Policy makers should ‘set their sights higher’ on U.S. drug pricing regulations, researchers say – MedCity News

Despite massive resistance to pricing controls in the U.S. from drugmakers, bills introduced into the House and Senate are nowhere near as comprehensive in what they propose compared with existing policies among several peer nations of the U.S., according to a new paper.

For starters, the bills mainly cover only Medicare patients, not patients as a whole, and they don’t incorporate key lessons learned by other countries.

The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association by University of Pennsylvania researcher Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and colleagues there and at the medical universities of Harvard and Yale universities, compared the bills – two introduced in the House and one introduced in the Senate – with existing regulations in Australia, France, Germany, Norway, Switzerland and the U.K. In particular, it focused on what the researchers called eight key lessons from those countries’ regulations.

Citing data from analytics firm IQVIA, the researchers noted that retail and non-retail drug spending in the U.S. is twice as high as Switzerland, the country with the next highest per capita spending, while prices in the U.S. are nearly twice those of Australia, Canada and the U.K. Overall, the U.S. accounts for more than 40% of drug spending despite having only 4.25% of the world’s population.

“This review suggests that US policy makers should set their sights higher,” the researchers wrote. “Proposals should focus on prices for the entire US population, not only Medicare patients.”

The eight lessons gleaned from the experiences of the other countries included that drug regulations are national and apply to all patients, without separate payment schemes for different patient groups; reimbursement is linked to comparative therapeutic value; reimbursement is informed by objective standards like cost-effectiveness analyses; prices are established through negotiation with manufacturers or direct determination of maximum reimbursement rates; mechanisms are used to lower prices from time to time; annual spending growth is sometimes capped; price limits can be implemented by non-government bodies like insurer trade groups; and some countries require political decisions to cover drugs that exceed affordability thresholds.

With some surveys showing 70% of Americans want to see drug prices controlled, it’s likely that the issue will grow in prominence regardless of who wins the election. However, the researchers noted that the three proposals in Congress incorporate few of the lessons from other countries. For example, they apply mainly to Medicare beneficiaries rather than all patients, though one of the House bills allows commercial insurance plans to adopt Medicare’s negotiated prices. Meanwhile, they wrote, the House bills include therapeutic value and objective standards, but the Senate bill does not. And none of them limit national drug spending growth.

The researchers further noted the aversion in the U.S. to using cost per quality-adjusted life year – or cost per QALY – due in part to pressure from drugmakers as well as certain patient advocacy groups, as as to health technology assessments. Moreover, the U.S. is “unique” among high-income countries in granting market exclusivity and then accepting monopolistic manufacturer pricing. All of these features of U.S. policy, they wrote, must be confronted.

Photo: gerenme, Getty Images

Texas Law Hawk Defeats COVID In Anime-Inspired Throwdown

Every day, Texas reports more new COVID infections than any other state — almost double the number of number two Florida yesterday. How can this happen? Is it just the state’s feckless leadership and self-destructive commitment to a concept of “freedom” that cherishes going to Wal-Mart without a mask over comprehensive criminal justice reform? Yes, actually, that’s exactly what it is.

So where the governor has failed, the state’s true beacon of moral leadership has to step up. Of course we’re talking about Bryan Wilson: The Texas Law Hawk.

In a spot that might feature the first anthropomorphic portrayal of the novel coronavirus ever, Wilson engages in an anime battle of maximum camp before being saved by the power of his mask. You had me at “punching COVID in the groin.”

“Mask Up and Move On” deserves to be the slogan for America’s public health moment. It’s almost as if instead of spending $300 million for Dennis Quaid to tell us that we should be happier about COVID, we could’ve given that to the Texas Law Hawk and had a much better return on the investment.


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.

More Biglaw Layoffs As Firm Moves To Outsource Admin Work

Things are changing in Biglaw. The latest revamp from an Am Law 200 firm is from Thompson & Knight. The firm announced a partnership with Williams Lea to handle business services. And the list of tasks the TK Administrative Resource Center is taking over is large: finance services, marketing and business development, including graphic design and digital marketing, document processing, and other administrative resources.

