Author: TSA Press

If you learned anything in professional responsibility class, it was to never, ever mix client funds with personal funds. It’s the most basic of ethical responsibilities for a lawyer. But just because it is fundamental, that doesn’t mean everyone’s going to follow these very basic rules.

Florida attorney Brett Hartley has been disbarred by the Florida Supreme Court. The court found he had used his attorney trust account — which included client funds — for personal expenses. What really trips this story into Florida Man levels is that the money from the trust account was used to run a strip club, Flash Dancers, in Jacksonville.

According to reporting by the Daytona Beach News-Journal, Hartley said he used the attorney trust account to run Flash Dancers because he couldn’t find a bank willing to open up an account for a strip club. Yes, that’s right, Hartley says that in Florida of all places, he was unable to find a bank willing to take a strip club’s money. And I suppose the bajillion other strip clubs in the state are rocking a piggy bank and a prayer for all their financial needs.

Hartley was suspended from the practice of law in 2018, during the investigation into his behavior. But according to the Florida Supreme Court, despite those serious consequences, Hartley still did not participate in the investigation which ultimately led to his disbarment.

The Supreme Court’s ruling to disbar Hartley came after he failed to provide documents and financial records to investigators from the Florida Bar and only sporadically participated in the inquiry, according to records.

The Florida Bar tried to accommodate Hartley during the investigation due to his “efforts at substance abuse rehabilitation” and because he lived out of the area in Colorado, documents state.

The Florida Supreme Court also found Hartley made false statements to a county judge regarding the payment of restitution to a client.

In addition to his disbarment, Hartley was ordered to pay $13,388 to the Florida Bar and make restitution to the Florida Bar Clients’ Security Fund.

---

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).

If you’re a young law school graduate, it’s highly likely that you’ve got a huge pile of debt to your name that will follow you for the next 10, 20, or 25 years, depending on your current repayment plan. What if there were a way to get rid of it — or at least a way to get rid of part of it? The America Bar Association wants to help you out with that.

The ABA’s Young Lawyers Division recently announced a Student Loan Relief Scholarship Contest in partnership with SoFi, a personal finance company. You just have to answer one question in 500 words or less by the end of the month, and you could win a grand prize loan payoff of up to $30,000. Of course, because this contest involves lawyers, there are other rules and regulations involved (an entrant must be 21 or older; a college graduate; a legal U.S. citizen or permanent resident, a current ABA member; and have student loan debt that is in repayment status). Here’s the question:

How would an ABA/SoFi Student Loan Relief Scholarship impact your world?

A panel of judges will review all entries submitted and select the finalists, who will then be asked to provide more information for additional judging by a panel of ABA members and staff. The grand prize winner will receive $30,000, the first runner-up will receive $15,000, and the second runner-up will receive $5,000 to pay off their student loan debt.^[1] The application and official rules can be found here.

Sure, this money may represent only some of your outstanding interest, but be something is always better than nothing when it comes to paying off loans. Good luck!

[1] Winners are responsible for any and all taxes associated with their prizes.

ABA and SoFi offer student loan debt relief through new contest [ABA 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.

These days, in-house departments are playing an increasingly critical role in legal innovation. Because they’re on the front lines of the business world, with the closest proximity to real pain points, many are increasingly open-minded in adopting new technologies to address old problems. I recently shared my observations with Legal 500. Here are the top three.

The Business Pressures For In-House Lawyers Are Real

Legal departments are increasingly asked to do more with less. In response, they have increasingly figured out the importance of using twenty-first-century tools to get results. So, it’s not surprising that the adoption of tools and innovation has been led predominantly by in-house lawyers. The pressures in-house are higher than anywhere else.

When we work with our in-house clients, they have often already adopted newer, more sophisticated tools to improve their ability to make smarter decisions and work better and more efficiently. They already know first-hand how technology improves their personal lives and the professional lives of their colleagues, and they are increasingly curious about how it could make their lives easier in the legal department. We also have a new generation of lawyers who cannot imagine practicing law without technology because they have grown up with technology everywhere, in all aspects of their lives. Combined with the pressures of businesses, these factors have lead to open-mindedness to new technology, even if accompanied by caution.

