Biglaw Firm’s Reopening Focuses On Flexibility, With No Minimum Number Of In-Office Work Days

The first week of June has come and gone, and yet another firm has decided to let its employees know what their eventual return to the office will look like. Loeb & Loeb, ranked 99th in the most recent Am Law 100, with $385,271,000 gross revenue in 2020, is the latest firm to announce its reopening plans, and it looks like the five-day, in-office workweek will be a thing the past.

On Friday, Kenneth Florin, the firm’s chair, laid out Loeb’s plans. With a goal of “allow[ing] for as much flexibility as possible,” the firm will start inviting employees back to the office in three phases: after the July 4th holiday, employees can visit the office voluntarily if they wish; after Labor Day, the firm will encourage a “somewhat more meaningful return to office,” which will last “through at least the end of 2021”; thereafter, Loeb will evaluate its new hybrid way of working to figure out what will the future of the firm will look like.

Here are the highlights from each of the firm’s return-to-office phases (memo available in full on the next page):

  • Phase 1: The firm will host “fun offerings” on certain days each week to make office visits “more meaningful and enjoyable.” Florin emphasizes that “no one should feel obligated to come in during this time” and that employees “should feel no pressure to do so.”
  • Phase 2: The firm will “not be requiring a set minimum number of work days in the office” for attorneys and paralegals; instead, department chairs will arrange a set of guidelines based on department needs, client needs, and individual circumstances. “While we expect many will strive toward an average of 2 or 3 days per week in the office,” Florin notes, “others may make different arrangements which involve them coming in more or fewer days.”
  • Phase 3: The firm’s final phase will start in 2022, and leadership will “use everything we learned during our first two phases to inform our longer term plans” concerning a flexible work environment.

Florin closes his message, recognizing that flexibility is key to work/life balance:

[A]lthough we will be returning to the same physical space we left over a year ago, it is clear that our way of working will be very different than what we are used to. But, hopefully, it will be improved, allowing for more flexibility and a work/life balance that works for each of us while maintaining the nurturing culture that is Loeb. I thank you once again for all your patience and diligence as we work to reintegrate everyone in the most comfortable way possible.

Congratulations to Loeb & Loeb on creating a plan that focuses on flexibility in the next normal — one where lawyers and staffers alike will be able to work remotely as suits their individual needs.

(Flip to the next page to see the full memo from Loeb & Loeb.)

What has your firm announced as far as a reopening plan is concerned? The more information is out there, the more likely it is that firms will be able to establish a market standard for a return to work.

As soon as you find out about the reopening plan at your firm, please email us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Office Reopening”) or text us at (646) 820-8477. We always keep our sources on stories anonymous. There’s no need to send a memo (if one exists) using your firm email account; your personal email account is fine. If a memo has been circulated, please be sure to include it as proof; we like to post complete memos as a service to our readers. You can take a photo of the memo and attach as a picture if you are worried about metadata in a PDF or Word file. Thanks.


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.

On Trump’s Indictment: An Open Letter To The FBI

(Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Dear FBI:

I know you were somehow caught flatfooted on January 6. For some reason, I knew there was going to be trouble on that day, but you didn’t. I figured I’d write you this letter because I again see trouble coming, and I just want to be sure that you don’t miss it.

Donald Trump is likely to be indicted somewhere this summer or fall. He might be indicted in New York; he might be indicted in the District of Columbia; he might be indicted in Georgia. But it’s pretty darned likely that an indictment is coming. Assume, for the sake of argument, that the indictment is handed down in New York.

Donald Trump will immediately be at the most risk that he’s ever faced in his life.

You’ve seen what Trump has done when he’s at a little risk — when he might be impeached or he might lose an election. Frankly, those threats were small potatoes; the risk was simply being thrown out of office. What do you think Trump is going to do when he’s at risk of being thrown in jail?

Prosecutors, the courts, and all things remotely related to the judicial system are about to come under siege.

Trump has been deplatformed by many social media sites. And I assume that the judge overseeing the criminal proceeding will be intelligent enough to impose a gag order on Trump. That will help a little.

