Author: TSA Press

Nicholas Sandmann, the Covington Catholic kid who is suing major media outlets for hundreds of millions of dollars for pointing out that he wore a MAGA hat and then honestly explaining to the audience what a MAGA hat means, managed to convince CNN to settle yesterday for undisclosed terms and, folks, there were a lot of takes to be had on the social media. Whether or not you believe Sandmann has a real case against the media outlets who covered the story — and it’s sufficiently weak that the majority of his claims have already been laughed out of court — the real lesson of yesterday is that nobody seems to understand what a settlement means.

Alas a settlement is, generally speaking, not an admission of “guilt” and admitting liability wasn’t a term of this settlement. Nor is it “crumbling” to pay a rumored $25 million to avoid an unpredictable trial and a discovery process that — even if CNN’s communications were innocent — would be selectively leaked and contextualized to make the network look bad. It’s better for the freedom of the press to have had this fight out in court, but CNN’s business decision is understandable. This is why an exception to the American Rule that placing the burden of a defendant’s legal fees on a plaintiff if they unsuccessfully bring a claim implicating a constitutional right could do wonders for outlets facing frivolous, wildly inflated defamation claims funded by shadowy interests hoping to simply outlast cash-strapped publications.

Sandmann’s sued many more outlets… will they follow CNN’s lead? If they do, it’ll be less about which publications think Sandmann is right, and which have financial concerns — real or artificially enforced by outside management — outpacing journalistic impulses.

But I digress. The point is that idiots out there don’t understand what a settlement is and as troubling as it is to think the three stooges quoted above don’t grasp basic legal concepts, the really scary part is that they probably do. Charlie Kirk’s had to talk to lawyers before… he must know what’s up. The dog and pony show they drag out on social media isn’t about their ignorance as much as it’s a reflection of how they see their audience. They know their uneducated and intellectually lazy fans will sop up whatever disingenuous take they can spin up to show the libs getting owned. It’s a conscious disinformation campaign and trying to make Americans stupider shouldn’t be something a major party celebrates.

Or maybe these guys are just f**king stupid too. That’s the more comforting solution.

---

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.

I haven’t written about California lawyers and judges for at least a couple of weeks (“bowl of dicks,” anyone?). Yes, I know lots of readers could care less about lawyer life here in California, especially since our cut score is the highest, second only to Delaware, but to use the title of a 1960s Lesley Gore song, ‘it’s my party,” and the East Coast bias that ATL shows prompts me to write about life west of the Hudson.

The first has to do with the California Supreme Court’s order to have the disciplinary review court (the State Bar’s appellate process) review its decision overturning the trial court’s decision to disbar a San Francisco lawyer for defrauding an elderly client. The State Bar’s review department had found that the lawyer had not defrauded his client.

With me, so far?

Now the Supreme Court is telling the review department to take another look at the case. Given that the State Bar’s stated mission is public protection, I would not be surprised if the review court reverses its decision.

Another story: the Executive Director of the State Bar has resigned. Leah Wilson headed the bar for several years and oversaw the final steps in its de-reunification. Her resignation is effective January 17 and she is leaving to “pursue other career interests.” We have all heard that language many times before.

The past decade or so has been a tumultuous time for State Bar leadership. First, Joe Dunn was fired back in 2014 and then things got ugly.

After Dunn came Elizabeth Reinsdorf Parker, who began the task of dismantling the integrated bar that existed since formation of the bar back in the 1920s. Leah Wilson was Parker’s heir apparent, and she finished the job Parker started, not without her own set of controversies.

So, in the past six years, the State Bar has had three executive directors. While some might say that leadership turnover is a healthy thing, I think that stability and continuity at the top might be welcome.

The Bar must address many important issues in the coming years, including, but not limited to, the possible licensing of legal technicians, alternative legal service providers and the unauthorized practice of law, all sorts of legal innovation products, and last, but certainly not least, the bar exam cut score, which has prompted all kinds of consternation among law professors, law schools, law students, and those of us practicing lawyers who think that maybe the bar for entry should remain high. Those issues, not to mention having a good relationship with the Legislature that sets the dues bill, and others that we haven’t even thought of yet will consume the bar over the next decade.

For those of us who ever saw the movie “All about Eve,” (and if you have never seen it, shame on you) the classic line that Bette Davis says in the midst of a cocktail party seems apt. It will be interesting to see how the job description will read and whether there will be a nationwide search undertaken. Would you want that job?

