Category: News Feeds

Most summer associates in a year like no other experienced shorter programs, smaller class sizes, and an entirely virtual environment, according to a survey released this week. 

The National Association for Law Placement published data on Wednesday revealing that over 86% of summer programs were entirely virtual in 2020, while 8% were hybrid and 6% in-person. 

The average length was 5.6 weeks — a 42% decrease from 2019 — and average class sizes declined from 13 to 11.  

But the programs were also likely to end well: Offer rates were nearly 97%, and acceptance rates rose to a historic high of 87.8%. 

Almost half of those who accepted offers are prepping for January 2021 start dates, according to the survey. Until then, they’re likely enjoying a new normal for holiday gifts. 

NALP Finds Offer and Acceptance Rates Remain High, Despite Virtual, Shorter Summer Programs [National Association for Law Placement]

---

Jeremy Barker is the director of content marketing for Breaking Media. Feel free to email him with questions or comments and to connect on LinkedIn.

The 90-Day Known Expert Series runs through the tape. Whew! Among the final episodes are “Vision As Narrative” and “Crafting Character.”

Make sure you take advantage of the show’s Q&A feature. You can ask Mike questions about the latest episode and he’ll answer at the end of the next episode. Just submit your question in the form at the bottom of this post.

Additional Lawyer Forward Known Expert resources

While the rest of the legal universe recognizes the scope and scale of the pandemic and have responded with work from home policies and virtual hearings, there are federal judges out there firing clerks for being unwilling to huddle in chambers.

To be sure, judges could run their chambers like the NBA bubble by holding themselves to a tight quarantine and keeping clerks working around the clock so they can’t interact with anyone else, but we all know that’s not happening. The swath of the judiciary that would get it robes in a bunch over working from home and the ones ready to strike down public health protocols for FREEDOM form a perfect circle. These are the judges that don’t care about the virus and that’s why they want clerks who don’t care either.

Even if there’s an argument for clerks to work in-person at the district court level, where in-person hearings might be happening, many districts have suspended in-person work for the near future anyway and the clerks aren’t refusing to ever come in to work, just balking at the idea that they have to commute into a tiny room on a regular basis.

And there’s absolutely no excuse for this at the appellate level. Researching and writing memos can easily be ported off-site. It’s basically a “Have Westlaw Password, Will Travel” job.

There are two reasons to force clerks into the office every day and they’re both bad. One is ego. Judges who want to be the center of attention with a little squad of minions following them around. There’s a vaccine on the way… just suffer without a retinue for another couple of months. The other is managerial incompetence. Do you not like Zoom meetings? Well, neither do we. But we all learned to do them and we got pretty good at managing our work load through video conferencing. If Biglaw can figure it out, then your chambers can figure it out.

---

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.

As this tumultuous year draws to a close, bonuses get paid out, and COVID-19 vaccines give hope that the end of the pandemic might soon be in sight, now is a good time to explore new career opportunities. Here are two for your consideration.

First up: an entirely remote in-house opportunity, which we are handling exclusively at Lateral Link. An exciting and dynamic technology company that went public earlier this year is looking for a securities lawyer with at least five years of law firm or in-house experience to handle preparation of the company’s SEC filings. Because the company is in the process of going completely remote, you can sit anywhere in the United States, giving this job incredible flexibility. You must be admitted to a state bar, but which state bar doesn’t matter.

The hours are expected to be extremely reasonable. The company offers excellent benefits — health insurance (75 percent of costs covered), dental insurance, a 401(k) with a generous match, 24/7 mental health counseling, career coaching, and more — and boasts a wonderful, friendly culture. If you’re a securities or capital markets lawyer who has been looking for an in-house opportunity, look no further.

Second, for litigation associates with three to four years of Biglaw experience, a plaintiff-side securities litigation boutique in New York is looking to hire. The work is interesting, dynamic, and fast-paced; you won’t be stuck on these giant Biglaw cases that drag on for five or 10 years. Expect to have stand-up opportunities, such as arguing motions, very soon after arriving. If you’re tired of going to court but never getting to speak, then you might appreciate this post.

