Author: TSA Press

A little more than a week ago, on November 8, 2019, the University of Pennsylvania Law School, which has long been known as Penn Law for short, accepted $125 million from the W.P. Carey Foundation — the largest gift ever made to a law school — and honored its donor with naming rights to the elite institution. From that day forward, the school would be known as the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, the most prestigious law school to ever be renamed for a donor.

Unsurprisingly, students and alumni immediately objected to the school’s rebranding as “Carey Law,” and created a petition against the “Carey Law” monicker. That petition, which received thousands of signatures, reads:

While many of us are grateful for the generous donation from the Carey Foundation and the benefits it will bring to Penn Law, given the long-held history of referring to this institution as Penn Law, we respectfully ask that the shorthand for the law school remain Penn Law. Not only is there another law school utilizing the same “Carey” name (University of Maryland Carey School of Law), but past and current students chose to attend “Penn Law,” not “Carey Law.”

The undersigned would like to preserve the brand recognition, over century-long history, and clear association with the University of Pennsylvania that comes with the name Penn Law. This is in no way meant to belittle or disrespect the immensely generous gift by the Carey Foundation as we are extremely grateful for their support and look forward to the positive changes and improvements that come as a result.

Will these T14 law students and alumni be able to preserve tradition and brand recognition for their alma mater? The answer seems to be yes — for a limited time.

According to a letter from Dean Ted Ruger, the school will continue to be known as Penn Law, but only until the start of the 2022 academic year, when its shorthand name will become “Penn Carey Law.” This will allow current students to graduate under the Penn Law name, but future students will graduate from “Penn Carey Law”:

Much of the conversation has centered on concerns over the short-form name, instead of a focus on how the Carey Foundation gift will be used. We have heard you. Like all of you, my colleagues and I care deeply about the Law School’s history, tradition, and reputation in the academy, profession, and across the globe. Therefore, consistent with the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, which is our official name, the Law School will continue to use Penn Law as our short-form name until the start of the 2022-23 academic year, after which we will use Penn Carey Law, thereby embracing both tradition and transformation.

In an interview with the Daily Pennsylvanian, Pepper Hamilton partner M. Kelly Tillery, a 1979 graduate of the school, claims that alumni are discussing a donation moratorium unless “Penn Law” remains the school’s permanent shorthand name, going on to criticize the proposed name change:

Tillery called “Penn Carey Law” the “McDonald’s of law schools” because the name appears to be in a franchise with “Maryland Carey Law.” University of Maryland’s law school was renamed in 2011 after a $30 million donation from the W. P. Carey Foundation.

“The essence of a franchise is that the quality of the goods and service is not necessarily good, it is just consistent,” he said. “And the consistency level is defined by the lowest denominator: here, the University of Maryland, a fine school no doubt, but not the caliber of Penn Law.”

“I guess we will have to ask students, ‘Would you like fries with that law degree?,” he said.

Wow. This is perhaps the first time a T14 law school has been likened to a McDonald’s, but Tillery is definitely not lovin’ it.

Let’s get real here for a moment: Even when Penn Law formally becomes known as “Penn Carey Law,” does the administration seriously think students will actually refer to the school by its new name (aside from on résumé lines and t-shirts)?

(Image via Giphy)

(Flip to the next page to see the full letter from Dean Ruger.)

‘Penn Law’ Keeps Its Name—For Now [Law.com]
‘A complete nightmare’: Penn Law students and alums reflect on name-change process [Daily Pennsylvanian]

Earlier: Disgruntled T14 Students Take To Twitter To Protest Law School’s Name Change
Students And Alumni Are Pretty Pissed About T14 Law School’s Name Change
T14 Law School Receives Historic Donation, Changes Its Name

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.

