Morning Docket: 10.21.20

* The Department of Justice has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google. Don’t get it, people still use Ask Jeeves, AOL Keywords, and Prodigy, right…? (I’m really dating myself here!) [Wall Street Journal]

* Lawyers at Jones Day have purportedly donated far more money to Joe Biden than President Trump, even though the firm is working on President Trump’s re-election campaign. [Reuters]

* The Los Angeles District Attorney and her husband are being sued over an incident earlier this year in which the husband of LA’s district attorney allegedly pointed a gun at protesters. [Fox News]

* President Trump has requested that Attorney General Barr investigate Hunter Biden for alleged improprieties. [Bloomberg Law]

* New Hampshire is suing Massachusetts in the Supreme Court of the United States for taxing New Hampshire residents even though they are working remotely. This is going to be a “wicked” interesting case. [Fox News]


Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.

DOJ Files Motion Arguing President Trump Is Full Of Sh*t

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

This morning White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows filed a declaration federal court attesting that his boss, President Trump, is a lying liar who should never be trusted. Sure he’s like “the leader of the free world” or whatever, but the court should definitely ignore everything that comes out of that guy’s mouth. And when it comes to Twitter … PFFFFFT.

Oh, 2020.

Last year, CNN and BuzzFeed, along with reporter Jason Leopold, filed a FOIA suit seeking access to underlying documents and redacted information from the Mueller investigation. The Justice Department has steadfastly argued the necessity of withholding those documents and protecting the redactions under a variety of FOIA exemptions, including national security, individual privacy interests, and grand jury secrecy.

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton has mainly agreed with the government’s position. But the DOJ hit a snag last week when the president included these two tweets during a raging bender (perhaps fueled by the steroids pumped into him to treat the covid infection) after getting out of the hospital.

At first glance, these statements might appear to be contradictory — how can the president authorize his minions to do something that happened long ago? But four years into this nightmare, logical inconsistencies hardly bear pointing out.

At any rate, the plaintiffs immediately filed an emergency motion for COUGH IT UP, arguing that the president had just declassified the whole lot. To which the government responded that “[t]he President’s recent statements on Twitter referencing the ‘declassification’ of information were not an order to the Department of Justice,” and that nonsense words spewed by the president on Twitter “do not constitute a self-executing declassification order.”

In the DOJ’s telling, what the president meant to say was that he reaffirmed an earlier order giving Bill Barr the right to publicize any Mueller docs, a right the Attorney General has not exercised in this case.

This argument, that the president is just BS-ing and no one should take his Twitter feed seriously, has been largely effective before. But last Friday, Judge Walton seemed highly skeptical.

“How do I know that the statements made by the White House counsel are in fact the position of the president?” he demanded of DOJ lawyer Courtney Enlow, adding later, “When a president makes a direct statement saying he’s taking certain actions. I don’t think White House counsel can undercut that by taking a different position unless it’s the president himself who said, ‘I don’t mean what I said.’”

Which is how we wound up with Mark Meadows pinky swearing that he managed to tear Trump away from his milkshake and “conferred with the president concerning his intentions with respect to two statements he made on Twitter on October 6, 2020 relating to declassification.”

The President indicated to me that his statements on Twitter were not self-executing declassification orders and do not require the classification or release of any particular documents, including the FD-302 reports of witness interviews prepared by the Federal Bureau of investigation in connection with the investigation conducted by special counsel Robert Mueller III. Instead the President’s statements related to the authorization he had provided to the Attorney General to declassify documents as part of his ongoing review of intelligence activities related to the 2016 Presidential election and certain related matters. The President’s statements do not require altering any reductions for any record at issue in this or any other cases including, but not limited to, any redactions taken pursuant any discretionary FOIA exemptions.

Oh, yes, that sounds just like President Trump. He would never weaponize the power of the federal government to interfere in an election.

