Category: News Feeds

For many Biglaw firms, the worst of the economic upheaval caused by the coronavirus crisis seems to be over. Some firms that conducted austerity measures like salary reductions are now reassessing their finances and either partially or completely removing those compensation cuts. Other firms are rolling out COVID-related bonuses that range up to $40,000 (or in some cases, $50,000). Things seem to be coming along quite nicely — but unfortunately, it looks like there are some firms that are still struggling.

Across the pond in the United Kingdom, Ince Gordon Dadds, an international Biglaw firm that’s listed on the London Stock Exchange, revealed in its most recent financial disclosure that layoffs had occurred due to the pandemic. It’s been reported that approximately 50 lawyers and support staff were let go across all of the firm’s offices.

The Global Legal Post has additional information on what’s happening at Ince:

The measures are revealed in an AGM statement and trading update published today that also confirmed that dividend payments remain suspended in the light of the pandemic’s impact on business.

The statement said a “limited global programme” of redundancies had taken place affecting lawyers and support staff “in areas where it is not expected that business will recover sufficiently in the medium term” from the Covid-19 pandemic.

And, in recognition of the fact “that working practices are likely to change over coming years” and that its current office space “may be too large or may no longer be suitable” it noted that it had the opportunity to make “significant further operational cost savings” in the medium term.

Yikes, it certainly sounds like more cuts could be coming for this firm. Best of luck to all those who are affected by the layoffs at Ince.

If your firm or organization is slashing salaries or restoring previous cuts, 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.

Ince reports 50 Covid-19 staff layoffs and signals ‘significant’ post pandemic office space savings [Global Legal Post]

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.

Screaming about a Deep State conspiracy? Accusing the judge of bias? Throwing colleagues under the bus while pretending that the unprecedented actions at Bill Barr’s DOJ are normal and pro-forma? Nefariously altered exhibits? Technical snafus and unmuted mikes that force multiple adjournments for the court clerks to scramble to reconnect all parties?

Check, check, check, check, and CHECK. Yesterday’s hearing the Michael Flynn case had it all.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan assembled the parties digitally to determine what should be done with the former National Security Advisor now that an en banc appellate panel ruled that the court is not obligated to dismiss the case just because the Justice Department decided after three years that it no longer feels like prosecuting it.

Hashim Mooppan, the Deputy AG in the Civil Division, appeared for the DOJ to argue that there was no legal basis for the case to continue, since the government has “absolute” prosecutorial authority. He also vouched for the independence of the DOJ, saying that he’d personally discussed the case with Attorney General Bill Barr and been assured that his decision to drop the charges five minutes before sentencing had nothing to do with pressure from the White House, where the president fired off dozens of tweets demanding exactly that.

Ken Kohl, the Deputy Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for D.C., was on hand to argue (the DOJ’s latest version of) the facts. Perhaps Michael Flynn simply forgot about his conversation with the Russian ambassador on December 29, despite it having dominated every news cycle since the Washington Post reported on January 12 that the two had discussed sanctions relief and an upcoming UN vote. In Kohl’s telling, Flynn was just so darn forgetful that he misspoke on January 24 when FBI agents came to ask him about it, since they’d picked up the call on wiretaps and knew that the NSA’s public denials made him a blackmail risk.

And despite Trump saying that he fired Flynn for lying, and Flynn admitting this lie under oath and in open court multiple times, the DOJ couldn’t possibly prove to a jury (which did not exist, because he’d already pled!) that Flynn lied because, ummm, all the FBI agents lacked credibility. And thus the government was forced to drop the case, which is just how it always goes at DOJ.

Kohl was also shocked and appalled, that anyone would suggest that the holy Department of Justice would bend to political pressure. How very dare you, sir!

Debevoise partner John Gleeson, a former Eastern District of New York judge appointed by Judge Sullivan as amicus to assess the propriety of the DOJ’s abrupt about face, appeared to shout “I FEEL LIKE I’M TAKING CRAZY PILLS!” Except slowly, and in a soporific monotone, for seemingly hours on end.

And bringing up the rear on the crazy train was Flynn’s nutbag counsel Sidney Powell, who spent months tweeting that Judge Sullivan was going to come down on the government like a ton of bricks the way he did in the case of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, and has never gotten over the shock of being wrong.

