Author: TSA Press

Another stupid, pointless effort to turn protectors and servants into professional victims is being mounted in Alabama. Cops can barely be bothered to educate themselves on the laws they’re enforcing, but they’re usually all over the ones that allow them to turn things they don’t like into criminal activity.

It’s (yet another) “blue lives matter” law being foisted upon citizens by legislators who are altogether too certain they’re in the right. Here’s the backer of the proposed law that would turn cops into a protected group making a claim that’s proven false before the end of the article at PoliceOne.

“Everyone agrees that it should be a hate crime to shoot a police officer,” said state Sen. Cam Ward, R-Alabaster, and chairman of the Alabama State Senate Judiciary Committee where the hate crime legislation is reviewed. “I don’t know anyone who opposes that. The question is, ‘What gets tacked on?’ Yes, you can find a bipartisan solution.”

Everyone?

[Sen. Vivian] Figures said she favors “of doing everything we can to protect our law enforcement officials.” But she said she’s unsure if a hate crime law is the right vehicle.

The bill, written by Senator Chris Elliott, is his second attempt to push a cop-friendly hate crime bill through the legislature. Elliott possibly figures he’ll have a better chance this year because more cops have been killed in Alabama than usual. There have been six law enforcement officers killed by residents this year, which puts the state towards the top of the killed in the line of duty list.

The senator who spoke for everyone (while being wrong about what “everyone” agreed with) doesn’t want this bill tainted with riders that would provide similar hate crime protections for others more deserving of these protections. Sen. Figures (who does not agree with Ward’s assertion that “everyone agrees”) may have been responsible for the death of Elliott’s previous effort when she added an LGBTQ amendment to his 2018 “blue lives matter” bill. That’s the sort of “tacking on” Ward is hoping to prevent here, in order to give cops more protections while leaving more vulnerable residents less protected.

Adding to the stupidity is the fact that police already benefit from a law that provides an extra deterrent to killing cops.

In Alabama, killing a law enforcement while they are on the line of duty is an aggravating factor that is punishable by the death penalty.

These proposals have made periodic appearances in the years following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. The shooting was a flash point in police-community relationships. With the current federal administration strongly pro-law enforcement, state-level legislators perhaps feel emboldened to pursue legislation that does little to protect cops, but everything to put more distance between law enforcement and the people they serve.

These proposals are reactionary in the worst sense of the word. They’re legislative affirmations that might makes right and the people with most might will continue to consolidate power. There’s little evidence that suggests these laws are justified at any level. Most killings of cops are impromptu, not planned assaults inspired by an insatiable hate for law enforcement.

The general public receives zero benefit from these laws. All that happens is a very well-protected group of government employees gets even more protections. The laws become vehicles for abuse and there’s only so much courts can do to protect citizens if their “representatives” decide to serve fellow government employees rather than their constituents.

The upside here is these proposals — at least here in Alabama — can be neutralized by adding amendments that would extend protections to people who don’t wear the blue — especially members of the public that far too many legislators don’t feel are worthy of any protection.

Alabama Lawmakers Think The Time Is Right To Make Assaulting A Cop A ‘Hate Crime’

More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:

Federal Court Blocks Unconstitutional Arkansas Law That Prevents Plant-Based Food Companies From Using Meat Words
Austrian Hotel Drops Libel Lawsuit Against Guest Who Complained About Pictures Of Nazis In The Lobby
Dear Americans: Be Very, Very Afraid Of The EU’s New Copyright Rules

The hedge fund he founded, named for himself and led for 24 years—including through a damaging bribery scandal—isn’t doing so well, thanks to said bribery scandal (and is also no longer named for him and possibly no longer returning his calls). Dan Och, though? Yea, Dan Och is doing fine.

Mr. Och paid roughly $95 million for the penthouse unit as well as a smaller unit on a lower floor of the building, located at 220 Central Park South…. Mr. Och’s new four-bedroom apartment spans about 9,800 square feet, according to marketing materials for the property.