Well, there was that time two weeks ago when he complained to Rush Limbaugh that it was “a disgrace” that Bill Barr hadn’t forced John Durham to come out with his report on the origins of the Russia investigation before the election. And that other time when he told his therapist Maria Bartiromo that “Bill Barr can go down as the greatest attorney general in the history of our country, or he can go down as an average guy. We’ll see what happens,” in regard to doing LOCK HER UPS to the entire Obama administration for tapping his wires to do RUSSIA HOAXES to him.

“I hope he’s doing a great job, and I hope they’re not going to be politically correct,” Trump whined. “Obama knew everything. Vice President Biden, as dumb as he may be, knew everything, and everybody else knew.”

But anyway, no declassification order, presumption of regularity, Trump definitely knows an FD-302 from a magical, invisible airplane. You bet!

Judge Orders That Trump Be Asked About Declassification Tweets in Mueller Info Fight [Law.com]


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

Did You Cheat On The Bar Exam? Tell The State Bar For A Chance To Win A $50 Gift Card

We are seeking to improve the online exam administration process, and gathering feedback from examinees is the best source for that. [The bar] hopes to receive valid responses about cheating. Survey data will be treated confidentially; we never claimed that it was anonymous. We plan to analyze and use the data in aggregate form; never reporting back in a manner that would identify a specific individual.

— Teresa Ruano, spokeswoman for the California State Bar, commenting on a survey that was sent to those who took the online administration of the bar exam two weeks ago. The survey asks applicants about their “remote bar exam experience” from software difficulties to the availability of tech support. The survey also asks them if they cheated on the test or know of anyone who said they did. Respondents can select “yes,” “no” or “prefer not to answer.” A message from bar interim director Donna Hershkowitz accompanies the survey, and she notes, “Your responses will be kept in the strictest confidence. Comments you make may be included in summaries about this examination administration, but we will not attribute your comments to you, and individually identifiable survey responses will not be shared with state bar examiners.” Those who took the bar exam after offered the chance to win $50 gift cards if they send in their responses.


Staci ZaretskyStaci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

The Upswing In Biglaw Partner Departures

There’s lots of upheaval in the legal industry in 2020. Well, to be fair, there’s lots of upheaval in the world in 2020, so this is just par for the course. But even as we get information that, as an industry, Biglaw seems to be weathering the troubled times just fine, some firms are seeing lateral partners leave at an abnormal rate.

As reported by Patrick Smith at Law.com, legal consulting firm Decipher did an analysis of lateral partner defection from January 1 to August 31 of this year. Included in the data are partner exits at Am Law 200 firms and some midsize firms; they only counted partner-to-partner laterals, and if they moved from government or in-house roles into partnership positions, they were excluded. With those technicalities out of the way, let’s see which firms had the most departures.

The top three in partner defection are Kirkland & Ellis (54), Boies Schiller (50), and Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith (31).

K&E usually has a high turnover rate — with over 1,000 partners, that’s bound to happen. But their net loss is higher than expected, as they only took on 18 new lateral partners after losing 54.

“I was surprised to see Kirkland had lost that number of people,” Sabina Lippman of legal recruiting firm Lippman Jungers Bala said. “But they can afford to do that. They can go after people more aggressively than anyone else. They have a lot to play with, and they can take risks that many others can’t.”

Boies, well, if you’ve been paying attention to legal news over the past year, it’s no surprise to see them on the list. Overall headcount has been declining at the firm, as the firm charts a new course, one that includes adding new bankruptcy partners.

Other firms that get mentioned as having notable departure numbers are Greenberg Traurig, Winston & Strawn, Holland & Knight, Akerman, and Polsinelli. While most of the firms didn’t comment on the Law.com story, Holland & Knight was open about how the pandemic is impacting their partnership:

“The pandemic has caused a number of partners to alter their career plans,” Holland & Knight managing partner Steven Sonberg said in a statement.

“These involve various circumstances including the opening of boutique practices or moving to in-house legal positions or nonprofits. We have also had partners retire, relocate to cities where the firm does not maintain offices, and move to other law firms,” he said. “The firm continues to perform well, and we are poised to have another successful year. As a result, we expect a significant number of lateral partners will join the firm over the next several months.”

