Category: News Feeds

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

According to data collected by Law.com, which New York Law Journal 100 firm employs the most attorneys in New York?

Hint: The firm has 832 attorneys in New York — Manhattan, to be precise. That’s over a hundred more attorneys than the next largest firm’s NY presence.

See the answer on the next page.

Joe Biden recently unveiled an ambitious proposal to create millions of well-paying U.S. jobs, while also achieving carbon-free power generation in the United States by 2035. His infrastructure plan is not only aimed at clean energy generation, it also seeks to overhaul America’s roads, bridges, auto industry, transit systems, building sector, and broadband networks.

There isn’t much to seriously debate about the need for most aspects of this plan. Unfortunately, major bridges occasionally just collapse around here. If saving people’s lives isn’t enough for you, consider that infrastructure investment gives higher returns on investment than almost any other kind of spending. Then there’s the climate and not wanting to completely destroy it. Again though, if saving the planet alone doesn’t motivate you, remember that continuing to do nothing about climate change is going to cause a decline of as much as three percent in annual GDP by the end of this century.

Investing in America’s infrastructure, creating millions of well-paying American jobs while doing it, and finally taking real steps to combat climate change should not be controversial. But at a time when federal policy in America is dictated by the overarching principle of “own the libs,” it doesn’t matter how much sense a proposal makes if the wrong person makes it. As soon as the Biden campaign announced this proposal, the Donald Trump campaign criticized it by saying “union jobs related to oil, natural gas, fracking, and energy infrastructure will be on the chopping block in Joe Biden’s America.”

I guess whichever pasty Trump campaign staffer came up with that criticism didn’t have time to read the part of Biden’s plan that focuses specifically on providing 250,000 union jobs in rural communities and other hard-hit areas. At any rate, I’ve never really understood this type of argument. We didn’t artificially stall the rollout of the automobile because it was going to cost a lot of farriers their jobs. Times change, technologies progress, and we all have to progress along too if we want to continue to have meaningful work to do.

It’s a bit notable though that the main opposition criticism focused on oil and fracking jobs rather than on the default Republican strawman punching bag, excessive spending. The Biden infrastructure and green energy plan calls for an investment of $2 trillion over four years, which is no small sum, and is quite an increase from the $1.7 trillion over 10 years that the Biden campaign previously proposed to spend in this area.

I’d like to think that decades of research proving that we get far more out of infrastructure investments than we put into them convinced Republicans of the wisdom of putting money into infrastructure. But more realistically, Republicans are probably just finding it harder to sit there with a straight face and criticize spending given the level of rank hypocrisy they have reached on the national budget.

Until the relatively recent past, Republicans did a pretty good job of denying the fact that over the past six presidential administrations, the federal budget deficit has consistently increased under Republican presidents and decreased under Democratic presidents. But under Trump, it’s becoming harder to ignore reality.

For just the first nine months of this fiscal year, through June, the federal budget deficit reached $2.7 trillion — enough to pay for Biden’s entire green infrastructure plan and then some. To be fair, a good chunk of that spending came from April to June in efforts to fight the coronavirus pandemic, hardly a usual expense. But normally, when we spend such massive sums of federal money, we expect to get something out of it: here we are with about 25 percent of the world’s coronavirus deaths, but only about four percent of the global population, and an economy still in tatters. Even before coronavirus took a bite out of the economy, the Trump administration had run up a record-high national debt. The fact that Trump gave away $1.9 trillion to corporations and rich people with his 2017 tax law probably didn’t help.

Under Trump, the federal government has wasted trillions of dollars with almost nothing to show for it. Biden’s proposals, including his green infrastructure plan, will actually give us a return on investment for federal spending. Seems like a better option.

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.

Last Thursday, Rhode Island’s State Legislature passed an updated version of the Uniform Parentage Act advancing the state’s laws on parentage by over four decades! The efforts to update the archaic state laws have been in the works for years. The new law came ever so close to passing last year, but last-minute objections by Family Court Judge Michael Forte derailed the project for another year. Now its time has arrived. And Governor Gina Raimondo, has indicated her support and full intent to sign the bill into law.

