Kraken Bill Comes Due As Judge Moves To Boot Lin Wood Off Carter Page Case

Finally!

After weeks of plastering the federal docket with garbage lawsuits, a trial judge in Delaware became so alarmed at attorney Lin Wood’s antics that he issued a show cause order sua sponte demanding to know why he should not revoke Wood’s pro hac vice admission to appear before the court.

As first reported by Law & Crime’s Adam Klasfield, Wood’s representation of former Trump campaign aide Carter Page in a suit claiming defamation by Yahoo! News and Huffpost has hit a snag. Page represented himself in a federal suit against the news outlet’s parent company Oath, Inc., but U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield failed to find the alleged violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act and tossed that suit in 2018. So Page retained Wood for a plain vanilla defamation suit in the Superior Court for the State of Delaware, and the attorney’s PHV application was approved in August.

But Page is not Wood’s only client. Since the election, Wood has put his name on Sidney Powell’s Wisconsin “Kraken” suit, in addition to filing challenges to Georgia’s presidential and senatorial elections on his own behalf.

“It appears to the Court that, since the granting of Mr. Wood’s motion he, has engaged in conduct in other jurisdictions, which, had it occurred in Delaware, would violate the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“DRPC”),” wrote Judge Craig A. Karsnitz, before going on to detail a litany of screwups.

Among the failures in the Wisconsin Kraken advocacy, Judge Karsnitz specifically cited: adding a plaintiff without his knowledge or consent; claiming to have filed papers under seal when this was not the case; requesting a TRO without the required supporting affidavit; failure to certify that adverse parties had received notification; improperly pleading for expeditious injunctive relief; and including a fabricated quote from a supporting case cite in a pleading. None of which suggests scrupulous attention to procedure in a jurisdiction in which he was extended the courtesy of being allowed to practice.

And in Georgia, where Mr. Wood is a member of the bar, his own suit to stop Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger from certifying the election results was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Steven Grimberg, who described the claim as having “no basis in fact or law.” Judge Karsnitz suggests that this might violate DRPC Rule 3.1, which bars lawyers from filing suit “unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so.”

Judge Karsnitz was also deeply unimpressed with the infamous “Ramsland Affidavit” regarding purported electoral fraud in Michigan, which Wood (inexplicably) filed in his Georgia suit. Noting that the document “contained materially false information, misidentifying the counties as to which claimed fraudulent voting information occurred,” the court wondered if its submission as evidence ran afoul of multiple DRPC rules mandating candor before the tribunal.

Presumably the Delaware court had not seen Wood’s latest federal challenge to the rules of the upcoming Georgia senate runoffs, in which he guaranteed “plenty of perjury” when he drafted this show cause order.

Mr. Wood has until January 6 to explain to the court why he should be permitted to remain on Carter Page’s case.

Meanwhile, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said on a call with reporters that she will be investigating “what we believe to be an intentional misrepresentation” by Sidney Powell in her Michigan Kraken litigation.

“I think we need to go back to a time where you can trust an attorney is making an accurate and truthful representation to the court, because if they don’t, then they won’t be able to practice law anymore,” Nessel said, according to Forbes.

Lawyers for the City of Detroit have reportedly given Powell 21-day notice of their intention to ask the court for Rule 11 sanctions for her conduct in the Michigan suit, so Powell may be facing challenges on multiple fronts in the Great Lakes State.

Later Nessel’s spokesman Ryan Jarvi added, “Professional litigators should know better than to waste the court’s time with baseless arguments designed to mislead the public, and we will consider filing grievances against those who violated the rules of professional conduct all attorneys swear to abide by.”

Godspeed, Michiganders and Muskrats. It’s time to clean this sh*t up.

