But it should be obvious, not everyone at the firm is pleased about it. Today, Kevyn Orr, partner-in-charge at Jones Day’s D.C. office, hosted an associate call to discuss the recent controversy. But apparently after giving his spiel, the call was ended without letting associates register their opinions. Which ticked some folks off.
Parker Rider-Longmaid, an associate in the Issues & Appeals practice — and a former clerk to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — was apparently deeply disappointed at Orr’s decision not to answer questions and let fly an email to the entire D.C. office registering that displeasure:
Kevyn, my understanding was that we would have an opportunity at today’s meeting to ask questions or say something. Robin and I had prepared to say something. So now I will share it with all of you this way.
We dissent.
I don’t believe the question here is whether the Pennsylvania election cert petition has legal merit, or is instead frivolous.
I believe the question is whether this firm should lend its prestige and credibility to the project of an administration bent on undermining our democracy and our rule of law.
Make no mistake. From the outset, this petition was designed to suppress the vote, to ensure that fewer of our fellow Americans’ voices would be heard, in the midst of a global pandemic like we have never seen in our lifetimes.
And now, it is being weaponized to threaten our generations-long tradition in this country of peaceful and democratic transition of power.
I believe that our society should strive to become a more just and inclusive representative democracy. And this petition, and the project to which it lends our collective prestige, stands firmly in the way of that ideal.
We as lawyers choose our clients and our causes. We choose what we stand for. And this project, I submit, should not be one of those things.
As an American, I am today deeply disappointed in this firm. I do not accept as simply unpopular what is profoundly undemocratic. We are better than this. And yesterday should be no excuse for tomorrow.
According to tipsters at the firm, after this salvo was sent, Orr reopened the meeting and engaged in an extended conversation with associates.
It’s pretty clear that the harm this representation is causing Jones Day goes deeper than those on the outside. Let’s not forget, “Pile On Jones Day” week got started because internal sources at Jones Day that were upset with the firm’s involvement in election litigation spoke with the New York Times. So we *know* there are people inside the giant Biglaw firm that are upset about… everything the firm’s doing right now. But this is one of the first quasi-public (send something to an entire office and it’s bound to get out) statements anyone from Jones Day has made on the subject, and it comes from an associate.
Thus far, partners at the firm have been conspicuously quiet, though I suspect they aren’t as sanguine behind closed doors. Because if I had a sizable book of business and portable clients and the firm’s pursuit of a pet right-wing legal theory was threatening to unleash this PR nightmare on them, well, I’d think long and hard about how to best serve my own clients.
The firm has a lot of explaining to do if they expect to keep all their employees happy during this mess.
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).
Even before the pandemic pushed the world’s economy toward laptops and dining room tables, physical offices were falling out of fashion in the business world. International companies like the Big Four accounting firms have been experimenting with hoteling and similar concepts to decrease their real estate footprint for years. Once the COVID-19 crisis was in full swing, that trend kicked into overdrive. Tech companies like Facebook, Google, and Intel have told their employees to work from home until at least summer 2021. REI recently opted to sell, rather than move into, its brand new state-of-the-art headquarters campus. The long-predicted future of remote work appears to have been finally thrust upon us.
Although law firms have overall followed the trend of moving their workforces to operating remotely, many in the legal world continue to predict a return to the office. Among the law firm managing partners I’ve spoken with, there seems to be little appetite to make the current state of affairs permanent. Most expect some lasting change, but they also believe the overall long-term impact will be less than most expect. To my surprise, several law firm leaders have even set a strategic priority of getting back to pre-pandemic normal as quickly as possible once COVID-19 is finally contained.
Are these law firm leaders prescient, out of touch, or simply locked into long-term leases? The answer may be all three.
The Only Constant Is Change
Law is traditionally slow to adopt the changes of the broader business world, but in this case I struggle to imagine that the law firms of 2022 and beyond will look like 2020. For starters, many attorneys may find they’ve developed a taste for being untethered to a physical location. No one loves spending time on a commute that could instead be spent on loved ones, personal improvement, extra billing, or just getting a few more winks of sleep. There’s also something nourishing for the soul about nailing a court argument or finalizing an eight-figure negotiation while wearing Ugg slippers. Law firm leadership expecting everyone to return to the traditional 50 hours in the office a week will likely find resistance to that notion now that the pandemic is proving we can get the jobs done in our spare rooms and guest houses.
