Skadden Jumps Into The Spring Bonus Wars

(Image via Getty)

Welcome to the bonus party, Skadden!

After Willkie Farr started the bonus war by handing out special spring bonuses to have associates share in the firm’s largesse, Davis Polk went over the top with even bigger bonuses. Now Skadden has announced their own spring bonus plans.

They’re matching the Davis Polk scale, according to the following chart:

Full announcement available on the next page.

They went with  June/December disbursements, rather than the earlier April/September some firms are rolling with, but, most importantly, the amount of money remains the same. The firm also clarified, like their peers, this will be in addition to the regular year-end bonuses, which they anticipate will be at least as big as last year’s bonus pool.

Additionally, the firm noted that if an associate does not meet the hours requirement for the June bonus payment (though that threshold is not disclosed in the email, it’s expected it’ll be in line with the firm’s usual hours requirements), they’ll have an opportunity to garner a make-up payment along with the December bonus.

Remember everyone, we depend on your tips to stay on top of important bonus updates, so when your firm matches, please text us (646-820-8477) or email us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Matches”). 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 (which is the alert list we also use for salary announcements), 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. Thanks for all of your help!


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.

Law School STILL Named After Slaveholder

In December, the committee formed to investigate the possibility of renaming UIC-John Marshall Law School voted 6-1 to go forward with the name change to drop references to the slaveholding former Supreme Court justice from the school’s name. Meanwhile, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law at Cleveland State University announced the formation of a similar committee but at this point continues to march forward hoping no one will notice that nothing’s being done.

Rename John Marshall, a group of lawyers in Cleveland and Chicago who seek to remove “Marshall” from school names, called upon new Housing and Urban Development Secretary Marcia Fudge,[1] an alum of Cleveland State’s law school, to use her national prominence to urge the school to get moving on the issue.

John Marshall, the chief justice who laid the groundwork for the functioning of the federal judiciary and, indeed, the federal government writ large over the course of his tenure enjoys legendary status among legal nerds. He’s the top overall seed in SCOTUSBlog’s highly questionable “best Supreme Court justice” bracket. But scholarship suggests that the native Virginian was also one of the biggest slaveholders in America, something that his statements labeling slavery “evil” can’t overcome.[2]

Some, like South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman, decry efforts to remove Marshall’s name as “cancel culture” because that’s the sort of right-wing clickbait that readers eat up over at the Volokh Conspiracy, a blog hosted by a white professor with a penchant for complaining that people don’t think he should use the n-word so much. We don’t put much stock in these “all slaveholders matter” arguments, though Blackman does make the good point that, as public schools, state lawmakers are bound to get involved. And in a place like increasingly retrograde Ohio, that’s likely to turn the battle over Cleveland State’s moniker into a circus sideshow.

A more nuanced approach than bleating about “cancel culture” might be to factor in why a specific figure is being honored. Progress being linear, most historical figures are going to have been terrible people for one reason or another, but why we choose to honor them might be relevant. There’s a law school out there named after Robert E. Lee simply because the school decided to give a slaveholding traitor a nice retirement plan.[3] Fighting to maintain slavery is Lee’s primary accomplishment. John Marshall, like a lot of early American government figures, engaged in the mass enslavement of human beings, but is primarily known for work independent of that aspect of his life.

However, this is a problematic argument generally and it’s especially problematic when talking about a judge whose jurisprudence helped maintain the system. Just because Marbury v. Madison is more famous doesn’t mean Marshall’s actual job didn’t involve him providing legal cover for slavery for decades.

So let’s just not have schools named after Marshall. Why does this guy need a school named after him? We can and will still read his opinions and discuss his impact on American law. Whether or not his name is emblazoned on the diploma doesn’t change whether or not he’s studied for the contributions he made.

