Law. Together.


Olga V. Mack is the CEO of Parley Pro, a next-generation contract management company that has pioneered online negotiation technology. Olga embraces legal innovation and had dedicated her career to improving and shaping the future of law. She is convinced that the legal profession will emerge even stronger, more resilient, and more inclusive than before by embracing technology. Olga is also an award-winning general counsel, operations professional, startup advisor, public speaker, adjunct professor, and entrepreneur. She founded the Women Serve on Boards movement that advocates for women to participate on corporate boards of Fortune 500 companies. She authored Get on Board: Earning Your Ticket to a Corporate Board Seat and Fundamentals of Smart Contract Security. You can follow Olga on Twitter @olgavmack.

Bar Exam Applicants Forced To Sign COVID Waiver In Case In-Person Exam Ends Up Killing Them

(Image via Getty)

If you thought Florida was crazy for forging ahead with an in-person bar exam over the summer, Mississippi is here to up the stakes.

Mississippi — the bar exam that forces you to go back to law school if you fail 3 times — is also going forward with an in-person exam this summer because if you’re the sort of state where people take it as a point of pride to wrestle gators for looking at you funny, you’re not going to let a crowded convention center scare you. But Mississippi has another wrinkle for new graduates taking the test — they’re going to need everyone to sign away their rights! Yes, the bar exam has actually put together a liability waiver that reads like the scary language under a pharmaceutical ad: “Attempting to become a lawyer could result in serious illness, disability and… in some cases… death.” We already knew all that of course, but Mississippi is talking about before you’re the mid-level running a trial.

Please tell me this is just the set up for an issue spotter. For a bar exam that routinely fails upwards of 65 percent of test-takers, adding life or death stakes to the equation seems a bit much, but here we are.

Good luck Mississippi folks!


HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Searching For Silver Linings During COVID-19

The past two months have been surreal and, frankly, hard. Time is a blur. Conversations have migrated from solidarity, support, and concern for safety to thorny and emotionally charged discussions about reopening protocols, when masks should be required, and how to effectuate widescale temperature checks. Children everywhere have morphed into small tornadoes of energy with few outlets, either physical or emotional, to keep them (or us) grounded. And all of this seems likely to continue even with the soft openings we’re starting to see around the country. I think most of us just try not to think about it too much.

So yeah, things are heavy. But life’s not all bad, and I’d like to take some time this week to dwell on the positives that have come out of all of this stress and heartache. None of it comes close to outweighing the losses we’ve experienced, but it’s when we’re at our lowest that we owe it to ourselves to work hard to find the good.

Family First

It starts with the people we’re sharing this pandemic with. Most attorneys work long hours. We spend time away from our families more often than we’d like, sometimes as a matter of course. The past year has been particularly taxing for me from a work perspective. I often told my wife and kids how much I missed them and wished I could spend more time at home.

I wish it hadn’t taken a pandemic, but I’ve gotten to spend more time with my family in the past two months than in years, and I’ve gotten to experience life with them in ways I never would have otherwise. Like most school-aged children, my kids finished up their year taking classes online and via Zoom. I’ve seen my kids do homework and sat and worked with them on any number of assignments, but I’ve never had the opportunity to see them sit and learn from their teacher. I’ve had the chance to watch my kids process the world around them and observe how they absorb information, and it’s been special to see. I wouldn’t have gotten that chance but for COVID-19.

I’ve also been forcibly reminded lately of the benefits of intentionality and solitude. Attorneys usually have to keep lots of plates spinning, and that often means our days are spent bouncing from one task or conversation to another. People used to pop into my office or grab me in the halls constantly to get my take on a subject, or ask me to put out a fire, or just say hello. I love and miss the spontaneity and closeness that facilitates, but working at home from my office has provided me opportunities for focus and deep thought that I didn’t realize I was missing.

Talking Less, Hearing More

I’m not sure when, but at some point I think I forgot what quiet sounded like. Coronavirus has forced me to be more intentional about conversing with my team and to spend more time in solitude focusing deeply on projects in a way I haven’t been able to in a long, long time. It’s not necessarily better, but it’s a good kind of different. It’s helping me strike a balance, fill a need I didn’t realize was there. Work calls still come in, the kids still need to be pulled off each other, my wife still needs help with the 19,000 jobs she performs every hour, but for a few periods every day, I get to just sit in my own brain and work. It’s kind of glorious.

