The California Consumer Privacy Act, the most significant privacy regulation ever enacted in the United States, takes effect in January 2020. Join us for a free webinar to learn more.
The California Consumer Privacy Act, the most significant privacy regulation ever enacted in the United States, takes effect in January 2020. Join us for a free webinar to learn more.
Organizations engaging with personal healthcare data need to pay close attention to the rapidly evolving regulatory environment. Over the next few years, the compliance requirements around personal healthcare data are set to evolve at breakneck speed. Surviving and thriving in this environment of regulatory change will require a more strategic approach to managing personal data.
For decades, personal healthcare data was regulated by a patchwork of federal and state-level, industry-specific data protection rules that left significant gaps in coverage. As a result, an individual’s healthcare data – and all personally identifiable data within organizations working with healthcare information – fell under data protection rules only in some circumstances. Not surprisingly, today most individuals do not understand when their healthcare data is protected by data privacy rules and when it is not.
Now, the advent of new state-level data privacy laws, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), and the possibility of a comprehensive federal level law means it’s likely that those gaps in regulatory coverage will be filled, creating a range of new compliance requirements. These new data privacy rules – covering the previous gaps – present an opportunity for healthcare industry organizations to enhance the trust within their data relationships. Let’s look at an example of what is happening to see both the challenges and the possibilities.
Exploring CCPA and healthcare data
The impact of the CCPA on healthcare data privacy compliance will be significant, and so it makes a good case study for understanding what is to come. Until the CCPA – which comes into force in January 2020 – healthcare data privacy and security in California was primarily regulated through HIPAA. However, HIPAA only applies to “covered entities” holding “protected health information.” HIPAA’s focus is primarily health insurance, so organizations in scope include hospitals, clinics, insurance providers and clearing houses that process medical data.
In contrast, the CCPA applies to all for-profit organizations that do business in California that operate above certain revenue and data processing thresholds. The CCPA exempts personal data protected by HIPAA and California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA) – so some types of personal healthcare data continue to be covered by the existing rules. However, CCPA now covers most other personal data created, processed and exchanged by the healthcare industry – filling in the gaps.
Understanding three big changes CCPA brings
CCPA will significantly alter the rules of the game for personal data in the healthcare industry. Below are three key ways in which organizations will need to rethink data privacy:
These are significant changes to the way personal data – and healthcare data in particular – needs to be handled under CCPA. They will require impacted healthcare organizations to make substantial changes to the way they obtain, process and store this information. Organizations may be tempted to try and comply by implementing a variety of point solutions to tackle individual issues. However, this would be a costly and inefficient approach given the scale of the changes that have already happened, and of those to come.
Preparing for the healthcare data revolution
For organizations in the healthcare industry, the impact of CCPA is just the beginning. A number of states, including Washington and New York, are working on putting their own CCPA-style regulations in place. At the federal level, a new data privacy bill is viewed as having enough strong support from both Republicans and Democrats to actually make it into law before the next presidential election cycle. Hearings are being held, and draft legislation, including a bill in the Senate, is making its way through the legislative process.
Change is coming, and it is coming soon. Healthcare industry organizations operating outside of California will soon have to face the same kinds of issues described above. In such an environment, a strategic approach to meeting personal data requirements over the long term makes sense. Tactical fixes aimed at short-term CCPA compliance may not be scalable to manage the coming multi-state or US-wide personal data rules. A proactive, enterprise-wide approach to data privacy enables organizations to scale compliance across multiple regulations quickly and easily.
It also empowers the organization to engage in a more proactive and responsive way with individuals. Prepared organizations can concentrate on enhancing the relationship of trust they have with their customers while competitors are still working hard to comply. Healthcare organizations that choose to implement an intelligent approach to data privacy once will be able to thrive in an environment of intense regulatory change.
Photo: LeoWolfert, Getty Images
Yesterday was the day that financial performance artist and SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son stood in front of his investors and answered their most profound question: “What the fuck just happened with WeWork?”
And as befits the man himself, Masa Son did not just address this query directly, he made it into high art. In a slide deck that has been widely circulated and unfairly mocked by media outlets untrained in the ways of financial satire, Son laid out his case of what just happened to him and how he plans to fix it. The slides were honest, oddly designed, and simplistic in a way that only Masa Son can be.
