Category: News Feeds

Since its founding in 2002, SCOTUSblog has developed into the preeminent source for Supreme Court news, commentary and research. In 2012, when the Supreme Court handed down its opinion on Obamacare, the blog had more than 900,000 concurrent readers. It has received the ABA’s Silver Gavel award, the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media, and various other honors.

Lawyers Tom Goldstein and Amy Howe, also husband and wife, founded SCOTUSblog as a way of marketing their fledgling Supreme Court practice. As it increased its coverage of the court, the blog in 2004 brought on Lyle Denniston, a veteran journalist who had covered the court since 1958. He retired from SCOTUSblog in 2016.

During the Denniston years, cofounder Howe served as editor of SCOTUSblog, When Denniston retired, she became the blog’s principal reporter, covering the day-t0-day activity of the court, as well as writing for her own blog, Howe on the Court.

Yesterday, for the LexBlog program This Week in Legal Blogging, I interviewed Howe about the blog’s founding, its early years, and its operations today.

On Oct. 7, 1885, a 16-year-old boy from Kallstadt, a small wine-growing village in what was then Bavaria, boarded ship in Bremen, bound for New York. Like his future grandson, Friedrich Drumpf was doing what it took to avoid military service. Striking out for the West Coast, the man now calling himself Frederick Trump earned a small fortune in hooch, whoring and hotels before returning to his native land to take a wife. He resumed his innkeeping back in New York shortly thereafter, but his wife was not taken in by the charms of der Große Apfel, and they moved back to Germany. Unfortunately for the couple and the world, the erstwhile Drump’s draft-dodging had not gone unnoticed, and Fred and the pregnant Elizabeth were chased out of the country and back to this one.

I have been tracking social media trends and sharing my thoughts on how they will impact lawyers for more than a decade now. One of my first articles about lawyers and social media, “Can Lawyers Afford to Ignore Social Media?” was from November 2008. In it I urged lawyers to pay attention to social media: “Knowledge is power. Smart practitioners will choose to learn about and appreciate the effect of emerging and affordable technologies upon the practice of law.”

Two years later, a book that I co-authored with my fellow Above the Law columnist, Carolyn Elefant, was published by the American Bar Association. In Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier, Carolyn and I provided an overview of the the most important social media platforms existing at the time (including LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook) and explained how and why lawyers should participate on them.

Since that time, I haven’t found any of the new social media platforms to be particularly useful for lawyers — until now that is. That platform is Clubhouse, and I’m really excited about it because I believe it holds incredible promise for lawyers.

If you’re not already familiar with it, Clubhouse is an audio chat platform that is available as an iOS app and is invite only for now. It consists of user-created drop-in audio chat rooms. You can form your own chat room or join rooms created by others. These chat rooms can be created spontaneously or scheduled ahead of time. Topics run the gamut, and there’s something for everyone no matter what your areas of interest.

When you create a room, you’re the moderator and appear on the virtual “stage” along with any other users you’ve invited to be on the stage with you. And when you enter rooms created by others, you enter as a participant and are automatically muted, while those on the stage are able to speak. But you can raise your hand to indicate that you have a question or would like to contribute, and if you’re added to the stage by the moderator, you’re able to speak and share your thoughts on whatever topic is being discussed.

Clubhouse is very active, and there are always lots of chat rooms open at any given time. Some are scheduled for a set time, such as an hour, while others have no time limit. In fact, some chat rooms have gone on for days. No matter the format, you can come and go from any room as you please — with the click of a button you can quietly exit a room if you decide you’ve had enough. To learn more about the ins and outs of Clubhouse, check out this post.

The reason Clubhouse is such a good fit for lawyers is because it’s a great way to showcase your expertise, connect with professional colleagues who might be potential referral sources, and generate exposure for your law firm. The app provides ample opportunities to accomplish all of these goals — it’s simply a matter of learning more about how the app works and then using it strategically.

And best of all, it’s offers a format that is comfortable and familiar to most lawyers. If you’re the moderator of a chat session, it feels as if you’re leading an informal CLE of sorts. And for many lawyers, sharing information verbally is a much better fit than communicating in writing via a blog or by video on YouTube. Notably, audio chat is less formal than writing, and with chat there’s no pressure to create a professionally produced video — or to be perfectly groomed and dressed every time you interact. Instead it’s a decidedly more informal format that is perfect for lawyers seeking to showcase their expertise and share their knowledge.

