Category: News Feeds

These are stressful times. With an unending pandemic, virtual meetings for adults, virtual school for kids, civil unrest, and a deeply divisive presidential election, it is no wonder that divorce rates are up. Also on the rise are questions concerning the ability to continue fertility treatments during the breakdown of a relationship.

Can Fertility Treatment Continue During A Divorce?

This is not a new issue, but an increasingly common one as unprecedented events have made us reconsider what’s important in life. Such as that dream of having a child. Or not staying in an unhealthy marriage. And, sometimes, those two come up at once.

Fertility clinics are having to reassess their policies for when patients disclose that they are going through a divorce. It may seem nosy of a fertility clinic to care, but hey, it isn’t exactly a process that lends itself to a lot of privacy. Not to mention, clinics have very real legal risks when it comes to treating a patient mid-divorce.

I had a chance to chat with Lisa Rinehart, RN, BSN, JD. As a registered nurse who became an attorney, as well as the chief operating officer of a prominent fertility clinic, Rinehart is all too familiar with these issues. She notes that no fertility clinic or doctor should forget a case called Gladu.

The Ghost of Gladu. Richard Gladu and his wife sought treatment from a fertility clinic and successfully conceived a daughter. Later, despite having marital troubles, and without Gladu’s consent, Gladu’s wife returned to the fertility clinic to undergo another embryo transfer procedure with the couple’s remaining embryos. The procedure was a success, and Gladu’s wife became pregnant with another daughter. However, the couple soon divorced.

Gladu sued the fertility clinic, arguing that the clinic should not have been able to rely on a consent from several years earlier (where he agreed to the procedures with his wife for their first daughter), should not have gone forward with helping his wife conceive without his permission, and should now be responsible for child support for the illicitly conceived child. Every fertility clinic’s nightmare came true. Gladu actually prevailed and received a six-figure award of damages against the clinic.

Rinehart explained that although the case is old — from the early 2000s — it has had a lasting effect on clinics, which remain reluctant to proceed with fertility treatments with a married patient without confirming that the spouse is fully on board. That includes confirming that the spouse is still on board, despite whatever forms the spouse may have recently, or not so recently, signed.

So what’s a hopeful-parent-to-be to do when time is of the essence for fertility treatment, and divorce proceedings are painfully slow?

Rinehart advises that step one is to always look to any consent forms signed with a fertility clinic. When going through fertility procedures, a patient will inevitably sign–and maybe even review–lengthy consent forms. In modern times, these forms usually include disposition terms for any cryopreserved eggs, sperm, or embryos, including instructions in the case of death or divorce, or if the cryopreserved material becomes unclaimed.

Rinehart explained that most courts are going to consider (and perhaps follow) what is agreed to between the parties on the consent forms — whether that is one party being able to use the embryos, the embryos being destroyed, or embryos being donated to others. There are exceptions, of course. These include an outlying statute out of Arizona, that requires a judge presiding over a dissolution of marriage to award any cryopreserved embryos to the party “most likely to bring them to birth,” regardless of any documented agreement by the parties to the contrary.

What If there aren’t embryos at issue? Am I in the clear to move forward with fertility treatment?

Marital Presumption. Not so fast. Even if cryopreserved embryos aren’t part of the equation, there may be several other legal obstacles. One is the marital presumption of “paternity” or parentage. State laws generally provide that a child born to a couple during their marriage is the legal child of both spouses. That means even if one or both is not genetically related to the child — and maybe wasn’t even part of the process of fertility treatment or conception (or maybe didn’t even know about it!) — that spouse may still be legally presumed a parent with all the rights and obligations. Including 18 years of child support.

The details of the marital presumption vary from state to state, but, for example, in my home state of Colorado, it applies to any child born within 300 days of the dissolution of marriage. That’s a long time. And it means that even if the pregnancy was conceived after the divorce, the presumption may still apply!

Marital Property. Aside from the presumption of parentage, another issue of concern is what constitutes “marital property.” Like marital presumption, this legal construct varies by state. In a noncommunal property state, marital property often means the assets and debts acquired during marriage. Generally, this property is to be divided equitably between the spouses upon dissolution of marriage. If a woman has gone through cryopreservation of her ova, does that mean splitting her eggs between the parties? Hopefully not. But most state laws were not written with the complexities of cryopreserved reproductive tissue in mind, resulting in many unanswered questions and plenty of room for debate.