But Trump has an awful lot of loyalists in high places. A mere gag order will probably not be enough to stop the siege. I’m certain people who are close to Trump, and surely some members of the public, and surely some members of the House of Representatives, and perhaps some senators, and perhaps some news networks, are about to launch an attack the likes of which we haven’t seen before.

We’re about to hear that the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office is like the mob in Salem but limiting its hunt to a single Republican warlock. We’re about to hear that the individual prosecutors assigned to Trump’s case are as evil as the day is long. We’re about to hear that the judge hearing the case is corrupt. We’re about to hear that the entire judicial system can’t be trusted. At that point, my imagination runs out, but my imagination has already proven too limited for past events.

So, FBI, imagine more. Don’t be stupid: You must assign a security detail to Cy Vance and whoever succeeds him as the Manhattan District Attorney. You must assign security details to the individual prosecutors who are handling the case against Trump. You must assign a security detail to the Manhattan District Attorneys’ office itself. You must assign a security detail to the judge.  You must assign a security detail to the courthouse.

The people who are ultimately selected as jurors in the criminal case must remain anonymous, and those folks might nonetheless need extra security.

You’re in charge of domestic security — and I’m not — but you should think about this more broadly. Will courthouses across American become targets, simply because they’re all part of a corrupt scheme? Judges? Prosecutors’ offices?

I don’t know, but I’m worried. You’re the specialist in this kind of stuff. Be smart.

You weren’t prepared for the recent assault on the legislative branch of government.

That was the warm-up act: Trump was threatened only with losing an election.

This is now the main show: Trump will be threatened with imprisonment.  He’s about to get serious. There’s about to be a frontal assault on the judicial system.

Get ready now.

You can’t see you didn’t see it coming.  I told you so.

Very truly yours,

Mark


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.

AMC’s Hertz Sequel Far More Successful Than The Original, Spawns Sequel Of Its Own

When Hertz shares skyrocketed for no particular reason then known to investing man, it struck upon the not-at-all-unreasonable idea of selling a whole bunch of additional shares. If people were willing to snap up shares of a company mired in pandemic and bankruptcy regardless of what had previously been known as “fundamentals,” why should Hertz itself not benefit from the frenzy? The answer to that question turned out to be, “because the SEC says no.”

Morning Docket: 06.07.21

* A Republican Congressman was finally served with papers related to a lawsuit over the January 6th Capitol riot after prior attempts failed. Seth Rogen may have served the papers right the first time… [Hill]

* A California lawyer, who allegedly used a cafe to embezzle money, has been sentenced to prison. [San Francisco Chronicle]

* A New York lawyer, who is an associate at Dechert LLP, appeared on Jeopardy! last week. [Brooklyn Eagle]

* Jerry Falwell, Jr. is asking that a lawsuit filed by Liberty University over Falwell’s departure from the school be dismissed. [NBC News]

* The Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether America’s all-male draft is unconstitutional. Maybe the movie RBG will be quoted in the briefs… [Fox News]


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.

WARNING: Filing Crazy Election Lawsuits Bad For Your Career — See Also

The In-House Take On Billable Hours


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.

Coverage parity for mental health, substance abuse, a key focus for insurance regulators – MedCity News

Though a federal law prohibiting health insurers from discriminating against people with mental health and substance abuse issues has been in place for more than a decade, enforcement can be a challenge. But amid a pandemic that has significantly worsened these issues, regulators at the national and state levels say they are focused on safeguarding insurance coverage parity now more than ever.

In a webinar last week hosted by mental health organization Inseperable, U.S. Labor Secretary Marty Walsh outlined the ways in which his department is working to enforce the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008,

The law prevents group health plans and health insurance issuers from imposing less favorable limitations on mental health and substance use disorder benefits as compared to medical/surgical benefits. For example, prior to the law’s passage, health insurers could charge higher copays or deductibles to those with documented behavioral health issues and apply stringent treatment limitations, including on the types of facilities patients with these issues could visit.

