Category: News Feeds

We invite you for a webinar on July 9th at 12 p.m. ET/ 9 a.m. PT to explore Lex Machina’s new Federal Torts Litigation module.  Legal analytics can help build litigation strategy and develop your litigation plan.

Gain strategic insights into specific tort claims such as medical malpractice, premises liability, motor vehicle injury, and personal injury torts including negligence, assault/battery, and defamation.  Learn how to apply current trends to your own litigation strategy.

Legal analytics provides practice-specific information on judges, law firms, parties, timing findings, damages, and more.  These strategic insights help users make date-driven decisions which save time and resources and helps users win.  Join the majority of Am Law 100 firms and many of the world’s largest corporations in leveraging the power of Lex Machina.

Speakers:
Anne Wise Kann, Legal Data Expert, Lex Machina
Tim Moore, Sales Director, Lex Machina
Dennis Stolle, President/Consultant, ThemeVision

Even though COVID-19 continues to rock the legal world (yes, coronavirus austerity measures are still happening), not every firm is cutting back. Indeed, some Biglaw firms are going the opposite direction and hiring more attorneys, pandemic be damned.

As reported by Law.com, Lowenstein Sandler is one of those firms, and they are even holding (socially distant) interviews in managing partner Gary Wingens’s Livingston, New Jersey, backyard. And they’re looking to hiring in a number of different practice areas:

Wingens, whose firm added a new head of life sciences transactions in late April, views the current moment as the start of a brand new economic cycle. That means a focus not just on the “practice of the moment,” but those expected to grow in coming years, like privacy and cybersecurity, investment management and technology.

“We’re trying to figure out where that proverbial puck is going, rather than where we are today in this somewhat surreal work world,” he said.

Cozen O’Connor is another firm going on a lateral hiring spree. Since the beginning of March, they’ve added 25 new attorneys, eight of whom are partners, mostly in the transactional and class-action litigation spaces,

Haynes & Boone is also in growth mode, adding 39 attorneys in 2020 with a focus on health care, IP, and fund formation practices. Eleven of those hires are partners, the most recent of whom are life sciences attorneys, and the firm is using the tumultuous times to their advantage:

“We’ve stuck with the plans that we’ve had, and we’ve been able to maximize those,” [Managing partner Tim Powers] said. “Any time there is a market disruption and you are a beacon of stability within that disruption, you can show that stability.”

Sound finances are critical, too. Haynes & Boone had its best first quarter in the firm’s history, according to Powers, who added that the firm, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary, was already looking to grow moving into 2020.

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo’s managing partner Bob Bodian also expressed that the pandemic was a time for his firm to surge forward, and not be conservative:

Mintz, which announced the hire of a former Boies Schiller & Flexner partner Monday, had the benefit of closing its fiscal year March 31. According to Bodian, the firm beat its budget for equity partner profits by 25%. That allowed the firm to increase hold backs while keeping distributions above what would have been expected at budget. This follows a five-year spell where the firm is up 50% in both profits and revenues.

“We sort of hit the pandemic running,” said Bodian, who promised several more announcements in the coming weeks.

So despite how bleak the legal landscape may seem, there are definitely some firms out there taking advantage of COVID-19.

---

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

The global pandemic has forced many legal professionals to confront a new reality — one in which many were unprepared for a transition from the office to working from home. It is becoming clear that the pandemic will have long-lasting impacts on how many legal professionals perform their work. Upon closer inspection, some of the changes that we have seen in recent months exemplify the transformation that has already been underway in the legal industry for some time, and that now — as a result of the pandemic — has been accelerated.

Wolters Kluwer recently conducted an independent survey — the 2020 Wolters Kluwer Future Ready Lawyer Survey: Performance Drivers — to assess future readiness and resilience in the legal sector. With insights from 700 legal professionals across the U.S. and nine European countries, the survey examines ongoing trends in the legal sector and how well-prepared organizations are for the future. While the survey was conducted before the pandemic took its toll in Europe and the United States, its findings are key to understanding the impact that the pandemic is having — and will continue to have — on legal professionals.

The report covers five areas related to the industry’s performance drivers: Top Trends and Readiness across the Legal Profession, Driving Successful Client-Firm Relationships, Changing Legal Departments, Changing Law Firms, and Technology Investments and Advantages. Some of the most enlightening findings included the following:

• Overall, fewer than a third of lawyers believe their organization is very prepared to keep pace with changes in the legal market.
• Lawyers predict pressure from a series of trends expected to impact their organizations over the next three years, and technology tops the list.
• The difficulty of change management and leadership resistance to change is the biggest barrier to change for law firms (53%) and corporate legal departments (65%).

