Category: News Feeds

Weil Gotshal created the bankruptcy practice. We’re probably steadier in our results than some of our peers that might be weighted to a particular economy. We don’t plan for pandemic, but we do plan for recession, and we make sure we are well suited when a recession happens to make sure our results will continue to be strong, and knock on wood, that’s exactly what’s happening this year.

— Weil Gotshal executive partner Barry Wolf, commenting on the Biglaw firm’s successes during the coronavirus crisis. Weil has largely dominated debtor-side representation matters in its bankruptcy and restructuring practice, and the firm’s billable hours are ahead of budget for 2020.

---

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.

Some associates at Snell & Wilmer have been let go from the firm. According to insiders, in an associate meeting, the firm characterized these terminations as performance based. But… when enough people are non-voluntarily exiting the firm that it gets folks talking, well, there’s a good chance there’s something deeper going on.

Of course, we’re talking about stealth layoffs. Biglaw is known for this particularly pernicious form of headcount management. If you’ve never heard of the phenomenon, consider yourself lucky. But the basic outline is that during economic downturns, firms will cut associates (that usually had good performance reviews until, coincidentally, the economy took a hit) all the while calling them performance-based cuts. These stealth layoffs allow firms to cut headcount without confirming that there were economic-based layoffs. Rather than signal some perceived weakness, a firm tries to cut overhead without making a splash. So, they’ll give the associates X number of months/weeks to find a new job and the firm may even couch the reductions in performance review terms, making those let go doubt their lawyering skills.

Of course, Snell & Wilmer, an Am Law 200 firm, previously cut associate salaries by 10 percent and furloughed staff who can’t work remotely. Now multiple tipsters from the firm are reporting there’s been some headcount management at the firm. And though they’re being told the terminations are performance-based (you know, exactly like the definition of a stealth layoff), the rank and file are deeply suspicious of the line they’re being told. Talk a look at a sampling of the tipsters’ reports:

Snell Wilmer has laid off associates in LA and OC, for, supposedly, underperformance. Definitely BS… we all know they were stealth layoffs.

Layoffs were confirmed by the firm on the last associate call. The reason given for the layoffs was because of “underperformance.” This is literally the definition of stealth layoffs.

Hi there, I’m an associate at Snell and Wilmer… the firm has been quietly making layoffs over the last two months during COVID. The firm is publicly stating that they are not doing layoffs, and has reduced all employees salaries as a way to “avoid layoffs” but had secretly been conducting layoffs anyways. Numerous associates in both Orange County and Los Angeles have been asked to leave despite having positive performance reviews, and other attorneys and associates have not been informed.

Snell Wilmer on an associate call … stated, after a question about layoffs, that “some” associates have been let go for “performance reasons.”

Snell and Wilmer conducting stealth layoffs. A few associates have been let go. Frustrating, since the EC stated that we were all in this together. Guess not.

Yeah, it doesn’t sound good. I have nothing but the deepest sympathy for anyone that finds themselves going through it. And let me reassure you — it isn’t you.

When reached for comment, a firm spokesperson did not immediately respond. We’ll update the story with any statement the firm may make.

If your firm or organization is slashing salaries, 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.

---

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).

There’s a saying that the first rule of lawyering is that the answer is always “it depends.”

So when the Wall Street Journal asks “Would You Trust A Lawyer Bot With Your Legal Needs?” it kind of glosses over this rule. I’ve learned from experience that lawyers and the public freak out over robot lawyering, but the more you peel back the artificial narrative of robot lawyering then more mundane and inevitable it becomes.

Asa Fitch’s new article lays out the basic groundwork in the legal automation game, highlighting major players like Joshua Browder of DoNotPay and explaining the ethical challenges that face anyone entering the field.

But to the question presented in the WSJ headline? There’s a lot more to unpack first.

Would you entrust a personal-injury claim, divorce settlement or high-stakes contract to an algorithm? A growing number of apps and digital services are betting you will, attracting millions of Silicon Valley investment dollars but raising questions about the limits and ethics of technology in the legal sphere.

Did they pass an in-person bar exam during a pandemic? Because I’m told that’s the only way to trust any legal advice.

Would I trust a bot to litigate an injury claim? No. Would I trust a bot to screen an injury claim to figure out if there’s anything there or if I’m best served settling or if a class exists that can get me the recovery I want? Sure. Divorce settlements are probably a no go unless you’re looking at a Vegas stripper you met 15 hours ago while twisted on Rum Rickeys. A high-stakes contract? That’s actually one of the most fascinating questions because automating contract work is actually happening, sometimes under the auspices of Biglaw. Bots may not be replacing attorney conference calls, but they’re certainly working out the boundaries of what constitutes market language.