And Polsinelli also looks to the pandemic as the explanation for their headcount dip:

“We were slow from a hiring perspective, intentionally, during the pandemic, for a lot of reasons,” Chase Simmons, CEO and chairman of Polsinelli, said in an interview. “Clients were not as interested in meeting new attorneys, it was hard to move around and meet people and we were more focused on transitioning our existing attorneys. [The departure count] doesn’t shock me, as we are not managing to a number, but rather to what the client needs.”

Which makes sense, not every firm can actively try to expand during the COVID-19 turbulence. Of course it remains to be seen if these lateral trends will continue once the threat of COVID-19 has receded.


headshotKathryn 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).

Clio Unveiled A Lot Of New Projects And They Boil Down To ‘The Client’ And ‘The Cloud’

“The Client and The Cloud” sounds like a great title for a spy thriller or something.

Alas, anyone who participated in last week’s Clio Cloud Conference, will understand those terms as the twin pillars underpinning Clio’s latest round of new announcements. Clio CEO and co-founder Jack Newton sees the future of successful law firms built around being client-centered and in the Cloud and everything the company outlined last week helps Clio give firms the tools to push the envelope on both.

In a sense they’re both connected. Or maybe it’s not so much a connection as the former is a necessary but insufficient goal for a lawyer without the latter. How does an attorney provide service to the client without the Cloud at this point? The client also lives on the internet. The client schedules there, works there, pays bills there, frets about security there… how can lawyers do their job if they don’t meet clients where they are?

I got a chance to talk to Newton last week for the Thinking Like A Lawyer podcast. You can check that out below. But outside the show we talked about Clio’s latest announcements and where the profession is going to be headed.

The biggest ticket announcement of the week was Clio’s new partnership with Google. Google My Business operates from a simple premise: people find businesses through Google searches so Google should help businesses put the right foot forward. One of the statistics from the Legal Trends Report this year is that 57 percent of clients start the search for a lawyer on their own and most of that is through Google. As Newton says, “Despite all the great efforts at building lawyer marketplaces online over the years, the starting point is still Google — it’s where the customer intent is landing and starting.”

With My Business, Google is trying to replace the role of a firm website — at least as a first impression. It gives everyone all the tools to research a business, review ratings, and schedule appointments without ever leaving Google. A standardized format with everything the prospective client actually wants to know. “The longterm trend important for lawyers to recognize is it’s important to stand out and the way to standout is with Google,” Newton explained.

Google approached Clio to help build out My Business in the legal space. By integrating with the Clio platform, firms can populate the My Business profile by seamlessly passing along the information that can make it sing, provide integrated scheduling tools, and, on the back end, Clio tracks the entire client journey, allowing the system to reach out to clients at the end to get them to provide a review that can flesh out the My Business profile. Frankly, this partnership is a no-brainer. Working with Google is also bound to give Clio opportunities to increase the capabilities of ClioGrow in capturing leads and driving demands too.

Clio has also brought all the “virtual collaboration all-stars” into the Clio platform: Dialpad, Zoom, Microsoft Teams — it’s all about interaction. “It’s the beginning of what will become one of our most important products: Clio for Clients. How do you interact with your clients on an ongoing basis? It needs to be simple and secure… it takes away a ton of confusion for everyone 10 different communications channels and allows the exchange of documents and integrated e-signing experience,” Newton said. This becomes the app the client talks to you through, edits drafts through, sends documents securely through, signs documents through — and then everything gets seamlessly catalogued in the platform. It becomes the one-stop shop: this is where my lawyer lives on my device.

The Client and The Cloud. That’s where you’re going to want to be.

Here’s the podcast… which also includes musings on Seyfarth’s ransomware debacle and ACB’s confirmation notepad.

The Glass Ceiling Report: Law Firms ‘Fundamentally Struggle’ To Support Women

No news is good news, right? Not when it comes to women’s progress in the legal profession — not at all.

Despite the fact that women lawyers across the country have led movements for gender equality and equal pay, gender parity within the law is still a “distant goal.” Women continue to be underrepresented in private practice, especially when it comes to attaining leadership roles. In fact, in the last year at the average law firm, from associate to equity partner, women’s representation has increased by no more than a percentage point, a statistic that’s been depressingly static for years.

