Category: News Feeds

Noted manly man Ted Cruz is so devoted to the principles of conservatism that he’s ready to throw down behind the gym and kick some ass! Well, not personally, of course because he’s got bone spurs. Probably.

So, how about Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan stands in for him, and shows that damn dirty liberal Ron Perlman what a big, strong specimen our Ted really is? Because nothing says TOUGH GUY like siccing a former wrestling champion on a 70-year-old actor, right?

It all started Sunday, when Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, a member of the Florida bar who is strongly opposed to virtue signaling, got all up in his feelings about US Soccer’s decision to rescind its no-kneeling policy.

To which actor Ron Perlman unleashed a string of invective, including an observation that Gaetz should be grateful to Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan for sparing him the ignominious title of least attractive member of congress.

Apparently Ted Cruz is new to Twitter, though. And while Gaetz just teed off for his followers on Perlman’s woeful lack of understanding of Florida geography, Cruz decided to take it up another notch.

“Listen Hellboy, he tweeted. “You talk good game when you’ve got Hollywood makeup & stuntmen. But I’ll bet $10k—to the nonpolitical charity of your choice—that you couldn’t last 5 min in the wrestling ring w/ @Jim_Jordan w/o getting pinned. You up for it? Or does your publicist say too risky?”

We have questions! Did Ted Cruz, a sitting senator, wake his good buddy Jim up at 12:48 a.m. before volunteering him for a slugfest in the parking lot of the Capitol Hill CVS? Did the Harvard law grad and member of the Texas bar, think about the legal niceties of arranging a cash-for-fisticuffs wager? Or did the “father of two, @heidiscruz‘s husband, fighter for liberty” just shoot his mouth off because that machine gun bacon is salty and sometimes you drink a little too much beer trying to wash it down on a Sunday night?

(You thought we made it up?)

Perlman, upped the ante to $50,000, but only if Cruz would fight himself. Because apparently there’s plenty of beer in Los Angeles, too.

And then this morning, when the Senator’s hot gun should really have cooled down, he was still demanding that Perlman fight Jordan, a former wrestling coach, or be forever known as a wuss.

“I get it, you’re rich. But, apparently, soft,” the senator tweeted at 7:47 a.m. from the phone that he hides from his staffers, ALLEGEDLY. “You sure seem scared to wrestle Jordan (whom you keep insulting). Can’t take the heat? Need to get a manicure?” Get it? If Perlman doesn’t want to wrestle Jim Jordan it’s because he’s a sissyboy getting his nails done — HAPPY PRIDE Y’ALL! But if Ted Cruz doesn’t want to fight, then it is GRAVITAS.

Neat. Well, at least Ron Perlman didn’t call Heidi Cruz ugly and accuse Ted Cruz, Sr of assassinating JFK, because then Ted would be really angry. And you wouldn’t like Ted when he’s angry.

---

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

Mitch McConnell isn’t the sort of guy who feels the need to justify his actions. When caught in some dubious scheme he just wags his chin sack in a chuckle like a less environmentally conscious Thanos and goes on about his business. So when folks started questioning his whirlwind effort to land millennial Justin Walker on the D.C. Circuit amidst a global pandemic and protests shutting down the capital — all for a vacancy that doesn’t even come open until September — McConnell mostly sloughed off the criticism.

But that’s started to change over the past week, with McConnell sending flacks on Fox News to protest all these pesky questions about his latest appellate court project.

Walker, a former Kavanaugh clerk who worked as Louisville Law School professor, was a divisive judiciary pick before being tapped for the D.C. Circuit. His ascension to his current Western District of Kentucky post — less than a year ago, mind you — came after he wrote a law review article defending Trump’s decision to fire James Comey for not following presidential orders to drop criminal cases that implicated administration cronies. Still, his nomination to that post earned the support of his academic colleagues who appreciated the idea of a former Louisville professor on the local bench. But they didn’t expect him to be jumped to the D.C. Circuit before unpacking his office. From the National Law Journal:

“The timing struck me as not ideal. If this had come a number of years from now, I would have felt much more comfortable with it,” [Louisville Law professor Sam] Marcosson said of Walker’s nomination. “Even though I would probably disagree with a lot of decisions that he might write, that wouldn’t trouble me. What does trouble me is he hasn’t had the opportunity to gain that perspective.”