The internet and television are replete with articles and shows about how to declutter your life. This includes everything from throwing out old dance recital costumes to tossing old canned goods to clearing out computer files filled with old, blurry photos. For those of us who do not lead clutter-free lives, distributing our estates, upon our passing, can be tedious, time-consuming, and frankly, unpleasant, for family, friends, and professionals charged with the task.

In talking to my clients about estate planning, they often raise the issue of “stuff.” In other words, what happens to all of their “stuff” when they die? First, a last will and testament is not going to inventory every single item that you own and direct the executor where to send it or how it should be preserved. Most last wills and testaments have a general close citing cars, boats, glass, appliances, clothing, books, jewelry, and bric-a-brac, which I choose to call chotchkes (think mini Eiffel Tower statue or “#1 Sister” trophy). If married, the tangible personal property is generally left to the spouse. If there is no spouse, then to the testator’s descendants. Often the distribution of tangible personal property is left to the executor to sort out, after the last will is admitted to probate. This means that the executor inventories your home and decides who gets which item, taking into consideration the beneficiary’s wishes and the items’ values. The rest of the items (that no one wants) is sometimes sold, but often thrown out or removed by junk-removing companies.

In many states, testators leave a special memorandum with their last will and testament. This is a document separate from the last will which notes particular tangible items and to whom the testator wishes the executor to distribute to upon the probate of the last will. The last will may reference the memorandum and incorporate it into the terms of the last will, depending on the state’s laws. Under the memorandum, a testator will often include specific directions as to jewelry or family memorabilia. A memorandum is used for several reasons. Often tangible personal property is hard to locate upon a testator’s passing. The gold bracelet mentioned in a last will may be hard to identify or even find. Distributions under a memorandum are often unenforceable as to the value of the item, if it should go missing. Moreover, if not specifically listed in the last will, it provides privacy for the testator so that the public and the family does not see what exactly is being distributed to each individual.

Often, tangible personal property, like jewelry, is transferred during a testator’s life, especially as one ages. This prevents fighting after death as to whom should get what piece of jewelry or which set of candlesticks, and it also gives the testator the joy of seeing the gift realized. Of course, many proceedings arise after death as to whether or not the transfer was an actual gift or if it was a conversion. Therefore, if one anticipates family litigation as to tangible personal property, be certain to document the gifts as to date, value, and other circumstances.

For items not listed specifically in a memorandum or in the last will, the executor will need to decide next steps. Often items are of little monetary value, but of great nostalgia. As an executor, I am thrilled when beneficiaries wish to receive undesignated tangible personal property because it relieves the pressures of emptying a residence, trying to sell unmarketable items, or looking for opportunities to donate. In this day and age, there are not many outlets for CDs, cassette tapes, and VHS tapes. Old televisions and stereo systems are not wanted. Libraries often request a monetary donation with books in order to sort through and organize them. Junk removal services charge significant fees to take items out of a residence. That’s right, an estate will pay a company to remove a decedent’s entire life. Simply, your stuff is not marketable.

Not everyone is a celebrity whose personal effects are in demand. Famed Hollywood actress Doris Day’s personal property will be put on auction in April. Included in the collection are her awards, a Valentino outfit, and gifts from Rock Hudson and Paul McCartney. Famous chef Anthony Bourdain’s items, including a knife he used, were recently put up for auction. This summer, Madonna lost an appeal to stop the auction of a 1995 letter written by TuPac Shakur to her, while he was in prison. In the letter, he breaks off their relationship. The public wants TuPac’s stuff. Yours, probably not.

It is hard to manage the clutter in our lives while we are alive, and it is even more difficult when we pass away.  In considering one’s estate plan, besides the big-ticket items such as children, real estate, and brokerage accounts, be sure to pay attention to the small stuff. One’s legacy should include a somewhat organized and thoughtful distribution of personal items, so that one’s wishes can be carried with dignity and efficiency.

