Category: News Feeds

31.1.2020
12:38

by paul bogaert

Zimbabwe Situation not appealing

At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution?

— Chief Justice John Roberts, reading aloud a question for the House managers asked by Senator Elizabeth Warren that put him in an uncomfortable position on day two of the Senate’s question-and-answer session in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial. Lead House manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) responded diplomatically, noting, “I would not say that it contributes to a loss of confidence in the chief justice. I think the chief justice has presided admirably.”

---

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.

* Apparently, Justice Brett Kavanaugh introduced really bad pizza to the Supreme Court cafeteria. Maybe Sbarro is the justice’s favorite New York pizza joint… [Washington Post]

* Hillary Clinton’s lawyer finally accepted service of Tulsi Gabbard’s defamation lawsuit, allowing the case to move forward. [Fox News]

* Nancy Pelosi has suggested that President Trump’s lawyers should face discipline over their handling of the impeachment trial. [Hill]

* Undocumented “Dreamers” can now become attorneys in Utah. [Salt Lake Tribune]

* Several state attorneys general have sued for recognition of the Equal Rights Amendment.[USA Today]

---

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 Strawbridge v. Curtiss, the Supreme Court tossed the matter for lacking complete diversity. What states were Strawbridge and Curtiss (the diverse parties) from?

Hint: Well… it wasn’t Alaska and Hawaii. You’re welcome for the hint.

See the answer on the next page.

Bound by tradition and precedent, lawyers are notoriously slow to adopt new technologies. Yet the fundamental transformation of the practice of law– whether through automation or tech-enabled collaboration– is inevitable. In addition to the challenge of implementing the new technologies themselves, a broad sort of cultural shift is required within firms. No longer can “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” or “we’ve always done it that way” hold sway in strategic decision-making.

The change management process provides an effective model for managing the ins and outs, the expected and unexpected, that come with adopting legal technology that can transform your practice. Through it, you can place your practice at the forefront of innovations that are redefining how attorneys practice law.

Download your free copy of SimpleLaw’s new white paper on leveraging change management principles.  Learn how your practice can:

• Create a Sense of Urgency
• Build a Coalition
• Form a Vision
• Eliminate Obstacles
• Create Short-Term Wins
• And much more

By requesting this report you are opting in to receive communications from SimpleLaw and Above the Law. 

That last year was a bad one for Deutsche Bank should come as no surprise. For one, it’s Deutsche Bank. For another, the steady drumbeat of disaster emanating from the Taunusanlage should have been a clue: bad bank units, failed mergers, more money laundering, laying off 18,000 people, Jeffrey Epstein, more fines, less future, Donald Trump, attempted murder convictions, still more fines. If all of that wasn’t sufficient, the fact that it lost more than €3 billion in the second quarter alone might have provided a clue as to how bad things would be. Still, as ever, Deutsche Bank exceeds expectations.

Matthew Rosenbaum served on the New York Supreme Court for 14 years, but was relieved of his duties and vacated his office after state officials began an investigation into allegations of “improper and at times abusive personal demands of court staff, directly or indirectly conveying that continued employment required submitting to such demands, and creating a hostile workplace environment.” The complaint says this has gone on since he arrived on the bench in 2005.

Now Rosenbaum’s resigned and signed a stipulation agreeing to never seek judicial office again, a serious concession in the ongoing investigation.

Rosenbaum was named “Jurist of the Year” by the regional New York State Supreme Court Judge’s Association in 2018. Life comes at you fast.

What “abusive personal demands” did this judge make? The proceedings are confidential with the exception of the stipulation which Rosenbaum consented to allow the state to release. We’re guessing it wasn’t using the clerk’s office copier for hundreds of fliers for his garage band.

Accused of harassing court staff, Justice Matthew Rosenbaum officially resigns [City Newspaper]

---

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.

It’s that time of year again! Now that the scene has officially been called on 2019, the financial performance of Biglaw is up for scrutiny. It’s still early in 2020 of course, so not everyone is ready to report their results, but the  venerable firm of Morrison & Foerster is ready to report a pretty darn good 2019.

MoFo’s numbers are up across the board. Revenue is up 10 percent, bringing their number to $1.15 billion. Revenue per lawyer? Also up by a margin of 4 percent to $1.14 million. Average partner compensation is up 4.9 percent to ~$1.5 million. And the gold standard of Biglaw, profits per equity partner, also saw an increase of 3.3 percent to $2.05 million.

And as Larren Nashelsky, the firm’s New York-based chairman, told Law.com, the great 2019 is part of a trend, “Our 2019 performance comes on the heels of two prior exceptional years.”

