Category: News Feeds

Last week, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel issued a very short opinion in favor of the Dvash-Banks family. That’s great news! For now. The poor family has been put through the ringer by the government after a customs officer informed the new parents that only one of their infant twin boys would be recognized as a United States citizen. Since that time, the parents — along with the nonprofit firm Immigration Equality, and the very profitable firm Sullivan & Cromwell, as pro bono counsel — have been fighting for their other twin son to also be recognized as a U.S. citizen.

You may recall this case and similar ones like it. (Here is a podcast interview with the Mize-Gregg family — a married couple, both U.S. citizens, whose daughter was similarly denied citizenship.) The U.S. government has been insisting that children born of married U.S. citizens must also be biologically related to *both* parents, or else the children fall within the “unwed” parents section of the immigration code. That is, even if the parents are actually, you know, wed. Of course, asking parents who are applying for citizenship for their children whether both parents are genetically related to the child is discretionary, and the question tends to be asked of same-sex couples by default, and much less often or never, of heterosexual couples who may have conceived with the help of egg, sperm, or embryo donation.

The government has argued that inherent in the language “born of … parents” found in the immigration code is an implication that the child is biologically related to both parents. Since the technology is not there (yet!) for two men to both be genetically related to the same child, a married same-sex male couple could never satisfy the government’s overly restrictive interpretation. Luckily for these families, the government has been losing this argument over and over again. And over again. First, in the lower court with Dvash-Banks, then a federal court in Maryland with the Kiviti family, and again less than two months ago in federal court in Georgia in the Mize-Gregg case. While the government has not filed an appeal in the Mize-Gregg case, it is still within the 60-day window where the government may file an appeal, and based on Dvash-Banks and Kiviti, that appeal is coming.

It’s A Win, But It’s Not Over

In the Ninth Circuit decision last week, the court took all of one page — well, technically three pages with the case caption and judges’ signatures — the court noted it had no choice but to follow binding precedent. Two cases — called Scales and Solis-Espinoza — are directly on point and controlling. So the opinion, which included an appointee of President George W. Bush and an appointee of President Donald Trump, noted matter-of-factly that the government “concedes that Scales and Solis-Espinoza control this case and has appealed to preserve the argument that those cases were incorrectly decided. “As a three-judge panel, we are bound by Scales and Solis-Espinoza.”

So what’s next? While most of us would like to think the government would shake hands, say “good game,” admit defeat, and change its constitutionally questionable policy, that is probably not its next move. The government has two choices. First, it can request what’s called an en banc hearing by a larger panel of the Ninth Circuit. Instead of a three-judge panel, the case would be randomly assigned 10 judges from the Ninth Circuit’s roster of appellate judges. An en banc panel, unlike the three-judge panel, would not be required to follow the earlier panel precedents.

The other alternative is to request to go straight to the Supreme Court. The government can also pursue this option and request to be heard by the Supreme Court even if it seeks but loses an en banc appeal, if it went that route first.

While Amy Coney Barrett’s outlook on embryos and IVF may be grim, it is unclear how she — if confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice — would interpret the immigration code. In any event, I wouldn’t get my hopes up that she is a champion of same-sex parents under the Constitution. So while the latest decision should be an opportunity for the Dvash-Banks family to rejoice, they, and all similar situated families, are not out of the woods yet.

---

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.

[S]o far as I know, that question has never been litigated. That question has never arisen. That question may or may not arise, but it’s one that calls for legal analysis of what the scope of the pardon power is, so because it would be opining on an open question when I haven’t gone through the judicial process to decide it, it’s not one on which I can offer a view.”

— Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett, in response to a question posed by Sen. Patrick Leahy (VT-D) during her confirmation hearing, where he referenced President Donald Trump’s claim that he has “the absolute right” to pardon himself.

---

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.

Were you wondering where Bill Barr has been this past week? Presumably hiding his face in shame over the ignominious state of the Justice Department, which just sued Melania Trump’s former buddy Stephanie Winston Wolkoff for writing a book about her, because that is somehow UNLEGAL.

