Which Biglaw firm was ranked #1 in the Vault’s 2020 practice area rankings in the area of bankruptcy & restructuring?
Hint: The firm is new to the #1 spot in bankruptcy, and the full service firm has notable litigation, M&A, and private equity practices as well.
See the answer on the next page.
Subscribe and get breaking news, commentary, and opinions on law firms, lawyers, law schools, lawsuits, judges, and more.
We will never sell or share your information without your consent. See our privacy policy.
We’d like to express gratitude to our fantastic sponsors here at Above the Law:
If you’re interested in advertising on Above the Law or any other site in the Breaking Media network, please download our media kits or email advertising.
—ADVERTISEMENT—
We will never sell or share your information without your consent. See our privacy policy.
Interested in investing in commercial real estate (CRE)? Diversifying your investments across asset classes is an excellent risk management tool, and with historically strong annual returns, there’s never been a better time to consider adding CRE to your portfolio.
Stocks may generate high returns over time, but offer very low returns until they are sold. The simple reason for CRE’s advantage over stocks is that rent payments generate income for investors during the entire holding period — from the moment the property is purchased until it is sold.
Investors can get into this alternative asset class with just $30,000 thanks to iintoo, an innovative online investment platform that provides convenient access to CRE. After thoroughly evaluating hundreds of real estate opportunities each year, iintoo’s experts offer investors hand-picked, pre-vetted real estate deals to ensure quality.
To learn more about investing in commercial real estate, fill out the form below to download iintoo’s report today, and find out how you can get direct access to premium real estate opportunities from industry experts.
Another day, another ranking for lawyers to ogle in a search for meaning as they attempt to get through the day’s billables. Such is the life of a Biglaw attorney, always on the hunt for confirmation that their firm is the best firm, the one that’s hitting all of its essential metrics year after year. If that sounds like you (and you might as well admit it, it probably does), then you should check out the latest offering from the American Lawyer, the annual A-List ranking.
Are you somehow unfamiliar with this ranking? Here are all of the metrics that it measures to determine which Biglaw firms are the best of the best:
The American Lawyer’s annual A-List ranking doesn’t measure size or profits. Rather, it highlights the best of the best law firms for their commitment to a variety of financial and cultural markers: revenue per lawyer, pro bono work, associate satisfaction, racial diversity and gender diversity among the partnership. The last metric was added to our calculation in 2017 to recognize firms for supporting women and making them partners.
With that said, the full top 20 firms and their scores are listed at the American Lawyer. Without further ado, here are the top 10 to satiate your rankings cravings (with the firms’ total scores noted parenthetically):
Congratulations to all of the firms that made this year’s Am Law A-List.
The 2019 A-List: Law Firms Think Holistically to Make the Cut [American Lawyer]
The 2019 A-List: Which Firms Are Knocking at the Door? [American Lawyer]
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.
Last week, the State Bar of California released for public comment several proposals for regulatory reforms developed by the California Task Force on Access Through Innovation of Legal Services. Designed to spur innovation and expand access to justice options, the task force proposed three key reforms
Not surprisingly, California’s proposals have solo and small law firm attorneys running scared. On various solo and small Facebook groups and list serves, lawyers have expressed concern that non-lawyers who lack adequate knowledge and training will lead clients astray. To be fair, these concerns aren’t entirely unfounded. After all, California itself was home to massive foreclosure scams including one involving a company that marketed foreclosure and eviction delay services to homeowners and then had them sign fake deeds to suggest that the properties had been conveyed to fictional third parties. However, California’s proposed reforms deal with these potential dangers head on by proposing to subject non-lawyer providers to some degree of regulation (As an aside, the appropriate amount of regulation is one of the subjects open for comment – in my own view, some kind of sliding scale is appropriate to avoid saddling smaller and individual non-lawyer providers handling tiny law matters with onerous and costly compliance requirements).
Others raise different concerns about the California initiative. ATL Solo and Small Firm Columnist Steven Chung questions whether the proposed rules will actually increase access to justice and reduce legal costs, or instead encourage venture backed firms to come in with services or Uber-type bidding platforms designed to target those clients who can afford legal services but don’t want to pay exorbitant fees. And while I’ve always been suspicious of the motives of for-profit legal tech companies that raise the A2J flag as a marketing device, the fact of the matter is that many legal services are too costly for the value provided. Should consumers – even those who have the money – have to pay upwards of $5000 or more for a relatively uncomplicated divorce or estate plan when the work can be done through forms and automation? In today’s world, we lawyers must constantly prove our value – and there’s nothing wrong with that.
