Category: News Feeds

As the coronavirus continues to infect people across the country, the law school community is working on ways to manage teaching the future lawyers of America who will someday turn pandemics into practice areas. Thus far, three law schools — including Columbia Law, one of the most elite schools in the nation — have closed their campuses for in-person classes and are moving their courses and exams to an online format.

We’ve now learned of four additional T14 law schools that are doing the same exact thing in an effort to spare their students and faculty members from possibily contracting COVID-19.

This past weekend, Stanford Law announced announced on its website that “[i]n-person classes will be moved to an online format for the last two weeks of the winter quarter.” Stanford is on a quarterly system, with spring semester beginning at the end of the month. That means students are entering their exam period right now, so we wonder how that’s working out for them. Surely the extra stress is doing wonders for their studying right now.

Next up, we’ve got Berkeley Law, which announced yesterday that it would be suspending all in-person classes:

• Beginning Tuesday, March 10, we will be suspending most in-person classes and will be offering ALL lecture courses (including discussion sections), seminar instruction and examination through alternative modalities (e.g., Zoom, course capture, etc.) through Spring Break.
• Instructors who do not have remote learning processes in place by March 10 will be given a two-day period (March 10 and 11) during which they may cancel classes, to allow them time to establish such processes and to ready their course(s) for resumption online by Thursday, March 12. Students, please look for communications from instructors about plans for individual courses.

Remote course instruction will last through spring break, which ends on March 29. Depending on what’s going on with the coronavirus situation at the end of the month, the school may or may not decide to end the suspension in-person classes.

Over at NYU Law, students will meet in their final in-person classes today, and beginning on Wednesday, the school will move to a remote course instruction system. From the school’s website:

[B]eginning on Wednesday, March 11 we will move to remote instruction. All classes should meet remotely at their regularly scheduled time.

Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, March 11 -13, will allow us to test for the transition to remote instruction.

Spring break will commence as planned at the end of this week. If students wish to leave following their last class on Tuesday, they can participate in classes remotely from their homes for the rest of the week.

After spring break, NYU Law will continue to hold classes online until March 27. Sometime during that week, the administration will let students know whether they’ll continue with remote class sessions.

Finally, Harvard Law announced this morning that all classes would move to an online format after spring break, with classes continuing on campus this week.

In accordance with the University’s decision, Harvard Law School will shift from in-person instruction to remote teaching and learning beginning Monday, March 23, the day classes are scheduled to resume after Spring Break.

We will continue to closely monitor this situation and may have additional updates.

What is your law school doing to protect students and faculty from coronavirus? Please text us (646-820-8477) or email us (subject line: “Coronavirus Response”).

---

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.

In the last few months, Phil Falcone has sold a house for almost $80 million and a bunch of paintings and other stuff, in spite of the fact that they were collateral for some loans, which he was also not paying. And still he lacks the scratch to pay those who won him that surprisingly lenient settlement over those taxes unpaid and paid with investor money, apparently by the canny strategy of legal malpractice. And now, it seems, he won’t be paying for anything until he pays those lawyers.

A New York judge has frozen assets belonging to hedge fund manager Philip Falcone and his Harbinger Offshore fund after he failed to pay millions in legal fees to a Manhattan law firm that defended him in high-stakes litigation against US regulators…. In his ruling, Judge Engoron upheld a decision handed down by an arbitrator earlier this year in which Mr Falcone and Harbinger were ordered to pay $13.6m in legal fees to Dontzin Nagy & Fleissig for work going back almost eight years.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy Delgado, 43, and his wife Tamara Delgado, 45, were found dead in their Granite Bay, California, home on Sunday. Officers from the Placer County Sheriff’s office found the couple, who’d only been married for five months, after Tamara Delgado’s mother requested a welfare check on her daughter.

According to the Placer County Sheriff, the deaths are being investigated as a murder/suicide. They believe Timothy Delgado shot his wife before killing himself, as the office tweeted out yesterday.

Timothy Delgado worked at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Eastern District of California in Sacramento.  The office made a statement on the deaths:

“The United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California was notified on Sunday, March 8, 2020, of the death of Assistant United States Attorney Timothy Delgado and his wife.  We were informed that Mr. Delgado and his wife were found deceased in their home.  The Placer County Sheriff’s Office is investigating with the assistance of FBI, and we are fully cooperating with the investigation.  Any questions regarding the investigation should be directed to the Placer County Sheriff’s Office.”

Friends of Tamara Delgado spoke with the local CBS affiliate about how much she’d be missed:

“My tears are for Tamara and losing her. My tears are for the situation. But mostly my tears are for her son because I know him so well,” the close friend’s husband said.

The close friend and her husband told CBS13 Delgado was a loving mother to her daughter and young son.

“The love that a mom gives to her children and they adored her. They just adored her. And she’s gone,” the close friend said.

As for a specific motive for the incident, sheriff spokeswoman Angela Musallam told the New York Post it was still too early to speculate:

“It’s still fresh,” Musallam said, adding that she was unaware if deputies had been previously called to the couple’s home. “We’re letting detectives contact whomever they need to find out what happened.”

