Category: News Feeds

Technology is the linchpin of the United States’ response to the Covid-19 pandemic. But the growing use of digital solutions raises the complicated issue of ensuring individuals’ right to privacy.

Now, a group of Congressional Democrats have introduced a bill to address this concern.

The Public Health Emergency Privacy Act would set enforceable privacy and data security rights for health information amid the Covid-19 pandemic. It would ensure that data collected is strictly limited for use in public health, mandate that tech firms delete data collected once the public health emergency is over and explicitly prohibit the use of health data for discriminatory, unrelated or intrusive purposes.

Further, the bill would not allow medical information or contact tracing data to be used to prevent people from exercising their right to vote, and it would require regular reports on the impact of digital collection tools on civil rights, among other mandates.

U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Reps. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), and Suzan DelBene (D-Wash) introduced the bill. Co-signers include Democrats from the House and Senate.

The proposed bill has also been endorsed by advocacy groups like the Access Now, Electronic Privacy and Information Center and the Center for Digital Democracy.

“Our health privacy laws have not kept pace with what Americans have come to expect for their sensitive health data,” said Warner in a statement. “Absent a clear commitment from policymakers to improving our health privacy laws, as this important legislation seeks to accomplish, I fear that creeping privacy violations and discriminatory uses of health data could become the new status quo in healthcare and public health.”

Technology has been one of the most effective tools in the country’s collective arsenal against the Covid-19 pandemic. From contact tracing apps to providing digital access to vaccine records, technology is needed for nearly every aspect of the pandemic response.

But privacy and data security regulations for these technologies have remained in a grey area. The Department of Health and Human Services has said that entities covered under HIPAA are not liable for the subsequent use or disclosure of personal health information by a third-party app that a patient has agreed to give information.

Further, the HHS’ Office for Civil Rights said Jan. 19 that it will not impose penalties for violations of HIPAA “in connection with the good faith use of online or web-based scheduling applications” for making Covid-19 vaccination appointments.

These loose regulations combined with the fact that cybercriminal activity jumped in 2020 paints a concerning picture. More than half of healthcare cybersecurity professionals said that their organization experienced a phishing attack in the last year, and about 20% said their organization experienced a ransomware or other malware attack, according to a survey from the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society.

The newly proposed bill aims to build Americans’ trust in the health technologies being used during the Covid-19 pandemic.

“The Public Health Emergency Privacy Act is a critical bill that will prohibit privacy invasions by preventing misuse of pandemic-related data for unrelated purposes like marketing, prohibiting the data from being used in discriminatory ways, and requiring data security and integrity measures,” Eshoo, one of the bill’s authors, said in a statement. “The legislation will give the American people confidence to use technologies and systems that can aid our efforts to combat the pandemic.”

Photo: metamorworks, Getty Images

It’s been said that going to law school is like investing in the stock market. Some have even called it gambling. One can make a similar argument about any career choice. But law school is a riskier bet than most career choices because of its high cost, uncertain employment outcomes, and that the wrong choices can set you back financially for a very long time.

Since we are discussing investments and gambling, let’s examine what happened to GameStop last week. To give a very simplified explanation, a group of people on Reddit’s wallstreetbets figured out that certain hedge funds and wealthy investors bet that GameStop’s stock value would fall in the future. So they essentially borrowed GameStop stock, immediately sold it and were waiting for the stock price to fall so they could buy it back at the lower price. They would then return the stock and profit from the difference. This is known as “shorting.” The problem with this strategy is that if the stock price goes up, they can lose money. The risk of loss is unlimited because the stock price can go up indefinitely.

The wallstreetbets group coordinated a massive purchase of GameStop stock, thus driving up the price. Many of the investors have never seen anything like this before so some of them bought back the stock at the inflated price, thus taking a loss on their bet but before their losses got bigger. The problem is that by doing this, these investors have inadvertently joined the wallstreetbets buyers group, thus increasing demand even more and driving the stock price even higher.

This unprecedented event got the attention of mainstream media and even the government. And in a rare moment of bipartisan, racial, and socioeconomic unity, everyone got a good laugh seeing hedge fund managers complaining about not being able to purchase another ivory backscratcher. So when the average Joe saw this opportunity, they pulled their stimulus money out of their savings account generating 0.0000000001% interest and purchased GameStop stock at $300 and even $400 thinking it would “go to the moon.”

