Category: News Feeds

Over the course of Trump’s presidency, law school applications have experienced a resurgence of sorts, climbing by about 8 percent in 2018, and going up by another 3 percent in 2019. This phenomenon became known as the Trump Bump, as college students were pushed to pursue legal careers due to the country’s oftentimes chaotic political climate. Many hoped that the increase in applications would be here to stay, but unfortunately, it seems that the Trump-inspired surge in law school applicants was no match for the global pandemic.

According to the latest data from the Law School Admission Council, applications are down 2.5 percent from last year at this point in the cycle. In June 2019, law schools had received 95 percent of all applications for the upcoming fall semester. But should we be expecting a sudden uptick sometime soon? Thanks to COVID-19’s disruption of a major part of the application process — namely, the administration of the LSAT — it could happen. Here’s more on that from Karen Sloan of Law.com:

[LSAC] canceled both the March and April in-person LSATs due to the coronavirus. But it rolled out a pared-down, online version of the exam in May. The LSAT Flex, as the remote exam has been dubbed, is being administered for the second time next week and again in July. Thus, it’s possible that schools will see a wave of late applications from people who planned to take the LSAT in March and April but had to take the May LSAT Flex instead. (Score from that first LSAT Flex, which approximately 10,000 took at home, will be released June 5.) There is typically a surge of applications submitted immediately after an LSAT score release, noted council president Kellye Testy in an interview Wednesday.

“COVID created a period where nothing happened, and it shifted the timeline down,” Testy said. “What we might have usually seen happen on May 1 could happen more like May 30 this year. Right now, we’re 2.5% off last year. I personally think it’s amazing that it’s only 2.5% given all the disruption.”

Plus, we could also be looking forward to another onslaught of law school applicants thanks to the economic downturn that’s been caused by the pandemic, just like what happened with the recession. “In the short-term, going to professional school—be it business school, law school or something else—is a good idea because it’s a refuge from an inhospitable job market, and the job market will be better three years from now,” said Professor Bernie Burke, who studies the economics of legal education.

Testy said she has heard from many applicants who say that they didn’t originally intend to pursue law school this fall but are going that route due to canceled job offers and internships. Many law schools have extended their application deadlines to accommodate those latecomers, she noted. Meanwhile, a council survey of law school applicants found that the vast majority are still planning to enroll this fall despite uncertainty over what form their education will take.

“It’s at 85% or more, of those who have decided they still will attend,” Testy said. “They don’t love that it might be online, but that wouldn’t significantly affect their decision.”

In other words, law schools should prepare to batten down the hatches — either for a loss of revenue due to a decrease in enrollment, or a large increase in their seat capacity (virtual, as it were, at least for the Fall 2020 semester). Let’s see where we end up when all is said and done for the current application cycle. Best of luck!

Law School Applications Are Down. Will COVID-19 Spur a Late Comeback? [Law.com]

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.

While many states pushed their bar exam to the Fall and others are exploring online exams or a diploma privilege option, some bolder states are telling applicants that there’s no reason not to hold an in-person bar exam in July. And these states are so confident that there is no public health crisis that they really need everyone to absolve them of all liability.

Virginia recently made some edits to their bar exam homepage, and applicants now have this guidance to deal with:

We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: this isn’t a demolition derby, it’s a professional licensing exam. If a state feels that it needs a waiver to hold the test, that’s a pretty good sign that it shouldn’t be going forward with the test. Because unlike the derby, there are a number of steps readily available to Virginia that could reduce or avoid this risk. Like, for example, not holding the test in-person in July.

Earlier: Bar Exam Applicants Forced To Sign COVID Waiver In Case In-Person Exam Ends Up Killing Them
North Carolina Also Demands Waiver In Case It Kills Anyone With Bar Exam

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

More than 60 million Americans are currently under some type of curfew order, in almost 50 cities across the country. The President has threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to send in the military to put down protests. Following nearly three months of COVID quarantine, the American people are now facing a different kind of shutdown, and the threat of violent enforcement is very real. And with COVID spreading nearly unchecked in jails and prisons, the consequences of mass arrests are grim.

