Morning Docket: 11.12.20

* Jennifer Lopez’s production company has successfully dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by the alleged inspiration for the film Hustlers. Guess JLo refused to get hustled… [Hollywood Reporter]

* Lawyers for the Trump Campaign are facing rebukes from judges because of post-election lawsuits. [Washington Post]

* An LA judge has refused to remove Britney Spears’ father from his role in a court conservatorship over his daughter. [Guardian]

* A Colorado lawyer is in hot water for allegedly having sexual relations with a client, among other purported ethical violations. [Denver Post]

* Google is facing antitrust lawsuits in addition to the one recently filed by the Department of Justice. Looks like a case of pile-on. [National Law Journal]


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.

Biglaw Has To Do More For Women Of Color

Ed. Note: Welcome to our daily feature Trivia Question of the Day!

According to data collected by Leopard Data Solutions, over the past year what percentage of promotions to partnership at the Top 200 firms were to women of color?

Hint: 58 percent of partner promotions were given to diverse candidates, though white women — at 34 percent — made up the lion’s share of those promotions.

See the answer on the next page.

The Simple Practice: Blogging For Your Law Practice

“You have to write a blog for your practice!”

You probably heard this line from colleagues, marketing specialists, or coaches. If your website is nothing more than a glorified resume and payment portal, it might turn off potential clients. They want to know more about the person who will be representing them.

Also, everyone else is doing it. Even the large law firms have a blog on their website. They must be doing it for a reason.

So you decided to blog. But you don’t know how to begin and have a lot of questions. Should I use a free blogging host? Or should I use a paid one? What should I write about? How often should I write? What topics would bring in the most clients? Or should I write about what’s on my mind? Should I pay for an SEO? Or are SEOs scams?

So if you clicked on this hoping to find the magic formula to immediately getting more clients through your blog, I’m sorry to disappoint you. Blogging should be done but isn’t really necessary if you have other marketing strategies. Some firms get clients regularly with the help of their blogs. Others do fine without them.

Today, I want to focus on the basics of setting up and writing a blog.

Setting up. If your firm has an existing website, the easiest way to start a blog is to incorporate it into your website. Create a blog section and start writing.

Some people prefer to set up a separate website. There are free blog hosts, like Blogger and WordPress. But you may want to ask your local lawyer’s group to get any other recommendations.

I recommend trying a few platforms and choose the one you feel most comfortable with. This is important if you have never blogged before. Most blogging platforms should have basic word processing capabilities such as allowing you to bold, italicize, or underline words. The blogging platform should also be compatible with your computer. Finally, you should see if your posts are compatible with mobile platforms such as smartphones or tablets since more people are using them to read.

Whether you want to try out a platform’s paid premium service is up to you, but you may want to ask around before doing so. The best reviews come from real people, so you should ask around. I’ve heard most people say that the premium services are not worth it.

Blog topics. A blog is empty without content. So what should you write about? If you are blogging for business, you should write about subjects your potential clients would be interested in. Since we are living in an era of short attention spans, your goal is to keep the reader reading until the end.

A very good topic for a blog post is a common question or problem you get from potential clients. Usually their issues are so small that hiring a lawyer would not be cost effective. But a detailed blog post would be sufficient to help them. These topics are good because clients with smaller issues can turn to your blog instead of calling for a free consultation. It can also establish your expertise for potential clients with bigger issues who may need your help.

Another good topic is an analysis of recently released court decisions related to your practice area(s). As most court decisions have a lot of technical legal language and citations, you can summarize the court’s ruling and reasoning. You can also provide some commentary and explain why this court case is important for the reader.

If you briefed cases in law school, that skill might be useful in the real world after all.

Also, if there is a new, developing area of law that you are interested in, write about that as well. Since the area is developing with no clear-cut answers, you can get away with being wrong so long as your reasoning is strong. It can also establish your expertise early.

If there are any big stories in the news related to your field of practice, you can write about it and provide commentary.

Finally, be mindful of your audience. If your main clients are from Main Street, you should minimize using technical language or legalese. If you are seeking experts in the field or a more sophisticated audience, you can be more liberal with complex prose.

Writing frequency. I see a lot of legal blogs that are dead after a few months. Sometimes because the writers think they have nothing to write about. Others are discouraged because their blogging masterpieces did not get them their dream clients but instead attracted tire-kickers. And others just became too busy to write.

Personally, I think it is a good habit to write regularly, even if it is once a month. As time passes, your numerous posts will demonstrate the depth of your expertise. But don’t feel compelled to write too often, otherwise it will feel like a chore.