Judge Says Lin Wood’s Post-Election Lawsuits May Have Violated Several Professional Rules, Orders Him to Respond [Law & Crime]
Michigan Attorney General Weighing Professional Sanctions Against Sidney Powell, Pro-Trump Lawyers [Forbes]


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

Biglaw Partner Tries To Convince Judge His Election Lawsuit Isn’t Trash By Announcing, ‘I’m Not Rudy Giuliani’

Not George Terwilliger (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Just so this is clear for the record. I am George Terwilliger. I’m not Sidney Powell. I’m not Lin Wood. I’m not Rudy Giuliani. Our opponents here have raised the specter of this somehow being related to cases in which those lawyers have made assertions concerning the Georgia process and the election process and election procedures. We have nothing to do with that.

— McGuireWoods partner George Terwilliger III, in a statement made before Judge Eleanor Ross of the Northern District of Georgia, where he sought a federal restraining order to change how mail-in ballots in Georgia should be validated. Terwilliger represents the Georgia Republican Party, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and the campaigns of Georgia Republican Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue. Judge Ross ruled that Terwilliger’s clients did not have standing, and dismissed the case.


Staci ZaretskyStaci 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.

Jack Ma’s Bribe To Chinese Regulators Didn’t Work

It’s not clear at what point during the week after his Oct. 24 speech lambasting China’s increasingly heavy-handed financial regulation that Jack Ma realized he had really stepped in it, putting his dream of the world’s largest IPO rather in some jeopardy. Certainly, by the time of his summons for a little sit-down with the People’s Bank of China, the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission, the China Securities Regulatory Commission and the State Administration of Foreign Exchange, he must have suspected just how covered in excrement both of his feet, ankles and legs up to and possibly above his knees were, because he came prepared to do whatever it took to keep things moving along.

Judge Writes, ‘To Say That This Case Is Trouble Is Like Saying 2020 Has Been Difficult’

In fairness to Magistrate Judge Andrew Austin, this case and his 2020 have gone hand-in-hand.

Back in April, the judge had to benchslap Kirkland & Ellis into oblivion for not only refusing to comply with a simple third-party subpoena, but then having the audacity to demand fees for their trouble. They would not receive them, but the judge would note that “K&E should be embarrassed.”

But Judge Austin only had to deal with K&E because the defendant claimed he didn’t control a number of documents held by the recruiting company he otherwise seems to run. Last week, Judge Austin had to deal with the underlying discovery disputes involving the defendant and it was not pretty.

Indeed, “petty” was one word the judge used. “Unprofessional” was another.

So let’s dive back into the world of MWK v. Jowers, a dispute between the various Kinney Recruiting entities[1] and former employee Evan Jowers, and see how things are going for Judge Austin.

After warning the defendant in May to make good faith efforts to comply with outstanding discovery requests, he instead fired his attorneys from DLA Piper and brought on Robert Tauler, whose firm appears to be the defendant in a RICO matter over herbal dick pills right now — because why not? — and promptly filed eight motions ranging from asserting its right to withhold three-year-old requested documents as sensitive trade secrets to demanding 42 hours of testimony from the same person (MWK also filed two motions for protective orders decided in this order).

To the former point, Judge Austin did his best interpretation of the Chris Rock line, “This isn’t Dynasty, you work at the phone company”:

If this were a patent suit, and Kinney and Jowers were the principals of rival chip manufacturers, these would be serious issues, deserving of a careful review and analysis. But this isn’t a patent suit, and Kinney and Jowers are not the principals of competing chip manufacturers—they’re the principals of attorney recruiting firms and the material at issue is, at best, marginally sensitive and is three years old. Given all of this, there is simply no good reason any court should have to delve into precisely how much of the material Kinney should be permitted to see. Instead, this is the very sort of issue attorneys working in good faith should work out.

It’s hard to imagine an industry as fast paced as attorney recruiting where the jobs are snapped up so quickly. But, sure, try to claim that emails about an employment benefits opening from 2017 are super-sensitive.

