Author: TSA Press

Insider trading certainly seems illegal. People continue to be indicted for it. Congressmen continue to plead guilty to it. Other people remain in jail convicted of it, or, having left jail, just convicted of it. Still others continue to be sued by the SEC for it. So, yea, in spite of the hopes briefly kindled by a 2014 ruling severely limiting its scope and by the soon-to-be-dead Antonin Scalia’s dreams of rendering it not, insider-trading is definitely still illegal.

But, like, how illegal? Or, more to the point, what aspects of insider-trading are illegal? What, essentially, is insider-trading? This definitional issue is a good deal less clear than the, “is any kind of insider-trading illegal” issue. To paraphrase another court ruling, judges just seem to know it when they see it. This has predictably led to some rather disparate interpretations, uneven enforcement, one particular person not really sure if he insider-traded in spite of having pleaded guilty to it, and enough hand-wringing to lead some people to throw their hands in the air and say, “Fuck it! Just let people do whatever they want.”

The closer we get to Friday night, the more likely it is that Biglaw firms will announce bonus news that’s sure to delight.

Yet another firm has announced bonuses that reward associates for billing well above and beyond what was expected of them, except in this case, many associates were surprised by the fact that less was required of them than usual to achieve a market bonus — meaning that some may be receiving some unexpected additional cash.

The firm in question is Katten Muchin, and associates seem pretty thrilled:

Katten announced bonuses today! The big news this year is that the firm is paying market bonuses at 2000 hours. Previously, the threshold for market was 2100, with a smaller bonus at 2000. On top of that, the announcement this year is much earlier (previously mid-to-late January), as is the payment (previously mid February).

Here’s the scale for Katten’s over-the-top bonuses for high billers:

Note that there’s not even a pro-rated bonus included for the class of 2019. Ouch.

(Flip to the next page to see the full memo from Katten.)

Remember everyone, we depend on your tips to stay on top of important bonus updates, so when your firm matches, please text us (646-820-8477) or email us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Matches”). Please include the memo if available. You can take a photo of the memo and send it via text or email if you don’t want to forward the original PDF or Word file.

And if you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Bonus Alerts (which is the alert list we also use for salary announcements), please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the bonus alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each bonus announcement that we publish. Thanks for all of your help!

---

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.

[Legally Blonde] is more than another romantic comedy. It’s a nod to feminism, not judging women by appearances and, of course, women in law.

The ultimate verdict on the movie should be that you don’t need a man to succeed, you can still be feminine and strong if that’s your style, and you can always brush someone’s condescending doubt about your worth with a “What, like it’s hard?”

— Haley Moss, an associate at Zumpano Patricios, in a piece she wrote on the ways Legally Blonde influenced a generation of women lawyers. Moss, a 2018 graduate of the University of Miami School of Law, is the first openly autistic female attorney in the State of Florida.

---

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.

It’s been 15 years since I stood on the steps of Langdell Hall as a newly minted Harvard Law School graduate. Along with 500 of my classmates, I naturally assumed we would launch our careers, rise through the ranks, and then make partner — all at the same firm where we started. Little did I realize that the path to success is not a linear one, but rather a series of well-intentioned moves in a complex landscape where legal expertise is only one facet.

Here are my suggestions for recent graduates as they navigate the next decade of their legal careers:

1. Build Your Network. Though I am no longer a practicing attorney, the network of friends and peers I built in my short stint in Biglaw pays dividends even outside the practice of law. For attorneys, the payoff is even greater; attorneys live and die by their reputation and maintaining a group of advocates, mentors, and friends will both embed your reputation in the legal community — for better or worse, so be careful — and open new opportunities to you from lateral movement, referrals, career advice, or even just moral support.
2. Keeping On Climbing. Perhaps the most apt metaphor I’ve heard to describe a Biglaw career is that it is akin to climbing a mountain. It is a constant uphill battle that becomes steeper the higher up you climb. While attempting to climb the ranks in Biglaw, you will get outpaced by your coworkers if you fail to recognize that steady endurance and constant commitment are the keys to success. Our clients measure attorneys based on their future expected performance, which is often demonstrated by tangible benchmarks from their past, such as originations and hours. Try to maintain an even pace that allows you to hit both the quantity and quality requisites for working in Biglaw.
3. Death of a Salesman. Young lawyers often think of sales and marketing as ignoble and would rather devote their time strictly to the practice of the law. While an endearing sentiment, the reality is that any partner worth his or her salt has developed sales prowess. In my dealings with rainmakers, the one thing they all possess is the ability to communicate with clarity and act with authenticity. It takes a track record of expertise to get in front of a client, but once you’re there, you have to close the deal and pass up when you cannot deliver. Look for partners with a demonstrated record of procuring large clients, and see if they are willing to mentor you — then ride their coat tails.
4. Play Chess, Not Checkers. Navigating your legal career requires finesse and foresight. From elementary school to law school, your path has likely been fairly linear. The game of law is not so much — it requires a deft touch to get you where you want to go. You may have to sacrifice short-term happiness for long-term gains. For instance, though you may be enamored with your overly leveraged firm, you have few opportunities for servicing meaningful work and practicing your client development skills. Come your eighth year, the firm is not going to make you partner just because you love the firm so much. We have had clients that lateral away from their dream firm to gain the requisite experience at another firm to later come return to that firm as a partner. Think three moves ahead, not just one.
5. Always Explore Your Options. The days of the lifer are pretty much over. Staying with one firm for eight years in hopes of becoming a partner won’t boost your chances as much as you might hope. In making your career plan, remember that there are always opportunities for more substantial work, higher pay, and better mentorship. It never hurts to be aware of your career options and check in on the marketplace from time to time. Worst-case scenario, you stay at your firm if the current opportunities are not quite the right fit.

