Kim Kardashian Is ‘Totally Bummed’ She Failed The Baby Bar Exam — Again

(Photo by Dia Dipasupil/Getty Images)

Last month, we learned that Kim Kardashian had failed her first attempt at the California baby bar (aka the First-Year Law Students’ Examination). The news was disclosed in an episode of Keeping Up With the Kardashians that was filmed in October 2020, but aired in late May. On Thursday night, on the series finale of the reality TV show, she revealed that she fared no better on her second go at the exam — in fact, she scored even worse than last time. But perhaps there was a reason for that.

We’ve come to learn that Kardashian was ill with COVID-19 when she took the baby bar for the second time. People has the details on that:

“That was probably the hardest thing I’ve ever, ever had to do,” she told the cameras. “I have about two months before we get the results, and if I don’t pass, I don’t care because I had COVID, and if I pass then it is a f—— miracle and I don’t know how I did that. I definitely feel like I knew more this time on the test than last time on the test. I feel really confident about that, but you know you get really cloudy and you get really like, this COVID brain.”

“If I didn’t pass, it’s all COVID’s fault,” she concluded. “So I tried my best, I had a moment like, about to blackout, but I pushed through. It is what it is. And I’m proud of myself regardless.”

“I failed! F–k! I failed,” Kardashian told attorneys Erin Haney and Jessica Jackson — who had sponsored her apprenticeship work hours — when she got the bad news. “This is really annoying.” According to TMZ, she got a score of 463 (slightly lower than the 474 she got the first time she took the test). She will need a 560 to pass.

Kardashian is now back to studying for her third shot at the exam, and this time, she really needs to pass or she could lose credit for all coursework taken up to this point. Her next (and perhaps final) exam attempt will be in July, so it’s really time for her to buckle down. Best of luck!

Earlier: Kim Kardashian Says She Failed The Baby Bar Exam


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.

Heidi Alexander On Why Flexible Work Should Forever Be the Norm In Law

I reported here last week on a statement issued by a committee of Massachusetts’ highest court recommending that law firms and other legal employers permanently adopt flexible working options as their standard, rather than as the exception.

Maintaining flexibility in individual working arrangements serves the dual purposes of enhancing lawyer well-being while also advancing diversity, equity and inclusion, the committee said.

On Wednesday, for my Litera TV show, Law Insights, I discussed the statement with Heidi S. Alexander, who is executive director of the committee that issued the statement, the Standing Committee on Lawyer Well-Being of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Alexander is well-known in legal technology circles as co-chair of the 2020 ABA Techshow planning board and founder of the ABA’s Women of Legal Technology Initiative.

Biglaw Titans Locked In Legal Battle Over What It Means To ‘Believe Women’

When has a law firm simply gone too far in light of the times we’re living in? One Biglaw firm may be ready to teach a masterclass on just that.

For the past three years, Tinder’s cofounder and a group of its early employees have been locked in litigation with IAC/InterActiveCorp. and Match Group Inc. over the dating app’s valuation. But this is not your average corporate suit: it centers on the alleged cover-up of a sexual assault investigation against a former CEO to keep him in power long enough to manipulate and suppress the company’s valuation.

Wachtell Lipton — a firm that came in 41st place in the most recent Am Law 100 ranking, with a 2020 gross revenue of $1,010,664,000 — has represented Match on the reportedly faulty Tinder valuation, on the alleged “sham” sexual assault investigation, on the company’s spin from IAC, and now on this suit. The firm recently attempted to seal documents related to the sexual assault allegations against former CEO Greg Blatt, a former Wachtell associate himself. But the Wachtell ties don’t end there. The company’s CFO is a Wachtell alumnus, as is one of its board members, who worked there for decades as a former partner. Wachtell now seems to be trying its hardest to conceal information in this suit, but why?

Rosette Pambakian, a former Tinder vice president, accused Blatt of “forcibly groping [her] breasts and upper thighs” during a 2016 holiday party. Two others were present in the hotel room where this happened, and according to court documents, what one of them saw occur between Pambakian and Blatt was “not consensual.” Blatt has since filed a defamation case against Pambakian, claiming that the incident in question was indeed consensual. The instant suit alleges that Match whitewashed the sexual assault investigation to keep Blatt at the head of the table while working on the valuation.