But what goes up must eventually come down. The hype subsided and GameStop stock which was recently valued at a high of $430 has now fallen to $90. This was likely because Robinhood, the stock trading app used by most of the buyers, prohibited and later restricted the purchase of GameStop stock. They claim that this move was necessary because due to the volatility in the stock market, their deposit and capital requirements have increased in order to cover any resulting losses. However, others have speculated that this move was done to avoid investigations and more regulations by the government. Some think that Robinhood did this to protect their rich hedge fund friends.

As a result, many who purchased GameStop stock at the peak price or close to it will face losing a lot of money unless something happens that makes the stock price increase again. It is likely that some of these people did not have a lot of money so they used borrowed funds which will have to be paid back. If they went all YOLO and borrowed a mountain of money, they could be in debt for a very long time.

Perhaps those who are on the fence about law school can learn some lessons from what happened last with the rise and fall (and maybe rise again) of GameStop stock.

First, timing is crucial. The people who made the most money from GameStop stock were the ones who got in early and did their research, although they didn’t see something like this coming. Those who later joined the bandwagon are now underwater and are hoping that there will be another rally. The speculation is all over the place. Some think that the stock value will rise again while others are saying game over now that the hedge funds know what’s up.

So if you are going to law school now, keep in mind that you won’t know what the job market will be like three years from now when you graduate. Your job options might be limited after your first-year grades. Make sure that you plan for every post-graduate scenario. You may have to change your plans depending on your grades and job opportunities.

Second, buy low. Most of the people who made money from GameStop stock bought in when the price was low. Even when the stock value tanked, they will still make some money. Before going to law school, don’t be afraid to negotiate tuition. I don’t understand why some people refuse to do this. Law schools do not owe you better grades just because you paid full tuition. Usually, it’s the other way around. Those who got academic scholarships are likely to get better grades and those who are paying full tuition will be subsidizing their privileged futures while they are on IBR for life. And don’t expect President Joe Biden to forgive your loans anytime soon. He knows you won’t vote Republican no matter what he does.

Don’t follow the bandwagon. If you are paying full tuition because you see lawyers driving Porsches, it doesn’t mean you will (or should). Some of these people are living paycheck to paycheck praying for the next high-paying client the same way those who purchased GameStop stock at the peak are hoping for the next rally.

Third, don’t overleverage yourself. Those who borrowed money to purchase GameStop stock will have to cash it out to pay it back. If they lost money, they will need a loan that can take years to pay back if the balance is high enough. Minimize student loans. Pay the accrued interest every year or it will capitalize and you will pay interest on that too. If you went all out and fully financed your tuition and the luxury apartment three blocks away, you could be repaying the loan for many years, even if you earn substantial income.

Law school can be seen as an investment — even gambling. The people at wallstreetbets found a way to exploit the system to benefit the little guy at the expense of hedge funds. I would love to see a similar exploit for law school tuition pricing. Maybe a law school’s incoming class can band together and demand a tuition reduction for everyone or threaten to go to another school or not attend at all. Even if 30% of the class were to participate, it can create substantial bargaining power. But until that exploit is found, you will need to hedge your bet by negotiating tuition and planning for all possible post-graduate outcomes.

---

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

If you need even more proof (and really, at this point, it should be obvious) that Biglaw firms with their treasure trove of high confidential information on all manner of clients are a target for cyber attacks, well, here you go. Goodwin Procter, a firm ranked No. 22 in the latest Am Law 100, recently found themselves dealing with the fallout of a cybersecurity breach.

According to a report at Bloomberg Law, one of the firm’s vendors that is used for large file transfers reported a hack. The firm’s managing partner, Mark Bettencourt, sent an internal memo outlining the scope of the issue:

Goodwin’s breach investigation revealed that a “small percentage” of the firm’s clients “may have experienced unauthorized access to or acquisition of confidential material” on Jan. 20, Bettencourt said. He said that potentially impacted clients were notified, and all of the firm’s clients were told about the breach.

Internally, “only a few Goodwin employees were affected,” and have been notified as well, according to the memo.