As you embark on your law careers, remember there is no singular piece of advice that will fit every attorney. Much of your career will be reacting to new information with little notice. We counsel our candidates based on each individual’s current situation and goals, and we invite you to explore your options with us.

Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series of posts from Lateral Link’s team of expert contributors. Michael Allen is the CEO of Lateral Link. He is based in the Los Angeles office and focuses exclusively on Partner and General Counsel placements for top firms and companies. Prior to founding Lateral Link in 2006, he worked as an attorney at both Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and Irell & Manella LLP. Michael graduated summa cum laude from the University of California, San Diego before earning his JD, cum laude, from Harvard Law School.

---

Lateral Link is one of the top-rated international legal recruiting firms. With over 14 offices world-wide, Lateral Link specializes in placing attorneys at the most prestigious law firms and companies in the world. Managed by former practicing attorneys from top law schools, Lateral Link has a tradition of hiring lawyers to execute the lateral leaps of practicing attorneys. Click here to find out more about us.

The effort to rehabilitate the reputation of alleged serial sexual harasser, former Ninth Circuit judge Alex Kozinski continues a pace. In 2017, Kozinski retired amid a sexual harassment scandal that rocked the legal world. While the jurist was somewhat famous in legal circles for his bawdy sense of humor, the extent of the alleged harassment — asking women clerks to view pornography with him in his chambers, making inappropriate sexual comments, and verbal abuse heaped on females working in his chambers — was more hidden. However, the Washington Post’s exposé on the judge sparked an avalanche of over a dozen women coming forward to share their experiences with the judge. But his retirement stunted any real investigation into the allegations.

Last year, the first step in the rehabbing his reputation began when he appeared as a co-author on an appellate brief on behalf of the heirs of Pulitzer Prize-winning author Paul Zindel, in their case claiming the Oscar Award-winning movie “The Shape of Water” stole copyrighted parts of Zindel’s “Let Me Hear You Whisper.” Now it’s reported that he’ll be returning to the Ninth Circuit in an oral argument in that case.

Kozinski’s attempt to ingratiate himself back into the legal community — without any investigation — is what Kozinski accusers warned us would happen:

“Where formal processes fail or are subverted, the legal community should insist on informal reckonings before any rehabilitation, rather than turn a collective blind eye to allegations of harassment,” wrote Leah Litman, a professor now at the University of Michigan Law School, Emily Murphy, a professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, and Katherine Ku, a partner at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

And some see this attempt as a deliberate flip of the bird:

“The issue right now that faces our sort of  #metoo world is the issue of normalization after certain allegations have been made and after certain consequences have occurred,” said UC Hastings professor Rory Little, who is currently a visiting professor at Yale Law School this semester.

“My overall reaction is one of some sadness that [Kozinski] somehow feels it necessary to thrust himself back in the public eye,” Little said. “It seems like poking a stick in the eye of the community.

“You can just imagine this his return is going to upset some people,” Little said.

But there isn’t any formal process designed to hold Kozinski accountable. Once he retired, the investigation ended and, as a industry, there is not much that can currently be done. However, Fix the Court executive director Gabe Roth thinks it shows the need for congressional action:

“That a serial harasser is allowed to make a comeback without making amends is shameful. It’s also the exact reason we’ve called for an amendment to the judicial misconduct statute that would ensure judges can’t simply retire to make their misconduct cases disappear.

“Keeping complaints alive post-retirement would send a strong signal to current and former members of the judiciary that there are long-term consequences for their actions and that any attempt to return to public life may be marred by a thorough misconduct investigation — and not merely a banal dismissal of charges, as happened with Kozinski.

“Continuing the misconduct process would also signal to other legal bodies, like state bar associations, that they’d be welcome to act, as well.”

But until that happens there’s little recourse but good, old-fashioned shaming.

---

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).