Whether you are in the streets or sheltering in place, it’s a good time to catch up on recent developments in police liability litigation and learn how to protect protesters in the streets and the courtroom. Check out these five crucial programs:

1. Protest Lawyering: From the Street to the Courtroom: This engaging program discusses how attorneys can support protesters in understanding their rights before an arrest takes place.
2. Protest Lawyering Part II: Mass Arrest Arraignments: This course continues where the previous program leaves off, analyzing courtroom tactics and defenses when representing protesters following a mass arrest.
3. Using Police Misconduct Databases in Criminal and Civil Rights Litigation: This state driven program delves into the ways attorneys can obtain information about prior police misconduct, and how to use that data in the courtroom.
4. Police Liability Under Section 1983: The Year in Review: This 2019 program analyzes recent police misconduct litigation, including cutting-edge theories of liability and how SCOTUS is handling the qualified immunity doctrine.
5. Law Enforcement Liability Under Section 1983: Critical Steps for the Trial Lawyer: This practical program walks viewers through trial practice for a high exposure police brutality case, including discovery issues, pre and post-trial motion practice, jury selection, witness examination, and more.

If you are protesting, please take the proper pandemic precautions to stay safe and protect others. To get involved in protest defense in your capacity as an attorney, check out the National Lawyers Guild’s Mass Defense Program, or donate to The Bail Project to help get protesters out of jail.

And remember, Black Lives Matter.

Related Content:

1. COVID-19 in Jails and Prisons: Civil Rights Litigation in Response to the Crisis
2. Political Law Updates During the COVID Crisis
3. Advocating for Political Activists On the Streets and in the Courtroom

The Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLC law firm has been sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for allegedly breaching its engagement letter by failing to file suit against Under Armour. The complaint, which was filed on June 3 and includes a count for fraud in the inducement, was filed by Multiple Energy Technologies, LLC, which claims that it retained Manatt for the specific purpose of pursuing a false advertising claim against Under Armour.

Multiple Energy Technologies says that Manatt understood and represented that it would serve as legal counsel for the company in disputes against Under Armour and Hologenix, LLC, but that it only focused on the latter entity, failing to initiate any action against Under Armour during the four months that the representation arrangement was in place. The complaint does not attach the engagement letter, but quotes a portion of it that purportedly states that Manatt would “represent and advise [MET] in connection with a false advertising claim against Hologenix LLC, Hologenix, Inc., and Under Armour (the ‘False Advertising Claim’).”

A lawsuit was filed against Hologenix on February 28, 2019, with Manatt noticing its appearance on behalf of Multiple Energy Technologies. Multiple Energy Technologies says that it continuously asked Manatt strategy questions concerning Under Armour and that Manatt ultimately answered that Under Armour was not covered by its engagement, demanding additional monies from Multiple Energy Technologies if it wanted to pursue separate legal action against Under Armour.

Manatt eventually withdrew from representing Multiple Energy Technologies in the litigation that was initiated against Hologenix; Multiple Energy Technologies claims that the withdrawal came after Manatt attempted to impose new terms of engagement on it and after Multiple Energy Technologies made many inquiries as to why no action was being taken against Under Armour.

A lawsuit was later initiated by Multiple Energy Technologies against Under Armour, which remains pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and seeks injunctive relief as well as damages for Under Armour’s alleged breaches of duties owed to Multiple Energy Technologies as well as misappropriation of Multiple Energy Technologies’ trade secrets and proprietary information. Multiple Energy Technologies is represented by White and Williams LLP in that action.

Multiple Energy Technologies’ lawsuit against Manatt includes four causes of action. The breach of contract claim asserts that Manatt breached the engagement agreement when it unilaterally decided that Under Armour was not included in the scope of work and that the cap on fees, included in the engagement agreement, did not apply to taking action against Under Armour. An unjust enrichment claim says that Manatt should be required to return any monies it is holding onto that Multiple Energy Technologies provided as a retainer and that were not used prior to Manatt’s withdrawal from the Hologenix litigation. A declaratory judgment cause of action asks the court to rule that Multiple Energy Technologies owes no further fees to Manatt. Lastly, a fraud in the inducement cause of action claims that Manatt, through its partners (including Barry Lee), affirmatively stated that it received firm-management approval to enter into a capped-fee arrangement that included litigation against Under Armour. Multiple Energy Technologies relied on the representations and was thus injured by the reliance on such misrepresentation. Multiple Energy Technologies is seeking punitive damages based on the alleged fraud in the inducement.

I have reached out to Manatt for comment on the pending litigation and, if received, will update this story.