But Judge Walker followed up on his Comey article with another love letter to the administration’s conspiracy theorist instincts by striking down a public health order preventing Easter services. That was all he needed to lock in his most favored jurist status with McConnell and the White House and get him a premature promotion to the nation’s second highest court.

He cruised through a party line Judiciary Committee vote earlier this month and appears to be unstoppable. Which is why it’s so bizarre that McConnell feels the need to say anything about this nomination.

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., slammed a group that is pushing claims about D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Justin Walker during the last stages of his confirmation process as engaging in a “bottom-of-the-barrel smear” against the judge, while the group calls on the Senate to pump the brakes on the nomination.

The specific allegations brought up by Fix the Court revolve around a loan Walker made to some former students — an ethically squishy if not necessarily forbidden situation — and claims that Walker assented to students taunting minorities with “build the wall” chants, which if true would be… squarely on brand for the bulk of Trump’s judiciary nominees, many of whom refuse to commit to supporting desegregation let alone denounce racial taunting. After all, without puckish attempts to denigrate others, where will FedSoc find its next generation of leaders? But Fox News has an anonymous source that says it didn’t happen so that, it seems, is that as far as they’re concerned.

But why are these allegations getting McConnell’s hackles up? In a world rightly distracted by just about every other disaster available right now, these stories aren’t likely to get enough mainstream media traction to require Senate Republicans to deviate from their pro forma confirmation vote. Did these claims strike a nerve? Have they hit a little too close to some deeper concerns?

Whether or not there’s anything here that can derail the confirmation isn’t really the point though. The mere appearance of an issue should be enough for senators regardless of political persuasion to slow down this nomination. No one needs to be confirmed for this job until September at the earliest. Fast-tracking Walker under those circumstances was always suspicious, but this uncharacteristic lash out when a judicial transparency advocacy group raises questions is even more reason to put this off.

It’s not “bottom of the barrel” to say this doesn’t need to be done by next week.

McConnell spokesman slams group pushing allegations about appeals court nominee: ‘Bottom of the barrel’ [Fox News]
Justin Walker’s Law School Colleagues Backed His District Court Nomination. Some Don’t Want Him on the DC Circuit [National Law Journal]

---

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

The legal services industry has dramatically changed in recent years, and DWF Mindcrest has been at the forefront of altering the landscape when it comes to offering alternative legal services. Following a merger in February 2020 between ALSP Mindcrest and law firm DWF LLP, DWF Mindcrest continues to offer its revolutionary legal services model to an ever-expanding global market. 

We recently sat down with Ganesh Natarajan, CEO and Co-Founder of Mindcrest, and Mark St. John Qualter, CEO of Managed Services at DWF, to discuss the success of the merger and how DWF Mindcrest continues to differentiate itself from other ALSPs in the market.

What was the impetus behind the DWF Mindcrest merger?

Mark Qualter: DWF admired the high-quality work Mindcrest was doing, and the cultures of the two businesses were very similar. A mission to transform legal services was in both companies’ mission statements. The legal market is developing rapidly in a way that it hasn’t in the past. Our three areas of managed services strategy — global reach, best-in-class operations, and driving sustainable, quality revenue — all were things we thought would be accelerated and advanced with Mindcrest on board. Our goal is to grow a global managed services operation, and acquiring Mindcrest was entirely consistent with that strategy and would give us increased critical mass.

The two businesses have a very complimentary set of capabilities and already operated broadly in the same pool. For example, DWF was building an eDiscovery consultancy and technology business, and Mindcrest had the skills and capabilities to do large volumes of document review. We were also excited to gain access to the Indian tech market, where some really exciting things are happening. Everything we thought would work well in the merger has come true. It’s been a positive experience in integrating our services and expanding our client base.

What are the main pain points DWF Mindcrest addresses?

Ganesh Natarajan: Over the last 20 years, there has been a fundamental change to the legal services marketplace. Even five years ago, ALSPs were not really considered part of that ecosystem, but were instead lumped in with tech and eDiscovery companies. Today that’s not true. In-house counsel hire ALSPs alongside law firms, and the focus is on bifurcating the work. Advances in technology have allowed us to deliver our services even better than we could in the past and better than most traditional law firms can today.

