Category Added in a WPeMatico Campaign
Bonus News: At O’Melveny and Cooley.
Columbia Law School Changes Its Tune: It’s making progress on students’ mental health.
Impeachment Linguistic Fun! Well, maybe not ‘fun,’ but interesting nevertheless.
Biglaw Data Breach: At Goodwin.
Ed. Note: Welcome to our daily feature Trivia Question of the Day!
According to a new Law360 survey on Biglaw partner compensation, what percentage of respondents said they had their compensation slashed due to COVID-19?
Hint: Of those who said they got a pay cut, 87 percent said their overall compensation decreased by 10 or more percent as a result of COVID-19.
See the answer on the next page.
Legal professionals do not really have a uniform convention about titles and honorifics. Sometimes, attorneys use the title of esquire to refer to themselves and other lawyers, and I wrote an article a few years ago about some of the situations when lawyers should and should not employ this honorific. I received dozens of emails in response to that article, several of which conveyed various titles that lawyers often call other legal professionals in various parts of the country. In my experience, the term “counselor” is a great honorific to use when referring to other lawyers, and more attorneys should employ this title when referring to others within the legal profession.
The first time someone called me counselor was when I was in law school. Of course, the person using the term was just joking when he referred to me using this honorific since I was not yet a lawyer, but I kind of liked how this title sounded. Counselor seems like a friendly term that might be considered less pretentious than esquire, which might sound antiquated to some.
Moreover, counselor is preferable to esquire and other honorifics because it is far more descriptive about what attorneys actually do. In response to my prior article, several people emailed me with rationales behind why lawyers sometimes call each other and themselves esquire. Some said that it was because a squire apparently helped a knight in olden times, just like lawyers help clients in the present. This seems pretty attenuated and confusing.
However, an attorney is someone who provides counsel and guidance to clients. As a result, it is much more descriptive to refer to a lawyer as counselor than esquire and other similar titles. In addition, in some states, the official title of legal professionals describes them as being counselors. For instance, under New York law, lawyers are called “attorneys and counselors-at-law.” As such, in the Empire State and other locations that have similar titles, referring to a legal professional as counselor is just a descriptive way to refer to a lawyer.
Using this descriptive honorific can have a number of positive benefits in legal practice. For one, calling other lawyers counselor can increase congeniality among attorneys. As legal professionals are abundantly aware, lawyering is often an adversarial profession. Whether attorneys represent clients in litigation or transactional matters, lawyers often need to butt heads in order to promote their clients’ interests.
However, attorneys usually need to have rapport and compromise in order to achieve the best outcomes for their clients. The vast majority of lawsuits settle without ever being resolved by a jury, and transactional matters often require give and take that is much easier if attorneys get along. Calling adversaries and other lawyers with whom you interact counselor can go a long way toward de-escalating issues and building a rapport among attorneys. Most lawyers appreciate being called this honorific, and when this title is being used, it usually conveys that the person saying the honorific isn’t a jerk even though they may need to be adversarial against another lawyer. As a result, calling attorneys counselor and extending other courtesies can go a long way toward helping attorneys achieve the most success possible for their clients.
Calling other attorneys counselor also goes a long way toward increasing the profile of the legal profession. As mentioned in a prior article, I recently watched all the episodes of the Australian legal show Rake, and even though the practices and procedures in Australia are different from the United States, the show is still very interesting. The show depicts lawyers calling each other their “friend” or “sister” or “brother” in court, purportedly to demonstrate how the legal industry is a dignified profession and people will be given baseline courtesies because they too practice law. I know in certain parts of the country it is common to use similar phrases in court, but in New York and New Jersey, I rarely see this. Frankly, it seems kind of weird to call another lawyer “brother” or “sister” even though they too are members of the bar (and one of my brothers is actually my law partner!). However, calling attorneys counselor is an easy, gender-neutral way to add more dignity to practicing law.