Oh, that’s not a word? Well breach of fiduciary duty by a White House volunteer isn’t a cause of action either, but that didn’t stop the DOJ!

The complaint, filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for D.C., begins by answering the burning question “What is First Lady?”

The spouse of the individual holding the Office of the President of the United States has historically filled the role of First Lady of the United States.

News you can use!

And because the First Lady receives Secret Service protection and helps out her husband, she has an implied right to muzzle everyone around her.

And it is particularly important that she be able to do so without fear that those providing assistance to her and to other members of the First Family—and, indirectly through them, to the President— will divulge information provided in confidence that, if divulged, could undermine those critical presidential functions. The traditional role of the First Lady in connection with the President and the Government would be impaired if a confidential advisor could wholly ignore her nondisclosure obligations, voluntarily undertaken.

Which is an interesting assertion of values, but is not, in fact, the law. Government employees with security clearances can be enjoined from publishing classified information, but regular folks have a First Amendment right to speak about their time in government.

The Trump administration seems to have tried to get around this by forcing White House employees to sign non-disclosure agreements, which are probably not worth the paper they’re written on, as NatSec lawyer Bradley Moss laid out in Lawfare back in 2018 when the White House was rattling its saber at Omarosa Manigault Newman.

But Manigault Newman was an actual government employee, as opposed to Winston Wolkoff, who was an uncompensated “trusted advisor” forced to sign a Gratuitous Services Agreement foregoing any right to speak or write about her time in the White House. It even purported to bar her from acknowledging the existence of said contract with the U.S. government.

As consideration the government offered the priceless privilege of basking in the royal presence. Which makes perfect sense if you’re a corporation licensing your name to a hotel chain, but less if you’re the U.S. government.

The GSA was supported by adequate consideration, including because (but not limited to the fact that) Ms. Wolkoff was “allowed access to The White House complex and equipment in connection with this Agreement.” Id. § X. Few individuals are permitted such access and for someone in Ms. Wolkoff’s position (a former director of special events at Vogue and producer of Met Galas), the ability to see firsthand the protocols and operations of the White House was a tremendous personal and professional opportunity of great value.

Having established that they’re now selling access to the White House, the DOJ turns to enforcing those dubious confidentiality provisions. By its own terms the contract ended on September 30, 2018, and was terminable at will by either party. The non-disclosure clauses contained no specific sunset, from which the White House infers that they bind Winston Wolkoff in perpetuity.

“The confidentiality obligations on Ms. Wolkoff survive the discontinuation or severance of the GSA,” they state as established fact.

But wait, there’s more!

What if the First Lady is actually covered by executive privilege?

Ms. Wolkoff also reveals deliberations about White House hiring decisions and her role in those decisions. See Melania & Me at 177-80. The President needs to be able to trust his advisors and have confidential information about them kept confidential. The President, the First Lady, and other advisors need to be able to freely deliberate about important decisions bearing on how the Executive Branch is constituted and operated.

That’s the DOJ trying to back into a deliberative process privilege claim without having to go through the embarrassment of saying it out loud. Because it would be extremely embarrassing.

But if the court doesn’t bite on that one, perhaps it will buy that Winston Wolkoff has a fiduciary obligation to the United States of America. You know, in her position as secret, unpaid, trusted advisor to the First Lady, who takes her responsibilities very seriously.

TRUMP: They say I’m complicit. I’m the same, like him, I support him, I don’t say enough, I don’t do enough, where I am. I’m working like a — my ass off Christmas stuff, that, you know, who gives a fuck about Christmas stuff and decoration? But I need to do it, right? Correct?

WOLKOFF: One hundred percent. You have no choice.

TRUMP: Okay, and then I do it. And I say that I’m working on Christmas planning for the Christmas. And they said, “Oh, what about the children that were separated?” Give me a fucking break. Where they were saying anything when Obama did that?

AHEM.

So, the government is suing Winston Wolkoff for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. It seeks to impound all her profits from the book in a constructive trust and even force her to pay the government’s legal fees. Because, sure, why not.

