Category: News Feeds

Now that you’ve been practicing law virtually for a month or more, you’ve no doubt become acutely aware of your law firm’s remote working technology deficiencies. As a result, you’re probably considering adding new software and hardware to your law firm’s technology arsenal. But, you may be feeling overwhelmed by your options and concerned about making uninformed choices. Rest assured, you’re not alone.

The 2020 Solo And Small Firm Legal Technology Guide

The good news is that a great resource available for small law firm lawyers seeking to invest in new technologies was just released by ABA Publishing: The 2020 Solo and Small Firm Legal Technology Guide, written by Sharon D. Nelson, John W. Simek, and Michael C. Maschke.

This comprehensive guide is updated annually and provides a vast array of technology advice, ranging from how to choose hardware for your law firm to legal software recommendations. If your law firm is in the market for new hardware, including laptops, smartphones, printers, or networking equipment, this book has you covered. Similarly, if your firm is in need of legal software to help you manage law firm documents, improve productivity, or secure your law firm’s systems, you’re sure to find tips on how to choose the software that will be the best fit for your law firm.

Top Remote Working Recommendations From The Guide

Since we’re in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis, and law firms across the country are facing similar challenges as a result of unexpectedly shifting to a remote workforce, I’ll be highlighting some of the top tools covered in this guide that will help firms successfully practice law virtually despite having a distributed workforce.

Scanners: A Must-Have Remote Working Tool

In Chapter 5, the authors discuss mobile, low-volume, and high-volume scanners. They recommend the Fujitsu ScanSnap iX100 wireless scanner, the Fujitsu ScanSnap iX1500 Desktop Scanner, and the Fujitsu fi-5530C2, respectively.

Because most lawyers are working remotely and because courts are closed for all but essential matters, digital documents have become essential in order to comply the now-mandatory (in most jurisdictions) e-filing requirements. That’s why scanners are now must-have technology.

While you might have concerns about the feasibility of distributing and setting up scanners remotely, as the authors explain, it’s not as complicated as you might think:

[S]canners have become a necessary piece of equipment in most law offices, as more paper documents are being scanned and stored electronically…The setup and operation of scanners have become simple to the point where even the most novice computer user can do it. Many of the tasks that once had to be performed manually are now automated, and in most cases, the hookup entails connecting a single wire—or none, for a wireless mobile scanner.

Cloud Computing Software

During this crisis, cloud computing is an ideal solution to the remote working problem. Now that your firm’s employees are working remotely, taking advantage of cloud computing software is the easiest way to ensure that they’re able to instantly access law firm information seamlessly and effortlessly.

In Chapter 16, the authors provide an in-depth analysis of the pros and cons of cloud computing tools, and then in other chapters they provide an overview of different types of software, all of which include cloud-based options, that can benefit law firms with a remote workforce. Notably, the authors highlight how advantageous mobile access from anywhere can be:

Many firms like the mobility aspect of the cloud model, since they can access the applications from any machine with an internet browser. Typically, there isn’t anything special that needs to be installed on the client computer. The user needs only a browser and perhaps some type of plug-in to access the application. This means that it is easy to gain access to the firm’s data from the office, the home, or an internet café in the Bahamas.

Collaboration Software

Effectively collaborating with colleagues and clients is a unique and pressing challenge presented by the sudden transition to working remotely. Taking phone calls or answering emails can be disruptive when you’re working remotely, in part because neither form of communication is very streamlined or efficient. Phone calls can lead to convoluted, often-lengthy discussions, and threaded email chains are typically hard to follow.

That’s where online collaboration tools come in. As the authors explain, standalone cloud-based collaboration software or collaboration tools built into law practice management software can prove to be an effective solution to this issue:

We’re still seeing an increase in collaboration with clients by using client portals with cloud service providers. Almost every one of the cloud-based case management vendors has a client portal so that clients can collaborate securely with their attorneys and even gain access to documents and other information for their matter. Clients are much more in tune with their lawyers when they use a client portal. They know what issues are pending, what tasks are completed, and the financial status (e.g., invoice, retainer amount, etc.) of their matter.

Time And Billing Software

Although law firms have faced challenges while transitioning to remote work, one of the most difficult for many firms has been setting up a process to get paid promptly. Under normal circumstances, when clients put off paying a legal bill, or even ignore it completely, law firm finances can be affected significantly. This problem is all the more amplified during the COVID-19 crisis, since cash flow can be negatively impacted by the unpredictability of the current situation.