Last and certainly not least is the special masters’ report released January 3 to the California Judicial Commission in the Inquiry Concerning Justice Jeffrey Johnson, an appellate justice on the Second District Court of Appeal here in Los Angeles. The report runs to almost 400 pages (I am not making this up) and contains the findings of fact and conclusions of law by the special masters, whose examiner heard 17 days of testimony from women who claimed inappropriate conduct by the justice over a period of years. Those women included two Court of Appeal justice colleagues, along with several research attorneys, a number of private  attorneys, and other women. The report concludes that the examiner met the high burden of proof necessary (clear and convincing standard) as to the truth of most of the allegations of judicial misconduct (here defined as prejudicial misconduct and improper action).

Allegations of intoxication at the Court of Appeal building and at events outside business hours comprise another category of claims against the justice. Again, the special masters found that the examiner had met the burden and that most of the allegations were true.

The third category of misconduct involves Justice Johnson’s demeanor toward his colleagues and staff on the court. The special masters found most of those allegations true as well.

So here’s what I don’t understand and probably never will: The special masters found that most of the allegations against Justice Johnson were true, despite inconsistencies in some testimony. But why would a justice on the second-highest court in this state ever conduct himself in a manner that could rise to a number of claims, let alone one? Is it the “because I can” rationale?

The special masters concluded that the justice failed to take responsibility for his actions. Maybe when your career, future, and reputation are on the line, you are loathe to accept responsibility. It’s always easier to blame the victims in these types of cases, and that’s what the special masters found here: the failure to take responsibility for the most serious misconduct. Where have we heard that before, and when do you think that ever might end?

Ultimately, and that time is probably not any time soon, the Commission will have to decide what to do about Justice Johnson. Your guess is as good as mine.

---

Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.

We’ve been hearing a lot about depositions lately, oftentimes perpetuating the notion that they take place in a secret star chamber somewhere in a basement in Washington DC. In reality, though, depositions are an everyday part of litigation proceedings all around the country. Knowing exactly what such processes entail, therefore, is also important – both so you are prepared and so you can get the most out of them.

At critical points in a deposition, having the right documents in hand can make all the difference. Preparation is just as important as the flexibility to respond to unforeseen developments. Do you and your team have the right tools and techniques to handle this key moment in litigation?

Take our quiz to find out.

Edgar delivering remarks at the 2019 Presidential Precinct

A journalist by profession and a 2019 Mandela Washington Fellow, Edgar Gweshe was drawn from an early age to the social and cultural issues affecting his peers in Harare, Zimbabwe, eager as he was to understand their concerns fully.

Edgar was a “naughty and intelligent” child, as his family tells him, one who “wouldn’t go down without a fight.”

In his current work, which focuses on civic engagement and economic development, Edgar is no less determined, advocating for personal and professional ethics and seeing young leaders as a catalyst for lasting social change.

For Edgar, it’s “the high-level plunder of national resources which has seen many people being deprived in [Zimbabwe].”

Equally important, he explains, is dispassion among the state’s youth and the need for sweeping reform.

“The youth have become accustomed to a culture of corruption and bribery,” Edgar says. “They have moved away from ethics.”

Nonetheless, Edgar sees great potential in young leaders to usher in change, especially with the advent of digital media.

“The youth can act as agents for information dissemination and, in the process, get everyone involved,” Edgar says.

“To harness their talents and innovations, we need to ensure that young adults are equal partners and torchbearers.”

In the workplace, Edgar advises young leaders to play off each other’s strengths and compel in each other the desire to be the best version of themselves.

“An inspiring leader knows how to motivate team members as well as how to capitalize on their strengths … he or she is someone who knows how to motivate members under whatever circumstances.”

For Edgar, integrity is a kind of practice, one that takes a concerted effort to live out daily.

“Integrity requires one’s undivided attention and you also need to be of high moral standing,” Edgar says. “It’s a culture to internalize, it’s something that should define who you are.”

Though Edgar admits that the path to integrity isn’t an easy one, he believes that the journey is worthwhile all the same.

“A perfect world is one where we all die striving to make the world a better place.”

Interested in Edgar’s work? Learn how you can take a stand for integrity on our #YALIUnites page.

