Category: News Feeds

Remember last week when conservative gadflies were clutching their monkey’s paws and hoping against hope that they could see TWO open Supreme Court seats? Thomas was going to retire — like they assert every year — and the “stronger rumor” claimed Alito was also eyeing retirement. It was a weird wish for conservatives because as we all know it’s impossible to fill a Supreme Court vacancy during an election year. Mitch McConnell couldn’t have been lying to cover a dereliction of his constitutional duty back then!

But earlier today, all those conservative smiles turned upside down as Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority in shooting down Trump’s meritless arguments that the president never has to comply with subpoenas for his records. Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito stood alone athwart 200 years of law yelling “but not for our guy.” And, yeah, the opinions are both kind of punts and Trump is likely to succeed in running out the clock on these subpoenas until after the election, but he wanted a ruling putting a stop to these cases and he got… not that.

Thomas and Alito must have walked out of that conference wondering, “and they plan to replace us with cucks like these guys?” And if that didn’t run through the justices’ heads, it certainly is silencing all the cheerleaders eagerly pushing them out the door last week. Poor Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are getting canceled by the right… maybe Harper’s will let them whine and cry about it too.

Look, a retirement announcement probably wasn’t likely. Sitting Supreme Court justices possess all the ego required for a job of that magnitude and generally see themselves as beautiful and unique snowflakes that cannot be replaced with the next kid on the bench. But if there was any lingering belief on their part — or on the part of conservative observers — that Trump could replace their perspective, watching Bizarro Justice Garland and Justice Keggy McAssaulterton III throw the White House under the bus, it’s hard to imagine they feel that a future justice could do any better when Trump’s top two choices are already running wild.

It is a dumb stance to take.

Roberts, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh just looked at the scoreboard and realized that it’s more important to protect the coming deep dive into Hunter Biden and Ukraineghazi than to throw it all away to bail out a White House on fire.  And, of course, a younger FedSoc appointee would absolutely help the right by locking down seats for a generation with full confidence that they would win far more battles than they would lose. However, the conservative movement generally isn’t about strategy as much as knee jerk ideological purity and that ideology is “whatever Trump wants right now.”

Maybe the justices will make a move anyway — there’s no rule requiring them to have announced after the last opinion this morning — but don’t expect the sort of hoopla envisioned last week.

Earlier: Clarence Thomas AND Samuel Alito Mulling Retirement According Conservative Wishcasters

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.

Ed. note: Please welcome Richard S. Amador to the pages of Above the Law. He’ll be writing about effective strategies that can be used to further diversify the legal profession.

Many law departments are revisiting efforts to diversify their outside counsel ranks by getting more lawyers of color on their cases.  A plethora of benchmarking tools, carrot-and-stick models, and consultants abound.  Many such activities require significant budgets or structural changes that can be hard for a law department to implement when already being asked to do more with less.

Below are three Big Ideas and numerous tactics to fill the gap with simple, practical steps that can be implemented from the Chief Legal Officer to the most junior associate counsel, in any size law department.  The three Big Ideas: (1) Identify and empower diversity champions in your law department; (2) Foster direct interaction with promising diverse lawyers in your space; and (3) Celebrate wins.

These ideas are based on more than 30 years of practice, most of which have been leading my own law firm while representing Fortune 500 companies and mentoring scores of minority attorneys mainly at large national law firms and in junior in-house positions.

BIG IDEA ONE: Identify And Empower Diversity Champions In Your Law Department

Candid conversations with GCs, Biglaw partners, and minority law firm owners — corroborated by even a cursory look at the data — lead to the inescapable conclusion that plans, policies, metrics, and mandates haven’t made much difference in the past 30 years.  What matters most are champions — lawyers committed to improving diversity regardless of their rank.

I’m not talking about people whose job is “diversity.”  I’m talking about working lawyers at your company with matters to handle or deals to close, who are compelled to make a difference when it comes to diversity and inclusion efforts.  In a small law department, you may be the only diversity champion. In a larger group, it might be someone at the lowest levels of the hierarchy, or a deputy GC.  The important thing is that these are lawyers responsible for selecting or working with outside counsel.  Ask your lawyers who is interested in making a difference.  You may already know who they are, but you may be surprised, so ask everyone; not all your champions will be diverse, but diversity will be personally important to each of them.

