When Biglaw’s Statements On Racial Justice Ring Hollow

Since the murder of George Floyd last month, I’ve read a lot of Biglaw statements about racial justice. And in compiling what I’m sure is a non-exhaustive list of statements, it’s clear that not every statement is a great one — or even a good one. While some have been well received, others have been criticized as shallow or even cringeworthy.

What makes a good statement from Biglaw? Well, as Lia Dorsey, newly elected President of the Association of Law Firm Diversity Professionals and Director of Diversity and Inclusion at Dentons, noted, it should come from the actual leadership from the firm since a firm’s culture, particularly as it applies to diversity issues, comes from the top down. The more successful statements were also earnest and spoke from the heart instead of being a “very special message from the firm.”

There are also some seemingly small things the convey a lot — like a firm’s unwillingness to come out and say Black Lives Matter (or even mention the names of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Armaud Arbery, or any other victim of racial violence). Or only using quotes from white men about the importance of racial justice (talk about centering the wrong thing). Or statements that focus on the ways everyone is diverse instead of the very specific issue at hand. Or statements that place undue focus on property damage instead of the life and death fight.

Covington’s response to the recent protests has also been publicly called out as ringing hollow compared to the experiences of lawyers at the firm. Yolanda Young, who unsuccessfully sued the firm for racial discrimination, pointed out on Twitter that the firm’s statement in the wake of the George Floyd protests was very different than what she experienced working at Covington.

Cleary’s response to the Black Lives Matter protests was criticized by its New York black associates, who sent an office-wide email in response (available here in full — and it’s absolutely something you should read). It called out the firm’s response as lackluster rhetoric that failed to provide concrete steps to directly support black associates at the firm. The associates recommended the following: acknowledge the pain of black associates, actively check-in and adjust, give grace, provide targeted mental health support, targeted pro bono efforts, effective mechanisms for addressing anti-blackness, educate, listen, and take action.

And concrete action is definitely a good thing, like specific dollar amounts firms are donating or their pro bono hours, for example Pillsbury’s impressive commitment to donate $1 million in cash and $10 million in pro bono and volunteer work to social justice causes over the next three years. And Sidley is already doing some high-profile pro bono work on this subject.

Today is Juneteenth and a record number of Biglaw firms have declared the day a firm holiday, which is a great step in the right direction. But Above the Law is also hearing at that at a bunch of these firms, after the fanfare of the announcement, associates are being pressured by the partners they work for to not take the day off, quite literally making it a second-class holiday. It’s a poignant reminder that saying the right thing simply must be followed by doing the right thing.


headshotKathryn 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).

Profiteering Off Publicly Funded COVID Treatments

I’m all for heavily compensating whoever comes up with an effective treatment or vaccine for COVID-19, but our existing setup seems designed to encourage scamming and grifting. For years, we’ve talked about the evil that is the Bayh-Dole Act, which encouraged universities to patent every damn thing (most of which was funded from federal government grants) and then sell off those patents to industry. While it’s made a bunch of people rich, it’s been such a disaster in so many other ways. First it’s done massive harm to university research (rather than the opposite as its backers promised). It significantly decreased information sharing and collaboration (keys to innovation breakthroughs) because universities kept demanding ideas be kept secret so they could patent them and lock up the output of any (again, mostly taxpayer funded) research.

A key result of Bayh-Dole is that many, many universities all set up “tech transfer” offices, in the belief that they’d be able to cash in on all these patents being licensed to industry. But, of course, like so many patent holders, universities vastly over-estimate the value of the patent, and under-estimate the value of actual execution. So almost all (with just a few limited exceptions) university tech transfer offices have been dismal failures, and lost universities money, rather than being profit centers. Of course, that created an opportunity… for patent trolls. One of the world’s largest patent trolls, Intellectual Ventures, was literally built off of this scam: swooping in to “rescue” desperate tech transfer offices at universities, buying their patents off them for pennies, and amassing a huge collection to shakedown actual innovators. And of course, some universities — including the University of California — got directly into the patent trolling business themselves.

If you want to see a case study on how this works in the age of COVID-19, look no further than the story of the antiviral therapy called EIDD-2801. My and your taxpayer money helped fund the development of the drug (taken in pill form, originally for the flu), by a grant from the federal government to Emory University for $30 million (only about half of which has been spent). But, just as the COVID-19 situation heated up, there was a recognition that pharma firms might be eager to find new drugs to treat the disease. George Painter heads Emory’s tech transfer operation, and also (coinkydinks) holds some patents related to EIDD-2801. In what lots of people considered to be a weird move, he quickly sold off the rights to EIDD-2801 to a “biotherapeutics” company called Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, that didn’t seem to have much in the way of, well, anything:

Ridgeback Biotherapeutics had no laboratories, no manufacturing facility of its own and a minimal track record when it struck a deal in March with Emory University to license an experimental coronavirus pill invented by university researchers…

What Ridgeback did seem to have was close connections to the Trump administration. And a wealthy couple who “founded” the firm.

Wayne Holman, who holds a medical degree from New York University, is a hedge-fund manager with a long track record of investing in pharmaceutical stocks. He founded his fund Ridgeback Capital Management in 2006. Wendy Holman, chief executive of Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, is a former investment manager who was named to President Trump’s advisory council on HIV/AIDS in 2019.

The Holmans live on Miami’s exclusive Star Island, where they bought two mansions for a combined $47 million in 2014 and tore one of them down. Ridgeback Capital’s headquarters is in a small office building not far away in Coconut Grove, near a private school where Wendy Holman serves on the board of trustees.