These results bring to light the significant gaps that legal professionals are facing when it comes to adopting technology and preparing for change, and underlying those gaps, there also seems to be a clear need for understanding how to apply technology to solve problems within an organization or a firm. Those who are not already leveraging technology may find the data somewhat daunting — but addressing the lack of adoption doesn’t have to start with becoming an expert in artificial intelligence overnight (in fact, it shouldn’t). When it comes to tech adoption, starting small can open the door for scaling adoption to larger systems or processes within your organization in the long run.

Identify The Problem

It’s completely understandable to feel overwhelmed by all the technology options available and the intense pressure for change. So where should one start? For those looking to improve their organization’s ability to adopt technology, it’s important to first identify problems or pain points within your organization that need solving. Those problems can be prioritized so that solutions can be researched. It may also be beneficial to think about problems in a framework.

Here’s one possible framework to consider:

• Network and Infrastructure: The underlying technology that provides connectivity and services to an organization has taken on new meaning with the pandemic. Cybersecurity, reliable video call technology, online access to resources, and secure client communication all come to the forefront. A reliable infrastructure is foundational to other technology enhancements.
• Back Office: Time tracking, accounting, billing, contract management, utilization, budget tracking, and forecasting are all examples of back office functions. Inefficiencies in back office functions can impact productivity, profitability, and client relationships.
• Front Office: New client development, marketing effectiveness, competitive intelligence, responding to RFPs, and other customer-facing activities can be considered front office functions. Effective front office processes can lead to more business and more profitable business.
• Practice Solutions: The core mission of legal professionals is to deliver legal advice and to help drive positive outcomes. Technology can be applied to provide new and impactful insights.

Concepts like artificial intelligence, data analytics, and visualization suddenly feel less overwhelming if they are applied to specific problem areas and pain points.

Perhaps a firm might apply artificial intelligence to create timesheet entries and draft bills that leverage phone records, activity in applications like MS-Word, and e-mail correspondence. Data analytics might be applied to benchmark prior engagements to ensure proposals and bids are more likely to be profitable. Visualization tools like Tableau might be applied to court or internal information to help advise a client on why settling a dispute might now be a good option.

Frameworks like the one above can reduce anxiety while helping with focus, prioritization, and understanding of technology alternatives.

Research The Alternatives

Depending on the problem or challenge you’re solving for, there may be several kinds of tools to choose from. It’s important to do the right amount of homework and to consider alternatives to find something that meets your specific needs, not only for functionality, but for demonstrating value. In addition to considering the technical solution, consider what success might look like in the future state. Will users need training? Will the solution simplify processes? Will the solution change the day-to-day work for certain individuals? Successful projects are not just about technology: they also affect people and processes, and it is human nature to resist change, especially when the reasons for the change aren’t understood. Ask potential vendors questions about their insights from other customer’s implementations. And when evaluating alternatives, consider how a technology vendor might help you with creating a justification and how they can help ensure the implementation of the solution is successful.

Solicit Buy-In

We know from this year’s Future Ready Lawyer survey results that change management and leadership resistance to change are some of the biggest barriers to tech adoption within the legal industry — so this part isn’t always easy. But in light of the disruption fostered by the pandemic, now may be the right time to advocate for adopting new solutions and systems to bring efficiency and value to your organization. When making your case to leadership and stakeholders, make sure to demonstrate the impact that the solution will have for your organization — whether it be system efficiency, productivity, profitability, or improved client outcomes. Decide how the firm might measure the impact of the proposed solution and what is needed for success — and be sure to explain the anticipated results of the solution and the implications on people and processes. It is also important to solicit advocacy from leadership to help support buy-in from stakeholders, to the benefits of the solution, and to support the necessary changes required for success.

By taking on steps like these, firms can have more confidence in how they apply technology to problems. It’s important to remember that technology is not an end, but a means to an end (albeit, a very important means to an end in light of the survey’s findings). It can add value, create efficiencies, and provide pathways to higher profit, performance, and better client service, but only if applied to specific-use cases. To prepare your organization for the future, you can simply start by identifying — and solving for — the pain points you have today.

