Category: News Feeds

Grab some popcorn, pull up a chair, and watch the Georgia Supreme Court hold oral arguments by videoconference! The case? What happens when a sperm bank sells bad sperm? In this case, the sperm bank is alleged to have sold sperm provided by a donor who lied about his IQ, professional background, and criminal history. Even more, a child who was conceived with his donated sperm has genetic conditions allegedly passed down by the sperm donor.

While the justices asked the hard questions of the attorney for the parent plaintiffs, the justices really went for the jugular with the sperm bank’s attorney.

The case is styled Norman v. Xytex, and oral argument took place on May 21, 2020. Readers may recall this case, where hopeful parents chose sperm from Xytex Donor 9623, thanks to Xytex’s profile of a donor with stellar credentials: a clean health record, 160 IQ, PhD student, and proficiency in four languages. Impressive!

Too bad none of those were true. Instead, when 9623’s identity was accidentally revealed by the sperm bank, some quick research found him to actually be a felon and college drop-out suffering from bipolar disorder as well as schizophrenia. In fact, while 9623 checked “no” on Xytex’s questionnaire as to whether he had any history of mental health issues, he had been hospitalized multiple times for mental illness prior to first donating with Xytex. If the donor had been truthful, or if any of this information was known to potential recipients — as the justices point out — donor 9623 would not have been anyone’s choice source for donor sperm.

Not knowing any of this, the plaintiffs chose Donor 9623’s sperm, and conceived a son from his sperm. Their son has suffered severe mental health issues, and the plaintiffs are asking for the sperm bank to pay the costs related to their son’s mental health treatment.

Since bringing suit against Xytex, the plaintiffs have had a rough road. The trial court and the Georgia Court of Appeals both dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims, finding that they amounted to “wrongful birth” claims, which are barred in the state under an old Georgia Supreme Court case called Abelson. In Abelson, a doctor negligently failed to diagnosis the in utero condition of a fetus. When the parents brought suit, the court found it against public policy to award damages based on the missed opportunity to abort a human life. In Abelson, the parents conceded that the doctor’s failure didn’t affect the health of the child; the only difference was that if the doctor had not been negligent, the parents would have had the option to terminate the pregnancy.

Law Professors Weigh In.

An amicus brief was submitted on behalf of 38 law professors in support of the plaintiffs. In the brief, the professors argue that it would be mistake for the Georgia Supreme Court to apply Abelson in a case like this.

First, they point out that in Abelson, unlike here, the conception and the condition of the fetus existed prior to and regardless of the doctor’s negligence.  And in Abelson, the plaintiffs argued they would have terminated the pregnancy if they had been given an accurate diagnosis. Here, if the plaintiffs had full information as to the donor, they would not have terminated an existing pregnancy, but instead would have simply chosen a different donor.

Second, unlike in Abelson, the plaintiffs are not claiming that their injury is predicated on the birth or life of their child. The plaintiffs do not ask for the ordinary costs of raising a child, but for the extraordinary costs (mental health treatment for their son) relating to the defendants’ alleged wrongdoings. The law professors point out that Georgia courts routinely award compensation to parents for costs related to a child harmed by a defendant.

Plaintiffs Can At Least Recover The Cost Of The Sperm, Right?

The plaintiffs paid approximately $1,600 to Xytex for Donor 9623’s sperm. Forget the extraordinary costs issue for a second; at oral argument, the Georgia Supreme Court justices really wanted to understand why, if the plaintiffs indeed could prove wrongdoing by the defendants, Xytex wouldn’t at least be responsible for paying the $1,600 in fees back.

The sperm bank’s attorney, to the justices’ frustration, was not about to concede that a sperm bank would ever owe fees back — regardless of the various proposed alternative fact scenarios proposed by the justices. And while never wanting to concede, even on a minimal amount, is perhaps instinctual for an attorney; here, the failure to adequately respond to this point might have undermined the credibility of the defendant’s counsel.

