Category: News Feeds

About a year and a half ago, I took a huge leap of faith, quit my law firm job, and opened up my own practice. I have always been interested in working for myself, and the decision to hang out a shingle has allowed me to enjoy the freedom and flexibility of self-employment. As mentioned in a previous article, I partnered up with my brother Jared about a year ago, and the experience so far has been amazing. Not only have we exceeded all of our expectations for the firm, but we have had a lot of fun along the way. My story shows that running a law firm with family can be a great experience in many circumstances.

My partner/brother Jared and I have an interesting family history. I am a triplet and my older brothers (including Jared) are twins. Jared’s picture on our firm website is a little outdated (and at 6’9’’, I’m a lot taller than him), but he is assuredly still my big brother. All five of us siblings are guys, so we like to call ourselves the Roth”men.”

Both of our parents passed away at relatively young ages (although our grandmother is still very much around), so all of the Roth”men” had to rely on each other more than many other siblings. Even though my brother Jared and I have a unique connection, there was of course some fear that going into business with each other may impact our family, and we have seen this happen with relatives in the past. Nevertheless, Jared and I made it very clear from the beginning that we would not let any of our business dealings negatively affect our connection as brothers.

In any event, our first year of partnership has been great, and running a law firm with family has brought a lot of joy to our work. My brother is absolutely hilarious (and this is coming from a guy who used to do stand-up!). I would describe my brother’s comedy as a mixture of Jim Carrey’s physical routine, Robin Williams’ ability to do voices, and Bob Saget’s comedy in the absurdity. He’s really funny. We also work off each other when we are cracking jokes while interacting about the business, and pretty much every time we talk on the phone, I’m either smiling or laughing. Of course, people can have fun with any business partner, but there is something about interacting and joking around with someone who you’ve known since you were kids that can be extremely enriching when breaking the grind of practicing law.

Moreover, running a law firm with family can be less stressful than partnering with people to whom you are not related. I can honestly say that my brother and I have never had a single major dispute as law partners. Obviously, there is give and take with many decisions about running a law firm, but it just doesn’t make sense to escalate matters when you are dealing with family. This is one great benefit of working with relatives rather than business associates to whom you are not related. Pretty much every law firm I worked at had disputes among the partners, whether it was about origination, salaries, firm expenses, or other matters. Nevertheless, when you work with family, there can be less of an adversarial relationship between partners, which can be beneficial to a partnership. Even if there are disputes, my brother and I can always hug it out, which would seem pretty weird for traditional law firm partners!

In addition, running a law firm with family means that someone will have your back at all times, perhaps more than if you were not related to a partner. Law firm partners often need to be backed up, whether it is help with legal work, influencing adversaries, or a number of other issues. Sometimes, law firm partners may prioritize their own clients or take a “CYA” attitude to doing certain types of tasks. Not with our law firm. Both my brother and myself jump in to help each other whenever there is a need to be backed up. Maybe this is because we have been backing each other up for decades. When I was in the second grade, my brother Jared scared a bunch of kids on a schoolbus who were bullying me. He had my back then like he has my back now, and the expression “blood is thicker than water” can apply to running a law firm.

Furthermore, running a law firm with relatives can help with client interactions as well. Clients often like to work with family-run businesses, and they know that we are not another cookie-cutter law firm with which they cannot relate on a deeper level. Moreover, working on matters with my brother also helps when speaking to adversaries and other parties. My brother and I often employ the Rothman “double team” (an apt expression since we both played on the Cresskill High School basketball team with number “51”) where we both hop on calls to adversaries and others at the same time. This approach can help us de-escalate situations, and Jared and I can rely on our strengths during interactions to ensure our clients have the best likelihood of success. Indeed, Jared has a wealth of experience with transactional matters and I am more experienced with litigation, so when we jointly participate in calls, we can provide a well-rounded assessment of a situation.

Of course, the past year has been challenging for many law firms, and our shop has not been immune to the uncertainty caused by COVID-19. Still, the experience of running a law firm with family has been very enriching, and it has made the worst times of the past several months much easier. Of course, it is not uncommon to see family-run law firms in the legal profession, but some people may be hesitant about partnering with family. However, my experience shows that not only can running a law firm with family bring joy to your work, but it can also help you provide the best possible legal services to clients.

---

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.