Plaintiffs in the gender discrimination case filed against Biglaw firm Jones Day have filed a motion in federal court to conditionally certify the case as a collective action under the Equal Pay Act. The purported class-action gender discrimination lawsuit alleges a “fraternity culture” at the firm and unequal pay behind the firm’s notorious “black box” compensation system.

There are currently six named plaintiffs in the case (there had been seven, but one anonymous plaintiff dropped out rather than reveal her name). The plaintiffs are spread throughout the country — Nilab Rahyar Tolton, Andrea Mazingo, Meredith Williams, and Jaclyn Stahl worked in California offices of the firm, while Saira Draper was an associate in Atlanta, and Katrina Henderson was in the firm’s New York office — and allege the same black box compensation systems kept their pay below that of men working at the firm:

“Plaintiffs worked in multiple Jones Day offices and practice groups, and each has been subjected to a common compensation practice that results in women earning less than men for substantially equal work,” they said in the filing. “All are challenging the same compensation policy, under which every associate’s compensation is determined in a ‘black box,’ with final decisions made by the Firm’s Managing Partner, Stephen J. Brogan.”

If the collective action is certified, female associates who have worked at Jones Day since April 3, 2016, would be able to opt into the litigation.

In their response to the First Amended Complaint, Jones Day denied the plaintiffs’ allegations, going after the notion the plaintiffs should be paid on the market scale set by Cravath, and highlighting the professional failings of the plaintiffs.

Earlier coverage: Jones Day Hit With Explosive Gender Discrimination Case
Jones Day Facing Second Class-Action Lawsuit Over ‘Fraternity Culture’ Of The Firm
Partner Whose Behavior Features Prominently In Jones Day Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Is Out At The Firm
Jones Day Wants Gender Discrimination Plaintiffs To Reveal Themselves To The Public
Plaintiffs Throw Shade At Jones Day In Gender Discrimination Lawsuit
Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Against Jones Day Gets Yet Another Plaintiff
Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Against Jones Day Dropped — Well, One Of Them At Least
Jones Day Gender Discrimination Case Spreads To New York
Amended Gender Discrimination Case Brings The Real Scoop On Jones Day Compensation
Jones Day To Gender Discrimination Plaintiffs: You Don’t Deserve To Be Paid On The Cravath Scale
Plaintiff Backs Out Of Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Against Jones Day Rather Than Reveal Her Name

---

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).

It’s Friday afternoon, and you know what that means during bonus season: Biglaw associates across the country have been counting down the hours and repeatedly refreshing their email accounts to see if they’ve received any welcome news about whether their firm will match the market or come in over the top.

Today, lucky associates at one firm discovered that they’d wind up with some extra cash on top of their regular bonuses if they worked really, really hard this year. Which firm could be offering up the bountiful bonuses, and how much extra money are we talking?

It’s Akin Gump, and the firm has matched Milbank for 2019 year-end bonuses. In case you’ve forgotten, this is what the scale looks like:

Class of 2019 – $15,000 (pro-rated)
Class of 2018 – $15,000
Class of 2017 – $25,000
Class of 2016 – $50,000
Class of 2015 – $65,000
Class of 2014 – $80,000
Class of 2013 – $90,000
Class of 2012 – $100,000
Class of 2011 – $100,000

Associates at the firm need to have worked 1950 or more hours (including pro bono hours, general counsel hours, business development hours, and up to 100 hours of time spent on recruiting, diversity & inclusion, and/or innovation activities to be considered eligible for a full bonus this year.

Now, about the additional money highly productive associates at the firm can expect, let’s turn to an excerpt from this year’s bonus memo:

This year, as in the past, the firm will reward truly outstanding performers with bonuses that exceed the market bonus for their respective class (as set forth above). Those associates and counsel whose performance and productivity is deemed extraordinary will receive additional bonus amounts ranging from $5,000 – $25,000 above the market level for their class.

Congratulations to everyone at Akin — this seems like a fantastic cash haul. Bonuses at the firm will hit associate bank accounts in early 2020.

(Flip to the next page to see the full memo from Akin Gump.)

Remember everyone, we depend on your tips to stay on top of important bonus updates, so when your firm matches, please text us (646-820-8477) or email us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Matches”). Please include the memo if available. You can take a photo of the memo and send it via text or email if you don’t want to forward the original PDF or Word file.

And if you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Bonus Alerts (which is the alert list we also use for salary announcements), please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the bonus alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each bonus announcement that we publish. Thanks for all of your help!

---

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 is a misperception in the legal industry that there is an imbalance of economic information as between law firms and their clients. The truth of the matter is that both law firms and their clients have access to comparable data. This billing data could be using more effectively if buyers and sellers of legal services collaborated around it using modern data analytics tools. This level of transparency will make the practice of law value driven and will benefit all parties.