The story of Emory and Ridgeback came to attention only because of Rick Bright, the whistleblower who was removed from his job as the director of the US Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority for challenging the US’s approach to dealing with COVID-19. Among the things he blew the whistle on was Ridgeback’s sketchy and insistent push for a lot more money from BARDA, despite not even drawing down the remaining $14 million of the existing grant:

Ridgeback’s involvement burst into the broader public sphere in early May, when Bright, the ousted head of BARDA, filed his explosive whistleblower complaint. Bright alleged that he clashed with Robert Kadlec, the Health and Human Services assistant secretary for preparedness and response, over demands that he award BARDA contracts to well-connected companies. HHS has said it “strongly disagrees” with Bright’s allegations.

In his complaint, Bright cited attempts to secure money for EIDD-2801 — first by Painter in November 2019, and then by Wendy Holman in early April — among episodes of alleged political pressure.

Bright said he rejected requests to fund EIDD-2801 because Emory had already received pledges of $30 million from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Department of Defense to cover development of the drug, including human safety testing. Without first seeing safety results, Bright said, it did not make sense to back the drug with new infusions of federal cash.

The story includes quotes from a series of emails that Holman sent pushing for more taxpayer funds to run clinical trials.

Bright said in his complaint that Ridgeback had been seeking $100 million to further the drug’s development. In an April 13 email, a BARDA official said the proposal from Ridgeback could obligate the government to pay the company more than $300 million. The contract official objected to the outlay because Ridgeback had not followed proper application procedures.

Even so, it appears that Ridgeback was able to cash in by flipping the rights to EIDD-2801 to pharma giant Merck after just about two months:

That wager paid off with extraordinary speed in May when, just two months after acquiring the antiviral therapy called EIDD-2801 from Emory, Ridgeback sold exclusive worldwide rights to drug giant Merck.

Nice work if you can get it.

And, again, I’m all for investing in the development of a successful treatment of this disease, which remains a massive threat. But, let’s go back to the basics here: the research was paid for by taxpayers. But the benefit seems to be accruing to private companies entirely, and where the incentives get sketchy super quick. It seems that a much better system is to not involve patents and sketchy licensing deals that give off the appearance of self-dealing. Why not just offer massive prizes, along with some initial incentive grants to do the necessary work, and then whoever comes up with a treatment can claim a massive prize, along with the promise that the actual treatment be made widely available for free or at a nominal price. That seems a lot more effective with much less risk of arbitrage and flipping, and privatizing that which was paid for by public funds.

Profiteering Off Publicly Funded COVID Treatments

More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:

Federal Court Says ICE Can No Longer Enter New York Courthouses Just To Arrest Alleged Undocumented Immigrants
Anti-SLAPP Law Turns Bogus Defamation Lawsuit Into A $26,500 Legal Bill For The Plaintiff
Copyright Gets In The Way Of Chef Andres’ ‘Recipes For The People’; Because The DMCA Takedown System Is Still Broken

CFPB Issues FAQs on Consumer Reporting Requirements of the CARES Act [Sponsored]

%PDF-1.4 %���� 1 0 obj << /Creator (Apache FOP Version 2.3) /Producer (Apache FOP Version 2.3) /CreationDate (D:20200618013858Z) >> endobj 2 0 obj << /N 3 /Length 3 0 R /Filter /FlateDecode >> stream x��gPTY��{� �M���I��$�$A��@w�i��AQdpFI� ���AFQŀ((��N#��2�”**K�٭�U[�g��x�sO�s�[��1������M��:�1��C�H�(�JN�����!���c����sϑ��>��qy�v�y����%��.��ʱlN2k�w�r4;�-�� 8=%1�{�i��W�-�o�!�o�V��k������Z�kL�0+���t�j� +���|iA/�o3���`?�(��O��f+�y�S/T�����7����o��r�L@�ʿr��`�Q�WN��=t����8@W)��X���o9���Ȁ��

