Category: News Feeds

The past several days have brought us a number of statements from law firms and law schools responding to the national outcry proximately sparked by the killing of George Floyd, though so many names have come before Floyd. Some ring hollow and others were just plain botched.

For a guide to preparing a powerful and supportive statement, check out the one released by the Rutgers Law faculty last night.

In a recent Above the Law article about law firm statements specifically, we outlined some key components of a positive statement, “like a firm’s unwillingness to come out and say Black Lives Matter” or “mention the names of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Armaud Arbery, or any other victim of racial violence.” The Rutgers faculty statement takes these points, that so many firms and law schools struggled to reach, as the starting point before taking an honest look at the role of the legal profession in enabling white supremacy.

The faculty of Rutgers Law School joins with other communities around the world, including our own student community, to express our outrage and grief over the public execution of George Floyd. We also join in solidarity with those in the United States and elsewhere who stand in protest against a widespread pattern of state-sanctioned violence directed against Black people and other oppressed communities.

Black lives matter.

The recent killings of Layleen Polanco, Rayshard Brooks, Sandra Bland, Aiyana Stanley-Jones, Trayvon Martin, Sean Bell, Philando Castile, Tanisha Anderson, Atatiana Jefferson, Charleena Lyles, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Maurice Gordon, Ahmaud Arbery, Eric Garner, Michael Brown Jr., Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, Tony McDade, and many others have roots in a history of white supremacy. America’s criminal justice system traces back to slave patrols, Reconstruction, the development of Jim and Jane Crow, and the convict leasing system, whereby Black people (including children, adults, and the elderly) were arrested for loitering and then leased out to be worked to death. That history has not yet been overcome.

As a public school located in two poor communities, both Rutgers Law campuses have long histories of taking concrete action to promote racial justice from curricular reforms to building robust clinical programs. But where most statements might rest on the institution’s laurels, the Rutgers statement reflects on its own shortcomings:

We both acknowledge the historical commitment of our faculty, staff, and students to this racial justice work and deplore the unequal burden Black and Brown members of our Law School community currently bear in carrying it out. We also recognize and acknowledge that many non- Black faculty have benefited and continue to benefit from racialized structures that disadvantage Black people and other communities of color, and that even when striving to be anti-racist we have at times been complacent, and to that extent complicit, in the survival of systems of racial injustice.

And rather than leave that general statement hanging, the statement outlines a non-exhaustive list of specific actions the faculty commits to undertaking from internal steps reviewing curriculum and clinical offerings to a commitment to scrutinize the anti-discriminatory efforts of prospective employers and pledging to engage more community and marginalized group organizations.

Fundamentally, everyone’s contribution to the struggle should be tailored to what they best bring to the fight. For academics working at a public institution, that’s research and scholarship, and the statement zeroes in on this, committing to be a safe and supportive place for independent academic inquiry for specific legal policy changes, highlighting police accountability and transparency, “broken windows” procedures, for-profit prisons, and family separation as just a few of the legal matters where they can help.

It’s such a contrast to the Michigan Law statement, where a public institution suggested that it had little business commenting on matters outside the Quad — the Rutgers faculty proclaims without reservation that fighting racism is absolutely a professional concern of the law at all times and in all places.

---

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.

Over the past few years, the United States government has denied citizenship to multiple children of LGBTQ+ married couples born abroad, arguing that the children fall under a portion of the immigration code that applies to unwed couples. The results have been anomalous, to say the least, and include the government granting one twin (but not the other) citizenship, as well as children born of *two* United States citizen-parents being denied citizenship. Last week, a lawsuit challenging those decisions achieved a major win. The federal district court in Maryland issued an opinion squarely on the side of the LGBTQ+ parents and their child.

Good Facts Sometimes Make Good Law

Roee and Adiel Kiviti are a same-sex male couple. They met in 2011 and married in 2013. Roee was born in Israel but raised from the age of 4 in the United States. He was naturalized as a United States citizen in 2001. Roee and Adiel met in Israel, but they later moved to the United States, and Adiel gained United States citizenship in 2019.

