Compensation Leader Milbank Becomes 14th U.S. Firm To Shut Down An Office In China – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Kevin
Frayer/Getty
Images)

One
by
one,
U.S.-based
Biglaw
firms
are
reducing
their
presence
in
China.
Just
days
after
a
top
25
firm

closed
its
office

in
Beijing,
America’s
compensation
leader
for
large
law
firms
has
become
the
second
one
to
close
its
doors
in
the
city.

As
noted
by

Asian
Legal
Business
,
Milbank
will
be
shutting
down
its
Beijing
office,
which
was
first
opened
in
2006.
The
firm
becomes
the
14th
U.S.
firm
to
shutter
an
office
in
mainland
China
this
year.
The
firm
shared
the
following
sentiments
on
the
closure:

“We
remain
very
committed
to
Asia
through
our
strong
presence
in
Hong
Kong,
Seoul,
Singapore
and
Tokyo,
and
will
continue
providing
the
highest-quality
service
to
clients
across
all
of
our
global
offices,”
Milbank
told
ALB.

Going
forward,
Milbank
will
maintain
its
Hong
Kong
office,
where
21
legal
professionals
are
employed,
including
seven
partners
and
one
of
counsel.

Which
Biglaw
firm
will
be
the
next
say
zàijiàn
to
its
offices
in
China?
You
can email
us
 or
text
us
(646-820-8477)
if
you
have
any
intel.
Thank
you.


Milbank
becomes
2nd
U.S.
law
firm
to
shutter
mainland
office
in
a
week

[Asian
Legal
Business]



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 BlueskyX/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

Top Firm Handing Out MILLION DOLLAR Bonuses To Some Associates – Above the Law

Austin
Powers
nostalgia
requires
placing
a
pinky
to
your
lips
whenever
one
dramatically
says
“one
million
dollars.”
That’s
the
gesture
that
more
than
a
few
associates
at
Boies
Schiller
are
making
right
now
upon
learning
that
their
contributions
to
the
firm
netted
them
a
seven-figure
bonus
this
year.

With
$246,000,000
gross
revenue
in
2023,
placed
Boies
Schiller
at
150
in
the
Am
Law
200,
however
the
small
but
mighty
firm
hit
that
number
with
only
around
150
lawyers.
It
also
doesn’t
rely
entirely
upon
billable
work,
with
the
firm
generating
a
significant
share
of
revenue
from
contingency
cases
that
can
produce
annual
revenue
windfalls.

And
the
firm
offers
associates
the
opportunity
to
partake
in
the
reward.
Associates
can
choose
to
take
a
match
of
this
year’s
market
bonuses

with
special
bonus
too

but
most
eschew
the
lockstep
model
in
favor
of
a
formula
that
evaluates
associates
individually.
Unlike
most
black
box
models
of
compensation
though,
the
Boies
Schiller
formula
blows
by
the
competition:


  1. The
    prevailing
    market
    bonus
    scale
    ranges
    from
    $21,000
    (for
    class
    of
    2024,
    prorated)
    to
    $140,000
    (for
    class
    of
    2017
    and
    above).
    These
    figures
    include
    the
    “special
    bonuses”
    that
    many
    firms
    are
    awarding.

  2. This
    year,
    more
    than
    95%
    of
    associates
    received
    a
    bonus
    that
    was
    at
    least
    as
    high
    as,
    and
    in
    most
    cases
    higher
    than,
    what
    that
    associate
    would
    have
    earned
    under
    the
    market
    system.
    Those
    that
    did
    not,
    invested
    material
    time
    in
    one
    or
    more
    contingency
    cases
    that
    have
    not
    yet
    paid
    out.

  3. Numerous
    associates—including
    some
    very
    junior
    associates—received
    bonuses
    far
    in
    excess
    of
    the
    very
    top
    of
    the
    market,
    including
    several
    who
    received
    bonuses
    of
    $300,000
    or
    more.
    To
    put
    that
    in
    perspective:
    many
    second-
    and
    third-year
    associates
    at
    BSF
    received
    bonuses
    that
    were
    substantially
    more
    than
    what
    an
    eighth-year
    associate
    would
    have
    received
    on
    the
    market
    system.

