Category: News Feeds

E-Discovery software company Relativity announces this week the release of their Aero user interface, a sleek and powerfully new way to navigate documents and data in an industry-leading e-discovery platform. I spent some time recently with the product team and was privileged to see an early demo of the new UI. Because I have not logged into a Relativity workspace for a few years, I learned some things, and I think users will appreciate the new developments as well.

Remember all those tabs across the top of the interface? Gone. Remember how you had to scroll over or select another object to see more options? Gone. Menus have been moved to the left side of the interface in what can only be described as a more functional navigation pane. Click on the little hamburger icon on the bottom-left and it opens access to all menu options.

Rolled out in August to some customers and available more widely this month, Aero will be introduced first in the Relativity One environment.

I pressed the Relativity team on what exactly makes Aero Aero. For me, the name invokes thoughts of flight, spaciousness, and perhaps speed. For the development team at Relativity, the name Aero is not just marketing fluff. “This marks the biggest release of a product update in the history of the company,” Relativity Group Manager Kyle Disterheft told me. “This is more than just a face lift. It is the first release in which we demonstrate how big a deal the user experience is. Aero has the most new features of any prior release and has been tested more widely,” Disterheft added. More than 6,000 new workspaces containing over 700,000 documents are currently using the new Aero UI.

Aero is the culmination of ideas that help tell the story of how Relativity designs and builds software. From what I saw of the new UI, it appears that better, faster, more intuitive navigation was very much in mind. “We literally measured the linear feet of required mouse movement to enable faster navigation,” Disterheft said.

Navigation aside, Relativity has also fundamentally rebuilt the viewer to improve performance. New architecture allows the viewer to immediately load the first few pages of a document while the rest of the document is streaming behind the scenes. This improves document load times and makes page-to-page navigation nearly instantaneous. Relativity is reporting median document jump speeds have improved from 3.8 to 0.4 seconds and forms now load 40% faster.

I asked Liz Lieberman, the product marketing manager for Relativity, to describe a few of the tangible differences that users will see in Aero. “Modern aesthetics, a next-generation viewer, better workflow navigation, and faster performance.”

I did encounter a number of aesthetic alterations during a demo session. In addition to new fonts, colors, and icons, all of the layout and forms pages have been updated. “It’s not just the ‘look and feel’ we’ve updated,” Lieberman said.  “We’ve also improved how users navigate between pages and how they accomplish tasks — all of which follow a more logical workflow,” she added. “And eventually, we’ll be automating tasks like ingestion, processing, and OCR.”

Don’t take my word for it. I also spoke to several Relativity customers who have been using the Aero UI for several months. Liraz Kolnik, the e-discovery operations manager at Control Risks, described Areo as faster, more stable, easier to navigate. “The design of Aero is sleek and makes the platform easier to use. With Aero UI, the quality of life in the system is much higher. Navigation alone is significantly superior and allows the user to more simply and clearly navigate around a workspace.”

In a press release, Relativity’s Chief Product Officer Chris Brown said that one goal of the Aero UI was to improve the user experience by working with customers to improve the UI. Matthew Nelson, the director of litigation support at Littler Mendelson, said, “The Aero team really has done a great job in design and also responding to user feedback and suggestions.” Control Risks’ Kolnik also praised the Relativity development team for working closely with this team and listening to feedback.

Others are praising the Aero UI as well. Jenna Rooney, director of client services at Array (formerly Innovative Litigation) was incredibly enthusiastic. Her team has been using the Aero UI since April. “Relativity has made incredible changes and improvements,” she said. “Ease of use, less buttons; the improved functionality has been a game changer.”

Admittedly, I have not used a Relativity workspace for a few years. But from what I saw during the demo and what I learned from those I spoke to in the past few weeks, Relativity seems to have hit a new stride in software development — one in which customers have a voice.

To learn more about the Aero UI, register for Relativity Fest, the annual user conference for all things Relativity. This year’s conference is virtual and is entirely free to everyone.

---

Mike Quartararo is the President of the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS), a professional member association providing training and certification in e-discovery. He is also the author of the 2016 book Project Management in Electronic Discovery and a consultant providing e-discovery, project management and legal technology advisory and training services to law firms and Fortune 500 corporations across the globe. You can reach him via email at mquartararo@aceds.org. Follow him on Twitter @mikequartararo.

This week, I continue my written interview with Rebecca Berrebi of litigation finance consultancy Avenue 33 LLC, regarding her experience in the legal industry and her decision to launch her new firm. Please see below for Rebecca’s answers to my second and third questions, focused on her view of the rapidly evolving field of litigation finance, especially in light of the stress on legal budgets presented by the COVID-19 pandemic.

