Author: TSA Press

“No one really knows how the parties get to yes / The pieces that are sacrificed in every game of chess / We just assume that it happens / But no one else is in the room where it happens.” — Lin-Manuel Miranda, “The Room Where It Happens” (Hamilton)

Earlier this month, Mayer Brown appointed Raj De as the managing partner of its office in Washington, D.C. Before rejoining the firm in 2015, De held senior appointments in the White House and the Departments of Justice and Defense. Most recently, he served as General Counsel of the U.S. National Security Agency.

De was generous enough to spend some time with us this week and share some sage advice for up-and-coming attorneys. From his time in the White House to his current role, De has had quite a run. I learned quite a bit from our discussion and I believe you will as well. Here is a (lightly edited and condensed) write-up of our conversation:

Renwei Chung (RC): Congratulations on your recent appointment as the managing partner of Mayer Brown’s Washington, D.C. office. Are you excited about any particular activities or initiatives for the more than 200 attorneys that comprise your office? 

Raj De (RD): Thank you. I am thrilled about taking on this role. I’ve been with Mayer Brown Washington since 2006, having left for several years to serve in the government, and have worked here in a variety of roles from associate to partner to practice leader and now managing partner. So I’ve seen the office from a range of perspectives for well over the course of a decade. I am excited about continuing the strategic growth of the office, which has expanded dramatically in recent years. Our global clients increasingly rely upon the firm’s Washington office to help them navigate challenges ranging from congressional investigations and regulatory enforcement actions to trade disputes and high stakes litigation before the Supreme Court.

I am also particularly interested in strengthening the office’s diversity by redoubling our efforts in recruitment, mentoring, promotion, and retention. There can be no doubt that the diversity of backgrounds, perspectives, and experiences of our lawyers is essential to providing clients with excellent legal services. I am proud to be among the relatively few diverse managing partners of major law firms in the Washington DC area, and I invite clients who want to push our profession forward in this regard to consider Mayer Brown — and the Washington office, and me in particular — as a very willing partner in that endeavor.

RC: You had the opportunity to serve in the White House as Staff Secretary and Deputy Assistant to former President Barack Obama. What were these roles like?

RD: Working in the White House, and for President Obama in particular, was an amazing privilege. Serving as Staff Secretary was a unique experience, and one that provided unparalleled exposure to all aspects of how a White House functions. The role is to manage all memoranda, executive orders, and other written materials that need to be reviewed or approved by the President. There is a small margin for error. I did not sleep much, but I gained valuable insight into presidential decision-making.

Every single day I served in the White House I was very cognizant of how remarkable it was for the son of Indian immigrants to walk into an office in the West Wing, board Air Force One to travel with the President around the world (literally!), or step into the Oval Office on a regular basis. But of course the real honor was to be part of a team of dedicated and talented professionals who shared one mission — to serve the American people.

RC: As someone who has served across all three branches of the United States government, do you have any insights you’d like to share that our readers may not be aware of when they think about how our government operates?

RD: First, some have the misperception that the federal government is a monolithic entity rather than a multitude of departments and agencies, each with its own focus, mission, and priorities. For our clients, a nuanced appreciation of the relevant government stakeholders for any legal issue, and the interplay among them, is critical.

Second, every arena has its own formal — and informal — rules of the road, and our clients depend upon us to have the relevant skills and experience, whether managing an executive branch enforcement action, a congressional inquiry, or litigation in court — and, perhaps most importantly, all of the above at the same time.

Third, contrary to what one might hear in the news, the vast majority of government employees continue to perform their day-to-day roles in a nonpartisan manner, regardless of who is in office.

RC: Currently, law students from across the nation are participating in summer programs at Biglaw firms throughout the country. Do you have any advice for these summer associates?

RD: I would advise any summer associate to use the opportunity in front of them to learn more about the kind of lawyer they want to be, what they want out of a professional experience, and what career trajectory they can envision. Building a career needs to be a proactive rather than a passive endeavor. Seek out lawyers whom you want to meet, ask them about their careers, and find out what resonates. Try different types of projects. And when faced with the choice of working hard or enjoying the moment, do both.