Having a blog for your practice is a good idea. Chances are, someone will read your post eventually. I’ve had people contact me about posts I made here years ago. Like most new ventures, getting started is the hardest part. But once you get the hang of it, have fun with it, make your posts informative and share your posts with as many people as possible.


Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and resolve tax disputes. He is also sympathetic to people with large student loans. He can be reached via email at sachimalbe@excite.com. Or you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) and connect with him on LinkedIn.

Pandemic- Or Election-Caused Divorce Pending, But Still Want A Baby? Expect Legal Obstacles.

These are stressful times. With an unending pandemic, virtual meetings for adults, virtual school for kids, civil unrest, and a deeply divisive presidential election, it is no wonder that divorce rates are up. Also on the rise are questions concerning the ability to continue fertility treatments during the breakdown of a relationship.

Can Fertility Treatment Continue During A Divorce?

This is not a new issue, but an increasingly common one as unprecedented events have made us reconsider what’s important in life. Such as that dream of having a child. Or not staying in an unhealthy marriage. And, sometimes, those two come up at once.

Fertility clinics are having to reassess their policies for when patients disclose that they are going through a divorce. It may seem nosy of a fertility clinic to care, but hey, it isn’t exactly a process that lends itself to a lot of privacy. Not to mention, clinics have very real legal risks when it comes to treating a patient mid-divorce.

I had a chance to chat with Lisa Rinehart, RN, BSN, JD. As a registered nurse who became an attorney, as well as the chief operating officer of a prominent fertility clinic, Rinehart is all too familiar with these issues. She notes that no fertility clinic or doctor should forget a case called Gladu.

The Ghost of Gladu. Richard Gladu and his wife sought treatment from a fertility clinic and successfully conceived a daughter. Later, despite having marital troubles, and without Gladu’s consent, Gladu’s wife returned to the fertility clinic to undergo another embryo transfer procedure with the couple’s remaining embryos. The procedure was a success, and Gladu’s wife became pregnant with another daughter. However, the couple soon divorced.

Gladu sued the fertility clinic, arguing that the clinic should not have been able to rely on a consent from several years earlier (where he agreed to the procedures with his wife for their first daughter), should not have gone forward with helping his wife conceive without his permission, and should now be responsible for child support for the illicitly conceived child. Every fertility clinic’s nightmare came true. Gladu actually prevailed and received a six-figure award of damages against the clinic.

Rinehart explained that although the case is old — from the early 2000s — it has had a lasting effect on clinics, which remain reluctant to proceed with fertility treatments with a married patient without confirming that the spouse is fully on board. That includes confirming that the spouse is still on board, despite whatever forms the spouse may have recently, or not so recently, signed.

So what’s a hopeful-parent-to-be to do when time is of the essence for fertility treatment, and divorce proceedings are painfully slow?

Rinehart advises that step one is to always look to any consent forms signed with a fertility clinic. When going through fertility procedures, a patient will inevitably sign–and maybe even review–lengthy consent forms. In modern times, these forms usually include disposition terms for any cryopreserved eggs, sperm, or embryos, including instructions in the case of death or divorce, or if the cryopreserved material becomes unclaimed.

Rinehart explained that most courts are going to consider (and perhaps follow) what is agreed to between the parties on the consent forms — whether that is one party being able to use the embryos, the embryos being destroyed, or embryos being donated to others. There are exceptions, of course. These include an outlying statute out of Arizona, that requires a judge presiding over a dissolution of marriage to award any cryopreserved embryos to the party “most likely to bring them to birth,” regardless of any documented agreement by the parties to the contrary.

What If there aren’t embryos at issue? Am I in the clear to move forward with fertility treatment?

Marital Presumption. Not so fast. Even if cryopreserved embryos aren’t part of the equation, there may be several other legal obstacles. One is the marital presumption of “paternity” or parentage. State laws generally provide that a child born to a couple during their marriage is the legal child of both spouses. That means even if one or both is not genetically related to the child — and maybe wasn’t even part of the process of fertility treatment or conception (or maybe didn’t even know about it!) — that spouse may still be legally presumed a parent with all the rights and obligations. Including 18 years of child support.

The details of the marital presumption vary from state to state, but, for example, in my home state of Colorado, it applies to any child born within 300 days of the dissolution of marriage. That’s a long time. And it means that even if the pregnancy was conceived after the divorce, the presumption may still apply!

