Meet Mindcrest: Raising The Bar For Managed Alternative Legal Services

Posted on by TSA Press

As technology has advanced and there’s been an increased push toward efficiency and cost-savings in the legal industry, the market for alternative legal services has grown exponentially. However, while there may be a lot of alternative legal service providers (ALSPs) out there, not all are created equal.

Too often with ALSPs, there’s no way to ensure the quality of the work you’re getting and you run the risk of outsourcing important tasks to vendors who just aren’t up to the job. You end up with anonymous freelancers doing your work with little accountability, when what you really need is the right team of lawyers with the right technology doing high-quality work in the right location and at the right price.

That’s where Mindcrest comes in. Strategically designed to bring skilled management and sophisticated technology to the world of alternative legal services, Mindcrest provides fully project-managed legal services and it excels at handling large-volume and increasingly sophisticated legal work with the levels of technology, process, and oversight that top clients need and expect. If you’re looking for a worthy law firm or in-house alternative, look to Mindcrest.

Specializing in What They Do Best

One of the things that differentiates Mindcrest from other ALSPs is that they don’t try to be a jack-of-all-trades, purporting to cover every niche area of law, plus HR issues, finance, technology development, and administrative issues to boot. Instead, they stick to what they know best and have been doing well for nearly 20 years.

Mindcrest offers services in four distinct and finely honed practice areas: compliance, contract management, legal analytics, and litigation and investigations. By refining and building up these specialty subject matters over time, Mindcrest has positioned itself to offer the best legal services available in some of law’s most critical practice areas. Successful legal practice requires focus and expertise, and Mindcrest has built itself around that notion.

The Secret Ingredient? The Mindcrest Method

Much of Mindcrest’s success can be attributed to what it calls the Mindcrest Method — the project management aspect of their services that they’ve refined over the years and are always continuing to refine in order to bring forth coordinated combinations of the right  lawyers in the right locations at the right price to best handle each specific client engagement. Mindcrest has devised a unique methodology for combining project management, process, workforce management, technology, analytics, reporting, and metrics on every project — and, if their satisfied clients across the globe are any indication, the method works.

Simply put, Mindcrest looks at every unique engagement individually and comes back with a tailored solution. Relying on highly qualified lawyers spread across Chicago, New York, London, and India, Mindcrest assembles the best possible team with expertise in the practice area involved, layered with the right project management approach and the right technology. This is alternative legal services that are not merely convenient, but actually built around the client’s needs.

Superior Training

Unlike many ALSPs, Mindcrest takes the time to invest in their lawyers and train them to the highest standards in the industry, in the process giving them career paths that allow them to grow within the organization. They do this through a thing called Mindcrest University — a massive initiative designed to offer learning and training for both new and experienced lawyers.

After passing a rigorous hiring process, Mindcrest hires are put through a stringent on-boarding program and trained in Mindcrest’s key practice areas and the way the company does business. The training program has been built and refined with input from clients, and today is unlike anything else in the industry. They also offer over 100 courses for lawyers within the company on substantive legal issues, leadership training, project management training, and technology training, both in-class and online. They even offer a fellowship for U.S. lawyers to go to India to help design the training and train the India-based team.

The result of all this training is that many lawyers who started as entry-level trainees with Mindcrest are today leading major client engagements. For the client, this means the ability to reap the benefits of years of investment and training in high-quality lawyers who bring the best skills and expertise to alternative legal services.

The Right Technology Makes All the Difference

Modern legal practice relies on technology, and Mindcrest is focused on providing the best of the best. A dedicated team, dubbed mTech, is devoted to reviewing new technologies and choosing the best third-party tools available to incorporate into their solutions.

Because everything Mindcrest does is driven by technology, they’re constantly evaluating tools and partnering with the right vendors that fit with the Mindcrest Method. These are not lawyers dabbling in software development — instead, they choose the best-in-breed product available on the market and build their services around that software, in order to produce the best possible result for the client.

The Takeaway

What really sets Mindcrest apart and makes them so good at what they do is their ability, honed over many years, to assemble the best possible team at the right price point to handle high-volume work that requires a particular skillset, complete with the right technology and superior management from start to finish. Mindcrest delivers the whole package in ways that most other providers can’t.