That’s why Chapter 13 is an important read. The authors cover many of the legal billing and payment processing options available to solo and small firm lawyers. After all, in the midst of the uncertainty, it’s nevertheless incredibly important to make it as easy as possible for your employees to invoice clients and for your clients to pay legal bills. As the authors describe, one of the most common ways to accomplish this is by using standalone legal billing software or law practice management software with built in legal-billing features:

There are a few products that specifically address the billing needs of lawyers. Attorneys have some special requirements for handling the billing financials such as trust accounts, retainers, etc. We are seeing more and more attorneys using the billing function contained within their cloud- based practice management platform (e.g., Clio, MyCase, Rocket Matter, CosmoLex, etc.), but there are still some billing-specific options for the solo and small firm lawyer.

Law Practice Management Software

Last but not least, there’s law practice management software. With all of your firm’s employees working remotely, it’s imperative that law firm data be stored in a centralized location that is easily accessible by all employees.

That’s where cloud-based law practice management software comes in (note that by way of disclaimer I am the Legal Technology Evangelist for MyCase). Legal practice management software securely stores all data relevant to your law practice in the cloud, including: potential client lead data, contact, and calendar information; documents; billing data, invoices, and payment information; client communications; internal law firm communications; and much more. As the authors explain, these features make it a must-have for small firm lawyers:

Even in a world full of smartphones and wireless devices, it amazes us that most solo and small firm lawyers still don’t use a computerized case management software application. We’ve been making that statement for more than ten years now. Case management is a must-have for today’s modern law office.

Round Out Your Firm’s Remote Working Toolset

Of course, there’s lots more advice where this came from! No matter what hardware or software your firm needs to buttress its remote working technology arsenal, this book has it covered. Of course, you’ll have to buy this year’s guide to benefit from all of their advice. But if you’re in the market for software tools for your law firm that will streamline remote working in the midst of the pandemic, this book is a great resource and is well worth the investment.

---

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.

May is just around the corner, but the Biglaw austerity measures inspired by COVID-19 are far from over.

After a 2017 merger that brought together Saul Ewing and Arnstein & Lehr to the obviously named Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr, the firm took the 15th spot in the most recent the Vault ranking of most prestigious Mid-Atlantic firms. The firm was ranked 131st on the 2019 Am Law 200 after raking in $227,305,000 in gross revenue. But these accolades can’t stop the force that is COVID-19 austerity measures.

According to sources at the firm, they’re conducting layoffs/furloughs of associates and staff. Tipsters say the number of non-partner attorneys out of work is 25, while expect figures on impacted staff remain unclear. The firm is also cutting salaries, and though the exact percentages are unclear, the cuts only apply to those making more than $50,000 a year.

When asked for comment, Managing Partner Barry F. Levin provided the following:

As businesses across the country are doing in this unprecedented global health and economic crisis, Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr has taken steps to ensure that our Firm remains stable through this turbulent period and is well-positioned to continue to provide excellent legal services to our clients. At the outset of the outbreak, we focused on thoughtfully managing our expenses by reducing discretionary spending and postponing large capital projects. Our partners also saw reductions in their draws. However, with longer-term projections from the government and our clients now available, we have taken steps to broaden our austerity measures to ensure our firm is in the best position possible when things begin to normalize.

Our comprehensive approach involves salary reductions for those making more than $50,000 per year, temporary furloughs and layoffs. We opted to make these difficult changes now, with the goal of avoiding the need for further measures down the road. More optimistically, we will also be prepared to roll-back the added precautions when warranted. We believe this shared sacrifice across all constituencies is the most fair solution at this challenging time.

We are confident that implementing these austerity measures at this time will ensure that we continue to have the most strategic team in place to serve our clients throughout this pandemic and beyond.

We sure hope the firm will be able to “roll-back” all of its austerity measures.

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.

---

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).

Statutory regimes such as GDPR and CCPA have already raised the stakes around protecting data. But with privacy and security becoming increasingly important variables in the work-from-home (WFH), peripandemic reality that has become the new normal for nonessential businesses, the question of what is ‘reasonable’ arises.

