Category: News Feeds

Ed note: This article first appeared on The Juris Lab, a forum where “data analytics meets the law.”

The Solicitor General (SG) is the top attorney in the United States government’s arsenal. This attorney regularly argues the most important cases before the Supreme Court and along with other attorneys in the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), argues more cases before the Supreme Court each term than any other entity. There is also a documented relationship of trust between the SG and the justices that transcends the normal bounds of the justices’ rapport with attorneys.

One of the SG’s duties is filing cases for the Supreme Court to hear, and the SG generally has a high success rate on cert (Finding Certainty in Cert: An Empirical Analysis of the Factors Involved in Supreme Court Certiorari Decisions from 2001-2015). There is some evidence both anecdotally and from the previously cited article that former SGs perform well above average on cert to the Supreme Court. We should expect them to do so given that they were selected for the OSG due to their prowess as attorneys and had access to internal dynamics of the Supreme Court litigation process in ways that are unavailable to those without such repeat player experience.  

Currently, many former SGs return to private practice after their stint in the OSG is complete and use the tools they developed in the OSG to aid in their success.  Along with a handful of other attorneys who are highly successful on cert and at arguing before the justices, these former SGs make up what is colloquially known as the Supreme Court Bar of experienced Supreme Court attorneys (Advocacy Matters Before and Within the Supreme Court: Transforming the Court by Transforming the Bar; The Echo Chamber).

This is the first in a series of posts that will dissect cert success and take a look at the impact of the Supreme Court Bar. This post in particular looks at the relative success of former SGs who are currently in private practice. To begin, it is worth highlighting the justices’ extreme selectivity in choosing cases to hear argued before them.  Data from the Federal Judicial Center for the 1990 through 2017 Terms shows just how unlikely the Court is to grant any given petition. 

From a high of granting 2.2% of petitions in 1990, the Court has settled at granting around 1% of petitions for argument over the past several decades. The FJC data does not break down the petition grants for this period by whether or not they were filed in forma pauperis, meaning by individuals who could not afford the filing fees, and in forma pauperis petitions tend to be granted at a much lower rate than paid petitions.

The data are from petitions filed between January 2017 and December 2020 that include one of the former SGs’ names on the cover. Former SGs in practice prior to the Trump Administration, including those who were known as acting but were never appointed through the confirmation process, are shown below:

All but Barbara Underwood are currently in private practice.

Looking at the attorneys in private practice, there is quite a bit of variation in their filing of cert petitions.

Paul Clement’s 64 petitions during this period more than doubles all other former SGs aside from Neal Katyal. 

Of these attorneys Paul Clement has three petitions still pending from this period and Neal Katyal and Don Verrilli both have two.  The Supreme Court also occasionally summarily grants petitions, vacates the lower court decision, and remands the decision to the lower court (GVRs). This process is generally based on other decisions the Court makes in related cases. Clement had five GVRs during this period, Katyal had two, and Verrilli, Seth Waxman, and Ted Olson each had one.

Now for the grant rates. This chart excludes Walter Dellinger and Ian Gershengorn whose two and one petition filed respectively were not granted by the Court.  It is based purely on grants divided by the sum of grants and denials.

At 21.2% and 20.6% grant rates for their petitions, Paul Clement and Neal Katyal have the extreme distinction of surpassing the 20% threshold for petition grants relative to denials (petitions dismissed before the Court rendered a decision were removed from the set). The cumulative performance of these former SGs on cert showcases that the justices pay attention when they file petitions for cert.

Read more at The Juris Lab … 

The Twitter discussion started with a question: “Serious question, so serious answers only. Student wants a rec letter to work for a Senator who voted not to certify Biden’s win. Do I write the letter?” Multiple parallel threads, interplaying and ignoring one another, simultaneously went off.

The author of the question was careful to clarify that he has written letters for people he disagreed with before. This went beyond that.

#Lawtwitter got busy with the question, with some offering definitive negatives and others saying they would definitely write the letter.

