It has taken the entirety of the president’s term, but the Trump Administration has at last done a real number on the fiduciary rule. As with so much with Trump and his lackeys, it’s more about posturing than anything: Those supposed to benefit from the rollback say they won’t use it, and it’s taken so long that by the time it actually goes into effect Joe Biden will be president and having his people rewrite it to look something more like it looked back when he was vice president and it came into being in the first place.
Top 30 Am Law Firm That Once Refused Special Bonuses Now Offers Them As Part Of Year-End Bonus Scale
Lawyers across much of the Northeast portion of the country find themselves buried in snow today, but we know just the thing that’ll inspire everyone to dig themselves out: bonus news.
Yesterday afternoon, Covington & Burling announced its 2020 year-end bonuses, and the firm has matched the Baker McKenzie bonus scale that was later adopted by Cravath. The good news for associates at the firm doesn’t stop there. After originally refusing to get on board with the fall bonuses that were offered by the most elite Biglaw firms, Covington has now decided to match the Davis Polk scale for those as well. Here’s the Covington bonus scale for 2020:
Sources at the firm tell us that while an hours requirement applies to both bonuses (i.e., 1,950 hours, including unlimited pro bono hours), associates reportedly aren’t as up in arms about it as they are at other firms. “Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise, people are pleased and understanding about the hours requirement,” says one tipster. “Can’t understand why that’s been an issue at other firms.”
Bonuses are expected to be paid by the end of January 2021. Congrats to Covington!
(Flip to the next page to read the Covington & Burling bonus memo in full.)
Remember everyone, we depend on your tips to stay on top of important bonus updates, so when your firm matches, please text us (646-820-8477) or email us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Matches”). 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 (which is the alert list we also use for salary announcements), 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. Thanks for all of your help!
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.
Morning Docket: 12.17.20
* Sanctions have been upheld for a lawyer who included a haiku and cited to Bugs Bunny in litigation papers. “That’s all folks!“… [ABA Journal]
* A New York man, who allegedly posed as a lawyer to bilk elderly victims of money supposedly needed to bail out grandchildren, has been indicted. [New York Post]
* A fake immigration lawyer in Florida has pleaded guilty to aggravated identity theft and other charges. Lots of lawyer wannabes in the Morning Docket today! [Tampa Bay Times]
* A judge has ruled that the Trump Organization must turn over more documents to the New York Attorney General. [CNN]
* Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes is trying to keep documents from the company’s lawyers a secret. [Wall Street Journal]
* A server at Denny’s is suing for back pay. Her lawyers probably think the case is a “grand slam”… [Connecticut Law Tribune]
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.
All The President’s Lawyers… And Their Ethical Problems — See Also
Damning With Faint Praise: Jenna Ellis didn’t commit enough “irreparable, egregious acts” to be denied unemployment. So there’s that!
All The Embarrassing Profiles That Are Fit To Print: The New York Times pitched its case to invite Jeffrey Toobin back to America’s Zoom call.
Yay Money: Big bonuses at Orrick.
Time Creates More Wounds: Cahill bonuses please seniors but more junior attorneys aren’t as excited.
A Hashtag Leads To Marketing #Success
We can all point to moments in our professional lives that changed the course of our careers — crushing a stretch assignment, really connecting with a mentor, seizing a new job opportunity.
Those moments don’t happen all at once. And sometimes we only appreciate their origins with the benefit of hindsight.
In our experience, business development and marketing successes often start out small, whether you’re networking with potential new clients, establishing yourself as a thought leader, or building your brand on social media.
Co-hosting PLI’s inSecurities podcast, which focuses on developments in the securities regulatory, enforcement and accounting space, has been one of the coolest and most rewarding opportunities of our careers. And like so many great opportunities, it started small — with a hashtag.
Long before we hit “record” on the first episode of inSecurities, we connected through a hashtag at a securities enforcement conference. Attending the conference for our “day jobs” as forensic accountant (Chris) and securities regulatory attorney (Kurt), we were among a handful of people “live-tweeting” the event.
After we connected “IRL” at the conference networking happy hour, our bosses were impressed (and surprised!) that we managed to make meaningful professional connections over this “social media thing.”
We’d each found a kindred spirit in the securities enforcement and regulatory space, and we spent the next several years trading well-meaning barbs over lunches on K Street and in posts on LinkedIn and Twitter. We referred one another business from time to time, but we were mostly in it for the banter.
