Author: TSA Press

Wowser, the already busy partner lateral market has gotten a kick in the tushie. A group of four Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton partners have decamped from the New York mainstay for the Magic Circle firm of Freshfields. The partners come from a variety of practice groups: Mergers and acquisitions partner Ethan Klingsberg, corporate lawyers Pamela Marcogliese and Paul Tiger, and litigator Meredith Kotler.

What makes this lateral move particularly notable is the move from a firm noted for its lockstep partner compensation, to one that has abandoned their lockstep model for one that lets them pay top dollar to recruit talent. According to reporting by Law.com, Klingsberg (and his $30 million book of business) was fielding offers from multiple suitor firms, and had offers of a guaranteed multimillion-dollar payday that would last for several years. All of which may signal that Cleary partners are ripe for the picking:

“It will be open season on Cleary partners,” as other firms will try to lure more partners from the firm, [Alisa Levin of Greene Levin Snyder, who places partners at elite firms and is a former Cleary associate] said. “Cleary lawyers are known to be among the best and most creative in the field and previously regarded as virtually untouchable by other firms. If someone like [Klingsberg] can be poached, I think others are going to stop and think.”

This lateral move is also of note because there are clues that there’s some bad blood between the parties. Sources have reported — and Cleary confirmed, without any further comment — the quartet of partners were actually fired by the firm before they had an opportunity to give their notice. Which… is not how these things usually go down.

But in Klingsberg’s statement on the move, he kept things exceedingly polite and focused on the “awesome” services at their new firm:

“We are excited to be joining Freshfields’ blue-chip platform. The service that we and our new colleagues at Freshfields will bring to clients promises to be awesome,” He added, “We have all enjoyed our time at Cleary. The momentum and strategic focus at Freshfields will enable us to help our clients with unparalleled service for many years to come.”

Cleary hasn’t made an official comment, but that won’t stop people from speculating about the impact this move will have on the larger firm:

Levin, the recruiter, noted that that the partners’ move from Cleary could be a “one-off thing or it could start a domino effect. We don’t know yet.”

“The firm will do fine, it’s an institution. It’s highly respected,” she said, but “there’s more and more pressure to be able to retain your talent.” She recommended that Cleary take steps to make sure “their partners are committed to the culture and to the [lockstep] system.”

Only time will tell.

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).

The fundamental premise of a law school clinic is that it’s a teaching tool. If you want to be a lawyer, you should get out there and do some law stuff. Meet real clients, address their real issues, learn from some lawyers who are out there practicing instead of the ones who are out there writing law review articles. Law is fundamentally a service industry, but the service is usually downplayed in law school classes. Clinics are one way to “learn by doing.”

Most law school clinics tend to focus on underserved clients or indigent clients. This makes sense. If there are clients who can benefit from the counsel of a mere lawyer “trainee,” clinics should focus on those clients. I promise you, Exxon-Mobil does not need free legal advice from 2Ls. They can afford “real” lawyers. Clinics are useful to the community only to the extent that getting the full attention of an untrained lawyer represents an “upgrade” over the two seconds a fully trained professional has to spend on your case.

Of course, my argument is premised on the belief that lawyers should, where they can, try to help society, not destroy it. My argument will never work on people committed to the Federalist Society, because they believe I proceed from a faulty premise. The FedSoc doesn’t want to help “society,” they want to help their “team.”

Looking out upon the myraid of clinical offerings at Harvard Law School, the HLS FedSoc came to the conclusion that there weren’t enough opportunities for right-wing students to press their Republican agenda. Since the FedSoc looks at every opportunity through the lens of whether they can press their agenda or not — colored with the ever-present persecution complex that only privileged Republicans who control 2.5 branches of government would have the gall to pull off — they decided to do the only thing conservatives know how to do: Bitch and moan.

Folks, this letter is the equivalent of a bunch of medical students demanding a rotation through the breast implant wing because working triage after a mass shooting is too “anti-Second Amendment” for their tastes.

Like so much of what the Federalist Society does, this list of proposed clinics ranges from pure partisan hackery to intellectually dishonest gaslighting. I highlighted the tweet above because later in the thread, the guy exposes once such intellectual falsehood: The made-up need for an “administrative law” clinic:

By “administrative law,” I assume what the FedSoc really wants is some kind of clinical program focused on the destruction of the administrative state and the revocation of Chevron deference. The only real “client” for such an adventure would be Neil Gorsuch, and he can get legal help whenever he wants it.

