Category: News Feeds

One of the most frustrating lines that we hear from people criticizing internet website content moderation is the idea that thanks to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, websites have no incentive to do any moderation. This is a myth that I consider to be the flip side of the claims by aggrieved conservatives insisting that Section 230 requires “no bias” in moderation decisions. The “no incentive” people are (often lawyers) complaining about too little moderation. For reasons I cannot comprehend, they seem to think that the only motivation for doing anything is if the law requires you to do it. We’ve tried to debunk this notion multiple times, and yet it comes up again and again. Just a couple weeks ago in a panel about Section 230, a former top Hollywood lobbyist trotted it out.

I’ve been thinking about that line a bunch over the past few days as a huge number of large companies began pulling ads from Facebook as part of a “Stop Hate for Profit” campaign put together by a bunch of non-profits.

Over 200 companies have said they’ve joined the campaign and pulled their Facebook ads, including some big names, like Unilever, Verizon, Hershey, The North Face, Clorox, Starbucks, Reebok, Pfizer, Microsoft, Levi’s, HP, Honda, Ford, Coca Cola and many, many more. Now, the cynical take on this is that with the current economic conditions and a global pandemic, many were looking to pull back on advertising anyway, and joining this campaign was a way to do so and get a bit of an earned media boost at the same time.

But many of the companies are putting out statements demanding that Facebook change its practices before they’ll bring back ads. Here’s an open letter from Levi’s:

As we near the U.S. election in November and double down on our own efforts to expand voter education and turnout, we are asking Facebook to commit to decisive change. Specifically, we want to see meaningful progress towards ending the amplification of misinformation and hate speech and better addressing of political advertisements and content that contributes to voter suppression. While we appreciate that Facebook announced some steps in this direction today – it’s simply not enough.

That’s why we are joining the #StopHateForProfit campaign, pausing all paid Facebook and Instagram advertising globally and across all our brands to “hit pause on hate.” We will suspend advertising at least through the end of July. When we re-engage will depend on Facebook’s response.

I’m not convinced this campaign is necessarily a good idea, but at the very least it should put an end to people — especially prominent experts — claiming that there is “no incentive” for sites to do a better job with their content moderation practices. There are always non-legal incentives, including keeping users happy — and also keeping advertisers happy.

‘But Without 230 Reform, Websites Have No Incentive To Change!’ They Scream Into The Void As Every Large Company Pulls Ads From Facebook

More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:

Senate Waters Down EARN IT At The Last Minute; Gives Civil Liberties Groups No Time To Point Out The Many Remaining Problems
Brazil’s Proposed ‘Fake News’ Law Says Internet Users Are Guilty Until Proven Innocent, Demands Constant Logging From ISPs
Parler Speedruns The Content Moderation Learning Curve; Goes From ‘We Allow Everything’ To ‘We’re The Good Censors’ In Days

In April I reported on the release by the Global Legal Tech Report of its report on Australia, the first in a planned series of regional reports on legal tech worldwide, which will culminate in a global report in November.

Now, the GLTR has released reports covering Asia and New Zealand. When considered alongside the Australia report, they provide an overview of the state of legal tech across the Asia-Pacific region.

Taken together, the GLTR’s reports on Asia, Australia and New Zealand show that the majority of legal tech companies in the region are providers of integrated solutions rather than of point solutions.

• In Asia, 67% are integrated solution providers as opposed to 23% that are point solution providers.
• In Australia, 50% are integrated solution providers versus 33% that are point solution providers.
• In New Zealand, 54% are integrated solution providers versus 38 percent that are point solution providers.

But while the broad types of products are similar across the region, there was notable variance when companies were asked how they classify their products. In Asia, the largest segment of products are document automation (56%), compliance (41%), practice management (41%), legal operations (38%) and collaboration (38%).

In Australia, the greatest number of products were in document automation (12%), legal operations (8%), legal analytics (6%), and then several products all at 5%: practice management, case management, expert systems, access to justice, collaboration, marketplace, compliance, client relationship management and knowledge management.

In New Zealand, the dominant product types are compliance (62%) and knowledge management (54%), followed by document automation (46%), legal analytics (46%), and contract lifecycle management (31%).