Along the way, we began to carve out space as thought leaders in our practice areas and on social media, and when PLI approached us with the opportunity to develop a podcast, we jumped at the chance. We saw the podcast as an opportunity to explore our love of content creation and marketing, to build our profiles in the regulatory and enforcement space, and to offer substantive — and fun — commentary for industry leaders.
Over the past 18 months, we’ve recorded pilot episodes, built a network of guests, and planned, recorded, edited, and produced more than two dozen episodes of the inSecurities podcast. It’s been quite a journey, and we’re incredibly grateful for the opportunity and the help we’ve received along the way.
We want to pay it forward by sharing some of the lessons we’ve learned, and some of the great advice we received from Deborah Farone and Stefanie Marrone on Episode 11 (“Business Development for Lawyers & Law Firms: A Conversation About Marketing, Selling and Social Media in Today’s Legal Environment”). Our top takeaways:
- Don’t go it alone – We never would have been able to finish 25+ episodes on our own — or had as much fun doing it. Along with our incredible partners at PLI who help shoulder the heavy burden of content creation, idea generation and promotion, and the enthusiastic, insightful guests we interview, we’re able to achieve results well beyond what we could have done alone.
- Be flexible – Our conception of the podcast has changed (more than once!) over time. Between the complex issues we tackle on the show and challenges arising from COVID-19, we’ve had to be flexible and strike out in new directions. We’ve also responded to the market — we’re sometimes surprised by the episodes that get the most downloads, so we take the feedback and adapt.
- Know when to skate, and when to glide – We have busy day jobs and competing demands for our time. There are times to push hard and churn out a few episodes quickly, and other times to focus our energy elsewhere. We’ve felt the tension of balancing deadlines in client matters with other professional commitments, our personal lives . . . and a podcast! Learning to navigate peaks and valleys has helped us to continue producing quality episodes at a steady pace (and to enjoy it!).
- Don’t be afraid to brag – As with our live-tweeting at the conference, we experienced mixed reactions to exploring this new media. But we took time to sit down with our colleagues, share the metrics, and discuss the meaningful connections created by our podcast efforts — to brag a little. Now, our firms fully support us, and recognize the potential business development and marketing opportunities that come with the podcast.
Our podcast hasn’t become the next Serial, but it has given us a platform and the chance to learn, grow, and share knowledge with listeners around the globe — and to build relationships with experts in our field. Think about how you might create and seize opportunities, even when they start out as small as a hashtag.
Access the full inSecurities archive on PLI’s website and on major podcast platforms, including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts.
That’s A Big Courthouse!
Bill Gross’ Girlfriend Offers Precious Glimpse Into Psyche Of Person Dating Bill Gross
There is a question hanging over the varied litigation that is the relationship between retired Bond King Bill Gross and his Laguna Beach, Calif., neighbor. I mean, sure, there are many questions: What is the point of putting a presumably expensive Dale Chihuly sculpture up in such a way as to both irritate the person next door and require a hideous bit of netting to protect it from the palm trees he placed it under? Is Mark Towfiq really so obsessed with Gross that he installed security cameras to keep a watch on his every move? Did Gross really expect this transparent ploy to work? Why are rich people like this? But none of those is the question:
Bill Gross has a girlfriend?
And that question, of course, begets many others about Amy Schwartz, the 51-year-old former tennis pro who not only dates Gross but cohabits with him: Knowing all there is to know about Gross and about the way he treats his family and those close to him, knowing the things he’s done and said and written, having access to the voluminous public record about the man, his quirks and his ways, why? How, other than as much vodka as is necessary? What makes such a person tick?
Thanks to the ongoing trial over the aforementioned dispute, we now know all we need to answer that question.
“‘Gilligan’s Island,’ I love that song,” Schwartz said after one of Towfiq’s recordings was played. “But I already told you, I was sleeping. It might have been a mistake that the play list played over….”
Schwartz was asked if she and Gross played the music on a loop — that is with one song playing repeatedly.
“I don’t know how to work a loop,” she said.
Asked if the music had gone off accidentally, Schwartz said, “I don’t control it.” Gross “controls the audio and TVs,” she said.
You don’t say.
Bill Gross’s Girlfriend Denies Playing Music to Harass Neighbor [Bloomberg]
Notorious Sperm Bank Case Settles. Can We Buy Holiday-Sale DNA Kits For Our Donor-Conceived Loved Ones Now?
