Author: TSA Press

Two years ago, a working group at Airbus called ContractInnovators began investigating how they could design better contracts. As a use case, they set about redesigning a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA).

The goal of the group was not to create a legal document that could extract more concessions from business partners or better protect Airbus in case of litigation.

Rather, the goal was to create a contract people could understand, enabling faster onboarding for vendors.

It’s often taken for granted that contracts are impossible for a layperson to decipher. Research from the International Association for Contract & Commercial Management (IACCM) shows that 88 percent of contract users find contracts “difficult or impossible to understand.” That’s what lawyers are for, right?

The Airbus group, led by Ines Curtius, Head of Contract Governance, Space Systems, refused to accept this status quo. With the world of business digitizing and accelerating, Curtius and her cohort recognized that contracting had to keep up.

“We needed to be faster and more agile,” Ines said during a recent webinar, hosted by IACCM and Icertis.

Ines’s team started from the ground up on what a contract could look like.

What they came up with was an NDA that used far fewer words and employed visual representations to convey the meaning of the document. The information on the business process was captured in a single page, and its “readability,” as measured by the Flesch Readability Score, rose from 22 to 51.

Ines still recalls the reaction she got when she first showed the new NDA to an Airbus supplier: a smile.

“Have you ever encountered your contractual partner smiling going through your contractual draft?” Ines asks. “This is showing that they trust you. It is a trust-based business you are building up.”

Visual Contracting: Changing Perspectives on Contracts

In using visual representations within a legal document, Airbus is an early adopter of what will be a growing trend in the years to come: visual contracting.

Broadly speaking, visual contracting is the use of design thinking and technology in combination with diagrams, illustrations, flow charts, hierarchies and other data-visualization tools to express contractual terms, relationships and concepts.

In one of the best-known examples of visual contracting, Royal Dutch Shell included illustrations in a standard contract to express when risk and title of oil are transferred during a delivery. Rather than a sea of dense legalese describing the point of transfer, four simple illustrations explain it.

Who needs a lawyer for that?

Visual Contracting Is More Than Just Cool Pictures

The innovation and artistry around visual contracting are fascinating. But what’s really exciting about the movement is the philosophical shift that it represents.

When a company invests in visual contracting, it’s because they want their contracts to be more than just enforcement tools that are defensible in a court of law. Instead, they want their contracts to convey value between parties. It adds expression and communication to the contracting process.

Visual contracting isn’t just confined to illustration. Visual contracting can be scaled across an entire body of contracts to understand contractual terms and relationships, better leveraging design thinking and technology under the digital transformation program of organizations.

For example, a company can use flow charts to understand how a supplier relationship impacts their ability to deliver a project to a customer. Or perhaps populate a map of where business is being done based on contract metadata.  There are future applications of deep learning technology like artificial intelligence as well, to extract contract information with respect to metadata and text out of such graphical illustrated visual contracts.

This is a mindset shift whose time has come. Contracts contain a vast wealth of data about a company’s risks and opportunities. Visual contracting allows these risks and opportunities to be understood intuitively by business users. Doing so unlocks incredible value from what had long been a store of hardly decipherable legal text.

The Nuts and Bolts of Visual Contracting

So how does a company go about implementing visual contracting?

Some tools can help you get started. IACCM has created a wonderful library of contract designs that can inspire teams to think about how they can visually represent their contracts. For example, check out their “Swim Lanes” design.

Creating these contracts may also require the help of a designer to bring visual concepts to life.

If your company is interested in scaling visual contracting across a body of contracts, you will need the help of technology.

Enterprise contract management software pools a company’s contracts and contract data into a single repository, where they can be managed and analyzed holistically. From here, visual representations of contract relationships and processes can be built.

Icertis’s VisualizeAI application, built on top of the Icertis Contract Management (ICM) platform, enables users to quickly find and load a large volume of contract data, navigate relationships and easily discover patterns.

For example, let’s say a supply chain manager wanted to see all the contracts associated with a certain supplier. With VisualizeAI, she can spin up a flow chart that shows all of the company’s contractual relationships with the supplier for intuitive insights into that piece of the supply chain. 

She can then take it a step further and display contracts that are dependent on that supplier delivering the goods. Suddenly the contracts are becoming a looking glass into the company’s entire value chain!

Just as with Airbus’s illustrated NDA, VizualizeAI allows companies to transform their contracts into stores of data that convey data.

When contracts and contract information are easy to understand, commerce accelerates, risk is reduced and commercial relationships become more valuable.