In this new and ever-evolving environment, everyone has a different read on reasonableness — from governors facing the critical decision of whether to lift protective orders, to citizens deliberating whether to wear a mask during their morning walk. Even my dog thinks it’s reasonable to solicit a treat every time I walk by my kitchen (note: I’m usually on my way there to get one myself). Clearly, expectations shift in concert with circumstances, not just regulations.

In particular, with increased reliance on platforms like Zoom and Houseparty — which have both been subject to scrutiny for fallibility — to provide the continuity needed to maintain meeting schedules and social connectivity, society is very much dependent on the best efforts of sometimes-nascent technology companies to hold credentials under lock and key and apply best efforts in their security practices. Similarly, consumers play a huge role in this equation to the extent they themselves fall short of best practices — through password reuse or failure to implement two-factor authentication.

Hackers, too, are adjusting their exploits to optimize opportunities within the coronavirus-threat landscape with an uptick in phishing attacks, denial of service attacks, ransomware, malware-spawning COVID-19 Maps, and cyberattacks targeting organizations being hit the hardest on the front lines of the pandemic — medical centers, testing facilities, and the World Health Organization.

So the question seems unavoidable: with an uptick in WFH (often DIY) environments that have unexpectedly spun up in the wake of coronavirus state-at-home orders, will companies be able to meet the reasonableness standard of regulations and consumer expectations about how their information is protected? In many ways that depends on how we define reasonableness.

The Origins Of Reasonableness

Reasonableness is rooted in a duty to protect and used to assess whether a set of behaviors meets or falls short of the requisite levels that the duty requires. There are serious repercussions across all industries for falling short.

Professional standards of care are more stringent than ordinary ones and are measured based on behaviors expected from a skilled professional in the same trade. According to CSO magazine, for an action to be reasonable, it has to be done objectively as a reasonably prudent professional in the same or similar circumstances.

In order to guide financial institutions toward best security practices during the nascence of the internet, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, laid out guidance for financial services companies to explain their information-sharing practices to their customers and to safeguard sensitive data. The resulting Interagency Guidelines Establishing Standards for Safeguarding Customer Information remain valid guideposts 20 years later, describing a process that starts with identifying corporate assets and conducting periodic risk assessments, to implementing, monitoring, and adjusting those controls regularly.

According to Thomas J. Smedinghoff in ‘An Overview of Data Security Legal Requirements for All Business Sectors’, rather than describing actual behavioral expectations, “the emerging legal standard requires companies to engage in an ongoing and repetitive process that is designed to identify and assess risks, identify and implement appropriate security measures responsive to those risks, verify that they are effectively implemented, and ensure that they are continually updated in response to new developments.”  The exact security measures that are reasonable for that specific company are up to the company based on their specific regulatory requirements, risk profile, and crown jewels.

A Shape-Shifting Variance

So, how much diligence is enough to prove up reasonableness? State breach laws layer onto privacy regimes, and industry-specific regulations guarantee that there is a patchwork approach to coming to an exact assessment. And while regulators have impact on defining reasonableness, judges and juries — who are often not the best situated from a technical standpoint — are often the arbiters of reasonable security when breach actions are adjudicated in court, according to Robert Braun, a partner at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP who specializes in cybersecurity and privacy.

It takes a veritable village of infosec professionals to assess and execute against cyber risk. Resources run the gamut depending on budgets, but are often unhelpful if not properly used. And access to tools and outside experts is not a panacea. In fact, a growing sense of “alert fatigue” is the reality of an otherwise-attentive security operations center.

Notably, the new COVID-19 WFH workplace means heightened online activities and a workforce that is primarily working from home and, at the same time, subject to layoffs and furloughs, creating the perfect breeding ground for insider threats.

Steve Durbin, managing director of the Information Security Forum, a London, U.K.-based authority on cyber, information security, and risk management shares in a recent article in Security Magazine that “[e]mployees subject to new working arrangements may well react maliciously due to limited hours, lowered compensation, reduced promotion opportunities, and even expectations of redundancy. These concerns at work can be compounded by increased levels of stress outside of the work environment due to worries about the health of their families, livelihood and uncertainty about the future. Under these conditions, employees might become resentful or disgruntled towards the organization, resulting is occurrences of information leakage and theft of intellectual property.”

What’s At Stake

With organizations increasingly vulnerable to cyberattacks given the distribution of their workforce outside of protective firewalls due to COVID-19 era adaptations and attackers’ ability to devise new, more-nefarious schemes which seek out vulnerabilities like white on rice, the stakes to get security right have never been higher. Public sentiment is fragile and fickle — with swaths of users moving from one tool to the next based on ever-changing perceptions around usability, security, and functionality.