Like the rest of the working world, I’ve developed a complicated relationship with Zoom meetings. Videoconferencing has been critical during this time, and I give big kudos to Zoom for creating the gold standard for the technology. But it’s still videoconferencing. I’ve lost track of the times my screen has frozen from maxed-out broadband. People are growing tired of muting, unmuting, toggling cameras on and off, hitting the “raise hand” button, and going into break-out rooms just to converse. We’ve cycled through most of the comical backgrounds a time or two. The novelty has long worn off for most, and the cultural backlash has begun.

But I’m here to talk positives, and so I’d like to sing one specific praise of the Zoom meeting: face-to-face interaction. My firm is spread across six offices in multiple states, and I’ve probably spent years of my life in large conference rooms video-chatting with other large conference rooms elsewhere. No one can really see or hear one another that well, and so apart from the people sitting immediately around you, it’s not an experience that really brings people together. With Zoom from home, however, everyone’s face is right there. We’re all splotchy, underlit, and at unflattering angles, but we’re looking in one another’s eyes, seeing emotions and reactions flitting across each other’s faces. The interactions I’m having with teammates in other offices are the best, most human ones I’ve had over a videoconference in my career. I feel closer to those offices now than I did before.

What A Wonderful World

I’m also astonished daily by the creativity and resourcefulness this crisis has brought out in my colleagues and teammates. Amid all the chaos and uncertainty, I’ve seen innovation in how my firm communicates, how it markets itself, and how it gets work done. I’ve been approached with business development ideas that not only work around the challenges of coronavirus, but that turn those challenges into selling points and advantages. Our industry is about taking care of others’ needs, providing them advice, guidance, and help during challenging times, and the people I work with have taken that up as a call to arms.

At the end of a recent all-hands Zoom meeting, a partner’s 8-year-old son closed the meeting out by playing “What a Wonderful World” on his ukulele. I scanned the faces of the people in attendance, and saw people being moved. I saw tears, and smiles, at this performance that would never have happened were we not all trapped in our homes, fighting this pandemic.

The past two months have seen tremendous pain, heartache, and loss, but they have not been without hope. We will continue to get through this time in our lives, and we’ll do it because we have one another. Go find your silver linings. We need them now more than ever.


James Goodnow is an attorneycommentator, and Above the Law columnist. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School and is the managing partner of NLJ 250 firm Fennemore Craig. He is the co-author of Motivating Millennials, which hit number one on Amazon in the business management new release category. As a practitioner, he and his colleagues created a tech-based plaintiffs’ practice and business model. You can connect with James on Twitter (@JamesGoodnow) or by emailing him at James@JamesGoodnow.com.

The New Normal: Face To Face With The Virtual Court Model

As much as I loathe this increasingly common phrase, it cannot be avoided. We must think about “the new normal.” And we must think critically about what it is and what it ought to be for the legal system. While courts everywhere are bound to reopen eventually, I suspect the “virtual court model” will become part of the new normal. How it becomes such a part is yet to be determined and should be determined with care.

The past three months have, in essence, been a worldwide exercise in trial and error for remote working capabilities. “Socially distant” lawyering was certainly not how I envisioned my first year of practice. Perhaps unsurprisingly though, the run-of-the-mill lawyering tasks, like legal research, drafting, and client calls, have carried on without much interruption. Filings hit a few bumps in the road but seemed to jump back on track fairly quickly, at least in New York. Notarizations and swearings-in made the jump to video conference. However, to echo what many legal practitioners have long known and recently remarked upon, removing the in-person elements of proceedings has a huge impact on not only the practice of law but on the outcome of cases.

It seemed obvious to me (though apparently not to others) that certain standards of decorum ought to be maintained while remote lawyering. What was not instantly obvious, however, was the influence that variations in video conference capacity would have on … well, everyone. Looking back to the Nixon-Kennedy debates and the impact that speakers’ demeanors and appearances (and good makeup and bad lighting) can have on world history is informative.