RC: What advice do you have for attorneys who want to begin a career in public service?

RD: This may sound strange coming from the managing partner of a major law firm office, but I would say go for it. When I was finishing law school, I had an offer to return to the firm where I had spent the previous summer. It was a great place, with interesting work and interesting people. But I had in my third year applied to the Attorney General’s Honor Program and was fortunate enough to have been offered a position at the Department of Justice. I was torn. I spoke to the managing partner of the Washington office of the firm, looking for his best advice but expecting him to twist my arm to come back to the firm. Instead, he inquired about my interests and about the DOJ position (it was in the Antitrust Division, a particularly active element of DOJ in the late 1990s), and said: “Follow your interest and go where the action is.”

I chose to go to DOJ right out of law school. Several years later I chose to leave private practice to serve as counsel to the 9/11 Commission, and then years later I again left law firm life to join the Obama Administration. I am proud of my public service, and it has undoubtedly made me a better lawyer. Every lawyer needs to carve their own path, and I would simply tell young lawyers that public service can be an important aspect of that journey.

RC: What was the most intense job you have had?

RD: I have learned over my career that you never know what you can handle until you are tested. I thought early on that working for the 9/11 Commission, under significant time pressure and with significant public scrutiny, was pretty intense. We had to produce a final report, and it had to provide the American people some sense of understanding about what had happened, and why. Then several years later I found myself in an intense role in the White House, in a job that can only be described as a grind. By that point in my life I had a family with two kids, so the strain was not insignificant.

I left the White House to serve as General Counsel for the National Security Agency thinking that my life might return to a bit of normalcy, but then the Snowden disclosures happened and the media, congressional, and global spotlight was more intense than anything that I had ever experienced. It just goes to show, you never know what is around the corner.

RC: Much of your career has been spent in D.C. From your perspective, what makes the D.C. legal market unique?

RD: Apart from clerking, all of my professional experience has been in the Washington, D.C. legal market — working in private practice, at the White House and Departments of Justice and Defense, as a Congressional staffer, and as counsel for independent bipartisan investigations such as the 9/11 Commission. Washington has been and remains the risk capital of the world from a legal, policy, and regulatory perspective. For clients, that risk can unfold by way of investigations, enforcement actions, regulations, litigation, trade disputes, sanctions compliance, or a host of other challenges.

Our job is often to assist our clients anticipate, identify, mitigate, or ultimately defend against such risk. And to do that well, legal skills matter, experience matters, and judgment matters. Not all lawyers have that combination of skill, experience, and judgment, but I would submit that the Washington legal market puts a premium on such lawyers. We certainly do at Mayer Brown.

RC: How do you think we can effectively advance diversity and inclusion efforts in today’s political climate?

RD: In my view, leadership is essential. Diversity and Inclusion are essential in a competitive market, and — at least in Biglaw — the needle will not move fast enough on its own without committed leadership, force of will, proactive effort, creativity, persistence, and education. We cannot sit idly by and expect such momentous change. Leaders of the profession have a responsibility to shape the profession. This has nothing to do with politics, but it does have everything to do with providing clients with the best legal services possible.

The Cybersecurity & Data Privacy practice that I lead is one of the most diverse practices at our firm, and likely across the market. That is not an accident. Such success can be accomplished on a broader scale in our profession. Mayer Brown stands for excellence, and in Washington I intend to draw the best of the best from the broadest pool of talent possible.

On behalf of everyone here at Above the Law, I would like to thank Raj De for sharing his experience and wisdom with our audience and wish him continued success in his career.

---

Renwei Chung is the Diversity Columnist at Above the Law. You can contact Renwei by email at projectrenwei@gmail.com, follow him on Twitter (@renweichung), or connect with him on LinkedIn.

Less than four months after resigning as Food and Drug Administration commissioner, Scott Gottlieb has taken on his latest gig: board member of one of the world’s largest drugmakers.

