Category: News Feeds

Today, the First Circuit rang the Pavolvian bell that got inveterate racists all over the country salivating like it was potluck day at the MAGA rally. In upholding the district court ruling in favor of Harvard, the appellate court set the clock ticking on the all but inevitable showdown at the Supreme Court to put an end to affirmative action once and for all. Finally, Harvard won’t be able to put the thumb on the scale in favor of racial diversity in admissions and will have to return to just putting the thumb on the scale to admit legacy candidate Thurston Warrington Cabot IV and his C+ average from Philips Exeter.

“AS IT SHOULD BE!” shout a million sixth-generation Vanderfucks in unison.

After watching Becky with the Bad Grades fail to overcome affirmative action in 2016 with the last minute assistance of Justice Kennedy, padding his cherished reputation as a “swing vote” that not one serious person should ever repeat again after he announced his retirement to push America under the Brett Kavanaugh Brewsky Express. But now Kennedy is gone, Gorsuch has replaced Antonin Scalia — who had died before the Fisher opinion — and Typhoid Amy has taken RBG’s seat. This is now the House That Susie Built, and after Susan Collins whined about “respect for precedent” she’s going to watch as stare indeterminata reigns and practices affirmed for DECADES are demolished one after the other.

In SFFA v. Harvard, affirmative action foes took a different tack and replaced the white woman whose middling grades that kept her out of a state school in favor of Asian American students who couldn’t get into Harvard and think the problem is all the Black and Latinx students that got in, rather than the aforementioned inbred white legacy applicants. Hey, part of the strategy is building the sympathetic test case! The district court ruled against SFFA, noting that the plaintiffs couldn’t find a single individual candidate disadvantaged by the policy and, indeed, found it more likely that many Asian American students actually benefitted from Harvard’s policy (e.g., Asian American women).

The First Circuit unanimously (2-0, one judge did not take part in the opinion) affirmed and now this case that should simply rest on the strength of the district court’s considered opinion will be scooped up by the Supreme Court to allow Clarence Thomas to finally cap his odious career by putting the symbolic garnish on the concept that racial diversity is a laudable value that, ironically, was the precise reason George H.W. Bush selected him to replace Thurgood Marshall. What good is a ladder if you can’t kick it over for all the people behind you?

Or maybe Chief Justice Roberts will hold onto it to add to his “What’s Racism” series that he kicked off in his Shelby County opinion. Either way, we all know what’s coming. We knew it last year when Elie Mystal wrote:

Technically, [anti-affirmative action litigation mastermind Ed] Blum failed. If you actually care about why affirmative action is Constitutional, read this opinion. But Blum and the conservatives are playing a long game here. This case was never set up to win at trial, again, the white people pushing this do not actually care about Asian-American concerns. This case was set up to give the Supreme Court an opportunity to end affirmative action on appeal, and that project still very much goes forward.

And there’s nothing that can be done about it right now. There is no magic fix to repair decades of liberal apathy about the courts and it certainly isn’t some half-cocked court packing scheme that actually looks like it may have cost the Democrats the Senate in three races that focused on the issue down the stretch. Right now, all that’s left is to get more Americans to care about the courts and vote with those issues in mind. A key part of that mission would be to orient around the massively popular proposal to require Supreme Court service term limits that would foreground the courts every election in an orderly and democratic way.

As the passage above notes, America is in this mess because the enemies of diversity have been playing the long game. At this point, it’s time for everyone else to come together and organize around a similar strategic approach to repairing the damage this aberrant regression to segregationist jurisprudence has wrought. There isn’t an immediate fix, but there’s an opening for a lasting one.

(The full First Circuit opinion is on the next page.)

Earlier: Harvard Won, But Affirmative Action Is Still Set Up To Lose
Congress Introduces First Supreme Court Term Limits Bill!
Court Packing Advocates Probably Cost Democrats The Senate
Liberal Calls For Court Packing Gain Steam, And Mitch McConnell Couldn’t Be Happier

---

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

The latest spike in coronavirus cases is upon us, casting doubt on holiday travel plans around the country. That is, of course, deeply worrying, but the reality of it has been tempered by some recent good COVID news. I’m talking about the latest from Pfizer who announced their vaccine has a 90 percent efficacy rate and could be approved before the end of this forsaken year.

