Category Added in a WPeMatico Campaign
The 90-Day Known Expert Series rolls on and on and ON. Episodes from weeks 11 and 12 include “Complexity isn’t Chaos” and “Chiseling the Stone.”
Make sure you take advantage of the show’s Q&A feature. You can ask Mike questions about the latest episode and he’ll answer at the end of the next episode. Just submit your question in the form at the bottom of this post.
Without a little alleged help, it’s proven harder for hedge fund managers to make money on The Most Important Vaccine In Human History than one might expect. It is, however, one thing to not make money, or not as much money as might have been possible and you might have liked, on failing to predict just how quickly the Pfizers and Modernas of the world would figure this thing out. It’s quite another thing to lose all of those frothy pandemic profits you thought you’d booked betting on the end of the world. Just ask Said Haidar.
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.
In an era of pandemic, layoffs, and remote work, legal staff are increasing their productivity while many experience declining mental health, according to a survey released this week.
“The Paralegal and the Pandemic,” a survey from the legal technology company Athennian, reveals that 63% of respondents report increased productivity when working remotely — with almost half ranking their productivity level at 8 or above on a scale of 1-10 — while 41% say their workload has increased.
Participants also rated declining mental health as the top personal impact of the pandemic, with 36% saying their mental health is suffering.
In an interview with Above the Law contributor Bob Ambrogi, Athennian CEO Adrian Camara described the negative effects of the pandemic on legal staff:
We found that, in general, paralegals are experiencing significant pressures, including increasing workloads and anxiety around Covid-19, all of which have had an impact on mental health. They are experiencing family health issues, the loss of colleagues, lost income, and isolation.”
The survey respondents include 323 legal professionals who are not lawyers, with the majority being paralegals. More than 88% of respondents were from the U.S. or Canada, and 64% work in law firms.
The Paralegal and the Pandemic [Athennian]
Pandemic Pushes Paralegals to Work More and Worry More [Lawsites]
Jeremy Barker is the director of content marketing for Breaking Media. Feel free to email him with questions or comments and to connect on LinkedIn.
(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
How far off the rails is the Trump administration? Well, the DOJ has barred at least one Health and Human Services employee from the building after she tried to dig up restricted information on election investigations. So … pretty far!
The Associated Press reports:
Heidi Stirrup, an ally of top Trump adviser Stephen Miller, was quietly installed at the Justice Department as a White House liaison a few months ago. She was told within the last two weeks to vacate the building after top Justice officials learned of her efforts to collect insider information about ongoing cases and the department’s work on election fraud, the people said.
Stirrup was one of the enforcers cum “White House liaisons” parked at the various executive agencies by Johnny McEntee, the 30-year-old former body man Trump put in charge of the Office of Presidential Personnel (OPP). McEntee was himself escorted off the White House premises in 2018, purportedly over a gambling problem. But in 2020 he returned to lead a post-impeachment loyalty purge of anyone disloyal to the president — they weren’t about to let another Alexander Vindman happen.
As part of McEntee’s crackdown, he installed Trump loyalists to be the president’s eyes and ears at the agencies, rooting out the theoretical Fifth Column of Deep State saboteurs, among both career and political appointees.
Stirrup’s first deployment was to Health and Human Services, where the former Capitol Hill staffer got herself promoted from White House liaison to HHS to acting director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). What Stirrup lacked in immigration and high-level managerial experience she more than made up for in her loyalty to Trump. Plus, she was tight with Stephen Miller and willing to carry out the administration’s child separation policy.
Technically, Stirrup remains an employee at HHS, although she was seconded to the Justice Department a few months ago to crack the whip and report back to the White House.
Turns out lifelong party apparatchiks are less concerned with good government and impartial justice than old-fashioned ratfucking.
Stirrup is accused of approaching staffers in the department demanding they give her information about investigations, including election fraud matters, the people said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the matter.
The effort came as Trump continues to level baseless claims that he won the election and alleges without evidence that massive voting fraud was responsible for his defeat to President-elect Joe Biden.
Stirrup had also extended job offers to political allies for positions at some of the highest levels of the Justice Department without consulting any senior department officials or the White House counsel’s office and also attempted to interfere in the hiring process for career staffers, a violation of the government’s human resources policies, one of the people said.
Bill Barr, who seems to have belatedly realized the jig is up and he’ll have to go back to civilian life, has enough trouble fending off Trump’s advances without a spy in his own house, which is why the Justice Department barred Stirrup from the building some time within the last couple of weeks.
But don’t cry too hard for her. Just minutes before the AP broke the story, President Trump appointed Stirrup to a three-year term on the Air Force Academy’s Board of Visitors, according to the Daily Beast. Because who better to investigate “the morale, discipline, curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, academic methods” of our future airmen than a real life spy?
Can’t make this shit up.
Trump aide banned from Justice after trying to get case info [AP]
Elizabeth Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.