The Bizarre 40-Year-Old Legal Process

The problems with the current version of Rhode Island’s parentage laws — passed in the 1970s — were numerous, and especially at issue were the state’s failures to legally recognizing different forms of families. LGBTQ parents, in particular, struggled for legal acknowledgment. Testimony in support of the bill revealed the expensive and uncomfortable legal process that many parents were forced to undertake. The nonbirthing parent of a same-sex couple, for instance, had to go through a full-blown traditional adoption process. And to do that, the couple was often required to go through a home study. Even the state’s child protective services agency testified in favor of the updated parentage laws, expressing frustration that the current requirement of home studies for same-sex couples having to adopt their own children was a waste of the department’s resources.

Even more nonsensically, the outdated law then required the couple to pay for a publication of notification to the anonymous sperm donor about the intended adoption. Seriously. That was a real requirement. And when the parents finally got to a hearing before a judge, testimony revealed that, at least in some cases, an officer of the court would call out in the hall seeking to see if there were any respondents to the publication regarding the anonymous sperm donor. “Hey, is anyone here Donor 7219!? Are you here to object!?”

So the new law removes these outdated features like they were Providence Plantations, and recognizes nongenetically related parents without requiring an adoption process. A huge step forward.

New Surrogacy Law!

Of course, I can’t not talk about my favorite topic — surrogacy. The updated law contains a section on gestational surrogacy, acknowledges the legal relationship of the parties, and codifies important legal protections. Nice! Great work, Rhode Island! Among these protections are requiring both the intended parents and the surrogate to receive a medical evaluation and mental health consultation, as well as requiring independent legal counsel. Good work on that last one especially. It’s nice to feel needed.

In a departure from the 2017 Model Uniform Parentage Act (UPA), the Rhode Island parentage law requires that at least one of the intended parents to a surrogacy agreement be a United States resident for it to be enforceable. By contrast, the current model UPA does not require any party to be a resident of the United States, or even a resident of the state at issue. Instead, having “at least one medical evaluation or procedure or mental health consultation under the agreement” occur in the state is sufficient.

Rhode Island’s change, while somewhat protectionist, is likely meant to address the reality that surrogacy is not permitted in many countries, and hopeful intended parents frequently come to the United States for surrogacy to complete their families. This provision makes it clear that “surrogacy tourism” is not welcome in Rhode Island. While a surrogacy arrangement with two non-United States residents would not be legally prohibited in Rhode Island — no one is going to jail here — however, the new law does make the gestational carrier agreement in such a situation unenforceable.

Baby Steps For Donor-Conceived Persons

The new Rhode Island Uniform Parentage Act also includes language from the model UPA intended to acknowledge the demand by donor-conceived persons to have access to information relating to their genetic history. This language follows that adopted in the states of Washington and California, which provides that a donor-conceived person is entitled to receive the name of their donor upon reaching 18 years of age. That is, unless the donor has opted not to release their identity. That is a big caveat.

Per the new statutory language, all gamete banks or fertility clinics in the state that collect donor gametes are to have the donor sign a declaration either permitting their identity to be disclosed to a resulting child upon turning 18, or not permitting the disclosure. A choice not to disclose identity can be withdraw at any time, while, in contrast, a choice for disclosure cannot be withdrawn. If the donor signed and did not withdraw a declaration for nondisclosure, the gamete bank or fertility clinic is instructed by the law to make a good faith effort to notify the donor of a resulting child who reaches out for the information after turning 18, and the donor may elect to withdraw the donor’s declaration of nondisclosure. Additionally, regardless of the donor’s option, the clinic must make a good faith effort to provide medical information to the donor-conceived person (or their parent, if still under 18) about the donor.

Given no prior legal requirements of disclosure of a donor’s identity or medical information, this is certainly a step forward.

While not everyone will agree on every aspect of Rhode Island’s new law, I think we can agree that it is, overall, a much-needed improvement. Congrats, Rhode Island, for this major victory.