The latter point is alluded to when the article cites Professor Drew Shimshaw’s 2018 paper on the subject:

Drew Simshaw, a law professor at Gonzaga University, wrote in a 2018 paper that the legal profession had to balance the benefits of access to do-it-yourself justice offered by apps like DoNotPay against ethical concerns that arise when they veer into doing legal work autonomously. “The legal profession’s advocacy for crippling restrictions on legal self-help solutions could potentially stunt the development of the larger AI revolution in law in ways that would ultimately favor large firms over the public interest,” he wrote.

Lawyer AI is coming, but is it coming to get you out of parking tickets or to get Goldman Sachs a 4 percent better return on a multibillion-dollar long-term deal? Because the latter is happening no matter what.

“As soon as there’s some complexity or some resistance by the system, the automation is unable to handle it,” says Ryan Calo, a law professor at the University of Washington whose specialties include robotics and automation. “There’s an impression that this app will help you navigate the legal system, but it will only help you to a small extent.”

But this is the problem with the whole legal field. Someone walks in with a “simple 50-50 estate split” and walks out an extra in a high school production of Bleak House. Lawyers rarely have the crystal ball necessary to predict when a 95 percent routine transaction is going to turn into major litigation. It’s just a question of whether a consumer is paying a lawyer from jump or only after the bot runs into an unexpected wall. That’s why smart lawyers should be leaning into bots as screening devices and integrating them into their practices — it may forfeit some more expensive hours but being in place as the go-to in the marginal cases where things go wrong would seem to be worth it. Some attorneys probably disagree.

It all depends.

WOULD YOU TRUST A LAWYER BOT WITH YOUR LEGAL NEEDS? [WSJ]

---

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.

There’s a difference between “It’s generally a good idea” and “It’s to our advantage.”

You’d be surprised how often lawyers confuse the two.

Example one:

I generally oppose asking courts to grant exceptions to page limitations. If the court wants 15 pages, make it fit in 15 pages. If the lawyers representing us want more than 15 pages, then take a good, hard look at the brief and see what can be cut without hurting our position. Generally, we can respect page limits.

Surprisingly often, our outside counsel say, “We’d like to ask for an exception to the page limits. Both we and the other side would get 25 pages instead of the usual 15.”

The client asks the obvious question: “How does that help us?”

“Both we and the other side could then present our arguments at greater length.”

“But how does that help us?”

“We’d have a chance to present our arguments more clearly.”

“But so would the other side. How does that help us?”

You can almost feel counsel scratching their heads. What would a decent answer to that question be?

The real answer usually suggests that we should not ask for more pages.

“In every brief we’ve filed to date, the other side has been wordy, and we’ve been concise. The other side is always banging up against page limits, and we’re not. So I guess having a 15-page limit actually restricts the other side more than it restricts us. We should not ask for more pages.”

Right.

Example two:

“We have to decide whether to conduct the hearing in-person or virtually.  We like an in-person hearing.”

“How does that help us?”

“If you do an in-person hearing, you get more of a sense of the environment and the judge’s reactions.”

“But how does that help us?”

“It’s more intimate and more meaningful.”

“But how does that help us?”

Are you starting to sense my frustration?

Example three:

“The question is whether we should insist on closing arguments at the end of the arbitration. We’re going to advocate having closing arguments.”

“How does that help us?”

“It gives the arbiters a chance to ask questions based on the evidence they’ve heard.”

“That helps both sides equally. How does having closing arguments help us?”

“It gives us a chance to summarize the evidence.”

“How does that help us? I assume that we write better briefs than the other side. We should thus be ahead on the briefs. Why do we want to have closing arguments, where we could lose our advantage?”

“The lawyer on the other side is actually a corporate lawyer. This will be the first closing argument he’s ever done in his life. In contrast, our lawyer is a world-renowned litigator, well known for his skill on his feet. We’ll crush them in closing arguments.”

Aha! That’s how it helps us. By all means, request closing arguments.

What’s good for the world is not necessarily what’s good for your client.

As to every decision, ask not what’s theoretically correct. Ask: “How does that help us?”

---

Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.

Is it ethical to represent two different candidates for president in the same electoral cycle? Asking for Lane Ruhland of Husch Blackwell, LLP, whose clients include both the Trump campaign and Kanye West’s sham effort to peel off black voters from Joe Biden by getting his name on the ballot.

As previously noted, Ruhland serves as counsel for Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. in its suit to force tiny NBC affiliate in northern Wisconsin to yank a pro-Biden ad off the air.

