Category: News Feeds

This year’s Legalweek conference was the tenth that I’ve attended, and has it ever changed over the years. Gone are the days of barely clothed angels hired by an exhibitor to lure in attendees from the cold. But truth be told I don’t miss the nearly naked angels one bit. Thankfully that marketing ploy — using scantily clad women to gain attention for legaltech products — has gone the way of the dinosaur.

That being said, the angels would have been a lot more comfortable this year since there was no snow to be seen. It was downright balmy outside, ringing in at 57 degrees at one point. Quite honestly it felt a bit surreal. But then again, in many ways so did the entire conference.

For starters the conference providers steadfastly insist on sticking with the altogether confusing name and structure change. There continue to be multiple “conferences” within a conference (for example, Legaltech, Legal CIO, Legal Business Strategy, and more) that are, for all intents and purposes “tracks,” since they all occur in the exact same venue at the exact same time. They share the same expo hall, the same keynotes, and more. Nevertheless they’re billed as separate conferences.

Then there’s the case of the ever-shrinking Expo Hall, with portions that are increasingly difficult to locate. Halfway through the first day, I approached an attendant manning the door of one entrance to ask him where one of the expo halls was located since I couldn’t find it for the life of me. While he was answering my inquiry, two other people approached him with the exact same question, so it was comforting to know I wasn’t alone in my confusion.

Then there were the meetings. The designated press meeting area shared space with a vendor presentation area and a podcast recording area, among other functions. There was little privacy to be had, and many meetings occurred elsewhere. And, as Joe Patrice observed in his post about the conference, more meetings than normal seemed to occur in hotel suites this year, which definitely led to some awkward moments.

For example, at one point the meeting before mine was running late, so I was left to loiter in the hallway in front of a plain, unmarked hotel room door, nary a vendor sign in sight. My only saving grace was that between my blazer and the Legalweek pass around my neck, my prolonged presence in the hallway would (hopefully) be perceived as somewhat official by unwitting observers who passed by.

That being said, in many ways it was still the same old Legaltech conference I’ve come to know and love over the years, where like-minded legaltech aficionados meet up, connect, and talk about the latest trends in legal technology. This year was no different, and now that I’ve had a few days to reflect on this year’s Legalweek conference, here are my thoughts.

For starters, a few themes emerged: consolidation, platforms, and content, content, content! You’ll learn more about the content trend later in this post, but first, let’s take a look at the consolidation and platform trends.

The shrinking expo hall was evidence of an overall consolidation trend in legal technology — and most notable for this conference — in the ediscovery space in particular. The whack-a-mole days of seemingly endless ediscovery companies popping up are long gone, and a handful of companies remain that withstood the test of time and came out at the top, as others folded or were acquired.

That same phenomenon is occurring in the legaltech space as a whole, as shown by the vast number of acquisitions that occurred last year alone. Inevitably, over time, the dust will settle. And when it does, a few companies will be left standing in each major category of legal software, including document management, law practice management, legal billing, contract analytics, and legal research.

But enough about consolidation. Next up, platforms. The concept of legal technology “platforms” came up repeatedly throughout the conference, but there was very little agreement as to what that concept actually meant. Two definitions stood out but rest assured, most everyone had their own take on the subject, and there has yet to be any consensus on the subject.

One of the top definitions of a legal software “platform” involved an open API a la Salesforce, where a single, basic product was linked to many others via integrations — the costs of which quickly add up as the number of integrations increase. Notably, for those who favored this definition, the complexity inherent in the functionality of that concept was often glossed over. Salesforce is a notoriously complicated tool, and many organizations have one or more employees whose sole job function is to manage the company’s Salesforce platform and integrations. Definitely not a pretty picture for law firms of the future if this particular vision wins out.

Others viewed a platform as an all-in-one experience for the end user with the end goal being a seamless experience provided by both extensive built-in functionality and integrations when needed. In other words, a robust core software platform and necessary, complementary integrations. This approach is far less complicated and likely more cost-effective. That being said, those who favor the former definition typically argue that this concept reduces the amount of customization available.

