Category: News Feeds

On Monday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a preposterous lawsuit asserting Texas’s right to invalidate millions of ballots in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia based on a theory that the four defendant states had failed to conduct clean elections, which somehow dilutes Texas’s electoral votes.

The theory has already been discarded by dozens of federal and state judges, and the Court has never recognized the right of one state to contest another’s election procedures. But that’s hardly the point — the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over interstate suits, so the president and his allies are betting all their chips that SCOTUS will swoop in and award Trump a second term now that Ken Paxton found a secret shortcut to Chief Justice Roberts’ doorstep.

And where Trump goes, BS litigation will follow. The docket is now jam-packed with amicus briefs, each one crazier than the last. The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.

So, in no particular order, here are the top 10 WTF items so far. The day is still young, though, so there’s still time for Yeezy to top them all!

1. Pennsylvania Legislators Accuse Their Secretary of State of Conspiring with the Pennsylvania Judiciary to Commit “Extrajudicial Assault”

Don’t think that word means what they think it means.

This extrajudicial assault on the mechanism of the Commonwealth’s elections came from all sides: well-funded national groups who, using COVID-19 as a pretext, brought a litany of lawsuits challenging seemingly every facet of Pennsylvania’s elections; then the executive branch shrank from its obligations to defend the Commonwealth’s laws, and then took to offering extrajudicial guidance to the Commonwealth’s county boards of elections. Finally, these efforts were condoned and furthered by the overreaching of Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court, in clear violation of the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

2. Cabal and Oligarchy? REALLY?

Some of those state legislators in Alaska, Idaho, and Arizona need to switch to decaf. Maybe use it wash down like half a Xanax, because this pleading is a wee smidge … overheated.

The movants begin by citing “credible allegations of cabal and oligarchy in the four Defendant states,” and then move on to lots of other pages in the thesaurus.

For felicitous historical reasons, complex, multidimensional, systemic problems which undermine the entire Federal Constitution have never before now come under Article IV, §4 examination. Today that issue has arisen for the first time. The questions involve the life and death of the Republic, without even a single scintilla or tiny glimmer of exaggeration.

The entire Federal Constitution!

Where an oligarchy has taken power in certain states, to vitiate both legal voting and majority rule, this oligarchy has placed itself above all others, and the “cheating” states reign like the House of Lords used to in Mediaeval and Early Modern England.

Ummmmm …. you know what, never mind.

3. If a Vote Is Invalid For Purposes of the Presidential Race, Isn’t It Also Invalid Downballot?

Law & Crime’s Adam Klasfield compiled a helpful list of the seventeen Republican House members who signed on to an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to invalidate their own elections.

4. Lousy-ana

How the hell do you manage to misspell the name of the plaintiff, especially when that plaintiff is one of the fifty states?

Dunno, but Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt managed to do it.

5. Sedition?

Sure Ken Paxton’s unsubtle pardon plea masquerading as a lawsuit is an unforgivable piece of crap. But perhaps Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro exaggerates when he describes it as a “seditious abuse of the legal process.” Words have meaning!

We do forgive him, though since the rest of this opposition motion is such a well-written refutation of Paxton’s case.

6. Someone Should Get Arrested For the Aggravated Murder of MATH

Since White House spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany is dispatched nightly to Fox to wave around a stack of papers and repeat Ken Paxton’s assertion that Biden had a “one in a quadrillion” chance of winning in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Wisconsin.

Here, let PA AG Josh Shapiro redeem himself.

Texas first alleges that “[t]he probability of former Vice President Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States * * * independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion.” Bill of Complaint at ¶ 10. It bases this astounding assertion on Dr. Cicchetti’s assessment, for each of the states, of the extremely low probability that the votes counted before 3 a.m. and those counted afterwards were “randomly drawn from the same population.” App. 4a-6a ¶¶ 15-19. 3 But the votes counted later were indisputably not “randomly drawn” from the same population of votes, as those counted earlier were predominantly in-person votes while those counted later were predominantly mail-in votes. And Texas’s own complaint shows why the later-counted votes led to such a strong shift in favor of President-Elect Biden: “Significantly, in Defendant States, Democrat [sic] voters voted by mail at two to three times the rate of Republicans.” Bill of Complaint at ¶ 39. Both this fact and the expectation that it would result in a shift in PresidentElect Biden’s favor as mail-in votes were counted were widely reported months ahead of the election.

