Author: TSA Press

The allegations against DLA Piper partner Louis Lehot have reverberated through Biglaw. Now Lehot has released a statement and over 40 pages of correspondence with his accuser, Vanina Guerrero.

Earlier this month, DLA Piper partner Vanina Guerrero released an open letter to the firm, and filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that the co-managing partner of the Silicon Valley office, Louis Lehot, repeatedly sexually assaulted her after she’d been recruited to the firm in 2018. She additionally asked the firm to release her from their mandatory arbitration agreement so she’d be able to pursue her claims in open court. The firm has been conspicuously silent on the forced arbitration agreement — despite the attention their arbitration stance in this case has garnered, but, they did announce that Lehot had been let go from the firm. Then the firm put Guerrero on leave, saying they’d uncovered allegations unrelated to Lehot during their investigation of her claims.

As reported by Law.com, today Lehot admitted to having an “emotional relationship” with Guerrero and he said that was the reason he agreed to leave the firm.  His statement also said in no uncertain terms that he does not believe Guerrero is a victim:

“I acknowledge poor judgment in developing an emotional relationship with Vanina Guerrero. I deeply regret the pain this has caused my family, colleagues, clients and friends,” Lehot continued. “This isn’t victim-blaming or victim-shaming. She’s not a victim here.”

Lehot also released emails that are purportedly between himself and Guerrero that he says show a friendly rapport between the two during the time of the alleged assault. Of course, it frequently takes time for victims of assault to process and name their experiences, particularly when they’ve been victimized by an acquaintance.

Guerrero’s attorney took this latest development as an opportunity to further push to be let out of her mandatory arbitration agreement:

Reached for comment Monday, Wigdor LLP partner Jeanne Christensen, who represents Guerrero, said, “By this, Louis Lehot is saying he’s OK with litigating in open court and no secret arbitration.”

DLA Piper has no new comment about this latest development.

Rikers Island sits on a slip of land encircled by barbed wire, tucked beneath open sky where the sound of prison alarms are punctuated by seagull cries and the steady overhead drone of jets leaving LaGuardia.  Looking out a cell window at the glistening water that separates Rikers from the mainland, an inmate is tantalized by freedom so close, yet impossible to attain.

Even for visitors, lawyers, or family members, Rikers has long been a black hole of poor management and isolation.  It takes the better part of a day to get there by public transportation, and once there, there’s no telling whether you’ll get in, or how long it will take to see the subject of your visit.

I’ve waited up to three hours only to be told at the end of a long morning that because of an alarm, “there’s no movement” in the building.

The funny thing is, the island itself is not a bad place as long as you’re not stuck in one of its 10 giant jails.  It’s surrounded by water. There’s a clean wind-swept smell.  The attorney is taken to the facility where his client is housed on an old-timey yellow school bus steered by a correction officer blasting R & B.  But that’s where the novelty stops. You’re then dropped at the prison gate and enter a soulless waiting room with barely a place to sit, either too cold or too hot, and a vending machine stocked with candy and chips for those unlucky enough not to have eaten before they came. Then the waiting starts.

New York officials have been talking about closing Rikers for years and last week voted to do just that.  They set a deadline of 2026 and promised to build four smaller prisons in each borough.  The stated motivation is to make it easier to get inmates to courts, for families to visit their loved ones, and also, hopefully, to provide better, cleaner, more humane facilities for inmates.  (Skeptics feel it’s about grabbing the Rikers real estate for more profitable uses.)

But is the idea that smaller, neighborhood prisons engender better treatment a pipe dream or a practical step in the de-carceration movement that might serve as a blueprint for cities around the country?

There’s no doubt that Rikers is a dangerous place.  I’ve had clients who’ve been stabbed, slashed, and beaten.  I had one case where an inmate was locked in an eight-by-ten cell 23 hours a day without air conditioning during a July heat wave.  He was punished for not obeying a “directive,” but had recently been stabbed so lay in his bed most of the time. Unbeknownst to him, a blood clot had developed in his leg that ran from his thigh to his shin. When he got up to leave segregation and return to general population, part of it broke off, migrated to his lungs, and killed him. My client was the guy who’d originally stabbed him.  Instead of assault, my client was then charged with murder under the theory that he was the proximate cause of the man’s death.

But creating smaller jails in neighborhoods doesn’t necessarily solve the problem.  Yes, such jails should be easier to visit.  There should be less red tape getting in and out of the facility and, theoretically, it should take less time to locate the inmate and escort him to the visit.  All of this is good. There might be more control over how the smaller prisons are run and who’s in charge.

But unless and until there’s reform in how we define the primary goal of jails which are currently warehousing and punishment, inmates won’t be treated any better and won’t be released in a position where they’re likely to have a chance at not re-offending.  Smaller does not necessarily mean safer or better.