Mindcrest isn’t just a clearinghouse for contract attorneys or freelance lawyers looking to supplement their incomes or pick up some extra work between jobs. It functions in every engagement as a well-oiled machine, thanks to superior project management skills — a key element to successful, high-volume projects with lots of moving parts, and one that many law firms lack. Mindcrest is fully invested in their workers and their method, and what clients see as a result is high-quality work project performed by a highly skilled and managed team of lawyers who work efficiently and for the right price.

Not all ALSPs offer fully managed services that combine both project management and quality legal deliverables. When you’re looking for an ALSP, be mindful of what you’re getting. When you want it done right, you want Mindcrest.

Democrats Will Get To Ask Mueller Directly Why He Won’t Do Their Job For Them

Posted on by TSA Press

Robert S. Mueller (via YouTube)

Well, mark you calendars for July 17th. That is the day that Robert Mueller will testify in front of the U.S. House of Representatives about the his report. I think I’ll wear a tux to my television.

Getting Mueller to testify in front of Congress has seemingly been the goal of Congressional Democrats since the Mueller report was released back in April. Now, it’s happening in three weeks.

Which will give the Democrats three weeks to move the goalposts on impeachment yet again.

Let me tell you what’s not going to happen on July 17th. Robert Mueller will not say, “I think you losers should impeach the president already and let me go home.” He probably won’t even say, “The president should be indicted for obstruction of justice.” He’s just going to come up with 34 different ways to say, “You should read my report”/”It’s in my report”/”As I said in my report.” Robert Mueller will be better at saying nothing than Congress is at making him say something. I’ve said before that the Mueller report already gave Democrats enough ammunition to move forward with impeachment proceedings against Trump. But Congressional Democrats aren’t looking for ammo, they’re looking for cover. The want Robert Mueller to make it “okay” for them to move forward. But Robert Mueller isn’t about that life.

Some Democrats think Mueller’s mere audio recitation of the report will be enough to change minds. They’re operating under the assumption that if the American people, especially the American people who watch Fox News, would just read the report, they’ll see the clear and convincing case that Donald Trump should be impeached.

I believe these Democrats are wrong, because they believe that low-information Americans are persuadable by information. I don’t think that belief is supported by evidence of what America is in 2019. Mueller will give voice to his report, people who already know that Trump should be impeached will say, “SEE, I TOLD YOU!” But people who have already made their peace with supporting the president even as he holds children in inhumane conditions will not be swayed because some gumshoe sternly recites planned talking points.

And the Democrats’ months long strategy of being too scared of Mitch McConnell to take a piss without his say-so will hold the day for moderates who just want things to get back to “normal.”

But I’ll still watch. Partially because it’s my job. But also because I’m interested to see which Democratic Congresspeople have the guts to bloody up Robert Mueller a little bit. There are a lot of questions about his investigation, beyond its conclusions. There’s a lot of work Mueller left “unfinished,” if I’m being kind. I want somebody to ask Mueller:

* Why did he wuss out and let Trump off the hook with written responses instead of a sit down interview?
* Why did he wuss out and let Don Trump Jr. off with no interview at all?
* Why didn’t he interview Jared Kushner, who even Sean Hannity wants to know if he did something?
* Why didn’t he follow the money? Why didn’t he interview Allen Weisselberg?
* Why didn’t he look more into the inauguration committee?
* And how much pressure did Matthew Whitaker and Bill Barr apply to get him to wrap things up?

‘Cause let me tell you, the answers to those questions are not “in his report.”

If Democratic Congresspeople have a coordinated strategy, we might actually learn why the Mueller report was so incomplete. But, instead of showing the failures of the Mueller report, Democrats will be motivated to hype it in desperate attempts to make the obstruction that is obvious in the report obvious to the viewers at home.

July 17th will be intense. July 18th, I expect Nancy Pelosi will come out and tell us that she can’t impeach Trump until she takes the auspices under a black sky when Mars is in the house of Aquarius and Mitch McConnell’s spilled entrails augur good tidings.

Mueller to Testify to Congress, Setting Up a Political Spectacle [New York Times]

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.

The Biglaw Firms Where Lawyers Did The Most Pro Bono Work (2019)

Posted on by TSA Press

(Image via Getty)

With on-campus recruiting season nearly upon us, rising 2Ls across the country are trying to create some meaningful distinction between the firms they hope to score interviews with. May we suggest looking at the firms’ pro bono numbers?

