Walking Beastie Boys Lyric Sues Parents For Tossing Out $30K Of Porn

Livin’ at home is such a drag! But after Indiana man David Werking, 42, separated from his wife, he moved back home with his parents in Michigan anyway. Gotta fight for your right, etc.

The court record is replete with references to Mr. Werking’s, umm, history with pornography and the distribution thereof. So his parents, Beth and Paul Werking, had some reason to wonder if the dozens of boxes their son was storing in their basement contained items which offended their religious beliefs, despite his assurances to the contrary. And in fact, after Mr. Werking left his parents’ home in August of 2017 “at the request of local law enforcement,” they discovered dozens of boxes of pornographic materials.

In addition to their moral objection, Mr. Werking’s parents claim to have believed at least some of the material contained child pornography. So they destroyed it.

“Why did you keep so many VHS tapes?,” wondered the father in an email to his son. “Did you just want to get arrested? I mean, who buys VHS tapes now-a-days? Do you even have a tape player? Frankly, David, I did you a big favor by getting rid of all this stuff for you.”

Frankly, David did not see it as a favor. Instead he sued his parents in federal court, charging them with converting his property to their own personal use.

No, not like that. Although one email from the son to his father reads, “Theres plenty of porn on the internet if you want to watch that Dad. Try youporn or xhamster. Believe me, I know you need it with mom around. I needed it with Mary around. Meanwhile for me there are college girls out there waiting to be made into women.”

Ain’t he a peach!

“As early as 1874, Michigan courts have recognized that conversion to one’s ‘own use’ was broad and could include destruction due to the converter’s ‘belief in [the destroyed item’s] deleterious effects,’” wrote U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney, granting Mr. Werking’s motion for summary judgment and ordering discovery on the valuation of the destroyed property for the purpose of assessing compensation.

“We have asked the Court for treble damages, which we believe are warranted given the wanton destruction of the property,” the plaintiff’s attorney Miles Greengard told Michigan Live. “This was a collection of often irreplaceable items and property.”

Which is probably true, as far as it goes. Where does one find a copy of Friday The 13th Nude Beginning Part 2 on VHS? And if you want to spend $3 on PACER, you, too can peruse a list of titles from Mr. Werking’s extensive collection and speculate as to the replacement value of Old Wave Hookers. No doubt a classic of the genre!

Good Girls of Godiva High? PRICELESS.

But for everything else, there’s suing your own parents in federal court.

Son wins lawsuit after mom throws away his best porno mags [Michigan Live]
Case Docket [Werking v. Werking, W.D. Mich, Case No. 1:19-cv-00276-PLM]


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

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr Again Misrepresents The Debate Over Section 230

Late on Tuesday evening, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr suddenly issued a weird and misleading anti-230 Twitter thread, claiming (falsely) that supporters of Section 230 (who he incorrectly calls “Big Tech’s lobbyists”) “routinely conflate statutory protections with First Amendment rights.” Here’s the thread in plain text, with my responses and corrections interjected.

The debate over Section 230 often produces more heat than light.

One reason: Big Tech’s lobbyists routinely conflate statutory protections with First Amendment rights.

I mean, what?!? This is like claiming day is night, up is down, or yellow is purple. There is one side of this debate that has regularly conflated Section 230 with the 1st Amendment: and that’s the people arguing against Section 230. Almost every complaint about Section 230 is actually a complaint about the 1st Amendment. I mean, the NY Times has had to run a correction saying “oops, we blamed 230 for this, but really it was the 1st Amendment” multiple times.

For instance, they argue that action on the Section 230 Petition would force websites to carry speech in violation of their First Amendment rights.

Not at all. NTIA’s Petition expressly says that websites would retain their 1st Amendment right to remove content “for any reason.”

This may be the weirdest of all the tweets in the bunch. The NTIA Petition is asking the FCC, including Brendan Carr, to reinterpret Section 230, to suggest that Congress (including those who wrote the law) and dozens of courts have all been interpreting it wrong. Let me repeat that: the petition is asking Carr to reinterpret the law. And yet, here he is citing that request as his evidence that his reinterpretation won’t implicate 1st Amendment rights? It’s kind of like a judge pointing to the plaintiff’s complaint as the binding legal precedent. It makes no sense at all.

Similarly, the claim that Section 230 reform would resurrect the Fairness Doctrine or mandate neutrality misses the mark.

The Petition is quite clear on this: It would not require any website to carry “any sort of content at all.”

Again, citing to the petition makes no sense. The petition is asking Carr to reinterpret the law. It’s the request. It has no legal weight or authority (in part because it’s wrong on nearly everything).