I initially pointed out that the question is a complicated one. Once you say “of course I will write this letter and so should everyone else,” the next question is what you will say in the letter. It’s trickier than just “yes” or “no.” And what does it mean about other letters you would write and not write? What are your limits?

It isn’t an answer to say we should always advocate on behalf of our students, even to the devil himself. Some of us have been able to have a practice solely on the side of the angels (as we perceive them). Also, we have different devils.  I might be fine writing a letter of recommendation to some employers and more squeamish about others, with other colleagues more inclined the opposite direction. Some colleagues may have no devils. And to others, the devil may be deeply personal.

Also, the student isn’t a client. To say that “as lawyers, we have to represent people we may not like” is skirting the issue. Client representation is based on an adversarial model. Everyone deserves equal access to justice. A letter of rec is not adversarial. Unless your student is a Red Sox fan, and you are very much a Yankees fan.

A letter of recommendation is not a compulsory act. I’ve not been put in a position where I felt uncomfortable writing a letter for a student, with the exception of letters to judges with whom I’ve had run-ins such that my name may not contribute in the best possible way to the student’s interest. I’ve written letters for many jobs (not just law), including for people who worked for folks with whom I vehemently disagree. But I’m not required to write them. If I were, it wouldn’t be a letter of recommendation. I might as well get on Yelp and give all fives to every joint that puts pineapple on pizza and uses an Instant Pot because, at that point, my recommendation matters not at all.

Most professors can dodge the ethical bullet by counseling the student to get a different recommender. But that doesn’t answer the question asked by the initial tweet. Or maybe it does. Despite saying you’d write the letter, by counseling the student against it, you are ultimately saying that you really wouldn’t.

For those who would write the letter, there’s another question: Would you write it well? I don’t mean would you TRY to write it well. Of course, you would. But: Would you write it well with that deep subconscious bias swirling within? Do you think you can mask your biases that well, or is Dunning-Kruger at play here?

There are consequences going the other way, too. Saying, “Of course, I would not write the letter” leads to a larger question. If everyone has those same ethical standards, where would such a student go for a letter? Does the answer imply we need more conservatives in the academy? Does your stance extend beyond those who opposed certification to an entire political party?

As I said, I believe the choice of whether to write the letter is a personal decision. To the extent that people wish to impose some uniform standard, I’m suspicious. Much in the same way I have a visceral response every time someone tells me we must all do scholarship the same way, in the same journals, and in the same fashion. Conformity kills sometimes. For example, some schools have threatening administrators who denounce faculty that write letters of rec for student transfer.

I’m not comfortable with absolutes, particularly when law professors are GREAT at being dismissive of hypotheticals created to elicit responses from them because, for the most part, they know full well they can avoid the ethical question in real life. But that’s not a real answer to the question of the tweet, is it?

If you would write ANY letter to ANY employer, what does that say about your core beliefs? Sure, you can mock extreme hypotheticals about whether you’d write a letter of rec for a student who wanted to join a hate group, but there’s a deeper foundational question. If you have no limits, what are your core beliefs? And what does it say about the value of your letter?

If you’d refuse to write the letter to ANY group which you oppose, what does that say about your willingness to engage with opposing viewpoints? What does it say about the degree to which you hold your convictions to be unimpeachable?

And to what degree does the letter have ripple effects? Law professors LOVE to call each other out on Twitter about “how must your students feel when you tweet that (liberal or conservative) stuff,” but letters have that effect too, don’t they? For example, do we consider a letter of rec to MTG for one student to be without impact to transgender students?

As I said, I have my own guidelines as to when I would write a letter of rec, with the presumption being that I’ll write it. But it’s worth thinking about these issues and being understanding with those who have different standards than us.

---

LawProfBlawg is an anonymous professor at a top 100 law school. You can see more of his musings here. He is way funnier on social media, he claims. Please follow him on Twitter (@lawprofblawg). Email him at lawprofblawg@gmail.com.

