Category: News Feeds

In the early days of the COVID-19 outbreak, Rhode Island imposed a rule stopping motorists from New York from entering the state without undergoing a 14-day self-quarantine. Governor Gina Raimondo claimed that locking off access to New York was a critical public health initiative. Governor Andrew Cuomo responded by screaming bloody murder and threatening to sue Rhode Island over the discriminatory practice. Raimondo defused the situation by changing the standard to apply to people entering the state from any other state.

Now, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut have the virus more or less under control and have decided it’s time to impose their own quarantine upon visitors from states that they’ve decided represent intolerable hotspots because the unconstitutionality that they couldn’t brook two months ago now makes for a good opportunity to preen for the cameras and look tough themselves — not unlike Raimondo tried to do when Cuomo was neck-deep in a public health crisis he exacerbated himself. But now he’s the one with low numbers and turnabout is fair play as they say in constitutional law! Oh, sorry, no. Only Neomi Rao says that about constitutional law.

The new policy is based on the ostensibly neutral standard of a seven-day rolling average of 10 percent positives thus cutting out Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Washington, Utah, and Texas.

Texas and Florida, coincidentally, also put up travel restrictions against New York in the past and are now complete dumpster fires suggesting that these political stunts might not be as effective in fighting the virus as wearing masks and not forcing people to work in offices within your own state, but put the efficacy of this proposal to one side for a second.

No one wants to be exposed to the virus and states can and should be working a lot harder to combat it. But, alas, you can’t start singling out people from certain states for discriminatory treatment like this. We’ve had bouts over this within the legal profession when New York declared that its first go-around of the bar exam in the fall would be closed to non-NY law school grads. Illinois Law School’s Dean Vik Amar noted that discriminating against economic actors based on their state like that would trigger a sort of strict scrutiny review. I argued that because New York’s bar exam proposal (like the quarantine Rhode Island eventually settled on) would probably pass muster in part because it was a blanket policy and there are decent arguments for fast-tracking in-state graduates. Either way, the point was that discriminating against out-of-staters requires a really good reason.

In any event, it’s hard to imagine Cuomo and his neighboring governors can provide a particularly strong justification for shutting out Utah while remaining open for business with its fellow hotspot California. One would think that the volume of travel should be far a more important component in any credibly crafted policy. Even if California doesn’t hit the threshold the Tri-State governors drew up at random (and it looks like they are very conveniently just under the line the governors chose to draw) it’s a fairly safe bet that considering the number of Angelenos coming to New York every day as opposed to Provoites (or whatever they’re called) the risk of exposure is far higher allowing unchecked travel from California. So if the stated purpose of the law is to prevent exposure this standard is poorly tailored to do that.

How arbitrary is the line that the Tri-State governors drew? Washington dropped off the list before the day was over! Phew. Glad to know they went from serious threat to perfectly safe so quickly. The irony of this is that the original Rhode Island and Texas policies, forged when New York was hundreds of times sicker than other states with upwards of 1000 deaths per day, presented a far stronger, if still likely uphill argument, for singling out citizens of a specific state.

Maybe no one is going to sue the states over this. The states targeted by the quarantine certainly have their hands full right now, but it’s hard to imagine there’s no enterprising attorney general in one of these states doesn’t want a throwdown with New York. In fact, some of these states don’t seem to care much about actually fighting the virus so fighting New York is probably all they’re willing to do.

Everyone wants to be safe and everyone wants to see “action” to keep them safe. But discriminating against citizens of other states based on drawing random lines manages to protect almost no one while also being unconstitutional. Either make all states — or at least a lot more similarly situated ones — quarantine or just stay vigilant with in-state public health initiatives. Forcing people to wear masks may not be a flashy initiative, but we don’t need leaders to make waves, we just need them to do their jobs.

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.

Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series of posts on motherhood in the legal profession, in partnership with our friends at MothersEsquire. Welcome Suzanne B. Hite to our pages.

Managing motherhood and my legal career has been a challenge. I made plans, but for a variety of reasons, those plans fell apart spectacularly. I have had to respond with flexibility, patience, creativity, and a sense of humor in order to manage my life, emotional well being, legal career, and family.

In law school, my intention was to have children, continue working, and hire a nanny. While working my dream job, I became pregnant with twin boys. Despite complications, my boys arrived safely, but the pregnancy had taken its toll, and motherhood had unleashed feelings that were completely unexpected. I did not return to work. Two years later, our daughter arrived.  Prior to the arrival of my children, it never crossed my mind, not even once, to stay at home. And, yet.