There may be shortcuts to moving forward, including a fertility treatment agreement between soon-to-be exes, or a bifurcated order from the divorce court resolving fertility-related issues and leaving the rest of the divorce matters to be resolved in due course.

In summary, whether you are a patient or clinic, consult your friendly, neighborhood assisted reproductive technology attorney for assistance. Before you become another Gladu. You’ll be glad-u did.

---

Ellen Trachman is the Managing Attorney of Trachman Law Center, LLC, a Denver-based law firm specializing in assisted reproductive technology law, and co-host of the podcast I Want To Put A Baby In You. You can reach her at babies@abovethelaw.com.

Last week did not go as Boris Johnson and the Brexiteers might have hoped. The scrappy kid from Scranton’s got no time for the intolerant toffs running Blighty, and his Irish eyes do not look fondly upon any international law-violating plans that could throw his ancestral homeland back into tribal bloodshed, potentially cutting out a potentially key pillar of a post-EU place in the sun for Britain. The perfidious continentals across the Channel are also feeling their oats, as well as not particularly well-disposed to their former partner.

We live in a world of data. In the course of a day, we each interact with and generate data at levels that once likely seemed impossible. Law firms and legal departments are in possession of vast amounts of data just waiting to be collected and analyzed. The potential for data-driven insights and decision-making in the legal industry is huge. Unfortunately, though, much of this potential still remains untapped.

The legal industry today, compared to other professional industries, generally makes less use of their available data to drive decisions. This may be because, historically, lawyers have prided themselves on bespoke work, creating work product that’s highly customized to individual clients and matters. However, as lawyers become more comfortable with data, they’re increasingly seeing its value in crafting and pitching legal strategies to clients.

At its core, that’s what data-driven law is all about: how do lawyers use data to inform their decision-making and provide better client service? Tools like Lexis+, the comprehensive new solution from LexisNexis, are making it possible and opening doors to a new era of data-driven law.

Understanding the Shift to Data-Driven Law

Even just five years ago, lawyers had a limited ability to understand things like the likely outcomes of various motion-filing scenarios or the breadth of contract provisions that are market. Today, with the help of data and advanced tools, those things are increasingly knowable and are crucial in recommending the best possible legal strategies to clients.

The shift to data-driven law is driven partly by pressure from clients. While client demands for anything that increases deficiency and lowers fees are not new, today they’re heightened. Legal departments and in-house counsel themselves have access to this data and understand its value, so there’s an increased pressure on outside counsel to provide data-based recommendations more directly. Additionally, broader technology capabilities like cloud computing and machine learning have made it easier to mine this information and for technology providers like LexisNexis to deploy these capabilities in a cost-effective way.

Now that it’s easier to unlock these data insights, more and more lawyers are embracing the concept of data-driven law. In the near-term, we can expect lawyers to become conversant about data points in a way that helps them drive better legal strategy recommendations for their clients.

How Lexis+ Is Changing the Game

Lexis+ is a comprehensive new solution from LexisNexis that provides a modern user experience and exclusive integrations. It’s also making it easier for lawyers to gain data-driven insights through a host of features that are brand new to the legal market.

Lexis+ is empowering the shift to data-driven law by capitalizing on current trends and taking into consideration how lawyers actually practice. On the trend front, Lexis+ exposes lawyers to insights in ways that were previously not common or possible. With the amount of data most legal organizations have, it’s possible to model likely outcomes, whether for litigation scenarios, the introduction of legislation, or something else. This ability is new, and it’s something that lawyers are becoming and will continue to become more comfortable with as they understand how data can help them make smarter decisions about legal services for their clients. In the near future, we’ll regularly be talking about modeled outcomes, generated by sophisticated tools like Lexis+.

On the practical front, Lexis+ is customizing these new capabilities to specific workflows. How a transactional lawyer, whether they’re an M&A specialist or a tax attorney, interacts with large corporate data sets looks very different than how a litigator interacts with large data sets from the courts. Lexis+ is striving to get each of these individual use cases exactly right, customizing the data that’s presented depending on the type of law practice.

