COVID-19 Is Taking A Serious Toll On The New York Judicary

COVID-19 has left its mark on every aspect of society. The New York state judiciary is just another thing that has been especially hard hit by the pandemic.

According to reports, New York State Court of Appeals Chief Judge Janet DiFiore announced the sobering statistics on the reach of the virus on the state judiciary.

“We know the virus has taken its toll on everyone, including our court family: 168 of our judges and court staff have tested positive for COVID-19,” the chief judge said.

“Tragically, several of our beloved judges and professional staff have passed away from complications caused by the virus. We send our thoughts and prayers to their family members and friends, as well as our promise to honor their memories and hold them close in our hearts,” Judge DiFiore said.

Of those 168 infected with the novel coronavirus, 17 are judges according to Judge DiFiore. Additionally, officials identified at least 94 of the infected as employees or officers and at least another 14 are attorneys. Others that have contracted the disease include visitors, a witness, a court reporter, and a juror.

Court officials confirmed that three court employees have died from the disease: Supreme Court Justices Noach Dear and Johnny Lee Baynes, as well as an unidentified court assistant.


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).

IPR … At Your Own Risk

In the battle against disease, not all treatments are utilized equally. Depending on the malady, some drugs may be given as part of “first-line” treatment. In the cancer context, for example, first-line treatments are recognized as those that are the “first treatments given for a disease … accepted as the best treatment.” When those approaches fail to work, or “stop working,” second-line therapies come to the fore. What is true for cancer treatments is true for patent defense litigation. There are first-line defense tactics and second-line ones, subject of course to the ever-shifting sands of patent law as articulated by courts nationwide.

While the development of patent law through judicial decisions may at times seem slow and at other times fast, there is no doubt that when Congress gets involved major shifts happen seemingly overnight. Just as the discovery of a cancer-fighting molecule can give rise to a new first-line treatment, so too did the passage of the America Invents Act give rise to a new first-line defense for patent defendants. Otherwise known as the IPR, the proceeding that Justice Neil Gorsuch colorfully described recently as one that “permits a politically guided agency to revoke an inventor’s property right in an issued patent” resulting in the handing of “core judicial powers to agency officials and leaving the disposition of private rights and liberties to bureaucratic mercy.” No matter how one feels about IPRs, there is no doubt that they have fundamentally transformed patent litigation — with the popular conception that they have done so at the expense of patent owners.

Despite their efficacy for patent defendants, however, deployment of IPRs as a first-line defense are not without risk for patent defendants. A failed IPR, for example, can have significant consequences in later or parallel infringement litigation. Indeed, the IPR statute itself contemplates that a defendant will be estopped from relying on the invalidity defense subject to a final written decision in that IPR in later litigation — thereby making the difficult task of proving invalidity in a district court case even harder. Remember, of course, that patents carry with them a presumption of validity, leading to an evidentiary standard for invalidation (clear and convincing evidence) much higher than that at play in an IPR. As a result, the estoppel penalty for losing an IPR serves to make the difficult nigh impossible for patent defendants in a district court case.

Consider a recent example from an extremely high-profile ongoing case — the dispute between the United States government and Gilead over the government’s HIV treatment patents. For its part, Gilead has been a market leader when it comes to filing prophylactic IPRs, targeting patents that it has been approached with for licensing before an infringement case is filed against it. With respect to the HIV treatment patents, Gilead announced in August 2019 that it had filed IPRs in the hopes of eliminating the distraction allegedly caused by the US government’s attempt to license those patents. Instead, the situation escalated, with a district court case alleging infringement filed a few months later. Worse for Gilead, all of its IPR petitions failed to garner institution by the PTAB. While a failure at the institution stage does not ordinarily result in estoppel, there is no doubt that an IPR failure is at least the equivalent of a first-line treatment failing to work. Unsurprisingly, therefore, Gilead has looked for additional defenses against the government’s assertions, including by filing a breach-of-contract case tied to the patents this past Friday.

Unfortunately for Gilead, its failed IPRs against the HIV treatment patents are not even the highest-profile (or costliest, at least for now) IPR failures it has had to endure recently. For that, we need to look at the latest developments in Gilead subsidiary Kite Pharma’s long-running patent dispute with Memorial Sloan-Kettering and Bristol Myers Squibb’s Juno. I wrote about the massive jury verdict in that case on these pages back in December, while noting that Kite’s failed prophylactic IPR may have made the patent owners “emboldened to seek maximum redress when and if the patent survives.”

Consistent with that observation, the plaintiffs moved post-trial for enhancement of the already-large jury verdict based on Kite’s alleged willful infringement. And on April 2, 2020, they got their wish, with a 50% enhancement of the damages granted by the trial judge. Had Kite’s cancer treatment not been so critical, the damage could have been worse for new owner Gilead. Even though the potential enhancement for willfulness could have been up to a treble damages award, the addition of hundreds of millions of dollars to one of the biggest patent verdicts of all time only serves to increase the importance of getting things overturned on appeal for Gilead. It should not be ignored, of course, that the failed IPR was a factor in the court’s willfulness determination, accentuating the risk when a defendant acknowledges the value of a patent asserted against it by expending the considerable resources required to file and maintain an IPR against that patent.