As noted in a recent filing from Gibson Dunn, the firm that is representing the plaintiffs in this $2 billion suit, not only is access to court documents a First Amendment issue, but transparency is even more important when matters involving allegations of sexual assault are at play.

“There is simply no valid basis for denying public access to these court records, particularly in light of the substantial public interest this case has already generated. Sealing is an extraordinary act in derogation of the statutory and common-law rights of public access to court proceedings. It is not a weapon to be wielded as a means of seizing a strategic advantage through selective disclosures aimed at winning a public relations campaign. Defendants should not be allowed to sweep under the rug evidence that they swept Blatt’s misconduct under the rug. The #metoo era has highlighted the importance of transparency and the need to expose, rather than conceal, credible allegations of sexual assault. This is especially so in this case, where the jury can find that the investigation cover-up was designed to facilitate the corruption of the Tinder valuation that Blatt was leading in parallel with the Blatt investigation. This Court should reject Defendants’ effort to enlist its help in perpetuating their cover-up by keeping the filings in its own docket shielded from public scrutiny.”

Not only is Match willing to take a huge #MeToo bullet here, but Wachtell is as well for its aggressive defense of the company. By insinuating that Pambakian is a liar, and then by attempting to conceal almost all of the documents concerning the sexual assault investigation, they are failing women entirely. Whatever happened to “believe women”? We reached out to Wachtell for comment, but the firm did not immediately respond.

Gibson Dunn partner Greta B. Williams, who is representing the plaintiffs alongside partner Orin Snyder, said, “It is unfortunate in 2021 that a public company would stoop so low in attacking the victim. Now they are trying to cover up their cover up by keeping evidence about it hidden from the public.”

With law student activism on the rise — for example, against law firms that use mandatory arbitration agreements in employment and against law firms that represent fossil fuel companies — it wouldn’t be terribly surprising if these student groups turned an eye toward firms that are willing to represent companies that show such disdain to victims of sexual assault.


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.

Plights. Camera. Action: Recording Yourself Effectively

Learning to be comfortable on camera is not easy. It can be kind of unsettling talking to this inanimate object that isn’t reacting to you. It just sits there, watching you and recording every word you say and every movement you make.

When you frame it like that, it even seems a little creepy.

It takes a little adjustment to get comfortable. I used to hate the way that I looked on video. Confidence, however, is usually just a reflection of comfort, and comfort is a reflection of familiarity.

Taking some time to learn a few things about making videos of yourself can go a long way toward putting you at ease. What follows are three tips that I have learned on my journey.

1. What Did You Do Well?

Identifying what you did well in shooting the video will help you focus on the more positive aspects of the video.

We tend to be hypercritical when it comes to seeing and hearing ourselves, which makes noting the good things a crucial exercise in changing our perspective. Did you like the outfit you wore? Was your tone particularly engaging? Perhaps you made good eye contact (with the camera, of course).

For example, litigation consultant and CEO Shari Belitz stresses the importance of just looking at the camera. It really helps your viewers in staying switched on.

2. What Specifically Makes You Cringe?

This may seem like it nullifies the previous point but — if done right — it does not. Articulating a cringe factor diminishes its power over you. It transforms it into a challenge to solve.

Once you have your positive framing and a challenge to solve, you can then laugh about the parts that make you cringe.

Then, next to your list of things to do again, write down a few key points that you must make sure not to do, or to do differently. This will give you something actionable to work on next time you record.

3. Take A Class!

There are so many professionals out there with years of experience in public speaking, film-making, vlogging, and pretty much anything else you can think of.

Invest in yourself. Going somewhere like Udemy or Skillshare will change your life. I paid around $10 to learn some great hacks for talking on camera. Alternatively, if you don’t want to spend any money just yet, then search YouTube, picking up some tips there.

Bonus Tips

  • Commit to redoing a video no more than twice, but aim for just once. As drastic as it sounds, it will force you to bring your A-game on the first try.
  • Embrace your little mistakes and quirks. They make you more real and personable, automatically drawing others to you.
  • Good lighting and good sound are paramount.
  • When talking to a camera, everything is magnified. Experiment with solid colors and smaller accessories.
  • Pretend you are having a one-on-one conversation with a peer.