Powell’s opening gambit was to deny the legitimacy of the proceedings and accuse Judge Sullivan of bias. When he patiently asked her if she’d filed a motion for recusal, she admitted she had not. But she still might!

She went on to insist that her client’s first allocution and guilty plea was a legal nullity because it was given under oath to U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, who later recused himself, perhaps due to his acquaintance with FBI Agent Peter Strzok.

The second allocution in Judge Sullivan’s courtroom is also a nullity, in her telling, due to ineffective assistance of counsel. See, Flynn’s former lawyers at Covington & Burling, who represented him in the instant criminal matter before she took over the case, also prepared his defective Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) filing claiming that he wasn’t being paid to advocate for the Turkish government. (He was.) Flynn waived this conflict, but actually it was unwaivable — at least according to Sidney Powell — and thus his repeated admissions under oath that he knowingly lied to the FBI disappear like magic. Poof!

Powell defended her own ex parte communications in a letter demanding that Bill Barr drop the case — a letter sent before she even entered an appearance, and which she was treating with the “utmost confidentiality.” Very cool and very legal, she insisted, while simultaneously calling a letter from Peter Strzok’s attorney Aitan Goelman, pointing out that someone had doctored his client’s handwritten notes which appear as exhibits, as “extra-judicial.”

When asked if she’d spoken to the president himself about the case, she admitted she had, but attempted to assert a claim of executive privilege for the substance of their conversation. Civilians claiming privilege for presidential communications is… a new one.

Powell went on to admit that she’d urged the president not to pardon Flynn and that Jenna Ellis, the president’s campaign counsel, was present for the discussion. Which is also… a new one.

In an extended, Infowars-style rant, she shouted about James Comey, Peter Strzok, Andy McCabe, insurance policy, coup, crooked FBI, and referred to Judge Gleeson as a “special prosecutor” picking up the “mantle” of the “corrupt prosecution” launched by Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Sullivan said he would take the matter under advisement and issue a ruling expeditiously, only to be interrupted by an agitated Powell demanding a rush transcript of the hearing.

“You’d have to talk to the clerk about that,” Judge Sullivan replied. And then the sad spectacle was mercifully over.

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

Remember when the Illinois Board of Admissions to the Bar decided to respond to a rumor they started by bad mouthing the former dean of Northwestern Law School? It turns out that this is more of a feature than a bug when it comes to bar examiners trying desperately to cling to the fiefdom as unnecessary gatekeepers that they’ve carved out for themselves.

After applicants pointed out that hacking into bar exam materials was not only easy, but already happening, we learned that applicants in multiple jurisdictions specifically flagged that for their local bar examiners. In response to these serious concerns, they got back more petty insults.

Sean Silverman posted one response that an applicant received on Twitter and it’s a doozy. Off the top, they claim that everything’s fine because there’s an 18-character password, which would be useful, though it would be a new one for ExamSoft. For the Michigan bar exam, they were using passwords like “brown89,” which might explain a bit of the concern here. Nevertheless, despite a major cybersecurity event with their vendor TWO MONTHS AGO, the examiners just get salty:

It is frustrating to me that Reddit cretins making fantastical claims qualifies as news, but with respect to this year’s bar exam, “news” means clicks, so here we are.

Far from the “fantastical” rantings of “cretins,” I actually took the time to speak with someone who is not only a computer expert, but a former ExamSoft employee who confirmed to me that this hack was absolutely possible. In fact, the source referred to it as a “stupendous risk” to have “files out in the wild for days and days before the exam.” It’s not clear if the bar examiners know how Reddit works, but the author of that post wasn’t making any money off of “clicks.” For that matter, neither is Above the Law. I generated more clicks in one hour of the debate drinking game than I did for a whole week of bar exam stories. We’re covering this topic because, while not a popular story, we feel it’s critically important to advancing the profession. Perhaps bar examiners might want to consider a similar worldview.

This theoretical “way to cheat” also assumes that examinees who have worked so hard to get through law school and have had a longer period to study than any other group to prepare for an exam containing half the usual content would nonetheless risk their careers by enlisting unknown Redditors to help them gain supposed access to exam files.

