Category: News Feeds

First Amendment expression is a significant pillar of our constitutional freedoms in the United States, and when it comes to free expression online, the protections for vigorous debate over the internet should be no exception. Now, more than ever, online platforms such as Facebook and Twitter are providing incredible means through which to share not only ideas but news and events. The interesting fact is that none other than President Donald Trump himself enjoys using Twitter to directly reach his more than 81 million followers. His tweets, however, are not without controversy, and it seems some of them have now fanned the flames of “censorship” of content (or users) by online platforms, claiming that the social media platform (and others) may be engaging in activity that is eroding the very bedrock principle of First Amendment expression. Whether you agree with him or not, the underlying premise and its context is worth a look, and may even open your eyes to seeing online content liability in a new light.

How this issue came to a head recently is no surprise. After Trump posted a number of tweets on Twitter about potential fraud in mail-in voting, Twitter apparently added an alert within those tweets encouraging users to “[g]et the facts about mail-in ballots.” This drew an immediate and intense response from Trump against Twitter, claiming that “@Twitter is now interfering in the 2020 Election” by relying on fact-checking from “fake news” CNN and The Washington Post. Seems like some robust free expression to me, but the interesting point here is that Twitter itself acknowledged that Trump’s tweets did not violate Twitter’s terms of use and policies, yet Twitter felt obliged to add the warning label. Trump was less than amused — this interaction prompted him to recently sign an executive order directing federal agencies to alter their interpretation of the liability protections afforded internet service providers under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.  Interesting, indeed — but for different reasons than you may think.

To those who are not familiar, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 helped shape the internet as it stands today. Under Section 230(c)(1), “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” In essence, Section 230 protects internet service providers from being treated like publishers, affording them immunity from liability for the content that is posted on their platforms. Further, Section 230 allows such providers to avoid liability for taking action “in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”  What does this mean? It means that such providers can regulate certain content that meets such criteria without fear of civil liability for removing it.

From my experience with Section 230 since its inception, I find the current debate striking because many policymakers (and many lawyers) seem to misunderstand certain aspects of Section 230 and its application that are affecting the debate. Here are the three biggest misconceptions regarding Section 230 that everyone needs to keep in mind:

1. Don’t Get Caught Up With “Publisher” And “Platform.” Given the text of Section 230(c)(1) and the jurisprudence prior its enactment, it is easy to fall into the trap of seeing a legal distinction between “platform” and “publisher” and the extent of control over the content; however, this would be in error. The focus should remain on whether a platform is a “speaker” of the content. For example, if someone posted a defamatory reaction (i.e., comment) to an article posted by a staff writer for Yahoo News, then Yahoo News would not be liable for such defamation simply because it posted the comment. On the other hand, if any of Yahoo’s news editors or staff writers posted defamatory content on the Yahoo News website, then Yahoo News could be held liable for such posting because they would be the “information content provider.” For lack of better words, the online platform must not be the originator of the defamatory content at issue for Section 230 immunity to apply.
2. Copyrights Are NOT The Issue In Section 230. The fact that an internet service provider may store content it does not know to be infringing or otherwise “take down” such content under its policies and procedures and not be held liable for doing so should not be confused with Section 230 immunity. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and more specifically, Section 512, not only addresses immunity for the transmission and caching of infringing content through automated means, but the requirements for receiving immunity from liability for the storage of infringing content it does not know to be infringing that resides on the platform. Of course, the DMCA is a lot more involved than the thumbnail reference above, but the point is that the DMCA is addressing immunity from liability for actions taken with respect to copyright infringement. Section 230, however, deals with immunity from liability for the posting of defamatory, obscene, excessively violent content, etc., whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.
3. Section 230 Does NOT Provide Blanket Immunity. Section 230 definitely provides very broad immunity (by design), however, it is not blanket immunity. Section 230 does not, in fact, protect an internet service provider against criminal prosecution under federal statutes. For example, Section 230 does not grant immunity to websites that facilitate and profit from revenge pornography and sextortion, among others. With the enactment of the “Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act” (FOSTA) signed by Trump in 2018, it became illegal for internet service providers to knowingly assist, support, or facilitate sex trafficking as well.  As a result, Section 230 does nothing to immunize an internet service provider from criminal prosecution under such relevant federal statutes.

