Dan Loeb Has $400 Million To Console Himself Over Joe Biden’s Victory

Bonus Season Has Started, But Where Are The Bonuses? Come On, Cravath!

(Image via Getty)

Baker McKenzie decided to kick off the 2020 bonus season bright and early on Wednesday morning, announcing the $15K to $100K scale that we’ve seen for years now (while promising to match any increases in the market, should they occur). Thus far, the firm’s announcement has been more or less ignored.

Before you start wondering what the other firms could possibly be waiting for before making their matches, you should know that we’ve seen this before.

Last year, Milbank made the first move when it came to announcing year-end bonuses, and for five days, partners on Biglaw executive committees sat twiddling their thumbs until Cravath came forward to announce that it was matching the Milbank bonus scale. Only then did matches occur — and at a rapid pace, at that.

Cravath’s seal of approval may be what’s needed here, but let’s face it: we’re dealing with a pandemic and there are already different tiers of compensation across Biglaw.

“This year we see much more of a fragmented system with different firms doing different things,” said Nathan Peart, managing director of Major, Lindsey & Africa’s associate practice group, in an interview with Am Law. If you recall, while some firms adopted special fall bonuses on the Davis Polk scale, others decided either to commit to matching them when year-end bonus time came around or forgo them entirely.

Peart adds that the rest of the market could also be waiting for historical bonus leaders like Cravath or Milbank to make a move before jumping into the fray—a possibility Baker McKenzie seems to have hedged for, by telling its associates that the firm will match any increase to the scale.

“The market does look to the likes of Cravath and Milbank to make that market leap,” Peart said. “I don’t think Baker wants to set a figure and not have any flexibility if the market goes higher. I think it was prudent to do that … It makes sense to say ‘we’re going to match don’t worry about that.’ The psychology is very important internally for the firm.”

It looks like we’re going to have to wait impatiently for Cravath to make its move on bonuses, but for the time being, at least associates know what the bottom of the 2020 bonus market looks like. It’s just a matter of when your firm will match or beat it.

Baker McKenzie Bonuses Met With Crickets, but Likely Not for Long [American Lawyer]


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.

Another Biglaw Firm Withdraws From Election Litigation (No, Not Jones Day)

Who says some good, old-fashioned pressure doesn’t work?

Just a few days after a New York Times article blowing up Jones Day and Porter Wright over their election litigation representations, Porter Wright has decided to bow out of their representation of the Donald Trump campaign in the legal battle contesting the results of the election in Pennsylvania, saying:

Plaintiffs and Porter Wright have reached a mutual agreement that Plaintiffs will be best served if Porter Wright withdraws, and current co-counsel and such other counsel as Plaintiffs may choose to engage represent Plaintiffs in this case. Plaintiffs are in the process of retaining and causing other counsel to enter an appearance herein.

This comes after a firestorm of controversy that saw Porter Wright, and other firm’s representing the president and/or his allies in election litigation like Jones Day, be accused of undermining American democracy. PACs like Lincoln Project and MeidasTouch are going after these big firms for trying to undo the free and fair election in courts, and though Porter Wright has not issued a statement on their withdrawal, it seems like it all got to be too much.

They aren’t the first Biglaw firm to ditch their election work — Snell & Wilmer also withdrew from election litigation (in Arizona). And it seems it was just in the nick of time, as MeidasTouch revealed they were ready to launch attack ads against Snell before they withdrew.

Giant firm Jones Day is still representing the Pennsylvania GOP in their election litigation. But I wouldn’t expect them to back out any time soon. Their response to the controversy thus far has been to double down on their representation.

Read the motion to withdraw below.


headshotKathryn 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).

Morning Docket: 11.13.20

(Photo by David Becker/Getty Images)

* A lawyer for Britney Spears claims the singer will not hold any performances until her father steps down from a court-appointed conservatorship over her. Seems like she’s at a “crossroads” and they should leave Britney alone! [Fox News]

* Check out this piece from my former boss on the possibility of President Trump being pardoned. [CNN]

* A Louisiana attorney has been reprimanded for allegedly attempting to intimidate an expert witness. [Bloomberg Law]

* The Trump Campaign is using a fair use defense to ward off a copyright infringement lawsuit involving the 80s hit “Electric Avenue.” To be fair, it’s a catchy song. [Hollywood Reporter]

* A defamation lawsuit filed against CNN by the Trump Campaign has been dismissed. Guess CNN doesn’t suck so much… [Yahoo 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.

