Some Law Firms Are Losing Billing Cash Cows Due To COVID-19

This website has already detailed how law firms are adapting to meet challenges posed by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Indeed, law firms have implemented work-from-home programs, communicated with clients and counsel through videoconferencing apps more often, and taken other steps to operate in these uncertain times. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has also eliminated many billing opportunities for numerous attorneys, and this has had an impact on the revenue of many law firms.

As mentioned previously in this column, court appearances are usually a cash cow for law firms. Even though court conferences may only take 10 minutes or less to complete, attorneys often need to wait in court for hours before a matter is called for a conference. Attorneys are often able to bill all of the time they spend in court for a conference, even if lawyers are just waiting for conferences to be called. In addition, attorneys usually need to spend an hour or two traveling to and from a court conference. Although clients have different rules about how much travel time is billable, attorneys are typically allowed to bill their clients for at least a portion of the time they spent traveling to and from conferences.

However, at the beginning of the pandemic, many courts adjourned numerous conferences, likely because they did not wish to hold conferences in person and did not have the infrastructure to hold conferences remotely. As time passed, courts have mostly been holding conferences through telephone and videoconferencing apps. Although there were some complications with people getting used to the technology at first, conferences by remote means seem to be going much more smoothly now.

Nevertheless, conferences by remote means do not present the same billing opportunities for firms as traditional in-person court conferences. When courts conference matters through remote means, the parties are usually scheduled to conference a matter at an exact time. As a result, attorneys are unable to bill as much time waiting for a conference as they could when they were in court before a matter was conferenced. In addition, since remote conferences do not require any travel time, attorneys have been missing out on billing travel time like they were able to with traditional court conferences. Although attorneys used to be able to bill several hours for attending a court conference, they are likely able to bill only 15 to 30 minutes of their time for court conferences in the present environment.

The way depositions have been conducted since the start of the ongoing pandemic has also impacted another traditional cash cow of billing for law firms. Attorneys used to be able to bill at least a portion of their time traveling to and from depositions just as with court conferences. For some depositions, attorneys can bill a substantial amount in travel time. Indeed, while I was working at a law firm that handled a number of mass torts matters, I would sometimes spend many hours traveling to and from depositions hundreds of miles away. Sometimes, the travel time billed to a client would pale in comparison to the time actually spent at depositions.

However, most depositions are also being conducted by remote means now in order to promote social distancing. As a result, attorneys are able to call into a deposition from home and have not been billing their travel time as they were in the past. This must be having a substantial impact on firms that rely on such billing for a considerable amount of their revenue.

Some attorneys may believe that disruptions in their billing may be temporary and that as operations return to normal, traditional court conferences and depositions will resume. Of course, some matters are simply easier to conduct in person, and it is altogether possible that court conferences and depositions will begin to occur in person more frequently over the next several months as many states gradually reopen. However, it is possible that the COVID-19 pandemic may permanently change the way certain tasks are conducted so that traditional billing cash cows lost during the pandemic may be permanently disrupted.

For instance, I have heard more than one court attorney relate that they see no reason to drag all of the parties to court for run-of-the-mill discovery conferences ever again. Conferencing routine and noncritical matters by remote means is simply more efficient, and it might not be worth it for all of the attorneys to appear in court for such matters. Furthermore, clients may require attorneys to continue conducting depositions by remote means. Clients may not wish to spend massive sums on travel time and travel costs for attorneys to attend depositions when they are now familiar with how depositions can be conducted remotely at a much cheaper cost.

In the end, many law firms have struggled with issues caused by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and the current environment has restricted the ability of certain shops to bill hours. Some attorneys may believe that such issues will begin to disappear as conditions normalize as COVID-19 restrictions are eased. Nevertheless, lawyers should prepare for the possibility that some billing opportunities available to them months ago may disappear as clients and courts learn lessons about efficiency while operating during the ongoing pandemic.


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.

‘Billions’ Now Accused Of Closet Infringement

Prepping For The Second Coming Of The Coronavirus (Part IV): Can We Control It Or Are We Forced To Live With It?

