Student At T14 Law School Tests Positive For COVID-19 During First Week Of In-Person Classes

(Image via Getty)

Although quite a few law schools have decided to hold their fall semesters entirely online due to the coronavirus crisis, even more have opted for hybrid models, and school is set to begin in just a matter of days, with orientation for first-year students starting today. Unlike Harvard, UC Berkeley, and Georgetown, the majority of the T14 will be welcoming students to their campuses this fall, with the hopes of preventing COVID-19 infections from spreading among members of the student body.

Unfortunately, a student has already tested positive at one of these elite law schools.

Yesterday, UVA Law notified all members of the law school community that a student already on campus has the novel coronavirus. The school is offering a hybrid educational model this fall, and students choose for themselves whether they wanted to take class online or in person. Students were required to submit negative COVID tests before returning to school if they chose to take classes live on campus. First-year students were supposed to have orientation today, and officially start school on Wednesday, with 2Ls and 3Ls returning next week.

UVA Law’s infected student is reportedly self-isolating in Charlottesville. NBC 29 has additional details on what’s happening at the law school:

The Virginia Department of Health (VDH) is already at work contact tracing to identify anyone the infected student came into contact with.

“VDH is leading the effort to identify individuals who were in close contact with the student, reaching out to those individuals, and arranging for their quarantine, if necessary,” said in the email to the community. “University and Law School staff are also working to notify and support potentially affected members of our community. We are encouraged by how the health and safety protocols have operated in this case to minimize the spread of the disease and to help the student who became infected in a prompt and effective manner.”

According to NBC 29, the law school still intends to begin classes in person this week, despite the positive COVID test.

We wish the sick UVA Law student — and the school — the best of luck doing battle against the coronavirus this semester.

UVA Law School reports positive COVID-19 test in student body [NBC 29]


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.

Senior FDA/Health Care Associate Attorney

Our client is the thriving Dallas office of a decorated national firm with an immediate need for a Senior Associate (6+ years) to join the firm’s Health Care/FDA practice.

The ideal candidate will have: 6+ years of healthcare experience, as well as expertise in a variety of regulatory and compliance matters, including third party payor audits and reimbursements, licensure and enrollment, government investigations, and federal and state fraud and abuse matters.

Experience with healthcare M&A transaction and due diligence is highly preferred.Candidates must have strong academic credentials, excellent communication skills, and a commitment to major firm practice. The winning candidate will work closely with experienced lawyers who will provide active mentoring and opportunities to assume increasing levels of responsibility and client contact. For more information on this outstanding opportunity, please contact us today at jobs@kinneyrecruiting.com.

Morning Docket: 08.17.20

A Costco location (by Stu pendousmat via Wikimedia)

* Costco is defending litigation claiming that its 401(k) plan had excessive management fees. Hard to imagine that Costco didn’t try to save money… [Forbes]

* Lawyers need to be careful about using smart speakers like Amazon Alexa while working from home. [Bloomberg Law]

* A former FBI lawyer was charged on Friday for allegedly falsifying documents related to the Russian election interference investigation. [USA Today]

* The Los Angeles Kings have suspended the actor who wears their mascot’s costume after a sexual harassment lawsuit was filed against the performer. [Yahoo News]

* A candymaker has reached a settlement over empty spaces inside boxes of Mike and Ike’s candy. Never even heard of this candy, guess I won’t be getting an $8 settlement… [Morning Call]


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.

What Makes People Think The Bar Exam Will Be A Disaster Except All The Evidence? — See Also

Ready For The Next Big Wave?


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.

Appeals Court Dashes Conservative Group’s Dream Of Deposing Hillary Clinton And Finally Getting To The Bottom Of Those Buttery Males

The Deep State strikes again! The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled today that Hillary Clinton does not have to play yet another round of But Her Benghazi Emails with Tom Fitton and the rest of the goon squad from Judicial Watch. #ClintonBodyCountGhazi!!!!!1!!

Why are we still talking about emails from 2012 a full eight years later? Dunno! Ask Qanon!

Back in 2014, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA suit seeking correspondence regarding the White House response to the 2012 attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi. In 2018, Judge Lamberth held that the State Department had failed to adequately scour its records, particularly those which might have been on Secretary Clinton’s private email server. Sticklers for antiquated legal concepts such as linear time will note that by 2018 Clinton had been out of the State Department for five years. And while she might have had some ability to shed light on the records search undertaken by the Department in 2015, by 2018 the probative value of her deposition on the conduct of the Trump State Department was approximately nil.

Nevertheless, this March, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered Clinton and her former assistant Cheryl Mills to sit for questioning on the subject of her subjective motivation for using a private email server.

“When did [Secretary Clinton] first learn that State’s records management employees were unaware of the existence of her private server?,” the judge wondered. “And why did she think that using a private server to conduct State Department business was permissible under the law in the first place?”