As for the depositions, Tauler filed motions for sanctions after the plaintiffs failed to appear at a pair of depositions. Except…

In both instances, the depositions were scheduled by Jowers unilaterally, after being told that the proposed dates were unavailable or that a witness would not be there. At bottom, the dispute revolves around the fact that there are five MWK entities that are parties to the case—MWK (the plaintiff), as well as Counsel Unlimited LLC, Kinney Recruiting LLC, Kinney Recruiting Limited, and Recruiting Partners GP, Inc. (all of whom Jowers sued in his counterclaim). Tauler has informed MWK that, in addition to deposing Kinney individually, he also intends to take a deposition of each entity, for which Kinney will be the corporate representative. Based on this, Tauler has unabashedly insisted that he is entitled to take six depositions, each seven hours in length. With no hint of shame, Tauler recounts that when the topic of the depositions was discussed, Kinney “requested an agreement by Jowers to limit the number of those depositions—by combining and consolidating them—so that, Kinney would not need to be deposed for a separate, seven-hours long day for each of the five named entities. Jowers’s counsel told him . . . that no such agreement would be acceptable.”

So far, we’ve got “petty and unprofessional” and “with no hint of shame.” Are there any others in this 19-page order? Well, we have “absurdity,” “abusive, and unwarranted,” “failed to provide any colorable argument,” “wholesale lack of any evidence,” “goes too far, “pure speculation and conspiracy-theorizing,” and “a prime example of how far beyond the pale Mr. Tauler has gone in his abuse of discovery in this case.” It’s safe to say things aren’t going great for Jowers and Tauler. In fact, Judge Austin revisits Tauler’s pro hac vice admission and demands that local counsel be added to supervise Tauler now that the original DLA Piper attorneys have withdrawn.

But that’s not even the worst of it:

The conduct by Mr. Jowers and Mr. Tauler evidenced in the ten motions addressed here is deplorable. It is the essence of what makes the public have low regard for lawyers. It is petty, and unprofessional. And, most importantly, it has diverted the scarce judicial resources of this Court from disputes far more deserving of the Court’s time. In May, Jowers and Tauler were warned that there would be consequences for continuing the conduct the Court was already seeing at that point. Rather than correcting things, they both doubled down and increased their abusive approach to this case. Accordingly, no later than January 5, 2021, both Jowers and Tauler shall file a written brief showing cause why they should not both be sanctioned for the costs they have caused the Plaintiff and Counter-Defendants to incur to respond to the baseless motions disposed of here.

Judges are generally too lenient when it comes to sanctioning bad behavior. There is a class of litigator who sees the process as an invitation to engage in wars of attrition that demean the whole system and they feel they can get away with it because no one wants to pull the trigger on sanctions. And maybe Judge Austin will stay his hand here too, but it’s clear that if he did so it would be contingent on never having to resolve another dispute like this from the parties.

Maybe it’s time for these folks to lay off the herbal male enhancement pills. It’s possible that they’re clouding their judgment.

(Full order on the next page…)

‘Petty and Unprofessional’: Judge Threatens Sanctions in Legal Recruiter Trade Secrets Case [Texas Lawyer]

Earlier: Kirkland & Ellis Ripped In Blistering Benchslap


[1] By means of full disclosure, Kinney is a longtime advertiser on this site, but that doesn’t really factor into our analysis here.

HeadshotJoe 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.

5 (Unforeseeable, Predicable, And Surprising) Legal Tech Trends In 2020

(Image via Getty)

We were all blindsided as 2020 unfolded, yet the momentum of technological change and innovation assured a steady stream of new products. I have identified five trends, which I have divided into three categories: unforeseeable, continuing and surprising.

The trends I believe are worth noting — Unforeseeable: COVID-19 impacts; Predicable: state court analytics and innovative workflow tools; Surprising: legal news re-emerges as a competitive focus among major legal publishers and tech marketplaces emerge.