More judges can also call attorneys counselor in the courtroom. It is always appreciated when judges use this title when referring to lawyers, since it shows that respect goes both ways in a courtroom. Judges almost always practiced law before ascending to the bench, and they should understand the struggles that lawyers face when dealing with clients and earning a living. Judges can recognize the tribulations of attorneys by calling them a title rather than Ms. or Mr. so and so. Many judges do call lawyers counselor, but other judges do not use this honorific. However, judges can improve the profile of the legal profession and perhaps even advance decorum in the courtroom by using this title to describe attorneys who appear before them.
Of course, there are many practical reasons for using the term counselor. Sometimes in court, it can be difficult to tell who an attorney is and who is an assistant, witness, or other participant of litigation. Using the word counselor makes it clear who the attorney is on a team. In any case, using the term counselor benefits attorneys, and more lawyers should use this honorific when referring to other attorneys.
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.
EA Sports will not be coming out with a new college football video game in 2021, but the company has promised that such a game is in the works. It will be released “at some point,” per EA Sports Vice President Daryl Holt and, as of now, the plan is to launch the game without any players’ names, images, or likenesses.
Why is EA Sports ready to bring back the college football franchise after a hiatus of more than eight years? There are a couple of explanations.
First, EA Sports was able to enter into an agreement with CLC, which is the licensing division for Learfield IMG College. It provides EA Sports with the ability to utilize the intellectual property of more than 100 teams. That was certainly a prerequisite to today’s announcement.
Second, EA Sports is reading the writing on the wall and is likely taking the approach that there will be an eradication to the NCAA’s current prohibition on college athletes commercially exploiting their names, images, and likenesses by the time that a game is available for ordering. EA Sports can take the approach that it has the ability to create and sell a game with players who do not resemble the real-life athletes at universities across the country but, in reality, it is well aware that it needs to create virtual athletes who have the same or similar attributes as their real-life counterparts.
Therein lies a legal dilemma for EA Sports. Create a game that includes virtual players who look and feel nothing like the real players on a team, and consumer interest will be lost. Launch a game with players who are nameless, but are as heavy and tall as their real-life equivalents, are of the same race, and wear the same jersey number, and it will cause a frenzy among consumers itching for a return to EA’s college football franchise, but also opens the door to exposure for misappropriation of athletes’ publicity rights.
That is why group licensing remains an important piece to making this a successful reintroduction of the college football video game for EA Sports. It is also why nothing less than action by Congress or the NCAA will be sufficient for EA Sports to acquire these important licenses. EA Sports would need to contract with individual players, starting with Florida athletes as of July 1, 2021, unless publicity rights are granted for college athletes across the nation. That is neither feasibly nor manageable.
But EA Sports may have a problem with anything less than action by Congress. The NCAA has previously taken the public position that it is not in favor of permitting group licenses of athletes’ names, images, and likenesses. If the NCAA does not change its stance, then EA Sports could also be lobbying Congress for a law that places no limitation on group licensing, allowing EA Sports to push forward with a game that EA Sports, consumers, and the college athletes will benefit from. It would be about time.
Darren Heitner is the founder of Heitner Legal. He is the author of How to Play the Game: What Every Sports Attorney Needs to Know, published by the American Bar Association, and is an adjunct professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. You can reach him by email at heitner@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter at @DarrenHeitner.
Kinetic ASATs would create enormous amounts of dangerous space debris. National Space and Intelligence Center image
WASHINGTON: The Pentagon has long professed its commitment to ‘responsible’ behavior in space, but has never clearly articulated what that means in either peace or war. This year that may change.
What’s changed? Britain sponsored a a UN resolution charging member nations to make clear their views on both what milspace actions by others they see as threatening and what they consider to be acceptable during peacetime. The Trump Administration supported it. The resolution’s goal is to reduce risks of misunderstandings and miscalculations that can lead to, or escalate, conflict, UK Ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva Aidan Liddle told the Secure World Foundation in December.
“The United States supported a resolution adopted in the United Nations General Assembly on December 7, 2020, on reducing space threats through norms, rules and principles of responsible behaviors. The Department of Defense will be working closely with the Department of State as the United States works with other countries to realize the objectives of that resolution,” Air Force Lt. Col. Uriah Orland, a spokesperson for the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), said in an email.