Regardless of one’s political persuasion, most of us can agree that First Amendment expression is, indeed, a “bedrock” constitutional principle. Does this mean that Twitter’s actions on Trump’s tweets merit a remake of Section 230? At best, Twitter’s action seems ill-advised because it is not something consistently applied across the entire service — the notion of a social media platform potentially “taking sides” is repugnant to our notions of justice and fair play and undermines legitimate discourse. That said, do these facts merit a re-evaluation of Section 230 immunity? Given the broad interpretation of Section 230 by the courts since the law’s enactment, there is a good chance that more restrictive interpretation of Section 230 in line with Trump’s executive order will face an uphill constitutional battle. Perhaps that is the point. Inquiring minds will definitely differ, but the point here is that any debate should maintain the correct perspective on Section 230 and what is does (and does not) do. Anything else is just, well, idle chatter.

---

Tom Kulik is an Intellectual Property & Information Technology Partner at the Dallas-based law firm of Scheef & Stone, LLP. In private practice for over 20 years, Tom is a sought-after technology lawyer who uses his industry experience as a former computer systems engineer to creatively counsel and help his clients navigate the complexities of law and technology in their business. News outlets reach out to Tom for his insight, and he has been quoted by national media organizations. Get in touch with Tom on Twitter (@LegalIntangibls) or Facebook (www.facebook.com/technologylawyer), or contact him directly at tom.kulik@solidcounsel.com.

Just a few years ago, Alan Howard brought his terminally ailing hedge fund home. Shorn of its Brevan and left only in Howard’s care by the apparently-not-especially-restorative-regardless-of-tax-advantages shores of Lake Geneva, the firm that once made Howard the richest hedge fund manager in Britain was at death’s door.

But, somewhat miraculously, Brevan Howard did not die. And re-transplanted to its native soil, and now breathing the especially free air of Blighty, it is not merely surviving but thriving.

Most criminal courts around the country have been closed or working virtually since the onset of COVID-19 quarantining in March. But neither arrests nor the incarceration of those arrested have stopped.

In addition, more than half a million people, or six out of ten detainees in jails, are awaiting trial in the U.S., according to studies by the Pretrial Justice Institute. Their cases have been indefinitely postponed.

That’s a tough thing to tell a client calling from jail, panicked, having recently been sprayed with a chemical agent used to quell unrest inside his facility.   His questions: When do I go back to court? How long can I be held here before trial? Aren’t I supposed to be presumed innocent?

Have constitutional rights to due process and a speedy trial been canceled due to the pandemic?

The answer, for the moment, is yes. Speedy trial rights have been stopped either by governors’ decrees or by the fact that because of the pandemic no jurors are being called to court. And there’s no end in sight.

What used to by my typical day — appearing in five court parts, visiting clients in jail, being on trial — has now become fielding desperate calls from incarcerated clients and talking them down from the proverbial ledge.

My answer to their questions is vague and unsatisfactory to both me and them: “No, I don’t know when things will get back to normal again.” I plead with them to stay calm no matter how angry, frustrated, and uncertain they feel. My work right now is more psychology than law because there’s really not much I can do to advance their case without being able to start a trial.

Many of my clients suffer pre-existing medical conditions like asthma and are now stuck in a confined space with 30 to 50 other inmates. There’s no testing of inmates without symptoms, who may be silent carriers. Prisoners’ movements are restricted to one of two rooms, the “day room” where food is eaten and TV watched, or their cells, if they’re lucky enough to have solos.     Quarantining has meant the elimination of yard time, library, and in-person visits.

Many in jail also suffer mental illness, everything from bipolar disorder and schizophrenia to anxiety and depression. While most still get their meds, many are afraid to take medication if it makes them too drowsy. Right now, they need to be even more aware of what’s happening in the confined space around them. They don’t want to get too close to a guy who’s sneezing or another who’s bugging out. There’s also evidence that mental health issues lead to sleeplessness, which further weakens the immune system, leaving such people more susceptible to COVID-19.