Asian Companies Larger

Perhaps not surprisingly, legal tech companies in Asia are larger than those in Australia or New Zealand. In Asia, the average number of full-time employees at a legal tech company is 117.3, as opposed to 45.5 in Australia and 14.2 in New Zealand.

But on a median-employee basis, the differences are less drastic. Asian legal tech companies have a median number of 10 full-time employees, while those in Australia have 7.5 and those in New Zealand have eight.

With regard to access to funding, GLTR found that Asian and Australian companies have greater access than New Zealand companies. In Asia, 44% of legal tech companies say they have raised funds. In Australia, that number is 41% and in New Zealand it is 31%.

AI Not Dominant Tech

A particularly interesting section of these three Asia-Pac reports is one that looks at the technologies that underlie legal tech companies’ products. With so much attention given to artificial intelligence in law, the dominant technology is not AI but is database technology, with databases being the underlying technology for 77% of products in Asia, 42% of products in Australia, and 69% of products in New Zealand.

AI underlies 62% of products in Asia, 22% in Australia, and 23% in New Zealand.

In all three regions, legal tech companies are looking to expand sales of their products overseas. The reports show that this is true for 82% of Asian companies, 72% of Australian companies and 77% of New Zealand companies.

Few Founders Are Women

When I reported in April on the Australia report, I noted that one disappointing finding was that women are under-represented as founders or cofounders of legal tech companies, making up just 30%. While I was reporting on a preliminary version of the report, the current version puts the number of female founders in Australia even lower, at 21%.

In Asia, the number is only slightly better, with women making up 30% of founders, and in New Zealand, the number is lower, with women making up just 17% of founders.

Pricing Models

As for how these companies price their products, the most common models overall are licenses and user-based subscriptions. By region, the top three pricing models are:

• Asia – license (16%), user-based subscription (16%), and both bundled pricing and usage-based subscription at 12%.
• Australia – user-based subscription (21%), license (17%), and transaction fee (13%).
• New Zealand – user-based subscription (23%), usage-based subscription (20%), and license (17%).

The three reports — which cover much more than I’ve discussed here — are available for purchase from the GLTR website at a cost of $399 each.

Due next is the report on Africa, with reports still to come on Europe, North and Central America, South America and the United Kingdom. A global report will be released later this year. All reports can be purchased as a bundle for $1,500.

Almost anyone, myself included, who spent a significant amount of time at any level of competitive policy debate, be it high school or college, likely has a soft spot for R.E.M.’s 1987 song “It’s the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine).” This niche popularity stems from the almost assuredly apocryphal rumor that the lyrics were inspired after a member of the band witnessed some rounds at a high school debate tournament.  The connection would make sense since the cavalcade of horrors of which Michael Stipe sings in what could best be described as a verbal fever dream are, both in text and tempo, similar to what you can hear in the “tournament of lies” across high school and college campuses each weekend.

Sadly, what used to be limited to overtired students and college alt-rock bands can now be found on the front page, or for most people, the app version, of every newspaper in the country. A look at the general state of affairs in the United States at the halfway point of 2020 makes one wonder if we are all actually a portrait hidden away in a locked room, absorbing the sins of an unaging and outwardly happy alternate United States. The murder of yet another African-American, George Floyd, at the hands of, or in this case, the knees of, the Minneapolis police has touched off the largest public protests in the past half century of American history. In fact, these protests against racial injustice and police killings have spread throughout the world with the straightforward message that, unfortunately, goes unheeded by a portion of the population — Black Lives Matter.

In addition, Americans are enduring the worst economy since the Great Depression with unemployment forecast to stay at high levels for the foreseeable future. And lest we forget, as seemingly many Americans have, there’s COVID-19, which is killing hundreds of Americans each and every day.

Earlier this year, I mentioned to a colleague that my theme for 2020 was that “it is only going to get worse.” Prognostication is typically not my strong suit, see, e.g., the 2016 presidential election and every NCAA Men’s College Basketball bracket I have completed since elementary school in which I have Kansas as the eventual national champion — I did turn out to be rather prescient in 2008. However, while there is still six months remaining in 2020, I’m thinking I might have knocked this one out of the park.