To truly offer a new way of providing legal services, we don’t just offer specialist lawyers, we also take a deeper look at what a client’s problems are and tailor a solution to meet those problems. DWF Mindcrest handles the work with more efficiency and less cost than traditional firms can. We also offer portfolio legal services, wherein entire legal departments can opt to lift and shift most of their work over to us while keeping just a core team in-house.

Mark Qualter: When I joined DWF, I saw that the needs of corporate General Counsel were changing. There was a significantly reduced focus on legal expertise, which was assumed to exist as a baseline in the firms that service them, and a much greater focus on things like transformation, cost, efficiencies, keeping abreast of legal technology and risk management. GCs now want different outcomes as many have been told that they need to significantly reduce costs and simply do more with less. This created a buy-side need in the legal market as a whole that was going unmet by the industry. DWF Mindcrest has built our whole business model around solving that problem, and as a result we believe we have become a disruptive force in the market.

How does DWF Mindcrest differ from other ALSPs or staffing agencies?

Mark Qualter: First and foremost, we’re more than an ALSP. We’ve built a holistic solution for clients. We’ve combined top-notch advisory services from the lawyers on the DWF side with the most advanced, efficient processes on the Mindcrest side in addition to the managed service capability we had built in house. When I meet with them, I ask clients what kind of legal function they really want to be. They normally talk about their people doing more strategic, fulfilling work and I tell them that we take on all the work that isn’t part of that vision and help them make the transformation.

What services or specialties does DWF Mindcrest offer?

Ganesh Natarajan: Mindcrest traditionally focused on four practice areas – Contracts Management, Compliance, Litigation and Investigations, and Legal Analytics – and those specialties continue today. The work DWF traditionally specialized in, such as real estate and commercial law, can easily be broken down into those areas.

The major piece that Mindcrest traditionally lacked, however, was advisory services, while DWF always excelled at that. By combining the two companies, we combine expert processes and expert legal advice in order to offer clients a complete solution in jurisdictions across the globe.

Mark Qualter: Mindcrest was a U.S. business with its engine room in India. DWF is a global business in over 30 countries. Now, together we can reach a broader audience and build greater critical mass using the delivery power Mindcrest had built up and the reach of DWF. Part of our strategic roadmap is to accelerate automation across the business and drive further efficiencies that complement the high-quality skill base that already exists in India without adding to our headcount. Thus we detach revenue from costs and drive greater value for our shareholders and be competitive for our clients.

You’ve mentioned technology quite a bit. What role does it play in DWF Mindcrest’s success?

Ganesh Natarajan: Technology drives everything we do, from the beginning of the process of acquiring a client, through onboarding, recruiting, assembling, and training teams, producing the work, and delivering the resulting metrics, data analytics, reporting, and feedback. The entire process is automated and takes place in our platform, which is a major change in the practice of law.

We’ve built our own workflow systems, which we customize for each project or client. Our mTech team is continually evaluating the tools available on the market and incorporating the best solutions into our platform. We’re always looking for ways to do things better and want to be prepared for unexpected challenges, which has served us well during the current pandemic.

Mark Qualter: Many of our clients come to us with the concern that they can’t keep up with legal tech because it’s so specialized, and they’re afraid of being left behind. DWF Mindcrest is always scanning the market for the latest developments and testing it out, so we can ensure our clients that they’ll always have access to the best emerging tech available.

How does DWF Mindcrest vet and train its attorneys?

Ganesh Natarajan: Many years ago we created Mindcrest University, our crown jewel. In addition to being a training program for the ALSP component of our business, it’s a full-blown university that offers about 200 courses, ranging from substantive topics to professional development. 

All attorneys on the ALSP side must go through rigorous training as part of onboarding. They’re also given project-specific training, often in conjunction with the client. We prioritize our attorneys’ career development and our goal is for them to have careers in this industry and move up through management ranks. We’ve always prided ourselves on high-quality work and exceptional client services, and that’s something we’ll never compromise. Training is key to the Mindcrest Method.

What is the Mindcrest Method?

Ganesh Natarajan: The Mindcrest Method is our set of guiding principles and our secret to success — our formula for Coca-Cola, if you will. Our platform, called mTools, is where we assemble all our solutions and where our teams do all their work. It’s a systematic way of working, tweaked and customized for each client and project. mTools is coupled with Mindcrest University to create a unique methodology that has allowed us to offer the best managed services on the market.

