Category Added in a WPeMatico Campaign
The 90-Day Known Expert Series rolls on into WEEK EIGHT. This week’s episodes take listeners further along the journey from outline to draft.
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.
(Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
A sitting president undermining our political process & questioning the legality of the voices of countless Americans without evidence is not only dangerous & wrong, it undermines the very foundation this nation was built upon.
— Rep. Will Hurd (R-TX), in a tweet after President Donald Trump gave remarks during a press conference last night where he made meritless claims about voter fraud and the election being rigged in favor of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. Hurd is retiring at the end of his current term. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) echoed these thoughts, tweeting, “We want every vote counted, yes every legal vote (of course). But, if you have legit concerns about fraud present EVIDENCE and take it to court. STOP Spreading debunked misinformation… This is getting insane.”
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.
While this hasn’t been the most enjoyable week for many, select businesses have thrived amid the reporting of shifting election results.
According to the Los Angeles Times, purveyors of weed, pizza, and booze were “the real election night winners” of 2020:
On-demand alcohol delivery service Drizly said sales were 68% higher than on the previous four Tuesdays, on average. Sales in Washington, D.C., rose 133%; in New York City, 110%; and in L.A., 35%. In blue states where Drizly operates, sales were up 75% compared with the previous four Tuesdays; in red states, they were up 33%.”
Meanwhile, the weed delivery company Eaze saw an 18% increase compared with the prior Tuesday, the Times reported, and area pizza restaurants noted huge increases and record-breaking sales.
Bumps in business aside, state legalization measures made 2020 a historic election for the weed industry, which swept initiatives in New Jersey, Arizona, South Dakota, Montana, and Mississippi.
As Law360 noted, the ballot victories bring the total number of states legalizing recreational cannabis to 15, with South Dakota becoming the first state to go directly from prohibition to adult-use legalization without the interim step of legalization for medical use and Mississippi voters approving medical marijuana.
Per Law360:
The biggest win for advocates was the Garden State, which became the first mid-Atlantic state to fully legalize marijuana for adult use. Voters’ approval of Public Question 1 puts pressure on New York and other states in the densely populated region to follow suit.”
In a bummer for New Jersey residents, though, the state attorney general issued guidance on Wednesday noting that possessing weed outside of the New Jersey medical marijuana program is illegal under state law for now.
Real Election Night Winners: Sellers of Pizza, Booze and Weed [Los Angeles Times]
New Jersey, Ariz. Legalize Pot In Ballot Measure Sweep [Law360]
Pot’s Ballot Victories Bode Well For Reform’s Future [Law360]
The pending lawsuit between the Razorback Foundation and former Arkansas football coach Bret Bielema over whether he is due $7 million from a buyout clause based on a failed duty to mitigate damages just took a turn toward the ugly. On November 3, Bielema and his agent Neil Cornrich (also a party to the lawsuit), filed a scathing 15-page motion for Rule 11 sanctions against the defendant/counter-plaintiff Razorback Foundation.
“This joint motion for Rule 11 sanctions is nothing short of extraordinary,” begins the introduction section of the brief. “Not once in their 200 years of collective experience have any of the undersigned counsel filed a Rule 11 motion against any lawyer. What’s more, most of the undersigned counsel have had prior professional relationships with opposing counsel that, in some instances, involved being former colleagues in a law firm and a corporate legal department. Unfortunately, the most extraordinary aspect of this Rule 11 motion is the subject of the motion itself: a recently invented claim of fraud and conspiracy for which there is no supporting evidence, filed by opposing counsel without any investigation of the facts.”
That is a heavy start to a lengthy brief that seeks to establish the notoriety of the lawyers and the lengthy personal relationships on the line based on acts that have taken place in the litigation.
Numerous lawyers and law firms signed the document, including Thomas A. Mars of Mars Law Firm, John C. Everett of Everett Law Firm, John E. Tull III, of Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull, Ryan K. Culpepper of Culpepper Law Firm, as well as R. Craig Wood and Benjamin P. Abel of McGuire Woods, all representing Bielema. Richard N. Watts signed as counsel for Cornrich. On the other side, representing the Razorback Foundation, are many lawyers from Friday, Eldredge & Clark.
