Lawyer Claims Cuomo Attempting To Interfere With AG Investigation… Again

(Photo by Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/Getty Images)

Technically, Cuomo already tried to undermine the Attorney General’s investigation into mounting claims of harassment when he first tried to keep the probe entirely under the auspices of his office, and then when he tried to force the AG to cede her authority to a joint investigation co-headed by his longtime political ally. AG Tish James rebuffed both of those efforts. Now, Debra Katz, who represents one of the accusers, has written James alleging a new Cuomo effort to interfere with the investigation.

The lawyer, Debra Katz, in a letter to Attorney General Letitia James objected to a report that Cuomo’s office has provided “in-house attorneys” to staff members to meet with them before they are questioned by James’ investigators.

“It is my understanding that these attorneys are also ‘debriefing’ staffers after their interviews with investigators,” wrote Katz, who represents former Cuomo staffer Charlotte Bennett.

This allegation, on its own, doesn’t seem problematic. However, Katz seems skeptical that these lawyers are being entirely upfront in telling employees that they should be getting their own lawyers if they have any concerns about information going right back to their bosses and that the whole process is designed to stamp out potential whistleblowing.

Katz said that the decision to provide attorneys to staffers and accompany them to interviews “will have a chilling effect on potential witnesses or other accusers” who want to cooperate with the probe, but who “fear job-related retaliation if they tell the investigators about the Governor’s sexual harassing behavior and misconduct of those around him.”

Katz wrote that she has spoken to witnesses who fear retaliation if they refuse to cooperate with Cuomo’s lawyers. They also feel constrained with what they can share with James’ investigator with those attorneys present, she said.

“We believe this offer of counsel constitutes a deliberate attempt by the Governor to interfere with your office’s investigation,” Katz wrote.

It’s a conundrum baked into investigations generally. Rank-and-file employees want lawyers, but the only lawyers they can afford are the free ones provided by the target. In an ideal world, the entity would pay for everyone to have their own lawyer, but when that doesn’t happen for whatever reason, we’re left with the uncomfortable situation where witnesses only hear legal advice from lawyers who owe ultimate loyalty to the bosses. I personally represented individual employee witnesses in a federal probe of a NY state agency while the agency and the various higher-ups all had separate counsel so there’s definitely precedent for the state going this route.

Katz is asking the AG to direct the governor to stop providing lawyers to witnesses. It boils down to avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. Just hire another firm to represent the employee witnesses that doesn’t have any obligation to report to the governor’s office. And Cuomo’s attorneys can absolutely ask to be debriefed, and the independent counsel for the employees can make the decision about what, if anything, the governor’s attorneys will get.

That is, if there’s even an interest in avoiding the appearance of impropriety at this point.

Cuomo trying to interfere with AG’s sexual harassment probe, lawyer for accuser says [CNBC]


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 Unbearable Darkness Of Partisanship

The partisanship is unbearable. If the Democrats support it, the Republicans don’t. If the Republicans support it, the Democrats don’t. The party that’s out of power strives for complete stagnation, to show that the party that’s in power is inept.

Two things lit me up recently.

First, I was talking to my son, Jeremy — you remember him — on the phone.  He’s a smart and perceptive young man. He posed a perfectly good question:  “There’s really no political reason for the party that’s out of power ever to vote for something that lets the party that’s in power succeed. But that had to always be true. Why does it seem as though Congress could pass laws 50 years ago, when exactly the same incentives were in play?”

I had to fall back on the usual answer when I was stumped by one of Jeremy’s questions 25 years ago: “Good question. Ask your mother.”

(On reflection, maybe there’s a real answer to Jeremy’s question: Districts are more gerrymandered now than they were in the past. Fifty years ago, if a member of Congress voted against a popular bill, a politician from the other party would use that vote as a bludgeon in a general election, and the member of Congress would lose his or her seat. Today, with gerrymandered districts, there’s no risk of loss in a general election even if a member votes against a very popular bill. There’s no longer a reason to compromise.)

But it’s not just my conversation with Jeremy that got me fired up.

I was also watching Fareed Zakaria’s “GPS” one Sunday morning, and his guests were very smart, held diametrically opposed views on a subject, and were not political. Larry Summers and Paul Krugman are both renowned economists who differ on some important issues. Summers thinks that the $1.9 trillion pandemic relief package will cause inflation. And he doubts that Congress will pass an infrastructure bill, on top of the pandemic relief, because piling another few trillion on top of the trillions already spent is reckless and dangerous.

Krugman disagrees. Interest rates are low. Borrowing money is almost costless. The economy shows no signs of inflation. Borrow and rebuild the economy now, while times are good. Spend.

Those are violently different positions, but during the interview, Summers never called Krugman a moron, and Krugman never attacked Summers’ motives. They just laid out their thoughts, and reasonable listeners could make a judgment.