What can we expect in the future from DWF Mindcrest?

Mark Qualter: Our combined capabilities have created new opportunities for us. DWF Mindcrest is working on evolving new products and services, such as DSAR (data subject access requests). Coming from finance and banking, I can see how the legal market is massively over-ready for disruption. The ALSP market has been growing around 25-30% a year for the last five years, and we’re on the same trajectory. We’re always looking for new products, tools, and services to offer and overall my mission is to make it as easy as possible for our clients to do business with us.

Ganesh Natarajan: Many of our clients are doubling down on their investments now and sending us more work than before. We’re constantly adding new clients and expanding our capabilities.

The Food and Drug Administration has withdrawn its emergency use authorization for two closely related malaria drugs as treatments for Covid-19, the agency said Monday, stating that an ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data had led it to determine the drugs would not likely be effective.

The FDA said in a statement that it had revoked the EUA that allowed for donation of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to the Strategic National Stockpile for use in certain patients hospitalized with Covid-19. The EUA had enabled the drugs to be used in patients for whom a clinical trial was unavailable or unfeasible. The revocation was issued at the request of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, as the original March 28 EUA had been.

BARDA’s director, Rick Bright, stated in a whistleblower complaint last month after his removal from his position that he faced retaliation for resisting efforts to promote broad use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. President Donald Trump, his administration and his media surrogates had aggressively promoted use of the drug despite a lack of scientific evidence to support it.

In addition to expressing doubts about the drugs’ efficacy in Covid-19, the FDA cited concerns about safety, particularly serious cardiac events. The drugs are known to be associated with cardiac toxicity, though a large study based on an analysis of electronic health records from more than 96,000 Covid-19 patients that was published in The Lancet last month was recently retracted amid doubts about the veracity of the data that were used, which came from a Chicago-based firm, Surgisphere. That study had led the World Health Organization to temporarily halt enrollment of patients into an arm of a large clinical trial it was running that tested hydroxychloroquine, while the French government revoked its own emergency authorization of the drug.

Nevertheless, a randomized, placebo-controlled study led by the University of Minnesota showed that hydroxychloroquine was not effective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in people who had been exposed, known as post-exposure prophylaxis. Other single-arm studies have also failed to show that the drug is effective at treating Covid-19.

“We’ve made it clear throughout the public health emergency that our actions will be guided by science and that our decisions may evolve as we learn more about the SARS-CoV-2 virus, review the latest data and consider the balance of risks versus benefits of treatments for Covid-19,” said Anand Shah, the FDA’s deputy commissioner for medical and scientific affairs, in a statement. “The FDA always underpins its decision making with the most trustworthy, high-quality, up-to-date evidence possible.”

Photo: Yuri Cortez, AFP, via Getty Images

The Ohio State University is requiring its athletes to sign a two-page document titled, “Buckeye Acknowledgment and Pledge” prior to returning to school to participate in workouts. The “pledge,” which includes a section for a parent or guardian to sign if the athlete is under 18 years old, appears to have been provided to athletes to shield the university from exposure in the case that anyone contracts the coronavirus disease.

“I pledge to take responsibility for my own health and help stop the spread of the COVID-19,” states a portion of the first paragraph of the document. Further down it says, “I know that by engaging in campus activities, including attending classes, pursuing my education, living on campus, eating in the dining halls, attending activities, participating in sports and recreation, I may be exposed to COVID-19 and other infections. I also understand that despite all reasonable efforts by the university, I can still contract COVID-19 and other infections.”

The short document reads like a waiver of risks related to coronavirus. It indicates that the pledge is a condition of the athletes’ participation in Ohio State Athletics.

Yet, Ohio State is apparently taking the position that the pledge is not being viewed as a legal document despite the waiver sounding language and the requirement that the document be executed by a parent or guardian if the college athlete is under the age of majority. If there is no intention to view the document as being legally binding, then it is rather odd that the parental consent is made a part of the agreement.

Perhaps Ohio State is aware that, even if it took the position that the pledge was a legally binding document, it would be subject to a strong challenge to invalidate if litigated.

