Category: News Feeds

Back in April, megafirm Norton Rose Fulbright announced a bunch of austerity measures thanks to the economic upheaval cause by COVID-19. And it wasn’t just the salary cuts that lots of other firms also instituted — associates were also laid off as part of the measures.

Those who were left at the firm in the U.S. saw a 15 percent salary cut for all those making over $50,000. Now the firm has announced the end of those compensation hits, and their salaries will be returned to full, pre-pandemic levels.

Jeff Cody, Norton Rose Fulbright’s US Managing Partner, had this statement on the firm’s reinstatement of salary cuts:

“Based upon the firm’s performance through August, Norton Rose Fulbright US will end pay reductions for lawyers and staff and return them to full compensation on September 30. The partners are grateful for the commitment and loyalty demonstrated by all of our lawyers and staff during these difficult and uncertain times. These reductions were made in response to the pandemic, as our goal has always been to take care of our people while maintaining the firm’s health. We appreciate the ongoing commitment and loyalty of our people during these unprecedented times.”

When the firm announced its salary cuts in April, they indicated they’d only last through the end of September. Insert Wake Me Up When September Ends joke here. Now that you’ve got that song stuck in your head, it’s good to see the firm’s financial performance is progressing as expected.

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.

---

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).

Elizabeth Holmes, the founder and former CEO of defunct blood-testing company Theranos who will be tried in March on fraud charges, appears to be attempting to claim a mental health defect as part of her defense.

A partially redacted, 11-page document filed in a San Jose, California, federal court Tuesday granted federal prosecutors’ motion to have Holmes undergo evaluation by a psychologist and a psychiatrist they had hired, in response to Holmes’ own request to undergo an evaluation by a psychologist she had chosen, and to have the two sessions recorded on video, despite her objection.

The Theranos founder had sought in December of last year “to introduce expert evidence relating to a mental disease or defect or any other mental condition of the defendant bearing on … the issue of guilt,” naming California State University Fullerton professor of psychology Mindy Mechanic as the expert witness in question. The top-level summary of Mechanic’s testimony was redacted, but it would be based on psychological testing and “structured and semi-structured” interviews that would cover “the period of the alleged conspiracy,” according to the filing.

An attorney for Holmes did not respond to a request for comment.

Holmes, together with former boyfriend and Theranos COO Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani, were indicted in 2018 on federal wire fraud charges in connection with Theranos. Once a media and venture capital darling that achieved a $9 billion valuation for supposedly inventing a way to conduct blood testing using only a few drops of blood, Theranos was exposed as a fraud in a series of articles in 2015 by Wall Street Journal investigative reporter John Carreyrou.

The trial, taking place in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and presided over by federal Judge Edward Davila, was originally set to begin this summer, but was delayed until March due to Covid-19. Holmes and Balwani will be tried separately.

Federal prosecutors had requested that in addition to Mechanic’s examination of Holmes, she be examined over two days by two of its own experts, Daniel Martell – a psychologist for the forensic litigation consulting firm Park Dietz & Associates – and University of California San Francisco psychiatrist Dr. Renee Binder. Holmes objected to having to undergo examination by two experts with apparently similar qualifications, but Davila overruled the objection, stating that Martell and Binder would work as a team, “Much as a physician might order bloodwork as part of a medical work-up.”

Photo: Justin Sullivan, Getty Images

The trend of Biglaw firms ending their COVID-19 austerity measures continues. The latest firm to end their salary cuts is none other than Mayer Brown — a firm that came in 17th place in the latest Am Law 100 rankings, with $1,484,000 in gross revenue in 2019.

Back in May, the firm announced a series of graduated salary cuts. Effective May 18, salaries for all non-equity lawyers and staff (who make more than $200,000) were cut by 15 percent, and all other staff had salaries reduced on a graduated scale, with no reduction for those making less than $30,000. Even though at the time it was anticipated the cuts would last through the end of the year, last week they changed course. Starting September 21, salaries at Mayer Brown will be reverted to their pre-pandemic levels.

Moreover, the firm announced that in addition to their usual bonus structure (which remains unchanged by COVID), there will be discretionary bonuses for high-performing associates. Check out the firm’s full announcement at the end of the story.

However, not everyone was happy with the announcement. Several Above the Law tipsters (which admittedly only represent a small segment of Mayer Brown attorneys) expressed disappointment that there were not retroactive salary payments and that the reversal of the cuts were not immediate.

The reactions from sources at the firm:

Associates I’ve talked to (and myself) are pretty pissed. One of the first to cut pay, one of the steepest cuts (15%), and one of the last to reverse it. And it doesn’t even take effect until Sept 21.

Firm is perpetually nickel and diming associates. Even in announcing this policy they’ve botched it by not making it effective immediately. Not to mention peers like Hogan are promptly paying up the difference retroactively.

So, Mayer Brown attorneys, how do you feel about how the firm handled the salary reversal? Feel free to sound off by email, by text message (646-820-8477), or by tweet (@ATLblog). A fun or insightful response — we’ll keep you anonymous — could find its way into an update to this story.