In a matter I was working on with my colleagues, there was enormous, generally very interesting internal debate on a jurisdictional question. Most of the debate was legal — whether we could file in a certain jurisdiction, and how, and the consequences of doing so, and all that — and some of it tactical — “is this in our client’s best interests to be here, rather than there,” and all of that. Eventually, we filed. The jurisdiction issue didn’t come up at all, we beat a motion to dismiss, and went on to win the case.
While we probably spent more time in our prefiling work on this jurisdiction issue than we did on any other legal issue, it was wise of us to not bring it up later. And the reason, in short, is straightforward: no one cares. A bit longer: the judge and her clerks didn’t care, and if we got to a jury, they certainly wouldn’t care.
That can be a tough realization as a trial lawyer: you spend so much of your day, or days, on issues that you find interesting. But your client won’t care (she just wants to be counseled and win, and she’s right to focus on that). The judge or arbitrator generally won’t care (they generally want to do justice, and they’re right to focus on that). And the jury won’t care (the whole point of our jury system is for jurors to be citizens who involve themselves in our political process by finding facts and hearing stories, while, I definitely believe, trying to do justice, and they are right to focus on that, and not care much about the diversity statute which they have never heard of, and would anyway be confused by given the more common use of the term “diversity” these days).
As noted, this is all as it should be. What we, as lawyers, must do, is keep our eyes on the ball. Let’s have fun with the work. Let’s enjoy the legal challenges, or other challenges. And, to be clear, addressing those challenges may help our clients win without them even thinking about it. I’m sure Indy car teams use certain fuel or car components to help their drivers win even if the drivers have no idea sometimes what’s under the hood or flowing through the pipes. In our cases we do need to know what’s best to keep under the hood, or what fuel to use.
But we need to be professional and remember that all these others we report to, in one way or another, don’t care, and that’s fine. To win for our clients, let’s focus on what they, and judges, and juries, and arbitrators do care about.
John Balestriere is an entrepreneurial trial lawyer who founded his firm after working as a prosecutor and litigator at a small firm. He is a partner at trial and investigations law firm Balestriere Fariello in New York, where he and his colleagues represent domestic and international clients in litigation, arbitration, appeals, and investigations. You can reach him by email at john.g.balestriere@balestrierefariello.com.
Joe Exotic (Santa Rose County Jail via Wikipedia/Public Domain)
We are waiting on the pen to hit the paper, we think we are very, very close.
— Eric Love, an attorney for Joseph Maldonado-Passage, aka Joe Exotic, the star of Netflix’s “Tiger King,” commenting on the likelihood that his client will receive a pardon from President Donald Trump in the final days of his administration. “We’ve heard from the Tiger King,” said an anonymous source from the White House. Maldanado-Passage is currently serving a 22-year prison sentence after being convicted on two counts of murder-for-hire as well animal abuse charges. He believes he will die in prison prior to his release date in 2037 unless he is pardoned.
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.
Whew, it’s been a real roller coaster over at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner.
COVID-19 has made the whole world topsy turvey, but it’s been especially volatile at Bryan Cave. First they assured their employees that the firm would be able to get by without making associate or staff salary cuts, furloughs, or layoffs. But then then did they exact opposite, cutting salaries for all employees making over $40,000 by 15 percent, conducting associate and staff layoffs, and even closing an office. Then things seems to turn a corner for the firm when BCLP reduced its pay cuts to 7.5 percent, and then completely rolling back those compensation cuts.
Now the firm has announced supplemental payments (in the next practicable pay period) equaling the amount employees’ pay was docked. That’s a great way to signal the end of COVID austerity. You can read the full announcement from the firm on the next page.
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).
Think the bonus scale that was set by Cravath is the most an associate can hope for this year (without onerous billing requirements that could trigger additional cash payouts)? Think again. Wilkinson Stekloff (formerly known as Wilkinson Walsh) has once again topped that scale with some eye-popping numbers.
Just how much bigger are the bonuses at this boutique firm?
Below is the firm’s year-end bonus scale is 1.5 times the going market rate, and they’re offering special bonuses of $10,000 across the board on top of that. This is the fifth time the firm has beaten the market on bonuses since it opened five years ago.
Associates come out on top in every class year at Wilkinson Stekloff, and attorneys will once again be having very happy holidays. It just goes to show that working at a boutique doesn’t require trading off Biglaw compensation.
(Flip to the next page to read the Wilkinson Stekloff 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.
Prescription drugs are on their way to eating up the biggest slice of Puerto Rico’s $3.4 billion Medicaid budget. To head off rising costs, the island turned to what is still a relatively new trend in the pharmaceutical world — value-based contracting.
At its most basic level, a value-based contract emphasizes the quality of care rather than the quantity. In the case of pharmaceutical firms, it means tying reimbursement not just to how many pills patients take but also to whether patients get better. The risk is that they don’t, or that they get better on a competitor’s medication.