Data-driven law has long been focused on the litigation space. While Lexis+ is continuing those efforts, it also recognizes that, increasingly, there’s exciting work being done in fields like M&A or securities law where there are very big, rich data sets. To handle them, Lexis+ has developed a bespoke set of analytics tools and data review capabilities designed for each type of practice. The legal field has never had such capability before, and this power makes Lexis+ equally applicable to all practitioners and specialties.

Forging Ahead

A big concept like data-driven law can sometimes seem scary or overwhelming for lawyers who just want to focus on serving their clients. Established practices and workflows are comfortable, and there’s an understandable fear about having to adapt to new tools. However, technology experts like LexisNexis that are moving the market in the direction of data-driven law understand lawyers and how they work and make it easier than ever with the right tools. No big change happens overnight, it happens over time. With tools like Lexis+, transitioning to the future of legal practice can be seamless.

Many other professions have excelled after exploring the use of data and technology to drive new insights and confidence. The legal industry’s moment is now. It’s time to embrace data and all the insights it can offer.

Try Lexis+ with a free trial today.

Missouri lawyer Mark “Thor” Hearne is having quite a week. On November 5, Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens refused to grant an injunction ordering Michigan’s Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson to stop counting votes based on hearsay evidence.

His appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals was rejected due to one or two minor filing discrepancies.

Oopsie!

In response to his complaint on behalf of the Trump campaign seeking to enjoin certification of the vote tally, the state just filed a motion that can be summarized as “Your ignorance of Michigan electoral law is evidence of stupidity, not fraud.”

And he’s probably going to get absolutely flayed by @RateMySkypeRoom.

Maybe hiring a principal from True North Law, LLC in Saint Louis to spearhead its attempt to get the election results overturned in Michigan is a sign that the Trump campaign isn’t waging a serious legal effort here?

Last night, Hearne dropped the hammer on Secretary Benson and elections officials in Wayne County, which encompasses Detroit and its environs. The suit relies on affidavits from poll watchers alleging “irregularities” ranging from a truck full of ballots coming in the back door in the middle of the night to county employees “intimidating” observers by wearing Black Lives Matter clothing.

Reuters reporter Brad Heath stayed up all night tweeting the affidavits in this hilarious thread.

Hmmm, let’s check the tape, shall we?

Even if the allegations were true, the affiants are mainly alleging insufficient access for poll observers, rather than actual fraud. Nonetheless, the Trump campaign is asking a federal court to enjoin Michigan from officially certifying the vote tally which would award the state’s 16 electoral college votes to Joe Biden based on his 150,000-vote margin of victory.

In response, the state defendants filed a scathing motion this morning denying most of the specific allegations and pointing out that the conduct complained of is largely in compliance with Michigan law.

To wit: Signature verification of absentee ballots takes place before tabulation at the county office, and poll observers were not entitled to re-verify during the count; The voter’s identifying information was already embedded in the barcode, and inputting a “placeholder” date of January 1, 1900 so the machine will process it is “a perfectly proper (and common) way to enter data in the database used to track voter information;” Duplicating a ballot is the standard procedure when a machine won’t read it due to creases or other defects; Absentee ballots weren’t “backdated,” they were verified based on the time stamps on the ballot envelopes; And the purported delivery of “unlocked” ballots late at night was a shipment of votes “which had been processed at the Department of Elections main office and then delivered to the TCF center.”

Moreover, all of this was explained to the 200-plus Republican observers who were present during the tabulation and could have lodged challenges at the time. Which they did not. Instead they waited until the race had been called and then started screaming  bloody murder about fraud in Detroit.

As the defendant’s response notes, the plaintiffs are both too late and too early — they’ve missed the window to contest the procedures for tabulation or the validity of any particular vote unchallenged during the count, and Michigan law allows a candidate to petition for a recount, but only after the Secretary of State certifies the tally.

Indeed, the defendants call bullshit on the whole endeavor, characterizing it as a blatant attempt to override the expressed will of the voters by delaying the certification and allowing the Michigan legislature to appoint its own slate of electors.

If this lawsuit achieved its stated goal of auditing the entire election process, it is virtually impossible to conceive of an outcome that could affect the result of the statewide election for president. Instead, there are two possible outcomes—(1) a delay so severe that Michigan loses its ability to appoint its electors in time to cast their votes; or (2) a process that gives credence to the conspiracy theories that call into question the integrity of our elections and undermine our democracy.