Agreed! But then… why have bathroom break rules or ban snacks… or f**king insulin. If all threats to the integrity of the exam can be brushed away by placing faith in the fact that applicants are overwhelmingly if not entirely hard-working, upstanding people, then why have any of these rules at all?

This offer would afford this same unscrupulous person on Reddit the ability to blackmail the bar applicant with this information forever, whether or not the Redditor was able to accomplish the goal of accessing the actual exam questions. The Redditor could supply exam questions from prior bar exams and pass them off as the real thing. The flimsiness of this claim is just amazing.

These are reasons why people shouldn’t try to hack the test, not reasons why the test is secure. It’s like that kind of bar exam question where someone fails to answer the actual prompt. And then throws on an empty conclusory sentence for effect.

Then the bar examiner goes after me specifically. Oh nos!

Using critical thinking skills, one can see that this article is not an unbiased piece of reporting.

What is it with the “critical thinking skills” thing? This is the same trope they lobbed at Dean Rodriguez. These people fancy themselves the sole arbiters of critical thinking — as opposed to the accredited law schools who just spent three years performing iterative testing — and therefore anyone who questions their effort must not be doing critical thinking hard enough.

For the record, my article does have a bias, but one born of months of actually taking the time to talk to experts and research while these folks push ahead with a slapdash exam to justify their own existence.

The snarky tone of this piece and the author’s expressed views regarding the bar exam let us know that he is gleefully picking up any piece of news on Twitter.

I do try to make the news as entertaining as it is informative, so thank you. In this instance, Twitter was clearly the starting point for the article because it’s a forum rich with leads. But “using reading comprehension skills,” one could see that wasn’t the end of the inquiry. Instead, the post cited a Reddit post that made a number of detailed claims, which I verified with former ExamSoft personnel, cited independently advertised hacks, and framed based on the empirical example of the Michigan exam’s password breakdown. Tone does not trump warrants.

This article doesn’t “explain” anything; it just repeats past criticism after “reporting” unfounded Reddit claims of unconfirmed hacking skills being offered for a relatively cheap price.

Is the argument that secondary sources are bad? Yes, I’m not the computer expert. But I talk to them and then pass the information along to the audience. That’s how this all works, actually. Not for nothing, the Reddit post doesn’t make claims of cheap hacks — it explains how this hacking could be done and a separate inquiry revealed that this hacking has apparently been done. I guess it’s a distinction you only see if you’re using your critical thinking skills.

But let’s assume my article actually did fail to “explain” anything. That’s an opening for the examiners to explain what’s really going on rather than shrug and say, “I’m sure that’s not true.” Claiming that the passwords are now 18-characters long is an excellent start. Even better would be admitting that this was done in response to the Michigan attack and therefore the exploits described in the post and seemingly hacked in the past will no longer work. Engaging honestly with the detailed criticism and saying that it’s been addressed generates trust in the process. Dismissing the criticism and hoping it disappears does not.

Because if this person actually read my article — or any of the articles I’ve written on this — they’d recognize that “building trust” is a recurring theme. Every one of these posts about the tech problems with the online exam boils down to pleading with examiners to focus on regaining the trust of the applicants and not going forward if they can’t do so.

Responding to “hey look, people claim to have hacked this platform that’s already proven hackable this year” with “that’s flimsy” and comically misplaced slights about “critical thinking skills” ain’t doing it.

Earlier: Illinois Bar Examiners Use Website To Show Their Utter Contempt For Applicants, Former Law School Dean
Software That Could Allow Applicants To Cheat On Bar Exam Available For About $100

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.

Rut-roh. What do they say about three being a trend? Now we have three prestigious Biglaw firms declining to pony up fall bonuses, creating a clear haves/have-nots line — at least until end-of-the-year bonuses come in.

So, let’s walk through a little bonus history, shall we? It was only two weeks ago (but in 2020 time, that’s practically a lifetime) that Cooley started the COVID appreciation bonus game. And remember how exciting it was when Davis Polk came over the top of the Cooley scale? And firms quickly started piling on this new bonus scale. Weil did their own, seemingly unpopular, hours-based bonus, but, still, it was better than no bonuses at all.