Exploring And Adopting New Tech Strategically Is A Must

A good place to start is with pain points. You need to identify where the vulnerabilities and weak spots are in your department or business. Then look for solutions or processes that have been developed or are being developed. You then need to become a beta tester. This means not only seeing a demo but actually trying it out. And don’t just try one thing, try at least a couple, because: (i) you will learn a lot about what is available in terms of solutions; and (ii) you will gain a different view of the problem you have.

By the time you’re done beta-testing and thinking about your challenges ahead, you will find a selection of possible solutions to address those challenges. That allows you to: (i) do what you’re trained to do and focus on solving complex problems; (ii) have an impact on your business and enjoy the future influence it brings in shaping opportunities down the road; and (iii) impact relationships not just within your organization, but in the market as a whole.

You then need to become a beta tester. This means not only seeing a demo but actually trying out the technology and sharing that solution outside your organization. Members of the legal community can learn from you and come to view you as a leader and an authority in the field.

Technology Will Transform The Legal Practice For The Better

Email changed communication and replaced writing letters. Did it reduce the volume of our communications? No, it has increased them because it has made communicating easier. Technology does not decrease the need for legal advice but opens up new possibilities and allows providing legal advice to be more efficient.

Yes, the fears around technology are understandable. By using bigger, better tools, there will be even more important, strategic decisions for us to make to further maximize our impact. Technology presents opportunities for us to have a greater impact and engage in more exciting work that we enjoy doing together.

Let technology be your friend. If you are thoughtful in how you make use of it, technology will transform your practice. But it is a process and one that requires constant testing, communication, and, yes, some risk-taking. Don’t let fear get in the way.

---

Olga V. Mack is the CEO of Parley Pro, a next-generation contract management company that has pioneered online negotiation technology. Olga embraces legal innovation and had dedicated her career to improving and shaping the future of law. She is convinced that the legal profession will emerge even stronger, more resilient, and more inclusive than before by embracing technology. Olga is also an award-winning general counsel, operations professional, startup advisor, public speaker, adjunct professor, and entrepreneur. Olga founded the Women Serve on Boards movement that advocates for women to participate on corporate boards of Fortune 500 companies. Olga also co-founded SunLaw, an organization dedicated to preparing women in-house attorneys to become general counsels and legal leaders, and WISE to help female law firm partners become rainmakers. She authored Get on Board: Earning Your Ticket to a Corporate Board Seat and Fundamentals of Smart Contract Security. You can email Olga at olga@olgamack.com or follow her on Twitter @olgavmack. 

Barely into February, I have already this year attended three conferences purportedly about innovation in law. I started in January in Portland, Ore., with the Legal Services Corporation’s Innovations in Technology conference, then hit two last week in New York: the venerable Legalweek, presented by ALM, and the second Inspire.Legal, presented by the New York Legal Tech Meetup and New York Law School.

About this time last year, after attending the same two New York conferences, I wrote a column here, Legal Tech For The Legal Elite: Observations Of Two Conferences, in which I bemoaned legal tech conferences “dedicated to the 10 percent in law who make up big firms and big corporations” and wondered “how legal tech and innovation became the domain of the legal elite, and how true change will come about in law without more voices at the table.”

As I noted in that column, the two New York conferences are very different. Legalweek is the rebranded version of Legaltech, a show presented annually since 1982, where buyers of legal technology go to shop for products and attend educational sessions. Inspire.Legal was brand new last year, aiming to be a fresh and creative attempt to explore the problems that face the legal industry and begin to craft solutions.

In addition to being in New York in the same week, the two conferences share another characteristic: They are predominantly by, for and about the roughly 10 percent of the legal industry dominated by the world’s largest law firms and corporations.

As you might imagine, the LSC conference falls at the other end of the legal industry spectrum. Rather than big firms and big companies, its focus is on expanding access to justice by promoting technological innovations in the delivery of legal services to low income and pro se individuals.