Then there’s the pure dollars-and-cents argument. As office leases come up and firms are evaluating their next move, the lure of saving money on rent has to be strong. Real estate is usually the second-biggest line item on a firm’s expense sheet after personnel. Every dollar saved there is another dollar left over at the end-of-year distribution to the partnership. Most partnerships would jump at reducing costs and fattening their wallets.
What Will Stay The Same
Yet I don’t expect the legal real estate market to vanish overnight. There are at least two strong reasons for firms to maintain at least some dedicated office space: collaboration and clients.
Office space fosters collaboration both in obvious practical ways and less obvious, squishier ways. Some practices can’t operate on a laptop and cellphone basis as well as others. Litigators sometimes still need to store and review physical documents and evidence. Many mediators still prefer conference rooms to Zoom breakout rooms for negotiations. Transactional attorneys may find that deals get closed on better terms in person without Microsoft Teams’ lag time and disconnections. Having dedicated space on hand to meet those needs makes sense. Even the most dedicated of cloud-based law firms like Fisher Broyles maintains some office space. Meanwhile, the jury’s still out on whether firms with brick-and-mortar roots will be able to make the transition to a digital world while keeping morale high and feelings of isolation low.
For better or for worse, there also remains a subset of clients — albeit a decreasing one — that may still be attracted to the shiny objects of a fancy law firm. There are those who want to know by the pile of the carpet or the glint of the lobby sculpture that the firm they’re looking to hire is smart, strong, and expensive enough to be worth their time. Some decisions on whether to hire a law firm may still get made when the elevator dings and the client steps out into the reception area. It may seem like empty theater, but if it matters to some clients, it’s something we need to take seriously.
Where It Gets Weird
What looks less essential with each passing day, then, are the luxe private attorney offices that so many of us associate with the basic concept of being an attorney. It’s here that I see the biggest revisions developing to the traditional law firm blueprint. Some firms may abandon offices altogether in favor of working from home, or move to hoteling concepts like the Big Four. Others may give their attorneys the option of paying out of their own pockets for office space and furniture. Still others may have offices that are half the size of their current footprint. I expect to see experimentation in office solutions, and ultimately far more bespoke, cost-efficient models of officing in the legal industry than anything we’ve had in past decades.
Meanwhile, I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if some of the savings from downsizing on attorney offices isn’t poured back into upgrading the spaces that remain. This is especially true if the larger market demand for commercial real estate goes down, driving down prices. Some of the savings can be directed into going for broke on projecting success to new and ongoing customers, or into fostering and developing attorney and staff morale and firm culture through beefed-up common areas and collaboration rooms. Firms looking to reduce their attorney offices but keep their personnel happy might experiment with lounges, coffee house-like spaces, quiet spaces, nursing rooms, and other common goods that provide community and enjoyment in far more cost-effective ways.
I’m bullish on Biglaw’s prospects for experimentation and growth. The incentives, both personal and collective, people-centric and strictly financial, are all aligned to push us toward more effective, interesting, and well-tailored real estate solutions.
No matter how these new offices take shape, you can be sure that attorneys and other legal professionals will float in and out of the space much more regularly. The days of five or six days a week in the office are gone forever — no matter how much some law firm leaders try to will it away. In a competitive world, if firms don’t adopt flexible remote working policies, employees will leave to firms that will.
After all, why should we have to choose Uggs or dress shoes when we can have both?
James Goodnow is the CEO and managing partner of NLJ 250 firm Fennemore Craig. At age 36, he became the youngest known chief executive of a large law firm in the U.S. He holds his JD from Harvard Law School and dual business management certificates from MIT. He’s currently attending the Cambridge University Judge Business School (U.K.), where he’s working toward a master’s degree in entrepreneurship. James is the co-author of Motivating Millennials, which hit number one on Amazon in the business management new release category. As a practitioner, he and his colleagues created and run a tech-based plaintiffs’ practice and business model. You can connect with James on Twitter (@JamesGoodnow) or by emailing him at James@JamesGoodnow.com.
On Tuesday, the Trump campaign moved to submit evidence under seal in its suit to revive claims of ballots being spoiled in Arizona, AKA Sharpiegate 2: Electric Boogaloo. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Daniel Kiley denied the motion, but after yesterday’s hearing, it’s no mystery why the plaintiffs wanted to keep this stuff under wraps.