Ruhland, whose bio reports that she “enjoys helping clients navigate the intersection of law, politics and media awareness” should probably have realized that showing up in person to drop off those hinky signatures might garner some attention. The media was probably going to figure it out anyway, but appearing in public to all but announce she was working both sides of the street was probably not the “due diligence in this legal sector [which] must go beyond compliance and encompass campaign image” promised on the firm’s website. Husch Blackwell told everyone there’s nothing to see here.

But someone is doing their diligence, and it is the Campaign for Accountability, which filed a bar complaint against Ruhland with the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation demanding an investigation into the conflict, which it characterizes as non-waivable.

Simultaneous legal representation of two candidates competing for the same office is a paradigmatic example of a conflict of interest. With limited and express exceptions, Rule 1.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys, Supreme Court Rule 20, prohibits layers from representing a client “if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest.” A conflict is defined to include circumstances where “the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client” or where “there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the client’s responsibilities to another client.” Rule 1.7(a).

The interests of Kanye West’s 2020 campaign for U.S. President are clearly adverse to the interests of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., as both individuals cannot simultaneously obtain the office and hence legal steps that advance the interests on one candidacy harm the interests of the other candidacy.

CfA also notes Ruhland’s extensive work for the Wisconsin GOP and the Republican National Committee which raises “questions regarding whether she has personal commitments and interests inconsistent with zealously representing the interests of Kanye West’s presidential campaign.”

But NYU law professor Stephen Gillers disagrees, pointing out that the suit against the television station does not pertain to ballot access, and thus there is no inherent conflict.

“If West’s goal is to be a spoiler, not a serious candidate, there is no conflict at all,” Gillers told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in an email. “The candidates have the same goal — to help Trump get the votes by drawing votes from Biden.”

By which he means Black votes. So all Ruhland has to do to answer the charges is explain that she’s engaged in a cynical ploy to trick African Americans into throwing away their ballots on a spoiler candidate, and she’s home free!

Complaints to keep Kanye West off Wisconsin ballot cite phony signatures, including from Mickey Mouse and Bernie Sanders [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel]

Earlier: Biglaw Leaders Reassure Firm That Representation Of Kanye West And Donald Trump Is Not A Conflict Of Interest
Donald Trump’s Biglaw Attorney Is Helping Kanye West Get On The Presidential Ballot…

As remote work has become the new normal, more and more companies are implementing applications like Slack, Zoom, and MS Teams for operational efficiency.  As a result, data is taking on new formats, and is growing at exponential rates.  From an eDiscovery standpoint, it’s hard to keep up.

Whether you are an attorney or consultant advising your corporate clients, or an in-house legal professional, please join our webinar this Wednesday, August 12th at 2 p.m. ET / 11 a.m. PT to find out how to best prepare for eDiscovery in the cloud.

You’ll learn:

• The unique challenges of cloud data
• How to form a proactive data management plan for cloud tools
• What the options are for cloud-based eDiscovery
• Best practices for retention and preservation

Presenters:
Nicole Thompson – Head of Customer Success, Onna
Robert Keeling – Litigator, co-chair of E-Discovery Task Force, Sidley Austin

Moderator:
Bob Ambrogi – Founder of LawSites blog, Technology Columnist at Above the Law

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

Sad news from the D.C. Circuit: longtime D.C. Circuit federal judge Stephen F. Williams passed away on Friday after a prolonged battle with COVID-19. The 83-year-old jurist was admitted to the hospital in May, after becoming sick with the novel coronavirus.

Judge Williams was nominated to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan in 1986. He took senior status in 2001, but continued to manage a full case load until he was 80 years old and heard cases as recently as earlier this year. Judge Williams’s career on the bench is known for his expertise in law and economics and he heard a number of noteworthy cases during his time on the D.C. Circuit, as reported by the Washington Post:

Williams — whose father had been a well-known lawyer and former law clerk to William Howard Taft, who became Supreme Court chief justice after he was president — was a fierce advocate of the philosophy that free markets create free societies. He presided over a host of significant legal cases that touched on energy deregulation, gun control, the powers of independent prosecutors and the Civil Rights Act. He also served on the panel of judges who heard Microsoft’s antitrust appeal, finding that the software giant had abused its Windows monopoly but reversing a lower court’s order to break up the company.

Judge Williams was also known for his down-to-earth style — he’d frequently bike to work and take brown-bagged vegetarian lunches with him. Statements from various colleagues on the bench reveal a trusted jurist who will be missed:

“Truthfully, it breaks my heart. He was my closest colleague. He was my friend. We would have lunch occasionally and talk about everything in the world,” Judge Laurence H. Silberman said Saturday in an interview. “We teased each other because he thought I was too sympathetic to trade unions, and I thought he was too sympathetic to animals.”