Your diversity champions can be put to work immediately. Task champions with acculturating new minority outside counsel, who will be unfamiliar with your corporate bureaucracy, traditions, and personalities. Having a champion guide new diverse counsel through these initial hurdles will increase their likelihood of successfully representing the company. This, in turn, will smooth the way for other colleagues in the law department to use these diverse outside counsel and to try new minority counsel themselves.

Urge your champions to coach these minority attorneys on your company’s approach to risk, how to navigate the billing process, and the best way to provide information in the form your business leaders prefer.

Next, encourage your champions to request minority partners and associates on their cases, and then to request them on key motions and depositions. Many of the minority associates I mentor are told by their supervising partners that you, the client, don’t want them to take depositions or argue motions.  And yet, miraculously, I’ve perhaps twice in the past 10 years had a Fortune 500 client demur when I tell them my associate is ready to take this deposition or argue that motion.  Don’t assume your relationship partners are grooming their minority associates; if it’s important to you, insist.

Also, encourage your champions to give real feedback to minority partners and associates. Numerous studies show that minorities get less substantive feedback than their white counterparts; instead, they are allowed to repeat mistakes until they are cut loose.  Tell your minority counsel when they mishandled a communication or made a bad judgment call so that they can learn. Coach them on upcoming difficult conversations — just as you would your prized protégé.

On law firm pitches, encourage your champions — and model this behavior — to call out a lack of diversity and explicitly identify it as one of the reasons for rejection when appropriate.  If necessity requires selection of a non-diverse team, insist that it be diversified going forward. When a team of lawyers appears for a pitch with a single diverse associate who has no apparent role, include that person in the Q&A and then pin down the lead attorney on exactly what the diverse associate’s role will be and how their experience will be maximized.  Hold the firm to the commitments made.

Champions are also important because, frankly, someone on your team may see a minority partner in a major law firm, or a minority-owned law firm — regardless of pedigree, record of success, and efficiency — as a “diversity hire” to be tolerated with the least important work and as little of that as possible. Champions and successes can help diverse outside counsel avoid a rocky start and have a real opportunity to prove their worth.

I’ll address below how to magnify the effect of your diversity champions by getting them out into the legal community.  But the Big Idea here is to identify and empower the diversity champions in your department, and then capitalize on their success to increase the use of minority outside counsel by the rest of the department. If you’re the sole champion, give yourself license to act, as many of the suggestions below require no budget or policy changes. If it is three lawyers among your 200-lawyer group, empower those three to be champions and check-in with them regularly on how they — and the law department — can do better.

Regularly seek feedback from your diversity champions, not just on the selection of outside counsel, but on how to do better and what the institutional barriers are to getting more work to trusted minority lawyers.  So many diversity “strategies” come from consultants, legal operations people, or vague high-level corporate directives.  Still, the people best positioned to help find success for your law department are your internal champions.

BIG IDEA TWO: Foster Direct Interaction Between Your Law Department And Promising Diverse Lawyers In Your Space

Many in-house champions have heard this frustrating refrain from a colleague: “I worked with a minority partner/firm/associate once, and it was a disaster, so I’m hesitant to try again.” Leaving aside the absurdity of such a broad conclusion on such a narrow sample size, if you can establish a track record of success, bringing others on board to using minority outside counsel will be much easier.

You’ve heard the phrase “unconscious bias.” Several studies show that decision-makers tend to give non-minority women and men the benefit of the doubt (e.g., mistakes happen, I see a lot of potential here, or she just needs some guidance) but none to minorities (e.g., I knew this wasn’t going to work, this just isn’t up to our standards, or we should never have hired him in the first place).  Your champions are less likely to succumb to these biases. And while the bar should NOT be higher for minority counsel, it is.  Thus, finding counsel who are demonstrably superior can help gain acceptance for others.

So start with the best, both in ability and client service. How to find them? Start with peer referrals.  If you already have a few great diverse outside counsel, ask them for referrals as the top pros in any field tend to know one another, at least by reputation. Ask the leadership of legal diversity organizations for referrals to those with the best reputations. The National Association of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms (NAMWOLF) has a great search tool for finding stellar minority- and women-owned law firms — all of whom already represent companies like yours and have been thoroughly vetted for quality and reputation — right on its website. The exceptional NAMWOLF staff will even pre-vet firms with specific qualifications you request.