As usual, I have added some brief commentary to Rebecca’s answers below but have otherwise presented her answers as she provided them.

GK: 2) Where do you see the litigation funding industry heading over the next few years?

RB: This largely unregulated industry is growing and evolving so quickly — the litigation finance market from six months ago is already different today. First, particularly in response to the pandemic, companies are becoming increasingly interested in using litigation finance as a tool for monetizing assets and smart accounting. Second, as more investors are recognizing the potential value of litigation as a non-market correlated asset, the funding class is expanding from the traditional, single-mandate third-party finance shops to include larger, multistrategy, and special-situations funds, as well as family offices. Finally, more and more law firms are opening up to the possibility of using funding as a way to grow their client base without risking their own bottom line.

But, with growth comes challenges. I expect litigants will ultimately demand more transparency into transaction structure and pricing from funders, and lawyers will face more stringent guidelines for dealing with conflicts, ethics, and confidentiality concerns. As recently as August of 2020, the American Bar Association released a controversial “Best Practices for Third-Party Litigation Funding,” suggesting guidelines that lawyers should follow when dealing with a case that is financed by outside sources; this type of proposed regulation and ensuing debate will continue.  While regional funders outside of the U.S., including the Association of Litigation Funders of England and Wales, have already developed, a larger collective of global third-party financiers, the International Legal Finance Association, just publicly launched as of September 8, 2020.

Despite a lack of a united influence to-date and public disclosure in the industry, at Avenue 33, we do, and will continue to, closely monitor the market and the players so we can advise our clients with well-informed, current information. We also keep up with the expansion of service offerings, so we know what additional providers may be helpful and cost-effective to supplement current efforts. And, as in any developing industry, using an industry expert as a consultant to advise on the particular concerns of the moment can only serve to diminish uncertainty and create value for all stakeholders.

GK: Rebecca makes a compelling case in my view for having expert guidance when it comes to litigation finance. Her characterization of the field (at least in the United States) as a “developing industry” is apt and there is definitely room in the market for someone with an insider’s perspective to consult on prospective deals. As anyone who has interacted with litigation funders knows, once the sheen of the music-to-a-lawyer’s ears of someone willing to pay their bills wears off, the hard work of arriving at a workable deal begins. In those discussions, it seems plain that having someone with experience in the funding industry on your side would be an advantage, or at least preferable to negotiating an unfamiliar contract on your end. Not only is the potential for mistakes minimized, but having someone like Rebecca on the team sends a clear signal to the counterparties that your side is approaching the endeavor with all seriousness.

GK: 3)  Are you anticipating more funding opportunities due to capital inflows into litigation funding because of COVID-19?

RB: Yes. The fact is, we are already seeing an increase of capital available as well as an increase in demand from litigants for funding, and I expect that trend will continue. It makes sense that many investors are seeking opportunities to put capital into assets immune to the volatile market swings that have ensued since the outbreak of COVID-19. Also, it is inevitable that when the global economy falters, there is a rise of disputes, leading to a proliferation of litigation and bankruptcy. I also expect that interest in litigation finance to grow among law firms who have not used funding before, as it is a very beneficial tool to stabilize the legal business and bring cases with the security of payment. Avenue 33 is well positioned to provide expertise to all new entrants in the market, saving them money and time.

GK: Not much to add here, since I am in agreement with Rebecca’s points on the impact of COVID both on investor interest in litigation finance as well as litigant/law firm demand for funds. In fact, the word is already out that there has been an uptick in seeking funding related to patent litigation over the past few months, a trend I am sure is being mirrored in other sectors. At the same time, even with more capital flowing into funder coffers, I don’t anticipate a material lessening of standards among funders when it comes to making investment decisions, especially in such a familiar area (by funder standards) like patent litigation.

My thanks to Rebecca for the insights and cooperation, and I wish her the best of luck with her new — and necessary — consultancy. It is always a privilege to hear from someone who is at the forefront of a key component of the modern IP litigation ecosystem, and I thank Rebecca for agreeing to this interview. I am always open to conducting interviews of this type with other IP thought leaders, so feel free to reach out if you have a compelling perspective to offer.

Please feel free to send comments or questions to me at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or via Twitter: @gkroub. Any topic suggestions or thoughts are most welcome.