And, no offense to these schools, but do we really need to honor slaveholders just to indulge third-tier law schools seeking to bolster credibility? That sounds harsh, and these schools produce many great lawyers — including the aforementioned cabinet secretary! — but note that the University of Chicago isn’t naming itself the Roger Taney School of Law or anything.[4] These schools only appended “John Marshall” to their names to bolster their images by hijacking the reputation of a long-dead jurist. That they did a better job of it than accidentally naming themselves ASSLaw doesn’t change that it’s all just a marketing ploy.

If the hill you want to die on is forcing Cleveland State to continue branding itself after a guy who had literally nothing to do with that school that wasn’t founded until he’d been dead over 80 years, then you really need to reassess your priorities. Because at that point you’re not fighting to defend John Marshall’s place in history, you’re fighting to defend a century-old advertising play just because you don’t like Black people objecting to slavery.

And that’s, you know, kinda racist.


[1] Who should be Secretary of Agriculture, but I digress.

[2] One thing that confuses me is the call for “the School to not use the merger with the University of Akron School of Law as a way to avoid the issue of the School being named after a slave master.” I understand feeling like that’s a cop out from the school, but this is one of those instances where the ends justify the means. The goal is to stop honoring Marshall for years to come and if that happens through a public repudiation or through just becoming “Akron Law at Cleveland” the name is gone.

[3] If you’re thinking, “I’d heard Robert E. Lee opposed slavery and only joined the Confederacy over states’ rights” then you were duped by a pernicious myth cooked up by “Lost Cause” revisionists that infected American schools for decades.

[4] Berkeley is the rare top-flight school that had a problematic name and they ditched it already. In a shock to nobody at all, it had no impact on the quality of the school. This isn’t to say that there aren’t other issues baked into top law schools. Leland Stanford built the university and was a virulent racist. NYU’s public interest scholarship bears the name of an alum and presidential candidate who ran on ending Reconstruction. Without endorsing those names, we should at least be able to agree that dropping someone with zero connection to the school presents far fewer obstacles.

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.

How GCs Can Make Privacy A Habit In The Face Of New Laws

(Getty Images)

In the new digital economy, it often seems like every day brings another tale of some horrific data breach. 

Additionally, revelations like the ones involving Cambridge Analytica, the British company that mined the Facebook data of tens of millions of people in an attempt to affect elections worldwide, have left people more mindful of data privacy.

Governments have responded. Data privacy laws abound and more are in process. In such a fluid legal environment, how can a business keep up? 

“Legal departments face increasingly complex tasks in staying compliant while minimizing regulatory risk related to data privacy in virtually all areas of their work,” says Trista Engel, Paragon Legal’s Chief Executive Officer. “We ensure our privacy lawyers are well-versed in understanding and mitigating the risks in this critical and ever-evolving field.” 

Representatives from Paragon Legal recently attended a virtual event titled “Data Privacy in an Era of Global Change,” hosted by the National Cyber Security Alliance

The event featured experts from the World Bank, Airbnb, and Visa, among others, who discussed the latest issues companies are facing involving data privacy — as well as how certain best practices can also advance a company’s broader business goals.  

Here, we present some actionable takeaways for in-house counsel along with a summary of the current regulatory landscape. 

Making Privacy a Core Value

Rita Heimes, General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer at the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), recommends that companies build a culture of privacy beyond the risk management technique of compliance with a given law.

Speaking at the event, Heimes said such a culture goes far beyond the avoidance of litigation. People would rather work for “an organization that is thoughtful and careful and has a good soul,” she said.

“Those people are loyal to you and they stick with you for longer because they enjoy where they work,” Heimes continued. “Privacy is one of many components, along with diversity and inclusion. Your employees will notice that you take these things seriously and they’ll respect you for it. They’ll be proud of where they work.”

So, how does a company build a culture of privacy? 

First, create a detailed policy, thought-out, tested, and devised by professionals. Heimes recommends that part of this policy be periodic data housecleaning. 