At the risk of doing what so many other sites are doing, we’ll admit to being tickled by slides like this one:
SoftBank
That does say it all without saying almost anything, and the stormy seas are a delectable little touch.
This is also a pretty punchy little number to share with your shareholders:
SoftBank
But, hey, at least it’s being made clear that they all now own way more of it:
SoftBank
And these are also quite solid:
SoftBank
SoftBank
We bet many of you are looking at these two slides and wondering how you wasted so many hours in an MBA-level microecon course, when really all you ever needed was these two slides and the multitudes of knowledge contained therein.
This slide, in particular, has gotten some niche viral love as a good literal illustration of what fueled the WeWork disaster:
SoftBank
And, yes, this is a very funny slide that feels almost aquatic, like a debt-ridden dolphin breaking through up and through waves of financial shame. That said, it’s not even close to the best slide. It is not Masa Son’s true, evocative masterpiece.
The real triumph here, the true moment of transcendent genius that fully subsumes everything about Masa Son and his intention as an artist/investor is this seemingly simple one hiding in plain sight:
SoftBank
This is it. This is the one. This is Masa Son’s “Les demoiselles d’Avignon,” a seeminlgy simplistic reinterpretation of accepted forms that is really a subversive treatise on the future.
Look at it closely. The whole piece is structured around the artist’s contention that hypothetical profits extend upwards forever “(after improvement).” Nothing more is said about what that “Improvement” actually entails, nor is the artist inviting the viewer into the phenomenological dialectic of what it means to change for the better, or what “Profits” even really are. All Son offers his audience are the concepts of “Amount” and “Time.” It’s as if the artist is saying that the ephemeral esoterica of life’s reality make any cogent understanding of “Value” absurd on its face. If you believe in time, and you believe in money, then why – Masa is clearly asking – can you not believe that something he once made everyone believe was worth $47 billion because he gave it $19 billion and is now worth $7 billion will someday be worth $Infinty billion?
This slide is not just about WeWork, it’s about SoftBank, and it’s very much about Masa Son himself. But if you step back and see the piece with honest eyes, you will see its deeper truth. This slide is about all of us.
The holiday season – and many CLE deadlines – are just around the corner. Whether you’re hoping to squeeze in some CLE before you travel, or looking to finish your CLE requirements before the end of the year, Lawline has you covered. With over 35 programs on the calendar in November, with topics ranging from key SCOTUS cases and corporate whistleblower protections, we’ve got something for everyone. Check out some of November’s CLE highlights below.
How to Franchise a Business: A Practitioner’s Guide. If you’re advising a client looking to turn their existing business into a franchise, it’s important to be aware of a number of different state laws, as well as the Federal Trade Commission regulations. This program will cover the applicable laws and regulations, as well as practical advice for guiding potential franchisors. Airing Monday, November 4, 2019 at 11:30 a.m. (EST
State & Local Government Issues at the Supreme Court, 2018 – 2020. This program will review some of the most interesting Supreme Court cases from the 2018 – 2019 term, and a few cases from the upcoming 2019 – 2020 term, that will have a large impact on state and local governance. There’s something for every kind of lawyer in this one. Airing Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 2:30 p.m. (EST)
Hot Topics in Corporate Whistleblower Protections. This timely program offers a discussion of recent developments in protections for corporate whistleblowers, including the Taxpayer First Act, protected conduct under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the impact of Wadler v. Bio-Rad, and more. Airing Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 3:00 p.m. (EST)
If you can’t attend a live webcast, don’t worry! All of our courses go on-demand within 48 hours after airing (and you can check them out with our free trial). Check out these highly rated programs that were recently added to our catalog:
How to Succeed in a Contested Guardianship Proceeding. Regardless of who an attorney represents in a contested guardianship proceeding, the goal should be to protect the Respondent with diminished capacity. This program covers trial tips to achieve this outcome for attorneys representing either party, and pitfalls to avoid. Originally aired on October 1, 2019
Cybersecurity & Data Privacy: Regulatory and Enforcement Update. Recent cybersecurity enforcement has seen lawmakers asking businesses to protect their data, networks, and customer information or face stiff penalties. This program reviews recent enforcement trends, legal developments in cybersecurity, and predictions for 2020. Originally aired on October 10, 2019
Representing Plaintiffs in Wrongful Death Cases. This program provides strategies for trials involving wrongful death claims, including best practices in mediation, out-of-court settlements, handling experts at trial, issues for the surviving family members, and much more. Originally aired on October 22, 2019
(Photo by Dia Dipasupil/Getty Images)
I’m definitely working really hard and it’s a commitment that I’ve chosen to take this time away from my family to study and to not go out with my friends and live a different life. And I’m so OK with that.
