Category: News Feeds

Flatten the Research Curve

Flatten the Research Curve

Wolters Kluwer

Today is the anniversary of Loving v. Virginia, and in honor of appreciating the magnitude of that opinion, how many states had anti-miscegenation laws on the books?

Hint: Only 16 states still had active laws when Loving was decided, as some states repealed their laws over the course of the 1950s and early 60s.

See the answer on the next page.

Folks who are on the frontlines of diversity and inclusion issues are doing a lot of work right now. Amid the nationwide racial reckoning going on right now, folks who’ve made a career trying to make our workplaces more diverse are still doing that work and dealing with their own trauma at the same time.

In this episode of the Jabot, I talk with Lia Dorsey, newly elected President of the Association of Law Firm Diversity Professionals and Director of Diversity and Inclusion at Dentons, about Biglaw’s response to the violent deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery and the Black Lives Matter movement.

The Jabot podcast is an offshoot of the Above the Law brand focused on the challenges women, people of color, LGBTQIA, and other diverse populations face in the legal industry. Our name comes from none other than the Notorious Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the jabot (decorative collar) she wears when delivering dissents from the bench. It’s a reminder that even when we aren’t winning, we’re still a powerful force to be reckoned with.

Happy listening!

---

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).

Last summer we explained why it was a clear 1st Amendment and 5th Amendment violation for the White House to remove Playboy reporter Brian Karem’s press pass, with no warning, after he got into a small verbal tiff with former White House employee Seb Gorka. Lots of Trump supporting people, who seem wholly ignorant of how the Constitution actually works, were very mad at us for reporting on that, and insisted that it was somehow obvious that the White House could revoke a press pass like that, even in retaliation for a reporter’s statements. And yet, just as we predicted, the district court quickly ruled that the White House needed to restore Karem’s pass.

Now, nearly a year later, the DC Appeals court has affirmed that decision and made it quite clear that the White House’s removal of Karem’s pass was unconstitutional. The full ruling is worth reading, and, as with the district court, focuses more on the 5th Amendment due process problems, rather than the 1st Amendment retaliation problems. And just to respond to the same comment that came up multiple times in our comments, no, no one is saying that the White House has to automatically let anyone in to press events. Instead, as the court explains, if the White House is opening up an event to the press, it cannot bar people for “arbitrary” reasons (or for any reasons that violate the 1st Amendment, regarding retaliation for speech).

We began by emphasizing that Sherrill’s claim “[wa]s not premised upon the assertion that the White House must open its doors to the press, conduct press conferences, or operate press facilities.” Id. at 129. But given that “the White House has voluntarily decided to establish press facilities for correspondents who need to report therefrom” and given that “[t]hese press facilities are perceived as being open to all bona fide Washington-based journalists,” we held that “the protection afforded newsgathering under the first amendment . . . requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons.” Id. at 129 (internal citations omitted). Moreover, “the interest of a bona fide Washington correspondent in obtaining a White House press pass” is not only “protected by the first amendment” but also “undoubtedly qualifies as [a] liberty [interest] which may not be denied without due process of law under the fifth amendment.”

After reciting the details of the verbal encounter between Karem and Gorka, the court notes delves into the 5th Amendment due process problems with Karem’s suspension:

Applying that test, we think Karem’s due process claim is likely to succeed because, on this record, nothing put him on notice of “the magnitude of the sanction”—a month-long loss of his White House access, an eon in today’s news business—that the White House “might impose” for his purportedly unprofessional conduct at the non-press-conference event. Gore, 517 U.S. at 574. True, the Acosta Letter set forth “rules governing future press conferences,” but in that very same letter, the White House expressly declined to adopt “specific provisions for journalist conduct in the open (non-press room) areas of the White House” “in the hope that professional journalistic norms” would “suffice to regulate conduct in those places.” Acosta Letter 1, J.A. 693 (emphasis added). What’s more, although the White House made clear that “failure to abide by” the newly articulated press-conference rules “may result in suspension or revocation of the journalist’s hard pass,” it declined to adopt analogous sanctions for unprofessional conduct at non-press-conference events. Id. Instead, the White House stated that “[i]f unprofessional behavior occur[red] in those settings,” then it would “reconsider this decision”—that is, the lack of formally articulated standards and sanctions—not that it would suspend journalists’ hard passes.