I’ve done many Skype bail applications where the judge, court reporter, court clerk, prosecutor, defendant, and I appear in adjacent boxes. All of us professionals inhabit very different realities than that of the inmate. The backgrounds of our boxes are open living rooms, windowed offices or book-lined studies. The inmate’s interior is the inside of a video booth where the noise of alarms, correction officers having conversations, and the shouts of dealing with the day-to-day in prison are so loud, it’s often necessary that he remain muted.

Adding to the pressure of worrying about catching the virus — eating, sleeping, and showering less than two feet from the next guy — an equal source of anxiety for them is not knowing when their case will get back on track to trial.

In the days before COVID-19 days, the prosecution was charged with the time when they couldn’t start a trial. Eventually after a set amount passed, the case could get dismissed. That’s no longer true. COVID-19 time counts for no one.  Inmates are in limbo. Speedy trial mandates have become a thing of the past.

There’s still no word on when jurors will be called back to serve or strategies to employ when they do re-enter courtrooms. Some suggestions are that defendants sit six feet from their attorneys and that jurors spread throughout the room to ensure social distancing. Then there’s the matter of deliberations. Juror rooms, often small, windowless spaces reminiscent of 12 Angry Men, will have to be moved to much bigger venues.

Defense attorneys fear that when jury service resumes, those jurors called will be a subset of the population — those with no pre-existing medical conditions and potentially fewer minority jurors since COVID-19 impacts that population at a higher percentage rate.

So, what’s the solution?

Waiting for trial to start is not as painful if the waiting is done outside of jail.  Judges and prosecutors must reconsider their traditional, pre-COVID-19 stances on bail — i.e., asking for the highest they can and assuming defendants won’t come to court if released. Open-mindedness on alternatives is what’s needed now, even regarding defendants charged with violent crimes.

For some, $2,500 paid by a family member is high bail and will guarantee their return because they wouldn’t want to see their family member lose it. For others, ankle bracelets, or daily check-ins with a court-monitoring agency, might be necessary. Many just need a regular address, housing, and medical treatment. Maybe intermediate halfway-type houses could be used for impoverished inmates who don’t need to be in jail but just need a place to live and a metro card to return to court.

Until courts resume normally, which could be months or even longer, it’s time for judges to think outside of the box on bail so that even if due process rights must be suspended, most defendants awaiting trial will not be waiting in jail.

---

Toni Messina has tried over 100 cases and has been practicing criminal law and immigration since 1990. You can follow her on Twitter: @tonitamess.

Six Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurers sued CVS Health on Wednesday, claiming the pharmacy overcharged them for generic drugs. The plaintiffs — which include Blues plans in Alabama, Florida, Minnesota, North Carolina, North Dakota and Kansas City — said CVS charged them a higher price for generic prescriptions than customers paid in cash.

Pharmacies are supposed to charge insurers the “usual and customary” price for generic medications, determined in a previous lawsuit against Kmart to be the standard cash price paid by customers. The Blues plans would pay the price negotiated by their pharmacy benefit managers for drugs, unless the usual and customary price is lower than that negotiated rate.

The plaintiffs alleged that CVS misrepresented the usual and customary rate for these drugs by offering a much lower price to customers that participated in its cash discount programs. The company began offering its Health Savings Pass program in 2008, which was later transitioned to its Value Prescription Savings Card program.

By paying a $15 membership fee, customers that paid in cash would have access to more than 400 generics at the price of $12 for a three-month supply. According to the complaint, CVS frequently offered the same cash price to customers who were not enrolled in one of these programs.

The prices that the Blues plans were charged for these same medications was “significantly higher” than the cash prices paid by customers, the plaintiffs said. For example, multiple Blues plans reported overpaying for Nadolol, a generic to treat high blood pressure. BCBS of North Carolina reported paying $257 for the drug, while cash-paying customers in the savings program paid $12, according to court documents.

