Category: News Feeds

Some firms didn’t want or need to give the bonuses so they didn’t. And then, once firms like those three did not give them, it was cover for most firms not to give them if they didn’t want to give them, and most didn’t want to give them.

— Kent Zimmermann, a legal consultant wth the Zeughauser Group, commenting on the recent dearth of special fall bonuses for associates after Kirkland & Ellis, Cravath, and O’Melveny declined to match the Davis Polk scale. This week, both Paul Weiss and Fried Frank declined to match as well, with Paul Weiss chairman Brad Karp noting that “[p]roviding a special cash reward in direct response to the pandemic does not feel right at this time.”

---

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.

As former General Electric CEO John Flannery knew all too well, everywhere you look at the formerly great American industrial giant there’s a new, unwelcome discovery. The Securities and Exchange Commission knows this too, but luckily for John Flannery it’s not his problem anymore.

It started for the SEC more or less the same place it started for Flannery: the horrifying funhouse mirror approach to accounting taken under his predecessors. And just as everywhere Flannery looked there seemed to be an empty private jet criss-crossing the globe, everywhere the SEC looks it seems to find some other aspect of GE’s bookkeeping wanting.

Six Michigan men were arrested by federal officials today and charged with conspiring to kidnap and kill Governor Gretchen Whitmer. Multiple informants and undercover agents recorded the alleged plotters surveilling the governor’s vacation home, assembling explosive devices, and plotting to take her to a secure location in Wisconsin to put her on “trial” for “treason.”

Or perhaps not.

“Have one person go to her house. Knock on the door and when she answers it just cap her . . . at this point. Fuck it,” Adam Fox, the alleged leader of the group, said.

We were given to understand that it was Antifa BLM anarchist supersoldiers who were the real danger to democracy. But apparently it’s a bunch of crazed militia dudes in northern Michigan plotting to overthrow the government.

“In all honesty right now . . . I just wanna make the world glow, dude. I’m not even fuckin’ kidding. I just wanna make it all glow dude,” Fox said. “I don’t fuckin’ care anymore, I’m just so sick of it. That’s what it’s gonna take for us to take it back, we’re just gonna have to everything’s gonna have to be annihilated man. We’re gonna topple it all, dude. It’s what great frickin’ conquerors, man, we’re just gonna conquer every fuckin’ thing man.”

Fox is alleged to be a member of the Three Percenters, a rightwing militia network which fancies itself America’s patriotic guardians.

In addition to federal charges by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Michigan, Michigan State Attorney General Dana Nessel promises further charges under Michigan’s anti-terrorism act.

The complaint barely mentions the link between the militia activity and the covid lockdown measures Whitmer imposed in the spring — much less the president’s incendiary agitation against it — but the timing is very clear.

Whitmer (aka “this tyrant bitch”) issued the first lockdown order on March 10, around the same time that Fox and alleged co-conspirator Barry Croft came under FBI surveillance because the agency” became aware through social media that a group of individuals were discussing the violent overthrow of certain government and law-enforcement components.”

In April, Trump encouraged his followers to “liberate” their states from tyrannical public health edicts.

And on June 6, anti-government radicals from several states met in Ohio to discuss creating “a society that followed the U.S. Bill of Rights and where they could be self-sufficient.”

At one point, several members talked about state governments they believed were violating the U.S. Constitution, including the government of Michigan and Governor Gretchen Whitmer. Several members talked about murdering “tyrants” or “taking” a sitting governor. The group decided they needed to increase their numbers and encouraged each other to talk to their neighbors and spread their message. As part of that recruitment effort, FOX reached out to a Michigan based militia group (the “militia group.”)

Throughout the summer, the group attempted to mobilize “200 men” to storm the State Capitol building in Lansing. But, having failed to reach their numbers, the group turned its attention instead to locating Governor Whitmer’s vacation home, where they planned to kidnap her.

“Snatch and grab, man. Grab the fuckin’ Governor. Just grab the bitch. Because at that point, we do that, dude — it’s over,” Fox said on July 27.

The plotters purchased a taser, built explosive devices, discussed sending mail bombs to the governor, and planned to blow up a bridge to delay a police response to the scene.

“If the ???? go????, it also ❌  the ????,” wrote Ty Garbin, another co-conspirator.

