Category Added in a WPeMatico Campaign
We will never sell or share your information without your consent. See our privacy policy.
(Image via Getty)
The past couple of months have had some concerning stories coming out of Ukraine when it comes to surrogacy. The images, especially, have been shocking. We’ve seen pictures of newborn babies lined up in bassinets, in a crowded hotel room, with a couple of caregivers. The babies have been unable to be united with their parents due to COVID-19 travel restrictions. However, in good news, loosening restrictions over the summer have enabled some parents to make it to their babies.
Of course, to be fair, similar situations have been happening all over the world. A number of babies born by surrogacy in the United States have been separated from their non-United States parents, prevented from making the births due to COVID-19 restrictions. And, in some instances, after the parents were able to make it to the United States, they were unable to return home with their children because of additional COVID-related issues, such as an inability to obtain a passport from passport offices that have essentially shut down.
So is Ukraine just getting especially bad press during distressing times? Or is there a bigger issue?
I had a chance to interview (and record for the podcast I Want To Put A Baby In You) author Jay Nault. Nault and his wife reside in California. However, when they found out they would need to turn to surrogacy in order to have another child and learned of the price tag associated with the process in the United States, they turned to surrogacy in Ukraine.
Nault is in the process of publishing a book on his misadventures to parenthood by way of the Ukraine. He shared some of the more memorable moments with us.
You Have To Be Heterosexual. Married. And Able to Prove It.
Both the United States and Ukraine have become destinations for those hoping to have a child by surrogacy but unable to do so in their own country. However, one of the biggest differences between the two is that Ukraine requires all intended parents in surrogacy arrangements to be married heterosexual couples. By contrast, in most states in the United States, an intended parent in a surrogacy arrangement can be married or not, to a same- or different-sex partner, or single.
The more surprising part, at least for Nault, was that he and his wife were required to produce an apostilled original version of their marriage certificate. In his case, this involved his wife making a last-minute trip to Hawaii, the destination state of their nuptials, and implementing some persuasive tactics with a state official to receive the required apostille (like a notarization by the state).
You Have To Set Up A Company In The Ukraine.
Nault described another surprising facet of his surrogacy journey in Ukraine. He was required to set up and register a company in the country. At least that was how it was explained to him. He signed the Ukrainian paperwork, which was, of course, in Ukrainian (Nault did not speak or read the language). When he asked if the business creation would delay the process, he was assured that everything was being taken care of for him. (This is definitely not a step that is part of the process in the United States.)
Ukraine Does Not Recognize Suffixes.
This may not be a problem for most people, but it’s also not unheard of for an American to have a suffix in their name, or to name a child with a suffix. In Nault’s case, he is a “III.” When his twin sons were born, he and his wife decided to pass on the family name to one of their children, intending to name the baby James Nault IV. However, the birth certificate listed baby and dad identically as James Nault III, and twin brother as Michael Nault III. Ha! Nault asked to fix the names but was told it would require going through the Ukranian judicial system. He ultimately opted to wait and undergo the name change process for the boys once back in the United States.
Nault’s Eastern European experience was one of constantly feeling like a fish out of water. Funny, strange, and, at times, scary. But, in the end, he brought home his sweet, perfect boys.
It is unfair to generalize the quality of a whole country’s system based on an unfortunate situation during a global disaster or one person’s experience. But it is widely known that Ukraine’s system likely has a number of flaws and, undoubtedly, people who are looking to exploit the system.
The United States also has it problems. But despite those issues, the challenges of a language barrier and a foreign legal system cause me to recommend sticking with the United States. But when that isn’t an option, I can certainly understand looking elsewhere — despite additional risk and discomfort — in order to hold on to hope.
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.
It was just this afternoon that we once again sounded the warning that the layoffs were coming during the third quarter thanks to the pandemic.
Lo and behold, here they are.