Managing partner Mark Sloan tells Law.com that the outsourcing discussions pre-date the COVID-19 outbreak, but that expedited the need for change:

Sloan said remote work stemming from the pandemic “brought it into sharp focus,” but the firm has been looking since last year at making some changes in support services such as document processing. He said it is efficient to do that work on a 24/7 basis, instead of just during the 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. workday.

“For us, it’s really about flexibility,” he said.

But that “flexibility” comes at a price, specifically 18 positions the firm said it “unfortunately” had to eliminate as the pandemic rages on. Best of luck to those who find themselves out of work during this difficult time.

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).

Beach Balls, Confidentiality, And Privilege: What Lawyers Need To Know To Build Trust With Clients

On October 5, Practising Law Institute will host Building Trust: Client Confidentiality and Attorney Privilege, a live, interactive webcast featuring a new interface with advanced learning and engagement tools. Program Speaker Alicia Aiken, Director of the Danu Center’s Confidentiality Institute and a Principal at the Danu Center for Strategic Advocacy, explains why attorneys will benefit from this one-of-a-kind program.

What is the program about and who is it for?

Building Trust is about getting back to the fundamentals — in a way that we didn’t all get in law school. We haven’t always done a great job in training lawyers on these basics: How do we think about information when we work with clients? How do we think about who owns it, who controls it, and who decides when we use it or when we don’t? The idea is to go back to the fundamentals of privacy, confidentiality, and privilege, to pull those three strands apart, and understand how we use them to improve the client relationship and get a better outcome.

This program is focused on the individual client-lawyer relationship, not on the issues that arise when representing a corporation. That said, there is nothing different about representing an individual on an eviction or on buying a $4 million home. Either way, you’re working with a person, making them promises and building a relationship.

What are some misconceptions attorneys have about these issues?

One of the pitfalls is confusing confidentiality and privilege. Confidentiality is a pretty broad requirement that prevents a lawyer from voluntarily sharing most of what an attorney and a client talk about when they work together. Privilege says neither the attorney nor the client can be forced to share something in court — a narrower rule. Many lawyers tend to conflate the two. This affects how we work with our clients in a really practical way.

Can you tell us about your beach ball analogy?

Think about an empty beach ball — as a lawyer, you’re handing it to your client and saying, “Tell me things that would help me to represent you.” In sharing with you, they’re choosing how much to blow up, when to put a cap on it and hand it to you; your duty is to protect it. Think about how easy it is to lose track of a beach ball; if you’re careless, it’s out in the ocean in no time. That’s the client’s privacy.

With confidentiality, you’re going to protect the beach ball, and you’ll talk with the client before you decide to let any air out. Once you let the air out, it’s gone — you can’t get that control back.

Privilege is if somebody official like a police officer or a judge comes along and tries to take the ball away. You and the client get to say no; you can’t be punished. But if the client says, “actually, give them the ball,” you would hand it over, because the privilege doesn’t belong to the lawyer — even if the lawyer thinks handing it over is a terrible idea. These are important elements of your relationship with the client from the beginning.

What are the consequences of not knowing how to handle client information?

If your clients don’t trust you, they’re not going to tell you things. In the most extreme example, from my experience of working with domestic violence survivors, I know this can have tragic consequences. These are clients who have experienced the most extraordinary breach of trust in their most intimate relationships. They are endangered often because somebody who knows them incredibly well is trying to hurt them, and now they just don’t trust – and they may have good reason not to. As a lawyer, if I don’t communicate the principles of privacy and confidentiality correctly, a client can end up feeling betrayed by the way in which I manage their information, even when I’m technically following the ethical rules.

When clients feel they’ve been treated like people with value, they’re more likely to be satisfied with the outcome of their work with you, whether they win or lose their issue.

