the borrower will continue to pay the monthly payment based on the lower 2018 income after the suspension period ends so long as the extension is filed. The payments can be lowered after the suspension period if they can prove financial hardship to the lender.
Assuming that the taxpayer will report a lower AGI for 2020, the taxpayer should file an extension and later file the 2019 return on the new January 15, 2021, deadline. The 2020 tax return should then be filed soon thereafter. If done correctly, the borrower could avoid paying the higher 2019 monthly payments or only pay them for a few months before the payments are converted to the lower payments based on the 2020 AGI.
The CARES Act provides some tax and student loan relief to mitigate the economic downturn. With the proper planning, some people who had a very good year in 2019 can save a significant amount of money if they are seeking loan forgiveness through an income-based repayment plan. If possible, it might be best to wait before filing since there is already talk of Phase Four of the CARES Act. Feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions. I’m pretty much quarantined anyway.
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.
A lot of bad ish is happening in the legal industry right now. Austerity is the name of the game, and nothing is off the tables. We’re barely into the crisis and we’ve already seen layoffs, furloughs, salary cuts, hiring freezes, benefit cuts … pretty much anything firms can think of to cut costs. But one firm is going in the opposite direction.
Enter litigation boutique Hueston Hennigan. The elite firm is known for its generosity — they are at the top of the pay scale and regularly beat the market in terms of bonuses. And that spirit of taking care of their employees has continued through the global pandemic.
According to a tipster, the firm has been handing out money to make the realities of COVID-19 life a little easier. Staff has received a special $1,000 bonus to assist them or their families with any unexpected expenses during this time. And attorneys haven’t been left out of the largess. All lawyers got an additional $500 at-home technology budget (which supplements their existing technology) to make the transition to remote working just a little bit easier.
Kudos to the firm for trying to make the pandemic less awful for employees.
What’s your firm doing to deal with the global pandemic? If your firm or organization is giving special bonuses on the one hand or 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).
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).
(Image via Getty)
How are law firms dealing with the economic upheaval that’s come about thanks to the coronavirus? Not especially well. Thus far, we’ve seen layoffs, furloughs, salary cuts of all kinds (ranging from 10 percent, to 20 percent, to 25 percent, and some partners have even slowed or eliminated their distributions), and some reductions in benefits.
Now we’ve got a firm that’s going for the trifecta: furloughs, layoffs, and salary cuts.
Thanks to COVID-19’s impact on the economy, Cullen & Dykman, a midsize New York law firm, has laid off or furloughed at least 30 people and cut compensation for lawyers and staff by up to 20 percent or more. According to Christopher Palmer, the firm’s managing partner, “certain limited terminations and furloughs” were necessary due to the pandemic. The New York Law Journal has the details:
Two sources familiar with the events said at least 30 people, both staff and attorneys, were let go through a combination of layoffs and furloughs. It’s not clear how many of them were laid off and how many were furloughed with the expectation they would be rehired.
The sources also said staff and lawyers at the firm, both partners and associates, were having their pay cut by varying amounts, up to 20% or more.
“The firm must take a proactive, fiscally cautious approach,” Palmer said in the firm email Tuesday. “Like most other firms and businesses, we must set forth a clear plan. … [I]t will involve all of us making certain sacrifices.”
Best of luck to everyone who fell victim to these three horribles at the firm. Facing financial insecurity on top of a health crisis is a scary place to be. Please stay well.
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.
Cullen & Dykman Lays Off and Furloughs, While Cutting Lawyer and Staff Pay [New York Law 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.
(Image via CDC/Dr. Fred Murphy/Public domain)
Everyone within the legal industry has been profoundly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Indeed, many law firm offices have been shut down due to public health concerns, and numerous courthouses are also closed for business. This situation is dramatically affecting the way that many lawyers provide legal services and how courts administer justice. Although it is easy to think primarily of all the negative impacts of COVID-19 on the legal profession, it is possible that the legal industry may improve because it had to change for the COVID-19 pandemic.
Greater Flexibility With Working From Home
As mentioned in a few prior articles, allowing employees to work from home is advisable in a number of circumstances. Giving workers the flexibility to work from home can make it easier for employees to deal with childcare issues, car problems, healthcare appointments, or any number of matters all of us need to contend with in our daily lives. In addition, working from home can save time on commuting and might be much more enjoyable to people than trekking to an office where they have to see their bosses every workday. In addition, working from home can help law firms reduce real estate costs, often one of the biggest and most rigid expense law firms face.
Despite these benefits, before COVID-19, many old-school attorneys were unwilling to promote working from home. Indeed, prior to starting my own shop, I worked at a firm that spent a considerable amount of resources to build what they deemed to be the “office of the future.” On my way out the door, I told firm management that the office of the future was not to have an office, and the firm should look to expand work-from-home programs and cut real estate costs. However, I was told that in-person collaboration was best, and the firm needed to have a strong physical presence to operate.
Nevertheless, a variety of law firms are now required by regulations to have their employees work from home, and many firms have not missed a beat. Attorneys and staff have been collaborating over the phone, WhatsApp, Gchat, and through other methods, and many meetings are being held through videoconferencing apps. It is altogether possible that even after the COVID-19 pandemic subsides, law firm managers may be convinced that people can collaborate and complete tasks remotely, such that work-from-home programs will be expanded. In this way, employees might finally realize greater flexibility while law firms see significant savings on real estate costs.
Remote Court Appearances
As mentioned in a prior article, many smaller law firms make a significant amount of money on court appearances. Indeed, attorneys usually bill not only for the time they spend in court, but the time they spend traveling to and from court. However, some court appearances are not worth the travel time it takes to make it to court. For instance, prior to starting my own firm, I worked at a shop that regularly made my colleagues and myself travel hundreds of miles to attend some court conferences. Oftentimes, we would have to fly to these conferences and spend almost an entire day just to write notes on what happened during a five-minute court appearance. Some days, because of travel delays and infrequent flights, I would bill 14 hours or more and spend nearly a thousand dollars of the client’s money on travel costs for a pretty unnecessary court appearance. I always wondered why such appearances couldn’t be done through the telephone or other remote means to save time and out-of-pocket expenses.
Now because of COVID-19, many judges are holding conferences through telephone, Skype, and other methods. The results have been mixed, but as people get more experienced with operating this way, the conferences have been running much smoother. Of course, sometimes there is no substitute to getting parties together so that they can talk about a case and work out issues. However, for some minor court appearances when substantial traveling is not worth the benefits, courts will hopefully learn from their experiences holding conferences remotely and be more open to teleconferences under normal circumstances.
Courtesy In The Profession
It is also worth mentioning that COVID-19 is requiring attorneys to cooperate with one another and be courteous in ways that I have never before seen while practicing law. Pretty much all of the attorneys I am working with have been sending courtesy copies through email because they know that few people are in offices to receive mail. In addition, attorneys are freely sharing information about adjournments, updated procedures, and other news related to the current situation. Furthermore, attorneys are coming to agreements and making deals in ways never before seen, since it is difficult to obtain any kind of judicial relief right now. It can only be hoped that such a cooperative and courteous sentiment in the legal profession continues after the COVID-19 pandemic has passed.
In the end, COVID-19 has negatively impacted the legal profession. Indeed, the pandemic has interrupted the operations of many firms and has already led to numerous layoffs and pay cuts within the legal industry. However, it is also worth mentioning that COVID-19 can have a lasting and positive impact on the way many law firms and courts operate.
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.