Ultimately, both the HIV treatment case and the Kite Pharma one have made Gilead a bit of a poster child for the risks of filing IPRs and losing. Or as I put it in December: “when the IPR kill-shot misses, the repercussions (and the future exposure) are often more serious than if the alleged infringer didn’t take such an aggressive approach.” To be clear, Gilead has plenty of opportunities left to get things right and escape liability in both of the cases. As well as the resources and access to top counsel to put up the best fight possible toward that goal. But no matter the ultimate result, Gilead’s struggles should remind us that IPRs are not without risk to filers. Because even first-line treatments sometimes fail.

Please feel free to send comments or questions to me at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or via Twitter: @gkroub. Any topic suggestions or thoughts are most welcome.


Gaston Kroub lives in Brooklyn and is a founding partner of Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov PLLC, an intellectual property litigation boutique, and Markman Advisors LLC, a leading consultancy on patent issues for the investment community. Gaston’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and related counseling, with a strong focus on patent matters. You can reach him at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or follow him on Twitter: @gkroub.

Texas Clears Bill Brewer In Alleged ‘Push Polling’ Incident

(Image via Getty)

Four years ago, Bill Brewer found himself on the nasty end of a benchslap when a Texas trial judge sanctioned him for issuing a survey testing the public’s appetite for his chosen theory of the case. After these sanctions were upheld on appeal, Brewer finally scores some good news with the Texas Supreme Court tossing the sanctions, finding that Brewer had not acted in bad faith.

Pretrial surveys provide valuable insight into how a potential jury might react to an attorney’s arguments. They could also taint witnesses and the jury pool by improperly laying out a narrative of the case before trial. In this case, Brewer hired a third-party firm to ask some questions about why it might be anyone but his client’s fault that a boy was killed in a gas explosion and this rankled the trial judge when it turned out the poll hit up witnesses and other parties in the case.

The Texas Supreme Court drew the line for sanctions at requiring a showing of “bad faith” and determined that regardless of problems with the survey, there was no reason to believe Brewer intentionally tried to mess with the judicial process when testing his theories:

Certain attributes of the pretrial survey may have been reasonably disconcerting to the trial court, but the record bears no evidence of bad faith in the attorney’s choice to conduct a pretrial survey or in the manner and means of its execution.

Congratulations on clearing up this wrinkle. Now Brewer can return to presiding over the slow dismantling of the National Rifle Association without this nagging problem.

While this is good news for Brewer, it doesn’t accomplish everything he probably wants vis a vis his other ethical trip up in the Eastern District of Virginia. In that court, Brewer found himself earning the ire of the judge after declaring that he’d never been sanctioned despite the fact that this matter had happened two years earlier and had already been affirmed by the appellate court… and the judge was able to find all this out by searching the internet. The firm took the stance that the sanctions didn’t count until all the appeals were exhausted because he hadn’t actually handed over any money at that point. And while the sanctions have now been defeated, the sin in Virginia was never whether or not Brewer had been sanctioned, but that he wasn’t transparent about what was going on when the judge asked the question. Plus, today would be quite the buzzkill for Brewer in Virginia if Texas had come down the other way.

The moral of that story is still to always be forthcoming, especially when the judge knows how to use Google.

(Check out the majority opinion on the next page.)

Earlier: Lawyer Slapped With Big Sanctions For ‘Push Polling’ Potential Jurors
Federal Judge Wants To Hear Why Bigtime Attorney Said He’d Never Been Sanctioned… When He Was TOTALLY Just Sanctioned
NRA May Be Shooting Itself In The Foot With Out-Of-Control Legal Bills
This Is Really Not A Great Couple Of Weeks For Bill Brewer


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.

Sean Hannity Puts New York Times In Its Place With A … Very Sternly Worded Letter

(Photo by Theo Wargo/Getty Images)

Sean Hannity is mad as hell, and he’s not gonna take it any more!

“HANNITY SAYS ENOUGH: Sean Sues the New York Times…” his personal webpage blared Monday, in a story credited to “Hannity staff.” As Law & Crime’s Aaron Keller notes, this masterpiece of very serious journalism which accuses the Times of stealth-editing a story about the Fox host, has itself gone through several revisions since it was originally posted yesterday.

At this point, the headline and URL have been revised to “HANNITY SAYS ENOUGH: Sean Demands Retraction and Apology from New York Times After Blaming Him for Coronavirus Deaths.” But as of 1pm, the text still reads, “Something that has been long overdo, Sean Hannity has finally demanded a retraction and apology from the New York Times for their irresponsible and shameful misreporting…”

Which is really overdoing it!