Cori A. Robinson is a solo practitioner having founded Cori A. Robinson PLLC, a New York and New Jersey law firm, in 2017. For more than a decade Cori has focused her law practice on trusts and estates and elder law including estate and Medicaid planning, probate and administration, estate litigation, and guardianships. She can be reached at cori@robinsonestatelaw.com. 

The decision reverses a move by the southern African nation’s newly formed Monetary Policy Committee in September, which raised the rate from 50%. It follows the unveiling last week of the 2020 budget which shows a planned surge in spending for next year.

The rate was cut as the MPC “emphasized the need for the bank to put in place measures to fund the productive sectors of the economy by redirecting excess liquidity in the financial system,” Governor John Mangudya said in a statement.

Tapiwa Mumverenge*, nine, works at a sugar plantation, but hopes to attend school one day. Photograph: Nyasha Chingono

A California bar study has charted attorney discipline over a 28-year span and discovered that, by and large, black and Latinx attorneys are disciplined more often and their punishments are more severe than then comparable population of white lawyers.

This is, of course, not a huge surprise and confirms similar studies from a variety of other settings. Still, if one were holding out hope that the legal profession were somehow better, then we’ve got some bad news for you:

• The probation rate for male lawyers was 3.2% for blacks, 1.9% for Latinos, 0.9% for whites, and 0.8% for Asians. The probation rate for female lawyers was 0.9% for blacks, 0.5% for Latinos, 0.4% for whites, and 0.2% for Asians.

• The disbarment/resignation rate for male lawyers was 3.9% for blacks, 1.7% for Latinos, 1% for whites, and 1.1% for Asians. The disbarment/resignation rate for female lawyers was 0.9% for blacks, 0.5% for Latinos, 0.4% for whites, and 0.2% for Asians.

That’s a pretty hefty skew. The cynical could argue that black male and Latino attorneys just have more complaints against them than white men, which is true though not saying much given the public’s overwillingness to report minority attorneys. When the study attempted to control for the number of complaints, it found that “probation and disbarment/resignation rates would have been reduced to 1.4% and 1.6%, respectively, for black males, compared to the 0.9% and 1% totals, respectively, for white males.” That’s still a disparity, but a much less striking one, and one that might be conflated with different, overlapping racial inequities (e.g. more minority attorneys operating in smalls or solos instead of big firms exposing them to more financial complaints).

But knowing is half the battle as they say, and now California at least has some hard data to look at when attempting to tackle implicit bias. Other states may want to follow its lead.

New California bar study finds racial disparities in lawyer discipline [ABA Journal]

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.

At the 2019 Wolters Kluwer ELM Solutions Users Conference, which took place last week in Miami, Brian Dalton sat down with Wolters Kluwer ELM Solutions EVP and General Manager Jonah Paransky and Product Director Vince Venturella to discuss the launch of Wolters Kluwer’s LegalVIEW® Predictive Insights Module, a solution designed to help better manage litigated matters by using predictive analytics to improve the law firm selection and budget management processes. Read on to find out how Wolters Kluwer’s new product will solve client challenges.

The following has been condensed and edited for clarity.

The genesis of the LegalVIEW® Predictive Insights Module

The litigation market is under stress and has a strong need for better information during the matter management process. Today, critical litigation management decisions are guided by intuition and experience, with subpar results. These kinds of decisions — on counsel selection, budget, cycle time — are some of the most critical choices our clients can make to achieve a positive outcome and control costs.  The lack of data to guide them in these processes is costing customers significant money due to poor cost management and budgeting.

We therefore saw LegalVIEW® as addressing two main problems: over-budgeting and under-budgeting. Over-budgeting ties up funds that could be used for other business purposes, reducing potential investment capital and lowering overall financial agility.  Under-budgeting — not effectively forecasting dollars — leads to unexpected cost and budget overruns. LegalVIEW® Predictive Insights aims to help resolve both these issues.