  4. Multiple
    associates
    received
    bonuses
    of
    $1,000,000
    or
    more.

  5. Yes,
    you
    read
    that
    right.
    They
    earned
    it,
    and
    the
    Firm
    is
    happy
    to
    pay
    it.

The
key
nugget
from
the
second
item
is
that
the
5
percent
of
associates
who
didn’t
make
the
market
standard
are
waiting
on
contingency
payouts.
It’s
the
nature
of
the
bonus
memo
season
blitz
that
we
only
get
these
insights
into
total
compensation
in
December
and
don’t
get
the
opportunity
to
follow
up
and
see
where
everyone
ends
up
when
defendants
finally
pay
up.
But
it’s
a
decent
wager
that
they’ll
not
only
end
up
at
the
market
level
but
well
above
it.

Bonuses
will
be
distributed
this
week.

Congratulations
to
all.

(Memo
reproduced
on
the
next
page…)

Remember
everyone,
we
depend
on
your
tips
to
stay
on
top
of
this
stuff.
So
when
your
firm
matches,
please
text
us
(646-820-8477)
or email
us
 (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Matches”).
Please
include
the
memo
if
available.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
send
it
via
text
or
email
if
you
don’t
want
to
forward
the
original
PDF
or
Word
file.

And
if
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Bonus
Alerts
(which
is
the
alert
list
we’ll
also
use
for
salary
announcements),
please
scroll
down
and
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below
this
post.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
the
bonus
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
bonus
announcement
that
we
publish.




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 or

Bluesky

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
.

Hospitals Are Facing New Price Transparency Requirements, But Will They Truly Help Patients Shop for Care? – MedCity News

On
January
1,
the
Centers
for
Medicare
&
Medicaid
Services
will
begin
enforcing
new
price
transparency
requirements
for
hospitals,
including
mandates
to
post
more
detailed
information
on
the
cost
of
drugs
and
the
expected
reimbursement
amount
from
health
plans.

These
changes
seek
to
provide
more
clarity
for
patients,
but
the
experts
interviewed
for
this
article
doubt
they
will
make
much
of
a
difference
when
it
comes
to
helping
consumers
shop
for
care.
However,
they
have
optimism
that
increasing
the
amount
of
publicly
available
pricing
data
will
help
technology
companies
create
tools
that
simplify
pricing
for
patients. 

One
expert
even
predicted
that
healthcare
providers
may
begin
to
adopt
a
more
demand-driven
pricing
model,
in
which
providers
set
different
prices
for
various
buyers
of
healthcare,
facilitated
by
price
transparency.
And
just
maybe,
he
thinks
there
could
be
a
future
in
which
price
transparency
leads
providers
to
contract
directly
with
employers
without
having
insurers
in
the
middle. 


What
are
the
new
requirements?

There
are
three
main
changes
that
hospitals
need
to
prepare
for
come
January
1,
said
Joe
Wisniewski,
the
assistant
vice
president
of
channel
sales
at
price
transparency
software
startup

Turquoise
Health

The
first
is
that
they
need
to
post
“drug
unit
of
measurement”
and
“drug
type
of
measurement.” 

This
means
that
hospitals’
price
transparency
information
will
have
to
include
how
a
medication’s
quantity
is
measured,
such
as
by
milligram
or
milliliter,
as
well
as
specify
the
format,
such
as
tablet
or
injectable.
In
other
words,
instead
of
just
listing
“Medication
A

$200,”
hospitals
will
need
to
specify
“Medication
A,
50
mg
vial
(injectable)

$200.” 