“Third-party payors then reimbursed CVS based on those higher, inflated prices—instead of the actual, lower, prices CVS offered to the general public, including through its Cash Discount Programs,” the complaint stated.

The Blues plans said this not only caused them to overpay for prescription claims, but it also prevented them from getting better drug prices for their members.

In an emailed statement, CVS Health denied the allegations, saying they were “completely without merit.”

“The CVS Pharmacy Health Savings Pass was a membership program intended for customers who either did not have insurance or chose not to use insurance. The Value Prescription Savings Card Program is a prescription drug card offered and administered by a third-party,” the company stated. “Generic drug prices available through these programs were not the usual and customary price charged by CVS Pharmacy, nor the price available to the general public. Neither of these programs were in any way concealed, nor fraudulent.”

The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief, damages, and an award of twice the amount they were overcharged.

Other pharmacy chains have recently faced similar lawsuits. In 2018, Rite Aid was hit with a class action lawsuit for allegedly charging insurers more than it charged customers under its cash membership plans. Walgreens faced a class action lawsuit for similar allegations that year.

Photo credit: zimmytws, Getty Images

If you haven’t been following the saga that is the New York bar exam situation, you can catch up here. To give you the 30-second summary: COVID-19 → New York bar exam postponed until September → Seats limited to first-time takers who went to law school in New York → Everyone else becomes angry → NY BOLE basically says “We’ll get back to you” → Three weeks pass, which brings us to the present. 

Yesterday, the New York Board of Law Examiners (NY BOLE) opened up a second application period for the September 2020 New York Bar Exam.  According to the NY BOLE website: 

A second application period will be open from June 2 through June 12. Beginning on Tuesday, June 2 at 10:00 A.M. Eastern Time, applications will be accepted from any candidate who graduated with a J.D. degree from an ABA-accredited law school located outside of New York, and who has not previously sat for a bar exam in any U.S. jurisdiction. The application period will close on Friday, June 12 at 10:00 A.M. Eastern Time. Please note that, at this time, seating cannot be guaranteed to candidates who register during this application period.

Before, in the old days of last month, I gave the NY BOLE the benefit of the doubt. The situation with COVID-19 was rapidly changing and they needed to make decisions quickly. It is fully possible that they hadn’t thought their decisions all the way through and that they would realize the damage they were doing by excluding repeat takers from taking the bar exam and come up with a solution. 

But, this has been going on for months now. And, the time has come to start preparing for the September bar exam. So, they are literally running out of time to fix this. 

I, for one, would love to know their reasons for categorically excluding repeat takers  (and foreign-educated attorneys who are only allowed to sit for the bar exam in a handful of jurisdictions). What makes first-time takers from New York law schools more deserving of a seat? What makes first-time takers from out-of-state law schools more worthy? What factored into these decisions? 

Have they considered that minority students statistically fail the bar exam at higher rates? And that this rule, as applied, is having a disparate impact based on race? Is this a gross oversight or an intentional decision? We don’t know because they’ve said nothing. They have given no explanation or reasoning for the prioritization of first-time takers. However, they are literally excluding the most marginalized groups of test-takers, and they aren’t telling us why. 

My frustration with this situation is apparent, but also irrelevant as this problem doesn’t actually affect me. So, I talked to two people who are being directly affected and got their thoughts on the situation. 

Danney Salvatierra and Felicia Roman are two law graduates who were both hoping to retake the bar exam in New York this year. Both Danney and Felicia informed me that they are experiencing increased anxiety as a result of the NY BOLE’s decision to exclude them from taking the bar exam. Felicia spoke to me about the increased financial burden being placed on her to sit for the exam in another jurisdiction, and Danney expressed concern about having to travel to another jurisdiction amid COVID-19. 

When asked what message they felt the NY BOLE was currently sending to repeat takers, Danney responded “that we are not that important to the legal community. They’re making us feel invisible.” Felicia said that “the message I think the NY BOLE is sending with this new policy is that repeat takers DO NOT matter and that we are not good enough to even consider us in this policy. It is sending a very debilitating message to repeat takers and has the potential of causing major insecurities within us.”