---

Gaston Kroub lives in Brooklyn and is a founding partner of Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov PLLC, an intellectual property litigation boutique, and Markman Advisors LLC, a leading consultancy on patent issues for the investment community. Gaston’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and related counseling, with a strong focus on patent matters. You can reach him at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or follow him on Twitter: @gkroub.

Last week, word came down that Echo Street Capital Management was getting out of the hedge fund game. In and of itself, this is, of course, not unusual: 304 hedge funds closed their doors in the first quarter of 2020 alone. But Echo Street wasn’t having trouble raising money—it reportedly had a “waiting list of interested investors”—and its performance, while not particularly impressive this year with a 10% drop, has generally been “excellent.” Its founders aren’t retiring to play with his money in a family office; far from it: The firm will continue to run its long-only strategy and will launch a new long-focused vehicle that, frankly, sounds suspiciously like a hedge fund. There’s just one key difference: Running it won’t turn Echo Street’s managers into hollowed-out shells pining for death with each minute of the trading day.

We write now to urge that California administer the bar exam on October 5-6 without remote proctoring and without limits on what materials the student may consult during the exam. Indiana and Nevada took this approach in July for their bar exams. …

The bar exam always is a source of stress for those taking it, but the situation this year is dramatically different. We still are in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic which has affected many of our graduates and their families. Many are dislocated by the fires and adversely affected by the smoke. We are in the midst of a national reckoning with racism and anti-Blackness. Administering the exam without remote proctoring and in an open book manner would decrease the stress for many taking the bar. In addition, there is a non-trivial risk of significant technical issues or snafus in the planned administration that would be substantially alleviated by this alternative approach.

— an excerpt from a letter signed by the deans of California’s 15 ABA-accredited law schools that was sent to the the California Supreme Court, requesting that the October bar exam, with questions provided by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE), be open book, without remote proctoring. The NCBE has a remote proctoring requirement for states using its testing materials, and has said that it “supports the California Supreme Court and its decisions regarding administration of the October exam … consistent with NCBE’s interest in jurisdictions administering a secure exam.” The California Supreme Court has yet to respond to the deans’ letter.

---

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.

The annual Law Department Operations Survey, presented by the Blickstein Group, is the original and most respected benchmarking tool in the space, and participants in 2020 will again receive proprietary results data.

The survey was created in 2008 to provide law departments with insights into what was then an emerging field, allowing corporate counsel to compare their legal operations practices with those of their peers. 

Building on areas of focus in prior years, the 2020 survey will address varied topics including: 

• Challenges related to the coronavirus pandemic
• Compensation and KPIs
• The impact of the Big 4
• Artificial intelligence
• The legal services delivery model

If you are your organization’s operations head, we’re pleased to invite you to participate in this year’s report. If you are not your organization’s legal ops head, please feel free to forward this email to the appropriate colleague. 

As noted above, participants will receive exclusive access to proprietary results — an unparalleled resource for insight into legal operations trends. (A publicly available report on the survey’s findings will also be published later in the year.)

All individual responses will be kept strictly confidential, and the data will be used only in the aggregate form. 

Yesterday John Bolton’s publishers at Simon & Schuster got a special delivery from Bill Barr, and it wasn’t a card wishing them a Happy Rosh Hashanah.

In the least surprising news ever, the Wall Street Journal reports that the Justice Department has launched a criminal probe to determine if the former National Security Advisor leaked classified information in his bestseller (affiliate link) about his time in the White House. So now S&S and Bolton’s literary agents at Javelin are facing grand jury subpoenas for all their communications with him.

If Bolton was betting that Bill Barr would flinch from appearing to use the DOJ to punish the president’s enemies… he lost. (And he hasn’t been paying attention for the past two years.)

The New York Times, which reported the story simultaneously, notes that some officials at Justice “expressed reservations about opening a criminal case, in part because Mr. Trump’s public statements made it seem like an overtly political act.”

Ya think?

Luckily for the DOJ, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth’s already concluded that Bolton’s book does, in fact, contain classified information which jeopardized national security.

“Bolton has gambled with the national security of the United States. He has exposed his country to harm and himself to civil (and potentially criminal) liability,” Judge Lamberth wrote, refusing to enjoin publication but signaling that the government had successfully convinced the court that its classification determination was not simply punitive.

So now Bolton faces the prospect of forfeiting the proceeds of his book and perhaps even going to jail.