Texas further claims, again based on Dr. Cicchetti’s analysis, that “[t]he same less than one in a quadrillion statistical improbability” can be found “when Mr. Biden’s performance in each of those Defendant States is compared to former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s performance in the 2016 general election.” Bill of Complaint at ¶ 11. For this assertion, Dr. Cicchetti simply assumes that the likelihood of a given Pennsylvania voter in 2020 voting for Biden was the same as that of a Pennsylvania voter in 2016 voting for Hillary Clinton—and then concludes, based on that assumption, that the 2020 results were quite improbable. App. 6a ¶¶ 18–20. But it should not be necessary to point out that the 2016 and 2020 elections were, in fact, separate events, and any analysis based on the assumption that voters in a particular state would behave the same way in two successive presidential elections is worthless.

6. Counting Votes After Election Night Is Unlegal?

The Christian Family Association is of the opinion that there was no vote in those states because tabulating the votes took too long and thus “It is undisputed that each defendant State failed ‘to make a choice’ of Presidential electors on the election day ‘prescribed by law.’”

Has Alaska even finished counting yet?

7. Lin Wood

The indefatigable lawyer is representing himself pro se in a combination writ of certiorari/amicus brief in which he refers to himself as “amici” and manages to misspell his own name, so … what is there even to say?

8. You Can’t Just Make Shit Up. This is the Supreme Court!

As we noted yesterday, in Trump’s motion to intervene, his lawyer John Eastman writes, “President Trump prevailed on nearly every historical indicia of success in presidential elections. For example, he won both Florida and Ohio; no candidate in history—Republican or Democrat—has ever lost the election after winning both States.”

This remains incorrect, since John F. Kennedy lost Ohio and Florida and still beat Richard Nixon in 1960. It also remains unamended on the docket.

9. Special Mention: Rudy Giuliani

Okay, this isn’t actually on the docket. But this is the president’s lawyer making reference to the same alleged fraud in Georgia in somewhat inflammatory terms.

Neat.

10. Would You Like Some Fake States With Your Fake Lawsuit?

Of course you would! Please meet New California and New Nevada, which have docketed an amicus brief in this suit.

Part of the reason for the formation of New California State and New Nevada Sate is to stop the lawless actions of Governors Newsome (California) and Sisolak (Nevada). An opinion by this Court affirming a national, uniform rule of law reestablishing the supremacy of The Electors Clause of Article II, § 1 of the United States Constitution will resolve some of the complaints causing the establishment of these new States.

No, that’s not how Gavin Newsom spells his name. And yes, the error is replicated throughout the entire filing.

Dear God, when will this be over?

Take your time, Chief Justice Roberts. We haven’t heard from Fredonia yet.

---

Elizabeth Dye (@5DollarFeminist) lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

We’re one step closer to free access to federal court documents. The House has passed the Open Courts Act of 2020, moving it on to the Senate, which will decide whether the bill lands on the president’s desk.

Yes, this sort of thing has happened before. And previous efforts have always died on their way to the Oval Office. But this one might be different. A growing collection of case law says the US Courts system has been overcharging users and illegally spending funds meant to improve the PACER system and, yes, lower the cost for users.

This latest effort has a bit more momentum than its predecessors. And that seems to worrying the US Courts, which has fought back with dubious assertions and even more dubious budget estimates. The court system claims it will cost at least $2 billion over the next several years to overhaul PACER and provide free access to documents. Experts say it will cost far less.

A group of former government technologists and IT experts dispute that figure. In a letter sent last week to the Judicial Conference of the United States, the group estimated the cost of a new system would be $10 million to $20 million over 36 months to build the system and between $3 million and $5 million annually to maintain and develop.

Even more damning is the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate. According to its report, fixing the system and providing free access to most users would cost less than $1 million a year.

On net, CBO estimates that enacting H.R 8235 would increase the deficit by $9 million over the 2021-2030 period.

The report says overhauling the system will cost around $46 million. But that will be offset by fees the court system will be able to collect from “high-volume, for-profit users,” which the CBO estimates to be about $47 million over the same period. After subtracting some expected revenue declines and indirect tax effects, the court system should net about $37 million over the next decade.

That should end the debate over cost but it probably won’t. For whatever reason, the court system continues to insist giving citizens free access to court documents would bankrupt the system. If it can find allies receptive to its bad math in the Senate, it could end this bill’s run.

