Category: News Feeds

A Northeastern college student from Iran was granted a student visa to continue his studies after a yearlong review. The Trump administration’s shock troops at Customs and Border Protection took a look at his valid visa and decided to ignore it and marked the kid for deportation. So much for “if only people came here legally.” An emergency federal hearing on the matter resulted in Judge Allison Burroughs issuing a court order temporarily blocking the deportation until it could be assessed by the court.

CBP deported the kid anyway.

And faced with this, Judge Richard Stearns, who got assigned the case proper (Hossein Abadi v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection et al), responded by declaring the case moot:

Stearns said in court that he didn’t think the government would “listen” to him, and that he did not [have] jurisdiction over the issue because Abadi had been deported, calling the case “moot.”

“This seems to be an issue for Burroughs, not me,” Stearns said. Church and Doyle contested that the emergency order was issued at around 9:20 pm– Abadi was not deported until 10:03pm, which would indicate the federal government violated the mandate. Doyle said later, “CBP has a history of ignoring district court orders.”

Are you fucking kidding me? “Ha ha. Yeah, those guys don’t listen to us… not much we can do about that.”

The student’s attorneys, Susan Church of Demissie & Church and Kerry E. Doyle of Graves & Doyle are planning to refile with Burroughs, who hopefully will have a harsher response to seeing an order she personally issued trampled on like this, but just because the order was issued by a different judge doesn’t make it any less an order of the court and Stearns had every bit of authority to protect the court itself from the government’s contempt.

With this shoulder-shrugging decision, Judge Stearns gives succor to the idea that parties can obviate stays by ignoring orders with impunity. If that’s the law then we may as well change the “least dangerous branch” to the “least effectual branch.” If there are no repercussions from this action, it’s a green light for increased abuse. It sets the precedent for not only ignoring court orders, but to the extent CBP will argue that they just didn’t know about the order before deporting him, it incentivizes bigoted meatheads to move faster to deport people, increasing the risk of tragic mistakes. Maybe Judge Burroughs will drop that hammer. Maybe Judge Stearns merely felt that punishment should be deferred to Judge Burroughs. Maybe.

The right answer here would have been to say that the habeas petition may be moot with the student no longer in custody, but that the court retains jurisdiction over the conduct of the parties to the matter. The marshals should then have been instructed to take whatever AUSA happened to be in the room into federal custody for contempt. It was the lawyer’s obligation to advise the agency to stay in compliance with the law and they failed. They will remain in the cooler until the DOJ at least offers, at government expense, to return to everyone to the status quo that existed before the act of contempt.

But even without such an aggressive response, the wishy-washy quotes Judge Stearns dropped do tremendous damage to the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government. It’s one thing to declare the case moot with a stern lecture that this is wholly inappropriate even though the court’s hands are tied and quite another to transform into Judge Eeyore and say the government just never listens and always disobeys orders. Projecting to the world that the courts are completely impotent is not a good look.

You’re a federal judge! Act like you’ve got some meager authority!

Despite judge’s order, Iranian student deported [CommonWealth]

---

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.

I spent a part of my winter break watching numerous episodes of the Dave Ramsey Show. For those who are not familiar with his show, Ramsey gives financial advice to callers from all walks of life. Unfortunately, he gives some people the advice they need, not the advice they want, particularly those who are living beyond their means and are deep in debt.

A few months ago, Dave got a call from Steve, a lawyer in California. Steve is a few years out of law school and just started a job at a law firm making $200,000 per year but hates it. He wants to leave in order to pursue his passion of being a state prosecutor although it will mean making a lot less money. He asked Dave how long he should stay at his current firm in order to maximize his chances at financial success and capitalize on his law degree.

Dave didn’t answer his question. Instead, he told Steve to think about other options, not just the prosecutor’s office. Can he find other jobs that would provide both a law firm salary and a good quality of life? He suggested looking at criminal defense firms or even judgeships which might also satisfy his passion for justice.

While Dave’s advice isn’t really wrong, it’s incomplete. It’s also the type of generic advice someone like him would give to any of his callers. I think it’s safe to assume that Steve has thought long and hard about his career choices while he was in law school and after graduation. It’s likely he had no interest in meeting billable hour requirements or bringing in new business. So I think he was expecting Dave to give more customized advice.