The initiative is significant — and distinct from the UN initiatives launched during the Obama era and finalized in 2019 to cobble together a voluntary set of best practices for space operators negotiated at the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space in Vienna — because it specifically addresses military uses of space.
Responses from the US and other nations are required by May, a UN expert said, so they can be integrated into a report by Secretary General António Guterres by the end of August. That will be reviewed by the 193 UN members during the annual October meeting of the UN’s First Committee, which deals with international peace and security issues.
Further, the UK — likely backed by a number of other US allies including Canada — is expected to try to convince other nations to begin a more formal UN process to reach agreement around a set of ‘hard security’ norms. It remains unclear, however, how Russia and China, who long have rejected all efforts but their proposal for a legally binding treaty, will respond.
It shouldn’t be that hard to come up with a voluntary framework for milspace rules, one former US government official involved in space issues said with obvious frustration: “We just need to agree to not do stupid stuff in space.”
For example, the source said, ‘stupid stuff’ would include using destructive antisatellite (ASAT) weapons that would create mass quantities of space debris — something senior space-savvy military leaders, such as Gen. John Hyten, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have long said the US does not want to do.
Further, the military has to make clear what it believes it needs to be able to do with military force to prevail in a future conflict in space. This means going further than boilerplate language about achieving ‘space superiority,’ or about abiding by the Geneva Conventions and the laws of armed conflict, experts say.
“What’s the role of the Space Force in all this, now that it’s stood up?” said one former DoD official with a long space-related pedigree. Space Force and Space Command, the source said, need to publicly articulate: ‘here’s how we fight and win, kill people and break things in space. That’s what they’ve got to do, and they’ve studiously avoided that so far.”
Decades of dithering
But defining military space norms for peacetime or wartime has defied legions of US policymakers and military leaders for some 40 years.
“It’s been decades of not doing that” for space, the former DoD official stressed, in contrast to the nuclear arena, where the US long ago worked out clear concepts for maintaining stability and deterrence vis-a-vis nuclear peer competitor the Soviet Union. “We don’t have the same kind of conceptual foundation for how we get to some kind of stability in this [space] environment.”
This can be traced to a whole host of reasons, according to former and current DoD officials, space policy analysts, and experts on international security, including:
“In space, we over-classify everything. And we don’t come up with that structured layered approach for how we deal with things,” Hyten told the National Security Space Association (NSSA) on Jan. 22. “Deterrence does not happen in the classified world. Deterrence does not happen in the black; deterrence happens in the white.
“We need to decide what we want to have to deter our adversaries. And then, God forbid, if conflict ever happened someday, what do we need in order to win in conflict with our adversaries,” the general said. “And those are two different things. We’ve lumped those things together as one, and think they’re the same thing. They’re not.”
DoD leaders simply have not studied how longstanding concepts of deterrence — developed by by the likes of futurist Herman Kahn and legendary game theory pioneer Thomas Schelling — can and should be applied in space, the former US government space official said.
For example, many DoD writings — such as the 2018 Joint Doctrine Note on Strategy (JDN 1-18) — focus heavily on the ability to punish an adversary using military force but fail to articulate the accompanying principle of ‘assurance’ for providing adversaries (and not just reassuring allies) proof that if they refrain from provocative behaviors they have something to gain.
“The understanding of what deterrence is has been misinterpreted, reinterpreted, run through a ringer, chopped up and turned into a hamburger. I mean, it’s just that nobody there [at DoD] seems to understand what it means exactly,” the former USG official said.
Up to now, this source explained, DoD has not formulated firm policies and courses of action for what signals need to be consistently and publicly sent to adversaries about what the US sees as verboten; how to create resiliency in space systems if deterrence fails; and what should be the set of gradually escalating capabilities to impose costs on countries who break the rules.
That lack of agreed DoD positions in turn leads to a tendency for officials to “just say no” to everything because they can’t agree, another former senior DoD official said.
