Author: TSA Press

Way back in April, which really turned out to be the infancy of our quarantine times, the Harvard Law School FedSoc president made headlines when he took out a gun during a Zoom class. It was a real moment and screenshots from the class blew up all over the place and the law student go called out for his wildly inappropriate behavior. As my colleague Joe Patrice noted at the time:

That it’s disruptive to the learning experience when ersatz Elmer Fudd here pulls out his heater is the very least of the reasons why this is inappropriate. It’s also pretty menacing and can induce anxiety in people who’ve had traumatic, violent experiences in the past. And while it should be enough to appeal to basic decency, it should also give any professional pause. We don’t carry rifles into government buildings — well, actually these dumbasses do — but we shouldn’t. Young people mature — sometimes — but consider the message this level of judgment sends to a character and fitness review or future employer.

But with this event in their rear view mirror, and online classes an ongoing reality, Harvard Law has gone into rule-making mode to make sure this doesn’t happen again. As reported by the ABA Journal, the law school has a new principle for how students should handle future in-class incidents:

Law students learn to make arguments in classrooms, and the learning process includes taking risks, as well as making mistakes, according to a Harvard Law School webpage describing the policy.

Additionally, it notes that sometimes a speaker agrees with an argument they are making in class, and other times they’re taking on the so-called devil’s advocate role.

“Because of the potential permanence and widespread dissemination of communications through social media and other forms of communication designed to reach members of the public, if statements made in class are quoted or described with attribution in those media, students may be reluctant to approach any question, particularly controversial ones, with the openness and vulnerability they need to grow as lawyers and to learn from one another,” according to the website.

The policy also applies to written statements made in classroom-related spaces, and faculty can adopt additional guidelines, providing that they are stated clearly before the class starts, according to the law school webpage. It does not list penalties for violating the policy.

And sure, I can imagine situations where you really wouldn’t want to have someone’s name attached to an argument they made in class. Like if a crim law conversation turned to someone’s real life experience as a victim of sexual assault. But that isn’t the background behind this move. As the Harvard Crimson notes, it comes on the heels of this gun incident (though it does note a similar policy already in place at the business school), which is not some academic argument that needs to be protected. And as the Instagram account Black at Harvard Law School is quick to remind us all, sometimes bad shit is said in class. What happens then?

Law School spokesperson Jeff Neal told the Crimson attribution is appropriate when reporting misconduct or seeking assistance from administrators, and the policy does not bar entirely discussions on social media about what happens in class:

“Nothing in the policy addresses a student’s sharing classroom comments in accordance with the policy’s non-attribution principle, or sharing comments with attribution with others in the same course or in ‘interpersonal exchanges about class discussion,’” Neal wrote.

And there’s always saving receipts for a rainy day, say, a future judicial confirmation hearing:

“For the record, nothing in the policy appears to apply after we graduate,” law student Andre R. Manuel wrote in a Tweet. “So consider this notice that if you say something racist in a class I’m in, I WILL bring the receipts to your Senate confirmation. Future 34-year old 5th Circuit nominees beware.”

So that’s something.

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).

Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series of posts on motherhood in the legal profession, in partnership with our friends at MothersEsquire. Welcome Ioanna Paraskevopoulos and Claire E. Parsons to our pages.

Overwhelmed, disgusted, and angry are likely three reactions you’ve had towards government of all levels in the past few months. If you watched the video footage of George Floyd’s murder, you were probably horrified that an officer charged with enforcing the law would show such disregard for human life. If you saw the varying responses to the protests that later ensued, you may have wondered why some officials responded with compassion and leadership and others with tone-deaf rhetoric and harsh brutality. And all of this happened in the midst of a global pandemic that has exposed the lack of infrastructure to support the care needs of working families that left many of us working parents to fend for ourselves.