Unforeseeable: COVID-Related Trends

COVID alone triggered four subtrends:

  • The emergence of local law and ephemeral publications. Major legal vendors were no more prepared to track county level health department issuances and Governors’ executive orders than the average law firm. To make things worse these “documents” were issued in a myriad of social media formats, texts, tweets, Facebook pages … . What’s a law firm to do?
  • Librarians and KM professionals stepped into the vacuum and established protocols for locating and harnessing the untidy universe of COVID-19 ephemera.
  • Law firms became publishers of original COVID-19 resources (leveraging the local documents harnessed by librarians).
  • Legal publishers turned put an unprecedent volumes of free legal resources covering COVID-19 issues. I covered this trend in an earlier ATL post.

Continuing Trends: State Court Analytics And Workflow Tools

State Litigation Analytics — California was ground zero for the development of federal and state analytics. Gavelytics and Judicata were two of the earliest startups to tackle the challenges of state litigation analytics. Lex Machina, the pioneer in federal litigation analytics, entered the state litigation analytics market with the February launch of California and Nevada modules.

Westlaw and Bloomberg Law which previously launched  state analytics continues to build out state analytics content. Starts-ups Trellis and Unicourt joined the state analytics party in 2020. Fastcase/DocketAlarm continued building out their state litigation analytics and late in the year announced the acquisition of Judicata.

Workflow Tools

  • Brief Analysis tools. Casetext launched a groundbreaking AI-enabled motion-drafting tool, Compose, at the Legal Tech conference in January. Compose uses AI to identify legal arguments and standards tailored to a jurisdiction and legal issue. Parallel search turbocharges the location of relevant precedent to support arguments.
  • Casetext had invented a new class of brief checking tool with the launch of CARA in 2016.  It has taken a few years for all of the larger tech companies to catch up. LexisNexis and Bloomberg Law launched their brief analyzer tools in 2020. Westlaw launched their brief analyzer tool Quick Check in   That product was leveraged to build Quick Check Judicial. This is a tool was created for judges and can analyze up to six documents and produce comparative reports.
  • Among the other workflow tools launched in 2020: Wolters Kluwer added a Practical Content dashboard and Thomson Reuters HiQ 5.4 AI contract analysis with integration to  Contract Express.

Surprising Trends: Legal News And Technology Directories

Is the Lexis News Monopoly In Jeopardy? If you look at 2020 trends — the answer is “yes.” Lexis has owned a virtual monopoly on legal news for the past decade. They not only bought Law360 in 2012, but over the years have locked up exclusive deals with the Wall Street Journal and American Lawyer Media. In 2014 they bought the news aggregation platform Newsdesk. I have repeatedly wondered aloud why Thomson Reuters and Bloomberg — both media companies — have failed to compete directly with Law360.

In January, Fastcase and American lawyer Media both announced the launch of legal news products.

  • Fastcase launched their first Law Street Media newsletter which provides not only news but weaves analytics from their Docket Alarm analytics product into the news.
  • ALM announced an innovative news feed Legal Radar now branded as Law.com Radar. It offers a “breaking” newsfeed directed at younger lawyers who consume news on their phones. News items are referred to as “blips.” After originally focusing on Litigation news, they added “breaking deal” news for transactional lawyers in November.
  • Thomson Reuters Back in March 2020 I met with Tony Kinnear, the new President of Thomson Reuters Legal Professions. My message to Kinnear – Thomson Reuters needs to compete with Law360. It may be a coincidence, but in October 2020 Thomson Reuters launched a legal news product Westlaw Today.
  • Bloomberg Law solidified their place in legal news with the acquisition of the Bureau of National Affairs in 2011. I once described BNA as the nerd “A+ student in a bow tie” of legal publishing. Since his appointment in 2018, Bloomberg Law President Joe Breda has been focused on transforming the company’s historically dense, regulatory news offerings into more modern stream-able, clickable and contextualized legal news products. This past year they added embedded interactive visualizations including law firm rankings and hired an Editor-in-Chief from the National Law Journal.

