Author: TSA Press

First off, this column is lousy with spoilers for Ronan Farrow’s bestselling book, Catch and Kill: Lies, Spies, and a Conspiracy to Protect Predators. Of course, so is real life, so unless you’ve had your head in the sand for the past year and don’t know that Harvey Weinstein is on trial for rape in New York, I’m probably not going to be revealing anything you don’t already know.

Now that that’s out of the way, I just finished up with the text myself, and it doesn’t exactly paint a rosy portrait of the legal profession. We’re all used to the idea of role morality, but don’t we sometimes have to stop and think about what we’re actually doing? Is the lawyer’s role really just to dumbly acquiesce to the client’s desires?

Obviously, the rotting head of the fish in Catch and Kill is Weinstein himself (hey, sometimes there’s no twist and the monster actually just looks like a monster). But throughout the course of Farrow’s reporting, Weinstein’s most brutal impulses in service of opaqueness are attended to by multiple concentric circles of hangers-on, hired guns, and, at the far reaches, indifferent observers. Weinstein is the star at the center of a solar system designed to keep him there.

And of all those bodies in orbit around him, a surprising (and disappointing) number are lawyers. These attorneys range in culpability from the in-house NBC crew, who merely provided cover to network executives bent on spiking the Weinstein story, to the backbiting Lisa Bloom, who allegedly parlayed her reputation as a victims’ advocate to help discredit Weinstein’s accusers and who initially feigned an interest in helping Farrow while clandestinely gathering information for Weinstein.

Attorneys champion the “zealous advocate” part of the rules because it allows them to easily cede responsibility for their actions. You can justify anything by saying you were simply being a zealous advocate for your client. The word “zealously” appears in the preamble to the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, but I think the appropriate use of “zeal” is expressed better in context in the first comment to Rule 1.3:

A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction or personal inconvenience to the lawyer, and take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client’s cause or endeavor. A lawyer must also act with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the client’s behalf. A lawyer is not bound, however, to press for every advantage that might be realized for a client. For example, a lawyer may have authority to exercise professional discretion in determining the means by which a matter should be pursued. See Rule 1.2. The lawyer’s duty to act with reasonable diligence does not require the use of offensive tactics or preclude the treating of all persons involved in the legal process with courtesy and respect.

I’ve added the emphasis there.

The best criminal attorneys I know describe the process of aiding in the defense of a person they know to be guilty not as trying to help someone who has done a terrible thing dodge responsibility for his actions, but as ensuring that the state carries its burden, and the prosecutors don’t trample anyone’s rights.

You’re going far beyond making sure the other side plays by the rules by intimidating a victim, and then, when she has the courage to testify, implying she is a sex worker (which shouldn’t matter anyway). You’re not really taking an ethical measure when you lie your way into the confidences of a journalist so you can spill your guts later about all the legitimate journalism going on (so your client can undermine it). These types of things are not inoffensive tactics, they are not treating all persons involved in the legal process with courtesy and respect, and even if they can secure your client tactical advantages, you, as the lawyer, are not bound to press for them. Even if he has you on retainer, you can say, “Mr. Weinstein, I will defend every right you have, I will call into question the credibility of every witness who gives me a legitimate reason to do so, but I am not going to threaten journalists or degrade women.” You might not be on retainer long, but you can say it. And maybe it’s time we start pressuring other attorneys to focus just as heavily on the “ethical measures” part of the rules as they do on the beloved “zeal in advocacy” part. “Legal ethics” doesn’t have to be an oxymoron.

It’s not all bad news: one of the more ethical characters in Catch and Kill is a lawyer. Farrow doesn’t practice law, but he earned his JD at Yale and has been admitted in New York since 2010. Sure, he wrote the book, but his account has been vetted pretty thoroughly, and he was undisputedly brave. He stood up to the people signing the checks because it was the right thing to do. He stood up for those who came forward, at great personal risk, with their stories.

So, don’t look down your nose at those in JD advantage jobs, and maybe try to be a better person instead of just a better lawyer. We can all improve. That includes even Farrow. After having the gall to accuse his fiancée, Jon Lovett, of drifting without direction early in their relationship, Farrow then whined later on when Lovett was too busy starting the wildly successful company Crooked Media to immediately respond to flurries of texts and missed calls. Sir, Jon Lovett is a national treasure, cut him some slack.

Anyway, I hope Farrow keeps up the good reporting. Maybe lawyers will even come off better in some of it in the future. Really, though, that’s up to us.

Today, we’ve got some unfortunate news from the law school community in Indiana, where a third-year law student was killed just a few blocks off campus after being hit by a car.