The link to “court documents” takes the reader to a nastygram from Charles “Gawker Killer” Harder to the paper’s General Counsel, Diane Brayton, and columnists Ginia Bellafante, Kara Swisher, and Ben Smith. In twelve pages of bold print howling, Harder excoriates the paper for cruelly libelslandering his client by implying that he led his viewers to believe that coronavirus was a hoax. What about Bill de Blasio? What about Anderson Copper [sic]? What about Nancy Pelosi telling Americans to go to Chinatown and quit being racists? That’s what Charles Harder wants to know!

Hannity’s chief complaint appears to be an April 18 story by Bellafante which describes a regular Hannity viewer who believed the virus was not serious, took a cruise, and wound up succumbing to the disease.

On March 1, Joe Joyce and his wife, Jane, set sail for Spain on a cruise, flying first to Florida. His adult children — Kevin, Eddie and Kristen Mider — suggested that the impending doom of the coronavirus made this a bad idea.

Joe Joyce was 74, a nonsmoker, healthy; four years after he opened his bar he stopped drinking completely. He didn’t see the problem.

“He watched Fox, and believed it was under control,” Kristen told me. Early in March Sean Hannity went on air proclaiming that he didn’t like the way that the American people were getting scared “unnecessarily”…

Eventually, Fox changed course and took the virus more seriously, but the Joyces were long gone by then.

Harder points out that Mr. Joyce had already left for his cruise on March 1, eight days before Hannity called the panic around coronavirus a “hoax.” Harder does not point to numerous comments by his client in February downplaying the seriousness of the virus. Maybe he just forgot!

Luckily, the Washington Post’s Erik Wemple can refresh Hannity’s memory.

And, as Vox was first to report widely, a team of economists associated with the University of Chicago analyzed the data to prove that watching Hannity is bad for your health in the age of COVID.

[G]reater exposure to Hannity relative to Tucker Carlson Tonight leads to a greater number of COVID-19 cases and deaths. Our results indicate that a one standard deviation increase in relative viewership of Hannity relative to Carlson is associated with approximately 30 percent more COVID-19 cases on March 14, and 21 percent more COVID-19 deaths on March 28. Consistent with the gradual convergence in scripts between the two shows beginning in late February, the effects on cases decline from mid-March onwards.

Which is probably why the Times told Harder and Hannity to get lost.

Because when you’re telling a bully to go pound sand, you don’t need twelve pages of inane bluster. You just say “Dear Charles … no.”

HANNITY SAYS ENOUGH: Sean Demands Retraction and Apology from New York Times After Blaming Him for Coronavirus Deaths [Hannity.com]
Hannity Hires Trump Lawyer to Threaten Lawsuit Over New York Times’s ‘False’ Coronavirus Narrative [Law & Crime]
Misinformation During a Pandemic [Becker Friedman Institute for Economics at the University of Chicago]


Elizabeth Dye (@5DollarFeminist) lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

Susman Godfrey Founder Seriously Injured

Stephen Susman remains unconscious and hospitalized today, according to a report in Law360, after a serious biking injury sustained on April 22.

Susman, an avid bicyclist, decided to spend the COVID lockdown in Houston where the weather allowed the 79-year-old to remain active. Unfortunately, while riding with some colleagues, Susman went over the handlebars when his front wheel struck an uneven spot on the pavement. As Law360 points out, Susman has run in 150-mile charity rides, making this a reminder that accidents can befall even the most experienced of riders. Be careful out there everyone.

We here at Above the Law are wishing Susman a speedy recovery and thinking of him, his family, and his firm.

Trial Attorney Stephen Susman Hospitalized After Bike Crash [Law360]


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.

Am Law 100 Firm Furloughs Some, Slashes Salaries For All

(Image via Getty)

Austerity measures continue to be rolled out at law firms across America, and this afternoon, we have news from one of the very first firms to be affected by the coronavirus crisis. In mid-March, Davis Wright Tremaine closed several of its offices after an employee who displayed COVID-19 symptoms passed away. Although that employee ultimately tested negative for the virus posthumously, the firm asked all attorneys and staff to work remotely across all offices for the foreseeable future. Now, DWT is doing what it can to make sure the firm remains open after all is said and done.