Tech Marketplaces

First of all it needs to be stated that marketplaces are basically curated directories.  Some also offer cloud environments where new products can be tested. I didn’t see this coming at all and yet, I have a visceral understanding of why Marketplaces are needed. A Google search for something like “legal practice management tools” can deliver 8 million useless results in a second. You are better off emailing your colleagues for product recommendations. What is a lawyer/technologies/librarian to do? Enter the Tech Marketplace.

  • Reynen Court created by a consortium of law firms is a type of legal app store launched in January with a mission:  “to make it easier for law firms and legal departments to adopt and manage modern cloud-based software applications without having to trust firm or client content to the rapidly growing universe of vertically integrated SaaS providers.”
  • Thomson Reuters announced  two initiatives. Thomson Reuters Marketplace (beta version), is an online marketplace where lawyers, technologists and knowledge professional can research, trial and purchase a wide range of Thomson Reuters solutions. Thomson Reuters Legal Home  is described as an “integrated digital launchpad” where subscribers can access their Thomson Reuters products as well as information about external products which can be integrated with or linked to Thomson Reuters products.
  • The law firm Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe launched The Observatory, “an interactive platform offering data on 600+ legal technologies in the market today. Created by Orrick’s Innovation Team, The Observatory plainly describes what each technology does and includes data on management diversity to help legal departments enhance focus on vendor equity.”
  • LegaltechHub This past fall, husband and wife tech team Chris Ford and Nikki Shaver launched an important new technology resource: com. Legaltechhub (LTH) is a curated database of legal technology tools, which is enhanced with extensive and careful tagging and taxonomy of more than 600 legal technology products.

2020 Trends in Context. Competition drives innovation. The ongoing expansion of state court judicial analytics products are important not only for the practice of law but for the impact such data can have on access to justice. Workflow tools free lawyers to focus on higher level analysis and provide quality assurance checks. Competition in the Legal news space is long overdue.  Tech marketplaces offer a win-win for vendors and law firm customers. Products can more easily be located and tested and technology and knowledge processionals can more easily assess the marketplace and determine what technologies exist and what needs a custom in house solution. Will the emergence of ephemeral law law during COVID result in a long term change in legal publishing? I don’t see any signs of that so far. No major publisher has announced a commitment to ongoing collection of local materials. So the long term COVID impact on legal publishing may be the emergence of law firm Knowledge Management teams in law as the permanent aggregators and publishers of local law updates and databases to support their clients needs.


Jean O’Grady is a knowledge strategist/librarian/lawyer with over 30 years’ experience leading the transformation of research and knowledge services in Am Law 100 law firms. She is the author of the Dewey B Strategic blog, which monitors the evolving landscape of technologies and companies that are transforming the business and practice of law.

New Jersey Bar Exam STILL Hasn’t Released Results And Folks Fear They May Miss February Deadlines

(Image via Getty)

New Jersey is not the last jurisdiction to release bar exam results, but it is the only jurisdiction we know of that has kept its applicants entirely in the dark since they took the exam. Even California, who is holding off on results while it Inspector Clouseau’s its way through one-third of its applicants flagged for cheating, felt compelled to share a timetable for an expected release. The NJ BOLE has taken a different approach:

They won’t answer the phones. They won’t announce anything. We are one of the last jurisdictions (California at least has spoken to applicants) to release. Something needs to change.

That’s just one of upwards of 30 tips we’ve gotten over the last couple days raising concerns about the New Jersey process, which seems to racked with opacity:

There has been a complete lack of communication and they do not answer the phones nor email. Last reply I personally received was in July after continuous emails with the same question until the case manager replied.

Not that many of these applicants feel safe to complain into the void. “We can’t even complain to them out of sheer fear that we won’t be able to get licensed,” said one tipster reasonably worried after the NCBE president told the public that bar examiners were considering leveraging their character & fitness powers against anyone who complains about the bar exam.

And it’s not merely a matter of candidates getting nervous — there are real consequences to the continued delay. Not only are there employers who demand bar passage out there losing patience with applicants, but bar prep companies often require proof of a failure to make room for an applicant to study for February and we’re running out of time to effectively study for that process.

