Category: News Feeds

It’s another day in the world of the coronapocalypse, and law firms continue to do whatever they can to cut costs so they can survive when all of this is over. Over the past few months, we’ve seen some of the largest law firms in the world conducting salary cuts, furloughs, and even layoffs — and we don’t think this is going to stop anytime soon.

Littler, the largest employment firm in the world, came in 66th place in the 2020 Am Law 100 rankings with $590,038,000 gross revenue in 2019, but that’s not stopping the firm from slashing salaries across the board.

Equity partners at the firm (“participating shareholders” in Littler lingo) and corporate management will have their salaries reduced by 20 percent as of May 8, while highly compensated nonequity partners (“non-participating shareholders”) and non-attorney senior-level administrative employees with compensation of more than $300,000 will have their salaries reduced by 15 percent on the same date. (These cuts will occur in Mexico and Canada on May 15.)

The rest of the firm will have their salaries reduced by an average of 10 percent on June 5. These are the tiers by which all other non-equity partners, principals, other attorneys, paralegals, and office and corporate administrative employees will have their salaries slashed in about a month from now (Littler’s memo on the next page):

• Up to $50K: 4 percent
• >$50-$75K: 6.5 percent
• >$75-$100K: 9 percent
• >$100-$200K: 11 percent
• >$200-$300K: 13 percent

All other employees who are unable to work remotely due to their job responsibilities will see their pay reduced by 50 percent on June 5, but they’ll be able to tap into their paid time-off balances to make up for the difference.

We reached out to Littler for comment on its salary cuts, but have yet to hear back.

(Flip the page to see the details from Littler’s memo on salary cuts.)

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.

One of my favorite legal columns is authored by Linda Greenhouse at the New York Times. Last week, she issued a fascinating piece detailing a United States Supreme Court in crisis. In Greenhouse’s view the crisis is due to the fact that the nine justices seem more concerned with advancing political agendas than settling the legal disputes in front of them. To be sure, the argument that our Supreme Court operates more out of a concern for political partisanship than by application of the law is nothing new. But Greenhouse makes a unique argument that this modern Court has distinguished itself by its “inability to provide a coherent answer” to the questions it chooses to take on. In other words, Greenhouse is pointing out that although past Supreme Courts have been partisan, they at least provided clear legal doctrines to follow, unlike this current one. Sadly, these sorts of partisanship-based problems are not limited to our Supreme Court.

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about how federal district judge Justin Walker issued an ex parte temporary restraining order against the mayor of Louisville. As others beside myself have observed, this 86-footnote-long order included a drawn out and completely irrelevant diatribe of religious grievance and victimhood. Even more remarkable is that, as it turns out, the order itself was completely unnecessary. Absent a real case or controversy, the reason behind the order can logically be traced to the fact that the federal judge issuing it is being considered for promotion. Meaning that such theatrics were likely intended to bolster his political support. Outside of helping Walker’s career however, the effect of such blatantly political-based orders is profoundly damaging to the legitimacy of our courts.

Think about it, how on Earth can any future party going before Walker on a case regarding religious liberty ever expect to have a fair hearing? Of course, if you are a conservative Christian you can expect Walker (and the law in general) to be biased in your favor to the great expense of everyone else, particularly nonbelievers. Regardless of whether such bias is working for or against you, however, it certainly erodes the courts’ legitimacy as neutral arbitrators. Worse still, a lot of evidence suggests the clear bias of the federal judiciary extends well beyond judge Walker and the subject matter of religion.