New York-based Pfizer said Thursday that Gottlieb had joined its board of directors and was also appointed to the boards regulatory and compliance and science and technology committees.

Gottlieb resigned as FDA commissioner in March, following a nearly two-year stint at the agency that saw the approvals of numerous novel treatments, including the first CAR-T cell therapies for cancers, the first gene therapy for an inherited disease and the first RNA-interference therapy. Following his resignation, National Cancer Institute Director Ned Sharpless was appointed acting commissioner. Meanwhile, Gottlieb went back to his previous roles, at conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute and at the venture capital fund New Enterprise Associates, both organizations he had worked for prior to his appointment at the FDA.

“Scott’s expertise in healthcare, public policy and the industry will be an asset to our company and enable our shareholders to continue to benefit from a board representing a balance of experience, competencies and perspectives,” Pfizer Executive Chairman Ian Read said in a statement.

However, the announcement also provoked several negative reactions, particularly on social media, from those who saw the move as an example of a “revolving door” between government and industry. “It’s going to be pretty cool to watch all those $PFE drugs win FDA approval on mouse data. Good work, Scott!” STAT biotech journalist Adam Feuerstein wrote on Twitter Thursday.

“Our country needs to stop the revolving door between our government and the organizations they are mandated to oversee. #Soldout,” wrote Twitter user Marci Venable under Gottlieb’s tweet announcing the new role.

Numerous other comments on Gottlieb’s tweet and elsewhere on Twitter were also highly critical.

Gottlieb did not respond to a request for comment. Pfizer did not provide a comment in time for publication.

Concerns about Gottlieb’s ties to the drug industry arose during his 2017 confirmation hearings, raising questions about his ability to be impartial. However, he agreed to recuse himself of decisions involving companies he had worked for. And once he had taken his post, he devoted considerable energy to using the FDA’s existing powers to tackle the issue of high drug costs, despite the agency historically not being focused on pricing.

Photo: Alaric DeArment, MedCity News

If you don’t flesh out your bio on LinkedIn, you should expect others to assume the worst about your background. From pitching for new business to considering job opportunities, the decision maker on the other side is judging your LinkedIn profile before you even show up. Would you show up to a business pitch with a hole in your suit, scuffed up shoes, and toilet paper hanging out of your pants? Then how can you have a bare-bones LinkedIn profile that reflects the same about you, your experience, and presentation?

Have you looked at your LinkedIn recently? What’s it look like? Is your photo professional enough? How about your “About” section? Current experience, education up-to-date? Any recommendation from colleagues? Are you a member of specific clubs and organizations? These are the type of things that decision makers look at in the modern, internet-driven, millennial world we live in today. As important as your physical résumé is, your LinkedIn bio is THAT much more important.

If your LinkedIn bio needs work, you are in luck.  Lateral Link is here to help make sure your LinkedIn doesn’t get in the way of you and your next “yes” moment.

• What does your photo say about you?

The first thing employers see when opening your LinkedIn page is your headshot. Keep in mind that LinkedIn is not Facebook or Instagram.  Even John Quinn, whose name really speaks for itself, still fleshes out his bio including a professional headshot. On the other hand, and leaving names aside, those downing shots on your Cabo trip with the Mariachi band, will say the opposite. Make sure your photo is similar to what you would look like the day you walk in for the in-person interview. Also, right below the photo, is your current title. Keep it short and right to the point. Save the detailed information about yourself for the “About” section. Check out Michael Allen’s profile, for example.

• Tell your story in under 200 words.

Do you think it is important for people to know exactly what your title in the above section entails? Of course, it is! The “About” section is what you want people to know about you. Are you a CEO like Michael Allen? Great! CEO of what? What does your current position mean? This section should have a short write-up of you, what you do currently and how people can reach you. Sell yourself and make yourself easily reachable.

• Where have you worked?