Last week, the wingnutosphere echoed with accusations that poll workers had tricked in-person voters into spoiling their ballots by filling them out with Sharpies, rendering them unreadable by the tabulation machines. After Arizona’s Secretary of State assured the public that this was false, the theory morphed slightly. What if devious poll workers supplied the felt tip pens knowing that the ink would bleed through and damage ballots by leaving stray marks which would be read as overvotes, that is votes for multiple candidates in the same race, and thus rejected?
If this was the plan, it seems to have failed spectacularly. (It wasn’t the plan.) Overvotes for president in Maricopa County totaled a whopping 191 ballots, representing 0.002 percent of the ballots cast, which is not entirely consistent with the plaintiffs’ assertion of “systemic error.” Perhaps that’s why the Trump campaign’s attorney Kory Langhofer was forced to take some unorthodox measures to collect evidence of the “thousands of additional votes for Donald Trump” promised in the original complaint.
To wit, he appears have used an online collection portal where anyone could submit an account of voting irregularities. Despite the use of a CAPTCHA to verify the information, Langhofer was forced to admit in court that much of what he got was lies and spam.” Turns out WHAT IS HYDRANT? is not a good tool for sorting evidence. Good to know!
Langhofer explained that he further verified the online submissions by speaking to the affiants personally and weeding out anyone who was not actually present at a polling place on November 3 to witness the alleged impropriety.
“That just shows you cannot disprove what’s asserted,” Judge Kiley noted before excluding the CAPTCHA evidence.
And then the Trump campaign called its witnesses, and things really went off the rails.
A second Trump campaign witness claiming problems w/a Sharpie vote testifies he wasn’t sure his vote went through on Election Day–and still isn’t sure–but didn’t say anything at the time. “I didn’t want to stir up a commotion,” he said.
No one testified to firsthand knowledge of poll workers improperly submitting overvotes instead of supplying new ballots to be repaired. And Gina Swoboda, the Arizona Election Day Operations director for the Trump campaign, testified that she saw no systemic problems on election day, raised no issues at the time regarding poll workers, and has no personal basis for believing that the outcome does not reflect the expressed will of the voters.
Lawyer asks Trump campaign official: Do you have ANY knowledge of ANY vote for Trump not being counted b/c of poll worker wrongdoing? “I have knowledge of voters’ *belief* their votes weren’t counted.” But adds: “I don’t know what the reason was.”
Which was a fitting denouement, really. Because Ms. Swoboda was preceded on the stand by Zack Alcoyne, the self-professed elections expert who constructed the online CAPTCHA portal for disgruntled voters who can check all pictures with traffic lights in them. It appears Mr. Langhofer failed to mention one or two salient details about his relationship with the witness.
On the stand, Mr. Alcoyne was unable to state definitively whether he was being paid for his testimony.
“Not that I know of,” he said. “I haven’t discussed it.” Upon further questioning he was unable to jog his memory. “I’m not sure,” Alcoyne added.
Neat!
At the close of the hearing Judge Kiley took the matter under advisement. But apparently he won’t have to render an opinion on Sharpiegate Subsequent Moviefilm after all.
????BREAKING: The day after a full court hearing, GOP plaintiffs tell Arizona Court “Since the close of yesterday’s hearing, the tabulation of votes statewide has rendered unnecessary a judicial ruling as to the presidential electors.”
Another day, another Biglaw firm that’s reversing its COVID-19 austerity measures.
This time, the good news is coming from Taft Law (formerly known as Taft Stettinius & Hollister). If you recall, back in April, the firm decided to reduce partner draws by 25 percent, leaving compensation for staff, associates, and of counsel attorneys intact. At the same time, the firm laid off 1.4 percent of its attorneys and 3.5 percent of its staff. We’ve been told that the firm’s partners received a treat for Halloween instead of a trick, because all of their pay was restored in full in October.
Here’s a statement that we received from the firm:
As a result of Taft’s performance, the firm reinstated 100% of its partner pay and made a one-time lump-sum repayment to all partners of the 25% partner pay reduction amounts which were previously announced. The reduced pay program remained in effect from April through August, a period of only five months, and then all previously reduced partner pay amounts were distributed to partners in October.
The partners must be thrilled after shouldering this financial burden. Congrats to all.
If your firm or organization is slashing salaries or restoring previous cuts, closing its doors, or reducing the ranks of its lawyers or staff, whether through open layoffs, stealth layoffs, or voluntary buyouts, please don’t hesitate to let us know. Our vast network of tipsters is part of what makes Above the Law thrive. You can email us or text us (646-820-8477).