“If you don’t have people’s personal data, then it can’t be misused,” she said. “A culture of privacy reduces risks all over.”

Second, dedicate personnel to implement the policy. While a chief privacy officer with a team is ideal, experts recognize this may be beyond the reach of some businesses. 

One option companies have is to partner with an alternative legal service provider like Paragon, which maintains teams of privacy-focused professionals to support companies that lack these types of expertise in-house. 

Third, thoroughly follow up — particularly with all types of vendors and business partners — to make sure the policy is working as intended. Third-party data protection presents numerous challenges, and companies must remain vigilant to ensure their security needs are being met. 

Complying With the GDPR

This attentiveness is important because of ever-shifting regulations. In 2018, the European Union kicked privacy law to a new level when it implemented the General Data Privacy Regulation (GDPR). 

The law fosters transparency regarding data collection, mandates that sites cannot collect data unless a user affirmatively opts in to the process, and governs protocols in case of a data breach.

Many companies, no matter where they’re domiciled given our global economy, saw this robust law and thought it best to comply. 

They said to themselves: “Europe has come up with a comprehensive consumer privacy law that sets a very high bar. If we build our systems to meet that, we’ll probably comply everywhere, right?” Heimes said. “Because it’s the strictest law, that’s the reactive and appropriate first step.” 

She noted, however, that this strategy can be “pretty tough on your data team and you may not need to go that far.”

Post-GDPR, companies have been “fine-tuning their processes, seeking the best procedures for themselves, their vendors and their clients,” Heimes said. And of course, the GDPR is no longer the only robust privacy law.

Eyeing the US Landscape

As it often does, California led the way in the United States with its 2018 California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). 

While it shares goals with the GDPR, there are a few differences. The CCPA added data about devices and households to the definition of personal information. The right to opt out is narrower than the GDPR’s because it covers only the sale of personal information, but it included broader consumer rights regarding access to data.

However, because data privacy laws never stand still for long, in late 2020, the Sunshine State passed the California Privacy Right Acts (CPRA) to build on the earlier law. 

CPRA advocates felt the CCPA was too weak — too susceptible to legal machinations — and set out to fix it. Significantly, they passed the new law through a ballot referendum, demonstrating that the general public is aware of the problem and wants strong laws.

The CPRA establishes an agency, to be called the California Privacy Protection Agency, charged with enforcing the act and promoting awareness of privacy risks, according to materials posted by the NCSA. The agency will get up and running this year, although other provisions of the law don’t take effect until 2023.

The new law also created a category called “sensitive personal information” and includes specific compliance requirements for this category. It expands the opt-in requirement to include the sale and sharing of a user’s personal data, which brings it in line with the GDPR.

On March 2, Virginia became the second state to pass a robust data privacy law. 

The Consumer Data Protection Act, which becomes effective in 2023, is similar to the CCPA in that it gives consumers more control over their personal data.

As noted in Corporate Counsel, the Virginia law also contains minor differences that will increase compliance burdens for companies.  

Perhaps more important than state-level activity, federal lawmakers have been working to pass legislation as well.

The latest iteration in federal law is the Setting an American Framework to Ensure Data Access, Transparency, and Accountability Act (SAFE DATA Act), a conglomeration of three previous bills, according to a September 2020 article from the IAPP

If the bill were to become law, it would require companies to obtain affirmative express consent before gathering individuals’ sensitive data and would require privacy policies to be published and transparent. 

The bill calls for robust data security practices, and would prohibit the denial of goods or services to individuals who exercise their privacy rights. Users would be guaranteed access to their data and companies would have to designate data security officers and conduct annual assessments, among other things.

The SAFE DATA Act would also require users to be notified if an “opaque algorithm,” uses their personal data to select the content they see, and would require an “input-transparent algorithm” to be on offer.

The U.S. Congress is still at odds over some aspects of the bill. According to the IAPP article, “the two key dividing lines are whether federal privacy legislation will include a private right of action and [whether it will] preempt state laws that offer a higher standard of privacy protections,” such as the CPRA.

