The Great Law Firm Reopening Tracker: Back To Work, But Still Working From Home

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted virtually every facet of life. The times we live in are now uncertain, and nothing will ever be the same as it was before. Lawyers and legal professionals have been cloistered inside their homes for more than a year, and now that vaccinations are widely available, states across the country are reopening their economies, lifting their shelter-in-place guidance, and even removing their mask mandates.

With all this taking place, major law firms — many fresh off a second round of special bonuses to keep their attorneys as happy as possible — have been weighing their plans to get their employees back into the office. As firms try to establish a market standard for what their return to work will look like, it should be noted that associates overwhelmingly support their firms’ remote work policies, and hope that a full-time office presence will no longer be necessary going forward.

Just as we’ve done in the past when it comes to raises, bonuses, and austerity measures, we are compiling a table of all the firms that have announced reopening guidelines in these strange times. We want you to see exactly how the legal profession is dealing with this new phase of the coronavirus crisis.

Help us help you. Let us know what your firm is doing to protect employees and adjust to the new normal during this unprecedented moment in time.

As a little reminder, we love covering law firm news, but we need your help. As soon as you find out about reopening plans at your firm, please email us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Office Reopening”). We always keep our sources on stories anonymous. There’s no need to send a memo (if one exists) using your firm email account; your personal email account is fine. If a memo has been circulated, please be sure to include it as proof; we like to post complete memos as a service to our readers. You can take a photo of the memo and attach as a picture if you are worried about metadata in a PDF or Word file. Thanks very much.

Firm Reopening/WFH Policy
Orrick Firm is targeting a September return to work (post-Labor Day), and those who are able to do their jobs remotely will not be required to return to the office five days a week
Ropes & Gray “Permissive office usage” will continue in U.S. offices until Labor Day in September; thereafter, the firm will provide “at least 45 days’ notice before moving from permissive usage to a broader office return”
Wilson Sonsini The firm will not require its attorneys to return to the office in 2021
Willkie Farr The firm will not require its attorneys to return to the office in 2021

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.

Despite The Plain Language Of Federal Law, Police Accountability Can Only Happen At The State Level

(Image via Getty)

There has been a lot going on with our federal judiciary that should trouble all Americans. The gross hypocrisy over the nomination process to the nation’s highest federal court is certainly one problem. The other problem is this is only seen as a problem to some. Because the implementation of such scorched-earth tactics to ensure conservative ideological control is not without positive effect, if only for a select chosen few Americans. Indeed, a radically new (and legally dishonest) conservative shift on the court has occurred where fundamental procedural rules are now being disregarded to ensure positive outcomes for politically favored groups. All of this should undermine the court’s legitimacy as an objective body.

Of course, that’s not how conservatives would describe the situation. At their confirmation hearings, conservative justices tell the public time and again their job is not to make policy but to follow the law. Conservative judges have insisted it is the other side (liberals/living constitutionalists) who are wrong because they “prefer to have philosopher-king judges swoop down from their marble palace to ordain answers rather than allow the people and their representatives to discuss, debate, and resolve them.” I kid you not, they say those who disagree with them are really complaining about “our democracy.”

But here is the thing about conservative rhetoric of following the law as written and about not making policy: in practice conservative judges do the exact opposite. In practice conservative justices regularly reject the law as written to further personally preferred policy and to target politically disfavored groups (today it’s social media companies who are being targeted, who knows whom it will be tomorrow). Nowhere is conservative judicial activism more blatantly apparent, however, than in cases where citizens are attempting to hold police officers accountable.

Let’s get into some necessary legal background. When it comes to holding government agents responsible, the plain language of federal law could not be more straightforward. 42 U.S. Code § 1983 is clear that any government agent who, under color of law, deprives a citizen of their constitutional rights “shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law.” Nowhere in this plain text can language be found establishing preconditions or immunity to such liability. Rather, the law as written simply provides a cause of action against government agents who deprive a citizen of their rights. But can you guess what conservative judges have done with this plain language?

Let me put it in terms some might understand: conservative philosopher-king judges have swooped down from their marble palaces to ordain that all kinds of preconditions and immunities exist to § 1983 liability, despite having no textual support for any of it. It is to the point that it no longer matters whether a citizen can show that a government agent (such as a police officer) knew they were depriving a citizen of their rights. All that matters under this made-up “qualified immunity” doctrine is whether philosopher-king judges have said it matters in previous decisions.