If you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Layoff Alerts, please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the layoff alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each layoff, salary cut, or furlough announcement that we publish.
Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.
I’ve, erm, written a lot about Jones Day over the last few days (and I’ll probably write more!). But, by far, my favorite bit is running down the deluge of shit that’s been heaped upon them since Donald Trump lost the election.
There was the New York Times article blowing up Jones Day (and Porter Wright) over their election litigation representations. Then there was Jones Day’s anemic response to the controversy. The Lincoln Project also promised to spend $500,000 on an ad campaign going after them — and, importantly, their clients — over the representation. But the MeidasTouch PAC actually beat them to the punch by releasing a Jones Day attack video first. All the while, other Biglaw firms have been fleeing the election litigation like rats from a ship.
And now the people have taken the controversy to Jones Day’s doorstep — literally.
But first let’s talk about the organizing that people are doing to hit Jones Day where it really hurts — their ability to recruit the best and brightest lawyers. The People’s Parity Project is circulating a petition asking law students to refrain from interviewing at any of the law firms implicated in Donald Trump’s effort to undo the results of the election by court fiat:
Our democracy is under attack. President Trump’s reelection campaign and the Republican National Committee have filed frivolous lawsuits in states across the country in an attempt to overturn the results of a fair election and undermine our democratic process. These lawsuits are failing and have received vehement criticism for their meritless attempts to sow discord and distrust.
Yet, attorneys from Jones Day, Porter Wright, King & Spalding, and Consovoy McCarthy are leading the charge. They are not just complicit – they are enabling despotic attempts to threaten our election integrity and the future of our nation. This is unethical, plain and simple.
Proving great minds think alike, a separate petition is also circulating asking law students to refrain from interviewing with Jones Day. They’ve made a similar pitch as PPP, but have limited their scope of firms to just the headline-grabbing Jones Day:
President Trump’s reelection campaign, state Republican parties, and other associated groups have filed lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit across the country in a dead-end attempt to overturn the results of a free, fair, and democratic election. Jones Day, which has taken over $4 million this year alone to represent Trump and the RNC, is lending those lawsuits a false sheen of credibility. The firm is thereby complicit in the Trump campaign’s efforts hinder the proper functioning of American democracy.
Law students, and particularly 2Ls engaged in the firm recruiting process, wield substantial power right now. Across the country, we are asked to rank and interview with firms seeking the best-trained legal minds our schools have to offer. We are a small pool of talent in high demand, and the list of firms in contention to employ us is long. We therefore call upon law students across the nation to refrain from participating in Jones Day’s recruiting process–to make clear that our names will not be used to launder the firm’s negligent self-interest.
But that’s not all. Direct action group Rise and Resist has organized picketing in front of Jones Day’s New York office, as well as phone campaign at the D.C. outpost of Jones Day (they also organized phoning against Porter Wright, but it’s unclear how that proceeded given the firm’s withdrawal from that representation):
“Jones Day is participating in a process designed to delegitimize the electoral process and cast doubt on whether Biden is in fact the President-elect,” said Jamie Bauer, a member of Rise and Resist. “This effectively instills the belief in voters that all elections that Republicans lose are rigged, and that all outcomes where Democrats win are suspect. This is one of Trump’s consistent lies going back to the 2016 election, and Jones Day should be ashamed that they are repeating it.” “No law firm has done more than Jones Day LLP to promote Donald Trump’s bigotry, corruption, and authoritarianism — but these frivolous election lawsuits are a new low, meant to undermine confidence in our democracy. New York’s “elite” law firms must end their profiting off hate: Jones Day must cut its ties with Donald Trump, or New Yorkers should cut their ties with Jones Day,” said Janos Marton, civil rights lawyer and candidate for Manhattan DA.
While another action group, Shutdown D.C. is organizing against King & Spalding and Porter Wright for their representations:
Over the last several days, Donald Trump and his allies have doubled down on their false claims that Trump won the election – and they are continuing to undermine democracy by giving credence to absurd conspiracy theories and impeding the future Biden administration. But they’re not alone in this exercise. They’re getting support from two law firms – King & Spalding and Porter Wright – that are helping to litigate Trump’s groundless claims. These firms are complicit in helping Trump bully and cheat in his desperate effort to take votes away from Black, Indigenous, and brown people in this country. These lawyers took an oath in support of the Constitution, but now they are violating it with these unethical actions.