I don’t necessarily agree with all of the proposed reforms. My main beef is that the proposals focus too much on creating new categories of providers without also examining ways to loosen up regulations on solo and small firm lawyers (specifically, trust accounts and onerous advertising regulations and bonafide office rules) so they can compete and offer services at lower costs. That was the topic of my talk at 2 Civility which should soon be available online.
Moreover, at some point, California and other states that implement reform will have to come to grips with the reality that non-lawyers’ inability to bring cases to court can force opponents to take advantage of them in some cases. In my practice area, I often work with a land company that helps landowners negotiate easement rights and charges less than the fee that an eminent domain attorney would take. The system works great if the parties can reach settlement – but often, once a pipeline realizes that the land company can’t defend a suit in court, it will up the ante. These problems can also be solved – indeed, allowing for fee splitting between lawyers and non-lawyers can give non-lawyers incentive to team with lawyers if they find themselves in a pinch. But again, the potential for unequal bargaining power when a litigant is represented by a non-lawyer against a well-heeled firm can’t be discounted entirely.
These critiques aside, I strongly disagree that the California initiative will harm solo and small firm lawyers and our clients. To the contrary, the proposed reforms create enormous opportunities for us to develop new services that make our legal services more relevant and convenient to our clients’ lives. Imagine, if a family law attorney could share fees with a social worker and offer some kind of combined divorce+wellness product. Or if a tutoring company could make lawyers available to its clients to handle special education cases through some kind of fee sharing arrangement? There are so many ways that we as solo and small firm lawyers can make ourselves more relevant and in doing so, more sustainable. That’s reason to celebrate, not to cower.
Most importantly, no matter where you are licensed or what your position is concerning the California proposal, it is critical for solo and small firm lawyers to make our voices heard. Whether you have real stories about how your clients were harmed by non-lawyer providers or services or how you developed an innovation that was stymied by bar rules, you should share your experience with the State Bar. Tech companies and vendors of legal services will be weighing in to defend their interests, and as solos and smalls, we must make our voices heard. Deadline for comments on the California Proposal is September 23, 2019 and they may be emailed to E-mail: atils-pc@calbar.ca.gov
(Image via Shutterstock)
If you grew up in the 90s like me, you probably saw the Best Picture-winning film Dances with Wolves roughly 300 times over the course of your childhood. Why? Because whenever one of the mediocre cable channels had four hours of airtime to kill, they went right ahead and spun up Kevin Costner learning all about life on the prairie from its native Lakota inhabitants. Then your dad uttered something like, “Oh, that’s a good western,” and wrested the remote control from your hands. You were pretty much committed for the rest of the evening at that point.
You know, after a while, Dances with Wolves actually started to grow on me. Sure, it’s gotten some criticism from a tiny minority of the cripplingly ultra-woke over the years (who can’t really enjoy anything), and conversely also from a tiny minority of the neoconservatives (who can’t really enjoy anything except a tiki torch rally). And Dances with Wolves caused us all to have to listen to far too many screeds about how Goodfellas should have won the Best Picture Oscar that year instead. But overall, if you ask me at least, Dances with Wolves started out as a pretty good movie and held up fairly well over time. Like that scene where Wind In His Hair tastes processed sugar for the first time and then just unceremoniously dumps a whole fistful into Kicking Bird’s coffee? Classic.
Dances with Wolves definitely didn’t need a remake, and it didn’t get one, at least not one that was credited. But in 2009, James Cameron decided to rip off the entire plot and storyline of Dances with Wolves, set it in space, take out all the character development and anything even remotely resembling cogent dialogue, and then put a mantis shrimp in charge of cinematography.
Proving once and for all that you don’t have to be good to make money, the resulting abomination called Avatar became the highest-grossing film of all time, and held onto the record for nearly 10 years.
Avatar’s global box office gross topped out at $2,789,700,000.
I still vividly remember walking out of that theater in 2009, the way people remember where they were on days of great national tragedies. My friends and my degenerate cousin all mystifyingly seemed to somehow have avoided the shellshock I was suffering, despite having just endured the same three-hour neon train wreck that I did. Was this what it was like to see the culture you thought you knew and loved slip away through your fingers? I was midway through law school, and for the first time found myself questioning my career path. Maybe the laws of a society that would elevate to the very top of its most popular art form a film in which the main character literally says, “Let’s dance,” right before the fight scene really weren’t worth spending a career fighting for.
