Category: News Feeds

Human rights literally disappeared from former President Trump’s National Security Council (NSC) when he dropped the term from the position once known as the special assistant to the President for multilateral affairs and human rights.

President Biden has appointed a new coordinator for democracy and human rights in the NSC. This firmly reestablishes the issue of human rights as a national security concern and communicates that the administration will focus on human rights as a foreign policy issue. Given this renewed focus, the Intelligence Community (IC) can and should take actions to support the NSC and administration on human rights intelligence.

Some may question whether the IC should focus on human rights. Even beyond the moral component of caring about human rights, there are very practical national security reasons to focus on human rights. Human rights abuses are often indications of other threats and can tell analysts and decision makers much about the stability of nations. There are also real soft power stakes to human rights abuses from information operations to support to alliance building to international organization negotiations.

But, can the IC support human rights intelligence? It can and it already does. Tearline, for example, is a program by the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) to share intelligence information with non-profits to support their research, including on human rights. For national security issues, the IC can use classified capabilities, from spy satellites to human intelligence sources, to provide even more detailed human rights intelligence to decision makers. Probably the biggest support that the IC can provide is professional all-source intelligence analysis to connect the dots between sparse information and what is really going on. Classified sources and the ability to connect the dots are increasingly necessary given the extent to which authoritarian regimes like the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) go to censor and hide human rights abuses.

But to fully engage on human rights issues, the IC would need to become even more comfortable working with open-source information, since the vast majority of reporting on human rights is done in the open by non-profits. But to truly work with such non-profits, the IC must rebuild trust, as there are many who see the IC as having been complicit in human rights abuses. Intelligence community leaders must be open to such concerns and make real efforts to rebuild trust with the public.

Importantly, the use of classified intelligence sources and methods may make the information itself classified. This could create significant ethical dilemmas for officials in terms of what to share with the public. However, the IC should welcome this tension. Treating human rights as an intelligence issue will force the IC to come to terms with its own need for transparency.

The atrocities occurring in Xinxiang against the Uighur people by the CCP provide an example of how the IC can support human rights issues. It’s been estimated that well over one million Uighurs have been interned in what amount to concentration camps in Xinxiang by the CCP. Additional human rights abuses have been reported, everything from forced labor to beatings.

China has used its strict authoritarian controls over travel, the media and Internet to make it very difficult to report on what is really going on in Xinxiang. Collecting information in authoritarian nations is what the IC does best. Classified satellites and human intelligence sources could be used to better understand what is going on, while all source analysts connect the dots. This intelligence reporting could be used to better inform China policy and to support outreach to allies with similar concerns. In some cases, the intelligence could be declassified to provide better information to the global public about the CCP’s atrocities.

If the IC is to focus on human rights, it requires customers and budget. The Biden administration has done something great by creating that customer in the NSC. The administration could go even further by issuing an Executive Order to the IC to focus more effort on human rights. Intelligence community leaders will need to translate administration focus into requirements, budgetary choices and decisions to set up new offices, train and equip intelligence officers and devote collection resources.

To really succeed and build an IC human rights capability, Congress must act to provide the funding necessary for the IC to devote the resources it will need.

Anthony Vinci, former associate director and chief technology officer of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA), is an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS).

COVID is going to be with us for a little while longer, but the show must go on and many jurisdictions have moved trials online. While the most entertaining result of this move into uncharted territory is an influx of cat attorneys, it’s also changing the makeup of the juries hearing these cases. And in ways that may have a tangible impact on verdicts.

Sound Jury Consulting looked at the data from King County, Washington, and compared samples of the remote trial jury pool with the in-person jury pool from pre-pandemic times and the results are fascinating.

The most significant difference we noted was in the age category. In-person trials had an average age of 48.5 and median age of 49. With remote trials, the average age drops to 44.8 and the median age drops even further to 41.5. The median age is the more important point of comparison here. As a reminder, the median is the midpoint for all jurors, meaning 50% of the jury pool in remote trials is under 41.5 and 50% is over 41.5. That is a big difference from in-person trials where the median age is 49, but let’s dig a little deeper.

