Category: News Feeds

The Chicago-based legal technology company Litera has acquired Objective Manager, a UK company that provides a SaaS platform for law firms to use in strategic planning, performance measurement and talent engagement.

The purpose of the platform is to enable firms to accelerate their strategic and performance agendas by aligning their people to the firm’s strategic objectives.

Litera said that the acquisition will advance its mission to help law firms leverage powerful data insight that informs intelligent and differentiated strategic firm plans, client plans, and people strategies.

“We are committed to investing heavily in the development and support of platforms that transform disparate data about clients, matters, people, and parties into usable and actionable information,” Avaneesh Marwaha, Litera CEO, said in a statement.

“We’ve heard from the market that unlocking performance data and investing further in developing their strategy and teams is a key need. Adding Objective Manager to Litera will help firms align around key firm goals, client needs, and people development.”

Arlene Adams, CEO of Objective Manager CEO, said “We are excited to join Litera and accelerate our platform presence in the broader North American market.

“We believe the addition of Objective Manager to Litera will enhance how we can help law firms use meaningful data to create great firm strategies alongside developing and retaining top talent.”

Founded in 2011, Objective Manager’s clients in the UK include 11 of the top 20 law firms, including including Baker McKenzie, Clifford Chance, Allen & Overy, and Norton Rose Fulbright.

Litera has had a run of acquisitions over the past two years. So far in 2021, it acquired Clocktimizer in April, which tracks and analyzes law firm billing data; DocsCorp in March, a document productivity company; and Foundation Software in January, expanding into firm intelligence.

Last year, Litera acquired litigation management platform Allegory Law, AI contract drafting platform Bestpractix, and table-of-authorities generator Best Authority, and in 2019, it acquired  U.K. company Workshare and deal-management platform Doxly.

[Disclosure: I host the Law Insights program on Litera TV, for which I am paid by Litera.]

As a lawyer and now a mediator for some years, I have always thought that some lawyers in litigation are nothing more than spoiled children who have tantrums when they don’t get their way. In litigation, one of them won’t get his way when the jury returns with a verdict.

It amazes me how childish lawyers can be, morphing into hideous adult versions of what they were probably like as kids. I had one mediation several years ago where the lawyer thought that the settlement check was late (no, it wasn’t) and called me on more than one occasion to rant and rave. However, he (and yes it was a “he”) had tantrums, not just tantrums, but undignified and almost abusive conduct, yelling, slamming things, and hollering. (I finally stopped returning his calls.) I had thought, during the mediation, that he was professional. Wrong. Why was he so desperate for the check, which in the scheme of things, was small change in our world? And by the way, the settlement check was timely delivered to him.

What prompts my rant is the latest version of “what were they thinking” in the context of a benchslap rightfully deserved. Two lawyers were on opposite sides of Fair Labor Standards Act litigation, and if you don’t know about FLSA, you are probably better off. It governs wage and hour matters both federally and in many states, and it is a trap for the unwary. We here in the Golden State have our own labor code, a veritable Rubik’s Cube, which makes the FLSA easy-peasy by comparison.

The two lawyers appeared to be in a contest of “mine is bigger than yours,” at least figuratively. (I leave literal displays to others, including Jeffrey Toobin.) Their previous collegiality and professional relationship came, as the District Court for the Southern District of Florida said, “to a screeching halt — on both sides.” And that’s just how the court’s order for evidentiary motions and sanctions starts out. Not a good sign.

Of course, these squabbles occurred during the taking of depositions where there rarely is any adult in the room, and that’s why shenanigans happen.

Amid objections early in a deposition to the use of a court reporter as to whether she could hear and transcribe plaintiff’s counsel who was masked and on Zoom, defense counsel yelled at plaintiff’s counsel, not once but twice, to STFU. A tit-for-tat squabble ensued between counsel (food fight, anyone?) which the court found included “silly arguments over who argued with who.” I’m not kidding.

The court lowered the boom on both counsel who “impeded, delayed, and frustrated the fair examination of the deponents. [Defense counsel’s] profane language was clearly unprofessional and is unacceptable. Indeed, continuation of such conduct could be grounds for a referral to the Florida Bar or for further professionalism training. However, the impeding, delaying, and frustrating of the deposition came from both counsels’ behavior, which patently displayed more interest in getting the last word and baiting each other than in resolving their dispute. In other words, neither attorney here is blameless.”

