Trump-Loving Texas Doctor Enlists Nursing Home Patients To ‘Test’ The President’s Favorite Coronavirus Drug

No bar exam? No problem! Every day Donald Trump is president, we wake up in a brand new issue spotter. Today’s scenario comes courtesy of a Trump supporter in Texas who got so excited by the president’s constant hyping of the supposed miracle drug hydroxychloroquine that he thought he’d conduct his own experiment to prove its efficacy.

There is currently no proof that the anti-malarial medication, which is commonly used to treat lupus, improves outcomes for coronavirus patients. Indeed, a hospital in France just halted a test of the drug, finding that the treatment protocol that pairs it with the antibiotic azithromycin cumulatively poses an unacceptable risk of heart damage. But Dr. Robin Armstrong, a GOP activist who sits on the advisory board of Black Voices for Trump, is convinced that the president’s prodigious gut instinct is correct, that hydroxychloroquine will save us from this deadly virus.

And because Dr. Armstrong is the medical director at The Resort, a nursing home in Texas City, he has access to a whole pool of subjects to “prove” it. So when 83 people at the facility, including residents and employees, tested positive for COVID-19, he selected 27 of them to start a regimen of hydroxychloroquine sulfate tablets recently donated to the state of Texas by New Jersey-based Amneal Pharmaceuticals. The Galveston County Daily News reports that, “Armstrong said Trump’s championing of the drug is giving doctors more access to try it on coronavirus patients.”

Dr. Armstrong didn’t tell the patients’ families that they were receiving the drug, although he assured the paper that he was in the process of giving them a heads up on Monday. But Texas Governor Greg Abbott appears to have beaten him to the punch, announcing at a press conference that day in Austin that the drug was being given to the nursing home residents experimentally, to “determine whether or not it will be a successful treatment for those patients.”

“We look forward to updating you as the week progresses about how this drug is aiding — or not — these patients,” he said.

According to The Houston Chronicle, the Texas Pharmacy Board limited prescriptions and instructed its members to fill off-label prescriptions only when accompanied by a “written diagnosis from the prescriber consistent with the evidence for its use.” And Dr. Patrice Harris, president of the American Medical Association, “said she personally would not prescribe the drug for a coronavirus patient, saying the risks of severe side-effects are “great and too significant to downplay” without large studies showing the drug is safe and effective.”

Okay, torts students, START YOUR ENGINES. Please limit your answers to one blue book, in the interests of time.


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

30 COVID-19 patients in Texas City nursing home treated with unproven malaria drug [Houston Chronicle]
Texas City COVID-19 patients receive hydroxychloroquine [Galveston Daily News]
Texas City nursing home residents with coronavirus being treated with unproven hydroxychloroquine drug [Texas Tribune]

Instead Of Conducting Layoffs, This Biglaw Firm Started A Coronavirus Support Fund For Its Lawyers And Staff

(Image via Getty)

The firm’s match is unlimited. We wanted that feeling of participation across our firm. Notwithstanding that this is a strong place to be now, people’s lives are complicated, they have husbands and wives and kids. Our strong performance allows us to help people individually and collectively.

— Paul Hastings chairman Seth Zachary, commenting on the firm’s decision to create a pandemic fund meant to benefit staff, associates, and any non-partner lawyers who have been harmed directly by COVID-19 or have suffered from its consequences. Paul Hastings will match all contributions to the fund made firmwide.


Staci ZaretskyStaci 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.

Serial Bummer Jay Clayton Takes The Fun Out Of Coronavirus Bailouts

Harvard Law School FedSoc President Brings Gun To Class

I know it sounds bad, but as a society, we should all give ourselves a pat on the back that it took a few weeks into online classes for someone to whip out a gun. I figured this was a “first Thursday” kind of development along with forgetting to mute while your mom says embarrassing stuff, lecture bombing, and accidentally sharing an inappropriate screen. Taking conservative law students regularly rewarded for trolling provocation and then putting them in isolation to stew about their next trick was bound to convince one of them to bring a piece to a lecture.