In a study conducted by Clark Neily at the CATO Institute, the professional background of every sitting federal judge was examined. What was discovered should be concerning to everyone. Neily found that “a disproportionate number of federal judges served as government lawyers before donning a robe.” Just how disproportionate? When it comes to former prosecutors as opposed to former criminal defense attorneys the ratio is 4 to 1, but when you expand the parameters to include “judges who previously served as courtroom advocates for government in civil cases” the ratio becomes 7 to 1. The negative impact this imbalance has on the perception of our courts is substantial, according to Neily:

“The radical imbalance between former government advocates and former government opponents on the federal judiciary is particularly concerning when we consider what federal judges actually do, as well as the key role of the judiciary in our system of government. While the bulk of the federal court docket involves disputes between private parties, around 20 percent of all federal cases are criminal prosecutions, with another 15 percent involving various challenges to government power, including civil rights cases and habeas corpus petitions. Some of these are literally a matter of life and death — and not just in capital cases — whereas others involve constitutional challenges to laws that restrict people’s ability to work, speak, worship, travel, get married, or raise their own children. Other cases involve fundamental questions regarding the size, scope, and nature of government power, including the legitimacy of our ever‐​expanding, increasingly unaccountable federal bureaucracy. If a person’s last job before judging the legality of that bureaucracy was representing its interests in court, who could fault the civil rights plaintiff for suspecting that the agency she’s suing might enjoy a bit of a hometown advantage?

As demonstrated above, when criminal and civil rights cases pitting individuals against government are filed in federal court, the chances are nearly 50 percent that they will be heard by a judge who served as a courtroom advocate for the government (but never for individuals against government), whereas there is only a 6 percent chance that the case will be heard by a judge who represented individuals in cases against the government (and never served as an advocate for government). No prosecutor would relish the prospect of trying a case before a jury half‐​filled with former criminal defense attorneys — just as no criminal defendant relishes the idea of going before a judiciary half‐​filled with former government advocates. But for now at least, that’s the system we have.”

Combine all this blatant partisanship and professional imbalance and what do you get? You get a federal judiciary facing a legitimacy crisis more serious than at any other point in modern history.

Given that both Republican and Democratic administrations contributed to the current imbalance, engaging in a partisan blame game is probably the worst — or perhaps the most useless — thing we can do right now. What’s needed is a modern commitment to rectifying this imbalance and bias. Of course, given our current state of extreme polarization this might seem impossible. Therefore, I will end with some good news in the form of recent data that demonstrates, as a whole, the country is steadily moving away from the exclusionary concepts of American identity that have led to our current divide. The great hope therefore, is that although this crisis is well earned, our incoming generations have a chance to make it only temporary.

---

Tyler Broker’s work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review, the Albany Law Review, and is forthcoming in the University of Memphis Law Review. Feel free to email him or follow him on Twitter to discuss his column.

Amidst the chaos and dislocations brought about by the coronavirus epidemic, the regulators have taken a somewhat uneven approach to alleviating the burdens they impose on businesses. Certainly, they are keeping their eye out for those who might seek to take advantage of the present situation to illicit or otherwise immoral effect. Some SEC filings are off for the time being, but stress tests are on. And if you happen to be thinking that now might be a pretty good time to go about bribing some foreign officials, think again.

However, some of the most exciting seasons in Bundesliga history have been in recent years when the title race was more open. At the winter break, RB Leipzig and Borussia Dortmund. In March 2020, both teams were within 5 points of Bayern Munich, and its possible one may win the domestic title this season.

Of course, most predictions do focus on Bayern Munich, but it’s worth looking at the other candidates that are vying for the top spot. 

This guide looks at the current form and the records of the top teams to guide you with some great Bundesliga tips. Whether you are betting on the final result or making a series of match predictions, this guide has everything you need to know.

Bundesliga Betting Tips

Germany’s top division attracts millions of spectators and thousands of bets each week. It’s one of the world’s most popular leagues, and fans all over the globe are waiting to see who will be the Bundesliga winner this season.

As with any betting strategy or approach, you’ll want to find the best odds and value bets in order to maximize your wins. Here are some Bundesliga betting tips to give you the biggest advantage when picking the top team in Germany.