Your tax dollars at work! And also, for the lawyers, your profession thrown into further disrepute.

Complaint [United States v. Wolkoff (1:20-cv-02935)]

---

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

State and local governments are facing a fiscal crisis because of the coronavirus. Due to shutdown orders, businesses have stalled or collapsed. As a result, sales tax revenue has decreased and income tax revenue is expected to be lower as well. On top of that, unemployment claims have increased, and some states are resorting to borrowing from the federal government to cover these costs. And states will need money to cover healthcare costs connected with controlling the spread of COVID-19.

In response, some states have called for increasing taxes on the wealthy. In New Jersey, the income tax rate on those earning more than $1 million will increase to 10.75%, from 8.97%. In New York, a “temporary” millionaire’s tax enacted in 2009 was extended last year until 2024. Legislators are now considering another millionaire’s tax to cover budget holes related to COVID-19. California, whose affluent residents already pay the highest marginal income tax rate in the country at 13.3%, is also considering another millionaire’s tax. In addition, there is a proposed tax increase on the November ballot by adjusting property taxes based on market value for properties worth more than $3 million. A total of nine states are considering some form of surtax on high-income residents.

Taxes are indeed the lifeblood of government, particularly during an economic crisis. But is it good policy to tax the rich during a recession? Here are a few reasons why some people think it is a good idea.

First, rich people are not likely to miss the extra money paid to the government. This is what economists call the diminishing marginal utility of money. It basically means the more wealth you have, the less likely you are to appreciate or need additional income. So if a rich person is not going to value additional income, why not give it to the government who will use it to benefit society?

This theory is somewhat flawed. Look at rappers flexing a lot of bling in their videos. Or people who live a supercharged paycheck-to-paycheck lifestyle because they have to use all of their money to maintain their luxury lifestyle. Or some people have so much high-interest debt that they cannot enjoy (or get utility from) their income for a long time. I’m not making a lifestyle judgment call, but for them it will take a lot more income before the usefulness of money starts to diminish.

And for some people who save money like Scrooge McDuck, they have the utility of more options. They can do more things and not have to worry about burning bridges or being cancel cultured. In my opinion, that kind of utility is immeasurable.

Another argument is that the economy does better when rich people paid high tax rates. The people who support that argument commonly cite to the 1950s when the top tax rate was at 91%. Also, the economy boomed when the top tax rates went to 39% during the Clinton and Obama administrations.

The truth is that only a few people paid those extremely high tax rates back in those days. And even those subject to that high tax bracket rarely paid it due to deductions and other loopholes. It has also resulted in many taking advantage of tax avoidance strategies.

Some have argued that rich people should be taxed more because it is very likely that somewhere along the line, they must have done something (or many things) wrong to get to where they are financially. As we live in a competitive society, these people cheated to get an edge. They might have been dishonest. They might have stolen from people. They might have taken advantage of someone or ruined someone’s career. On that assumption, they should pay more in taxes as penance.

I find this argument generally ridiculous. Now I wouldn’t be surprised if every Fortune 500 company has some skeletons in their corporate closet that they are loathe to discuss at their annual shareholders meeting. But people should be punished individually for whatever they did wrong and should compensate the person who was wronged. The government should not benefit from someone’s wrongdoing to another individual.

Finally, taxing the rich is the easiest solution for politicians. It’s easier than cutting social welfare programs or laying people off. Rich people are easy targets politically since they are a small fraction of the voting population and people don’t mind voting for a tax that they don’t have to pay. It’s easier for politicians to placate their constituents by blaming rich people for not paying their “fair share,” whatever that means. They and their media friends say that the money is needed for schools and road maintenance. And as mentioned above, so-called “temporary” taxes end up being extended again and again.

The rich complain and threaten to move to a state with lower taxes. Governments of popular cities and states know that while the wealthy will talk a big game about moving elsewhere, few will do it. They know the rich won’t leave sunny California to a state with a lot of humidity and yearly hurricanes. Sure, New York City or Los Angeles is expensive, but will they really move to some quiet suburb with lower taxes, less traffic, and funded police who will be more than happy to put violent rioters in their place?