For appearances by video, structural elements such as strength of wireless connection, video quality, and lighting presumably have as much of an effect on participants and viewers as one’s in-person demeanor would. However, these elements are not always in the participant’s control. Such control may be subject to any number of random variables (a flickering light or a blaring ambulance passing by), but it may also be subject to less random socioeconomic factors. Big firms may be able to provide full studio effects to their high-paying clients for a video conference with a judge, while indigent parties may barely even have access to a computer or video capacity, let alone a quality microphone and lighting. The inevitability of such a disparate impact of these elements (and others) on parties in all types of cases, handled remotely, may result in new twists for all kinds of appealable issues — fairness, effective assistance of counsel, ability to effectively participate in one’s own representation, and the right to face one’s accuser, to name just a few. For example, The Marshall Project has noted that judges tend to set lower bail when they know they are being observed by the public and by volunteer court observers, yet public access to proceedings has dropped down to nearly none, which raises not only accountability questions but also, of course, Sixth Amendment right-to-a-public-trial questions. Research and advocacy organizations like the Brennan Center for Justice are just beginning to study the myriad constitutional questions arising from the virtual court model.

Constitutional questions aside, as Zoe Schiffer discusses, so much of legal advocacy and judicial decision-making turns on having a feel for the courtroom and the people in it — the parties, the witnesses, the jury. Tone and body language, which inevitably affect judges’ and juries’ perceptions of witness credibility, are examples of in-person elements that cannot be replicated in the virtual court model landscape of floating heads in mismatched lighting. In many types of cases, the ability to assess witness credibility, and more simply, how a jury feels about the parties, is everything. For example, in Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 trial the outcome seemed to depend on who the jury believed more. We’re back to the Nixon-Kennedy debate essentials — perceptions based on demeanor, makeup, and lighting can change the course of history.

The virtual court model has many drawbacks, yet its efficiency cannot be denied. I think it will become part of the new normal legal landscape — and I believe its rightful place should be not as a requirement but as a regularly available option. Countless types of clients and cases (presumably civil ones) would benefit from the speed and convenience of virtual proceedings and would not necessarily be harmed by the structural drawbacks, provided assurances of appropriate safeguards for individual rights and principles of fairness. I foresee virtual court provisions — or in-person waiver provisions — routinely being added to contracts and possibly even added to state and federal rulebooks. To avoid inequities and other pitfalls, and to aid in security and flexibility, I foresee the development of specific virtual court platforms, with uniform backgrounds and audiovisual filters. I foresee a new niche for expertise and prowess in virtual advocacy. With sufficient care, this model could save courts and clients alike time and money. While it is unlikely that anything can replace the effect and importance of in-person advocacy, especially for criminal cases, the virtual court model could become an excellent supplement to the traditional legal system.


Megan E. McKenzie, a recent graduate of Georgetown University Law Center, works at Balestriere Fariello while her admission to the bar is pending. She works with her colleagues on all aspects of domestic and international complex litigation, arbitration, appeals, and investigations. You can reach her by email at megan.e.mckenzie@balestrierefariello.com.

ARBITRATION FROM THE TRENCHES—Bargaining and Other Issues During the COVID-19 Pandemic [Sponsored]

%PDF-1.4 %���� 1 0 obj << /Creator (Apache FOP Version 2.3) /Producer (Apache FOP Version 2.3) /CreationDate (D:20200528003026Z) >> endobj 2 0 obj << /N 3 /Length 3 0 R /Filter /FlateDecode >> stream x��gPTY��{� �M���I��$�$A��@w�i��AQdpFI� ���AFQŀ((��N#��2�”**K�٭�U[�g��x�sO�s�[��1������M��:�1��C�H�(�JN�����!���c����sϑ��>��qy�v�y����%��.��ʱlN2k�w�r4;�-�� 8=%1�{�i��W�-�o�!�o�V��k������Z�kL�0+���t�j� +���|iA/�o3���`?�(��O��f+�y�S/T�����7����o��r�L@�ʿr��`�Q�WN��=t����8@W)��X���o9���Ȁ��

r���”�dQ�(s�+*�JG�*PM��5�(j��F���hS�:��F����ї���)�”���hc,1^�pL �S�9����Lc>` X�!� ��b��l/v;�]Ɖ�Tq�8/��+�5�zpwqӸe�^o�����w�+�m�k�’�A�`F�!�v* g7���D Q�hO%��O/ߒH$5� )��B�Oj&]%=#}��芸��ErEjD:EFD^�qdU�-y+9�A>G�K�ʼn��ڋ����=/:.�(F3�K+k�)6K�P�(�6%�r�r�2EEP���Tu��z�:MC��i��XZ�G�mA�”n$ �!^#~Q�OG����xz �,}��IBN�V�#�O�MbDbIRF�F�#Y(�.9*�I�!�(‘u@�K�4RZK�G:]��5�y���K�P��cYXVK�W6[��좜������U�yy���|�|�|��U�J!F���K�8ÖϨd�3e]S����ԕ��ڕ�*㕙ʑ���}�* *�*9*�*�Uq�L�h�ê�Kj�j�j{պ�f�%�]ճ�[՟h�4�5�44h�5��q�G4�i�Z�Z�Z5Zw�am��#���P���q�5��!�����L��u=t�t�t_������o��ߨ?a@1p3�3�1��PːeXc�`=i��������iq��=4�{�5�3�bbj�3i3�3U1 3�5gҘ��b� 3���Y�����&�)�g���б��h��ݠ����qÔ��e�e�%ߊafůo�hn�`��Fنm�d3c�ik{��Ϯ�n���~��e���C�Ð#��߱�񙓒S�S�ӂ��s��e�����qW9W�k�낛���~w��&�j��Z<�O����瓍��������A�����I޿�}�}j|^����l�nڶ�e�{?;��  �T��r@h@s�R�C`Y ?H/hG��`����LH@HS��f�͇6O����mQߒ���V��[/n#o�v.��9�+�!|1�5�6b�e�:�zŶa���8��2�L�edY�l�e���h������7�.�u�Kq^q'�V���� a �n�����Éډ��$�CI<�?�p<< /Type /Metadata /Subtype /XML /Length 6 0 R >> stream
application/pdf x-unknown 2020-05-28T00:30:26Z Apache FOP Version 2.3 1.4 Apache FOP Version 2.3 2020-05-28T00:30:26Z 2020-05-28T00:30:26Z
endstream endobj 6 0 obj 964 endobj 7 0 obj << /Name /Im1 /Type /XObject /Length 8 0 R /Filter /FlateDecode /Subtype /Image /Width 157 /Height 26 /BitsPerComponent 8 /ColorSpace /DeviceGray >> stream x�͗ilTU��L[J[`b[ k��m�Vٔ��Җ�%”K�%@@Y�”e'(“�”�JD���.�@� �D ��B$(hd *3��u��s�{3ShC�i8��s�]��s�{C�ˀ�5 �ު�^�N��_*�BM���d^�B�$�o�!��n�A���4�)�F.��f2e���t�|��ty>O�핒�֖�a� ۻܠY1��}�j��V�y�����FŐ���Q�m��c�D%NJ�]Hm;[o�ׄ�h���n�U��70�#j���”�xUzkH����v�����I�=G�.�d�`A0�^.7���”�X��)�&�����7:G�(+~T�”�N�+��”v,!z���5�F� %j |�^�;qKw��p�G74���O�v�I�m’Z��N]�W��g�-�ix�L���b�B�U�C�J�D���e�9�}�Jgkp� 8��&���)��f��ψ��a��g��4�<'p���-��pU̿@Ϣ9�P�>‘��2�h.�n8Z����)��l�|��Ft�$��zdr��%[V�3+;�*8r��Z4�_��Q�tR��D�ţ�Q�y1/�w���͸�eS5�z��i��=��@� Jœ�2�&b�T�2�W�5�����F�;”�&*’�c.�����I�)����b�q]jd��a�c�o���^��Eg����u6��^��q{}�̙-�袋20���1U�܉��p(�?�|Ρ�4�cC��7;�E�y����I��Y�dOR�J�r��RhN��������P�U>Q�XJ�{��5X��G�A�4G�WX �1�c�h .���=u�UjL���T*Ki�Z��U�� �j|t�Q��Y�f3�9X�_PP0��'[��+�,q���-����L8�y�_�S�����Xē��$�z�����ke�c,�x�O�T�/��9U��V�L3���pD��e� J�#ʄ�)�=��b�|�0��#8_eR^�����(���0S4�$���D=,R�zV�ͻ�����(r��M��R�KB�%V�7�N�]kG�%6�V�����q�z�����#=���^DG�g�v��_ S��*`���)um��’�A�� �]��X���jU�LU�`82D�,HQ1����J�*�ɔF7��_>’ф��J�JX�����7��%���JeS�.W�q�>A���M�b~St��l�:r�b���_UO���)&�O4���Ҙ�=�f�|��t��NF�ӥ����x����b����Y����6�l�9C��x��GZ(�99���7���[l��/nz�� [vgs�%��u�����dnw�xW�?j��$a�;�ϟ��412�$A�?i endstream endobj 8 0 obj 1384 endobj 9 0 obj << /Name /Im2 /Type /XObject /Length 10 0 R /Filter /FlateDecode /Subtype /Image /Width 157 /Height 26 /BitsPerComponent 8 /ColorSpace [/ICCBased 2 0 R] /SMask 7 0 R >> stream x���kL�W�#2�ˢ�n�ܢ��)ZT��Nq�O��dʭЋ@[[h��֖�fs���m’8]����^U.