Even assuming the Acosta Letter provided Karem some notice of behavioral expectations “in the open . . . areas of the White House,” id., it failed to put him on notice of “the magnitude of the sanction that [the White House] might impose” for his purported failure to heed any such expectations, Gore, 517 U.S. at 574. To the extent Karem’s “irreverent, caustic” attempts at humor (to use the district court’s language) crossed some line in the White House’s view, those transgressions were at least arguably similar to previous journalistic misbehavior that elicited no punishment at all, let alone a month’s exile. Karem, 404 F. Supp. 3d at 215. In the context of a White House press corps described as an “unruly mob,” id. at 214 (internal quotation marks omitted), Karem’s behavior was not so outrageous as to bring into fair contemplation the unprecedented sanction visited on him.

The White House’s arguments to the contrary are without merit.

In rejecting each of the White House’s arguments, the appeals court even calls one such argument “absurd.”

Finally, raising the specter of the absurd, the White House argues that it cannot be the case that “the Press Secretary would be powerless to take action even were a reporter to ‘moon’ the President, shout racial epithets at a foreign dignitary, or sexually harass another member of the press corps.” Appellants’ Reply Br. 4. But just as “[a] plaintiff who engages in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others,” Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 495, the White House cannot defend the thirty-day suspension here on the ground that some other, egregious conduct might justify the same sanction. And even if the White House could impose that sanction for such egregious conduct consistent with due process, Karem’s behavior as reflected in the preliminary injunction record fell below that threshold. Notions of professionalism are, after all, context-dependent. Cf. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 693 (1984) (“[A]n act or omission that is unprofessional in one case may be sound or even brilliant in another.”). “[W]ithin the context of such an unruly event” as the Summit, “where jocular insults had been flying from all directions,” Karem, 404 F. Supp. 3d at 215–16, Karem’s statements were not so egregious as to justify suspending his hard pass for thirty days without prior notice.

Of course, the White House was still able to keep Karem suspended for 18 days before the original decision came down, and even this alone might be intimidating to the White House press corps, which was undoubtedly the key reason behind this in the first place.

Appeals Court Again Says That The White House Can’t Just Remove A Press Pass Because It Didn’t Like A Reporter Mocking Seb Gorka

New York Legislators Dump Law That Allowed PDs To Withhold Officers’ Disciplinary Records
The DOJ’s Plan To ‘Fix’ The T-Mobile Merger Is Already A Hot Mess
Another 91 Cases Linked To Lying Houston Cop Involved In A Botched Drug Raid Have Been Dismissed

Do you like money? Of course you do, you’ve got student loans to pay off. Do you like prestige? Obviously, you’re a Type A law student. If you’re like the majority of your colleagues and you’d like to embark upon upon a career path that’ll pad your wallet and get you in on the ground floor at a prestigious firm, then you’ll probably want to compete for a job at a large firm.

Law.com produced several helpful charts based on law school employment data for the class of 2019. Today, we will take a look at one of the more interesting charts, the law schools that sent the highest percentage of their most recent graduating class into large firms with 100 or more lawyers. On this list, you’ll find a dazzling array of law schools from the T14, but we’re not here to tell you what you already know — that graduates of top law schools get top jobs. That being said, we’re going to dive a little deeper into the list and highlight the schools you may not realize are some of the top large-firm contenders. Here they are for your viewing pleasure:

26. Howard: 30.08 percent
37. Pittsburgh: 23.33 percent
40. Brooklyn: 22.63 percent
43. Saint Louis: 21.34 percent
50. Loyola-Chicago: 19.80 percent
53. Chicago-Kent: 18.53 percent
54. Case Western: 18.18 percent
65. Albany: 16.18 percent
67. Wayne State: 15.79 percent
70. Seton Hall: 15.00 percent

Click here to see the rest of the law schools with the highest percentage of graduates employed in Biglaw jobs, plus other informative charts detailing the law schools with the highest percentage of graduates working in government and public interest, federal and state clerkships, as well as the law schools with the most unemployed and underemployed graduates.