There’s also the small matter of the Trump campaign’s out-of-state counsel making a bizarre quo warranto claim.

Plaintiffs allege entitlement to the writ of quo warranto, pursuant to MCL § 600.4545. However, they fail to cite the relevant provision of the statute. Quo warranto under the statute is expressly limited to a challenge to claims of fraud or error for an election “at which there has been submitted any constitutional amendment, question, or proposition to the electors of the state or any county, township, or municipality thereof.” Plaintiffs do not, and cannot, raise or even mention a challenge to such a matter on the ballot. Thus, they cannot proceed

But other than that, well-played, Thor.

Quo warranto, laches, pro hac vice — DRINK!

---

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

We congratulate Senator [Kamala] Harris and our partner Doug Emhoff on this historic accomplishment. We look forward to working with Doug to transition his practice within the firm as he prepares to take on his new role, and we wish him all the best.

— a statement from DLA Piper, confirming that partner Doug Emhoff, husband of Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, will be leaving the Biglaw firm by Inauguration Day. Emhoff took a temporary leave of absence from the Biglaw firm in August.

---

Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

One of the perks about having my own practice is that I do not need to complete many of the purely administrative tasks that attorneys at numerous law firms need to perform. For instance, I do not typically need to log my business development or pro bono hours, I just complete the work, and it doesn’t normally matter if those hours are counted. In addition, my two-attorney law firm run by my brother and me does not have an attorney review process (although it would be interesting for the two of us to talk about our performance, maybe like an “airing of the grievances”!). Since it is almost the end of the year, many firms across the country are about to begin or are currently undergoing their annual attorney review process. I have already discussed in a prior article how attorney reviews are often a waste of time, and in this extraordinary year, such reviews may do more damage than good. For a variety of reasons, law firms should skip attorney reviews this year.

As many attorneys know from first-hand experience, attorney reviews can often be time consuming. Attorneys usually need to complete a questionnaire on their performance to kick off the review process, and this is often reviewed by managers, who must also write their own comments. People are extremely busy and distracted this year, for obvious reasons. Attorneys need to be flexible when managing childcare, overseeing schooling, and completing other tasks as many people work from home. Attorneys do not need to have one more, entirely administrative task to complete, and firms can give attorneys a huge morale boost if they are empathetic to their employees during this trying time.

Attorney reviews can also be extremely stressful on many lawyers. Lawyers often feel that they are being scrutinized during reviews, and if they do not justify how they deserve to stay at a firm, they may end up on the chopping block. This can lead them to spend an inordinate amount of time on completing self-evaluations and other steps related to the review process. Normally, attorneys do not need to feel too much stress related to the review process, since their jobs are typically secure unless they truly fall below expectations.

However, the economy is extremely unstable, and the unemployment rate is at its highest in recent memory due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Firms have cut salaries and conducted layoffs throughout the year in order to deal with economic conditions. Even if attorney jobs are secure (and some firms have publicly acknowledged as much), there is still a justifiable fear that the attorney review process may decide a lawyer’s fate at a firm, even if this is not the case. Firms can eliminate this fear altogether if they simply skip the attorney review process.

Moreover, it is unfair in many attorney reviews to hold associates responsible to the same expectations that would be normal for other times. For instance, many law firms have an established billable hour requirement, mandating that attorneys log a set number of hours over the course of a calendar year. However, numerous attorneys had difficulty meeting billable hour requirements this year due to issues caused by the pandemic. As I can somewhat attest to from personal experience, falling ill from COVID-19 can make it difficult to bill hours and fulfill other work responsibilities, especially if you have more serious health impacts from the virus. In addition, many attorneys were impacted by the loss of loved ones, and this could make it difficult to satisfy firm expectations. Moreover, the challenges of working from home, as well as juggling schooling and other responsibilities, can make it difficult to meet billable hours and other expectations. Firms should have compassion for their attorneys in this environment. Sparing them from justifying shortfalls in an attorney review may be the right thing to do.

Of course, firms often make decisions about raises and bonuses through the attorney review process, and firms may have a more difficult time evaluating associates without a review. However, firms can always adopt a lockstep model when determining raises and bonus, so that everyone that has satisfactorily performed during a year can earn a raise or a bonus. Indeed, many firms adopt a lockstep model for determining raises and bonuses under normal circumstances. As discussed in a prior article, paying attorneys uniformly on an objective basis also helps eliminate the possibility that attorneys are paid different salaries based on subjective or even objectionable grounds. Firms can always return to holistic determinations about salaries and bonuses when the pandemic subsides if they so choose.