In other words, no matter which concept you prefer, there are always trade-offs. And only time will tell which concept will prevail.

That being said, the second interpretation closely aligns with how Intapp representatives viewed the concept of a platform. At the conference, Intapp shared news of the rollout of their OnePlace CRM acquisition into the Intapp portfolio of products. They explained that their end goal is to provide a platform concept that offers seamless access to the tools a law firm requires throughout its business cycle, from client intake to invoicing needs, regardless of whether it’s an integration or native tool.

Speaking of acquisitions, during my meeting with Litera representatives, I learned that they’re in the process of merging their two recent acquisitions, Doxly and Workshare into their product. The end result will be to provide seamless document creation and collaboration tools to their customers.

I learned from Casepoint that their ediscovery platform has always been cloud-based, and that in 2019 they released the updated Casepoint platform with an open API. They’ve seen an increased interest from public sector agencies seeking to move ediscovery functions to the cloud. They were recently chosen by the SEC, and serve Federal Public Defenders offices as well.

I also met with NetDocuments, another company that has always been cloud-based. NetDocuments is seeing a lot of growth in both the large and small firm space, and emphasized that they provide a single document management platform for all users, regardless of firm size. Notably, NetDocuments is adding a new layer to their document management software and is building in document collaboration tools, including tasks and annotation features.

During my iManage meeting the focus was on the functionality offered by their Ravn acquisition, which allows law firms to use machine learning and AI to intelligently search contracts and obtain necessary insights. They plan to expand their content through APIs with other products, so that the built-in AI tools can glean even more useful information from the increased data points.

Speaking of contract analytics, I learned during my Thought River meeting that there is a similar focus in the year to come. The goal is to add to their content database through key integrations in order to help enterprise clients solve their problems without friction.

Last, but not least, I met with LexisNexis and Lex Machina (acquired by LexisNexis a few years ago). During the Lex Machina meeting, I learned that the focus has been on acquiring more data, specifically from state courts so that their AI litigation analytics software can provide increasing insights from the state-level data to law firms.

And while meeting with LexisNexis I was informed that a large focus in the coming year is … wait for it … to obtain more content. They’ve invested $1.2 billion into their technology infrastructure, which included significant investments into the acquisition of new content. I learned that they view data as the backbone of search, and that the future of search will involve conversations with users via chatbots, as I discussed more fully in this post.

And with that, it’s a wrap. Legalweek 2020 has come and gone. A lot changed, and a lot stayed the same. The best part, as always, was the networking and catching up with old friends. If you couldn’t make it this year, I hope to see you in 2021!

And if you’ll be at ABA TECHSHOW later this month, let me know. I’ll be speaking this year and would welcome the opportunity to connect. Drop me an email or make sure to stop by the MyCase booth and say hi!

---

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney and Director of Business and Community Relations at MyCase, web-based law practice management software. She’s been blogging since 2005, has written a weekly column for the Daily Record since 2007, is the author of Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York. She’s easily distracted by the potential of bright and shiny tech gadgets, along with good food and wine. You can follow her on Twitter at @nikiblack and she can be reached at niki.black@mycase.com.

Our decisions should not be driven by a desire to be revered or lionized for reaching certain outcomes. We are not mass media icons. We are judges, nothing more and nothing less.

— Justice Clarence Thomas, in comments given during the dedication ceremony for the new Nathan Deal Judicial Center in Atlanta, Georgia. Thomas continued, adding, “[W]e judges … must be disciplined and on guard to make sure that we do not overstep our bounds. Each time a judge sidesteps or manipulates the law to achieve the desired outcome, the rule of law suffers.”

---

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 celebration of Black History Month this year, we’ve compiled a list of five black women attorneys we think everyone needs to know. These women made history by breaking down barriers everywhere they went, and admirably, used their positions as leaders to serve and support the black communities where they lived.

Olivia Warren clerked for the late Stephen Reinhardt, known as the liberal lion of the Ninth Circuit, from 2017 until his death in 2018. Today, Warren testified at a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on sexual misconduct in the federal judiciary about the judge’s shocking behavior while she was a clerk.

