International Law Firm That Scoffed At Closing Office Amid COVID-19 Pandemic Suffers From Outbreak Of The Same Virus

Apparently working from home was a lot scarier than actually contracting COVID-19.

Who could have seen this coming? Well, pretty much everyone.

Back in March, the law firm of HWL Ebsworth, an Australian firm with over 850 attorneys and 1,250 employees total, refused to close their offices amid the growing pandemic. As Roll On Friday reported at the time, an insider at the firm said, “I suspect that one of the reasons the firm is reluctant to let people work from home is the lack of proper IT infrastructure.” The firm tried to publicly push the blame onto mental health concerns, saying of working from home that “social isolation and operating within less than optimal working conditions” had the “potential to increase stress levels.” I guess the firm doesn’t think forced potential exposure to a deadly virus is stressful at all. [Insert all the side eye.]

The firm even went so far as to say they wouldn’t firm “blindly” follow other firms shutting their offices “like a lemming.” Whatever the opposite of compassion is, that’s what HWL Ebsworth is showing for their employees that had to trudge to the office daily when plenty of giant law firms are showing just how straightforward a WFH policy can be in the legal industry.

In any event, the coronavirus has once again shown that it doesn’t care how badly you wish for it to go away; if you do stupid things (looking at you Florida), there will be consequences. As Roll On Friday reports, there’s been a COVID-19 outbreak linked to the firm that has public health officials concerned.

On 6 July, an  HWL employee tested positive for coronavirus and a floor of the firm’s Melbourne office was closed. Staff were sent home as the premises were deep-cleaned, and two more employees were confirmed as having been infected.

[Managing partner Juan] Martinez told staff they were expected to return the following Monday “barring any issues”, according to the Australian Financial Review. He said “it is not an outbreak that originated from our office, and it didn’t arise as a result of our operating practices”.

But then three more cases were detected, bringing the total to six so far, and Victoria health authorities publicly named the firm’s Melbourne office as a ‘key outbreak’ site.

This forced the firm’s hand, and they announced employees could work from home if they wanted. But that might have been too little, too late. Employees say they were left in the dark as the infections spread, and now the firm is under investigation:

But a number of employees claimed they were kept in the dark by the firm about the Covid cases, and only found out about the infections after the health chief’s announcement, it was reported. Worksafe Victoria, the statutory body which assesses workplace safety in the region, confirmed it is now investigating the firm.

It’s a shame it took people actually getting sick for the firm to make the smart decision.


headshotKathryn 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).

Bar Examinees Learn Another Test-Taker Tests Positive For COVID

(Image via Getty)

And so it begins.

With over 20 jurisdictions holding in-person bar exams this week, many with nominal adherence to basic public health guidelines, it was inevitable that we’d learn that the novel coronavirus also managed to sit for the exam. We’re now hearing that Colorado is the lucky state to have the first news of a positive COVID patient taking the exam:

Colorado had an opportunity to join the enlightened Western states of Utah, Washington, and Oregon and just grant diploma privilege, but decided instead to go forward and characterize advocates as lazy people who “don’t want to take the exam.” In reality, the applicants pushing to call off the possible superspreader event were people who “didn’t want to expose themselves to a deadly virus.”

This will not turn out to be an isolated incident. We have bar exams relying on spot temperature checks despite knowing for months that the virus is highly contagious in pre-symptomatic patients. Those taking the test in other states assuredly exposed themselves too. And unfortunately they may not even get the heads up the Colorado applicants have.

Hopefully, the use of masks and copious hand washing kept the threat contained and no one else is going to get sick. But the unnecessary terror that the bar examiners just heaped upon 200 or so applicants is flat unacceptable.

And, yes, the blame should fall on the Colorado Supreme Court and its bar examiners. Given the timing, it’s most likely that this anonymous student knew they were positive when they took the test and that was an ill-advised and dangerous move, but consider the hand they were dealt. The powers-that-be who are supposed to be protecting the profession stacked the incentives this way. They’re the ones who said, “Take this test now or you won’t be able to get your license in time to start work… in a global economic crisis where attorneys are getting furloughed and laid off.” In that universe, variations of “we told people not to come if they were sick” are basically the echoes of a bully declaring “stop hitting yourself.”

Generally speaking, it’s a cop out move to place all the blame on the least powerful actor for carrying through on a bad decision set up by the policies of the more powerful. The powerful should bear that responsibility. It’s a lesson the rest of us learned from Spider-Man.