Experts are cautioning that even with a vaccine it’ll be a while until we “get back to normal.” But still, between the soon-to-be approved vaccine and a president-elect that believes in science, normal — finally — seems attainable. Part of that normalcy that people are craving is travel and good old-fashioned vacations. Pretty much all of those got cancelled in 2020, but maybe — just maybe — in 2021 we can all dust off our passports, or hit the open road or do whatever it is you like to get away from the house you’ve spent quarantine hiding out in.

Unfortunately, Cravath just made the dream of a long, overdue vacation that much more difficult.

The Biglaw firm recently announced some changes to their vacation and sick time policy. Associates still get four weeks of vacation time, but the amount of carryover days allowed from one year to the next has been cut in half, from 10 down to 5. Given the dearth of vacation opportunities in 2020, lots of folks were probably planning on banking those days. Plus they’ve changed how those days are accounted for — now any carryover days will be counted as being used last, when they’d previously been the first days associates used.

As you might imagine, according to tipsters, people at the firm are pissed off at the changes:

To do this during a pandemic when people can’t actually go on vacation has a lot of people pissed off. To add insult to injury they also changed the policy to use those days last instead of first so it makes it harder to carry over days two years in a row. There’s no reason that should be the case and they’ve given zero rationale for it.

Now, it’s true that Biglaw associates often leave vacation days on the table (if a firm even has a formal limit) given the “billable hours above all else” mentality the permeates the industry. And, yes, four weeks is a nice chunk of vacation time even if there’s no ability to bank vacation days. So, in practice, very little may actually be different for associates. But a change to the vacation policy now, when vacations are the dream of most of the country, just feels like kicking somewhen when they’re down.

You can read Cravath’s new vacation policy on the next page.

---

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).

I understand that law firms need to retain their top talent. That is certainly a benefit to clients as well. The question becomes—and this is always the tension with law firms and their clients—how much, if any, of the bonuses do they try to pass along to clients in the form of increased rates?

— Chaka Patterson, general counsel of Chicago-based Adtalem Global Education, commenting warily on the special bonuses that several firms handed out to associates earlier this fall in appreciation for their hard work during the pandemic. “There certainly can be the perception of a little salt being added to the wound—particularly if clients are finding themselves having to cut back, furlough, or eliminate positions or take other drastic cost-saving steps—to see law firms so outwardly rewarding people with extra bonuses,” said the GC of a major security company, who offered thoughts anonymously due to a working relationship with some of the firms that had offered these bonuses. “They could have tried to pass savings back to clients, and it doesn’t seem like that’s the way they’re going.”

---

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.

Andrew Ross Sorkin writes the DealBook column for the New York Times. In a recent newsletter he linked to an article by Rich Handler, the CEO of Jefferies Financial. Handler writes about the 20 things he wished someone had told him on his first day on the job as an analyst.

What Handler wishes he had known applies to newbie lawyers starting out or the more-seasoned lawyer starting a new gig. Space constraints don’t allow me to discuss all 20, but I’ve chosen some that I think are particularly relevant to lawyers.

If there’s a theme that runs through Handler’s wish list, it’s learning, both on the job and off. He wishes that he had made a stronger effort to develop relationships with the junior people at every client. “When you take the time to truly develop a relationship with someone who is also at the age of fighting to become relevant, that bond can become a foundation that lasts a lifetime.”

Learn as much as you can about everything. Yes, put your head down to get your work done and out, but the more you learn about what your colleagues are doing means that you will have a much better chance to proactively manage your career and make the best choices for you.

Collaboration and collegiality are vital. Looking back, Handler says that there was never really any competition among his peers; get to know them, he says, and support them as best you can. “The sharp-elbowed, game-playing, hypercompetitive people who may have been first out of the gate are generally the ones who washed out.” Tortoise v. hare anyone?

Do your own thinking. It’s fine to ask opinions of people you trust, but at the end of the day, it’s your work product based upon your thinking. “If you just do and rarely think and process, you cannot grow.” Thinking is not an idle act.