But, sigh, Kirkland — the world’s richest law firm — begged off fall special bonuses, and seemed to be asking the market not to follow the trend. And Cravath seconded that.

And now O’Melveny & Myers — ranked the best firm to work for in the country — has taken a pass on fall bonuses too. As a tipster at the firm notes:

Firm management at O’Melveny announced at a firmwide Zoom townhall that there will be no fall bonuses. Instead, there will be “enhanced” bonuses for select associates and counsel in February 2021, which is when the firm normally pays out bonuses.

I mean, maybe those “enhanced” bonuses will make up the difference to the market standard? Well, insiders aren’t super hopeful:

It’s unclear what “enhanced” bonuses means and no further details were provided. The firm’s bonuses are always slightly individualized, so it’s unclear how these bonuses will be different from any other year.

Of course, we do have to wait until the year-end bonuses to pass judgment, but it sure seems like a knock on that best firm. And… it doesn’t bode well for the industry as a whole (or at least for associates hoping for a COVD appreciation bonus). It’s now a lot easier for other Biglaw firms to pass on fall bonuses now that Kirkland, Cravath, and O’Melveny have paved the way.

We reached out to the firm about their bonus decision, but have yet to hear back.

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.

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).

* A lawyer has been suspended from practice for being arrested for allegedly driving while nude. The bar examiners can rest assured that this attorney had nothing to hide… [ABA Journal]

* A lawyer for Michael Flynn admitted yesterday that she briefed President Trump about Flynn’s case. [Politico]

* A new lawsuit is claiming that one of Texas’s largest counties is approving voter registrations for noncitizens. [Fox News]

* The son of a federal judge who was fatally shot in an attack over two months ago has finally been laid to rest. [New York Post]

* A Massachusetts lawyer has pleaded guilty to defrauding the U.S. government by applying for federal funds to rehabilitate apartments and then never completing the work. This sounds like a scheme depicted in The Sopranos. [Mass Live]

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.

The first presidential debate is about to start, and it strikes me that we usually put together a legally themed drinking game for these events. Honestly, this was a slog to get up the energy for this one. With everything that’s happened in the last every single minute of 2020, it almost seemed too depressing to put one of these together.

But we shall persevere because this is our job here at Above the Law. Moreover, as soon as I did take a few seconds to think about it, this is going to be one of those rare instances where the legal system is likely to garner significant attention and after historically quipping that we’d be lucky if they even mention the Supreme Court, it might well be the first question this time.

So grab a nice beer (or whatever) from the comfort of your own locked down home, take some adderall as a performance-enhancing debate drug, and let’s do this thing.

All references require a sip unless otherwise noted.

“Supreme Court”: Just limiting this to when they say the words could well be enough to put you out before the third question. Sip, um, judiciously.

Mentioning Roberts, Gorsuch, or Kavanaugh: Obviously there will be some mention of Justice Ginsburg, the legal lioness whose passing put us in this mess, but will anyone else get mentioned? The Chief, by default, is more likely than most to get a shout. Gorsuch, whose appointment violated the very rule Republicans demand the country follow today, is another obvious contender. Justice Keggy Assaultington is also a favorite to get namechecked.

Mentioning any other of the remaining Supreme Court justices (finish your drink): An Elena Kagan reference is not coming through that door, but just in case.

“Merrick Garland”: (Take your drink, put it aside, promise not to touch it until after the election, abruptly change your mind and down it all immediately because it must be finished before the election.)

Court packing: It’s been asked about already this cycle, and liberals are asking for it. Could Biden get asked about it point-blank or could Trump try to bring it up to insinuate that Biden is controlled by the pundits?

Candidate touts legal expertise: Biden mentioning his law degree or his tenure on the Judiciary Committee. Trump claiming that since Tiffany went to Georgetown, “a lot of people are saying” he’s as qualified as any other lawyer.

Specific cases from this term: DACA, the tax cases (probably now eclipsed by the release of the returns but whatever), trans rights… all options.

ACA as a subject of litigation: On a healthcare question, this kind of alcohol poisoning could land you in the ICU with no way to pay your bills because of Amy Coney Barrett. But if the ACA is mentioned in the context of the Supreme Court, it’s worth a sip.