To uphold the law and ensure parity in coverage, the labor department has two strategies in place, Walsh said.

The department’s Employee Benefits Security Administration agency has created a task force that focuses on enforcement of the act, he said. The task force is reviewing its inventory of case files, looking to identify potential violations and send out requests to payers for data on parity analyses, which they are required to maintain to show their compliance with the law.

Further, the Department of Labor, along with other government agencies involved in this work such as the Department of Health and Human Services and Internal Revenue Service, is providing regular reports to Congress on their findings and enforcement actions, Walsh said. This can help inform legislation on insurance coverage moving forward.

“From day one, after I got sworn in, I emphasized that our enforcement in the [parity] arena needs to be a priority,” Walsh said. “Group plans and insurers have to be able to show their work if they are claiming to meet parity requirements.”

But enforcement cannot be at the federal level alone. States also play a key role in ensuring that people with mental health and substance use problems do not get the short end of the coverage stick.

On the ground, access to care is still a major issue for those with these disorders, said Ann Marie Sullivan, mental health commissioner of New York, during the virtual discussion. Many insurers require multiple treatment plans before signing off on treatment and provide narrow networks for psychiatrists and other professionals specializing in behavioral health and addiction medicine.

To counter these actions, New York regulators have taken a comprehensive approach to enforcement, Sullivan said. Government plans must work with the state on both the quantitative limits on mental health and substance use disorder benefits, such as caps on inpatient stays, and non-quantitative limits, like medical necessity criteria, which was the subject of a major lawsuit against an insurer two years ago.

In 2019, a federal judge ruled that United Behavioral Health, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, illegally denied mental health and substance use disorder treatment coverage to members using internal criteria that was too restrictive. The payer was ordered to reprocess about 67,000 coverage claims.

Sullivan believes the government needs to step in and oversee the development of that criteria. In New York, all payers providing mental health and substance use disorder benefits must submit their medical necessity criteria to the state for approval.

“You have to change the culture of the [health] plan,” Sullivan said. “You have to say to a plan, look at how you are treating mental illness and substance use the same as medical [illness].”

Strengthening oversight is just one piece of the enforcement puzzle, however. Regulators further need to create a pathway for the public to bring forward coverage issues, Sullivan said. New York created an ombudsman program, called the Community Health Access to Addiction and Mental Healthcare Project, to help residents access their insurance benefits for substance use disorders and mental health services and resolve denials.

“The key thing here is a comprehensive approach,” Sullivan said. “You can’t just take one or two points — you have to look at the whole approach to parity. You have to look at all the things that can interfere with [people] getting the care that they need.”

Photo: AndreyPopov, Getty Images

Man Sues After Field Drug Test Says His Daughter’s Ashes Are Meth And Ecstasy

(Image by Getty)

Cops like cheap field drug tests. They don’t like them because they’re accurate. They like them because they’re cheap. And since you get what you pay for, they’re way cheaper (in the long run) then sending for a drug dog.

Field drug tests are probable cause at $2 a pop. They’re even more unreliable than drug dogs when it comes to correctly identifying drugs. That’s why some prosecutors — the nominal best friends of law enforcement — are refusing to accept plea deals for drug charges stemming solely from field drug tests.

Field drug tests have said donut crumbscotton candy, and honey are methamphetamines. They’ve said bird poop on a car’s hood (!!) and bog standard aspirin are cocaine. Whatever a cop imagines to be drugs can usually be “confirmed” by the test kits they carry with them. Once the vial says it’s drugs, the cops are free to search, seize, and arrest.

Cops don’t need to be this wrong about drugs. But there’s no penalty for being this wrong. So, it continues. Prosecutors may have to drop a few cases when the drug lab says the supposed drugs aren’t actual drugs, but plea deals tend to go into place before labs get around to testing the evidence. And that’s if the evidence even makes its way to a lab. Cops aren’t the best at paperwork, which is convenient when it’s their word against yours. Even if a cop gets sued for turning non-contraband into contraband and drug charges, they’re usually indemnified by the city they work for or granted qualified immunity for relying on what they thought was actual science.