In the meantime, everyone who took the bar exam this week needs to quarantine themselves from friends and loved ones now. After persevering through the most grueling examination of their lives, they can’t even trust themselves not to infect people they care about. That’s their prize for playing their parts in this hazing ritual.

All this risk and cruelty when there is no data supporting the necessity of the bar exam. It’s just a f**king game to these people.

Earlier: Amid Infection Spike, State Supreme Court Doubles Down On July In-Person Exam
Bar Exam Spokesperson Tells Newspaper That Folks Worried About Health Are Just Lazy
Hey, Law School Students! State Offering $18/Hour To Sit In The Middle Of COVID Superspreader Event!


HeadshotJoe 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.

Hedge Fund Manager Fails In Effort To The Renege On Charitable Deal With Ex-Wife

Morning Docket: 07.30.20

(Photo by Michael Loccisano/Getty Images)

* Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is resting comfortably in a New York City hospital after a non-surgical procedure. Wishing RBG a speedy recovery! [CNN]

* A new lawsuit aims to break up an alleged monopoly in the cheerleading business. This would make a great sequel to Bring It On… [Atlanta Business Chronicle]

* Lisa Bloom, an attorney with links to Harvey Weinstein, is in hot water over allegations that she mishandled millions of dollars for autistic clients. [Daily Beast]

* A Kentucky attorney is accused of “monstrous” sexual misconduct in a new lawsuit filed by former employees. [Courier Journal]

* Ashley Judd has been given the green light to pursue sexual harassment claims against Harvey Weinstein. [New York Times]

* Looks like retailer J.C. Penny will be purchased as a result of its reorganization in bankruptcy. Hopefully there will be some great sales before the restructuring is through… [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.

The Netherlands’ Surrogacy Laws Are Troubling And Dangerous

(Image via Getty)

I had previously assumed the Dutch were just like us, only way better at tulip horticulture. After reviewing the recent proposed surrogacy laws in the Netherlands, however, I know that we are living in entirely different universes.

In April 2020 — which, in COVID-19 time, both feels like yesterday and 20 years ago — the Dutch government published one part of a draft law on surrogacy. That part contained provisions that, while in part differ from most American norms, were largely in line with other European countries’ skepticism over surrogacy.

Part I. New Dutch Surrogacy Standards. The first part of the April 2020 proposed surrogacy legal overhaul in the Netherlands provides some pretty normal protections, at least by American standards. Those include the following requirements for surrogacy arrangements:

  • Intended parent(s) and surrogate must have a written agreement. (Of course.)
  • Both parties must receive psychological counseling. (Never a bad idea.)
  • Both parties must have independent legal counsel. (Good, yes. Attorneys are heroes.)
  • The intended parents must be recognized as the legal parents of the child upon birth and listed on the child’s birth certificate. (Great!)

But it also included some uncommon provisions, by American standards:

  • The child must have access to the personal information of the donor(s). (There is a bubbling movement and debate in the United States on the rights of donor-conceived children to know their genetic history, but the movement has been slow, and the legal changes have lacked any real grip so far.)
  • The court must approve the agreement before conception. (Oklahoma’s recent surrogacy law mandates this, but nowhere else in the United States does.)
  • The surrogate has the right — within six weeks after the birth — to send a petition to the court because she has changed her mind and intends to keep the child. (… record scratch. Wait, what? The ability for a birth mom to change her mind is a basic requirement with adoptions, but clearly there is a wide variance in thought between our countries as to how comparable surrogacy is to adoption.)

Part II. Criminalization. OK. That last bullet point might have been alarming. But now let’s talk about the July 2020 portion of the proposed law. It is truly frightening. Paid surrogacy is essentially a criminal offense, even if done abroad in a country where it’s completely legal. The draft law states that:

  • It is unlawful to persuade a woman to become a surrogate by promising her a “significant advantage.” Significant advantage is explained as anything that provides a benefit to her beyond mere reimbursement of certain surrogacy-created expenses.
  • It is unlawful for a surrogate to ask for or receive a significant advantage.
  • This criminal code has extraterritorial effect and will be effective whether the act is committed in the Netherlands or abroad, if a significant advantage is offered or received by a Dutch citizen or a Dutch resident permit holder, and regardless of when this crime was committed.