This translates to a jump in millennial participation from 30 to 43 percent. As Sound Jury Consulting’s Thomas O’Toole puts it, this “very well may have stopped the heart of insurers and general counsel reading this post since millennials are often cited as one of the reasons for the recent trend towards nuclear verdicts.” It’s an interesting book-end to a conversation we had with O’Toole back in June about the fact that in-person jury pools during COVID were likely to get more pro-business because the category of people who would show up for an in-person jury and Republicans were close to a perfect circle. We didn’t know what to expect then about juries moving online, but it looks to be the opposite impact.

Turning to the issue of race, we saw other notable differences. In-person jury pools were 81% white, compared to 71% with remote jury pools, which suggests that remote trials could result in greater diversity in our jury pools.

That’s a significant bump in diversity. Seattle is about 65 percent white so the move to remote invites a pool that is much closer to an accurate reflection of the city. It’s the sort of revelation that makes you wonder if remote jury pools might be worth keeping around even after everything returns to normal. The impulse is to run back to the old ways as soon as we receive an all-clear, but if the process of dragging people to a dismal central location to sit around for days only to not be picked has a dramatic impact on the demographics of the pool that’s a big deal. Could remote trials or at least hybrid trials become a fixture for at least some cases? It’s worth thinking about.

At the very least, we could move grand juries online. Having to head to court for a few hours a day over the course of multiple weeks is obnoxious and a drag on people’s workday. Let them log on and listen and then go back to work.

We know we have the technology, we just need the will to use it.

Jury Pool Differences with Remote Jury Trials [Sound Jury Consulting]

Earlier: Juries Are About To Get A Lot More Corporate-Friendly Thanks To COVID

---

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Many Biglaw firms have remained mum on both their plans for COVID-19 vaccination and their eventual return to the office, but now one of the most successful firms in the country has announced a target date for their reopening, and it’s possible that other firms will follow in their footsteps.

Late last week, Ropes & Gray — a firm that brought in $1,903,616,000 gross revenue in 2019, putting it in 13th place in the most recent Am Law 100 rankings — issued a memo to attorneys and staff letting them know that permissive office usage will continue until Labor Day. Thereafter, “look[ing] ahead with great optimism as COVID-19 vaccines become more readily available,” it’s likely that everyone will be back to the office for business as usual.

Here’s an excerpt from chair Julie Jones’s memo (available in full on the next page):

We hope that sharing a more certain long-term plan now helps you address some of the logistic stress you and your families may experience as the seasons change and lead to new living, childcare and family obligations.

Even in advance of September 6th, as more members of the Ropes community are vaccinated and safety conditions improve, we hope you will find safe and creative ways to be together in person.   For example, we anticipate that many more of you will begin returning to our offices voluntarily well in advance of September 6^th.   We think that you will find that being in the office will be a welcome change; it has been an energizing experience for many of us.

Ropes is being respectful of its employees’ unique homelives and will provide “at least 45 days’ notice before moving from permissive usage to a broader office return.” A source from the firm had this to say about the new return-to-work plans:

I appreciate that the firm is being flexible and understanding with people returning, especially with summer coming. It shows they’re understanding of the situation and that it will take time for everyone to adapt to going back to a workplace setting.

Jones made no mention of Ropes & Gray’s plans for employee vaccination, if any.

Are you ready to return to work this fall? We certainly hope so, because now that a firm like Ropes & Gray has made its intentions known, it looks like that may be what other firms are expecting of their attorneys in just a few months. As with all things having to do with COVID-19, these plans are likely subject to change, but be sure to prepare yourselves for office life once again — just in case.

(Flip to the next page to see the Ropes & Gray memo in full.)

---

Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Davis Polk is certainly doing its part to make associates’ lives better.

The Biglaw firm is perennially at the top of the compensation heap, but in 2020 they really pushed the pack forward. Back in September, they responded to news of Cooley’s special COVID appreciation bonuses with jaw-dropping numbers of their own — ranging from $7,500 to $40,000, depending on class year — which quickly became the standard to match.

