Author: TSA Press

Yesterday, New York confirmed its first community spread case of coronavirus — and the person infected was a lawyer. Members of the legal community wondered who it could be and which firm he worked for, especially after a law student entered self-quarantine due to contact with the lawyer’s firm.

In the evening hours, the lawyer’s identity and the name of his firm were revealed.

As first reported by the New York Post, the lawyer in question is 50 years old and works at Lewis & Garbuz, a boutique trusts and estates law firm with an office located across the street from Grand Central Terminal. The coronavirus patient reportedly works with two of his family members at the firm. According to the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Garbuz is currently in “severe condition.” Here are some additional details from the Post:

Their firm, founded in 2001, is located across 42nd Street from Grand Central Terminal, and Garbuz reportedly commuted there on the Metro-North Railroad from their family home in New Rochelle. …

[The patient] was initially hospitalized Friday at Lawrence Hospital in Bronxville, but was transferred on Monday to NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center in Upper Manhattan when his condition worsened.

He’s being treated in the intensive care unit, the hospital said.

We here at Above the Law would like to extend our well wishes for a quick recovery to this attorney’s family, friends, and colleagues during this extremely difficult time.

NYC lawyer with coronavirus in ‘severe’ condition: Health Department [New York Post]
Lawyer at Trusts & Estates Firm Is Severely Ill, Others Being Tested for Coronavirus [New York Law Journal]

Earlier: This Lawyer Has New York’s Second Confirmed Case Of Coronavirus
New York Law Student In Self-Quarantine After Contact With Coronavirus-Infected Lawyer’s Firm

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.

* An Illinois disciplinary panel has recommended that Rod Blagojevich be disbarred. Can President Trump pardon him from this? [Chicago Tribune]

* Robinhood, the popular stock-trading app, might face litigation over the fact that it went dark on Monday during one of the best days for trading recently. [Business Insider]

* President Trump has tapped a Biglaw associate for a position on the EEOC. [Reuters]

* American Airlines has debuted new uniforms after it defended a “toxic” uniform lawsuit. [USA Today]

* Top lawyer (and Georgetown Law lecturer) Paul Clement used the coronavirus outbreak as an example at oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Too soon? [New York Times]

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.

“[G]ratutious interference in other people’s lives is bigotry. The fact that it is often religiously motivated does not make it less so.” — Richard A. Posner

It is a continually remarkable fact that, nearly every week, one can see, in a nationally respected publication, religion being described as though it is under some form of attack through “punitive action” by the state. It is remarkable because it is a rather obvious, legal fact the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause has been operating for decades at its absolute zenith of protection. Indeed, the expansion of free conscience liberty entirely has proceeded in a way that facially favors religious belief at the great expense of the deeply held personal convictions of nonbelievers. The fact that criminal liability for the same act is now dependent upon whether you subscribe to religion or not, for example, grossly offends the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.

It is also remarkable to see those who are supposedly so concerned with the state of free conscience rights never say anything about the current Attorney General repeatedly declaring that anyone who does not subscribe to Christianity or Judaism is not morally fit to be a citizen. Or, more importantly, that nonbelievers are regularly stripped of their basic civil liberties on a scale no religious group in this country could possibly identify with, such as the right of nonbelievers to address their own legislatures with messages of inclusiveness, teamwork, and a government that serves all regardless of religious belief. Or that religious advocates are currently fighting for (and winning in federal courts!), to deny nonbelievers the ability to hire celebrants that share the couple’s personal beliefs at their own weddings. It is in this context, with a Free Exercise Clause operating at its zenith (for Christians only), and where support for, or adherence to, religion is regularly being forced onto nonbelievers by the state, that the upcoming Fulton v. City of Philadelphia case is going to take place in.

The Fulton case was brought after Philadelphia refused to refer any of its foster children to a religious institution for adoption placement after the city became aware the institution would refuse to place children with any same-sex couple, regardless of how qualified the couple is to take care of the child. In lay terms, what the religious institution in the Fulton case is asking the Supreme Court for is to interpret the Free Exercise Clause as empowering the religious institution with the ability to strip adoption benefits from qualifying foster children in a government-run program.