But no one but the court system agrees with the court system’s math. It’s not just potential beneficiaries of free access providing much lower cost estimates. The government itself disagrees with this branch’s budgetary suppositions. Hopefully, the CBO and the tireless work of transparency advocates will finally push free PACER past the Senate and onto the president’s desk.

House Passes PACER Bill As Budget Office Says It Will Cost Less Than $1 Million A Year To Provide Free Access To Court Documents

More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:

Supreme Court Says Muslim Men Can Sue The FBI For Placing Them On The No-Fly List For Refusing To Become Informants
Deep Dive Shows FCC’s Covid Response Was Largely Theatrical Nonsense
ICE Withdraws Demand For Journalists’ Sources After Having Its Unconstitutional Demand Outed By BuzzFeed

Ever since the 2016 election and the legal turmoil that began shortly after President Donald Trump’s swearing in (and has continued to this day), thousands of college graduates — and women in particular — have decided to go to law school. With the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, women have been even more inspired to study the law and follow in her footsteps.

As our readers know, the latest Princeton Review law school rankings are out, and today, we’ll focus on yet another incredibly important ranking during the #MeToo #TimesUp era in America, an era where Kamala Harris, a woman who’s a law school graduate, made history as the first woman and first woman of color to become Vice President-elect: The law schools with the greatest resources for women.

Which law schools do you think came out on top of this list?

First, we’ll begin with the methodology Princeton Review used to determine which law schools offer the greatest resources for women. This ranking was based on the percentage of the student body who identify as women as well as on student answers to a single survey question: whether all students are afforded equal treatment by students and faculty regardless of their gender.

According to Princeton Review, these are the law schools where women stand on equal footing with their male classmates:

1. Stanford University School of Law
2. Vermont Law School
3. New England Law – Boston
4. University of Toledo College of Law
5. University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law
6. UC Davis School of Law
7. St. Thomas University School of Law
8. Charleston School of Law
9. Washington University School of Law – St. Louis
10. Brooklyn Law School

Law school may be the perfect place for women in America to resist, persist, and prove that the future is female. The law is a powerful tool, and we hope that women who want change will wield it wisely. We wish you the best of luck in law school!

Did your law school or alma mater make the cut? If it did, do you think it was ranked fairly? If it didn’t make the list for best career prospects, do you agree with that assessment? Please email us or text us (646-820-8477) with your thoughts. Thanks.

Best Law Schools 2021 [Princeton Review]
Greatest Resources for Women 2021 [Princeton Review]

---

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.

Come January 1, an Am Law 200 firm will actually have a woman of color at its helm. While it’s true that women generally, and women of color specifically, make gains in the legal profession at a “glacial pace,” according to a report by the National Association of Women Lawyers, there is some good news. Yesterday, Norton Rose Fulbright announced that partner Shauna Clark will take the position of Global and U.S. Chair, starting in the new year.

In the firm’s statements about the appointment, there’s a recognition of the historic nature of Clark taking over the role. It’s the first time a woman of color has held either the Global or U.S. Chair role and she’ll be the only woman of color to chair an Am Law 200 firm, as Gerry Pecht, Norton Rose Fulbright’s Global Chief Executive, said:

“Shauna will expand client relationships with her collaborative nature and bring our firm closer together with her unifying vision. Shauna is the first woman of color to hold either of these important positions at our firm as well as the only woman of color to be Chair of an ‘Am Law 200’ firm. Our people and clients will benefit from both her legal prowess and excellent judgment in the courtroom and the boardroom, as well as her invaluable perspective on diversity and inclusion issues.”

Clark received her JD from Tulane Law School and got her BA in political science from Louisiana State University. She is currently U.S. Head of the firm’s Employment and Labor practice and serves on the Global Executive Committee and US Management Committee. Clark, who has been at this firm since 1994, is also a member of the firm’s U.S. Diversity and Inclusion Committee and US Racial Equality Council, and says “making a positive change” will be a priority for her tenure in the positions:

“My immediate focus is to connect with our clients and grow these relationships through our world-class talent and superior service. I also will work with colleagues and clients to advance racial equality, diversity and inclusion throughout our firm and the legal profession. Following this year’s traumatic events across the US and in other parts of the world, making a positive change stands as even more of a priority, both at Norton Rose Fulbright and throughout our communities.”

And Jeff Cody, the firm’s U.S. Managing Partner, expressed his support of Clark:

“Shauna is a gifted leader, a dynamic communicator and trusted advisor.  As our new Global and US Chair, Shauna will bring her passion for the firm and her legal practice to client relationships across the US and around the globe. We have many exciting plans for Norton Rose Fulbright, and we are delighted to have Shauna in these roles.”