�)-���dYf�,�Y̲%[^�6��M���Ó����$7 %?ɪz߮�km��v��8 �m�Nk�qB�����a�Ѐ�ߘ��׌�1�D>��’f:kk4���p�);����[���j�`�ɉT�d��n��nc�����g�P�(:| �G���P�P�R6Ec�S±B�i2����ݝ��gU ��’�[���v����˞@�yp�Ɏ�?Q,?q�VӶ��=�R�x�h�sJ8�qhog�C�ڼY O.��3:}Tw�;����S���6�L�x��J�Z�� �~c�H�8W�”��/`Ec�<�£Q����4�PVh~fpI����V텧���̝'���d�Ć��[�gn��3�Ǽ��u��,��19���|�m��a��'08�7�� ��}����� ~F��Mz��a��Z=�z{�v�;I2��⟅���[�r�������uA�v�F��2d��bo�ځ�.��1�bv๬�@pY��mB��|�O���A�+��@aJ�sU��$��,�ԿF6�QRE�ޏy��i��'�ĕ��<�ИT�J_T���^�Xbf$��J�t���;hե���L��0���q��O<�gD�+�o��j�q���Ev�A��L3;~��'�T��rt)��bu2O���J�����$���y�܍D��ܞ��d� �drt���5^�D���|���#|@%�ш1�B&C���fbe��V�v��Ȝ(0�@�~u� /w�,d@��"ue�-��1$p�S�W�#�Ⱦ6��a>��H�f��+’:x� l�b�6@S��kw���vF���ŧ �C53��O���Dǜ/1�*�Hі;g���X �.9�/R�W��Ba߲����]��-2’HW��-�����Jex�”�jqu::�c�y�o�-w��}O:}���Be��,��AG|��q�� �^2�S��R��?��a�s�%��p�Z���� �VUYS���fxK0�ş$��)�=<< /URI (http://prod.resource.cch.com/resource/scion/document/default/eld01b2af95147d991000b6dc005056881d2303?cfu=Legal&cpid=WKUS-Legal-Cheetah&uAppCtx=cheetah) /S /URI >> endobj 12 0 obj << /Type /Annot /Subtype /Link /Rect [ 56.692 683.432 507.814 697.418 ] /C [ 0 0 0 ] /Border [ 0 0 0 ] /A 11 0 R /H /I >> endobj 13 0 obj << /Type /Annot /Subtype /Link /Rect [ 56.692 664.532 475.992 678.518 ] /C [ 0 0 0 ] /Border [ 0 0 0 ] /A 11 0 R /H /I >> endobj 14 0 obj << /Type /Annot /Subtype /Link /Rect [ 56.692 645.632 224.426 659.618 ] /C [ 0 0 0 ] /Border [ 0 0 0 ] /A 11 0 R /H /I >> endobj 15 0 obj << /URI (https://prod.resource.cch.com/resource/scion/document/default/eld01b2af95147d991000b6dc005056881d2303?cfu=Legal&cpid=WKUS-Legal-Cheetah&uAppCtx=cheetah) /S /URI >> endobj 16 0 obj << /Type /Annot /Subtype /Link /Rect [ 56.692 603.758 218.112 613.748 ] /C [ 0 0 0 ] /Border [ 0 0 0 ] /A 15 0 R /H /I >> endobj 17 0 obj << /Length 18 0 R /Filter /FlateDecode >> stream x��K��ޟ_�?P�I��”��c�.���j�vћ”��f����s�m.S9�o��󛽘���-����o?Ә�L�0�1�~�ӥ4<��0�i]�e�C˺��_~�|{� 5�έ���z������WO.v�|�v�)��˧ϗ��h����a����of������_>������Xҍ����kSؖq�eu�rHԺ0,&��՟?����<�Ts��i"���fb��Q1a�0���„��f���P��8Y�}��k|���N��Xb�I��2���g�賧g�i|�uF�7���o"�H�8�e�r0��~]֋Ɛ������(��YcA��i�0�i>�P�,)�E��(9�d#��N��;����$�t=�9�f��e