Which is funny, because these goobs were under FBI surveillance from the jump, with multiple undercover officers and informants in their ranks recording every interaction.

But it’s also not funny at all, because the Justice Department is publicly warning about the dangers from groups of racial justice protestors, while heavily armed militias are plotting to literally overthrow the government.

Criminal Complaint [US v. Fox, Case 1:20-mj-00416-SJB (W. D. MI, October 6, 20200]

---

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

With increasing frequency, we are seeing Biglaw firms revamp their model of business to become leaner. That means that staff often find themselves recipients of pink slips as the changes brought on by COVID-19 become permanent. The latest firm to cut staff jobs is Baker Botts, a firm that placed 58th on the latest Am Law 100 ranking.

After recently announcing bonuses for exceptional performance and walking back their COVID-19 austerity measures, the firm has decided to make some more big changes. Yesterday, leadership at the firm sent around an email, describing the new world the firm finds itself in:

Today’s environment is requiring that essentially all businesses re-examine every aspect of their operations and traditional assumptions, as we now see our daily work habits changing on a long-term basis. The way our lawyers and our support staff work together has experienced a fundamental shift.

As a prudent business, we must be responsive to this shift and ensure that we align our supporting resources with our clients’ and the Firm’s business needs in this changed environment.

That can mean only one thing: layoffs. According to the internal email, available on the next page, approximately 50 staff positions have been eliminated, and impacted employees will find themselves out of work next week (October 15th).

A spokesperson for the firm had this statement on the layoffs:

“Yesterday, approximately 50 staff members across the firm, in Office Services and Secretarial Services, were informed that their positions will be eliminated effective October 15. We will be parting ways with some wonderful people to whom we are deeply grateful for all they have done for the firm. However, we must be responsive to the fundamental workplace shift created by the pandemic to ensure that we align our supporting resources with our clients’ and our own business needs in this changed environment.”

As always, best wishes to those that suddenly find themselves out of work.

If your firm or organization is slashing salaries, closing its doors, or reducing the ranks of its lawyers or staff, whether through open layoffs, stealth layoffs, or voluntary buyouts, please don’t hesitate to let us know. Our vast network of tipsters is part of what makes Above the Law thrive. You can email us or text us (646-820-8477).

If you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Layoff Alerts, please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the layoff alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each layoff, salary cut, or furlough announcement that we publish.

---

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

The Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) director Craig Leen told Biglaw he was coming for them, and that’s exactly what happened. Back in April of 2019, Leen told legal industry representatives at a town hall meeting that his office was concerned about issues of diversity and representation at law firms. As a result of a probe into diversity in Sidley’s summer associate program, the Biglaw giant will now offer, inter alia, additional internships and scholarships to diverse candidates.

As reported by Law360, the OFCCP’s claims against Sidley largely boil down to a failure to maintain and track employment data and to analyze it for bias:

The OFCCP alleged Sidley failed to accurately track race, ethnicity and gender data for applicants to its summer associate program and that this prevented the agency from analyzing its hiring, according to a portion of the agreement discussing the agency’s claims. The firm also failed to preserve personnel or employment records for staff in its Los Angeles office, and did not analyze its “total employment process” to root out “impediments to equal opportunity” within its bonus program for associates at its New York and Los Angeles offices in certain years, the OFCCP said. Sidley denies these allegations.

To settle the claims, as stated above, the Biglaw firm will offer more internships and scholarships to diverse candidates, which is valued at ~$150,000. Additionally, Sidley will look at partnerships with the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities and other “organizations with established internship programs.” The firm will “expand its already robust outreach” to diverse law students, specifically by providing job postings to and seeking applications from historically Black colleges and universities and the Asian Pacific Islander American Association of Colleges and Universities.

To settle the tracking claim, Sidley will train its Los Angeles-based office staff and share job openings with “organizations serving diverse communities.” Regarding the bonus allegations, Sidley will assess compensation annually for any disparities based on gender, race, or ethnicity. They’ll also file a a progress report at the end of 2021.

---

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

The 2020 bar exam experience was perhaps the most stressful testing event on record for law school graduates. Thanks to the pandemic, the July in-person exam was canceled in most states and moved to an online environment for the first time ever. The remote format proved difficult, and the test was delayed until October due to technical issues — problems that continued to plague test takers during the exam itself.