The lawyers who filed the Rule 11 motion for sanctions mainly take issue with the Razorback Foundation claiming in its counterclaim that Bielema and Cornrich fraudulently induced the Razorback Foundation to enter into a release agreement knowing that Bielema would not fulfill his legal commitment to try to mitigate damages in the case he was let go by the University of Arkansas. The Razorback Foundation also claimed that Cornrich made fraudulent misrepresentations to it in order to procure the release agreement.
The gist of the Razorback Foundation’s claims, which Bielema and Cornrich take issue with, is this idea that Bielema, Cornrich, and New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick entered into some scheme to cause Bielema to be underpaid for his role with the Patriots, purposefully bringing harm to the Razorback Foundation.
“Upon information and belief, Cornrich worked with his other clients, including Bill Belichick (whether known to him or not), to orchestrate an arrangement under which Bielema could stay in a position where he received compensation just below the offset threshold under the Release Agreement, thereby allowing Bielema to maximize his payments under the Release Agreement and deprive the Foundation of the benefit of its bargain,” the counterclaim states. “Cornrich did so while knowing that such terms were contrary to the agreement of the parties and in willful disregard of the Release Agreement’s requirements. Comparing Bielema to Cornrich’s other clients who acquired much higher paying jobs around the same time clearly shows that Bielema and Cornrich plotted together to conspire against the Foundation.”
The Razorback Foundation was quick to respond to the Rule “11 motion, filing an opposition on the same date that the motion for sanctions was placed on the docket. In sum, the Razorback Foundation refers to the motion for sanctions as “nothing more than a high-stakes Motion to Dismiss designed to attract press attention” and claims that it is part of Bielema’s and Conrich’s fulfillment of threats to inflict damage and harm through the media. The opposition states that Bielema’s counsel has promised that the Razorback Foundation would be ruined in the press, that the University of Arkansas would suffer “collateral damage,” and even that he possesses compromising videos of a nonparty (the nonparty is not mentioned by name and the motion also does not name the specific lawyer charged with making these threats).
According to the filed opposition, when a recent discussion between the parties faltered, a member of Bielema’s legal team texted one of the Razorback Foundation’s lawyers (presumably, Katherine C. Campbell of Friday, Eldredge & Clark), “Katie, RKC. Much love but, respectfully, stop writing sh** like this or I will be forced to ensure we humiliate you. I do not wish to do that, and I expect there will be many opportunities where it isn’t your head above the parapet.” RKC is presumably Ryan K. Culpepper of Culpepper Law Firm.
Judge P.K. Holmes III, sitting in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas Fayetteville Division, not only has a multimillion-dollar legal dispute on his hands but a war brewing between lawyers on both sides of the table. Reputations may be on the line, as well as the possibility for punitive action by the bench.
Darren Heitner is the founder of Heitner Legal. He is the author of How to Play the Game: What Every Sports Attorney Needs to Know, published by the American Bar Association, and is an adjunct professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. You can reach him by email at heitner@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter at @DarrenHeitner.
Left to right, top to bottom: Monique Burt Williams, Brittanie Chin-Merkerson, Olga V. Mack, Bill Kirst, Julie Honor, and David Lat (photos via Lateral Link).
Let’s be honest: lawyers aren’t always the best about dealing with change. I’m not sure why that is — perhaps it’s because our field is all about the importance of precedent, or perhaps it’s because we’re risk-averse as a group — but for anyone who has spent much time in the legal profession, it’s hard to dispute.
This is especially true when it comes to technology. Getting lawyers to adopt a new software program or other technological tool can be quite a challenge. Lawyers will often avoid picking up a new technology until they are absolutely forced to do so (e.g., having to learn how to use Zoom during the coronavirus pandemic).
This is why it’s so valuable for lawyers to know about change management — the process, tools, and techniques used to manage the human side of change. And if you’re interested in learning more about change management, especially as it applies to the adoption and implementation of new technology, then we’re here to help.