Pay Attention to the Statistics

Games in the Bundesliga tend to be high scoring, with more than half resulting in more than 2.5 goals, it’s also common for both teams to score. Keep this in mind when looking at placing wagers on specific matches. These stats will also play a role in the goals for and against in the overall standings. There are only five goals between Bayern Munich and Dortmund in second place, on 73, and 68, and third place Leipzig are on 62 goals for.

Your Footy Prediction Needs to Have Value

It’s unlikely that you’ll find the opportunity to make money when betting on Bayern Munich to win the Bundesliga. The team’s track record makes them a favourite, so predicting that they will win won’t lead you to value bets, but it’s a good team to bet on for an accumulator bet.

Alternative Approach

Several bookmakers offer up the Bundesliga without Bayern bet, which means making German Bundesliga predictions while ignoring the front runner, essentially you’re predicting who will come second. This relies on more knowledge about the season but can lead to bigger profits. For example, Dortmund has yet to lose at home this season, and RB Leipzig has only lost three of the 25 matches played.

Go Bold

Your other option is to bet on another team to win if you think it is possible. For the Bundesliga 2019/2020 winner predictions, Dortmund and RB Leipzig are getting close to the top, but this is a risk the needs research.  

Take It From The Tipster 

Bayern Munich has won the Bundesliga for the last five seasons, which is a track record that’s hard to ignore. However, the rest of the league has a lot of action to offer and is incredibly competitive. 

The attacking style of football is what draws in fans and bettors. Not only does it deliver entertaining games, but it also means you can find excellent odds and some good value bets. The 18 teams in this division are not only fighting for the top spot; they are also looking for a place in the European knockout tournaments. 

There are lots of exciting outright bets to be made. Besides the winner of the league, you can look at the top scorer, team to be relegated, as well as choosing who will land the Champions League and Europa League qualifying spots. Check out more Bundesliga predictions.

At The End Of The Day

Each Bundesliga season, the bookmakers look at who won the title last year, and they pay attention to what’s happening in the transfer market. A key signing can have an impact on the high profile teams looking to topple Bayern Munich. While their winning streak continues, they’re bound to be the favorites, upsets and interesting wagers to place along the way. 

Post published in: Business

* A former lawyer for Apple, who was responsible for enforcing Apple’s insider trading policy, is ironically making far-fetched arguments to dismiss his own insider trading indictment. [Bloomberg Law]

* Nursing homes are seeking immunity from lawsuits relating to the care they provide during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. [NBC News]

* Mother Teresa’s lawyer has asked a GOP politician to stop using her image in campaign media. Hope that attorney is working pro bono… [Newsweek]

* A wrongful death lawsuit has been filed claiming that a man died of salmonella after eating a tainted chicken enchilada. [Insurance Journal]

* A new class action alleges that some Costco, Whole Foods, and Trader Joe’s stores hiked up egg prices amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Sounds like they have “eggcellent” grounds for relief (this is my second egg pun in the past several days). [Business Insider]

* A top NRA lawyer was successfully able to have a sanctions order overturned on appeal. Bet he’s happy he stuck to his guns… [Washington Post]

---

Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.

Our clinics were deemed essential and are open, but Tendai could not reach one as there was no public transport running in her area. Quickly, I assured Tendai that I would call her back with a solution. Fortunately, Women’s Action Group, the organisation I work for, is part of a coalition working on sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) and I was able to connect her to a service provider who helped her obtain her contraceptives as they could offer transport within a given radius and she lived close enough to receive that help.

Tendai is not alone in facing challenges accessing contraceptives and other services offered at women’s clinics. Since the lockdown, the number of clients has dropped by 70% in many clinics. The organization Marie Stopes provided more than 400,000 women last year with family planning. But now the organization’s outreach services, which is how they reach more than 60% of clients, are suspended. Failure to get the contraceptives will result in unwanted pregnancies. Evidence has shown that if women find themselves pregnant and they decide they don’t want the pregnancy they choose to abort. Women do not really care how they carry out the abortion when they are desperate.