We aren’t here to tell you that you shouldn’t be angry or that change isn’t needed. To the contrary, your anger may be exactly what’s needed to create change. In 2018, you may have celebrated the election of many women and racially diverse candidates to Congress, but the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers estimates that only 23.6% of Congressional seats are held by women. Numbers locally and at the state level aren’t much better, since only 20% of mayors are female, and only 29% of statewide offices are held by women. Appointed positions on state and local boards and commissions, bodies that do essential work for communities and make decisions that affect working families, are filled primarily by white men.

This may be a terrible time to ask, but lawyer-moms, you could make a big difference. You are uniquely suited and positioned to fill these roles. You understand procedure. Your job requires you to learn to communicate to broad and diverse audiences. You study complicated texts and competing viewpoints and must offer a solution to move forward even when that path is unclear. And, more than anything, you know what it means to put your own personal interests aside to do the right thing for your family or your clients. We need more women in positions of power and we need women like you.

We aren’t asking you to run for Congress (at least not yet). City Hall is a better place to start. Both of us have spent our careers working for and with governments. We see every day that cities, counties, and school districts affect citizen lives significantly. Cities fund (or don’t fund) human services agencies, run police departments, and set policy for training, hiring, supervising, and firing officers. Counties set tax rates and fund mental health programs. School districts educate our children. Boards and commissions appointed by all of these entities plan parks, oversee code enforcement, consider community safety policy, and much more. Given how much these bodies make decisions affecting the most personal aspects of our lives, it is imperative that the makeup of these bodies represent the communities.

This is where lawyers, especially the lawyer-moms of MothersEsquire, could change the world, one city, or county, or public board at a time. A lawyer who has a few hours to volunteer could help parse city codes and contracts to support advocates’ understanding of how to target requests to local government in a way that is actionable. They could also help craft persuasive talking points and arguments for advocates to take to in-person meetings with the elected officials who have the ultimate say on city budget decisions. They can be culture “translators” for people who feel intimidated by approaching local government officials because they lack experience in doing so.

If you still feel unsure about getting involved, there may be programs in your area to help. As an example, Ioanna and a colleague (who is also a lawyer) founded a nonprofit called Action Tank in Cincinnati, a think tank that partners with artists to research and promote new policy solutions to local issues. Action Tank makes policy research and local government accessible and fun for residents, and it provides technical assistance to resident-led efforts to promote positive change, from pedestrian safety measures to police reform. Ioanna was inspired to start this program after watching passionate local residents advocate for their communities for several years and seeing the sometimes lackluster response they got from local governments.

This year, Action Tank launched its flagship program, City Council School, a five-month bootcamp for residents who want to be effective local legislators or stronger community advocates. City Council School trains participants on how to work with the city administration, advocacy groups, and elected officials to turn great ideas into laws that are data-driven, implementable, and sustainable. For residents who don’t have five months to attend bootcamp, Action Tank also hosts shorter training sessions and discussions, and provides artist-designed, practitioner-approved toolkits for navigating city processes. Partnering with local efforts like Action Tank to conduct trainings and share research is an easy and impactful way for lawyers to support local activists responding to current events.

Though Action Tank isn’t nationwide (yet), other programs that teach advocacy skills, help citizens learn about local government or even run for office are prevalent. If you aren’t sure how to get involved, reach out to a trusted elected official, your local political party headquarters, or even try Google. In short, there are people, programs, and tools available to help you get started, but if you have trouble, email either of us, and we’ll talk you through it. Both of us love local government, but we know that there is no change without action and advocacy. If you are mad, disgusted, and frustrated with government, that could be a good thing if you use it. Lawyer-moms turn that anger into energy, get involved in your local government, and you can change the world.

Ioanna Paraskevopoulos is the Co-Founder and Executive Director of Action Tank, a think tank that partners with artists to research and promote new policy solutions in the Cincinnati area. She has served as Chief of Staff to a Cincinnati Council Member, and as a Congressional Affairs Advisor for the U.S. Department of State. She is the mother of Hugo, who is four years old. To contact her and learn more about Action Tank, email her at ioanna@actiontankusa.org or visit www.actiontankusa.org.