Don’t Listen To The Rumors, Clarence Thomas Isn’t Retiring From SCOTUS

He will die on the court. He’s just warming up. He still feels young, and there’s a lot of work to do.

Armstrong Williams, a close friend of Justice Clarence Thomas, commenting on the likelihood that the associate justice will be retiring from the Supreme Court any time soon. “I have no reason to think the justice is going anywhere,” said former Thomas clerk Helgi C. Walker, a partner at Gibson Dunn. Thomas is the longest-tenured justice on the high court, and rumors of his supposed imminent retirement have been swirling ever since Donald Trump was elected president. Thomas, who has been surprisingly vocal lately during oral arguments, has repeatedly denied these claims.


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.

Man Seeks Restitution For Daughter’s Loss Of Virginity… With Footnotes!

Before the Trump administration guts Twitter, the website remains one of the best sites for free entertainment in the world. Because, as with “society” generally, once you cut through the lies, racism, bullying, posturing, homophobia, whining, and Russian bots… social media is a pretty cool place to share.

For example, have you ever found yourself holding archaic, misogynistic views about male ownership of female sexuality and wondered how you could turn those into a cause of action? Well, this guy is appealing to the “courts of heaven” for restitution because his daughter had sex with her boyfriend… a decade ago. According to Twitter user Isaac N., a friend of the accused, the ex-boyfriend’s wife of seven years found what functions as a pro se demand letter I suppose in the mailbox.

It has been nearly ten years since I learned that you stole my daughter _______’s virginity. Initially it was my intention to forgive you. But after I confronted you about it and you expressed repentance, I later learned that you have since gone and done the same to others.

Question: this guy is following up on the sex life of his daughter’s ex? What exactly are those Facebook stalking questions like? “Hi, you don’t know me, but it looks like you dated so and so… did you bone? Thanks.”

In the interim, I have thought, prayed and studied the Scriptures seeking for an appropriate response.

I feel like “let go and let God” is alluded to all over the place. Spoiler alert: this guy missed those passages.

At the time I was a man of modest means and you deliberately took from me my most precious treasure. A treasure I invested my heart and soul and every available resource in creating. For a brief pleasure, you forever took from me the sublime joy of giving my pure, virgin daughter away in marriage to her chosen husband.

Imagine the dowry this man of modest means will need to pay now!

Buckle up everyone because now we get to the real lawyerin’:

When Jacob sought to marry Rachel, the daughter of Laban, they agreed that Jacob would first serve Laban for seven full years tending his herds, flocks and tribes- Therefore, if we had mutually agreed that you could marry _______, the equivalent of seven years of your full-time service would have been a reasonable bride price.

The man’s found the market standard!

In fact, if a thief does not have the means to make full restitution, they may be sold into slavery as well.

I feel as though there’s been some intervening legislation on this point.

So, I have decided to petition the courts of heaven….

One of the seven footnotes in the letter appears here to let us know what he’s talking about. It points us to the Book of Daniel:

His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze. 10A river of fire was flowing, coming out from His presence. Thousands upon thousands attended Him, and myriads upon myriads stood before Him. The court was convened, and the books were opened.

So… Southern District of New York.

… to take from you and give to me that which is your dearest possession: your youth and all the good that goes with it Specifically I demand divine restitution that will age you and rejuvenate me 49 years.

As your Honor is aware, in the case of United States vs. Benjamin Button…

We’ve got a plague and fathers bartering over virginity… the Middle Ages are back people!

(Check out the whole letter on the next page…)


HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

The Bimodal Salary Of Starting Lawyers

We post this for a few reasons:

(1) Because too few applicants know this — this is actually what starting salaries look like for those right out of law school. The graph below is pretty self explanatory. Note the extreme spike(s) (thus technically making it a trimodal distribution) at the far right end. In a regular salary distribution, these spikes might be shorter but much more spread out. But for law graduates, they are broader at the lower salary ranges. This again is not a concept that many know, especially those not in the legal field.

Note that the average starting salary for a new attorney is somewhere in the $90,000-$100,000 range — but very few new lawyers actually make this amount (less than 5%); many more make between $50,000 and $70,000, and then a portion make a typical Biglaw salary (over on the right side of the graph), largely concentrated in graduates from top law schools.

(2) Because we also want you to see, for comparison, what it looked like in 1991:

So what does this mean?

