Wily Masa Son Made Damned Sure He Wouldn’t Have To Throw Away Another $3 Billion On WeWork

LawNext Episode 70: David Lat on His Brink-of-Death Battle with COVID-19 | LawSites

David Lat defied the popular conception of who should be hit with a serious case of COVID-19. Just 44 years old, a two-time marathoner, with a young family and a successful career as a legal recruiter and journalist, and best known as the founder of the blog Above the Law, he did not fit the mold of a person at high risk.

But what started early in March as fever and chills eventually led to 17 days in a New York City hospital, six of them spent intubated and on a respirator in ICU. As two major news organizations began preparing his obituary, his family, friends and thousands of social media followers prayed for his recovery.

Over half of COVID-19 patients who go on a respirator do not survive. Lat was one of the fortunate ones. After six days, he recovered enough to be extubated and moved out of ICU. Then, on April 1, he sent out a Tweet announcing that he was about to be discharged.

Now recovering with his husband and son at his parents’ home in New Jersey, Lat — still hoarse from the intubation — joins host Bob Ambrogi to discuss his ordeal and share his thoughts on what he learned going through it.

NEW:

Comment on this show: Record a voice comment on your mobile phone and send it to info@lawnext.com.

We are now on Patreon! Subscribe to our page to be able to access show transcripts, or to submit a question for our guests.

Thank you to our sponsor, MyCase, and to John E. Grant and Agile Professionals LLC for being a lead Patreon supporter of our show.

You Can Buy Non-Medical Face Masks From These Fashion Brands Right Now

In addition to those donating masks to health care and essential workers, several designers are now making them for consumers as the CDC reviews its guidelines for public mask use.

Free Course: Force Majeure and Other Defenses to Contract Performance During the Covid-19 Pandemic

Above the Law readers are offered 1 free CLE course each quarter, thanks to Lawline.

In the second quarter of 2020 please check out:

Force Majeure and Other Defenses to Contract Performance During the Covid-19 Pandemic

This program, presented by Baker Hostetler partner Gilbert S. Keteltas and associate Kyle T. Cutts, will discuss the enforceability of force majeure clauses, and other contract defenses, to excuse performance impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The course will benefit attorneys advising clients on their contractual rights and obligations during the pandemic, as well as counsel responsible for drafting new contracts in the time of COVID-19.

Get your free CLE.

In These Times, What Really Matters To Lawyers?

(Image via Getty)

A news flash for you that has nothing to do with the continuing unfolding of COVID-19 developments: a recent study by the National Association for Law Placement and PP&C Consulting found that almost 60 percent of law firm associates do NOT (I repeat, do NOT) want to become partners at their current firms.

Is that news? It depends upon how you define news, but given the almost endless path to snagging a partnership, given the lack of diversity and inclusion, it’s not really a surprise that more than half of the associates have pulled the emergency brake on the partnership track. For those seeking that partnership at their current firm, 60 percent of Latinx associates wanted partnership, 46 percent of black associates, and 42 percent of white associates.

The study surveyed 1,394 partners and 1,079 associates and is full of interesting factoids, made even more interesting in these perilous times. Conducted last year when the word “pandemic” required Googling, some of the conclusions ring even more true in these days of layoffs, cutbacks, and compensation reductions. Only lawyers at regional, national, and Am Law 200 firms were surveyed. However, most lawyers in this country are either solos or small firms.

I am always surprised when our profession thinks that the gravy train of prosperity is going to last forever, that the bull market will always have legs, and that there will always be demand for legal services. As to the latter, “yes, but.”

We’ve been warned for at least the past decade that technology, artificial intelligence, and third-party vendors would eat our lunches. Now it’s not just those things, but a virus that has a ravenous appetite and makes no distinction between rich and poor, Big Law or People Law, where you went to law school, whether you were Order of the Coif or scraped the bottom of the class. In fact, right now, I’d like to know how many patients ask their overworked healthcare professionals where they went to med school, where they did their residencies, or any other fact that might be on a resume. COVID-19 may well be the great leveler for our profession.

I digress. Some interesting factoids from the study:

Some things never change, and nearly half of today’s partners (Boomers and Gen Xers) think that today’s associates don’t work as hard as they did when they were associates. Sound familiar? This follows the age-old pattern of parents telling their kids how they had to walk miles in the snow every day to get to school, how they had to eat everything on the plate because children were starving elsewhere, how they did chores without any expectation of an allowance, yada-yada.

Do you think that technology, AI, e-discovery vendors, and other new-fangled things may have something to do with that perception? Aside from billable hours, how do you tell? If the associate gets as good (or even better) a result in less time, what’s the problem? How about laptops and other devices that allow lawyers to work remotely? (Exhibit A in these COVID-19 times.) In the “good old days” — and that’s a matter of opinion — there was even more drudgery than there is today, drudge work so mind-numbing that you wanted to stick a fork in your head in the hopes that you would wake up to finish answering the discovery before the due date.