According to Gerry Beuchelt, Chief Information Security Officer of Log Me In, the perception of inferior security can be just as damaging as the deficiencies themselves. Perceived vulnerabilities or noncompliance can leave a stain on an organization that will be hard to rinse out.

Because there is no one-size-fits-all approach to security, perhaps we can define ‘reasonableness’ as a systematic defense — one that is informed, iterative, collaborative, and well-documented. And for those stakeholders within the organization who are at the helm of lodging the defense itself, here’s hoping that they have the drive and a deep-enough bench to keep working collaboratively and incessantly across the entire organization (and with outside experts, when appropriate), to continually gain a better understanding of the attack vectors and techniques and tools to shut those vectors down, and above all, improve on the plan from the day before.

---

Jennifer DeTrani is General Counsel and EVP of Nisos, a technology-enabled cybersecurity firm.  She co-founded a secure messaging platform, Wickr, where she served as General Counsel for five years.  You can connect with Jennifer on Wickr (dtrain), LinkedIn or by email at dtrain@nisos.com.

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 Lindsay Kennedy back to our pages.

There has been a lot of talk about how successful South Korea has been regarding the Covid-19 situation. Their methods are incredible, but would never work in the United States. The wearing of masks is touted as a miracle cure. Korea does way more than wear masks, their entire culture accepts a level of government intrusion that would cause riots in the United States.

As a military family, our sense of privacy is less, and our acceptance of government intrusion is more, than the average civilian family. In Korea, where we live, we are on camera everywhere except inside our home — closed-circuit television (CCTV) is everywhere. Some find this is alarming; but it’s just normal life to me. And it comes with the amazing benefit of safety — far less crime in Korea and a greater sense of security than anywhere I’ve lived.

This lesser privacy has made the Korean response to the pandemic starkly different. Testing is extensive and can be mandatory. There are even drive-through centers for testing. Every new confirmed case is disseminated to every local cellphone in an emergency alert that includes the person’s gender, age, and sometimes ethnicity. Within a few hours, a detailed list of every location that person has been to, including exact dates/times is released in a list of “hotspots.” To gather this data, the Korean government uses tracking info from CCTV, cellphone tracking software, and credit card transactions. If you were at a hotspot, you go get tested or self-quarantine for 14 days.

On post, those that came into near contact with an infected person are tracked down using CCTV. If a person can’t be tracked down quickly, their picture is posted on Facebook; they are found within minutes. All persons that could have come in contact with the infected person are tested and quarantined for 14 days in the barracks or their own home and then retested.

South Korea’s extensive tracing, testing and isolation measures — along with the highly intense campaign encouraging people to avoid gatherings — have helped to reduce the spread of this virus.

The Korean government was requiring all those arriving from overseas to download on their smartphones a self-quarantine app that comes with a GPS function that enables government officials to check whether the visitor from overseas remains in their permitted boundaries. Increased restrictions have been put into place, requiring foreign nationals to be quarantined in designated facilities — for example, the military provided a barracks room for a college student from the United States that recently came to be with her family.

A “clean team” comes in and thoroughly sanitizes each hotspot on- or off-post. It is common that people will avoid places that an infected person visited, even though the places have been closed and cleaned.

Unlike in the United States, Korea has never been on “lock-down.” Soldiers still work. Every week since January, numerous Emergency Alerts go out to every cellphone in Korea encouraging social distancing, only essential shopping, avoidance of large gatherings, detailed hand-washing instructions, and encouragement to go directly from work to home. Companies are encouraged, but not required, to run staggered work schedules or allow employees to work from home, check workers’ body temperatures every day, and cancel or postpone business trips.

Many other public establishments where people are close to one another are advised to temporarily shut down or disinfect their facilities regularly and require visitors to wear face masks at all times. While these are not requirements, most businesses closed voluntarily.

I bet few businesses in the United States would close because the government recommended it. There have not been protests here. A vaccine is not being discussed. The government pays a weekly stipend based on the cost of living for that location for all those who register for it (and knowing this society, only those that genuinely need it are likely to register).