How is Hillary Clinton’s subjective motivation for setting up a private server relevant to the existence of documents relevant to Judicial’s Watch’s FOIA search? The panel hearing Clinton and Mills’s petition for mandamus seemed skeptical.

“If the question is whether there’s been an adequate search, what difference does it make what the intent was or reasons for using a private server, or Hillary Clinton’s or anyone else’s understanding of State’s record searching obligations?” queried Judge Robert Wilkins.

And in today’s unanimous opinion, Judges Thomas Griffith and Cornelia Pillard agreed, finding that Judge Lamberth erred in using a finding of bad faith by the State Department to justify a dragnet of discovery unrelated to the case.

Here, the District Court ordered Secretary Clinton’s deposition primarily to probe her motives for using a private email server and her understanding of the State Department’s records-management obligations. However, neither of these topics is relevant to the only outstanding issue in this FOIA litigation – whether the State Department has conducted an adequate search for talking points provided to Ambassador Rice following the September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi, or for any communications or records related to those specific talking points. The proposed inquiries are not, as Judicial Watch insists, “vital to determining the adequacy of the search for records at issue in [its] FOIA request,” and we find there is little reason to believe that the information sought will be relevant to a claim or defense as required by Rule 26. [Internal citations omitted.]

Noting that “a bad-faith inquiry in a FOIA context is only relevant as it goes to the actions of the individuals who conducted the search” — a search undertaken years after Clinton left government service — the court finds Lamberth has awarded the plaintiff additional discovery as a “punishment” for the government’s possible bad faith, which is not how FOIA law goes.

Furthermore, the trial applied the incorrect legal standard, since a FOIA suit is a demand for documents, not an interrogation of the subjective motives of their authors.

Finally, Judge Lamberth failed to consider the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Pompeo, 744 F. App’x 3 (D.C. Cir. 2018) — a case involving the same plaintiff, and the exact same set of emails — finding that the government’s search had already satisfied the demands of the FOIA statute.

[W]e find the District Court did err by failing to address our findings in Pompeo and simply insisting Petitioners’ depositions would somehow squeeze water out of the rock. If a search for additional Clinton emails has been exhausted in a Federal Records Act case – under a statutory scheme that does provide a process for the recovery or uncovering of removed records – the grounds for continued foraging in the more limited context of a FOIA case are fatally unclear.

OUCH.

Unfortunately for Cheryl Mills, though, the court found it lacked jurisdiction as to her petition. Although it held that “the District Court’s Order reflects a deeply flawed view of both FOIA and Rule 26, with the result that the contemplated discovery has traveled far afield from the narrow issue in this FOIA case” as to both Mills’ and Clinton’s depositions, Clinton is a third-party intervenor entitled to initiate intermediate review, where Mills is a nonparty respondent. Her only remedy is to refuse to be deposed and risk a contempt citation, which she may then appeal — a prospect which is probably, well, unappealing.

As for Tom Fitton, who loudly trumpeted Lamberth’s March ruling, he’s really busy today with other important business.

Awww, don’t worry, Tom. Just do 10,000 bicep curls and 500mg of hydroxy, and you’ll be right as rain and ready to take on a retired grandmother quarantining in Chappaqua by Monday!

IN RE: HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON AND CHERYL MILLS, PETITIONERS [No. 20-5056, August 14, 2020]


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

Perhaps Now Isn’t The Best Time To Enforce A Major Bar Exam Pass Rate Rule For Law Schools

There is no way that the bar passage this year says anything about the quality of anything except luck: That your [online exam] happened to not crash, that you happen to be in the right jurisdiction, that you happen to not have COVID in your family. A wait-and-see approach ups the pressure on schools. This feels like a cavalier and short-sighted response. We’re just saying, ‘Suspend it for the year.’

Catherine Grosso, president of the Society of American Law Teachers (SALT) and Michigan State University law professor, in comments given after the American Bar Association’s Standards Review Subcommittee recommended that the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar take no action on bar passage standard 316, which requires that at least 75 percent of a law school’s graduates pass the bar within two years, lest the school lose accreditation. SALT had previously submitted a letter to the ABA arguing that the bar pass standard was unworkable during the pandemic.


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.

What The Legal Teams Of The Future Do Differently

Over the past few decades, the technologies businesses rely on have evolved tremendously.  From a mass migration to the cloud to an increasingly remote workforce, the ability to work anytime, anywhere has become invaluable. The level of communication and collaboration that cloud-based platforms like G Suite, Slack, Zoom, and more have afforded workers has not only accelerated productivity, but also skyrocketed the production of unstructured data.  In fact, the average company manages 162.9TB of data hosted on an average of 88 applications. The data businesses are producing is scattered amongst different applications, jam-packed with dynamic metadata, and trickier to preserve.