And now it’s happened! The incoming president of Harvard’s FedSoc chapter decided to spice up the Criminal Procedure: Adjudications Zoom lecture with a firearm, presumably to “own the libs” because that’s the only motivation for anything anymore. And of course he’s not been able to play with his metallic dick during class before since Harvard bans guns on campus. Because of the whole “mass shooting concern” thing.

Just to pre-empt the response here, no, it’s not fine to bring guns to class just because you’re not physically in the room. For clarification, other things you should not brandish during a Zoom class: a dildo, a bloody knife, a dead hooker. Also, please refrain from wearing your swastika pins during class and all the other things we apparently HAVE TO SAY OUT LOUD NOW. Yes, no one is going to get shot when a student whips out a gun in their house to answer the question absolutely no one asked, but that’s not the only reason we don’t consider weaponry an essential study aid.

That it’s disruptive to the learning experience when ersatz Elmer Fudd here pulls out his heater is the very least of the reasons why this is inappropriate. It’s also pretty menacing and can induce anxiety in people who’ve had traumatic, violent experiences in the past. And while it should be enough to appeal to basic decency, it should also give any professional pause. We don’t carry rifles into government buildings — well, actually these dumbasses do — but we shouldn’t. Young people — sometimes — mature but consider the message this level of judgment sends to a character and fitness review or future employer.

But look, the new White House Press Secretary got her start saying comically stupid stuff on this very website. Jonathan Turley’s out here pretending he’s never seen an Indian restaurant to stay in Fox’s good graces. Debasing yourself with the alacrity of a trained seal is how you get ahead for these folks. Before the week is out, Sean Hannity will be praising the “courage” it took to basically drop trou in the middle of class — except with a gun, so it’s a political statement.

In any event, this space in “Quarantine Law School Bingo” is now filled. I’m just a “professor convinces SCOTUS justice to bomb the lecture as a treat” or “whole class coordinates their greenscreen background to the Dean’s face” away from a win.


HeadshotJoe 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.

Am Law 200 Firm Puts Its Employees On Ice With Furloughs, Salary Cuts

(Image via Getty)

The concerning financial consequences of the coronavirus pandemic have resulted in layoffs, furloughs, and salary adjustments across all avenues of employment, but when it comes to the legal sector, the cuts have been deep. Dozens of firms have tightened their belts to prepare for the loss of cash this will cause them, and legal professionals ranging from staff members to equity partners have been squeezed.

We’ve been tracking exactly how this is playing out, and now we’ve got news on some adverse employment action from a place that sounds more like a beer than a law firm. Crack open a cold one, because here come some more furloughs and salary cuts.

Sources tell us that Ice Miller, an Am Law 200 firm, has conducted furloughs among the members of its staff, but that attorney furloughs haven’t been contemplated. The firm will also be cutting salaries across the board, and everyone was notified of these adjustments via conference call from Steve Humke, the firm’s chief managing partner. Here’s a statement on the firm’s cost-cutting measures from Humke:

This morning, I announced that Ice Miller would be enacting several measures to help ensure that the Firm’s position remains strong through the economic crisis caused by COVID-19. First, we have made the difficult decision to furlough 35 professional staff and timekeepers. Eighteen of our furloughed team members are professional staff. The rest are timekeepers. None are partners.

Second, we are temporarily adjusting compensation for all team members who make more than $50,000 per year. The amount of compensation reduction corresponds to team members’ compensation levels. No individual’s compensation will fall below $50,000 per year, and our partners will take the greatest reductions. Our intention is to raise all team members back to their regular compensation levels as soon as market forces allow. We believe that these measures are very much in line with others in our industry. Unlike many firms, Ice Miller has historically operated without reliance on a line of credit and does not hold back a significant portion of partner compensation for future distribution. Our partners share in the Firm’s profits each month after expenses are paid. This practice has given us a strong balance sheet entering into this crisis and positioned us well to continue to provide employment to our team members and excellent service to our clients. Since our partners don’t receive a smaller draw and a larger year-end payout, we think our partner compensation adjustment is in line with other firms who are on a draw system that have announced temporary reductions in partner compensation.