Marital Property. Aside from the presumption of parentage, another issue of concern is what constitutes “marital property.” Like marital presumption, this legal construct varies by state. In a noncommunal property state, marital property often means the assets and debts acquired during marriage. Generally, this property is to be divided equitably between the spouses upon dissolution of marriage. If a woman has gone through cryopreservation of her ova, does that mean splitting her eggs between the parties? Hopefully not. But most state laws were not written with the complexities of cryopreserved reproductive tissue in mind, resulting in many unanswered questions and plenty of room for debate.

There may be shortcuts to moving forward, including a fertility treatment agreement between soon-to-be exes, or a bifurcated order from the divorce court resolving fertility-related issues and leaving the rest of the divorce matters to be resolved in due course.

In summary, whether you are a patient or clinic, consult your friendly, neighborhood assisted reproductive technology attorney for assistance. Before you become another Gladu. You’ll be glad-u did.


Ellen Trachman is the Managing Attorney of Trachman Law Center, LLC, a Denver-based law firm specializing in assisted reproductive technology law, and co-host of the podcast I Want To Put A Baby In You. You can reach her at babies@abovethelaw.com.

British Chancellor Closes Eyes, Wishes Real Hard That London Will Remain Relevant

How Lexis+ Is Leading The Shift To Data-Driven Law

(Image via Getty)

We live in a world of data. In the course of a day, we each interact with and generate data at levels that once likely seemed impossible. Law firms and legal departments are in possession of vast amounts of data just waiting to be collected and analyzed. The potential for data-driven insights and decision-making in the legal industry is huge. Unfortunately, though, much of this potential still remains untapped.

The legal industry today, compared to other professional industries, generally makes less use of their available data to drive decisions. This may be because, historically, lawyers have prided themselves on bespoke work, creating work product that’s highly customized to individual clients and matters. However, as lawyers become more comfortable with data, they’re increasingly seeing its value in crafting and pitching legal strategies to clients.

At its core, that’s what data-driven law is all about: how do lawyers use data to inform their decision-making and provide better client service? Tools like Lexis+, the comprehensive new solution from LexisNexis, are making it possible and opening doors to a new era of data-driven law.

Understanding the Shift to Data-Driven Law

Even just five years ago, lawyers had a limited ability to understand things like the likely outcomes of various motion-filing scenarios or the breadth of contract provisions that are market. Today, with the help of data and advanced tools, those things are increasingly knowable and are crucial in recommending the best possible legal strategies to clients.

The shift to data-driven law is driven partly by pressure from clients. While client demands for anything that increases deficiency and lowers fees are not new, today they’re heightened. Legal departments and in-house counsel themselves have access to this data and understand its value, so there’s an increased pressure on outside counsel to provide data-based recommendations more directly. Additionally, broader technology capabilities like cloud computing and machine learning have made it easier to mine this information and for technology providers like LexisNexis to deploy these capabilities in a cost-effective way.

Now that it’s easier to unlock these data insights, more and more lawyers are embracing the concept of data-driven law. In the near-term, we can expect lawyers to become conversant about data points in a way that helps them drive better legal strategy recommendations for their clients.

How Lexis+ Is Changing the Game

Lexis+ is a comprehensive new solution from LexisNexis that provides a modern user experience and exclusive integrations. It’s also making it easier for lawyers to gain data-driven insights through a host of features that are brand new to the legal market.

Lexis+ is empowering the shift to data-driven law by capitalizing on current trends and taking into consideration how lawyers actually practice. On the trend front, Lexis+ exposes lawyers to insights in ways that were previously not common or possible. With the amount of data most legal organizations have, it’s possible to model likely outcomes, whether for litigation scenarios, the introduction of legislation, or something else. This ability is new, and it’s something that lawyers are becoming and will continue to become more comfortable with as they understand how data can help them make smarter decisions about legal services for their clients. In the near future, we’ll regularly be talking about modeled outcomes, generated by sophisticated tools like Lexis+.

On the practical front, Lexis+ is customizing these new capabilities to specific workflows. How a transactional lawyer, whether they’re an M&A specialist or a tax attorney, interacts with large corporate data sets looks very different than how a litigator interacts with large data sets from the courts. Lexis+ is striving to get each of these individual use cases exactly right, customizing the data that’s presented depending on the type of law practice.

Data-driven law has long been focused on the litigation space. While Lexis+ is continuing those efforts, it also recognizes that, increasingly, there’s exciting work being done in fields like M&A or securities law where there are very big, rich data sets. To handle them, Lexis+ has developed a bespoke set of analytics tools and data review capabilities designed for each type of practice. The legal field has never had such capability before, and this power makes Lexis+ equally applicable to all practitioners and specialties.