Back in the primaries, Joe Biden promised that his first Supreme Court appointee would be a black woman. At the time, this came across as a nod to Kamala Harris supporters. She offered a deep record as a prosecutor, occupied a safe Senate seat, and gave Biden a splashy candidate to tease. The last California politician appointed to the Supreme Court (who also took a turn as the VP nominee incidentally) turned out pretty well. But then Biden went and added her to the ticket leaving his pledge without an obvious match. So now what’s he planning to do?

Because, hey, people actually care about the Supreme Court this time around. What a time to be alive!

The attention on Harris as a potential nominee always felt a little awkward — as if people were just jumping on the idea with the highest profile black woman in politics out of a lack of imagination — but it actually underscored exactly how terrible Democrats have been at building a roster of Supreme Court contenders. At least the floating of Harris read less patronizing than “Michelle Obama because… she was a lawyer, right?”

Actually, Michelle Obama is a pretty decent avatar for the historic problem Biden faces. America already mints far too few attorneys of color and if a black woman manages to enter the workforce with a Harvard law degree, the opportunity to make bank in Biglaw or parlay it into a $200K+ in-house job will push many off the traditional path to the bench. Simply put, the private sector understands the importance of diversity and is willing to pay people to build it (at least on paper… how genuine and lasting these efforts are is a subject for another post). A few years ago, Judge Posner wrote about the perverse economics that rewards talented legal minds to go anywhere but the courts. Judging is fundamentally a position that relies on people having the privilege to take less money to do a harder job.

Perusing the Circuit Courts, the Supreme Court farm system, turns up no black women under the age of 69 (or, at least, will be in a couple of weeks). They would be excellent justices but we have a completely broken Supreme Court model artificially biased against age and experience that rewards presidents of both parties for choosing the youngest possible credible nominees in order to maximize their impact from beyond their political graves. Where’s the Rule Against Perpetuities for judicial nominations?

With appellate judges off the table and Harris planning her office layout at the Naval Observatory, the nomination process enters relatively unfamiliar territory. Though not entirely unprecedented. Justice O’Connor was a state court appellate judge when Reagan tapped her to replace Potter Stewart. In some ways, Biden faces the same landscape Reagan did in 1981 when he searched for someone to fulfill his promise to put the first woman on the Court.

So what about the state courts? I asked Richmond Law’s judicial nomination guru Professor Carl Tobias and he said a lot of attention is focused on California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger. A Yale Law grad who clerked for Justice Stevens and served as acting principal deputy solicitor general during the Obama administration. With six years on the California high court, she has ample judicial experience for the job and her relatively moderate record would make it difficult for Republicans to brand her as a dangerous radical — though they managed to turn Merrick F**king Garland into Che Guevara, so who knows? At 44, she’s right in the sweet spot for nomination.

Beyond the state courts there’s always the rare double-A call-up of picking directly from the district courts. If this is the route, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson would seem the most likely option. Judge Jackson was already vetted for Garland’s nomination so the Biden camp wouldn’t be starting from scratch. A Harvard Law grad who clerked for Breyer, Judge Jackson brings experience as a federal defender to the mix on top of her seven years of experience on the federal bench within the D.C. Circuit footprint. That said, her position has also landed her in some hot button disputes, notably the Don McGahn subpoena case, that might make her a target for aggrieved Republicans if they were to maintain control of the Senate.

So maybe this comes down to “who wins the Senate?” Judge Jackson if the Democrats don’t have to deal and Justice Kruger if they need to get Mitt Romney to jump aboard?

Professor Tobias identified some constituencies for candidates outside the judiciary. The lack of experience on the bench make them definite longshots because, unfortunately, we’ve created a very narrow path to the high court that crowds out diverse career perspectives. Professor Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow (affiliate link), would be a monumental pick after an election that saw Black Lives Matter achieve widespread appeal. But, with Trump having successfully baited the Democrats into a “law & order” message complete with all the baggage that carries, it might be safe to say Biden’s not the guy who’ll push the envelope here. Sherrilyn Ifill, the president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which is the role that brought us the nation’s first black justice Thurgood Marshall, though Marshall had spent time on the Second Circuit and in the Justice Department before getting the nomination. Professor Melissa Murray of NYU Law would bring academic heft to the job but would also make for an awkward conference room since she notably testified against Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination. And since we kicked this off with a politician lawyer, Stacey Abrams is a Yale Law grad and Keisha Lance Bottoms served as a judge before becoming mayor of Atlanta — both of whom were reportedly considered in Biden’s running mate process. Letitia James is New York’s Attorney General and has made headlines pursuing Trump-related misconduct too.