But to maximize access to talent outside your network — and more importantly, build relationships with that talent — the best investment you can make is to get your lawyers actively engaged in organizations filled with highly qualified minority outside counsel, such as MCCA, NAMWOLF, NBA, NAPABA, HNBA, NBA, CCWC, and CMCP (search online with the acronym and “diversity,” and the organization will pop right up).  Your company probably supports multiple legal diversity organizations.  And while that financial support is crucial to the organization, buying a table or an ad doesn’t help diversify your law department or outside counsel ranks.

Law departments that excel in diversifying their outside counsel ranks (as well as internally) send their lawyers not only to join but to actively participate in organizations.

The model for this strategy is Walmart. For at least 20 years, the company has made it a priority to get lawyers from across the law department actively involved in legal diversity organizations like those listed above, building relationships with potential employees and outside counsel alike.

High-ranking minority and non-minority lawyers in the Walmart law department have served on the boards, advisory boards, and operational committees of these organizations.  This engagement provides meaningful support to the organizations, but more importantly, an avenue to work directly with minority outside counsel in the activities of the organizations.  Prudential, McDonald’s, Allstate, Honda, Accenture, Nationwide, Microsoft, and several other companies have made this a priority as well. Such engagement builds foundations of trust that are readily transferrable to engaging these lawyers as outside counsel based on having seen them in action — running meetings, speaking at events, leading volunteers, and handling conflict.

Perhaps your company is one that pays for a maximum of two or three conferences a year.  Consider allowing an extra legal diversity conference if the lawyer will commit to active involvement and reporting back on it.  You can also manage the involvement to ensure that at least one member of your team is actively engaged in each of the major legal diversity organizations.

As you and your champions connect with the best diverse lawyers, introduce them to your team through  webinars, meet & greets, and CLE.  Do some of your go-to law firms do regular CLEs? Ask them to secure at least one minority speaker for every hour of content in all internal CLEs.  Suggest that when your champions are asked to speak at conferences, they advocate for your promising diverse outside counsel be speakers as well.

As you assemble a roster of outstanding minority attorneys, ask your champions, “Who are the best of the best?” And then personally meet with those rock stars representing your company to ask: “How can we retain other diverse counsel of your caliber? How can we help you build your business? How can we help you develop rock star minority associates and junior partners in your firm?”

For high-potential minority associates, ask the relationship partner how you can help the associate make partner. Then ask the associate. For exceptional minority service partners, ask how you can help them develop business — such as by inviting them to events, to speak on panels, and referring them to peers.

Does your company offer secondments?  Insist that your team not select anyone until they have made a concerted effort to recruit a stellar minority secondee.  Consider offering mini-secondments of a few weeks where minority associates can work on internal projects and have an opportunity to build relationships while getting a view of their client’s job from the other side.

Let me tell you about my friend Rafael. He was Managing Counsel at a Fortune 500 company, overseeing employment litigation throughout the country. Several levels below the GC, he led a small team of employment lawyers.  Rafael was deeply committed to the twin goals of finding the best possible outside counsel for his company and legal diversity; he saw no conflict between them. He made it a point to meet as many diverse lawyers as he could, always looking for the best; he wouldn’t settle for less.

Rafael was particularly fond of the National Employment Law Council (NELC), which is comprised of experienced management-side employment lawyers of color. He served on committees, raised funds, and served on the board. And he was always asking for recommendations, then checking with others, “What do you think of this lawyer?”

Over several years, Rafael recruited a diverse team of enormously talented in-house lawyers and a pool of equally talented outside counsel — some at minority-owned boutiques, some at the leading white-shoe firms, some at regional shops, and some at the large employment-law-only international powerhouses — all at the top of their games.  If Rafael met and liked a minority associate at a national firm he was using, he’d request that associate on his matters or for a secondment. If you were new representing the company, he’d coach you through your initial representation. If it were your first trial for the company, he’d get you valuable visibility with decision-makers. And if you won for him, which many of us did, he’d make sure everyone knew it — both inside and outside his law department.