There are now more women in law school than ever before, but men still lead the pack when it comes to private practice, making up about two-thirds of attorneys in this sector of the legal profession with gender-discrimination suits still being continuously filed by women. What’s more (but more accurately, much less) is that within those private practice firms, only 22.2 percent of equity partners are women.

This was all before the pandemic, when law firms were “fundamentally struggl[ing] to support the rise of women in their workforce, at all levels.” We shudder to think what this data will look like next year.

How can progress for women in the law be made when the odds seem to be stacked against them? Some law firms are leading the way, and thanks to Law360’s annual Glass Ceiling Report, we now know which ones are the best for women.

Law360 surveyed more than 300 U.S. firms, or vereins with a U.S. component, about the demographics of their lawyer workforce as of December 31, 2019. Firms were then grouped into tiers based on U.S. attorney headcount, and ranked by the percentage of female attorneys and female equity partners at the firm.

In the biggest of Biglaw category, those with 601+ attorneys, the top 5 firms are:

1. Littler
1. Jackson Lewis
3. Ropes & Gray
4. Cooley
5. Ogletree

For Biglaw firms with slightly smaller headcount, 251-600 attorneys, the top 5 are:

1. Fragomen
2. Davis Wright Tremaine
3. Fredrikson & Byron
4. Shook Hardy
5. Debevoise

You can check out Law360 (sub. req.) for rankings of smaller law firms.

There may yet be good news ahead for women in the law, because at several firms, the future is female (at least when it comes to who’s in charge):

There have been some recent bright spots in the past year, however. The legal industry kicked off 2020 with a series of announcements that women had been appointed to lead U.S. and global law firms.

In the first few months of 2020, at least seven law firms announced that women had become their top leaders.

Women also made up 40% of attorneys promoted to partner, equity or nonequity, in 2019 according to survey data collected by Law360. This suggests firms will have increasing opportunities to shift the gender balance in leadership roles in future years, as long as they can retain that talent in the partnership ranks.

Congratulations to all of the women who were promoted to partner this year, and especially to the women who were chosen to lead some of the largest law firms in the world. Kudos to all Biglaw firms that do more than just pay lip service to gender parity and actually follow through to make these important and necessary changes.

Glass Ceiling Report: How Does Your Firm Measure Up? [Law360 (sub. req.)]
Law360’s Glass Ceiling Report: What You Need To Know [Law360 (sub. req.)]


Staci ZaretskyStaci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

The Idea That ‘The Supreme Court Won’t Reverse Roe’ Is Everything Wrong With Lawyers

(Photo by ANNA GASSOT/AFP/Getty Images)

With Jeffrey Toobin taking a little break these days, it’s going to have to fall upon the rest of us to explain the wacky world of law to the masses out there. So of course he gets yanked from the airwaves in the middle of one of the most consequential Supreme Court nomination fights in history. Or yanked himself off the airwaves, as the case may be.

And someone needs to be out there explaining this process. It may seem hard for lawyers to believe, but most people aren’t political junkies and don’t really care about any of this. They have lives that they go out and live while you’re reading Politico. Throw in the fact that law is — by design — more complex than even mundane politics, and you get commentary that oscillates between superficial and the sort of semantic law school hypo that’s impenetrable to the public.

In Mark Herrmann’s recent article, They’ll Neither Reverse Roe Nor Pack The Court, he offers the latter. Because if it walks like overturning Roe and quacks like overturning Roe, it’s overturning Roe.

Herrmann is writing for Above the Law so he expects to deliver to an audience of lawyers, and for us, this basic premise is dead-on. The Supreme Court is not going to “overrule” Roe because unlike straightforward politics, the law is a lot more slimy. It’s a perfectly possible outcome in the topsy-turvy world of law to say “of course women have a constitutionally protected right to get an abortion in the first trimester without unreasonable restrictions” and “we’ve decided limiting that right to ‘on the first Monday following the third Tuesday of the month’ is a reasonable restriction.”