---

Ken Crutchfield is Vice President and General Manager of Legal Markets at Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory U.S., a leading provider of information, business intelligence, regulatory and legal workflow solutions. Ken has more than three decades of experience as a leader in information and software solutions across industries. He can be reached at ken.crutchfield@wolterskluwer.com.

You wouldn’t be able to guess from the hate mail I’ve received, but I offered a fairly sympathetic account of the St. Louis AR-15-waving couple, Mark and Patricia McCloskey. Their casualwear standoff got a proper lampooning and their decision to ratchet up the stakes with assault weapons was branded, at best, a bad look for the profession. But unlike a lot of articles musing that the couple could be criminally charged with assault, I threw water on that idea, noting that the protesters had entered a private road and the couple seemed to remain on their own property. I even applauded the couple for at least not escalating the situation by apparently bringing in the police, a decision potentially driven by Mark McCloskey’s representation of victims of police brutality.

In fact, the McCloskeys are adamant that they believe in the Black Lives Matter Movement:

“The most important thing for them is that their images (holding the guns) don’t become the basis for a rallying cry for people who oppose the Black Lives Matter message,” [their attorney Albert] Watkins said. “They want to make it really clear that they believe the Black Lives Matter message is important.”

Note that they can actually say the words “Black Lives Matter,” which places them light years ahead of many Biglaw firms and law schools. That’s where we are as a society — the people who brought guns to the protest are more willing to say “Black Lives Matter” than Michigan Law School.

But appearances matter and even if they didn’t intend it, based on my email over the last 24 hours, they’ve absolutely become a rallying cry for people who oppose the Black Lives Matter message. That sucks for them, but this does provide them with a great deal of power right now — far more than the power of an ArmaLite compensator stick — to yank the rug out from the people trying to make them heroes for all the wrong reasons. It’s the kind of turnabout that could really resonate in the social media era. Based on their statement, they might be ready to use that power.

However, let’s take a quick second to check out their attorney, Albert Watkins. Watkins is very much a media relations “fixer” and he’s proud of it. He’s also a pretty funny writer. On the other hand, he’s a conservative media personality in his own right, a curious pick for a couple trying to distance themselves from the people who would make them posterchildren for conservative grievances. Lawyers can certainly take positions contrary to their personal worldview, but if the goal is to credibly distance oneself from the “right-wing rallying cry” image, this might not be the right hire.

His bio includes descriptions of a number of big wins, but all of them include those little details that make you wonder, “Why did he mention that?” Like including “Dominican-born” to describe the former league MVP and entirely recognizable Albert Pujols. Or focusing on a school sexual misconduct claim he beat by focusing on how he defended the “white” principal against “African-American” students. It’s all so unnecessary to describing the cases and comes across to the reader as if he’s pitching to people who want to frame their otherwise standard legal disputes as racial and immigration conflicts — which seems contrary to the McCloskey goal. Maybe that’s not Watkins’s intention, but legal writing is all about eliminating unnecessary words and one would be hard-pressed to see why “Dominican-born” adds anything to the Pujols story.

Then there’s this story that Watkins includes in his bio:

In Hammon v. Harris, Watkins garnered the first verdict of its kind against a young female who falsely accused a policeman of engaging in sexual relations and snorting cocaine with a female patron of a restaurant at which the policeman was working a security shift. When the defendant would not appear for her deposition, Watkins procured an order mandating the woman be brought into custody and held in jail pending her deposition. During the ensuing video deposition, Watkins swiftly got the woman to confess and admit the allegations were false. The video deposition swiftly became an internet sensation. A six-figure judgment was entered in favor of the policeman. The woman committed suicide thereafter.

What?!? Even if a woman’s death didn’t shame Watkins out of including the story in his bio — which it should have! — including the fact as a macabre lagniappe is flat-out horrifying. It reads as if his client pitch is “hiring me could kill your accuser,” which may bring people in the door but plays to a vindictiveness that the whole justice system is designed to elevate people beyond.

Watkins is very good at what he does and he’s very proud of his ability to handle media flaps and that’s exactly what the McCloskeys have landed themselves in. Especially with some outlets taking the bold leap to accusing them of criminality, but sometimes even the best instrument is the wrong tool for the job.

Like, say, an AR-15 for telling people walking down the street to keep moving.