Of course, liberal justices have played an essential part in establishing qualified immunity. The difference is they didn’t play it while claiming their side is strictly adhering to the law as written. Moreover, our federal judiciary has not been controlled by liberals in almost 70 years. Blame for qualified immunity rightly rests with those who have been in control of the federal courts. Here is where I also tell you that I personally favor a plain-meaning approach to constitutional and statutory interpretation. But since the conservative-controlled federal judiciary does not apply a plain-meaning approach in practice (despite endlessly claiming otherwise), laws that are straightforwardly written to attach liability to bad-faith government actors have been transformed into made-up immunities. All because many conservative judges simply don’t like the policy of holding cops accountable. And more recent attempts to revisit the qualified immunity doctrine have failed.

The fact that things are hopeless federally, however, does not mean all hope at holding bad government actors accountable is lost. In fact, there is genuine cause to be optimistic but only because of actions taken by individual states. For example, last year, both Colorado and Connecticut took steps to limit qualified immunity — albeit with some significant loopholes when it came to the latter.

This year, New York City became the first city to end qualified immunity entirely, and New Mexico has also banned the use of qualified immunity as a defense. Such reform is badly needed. Qualified immunity has shielded police officers from being held accountable for violent and horrific abuses and outright robbery. Unfortunately, despite federal law plainly granting a cause of action, the only way Americans can hold police officers accountable is if more cities and states follow the examples of New York City and New Mexico. That’s both encouraging and tragic.


Tyler Broker’s work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review, the Albany Law Review, and the University of Memphis Law Review. Feel free to email him or follow him on Twitter to discuss his column.

Lamar Jackson Sued For Using Multiple Pictures From His Time At Louisville

Baltimore Ravens quarterback Lamar Jackson won the Heisman Trophy for his incredible sophomore season at the University of Louisville in 2016. While Jackson earned many accolades for his performance that season, he now finds himself as a defendant in a federal lawsuit based on using some of the photos that captured his accomplishments that year.

A photographer named Richard Barnes has initiated his lawsuit against Jackson in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, including a laundry list of causes of action such as numerous instances of copyright infringement as well as an allegation that Jackson engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

Barnes included Jackson’s company, Lamar Jackson Enterprises Incorporated, and a man named Ronald Dupont as defendants. The copyright-related claims revolve around an allegation that Jackson, or someone acting at his direction, copied, published, displayed, distributed, created derivative works of, modified, offered for sale and/or sold unauthorized copies of one or more of Barnes’ photographs on Jackson’s social media pages, his YouTube channel and at his official merchandise website Era8Apparel.com.

The photographs were captured by Barnes during a September 9, 2016, match between Louisville and Syracuse. Louisville won that game 62-28, and Jackson threw for 411 yards with one touchdown in the air and four touchdowns rushing the ball into the end zone. Barnes says that the photographs he took during that game were all posted to a news outlet searchable archive and that the pictures included a watermark on the bottom portion that explained the images were subject to copyright protection.

Barnes takes issue with the fact that these photographs were later used on Jackson’s social media accounts with neither consent nor attribution. Barnes is also upset that content from one of his photographs was used within Jackson’s filing with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to register a stylized design mark for use with the sale of bags and apparel, and that Jackson or someone acting at his direction has actually sold goods bearing the mark. Dupont will need to defend against a claim that he, or someone acting at his direction, created jewelry that bears the same mark.

The RICO-related claims revolve around Jackson purportedly committing criminal copyright infringement through a pattern that poses a threat of continuity. A count for RICO conspiracy states that Dupont participated in the creation of the infringing jewelry in concert with, or under the direction of, Jackson.


Darren Heitner is the founder of Heitner Legal. He is the author of How to Play the Game: What Every Sports Attorney Needs to Know, published by the American Bar Association, and is an adjunct professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. You can reach him by email at heitner@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter at @DarrenHeitner.

When Your Only Contact With Readers Is Virtual, Writing Skills Matter More Than Ever

Picture this: A few weeks into a difficult matter, your toughest client tells you, “Well, I guess you really do know how to think like a lawyer.” You feel a momentary glow, because there’s at least a chance it’s a compliment, even if a grudging one. But then they add, “Yeah, and you write like a lawyer, too.” Ouch. You thought your writing was just fine: precise, logical and, even better, free of jargon. What’s the problem?