Nor does it seem as if I am alone in my pessimism, as “It’s the End of the World as We Know It” once again charted on both the iTunes and Billboard Top 100. So in the face of these extraordinary times, it obviously makes sense to … talk about Zoom? Yes, discussing the intricacies of a video conferencing platform seems a bit out of place when the world is, both figuratively and literally, on fire, but seeing as how COVID-19 does not seem to dissipate based on collective boredom, we are all going to be Zooming for the foreseeable future.

Like many a failed media experiment, I recently pivoted to video, recording some Zoom interview tips for Vanderbilt Law students. Only those who are enrolled at VLS will get the rare opportunity in 2020 to see me wearing a shirt with buttons, but I can still relay some tips to the Above the Law readership that will hopefully help you stand out in your next Zoom interview.

The ubiquity of Zoom in our pandemic era is so vast, no less an authority than iconic fashion designer Tom Ford used the pages of the New York Times to provide tips on how to look one’s best on a computer screen.  Those historical tomes you promised you would finally get to during quarantine — but instead you have been binging 30 Rock on Peacock — are great for elevating a laptop so that the webcam is higher than your head and can be pointed down to your eyes. Ford also noted that lighting is key, thus a lamp in the background or even a selfie light affixed to the computer are vital to ensure that you can be seen during your interview.  A bit of face powder was the final suggestion, but I would say to follow that advice only if you know what you are doing. Legal employers are looking for future attorneys, not amateur clowns.

Surprisingly, the fashion designer did not discuss what people should wear on Zoom calls. Simply put, dress for a video interview in a manner similar to going to an in-person interview. This means not just the portion that will be visible on screen but proper dress from head to toe. While I can understand the desire to pair a shirt and tie with mesh shorts, employers have been known to ask candidates to stand up during video interviews to ensure they are dressed in a manner that indicates the interview is being taken seriously. Even if an employer does not engage in such an admittedly bizarre ritual, there is a significant chance you might have to get up in the midst of the interview, thus displaying the entirety of your outfit. I have to use both my hands to count the number of times since the onset of COVID-19 that I have had to get up during a Zoom meeting to pick up/tend to/deal with one of my kids.

While personal attire is important for a Zoom interview, it is equally important to be conscious of how the rest of what is on camera will look to the interviewer. In the absence of sporting events, evaluating the Zoom backdrops of total strangers appearing on TV has now become the great American pastime. Ideally, aim for something professional looking that has slightly more personality than a typical doctor’s office waiting room, while being careful not to go too far in the opposite direction either.  Attempting to secure long-term employment is not the time to deploy pictures from your trip to Niagara Falls as a virtual background. In addition, avoid the hostage-video look, as it is hard for an employer to determine if they want to hire a candidate if the interviewer is spending the entirety of the Zoom call trying to discern if secret messages are being blinked out in the hopes of liberation.

As for the interview itself, eye contact is of vital importance in an actual interview and the same holds true for an interview of Zoom. But remember that your webcam is not located directly on the face of your interviewer. Figure out where your webcam is located and affix your gaze there when answering questions. Next, make liberal use of the mute button. Do not turn on your audio when initially connecting and only keep it on when you are speaking. No need to subject your interviewer to the neighbor’s lawn mower or other background noises. But while the mute button should be frequently used, the same cannot be said for your video option. Avoid turning off your video unless absolutely necessary and make sure to inform your interviewer if you do need to turn it off for a moment.

While every in-the-webcam frame will be visible to your interviewer, that does not include everything in the room. Take advantage of that and have some notes just off screen to which you can refer. The notes can be as basic as some facts about your interviewer or just how to pronounce the employer’s name. In a typical interview, you might well take notes, and since you are in front of your computer, the natural instinct is to want to type some notes as the conversation proceeds. Avoid that instinct. The sound of your typing will likely be picked up by your microphone, and those staccato keyboard strokes can be remarkably distracting. Go with the tried-and-true paper-and-pen method.

Finally, treat the aftermath of a Zoom interview just like an in-person interview. Thank those who took the time out of their schedule to meet with you, even if they did not speak during the video conference.