Breaking News: Before we discuss this week’s legal issue, here’s an update on the Box v. Henderson case, which I wrote about two weeks ago, and which was pending before SCOTUS. As you recall, the State of Indiana had tried to deny same-sex parents the right to both be listed on the birth certificates of their children, and, despite losing at the trial court and before the Seventh Circuit, Indiana tried to take the case all the way to the Supreme Court.
However, in great news, the Justices likely read my column from two weeks ago suggesting that they not grant certiorari on the openly anti-LGBTQ effort to deny same-sex couples from both appearing on the birth certificates of their children. On Monday, we learned that SCOTUS had, indeed, denied certiorari. That leaves in place the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling that the state’s discrimination against same-sex couples was not biologically or otherwise justified, and all Indiana couples should be treated equally, regardless of sex. Nicely done, SCOTUS.
Now, Back To Our Regular Programming: Teuscher Settles.
Almost two years after the news first hit, the Teuscher case is still a bit of a shocker. Who’d have thought that taking a home DNA kit to learn more about personal ancestry — like millions of other Americans — would cause a sperm bank to send a cease-and-desist letter? But for Danielle Teuscher, that’s what happened.
Teuscher had her 5-year-old daughter participate in the popular pastime of DNA testing, along with herself and other family members. The problem was, Teuscher had conceived her daughter with the assistance of donor sperm from a sperm bank. When purchasing the genetic building blocks for her future child, Teuscher signed an online contract with the sperm bank that included provisions that she would not seek out the donor or the donor’s relatives.
Is Taking A 23andMe Test “Seeking Out” An Anonymous Donor?
When Teuscher received her daughter’s 23andMe results back, a paternal grandmother showed up (aka the donor’s mother) with an “open to communication” setting. Teuscher reached out with a short message, and after a brief back and forth, that was it. At least she thought it was.
But it wasn’t.
A few weeks later a large envelope arrived from the sperm bank with a threatening cease-and-desist letter, letting Teuscher know that she had breached the contract terms with the sperm bank not to seek out the donor or donor’s relatives, and was liable for liquidated damages of $20,000! (Hear Teuscher and her attorney, Jill Teitel, tell the story in their own words in this podcast interview.)
That wasn’t all. The sperm bank informed Teuscher that it would be withholding the remaining vials of sperm, which she had already purchased, and which were still being stored with the sperm bank. Also, the sperm bank cut off her access to its online portal that allowed her to receive medical updates about the donor, as well as her access to a sibling portal where she could connect with parents of children born of the same donor.
All from a DNA kit.
The Settlement
Teuscher brought suit in Washington State against the sperm bank in June 2019, asserting claims for replevin of the sperm and breach of contract, as well as a consumer protection action, among others. In January 2020, three of her claims were dismissed. Not the best news, but Teuscher’s attorney Jill Teitel explains they were still feeling positive given the court’s recognition of Teuscher’s personal property rights. Moreover, there was no attempt to dismiss the claims brought on behalf of Teuscher’s daughter.
Earlier this month, Teuscher settled the suit on behalf of herself and her daughter. One can hardly blame her for wanting to move on with her life.
The terms of the settlement are confidential, but the raw numbers are public. The sperm bank will pay Teuscher and her daughter $75,000. Of that, $11,250 will be put aside for Teuscher’s daughter until she turns 18 years old. It may not be a huge settlement, but definitely way better than potentially paying the sperm bank the $20,000 it had demanded. And while it would have been interesting to see the rest of the claims play out, the settlement is certainly a victory for Teuscher and her daughter.
Where Does That Leave Us On DNA Tests?
Unfortunately, without further appeal or argument in the case, we are left with the judge’s January 2020 decision on a motion to dismiss certain claims. There, the court ruled that the Customer Agreement that Teuscher signed “reasonably limited” her ability to seek information about the donor’s background. The sperm bank agreed to provide relevant medical information from the donor, “representing a reasonable balance of the interest at issue.” “Importantly, [Teuscher] could still perform DNA testing to discover genetically relevant medical information without seeking information on genetic ancestry or other information that would destroy the donor’s anonymity.” Per the court, it was the procurement of ancestry information, not genetic medical testing that was problematic.
So we are left with the answer: yes, you can do genetic medical testing to find out medical information. But you can contract away your right to figure out who your children’s ancestors are, and finding out ancestry information from a direct-to-consumer genetic test may be a breach of such a contract.
That seems pretty wild, if you think about it. After all, ancestry results from a place like Ancestry.com or 23andMe can be used to tell you a lot of other information that has nothing to do with the donor, including your own (nondonor-related) ancestors! And of course, the contract that you enter with the clinic can’t bind your child from looking up their own DNA when they have the ability to do so.
