Category: News Feeds

Every firm is looking at staffing, with the intention of a head-count reduction. Law firms had more staff than they needed even prior to COVID. Working from home made clear that some staff weren’t busy. Also, lawyers have learned to do things on their own that they used to rely on other people for help with. It’s an overdue and appropriate business reaction.

— Altman Weil principal Eric Seeger, commenting on the fact that there are certain to be more layoffs ahead. Seeger says he’s spoken to about three dozen managing partners over the past month, and they’re all looking to trim down headcount at their firms. “[I]n an uncertain environment, they don’t want to let a crisis go to waste,” says Zeughauser Group consultant Kent Zimmermann.

---

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.

Look out Antifa! Bill Barr is watching your leaders fly around the country racking up those frequent flier miles and hitting Triple Platinum Marriott rewards status. Did you ruffians think you could just go from town to town, swiping your Anarchobank Mastercard for hammers and sickles to use in the night’s marauding and avoid the eagle eye of our fearless Attorney General? Think again, thugs!

Oh, it’s funny because there are actually people out there who think it’s true. Whether Deputy Dawg himself actually believes this sh*t is an open question. But he was certainly giving it the old Kirkland and Ellis try last night with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.

Asked whether he had instructed the FBI to look into Trump’s insane ranting to Laura Ingraham about hordes of black-clad thugs boarding planes to fly across the country and start riots, Barr insisted that, “I don’t have to ask the FBI because we received numerous reports of individuals coming from Portland, Washington, Seattle, and several other cities for the specific purpose of causing a riot.”

Note that Barr didn’t say “credible reports” as opposed to easily debunked Facebook hoaxes or nonsense whispered into the presidential ear by a conspiracy loving congressman from California. Because the DOJ has made exactly zero arrests of people who bought a $400 ticket and flew clear across the country to start “riots” at the Republican National Convention.

Where would these imaginary traveling rioters get the money for airfare and hotels? Barr’s not saying, but safe bet it rhymes with Seorge Goros!

“They are flying around the country, we know people who are flying around the country, we know where they’re going, we see some of the purchases they’re making before the riots of weapons to use in those riots,” Barr said. Although the president apparently thinks cans of soup are weapons, so perhaps the AG is referring to bags of groceries from the Piggly Wiggly when he claims to be tracking purchases of riot swag.

Interestingly, Barr refers to “people going into Kenosha from different states,” while failing to note it was a gun-toting teenager from Illinois hopped up on a toxic brew of imaginary patriotism and toxic masculinity who killed two people last week, not those itinerant anarchists we’ve all been warned about.

But if Mr. Barr is looking for a guy who actually does travel from town to town trying to start trouble, he might check in on the Patriot Prayer leader who told the Washington Post that he and his bros “go into smaller areas, and we have been putting all of our effort into meeting with victims of government overreach.” It’s just a thought!

But if Barr can’t imagine groups with strong ties to white supremacists posing a real threat, perhaps it’s due to his truly bizarre ideas on racism.

“I don’t think there are two justice systems,” he told Wolf Blitzer.” “I think the narrative that the police are in some epidemic of shooting unarmed black men is simply a false narrative and also the narrative that’s based on race.”

What do those words even mean? Dunno, but they definitely don’t mean that black men are three times as likely to be killed in encounters with police as white men.

“I think there are some situations where statistics would suggest that they are treated differently. But I don’t think that that’s necessarily racism,” Barr said. Which kind of sounds exactly like racism, but can’t possibly be because, ummm, Jesse Jackson?

“Didn’t Jesse Jackson say that when he looks behind him and he sees a group of young Black males walking behind him, he’s more scared than when he sees a group of white youths walking behind him,” Barr added. “Does that make him a racist?”

No, seriously, that really happened.

On voting by mail, Barr exuded a similar Grandpa’s-okay-to-drive-but-don’t-ask-him-about-the-war-or-you’ll-ruin-Thanksgiving vibe. Here he is flipping out because Wolf Blitzer pointed out that five states vote entirely by mail without a problem.

“Wolf, this is playing with fire! This is playing with fire,” he barked, waggling his finger in rage. “We’re a very closely divided country here. People have to have confidence in the results of the election and the legitimacy of the government.”