Those who took the exam earlier this week were unable to leave their seats or break eye contact with their computer screens, lest their virtual proctors flag them for cheating. One test taker presumably failed because she got her period and had to leave the room, while another had to sit in his own urine while he completed the exam. Another test taker had an even more labor-intensive experience as she took the bar.

Meet Brianna Hill, a recent graduate of Loyola University Chicago School of Law. Hill just had the mother of all test-taking experiences because she went into labor during the Illinois exam and was unable to leave her seat. “I started taking the MPT but since we were remote I couldn’t leave view of the camera. As soon as I stood up when I finished, I knew my water had broken,” she said in an exclusive interview with Above the Law. “So I took my break, got myself cleaned up, called my husband, midwife, and mom, cried because I was a little panicked, then sat down to take the MEE.”

Hill was in active labor when she finished the first day of the test. She tells us that she started having contractions shortly after starting the MEE. “Going into labor really put the bar exam into perspective and made my nerves go away really quickly,” she said. Hill was able to finish all of her essays before going to the hospital around 5:30 p.m. Less than five hours later, at 10:10 p.m., her bar exam baby was born.

What’s a woman with an hours-old infant to do with a day’s worth of testing still ahead and her career aspirations on the line? Finish the bar exam from the hospital after giving birth, of course.

“The whole time my husband and I were talking about how I wanted to finish the test and my midwife and nurses were on board. There just wasn’t another option in my mind,” Hill said. So on Tuesday morning, the hospital prepared an empty room for her to test in and staff put a sign on the door so no one would disturb her as she completed the bar exam. “I took the rest of the test in there and was even able to nurse the baby in between sessions! Obviously, I really hope I passed but I’m mostly just proud that I pushed through and finished.” Absolutely amazing.

Hill shared this wry comment about her experience: “I thought I would only be 28 weeks pregnant when I took the bar, so when it got pushed to October and I was going to be 38 weeks, I joked about taking the test from my hospital bed. Lesson learned!”

Congratulations to Brianna Hill on the birth of her son. We wish this super mom — and soon-to-be super lawyer (cross your fingers) — all the best. Just like her bar exam baby, we hope the law is always a labor of love for her.

---

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 we all doing after last night’s debate? Sorry about that.

Ultimately, the VP debate was true to form as irrelevant filler content between presidential debates. Harris exploited the split screen format to deliver non-verbals far more devastating that Trump’s efforts to verbally derail Biden could ever hope to be, Mike Pence remains devoid of charisma, and a fly became the star of the show for 2 minutes. At one point, Susan Page must have contemplated asking a question in Klingon just to see if it would have any impact on the stream of talking points proffered as answers. But there was at least one exchange that was salient to the legal landscape.

Mike Pence asked Kamala Harris for a straight answer on whether or not the Democrats will pursue court expansion when they get into office. She declined to provide one. Which is a shame because there are only two politically useful answers to this question: “yes” or “no.”

The idea of responding to the vacancy created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg by adding 4 new seats to the Supreme Court has become vogue in some liberal legal circles. It is a bad idea. One of the first rules of any conflict is to watch how the adversary reacts and Mitch McConnell’s complete disregard for an idea posed as a direct threat should give everyone pause. There’s a reason why the increasingly irrelevant SometimesTrumpers at the National Review are the only ones to decry this idea — Republicans love it! It manages to give them their coveted “both sides” narrative and presents a scenario they’re structurally better suited to exploit because they have a baked in advantage with the antidemocratic U.S. Senate map.

Pence asked about this idea last night for a simple reason. Republicans may be evil, as Elie Mystal is fond of saying, but they’re vampire evil in that they do their biggest damage only after they’ve been invited. It doesn’t even have to be an engraved invitation — anything resembling permission is good enough for tearing down government work. Harry Reid limited his filibuster nuking to lower courts, but that was enough to provide McConnell the green light to eliminate it for the entire judiciary. Trump has already publicly mused that merely flirting with court expansion provided Republicans with permission to do it themselves. If he still held control of the House of Representatives, perhaps we’d already have seen it.