Another differing perception is that only a bare majority of partners think that the youngsters are as good at their jobs as they were. Really? How do you compare? What metrics were used? Do you think that memories are selective? Of course they are.

How many times have we all heard the word “entitled” used to describe today’s associates? Slightly more than a third think that younger lawyers put their own needs and interests ahead of the firm and the clients. Given the workaholic habits of us oldsters (and I include Gen Xers in that), I am not surprised that associates want more “work-life balance.” As a dinosaur, I’m tired of the grumbling about the perceived sense of “entitlement.” Times are not the same, duh. Will these impressions change post COVID-19?

More than 40 percent of the partners didn’t think that associates were as ambitious as in olden times. How much ambition is necessary to be a good lawyer? Define ambition: Biglaw, People Law, or something else?

What do partners and associates agree upon? The intellectual challenge of the work, which ranked either first or second. That’s why a lot of us became lawyers, not to make money (although that’s a nice collateral benefit for some of us) but to help solve problems by appreciating that intellectual challenge. That’s something that all we lawyers share, and the nerds among us delight in that, but just try to explain an intellectual challenge to a client in the context of giving advice, and the client’s eyes cross.

What about diversity and inclusion? The study concludes that for associates of color, “the pipeline is neither empty nor robust,” but the question remains whether firms will continue in their efforts to have diverse associates or whether their efforts will remain “meh.”

The conclusion is that most lawyers like what they do; it’s just that they would like to do a little bit less in order to have a more balanced life. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story said 90 years ago, “the law is a jealous mistress.” Has anything changed?


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.

The Trump Administration Is STILL Trying To Keep Immigrant Kids In Lockup

(Photo by Katherine McCaffrey, via Toni Messina)

I know it’s difficult to give your full attention to immigration issues right now, what with suddenly needing to make homemade face masks and attend Zoom meetings while your children scream in the background. But if you have energy for only one immigration issue right now, I humbly suggest that it should be this one: The Trump administration is trying to kill unaccompanied immigrant minors by keeping them locked up in federally funded coronavirus petri dishes.

Not surprisingly, coronavirus has made its way to the decades-old Flores litigation, which established minimal safety standards for unaccompanied immigrant minors in federal custody. On March 26, the plaintiffs in that case filed for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, arguing that the federal government needed to either release unaccompanied minors or show cause for retaining custody. As of that date, the government itself was reporting that eight adults and four minors involved in the Department of Health and Human Services care system had tested positive.

Judge Dolly Gee of the Central District of California, who has held two presidential administrations’ feet to the fire throughout the years she’s had this case, issued the TRO March 28. It requires the government to show cause by tomorrow, April 10, why she shouldn’t enjoin them to promptly release kids who have suitable custodians. This was based on a provision of the 1997 Flores settlement that says “the [government] shall release a minor from its custody without unnecessary delay.” Sounds reasonable, right?

Not to the federal government! In a 40-page supplemental response signed by DOJ lawyer Sarah Fabian — who you may remember as the lawyer who argued that immigrant children are not entitled to soap or beds — the government makes much of the difference between “unnecessary delay” and “unexplained delay,” which is language that Gee used in part of her decision. The baby-snatchers argue that this alters the terms of the Flores settlement, which they argue never actually requires them to explain their failures to anybody. (This sudden interest in fidelity to the terms of the settlement may come as a surprise to the plaintiffs, who have been suing the government over violations for more than 20 years.)

I can think of no reason why Judge Gee would revisit her decision based on this kind of hair-splitting. But that’s okay, because the real audience for this filing is not Gee and probably not the 9th Circuit — it’s the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, which has rubber-stamped so many obviously illegal moves by the Trump administration that even retired judges are starting to voice their disgust. Those justices are obviously immune to shame, so I don’t expect a different outcome this time. Call your Congressmembers.


Lorelei Laird is a freelance writer specializing in the law, and the only person you know who still has an “I Believe Anita Hill” bumper sticker. Find her at wordofthelaird.com.

Am Law 200 Firm Cuts Salaries ‘Across All Levels’

Ready for more news of Biglaw financial austerity? No? Too bad! Firms are trying to keep apace with all of the economic upheaval, and that increasingly means (smaller) cost-cutting measures now to ensure they can avoid calamitous results later.

At Am Law 200 firm Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, they’ve taken cost-cutting to employees’ paychecks. The firm has confirmed to Above the Law that they’ve “temporarily adjusted compensation across all levels.” Though the firm has been quiet on exactly how large the pay cuts are, tipsters at the firm report they’ve cut associate salaries by 5 percent and partners are taking an undisclosed but reduced share.

Joseph A. Dougherty, CEO & Managing Director at Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, had this to say about the austerity measures:

“Buchanan, like many businesses coping with challenges posed by COVID-19, is taking preemptive and responsible measures consistent with providing to clients the highest level of quality and service they expect. We have temporarily adjusted compensation across all levels.”