“California was a big wake-up call that U.S. states are one by one going to begin adopting standards,” Heimes said. “Now that we have party alignment, more or less, across both houses and in the White House, the chances are better than they’ve ever been that there will be federal privacy legislation.”

Paragon Legal is a premier legal services firm providing interim in-house counsel to leading corporate legal departments. Visit them here for more … 

Top Biglaw Firm Announces New Spring Special Bonuses, And The Bonus War Is On!

Woohoo! The Biglaw spring bonus wars are heating up!

Fresh off of news that Willkie Farr was handing out special spring bonuses in appreciation of associates’ hard work during a particularly trying period, and Davis Polk’s decision to outdo that generosity, Milbank has decided to throw their hat into the ring.

Today, the firm announced their own spring bonuses and matched the scale set by Davis Polk. The bonus distributions will be as follows:

April September Total
Class of 2020 $4,500 $7,500 $12,000
Class of 2019 $6,000 $10,000 $16,000
Class of 2018 $12,000 $20,000 $32,000
Class of 2017 $16,500 $27,500 $44,000
Class of 2016 $19,500 $32,500 $52,000
Class of 2015 $22,200 $37,000 $59,200
Class of 2014 $24,000 $40,000 $64,000
Class of 2013 $24,000 $40,000 $64,000

Bonuses will be paid by April 30 / September 30, 2021. And yes, there will still be regular, end-of-the-year bonuses at Milbank: “These special bonuses will not impact any discretionary bonus paid in respect of 2021.” The firm announcement went on to note, associates can continue to expect big bucks come year-end bonus time too, saying, “We expect our year-end bonus will be no less than the 2020 year-end bonus levels for eligible associates.”

The full memo is available on the next page.

Remember everyone, we depend on your tips to stay on top of important bonus updates, so when your firm matches, please text us (646-820-8477) or email us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Matches”). 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 (which is the alert list we also use for salary announcements), 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. Thanks for all of your help!


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.

Dean At Elite Law School Apologizes For ‘Offensive Characterizations’

University of Michigan Law School (via Getty)

A racial controversy at a top law school has resulted in a “thoughtful” apology from the school’s Dean.

A student at the University of Michigan Law School raised red flags last week over a trio of Dean Mark West’s book covers, pointing out how they contribute to the culture of racism and misogyny. Well, she actually brought her concerns to West’s attention last year, but went public after the Atlanta shooting put increased attention on the oppression experienced by AAPI women.

The tweet also provides the stark visualization of the artwork adorning West’s books, which brings into focus the way West — whose area of academic focus is the law of Japan — uses stereotypes to sell books.

As outrage over the Dean’s book covers began to ignite, West sent out an email to the law school about racism. Except, it never mentioned anything about his own issues.

It wasn’t until this past weekend that Dean West addressed the controversy directly. In an email to the Michigan Law community (full version available on the next page), West offers an apology:

I could have—should have—done better. I’ve hurt members of our community, they’ve told me so, and I’m devastated that my actions had those consequences. In this situation, anyone, but especially one in a position of leadership, should do the work of reflecting and apologizing. I am sorry.

He also gives a specific mea culpa for the “offensive characterizations” that “contribut[e] to a harmful narrative”:

One thing that I got unequivocally wrong: some of my book covers. I understand the pain I have caused by giving tangible form through those covers to the often-invisible experiences of racism and sexism some of you have experienced in your own lives. I didn’t actively interrogate historical racism and hurtful stereotypes or damaging depictions of gender roles—instead I sometimes traded in those stereotypes and reproduced those depictions. My doing so contributed to a narrative that promotes a two-dimensional and offensive characterization of people, and especially women; it suggests that women should think of themselves in ways that are lesser. Further, it reinforces a view of women founded on damaging stereotypes. And while contributing to a harmful narrative was not my intent or understanding at the time, I understand it now, and I understand that my intent does not excuse or lessen the harm.