All told, attorneys (and just about everyone else) have faced unprecedented challenges this year, and many people are feeling stressed as the year comes to a close. As a result, law firms should consider skipping their traditional attorney review process to eliminate a source of stress and be more equitable in this difficult time.

---

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.

“Change will require a wide-eyed and candid assessment of our members’ state of being, accompanied by courageous commitment to reenvisioning what it means to live the life of a lawyer.” – ABA National Task Force on Lawyer Well-Being

Attorney well-being has been in crisis for decades, even before a pandemic forced us to Google “Zoom fatigue” to understand the novel forms of exhaustion we experience daily. Happily, our profession finally is making a broader push to address well-being in a more comprehensive way, starting in law school and continuing through practice. Practising Law Institute (PLI) is proud to be part of that effort with our inaugural Professional Development Appreciation Month and additional new programs focused on attorney well-being.

Until recent years, attorney wellness often meant little more than practicing unimpaired. Informal efforts to address attorney substance use go as far back as the late 1960s, with the ABA beginning to call for what would later become state Lawyer Assistance Programs in the late 1980s. Today, there are bar dues-funded Lawyer Assistance Programs in all 50 states and D.C. It wasn’t until well into the 2000s, however, that bar associations, law firms and law schools also began to address well-being for the broader population of law students and lawyers facing life challenges other than substance use disorders.

This timeline matches my personal experience. In the late ‘90s and early 2000s, associate well-being in Big Law was measured almost exclusively by whether we billed our hours, produced good work, made our bonuses, and didn’t burn out and quit. Substance use and mental health issues were discussed only if they impacted the quality of our work, and those conversations came with a healthy dose of shame.

In other words, the reward system was frequently centered around whether you were meeting external, firm-centered goals rather than your own internal career and life goals. This conflict too often resulted in the worst of both worlds – neither attorney well-being nor long-term retention and development of highly competent practitioners.

Even when some firms formalized associate development, taking steps to track career milestones and create mentorship programs, those metrics and relationships were centered around helping associates get training in the technical aspects of lawyering appropriate to their seniority. It was too often luck of the draw whether you happened to work for a partner who cared about anything beyond whether she could trust you to take a deposition or create a deal checklist. Goals like a sustainable work-life balance and healthy stress management were wholly up to the individual to pursue – or, all too often, to simply ignore.

That approach is changing with more systematic efforts in recent years by law schools, bar associations and the Professional Development community to address well-being for all attorneys and law students. Efforts include “eliminating the stigma associated with help-seeking behaviors [and] emphasizing that well-being is an indispensable part of a lawyer’s duty of competence.” These efforts also recognize the unique challenges faced by lawyers who are members of communities impacted by systemic racism and other forms of discrimination.

The link between well-being and competence is particularly relevant to the transition from law school to practice. As a new attorney, it can be far too easy to get caught up in those firm-centered goals and metrics for success and neglect your own well-being, to the detriment of both your long-term career and personal life. As executive coach to lawyers (and former Big Law partner) Rudhir Krishtel says, “As lawyers, we will drop everything to service our clients. Do we do the same for ourselves? My advice: Put the oxygen mask on yourself before others. It could save your life – and it will definitely make you a happier and more successful lawyer.”

PLI’s mission is to keep attorneys at the forefront of legal knowledge and expertise. That will never change. But what is changing is the legal profession’s broader understanding of a well-trained lawyer: someone who can remain healthy and productive for the long term.

At PLI, we are working to fulfill this goal, as well. Our Bridge-the-Gap programs cover the ethics and skills CLE training that new attorneys need. New and upcoming programs focused on attorney well-being include the upcoming live webcast Taking Control of Your Well-Being: Mental Health and Wellness for Attorneys; the on-demand roundtable programs Mental Health and Wellness for Litigators and Addressing the Perceived Stigma – A Discussion About Attorney Mental Health; and our free webcast Empowering Professional Development Series 2020: Well-Being in the Legal Industry, recently launched for PD Appreciation Month. To learn more and register for these and other programs focused on attorney well-being, visit PLI.edu.

---

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.