Trump Administration Changes
To be fair, a number of sources note, under the Trump administration reversed years of silence — based on fears of revealing US intelligence gathering capabilities — about growing Russian and Chinese milspace capabilities. (The exception proving the rule being the loud protests regarding China’s 2007 antisatellite missile test, which of course was obvious to anyone with a high-end telescope).
Space Force chief Gen, Jay Raymond last April ripped the Russians for their most recent test of the ground-based Nudal ASAT missile; and in July cried foul over a test of the Cosmos 2543 satellite that ejected a secondary payload the US characterized as a “projectile.” He has been followed by a chorus of DoD leaders.
Such criticism is part of US “messaging” about what it considers “irresponsible” milspace behavior, Space Command (SPACECOM) head Gen. James Dickinson told the Mitchell Institute last week. “Through that particular avenue, you can kind of deduce or see what we consider [responsible vice irresponsible] norms of behavior,” he said.
He cautioned, however, to have a fulsome US approach, “it’s going to take some while … And it’ll be more of a whole of government approach.”
Dickinson makes a fair point, experts say. As emphasized in the 2020 National Space Policy, it is the State Department which has the lead for developing a US stance on space norms. That is, of course, as it should be with all diplomatic initiatives — but insiders say the National Space Council wanted to foot-stomp that message due to concerns that State wasn’t being properly supported and other agencies were moving to fill the vacuum.
While DoD doesn’t have the ultimate say in international policy development, an internal DoD agreement on space rules would be helpful in interagency discussions, experts say. For one thing, just as the Navy had to first work out how US and Russian nuclear submarines should interact (or not) under the high seas before any accords were signed, Space Force leaders have to determine how military satellites should interact (or not) on orbit before international agreements can be reached.
Indeed, Dickinson noted that one of his J5 (plans and policy) staff is “a submariner” — and that “we often have discussions where we we apply the maritime model to what we’re trying to do in space.” But, he added: “How long did it take us to establish norms of behavior or standards within the maritime domain? The answer to that is, it takes time.”
Several sources also noted that during the Trump administration, the OSD space policy shop — led by Steve Kitay until August, when he was replaced by acting undersecretary Justin Johnson — did launch an attempt to gather DoD stakeholders to develop a baseline framework for delineating responsible from irresponsible behavior. Participants included SPACECOM, Space Force and even the NRO; but no public document has been released.
Further, it is not clear how or whether the Biden administration will continue the effort — given the fact that it will take time for the White House to put in place the DoD principles responsible. Biden has named David Zikusoka as special assistant at the DoD office of space policy to handle the transition, but not someone to fill the top-level job of DoD assistant secretary for space policy.
That said, there is every reason to expect that Biden’s DoD will be supportive of norm setting. Indeed, deputy defense secretary-nominee Kathleen Hicks told the Senate Armed Services Committee in her written answers to questions prior to her hearing today that norms are part of any strategy to help reduce threats to US space systems. “It is essential to continue developing best practices, standards, and norms of behavior in space in order to deter threatening behavior and uphold the rights of all nations to use space responsibly and peacefully,” she wrote.
On the other hand, insiders and experts said, the lack of any substantive US proposals on milspace rules over many years can be laid squarely at the feet of the defense establishment. This is because national security officials, whether civilian or military, have been loathe to close off any future options for military response to adversary actions in space.
This is despite the fact that the US has signed a number of agreements, even legally binding treaties, that limit military options in other domains — such as the Biological Weapons Convention, or the US-Soviet Incidents at Sea agreement. In fact, as many experts point out, a decision to keep all options open is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. It also imposes lost opportunity costs regarding options to solve issues before they become problems requiring military response.
Further, as Secure World Foundation’s Brian Weeden and Victoria Samson noted in an op ed back in May, the primary motivation for the new DoD openness about foreign threats to space systems doesn’t really seem to be aimed at norm setting. Instead, the impetus for the strong rhetoric about Russian and Chinese programs seems to be “because talking publicly about space threats helps reinforce the narrative that the United States needs both U.S. Space Command and the U.S. Space Force to combat counterspace threats.”
In other words, it’s good PR for the two new organizations to shore up support from the US public, and more importantly, Congress (which has the power of the purse.)