As argued on the amicus brief, pure civil immunity in this context would be a strange result. It might also entail negative consequences for both public health and child welfare, if sperm banks could make knowingly false representations about the sperm they sell. One Supreme Court justice went so far as to tip his hand, by saying “that can’t be right” during the oral argument.

Professor Jody Madeira, one of the amici, was optimistic that we’ll see the Georgia Supreme Court reverse the lower courts’ opinions here. “Watching these oral arguments made me hopeful that, at last, it might be possible to hold gamete banks liable for the type of negligent behavior that in any other context would be slam-dunks for the plaintiffs.” After all, sperm banks are in a unique position in this context. Their negligence can have long-lasting consequences for both the children conceived with the sperm and their families. And sperm banks hold the power in any transaction. That’s partly because sperm is still frequently sold as anonymous, and clients are completely reliant on the sperm bank’s vetting of the donor. That’s why, like most other people or businesses, sperm banks, too, should be subject to appropriate liability when negligence — or worse — can be established.

---

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.

In addition to zooming more than I ever wanted to zoom, I am reading about pandemics. I know I am not the only one. The topic fascinates me, and the books try to help me understand what is going on and why. My list includes two novels: Station Eleven by Emily St John Mandel and The End of October by Lawrence Wright, and two works of nonfiction, The Great Influenza by John Barry and Pale Death by Laura Spinney. Suggestions for others gratefully accepted.

Part of my fascination is imagining what our world will look like once the lockdown is behind us and we get on with whatever the “new normal” may be. We dinosaurs remember the years before 9/11 when we could accompany family and friends to the airline gate to see them off and be at the gate to welcome them home. Does anyone else of similar vintage remember those days? Yes, kids, there was such a time. Gone forever.

My ADR provider has had weekly zoom meetings to update its panel on the state of the courts, when they might reopen and what they will look like when they do. The provider also talks about when their offices might reopen, still to be determined, and what steps will be taken to ensure everyone’s safety and well-being, from the parties and their counsel, to the neutrals, to the staff. Given that we are in Los Angeles County, face masks and social distancing will be the way of the world for some time to come.

So, the question then becomes how to conduct mediations? Option A: Go into the office and know that I can’t shake hands, have to sit at least six feet away from however many counsel and parties there are (that can be a logistical nightmare depending on how many) and be unable to get “up close and personal” when it’s needed. Several times when a case has settled at mediation either the plaintiff or defendant or both wanted to hug me in relief because the case is finally over. (At least I think that was the reason.) Obviously, personal contact is verboten.

How much facial expression can I see if there are masks covering everything but the eyes? Yes, I know the saying that the eyes are the window to the soul, but are the eyes sufficient, do they tell me enough?

Option B: use Zoom or whatever other method to conduct mediations. What do you think about that? Would you use that method or prefer to mediate face to face, to the extent possible these days? A recent unscientific poll showed that judicial officers favored Zoom over any other remote online platform.

Right now, I think that mediating via Zoom or whatever other platform is safer from a health perspective. Upsides? No need to commute to an office, no need to worry about face masks, and no need for social distancing from your client and the mediator. Downsides? You and your client are not in the same location, so you can’t deliver that gentle (or not so gentle) kick under the mediation table when your client says more than he should. Security issues that have arisen with Zoom bombing seem to have receded.

From this mediator’s perspective, depending upon how the video is positioned, Option B doesn’t necessarily see body language. Fidgeting, leg jiggling, and other physical tics below the neck may offer clues that aren’t picked up otherwise.

And then there’s the age-old issue — older than mediation — getting the parties and counsel to agree to use this technology to try to get the case settled. Just as expected, some counsel are comfortable using it, while others are fearful. Is the case at the point where it is ready to settle and are parties and counsel ready? What’s the cost/benefit analysis of waiting some lengthy period of time for a trial date? From a plaintiff’s perspective, the answer is usually “there is none,” while a defendant’s perspective is often “we have the money, let’s keep it until we absolutely have to let it go.” Other defendants may roll their eyes as the legal fees continue to mount and would rather pay the plaintiff something than continue to pay their attorneys.

