Author: TSA Press

The Washington Post did a big profile of Andrew Yang’s aborted Biglaw career and… well, it pretty much sounds like everybody’s aborted Biglaw career. Yes, he had all the credentials. Yes, he made a lot of money. But the feelings of pointlessness and soullessness took hold, and he eventually left Biglaw to find what he really wanted to do.

Yang went to Brown for college, Columbia for law school, and Davis Polk for money. Then, he got off that train. The only significant difference between his story and most is that Yang only lasted five months. Most last a bit longer.

The rest checks out. Here are some quotes from the Washington Post:

He frequently refers to his lawyer days as “the five worst months of my life.”

“Working at a law firm was like a pie-eating contest, and if you won, your prize was more pie,” Yang said in a recent interview on the Acela train from Washington to New York, between hurried bites of a turkey sandwich.

The law jokes play well, especially because seven of the 12 candidates in the last televised Democratic debate have law degrees.

Everybody makes that joke, WaPo.

“It felt very purposeless and empty,” Yang said. “I was looking out at New York and thinking, ‘Wow, is this why my parents came to this country?’ ”…

Yang said he did a “test” with himself to see whether he was in it just for the money.

“I went to Bloomingdale’s and bought my family cashmere scarves and some other nice gifts. Then I brought them to them that weekend, and they seemed to like them,” he said. “And I thought: Is this enough for me to do a job I don’t like? Definitely not.”

After a case unexpectedly settled in the middle of the week, I took the rest of the week off, bought a first-class ticket to Vegas, at the airport, and won about half of it back taking money off of people there for some sort of convention. It wasn’t enough.

Look, we’ve all been there, some people find a way to love what they do. Others find a way to love the money they make while doing it. And a lot of people eventually quit. The best thing about Yang’s story is that he went through the process so quickly. It took me two years to figure out how to get out. It takes others longer. Some people are a decade in before they finally break free.

Often, things work out. Maybe not as well as they’ve worked out for Yang, but in my travels I’ve found that the skills that made people successful Biglaw candidates can be redeployed to make them successful at other things. The training is never really lost, it just has to be re-formatted a bit. As Yang puts it:

He said he doesn’t regret studying law, which made him more “structured and detail oriented.” On the other hand, he said, the cautious analysis taught in law school can get in the way of an entrepreneur who needs to make decisions quickly, often based more on instinct than data. He said he had to “unlearn” some of what his law professors taught him.

Plunge on in, the water’s fine. You almost probably won’t totally drown in debt for the rest of your life.

Andrew Yang was groomed for a high-paying job at an elite law firm. He lasted five months. [Washington Post]

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.

5 Secrets to Growing Your Law Firm 

Hiring for success is arguably the single most important task you’ll have as a leader in your firm.

But who are the right candidates? How do you sift through a sea of applicants to find the perfect fit for your company? And how do you give them the best chance of success once they’re on board? Poor hiring decisions can significantly damage your business, so you need to get it right the first time.

To increase your chances of success, fill in the form to download Hire for Success: 5 Secrets to Growing Your Law Firm, authored by Jules Miller, co-founder at Evolve Law. You’ll gain insight into five key recruitment practices to guide your hiring, including:

• Defining your firm’s culture
• Hiring based on culture
• Creating the right hiring procedures
• Developing an effective onboarding process
• Spotting red flags

By requesting this report you are opting in to receive communications from Clio and Above Law. 

Artificial intelligence might cause job losses

For today’s seniors, it’s easy to slip into complacency and ignore the demands of keeping physically fit. This neglect carries a whole host of health risks and can contribute to being forced into a home late in life at tremendous cost. But 78-year-old Patricia Currie managed to get her assisted living needs met, securing a 22-year prison sentence in Louisiana.

In August, a jury convicted Currie of trying to murder her lawyer, Keith Couture, after he failed to get himself withdrawn from representing her in a bankruptcy case. From the New York Post:

Couture claimed that Currie arrived at his office alone with a gun, wearing latex gloves on her hands and plastic bags on [her] feet, the newspaper reported.

She allegedly told him that she came to kill him then revealed a shotgun from under a towel.

Gloves and plastic bags? What is CBS teaching our elders these days? It must be CBS because, one, old people watch it constantly and, two, they have that show that’s all about science and making viewers dream of getting away with murder: Big Bang Theory. Blaming the media seems like a cop out, but something must have happened, because the lady in that picture doesn’t strike me as experienced in gangland hits.

Couture managed to wrestle the gun away from Currie because, you know, she was 75 at the time. If you can’t overpower a 78-year-old, then natural selection is just doing its job. The jury took 15 minutes to convict her.

78-year-old Louisiana woman sentenced for trying to kill her lawyer [NY Post]

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.