Over the course of the last year, members of the legal profession have sprung into action to deal with crisis after crisis after crisis, offering their services without cost to those in need. From travel bans to natural disasters to border family separations to the fight for reproductive rights, lawyers in America were inspired to do their very best to help those who needed their assistance the very most.

But which law firms were able to contribute the most to society?

The American Lawyer has compiled a ranking of Am Law 200 firms based on their pro bono work in 2018. Half of their scores come from the average number of pro bono hours per lawyer, while the other half represents the percentage of lawyers who performed more than 20 hours of pro bono work.

Here are the top 10 firms when it came to pro bono emergencies in 2018:

  1. Jenner & Block
  2. Covington & Burling
  3. Patterson Belknap
  4. WilmerHale
  5. Orrick
  6. Hughes Hubbard
  7. Skadden
  8. Paul Hastings
  9. Dechert
  10. Ropes & Gray

It should be noted that at each firm listed, the average attorney performed about 100 hours or more of pro bono work last year, and the Am Law 200 as a whole contributed more than 5.3 million hours of pro bono work. Congratulations!

The American Lawyer’s 2019 National Pro Bono Rankings [American Lawyer]

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.

Zim Currency Reforms Revisited – The Zimbabwean

Posted on by TSA Press

26.6.2019 18:10

by Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition

Zimbabwe introduced a “return of the Zimbabwe dollar” on Monday 24 June 2019 in terms of Statutory Instrument 142 of 2019.

In the interim the Reserve of Zimbabwe has made indication that the Zimbabwe Dollar will be represented by the surrogate bond notes and the RTGS Dollar (electronic money).

On 25 June 2019, we issued our interim statement indicating that the new currency reforms would not stabilize the economy on the basic of the following:

  1.  Public and international perceptions on the Zimbabwe Dollar
  2. Absence of Public Education
  3. Incommensurate macro economic /fiscal reforms
  4. Inadequate logistical and feasibility tests

Central to our argument is that Zimbabwe has NOT met the necessary preconditions i.e. a return to macroeconomic fundamentals. In this instalment we submit the economic fundamentals necessary and compelling for Zimbabwe to stabilise and achieve inclusive growth underpinned by a Social Market Economy through our alternative economic policy blueprint, the Zimbabwe Social Market Agenda for Recovery and Transformation. The blue explores 6 fundamentals as follows:

  1. Macro-economic stability that is pro-poor, inclusive and human –centered with increased fiscal space, a high degree of competitiveness, a salubrious environment for domestic and foreign investment, a strong export economy and high degrees of innovative capability. The State must be in a position to play its facilitatory role in the economy, enhance real sector performance, currency stability and measures to ensure the financial sector, especially banks are stable. Central is how government can improve revenue generation to release funds into the productive sector in order to create jobs and grow the economy. Precisely we propose enhancing the fiscal space through adopting a sustainable debt strategy, re-prioritization of expenditure; restructuring State owned enterprises, rationalization of the size and structure of the Government, taxation reforms, promoting domestic investment, leveraging remittances from the Diaspora, attracting Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and re-engaging the international community.
  1. Revival of the productive sector with Small to Medium Enterprises (SMEs) being the backbone of the economy given the changing political economy where these dominate. Sectors to be prioritized include agriculture, mining and the manufacturing sector which have been the pillars of the national economy. In each of the three sectors, the blueprint advocates for policy reforms (e.g. land and mining policies), legal reforms (e.g. property rights), institutional and administrative reforms (restructuring key institutions within Ministries). The blue print argues for pro-small scale financial services and credit facilities, a redesign of technological support appropriate to current context, an adaptation of market systems and supply chains, not exclusive to, but also inclusive of high- value export markets beyond primary commodities. The chapter also articulates the need for active intervention of the State not through Command and Iron fist policies but through coordinating, facilitating and providing focused subsidies and start-up finances to rejuvenate the sectors. Of essence is the provision of stimulus packages to the informal sector and SMEs for finance easing, allowing cuts on taxes and encouraging the SMEs to do value addition to increase marketability at a national and global level. If reforms are followed, the manufacturing sector capacity utilisation would be expected to exceed 50% within the first year of the measures. The increase in capacity utilisation to 50% would thus be expected to create an increase in GDP contribution to about 13.3% in the first year of the reforms, which would be expected to be more than 20% in the medium to long term. Revival of the 
agriculture sector, with the associated value chain benefits, would also help increase the sector’s contribution to real GDP significantly from the average of 11.5% between 2010 and 2014 to about 20%. Given the dominance of agriculture activities as a source of livelihoods, the impact on poverty alleviation would also be significant in the rural areas. The mining sector earnings would be expected to double to about US$3.8 billion. The recovery of the productive sector would thus be instrumental in economic recovery, as the three sectors, which currently contribute more than 30% to real GDP would be expected to contribute about 60%.
  1. Highly developed, functional and modern infrastructure that forms the engine of economic growth. Rehabilitation of roads, rail, air, water and sanitation, energy and ICTs should be the government priority. There is need for a reliable transport system aimed at facilitating the movement of goods, people and services across the sectors of the economy, linking regional and international markets to boost social and economic development. Rehabilitation of energy, including renewable energy, should ensure revitalisation of old plants such as Hwange and Kariba power stations. Increased power generation must meet the national demand for industrial and agricultural use to spur economic recovery and growth. This must be accompanied by the revival of the water infrastructure to ensure adequate domestic, agricultural and industrial uses. The blue print also proposes the use of ICTs to ensure Zimbabwe in the long term is a hub of cutting edge ICT driven economies. Central to the rehabilitation of the infrastructure is to avoid an urban bias and ensure the need for transformation of the rural economy where the majority live in order to avoid a dual enclave economy reminiscent of the colonial era. The government must complete the establishment of the Public Private Partnership (PPP) legal framework and accept the offer to help from the Africa Development Bank (AfDB).
  1. Creation of professional, transparent, accountable and globally competitive economic institutions. Some of the institutions at the centre of the national economy that need rehabilitation include the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ), Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA), State Procurement Board (SPB), Social Dialogue Platforms, National Competitiveness Commission, National Economic Consultative Forum, Zimbabwe Investment Authority, National Productive Institutions and Auditor General. On the major indicators of institutional quality, Zimbabwe was ranked 176/178 by the Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom, 157/177 by the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index and 46/52 by the Mo Ibrahim Governance Rankings. The blueprint proposes the central functions of each institution in the interest of sustainable economic growth. There is need for transparency, honesty, cost-effectiveness and competitiveness in procurement of goods and services in all institutions and agencies of government. The Government must also deal effectively with the issues of patronage, revenue leakages, corruption, low capitalization and review policies such as indigenization that have been affecting the optimum performance of national economic institutions. The quality of economic governance institutions is closely associated with economic performance.
  1. Clarion call for a modern, equal, peaceful, open and pluralist society where everyone enjoys equal opportunities in life. Health institutions must be reformed to ensure that there is medical care for all in line with section 76 (1) of the Constitution. In the 2014-2015 national budget the Government of Zimbabwe allocated $337 million of the $4.2 billion budget to health, a measly 8% which falls short of the 15% recommended by the Africa Union (AU) Abuja Declaration of 2001. In the medium to long term the state must establish a National Health Insurance scheme that is publicly funded to ensure that healthcare is available to every citizen who needs it. Reform of the healthcare system will require a health fund where donors must contribute. In line with the bill of rights as in section 75 (1) of the constitution there must be education for everyone, and the promotion of technical universities that focus on engineering and natural sciences as well as vocational training. Although in theory the government has allocated 24% of the 2014-2015 national budget to education, which is above the United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) recommended threshold of 15-20% of public expenditure, and which compares favourably with other countries, the reality is that the state is failing to collect enough revenues to make the money available and as a result the education ministries are struggling. In addition, Zimbabwe must bear tenets of a welfare state that prioritizes the social protection of all its citizens. As a result, the state must provide social assistance to the vulnerable such as the elderly, children, war veterans, unemployed and women in the form of pensions and long-term care insurances. On the other hand, collective labour bargaining with minimum wages should be promoted. The chapter also emphasizes the right to food and water for everyone. A vibrant spectrum of cultural and religious diversity is also an important aspect of a society that guarantees happiness for everyone. The idea is to create a society where people are well educated, healthy, and happy and enjoy a high standard of living as well as freedoms to exercise their choices and contribute to economic growth. For full realization of this there must be equal representation of men and women in key spaces in line with the new constitution and elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.
  1. Devolved constitutional state where the bill of rights should be the cornerstone of economic development with a political system built on a free and fair electoral system and a competitive multi-party system to strengthen the social contract and Government legitimacy. Legitimacy is a cornerstone of economic rehabilitation in Zimbabwe. The political system must allow for the principle of subsidiarity where local communities must actively participate in economic decisions that affect their day to day lives in their locality. In addition, local authorities must have the right to regulate themselves. The chapter also calls upon the government to uphold a legal system that protects the fundamental liberties, equality before the law, respect of property rights and the rule of law and the curbing of patronage and corruption. In line with this, is to create a national value system based on ubuntu. Politicians and bureaucrats must be subjected to a high standard of professionalism, accountability and the law. Without upholding a constitutional democracy and the rule of law, any economic policy is bound to fail in the 21st century especially within the context of Southern Africa’s geo-politics.