“In
the
old
model,
in
theory,
I
can
post
a
truckload
of
Advil,
a
jar
of
Advil,
or
one
pill
of
Advil.
I
probably
wouldn’t
be
following
the
spirit
of
the
rule,
but
in
theory,
I
could
post
it
however
I
wanted
to
post
it,
as
long
as
that
code
was
there,”
Wisniewski
remarked.

The
second
change
hospitals
must
prepare
for
is
adding
modifiers
to
their
codes.
Modifiers
are
two-character
alphanumeric
codes
tacked
on
to
a
procedure
or
service
code
to
provide
extra
details
about
the
service
being
provided.

For
example,
the
modifiers
“LT”
and
“RT”
indicate
whether
a
procedure
was
performed
on
the
left
or
right
side
of
the
body.
Another
common
modifier

modifier
95
— 
denotes
that
a
service
was
provided
via
telehealth,
Wisniewski
pointed
out. 

The
final
new
piece
of
information
CMS
is
requiring
hospitals
to
post
is
the
“estimated
allowed
amount”

which
refers
to
the
anticipated
reimbursement
amount
that
a
hospital
expects
to
receive
from
a
health
plan
for
a
particular
service.


Will
these
new
requirements
help
patients?

Wisniewski
has
little
confidence
that
these
changes
will
make
a
meaningful
difference
in
Americans’
ability
to
shop
for
care.
The
average
patient
does
not
understand
what
a
modifier
is,
nor
are
they
well-equipped
to
perform
calculations
for
complex
drug
pricing
information,
he
noted.

“A
lot
of
this
is
just
getting
this
data
organized
so
that
even
industry
experts
can
understand
the
price
of
healthcare.
American
healthcare
pricing
is
just
so
complicated,”
Wisniewski
declared.

The
way
this
price
transparency
works
in
healthcare
is
utterly
different
from
other
industries,
he
added. 

“The
best
analogy
I
can
give
you
is
that
shopping
for
healthcare
is
like
if
you
showed
up
at
the
car
dealership

and
instead
of
being
told
the
Prius
was
$35,000,
you
had
to
look
through
files
telling
you
the
seat
belts
are
300
bucks,
the
engine
is
10
grand,
and
you
have
to
sit
there
and
add
it
all
up.
That’s
an
unfair
responsibility
to
put
on
a
patient,”
Wisniewski
remarked.

Another
healthcare
expert

Hal
Andrews,
CEO
of
market
research
firm

Trilliant
Health

— 
noted
that
CMS’
regulations
only
apply
to
hospitals,
excluding
other
settings
like
physician
offices,
urgent
care
centers
and
ambulatory
surgical
centers.

He
pointed
out
that
about
half
of
hospital
admission
arise
from
the
emergency
department. 

“Absolutely
nobody
on
their
way
to
the
hospital
in
the
ambulance
checks
out
the
price
transparency
website,”
Andrews
remarked.
“So
for
half
of
the
hospital
visits
in
the
country,
price
transparency
doesn’t
matter
at
all
because
people
are
in
an
emergent
state
— 
they’re
in
a
crisis.
Even
if
it
did
make
sense,
hospital
visits
are
about
10%
of
the
total
visit
volume
in
the
country.”

Essentially,
the
regulations
represent
a
drop
in
the
bucket
in
terms
of
healthcare
utilization
and
corresponding
price
transparency.


Things
are
better
than
they
used
to
be

Even
though
CMS’
new
price
transparency
requirements
are
unlikely
to
make
a
strong
impact
on
patients,
hospitals
still
need
to
take
these
new
mandates
seriously.

Another
healthcare
expert
suggested
that
hospitals
won’t
be
able
to
implement
these
changes
in
the

slow,
haphazard
way

they
have
approached
previous
price
transparency
requirements.