Are there other reasons attorneys should take this program?

We all know that Ethics credits can be a challenge. This is the least boring Ethics credit you can get during the pandemic – or any time, really! PLI has done a great job, even before we all went remote, of adapting its content online, with interactive features like quizzes and real-time Q&As. Plus there are cartoons! I think this program effectively mixes the law and the theory of privacy with practical, actionable things you can do in your practice – the afternoon after you take the course.

Learn more and register for PLI’s program: Building Trust: Client Confidentiality and Attorney Privilege


About PLI

Practising Law Institute is a nonprofit learning organization dedicated to keeping attorneys and other professionals at the forefront of knowledge and expertise. PLI is chartered by the Regents of the University of the State of New York and was founded in 1933 by Harold P. Seligson. The organization provides the highest quality, accredited, continuing legal and professional education programs in a variety of formats which are delivered by more than 4,000 volunteer faculty including prominent lawyers, judges, investment bankers, accountants, corporate counsel, and U.S. and international government regulators. PLI publishes a comprehensive library of Treatises, Course Handbooks, Answer Books and Journals also available through the PLI PLUS online platform. The essence of PLI’s mission is its commitment to the pro bono community. View PLI’s upcoming live webcasts here

Weak Loser Donald Trump Paid Less In Taxes Than You Because You Are Better At Making Money

I’ve been working since I was a preteen with a paper route. For most of those early years of low-wage work, throughout high school, college, and eventually law school, like most taxpayers, I had a tax refund to look forward to at the end of the year. When I became a lawyer, I started earning a much higher income, and I also stopped withholding too much from my paychecks. That means that most years now, I have to stroke a check to Uncle Sam at the end of the year.

And, you know, I don’t really mind doing it. Yeah, I have to get over the initial pangs of tightwaddedness that anyone who remembers earning $5.15 an hour feels whenever they have to pay for anything. But once that feeling passes, I like to think about all the roads, schools, and parks my tax dollars are helping fund. I like to wave to the mailman who never fails to bring the crap I ordered from Amazon, and I like to see veterans getting the free healthcare they’ve earned every time I go to the VA for a pro bono legal-advice clinic. I’m less thrilled about the police tank that is often parked a couple blocks from my house and about the many government purchases of God knows what from Raytheon. Still, all things considered, we get quite a bit out of our tax dollars, and we all get the chance to give quite a bit back too. With only a small minority of young people even eligible for military service and with veterans representing less than seven percent of the U.S. population, simply paying your fair share in taxes every year to keep your country running is arguably the most patriotic thing most Americans will do over the course of their lives.

So, it didn’t really come as much of a surprise to learn that noted nonpatriot Donald Trump didn’t just dodge the draft with fake bone spurs, he also paid no income tax at all in 10 of the previous 15 years and had an annual income tax bill of just $750 for 2016 and 2017. The reason Trump paid nothing (or next to nothing) is that he reported that he lost much more money than he made.

Finally acquired by the New York Times, Trump’s tax returns contain the information that he disclosed to the IRS. Under 26 U.S.C. § 7206 of the Internal Revenue Code, any person who:

Willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter … shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

That means Trump is either a liar and a felon who has grossly underreported his income, or he is lying about how rich and successful he’s constantly claiming to be. Rich, successful people don’t almost always lose huge amounts of money on an annual basis.

Journalist and author Timothy O’Brien, who published TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald in 2005 (toward the early end of Trump’s staggering run of annual losses reported on his tax returns), estimated Trump’s real wealth at the time at $150 million to $250 million. Trump, who claimed to have at least $5 billion at the time, sued O’Brien for defamation, and lost. If O’Brien was even close, that spells big financial trouble for Trump. After years of annual losses, Trump now has $421 million in personally guaranteed debts coming due within the next four years, according to his taxes.