It’s not that you write badly, but that lawyers face a tougher task than most writers ever confront. Although your subject matter can be complex and technical, your readers are impatient, often irascible, and occasionally hostile. Some writers can simplify their content to keep their readers happy. You do not have that luxury. Some writers can expect their readers to follow along patiently until an analysis or story reaches its end. You cannot.

As a result, legal writing requires two key skills law schools seldom teach. The first: imposing on dense, complicated material an organization that is not only logical, but also makes it as easy as possible for readers to absorb and remember the substance. Even if your raw material is as convoluted as the Rocky Mountains, you are still obligated to make it seem as smooth to navigate as an interstate across the Great Plains. The second skill: crafting documents so they establish your credibility with readers from the start, especially by showing them promptly how your work will benefit them.

These are not “writing” skills in the law school sense — they are skills for communicating effectively with tough audiences through your writing. If your ability to communicate your thinking is to become as sophisticated as the thinking itself, you must learn to “think like a writer” with the same sophistication with which you think like a lawyer. Otherwise, you risk producing writing that looks just fine to you, but leaves your readers frustrated and unhappy.

What does it mean to “think like a writer”?

When you think like a lawyer, you do more than simply deploy precedents and interpret statutes. You also apply your understanding of the fundamental principles that govern an area of the law, and how those principles flow through all the cases, statutes, or regulations floating around within it. Similarly, thinking like a writer requires understanding the fundamental principles that govern, for example, how to organize a document or structure a sentence so it can be read easily and efficiently, and how to establish your credibility with demanding and skeptical readers. These principles rest on two foundations: what we know about how the brain processes complex information, and what rhetoric teaches us about establishing a connection with our audience. They lead directly to specific, concrete advice at all levels of a document, from its overall organization down to its sentences. They can also transform you into a much more incisive editor of both your own writing and the writing of others — and, if you supervise other lawyers, a more effective coach for their development as legal writers.

In the newly updated Fourth Edition of Thinking Like a Writer: A Lawyer’s Guide to Effective Writing and Editing (PLI Press), authors Stephen Armstrong, Timothy Terrell, and Jarrod Reich demonstrate how even first-rate writers can raise their writing to a new level of effectiveness. Like the earlier editions, this publication provides scores of illuminating before-and-after examples and applies its advice to specific types of legal writing (emails, memos, letters, briefs, and judicial opinions). The new edition has also been updated, however, to reflect the increased impatience and speed-reading habits of readers, and the profession’s increased reliance on email and forms of instant messaging rather than on formal memos or letters.


Practising Law Institute is a nonprofit learning organization dedicated to keeping attorneys and other professionals at the forefront of knowledge and expertise. PLI is chartered by the Regents of the University of the State of New York and was founded in 1933 by Harold P. Seligson. The organization provides the highest quality, accredited, continuing legal and professional education programs in a variety of formats which are delivered by more than 4,000 volunteer faculty including prominent lawyers, judges, investment bankers, accountants, corporate counsel, and U.S. and international government regulators. PLI publishes a comprehensive library of Treatises, Course Handbooks, Answer Books and Journals also available through the PLI PLUS online platform. The essence of PLI’s mission is its commitment to the pro bono community. View PLI’s upcoming live webcasts here.

Associates Miffed Over Fine Print On Special Bonuses

The good news is that Jenner & Block has finally gotten on board with special bonuses to thank associates for their hard work during the pandemic.

And you see, on the surface it may seem like a typical bonus announcement. After all, the bonus numbers (set out below) are the same standard set by Davis Polk all those weeks ago.

But according to tipsters at the firm, the full memo (available in full on the next page) sets out some pretty stiff billing requirements. Specifically, associates have to be on track to bill 2,000 hours (make-up payments are available at Jenner) and the kicker is that pro bono and other non-client work won’t be counted towards the hours.

As a particularly salty insider shared with Above the Law:

Jenner & Block just issued a memo re special bonuses. Only given out if you are on track to meet 2,000 true billable hours – no consideration of pro bono or firm-directed work.

People are pissed. The firm talks big talk about how important pro bono is and how much they value it as well as business development hours, but will never put their money where their mouth is. Indeed just three weeks ago the firm released “guidance for associates regarding non-billable hours” setting forth all the non billable work associates should prioritize, and yet it’s entirely ignored in bonus time. We hoped after a year that the new managing partners would’ve addressed this recurring hypocrisy, but alas it’s just the same old same old. Don’t come to Jenner if compensation is a priority for you.