How LegalVIEW® Predictive Insights helps

We wanted to explore how our clients could improve this situation and use predictive analytics in their everyday workflow to address these problems. We partnered with a group of current clients for a proof of concept to get their feedback, listen to their ideas, and understand how to better address their litigation management issues. ELM Solutions now has the data — our LegalVIEW® database with over $130B in legal spend data — and artificial intelligence (AI) to develop this predictive insights solution.

By integrating AI and machine learning technology directly into our enterprise legal management platforms (Passport® and TyMetrix® 360° ), we are able to provide an intelligent workflow to support data-driven insights. That predictive data is combined with other client-weighted firm performance metrics to build a ranked list of the best firms to use for each matter. Users are provided with recommendations on which law firm to select, expected budgets, and cycle times at key moments in their workflow, resulting in more informed decisions and improved outcomes for their company and policy holders. 

ELM Solutions’ offering is the only proactive solution and intelligent workflow in the marketplace: We embed predictive litigation insights right into users’ workflows to improve decision making at touchpoints throughout the lifecycle of legal matters. This allows our customers to better manage outside counsel, control legal spend, and realize improved case outcomes.  And it represents a revolution in the litigation management space by allowing our clients to utilize their litigation workflows in proactive (as opposed to traditionally reactive) ways while still providing portfolio level insights to litigation leadership over the long term. 

The case use persona

We’re addressing two personas — the corporate attorney who is managing litigated matters and the insurance claims professional who is responsible for litigated claims. We also know our targeted personas are going to have a range of experience in their role, and our LegalVIEW® Predictive Insights solution offers value to both new and senior associates alike.

For the new associate, they can lean on the institutional experience captured in historical metrics analyzed and presented in our solutions. Instead of depending on the advice of a few associates or choosing a firm based on very little information, they can see which firms are the best for a matter based on practice area, geography, past performance, and predicted performance. For the senior associate, LegalVIEW® Predictive Insights gives them the confidence that their go-to firms are truly providing top performance from an array of available firms. It also gives them vital decision-making assistance in unfamiliar practice areas or geographies.

Leveraging the LegalVIEW® data

LegalVIEW® is the largest database of real spend data in the industry. We layer the client’s data on top of that to build a complete predictive data model. The users can see the data generated by the data model in Passport’s Law Firm Smart Select feature, a firm selection interface that gives our users metrics to consider while choosing a firm for a matter. Examples include average rate, win/loss ratio, and firm performance ratings. 

Analyzing variables and matter complexity

The data model analyzes a combination of our LegalVIEW® data, client historical data, and client-weighted key performance metrics to build its ranking of best firms for each matter. In total, there are 23 metrics available that can be considered to build a rank. Each data model is unique to the client.

We don’t define complexity. The model is built to be bespoke to each client’s data set, so their measure of complexity is consistent throughout the feedback we receive, as the model has been built to their usage. Our goal is to make sure that they have best practices and consistent definitions and apply those items consistently across their matters and lines of business. In this way, we can be nimble when it comes to the market’s wide definition of complexity, severity, and risk. 

Client feedback and assessment data

We strongly believe that firm performance metrics are a vital component in managing outside counsel and give our clients the ability to do so through firm score carding, the results of which are aggregated and used both in our LegalVIEW® Predictive Insights data model and our Law Firm Smart Select functionality.

We capture objective data — such as win/loss ratio and average rate — along with subjective data — such as firm responsiveness and adherence to budget — to build a comprehensive picture of firm performance. 

Artificial intelligence and the nuances of legal practice

There are aspects of legal practice that even the best imaginable AI will be unable to replicate. There is always a possibility that AI will overlook some of these intangible nuances — the practice of law is not something that can be contained 100 percent in numbers. The goal isn’t to have the users always choosing the #1 firm. The goal is to separate the top 10 firms from amongst the hundreds or thousands of firms that the client works with, provide recommendations, and most importantly, information as to why the firms are ranked as they are.