Earlier: St. Louis Lawyers Wave AR-15 At Protesters Like Totally Normal, Totally Not Bonkers People
Now THIS Is a Great Settlement Offer Letter

---

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

In 2015, a group called the National African American Gun Association formed with the intention to “promote self-protection.” Since the 2016 election, this organization has seen its membership soar, in some measure due to the concern (I would argue the fact) that the president of the United Sates is a racist who is emboldening racism in our society. The more black Americans embrace or utilize their Second Amendment rights in public, however, the more you see alarm being expressed by people who are traditionally “pro-gun.”

The most recent example came from Sen. Kelly Loeffler. Loeffler recently described Americans who were lawfully, and peacefully, carrying weapons as “totally unacceptable” and an example of “mob rule.” As Scott Shackford points out in his piece in Reason, it is not against the law to carry guns openly in public in Georgia, where Loeffler serves as a senator. In fact, Loeffler never accuses the armed individuals of breaking any laws, and in the very recent past, she has been an outspoken proponent of gun rights and expressed the need to “protect and defend” the Second Amendment. So, asks Shackford, “[w]hat could possibly make a pro-gun-rights senator suddenly take such a dim view of citizens’ rights to bear arms?” The only logical, and rather obvious answer is that in Georgia, the people legally carrying guns in public happened to be black.

It is simply stunning how the narrative around the right to bear arms can still change today, on national television no less, depending on the race of the gun owner. For example, when it was white armed Americans in Michigan who were protesting in their state capitol building, the president offered praise and a message of support. Yet, when the group is Black Lives Matter, even unarmed protests are described by this same president as “hate coming down the street.” Again, the inference for why there is such a difference in reaction between the two protests is absurdly obvious.

One of the most common narratives coming from “pro-gun” rights groups is that the only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun. Although I happen to agree, it must also be acknowledged that this narrative can backfire when it’s a good black man with a gun stopping a bad guy trying to harm others. However, as activist Michael Render (otherwise known as Killer Mike) recently argued, such instances of injustice should not dissuade black people from owning guns. In fact, according to Render, it should encourage legal ownership in order to normalize it and to “defend what you care about.” Moreover, gun ownership is a right and, to Render, it is imperative that black Americans embrace all of their rights to use like “tools in a toolbox.”

Of course, gun ownership being viewed wildly different depending on the race of the owner is nothing new. Irrational and downright bigoted fears of black Americans possessing arms to defend themselves was the primary cause of this country’s first gun control laws. Laws, it should be said, that are not applied evenly to this day. Which is why I have argued that gun laws are, as a general matter, destructive, ineffective, and unnecessary.

The good news is that American views on race are increasingly improving, and hopefully, normalization of black gun ownership can inevitably increase. But as Loeffler and the president often demonstrate, there is still a lot of work to be done in regard to viewing black gun ownership in a positive light, or even just a neutral light.

---

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

The U.S. government may have claimed victory over the coronavirus, but the public health crisis is far from over. Biglaw firms that announced austerity measures are now rethinking them, and one firm has decide to pull the plug on legal professionals whose careers were on life support.

Two months ago, Katten Muchin — a firm that was recently ranked #63 on the Am Law 100 with a 5.5 percent increase in revenue to $669,709,000 and a 10 percent increase in profits per partner to more than $1.8 million — put all of its employees’ salaries on the chopping block while furloughing others, including business administration professionals and staff attorneys. According to a Katten spokesperson, some of those furloughs will now become permanent, but none of the layoffs, slated to begin August 1, will affect attorneys at any level across the firm.

Why does the firm see the need for layoffs now? Because of the success of its remote work environment. Here’s a statement from Katten:

Given this [the success of remote working on workflow] and the realization that our administrative needs are fully supported through new approaches we’ve taken that better fit the remote work model, we have determined that it is in the best interest of the firm to permanently separate from some of our currently furloughed employees as of the end of July. We deeply appreciate the dedication and contributions of these members of the Katten community. This was not an easy decision, but it was necessary in light of the ongoing crisis and our current and anticipated staffing needs.

The firm will be offering those impacted by the layoffs one week of pay for each year they’ve been at the firm, with a minimum payout of eight weeks, and those payments will be structured to “maximize earning potential” on top of the unemployment insurance they’re already receiving. Those who are about to be laid off will also have health insurance coverage made available to them through the end of the year, at no additional cost. Last, but not least, the firm will offer their soon-to-be-former staff members employment search assistance at no cost.