The key takeaway from Rafael’s experience is that he never settled for second-rate, only working with outstanding lawyers who delivered both great results and exceptional client service.  He knew the difference between perceived quality and actual quality — and always focused on the latter by constantly seeking references and gauging for himself without preconceived notions. Rafael passed away last year and left in his stead a team of diverse lawyers at the company inspired to carry on his legacy, as well as a deep bench of highly skilled diverse outside counsel with a proven record of success representing one of the pre-eminent brands in the world. He achieved the goal that every law department claims it wants, all without formal programs, surveys, metrics, hackathons, or consultants.

BIG IDEA THREE: Celebrate wins!

When a minority partner or associate wins a case or key motion, or is instrumental in a transaction, sing the praises of that specific lawyer, and your law department colleague who provided the opportunity.  Tell leaders both in the law department and the firm specifically how your outside counsel effected the win.

Celebrate minority associates by telling partners that you want to work with the associate again, and specifically requesting the associate when new matters arise.

Encourage champions to reach out to managing partners and practice leaders with kudos for stellar work by partners and associates. Ensure that company leadership knows which diverse lawyers and diversity champions — inside and outside the law department — are making the company look good, saving money, closing deals, or winning cases. Others will see that making a difference in this space increases career-enhancing access and may wish to follow suit.

Invite your best minority outside counsel — from junior associates to partners — to meet with law department leadership and your diversity champion(s), so you can both celebrate their wins and help them strengthen their client relationships.  Indeed, celebrate the wins of both your internal champions and their outside counsel. This affirms to the entire department that the champion’s behaviors are valued by leadership and that the outside minority counsel meets your standards of excellence, results, efficiency, or other paramount markers.

When you have appreciable success, toot your corporate horn by seeking legal diversity awards so that others may emulate your success. And demonstrate the internal value you place on diversity progress by name-checking, promoting, and financially rewarding your diversity champions and sharing within the department that their success in diversifying your outside counsel is one of the reasons you have done so.

Ask your best minority outside counsel if they are receiving origination credit, how you can help them do so, or otherwise gain stature in their firms or legal community.

When you speak at conferences, name-check your minority outside counsel who are present.  This makes your company and law department look good, and it helps position your outside counsel as leaders in their field.

Finally, I don’t mean to say that you should only use pre-eminent minority lawyers. There are many unheralded associates and partners with exceptional skill, or who show promise but just need some guidance or exposure.  The Big Ideas will help you find those lawyers, maximize the opportunity for them to be successful both as your counsel and in their firms, and make a real difference in the diversity of our profession.  I’ve seen it happen many times, but always because a specific person made it their priority to be intentional about championing others.

These suggestions are based on my own experience, and should not be ascribed to my firm, its clients, or my colleagues. Over the past three decades, I’ve served on the boards of the National Association of Minority & Women Owned Law Firms (NAMWOLF), Minority Corporate Counsel Association (MCCA), California Minority Counsel Program (CMCP), and National Employment Law Council (NELC). I actively mentor over 200 young attorneys of color, including associates and junior partners at small, regional, and major national/international firms, and junior in-house counsel in a wide range of industries.

Richard S. Amador is an employment and business trial lawyer. He founded 15-attorney Sanchez & Amador in 1994. A Fellow in the National College of Labor and Employment Lawyers, Richard serves on the Executive Committee of the National Employment Law Council (NELC). Richard is a founding faculty member of the NELC Academy, an advanced-skills training program for minority junior associates practicing management-side labor and employment law. He has previously served on the boards of the Minority Corporate Counsel Association (MCCA) and the National Association of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms (NAMWOLF). Richard actively mentors dozens of law firm associates and junior partners, as well as junior in-house lawyers of color, at companies and major law firms across the U.S.

Immigration judges do not talk to the media. Trust me, I’ve tried. Generally speaking, the only ones I can get on the phone are retired judges and officers of the National Association of Immigration Judges, who always take pains to make it clear that they’re speaking in their capacity as union leaders. They do this because if they don’t, they can get in trouble with the Justice Department (which runs their agency). For many years, immigration judges were also permitted to make public speeches about immigration in their personal capacities.