In my column last year, I noted that Inspire.Legal’s promotional materials had vowed it would break out of the “innovation echo chamber.” Yet its panelists, moderators and participants  were a virtual “who’s who” of echo chamber regulars, and in particular the echo chamber that focuses on large firms and large corporations.

My column was interpreted by some as a criticism of Inspire.Legal. I did not mean it as such. I eagerly returned this year and even — as “master of ceremonies” Matt Homann, CEO of Filament, jokingly pointed out in his opening remarks — paid to register rather than seek a free media pass.

In fact, Inspire.Legal is a fantastic conference, one where there are virtually no panels or keynotes or roomfuls of exhibitors. It is a conference at which participants are pushed to put on their thinking caps, mostly in small groups and breakout sessions, to define the issues that inhibit innovation in law, and then begin to tackle solutions.

Rather, the point I’d sought to make last year was that there are many voices excluded from these conversations around innovation, voices that need to be at the table if meaningful innovation is ever to occur. I wrote:

If we truly want to solve the problems that face the legal system, the legal system as a whole, then we need to find ways to bring together all the stakeholders. That means Biglaw and small law, big business and small business, clients and those who cannot afford to become clients, those embroiled in the system and those excluded from it.

Yet as I sat at Inspire.Legal this week, I found myself internally rephrasing that echo chamber concept. In place of echo chamber, the word that came into my mind was “vanguard” — those who lead the way in bringing about new developments, new ways of doing things.

As I sat at Inspire.Legal, there was no question that the people there represent the vanguard in driving legal innovation. At the LSC conference last month, I felt the same way. These are the true believers, the people who see the need for and potential of innovation in law — and who are devoting themselves to making it happen.

Yes, one group is focused on the wealthiest sectors and the other on the poorest. But maybe that is the way it needs to be for now. The legal services industry is a behemoth made up of many different professionals and entities serving many different audiences, with a vast array of different problems and needs.

Of necessity, perhaps, innovation has to begin in pockets in order to someday expand universally. Innovation in serving the rich will drive changes that benefit the poor, and innovation in serving the poor will drive changes that benefit higher-income clients.

Do those who are pursuing innovation in law all need to be at the same table? Probably not. There can be, and probably should be, multiple vanguards, each pushing forward from wherever is their starting point. Inspire.Legal lived up to its name, inspiring creative thinking among a group of attendees who are already at the forefront of innovation. The LSC conference was the same, inspiring new approaches to serving the legal needs of the poor. Even in separate pockets, this is progress.

All of that said, I cannot help but believe that legal innovation would best be served by somehow bringing together these vanguards in a common forum. I have not said much in this column about Legalweek, but I wonder whether the Legalweek concept could be broadened in a way that serves this end.

Before there was Legalweek, there was Legaltech. With the soaring growth over the past decade of e-discovery technology, Legaltech became so dominated by e-discovery that it drowned out everything else. In 2017, ALM expanded Legaltech into Legalweek, with the goal of moving it beyond e-discovery and bringing in new voices and new areas of focus.

The idea made sense, but the execution remains a work in progress. It is still a conference that, like Inspire.Legal, is dominated by big firms and big corporations. In the first year of Legalweek, the conference included a track for solo and small firms that, unfortunately, bombed — probably because, until then, no one equated the conference with the small firm market.

But if the organizers really want a “Legalweek,” then maybe it should become a conference that somehow bridges all sectors of the legal-innovation world — that is a legal week for everyone in legal.

Or maybe it is time for a new conference, one that brings together those in the vanguard of innovation across all sectors — legal aid, small law, Biglaw, self-represented, law schools, courts, and clients of all kinds. Maybe it should even include those from outside law — healthcare, social services, government — where legal problems intersect.

Pie in the sky, perhaps. Meanwhile, I applaud those in the vanguard — whichever vanguard they’re in. The legal industry is evolving for the better, and they are leading the way in making that happen.