“At this time, we have found no evidence that any Goodwin resources were affected other than the file transfer service, and our business operations have not been affected,” said Bettencourt, whose memo said Goodwin had been running the most current version of the vendor’s service, conducting maintenance, and using security patches.

The whole ordeal shows just how important best practices — such as a quick response when bad things inevitably do happen — really are.

---

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).

It’s the first week of February, and in the neverending Groundhog Day that is the world of Biglaw, another firm has rolled out bonuses.

Remember back in September when the leadership at O’Melveny & Myers refused to pay out special fall bonuses, but instead said there would be “enhanced” bonuses for select associates and counsel in February 2021? The time has come, and bonus news has finally been announced. How did things turn out for associates at the best law firm to work for in America, as ranked by Vault?

As is their tradition, OMM announced bonuses via voicemail, so there’s no memo to share with everyone. But, we can confirm the firm is paying full market salary as well as associate appreciation bonuses. Here are both of those bonus scales, in case you’ve somehow forgotten what they look like.

Year-end Bonuses

• Class of 2019 – $15,000 bonus

• Class of 2018 – $25,000 bonus

• Class of 2017 – $50,000 bonus

• Class of 2016 – $65,000 bonus

• Class of 2015 – $80,000 bonus

• Class of 2014 – $90,000 bonus

• Class of 2013 – $100,000 bonus

Special Bonuses

• Class of 2019: $7,500

• Class of 2018: $10,000

• Class of 2017: $20,000

• Class of 2016: $27,500

• Class of 2015: $32,500

• Class of 2014: $37,000

• Class of 2013: $40,000

Associates who contacted us about the firm’s bonuses seemed generally pleased with the news. “O’Melveny announced bonuses, market rate for regular bonuses and a one time appreciation bonus that matches market as well,” said one of our sources. “What’s surprising is appreciation bonuses are not tied to hours. Now we wait to see how much the firm takes away as a result of draconian penalties for late time sheets.”

Now that would be truly cringeworthy. We await word on whether associates will actually receive market bonuses after these reported penalties, but for now, congratulations to everyone at the firm.

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.

Arrest this man for the murder of irony!

Atlanta ABC affiliate WSB-TV was first to report that attorney Lin Wood, who spent the past three months howling conspiracy theories about vote fraud in Georgia, is under state investigation for possible illegal voting in the 2020 election. The attorney is now a resident of South Carolina. But for exactly how long is unclear.

“I have been domiciled in South Carolina for several months after purchasing property in the state in April,” Wood wrote to WSB reporter Justin Gray. Gray, who broke the story, posted the message online yesterday.

Gray writes that the message prompted the Secretary of State to open an investigation, but neglects to mention exactly how election officials got their hands on it, or when. If election officials saw the 10am tweet and launched an investigation in time to confirm it for the 6 o’clock news, that would be… quick. Odds that Wood and his allies bring this up as evidence of a media conspiracy: 100 percent.

“Gray confirmed Tuesday that the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office has launched an investigation into whether Wood was eligible to vote in Georgia, whether he broke the law by casting his ballot and whether he was actually a Georgia resident,” Gray writes.

Wood, who was recently instructed by the State Bar of Georgia to undergo a mental health evaluation if he wanted to keep his license to practice law, voted early in October. He did not vote in the January runoff, which he characterized as illegitimate.

In an email to NPR, Wood wrote “I own properties in Georgia and South Carolina. I changed my resident [sic?] to South Carolina on February 1, 2021.” But the date of his official residency change may not be relevant under Georgia law, which specifies that, “If a person removes to another state with the intention of making it such person’s residence, such person shall be considered to have lost such person’s residence in this state.”

Counterpoint: Lin Wood says on Telegram that Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger is a “loser” who “is going to jail.”

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that Wood called in to a meeting of Republican bigwigs huddling up after the election to strategize about how to overturn the results.

According to two GOP insiders, the conference room at the Georgia GOP headquarters was crammed with a Who’s Who of the pro-Trump crowd seeking to undermine Georgia’s election. Among them was Donald Trump Jr. and state GOP chair David Shafer.

Lin Wood was not. He was on speaker phone. And the last item of the meeting’s to-do list involved arranging for a private jet to fly to South Carolina, pick him up and ferry him back to Georgia so he could help with the legal battle.