This boutique is open to considering associates from a fairly wide range of backgrounds. We’re also working with a number of other litigation boutiques that seek associates with strong academic records from top schools, federal clerkship experience, and a year or two of experience at a top Biglaw firm. Compared to their Biglaw counterparts, boutiques offer smaller (and often more collegial) environments, more responsibility at an earlier stage of your career, and enhanced partnership prospects.

If you might be interested in any of these opportunities, please reach out to me by email: dlat@laterallink.com. Thanks, and happy holidays!

Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series of posts from Lateral Link’s team of expert contributors. This post is by David Lat, a managing director in the New York office, where he focuses on placing top associates, partners and partner groups into preeminent law firms around the country.

Prior to joining Lateral Link, David founded and served as managing editor of Above the Law. Prior to launching Above the Law, he worked as a federal prosecutor, a litigation associate at Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz in New York, and a law clerk to Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. David is a graduate of Harvard College and Yale Law School. You can connect with David on Twitter (@DavidLat), LinkedIn, and Facebook, and you can reach him by email at dlat@laterallink.com.

---

Lateral Link is one of the top-rated international legal recruiting firms. With over 14 offices worldwide, Lateral Link specializes in placing attorneys at the most prestigious law firms and companies in the world. Managed by former practicing attorneys from top law schools, Lateral Link has a tradition of hiring lawyers to execute the lateral leaps of practicing attorneys. Click here to find out more about us.

DLA Piper is a ginormous firm — we’re talking 3rd highest grossing law firm in the world kinda big — and the kind that *usually* fancies themselves as having top of the market compensation. So you can’t really blame associates at the firm for kinda assuming they’d wind up paid the same amount of money as the top of Biglaw. Unfortunately for DLA Piper associates, that is not to be.

This year, associates all across Biglaw are in line for special bonuses in addition to the typical year-end bonuses. These special bonuses became all the rage among elite Biglaw firms starting in the fall, and are an extra special thank you for associates’ hard work during the pandemic. At most of the elite Biglaw firms, the special bonuses range from $7,500 to $40,000, depending on class year, and, again, are on top of the year-end bonus numbers. But it looks like DLA Piper associates are missing out.

Yesterday, management at DLA Piper held an associate town hall meeting, and announced that while they view themselves as a market leader on compensation, associates would not be getting those special bonuses. From an insider at the firm:

Today at the associate town hall, DLA made it expressly clear that no special bonuses would be provided. However, felt it was appropriate to reiterate that they view themselves not only as top end of the market compensation but as compensation leaders. Did not go over well with the associates.

Co-US Managing Partner Rick Chesley says “let me be very very clear, we are not doing a special bonus, a Covid bonus, or any other supplemental bonus.” Devastating!

To be clear, this is the most generous to the firm reaction Above the Law has gotten from tipsters, and it still refers to the firm’s decision as “disappointing”:

DLA Piper held an Associate Town Hall on the evaluation process today. Firm management today confirmed there would be no special/COVID bonuses but haven’t put anything in writing (as far as I know). The main reason cited was fiscal conservatism. Not shocking, but still disappointing given the bonus activity of peer biglaw firms.

Most reactions were downright angry, like this tipster who gloriously refers to the move as “horseshit” and says it’ll hurt the firm’s ability to recruit and retain the top talent:

We get a market bonus, but no special COVID bonus. Just a lot of words of appreciation for associates – the backbone of the firm. I am pissed. DLA is one of the top grossing firms, and we have repeatedly been told how well the firm has done this year. The firm said they’re a market leader and not a market follower, which is why we’re not getting special bonuses. Absolute horseshit. On top of that, we still have to bill 2,000 hours. DLA is being cheap, and it’ll cost them. I’m already looking to move somewhere I’m more valued.

And there were some… interesting justifications for the decision:

Firm management just had an associate-wide town hall where they broke the news that they are not providing any “special” COVID bonuses. Managing partner justified this by stating “We’re a market leader, not a market follower.”

Ummm. Leaders lead from the FRONT, not trailing up to $40K behind… just saying.