Commodities Or Extra Wanted? The drafters say that the provisions are necessary to protect women from exploitation and to ensure that children are not commodified. I’m on board with those two interests, of course, but is there really a connection between being a surrogate or being delivered by a surrogate, and either being exploited or commodified?

Fortunately, I was able to read (via the Google translate) a well-researched and well-reasoned response that was submitted to the Netherlands’ government by Dutch attorney Wilma Eusman. Eusman explained that there’s insufficient scientific evidence to establish a connection between being delivered by a surrogate and suffering any mental health issues or other damage associated with being “commodified.”

She suggested an alternative and more accurate theory, “growing up knowing that your parents have paid for the cost and inconvenience of the woman who was willing to help them achieve their desire to have a child can give you an extra sense of self-worth, knowing how wanted you are.” Eusman then pointed to large-scale studies following children born via surrogacy, which reflect that they did not have negative feelings about being delivered by a surrogate. (Check out this podcast interview with the brilliant young Yale-student Malina Simard-Halm, as she shares her experience as a surrogate-born person.)

Does This “Protect” Women? The draft law also insults women who have been surrogates and were also comfortable receiving compensation for the intense nine-month commitment. The Dutch drafters explain that if a woman is compensated, she may be compelled to take risks that she would not otherwise take due to financial considerations, she may withhold medically relevant information, and her participation may not be completely voluntary.

Of course, exploitation is possible. But knowing hundreds of women who have affirmatively volunteered to be a surrogate and received compensation, their impetus has been far from being powerless pawns of exploitation. Inevitably, in my experience in the United States, the surrogate is a strong and driven woman. While there can be multiple motivations, the common thread is a belief in the depth and beauty of parenthood as a human experience, and wanting to help others fulfill that dream. (Check out these podcast interviews with surrogates about their experiences — here, here, or here.) Being compensated helps the surrogates’ families, and here in the Unted States, no one is credibly accusing these women of lying about their medical background or participating involuntarily.

Eusman’s response identifies many of the flaws in such a law, where the government tells women what they can and cannot choose to do with their bodies. Eusman points out that the government is fine with everyone else in the arrangement being compensated — the attorneys, the psychologists, etc. — but not the woman who is actually carrying the child. She also points out that Dutch citizens are allowed to volunteer for experimental medical trials — and get paid. Clearly, some people are more equal than others when they decide to risk their health and be compensated for it. In fact, as Eusman pointed out, banning a surrogate from compensation results in the exact opposite of the proposed “protection” of her, putting her at a legally required disadvantage.

Encouraging Opaque, Underground Surrogacy. Eusman identified another major problem with the proposed legislation. Because criminalization is based on the ability to show and prove that the surrogate received a “significant advantage,” it punishes those who go to a country where surrogacy is transparent, well done, and safely practiced — like Canada and the United States. Instead, the law pushes hopeful parents to countries where the process is deliberately murky, and therefore not easy to prove that the surrogate received compensation. Eusman pointed out that these are the countries where there is, in fact, a higher risk of commodification and exploitation.

Eusman proposed an alternative: the law should be revised to set standards to define jurisdictions where surrogacy is safely practiced, and permit Dutch citizens to be able to complete their families in those countries, if not the Netherlands itself.

Here’s rooting for those in power in the Netherlands to recognize the truth in Eusman’s words, and to change course for everyone’s sake.


Ellen Trachman is the Managing Attorney of Trachman Law Center, LLC, a Denver-based law firm specializing in assisted reproductive technology law, and co-host of the podcast I Want To Put A Baby In You. You can reach her at babies@abovethelaw.com.

The Simple Practice: Inexpensively Keeping Your Computer Safe

Most states require attorneys to be technologically competent in order to practice law. And one of the most important competencies — if not the most important — is keeping your information secure.

The most common reasons for security breaches are human error or through secret, accidental installation of viruses and malware.

There is a lot of advice on keeping your computer safe, the most frequently offered piece being: have strong passwords. Today’s column will focus on a few simple and low-cost security tips to minimize the chances of accidental breaches and giving sensitive information to the wrong people.

Make sure you have the correct email addresses. Giving a client or a third party the wrong email address can usually be embarrassing but when communicating vital information and documents, it can be disastrous.

I rarely give email addresses over the phone because people can type it incorrectly. For example, when I say my first name, people might think Steve, Steven, or Stephen. And when I say my last name, a lot of people type words like Chong, Cheung, Chuang, and Jung.

If possible, have people send the email address in writing. People usually do this through text messaging.