Please help us help you when it comes to bonus news at other firms. As soon as your firm’s bonus memo comes out, please email it to us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Bonus”) or text us (646-820-8477). Please include the memo if available. You can take a photo of the memo and send it via text or email if you don’t want to forward the original PDF or Word file.

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


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).

Enter your email address to sign up for ATL’s Bonus & Salary Increase Alerts.

Steward Health v Aya Healthcare: 4 things to know – MedCity News

Update: This article was updated with information and a statement from Steward Health Care on April 19. 

During the Covid-19 pandemic, providers leaned heavily on travel nurses, as the demand for healthcare workers reached meteoric heights. But now a major provider and a staffing firm are at odds over wages, taking their battle to the courts.

Dallas-based Steward Health Care filed a lawsuit against Aya Healthcare, and the latter responded in kind. The dispute centers on the cost of hiring nursing staff during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Here are four things to know:

Steward’s lawsuit
Steward Health Care reportedly filed its lawsuit against the San Diego-based staffing firm in March. The suit alleges that Aya Healthcare engaged in price gouging and stopped providing services, according to an article by Modern Healthcare.

The health system claimed that Aya Healthcare was charging $160 or more an hour for nurses, a huge jump from its rate of $75.61 pre-pandemic.

Further, Aya removed its nurses from hospitals mid-shift despite knowing the risk to patients and having already been paid over $39 million in good faith payments, said Jennifer Crichton, Steward Health Care’s vice president of communications, in an email.

“We strongly feel that in the midst of an unprecedented global pandemic, community hospitals in need of staffing support to serve their patients should not have to worry about a vendor flagrantly inflating its invoices and threatening hospitals’ operational viability,” Crichton said.

The court issued an injunction, and Aya was required to provide clinical staff to Steward Health Care facilities through April 6. It also ordered the health system to post a $10 million bond as security, the court document states.

In addition, Steward Health Care has referred Aya Healthcare to the Massachusetts Attorney General for investigation, Crichton said.

Aya’s response
In a statement, Aya said Steward Health Care had agreed to its staffing rates across the country, and now, refuses to pay the contract balance of over $40 million for the services.

The companies entered into a crisis staffing solution agreement on March 23, 2020. Since then, Aya said it has provided over 2,000 staff members to Steward hospitals nationwide.

“Holding that money hostage, Steward now baselessly demands, and has employed extortion-like tactics, to coerce Aya to accept an across-the-board discount of nearly half of that debt,” the staffing firm said.

Further, Aya Healthcare claims that the health system refuses to pay the balance despite receiving over $400 million in government subsidies as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act.

The counterclaim
Aya Healthcare filed a counter-compliant against Steward on April 6, asking the court to award the staffing firm damages in excess of $40 million as well as a jury trial.

Aya alleges that as Steward’s debt grew, the health system ignored its inquiries, and never expressed concerns about price gouging or overbilling.

Earlier this year, the provider even acknowledged that it owed $40 million-plus to the staffing company, the lawsuit states.

In a proposed payment plan sent to Aya on March 2, Steward said it would pay $1 million a week, even though “Aya was providing Steward roughly $2.5 million in weekly services — which included what Aya actually pays its nurses in wages, benefits, traveling, housing, and other expenses,” according to the lawsuit.

Aya also claims that its prices increased due to the pandemic creating a high demand for healthcare staff. This led to an increase in the market rate of compensation for staff services and raised the costs of employing and providing workers.

Steward Health Care did not respond to multiple requests for comment from MedCity News.

The tension between providers and staffing firms
The lawsuits come as relationships between healthcare facilities and staffing agencies grow increasingly strained.

Early in the pandemic, wages for travel nurses increased by 25% and job openings tripled, according to a study by the University of Chicago and Yale University based on data provided by staffing firm Health Carousel.

A separate analysis by investment bank Capstone Headwaters shows that approximately 60% of travel nurse firms secured increased bill rates between April and July 2020.

This has led to an environment where providers say they have to compete for staff. The added competition is also coming as hospitals are looking for ways to cut corners amid ongoing financial difficulties.