If there is one thing Trump has in common with the American public, it’s being swamped in debt. It’s certainly not his annual obligation to pay taxes — as of 2016, the Congressional Budget Office calculated that the middle 20 percent of U.S. income earners (those households making about $60,000 annually) paid an average of $2,200 in federal income taxes, which is, of course, more than $750 or zero.

But if you’re paying more taxes than Trump (and you almost certainly are), you don’t have to be upset about it. The president of the United States pays the tax rate of a preteen paperboy because he is worse at making money than a preteen paperboy. He’s a loser who can’t keep himself afloat without resorting to fraud. Your skills, on the other hand, allow you to earn an honest income, to pay your bills, and to help out your country by patriotically contributing a reasonable amount in taxes. Take pride in that.


Jonathan Wolf is a litigation associate at a midsize, full-service Minnesota firm. He also teaches as an adjunct writing professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, has written for a wide variety of publications, and makes it both his business and his pleasure to be financially and scientifically literate. Any views he expresses are probably pure gold, but are nonetheless solely his own and should not be attributed to any organization with which he is affiliated. He wouldn’t want to share the credit anyway. He can be reached at jon_wolf@hotmail.com.

Biglaw Firm Lays Off 50 Lawyers And Staff Due To COVID-19

For many Biglaw firms, the worst of the economic upheaval caused by the coronavirus crisis seems to be over. Some firms that conducted austerity measures like salary reductions are now reassessing their finances and either partially or completely removing those compensation cuts. Other firms are rolling out COVID-related bonuses that range up to $40,000 (or in some cases, $50,000). Things seem to be coming along quite nicely — but unfortunately, it looks like there are some firms that are still struggling.

Across the pond in the United Kingdom, Ince Gordon Dadds, an international Biglaw firm that’s listed on the London Stock Exchange, revealed in its most recent financial disclosure that layoffs had occurred due to the pandemic. It’s been reported that approximately 50 lawyers and support staff were let go across all of the firm’s offices.

The Global Legal Post has additional information on what’s happening at Ince:

The measures are revealed in an AGM statement and trading update published today that also confirmed that dividend payments remain suspended in the light of the pandemic’s impact on business.

The statement said a “limited global programme” of redundancies had taken place affecting lawyers and support staff “in areas where it is not expected that business will recover sufficiently in the medium term” from the Covid-19 pandemic.

And, in recognition of the fact “that working practices are likely to change over coming years” and that its current office space “may be too large or may no longer be suitable” it noted that it had the opportunity to make “significant further operational cost savings” in the medium term.

Yikes, it certainly sounds like more cuts could be coming for this firm. Best of luck to all those who are affected by the layoffs at Ince.

If your firm or organization is slashing salaries or restoring previous cuts, 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.

Ince reports 50 Covid-19 staff layoffs and signals ‘significant’ post pandemic office space savings [Global Legal Post]


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.

Yesterday’s Flynn Hearing Was A Clusterf*ck Wrapped In A Sh*tshow Clad In A National Humiliation

(Photo by Alex Wroblewski/Getty Images)

Screaming about a Deep State conspiracy? Accusing the judge of bias? Throwing colleagues under the bus while pretending that the unprecedented actions at Bill Barr’s DOJ are normal and pro-forma? Nefariously altered exhibits? Technical snafus and unmuted mikes that force multiple adjournments for the court clerks to scramble to reconnect all parties?

Check, check, check, check, and CHECK. Yesterday’s hearing the Michael Flynn case had it all.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan assembled the parties digitally to determine what should be done with the former National Security Advisor now that an en banc appellate panel ruled that the court is not obligated to dismiss the case just because the Justice Department decided after three years that it no longer feels like prosecuting it.

Hashim Mooppan, the Deputy AG in the Civil Division, appeared for the DOJ to argue that there was no legal basis for the case to continue, since the government has “absolute” prosecutorial authority. He also vouched for the independence of the DOJ, saying that he’d personally discussed the case with Attorney General Bill Barr and been assured that his decision to drop the charges five minutes before sentencing had nothing to do with pressure from the White House, where the president fired off dozens of tweets demanding exactly that.