Which is an odd position for a man whose boss has insisted for the past four years that 3 million undocumented immigrants voted illegally in California and that New Hampshire polls were swamped with hordes of people bussed in from Massachusetts. The entire Republican strategy at this point amounts to little more than destroying confidence in the results of the election and legitimacy of the government. (Well, that plus racism.) But Barr wasn’t done.

“People trying to change the rules to this methodology which as a matter of logic is very open to fraud and coercion is reckless and dangerous,” he shouted, before admitting that he himself votes absentee, as does virtually every high-ranking member of the Trump administration.

But while Barr was absolutely certain — despite being unable to cite a scintilla of evidence — that universal voting by mail is rife with fraud, there was one question of election law which flummoxed the great man: Is it legal to deliberately cast your ballot twice?

President Trump forced the issue by telling his followers in North Carolina to cast mail-in ballots and then going to try to vote in person as well. Because why not encourage your supporters to commit felonies en masse!

“So let them send it in and let them go vote, and if their system’s as good as they say it is, then obviously they won’t be able to vote. If it isn’t tabulated, they’ll be able to vote,” Trump actually said out loud.

“So that’s the way it is. And that’s what they should do.”

That is not what they should do, a fact Bill Barr knows perfectly well.

BLITZER: It sounds like he’s encouraging people to break the law and try to vote twice.

BARR: Well, I don’t know exactly what he was saying, but it seems to me what he’s saying is, he’s trying to make the point that the ability to monitor this system is not good. And if it was so good, if you tried to vote a second time, you would be caught.

Ah, yes. Despite the plain language of his exhortation, the president was urging his followers to vote twice metaphorically. But it’s still illegal to cast two ballots, even if you do it to just make a point, right?

BARR: Well, I don’t know what the law in that particular state says and when that vote becomes final.

BLITZER: Is there any state that says you can vote twice?

BARR: Well, there’s some … maybe you can change your vote up to a particular time. I don’t know.

BLITZER: But that’s not what he’s saying. He’s saying test the system.

BARR: Well, if you know what he’s saying, why are you asking me?

Cool, cool. The president of the United States is dispatching his followers to commit vote fraud en masse, and the Attorney General is busy pretending that mail-in voting is the real crime.

Who could have predicted that there could be a worse AG than Jeff Sessions, and yet … here we are.

Transcript: The Situation Room [CNN]

---

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

In the past few days, Above the Law has reported on a number of firms that have been conducting layoffs and announcing those layoffs at the same time as their COVID-19 salary restorations. We’ve just learned that Nixon Peabody — a firm that placed 75th in the most recent Am Law 100, bringing in $505,520,000 in gross revenue in 2019 — is one of those firms.

As we reported in April, Nixon Peabody furloughed about 25 percent of its staff members, and later that same month, the firm cut 10 percent of its non-partner attorneys (divided by approximately 5 percent layoffs and 5 percent furloughs). In May, the firm came for employees’ salaries and deferred its incoming associate class. Now, sources tell us that some of those whose salaries were reduced had had them restored, and further that while some of those furloughed have returned to the firm, others have been laid off.

Here’s an excerpt from a confidential Nixon Peabody memo sent sometime last month (available in full on the next page) regarding staff salaries:

When we went remote abruptly in March, we took steps to ensure that we could navigate the uncertainty of the pandemic. One of the decisions we made in May, that took effect in June, was to temporarily reduce all NP staff schedules and salaries to 80%.

Now that we are a few months into this schedule change, people are getting busier. As a result, we have made the decision to restore many staff members to a 100% schedule and base compensation effective August 31.

In the same memo, Nixon Peabody discussed furloughed staff, noting that while some will return to work at the end of September, others never will. As far as attorneys are concerned, many have been brought back, but some are still waiting for word on when their careers will resume. Take a look:

Today, we will reach out to all of our furloughed staff colleagues to provide an update to each of them. Some will be notified that their position has been restored and that the current plan is for them to return to active work with NP on September 28th. Others will be informed that their position has been eliminated and their employment with NP will be ending. HR directors will be reaching out to these colleagues today. …

Our furloughed attorneys are not part of the communications occurring today. Over the past several months, we have brought back a number of our furloughed attorney colleagues. We still have a few who are currently furloughed. We are in the process of evaluating our business needs to determine who we may be able to bring back to NP, and the potential timing for any returns.