But wait, there’s more. The court reporter also came in for criticism for making inappropriate comments at two of the depositions. Having been criticized, the court said that defense counsel should have used other court reporters at the succeeding depositions. He didn’t, and the court found that defense counsel egged plaintiff’s counsel on.

So, of course, plaintiff’s counsel moved for sanctions. The court ruled that both attorneys “have wasted the Court’s time, the deponents’ time, and their clients’ money. They both escalated the disputes here rather than pursuing the easy, common-sense means of resolving them.” These two lawyers were neither professional nor reasonable. The court held that neither counsel should “be allowed to profit from their actions, and their clients should not have to pay.” An object lesson here?

No client should have to pay for litigating a discovery dispute prompted by juvenile tactics. How many times has an attorney refunded fees for time spent on a useless motion? How many times has one counsel or another been jerked around? How many times has an attorney apologized to a client for bad behavior because of a refusal to cooperate? How many times has a counsel refunded or written off fees incurred in unnecessary discovery disputes? What do you think?

Remedies? The court ordered both attorneys to write off their time (i.e., “exercise billing judgment”). Is that an oxymoron? As to the defense lawyer, if he has already billed the fees, he is to credit the client.

The court did not award sanctions to plaintiff or his counsel and told plaintiff’s counsel that even if he ultimately succeeds on the case, then those fees attributed to this dispute are to be written off, and if not, “the Court will do it for him at that time.” In other words, essentially, a pox on both counsel.

And by the way, the court warned that if either of them “engage in further misconduct (in this case or any other case), the Court may refer them to the Florida Bar and/or the Court’s Committee on Attorney Admissions, Peer Review, and Attorney Grievance for appropriate action.” No one said in law school or any time since then that you must like opposing counsel. Being professional is not that difficult. Just get along for the sake of the clients. Park your egos where the sun doesn’t shine. Give it a try.

---

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.

If outside counsel is responsible for going into battle, in-house counsel is responsible for preventing future battles.

Outside counsel can solve immediate problems by resolving litigation, but in-house counsel can eliminate future problems by evaluating the root causes of that litigation and sharing potential ways to avoid the litigation in the future.

As an in-house counsel, you are uniquely qualified to help eliminate future problems if you work closely with outside counsel as they defend those lawsuits brought against your organization. There is so much you can learn about the problems in your organization if you just take the time to look.  You can help answer discovery, attend depositions, review pleadings/motions, and attend trial as the organization’s representative. By participating in the process in this way, you will have the chance to do something your outside counsel doesn’t do. You can identify causes to root problems and help your organization find ways to help prevent similar future problems.

How do you do that? You can start by doing these things.

Ask Questions

While working with outside counsel, help outside counsel by gathering the facts necessary to defend the case. Talk to people inside and outside your organization. Find out what happen, when it happened, and why it happened.

Look At Your Policies And Your Procedures

As you are gathering facts, also take the time to review your policies and your procedures. Think about whether there are any policies and procedures at issue given the facts of your case. If there are policies and procedures at issue, were they known by the parties involved? Were they clear? Were they followed? If you don’t have policies and procedures, ask yourself whether your organization needs to create some moving forward.

Consider The Employees Involved

Did the employees do the jobs they were hired to do? If the employees did not do their jobs, ask the question why.

Also ask whether the employees at issue have the capacity to do their jobs. If they do not currently, ask if they have the potential to grow with the right mentoring and training or is the problem that they were not suited for the job at all.

Consider Your Management

What about the manager’s role in the problem? Is there something your manager could have done differently that would have resulted in a different outcome? Are your managers prepared to do their jobs? Could they benefit from training?

Consider Training

Think about whether training would help prevent the problem in the future. Is the problem that the organization’s employees don’t know or understand internal policies and procedures, or is it that they don’t know or understand local, state, or federal law? Could your managers benefit from management training?

Examine Communication And Culture

Make sure you look at how employees within your organization communicate from the top levels of the leadership to the employees at the ground level and across divisions. Some problems can be addressed simply by improving communication.