As she noted in her written testimony, Warren said she was not looking “to destroy Judge Reinhardt’s legacy, to erase his significant contributions to the law, or to condemn him.” However, her oral testimony noted, “I saw the bad in him,” saying Reinhardt was “a judge who demeaned his employees, a man who demeaned women, and a man who sexually harassed me.” That’s a hard thing to reconcile with anyone’s idea of a progressive champion.

The allegations in Warren’s testimony are downright shocking. Here are some of the worst ones:

• The alleged harassment began on the very first day Warren began work as a clerk for Reinhardt. In her testimony, she indicated on that day she came across a sine chart with “two round dots to the top of the curves such that the chart resembled a woman’s breasts.” Reinhardt added the dots.
  Her testimony continues, “In addition to emphasizing how proud he was of the nipples he had drawn on the chart and confirming that he and the clerk had made it, he asked me a question about whether or not it was ‘accurate.’ Based on his tone and demeanor, I understood his question to be asking whether or not the drawing looked like my breasts.”
• Warren also testified that Reinhardt would she her photos of female law clerk applicants and say “which candidate was more attractive and which candidate had nicer or longer legs.”
• She testified that the judge “routinely and frequently made disparaging statements about my physical appearance, my views about feminism and women’s rights, and my relationship with my husband (including our sexual relationship).”
  “Often, these remarks included expressing surprise that I even had a husband because I was not a woman who any man would be attracted to. In that vein, Judge Reinhardt often speculated that my husband must be a ‘wimp,’ or possibly gay,” Warren testified. “Judge Reinhardt would use both words and gestures to suggest that my ‘wimp’ husband must either lack a penis, or not be able to get an erection in my presence.”
• “He frequently discussed and always cast doubt upon credible allegations of sexual harassment. The doubts he expressed were sometimes based on his assessment of the attractiveness of the accuser, and sometimes based on his general incredulity that men could be harassing women.” Warren continued, “For example, Judge Reinhardt told me that the allegations of sexual harassment that came out against people like Louis CK and Harvey Weinstein were made by women who had initially ‘wanted it,’ and then changed their minds.”
• Warren attempted to engage Reinhardt on the subject of sexual harassment by describing sexual harassment she’s experienced, Reinhardt “became enraged.”
  “He yelled at me to stop speaking, and said that none of what I had just said was true. He explained to me that I had never been sexually harassed because no one had ever been sexually attracted to me.”
  “He said that to the extent that I believed I was sexually harassed, it was because men wanted to silence me and used harassment to do so—which, he added, was within their rights to free speech.”
• When the sexual misconduct allegation against disgraced former Ninth Circuit judge Alex Kozinski — reportedly a close friend of Reinhardt — became public, Warren says Reinhardt told her “that women were not to be trusted and that he did not ever want to be alone in a room with a female law clerk again; he suggested that he would not hire any more female clerks or other female employees for these reasons.”
  “Judge Reinhardt also repeatedly told me that he intended to publicly confront one of the women who accused Judge Kozinski at an event at UC-Irvine, with the intention of humiliating or silencing her. I later learned that when he met the woman at the event, he pointedly and publicly insulted her intellect.”

Warren also testified that she feared reporting the harassment because of Reinhardt’s power and position and that she feared he would retaliate if she came forward.

Jerrold Nadler, House Judiciary Committee chair, released the following  statement after the hearing:

“Culture change starts with the recognition that the judiciary is more than just its judges, and that protecting powerful judges from accountability and embarrassment is not the same as protecting the integrity of the judiciary, especially if it leaves law clerks and other employees more vulnerable to misconduct,” he said.

You can watch Warren’s testimony below, which begins at the 34:22 mark.

---

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).

Pour one out for the Ma ‘n’ Pa Bigot, who just got their trans-bashing rear ends handed to them by the Ninth Circuit. Sorry, Snowflakes, there’s no Fourteenth Amendment privacy right for the Lil’ Bigots to ban transgender students from the locker room. Trans kids just going to school like normal kids — which they are — is neither sexual harassment, nor an infringement on the free exercise of religion. And if Princess and Junior Bigot are so wigged out that they refuse to use the restroom all day, well, that’s on them.