Claire E. Parsons is a Member at Adams, Stepner, Woltermann & Dusing, PLLC in Covington, Kentucky where she focuses her practice in local government practice, school law, and civil litigation. She is the mother of two girls and the Content and Communications Chair for MothersEsquire. You can find more of her content or connect with her on LinkedIn.

There’s never been a more important time to know what’s going on when it comes to your law firm’s finances. Your accounting practices can drive your firm to success if all the right things are being done.

But how can you be sure proper procedures are being followed to keep track of the money at your law firm?

Above the Law has teamed up with PwC to create a quiz that will test you on the strength of your bookkeeping practices — a need-to-know part of operating a law firm.

Are your accounting skills up to snuff to enhance your law firm’s financial performance? Take our quick quiz to find out.

A scary story from Chicago, where two University of Chicago Law School students were reportedly victims of a home invasion and more. According to the Chicago Tribune, the two women were in their apartment in Hyde Park when a man entered through a transom window above their front door and allegedly demanded jewelry and cash.

Johnathan Drummond was arrested and charged with aggravated kidnapping, armed robbery, aggravated criminal sexual abuse, and home invasion in connection. Bail was denied in a hearing yesterday.

At the bail hearing, Assistant State’s Attorney James Murphy describes the alleged events:

Drummond pressed a hard metal object against the back of one of the women, claiming it was a gun, according to Murphy. Though the women never saw it, they said they were convinced he had a gun.

After taking jewelry, Drummond ordered the women out of the home, demanding they go with him to banking machines to withdraw cash.

Drummond allegedly drove the women to several ATMs and forced them to withdraw cash. One woman was able to withdraw $450, but the other woman was unable to withdraw funds, police said. She began contacting family members in hopes they could wire her money.

While traveling between ATMs, Drummond began groping one of the victims inside the car, striking her in the face when she pulled away, Murphy said.

Drummond drove them to a Walgreens that could complete the transaction, but the wiring service was not available that early in the morning, police said.

While at that Walgreens, the alleged victims were able to ask other patrons for helps, and Drummond fled.

After his arrest, Drummond told authorities he picked up two drunk women and took them to an ATM. But, according to prosecutors, surveillance footage confirms the law students’ version of events.

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).

Another day, another Biglaw firm taking steps to walk back some of the austerity measures it put into place thanks to the havoc wreaked by the novel coronavirus upon the world’s financial markets. This time, the firm in question is introducing an interesting little twist into the equation.

Back in May, the U.S. branch of Eversheds Sutherland — an international firm that was declared the 10th best legal practice in the world in Law360’s most recent Global 20 rankings — slashed salaries across the firm and furloughed employees. Both lawyers and staff faced a 10 percent pay cut on average (including bonuses), and about 40 staff were furloughed.

Now, instead of doing what most firms are doing and reducing or ending its pay cuts completely, Eversheds is partially paying its employees back and keeping the 10 percent salary cuts in place going forward.

Per an email from Eversheds Sutherland’s U.S. CEO Mark Wasserman, the firm will be retroactively paying back half of the salary cuts lawyers and staff sustained from May through August. Employees at the firm may be able to see more of their expected pay returned at the end of 2020. “With all of the uncertainty remaining for the pandemic and the economy, we will keep our compensation reductions in place going forward and reassess further restorations at the end of the year,” Wasserman said.

Here’s hoping that lawyers and staff at the firm get their salaries restored — sooner, rather than later, and in full.

If your firm or organization is slashing salaries or restoring previous cuts, closing its doors, or reducing the ranks of its lawyers or staff, whether through open layoffs, stealth layoffs, or voluntary buyouts, please don’t hesitate to let us know. Our vast network of tipsters is part of what makes Above the Law thrive. You can email us or text us (646-820-8477).

If you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Layoff Alerts, please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the layoff alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each layoff, salary cut, or furlough announcement that we publish.

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.