r���”�dQ�(s�+*�JG�*PM��5�(j��F���hS�:��F����ї���)�”���hc,1^�pL �S�9����Lc>` X�!� ��b��l/v;�]Ɖ�Tq�8/��+�5�zpwqӸe�^o�����w�+�m�k�’�A�`F�!�v* g7���D Q�hO%��O/ߒH$5� )��B�Oj&]%=#}��芸��ErEjD:EFD^�qdU�-y+9�A>G�K�ʼn��ڋ����=/:.�(F3�K+k�)6K�P�(�6%�r�r�2EEP���Tu��z�:MC��i��XZ�G�mA�”n$ �!^#~Q�OG����xz �,}��IBN�V�#�O�MbDbIRF�F�#Y(�.9*�I�!�(‘u@�K�4RZK�G:]��5�y���K�P��cYXVK�W6[��좜������U�yy���|�|�|��U�J!F���K�8ÖϨd�3e]S����ԕ��ڕ�*㕙ʑ���}�* *�*9*�*�Uq�L�h�ê�Kj�j�j{պ�f�%�]ճ�[՟h�4�5�44h�5��q�G4�i�Z�Z�Z5Zw�am��#���P���q�5��!�����L��u=t�t�t_������o��ߨ?a@1p3�3�1��PːeXc�`=i��������iq��=4�{�5�3�bbj�3i3�3U1 3�5gҘ��b� 3���Y�����&�)�g���б��h��ݠ����qÔ��e�e�%ߊafůo�hn�`��Fنm�d3c�ik{��Ϯ�n���~��e���C�Ð#��߱�񙓒S�S�ӂ��s��e�����qW9W�k�낛���~w��&�j��Z<�O����瓍��������A�����I޿�}�}j|^����l�nڶ�e�{?;��  �T��r@h@s�R�C`Y ?H/hG��`����LH@HS��f�͇6O����mQߒ���V��[/n#o�v.��9�+�!|1�5�6b�e�:�zŶa���8��2�L�edY�l�e���h������7�.�u�Kq^q'�V���� a �n�����Éډ��$�CI<�?�p<< /Type /Metadata /Subtype /XML /Length 6 0 R >> stream
application/pdf x-unknown 2020-06-18T01:38:58Z Apache FOP Version 2.3 1.4 Apache FOP Version 2.3 2020-06-18T01:38:58Z 2020-06-18T01:38:58Z
endstream endobj 6 0 obj 964 endobj 7 0 obj << /Name /Im1 /Type /XObject /Length 8 0 R /Filter /FlateDecode /Subtype /Image /Width 157 /Height 26 /BitsPerComponent 8 /ColorSpace /DeviceGray >> stream x�͗ilTU��L[J[`b[ k��m�Vٔ��Җ�%”K�%@@Y�”e'(“�”�JD���.�@� �D ��B$(hd *3��u��s�{3ShC�i8��s�]��s�{C�ˀ�5 �ު�^�N��_*�BM���d^�B�$�o�!��n�A���4�)�F.��f2e���t�|��ty>O�핒�֖�a� ۻܠY1��}�j��V�y�����FŐ���Q�m��c�D%NJ�]Hm;[o�ׄ�h���n�U��70�#j���”�xUzkH����v�����I�=G�.�d�`A0�^.7���”�X��)�&�����7:G�(+~T�”�N�+��”v,!z���5�F� %j |�^�;qKw��p�G74���O�v�I�m’Z��N]�W��g�-�ix�L���b�B�U�C�J�D���e�9�}�Jgkp� 8��&���)��f��ψ��a��g��4�<'p���-��pU̿@Ϣ9�P�>‘��2�h.�n8Z����)��l�|��Ft�$��zdr��%[V�3+;�*8r��Z4�_��Q�tR��D�ţ�Q�y1/�w���͸�eS5�z��i��=��@� Jœ�2�&b�T�2�W�5�����F�;”�&*’�c.�����I�)����b�q]jd��a�c�o���^��Eg����u6��^��q{}�̙-�袋20���1U�܉��p(�?�|Ρ�4�cC��7;�E�y����I��Y�dOR�J�r��RhN��������P�U>Q�XJ�{��5X��G�A�4G�WX �1�c�h .���=u�UjL���T*Ki�Z��U�� �j|t�Q��Y�f3�9X�_PP0��'[��+�,q���-����L8�y�_�S�����Xē��$�z�����ke�c,�x�O�T�/��9U��V�L3���pD��e� J�#ʄ�)�=��b�|�0��#8_eR^�����(���0S4�$���D=,R�zV�ͻ�����(r��M��R�KB�%V�7�N�]kG�%6�V�����q�z�����#=���^DG�g�v��_ S��*`���)um��’�A�� �]��X���jU�LU�`82D�,HQ1����J�*�ɔF7��_>’ф��J�JX�����7��%���JeS�.W�q�>A���M�b~St��l�:r�b���_UO���)&�O4���Ҙ�=�f�|��t��NF�ӥ����x����b����Y����6�l�9C��x��GZ(�99���7���[l��/nz�� [vgs�%��u�����dnw�xW�?j��$a�;�ϟ��412�$A�?i endstream endobj 8 0 obj 1384 endobj 9 0 obj << /Name /Im2 /Type /XObject /Length 10 0 R /Filter /FlateDecode /Subtype /Image /Width 157 /Height 26 /BitsPerComponent 8 /ColorSpace [/ICCBased 2 0 R] /SMask 7 0 R >> stream x���kL�W�#2�ˢ�n�ܢ��)ZT��Nq�O��dʭЋ@[[h��֖�fs���m’8]����^U.�)-���dYf�,�Y̲%[^�6��M���Ó����$7 %?ɪz߮�km��v��8 �m�Nk�qB�����a�Ѐ�ߘ��׌�1�D>��’f:kk4���p�);����[���j�`�ɉT�d��n��nc�����g�P�(:| �G���P�P�R6Ec�S±B�i2����ݝ��gU ��’�[���v����˞@�yp�Ɏ�?Q,?q�VӶ��=�R�x�h�sJ8�qhog�C�ڼY O.��3:}Tw�;����S���6�L�x��J�Z�� �~c�H�8W�”��/`Ec�<�£Q����4�PVh~fpI����V텧���̝'���d�Ć��[�gn��3�Ǽ��u��,��19���|�m��a��'08�7�� ��}����� ~F��Mz��a��Z=�z{�v�;I2��⟅���[�r�������uA�v�F��2d��bo�ځ�.��1�bv๬�@pY��mB��|�O���A�+��@aJ�sU��$��,�ԿF6�QRE�ޏy��i��'�ĕ��<�ИT�J_T���^�Xbf$��J�t���;hե���L��0���q��O<�gD�+�o��j�q���Ev�A��L3;~��'�T��rt)��bu2O���J�����$���y�܍D��ܞ��d� �drt���5^�D���|���#|@%�ш1�B&C���fbe��V�v��Ȝ(0�@�~u� /w�,d@��"ue�-��1$p�S�W�#�Ⱦ6��a>��H�f��+’:x� l�b�6@S��kw���vF���ŧ �C53��O���Dǜ/1�*�Hі;g���X �.9�/R�W��Ba߲����]��-2’HW��-�����Jex�”�jqu::�c�y�o�-w��}O:}���Be��,��AG|��q�� �^2�S��R��?