Another colleague on the bench, Judge Merrick B. Garland, called him “the kindest of colleagues, eager to engage in vigorous intellectual debate in the most open-minded and non-personal way.”

“He was at heart the professor he had been before taking the bench,” Garland said in an email, “and it is no surprise that many of his superb law clerks have gone on to become professors themselves.”

The statement from the D.C. Circuit Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan:

Before his time on the D.C. Circuit, Williams was a law school professor at the University of Colorado. He also worked in military intelligence with the U.S. Army Reserve, was an attorney at the Biglaw firm of Debevoise & Plimpton, was an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, and a consultant to the Federal Trade Commission. He also wrote multiple books on Russian history.

Our thoughts go out to Judge Williams’s family, friends, and colleagues during this difficult time.

---

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).

There was supposed to be a test of Florida’s online bar exam platform this afternoon. There won’t be.

After Indiana and Nevada had to call off their online examinations due to nagging issues with the ILG platform, we were quick to point out that the provider struggling with Indiana was planning to administer the Florida exam this year, setting the stage for the headline “Florida Man Goes On Rampage After Computer Deletes His Bar Exam.”

But ILG is pushing ahead, using the information gleaned from the earlier debacles in an effort to get the software up and running in time for the exam. Part of that effort was supposed to be today’s test, but that… didn’t work out:

Last week, the Florida Board of Bar Examiners asked applicants to download and complete the trial exam in the latest version of the ILG bar examination software. Many applicants have downloaded the software and some have identified issues of concern and provided substantive, and helpful, comments about those issues to both ILG and the Board. The Board thanks all applicants who have downloaded and tested the software and those applicants who provided substantive comments about the concerns they have identified. The Board is working with ILG on issues that have been identified, and if you have not yet downloaded the latest version of the software, there is no need to do so now. The Live Trial Exam of the software scheduled for Monday afternoon, August 10, is postponed. The Board will update all applicants on the date and time of the Live Trial Exam as soon as possible.

It’s never a good sign when your stress test can’t survive “people identified problems immediately after downloading it.” A cynical read is that the trial was called off just to spare the bar exam and ILG the embarrassing circus that surrounded Indiana’s botched tests. The charitable read is that they’re working hard to get things right and this is all part of the process in creating any sufficiently complex software product (it’s why one test software provider has already dropped out of the effort). Reality is probably somewhere in between.

But there’s a point where it’s just not worth jerking around the applicants and we passed that point about two months ago. If, as the NCBE likes to say to blunt all criticism, “complaining about the relevance of the bar exam distracts from the examinee’s job, which is to pass the exam” then “having to Beta test software” is at least as much of a distraction. And while the NCBE’s cure for that disease is to cram people into a room so they can catch a more deadly one, the more prudent solution would be some kind of licensing regime that doesn’t rest on a one-time, two-day test. It’s almost like people were talking about this back in March, when law professors first outlined alternatives to the test.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that “diploma privilege” is the “wear a mask” of the legal profession. Smart people were pretty sure it was the right solution clear back in March, but we were told it wasn’t necessary and we just need to hold out until the Fall. It would be an easy fix, they said, with a little extra distancing or at worst staying at home. Extending temporary “supervised practice waivers” are the hydroxychloroquine of this analogy because they offer nothing substantive but make people feel like they’ve done something.

And just like these public health counterparts, those options — even the waivers — were well-intentioned but doomed for a variety of reasons and we’re all staring while the NCBE and state bar examiners throw a fit in a Trader Joe’s.

Earlier: NCBE Prez Issues Threat To Tie Up Licenses Of Bar Exam Critics
Indiana Junks Online Bar Exam Format, Will Run Test Over Email

---

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.

I am often asked: “What qualities describe a modern in-house lawyer?” If I were to answer honestly, I’d put on my lawyer hat and say “Well, it depends.” That’s because increasingly, many qualities are needed for an effective, modern in-house counsel, and they vary across industries, seniority, and geography. Below are just some of the qualities that, in my experience, have been most common.

Show Up As Your Authentic Self

A modern in-house counsel shows up authentically and encourages everyone around them to do the same.

“Don’t choose a company. Choose a manager that you will enjoy working with, who will develop you, and with whom you can show up authentically every day.” This is hands down among the best professional advice I have ever received.

Here are some qualities I look for in a manager:

• She is trustworthy, honest, and open
• She is transparent about who she is and what she cares about
• She shares her gifts and strengths
• She can be vulnerable
• She knows herself well
• She does not need to be — or try to be — someone she is not
• She makes it safe for others to show up authentically at work

This “showing up authentically every day” part is critical. Working with someone who is clipping your wings daily is … well, painful!