The second wave of the coronavirus is here. Or maybe the first wave never really left. As many cities and states have begun to relax their stay-at-home orders, new coronavirus cases have spiked. This shouldn’t come as a surprise. But unless the virus can be controlled and eventually eradicated, it may result in new shutdowns. In Houston, because of the rapid increase in new cases, the city council is considering imposing another shutdown order if the curve isn’t flattened. In Beijing, a new outbreak has forced the city to shut down again.

New shutdown orders in U.S. cities and states are likely to be met with resistance from the people and the federal government because of the negative effect on the economy and the massive drain on government resources. Also, a group of people would rather exercise their first amendment right to protest, go to church, go to the beach, or to the playground. And because of the low likelihood of becoming seriously ill, I suspect most of those people are willing to risk getting infected and likely not care if they infect others.

Can the virus be controlled? Eventually, I think it will be. But the current environment will make it difficult. I suspect that many Americans are not taking the coronavirus as seriously as they should. This is evidenced by recent protests. Also, Americans are misinformed about the virus.

Since the shutdown orders began, numerous protests have been held throughout the country. The protestors come mainly from two groups of people. There is a third group, but they are a fringe group of racists, opportunistic criminals, or just plain crazy, and they are not worth acknowledging.

The first group comes from those that have been directly and negatively affected by the shutdown orders — mostly businesses and religious organizations. They are arguing that the shutdown orders somehow have violated their constitutional rights. With the unlikelihood of another stimulus package from the government, a second shutdown order will be the possible death knell for many small businesses. They are already suffering from reduced income because of the outbreak and the first shutdown order. The group does not have a central leadership although they seem to get their inspiration and talking points from conservative groups and President Donald Trump.

The second group is those who are protesting the disproportionate police brutality inflicted against African-Americans. Most of these protestors are affiliated with Black Lives Matter. An attempt to donate to Black Lives Matter will direct you to a site run by actblue.com, a platform used to fund Democratic candidates for public office.

The causes and principles these groups stand for are not incompatible. One can be against both the police using excessive force and unreasonable government shutdown orders. But this is an election year, so the two groups’ politics and the general dislike of each group for the other prevents them from meaningfully working together.

The one common ground they have is that protesting takes priority over the pandemic. If they get infected as a result, then so be it. However, I think most of the people that think this way are relying on the low chances that they will get infected and the lower chances that they will develop severe complications as a result of the coronavirus. I doubt they are less motivated by the principles. To put it another way, I doubt I would see a lot of similar protests if there was an anthrax or Ebola outbreak as both having high fatality rates.

Another problem that makes recover difficult is the misinformation about how to treat the virus. This was clearly demonstrated when it came to the use and effectiveness of facial masks.

In the early days of the coronavirus epidemic, many health experts advised people to wear facial masks when going out in order to minimize the spread. The problem was that this resulted in a shortage of masks, mainly due to hoarding and panic buying. Healthcare professionals complained that they could not get them from their usual sources.

So a new narrative was released. This one said that people should not buy masks because they don’t work. Facial masks, even the highly effective N95 masks do not provide absolute protection against the virus. But healthcare professionals needed them because they don’t want to spread their germs in a sterile environment, like an operating room. This claim was questionable at best. Even if masks were not 100% effective, they provide some protection. And if everyone wore masks, the chances of spreading the virus would be minimal, even if people did not practice proper personal hygiene.

What should have been told was that facial masks provide significant protection from the coronavirus but due to a shortage, healthcare professionals should be the first people to have them for everyone’s safety.

There is still lots of strange information out there. Every week seems to bring the announcement of a new “wonder drug” that disappears after a week or two. If the wonder drug is so great, why aren’t news outlets covering the development? This makes me wonder if some companies are trying to pull another Theranos on unsuspecting, dim-witted investors. I’m sure the SEC will eventually want to know as well.

Finally, and returning to the topic of protests, there seems to be a split among the medical community about the protests and the risk of spreading the virus. When the reopen protestors hit the scene, almost the entire medical community denounced them, saying that their presence will certainly spread the virus.