Like many couples, the two wanted to raise a family. As a gay couple, they pursued the route of surrogacy. Their two children were born in Canada (known for its actual affordable healthcare) in 2016 and 2019, respectively. With each child, a court in Canada issued an order that Roee and Adiel were legal parents of the child. In 2016, when their son was born, and they applied for his passport, the passport was issued promptly, and without the Kivitis being asked who was genetically related to the child.

In 2019, with the birth of their daughter, the passport application process did not go as smoothly. Their daughter was, to the Kivitis’ surprise, denied citizenship. The State Department stated that she fell under the “unwed” parents section of the immigration code that has more onerous residency requirements that Adiel, the genetic parent, did not meet. And Roee, for immigration purposes, was not acknowledged by the United States government as a parent to their child.

With the help of Immigration Equality, Lambda Legal, and the pro bono counsel Morgan Lewis, the parents brought a lawsuit against the U.S. government.

Win #1: Plain Language And A Little Judicial Shade

The State Department’s justification for the denial of citizenship was that the child fell into the section of the immigration code of “unwed” parents. How can that be, since her parents were, you know, wed? The government argued that the “wed” section’s language of a child “born… of parents” means that the child must be genetically related to *both* parents to be “born of” them. The State Department further argued that it does not matter if the parents are LGBTQ+; if the child is not genetically related to both parents of the married couple, the child’s citizenship must be analyzed under the “unwed” section. And that section has a longer residency requirement to confer citizenship on a child.

The Kivitis argued that the plain language of the statute does not require a genetic connection between both parents and the child. Further, to read a biological connection requirement into the statute would ignore a long history of common law cases that recognize a “marital presumption” — acknowledging the spouse of a parent as the child’s other parent, regardless of biological connection.

The court fully agreed with the Kivitis, throwing a bit of shade at the State Department in the process. The court describes how that State Department cited no evidence that their specific statutory interpretation was known to Congress other than “an unsupported and uncited statement in the current version of the FAM” (the State Department’s own manual that is written internally without public comment). The FAM states that the “blood relationship” interpretation dates back to 1790. The court dismissed this argument roundly, noting that it was highly unlikely that in 1790 they were doing blood tests to ensure a genetic relationship between parent and child.

The happy result was a ruling for plaintiffs that the Kivitis’ daughter is, in fact, a Unites States citizen from birth, per the plain language of the immigration code. However, the court did not stop there.

Win #2: Constitutional Avoidance

The plaintiffs argued that if the language of the statue were to be found ambiguous, the court should rule in favor the plaintiffs’ interpretation in order to avoid the constitutional problems that would arise from the State Department’s interpretation. Generally, courts go to great lengths to interpret or narrow statutes in order to avoid what would otherwise be a finding of unconstitutionality.

The State Department argued that its “biological connection” policy was not targeting LGBTQ+ couples, and applied to all couples. However, the State Department conceded that immigration agents were not required to inquire as to whether applicants for citizenship had a biological connection to their parents. Instead, it was in each agent’s discretion to choose whether to require applicants to provide information relating to a genetic connection between the parents and the child.

Of course, an agent was most likely to raise the question when same-sex couples were applying, since that would be a tip-off that one parent might not have a genetic relationship to the child. Indeed, the State Department acknowledged that a same-sex male couple could never qualify as a “wed” couple under the government’s interpretation. This sort of treatment was enough to raise doubts regarding the constitutionality of the State Department’s interpretation, particularly under two Supreme Court cases establishing a right to same-sex marriage and the “constellation” of benefits accompanying marriage.

The Court didn’t need to rely on the avoidance doctrine, since it had already ruled on the basis of the plain text. But the secondary reasoning makes this decision especially difficult to appeal if it goes to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, since the District Court ruled on two separate grounds for the plaintiffs.