This is why I loved my conversation with Andrea Alexander. Her observations about “showing up authentically every day” are spot on.

Leverage Technology To Increase Impact And Have A Seat At The Table

A modern in-house counsel is tech competent, if not savvy. She leverages technology to work efficiently and to increase her impact. If and when she does, she’ll find that she’s that much more likely to have a seat at the table.

Current events have accelerated this trend.

COVID-19 accelerated the reality of remote work arrangements abruptly and impatiently like a mother bird pushes a baby out of the nest. When employees crave order and consistency, tech provides dependable direction.

Project management tools support remote coordination of tasks. Automatic notifications inspire fast action and move projects along. Everyone stays in the loop through informative dashboards.

Digital frameworks can provide a strong sense of structure, inclusion, and consistency. That’s essential for any effective in-house counsel.

Build Modern Legal Departments

An investment — of time, energy, and resources — in yourself, your staff, and your tools will return the highest dividends. That’s why the increasingly complex and essential role of overseeing legal operations is critical.

Actively and intentionally building a legal operations function is a focus for many modern in-house counsels. Recently, I caught up with Rachita Maker of Tata Communications to talk about:

• What role does tech play in the legal department?
• How much should lawyers invest in legal tech?
• How can legal operations facilitate better implementation?

The role of the in-house counsel is constantly changing, along with the workplace (and worldly) realities around it. It’s a flexible position in many ways, but it’s one that, if done right, can have a huge impact.

---

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.

By all accounts, a Pennsylvania courthouse was thrown into a tizzy after local attorney Wendy Chan showed up in person after informing the court that her son had tested positive for COVID. The presiding judge ordered the area cleared by sheriff’s deputies and now the chief judge of the court has banned Chan from the courthouse until she can prove that her family is in the clear and that she’s self-quarantined the appropriate 14 days.

For her part, Chan said she’d gotten tested and come back negative and that her son hadn’t presented symptoms for some time. The story underscores the unique challenge of a disease that presents itself in such a variety of ways. Personally, I’ve seen someone get it and fail to spread it to anyone in their family while suffering through nagging flu-symptoms themselves and then David Lat nearly died. It’s easy to see how someone could see a mild case and, armed with their own negative test, assume that they’re good to go back to work. And they’re probably right, but the story of the American pandemic is built on people acting with 80 percent confidence when 100 percent is an entirely easy alternative.

A snapshot negative test doesn’t mean Chan hasn’t picked up the bug since the test was taken from someone else in her family who did pick it up from her son. Why take the risk when there’s videoconferencing available?

Which brings us to the firm backlash from the court that paints a more disturbing picture of Chan’s appearance. In a letter from President Judge David Ashworth:

A review of your emails demonstrate your complete failure to comprehend the serious nature of the coronavirus pandemic and the extent to which the Board of Judges has taken steps to protect the public and court personnel. Notwithstanding your personal beliefs regarding the “overly broad Dept. of Health guidance” or the fact that “there was no legal requirement” for you to disclose your COVID exposure, you blatantly chose to disregard Judge Stedman’s clear instructions. What is perhaps most alarming is your transparent manipulation of the circumstance to force a delay of the hearing because you disagreed with the court’s ruling regarding the use of LifeSize. You chose to use the pandemic as a weapon to achieve a tactical advantage.

That last sentence is talking about the fact that Chan asked to put off this hearing and the judge denied it, offering a videoconferencing option instead. There are plenty of arguments about the inability of videoconferencing to replace the in-person hearing experience, but since the client was in Louisiana and beaming in anyway, those are mostly blunted. Judge Ashworth’s saying that Chan decided to show up in person in a ploy to get the hearing put off, which would be a horrific — if pretty clever — way of treating the outbreak.

It’s probably reading too much into Chan’s intentions though. Generally speaking, people with negative test results feel they’re invincible. But Alyssa Milano, who tested negative but now has antibodies after a brutal bout with the disease, is here to remind us that it doesn’t really work that way.

And yet the only thing I can think after seeing a court deploy deputies to force an attorney with a negative test result out of the building for showing up to a half-hour hearing after having been in the presence of a COVID patient several days earlier is that there are state supreme courts around the country still hellbent on making 500 applicants sit in a conference center to take a bar exam for two full days. When we already know that someone who has no reason to think they’re contagious can easily take the exam.

If you think Chan’s response was irresponsible, consider that the supposed leaders of the profession in multiple states seem to have no problem raising the stakes far higher.

Local attorney banned from courthouse for suspected COVID-19 exposure [Lancaster Online]

---

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.