— Kim Kardashian West, discussing her legal aspirations during a panel at the New York Times DealBook Conference earlier this week. “I love it and I just hope that one day I can start a firm that will help with prison reform,” the first-year legal apprentice continued. She again reiterated her desire to hire people who are currently behind bars, because “they know the law better than most lawyers.”
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 pressure is on at Gibson Dunn. The firm finds itself in the middle of a controversy surrounding its use of mandatory arbitration agreements as a condition of employment. Fourteen LGBTQ+ student organizations at 13 different law schools have announced they will no longer accept money from or otherwise promote firms that have mandatory arbitration agreements. As part of this campaign, they’re targeting Gibson Dunn’s arbitration policy (though summer and first-year associates are not subject to mandatory arbitration, the firm still uses it for non-attorney staff).
The open letter, written by Harvard Law School Lambda and the People’s Parity Project (student activists that have kept the heat on Biglaw firms over their use of mandatory arbitration agreements), was signed by the following organizations: Queer Caucus at Berkeley Law School, University of Chicago Law School OutLaw, Columbia Law School Outlaws, Cornell Law Lambda, Georgetown University Law Center OutLaw, Harvard Law School Lambda, Harvard Law School Queer & Trans People of Color, Michigan Law Outlaws, New York University School of Law OUTLaw, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law OUTLaw, Stanford Law School OutLaw, UCLA School of Law OUTLaw, University of Pennsylvania Law School Lambda Law, and Yale Law School OutLaws. Additionally, Harvard Law School Lambda, Michigan OUTLaws, UCLA OUTLaw, and Yale Law School OUTLaws are ending their existing partnerships with Gibson Dunn over the practice.
“Workplace discrimination remains alive and well in the legal profession—and we cannot in good conscience promote employers as LGBTQ+ friendly when they are using forced arbitration to sweep discrimination, harassment, and other workplace misconduct under the rug. The reality is that as long as Gibson Dunn or any other firm subjects its employees to forced arbitration, we simply do not know whether they are safe and equitable workplaces for queer and trans workers,” said Sejal Singh, a founding co-director of the People’s Parity Project and member of Harvard Law School Lambda.
Additionally, the People’s Parity Project announced that as a result of this campaign, Williams & Connolly will end their mandatory arbitration practice.
The practice of mandatory arbitration agreements in Biglaw first came under fire when Munger Tolles was called out on social media for the practice last year. That firm changed their policy as a result, and other firms voluntarily did away with the practice. Others required some good, old-fashioned pressure, but eventually eliminated the agreements. But, of course, there have been some firms that have held fast, despite complaints and bad press.
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).
(Image via Getty)
Today, Milbank beat Cravath in announcing year-end bonuses. Which other firms have done so in the past?
Hint: Before now, it’s only happened two times since 2006, the year Above the Law first started tracking Biglaw bonus news.
See the answer on the next page.
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.
Three Western states’ efforts to rethink how they regulate the legal profession have drawn plenty of attention, and rightly so.
But Arizona, California, and Utah are not alone in examining hot-button topics such as whether to allow fee splitting with nonlawyers.
In Illinois, a panel created by the Chicago Bar Association and Chicago Bar Foundation is examining potential changes to the state’s legal marketplace.
The Task Force on the Sustainable Practice of Law & Innovation held its first meeting early last month.
A press release announcing the panel’s creation highlighted that the task force will strive to propose regulatory changes bolstering access to justice for consumers. But the chairs of the task force also made clear in their prepared statements that the panel will examine how to improve the legal market for lawyers.
“We intend to evaluate technologies, rule modifications and other changes, including the possible expansion of legal referral platforms to promote a more viable and sustainable law practice for Illinois attorneys,” said Task Force Co-Chair E. Lynn Grayson of Nijman Franzetti LLP.