The evasiveness from Harris was certainly more promising for expansion advocates than Biden’s prior statements where he correctly noted that Democrats would “live to rue that day” if they tried to expand the Court. But if this idea has gained traction within the Biden campaign, they need to understand that this isn’t the sort of proposal that works as tea leaves. This brings us to the lessons of Dr. Strangelove. If you’re looking to avoid spoilers for a 56-year-old movie, stop reading now.

Dr. Strangelove turns on Russia’s invention of a “Doomsday Machine” that will destroy the world if anyone ever attacks them. The conundrum for the film’s characters is that this device only works as a deterrent if everyone knows it exists.

If court expansion is on the table, its only value is to be declared early, loudly, and clearly. It has to be articulated as the tit-for-tat result of an Amy Covid Barrett confirmation and justified as a response to the Merrick Garland nomination — which still polls in favor of the Democrats. Would this threat stay the hand of Republicans? No, because expansion is the dream scenario for them. But if this is the play Democrats are eyeing, then the Biden ticket needs to make up its mind because half-assery gets them nowhere.

---

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.

Ed. note: Litigation finance is transforming the fields of both law and finance. To help our readers gain a better understanding of what litigation finance entails, we’ve partnered with Lake Whillans to present an ongoing series detailing how litigation funding works, its pros and cons, and its past, present, and future.

In Part I of this double post, we reviewed some of the key issues raised in the American Bar Association Best Practices for Third-Party Litigation Funding document released in August 2020. In Part II, we speak with Marla Decker of Lake Whillans to learn more about the ABA’s recommendations and how they compare to current standard practices among reputable funders.

ATL: Why do you think the ABA decided to publish a list of Best Practices now?

MD: Nearly 10 years ago, the ABA was one of the first organizations to research and analyze litigation finance, at a time when the industry was in its infancy and the ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 published its white paper on litigation finance, which is still a go-to source of information today. By publishing the Best Practices, the ABA has implicitly recognized the growing importance of litigation funding to the legal industry, which is being driven by the demand from claimholders and lawyers who recognize and desire the myriad benefits litigation funding offers. It makes sense that the ABA would tackle a new comprehensive project to further its earlier work and give updated guidance to lawyers and litigants now that there has been nearly a decade of experiences and case law to draw from. 

ATL: How should counsel use the Best Practices document?

MD: The ABA makes clear in its introduction that “‘Best Practices’ is used as a shorthand for issues that should be considered before entering into a litigation funding arrangement.” In other words, the Best Practices are meant to educate and to guide an issue spotting exercise. The ABA recommendations should be read in that light, rather than as a set of one-size-fits-all practices or recommendations. As the Best Practices make clear, litigation finance has many applications and forms, and there are nuances that exist depending on the type of funding you are doing (i.e., commercial versus consumer; claimholder versus law firm funding) as well as the jurisdiction or forum you are in, and it’s important to pull out the recommendations that are relevant and consider the context.

ATL: Which of the ABA recommendations are already standard practice for Lake Whillans?

MD: The Best Practices include a number of recommendations already practiced by Lake Whillans and embodied in our code of conduct. For example, in a typical financing deal, we contractually commit not to interfere with the independent professional judgment and the duty of undivided loyalty of the attorney(s) representing our investment counterparty, and control of settlement rests with the claimholder. Further, our investment process is designed not to cause any waivers of relevant privileges. We keep abreast of relevant case law, safeguard against waiver of privileges using non-disclosure and other agreements, and avoid receiving any documents or information that poses a high risk of waiver if shared with us. And of course, we follow the Best Practices paramount recommendation that all litigation funding arrangements should be in writing and carefully anticipate and address contractually the various outcomes and situations that may arise once the funding is in place.

ATL: What are some shortcomings of the ABA’s recommendations?

MD: Some of the recommendations seem overly conservative and do not take into account existing case law trends or the commercial reality of litigation finance. For example, with respect to protecting privileges, advising lawyers not to offer an opinion on “the weaknesses in the other side’s case [or] in your case” is unnecessarily cautious given the growing body of law finding no waiver of work product protection when this type of information is shared with a funder. It is also commercially impractical: Discussions with counsel about the strengths and weaknesses of a case are almost always necessary for any reputable funder to make an investment.