For seven years, I did not work as a lawyer. Then, I returned to work with an older attorney when it was unusual to have no office, no support staff, and only our cellphones. We handled 10 eminent domain cases and took five of them to trial. Our arrangement provided the flexibility that I desired, while giving me the opportunity to practice law and become a trial attorney.

Next, I tried working at a midsize firm, but the one-hour commute was too  much for me and our family. I then began working part-time, behind-the-scenes, at my husband’s law firm. This provides the flexibility I desire and allows me to do interesting and challenging legal work.

Prior to the pandemic, I was looking forward to stepping away from my behind-the-scenes role and dedicating myself to work in a way that I hadn’t in 20 years. I worked on my resume. I started networking. I investigated traditional and nontraditional legal roles. The process was both terrifying and exciting.

I am an excellent lawyer with a wide range of sought-after skills, but moments of self doubt and fear emerged about whether the gaps in my resume and my nontraditional legal career would make me unmarketable.  Still, I was joyously envisioning myself finding my niche and using my unique background in a role that allowed me to do important work in my own right.

My life has been turned upside down due to the pandemic. What does the future hold for me, for my children, for all of us? Will there be a job market for me to transition into in 2020-21? Will my boys return to college in the fall?  What will the economy look like in the aftermath of the pandemic? For now and for the foreseeable future, I will continue working at my husband’s firm.  It is a stressful time to be a lawyer, and I am extremely grateful to have a job.  It is also a stressful time to be a human being, and especially to be a parent.

Am I glad I stayed home and worked part time while my kids were young?  Absolutely, yes. Do I judge others who choose to work? Honestly, I used to. As a young mother, I wondered why women have children and go back to work.  I’m ashamed of that now; why wasn’t I thinking that of the fathers? Why was I thinking it at all? And, whether I was working part time or not at all, I felt the subtle and not-so-subtle judgment of others over the past 20 years from strangers, friends, and even family members.

As I have matured as a person, mother, and human being, I have realized that every parent needs the freedom to choose the path that works best for them.  And, I am a perfect example of someone whose intended paths have taken wild, unexpected turns due to life events beyond my control. Honestly, if you had told me at any point before I had children that I would be a stay-at-home mom, I would have called you crazy. I have even wondered whether I would have left my dream job in 2000 if I had had one child, instead of twins and, if not, how my life and career would have been different.

Honestly, it is a bit scary to be writing all this down. Everyone can be so hard on each other and so judgmental of each other’s parenting and choices, even mothers who, one would think, would be the most supportive of each other.  Everyone is struggling now with schools and businesses closed, forcing many parents to now be stay-at-home-but-also-working-full-time parents. My hope for all of us is that we face this life and our careers, and particularly this pandemic, with flexibility, patience, creativity, and a sense of humor and that, in the end, we learn to support each other, and give each other the freedom to figure out and walk our own paths, not only free from judgment, but with support and kindness.

Earlier: Mothers At Law: Achieving Meaningful Success In The Legal Profession

Suzanne B. Hite, originally from Michigan, graduated from the University of Louisville School of Law. She worked as an Assistant Attorney General in the Division of Criminal Appeals and as an Assistant Director of Law for the City of Louisville Law Department before motherhood compelled her to stay at home, then work part time for the next decade. Currently, she works for Hite Law Group, PLLC, and is looking forward to resuming her job search in the months ahead. Suzanne is an active community volunteer – creating a mentor support team for the Louisville Mother of Twins Club; serving on a local school board and on the committee to hire a school superintendent; and volunteering with Room at the Inn, Meals from the Heart, and the Thomas Nelson High School Speech Team. Suzanne lives in Bardstown, Kentucky, with her husband and three children, and enjoys reading, cooking, genuinely connecting with others, and visiting family and friends in Michigan. She can be reached at shite@hitelawky.com.  

Now that it’s obvious the COVID-19 pandemic shows no signs of slowing down in some areas of the country, one thing is clear: in-person legal conferences won’t be happening anytime soon. That’s why, for example, it was recently announced that one of the largest legal technology conferences, ILTACON, would be held virtually this year.

How Do You Make Virtual Conferences Interesting?

This got me thinking: how do you make a large legal conference interesting and enjoyable in a virtual format? Sure, you can still hold virtual CLE sessions fairly easily. After all, everyone’s “Zooming” (as I recently heard a more … ahem … seasoned judge call videoconferencing), and we’re all pretty used to online CLE webinars.