Ken Kohl, the Deputy Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for D.C., was on hand to argue (the DOJ’s latest version of) the facts. Perhaps Michael Flynn simply forgot about his conversation with the Russian ambassador on December 29, despite it having dominated every news cycle since the Washington Post reported on January 12 that the two had discussed sanctions relief and an upcoming UN vote. In Kohl’s telling, Flynn was just so darn forgetful that he misspoke on January 24 when FBI agents came to ask him about it, since they’d picked up the call on wiretaps and knew that the NSA’s public denials made him a blackmail risk.

And despite Trump saying that he fired Flynn for lying, and Flynn admitting this lie under oath and in open court multiple times, the DOJ couldn’t possibly prove to a jury (which did not exist, because he’d already pled!) that Flynn lied because, ummm, all the FBI agents lacked credibility. And thus the government was forced to drop the case, which is just how it always goes at DOJ.

Kohl was also shocked and appalled, that anyone would suggest that the holy Department of Justice would bend to political pressure. How very dare you, sir!

Debevoise partner John Gleeson, a former Eastern District of New York judge appointed by Judge Sullivan as amicus to assess the propriety of the DOJ’s abrupt about face, appeared to shout “I FEEL LIKE I’M TAKING CRAZY PILLS!” Except slowly, and in a soporific monotone, for seemingly hours on end.

And bringing up the rear on the crazy train was Flynn’s nutbag counsel Sidney Powell, who spent months tweeting that Judge Sullivan was going to come down on the government like a ton of bricks the way he did in the case of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, and has never gotten over the shock of being wrong.

Powell’s opening gambit was to deny the legitimacy of the proceedings and accuse Judge Sullivan of bias. When he patiently asked her if she’d filed a motion for recusal, she admitted she had not. But she still might!

She went on to insist that her client’s first allocution and guilty plea was a legal nullity because it was given under oath to U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, who later recused himself, perhaps due to his acquaintance with FBI Agent Peter Strzok.

The second allocution in Judge Sullivan’s courtroom is also a nullity, in her telling, due to ineffective assistance of counsel. See, Flynn’s former lawyers at Covington & Burling, who represented him in the instant criminal matter before she took over the case, also prepared his defective Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) filing claiming that he wasn’t being paid to advocate for the Turkish government. (He was.) Flynn waived this conflict, but actually it was unwaivable — at least according to Sidney Powell — and thus his repeated admissions under oath that he knowingly lied to the FBI disappear like magic. Poof!

Powell defended her own ex parte communications in a letter demanding that Bill Barr drop the case — a letter sent before she even entered an appearance, and which she was treating with the “utmost confidentiality.” Very cool and very legal, she insisted, while simultaneously calling a letter from Peter Strzok’s attorney Aitan Goelman, pointing out that someone had doctored his client’s handwritten notes which appear as exhibits, as “extra-judicial.”

When asked if she’d spoken to the president himself about the case, she admitted she had, but attempted to assert a claim of executive privilege for the substance of their conversation. Civilians claiming privilege for presidential communications is… a new one.

Powell went on to admit that she’d urged the president not to pardon Flynn and that Jenna Ellis, the president’s campaign counsel, was present for the discussion. Which is also… a new one.

In an extended, Infowars-style rant, she shouted about James Comey, Peter Strzok, Andy McCabe, insurance policy, coup, crooked FBI, and referred to Judge Gleeson as a “special prosecutor” picking up the “mantle” of the “corrupt prosecution” launched by Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Sullivan said he would take the matter under advisement and issue a ruling expeditiously, only to be interrupted by an agitated Powell demanding a rush transcript of the hearing.

“You’d have to talk to the clerk about that,” Judge Sullivan replied. And then the sad spectacle was mercifully over.


Elizabeth Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

Bar Examiners Offer Insults Rather Than Answers To Security Risks

This will quiet the rabble.