It is our hope that our policy propositions can ignite debate and dialogue on the best way forward for Zimbabwe as we seek a lasting solution.

Kindly find attached a copy of the ZIMSMART Policy Document.

Zimbabwe Social Market Agenda for Recovery and Transformation -ZimSmart

Public Consultations on a Petition to Parliament

Post published in: Business

Public Consultations on a Petition to Parliament – The Zimbabwean

Posted on by TSA Press

for the Setting-up of a Youth Commission: 30th June to 8th July

Parliament has published the following self-explanatory notice:

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE YOUTH COMMISSION

The Portfolio Committee on Youth, Sports, Arts and Recreation will hold public consultations in response to a petition on the setting up of a Youth Commission from 30 June 2019 to 8 July 2019. The Committee will cover various areas as follows:

Date Place Venue Time of Public Hearing
Sunday 30 June Hwedza Sunshine Inn 1200hrs
Monday 1 July Mutare Queens Hall 0800hrs
Tuesday 2 July Ngundu Roman Catholic Church 0830hrs
Wednesday 3 July Gweru Gweru Theatre 0900hrs
Thursday 4 July Bulawayo Stanley Hall, Makokoba 0830hrs
Friday 5 July Gwanda Jaunda Hall 1000hrs
Saturday 6 July Kadoma Waverly Hall 1300hrs
Monday 8 July Harare Senate Chamber 0830hrs

ALL THOSE WHO WILL BE PUTTING ON MILITARY UNIFORMS, SIGNS OF RANKS, FLAGS OR BADGES AND POLITICAL PARTY REGALIA WILL NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

The public, interested groups and organizations are invited to attend these consultations. Written submissions and correspondences are welcome and should be addressed to:

The Clerk of Parliament

Attention: Portfolio Committee on Youth, Sports, Arts and Recreation

P.O. Box CY 298

Causeway

Harare

Submissions can also be made by email through email address [email protected]

Telephone: (0242) 700181-8, 252936-50

Paul Munjenge (Committee Clerk) Ext. 2253

Mercy Chidemo (Public Relations Officer) Ext. 2236

Fax: (0242) 252935

Veritas makes every effort to ensure reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied.

Zim Currency Reforms Revisited
Zimbabwe must sell or donate many of its wild elephants: President

Post published in: Featured

DOJ Lawyer Says Words Taken Out Of Context… In Hour-Long Videotaped Hearing We All Watched

Posted on by TSA Press

Apparently, Sarah Fabian has taken to her Facebook wall to defend herself against the slings and arrows that she’s facing after appearing before an incredulous panel of the Ninth Circuit and arguing that, maybe, immigrant kids don’t deserve basic human dignity.

It’s time to fire up the world’s tiniest violin.

“I think that many many people believe I was in court Tuesday arguing against providing certain hygiene items to kids,” the lawyer wrote. “I do not believe that’s the position I was representing. … I will say that I personally believe that we should do our very best to care for kids while they are in our custody, and I try to always represent that value in my work.”

Many people believe that because they, you know, watched it happen. In Fabian’s defense, she may not have set out to ride or die on the “no beds” argument, but when she was pushed by the panel… that’s where she went. Where we go with our backs against the wall is arguably the most telling and when asked if there would ever be a scenario where it might be acceptable to subject children to human rights abuses, she cobbled together a bunch of exceptions that had no basis in reality except to provide a legal fig leaf to the travesty at the border.