Tendai’s story and these statistics made me think about the response strategies for COVID – 19. Most of the African countries were quick to implement the lockdown strategy to try to prevent the spread of the COVID-19, while ignoring many of the needs for women and girls. For instance, there was no thought given on how women could access contraceptives and other SRHR services. In Zimbabwe there is no transport to go to health centers right now – and that will continue as our lockdown was extended by two more weeks. Another issue is that too often the police and soldiers who have been put on the streets to monitor people and ensure they do not leave for reasons deemed non-essential may not agree that accessing the SRHR services is essential.

According to UNICEF, however, even though most health resources including personnel and facilities are being diverted to the COVID 19 response, there are some services such as institutional deliveries, immunization and contraceptive services that cannot be interrupted. They are essential. If such services are interrupted, there will be an increase in unwanted pregnancies and maternal mortality, as well as outbreaks of other diseases such as measles.

With this in mind, as African countries consider extending the lockdown periods, I ask them to be guided by the fact that sexual and reproductive health services should be considered essential and they must not be interrupted by the lockdown. There should be clear information about where and how to access the services. Transport to get to these services should be in place. Emergency contraception should be made available to all who need it in this period where women are likely to engage in unprotected sex.

Safe abortion care and post abortion care also should be made available. Indeed, the latter is crucial, and African countries should learn from other regions, like in Virginia, USA, where the governor put abortion under essential services during the lockdown period.

Of course, this is not an easy ask. What I have observed across my 25-year career is that it is easier for people to refer to contraception, menstrual hygiene when talking about SRHR services. No one is mentioning abortion because of the stigma it carries. Even though it is common and the Guttmacher Institute in Zimbabwe (2016) revealed that 40% of the pregnancies were unintended and 1 in 4 of the unintended pregnancies end up in abortion.

The truth is, if women fail to access abortion services, they will to go to traditional or untrained health personnel to procure abortions. This will be costly to the nations as it costs more to treat someone who has had an unsafe abortion compared to offering a safe abortion. Complications happening as a result of unsafe abortions will force women to come back to the formal health delivery system which is already under strain. Unsafe abortions might also result in an increase in maternal mortality.

Now it is time for those who stand for choice to raise our voices and call for the provision of safe abortion and post abortion care. I am calling for countries such as Zimbabwe who have restrictive laws on abortion to allow for termination even without the certificate from the courts that allows termination in cases of rape.

It is in everyone’s best interest to help women access contraceptives, as well as an abortion should they need it.

Edinah Masiyiwa is a women’s rights activist. She is the Executive Director of Women’s Action Group and an Aspen Institute New Voices Senior Fellow.

Post published in: Featured

First published by ISS Today

Zimbabwe’s recent Supreme Court ruling that effectively stripped opposition leader Nelson Chamisa of his claim over the main faction of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) is bringing the party closer to the brink of implosion. The decision has grave implications for the opposition and for potential political dialogue in Zimbabwe.

In a country where national institutions – including the judiciary – are perceived to be conflated with ruling party interests, many in the opposition’s rank and file see the Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front (Zanu-PF) as being behind this ruling, which pulls the rug out from beneath Chamisa’s feet.

With a limping Chamisa, there is effectively no opposition to talk about as most other candidates who contested the 2018 elections have been co-opted into the Political Actors Dialogue. This platform was created by President Emmerson Mnangagwa, but rejected by Chamisa.

The Supreme Court issued a ruling on 31 March 2020 – a day after the 21-day national lockdown to slow the spread of Covid-19 began. The decision went the way of former MDC deputy president Thokozani Khupe. Chamisa led the MDC-Alliance, a grouping of opposition factions, in the 2018 elections and was beaten by Mnangagwa who escaped a run-off by a whisker. Khupe led a smaller faction and got just over 45,500 votes.