No COVID bonuses on the grounds that it is “not market”. Associates are, understandably, livid.

And there’s definitely a perception of management trying to pull a fast one, with frequent proclamations about the financial health and eliteness of the firm while not ponying up the same cash as associates could be making at other firms:

The whole thing is galling. Do they think we are stupid? Just be honest and say you don’t want to do it. We just had a firm call yesterday with management bragging about how this is the best year ever and we are outperforming all our peers. Then you say only half our “peer group” is giving special bonuses. It’s almost insulting to the intelligence. Just be honest and transparent. Because it is easy to see that all, or almost all, the firms that are our real peers are giving the special bonuses. And on the other hand they always brag about our peers being the likes of Latham. Obviously, they are cherry picking a different peer group when deciding on bonuses. So when they want to brag about how great we are, they select a peer group that is the best of the best. But when it comes to deciding bonuses, they are choosing a peer group that is much less elite in order to be cheap on bonuses. After a tough year, the lack of honesty is quite annoying. Especially when they constantly brag about how great the firm is doing financially (apparently we are up year over year and they say many of our peers are down 10-15%). Maybe if you guys lambaste them for this nonsense they will actually do what they say. If they want to be a “market leader” and pay “market bonuses”, both of which are things they said on the call, then the market is clear, it is the standard Cravath bonus scale plus special bonuses. If you do not pay special bonuses, you are way less than market for senior associates and certainly not a market leader. If you want to talk the talk then walk the walk. But they talk elite and walk below average.

It definitely stinks for those putting in the work of elite Biglaw associates but seeing significantly smaller compensation than their peers at other firms.

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!

---

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).

Remember when we said that the online bar exam’s “cheating” algorithm was going to be a problem? It already flagged Black and Brown folks for merely existing, but it didn’t stop there and managed to key in on all sorts of people as likely cheaters.

And this was kind of the point. The algorithm is designed to flag people for “suspicious” activity and then leave it to the humans to parse through the video to make sure it was a false positive. But maybe that’s a Herculean task….

Indeed, this video shows the California Committee of Bar Examiners revealing that of the 9,301 people who took the exam, 3,190 of them were flagged by the software. That’s 1 in 3!

Put aside whether or not software that flags a third of applicants is really doing its job — which is a good question! — when bar examiners are told that “it looks like 33 percent of the applicants cheated” the reaction should be “that’s obviously poppycock.” Instead California seems to be rolling with the “order to show cause” approach of asking a bunch, if not the bulk, of people flagged by the software to prove they weren’t cheating.

This is lunacy. The “Chapter 6” notices that California is sending around say stuff like “Facial view of your eyes was not within view of the camera for a prolonged period of time” which should be an invitation for the examiners to watch the goddamned video to see if it’s valid before bringing the applicant into it. This description is so generic that it’s clear the examiners never even bothered to look into these flags. Someone who looked at it and detected something suspicious would say “hey, the camera shows you repeatedly looking at your lap” not this vague garbage.

One notice sent around was “no audible sound was detected” which is a real trick because PEOPLE WEREN’T SUPPOSED TO MAKE NOISE. I get that they’re alleging that someone turned off their microphone or something, but that’s something that could be verified with further investigation. Why add unnecessary stress?

If California wasn’t ready to actually deal with the flags then they shouldn’t have gone with an online exam. It’s part of the deal. You make the exam online and that means more post-hoc proctoring. Farming it out to “prove us wrong” is utterly unacceptable.

Worse, reports are emerging on social media that applicants are being told that they have to respond to these vague allegations without seeing the video for themselves which sounds like an issue spotter. Hopefully these are just rumors because if the bar examiners are really trying to tag applicants based on a hastily composed algorithm that we already know creates false positives without access to the only relevant evidence… well that would be a new low.

Unfortunately, this exam cycle has taught me to not expect much.

---

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.

Congress has yet another bill to consider concerning providing college athletes the ability to commercialize their publicity rights.