The Global Chair is a one-year role, which rotates across regions and the U.S. Chair position has a four-year term.

Congratulations to Clark!

---

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).

Well, Jeffrey Toobin… you have some company.

After the confusingly famed legal analyst finally got jerked from his perch at the New Yorker after allegedly masturbating during a staff Zoom meeting, it seemed that he’d taken the genre of Zoom unprofessionalism soaring to unconquerable heights. Toobin’s downfall came… presumably… during a New Yorker staff “simulation” of the 2020 election where Toobin was roleplaying the courts. Watching the judiciary’s reaction to the steady stream of post-election lawsuits from Giuliani, Ellis, and Powell, one wonders if Toobin was actually playing his role quite well.

But 2020 refuses to be defeated and saw Toobin’s wild exit as mere inspiration for the next chapter. What about a law firm partner apparently getting oral sex under her desk during a client meeting? Sure!

Details are a little sketchy, but a Florida firm has dismissed a partner^[1]
who was acting as general counsel to a Home Owners’ Association after a Zoom recording of a recent meeting captured her seemingly having quite the time during the client’s meeting.

Attending HOA meetings must be one of the most insufferable tasks for an attorney. Hours of listening to an army of Karens complain about someone’s hedges and quibbling about rules that could make minorities feel as uncomfortable and intimidated as possible. It’s the natural habitat of folks like the McCloskeys, who sued their community to keep gay people out enforce a “neutral” association rule that just happened to keep gay people out. Sitting through other people’s banal animosities sounds like the 8th circle of legal hell.^[2]

It begins with someone crawling into the frame… whoever edited this video helpfully put blood red text guidance for some reason:

Now you can see some jeans disappearing under the desk:

The facial blur we’ve got going obscures what happens next, but the next several minutes involve some faces that match up nicely with what we’re all suspecting happened next.

Eventually, she decides to attend to something with her left hand. Or right hand depending on whether or not she’s using the mirroring function. That hand will be engaged below deck for a bit.

She even leans into it at one point. It’s hard to tell without video here, but it seems as though she might have an old-timey well underneath her desk that she’s priming.

But like a complete champ, when she’s called upon she rolls right into her legal presentation briefing the call about some new draft rules. Obviously having sex during meetings is professionally frowned upon, but give that woman a prize for keeping her head and turning in a bravura performance when she had to. She knew 90 percent of this meeting had nothing to do with her and she just needed to keep herself awake until she could do her thing.

Still. Just download Minesweeper or something.

Earlier: Jeffrey Toobin Makes A Great Poi–OH MY GOD, HIS DICK’S OUT!!!

---

[1] We’ve been filled in on the firm and partner involved but we’re not going to get into naming them. Mostly because it takes two to Zoom call tango and it feels icky to pillory the woman involved in something while the other participant skates by anonymously. Yes, she was the only one here — presumably — that had professional obligations to the client, but it’s still not a place where we feel good about singling her out.

[2] The 9th, of course, is just Roy Cohn biting the heads off anyone who unironically used the phrase “original public meaning.”

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.

If you are looking for generous bonuses, look no further than Hueston Hennigan. The elite boutique law firm that regularly crushes the market with bonuses has done it again. Insiders report associates earning many multiples of the market bonus numbers. These are indeed generous bonuses, but expected for Hueston Hennigan associates. And this is in addition to the firm’s “generous” contributions to associate 401(k) accounts (staff get in on that action as well)!

The firm also supported their employees with special bonuses for staff and  tech stipends back in April, and then were early adopters of the associate special bonuses. But as Brian Hennigan noted when sharing news of associate bonuses, it’s important to recognize the struggles others are going through during and do what we can to help:

As you know (or will soon know), you each received news of your bonuses today. As has been true every year, our bonuses remain above market. These bonuses reflect our gratitude to you for your exceptional work always, but particularly in these unprecedented times. But we should also be aware that times are tough for many in our communities, and those of us who have benefitted from good fortune should also extend grace. So while we should celebrate the great work we have done for our clients this year, we should remain mindful of our neighbors’ struggles and our roles in helping alleviate them.

Hope to “see” you all at the holiday party tomorrow,

Brian

An important message during these trying times.

Remember, we depend on ATL tipsters when it comes to bonus news at other firms. As soon as your firm’s bonus memo comes out, please email it to us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Bonus”) or text us (646-820-8477). 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, 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.