I describe the case in those terms because the simple fact is the children that qualifying same-sex couples adopt derive substantial economic and social benefits. These substantial benefits are precisely why Philadelphia does not want institutions operating within its adoption program to exclude same-sex couples. In other words, the city wants each child to have access to the entire eligible adoption applicant pool. Moreover, the religious institutions denial to same-sex couples when they would otherwise qualify confers no benefits for the children in any way, shape, or form. The only justification for the institutions policy therefore is “gratifying feelings of hostility towards” same-sex couples.

In what should be a conscience-shocking irony, the religious institution in Fulton is arguing that if the government does not allow religious institutions to deny foster children access to qualifying same-sex couples within government adoption programs, it is the government that is being offensively discriminatory. If the Supreme Court agrees with the religious institution’s argument (which it will, more on that below), it would, in effect make “the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land.” Put simply, any local or state government that wanted to create an adoption program that offered every foster child the full spectrum of qualifying parents would not be able to. States and local governments would be forced to place children in institutions that deny access based on reasons that violate government law. Moreover, in Fulton the discrimination by the religious institution involves same-sex couples. If the institution wins, however, it is difficult to see how religious institutions that discriminate based on race could be denied either.

To be clear, whether a private religious institution that runs its own adoption program can discriminate against same-sex couples is an entirely different question that the one presented in Fulton, which deals with a government-run program. Furthermore, although I view the refusal to place foster children in the loving homes of caring, qualified, couples based entirely on the sex of the parents as grotesque and appalling, unlike the religious institution in Fulton, I am not demanding in this piece that government step in and enforce my views onto third parties. In other words, the key issue in Fulton is not my or the institution’s beliefs, it is about the children, and their right to access to the entire pool of eligible, loving adoptive homes.

Because a majority of this current Supreme Court has shown a willingness to favor Christianity in the law, however, those that have been following religious liberty cases know that a decision in Fulton favoring the religious institution is all but assured. Accordingly, we have a religious liberty standard that allows the state of Texas to disqualify, literally, a fifth of its population from performing private wedding ceremonies simply because they do not subscribe to religion. The City of Philadelphia will be denied the ability to disqualify religious institutions from government programs even when the religious institution refuses to execute the essential goal of the government program, and in fact seeks to deny foster children access to loving homes. Such a standard could not honestly be described as upholding free conscience “liberty” for all, but rather one that effectuates theocracy on the express behalf of Christion nationalists.

Tyler Broker’s work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review, the Albany Law Review, and is forthcoming in the University of Memphis Law Review. Feel free to email him or follow him on Twitter to discuss his column.

The coronavirus exists outside of a natural economic downturn. We don’t know yet how it will effect our business but we’re watching it very closely.

— Reed Smith global managing partner Sandy Thomas tells law.com that the rapidly spreading coronavirus is throwing a kink into Biglaw’s recession planning. And, yeah, that recession is coming. As Chase Simmons, tCEO and chairman of Polsinelli said, “Everyone always says old age does not kill an expansion or a bull market. But one of the reasons why we’re talking about there’s going to be a recession is it’s been so long. We also see our distressed practices were up this year. We had a lot of bankruptcy activity. We had a lot of loan enforcement activity. We saw that click up right at the same time we saw a ton of continued debt lending.”

“So where are you staying?” The frequency with which we ask and are confronted by this question is informed in no small part by a general sense of interest in the hospitality industry that we all share. We love to share hotel horror stories, where rooms and service do not rise to the level of our expectations, just as much as we like to extol the virtues of our favorite hotel. Discussing hotels is often an easy conversation to have with business colleagues when small talk is in order. It is also a safe topic for those cagey snatches of polite conversation when forced to share space with opposing counsel for any period of time. Hotel talk — a safe fallback for whenever we need to actually speak to others.

As an IP lawyer, I was forced to confront the demands of travel very early in my career. Frequent travel is in some ways one of the defining characteristics of a productive career as an IP litigator. In fact, there are periods where an IP litigator can be compared to a traveling salesman, such as during deposition season in a case, where hitting three cities in a week is not an unheard of itinerary. With that volume of travel comes exposure to a variety of hotels, whose relative levels of comfort (or when lucky even luxury) are often defined by the budget of the client or the location of the action for which one is traveling. But whether work takes them to Dubuque or Dubai, any regular traveler soon appreciates just how competitive the hotel industry actually is.