Post published in: Featured

If you went into a coma on Christmas day, and just woke up now, the story of Carlos Ghosn is probably the one you’d have the hardest time believing. Sure, Donald Trump ordering the drone strike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani is certainly the scariest — and has taken the U.S. to the brink of war — but put a megalomaniac of questionable stability in charge of the world’s most powerful military, and these things just might happen. But the Ghosn story? That reads like the third act of a heist movie.

For those the somehow missed the story, Ghosn is the former Nissan chairman who was under house arrest in Japan, awaiting trail for financial wrongdoings. However, in a daring escape, the former auto boss reportedly absconded in a double-base case. That’s right, his wife organized a “concert” which saw ex-special forces soldiers pose as musicians bringing their “music equipment” by Japanese guards. Ghosn’s route to freedom included a stop in Turkey before landing in Lebanon, where he is a citizen.

Today Ghosn, who’s long protested his legal woes as part of a “rigged” justice system, held a press conference in Lebanon. There he blasted the Biglaw firm Latham & Watkins, blaming them, along with the government and Nissan, for his prosecution:

“It is the prosecutors aided and abetted by petty and vindictive individuals in the government and Nissan and the L&W [Latham & Watkins] law firm who are destroying Japan’s reputation on the global stage.”

Latham’s acted as Nissan’s outside counsel and conducted the company’s internal investigation into Ghosn’s dealings. This isn’t the first time that representation has come under fire:

Latham & Watkins previously was criticized by Nissan general counsel Ravinder Passi, who raised concerns that the company’s investigation into Ghosn was marred by conflicts of interest, the Wall Street Journal reported in September. Passi’s objections centered on the relationship between the firm and Hari Nada, a senior vice president at Nissan who reached a plea deal with prosecutors for his actions in the scandal, the newspaper said.

For its part, Latham is keeping quiet about the latest chapter in the legal thriller. The firm has not commented on Ghosn’s press conference.

---

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).

You might not have heard the news, given the holiday season, but the alarming case of a scam surrogacy agency in Maryland reached a partial resolution last month. In a published order by Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, the State’s Consumer Protection Bureau ordered “The Surrogacy Group” to pay more than $2 million in penalties and restitution.

The Surrogacy Group, and its owner Greg Blosser, have been under investigation for promising clients surrogacy services — services like matching intended parents with gestational surrogates, assisting clients with the surrogacy process, and holding and managing funds in escrow — and then completely failing to provide such services, escrow payments, or subsequent promised refunds. Then, Blosser, the owner, essentially disappeared. Blosser was, however, found and arrested in April 2019, before boarding an international flight, presumably to flee the country.

Who Can Hopeful Parents Trust?

In an affidavit describing the supporting evidence for charges against The Surrogacy Group and Blosser, an investigating FBI Special Agent described the frustrating experience of seven of the victims (noting that there were many more than that). Couples who had struggled with infertility turned to The Surrogacy Group and Blosser for help to reach the ultimate goal of parenthood.

Some victims were at least matched to a gestational surrogate, and some lucky couples even ended up with children from the experience. But Blosser required that funds promised to the surrogate (reimbursements for travel and other expenses, as well as monthly compensation for undergoing such an undertaking) be held and paid out by The Surrogacy Group. That money never reached the surrogates themselves, though. So when surrogates were not receiving promised payments, the intended parents would reach out to Blosser, but receive only silence or the runaround. Under the contracts, that left the intended parents holding the bag for paying the surrogates — basically doubling the cost of the process. Those folks at least became parents at the end of the journey though, so consider them fortunate! Many of the victims were not as lucky.

The affidavit describes how Blosser would insert personal excuses for the delay, such as taking his daughter to a medical appointment for “another flipping ear infection,” and would sign off on emails with “Big Hugs!” So there you go. If you thought scammers would never sign their emails with “Big Hugs!” think again.

Of course, after getting the runaround long enough, intended parents asked that their money be returned, without success. Recently, the Maryland Attorney General found that The Surrogacy Group stole more than $600,000 from more than 21 victims before Blosser attempted to flee the country. The bank accounts, however, showed a balance of less than $2,000. Where the funds went is still under investigation. But based on Blosser’s current representation by a public defender, I am guessing that the money was not exactly invested well.

Scammers Look For Vulnerable Marks.