He also goes on to detail the efforts he’s making to undo the harms he’s contributed to:

I began actively working to change the covers last spring. In 2005, when the publisher and I initially discussed the artwork for my Scandal book, I saw the photo that was proposed as “edgy,” but I simply didn’t consider it in the context of reifying racist and sexist tropes. Over the years, I found myself increasingly uncomfortable with the image, but I assumed the book would go out of print soon and that this would take care of the issue. Waiting for that, however, became increasingly untenable—so now, the publisher has removed the artwork from its website, and I am told that on Monday it will be replaced with new artwork. (In an apt metaphor for the staying power for this kind of harm, I recognize that these steps won’t eliminate the problem—the cover will still be present on Amazon and so on for some time.) I am also working with other publishers to change the artwork on the covers of other books I have written. Frankly, I had never really devoted much thought to any individual book cover—and I had never considered what my books look like when they’re placed next to each other. I wish I would have recognized all of this earlier, and I am sorry that I didn’t.

And while some still feel the Dean’s words are lacking — one Above the Law tipster characterized it as “too little, too late” — it does seem like this is the first step to let the healing begin.

And as other recent law school scandals have taught us, opening up real and meaningful dialogue about racial incidents is incredibly important.


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).

Quinn Emanuel Hit With Racial Discrimination Suit

A new lawsuit filed against litigation powerhouse Quinn Emanuel claims the firm participated in racial discrimination, failed to adequately protect the alleged victim, and then fired him.

The plaintiff is Nicholas Mondelo, a Hispanic-American of Spanish origin, who in 2015 served as Quinn Emanuel’s IT director for its East Coast and Midwest operations and was later demoted to overseeing only the firm’s New York office. Mondelo claims he one of the only Hispanics in the firm’s IT department, and that he was allegedly “subjected to a constant stream of harassment, ridicule, and abuse” from defendant David Eskanos, the firm’s former chief information officer. According to the complaint, Eskanos referred to Mondelo using a racist slur related to his Spanish heritage. Mondelo then reported Eskanos to human resources, and two partners who are both named as defendants — Peter Calamari, the then-managing partner of Quinn Emanuel’s New York office, and Richard Schirtzer, the then-managing partner of Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office — were assigned to act as a “buffer” between him and Eskanos. The American Lawyer has more details:

That arrangement allegedly continued until March 2018, when Calamari stepped down from his role leading the New York office and allegedly told Mondelo he would no longer be serving as a buffer. Around the same time, the firm hired a new East Coast IT leader and stripped Mondelo of his authority over the firm’s Chicago and Washington, D.C., offices, leaving just New York under his purview.

While working under the new intermediary, Mondelo felt that he was being set up by Eskanos to botch the rollout of a new software system in New York, according to the complaint. He ultimately had a breakdown and was committed to the Jersey City Medical Center in May 2019, after which he was fired by the firm.

Mondelo claims he was involuntarily committed a second time on the same day he lost his job with the firm, and was later diagnosed with bipolar disorder. According to the complaint, Mondelo has been unable to secure new job since the time of his firing and was hospitalized in January 2020 after attempting suicide.

A Quinn Emanuel spokesperson said of the lawsuit: “We are disappointed that Mr. Mondelo has chosen to take this action. His claims are without merit.”

Read the full complaint below.

Ex-IT Manager Sues Quinn Emanuel for Racial Discrimination [American Lawyer]


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.

Hemp Is Much More Than CBD

The enactment of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (the 2018 Farm Bill) and the legalization of hemp and hemp derivatives, including cannabidiol (CBD), has led to a massive CBD craze in the Yes, workout clothes!) According to a 2019 study conducted by Cowen Research, the sales of these products are expected to reach $16 billion by 2025.