There are so many legally dubious concepts floating around social media these days that it’s easy for some to get lost in the shuffle. But while we’re mostly focused on wacky voter fraud theories spewing from landscaping parking lots, we shouldn’t lose sight of the higher-minded bad legal takes.

Like this one that many people are positing, including prominent “anti-anti-Trump” reporter Glenn Greenwald:

No, it’s not. Not even a little bit.

Joe Biden is taking congratulatory calls from world leaders where they make their pitches about what they hope to see when Biden assumes the office in January. In fact, what this is “exactly” like is when Trump took these congratulatory calls in 2016 after Hillary Clinton conceded. Note that no one suggested that Donald Trump did anything criminal in taking these calls. Well, there was the decision to take a congratulatory call from Taiwan jacking up the Sino-U.S. relationship and then spending a day trying to explain that it was a deliberate move instead of the obvious bungling of a foreign policy team convinced that they would make Mexico pay for a wall. And even that breach wasn’t considered criminal, just stupid.

In any event, what it is not “exactly” like — from a legal standpoint — is Michael Flynn, who was not part of the governing administration at the time, urging the Russian government to take specific foreign policy actions for the express purpose of undermining American foreign policy. Specifically, he told Russia not to respond to pending sanctions coming from the Obama administration. There’s an argument, of course, that this doesn’t cross the line and that he wasn’t countermanding current policy but only expressing possible future policy… but that is a very daring take on where the line exists. In any event, what Flynn then did was lie about it. And we know these things happened because Flynn admitted to them under oath… twice.

Greenwald doesn’t like the idea of charging someone with lying to the FBI as a standalone crime, and there are definitely arguments against it. It artificially tilts the balance of power more toward prosecutors who can pile on more charges for defendants refusing to roll over and confess. On the other hand, it IS the current state of the law and, as applied, an agent of the national security apparatus opts into being held to a higher standard than a kid trying to get out of a shoplifting charge. For this category of individual, being anything less than forthcoming to authorities is hard to justify. Flynn wasn’t a whistleblower, like the courageous people Greenwald has made a career of working with over the years. He was a guy lying to investigators for the simple sake of covering up stuff that he knew or should have known was improper.

Personally, I like Greenwald. I’ve always appreciated the work he’s done on the dangerous mainstreaming of the idea that a government spying on its own citizens is not only justified but preferred. Unfortunately, Greenwald is also the sort of idealistic voice that foreign intelligence services “hack” sometimes by pushing their good intentions to the limit. Greenwald’s skepticism of government institutions is so absolute that Biden getting a ring from Justin Trudeau about the election is transformed into “exactly” the same as Flynn to square his fervent belief that the security state has a preference for anti-Russia foreign policy and will pervert the law in pursuit of that goal.

But it’s not the same.

---

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.

Today is a great day in the world of Biglaw. Not only are year-end bonuses out, but other top firms that instituted salary cuts during the height of the coronavirus crisis are now promising to make their employees whole by offering retroactive back pay, just in time for the holiday season.

If you recall, Orrick — a firm that brought in $1,158,537,000 in 2019 gross revenue, placing in at No. 31 in the most recent Am Law 100 rankings — rolled back all of its austerity measures as of October 1, restoring pay and full-time schedules for all of its employees prospectively. Now, the firm will be making everyone whole for the period of April through September 30. (If you recall, these “make whole” rewards were originally hours-based, for top contributors only.) This money will be reflected in everyone’s November 30 paychecks.

On top of these retroactive salary reimbursements, Orrick is offering a special program for lawyers who have also worked as family caretakers (for children, elderly parents, or both) during the pandemic. Through the end of the first quarter of 2021, the firm will allow associates and of counsel to work an 80 percent schedule at full compensation for up to three months. “We understand that this does not solve the problem,” said Mitch Zuklie, Orrick’s chairman and chief executive officer, “but we hope it provides some meaningful help, particularly as the coronavirus battle heads into a new phase across our country.” For working parents who are dealing with hybrid learning schedules at schools that have been opening and closing with the news of COVID positive cases on top of their billable hours, this is an incredibly welcome benefit. 

Last, but certainly not least, Orrick has committed to matching last year’s bonus scale — which is now this year’s bonus scale — and will “take into consideration this year’s circumstances and market developments” (i.e., the appreciation bonuses that were offered by many firms earlier this fall).