Between the picketing and boycotts and attack videos, the pressure is really on at Jones Day, and others representing Trump and his allies. So far, Jones Day has doubled down. But we are hearing constant rumblings about dissension in the ranks from inside the firm. So, Jones Day attorneys, how do you feel about the firm’s representation? Feel free to sound off by email, by text message (646-820-8477), or by tweet (@ATLblog). A fun or insightful response — we’ll keep you anonymous — could find its way into an update to this story.
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).
Samuel Alito became infamous for making a performative scene of saying “not true” when Barack Obama explained the very much “completely true” history of the last century of campaign finance jurisprudence. Then he expressed his commitment to precedence by publicly outlining the exact test case he wanted to overturn a four-decade ruling and then kicked public school teachers in the teeth. Honestly, there have been so many markers that there shouldn’t be any remaining holdouts thinking that this guy is anything but a MAGA bro in a robe.
But if all that wasn’t enough to drive the message home, he spoke virtually at the annual Federalist Society hoedown and it was… something else.
Alito begins with an extended joke about inserting virtual baseball fans into the speech and people throwing tomatoes at their computer screens while he talks and succeeds in proving that he lacks every bit of the charisma that made Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg legends. Say what you will about the wisdom of having celebrity jurists, but it’s clear that Sammy here is not going to be one of them.
Then Alito delivers the boilerplate “FedSoc isn’t an advocacy group” statement required for tax purposes. It was always a disingenuous lie, but after Leonard Leo spent four years packing the judiciary with every ABA non-qualified wingnut that ever attended a Federalist Society luncheon — catered by Chick-fil-A, obviously — it’s reached Big Brother levels of brazenness.
I’m now going to say something that I hope will not be twisted or misunderstood. But I have spent more than 20 years in Washington so I’m not overly optimistic.
This sounds promising!
The pandemic has resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty.
How have we let people claim the mantle “Originalists” when they have no conception of history before the Reagan administration? America has ordered lockdowns and quarantines since colonial times and courts have routinely upheld the right to do so. And the United States is a festering disaster zone right now because it hasn’t even begun to exercise the scope of its entirely imaginable and historical powers. The Supreme Court has upheld mandatory vaccinations to fight outbreaks and this motherfucker is complaining about having to eat take-out?!?
All that I’m saying is this and I think it is an indisputable statement of fact.
Spoiler alert, it will not be.
We have never before seen restrictions as severe, extensive, and prolonged as those experienced for most of 2020.
America kept Japanese-Americans in concentration camps for four years! Slavery existed! This jackass can’t go to Walmart without a mask and it’s the greatest assault on liberty ever. Sam Alito was born in 1950 which says a ton. The utterly coddled Boomers would wither if they had to accept sugar rations like the generation before did. Their parents couldn’t choose what to make for their own dinners so America could defeat the Nazis, but this guy can’t get a booth at The Capital Grille for a month so we need to realize how serious this is!
In fairness, he doesn’t say these aren’t legal — because he can’t — but does spin COVID into a Chevron argument which is absolutely not where I thought this jag was going. Alito complains that the pandemic is showing that the real danger is how much power legislatures have ceded to the executive branch. Now imagine if any of those executives actually used any of those powers!
He does, at least, know that Jacobson v. Massachusetts exists:
I’m all in favor of preventing dangerous things from issuing out of Cambridge and infecting the rest of the country and the world.
He’s got Yalie jokes! But not so much a coherent argument about why pandemic restrictions aren’t good.
Then he shifts to explaining how nice the Little Sisters of the Poor are and how the importance of religious freedom. Frankly, these contraception coverage cases make the excellent point that health care shouldn’t be up to employers and the only just, effective, and fully constitutional response is a full government health system, but it will not shock you that this is not Alito’s take away. Indeed, he pivots to complaining that pharmacies even have to carry contraception.
This guy is coming for Griswold, folks. When Amy Coney Barrett joined this bench, blowing up Roe became the floor, not the ceiling.
Masterpiece Cakeshop rears its head as Alito explains that celebrity chefs offered to make the couple’s cake so there’s no reason for discrimination laws. Yeah, and Homer Plessy could just sit in the other car, but that wasn’t cool either. Even if one accepted Alito’s facile arguments, he has no answer for what happens when every baker chooses not to serve people. His standard is not “religious liberty wins if there is a separate but equal alternative,” he’s using the separate but equal alternative to demean the plaintiffs’ argument but fundamentally it’s not necessary for his conception of the First Amendment.