A lot of intriguing possibilities, but if you’re a gambling person, Kruger and Jackson are definitely the favorites. Regardless of what happens, more important than placing a black woman on the Supreme Court will be recruiting more future candidates to take the plunge and opt for a career in the judiciary.

---

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.

It’s a mixed bag of good and bad news at Venable, and your perspective on the moves likely depends on whether you have a J.D. The Am Law 100 firm announced that due to their “prudent” financial moves — in April, the firm announced pay cuts across the board and furloughs for some staff members — they are rolling back those pay cuts. Good news! But though some furloughed staffers are returning to work, others, along with “other professional staff,” are being laid off. Bad news.

A spokesperson for the firm provided the following statement:

Venable continues to perform well during these challenging times. The firm is taking actions that will contribute to long-term success while maintaining a prudent approach to financial management in light of ongoing uncertainty related to COVID-19.

To reflect the firm’s performance and financial position, Venable announced it is increasing the compensation of salaried attorneys and staff from previously reduced levels. We are also aligning our staffing to meet our current and future needs. This includes returning some furloughed employees to work while separating with others who have been previously furloughed and some other professional staff.

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

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).

For those smart — and lucky — enough to land federal clerkships, things just got a little sweeter. Yes, you’ve already unlocked a major legal industry achievement, and now your chances of making bank have gone up.

Today, litigation firm Robins Kaplan announced a $100,000 federal clerkship bonus to those who have done at least a one-year district court or appellate federal clerkship. Partner and Recruiting Chair Patrick M. Arenz says it’s to recruit the best of the best to the firm:

“This bonus program reflects our commitment to recruiting the best of the best,” says Partner and Recruiting Chair Patrick M. Arenz. “Those who want to become the next generation of elite trial lawyers: excellent writers, charismatic storytellers, and resilient advocates.” Robins Kaplan will also offer credit towards partnership consideration for eligible clerkships.

While firm chair Ronald J. Schutz says the bonuses are in line with the firm’s overall mission:

“We want lawyers who won’t settle for mediocrity and who strive for the extraordinary,” says Partner and Chair of the Executive Board Ronald J. Schutz. “The Firm believes that many federal law clerks have demonstrated a track record of success and accomplishment, and we want to invite them to apply to join our ranks if they want to become high-stakes trial lawyers.”

It’s not the very top of clerkship bonuses — that honor goes to California plaintiffs firm Dovel & Luner who offer a jaw-dropping $140,000 as a clerkship bonus. And Quinn Emanuel has a slightly higher clerkship bonus of $105,000, as does boutique Hueston Hennigan. And Fish & Richardson made headlines with an impressive number to former clerks ($115,000), but that only applies to folks with Federal Circuit experience and it requires two years of service as a clerk. But considering most Biglaw clerkship bonuses are around $50,000, that’s still a huge bonus.

Are there any other firms that are ready to make the move on clerkship bonuses? If you have information about any firm’s clerkship bonuses, you should email us or text us (646-820-8477) with all the details. Thanks!

---

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 8, 2020, President Donald Trump issued a public executive memorandum to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin directing him to find a way to defer and possibly forgive an employee’s payroll taxes paid from September 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020. But this deferral is only limited to employees who make less than $4,000 every two weeks or an equivalent amount.

The memorandum was controversial as it raised a lot of questions from the tax professional community. How will employers and their payroll providers implement this on such short notice? Can the president unilaterally forgive tax liabilities? What happens if employers don’t comply? And how does this help people who are jobless because of COVID-19? And since payroll taxes fund Social Security, will this affect its solvency?

On August 25, almost a week before the memorandum was to take effect, the IRS issued Notice 2020-65 which provided guidance on implementing the memorandum. The three page notice stated that employers can increase their employees’ take-home pay starting September 1, 2020, by deferring the withholding of their payroll taxes until December 31, 2020. But this deferral must be paid back by withholding this amount ratably between January 1, 2021 and April 30, 2021.

So basically this so-called relief order is really just a short-term loan.