“The
old
logic
for
hospitals
was
to
send
over
a
machine
readable
file
that
they
were
making
messy
on
purpose.
They
just
didn’t
really
want
to
deal
with
this,
and
they
were
doing
the
bare
minimum.
I
think
that’s
going
out
the
door

the
market
is
moving
fast
enough
transparency
is
a
hot
enough
topic.
There’s
enough
private
equity
getting
into
this
space,
and
there
are
enough
new
companies
popping
up
that
health
systems
will
have
to
play
ball,”
said
Charlie
Byrge,
senior
vice
president
of
revenue
at

Tendo
,
a
healthcare
platform
seeking
to
simplify
patients’
care
journeys.

Both
Byrge
and
Wisniewski
think
hospitals’
disclosure
of
more
detailed
billing
information
will
help
tech
companies
to
step
in
and
create
solutions
that
make
pricing
information
more
patient-friendly.

In
other
words,
the
more
healthcare
pricing
information
is
publicly
available,
the
more
companies
like
Tendo
and
Turquoise
can
develop
tools
that
truly
empower
patients.
Hospitals
are
bogged
down
with
responsibilities
related
to
patient
care
and
facility
operations

they
can’t
be
expected
to
translate
complex
billing
information
into
easy-to-understand
estimated
costs
all
on
their
own,
Byrge
noted.

Wisniewski
of
Turquoise
pointed
out
that
hospitals’
price
transparency
compliance
has
improved
over
the
last
couple
years. 

CMS’
price
transparency
rule
went
into
effect
on
the
first
day
of
2021,
and
hospitals
had
a
difficult
time
meeting
the
requirements
for
the
first
couple
years.
A
JAMA
study
published
in
June
2022
showed
that

fewer
than
6%

of
U.S.
hospitals
were
fully
compliant
with
CMS’
rule. 

But
now
most
hospitals
are
compliant
with
the
rule

even
after
CMS
began
enforcing

new
requirements

this
year,
such
as
the
use
of
a
CMS-mandated
template
for
hospitals’
machine-readable
files.
About
half
of
hospitals
were
able
to
meet
CMS’
latest
requirements
in
about
four
of
five
months,
Wisniewski
said.

“We’re
seeing
faster
response
times
from
both
hospitals
and
payers
to
stricter
rules,
which
means
we’re
getting
better
data
on
the
service
level
for
individual
codes.
So
if
[CMS]
can
keep
getting
them
to
post
faster
and
get
more
rates
online,
that
means
there’s
more
pricing
available
for
folks
to
start
to
bundle
it
and
make
it
accessible
to
consumers,”
he
remarked.

Hospitals’
pricing
data
may
not
be
useful
to
consumers
yet

but
the
fact
that
they
have
even
posted
this
information
is
a
“massive
step
forward”
given
“a
lot
of
hospitals
still
proudly
display
a
fax
number
on
their
websites,”
Wisniewski
added.


What
could
the
future
of
price
transparency
look
like?

Byrge
of
Tendo
said
that
he
thinks
hospitals
may
need
to
start
thinking
about
pricing
differently.

“I
think
health
systems
have
to
start
thinking
about
their
pricing
from
a
consumer
mindset,
rather
than
the
old
legacy
fee-for-service
type
model
that
they
do
today,”
Byrge
declared.

In
the
future,
he
envisions
a
healthcare
marketplace
where
providers
can
set
different
prices
for
different
types
of
payers

such
as
cash-paying
patients,
health
plans
and
employers.
He
thinks
technology
platforms
could
facilitate
this
marketplace
dynamic,
letting
patients
compare
prices
and
services
in
real-time.

This
type
of
marketplace
leads
to
bulk
purchasing,
meaning
employers
might
negotiate
with
providers
for
a
set
volume
of
services

such
as
a
package
of
surgeries,
wellness
visits
or
diagnostics

at
a
lower
rate,
Byrge
said.

He
also
predicted
that
more
health
systems
could
explore
direct
contracts
with
employers
or
patients,
bypassing
traditional
insurance
companies.