Davis Wright currently finds itself in 92nd place in the Am Law 100 rankings, with $414,144,000 in gross revenue in 2019, and the firm is trying to keep its finances on the up and up by offering up a veritable smorgasbord of cost-cutting efforts, from reduced partner distributions to salary cuts for associates and staff to furloughs and reduced schedules for staff. Here’s what’s going on:

  • Partner Distributions: Quarterly equity partner distributions will be reduced, with the expectation that equity partner compensation for the year will be at least 25% below budget.
  • Salary Reductions: Effective with the pay period beginning May 2 through December 31, 2020
    15% for contract partners
    12% for associates, counsel and of counsel
    15% for C-level executives
    6-10% for staff based on salary level, with no reduction below $60,000
  • Furloughs: Effective May 2, we will temporarily furlough approximately 8% of our staff to adjust for workflows that have been disrupted or diminished due to reduced demand. Those furloughed will be eligible for the expanded federal unemployment benefits. The firm will also continue to provide them with medical, dental, and vision benefits, as well as access to our new Employee Disaster Relief Program, described below. We anticipate they will return to work as soon as we can resume more normal operations. We’re not planning to furlough any attorneys at this time. We’ll continue to share resources across practice groups to take advantage of available bandwidth and support the areas that remain very busy.
  • Reduced Schedules: In addition, a small number of staff members will move to reduced schedules to account for decreased workflow. Most of them (based on their state) will also be eligible for unemployment benefits and receive continued benefits. We anticipate that they’ll return to their standard schedules when workflow returns to normal for their functions.

On the bright side, DWT has established an Employee Disaster Relief Program, funded by partners, to provide monetary relief to staff members who suffer financial hardship as a result of the pandemic. The program is designed to provide assistance with various household expenses. In addition, the firm has created a vacation donation bank for staff to donate unused time for others who don’t have the leave needed to help with medical emergencies or the time needed to care for family.

Here’s a statement from Jeff Gray, Managing Partner of Davis Wright Tremaine:

We came into this crisis after a record year in 2019 and a strong first quarter, even as we adjusted to office closures and a changing business environment. We have continued to build our firm for the future, including bringing in several new laterals in the first quarter to service clients in our key industries. Though demand remains high in some practice areas, it’s decreasing in several others, and we’re seeing a significant slowdown in collections. We’ve delayed actions that affect jobs and paychecks for as long as we could. But, like many of our peers, we now must take additional steps to protect the firm, while continuing to provide the highest level of client service and ensure we emerge in the strongest possible position.

Our approach addresses business necessity in a manner consistent with our core values. We’re sharing the sacrifice across the firm and protecting jobs as best we can. We’re asking more of those who make more, with the hope that we will not need to take additional action. We must make sacrifices together, but we will also share in our success. If we end the year better than we currently expect, which we are working very hard to do, we will share that financial success across all levels of the firm.

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 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.

Harvard Law School Students Come Together To Demand The School Stop Harassing Three Students

(Image via Getty)

Over 1,000 signatures now grace a petition directed at the Harvard Law School Administrative Board, a testament to how law students really can identify procedural unfairness when they see it.

The petition demands the Administrative Board call off its investigation of three students who engaged in a silent protest during the school’s 45th Annual Fall Reunion on October 26. The Harvard Prison Divestment Campaign organized the protest and the students involved complied with the school’s Orwellian “Protest and Dissent Guidelines” during the event and went on about their lives for months after the fact.

In February, the students were informed that they were under investigation, but to date, the school hasn’t even bothered to provide the students with the evidence against them. As they study for finals and prepare for their uncertain careers in the middle of the pandemic, Harvard officials seem more occupied with making sure they’ve properly quieted all dissent by keeping protesters in limbo.

To this day, not a single administrator, a single professor, a single disciplinarian has ever stated what action exactly that I have taken that may have violated the guidelines,” [Amanda] Chan said. “Yet here I am 182 days later, still under investigation, still unsure if I’m going to be able to graduate on time, still unsure if I’ll even be charged in the matter.”

It’s difficult not to see the arbitrary move to dig into this protest months after the fact as tied to the January protest at a Paul Weiss recruiting event calling on the firm to ditch its ties to Exxon. Facing increasing activism, heading into the archives to gin up investigations of students with the propensity to launch even fully compliant protests might be one method to lean on anyone eyeing graduation as a protest site or something. Perhaps that’s overthinking it, but the school could defuse these connections pretty easily by just being upfront.

But, again, it’s encouraging to see so many students come together to sign this petition. It’s not like the divestment initiative is necessarily supported by the vast majority of Harvard students — if it were, there wouldn’t only be three students in this matter — but even folks who have never considered the prospect of the school’s investment in private prison companies can respect a railroading when they see it.

And this whole thing is going to make a few more students take a look at exactly what the Divestment Campaign is all about, meaning the Administrative Board unintentionally gave the protest even more exposure so at least there’s something good coming out of it.