Look, I get it. Things are pretty bleak right now. Everybody Hurts.  Conforming oneself to Zoom interview etiquette can seem to be, literally, the least important thing in the world right now. But since the official American policy on COVID-19 is seemingly to just give up doing anything about it, Zoom is going to play a massive role in the employment prospects for the law school classes of 2021, 2022, and perhaps even 2023. So unless you have some musical talent and can find a college alt-rock band to join right before they become meteoric rock stars, it is probably worth perfecting you video interview technique.

---

Nicholas Alexiou is the Director of LL.M. and Alumni Advising as well as the Associate Director of Career Services at Vanderbilt University Law School. He will, hopefully, respond to your emails at abovethelawcso@gmail.com.

Many companies are changing or removing their brand names and logos in an effort to distance themselves from racial stereotypes. These long overdue actions are propelled by the Black Lives Matter movement, which over the past several months has awoken governments, individuals, and corporations to do more in the fight for racial equality.

Among the brands making a change from stereotypical and racist depictions of black servitude are Uncle Ben’s Rice, Mrs. Butterworth, and the famous, Aunt Jemima line of pancake and syrup products, the latter of which is no stranger to either the breakfast table or the news. For years, Quaker Oats, the company that owns the brand, has fielded complaints about the image portrayed by its breakfast brand. Aunt Jemima, who was once even pictured in a bandana and apron, harkened to a time of slavery and plantations. The company has just announced that it will donate at least $5 million over the next five years to support and engage in the black community in addition to changing the name of the Aunt Jemima brand.

The character of Aunt Jemima was inspired by a character from the song “Old Aunt Jemima.” Nancy Green, a former slave, is thought to be the first woman to travel the country portraying Aunt Jemima, as part of the 1893 World’s Fair in Chicago. Lillian Richards of Hawkins, Texas, was  an employee of Quaker Oats, and she portrayed Aunt Jemima beginning in Dallas in 1925. In 1926, Quaker Oats purchased the Aunt Jemima Mills Company. Richards became synonymous with the Quaker Oats brand and traveled the country doing demonstrations and making appearances. Her family was reportedly not consulted prior to the brand change announcement.

Aunt Jemima was portrayed by several brand ambassadors through the years, as the brand developed and it officially trademarked the name “Aunt Jemima” in 1937. It opened  a restaurant in Disneyland and developed a frozen food line. In 1989, Aunt Jemima’s appearance changed and she sported pearl earrings and a lace collar, as opposed to the bandana and apron of years passed. In 2001, PepsiCo purchased the brand.

This is not the first time that the Aunt Jemima brand has made news. In 2015, the alleged great-grandsons — Dannez W. Hunter and Larnell Evans, Jr. — of deceased brand ambassador, Anna Short Harrington, who played Aunt Jemima in the 1930s, sued PepsiCo and Quaker Oats, for royalties, with damages estimated at $3 billion. They lost the case as they could not provide any evidence that they represented the estate of Harrington in any capacity. They attempted to prove a connection via a photograph. Many did not fault the would-be heirs, who encountered much difficulty in tracing their genealogy. It can be arduous for relatives to prove relationships, especially at the instant time, when home births were common, birth certificates not written, and family records unpreserved.

The claimants argued that the Aunt Jemima image was based off of their relative’s face. Quaker Oats, argued that she is based on a  fictional character. U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang in dismissing the claim, due to their lack of standing, did not focus on otherwise sticky issues such as the origins of the pancake recipe or whether Harrington had a contract with the company.

That lawsuit provides several important lessons with regard to estates. In order to sue on behalf of an estate one needs standing. In order to achieve standing as a personal representative, executor, or administrator of an estate, one needs to demonstrate to the probate court that they are either nominated under a valid agreement or next of kin. At that juncture the court will issue Letters Testamentary or Letters of Administration which will allow one to file a lawsuit on behalf of an estate.

Legal standing aside, Harrington’s great-grandchildren have again made the news, expressing disappointment as to Quaker Oats’ recent announcements. They have argued that the removal of the image represents an erasure of their great-grandmother’s black history and that the company has profited for decades off of images of slavery, calling the matter an injustice. Surely the name and branding changes will spark legal issues headlines to accompany our morning breakfast pancakes and syrup.