��a�s�%��p�Z���� �VUYS���fxK0�ş$��)�=<< /URI (http://prod.resource.cch.com/resource/scion/document/default/blw01e899f0767d9d10008828005056881d2305?cfu=Legal&cpid=WKUS-Legal-Cheetah&uAppCtx=Cheetah) /S /URI >> endobj 12 0 obj << /Type /Annot /Subtype /Link /Rect [ 56.692 683.432 524.152 697.418 ] /C [ 0 0 0 ] /Border [ 0 0 0 ] /A 11 0 R /H /I >> endobj 13 0 obj << /Type /Annot /Subtype /Link /Rect [ 56.692 664.532 527.218 678.518 ] /C [ 0 0 0 ] /Border [ 0 0 0 ] /A 11 0 R /H /I >> endobj 14 0 obj << /Type /Annot /Subtype /Link /Rect [ 56.692 645.632 183.238 659.618 ] /C [ 0 0 0 ] /Border [ 0 0 0 ] /A 11 0 R /H /I >> endobj 15 0 obj << /URI (https://prod.resource.cch.com/resource/scion/document/default/blw01e899f0767d9d10008828005056881d2305?cfu=Legal&cpid=WKUS-Legal-Cheetah&uAppCtx=Cheetah) /S /URI >> endobj 16 0 obj << /Type /Annot /Subtype /Link /Rect [ 56.692 603.758 218.112 613.748 ] /C [ 0 0 0 ] /Border [ 0 0 0 ] /A 15 0 R /H /I >> endobj 17 0 obj << /URI (https://10.204.70.18/eloquent/dailies/stories/Consumer%20Reporting%20FAQs%20Related%20to%20the%20CARES%20Act%20and%20COVID-19%20Pandemic) /S /URI >> endobj 18 0 obj << /Type /Annot /Subtype /Link /Rect [ 458.822 522.087 550.902 532.077 ] /C [ 0 0 0 ] /Border [ 0 0 0 ] /A 17 0 R /H /I >> endobj 19 0 obj << /Type /Annot /Subtype /Link /Rect [ 56.692 508.587 316.872 518.577 ] /C [ 0 0 0 ] /Border [ 0 0 0 ] /A 17 0 R /H /I >> endobj 20 0 obj << /URI (https://business.cch.com/bfld/consumer-reporting-and-cares-act.pdf) /S /URI >> endobj 21 0 obj << /Type /Annot /Subtype /Link /Rect [ 56.692 382.836 97.192 392.826 ] /C [ 0 0 0 ] /Border [ 0 0 0 ] /A 20 0 R /H /I >> endobj 22 0 obj << /Length 23 0 R /Filter /FlateDecode >> stream x��ˎ���W�”�)�@`��’HvF���*��E�{��IU��I�k�:ȽL��”�U�N=��/r����/���O�᚜�2/��6K�(]6�ϋ�!�iѳs>�0�����v��T�� �x{��q��_�z�n�~z��/����Qvz�4}�{!�”��B���#]�m�k�����?_�ْʄY���Y�.��)��K�*7{�G|�Ojz�w���b.�y�EF�`�r� 7�’i�MH5/”I�iB�B���鵏?�}����]A ��W�~��o�ޭo��K`mi�M�IqQ^3+o�.Ĭ�>Lb6.���]n��>;NV��as�jnvvZ��!�-��j6jJF-ʨ9�;����m�L��>��2jN����uLT�Pq�RLp�>�&��H/&-g+����%��+�}`��p ��Ǭ�V�lQ��Zr���o��<(� �M�o���T9�s�u|)������~S��1�i=K��8����R����d�<���7���l�L��c��-T�&����>�$Zlg!A��`���U�I�Z�����Z�ߛk�<�,,�r��&8�J�."~��҉�X���]t�H:�x$���S$z��n��†0"�<�#�v�Z@�k�������4�ٺE#�.r6 L�Dڨ�H�֤�(n#���ۼ3�t�$� �L���u������{V� j!�� �9�X�(dj����,��:�'�|��V)��b��Z[����g�+��!a��K�?��8�"9��kz��"Zj�@A�8l�<���A�����*d(h�S����H���&�|�ɛ�-D���j� ǘ�5�Ĉ�ڢ�X�5�.U�4�&w[�k��q�r�i,���u��VX@��n�Z�:�(�}������Y���u )�'�{)[F*z���3;@����LI����x4��s'衐�AS�5����d�P��)��9��,�h�&̲��y�;�s��/�dA��5�g�2�Li4!�� �z�{�҈X���}�,Ej:A@|�^L�]�KL��ꬌ4�#�~��!�^�)��B Z���=;�vC��&���h��p��"�f��F=�$� )�jl 7y���= �7�cX�!e ���VTW����6$Ѹ!�*��^�fj�1>�����~>���G��(�q���ZsJ;��qvSƽ��WR�Y�:SE��W���ԒÕ8�U�$��ޣ�X���H%�lo�5� ���L���hD”QV :���p5Ʌm{�0/�e�~3A//�k #6a�|/l�N��$�_�z���?�0O��9���5��ڂ�O”�;�(�[ R�>ƛ=�s�`,Kc0���1hܛ;M��*�8��TѼl�٫M�f����XG���k�}����.�˥��j_���`a�DׁQ%�;l�l[����T����*�V�p=X e�b텙 �������AH����#�{�s�֌�5�ʷ��-D�`�R��g�M:h�sS~$MЇ� ��^c��]S� Q#c�}�,p�u��X��_��1a���!�;H��חf��ӯ�ub�A���&�u�=�b���’wx�k�ׯ��ͮ�{&��Ac=��%� .�e2b���u�[{/�v��ULŠ�J681��=[��E^��t ������F�<���K��a��ʵ�w��0���(��~UD�p�U��5���n�'ȵj3���;:ֹ ��-��l~����FkԚ�OL�K�@��a~�0=xX�o2�󠬷�t6�֥��|)r��ȩ"f�=L�X|T'�*NFx��-۱a���|b�7Q_M�E`��7�R=3�x$�|��֤N5ވ�&�� ��V���Q��/�u�J'?벬s�8Y��ql7�h��i0�#�9MM�������nq5Pq��� �I3�L�t�Q��4�� |0m-�2h��NEqօC/�{��u���2�m�B�G�"4f�X�k�1��򠰏b>Q3p���W=��}1��1����H&�;o��EWn=�:U#���.�ysED#�f*T������5�Z���20�����ӯ6��Q�����{�;����R��%8�b����Ch4^�Wȵ���BW��MϽ�棌M%���9�1��N�0����q�b4�S� ��9$�/����Dy�К�����X����H�n*�D̔��H�=e �L����^K�Pbj��8Q�~��9���a��O̵;����ӣ,w`:�oZ�Ð]��(�޶���މ���u�[��&{��u����z��D�Gj����C#���~��v3���>r��Ĵ4��Y���y{/� ����<2����$zzԎ)BM ��G.rPw��鏲=����O�:�g�l<< /Resources 26 0 R /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /CropBox [0 0 612 792] /BleedBox [0 0 612 792] /TrimBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 27 0 R /Annots 24 0 R /Contents 22 0 R >> endobj 28 0 obj << /Name /Im3 /Type /XObject /Length 29 0 R /Filter /FlateDecode /Subtype /Image /Width 121 /Height 20 /BitsPerComponent 8 /ColorSpace /DeviceGray >> stream x���}L�eǿ�w�� ��I��*�fB�J��l�&YFm�l��h1g/:����sM�oTs��-� �M�r���6^�˷�<�{)iD4��>��;�|��<�9P������{+0����^9[2��Bt����`ӌr]Z�c.��Lq�qB�Zg�A���M/]^�G <����*�lYc��K�6;A�l,�N�]M�$0�����D�y5�d���AZS�T�u�� k<��o{X�?|�V�d���3/�

Black Biglaw Partner Writes Touching Letter To His Son Amid Racial Injustice In America

I struggle with the juxtaposition of instilling hope amid my constant fear for the safety of my black son, daughters and stepsons. I’m not talking about that common separation anxiety experienced by all loving parents. This is an uncommon fear reserved almost exclusively for the parents of black and brown children, who themselves have been subject to blatant and unconscious acts of racism in their own lives. Parents living in this perpetual state of fear and worry that, at any given moment, our child will face a chance encounter with a real or faux police officer. And that a misconstrued word, sudden movement, slow movement or involuntary twitch will lead to tragic or fatal consequences. …

Rest assured that as your father MY MISSION IS TO KEEP YOU SAFE. I vow to forever stand with you and push back strongly against any forces that imperil your safety.

A. Michael Pratt, a litigation partner at Greenberg Traurig, in a letter written to his son upon his college graduation. Pratt’s letter was originally supposed to be “a lighthearted celebratory missive,” but in the wake of the latest officer-involved killing of a black man, and after seeing his son’s “pain, despair, fear, hurt and anger,” Pratt switched gears. The Biglaw partner hasn’t lost hope for his son’s future, writing, “I remain prayerful that these emerging multiracial collaborations are sustainable and that our America will finally find a solution to contain those racist elements that hold such life or death power over its black and brown citizenry.”


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

Maryland Adopts Online Bar Exam

Working out the Rule Against Perpetuities

Another state has recognized that the prospect of running an in-person bar exam in 2020 is untenable. On Wednesday, Maryland emailed the applicants for the upcoming bar exam and informed them that they would be moving to an online administration after realizing that they have applicants from 38 states and a couple of foreign countries and they planned to shove all 1,100 applicants into a confined space for two days.

In response to the current state of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Maryland State Board of Law Examiners (SBLE) has determined that it cannot safely administer an in-person Uniform Bar Examination (UBE) in September 2020. As such, the SBLE recommended to the Court of Appeals of Maryland that the SBLE be authorized to administer an online, remotely proctored Maryland Bar Exam using questions prepared by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE), as described in NCBE’s June 1, 2020 public announcement. On June 17, 2020, the Court of Appeals of Maryland approved the SBLE’s recommendation and authorized the remote administration of the Maryland Bar Exam.

As we noted yesterday, an online exam in the Fall is only the third best solution to the ongoing COVID crisis, and still leaves graduates waiting months to get started on their legal careers. But Maryland is taking a number of additional steps to alleviate some of the burden.

First of all, they’re issuing refunds for anyone who signed up for the exam expecting to get a portable UBE score. The value proposition of what applicants paid for has changed, so it’s not fair to hold them to it. Secondly, they’re in conversations with DC about accepting the results of their online exam, recognizing that the Maryland bar is a popular cross-licensing opportunity for people planning to work in DC. This is an endeavor that more states moving online should undertake: limited reciprocity agreements to recognize each other’s scores as if they were UBE scores. The NCBE isn’t magic — states can adopt whatever tests from whatever jurisdiction they want if they just have the political will to get it done.

This probably won’t be the last state we see make this move.

Earlier: Law School Graduates Push For Diploma Privilege As A Matter Of Racial Justice

Sidley Partner On Why Pro Bono Is So Important In The Wake Of The George Floyd Protests

(Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

Linda Tirado is a veteran journalist who went to Minneapolis last month to cover the protest sparked by the murder of George Floyd. In covering the protests against police aggression, she became a victim when she was hit in the face with a rubber bullet, leaving her blind in one eye.

In the latest episode of The Jabot, I talk with Tai-Heng Cheng, global co-head of the international arbitration and trade practice at Sidley, who is representing Tirado in her case against the City of Minneapolis, its chief of police and police lieutenant, Minnesota’s Department of Public Safety Commissioner and state patrol colonel. We also chat about why pro bono is so important right now, what Sidley is doing to support these efforts, what is Biglaw’s responsibility to support criminal justice reform/anti-racism efforts, and why more attorneys should be involved in pro bono efforts.

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!


headshotKathryn 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).