This section has the potential to separate you from all other applicants. It is vital that your experience is up-to-date and accurate. List all former employers, the correct duration you were at each job and a brief description of what you did at each job. You might find yourself repeating some of the tasks, but that is okay. Also, I cannot stress enough to list all the jobs where you have worked. Mary Barra, CEO of General Motors (GM), not only lists all the different positions she has held during her GM career but provides a full description of what each position required. Look at our CEO, Michael Allen, and how he displays, with great detail and accuracy, all he has done in his working career.  For example, here are just his most recent positions.

• Do you come with a recommendation?

LinkedIn has a feature that allows others to toot your horn for you. Self-puffery isn’t credible. I came across a legitimate M&A partner from a Valley firm the other day who was more than generous pounding his chest with his achievements. That’s a turnoff. But, if Brad Smith of Microsoft said the same about the partner, that would go a long way. Letter of recommendations are still important to employers, and LinkedIn makes that process easy. The website has a section at the bottom of your page that displays reviews and recommendations about you and your job skills from credible sources (which requires you to know credible sources).

• How about your accomplishments?

This part might not help everyone, but if you are a member of interesting organizations and have other accomplishments, then list them. Not everyone belongs to country clubs and wine societies, but these kinds of memberships say a lot about a person (where the frequent, who they know, and what they like). For example, if you are a member of the Confrérie des Chevaliers du Tastevin, like our CEO, Michael Allen, then you want to share that in case there are others who also belong and share this affinity. For example, there are more than a few chairman of firms and prominent lawyers in this group, and sharing membership to this society creates a bond. The same applies to non-profits, social organizations, and the like. If you are aiming for that board position, you can really separate yourself from other candidates by listing your outside activities. Take a quick look at the accomplishments of our CEO, Michael Allen. I imagine there are lots of folks reading this article who also share the same ones. That makes use feel closer to one another and creates a warm affinity.

By just going through this short exercise, you know more about Michael Allen’s professional background and accomplishments than probably most of his family members. Most people don’t share these types of things when first meeting in person or over Thanksgiving. That’s crude. But it’s not crude, and in fact, is expected that you broadcast your background on LinkedIn. Decision makers will review your bios. They will pass judgment quickly. Within 30 seconds of looking at a candidate’s LinkedIn page, you can tell if they are qualified and credible. The sad part is when someone who is otherwise qualified is judged incorrectly for not having fleshed out their bio on LinkedIn. It is as important a tool as anything today and you should use it to its fullest potential.

Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series of posts from Mainspring Legal’s team of expert contributors. Sarkis Adajian manages marketing and business development for Lateral Link.

---

Lateral Link is one of the top-rated international legal recruiting firms. With over 14 offices world-wide, Lateral Link specializes in placing attorneys at the most prestigious law firms and companies in the world. Managed by former practicing attorneys from top law schools, Lateral Link has a tradition of hiring lawyers to execute the lateral leaps of practicing attorneys. Click ::here:: to find out more about us.

Hey, The Fed just released the results of this year’s stress test, so let’s all gawk at which major financial institutions are being designated as hot, messy bitches and which are just hot bitches.

Providing legal services to startup companies is a highly specialized practice, so it doesn’t come as too much of a shock that boutique law firms that focus solely on that area are killing it with that segment. Kruze Consulting, a CPA, tax and consulting firm, has already looked at the best Biglaw firms for startups, now they’re turning their attention to the best boutiques for startups. They created their list from an analysis of over $40 million in professional services spending across 180 seed, to Series C US startups with more than $1.4BN in combined funding.

Kruze’s analysis reveals three tiers of boutiques doing startup work. At the top of the heap, tied for first are Silicon Legal Strategy and Atrium. In tier 2 are SPZ Legal, VLP Law Group, and Hopkins & Carley. Receiving honorable mentions are Fathom Law, Paradigm Counsel, Silicon Counsel, Tango Law, and Capes Sokol Goodman.