Make sure, to the extent possible, to sit in on client meetings, phone calls, and pitches. Be assertive. The senior member of the team can always refuse your request, but it’s the old story of “if you don’t ask, you don’t get.”

If you have ideas for improving something, speak up. As Handler notes, “It may be more work [for you], but it could also be the difference maker so why not try.”

Learn to keep in touch with all the people you work with. You never know how paths may cross in the future.

Understand the business. Many times, I suggested to outside counsel that they spend some time in a branch to learn about the operational side (which is where most of the claims arise). Understand the teller’s job, the operations manager’s job, and the pressure they are always under to never make a mistake while cross-selling products. Having an appreciation and understanding for the business makes it easier to understand when claims arise, how they arose, and how to resolve. No one ever took me up on my suggestion.

Consider the real-life implications of the work you are doing. Are you structuring a deal? Representing the client in litigation? Think about what happens if the deal craters, if there’s a smoking gun in the litigation. What are the real-life consequences for the people involved? Don’t think that it’s less than what it is. It’s not.

Learn and understand the culture of your firm or legal department, why it does things the way it does. Are you comfortable with the culture, or do you feel like a fish on a bicycle? Fitting into the culture is essential, whether it’s been around forever or a startup. If you don’t share the same values, you won’t be happy. Huge paychecks do not salve discomfort.

Handler encourages people to get to know your co-workers out of the office: coffee, lunch, someplace away from there. And leave your smartphone on your desk. Can you ever imagine a time when there were no smartphones? Unless you have a deal imminently closing or some litigation issue that needs immediate attention, give your co-workers the courtesy of your complete attention. (Being an old lady lawyer, I not only imagine a time when there were no smartphones, I lived those days … rotary phones, long-distance operators, encyclopedias rather than Wikipedia, no fax, no internet, etc.)

About health, both physical and mental, Handler says that even though all the pressures created by peers, managers, and yourself are real, the failure to find some degree of balance for family, relationships, and health leads to burnout. Your value diminishes as your burnout level increases.

Don’t let people treat you badly. If you are treated like a doormat, then you become one. Don’t let that happen to you. If it’s unacceptable behavior to you, say so. I’m reminded of an old cartoon, I don’t recall what one, in which the mouse character was asked: “Are you man or mouse? Well, squeak up.”

Take vacations. Detach from the office. Put the smartphone somewhere out of reach. The world will continue to spin while you’re gone. Remember that no one is irreplaceable, even though you might think otherwise.

Appreciate the opportunity that the job provides. Handler says that “Despite all of the aggravation, endless work and living so low on the totem pole, if you do your job right at a quality firm … it will truly provide your with experience, skills, perspective and relationships that will last a lifetime.” He is spot on.

Handler reminds us all that even if you are told something is “life and death,” it isn’t. Trust me on that.

---

Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.

Nikola Corp., which is not Tesla but which would no doubt like to be, says the allegations leveled against it by short-seller Hindenburg Research are false. That there is nothing behind words like “ocean of lies,” “intricate fraud” and “total farce.” Still, it all seemed like enough to have founder Trevor Milton resign from the company, and for General Motors to have at least a hint of a second thought about its planned partnership with the company, and so the Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice thought they’d have a little look, you know, just to be sure that the words “false and misleading” are not a few more drops in the aforementioned body of untruths.

Don’t let anyone tell you America’s campaign finance laws are broken. They’re working exactly as intended — to funnel unlimited amounts of cash into candidates’ coffers to enrich everyone in their orbit.

Oh, sorry, not “cash.” That should be speech. Thanks to the Supreme Court, individuals and corporations are entitled to rain virtually unlimited amounts of “speech” down on political candidates, who are in turn free to use that “speech” to pay their friends and family lucrative consulting fees. Love the smell of the First Amendment in the morning!

Last week, the Wall Street Journal and NBC noted that the Trump campaign was plastering its donors with solicitations to contribute to the legal defense fund to overturn the election results. But instead of going to the “Official Election Defense Fund” dedicated to “make sure we have the resources to protect the integrity of the Election!” the fine print revealed that donations would be used to pay off campaign debt and shore up the RNC’s bottom line.