Today, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner co-chairs Steve Baumer and Lisa Mayhew sent a firmwide email letting everyone know that it will be laying off attorneys and staff as a result of the coronavirus crisis. On top of that, the firm will be shuttering its Beijing office. Here’s a relevant excerpt from that email (available in full on the next page):
The exact size, shape, and speed of global economic recovery remains unclear as we look ahead. In the near term, we do not anticipate a return to pre-COVID-19 levels of economic activity, nor perhaps, even on a more extended basis. Although some pockets of our Firm remain exceptionally busy, our overall capacity is in excess of demand and how we should be structured to best serve our clients.
All of this together has led to our decision to undertake targeted reductions across some practices to ensure that our talent and resources are best aligned to meet client needs. These reductions will impact a small proportion of our global workforce, including lawyers and business services staff. We will also be tightening our footprint in Asia, where we will be closing our small Beijing office as part of these efforts.
BCLP will offer severance to the affected lawyers and staff based on the higher salaries they received prior to the cuts that the firm instituted in April and reimburse the 15 percent salary cuts to those who are laid off before they leave the firm. The firm will also offer outplacement coaching and counseling to those who are let go.
Sources have already told us that associates in the firm’s Phoenix and Dallas offices have been affected by the layoffs. Let us know if your office has been impacted.
UPDATE (6:00 p.m.): We’ve been told that associates have also been laid off in the firm’s San Francisco, D.C., and St. Louis offices.
On the bright side, after the firm’s deadline for salary cuts expires later this summer, those reductions will be halved to 7.5 percent, instead of the current 15 percent. These reduced cuts will be extended through the end of 2020. The firm will also be creating a bonus pool for those who “contributed highly” during the first half of the year. Way to rub salt in the wound for those who were just let go.
Best of luck to all those who are affected by the layoffs at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner.
If your firm or organization is slashing salaries, 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.
Earlier: Biglaw Associate Salary Cuts Come To The Am Law 50
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.
(Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
The unemployment rate was down last month, and employers added far more jobs than expected, which was good news. Still, despite these minor victories, at 11.1 percent we’re facing an extremely high unemployment rate historically. Since the Great Depression, the two worst unemployment rates we faced prior to coronavirus were the 10.1 percent rate reached in September 1982 and the 10 percent unemployment rate recorded in October 2009.
We are also in a recession. While we won’t know the full extent of the damage for quite some time, U.S. gross domestic product decreased at an annual rate of five percent in the first quarter of this year. Consumer spending remains depressed.
The stock market, which everyone who writes about this stuff is fond of (accurately) reminding us is not the economy, took a steep dive this spring. But segments of it have now recovered to pre-coronavirus levels. Investors who stayed on the ride had the pleasure of tying up their money for half a year just to break even. If you want to take a longer-term approach and look at stock market returns as measured by the Dow Jones Industrial Average at 42 months into their terms, four of the past five presidents outperformed Trump at the equivalent stage (In descending order: Clinton 67 percent, Obama 62.6 percent, Bush I 44.9 percent, Trump 31.3 percent, and Bush II negative 6.9 percent). If you care to look just before coronavirus struck, Trump had overtaken George H.W. Bush in returns at the equivalent stage, but the ranking otherwise stands.
All of this has been while we’re running up a record budget deficit (which was also the case before coronavirus came to the U.S., although the deficit was growing more slowly back then, and there’s a lot of evidence that the national debt is less of a big deal than we’ve been led to believe).
The Trump presidency hasn’t yet been the economic catastrophe that was the tenure of George W. Bush. But Trump wasn’t doing so hot by a lot of economic measures before the COVID-19 pandemic, and now even the economic bright spots from before, like the then-low unemployment rate, have been snuffed out.
Still, his handling of the economy is the one place Trump remains above water with voters. In a recent Pew Research Center survey of registered voters, in a head-to-head matchup between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, voters were overwhelmingly more confident in Joe Biden’s ability to handle a number of pressing issues facing the nation, from handling the public health impact of the coronavirus outbreak to effectively handling race relations. But the one area where Trump outperformed Biden was in voter perception of his ability to handle the economy. Of those surveyed, 48 percent were very or somewhat confident that Joe Biden can “[m]ake good decisions about economic policy,” compared to 51 percent who were very or somewhat confident Trump can do the same. Biden had a double-digit lead in voter confidence that he can better handle the coronavirus outbreak, the thing that is causing the current economic crisis, yet somehow more voters trust Trump with the economy.