My favorite and final tip is to make imperfect videos, tweaking them as you go along. After all, that is the best way to learn.


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.

Associate Compensation War Comes To Texas

Yeehaw! The 2021 salary increases have made their way to the Lone Star state. Today, Vinson & Elkins announced to associates they were increasing salaries to the new Davis Polk compensation scale.

The firm dropped the welcome news in a Zoom meeting, not via a memo. But tipsters reports it is a match of the Davis Polk scale, effective July 1. An insider describes the announcement:

The newly elected firm leadership at Vinson & Elkins had an introductory meeting for associates this morning, scheduled before the new salary announcements at other firms last week. During the meeting, they announced V&E would match the Davis Polk numbers….. it hasn’t gone out in writing yet. But the announcement was made, new salaries effective July 1.

It’s unsurprising that V&E made the move on associate salaries; the firm made 782,352,000 in gross revenue last year, making it 59th on the Am Law 100. Nice to see them sharing the largesse with associates.

Remember everyone, we depend on your tips to stay on top of this stuff. So when your firm matches, please text us (646-820-8477) or email us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Raises”). 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’ll also use for 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.


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).

Enter your email address to sign up for ATL’s Bonus & Salary Increase Alerts.

Federal Anti-Discrimination Law: A Pride Month Update

Pride Month is a good time to take stock of the state of anti-discrimination laws affecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people. The past year has brought some unprecedented wins, including the momentous June 2020 Supreme Court ruling in Bostock followed by a January 2021 Executive Order with long-awaited anti-discrimination protections. At the same time, violence against transgender people – particularly individuals of color – is on the rise, and more than one in three LGBTQ Americans report that they faced discrimination of some kind in the past year, including more than three in five transgender Americans, according to the Center for American Progress.

Last year, the Supreme Court held in Bostock v. Clayton County that discrimination because a person is LGBTQ is discrimination “because of sex” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (CRA) of 1964, the federal law prohibiting employment discrimination. The landmark case pulled together three cases involving individuals who lost their jobs: Gerald Bostock, a social worker for a county in Georgia, who was fired after joining a gay softball league; Aimee Stephens, a funeral director whose employer terminated her after she informed them that she was transgender and planned to come to work as the woman she is; and Donald Zarda, a skydiving instructor, who lost his job after talking to a customer about his same-sex relationship.

In “Because of Sex”: The Supreme Court, Federal Sex Discrimination Law, and Best Practices for Protecting LGBTQ Workers, a One-Hour Briefing available on-demand from the Practising Law Institute (PLI), James D. Esseks, Director of the ACLU LGBTQ & HIV Project, noted that the plaintiffs in Bostock “have made an enormous difference in the lives of LGBTQ people all across the country.” In short, their arguments successfully demonstrated that in each case, they faced discrimination “because of sex” as defined by Title VII.

If Mr. Zarda had been a woman discussing her relationship with a man, or if Ms. Stephens had been assigned female at birth and dressed traditionally as a woman, they would not have lost their jobs – their employers fired them for traits or actions they would not have considered if it weren’t for their sex. Therefore, the Court found, “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”

When the CRA was signed over 50 years ago, Esseks observed, Congress wasn’t considering the many ways in which “discrimination on the basis of sex” would be defined in coming years. But decisions in recent decades on issues such as sexual harassment and stereotyping based on “masculine” or “feminine” traits have shown Title VII’s broad relevance, and Bostock now confirms that sexual orientation and gender identification are also protected.

In addition to its immediate impact in the workplace, Bostock made an impact in other areas of federal sex discrimination law, explained Julie Wilensky, Senior Staff Attorney, National Center for Lesbian Rights, in the PLI briefing. As Justice Alito observed in his dissenting opinion in Bostock, provisions of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, the Fair Housing Act, the Affordable Care Act, and dozens of other federal statutes explicitly prohibit sex discrimination under Title VII. By extension, these statutes should also protect LGBTQ individuals. Following the Bostock ruling, however, the Trump administration made it clear that it had no plans to extend Title VII protections to LGBTQ individuals in the workplace or elsewhere.