Remember when the Illinois Board of Admissions to the Bar decided to respond to a rumor they started by bad mouthing the former dean of Northwestern Law School? It turns out that this is more of a feature than a bug when it comes to bar examiners trying desperately to cling to the fiefdom as unnecessary gatekeepers that they’ve carved out for themselves.

After applicants pointed out that hacking into bar exam materials was not only easy, but already happening, we learned that applicants in multiple jurisdictions specifically flagged that for their local bar examiners. In response to these serious concerns, they got back more petty insults.

Sean Silverman posted one response that an applicant received on Twitter and it’s a doozy. Off the top, they claim that everything’s fine because there’s an 18-character password, which would be useful, though it would be a new one for ExamSoft. For the Michigan bar exam, they were using passwords like “brown89,” which might explain a bit of the concern here. Nevertheless, despite a major cybersecurity event with their vendor TWO MONTHS AGO, the examiners just get salty:

It is frustrating to me that Reddit cretins making fantastical claims qualifies as news, but with respect to this year’s bar exam, “news” means clicks, so here we are.

Far from the “fantastical” rantings of “cretins,” I actually took the time to speak with someone who is not only a computer expert, but a former ExamSoft employee who confirmed to me that this hack was absolutely possible. In fact, the source referred to it as a “stupendous risk” to have “files out in the wild for days and days before the exam.” It’s not clear if the bar examiners know how Reddit works, but the author of that post wasn’t making any money off of “clicks.” For that matter, neither is Above the Law. I generated more clicks in one hour of the debate drinking game than I did for a whole week of bar exam stories. We’re covering this topic because, while not a popular story, we feel it’s critically important to advancing the profession. Perhaps bar examiners might want to consider a similar worldview.

This theoretical “way to cheat” also assumes that examinees who have worked so hard to get through law school and have had a longer period to study than any other group to prepare for an exam containing half the usual content would nonetheless risk their careers by enlisting unknown Redditors to help them gain supposed access to exam files.

Agreed! But then… why have bathroom break rules or ban snacks… or f**king insulin. If all threats to the integrity of the exam can be brushed away by placing faith in the fact that applicants are overwhelmingly if not entirely hard-working, upstanding people, then why have any of these rules at all?

This offer would afford this same unscrupulous person on Reddit the ability to blackmail the bar applicant with this information forever, whether or not the Redditor was able to accomplish the goal of accessing the actual exam questions. The Redditor could supply exam questions from prior bar exams and pass them off as the real thing. The flimsiness of this claim is just amazing.

These are reasons why people shouldn’t try to hack the test, not reasons why the test is secure. It’s like that kind of bar exam question where someone fails to answer the actual prompt. And then throws on an empty conclusory sentence for effect.

Then the bar examiner goes after me specifically. Oh nos!

Using critical thinking skills, one can see that this article is not an unbiased piece of reporting.

What is it with the “critical thinking skills” thing? This is the same trope they lobbed at Dean Rodriguez. These people fancy themselves the sole arbiters of critical thinking — as opposed to the accredited law schools who just spent three years performing iterative testing — and therefore anyone who questions their effort must not be doing critical thinking hard enough.

For the record, my article does have a bias, but one born of months of actually taking the time to talk to experts and research while these folks push ahead with a slapdash exam to justify their own existence.

The snarky tone of this piece and the author’s expressed views regarding the bar exam let us know that he is gleefully picking up any piece of news on Twitter.

I do try to make the news as entertaining as it is informative, so thank you. In this instance, Twitter was clearly the starting point for the article because it’s a forum rich with leads. But “using reading comprehension skills,” one could see that wasn’t the end of the inquiry. Instead, the post cited a Reddit post that made a number of detailed claims, which I verified with former ExamSoft personnel, cited independently advertised hacks, and framed based on the empirical example of the Michigan exam’s password breakdown. Tone does not trump warrants.