I am not above the gossip columns for some light entertainment, especially when my Bing and Yahoo news feeds are littered with royal family photos of pretty faces and beautiful fashion. And it seems Harry and Meghan (aka the Sussexes) are always in the news. Most recently it’s been about Queen Elizabeth taking away Harry’s titles and stripping the couple of the remaining duties that come with a life of public service.

It’s hard to know what to make of this royal dustup. But as a former UK barrister, now U.S. immigration attorney, I can’t help but think about Harry’s immigration prospects as a Brit living in the United States. While I have no particular insight into the couple’s lives (though I admit to wishing I were representing them!), I can speculate on Harry’s possible immigration paths.

The prince has been in the U.S. for over a year now, and no doubt the couple has considered his status. Someone visiting the U.S. from a country with visa reciprocity, which the United Kingdom has, can enter on what’s known as a visa-waiver. It’s commonly referred to as ESTA, which stands for Electronic System for Travel Authorization. But it only allows them to stay for 90 days. So clearly, he is not on an ESTA.

He is also unlikely to be on a tourist visa, known as a B-2, which allows one to stay in the U.S. for six months at a time. And though one can extend that for six months more for touristy reasons, Prince Harry’s time would already be up.

There has been speculation that he would be applying for an O-1 visa, a type of work visa available to immigrants who have reached the top echelon of their professions, who are extraordinary. Top entertainers will often use it. John Oliver, another fellow Brit, often talks about his O-1 visa on his shows.

Harry is extraordinary by birth, of course. But his charity work, his founding of the Invictus games, and being BFFs with Oprah and the Obamas can certainly get him an O-1 visa. He may already have it. But the initial period on the visa is three years, and it can be renewed annually for as long as one continues to meet the requirements. Renewing every year can be challenging, not only because a year rolls around too quickly, but you also have to get a visa stamp to return to the U.S. if you travel abroad. It’s stressful to say the least; just ask John Oliver. And there’s an added caveat: the O-1 is a “nonimmigrant intent” visa, which means Harry cannot have intent to permanently live on it in the United States. And from all news reports and gossip columns, he appears to have all intention to stay here.

That leaves the Sussexes to think about Harry’s permanent status in the United States. Even if he can get past the “intent” issue for now (because, let’s face it, even the immigration adjudicators likely love him), he has to think about the next immigration step. And that is to get a green card.

The green card application is burdensome and will be even more so for the couple. Meghan can complete a Form I-130, stating she is a U.S. citizen applying for her husband, a noncitizen. Harry can file a Form I-485, which basically says, “I’m eligible for a green card, please let me have one.” There is still the Trump-era policy known as “public charge,” where U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) would collect all information about an individual’s assets, income, health, education, and skills. They will want to know about Harry’s debts and U.S. credit score. If the public-charge policy is still in place when he applies, he will have to disclose a lot of financial information that one in his position may not be too eager to disclose. Additionally, these cases are backlogged, currently taking over two years to process, likely just about enough time left on his O-visa (if that is indeed what he has).

If Harry envisions staying in the U.S. permanently, there’s another hurdle he’d have to overcome: citizenship. That would require him to give up his hereditary and whatever royalty titles he still has.

According to section 1448(b) of the Immigration and Nationalization Act, which addresses hereditary titles and orders of nobility (emphasis added):

In case the person applying for naturalization has borne any hereditary title, or has been of any of the orders of nobility in any foreign state, the applicant shall in addition to complying with the requirements of subsection (a) of this section, make under oath in the same public ceremony in which the oath of allegiance is administered, an express renunciation of such title or order of nobility, and such renunciation shall be recorded as a part of such proceedings.

Of course, he doesn’t necessarily need to acquire U.S. citizenship and can continue to renew his green card every 10 years. It’s a hassle but he could likely live with it. But he may well want U.S. citizenship for the security it brings to remain in the U.S. with his family. Personally, I decided to apply for U.S. citizenship once I had children, because sometimes green cards can be revoked for reasons that are out of your control.