If you’re a law firm, service provider, or any other eDiscovery professional, new platforms can make eDiscovery feel like finding a grain of sand in an ocean of information. However, with the right approach to these new platforms, there are ways to get ahead of the challenges they present. In this article, we’ll discuss a few changes you can start making today to set yourself up for eDiscovery success as information technology evolves.

Get to know the platforms you’re collecting from

It seems simple, but not enough people take the time to truly understand the platforms they’re collecting from. Whether it’s Box eDiscovery or Zoom eDiscovery, unless you’re using the platform everyday, it’s hard to comprehend the bells and whistles of the interface. If you’re a beginner in Slack for instance, you may not understand the difference between a workspace, a channel, or a multi-party message, which makes understanding the context behind information challenging.

If you don’t understand what the platform actually does and how its users interact with it, you’re not going to know how to search for the information you need. The days of collecting every last shred of data from platforms are over — with hundreds of thousands of messages, files, and users to sort through, narrowing down what you’re looking for is the best way to work smart and save time and money. To do this, you must educate yourself and your team on the ins and outs of the platform at hand and step into the user’s shoes. If you don’t know where to begin, get connected with an IT advocate who does. There’s no doubt the worlds of IT and legal are merging, and the technological knowledge gap when it comes to these platforms is a great reason why they should operate as a single unit.

Build relationships with vendors

It’s just as important to get to know the platforms you’re collecting from as it is to get to know the people behind them. When your client or team is assessing a new platform, their priorities are typically much different from yours. Where they might be assessing the platform’s efficiency and functionalities for their line of work, you’re assessing the platform’s eDiscovery capabilities. Not knowing the platform’s native capabilities and limitations from the start can have damaging effects to your eDiscovery process later on. For example, if the platform can’t process and
export its data in a comprehensive format, you’ll have trouble tracking down defensible data when the time comes.

For these reasons and more, it’s critical to connect with technology vendors and ask point blank what the platform’s legal limitations are. Consider questions like: What do your retention settings look like? Is there a legal hold functionality? Do you have a solution partner for defensible collection? The sooner you begin building relationships with your vendors, the sooner you’ll become an expert on the eDiscovery side of the platform leading to a quicker and more agile process.

Leave the knock-on-wood strategy behind

Even now, too many legal teams have a reactive rather than a proactive approach to eDiscovery. Whether it’s a client or even your own team, occasionally you’ll run into a “knock-on-wood” eDiscovery strategy where teams don’t prepare for eDiscovery until they’re forced to. The truth is that if you’re waiting for litigation to thrust you into learning about the eDiscovery capabilities of a platform for the first time, you’re already too late. Worst case scenario, you’ll come to find out important information was deleted, risky information was kept, or you simply can’t find what you need.

With rising data privacy laws like GDPR and CCPA, increasing security vulnerabilities, and the lax, chatroom-like nature of messaging platforms prompting more inappropriate workplace communication, waiting until litigation strikes is no longer an option. Understanding the nature of new technologies, the data they produce, and where that data lives, will help you assess risk and spot critical gaps that need to be filled before the time for eDiscovery comes. To be a proactive eDiscovery professional in the age of emerging technology, you have to ask the right questions, do the research, and assume you’re behind before you even start.

Embrace the velocity of innovation

Every new technology comes with new benefits, but also new risk — and risk is usually the opposite of what the legal community wants to engage with. However, this fact shouldn’t deter you from embracing innovation, instead it should motivate you. The technologies developed over the past few decades have broken down so many barriers. They’ve connected teams across the globe, empowered people through access to knowledge at an unprecedented scale, and allowed us to work smarter and faster with productivity automations. It is changing the way we operate for the better.  At times, it can feel impossible to keep up with rapid changes in tech, however, not being able to keep up is a good problem to have. We should challenge ourselves to shift our mindset on this front. Instead of scratching our heads at new technological terms, let’s learn what they mean. Instead of harboring our frustrations to ourselves, let’s express them to vendors and call on them to make native eDiscovery features more standard. There’s no way to simply hop on board the eDiscovery train of the future, we need to be the ones driving it. The bottom line is that wherever there’s electronically-stored information, there’s eDiscovery — and we’re not seeing a decline in ESI volume anytime soon. Instead of being the passengers of the future of eDiscovery, we need to be the drivers — and the ones steering the way will take a proactive, self-educational approach with every new platform that comes their way

Courtroom Access In The Age Of COVID

In Pennsylvania, an attorney was barred from the courthouse because she’d been exposed to someone with COVID. But where do we draw the line before we intrude on people’s ability to be represented by counsel of choice? And what rules do we place on mandatory videoconference hearings to maintain fairness? All that and a discussion of the latest developments with managing bar exams around the country.