With competition comes the temptation to take shortcuts. Especially where the competition is at its most cutthroat — which is pretty much everywhere in the hotel industry. Budget hotels compete fiercely for each and every price-sensitive customer, with offers of free breakfast and free HBO, just as much as corporate-travel mainstays like Westin and Hyatt compete for the loyalty of road warriors with club lounges and points programs. Likewise, some of the industry’s fiercest competition (as it is with law firms) is at the very pinnacle of the market, where super-luxury brands from Park Hyatt to the Four Seasons strive to capture market share at the expense of each other. Knowing full well that only a small slice of the population can afford entry through their doors, luxury hotels understand that satisfying the pickiest and most demanding of clientele is key to their survival. It is not surprising, therefore, to hear of a juicy corporate espionage story being told in a California court proceeding involving two of Los Angeles’ most prominent luxury hotels.

On one side of the dispute we have the Peninsula Beverly Hills, a five-star entrant in Forbes Travel Guide and one of LA’s grandest places to stay. (I remember attending a small-cap investor conference in West Hollywood one year, where it seemed like everyone who needed to let everyone else know where they were staying was letting slip that they were at the Peninsula.) There is real power to the Peninsula brand, reinforced by the company’s advertisements in magazines geared toward affluent consumers, ads that star smiling white-gloved bellhops and impeccably attired front desk staff. Across the globe, the fleet of green Rolls-Royces parked outside the iconic Peninsula Hong Kong stands eveready to shuffle guests to and from the airport. In short, Peninsula hotels are synonymous with luxury — and are priced to match.

On the other side of the dispute — which dates to 2017 and is scheduled for trial later this year — we have perhaps the hottest hotel star in the Beverly Hills firmament, the Waldorf Astoria Beverly Hills. Touted from its 2017 opening date as the “hotel to beat in LA,” the Waldorf is the huge Hilton chain’s flagship property (at least until the Waldorf NYC reopens after a long renovation) and a worthy competitor to LA’s longer-tenured luxury establishments. According to the Peninsula, however, the Waldorf’s immediate impact on the LA hotel scene was ill-gotten, as the Waldorf’s inexperienced management allegedly executed a scheme with a former Peninsula employee to use the Peninsula’s trade secrets as a way to get an immediate foothold in the super-competitive local luxury hotel market.

At the center of the dispute is the Peninsula’s “former diplomatic sales manager,” Houssem Tasco, whose job responsibilities included the all-important work of sourcing lucrative Middle Eastern clients who “routinely run up multimillion-dollar bills for their stays.” In the Peninsula’s latest filing — a proposed fourth amended complaint that lays out new details concerning the alleged theft of trade secrets by Tasco for his new employer the Waldorf’s benefit — Tasco is accused of harboring confidential Peninsula documents on his personal computer. Included in the information Tasco allegedly misappropriated are key details concerning the all-important Middle Eastern guests. As well as Tasco’s illicit taking and transmission to his new employer of the Peninsula’s operating manual. Much is made of the fact, as would be expected in the Peninsula’s proposed amended complaint, that the true scope of Tasco and the Waldorf’s malfeasance has only come to light during discovery. And that Tasco has been promoted twice during the pendency of the lawsuit.

In response, the Waldorf’s ownership has pointed to the Peninsula’s supposed penchant for trying to stifle competition using legal means. Publicly, at least, the case has developed into a bit of a mutual smear campaign, with both sides unafraid to characterize the other as the bad actor. While the marketing impact of a lawsuit like this should not be underestimated, particularly for an incumbent like the Peninsula hoping to reinforce its status as the standard-bearer in the local market, there is always the risk that a potential client finds the entire situation distasteful — and decides to take their business elsewhere.

Ultimately, this case reinforces how trade secret disputes can escalate across a number of fronts. Discovery often reinforces the allegations of the plaintiff, while the passage of time allows defendants to argue that they are the victim of a bullying campaign rather than the perpetrators of a scheme to unfairly benefit from the confidential information of a competitor. For observers, these cases provide an interesting look at the measures competitors will take to get — or stay — ahead. Because hotels are welcoming places, just not for their competition.

Please feel free to send comments or questions to me at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or via Twitter: @gkroub. Any topic suggestions or thoughts are most welcome.