She literally argued that the words “safe and sanitary” might not include soap or beds.

“I’m not going to try in vain to fight back against that other than to try to look out for my own safety and to hope that people take it easy on my family,” she wrote. “I think I share many people’s anger and fear at times over the future of our country, and I want to work to make it better too.”

First of all, she doesn’t deserve to be threatened over doing her job. People and their families shouldn’t be made to feel unsafe for just wanting a secure life for their loved ones. But painfully poignant irony aside, this whole “I’m not engaging”-as-defense trend needs to stop. It’s a private post to your friends! Feel free to defend yourself in that forum and if you can’t, don’t give us the whole “I could explain myself, but that would be letting the terrorists win” malarkey.

If you share everyone’s anger, go get another job. Main Justice is a perfectly reasonable career launching point — get your résumé out there.

But she won’t because there aren’t many jobs that let you keep children crying for their parents at night while you go f**king dog sitting. Fabian’s made her stance. She can hedge around what she “meant” to say all she wants, but she’s been carrying water for increasingly inhumane policies for the sake of her personal comfort for years. That’s where she stands. Facebook posts aren’t going to change that.

Justice Department lawyer defends herself after viral video on child migrant treatment [NBC News]
DOJ Lawyer Who Said Migrant Kids Don’t Need Soap Says Words Taken Out Of Context [Huffington Post]

Earlier: DOJ Lawyer Earns 15 Minutes Of Infamy Arguing In Front Of Exactly The Wrong Panel

HeadshotJoe 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.

Vault ‘Quality Of Life’ Rankings: The Best Law Firms To Work For In America (2020)

Posted on by TSA Press

Last week, Vault released the 2020 edition of its closely watched law firm rankings, proving that money — in the form of Cravath’s perennially competitive pay scale — can buy prestige.

But can that money buy happiness?

In a companion ranking to the Vault 100, associates were asked to rank their own law firms based on categories most relevant to their overall quality of life, including satisfaction, firm culture, compensation, hours, quality of work, business outlook, career outlook, associate/partner relations, formal and informal training, pro bono, transparency, and overall diversity. So many associates responded to this year’s survey (about 20,000), that Vault has expanded its Overall Best Law Firms to Work For ranking from 25 firms to 50 firms. This may be surprising for some, but almost none of the firms that made the Top 10 list for being the most prestigious made the Top 10 list for being the best firms to work for.

There was a huge amount of movement in the Top 10 this year. Which firms made the cut? Without any further ado, here are the Top 10 Best Law Firms to Work For based on Vault’s Annual Associate Survey for 2020:

  1. O’Melveny & Myers (no change)
  2. Latham & Watkins (+8)
  3. Clifford Chance US (no change)
  4. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (+2)
  5. Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson (-3)
  6. Ropes & Gray (+2)
  7. Paul Hastings (-3)
  8. Jackson Walker (not ranked; first time in Top 10)
  9. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (+5)
  10. Choate Hall & Stewart (not ranked; first time in Top 10)

Once again, Latham is the only law firm that made it into the Top 10 on both of Vault’s rankings. Kudos on keeping your own associates so incredibly happy.

It’s also worth noting that O’Melveny made history this year, as the first firm to ever earn the No. 1 spot in the overall ranking for each major category (Overall Best Law Firm to Work For, Overall Diversity, and Overall Best Summer Associate Program). Latham, on the other hand, was the only firm to rank in the Top 10 for every quality of life ranking. That said, here are the No. 1 firms in each Quality of Life category:

Congratulations to each of the Biglaw firms that made the latest edition of the Vault Best Firms to Work For rankings, and a huge congratulations to O’Melveny for completely sweeping the rankings. How did your firm do? Email us, text us at (646) 820-8477, or tweet us @atlblog to let us know how you feel.

Check back with us tomorrow to see the Best Summer Associate Program rankings.

Best Law Firms to Work For (2020) [Vault]

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.

New York Almost Joined The 21st Century On Surrogacy, No Thanks To Gloria Steinem 

Posted on by TSA Press

(Image via Getty)

New York’s bill in support of regulated compensated gestational surrogacy — the Child-Parent Security Act (CPSA) — had the vocal support of Governor Andrew Cuomo, passed the State Senate, and likely had the votes in the House. But it never made it to the floor before the legislative session ended last week. What the heck happened?!