There exists precedent in the State of Ohio that requires a trier of fact to look at the complexity of the language within a waiver to determine if an ordinarily prudent and knowledgable person would have understood that there is a release from liability. The Buckeye Acknowledgement and Pledge document certainly pledges action on the part of athletes to do what they can to avoid contracting and spreading the coronavirus and it includes various understandings and acknowledgments about the disease, but it does not appear to expressly release Ohio State University from any claims that the athletes may have if they do contract the virus.

Furthermore, waivers have been deemed ineffective when they are contrary to public policy. Here, a school requiring a college athlete to sign a waiver related to coronavirus and limiting participation in athletics only to those who sign the document would seemingly be cause to strike down the waiver, if deemed to even be classified as such. The athletes, who are not even considered employees of the university or the athletic department, really have no choice in the situation. They would be told that they can sign and play or fail to sign and be forced to sit out from participating in a vital part of their pre-professional careers.

Interestingly, the pledge itself, even if not deemed to be a waiver, could cause legal issues in the case of an athlete refusing to execute same. At the end of the document it states that the pledge is a condition to participation in Ohio State Athletics. What happens if an athlete refuses to sign?

---

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

Let’s face it: tens of thousands of students enroll in law school every year, each with a dream in their hearts of saving the world. Maybe they want to seek out justice for children, animals, or the environment. Maybe they want to serve their communities and make them safer for the public at large. Maybe they want to advocate for those who have been unfairly discriminated against, be it in their housing choices or on the job. Whatever their public-interest cause may be, while many law students say they want to save the world, only a select few are willing to accept the sometimes lower salaries that go hand-in-hand with their altruistic career goals.

For the true believers, some law schools are better than others when it comes to getting their graduates a leg up on the competition for one of these coveted jobs. 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 for all of the do-gooders in this world, the law schools that sent the highest percentage of their most recent graduating class into government and public interest work.

Here are the top 10 law schools on the list:

1. City University of New York: 58.93 percent
2. Florida State University: 37.06 percent
3. University of South Dakota: 34.00 percent
4. Liberty University: 33.33 percent
5. Florida A&M University: 32.56 percent
6. District of Columbia: 32.31 percent
7. University of Wisconsin: 31.61 percent
8. Penn State-Dickinson: 31.58 percent
9. University of Oregon: 31.25 percent
10. Northeastern University: 30.99 percent

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

Are you a recent law school graduate who’s working in government or public interest? 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 saving the world — your help is really needed right now!

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

---

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 law school showed its dedication to racial justice by revoking an offer of admission to a prospective law student. According to reports, SMU Dedman School of Law had to reverse course on a 0L’s admission after it was discovered they made social media posts deemed “racially offensive.”

Though the law school is limited about what they can say about the student by the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (the student’s name and other details have, thus far, remained anonymous), they did put a statement on Twitter expressing, “Racism has no place on a campus that embraces respect for all SMU students, faculty and staff and equips its students to make a difference in the world.”

While Dean Jennifer Collins has not commented on the admissions decision, she recently wrote a statement after George Floyd’s murder that, “as lawyers, we have a special obligation to demand that we do better and actively work together toward a more just and compassionate nation free of the discrimination and hatred that continues to plague this country.”

The school’s decision comes as #BlackAtSMU is trending where students are sharing their own stories of racism at the university. University President R. Gerald Turner said of the trending hashtag:

“It grieves me to read them because this is not what we envision for SMU,” Turner wrote. “The negative experiences shared through #BlackAtSMU are a stark reminder that we still have a lot of work to do.”

Students were cautiously optimistic about the university’s response to #BlackAtSMU, seeing it as a first step. The law school’s decision to revoke admission to someone publicly making offensive statements seems in line with the school’s commitment to “racial equality and inclusion.”

As for the student in question, let’s hope they finally learn some consequences for their online racism.

---

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Depending on who you talk to, there are either far too many lawyers in this country or dangerously too few. Like a lot of things in this world, it’s all about distribution and the glut of attorneys ready to help GloboChem cover up another toxic spill doesn’t excuse the dearth of attorneys available to help an old lady get kicked out of her apartment of 50 years. And unfortunately the economics of getting a law degree in 2020 America means there will always be more of the former than the latter because the financiers need to get paid somehow.