We’re encouraged to use the scientific method in innovating our practices. The only problem is that the method we were taught in school — and the heroic narratives we build around them — isn’t how science works at all. In this episode, learn about the discovery of chemotherapy and two secret missions in World War II.

Make sure you take advantage of the show’s Q&A feature. You can ask Mike questions about the latest episode and he’ll answer at the end of the next episode. Just submit your question in the form below.

Episode Resources:
Lawyer Forward book page
Disaster at Bari
The Scientific Method is Crap

In order to stay competitive in today’s fiercely competitive legal services market, law firms must have their financial houses in order. In today’s digitized world, the best way to do so is by embracing cloud technology to ensure that proper bookkeeping is being done, which is crucial for a successful practice. After all, nowhere are high-tech solutions more needed, or the value of automation more apparent, than in the accounting department.

Innovative legal technologies can automate and streamline your workflow, optimize your revenues, and free up your time. Make your firm more efficient by finding a tool that will eliminate your need for redundant manual data entry, automate your expense recording, track your transactions, connect your bank accounts and credit cards, and integrate with other cloud-based programs so that you can leverage all insights to garner the best results internally.

What best result does every firm want? Increased profitability. Done right, automating your bookkeeping and billing could really help your bottom line.

To find how legal technologies, such as PwC’s InsightsOfficer, can help with your bookkeeping essentials, download our “Getting Your House In Order – Driving Efficiency in Law Firm Accounting” eBook now.

The only thing you can do is cut costs and the number one cost is people. I imagine that some firms are going to find themselves in uncomfortable situations now and I just think that the reality is the longer this goes on the more cuts we’re going to see.

— Bruce MacEwen, owner and principal at law firm consultancy Adam Smith, Esq., commenting on the likelihood that more people, lawyers and staff alike, will lose their jobs at Biglaw firms the longer the coronavirus crisis continues. According to an analysis performed by Bloomberg Law, 48 of the top 100 firms in the country instituted austerity measures due to the pandemic, be they equity partner payment reductions or delays, attorney and staff salary cuts, furloughs, or layoffs.

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.

Oh this is fantastic. It’s really the best kind of benchslap because you don’t need to know any details about the case to understand the devastating slap this federal judge dropped on the Biglaw firm of Gibson Dunn.

The defendant, One Technologies, is represented by Gibson Dunn, led by partner Brian Robison, and co-counsel, Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann. In a brief, a reply in support of a motion for reconsideration, defense counsel referred to district court judge Sam A. Lindsay’s interpretation as “nonsensical,” and well, he does not take kindly to that. He analogizes — with citations — using “nonsensical” to calling him stupid, and that is a pretty glaring no-no in the judge’s book.

Take a look at the full benchslap:

Before the court addresses the parties’ arguments, it addresses the statement of counsel for Defendants that the court’s prior interpretation was “nonsensical,” among other things. Defs.’ Reply 1-2. The court takes no umbrage with an attorney disagreeing with its rulings, as at least one party will usually always be adversely affected by what the court does. Disagreement is not uncommon in a highly competitive legal environment. If an attorney believes that the court has made an incorrect ruling concerning a client, the attorney may take advantage of the appellate process.

Defendants’ attorneys’ tone and use of the word “nonsensical” are “beyond the pale.” The court considers the term “nonsensical” to be synonymous with “stupid” and the functional equivalent of using the term “B.S.” This understanding is supported by Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. That Defendants’ counsel would display such effrontery to the court is astounding. In any event, if similar conduct recurs, the court will address such conduct with appropriate sanctions, as it will not tolerate such impertinent conduct. The court places the fault squarely at the feet of Defendants’ counsel, as they are responsible for filing documents, as well as the content therein, with the court. The court now addresses the substantive arguments made by the parties.

So everyone with cases in the Northern District of Texas, update your practice manuals and don’t ever, ever call Judge Lindsay, or any of his arguments, nonsensical again.

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).

There is no such thing as a “proactive arrest.” There is no such thing as a “noncustodial arrest” where an individual is transported to another location and detained. There is no such thing as probable cause because a person was standing in a group of several hundred people, five or six of whom are suspected of committing a crime.