On November 18, Cadence Counsel, the in-house division of the Lateral Link consortium of legal recruitment firms, will host a free webinar, “Change Management and Technology.” It will feature the following expert panelists:
Olga Mack should be familiar to Above the Law readers, of course, as one of ATL’s most popular and longstanding columnists. I will be serving as moderator of the conversation.
Please join us for a thought-provoking and practical discussion that will provide invaluable insights on these important topics. You can register for the free webinar here. We look forward to seeing you on November 18!
Earlier:
Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series of posts from Lateral Link’s team of expert contributors. This post is by David Lat, a Managing Director in the New York office, where he focuses on placing top associates, partners, and partner groups into preeminent law firms around the country.
Cadence Counsel is the in-house division of Lateral Link, one of the top-rated international legal recruiting firms. With over 14 offices worldwide, Lateral Link specializes in placing attorneys at the most prestigious law firms and companies in the world. Managed by former practicing attorneys from top law schools, Lateral Link has a tradition of hiring lawyers to execute the lateral leaps of practicing attorneys. Click here to find out more about us.
This is, well, something. We don’t cover every time a Biglaw partner sues someone, but this one is a doozy.
Neil Gerrard is partner in the London office of Dechert’s white collar, compliance and investigations practice. In a complaint, Gerrard alleges a plot of long-term surveillance carried out by a former client, Eurasian Natural Resources Corp. (ENRC), and says the scheme was illegal harassment designed to intimidate him. He’s suing for misuse of private information, trespass, harassment, and data protection breaches. According to the complaint, operatives for ENRC placed a tracking device on his car and followed. He also alleges hidden cameras were installed at his home and there was a bungled attempt spy on him and his wife while they were on vacation in St. Lucia.
In a separate, but apparently related matter, ENRC is suing their former attorneys at Dechert and inter alia, the former prime minister of Kazakhstan, in a legal fight over the Serious Fraud Office’s investigation into bribery and corruption allegations, though SFO has not, as of yet, filed any charges against ENRC. In that case ENRC general counsel, Beat Ehrenberger, alleged Gerrard referred to billing practices in that case as being, “in rape mode.”
In a recent hearing, as reported by Law360, Tom de la Mare, ENRC’s counsel, said there was nothing wrong with the surveillance, besides, it’s totally normal:
Installing camouflaged hidden cameras in a hedge outside Gerrard’s home supported ENRC’s “legitimate aim” of investigating suspected wrongdoing intended to be the subject of the mining company’s lawsuits against the SFO and Dechert, de la Mare said.
ENRC didn’t intend for Gerrard to uncover what it was doing, and so it makes no sense for him to claim the company was intentionally harassing him, de la Mare argued. The firm ENRC hired, Diligence International, carefully concealed its equipment up to professional standards and employed tactics used by the British military, he added.
“Where is the harassment if the surveillance was undetected,” de la Mare asked. “Let’s be blunt about it, this type of surveillance used to be common in commercial litigation.”
Surveillance isn’t illegal just because there’s a risk of detection, it has to be “oppressive” or “unreasonable,” de la Mare told Richard Spearman QC, sitting as a judge of the High Court.
A spokesperson for ENRC called the case “misconceived.” Regardless of the legal merits, it at least gets a gold star for weirdest Biglaw story of the day.
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).
Cooley Law School — an institution that recently gained public renown as the worst law school in America thanks to its association with Michael Cohen — is once again making headlines with some more bad news. Western Michigan University, which entered into an affiliation with the independent law school in 2014, has decided to part ways with Cooley, referring to the arrangement as a “distraction.”
Ouch.
Hot off the decision to close another one of its campuses at the end of the academic year, Cooley is now faced with losing its ties to a public research university that gave the school an air of legitimacy. Western Michigan spent the last year doing some soul searching and decided that the time had come to move on, with its Board of Trustees noting that things just weren’t working out as hoped between the two schools.
From the Board’s recommendation to end the arrangement between the schools:
It was the hope of both institutions that the affiliation would improve the quality of the educational experience for students at both institutions and would serve to enhance the reputation and standing of both institutions in the academic community. Several years after implementation those hopes have not been realized.