Lawyers do this in a number of ways on the app. For example, some lawyers host open chats where users are invited to join and “ask a lawyer (or lawyers) a question.” Other host chats that focus on a specific topic related to their practice area(s), such as “talk to a lawyer about protecting your copyright” or “immigration laws and you.” Another option is to join a chat that is focused on one of your areas of expertise and then ask to be added to the stage by raising your hand so that you can provide your input.

No matter how you get onto the stage, whenever you speak in a chat room, the other participants in the event will inevitably click on your profile to learn more about you, thus providing exposure for you and your law firm. They may also then choose to connect with you, or you can choose to request to connect with others in the room.

Once you’ve connected with someone, you’re offered a number of different ways to interact, engage, and amplify each other’s expertise on Clubhouse. This is because when you’re connected with someone on Clubhouse, they will often ping you to invite you to a room that they think might interest you or add you as a speaker to chat they’ve scheduled. Additionally, you’re able to click on a user’s profile and see what room they’re in, and you can then join them in the room if it’s up your alley.

Another reason I really like this app is because the flexibility and convenience offered by Clubhouse can’t be beat. You can hop on the app whenever you have downtime throughout the work day, or during lunch or after hours. No matter when you decide to interact, it’s a great way to make the most of a short break and engage in some quick, one-off networking.

And last, but not least, you can also explore interests outside of work, whether you’d like to learn more about a newfound hobby, engage in a deep-dive discussion about a recent political occurrence, or discuss the latest movies. No matter what you’re interested in, you’ll likely find it being discussed on Clubhouse.

I look forward to seeing you on Clubhouse soon! And if you already belong to Clubhouse, make sure to catch a talk I’m hosting with my co-author, Carolyn Elefant, and other lawyers with social media know-how: “Clubhouse for lawyers: The Next Frontier?” It’s scheduled for Thursday, January 14, at 4 p.m. ET. Hope to see you there!

---

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney and Director of Business and Community Relations at MyCase, web-based law practice management software. She’s been blogging since 2005, has written a weekly column for the Daily Record since 2007, is the author of Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York. She’s easily distracted by the potential of bright and shiny tech gadgets, along with good food and wine. You can follow her on Twitter at @nikiblack and she can be reached at niki.black@mycase.com.

* A Supreme Court advocate mentioned a case involving Taylor Swift at oral arguments recently. Bet that advocate hopes the justices don’t shake it off… [TMZ]

* An attorney who represents a client in connection with acts allegedly committed during the Capitol riot last week is placing blame for the event on President Trump. [NBC News]

* Amazon had some harsh words for Parler after the social media site filed a lawsuit against Amazon over a suspension of services. [Fox News]

* A Stanford Law professor, and legal ethics expert, has passed away at the age of 68. [Washington Post]

* Mary-Kate Olsen’s lawyer says her divorce has been “resolved.” Is she certain? Pretty sure “it takes two” but now she can move in with Uncle Jesse… [Vulture]

---

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!

How many federal officers in total have been impeached? Though, as of today, Donald Trump has been impeached twice, only count him once for purposes of this question.

Hint: Federal judges make up the lion’s share of this country’s impeachments.

See the answer on the next page.

A few days ago, the New York Times published this excellent piece on the pandemic-induced shortage of sperm and the rise of “sperm kings” — men putting themselves out there, way out there, through the internet and other means, to widely offer their sperm to those looking to conceive. One of the sperm kings featured in the article was a guest on the podcast I co-host, back in 2019. Although the article didn’t mention it, I will go ahead and throw out there that “Kyle Gordy” is not the gentleman’s real name. (There was some skepticism as to the truth of his story, as well as his intentions, and in a rare request for a guest on the podcast, he was asked to undergo a background check. Good news. No criminal record to speak of, ladies.)

Given the numerous scandals with various sperm banks, as well as the new shortage of supply, it’s no wonder that those hoping for a family (but missing a key ingredient) are turning to such gray-market sources. For those considering such a route, I say, buyer (or donation recipient) beware! Here are the top three legal problems with sperm king donor arrangements.