Some Background.

New York is one of the few states in the country that legally prevents a woman from carrying a hopeful parent’s or couple’s embryo to birth, and receiving compensation for her nine months of intense effort and … labor. Other jurisdictions that had previously banned the practice have since changed course in the last few years — including New Jersey, Washington State, and D.C. In the meantime, New York continues to be one of the few surprising holdouts, with an outdated law based on outdated notions and outdated technology.

As previously discussed in my column, while gestational surrogacy is a big part of the New York bill, the CPSA includes other key protections for parents hoping to conceive using assisted reproductive technology. For example, it fixes the state’s legal loophole that allows sperm donors who donated to a single parent to seek legal rights to the resulting child! And vice-versa, it closes the loophole that currently allows single parents to seek child support from a donor. So these were improvements all around.

New York’s ban stems from the disastrous Baby M case in the 1980s. That case occurred in next door New Jersey, where a woman agreed to be inseminated and carry the resulting child for another couple. This type of arrangement is generally referred to as “traditional,” or “genetic surrogacy.” In the Baby M Case, the genetic surrogate changed her mind about giving up the baby, and fled the state with child. Both New Jersey and New York quickly over-corrected and outlawed all compensated surrogacy. Since then, genetic surrogacy has largely been abandoned across the U.S., while gestational surrogacy — where the surrogate is not genetically related to the child she carries — has flourished. Note that the CPSA only aims to legalize gestational surrogacy, not genetic surrogacy, the type found in the Baby M Case. Last year, New Jersey (ground zero for Baby M) recognized that the times and medical practices have changed, and reversed its position by passing supportive gestational surrogacy legislation.

So Close! 

The momentum for the bill was building, and supporters believed that the CPSA had a good shot at becoming law this year. So, what pulled the brakes? I spoke with Denise Seidelman, a prominent New York adoption and surrogacy attorney, and part of a coalition in support of the CPSA. Seidelman shared her experience advocating for the bill. “It was one the most profoundly inspiring, and also intensely disappointing experiences. Emotions were running high on both sides of the issue.”

Seidelman explained her view on some of the factors that led to this not being the CPSA’s year. For one, she noted that the author of the original New York surrogacy ban (from 30 years ago), Helene Weinstein, is still a current member of the Assembly, and she is outspoken in her position, perhaps colored by her experiences of a generation ago.

Seidelman felt another factor in this year’s failure was the timing of a letter by Gloria Steinem, famed author and feminist, against the CPSA. Steinem’s letter was disappointing, and really a bit shocking for those familiar with how surrogacy works. Her letter referred to a 1998 NY Task Force report that came out against surrogacy, with no mention of a more recent and more relevant 2017 NY Task Force report in support of gestational surrogacy, with measured regulation. Unfortunately, Steinem spoke not from firsthand knowledge of the recent experiences of women who choose to be gestational carriers for others, but from a perspective that has long since gone by the wayside.

The letter described how the bill would risk the well-being of the marginalized women in the state — those in conditions of poverty. However, as pointed out in the rebuttal letter written by RESOLVE, the national infertility association, of the women who raise their hands to be surrogates, only about 5 percent are determined to be medically qualified, and are able to move forward. And one of the requirements is that they are financially stable. Additionally, the 2017 Task Force report found that the women who are acting as surrogates are not the marginalized of society, but those not reliant on compensation that may be received from acting as a gestational surrogate. Steinem’s letter is an imagination of the Handmaid’s Tale, but ignores the current reality of what surrogacy is, and how it works.

While Steinem has no doubt historically been a force for good for women (and we are grateful!), the world is a changing place. Seidelman and others urged Steinem  — and will urge her again — to look closer into surrogacy, how it really works now, and to meet the women volunteering to help others experience parenthood. She is unlikely to find the trafficked, exploited women she imagines.

Next Year. 

To end on a positive note, Seidelman explained that her disappointment that the CPSA didn’t make it across the finish line is offset by the overall huge steps the CPSA has made. While this year might not have been the year, with the increased education and understanding for lawmakers, 2020 is looking good.

Ellen TrachmanEllen 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.

Powell To Trump: Get Off My F’ing Lawn, Donald

Posted on by TSA Press

The Fed Chair is apparently finally done ironing his big boy pants.