Cooley, which has had two accreditation battles in the past three years, was once the largest law school in the country with several campuses spread across two states, but thanks to prospective law students catching on to the fact that their employment prospects as graduates would be just as good as their chances of passing the bar exam (read: not-so great), both its real estate holdings and its student body shrunk. The law school even had its name plastered on a minor league baseball stadium for more than a decade, but even that has come to an end.
Western Michigan is also using the coronavirus crisis as its out with Cooley Law. Here’s more from the Board’s recommendation:
[T]he impact of the pandemic on higher education has led each institution to focus on their core missions. Much has changed at both organizations and in the world of legal education since 2013. The affiliation was intended to be a prelude to more joint programs and a closer collaboration between the institutions. Those intentions have not materialized in seven years, and they are not on the immediate horizon. Ventures not at the center of WMU’s strengths and mission have been eliminated to maintain focus and stability through these unprecedented times. The Board believes that affiliation with Cooley has become a distraction from the University’s core mission.
The vote to terminate the affiliation took place yesterday and was unanimous.
Just like a law student, it’ll take Western Michigan three years to get out of Cooley, but at least the university won’t be saddled with student loan debt. In November 2023, the Western Michigan University Cooley Law School will be no more, and only the Thomas M. Cooley Law School will remain.
Western Michigan University Ditches Cooley Law School [Law.com]
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.
There are overly aggressive jerks in the legal profession, of course, but generally they’re content to be obnoxious. You rarely have a lawyer, let alone an attorney with leadership responsibilities, threatening clerks to fist fights outside the courthouse. And yet here we are. Happy Love Your Lawyer Day!
So what state brings this kind of energy?
Florida is always an option, but alas no. Texas wouldn’t have been a bad bet, but Joe Jamail is sadly no longer with us. Pennsylvania is getting closer, but until Gritty gets a law degree they’re safe. No, this is a Jersey thing.
Deposed city law director John Morelli allegedly challenged clerk Matthew Conlon to a fight outside City Hall and called him a “dumb f*ck” in an email last month, according to court records.
The clerk was so afraid of Morelli that he asked council to support his bid to get a restraining order, the documents show.
The clerk made the claims in a sworn certification filed in support of councilwoman Robin Vaughn’s court papers challenging Mayor Reed Gusciora’s request to a judge for a stay of Morelli’s firing.
The “dumb f*ck” comment came as Morelli explained defamation law — which was relevant because the clerk was threatening defamation suits after a city council member questioned whether or not the clerk ever passed the bar exam. Conlon claims he passed in 2012, but outlets have been unable to verify that so far. That’s an interesting wrinkle and would, potentially, actually make him a dumb f*ck.
However, it’s not a reason for an attorney to tell a guy to “‘meet him in the council president’s parking space’ in some apparent reference to a proposed physical altercation.” This is why Conlon is asking for a restraining order
The City Council, meanwhile, has fired Morelli “for cause” after he allegedly leaked Council documents illegally. Those documents appear to have kicked off investigations into alleged violations of the state Sunshine Law and wire-tapping claims. That background goes a long way to explaining why the mayor is refusing to respect the firing of his law director.
Never change, New Jersey.
Records: Trenton law director called clerk Matthew Conlon a ‘dumb f*ck’, threatened to fight him [Trentonian]
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.
After a difficult year marked by the threat of nuclear war, a pandemic, and a nail-biting election, many Americans have begun to seriously consider whether they should move to another country. Others have taken note of the discovery of water on the moon and have started to consider leaving planet Earth altogether and moving to the moon. Disregarding whether science has progressed to the point that civilians can safely live on the moon, there is an underlying legal question of whether it is legally permissible to do so.
The main treaty currently dominating the international space field is the Outer Space Treaty (OST) signed in 1967. Since then, it has been nearly impossible to generate enough international consensus to create new and updated laws on the commercialization and property ownership of space and the moon. The relevant provision on whether we can move to space and start building a community far from the troubles on Earth is Article II of the OST. Article II states that “outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.”
However, Article II leads to additional questions. What does “national appropriation” in the context of the moon mean? Does national appropriation apply to individuals and companies occupying parts of the moon or only to a nation claiming territory in space? Does appropriation by a company or an individual moving to the moon constitute national appropriation? Based on commercial space industry practice, the answer is simply, no. Private companies have been arguably claiming territory in space for commercial purposes for decades through satellites, without any objection from the international community.