Don’t overlook the message itself. If there is adequate communication, think about whether the organization is communicating the right message. What is communicated from the top can significantly contribute to the corporate culture, which in turn can impact how people behave.

Gather Resources

See if you can find resources that might help the organization address the problems that caused the litigation. If you cannot find anything that exists, think about whether there is something you can create and share with your leadership that would help prevent the problem in the future.

When you take the time to analyze what the organization’s employees do or do not do with respect to the problem, you can help your organization develop a plan to ensure that things are done differently to prevent future problems.

Desmond Tutu said it best: “There comes a point where we need to stop just pulling people out of the river. We need to go upstream and find out why they’re falling in.”

When you find root causes to problems and you take steps to help your organization eliminate them going forward, you are doing your organization a significant service. You are potentially preventing future problems. When you prevent future problems,  you give your leadership the chance to focus on the organization’s primary missions, goals, and objectives rather than having to focus on lawsuits.

---

Lisa Lang is an in-house lawyer and thought leader who is passionate about all things in-house.  She has recently launched a website and blog Why This, Not That™ to serve as a resource for in-house lawyers.  You can e-mail her at lisa@lawyerlisalang.com, connect with her on LinkedIn, or follow her on Twitter.

Leading up to this afternoon’s arraignment of Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg in a Manhattan courtroom, Trump’s lawyers worked overtime to downplay the coming charges.

“This is so small that I can’t believe I’m going to have to try a case like this,” attorney Ronald Fischetti scoffed to Politico.

And compared to the massive tax fraud the company was being investigated for, he might have a point. But the years-long conspiracy to commit tax fraud alleged in the 15-count indictment is not exactly “small.” In fact, it describes a complex conspiracy engaged in by Weisselberg and the company to stiff federal, state, and municipal tax authorities for more than a million dollars in taxes. Plus there’s brazen chutzpah of everyone involved in carrying it out!

In a nutshell, Weisselberg’s annual compensation was $940,000 between 2011 and 2018, but he and the company developed a diverse series of stratagems to decrease his taxable income by a huge chunk every single year, mostly via perks that were not reported to Uncle Sam as taxable income. They were, however, reported internally in the second set of books maintained to track Weisselberg’s actual compensation — because clearly these people never watched The Wire.

Perks like an apartment on Riverside Boulevard for which the Trump Organization paid the rent, garage fees, and all utilities — none of which Weisselberg declared as taxable income, all of which were deducted from his gross pay.

Simultaneously, the Trump Organization reduced the amount of direct compensation that Weisselberg received in the form of checks or direct deposits to account for the indirect compensation that he received in the form of payments of rent, utility bills, and garage expenses. The indirect compensation was not included on Weisselberg’s W-2 forms or otherwise reported to federal, state, or local tax authorities, and no income taxes were withheld by the corporate defendants in connection with the indirect compensation.

Weisselberg and his wife resided in the apartment, which is in New York City, but failed to pay municipal income tax as city residents. Ooopsie!

Similarly, Weisselberg and his wife were each given a leased Mercedes Benz courtesy of the Trump Organization, which they failed to report as compensation even as the cost was deducted from the CFO’s $940,000 top-line salary.

The schemes were varied in size and scope, ranging from corporate checks cashed so that Weisselberg could have a little walking around money, to hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition payments for his grandchildren coming from the Trump Organization and later the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust. But every penny of it was accounted for and subtracted from Weisselberg’s compensation, thus allowing him to pay for it with “pre-tax” dollars.

It seems the only thing limiting Weisselberg’s alleged grift was his own creativity. In one particularly audacious move, end-of-year bonuses were paid by related Trump entities and treated as self-employment income.

However, for Weisselberg and other executives, a substantial portion of their end-of-year bonuses was paid in the form of checks drawn on other Trump Organization entities, including Wollman Rink Operations LLC, Trump International GolfClub LLC, the Mar-a-Lago Club, Trump Productions LLC, VH Property Corp., Trump Las Vegas Development LLC, Tramp CPS LLC, and other entities.

The end-of-year bonus checks drawn on entities other than Trump Payroll Corp. were routinely reported to tax authorities as non-employee compensation, and set forth on United States Internal Revenue Service 1099 Forms, which are used to report non-employee compensation.