This is all even worse for those New York applicants who were at one point encouraged to take the New Jersey exam. Because, remember, when New York was struggling to guarantee seats for out-of-state examinees:

Many of us wanted to take New York but relied on New York’s advice to register elsewhere and then were not allowed to transfer back to New York once New York went online.

Now those folks are sitting around waiting while those able to take the New York bar exam have already gotten their results.

Bar Exam Tracker is hearing from sources that a release is likely next week:

But it’s a testament to how badly run this is that applicants are relying on an independent source to find out information that the examiners should be entirely transparent about.


HeadshotJoe 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.

How Legal Ops Weathered The Storms Of 2020

For the past 13 years, the annual Blickstein Group Law Department Operations Survey has amassed key trend data concerning the burgeoning discipline of legal ops. The findings of the 2020 LDO Survey reveal a resilient profession that managed very well through the pandemic — with only 6% saying that it impacted their ability to deliver legal services.  

This year’s survey offers the first real data on the pandemic’s impact on law department operations. After years of growth, how did the field of legal ops adapt to the slowdown and pandemic? 

Find out in our free webinar at 1 p.m. on Jan. 14. We will share data and discuss law operations professionals’ perspectives on:

  • The Impact of COVID-19 on Legal Operations
  • Diversity and Inclusion
  • The Continued Growth of Professionalism
  • NewLaw Approaches

We’ll also take a look ahead at what we can expect in 2021 and beyond.

Panelists:
Brad Blickstein, Principal, the Blickstein Group
Joe Borstein, CEO & Co-Founder, LexFusion
David Cambria, Chief Services Officer, Baker McKenzie
Clint Crosier, General Counsel, iManage
Jonathan Reed, CEO & Co-Founder, AdvoLogix

By filling out the form you’re you are opting in to receive communication from Above the Law and its Partners.

Top 25 Biglaw Firm Will Dump Tons Of Bonus Cash On Associates Who Bill Their Butts Off

Some elite Biglaw firms are known for offering market-beating bonuses for their high billers. Year after year, they prove that they’re willing to pay for the most committed legal talent by adding tens of thousands of dollars to their regular year-end bonus payouts.

One of those firms is Quinn Emanuel.

The litigation powerhouse — which came in 25th place in the most recent Am Law 100 rankings, with $1.25 billion in revenue in 2019 — just announced its 2020 year-end bonus matrix, and there are some hefty rewards in store for those who truly dedicated their lives to the firm.

Associates who billed between 2100 and 2399 hours will receive a bonus equal to the market rate introduced by Baker McKenzie and later adopted by Cravath. Big billers start raking in more cash at 2400 hours. Depending on class year, those who billed 2400 hours or more will receive up to $20,000 more than market, while those who billed 2700 hours or more will receive up to $35,000 more than market.

Check out the Quinn Emanuel matrix below:

This year, QE is offering partial bonuses to those who had hours between 2000-2099, and as usual, the firm is rounding associates up to market bonuses if they just missed the 2100 cutoff. As noted in the matrix, the firm is also offering associates the Davis Polk-inspired special bonuses that have become a 2020 market standard.

There’s just one catch, and it’s a matter of who will receive those special bonuses.

“This year many of you will also receive a special bonus,” the firm’s memo reads. (The memo is available on the next page.) Many? Why not all? And if that does mean all, why use such equivocal language that seems to add another layer of eligibility? A source from the firm has the same quibble about the firm’s phrasing:

They’ve really introduced an unnecessary ambiguity regarding the special bonuses–not befitting of a firm that makes this much money and depends so much on lateral recruits. “This year many of you will also receive an additional bonus”. That’s not a commitment of any sort.

Quinn Emanuel will be paying its bonuses sometime this week, so we suppose we’ll soon find out who exactly received special bonuses at the firm.