Even when the state courts do finally get back in business, Zooming will be the way of the legal world for many things. Case management conferences and motions are already being heard remotely and have been prepandemic. Jury trials? A Texas court has conducted a nonbinding summary trial on Zoom, with the hope that the case will settle at mediation. Even if nonbinding the jurors’ decision may make settlement easier as it indicates how a full-blown trial might play out.

There’s been so much talk about legal innovation and how to apply it to the practice. Here is a perfect opportunity to see if legal innovation works in the context of a jury trial. California has had a summary jury trial procedure, but it’s been barely used. Given our herd mentality, I am not surprised. Thoughts of a lesser verdict, if one at all, and potential malpractice liability clutter the mind.

Will many people physically show up for jury duty in these pandemic times? It’s not just going through security, but what about temperature checks, people who are asymptomatic? Who will want to sit in a jury assembly room with hundreds of others, when you are clueless as to whether they are taking (have taken) similar precautions to stay safe? Just the thought of using a restroom in a courthouse may well be taking your life in your hands. The less said, the better.

So someone must lead the innovation, to take the risk, to try something new. I think Zoom jury trials may be the coming wave. How else are we going to get going again?

---

Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has impacted every part of daily life, and most of us have socially distanced and worked from home to reduce the spread of the virus. As detailed on this website in numerous prior articles, many legal issues have also cropped up because of COVID-19, and lawsuits have been filed due to closures related to the pandemic and executive orders designed to slow its spread. Some employers and government agencies have also taken action against individuals based on their COVID-19 status, and additional measures will likely affect people depending on whether they have recovered from COVID-19. The situation has made me wonder whether COVID-19 status should be a protected classification so that government agencies, employers, and others cannot arbitrarily take action against someone because of their experience with the virus.

I recently became more aware of the misunderstandings and stigmas individuals may face because they have recovered from COVID-19. Indeed, I discovered a few weeks ago that I have COVID-19 antibodies, which were presumably the result of an illness I experienced in March. I do not want to spend too much time discussing my own experience with COVID-19, since my symptoms were relatively mild, and David Lat (who is a much better writer than I am) has already written compellingly about his experience with COVID-19 on these pages. However, I have been frustrated with some misconceptions about individuals who have recovered from COVID-19. People seem to hold erroneous beliefs about how long individuals may be contagious after they recover, whether there is always permanent harm from COVID-19, and other issues. I confess that before I knew I had COVID-19 antibodies, I was much less informed about the virus.

In any case, people who have recovered from COVID-19 already face significant disadvantages, even if they have fully recuperated from the virus. For instance, the military announced several weeks ago that recovering from COVID-19 would be a permanently disqualifying condition for entrance into the armed services. Although the military later clarified that such a disqualification would only apply to individuals hospitalized because of COVID-19, many people who have recovered from the virus will face obstacles to joining the military due to these restrictions.

Presumably, recruits could apply for a medical waiver, but as someone who has gone through the military medical waiver process twice (once successfully and once unsuccessfully), I can say firsthand how frustrating, arbitrary, and time-consuming this process can be. Furthermore, and I am not a physician (though if I can kvell, my triplet brother is a pulmonologist and critical care physician who has given me useful info about the virus), but many people who recover from COVID-19, even if they are hospitalized, will have no permanent health issues. Of course, some people with permanent issues because of COVID-19 may not be healthy enough for military service, but this example shows how just the status of having COVID-19 can impact your opportunities. In addition, if the military is restricting employment because of an applicant’s COVID-19 status, it is possible that law enforcement agencies and other government entities may make it difficult for applicants to secure jobs if they ever had COVID-19.