Purva Sethi, a third-year student at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, was crossing a street just off campus in downtown Bloomington when she was struck by an SUV. Fox 59 has the details:

(Image via LinkedIn)

According to the Bloomington Police Department, 25-year-old Sethi was crossing Washington Street when the 2019 Ford Expedition hit her around 6:30 p.m. Saturday. She was crossing the street legally and had the right of way, police said.

The driver of the SUV had stopped at the red light on Third Street. He looked to the left to make sure there was no oncoming traffic and then made a right turn.

The driver didn’t see a pedestrian, he told police, but realized his vehicle had run over something. When he pulled his vehicle over, he saw Sethi lying in the road.

“We are heartbroken by this tragic event. Purva was beloved by our community,” Dean Austen Parrish said, in part, in an email to students as soon as the administration was alerted to Sethi’s tragic death. The law school has offered counselors for students to speak to about Sethi’s passing, and intends to hold a memorial.

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

UPDATED: IU law student dies after being struck by car Saturday [Indiana Daily Student]
IU law student dies after being struck by SUV at Bloomington intersection [FOX 59]

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.

As mentioned in prior articles, I have worked at a number of law firms throughout my career. Although I started my own shop almost a year ago, I have experiences working for managing partners at several law firms. The time I have spent running my own law firm and working as an associate at different shops has shown me how managing partners have an extremely difficult job. Indeed, these lawyers must usually deal with the egos of other partners at the firm while overseeing a multitude of administrative tasks. Usually, they also have to continue their own legal practices while overseeing those administrative functions. From my own experiences, all good managing partners have a few qualities in common, and lawyers should keep this perspective in mind when deciding who should hold these positions.

Legal Acumen. All of the good managing partners with whom I have worked were exceptional lawyers in their own right. Each of those attorneys had a solid understanding of the legal issues involving the matters we handled and knew how to divide tasks among the lawyers on a team to meet a client’s objectives. Unfortunately, at some of the law firms at which I worked, managing partners did not always get the chance to conduct many legal tasks, since they were too busy overseeing the firm’s administrative matters. However, each time a solid manager stepped up to do legal work, I was impressed with their legal acumen.

One time, earlier in my career, I reported to an insurance adjuster who would only allow senior partners at our firm to handle a mediation. One of the designated attorneys was our managing partner. Even though the managing partner rarely completed legal tasks on his own, witnessing him at that mediation was like seeing Michael Jordan come out of retirement to enter the court once again. That partner dominated the mediation and got our client an unexpectedly good result. Since managing partners need to understand all of the contours of the matters handled by a firm, and must step in and work on legal tasks as they arise, good managing partners must be solid lawyers.

Organizational Skills. All of the effective managing partners with whom I have worked were extremely organized. Managing partners usually need to oversee numerous matters and ensure that cases are handled properly. I once worked at a law firm that had well over a thousand lawsuits between the thirty or so attorneys at the firm. Each day, an unbelievable amount of mail arrived at the firm for all of those matters. Nevertheless, the managing partner read all of the mail that was received and made notations on anything that needed to be addressed. In addition, that partner saw the files of all new cases we received and wrote a plan of action for every matter we handled.

At another firm, I worked for a managing partner who was the recipient of all emails related to each of the thousands of cases we handled. Despite the sheer volume of the communications we received, this partner made sure to forward each email to the appropriate attorney and conduct follow up with an attorney if necessary. Furthermore, the managing partner either did not sleep (or woke up often), since he would forward emails and follow up at all times of the day and night. I never really understood how those managing partners were able to handle all of that work on top of their own legal tasks. In any case, organization is critical to being a successful managing partner.

Personality. The personality of a managing partner is also extremely important to success or failure in the role. A good managing partner needs to be very personable. Managing partners need to get along with people, since they need to work with a diverse group of individuals who do not always agree about how to best approach a situation. In addition, a managing partner needs to be very empathetic. Managing partners need to deal with disciplining employees, firing workers, helping employees through tough times in their lives, and a number of different situations. A managing partner that connects with employees is going to be much more successful. At the same time, managing partners need to be stern. They are usually the people most responsible for collections at firms, which requires a tough attitude. In addition, managing partners often need to make tough decisions about layoffs, finances, and other issues.

All told, operating my own shop has shown me how difficult it is to be a managing partner at a law firm. As a result, I have a lot more respect for everyone who holds that position than I did as an associate. For a variety of reasons, managing partners need to strike a delicate balance in how they act and manage their practice in order to be successful at running a firm.

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.

The project is a partnership between the World’s Children’s Prize Foundation and Peace Parks Foundation, and is implemented in Zimbabwe by Shamwari Yemwanasikana, Gonarezhou Conservation Trust and Chilojo Club, in cooperation with the Ministry of Education.