Speaking of 2018, last year the firm posted a 14 percent increase in PEP, but that boost was on the back of a drop in equity partner head count — by 25 percent — and ballooning nonequity ranks by 50 percent. But that doesn’t seem to be part of a trend. In 2019, the firm only lost one nonequity partner and 14 equity partners were added. The change wasn’t part of some grand strategy, according to the firm:

Nashelsky said the change in the equity partnership numbers was not part of any overall plan.

“I don’t know that it was a conscious strategy. We really are recruiting the best and the brightest. In some years they fall more in one category than the other,” Nashelsky said.

Speaking of hiring the best and brightest, MoFo made some power moves this year on that front, growing the number of attorneys to over 1,000 and opening two new offices in the process:

It hired 42 lateral partners and opened two offices. Its new Boston office, which opened in February of last year, has grown to roughly 40 attorneys, including notable pick-ups such as Proskauer Rose corporate partner Ori Solomon and Todd Boudreau, former co-chair of Foley & Lardner’s private funds and buyout practice.

The new Miami office launched in June as it poached nine Greenberg Traurig attorneys, including Greenberg’s Miami corporate co-chair Randy Bullard, who made the jump to help serve firm client SoftBank. Since their move, Bullard and his team have advised on several SoftBank deals, with the latest being a $125 million Series B investment into Latin American fintech company AlphaCredit.

Congrats to MoFo on its stellar 2019.

---

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

It’s no secret that immigration enforcement is a top priority for the Trump Administration. Interior enforcement – which includes the regulation of worksite compliance – is at an all-time high. Any employer would be wise to ask itself the following question: Are we prepared if ICE comes knocking? Whether it’s an I-9 audit or worksite raid, Amy Peck of Jackson Lewis breaks down all the essentials any employer needs to know to respond properly and maintain compliance in her critically insightful CLE program What To Do When ICE Comes Knocking: The Rise in Worksite Raids and I-9 Audits. Here are just a few helpful hints:

1. Take the I-9 form very seriously.

The I-9 is not just a simple, ordinary form. It has the potential to bring more liability to a company than anything else. It can severely harm a company’s reputation and result in large fines or criminal liability. The average I-9 form fine is approximately $1,400 per form. Those fees can add up very quickly for large companies.

2. There are more than 80 ways to make an error on the I-9 form.

Yes, you read that right. 80 ways to make a mistake on the form. Moreover, studies have shown that 55% of paper I-9 forms have errors on them. Why is it so hard, you ask? Well, there are so many easy-to-miss nuances. And the instructions – over 600 pages worth in total – are even more complicated.

3. Investigations are surging dramatically and will continue to rise.

In 2018, investigations surged by 500 percent! Immigration and Customs Enforcement opened 6,848 worksite investigations and initiated 5,981 I-9 audits in fiscal year 2018.. 

4. The top five targeted industries.

What are the top five industries being targeted for I-9 audits?

1. Critical infrastructure (i.e. power plants, airport vendors, companies involved with national security in any way)
2. Hospitality/Restaurant
3. Construction
4. Manufacturing/Production
5. Temporary/Staffing Agencies

Remember – if your industry or your client’s industry isn’t in the top five, you’re not necessarily out of the woods.

5. What’s the difference between a raid and an audit?

A raid is the culmination of a criminal investigation (often 18 – 24 months long) of either of the company or the company’s owners or managers. Rather than use the term “raid,” the government typically calls them judicial warrant enforcement actions. This is because obtaining a judicial warrant is essential in order to gain access to the property. Contrary to popular belief, the investigation is of the company and not the workers.

An I-9 audit is a civil inspection of the company’s I-9 forms. During an audit, the government enters with a notice of inspection rather than a warrant. Still, any employer in this situation would be wise to call a lawyer. An I-9 audit can escalate quickly, potentially resulting in hefty fines or even a criminal investigation.

If you’re an employer or if you represent employers, hopefully you’re now asking yourself some very important questions such as – how do we prepare for an audit? What do we do if we’re served with a notice of inspection? How do we respond? What are our rights during a raid? What do we do right after a raid? 

For answers to those questions and to dig deeper into any of the points above, be sure to watch Amy’s entire program What To Do When ICE Comes Knocking: The Rise in Worksite Raids and I-9 Audits. 

And for a broader overview of the immigration landscape today – tune into our can’t miss Election Year 2020: immigration Law Event next month. You’ll get up-to-date on the fundamentals of family-based immigration, immigration pathways from education to employment, alternatives to the H1-B Visa, and more.

Related Content:

1. A Practitioner’s Guide to the I-9 Form
2. Best Practices for I-9 Audits
3. An Attorney’s Practical Guide to the Hiring, Management, and Termination of Employees