Legal spend analytics is not about taking sides. Corporations want their law firm as a partner in a long-term relationship, not a fungible vendor where they continually beat down the fees. Similarly, law firms want to differentiate themselves in the market by providing exceptional value. The perceived imbalance of available information occurs because law firms and clients view the situation from different perspectives with focuses on different things. At bottom, the same raw data memorialized in the invoice can be strategically transformed into mutually beneficial business intelligence.

Legal Decoder helps clients and law firms re-imagine data to see the whole picture from both sides. Our technology neutrally and objectively surfaces unique insights helping law firms and their clients see both spend and value. This affords law firms and their clients an unbiased, accurate depiction of the entire situation. With the ability to see it from each other’s viewpoint they can use the available data in a coordinated manner to yield better economic results as well as improved value for every dollar spent.

It’s like going to the doctor; they can only help if you truthfully disclose what is going on. Our clients have noticed the following using our Legal Spend Analytics engine:

• Better economic results for everyone;
• Improved efficiency and value for each dollar spent;
• Access to actionable data that informs legal spend decisions;
• Budgets that are informed by what should have happened;
• A stronger, tighter relationship with increasing trust and engagements on more matters; and
• Powerful and honest conversations.

When it comes down to it, law firms and their clients are on the same side fighting a common enemy (e.g., the counter-party plaintiff or defendant, buyer vs. seller, the IRS, etc.). With aligned data insights, it is the client and their law firm against their opponent not the firm versus client. Analytics generated by Legal Decoder become a resource for law firms and their clients. A collaboration around data is an effective tool for law firms and their clients to defeat their shared opponent. The duality of legal spend analytics generate results that speak for themselves.

We’ve been covering all the various SLAPP suits filed by Devin Nunes against his critics, journalists, political operatives, and (most famously) a satirical internet cow. As we’ve noted, despite Nunes being a Representative from California, and despite the fact that many of the people and companies he’s targeting are California-based, he’s filed most of the suits in Virginia state court. The reasons for this seemed fairly obvious to many commentators. Virginia has a very weak anti-SLAPP law. California has a very robust one.

We were actually a bit surprised to see Nunes file one lawsuit in California, but he quickly dropped it to file a related lawsuit… back in Virginia. His one other non-Virginia lawsuit was filed in Iowa which has no anti-SLAPP law at all.

And while these lawsuits all appear to be frivolous attempts to intimidate critics and journalists, they may actually have a potentially good result. Legislators in Virginia have been inspired by this abuse of the judicial system to consider beefing up Virginia’s weak anti-SLAPP law:

Sen. John Edwards,… who will chair the Senate Courts of Justice Committee in the 2020 legislative session, said he’s already hearing from lawyers who want Virginia’s anti-SLAPP law strengthened in the wake of Nunes’ actions.

One is Roanoke lawyer Mark Cathey, chairman of the Roanoke School Board. He emphasized he was speaking for himself and not for the board.

“Our courts shouldn’t be taken advantage of this way,” Cathey told me regarding Nunes’ lawsuits.

The article also notes that another legislator, Scott Surovell, is also Adam Parkhomenko’s lawyer, the one who wrote that wonderful motion to quash Nunes’ subpoena of Parkhomenko, pointing out that cows don’t have opposable thumbs.

A Virginia lawmaker who’s urging legislative action is Sen. Scott Surovell, D-Fairfax. As an attorney, Surovell represents Adam Parkhomenko, a Democratic strategist whom Nunes has subpoenaed in an effort to learn the identity of the person behind Devin Nunes’ Cow, a Twitter parody account that has lampooned the congressman.

Surovell called Nunes “a serial SLAPP abuser” and added, “There’s no question he specifically forum-shopped this SLAPP lawsuit [against Twitter] in Virginia.”

While these frivolous nuisance suits are a pain, and certainly unbecoming of a sitting member of Congress, it would be nice if the end result is the creation of another good state anti-SLAPP law.

Devin Nunes’ Virginia SLAPP Suits Causing Virginia Legislators To Consider A New Anti-SLAPP Law

More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:

The Fate Of EU Legislation Designed To Bolster Data Protection Beyond The GDPR, The ePrivacy Regulation, Hangs In The Balance
NYPD Finally Releases A Body Camera Policy That Gives The Department Plenty Of Ways To Withhold Footage
Why Won’t Creative Future’s Members Comment About This Hollywood Front Group Smearing A Well Respected Law Professor?

Elon Musk is a billionaire entrepreneur, and as such is not used to be called to account for his actions, whether those actions are alleged securities law violations or smoking weed on camera while under scrutiny for a Twitter habit at the heart of those alleged securities law violations or inability to meet either profit or production goals. Certainly, he’s not interested in being called to account for rather apparently alleging that a man seeking to rescue children from a cave is an actual child rapist.