And, because no one seems too interested in ending the reliance on unreliable drug tests, this is the sort of travesty we’ve come to expect.

Newschannel 20 and FOX Illinois obtained new body camera video of the incident sparking Dartavius Barnes to sue the City of Springfield.

In the suit, Barnes claims his vehicle was unlawfully searched on April 6, 2020 when he was pulled over near Laurel and 16th Streets in Springfield.

He says officers placed him in handcuffs while they searched his vehicle without consent, valid warrant, or probable cause.

During the search, Barnes says officers took a sealed urn of his daughter’s ashes, unsealed it, opened it without consent, and spilled out the ashes.

If you think that’s terrible, just wait for the backstory. Barnes’ daughter Ta’Naja Jones was only two when she died. And she may have been killed. The girl’s mother and her current boyfriend were both arrested on murder charges.

The ultimate insult to Ta’Naja Jones and her father happened here. Ta’Naja Jones’ final resting place wasn’t in the urn Barnes kept in his car. It was in a field drug test that officers performed because they just couldn’t bring themselves to believe it might be the last remains of a loved one.

According to law enforcement’s favorite faulty test equipment, the ashes of Ta’Naja Jones were possibly ecstasy. And that conclusion was reached after the ashes failed to test positive for cocaine.

An officer presented the officer whose body camera was rolling with a narcotics test kit.

“I checked for cocaine, but it looks like it’s probably molly,” the officer said.

“X pills,” the other added, citing the street name for ecstasy.

In the end, the cops decided the ashes were a combination of meth and ecstasy because that’s how drug users carry their drugs: all mixed together in a single container. What even the fuck.

Field drug tests allow cops to work backwards from their conclusions. If it doesn’t test positive for one drug, it’s probably some other drug. And if it doesn’t test positive for anything, it might still be drugs because sometimes drugs are carried in containers. “Based on training and experience” and all of that horseshit. The stuff that says criminals sometimes act like normal non-criminals. And if criminals act like non-criminals on a regular basis, every non-criminal is guilty until proven otherwise.

Barnes has sued [PDF]. It’s a short lawsuit and it looks like it will be an uphill battle to win. Barnes admitted to having marijuana in the car and apparently consented to a search. The end result was this horrendous violation of his daughter’s remains, but everything up to that point was “reasonable” enough (utilizing the courts’ definition of this word rather than the definition citizens use) that it will be hard to prove the officers crossed Constitutional boundaries.

The problem here is the field drug tests and the officers believing they can actually positively identify drugs with them. They were “reasonable” to rely on the drug test results because everyone who benefits from the use of faulty tests told them the tests were reliable, even when they’re obviously not. If a child’s ashes are not just one, but two different illegal substances, anything can be anything whenever a cop wants it to be something.

Man Sues After Field Drug Test Says His Daughter’s Ashes Are Meth And Ecstasy

More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:

Corporations Are Being Forced To Take Consumer Complaints Back To Court After Arbitration Push Backfires Spectacularly
How Predictive Policing Got A Chicago Man Shot Twice
Leaked Emails Show Chicago PD Bought, Deployed Drones Using Off-The-Books Forfeiture Funds

Stat Of The Week: Biglaw Stints Pay Off For GCs

Lawyers in the Am Law 100 considering an in-house move can expect substantially higher salaries than those lacking large firm experience, according to a survey released this week. 

The 2021 In-House Compensation Report from BarkerGilmore, a legal and compliance recruitment firm, reveals that in-house lawyers with Am Law 100 experience had average total compensation packages that were 35% higher than those for lawyers with no law firm experience. The difference was highest at the general counsel level, which showed a 41% gap. 

In-house lawyers with experience in smaller firms were also more highly compensated than those with no law firm experience, though they still trailed the Am Law 100 lawyers at the general counsel, managing counsel, and senior counsel levels. 

The 2021 In-House Compensation Report [BarkerGilmore]


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