Contributions to TMAGAC made by an Individual/Federal Multicandidate Political Committee will be allocated according to the following formula:

60% to DJTP for deposit in DJTP’s 2020 General Election Account for the retirement of general election debt (up to a maximum of $2,800/$5,000) or, if such debt has been retired or any portion of the contribution would exceed the limit to the 2020 General Election Account, for deposit in DJTP’s Recount Account (up to a maximum of $2,800/$5,000); 40% to the RNC’s Operating account (up to a maximum of $35,500/$15,000); and any additional funds to the RNC for deposit in the RNC’s Legal Proceedings account or Headquarters account (up to a maximum of $213,000/$90,000).

But the AP reports that the campaign has gone a step further. Now scrolling down reveals that the bulk of money is going straight into Trump’s Save America PAC.

Contributions to TMAGAC made by an Individual/Federal Multicandidate Political Committee will be allocated according to the following formula:

60% of each contribution first to Save America, up to $5,000/$5,000, then to DJTP’s Recount Account, up to a maximum of $2,800/$5,000.

40% of each contribution to the RNC’s Operating account, up to a maximum of $35,500/$15,000.

Any additional funds will go to the RNC for deposit in the RNC’s Legal Proceedings account or Headquarters account, up to a maximum of $213,000/$90,000.

So the first $45,500 from any individual donor is going to straight to Trump’s PAC and the RNC’s general account before a single nickel goes to the president’s Bullshit Time Waster Vexatious Litigation Jones Day Reputational Suicide Fund. Or, as they refer to it, the “Recount Account.”

And the cool thing about PAC money is that Uncle Sam doesn’t much care how it gets spent. As the AP notes, it can used for personal expenses. Or, say, to funnel $15,000/month to Lara Trump and Don Jr.’s ladyfriend Kimberly Guilfoyle.

Remember when Omarosa Manigault-Newman said she’d been offered a $15,000/month gig with the Trump campaign if she’d sign a non-disclosure agreement barring her from speaking publicly about her time in the White House? If the Trump campaign is going offline for the moment, the PAC is ideally poised as a vehicle for Trump’s donors to use their speechbux to keep potential Trump critics (and daughters-in-law) on-side.

“This is a slush fund. That’s the bottom line,” Paul S. Ryan, a  campaign finance attorney with Common Cause told AP reporter Brian Slodysko. “Trump may just continue to string out this meritless litigation in order to fleece his own supporters of their money and use it in the coming years to pad his own lifestyle while teasing a 2024 candidacy.”

“They could pay (Trump) children consulting fees. They could pay the children’s significant others consulting fees. They could buy Don Jr.’s book, which the campaign can’t do,” Adav Noti, an attorney with the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center told the AP. “They could do anything with it. There’s no personal use restriction.”

Gosh, why would he mention Don Jr.’s book “Triggered?” Oh, right.

KA-CHING. KA-CHING. KA-CHING.

Money to support Trump court fight could flow to president [AP]

---

Elizabeth Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series of posts on motherhood in the legal profession, in partnership with our friends at MothersEsquire. Welcome Advocatus Matris to our pages. Click here if you’d like to donate to MothersEsquire.

It was 5:01 on the dot and I was, once again, headed down the office elevator with the same crew of support staff that clock out at 5:00 every day. I had exceeded my 5.6-hour billing target for the day, and was heading home to spend time with my husband and baby.  It was a Wednesday (pre-pandemic), and I telework Thursdays and Fridays every week, so I would not be back in the office until Monday. I had no plans to log on to Citrix that night.

As an associate at an Am Law 100 firm in a top-of-market city (not New York City), this reality often felt much like a dream. I had a simple desire, yet one that is elusive to so many Biglaw attorneys: to spend meaningful time with my family on a near-daily basis while continuing to excel at my job.

Biglaw is, unfortunately, not known for being family-friendly, and it can be especially challenging for new mothers. But the horror stories you hear are not a universal experience. While I don’t claim to have all of the answers, my experience balancing motherhood and Biglaw for nearly three years now has been a success story. Of course, my idea of “balance” may not be yours. But I hope my story inspires you nonetheless.