If you’ve ever attended a PTA meeting, you will recognize the plaintiffs in Parents for Privacy v. Barr. They’re the ones muttering loudly about the old days, before everyone got so darn PC and started demanding nut-free snacks. If you’ve ever attended a PTA meeting, you already hated these people before you found out that they sued over a Student Safety Plan because it might one day protect a transgender girl, since “several cisgender girls suffered from stress and anxiety as a result of their fear that a transgender girl student who remains biologically male would be allowed to use the girls’ locker room and bathroom.”

As for the actual transgender boy going to school in the district, the “harm” suffered by other boys in the locker room was somewhat less than compelling.

Although privacy stalls were available in the bathrooms, these were insufficient to alleviate the cisgender boys’ fear of exposing themselves to Student A, because the stalls had gaps through which “partially unclothed bodies” could “inadvertently” be seen. And an available single-user bathroom was often inconvenient or was considered inferior because it lacked a shower.

As a parent of three teenagers myself, I can promise you that the last time any American kid showered after gym class was in 1988. They have about eight minutes to change and get back to math class, and anyway they’re perfectly happy to spray themselves with Axe and wallow in their own filth for hours on end.

But the Bigots had grievance theater to act out, and they weren’t wavering from the script. After they failed to bully the school out of adopting a plan to keep all students safe from Junior Bigot and his pals, the parents teamed up with anti-trans and anti-sex-ed groups to sue the school district, the state of Oregon, and the federal Department of Education alleging all manner of violations of their state and constitutional rights.

Plaintiffs sought an injunction forcing the district to require all students to use the bathroom corresponding to their gender as assigned at birth. But they were stymied by the district court, which dismissed the case for failure to state a legally cognizable claim. And they didn’t have any better luck yesterday at the Ninth Circuit. Womp womp!

It’s a fun opinion that’s definitely worth a read. But here’s the holding:

We agree with the district court and hold that there is no Fourteenth Amendment fundamental privacy right to avoid all risk of intimate exposure to or by a transgender person who was assigned the opposite biological sex at birth. We also hold that a policy that treats all students equally does not discriminate based on sex in violation of Title IX, and that the normal use of privacy facilities does not constitute actionable sexual harassment under Title IX just because a person is transgender. We hold further that the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide a fundamental parental right to determine the bathroom policies of the public schools to which parents may send their children, either independent of the parental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. Finally, we hold that the school district’s policy is rationally related to a legitimate state purpose, and does not infringe Plaintiffs’ First Amendment free exercise rights because it does not target religious conduct.

God bless Judge Wallace Tashima, who knows a little something about separate but unequal.

Parents for Privacy v. Barr [No. 18-35708 (9th Cir. 2020)]

---

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

Earlier this week, the Backstreet Boys performed on Good Morning America, and in honor of the upcoming Valentine’s Day holiday, they helped a young man pop the question to his girlfriend on live television as they sang “I’ll Never Break Your Heart.” The moment was sweet as could be, but there was just one problem: the couple had already been engaged.

Meet Priscilla Consolo, an associate at Kirkland & Ellis, who sources say skipped work to get engaged (again) to her fiancé. Here’s their super-cute second proposal:

Consolo first got engaged to her fiancé, Adam Diamond, back in 2017. After word got out that Consolo had already been engaged, she allegedly told people that she and Diamond had broken up in May 2019. But sources claim that back in November, Consolo told them about having just ordered her save-the-date cards. Her wedding website was taken down recently, but Google saved the date:

We’re told that Diamond even “proposed” to Consolo on Good Morning America with the ring he originally proposed to her with back in 2017 — a ring that sources at Kirkland say she wears to work every day. Here’s more from a tipster at K&E:

She even told people at work she would be unavailable during the day due to something unexpected, so she would not be coming in and would not be reachable by email.