Also, what happens if the employer cannot pay due to unforeseen circumstances? For example, when an employee stops working for the employer during the January-to-April payback period. It is likely that the employer will then be responsible for the tax. But this creates a problem for the employer that goes beyond getting an annoying letter from the IRS. You see, an employer is required to withhold the employee’s share of the payroll taxes and they are deemed to hold the withheld money in trust to pay the IRS. If the employer does not pay, the IRS doesn’t go after the employee. They go after the employer for that withheld money and call that the trust fund penalty. The government takes this penalty so seriously that they specifically made it nondischargeable in bankruptcy. So it is slightly worse than a student loan bill.

Most tax professionals believe that because of the complexity, risk, and time pressure, employers will not follow this notice and will continue withholding as normal. Most employees will not really benefit since they have to pay the deferred tax back through an additional withholding on top of their usual tax withholdings. Employees are likely to complain about the additional withholding since they need the money to pay their credit card bills in January after their holiday shopping.

The notice did not mention how the deferred tax can be forgiven. Many tax professionals have said that the president or the IRS cannot unilaterally forgive taxes. This is not really true. While neither the president nor the Treasury Department can cancel the tax laws, it is allowed to forgive existing liabilities.

Section 7122 of the Internal Revenue Code allows the Internal Revenue Service to compromise any civil or criminal tax debt. In the vast majority of cases, the IRS forgives existing tax debts through its Offer In Compromise (OIC) program. This allows taxpayers to submit an offer to settle their outstanding tax liabilities for less than what they owe. Most of the time, financially distressed taxpayers submit OICs, but like any creditor, the IRS will not easily settle. However, as many tax practitioners will brag about on their websites, the IRS has accepted settlement offers for pennies on the dollar in certain cases. So in effect, the IRS can forgive tax liabilities — sometimes substantially — without new legislation.

The federal statute authorizing compromises did not give a lot of rules because it was assumed that the IRS and the Treasury Department would work in the best interest of the government. So the Treasury Department issued regulations on OICs.

So if the Treasury Secretary wants to forgive the tax, it can do so by issuing temporary regulations. Temporary regulations have the force of law even without public notice and comment, but they are only good for three years after enactment which is more than enough time in this case.

Assuming the deferred tax can be forgiven, because of the short notice of the memorandum and the IRS notice, it will be difficult to implement a feasible forgiveness plan. The IRS can create a form or modify existing employment tax return forms which can reduce the employers’ tax bill to account for the employees’ payroll taxes that were not withheld. But what happens to the employers who disregarded the notice and withheld like normal? Will they be eligible for a refund? If so, how can the IRS ensure that the refund will be given to the employees?

The president’s executive memorandum designed to provide tax relief for employees is likely to be ignored by employers because, as it currently stands, it is difficult to implement and provides no real relief to employees. For the memorandum to have impact, there needs to be a simple procedure to forgive the deferred taxes. It could be possible to forgive the taxes without additional legislation, but the Treasury Department must issue guidance quickly.

---

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

Every year lawyers and law students across the country are financially burdened by student loan debt. Alone, they have no leverage to negotiate interest rates. But together, they can achieve the seemingly impossible.

That’s where LeverEdge, a revolutionary student loan negotiation startup, comes in. They help law students and graduates use collective bargaining to force banks to compete for their loans and offer lower rates. LeverEdge works with both current law students (on in-school loans), and law graduates (on refinancing their loans), to help them get exclusive rate discounts and the best deals on the market. The best part is, joining LeverEdge is free and there is no obligation to take the deals they negotiate. Seriously.

We recently sat down with Tyler Day, a third-year student at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law who joined LeverEdge to finance his degree, to discuss some of the ways collective bargaining negotiations can work for law students and how it can change the financial outlook for law school graduates. For even more information, here’s a complete guide to law school student loans.

How did you find LeverEdge?

This past February one of the founders, Chris Abkarians, sent me a LinkedIn message about a student loan negotiation startup that he co-founded. He explained that LeverEdge serves to make banks come to students for loans and bid against each other, and I was really intrigued by the idea of negotiating bulk loan discounts for my classmates. I signed up with LeverEdge, responded to his message, and asked to set up a call to talk about the idea. That initial call convinced me that this was something special and I ended up being one of the first hires at the company.

