Category: News Feeds

The hits just keep on coming for Scott Wolas, and well, after living 20 years as a fugitive, perhaps that’s to be expected. The former litigation partner at Hunton & Williams (legacy firm of Hunton Andrews Kurth) pleaded guilty to a variety of financial crimes back in 2018, and was sentenced to 81 months in prison. Now, a federal judge has ruled the balance of his Biglaw retirement account should go to the federal government.

But before we delved into this latest turn, a primer on Wolas. He was convicted on charges related to a scheme where he convinced at least 19 people to give him $1.7 million as part of an investment scheme to buy a bar in Quincy, Massachusetts. But a week before the deal was set to close, Wolas pulled a vanishing act, disappearing with the money. Law enforcement tracked Wolas down in Florida and he was arrested in 2017.

But, that wasn’t Wolas’s only brush with financial crimes — nope, that history goes all the way back to the late 1990s and it’s also when he first became a fugitive.

In 1995, Wolas was kicked out of his position in the Hunton partnership amid a scandal alleging overbilling and an outside investment scheme that swindled millions of dollars from investors. In 1997, he was indicted on 119 counts of fraud and grand larceny in New York over an alleged Ponzi scheme, revolving around liquor exporting. That’s right around when he first went on the run, using a series of false identities to elude authorities over the years. By 1999, his financial antics led to his disbarment, and his now-former firm was left to clean up his mess. Hunton paid at least $6 million to investors over his liquor-exporting scheme. Plus the firm settled with a former associate who alleged they were wrongfully fired after pressing for an inquiry into Wolas’s billing practices.

As part of his plea deal with prosecutors, Wolas agreed to forfeit the money in his retirement accounts. However, his ex-wife, Cecily Sturge, tried to have the account transferred to her. According to a decision by District Judge Dennis Saylor of the District of Massachusetts, Sturge had been in contact with Wolas while he was on the lam. She obtained a divorce in 2001 in a Florida court, and Wolas was declared dead in 2011.

As reported by ABA Journal:

Initially, the retirement account was not brought to the attention of the divorce court. Later, with Wolas’ help, Sturge sought to petition the Florida court to transfer the account to her, falsely stating that she did not know Wolas’ whereabouts, and she had no contact with him since 1995, Saylor said.

The Florida court transferred the account to Sturge a month after Wolas was arrested in April 2017, but a restraining order by the Boston court prevented the transfer of the assets.

As of 2019, the account contained $788,000 from his decade in the Hunton partnership.

---

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).

Thanks to the pandemic, the world is getting a whole new look at the legal system, and it’s often quite entertaining. Everyone has seen the viral Lawyer Cat video, which featured an attorney having difficulties with a kitten Zoom filter during a virtual hearing. Now, the latest viral sensation features a plastic surgeon who attempted to stand trial in virtual traffic court while a patient was on his operating table — and the judge on the case was not having it.

Meet Dr. Scott Green, a California plastic surgeon who appeared before Sacramento Superior Court Commissioner Gary Link from an operating room in full scrubs with a scalpel in hand. After telling a court clerk that he was ready for trial, Green appears to return to performing a procedure on his patient.

Once Link entered the scene, he immediately expressed his dismay with what was happening. The Sacramento Bee has the details:

“So unless I’m mistaken, I’m seeing a defendant that’s in the middle of an operating room appearing to be actively engaged in providing services to a patient. Is that correct, Mr. Green? Or should I say Dr. Green?” Link asked over the sounds of suction and the beep-beep of medical devices.

“I do not feel comfortable for the welfare of a patient if you’re in the process of operating that I would put on a trial notwithstanding the fact the officer is here today,” the commissioner said.

Green assured Link that he needn’t worry and that the trial could go on because another surgeon was standing by to operate as well. “I don’t think so. I don’t think that’s appropriate,” Link said in response.

Link, whose mind seemed to be completely blown that Green was actively operating on a patient, said he would reschedule the case for March 4. “We want to keep people healthy, we want to keep them alive. That’s important,” he said.

The Medical Board of California is now looking into Dr. Green’s virtual brush with the law, and a spokesperson noted that the Board “expects physicians to follow the standard of care when treating their patients.”

Check out the full hearing, below:

California doctor performs surgery while appearing at video traffic court appointment [Sacramento Bee]

---

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.

Elected officials in Texas are now experiencing what compliance professionals experience all the time.

On the one hand, the elected officials in Texas could choose, as they in fact did, to deregulate the energy market. Energy companies would then, of course, act to maximize profits. Energy companies would not winterize their facilities, because that would cut into profits. And, when the deep freeze arrived in 2021, millions of people would lose power.

Elected officials would get the blame: How could they be so foolish as to deregulate the energy market? Why didn’t government require the companies to winterize? Why do we elect such fools?

But assume a counterfactual: Ten years ago, when Texans were warned that a severe winter storm could upset the electricity supply, elected officials did in fact choose to regulate the energy market. The hypothetical new laws required that all facilities be winterized to withstand a one-in-a-century freeze. The cost of winterization would of course be passed on, either in the form of higher rates for electricity or higher taxes.