You can’t say that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Until very recently that’s what the vast majority of Americans thought. Now it’s considered bigotry.
No, it was always bigotry. Prejudice doesn’t start and stop based on polling. In fact, that the majority quashed the rights of others is kind of the whole point of bigotry. Then he goes off on Obergefell and quotes his own dissent:
I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.
The insane thing about choosing to quote this passage specifically is that it makes zero mention of same-sex marriage and could just as easily be dropped into the Brown v. Board dissent that Alito would have written if only he’d had the chance. Honestly, if you read his dissent and ever tried to offer a “oh, I don’t think he meant it that way,” trust that this speech makes clear that he absolutely means it that way.
Of course the ultimate second-tier constitutional right in the minds of some is the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Hi, just a reminder that this is not what the Second Amendment says. The Second Amendment is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” There’s a reason why the Framers’ included all that preamble because the right is about states maintaining militias for use against the federal army and not Johnny’s right to carry his AR-15 to the polls. If only there were jurists who cared about the “original public meaning” of things!
Finally, Alito issues his response to all the court reform talk out there:
Let’s go back to some basics. The Supreme Court was created by the Constitution not by Congress.
Sort of! The fact that there will be a Supreme Court is created by the Constitution which then defers to Congress to decide what the Supreme Court looks like. And Congress has taken up that mantle and, after restructuring the Court a few times over the years, settled on the current model. But Alito’s statement is intentionally misleading. To be fair, Alito is criticizing the amicus brief that a group of Senators wrote that did read kind of like a threat to reform the Court unless it made the decision they advanced. And it shouldn’t be a threat used in a given case — it should just be done regardless of any specific opinion. He compares this to a dictator pointing a tank at a courthouse and wow — hyperbole much?
This speech is a journey! And that journey is a terrifying one if you care about women, minorities, LGBTQ folks, or simply not dying of COVID. This is a scary speech coming from a politician.
In many ways, Zoom is an incredible success story. A relative unknown before the pandemic, the company’s userbase exploded from 10 million pre-pandemic to 300 million users worldwide as of last April. One problem: like so many modern tech companies, its security and privacy practices weren’t up to snuff. Researchers found that the company’s “end-to-end encryption” didn’t actually exist. The company also came under fire for features that let employers track employees’ attention levels, and for sharing data with Facebook that wasn’t revealed in the company’s privacy policies.
While the company has taken great strides to improve most of these problems, the company received a bit of a wrist slap by the FTC this week for misleading marketing and “a series of deceptive and unfair practices that undermined the security of its users.” A settlement (pdf) and related announcement make it clear that the company repeatedly misled consumers with its marketing, particularly on the issue of end-to-end encryption:
“In reality, Zoom maintained the cryptographic keys that could allow Zoom to access the content of its customers’ meetings, and secured its Zoom Meetings, in part, with a lower level of encryption than promised. Zoom’s misleading claims gave users a false sense of security, especially for those who used the company’s platform to discuss sensitive topics such as health and financial information.
The FTC also criticized Zoom for storing some meeting recordings unencrypted in the cloud for up to two months, despite marketing claims that meetings would be encrypted immediately following session completion. The agency also criticized Zoom for bypassing Safari malware detection when it installed ZoomOpener web server software as part of a Mac desktop application update in July 2018:
“Without the ZoomOpener web server, the Safari browser would have provided users with a warning box, prior to launching the Zoom app, that asked users if they wanted to launch the app. The complaint alleges that Zoom did not implement any offsetting measures to protect users’ security, and increased users’ risk of remote video surveillance by strangers. The software remained on users’ computers even after they deleted the Zoom app, and would automatically reinstall the Zoom app—without any user action—in certain circumstances.”
The settlement itself isn’t much of one. As part of it, Zoom simply has to “establish and implement a comprehensive security program” and adhere to “a prohibition on privacy and security misrepresentations,” stuff the company insists it has already done. The settlement doesn’t come with any meaningful financial penalties or consumer compensation of any kind, resulting in some dissenting Democratic Commissioners (like commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter) arguing it wasn’t really much of a settlement at all:
“Zoom is not required to offer redress, refunds, or even notice to its customers that material claims regarding the security of its services were false. This failure of the proposed settlement does a disservice to Zoom’s customers, and substantially limits the deterrence value of the case.”