Group financing is probably something most prospective law students have never heard of. Please tell us about how it works.

Although it may sound complicated, the idea is quite simple. LeverEdge gathers large groups of students and alumni who need help paying for school or refinancing their loans and gets lenders to compete for their business. When students and graduates can get organized and act as a group, they have stronger buying power. In the same way that avocados are cheaper when you buy them in bulk at Costco instead of your local grocery store, LeverEdge members get lower rates when they are part of the group than if they were to apply for a loan themselves. 

LeverEdge began negotiating on behalf of graduate students from law, MBA, and medical programs, but has now grown to cover undergraduate students and alumni looking to refinance as well. 

The LeverEdge process can be simplified into three steps.

STEP 1: YOU SIGN UP. 

Sign up for free and tell LeverEdge a little bit about yourself and the type of student loan you need. LeverEdge helps both current students and alumni who are looking to refinance their student loans. It takes less than one minute and they don’t run a credit check. Once you’ve joined, encourage your friends to sign up as well. The larger the group grows, the more everyone can save.

Step 2: LEVEREDGE runS a bid. 

LeverEdge runs a bidding process between banks, credit unions, and other lenders. They compete for your collective business by offering exclusive discounts. LeverEdge evaluates each offer based on a range of factors, with a heavy emphasis on how much money each bid will save each of their members, and negotiates an exclusive deal with the lender who offers the best rates and terms. By negotiating on behalf of a large group, they can get loan rates that are lower than any individual member could get.

Step 3: Members get the deal. 

Finally, LeverEdge informs their members about the negotiated deal and shares a link through which members can take advantage of the negotiated rate (this is the stage they are at right now). They provide their members with a sophisticated and unbiased loan calculator that can help members decide which loan is best for them (i.e., the negotiated offer or any other offer they might come across) and provide resources to help them know the LeverEdge deal is better or worse than federal loans for their unique situation.

What if you already have federal loans? Can LeverEdge step in and help a law school graduate refinance?

Yes! Refinancing can be a great option to save money on interest. Some borrowers prefer to keep their federal loans and the protections they provide, but if you plan to refinance LeverEdge can save you even more money with their exclusive discounts. 

Refinancing your student loan refers to the process of taking out a new loan to pay off one or more outstanding loans (including private and/or federal loans). Borrowers usually refinance in order to receive lower interest rates, change repayment terms, or to otherwise reduce their repayment amount.

Many law students choose to refinance their student loans after they graduate and start full-time work because they will get a significantly lower interest rate than they had in school. You normally need to have three paychecks from your new job in order to qualify.

Remember, there are trade offs. If you have taken out federal loans in the past, refinancing means that you will switch to a private loan and lose the protections of Income Driven Repayment Plans and Public Service Loan Forgiveness (there is no way to refinance and keep the federal protections).

Why did you decide to use this method to finance your law degree?

My wife and I are both attending graduate school at the same time. Before we started, we were very aware of the amount of student loan debt that we needed to take out and planned accordingly. To be honest, we knew that we could accept federal loans to cover our expenses but never really considered other options until I learned about LeverEdge. 

When I realized that LeverEdge could offer substantially lower interest rates than what the federal government was offering and I saw the amount of money that I could save in the student loan calculator, I started to investigate the pros and cons of private loans over federal loans. It became very clear that if I was going to take a private loan, LeverEdge was definitely the best option — they vetted all the lenders in the market and chose the one who would offer the best rate, plus they negotiated an exclusive discount and benefits on top of that.

What are the differences between a federal loan and a private loan negotiated by LeverEdge?

When choosing which type of loan to take, I had to decide whether the protections that federal loans offered were worth the extra cost in interest. Federal loans essentially provide a form of insurance — they offer protections such as Income Driven Repayment Plans and Public Service Loan Forgiveness, which will help you if you have a lower paying job or are unable to make your monthly payments on a standard repayment plan. However, these benefits mainly apply to students pursuing public interest careers and come at a big cost (a difference of 1% adds up to thousands of dollars over the life of the loan). For more information about how to make this decision, see here.

In the end, I felt comfortable taking the LeverEdge loan going into my 3L year because I knew that I would be working at a law firm after graduation and I would very likely not need the federal government protections. The thousands of dollars saved on interest and fees will help me pay off my loans even faster. 