While we hate to speculate too far out, the general sense is those two spikes on the right side of the more recent graph will both get notably shorter in the next year or so. In other words, the vast proportion of graduating lawyers will only shift further left on the salary distribution — fewer people will get the Biglaw jobs.

What is the good news?

Unlike during the Great Recession, this shift shouldn’t last as long. There are several reasons for that. One is that money is moving, and thus deals are being done. The severe problem in the Great Recession was the lack of deals. Two, law firms still remember how they overcorrected during the Great Recession, and were soon thereafter left with no mid-level associates (which is where firms start to actually make money).

Finally, firms have made adjustments in many ways because of the Great Recession. In a sense, they have been preparing for the next one — for the very reason that they ideally don’t have to make the same cuts as last time.

In summary

Salary freezes and cuts are already occurring. But they shouldn’t be as long-lasting as during the Great Recession. On a personal note, I was a dean of career services during the Great Recession. It was a very painful period for many of my students. Those who remained upbeat almost always found employment, though, and many are absolutely thriving in their careers today. Let’s hope this legal hiring momentum change is not very long lasting.

Graph sources


Mike Spivey is the founder of The Spivey Consulting Group and has been featured as an expert on law schools and law school admissions in many national media outlets, including The New York Times, The Economist, the ABA Journal, The Chronicle of Higher Education, U.S. News & World Report, CNN/Fortune, and Law. Prior to founding Spivey Consulting, Mike was a senior level administrator at Vanderbilt, Washington University, and Colorado law schools. You can follow him on Twitter and Instagram or connect with him LinkedIn

Divorce And Family Law In The Wake Of COVID

Joe and Kathryn chat with Matthew Barach of Barach Law Group and author of The Family Law Guide to Appellate Practice about the impact of COVID-19 on this practice area. Will we see a spike in divorce? Will couples stay together until assets recover? What toll does quarantine take on joint custody agreements? Perhaps the biggest takeaway when it comes to this area of law is that it’s going to challenge the conventional wisdom.

Mark Zuckerberg’s Ridiculously Wrong, Misleading, And Self-Serving Statements Regarding Twitter Fact-Checking The President

Photo: Sean Gallup, Getty Imagesis 

As we continue to deal with the fallout of our thin-skinned President throwing a hissy fit over Twitter daring to provide more context to conspiracy theory nonsense that Trump himself tweeted, Facebook founder and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, has apparently decided that it’s more important to stomp on Twitter while it’s down, rather than protect the wider internet. In a shameful display of opportunistic nonsense, Zuckerberg went on Fox News and pretended that Facebook was somehow not interested in moderating content the way Twitter did:

“We have a different policy, I think, than Twitter on this,” Zuckerberg told Dana Perino, host of the Fox News show The Daily Briefing, in an interview clip. The full interview is expected to air on Thursday.

“I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online. In general, private companies probably shouldn’t be, especially these platform companies, shouldn’t be in the position of doing that,” Zuckerberg added.

Perino said that Zuckerberg told her that Facebook refuses to intervene in censoring public posts unless there’s a threat of imminent harm. She added that Facebook is “hands off” when it comes to political speech.

Sure, they have a different policy, because almost all sites have different policies, but if you compared Facebook’s policies on content moderation to Twitter’s you’d find that Facebook does vastly more moderation than Twitter has ever done and Facebook introduced similar “fact checking” efforts years ago. To pretend that Facebook doesn’t do the exact same thing that Twitter is accused of doing here is just ridiculous. And, we all agree that no platform should be “the arbiter of truth” but that’s not the same as saying “do no moderation” (and again, Facebook does a ton of moderation). As for the final claim that Facebook is “hands off” when it comes to political speech, that’s also false. Facebook is hands off on political ads, but not all political speech. And so is Twitter, in that it bars all political ads in the first place.

This is disappointing, but all too common from Facebook, the company that stabbed the open internet in the back by supporting FOSTA a few years ago. The company has clearly made the decision that it can sell out the open internet in favor of more political clout.

Mark Zuckerberg’s Ridiculously Wrong, Misleading, And Self-Serving Statements Regarding Twitter Fact-Checking The President

More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:

DC Appeals Court Dumps Lawsuit Claiming Multiple Tech Companies Are Engaged In An Anti-Conservative Conspiracy
The Two Things To Understand About Trump’s Executive Order On Social Media: (1) It’s A Distraction (2) It’s Legally Meaningless
Hell Hath No Fury Like A Federal Law Enforcement Agency That Keeps Finding Some Way To Break Into IPhones