This is, sadly, not the first time that a surrogacy facilitator ran off with clients’ money or had nefarious dealings. In 2014, the Planet Hospital scandal hit, with similar facts, but an international twist. Clients paid tens of thousands of dollars for surrogacy matching and support, hoping to save money through Planet Hospital’s promises to match them with a more affordable gestational surrogate in Mexico or Thailand. But, like with The Surrogacy Group, the promises were empty, and the money disappeared. Hopeful parents-to-be were left broke, and no closer to a child. And there have been others. B Coming, Miracles Egg Donation, and SurroGenesis. Caveat Emptor!

In an even bigger scandal, in 2012, several American attorneys were key players in what amounted to an international baby-selling ring. Gestational surrogates would be sent to the Ukraine for an embryo transfer (with embryos from who knows where) for made-up intended parents, and then the gestational carrier would be told the “intended parents” backed out. The attorneys would then arrange for other, new, intended parents to claim the baby under false pretenses, and at an enormous price. (Listen to this podcast episode where we interview a surrogacy attorney who worked with the FBI to bring down the ring.)

Of course, attorneys have also fallen victim to surrogacy-related scams. Overseas “intended parents” have claimed that they needed an attorney to hold funds for their surrogacy arrangement in escrow in order to establish credibility for a visa. After the escrow funds have been sent, the “intended parent” would say that the visa was denied, and ask that the money be returned. But somehow the initial received money was never legit, so you just sent them your own funds. Oh no!

Are We Surprised?

Perhaps it’s a no-brainer that surrogacy is a ripe area for fraud and scandal. Due to the basic human drive to want to be parents, the emotional journey with infertility can lead to desperation. Add in the high cost for reproductive services, especially with surrogacy, and intended parents are primed to be victims.

What’s The Answer?

There is no easy test to detect a scammer. It’s even possible someone like Blosser never initially set out to defraud clients. Perhaps he had a legitimate business at one time, and poor financially practices lead him down a dark path.

You might think that you’re safe, so long as you go with an agency that’s somewhat well known. But you’d be wrong! In the baby-selling ring scandal, several of the key players were well-known attorneys, respected by peers, who frequently appeared at conferences, and who were featured positively in national news.

So the best protection is to research, research, research. The more you know, the more likely you are to recognize a red flag or sense when things are off. Perhaps if the surrogates being sent to the Ukraine had done more research, they might have been more suspicious of the lengths gone to by facilitators to limit their contact with the supposed intended parents. Or maybe not. But the more you know, the better your understanding of what’s normal and what questions to ask.

Some states have created laws to provide safeguards. California law requires that surrogacy facilitators not be permitted to hold escrow funds for a surrogate arrangement. Instead, funds must be held by a licensed attorney or a bonded escrow company. Of course, if we have learned nothing else from abovethelaw.com, it is that attorneys also have some shady characters in our midst.

In conclusion, technology has evolved to allow amazing things -– including the ability to overcome infertility in most cases. But like with any rapidly growing area where major sums of money are in play, there are going to be some bad apples. They key is to recognize them before damage is done.

---

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.

As chicken and the egg questions go, one of the most enduring is whether 1L year breaks students by throwing them into a vortex of grade-driven status seeking in a mad dash for illustrious summer jobs, sterling journal assignments, and the prestigious clerkships or if they were just sanctimonious pricks all along.

Ponder that riddle as we check in on one law student whose failed efforts to woo a Boston lass ended up going viral.

Presumably the standard Boston romance begins with regurgitating Gordon Wood and evolves into a delicate dance about how the uproar over spying on the Bengals or stealing signs in the World Series is just a vast conspiracy by “the haters.” This law student took a different tack:

Amazingly the fact that someone thought a transcript would have some panty-dropping influence isn’t the most embarrassing part of this episode. It’s that someone thought a partial transcript would have some panty-dropping influence. Not to knock an A in Contracts and an A- in Legal Writing but don’t try to DM me until that Civ Pro grade gets posted.

Our 1L Casanova appears to be leaving Beantown for Nashville for the next five months. The transcript includes “Life of the Law” which is a noted Vanderbilt 1L pass/fail course that students take to learn basic civics stuff.

Alas it appears — since she immediately posted this exchange to social media — that our 1L struck out this time. She was probably stealing signs. Hopefully that A can get him some offer and acceptance back in Nashville.

---

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.