Who are the 10 percent or so of voters who apparently simultaneously believe that Biden will be better at handling the coronavirus pandemic, but Trump will be better at handling the economy? A president who is bad at the pandemic is bad at the economy. I suppose you can’t really blame Trump for the coronavirus itself (although even on this point I don’t see why we all have to make excuses for him, every president eventually deals with a national crisis of some kind). But you can blame Trump for his shoddy response to the pandemic, and Trump’s pandemic response has been measurably worse than that of leaders of a number of countries he regularly makes fun of.
Trump was only ever a middling president at managing the good economy he inherited from Obama before coronavirus, and he’s terrible at it now. There are a lot of voters who don’t seem to know this yet though, and a good number of them are not Trump cultists who can never be convinced. Hopefully by November a few more of them see through the ridiculous reality TV façade that is Trump’s supposed economical prowess.
Jonathan Wolf is a litigation associate at a midsize, full-service Minnesota firm. He also teaches as an adjunct writing professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, has written for a wide variety of publications, and makes it both his business and his pleasure to be financially and scientifically literate. Any views he expresses are probably pure gold, but are nonetheless solely his own and should not be attributed to any organization with which he is affiliated. He wouldn’t want to share the credit anyway. He can be reached at jon_wolf@hotmail.com.
Last night Ivanka Trump owned the libs by posting a photo of herself on Twitter with a can of black beans. Just a billionaire heiress in a white dress with gigot sleeves, planning her family’s meals for the week, NBD.
Well, that’s slightly less awkward than her father posing with an upside-down bible outside a locked church. At least nobody got teargassed for this living room photo-op. (If Ivanka Trump even knows how to work a can opener, then I’m the Queen of England.)
On Thursday, Goya CEO Robert Unanue appeared in the Rose Garden to proclaim the country “truly blessed” to be led by an “incredible builder” like Donald Trump. Presumably Mr. Unanue was not referring to the tent cities constructed to imprison refugees and migrants, built by a president who continually describes immigrants as “criminals, drug dealers, rapists.”
Amid calls for a boycott of the prominent Hispanic-owned food company, the First Daughter, an official White House advisor, offered her unequivocal endorsement. But only in her capacity as a private citizen!
“Only the media and the cancel culture movement would criticize Ivanka for showing her personal support for a company that has been unfairly mocked, boycotted and ridiculed for supporting this administration — one that has consistently fought for and delivered for the Hispanic community,” White House spokeswoman, Carolina Hurley, said. “Ivanka is proud of this strong, Hispanic-owned business with deep roots in the U.S. and has every right to express her personal support.”
Why is a government employee whose salary is paid using taxpayer money defending the First Daughter’s social media posts if they were made solely “to express her personal support?” Well, that’s unclear. But according to Walter Shaub, the former head of the Office of Government Ethics, the post represents a flagrant violation of ethics rules.
“There’s a particularly unseemly aspect to this violation: it creates the appearance that the government’s endorsement is for sale,” he told ABC. “Endorse the president and the administration will endorse your product.”
Indeed, according to 5 CFR § 2635.702(c), “An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office to endorse any product, service or enterprise[.]” While Ivanka’s Twitter bio claims to be her “Personal Pg. Views are my own,” it also lists her official position as “Advisor to POTUS on job creation + economic empowerment, workforce development & entrepreneurship.” Like her father, she rarely uses her “personal” account for anything other than White House and Trump campaign announcements.
Ivanka Trump’s post of herself LARPing as Vanna White was immediately turned into a meme, with her cousin’s book, a burning cross, and various, ummm, marital aids photoshopped in place of the can.