---

Cori A. Robinson is a solo practitioner having founded Cori A. Robinson PLLC, a New York and New Jersey law firm, in 2017. For more than a decade Cori has focused her law practice on trusts and estates and elder law including estate and Medicaid planning, probate and administration, estate litigation, and guardianships. She can be reached at cori@robinsonestatelaw.com.

When we last checked in on furloughed (and later suspended) Biglaw associate Colinford Mattis and housing attorney Urooj Rahman, both charged for their involvement with a Molotov cocktail attack on a police vehicle in Brooklyn, New York, they’d been sent back to jail after originally being released to home confinement on $250,000 bond. The pair were indicted on charges of arson and use of explosives, and each pleaded not guilty. Earlier this week, their fortunes changed once again thanks to a decision made by the Second Circuit.

With support from former federal prosecutors, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and more than 850 people currently or formerly affiliated with New York University School of Law, Mattis and Rahman eagerly awaited news from the appellate court. The New York Law Journal has the details on what happened:

Judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Tuesday affirmed the ruling of a district court judge who found that the attorneys accused of firebombing an empty New York City Police Department vehicle can be released to home confinement, vacating an earlier stay that sent the lawyers to Brooklyn’s Metropolitan Detention Center.

Judges Peter Hall and Gerard Lynch wrote that they “would not have necessarily reached the same conclusion” as U.S. District Judge Margo Brodie of the Eastern District of New York, who released Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman to home confinement on a $250,000 bond, but they were left without a firm conviction that Brodie committed clear error.

Judge Jon Newman dissented, writing that even if the court did not reverse based on clear error, it should remand so that the district court could make “some explicit indication” as to whether the presumption of detention had been rebutted.

Mattis’s and Rahman’s families were thrilled to learn that the lawyers would be returning home from jail. We’ll continue to follow this interesting case as it progresses through the courts and provide updates when available.

Lawyers Accused of Molotov Cocktail Bombing Can Return Home, 2nd Circuit Rules [New York Law Journal]

Earlier: Lawyer Charged In Alleged Molotov Cocktail Firebombing Caught On Camera In Controversial Interview
Suspended Biglaw Associate Accused In Molotov Cocktail Attack Sent Back To Jail
Furloughed Biglaw Associate Charged In Molotov Cocktail Attack Released On $250K Bond
Furloughed Biglaw Associate Charged In New York Molotov Cocktail Attack

---

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.

Students across the country are petitioning for diploma privilege to become lawyers due to the pandemic, but if your state is unwilling to oblige and do away with the bar exam this summer or fall, then completing a preparation course sometime soon will be an important rite of passage for you, one which often involves hours upon hours of lectures over the course of several months paired with intense study from voluminous outlines. It’s exactly as boring as it sounds. What if there were a new way to study for the bar exam that added an element of — dare we say — fun?

I had the pleasure of speaking to Adam Balinski, the founder of Crushendo, a bar exam prep company that’s making a big splash in the industry. Here is a (lightly edited and condensed) write-up of our lively conversation about bar review and how he started and built a successful company from the ground up just a few years after graduating from law school in 2016.

Staci Zaretsky (SZ): Describe your journey. What made you decide to start this company?

Adam Balinski (AB): The genesis story for Crushendo is pretty huge. One way you can look at it is that it started more than 10 years ago when I was doing my undergrad work at BYU. Even then, I would record my notes or my outlines. I was listening to them in between classes as I was getting ready for finals, and I found it very useful.

It helped me graduate at the top of my class, so there was no way I wasn’t going to use the same strategy during law school. As it turns out, I very quickly found that I could not do law school the conventional way and be happy with myself. I found I could not have been sitting there all day, every day, with my head in my books or down on the computer — that it just was kind of a shriveling type of experience for me and my personality.

I thoroughly enjoyed classrooms and fun with my classmates, but then came the preparation time — which is the bulk of law school, as you know — and I wasn’t really into the outlining process.

I always wanted to use my time as wisely as possible and work smarter, not necessarily longer. I felt like a lot of outlines were far too long and didn’t lend themselves well to memorization. So I would really condense it down and try to trim away all the fat I possibly could, so I could just have this nice, distilled, hour-long audio outline.

I’ve always been obsessed with efficiency and creating new processes for addressing old problems.