In winter 2021, the deep freeze hit.

Nobody lost power.

Elected officials would still get the blame: Why have rates for electrical power been so damn high? Do you know how much of my income is eaten away by my electric bill? Why is the government doing this? Why do we elect such fools? And, by the way, we never lose power. Those crazies in government are planning for storms that never happen! Have we lost power recently? See what I mean?

Pity the poor politicians in Texas.

And pity the poor compliance professional.

Allocating scarce resources, the compliance professional cannot eliminate all risk. So there’s always a chance that a compliance violation will arise somewhere in the company: Trade sanctions, privacy, mandatory disclosures, whatever. Compliance can’t protect completely against all risks; it allocates resources and leaves open the possibility that disaster will strike somewhere within the company.

Disaster strikes! How could the compliance department have been so foolish as to fail to protect against this risk? Why didn’t they hire more people focused on this particular risk? Why didn’t they develop better controls?  Why do we hire such fools?

On the other hand, assume that disaster does not strike. Compliance still takes the blame: Why does the compliance department spend so much of our corporate money? Nothing bad ever happens to us. We’re never out of compliance. But we spend a ton on that silly compliance department; shouldn’t we cut their budget?

Preventing disasters is a thankless task.

No one ever notices when a disaster is avoided. Life simply goes on as usual; the dog didn’t bark. And people complain about the ongoing cost of seemingly achieving nothing.

But everyone notices when a disaster strikes. And then everyone blames the disaster-preventer: Why didn’t you see this coming? Why didn’t we spend more money to avoid this? Why do we hire such fools?

I suspect that compliance professionals around the world feel some pity for the poor politicians in Texas.

---

Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.

Massive Merger Spurns Fight Over Wall Street Secrets
Imagine your favorite sports team being forced to hand over its playbook to a bitter rival. That would irk any sports fan.

* A California physician Zoomed into a traffic court hearing last week while seemingly performing surgery. Talk about multitasking… [Sacramento Bee]

* Governor Andrew Cuomo is asking that an independent counsel review sexual harassments allegations made against him. [CNN]

* Check out this article about how the NCAA seemingly turned one of its biggest legal defeats into a legal shield. [Juris Lab]

* A judge has approved a $650 million settlement in litigation filed against Facebook over a photo-tagging system. [Hill]

* The Los Angeles District Attorney is facing a recall effort less than three months into his term. Californians love a good recall… [Los Angeles Times]

---

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.

For Rivendell!: Paul Davis continues to impress, stepping away from Tolkien to propose a new government where Donald Trump just gets to veto any government action. Honestly, this motion reads like something Gollum would write, except replace all references to his precious with Trump or “tacit public acceptance of transphobia.”

This Is Why We Have Black History Month: There’s rightly a lot of backlash against performative politics. Having a month set aside for corporate brands to repackage themselves with kente cloth before going back to systematically denying access to meaningful equality can be dispiriting. But this is why we have to keep having these observances — because lawyers unwittingly reveal exactly how far we really are from fixing the problem.

Flag That, ExamSoft: What will the proctoring algorithm do with someone peeing into a bottle during the test? We’re about to find out! But seriously, this is no way to manage a profession. We also learned of an applicant who got her period during the exam and is confident that she was flagged for cheating as she squirmed from cramps. Nothing about this test is acceptable.

Oh, Pardon Me: Steve Bannon thought getting a pardon would put an end to the federal charges against him. But the government points out that just because he can’t be punished doesn’t mean he isn’t still in the matter.

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

Of the 50 Biglaw firms included in Above the Law’s Law Firm Transparency Directory, powered by Leopard Solutions, which firm has the longest average tenure for attorneys?

Hint: Attorneys spend an average of eight years at the firm.

See the answer on the next page.

It’s no secret that solos are facing unique business challenges in adjusting to the pandemic-era practice of law.

A recent study bears that out, revealing that solo practitioners have taken the biggest hit in both revenue and new cases. 

The Legal Trends for Solo Law Firms report by Clio reveals that, in the spring and fall of 2020, up to 66% of solos were worried about their legal practice’s success. 

Solos saw greater drops in new cases and revenue compared with larger firms, the report said, “indicating that solo lawyers were affected significantly more by the pandemic.”  

As detailed at the LawSites blog, the report also looks at how technology has helped to offset these revenue shortfalls:

But even as solos suffered in the early months of the pandemic, those who used certain key technologies were able not only to mitigate that initial impact, but also to accelerate their recovery, resulting in these tech-using solos earning an average of $50,000 more in revenue than other solos.”

Read more below. 

Pandemic Hit Solos Most Severely, But Tech Users Fared Better, Clio Study Finds [Lawsites]
Legal Trends for Solo Law Firms [Clio]

---

Jeremy Barker is the director of content marketing for Breaking Media. Feel free to email him with questions or comments and to connect on LinkedIn. 