I have a barrister bookcase, one of those with the glass doors that swing up and open. On the top shelf sits a little bronze sculpture. It depicts a colonial-era minuteman standing next to a framed and embossed copy of the Second Amendment, right above the NRA logo. A tiny plaque screwed to the wooden base contains my name and apparent status as a lifetime member.
I keep that statue to remind me that anyone can be indoctrinated into believing nonsense. If you’ve been following this column since the beginning, you know that I’m among the 14 percent of Americans who own an unhealthy number of guns. Where I grew up, guns are a part of life. Children are taught marksmanship (as a teenager, I twice shot competitively at the Wolf Creek shooting sports facility built for the Atlanta Olympics). Guns, in rural America, are viewed as important, necessary, and fundamental to life itself.
For a long time, I believed that, even as I voted Democrat. In my early 20s, I dished out $500 to the NRA to become a life member. At that time, to me, it felt like the NRA was about hunting, comradery with other people who enjoyed an outdoor lifestyle, and educating young people about gun safety.
I was blind to the toxicity festering in the NRA even then, but things really started to devolve quickly after the federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004. People in the gun community scrambled to horde all the newly available high-capacity magazines. I joined in without really even knowing why. I didn’t ask what legitimate need I could possibly have to pop off more than 10 rounds at a time, one right after another. The AR-15-style rifle, once rare, something that would have looked foreign and out-of-place at a civilian shooting range, skyrocketed in popularity. The number of firearms manufactured annually in America nearly quadrupled over 12 years.
Meanwhile, America suffered mass shooting after mass shooting. The NRA’s solution was always more guns, but NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre struck a particularly absurd tone after Sandy Hook. My disillusionment with the gun subculture grew. I started reading about how Australia successfully addressed its mass shooting problem after Port Arthur. I read about many other countries where gun control worked, most of them still allowing for sportsmen like me to go right on hunting with, well, hunting rifles and shotguns rather than with the military weaponry flooding into American homes. I watched Jim Jefferies. The increasingly hysterical flyers and emails begging for more donations to the NRA and warning of impending gun control measures that never actually materialized kept coming, but fell flat. If you dug into any credible information source that was not the NRA itself or one of its many allies in disinformation on the right, it became very clear disturbingly quickly that everything the NRA was saying was ridiculous, utter bullshit.
I got rid of my AR-15. I got rid of my 9mm Glock. I let my permit to carry expire. I was a member of an organization whose primary function was spewing falsehoods. I had grown to despise the NRA. That is what happens when you finally realize you have been fed at a trough of lies your whole life. The NRA’s lies successfully extracted money from me, so that money could be squandered on a high-end lifestyle for its executives, and used to spread more lies to other people. I was infuriated.
For some reason, though, it took me a long time to cut the cord on that lifetime membership. One reason, I suppose, was the byzantine methodology — I eventually learned, after sending many emails that went unanswered, that under NRA Bylaws, Article III, Section 10, I had to send a physical letter to an address in Virginia to renounce my membership. Which I finally did, far too late, really, after a new wave of disgust hit me following the 2017 Las Vegas massacre.
I don’t think I’ll ever give up on guns completely. There are few settings in which I really feel at peace these days, but drifting down the river in our canoe, on a warm fall day, hunting ducks with my dad, is among them (with shotguns plugged to hold only three rounds, if you were wondering, because the law is designed to give waterfowl the sporting chance against a gun that the law doesn’t bother to give concertgoers or schoolchildren).
Even short of complete abstinence, guns will never again be an unhealthy obsession for me. I’ll never own another gun that was designed to allow a shooter to kill a large number of people very quickly. I’ll never waiver from the conviction that in the 21st century, if we are dissatisfied with our government, we vote, we don’t form an armed militia. The NRA will never get another dime from me, and if that organization crumbles under pressure from the New York Attorney General or falls to the internal corruption and graft at its center, I will cheer. I will always hold out hope that the loved ones still seduced by the gun lobby’s lies can someday do what I did: escape.
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.