But when it came to the Black Lives Matter protests, they said something different. Many medical professionals supported it but mainly because of the social justice value of the protests. They tried to point out that most of the protestors practiced social distancing and wore masks — although whether they did it mostly to hide their identities is not clear. Others simply said that the risk of contracting the virus was worth it.

Morally, it is their right to support or denounce whatever protest they wish. But it creates a few complications when it comes to full transparency, which has been one of the key goals when it came to managing the virus. If there was an increase in coronavirus cases due to the protestors, it will provide ammunition to their political opponents. On that note, would the protestors be willing to accurately report the number of those infected with COVID-19 if it will hurt “the cause”? In New York City, the “test and trace” campaign has been instructed by Mayor Bill de Blasio not to ask anyone who has been tested positive for COVID-19 whether they have attended a protest.

And the problem with large protests — particularly politically motivated ones — will attract trolls, in this case, dangerous ones. What’s stopping an infected anarchist from secretly attending the protest? A few months ago, Susan Daniel, a lawyer, tweeted that if she was infected with the coronavirus, she would “attend every MAGA rally she can,” presumably attended by Republicans.

In the final analysis, if the American people want to control the spread of the coronavirus, they will temporarily have to put their differences aside so they can take the virus seriously. Unfortunately, with this being the final stretch of the presidential elections, this may not happen for another few months. In the meantime, wear a mask until a vaccine is available.


Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and resolve tax disputes. He is also sympathetic to people with large student loans. He can be reached via email at sachimalbe@excite.com. Or you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) and connect with him on LinkedIn.

Morning Docket: 06.17.20

* The former general counsel of the FBI has been hired as an in-house attorney for Twitter. The two workplaces must be just a little different… [New York Post]

* A former lawyer has been found guilty of murdering his wife and throwing her body overboard during a 2006 cruise in the Caribbean. [Lost Angeles Times]

* The Supreme Court halted the execution of a death-row inmate in Texas about one hour before he was set to be executed. [NBC News]

* Attorneys in Tulsa, Oklahoma have filed a lawsuit in an attempt to enforce safety measures at a Trump rally in the city later this week. [Hill]

* A former lawyer, who surrendered his law license for stealing from clients and then became a pastor, will be allowed to practice law again. That was very Christ-like of the bar examiners… [Bloomberg Law]


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.

Explaining Michael Flynn’s Case To Non-Lawyers And Other Challenges

(Photo by the Defense Department via Wikimedia)

With an independent report by a federal judge branding the Department of Justice “corrupt,” this seems like a good time to revisit exactly how we got here. Your elderly aunt on Facebook has a lot to say about Michael Flynn and most of it is wrong. Joe and Kathryn unpack the case and also discuss the case of a lawyer who egged a judge’s car.

Special thanks to our sponsor, Logikcull.

Black Women Do Not View Law School Race Relations Particularly Well

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

According to the study “Women of Color–A Study of Law School Experiences,” a joint research effort between the NALP Foundation and the University of Texas School of Law’s Center for Women in Law, what percentage of minority women law students surveyed gave race relations on campus a positive rating?

Hint: Compare with the 70 percent of white male students who positively view race relations on campus.

See the answer on the next page.

Confederate Monument Reply-All Debacle In The D.C. Circuit — See Also

Flatten the Research Curve

Flatten the Research Curve

Navigate the latest changes to federal and state laws, regulations, and executive orders; ranging from Banking & Finance to Tax, Securities, Labor & Employment / HR & Benefits, and more.

Navigate the latest changes to federal and state laws, regulations, and executive orders; ranging from Banking & Finance to Tax, Securities, Labor & Employment / HR & Benefits, and more.

The Law Schools Where The Most Graduates Got Federal Clerkships (2019)

Do you like prestige? Of course you do. Is there really a law student who doesn’t? That being said, if you’re like the majority of your colleagues and you’d like to embark upon one of the most prestigious career paths available to recent law school graduates, then you’ll probably want to compete for an elite federal clerkship.