For nearly a decade, no other movie even came close to erasing the lightning bug stain on the windshield of cinematic history that is Avatar. But then, finally — FINALLY — after years of building up the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Disney and Marvel Studios released Avengers: Endgame in 2019. And it was… good. Not great, but, you know, good enough. The characters weren’t all two-dimensional stereotypes. People occasionally did and said funny things. Where it was hackneyed, it was supposed to be hackneyed. Maybe best of all — spoiler alert if you’re one of the three people who haven’t seen it yet — it (kind of) got rid of Hawkeye for us.
The most heroic thing the Avengers did though is finally snatch the crown for top-grossing movie of all time from Avatar’s empty, elf-eared dome. As of last Sunday, 13 weeks after its release, Avengers: Endgame’s worldwide box office gross topped $2,790,000,000, edging out Avatar for the top spot.
I know that is not accounting for inflation and there are all kinds of other reasons you could argue that Avatar actually made more money, but shhhhhh… just let us have a moment to enjoy living in a world where Dances with Wolves in Space isn’t the highest grossing film of all time anymore. Ah, exquisite.
Jonathan Wolf is a litigation associate at a midsize, full-service Minnesota firm. He also teaches as an adjunct writing professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, has written for a wide variety of publications, and makes it both his business and his pleasure to be financially and scientifically literate. Any views he expresses are probably pure gold, but are nonetheless solely his own and should not be attributed to any organization with which he is affiliated. He wouldn’t want to share the credit anyway. He can be reached at jon_wolf@hotmail.com.
How are lawyers in small firms leveraging technology to compete — and win — in today’s rapidly changing legal landscape?
Although the legal profession is now vastly different from what it once was, there will continue to be a place for the agile and innovative small firm practitioner. The playing field has been leveled thanks to technology and for those who have an open mind, opportunity abounds. This eBook is brought to you by our friends at Clio, the practice management platform which has become practically synonymous with cutting-edge and tech-savvy small firm practice.
(Image via Getty)
Families are complicated. Some families are especially so. In response, governments are responding to societal changes that require legal lines to be redrawn around children and their parents. Currently, the Netherlands is taking a hard look at new family structures, and how best to protect parents and children. After months of negotiation, the governing coalition parties have reached an agreement, as described in a letter to Parliament. The coalition’s letter proposes that the government should provide certain protections in gestational surrogacy arrangements and, separately, should provide some recognition of rights for non-biological parents. In some cases, this could mean up to four “parents” would have legal rights to one child. Is this a dystopian novel, or merely an effort to protect children from legal uncertainties?
How Many Parents Can One Child Have?
The Netherlands wouldn’t be the first governmental entity to recognize certain parental rights for up to four people. For instance, Ontario, Canada, passed a parentage law in 2016 that allows for up to four parents to a child. And based on one reading of recent New York State case law, the Empire State arguably permits up to six parents to a single child. The proposed legal changes in the Netherlands are intended to address current problems whereby step-parents, foster parents, and other non-biologically related persons acting as parents, nevertheless have no rights to a child.
I spoke with Wilma Eusman, a Dutch attorney with specialized knowledge in the area of assisted reproductive technology and family protection. Eusman noted that she was part of a committee assembled in 2016 to provide recommendations to Parliament to improve family law in the Netherlands.
Eusman explained that the proposed Dutch law would recognize non-biological “custodial parents,” who will not have the same rights as biological parents. Instead, non-biological parents could be granted partial custody, meaning they would have the right to attend medical appointments and school events. However, at the same time, such custodial parents would not have the right to choose the child’s school or doctor.
Despite the expansion of legal recognition for non-biological parents, a Dutch LGBTQ advocacy group has expressed concern that the partial custody parent will be a “lesser” parent status, and the law still only permits traditional biological parents to be full parents. That’s true regardless of whether there are two, three, or four parents. Eusman echoed these concerns, and noted that on this point her committee had argued for full parental rights for non-biological parents, pointing to studies showing that there is no difference to the child to be raised by a non-biologically-related parent versus a biologically-related parent. But Eusman noted that to move forward, the coalition compromised with political parties wishing to preserve more traditional notions of parenthood.
Surrogacy Support
The coalition letter also expressed an agreement as to increased protections and recognition for surrogacy arrangements. On this point, Eusman applauds the coalition in following the recommendations of the committee. As the law currently stands, Dutch intended parents in surrogacy arrangements cannot be recognized domestically as the legal parents of their child until after the birth of the child. The letter describes that legal recognition should take place sooner, with a judge ruling on the legal parentage of a child to a surrogacy arrangement prior to conception, for both domestic and international arrangements, so long as certain requirements are met.
