Category: News Feeds

Color me surprised — or even shocked. I’ve been following the American Lawyer’s early reporting on Am Law 200 law firm financials for 2020, and the numbers so far are good, even great.

Despite the coronavirus pandemic and recession that made life so miserable for millions last year, law firms did very well for themselves. Check out this table, showing the firms that Am Law has covered so far and the year-over-year change in their revenue per lawyer (RPL) and profit per equity partner (PPEP):

(If you like, you can access this spreadsheet as a Google Doc here, which also allows you to sort the firms by the change in their RPL and PPEP.)

Of the 29 firms listed above, all posted increases in profit per partner, many of them well into the double digits. The highest figure so far, a 46.6 percent increase, was reported by Crowell & Moring (which led me to declare Crowell my Law Firm of the Week last week). But the firm had plenty of company, with eight other firms posting PPEP increases of 20 percent or more.

Now, the increases in profit per partner might be somewhat understandable, given how the pandemic and working remotely led to dramatic drops in many firms’ expenses, such as rent (in some cases), utilities, travel, and entertainment. And yes, some firms did engage in layoffs last year as well.

But revenue per lawyer, which industry observers generally regard as the better metric of law firm financial health (since it’s less subject to manipulation than PPEP), also increased for almost all firms — not as dramatically as PPEP, but still significantly. In recent years, RPL growth in the low single digits has been quite common in Biglaw; but last year, if these early numbers are representative of the whole, perhaps half of Am Law 200 firms enjoyed RPL growth of 5 percent or more in 2020.

In light of these robust revenues and profits, one can understand why law firms paid out “COVID bonuses.” Take Cooley, which kicked off the trend by announcing “appreciation bonuses” in September 2020. The firm posted PPEP growth of a whopping 25.4 percent in 2020. Had Cooley not paid out special bonuses, then reported PPEP growth in excess of 25 percent, it would have had a lot of unhappy campers among its associates and staff.

Congratulations to these firms on their strong performances in 2020. People like to say that lawyers are not good businesspeople, but clearly lawyers are doing something right. The ability of the legal sector to do so well during a period of great difficulty for many other industries is a testament not just to the talent and hard work of Biglaw lawyers and staff, but also to firm leadership. So the next time you encounter one of your firm’s leaders, perhaps in a Zoom town hall rather than in a hallway or conference room, thank them for successfully shepherding your firm through some very dark days.

What do these strong numbers mean for lawyers interested in lateral moves? They indicate that now is a safe time to transition to a new opportunity. Last spring, when the pandemic was at its peak, the economy was in a recession, and law firms were very worried about how they’d fare, it was a risky time to move; candidates feared moving to firms that might hit rough patches after their arrival, threatening their job security as associates or their practices as partners. But now that the economy is on the mend and law firms are not just surviving but thriving, it’s a good time to move to a firm where you’d be more fulfilled.

If you’re thinking about a possible move, please feel free to reach out to me or any of my colleagues to discuss possible opportunities. We look forward to hearing from you.

Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series of posts from Lateral Link’s team of expert contributors. This post is by David Lat, a managing director in the New York office, where he focuses on placing top associates, partners and partner groups into preeminent law firms around the country.

Prior to joining Lateral Link, David founded and served as managing editor of Above the Law. Prior to launching Above the Law, he worked as a federal prosecutor, a litigation associate at Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz in New York, and a law clerk to Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. David is a graduate of Harvard College and Yale Law School. You can connect with David on Twitter (@DavidLat), LinkedIn, and Facebook, and you can reach him by email at dlat@laterallink.com. You can also read more of his writing about law and the legal profession at his latest publication, Original Jurisdiction.

Lateral Link is one of the top-rated international legal recruiting firms. With over 14 offices worldwide, Lateral Link specializes in placing attorneys at the most prestigious law firms and companies in the world. Managed by former practicing attorneys from top law schools, Lateral Link has a tradition of hiring lawyers to execute the lateral leaps of practicing attorneys. Click here to find out more about us.

It seems almost axiomatic that, among the hundreds of federal district court judges, some are better at their job than others.  One possible measure of the quality of their work is the frequency with which their decisions are reversed on appeal.  A defining feature of our court hierarchy is that higher courts have the power to correct lower ones.  Thus, a reversal of a lower court decision means, in some sense, that the lower court judge made an error, the correction of which delayed the resolution of the case and incurred the considerable expense of an appeal. 

Drawing and expanding on the methodology described by Royce de R. Barondes in his 2010 essay Federal District Judge Gender and Reversals, I collected Westlaw Litigation Analytics Appeals reports for 1052 district court judges commissioned between 1989 and 2020.  After limiting to judges with at least 50 appeals in the Westlaw data and excluding extremely early decisions, some of which were likely appeals from state court decisions, I was left with 252,703 observations covering 877 judges.  Due to export limitations in Westlaw, one judge with more than 1000 observations was limited to the first 1000.  Following Barondes, “reversed” is defined as reversed, reversed in part, or vacated.  In this series of posts I will be exploring the dataset in a broad way. 