What Section 230 reform *would do* is bring much needed clarity to the terms contained in the statutory text.

There has never, not once, been a complaint from judges or the authors of the law that the terms are unclear. There is no problem with clarity. There are just some people who are upset that some websites moderate in a way they dislike.

In other words, the question presented by the Section 230 Petition is not whether the First Amendment will continue to cover a take down decision (it will) but whether a particular take down *also* benefits from Section 230’s statutory protections.

But that’s not an open question. It’s pretty damn well settled. It’s not like there’s a court split here. Every single court decision has agreed on this. There’s no confusion. There’s no disagreement. There’s no lack of clarity. The law is very clear.

The answer to that question flows from the text of the statute and leaves a website’s constitutional rights uninfringed.

Right. Which is why we’ve pointed out that all the people complaining about content moderation decisions aren’t actually mad about 230, but are mad about the 1st Amendment. And this includes… wait for it… FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr who just months ago said that we need to reform Section 230 to stop tech companies from “biased moderation.” Except that… moderation (biased or not) is protection by… the 1st Amendment.

So, Brendan Carr seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth. To Trumpists he goes on Fox News and says that we need to reform Section 230 to change their moderation practices and force them to keep content they don’t want online. But then, he goes on Twitter and insists it’s the other guys (the people who actually know the law) who want to conflate 230 with the 1st Amendment, and that changes to 230 won’t stop companies from moderating speech. The very speech that Brendan Carr said we need to change 230 to force companies to host.

So… which Brendan Carr is lying?

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr Again Misrepresents The Debate Over Section 230

More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:

Another Day, Another Antitrust Lawsuit For Google
DEA Ditches Location Data Vendor Currently Being Investigated By Congress
Yet Another Report Shows Asset Forfeiture Doesn’t Reduce Crime Or Cripple Criminal Organizations

The Pandemic Made For A Malpractice Cavalcade

New Technology Without Adoption Is Worse Than Doing Nothing

New Technology Without Adoption Is Worse Than Doing Nothing

Despite the never-ending promise of how software will help transform your legal practice, most attempts at legal modernization still fall short in practice. By realigning your strategy along with the implementation of new software, you can get not only a return on investment, but real change.

Despite the never-ending promise of how software will help transform your legal practice, most attempts at legal modernization still fall short in practice. By realigning your strategy along with the implementation of new software, you can get not only a return on investment, but real change.

Norton Rose Fulbright Giving Partial Backpay To Associates, Might Make More Payments If Associates Keep On Billing

(Image via Getty)

Back in April, megafirm Norton Rose Fulbright made a series of COVID-19 related cuts. And more than just the salary cuts that swept the industry in the early days of the pandemic, they also laid off associates. And those that survived saw a 15 percent salary cut for all those making over $50,000. Then in September, they reversed those cuts, returning salaries to full, pre-pandemic levels.

Now in a firmwide email the management committee revealed the firm is giving folks some backpay — approximately 55 percent of any reduction. Then they dropped this line, “Further, the Firm is considering an additional payment to be made during the first part of the New Year. This additional payment, however, will be dependent on the firm closing strong at year end.”

While the firm’s intention may have been benevolent, to some tipsters it reads as an “absurd” threat. As one insider wryly noted, “Nice to see the firm using our own salary as a carrot leading in to the New Year.”

Here’s the full email from the firm:

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.


headshotKathryn 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).

Resolutions Revisited

Most of 2020 has felt like a bad Jerry Springer episode. Just when you think it can’t get worse, it does. Most of us have aged about a decade in the past nine months, but the vaccine is here, and hope for a better 2021 is on the horizon. Through it all, the legal industry seems to just keep on keepin’ on, muscling through at least the third once-in-a-century event of the past 20 years.

Last year, I made some New Year’s resolutions for myself, my firm, and my industry with the goal of having a stronger, healthier, more profitable future. As the days get shorter and the holidays approach, I’d like to revisit some of those resolutions through a post-COVID lens to talk about where we’ve all been since and how we’ve done.

Prepare For A Potential Downturn — Check!

I’ve long been beating the drum that the legal industry hadn’t adequately prepared itself for the next economic downturn. It took us nearly a decade following the Great Recession just to claw back our losses, a recovery that lagged far behind the broader business world. Our industry’s general aversion to adopting new technology and business practices certainly didn’t help, and much of the Biglaw middle class saw business shifting either up the ladder to the highest of the high-prestige outfits, down to low-cost boutiques, or out of the traditional industry altogether, either to in-house attorneys or alternative legal service providers. We haven’t exactly poised the industry for success, and so, when COVID-19 emerged, people were rightly concerned.