When I was in law school, a Biglaw partner once tried to sell me on the family friendliness of his firm by explaining that an associate with whom he worked left at 5 every day and “just got right back online” after her kids went to bed each night. So … family friendly is working an eight-hour day, taking care of children for a few hours, and then working for a few more hours? Every day?  That sounded miserable.

Flash forward a few years, and I was pregnant with my first child. It was a miserable pregnancy. Among other issues, my doctor kept sending me to the hospital midworkday for hours of monitoring and testing. Thankfully, my office was very accommodating; the message I received over and over again was to do whatever I needed to do to take care of myself and the baby.

While on maternity leave, I thought a lot about how to balance working with family upon my return. Ultimately, I decided to propose an alternate arrangement to the firm in which I would work at a 70% capacity and telework two days a week. If it worked as planned, I would be able to leave at 5 p.m. most days (instead of 6:30 or 7 p.m., as I had before), and work substantially reduced hours on my telework days to spend more time with my child.

Several people cautioned me that my plan was unwise. The risk, of course, is that I would do just as much work as before, but at 70% pay. Some friends suggested I would be better off in-house; others suggested sticking with a regular schedule and just mysteriously finding a way to make it all work.  Thankfully, my experience has been quite positive. Often, when things are busy, I do log onto the computer after my kids go to bed to knock out the rest of a project; but it is (usually) with a feeling of enthusiasm for the work, rather than a compulsion to squeeze more hours into an already-long day. Other times, I take whole afternoons or Fridays off. And it is as marvelous as it sounds.

My advice to anyone considering an alternate path (whether a mother, father, or just because):

1. Don’t be afraid to chart your own path. Just because others follow one path doesn’t mean you need to.
2. Make yourself indispensable. Be the “go-to” person for something, or, ideally, for many things. People will be much more willing to accommodate you when they want you to stick around.
3. Surround yourself with people who support you. For some, this may mean considering a “lesser” firm or changing firms to find a more supportive environment. Ultimately, being in an environment in which your team is committed to your success is key.
4. Figure out your strengths and tailor your approach accordingly so that you can still do your best work. If you’re known for plowing through thousands of documents in a crunch, find a way to still do that when needed (via your childcare arrangements, etc.). If you’re known for coming up with creative ideas, think about what you need to ensure you still do that.
5. Be transparent. I make sure the people with whom I work closely are aware of my alternate schedule, and I never try to fool my colleagues into thinking I’m working late when I’m not (such as through the age-old trick of leaving my door open with the light on after I leave). When I walk out at 5, I wave goodbye to my colleagues. I am getting paid 30% less, and I am entitled to work 30% less.
6. Be flexible. My practice area is fast-paced and sporadic, so I knew that if I wanted to succeed on an alternate schedule, I had to be flexible. If something important comes up on a day I planned to take off, I typically find a way to make it work, and then make up for it another time. Yes, this can be frustrating at times, but I try to focus on the big picture and not to let an occasional “off week” bother me.
7. Don’t be afraid to say no. If you want to have any semblance of work-life balance, you must learn how to delegate and how to say no. Say yes to the mission-critical projects, even the ones that ruin a perfect Saturday at the pool; but then practice politely declining the many other things that crop up, but that do not work for your schedule.

Ultimately, Biglaw will always be a hard job. Perhaps the biggest challenge is finding balance. But, in my experience, finding this balance provides the greatest reward.

---

Advocatus Matris (a pseudonym) is a senior associate at an Am Law 100 firm. 

Tired of banging your head against the proverbial wall amid another late night research session? 

Casetext is here to help with a new, deceptively simple search tool — whose uncannily relevant results have been described by one lawyer as “straight up witchcraft.”

The legal research company’s new product, called “Parallel Search,” allows you to type a full sentence into a search bar and instantly find cases that are relevant to your entry’s meaning. In other words, relevant results will be delivered — even if your exact words are entirely absent from the underlying case. 

The tool enables you to get beyond the frustration that can arise from literal and complex keyword searches. It can also streamline your research process, helping you quickly find authority for statements you know to be true while accessing comprehensive results for topics on which you’re seeking guidance. 