Forging Ahead

A big concept like data-driven law can sometimes seem scary or overwhelming for lawyers who just want to focus on serving their clients. Established practices and workflows are comfortable, and there’s an understandable fear about having to adapt to new tools. However, technology experts like LexisNexis that are moving the market in the direction of data-driven law understand lawyers and how they work and make it easier than ever with the right tools. No big change happens overnight, it happens over time. With tools like Lexis+, transitioning to the future of legal practice can be seamless.

Many other professions have excelled after exploring the use of data and technology to drive new insights and confidence. The legal industry’s moment is now. It’s time to embrace data and all the insights it can offer.

Try Lexis+ with a free trial today.

Michigan Secretary Of State Drop Kicks Trump Attempt To Overturn Vote

Missouri lawyer Mark “Thor” Hearne is having quite a week. On November 5, Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens refused to grant an injunction ordering Michigan’s Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson to stop counting votes based on hearsay evidence.

His appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals was rejected due to one or two minor filing discrepancies.

Oopsie!

In response to his complaint on behalf of the Trump campaign seeking to enjoin certification of the vote tally, the state just filed a motion that can be summarized as “Your ignorance of Michigan electoral law is evidence of stupidity, not fraud.”

And he’s probably going to get absolutely flayed by @RateMySkypeRoom.

Maybe hiring a principal from True North Law, LLC in Saint Louis to spearhead its attempt to get the election results overturned in Michigan is a sign that the Trump campaign isn’t waging a serious legal effort here?

Last night, Hearne dropped the hammer on Secretary Benson and elections officials in Wayne County, which encompasses Detroit and its environs. The suit relies on affidavits from poll watchers alleging “irregularities” ranging from a truck full of ballots coming in the back door in the middle of the night to county employees “intimidating” observers by wearing Black Lives Matter clothing.

Reuters reporter Brad Heath stayed up all night tweeting the affidavits in this hilarious thread.

Hmmm, let’s check the tape, shall we?

Even if the allegations were true, the affiants are mainly alleging insufficient access for poll observers, rather than actual fraud. Nonetheless, the Trump campaign is asking a federal court to enjoin Michigan from officially certifying the vote tally which would award the state’s 16 electoral college votes to Joe Biden based on his 150,000-vote margin of victory.

In response, the state defendants filed a scathing motion this morning denying most of the specific allegations and pointing out that the conduct complained of is largely in compliance with Michigan law.

To wit: Signature verification of absentee ballots takes place before tabulation at the county office, and poll observers were not entitled to re-verify during the count; The voter’s identifying information was already embedded in the barcode, and inputting a “placeholder” date of January 1, 1900 so the machine will process it is “a perfectly proper (and common) way to enter data in the database used to track voter information;” Duplicating a ballot is the standard procedure when a machine won’t read it due to creases or other defects; Absentee ballots weren’t “backdated,” they were verified based on the time stamps on the ballot envelopes; And the purported delivery of “unlocked” ballots late at night was a shipment of votes “which had been processed at the Department of Elections main office and then delivered to the TCF center.”

Moreover, all of this was explained to the 200-plus Republican observers who were present during the tabulation and could have lodged challenges at the time. Which they did not. Instead they waited until the race had been called and then started screaming  bloody murder about fraud in Detroit.

As the defendant’s response notes, the plaintiffs are both too late and too early — they’ve missed the window to contest the procedures for tabulation or the validity of any particular vote unchallenged during the count, and Michigan law allows a candidate to petition for a recount, but only after the Secretary of State certifies the tally.

Indeed, the defendants call bullshit on the whole endeavor, characterizing it as a blatant attempt to override the expressed will of the voters by delaying the certification and allowing the Michigan legislature to appoint its own slate of electors.

If this lawsuit achieved its stated goal of auditing the entire election process, it is virtually impossible to conceive of an outcome that could affect the result of the statewide election for president. Instead, there are two possible outcomes—(1) a delay so severe that Michigan loses its ability to appoint its electors in time to cast their votes; or (2) a process that gives credence to the conspiracy theories that call into question the integrity of our elections and undermine our democracy.

There’s also the small matter of the Trump campaign’s out-of-state counsel making a bizarre quo warranto claim.

Plaintiffs allege entitlement to the writ of quo warranto, pursuant to MCL § 600.4545. However, they fail to cite the relevant provision of the statute. Quo warranto under the statute is expressly limited to a challenge to claims of fraud or error for an election “at which there has been submitted any constitutional amendment, question, or proposition to the electors of the state or any county, township, or municipality thereof.” Plaintiffs do not, and cannot, raise or even mention a challenge to such a matter on the ballot. Thus, they cannot proceed

But other than that, well-played, Thor.