Hans Kim, managing partner at Atrium, reflected on his firm’s guiding principles that have led them to success:

“Just as startups strive to use technology to drive innovation, Atrium is building technology to innovate the delivery and quality of our legal services,” said Hans Kim, Managing Partner at Atrium. “We are on a mission to better leverage our legal team’s expertise by ensuring they’re focused on the value-added client work and in turn that our technology eliminates the burdensome administrative work. With over 400 happy clients in just two years, I think we’re on to something, and we’re honored to be recognized by Kruze Consulting as a leader in the startup legal space.”

And founding partner of Silicon Legal Strategy, Andre Gharakhanian, said:

“Representing emerging tech companies is a highly specialized practice that requires deep market experience, a relentless dedication to client service and a practical, “get-the-deal-done” perspective.” said Andre Gharakhanian, Founding Partner at Silicon Legal Strategy. “Just as Kruze Consulting’s clients benefit from an intense focus on startups, Silicon Legal’s clients can count on us delivering advice that is tailored to their unique needs and informed by the most up-to-date trends in the startup ecosystem.”

Congratulations to all the firms recognized for their hard work.

---

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).

During last night’s Democratic debate, Senator Kamala Harris beat former Vice President Joe Biden about the face and neck over his views on segregation and busing. Back in the 1970s, “busing” was one way to integrate schools that Joe Biden, generally speaking, opposed in part and supported in part. During the debate, Biden literally asked to be saved by the bell, saying to no one in particular that “my time is up.” But after the debate, in the spin room, Biden tried to make a fine distinction between de jure segregation, which Biden opposed, and de facto segregation. Biden didn’t specifically say he supported de facto segregation, but he seemed to be suggesting that the remedy for that was not a power of the federal government. Or something.

At a surface level, this can sound like a debate about the past, and that’s certainly how Biden and white men of a certain age who agreed with Biden back in the day want you to think of it. But this debate is very much about the present, and what Biden will do, or Harris will do, to stop the very real segregation that we still experience today.

First we must define our terms, and lawyers know that the first term to understand here is “with all deliberate speed.” That’s the language from Brown v. Board of Education II. The original Brown decision ordered desegregation, but it didn’t say how or, most importantly, when. Brown II came out with some of the details and included the line that schools should be integrated with all deliberate speed.

Well, if you give segregationists a soft deadline, they’ll find a way to never get around to it. Fast forward to the 1970s and, guess what, many schools were not integrated.

The 70s-era fight for desegregation centered around “busing.” After Brown, segregationists — from the North, South, East, and West, mind you — pretty quickly figured out that you didn’t really have to integrate schools if you had one school close to where all the white people lived in your town, and another school close to where all the black people lived in your town. Busing was the process where black kids from “the wrong side of the tracks” would be put into white schools, and occasionally (though more rarely) white kids from “the good part of town” would be sent to schools in black areas.

As you can imagine, some white people — some of whom I’m sure didn’t have “a racist bone in their body” — had a serious problem with this. And so we had more Supreme Court cases. The most famous of these is probably Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, decided in 1971. There, a unanimous Court ruled that federal courts could impose “equitable remedies” upon school districts which violated orders to desegregate. Essentially, Swann allowed busing to be a thing.

But, racism never takes a defeat lying down. For white people, the obvious solution to desegregation and busing was what we now call “white flight.” White people abandoned “urban” areas and fled to the surrounding suburban counties, where they could have their whites-only schools without meddling from the government.

That led to another Supreme Court busing case, Milliken v. Bradley. There, Detroit wanted the right to bus children — kindergartners, actually — to surrounding districts, in the name of desegregation. That proved to be a bridge too far for the Burger Court. The Court ruled 5-4, over a dissent from Justice Thurgoood Marshall, that white suburban schools could not be forced to desegregate unless it could be shown that the district lines were drawn, on purpose, with the goal of segregation. The decision also emphasized the importance of “local control” over these kinds of state decisions, since technically the NAACP was suing Michigan Governor William Milliken to force him to desegregate schools in suburban Detroit.

And… that explains Detroit, actually. Know that every time you crap on Detroit, what you are doing is victim-blaming black people because white “working class” folks with good jobs at General Motors FLED DETROIT so that their kids wouldn’t have to go to school with black kids, and the Supreme Court said that was cool.