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

I am generally a bit hesitant to speak up, especially when there are so many competing voices echoing similar sentiments in the social media chambers we all occupy. But I cannot be silent any longer. I have seen a number of articles addressing the plight of black professionals fighting to exist in corporate America, but I have yet to see any commentary that specifically addresses the demographic to which I belong — the black junior associate attorney working at a large corporate law firm aka “Biglaw.”

I think black attorneys such as myself are in a uniquely challenging position. In addition to being forced to maintain the same semblance of composure and level of productivity as our non-black counterparts (a level which, for a whole host of reasons, is already difficult to replicate), the potential repercussions for vocalizing our frustrations (about society, about management, about anything, frankly) are often far more subtle than an immediate dismissal. Rather than being viewed as a valued team member offering earnest feedback with the goal of making contributions to enhance your work environment (thereby leading to happier and more productive employees, increased minority retention, and a healthier bottom line for the firm), the overly vocal black associate is likely viewed as a complainer — judgmental and difficult.

And, if these sorts of mischaracterizations are not enough, there is always the ever-present threat of not being able to generate enough work. If you fail to bill an appropriate amount of hours, the writing for your future career at ABC firm is all but written on the walls. Of course, as an associate, you are not expected to generate your own client billable work. Your clients are your practice group partners and your senior associates. These are the people tasked with training you in the art of lawyering and the majority of the time, these “clients” are also your managers — the people with whom said junior associate would be expected to raise any issues or concerns.

Surely, dear readers, you can understand the inherent tension with this arrangement. It leads to black associates carrying the very real fear of being “blackballed” (wherein partners and senior associates no longer wish to work with you and rather than explicitly tell you this, they seemingly begin to not have assignments available when you ask for work, or they continually promise to “keep you in mind for the next one” but that matter never arrives). What your clients do not say is that the reason you are no longer being selected for work (and therefore no longer being invested in and trained) is because your clients are more comfortable working with Josh, your white male colleague who never really has any negative feedback to make about the firm or his clients. So, as time goes on, Josh continues to generate multiple times the amount of work you do. Your clients like working with Josh because he is psychologically easier to engage with and for many of your clients (who are also white men), Josh reminds them of themselves — eager, talented, hardworking. Next thing you know, it’s the end of the review period and your hours pale in comparison to Josh, who, let us not forget, has generated multiple times the amount of work as you. As annual reviews approach, these numbers will serve as a clear indication, immortalized in black and white ink, that you simply aren’t cut out for this line of work. You clearly weren’t dedicated enough to the work. After all, if you were, your numbers would be better. And after the low hours are unveiled, there will be meetings to discuss how you aren’t a good fit for ABC firm and that you will need to find a new job.

The aforementioned scenario happens routinely in Biglaw. It is a known contributor to Biglaw firms’ poor retention rates of black junior attorneys and one of the key reasons black attorneys are not promoted through the ranks to partnership. It is also the exact reason that being a black Biglaw associate is uniquely difficult. Anyone with a basic knowledge of the social, cultural, and historical context of the United States and the nature of human psychology can quickly understand how a junior black associate verbalizing concerns and offering valid criticisms (even asking pointed questions) can lead to undesirable outcomes for said black associate. There’s no safe and polite way for the black junior associate to express frustrations to white leadership. These are uncomfortable conversations and the potential downside is often deemed too great a risk to take.

Of course, this is the reality of the black junior associate whether there is a pandemic or not — and whether there is a highly publicized black murder or not — so it’s not that recent events have changed anything. But the lack of support that some firms’ leadership have demonstrated with their deafening silence towards their black attorneys is astounding.

Additionally, Biglaw firms are not immune from the economic impact of COVID-19, and in spite of the fact that right now black attorneys are undoubtedly feeling the most exhausted and vulnerable that they have felt in recent history, everyone recognizes the importance of being grateful for retaining your job during a recession. Few of us are interested in risking our financial security for the sake of being “authentic” or feeling “heard” or even “valued” at our firms of employment. This truth is disappointing and disheartening, and it is entirely understandable.

To be fair, not all firms have fumbled this opportunity to fight the narrative that Biglaw is another heartless faction of corporate America. There are certain firms and leaders who have made respectable efforts to acknowledge the weightiness of this moment, suggesting that their black junior associates will not be forced to carry these burdens alone. Still, there are plenty of firms that have effectively done no more than wave at their black associates who are drowning and offer them a half-deflated life vest.