---

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).

With holiday season upon us, it looks like Biglaw firms are doing more to spread good cheer than just announce bonuses. Some firms have decided to do away with their COVID-19 austerity measures.

Yesterday, Kelley, Drye & Warren — a firm that placed 135th in the latest Am Law 200 rankings, with $232,400,000 in gross revenue in 2019 — announced that the salary reductions it made earlier this year will be completely eliminated on the first day of the new year. Here’s an excerpt from a memo that James Carr, the firm’s chairman, sent to everyone on Thursday:

We are now in a position to restore salaries to pre-COVID levels and will eliminate the remaining COVID salary reductions effective January 1, 2021, for stipulated payment partners, special counsel and associates, and impacted administrative staff. Salary withheld from May 1 through December 31, 2020 will be repaid in a lump sum on December 31. Equity partner draws will return to pre-COVID levels beginning in January. This decision reflects our optimism for the continued financial health of Kelley Drye as well as our sincere gratitude to everyone who worked so hard to make this possible.

If you recall, the firm cut salaries by 10 percent across the board for all lawyers and employees earning over $100,000, and slashed equity partners’ draws on a a proportional basis by as much as 20 percent. In September Carr announced that those reductions would be halved for everyone except partners. As if the end of the cuts wasn’t exciting enough, we imagine that everyone at Kelley Drye must be thrilled they’ll be receiving big checks with their withheld salaries as a New Year’s Eve gift.

Let’s hope more firms are able to roll back COVID-19 austerity measures before the end of 2020. That would help everyone have a really happy new year.

(Flip to the next page to read the full Kelley Drye memo.)

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.

---

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.

Kinney Recruiting has been asked by a named partner of a high-end boutique firm in New York to conduct a search for a mid-level litigation associate with at least three (3) years of experience. The firm handles high-profile cases across the country that involve various matters including complex commercial litigation, antitrust, intellectual property, and white-collar defense and investigations. This associate will have the opportunity to develop hands-on litigation skills, such as taking and defending depositions and going to trial, in the very near term.  Of course, working remotely until Fall 2021 is a given.

Strong to exceptional academic achievement at a nationally-recognized US law school is required, as is admission to the New York bar.  The ideal candidate would also have a federal (district or appellate) level clerkship.

If you have all this and are excited about taking an important role in “bet the company” cases, get in touch with us immediately at jobs@kinneyrecruiting.com.

Kinney Recruiting has been asked by a named partner of a high-end boutique firm in New York to conduct a search for a mid-level litigation associate with at least three (3) years of experience. The firm handles high-profile cases across the country that involve various matters including complex commercial litigation, antitrust, intellectual property, and white-collar defense and investigations. This associate will have the opportunity to develop hands-on litigation skills, such as taking and defending depositions and going to trial, in the very near term.  Of course, working remotely until Fall 2021 is a given.

Strong to exceptional academic achievement at a nationally-recognized US law school is required, as is admission to the New York bar.  The ideal candidate would also have a federal (district or appellate) level clerkship.

If you have all this and are excited about taking an important role in “bet the company” cases, get in touch with us immediately at jobs@kinneyrecruiting.com.

After graduating from Columbia Law School earlier this year, Naomi Biden, the daughter of Hunter Biden and his first wife Kathleen, is poised to join the Biglaw ranks in January. The Washingtonian reports that the newly minted JD will be joining Arnold & Porter’s 55-member incoming class.

In relocating her legal career to the District, she follows in the footsteps of Tiffany Trump, who chose to attend Georgetown Law when her dad moved into the White House. Thus, the transition from Tiffany to Naomi as the new “First Lawyer” will complete the peaceful transfer of power in the Above the Law universe. And as it turns out, Naomi and Tiffany are friends in the way elites are, and snapping pictures together while partying in the Hamptons. See, we can all cross the aisle and get along over mimosas at the beach house!

In any event, while we’re waiting on Tiffany’s next career move, her buddy will move into the largest law firm lobbying shop in the country right as her grandpa becomes president. Hopefully, she’ll be joining literally any other practice area within the firm.

But before she starts billing up a storm to get those suspiciously light bonuses, she’s offering some pro bono legal analysis for Donald Trump:

That was funny on November 9, but as I flip through the Texas v. Pennsylvania papers, we’ve moved well beyond parody.

Naomi Biden Will Join a DC Law Firm in January [Washingtonian]

---

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.