We believe that the compensation adjustments are necessary in order to protect the operating capital of the law firm and preserve jobs, while remaining a strong business partner for our clients. We understand that many of our clients have been hit especially hard by this crisis and are taking their own steps to protect their financial positions. Our commitment to our valued clients is as strong in difficult times as it is in times of plenty.

“I’m proud of our whole Ice Miller team,” Humke said, “who are sharing in the sacrifices necessary to support our clients through this unprecedented crisis.” We hope those affected at the firm are able to get the support they need.

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.


Staci ZaretskyStaci 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.

Am Law 100 Firm Announces Attorney Layoffs And Furloughs

It’s become increasingly obvious that attorneys, despite the fancy (and expensive) degrees, are far from immune from the economic downturn brought on by COVID-19. Biglaw has been awash in cost-cutting measures designed to keep the firms afloat during these hard times. The latest example of that comes from Am Law 100 firm, Nixon Peabody.

The firm already announced massive staff layoffs, and now lawyers are also seeing the axe. According to multiple tipsters at the firm, the firm is cutting 10 percent of non-partner attorneys, and tipsters report even senior associates were impacted. The cuts are divided by approximately 5 percent layoffs (with three months of health insurance) and 5 percent furloughs (presumably with full benefits).

Best of luck to those that suddenly find themselves without a paycheck in the middle of a pandemic/economic decline.

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.


headshotKathryn 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).

Orrick Rolls Out Salary Cuts Paired With ‘Make Whole’ Cash Rewards

(Image via Getty)

The coronavirus crisis has taken a calamitous toll on the legal profession as we know it, and over time, we’ve seen more and more firms take cost-cutting measures — ranging from salary reductions to furloughs to layoffs — in an effort to proactively manage their finances ahead of the difficult months to come. Sometimes, even Biglaw firms that are known for their kindness and generosity must tighten their belts in order to brace for the tough times that are ahread.

Sources tell us that Orrick, which is currently ranked No. 32 in the Am Law 100 and No. 34 in the Vault 100, has announced a handful of initiatives meant to save cash on hand now to spare jobs and benefits in the future, should it come to that. For the remainder of 2020, the firm will be reducing salaries for all employees on a graduated scale. We’ve been told that these are the specifics for lawyers:

  • Career associates: 5 percent salary cut
  • Associates: 10 percent salary cut
  • Managing/senior associates and most of counsel: 15 percent salary cut
  • Partners, of counsel, executive staff: “deeper” cuts

On the staff side of things, we’ve heard that more junior employees will see a salary cut of just 1 percent, while more senior staff members could see up to a 15 percent salary cut. Starting on May 1, some staff members at the firm whose roles depend on more in-office activity will be asked to work on reduced schedules. On top of that, the firm’s secretaries will be asked to work four-day schedules. In all, the annual salary reduction for these staff members will range from 7 percent to 17 percent.

We reached out to Orrick for confirmation of these measures and received this statement from Mitch Zuklie, Orrick’s chairman and chief executive officer:

We are navigating a hundred year event that is putting extraordinary stress on our clients, our communities, our people, and our profession. We have not yet felt the full impact of this crisis, nor do we know how soon the global economy will recover. So, it is prudent to take actions now designed to give our firm the flexibility to protect jobs and provide our people with health benefits for themselves and their families. Our program is structured to retain our extraordinary team so we can serve our clients and innovate — now and in the future. And, as a demonstration that we are in this together as one team, our most senior team members will make the greatest sacrifices. Of course, we sincerely hope that this global health crisis ends soon and the economy rebounds, and we will continue to monitor and adjust the program as necessary.

As we noted earlier, this firm is known for its kindness, so of course, they’re trying to match the bad with some good. Sources say that Orrick will be offering special “make whole” awards to top contributors, no matter their role, and that this money will be separate from the firm’s annual bonuses. To our knowledge, Orrick is the only firm that is doing something like this. In addition, Orrick, which has consistently been recognized as a family-friendly firm, is offering all lawyers and staff the ability to work a reduced full-time equivalent schedule if need be to tackle the responsibilities of work and family during the pandemic. Last, but certainly not least, anyone at the firm who earned an “Unplug on Us” $15,000 vacation bonus in 2019 will be able to defer their trips to 2021 due to the current unavailability of vacation and travel options.