In any event, Milliken is how we get to the important legal distinction between de jure and de facto segregation. De jure segregation is segregation imposed by the law. De facto segregation is the kind of segregation that, ALLEGEDLY, occurs just by happenstance. You know, like white people are just walking around, minding their own business, and whoops, they trip on some racial segregation in schools. “Oh noes,” one imagines these white people saying. “I haz whites-only schoolz now? Whoopsie!” By the 1970s, it was easy for people to come out against de jure segregation; the battle line was over de facto segregation, because the Supreme Court had made de facto segregation a thing that states were allowed to do under the rubric of “local control,” which was a less rebellious way of talking about “state’s rights.”

Enter Joe Biden. Biden was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1972, when I was minus-six according to the anti-choice lobby. He was right in the middle of the busing debate. And his record on busing is not great. From Mother Jones:

During one debate on the Senate floor, Biden said, “I have become convinced that busing is a bankrupt concept,” as he backed an anti-busing measure sponsored by avowed segregationist Sen. Jesse Helms. When a federally mandated integration program was set to begin in Biden’s home state in the late 1970s, the Delaware senator co-sponsored an amendment, tacked on to an education appropriations bill, which would have limited courts’ ability to order busing and imposed a halt on all pending busing orders around the country. The Washington Post at the time called it “the most far-reaching antibusing measure to receive serious consideration in the Senate.” (It failed by a slim margin.)

What Kamala Harris was asking Joe Biden to do during the debate was explain, apologize for, or disavow his own actual position here.

Instead, Biden defended it. From The Hill:

“I supported busing to eliminate de jure segregation,” he told MSNBC after the debate. “But what we’re talking about is whether or not the Department of Education, as opposed to the courts, could order de jure segregation, meaning segregation imposed by law.”

Yes, we know that Biden doesn’t believe in legally mandated segregation. The question is whether he still believes in allowing schools to functionally segregate without interference from the federal government. Does he agree with the majority opinion in Milliken, or does he agree with Thurgood Marshall’s dissent? That is the question.

Like I said, the Biden people want you to think that this is a conversation about the past, but it’s actually a conversation about now, because de facto segregation is exactly the school segregation we have left. And, as most blacks and Latinos already know, it’s the “liberal” states, the ones Democrats control, where black and brown students face some of the most intense segregation. From the New York Times:

White students now account for less than half of the nation’s public school students, and Latinos are the most deeply segregated racial group in schools, according to the researchers.

While segregation was once most severe in the former states of the Confederacy, in 2016 it was in four liberal states — New York, California, Maryland and Illinois — that black children were most likely to attend intensely segregated schools. Latinos were most likely to attend intensely segregated schools in California, New York, Texas and New Jersey.

Nationwide, 42 percent of Latino students and 40 percent of black students attended schools where less than 10 percent of their peers were white in 2016. Those numbers have been rising since 1988.

We are in this situation in large part because of Milliken and polices like the ones Joe Biden has supported in the past. It is completely fair to expect him to have an answer for how he’ll address this present injustice in the future.

It’s also fair to ask Kamala Harris the same question. I don’t think she’s proposing to bring back busing, and even if she wants to, Milliken remains terrible but unchallenged precedent. But she pretty clearly favors using the federal government to readdress the ONGOING problem of de facto school segregation, while Biden has been against using federal power to address that problem since 1972.

Debates usually don’t matter. But this debate does matter. This is a substantive problem for Joe Biden, and at some point he’s going to need to address it. If he’s going to run on the nostalgia of being an old white guy, at some point he has to address what old white guys believed about the integration of our schools.

---

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.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court put the kibosh on the proposed 2020 census question that would have asked respondents about citizenship. In a wild Frankenstein’s Monster of an opinion, Chief Justice Roberts basically couldn’t convince himself to ignore all the damning “hey this is a pretext, don’t tell nobody” documents out there. The case was remanded but the bottom line was there’s really no way to put that question on the 2020 census.