This article doesn’t “explain” anything; it just repeats past criticism after “reporting” unfounded Reddit claims of unconfirmed hacking skills being offered for a relatively cheap price.

Is the argument that secondary sources are bad? Yes, I’m not the computer expert. But I talk to them and then pass the information along to the audience. That’s how this all works, actually. Not for nothing, the Reddit post doesn’t make claims of cheap hacks — it explains how this hacking could be done and a separate inquiry revealed that this hacking has apparently been done. I guess it’s a distinction you only see if you’re using your critical thinking skills.

But let’s assume my article actually did fail to “explain” anything. That’s an opening for the examiners to explain what’s really going on rather than shrug and say, “I’m sure that’s not true.” Claiming that the passwords are now 18-characters long is an excellent start. Even better would be admitting that this was done in response to the Michigan attack and therefore the exploits described in the post and seemingly hacked in the past will no longer work. Engaging honestly with the detailed criticism and saying that it’s been addressed generates trust in the process. Dismissing the criticism and hoping it disappears does not.

Because if this person actually read my article — or any of the articles I’ve written on this — they’d recognize that “building trust” is a recurring theme. Every one of these posts about the tech problems with the online exam boils down to pleading with examiners to focus on regaining the trust of the applicants and not going forward if they can’t do so.

Responding to “hey look, people claim to have hacked this platform that’s already proven hackable this year” with “that’s flimsy” and comically misplaced slights about “critical thinking skills” ain’t doing it.

Earlier: Illinois Bar Examiners Use Website To Show Their Utter Contempt For Applicants, Former Law School Dean
Software That Could Allow Applicants To Cheat On Bar Exam Available For About $100


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.

O’Melveny Says No To Fall Bonuses. Are COVID Appreciation Bonuses Over?

Rut-roh. What do they say about three being a trend? Now we have three prestigious Biglaw firms declining to pony up fall bonuses, creating a clear haves/have-nots line — at least until end-of-the-year bonuses come in.

So, let’s walk through a little bonus history, shall we? It was only two weeks ago (but in 2020 time, that’s practically a lifetime) that Cooley started the COVID appreciation bonus game. And remember how exciting it was when Davis Polk came over the top of the Cooley scale? And firms quickly started piling on this new bonus scale. Weil did their own, seemingly unpopular, hours-based bonus, but, still, it was better than no bonuses at all.

But, sigh, Kirkland — the world’s richest law firm — begged off fall special bonuses, and seemed to be asking the market not to follow the trend. And Cravath seconded that.

And now O’Melveny & Myers — ranked the best firm to work for in the country — has taken a pass on fall bonuses too. As a tipster at the firm notes:

Firm management at O’Melveny announced at a firmwide Zoom townhall that there will be no fall bonuses. Instead, there will be “enhanced” bonuses for select associates and counsel in February 2021, which is when the firm normally pays out bonuses.

I mean, maybe those “enhanced” bonuses will make up the difference to the market standard? Well, insiders aren’t super hopeful:

It’s unclear what “enhanced” bonuses means and no further details were provided. The firm’s bonuses are always slightly individualized, so it’s unclear how these bonuses will be different from any other year.

Of course, we do have to wait until the year-end bonuses to pass judgment, but it sure seems like a knock on that best firm. And… it doesn’t bode well for the industry as a whole (or at least for associates hoping for a COVD appreciation bonus). It’s now a lot easier for other Biglaw firms to pass on fall bonuses now that Kirkland, Cravath, and O’Melveny have paved the way.

We reached out to the firm about their bonus decision, but have yet to hear back.

Please help us help you when it comes to bonus news at other firms. As soon as your firm’s bonus memo comes out, please email it to us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Bonus”) or text us (646-820-8477). Please include the memo if available. You can take a photo of the memo and send it via text or email if you don’t want to forward the original PDF or Word file.

And if you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Bonus Alerts, please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the bonus alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each bonus 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).

CFTC Nominee Brings Enormous Amount Of Recent Practical Experience To The Job