So, what’s all the fuss about the Queen taking his titles away now? If Harry plans to apply for U.S. citizenship eventually, he may well not have any titles to give up in due course. And while it might seem to be a good emotional story for news columns and magazines, this action by the Queen may actually benefit the prince for at least U.S. immigration purposes, and his future in the United States.

---

Tahmina Watson is the founding attorney of Watson Immigration Law in Seattle, where she practices US immigration law focusing on business immigration. She has been blogging about immigration law since 2008 and has written numerous articles in many publications. She is the author of Legal Heroes in the Trump Era: Be Inspired. Expand Your Impact. Change the World and The Startup Visa: Key to Job Growth and Economic Prosperity in America.  She is also the founder of The Washington Immigrant Defense Network (WIDEN), which funds and facilitates legal representation in the immigration courtroom, and co-founder of Airport Lawyers, which provided critical services during the early travel bans. Tahmina is regularly quoted in the media and is the host of the podcast Tahmina Talks Immigration. She was recently honored by the Puget Sound Business Journal as one of the 2020 Women of Influence. You can reach her by email at tahmina@watsonimmigrationlaw.com or follow her on Twitter at @tahminawatson. 

Corporate legal departments are dealing with more demands and pressure than ever before – managing matters and billing shouldn’t add to it. In today’s fast-paced business world, especially when everyone’s working remotely, there’s just no time to waste on paper billing and decentralized matter management. Too many solutions that aim to tackle these problems, however, make the processes overly convoluted or complex. Thankfully there’s a better way.

Meet SimpleLegal. The name says it all: legal operations can be simple when you can handle both e-billing and matter management in a single, streamlined tool that’s configurable to the needs of your department.

Sound too good to be true? It’s not. While it’s powerful, SimpleLegal really is that simple.

Streamlined e-Billing

SimpleLegal eliminates the paper and tackles every aspect of the billing process, from invoicing to accruals.

Invoicing

Invoices in SimpleLegal are clean, showing only the information the user actually needs to see.

Every invoice in SimpleLegal is configured to the individual user, with no extraneous fields or irrelevant information. You instantly see the invoice number, the matter, the vendor or law firm submitting the invoice, and the amount being charged. When invoices have been reviewed and approved, they are sent to your AP or accounting system automatically – no one needs to touch them once they leave the legal department.

Invoices are routed to designated approvers, and those approvers can add additional approvers if necessary. Approvers are notified when invoices are ready, complete with links to the invoices and any notes that have been left for them. They’ll also see any budgets and accruals associated with the invoiced matter.

The goal is to get approvers in and out of the system as quickly as possible – invoice summaries at the top of every invoice reduce the time approvers would otherwise spend looking or scrolling through the invoice to find what they need. Allocations are clearly displayed, meaning you see right away how any invoice is divided across entities, cost codes, or business units, and those allocations can always be adjusted. If you require invoices to be submitted with task, activity, and expense codes, you’ll see those, too. All the information you need is on a single screen.

Reporting

SimpleLegal users have the potential to access to hundreds of different reports based on a mountain of data. During implementation, SimpleLegal determines which reports you are likely to use the most and starts with those. Over time, the user can unlock and access additional reporting capabilities as needed. 

One of the most useful reporting features is the Spend Dashboard, which gives a bird’s eye view of where all your money is going.

The spend dashboard can be filtered by vendor, office location, matter, practice area, entity, and more. Users can hover over a month and see how much money was spent outside, broken down by hours worked, fees, expenses, and discounts. The user can see average rates and hours worked by vendor, practice area, and matter. In addition to standard reports, you can build ad hoc reports or request SimpleLegal to build custom reports for the user.

With SimpleLegal, the user can feel comfortable that everything’s being monitored and managed, and that any red flags are easy to catch.