(Flip to the next page to see the full Quinn Emanuel bonus memo.)

Remember everyone, we depend on your tips to stay on top of important bonus updates, so when your firm matches, please text us (646-820-8477) or email us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Matches”). Please include the memo if available. You can take a photo of the memo and send it via text or email if you don’t want to forward the original PDF or Word file.

And if you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Bonus Alerts (which is the alert list we also use for salary announcements), please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the bonus alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each bonus announcement that we publish. Thanks for all of your help!


Staci ZaretskyStaci 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.

Partner Drops Holiday Party Rap Hit Virtually This Year

Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP partner Avi Israeli is known for his holiday party rap skills. He’s made his way into the Above the Law pages in the past for absolutely killing it with clever year-end performances.

But with a raging pandemic putting the kibosh on annual holiday parties, would Israeli get the opportunity to do it again?

Of course he would. Though if the lyrics are to be taken literally, he found himself a little time-crunched this year. Obviously it’s packed with the sort of firm in-jokes you’d expect from a holiday party, but it’s still entertaining as always from the outsider perspective.

If you’re not in a position to watch the performance, you can jump to the next page and just catch up on the lyrics.


HeadshotJoe 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.

New stimulus bill to axe surprise billing practices – MedCity News

Surprise billing, one of the most universally reviled aspects of the U.S. healthcare system, may finally soon be banned.

The $900 billion stimulus bill, which includes a wide array of measures like support for small businesses and rental assistance, also includes “bipartisan, bicameral legislation that will end surprise billing for emergency and scheduled care,” according to a joint statement from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). Both chambers of Congress are expected to vote on the bill Monday before sending it to President Donald Trump, CNN reported.

Surprise billing, or balance billing, refers to out-of-network charges that patients must pay, often unexpectedly. Surprise billing can occur in many scenarios, including when a patient goes to an in-network hospital but is treated by an out-of-network provider, The New York Times reported.

In the past two years, one in five insured adults received an unexpected medical bill from an out-of-network provider, according to data published this year in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Two-thirds of adults are worried about affording unexpected medical bills for themselves and their family, and 18% of emergency department visits result in at least one surprise bill.

If passed, the measure included in the stimulus bill would ban health plans, facilities and providers from charging patients for out-of-network costs. Patients would only be required to “pay the in-network cost-sharing amount for out-of-network emergency care, for certain ancillary services provided by out-of-network providers at in-network facilities, and for out-of-network care provided at in-network facilities without the patient’s informed consent.”

Providers and payers would have a 30-day open negotiation period to settle out-of-network claims. If they are unable to reach an agreement, they would enter into a binding arbitration process, where an independent arbiter would help make the final payment decision.

The surprise billing ban would also prevent patients from being responsible for out-of-network air ambulance bills.

One of the few truly bipartisan issues in healthcare, support for banning surprise bills is widespread. A majority of Democrats and Republicans support government action to protect patients against these surprise bills, the data published in JAMA shows.

Trump has also pushed for an end to the practice, calling on lawmakers to address the unpopular practice in 2019 and issuing an executive order in September that directed Congress to take up the issue before the end of 2020, CNN reported.

On Dec. 11, members from several Congressional committees jointly released a surprise medical billing agreement. That version of the agreement saw opposition from the American Hospital Association and the American Medical Association, with the former stating that it had “significant concerns with several of the provisions that would attempt to implement unworkable billing processes and transparency provisions that are duplicative and costly without clear added benefit for patients.”

America’s Health Insurance Plans, a national association for payers, added in its statement “private equity firms will continue to find ways to exploit the arbitration process to price gouge patients and raise healthcare costs for everyone.”

The latest surprise billing agreement, which is included in the stimulus package, does not differ much from the previous version, with the exception of a few changes, according to Politico. One change is that arbiters would not be able to take Medicare and Medicaid rates into account — which are usually lower than private insurance rates — when making payment decisions.

Photo credit: cat-scape, Getty Images