This is the power of visualization.

To learn more, view this on-demand webinar: Cut Through the Noise With Visual Contracting.

The Citi Private Bank Law Firm Group just put out a summary of their 2019 year-end report and it’s no surprise to those of us following the quarterly reports throughout the year.

Revenue was up!

That’s probably where the firms would like you to stop reading the report. But you don’t even have to look deeply into the report to hear the ominous chords they play whenever someone on Chopped says, “I think I’ll just make this into a bread pudding.”

Billing rate growth was the main driver of revenue growth, given modest demand growth, a longer collection cycle and a modest decline in accrual realization

Revenue is up because clients are still willing to pay more. I guess it’s more fair to say “pay more eventually” given the collection issues. Folks, I’ve been writing this article for years now and it feels like the elasticity of client demand is reaching that point where Stretch Armstrong actually breaks. Clients are already dragging out collections and imposing increasingly stupid rules to duck their bills, and you’ve got to wonder just how long this goes until the steep discounts they’re already demanding undermine the system.

The report also notes that equity partnership levels are holding steady while headcount is rising. These new lawyers have resulted in everyone working a little bit less which in a Dickensian sense is a sign that the firms have grown unnecessarily but in a human sense means people are vaguely remembering the names of their children. Leverage is leverage, but associates aren’t cheap — that’s the biggest bump in expense.

With reports already streaming in of firms docking attorneys back whole class years on pay, firms may already be gaming the system to get more for less. But this too becomes unsustainable at a certain point. If there’s a hiccup in the economy — and law firm leaders are pretty sure there’s about to be — things could get wild. Mergers, new tiers of associate pay, dissolutions… it’s all on the table.

Don’t worry, profits per equity partner were up on the year.

Earlier: In-House Counsel Make Increasingly Arcane Billing Demands And It’s Costing Firms Money
Stealth Layoffs And Shortchanging Associates
Law Firm Leaders Think It’s About Time To Completely Freak Out

---

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.

It’s an easy mistake to make. Who could blame the Justice Department for failing to guess that a group called Hookers for Jesus might use taxpayer dollars in ways that violate the First Amendment and fail to adhere to accepted treatment standards? Although, to be fair, referring to human trafficking victims as “Hookers” might have tipped them off. Plus, there’s the whole FOR JESUS part.

Reuters reports that the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees local 2830, the DOJ employees union, filed a whistleblower complaint with the Department’s Inspector General about possible corruption in the allocation of $77 million of anti-human trafficking grants.

According to a September 12 memo seen by Reuters, Chicanos Por La Causa, which opposes Trump’s immigration policies, and Catholic Charities in Palm Beach, whose leader has been active in Democratic politics, were originally on the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) list of Tier 1 grantees. But later that month, both were bumped in favor of less-qualified, Tier 2 grantees more closely linked to the GOP.

For instance, The Lincoln Tubman Foundation of South Carolina was founded less than two years ago by Brooke Burris, the daughter of a prominent Republican donor. It’s currently run out of a private home and has almost no record of helping victims of human trafficking. What it does have, though, is the support of South Carolina’s Tim Scott, a prominent backer of Donald Trump. In September, Sen. Scott wrote a letter to OJP demanding a “prompt review” of the Foundation’s application, and just days later the organization received $549,345 of funding. Amazing!

And then there’s Hookers for Jesus, which received $530,190.  At least through 2018, the organization mandated attendance at religious services for residents of its safe house and banned “secular magazines with articles, pictures, etc. that portray worldly views/advice on living, sex, clothing, makeup tips.” Because taking the Cosmo survey causes human trafficking?

The state of Nevada funded the organization in 2017, but subsequently declined to renew the grant after discovering that the Hookers for Jesus program manual required church attendance, called homosexuality immoral, and described recreational drug use as “witchcraft.”

One Nevada grant reviewer in 2018 questioned whether Hookers for Jesus treated victims like “prisoners,” while another observed the program seemed too controlling and expressed concern it forced victims to attend Bible study, the grant review documents show.

“We felt their policies were not victim-focused or evidence based,” said Kelsey McCann-Navarro, whose office in Nevada’s Division of Child and Family Services decided not to renew the funding.

OJP head Katharine Sullivan, who approved the grantee substitutions, concedes that mandatory church attendance is perhaps a bad thing, saying, “This might be something that may be appropriate for our civil rights department to look at.” (It might!) But she denies any responsibility for determining whether grantees use taxpayer dollars effectively or even legally, because “Those are not facts or things that we would know ahead of time.”