Budgets

In SimpleLegal, you can budget any way you like – by department, practice area, vendor, matter, month, quarter, phase, and more. All your budgets are displayed in one place.

For each, you’ll clearly see how much was budgeted, how much is approved, how much is still pending, and how much is accruing. Hover over a budget and you’ll see where you stand and if you’re in the red. If you need to, you can set up rules to keep your budget healthy, such as flagging invoices over a certain amount or auto-rejecting invoices that exceed your budget.

Accruals

One of the things SimpleLegal handles particularly well is accruals. Reporting accruals to finance or accounting has historically been a dreaded task, and one that’s been inefficiently handled over email. 

SimpleLegal takes accruals off your plate and handles them automatically based on a schedule you create – you do the work once and never have to think about it again. Accrual requests and subsequent reminders go out automatically, including an email with a link to a screen where your vendor can fill out their estimated accruals by matter and just click submit.

This information is then automatically populated into a convenient report to send to accounting or finance. Handling accruals has never been easier.

Simple Matter Management

The other half of SimpleLegal is a streamlined matter management system. From a single screen, you have access to all your matters in one place.

Every SimpleLegal user has specific permissions that limit which matters they can see and interact with – attorneys might only have a few matters in their list, while administrators will see every matter in the department.

From your matter management screen, you see a wealth of information: what invoices are associated with the matter, their status, and how they’ve been allocated, who has permission to see the matter or edit it, any notes or updates users have left, any budgets associated with your matter, and how your matter is connected to other matters at the company. There’s also a powerful document management feature that allows you to set up as many folders as you want, name and categorize them appropriately, tag documents, and run full text searches.

Matters in SimpleLegal are based on templates, which are designated and named by your legal department. To create a matter, simply choose the correct template and enter the relevant matter data.

Because the system uses templates, data appears consistently across a given matter type when you’re looking at active matters. The goal of SimpleLegal is to eliminate as much data entry as possible for attorneys, so they can spend less time in the system and more time on growing the business.

Within the matter management side of SimpleLegal, you can easily run reports on your pending matters according to matter type, party, or other filters. The system also keeps track of what users are doing at all times, so you can see time and date stamps for any activity that’s ever done on a given matter. And because SimpleLegal is serious about security, you can even see the IP address of where your users were when they logged in. All the activity is reportable, which comes in handy for audits.

There’s also a Legal Requests function, where you can share SimpleLegal with the rest of the business (if you want to) and allow them to ask for legal help.

This doesn’t give them access to anything else in the system, only the requests they’ve submitted. The help request is sent directly to legal, and the requester can always see its status. It’s a great way to offer a self-help option to the business and streamline the process for how legal interacts with other departments.

Better Vendor Management

SimpleLegal also makes things easy for your vendors. They operate in a separate part of the system called CounselGO. Law firms and other vendors can submit their invoices through this portal in any format, such as LEDES and PDF, and then track those invoices as they move through the approval process. Similarly, vendors can submit budgets and timekeeper rates for review and approval.

Customer billing guidelines are set at this level, so every invoice is validated against those guidelines as it’s submitted. This removes the burden of invoice approvers having to go through line by line to verify charges. Any improper charges that are identified are either automatically rejected, flagged, or sent back to the firm for correction and resubmission.

E-billing, matter management, and CounselGO all come together as a single package – there’s no need to cobble together a piecemeal solution. Better yet, the system is configurable, meaning it can work for the smallest company or the biggest corporate legal department, and its scalability means it can grow as you grow. 

Rounding out the picture you get great 24 hour customer support during the work week and a robust API that allows SimpleLegal to integrate seamlessly with the rest of the tools in your legal tech stack. SimpleLegal really is an all-in-one solution for corporate legal departments!

Stop wasting your time on billing and matter management and let SimpleLegal do the heavy lifting for you.