Now the firm has announced MORE thank you gifts for hard-working associates. Managing partner Neil Barr recently sent this email:

It may not be cash, but it’s still worth a pretty penny. According to tipsters at the firm, we’re talking ~$1,500 value:

Davis Polk‘s managing partner just gave us an additional thank you gift! It’s not money, but they are “experiences” which we can select – we can pick one and each of them is worth at least $1500 (for example, the “jet setter package” is a $1000 Marriott gift card + tumi suitcase, another is The Mirror (workout equipment), another is a $1000 shopping spree at Nordstrom with a private personal shopper, another is a home theater package with a Samsung 50″ The Frame QLED tv and Bose tv speaker, and many more) – there are 13 packages in total!

It’s nice to see a firm stepping up with a new and fun way to show their  associates some love. Are other firm’s taking similar measures? Let us know! Please email it to us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Thanks”) or text us (646-820-8477). 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.

---

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

If you haven’t noticed, I write for ATL, a website supported by some really great advertising. Go ahead, buy those fabulous products and services you see advertised on your screen.

As a person who writes for a website supported by advertising, I can’t help but cheer Australia’s new law which would force social media platforms to pay news organizations in Australia when links to their stories are shared on said platforms. News organizations deserve to be paid for their content. When a big chunk of advertising revenue gets siphoned off by Facebook or some other social media platform instead of going to the entity responsible for the reporting, well, we get the gutted media atmosphere we’ve been living in for the past decade, where local and independent media outlets are disappearing faster than the polar ice caps.

In response to this new law, Facebook simply blocked Australians from accessing news stories through Facebook, and also blocked users elsewhere from posting or seeing stories from Australian news outlets. A lot of people in Australia (and worldwide) were upset.

Now it looks like Facebook and Australia have reached a deal. Australian news pages will be restored. Given Australia’s apparent success against Facebook, a number of other countries are looking into pursuing similar legislation of their own.

That’s all well and good. The Australian has some fine reporting, and I’d hate for the people of the world who only get their news from Facebook to be deprived of finding its content. Still, I can’t help but wonder how much longer Facebook is going to be heavily relied upon as a news source anyway.

According to the latest data from the Pew Research Center, about a third of Americans regularly get their news from Facebook. Even among those who do look to Facebook for news, most — about six in 10 — expect news gathered on social media platforms to be “largely inaccurate.”

My own Facebook friends post links to things that could be considered news, but always to stab an exclamation point on the end of some political point. I rarely click on them, preferring to just go to Reuters, NPR, or good ol’ ATL directly to find out about stuff. Actually, I almost never go on Facebook anymore at all, because I can scroll through my news feed for 10 minutes without finding a single thing I actually care to see.

Facebook is boring. When I first got a Facebook account, you still had to have a .edu email address to get an account, and it was kind of fun. At the time, Facebook basically had two purposes: posting pictures of parties or some other fun thing you were doing so as to later relive the experience with your friends, and learning more about people you were romantically interested in without having to work up the courage to talk to them in real life. And now Facebook is just … well, I don’t know what it is, but it hasn’t been fun in a long time.

I guess maybe I’ve changed just as much as Facebook has. You get to a point in life where you don’t feel like arguing online with dumb former friends and blowhard distant relatives to try to convince them that racism is bad, and where you also don’t give a shit about other people’s kid/pet/vacation photos or if other people see your kid/pet/vacation photos. But it took me something like 15 years to get from “Facebook is kind of fun” to “this platform sucks.”

I can see an alternate history in which Facebook didn’t smother independent journalism in its crib, and the platform was being used to find and share news of interest that a person otherwise would not have found within the jungle of the internet. But Facebook (and other tech companies) did gut journalism, and even now Facebook pretty strongly resists laws like Australia’s aimed at keeping good news sources on life support. Facebook isn’t a good news source itself, which even the people who get their news there seem to recognize, and Facebook isn’t that good at anything else anymore either, except maybe causing genocides. While Facebook is still near the top of the social media platform pile, it might not be there forever. As long as Facebook still has new users to attract, especially abroad, it will remain a powerful force. But at some point, unless there are big changes, later adopters than me will all reach the same stage with Facebook: boredom.