Which is hilarious, of course, except that this is real life, and the White House is endorsing private companies who publicly support its agenda in the run up to the election.
As Democratic ethics lawyer Norm Eisen told ABC “In the Trump administration, she will probably be rewarded. That bespeaks an ethical degradation for which the voters are about to punish the president severely.”
No beans about it.
Like father, like daughter.
Ivanka Trump’s social media posts about Goya beans provoke ethics backlash [ABC]
Elizabeth Dye (@5DollarFeminist) lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.
How did COVID-19 disrupt the legal industry? In short, it ushered in a new way of doing business.
Join us on July 17th at 1 p.m. ET / 10 a.m. PT and see how the legal profession rapidly evolved in response to the coronavirus pandemic, from client acquistion and new service offerings to mobilizing an entire firm to work remotely.
The landscape has changed quickly, addressing how firms engage virtually with clients and leverage new digital solutions to analyze the business and offer new types of services, while ensuring safeguards to data security and adhering to compliance best practices.
As a result, COVID-19 has brought digital transformation to the forefront of the legal industry, requiring law firms to optimize their business in a digital age, and deliver client services free of traditional brick-and-mortar office visits and paper files.
Key Objectives:
Presenters:
Tomas Suros – Global Product Marketing, Legal, AbacusNext
Assly Sayyar – Attorney at Law, AbacusLaw in Abacus Private Cloud customer
Moderator:
Bob Ambrogi – Founder of LawSites blog, Technology Columnist at Above the Law
By filling out the form you’re you are opting in to receive communication from Above the Law and its Partners.
Firms are getting to grips with the idea that the economy will stay down for a while. The next step is structural change. Clients are thinking about how to lower legal costs and still meet their needs, and as we get into the fall, two things will happen: firms don’t want to be seen doing layoffs until they have to, but they’re also realizing the economy will be down for a while, maybe the next year and a half. This is all coming at the normal timing of annual associate reviews.
I think that layoffs are coming. It’s cruel to let someone go in the middle of a pandemic, and it’s really hard to fire someone over Zoom. Nobody wants the stigma of doing something like that.
— Hugh Simons, a law firm strategist who formerly served as chief operating officer at Ropes & Gray, commenting on the likelihood of law firm layoffs other serious austerity measures that could take place in the third quarter of 2020. Some firms have already conducted associate and staff layoffs (see here and here) as they assess the damage the pandemic has done to their bottom lines.
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.
We still don’t know how to deal with the novel coronavirus ravaging the country, and that continued economic uncertainty continues to have an impact on law firms. A lot of firms are cutting expenses as they try to get a handle on exactly how they’ll deal with ramifications on their bottom line.
That’s true for NYC boutique, Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz.
The firm, ranked #9 in Vault’s 2020 Best Law Firms for Media, Entertainment, & Sports is instituting a number of austerity measures to deal with the economic downturn caused by the global pandemic. At Frankfurt Kurnit, those measures include almost a complete hiring freeze, cancelling their summer program, eliminating most overtime, cutting partner salaries by 25 percent and slashing all other attorney and staff salaries by 20 percent. In the internal announcement firm managing partner Jeffrey Greenbaum said employees should plan on the cuts lasting the rest of 2020 (they were effective May 1), and whether there will be any year end bonuses this year is still uncertain.
We reached out to the firm for comment, but haven’t yet heard back.
You can read the full internal email on the next page.
If your firm or organization is slashing salaries, 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.
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).
The Lizzie Borden trial was a media sensation, but everyone chose the media narratives that confirmed what they already believed. In this episode, we explore the threat of polarizing group dynamics and how lawyers can be positive voices in their communities.
Make sure you take advantage of the show’s Q&A feature. You can ask Mike questions about the latest episode and he’ll answer at the end of the next episode. Just submit your question in the form at the bottom of this post.