As for Orrick’s summer associates, in an effort to limit travel during the coronavirus crisis, the entire program will be virtual and will be shortened to five weeks in time. In exchange, all 1L summer associates will receive offers to return to the firm next year, and all 2L summer associates will receive offers to return to the firm as associates after graduation. That’s certainly something worth celebrating. To ensure the dangers associated with COVID-19 have passed and to work around delayed bar exams, the firm will postpone the start of its 2020 associate class to January 2021.

We wish all those affected by the salary cuts at Orrick the best of luck as the firm attempts to weather the coronavirus storm.

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.


Staci ZaretskyStaci 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.

Law School Marches On Pretending That Anyone Cares About Grades This Semester

With the University of Chicago finally dropping its Quixotic commitment to maintaining the curve after it looked around and realized all the serious and responsible schools had moved to mandatory Pass/Fail, it looked as though the legal academy had finally achieved real consensus. Professors are achieving varying levels of success in dealing with this, students face timezone challenges, and everyone may also be dealing with friends or family suffering at this time. If students are absorbing enough knowledge to be passable, that’s good enough right now — we can put aside figuring out who deserves sartorial honorifics right now.

But Baylor seems determined to charge ahead to accomplish… what exactly? Employers aren’t worried about a semester without letter grades. Judges aren’t worried about a semester without letter grades. Peer institutions don’t seem worried about a semester without letter grades.

At least the Baylor Law students recognize this and put together a petition to the administration outlining the entirely reasonable approach that almost every other law school has adopted at this point.

Defiantly though, the Baylor administration is going to stick with being an outlier. In a blog post last week, Baylor Law’s dean, Leah Teague, displayed almost inhuman levels of disconnect with the reality of legal academia:

We’re now in our third week of online classes. Our faculty have been meeting (virtually, of course) every few days to make important decisions. We decided early on to stay with our grading system and to address accommodations on an individual basis. Because we are small – student population of 430 – we are better equipped to manage this decision. We spent the last three weeks determining what adjustments we can make to our policies and procedures to help our students. We quickly extended the exam period and doubled the normal number of reading days. Instead of our typically tight exam schedule, they now have a break every few days during the exam period providing more time to study in between exams.

The school added days between exams. This is a “we see that you’re homeless and starving, here’s a coupon for a free appetizer with purchase of 2 full-sized entrees” approach. Sure, it’s a nice accommodation — because who doesn’t like a Samosa now and then? (answer: Jonathan Turley) — but it’s not really addressing the problem, is it?

In the interest of fairness, there are a few additional adjustments the school’s touting:

1. assurance that no student will lose their scholarship on account of grades received in the current Spring quarter (but will receive the benefit of any improved gpa);
2. a modified policy regarding an election to withdraw from one or more Spring quarter courses;
3. a modified policy regarding re-taking a Spring quarter course; and
4. an explanation of the effect of an incomplete (an “I”) in a Spring quarter course.

Clearly the first one is welcome news. It’s also the absolute floor for a law school right now and we’re not going to get in the business of handing out cookies for doing the bare minimum. The rest are just invitations to screw up the rest of a student’s academic progress by putting off classes — a harm the school’s inflicting to accomplish, again, what? To know who got a B and who got a B+?

Is this really what Baylor thinks legal education is all about? Do they really think they’ll get some kind of leg up on the Texas grads by having an “A”? Because what’s going to happen is employers are still going to talk to everyone at Texas anyway. The only thing grades accomplish is ensuring that picky employers limit their interviews of Baylor students based on results that may or may not be representative. I’d offer Baylor congratulations on playing themselves, but I cannot imagine these admins have ever heard of DJ Khaled.