Three years later, the commercialization of Crushendo came about was when I was studying for the bar exam. I had a buddy come up to me and he said, “Hey, I heard you made your own audio outlines for bar prep. Could I buy those from you?” And that’s when this bar preparation startup really started.

SZ: What do you think differentiates Crushendo from the rest of the competition?

AB: It’s our audio outlines that make the differece here. There are so many more things you can do with audio learning instead of constantly having your nose in a book. You can have fun and learn everything you need to know, all at the same time. You can play basketball, you can go for a run, you can go for a hike, you can go to the beach — and you can prep for the bar exam at the same time.

I wanted to create a commercial product that is so memorable and so engaging and so efficient that it’s better memorization wise than just then taking the time to create your own outline. I want Crushendo to be the very best it can be. My goal is to have this be the very best bar prep product, period, no questions asked, and the most affordable, which is a crazy goal.

Sometimes people ask and they’re concerned about the cost of Crushendo. They want to know, why is it so cheap? If it’s so affordable, it can’t be that good, right? They think to themselves, “I want to get the best for myself, so I’ll drop $3,000 because I don’t want to roll the dice on this this big exam.” But like I said, I’m obssessed with efficiency, so if there’s a cheaper or more affordable way for us to do something as a company, we’re going do it — and then we’re going to pass our savings on to our users.

SZ: Why do you think people will benefit from doing bar prep in this way if they’re not used to learning in this way? For example, say someone is a very visual learner. What would they gain from listening to audio lectures?

AB: Everything that we have in audio form, we have in written form as well, with cool illustrations. So, regardless of whether or not you’re into the audio approach, we have something for you. We feel like it’s very engaging as a form of learning. I do think that people who haven’t traditionally used audio should at least give it a try because the payoff is so great.

It’s a lot more efficient and a lot more memorable if you can take the leap of faith and can train your brain to engage with audio.

There are people that are going to be a lot more excited about our product than some other people. For example, the podcast listeners are going to be a lot more excited about this and it’s going to not be nearly the same size of a learning curve for them. We recognize we’re asking people to do something way differently than perhaps it’s been done in the past — and to do it at the very finish line can be intimidating, terrifying, and maybe even paralyzing — but it’s worth it. We also have a 30-day, no-questions-asked, money-back trial period for you to test it out (though if you’re like 98 percent of our users, you won’t change your mind).

If you don’t believe me, reach out to Crushendo and we’ll give you access to one of our subject outlines for free.

SZ: How far off do you think Crushendo is from being the very best bar prep company?

AB: I believe that we are already there, but we certainly haven’t convinced the world yet, and most of the world hasn’t even heard of Crescendo yet. So we still have plenty of work to do. And even if we think our stuff is already the best, we want to make it even better; we have ideas for how to improve it. We are continuously improving our product and trying to make it even more efficient and more memorable.

Crushendo is a living, breathing thing, and it’s growing we’re always evolving. The Crushendo that people are experiencing this year won’t necessarily be how it is a year from now, and we’re constantly striving to outperform ourselves in how efficient the process is. That’s my vision, my passion.

***

On behalf of everyone here at Above the Law, we’d like to congratulate Adam Balinski on creating the innovative bar review program that is Crushendo. If your goal is crushing the bar exam, then this may be the bar prep program for you.

(Disclosure: Crushendo is an Above the Law advertiser.)

---

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.

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 Rachel Dane to our pages.

When I was applying to law school, my boss at the time told me to “not bother with law school” because I was just going to “work my way up to motherhood.” While it is not always this explicit, women often get the message that they can be mommies or lawyers — not both.

This message is continually reinforced by many factors, including unequal distribution of the household workload between men and women, beliefs around traditional gender roles, and law firm culture. The purpose of this article is to discuss straightforward ways that law firm culture can better support mother attorneys.

Mothers bring valuable intellectual capital to the firms that employ them. Not necessarily because motherhood makes us better at multitasking (it does) or creative problem solving (it does that, too) but because we are intelligent human beings in our own right. Our ability to contribute intellectually does not disappear when we have children. We continue to be good attorneys that happen to have legitimate and important demands on our time. Further, most law firms have clients who are parents or who deal with subject matter that will involve parenting (however tangentially). Our inside knowledge of parenting can help with client relations and sometimes even the legal subject matter of our cases. (Pro tip: if you want to get clients — or any parents for that matter — to like you, ask them about their children and gush over pictures of them.)