Ms. Sullivan insists that the Tier 1 grantees were bumped simply to “distribute funding across as many states as possible,” adding later, “Our funding decisions are based on a merit-based review system.” Which seems rather at odds with bumping Tier 1 grant applicants in favor of Tier 2 candidates. But perhaps we are confused from a lifetime of witchcraft and demonic makeup tips.

Exclusive: Justice Department anti-human trafficking grants prompt whistleblower complaint [Reuters]

---

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

In Arizona last week, a federal court was responsible for what is now an increasingly rare occurrence: it issued an opinion in a case involving religious liberty that both liberal- and conservative-minded legal voices praised. Using the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the court in Arizona reversed the convictions of four defendants who were leaving food and water in one of the harshest environments in the world so as to save the lives of those who cross our border illegally. For reasons that I suspect are rather obvious, progressive voices have celebrated this decision and another similar case involving a single defendant named Scott Warren. However, to understand conservative support we have to get into some necessary background regarding the RFRA statute.

To understand RFRA one must begin with the Supreme Court Case of Employment Division v. Smith 494 U.S. 872 (1990). In Smith, the Court upheld the denial of state unemployment benefits because both citizens were fired for ingesting the illegal drug peyote during one of their Native American religious rituals. The social/legal backlash to this decision was profound, with liberal-minded legal voices continuing to criticize the decision a decade later. As a direct consequence to the Smith opinion, a liberal-led coalition in Congress passed RFRA as a means to strengthen religious liberty protection by establishing the following standard: “Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person — (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” Perhaps because RFRA began as a political response to a perceived erroneous legal precedent, application of the statute in practice rather quickly devolved into a partisan tool.

Examination of the historical application of the RFRA statute reveals a legal trend that anyone who studies religious liberty cases already knew. Which is, that for the past several decades the single greatest factor for determining whether the federal judiciary will recognize a defendants RFRA claim (or religious liberty claim in general), is if you are a conservative Christian. If you are not a conservative Christian, and even if the case presents a facial preference for Christianity to the exclusion of literally every other religion, you are often SOL when it comes to most of the federal judiciary.

The Arizona case therefore represents a single, but important, refutation of this historical application. The conservative evangelical voices who have praised the Arizona decision offer an additional hope that the bias application of the past can begin to be reversed. But the Arizona case also presents a dreadfully important question that, until answered, prevents unity from ever being achieved behind this laudable expansion of civil liberty: Would a nonbeliever’s conviction for committing the same act be upheld under RFRA’s standard?

I literally hate to say this, because one is always assumed to be arrogant but if the only factor involved here was the law, this would not be difficult to answer. In McCreary County v. ACLU 545 U.S. 844 (2005) the Supreme Court not only recognized that the First Amendment’s religious clauses “protect adherents of all religions, as well as those who believe in no religion at all,” more importantly when it comes to answering the RFRA question, the McCreary opinion made clear the Court views granting a preference for “religion over irreligion” as a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. These principles discussed in the McCreary decision were merely echoing what James Madison declared over two centuries ago when establishing free conscience liberty which is that government “subjecting some to peculiar burdens” violates the same principles of equality as government “granting to others peculiar exemptions.” Here with RFRA, we have Congress passing a law that grants the religious exclusive exemption from criminal law while continuing to burden nonbelievers (who, despite what many religious people might think also maintain deeply personal codes of ethics). With these facts it becomes difficult to argue, again from a legal perspective, that an RFRA which excludes nonbeliever convictions is not a pretty clear violation of equality under the law.

Now, here is the part where I also tell you that maintaining a preference for religion, Christianity in particular, is precisely what many are after. In fact, if litigated today, I believe extending RFRA to nonbelievers would be denied in some U.S. federal circuits.

Why? Well, it is important to keep in mind that we are operating in an environment where our current Attorney General will declare to our nation’s law students that unless you are Christian or a Jew, you are not morally fit to be a citizen of the United States. In fact, William Barr and his predecessor Jefferson Beauregard Sessions regularly describe nonbelievers as a direct threat, to religion and our country, that must be destroyed. It is also important to note that evangelical Christians universally celebrate these descriptions or have since refused to speak up against them. In such an environment, is it any sort of surprise that we are witnessing multiple federal circuits designate nonbelievers to second-class status, even going so far as to prevent them from addressing their own legislatures?

Unification behind our civil liberties requires equality under the law. Providing exemptions to criminal conviction based entirely on whether you practice religion or not is about as clear-cut a legal case of religious inequality as you’ll get. The arguably real, but certainly terrifying question, I suppose, is if the law even matters here anymore.