In summary, the choice of whether to accept (or keep) a federal or private loan is a personal decision with important financial consequences. To effectively make that decision you must first understand your options. That’s why we recommend all law students and alumni sign up with LeverEdge to have access to the interest rate discount we negotiate. Then you can put your interest rate numbers in the calculator to understand your potential savings, costs, and tradeoffs.. Signing up is free (and always will be) and there is no obligation to take a loan. It simply helps you understand what your options are.

“We genuinely want you to make the best financial decision for you and your family and will never recommend that you take a loan that is not best for you.”

We see most often that the students who take the LeverEdge deal are rising 3Ls with BigLaw job offers, students who are confident that they don’t want to go into public interest, and students who don’t need to borrow as much money to begin with. Graduates who are looking to refinance are also a huge part of members who take the deal.

Tell us a little bit about how LeverEdge can put law students in better financial positions than if they had taken out federal loans.

The best way to visualize the difference that LeverEdge can make over federal student loans is to use the student loan calculator to compare your options.

For example, assume that a student is about to enter their third year of law school and needs to borrow $60,000 for the semester. Under federal loans, the student would end up paying $24,529 in interest and fees over 10 years. With a loan negotiated by LeverEdge, an average student could save between $5,000-$10,000 depending on their credit score and if they decide to take a fixed or variable rate loan. The savings are even more dramatic if you choose to refinance with LeverEdge after you graduate (if you already have a private loan, that decision is a no-brainer) or if you use a LeverEdge negotiated loan for all three years of law school. For more information about fixed v. variable rates, and how to know which one is right for you, see here.

Most law students graduate with more than six figures of debt. How is LeverEdge helping you better manage your debt load?

My favorite part about LeverEdge is that they are an initiative started by students and for students — everyone on the team really wants you to make the best decision for your financial situation. The first step is knowing what your options are.

“I believe that every law student could benefit from running the numbers on their law school education.” 

Too often students shy away from researching their options and fail to make the best decision for their financial future. Whether it is before you choose which school to attend, while you are in school, or after you graduate, it is empowering to know exactly what things cost and how you can save money. 

To be honest, LeverEdge isn’t for everyone. If you are going into a public interest law career federal loans are probably a better choice. However, if you plan to work at a law firm after graduation, believe that you will not qualify for federal benefits after graduation, or simply want to pay as little money as possible, you can save thousands of dollars and pay off your loans quicker with a lower rate from LeverEdge.

How has COVID-19 affected the student loan market?

The COVID-19 global pandemic has caused federal student loan interest rates to fall to their lowest rates in years. The good news is that private student loans, and by extension the lower rate that you can get via LeverEdge, are also at historic lows. 

There are benefits to federal student loans, such as the federal government’s freeze on federal student loan interest through December 31, 2020, that are important to consider. For example, it is probably best to wait to refinance your federal student loans until after the freeze expires. However, the effects of COVID-19 have also impacted private student loans lenders — many of which offered forbearance during the pandemic. LeverEdge negotiates with lenders to maximize these benefits as well.

Is there anything else that you think is important for law students to know when it comes to financing their degrees?

Know that the first step is to always try and limit how much money you need to borrow. Consider the financial aid package that your law school offers (including scholarship money) before accepting. Once you are in school, always stay on the lookout for scholarships from your school, employers, interest groups, etc. LeverEdge compiles a list of law school scholarships that you can check out regularly.

“Don’t be afraid to ask for more free money.” 

It’s important to note that LeverEdge helps members in multiple ways. They vet lenders for those with good terms, they help you get the lowest rate possible, they push lenders to eliminate all fees (such as origination fees, application fees, and prepayment penalties), and they monitor lenders after you take your loan to make sure they uphold their end of the bargain. Federal loans in comparison have higher interest rates and have large origination fees (1.062% for the first $20,500 you borrow and 4.248% for everything after that). 

Remember that knowledge is power. Know your options so that you can be confident that you are making the best decision for your future.

As one of President Trump’s chief hydrological engineers, Mick Mulvaney did a great deal of swamp-draining before his unceremonious departure from the White House inner circle: pushing through a tax plan essentially written by the private equity and hedge fund industries; cravenly abandoning a lifetime of deficit hawkdom in service of the Dear Leader; telling bankers to pay up and get lobbying; and, last but not at all least, gutting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for the benefit of those screwing over consumers and payday lenders and the like (albeit not as quickly as the latter had hoped).