Gaston Kroub lives in Brooklyn and is a founding partner of Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov PLLC, an intellectual property litigation boutique, and Markman Advisors LLC, a leading consultancy on patent issues for the investment community. Gaston’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and related counseling, with a strong focus on patent matters. You can reach him at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or follow him on Twitter: @gkroub.

The honorable proprietors of the Sunset Strip Gentleman’s Club had occasion to inform the local constabulary of a heinous breach of gentlemanly etiquette on Friday when a local attorney at law allegedly absconded without remitting proper remuneration for a tasteful dry humping.

The gentleman advocate, identified in the area newspaper of record as Dylan Vinzant, allegedly procured a 15-minute diversion to a private dance area in the company of a comely lass for the agreed upon modest sum of $200. But authorities say this blackguard fled into the blackberry bushes without fulfilling his end of the transaction. Or, more likely, Marionberry bushes as the locals insist on calling their blackberries.

Escaping the briar, Sunset Strip’s gentleman caller supposedly sought to avail himself of the public transportation concern. Finding the light rail train already departed, authorities claim that the counselor skulked toward a darkened train shaft, a haunting metaphor of where the night’s events did not lead him.

Thankfully, dear reader, this esquire did not find an oncoming train within the confines of the tunnel but instead representatives of the Sheriff’s department who staked out the other side and waited for him to emerge.

He was taken swiftly to jail and booked on “suspicion of theft and trespassing.”

With this unpleasantness behind it, the Sunset Strip can return to serving the proper gentleman of the greater Portland, Oregon area.

Oregon lawyer refuses to pay for $200 lap dance, leads cops on foot chase near strip club, authorities say [Oregon Live]

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.

Welcome to Super Tuesday 2020, where the most important story is HILLARY CLINTON’S EMAILS! And not just any emails, mind you. These are the emails pertaining to the 2012 attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi. Because we live in hell.

The rabid conservatives at Judicial Watch — which was founded by none other than Larry Klayman, although they’re currently on a break — are going to get Hillary Clinton if it’s the last thing they do, dangit. And finally the big prize is almost within their grasp! Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered Secretary Clinton to submit to deposition in Judicial Watch’s FOIA suit against the Department of State over her buttery, buttery emails from eight years ago.

Soon they will find the smoking gun that proves Clinton ordered those marines to stand down and allow American patriots to be slaughtered in Libya, and then they can impeach her and lock her up forever! Or … they’ll just get the same stuff that Clinton already said under oath during 11 hours of televised testimony before Congress. Definitely one or the other.

Back in 2018, Judge Lamberth held that State had failed to adequately scour its own records for documents pertaining to the Benghazi attack, particularly those which might have been on Secretary Clinton’s private email server. So the case continues, with Judicial Watch now litigating for yet more information about the search for documents itself, and specifically why the responses to prior FOIA requests have been so desultory. Is it because known Deep Stater Bill Barr is still trying to protect Hillary Clinton?

Probably! Bill Barr’s Justice Department did just clear Hillary Clinton of wrongdoing with regard to her private email server, AGAIN. But luckily Judicial Watch is on the case, and so is Judge Lamberth, who has so many questions unanswered by Clinton’s “incomplete, unhelpful, or cursory at best” responses to written interrogatories in the case.

For example, how did [Secretary Clinton] arrive at her belief that her private server emails would be preserved by normal State Department processes for email retention? Who told her that—if anyone—and when? Did she realize State was giving ‘no records’ response to FOIA requests for her emails? If so, did she suspect that she had any obligation to disclose the existence of her private server to those at State handling the FOIA requests? When did she first learn that State’s records management employees were unaware of the existence of her private server? And why did she think that using a private server to conduct State Department business was permissible under the law in the first place?

No doubt the Secretary’s recollection of events eight or nine years ago will be refreshed by the presence of a video camera to record lots of footage to selectively edit for Judicial Watch’s next Twitter video. Similarly, the organization will scrupulously heed the judge’s admonition to “focus on whether she used a private server to evade FOIA and, as a corollary to that, what she understood about State’s records management obligations.” Just ask Judicial Watch’s president Tom Fitton:

We will never, never escape 2016 as long as we live.

Judicial Watch v. Department of State [Case 1:14-cv-01242-RCL (D.D.C., March 2, 2020)]
Hillary Clinton can be deposed about her emails, judge rules [CNN]

Elizabeth Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.