Sometimes It’s Better To Be Fired Instead Of Stealth Laid Off

Posted on by TSA Press

This website has previously discussed the phenomenon of “stealth layoffs” within the legal community.  For those of you who do not follow Above the Law as closely as I have for the past decade, a stealth layoff is when a firm wants to get rid of an attorney, but they do not fire them in the traditional sense.  Rather, they tell the attorney that their days are numbered and then give the attorney some time (usually several months) to find a new job.  The firm typically provides the attorney ample leeway to go to job interviews, and supervisors usually do not tell prospective employers about the nature of the attorney’s departure.

Sometimes, attorneys subject to stealth layoffs do not find jobs so quickly and need to be terminated in the traditional way.  However, many times attorneys are able to secure employment without being fired, and both parties gain something from the arrangement.  The attorney gets to secure other employment and not blemish their career with the embarrassment and negativity associated with being terminated.  The firm also gets to maintain its reputation, and usually does not need to provide severance payments to the departing attorney.  However, there are certain situations in which it is actually better to get fired than to be stealth laid off from a firm.

Believe it or not, there are sometimes many financial benefits to being fired in the traditional sense at some firms.  Most Biglaw shops pay sizable amounts in severance to departing attorneys, in part to help attorneys during their career transition, and mostly to decrease their legal exposure in case an attorney wants to sue the firm.  Although the amount of severance varies from firm to firm, many Biglaw shops typically provide three to six months of salary as severance, and this can be a substantial amount of money.

If attorneys are able to find a job shortly after being laid off from a shop that offers this type of severance, they can devote their severance to purposes other than merely paying for living expenses.  This is especially true if you work in a state that pays unemployment benefits even if someone is receiving severance.  Indeed, if someone gets a job quickly, and devotes the lion’s share of their severance payments to student debt repayment, they could effectively pay off a sizable amount of their student loans.  If the job market is strong, and it is easier to find a new job, the severance offered by many firms can offer a substantial windfall that is often not obtainable by being stealth laid off.

In addition, being stealth laid off can be a worse experience than being laid off in the traditional sense.  I have never been stealth laid off myself, but I have some friends who have, and they have told me how negative the experience can be.  One colleague of mine described feeling like “the walking dead” around the office as a result of being stealth laid off.  Going to work is a rough experience for these folks, since it can be embarrassing and frustrating to interact with colleagues responsible for the stealth layoff.  In addition, setting a discrete time by which an attorney needs to find a new job can create an impending sense of doom.

Of course, being laid off in the traditional sense is no picnic.  Indeed, not having something to do with your time while searching for new work can be a lonely and depressing experience.  I am sure many of us (especially veterans of the Great Recession) know someone who has struggled with the tribulations of being laid off from a firm.

However, as previously mentioned, most attorneys in Biglaw receive considerable severance after being terminated.  In addition, being laid off in the traditional sense means that an attorney can use their time however they wish.  I am sure that everyone has heard the term “funemployment” at some point or another, and being laid off in the traditional sense, with an income stream from severance, can be a positive experience.  I personally know people who have traveled, pursued passions, and made other positive uses of their time after being laid off from firms.  Again, this experience varies greatly from person to person, but being stealth laid off typically binds an attorney to continue billing for a firm, whereas being terminated outright allows attorneys more time to do as they please.

Furthermore, being stealth laid off sometimes does not guarantee that an attorney will have an easier time finding employment than if they are terminated outright.  If someone is laid off in a mass reduction in force (of the type covered many times on this website), people might understand that attorneys were let go not for performance issues, but because of financial troubles.  However, if a firm lets people go through stealth layoffs, and prospective employers discern this fact, then it appears as if the attorney was terminated because of poor work performance.  People within the legal industry are fully familiar with stealth layoffs, and if hiring partners catch wind of someone being stealth laid off, this might put that attorney at a greater disadvantage than someone who is subject to a larger, public reduction in force.

In the end, stealth layoffs are common within the legal industry, and it is typically understood that this process offers benefits to both attorneys and firms alike.  However, under certain circumstances, it is actually better to be terminated outright than subject to a stealth layoff.

Jordan Rothman is the Managing Attorney of The Rothman Law Firm, a New Jersey and New York litigation boutique. 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 jrothman@rothmanlawyer.com.