Yet, the potential of hemp lays beyond CBD. Indeed, as the market becomes saturated, and the value of hemp and CBD declines (the aggregate price of hemp biomass dropped by 79% from April 2019 to April 2020), U.S. companies will need to — and should — turn to other product offerings.

The good news is that they need not look far. The hemp plant is an underappreciated and high-value crop used in a wide range of products and product types, ranging from food, textile, automotive parts, and construction supplies, just to name a few.

Virtually every part of the hemp plant has a purpose.

Hemp seeds are rich in protein, fiber, omega-3 fats and other essential nutrients and vitamins, and can also be ground into flour.

Hemp seed oil can be used for human consumption (in fact hemp seed oil, along with hulled hemp seed and hemp seed powder have been generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the FDA, but also to produce nontoxic paints, detergents, adhesives, inks, and plastics.

The stalk’s outer bast fibers can produce textiles, canvas, and rope, while its woody core is used for paper, animal bedding, and construction, including “hempcrete,” a lightweight insulating material that closely resembles cement.

But one of the most exciting uses of hemp probably lays in the crop’s sustainable nature and incredible environmental benefits.

The hemp plant can be grown successfully on a variety of soils, providing growers with the most eco-friendly answer to soil pollution and soil erosion, which have been threatening our ability to grow food. The crop can also be cultivated without the use of herbicides, pesticides, or fungicides, and requires only moderate amounts of water. For example, while it takes 10,000 liters of water to produce one kilogram of cotton, hemp only requires 2,700 liters. Moreover, the hemp plant grows faster, yields two to three times as much fiber as most traditional crops, and returns nutrients to the soil, leaving it in optimum condition following cultivation.

Hemp also has the potential to help reduce carbon dioxide and combat global warming. International scientific studies have shown that hemp absorbs more carbon dioxide per hectare than any forest or commercial crop (one hectare of hemp can absorb between 15 and 22 tons of carbon dioxide), making it the ideal “carbon sink.” Indeed, once absorbed, the carbon dioxide is permanently bounded within the fiber, which is then used to manufacture other hemp-derived products, such as textiles, building materials, and auto parts.

Another by-product of the legalization and versatility of hemp is the creation of thousands of new jobs across multiple sectors. Since the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, several employment recruitment sites, including Indeed and HempStaff, have reported a significant uptick in hemp-related jobs, ranging from high-skilled management positions to labor-type jobs and everything in between.

So, while the overwhelming demand for and focus on CBD products is bound to fade away, hemp provides entrepreneurs with the extraordinary opportunity to invest in and develop technology that will help the industry thrive but will also positively impact the economy and the environment.


Nathalie practices out of Harris Bricken’s Portland office and focuses on the regulatory framework of hemp-derived CBD (“hemp CBD”) products. She is an authority on FDA enforcement, Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act and other laws and regulations surrounding hemp and hemp CBD products. She also advises domestic and international clients on the sale, distribution, marketing, labeling, importation and exportation of these products. Nathalie frequently speaks on these issues and has made national media appearances, including on NPR’s Marketplace. For two consecutive years, Nathalie has been selected as a “Rising Star” by Super Lawyers Magazine, an honor bestowed on only 2.5% of eligible Oregon attorneys.  Nathalie is also a regular contributor to her firm’s Canna Law Blog.

State of Digital Contracting 2021


STATE OF DIGITAL CONTRACTING 2021

light-state-of-digital-contracting-2021 (3)

“This is by far the best presentation. I’m utterly impressed.”
— Lacy, Associate General Counsel, Mercari 

Join over 1,000 legal professionals at Ironclad’s free virtual event, State of Digital Contracting 2021, on March 25th to see how innovative legal teams used digital contracting to adapt and accelerate growth in a year of contract uncertainty and rapid change:

  • Since September, Lyft executed 100 contracts with healthcare providers to arrange transportation for vaccination programs and gained back valuable time to help customers.
  • L’Oréal’s IT and Procurement teams, led by AGC Charles Hurr, successfully handled 50% more total agreements, supporting 100% growth in online sales over the past year.
  • Anaplan implemented 100% self-service contracts for sales reps to support double digit growth year over year and ensure the sales team wasn’t waiting on legal to complete deals.