Back in December, when bonus season was at its height, boutique law firms were busy blowing Biglaw firms out of the water when it came to showing their associates the money. One of those firms was Roche Cyrulnik Freedman, the first Boies Schiller Flexner spinoff since the latter’s inception more than two decades ago. Founded by Kyle Roche, Jason Cyrulnik, and Vel Freedman, the litigation boutique had existed for less than a year at the time, but was still offering market-beating bonuses. Unfortunately, there’s already trouble in paradise — and a lot of it — as one of the fledgling firm’s founding partners has already been forced out, and is now being sued over his allegedly problematic behavior.

The firm is now suing Cyrulnik for allegedly refusing to leave after his expulsion from the partnership on February 10 following an alleged “pattern of increasingly abusive, destructive, erratic, and obstructive behavior” against his firm colleagues. The lawsuit also alleges that Cyrulnik is demanding that he be paid more than what he’s owed under the firm’s partnership agreement. Now known as Roche Freedman, the firm is seeking a declaratory judgment against Cyrulnik.

The American Lawyer has additional details on what brought about the alleged bad blood between the firms’ founders:

According to the complaint, the first instance of Cyrulnik’s “severe verbal abuse” came July 21, 2020, on a call about potential changes to the young firm’s formula compensation model. Cyrulnik and the other two name partners, Kyle Roche and Velvel Freedman, were on the call.

Cyrulnik had previously proposed changes to the model and, on the call, Freedman told Cyrulnik that RCF would not fully adopt Cyrulnik’s changes, which according to the plaintiff would have effectively shifted more compensation to Cyrulnik at the expense of other firm partners. According to the complaint, Cyrulnik “erupted into an alarming rage” and “screamed at both Roche and Freedman at the top of his lungs” and Roche and Freedman hung up.

The next morning, Roche wrote Cyrulnik an email saying that the way he had screamed at Roche and Freedman was “simply unacceptable” adding that, “if yesterday is any sort of signal to how you think you can treat us when we have disputes over business and money, then I do not see how we can continue to grow the partnership,” according to the complaint.

According to the complaint, Cyrulnik’s behavior did not improve. He allegedly continued to scream at associates and partners, and on top of that, would allegedly instruct some associates to spend so much of their time on his matters, as opposed to assignments from other partners, that they threatened to quit. The final straw seems to have been an incident that allegedly took place in December 2020, when Cyrulnik reportedly “proclaimed” that an associate who was working with two other partners on a time-sensitive matter needed to stop working with them. Communications broke down, and in a phone call to resolve the issue, Cyrulnik was allegedly “combative” and yelled at both partners. When the deadline for that matter was approaching, Cyrulnik allegedly put the associate in an “impossible position” by telling the associate once again to stop working on the matter and work on his matters instead. “His behavior had now escalated to the point of threatening the firm’s ability to service a client, had resulted in more abusive interactions with partners, and had placed an associate in an absolutely untenable and high-stress position,” the complaint said.

On February 10, the partnership voted unanimously to remove Cyrulnik from the firm, but according to the complaint, he’s “refused to accept that he is no longer a partner at the firm” and has allegedly demanded access to firm accounts and the ability to bring in new clients. But wait, there’s even more:

At the same time, Cyrulnik has claimed that the firm voted him out only to bar him from receiving compensation in the firm of “tokens” that a client pays out to the firm as part of an alternative fee arrangement, the complaint says, and that he is entitled to the compensation. …

In 2021, these tokens “exponentially rose” in value and are now worth millions of dollars, according to the complaint, and Cyrulnik claims that his removal comes as a way to reclaim these tokens due to him under the partnership agreement.

“Cyrulnik has claimed that the five equity partners affirmatively and unanimously voted to remove him to gain the highly volatile and speculative value of ‘his’ Token allocation and then lied about the cause for his removal. This is false,” the complaint reads. “Rather than own up to his misconduct, accept payment for his work, and withdraw from the firm in a constructive manner, it is Cyrulnik who now attempts to shake down the firm for yet more money.”