There’s already a small prison in Brooklyn sandwiched between Schermerhorn and Atlantic Ave., adjacent to coffee shops, churches, and retail stores.  But even there, I’ve had clients injured in fights, beaten by corrections officers, and one was even poisoned.  They have no better education initiatives than Rikers, and in fact, because of the smaller size, have less space to hold such programs.

Moving the prisoners out of Rikers is only one small step toward criminal justice reform.  What needs to happen is a new approach to thinking about incarceration as a time not only to house offenders, but actually help them.  Inmates are literally a captive audience.  What better opportunity to take classes than when you can’t do anything else?

If we really want people to come out a step up from when they went in, education and mental-health and drug-abuse counseling are the best approaches.

Otherwise, it won’t matter if Rikers is closed or open. Putting guys in a pen with nothing to do but build their muscles, get frustrated, and pick fights only guarantees more trouble, no matter where they’re housed.

Toni Messina has tried over 100 cases and has been practicing criminal law and immigration since 1990. You can follow her on Twitter: @tonitamess.

Mr. Giuliani’s comments in the media alone provide substantial basis to believe that he has repeatedly and egregiously engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness as a lawyer. [His conduct] also necessitates a complete investigation to determine whether he advised his client, the President, to engage in conduct that is illegal or fraudulent.

— Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-NY), a former New York district attorney and federal prosecutor, in a letter sent to the Attorney Grievance Committee for the New York Supreme Court’s First Judicial Department, where she called for Rudy Giuliani to be investigated for disbarment. Giuliani, who is reportedly the subject of several federal investigations and recently defied a congressional subpoena, had this to say about Rice’s attempt to have him disbarred: “Just part of the harassment. It really is outrageous trampling on the ability of a lawyer to defend his client.”

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.

These days, I spend the majority of my days working full-time at my bar exam coaching company, but I still moonlight as an adjunct professor of law (and sometimes even an adjunct professor of political science to college freshman, but that is a story for another day). 

Some of my students are required to take my classes for academic reasons and the mood in those classrooms can at times be tense, bordering on hostile. The students are angry because they are required to take a class they don’t believe they need and don’t think will help them. But on a deeper level, I believe they are upset with themselves and their perceived failure and I am the physical representation of all those things. It is much, much easier to be mad at me, their professors from last semester, the dean, and the school in general than it is to take a long, hard look at their own actions and responsibilities. 

While this situation sometimes creates a difficult-to-navigate classroom dynamic, I return to teach these classes again and again. This is not because I’m a masochist, but because I don’t view my classes as a manifestation of failure. Rather I see these classes as an opportunity to change, improve, and reach a different outcome than what these students are used to and expect.  

Through my teaching experiences, I’ve come to learn a lot about what law students perceive to be failure, such as getting “bad” grades, being placed in an academically mandated class, not getting on law review, not being in the top X percent of the class, not getting  a specific internship/externship/job, and the “ultimate” failure — failing the bar exam. 

Listen, I get it. Most law students are used to seeing all As and Bs in their undergraduate program, so it can be a real shock to the system to see a C on their transcript. It is a very humbling experience.  I can say this from firsthand experience… let’s just say you don’t want me to draft you a contract anytime in the near future. 

But, you might have noticed that I keep saying “perceived failures” instead of simply “failures.”  That is because basically every time I’ve “failed,” it has actually turned out to be one of the greatest things to happen to me.

Here are three “failures” just from my law school experience:

1. Getting a C in contracts → Forced me to reevaluate my study methods and actually learn how to study which allowed me to crush the rest of law school and pass three bar exams on my first try. I also uncovered the skill set that has led me to build a business and career that I love. 
2. I didn’t get a scholarship to cover living expenses in law school → Took a babysitting job working for two lawyers who helped me get amazing internships I otherwise probably wouldn’t have even gotten interviews for. 
3. Didn’t get the post-grad job I wanted → Started running my own business one year out of law school and enjoy complete freedom over my time, schedule, and life today. 

None of those things felt good when they happened, but I didn’t let the “failure” eat me alive. Instead, I used the following five steps to overcome the “failure” and persevere. I have also used these steps to help countless law students when they are up against their own perceived failure. 

Be reflective and accept personal responsibility 

This is the hardest step, in my opinion, so we may as well get it out of the way first. It is crucially important for you to be reflective of your situation and accept personal responsibility where appropriate. I am not saying that you’re never going to get screwed over in law school. Sure, you might have an unfair or difficult experience with a professor, and if that happens, I hope you take advantage of the resources available to you through your school.