I’m happy to say, it seems to have gone overall better than expected. Many firms were able to tighten their belts or get aggressive on collecting AR to cover the shortfalls suffered in Q2 as businesses shut down and lawyers everywhere switched to working remotely. After things settled down, we saw incredible scrappiness and hustle from attorneys everywhere. Instead of fearing change, many people embraced it — or at least didn’t let their fear of it stop them. By and large, the industry managed to keep the lights on, with most firms putting out performances in Q3 and Q4 that outpaced what anybody could have expected back in March. Part of that was luck: white-collar workers like ourselves were able to adapt to COVID-19 in ways other segments of the workforce logistically couldn’t. But much of it was an industry of hard-working professionals rising to a historic moment. I’m proud of what we did, and hope firms keep this newfound discipline and ingenuity in place going forward.

Stop Wasting People’s Time — Check!

Back when we could amble into a conference room, grab a cup of coffee, gossip for a few minutes, and then get down to business, meeting management was a constant problem. Meetings tended to get set without sufficient thought and would often swerve off the rails into unrelated topics or over the allotted time. They were far more pleasant to be involved with, but they were often more of a drag on efficiency than they needed to be.

For as little as many of us enjoy the concept of yet another Zoom meeting, I have to say that forcing people to sit down, log in, and show their face onscreen has been surprisingly good for keeping meetings focused and high-quality. I wouldn’t recommend dropping in-person meetings altogether when we can safely hold them, but the past few months have forced many of us to reconsider the purpose of a meeting, and to think more carefully about how to best craft individual meetings to meet the goals of those in attendance.

Pandemic life has been hard, especially on those with families to care for and juggle during the workday. This time spent going through that experience together has made the lawyers I know come to value their own time more highly, and each other’s. While that upside may pale in comparison to the overall tragedy of COVID-19, it’s at least something good that most of us will take away from this awful time.

Resolutions Where Your Mileage May Vary

My list encouraged attorneys to build up their nonlegal networks and knowledge bases, and to spend more time listening and less time talking, and to engage in self-care. These were personal challenges, not really susceptible to industry-wide interpretation. COVID-19 gave some of us unprecedented opportunities to succeed, while for others it took the chance away entirely.

Networking, either within or outside of the legal industry, has been massively hampered by COVID-19. Having lunch or splitting drinks with strangers and business acquaintances is basically the opposite of everything medical professionals have been asking us to do for the past nine months.

Building nonlegal knowledge bases has been a more achievable goal. Many of us have used the past few months to develop our skill sets. Some have learned to code, play an instrument, or paint. Sourdough breadmaking memes were a big thing on Instagram for most of April. Whether out of boredom, the desire to better ourselves, or just something forcing us to stay put for a while, many of us have made good use of their quarantine. These kinds of things both make us more well-rounded humans, and in surprising ways can circle back and help us out professionally.

Listening to one another has both been easier and harder in the world of remote workplaces. I’ve seen some teams that do a great job checking in with one another regularly, and that have become far more deliberate about seeking out feedback and making everyone feel heard. Other teams I’ve seen drift off into their own silos, with communication falling down to a minimum. It takes more effort to talk these days, which means we have fewer chances to hear what our teammates are really saying. Listening is a challenge, one that many of us need to continue to work on to improve, even after the lockdowns have lifted. We need to vow to maintain the relationships we’ve built during this time and repair the ones that have fallen off.

Finally, self-care has been more important than ever. For most of us, the past few months have been a grueling mental and emotional marathon. Finding ways to relieve that tension in healthy avenues has been a literal necessity. Law is hard, and lawyers can be hard on one another.

Back to where we started: Jerry Springer. In addition to holding a J.D. from Northwestern, he’s a man who’s seen more than his fair share of craziness. So perhaps as we move forward into 2021 we should take the advice he offered at the close of every episode: “Take care of yourself … and each other.”


James Goodnow is the CEO and managing partner of NLJ 250 firm Fennemore Craig. At age 36, he became the youngest known chief executive of a large law firm in the U.S. He holds his JD from Harvard Law School and dual business management certificates from MIT. He’s currently attending the Cambridge University Judge Business School (U.K.), where he’s working toward a master’s degree in entrepreneurship. James is the co-author of Motivating Millennials, which hit number one on Amazon in the business management new release category. As a practitioner, he and his colleagues created and run a tech-based plaintiffs’ practice and business model. You can connect with James on Twitter (@JamesGoodnow) or by emailing him at James@JamesGoodnow.com.