In addition, providers are trying to get the government involved. In February, the American Hospital Association sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission asking the agency to investigate reports of anticompetitive pricing by nurse staffing agencies

With needed patient care hanging in the balance, it remains to be seen how providers and staffing firms will resolve their issues.

Photo: Hailshadow, Getty Images

Above The Law’s 12th Annual Law Revue Video Contest

Last week, we asked our readers if the time was finally right to hold our law revue video contest. In 2020, for the first time in 12 years, we didn’t hold a competition due to the pandemic and the complete and utter chaos law schools and law students were thrown into last spring.

You spoke, and we listened. Above the Law is officially holding its 12th annual law revue video contest.

If you think you can carry a tune or tell a joke, we ask that you send us your very best law revue videos so that we — and the Above the Law audience — may pass judgment upon them. Prepare yourselves for the worst, but hope for the very best.

Those responsible for the winning video will get Above the Law prizes and the pleasure of knowing they’re the envy of all their law school brethren. As always, there will be complete and total exoneration for the losers. There’s always next year.

Before you start sending us your videos, we’ve got some rules. As future members of the legal profession, we hope you’ll be able to follow them.

The official rules have not changed from 2019. They are:

  1. Your video must be publicly available online somewhere. Send us the link at tips@abovethelaw.com with the subject line “Law Revue Video Contest Submission – [School Name].” We’ll accept submissions of any videos posted after April 25, 2019 (the deadline for our last pre-COVID contest).
  2. To avoid complaints from competitors (see, e.g., West Virginia’s 2013 winning entry), your primary performers must come from within the law school community (but cameos from outsiders are okay). How do we define a “primary performer”? Don’t test us, gunners. We’ll know a violation when we see it.
  3. Send us that submission by FRIDAY, APRIL 30, at 5:00 P.M. (Eastern time). That’s not a soft, law school deadline; it’s a hard, law firm deadline. (NO EXCEPTIONS, so don’t even try pleading with us; if you’re reading this post after the deadline, you don’t read ATL frequently enough.)
  4. We will accept “studio recordings” of scenes intended for live performance (lol @ live performances right now).
  5. Your editors here at ATL will make a list of our favorites, the competition finalists, and post them.
  6. We will NOT watch videos longer than 5 minutes. Use editing tools, people.
  7. Please submit no more than two entries per school (one per school is even better). Try to collaborate with your fellow students and submit no more than two entries. If the leadership of Law Revue can come up with “official” submissions, that would be ideal.
  8. ATL readers will then vote to choose the funniest of the finalists. The winning team will receive ATL prizes (limit five prizes).

Here are some unofficial rules:

  • Please send funny videos only.
  • You have no idea how short our attention spans are. If you use the full five minutes, it better be absolutely freakin’ HILARIOUS.
  • Gratuitous shout-outs to Above the Law are appreciated and encouraged.
  • Video quality matters. A shaky clip shot on a handheld from a third-floor balcony is probably not going to make the cut.
  • Don’t make us hate you.

Send those videos in. Best of luck — the competition is even fiercer than usual, so you’re going to need it!!! We look forward to judging you.


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.

Actually, Lynn Tilton Can Mess With The Zohar(s)

Here’s the thing about bankruptcy: While they are heard in courtrooms by judges with everyone involved represented by lawyers, they have nothing to do with justice. Or, more accurately, justice takes a back seat to just about everything else, most particularly whatever counts as efficacy within the confines of a bankruptcy courtroom. This is how a man can spend more than a decade running a company into the ground, only to be permitted to keep that company while leaving its employees and creditors in the lurch, on the grounds that he’s the only person who could keep the business afloat in any way, shape or form.

Morning Docket: 04.19.21

* A prominent Dallas attorney is accused of agreeing to launder drug money for a share of the profits. Is his name Saul Goodman? [Dallas Morning News]

* A billionaire was purportedly able to cheat on his taxes without going to jail even though his lawyer faces serious charges and possible prison time. [Daily Beast]

* A disbarred New Jersey lawyer has been connected to a company that was at one time worth $100 million despite owning one single deli. Maybe the valuation was based on the quality of its Reuben… [CNBC]

* A lawsuit claims that Jerry Falwell, Jr.’s accuser has compromising photos and communications that would be damaging to Falwell’s family. [Newsweek]

* An Oregon lawyer may be suspended from practice for alleged misconduct during a high school soccer coach dispute. Guess he could be getting the red card… [Oregonian]


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.