The FedSoc has come out with a list of causes, not programs. And that’s because the FedSoc knows, as I know, that the programs that work on their preferred causes are already incredibly well-funded. Deny services to a gay person because “Jesus” told you to, and conservative lawyers will materialize in your store to fight for your rights to bigotry. The NRA has no shortage of lawyers happy to (over)charge them as they advance whatever blood-soaked theory they need to make to keep Remington in the black.

And, I’m sorry, but the intellectual idiocy of a “pro-life” clinic exposes not just the FedSoc’s misapprehension on what a “clinic” is, but also the legal weakness of the pro-life movement altogether. Who, the hell, is your “client” in a pro-life clinic? A woman who doesn’t want an abortion? Great. Don’t get one! A doctor who doesn’t want to perform one? No problem, Doc, don’t perform them. A state that wants to take away a woman’s right to choose? Don’t worry, Alabama has government lawyers it pays to do this work. No, your pro-life “clinic” would involve doing free legal work for some dude who wants to insinuate himself into somebody else’s private choice. That’s not a teaching tool for law; it’s basic training for the culture wars. Sorry if you can’t get class credit for that, mein snowflakes. THAT’S WHAT YOUR SUMMER IS FOR, if you are so desperate to tell women what to do with their bodies.

The truth of the matter is that Harvard Law School offers an abundance of clinical programs for those with more conservative leanings. It just offers them around the core concept that free legal work should be done for those who can’t afford to pay for it.

If you are interested in fighting against the government’s progressive tax scheme, you can do that. HLS offers a Federal Tax clinic through WilmerHale. The “catch” is that you have to help poor people who are in dispute with the IRS, instead of helping Elon Musk “fight the man.”

If you want to sharpen your transactional skills so that one day you can help Amazon buy the U.S. State Department, you can do that. HLS offers a Transactional Law clinic. The “catch” is that you have to help small businesses, non-profits, and starving artists with their transactional law needs. I doubt that Mitt Romney will hold it against you when it comes time to deploy your skills for Bain.

Do you just really want to put people in jail before you even pass the bar? Don’t worry, Harvard has you covered. HLS offers a Prosecution clinic in connection with the D.A.’s office in Middlesex, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex County. GO NUTS, conservatives, for your days of demanding cash bail for victimless crimes awaits.

For conservatives who just can’t stomach the thought of working for Legal Aid, or getting school credit to help indigent refugees, there are options. People who can’t afford a lawyer have all of the same kinds of problems of people who can. But what HLS is not doing is giving free labor conservative culture warmongers who are already incredibly well-funded and often well-represented by the very people Harvard Law graduates anyway.

The problem is not the diversity of Harvard’s clinical programs. The problem, as always, is the hackery, trolling, and gaslighting the Federalist Society is all about.

Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and a contributor at The Nation. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.

Each of my colleagues looks at every case, and people were very gracious not to say I was the swing vote — that has this visual image of this going back and forth. To that, I say, “Look, the cases swing. I don’t.”

— Retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, in comments given on whether he found that it took a personal toll or whether it was difficult to always be perceived as in the middle of controversial decisions throughout his tenure on the Supreme Court, during the Fair & Impartial Judiciary Symposium held at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Kennedy was later awarded the Liberty Medal at the National Constitution Center for his efforts to educate Americans about the Constitution through civic education and civil dialogue.

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.

There are two settings in this world for aging hyper-aggressive tools. One is local politics, where being a big fish in the world’s smallest pond offers a salve to every inadequacy. The other is recreational sports, where middle-aged potzers suck down beers and unironically act out Bruce Springsteen’s “Glory Days” one 10-second, 40-yard dash at a time. Bringing the two together creates a noxious brew that’s now winding its way into the courts.

Mayor Michael Lockliear of Moncks Corner, South Carolina, apparently plays kickball on a team with his son. Over the summer, he had an altercation with an umpire when Lockliear’s son was called out at home plate. The umpire, Graylnn Moran Jr., was informed by his boss two days after the plate call that “someone did not want him officiating any longer and that he was fired.” He sees it as what passes for political revenge in this town and filed a lawsuit.

Per NBC:

Lockliear and his son were playing for a recreational kickball team called “Recreational Hazard” and were playing offense in the bottom of the eighth inning when the call happened. According to the lawsuit, Lockilear’s son was running to home plate when the opposing team, the “Toe Jammers,” tagged him in the back of the leg with the ball.

Full credit for “Recreational Hazard” as a rec league team name.

The mayor did not agree with the call and is willing to admit he argued with the umpire even if he denies using his influence to get Moran fired:

“I’m very competitive, and I would have argued that call even if it wasn’t my son,” Lockliear said. “Because we were down 4-3 in the bottom inning. And then I thought he was safe, he looked safe, he was past the bag when he got hit by the ball. I said, ‘He was past the bag’ three times and then walked away.”