Quo warranto, laches, pro hac vice — DRINK!


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

Doug Emhoff Leaves DLA Piper Partnership For White House Role As ‘Second Gentleman’

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

We congratulate Senator [Kamala] Harris and our partner Doug Emhoff on this historic accomplishment. We look forward to working with Doug to transition his practice within the firm as he prepares to take on his new role, and we wish him all the best.

— a statement from DLA Piper, confirming that partner Doug Emhoff, husband of Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, will be leaving the Biglaw firm by Inauguration Day. Emhoff took a temporary leave of absence from the Biglaw firm in August.


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.

Law Firms Should Skip Attorney Reviews This Year

One of the perks about having my own practice is that I do not need to complete many of the purely administrative tasks that attorneys at numerous law firms need to perform. For instance, I do not typically need to log my business development or pro bono hours, I just complete the work, and it doesn’t normally matter if those hours are counted. In addition, my two-attorney law firm run by my brother and me does not have an attorney review process (although it would be interesting for the two of us to talk about our performance, maybe like an “airing of the grievances”!). Since it is almost the end of the year, many firms across the country are about to begin or are currently undergoing their annual attorney review process. I have already discussed in a prior article how attorney reviews are often a waste of time, and in this extraordinary year, such reviews may do more damage than good. For a variety of reasons, law firms should skip attorney reviews this year.

As many attorneys know from first-hand experience, attorney reviews can often be time consuming. Attorneys usually need to complete a questionnaire on their performance to kick off the review process, and this is often reviewed by managers, who must also write their own comments. People are extremely busy and distracted this year, for obvious reasons. Attorneys need to be flexible when managing childcare, overseeing schooling, and completing other tasks as many people work from home. Attorneys do not need to have one more, entirely administrative task to complete, and firms can give attorneys a huge morale boost if they are empathetic to their employees during this trying time.

Attorney reviews can also be extremely stressful on many lawyers. Lawyers often feel that they are being scrutinized during reviews, and if they do not justify how they deserve to stay at a firm, they may end up on the chopping block. This can lead them to spend an inordinate amount of time on completing self-evaluations and other steps related to the review process. Normally, attorneys do not need to feel too much stress related to the review process, since their jobs are typically secure unless they truly fall below expectations.

However, the economy is extremely unstable, and the unemployment rate is at its highest in recent memory due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Firms have cut salaries and conducted layoffs throughout the year in order to deal with economic conditions. Even if attorney jobs are secure (and some firms have publicly acknowledged as much), there is still a justifiable fear that the attorney review process may decide a lawyer’s fate at a firm, even if this is not the case. Firms can eliminate this fear altogether if they simply skip the attorney review process.

Moreover, it is unfair in many attorney reviews to hold associates responsible to the same expectations that would be normal for other times. For instance, many law firms have an established billable hour requirement, mandating that attorneys log a set number of hours over the course of a calendar year. However, numerous attorneys had difficulty meeting billable hour requirements this year due to issues caused by the pandemic. As I can somewhat attest to from personal experience, falling ill from COVID-19 can make it difficult to bill hours and fulfill other work responsibilities, especially if you have more serious health impacts from the virus. In addition, many attorneys were impacted by the loss of loved ones, and this could make it difficult to satisfy firm expectations. Moreover, the challenges of working from home, as well as juggling schooling and other responsibilities, can make it difficult to meet billable hours and other expectations. Firms should have compassion for their attorneys in this environment. Sparing them from justifying shortfalls in an attorney review may be the right thing to do.

Of course, firms often make decisions about raises and bonuses through the attorney review process, and firms may have a more difficult time evaluating associates without a review. However, firms can always adopt a lockstep model when determining raises and bonus, so that everyone that has satisfactorily performed during a year can earn a raise or a bonus. Indeed, many firms adopt a lockstep model for determining raises and bonuses under normal circumstances. As discussed in a prior article, paying attorneys uniformly on an objective basis also helps eliminate the possibility that attorneys are paid different salaries based on subjective or even objectionable grounds. Firms can always return to holistic determinations about salaries and bonuses when the pandemic subsides if they so choose.

All told, attorneys (and just about everyone else) have faced unprecedented challenges this year, and many people are feeling stressed as the year comes to a close. As a result, law firms should consider skipping their traditional attorney review process to eliminate a source of stress and be more equitable in this difficult time.


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.