And none of this had to happen. If John Bolton had something to get off his chest — and, more importantly, into the public record — he could have said it to Congress. But Congress doesn’t buy books. So instead of testifying in Trump’s impeachment hearing, the former National Security Advisor decided to package his reminiscences of Trump’s “drug deal” to extort the president of Ukraine into ginning up dirt on Joe Biden into a $19.42 hardcover edition. KA-CHING!

Only Donald Trump had other ideas. So after the career pre-clearance officer signed off on Bolton’s manuscript on April 27, the White House launched its own supplementary review in which it discovered that Bolton’s book was chock full of Top Secret information. Surprise!

Or maybe not. Bolton contends that this belated discovery of classified information was a thinly veiled effort to keep his book bottled up until after the election by abusing the classification system. And he’s probably right. But if he wanted to protect himself from prosecution, the remedy was to file a lawsuit, not just forge ahead and publish anyway.

As national security law expert Brad Moss wrote at Lawfare two years ago when the first wave of Trump White House books started to roll out:

Snepp [v. U.S., 444 U.S. 507 (1980)] and its progeny, however, require that the individual must first go through administrative pre-publication review; subsequently file the civil lawsuit; and ultimately receive a favorable judicial ruling before publishing any part of the manuscript originally deemed classified by the government. If the individual does not follow that process, the courts have been clear time and time again that they will side with the government if and when it ultimately takes legal action—whether civil or criminal—against the individual, no matter how flimsy the underlying classification determination may have been.

And the law may suck, but it’s still the law, as Moss’s boss Mark Zaid has repeatedly pointed out on Twitter.

So the Mustache Man is in a heap of sh*t, entirely of his (and his current counsel’s) own making. And if he doesn’t wind up indicted, he’s probably staring down a mountain of legal fees.

You pay your money, you take your chances.

Grand Jury Subpoenas Sent to John Bolton’s Publisher and Agent [WSJ]
Justice Dept. Opens Criminal Inquiry Into John Bolton’s Book [NYT]
Why the White House Can’t Stop Omarosa Manigault-Newman From Talking [Lawfare]

---

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

Avoiding work around midnight on the 31st of August, I took a moment to avoid working (yes, law professors work) on my Biz Orgs slides. So that’s what led me to my trash folder.

Oftentimes, being the minority puts you in an awkward spot. It is difficult to feel connected to people who have different realities than me.  So, I send all of my listserv e-mails to my trash folder as an Outlook rule. This is what it means to be a minority: Your reality is different from that which is commonly shared across such portals.

Beyond that, there’s too much. Teaching, writing, virtual schooling two kids in elementary school, managing a toddler, constantly sanitizing because my partner is a healthcare worker, and being committed to sending Donald Trump packing in January 2021. I don’t have time to care about anything else.

Even unsubscribers and solidarity statements.

So when things blow up, the pressure is on minority lawprofs. And I’m tired. I am tired of being the critical environmentalist on the environmental law listserv. I am tired of being the quadruple minority on the AALS Minority Listserv. I am tired of being the super progressive from the non-AALS law school on the AALS Muslim Law Professor Listserv. I am tired of being the hijabi on the Women’s Law Listerv.

So the flurry of requests to unsubscribe on the law prof business law listserv as described by Jessica Erickson on Twitter was not a shock to me. Someone sought to discuss race and racism in the business law curriculum. Soon, there was an unsubscribe movement. People leaving, people indignant about leaving. All mostly white with a speckle of Asians.

I don’t need to think about discussing race and racism. The race and racism was part of my lived experience and pervaded every area of the law. It was there in plain sight for me. And, when I’m feeling most saucy, I hate the we-need-to-do-better vibe because there-ain’t-no-change EVER.

There are things I have thought, but didn’t say, as my peers debate the merits of unsubscribing and solidarity statement. Things like “because business law is nothing more than the perpetuation of white racial, extractivist capitalism, which is okay with mass incarceration, mass detention, and endless wars in the name of wealth maximization. Our entire economic system is built on land theft from Native Americans and slavery. We our powered by extracitivist capitalism.”

I didn’t. And it’s probably for the best, because after the brouhaha, things went back to normal.

Then I saw the e-mail that was forwarded to the Women’s Law listserv. It was about a solidarity statement, which was later posted on the Business Law Professors Blog.

I wanted to scream that I SHOULDN’T HAVE TO VIRTUE SIGNAL!!!

What happened to all those other statements? Did they move social justice forward? Or did things quietly slip into the status quo after everyone felt better?

So, when I saw that email at midnight on August 31st, I rattled off a response to three authors of the statement and the forwarder.