---

Jonathan Wolf is a civil litigator and author of Your Debt-Free JD (affiliate link). He has taught legal writing, written for a wide variety of publications, and made it both his business and his pleasure to be financially and scientifically literate. Any views he expresses are probably pure gold, but are nonetheless solely his own and should not be attributed to any organization with which he is affiliated. He wouldn’t want to share the credit anyway. He can be reached at jon_wolf@hotmail.com.

This column has previously discussed how judges and court employees are heroes of the pandemic who have worked tirelessly under unprecedented conditions to administer justice during an unpredictable time. Because of the public-facing role of the judiciary, many judges and court officers are essential workers who were at risk of exposure to COVID-19, and many passed away due to the virus. The ongoing pandemic has made many court operations difficult to conduct, since jury trials, filings, and other parts of the judicial process were suspended at various times over the past year. This has led to a backlog in cases, and litigants and criminal defendants are having a difficult time obtaining judicial resolutions in many circumstances.

To make matters worse, many states have cut judicial budgets in order to deal with financial pressures caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Indeed, I have read several articles about how New York and other states have slashed judicial budgets in order to deal with financial difficulties caused by the virus, which has forced many judges to retire early and has potentially left judges on the bench with less resources. Of course, we can all understand how governments need to reduce budgets to deal with this extraordinary time, and I readily admit that I am not familiar with the policy and political reasons behind moves to reduce the resources allocated to the judiciary. However, a strong and independent judiciary is extremely important to our system of government, and judiciaries likely need more, and not less, resources during this difficult time.

The main reason why judiciaries need more resources is because forced retirements of judges and less resources for the judicial system will result in delays in the litigation process (and could possibly cause interruptions on the criminal side, but I am not too familiar with criminal law matters so I will focus on the effects on litigation). Before the pandemic, it often took many years for litigation to run its course. Indeed, I once argued a summary judgment motion for a case that was initiated when I was a freshman in high school, and the case was still pending when I left the firm to pursue other work. Judiciaries have implemented innovative alternative dispute resolution techniques to try to resolve as many matters as possible in a judicious manner, but the crowded dockets of many judiciaries meant that before the pandemic, lawsuits took a while to resolve.

The pandemic has exacerbated this situation. Many judiciaries were unable to hold jury trials during the pandemic, so there is a backlog of cases to be tried by juries (and in some cases a backlog of cases to be resolved by bench trial) in many jurisdictions. In addition, I have heard anecdotally (and I’d love for someone to confirm this) that resources are being applied to criminal matters that used to be devoted to civil matters in order to ensure criminal defendants get speedy trials. However, this is seemingly making it even more difficult for civil matters to be resolved than under normal operations. There is an old expression that goes “justice delayed is justice denied,” and judiciaries should receive as much funding and other resources as possible to ensure that the backlog of cases created by the pandemic can be handled in an efficient manner.

It is also important to provide more resources to judiciaries during this difficult time so that judges and court employees do not need to work extra hard right now or be responsible for more tasks than they typically handle. In my own practice, I have seen judges and judicial officers working tirelessly and under exceptional circumstances in order to keep administering justice during this unprecedented period. Indeed, I have seen judges and court officers send emails at all times of the day and night, hold conferences from their living rooms, establish ad hoc systems seemingly overnight, and implement other strategies to deal with challenges posed by COVID-19.

It is not fair to add more challenges to judiciaries by cutting judicial budgets. Judges and court officers have done an admirable job during the pandemic, and they should not be “rewarded” with less resources. Judiciaries should be granted more resources so that they can normalize operations and not overly burden personnel with challenges posed by the pandemic.

Bar associations and lawyers can have a role in helping to minimize the impact of budget cuts. Ensuring that judiciaries have the resources necessary to administer justice is a nonpartisan issue that affects lawyers and pretty much everyone else in our society. Judges and court officers are often constrained in the statements they can make because judicial ethics often require that individuals in the judiciary do everything they can to maintain their independence and avoid the appearance of impropriety. However, legal professionals can and should step in to convey the challenges faced by the judiciary and how cuts to judicial budgets can have a negative impact on the administration of justice.