Of course, that has changed under the Trump administration. In September 2017, DOJ told judges they would have to get clearance to speak in public about anything. But apparently this was not enough to erase the scourge of judges talking to law students and bar associations, so in January of this year, DOJ forbade judges from speaking in their personal capacities about anything related to immigration law or policy, or court programs or policies. If they want to talk publicly about anything else, they need DOJ’s permission.

Not surprisingly, the denials started coming thick and fast, including one that said it wasn’t clear that the judges’ “participation would advance [DOJ’s] interests.” (So that’s the purpose of free speech!) The denials also seemed inconsistent; one judge was permitted to participate in a law school moot court competition the month after another was denied permission to do the same thing.

If you remember anything about con law, you can probably predict what happened next: The judges sued to get their First Amendment rights back. In fact, their lawsuit is trying to cancel both the current never-talk-about-immigration policy and the 2017 ask-first policy. Their lawsuit goes over the numerous things the Trump administration has done to make immigration courts and immigration policy matters of public interest, which the judges (represented by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University) argue gives them a substantial interest in talking about it, and the public a substantial interest in hearing them.

This is only the latest battle in the cold war between the Trump administration and immigration judges it didn’t hire. I’ve written here about the administration’s expressly politicized hiring of judges, and elsewhere about rules that pressure judges to rush cases through the system (ideally by denying lawful status). If there’s a bright side here, it’s that the head of the NAIJ is Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, who won a free-speech-related lawsuit against the same agency less than 10 years ago. I don’t speak for her, but I don’t imagine she’s afraid of suing her employer again.

P.S. Because I’m always happy to see evidence that somebody cares about immigrants, I’m thrilled that ATL writer Elizabeth Dye beat me to the story about the Trump administration trying to deport foreign students whose classes are online-only. If you’re following that, you may be interested to know that Harvard and MIT sued the Trump administration over that rule Wednesday morning, alleging that this rule violates — you guessed it! — the Administrative Procedure Act. The administration’s inability to govern competently will probably earn them a big fat TRO.

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.

* A Tennessee lawyer has been censured for showing up to defend a client’s DUI charge while drunk. Maybe this was part of the lawyers defense? [Fox News]

* Country Music Group Lady A, which recently changed its name from Lady Antebellum, is embroiled in a trademark dispute with a blues singer who also goes by Lady A. [USA Today]

* Check out this interesting article on why there should be a right to an immigration attorney. [Slate]

* An attorney for a former police officer charged with aiding and abetting the killing of George Floyd has filed a motion to dismiss the charges. [Fox News]

* A judge is allowing a defamation lawsuit filed by Roy Moore over a prank by Sacha Baron Cohen to proceed. Moore should count himself lucky he wasn’t pranked by Borat, Bruno, or Ali G. [Hill]

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.

In 1984, a Soviet computer engineer and his clinical psychologist friend created a new game called Tetris. That set off a legal battle fit for a spy novel. In the end, one of the friends achieved fame and friendship; the other lost his life in a gruesome death. For lawyers, the distinction shows how our habits of mind make us ill-prepared for the internet’s “new socialism.”

Make sure you take advantage of the show’s Q&A feature. You can ask Mike questions about the latest episode and he’ll answer at the end of the next episode. Just submit your question in the form at the bottom of this post.

Home DNA tests have made fun gifts and brought to light some shocking truths. These often involve learning that a loved parent is unexpectedly not one’s biological parent. And, all too often, also learning that your mom’s fertility doctor is actually your biological father! Given the somewhat shocking number of discoveries along these lines, it has become clear that this was not an isolated practice by one or two doctors, but instead practically routine for some fertility doctors.

The shocking news doesn’t end there. The patients — who never agreed to a fertility procedure with the doctor’s own sperm — and their resulting children, have been surprised to find either limited or absolutely no legal recourse against the doctor. Many have tried, and, while a recent case provides a glimmer of hope, most claims through the courts have been dismissed.