Presenters:
Jason Boehmig, CEO & Co-founder, Ironclad

Steven Yan, VP Product, Ironclad
Chris Young, General Counsel, Ironclad
Charles Hurr, Associate General Counsel, L’Oréal
Megan Callahan, VP Healthcare, Lyft
Gary Mintz, Associate General Counsel, Anaplan
Ashley Hanks, Senior Director, Global Deal Desk

Can’t make the scheduled time? Register anyway and you’ll receive a copy of the recording after the session. 

By filling out the form you are opting in to receive communication from Above the Law and its partners.

ironclad_banner_landingpage

Top 10 Biglaw Brands In The U.S.

(Image via Getty)

There are a lot of ways to measure the strength of a law firm. We receive annual reports on total revenue, profits per equity partner, revenue per lawyer… and after covering this industry for this long, I can run down the arguments for and against each metric. Every ranking has some merit, except of course a rote listing of head count.

But the most straightforward appraisal of a firm’s strength in the marketplace is just to ask clients who they trust. Thomas Reuters released a report this week “based on data compiled from a Sharplegal market research study of the global legal market across 55 countries with more than 2,000 senior in-house counsel, as well as 746 interviews conducted with senior legal buyers in the U.S.” to determine what Biglaw brands carry the most gravitas with the people who matter.

Are there problems with a survey of clients? Sure. It’s often a lagging indicator of a firm’s actual strength as clients cling to perceptions of past incarnations of the firm. Conversely, it can overreact to recent events and ding a firm for a high-profile partner defection or reward a firm for a one-off big-ticket deal. On the other hand, when it comes to bringing in business, perception may be more real than reality.

So here’s the top 10:

1. Kirkland & Ellis
2. Latham & Watkins
3. Jones Day
4. Skadden
5. DLA Piper
6. Morgan Lewis
7. Sidley
8. Gibson Dunn
9. Baker McKenzie
10. Hogan Lovells

No surprises that the firm known for shelling out the big bucks to corner the market on talent earns the top spot when it comes to trust. Jones Day, historically a winner in these sorts of rankings, tumbled from first place to third. This tracks an earlier Thomson Reuters-sponsored brand ranking that used a different methodology to rate global firms and found Jones Day falling five spots. Maybe Jones Day is proving that corporate America continues to have a short attention span when it comes to the whole “firms laying the ground work for conspiracy theories culminating in deadly insurrections” thing.

There are a lot of Biglaw firms on this list (maybe the head count does matter?), but DLA Piper and Baker McKenzie making the top 10 is interesting as the two biggest firms in the country per the NLJ 500 get a bad rap among snooty attorneys as just “big for big’s sake.” But as it turns out, their model has pushed them above many more storied whiteshoe firms when it comes to impressing clients.

There’s a lot more data in the full report, including an impressive jump for Faegre Drinker who jumped 22 spots from last year to land at 16th. You can sign up and check out the full list here.

Top 20 U.S. Law Firm Brands [Thomson Reuters]


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 New U.S. News Law School Rankings Should Have Used Tuition As A Ranking Metric Instead Of Student Loans

(Image via Getty)

I am pleased to see that U.S. News infamous law school rankings list is changing its methodology to take the cost of law school into account. Now, five percent of the rank score is determined by the student body’s loan debt incurred.

According to Mike Spivey’s blog, 3% weight will be applied to the average amount of graduate debt incurred by students in the previous year’s graduating class. Two percent weight will be applied to the proportion of a school’s graduating class who incurred law school debt. How this will be calculated and how these percentage numbers were determined is not quite clear.