Roe: Democrats are working hard to minimize this as a theme of the upcoming Supreme Court fight, which is interesting because reproductive rights poll incredibly well across the country. Apparently not in states they see as battlegrounds though. Still, between Chris Wallace’s moderation and Trump’s adoration for his base at the expense of actual suburban swing voters,one imagines the decision will receive air time.

Michael Flynn: Flynn’s hearing today was bonkers. Is Trump going to clutch Flynn’s admittedly unlawful tunic to his breast? For that matter, take a sip the first time any of Trump’s now convicted fellow travelers gets namechecked: Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, Roger Stone, etc.

Pardons: Piggybacking off the last one, will someone ask him point blank if he plans to pardon a sophisticated, well-represented defendant who swore under oath that he committed a crime… twice. Or will he get a softball about helping Kim Kardashian pardon some people who then didn’t deserve to be turned into political props? Will he pardon himself for tax evasion?

Anyone asks, “Hey, where’s Kanye?”: Double if Trump declares that it’s “very unfair” how state election boards are treating West.

Crime Bill: Biden’s involvement with the infamous Crime Bill was even more pronounced than Hillary’s. It’s not shocking to think Trump tries to use it to posture himself as the one commuting the sentences of the people Biden helped harm with that law.

Emoluments: I’ve looked back at a lot of Biden debate performances over the years and he has a history of dredging up talking points that have gone out of the public consciousness. It’s like when grandpa talks about the Brooklyn Dodgers out of nowhere. Remember 2016, when this was the Trump crime everyone talked about? We were all so young then.

Florida 2000: Since Trump is being conned into thinking this Supreme Court pick is about avoiding election chaos and it feeds his “don’t trust elections” messaging this moment might sneak its way into the discussion.

A DOJ case without any details: Bill Barr got caught talking about a case involving 1,700 fake ballots that never happened. Then he gave Trump the go ahead to leak about a Pennsylvania discarded ballot case that seems bad but ultimately inconsequential. What case of dubious credibility comes up next?

Anarchy (finish your drink and put on Howling at the Moon by the Ramones because there’s “no law, no law anymore”): Any reference to anarchy or anarchist jurisdiction — the fever dream of the Barr Justice Department designed to strip New York, Portland, and Seattle of public school funds deserves some recognition. Double shot if this is met with a question about how any of this jives with states’ rights.

FBI: James Comey was fired, Trump still complains about former director Bob Mueller, and he’s reportedly considering firing Christopher Wray. If anything about the FBI is mentioned, up to and including the whereabouts of Samantha Mulder you should drink.

Alan Dershowitz (take off everything but your underwear and drink): We’ll see if Trump’s favorite legal scholar is cited approvingly.

Amendments (see description): Shots corresponding with the number of the amendment when mentioned. In other words, one shot for the First Amendment, Two shots for the Second Amendment, etc. God help us if Trump muses about Biden’s health and the Twenty-Fifth.

Enjoy your Twenty-First Amendment rights tonight!

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.

Justice Ginsburg’s loss is a blow to the profession in almost every dimension. A legendary advocate, a long-tenured Supreme Court justice, and a genuine legal celebrity who provided a familiar touchstone with people mostly closed off from the law and its role in society. Joe chats with former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal about arguing before Justice Ginsburg and his experience clerking at the Supreme Court while she was a new justice. Joe and Kathryn also discuss the impact Justice Ginsburg had and the track records of her likely replacements (which was promptly narrowed to Amy Coney Barrett after recording).

A Top Tier International Law Firm in NYC is seeking a senior associate with at least five years of corporate practice experience to join the firm’s General Practice Group.

This is a rare opportunity as this law firm does not usually seek lateral associates. The winning associate will have at least 4 to 6 years of experience advising clients on structuring, documenting, negotiation and executing M&A transactions, including domestic and cross-border public and private acquisitions, business combinations, mergers, divestitures or equity investments.

Must also have experience advising clients on periodic reports under the SEC Act of 1934 and stock exchange listing requirements, compliance with Regulation 13D, etc. This is a business development position as well as train junior and mid-level associates. Must be admitted to practice law in NY.

To be considered, please send your resume to jobs@kinneyrecruiting.com or apply here.