Puerto Rico’s first-ever value-based contract for Medicaid was launched in 2017 in partnership with Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Biogen and a pharmacy benefit manager called Abarca. It is the first publicly disclosed value-based contract to cover Medicaid patients, according to Abarca, which recently revealed some details of the program. The contract covered two Biogen drugs, Avonex and Tecfidera, used in treating multiple sclerosis.
“We want to make sure that what we’re buying is actually something that is resulting in better outcomes for our patients,” said Jorge Galva, executive director of the Puerto Rico Health Insurance Administration, which runs the island’s Medicaid program. It is known by its Spanish acronym, ASES.
An analysis showed that for the most part, patients adhered to their prescriptions under the contract but when they did not, Puerto Rico received rebates.
While simple in theory, value-based contracts are complex in practice covering everything from the quality outcomes to be measured to whether certain patients should be excluded, said Chance Scott, a director in the life sciences practice at Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm Guidehouse.
If a cardiac-drug patient suffers a heart attack, for example, the medication could have failed or there could be another contributing factor, Scott said. “That’s where it just becomes really tricky.”
Payment terms also may vary. Some contracts call for rebates, while others might require payers to make a large upfront payment followed by smaller payments at regular intervals as long as the drugs keep working, Scott said.
Regardless of the complexity, value-based contracts are likely to become more common as payers seek to control costs, Scott said. Pharma companies go along or risk seeing payers reduce or restrict use of their therapies.
“The payer demand is what is going to push this forward,” Scott said, noting that cardiology and oncology are among the areas where value-based contracts will become most prevalent.
For ASES, Abarca and Biogen, the value-based contract rested on a simple metric — prescription compliance. The costs and compliance results were not disclosed although Abarca did reveal in its case study that only a small number of patients were prescribed the two Biogen drugs. If the patients stop taking them, ASES gets a rebate on the cost.
The structure gives Biogen an incentive to ensure patients are compliant and to figure out and address any reasons why they are not, said Javier Gonzalez, chief growth officer for Abarca, which is based in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Abarca collected data that helped Biogen accept the grounds for giving a rebate, often a sticking point in value-based agreements, Gonzalez said.
“We’ve also given Biogen some incredibly valuable feedback to think how they structure value-based arrangements in the future,” Gonzalez said.
Biogen did not make an executive available for an interview. In a statement, Alisha Alaimo, president of Biogen’s U.S. organization said:
“Value-based agreements further support our commitment to people living with MS by connecting real-world patient choice and outcomes to the cost of the therapy. We are proud to partner with Abarca to help ensure their members receive effective and safe therapies.”
ASES or Puerto Rico Health Insurance Administration, had few qualms about the arrangement, Galva said, since it shifted some of the cost risk to the manufacturer and the PBM.
“Having something that would guarantee full compliance with the medication regime was very interesting,” Galva said. “What was put on the table … was an agreement where we all had skin in the game.”
The Puerto Rico Medicaid program is now exploring more value-based contracts for medication in areas such as hemophilia and rheumatoid arthritis, he added.
In addition to medication compliance, the program is weighing how to measure whether patients actually get better, Galva said. “With rheumatoid arthritis, for example, you want to ensure people can go to work and move and stay active.”
That represents a higher hurdle for value-based contracts, said Michael Rea, CEO of Rx Savings Solutions, a company based in Overland Park, Kansas, that helps payers save on prescription costs.
Health plans and employers don’t always agree with pharmaceutical companies when it comes to defining value, he said. “That is where the conversation breaks down and what sounds perfect in description doesn’t play out perfectly in real life.”
Even if a common understanding of value emerges, other risks reman for value-based contracting
Privacy laws are one potential hurdle, depending on the data that is needed to determine price concessions from a manufacturer, said Marcy Imada, a managing director in the risk and financial advisory practice at Deloitte & Touche.
“Ideally manufacturers would not have to touch or get access to protected health information or personally identifiable information,” said Imada, who is based in Los Angeles. She focuses on the life sciences industry and regulatory compliance.
Another major barrier could the interplay between government and private payers.
Under its drug rebate program, Medicaid calculates rebates for branded drugs dispensed to its members using what it calls the Medicaid Best Price. That price represents the lowest price paid by commercial customers for a drug in a specific timeframe.
In a value-based contract, the lowest price could be zero, even if that stems from one patient who did not take or respond to a medication or some other undesirable outcome, depending on how federal rules are interpreted. A zero-dollar Medicaid Best Price translates into significantly higher rebates, potentially resulting in no profit or net loss on related drug sales.
Some manufacturers have tried to work with regulators so they can move into value-based contracts without that concern. Others are taking a wait-and-see approach.
“It is a huge risk if the Medicaid Best Price ends up being zero dollars,” Imada said.
.png){kind=link}