No Compensated Surrogacy
“Commercial surrogacy” — specifically understood in the Netherlands as the payment to the surrogate of more than reimbursement for actual incurred expenses — is still prohibited in the proposed legal changes. Eusman notes that it is not yet clear how international arrangements involving payments “more than reimbursement for actual expenses” will be handled. While some have defended the ban as a way to prohibit “baby-selling,” the ban is potentially inconsistent with the fact that egg donors in the Netherlands are permitted to receive compensation for their pain and suffering. But the letter does not address that inconsistency.
Surrogate Registry
The letter further provides that a surrogacy “registry” will be established whereby all surrogates must register in order to allow the children born of surrogacy to know their birth history. This registry shall be in addition to the already existing registries for egg and sperm donors, preserving donor-conceived persons rights to know their genetic history. While I am all for openness, especially as to children understanding where they come from, this seems a bit invasive to require a kind-hearted woman who agrees to carry a child for another to then be required to be part of a government registry. But, to be fair, government registries are a foreign concept for Americans.
Surrogate Right To Change Her Mind
The coalition letter further provides that the surrogate will have the right until birth to ask the court to terminate the agreement, a provision I found particularly concerning. This would open the door for the baby to become the surrogate’s, even at the last minute. However, Eusman explains that the surrogate would need to have very good reasons for her to change of mind, such as discovering that the intended parents are convicted child abusers. That would, indeed, be terrible. By contrast, even in controversial cases of surrogacy in the United States, the courts are generally inclined to support the genetic and intended parent as the legal parent of the child.
Despite the flaws, Eusman reports that she is pleased to see progress in the country, and forward movement in the legal support for modern Dutch families. I mean families in the Netherlands. I mean families in Holland. #SoConfusing
Ellen Trachman is the Managing Attorney of Trachman Law Center, LLC, a Denver-based law firm specializing in assisted reproductive technology law, and co-host of the podcast I Want To Put A Baby In You. You can reach her at babies@abovethelaw.com.
(Image via Getty)
Yes, I know the bar exam is next week, and yes, I know that it is freak-out time for examinees. I was one all those years ago and I still remember my freaking out the week before the exam, so rest assured that we dinosaurs still remember, to the extent that we have any memory left, our own personal traumas and bad experiences. It is a shared nightmare.
So, here’s my semi-annual reminder of my rules for surviving the bar exam. I am sure that others will chime in, be they bar-preppers, law professors, and/or any others who might have some wisdom to share. It may seem like you are alone, but you aren’t.
Apropos of my rant last week about whether we’ll get to the moon again before we see gender parity in our profession, it seems that the majority of Americans think that we (e.g., women) are just as smart and competent as men. (Hooray! But that certainly took long enough.) In a Los Angeles Times article, discussing a study in the journal American Psychologist, research showed that Americans’ perceptions of women have shifted over the past 70 years. About time, wouldn’t you say?
The study looked at three sets of traits, which it defined as competence, communion, and agency. “Competence” traits include being organized, intelligent, and capable. “Communion” traits are the “soft skills,” social skills such as warmth, compassion, generosity, and the like. “Agency” traits are characteristics such as assertiveness and decisiveness, and even aggression.
The researchers found that today, the vast majority of Americans view women as having better “communion” skills, e.g., the ability to connect with others, to show more compassion, and to possess better people skills. I don’t think that those conclusions are any surprise.
However, when it comes to “agency,” as the researchers defined that term (see above), most Americans still see men as more likely to be assertive than women. Gender bias remains alive and well.
The article quotes a social psychologist who reminds us all that just because women are seen as equally competent as men, if not more so, doesn’t mean that gender discrimination is a thing of the past. He likens it to “whack a mole,” which reminds me of Bill Murray in the movie Caddyshack. Just because you think you’ve eradicated the gopher in one hole doesn’t mean that you don’t have that same problem in another.
So, at least according to this study, women are still not seen as assertive enough (read aggressive) to be promoted into leadership roles. Again, I don’t think this study tells us anything we don’t already know. Women are still working to show that we are just as competent and have the cojones which law firms seem to think women need to have in order to succeed.
However, if women are eventually seen to be just as stubborn, arrogant, ambitious, and confident, then there should be absolutely no reason for women not to have the leadership positions they are prepared for today but nonetheless denied.
So, to those examinees who pass the bar exam, it’s your turn at bat to do what we have been unable to accomplish to date. I and others thought we’d be much farther along, but we’re not. Gender parity and its sibling, pay parity, are things that seem to be even more daunting than passing the bar. We’re looking at you, kids.
Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.