In response, Trump said he’s asking for the census to be delayed:

Constitution nerds might remember that the census is one of those things mandated by the founding document that can’t be changed up on a whim by a president trying to find a way to drive down representation. In theory, someone will inform him of this fact and the census will go forward anyway.

But Professor Tribe thinks the mere ask could be an ominous sign:

While it’s hard to imagine that one would fly, there’s almost as much harm in asking the question than in getting the answer. If the country even starts joking about constitutional mandates becoming negotiable, then all sorts of unappetizing stuff lands on the table.

In one of the all-time greatest Simpsons songs — “I’m An Amendment To Be” — the anthropomorphic flag-burning amendment explains that “if we change the constitution…” and the boy responds “then we could make all sorts of crazy laws!” But if we don’t think we need amendments… or even statutes anymore. Hoo boy.

---

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.

I attended a legal networking event last night so I thought I would write about my general experiences at these events. Networking is a necessary evil when it comes to practicing law. Whether you are a solo practitioner, at a large firm, or working for a government agency, networking is an important skill to master. There is always the temptation to avoid these events because who really wants to spend their evening talking to strangers about their professions. Here are some techniques that have helped me get something out of networking events.

1. Avoid Clustering

The easiest thing to do at a typical networking event is to cluster with your friends and colleagues into a small area. Not only will you make it impossible for others to feel like they can infiltrate your group, but you’re not really going to get anything out of talking to people you spend most of the day with anyway. I know it’s in most people’s nature to want to stay in a safe, non-threatening group setting, but putting yourself out there and making new connections will be the best thing you can do at a networking event.

2. Be Friendly

I think the first thing I did last night was to remember to put a smile on my face and to be friendly. I know you are probably not going to meet your new best friend or future partner at this event, but you can likely make a new LinkedIn connection and you never know what that connection could lead to. By being friendly and willing to talk to someone you’ve never met before, you are opening yourself up to the possibility of getting a new case or meeting someone in a different practice of law who may even refer something to you or your firm in the future.

3. Monitor Your Alcohol Intake (If You Partake)

The worst thing you can do at a networking event is to make the wrong impression on a new connection. A lot of these events will offer you a free open bar. As tempting as it is to take full advantage of free libations, you have to remember to pace yourself or even limit yourself to just a drink or two. Remember, you’re not going to impress anyone by being the lawyer who drank the most. In fact, the only impression you will make is that you were that person who everyone will talk about at the next networking event.

4. Go into the Event with an Open Mind

The funny thing about these events is that if you are willing to take a risk and speak to someone you don’t know; you may learn something. Contrary to popular belief, I think that lawyers are actually quite interesting and intelligent people. You may end up talking to someone who practices a different type of law than you, and it may catch your interest enough that you think about changing career fields. Or even more importantly, you may end up speaking to a hiring partner or a judge who you have heard about. You never know what can happen at these events, so take the risk and go into it with an open mind.

We all know networking is a necessary evil. So, if you avoid clustering, be friendly, monitor your behavior, and go into these events with an open mind, you will be able to get something out it. Whether it’s a meeting a new friend or establishing a connection with a powerful judge or partner, there are always opportunities at networking events. Don’t be awkward and go for it.

---

Peter S. Garnett is an attorney at Balestriere Fariello who represents clients in trials, arbitrations, and appeals. He focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation and contract disputes from pre-filing investigations to trial and appeals. You can reach Peter at peter.s.garnett@balestrierefariello.com.

When you think of a kimono, do you think of Kim Kardashian?

Probably not, because kimonos are a traditional garment dating back to at least the 8th century. We pretty much all know what they look like. And they do not look like Kim’s new line of bodywear. Yet she’s trying to name her line “Kimono” because it starts with “Kim” and it’s a clothes thing… I guess.

As you might imagine a lot of people are concerned about this cultural appropriation:

But racial disparagement isn’t an impediment to trademark these days so it’s only the court of public opinion that could convince the budding lawyer to change course and find a new name for her wearable wares.