The largest hurdle is the statute of limitations, which is inevitably long past by the time a holiday sale on 23andMe reveals the truth. Other obstacles include the fuzzy legal lines of what, specifically, the patient consented to. Does consenting to “anonymous donated sperm” mean that the “anonymous” part applied only to the patient (and not the donor-doctor); does a broad medical waiver or consent form include the doctor’s own sperm? Moreover, does a resulting child have standing against the doctor?

Since justice for victims has not come via the judicial system, legislatures have provided the next best hope. California, Indiana, and Texas have successfully passed legislation clarifying that this type of behavior by a medical professional is not okay and necessitates criminal and civil consequences. Two more states just successfully joined the world of updated laws for updated technology. Welcome, Florida, and my own state of Colorado.

Despite a pandemic grinding legislative wheels to a halt across the world, Florida and Colorado managed to successfully squeak out smart fertility fraud legislation in their 2020 sessions.

Florida’s New Crime: Reproductive Battery

Florida’s new law became effective July 1, 2020. It creates the crime of a reproductive battery, a third-degree felony, punishable by up to five years in prison, for any healthcare practitioner who intentionally transfers human reproductive material to the body of a recipient, knowing that the recipient has not consented to the use of the reproductive material or embryo from that donor. Further, if the healthcare practitioner is the donor of the reproductive material, the penalty increases to a second-degree felony, which means up to 15 years in prison. Importantly, the statute of limitations for reproductive battery does not begin to run until the date that the violation is discovered and reported to law enforcement. And, it is not a defense to the crime that the recipient consented to the use of an anonymous donor.

Colorado: Misuse Of Human Reproductive Material

Colorado’s legislature passed its fertility fraud bill, HB20-1014, on the very last day of the session with unanimous support. Governor Jared Polis signed the bill into law July 6, 2020.

The bill specifies that it is a class 6 felony for a healthcare provider in the course of assisted reproduction to use gametes or embryos with a patient without specific consent to that reproductive material. A class 6 felony in Colorado is punishable by one year to eighteen months in prison. It also creates a civil cause of action with specified compensatory damages, or liquidated damages of $50,000. The bill provides standing for not only the patient and patient’s spouse, but also for any child conceived as a result of the misuse of human reproductive material. Further, the bill specifies that conviction under the law would amount to unprofessional conduct under state licensing laws, which means the doctor would generally have to give up the right to practice medicine (a number of known doctor-donors currently continue to practice medicine).

I had a chance to connect with Maia Emmons-Boring, a victim of fertility fraud committed by a Colorado doctor, and one of the driving forces behind the Colorado bill. Emmons-Boring explained how her Colorado attorney (she currently has a case pending against her Colorado doctor-donor) set up a meeting for her with Colorado State Representative Kerry Tipper. She was nervous going into the meeting, never having spoken face-to-face with a state representative before, but was immediately put at ease by Tipper. She told her story — one of Emmons-Boring’s mother and father seeking fertility treatment, and trusting their doctor and his promise of an “anonymous donor.” Only decades later did they learn of the doctor’s breach of trust by using his own sperm. And then they learned that the law in Colorado did not clearly make these actions a crime or even clearly subject to civil action. Tipper promised to sponsor a bill to fix the egregious legal hole.

Emmons-Boring and her mother have been living in Texas since 2009 and, at their own expense, repeatedly traveled to Denver for the legislative hearings to tell their very personal stories. Emmons-Boring had been prepared to start over again in 2021, bearing the expense and emotional anguish as long as necessary. She was overjoyed to learn of the passing of the bill on the last day possible. She explained that the passing of this bill meant the world to her and her half-siblings, who were other victims of the same Colorado doctor.

One might think that this is a problem that will go away on its own, now that people can use of home DNA tests, and no self-interested medical provider would engage in this conduct. So what is the point of the legislation now?

Eve Wiley, a prime mover behind the Texas fertility fraud bill, has explained that these pieces of legislation are important for four reasons.

1. They act as a deterrent for bad acting doctors in protecting those struggling with infertility.
2. They serve as part of an educational campaign to highlight how grossly unregulated some parts of the fertility industry are.
3. These bills offer some sort of measurable accountability in a legal landscape that otherwise leaves the victims feeling helpless.
4. It opens the floor for conversation to the other marginalized voices within the fertility industry. For example, the donor conceived offspring, a lack of a national donor registry, and the lack of cap on live birth per donor. (Check out this podcast interview with Wiley and her donor-not-donor dad.)