These days, the threat of moving is getting serious. With more people working virtually, they do not need to live in an expensive area to be close to work. Others have to move because of unemployment or other misfortune. Rent prices in high cost of living cities like San Francisco have dropped significantly. Some people, like Gov. Cuomo of New York know this which is why he does not support a new millionaire’s tax.

With government funds running low, it is tempting to tax millionaires because supposedly they are not paying their fair share. But once someone gets into these top tax brackets and see close to half their income go toward taxes, they will want to know the value they are getting for their money. If they are not happy with the answer, or are sick of hearing “schools and roads” they will either move to a low-tax jurisdiction or engage in tax avoidance strategies.

Or they might just pass on the tax to the little people.

---

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

The 2020 bar exam may go down in history as the legal profession’s most stressful administration of its annual hazing licensing ritual. For those who risked their own health to take the test in person under potential superspreader conditions, the stress was unimaginable. As if taking the test in person during a pandemic wasn’t nerve-wracking enough, one law school dean just added to the chaos by accidentally sharing everyone’s exam results with the entire school.

This is exactly what happened at the University of South Carolina School of Law, where Dean William Hubbard — who formerly served as president of the American Bar Association and worked as a partner at Nelson Mullins — unwittingly sent an email to all current law students with an attachment that listed recent graduates’ names, test scores, and whether they passed or failed the bar exam. Oooooopsie!

Hubbard had received an email from the South Carolina Office of Bar Admissions with a letter about the school’s most recent bar pass rate of 82 percent, an increase of about 4 percentage points from last summer’s exam. In his excitement about the results, Hubbard, who took over as dean just two months ago, sent the email on to all current students, without noticing that graduates’ individualized results were attached as well.

As soon as Hubbard realized what he’d done, he immediately sent out a follow-up email. “Please delete the message I just sent about bar passage,” he wrote. “It was sent with the wrong attachment for which I am very sorry. Please do not open and, if opened, do not reveal any information in that attachment to anyone.” As one can imagine, law students likely opened that attachment with haste after they received the dean’s second email and perused it with great interest.

When the list of those who passed the South Carolina is published online, the names of those who failed does not appear, only their exam numbers. No one’s grades on the exam are published publicly. In accidentally sending this information to all current students at the school, Hubbard did a major no-no. His fervent apologies appeared earlier this week in the Charlotte Observer:

“It was totally an accident, an accident I deeply regret,” said Hubbard, who became dean Aug. 1.

“I’ve sent a personal email to every one of those students, and I’ve had an email dialogue with some of them and some phone conversations and plan to make myself available to any student who wants to meet.”

In those emails, he apologized, Hubbard said. “The vast majority of the former students have been understanding, forgiving and gracious.”

Hubbard spoke slowly, his shoulders were slumped and at times, he bowed his head. “It’s a mistake I deeply regret. I take full responsibility for the error, and I am profoundly sorry for any harm or distress I may have caused.”

Hubbard repeated, “I take full responsibility. It’s my fault, and mine alone.”

Hubbard is truly sorry about his email error. “The last thing I would ever, ever want to do is hurt any of our students or graduates,” he said. “I am deeply, profoundly sorry for my mistake.” How embarrassing. But not to worry, because we’re sure this incident will quickly be forgotten after the school puts into its marketing materials that its bar exam pass rate went up during the coronavirus crisis.

Email accident: New USC law school dean releases confidential bar exam results [Charlotte Observer]

---

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.

Real estate may not sound like a splashy specialization, but Texas A&M School of Law professor Thomas W. Mitchell will prove it to you. Mitchell has received a prestigious MacArthur Genius Grant — and the $625,000 stipend that comes with it — for his work reforming real property inheritance law.