If you’d asked me two weeks ago who Qassem Soleimani was, I wouldn’t have had a clue. Oh, you know more about world events than me? OK, name three currently serving top generals of foreign countries we are not at war with. Go ahead, I’ll wait. Remember, you can’t use your smartphone. That’s cheating.

Alright, I think we’ve sufficiently established that nobody here knew who Qassem Soleimani was before Donald Trump decided to drop a bomb on him without asking whether it was okay with the rest of us. The fact that nobody had ever heard of Soleimani really calls into question whether it was worth maybe starting a war with Iran to kill him. Was Qassem Soleimani behind some bad actors who struck out at Americans? Almost certainly. But imagine if some foreign country we were not directly at war with just randomly took out Colin Powell back when he was busy being a general (if you recall, that was before he got tied up blatantly lying to the UN about WMDs in Iraq). Or let’s say that during the 2007 troop surge in Iraq, Mongolia just showed up and trampled David Petraeus with a herd of yaks or something. People would have been understandably pissed. You don’t just go around assassinating other countries’ generals, even the unfriendly ones. It’s bad form.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution says, “The Congress shall have Power … To declare War.” It definitely doesn’t say some orange-haired, makeup-caked buffoon who got 3 million fewer votes than the losing candidate gets to functionally provoke a war without even telling Congress beforehand. Trump hasn’t even really tried to explain his attack against Qassem Soleimani, other than vaguely claiming Soleimani was planning unspecific attacks against Americans (the phrase “without evidence” in reference to Trump claims is so overused it’s become a cliché, but it doesn’t seem we can get away from it).

Iran, not surprisingly, has more or less guaranteed that it is going to retaliate. And while it would obviously be best if there was no further loss of life or damage to property, one of Iran’s ideas on how to retaliate would strike a blow directly to Trump’s own heart.

No, Eric and Don Jr. aren’t suiting up to fight alongside the heroes in our armed services, risking life and limb. I’m talking about something far more important to Donald J. Trump than a couple disappointing sons: his brand.

In just one year, from 2012 to 2013, Trump claimed his net worth doubled from $4.6 billion to $8.7 billion simply by adding $4.1 billion in “brand value” — through magic, I guess. And remember the Trump brand’s signature scent, self-described as a “masculine combination of rich vetiver, tonka bean, birchwood and musk”? First of all, I don’t think I’m ever going to be able to eat again after writing that sentence, and secondly, this guy’s marketing copy talks about every crappy product he’s slapped his name on like he’s sleeping with it. Trump is the Trump brand.

Which is maybe why Iran is implying it might target one or more of the Trump Organization properties found in 11 countries outside the United States. A recent tweet from the head of the Iranian presidential research organization, Hesameddin Ashena, simply links to a Forbes article listing a number of Trump-branded properties. In a separate tweet, in English, Ashena wrote:

We have ZERO problems with the American people. We even achieved deals with previous US administrations. Our sole problem is Trump. In the event of war, it is he who will bear full responsibility.

You have to go back to Dwight D. Eisenhower to find a U.S. President whose son or daughter served in uniform, in combat, during his tenure (sorry George W. Bush, your dad getting you into the Texas Air National Guard doesn’t count). Eisenhower’s first son died in childhood of scarlet fever. Eisenhower’s only remaining child was John Eisenhower, who served in World War II and then actively sought combat in Korea, with the blessing of his father, even after Ike won the Republican presidential nomination in 1952.

Eisenhower put his only child in harm’s way, to fight wars he had a hand in administering. It wasn’t fair to ask other American families to make sacrifices he himself wasn’t willing to make. Trump, on the other hand, inadvertently put some hotels with his name on them in harm’s way, by provoking a conflict for reasons that are not clear to himself or anyone else. It’s hardly equivalent. Still, maybe striking at Trump’s brand is the only way for Iran to retaliate against the man himself. He doesn’t seem to care about much else.

---

Jonathan Wolf is a litigation associate at a midsize, full-service Minnesota firm. He also teaches as an adjunct writing professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, has written for a wide variety of publications, and makes it both his business and his pleasure to be financially and scientifically literate. Any views he expresses are probably pure gold, but are nonetheless solely his own and should not be attributed to any organization with which he is affiliated. He wouldn’t want to share the credit anyway. He can be reached at jon_wolf@hotmail.com.