This may be the first time that all children in a vast, but defined area are reached in order to contribute in the long-term to increased respect for children’s rights in their communities, and to the protection of wildlife and nature. This is carried out in those communities of Zimbabwe and Mozambique living in or adjacent to the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area.

2,000 children will be trained as Peace & Changemaker Generation Ambassadors, together with 700 teachers and school leaders. Parents and local leaders are also educated. These P&CG Ambassadors and teachers will educate all 100 000 children, including at 350 schools, about child rights, the global goals for sustainable development, as well as the consequences of wildlife crime and climate change for their communities.

Further information available at worldschildrensprize.org/media
Go here for press images

Child Rights and wildlife crime

The national parks Gonarezhou in Zimbabwe, and Limpopo in Mozambique, are rich in animal life and biodiversity that are continuously threatened by organized crime, poaching and trafficking of products such as rhino horn and elephant tusks; loss of natural habitat; drought; and climate change. Both ecosystems and animals are endangered. There is not a single rhino left in the area.

Many children here live in deep poverty and face violations of their rights. Girls are especially vulnerable, but boys are also affected. Paulo from Mozambique, now 16, was told to quit school at 13 to become a poacher: “It felt pointless carrying on at school, because there aren’t any jobs here anyway. But I’ve had enough.”

Poaching is not only illegal; it is also very dangerous. Poachers and rangers are getting killed in South Africa and Mozambique. Twelve-year-old Ronaldo from Mozambique lost his father when he was shot to death by park rangers in South Africa.

“It’s wrong to kill animals, they are innocent. I wish my dad had done something different, but he did it because we’re poor”, says Ronaldo.

Girls in the areas are especially vulnerable, and child marriage is common. Blessing, 15, from Zimbabwe was badly affected when her father gave up poaching after the number of park rangers increased.

“It means I can’t go to school anymore, because we cannot afford to pay my school fees. Now I’m afraid that I’ll be married off”, says Blessing, having seen many of her peers, and younger girls, being forced to marry.
“Even though I had to leave school when my dad gave up poaching, I myself want to become a park ranger. Our wild animals are worth more alive than dead”, says Blessing.

Blessing, Paulo, Ronaldo and 100,000 other children in Zimbabwe and Mozambique are now taking part in the Peace & Changemaker Generation, through which they will learn to stand up for their rights and make a change for a better future. In addition, through the World’s Children’s Prize Program, two million children in other countries will learn about the children in Zimbabwe and Mozambique, wildlife and protected areas, and how a new generation of children can make a change for the better.

Post published in: Featured

As anyone with any experience in higher education knows, the Princeton Review is a venerable name in rankings. I mean, it’s no U.S. News & World Report, but it still provides a noteworthy look at some of the important factors that create the law school experience.

Specifically, Princeton Review provides individual rankings across 14 ranking categories, identifying the top 10 law schools in each category. But that’s old news, since the 2020 rankings came out back in November… so why are we talking about it in February?

Well, that’s thanks to Pepperdine Law dean Paul L. Caron. He’s put together what he calls the Princeton Review’s overall law school rankings, ranking schools by giving equal weight to each of the Princeton Review’s most comprehensive rankings: Admissions Selectivity, Academic Experience, Professors: Teaching, Professors: Accessibility, and Career Rating.

So what’s the result? Well, while there are a lot of law schools that we usually see at the top of rankings, there are some surprises. Take, for example, BU and Notre Dame, shooting well above their USNWR ranking and coming in at a tie for 7th.

Here are the top 20 law schools:

You can check out the rest of the ranking (#21-100) at Tax Prof Blog.

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).

When people lament that robots are going to replace us, they’re usually wrong. Even if one job is automated, a human will ultimately still be involved in the process somewhere. Not to undersell the short-term impacts of automation on individuals, but as a society these things tend to shake out over the long haul.

One group that we might actually be able to replace entirely are politicians. Even if hapless talking heads couldn’t figure it out, a predictive engine could have easily known that Susan Collins wasn’t going to convict Donald Trump when she could just be “very concerned.”^TM While questions like the impeachment trial may be easy, there is legislation that may be less exciting, but still critically important to the businesses that rely on attorneys for advice. Determining the odds of success for a pending proposal can have a big impact.

Earlier today, Westlaw Edge announced its new Legislative Insights tool, the result of a partnership with Skopos Labs to provide attorneys with a prediction on the likelihood of passage generated by machine learning and considering over 250 factors. The tool will also identify impacted industries.