EVERYONE Is Getting An Above Market Bonus This Year At Irell & Manella

Irell & Manella is blowing the door off the Biglaw market bonus scale. And all associates are sharing in the firm’s good fortunes!

The firm already gave out fall bonuses (ranging between $7,500 and $40,000, depending on class year). But that’s a move that a lot of other Biglaw firms have pulled this year. But in May they also gave out supplemental bonuses, those are part of a new bonus structure that the firm says in based, in part, on profit sharing and were made after the firm’s 2019 financials closed. Now they’ve announced their year end bonuses, and for every class year, they beat the market.

Seriously, year-end market bonuses range from $15,000 to $100,000 depending on class year. At Irell they’re $25,000 to $120,000.

So, um, Cravath who?

The firm’s bonus chart shows the jaw dropping bonuses associates can earn at the firm over the course of the year (you can read the full announcement on the next page):

Earlier this year, Irell found itself at a sort of crossroads as the Biglaw firm announced its intention to eschew transactional work. But, if the size of these bonuses are any indication, the concerns about the new direction were overblown. And yes, the firm again intends to disburse supplemental spring bonuses after fiscal year 2020 has closed.

Congrats to associates at the firm pulling down some impressive bonuses.

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 all 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 your help!


headshotKathryn 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).

Beneficiary Of Citi Screw Up Was Totally Talking About Another Mistake When She Found Out About Payment

As we’ve discussed, the ongoing battle between Citigroup and a group of hedge funds over the former’s alleged whoopsie in paying the latter a half-billion dollars it didn’t mean to has, at times, seemed like a contest over who could play dumb and disingenuous most convincingly. Even given the high bar both sides have set in the matter, the trial’s last day had something special.

That Question On Friday Afternoon


Olga V. Mack is the CEO of Parley Pro, a next-generation contract management company that has pioneered online negotiation technology. Olga embraces legal innovation and had dedicated her career to improving and shaping the future of law. She is convinced that the legal profession will emerge even stronger, more resilient, and more inclusive than before by embracing technology. Olga is also an award-winning general counsel, operations professional, startup advisor, public speaker, adjunct professor, and entrepreneur. She founded the Women Serve on Boards movement that advocates for women to participate on corporate boards of Fortune 500 companies. She authored Get on Board: Earning Your Ticket to a Corporate Board Seat and Fundamentals of Smart Contract Security. You can follow Olga on Twitter @olgavmack.

Always Remember The Federalist Critique Of The Bill Of Rights

Way back in the 1700-whatevers, back when Hamilton took place, the Federalists famously opposed the Bill of Rights because they thought it was confusingly redundant. Their concern was that, since the Constitution already set forth that the federal government was one of limited, enumerated powers, to enumerate some of the rights allocated to the people would make people think that those were the only rights held by the people. As a matter of political prediction, this wasn’t too far off. But even more accurately, it was a very good model of how people read lists.

For whatever deep reason of human psychology, people always tend to treat specific lists as exclusive, even if intended and clearly presented as otherwise. People focus on the immediate items listed out over anything else. This is surprisingly applicable to the practice of law. For instance, in document demands, while “including but not limited to” constructions are common, I’ve always secretly suspected that many reviewers do nothing but work off of the list alone. Am I too cynical? Very possibly, but even if it’s only sometimes true, it’s worth factoring into how you draft document requests. Resist the urge to rely too much on “including but not limited to,” and instead spend a little extra time to list anything you care about at all in the enumerated items.

Beyond document requests, then, this principal applies to other things as well. Lists are big, exciting things. For instance, in a brief, lists take up a surprising amount of space and tend to draw the eye, especially lists with pleasingly odd numbers such as three or, if we are getting elaborate, five. But they tend to be so exciting that they draw away from the rest — if you make a more subtle point around the same page, it’s likely to not get as much attention.

The same applies in communicating at any time, be it with a judge, adversary, or colleague. Specific points always tend to get the attention, and crowd out more general points. If you carefully choose your specific point, this is an asset: you are intentionally drawing attention to the point you wish to, and doing so properly. But if you intended your specific points to be only examples, then you have backed yourself into a quagmire by your words, however well intended they may have been.

So remember, as you go about your days, the lesson of the Federalists and their handling of enumerated lists.


Matthew W Schmidt Balestriere FarielloMatthew W. Schmidt has represented and counseled clients at all stages of litigation and in numerous matters including insider trading, fiduciary duty, antitrust law, and civil RICO. He is a partner at the trial and investigations law firm Balestriere Fariello in New York, where he and his colleagues represent domestic and international clients in litigation, arbitration, appeals, and investigations. You can reach him by email at matthew.w.schmidt@balestrierefariello.com.