On his first day in office, President Biden signed an Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation. Described by the Human Rights Campaign as “the most substantive, wide-ranging LGBTQ executive order in U.S. history,” the EO calls for immediate implementation of Bostock.

Significantly, the EO addresses the intersection of various types of discrimination, stating: “Discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation manifests differently for different individuals, and it often overlaps with other forms of prohibited discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of race or disability. For example, transgender Black Americans face unconscionably high levels of workplace discrimination, homelessness, and violence, including fatal violence.” Declaring that it is the Biden administration’s policy to address overlapping forms of discrimination, the EO calls on all federal agencies to review their policies and address any areas inconsistent with this policy.

So far, agencies have taken heed: The Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Health and Human Services (HHS), and others have announced their plans to formally prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

For more on Bostock and how employers can protect the rights of LGBTQ workers, view PLI’s One-Hour Briefing. To learn more about this important topic, sign up for PLI’s Employment Discrimination Law & Litigation 2021. PLI’s Pro Bono Scholarships are available for qualifying organizations and individuals.


Practising Law Institute is a nonprofit learning organization dedicated to keeping attorneys and other professionals at the forefront of knowledge and expertise. PLI is chartered by the Regents of the University of the State of New York and was founded in 1933 by Harold P. Seligson. The organization provides the highest quality, accredited, continuing legal and professional education programs in a variety of formats which are delivered by more than 4,000 volunteer faculty including prominent lawyers, judges, investment bankers, accountants, corporate counsel, and U.S. and international government regulators. PLI publishes a comprehensive library of Treatises, Course Handbooks, Answer Books and Journals also available through the PLI PLUS online platform. The essence of PLI’s mission is its commitment to the pro bono community. View PLI’s upcoming live webcasts here.

Are Corporations Pursuing A Liberal Agenda?

(via Getty Images)

People fret about politicians: Can Congress achieve anything? Can or should the Democrats eliminate the filibuster? Which political party is doing more to destroy America’s greatness — the “cancel culture” of the left or the destruction of voting rights on the right?

It’s enough to make your head spin.

Meanwhile, corporations — yes, corporations — are taking the lead on many issues.

Think about diversity and inclusion. Politicians may or may not be able to pass laws, but corporations can move ahead fairly easily. Increasingly, public companies have board subcommittees assigned to monitor progress on the diversity front. Is the board diverse and inclusive? Is the company? And, of course, critically: Are managers’ bonuses affected by whether the corporation is becoming more diverse and inclusive? Once money is on the line, results will follow.

Who cares what the politicians think?

It’s the same for many other issues, which now travel under the rubric of “environmental, social, and governance.” A quarter of the money that flowed into stock and bond mutual funds last year flowed into ESG funds. That’s a lot of money. ESG funds captured $51 billion of new investments in 2020, up from $21 billion in 2019. That’s a lot of momentum.

If companies want to attract investments from ESG funds, the companies must have ESG-friendly policies. Companies that oppose climate change and favor inequality need not apply.

Who cares what the politicians think?

And companies themselves are of course getting ahead of the curve. You’re not seeing auto manufacturers commit to producing electric vehicles because that seems like a nice idea. You’re seeing those commitments because money is (or is anticipated to be) flowing into those products.

CEOs aren’t announcing the dates by which their corporations will be carbon neutral as an academic exercise. CEOs make those announcements because the CEOs fear being grilled by analysts at the next quarter’s conference call if the corporation isn’t doing the things that money perceives to be correct.

Corporations don’t have opinions on the culture wars: Corporations generally don’t favor or oppose abortion or the death penalty, and corporations don’t care who uses which bathroom. But on things that can affect profitability, corporations are remarkably astute. And on those issues, corporations are pursuing a new, and different, agenda.


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.

Am Law 100 Firm Announces Raises To $170K-$200K, Depending On Market

Firms atop the Am Law rankings are falling all over themselves to match, if not top, each other in associate compensation. Law firms run on people, specifically people firms can leverage, and locking down elite talent in a red-hot recruiting market requires bold moves. When firms are sitting on largesse from outstanding 2020 billing, sweetening the salary pot is one way to stay ahead of the game.