Well, at least he admits that he’s very competitive. He also retains an encyclopedic memory of the game conditions of a children’s game that he plays as a grown-ass man, which isn’t weird at all. That might be why the lawsuit thinks Lockilear went a little further with his tirade:

The mayor allegedly kept yelling at the umpire until Moran Jr. told him that he was representing the town and should calm down.

“I own this town!” Lockliear allegedly responded. “You won’t have to worry about representing this town anymore because you won’t be back out here.”

Is “I own this town,” the more disturbing thing an elected official could say in an era of rising fascist tendencies or the absolute saddest thing any human being could say about an 11K-person hamlet? Can it be both?

Either way, I’d hate to have to requisition a new park teeter-totter or whatever it is that passes for high stakes politics in this bareknuckle-politics town.

Umpire claims in lawsuit South Carolina mayor had him fired over kickball call [NBC News]

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.

State-owned Air Zimbabwe’s only serviceable plane was stopped from leaving Johannesburg last week after failing to pay for airport services.

The dispute was resolved on Friday when the airline settled its debt, said South Africa’s airport management company on Monday.

“Air Zimbabwe was… able to re-commence operations from (Johannesburg’s) O. R. Tambo International Airport from Friday 25 October,” a spokesperson for Airports Company South Africa (Acsa)told AFP, adding that the company acknowledged “a receipt of a payment towards the amounts outstanding”.

Acsa declined to disclose details on the amount of money involved.

Air Zimbabwe is required to pay Acsa cash once a week to cover landing fees, parking and passenger service charges for a weekly flight into Johannesburg — its only international destination.

The airline is one of many businesses suffering from the economic downturn and hyperinflation left over from years of mismanagement under Zimbabwe’s former president Robert Mugabe.

Basics such as food, fuel and medicines are hard to come by, and Air Zimbabwe has laid off hundreds of staff over the past two years.

As an adult who’s graduated from college and has attended law school, it’s highly likely that you’ve played a round or two of “Never Have I Ever,” the drinking game where players are asked about things they’ve never done, and must take a sip of their drinks if they’ve done the thing in question. It’s a really entertaining way to get to know (and potentially embarrass) your classmates and colleagues.

In fact, law students seem to love playing “Never Have I Ever,” because BuzzFeed’s latest video about the law school experience is well on its way to going viral. As of this writing, it has almost 50,000 views, and it’s climbing higher by the second.

So, what’s the “worst” or “craziest” thing you’ve done at law school? Have you ever cheated on a test? Have you showed up to class while under the influence? Have you ever had sexual relations with a classmate or a lawyer? From wanting to quit to stressing after 1L exams to drinking excessively after finals, this video captures the some of the worst that law school has to offer in a nutshell. Check it out:

What’s your best law school “Never Have I Ever” experience? You know you have one, so feel free to email us (subject line: “Law School Never Have I Ever”) or text us (646-820-8477) and tell us all about it. We may feature some of them here in an upcoming post on Above the Law. We look forward to hearing from you.

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.

In honor of New York bar results being released last week and February bar prep on the verge of beginning, I have compiled some of the worst bar prep advice I’ve heard. Now, I am 1000 percent sure that I am going to get an email from someone saying, “But I did XYZ thing that you said was bad advice and it worked for me.” Listen, we all know that there are exceptions to every rule. But in general, the things listed below are not the best practices or things that work for most people. It is always a good idea to double-check the bar prep advice you receive from non-bar exam professionals.   

1. “Just do everything your bar prep company says and you’ll be fine.”

I’m starting with this one because, confession time, I’ve given this advice before. That is because it used to be true. However, more and more over the last few years, I am finding that it is necessary for students to get material from various sources and to modify the schedule they receive from their bar prep companies in order to be successful. This doesn’t mean that there is anything “wrong” with the materials or schedules that bar prep companies give. The reality is they are one-size-fits-all options and it will likely be necessary for you to tailor your schedule in order to reach your goals.

2. Anything that starts with “Back in 1918 when I took the bar exam, I did XYZ…” 

When the partner at your firm or, let’s be honest, any lawyer in your family, wants to give you advice based on what worked for them when they took the bar exam 30+ years ago, smile, say thank you, and then immediately cross-reference their advice with someone from your academic success department.

It is not that their advice is automatically bad, but it certainly is outdated. So, the course they tell you is the best might not be the best anymore, or there may be options out there that they aren’t even aware of. Also, the test may have changed substantially, and substantively, since they took it and some of their advice may no longer be applicable. 

3. “You should listen to MEE predictions from XYZ company.” 