1. “Natural Insemination,” AKA Sex With The Donor

As noted in the article, as well as explained by Gordy and other sperm kings, these popular donors frequently provide the goods through “natural insemination” (or “NI,” if you are really into this world). Translation: sex. They will have sex with you in order to “deliver” their sperm to you. Directly. Like, really directly.

This presents the riskiest option legally. To be sure, most states have some form of a donor statute, providing protection for recipients to be recognized as the legal parents of their donor-conceived child, and providing donors with no legal rights or responsibilities to resulting children. But these state laws invariable do *not* include “natural insemination,” and often specifically clarify that any sexual activity resulting in a child is outside of the protection of the statute. This is exemplified by sperm king Ari Nagel, and the multiple paternity cases that have been successful against him, leaving him financially responsible for various children resulting from his NI or other nonstatutorily-compliant donation activities.

2. Contracts, Or Lack Thereof

As an attorney focused on assisted reproductive technology law, of course, I am going to say you should hire an attorney — two really (one for recipients, one for donor) — to draw up and negotiate a contract before any goods are exchanged. But really. This is a vital protective step for both sides of the transaction, as well as for the future children. Children, after all, are not replaceable widgets. And there are some very real issues that the parties should be discussing in detail and agreeing upon, in writing, before moving forward. Such as what kind of future disclosures will be shared. If the donor finds out about a serious genetic condition that he could have passed on through his donation, will he agree to contact all recipients promptly? What are the rights of the resulting children to know who the donor is or how many half-siblings might be out there?

While there are exceptions to every rule, I am guessing that Sperm Kings frequently do not go through the time and effort to enter into well-drafted and carefully thought out contracts with their recipients. Scarily, in the podcast with Gordy, he noted that one donation recipient asked him to sign a contract, so he merely signed (another) fake name. Let’s see how long that holds up! Not a legally recommended route.

3. Marrying Your Half-Sibling

At least one of the sperm kings within the New York Times article admitted he was looking to “get his numbers up” — the number of children conceived from his sperm. The noncynics among us tend to attribute best intentions to sperm donors. We hope that these donors really just want to help others in this personal and meaningful way. We don’t want to think that there is something narcissistic or twisted about a man actively trying to sire as many children as possible. Given certain cases, however — such as the Dutch donor with possibly 1000-plus children — the reality is that some donors have some pretty questionable motives that exponentially increase the chance that one ends up unknowingly dating (or marrying) a half-sibling.

Professor Jody Madeira, a law professor steeped in the legal issues of assisted reproductive technology and sperm king-type behavior, readily sympathizes with individuals wanting children, but having trouble accessing the donor sperm they need. However, Madeira explained, “Men who provide sperm to others over Facebook groups and other sites are engaging in reckless behavior. If they have an STD or a genetic condition, there is little that those who use their samples to conceive a child can do to hold these donors accountable.” Moreover, there is no way to track how many children each of these serial donors conceives, because no one but the donor himself can track the donation activities.

Don’t get me wrong. Donors are amazing, dream-fulfilling souls. But I don’t think it’s too much to ask that each donor limit their dream-fulfilling activities to a reasonable number of lucky recipients, and be willing, for the sake of the recipients, the future offspring, and themselves, to go through the work of following state law and having lawyers assist with a contract protecting all parties — and hopefully looking out for the interests of the next generation.

---

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.

Republicans have long relied on corporate political action committees to help fund their campaigns, and those in the financial services sector have been particularly partial to them. After all, what Wall Street titan can say no to lower taxes, less regulation and a generally sympathetic ear?

I spend an unfortunate amount of time writing about law school professors’ use of the n-word. You might think that it wouldn’t come up that often, but you’d be wrong, very wrong. What is it about the thrill of impropriety that makes white law professor don a cloak of “academic freedom” and just let the full n-word fly?

Anyway, so when Above the Law received word about UIC John Marshall Law Professor Jason Kilborn’s “dark and vile verbiage on a Civil Procedure II exam” and that the question at-issue “contained a racial pejorative summarized as follows: “‘n____’ and ‘b____’ (profane expressions for African Americans and women)”” I fired up my keyboard and got ready to go after the prof. But, as I dug into the issue, it became clear there was a lot more going on.