---

Robert Ambrogi is a Massachusetts lawyer and journalist who has been covering legal technology and the web for more than 20 years, primarily through his blog LawSites.com. Former editor-in-chief of several legal newspapers, he is a fellow of the College of Law Practice Management and an inaugural Fastcase 50 honoree. He can be reached by email at ambrogi@gmail.com, and you can follow him on Twitter (@BobAmbrogi).

When P. T. Barnum said “there’s no such thing as bad publicity,” he wasn’t thinking of a defense attorney’s job in high-profile cases where everything said about her client is damning.

Every high-profile case, whether it involves Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, or a gruesome murder, draws extensive media attention, most of which has the defendant convicted before setting foot in a courtroom.

Dealing with the media is tricky at best but even more so when a judge issues gag orders instructing both sides, prosecution and defense, not to speak to the media.

While the judge thinks he may be evening the playing field, he’s actually only handicapping the defense. That’s because a gag order doesn’t prevent prosecution witnesses or their families from speaking to the media, posting online, appearing on television shows, or writing books. Because their points of view mirror the prosecution’s, only the defense is hamstrung.

The defendant, generally in jail on violent cases, doesn’t have the same access to the media as prosecution witnesses. Even if he did, no defense lawyer worth his salt would advise his client to be interviewed by a reporter prior to the trial. There’s just no telling what question might be asked and how any answer, no matter how seemingly innocuous, could be used against him.

I recently tried a high-publicity murder case involving the killing of a 15-year-old outside a bodega in the Bronx. News of the killing went viral when a video of it was released either by police who’d seized it or the victim’s parents.  Within days it had over 2 million views.

Because of the tsunami of prejudicial pretrial coverage, the judge imposed a gag order prohibiting lawyers from both sides from speaking to the media.  We had a defense, but there no way to present it to the public. By the time trial came, the family had appeared on news and entertainment shows, started their own twitter feeds on “Justice for Junior” (the victim in the case), and was interviewed on a daily basis during the trial by media waiting in the hallway, hungry for leads.

Prosecutors had a de facto way to present their case. We were silenced.  When I asked the judge to impose an order prohibiting the family from speaking to the media, he responded he had no power to do that.

All five defendants were convicted.

I see the same thing happening in the Weinstein case. Detailed reports are released daily of what the prosecution witnesses say, but the defense side can only be presented by pool reporters who pick up clues from cross-examination. There’s nothing direct, concrete, or quotable.

Witnesses and nonwitnesses alike, represented by people like Gloria Allred, appear on television shows to further promote the prosecution’s narrative.

Meanwhile, defense attorney Donna Rotunno was chided in court Friday for speaking to the New York Times although the interview, released just recently, actually occurred before the gag order was imposed.

Prosecutors downplay the inequity, saying jurors are instructed to ignore the media. But let’s face it, anyone in the last month opening a browser to look at his email has been confronted with news about the Weinstein case.

If the family of victims and sundry prosecution witnesses and hangers-on are allowed to disseminate their views to the media, defense counsel should have equal access.

For lawyers facing this issue, I have a suggestion.  First, argue against a gag order as it only prevents the defense message from being heard. These cases are fought in part in the court of public opinion, not just the courtroom.

Next, if it looks likely a judge will shut down media communication, get out in front of it by offering your defense early and often.

Easier said than done because defense attorneys often don’t know exactly what their defense will be until seeing what evidence is presented. But if positive media statements are phrased generally enough and suggest a plausible defense, the gamble’s worth it to get more than just the prosecutor’s version to the public.

Remember, it’s from those very people that an impartial jury is supposed to be chosen.

---

Toni Messina has tried over 100 cases and has been practicing criminal law and immigration since 1990. You can follow her on Twitter: @tonitamess.

At my firm, I was trained to do a responsible direct examination:  Questions should not be leading. Questions should not be compound. Questions should not call for narrative answers. For the most part, don’t do things that are objectionable.

Then you try a case.

The lawyer on the other side opens every direct examination of fact witnesses with this question: “Please tell us a little about yourself — where you were born, where you grew up, where you went to school.”

That question’s an outrage! It’s compound! It calls for a narrative answer! How dare he!

But you really shouldn’t object.