Sure, things aren’t like they used to be. Goldman Sachs is a public company, and one that’s facing some tough times, at that. Salaries aren’t what they used to be. Results aren’t what they used to be. The failson of one of the bank’s legends is still Treasury Secretary while Gary Cohn flamed out. It offers bank accounts and credit cards to the masses, for heaven’s sake!

But this. This is a step too craven and too far.

An overhaul of the bank’s financial disclosures will peel back the curtain on Goldman’s lending and proprietary bets and reshape its quarterly reports to investors to look more like those of peers JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Bank of America Corp. , whose shares are more richly valued by investors.

The changes are the latest effort by Goldman to shed some of its signature secrecy. For many investors, the changes are long overdue, though it remains to be seen whether they will generate enthusiasm for a stock that hasn’t grown meaningfully since 2007.

Before starting my own practice around a year ago, I worked at a number of law firms. Partners at each of those shops told associates that they were amenable to feedback, and many related that they had an open-door policy if employees ever wanted to raise concerns or make suggestions. Of course, associates were usually nervous to provide feedback, and few people took advantage of open-door policies. Partners and pretty much everyone else often have a hard time accepting constructive criticism, and associates usually just kept their mouths shut rather than offer suggestions.

However, a few years ago, I was having dinner with a bunch of a attorneys after a deposition, and some of my colleagues told me about a unique initiative that was started at one firm to solicit feedback. Several of the attorneys at the dinner worked at a firm in my area that was infamous for having high turnover and low morale among associates. During the course of the dinner, many of the lawyers who had worked at this firm spent a substantial amount of time discussing well-known gripes about their former employer, many of which I had heard before.

However, my ears pricked up when a former attorney at this firm told me about a program that had been instituted while he worked there. The human resources person at the firm had set up an honesty box so that associates and other employees could give feedback to firm management anonymously. I immediately thought of an old Facebook app of the same name that people used in college to leave anonymous comments for their Facebook friends, which I always thought was a cool idea. I think the system set up by this firm was also internet-based, and firm management purportedly had no way of knowing who made the comments. I guess this idea was inspired by suggestion boxes that people might see at retail establishments, or that was at the center of an episode of The Office.

From speaking to associates who worked at this firm, it seems that reactions to the honestly box were mixed. Many of the attorneys at this firm did not think that the honestly box was truly anonymous, so a number of people did not even bother to submit feedback. Since there was so much turnover at the firm, many associates also did not care enough to submit suggestions that could improve it.

However, some people expressed gratitude that an honesty box program had been implemented. One attorney mentioned that the honesty box boosted morale around the office, since it showed that management cared about improving conditions at that firm. In addition, one associate told me he suggested that the firm implement a new employee benefits program, and soon thereafter, the firm decided to adopt that initiative. Judging from the comments of my colleagues, it was hard to tell if the honesty box provided substantial benefits, but the idea of this program intrigued me.

During the attorney review process at the firm at which I worked at the time, I decided to bring up the idea of an honesty box. There were many issues associates wanted partners to address, but most attorneys were afraid to make suggestions to management. Although partners professed to have an open-door policy, associates who made suggestions at meetings or in private were usually criticized and talked down to. One time, associates were even too afraid to tell management that the IRS had upped the mileage reimbursement amount! Because of the environment, no one wanted to make suggestions to management without anonymity.

My only suggestion to the firm when I was asked for feedback was that our shop should institute an honesty box program like the other firm had done. Predictably, firm management never took the proposal seriously. The partner I discussed the matter with told me that partners and associates had a good relationship at the firm, and doors were always open for feedback and comments. In addition, the partner thought that conditions were pretty good at the firm and that there would be no need for an honesty box to facilitate better feedback.

However, it is human nature to dislike people for making suggestions, and so long as associates feel they may face negative consequences from providing feedback, they will refuse to do so. In addition, even if associates did decide to use a firm’s open-door policy, it was rare that partners could have a long, substantive talk, since people are busy and it is hard to devote bandwidth to suggestions. An honesty box solves those issues, and the firm at which I worked could have greatly benefited from the idea.

Of course, honestly boxes are kind of a nontraditional proposal to consider, and firms definitely need to think outside the box (get it?) if they want to establish and promote an honesty box program. However, partners can realize a number of benefits from having an honesty box, since associates will be more likely to provide frank and helpful comments if they are able to convey feedback anonymously.

---

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.