Since the international community has been unable to agree on a subsequent international agreement governing the appropriation and property ownership of space and the moon, the answer may therefore be that until someone tries to live on the moon we may never know whether it is legally permissible to do so. When Sputnik entered into orbit over the U.S. in 1957, the world looked to President Eisenhower to see the United States’ response. Eisenhower chose instead to tacitly accept Sputnik and thus established the foundation of space law today that the rules of spacecraft are different to those for aircraft. The question of property ownership on the moon may therefore not be answered until someone actually attempts to live or build on the moon.
Overall, it seems that there is currently no answer as to whether we can pack up our bags and escape to a place far, far, away on another planet. But perhaps there is some solace in knowing that as the law stands right now, one day, we may be able to.
Maya Cohen is an associate at Balestriere Fariello and has a background
in international law and arbitration. She focuses her practice on
complex litigation from investigations to trials and appeals. You can
reach her via email at maya.cohen@balestrierefariello.com.
What’s that patch on your head? Were you injured in an accident? (Public Domain Image)
Ed. note (11/6/2020): Today is this year’s installment of Love Your Lawyer Day so here are our thoughts from 2015 on this issue.
Were you aware of the entirely made-up holiday that is “Love Your Lawyer Day”? Because it’s today. Don’t you feel more loved already?
The brainchild of a legal marketer way back in 2001 and now championed by the American Bar Association Law Practice Council, “Love Your Lawyer Day” is the legal profession’s latest desperate plea for a symbolic hug from a cold and uncaring public.
Get ready for at least one impassioned thinkpiece about how Shakespeare’s “kill all the lawyers” was some sort of compliment!
Per Big Law Business:
Founded in 2001 by Nader Anise, a legal marketer, the group is the driving force behind Love Your Lawyer Day, in which everyone around the world is encouraged to post photos and comments on Twitter, with the hash tag, #LoveYourLawyerDay, professing their deep love for lawyers.
Already, the hash tag is being used by various bar associations, lawyers and legal journalists.
“The reality is that lawyers are, for the most part, vilified in our society,” said Anise. “This day is about recognizing them, appreciating them and thanking them.”
Are you kidding me? A holiday to appreciate people created and promoted by those same people. If you’re this desperate for validation, you’ve got deeper issues than “being a lawyer.” Please don’t drag the rest of us into your Sarlacc pit of need.
Now before all those hardened screamers out there who fancy themselves above all this feelgoodism begin applauding, screw you too. Not only is the whole “attorneys as mean-spirited, selfish pricks” persona exactly the kind of childish jackassery that erodes public respect for the profession, but it’s also why we have to listen to so many bad jokes and arthouse whining. We get it, curmudgeons: you’re special snowflakes who nobody respects, so who needs ’em anyway! If there’s any justice, these lawyers will be relegated to the Ninth Circle where they can yell “Objection!” repeatedly while they helplessly watch The Beast devour their clients for all eternity.
But as much as the profession needs the jerks like a hole in the head, lawyers also don’t need some Kumbaya drum circle of a holiday to celebrate how f**king lovable they supposedly are. At their most full of themselves, lawyers will gladly tell anyone they meet that attorneys shape and protect civil society. Is that important? Yeah. Do lawyers need to be celebrated for it? No. It’s the damn job. Not to get all Colonel Jessup, but after lawyers allow the public to sleep under the blanket of the very freedom they provide — we don’t need “love” — we’d prefer you just said thank you and went on your way.
If society really wants to honor its Lawyer-Americans, how about some actual relief for students taking on historic levels of debt under a broken model of legal education? Or an influx of cash for the public defenders and Legal Aid lawyers on the front lines defending the indigent? The bulk of the profession will take your appreciation in cash instead of a dumb holiday.
So stuff your platitudes — lawyers have work to do.
A Day for Spreading Love to Lawyers Everywhere [Big Law Business / Bloomberg BNA]
Earlier: Lawyer Asks Teacher What He Makes And Had To Listen To Some Dumb Poem