Every time someone asks me what I think the topics of the MEE questions will be on the bar exam, my eyes flash red and my head spins around on my neck like in The Exorcist. When it comes to MEE predictions, the Anchorman quote “60 percent of the time it works every time” tells you everything you need to know. Thanks for that gem, Brian Fantana. 

I absolutely loathe essay predictions because on many, many occasions, I’ve watched students rely on these to their detriment by exclusively studying predicted topics in the weeks leading up to the bar exam. There is, however, a less harmful way to use MEE predictions. If you do happen to stumble upon some predictions, feel free to throw in a couple of extra essays on those topics. Just make sure that you aren’t ignoring everything else.

4. To someone who just failed the bar exam: “You were so close, you probably just need to study a little harder.”

If I had to pick my least favorite piece of advice on this list, this would be it. I know that it is hard to believe after my scathing review of the MEE predictions, but hear me out. If a student earned a score that is close to passing the bar exam, it is very unlikely that it was caused by a lack of work ethic. More likely than not, the person is struggling with one or more skills-based or strategy issues. So, following this advice would mean doing more of what we know did not work. This is terrible advice. A much better approach in this situation is to evaluate what worked, what didn’t, and make changes to the student’s approach to bar prep. 

5. To someone who failed the July bar exam: “Wait to take it next July because I heard February is harder.”

This little piece of folklore really grinds my gears. Do you know what I hear after EVERY bar exam? “That was the hardest test ever” to which, I smile, nod, and agree because I know that to that student it was the hardest test ever. While there may be some valid reasons to postpone taking the bar exam for a year, this isn’t one of them. In fact, this advice can do more harm than good if a student is very close to passing. Over this extended period of time, they will likely forget much of the law and will certainly lose their momentum. 

6. “Read all  the essay topics first and start with the one you feel best about.”

For many, the bar exam is a race against the clock. On the MEE, you get only 30 minutes per essay, and most students find that to be not enough time. That means every minute is precious. So if you spend the first five minutes going through and figuring out which essay you want to start with, you’ve now almost cheated yourself out of one minute per essay. I generally recommend that you take the essays in the order they come up and promptly move on every 30 minutes. 

7. “You don’t need to study for the MPT because everything you need is on the test.”

This is partially true, but misleading, advice. It is true that all of the substantive law you need to know is provided in the MPT. However, many students interpret you don’t need to “study” as you don’t need to prepare at all for the MPTs. And, that my friends, is false. Like MEEs, one of the hardest things about MPTs is completing them in the allotted 90 minutes. The only way to get faster, more accurate, and more efficient at this is to practice. Also, practicing for the MPT allows you to see a variety of formats and will limit the chance that you will have any major surprises on test day. 

8. “You shouldn’t be so nervous. If you don’t pass this time, you can pass next time.”

I appreciate the sentiment here. However, this bit of advice is very invalidating to the very real fear of failure that students face when taking the bar exam. There is a lot on the line for many students, and any advice that is dismissive of that or that encourages students to stuff their fear and stress down can be really detrimental to their ability to be successful. It is important for students to deal with their fear and anxiety along the way so that it doesn’t all manifest on exam day and prevent them from passing. 

9. “Make sure you learn all the law before you do practice questions.” 

This is probably the worst piece of bar prep advice a student could receive. There are very few things in this world I know for certain, but one of them is that doing practice questions is the best way for students to increase their chances of passing the bar exam. I haven’t performed a formal study on this, but based on my years of experience, the number one reason students fail the bar exam is a lack of active studying (meaning too much video watching and not enough practice question doing). 

Spoiler alert: You’re never going to learn “all the law.” And if you wait until you feel like you have, you will definitely run out of time to do enough practice questions to be successful. It is a much better game plan to incorporate practice questions from the beginning of bar prep because not only do they help you with your skills, but they also help you learn the law. 

10. “Focus more on the MBE because it is worth the most points.” 

While I’m never going to knock someone for doing extra MBE questions, this advice is misleading. In a UBE jurisdiction, the MBE is worth 50 percent of your score, MEE 30 percent, and MPT 20 percent. As you can see, the MEE/MPT together also equal 50 percent of your score (and that is the extent of my math skills). Yes, the MBE is important and I highly recommend you do a ton of questions (like more than 3,000 of them), but you don’t want to do them to the exclusion of practicing the written portion of the exam.  The MEE and MPTs are equally as important.  

Best of luck in your bar prep journey! 

Kerriann Stout is a millennial law school professor and founder of Vinco (a bar exam coaching company) who is generationally trapped between her students and colleagues. Kerriann has helped hundreds of students survive law school and the bar exam with less stress and more confidence. She lives, works, and writes in the northeast. You can reach her by email at info@vincoprep.com.