The Texas Supreme Court had already weighed in on the COVID exam question, resolving to offer an online option and a hotel-based in-person exam that one tipster branded a second-rate NBA bubble. But online tests have proven disastrous thus far and in-person exams are still death traps. That prompted Justice Eva Guzman to advocate an apprenticeship path to admission and offered applicants a brief moment of hope.

In an August 24 letter to the Texas Board of Law Examiners obtained by Bar Exam Tracker, Justice Guzman informs the Board that she would like to see apprenticeship added to its next set of recommendations to the state supreme court.

Noting that online bar exam efforts carry “an unacceptable degree of uncertainty,” Justice Guzman brands an examless apprenticeship option “prudent, if not essential.”

Without a doubt, some test-takers are disproportionately affected by COVID-19 and related issues, and for them, an in-person hotel exam or an online exam are not genuinely viable alternatives. For this group, these difficult times demand another licensing option. As the statistics show, the overwhelming majority of bar examinees eventually pass the bar This year’s bar applicants have been studying just as much as those in years past, if not more. Under the extant circumstances, the risk of licensing applicants who might not have passed the exam in an ordinary year is tolerable.

An excellent point! That’s not to say that apprenticeship-style licensing won’t present challenges. It’s hard enough to get jobs right now without making it a prerequisite to a license. And it obviously introduces another imbalanced power relationship in a profession fraught with them. But these are the sorts of challenges that we should set our licensing experts to solving. Joshua Lenon of Clio proposed an expanded role for law schools taking on graduates to do important work bridging the access to justice gap. That’s the sort of creative thinking states should be getting into.

And yet the court explicitly rejected this suggestion a mere four days later with Justice Busby citing budget concerns at the State Bar and Board of Law Examiners. A corkscrew worthy of Six Flags!^[1] Observers noted that back in July, there were five justices already on some form of diploma privilege or apprenticeship path and that wasn’t even including Justice Guzman. How the court got from that number plus the addition of Justice Guzman to a curt rejection of the possibility in less than a week is a mystery. Have we really gotten to the point where making licensing authorities put in a little hard work is a dealbreaker?

We’ve come a long way from some very famous words uttered in Texas back when we did things “not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”

---

[1] By the way, shouldn’t more people be asking why we’ve got theme parks celebrating all of those flags? Because one of the six is… problematic.

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.

The legal profession has been put through the wringer in 2020 thanks to the pandemic. Now that the fall is almost upon us, dozens of firms that cut salaries to combat the economic turmoil that COVID-19 brought with it have now either partially or fully rolled back those reductions. At other firms, the news is a little less celebratory: attorneys are being laid off.

This may come as a shock to some, but Baker McKenzie is conducting layoffs. The Biglaw behemoth has over 6,000 attorneys worldwide and was recently ranked by Am Law as the fourth highest-grossing firm in the country with $2.92 billion in revenue in 2019. If you recall, back in April, coronavirus cuts came to the firm, with salaries slashed by 15 percent for all U.S. attorneys and business professionals making over $100,000, while those in Canada sustained a 10 percent reduction to their salaries.

Yesterday afternoon, sources let us know that cuts were underway at the firm, and that midlevel and senior associates were the subject of layoffs across several offices. We reached out to Baker McKenzie for confirmation, and received this statement:

As a global firm, Baker McKenzie has felt the impact of increased market and business disruption around the world. Over the past seven months, we’ve been quick to maneuver and adapt by staying close to our clients as we realign to meet their changing needs.

As such, we can confirm that we are reducing the size of our workforce in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. This reduction includes lawyers, other timekeepers and business professionals.

To say this was a hard decision is a massive understatement. We are deeply aware of the human impact of these decisions, and are treating our people fairly and with dignity. But having considered the full array of options, we are confident that this is the best path forward.

It is unknown at this time how many people lost their jobs at Baker McKenzie, what their severance packages look like, or what other kinds of assistance the firm will offer to those who now find themselves without employment.

On the bright side, the firm’s salary cuts will be a thing of the past in 2021. “Looking to the future,” a firm spokesperson said, “we can also confirm that the current salary reductions announced earlier this year in the U.S. and Canada will end on December 31, 2020.” Coupled with the layoffs announced in the very same statement, these salary cut rollbacks now seem like they’re some sort of a consolation prize.