In short, the ruling was a slam dunk for the Kivitis, and a promising sign for same-sex parents in the other open cases against the State Department. It is also great news for not only future LGBTQ+ parents but all couples who turn to the assistance of reproductive technology to achieve their families.

---

Ellen Trachman is the Managing Attorney of Trachman Law Center, LLC, a Denver-based law firm specializing in assisted reproductive technology law, and co-host of the podcast I Want To Put A Baby In You. You can reach her at babies@abovethelaw.com.

At the beginning of June, Harvard Law announced that it would host all Fall 2020 classes in an online format due to the continuing health risks of the coronavirus outbreak, making it the first law school in America to go fully remote for the upcoming semester. Despite being online for several months, tuition at the elite school will remain flat at $65,875 for 2020-2021 academic year, and HLS will be eliminating the pass/fail grading used during height of the coronavirus outbreak, resuming regular grading. Students concerned about inadequate spaces for remote work were reportedly advised to take out extra loans and “rent office space” to study from. Needless to say, students are quite angry — and now one of them has filed a class-action lawsuit against the school.

Meet Abraham Barkhordar, a rising second-year student at the school. He was forced to move home to California in the middle of the Spring 2020 semester and felt like the remote learning environment put him at a significant disadvantage. Not only did he have to wake up at 5 a.m. to participate in class, but because he was unable to use the library and participate in study groups, he began to fall behind in his studies.

“I decided to sue Harvard because while they did make some effort … the first semester we were online to mitigate things, they just have not lowered tuition,” Abraham Barkhordar, 23, told ABC News in an exclusive interview.

“They’ve actually suggested that to mitigate the difficulties of online learning that we rent office space as students,” said Barkhordar. “I just felt overall disrespected and unheard by the administration. And I think, as I’ve learned this year, the way to get justice in America is through the legal system.”

Barkhordar is suing the school for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion. (At least he learned some basic contract law during his time at the school.)

“This is one of the oldest, most prestigious law schools in the world,” Barkhordar told ABC News. “And that they’re hanging their students out to dry — and that they’re suggesting us to rent office space with our own money — is frankly ridiculous. And I’m glad the justice system gives me an opportunity to stand against it.”

Incoming and current law students were given several weeks to decide whether to defer their studies for a year. But Barkhordar’s complaint argues that the choice between paying “outrageous tuition” for online classes and disrupting their education isn’t much of a choice at all. The class action, which is seeking upward of $5 million for members, claims breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion.

“Plaintiff and Class Members did not intend to attend an online educational institution, but instead enrolled in Defendant’s institution on an in-person basis,” the suit reads. “The online learning option Defendant offers is subpar in practically every aspect. The remote learning option is in no way the equivalent of the in-person education putative Class Members were promised when they committed to attend Harvard.”

Best of luck to Abraham Barkhordar as he attempts to do battle against Harvard Law.

(Flip to the next page to read the complaint.)

ABC News Exclusive: Harvard Law student sues university over tuition prices as classes remain online [ABC News]
‘Subpar in Every Aspect’: Harvard Law Student Sues Over Online Classes [Law.com]

---

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.

I recently found myself in the most unfortunate position of immediately needing to replace my laptop computer. A few months ago, one of the hinges on my laptop broke, which required me to open it delicately. Otherwise, it wouldn’t open without damaging the computer monitor. My laptop was four years old so it was due for a replacement anyway and this was a good reminder. But I didn’t do it due to a busy schedule, most stores being closed or heavily restricted due to state and local business closure orders, and just being plain lazy.

A few days ago, I was punished for my procrastination. One morning, as I tried to open my laptop, one of the broken pieces somehow got inside the monitor and cracked the glass. Since my laptop had a touchscreen, the broken glass caused the operating system to malfunction and so opening programs became difficult. I figured that my computer only had a week left before becoming completely nonfunctional. So I had to act quickly.