In addition, people who never had COVID-19 can also face disadvantages. The jury is still out about whether recovering from COVID-19 confers immunity, and how long-term and durable this immunity may be. However, many are operating under the assumption that recovering from COVID-19 confers some kind of immunity, and that individuals with antibodies should be allowed to leave quarantine first. In fact, there are some talks of governments issuing immunity certificates or immunity passports to people with COVID-19 antibodies so that they can more easily return to work, travel internationally, and perform other activities that are currently restricted. Indeed, some commentators have suggested that people with COVID-19 antibodies should be given preference for certain frontline jobs because they may have some level of immunity to the virus.

However, it is unfair to disadvantage people because they have never had COVID-19. Such individuals are likely following social distancing guidelines and are making sacrifices in order to flatten the curve. Furthermore, in a worst-case scenario, conferring benefits to people who have COVID-19 antibodies may incentivize individuals to be exposed to COVID-19! Although this might sound unrealistic, it is definitely a possibility that should be considered.

I am not an expert on discrimination laws, but it seems possible that existing laws relating to disabilities may apply to COVID-19 status, depending on the situation and how severe a person experiences symptoms and disabilities relating to COVID-19. In addition, as more people experience COVID-19, and as additional information about the virus becomes available, there may be fewer restrictions based on someone’s COVID-19 status.

All told, it is clear that businesses and governments are considering limitations and benefits depending on a person’s COVID-19 status. Such measures may be reasonable in some situations and unfair or capricious in others. In any case, it is important to contemplate how such measures may run afoul of existing protections, and new safeguards may be considered so people are not treated arbitrarily based on whether they have recovered from COVID-19.

---

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.

The saga of Superior Court of New Jersey Judge John F. Russo Jr. is, at long last, over. Back in 2018, we first told you about Russo, who was in hot water for some wildly inappropriate questioning of an alleged sexual assault survivor. And, the questioning was downright shocking.

As a refresher, at a hearing the defense asked the woman about the alleged assault, when Russo took over questioning and things took a turn:

RUSSO: Do you know how to stop somebody from having intercourse with you?

WOMAN: Yes.

RUSSO: How would you do that?

WOMAN: I’d probably physically harm them somehow.

RUSSO: Short of physically harming them?

WOMAN: Tell them no.

RUSSO: Tell them no. What else?

WOMAN: To stop.

RUSSO: To stop. What else?

WOMAN: And to run away or try to get away.

RUSSO: Run away, get away. Anything else?

WOMAN: I — that’s all I know.

RUSSO: Block your body parts?

WOMAN: Yeah.

RUSSO: Close your legs? Call the police? Did you do any of those things?

It was recommended by a three-judge panel that Russo be removed from office for “severe misconduct” following multiple incidents, including the “close your legs” comment. This was after the state supreme court’s Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct also found inappropriate behavior but was split on the proper punishment.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of New Jersey ordered Russo’s removal from the bench, and they didn’t mince words in condemning Russo’s actions:

Viewed together, Respondent’s multiple acts of misconduct have lasting consequences. His pattern of misconduct and unethical behavior not only undermined the integrity of different court proceedings but also impaired his integrity and the Judiciary’s. His overall behavior reflects a lack of probity and fitness to serve as a judge. And his conduct breached the public’s trust.

It is inconceivable that Respondent could sit in judgment in domestic violence or sexual assault matters in the future. No reasonable victim could have confidence in a court system were he to preside over those kinds of cases again. Nor could any objective, informed member of the public. For the same reasons, public confidence in the integrity and independence of the Judiciary would be undermined if Respondent were to preside over other types of cases. Legitimate concerns about integrity, ethics, and public confidence extend to all areas of the Judiciary.

Good to see the Supreme Court of New Jersey got it right.

Read the full order below.

---

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 speaks with David Ackert, host of The Market Leaders Podcast, about the role of business development in the legal profession. Lawyers may not love the hustle, but it’s the basis of a service industry and lawyers at every level have a role to play in building their future opportunities. And it’s not just a challenge for attorneys — firms need to build a culture that maximizes respect for attorney business development too.

Like most stories about embarking on a legal career, this one begins with a broken ankle and a string bikini.

Halsey, the 25-year-old chanteuse from New Jersey, took to Instagram yesterday to show off her latest injury and to regale us with a stream of consciousness caption worthy of James Joyce.