Law.com produced several helpful charts based on law school employment data for the class of 2019. Today, we will take a look at one of the more interesting charts, the law schools that sent the highest percentage of their most recent graduating class into federal clerkships. On this list, you’ll find a dazzling array of law schools from the T14, but we’re not here to tell you what you already know — that graduates of top law schools get top clerkships. That being said, we’re going to dive a little deeper into the list (the Top 20) and highlight the schools you may not realize are some of the top clerkship contenders. Here they are for your viewing pleasure:

1. Stanford: 29.12 percent
2. Yale: 25.81 percent
3. U. Chicago: 23.76 percent
4. Harvard: 17.70 percent
5. UVA: 15.73 percent
6. Duke: 14.03 percent
7. Notre Dame: 11.92 percent
8. UT-Austin: 11.45 percent
9. Georgia: 11.05 percent
10. Washington U.: 10.64 percent
11. Berkeley: 10.37 percent
12. Michigan: 10.10 percent
13. Washington & Lee: 10.00 percent
14. Penn: 9.60 percent
15. Illinois: 9.02 percent
16. Montana: 8.45 percent
17. Alabama: 8.27 percent
18. Vanderbilt: 7.62 percent
19. Cornell: 7.22 percent
20. Baylor: 7.09 percent

Way to go, Stanford! The elite school managed to boot Yale out of the top spot for clerkships this year, which is a remarkable feat in and of itself.

An obvious point to make here is that these rankings don’t distinguish between prestige of clerkship. Were these feeder judges or non-feeder judges, circuit courts or district courts, Article III courts or non-Article III courts? In the land of law, these things are important. Considering how coveted federal clerkships are, we’d absolutely love to see this information. If you have it, please feel free to email us.

Click here to see the rest of the law schools with the highest percentage of graduates employed in federal clerkships, plus other informative charts detailing the law schools with the highest percentage of graduates working in Biglaw, state clerkships, government and public interest jobs, as well as the law schools with the most unemployed graduates and most underemployed graduates.

Are you a recent law school graduate who landed a federal clerkship? What did your law school do to help you? We’re interested in learning about your experiences — good or bad — and may anonymously feature some of your stories on Above the Law. You can email us, text us at (646) 820-8477, or tweet us @atlblog. Best of luck in your clerkship and enjoy your time with your judge!

Law Grads Hiring Report: Job Stats for the Class of 2019 [Law.com]


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.

Barr Threatens Suit To Stop Bolton’s Book Because The First Amendment Is, Like, More Of A Suggestion Really

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

“Any conversation with me is classified,” President Trump insisted at a press conference yesterday. Because once we had a scholar of constitutional law as president, and now we have … the opposite of that.

The president’s voluminous knickers are in a twist this week over the upcoming release of Ambassador John Bolton’s book “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir,” which is scheduled to hit the shelves on June 23.

As a former federal employee, Bolton had to submit his manuscript to the National Security Council to ensure it contained no classified material. Since December 30, when he dropped the 592-page tell all about his time as Trump’s National Security Advisor on the NSC’s doorstep, Bolton undertook multiple rounds of revision in coordination with Ellen Knight, the agency’s senior director for prepublication review.

According to a Wall Street Journal op-ed penned by his lawyer Chuck Cooper, Knight acknowledged that the book contained no classified material, telling Bolton on April 27, “that’s the last edit I really have to provide for you” and promising that the the final clearance letter would be ready in short order.

And then … nothing happened. At least not until June 7, when the Washington Post broke the news that Bolton’s book was going to print on June 23, come hell or high water. At which point White House lawyer John Eisenberg — who is, not for nothing, smack in the middle of the Ukraine saga detailed in the book — wrote a letter to Bolton insisting that manuscript was chock full of classified information and publication would pose a great threat to national security.

Cooper insists that his client has satisfied his legal obligations to the NSC, and any further interference by the White House is simply an attempt to censor information embarrassing to the president. Which is a bold strategy, Cotton!

While the wisdom of going to print without clearance is debatable, the legality is not. This has been settled law since 1971 when the Supreme Court refused to stop the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers. And President Twitterfingers may have forgotten that case, but Bill certainly remembers that prior restraint is really not a thing.

And yet, Donald Trump promises that the Justice Department will be filing suit imminently to enjoin publication of Bolton’s book.