The military declared a Public Health Emergency, making me, a military spouse, subject to various penalties if I did not comply with their orders. While many things have been restricted, I have always been authorized to visit family and friends in small groups. Shopping off post has been restricted this entire time to essential only.

Korea has an extremely dense population and is the approximate size of Indiana. As of April 28, 2020:

Country	Approx. Population	Confirmed Cases	Deaths
Korea	51 million	10,754	244
California	40 million	43,464	1,755
Indiana	6.7 million	15,961	844
USA	328 million	987,254	50,787

For the past week, with continued, extensive testing and tracking, Korea has only reported single digits of new cases arising from within the country. We get a handful of cases each day from people flying into the country. This is a drastic reduction in new cases.

One misstep could wreak havoc, so we can’t be complacent, but we can finally see a light at the end of a long tunnel. While I am guessing that my days leisurely traveling around Asia will be on hold for a year or longer, Korea will be back to a new normal very soon. The Korean methods to contain the virus would never work in the United States — freedom comes with a cost.

---

Lindsay Kennedy is a part-time lawyer doing legal research and writing for other attorneys and military wife with two daughters in South Korea.  Lindsay is also the Executive Director of MothersEsquire, Inc.  She supports changes in the legal profession to allow for more non-traditional options so both parents are afforded the opportunity to enjoy their family. You can reach her at LKennedy624@gmail.com.

On this week’s episode of The Jabot podcast, I speak with Eliza Stoker, Executive Director of Major, Lindsey & Africa’s In-House Counsel Recruiting group, one of the co-authors on a new survey looking at global in-house compensation. And the results are not good: they found that not only is there an 11.4 percent gender pay gap between male Chief Legal Officers and General Counsel and their female counterparts at other companies, but the survey also reveals a gender gap in compensation within companies between folks in the same position.

In this case, we chat about what exactly is behind the gender gap in-house, what folks need to understand about the in-house space that may contribute to the pay gap, what can/should be done to fix the disparity, and what gender equity looks like in-house.

The Jabot podcast is an offshoot of the Above the Law brand focused on the challenges women, people of color, LGBTQIA, and other diverse populations face in the legal industry. Our name comes from none other than the Notorious Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the jabot (decorative collar) she wears when delivering dissents from the bench. It’s a reminder that even when we aren’t winning, we’re still a powerful force to be reckoned with.

Happy listening!

---

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 NCAA claims that it is ready to allow college athletes to begin profiting off of their names, images, and likenesses, but not in a free market. Instead, the NCAA Board of Governors’ thirty-one page Final Report and Recommendations qualifies that the market will need to be created in a manner that is consistent with the collegiate model.

The recommendations will allegedly be turned into legislative proposals by October 31 and be voted on by the NCAA before January 31, 2021 with the intention of making them effective, if passed, before the start of the 2021-22 college sport seasons. While the NCAA would like people to believe that it is finally proposing that college athletes receive the rights they deserve, the recommendations lack specificity, put too much power in the hands of the NCAA and do not go far enough to ensure that college athletes are treated fairly.

Establishing NCAA Guardrails

The NCAA says that it must have guardrails in place to ensure that any compensation received by college athletes in exchange for the use of their names, images, and likenesses represents a genuine payment for such use as opposed to a disguised form of pay for their participation in sport. In theory, this makes sense. How it is accomplished in practice is of concern, particularly without any explanation of who will make such determinations and how they will be made.

There needs to be objective criteria established to ensure that there is no favoritism toward a particular individual, school, or conference. As of right now, no clarity has been provided as to how this will work, whether the NCAA will create a clearinghouse to review all pending deals and how long the review process will take for each opportunity. If these guardrails will be subjectively applied, then it causes grave concern, as the NCAA is not in a position to determine whether a proposed endorsement is authentic or not and will be inundated with requests for review that it simply does not have the capacity to handle.

Distancing from Group Licensing

Group licensing is currently not recommended by the NCAA, which means that products such as video games would not be available for purchase under the NCAA’s plan. This may come as a shock and grave disappointment to consumers who have been hoping for a return of the extremely successful NCAA Football video game that was a top selling EA Sports title before it was canceled.

The NCAA has claimed that group licensing is “unworkable” in college sports, mainly due to there not being a union or bargaining unit for the players. It is essentially saying that it does not want group licensing because it believes that the door will then be opened for college athletes to classify themselves as employees thereby making them entitled receive wages and benefits and shedding the NCAA’s veil of amateurism.