Are you a recent law school graduate who landed a job at a large firm? What did your law school do to help you? We’re interested in learning about your experiences — good or bad — and may anonymously feature some of your stories on Above the Law. You can email us, text us at (646) 820-8477, or tweet us @atlblog. Thanks!

Law Grads Hiring Report: Job Stats for the Class of 2019 [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.

True fact: there are (probably) racists at every law school in the country. Racism in this country is insidious and widespread, that’s why it’s been allowed to flourish for as long as it has. But in this national moment of reckoning, institutions find themselves needing to take quick and decisive action when confronted with racism in their backyard.

A Twitter thread appeared online yesterday posting screen shots from Snapchat of some truly despicable content. It claimed the author of the offensive posts was a 1L at South Texas College of  Law — and went ahead and tagged the law school as they provided the receipts.

So… yeah. But the good news is the law school, along with Dean Michael Barry, wasted little time coming right the hell out against the hate-filled rants. They also promised an investigation and that appropriate actions will be taken.

Dean Barry detailed the steps the law school took once the issue was brought to their attention in an email to faculty.

It’s good to see the law school doing what it can to make sure these ideas no longer find their way into the legal profession.

---

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).

Want to come see Donald Trump next week in Tulsa, Oklahoma? No problem! You don’t even need a mask when you and 19,000 of your fellow Trump supporters pack into the BOK Center to scream your lungs out in support of our nation’s 45th president.

Oh, but before you come in, you’ll need to sign this little waiver. Just promise not to sue the Trump campaign or the venue if you happen to catch coronavirus at this potential superspreader event, and you’ll be all set to get your tickets.

By clicking register below, you are acknowledging that an inherent risk of exposure to COVID-19 exists in any public place where people are present. By attending the Rally, you and any guests voluntarily assume all risks related to exposure to COVID-19 and agree not to hold Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.; BOK Center; ASM Global; or any of their affiliates, directors, officers, employees, agents, contractors, or volunteers liable for any illness or injury.

Leave aside the appalling symbolism of hosting a rally in Tulsa, the site of a 1921 massacre of 300 African Americans, on June 19, AKA Juneteenth, the day Americans celebrate the official emancipation of slaves in this country.

Neither the campaign nor the venue seems to be taking any precautions as they resume in-person events during a viral pandemic that has already killed 115,000 Americans.

“I can’t have a rally with, you know, seven seats in between everybody,” Trump scoffed at suggestions he take health and safety precautions at his campaign events. Which is par for the course from a politician who refused to wear a mask when he toured a factory in Maine last week, forcing the facility to discard thousands of coronavirus testing swabs. He’s also nixed social distancing measures at the White House, rearranging the chairs to pack reporters together at press conferences because “it looked better.”

While Oklahoma’s coronavirus numbers remain low, Tulsa is less than 250 miles from Plano, Kansas City, Wichita, Fayetteville, Garland, and Dallas-Fort Worth. And cases in Arkansas, Texas, and Missouri appear to be going up, not down, and businesses reopen and social distancing is eliminated.

Moreover, Trump announced plans for upcoming in-person rallies in North Carolina, Florida, and Arizona, all of which have seen recent spikes in COVID-19 cases. Will he be requiring or even suggesting his supporters wear masks for those events?

Don’t bet on it. But no one gets in without a waiver, pal. ‘Cause no one cares about your health, but when it comes to protecting the big man’s bottom line, no sacrifice is too great.

Trump’s Tulsa campaign rally sign-up page includes coronavirus liability disclaimer [WaPo]

---

Elizabeth Dye (@5DollarFeminist) lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

Joe and Kathryn talk to Marty Festenstein and Kristin Cerutti of NELSON Worldwide about the design of traditional law firms and how that model will be changed in the aftermath of COVID-19. We also discuss what trends are coming as a result of the pandemic, and some changes that most businesses are embracing that just won’t work for law firms, as well as
how is the pandemic going to accelerate firms making changes.

Today, bitcoins and the like are literally useless for any purpose other than losing money. But what if, five years from, young people begin demonstrating against “injustice and corruption” and begin supporting those causes it deems beneficial? (Wildly speculative, we know.) And let’s say the U.S. government believed there was a military role for shutting that down, and that the military itself did, too? (Farfetched, yes, but go with us.) Well, said military fears, in such a scenario, bitcoins would become quite useful, indeed.