At this time, we do not believe any movement has been made in terms of restoration of associate salaries. We reached out to Nixon Peabody for comment, but the firm did not immediately respond.

Best of luck to all those who are affected by the layoffs at Nixon Peabody.

(Flip to the next page to see the full memo from Nixon Peabody.)

If your firm or organization is slashing salaries, closing its doors, or reducing the ranks of its lawyers or staff, whether through open layoffs, stealth layoffs, or voluntary buyouts, please don’t hesitate to let us know. Our vast network of tipsters is part of what makes Above the Law thrive. You can email us or text us (646-820-8477).

If you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Layoff Alerts, please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the layoff alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each layoff, salary cut, or furlough announcement that we publish.

---

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.

We’re closing in on the national day of reckoning when many of the largest jurisdictions in the country are going to hold simultaneous online bar exams on the same ExamSoft platform that got tripped up running the modest Michigan bar exam earlier this summer.

At the time, ExamSoft told the world that its problems weren’t caused by its own shortcomings but by a sophisticated cyberattack from shadowy actors with no apparent motive. What would be the point of crashing the bar exam? Even in the NCBE’s most outlandish fever dreams, diploma privilege advocates have no reason to undermine the online bar exam since they know full well the only lesson bar examiners would take from such a disaster would be the need to hold the exam in person as quickly and as cramped as possible.

But let’s take ExamSoft at its word that this was an attack and not a design flaw. Well, it’s exactly that messaging that has understandably got people worried that the platform is vulnerable and their personal data along with it. Hence this:

A California examinee reported the same issue to us. Bar Exam Tracker compiled some additional screenshots that applicants are sharing:

And…

This is bad, but the “good” news is that it might not be ExamSoft’s fault. In a statement sent around yesterday, the company explained that this is a feature of Google Chrome — indeed those using other browsers have not reported the issue — and coincidental to downloading the test software:

This password notification alert is unrelated to Examplify download and use. This is a feature in Chrome where the browser automatically scans the user’s saved passwords against security breaches. Any appearance of this message popping up around the time an applicant is downloading the Examplify software is completely coincidental. ExamSoft applications do not store and do not have access to any password information on exam-taker devices.

Hopefully that’s true. Chrome’s password manager can flag you upon entering a password for the first time that this password has been on black market lists in the past and if the new password being used with ExamSoft is something you’ve used for other compromised accounts in the past this is going to be the warning.

But to be clear, this is ExamSoft’s fault for failing to defend against whatever happened in Michigan and then hyping the result as a “sophisticated attack specifically aimed” at their software. They can’t credibly treat people as overreacting when ExamSoft claims they were hacked TWO MONTHS AGO. That’s exactly how you get thousands of nervous students terrified that KGB ninja hackers are out there trying to bust in through ExamSoft and it’s how you seed a panic.

We’ll keep an eye on these reports about compromised passwords.

---

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.

Another day, another firm that’s hopped on board the salary restoration train. We’ve been documenting all of the Biglaw firms that were perhaps a bit too cautious when it came to the economic impact of the coronavirus crisis here. Today, we have news on yet another Am Law firm that’s partially rolled back its salary cuts.

This morning, Kelley, Drye & Warren — a firm that placed 135th in the latest Am Law 200 rankings, with $232,400,000 in gross revenue in 2019 — announced that the salary reductions it made earlier this year will now be halved. Here’s a statement we received from James Carr, the firm’s chairman:

As you know, the Firm implemented a number of cost cutting measures this Spring to minimize the economic impact of the coronavirus crisis and to protect the financial health of the Firm. Thanks to these actions and your dedication to our clients, we are now in a position to restore some of the salary reductions implemented in May. The 10% pay cut for associates, special counsel and staff earning more than $100,000 will be reduced to 5%. The partner reductions will remain in place for now.

If you recall, those cuts for partners were up to a 20 percent reduction on their draws. So while partners at Kelley Drye continue to feel the pain, it’s nice that associates, counsel, and staff will have some of theirs lessened.

Let’s hope more firms are able to roll back COVID-19 austerity measures — and soon.