This means that users have the information they need to supplement their own experience and make the best possible decision. The trend we would expect to see over time is not consistent choice of the #1, but more usage of the top 10 firms and improvement in the associated metrics that client has said are valuable which are expressed through that ranking. 

The growth of LegalVIEW® Predictive Insights with more granular data

We have a long-term vision for this offering that includes creating predictive data around expected outcomes, settlement recommendations, total case costs (settlement/judgment costs & legal expenses), and firm management. We will also be expanding our visualizations and reporting, providing executive management insights into the overall performance of their chosen metrics and of the firms selected for partnership. Additionally, we are looking at expanding into the individual timekeeper level to provide even more detail about how a firm/attorney will perform on that matter. 

The overall goal and approach of ELM Solutions’ AI portfolio

We don’t look to bring technology to market for tech’s sake — we look at client problems and challenges and look for ways to solve those challenges.

For example, managing spend in a corporate legal or claims department is still a challenge for many — still a lot of money to manage, and billing guidelines have become more complex, paper invoices still come in the door. E-billing systems are the critical foundational technology used to manage spend, and many thought that having that tech was the best they could do. We recognized there was an opportunity to take spend management to the next level and now have an approach we call Total Spend Management, which addresses those outstanding challenges with AI-enabled services and advanced technology, and can save clients up to 10 percent savings in legal spend and 20 percent increase in billing compliance.

Total Spend Management is an example of our innovative approach to leveraging our AI and other advanced technology expertise to address client problems and improve outcomes.

Whenever Biglaw offers another salary boost — as they did last year — many of us allow the Cravath-approved scale to serve as a stand-in for lawyer salaries generally. But Biglaw isn’t the norm and attorneys around the country can and do get by on lower salaries, even if law school isn’t appreciably cheaper for them.

Forbes recently took a look at attorney salaries across the country and the compensation gains lawyers have made over the past few years. Unsurprisingly, California and New York have the country’s richest lawyers on average. But what state has the country’s poorest lawyers?

It’s Montana, where the average lawyer salary is a mere $88,600. How bad is that? To put it into perspective, that’s almost $10K less than the state with the second lowest average salary (which is Mississippi at $97,990).

It’s a little surprising that Montana is so low on this list. No one expects New York salaries in Missoula, but the state has powerful ranching and energy interests that one might have thought could support some high-priced attorneys to inflate that average.

But, as the author of the Forbes piece notes, things are arguably pretty good for Montana attorneys because salaries are actually up 17.6 percent since 2013. Watch out, Mississippi!

Here’s How Much Money Lawyers Make In Every State [Forbes]

This week, we continue our written interview with Mike Hilgers of Hilgers Graben PLLC regarding his experiences as a Biglaw refugee who is now running a successful boutique litigation firm. Please see below for Mike’s answers to my second and third questions about his jump to business ownership and the value proposition presented to both lawyers and clients when working with a smaller firm with a vision and lower overhead.

As always, I have presented Mike’s answers below along with some brief commentary of my own.

2) Jumping from Biglaw to start a boutique is something many lawyers fantasize about but never do. Why should they?

The freedom. Biglaw has many virtues, but if you’re at a big firm, and I was, you are just one cog in a much larger, older, established machine. You can’t change much — the culture is largely what it is, the conflict space is largely set, the identity of the firm and its internal rules and bureaucracy are in place, the financial incentives and location of offices are all static. With your own firm, you can create and implement your own vision — the culture, clients, service offerings, teammates, internal rules and systems, financial incentives, and basically everything else — it is a blank canvas. We have used that freedom to innovate and approach the business side of law differently, creating non-IP practices like a unique discovery counsel specialty and using geographic arbitrage to drive down costs. If you have an entrepreneurial or innovative spirit, there really is nothing like it.