Quit playing games with your Biglaw firm’s heart, Priscilla. We hope Kirkland doesn’t show you the meaning of being lonely. Best of luck on your upcoming nuptials!

Backstreet Boys help man propose to his girlfriend [Good Morning America]
Couple involved in Backstreet Boys proposal on ‘Good Morning America’ has already been engaged [Page Six]
Did Backstreet Boys-Assisted GMA Proposal Play Games With Our Hearts? [Daytime Confidential]

---

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.

Over the past decade, we’ve seen both corporations and law firms not only accept litigation finance as an option, but embrace it as a powerful tool. The seemingly inexorable growth of the practice has been fueled by myriad factors, including the discard of misconceptions by the profession, favorable legal and regulatory developments, and the hard-to-deny returns achieved by the financiers. 

As it expands and evolves, we at Above the Law continue to strive to better understand the dynamics of the litigation finance industry. For the fourth time, we are asking practicing litigators and their in-house peers for insight into broader industry trends as well as their perceptions of specific litigation finance firms. 

Please take our brief (as always) survey and let us know what drives the decision to seek financing, how adoption varies among industries and categories of companies, and other topics. Regardless of the extent of your experience with litigation finance, we want to hear from you!

Take our survey here, or below!

Okay, Imma be up front about this one. Yes, the allegations involved in this story include some serious stuff. And homophobic “jokes” are categorically unfunny and, more importantly, unacceptable. But. Butt. The image of a Biglaw partner standing up and shaking their tuchus in the middle of a mediation just strikes me as hilarious.

So, let’s get into the meat of this story. Dennis Duffy, a partner in the Houston office of BakerHostetler, represents Chevron in an employment discrimination case. The plaintiff, Alclair White, is represented by Alfonso Kennard Jr. of Kennard Law PC. Kennard filed a motion for sanctions and disqualification for Duffy’s allegedly “intolerable conduct” during a mediation.

As reported by Law360, during the August mediation session Duffy’s alleged behavior included “shaking his behind” in front of Kennard. Additionally, the filing alleges that Duffy mocked Kennard’s ponytail and intimated that because of the hairstyle Kennard would want to have sex with Duffy.

Because of this alleged display of unprofessional behavior, Kennard is asking the judge to remove Duffy from the case:

“As a result of Mr. Duffy’s abusive language, plaintiff’s counsel questions his professionalism and does not want any more instances in the future,” according to the motion.

Kennard “is not convinced that Mr. Duffy can restrain himself in future communications based on his vulgar language. Mr. Duffy’s actions go beyond the pale of anything that should be tolerated anywhere — let alone in a legal proceeding.”

For their part, BakerHostetler is denying the allegations made in the filing:

“While we are unable to comment on anything discussed in a confidential mediation, we strenuously deny the assertions made in Mr. Kennard’s filing,” BakerHostetler said in a statement.

Regardless of the accuracy of the allegations in the filing, my appreciation for irony demands I point out that Duffy’s page on the BakerHostetler website includes, in a prominent position, natch, this quote from Chambers USA, “Clients describe Dennis Duffy as ‘highly professional.’”

**Chef’s kiss.**

---

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).

It’s Pettiness Month in the Trump administration! ATL readers who do not live under rocks are undoubtedly aware of the headline pettiness, in which our only president fired people for testifying accurately against him (or in one case, for being related to someone who did). But if you don’t live in New York, you may have missed some immigration-specific pettiness: Because New York made a law limiting the Department of Homeland Security’s access to driver’s license records, New Yorkers are no longer eligible for DHS’s Trusted Traveler program.

The New York law in question is called the “green light” law, and its main purpose is to let undocumented immigrants apply for driver’s licenses. But another provision in the bill forbids the New York DMV from sharing its records with an immigration enforcement agency without a warrant or court order, and therein lies the “problem.” DHS, in a letter to the DMV, says New Yorkers are now canceled because the green light law “prevents DHS from accessing relevant information that only [the] New York DMV maintains.”