But let’s be honest, CLEs are only a small part of conferences. Certainly we go to large legal conferences for the seminars and CLE credit, but we also attend them for the networking, the fun nights out on the town that include dinner and drinks with colleagues, the inside scoop on the newest product releases, and to learn the latest on upcoming industry trends.

Unfortunately, most “virtual” conference platforms fail to incorporate many of the very elements that make conferences the most enjoyable. Sure, virtual CLE sessions and vendor “booths” allow attendees to peruse marketing materials and to chat via text messages with vendors, but even in those respects they fall flat. The feeling of true interaction and engagement is limited and the experience often feels very one dimensional, and — let’s be honest — boring.

There’s Got To Be A Better Way

Which is why I figured there’s got to be a better way. I mean, it’s 2020 after all. Surely there’s a way to hold a virtual conference that’s more interactive and allows attendees to be more engaged with both vendors and other attendees. If the Black Mirror writers could envision a way to allow people to interact more realistically in a virtual setting in 2011 (and so many of the technologies envisioned in that series have already come to fruition), then why aren’t more authentic virtual conferences a possibility in 2020?

The good news is that there actually is a better way. The bad news is that lawyers may be reluctant to use it. After all, the legal profession has historically been slow to adapt to new technologies.

That being said, the current pandemic has led to much-needed change and has resulted in a rapid acceleration of technology adoption by lawyers out of necessity. So I’m hopeful that because of the effects of the pandemic, lawyers will likewise be more inclined to rapidly adapt to the virtual conference format that I think is the best option available right now: attending a virtual reality conference via avatars.

There Is A Better Way

A few recently released virtual conference platforms provide the most immersive experience available. You attend the conference as an avatar that you create and personalize prior to entering.

Although the features of the platforms vary somewhat, generally speaking you’re able to navigate the virtual conference via your avatar and interact with others. You can attend seminars, and often are able to verbally chat with people sitting next to you or at your table. You can enter the exhibit hall, walk up to booths and speak with the vendors, and watch demos, videos, etc. You can also attend networking events and speak to and interact with other attendees.

In some of the platforms, as your avatar moves away from another avatar, the sound of their voice will decrease. Some of the platforms will allow webinars with slide decks to occur within the platform. Some make it possible for you to easily share contact information with other participants. Some permit private chats, while others have community discussion boards devoted to specific topics.

In other words, the features may vary, but the immersive nature of the experience will be far superior to that of a “flat” virtual conference that consists primarily of web links, Zoom meetings, and simple text-chat capabilities. While it may seem strange to attendees at first blush, I fully expect that in a matter of minutes, they’ll be fully engaged, and the uniqueness of the experience will fade. This will be especially so for the more tech-savvy attendees at legal technology conferences.

The Avatar-Based Conference Platforms

Because this is a fairly new concept, a huge number of options are not available. That being said, three of the best-known contenders are Virtway, Teeoh, and Whova.

All three use avatars and provide similar immersive experiences, but their feature sets vary. So if you’re planning a legal conference sometime soon, it’s important to take advantage of any free trials and to set up demos so that you can see the platforms in action. Make sure have a full understanding of how you’d like to use them and which features you’ll need prior to the demo so that you can ask questions and ensure that you understand all of the relevant features and functionalities.

Sure, the concept of holding a conference that uses avatars may seem unusual, but I’m not sure I’d be willing to attend a full-fledged virtual conference, as opposed to a simple online CLE seminar, any other way. There’s simply no benefit to attending a “flat” virtual conference if networking and interactive capabilities are absent, especially if you’ll be covering it as press, which I usually do.

So hopefully a few brave, adventurous souls will have the foresight and gumption to do something notable and will hold a virtual conference using avatars. I sure hope so. Rest assured, I’ll be keeping my eyes out, and if a legaltech organization announces plans to host a U.S.-based virtual conference in this manner, I’ll be the first in line to request a press pass.

So, here’s my only question at this point: Any takers?

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney and Director of Business and Community Relations at MyCase, web-based law practice management software. She’s been blogging since 2005, has written a weekly column for the Daily Record since 2007, is the author of Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York. She’s easily distracted by the potential of bright and shiny tech gadgets, along with good food and wine. You can follow her on Twitter at @nikiblack and she can be reached at niki.black@mycase.com.