Some Reflections On The Importance Of Today, Juneteenth

(Image via Getty)

If you’re finding that some lawyers at Biglaw firms are slow in getting back to you today, there could be a very good reason. It could be that their firms are observing today — June 19, aka Juneteenth — as a holiday. And rightfully so.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with Juneteenth, here’s a short explainer, from the New York Times:

On June 19, 1865, about two months after the Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox, Va., Union Gen. Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston, Texas, to inform enslaved African-Americans of their freedom and that the Civil War had ended. General Granger’s announcement put into effect the Emancipation Proclamation, which had been issued more than two and a half years earlier on Jan. 1, 1863, by President Abraham Lincoln.

The holiday received its name by combining June and 19. The day is also sometimes called “Juneteenth Independence Day,” “Freedom Day” or “Emancipation Day.”

For lawyers, who put great stock in the power of words, Juneteenth is an important reminder that words must be supported by action. For all too many enslaved African-Americans, freedom didn’t become a reality with the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation; it instead had to wait until the end of the Civil War and the arrival of Juneteenth.

As lawyers, we understand the meaning of equality and freedom from a perspective that is unique because of our legal training. We also understand that we have to keep defending equality and freedom on a daily basis. A day of observance is important for reflecting and planning on a course of action to preserve these values.

To their great credit, numerous Biglaw firms have declared Juneteenth to be a firm-wide holiday. According to Above the Law’s running tally, more than 50 major law firms are observing Juneteenth today, in some form or another. This is a good thing, especially in light of data from Vault and the Minority Corporate Counsel Association (MCCA) showing that black lawyers account for just 4.83 percent of associates and 1.94 percent of equity partners in law firms.

What to make of Biglaw’s embrace of Juneteenth? I agree with Kathryn Rubino:

In the grand scheme of fighting systemic racism in this country, is this a relatively minor step? Yes. Is it an awesome thing? Also, yes.

Celebrating Juneteenth is a good thing. Too many kids grow up never even learning about the holiday.

Kathryn’s point about widespread unfamiliarity with Juneteenth is well-taken. I’ve been around a while, and I only learned about it last year (despite the fact that June 19 is also my birthday).

Our society needs to do a better job of educating people about the significance of today. And hopefully the observance of Juneteenth by law firms, as well as many other major businessessuch as Nike, Twitter, Best Buy, Target, Capital One, JPMorgan Chase, and the NFL — will help on this score.

Some 46 states, as well as the District of Columbia, have moved to recognize Juneteenth as a holiday. Could it eventually become a national holiday?

Let’s hope so. There have certainly been efforts made on this front, including an online petition (with more than 300,000 signatures), a Senate resolution, and a call for recognition by Senator Bernie Sanders (made last year, well before the horrific killing of George Floyd and the national discussion about racial injustice it has generated).

Regardless of whether your law firm or employer observes Juneteenth, please take time today to reflect upon the legacy of slavery, the progress our nation has made on issues of racial justice, and all the work that remains to be done to combat ongoing racism in our society. And then, after you have done so, take some action — which is, after all, what Juneteenth is all about.

More Big Law Firms Opt to Observe Juneteenth at Offices [Bloomberg Law]

Earlier:

Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series of posts from Lateral Link’s team of expert contributors. This post is by David Lat, Managing Director at Lateral Link.


Lateral Link is one of the top-rated international legal recruiting firms. With over 14 offices worldwide, Lateral Link specializes in placing attorneys at the most prestigious law firms and companies in the world. Managed by former practicing attorneys from top law schools, Lateral Link has a tradition of hiring lawyers to execute the lateral leaps of practicing attorneys. Click here to find out more about us.

Federal Appellate Bench Is A Prosecutorial Retirement Home

White, male, and probably a prosecutor.

The federal judiciary has a woeful lack of racial and gender diversity. But you probably gleaned that from a cursory glance at the bench. What you can’t necessarily see from the courthouse directory is the profound lack of professional diversity among federal judges. Put simply, it’s a retirement home for former prosecutors and corporate attorneys and that’s a problem.

The Center for American Progress has a new column about this situation.

The column finds that only 1 percent of all federal appellate judges spent most of their careers as public defenders or legal aid attorneys. And while some appellate judges have engaged in civil rights-focused work while in settings such as law schools, out of the current sitting appellate judges, not one spent the majority of their career at a nonprofit civil rights organization, as Justice Thurgood Marshall did with the NAACP.

We’ve been writing about this since 2013. AFJ put out a great report on it in 2014. But now we’ve had three years of Trump appointees and while they’ve offered us some limited respite from the endless stream of prosecutors and Biglaw lawyers, they’ve done so by sending up people with no experience at all which isn’t much better. But hey, we now have Mitch McConnell’s intern heading to the DC Circuit to fill a vacancy that doesn’t even exist yet!

As we’ve explained before, critics of Trump’s judicial nominees keep coming back to their “lack of trial experience” which just reinforces this imbalance. Because you know who has a lot of trial experience? Prosecutors. And so the cycle continues.

This lack of professional diversity has real impacts on the shape of the law:

Josie Duffy Rice has an excellent piece (focused on elected judges, but her conclusions on this point transcend that frame) on how former prosecutors routinely overreach on criminal sentencing, uncritically bringing their “everyone’s rotten” and “big numbers or else” mindset to their new role. The homogenization of the judicial résumé — a byproduct of the fetishization of elite academic backgrounds — has morphed the judiciary in ways that lawmakers wouldn’t necessarily expect. To use the Chief Justice’s preferred myth, if judges are calling balls and strikes, the narrowing of judicial backgrounds has produced a judiciary that interprets the “real” strike zone as half the size.

So when the next administration sets out to address the lack of diversity on the federal bench, spare a second to consider this vector of diversity too. Because there are ways to address all of the diversity problems at the same time.