* Brush of your resumes everyone, a longtime general counsel of Boeing is going to retire by the end of the year. [Wall Street Journal]

* A UK lawyer is under fire for claiming he killed a fox with a baseball bat. Lawyers need to learn to stop being cruel to animals. [New York Post]

* A rapper currently serving time in prison has donated a significant amount of cheddar to his lawyer’s synagogue. Such a mitzvah. [Jewish Telegraphic Agency]

* Chief Justice Roberts is going to have a pivotal role in any upcoming impeachment trial. [AP]

* The Washington Supreme Court has held that drivers need to use the turn signal every time they move their car into a different lane of traffic. This kind of makes sense, but try telling this to New Jersey drivers… [Seattle Times]

---

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.

Businessman Frank Buyanga. Photo: Supplied

Do we need even one more report on the difficulties that women have staying in the profession? Do we need the ABA to tell us what anyone in the profession with even the teeniest brains knows just by looking around and seeing the attrition of women who boogie out of Biglaw practice? I didn’t think we needed one, but I would be wrong. (Not the first time, and certainly not the last.)

Carolyn Elefant, in a post two years ago, wrote about the ABA Initiative to investigate why mid-career women lawyers are leaving Biglaw.

Here we are, two years later, and guess what? No, don’t guess. I’ll tell you. The ABA report has concluded that “men are from Mars, women are from Venus.” Did we need the ABA to tell us that?

And if you’re not familiar with the book, “Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus,” which was hugely popular in the 1990s (when many of our readers were barely in grammar school), the report nails what the problem is. Indeed, male lawyers are from Mars, and female lawyers are from Venus.

John Gray’s book asserts that men and women have differing ways of communicating (no surprise there), and so they need to understand those different styles. Gray’s book also talks about the different emotional needs that men and women have.

The ABA report, entitled “Walking Out of the Door, The Facts, Figures and Future of Experienced Women Lawyers in Private Practice,” is really nothing new after all the reports we’ve read over the past decade. The report suggests recommendations that “if adopted” (notice the use of “if”) could lead eventually to gender parity in Biglaw. However, I don’t think anyone alive today will still be alive to see that transformation unless the cryogenics business really takes off soon.

The report shows a huge disconnect between how male lawyers view aspects of law firm practice and life differently from their female colleagues. Some of the factors where men and women report differing levels of satisfaction include compensation (and how that compensation is determined), opportunities for advancement, workplace gender diversity, and firm leadership.

A few of the disparities in what the report terms “everyday building blocks for success”:

How many times has a male lawyer been mistaken for a lower-level employee? According to the survey, never, but 82% (!) of women lawyers said that they have been so mistaken. (And don’t get me started on how women lawyers are expected to plan parties, pick up refreshments, and other housekeeping duties.)

How many men have experienced a lack of access for opportunities for business development? According to the report, a mere 10%, while 67% of the women lawyers haven’t had that access. (Gee, another surprise.)

How about some more? Disparities in how committed women are to their careers, the perception of a hostile work environment, denials in salary increases and/or bonuses, being overlooked for promotion opportunities, lack of sponsors, loss of a desirable assignment. The list goes on.

Men and women have significantly differing views on why women choose to stay or go. Three of the biggest reasons for why women walk out the door: work/life balance (and let’s stipulate that women have just about all of the responsibilities for both children and aging parents), advancement opportunities, and marketing/business origination. There are others, but those three give you a flavor of why women leave.

The report gives an example of a classic Mars v. Venus situation: a large percentage of firm leaders and male partners believe that their firms do a good job to advance experienced women, however, to no woman’s surprise, “experienced women do not share that view.”

Everyone and anyone who has even a smidgen of interest in why experienced women leave should read the report. Men may well be surprised, but women will not.

What should Biglaw firms do differently? I’m not going to provide a list of the report’s suggestions (and I do have a word count limit). You can guess what most, if not all, of them are. The bottom line is pretty simple. “Change the law firm structure and culture so that firms can better address the needs of the many women they recruit and seek to retain.” Well, that’s easy. Not. Setting up policies and procedures is comparatively easy. Implementing them is more difficult. Compliance with them is the hardest part, and who is willing to devote nonbillable hours (at least currently) to be the “enforcer?”

There has to be commitment and not just lip service if this profession is ever going to look like this country. Women make up more than 50 percent of the population, they compose 50 percent of incoming law school classes, and then mid-career, women lawyers turn their backs on Biglaw, saying, in essence, “phooey.” Think about all the training and knowledge that Biglaw has provided only to see experienced women lawyers walking out the door. Not a very good return on the Biglaw firm investment.