Petition Calls on Harvard Law School Admins to Drop Investigation into Student Protesters [Harvard Crimson]

Earlier: Harvard Law School Students Protest Paul Weiss Recruiting Event

OIG FAQs Help Providers Navigate Newly Arising COVID-19 Arrangements [Sponsored]

%PDF-1.4 %���� 1 0 obj << /Creator (Apache FOP Version 2.3) /Producer (Apache FOP Version 2.3) /CreationDate (D:20200427121559Z) >> 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��$�CI<�?�p<< /Type /Metadata /Subtype /XML /Length 6 0 R >> stream
application/pdf x-unknown 2020-04-27T12:15:59Z Apache FOP Version 2.3 1.4 Apache FOP Version 2.3 2020-04-27T12:15:59Z 2020-04-27T12:15:59Z
endstream endobj 6 0 obj 964 endobj 7 0 obj << /Name /Im1 /Type /XObject /Length 8 0 R /Filter /FlateDecode /Subtype /Image /Width 157 /Height 26 /BitsPerComponent 8 /ColorSpace /DeviceGray >> stream x�͗ilTU��L[J[`b[ k��m�Vٔ��Җ�%”K�%@@Y�”e'(“�”�JD���.�@� �D ��B$(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/hld010c7dbadc7d9310008296005056881d230a?cfu=BC&cpid=WKUS-Legal-Cheetah&uAppCtx=cheetah) /S /URI >> endobj 12 0 obj << /Type /Annot /Subtype /Link /Rect [ 56.692 683.432 538.166 697.418 ] /C [ 0 0 0 ] /Border [ 0 0 0 ] /A 11 0 R /H /I >> endobj 13 0 obj << /Type /Annot /Subtype /Link /Rect [ 56.692 664.532 543.556 678.518 ] /C [ 0 0 0 ] /Border [ 0 0 0 ] /A 11 0 R /H /I >> endobj 14 0 obj << /Type /Annot /Subtype /Link /Rect [ 56.692 645.632 252.356 659.618 ] /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/hld010c7dbadc7d9310008296005056881d230a?cfu=BC&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://lrus.wolterskluwer.com/about-us/experts/rebecca-mayo/) /S /URI >> endobj 18 0 obj << /Type /Annot /Subtype /Link /Rect [ 71.122 584.589 161.012 594.579 ] /C [ 0 0 0 ] /Border [ 0 0 0 ] /A 17 0 R /H /I >> endobj 19 0 obj << /URI (https://oig.hhs.gov/coronavirus/authorities-faq.asp) /S /URI >> endobj 20 0 obj << /Type /Annot /Subtype /Link /Rect [ 161.532 481.587 210.932 491.577 ] /C [ 0 0 0 ] /Border [ 0 0 0 ] /A 19 0 R /H /I >> endobj 21 0 obj << /Length 22 0 R /Filter /FlateDecode >> stream x��[Ɏ$���W�8�5I����.þ @A’۲�ſo�A�䒝ݞ10��+2�/���_��”�ߥ/����O��1��m��1�Wm�t*6���!�eӫs>��������U,*�J�|W�=,�x�}z��!�”���g�X�+lG�������!��Ǐ����ӯ�i����OO�ÔʄU�s��Өm *�vIZ�V/����Z^����0io�Q&�.��~��QB�u�Rꢄ�$||#%�R2~��7�}�k_��k�<�s�g�LQ��6��v�.��E�E��e��<��^��H����$06��Vg/M�E���� ㉢�d�.j-�x����?��i���|�{��h)�߷���^_�K�*��1�� ����BF&w�R,Z�Vl_127'��u��J�xnWG��79����#b0� *���@��u�z��;��5@���1J�%�i��~mC�~q���Q�[��Z��'���o&��qm�HdG۲LE�(�z�o���`�*�I<��dw���� �:p��r����#���I�R����hI�ɿ|C(��v5!