This alleged importance of driver’s license records came as a surprise to anyone who has applied for Trusted Traveler status, which does not require a driver’s license. Applicants’ criminal records are checked through the FBI, which is not a branch of the New York DMV. The DHS letter does, however, mention that Immigration and Customs Enforcement uses DMV records to verify identities and look up criminal histories. Indeed, ICE is fighting New York City in court for information about four former inmates who are immigrants, after the city refused to honor detainer requests under its sanctuary city ordinance.

That gave Gov. Andrew Cuomo some ideas about DHS’s real motives; last Friday, he called it “extortion” and “an abuse of power in a hyper-politicized government.” That impression was bolstered by Acting USCIS Director and breast-phobe Ken Cuccinelli, who on Thursday threatened the state of Washington with similar treatment if it passes a similar bill it’s considering. Not surprisingly, New York Attorney General Letitia James sued DHS on Monday, alleging equal protection and statutory violations, and Cuomo plans to meet with Trump Thursday to discuss it.

Lest you think the “Trusted Traveler ban” is merely an annoyance for rich Manhattanites, please recall that Buffalo is on the other border—you know, the one everyone ignores because white people are on both sides of it. Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown pointed that out in a Feb. 7 letter to DHS, asking “the party of fiscal responsibility” to reconsider before it breaks Buffalo’s heavily border-dependent economy. In an election year, economic issues are supposed to matter — but based on Trump administration practices, Republicans may love racial purity-protecting the homeland more even than they love money.

---

Lorelei Laird is a freelance writer specializing in the law, and the only person you know who still has an “I Believe Anita Hill” bumper sticker. Find her at wordofthelaird.com.

It was major legal industry news last April when international business and legal services powerhouse EY entered into an agreement with Thomson Reuters to acquire Pangea3, the legal managed services business.

Now, 10 months later, EY has laid off at least some of the U.S.-based lawyers who came with the deal.

While precise details remain uncertain, reports indicate that EY has let go some 20-30 lawyers who work for it in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area of Minnesota and the Dallas-Fort Worth area of Texas.

At least some of those who were laid off were former Thomson Reuters employees who moved to EY after the acquisition. It is not clear whether any were hired directly by EY after the acquisition.

Reports indicate that the layoffs have been confined to U.S. locations of the former Pangea3 and have not impacted locations elsewhere, including India, where Pangea3 employed a number of legal professionals.

I have reached out to executive-level contacts within EY for an official statement on the scope and reason for the layoffs.

Multiple employees in the two U.S. locations have confirmed to me that they have been laid off. They have estimated that the total number of employees let go is in range of 20-30, with 15-20 of those in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis-St. Paul.

Update: Someone with knowledge of the layoffs said the number affected was approximately 17 in Minneapolis-St. Paul and approximately 30 in Dallas-Fort Worth. The person also said that all affected had been hired by TR before the EY acquisition. 

At least some of these employees were hired by Thomson Reuters early last year as permanent employees. They worked within the Legal Managed Services group (the former Pangea3). They worked on e-discovery review and other projects and performed work for multiple clients.

Outsourcing Pioneer

Pangea3 was founded in 2004 by David Perla, then the former general counsel of Monster.com, and Sanjay Kamlani, the former general counsel and CFO of OfficeTiger. The company pioneered the outsourcing of U.S. legal work to legal professionals in India.

In 2010, Thomson Reuters acquired Pangea3 in deal that media reports valued at roughly $40 million, but that sources familiar with the deal have told me was actually $100 million.

Last year, EY acquired Pangea3 — which TR renamed its Legal Managed Services division — for an undisclosed amount. At the time, Pangea3 employed more than 1,000 legal professionals across eight service delivery locations on three continents.

Also moving to EY as managing directors were the two TR executives who oversaw Pangea3, Joe Borstein and Ed Sohn. Shortly after the deal, the two appeared as guests on my LawNext podcast.

EY’s acquisition of Pangea3 followed its acquisition in August 2018 of Riverview Law, a UK-based alternative legal services provider.

As I said at the outset, details remain sketchy. While I have confirmed that layoffs occurred, I have not confirmed the number affected or the reasons for the move. As I learn more, I will provide updates.