These are, indeed, important discussions needing a great deal of further discussion — and action — in our country. In the meantime, good work, Florida and Colorado.

Ellen Trachman is the Managing Attorney of Trachman Law Center, LLC, a Denver-based law firm specializing in assisted reproductive technology law, and co-host of the podcast I Want To Put A Baby In You. You can reach her at babies@abovethelaw.com.

Now that most people are quarantined at home with few diversions other than watching television and movies, many people have been talking about their quarantine watch list. Indeed, most of my friends have been discussing each of the series they have been binge-watching since the enactment of stay-at-home orders, and all of the somewhat strange and interesting TV shows and films that bring them joy during this rough time.

I myself have some weird tastes in television shows and movies, and I even still subscribe to Netflix DVDs so that I can get my hands on hard-to-find media that interests me. However, I hope readers will not find it too odd when I suggest that lawyers should watch The Paper Chase TV series in order to binge a good television show during the quarantine.

Most people within the legal profession are familiar with the classic 1973 film The Paper Chase. The movie stars the legendary John Houseman and involves the tribulations of a first-year law student as he handles his studies as well as a romance with the daughter (pre-Bionic Woman Lindsay Wagner) of his contracts professor. When I was in law school about a decade ago, people were still recommending that individuals watch The Paper Chase movie to get a sense about what law school was like and how they can succeed in classes. Of course, law school has changed a lot since the 1970s, and the research methods, teaching strategies, and other aspects of the movie do not really relate to the modern law school experience. However, the movie does encapsulate many of the difficulties that law students faced in the past and still encounter today.

I discovered during my second year of law school that The Paper Chase had been turned into a four-season television series during the 1970s and 1980s. I had never heard of a TV series involving law students before, so I decided to get my hands on the DVDs of the episodes. At first, I ordered the DVDs one at a time through Netflix DVDs, but I eventually heard that a hallmate of mine had seasons one and two on DVD. You see? At least one other person was interested in the series! In any case, I then churned through the first couple of seasons of the show pretty quickly, but seasons three and four were not available on DVD at that time. Fortunately, those seasons became available more recently, and I have since seen every episode of the series.

The Paper Chase is one of the most incredible television series I have ever watched. Probably the most unique aspect of the show is that even though it was filmed decades ago, it still mostly relates to the modern law school experience. For instance, the episode about on-campus recruiting is somewhat reminiscent of the environment during on-campus recruiting at many law schools across the country in the present day. In addition, the episodes about dorm life, politics among law review editors, and the stresses of exams are extremely accurate.

Of course, some of the book research that the students conduct in the television series has little bearing on the modern law school experience. In addition, episodes about the fights between law students and computer science geeks are more appropriate for media like Revenge of the Nerds rather than a true-life depiction of the law school experience. However, the series does capture the nuanced issues faced by all types of law students.

For instance, season three includes a middle-aged empty nester who attends law school later in life, which reminded me of many classmates I had in law school. In addition, the episodes about difficult decisions law students must make between clerking and taking a high-paying law firm job are also very real to many law students. In any case, no TV series or movie is going to be completely accurate about the subject matter it depicts, but The Paper Chase series does an amazing job detailing the trials and tribulations of law students.

This is the reason why pretty much every lawyer can enjoy and appreciate the series. Virtually every practicing attorney went to law school, and although there are different types of law schools, they all contain many common experiences: being cold-called in class, taking high-stress final examinations, jockeying for positions on law journals, competing for job offers, and a number of other struggles.

As a result, all lawyers can appreciate the situations of the series’ characters, since lawyers can definitely see themselves in the experiences depicted in the show. In addition, perhaps the older generation of lawyers would appreciate the series the most. The show is a reminder of how legal education was several decades ago, and we can appreciate all of the advancements that have been made more recently.

In the end, I highly recommend that lawyers check out The Paper Chase. Some may be immediately turned off by the fact that the television series is old, and some of the plot lines do not apply to more modern experiences. However, many lawyers can relate to the stories depicted in the show, and as a result, the series should definitely be on any lawyer’s quarantine watch list.

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.