But as I think more about it, I do not like the idea of a law school being ranked based on how many of their students have simply taken student loans, even if the rank score is only 2%. A student-loan free entering class, while ideal, is very unrealistic. From the wording, a person graduating with $25,000 of law school debt could weigh equally with someone who incurred $250,000. To me, that seems unfair. If a proportion of a law school’s graduating class that takes student loans is considered, then the amount of the loans should be considered as well. Otherwise, this rule should be scrapped and the average graduate debt incurred should compose the full 5% of the rankings score.

Also, I generally don’t believe that a law school should be ranked based on the amount of debt their students accrue during school. This is because law schools should not have control over a student’s cost of living expenses. I get that many young students do not fully understand the consequences of borrowing large amounts of money and are overly optimistic about their career paths. But at the same time, if schools want to game the system by limiting cost of living expenses, it can create problems for students. Out-of-state students might be unable to attend if they cannot afford a place to live locally. And students going to schools in expensive cities will have to live in a cheaper city farther away or in a cheaper but less safe part of town.

Measuring tuition cost would be a better way to rank schools. Tuition is something most law schools (or their head universities) can adjust. This would give schools in lower-cost-of-living cities an advantage. So while schools should be rewarded for being the most affordable, there should also be incentives to be efficient which will reward schools in high-cost-of-living areas. Schools should be given credit for maintaining tuition amounts in later years and given extra points for reducing tuition in a subsequent year. Schools that raise tuition over the cost of inflation should be penalized.

For calculation purposes, tuition should not be what is advertised on the school’s website. It should be calculated based on what the average student pays after applying discounts and scholarships.

Tuition should also include mandatory fees. A school might claim that its annual tuition is only $5,000, it might try to offset that by including a number of dubious mandatory fees and surcharges.

Schools could improve their rankings under the new system by helping students obtain outside scholarships to help pay tuition and minimize their loans. Students look for scholarships only a few times in their life so they will have a harder time finding every scholarship available to them. It should be easier for schools since they are in a better position to devote resources looking for every scholarship possible. This makes me wonder why schools haven’t done this in the first place.

Of course, reducing tuition does not guarantee that students will leave with lower student loan debt. These days, many students have six-figure debts from bachelor degrees alone. While in law school, they are going to double or even triple down on their student loans and will be on PSLF for 10 years or become an IBR lifer while lobbying the government to forgive their student loans. But at least the schools have done all they can to minimize debt so the onus will be on the students themselves.

In the final analysis, my educated guess is that including student loan debt size in the rankings will not change most law schools’ operations due to the low weight in the rankings. Even if a school hypothetically reduced their tuition to the point where every student graduates with no loans, this alone will not result in a significant rankings bump. This will not justify a large scale tuition reduction without outside funding assistance.

But there could be positive side effects to lowering tuition. For example, a drastic tuition drop could attract students with better academic numbers which could raise a school’s rank meaningfully. Ultimately, any attempt to “game” the U.S. News rankings system will have to resort to the usual tactics such as marketing to law professors to improve their reputational rank (also known as “law school porn”). Schools will continue to offer full scholarships to the people who probably won’t need it at the expense of those who do.

While I commend U.S. News for adjusting its rankings to help minimize student loan debt, I doubt it will disrupt the status quo. If student loan debt size affects only 5% of a law school’s ranking, schools will not be incentivized to spend substantial time and resources to minimize their students’ debt after graduation. Also, the efforts to minimize student loans can put law schools in an awkward position where they have to determine how their students can live. Law schools should be ranked on the metrics that they can control, such as tuition costs. This will incentivize schools to minimize tuition increases that outpace inflation. Also, if done correctly, schools will be motivated to help their student body obtain scholarships to minimize their debt and cover tuition.


Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and resolve tax disputes. He is also sympathetic to people with large student loans. He can be reached via email at sachimalbe@excite.com. Or you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) and connect with him on LinkedIn.