At the outset I should be clear that reversal rate is an imperfect proxy for quality.  Sometimes the district court decision was actually correct at the time, as when a lower court judge correctly applies a precedent which is then overturned on appeal.  And circuit courts make mistakes as well, hence such mechanisms as rehearing en banc and appeal to the Supreme Court.  However, only a small fraction of appellate decisions are appealed further and many of those are ultimately affirmed.  Still, we must recognize that a circuit court’s decision is not the “ground truth” and that not all reversals are equal (consider a complete reversal versus a reversal-in-part that affirms every substantive aspect of a case with only a minor change in the calculation of damages).

For scale, the histogram of the number of observations per judge:

We can see that there are some outliers with a large number of appeals, but overall this is a fairly typical half-normal distribution, as expected given that a judge cannot have fewer than zero appeals.  Here is the QQ plot against a half-normal distribution:

With that in mind, let us begin in perhaps the most obvious place: experience.  Do judges get better at their jobs over time?  First a histogram of the number of observations by the number of years since the judge’s commission.

(“Years Since Commission” is the number of years between the district judge’s commissioning and the date of the appellate decision.  I would prefer to use the date of the lower court decision being appealed, but that was not available in the Westlaw data.)

We see some positive skew here caused by the fact that judges leave the bench over time.  There is also a clear “startup” period from years 0-2 likely primarily due to the lag between cases progressing enough for a decision to be made and then again for an appeal to be made. 

Now we can get to the main question: How does the reversal rate vary with experience?

I have excluded the extremes of the data due to the small number of observations and small number of judges.  As Barondes found in 2010, there is a modest positive correlation between years on the bench and reversal rate, our case R2=0.133.  On its own this is not enough to show significance, but that will wait for a more complete model.

One reason why this is not enough to show significance is that experience does not exist in a vacuum.  Experience comes only with age, and age could also be associated with a change in reversal rates.  First, the number of observations by age:

We can see there is very little data outside of the 1st and 99th percentiles of age 45 and age 80.  Looking at the reversal rate by age shows a fairly clear relationship.

This could be caused by many factors: perhaps older judges making bolder decisions or feel more confident in disagreeing with established precedent or perhaps it reflects a loss of mental acuity.  It is well known that there are differences in aging between men and women, and this leads naturally to the question of whether there is a difference in reversal rates as well, both across time and in general.  For more on that, the next post in this series will focus on gender.

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Victoria Henige for asking the questions that led to this series of posts and Professor Lee Epstein for sharpening my thinking on it. 

Read more at The Juris Lab …

Paul Davis continues his wild march through the federal judicial system. After getting fired from the case where he asked a federal judge to replace the United States government with a government inspired by Lord of the Rings, he filed for legal fees for that stellar work. That seemed like it would be the final entry in the log of his winding trail from assistant general counsel at an insurance company to Capitol rioter to Tolkien legal scholar. But we were all wrong! He’s back and just filed a new temporary restraining order. There’s a whole lot less Gondor, but that makes it only marginally less wacky.

If at first you fail miserably…

Pursuant to the evidence and the provisions of the Constitution and the United States Code set forth herein, which conclusively and irrefutably establish current “Vacancies” in the offices of President, Vice President, all 435 House seats, and 33 Senators, the judicial power vested in this Court under Article III of the Constitution compels the shocking but logical conclusion that, because this Court is the only Article III federal court in the entire United States presented with the relief requested herein, this Court is now effectively in charge of the United States government, assuming entry of the Temporary Restraining Order, to which Plaintiffs are entitled, as follows.

We’re all here for the high comedy of this guy’s terrible legal arguments, but this paragraph is unintentionally chilling. Another district judge just struck down the federal eviction moratorium on the “comical if it weren’t so tragic” reasoning that rent is not an economic activity. This is what happens when a country spends four years packing the courts with unqualified hacks. But when you have a lawless judiciary, you really do have district judges “now effectively in charge of the United States government.”

Thankfully, none of these judges are ready to go all the way to outlawing the entire elected government. Yet. But as stupid as the arguments in these filings are, know that there was someone willing to walk into court and say that paying half your income to a landlord doesn’t constitute economic activity. The line between acceptable crazy and this motion isn’t as thick as you’d hope.

Davis takes the reader on a journey through rants about transgender people and how reducing reliance on foreign oil would increase terrorist attacks. There are a lot of references to how “clear” and “obvious” the evidence behind his dingbat theories are, proving that the old adage remains true — if you’re telling the judge how clear something is, that means it wasn’t clear.