If something like this is happening at an elite firm like Baker McKenzie, it must be worrisome for other firms that weren’t as financially well off in the first place. Best of luck to all those who are affected by the layoffs at Baker McKenzie.

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.

Americans going through fertility challenges in the United States might be jealous of those in the United Kingdom and their access to universal healthcare. The United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS) provides medical services free of charge, and that even includes fertility treatments. Brits love their healthcare so much that they even celebrated the NHS — through dance — during the 2012 Olympics’ opening ceremonies. But a report published earlier this month, might temper that trans-Atlantic envy.

Recently, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) used freedom of information laws to obtain the policies of England’s 135 clinical commissioning groups (CCGs), the regional rulemaking bodies as to which patients are eligible to receive fertility services and which are not. The discrepancies between the different regions’ rules were jarring and have led to essentially a postcode (the equivalent of what we Americans call a ZIP code) lottery. One patient might not be eligible for services that she would be eligible for, if only she were to live in the next shire over.

No Partner, No Treatment

Among the more disturbing of the discrepancies are the varying relationship requirements of the different regions. Almost half (48%) would not allow single women to obtain treatment according to their criteria. But of those, over 20 regions allowed for unmarried women to receive treatment, but only so long as they were able to prove they were in a “stable” relationship. Even within those regions, the definition of “stable” relationship varied. One region required evidence of three years in a relationship, another two years and proof of being “financially interdependent.” Wouldn’t financial independence be, like, better?

The varying — and frequently offensive — criteria did not end there.

Ageism. Fourteen of the regions refused to provide services for women over the (extreme geriatric) age of 35.

Weight discrimination. Over 96% of the regions would not provide treatment to women with a body mass index (BMI) of over 30.

Secondary infertility-ism. It is not uncommon for a person to experience infertility after having a child. This is referred to as “secondary infertility.” These patients were largely out of luck when it comes to eligibility for treatment in the varying regions. The study showed that most regions were only willing to provide treatments to those who had not had any children.

Smoking-ism. 116 of the regions (86%) deny treatment if either the patient or her partner smokes. Actually, I guess if you have to ration fertility care, maybe that one isn’t as bad.

Attorney Louisa Ghevaert, a leading UK fertility and family law specialist, described how the “current NHS IVF postcode lottery creates inequality, discrimination, unfairness, and misery for many, and that this needs to change.”

Should We Be Throwing Stones?

That’s a lot of discrimination! Good thing we live in the United States. Right? Well, maybe not.

First, of course, we do not, for the most part, have a system of socialized medicine. Instead, we rely on insurance to make medical services, including fertility treatment, affordable. Here, whether you have insurance that will provide some level of coverage for fertility treatments is also partially a lottery, based on who your employer is. If you work for Starbucks, Google, or Facebook, you’re in luck!

Additionally a growing number of states (19 so far) have passed fertility care access insurance mandates requiring that insurance providers in the state — that are subject to state law (a majority are governed by federal law under ERISA) — provide some level of fertility coverage. My home state of Colorado managed to squeak through a fertility access bill this last session, right before shutting down the legislature due to the pandemic.

Those Americans not provided fertility coverage through their employer or state mandates are generally out of luck. And that’s a majority of Americans. The options then are to pay tens of thousands, or more, out of pocket, or consider medical tourism, traveling to another country to find more affordable treatment. Either way, access becomes sharply limited along socio-economic lines.

The (Start To) An Answer

Given the declining fertility levels and high demand for fertility treatments, Ghevaert proposes a multistep solution, including the formation of a dedicated Ministry for Fertility to provide future direction specifically for the fertility sector. (Like a federal Department of Fertility; not like the Ministry of Magic, unfortunately.) This would bring greater cohesion, promote and prioritize the fertility space, and overcome the current fragmented approach.

Also, she explains, the “UK would be well serviced by a top level multidisciplinary strategy group to drive change and innovation, as well as identify and mitigate risk with joined up thinking between the technology, science, healthcare, fertility, education, economic and other sectors.” She proposes that such a strategy group should operate on a continuous basis, and be made up of strategic thinkers outside of the elected political elite. That sounds bloody brilliant (as the Brits would say). Can we get one of those too?

---

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.