“What
we’re
hearing
in
the
market
is
that
a
lot
of
our
health
system
partners
are
frustrated
with
their
contracts
with
large
health
insurers.
They’re
going
in
and
out
of
being
in-network
with
United,
Cigna
and
Aetna,
because
they’re
constantly
fighting
over
rates

and
they
want
to
go
with
what
they
call
direct-to-employer
or
direct-to-patient
contracts,
which
is
100%
fueled
by
price
transparency.
If
you
have
transparency
in
the
pricing,
you
can
create
direct
contracts
directly
with
the
patient,”
Byrge
explained.

The
marketplace
model
Byrge
described
may
seem
like
a
faraway
fantasy,
but
he
thinks
this
is
the
direction
that
healthcare
pricing
needs
to
take
going
forward

getting
the
data
out
in
the
open
in
the
first
step.


Photo:
sorbetto,
Getty
Images

Morning Docket: 12.10.24 – Above the Law

*
TikTok
hires
Noel
Francisco
to
get
ban
struck
down.
[Lawyer
Monthly
]

*
Pro
se
Rudy
is
the
most
entertaining
Rudy.
[Law360]

*
Gibson
Dunn
hires
senior
SEC
enforcement
official.
Oh
no!
Did
they
miss
the
news
that

the
crypto
industry
would
boycott
firms
hiring
from
the
SEC
?
[American
Lawyer
]

*
Collusion
by
algorithm
is
still,
you
know,
collusion.
[Bloomberg
Law
News
]

*
Wife
convicted
of
murdering
managing
partner
husband
says
her
son
did
it.
[ABA
Journal
]

*
Former
power
lawyer
Tom
Girardi
looking
at
possibility
of
14
years.
[Reuters]

*
New
lawyers
don’t
need
to
master
AI…
yet.
[LegalCheek]

Biglaw Hiring Is On Fire In The Southeast – Above the Law



Ed.
Note:

Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!


According
to
reporting
by
the
Daily
Report,
Biglaw/midsize
firms
with
origins
in
the
Southeast
are
growing
their
incoming
class
of
first-year
associates
by
about
how
much?


Hint:
Recruiter
Lauren
Wu,
of
Foxstone
Recruiting,
said
this
means
firms
are
“cautiously
optimistic
for
the
coming
year.”



See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Should President Biden Pardon Rachel Maddow? – Above the Law

Joe
Biden
could
forestall
Trump’s
efforts
at
retribution
by
pardoning
the
people
that
Trump
says
he’s
likely
to
prosecute.
Those
people
might
include,
for
example,
Adam
Schiff,
a
vocal
Trump
opponent
in
Congress.
Or
Liz
Cheney
and
Adam
Kinzinger,
the
Republicans
on
the
January
6
Committee.
Or
Anthony
Fauci,
loathed
by
MAGA
for
his
role
in
the
COVID
response.
Or
Mark
Milley,
the
former
chairman
of
the
Joint
Chiefs
of
Staff,
who
supposedly
committed
“treason”
near
the
end
of
Trump’s
first
term
in
office.

Jack
Smith,
the
special
counsel
who
prosecuted
Trump,
and
Smith’s
staff
are
probably
safe.
Federal
prosecutors
have
broad
immunity
for
actions
taken
in
their
prosecutorial
roles.
And
I
assume
that
Alvin
Bragg,
the
New
York
state
prosecutor,
and
Fani
Willis,
the
Georgia
prosecutor,
are
also
safe.
But
Biden
might
choose
to
pardon
these
people
anyway.
These
folks
can’t
be
charged
for
anything
having
to
do
with
their
prosecutions
of
Trump
but,
in
the
words
of
Stalin’s
head
of
the
secret
police,
“Show
me
the
man,
and
I’ll
show
you
the
crime.” 
Who
knows
what
a
politicized
FBI
and
Department
of
Justice
intent
on
prosecuting
people
might
dig
up
as
alleged
crimes
committed
by
Smith
and
the
others?
Pardons
would
avoid
that
possibility.