And that’s why Herrmann’s title unintentionally sums up everything wrong with lawyers and how we interface with the world at this crucial juncture. Professionally, we all get what he’s saying, but when this story is picked up by mainstream outlets — it landed on Google News — the headline adds fuel to the disingenuous narrative that Republicans are trying to spin the fact that Amy Coney Barrett won’t “overrule” Roe to imply that her decisions would maintain the relatively popular opinion as opposed to irredeemably undermine it. Lawyers have an obligation to be cautious with our “inside baseball” language because there are a lot of non-lawyers out there grasping for some insight on this nomination and we can’t be putting stuff out there that they could misinterpret.

That said, Herrmann’s inside baseball solution is also flawed.

So why pack the Court and unnecessarily create an uproar? Instead, pass a law that requires seven justices to vote in favor to grant certiorari.

This ignores how abortion cases will get to the Supreme Court in the first place. It’s not going to start as “plaintiff wants you to overrule Roe” it’s going to be “Louisiana banned abortions under state law and the 5th Circuit said they’re cool with that.” Preventing the Supreme Court from hearing that case is just as corrosive to the precedent as either the looming “death of a thousand cuts” or the unlikely explicit overruling. It would codify that “abortion is illegal in Louisiana” because there won’t be enough justices willing to unsettle the opinion. This creates a patchwork of opinions where conservative state governments, assuming they have like-minded federal appellate benches, can obviate the Constitution on a whim.

And that result actually is overruling Roe for the non-junkies out there because it returns the country to the exact point it was when the Court handed down Roe — abortion is legal in states like New York, it’s illegal in states like Louisiana. It may not meet the technical definition of “overruling” that law school pounds into us, but if renders the on the ground result no different than if it was never decided, that’s what normal folks would consider overruling.

Earlier: They’ll Neither Reverse Roe Nor Pack The Court
Jeffrey Toobin Makes A Great Poi–OH MY GOD, HIS DICK’S OUT!!!


HeadshotJoe 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.

Allscripts gets into trademark tussle during sale of CarePort – MedCity News

As it prepares to sell subsidiary CarePort Health for $1.35 billion, Allscripts has gotten into a legal scuffle with a similarly named startup. On Thursday, the company filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against CarePortMD, a Delaware-based telemedicine and urgent care startup.

The feud dates back to 2019, when Allscripts sent a cease and desist letter to CarePortMD, according to a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. But after months of back-and-forth negotiating, the two companies still couldn’t reach an agreement.

According to the lawsuit, CarePortMD started using the name in 2018. It offers telemedicine services, and operates a chain of urgent care locations in Delaware and Pennsylvania. It also offers diabetes screening and supplies in grocery stores across Delaware, such as Safeway.

Allscripts’ subsidiary, CarePort Health, helps connect hospitals and post-acute providers. For example, it helps manage the transfer of patients to nursing homes and other post-acute services. Allscripts acquired the company in 2016.

In the lawsuit, Allscripts claims that CarePortMD’s name is “highly likely” to cause confusion with CarePort Health, “because CarePortMD’s services are directed to healthcare services, including without limitation telemedicine services through an online platform, which are similar to or conflict with Allscripts’ healthcare software services, also offered via an online platform.”

In addition to having CarePortMD stop using the name, Allscripts is seeking treble damages for trademark infringement.

At the same time, Allscripts has been selling off several of its subsidiaries as the health IT company tries to trim its costs. It recently closed the sale of subsidiary EPSi for $365 million, and plans to sell CarePort Health to Overland Park, Kansas-based health IT company WellSky for $1.35 billion, according to a recent filing.

The businesses should complement each other well, as WellSky specializes in solutions for post-acute care.

“Together with CarePort, WellSky will establish new, meaningful connections between historically disparate settings of care. We have the exciting opportunity to bring care coordination to more providers in service of delivering more informed, personalized care,” WellSky CEO Bill Miller said in a news release. “Through this agreement, we’re ensuring our clients have the intelligent technology they need to do right by their patients, collaborate with payers, and succeed in value-based care models.”

The deal is expected to close before the end of 2020.

Photo credit: zimmytws, Getty Images