I took my brace off my ankle cause it was itchy and now I need to put it back. I made a quiche and fresh spinach butternut squash ravioli. Law is fun but hard. Beautiful sky. Can’t stop watching avatar. and judging from the baby pic I’ve been a disassociating little freak who romanticizes the 70s for my whole life. That’s all, thank you.

As it turns out, Halsey managed to break this ankle tripping over a dishwasher door, which is awful and awfully relatable at the same time. But most observers are zeroing in on the most disturbing element of this caption. Yes, someone is willingly rewatching Avatar.

But also, she informed her fans that “law is fun but hard” without any context, sending everyone into a tailspin to figure out what she meant since there is nothing about the law that is remotely fun. One follower decided to get to the bottom of it and the answer was horrifying:

When Instagram user @@nathaniel_carney asked the performer why she is studying constitutional law, Halsey explained, “I’m studying for the bar exam!”

Generally one would need a law school degree or, you know, a college degree, to take the bar exam. But with Kim Kardashian lighting the way for fellow celebrities to parachute into a legal career without taking on any of the debt, it seems Halsey may be looking into an alternative path to the ESQ.

And there’s no reason to close off these paths to people who genuinely want to help people. Kim’s pursuit of law has turned her into a successful advocate for the incarcerated so even if she never gets a license, the work she’s put in on the mere possibility of getting there has proven a tangible benefit to the public. But that’s why we have bar exams. They’re tests developed to weed out people who lack formal doctrinal learning — a holdover from an era when most lawyers didn’t go to law school. The lunacy is that we’ve allowed the bar for professional schools to get lowered far enough that we need J.D.s to take yet another test to prove they’ve achieved mastery of the material that celebrities can aspire to in their spare time.

Who knows where this will go. The lockdown is taking its toll on celebrities too and perhaps studying law is just Halsey’s version of getting way too into baking sourdough and she’ll lose interest in the subject before she reaches the Kardashian stage.

Keep watching the Instagram… if her swimsuit pics start revealing Memento tattoos spelling out the Rule Against Perpetuities, we’ll know she’s taken it up a notch.

Halsey Is Studying Law So She Can Take the Bar Exam [PopCrush]

---

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.

In a world where we can accept that no one has perfect information, the best we can hope for is a little transparency. Keeping everything locked up behind closed doors offers that warm cocoon of perceived infallibility. No matter how bad, any decision can be sloughed off as a product of a process the critics “just don’t understand.” It’s a cheap copout but it’s a popular one.

So, as annoying as the message may be, New Hampshire deserves a lot of credit for laying it all out there when it comes to its Fall bar exam efforts.

New Hampshire is a relatively small jurisdiction and received 121 applications to take the upcoming September administration of the bar exam. At the moment, the powers-that-be feel as though they can safely squeeze 121 applicants into the space they’ve secured at the UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law. That’s the good news. The bad news is that given the constantly changing safety protocols out there, the general counsel of the New Hampshire Supreme Court Office of Bar Admissions is informing applicants that it’s unclear where the state will be in September and has advised everyone that seating is not guaranteed. Seats will be assigned based on the date the application was received — candidates will be informed of their number in the order, which is why it’s important to register now — and if folks miss out based on more stringent safety measures, they will be given priority seating for February.

And, worst of all, the state can’t be sure if an applicant’s seat is guaranteed until right up against exam time because the Supreme Court Office of Bar Admissions controls neither the coronavirus nor the public health reaction to it. Of course, this is no solace to applicants who are asked to pay for prep courses and cram for the bar exam in September and then asked to just hold that all in their heads until February. The state is at least allowing students, upon seeing where they stand in the “applications received” list to voluntarily opt out and get priority seating in February. If a law school graduate finds themselves at number 121, this is probably the safest bet.