---

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.

Working at Above the Law, you hear about a lot of questionable behavior from people with J.D.s. But rarely do I have as vocal a reaction as I did when I read what Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Common Pleas Judge Mark Tranquilli allegedly called a juror. Maybe it was the shock of hearing the quiet (racist) part out loud, or some lingering old-fashioned notion that judges are supposed to have decorum, but the truth is, the story has me shook.

According to written complaints filed by both Assistant District Attorney Ted Dutkowski and defense lawyer Joe Otte, who were both reportedly deeply disturbed by the incident, Tranquilli repeatedly called a juror “Aunt Jemima” in his chambers — since apparently his exposure to black people has never gone deeper than instant rice and syrup. The comments, made after the acquittal of a defendant on drug charges, pinned the “blame” for the verdict on the ADA for allowing a black woman on the jury. As CBS Pittsburgh reports:

In chambers, Tranquilli questioned the assistant DA about why he had not moved to strike or block a black woman juror during jury selection weeks before.

“You weren’t out of strikes when you decided to put Aunt Jemima on the jury,” Tranquilli is alleged to say.

The document alleges Tranquilli said of the woman who had her hair in a headdress, “As soon as she sat down, she crossed her arms and looked like this.”

Dutokwski said the judge then crossed his arms and scowled, then continued: “You know darn well that when she goes home to her baby daddy, he’s probably slinging heroin too.”

As a result of these allegations of racism, Tranquilli was reassigned to administrative tasks. At least there, exposure to his alleged racism will be limited.

While that is clearly a step in the right direction, the Pittsburgh chapter of the NAACP wants more severe consequences:

“We urge the Judicial Conduct Board to conduct a full, transparent, and through investigation into Tranquilli, and impose appropriate sanctions, including, but not limited to his suspension and removal from the bench,” reads a statement from Pittsburgh’s NAACP. “Furthermore, we call for the Pennsylvania Attorney General to review Tranquilli’s record as an assistant district attorney for potential racially motivated misconduct.”

The statement went on to note that faith in the administration of justice is eroded when mouthpieces for racist beliefs sit in judgment of others:

“Justice has never been meted out equally for African Americans in this country, yet there is a long standing prohibition on excluding jurors based on race,” reads Pittsburgh’s NAACP statement. “Tranquilli openly yearned for a time before that prohibition was in effect, where the color of a juror’s skin was grounds for exclusion. There can be no fair administration of justice, when judges who are to be held to the highest of ethical standards display racist views.”

Tranquilli was elected to the bench in 2013 on a “tough on crime” platform.

---

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).

Imagine that your small law school is part of an undergraduate university that’s steeped in tradition, having been in business for more than 100 years. Things seem to be chugging along smoothly. At about $29,250 a year, your tuition is stunningly low, and your bar exam pass rates are equally stunning. You’re one of just a handful of law schools to have a perfect ultimate bar pass rate. Your students are happy as can be, but you suddenly receive news that could shatter their dreams of becoming lawyers. The undergraduate university has decided to cease operations, effective at the end of the current semester.

What on earth do you do?

This is exactly what’s going on at Concordia University School of Law, where about 150 students were recently notified that their law school may be shuttering due to their undergraduate university’s financial issues and a “challenging and changing educational landscape.” But not so fast, because Interim Dean Latonia Haney Keith says she’s hard at work to find a parent school that will allow Concordia Law to stay open. The Idaho Press has more information:

“This process is underway, and we are currently engaged in active conversations with multiple institutions interested in an affiliation with the law school. We will have more details in coming weeks about Concordia Law moving forward.”

…

“We want a parent institution that knows what we’re doing,” Haney Keith said.

Haney Keith said the time frame for partnering with a new institution is before the next academic year.

“We want it before the fall semester,” she said.

Haney Keith says she’s in talks with “multiple” institutions, but didn’t disclose which ones. She’s incredibly optimistic about the situation, and says “the only thing that will change is the ownership of the institution and potentially, a name change.”

If things don’t go as planned, Corcordia — which received full accreditation from the American Bar Association just last year — will begin a teach-out as one of the latest law schools to close its doors since 2017. Best of luck to Concordia as the little law school that could tries to forge a path forward. We think you can!