There have been similar interesting, intelligent discussions when, for example, Zakaria hosted Doris Kearns Goodwin and Jon Meacham, who are accomplished historians, but occasionally disagree about what the past teaches us.

Contrast that with, for example, “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” which tends to interview politicians. The Democrats spew a couple of talking points and then start insulting the other side: “On the pandemic relief package, they vote no and take the dough. It’s the way Republicans are.”

Republicans, in turn, spew a couple of talking points and then gripe about funding Democratic wish-lists.

Frankly, I’m not sure there’s any subject on which it’s actually worth interviewing, or listening to, a politician. Politicians know less about economics than economists. They know less about history than historians.  They know less about anything than people who are truly informed.

Spending hours each day dialing for political contributions and then skimming the talking points doesn’t educate them; it makes them less interesting (and, perhaps, less fit for office).

Maybe — maybe — a senator would be a real source of information about, say, the rules governing the filibuster, as to which a senator might have experience. But even there, I’d bet that a student of the filibuster could discuss the subject more intelligently than most senators.

Or maybe you’d interview politicians solely to learn what the talking points are. But those interviews could be short: “Mr. or Ms. Democrat, could you please tell me the talking points on immigration?” And “Mr. or Ms. Republican, how about you?” There’s surely no reason to listen to the two sides quibble after they’ve laid out the talking points; the quibbling is annoying and uninformative.

Am I alone in the world?

Or are there a ton of people who are disgusted by MSNBC on the left, and Fox on the right, and politicians in general, and would prefer to hear from intelligent sources who actually knew what they were talking about?

If I’m not alone, why can’t a television network succeed in the middle, inviting guests who have come to different opinions based on a lifetime of study and who can present those opinions calmly and rationally, without insulting anyone who disagrees?

I know that society has become terribly divided.

But is there no room for intelligent discussion in the middle?

Call me Howard Beale: “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!”


Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.

Mike Corbat Thinks The Best Thing About Mike Corbat’s Leadership Of Citi Was When It Was Over

Jane Fraser became the first woman to lead one of Wall Street’s Big Four bank just a couple of weeks ago. This is a big deal, and not only to Marianne Lake.

WSJ: What are you most proud of?
Mr. Corbat: I guess I would have to say Jane’s ascendancy.

I mean, sure: Fraser’s succession to Citi’s highest office is historic, and Mike Corbat played a big role in making it happen. He was instrumental in her hiring and preparing her for the moment. But Corbat was CEO of one of the biggest banks in the world for eight years, and his proudest moment was the one when it was over? I understand that those years were not exactly an unending string of triumphs, but surely there’s some part of it for Corbat to be more proud of than the fact that his board handed the mop and bucket to a woman a bit earlier than planned due to the last and most spectacular screw-up of his reign? That time Mike Mayo gave him a pat on the head, maybe? That time his bosses finally agreed he wasn’t a worse CEO than Brian Moynihan? That time Citi was the only bank to pass its stress test? Something, anything, he was positively responsible for?

Michael Corbat’s Proudest Moment at Citigroup? Passing the Torch to Wall Street’s First Female CEO. [WSJ]

WOW!!! Once Again, Davis Polk Raises The Bar On Bonuses

On Friday, Willkie Farr surprised associates with special spring bonuses. Those bonuses matched the appreciation bonus scale that Davis Polk handed out in September 2020 — ranging from $7,500 to $40,000 — but would be paid out in two parts (once on June 30, and once on September 30). Associates were thrilled about the extra cash, and we wondered when the spring bonus craze would catch on across America’s Biglaw firms.

Pay attention, everyone, because that time is now.

Davis Polk really liked being Biglaw’s compensation leader, and the firm has once again entered the scene to fatten associates’ bank accounts with a bigger, better, more inclusive special bonus scale. Here’s what we’re working with (turn to the next page to see the full memo from the firm):

Holy crap! Not only will Davis Polk associates — and counsel, too — see the first installment of their bonus bucks in April instead of in June, but the firm is handing out thousands of more dollars than Willkie. This is how much more bonus cash DPW is handing out, by class year:

  • Class of 2020: $4,500
  • Class of 2019: $6,000
  • Class of 2018: $12,000
  • Class of 2017: $16,500
  • Class of 2016: $19,500
  • Class of 2015: $22,200
  • Class of 2014 and senior, including counsel: $24,000

The great news doesn’t end there, because Davis Polk has already committed to paying year-end bonuses in “at least” the same amounts paid last year. That means associates at the firm — and potentially all other peer firms — are looking at a potential bonus compensation scale ranging from $27,000 to $164,000. That is an eye-popping amount of money.

Which firms will step up to share the wealth with associates for their hard work during the pandemic? Stay tuned to see which Biglaw firms are true peer firms to the compensation titan that is Davis Polk.