Our condolences to all those impacted by the deaths.

---

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).

* Some are accusing Bernie Sanders of disparaging public defenders by alleging that the government does not provide “a decent lawyer” to those who are unable to pay for private counsel. [Fox News]

* The Miami Heat organization is facing an intense FMLA lawsuit brought by a former associate general counsel of the team. It is generally unwise to mess with a lawyer on your payroll. [Corporate Counsel]

* A U.S. Attorney is alleging that Prince Andrew is not voluntarily cooperating with federal authorities in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. [ABC News]

* Led Zeppelin has won the longstanding “Stairway to Heaven” copyright infringement lawsuit. [Vulture]

* A Florida prosecutor has been arrested for allegedly offering to help a criminal defendant in exchange for sex. [News-Press]

* A lawsuit over profits from The Walking Dead television series has almost as many twists and turns as the show itself. [Deadline]

---

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.

High Court Judges Felistus Chatukuta and Pisirayi Kwenda postponed the hearing of Hon. Biti’s appeal after the state requested for a deferment of the hearing as Editor Mavuto, a law officer with the National Prosecuting Authority, was not available to argue the matter on behalf of the state owing to a bereavement in his family.

Last year, Hon. Biti filed an appeal in the High Court challenging both his conviction and sentence for contravening some provisions of the Electoral Act.

Hon. Biti wants the High Court to set aside his conviction so that he is not found guilty and get acquitted on both charges of contravening section 66A(1)(a) and section 66(A)(1)(b) of the Electoral Act.

The appeal was filed after Harare Magistrate Gloria Takundwa on Monday 18 February 2019 convicted the opposition MDC-Alliance party’s Vice President for unofficial or false declaration of election results as defined in section 66A(1)(a) and section 66(A)(1)(b) of the Electoral Act after ruling that the state had managed to prove its case against nthe Harare East constituency legislator beyond any reasonable doubt and sentenced him to pay a fine of $200 and in default of payment seven days imprisonment.

In their appeal, Hon. Biti’s lawyers Beatrice Mtetwa and Alec Muchadehama of Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights argued that Magistrate Takundwa had grossly erred and misdirected herself when she convicted the human rights lawyer and imposed such a sentence.

Mtetwa and Muchadehama argued that Magistrate Takundwa misdirected herself in failing to properly consider and pronounce herself on the pre-trial violations of Hon. Biti’s fundamental rights and on the legality or otherwise of the human rights lawyer’s “arrest” in Chirundu in Mashonaland West province.

The lawyers argued that Magistrate Takundwa grossly erred and misdirected herself by holding that the Harare Magistrates Court had jurisdiction to preside over Hon. Biti’s trial when the unquestioned evidence was that he was unlawfully removed from Zambia in violation of the neighbouring country’s High Court order and of domestic, regional, continental and international law relating to political asylum seekers.

Mtetwa and Muchadehama contended that the Magistrates Court erred and misdirected itself when it failed to consider and take into account that results posted at polling stations and constituencies by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) are in fact official results on which the public is entitled to report on.

Hon. Biti’s lawyers submitted that the charges preferred against their client were superfluous once it was accepted that the election results are in fact declared and announced, once the constituency return is posted outside the polling station, or a constituency ward centre and a provincial command centre.

The lawyers stated that Magistrate Takundwa erred and misdirected herself in convicting Hon. Biti when there was no intention proven by the state of him having committed the offences given the opposition legislator’s evidence that he held a media briefing to compel ZEC to release the election results early and in any event what he announced were not official results.

The lawyers also argued that section 66A(1)(a) and section 66(A)(1)(b) of the Electoral Act are unconstitutional in that the two provisions unjustifiably infringe his right to freedom of expression as set out in section 61 of the Constitution, his right to information provided in section 62 of the Constitution and his political rights guaranteed in section 67 of the Constitution.

Dzamara, through his Occupy Africa Unity Square (OAUS) campaign held demonstrations challenging President Robert Mugabe to step down arguing that the Zanu (PF) leader had failed the nation of Zimbabwe through misrule.

On several occasions before his abduction, Dzamara endured the brutality of the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) as the law enforcement agents tried to thwart his protests.

Following his abduction, there has been local and international outcry over Dzamara’s continued disappearance with concern being raised over government’s lackadaisical approach to the issue and as CIZC, we hold the view that his continued disappearance is in itself a serious indictment on human rights in the country.

The failure by the current and previous administration to act on Dzamara is not surprising given Zimbabwe’s well-known record of mysterious disappearances and massive crackdown of opposition and civic society activists.

CIZC remains skeptical of government’s commitment to search for Dzamara.

In 2016, Mnangagwa who was Vice President then told the United Nations Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in Geneva that Zimbabwe will actively pursue the search for Itai Dzamara and provide regular updates.

In the same year a High Court order was issued prompting police to act and provide regular updates on Dzamara.

President Mnangagwa’s public statements have however proved that respect for fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution is an alien principle to him and this is being worsened by the continued militarization of the Zimbabwean state.