The Startling Lack of Professional Diversity Among Federal Judges [Center For American Progress]

Earlier: New Report Finds Federal Judiciary Just As Busted As You Thought It Was


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

On ‘The Business Case’: A Succinct Explanation Of Why Your Firm Will Need Black Attorneys, Eventually

Ed. note: Please welcome Lauren E. Skerrett to the pages of Above the Law. She will be writing about her experiences as a black Biglaw associate.

Juneteenth: A Prelude

With the historic occasion of many Biglaw firms designating today, Friday June 19th (also known as Juneteenth, Freedom Day, Emancipation Day, or Jubilee), as firm-wide holidays, I would like to begin by speaking to this moment.

Juneteenth commemorates the day enslaved Texan-Americans received the news that they had been free citizens for two years. And in 2020, a large portion of corporate America is acknowledging Juneteenth and encouraging employees to take time to reflect. Understanding America’s untaught history and doing the emotional labor to pursue racial healing are integral to our society moving forward. And racial healing work is not just for White people. If a system is dysfunctional, no one can move through it unscathed. We all have work to do.

While I am encouraged by what I see, there are some who posit that much of this activity from corporate America is “performative” in nature and there are few sincere intentions to move the needle on racial justice issues. I disagree and continue to remain cautiously optimistic. It seems that America has finally begun to reach an inflection point with many agreeing that it is no longer tenable for the status quo to remain the same.

I think the Juneteenth celebrations are indicia that we are moving closer to The Moment, a concept I describe in detail below. And it is my hope that readers of this column will do their part to practice courage, boldness, and further advance the cause of justice and equality for all.

////

This is an article I should not have to write. But recognizing that there are now, and will continue to be in the future, certain individuals in influential positions who will fail to understand and embrace beneficent concepts like “diversity” and “inclusion” for their virtue, I thought it would be worthwhile to explain the case for Black attorneys (and generally all minorities) in your Biglaw firm from a perspective that is somewhat motivational to every American. Yes, the financial incentive, or as Diversity & Inclusion professionals the world over have summarized, “the business case.”

I hope you can understand the reticence within my heart as I write today, for what human being could possibly be eager to undertake the task of attempting to convince others she is worthy of equal treatment and opportunity by pointing to the economic benefits to be gained by others?

Returning to the matter at hand, what is meant when people refer to “the business case” for diversity? The pitch typically goes like this: in order to generate the best ideas (and therefore, create the most cutting-edge work product for your clients), you will need to generate diversity of thought. And diversity of thought is created by (i) gathering a group of people who have had different life experiences and (ii) asking them to engage one another in discussions on any given topic. Diversity leads to more unique solutions, because as people with different perspectives wrestle with ideas, they challenge one another, strengthening the value of their collective output. This is a straightforward argument supported by a number of studies: collective diversity of thought outweighs groupthink.

I tend to find the traditional presentation of the business case unconvincing. After all, the current diversity numbers in Biglaw firms are awful and yet, financially, no firm seems to be facing any negative impacts as a direct result. If the traditional case were truly compelling, there would be a sense of urgency striking the industry and we would have already seen changes in numbers and lasting solutions. Yet, we see institutional clients continue to re-engage their favorite firms: cases are tried, deals are closed, fees are collected, and the world keeps turning. We must only conclude from the current state of things that the general quality of work being done in the marketplace is sufficient, and the ingenuity being lost because four out of five voices in the room are White men from your city’s nearest affluent suburb is immaterial to your client’s bottom line.

Today in 2020, it remains somewhat acceptable that there are law firms operating with no Black attorneys or a handful of juniors and few to no equity partners, and people will point to a plethora of reasons. Most frequently we hear about the “pipeline issue” — as though it is an impossibility for every firm to follow the few pioneers who have begun recruiting from Howard University and other predominantly Black law schools. Sadly, I suspect, depending on the results of the upcoming presidential election, the status quo may remain somewhat acceptable for about four more years. But, after that, and depending on how the Republic fares, I believe there will be an even stronger and more undeniable push towards racial equity.

There is a tide in America which has ebbed and flowed since the country’s inception. And in recent years, certainly following recent events, this tide is beginning to rise faster — the undercurrent of the tide’s waves calling forth justice, equity, and equality is becoming stronger and stronger. Race relations between Black and White America are coming to a head; and soon, a loud crescendo will burst. This moment will be “The Moment,” and once it arrives, it will no longer be possible for individuals and organizations to remain silent and complicit bystanders regarding issues of social importance. There will be a painful clarity revealing where everyone stands; indeed, where everyone has stood all along.

And when The Moment comes, your firm may have a crisis, because it will no longer be socially acceptable to operate corporate America generally, and Biglaw firms specifically, as bastions of wealth that are playgrounds for certain types of people only.

Millennial and Gen Z generations differ from those who came before us.

We live our values loudly and let them seep into every aspect of our existence. Even financial analysts have cautioned that businesses must change their operations, because our generations focus on consumption and spending as an ethical concern, in a way that differs from our predecessors. It is not enough to simply post on social media that you care about the environment or #blacklivesmatter, because we conduct our due diligence. We are checking companies’ carbon footprints and looking at the photos of their executive leadership. And, if your firm is currently verbalizing a commitment to any sort of social or ethical value, you should have your proverbial “house in order,” lest we discover you have attempted to take advantage of critical social causes in order to seem “on-trend” and relevant to national discourse.

Remember, we are the generation that invented “cancel culture” (a phenomenon which capitalizes on social media to destroy a company or individual’s reputation in record speed). If a company does something that offends the senses of the majority, for better or worse, that company will likely “be canceled,” and we will stop any and all forms of support. It does not matter if your business has been wildly successful for decades, with cancel culture, no company is ever “too big to fail.”