The petition is a call to action for “Insensitive and Racist Content” on the exam, and when I initially read the petition, my impression was that the professor had used the full slur on the exam. (And I bet a lot of other people that read — and potentially signed — the petition thought that too.) But that petition does not “summarize[]” the exam as it purports to do — it provides a direct quote. By that I mean the exam did not use the full n-word (or the b-word for that matter), opting instead for the euphemism. Which is… the exact sort of adaptation and awareness of potentially traumatic racial issues that folks have historically asked for when professors claim the right to drop the full n-word just because it’s an academic setting.

No one wants to be in a place where discussing the way racism shapes the legal system is off limits. Turn on the news and it’s very clear that white supremacy is far from behind us and continues to impact the law. Legal education needs to have these admittedly difficult discussions but finding the right balance is essential.

Kilborn provided the following context for the decision to use the question (and he notes he’s used the same question with the euphemism for 10 years without incident):

Employment discrimination is among the most common topics of federal civil litigation, and our textbook authors use that context frequently, so it’s certainly appropriately contextual. I was also trying to acknowledge the challenges that women of color still face in the workplace and the important role of civil procedure in discovering and addressing these wrongs. The only question seems to be whether it was problematic for me to be specific (in abbreviated form, to avoid actually using these horrible words) about what the manager had heard others say. I don’t want to make anyone feel unnecessarily distressed during a high-stakes exam, but I am just flabbergasted at the reaction here for the first time in ten years of consistently administering this very question to classes every bit as diverse as the one that sat for this exam this semester (though I have no idea exactly WHO is reacting in this way or why, as no one from the leadership of this campaign against me has attempted to communicate with me in any way).

As a white person, I cannot know what it’d be like to read an abbreviated form of the slur on an exam. And according to the Black Law Students Association at the law school, students taking the exam were upset by the language:

And here’s BLSA’s full statement on the issue:

Unlike other professors who have been confronted with inappropriate language, Kilborn did not trot out the academic freedom trope, or insist he knew what’s best for students or sue the law school for reverse discrimination (all actual reactions from professors, natch). He seems genuinely distressed about the entire affair, and has apologized for using the abbreviated form of the word on the test (something else law profs aren’t known for). Kilborn told Above the Law:

I am fully prepared to accept responsibility for using a context and first-letter abbreviated reference that caused anyone to feel distressed—I absolutely did not and do not want this, I’ve expressed regret for it, and I’ve learned something valuable here. But the right way for BLSA and others to react here is anything other than what they’ve done, and I hope you don’t further this unnecessary, unwarranted, and unconstructive attack on me. If someone inadvertently bumps into you on the street and says “hey, sorry about that” quickly, I hope none of us believes the appropriate response is to pounce on that person, beat them mercilessly, and disseminate all manner of invective about them to their employer and all over the internet. BLSA has actively pursued a campaign against me by contacting (1) central UIC administration, (2) my dean, (3) Instagram, (4) LinkedIn, (5) Channel 2 news, and perhaps to other news outlets, too, and (6) formally filing a complaint with the Office of Access and Equity. This is the office at UIC that deals with instances of alleged discrimination and harassment. When my dean mentioned to me that there was some issue with my question, I suggested the notion of my expressing regret for distressing anyone, and the dean put me in touch with the OAE for their view. A representative from that office was provided the question and the context, and we had a Zoom call that very evening, in which the rep assured me I had done nothing at all wrong, but she supported my idea to express regret if I my re-use of that question made anyone feel uncomfortable. I did that, and here we still are …

I love my students—EACH AND EVERY ONE of them, and I’ve gone out of my way to be supportive of the careers of women of color and others. I’ve done my best to use the same first-letter reference to that word that I see all over the internet, including in the commentary of people explaining that it is entirely inappropriate to use the word—and they reference it as “the n-word”—again, which is exactly what I did. For me to be cast as some sort of insensitive bigot because I used the very same first-letter reference to a horrible word that Civil Procedure is designed to root out and address is … a disservice to the role that law plays in our troubled society and the role that we lawyers have to play in rooting it out and eradicating it.

The law school provided this statement about the incident:

The Law School recognizes the impact of this issue. Before winter break, Dean Dickerson apologized to the students who expressed hurt and distress over the examination question. The Law School acknowledges that the racial and gender references on the examination were deeply offensive. Faculty should avoid language that could cause hurt and distress to students. Those with tenure and academic freedom should always remember their position of power in our system of legal education.