As CIZC we contend that it is obligatory upon authorities to abide by section 56 (3) of the country’s Constitution which stipulates that every person has the right not to be treated in an unfairly discriminatory manner on such grounds as their political affiliation or opinion.

CIZC urges the government of Zimbabwe to ensure they create safe spaces for activists and walk the talk as far as tolerance to divergent views and opinions is concerned and above all, respect citizens’ right to life despite political standing.

Post published in: Featured

According to ALM’s 2020 Go-To Law School data, what top law school was Jones Day’s favorite (meaning the firm hired the most associates in 2019 from this law school)?

Hint: In 2019, 12 of the firm’s new associates came from this elite law school.

See the answer on the next page.

Last week, Elliott Management had a little sit-down with the people who run Twitter—badly, as far as the hedge fund is concerned. Why, for instance, Paul Singer & co. wanted to know, was Twitter falling behind in terms of innovation? Why was its stock tanking when other tech companies were soaring, at least before the global economy got the sniffles? Could it potentially have something to do with a CEO who was running two companies while spending half of the year on the other side of the world? Perhaps things would be a bit better if he chose between Africa and Silicon Valley, and one of the two companies, preferably Square, so that Paul Singer could make some goddamned money on his president’s favorite medium?

This is sure to stir up the Biglaw recruitment game. A trio of T14 schools — Harvard Law, NYU Law, and Columbia Law — are holding limited early interview programs to get their students a foot in the Biglaw door even faster than before.

These law schools are already killing it when it comes to placing students in Biglaw jobs (Columbia Law took the top spot for Biglaw placements in the most recent ranking with NYU coming in third, and Harvard rounding out the top 10), but this new program is designed to give their students an even bigger advantage. As Columbia’s career services dean Marta Ricardo told Law.com, a big part of the move is to make sure their students aren’t hurt by the law school’s interview program:

“We don’t want our students to think they are at a disadvantage,” said Columbia career services dean Marta Ricardo, of the school’s decision to drop its ban on early interviews. “We know that if we don’t create a system, they will do [early interviews] anyway, and they will do it with no advice from us. This year is a big experiment, to see how much capacity the firms have to even do early interviews.”

As legal industry observers know, the state of Biglaw recruitment has been in flux since late 2018, when the National Association for Law Placement (NALP) made sweeping changes to their “Principles and Standards for Law Placement and Recruitment Activities,” upending the established recruitment calendar and ushering in a Wild West ethos. As Nicholas Alexiou, Director of LL.M. and Alumni Advising and the Associate Director of Career Services at Vanderbilt University Law School, said at the time:

All of the timelines and guideposts that served as the foundation of entry-level recruiting have been eliminated. No one-on-one meetings between Career Services and 1Ls until October 15th? Gone. The prohibition on formal applications, interviews, or offers between 1Ls and legal employers until December 1st? Bye-bye. The 28 days that 2Ls should have to make a decision on a summer associate offer? Hasta luego. The limit of five open offers that a 2L could hold at any one point during the Fall recruiting cycle? Sayōnara.

This is just the latest change in that tumultuous landscape.

The lack of rules is an essential component to understanding these latest changes. Even among the T14, there were wildly different reactions to the changed NALP rules. About half of them stuck to the old timetable, which meant their students were unable to interview with firms until on-campus recruitment, but for those that quickly adapted to the new (lack of) regulation, all bets were off. Harvard’s decision to move to this new early interview program (2Ls can apply to five law firms in June and interview before on-campus interviews; any offers that are extended must remain open until 21 days after the on-campus program wraps) was motivated by the change:

That left schools such as Harvard—which held to the prior rules and prohibited early interviewing—in an untenable position, said career services dean Mark Weber, particularly because summer associate class sizes at the largest firms have been contracting over the past two years. Students were frustrated at being forced to wait when their counterparts at other law schools were interviewing with firms before OCI. And some firms were frustrated that they couldn’t interview Harvard students at the same time as candidates from other schools. After careful consideration, Harvard in late December unveiled what it has dubbed “EIP Preview. (EIP stands for Early Interview Program, Harvard’s term for OCI.)

But Weber acknowledges their approach is designed to be a middle ground, to keep their students competitive without eliminating all guidelines:

“By having this approach, we acknowledge that the present system is broken,” Weber said. “By taking the middle ground, we’re trying to address the concerns of both students and employers while still having some guidelines in place. The structured approach allows students who want to do some early interviewing to do so without being overwhelmed.”

And after Harvard made the change, NYU and Columbia quickly responded with similar programs of their own. As Irene Dorzback, career services dean at NYU, said, “We had to stay competitive. That is No. 1.”

Bruce Elvin, career services dean at Duke Law (which was already on board with early interviews) predicted this will lead to some big changes in the recruitment game:

“There is tons of paranoia. Everybody has FOMO,” Elvin said. “The employers think everybody else is doing something they aren’t. Maybe, but maybe not. Then students say, ‘Oh my colleagues at other schools have five offers, and my classmate down the hall has three offers.’ But your circumstances are completely different. This is going to be extremely unsettling for everyone involved.”

So get ready as the already anxiety-inducing interview season gets ratcheted up a notch.

---

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).