Miraculously, many of us will catch the life vest, silently patch the holes, and continue to swim forward. We are our ancestors’ wildest dreams. Black people have been resilient for over 400 years and we will not stop now.

Lauren E. Skerrett is an associate attorney at a large, multinational firm. She graduated with a BA in philosophy from Washington and Lee University and obtained her JD from Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, along with an LLM from Institut d’Études Politiques de Paris (“Sciences Po”). All views expressed belong to her and should not be attributed to any organization with which she is affiliated.You can reach her by email at lauren.skerrett@gmail.com.

The outbreak has hit an economy that was experiencing its worst crisis in a decade, marked by shortages of food, medicines and foreign currency.

Minister Mthuli Ncube said the funds would be spent on protective equipment and go towards payouts to those families worst impacted by COVID-19.

In all, the government aimed to raise 1 billion Zimbabwe dollars in emergency coronavirus funding, with the rest coming from “the insurance and pension funds”, he told a parliamentary committee, without giving details.

Banks and other local investors are usually the main buyers of Zimbabwe’s domestic debt.

Zimbabwe, which has experienced bouts of hyperinflation in the last decade, does not qualify to borrow from international lenders like the Word Bank and International Monetary Fund due to longstanding arrears.

The treasury has resorted to domestic borrowing to help finance the budget, while the central bank frequently provides unbudgeted subsidies to farmers and gold producers, fuelling inflation, which rose beyond 750 year-on-year in April.

Post published in: Business

* A receiver may be appointed to oversee the dissolution of Cellino & Barnes. That receiver would have tough decisions about what to do with the jingle. [New York Post]

* The former police officer accused of killing George Floyd is being represented by a new lawyer. [Reuters]

* An attorney who is also a police officer has been prohibited from working on traffic matters in courts located in the county where he is a cop. [Bloomberg Law]

* President Trump is already being challenged over an executive order he signed targeting social media. [Washington Post]

* Steven Avery, a subject of the Netflix series Making a Murderer, has been diagnosed with COVID-19 according to his lawyer. [Daily Beast]

* The Washington State Attorney General is suing tuna companies for allegedly fixing the price of their product. Hope the defendants don’t use “canned” arguments when defending the case. [Spokesman Review]

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.

Protests demanding justice for Floyd, a black man who died in Minneapolis after a policeman knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes, have spread across the United States and turned violent.

Robert O’Brien, President Donald Trump’s national security advisor, told ABC news in an interview on Sunday that countries such as Russia, China, Iran and Zimbabwe were adversaries that were using the unrest to stoke tensions in the United States.

Washington has frequently criticised Zimbabwe’s human rights record in the past, including crackdowns on opposition protests.

In a statement, Zimbabwe’s Foreign Minister Sibusiso Moyo said O’Brien’s accusations were “false and deeply damaging to a relationship already complicated due to years of prescriptive megaphone diplomacy and punitive economic sanctions”.

“We take due note of the measures deployed by the U.S. authorities to deal with the challenges currently confronting them. At the same time, we recall the harsh U.S. criticism and condemnation of our own response to multiple instances of illegal, violent civil unrest,” said Moyo.

In a statement in response, Nichols, the U.S. ambassador, said the United States would continue to speak out against injustices at home and abroad.

Post published in: Featured

This commentary notes that tardy official communication of policy promotes disinformation and misinformation. Further disinformation can arise from a lack of opportunities for public participation in policymaking. Resolving these problems in tackling COVID-19 information pathologies in this information age requires early communication by governments and the provision of quick and clear channels for legitimate public participation in policymaking.

Four incidents from Zimbabwe’s COVID-19 response illustrate disinformation and misinformation driven by shortcomings in the policy communication and participation scheme. The background to these incidents included widespread panic over a suspected positive COVID-19 case in mid-February 2020; the person eventually tested negative. Neighboring South Africa had also confirmed its first positive COVID-19 case at the beginning of March 2020 and was announcing exponentially rising cases and the onset of local transmission throughout early-mid March 2020.

The four incidents are as follows.