It’s unpleasant, but what else are they supposed to do? Book more room? Bar examination officials aren’t sitting on the F-35 budget. Booking room outside of the state-supported law school is an expense and one that they recognize they may have to cancel at cost. They would also presumably need more proctors for such a plan. According to the email, the office in charge of all of this consists of two people trying their best under unpredictable conditions. Unfortunately, this outbreak is going to cause hardships.

It’s what’s so galling about the response from some law school deans at the prospect that their graduates might be automatically slated for the February exam in New York. The examiners in every state face unprecedented logistical challenges and, whether they’re willing to be open about it or not, recognize that there are no ideal solutions. But as people living outside of the ivory tower, bar examiners have to do what they can to get everyone through the process in an orderly manner. What no one needs are law school deans clutching their Gadsden flags and railing against the grave injustice of their graduates waiting a few months until there’s enough room to safely administer the exam. If anything, the New York plan has the advantage of letting everyone know as of May when they’ll be expected to take the test so they can book their prep courses accordingly. When the deans tried to posit a better solution than New York laid out, the fallback (in the rare instance that “pretend there’s no virus” wasn’t the proffered solution) was “do a random drawing” leaving everyone up in the air for a few more weeks while prep enrollment deadlines loom.

The correct solution in the face of all of these challenges is an online administration of the exam at minimum, guaranteeing that all applicants can take the test at the first opportunity. And if the NCBE refuses to bless these exams with its portability stamp, then states should draft limited reciprocity agreements. It seems as though Massachusetts, which is already considering an online exam that they write themselves, would be an ideal partner for New Hampshire in putting together a portable online exam for New England. Just a thought!

At maximum, states should explore a radical overhaul of licensing along the lines of a diploma privilege plus system that shifts the post-graduate requirements from a rehash of doctrinal knowledge toward practical skills and experience, but that would require more will than most states seem willing to muster. And in all events, these solutions would be above the pay grade of the officials struggling to figure out how to go forward with the traditional, in-person bar exam that they’ve been tasked with pulling off.

So until there’s some action up the chain, we’re left with imperfect solutions based on imperfect information being put together by admittedly fallible people just doing their best.

(Full email reproduced on the next page.)

---

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.

We all know that a legal education can land the average law school graduate in up to six figures of debt (to be specific, on average, 2018 graduates racked up $110,137 in student debt), and we all know that egregiously high tuition costs are to blame. According to the latest data from U.S. News, the average cost of tuition and fees at private schools for the 2019-2020 academic year was about $50,000, while the average in-state and out-of-state cost of tuition and fees at public schools was $28,046 and $41,549, respectively.

But which law schools had the most costly tuition for the 2019-2020 academic year?

The Short List blog of U.S. News has compiled a ranking for that, and it’s not at all shocking that almost all 10 schools that made the list are private. At these law schools, the median tuition and fees for the 2019-2020 academic year was at least $$67,275. Only one public school made the list. Pop your collar if you can guess which one it is.

SCHOOL		TUITION AND FEES (2019-2020)		U.S. NEWS RANK
Columbia University		$72,465		4 (tie)
New York University		$68,934		6
University of Pennsylvania (Carey)		$67,998		7
Cornell University		$67,833		13
Duke University		$67,358		12
University of Southern California (Gould)		$67,191		18   (tie)
Harvard University		$67,081		3
Northwestern University (Pritzker)		$66,806		9 (tie)
University of Chicago		$66,651		4 (tie)
University of Virginia		$66,200		8

It’s certainly worth noting that the law schools that made this list are among the best in the country. At highly ranked schools like these, you get what you pay for, and in the law school world, that usually means a high-paying paid job as an attorney that will allow you to service your enormous debt obligations in a timely fashion — and to be quite frank, with up to six figures of debt to pay off, that’s priceless.

No matter where you decide to go to law school, make sure that you evaluate what your payoff will be when graduation time rolls around. Given the information that’s readily available online, will you be able to find a job? Will you be able to make ends meet while making payments on your law school loans? If you don’t think the answer to these questions are “yes,” then you may want to consider another school.

10 Most Expensive Law Schools [Short List / U.S. News]

---

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.