Cyrulnik is being represented by Marc Kasowitz of Kasowitz Benson, who said of the suit: “The allegations of the complaint are false and irresponsible. Mr. Cyrulnik will continue to focus on fully protecting the interests of his law firm and clients. The motives and conduct of his partners who launched this attack to take over the firm and appropriate for themselves Mr. Cyrulnik’s interests will be fully and appropriately addressed in the proper forum.”

The remaining partners of Roche Freedman are seeking a declaration that Cyrulnik was “validly removed” from the partnership and that as a result, he “is not entitled to any further compensation or interests.” Best of luck to everyone involved in this lawsuit, because it certainly sounds like a big hot mess.

Boies Schiller Spinoff Axes, Then Sues Co-Founder Alleging ‘Abusive’ Behavior [American Lawyer]

---

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.

Remember when Nikola Motors, the troubled would-be Tesla for trucks, rather indignantly denied every one of a short-seller’s 15,000 words laying out how the company was nothing but an elaborate fraud? How it said it was “replete with misleading information and salacious accusations”? Including the bit where Hinberburg Research accused Nikola founder and soon-to-be-former chairman and CEO Trevor Milton of “dozens of outright lies”? How it was all a “hit job… driven by greed,” none of it “accurate,” and much of it potentially legally actionable? Yea, well, it seems that those statements were themselves replete with misleading information, and arguably some salacious accusations, such as the bit about market manipulation and it all being, you know, a “hit job… driven by greed,” statements which in light of new information that has come to light could, one might argue, especially if one were Hindenburg Research and were looking to pad one’s short-selling gains, are worthy of the evaluation of “potential legal recourse.”

Ed. note: Please welcome Wendi Weiner to our pages. She will be writing about how attorneys can achieve successful careers, both inside and outside of the law.

At my law school graduation, my mom handed me a copy of Dr Seuss’ “Oh, the Places You’ll Go!” Inside the book cover, she wrote, “You have just started to reach your shining star. Hold on to it tightly. The adventure has just begun.”

I held those words close to my heart over the next 12 years. My legal career would be filled with winding roads, unknown detours, and new paths. It would also be met with failures, do-overs, and new beginnings. It was all part of the adventure, after all.

I believed that career happiness in law was contingent on becoming partner at a prestigious law firm, only I had no desire to make partner. The pattern of thought was ingrained in me since OCIs (on-campus interviews) in my 2L year. As a result, for much of my legal career, I felt lost, unfulfilled, and scared.

In 2011, I entered the lottery for the New York City Marathon on a whim after having dinner with a friend from college. I expected it to be a several-year process of entering, only to soon realize I would be picked on the first application. At the time, I had reached the highest peak of frustration in my legal career. The 2008 recession ravaged the legal industry. It also caused my physical health to deteriorate on a downward spiral.

I took the challenge of running a marathon as an opportunity to rechannel my attention and direction, thinking that running would give me time to think, process, and reflect on my career while also giving me a new lease on a healthier life. I expected to find the answers on the long, lonely roads and trails as a back-of-the-pack runner. So, I did what any newbie runner would do after getting into the lottery for the New York City Marathon: I joined an advanced running group. Most people would have quit knowing they needed to begin training at 4:30 a.m. on a Saturday, but I was ready for the challenge.

On one Saturday morning, my running coach ran up beside me. I remember mumbling to her, “This is really hard.”  She turned to me and said, “Of course it’s hard. Life begins at the end of your comfort zone.” It hit me like a ton of bricks. I had been living life and my career within my comfort zone for a long time — fearing risk, failure, and anything that didn’t seem linear. Why was I so afraid of doing something different?

I kept her voice and that statement in my mind at mile 20 of the marathon, and continuing through miles 22, and 24 when the race really began. My body was on empty, but my mind was stronger than I ever felt before — stronger than any job rejection, stronger than any difficult opposing counsel, and stronger than any frustration about my legal career. The day I crossed that finish line, my mindset about my legal career changed forever — in fact, it gave me the confidence to leave law several years later and pursue my own career happiness as a writer and coach.