But, for the most part, if things aren’t going the way you want, the only person who has real control over fixing that is you. If you didn’t see the grades you were hoping for last year, it might be an issue of motivation or effort. However, more likely, it is an issue of “law school is brand new and I’m trying really hard but I have no idea what I’m doing.” Admitting that doesn’t make you a failure, stupid, or unworthy. It just makes you new at this. The sooner you can determine that there is a gap in the skill set that you have and the skill set that you need to have, the sooner you can get working on acquiring it. 

While this step is necessary, don’t get stuck here. While some students have real difficulty facing the role they play in their own achievements or lack thereof, other students over-identify, take things way too personally, and get really stuck in their feelings. That is not a helpful approach either. This step is about being honest and self-aware, not beating yourself up 

Seek advice 

Once you’ve taken the time to sort out your own thoughts and feelings on things, the next step to take is to seek out advice. Your life will be much easier if you can talk to someone who has “been there” and “done that.” If you determine your needs are academic, seek out the academic success department. Their job is to help you figure out “how-to” law school. Are mental health or emotional issues holding you back? Inquire about counseling services. Really stressed out about finding a job? Call up career services. If you aren’t sure where to start, your office of student services is probably a good place. Let the experts give you an outside perspective on your situation and give you some advice on how to reach your goals. 

Make a plan 

Using your own reflections and the expert advice that you received, formulate a plan. At this point, you know where you are, where you want to be, and what went wrong, and you have some pointers on things to change. Now you have to decide what steps you will take to reach those goals. If your goal is to improve your GPA, your plan may include making changes to the way you read and brief cases, take notes, create outlines, and do practice questions among other things. Whatever the goal, figure out the steps and write them down. 

Execute 

All the planning in the world won’t help you if you don’t take action. You absolutely must put your plan into action in order for it to work for you. And, spoiler alert, it won’t be easy. Change is hard. You already learned how to make outlines a certain way and that was hard enough. Now you have to unlearn that and learn something new. But, continuing to do the same thing even though you now know it won’t give you the results you want and know that there is a better way, won’t help you and will result in unnecessary stress. If executing a plan is not your strong suit, get an accountability system in place and let others help to keep you on track. 

Follow up and adjust 

I hate to break it to you, but this “plan” that you created is probably not perfect! There is a lot of trial and error that goes into learning new skills and reaching new goals. Set specific times where you will check back with your plan to see if it is still serving you and make adjustments as necessary. 

Law school, like life, is tough. Things are not always going to go the way you want or anticipated. You’ll fail sometimes, but that doesn’t mean you’re a failure. And fortunately, you can do something about it. Use these steps to take back control over your situation and fight to overcome any obstacles in your way.

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

The ever-hastening progress of legal technology continues to push law firms to a future where lawyers can do more than ever before, in a manner so efficient that the value being offered to clients is beyond compare. Although practice management, document management, and even legal research platforms have incorporated artificial intelligence and machine learning into their offerings, not all law firms have gotten on board with the new capabilities that this technology has made available to them.

Blue J Legal wants to help demystify the many ways lawyers can leverage AI and machine learning in their practices to improve results for clients. It’s unlikely that machines will ever replace lawyers, but one thing is becoming clear: lawyers who use artificial intelligence will replace lawyers who don’t.

Sign up below to join “Exploring artificial intelligence and the law,” an on-demand webinar hosted by Blue J Legal’s COO, Avi Brudner.

Here’s an odd prediction, and one about which I’m relatively certain:  Diversity will improve in litigation groups more quickly than it does in other legal practice areas.

Why?

When a case is going to trial, smart clients insist on a diverse trial team:  “You can put three people on the trial team.  But it can’t be three old white guys.  We need a trial team that looks a little bit like the jury.  You must find a decent trial lawyer who is not an old, white male, and that person must hold the third spot on the trial team.”

The partner at Bigg & Mediocre clears his throat and mumbles, but the client has spoken, and Bigg & Mediocre eventually finds a lawyer who fits the bill.

Client demands force law firms to become more diverse.

And those client demands are grounded in money: We are more likely to win this case — and thus profit — if the trial team looks like the jury.

In other areas of law, the profit motive for increasing diversity is less clear.  (That’s just the profit motive.  Other motives — such as fairness and doing what’s right — are a whole different story.)

Yeah, yeah: Studies show that diverse groups make better decisions, and diverse corporations are more profitable, and all that.

But the old, white guys who are running law firms don’t read, or don’t believe, those studies: “This firm will be most profitable if everyone at this firm went to my school, was on the same law review I was on, and clerked for the same judge that I did.  That doesn’t naturally make me choose from a diverse slate of candidates.  And the few women we hire ultimately choose less hectic lifestyles and leave the firm.  It’s not my fault; we simply can’t become diverse.”