I have replaced laptops before, and it was always a time-consuming process. But this was the first time I did it as a result of a malfunction. So today, I want to share what I went through in the hopes that you will make a smart purchase and minimize the time suck.

Choosing a replacement laptop. A few months ago, when the hinge problem began, I considered two options for replacing my laptop. The first would be a more modern version of the laptop I currently had. The screen size would be the same and the keyboard layout would likely be unchanged. The second would be a tablet computer.

Then I considered tablet computers. The iPad seemed a bit small for regular use, and I would need to get used to the new operating system. Ditto for the Android-based tablet computers.

The Microsoft Surface Pro 7 seemed promising. It was compatible with Windows, so all of my existing software can be transferred. The keyboard (sold separately) felt a bit cheap, but in case dust or food crumbs got in there, it could be replaced easily and cheaply.

There is also the Microsoft Surface Pro X. I have been warned not to purchase this because its ARM processor is not compatible with certain programs.

But since I only had a few hours to find a replacement, all I could do was choose between what was available at the local electronics store. Also, I was in no position to consider switching operating systems, so a Macbook was out of the question.

I wanted one that was small and light. I also wanted one that did not have hinges.

Also, I had to look closely at the laptop to see which expansion ports (if any) are available. On my old computer, I used the HDMI port to connect it to a monitor. I also used two USB ports — one for the mouse and one for the printer. Depending on the computer you are getting, you may need adapters or hubs. The newer and more compact computers are removing traditional USB ports and HDMI cables and replacing them with smaller USB-C ports. This can be an issue if you connect your laptop to home monitors that require an HDMI cable.

So whenever possible, plan for replacing your laptop. It may be when you notice that your computer is running slower. Or maybe after three years have passed. Or when your hinge is preventing your laptop from opening and closing properly. The sooner you start planning, the easier it will be to choose your replacement.

Replacing programs and files. Next, you will need to move your old files to — and install programs (like Word and your practice management software) on — your new computer. This can be a tedious and time-consuming process.

If you purchased your software digitally through Amazon, you may be able to download it again through their website. If you purchased the software at a store, unless you kept the box, you may have lost the key code needed to activate it. If you do purchase software from a store, either keep the activation key or email the code to yourself so you won’t lose it.

Thankfully I had an annual subscription to Office 365, so I was able to download most of my office software like Word and Excel. I also had some other software that I was able to download again from the manufacturers themselves.

The next issue I had was remembering old usernames and passwords. I am automatically logged into many websites and have not changed by passwords for years. But most apps have two-factor authentication. If you forget, it should not be hard to retrieve or reset your passwords. This would be a good opportunity to update each program with a new, unique password.

If your old laptop is still functioning, you can transfer the files either through the cloud or with an inexpensive flash drive (I recommend getting one with at least 256 GB). If you have synced your files in a cloud server, you can simply download them to your new computer although transferring everything can take some time. If you have to transfer the files manually, it can take a very long time, especially with older computers. The process can take a few hours at a minimum, so I suggest transferring a few files so you can get started on something while the rest of your files transfer over.

If your laptop is nonfunctional, you will need to remove the hard drive from the laptop and then connect it to your new laptop. This is not as hard as it sounds — the only hard part is getting the tools to open up the laptop and remove the hard drive. Once you remove the hard drive, you can connect it to an inexpensive hard disk enclosure and connect that to the new laptop. If you purchase a laptop from a store, you may be able to ask their technical support department to retrieve the hard drive for you while you are shopping.

Adapting. Once you get a replacement, there are a few things you will have to get used to. The first is the keyboard. It might take anywhere from a few days to a few weeks before your fingers get used to the new keyboard.

Second, you will need to make sure your new laptop is compatible with your other devices, such as your printer and monitor. Unless your devices are really old, you don’t need to replace them.