Consider what happened to Starbucks in the past few weeks. Initially, on June 4th, Starbucks tweeted: “Black lives matter. We are committed to being a part of change.” But, in its next breath, the company advised employees not to wear any clothing echoing the same sentiment (citing such clothing as a violation of company policy). Uproar ensued, calls to boycott were made, and in a sudden change of heart, less than a week later, Starbucks announced it was distributing 250,000 Starbucks-branded t-shirts to its employees with slogans such as “Black Lives Matter” and “It’s not a moment, It’s a movement.” This is the power of Millennials and Gen Z. Organizations may continue to maintain racist, sexist, and overall “good ole boy” establishments, but we will not stand idly by and there will be consequences: diminished reputation and lower revenues.

I urge firm partners and leaders to be thoughtful in your approach as you respond to this current moment spotlighting the continued devaluation of Black lives in all areas of American society. Because when The Moment arrives (and rest assured, it will come), there will be a number of firms that have kept their commitments to racial equity. Indeed, I am well aware of a number of Biglaw firms that are making tireless efforts to identify structural problems and develop impactful solutions. But, there will also be firms that are revealed to have offered only empty platitudes. You will not want to be in the latter group, because we are watching. We are keeping tabs. And we will not forget. And when The Moment comes and it is socially unacceptable to lack decent representation of all people groups at your firm (in your partnership and at the helm of your firm leadership committees), you are going to flounder to find fresh minority talent.

The tide in America is flowing towards equality for all, and some of the more progressive states like California have already begun to provide a sample of what can be expected as the country continues to progress. For instance, as of December 31, 2019, public companies with principal executive offices in California are required to have at least one woman director on the company’s board.  Additionally, earlier this year, Goldman Sachs announced that it will no longer take companies public if they do not have at least one woman or diverse board member. It is evident that America will continue moving forward; there is no other option.

To be clear, my comments today are not a message that everyone needs to hear. There are many leaders in Biglaw institutions who have been committed to the principles of diversity and equality, and in this current season, they are leaning in more than ever before. To these allies and supporters, I offer a heartfelt acknowledgement and thank you, and I look forward to continuing to partner with you as we all do the ongoing and necessary work.

However, to those whose ears may still be refusing to hear. Please, hear me plainly — you need to identify the institutional issues that exist within your law firm as an impediment to the full cultivation and promotion of Black legal talent, and then you need to fix them in a meaningful way.  Failure to do so will be detrimental to the long-term viability of your firm’s reputation, and ultimately, its financial success. This is the real business case and how much time you have to get this right is still to be determined. But when The Moment comes, there will be no more room for apology statements and promises to do more moving forward. We are watching. We are keeping tabs. And we will not forget.


Lauren E. Skerrett is an associate attorney at a large, multinational firm. She graduated with a BA in philosophy from Washington and Lee University and obtained her JD from Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, along with an LLM from Institut d’Études Politiques de Paris (“Sciences Po”). All views expressed belong to her and should not be attributed to any organization with which she is affiliated. You can reach her by email at lauren.skerrett@gmail.com.

Diversity And Origination Credit

When I became Vroom’s first general counsel after years of working in-house at Etsy, I received many congratulatory emails, gifts, and pitches from a wide variety of law firms. Shortly after starting at Vroom, I was negotiating an engagement agreement with a law firm attorney who had previously worked with me at Etsy. I prioritized diversity and inclusion and wanted to make sure that this lawyer received origination credit for my company. “Origination credit” refers to the concept that the person who brings a client to a firm gets credit for future work, even if that person never did actual work for the client.

I was shocked by her answer. She would not receive origination credit for me or for her firm’s future work. It seemed that due to prior outreach, another lawyer, someone I had never spoken with and who had never done work for my client, had laid claim to me. She was hesitant to push the issue, explaining that disputes must follow the firm’s internal process. Any actions by me could negatively influence her career path. She didn’t want either of us to step outside our lane.

The past few weeks, I’ve been inundated by law firms supporting Black Lives Matter, offering Juneteenth as a firmwide holiday, and otherwise toting their positions on equality. This is a step in the right direction, but it’s not enough. More is needed than just paid time off, inspirational quotes, and photos on a website for law firms to prove that they value diversity and inclusion, they must put their money where their mouths are.

Here are four tips for in-house counsel who want to influence outside counsel’s origination credits.

1) Outside Counsel Guidelines — Ensure that your company’s guidelines require transparency and outline specific language around your diversity goals. For example, a diverse “team” may include layers of support staff.

2) Engagement (Or Re-engagement) Letters — Outline the allocation of the origination credit and, if appropriate, specify who gets the credit.

3) Review And Iterate — If a relationship is ongoing, so is the equality conversation. If you inherited a law firm, ask questions about the history of the work, the bills, and the origination credit. Share tips and industry best practices with other in-house attorneys. Examine the marketing of competing firms. Use all this information in discussions and when you periodically update practices and policies.

4) Comply or Cut Ties — You must decide what is in the best interest of your client. A policy is worthless unless it is followed.

In-house attorneys are responsible for culture and supporting a company’s mission, vision, and values. We are surrounded by legal issues and choose how to delegate the various legal work. We review bills, approve bills, and our budget pays the bills. If outside counsel believes that a lane doesn’t include transparency concerning attorney compensation, it is time to forge a new path. The only way to fight systemic oppression is with systemic change.


Sarah was the General Counsel / first Lawyer at Etsy and Vroom.  She’s a co-founder of The Fourth Floor, a creator and producer of Legal Madness, an NYU Law School Engelberg Center fellow, a board member, an investor, and a speaker. You can also find Sarah hammering silver, eating candy, and chasing her child. sarahfeingold.com.