I appreciate the sentiment behind this statement. But I have already been doing all these things. I don’t feel compelled to sign a statement that is about a commitment to treat people as equal when all of business law is about the maintenance of white global capitalism and a way to maintain systems of hierarchies.

I speak about capital wealth accumulation and how it has occurred over time since slavery and how it impacts all aspects of business. I also speak about how corporate crimes and fraud are largely overlooked while black and brown people are heavily policed and incarcerated for minor crimes. I read passages from Ibram Kendi last August to my class before it was a thing to talk about race in business classes. And I was nervous to do so, but I didn’t care, because they needed to hear it.

I think a big part of that is having textbooks that are written by people of color, particularly disadvantaged minorities. The only one I have found so far is the one by Lisa Fairfax.

I am in the middle of a multipart ABA webinar series on Beyond Redlining. These are concerns I had before I became a law professor and what actually led me to becoming a law professor. But there is also more backlash that is raised by discussing these issues especially if I see that I may be the only one doing so, because it’s part of my lived experience as well and not just a matter of relating broader current events into the classroom discussion.

I think all these issues have been discussed and researched heavily. I would recommend putting together a guide and list of references. And if you cared so much, it would have already been done. I find it deeply troubling that all this concern with race as if it wasn’t always there in plain sight before.

A guide was put together, but it didn’t make me happy. The AALS Antiracist Clearinghouse Project put together by Deans Angela Onwuachi-Willig (Boston University School of Law), Kim Mutcherson (Rutgers Law School), Carla Pratt (Washburn University), Danielle Holley-Walker (Howard University School of Law), and Danielle M. Conway (Penn State Dickinson Law) is far superior, but it doesn’t touch really on all the Islamophobia that gave rise to the Trump presidency. I wonder also if all the solidarity statements compiled by AALS will have their intended impact long-term.

I read the solidarity statement and my response to my students the next day in class, because I wanted to get a pulse from them how they felt about these communications. One student shared that she worked in another Pennsylvania store for Starbucks when the incident happened in 2018 when two black men were arrested in Starbucks by Philadelphia police. She said that the incident should not have happened. And hearing her speak, I realized she knew more than all those law professors on the business law listserv who felt the need to up and out because the word “race” was mentioned.

Seeing the rubble from the listserv mess two weeks ago and last week seeing Trump’s White House statement on critical race theory shows this trouble.

The President has directed me to ensure that Federal agencies cease and desist from using taxpayer dollars to fund these divisive, un-American propaganda training sessions. Accordingly, to that end, the Office of Management and Budget will shortly issue more detailed guidance on implementing the President’s directive. In the meantime, all agencies are directed to begin to identify all contracts or other agency spending related to any training on “critical race theory,” “white privilege,” or any other training or propaganda effort that teaches or suggests either (1) that the United States is an inherently racist or evil country or (2) that any race or ethnicity is inherently racist or evil. In addition, all agencies should begin to identify all available avenues within the law to cancel any such contracts and/or to divert Federal dollars away from these un-American propaganda training sessions.

So, solidarity statement, anyone? Or should I just unsubscribe?

---

Nadia Ahmad is a law professor in Orlando, Florida. She teaches business organizations, property, and environmental law.

LawProfBlawg is an anonymous professor at a top 100 law school. You can see more of his musings here. He is way funnier on social media, he claims. Please follow him on Twitter (@lawprofblawg) or Facebook. Email him at lawprofblawg@gmail.com. The overwhelming majority of this blog post is Professor Amhad’s.

That cheering you hear is coming from the offices of Davis Polk, where associates were just handed a cascade of good news beginning with some special bonuses. Remember when we were applauding Cooley LLP for giving senior associates $7,500? Well, Davis Polk decided to blow up that scale like they were making a Michael Bay movie.

Domestic associates in good standing will be receiving special Fall bonuses in recognition of their hard work throughout [gestures wildly at everything]. Here’s what we’re looking at:

• Class of 2019: $7,500
• Class of 2018: $10,000
• Class of 2017: $20,000
• Class of 2016: $27,500
• Class of 2015: $32,500
• Class of 2014: $37,000
• Class of 2013: $40,000

Yowza.

International associates will receive separate case-by-case bonuses.

But that’s not the end of the good news. The message to associates also assured them that these bonuses are NOT replacements for the traditional year-end bonuses and that the firm expects to be handing those out on schedule too. Oh, and the firm expects that these annual bonuses “will not be lower than those paid out in 2019.”