But why would Weisselberg want to do it that way, you are wondering? Well, presumably he’d maxed out on Social Security on his “real” compensation, and the gambit allowed him to build up a substantial retirement account as a “self-employed” taxpayer. You know, on top of his regular 401k.

Additionally, by reason of having reported substantial non-employee compensation, Weisselberg was able to make annual contributions to a Keogh plan, which is a tax-deferred pension plan that s available to self-employed individuals for retirement purposes. Weisselberg was nota self-employed individual. But, because he purportedly received substantial non-employee compensation from the entities such as the Mar-a-Lago Club and Wollman Rink Operations LLC, as set forth above, he falsely reported the receipt of self-employment income and thereby falsely claimed that he was entitled to an annual exclusion from his income of amounts contributed to his Keogh plan. The amounts so contributed for the tax years 2012 through 2016 exceeded approximately $215,000, and over the course of the scheme to defraud, Weisselberg was able to build up a Keogh plan worth many hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Respect the hustle!

In addition to multiple references to other corporate executives who engaged in creative compensation computation, there are also several mentions of “Unindicted Co-conspirator #1,” who carried out the scheme with Weisselberg. There is rampant speculation that this refers to Trump himself, although, FWIW, my money’s on the dingbat son who also allegedly got an apartment and a load of goodies out of his old man’s pre-tax slush fund.

So, no, it’s not small potatoes as Trump’s lawyers would have us all believe. The question is whether it’s big enough to cause Weisselberg to flip on his boss and the Trump family, who ran the company during the Trump presidency. Relatedly, Trump has every incentive to claim that Weisselberg conducted the scheme entirely on his own, un-abetted by any member of the family.

Honor among thieves? Looks like we’re about to find out.

---

Elizabeth Dye (@5DollarFeminist) lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

I was shocked. I applied in early June or late May, and when I got back from vacation, in the mailbox was a letter saying I was a member of the Supreme Court Bar.

There are so many people now in law school that have felony convictions and misdemeanor convictions. So many people are graduating from law school and getting admitted to state bars that I kind of feel a duty. If it were up to me, I’d have just got admitted and been quiet about it and not made a big deal about it.

It bothers me that I have to explain the worst thing I did from 20 years ago every time I wanted to be admitted. At some point I just want to be recognized as a lawyer.

— Professor Shon Hopwood of Georgetown Law, commenting on his recent admission to the U.S. Supreme Court bar. Hopwood formerly served time in federal prison for bank robbery, and later went to law school and became a law professor. He now hopes to argue a criminal case involving the “compassionate release” component of the First Step Act before the high court.

---

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.

Pictured: Incoming 1Ls reading Quimbee articles to understand what Brnovich means for the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Sponsored

Quick Tools from Lex Machina: The Best To Access The Data You Need

When time is short and the pressure is mounting, get the answers you’re looking for with this new powerful tool from Lex Machina.

From Above The Law and Lex Machina

Sponsored

Seeking Junior To Mid-Level Labor & Employment Associate Attorney

One of the best places to work in Chicago is seeking a junior to mid-level employment associate.

From Kinney Research

When Faegre Baker Daniels and Drinker Biddle & Reath merged in 2020 to create the 1000+ attorney Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath, expectations for the new mega firm were high. And though gross revenue was below the predicted $1 billion mark ($937 million for 2020), firm leaders projected contentment over the progress of the new firm. So, with compensation increases sweeping their way through Biglaw, Faegre Drinker got in on the action.

The firm announced the below compensation grid, which still has different scales for different offices. But there is more to note in the scale — even in their major market locations.

Check it:

Hmmm…. First- and second-years are on track to make the same as the prevailing market rate in the major markets. But after that, things get wonky as grid compression sets in. Compared to the DPW scale, 3rd years are down by $5k, 4th by $15k, and by the time you get to 8th years, they are a shocking $50k below market compensation! This is a trick firms have played in the past — with the first-year number matching market rates, they’re hoping that’s the only nugget of intel prospective first-year associates will note and then once they’re ensconced at the firm is when they’ll notice how far behind their peers they are. But we see you.

But I suppose some raises are better than none, and I’m sure associates at the firm will enjoy the extra cash.