Task Force Member Jayne Reardon said in an interview that she is glad the panel will be dually focused on “the fact we have so many lawyers who cannot have a sustainable and rewarding practice at the same time we as a profession are failing to meet the civil legal needs” of consumers.
While the justice gap has been well-documented for some time, Reardon said she thinks the myriad challenges facing lawyers in the current environment have been a key driver of the active focus on legal regulatory reform in multiple states.
“What I think is different now is that it has become clear over the last several years that the construct and structures of the legal profession are not working for lawyers either,” said Reardon, executive director of the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism.
The Illinois task force also plans to closely follow developments in the Western states that are further along in their reform efforts, and it has established a National Advisory Council to help it do so.
Utah’s Work Group on Regulatory Reform released its recommendations in August. They were adopted by the Utah Supreme Court soon after, and the state’s implementation work is underway.
Arizona’s Task Force on the Delivery of Legal Services released its report and recommendations last month. The Arizona Judicial Council will determine next steps.
California’s Task Force on Access Through Innovation of Legal Services released tentative recommendations in the summer and is working to complete a final report in the coming months. Several members of that panel are on Illinois’ National Advisory Council.
Reardon said she thinks Utah has proposed the most novel approach to date. One of their recommendations called for the creation of a “regulatory sandbox” that will allow nontraditional legal services providers to “test innovative legal service models and delivery systems.”
These providers, such as legal tech companies, will be permitted to do their testing without being accused of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. They will do so under the supervision of a new regulator implementing a “risk-based, empirically-grounded regulatory process for legal service entities.”
“Utah is in fact reimagining legal services in a way that breaks out of the constraints that have been basically the norm for the last 100 years,” Reardon said. “There is a lot of promise there. How they work out the regulatory piece and the regulatory sandbox will be interesting to watch.”
As for Illinois, the task force there hopes to identify and recommend ethics rules changes to the Illinois Supreme Court by September 2020.
Lyle Moran is a freelance writer in San Diego who handles both journalism and content writing projects. He previously reported for the Los Angeles Daily Journal, San Diego Daily Transcript, Associated Press, and Lowell Sun. He can be reached at lmoransun@gmail.com and found on Twitter @lylemoran.
What do millennials look for when shopping for a lawyer? They want to know if you’ll meet with them in Starbucks. They want to know if you accept payment via Venmo or Bitcoin. They want to know a fun or quirky fact about you.
That, at least, is the premise of Modern Attorney, a new attorney directory that aims to match millennial clients with lawyers who fit their lifestyles. The site encourages attorneys to create profiles that show their personalities and in which they are transparent about their services and fees.
The directory was launched by the people behind bankruptcy site NextChapter, which was acquired in September by Fastcase. Janine Sickmeyer, NextChapter’s founder, told me that she originally created the directory to help funnel leads to the bankruptcy attorneys who use NextChapter, but that it proved so popular, she decided to open it to all practice areas.
“Six months ago, we at NextChapter started talking about how we would look for an attorney,” Sickmeyer said. “All of us agreed we aren’t going to go find an attorney in the ways people might have done so in the past. We want to find lawyers who work the way we live, who will meet us in a coffee shop or talk with us over video chat.”
Profiles show how the lawyer communicates, options for consultations, and ways in which the lawyer is tech savvy.
Lawyers’ profiles on Modern Attorney have sections that tell potential clients the different ways they will communicate — such as by email, text or remotely. They tell whether the lawyer meets by video conference, in coffee shops, or by traveling to the client.
Profiles indicate the ways in which a lawyer is tech savvy, showing when a lawyer has a secure client portal, uses “modern technology,” and communicates by texting. Profiles show average fees per hour or per matter, and the payment methods the lawyer accepts.
Profiles offer ‘fun facts’ about the lawyer.
Lawyers are encouraged to offer “fun facts” about themselves. One says he plays bass in a wedding band. Another says she bakes over 200-dozen Christmas cookies every year. Profiles have sliders for lawyers to indicate whether they are cat or dog people, prefer mountains or cities, and lean more towards books or sports.
Profiles do not have peer or user reviews.
“The benefit of this profile is to show your personality,” Sickmeyer said. “Millennial clients want to meet with an attorney who works the way they live.”
Potential clients who come to the site search for lawyers by choosing a practice area and then a city or zip code. They then get a list of matching attorneys, which they can further refine by filters such as whether they accept Bitcoin or offer free consultations.