The firm’s announcement:

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.

---

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).

When Eileen Murray left Bridgewater Associates last year, two things happened. For one, the former co-CEO of the world’s largest hedge fund learned (or relearned) that Ray Dalio & co. have an allegedly annoying tendency to pay women less than men. The second is that the mantle of “highest-ranking woman at Bridgewater” fell to Karen Karniol-Tambour, the firm’s head of investment research. And wouldn’t you know that she’s come to the same conclusion as her predecessor?

She made a formal complaint to top Bridgewater brass, including founder Ray Dalio and Chief Executive David McCormick, one of those people said. She asserted that men with similar or lesser responsibilities have been paid more…. What was particularly alarming to Ms. Karniol-Tambour, said people briefed on her situation, is that she made less than several men in largely operational roles at Bridgewater. At most hedge funds, investment professionals can earn considerably more than those who perform back-office tasks or liaise with clients.

* A PA lawyer has been sentenced to prison for allegedly stealing client funds to purchase (among other things) tickets to Superbowl LII in which the Eagles beat the Patriots. Maybe it was worth it to see Tom Brady lose… [Lehigh Valley Live]

* A lawyer at the Department of Labor has been reassigned after accusing the Secretary of Labor of retaliation. [Bloomberg Law]

* New details have surfaced about the Chicago attorney couple who were found stabbed to death in their home earlier this year. [Chicago Tribune]

* Senator Ted Cruz is another potential Supreme Court pick on President Trump’s most-recent list to indicate he has no desire to serve on the high court. [CNN]

* An employee at the Washington State Attorney General’s Office has been put on administrative leave after leaving a note on a restaurant check that read: “BLM pin = no tip.” [Spokesman-Review]

* A contractor is in legal hot water for allegedly fleecing a congregation of $454,000 to build a church and then performing little work. The contractor should be most afraid of getting struck by lighting or something like that… [Stamford Advocate]

---

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.

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

According to American Lawyer’s Midlevel Associate Survey, which breaks the rankings out by specific offices, the Denver office of which Biglaw firm is ranked best in midlevel associate satisfaction for that city?

Hint: The firm got a 4.583 out of 5 in overall satisfaction for their Denver outpost, which is one of 20 offices the firm has worldwide.

See the answer on the next page.

The amicus brief in the Michael Flynn case is in, and it is scathing.

After the Justice Department moved to dismiss false statement charges against the president’s former National Security Advisor on the eve of sentencing, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan appointed retired Judge John Gleeson, currently of Debevoise & Plimpton, to brief the court on the (im)propriety of the government’s actions, much to the chagrin of Attorney General Bill Barr, who had hoped to put an end to this unpleasantness and spare his boss the indignity of having to expend further political capital to bail out his pals from 2016.

There’s also the matter of whatever October surprise jowly Roy Cohn is cooking up with the Durham Report on the origins of the Russia investigation. Wouldn’t want to step on those headlines about a Russia hoax witchhunt with a reminder of the Trump campaign’s extensive contacts with the Kremlin and screamingly obvious attempts to cover them up!

The case has been on extended junket to the D.C. Circuit, where Judges Rao and Henderson agreed with the government assertion that the court lacks discretion regarding a motion for dismissal — it’s really a demand for dismissal, right Neomi? — only to be disdainfully overruled by their colleagues sitting en banc. 

Which brings us to today, where Gleeson delivered his assessment of the government’s eleventh-hour reversal after three years, during which the defendant pled guilty and admitted to the charges under oath at least three times.

To describe the Government’s Motion to Dismiss as irregular would be a study in understatement. In the United States, Presidents do not orchestrate pressure campaigns to get the Justice Department to drop charges against defendants who have pleaded guilty—twice, before two different judges—and whose guilt is obvious. And the Justice Department does not seek to dismiss criminal charges on grounds riddled with legal and factual error, then argue that the validity of those grounds cannot even be briefed to the Court that accepted the defendant’s guilty plea. Nor does the Justice Department make a practice of attacking its own prior filings in a case, as well as judicial opinions ruling in its favor, all while asserting that the normal rules should be set aside for a defendant who is openly favored by the President.

OUCH.

The president has publicly pressured the Justice Department to drop charges against his former NSA for years. As Gleeson notes, the Special Counsel investigation was arguably triggered by Donald Trump’s request that then-FBI Director James Comey “go easy” on Flynn back in February of 2017. Moreover, the government’s assertion that it is just treating Flynn like any other defendant is belied by Barr’s personal intervention in the Flynn case and that of Trump’s longtime pal Roger Stone, who was later pardoned.

Is there another federal defendant who has confessed multiple times to the crime, whose conduct is not in doubt, who has received the benefit of counsel, and against whom charges were dropped post-plea because the government decided it might not be able to prove the conduct already admitted to under oath? Come on.

“It is hard to imagine another case in which the Government has employed such specious reasoning to cast doubt on its own case,” Gleeson notes.