That would mean that in the worst case, a first-year associate is going to take home $22,500 in bonuses in a year of unprecedented economic upheaval. Biglaw firms tend to stick together when it comes to bonuses. DPW just put a lot of pressure on its peers to match.

We’ll say it again… Yowza.

You can read the firm’s full announcement on the next page.

Please help us help 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.

---

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.

DraftKings’ stock (NASDAQ: DKNG) opened the day on September 14 trading at $41.97 and closed at $48.62, providing existing shareholders with a 17.27% gain for the single day. The stock price experienced such a significant move largely due to the company entering into an agreement with ESPN to become an exclusive provider of daily fantasy sports as well as a co-exclusive partner for gambling link-outs.

DraftKings is not the only sports betting-related stock to enjoy new heights in the market. Penn National Gaming (NASDAQ: PENN) opened at $65.54 on September 14 and closed at $65.54, for a 10.73% gain on the day. The stock was trading at only $4.50 on March 18. Penn has largely surged based on its partial purchase of Barstool Sports and, more recently, on the soft launch of a long-awaited Barstool Sportsbook today in Pennsylvania.

While share prices of DraftKings and Penn National Gaming are soaring, both companies are still not turning profits for their shareholders. Yet, new investors continue to pour their money into these companies and others connected to the sports betting space, with the hope that enhanced revenues combined with lower costs will eventually allow these corporate entities to show meaningful profits.

A big catalyst for potential future profit will be turning states that currently bar sports betting into open ecosystems that allow not only sports wagering at retail casinos, but also through mobile phones.

Twenty-three states have legalized sports betting within their borders, but states like California, Texas, and Florida have yet to make sports betting legal. The twenty-three states that have passed laws allowing for legalized sports wagering, including New York, New Jersey, and Illinois, make up roughly 41% of the adult U.S. population. Thus, there is a large market in the United States that the likes of DraftKings have not yet even had the capacity to capture.

Eilers & Krejcik Gaming, a boutique research and consulting firm focused on sports betting sectors, projects that there will be approximately $19 billion in total annual sports betting revenue if all 50 states allowed for such wagering. Compare that to 2019, when the total U.S. sports betting revenue was $920 million. The company’s realistic projection for 2023, without all 50 states having legalized sports betting, is $5.8 billion, which would still be a strong multiple gain in only four years from 2019.

Another promising sign for the sports betting industry is that, even though many sporting events have been postponed or canceled in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, total U.S. sports betting revenue has increased by 18% from 2019. New Jersey has been breaking records despite a decrease in events to bet on and recently posted a historical $668 million of sports wagers in August, which is a figure that accounts for over $100 million more than New Jersey’s previous best month.

Yet, the staying power of this surging sports betting stocks will likely be based on whether expectations for close to all 50 states allowing for sports wagering to take place within their borders are ultimately met, and how long it takes for massive states like Florida, Texas, and California to put passed legislation in front of their respective governors for execution. Therein lies at least some of the risk with putting money into these companies that are still anxious to start turning a profit.

---

Darren Heitner is the founder of Heitner Legal. He is the author of How to Play the Game: What Every Sports Attorney Needs to Know, published by the American Bar Association, and is an adjunct professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. You can reach him by email at heitner@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter at @DarrenHeitner.

The Biglaw good news keeps on coming. We are seeing more and more firms that slashed salaries in the early days of COVID-19 do an about face and restoring compensation levels to where they were before the pandemic. The latest firm to do that is Squire Patton Boggs.

Back in May, Squire Patton Boggs announced a 20 percent salary cut for all associates. Staff saw a range of cuts, between 10 and 20 percent, depending on salary. And partner distributions were adjusted to shoulder the largest financial burden.

Effective in October, the salary cuts for all associates will end and their compensation is going back to pre-pandemic levels. For support staff and other non-partners, if their salary was originally less than $75,000, then their compensation will be full restored; for others, their salary cut will be halved. The firm indicated the partnership will continue to shoulder the largest financial burden to meet any future issues, and distributions will be adjusted accordingly.

Squire Patton Boggs is also considering discretionary bonuses for extraordinary performance during COVID-19. But this will not impact the existing end-of-year bonus program.

Chairman/Global CEO of the firm Mark Ruehlmann had the following statement on the rollbacks:

“Thanks to the hard work and shared sacrifice of our attorneys and global staff, the impacts of the global pandemic on our business have been less severe than we reasonably anticipated. While demand for our services has remained strong, we recognize that a fair amount of uncertainty remains in the months ahead.  We will  monitor circumstances closely to continue to act in the best interests of our clients and the firm.”

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).