Again, Zoom should be applauded for the fact that the company has taken many concrete steps to improve things sense reports first surfaced that its privacy and security standards weren’t up to snuff. But it’s not clear that the FTC, arriving late to the party and “requiring” the company do a bunch of things it had already accomplished, really acts as much of a deterrent for the long line of companies that phone in their privacy and security standards. Especially when most of them get far less (if any) attention for similar behavior, in part because the FTC routinely lacks the resources to seriously police privacy at any real scale.
Virtual interviews have become the new normal during the pandemic. They come with their share of unique issues (many of us have dealt with someone stuck on mute, for instance). Fortunately, with the right preparation you can avoid most of those problems.
Our candidates have completed hundreds of virtual interviews over the last nine months, securing offers, and even joining their new employers without in-person meetings. We have learned some valuable lessons from their experiences.
Here are our top tips so that you can make the most out of your virtual interview:
Tech Considerations:
Use headphones, if possible, preferably with a built-in microphone. Using computer speakers without headphones can cause an echo, which is an awkward and irritating experience for everyone involved.Wired earphones help reduce the risk of audio lag and connectivity problems associated with Bluetooth. We advise against using Apple Airpods and Airpod Pros with Windows computers, as we have had several reports that Airpods can be unreliable within applications like Zoom.
Familiarize yourself with the video conferencing platform that you will use for your interview. If you’re already familiar with the platform, be sure to open the application ahead of time and check for software updates so you don’t run into any problems the day of the interview.
While most video conferencing platforms offer mobile apps, we recommend using your laptop/desktop for video interviews if possible. This ensures you have access to all video conferencing features, such as screen sharing, which are sometimes limited in mobile apps.
Set aside 15 minutes before your scheduled interview time to test your microphone and video. Most video conferencing applications (like Zoom) offer microphone tests. For video tests, consider using your laptop’s camera application to check the lighting and your appearance before joining the interview call.
Keep your computer plugged in during the interview to avoid any interruptions if your battery starts running low.
If you run into audio issues, you can use your phone to call the interviewer and continue the conversation by phone while on camera. You can also use the chat function to communicate with the interviewer.
Optional: prepare a back-up plan in case of wifi disruptions. While outages are rare, preparing ahead of time can reduce last-minute scrambling on the off chance that you encounter any issues with home internet connectivity. Consider setting up your phone’s personal hotspot as an alternative in case you lose your regular wifi connection.
Preparing Your Interview Space:
Choose a quiet, private space with a strong internet signal.
Remember to lock the door to reduce the risk of interruption by family, roommates, or pets. Consider placing a sign on the door as a reminder for other members of your household.
Be mindful of the background. Your interview background is an excellent opportunity to communicate who you are. At a minimum, it should appear clean, tidy, and work appropriate. If possible, avoid a view of your kitchen or bedroom, as this can be distracting. Bookshelves, educational degrees, family photos, plants, and natural lighting in your background can all help to convey a positive first impression.
If you’re interviewing for a position that encourages work from home (“WFH”), consider what your background communicates about your ability to work from home effectively. Be prepared to discuss your WFH setup. Do you have a dedicated work space at home? If not, how have you adapted your space to work from home?
Virtual backgrounds on Zoom can be fun — and necessary in some cases — but use good judgment in determining whether your choice in background could be distracting for your interviewers. If you decide to use a virtual background, choose a professional image, like bookshelves or a solid color, and consider draping fabric in your background to create a functional green screen.
Making a Strong First Impression:
Choose an outfit that you feel confident in, and dress exactly how you would during an in-person interview. Wearing a strong professional outfit can help shift your mindset into focus mode, and feeling confident is a critical psychological factor in interview success. Wear a full outfit. Some of our candidates have had to stand up to grab dropped items, and it is easy to imagine a camera accidentally tilting and showing more than the shoulders up.
Minimize distractions. Turn off notifications on your computer, and place your phone in airplane mode to avoid an email or missed call notification interrupting your train of thought during the interview. Just this week, a candidate lost an opportunity because he was sending emails and texts during the interview, and the firm read that as a lack of serious interest.
Bring a glass of water into your interview space. If you’re feeling nervous, take a sip of water.