Episode Resources:
The Trial of Lizzie Borden by Cara Robertson
“Conspiracy Theories”
“White Lawyering“
Chinese artificial island in the South China Sea
WASHINGTON: A top US diplomat today urged allies to reject electing a Chinese official to sit on the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea, likening it to “hiring an arsonist to help run the fire department.”
The remarks by David Stilwell, the State Department’s assistant secretary for the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs (and a retired Air Force general), came a day after the US formally rejected most of China’s expanse territorial claims in the South China Sea, marking a significant new chapter in the worsening relations between the two superpowers.
Beijing has not only laid claim to practically all of the 1.3 million square mile South China Sea — putting it at odd with most of its neighbors. It has built runways and placed rocket batteries on several islands also claimed by neighboring countries like the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, and Taiwan. The US on Monday called Beijing’s claims “completely unlawful.”
Appearing on an online event hosted by CSIS, Stilwell said the US would “urge all countries involved in the upcoming International Tribunal election to carefully assess the credentials of the PRC candidate and consider whether a PRC judge on the Tribunal will help or hinder international maritime law. Given Beijing’s record, the answer should be clear.”
The Chinese Embassy in Washington pushed back against the State Department criticism, calling the US accusations “completely unjustified,” and accusing Washington of “flexing muscles, stirring up tension and inciting confrontation in the region.”
In his remarks, Stilwell denied suggestions that the US policy outlined Monday was a departure from Washington’s previous stance on China and its claims in the South China Sea.
Instead, “I would say primarily that we are no longer silent” on the matter of Chinese encroachment on islands claimed by other countries in the region. “We acknowledged it but we didn’t actually make any policy statements or adjustments. What has changed is the US has made a more active statement about what this actually means on specific maritime claims.”
What Washington wants to support more vocally is the July 2016 ruling by the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea Arbitration Tribunal, which ruled against China by holding the Scarborough Shoals belonged to the Philippines, giving China no rights to the small islands and outcroppings. Beijing has ignored the decision, and Stilwell said “we’re no longer going to say we’re neutral” in these matters.
It’s not clear what this means for American policy going forward, but the US currently has two aircraft carriers operating in the South China Sea and has ramped up its naval activities in the region.
China has also kept up its activities. Last month, the PLA Navy warned ships away from the Paracel Islands as it prepared to conduct four days of military exercises there, making the announcement one day after the US Navy sent two aircraft carriers into the Philippine Sea, and regional governments criticized Beijing’s island grab. The Chinese have no legal claim to the area.
The warning came just a day after regional leaders backed up complaints by Vietnam that China has encroached on areas within its influence, issuing a statement saying they “reaffirmed that the 1982 [United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea] is the basis for determining maritime entitlements, sovereign rights, jurisdiction and legitimate interests over maritime zones,” an ASEAN statement said.
The rare rebuke of Beijing by its smaller neighbors came as a surprise to many, but is tangible evidence of a growing wariness of Chinese actions across the globe. On Monday, the UK banned Huawei from its 5G telecom network, reversing a January decision to allow the Chinese tech company to play a role in building the country’s new wireless infrastructure.
In May, two Navy ships sailed into the middle of a simmering dispute between China and Malaysia in the South China Sea, shrugging off a shadowing Chinese warship in an attempt to uphold the norms of transiting in international waters. The Littoral Combat Ship USS Montgomery and supply ship USNS Cesar Chavez sailed close to the Malaysian drillship West Capella, signalling their support against Chinese warships who have spent weeks harassing the commercial vessel looking for oil deposits.
Just days before the maneuver, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper told reporters at the Pentagon the US continues to see “aggressive behavior” by the PLA Navy in the South China Sea, from threatening a Philippine navy ship to sinking a Vietnamese fishing boat, and intimidating other nations from engaging in offshore oil development.
Stilwell today sought to tie actions in the South China Sea to a wider global effort by Beijing to intimidate other nations, claiming Beijing’s actions “pose the greatest threat to freedom of the seas anywhere on the planet. South China Sea issues have direct bearing on the future of the Arctic, the Indian Ocean, the Mediterranean, and other vital waterways.”