But what about the firms with offices outside the NY and DC hotbeds? Does the recruiting bonanza matter as much in locking down associates in St. Louis? Frankly, it’s more interesting to see how major firms operating in smaller markets handle this recent round of raises than the staid Midtown Manhattan firms.

Polsinelli has over 20 offices across the United States and represents one of our earliest looks at how firms will handle these raises outside of the city.

Presumably the $200K figure affords the major market associates (NYC, DC, SF, etc.) just a shade off the new $205K scale match. But associates in smaller markets like, say, the aforementioned St. Louis, will be getting less. Polsinelli appears to be betting that there are some markets it plays in that aren’t competing for talent based on salary.

Though as a non-lockstep firm, Polsinelli may not be taking a particularly big gamble. They still have wiggle room to up the stakes to secure a coveted lateral relocation if they want. How the lateral wars play out in these smaller offices will tell us a lot about the state of these markets.

In any event, some positive news for Polsinelli attorneys regardless of location!

Please help us help you when it comes to salary news at other firms. As soon as your firm’s memo comes out, please email it to us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Salary”) 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 Salary & 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.


HeadshotJoe 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.

Enter your email address to sign up for ATL’s Bonus & Salary Increase Alerts.

Early Compensation Mover Proves It’s Willing To Keep Playing The Salary ‘Game’

Waaaaaay back on Thursday, when the Biglaw compensation market moved to $200,000 for first-year associates, thanks to Milbank, McDermott, Will & Emery was the first firm to match the raises, doing so within a matter of hours. But then Davis Polk played spoiler, coming over the top of the Milbank scale.

But MWE is not to be deterred. On Friday, the firm announced a re-raise of associate salaries, with the below note, which, without explicitly confirming it, sure makes it seem like the they have more in the tank should another firm — cough Cravath cough — come back over the top:

We are so happy to be in a position to be able to reward our hardworking, best-in-class Associates in this way. We see your amazing level of commitment and know you are “all in” and very aligned with our plans to be the number one career accelerant in the legal profession.
Maybe the games continue or maybe we’re done: Who knows? What we hope for, at least, is that you enjoy your weekend and appreciate these brighter days.

In truth, we expected the re-raise. That’s what happened in 2018 when Cravath came over the top of Milbank’s raises. There will almost certainly be more of the $200K scale firms moving to the $205K scale, they just might be waiting until… other big players in associate compensation make their move so they don’t have to issue a third compensation memo within a matter of days.

Remember everyone, we depend on your tips to stay on top of this stuff. So when your firm matches, please text us (646-820-8477) or email us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Raises”). 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’ll also use for 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.


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).

Enter your email address to sign up for ATL’s Bonus & Salary Increase Alerts.

The Biglaw Raises Continue, And This Time, They’re Going Global

Back in 1999, one daring law firm laid the groundwork for associate salaries to soar. This firm made huge waves when it offered new associates a starting salary of $125,000 — significantly higher than the $100,000 that was standard at the time. The pay raise soon spread to firms across the country, and nothing has ever been the same since.

The firm we’re speaking about is Silicon Valley powerhouse Gunderson Dettmer, and on Friday night, David T. Young, managing partner of the Silicon Valley-based firm, notified associates that the firm would be matching new Davis Polk salary scale for associates. Here’s Gunderson’s spirit-lifting note:

[W]e thank you for your extraordinary efforts to provide clients with outstanding service and to help us build the preeminent firm in the markets in which we operate.

With other offices in Ann Arbor, Austin, Boston, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and San Diego, Gunderson is spreading wealth across the country for its associates. The firm is also adjusting salaries for those located in its Singapore office, so the wealth is going global. (The only people who are being left out are associates in the Beijing office. Maybe that could change? The last time the firm raised salaries in 2018, only U.S. associates got the nod.)

This is what the new $205K salary scale looks like at Gunderson:

  • 2021: $202,500
  • 2020: $205.000
  • 2019: $215,000
  • 2018: $240,000
  • 2017: $275,000
  • 2016: $305,000
  • 2015: $330,000
  • 2014: $350,000
  • 2013: $365,000
  • 2012: $375,000

Congratulations to all associates at Gunderson Dettmer!

(Flip to the next page to see the full memo from Gunderson Dettmer.)

We depend on your tips to stay on top of this stuff. 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’ll also use for 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.


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.