Raise your camera. Consider using a laptop stand or setting your laptop on top of some empty boxes (or books) to create a more flattering camera angle. Ideally, your body should be positioned in the center of frame, with the top of your head at the top of the frame and the middle of your chest at the bottom.For those who wear makeup, be sure you check your appearance using your laptop camera before the interview, as makeup can appear differently on video than it does in real life.
If you have time, also consider room lighting. Facing natural light sources is ideal, while sitting with your back towards a window can create a dark silhouette. You can also adjust the brightness of your laptop screen and play around with different combinations of lighting/angles ahead of time to figure out what helps you feel most confident.
Maintain eye contact, and practice looking into your video camera when you speak. Be mindful of appearing distracted when your gaze shifts outside the interviewer’s frame of view (e.g., writing notes might be mistaken for checking your phone).
Virtual Interview Day Checklist:
Microphone/audio test completed
Computer plugged in
Door locked
Phone silenced and computer notifications turned off
Personal appearance and background checked using laptop camera
Whether you are interviewing in person or virtually, preparation is the key to your success. Invest an hour or two following the tips above to make the most of your interview.
Here at Lateral Link, we work closely with our candidates to help prepare them for their interviews and maximize their chances of success. If you’re a Biglaw associate or partner considering a lateral move to another firm, please feel free to contact me to learn about the state of the market and new opportunities.
Amy Savage
Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series of posts from Lateral Link’s team of expert contributors. This post is by Amy Savage, a Principal based in Washington, D.C., where she leads the Government Transitions Group. For 15 years she has focused on attorney hiring in the D.C. market, and her inside knowledge gives her candidates clear advantages when it comes to joining the best firms. That expertise has been instrumental in her successful placements of partners, counsel, associates, and in-house attorneys with the highest-rated practices in the D.C. region.
Amy is also a recognized expert on legal career issues. She has presented lectures at Yale Law School, serves as a D.C. market expert for Harvard Law School, and has written articles for The Legal Times and other publications. She has also testified as an expert on attorney compensation. Amy earned her J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2000.
Lateral Link is one of the top-rated international legal recruiting firms. With over 14 offices worldwide, Lateral Link specializes in placing attorneys at the most prestigious law firms and companies in the world. Managed by former practicing attorneys from top law schools, Lateral Link has a tradition of hiring lawyers to execute the lateral leaps of practicing attorneys. Click here to find out more about us.
As the world continues to mourn the loss of Alex Trebek, many are visiting the “J! Archive” database, where “Jeopardy!” superfans have compiled clues and contestants from 37 seasons of the show.
The “J! Archive”reveals that the legal industry was significantly represented among contestants: A search for “attorney” brings up 691 player results, and “lawyer” brings up 261. (These include a few “Teen Tournament” and “College Championship” players who said they were considering a career in the law, as well as some duplicate appearances.)
Over the years, Above the Law has detailed instances where the legal industry crossed paths with the show, noting that “Jeopardy!”could be a source of meme-age anxietyfor the lawyers who appeared and that attorneys have providedsubstantial fodderfor its 400,000-plus clues.
Indeed, the “J! Archive” shows that “lawyer” and “attorney” have a combined 954 results in the clues from the Jeopardy, Double Jeopardy, and Tiebreaker rounds. The terms have also made 21 Final Jeopardy appearances — including two whose correct response is “Who is Atticus Finch?” and one correctly answered by “Who is Harper Lee?”
And while we continue to grieve the loss of the show’s host, many “Jeopardy!” fans have discussed potential successors. One of Trebek’s own suggestions?A former Biglaw associate.
Daniel Loeb’s Third Point gained nearly $400m in a bullish bet on the outcome of the US election…. Mr Loeb had explained how, as a result of the firm’s research and use of data providers, he was not overly worried about the effect of the election on markets…. Mr Loeb has since made around a further $200m, taking gains this month to a total of around $600m, or 7 per cent. His fund was helped by Monday’s rally that lifted some of his biggest holdings such as Prudential and Walt Disney. Third Point did not respond to a request for comment.
At the start of this week he put on a new trade hedging his equity exposure with insurance against corporate defaults, he said.
“I hope we lose money on this next hedge,” Mr Ackman said. “We’re in a treacherous time generally and what’s fascinating is the same bet we put on eight months ago is available on the same terms as if there had never been a fire and on the probability that the world is going to be fine.”
He said the new hedge is close to 30 per cent the size of the bet he placed in late February, when he bought a set of huge insurance policies linked to $71bn of corporate debt.
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).