Start With Understanding. Moms have a lot on their plates. My husband and I recently quantified the amount of work required to raise our daughter during the week. My toddler requires 7.5 hours of work per day. This does not include play time, snuggle time, time spent watching TV, or her time spent in daycare. This is one relatively low-maintenance child. I am the exception to the rule, in that my husband and I split this labor evenly, which makes a huge difference in my ability to thrive as an attorney. When you work with a mother, especially a single mother or a mother of a special-needs child, that woman is working the equivalent of two full-time jobs. Her mommy job requires her to be on the clock 24 hours a day and is full of emotional heartache and joy. Switching between the challenging subject matter of motherhood and law requires a high degree of emotional and intellectual intelligence. Other people may be able to disconnect and have downtime when they leave their practice, but that is not really feasible for many parents.

Lead By Example. All the supportive HR policies in the world mean very little if the culture does not support what is important to an employee. We are social beings who are acutely attuned to the customs of our workplaces. This is why, when I speak with a new hire at my firm, I make it a priority to say things like, “I am not available from X time to X time every day because I have to pick my daughter up from school. You can leave me a message if you need to, but I will not return your call until after she is asleep.” If I have a parent-teacher conference, I put it on my shared calendar as such. This way, my employees can see with their own eyes that this is acceptable behavior in my firm.

Be Flexible. Building flexibility into your office culture can help support mothers. While I would argue these procedures are good for all lawyers, they are especially beneficial to mothers. Allowing attorneys to work from home (even just a few days a week) lets them shift some of the mental load that goes into preparing for the office to focusing on their work or self-care. This also facilitates reasonable breaks better and allows attorneys to return to their work more refreshed. If you are able to, allowing mothers to work nontraditional hours is another great way to support them. Some of the best work my attorneys do takes place after their children have gone to bed. Lastly, consider part-time or contract work for mothers. That way, your firm can save resources while still retaining the intellectual capital mothers bring.

While the pros and cons of the above recommendations will vary depending on the lawyer and firm in question, it is worth at least considering paradigm shifts to support working mothers. Personally, some of the best lawyers I work with are properly supported mothers.

---

Rachel Dane is the founder and managing partner for The Survivors’ Legal Institute in Longmont, Colorado. Rachel and her firm represent survivors of domestic and sexual violence in family law cases. She is a mother of a beautiful toddler and passionate about feminist lawyering. You can email her at Rachel@SurvivorsLegalInstitute.com, or connect with her on LinkedIn. 

As I am sure you are aware, the trajectory of the pandemic is of increasing concern, statewide and nationally. And I know that you, like many across the globe, are feeling the impacts in your personal and professional lives. In light of this, I write to share important news about the coming fall semester.

In order to protect the health and safety of all community members and to allow students, staff, and faculty to plan in the face of uncertainty, I have made two decisions:

1. We will move all classes online in the fall 2020 (“F20”) term; and
2. We will have an on-campus presence this fall, with socially-distanced in-person engagements including community events, social activities, faculty office hours, and study opportunities, as soon as San Francisco Department of Public Health (“Public Health”) guidelines permit.

— Chancellor and Dean David L. Faigman of UC Hastings College of the Law, in an email to the law school community concerning his decision to move all Fall 2020 classes to an online learning environment. Faigman notes in his message that this decision is “final,” and that despite the switch to remote classes, tuition will not be reduced as “[t]he cost of providing an outstanding legal education for our students is essentially the same, whether it is delivered in person or online.” The school joins Harvard Law, Berkeley Law, Vermont Law, UConn Law, and Cooley Law in the decision to hold all classes online this coming fall. Harvard is being sued over its “outrageous tuition” for remote classes.

(Flip to the next page to read Faigman’s email in full.)

---

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.

How are law firms and their leaders navigating the COVID-19 crisis?