Some days before 16 March 2020, a message relating to CIMAS’ role in combating COVID-19 began circulating on WhatsApp. CIMAS, a private entity, is the dominant medical aid provider in Zimbabwe. The message stated that anyone who suspected that they may be COVID-19 positive should call CIMAS’ emergency number and they would get an ambulance to take them to hospital. Further that CIMAS would disinfect their homes. The message stated that CIMAS had been funded by the United Nations to make these services available for free. On 16 March 2020, CIMAS issued an open letter refuting this and stating that the only correct procedure when COVID-19 is suspected is to follow the guidelines outlined by the Ministry of Health and Child Care. On 20 March 2020, a Ministry of Health and Child Care toll-free hotline was established and those who suspected they may have COVID-19 were directed to call. The question of funding for an ambulance or home disinfection has not been addressed.

On or just before 17 March 2020, a press statement emerged which purported to emanate from the University of Zimbabwe, a public university which is the country’s flagship tertiary education institution. The press statement asserted that the university would be closed from the 19th of March 2020 because a student and a faculty member had tested positive for COVID-19. On 17 March 2020, the university issued a statement advising that this press statement did not originate from them. Two days later, the president announced that all educational institutions would close on 24 March 2020.

As a measure to cope with the coronavirus pandemic, the government of Zimbabwe imposed a three-week lockdown period running from 30 March 2020 to 19 April 2020. A press statement dated 10 April 2020 emerged on WhatsApp purportedly emanating from the president. The statement asserted that the ongoing three-week lockdown had been extended by fourteen days. The president declared that he had issued no such statement. The question of whether the lockdown would be extended remained unanswered until the last day of the initial lockdown period. On Sunday 19 April 2020, after 4 pm, the president announced that the lockdown would be extended by fourteen days.

Finally, a press statement purportedly emanating from the president and dated 07 April 2020 appeared on WhatsApp. It stated that rent payments would be suspended during the lockdown period. The government disavowed the statement on that day and noted that government had discussed and rejected that option, a detail that had not been publicly communicated prior to this. One week into the two-week extension – with one week left of an aggregate five-week period, the government announced that there would be a rent and mortgage payment deferral for the entire lockdown period.

The production and initial circulation of the statements amounted to disinformation.

In all four cases, the information traveled quickly through WhatsApp. While internet services are expensive in Zimbabwe, data bundles limited to WhatsApp are relatively affordable.

In all of these cases, the government was silent for a long time on matters in which the public was entitled to expect the government to set forth a position. Disinformation filled the information void created by such silence. The disinformation elicited policy clarity from authorities, even if through denials. Significantly, no attempts at disinformation controverting the authorities’ position – once one was given – have been reported in any of these matters. Information deficiency enabled disinformation to spread through well-meaning misinformation. Early clarity on the government’s position could have curbed the disinformation as the government response did curb the misinformation.

It is notable that, to the extent that the government was directly implicated, it ultimately took measures similar to those suggested by the disinformation. Thus, disinformation may also have filled a perceived participation gap. There was little public inclusiveness in the COVID-19 response. Public health experts did not play a publicly active role; the COVID-19 taskforce is composed entirely of government ministers, which has led to the view that politicians rather than scientists lead the COVID-19 response. In fast-moving circumstances where it was unclear how government was deciding issues arising in the COVID-19 response, disinformation may have sought to bring to government’s attention particular opinions on those issues.

The above situations reflect a variant of disinformation which amounts to a call – and associated misinformation which arises from the need – for early communication by governments of policy information of importance to decision-making by members of the public during crises. The disinformation may also be indicative of a desire for better participation channels during crises. Disinformation is often perceived as being motivated by a desire to harm for personal profit, for political gain or out of malice. The cases above indicate that disinformation sometimes breaks from that mold. This matters when crafting solutions to information pathologies.

Parity of reasoning suggests that disinformation and misinformation could also arise from ambiguity in authorities’ communication. Disinformation here is driven by a desire for clarity on authorities’ position, while misinformation increases because people are more likely to believe alternative information sources when they cannot trust official sources.

In the cases above, authorities rejected the statements. The day after extending the lockdown by fourteen days, the government arrested the alleged source of the lockdown extension rumor and charged him with distributing false news, an offence for which the statutory maximum sentence is twenty years imprisonment.

With disinformation motivated by information and participation shortcomings, criminal proceedings are an inappropriate response. Creating phony statements was undoubtedly misguided, but the key solution to that problem is early, clear information with provision for legitimate participation in policymaking.

Zvikomborero Chadambuka is a Ph.D. student on the Institutions, Economics & Law program at the University of Turin and a visiting researcher at Cornell Law School.

Post published in: Featured