In the tax, and corporate, and real estate departments at Bigg & Mediocre, these old predilections win.  Many of the old guys running the joints don’t care about diversity.  Those who do care have only their personal desire, and noble aspirations, to encourage them to move in the right direction.

Clients occasionally insist on diverse corporate or tax or real estate teams, but the clients aren’t insisting out of necessity.

Litigation is different: Clients want profits.  Profits require diverse trial teams.  And law firms must do want clients want.  Period.

So, for the corporate group, you have noble aspirations prompting diversity.

But in the litigation group, you have (1) noble aspirations and (2) money prompting diversity.

Which group is going to reach its goal first, I ask you?

Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Inside Straight: Advice About Lawyering, In-House And Out, That Only The Internet Could Provide (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.

Today brings us unfortunate news from North Carolina, where a longtime judge was found dead. A recent autopsy reveals that Chief Judge Tom Jarrell, 56, of the Guilford County district court, died from an opioid-related overdose.

Jarrell had served as a judge for more than 20 years, and created the first DWI traffic court in the state. The Tribune Media Wire has additional information:

According to the autopsy released Thursday, Jarrell’s official cause of death was “fentanyl and heroin intoxication.”

The judge was reportedly found unresponsive on the bedroom floor of his home during a welfare check.

Law enforcement found a plastic baggie with a powder substance in his pocket, as well as a pocket knife and a piece of paper containing a powder substance in the bathroom.

Cindy Jarrell had this to say about the loss of her husband: “Our family is still reeling from Tom’s sudden death. It has left a huge void in all our lives and in the community he loved. We have not had an opportunity to review the autopsy, but nothing it can tell us will bring him back or alter our deep love and affection for him.”

If you are a lawyer or a law student with alcohol and/or drug use or abuse issues and you’ve realized that you need help, there are many places you can turn to that will welcome you with open arms. If you or someone you know is in need help, call the lawyer assistance program in your state (don’t be fooled by the name; these programs also provide services to law students). Don’t be afraid to reach out for help. Alcohol and drug use disorders are treatable, and recovery from addiction is possible.

We here at Above the Law continue to extend our condolences to Chief Judge Tom Jarrell’s family, friends, and colleagues during this difficult time.

North Carolina judge died of fentanyl and heroin intoxication, autopsy reveals [Tribune Media Wire]

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 used to be that to even consider becoming a lawyer, you had to ace — or at least do pretty well — on the LSAT. But now that over 30 law schools accept the GRE in lieu of the LSAT, that’s not always true. And more law schools are hopping on the GRE train all the time.

The latest law school to offer students the opportunity to opt out of the LSAT is Seton Hall Law. In their statement on the admissions change, the school focused on the GRE’s ability to attract a broader base of students to law school. As Dean Kathleen M. Boozang said:

“Law can be a very welcoming field for those with interdisciplinary backgrounds, particularly those with STEM degrees, but the act of transitioning to law school can seem so daunting that the value of the law degree gets obscured. We hope that accepting an interdisciplinary test will allow more people to see that a law degree will enhance their careers, particularly those who may not intend to use the degree to practice law.”

For those keeping track at home, here are the 30+ schools that accept the GRE for admissions purposes:

And we are likely to only see this trend continue. According to a survey by Kaplan Test Prep, a full 25 percent of law schools have plans to accept the GRE. Another Kaplan study determined 49 percent of students surveyed support the move to the GRE.

Even though more and more law schools are on board with the GRE, the  body responsible for law school accreditation, the American Bar Association, hasn’t officially weighed in on using anything other than the LSAT in admissions. ABA accreditation Standard 503 currently mandates that law schools require admissions testing and that the test used be “valid and reliable.” Whether the GRE meets that standard, the ABA hasn’t officially said. But now that so many law schools have moved on the GRE, it might be impossible to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

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).

Ed. note: Please welcome Jordan Rothman to Morning Docket duty here at Above the Law.

* UNLV Law paid James Comey $54,000 for a speech and a stay at the Bellagio. It sure pays to get off the government dole. [Nevada Independent]

* A Rutgers student was arrested for sending a threatening email to law students and staff —looks like someone needs a refresher on true threats law. [Northjersey.com]

* The Justice Department is distancing itself from Rudy Giuliani… this was kind of expected. [New York Times]

* The Indiana Attorney General faces a disciplinary hearing today over allegations he groped four women at a bar last year. [The Hill]

* Netflix is fighting back against a lawsuit aimed at blocking its film on the Panama Papers. Meryl Streep shall not be silenced! [The Guardian]

* A Florida judge has temporarily blocked a law making it harder for ex-felons in that state to vote. [New York Times]

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.