Portland’s Concordia University closing, leaving future uncertain for Boise law school [KTVB 7]
Concordia University-Portland to close; Boise-based law school looking for new parent institution [Idaho Press]

---

Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

If we needed a reminder of how our world has shrunk, the current coronavirus scare has provided one in spades. While the locus of the concern over spread of the sickness is squarely centered in Wuhan on China’s mainland, the effects are undoubtedly global, with personal ramifications for people around the world, including my little corner — Brooklyn, New York. Put aside the news coverage of cruise ships docking just across the Narrows in Bayonne, New Jersey, with passengers needing medical assistance to disembark. Or the visible presence of Chinese-Americans wearing face masks alongside me on the F train into Manhattan. My immediate family has already been affected, with both my father and brother needing to cancel important business trips to China. It is still unclear whether the flow of goods from China to the United States will be substantially affected, as Chinese factories and businesses hesitate to bring their workers back after the long Chinese New Year holiday period.

The impact of the current China slowdown has also affected our IP clients, as our firm has a number of ongoing client matters with Chinese counterparties. Negotiating with domestic Chinese companies has long been a challenge. The current conditions have made things that much harder, with serious questions about whether those businesses are even open — much less in a position to deal with IP issues arising out of their commercial activity in the United States. While these concerns pale next to the loss of life and the ongoing struggle of those living under quarantine, they help to illustrate the interconnectedness of today’s global economy, as well as China’s central role in serving the US consumer the goods that our economy is built on consuming.

While the gap between the US and China has grown wider due to the coronavirus scare (at least in terms of ongoing commercial activity that is under threat until China returns to normal), an ongoing legal trend in IP disputes has in its own way made that gap seem a bit smaller. Especially for owners of US IP rights, who have long encountered challenges serving domestic Chinese companies in IP disputes filed in the US. In the traditional example, Chinese companies have traditionally been well-positioned to avoid being served with US IP complaints, aided at least in part by the Chinese authorities and their demands for strict compliance with the Hague Convention for international service of process. In fact, a well-worn tactic for smaller and midtier Chinese companies that do business in the US but are concerned about IP lawsuits has been to avoid opening offices in this country, so as to force any prospective plaintiffs to serve under the Hague Convention — thereby almost guaranteeing a six-month to two-year delay in an IP dispute even kicking off.

The challenges of serving Chinese companies have surely had a deterrent effect on IP owners hoping to bring suit against those companies for infringement. Which has led to more litigation against US customers of those Chinese companies. That approach helps solve the service issue, but often presents significant delay as indemnification issues are sorted out. At the same time, the increased direct-to-consumer activity by Chinese companies — particularly online — has put a greater premium on US companies being able to quickly take legal action in an attempt to stop infringement. While the online dispute resolution mechanisms offered by marketplaces like Amazon and Ebay don’t really implicate service issues because the Chinese sellers are easily identified by those platforms, it still remains a challenge for a plaintiff seeking redress in district court to effectuate service against Chinese infringers. Considering that the lone path to damages from those infringers lies in the court process, service remains a key issue of concern.

Thankfully for US IP holders, courts have increasingly been willing to allow for alternative service of process against accused Chinese infringers, despite the putative requirements of the Hague Convention. In just the latest example, Judge Boyko of the Northern District of Ohio authorized service by email — to the alleged infringer’s registered seller email addresses on Amazon, Ebay, and Facebook — on a Chinese company that in the Court’s words had thus far “chosen to ignore all communications from Plaintiff.”

In the case (N.D. OH Case No. 1:19CV1855,) filed by experienced patent plaintiff the Noco Co., the Chinese defendant was accused of selling infringing lithium battery jumpstarters on Amazon, Ebay, and through Facebook Messenger. Motivated to serve, NOCO had done extensive research on the location and contact information of the accused defendant, but was frustrated in every attempt to communicate with the defendant in the hopes of securing a waiver of service. Accordingly, the plaintiff asked the Court for permission to serve one of the Chinese defendants through that defendant’s registered email address on Amazon, Ebay, and Facebook, in the hopes of then getting the contact information of the second defendant as well.

Acknowledging that service pursuant to the Hague Convention was preferred, the Court nonetheless noted that email service is not prohibited under the Hague Convention — and was thus a viable alternative where the plaintiff had demonstrated diligent and exhaustive attempts to contact the defendant without success. Add this case to a growing body of law recognizing the inherent challenges of serving Chinese companies, where courts also acknowledge the commercial realities of Chinese sales activities in the United States — and are thereby willing to set aside the formalities of the Hague Convention in order to assist US IP owners in getting their IP complaints heard in a more timely manner. Especially where the Chinese defendant is clearly aware of the lawsuit based on direct contact from the plaintiff or through a third-party platform that the defendant is doing business with.