(Flip to the next page to see the full memo from Davis Polk.)

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!


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.

Morning Docket: 03.22.21

(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

* Tesla’s Board allegedly failed to hire a lawyer to regulate Elon Musk’s tweets. Sounds like this could be a pretty fun job. [Business Insider]

* A new lawsuit alleges that Arkansas police detained and searched a black law student because of his skin color. [ABC News]

* A Pennsylvania prosecutor is in hot water after he reportedly worked for DoorDash during working hours. This might be more illustrative of the low pay of some prosecutors than anything else… [Fox News]

* College students are continuing to sue universities over charging high tuition fees during the pandemic. [CBS News]

* Donald Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen claims he learned much about startup companies in prison. Could help him find a career after the law… [Market Watch]


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.

Chessboard


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.

Stat Of The Week: Law Departments Take On ‘Crisis Management’

A new survey details just how the pandemic transformed law departments in 2020, as it shifted much of their work composition from “business as usual” to “crisis management.” 

The 2021 State of Corporate Law Departments report from Thomson Reuters notes that the in-house workload surged in 2020, and that “safeguarding the company” became paramount, with more than 40% of law departments implementing new dispute prevention measures. 

The implications for outside counsel, though, are complicated, as law firms largely saw a bump in revenue despite a drop in demand: 

Corporate law departments’ demand for external counsel at law firms fell by 2.5% in 2020, as many cases and deals stalled. However, rate increases put in place by law firms at the start of the year along with a shift to using more senior partner-level contacts for crisis support meant that revenue for most law firms still grew overall in 2020. 

Download the full report below. 

2021 State of Corporate Law Departments [Thomson Reuters] 


Jeremy Barker is the director of content marketing for Breaking Media. Feel free to email him with questions or comments and to connect on LinkedIn

Imminent Win For The Public Domain: Court Likely To Compel Musée Rodin To Release Its 3D Scans Of Sculptor’s Works For Free

Rodin (Photo by Ernest H. Mills/Getty Images)

Back in 2019, Techdirt wrote about a fascinating case involving a bogus CC license on a 3D scan of a 3000-year-old bust of Nefertiti. The person at the heart of the saga was the artist and open access activist Cosmo Wenman. His web site has some background on what he calls his “freedom of information projects“:

For more than a decade, museums around the world have been making high-quality 3D scans of important sculptures and ancient artifacts. Many institutions freely share those 3D scans with the public, allowing us to view, copy, adapt, and experiment with the underlying works in ways that have never before been possible. But some keep their scans out of public view, and I’ve been trying to help them see the light.

Following his success in liberating the 3D scan of Nefertiti, Wenman is now trying to do the same with 3D scans of the works of the great French sculptor Auguste Rodin. Many of these scans have been created by the Musée Rodin in Paris. There is a long and entertaining article (in the original French and an English translation – pdf) about Wenman’s pursuit of the 3D scans, and of the Musée Rodin’s refusal to share them. Wenman took an interesting tack, claiming that the museum’s 3D scans were documents subject to France’s freedom of information (FOIA) laws. It worked:

In late 2018 I sent a formal demand to Musée Rodin for access to all its 3D scans, citing French freedom of information laws. When the museum refused to comply, I brought the matter before the French government.

In June of 2019 the French government agency that oversees FOIA matters announced its first-of-its-kind opinion, in my favor; 3D scans produced by French national museums are in fact administrative documents and are subject to public disclosure. Musée Rodin is required by law to give the public access to its 3D scans of Rodin’s works.

Another victory for Wenman, then, but rather a hollow one. Despite the French government agency’s ruling, Musée Rodin continues to withhold the 3D scans. Wenman went on to file a suit against the museum in the Administrative Tribunal of Paris. Wenman wants the court to compel the museum to comply with the law, and to impose “significant” financial penalties for any delay. After more than a year with no response, the court directed the museum to present a defense. At the time of writing, Wenman is still waiting. However, given the unequivocal nature of the rulings against the Musée Rodin, he is confident:

Musée Rodin is going to fight, but I expect to win. The outcome will affect every national museum in France, inform policies at institutions around the world, and have interesting effects on the art market.

I’m shooting for a victory for open access, and freedom and innovation in the arts.

The knock-on effects of one person’s dogged pursuit of a few computer files could have a major impact on the wider availability of 3D scans of sculptures and ancient artifacts — a real win for the public domain.

Imminent Win For The Public Domain: Court Likely To Compel Musée Rodin To Release Its 3D Scans Of Sculptor’s Works For Free

More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:

AT&T Whines That California Net Neutrality Rules Are Forcing It To Behave
Appeals Court Decision Shows The Cleveland PD Cares More About Being Lied To Than About Officers Killing Children
Data Shows The NYPD Seized 55,000 Phones In 2020; Returned Less Than 35,000 To Their Rightful Owners