I’d like to thank both Danney and Felicia for publicly sharing their stories. They are giving a face and a voice to the thousands of people being impacted by this situation. It can be easy to ignore numbers on a page as just statistics. But, these are real people, whose real lives and careers are being negatively impacted by the decision of the NY BOLE to exclude repeat takers from the September bar exam. 

What remains evident to me is that this current situation is unacceptable, and the NY BOLE needs to either administer the bar exam online or find enough seats to offer the test to every qualified applicant in person. Period.

---

Kerriann Stout is a millennial law school professor and founder of Vinco (a bar exam coaching company) who is generationally trapped between her students and colleagues. Kerriann has helped hundreds of students survive law school and the bar exam with less stress and more confidence. She lives, works, and writes in the northeast. You can reach her by email at info@vincoprep.com.

There are a lot of changes going on at Boies Schiller. Most of these changes have been a deliberate effort to move away from the eat-what-you-kill model that resulted in a series of associated fiefdoms and towards a more traditional Biglaw model.

The latest change that puts the firm more in line with its peers is a radical departure on their bonus structure. For a long time, the firm prided itself on its generous bonus formula that includes a revenue share component that affords associates a cut of the matters they work on, which for contingency work can be massive.

According to a report from Law.com, Boies Schiller is making a move towards market rate bonuses:

In a statement, co-managing partner Nick Gravante confirmed that Boies Schiller is adopting a new associate compensation system, although he did not provide further details about the previous formula system or that the new system would be market-based. He said the compensation changes are a “positive step in the firm’s ongoing restructuring, which ensure that associate compensation is aligned with the firm’s strategic goals.”

Gravante also confirmed that current Boies Schiller associates may choose which bonus structure to be compensated with. ”We believe associates are substantially benefited by having the option of staying with our current system or choosing the new system,” he added.

Though Gravante was tightlipped about the new structure, sources at the firm say the scale is “slightly higher than the market rate set by Milbank” last year.

There have also been criticism of Boies’s bonus structure’s opacity. And while junior associates often make out better than peers at other firms, senior associates often compare less favorably than the market standard. And one slow year at the firm can have compounding effects:

Associates who did not hit their minimum hours would be put “in the red,” meaning that they had to make up the money and hours the following year. One former Boies Schiller attorney equated this rollover to a “debtor’s prison.”

The new compensation system is an effort to bring more transparency to the firm, where office managing partners and executive committee members are left in the dark regarding equity and compensation, sources close to the firm said.

It’ll be very interesting to see exactly what the firm’s bonus scale is when the end of 2020 finally rolls around.

---

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).

“Assuming all of the same precautions are taken, why can someone safely walk down a grocery store aisle but not a pew? And why can someone safely interact with a brave deliverywoman but not with a stoic minister?” asks the 6th Circuit in an opinion quoted by Justice Kavanaugh in his dissent from the majority’s refusal to enjoin restrictions on churches in California.

According to Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch, church attendance involves quickly walking through the pew before dropping a couple of bills on the collection plate en route to the golf course. Similarly, the arrival of the Amazon delivery truck prompts an immediate congregation of neighbors to assemble in close proximity for an hour or two huddled in someone’s rumpus room, raptly absorbing her brave counsel and singing hymns of praise.

It’s quite an assumption, and one that Justice Roberts was unwilling to go along with, siding with the four liberal Justices late Friday night to uphold California’s emergency coronavirus restrictions capping church attendance at 25 percent of maximum occupancy or 100 people.

Late Friday night, the Supreme Court released a 5-4 decision in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Gavin Newsom, upholding the California governor’s emergency restrictions and signaling that the court is unlikely to side with the Justice Department’s push to treat stay-at-home orders as violations of the First Amendment.

“Although California’s guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment,” he wrote for the majority. “Similar or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time.”