Let’s hope these rather modest austerity measures pay off and the firm can avoid layoffs or other, more severe measures.

If your firm or organization is slashing salaries, closing its doors, or reducing the ranks of its lawyers or staff, whether through open layoffs, stealth layoffs, or voluntary buyouts, please don’t hesitate to let us know. Our vast network of tipsters is part of what makes Above the Law thrive. You can email us or text us (646-820-8477).

If you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Layoff Alerts, please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the layoff alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each layoff, salary cut, or furlough announcement that we publish.


headshotKathryn 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).

Leaving Biglaw To Try To Be Happy

Are you a Biglaw attorney? Are you miserable? (Yes, obviously the global pandemic makes everything worse, but even before that there was a deep thread of unhappiness in far too many lawyers.) Well, you aren’t alone. And on the latest episode of The Jabot podcast, we talk about making changes to be happier.

I’m joined by one of my closest friends, Stephanie Wilkins, on the podcast. Steph was on track for Biglaw partnership when she decided to hang it all up to travel the world and be a freelancer. We discuss the highs and lows of giving up your legal career, the price of happiness, freelance work in the time of COVID-19, and more.

The Jabot podcast is an offshoot of the Above the Law brand focused on the challenges women, people of color, LGBTQIA, and other diverse populations face in the legal industry. Our name comes from none other than the Notorious Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the jabot (decorative collar) she wears when delivering dissents from the bench. It’s a reminder that even when we aren’t winning, we’re still a powerful force to be reckoned with.

Happy listening!


headshotKathryn 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).

In Effort To Prevent Layoffs, Am Law 200 Firm Slashes Salaries, Reduces Partner Draws, Cuts Working Hours

(Image via Getty)

As each hour ticks by, another law firm’s partnership makes the hard decision on what to do in light of the havoc that the coronavirus outbreak has wreaked upon society at large. Will the firm cut salaries? Are furloughs or layoffs in play? What about reducing partner draws and distributions for the good of the team?

One Biglaw firm is doing everything it can to save jobs, but that means people will have to suffer when their salaries are slashed.

Sources tell us that Am Law 200 firm Day Pitney plans to enact numerous cost-cutting measures in an effort to help stabilize the firm through the economic upheaval that’s been caused by COVID-19’s impact on America. Specifically, we hear that the firm will introduce pay cuts firmwide, shortened work schedules for staff, and reduced partner draws and distributions.

We reached out to Day Pitney for confirmation, and received a statement from Tom Goldberg, the firm’s managing partner:

In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, like most businesses, Day Pitney has been faced with some very difficult decisions. To maintain our financial stability during this time while continuing to effectively serve our clients, we have implemented several measures beginning April 13, including:

1. A 15% pay cut for all attorneys and some staff

2. During the remote working period, a temporary reduction to 60% of normal working hours and pay for other staff

3. Significant reductions to partner draws and suspension of the scheduled April supplemental distribution

While the cost reductions are spread among all groups within the firm, we recognize that the partners must bear the greatest share of the burden. We intend that the partners’ share of any shortfall this year will exceed that of the firm’s employees.

We have not taken these steps lightly and recognize that these reductions may impose material hardships.

“We are implementing these measures to preserve the financial health of the firm, to assure that we remain well-positioned to serve our clients, and to mitigate the need for any type of layoffs or furloughs,” Goldberg said. “We remain confident in the long-term success of our firm.”

We hope that everything Day Pitney is doing to avoid parting ways with its employees during a pandemic works.

If your firm or organization is slashing salaries, closing its doors, or reducing the ranks of its lawyers or staff, whether through open layoffs, stealth layoffs, or voluntary buyouts, please don’t hesitate to let us know. Our vast network of tipsters is part of what makes Above the Law thrive. You can email us or text us (646-820-8477).

If you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Layoff Alerts, please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the layoff alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each layoff, salary cut, or furlough announcement that we publish.


Staci ZaretskyStaci 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.

Law Firm Essentials For Data Privacy And Compliance In 2020

In our increasingly digital world, it’s more important than ever for law firms to know how to properly safeguard their clients’ confidential and sensitive information. The sheer volume of data that today’s businesses and consumers collect, create, and manipulate on a daily basis is mind boggling. Few clients will be satisfied with a law firm that, when entrusted with confidential information, doesn’t use state-of-the-art technologies to prevent, monitor for, and rapidly remediate cyberattacks.

Compliance and true data security are harder to achieve than ever before. Partnering with an IT provider who understands the legal profession’s specific challenges can help you control costs, save time, and improve your firm’s resilience in the face of all types of data security threats.

AbacusNext, the leading technology provider for legal, accounting, and compliance-focused professionals worldwide, has an eight-point checklist of the essential security technologies and protocols that your firm should adopt and follow immediately to meet ethical obligations and conform to regulatory requirements.

Download the whitepaper to see this important checklist and more.