We’re sure that everyone at Orrick is thankful that the firm is taking their mental health seriously during these unprecedented times. For many, the stress of a smaller paycheck coupled with unexpected caretaking responsibilities has been quite overwhelming, but at least they’re taking steps to do something positive about it.

(Flip to the next page to see the full memo from Orrick.)

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.

---

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.

Those of us who actually love this country — in a much deeper sense than just wanting to slip on a pair of American flag Crocs and pretend we’re better than people overseas while remaining ignorant of the nation’s rich and complex history — had a hard time watching Donald Trump profane the ideals of the United States by baselessly calling for the imprisonment of his political rivals. He has been goading crowds into “Lock her up” chants aimed at Hillary Clinton for well over four years. Trump has targeted other female Democratic Party leaders with the chant too, including Senator Dianne Feinstein and Speaker Nancy Pelosi. More recently, Trump tried spicing the chant up a bit by changing it to “Lock him up” and aiming it at former President Barack Obama as well as at Joe Biden. What a wordsmith.

There was a little problem though. None of those people committed a crime (if you’re a QAnon hockey mom or whatever and have somehow gotten this far into the column already, don’t write me any emails, I’ll take my cues on who has and hasn’t committed a crime from prosecutors rather than from some random jerk with an internet connection and way too much time on her hands, thank you very much).

A warped Justice Department weaponized by Bill Barr to fight Trump’s political battles wasn’t enough to actually charge any of the targets of Trump’s chants based on completely nonexistent evidence. Even so, Trump said less than a month ago that he still “100 percent” agreed with the idea that Hillary Clinton should be jailed, and he implied that Barr’s legacy depended upon it. Boy, if he’s concerned about Barr’s legacy, I have some really bad news for him.

But that’s the least of Trump’s concerns, because unlike all of the people he made up lies about to further his political ambitions, it seems that Trump has committed multiple crimes, again and again, for decades. Uh, let’s start with sexual assault, which he famously bragged about committing while being recorded on a hot mic. At this point at least 26 women have publicly accused Donald Trump of sexual misconduct.

Sure, a lot of the sexual assault claims are too old to prosecute under the relevant statutes of limitations, and there are evidentiary hurdles in such cases in that no one typically witnesses a sexual assault but the victim and the perpetrator. So let’s just move right along into the state-level frauds.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance has been criminally investigating Trump and the Trump Organization for more than two years. The probe was originally launched to look into the likely illegal hush money payments Trump made to two women before the 2016 election, but recent court filings suggest the investigation has broadened to include possible bank fraud, tax fraud, insurance fraud, and falsification of business records. While the full details of Vance’s investigation are not yet public, Vance does seem poised to obtain Trump’s tax records, which would likely further whatever type of case he is building.

At the federal level, many legal commentators have raised the possibility that Trump could face tax evasion charges in the wake of revelations that he only paid $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and in 2017. Although Biden has been very reticent to say he would support federal criminal charges against his predecessor, he has also indicated that he would not interfere with the independent judgement of his Justice Department. A state level tax fraud investigation against Trump and the Trump Organization is already underway by New York’s Attorney General Letitia James, who deposed Eric Trump in October as part of that probe.

Then there’s sedition. 18 U.S. Code § 2384 is entitled “Seditious conspiracy,” and says:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States…they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

The Biden administration is going to be heading the new government of the United States, and with no evidence whatsoever, Donald Trump, Kayleigh McEnany, Rudy Giuliani, and a host of other D-list goons have been continually crowing that the Biden administration is illegitimate, committed widespread voter fraud, and will be stealing the election. Nobody’s going to charge Trump with sedition. But like with everything, we’re grading him on a big curve. If I barricaded myself in the White House, claimed that I actually won the election even though I have no evidence to call into question the legitimate election result, got all my friends to go out and say that the voters legitimately elected me instead of Biden, and insisted that I wasn’t going anywhere, people would call that a coup. For some reason, Trump always gets a pass.

Maybe, though, this doesn’t need to get a whole lot deeper than the grand legal principle of “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” I don’t think Trump has the self-awareness to regret those “Lock her up” chants, or anything else, really. But if he does wind up behind bars, well, that will be quite a twist for those of us who do have the capacity to grasp irony.

---

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.