In other areas, the report would have benefitted from greater depth of discussion. For example, the report offers the general advice that lawyers should assume that litigation funding agreements will be disclosed. Practitioners considering the risks of disclosure in the cases they are handling would likely have been interested in understanding the different risks, approaches and considerations given to disclosure by courts in different contexts. There are very different considerations given to disclosure of agreements in class action proceedings (where a litigation funding agreement may be relevant to the adequacy of the class representative and counsel) compared to private litigation between two sophisticated commercial parties where the arguments for disclosure are not as strong (nor typically successful). Likewise, cases proceeding in arbitrations may have precise disclosure rules. Further discussion of these contexts would likely have been helpful to lawyers rather than a generalized maxim.

ATL: What did the ABA get right?

MD: As I said before, the ABA was right to recognize the need for updated guidance, as the era of robust litigation funding is upon us and the Best Practices take a comprehensive approach. The Best Practices rightly recognize the distinction between the flavors of litigation funding (for example, what they term “Lawyer-Funder” versus “Client-Funder”). The industry looks different compared to a decade ago, and it’s important to distinguish between various types of financing when thinking through the issues that arise. The Best Practices also delve into a topic that is not as often talked about, but nonetheless important, which is ways to diligence a funder, an important topic as the field of options grows. For example, there are a number of Best Practices that address how to ensure the capital promised will be there when needed (which is one of several ways to distinguish between funders).  

I have observed here before that the Trump administration can’t govern. They put on the suits, they show up to the offices, but they don’t seem to be willing or able to handle the basic nuts and bolts of governing, and it hurts them. It’s why they ended up with three versions of the Muslim ban, and also why the original ban’s implementation in early 2017 was such a dumpster fire. It’s also why they keep getting sued for Administrative Procedure Act violations.

And now, deliciously, it might lead to voiding a whole bunch of administrative rules passed by the Department of Homeland Security over the past 18 months. As you may recall, the most recent DHS Secretary who was actually confirmed by the Senate was Kirstjen Nielsen, who was fired — oops, I mean “voluntarily resigned” — in 2019 for rejecting insane Trump ideas like creating an alligator moat at the border. She was succeeded by acting DHS secretary Kevin McAleenan, who lasted seven months, and current acting secretary Chad Wolf.

The trouble is, the Government Accountability Office concluded in August that neither man was legally appointed to the office. Buckle in; it’s administrative law time! Under the Homeland Security Act, the acting secretary position should have passed to the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency after Nielsen left. However, the Trump administration chose McAleenan, who at that time was the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection. (CBP is known for providing no accountability whatsoever to its officers, so maybe Stephen Miller thought McAleenan would play along with Trump’s adult-toddler ideas like shooting immigrants in the legs.)

McAleenan would have been the legally appropriate choice if Nielsen had been incapacitated by a disaster, but the GAO does not (publicly) consider Trump a disaster. As a result, it concluded on August 14 that McAleenan “was not the designated Acting Secretary.” This, in turn, delegitimizes Wolf because Wolf got his position only through changes McAleenan made to the order of succession shortly before he left — changes GAO said he didn’t have the authority to make. (By the way, both McAleenan and Wolf were actually fourth in line, but ascended because all the positions above them were open. Because the Trump administration cannot govern.)

Immigrant rights organizations have been exploiting this for the past six weeks, and early data suggest it’s working. In mid-September, a variety of immigrant rights organizations won a preliminary injunction against rule changes at DHS that “make it substantially harder, if not impossible” for asylum seekers to get work permits while they wait for their cases to be decided. That’s according to Judge Paula Xinis, who in Casa de Maryland et al v. Wolf accepted the GAO’s reasoning (along with some Administrative Procedure Act arguments).

That decision, in turn, informed a Sept. 29 decision by a Northern California federal court, striking down the fee increase at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. You may recall that I wrote in August that the effect — and likely also purpose — of the fee increase is to price people out of immigrating legally. A parallel lawsuit in D.C. district court makes similar arguments, but I’m not aware of any decision on that one yet.

So once again, the Trump administration’s inability to handle even basic governing is stymieing its ability to hurt people. Imagine, if you can stand to, what a competent “unitary executive” could do.

---

Lorelei Laird is a freelance writer specializing in the law, and the only person you know who still has an “I Believe Anita Hill” bumper sticker. Find her at wordofthelaird.com.

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 April Kelso back to our pages. Click here if you’d like to donate to MothersEsquire.