Even with our success, there are still things I miss from my Biglaw days. When I first started the firm, it was my former colleagues that I missed most — Biglaw had a lot of really talented, driven, and interesting people. But we have recruited those same people to our firm, and I get to interact with them every day. So, now, as a business owner, the thing I miss most is having internal administrative teams for every business function. At big firms there are marketing, accounting, billing, and recruiting teams that let you focus on practicing law and you never worry about the administrative or non-legal sides of the business. Here, we have to wear many hats.

GK: Mike’s observations echo a lot of what we learned when starting KSK. At the same time, we have seen that the entrepreneurial spirit waxes, rather than wanes, in boutique firms that stay the course and place innovation and creative thinking at the heart of their strategy.

3) Should more IP lawyers be moving themselves out of high-priced metropolitan areas, for both quality of life and financial reasons, in order to offer a compelling alternative to clients with lower overhead?

Yes! We are passionate about this. Big cities are great and the firms in big cities typically pay their lawyers more, but they come with a cost — financially and otherwise. Housing on the coasts and other big cities is very expensive, and even with a larger salary it can take a long time to buy a home (especially while balancing student loans). And everything else costs more too, from babysitters to restaurants. Beyond the higher monetary cost, bigger cities tend to impose a time cost too, from higher billable hour requirements to lengthy commute times. I’ll give you an example. One attorney in our Lincoln office moved from a bigger city with his family, exchanging a two-hour daily roundtrip commute for one under five minutes and lowering his billable goal by hundreds of hours in the process. By moving to Lincoln and joining our firm, that person has gained over 750 hours of time back per year — to spend with his family, on other pursuits, or however he chooses. You can’t put a price on that. While cities like Lincoln have lots going on, smaller communities aren’t for everyone, but for the right people they have advantages you can’t replicate elsewhere.

For Hilgers Graben, highlighting our strengths as a heartland litigation boutique is essential. Any business needs to figure out how it is different and what sets them apart from the competition and it is no different with legal services. There are thousands of excellent litigators around the country. Setting out what makes you different in the litigation space is important because without as many cases going to trial, there aren’t a lot of objective ways to convey value.

For our firm, our differentiators are geo-arbitrage — having outstanding litigators who come from top schools and firms around the country but are based in Nebraska, where office space is $14/foot and everything is cheaper — and our client service first/“no jerks” culture. Rates and responsiveness are two objective measures of value, and they go a long way to creating a brand in the market. Smaller firms can be more nimble and have a great opportunity to innovate and differentiate themselves in the marketplace.

GK: There is a lot to the concept of “geo-arbitrage,” especially when it is wielded as adroitly as Hilgers Graben does for marketing purposes. While I do not deny that there are economic benefits to being based in a low-cost locale like Nebraska, there are also ways for “big city”-based firms to practice their own version of geo-arbitrage as a means of offering more attractive rates to clients and shorter commutes to prospective laterals. Whether that means embracing co-shared workspaces or relocating an office to a cheaper neighborhood will differ for every firm. At bottom, the key is to remember that clients want their lawyers to protect and advance their interests above all, and even the most ambitious lawyer prefers not to waste time commuting when they could be productively working. For firms of all sizes, a structure that lowers rates while increasing responsiveness will always be worth adopting.

My thanks to Mike for the insights and cooperation, and I wish him and his firm continued success. It is always a privilege to hear from successful and thoughtful IP lawyers, especially from someone who has achieved that success while maintaining a commitment to both public service and excellent lawyering without losing focus on family and quality of life. I am always open to conducting interviews of this type with other IP thought leaders, so feel free to reach out if you have a compelling perspective to offer.

Please feel free to send comments or questions to me at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or via Twitter: @gkroub. Any topic suggestions or thoughts are most welcome.

Gaston Kroub lives in Brooklyn and is a founding partner of Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov PLLC, an intellectual property litigation boutique, and Markman Advisors LLC, a leading consultancy on patent issues for the investment community. Gaston’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and related counseling, with a strong focus on patent matters. You can reach him at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or follow him on Twitter: @gkroub.