All told, even though judges and court officers have acted commendably to administer justice throughout the pandemic, many judiciaries face budget cuts. Such reductions in judicial resources can have a devastating impact on operations of many courts. Legal professionals and bar associations can do more to convey how judicial budget cuts may be destructive and support judiciaries during this unprecedented time.

---

Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. 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 jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.

David Swensen is one of the most powerful and influential investors in the world, a man who from his perch at the helm of Yale University’s endowment for more than three decades has just about as much experience investing in hedge funds as anyone. As such, it would take some serious stones to attempt to defraud so wealthy and august an institution and man. But hedge fund managers are not known for lacking in chutzpah, so that’s exactly what Deccan Value Investors allegedly did.

Last December, the bankruptcy court in San Diego discharged almost all of a medical school graduate’s federal student loans. The court found that forcing him to repay the loans would create an undue hardship for him.

The debtor, Seth Koeut, filed bankruptcy in 2018 to discharge his $440,000 student loan balance. He went to medical school in Puerto Rico and was unable to secure a residency position despite applying to various programs for five years.

After graduating medical school in 2010, with periods of unemployment, Koeut worked as a sales associate at Bloomingdale’s, Crate & Barrel, and Banana Republic. He was a call center agent, a parking lot signaler, a canvassing director for political campaigns, a restaurant host, and a restaurant dishwasher.

He applied to 5,000 jobs but was unsuccessful. He even hired a recruiter who told him that his medical degree was a deterrent which made him overqualified for most positions in the medical field.

The court found that his prospects for a high-paying job has decreased due to his unemployment and his lack of experience in certain industries. An expert’s report has determined that Koeut’s maximum possible salary is about $55,000 which he will achieve in 10 years.

The court applied the three-part Brunner test to determine whether being forced to repay the student loans would create undue hardship. First, Koeut had to show that he cannot maintain a minimal standard of living for himself if forced to repay the loans. Second, additional circumstances exist indicating that this state of affairs is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period of the student loans. Finally, he has made good faith efforts to repay the loans. This determination is fact intensive.

The first part of the test was met. All parties agreed that Koeut can meet a minimal standard of living with his current pay. The Department of Education claimed that he should have increased his current income. But the court stated that future income and expenses are not considered.

As for the second part of the test, the court must consider a number of factors to determine whether the debtor has the ability to make student loan payments in the future. Some factors didn’t work in Koeut’s favor. He has an extensive education and has no disabilities or children.

However, other factors strongly supported a partial discharge. Koeut has no additional assets he can liquidate to pay the loans. He was underemployed but it was through no fault of his own. He has taken any job available, including being a dishwasher. He applied to 5,000 jobs and were rejected. And as noted earlier, his maximum potential income is $55,000 per year.

After weighing these factors, the court found that the second part of the test was met because Koeut’s conditions will persist and will never earn sufficient income to pay his student loans.

Finally, the court considered whether Koeut made a good faith effort to repay his loans. The Department of Education argued that he did not act in good faith because he filed bankruptcy instead of staying on the income-based repayment program. But the court noted that he had good reasons to reject IBR as it would negatively affect his credit for many years and he faces a large tax bill when the loans are forgiven. His low credit score would limit what jobs he would qualify for, particularly jobs involving access to certain personal, confidential, or proprietary information.

Since the court found that Koeut has met all three parts of the Brunner test, being forced to repay his student loans would create an undue hardship to him. The court discharged $423,174 of his outstanding student loans. The remaining $8,291.67 will be repaid through a payment plan of $41.87 per month from December 2031 until December 2048 with an interest rate of 0.11%.

While this case involved a medical doctor who was unable to secure a residency, his story is relatable to Above The Law readers. There are law school graduates who were unable to get a job after graduation, even in a good economy. Many had to work menial jobs to pay the bills and avoid a resume gap. Their law degree made them overqualified for certain jobs while unqualified for others. Some tried to alleviate this problem by starting their own practices with varying levels of success. But despite all of the networking and hard work, there will be some who will still live on the margins with their debt increasing and no light at the end of the tunnel.