As for other employees at the firm, there’s no end in sight for the salary cuts that were announced on April 29. If you recall, those cuts were up to 20 percent for both business professionals and attorneys who make over $100,000. Equity partners who suspended their monthly draws in April and May received a payout in June, but at a 25 percent reduction from previous levels.

Will this be the last round of austerity measures we’ll see from Katten? A firm spokesperson said commenting on that would be “premature.” Yikes.

Best of luck to all those who are affected by the layoffs at Katten Muchin.

If your firm or organization is slashing salaries, closing its doors, or reducing the ranks of its lawyers or staff, whether through open layoffs, stealth layoffs, or voluntary buyouts, please don’t hesitate to let us know. Our vast network of tipsters is part of what makes Above the Law thrive. You can email us or text us (646-820-8477).

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

Earlier: Am Law 100 Firm Slashes Salaries, Furloughs Staff Lawyers And Staff

---

Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

The white dudes over at the Federal Reserve have finished crunching the numbers from this year’s stress tests they insisted on administering, and they’ve got good news and bad news.

The Federal Reserve on Thursday said a prolonged economic downturn could saddle the nation’s biggest banks with up to $700 billion in losses on soured loans….

Banks, which will announce their dividend plans for next quarter as soon as Monday, won’t be able to make payouts that are greater than their average quarterly profit from the four most recent quarters.

The Fed also barred them from buying back shares in the third quarter.

* A Long Island gym owner is planning on filing a lawsuit over New York’s plans to delay the reopening of gyms. Guess they call it “Strong” Island for a reason… [Long Island Press]

* Pinterest has hired outside counsel to investigate allegations of a hostile work environment. [Bloomberg]

* The Michigan Attorney General is suing Exxon Mobil and other energy companies over alleged culpability with climate change. [NPR]

Booz Allen has been hit with a sex discrimination and retaliation lawsuit by a former employee. [Bloomberg]

* A New York lawyer who lied about his grandfather’s death to miss a court date and is one of the most disciplined lawyers in the Southern District of New York has been sanctioned $104,000 for conduct in a copyright case. This guy might make a good Above the Law lawyer of the year candidate…[New York Daily News]

---

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.

Flatten the Research Curve

Flatten the Research Curve

Wolters Kluwer

Drugmaker Regeneron Pharmaceuticals has said it will “vigorously” defend against allegations by the Department of Justice that it paid kickbacks through a foundation in connection with a drug it markets for macular degeneration in order to cover Medicare beneficiaries’ copays.

On Wednesday, the U.S. district attorney for Massachusetts filed suit against the Tarrytown, New York-based company, alleging that it paid tens of millions of dollars worth of kickbacks for the drug, Eylea (aflibercept), by using a foundation as a conduit to cover copays for the drug. The actions that are alleged would illegal under the Anti-Kickback Statute, which forbids drugmakers from offering or paying any kind of remuneration in order to induce Medicare patients to purchase its drugs.

Regeneron is one of several companies that received subpoenas alleging similar kickback schemes in 2017, along with Biogen, Gilead Sciences, Johnson & Johnson, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Horizon Pharmaceuticals and others.

“According to the allegations in today’s complaint, Regeneron funneled tens of millions of dollars in kickbacks through a third-party foundation to ensure that few Medicare patients paid a copay on Eylea and that physicians who prescribed and purchased the drug did not have to collect Medicare copays from their patients,” U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling said in a statement. “Regeneron allegedly paid these substantial sums only after confirming that the foundation needed the money to cover copays only for Eylea and not for competing drugs, and that the company’s payments would generate a handsome return on investment, or ‘ROI,’ in the form of Medicare payments for Eylea.”

In response, the drugmaker said the suit had “no merit” and called it “misguided.”

It countered that what the district attorney’s complaint alleges were in fact charitable donations made in 2013 and 2014 that were made in accordance with the law, specifically for poor elderly patients with wet age-related macular degeneration.

“It is unfortunate that the government chose to bring these baseless allegations related to our 2013 and early 2014 patient assistance donations at a time when Regeneron employees have been coming to work in the epicenter of the Covid-19 pandemic with the goal of providing an effective treatment,” Regeneron general counsel Joseph LaRosa said in a statement. “We look forward to having our case heard and will file a motion to dismiss.”

Photo: Hailshadow, Getty Images