If a client finds a lawyer who interests them, they click a “Get Quote” or “Message” button on the lawyer’s profile page. Either button leads to a brief series of modal screens that ask for more information about the client and the matter, after which the information is sent to the attorney.
Although this lawyer matches a search for divorce, the contact form assumes the contact is for a bankruptcy.
Right now, there seems to be a problem with these screens, in that they assume the potential client is filing bankruptcy. If I search for and find a divorce lawyer or personal injury lawyer and click the contact button, I get the same screen asking me if I am interested in filing bankruptcy for myself or my business.
For attorneys who are also customers of the NextChapter bankruptcy platform — soon to also offer an immigration platform — any leads that come through this directory can be ported over to NextChapter.
The nascent directory is still light on lawyer listings, so searches often come up nil. But that is to be expected with any new directory, until it has time to gain traction.
In order to beef up its listings, Modern Attorney is offering lawyers the ability to sign up for free through the end of the year. For those who take advantage of this offer, their listings will remain free forever, Sickmeyer said. Starting Jan. 1, the cost of a listing will be $25 a month plus a $150 initiation fee.
Sickmeyer said that her next step for the directory will be to build awareness of it among consumers. That will be the hard part, she says, given the competition among lawyer directories for prominence on Google.
So do millennials need their own lawyer directory? In my opinion, any potential client of any age will benefit from a directory that offers greater transparency into lawyers’ practices, fees and technology. Modern Attorney is nicely designed, provides useful information at a glance, and makes it easy for a potential client to reach out to an attorney.
As for whether an attorney is a cat or dog person or bakes cookies, I doubt it really matters to potential clients. But there is nothing wrong with letting a little personality show through.
Given that you can currently sign up for this directory for free and then lock that in forever, seems like a lawyer looking for more clients would have nothing to lose.
(Image via Getty)
Biglaw bonuses are out today, with Milbank leading the way.
The bonuses are the same as last year. Based on my inbox, associates are not exactly thrilled about the extra $15,000 to $100,000 this scale provides. Of particular issue is the fact that in 2018, associates got summer bonuses. In 2019, they did not. So, in overall bonus compensation, a same-scale bonus actually results in less compensation for associates.
I kind of get why firms would be cautious. This could well be the last, or at best penultimate, bonus season before another “market correction.” It makes sense for firms to hold back in preparation for the coming recession.
On the other hand, I think the angered associates have the right of the argument. Why should the firms be hoarding profits in preparation for the recession, instead of sharing more of those profits with the employees, some of whom will be laid off next recession anyway? I doubt very much that in 2021, Milbank will say, “Well Bob, we don’t have to fire you because we cheaped out on bonuses in 2019.”
One associate worked the numbers and determined that Milbank should be paying more to associates if for no other reason than the fact that Milbank is billing clients more for associate labor.
Thanks for your coverage of our early bonuses here at “Thrillbank”. But I thought your article was too generous to Milbank. I know you called out the decrease in total comp, but the article was way too positive. I get it–it’s exciting that they announced early. But they’re trying to cheap out on us by tens of thousands of dollars for the same amount of work.
They increased rates by 4% this year, so comp should go up, not down.
The next firms down the line should know they are going to get ravaged by the legal rags if they just match when the partners get millions while the workhorses don’t even get a cost of living increase
I mean, don’t get me wrong, I’m all about the populist revolution taking it to the fat cats and demanding a more even distribution of wealth. But… you know… a four percent rate increase is not necessarily the hill I would die on. Especially since Biglaw associates are not the people most associated with the righteousness of the proletariat.
The key issue is that if bonuses are a “reward” for “good times,” then Milbank should be giving more because we are still in the good times.
Milbank bonuses static – nobody seems surprised although word on the street is firm had a very good year.
I support the thought here among the mildly disgruntled associates.
However, I’m reminded of an F. Scott Fitzgerald quote:
Maybe there was a way out by flying, maybe our restless blood could find frontiers in the illimitable air. But by that time we were all pretty well committed; and the Jazz Age continued; we would all have one more.
When the lights flash for last call, some people say, “Man, it’s getting late,” and get ready to go home. Other people rush to the bar and buy two more drinks. Which one of those people you are will probably say a lot about how you view this bonus season.
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.