Remember everyone, we depend on your tips to stay on top of this stuff. So when your firm matches, please text us (646-820-8477) or email us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Raises”). 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’ll 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.

---

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’s a reason that the word “sophistry” is generally preceded by the word “empty” in common parlance. The ancient school of thought is remembered these days for elevating style — through semantic games, logical fallacies, or outright trickery — over substance.

And it’s a worldview put on full display at the Supreme Court this morning in Brnovich v. DNC, as Justice Alito took a sledgehammer to what remains of the Voting Rights Act in the aftermath of Shelby County.

Despite some wishful thinking that dragging out this opinion hinted at Alito’s opinion falling apart at the last minute, the six Republican-appointed justices duly lined up to take a swing at the VRA. If there was any behind-the-scenes quibbles at the last minute it would have been to fend off possible concurrences that might weaken Alito’s assault on the law. As it was, the conservatives didn’t waiver from the majority, leaving only a short statement from Justices Gorsuch and Thomas questioning whether or not there’s a private right of action to enforce voting rights at all. Alito didn’t say the VRA is non-existent, but functionally it’s hard to tell what’s left.

The Arizona laws at issue involved limiting voters to casting their ballots at their assigned polling place — a restriction designed to burden working voters in low wage jobs who may not have the luxury of being at home during election hours. The second was a rule allowing individuals other than the voter’s family to collect early ballots. While chain of custody issues gave rise to one of the exceptionally rare real voter frauds out there, the logic of allowing someone to collect ballots is to make sure more people are able to exercise their right to vote.

One can quibble over whether or not these are sound regulations. They seem far more likely to suppress voting than prevent actual fraud and seem purposely designed to disproportionately suppress turnout by voters of color specifically. This is the Supreme Court, so the facts of the specific case don’t matter as much as what the justices decided to do after taking the ball and running with it. And Alito was ready to dash to the GOP endzone.

Section 2(b) states that §2 is violated only where “the political processes leading to nomination or election” are not “equally open to participation” by members of the relevant protected group “in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.”

Indeed. It seems as though laws designed to curb minority participation would fall into that language. But don’t worry, here comes TWO PARAGRAPHS of random — literally RANDOM HOUSE — definitions to rewrite that, taking “equally” and “open” and “in that” and “opportunity” before beginning the next paragraph with “Putting these terms together,” to create a Frankendefinition dripping with all the tactics of Orewellian Newspeak. Alito rewrites the section to create new rules that transform the statute from a shield against voting rights abuses to a machete for state legislatures to wield in pruning the cornerstone of democracy.

1. …. The concepts of “open[ness]” and “opportunity” connote the absence of obstacles and burdens that block or seriously hinder voting, and therefore the size of the burden imposed by a voting rule is important….

2. …. the degree to which a voting rule departs from what was standard practice when §2 was amended in 1982 is a relevant consideration.

3. …. the mere fact there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote.

4. …. where a State provides multiple ways to vote, any burden imposed on voters who choose one of the available options cannot be evaluated without also taking into account the other available means.

5. …. every voting rule imposes a burden of some sort, and therefore, in determining “based on the totality of circumstances” whether a rule goes too far, it is important to consider the reason for the rule.

It may not look like much, but with some word game fun, a law created to stand vigilantly skeptical of laws imposing barriers on specific demographics of voters is transformed into “restrictions are presumptively legal if the state claims that it burdens minority voters ‘in the interest of preventing fraud.’” Orwell has already shown up in this article and while, as a writer, I hate going to that well all the time, this SCOTUS-approved listicle does feel like rewriting half a century of civil rights law to say “but some are more equal than others.”

To the extent that minority and non-minority groups differ with respect to employment, wealth, and education, even neutral regulations, no matter how crafted, may well result in some predictable disparities in rates of voting and noncompliance with voting rules….

There’s a lot of attention around “critical race theory” these days and it’s mostly a catch-all term for “not saying white people are awesome” but this is an actual example of where critical race theory would fit in. Where “neutral” is set to exclude “employment, wealth, and education” it’s being set to guarantee the scales are tipped and to suggest otherwise is just being deliberately obtuse about the state of… everything in this country in 2021. But deliberately obtuse is a core facet of the voting rights assault.