Even
beyond
that,
there
are
plenty
of
other
possible
targets
for
Trump.
Couldn’t
the
Department
of
Justice
gin
up
charges
against
E.
Jean
Carroll,
who
sued
Trump
twice
for
defamation
and
has
recovered
judgments
worth
a
little
more
than
$88
million
(plus
interest)?
Or
Joe
Scarborough?
Or
Mika
Brzezinski?
Or
hundreds
of
other
folks
who
have
said
nasty
things
about
Trump?

For
purposes
of
this
column,
the
question
is
whether
Biden
should
pardon
Rachel
Maddow.
That’s
just
an
example,
of
course.
The
real
question
is
whether
Biden
should
pardon
any,
or
all,
of
the
folks
at
risk
of
Trump’s
retribution.

When
I
say
retribution,
I
mean
that
Trump,
who
will
be
at
the
helm
of
the
Department
of
Justice
on
January
20,
could
order
the
DOJ
to
investigate
and
file
criminal
charges
against
people.
Trump
could
also
do
lesser
things,
such
as
ordering
the
IRS
to
audit
his
political
enemies,
but
let’s
focus
on
the
big
one

criminal
charges.

Maddow
(and
the
like)
have
of
course
done
nothing
criminal.
Maddow’s
well
within
her
rights
to
criticize
Trump;
many
would
say
that
Maddow’s
criticisms
are
correct,
and
Trump
merits
criticism.
But
that’s
really
beside
the
point.
If
the
DOJ
were
simply
to
open
an
investigation
of
Maddow,
issuing
a
subpoena
compelling
Maddow
to
appear
before
a
grand
jury,
Maddow
would
incur
expenses.
If
Trump
were
to
convince
the
DOJ
to
commence
a
criminal
case
against
Maddow,
she
would
be
forced
to
spend
tens
of
thousands
of
dollars
defending
herself,
even
if
she
were
able
to
get
the
case
dismissed
at
an
early
stage.
And
if
Trump
ordered
the
DOJ
to
file
the
case
against
Maddow
in
a
deep
red
state,
with
many
Trump
appointees
serving
as
judges,
a
judge
might
not
dismiss
the
charges
at
an
early
stage,
which
would
force
Maddow
to
spend
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
defending
herself
at
trial,
despite
the
case
being
ridiculous
from
the
start.
Lastly,
of
course,
once
a
case
goes
to
trial,
there’s
always
a
chance
that
a
red-state
jury
might
convict,
no
matter
how
silly
the
charges.

Maddow
is
worth
a
lot
of
money,
so
she
could
afford
to
defend
herself.

But
Cheney,
or
Schiff,
or
Milley
don’t
have
that
kind
of
money.

Trump’s
decision
simply
to
start
an
investigation
of
those
people
would
be
burdensome.
The
DOJ’s
pursuit
of
a
criminal
case
could
bankrupt
these
folks.

And
Biden
could
preempt
all
these
things,
simply
by
granting
pardons.
Should
he?

This
is
actually
a
pretty
tough
question.

On
the
one
hand,
Biden
could
pardon
Maddow
(and
the
like).
Maddow
would
have
the
right
to
decline
the
pardon,
leaving
herself
at
risk.
Or
she
could
accept
the
pardon,
avoiding
the
possibility
that
she
would
be
investigated
or
charged.

If
Maddow
(and
the
like)
accepted
a
pardon,
the
right-wing
media
would
immediately
have
a
field
day:
“Maddow
(and
Cheney,
and
Milley,
and
the
like)
is
obviously
guilty
as
sin!
Think
what
she
must
have
done
to
have
Biden
issue,
and
then
have
Maddow
accept,
a
pardon!
Criminality
among
these
radical
left
lunatics
is
rampant!
The
only
way
they
could
avoid
jail
is
by
having
the
president
issue
pardons!
Maddow
belongs
in
jail!
The
pardon
proves
it!
Scum.”

Hmmm.
That’s
not
so
good.