For Teitel, the takeaway is an ongoing need for the fertility industry to be held accountable to ethical norms and procedures, recognizing changing trends involving technology and the concerns and rights of donor-conceived persons. And those concerns and rights may include a donor-conceived person’s desire, or need, to find out their own ancestry, despite whatever assurances of anonymity may have been given to donors in times gone by.
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.
Randy Rainbow Slays Rudy Giuliani In New Holiday-Themed Music Video
(Randy Rainbow, a comedian who’s known for his parody music videos, put together a holiday-themed song for Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, changing the lyrics of “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” to “Rudolph the Leaky Lawyer.”)
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.
More Law Firms Should Buy Work-From-Home Items For Employees
Many individuals within the legal industry are working from home in order to promote social distancing and keep everyone safer as the COVID-19 pandemic continues to rage. Although some law firms have inexplicably reopened their offices too soon, most managers realize that employees can complete almost all of their work tasks from home instead of trekking to an office. Many partners have lamented in recent months that having employees work from home has decreased productivity and hurt the profits of many shops. In order to boost the productivity of workers, and give employees the support they need, more law firms should be open to the idea of purchasing work-from-home items like furniture, computer monitors, and other equipment for employees.
There is nothing new about employers purchasing work-from-home items for employees. Most law firms provide their employees with laptops that they can use to complete work tasks from pretty much anywhere. In addition, some employers take their commitment to virtual work a little further and are open to purchasing computer monitors, furniture, and other items needed to effectively work from home.
About five years ago, my brother worked at a financial company that allowed employees to work from home once a week. The employer bought computer monitors for my brother so that he could more easily see the spreadsheets and other financial documents he needed to review in order to successfully complete his job. The investment required to equip my brother with the monitors and other items needed to be more productive working from home cost only several hundred dollars, but this investment likely paid dividends in the output my brother was able to provide his employer and their clients.
There is no reason why more law firms could not make a similar investment in work-from-home items, which would empower employees to be more productive while working from home. Law firms already pay for their employees to attend conferences, comply with CLE rules, attend business development outings, and other professional development expenses. The several hundred dollars it would take to equip each employee to work from home would be just a drop in the bucket compared to all of these other costs.
In some instances, employees could really use the equipment firms would purchase in order to be productive at home. Many workers across the country are making do with whatever arrangement they have at home to perform work. Numerous individuals are working from the couch, and I have seen a few attorneys I know set up card tables and folding chairs in order to create makeshift home offices. Such arrangements are not ideal, since they do not provide workers the best opportunity to type and be effective at their tasks. In addition, and I am no expert, but sitting on a folding chair or in other arrangements can hurt your back and potentially cause health issues.
Employers may argue that it is up to employees to create a proper home office so that they can be productive at their jobs and they can always come to the office if they can’t work from home. However, some people simply do not have the money needed to properly create a home office. It can cost hundreds of dollars or more to outfit a home office depending on the equipment a worker already has at home and what they may need to effectively complete their work. Many people are having a difficult time getting by in these tough times, and it may be onerous for some workers to pay for work-from-home items themselves. In addition, since there is less job security than there was in recent years, workers may not feel comfortable shelling out money to outfit a home office that may be useless if they lose a job. Employers should step up here by providing employees the support they need to thrive at virtual work. Arguing that employees can come to the office if they can’t be productive at home is no excuse because health worries and social distancing makes this impractical in most situations.
Some employers may argue that it is difficult for them to purchase all of this equipment for workers. Indeed, employers may believe it onerous to have such equipment returned after an employee leaves a firm and to process all of the requests to have work-from-home items paid for by a law firm. However, the amount of money needed to outfit most home offices is relatively small, and if law firms are so worried about practicalities, they can just let workers keep the items when they leave the firm. Indeed, I have heard of employers doing this in the past, since some employers do not care about recouping the several hundred dollars of work-from-home items they may have paid for an employee. Maybe employers can emblazon any work-from-home equipment with their firm’s name like they do for other swag so that even if an employee keeps the items, the firm gets free advertising!
All told, partners should not lament a reduction in productivity during the pandemic unless they have done everything needed to support the virtual work of their employees. Paying for work-from-home items could help employees be more productive and assist workers at a time that they could really use the support. Although some practical matters need to be hammered out, this should not keep more firms from paying for work-from-home items needed to boost the productivity of virtual workers.
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.