Antitrust Litigation Associate Attorney

Kinney Recruiting is working with the Washington, DC, office of a global AmLaw 50 on its search for an Antitrust Associate.

We are seeking an attorney with at least two years of experience with antitrust with either the government or a law firm. We would also welcome litigation associate with an interest in antitrust and practicing cartel defense and/or merger control.

This is a global practice with over 300 attorneys and centered in DC. It is an excellent opportunity.

To learn more, please submit your resume to jobs@kinneyrecruiting.com.

We Always Remember the First

Do you remember your first?

For me, it was an accomplished older gentleman who had worked for various contractors on marine-related projects and now hoped to start a non-profit organization to support educational activities on ocean thermal energy.  We met at a lunch that I hadn’t intended to attend – the venue was an hour away by metro and I was feeling under the weather and mildly depressed. 

Still, I donned my bright red business suit and trekked over to the event hoping for the best. I arrived late and frazzled and grabbed one of the few available spots at a crowded table. After the speaker, the gentleman next to me struck up a conversation and when I mentioned that I was an attorney, things clicked: he took my business card and promised to call. A week later, after a meeting in an impressive conference room overlooking Pennsylvania Office in my virtual office shared suite, I secured my very first client for the princely fee of $100/hour which was my billing rate back in 1994.  I was so green I didn’t even think to accept advance payment.

Fortunately, my first client was a dream. He paid his bill on time and didn’t dispute the cost.  He made me part of his team, inviting me to board meetings staffed by some former government higher-ups for the non-profit that I’d formed for him. He also had a penchant for fine dining, and during the two years that we worked together, I enjoyed some delicious expense account lunches at some of D.C.’s finest establishments.

Without clients, a law firm isn’t much more than a dream waiting to happen or an idea unexecuted.  That’s one reason why that first client is so special — because they transform those dreams into a reality.  That first fee – whether it’s more money than you ever earned at a job, or will barely cover your bar dues – feels more valuable than any coin you’ve ever received because you produced it entirely through your own effort.

Some lawyers start with business waiting for them.  But others – like me – wonder whether you might ever find a client.  Let me assure you that you will – and it will be easier than you think.  Once that first client comes through the door, you’ll be on your way.  

But as far as you travel, you’ll always remember that first time; that client who made you a real law firm owner.

We’re gearing up for next year here at MyShingle by celebrating beginnings.  Check out Instagram at @theoneinamillionlawyer or www.facebook.com/myshingle for daily inspiration on new beginnings.  And whether it’s finding Client No. 1, or getting a new law firm off the ground, MyShingle will be announcing a surprise offering later this week, and new programs for 2021. Stay tuned by joining the mailing list here.

Raising Litigation Finance — What Should You Expect? 

Ed. note: Litigation finance is transforming the fields of both law and finance. To help our readers gain a better understanding of what litigation finance entails, we’ve partnered with Lake Whillans to present an ongoing series detailing how litigation funding works, its pros and cons, and its past, present, and future.

The potential benefits of litigation funding are increasingly well-known to litigators and in-house counsel. But until you have been through the process of raising funding, it can be difficult to know what to expect. Lake Whillans has years of experience introducing claimholders and counsel to the funding process and helping to determine whether litigation finance makes sense for their claim. In this article, we outline the main steps in raising funding.

The template we set out here is based on the Lake Whillans process — other funders may operate somewhat differently, but the general features are common to all reputable litigation finance providers. Keep in mind that litigation funding comes in many flavors. For example, some funding deals pertain to a standalone case, whereas others encompass a portfolio of cases brought by the same claimholder or litigated by the same counsel.  Some claimholders seek funding before initiating litigation; others approach funders midway through a case. The details of the funding process will vary depending on the structure of the proposed investment and stage of litigation.