If you do not have the setup CD for your printer or if your new laptop does not have an internal CD-ROM drive, you might be able to download the setup files from the manufacturer’s website. Simply type your printer’s model and setup on your search engine bar (e.g., “Canon M46B setup cd download”). It is best to have a wireless setup for your printer, but if you need to prhysically connect it to your printer, make sure it can connect to your computer. Otherwise, you’ll have to get an adapter or a hub.

Once you get your new laptop, familiarize yourself with it as much as possible. Don’t just reinstall your software and get back to work. See what it is capable of and eventually upgrade your software so it can take advantage of your new laptop’s capabilities.

For most lawyers, a laptop is an extension of their office. For those who run simple law practices, a laptop is the office. So not only must you choose one that is reliable and meets your needs, you might have to do it quickly. So plan whenever possible and spend some time getting used to it.

---

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.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has suffered a couple of setbacks vis-à-vis stock exchanges and data. Last week, a court said the regulator couldn’t force the NYSE and Nasdaq to conduct an expensive study on how their practice of paying lucrative rebates to brokers impacts customers. And earlier this month, the same court junked the SEC’s retroactive rejection of a price increase on the exchanges’ premium data feed.

It was all enough to take Kelly Loeffler’s mind off of the impending end of her political career. But the not-usually-wily Jay Clayton wasn’t content to leave it there. If he can’t block fee increases as it sees fit—which he’s still trying to do—maybe he and his new buddy Bill Barr can just get rid of the premium feed altogether.

* An entrepreneur who created the world’s first “robot lawyer” has secured $12 million in funding. Hope this guy doesn’t make a robot Morning Docket writer… [Forbes]

* A Pennsylvania lawyer has been disbarred for defrauding his firm by referring people who came to the firm to other lawyers in exchange for a percentage of the fees. [ABA Journal]

* An appeals court has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $2.1 billion for damages allegedly sustained from baby powder that was purportedly laced with asbestos. And this amount is lower than the original verdict of $4.69 billion. [Hill]

* A Florida lawyer is in hot water for filing allegedly frivolous lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act. [Daily Business Review]

* The unexpected deaths of two attorneys and a series of tornadoes was no excuse for a late filing according to a federal judge. This ruling seems kind of harsh. [ABA Journal]

* Two Virginia lawyers have pleaded guilty to extortion for trying to persuade Monsanto to pay them $200 million for a “consulting agreement” to settle Roundup litigation. Sounds like these attorneys could have learned a lesson from Michael Avenatti… [ABC 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

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

According to a new study by the American Bar Association, what percentage of female minority attorneys have left or are considering leaving the profession?

Hint: According to the report, “Women of color have the highest rate of attrition from law firms as they continue to face firm cultures where their efforts and contributions are neither sufficiently recognized nor rewarded.”

See the answer on the next page.

A decidedly conservative Supreme Court made discrimination against the LGBTQ community illegal and then turned around and wiped out the Trump Administration’s effort to cancel DACA. What was in the water last week? Joe and Kathryn break down why the opinions weren’t nearly as revolutionary as the results they brought might make them seem.

Since 1978, Dorsey & Whitney has been sending a steady stream of litigation associates to the Minneapolis City Attorney’s Office to help prosecute misdemeanors. But earlier this month, in the wake of the murder of George Floyd, the firm did away with the program, with managing partner Bill Stoeri citing the racial imbalance in the prosecution of misdemeanors and the impact that has on black communities.

As Stoeri told American Lawyer, the firm aims to be “part of the solution”:

“What George Floyd’s death did is really cause us—and I think a lot of other people around the country—to really reexamine things and look at it and see what we thought was appropriate to be doing,” Stoeri said. “A change is needed, and I think this is an area where, instead of just saying we’ll explore things … we can take some action and examine our own programs.”

The firm will also be doing more pro bono work focused on supporting the recent Black Lives Matter protests and working with public defenders in the city. Plus, the firm will be matching employee donations to “charitable organizations working for racial justice and providing community support,” up to $50,000.

---

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).