So
Biden
could
do
the
opposite:
He
could
choose
not
to
issue
pardons.

That
would
avoid
having
the
right-wing
media
scream
that
folks
on
the
left
had
plainly
committed
crimes.

And
if
Trump
is
just
bluffing,
and
doesn’t
actually
seek
retribution
against
his
political
enemies,
there
will
be
no
criticism
of
anyone.
The
problem
will
have
disappeared.

But
it
could
turn
out
that
Trump
is
not
bluffing.
He
might
actually
order
the
DOJ
to
investigate,
and
charge,
hundreds
of
his
political
enemies.
Those
folks
would
incur
the
huge
expense
and
risk
that
I’ve
just
outlined,
even
though
they
had
done
nothing
wrong.

Pundits
on
the
left
would
criticize
Biden
mercilessly
for
his
choice
not
to
issue
pardons:
“How
could
Biden
have
been
such
a
fool?
Trump
announced
in
advance
that
he
was
out
for
retribution.
He
appointed
loyalists
to
every
key
position
in
the
Department
of
Justice.
Biden
knew
full
well
that
all
these
people
were
going
to
be
prosecuted.
He
had
the
power
to
forestall
this,
simply
by
issuing
pardons.
And
he
didn’t
do
it!
What
a
fool!
The
guy
must
be
senile,
after
all!”

Biden
has
a
choice
to
make.

It
is
not
at
all
an
easy
choice.
He’ll
be
criticized
either
way

unless
Biden
chooses
not
to
pardon,
and
Trump
then
chooses
not
to
pursue
his
enemies,
which
is
a
huge
gamble
for
Biden
to
take.

By
January,
we’ll
know
which
route
Biden
chose.
If
he
issues
pardons,
the
reaction
on
the
right
will
be
immediate
and
loud.
If
he
doesn’t
issue
pardons,
and
Trump
in
fact
orders
the
DOJ
to
investigate
and
prosecute,
the
response
will
start
once
the
fact
of
the
investigations
become
public.
The
response
from
the
left
will
thus
come
a
little
bit
later,
but
it
will
nonetheless
be
fierce.

Whichever
way
it
plays
out,
you
can
watch
with
both
interest
and
dread,
because
you
saw
it
coming.




Mark 
Herrmann


spent
17
years
as
a
partner
at
a
leading
international
law
firm
and
later
oversaw
litigation,
compliance
and
employment
matters
at
a
large
international
company.
He
is
the
author
of




The
Curmudgeon’s
Guide
to
Practicing
Law
 and Drug
and
Device
Product
Liability
Litigation
Strateg
y (affiliate
links).
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at 
[email protected].

Top Biglaw Firm’s Partnership Class Size Sees Massive Upswing After Introduction Of Nonequity Tier – Above the Law



Ed.
note
:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day
.


We
maintain
exceptionally
high
standards
for
promotion
to
partnership,
and
each
of
our
new
partners
exemplifies
our
firm’s
dedication
to
practice
excellence
and
client
service,.




A
spokesperson
for
Paul
Weiss,
in
comments
given
to

Bloomberg
Law

on
the
firm’s
most
recent
partnership
class,
promoting
34
associates
to
partner,
just
about
tripling
the
size
of
its
class
over
last
year.
This
is
the
first
year
that
the
firm
is
using
a

nonequity
partner
tier
,
and
Paul
Weiss
did
not
confirm
how
many
of
its
new
partners
were
elevated
to
its
equity
tier
over
its
new
nonequity
tier.



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 BlueskyX/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

Jay-Z Caught Up In Diddy Freakoff Fallout – Above the Law

The
consequences
of
Diddy’s
freakoffs
are
bigger
than
rap,
but
there
may
have
been
some
other
prominent
rappers
involve.
On
Sunday,
a
civil
suit
accused
Jay-Z
of
drugging
and
raping
a
13
year
old
girl
with
Diddy
in
back
in
2000.