Spoiler Alert: Wood did not help with the legal battle. In fact, his antics appear to have depressed Republican turnout for the runoff and may have helped get Democratic Senators Warnock and Ossoff elected.

But we can’t help but notice that Wood filed two election cases asserting standing as a Georgia voter.

“As a qualified elector and registered voter, Plaintiff has Article III standing to bring this action,” he wrote in a November 13 complaint. (He didn’t.) And on December 18, he told the court, “Plaintiff L. LIN WOOD, JR. is sui juris and a resident of Fulton County, Georgia. He is a qualified, registered “elector” who possesses all of the qualifications for voting in the State of Georgia. Plaintiff voted in person during the Presidential Election and has or will vote in the runoff election in-person.”

(More like sui generis, TBH.)

Remember that December 18 filing? It was the one where he promised “plenty of perjury.”

Well. Yes. Hmmmmm.

EXCLUSIVE: Attorney Lin Wood under investigation over whether he voted illegally in November, officials say [WSB-TV]
Pro-Trump Election Conspiracist Lin Wood Under Investigation For Illegal Voting [NPR]
The Jolt: The Senate committee Ossoff and Warnock are not on [AJC]

---

Elizabeth Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

Tell us if you’ve heard this before.

I swear most surrogacy journeys don’t end in disaster. Or a complicated legal dispute. Most matches actually end with two very happy sides — the intended parents, who grow their families with a new addition; and the gestational surrogate, who is justly compensated and who is content knowing that she forever changed the lives of a family.

But as readers of this column know, the ways in which surrogacy can go sideways keep surprising us. I don’t know what Sarah Koenig, famed journalist and podcast host of Serial, is up to these days, but she should really check out this situation and let us know if Robert Park and the rest of the Omega crew are guilty — in this case of heinously defrauding families at their most vulnerable — or are, as they claim, mere victims themselves.

Over the past couple years, Omega Family Services (“Omega”) — or Lyfgro (pronounced like “Life Grow”), among other names that have been used — have been aggressively selling an insurance product called PregnancyCare to gestational surrogacy matching programs and their clients. The product looked promising and seemed to solve a major reoccurring problem in the surrogacy space. Promising enough that, according to numbers reported by Omega, around 700 hopeful parents purchased the PregnancyCare insurance policy to provide coverage for medical complications and delivery costs for pregnant gestational surrogates.

Too bad it all turned out to be a scam, leaving surrogates’ credit in danger and hopeful parents — many of whom suffered years of costly and painful fertility treatments before turning to surrogacy — on the hook for enormous medical bills.

It Looked Good. At First. 

One of the major obstacles for gestational surrogacy arrangements is finding insurance that covers the surrogate’s pregnancy and delivery healthcare costs. While many women who raise their hands to be surrogates already have health insurance, a large number of those policies have provisions specifically excluding any coverage for surrogacy pregnancies. Meaning the insurance is good for a surrogate’s own pregnancies, but not for a pregnancy where she is acting as a surrogate for someone else. As an alternative, many intended parents are able to find a surrogacy-friendly policy through the Affordable Care Act market — but those policies are only available to be purchased for the following year in the narrow few months of open enrollment, and, depending on the surrogate’s location, may not be available at all.

So in came PregnancyCare. While not cheap, at approximately $1,000 to $1,350 a month (premiums went up during the time the product was being sold), the policy promised to cover the surrogate’s pregnancy-related medical costs. Hurray!

Crumbling Bricks.

As what appeared to be a viable and not-outrageously-expensive option (compared to other private insurance options in the $30K and up range), PregnancyCare was popular. And the policy seemed to be working. At first. Claims were being paid.

Last fall, however, rumors started to swirl that PregnancyCare was no longer paying claims, and that it was cancelling policies. Indeed, with only nine days’ notice, PregnancyCare canceled all policies as of October 31, 2020 — an especially scary Halloween for policyholders. Omega Family Services subsequently filed for bankruptcy in California on December 23, 2020. A public hearing was held by Zoom on January 19, 2021, and, oh boy, was that an unusually popular bankruptcy hearing.

The Hearing.