* The Department of Justice has backed a lawsuit against Hawaii over the state’s mandatory quarantine for out-of-state travelers. Maybe DOJ lawyers just really want to visit the Aloha state… [Fox News]

* A South Carolina lawyer has been disbarred for making numerous false and misleading statements on her bar application. [Bloomberg Law]

* A lawyer who walked out on a client during settlement negotiations is on the hook for a $300,000 malpractice verdict. [Legal Newswire]

* The Second Circuit expressed bewilderment while considering the bail request of two lawyers charged with firebombing an NYPD police vehicle during protests last month. [Law360]

* Bayer has agreed to pay $10 billion into a settlement fund to resolve thousands of lawsuits related to the weedkiller Roundup. And Bayer was able to settle the lawsuits without having to pay two plaintiffs’ lawyers a $200 million “consultation” fee. [NBC 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.

Ed. Note: Welcome to our daily feature Trivia Question of the Day!

According to data collected by the 2020 NLJ 500 ranking, the the number of lawyers working at the biggest 500 (U.S.-centric) firms increased by what percentage last year?

Hint:The growth in 2019 matched that on 2018, we’ll have to wait and see how COVID-19 impacts this year’s numbers.

See the answer on the next page.

Tesla’s initial public offering was held on June 29, 2010. If you were lucky enough to be among its first public investors, you could have snagged a snare for around $17.

By the end of that first day, Tesla shares had risen to $23.89 — quite a feat, considering that the Nasdaq was down 3.85 percent on June 29, 2010, and the Dow had dropped by 2.65 percent. It was a sign of things to come.

Over the past decade, Tesla faced obstacle after obstacle. As it initially burned through cash with no sign of consistent profitability in sight, critics predicted Tesla’s imminent collapse. At times, even well after it demonstrated profitability, Tesla was the most-shorted stock on the U.S. market. Controversy perennially surrounded the Twitter habits of Tesla’s CEO, Elon Musk, and virtually everything else people could come up with to criticize him about.

Yet, Tesla slowly marched ahead. The electric automaker churned out more and better vehicles, and discerning consumers snatched them up with gusto. Tesla began outperforming profit expectations. Soon, it became the most valuable U.S. automaker in history, and for a brief period, Tesla overtook Toyota to become the most valuable car company in the world. Short sellers who sought to profit from Tesla’s downfall lost billions.

As I write this, one share of Tesla stock is valued at $1,008.10. That means an investor who got in at the original IPO price of $17 per share would have realized a 5,930 percent return.

For purposes of comparison, the broader S&P 500 index gained approximately 289 percent over roughly the same period. The S&P 500 hasn’t performed badly over the past decade by any means, but next to Tesla stock, well, it’s a bit like comparing the rolling hills of Kentucky to the Himalayas.

Perhaps all the more impressive, a good deal of Tesla’s gains have taken place over the past six months of national and global chaos. Almost every stock took a battering in March as the COVID-19 lockdowns went into effect, including Tesla. Stocks generally rebounded significantly, and Tesla was among the many stocks to make a sharp dip followed by a relatively quick recovery. But a good amount of the recent rise in Tesla’s share price appears to be independent of the recent broader market recovery. Six months ago, at the close of trading on December 23, 2019, a share of Tesla was going for $419.22. But Chinese health officials had not reported a cluster of acute respiratory illness originating in the city of Wuhan until December 31, 2019. So, in spite of all the market turbulence associated with the coronavirus pandemic, Tesla’s share price has more than doubled in the past six months.

The World Bank forecasts that we are facing the deepest economic recession since World War II. In addition to the health and economic threats of COVID-19, mass demonstrations against racial injustice have swept across the nation and the world. Throughout all of this, the United States has been burdened by a leader who is not so much asleep at the wheel as he is deliberately driving off a cliff with all of us in the passenger seat. Despite these challenges, Tesla’s share price has not just shown tremendous resiliency: it has shown tremendous growth.

This is not the end of Tesla’s hardships. We have not seen the end of production issues. We’ll hear about some more fun tweets from Elon Musk. The share price will go up, and it will go down. But a decade out from its IPO, with a return of nearly 6,000 percent for its early public investors, Tesla has undisputedly demonstrated its viability as a company and has embarrassed its many critics. Even more importantly, Tesla has given us a glimmer of hope that perhaps a toxic overreliance on fossil fuels is not our inevitable future. That is some good news, at a time when I think we could all really use it.

Jonathan Wolf is a litigation associate at a midsize, full-service Minnesota firm. He also teaches as an adjunct writing professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, has written for a wide variety of publications, and makes it both his business and his pleasure to be financially and scientifically literate. Any views he expresses are probably pure gold, but are nonetheless solely his own and should not be attributed to any organization with which he is affiliated. He wouldn’t want to share the credit anyway. He can be reached at jon_wolf@hotmail.com.