The Law School is working with UIC’s Office for Access and Equity to conduct a thorough review of this matter, and Dean Dickerson and other Law School and University leaders have scheduled a meeting with student leaders. We remain committed to ensuring that all of our students have a safe and supportive environment and that all members of the Law School community live up to our shared values.

It seems like an honest an open conversation is exactly what’s needed. Whether you think Kilborn should have included that particular detail in the exam is a fair question, but he at least tried to be aware of the sensitive nature of the topic and seems committed to doing better.

---

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).

Many physicians are evaluated not only on their medical knowledge but their “bedside manner” when interacting with patients. Bedside manner is usually defined as the way a physician speaks and connects with patients, including how they break bad news, how they inform patients of medical issues, and other qualities. The legal profession is also a people-centric field, and lawyers often need to interact with clients in a personable and empathetic way during a representation. However, many lawyers can work on their bedside manner and not only focus on their legal arguments, but how they interact with the people they represent.

Numerous times in my career, I have seen attorneys acting too much like lawyers when interacting with clients, doling out bad news, and reassuring people who may face legal issues. Sometimes, lawyers wish to hedge their statements so that they cannot be liable if something they say turns out to be untrue. Of course, in some situations, it is important to be clear about expectations so that attorneys do not mislead clients.

However, lawyers should not let their instincts get in the way of reassuring clients and having positive interactions with the people they represent. For instance, one time earlier in my career, I participated in a conference call with a client who had just been served a demand letter. The client was extremely distraught about the whole situation, and he kept asking if everything was going to be okay. The client did not want to be sued, and of course, litigation is a daunting proposition for everyone. As a result, the client was definitely looking for some reassurances from his counsel. However, another attorney on the call kept hedging everything he said with “to the best of knowledge” or “that is my understanding” so that he left some wiggle room in case he said something that turned out to be wrong. The client was not happy with these responses, and he kept asking if everything was going to be okay.

Eventually, I stepped in and said that I didn’t definitively know what would happen in the future, but the client would receive the best legal representation possible. I even said that I would assume all of the worries the client had about his legal issue so the client could just live his life without having to think about what was going to happen next. The client seemed very happy that I spoke to him like an empathetic human being rather than a lawyer who was primarily concerned with covering his own butt, and this helped improve the representation and my connection with the client.

Another way that lawyers can work on their bedside manner is with the words they use with clients. Attorneys often use technical jargon when speaking to clients and other people involved in legal matters. Sometimes, such legalese is used because it is just easier for attorneys to convey a thought with these words. Other times, attorneys may wish to demonstrate their experience by using terms of art that are associated with the legal issue with which they are involved. However, people who do not have a legal background may not appreciate the use of words that are difficult to understand.

One time at the beginning of my legal career, I was tasked with signing in-state subpoenas connected with an out-of-state litigation matter. I had to speak to the client about the process of serving in-state subpoenas related to an out-of-state matter, and I kept referring to the documents as subpoenas duces tecum and subpoenas ad testificandum. The client was confused by my use of such terms, and she ask me to speak to her in language that was easier to understand. As a result of this experience, I never used unnecessary technical terms while speaking to clients again, and I made sure that I spoke about a case only in layperson’s terms.

Lawyers can also improve their bedside manner by connecting with their clients in a more meaningful way. Far too often, lawyers view themselves as merely having a transactional relationship with clients and do not wish to go out of their way to connect on a deeper level. However, clients are far more likely to recommend a firm to their friends and give repeat business if they have a meaningful personal connection to an attorney.

For instance, I always try to have a victory lunch with clients after achieving a major win. The occasion not only celebrates a victory, but ensures that the client has a good memory of their lawyer and can connect with their lawyer over a meal rather than in an office or over the phone. In addition, whenever practical, I try to travel to clients to deliver settlement money rather than mail a check. In this way, I can see them face-to-face and do a solid for a client that they will hopefully remember when evaluating future needs for legal services. In addition, before the pandemic, I tried to see major clients in person on a regular basis to personally discuss matters and forge a deeper connection.

All told, legal professionals should not always act like lawyers when interacting with clients. Sometimes, empathizing with clients and adopting a good bedside manner can be important to serving clients and building a practice.

---

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.