For decades, one marker of a truly prestigious law firm was a commitment to lockstep partner compensation based on seniority. It reflected a “one-firm” philosophy that every partner’s practice contributed to the overall success of the firm and that long-term partnership buy-in was a mark of strength. Firms that allowed partners to “eat what they killed” could collect high-quality talent, but clients looking to build a relationship with a firm that would stand the test of time could look to the lockstep firms as paragons of top-notch stability. There’s a reason why there are bigger firms and there are more profitable firms but we still deploy a special reverence when discussing Cravath and Debevoise.

Davis Polk was also on that ever-shrinking list, but Bloomberg Law reports that yesterday the firm decided to tweak its lockstep formula:

“The firm is strategically focused on measured growth and we are cognizant of the market environment in which we find ourselves,” said Davis Polk managing partner Neil Barr in an interview with Bloomberg Law.

“We ultimately concluded that our existing compensation structure, which paid partners solely on the basis of seniority, was simply not compatible with our strategic designs going forward.”

It’s not like Davis Polk is going to stop being one of the world’s elite law firms and transition into a firm of fiefdoms. Lockstep competition is still at the root of the new model. Rather it’s a recognition that the world is changing. To the extent anyone had trouble reading the writing on the wall, circumstances sandblasted off the rust when Cleary Gottlieb, another of the old-school lockstep firms, lost a rainmaking team to Freshfields last year. It’s a competitive market out there and lawyers at the front end of the seniority curve have few incentives to stick around and wait for the big rewards that lockstep offers down the road when a growth-oriented firm is prepared to evaluate and compensate talent as it comes. Offering some modifications allows Davis Polk to be more competitive in seeking out and retaining young stars unwilling to wait to reap the benefits of the value they have today.

When it comes right down to it, this is still a service industry and client philosophies have changed. A generation-spanning relationship of trust with a lockstep firm isn’t as much of a priority when clients can micromonitor their matters and shop legal work around to find the best deal — with most aiming to work with a handful of law firms rather than one or two relationships covering the wide gamut of matters. And firms need to meet clients where they are.

That’s not to say that something isn’t lost as the lockstep model wanes. I’ve said before that one of the reasons I chose to work at Cleary out of law school was the lockstep worldview. Lockstep at the top bred the culture of a shared endeavor. Resources weren’t hoarded internally and associates weren’t placed in an immediate scramble to lock down a spot in the orbit of the “right” partner to advance their career. It also mattered to me that the vagaries of the business cycle didn’t drive the firm — corporate is bringing in all the money one day and then a recession shifts the balance to bankruptcy and groups didn’t need to worry that they’d get trimmed because everyone knew that these rough patches were why the leadership agreed to get paid equal shares in good years and bad. Lockstep may exist for the benefit of the partnership but it’s a model that really did trickle down.

But it’s also a little like complaining that sports aren’t as “good” as they were before free agency. The bargain of pure lockstep was a career where everyone gets theirs eventually. But with two economic freefalls in 12 years, it’s unreasonable to ask a partner sitting on substantial business to wait their turn. Maybe someday we’ll find a model that balances the benefits of lockstep with the realities of the free agency period in partner books.

Time will tell, but maybe Davis Polk already has.

Elite Wall Street Firm Davis Polk Moves to Modified Lockstep Pay [Bloomberg Law]

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.

* Lindsay Lohan is being sued by a publisher for collecting her $365,000 advance and never writing an autobiography. When she writes the book, hope she explains why there was never a sequel to “Mean Girls”… [USA Today]

* A Florida attorney was allegedly killed by his son earlier this week in an apparent murder-suicide. [New York Daily News]

* Parents for a Northeastern University student who was suspended for breaking anti-COVID-19 measures have lawyered up. [Boston Globe]

* Federal prosecutors are asking that civil cases against Ghislaine Maxwell be put on hold while the criminal prosecution moves forward. [ABC News]

* A lawyer who falsely claimed he needed to have cancerous tumors removed to get discovery extensions may be suspended from the practice of law. As Arnold Schwarzenegger would say, “it’s not a tumor!” [ABA Journal]

Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.