The Justice Department argued that it was entitled to a dismissal of the case without having to explain its reversal after years of arguing that Flynn’s lies to FBI agents about his communications with the Russian ambassador were both deliberate and material. Despite the manifest irregularity of the Department’s conduct, any interrogation of its position is an illegal encroachment on executive authority, they insist.

Gleeson disagrees, writing, “While the Executive is entitled to protect its privileges and deliberations, it is not entitled to offer pretextual reasons and demand that the Court mechanically accept them.”

Later he adds, “As demonstrated by history, Rule 48(a)’s requirement that the Government explain itself exists partly to smoke out the corrupt dismissal of criminal charges against the politically well-connected precisely because they are well-connected.”

Beyond interrogating the government’s motives for dismissing the case, Gleeson urges Judge Sullivan to penalize Flynn for his false statements under oath, both regarding his own conduct, and in accusing the Justice Department of extorting a plea by threatening Flynn’s son.

“The Court can now restore fairness and impartiality to the administration of justice by denying the Government’s motion and accounting for Flynn’s perjurious conduct at the sentencing stage,” he wrote.

So the Flynn case lives to fight another day. Countdown to that pardon in 3…2…

Reply Brief for Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae [USA v. FLYNN, No. 1:17-cr-00232-1 (D.D.C. Sep 11, 2020)]

---

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

An APOLOGY, that is how I start 30-60% of my emails. 

My inboxes, DMs, and chats “feel like an avalanche falling on your head.”

INBOX ZERO

It is NOT meant to reference an actual number of messages in your inbox. 

Merlin Mann: it is “the amount of time your brain is in your inbox.”  

Time and attention are finite.

Inbox is NOT a “to do” list. 

What is your best Inbox Zero tip?

---

Olga V. Mack is the CEO of Parley Pro, a next-generation contract management company that has pioneered online negotiation technology. Olga embraces legal innovation and had dedicated her career to improving and shaping the future of law. She is convinced that the legal profession will emerge even stronger, more resilient, and more inclusive than before by embracing technology. Olga is also an award-winning general counsel, operations professional, startup advisor, public speaker, adjunct professor, and entrepreneur. She founded the Women Serve on Boards movement that advocates for women to participate on corporate boards of Fortune 500 companies. She authored Get on Board: Earning Your Ticket to a Corporate Board Seat and Fundamentals of Smart Contract Security. You can follow Olga on Twitter @olgavmack.

During a 1997 investor-state dispute, a Canadian attorney noted that “it wouldn’t matter if a substance was liquid plutonium destined for a child’s breakfast cereal. If the government bans a product and a U.S.-based company loses profit, the company can claim damages under NAFTA.” The corporate lawyer’s statement summarizes the power of Investment State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) systems, which allow corporations to sue governments in secretive ad hoc tribunals. How depressing that international white-shoe firms continue to push corporations toward claims that threaten to undermine the public good. With the help of their lawyers, corporations are preparing to shake down governments around the world for adopting regulatory measures addressing the health and economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

For decades, economists and human rights advocates have argued against the inclusion of ISDS clauses in free-trade deals. The tribunals allow foreign companies to extract dubious lost or expected profits from governments that have promulgated regulations involving water access, land rights, and labor disputes. The governments cannot exert their own claims to fight violations by corporations because the tribunals create one-way rights. Moreover, the ISDS system has often exposed weaker economies to the greed of investors involved in third-party litigation funding. No wonder that a former European Union trade commissioner once declared ISDS as the “most toxic acronym in Europe.”

The efforts to reform investor-state legal mechanisms are too slow. As the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment (CCSI) argued in May, we need an immediate moratorium on all ISDS claims during the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath. As autumn approaches, there is no doubt that governments need to continue directing their capital and legal resources to the public health emergency. Law firms, however, have ignored the alarm from the CCSI and 650 other civil society groups. For example, Ropes & Gray has been working on pro bono COVID-19 matters while alerting paying clients to consider actions under investment treaties. As Anand Giridharadas, who critiques the way elites treat philanthropy, has said: the arsonists are not, in fact, the best firefighters.

Professor Robert Howse at the New York University School of Law tweeted that “we need to start getting the World Bank, IMF on side to establish that debtor countries w[ith] Covid-fragile economies should NOT be paying ISDS awards.” Enforcement jurisdictions, Howse argued, need to take legal actions to bar ISDS payouts. Similarly, we need major law firms to reconsider their international practices. It is difficult to imagine that corporations would sue and expect damages from governments over COVID-19 regulations without the aggressive and nauseating marketing from firms.

As a recent law graduate, I recognize that there is a role for law students and professors to play here as well. As the pandemic disrupts the fall semester and bar examinations, the legal academic community must speak up against the egregious ISDS practices. They can refuse to let ISDS profiteers recruit on-campus during the crisis. The Me Too-related campaign that started on law school campuses to end the use of mandatory arbitration clauses at Orrick, Skadden, and other firms also serves as a practice guide for how law students can monitor corporate behavior.

As we reach almost 1 million deaths worldwide and 30 million COVID-19 cases, we cannot afford to let corporate lawyers weaken public health efforts. How lawyers shape their international practices over the next few weeks matters.

---