This is another attempt at the NCAA to control every facet of the college athletes’ publicity rights platform when it clearly needs to cede power to others. Third parties have already expressed their willingness and capacity to handle the group licensing process. For instance, the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA), in conjunction with the National College Players Association, has expressed its interest in marketing group licensing rights of college athletes. The NFLPA already works in this capacity with the Women’s National Basketball Players Association (WNBPA), United States Women’s National Team Players Association (USWNTPA), Major League Soccer Players Association (MLSPA), and United States Rugby Players Association (USRPA).

No one should accept the NCAA’s position that group licensing is unworkable.

Limitation on Shoe and Apparel Companies

The NCAA’s recommendations are not centered on the creation of a free market for college athletes, and that is most clearly evidenced by a portion of the document that recommends certain areas of enhanced regulation. Specifically, the NCAA says that deals between college athletes and shoe/apparel brands should be contingent on rules being developed “to prevent these new activities from undermining the integrity of the collegiate model and the recruiting process.”

Often, the most lucrative deals for athletes come in the form of endorsement deals with these brands. For instance, Zion Williamson signed a seven-year, $75 million deal with Jordan Brand going into his rookie season in the NBA. The value was based almost entirely off of Williamson’s prior performance, projected future accomplishments and social media exposure, which would have also been factors had Williamson been able to structure a shoe/apparel deal while enrolled at Duke University.

To take such a potential significant source of revenue away from college athletes would render the entire NCAA proposal almost worthless. Furthermore, it cannot be reconciled with the schools and coaches that have entered into lucrative deals with those very same companies.

Regulation of Athlete Agents

One place the NCAA should not be sticking its neck into is the regulation of athlete agents. The Federal Trade Commission already regulates the profession through the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act and more than forty states have a version of an athlete agent law on the books and are involved in the licensure of agents within their borders. Yet, the NCAA has asked for guardrails that will allow the regulation of agents and advisors, who are necessary to help athletes in procuring and negotiating deals that involve their publicity rights.

Simply put, there is no need for the NCAA to involve itself in this process and it will only serve to cause confusion. If an individual is licensed by a state, then that person should be able to work with the athlete who is performing within that state. Similarly, if an attorney is licensed to practice in said state and is in good standing, then there should be no process by which the NCAA should have control over whether that person can provide services to a college athlete.

The Futile Effort of Engaging Congress

Hopefully the NCAA is not conditioning implementation of the recommendations on action by Congress. Oddly, the NCAA included a section in the memorandum that suggested Congress be immediately engaged to ensure federal preemption over state name, image, and likeness laws, establish an antitrust exemption for the NCAA, and safeguard the nonemployment status of college athletes.

“NCAA doesn’t need anti-trust exemptions,” tweeted U.S. Congressman Mark Walker. “They have spent decades using their lawyers to keep young men and women from receiving basic rights, even as they grew to a $1B-a-year organization. I’m sure those same lawyers can help them navigate this w/o congressional intervention.”

It will surprise nobody that the NCAA has been completely reactionary on the issue of providing college athletes these rights, going from once referring to it as opening Pandora’s Box to now doing whatever it can to avoid states beyond California and Florida from passing legislation to allow college athletes within its borders to commercialize their publicity.

Yet, the State of Florida has already made it clear that the NCAA’s latest recommendations will not deter it from enacting its laws that are effective July 2021.

“The NCAA has blocked students from earning a living like their peers for far too long,” stated Florida Representative Chip LaMarca in response to the NCAA’s recommendations. “When Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signs SB 646, Florida’s collegiate athletes will be liberated from these restrictions. But, every student athlete across the 50 states should be able to earn from their talent. If the third largest state can do it, then so can this collegiate organization. With a global pandemic challenging our economy, now more than ever students must have the flexibility to continue their education and provide for themselves and their families.”

---

Darren Heitner is the founder of Heitner Legal. He is the author of How to Play the Game: What Every Sports Attorney Needs to Know, published by the American Bar Association, and is an adjunct professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. You can reach him by email at heitner@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter at @DarrenHeitner.

As the coronavirus outbreak continues to spread devastation both directly and indirectly across the country, attorneys are already expressing their interest in offering their services to help those impacted. Paul Weiss is clocking tremendous pro bono time right now. But one of the challenges of pro bono work that no one ever talks about is the difficulty of finding a pro bono cause to take up.