(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
No lawyers or professionals at our firm are in any way consulting with Mr. Giuliani about his legal fees. The firm and Mr. Giuliani parted ways in May 2018, he is neither a client nor an employee, nor affiliated in any way with the firm.
— a statement from Greenberg Traurig, denying any association with its former partner, Rudy Giuliani, after he claimed in a press interview that one of his associates had consulted with the Larry Levy, a partner at the firm, about the fees he should charge former President Donald Trump for his post-election litigation.
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.
What does the Constitution really say about impeachment? It’s not crystal clear, but what is obvious is that some people claiming to divine the “plain meaning” have already reversed themselves making you wonder just how “plain” these meanings can be. Meanwhile, the Biglaw revolving door or lack thereof continues to spin for former administration officials. Stepping away from the political scene, we have Biglaw partners attacking associates and a frank conversation about what it means to be an effective lawyer-manager.
It was only a few days ago that we were telling you how stress and mental health issues were going through the roof at Columbia Law School — and students said the administration was making the situation worse by doing things like enforcing a strict grading curve, eliminating reading week, and shortening the academic calendar. But despite a blizzard in the intervening time, tipsters at the law school say the admin has already made strides to help alleviate the pressure cooker students find themselves in this semester.
The good news — and it’s really good news — is that Dean Gillian Lester has responded to the, admittedly harsh, criticism thrown her way in a productive way, and seems dedicated to making real changes to help improve the material conditions for law students. If you’ll recall, the CLS Student Senate had a petition with specific demands like doing away with the shortened academic calendar, getting back a reading week, and making study space available for students taking exams. After a meeting with the administration on Tuesday, the Student Senate reports significant progress on a number of the issues:
You can check out the Student Senate’s full report on the progress of all of the demands on the next page.
The dean also sent around an email (available in full here), acknowledging:
Hearing from you, reading your posts, and listening to your stories, I feel deep empathy for you in recognition of the hardships you have experienced. I want you to know that I hear you, and that is weighs heavily on me how difficult this year has been for so many of you. To help alleviate these burdens, the Law School, working in partnership with the Student Senate, is making several immediate structural changes this spring.
Which also provided a thorough update on the changes at the law school. Tipsters report students are pleased with the developments so far, and are hopeful there’ll be improvement on the the issues — like the strict curve — remaining.
Law school is challenging under the very best of circumstances, and adding in a global pandemic is sure to make it even worse. It’s good to see the law school is — finally — doing what it can to make it more bearable for students.
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).
Back in September, one of the top-ranked Biglaw firms in the country started a trend that would rock the industry in terms of 2020 associate compensation.
Cooley — a firm that brought in $1,329,329,000 gross revenue in 2019, placing it at No. 23 on the latest Am Law 100 ranking — announced that it would be offering special appreciation bonuses to its associates for all of the hard work they put in during the especially trying times that were created by the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time, the firm’s bonuses ranged from $2,500 to $7,500, and associates were thrilled by the good news. Then, Davis Polk got involved and offered special bonuses that completely blew the Cooley numbers out of the water — and the rest of Biglaw followed, matching the new $7,500 to $40,000 range left and right as part of their year-end bonuses.
For a while there, it seemed as if Cooley was going to leave its associates hanging, as the firm remained silent on whether it would cover the difference between its original bonuses and the DPW bonuses that became the prevailing market standard.
Cooley has finally decided to speak up, and lo and behold, associates at the firm will be getting a second installation of special bonuses that will bring them up to market rates. Check out the new Cooley bonus scale, below:
All those eligible for these additional appreciation bonuses at Cooley will receive them on February 12. Congratulations to everyone at the firm!
(Flip to the next page to see the full memo from Cooley.)
Remember everyone, we depend on your tips to stay on top of important bonus updates, so when your firm matches, please text us (646-820-8477) or email us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Matches”). Please include the memo if available. You can take a photo of the memo and send it via text or email if you don’t want to forward the original PDF or Word file.
And if you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Bonus Alerts (which is the alert list we also use for salary announcements), please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the bonus alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each bonus announcement that we publish. Thanks for all of your help!
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.