Unfortunately, the counter-intuitive world we live in means Kardashian’s tenuous claim upon the “kimono” mark is potentially stronger because people are upset about it.

“By creating a social media uproar she has actually strengthened the case that people will recognize the word ‘Kimono’ with her own line of clothing and her brand,” [trademark attorney David] Leichtman said.

Of course, not everyone is equally suited to create as much impact as Kardashian is in a single tweet, considering her 61 million followers.

“The reason why Kim Kardshian is uniquely positioned to acquire secondary meaning is because consumers now know to connect the brand to her,” explained Joel MacMull, an intellectual property attorney at law firm Mandelbaum Salsburg. “It’s bonafide acquired distinctiveness, people will say, ‘I know ‘Kimono’ and I know it relates to Kim Kardashian.’”

Getting people angry at a weak mark should not be the pathway to turning a weak mark into a strong mark. That’s just legally sanctioned upward failing. And yet here we are.

Why the backlash over Kim Kardashian trademarking ‘Kimono’ strengthens her legal case [Yahoo Finance]

---

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.

In 2017, FCC head Ajit Pai came under fire for filling a new “Broadband Deployment Advisory Council” (BDAC) task force with oodles of industry representatives, but few if any consumer representatives or local town or city officials. Not too surprisingly the panel saw a significant amount of controversy, several protest resignations, and the arrest of a one-time panel chair for fraud, but the panel itself never actually accomplished much of anything to address the problem it was created for.

This week more data emerged on the details behind the arrest of Pai’s former council head Elizabeth Ann Pierce. Pierce, the former CEO of Alaskan telecom provider Quintillion, is headed to jail after a pretty elaborate fraud scheme that bilked numerous investors out of some significant cash. Pierce effectively conned numerous parties out of millions by forging sales contracts, used a significant chunk of the money for “personal expenses,” then hid the scope of the fraud from her own colleagues and other Quintillion executives:

“Between May 2015 and July 2017, Pierce engaged in a scheme to induce two New York-based investment companies to provide more than $270 million to construct the Quintillion System by providing them with eight forged broadband capacity sales contracts and related order forms under which Quintillion would obtain guaranteed revenue once the Quintillion System was built (the “Fake Revenue Agreements”).

Under the Fake Revenue Agreements, four telecommunications services companies appeared to have made binding commitments to purchase specific wholesale quantities of capacity from Quintillion at specified prices. The cumulative value of the Fake Revenue Agreements was approximately $1 billion over the life of the Fake Revenue Agreements. In reality, the Fake Revenue Agreements were completely worthless because Pierce had forged the counterparties’ signatures.”

Just the person you want leading a council on fixing the broken US telecom sector, right?

Again, the council Pierce headed was supposed to help fix the broken US broadband sector and extend service to less connected areas, but hasn’t done much of anything. And the things the council has recommended teeter toward the absurd: like the time it suggested that companies like Google, Netflix, and Facebook pay a “tax” to ISPs to fund the broadband network investment telecom monopolies routinely refuse to do themselves (such a tax has been on AT&T’s policy wishlist for years, and is effectively what really began the entire net neutrality debate more than a decade ago).

In some areas, Pai’s FCC tenure has been ruthlessly efficient at neutering FCC oversight of natural telecom monopolies and giving those monopolies absolutely everything they want. In other instances it’s been plagued with an almost preternatural ability for absurd controversy, incompetence, and bizarre missteps. A commission tasked with doing something it refuses to do, headed by somebody now going to prison for fraud, certainly falls into the latter camp.

Former Head Of Ajit Pai’s Broadband Advisory Council Is Headed To Prison For Fraud

Earlier: The End Of The Open Internet: Cory Doctorow’s Op-Ed From The Future
State Judge Prefers Prior Restraint To The First Amendment, Orders Blogger To Delete Supposedly Defamatory Posts
Trump Thinks That The Government Can And Should Sue Internet Companies Because He Doesn’t Like The People Who Work There