The ruling has further fractured the opposition, casting doubt over its credibility as an alternative to Zanu-PF. It is unfathomable that Khupe, who couldn’t garner even 50,000 votes in the 2018 elections, has any political clout and can rally Zimbabweans against Zanu-PF. Meanwhile, the MDC-Alliance maintains it is unmoved by the court ruling and Chamisa has so far been conspicuous by his silence.

The wrangling over who should lead the party ensued after MDC founder Morgan Tsvangirai died in February 2018. Just before his death, Tsvangirai controversially appointed two vice presidents, Chamisa and Elias Mudzuri, in addition to Khupe who was elected to this position during the party’s 2014 congress.

The move was viewed as political exigency to balance out factional succession fights within the MDC-T, the main MDC grouping led by Tsvangirai at the time. It also sowed the seeds of the party’s split. Even the most loyal MDC-T supporters have been at pains to explain the constitutionality of Tsvangirai’s last-minute decision to appoint Chamisa and Madzuri.

The political imperatives for the move were clear, however. In his 2018 New Year’s address to the nation, Tsvangirai revealed his desire to have the party’s young people take up more positions of responsibility and define the course of the party.

This was a strategic move to counter Zanu-PF, which is perceived to be a party of the old with nothing to offer the youth. Khupe, while seen as hardworking and politically mature, lacked the charisma required to give the MDC a chance in presidential elections. It’s a pity Tsvangirai didn’t trust his party’s democratic processes to make the right choice.

With Tsvangirai’s death, all three vice presidents wasted no time trying to secure the prime position, with Chamisa emerging ahead of the pack. In March 2018, the party split again and the MDC, then under Chamisa, merged with other formations to form the MDC-Alliance. Khupe kept the MDC-T label and contested the presidential elections.

Succession in politics is often less about legalities than political strategy. Tsvangirai’s death robbed the opposition of its best asset. In his absence, the party and the alliance had to be strategic regarding who leads the opposition’s charge forward.

The mood in the country was not only for leadership renewal but generational change, and Chamisa, 42, now represented that youthful front. Even the creation of the G40, a group of emerging young leaders in Zanu-PF in Robert Mugabe’s last few years, speaks to this growing appetite. Without Tsvangirai at the helm, the trump card from a strategic point of view became the generational consensus against the seemingly renewed Zanu-PF.

One of the MDC’s main weaknesses has been its eclectic nature. There are clearly limits to how long people will stay in an opposition party that is a conglomeration of diverse interests, and maintain a cohesive hold over its affairs in the face of repression.

The conflict between Chamisa and Khupe has played out more in the realms of ambition, entitlement and populism than the greater national good and the MDC-T’s founding values. The two protagonists find themselves trapped in their own realities.

Khupe felt constitutionally entitled and as such could not be convinced to be politically pragmatic. Chamisa was emboldened by the surge in the generational consensus drive and the perception of being anointed by the late Tsvangirai. Thus there were no strong incentives on either side to find common ground and focus on the electorate.

While Khupe celebrates the court victory, she has lost in the political game of numbers. The ruling is unlikely to give her any political mileage. At the same time, Chamisa and the main opposition have been exposed to be hypocrites paying lip service to democracy and constitutionalism while disregarding their own constitution and using Zanu-PF tactics in succession.

Chamisa’s comeback has to be strategic, and he must rebrand himself. He need not feel tied to the MDC, but should rather proffer a real alternative to the controversy and murkiness of MDC politics.

In all this, the struggling Zimbabwean is the clear loser. The electorate is left with no viable alternative that can be trusted to walk the talk when it comes to principles, constitutionalism and rule of law.

Covid-19 restrictions, including an extended lockdown, have robbed the opposition of any chance of staging a mass response through demonstrations or marches in solidarity with their leader. And Chamisa’s silence on the court ruling so far has left his followers in disarray. DM

Post published in: Featured