Ultimately, we live in a world where a US consumer can order all manner of gizmos directly from a factory in China and expect to receive that product in short order. Increasingly, courts are less willing to insulate those same sellers from reasonably quick service of process in the context of an IP dispute, just because they are based overseas in a country where service has traditionally been conducted under the Hague Convention. For US IP owners, being able to confront infringers as quickly as possible is a business necessity. Every time a court allows them to bypass service under the Hague Convention, it is a huge help. And another sign of a shrinking world.

---

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.

Kinney Recruiting is working with the DC office of a top AmLaw 100 firm to recruit a corporate associate with at least one year of experience to join its practice. Its attorneys represent companies in all areas of securities, corporate, and finance transactions and a candidate should have a background with a large firm’s M&A group.

This firm works with clients at every stage of the business cycle and associates are given meaningful hands on legal work at every stage of their careers.

To learn more, please apply to this posting, or send your resume to jobs@kinneyrecruiting.com.

Taking the bar exam is stressful enough. Registering for the exam shouldn’t be.

After joining the ranks of Uniform Bar Examination jurisdictions, the Board of Law Examiners created the New York Law Exam to test on NY specific law. The NYLE joined the MPRE as a test applicants were required to pass before sitting for the bar exam. To make it easy, all a prospective attorney needs to do is watch a mandatory video by the deadline and then take the NYLE.

The published deadline is today and the mandatory video is… unwatchable because the website is kerfunkered.

Multiple tipsters report that for the last several days they’ve been unable to access the mandatory video series. While there’s no official explanation for the outage, the volume of traffic in the days before the deadline is likely either the cause or a contributing factor. And you can’t blame folks for waiting until the last minute — the series clocks in at around 17 hours and most of the people we’ve heard from have been dutifully slogging through it and only had an hour or two left before technological calamity struck. According to a public chat post, one law school didn’t even alert students about the video until yesterday which would make for a rough dash to the deadline even if the site worked.

Users started getting “connection timed out” messages and being told “thank you for logging out” when they tried to respond to prompts. Some reported changing browsers improved the chances of a watchable video, but others couldn’t get anything to work. Folks on Law School Memes for Edgy T14s were reporting that they’d been told that if applicants are having issues they have to submit a verified petition signed by a notary describing the problem because bar examiners are the last people on the planet carrying a torch for the awesome eldritch power of a Public Notary.

As the quagmire continued, BOLE finally put out the notice:

Due to unexpected technical issues with a server the New York Law Course (NYLC) is currently offline. We are presently working on the server and as soon as updates have been completed the NYLC will be back online. The work will be completed as quickly as possible but at this time we do not have a specific time when the NYLC will be back online. We apologize for the inconvenience.

This was a useful announcement, however BOLE put it on their website, prompting one frustrated commenter looking for the notice to respond, “YOU CAN’T EVEN GET ON THE HOME PAGE!!” Sorry, it’s the mailbox rule.

Of course at the time of this announcement, BOLE still wasn’t extending the deadline. At some point before 8 p.m., the notice above was amended to declare that:

The Board is aware that many applicants have been attempting to complete the NYLC before the February 11th deadline to register for the March 2020 NYLE. This deadline will be extended after the NYLC is back online.

So no word on when yet, which is frustrating but better than extending it before the site actually works.

Good luck to everyone out there. Stay strong.

---

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.

People like Paul Singer don’t always enjoy the warmest reception abroad when they pack their particular brand of investing—that of the activist variety—in their carry ons. His Elliott Management has already had its run-ins with the French authorities. And now, as if to warn him and his ilk, who increasingly have their eye on the famously efficient and not-at-all bureaucratic French corporate establishment, he’s had another.

At the heart of the case are regulatory declarations Elliott made as it was building a derivatives position in Norbert Dentressangle, a transport company. French investigators say Elliott’s filings indicated it had acquired contracts for difference when it had actually bought equity swaps…. Elliott — which subsequently acquired about 9% of Norbert Dentressangle shares — was also accused of failing to quickly flag its intention not to tender into XPO’s 2015 offer….

“Elliott knowingly tried to conceal its strategy,” said Audrey Micouleau, the AMF official who spoke on behalf of investigators. She accused Elliott of obstructing the probe and recommended a 15 million-euro fine for Elliott Advisors UK Ltd. and an additional penalty of 5 million euros for Elliott Capital Advisors LP in relation to the three alleged infringements.