We often question our skills, our abilities, and even our career if things aren’t linear. Yet, finding your own unique path to success in law (or in an alternative legal career) can be the best thing that ever happened to you. You can regain a sense of self-confidence that was hidden or buried. You can find joy in the freedom of new opportunity, new goals, and new roads.

It takes years of rising and falling to keep spinning the wheel with ideas. It takes the ultimate amount of self-confidence and perseverance when you are in the toughest miles of the marathon. It takes an infinite strength to close your ears to the negative noise of others who doubt you or who say it can’t be done.

Crossing a marathon finish line and finding your inner courage is a powerful thing. It gives you faith, hope, and determination. It opens your eyes to the possibilities that exist within you and the potential that still lingers.

The other day, I opened the book and turned to the last page.

“And, will you succeed? Yes! You will, indeed! (98 and ¾ percent guaranteed.)  KID, YOU’LL MOVE MOUNTAINS!”

In my new column, I will be discussing how to develop your unique personal brand, how to leverage LinkedIn, and how to find career happiness and fulfillment even if you decide on an alternative career outside of law. I hope that my column will help you to see new opportunities and new ways of positioning yourself in and outside of your legal career. Feel free to send me career-related questions as I embark on my new column at Above the Law.

Remember, we are all running a marathon, and our careers are not a sprint.

---

Wendi Weiner is an attorney, career expert, and founder of The Writing Guru, an award-winning executive resume writing services company. Wendi creates powerful career and personal brands for attorneys, executives, and C-suite/Board leaders for their job search and digital footprint. She also writes for major publications about alternative careers for lawyers, personal branding, LinkedIn storytelling, career strategy, and the job search process. You can reach her by email at wendi@writingguru.net, connect with her on LinkedIn, and follow her on Twitter @thewritingguru.  

* The Massachusetts Attorney General is suing an orthodontist who allegedly filed false claims worth millions of dollars. Guess the attorney general thinks she’s taking a “bite” out of misconduct… [NBC News]

* Governor Andrew Cuomo has purportedly hired a criminal defense lawyer after recent sexual harassment allegations were made against him. [Fox News]

* A Brooklyn lawyer is facing grand larceny charges after allegedly stealing around $200,000 from a client. [Patch]

* Amazon has been hit with a lawsuit alleging racial and gender discrimination. [Fox News]

* WeWork and Softbank have settled a longstanding legal dispute. Maybe they should rename themselves WeSettle… [Real Deal]

---

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.

Was It For Distracted Driving?: A doctor showed up to traffic court from the operating room. People are dragging the lawyer but from what I understand of traffic court, this guy probably HAD to show up mid-incision to get any reprieve at all. If he’d asked for a new date they’d probably have just entered a default judgment and moved on because the institution exists mostly as a formality for appropriating people’s money.

Take A Look In The Mirror: A cool new tool from LexisNexis allows you to look up insights on opposing counsel, but I think the more interesting experiment will be looking up yourself. A big firm should run all their people through it and see if there are any glaring consistency issues.

You Can Take My Freedom, But You’ll Never Take My Biglaw Retirement Account: Actually, no, they can take that too. Scott Wolas managed to stay on the run for 20 years before law enforcement caught up with him. Now he’s being forced to hand over his retirement account.

And Things Were Going So Well!: Supreme Court kicks the Kraken to the curb. What the MAGA people never really understood about Trump is that the real conservatives always thought he was a useful idiot and plan to rule just fine from the bench without having his embarrassing sideshow overshadowing everything.

Ed. Note: Welcome to our daily feature Trivia Question of the Day!

According to data collected in Leopard Solutions‘ State of the Legal Industry 2020 report, of the 200 largest law firms, how many had flat or declining attorney head count?

Hint: Leopard reports that, while hiring was down, the primary driver of this was firms not replacing attorneys — across all levels — who left their firms.

See the answer on the next page.