And so we come to the money quote:

Section 2 does not require a State to show that its chosen policy is absolutely necessary or that a less restrictive means would not adequately serve the State’s objectives.

Claim fraud. Don’t bother proving it. Don’t worry if the remedy is intentionally more restrictive than required. Make sure there’s some alternative voting method… like opening one booth from 1 p.m. to 1:15 p.m. in downtown Phoenix, and you’re good to go.

Justice Kagan, in dissent, delivers an incisive recap of the majority’s contempt for Congress:

The Court always says that it must interpret a statute according to its text—that it has no warrant to override congressional choices. But the majority today flouts those choices with abandon. The language of Section 2 is as broad as broad can be…. No matter what Congress wanted, the majority has other ideas.

This Court has no right to remake Section 2. Maybe some think that vote suppression is a relic of history—and so the need for a potent Section 2 has come and gone…. But Congress gets to make that call. Because it has not done so, this Court’s duty is to apply the law as it is written.

The threat to democracy posed by the Supreme Court at this juncture is palpable. Unelected, life-tenured jurists — the majority appointed by presidents who entered office having lost the popular vote — have rewritten a duly enacted law for the express purpose of limiting the franchise. Congress is a dysfunctional sideshow and the Supreme Court is apparently eager to rewrite legislation to enshrine their right-wing impulses knowing that Congress is incapable of passing legislation to counter the Court’s word games.

There’s a romanticism for the Supreme Court among lawyers, but this opinion indicates that it is an institution at best dangerously ill-fitted for our times and at worst fundamentally broken.

The Sophists have won. It’s all just mummery at this point.

---

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.

Although LGBTQ+ rights have come a long way in the U.S., it was not long ago that being gay was criminalized in many states, and being a LGBTQ+ attorney was akin to career suicide. Even in a post-Bowers and post-Obergefell world, openly LGBTQ+ attorneys account for less than 3% of the profession. And while marriage equality is the law of the land, lawmakers in 2021 have already passed over 100 pieces of legislation preventing trans people from accessing healthcare, bathrooms, sports and more. There is a lot of work to be done, though we have made some progress along the way

This progress would not have been possible without the tireless advocacy and efforts of the LGBTQ legal pioneers who advocated for fairness and equality in the U.S. and within the legal profession. Read about just a few of these trailblazing attorneys below:

Barbara Charline Jordan

Barbara Charline Jordan was an outsize figure in politics and the fight for civil rights. Her passion for politics ran in her family – her maternal grandfather was one of the last Black state representatives in Texas prior to mass disenfranchisement under Jim Crow, and her mother was known for her public speaking skills. In law school, she was a champion debater, winning against teams from Ivy League schools. She turned towards a political career after law school while working on the JFK presidential campaign, where she organized a successful get out the vote effort in Houston’s Black communities. In 1966, Barbara became the first Black state senator in Texas since Reconstruction. In 1972, she became the first woman to represent Texas in the House of Representatives, and the first Black congresswoman from the South. She was a fearless advocate for civil rights, and was known for impassioned speeches that changed hearts and minds. Although she was not out publicly during her political career, she did have a long time domestic partner, Nancy Earl, and her work paved the way for the LGBTQ+ politicians who came after. She passed away in 1996.

Dennis deLeon

From his early career as a trial lawyer with the DOJ and his advocacy for migrant workers in California, to his tenure as New York City Commissioner of Human Rights, and the decades he spent as Executive Director of the Latino AIDS Commission, Dennis deLeon was a fierce advocate for justice who loved working in public service. In 1993, he made the brave decision to come out publicly as HIV positive, contributing to greater visibility for people with AIDS. In his time with the NYC Human Rights Commission, he helped investigate and end discriminatory housing, employment, and healthcare policies. In his role with the Latino AIDS Commission, he helped create a library of Spanish language resources for people with AIDS, and was known for his successful coalition building with other communities of color fighting the AIDS crisis. He passed away in 2009.