Objecting to this question would make you look like a jerk. Why wouldn’t you let the witness give a little basic background information? It’s true you could (if the judge were leaning your way) make the witness break down the information into parts: Where were you born? Where did you grow up? Where did you go to high school? Where did you go to college?

But why?

You’d look silly insisting on this. The background information is relevant. There’s unlikely to be a dispute about it. It takes less time to present this as a narrative than it does to do this in question-and-answer form. You might as well let the witness provide the information.

It’s also a great question from the perspective of the lawyer doing the direct examination.

The lawyer doing the direct wants the witness to become comfortable in the jury box. The lawyer wants the jury to get a sense of the witness as a person. Letting the witness speak about basic information for a minute or two at the beginning of the testimony serves those purposes.

To heck with what they taught you at school or in your law firm.

Open your direct examination of every fact witness with: “Please tell us a little about yourself — where you were born, where you grew up, where you went to school.”

(Note that the question asks the witness to “tell us,” rather than to “tell the jury.” That’s just basic psychology. You want to be on the jury’s side: We’re all in this together; we all have to get educated; please tell us what the answers are. You don’t want to build a wall between yourself and the jury: “I’m smart and already know the answers to all of these questions. But those foolish jurors don’t know anything. Why don’t you tell the jury the answers to these questions; I’ll just stand around waiting for you to finish.”)

Here’s another thing you learn from experience: At your firm, you’re told to be perfect in front of a jury. Never make a mistake. The performance before the jury must make you look like a skilled surgeon; everything is studied in advance and carried out to perfection. No errors.

Then you watch a good cross-examiner in action:

“Let’s see. You were paid $10 million under the first contract and $10 million under the second contract. I’m not so good at math. So what’s that? Ten million plus ten million equals $30 million in total?”

“Objection!  The arithmetic is wrong!”

The jury, now awake and paying attention because there’s some action in the courtroom, looks up to see what’s causing the commotion.

“Oh, I’m sorry.  You’re right.  There were actually three contracts. I forgot about the third one. So it’s 10 plus 10 plus another 10, for a total of $30 million. The defendant cheated you out of $30 million. Is that right?”

I saw one clever counsel do this repeatedly throughout trial. The other side never caught on. The arithmetic was always wrong; the other side always objected to counsel’s arithmetic; the jury always looked up; and counsel always “corrected” himself in a way that improved his case.

Don’t fall for it. Some errors are intentional.

One last thought: Sneak in the objectionable, but interesting, stuff when no one is paying attention.

At a trial in the 1980s, I watched this:

“Where did you go to college?”

“Harvard.”

“When did you graduate?”

“1940.”

“Wasn’t that about the time President Kennedy was there?”

“Oh, yeah. Jack Kennedy and I were co-captains of the sailing team.”

“Objection! Irrelevant!”

“Sustained. The jury will disregard the answer to the last question.”

Jury: This witness was co-captain of the Harvard sailing team with JFK? That’s a little Preppie, but what a cool guy! I’ll listen very closely to, and tend to believe, what he has to say.

They don’t tell you that stuff in your trial practice classes.

---

Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.

Law schools have been doing their very best to recruit diverse students and professors; in fact, there’s now a record number of law school deans and faculty members of color, which is a big positive. If you’re a person of color searching for a law school where you’ll be truly valued for who you are as a person, rather than a law school where you’ll be nothing more than a face in marketing materials to promote diversity and inclusion efforts, then have we got a ranking for you.

In the latest edition of the Best Law Schools for Diversity ranking, National Jurist’s preLaw magazine presents the top law schools for each major minority category in the nation: African Americans, Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans. The following criteria were considered for inclusion on this year’s list:

We graded each school on three data points: 1) Percentage of students in each ethnic group (50%); 2) Percentage of minority law professors (25%); 3) Diversity services offered by the school (25%).

Student enrollment was determined by adding the number of students who identify as members of each ethnic group with a ratio or students who are two or more races and dividing by the number of students for whom race is known. Data is from the ABA.