---

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.

Ed. Note: As the decade comes to a close, Above the Law presents you a special Trivia Question of the Day series in remembrance of the Biglaw firms we lost in the 2010s.

What now defunct Biglaw firm was founded in 1956 by four antitrust attorneys?

Hint: The firm had a 50+ year run, with 16 offices and over 500 attorneys when it announced its dissolution in 2011.

See the answer on the next page.

And in spite of the shocking information that the scope of Defendant’s noncompliance was grossly understated, and that they continue to violate the injunction, Defendants do not exhibit contrition.

—Lawyers at Housing and Economic Rights Advocates in Oakland and the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School asking U.S. District Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim of the Northern District of California to reconsider (and increase) the $100,000 sanction levied against Betsy DeVos’s Education Department. Judge Kim issued the fine in October after it was revealed that DeVos had continued to collect on former students’ loans from the now-defunct for-profit Corinthian Colleges Inc., even seizing their tax refunds and wages, despite a June 2018 order forbidding further collection on loans that should have been forgiven. However, plaintiffs now say the records provided by the government at the time of her October ruling were “grossly inaccurate,” and that the estimation that the 16,000 violations as of the June 2018 order was “off by almost 300%.”

---

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).

In a long Washingtonian profile of Tiffany Trump, the Trump Organization explained that it could not facilitate an interview with Trump’s youngest daughter because “her school schedule is ‘quite hectic.’”

As a 3L.

Finding mendacity in the most mundane moments is truly what sets these people apart.

It’s not that Tiffany’s schedule isn’t hectic. Her security detail almost assuredly slows down every move. She has a well-publicized gig working with Shon Hopwood helping former prisoners — a job that reportedly involved her doing a little lobbying of her dad on sentencing reform. She has two cats. But none of these are “her school schedule.” Being a 3L isn’t what’s keeping her tied up. The article notes that she’s hanging out with her family on the regular, taking trips that most law students could never fit into their schedules. There’s only one way a 3L has a hectic school schedule and that’s if they’re dumb enough to do two years of law review. She did not.

But putting aside the weak sauce excuse the organization gave to avoid Tiffany’s interview, the profile of Tiffany’s life aims for an angle — set up in the headline itself — that it never really captures. But it failing to bring it home, it leaves us with an almost sadder message lurking between the lines.

“Tiffany Trump Is About to Finish Law School. And She’s Getting a Lot Trumpier,” promises the article’s title. But there’s very little to suggest the sociology and urban studies major has embraced gutting public school spending and kidnapping immigrant children. While her older half-brother has taken to sending around racist conspiracy theorists, Tiffany is apparently “Trumpier” mostly because she has a massive portrait of herself in her apartment and she’s spending more time with her siblings since their father’s campaign forced them all into the same room, which kind of misses the very heart of what the term “Trumpier” means in this era.

In fact, the whole piece leaves the distinct impression that Tiffany lives a bit like a hostage to a public relations image that she never invited and isn’t particularly comfortable with. It explains that her Instagram account has morphed from a normal rich kid’s into a testament to a family unity that never existed. There are asides about Tiffany maybe joining the family business in some vague capacity… despite having taken a career path that suggests the exact opposite. There are anecdotes about watching Barron play soccer and family getaways at Mar-a-Lago that apparently became a thing the exact moment it became convenient for her dad. Assuming these tales aren’t artificially hyped up — they are delivered in a conservative pundit’s Trump hagiography — they don’t paint Tiffany as “asserting herself deeper into the family fold” but a human being who cares enough to be present in the lives of her half-brother and nieces and nephews. Given the stage that the article set, Tiffany probably knows that she’s got limited time to build these relationships and she’s taking advantage.

Because despite its stated aim, Tiffany doesn’t come across as “Trumpier” by the end of the article. Instead, the mood of foreboding unintentionally laced throughout the piece is a sense that Tiffany might be aware that she’s going to be cast out when her dad can’t win Michigan again.

But when that happens at least she’ll have a law degree with no debt!

Tiffany Trump Is About to Finish Law School. And She’s Getting a Lot Trumpier. [Washingtonian]

---

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.