Back in January, I wrote about a recently filed SDNY copyright case against the hit show, Billions. In that column, I addressed the plaintiff’s “thin, if aggressive, right-of-publicity claim” while suggesting that because of the emotions involved, it represented a case that “may get to a decision on the merits.” I presented the case as part of a broader discussion of the important, yet often overlooked, role of emotion in IP cases. The Billions case was a good example in my view, because it involved a recognized author and practitioner of hedge-fund performance coaching, Denise Shull, challenging a popular show’s use of a similar persona as a key character. Key to her aggrievement was the fact that she thought she would have an ongoing role consulting for the show.

I continued to monitor the Billions case and wrote a follow-up column on it a few months later, focusing on the intensive motion-to-dismiss briefing submitted by both sides of the dispute. There, I focused on the plaintiff’s presentation of “a number of arguments suggesting to the court that there is something more to this particular case than the run-of-the-mill “hot content, hot claim” case that the defendants want to characterize it as, in the hopes of at least getting to the discovery phase and further testing the creators on the extent of their reliance on her work. In particular, the briefs stridently differed on the appropriate test for copyright infringement that should be applied, as part of each side’s attempt to place the asserted claims in a certain precedential bucket. For defendants, that bucket was “cases where similar copyright claims against hit content were dismissed,” while Shull’s lawyers argued otherwise. While I did not make any predictions as to the ultimate result, the thrust of my column was that there can be much to learn from following IP cases as they develop.

Taking my own advice, I decided to check if a decision had been rendered in this copyright dispute of some notoriety. And one had. On October 4, 2019, Judge Daniels of the SDNY decided in Billions’ favor, determining that all of plaintiff’s claims — including the copyright, right-of-publicity, and state law claims — should be dismissed with prejudice. A clean win for Billions, even as its request for attorney’s fees was denied because the court determined that the plaintiff’s claims were not “sufficiently frivolous” to justify a fee award.

While the ultimate result may not have been surprising to those who understand how hard these types of copyright infringement/right-of-publicity claims can be to win, it is still interesting to see how Judge Daniels approached his analysis of the case. To start, his opinion contains a detailed factual background, describing both the literary work at issue, Shull’s book, as well as her interactions with the showrunners of Billions prior to the airing of the pilot episode. Armed with that characterization of the facts, the court proceeded to its legal analysis — the highlight of which is the court’s conclusion that under either determinative “substantial similarity” framework the court might use, infringement by Billions couldn’t be found.

Driving the court’s conclusion of no infringement was the finding that the works “do not seem to resemble each other in the least,” with Shull’s book of an “academic” nature while Billions is a “television show” that demonstrates “the drama that lies in the age old trifecta of money, power, and sex.” In short, a discerning observer, when that test for infringement is applied, would not find the works similar. Likewise, even if the plaintiff’s suggested quantitative/qualitative approach was applied, there was no infringement that arose to anything other than alleged copying of unprotectable ideas that the court could credit. Plaintiff’s attempt to cobble together a number of alleged similarities between events on Billions and events described in the copyrighted work was not enough to warrant an infringement finding. As a result, the court dismissed the copyright claims with prejudice. 

Shull’s other claims were also given an early demise. After first determining that only three of Shull’s state-law claims were not preempted, the court addressed each of those claims in turn. First, the court determined that the complaint failed to properly plead that an implied-in-fact contract existed between Shull and Billions, as Shull’s allegations admitted that her expectation was that an agreement for her to consult on the show was something that would be negotiated — as opposed to an agreement that had already been reached. Next, the court found no violation of Shull’s right-of-publicity because Billions never used her persona to advertise the show in any way. Finally, her unjust enrichment claim was dismissed because it was predicated on the alleged existence of the same consulting agreement that the court found had never been entered into.

Ultimately, Billions was able to dodge a fairly typical IP bullet fired at successful popular artistic content. Whether or not the case would have ever been filed if Shull had been given a small consulting deal is unknowable. But there is much to suggest that the emotional distress to Shull from being snubbed, especially after being courted by the showrunners and in light of Billions’ later success, may have been a driving force behind the case. While the show itself may be an irresistible depiction of the strong preying on the weak, this is one situation where everyone may have been better off with better communication. Billions got its dismissal, but perhaps could have avoided the situation completely by being less dismissive.

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.

* A lawyer has been disbarred based partly on the testimony of a federal judge. This takes being benchslapped to a whole new level. [ABA Journal]

* A personal injury law firm has agreed to pay up to $2M to settle a class action. This is quite the role reversal. [Law 360]

* University of La Verne is considering the closure of its law school. [Daily Bulletin]

* A federal judge has reinstated a defamation lawsuit filed by a Covington Catholic teen against the Washington Post. Interestingly, this article about the Washington Post was published by the Washington Post. [Washington Post]

* Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions is mulling a run for his old Senate seat. [New York Times]

* Litigation against Alex Jones is moving forward, and this ain’t no conspiracy theory. [Texas Lawyer]

Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.