Last week, in a webinar for the New York State Bar Association moderated by my colleague Craig Brown, Managing Principal of Bridgeline Solutions (Lateral Link’s temporary staffing arm), these six managing partners offered excellent insights and advice:

• Adam T. Klein, Esq. – Outten & Golden LLP
• Wayne N. Outten, Esq. – Outten & Golden LLP
• Gregory S. Katz, Esq. – Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
• Lawrence T. Gresser, Esq. – Cohen & Gresser LLP
• Alan Hoffman, Esq. – Blank Rome LLP
• Dauna Williams, Esq. – The Williams Group

1. Protect your people.

A law firm’s most valuable assets are its people. The panelists repeatedly emphasized how they put the health and well-being of their own lawyers and staff first.

Doing everything possible to make sure employees don’t contract the coronavirus is just the first and most obvious goal. The social isolation created by remote working can give rise to loneliness, depression, and anxiety. The managing partners talked about measures they took to make sure that their lawyers are staff remained healthy in the most holistic sense, including hosting virtual events like town halls and happy hours to promote community and connectedness.

Many lawyers found themselves taking on additional responsibilities during the pandemic, such as child care, elder care, or care for sick family members. Adam Klein said that at Outten & Golden, he and his partners told their associates and staff to put those priorities first.

2. Connect with your clients.

During times of crisis, lawyers need to let their clients know that they’re there for them. The panelists talked about the myriad ways they tried to remain connected to their clients, including email updates, check-in calls from practice group leaders, and even virtual wine tastings.

At Blank Rome, clients signed up for email updates that would inform them about important developments related to the coronavirus crisis, such as changes to government programs. These updates helped clients navigate the tumultuous times while also keeping Blank Rome top of mind, explained Alan Hoffman.

The wine tastings hosted by Cohen & Gresser have been a huge hit with clients, according to Lawrence Gresser. The firm would have wine shipped to clients ahead of time, followed by online tastings led by professional sommeliers — who in normal times would be very difficult to book, but who are more readily accessible during the current crisis.

3. Leverage technology — thoughtfully and carefully.

Law firms moved online so smoothly and successfully thanks to an array of sophisticated systems and advanced technological tools, such as VPN, Citrix, and Zoom. Lawyers learned how to use numerous new technologies, whether they wanted to or not — and this knowledge will stay with them even after the pandemic is over.

The increased use of videoconferencing has been a highlight, as Wayne Outten of Outten & Golden noted. Depositions, hearings, and arbitrations are all being done remotely during the pandemic — and even after the current crisis is over, expect videoconferencing to be used more often than it was pre-COVID-19, now that lawyers (and clients) have seen the money and time that can be saved.

But technology needs to be implemented with thought and care. For example, as Dauna Williams pointed out, you need to make sure that your tools all play well with each other. Certain applications or platforms don’t interact well with one another — and can even compromise each other’s security. Law firms should work with experienced technologists to make sure they avoid such pitfalls.

4. Have a standard reopening procedure.

Moving to remote operations was no small feat for law firms, and reopening offices will also pose a challenge. This is especially true for large law firms with dozens of offices and hundreds, if not thousands, of employees.

The key to successful reopening — according to Gregory Katz of Lewis Brisbois, which has some 3,000 employees working in 52 offices across 22 states — is to have a standard reopening procedure. Each office will reopen at a different pace, reflecting conditions on the ground, but all offices will pass through the same stages of the same process. That process must be carefully designed to consider such factors as who can return and when, where workers can sit in the reopened offices, when visitors can be allowed, and what signage should be erected.

Law firms closed down and moved online with surprising success, and law firms can and will reopen successfully as well. But reopening can’t be taken for granted or handled haphazardly. Instead, firms much approach reopening with all the intelligence, ingenuity, and innovation that they apply to solve the problems of their clients. If lawyers take reopening seriously, they will reap substantial rewards.

Managing Partner Response To COVID-19 [New York State Bar Association]

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.

Prior to joining Lateral Link, David founded and served as managing editor of Above the Law. Prior to launching Above the Law, he worked as a federal prosecutor, a litigation associate at Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz in New York, and a law clerk to Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. David is a graduate of Harvard College and Yale Law School. You can connect with David on Twitter (@DavidLat), LinkedIn, and Facebook, and you can reach him by email at dlat@laterallink.com.

---

Lateral Link is 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.