That is not how any of this works!

And yet here’s Chad Wolf, our acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, explaining to Fox News that his agents simply have to snatch random black-clad kids off the streets of Portland because those mean Democratic mayors won’t welcome his storm troopers into their cities with open arms.

The Department, because we don’t have that local law enforcement support, we are having to go out and proactively arrest individuals. And we need to do that because we need to hold them accountable. This idea that they can attack federal property and law enforcement officers and go to the other side of the street and say, “you can’t touch me,” is ridiculous.

Wolf, who has no law enforcement or legal background and made his name championing DHS’s family separation policy, has consistently described large crowds of overwhelmingly peaceful protestors as “violent anarchists.” Which is handy wordsmithing, since it recasts the demand that police stop killing black people as a call to overthrow the government, while simultaneously imputing criminality to thousands of people at once to justify “proactive arrests.” Whatever those are.

There’s no evidence that these yellow-shirted moms were participating in any illegal activity at all, but that didn’t stop Wolf’s stormtroopers beating and gassing them like everyone else last night.

Wolf continued to misunderstand basic tenets of American criminal law at a DHS press conference yesterday. When asked by a reporter about people getting snatched off the streets and thrown into vans for questioning — “What exactly is the standard of probable cause you are getting, and how is that not a violation of civil liberties?” — Wolf again garbled the legal underpinnings of his argument with vague assertions of group criminality.

This is a very difficult environment to work in. You have 500, 600 violent individuals, violent criminals across the streets that try to inflict harm on your property and law enforcement officers. We do our best to identify who they are using probable cause. What we don’t do is we don’t go into the crowd. We don’t try to go into a violent crowd of 400 people to arrest people.

Probable cause is a means of identification? Umm, okay.

Then Wolf turned the microphone over to his deputy Kris Cline, head of the Federal Protection Service, to take another stab at it. Cline started off strong, noting that agents have the right to investigate crimes on or against federal property. But he ran into some trouble when defending the widely disseminated video of his agents jumping out of a van and grabbing up a black-clad kid off the street.

The individual they were questioning was in a crowd and an area where an individual was aiming a laser at the eyes of officers.

So just on the face of it, that does not sound like “facts and circumstances within the police officer’s knowledge would lead a reasonable person to believe that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.” As Harvard Law professor Andrew Crespo pointed out in an excellent Twitter thread last night, guilt by association is really not a thing in American law.

Cline’s description doesn’t even sound like “reasonable suspicion” that the individual was involved in criminal activity such as would justify a brief, non-consensual detention. In fact, it sounds like just the type of heavy-handed, extra-legal policing that brought thousands of people out onto the streets of Portland for the past 54 nights. But go on, sir!

In this instance, the CPB officers approached him. And you saw the approach, it was peaceful, there is no tackle, no get on the ground, they wanted to talk to him.

In fact, we did see “the approach,” and that is definitely not how we would describe it. We would describe it as unmarked agents who wordlessly grabbed this guy off the street without identifying themselves, much less announcing their intention to question him. As for Cline’s assertion that “they asked the individual to please get in the van,” well, he seems to be, ummm, mistaken about that.

“They did take him to an area that was safe for both the officers and the individual to do the questioning,” Cline continued. “So, it’s not a custodial arrest.”

As we pointed out last week and Professor Crespo noted last night, this is the very definition of a custodial arrest, so cleanly within the margins that it could be lifted from a criminal law exam. He was detained, transported to another location without his consent, he was not free to leave, and he was questioned about criminal activity. And if the guys in charge of those shock troops unleashed on America’s streets don’t understand the basics of WHAT IS “ARREST,” then they’re in no position to guarantee that the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights of US citizens are being protected.

Nonetheless, Wolf bridles at criticism that his troops trample civil liberties and needlessly inflame an already tense situation.

“These police officers are not storm troopers. They are not the Gestapo, as some have described them,” he huffed indignantly. “That script is offensive, hyperbolic, and dishonest.”

You can tell DHS and the FPS aren’t Gestapo stormtroopers by how often they feel the need to deny it.

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