Which acknowledges the fact that, here on planet earth, churches are the loci of multiple “super spreader” events, and grocery stores are not. Because you’re highly unlikely to inhale enough droplets to get infected with the virus in the five seconds when you scurry past someone else in the pasta aisle, but among 61 choir members who attended a March 10 choir practice in Skagit County, Washington, 53 were diagnosed with the virus after 2.5 hours of deep breathing in a confined space.

But apparently, four Justices who haven’t assembled in the same room for months and who are taking the unprecedented step of hearing oral arguments over Zoom, disagree, writing in dissent, “In sum, California’s 25% occupancy cap on religious worship services indisputably discriminates against religion, and such discrimination violates the First Amendment.”

Because CHURCH is to MOVIE THEATER as GROCERY STORE is to … RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION! Indisputably.

ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH, ET AL. v. GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL., 590 U. S. ____ (2020) (May 29, 2020)]

---

Elizabeth Dye (@5DollarFeminist) lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

We invite you to join a conversation between Myisha Frazier (Google Legal Director) and Catherine Kemnitz (Axiom SVP, Head of Legal) on Thursday, June 4th, 2020 at 2 p.m. ET / 11 a.m. PT.

This free webinar is intended to provide the best practices for building a values-based foundation to enable resilient legal teams, including but not limited to:

• Prioritizing work for the business for an evolving landscape;
• Realigning workstreams to shifting priorities; and
• Empowering talent to seize leadership opportunities.

By submitting the form below, you are opting in to receive communication from Above the Law and its partners.

A billion-dollar Biglaw firm has announced even more COVID-19 austerity measures. Reed Smith, which already announced salary cuts, told associates today that their salary cuts would be extended through the end of the year and that they’d be deeper than before.

Back in March, the firm announced that they were slowing partner cash distributions, emphasizing that business is good, but made the move as a “precaution” and “bracing for the short-term and potential long-term economic impacts of COVID-19” before even more partner compensation cuts were announced. Then in April, they announced associate pay will be cut by 15 percent for May through the end of August.

Now we hear that the salary cuts will continue through the end of the year, and they’re getting bigger. According to sources at the firm:

Reed Smith held an all associates call today. The previously announced 15% salary cuts for associates will continue until August, and from August to December it will increase to 20%. Associates are pissed, especially those who have remained extremely busy and are billing hours normally throughout this time.

Sandy Thomas, Reed Smith’s global managing partner, provided the following statement outlining the austerity measures, which contextualizes the pay cuts on an annualized basis (which reflects a smaller number than the 20 percent cuts to their paycheck that associates can expect from August to December):

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, our priorities have always been to protect the health and wellbeing of our people, to safeguard jobs wherever possible, to provide the highest quality service to our clients, and to manage the firm prudently. As a result of the prolonged economic uncertainty caused by COVID-19, we have made the difficult decision to take further actions to ensure our business emerges from the pandemic in a position of strength.

Reed Smith’s owners, rightly, continue to bear the largest share of the financial burden of the firm’s actions. As we continue to manage the challenges created by the crisis, today we are taking further actions that affect the firm’s lawyers and professional staff across the United States, Europe and the Middle East. They include:

· The previously implemented lawyer compensation reductions will be extended through the end of the year. On an annualized basis, compensation reductions will be 14% for Fixed Share Partners, 12.5% for Counsel, and 12% for Associates.

· Most professional assistants and other select professional staff will move to a four-day week, with corresponding compensation reductions, and a small number of employees will be furloughed on a temporary basis.

· The salaries of professional staff annually earning more than $100,000 (or equivalent), who are not subject to other employment actions, will be reduced nearly 6% on an annualized basis.

· In London, the firm’s largest office, we are initiating a targeted redundancy process that will impact a small number of lawyers and staff.

The firm expects most of these measures to be temporary, and during this time, healthcare and other benefits will remain intact for all lawyers and staff.

In Asia, similar actions affecting a small percentage of lawyers and professional staff were already undertaken earlier this year.

Like all well-run businesses, during the normal course of managing the firm we continually evaluate the size and shape of our global organization to ensure that it matches the needs of our clients. This practice is as important as ever during the pandemic.

If your firm or organization is slashing salaries, 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).