Carrington Boggan

Carrington Boggan was one of the founders, along with Bill Thom, of the critically important LGBTQ advocacy organization Lambda Legal – which was originally denied its application for incorporation because it was “neither benevolent nor charitable”. As general counsel of the newly formed Lambda Legal and the first openly gay attorney to argue before the New York Court of Appeals, he filed an amicus curiae in Matter of Kimball, a case which allowed an attorney who had previously been disbarred for being gay to be admitted to practice in New York. He also won reinstatement for two Air Force and Navy veterans who had been discharged for being gay. Additionally, he successfully litigated a federal suit granting gay students the right to assemble on a state university campus, and he outlined some of his groundbreaking strategies in the law review article Securing Gay Rights through Constitutional Litigation. He passed away in 1992.

Judge Phyllis Frye

In her early career, before she became the first openly transgender judge in the U.S., Judge Phyllis Frye struggled to find employment. She became an attorney in 1981 and didn’t start practicing full time until 1986, when she took a case for a closeted, gay man in the military who received a DWI while walking out of a gay bar and wanted to keep it out of the newspaper. After that, she ran her own private practice, representing many members of the LGBTQ+ community. In the 1990s, she started the International Conference on Transgender Law and Employment Policy, working with other trans lawyers and activists to write policies and strategize around their advocacy. Later in her career, she handled many name changes and discrimination claims for her trans clients. As a Judge in the municipal courts of Houston, Texas, she primarily handles traffic offenses, but the legacy of her fearless advocacy is felt all over the country.

Urvashi Vaid

Named by Out Magazine in 2009 as one of the 50 most influential LGBT people in the U.S., Urvashi Vaid has done amazing work advancing LGBTQ+ issues in politics for over three decades. While still in law school, she started the Boston Lesbian/Gay Political Alliance, an organization that interviews and vets political candidates and advocates for LGBTQ+ issues. Her career has taken her from the ACLU’s National Prison Project, to various positions with the National LGBTQ Task Force, to the Engaging Tradition Project at Columbia Law School’s Center for Gender and Sexuality Law, and beyond. In 2012 she founded LPAC, the first lesbian Super PAC. She has written several books, including Virtual Equality: The Mainstreaming of Gay and Lesbian Liberation and Irresistible Revolution: Confronting Race, Class and the Assumptions of LGBT Politics.

Of course, these were just a few of the many brave attorneys who fought for the rights we have gained, and paved the way for the work still to be done. To learn about the amazing work young LGBTQ+ attorneys are doing to change the world now, check out the LGBT Bar’s annual 40 Best LGBTQ+ Lawyers Under 40 list.

Related Content:

1. Estate Planning for Same-Sex Couples and Non-Traditional Families under the Biden Administration
2. How to Address Anti-LGBT Bias in the Courtroom
3. Drafting and Implementing LGBTQ+ Inclusive Law Firm Policies and Procedures

For more than a year, lawyers and legal staff have largely worked from home thanks to the pandemic. But now, with the coronavirus crisis in the rearview mirror thanks to widespread vaccination protocols, law firms of all kinds have announced their reopening plans — some with hopes to return to the pre-COVID status quo of all office, all the time, and others more than willing to offer the remote flexibility that employees have become accustomed to during these unprecedented times.

Not everyone is terribly eager to return to the office, and we have it on pretty good authority that some attorneys are dreading it. But that got us wondering: how much money would it take for lawyers to put aside their dreams of remote flexibility? In the wake of the latest Biglaw pay hike, let us be the first to tell you the answer is not a 7.9% salary increase (i.e., the new $205K salary scale).

Are lawyers ready to return to their offices? What would be more preferable, more money or permanent work-from-home options?

We polled more than 600 attorneys and staff members across hundreds of Biglaw and boutique law firms from almost every state in America to find out what lies ahead for the legal workforce in the wake of the pandemic.

As it turns out, money — lots of it — talks, and it would make lawyers reluctantly leave their remote work capabilities behind. According to our survey, it would take a 30% increase to get over half of our respondents to choose to forgo the ability to work remotely. A combined 357 of the 600-plus who took our poll said a 10%, 20%, or 30% salary increase would be their choice over permanent remote flexibility.

Which is more appealing to you?

Which is more appealing to you?

Asked only of those who reported they would prefer permanent work from home flexibility over a 10% pay raise.

Which is more appealing to you?

Asked only of those who reported they would prefer permanent work from home flexibility over a 20% pay raise.

The harsh reality is that a 30% raise won’t be coming, and like it or not, we’ll all have to return to our offices at some point in the future. So, with that having been said, we got down to misery business with our next question (respondents were allowed to select all choices that applied).