But perhaps allowing limited practice opportunities for non-lawyers could stanch some of this bleeding. Smart advocates with focused legal training but none (or very little of) the debt could be dispatched to work in niche areas of the law underserved by our existing system.

The latest edition of the Legaltech Week panel tackles this issue and more legal technology stories of the week. From the official description:

The Legaltech Week panel of journalists is joined this week by Rohan Pavuluri, cofounder and CEO of bankruptcy platform Upsolve, to discuss his recent article arguing that rules prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law — rules that he says give lawyers a monopoly on providing legal services — effectively work to promote racial inequality.

Here you go!

We must respect the right to disconnect.

Our 24/7 access to technology and each other is a double-edged sword. We’re available to each other like never before, which also means we’re expected to be accountable to each other like never before.

Fortunately, the legal industry is slowly adopting more appreciation for a healthier work/life balance. This dynamic, and the frustrations pushing this trend, have been amplified considerably during the pandemic.

“I’ve noticed that law firm managers have been expecting their attorneys to be hyper-responsive because everyone is homebound. But they’re missing an opportunity to encourage rest and family/downtime, which I believe allows lawyers to refresh and better do their jobs,” said Annie Little, attorney career coach, resume coach, and founder of JD Nation.

The bottom line is that we must give employees the ability to disconnect, and respect their need to do so. My recent discussion about the right to disconnect led to some great tips from experts.

Communication Is Key

Claire E. Parsons, partner and owner at Adams, Stepner, Woltermann & Dusing, PLLC, explained, “I sometimes send emails after hours because that’s when I am working, and I don’t want to forget. But, as a partner, I have trained myself to say, ‘I’m sending this now, but you don’t have to respond right away.’ when I do.”

Similarly, Natasha Alladina, attorney recruiting director at The Partners Group, recommended, “Set up a regular weekly time to discuss ongoing projects. That way everyone stays on the same page and stays accountable while having the freedom to work when and how makes the most sense for them.”

NRB Your Emails

Dawn Edwards Martin, director, business development, at Legalpeople, said, “I heard a technique several years ago, but I don’t think it ever took off in the legal field. ‘NRB’ codes in an email subject line tell the recipients that you need-response-by tomorrow or next week or 5 p.m.” She explained, “Especially when the sender is a manager or supervisor, this signals to the recipient that the message is not urgent just because it is coming “from the top.” Leadership in our industry has an opportunity to communicate responsiveness expectations and confirm the right to disconnect.”

Disconnect Intentionally And Regularly

“Just because we CAN all be on-call 24/7 doesn’t mean we should be. I had a friend who was a family law attorney, and when her clients would call with an ‘emergency’ she would say, ‘Well, I really can’t help you with my law license — you should probably call 911.’” explained Rachel Coll, a certified life coach who helps lawyers rid themselves of romantic drama and enjoy healthier relationships.

A work/life balance is always essential but “especially right now with our work and home lives being so blurred,” said Patricia Baxter, managing partner at Morgan & Akins, PLLC.  She continued, “Disconnecting regularly is the only way to stay strong mentally.”

We’re now more than three months into a global pandemic that is forcing many of us to take care of, teach, and feed our kids while worrying about our parents and completing the typically demanding responsibilities of our day jobs. Without boundaries, all that stress is bound to make us less effective at each.

But let’s take this opportunity to understand that all employees have countless invisible stressors that are also weighing them down outside of work, even during normal, nonpandemic times. As we question the way we’ve been doing business — and see little certainty and a lot of opportunities to change ahead — let’s place a greater appreciation on the right to disconnect and a healthier work/life balance — so that we can enjoy life a little bit more and bring our full selves to work each day.

---

Olga V. Mack is the CEO of Parley Pro, a next-generation contract management company that has pioneered online negotiation technology. Olga embraces legal innovation and had dedicated her career to improving and shaping the future of law. She is convinced that the legal profession will emerge even stronger, more resilient, and more inclusive than before by embracing technology. Olga is also an award-winning general counsel, operations professional, startup advisor, public speaker, adjunct professor, and entrepreneur. She founded the Women Serve on Boards movement that advocates for women to participate on corporate boards of Fortune 500 companies. She authored Get on Board: Earning Your Ticket to a Corporate Board Seat and Fundamentals of Smart Contract Security. You can follow Olga on Twitter @olgavmack.