How does he propose to fix this imagined injustice? Gone are the great Stewards of Gondor, instead we’re just shutting everything down:

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED THAT all members of the 117th Congress, Mr. Biden, Ms. Harris, who are in active concert with Congress, and all of their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, are restrained from exercising any and all executive and legislative power in a manner inconsistent with the laws, policies, and presidential executive orders that existed as of 11:59 am on January 3, 2021 (the “Status Quo Date”)…

That seems reasonable! He’s made carve outs for legislation that keeps the government functioning. I wonder what the Senate parliamentarian would consider under that edict?

And if the government passes something that Trump disagrees with, he’s given an opportunity to demand the court reverse it.

After entry of this Order, to the extent President Trump believes continued actions taken by the Executive Branch are contrary to the limits set by this Order, he may submit a motion to the court, not to exceed 10 pages, and may attach exhibits, to explain why the action being taken is contrary to this ORDER. The Executive Branch shall have an opportunity to submit a response within a time and of a length the Court determines to be reasonable under the circumstances. President Trump shall have an opportunity to file a reply to the response within a time and of a length the Court determines to be reasonable under the circumstances.

In retrospect, the Gondor idea wasn’t so bad.

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.

Gowling WLG is a ginormous international law firm — seriously, it has 1,400+ lawyers and 19 offices worldwide. You’d think someone at a firm that big would know that finding it noteworthy that a Black person was “very nice and extremely polite”  is incredibly problematic.

The firm asked employees what Black history means to them. The responses were shared, and yikestown…. the following quote was captured on a computer screensaver in Gowling WLG Canada:

“My daughter inspires me a lot. When she was younger, she often spoke of her friend Daniel”, read the quote. “One day, my husband and I attended an event at her school and finally got to meet Daniel. He was very nice and extremely polite; my grandmother would have said he was ‘well brought up.’ Never during the course of her friendship with Daniel did my daughter mention he was black. That night, I went to sleep with the hope that one day, race-based conflicts would forever be behind us.”

Notice how the quote centers the white experience — the writer’s ethnicity isn’t mentioned because it’s presumed to be white or at least in contrast to Black experience. Also, is the writer somehow shocked that a Black person is “well brought up?” What the hell. That the firm believes it’s noteworthy to highlight this quote seems massively telling.

Another message dug up as part of the campaign exclusively highlights Black culture and influence in the music and sports fields. Of course, there’s Black excellence in those industries, but when that’s the primary focus — particularly at a law firm which should be aware of, you know, the accomplishments of Black people in the LEGAL FIELD — the result merely reinforces stereotypical presumptions about Black people:

When the completely tone-deaf, racist dog-whistle hit social media, the firm was quick(ish) to issue an apology:

And as reported by Roll on Friday, the firm’s chair also made noises of contrition:

Andy Stylianou, Chairman of Gowling WLG UK LLP and the firm’s lead on diversity and inclusion, told RollOnFriday, “We are deeply sorry that a post that does not reflect our values appeared on an internal network in Canada yesterday”.

“Addressing systemic racism requires a collective effort and we actively encourage our colleagues to become allies” he said. “However, we recognise that we have more work to do to educate, upskill and empower them”.

RollOnFriday asked the firm whether Stylianou’s reference to “systemic racism” was an admission that Gowling WLG was racist, but a spokesperson clarified that he was “addressing systemic racism across society as a whole”.

Acknowledging the fuck-up is obviously the first step, but a lot more work and education needs to happen at Gowling WLG.

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).

There is a growing consensus: The stock transfer tax under consideration by the New York State Legislature would be a disaster. An end to New York City as we know it, because passing it would force every bank and hedge fund and financial services player to up and move to Palm Beach or Houston, permanently immiserating the capital of global capitalism. Everyone says this: the Atlanta-based New York Stock Exchange, the nominally Democratic governor’s nominally Democratic tax commissioner and, through its membership in the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, Goldman Sachs.

* A lawyer for Britney Spears’s dad defended her client’s role in Britney’s conservatorship. In other words: leave Britney’s dad alone! [Los Angeles Times]

* TikTok has reached a $92 million settlement to resolve a class action that alleged privacy violations by the platform. [Verge]

* The Washington Supreme Court has struck down a law that criminalizes the unintentional possession of drugs. [Seattle Times]

* A lawyer told a congressional committee that the Department of Justice and state attorneys general need more resources to fight Google in antitrust litigation. [Yahoo News]

* Prosecutors in Maryland are participating in a “Polar Bear Plunge” by jumping into the Chesapeake Bay to raise money for the Special Olympics. Please let this be the new “ice bucket challenge“! [Baltimore Sun]

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.