That blog is titled “Training Lawyers As Leaders” which seems the height of irony right about now since their definition of leadership seems to be “Stay The Course No Matter What Happens,” which could be the title of a MasterClass taught by the captain of the Titanic. It’s not actually leadership to refuse to seriously adapt to new realities and bucking the rest of the academy to “own the peers” doesn’t make a leader.

But this is the school that desperately tried to hold onto Ken Starr after the university already fired him over the whole “looking the other way over a massive sexual assault scandal” thing. Maybe adapting to reality just isn’t their strong suit.


HeadshotJoe 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.

Paycheck Protection Program: How To Navigate This Puzzle Of Pandemic Proportions

In an effort to mitigate the disastrous economic effect of the coronavirus pandemic, the CARES Act was passed. One of its major provisions for small businesses was the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), a low-interest loan that could be converted into a grant. The problem? This program has both an application deadline (June 30, 2020) and limited funding ($349 billion). This has resulted in businesses rushing to banks like shoppers searching for toilet paper.

This is the basic idea of the PPP: the federal government’s Small Business Administration will provide a loan to eligible small businesses in the amount of two and a half months of the business’s average monthly payroll expenses up to $10 million. The loan can be forgiven if at least 75% of the proceeds are used for payroll costs while the remaining amount can be used to pay rent, utilities and interest on existing debt incurred before February 15, 2020.

There are some limitations. The business must have less than 500 employees and generally has not been involved in any criminal activity. Also, when calculating the loan disbursement amount, if an employee’s annual salary exceeds $100,000 per year, then only the first $100,000 will be added into the eligible loan amount. Finally, the forgiveness amount will be reduced if any employee is laid off.

Simple enough, but the program has created some confusion and has also run into logistical problems.

First is the issue of payments to independent contractors. Are these payments counted when determining the total payroll expenses? And are those payments using loan proceeds forgivable? Unfortunately, according to guidance from the SBA, the answer to both is no. The reason being that independent contractors can apply for the program themselves.

Second is whether self-employed business owner draws count toward determining the loan amount and whether those draws are forgivable if used with loan proceeds. It appears that way. The SBA guidance states that for sole proprietors, payroll costs include “the sum of payments of any compensation to or income of a sole proprietor or independent contractor that is a wage, commission, income, net earnings from self-employment or similar compensation that is not more than $100,000.” Also, the statute states that “individuals who operate under a sole proprietorship or as an independent contractor and eligible self-employed individuals shall be eligible to receive a covered loan.” And it appears that the PPP covers gig-economy workers which are basically independent contractors with no employees, or in other words, a “true solo.” So the language of the statute and the SBA guidance seems to indicate that owner draws are a covered, forgivable expense.

So if a PPP loan interests you, you should consider the following.

First, do you really need the loan? If you are not getting new business or additional work, what’s the point of paying additional employees that may end up doing nothing and potentially causing trouble? Some might find that they can receive more money through unemployment. Do you have a plan to pay back the loan in case you are required to pay the funds back?

Next, what paperwork do you need to submit? Lenders’ requirements will vary but most banks accepting applications have requested (or are likely to ask for) the following paperwork:

  1. Bank statements from Jan 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020. Notate which payments/withdrawals are for payroll.
  2. Payroll summaries from your payroll provider.
  3. Pay stubs and canceled checks for payroll payments.
  4. IRS Form 941s for 2019 and the first quarter of 2020.
  5. IRS Form 941 account transcripts. You should be able to obtain these online.
  6. Profit and loss statement for the previous 12 months as of the date of the application.
  7. 2019 IRS Form W-2s, W-3s, 1099s, and 1096s.
  8. 2019 or 2018 federal income tax returns.

Since demand is high and funding is currently limited, have this paperwork ready as soon as possible.

Finally, which banks should you apply to? Unfortunately, a lot of banks are accepting and processing applications very slowly due to the volume of applications received. But banks seem to be unwilling to issue PPP loans due to potential liability, and low returns. Also, every major bank is only accepting applications from current clients first. I don’t blame them for doing this. After all, we all know that 99.99999999% of applicants want to take advantage of the loan forgiveness provisions. And banks normally do not want to deal with borrowers who have no intention to pay the loans back. They do not want to deal with the hassle or with angry customers when they learn that their $20,000 payment to their “consultant” mother does not qualify for loan forgiveness.