Mitchell is the primary author of the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act (UPHPA), which addresses the problem of inheriting common real property that is split between multiple owners. Historically, this often leads to a forced sale of the property, resulting in depressed prices for the property, similar to a foreclosure sale. Under the UPHPA, judges consider both economic and non-economic factors, and when one owner wants a sale and others do not, the UPHPA gives them the right to buy the property at market value. So far, 17 states, including Texas, Georgia, and Virginia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have adopted the UPHPA, and when forced sales do occur under the Act, they fetch open market-like prices. The Act was also incorporated into the 2018 Farm Bill, which helps heirs’ property owners maintain ownership and access government assistance.

Mitchell says he sees the award as recognition that you can really make change and stop injustice:

“When I started nearly 25 years ago, my ideas for law reform to help disadvantaged property owners were considered nearly impossible to achieve. I tell my students that they can make a real difference,” Mitchell said. “No matter how inevitable and seemingly permanent any injustice may appear to be, if you use your imagination and think boldly, develop a strategy, cultivate allies, and remain determined, change can come.”

Robert Ahdieh, dean of the School of Law, notes the work Mitchell has done is something most professors can only dream of:

“From the time I first met him as a law student, I have always been struck by Thomas’ commitment to positively impacting law and society,” Ahdieh said. “With his incredible work on reforming the law of partition, he has managed to do so in ways that are fundamental and lasting — and to which most law professors can only aspire.”

And as for the money? He tells Law.com that will be used to expand his work:

I think of the money as a resource, but even bigger than that is the reputational capital of getting this award and the ability to leverage both. For a while I’ve had ideas that if I had more resources, I’d do X. And the X is—up to this point, I got this award for my work over 20 years on law reform and policy. But that’s basically something I’ve done by myself, at whatever home institutions I had. I didn’t work with others. I don’t have a staff. I don’t have students who work for me. It’s something I’ve done after hours. I’d like to leverage both the money and the social capital to build a center. I would have staff. I would have law students who work for me, and graduate students in other disciplines. I’d have the ability to make a bigger impact because I could systematically look at a variety of laws that have undermined property rights for all kinds of disadvantaged individuals and communities.

Mitchell’s goal is to have 25 states enact the UPHPA by 2025, and this recognition as a Genius will definitely help with that goal.

---

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).

Joe and Kathryn have a lot to break down this week. Amy Coney Barrett’s supporters tried to give her a nickname and managed to make an even bigger mess of it. As she begins her hearings, you’ll not be able to get her new nickname out of your head. Meanwhile, Biglaw firms are split on whether or not to give bonuses to associates right now, but Kathryn explains that it looks better to pay now than to wait. And the online bar exams held last week were riddled with glitches, but examiners are committed to pretending it went off without a hitch.

As the second wave of COVID-19 gains steam, this kind of story is only going to become more common.

According to Jamie Hamilton at Roll On Friday, the London office of Jones Day has experienced an outbreak of COVID-19. And while upsetting for those who are impacted, unfortunately, it isn’t all that surprising. People — and law firms — are itching to get back to normal, but the novel coronavirus has different plans.

But what allegedly happened after the outbreak, reportedly in the corporate and restructuring teams, is turning quite a few heads. Unlike Squire Patton Boggs, which shut down their entire Manchester office after positive tests, how Jones Day allegedly handled the outbreak leaves quite a bit to be desired. It seems the firm took a page from Oklahoma Law, and was… selective about who in the London office got a heads up about the outbreak. Roll on Friday reports office wide notifications did not go out, and only certain people with direct contact with confirmed cases got the courtesy of a notification:

The US firm “pressured lawyers to come back to office” and “has now had an outbreak”, a source told RollOnFriday.

The positive cases are understood to have sprung up in the corporate and restructuring teams, which have been sent home. But, in a Trump-like move, Jones Day “didn’t tell anyone in the office” about the outbreak except for those who were in direct contact with the infected individuals, said a source.

It means that staff “are blissfully unaware and still coming in, despite lawyers in corporate and restructuring being tested and/or sent home”, said the source.

We’ve reached out to Jones Day for comment and to find out their procedures for dealing with COVID outbreaks, but have yet to hear back.