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

Texas’s September, in-person bar exam had a pass rate of 76.66 percent. What was the pass rate for the online October exam?

Hint: The pass rate took a hit in the rushed, online format (likely for a variety of reasons). But the applicant pool was roughly the same size at 1,037 candidates in September, and 1,116 for the remote October administration.

See the answer on the next page.

Do any other lawyers besides me read the cartoon strip Dilbert?

Scroll through some recent ones online on the website. They are hilarious and spot on about the vagaries of the corporate business world. Has anyone known a Catbert, the evil human resources director? What about the Pointy-Haired Boss? Ever known anyone like that? What about Wally, who carries around a cup of coffee while avoiding work? Have you known him? I’ve known them all.

Whether you’re a Dilbert fan or not (and you should be), Scott Adams, who pens Dilbert and worked at PacBell years ago, must eavesdrop on every single conversation and act that occurs in the corporate world. His strips hit close to home.

I think we practice law in a Dilbert world. Whether you are in Biglaw, in-house, or a firm of any size, Dilbert characters abound and not in a good way. Dilbert comic strips are mini-textbooks about how not to treat people at work. A recent strip about lack of positive reinforcement (self-promotion v. leadership) has prompted this rant.

When I was in-house, I was always amazed at the complete lack of management training that the client gave to employees when they were “promoted,” and I use that word as a term of art. Far too often the “promoted” employee was rewarded with more work, management responsibilities, and a salary increase that was so small that, after taxes and other withdrawals, there was bupkis left for the employee to celebrate beyond a trip to a fast-food restaurant (Dutch treat of course).

The problem was that the new “manager” did not know how to manage her staff in any way, shape, or form, and lack of management knowledge usually led to Catbert’s involvement, an ominous sign.

For those lawyers who think that an in-house position is Shangri-La, I will share a not-so-secret secret: In-house jobs are not what you think they are. Yes, some corporate law departments do not require timesheets (hooray for them) and that is definitely a perk.

However, there is little upward mobility, and colleagues who have such aspirations find themselves bumping up against a ceiling, not made of glass, but of concrete, and competing with others in the department with a similar mindset. Occasionally, one in-houser will break through, but it’s not that often, as promoting from in-house is not often done. (The CEO knows someone who knows someone who would be simply perfect for the position, which consists of herding cats and routine daily legal work, along with scooping litter left from bad decisions.)

One big, ugly task of managers is writing and giving performance evaluations. Whether you’re the evaluator or the evaluatee, it’s not fun. The employee thinks that he is doing just fine, that he shines at his job, that he has either made money for the firm or saved money for the company, or both, and that his performance is stellar. Catbert, the evil HR director, accompanies the manager to the evaluation meeting (for corroboration purposes, among other things), and the two of them wait to pounce on the unsuspecting employee who expects an evaluation well above average, a decent salary increase, and a good bonus.

To the contrary, the employee, once at the meeting, is handed a written performance evaluation that is not only not stellar, but just “meets expectations,” aka the “meh” evaluation. Talk about a disconnect.

The “meh” evaluation can take several forms:

1. The supervisor is new, just settling into her new position, and she doesn’t know enough about what the employee has done over the past year. Has she spoken with any of the clients about how the employee is doing? Has she done anything to inform herself about work product, and other things she could ask? Of course not.
2. The employee is doing his job, and so, of course he is meeting expectations, because if he weren’t, he’d be rated lower. Stack ranking anyone? Grading on the curve? Rank and yank?
3. Whose expectations? The manager? The department head? Have expectations ever been put in writing? Just what expectations need to be met to receive an “exceeds expectations” review?  Or a “walks on water” review? Employees would like to know how to succeed.

The issue of “sandbagging” — not the kind to prevent flooding — is the one that prompts the most complaints of unfairness from employees at evaluation time. The complaint is that no one ever told the employee that work was not up to what the manager wanted, that there was a failure to communicate those expectations. This setting forth of them should be a “sitdown” between manager and employee and not just an exchange of emails. It’s especially true when there’s a new manager and the employee previously received “walks on water” or “almost walks on water” reviews and now receives, for the first time, a “meh” review. Lawyers aren’t accustomed to being told that their work is less than stellar; our egos bruise easily.

The manager’s job is to let employees know how they are doing on a continuing basis, not just at the scheduled review time when salary increases and possibly bonuses are on the line. So, for those lawyers aspiring to achieve management positions wherever they are or wherever they might want to be, regardless of setting, understand that your responsibilities go beyond just making sure the work gets done for the care and feeding of clients. It’s also the care and feeding of attorney staff, the paralegals, the legal assistants, and everyone else who makes the legal world go round. Read Dilbert for management advice on what not to do, on how not to behave. Knowledge can come from the most unlikely sources.

Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.