You might have better luck with a local bank. Some do not require an existing relationship although they may require you to set up an account with them. However, smaller banks may be similarly overburdened. Also, each bank may have its own requirements and will use different calculations to determine the loan amount. So if you can, you may want to apply to multiple banks and see which banks are easier to work with and give the most realistic calculations. You don’t necessarily want to go with the bank that gives you the highest loan amount if their loan calculations look suspect.

You can go to the SBA website to find a bank nearest you that is accepting PPP applications.

Finally, assuming you receive the PPP loans, how do you ensure that loan proceeds will be forgiven? The best way to do it is to make it easy for the auditors to make the determination. I suggest doing the following.

First, set up a separate bank account dedicated solely for the loan proceeds. Try to find an account that does not charge monthly service fees.

Second, be aware of the 75%/25% rule. 75% of the PPP loan proceeds must be used for payroll costs. And the remaining 25% must be used for eligible nonpayroll costs. This includes mortgage interest payments, rent, utility payments, and interest on debts incurred before February 15, 2020. To be safe, I recommend using at least 80% of the funds for payroll costs.

Third, keep good records. Keep all pay stubs. Document every withdrawal from the dedicated bank account. Keep a copy of your mortgage or lease agreement. Have a copy of all utility bills.

Considering the current ambiguity, don’t expect to get the full amount that you are asking. As stated above, banks will interpret the PPP guidelines differently. Some may be more conservative while others will not. These can result in a smaller loan amount than you expected.

Unfortunately, it looks like the mad rush for the PPP loans will continue for the near future. The good news is that funding is likely to be increased if the initial $349 billion allocation is in danger of being depleted quickly. While lawmakers ponder how much additional funding to give, they can also clear up some of the ambiguities and deficiencies of the PPP legislation. But since no decision has been made yet, getting answers is like asking the grocery store worker when the next shipment of disinfectant wipes is arriving.


Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and resolve tax disputes. He is also sympathetic to people with large student loans. He can be reached via email at sachimalbe@excite.com. Or you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) and connect with him on LinkedIn.

Biglaw Associate Salary Cuts Come To The Am Law 50

Up until now, the Biglaw COVID-19 austerity measures, specifically the layoffs, furloughs, and associate salary cuts, have stayed away from the very top of Biglaw. Before the economic upheaval of the coronavirus, the Am Law 50 was financially pulling away from the second 50, and the biggest in Biglaw have mostly been reassuring folks about their economic stability during these tough times. But now we’ve learned that even top firms are not immune to the COVID-19 the pay cuts.

Today, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (ranked 44 by Am Law) co-chairs Steve Baumer and Lisa Mayhew sent a firm-wide email letting everyone know that all employees making over $40,000 will be taking a 15 percent pay cut. Folks are also encouraged to volunteer for a sabbatical:

The actions we are taking are:
• A proposed 15% salary reduction for all our employees (lawyers and business services staff) across all our offices for a 13 week period starting in May. To protect those on lower incomes, the reduction will not apply to employees whose full-time salary is the equivalent of $40,000/£32,000 or below (and we will ensure that any reduction would not result in a full time salary going below this level).
• We understand that some colleagues will remain exceedingly busy in this period and, therefore, we intend to establish a bonus pool for the benefit of those whose performance during the year merits additional compensation.
• As an alternative to the salary reduction, you are invited to volunteer to:
– take a sabbatical of a minimum of six weeks and maximum of six months, during which time you would receive 30% of your normal
salary; or
– reduce your working hours to work on a part-time basis for a minimum
period of 6 months, working either 4, 3 or 2.5 days per week. Such reduced working hours would be matched with a corresponding reduction in pay.

Yes, this announcement comes after tipsters at the firm reported being assured by partners that the firm was poised to weather the coronavirus storm. You can read the firm’s full email on the next page.

Good luck to all those at BCLP, and hopefully these cuts means the firm can avoid layoffs or furloughs.

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.


headshotKathryn 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).