What are you dreading most about a return to in-office work?

Commuting (76.80%), work/life balance (57.19%), and professional dress code (35.25%) were identified as the top three things respondents were dreading most about the return to in-office work.

On the other side of the coin, even if lawyers are being forced to return to the office, there are some bright spots for those who have more or less been confined to their homes for more than 15 months. Respondents were allowed to select all choices that applied for our next question.

What are you looking forward to most about a return to in-office work?

Seeing colleagues in-person (59.85%), office resources (43.63%), and being out of the house (39.96%) were identified as the top three things respondents were looking forward to the most about the return to in-office work.

When asked to share their general thoughts on office reentry, our survey respondents really spoke their minds and some common themes emerged. Here are some select responses that we thought would really resonate with others.

Permanent flexible remote work scheduling is desired by most respondents (but that shouldn’t mean that attorneys are available to work at all hours).

• “Why any firm wouldn’t offer flexible WFH policies after the last 15 months is totally beyond me and a sign of the refusal of many law firms to join the 21st Century.”
• “Although there’s a gap in workplace camaraderie, I think the quality of people’s work can now shine through in the remote environment, rather than allowing commonality or favoritism to dictate work assignment.”
• “During the pandemic, what little boundaries we had in Biglaw were dissolved. Now we get partners assigning work at 10 pm due that night and calls on weekends where we get chided for not responding within an hour on a weekend. If this 24/7 nature of the firm continues and we have to be in the office, I believe many mid-levels who are burnt out will leave. We need mandated vacation annually where we’re required to turn devices off.  WIthout that, post pandemic work is going to be hell.”

There is a sense that only lawyers think a return to the office is necessary.

• “The fact that some dinosaur partners miss being at their desks and can’t handle the fact that not everybody wants that, or works like that, is shortsighted. Every associate who got a “return to status quo” is looking to move right now, and law students aren’t looking to lose their flexibility – this is what they’ve literally grown up in the law doing. What a terrible loss of resources and revenue that will be for these rigid firms.”
• “The individuals at my Am Law 100 firm pushing for full time in person office reopening are all older partners who have been skirting health care guidance the entire pandemic to go into the office because that is “just the way they work.” Some partners never adjusted to the “new normal” of working from home, so instead of letting us enjoy the flexibility it provides us and the cost-savings it would provide the firm, they want us to come back in person full time because they had to when they were associates. Not compelling.”
• “I regard returning to the office as retrograde, something we’ll look back at in 20 years as a quaint relic. Most of the people I know champing at the bit to go back say it’s important for “office culture” and other fundamentally immeasurable and unprovable qualities. It seems like it mostly a way for sad sack boomers with no lives outside of work to socialize despite the manifest idiocy of commuting just to do the exact same thing you were going to do at home. I will probably lateral to a firm with a better policy soon.”

Many believe that their productivity increased while working from home.

• “Last year was my most productive year – I was one of the top billing associates in the firm, and I got favorable news about my prospects as partner, which is my dream. But I would rather quit my job than be back in the office full time. This has been an insanely stressful time for everyone, but we’ve also learned that you absolutely can be productive outside of the office.”
• “The last year proved that everyone at my law firm can do their jobs wonderfully without being in the office. The pandemic has changed our firm forever.”

Staff are feeling neglected and underappreciated.

• “Staff has been completely disregarded. We’re people too, and we had to pivot to remote work just like attorneys did. We certainly didn’t see any COVID bonuses for working from 7 a.m. – 9 p.m.”
• “Why does a solution have to be one-size fits all or flexibility just for attorneys? Professional staff share some of the same concerns as the attorneys.”

COVID safety is still an issue, especially thanks to the new Delta variant.

• “Everyone will not be vaccinated so I am not looking forward to going back.”
• “I will not return to the office until my children are vaccinated.

Are you ready to return to the office? We know the attorneys who responded “noooooooooooooooooooooo” and “WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY – seriously there isn’t a good reason” aren’t looking forward to it. As with all things having to do with COVID-19, these plans are likely subject to some amount of change, but be sure to prepare yourselves for office life once again — because it’s happening, and soon.

---

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.