Part of the lack of resources to hire counsel is the lack of resources to get noticed by counsel. And while the need is always great, that’s also part of the problem — there are often too many voices calling out for attorneys to find the right cause for their skill set.

The American Bar Association Young Lawyers Division’s Disaster Legal Services Program — and, yes, they officially abbreviated themselves as the mouthful “ABA YLD DLS” — is a joint project from the Young Lawyers Division with justice-focused technology firm Paladin to create an online portal to connect attorneys with those who need help.

Before now, the DLS program’s efforts to connect pro bono lawyers with disaster-related pro bono opportunities were ad-hoc and manual, as referrals were run through online forms, spreadsheets, and phone calls across jurisdictions. Through the Disaster Relief Portal, volunteer attorneys will be able to filter opportunities by practice area, communities to serve, type of engagement, and the ability to work remotely. State hotline hosts and legal services organizations will be able to post opportunities to the DLS program’s portal as they come in to increase their volunteer pools. By creating consistency in opportunity intake, the ABA and Paladin will be able to gather important data around needs, volunteer interests, and ultimately, pro bono connections to inform better volunteer matching.

The effort is sponsored by Clio and LegalZoom and will be working with Legal Services Corporation to populate the portal with pro bono opportunities.

“The COVID-19 public health crisis has made the need for a nationwide Disaster Legal Services pro bono portal more apparent than ever,” said ABA President Judy Perry Martinez. “Streamlining our volunteer recruitment and referral process means connecting those in need following a disaster to volunteer attorneys as quickly as possible.” Lawyers who are willing to provide pro bono legal services can sign up and view cases at https://aba.joinpaladin.com/. Individuals who are looking for disaster-related legal assistance can connect to their state hotlines by calling the DLS Program’s national toll-free hotline at 888-743-5749.

If you or your firm have been looking for opportunities to contribute to the relief effort but couldn’t figure out where to begin, this is exactly the easy-to-navigate portal you need. Take some time to consider your own practice skills and how they can best translate to help someone in need and take a look at the portal. Lawyers spend too much of their lives on the receiving end of jokes about being societal leeches; this crisis is a good opportunity to showcase what the profession can do to help.

---

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.

With another day comes another law firm that’s put austerity measures in place to carry it through the economic upheaval that’s been brought about by the coronavirus crisis. From salary cuts to furloughs to layoffs, we’ve seen it all as the largest law firms in the country try to steer clear of being put out of business. Even firms that are very well ranked among the members of the Am Law 100 are doing what they can to cut costs.

We’ve learned that Katten Muchin — a firm that recently saw 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 — will be putting its employees’ salaries on the chopping block while furloughing others.

As far as partners are concerned, Katten will be suspending their monthly draws for two months, meaning that equity partners won’t receive payouts for April or May. Salaries for both attorneys and business professionals at the firm will be cut by up to 20 percent for those who make over $100,000, but no one will have their pay reduced below that level. Those who already earn less than $100,000 will not have their salaries cut. Starting on May 1, the firm will also be furloughing some business professionals and staff attorneys, but the total number of those affected was not clear. The firm’s summer associate program will likely be pushed back to start in July, but an official decision has not yet been made.

“Given the continuing public health and economic crises, we, like many, had to take a careful look at everything and make tough but necessary decisions in order to maintain the strength of our firm,” Katten chairman Roger Furey said in a statement. “We are mindful of the enormous challenges that individuals and families are facing. Doing our best to take care of our people through these trying times is a priority.”

On the bright side, Katten has created a Supplemental Unemployment Benefits (SUB) Fund, which will increase furloughed employees’ pay over what they’ll receive from governmental assistance funds that will bring them back to around 80 to 100 percent of their pre-furlough pay levels.

Best of luck to everyone at the firm as they navigate the pandemic.

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.

---

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.

Given the sort of “small businesses” who successfully sought federal small-business bailout loans, it’s highly probable that some enterprising hedge funds would have joined the rush to the trough. And they might have gotten away with it, too, if not for one man’s inability to speak to the press without saying something misjudged, ill-timed or otherwise ill-advised. But Anthony Scaramucci did go on television and say that hedge funds are small businesses, too, so now his old friend and colleague (and former fellow hedge fund manager) has had to make clear that they are not, at least for the purposes of partaking in the $320 billion to be given away in PPP part deux.