With so much uncertainty still surrounding the pandemic, you’d think a major international law firm would err on the side of over communication with their employees, especially with health and safety on the line. However, stories like this show what it’s really like on a law firm’s front lines.

---

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).

In the latest twist in the existential nightmare that is 2020, Axios reported over the weekend that they “were hearing” that Joe Biden is considering elevating New York governor Andrew Cuomo to Attorney General in his now likely administration. The story caused a brief flurry of attention among legal analysts before being swamped by the Amy Covid Barrett hearings.

Thankfully, the story comes from Axios, which is the political equivalent of PR Newswire so there’s every reason to believe that it’s not really happening. Whenever a politico wants to generate buzz they can generally trust that whispering it to Axios will land it in the news unvarnished by critical analysis and flagged by “what we’re hearing,” which should be read in exactly the same voice as the president explaining “a lot of great people are saying.”

In this case, Axios cited “some Democratic donors in Cuomo’s orbit,” which probably means “Cuomo himself” in the parlance of Washington, D.C. For his part, Cuomo is publicly denying interest, which is also standard operating procedure when you’re floating trial balloons to Axios:

“100% he’s made zero outreach, has had zero conversations about this and has made his desire to stay in New York clear as day and be governor as long as people want him,” Cuomo’s senior adviser Richard Azzopardi tells Axios.

Could I propose the alternative of not wanting him and not giving the Department of Justice over to a guy whose administration cronies have already landed in prison?

With Bill Barr eroding the integrity of the nation’s law enforcement apparatus to transform it into a Praetorian goon squad to service the White House — an effort that has already reached the absurdity of claiming that defaming rape victims is an official duty of the office of president — the next Attorney General should be someone who restores the office, as opposed to the guy who used blew up an independent ethics commission when it started figuring out that the corruption was oozing out of his office.

Cuomo’s closing of the Moreland Commission was not a federal crime, but if Cuomo’s effort to cast the lack of charges as an “exoneration” sounds awfully familiar, it’s no accident. One hopes that a Democratic Senate would find it problematic to hand over a wounded Justice Department to a guy who denigrated the work of prosecutors probing corruption at the highest levels of his government.

Despite the urging of these “donors in Cuomo’s orbit,” one has to think the Biden camp sees the AG job as a role that needs to be dramatically depoliticized. Sally Yates, who already served as Acting Attorney General, spoke at the Democratic National Convention and has worked as a career prosecutor under Republican and Democratic administrations. For a Department desperately seeking a return to normalcy, going back to the last person who ran it before it went off the rails would be a good start. There are other options, of course: soon-to-be-out-of-work Senator Doug Jones, former Civil Rights Division chief Vanita Gupta, and the man who investigated Cuomo, Preet Bharara.

Hopefully this trial balloon has gone Hindenburg within Biden’s inner circle. But it’s 2020, so who knows.

Buzz grows around Cuomo as Biden’s attorney general pick [Axios]

---

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.

Another day, another successful Biglaw firm that won’t hand out early bonuses to its associates. We know it’s only been a few days, but at this point, it looks like Willkie is going to be the sole firm to blow off Cravath’s guidance. Which firm is pissing off its associates today?

That would be Ropes & Gray, a firm that landed at No. 13 in the 2020 Am Law 100 rankings, having brought in $1,903,616,000 in gross revenue in 2019. Sources tell us the firm has decided to politely pass on fall bonuses. Chair Julie Jones and managing partner David Djaha sent out a memo (available in full on the next page) just before 5 p.m. yesterday, leaving associates feeling quite discouraged:

Here’s one of the immediate reactions we received from an associate at the firm:

Predictable yet annoying. I’m on track to bill 2300 hours and crickets from the policy committee. It’s especially disheartening given how little support the firm has given its associates this year.

Eek. It sounds like the powers that be at Ropes & Gray should have given some additional thought to handing out these bonuses. At least the firm is committed to matching these bonuses in the future. Hold on, associates, because Ropes “remain[s] committed to being a market leader in compensation.”

(Flip to the next page to see the full memo from Ropes & Gray.)

As always, we depend on 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.

---

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.