Initial Screening: Does your case meet the basic criteria for funding? (Typical duration: 1 to 2 days)

As a first step, after we have received an email or a phone call, we will determine whether the case meets our basic criteria. First, we determine whether the case (or portfolio) fits into the categories of cases we fund. For example, Lake Whillans does not fund patent litigation, but we do fund international arbitration, which are two areas where funders’ preferences may differ. We also screen how much capital is needed: our minimum investment amount is approximately $1 million, so a case that is seeking $200,000-$300,000 is one we are unlikely to examine further.

Deep Dive Call/Term Sheet:  Is your case an attractive candidate for funding? (Typical duration: 3 to 7 days)

Once we’ve established that the opportunity meets our basic criteria, we will enter into a non-disclosure agreement and set up a call (usually 60-90 minutes) (which we call the “deep dive call”) to learn more about the opportunity. Prior to the call, we will typically review any key documents concerning the claim or budget that the claimholder has provided concerning the proposed investment.   

During the deep-dive call, we are seeking to understand four things: the underlying facts and basis for liability, the theory and amount of damages, the collection/enforcement risks, and the amount and structure of a potential investment.

Depending on the material we’ve already received and reviewed, the discussion around the facts and basis for liability may vary in depth, ranging from a general discussion of the narrative of the case to more specific targeted questions. During the call, we will be seeking to understand the background to the relationship that led to the dispute, the events that gave rise to the dispute, and the key issues in dispute, legal theories, and the litigation history to date.  The aim is to conclude whether liability is likely (assuming everything represented is true).

Litigation outcomes are inherently uncertain, but some cases have a higher probability of success than others. Naturally, we seek to fund strong claims. To that end, we assess factors such as the quality of the claimholder’s counsel (are they experienced, professional, and prepared?) and the strength of the evidence (is there documentary evidence to support the claim?). 

Regardless of a claim’s legal strength, it will not be a viable candidate for funding if the likely damages are too modest. For a single-case investment, Lake Whillans targets claims for which a reasonable estimate of likely damages exceeds $15 million. Other funders may set a different threshold, but all will have some lower limit. When pricing a deal, funders are careful to structure it such that the claimholder retains the majority of litigation proceeds. That constraint, along with the need to expend resources to underwrite each claim, generally makes lower-value cases less attractive.

The proposed budget for litigation expenses is also an important consideration. Do the expense projections seem realistic? What is the ratio of the budget to the likely damages? A general rule of thumb is that funders seek a damages to investment ratio of 10:1, though matters with a lower risk profile may suffice with a smaller ratio.  

Finally, we seek to get initial comfort that the defendants have sufficient assets to satisfy any judgment or award, which can be enforced. For example, a matter that involves an insolvent defendant or a defendant who is expected to resist enforcement and is located in a jurisdiction unlikely to honor a judgment or award may not make an attractive investment.  

Following the deep dive call, we will internally evaluate the opportunity. If the case seems attractive, we would make an investment proposal that outlines the economic terms of the proposed investment and provides for a due diligence period. Once acceptable terms have been reached, the term sheet is executed and the due diligence period begins.

Due Diligence (Typical duration: 30 to 45 days)

The purpose of due diligence is to verify that the underlying facts and materials support the claimholder’s theory of the case. At the outset of the due diligence period, we provide an outline setting out the anticipated steps. To the extent that our review of materials reveals additional items for discussion, the outline is updated. The process will also include calls with the claimholder and/or its counsel. We do not ask for written materials to be prepared.    

We aim to make this process transparent in terms of sharing areas where we want to focus, concerns we need addressed, and overall progress toward wrapping up the diligence process.  

Generally, we are able to complete due diligence within 30 to 45 days. Factors that affect the length of the process include the complexity and stage of the claim, any urgency to secure funding, as well as the responsiveness of the claimholder and counsel.

Investment Documentation (Typical duration 5 to 10 days)

Once diligence is successfully completed, we circulate transaction documents to the claimholder and counsel for review. Over the following days, the documents are finalized and the investment funds released.

Once, the case is funded, you can read about what to expect here.

* * *

We hope this general description of what to expect when raising litigation funding is a helpful starting point. Each case has unique elements, and we are happy to discuss how the process is likely to proceed in your particular circumstances. The best way to determine if your company or firm could benefit from litigation finance is to contact us.