“They’re in court or they’ll soon be in court,” he told reporters yesterday. If they’re “in court” to do LOCK HER UPS to John Bolton, news of it hasn’t broken yet.

And that’s criminal liability, by the way. you’re talking about.  You’re not talking about, like, he’s got to return three dollars that he made on a book.  That’s called criminal liability.  That’s a big thing.  You know, Hillary Clinton, she deleted 33,000 emails.  And if we ever found out what those emails say, she would’ve had a liability.  That’s what you have: You have liability.

So wise!

Barr himself was more circumspect, insisting that Bolton was flouting the legitimate classification review process, before going on to bizarrely insist that no one ever wrote a book about a sitting president, and discussions of current events are by their very nature classified.

And this is unprecedented, really, because — I don’t know if any book that’s been published so quickly while, you know, the office holders are still in — in government and it’s about very current events and current leaders and current discussions and current policy issues, which — many of which are inherently classified.

Which is entirely true, if you leave out Cliff Sims, who fought his own protracted battle for clearance to publish “Team of Vipers” in January of 2019, just seven months after leaving the White House. Also that part about inherent classification, which is completely made up.

But if the Justice Department wants to go running to the courts for a prior restraint on speech based on the newly minted doctrine of inherent classification, they can try. It’ll probably just help the Mustache Man sell more books but, hey, knock yourself out.

The White House vs. John Bolton [WSJ]
Trump Administration Expected to Sue to Block Bolton Book [Bloomberg]


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

Law School Professor Branded A ‘Karen’ After She Called The Cops Over Fireworks

In the wake of the murder of George Floyd, and the Black Lives Matter protests that have spread across the country, many are people are deeply reconsidering the proper role of the police in society and how to make lasting reforms to the system. While others, well, they continue to use the cops are their personal enforcement mechanism for all manner of petty grievances. Irina Manta, a professor at Hofstra Law School and a FedSoc darling last seen trying to make the law hold people accountable for lying on Tinder, falls quite distinctly in the latter category.

Gothamist has an article detailing the turmoil in Ditmas Park, Brooklyn, that fireworks are causing in the neighborhood. Though fireworks are illegal in the city, as anyone who has spent time in an outer borough knows, they are also a part of summertime life that frankly brings up a sense of nostalgia. But the NYPD has seen a sharp influx of firework complaints. And when a Ditmas Park Facebook group banned all firework talk, that’s when Manta sprang into action:

In response, another resident, Irina Manta, formed her own Facebook group, along with a petition calling on Mayor Bill de Blasio and other officials to “put a peaceful stop to the illegally launched fireworks that have been disrupting our sleep and lives for weeks.”

Hours later, police in riot gear showed up on the streets of Flatbush, apparently searching for those responsible for the fireworks. (A spokesperson for the NYPD did not respond to Gothamist’s inquiries about arrests or summonses).

And, particularly given the police violence that we’ve seen since the Black Lives Matter protests began, the social media posts documenting the fireworks raid — that police did while wearing full riot gear — have taken on a chilling quality.

Equality for Flatbush, a grassroots Black Lives Matter group based in Brooklyn, wasted no time giving Manta her own hashtag:

Irina Manta aka #DitmasParkKaren is a law professor at Hofstra University. Manta and her supporters began organizing for their campaign on the “Ditmas Park, Brooklyn” FB group page, a majority-white Facebook group where pro-gentrification and white supremacist sentiment is highly prevalent.

While the #DitmasParkKaren struggle was raging on social media, the same night at 11:30pm, several eye-witness videos and photos were posted on Twitter documenting van loads of NYPD officers in riot gear swarming a Flatbush neighborhood at Ocean and Church Avenues in response to a fireworks complaint. According to eyewitnesses, the NYPD entered buildings on Ocean Avenue and 1 person was arrested. For many long-time/lifelong residents of Flatbush, both the level of complaints about fireworks and last night’s response by police over a fireworks complaint is unprecedented.

The entire incident is yet another reminder that where some see nothing but black joy and exuberance, others see a nuisance or even a threat.


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).