Here we are. We made it to October. I don’t know about you, but it seems like with each turn of the calendar page, we are faced with new challenges and new obstacles. My family spent 12 blissful (read: very hard and stressful) weeks being “safer at home” in Oklahoma. Two full-time working adults. One first grader doing distance learning and virtual dance class and learning to ride a bike. Plus one very busy toddler who learned to walk in the midst of it all. It was not easy, but it felt like we were all in it together. We baked a million loaves of bread and countless batches of macaroons. We left surprises for friends on their porches. The good old days before we all knew the terrors of Zoom fatigue or had our first disagreement with opposing counsel about virtual depositions.

Fast forward to now. We have been living with this thing for (at least) seven months now. Masks are the latest fashion trend and somehow remain a constant topic of debate in this country. We are getting in to the swing of our “new normal.” But, to be honest, who really likes this “new normal”? And what does that even mean? I do not know about you all, but figuring out this “new normal” feels something like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. We are expected to do all the things we were doing pre-pandemic but in some new magical way that will somehow keep us all safe. We are back in the office, we are back in the courthouse, we are back to mediations and depositions. Our kids are “back” to school but for most people that looks completely different.

This other new thing that I have discovered is a new type of mom guilt, as if we did not have enough of that before! The normal mom guilt still exists, but now I have found myself feeling guilty when we are doing okay and when the days are not just impossible.

I consider our family very lucky that both my husband and I were able not only to keep our jobs but were able to work exclusively from home for 12 weeks — to put that in perspective, that is longer than my two maternity leaves combined. I know so many friends and family members who lost jobs or were not afforded the choice to stay home. Insert “we have jobs” guilt and “we can work from home” guilt.

So far, our school district has taken a relatively educated and cautious approach to returning to school. But I know it is not the perfect plan for everyone. Hello “I agree with the school board” guilt.

For the record, I know that this school year is HARD. For EVERYONE. Our second grader does her virtual days at daycare and even though they do a fantastic job of facilitating virtual learning, it is still more on our plate. We have to make sure to give a list of what needs to be done every day and, despite their best efforts, there is always more to be done at night. Have you ever tried to get a second grader to focus on ANYTHING at 6:30 p.m. after both of you have had a long day? When you both would rather be doing anything but writing four things you know about tornadoes? When you have a husband who wants dinner and a toddler who just wants everyone to be quiet so she can watch Elsa for the millionth time? Not to mention having to navigate a half-dozen apps to get it all accomplished? If you can relate, you too probably have “so what is the real risk of going back to traditional school” guilt.

In my state, the courts are open for business, so litigation must go on. That means we are participating in hearings and depositions and meetings and mediations. Even with all the technology options, there are some things that are still being done in person. I wear my mask and wash my hands, but it still makes me anxious that I am bringing germs home to my family. So, I am also working through the “did I just catch COVID at work” guilt.

Our family has really tried to just embrace and enjoy all the togetherness. I am so thankful that I got to witness all of our toddler’s first steps and had time to teach our second grader to ride a bike this spring. I am thankful for opportunities to explore our state together. But sometimes I just want to be alone. Can anyone else relate? I love my family and recognize how lucky we were/are to have all the time together. But is it bad if I want to call a babysitter to have a date night with my husband? Or if I want to linger just a little longer down the aisles of Target (wearing a mask, of course)? This is the “I love my kids but I just really want to be alone” guilt.

Other types of guilt that deserve honorable mention include: I miss my friends but not enough to potentially get us all sick guilt, totally forgot about that Zoom call guilt, but what about the holidays guilt, and I just cannot cook one more meal at home guilt.

2020 is rapidly coming to an end. I am going to try to make these last 90 or so days a little better. I am going to work on letting go of some of the guilt. But more importantly I am going to try and get back to what made the 12 weeks at home better — more baking, more porch surprises for friends, and more exploring the great outdoors.

---

April Kelso is a graduate of the University of Tulsa College of Law. April joined Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger and Green in 2017. She is a girl mom two times over and loves adventuring with her husband and daughters. When not working, she can be found baking, covering something in glitter, playing another round of Uno with her six-year-old, or volunteering at her church. You can email her at akelso@piercecouch.com or follow along with her on Instagram @mrsaprilkelso.