If you can’t get an email address in writing, there is one more thing you can do. When sending the first email, verify it by asking a security question that only the two of you know. Usually it’s the name of a common connection.

Don’t share files via email. Sending files via email is convenient and what we are used to. Some email hosts have virus detection software that detects malicious code before you open them. But sending files via email should be minimized or avoided altogether if possible.

Sharing files takes up email storage space. Particularly if you have to send the same files multiple times because the person on the other end couldn’t open it the first time. Eventually, you will get a warning that you will not get any more email because your storage space limit has been reached, and you will spend considerable time deleting everything.

Also, if your email address is hacked, the hacker can get access to your sent files and use them for whatever nefarious purpose.

If you do share files, delete them immediately to eliminate the above problems. I understand that some people prefer to keep old emails, usually to verify that they sent them in case a client or a third party claims that they didn’t receive them. If this is an issue, you may want to request that the client respond to confirm receipt.

Instead, share files via the cloud. There are cloud storage programs where two or more people can upload and share documents. Most are relatively inexpensive, and some are even free.

Ignore suspicious emails. While this is common sense, and lawyers are generally pretty good at detecting scams, sometimes even the best of us can be fooled. Usually suspicious emails come in two forms.

The first is when a potential client reaches out asking for your services. To get your attention, these people claim that the potential payout is worth six — or more — figures.

In most cases, these spammers are easy to detect. First, they usually mass mail everyone so they do not address you by your name. Instead, the email starts with “Dear Sir or Madam.” Second, the email is usually not addressed to you, but instead to “undisclosed recipients” which means that you are one of a million email address that are BCC’d in that email. Finally, most of these emails have poor grammar which suggests that the scammers are located overseas.

A second suspicious email supposedly comes from someone we know. But there isn’t much in the email except a link to an unknown website. The scammer giveaway here is that even though the sender’s name may be someone you know, the sender’s email address is totally different and usually strange.

So always be skeptical of emails from people you don’t know. If it’s too good to be true, it usually is.

Don’t share your computer with anyone. While most people are pretty good about this, there are some occasions where you may need to share your computer with someone else. In most cases, it is a child who wants to play a video game online. Or it might be a teenager whose computer broke down and needs to finish her term paper on the mating habits of the deep-sea anglerfish (look it up) in 12 hours.

Just don’t do it. When you get your computer back, does it behave differently? If it does, then chances are good that something happened. Sometimes they will tell you that they accidentally downloaded some malware. But we know what happens most of the time — they won’t tell us or they will deny they did anything wrong.

Don’t work in a public area. Back when coffee shops were open, some of us would work there, sipping an espresso while listening to the background jazz music. The big draw was the coffee shop’s public wifi so you can check email and whatnot.

Using public wifi can expose your computer to hackers. A few years ago, I attended the ABA Techshow, and one of the presentations demonstrated how someone can access a computer using public wifi.

If you are working high-profile cases, there is a chance you can be followed physically. Someone can take detailed photos from a distance. Others may try to steal your computer. I get that the chance of this is fairly low, but in our line of work we may run into people who will have a strong incentive to do whatever it takes to make our lives miserable.

One day, coffee shops will reopen, and we’ll be allowed to lounge indoors again. But the security threat is real and not worth a grande mocha. The only things coffee shops are useful for are first dates and studying for the bar exam.

Don’t go to strange websites. Unfortunately, there are some websites that are specifically designed to install malicious software into unsuspecting computers. Most web browsers know about these and stops users from accidentally accessing them. But this is not foolproof.

It’s difficult to tell which websites contain malicious code. In most cases, they are the usual suspects. Also, a lot of the sites tend to slow your computer down as soon as you access them. And they have annoying pop-up screens. Some even try to trick your computer into installing software to supposedly optimize your browsing experience.

Purchase virus protection software. Even if you follow all of the tips here and from other sources, hackers can secretly compromise your computer. To minimize this, purchase antivirus software programs. Generally, they are inexpensive and worth the cost. Some antivirus programs are free. From my experience, however, they tend to slow the computer down, and you get constant nag screens telling you to upgrade to the paid version.

You do not necessarily need expensive, high-end internet security services to protect yourself and your clients. As your notoriety increases, you might need to step up your security game, but by applying some common sense, using email wisely, and not downloading suspicious software, you can keep your computer safe from most hackers and scams.


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.

Lynn Tilton Was Dead Serious About ‘F*ck-You-Pay-Me’