---

Olga V. Mack is the CEO of Parley Pro, a next-generation contract management company that has pioneered online negotiation technology. Olga embraces legal innovation and had dedicated her career to improving and shaping the future of law. She is convinced that the legal profession will emerge even stronger, more resilient, and more inclusive than before by embracing technology. Olga is also an award-winning general counsel, operations professional, startup advisor, public speaker, adjunct professor, and entrepreneur. She founded the Women Serve on Boards movement that advocates for women to participate on corporate boards of Fortune 500 companies. She authored Get on Board: Earning Your Ticket to a Corporate Board Seat and Fundamentals of Smart Contract Security. You can follow Olga on Twitter @olgavmack.

So, here’s where we’re at in the Fifth Circuit: cops can literally set a person on fire and walk away from it.

Judge Don Willett’s incendiary comments opposing qualified immunity notwithstanding, civil rights litigation still remains a sucker bet in the Fifth Circuit, where cops are granted judicial forgiveness more frequently than they are in any other judicial circuit.

Here’s the latest depressing read from the Appeals Court, which can’t talk itself into removing this shield from officers who tased a suicidal man after he covered himself in gasoline, turning a potential suicide into an actual homicide.

Some cops seem to feel suicide threats should be converted into self-fulfilling prophecies. The cops involved here — all Arlington, Texas police officers — turned a distress call from a family member into the very thing the family members were hoping to prevent. From the opinion [PDF]:

On July 10, 2017, Gabriel Anthony Olivas called 911 and reported that his father was threatening to kill himself and burn down their house. Corporal Ray, Sergeant Jefferson, and Officers Scott, Elliott, and Guadarrama of the Arlington Police Department responded.

Behold the thin blue line that stands between suicide and threats to burn a house down.

Guadarrama and Elliott, at least, and maybe Jefferson as well, noticed that Olivas was holding some object that appeared as though it might be a lighter. Guadarrama, followed in short succession by Jefferson, fired his taser at the gasoline-soaked man, causing him to burst into flames. Corporal Ray and Officer Scott arrived at the scene at about this time. When they entered the house, they found Olivas engulfed in flames.

The fire spread from Olivas to the walls of the bedroom, and the house eventually burned to the ground. The officers at the scene were able to evacuate the family members who had remained in the house, but Olivas was badly burned and later died from his injuries.

With results like these, it’s a wonder why anyone bothers calling the cops. If the family wanted their father dead and their house burned down, they could have accomplished that by doing nothing. Hell, they might possibly have prevented it. After all, the family had more at stake and would have been more willing to de-escalate. But the cops got involved and the rest is QI history.

The question comes down to what a “reasonable” officer would have done under these circumstances. But the court decides in favor of the less-reasonable officers, despite them being warned against doing this by other, more reasonable officers at the scene.

Upon entering, Officer Guadarrama detected the odor of gasoline. A woman directed the officers to a corner bedroom on the east side of the house. There they found Gabriel Eduardo Olivas (“Olivas”) leaning against a wall and holding a red gas can. After turning his flashlight on Olivas, Officer Elliott allegedly shouted to Sergeant Jefferson and Officer Guadarrama, “If we tase him, he is going to light on fire.”

The court says it doesn’t matter than the man was burned to death as a result of being tased. The only thing that matters is whether or not he deserved to be tased. The court says the dead man earned his tasing. The unfortunate byproduct of his tasing — his death, the family home burning down — can’t be held against the officers who set him on fire.

Olivas posed a substantial and immediate risk of death or serious bodily injury to himself and everyone in the house. He was covered in gasoline. He had been threatening to kill himself and burn down the house. He appeared to be holding a lighter. At that point, there were at least six other people in the house, all of whom were in danger.

Under this line of thought, the force deployment was reasonable. That at least one other officer on the scene felt otherwise doesn’t matter.

The fact that Olivas appeared to have the capability of setting himself on fire in an instant and, indeed, was threatening to do so, meant that the officers had no apparent options to avoid calamity. If, reviewing the facts in hindsight, it is still not apparent what might have been done differently to achieve a better outcome under these circumstances, then, certainly, we, who are separated from the moment by more than three years, cannot conclude that Guadarrama or Jefferson, in the exigencies of the moment, acted unreasonably.

Even if it could reasonably be foreseen that tasing a man covered in gasoline would result in serious injury or death, it was not unreasonable to tase him because of the threat he posed. That following through on this act turned the threat into a reality apparently has no bearing on the outcome. The only thing that matters is whether it was legally permissible to tase him. Everything else is just noise, according to the Fifth Circuit.

Check out the full opinion here.

Fifth Circuit Says Tasing A Person Soaked In Gasoline And Setting Them On Fire Isn’t An Unreasonable Use Of Force

More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:

Monster Energy Goes After Autobody Shop Because Of It’s ‘M’ Logo And Use Of Green Color
Tennessee Politicians Ask State Colleges To Forbid Student-Athletes From Kneeling During The National Anthem
Supreme Court Rolls Back Another Horrible Qualified Immunity Decision By The Fifth Circuit