At the hearing, Robert Park, one of the owners of Omega Family Services, the broker selling the PregnancyCare product, testified. But his testimony was evasive, to say the least. Omega’s bankruptcy reports showed that it had no assets. Like, literally nothing. Meaning nothing to be distributed to its many victims. Apparently all those monthly $1,000-plus premiums from 700 intended parents (so, you know, $700,000-plus a month) were going to Omega Insurance Company Segregated Portfolio, a Cayman Islands company. Probably. Despite Park also being a major shareholder in Omega Insurance, he refused to answer any questions that pertained to that entity, as the hearing was only for Omega Family Services. He also, interestingly, started out his statement implying that Omega Family Services was merely another victim of COVID-19.

That, no one buys.

Bankruptcy expert attorney Justin Leonard took the lead on questioning Park. Among his questions were several inquiries about monetary transfers from Omega Family Services to other Omega-ish entities. Park explained that the transfers were done to help with “cash flow” of the other entities. Hmm.

Were The Omega Guys Victims Themselves? 

In a December 2020  email titled “Update December” sent out by Omega Insurance (the Cayman entity) “To All Concerned Parties,” the company explained that PregnancyCare was licensed through a nationally admitted insurance carrier named State National “as they were given a contract purporting the same.” However, State National adamantly claims that they never had such a contract, and were never involved with the PregnancyCare product or any of the Omega companies.

Omega alleges that it relied on services from a captive insurance company consultant, Brandon White, of Ambassador Captive Solutions. And, in an what initially appeared to be unrelated (but now directly related) case in Kentucky with AIG, White has been accused of forging contracts. State National intervened in the AIG case upon learning that its name was being used in a number of insurance schemes. Those schemes included the “counterfeit policies issued to Omega Family Services” that “purport to provide medical coverage to family surrogacy services clients in the California area.” The Omega Insurance email to the concerned parties explained that “As a result of the dispute [the Kentucky case], State National immediately terminated our license and declined to continue licensing [PregnancyCare.] … The unique nature of PregnancyCare prohibited an alternative licensing agreement to be found in time to carry forward the insurance plan.”

But it wasn’t that State National “terminated” the license. There was never any relationship with State National to begin with. Of course, a key question is: who knew that? And when?

Insurance Economics Are Complicated.

I spoke with surrogacy insurance expert Sarah Paige of ART Risk Financial and Insurance Solutions. Paige explained that, she, too, was hopeful that PregnancyCare was a viable option, but to her the numbers on PregnancyCare raised some doubts. She noted that the average pregnancy costs $18,000. In addition to paying medical bills, a policy has to pay the costs of third-party administrators, claim processors, network access fees, brokerage, licensing, reinsurers, and any potential investors. And, importantly, unlike other insurance policies where only some percentage of members are likely to submit claims, this policy was specifically designed for and sold for use by surrogates, with, like, an expected 100% usage. But with trusted names in insurance like AXA, State National, and Lloyd’s of London being represented as backing the product, she understands why so many people — many after extensive research — were persuaded to purchase the policy.

The next Omega Family Services bankruptcy hearing is scheduled for February 18, 2021. Expect the plot to thicken again before the truth is eventually revealed.

---

Ellen Trachman is the Managing Attorney of Trachman Law Center, LLC, a Denver-based law firm specializing in assisted reproductive technology law, and co-host of the podcast I Want To Put A Baby In You. You can reach her at babies@abovethelaw.com.

* Whole Foods is facing a lawsuit alleging the retailer misled customers by calling a product “Honey Graham Crackers” when it actually wasn’t that healthy. Guess you do attract more flies with honey… [Fox News]

* A Florida lawyer has been disbarred for filming sexual encounters with inmates in jail. [New York Daily News]

* The Manhattan District Attorney is apparently investigating Stephen Bannon following his federal pardon by President Trump. [Washington Post]

* Check out a summary on all of the lawsuits faced by Robinhood over its decisions regarding GameStop stock. [Verge]

* A bank has repossessed a private plane owned by a San Antonio lawyer. Maybe he fought for the plane like it was the Alamo… [KSAT.com]

---

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!

Correctly spell the name of the country that Donald Trump served as the 45th president?

Hint: Lawyers for the former president filed a response to the House impeachment manager’s case with a pretty obvious typo. The editing snafu comes right after an Axios report revealed Trump thought Sidney Powell’s repeated misspelling of “district” in election case filings was “very embarrassing. That shouldn’t have happened.”

See the answer on the next page.