If your firm or organization is slashing salaries, closing its doors, or reducing the ranks of its lawyers or staff, whether through open layoffs, stealth layoffs, or voluntary buyouts, please don’t hesitate to let us know. Our vast network of tipsters is part of what makes Above the Law thrive. You can email us or text us (646-820-8477).

If you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Layoff Alerts, please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the layoff alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each layoff, salary cut, or furlough announcement that we publish.

---

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.

Well, it looks like we can expect the Biglaw trend of layoffs to get worse before it gets better.

The coronavirus has wrought a lot of changes in Biglaw — we’ve seen firms announce their office is closing until 2021, we have partners and associates are sharing offices, bunches of firms slashed salaries, and we’ve even seen partners forced out of firms. But the very, very top of the Biglaw pile remained mostly quiet during this tumultuous time. Now, that’s changed.

Tipsters at the firm reported to Above the Law that none other than Skadden Arps has been cutting back on professional staff, apparently taking the unprecedented upheaval to make some staffing changes. A spokesperson for the firm confirmed the layoffs to Above the Law, “We can confirm that we have laid off just under 4% of professional staff across our U.S. offices.”

Best of luck to those who find themselves out of work.

Now that an ultra prestigious firm has decided layoffs are the way to go (and one that instituted no previous COVID-19 austerity measures to boot), will we see even more firms willing to take a carving knife to their ranks? Only time will tell.

If your firm or organization is slashing salaries or restoring previous cuts, closing its doors, or reducing the ranks of its lawyers or staff, whether through open layoffs, stealth layoffs, or voluntary buyouts, please don’t hesitate to let us know. Our vast network of tipsters is part of what makes Above the Law thrive. You can email us or text us (646-820-8477).

If you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Layoff Alerts, please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the layoff alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each layoff, salary cut, or furlough 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).

On August 26, 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued a press release indicating that it had adopted amendments to the definition of “accredited investor.” The amendments, among other things, added to the list of individuals who qualify as accredited investors, holders in good standing of a Series 7, Series 65, or Series 82 license. The amendments also updated the definition of accredited investor to include, with respect to investments in private funds, natural persons who are “knowledgeable employees” as defined in Rule 3c(5)(a)(4) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. This change could prove significant for private funds with under $5 million is assets under management which wish to allow certain employees to participate in the private fund’s offering.

The SEC’s release can be found here: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-191.

The Final Rule adopting such amendments can be found here: https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2020/33-10824.pdf.

---

This article is for general information only. The information presented should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.

Related

Offering proper accommodations for the bar is always a difficult but necessary task for examiners in the best of times. But in the midst of a global pandemic, some states seem to just be giving up.

Multiple people have now flagged messages informing diabetic applicants that the upcoming online exam is already tough enough without them having to trifle with your pesky diabetes. This one from the Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners:

“We are reaching out to ask if you feel you will still need to have these diabetic supplies, food, and a drink with you while testing, since the exam is now remote.”

Do people not understand diabetes? Wilford Brimley dies and suddenly everyone forgets about DIABEETUS.

Barring some hitherto undisclosed ExamSoft impact on pancreatic function, the fact that the test is now remote is unlikely, in fact, to have much impact at all on the applicant’s need to stay alive. They’re also asking people to turn off their glucose monitor alarms! What the hell?

I think everyone gets that the AI-driven video proctoring thing was going to flag someone giving themselves a shot in the middle of the exam. It sucks, but there’s not really an alternative given how these tests work. The message from the bar examiners should be, “You’re going to get flagged automatically for glucose monitor alarms, but rest assured we’re aware of your condition and the software’s flagging of your test will be reviewed and you won’t face any negative repercussions based on your medical needs.” See how easy and reassuring that was?

Meanwhile in New York, bar examiners have lined up a brutal choice for applicants:

Come in person or tough luck is how that reads. Adding more breaks is better than telling applicants that they should try not being diabetic for a day but it’s not necessarily realistic. And the later caveats in the message make it all but a non-starter.

This is fundamentally broken. If you ascribe to the worldview that the profession cannot survive the risk that an applicant has a bottle of insulin with them that MIGHT have the rule against perpetuities scrawled onto the label, then your priorities are dangerously out of whack.

---

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.