��QD��-��%;���'�&Q�^���p��tID��#�ȣ�f�����!"*��q���y�Z����r�Y���B7�]����`n�Ӛ�w7U����f��Tf�S"6�#P�d� �A�W���BpK�U�E$�4]�(�&0����u=�XU��t���j@VNT<��A����S�ē���g�yP:@��m�w4.�c��Vё9��u� 7�'q��~�u���q��N�|�c2jy.���s�j���{�Nn�[Nٻ�х&�qav��2��SͣN��5��LW�H�V�`v���0�^)�q {�6����x��왳��G����1��5qY�F^z�h~�J���!CueayBX������QV�e��h��9���6b[0D ��nYrq�N,��[�'�wv����E�Y��d�*��g�&��0x�c���-d��&%���=� &��RL����V�R��l�����e;�n�4$)4�/&����s�|��Z�yCr��z�<�0�^ �!����o�~�;k� ����Iy��a[�ks�q��s���!�G]�.%Te��Fd����DՁp�9J�u�E�xL��lɬ�4��Q�J(�/����R~#tz�ͰLB(�8;s�n����wF����X1N�eaV�c��i3�Ϟ┗+ Xe�Xq�-�ñ2� k�H���q��s� c�PY���1�c( c�}��r����&&�a���¢,>&�;��EG�ݣ�:�<��cN�>a���:1�k�w��[��e����`�V_^_bm���R є�6�&`�)�$�U�g@+F��X�Y�U��6��X 01″�Χ��C�׮&�a�s� �+�X,&�Zz�(���� }5��,?�����}mQ�|�+��’�ƴ��N{l� �=r &C65F���S �3�G�-DKI������ I�����֌�2r����E.dX᥾J��آw���T�� �7brI �UX��[�m�Iy����J@��k�q����;Uj��Nʀ{ ��ª�P��#�ͤ�l������I�5K�Q�]����|R㔺�����9C��^<����_��4��/�O.Qx3L�qm�D��pB��KӶ]�RXM�:<��H9q����3���T�Dž��Q ��S�Yg�Mj��f��.m����ڞ �`F�2.�{�*�G+�CvF�m䠨��?��?�PhɊݴ'�1d.�*Ե��(GI���Ve-r����sN���<ëw��]��Z�J����rC�rv�[��>�xל��P�гH�A��D��������iy�w�l� ��Pa:��7j���O�������� ��vx�R�s��ˬ��B��y9� �<�,���9�ž[�ǥK�磋Fۦ� ��R�]��j�3�k�ҚŠCaV܋4�5/�ӎR��.�Н=zy�M��kۇ��q�����E��B✱kL{�W��Q�F�:dm��YFLm1��]�1-�h+55�����Ǖ��b�c p3�_E��}�.B����m"�j�bf�5Ð{����/��Kd����B|ݥ2_o����-�ܹ�H�EiiArt�n�B�ff�$�~�&EV�Bg�psa��V>� ��HD!�>ݣF�,�1���0�j�ލj�”�*�x%u%�Fy#�1,q���d)c���kLc��x�`LJ_��Hִ͖d�Ŝ&���u�����Y��#��YS�d���%<�����)���a����,I(6=�߸�1�!�G���?�MsU��V⸙(D�*X-P��g�w�l` 4�� N����+�e�ą0�N����]Q*H~̈S!ء��~����0N��bg5)*MF_U�l֋O#Z-H�-��eIy�m���i�CVh#D��L�1��Vr4���]g�*��{�颶,��@.��mB�� ��.׉�)� x�P0i����_�o>��m��.}���2��S�Т[�����m�0zڣ ���#����/���O�<��O?��-N�}�f��D���[}��oޕJ/����G�$Sp�*���#�;�#���Q�цn[BSx`�[Ƙm�aׄe���$|�[]�^xl9b��**G�o$���7i�^N�r �������U�����d�Ш�X��*��#C�m�鬒��k��`I֑'�3,I��M����v� endstream endobj 22 0 obj 3068 endobj 23 0 obj [ 12 0 R 13 0 R 14 0 R 16 0 R 18 0 R 20 0 R ] endobj 24 0 obj << /Resources 25 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 26 0 R /Annots 23 0 R /Contents 21 0 R >> endobj 27 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /FontName /EAAAAA+ArialMTPro-Bold /FontBBox [-166 -301 1011 939] /Flags 33 /CapHeight 715 /Ascent 939 /Descent -301 /ItalicAngle 0 /StemV 0 /MissingWidth 500 /FontFile2 28 0 R /CIDSet 29 0 R >> endobj 28 0 obj << /Length1 7080 /Length 30 0 R /Filter /FlateDecode >> stream x��9 t[ՕッͶ$k�$K��%��”��Z���-��4����/r,�e0HC�D�s8i ̔�(��a��9�N[�C˔��i����)��L�’�s��r�3����ܯ�߻�n�n�A!T��D� �S�x!�i��55wp2���V��2B�t*9q�”�Wa=6 r3��t0�<�������#�~~.=�D�M0~��|��"pCHO�����w���wE|1�ɮ��8�ʎ�u$^�

< �� )R���`}���!N��bS���Z��$�ɕ�=~���i����3g�O�!g�m&?�״�u��'UW�"���� N=�������}V�TD�S���g� v��������v�{`e��W��8P� �5�%��W��.lg.;��>.�n�=’Uz���4:m c͍[㬊�4�u��ϱ�gQ��Ζj�8�z�k(>�zG7���oUč�n��^&�@�� �xH %2C��Ė��uS�L<�F�u��)*�� 8ނ�?Th�����c���T��JZ��c{�DS�v�U/���F������5��j�J�Zkme���->��ڽy���e.�itjm�EYjzܪPH䚈%��Հm0��`KF�e_����|���K~�,�d` %&����n�l��� �i���P┨�&o�Z)oo����o�*��=6۬�S��w���:�����4����txt ��猕���p��Ͱp?s��q���f2q�ܱ�d��O�m�}�7����瀾�Aj8H]”��.=���-8EyV�}��yG�Y��7;Ӭ?氫 �,%~K�F.���3�gϥ6�$_ƨ�����T���<��9�EM�(g���rDw�#���A��Aj?Q � '�p8-$.�rۃ��)�J�./�,W�m���t;��X�cm1�[]�X�Iuլ`#8{��[)ب�[���t��s�zᑕ� �*�^c���y��?�^���"�$/��^��M,0P�]%J&���*�m�b��3R��Wcd�k��j�!"���O��K���'W�����4��α�͹�Oب謮qXD7�.�1y�S.ZDJX#�@܉� ڷ”S�wY�6�J��������@���fs��e�a�������Q� ����(G�+�JԌb>��䈪4��mܙ�(��y�Fi���*�Ds؁��2�����g�^��*�����hp���z��kN��{O�o��&�d���;�۹�������?�9�U���e��}5��2�l_V��ë!�x���Djz!A1�/?��K������;�8�W<��fwk{��|sk���Z��<���O6��^_蛘h��V3p���"��6�G�r��������N���*l���h�ۏ����[+بg˷�~�}a�RW^"t��Ƒ�B�����c����)I�����Ծ!�X[�Zш�qLr��VK .L'Z.?�g��F�����o��L%�/ª����sO���[M�T���a�2+Z(�� �h{/�s��{8~�+����kK�A�m�G�l*����d��$��|�Q$��$�"�b}.9A�1�ҟ��l��?��+�g��uX#�u7<߾���W�֠�{B��.��`Ԁ���k#�jGk�P� �����l(�镗��JGM�k�Kԍ%��S`��������*���i���Qi������T���U����������$3X|���3(���Um{LN*7BoH����݌]���i:_r_���ui�pP"��%�E�5ŏ���c+���O�aEh����d�* m5��;X�̟��m�?��sg��e�Z���)OgO�ݲX����~ ��V�zX���+�<}��1���E��7�g4����+�h��4GO�w�}��:$�շ��w1�5��r�LT#bDn�x�F=F(|�R8^Ψb��RI���7�^>�̷un���u7���������?O�L[eCm��w�h4��<�� ���gO5��t�qq�F}x�4ҹ�n�������QW��&�L)�X97B}c-��R03ļQ�� ��d�����4�+4UZ����@�_۹�iw�tD�q�T�2h,Z��[��8x���a�)��t�"U��r4��J۪eE�r�T��H��ꈺ{f�<�^~�g��!�C� �L�V��P��ٮ���e{K���xt��.�5�;�jC�$��z��q��c�7���B" 5p^b]ӛ�>�b���|�Ԅ��B<���P/o��%5X}�#�+A��P�l�U�� D�1T5Yk�H�Fa��"&��K(L�,�=��� �~�zY���Bՠ���� �6L�(e6Ђ�h�fwU�;�>�[k�Hp����z��5�8�է�z�o����?q�X�sz5IB� ��o�B��^_���4=.�j�*� ��؃-���9��E�:��m�z����5�S1��m*��g�o�Og[�}śzy���Ɔ?�SڻB����r�gA<6���b�a)�����G�O!m�8 u�-�X!�h]t�Z�< Ք�+� ̨+�ڋ����=$-��B�{�B�gi���į�{Hu4�ԏ�ڹ��B�G�[+�j ��r��3���].�UľO78p�.���2̔����o�U�Tۛ��Y�S�k=7�Z>Җ�zUx�q��i��En�u�oM��v5�;L�Xc�����8�1̷&�����k{z�Êb��.�ё�`� u�^���l�4���F���_ŕv{eI��������s�����,$Ω1��qx�#��57d�_��ʧ�v��{.~¬}@/Èٍv��Q”l��W�]/Ą���uТɉ�/Ql��4s�b�ۢڡȩ��fo��Q���Bu�p�h�W+�U:YF��ߞ��p-���J��x����*�+ ���E�{��u߶m�kgWn��̇�Wp�T y�� �V��j �H�H(r4�T���P��b욬��� ��{��`_�*’F{O>����I������h�϶`hK��5��>c��M�r3�X6h)A�|� �K��XwF�7l9Y�1l��s��Z�+�o�x4�eu��C3A]@�b�9��[k��}�H4&���+ײ}쮻vx�y����Sa{“�’��9�Rـ��f��2��M�軹���7ވ��J-g�l���cw޵��6�I��$0�]�`y��#GOV{��;n��b�:�7��%�d��_<�8�)RႯ5Z[�|A�� Cȉ�������Ы��qz���u�u�/+��r��.�7�*����g�wu���D�|p`���z��*A���[%���WZ3%�]��'�~R�^�냹b��1V��]��yX�3?D�u�Zw~���!O�w���j��(Čt�0F�� x^��Ԓ�VW�ׄ�_�J��R���|s�P��!��h^�� �܀�@�������.sm��/���mr�5�)���1A�J~�/I~,۴��R�@�!?��bƙ�у�������qrHO��J�%�Ϗ�($���o�Z�H������1A ��A���X��[#?��,ʏe�άёc7ʏP�����"�"]�W�c�g�c5�%���4Z@Y���&a�%�J�L'�,���6��д�U����z�4�-`V�Sh~��!,�qX]����&P�Fw�&av�=ό�cA������5(H��U����f�3F@�un�M3�囂�}y�Pwz!�̤'��K)ggz�����t�Y[_r�O�w���3��|�ٻ0�^ZL/%����s��bj29�rN�23S���wd:�L/���k�ƙ�B��>7�3ΥT&���!��ʚ���(3iXX�I�9G��%x뀩9��w���Y:Ԃ�B�v �

My Trusts And Estates Video Game: Avoiding Escheatment And Laughing Heirs

In most video games, one tries to avoid death. As a trusts and estates attorney, my mission is to address problems that arise after death. I make it my business to avoid troubling family members, distant relatives, and the state.

A last will and testament determines who receives one’s estate upon death. Whether one has a few hundred dollars or many millions, a last will dictates who receives. The recipients need not be relatives, or even people. One can leave assets to schools, religious institutions or charities, or even set up foundations for the benefit of causes or trusts to take care of pets.

Not everyone signs a last will and testament and the consequences can be downright shocking if not unfortunate. Every state has its own set of intestate laws wherein a statute determines who is next-of-kin and the recipient of the decedent’s assets. If there is no next-of-kin, generally the state takes the estate.

Property that has escheated means that it has reverted to the state. This may pertain to abandoned property or assets that one never knew about. In the context of an estate, one’s property would escheat to the state in the event there are absolutely no living heirs to take pursuant to the laws of intestacy. Depending on one’s family, this may be preferable to some relatives receiving.

Each state is different. In some states, a surviving spouse and children will split the estate. This can be difficult in the event the children are not the children of the surviving spouse. Even if they are, monies that may have been intended for the surviving spouse will now belong to the younger children, leaving the spouse with less than she can survive on, or worse, dependent on the children.

In some cases, there is no spouse or children, but a life partner who bears no legal status in the decedent’s life. Thankfully, same-sex marriages have mitigated many problems that used to exist when individuals were unable to marry, but were life partners.  For roommates, best friends, business partners, and significant others, problems in inheritance persist, as they do not take under the laws of intestacy. Without a last will and testament, they will not be included, no matter how devoted or involved they were to the decedent.

The laws of intestacy get interesting when the next-of-kin stretches beyond spouses, children, and even parents and grandparents. Siblings generally come next in line in addition to their children, the decedent’s nieces and nephews, you know, the ones who never call to thank you for the birthday gift. Uncles and aunts, the siblings of parents may stand to inherit and even their children, who are the descendants of grandparents, otherwise known as your cousins. Certain states break it down even further and name children of cousins, for example, a first cousin once removed.

Some states go even further and permit step children to inherit in the event there is no one to receive under one’s own family tree. It could be strange for a spouse’s children from another relationship to receive all of a decedent’s belongings.

In many jurisdictions, next-of-kin must be notified in the event a will is offered to the court for probate. This gives the family the ability to object in the event they feel the will was executed as a result of undue influence or the testator lacked capacity. Often when writing a last will, clients will state that they do not have any known relatives. In this day and age, with the internet as our tool, those proclamations can usually be debunked. It is therefore prudent for all clients to identify any possible relatives so that they can be blatantly disinherited under the last will, if appropriate, or easily located in order to garner their consent upon death.

In the event one does not address one’s last will and testament, the administrator will have to deal with the issue upon death by diving into the laws of intestacy. There is often a search for next-of-kin and genealogical consultants and websites are consulted to track down relatives, around the world. Once reached, the response from the long lost cousin is awkward at best. Perhaps excuses are given as to why they were out of touch, stories provided as to how close they were during childhood, but grew apart. Sometimes there are no words as to the discovery of the found money. Just a silent laugh, hence why this recipient is often referred to as the laughing heir. Shut him up and execute a last will and testament.


Cori A. Robinson is a solo practitioner having founded Cori A. Robinson PLLC, a New York and New Jersey law firm, in 2017. For more than a decade Cori has focused her law practice on trusts and estates and elder law including estate and Medicaid planning, probate and administration, estate litigation, and guardianships. She can be reached at cori@robinsonestatelaw.com.

Another Biglaw Firm Shaves Associates Salaries In What Is An Increasingly Common Move

(Image via Getty)

Manatt, a Biglaw firm with $313,200,000 in 2018 gross revenue making it 107th in the Am Law 200, finds itself in a similar position as many of its peers. The economic uncertainty surrounding the novel coronavirus sweeping the globe is weighing on firms, and they’re looking for ways to cut costs and preserve cash flow until this whole mess (hopefully) blows over. In Biglaw, one of the go-to methods to trim costs has been to slash salaries, and it looks like Manatt is on board with this approach.

According to tipsters at the firm, Manatt has cut the paychecks of all attorneys by 20 percent — annualized to a 13 percent pay cut. Certainly not as severe a pay cut as some firms have undertaken, but also a far cry from those that have managed to get by without any austerity measures. Hopefully, this will be the only cut the firm needs to make to get through the COVID-19 craziness.

We reached out to the firm for comment, but have not yet heard back.

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.


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).