Among the 250 factors are textual insights that those drafting bills may want to heed:

The algorithm weighs multiple factors, including the text of a bill as well as political and external variables. A text example could show an environmental bill would be more or less likely to pass with the terms “climate change” included compared to a bill where “global warming” is used. Political variables could range from the composition of Congress to the assigned committee. External factors incorporated may be related to gross domestic product or natural disasters.

The difference in passage based on “global warming” vs. “climate change” may be an indirect insight into the outsized influence of lobbyists in the legislative process. It also puts to bed the childish “textualism” argument though. We’ve now got hard data that lawmakers are passing bills with the exact same intent based on providing PR cover to donors. It may take a few years but we’re eventually going to see a new Brandeis using AI to break down legislative intent by cutting through textual choices.

Until all that comes to pass, this is the information clients need. And maybe those legislators could use it too. A bit of a cold hard look in the mirror to see just how easily manipulated they’ve become.

But they won’t do that. I don’t need machine learning to predict that one.

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.

A few days ago, President Trump released his proposed budget, in which he plans to cut $5.6 billion in funding to the Department of Education. It also cuts $170 billion dollars in student loan spending. One of the more controversial proposals is to end the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program where federal student loans would be forgiven tax-free after 10 years of working in a public service position.

Conversely, some of the Democratic presidential candidates are promising to forgive existing student loans totaling $1.6 trillion. Bernie Sanders proposes to wipe out existing student loans completely with no strings attached. Elizabeth Warren’s forgiveness proposal would depend on the debtor’s income, although 95 percent of debtors would be eligible for some form of loan forgiveness.

But can either of these proposals or any wholesale student loan forgiveness plan actually become reality? This might be more complicated than it seems.

Not all voters are friendly to the idea of student loan forgiveness. Some think that forgiveness should only be awarded in extraordinary circumstances. Others believe that student loans should be paid in full regardless of the circumstances. Go to the comments section of any news story on student loan forgiveness and you are likely to see a heated debate from all sides.

From my observations, the issue crosses political ideologies. I have seen a fair number of liberals who don’t believe in student loan forgiveness, as well as a fair number of conservatives who believe that student loans should be forgiven. Would a voter vote against their party on the issue? Democratic strategist and commentator James Carville had this to say about the student loan issue in the upcoming elections:

Here’s another stupid thing: Democrats talking about free college tuition or debt forgiveness. I’m not here to debate the idea. What I can tell you is that people all over this country worked their way through school, sent their kids to school, paid off student loans. They don’t want to hear this s**t. And you saw Warren confronted by an angry voter over this. It’s just not a winning message.

How important is the issue of student loans in the upcoming elections? Unfortunately, that is not clear. A Fivethirtyeight poll showed that education is ranked lower than health care, the economy, gun issues, climate change, and wealth inequality. But a recent Gallup poll indicates that education is a top issue with 33 percent of respondents stating that it is an “extremely important” issue and 83 percent stating that it is an “extremely important and very important” issue. But whether education also covers student loan burdens is also unclear.

In the final analysis, on the issue of loan forgiveness, I think most people will vote based on self-interest. Understandably, those who are burdened with large student loans (in addition to their parents and those who are co-signers) will want forgiveness. They will argue that tuition and living expenses have increased considerably and that there will be an economic stimulus. Those who paid off their student loans are not likely to agree to loan forgives as it devalues their hard work and sacrifice, and they will be partially paying the forgiven debt through their taxes.

Perhaps loan forgiveness will be a serious political issue in a decade or two assuming nothing changes and more people are burdened with larger debts. But for now, even if Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren were to win the presidency, chances are student loan forgiveness will probably not be on the legislative table for a very long time. While more young people are being vocal about their debt burden, it is not clear whether this is a popular issue among all voters. Not only that, the issue is a divisive and heated one since almost everyone has either paid them off, is on track to pay them off or will never pay them off. And every one of them has a personal story of sacrifice or hardship to support their position.

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.

* Prosecutors assigned to the Roger Stone criminal case have resigned amid concerns that the White House “stonewalled” DOJ officials about sentencing recommendations. [The Hill]

* Jussie Smollett is facing new charges over his claims of being assaulted on the streets of Chicago, and his lawyers are crying foul. [Deadline]

* Alan Dershowitz filed claims against David Boies for defamation and other causes of action. [Wall Street Journal]

* Netflix has lost its bid to dismiss a lawsuit about using the “Choose Your Own Adventure”® phrase when promoting a popular movie. See, made sure to use the trademark sign there… [Hollywood Report]

* President Trump has won the dismissal of a lawsuit aimed at forcing the White House to archive communications with Vladimir Putin and other officials. [Washington Post]

* A New York attorney tried to escape a grand larceny investigation by buying a boat in cash and sailing to the Caribbean. She made it as far as New Jersey. [New York Law Journal]

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.