The new legislation titled, The College Athlete Bill of Rights, co-authored by Sens. Cory Booker and Richard Blumenthal, includes some novel elements for name, image and likeness proponents. For instance, the bill seeks to allow college athletes to enter into deals with apparel brands that compete with their university’s apparel arrangements; however, there is a requirement that the athletes wear the school-sponsored gear (other than footwear, which they can choose) during team events. Additionally, college athletes will not be barred from endorsing companies in any industry if the school is not also prohibited from endorsing companies in that same industry.

For instance, if the bill became law, a college athlete would be allowed to sign a deal with Puma even though his school is sponsored by Nike. He would be permitted to wear Puma cleats on the field, but the remainder of his uniform would be Nike-approved apparel provided by the school. Additionally, if a school has a deal with a gambling company like PointsBet (See: University of Colorado), then the athletes at the school would also be able to enter into similar gambling sponsorships.

However, the portion of the Booker/Blumenthal bill that is appropriately receiving the majority of peoples’ attention deals with a requirement that schools share revenue with certain college athletes. The senators would like to see athletes in sports that generate revenue in an amount greater than that which is spent on scholarships to receive a 50% share of the net money after scholarships are paid. As explained by Dan Murphy of ESPN,

In FBS-level football, for example, the commission would add together the revenue generated by all 130 football programs and subtract the total costs of scholarships at all those programs. Half of the money that is left would be distributed evenly among all players at the FBS level. The sports that currently generate enough money to qualify for this revenue sharing, according to Booker’s office, are football (both FBS and FCS levels), men’s and women’s basketball, and baseball.

The other part of the proposal that is being scrutinized revolves around the creation of a Commission on College Athletics to suggest changes to rules as well as investigate wrongdoing, and receive $50 million in taxpayer funding for its first two years.

“It’s strangely over the top, and taxpayer-funded … that’s hilarious” stated one sports executive on condition of anonymity. “Nonrevenue sports are going to get crushed in 2021 and probably beyond for at least another year or two. We’ll see what the athletic department deficits really are in a few months from 2020.”

Many believe the bill has good intentions, but that it solves one problem of too much power in the hands of the NCAA with another — giving too much control to the government. There is also a concern that it could have a negative effect on nonrevenue sports, which have already been crushed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“This [will] literally destroy college athletics as we [k]now it, full stop,” tweeted sports agent Jason Belzer. “Every non-revenue sport would be gutted. You’d literally have schools playing football and basketball on the men’s side and that’s it.”

One thing everyone would agree on is that it would be a game-changer if the bill becomes law. Most people also believe that these are rights that college athletes deserve. However, will it come at a cost to many who participate in nonrevenue sports?

---

Darren Heitner is the founder of Heitner Legal. He is the author of How to Play the Game: What Every Sports Attorney Needs to Know, published by the American Bar Association, and is an adjunct professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. You can reach him by email at heitner@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter at @DarrenHeitner.

Jay Clayton is so close to being done, you guys. Not as close as his buddy Bill Barr, of course, but close enough. But he’s still keeping busy, and not just with his sulking–middle-fingers-extended-high-into-the-air/future-client-recruitment program of deregulation. For instance, now that Robinhood has got another regulatory matter to deal with, it’d really like to get this one squared away, and Clayton is only too happy to oblige, lest Gary Gensler or Preet Bharara have other ideas.

* A man has won a federal lawsuit against his parents for throwing away “a trove of pornography and an array of sex toys.” Sure hope they kept his baseball card collection… [Michigan Live]

* A Florida lawyer may face suspension from practice for allegedly having sex with and impregnating a client. [Daily Business Review]

* A federal judge has refrained from imposing a monetary penalty on a lawyer who said they are “not dicking around with a rookie” during a deposition. [ABA Journal]

* Vanessa Bryant, wife of late basketball player Kobe Bryant, is being sued by her mother for allegedly not paying her mom for her supposed work as a “longtime personal assistant and nanny.” [Fox News]

* A voting-machine company is demanding that a pro-Trump attorney retract claims made about voting machines made by the business. [ABC News]

* Google is now facing its third antitrust lawsuit. Guess third time’s a charm… [CNN]

---

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.