Faculty figures are based on the total number of minority faculty members at each school. Data provided by the ABA.

Services are based on: office or administrator who assists minorities (36%); bar exam preparation support (18%); whether the school has a mentoring program for minorities and/or first generation law students (11%); whether the school has student groups that promote the needs of each ethnicity (11%); whether the school has endowed scholarships for minorities (11%); whether the school offers a summer law school preparation program for admitted students (7%); whether the school offers employment workshops designed to help minority students (7%). Data provided by the schools.

Without further ado, here are the top 5 law schools for African American students, Asian students, Hispanic students, and Native American students:

African American Students

1. Howard University School of Law
2. Southern University
3. Texas Southern University
4. North Carolina Central University
5. Florida A&M University

Asian Students

1. University of Hawaii
2. UC Irvine
3. UC Davis School of Law
4. UC Hastings
5. Santa Clara Law

Hispanic Students

1. Southwestern Law School
2. UNM School of Law
3. Texas Southern University
4. Florida A&M University
5. University of Miami School of Law

Native American Students

1. UNM School of Law
2. University of Oklahoma
3. University of Arizona
4. University of Tulsa
5. Oklahoma City University

Congratulations to each of the law schools listed and all of their students!

Click here to see the full rankings, courtesy of preLaw magazine.

Best Law Schools For Diversity [preLaw magazine]

---

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.

Former PIMCO CEO Douglas Hodge has five kids. Five thick kids, apparently, or at least too thick for their preferred colleges, in this case Georgetown, USC (yikes) and Loyola Marymount (whoa). But Hodge is (in his way, we guess) a good daddy and put a series of down payments totaling $850,000 on those dreams, which worked 80% of the time. Of course, at the time, Hodge didn’t know that it was a down payment, and that there would be one final, rather significant installment to pay.

The former head of asset management firm Pimco was sentenced on Friday to nine months in prison for his part in a scheme in which privileged parents paid bribes to get their children into U.S. colleges, federal prosecutors said.

Douglas Hodge, who retired as chief executive of Allianz SE’s California-based Pimco in 2016, also was sentenced to two years of supervised release, a $750,000 fine and 500 hours of community service, a spokeswoman for Boston U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling said in an email.

With daily fantasy expanding across the nation, inveterate cheating like MLB caught the Houston Astros and Boston Red Sox wrapped up in now has a potentially bigger pricetag. A Massachusetts man filed a proposed class action looking to recover millions in losses incurred by unlucky players who couldn’t figure out why their opponents kept crushing them stockpiling Red Sox.

The teams apparently used equipment to steal signs and sending in the cues to batters by beating a garbage can. Careful review of Houston’s world championship season is downright hilarious because when you know what to listen for it’s clear the Astros did more tubthumping than Chumbawamba.

The Red Sox have hired Cravath for the matter, bringing Judge Katherine Forrest back to the SDNY on the opposite side of the bench after she left her seat in 2018. The appearance was about coming full circle in another way since she appeared before Judge Jed Rakoff… the judge she originally replaced on the court.

Thanks to some inside tips, Judge Forrest wasn’t going to be thrown by some needling. From Law360:

“What was that name again?” Judge Rakoff quipped, drawing a smile in court from Forrest, the retired legal umpire who made her return to Manhattan federal court after leaving the judiciary in 2018 to rejoin Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP.

Zing.

Ex-Judge Endures Ribbing From Rakoff In Return To Court [Law360]

---

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 Daytona Beach attorney has been disbarred in part for using money out of his trust account to run a strip club. That sounds Florida af. [News Journal]

* Harvey Weinstein’s lawyer caused a stir for implying that women may share some of the blame for being the targets of sexual assault. [New York Daily News]

* Michael Avenatti is still unsure if he will take the stand in his ongoing criminal trial. [New York Post]

* A federal appeals court handed President Trump a win last week when it threw out a lawsuit filed by democratic lawmakers about business payments. [Fox News]

* The Manhattan DA’s office may be reopening its case on the assassination of Malcolm X. Just started watching the Netflix series about this! [Washington Post]

---

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.