NPR
has

coverage
:

The
anonymous
plaintiff,
identified
as
“Jane
Doe,”
said
the
assault
took
place
at
an
MTV
Video
Music
Awards
after-party.

Tony
Buzbee,
the
Texas
attorney
who
filed
the
complaint,
has
filed
several
lawsuits
against
Combs
in
recent
months
accusing
the
hip-hop
mogul
of
physical
assault
and
rape.
Buzbee’s
lawsuit
accused
Carter
of
filing
his
own
lawsuit
against
Buzbee,
which
Buzbee
called
“frivolous.”

While
Jay-Z
has
yet
to
come
forward

as
the
anonymous
public
figure
that
accused
Buzbee
of
extortion
,
Jay-Z’s
public
response
to
the
allegations
track
with
what
was
written
in
the
complaint:

“These
allegations
are
so
heinous
in
nature
that
I
implore
you
to
file
a
criminal
complaint,
not
a
civil
one!!”
he
said.
“Whomever
would
commit
such
a
crime
against
a
minor
should
be
locked
away,
would
you
not
agree?
These
alleged
victims
would
deserve
real
justice
if
that
were
the
case.”

“My
only
heartbreak
is
for
my
family,”
Carter
added.
“My
wife
and
I
will
have
to
sit
our
children
down,
one
of
whom
is
at
the
age
where
her
friends
will
surely
see
the
press
and
ask
questions
about
the
nature
of
these
claims,
and
explain
the
cruelty
and
greed
of
people.
I
mourn
yet
another
loss
of
innocence.”

No
question
that
explaining
the
nature
of
the
suit
will
be
a
challenge,
but
the
upside
is
that
he
isn’t
alone.
It
appears
that
Tina
Knowles
–Beyonce’s
mother

is
informed
enough
on
the
issue
to
like
posts
on
Instagram
involving
the
suit:

Nobody
wins
when
the
family
feuds.


Lawsuit
Accuses
Jay-Z
Of
Raping
A
13-Year-Old
With
Sean
‘Diddy’
Combs
In
2000

[NPR]


Earlier:


Tracking
Down
Collaborators
Or
Diddy
By
Association?



Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor
,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Powers Of Manifestation Are Off The Chart – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Chip
Somodevilla/Getty
Images)

Writing
that
you
want
to
be
the
“first
Black,
female
Supreme
Court
justice
to
appear
on
a
Broadway
stage”
on
your
college
application
seems
like
the
kind
of
cutesy
statement
that
gets
admissions
officers
to
remember
you
and
your
varied
interest.
Because,
I
mean…
those
goals
aren’t
two
great
tastes
that
taste
great
together

those
are
pretty
disparate
career
goals.
But
Ketanji
Brown
Jackson
is
not
a
mere
mortal.

KBJ
wrote
those
words
in
her
Harvard
University
application.
And
now
they’re
coming
true.
The
Supreme
Court
justice
is
making
a
one-night-only
appearance
on
the
Broadway
stage
this
month
in

&
Juliet
.
The
jukebox
musical
posits
what
might
have
happened
to
Juliet
if
she
didn’t
kill
herself
after
the
events
of
Romeo
&
Juliet,
set
to
a
rocking
pop
score.
Brown
Jackson’s
ensemble
role
was
created
specifically
for
the
justice,
and
audience
members

will
also
be
able
to
attend

a
Q&A:

The
producers
have
announced
that
Jackson’s
special
appearance
will
occur
during
the
production’s
8
p.m.
show
on
Saturday,
December
14.
Following
the
show,
audience
members
will
be
able
to
stay
for
a
talkback
with
the
Justice.

If
you’re
lucky
enough
to
score
tickets
for
this
very
special
performance,
maybe
you
should
ask
Brown
Jackson
about
her
powers
of
visualization

she’s
got
that
on
lockdown.




Kathryn Rubino HeadshotKathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast
,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer
.
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
 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].