While it’s still a relatively new offering, Parallel Search has already received widespread praise as a highly useful research aide — particularly from the sometimes tough crowd on Legal Twitter:

The Parallel Search Experience

While the functionality behind Parallel Search is intricate, the user interface is highly straightforward. 

When you open the Parallel Search application, you receive a simple prompt to enter a “full sentence you want to support with case law,” as well as the option to refine your search by jurisdiction and whether a decision has been published.

Your results are then delivered in a stream of case citations, with the relevant text highlighted. 

Notably, the search results are not limited to keyword, but are instead focused on the meaning of your search. In the screenshot below, for example, Parallel Search finds a quote including the phrase “because of her race” in response to a query over whether a hypothetical action is “discriminatory.”

You can then refine your query or start a new search. 

The potential use cases are widespread for this tool, which ultimately allows you to write a statement and instantly find out whether courts have addressed it, how they addressed it, and what they ended up deciding in the matter.  

As Parallel Search users have noted, the function is a potentially transformative time-saver for legal brief authors, or a helpful guide for lawyers looking for guidance on how to advise a client considering a particular action.

Going Beyond Boolean

To create its Parallel Search function, Casetext applied its machine learning capabilities to the entirety of common law, training neural networks to power a search function that contextualizes words in a way similar to how lawyers think.

For one example, it was trained to understand the word “will” in part by inserting it into phrases like “last [blank] and testament.” But Parallel Search understands that “will” can also appear as a name, or as an indicator that something is going to happen in the future, or in a case caption, because the product has been trained on phrases where “will” is used in those contexts as well.

That’s why the Parallel Search function utilizes an entire sentence, as opposed to a string of keywords. 

Parallel search, for example, will not bring up a Chapter 11 ruling in response to a query about whether an action is “morally bankrupt,” nor will it typically interpret a description of a “frankly incredible” argument as praise — despite the word “incredible” having positive connotations in other uses.

Getting Started

New Casetext users can get three free searches before being asked to sign up. They can then get another three free searches. 

After these six free searches have been exhausted, they can get a day pass for unlimited use during a 24-hour period for $19. Or they can get a monthly subscription for $49.

Click here to access the tool and start searching today.

As 2020 draws to a close and holiday season quickly approaches, more and more Biglaw firms are announcing good news (or as good of news as can be expected considering they’re still doing business amid the never-ending coronavirus crisis).

Today, we have news from Stoel Rives, a firm that came in 132nd place in the most recent Am Law 200 rankings, with $236,541,000 in gross revenue in 2019. Back in October, the firm announced that it would be eliminating all of its pandemic-related austerity measures and prospectively restoring base pay for all attorneys and staff members. Earlier this week, Melissa Jones, the managing partner of Stoel Rives, sent a memo to all employees at the firm detailing plans to retroactively restore base compensation for attorneys. On top of that, Jones announced some bonus news:

[T]he [Executive Committee] confirmed that we will leave in place the bonus pools for all staff (including paralegals), associates, of counsel and staff attorneys as reflected in our 2020 budget.

The Practice Management Committee is meeting soon to allocate the bonus pool for associates, of counsel, and staff attorneys. We anticipate that bonus decisions will be communicated in early/mid-December, and that bonuses will be paid no later than Friday, December 18.

Associates are thriled by the news, and one source gushed, “Everyone is so happy under Melissa Jones’s leadership!” Payments to restore base compensation will be made by the end of November. Congratulations to everyone at the firm. Now that bonus season has officially started, we hope you get some good news soon.

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.

The passing of Justice Ginsburg brought out a wealth of funny, sad, and inspiring memories. But someone took it upon themselves to put together an interactive timeline featuring pivotal moments in her life and career with pictures and commentary.

It’s not a weighty biography or a 4,000-word long-form history, but rather a straightforward, elegant tribute, gathering the information out there and presenting it in an accessible way using the Pass It Down platform.

Having, like a lot of folks, been forced to move on from focusing on her passing because the nation’s backward insistence on life tenure that artificially imposes an immediate political crisis upon human loss, finding this link buried in my inbox less than two months after the fact afforded a nice opportunity to reflect on a story that deserved more time. Check it out.

---

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.