These happy endings are unusual but not all that rare. Generally, student loans have been fully or partially discharged where the loans were on repayment for many years, the debtor has continually lived a modest lifestyle, has made attempts to improve his income and has made good-faith attempts to repay the loan. As these cases are heavily fact intensive, it would be in the debtor’s interest to document all attempts to improve their station in life.

According to Yahoo Finance, the Department of Education has not appealed the ruling and their new leadership team is reviewing existing litigation and identifying areas where they may take a different posture. The Senate has recently confirmed Miguel Cardona as the Secretary of Education who stated that student loans would be a priority for him.

Seth Koeut will get the fresh start that most in his situation can only dream about. However, it did not come quickly nor easily for him. He tried to get a residency after graduation and upon failing that, worked odd jobs and was rejected from every job he applied to. Others in his situation could get similar relief. With new leadership in the Department of Education, hopefully they will give debtors more options to resolve their student debt.

---

Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and resolve tax disputes. He is also sympathetic to people with large student loans. He can be reached via email at sachimalbe@excite.com. Or you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) and connect with him on LinkedIn.

Merck will shoulder some of the manufacturing work for Johnson & Johnson’s Covid-19 vaccine, an alliance President Biden brokered under a federal law that gives him the authority to secure production of critical products during national emergencies.

With the additional manufacturing capacity from Merck, President Biden said that J&J’s plan to deliver 100 million doses of its vaccine by mid-year will be accelerated by a month.

“We’re now on track to have enough vaccine supply for every adult in America by the end of May,” Biden said in a White House address Tuesday afternoon.

The Department of Health and Human Services and Merck are working together to convert some of the Kenilworth, New Jersey-based pharmaceutical giant’s sites for the rapid and large-scale manufacturing of vaccines and therapeutics for the pandemic. Those sites will become available for companies working with the federal government on Covid response.

J&J is the first company that will join this initiative as a federal partner, according to HHS. Merck will use two of its facilities to produce ingredients for the J&J vaccine, which received FDA emergency authorization last Saturday. Merck will also use its sites to formulate and fill vials with the vaccine. The agency added that in the long term, these steps will double J&J’s U.S. capacity for producing drug substance for the vaccines and increase the company’s fill-finish capacity.

The measures announced Tuesday were coordinated under the Defense Production Act (DPA), a Cold War-era law signed in 1950 and amended and expanded over the years beyond its military origins. The law gives the president the authority to force businesses to prioritize contracts for goods deemed “critical and strategic.”

The law was used in 2001 by President Bill Clinton and then President George W. Bush to address an energy crisis in California, according to PolitiFact. President Bush also invoked it during the Iraq War.

Former President Trump used the DPA, but he did not exercise the law’s full power to direct companies to produce critical goods. In the early days of the pandemic, he signed an executive order that invoked DPA to force companies to first sell medical supplies to the federal government before selling them to hospitals, states, and other countries. He also used it last August to secure large-volume purchases of Covid diagnostics systems and tests for shipment to nursing homes.

The DPA includes a section that allows the president to incentivize businesses to expand their production of critical goods. Merck is getting an incentive in the form of funding from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA). HHS said BARDA is providing Merck with an initial $105 million to convert and adapt the company’s facilities so that they can manufacture the J&J vaccine. Merck said that the funding available to the company could reach $268.8 million.

In addition to invoking DPA to boost vaccine production, Biden said he used the law to also speed up the production of other items important for making these vaccines including equipment, machinery, and supplies such as single-use bags. He added that J&J will begin operating its vaccine manufacturing facilities 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Photo: Doug Mills, pool, Getty Images

* A chapter of The Satanic Temple lost a cybersquatting lawsuit against former members. Oh hell… [Info Security Magazine]

* A top lawyer for Goldman Sachs is reportedly heading for the exit. [New York Post]

* A new lawsuit alleges that cities used curfews to crush legitimate protests last summer. [Los Angeles Times]

* The New York Attorney General has a stark warning for the cryptocurrency industry. [CNBC]

* Joe Exotic has hired a new lawyer in his bid for a new trial. Please let this all be in another season of Tiger King… [TMZ]

---

Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. 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 jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.