The answer to Steve’s question is very simple. If he wants to maximize his chances at financial success, he should stay at the high-paying firm and take the money for as long as he can stand before transitioning to the prosecutor’s office. However, this is not as easy as it sounds, and there are other things to consider which might convince him to leave sooner than later.

First is the timing. State prosecutor jobs do not magically appear every day. If Steve is picky about the location he wants to work, it might take some time before a job opening appears. So if the dream job in the dream location appears, he should apply as soon as possible because it might be a while before a position opens again.

Second, he should think about the pension plan the prosecutor’s office is offering. Does the employer offer a contribution match? How long must he stay with the office in order for the pension to vest? When will he be entitled to withdraw from it? It might be wise to move sooner if there is a longer waiting period before the pension vests.

Third, he should look at the chain of command, and how promotions and raises are given. Steve said that the salary at the prosecutor’s office tops out at $120,000 per year. But how long will it take before he is eligible for that salary? And is it given to all prosecutors or only to the few members of the senior management?

He might want to consider exit options in case his passion changes for one reason or another. After a few years with the prosecutor’s office, can he switch to the defense side? His experience and possible inside knowledge could command a premium in the private sector. Or maybe he might want to consider being a judge, which is a common transition for prosecutors.

Finally, Steve has to think about his debts. He told Dave that he has $88,000 in debt. Considering that and the massive pay cut he will be taking once he leaves the high-paying law firm job, at a minimum he should stay long enough to pay off the debt as soon as possible and save a comfortable nest egg.

The decision to switch careers is a difficult one, particularly if you have a lot of debt and if the job you want pays a lot less than your current one. But instead of turning to a national radio talk show host, Steve should have went to a legal career counselor, a recruiter or to other people in the legal industry who can provide more detailed and more relevant advice. If he wants to achieve financial success, he will need to think about the short-term monetary gain and the long-term stability of his career choice.

---

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.

This column has already discussed a number of hassles associates often need to deal with while working at law firms. Indeed, associates must usually conform to archaic notions about the workplace, and are sometimes hazed during the first few years they work at a firm. Associates at many law firms also need to complete personal chores for partners that have absolutely nothing to do with the practice of law. Although some partners may view themselves as Miranda Priestly-like figures who can order associates to complete personal chores, partners should refrain from requiring associates to complete their personal tasks that have nothing to do with legal work.

When I was an associate in Biglaw, I felt like I had hit the jackpot. Only a small fraction of law school graduates secure spots in Biglaw, and as an associate at a large firm, I was in a better financial situation than most people my age. This sentiment was definitely undercut by the pecking order of the firm at which I worked, which required associates to “kiss the ring” in order to advance in the organization. Kind of like that movie The Pursuit of Happyness, associates needed to be ready to complete personal tasks of the partners in order to curry favor with the brass and hopefully secure their blessing when it came time to be reviewed or considered for advancement.

On more than one occasion, I was asked to get coffee by a partner. I was fine with completing this task, but I was unsure why the partners couldn’t just get up and head to the Keurig machine themselves, since it was pretty easy to whip up a cup o’ Joe. At least one time that I can remember, a partner also tasked me with getting him lunch. I had already eaten lunch myself, so I had to make a separate trip just to pick up this partner’s meal.

Thankfully, the partner told me to get money from his secretary for the lunch so that I did not need to go out-of-pocket in order to secure his meal. I remember walking over to the restaurant and walking back, frustrated that I had endured three years of law school, the bar exam, and other crucibles just to be the boss’ errand person. Thankfully, the partner seemed pleased with me when I arrived back at the office with his lunch.

A few minutes later, the partner came into my office while munching on a sandwich that I had just picked up for him. He wanted to talk about a project that I was working on, and he apparently did not even have time to put down his sandwich. While he was talking, a part of his sandwich landed on the carpet of my office! This definitely added insult to injury, since I had to grab a napkin off of my desk after the partner left and clean up the food I had just bought for him.

Another time, some other junior associates and I were tasked with running the March Madness pool at our office. Shortly before the deadline to submit brackets through the internet-based system we were using, a partner came to me with handwritten brackets for himself and his family members. I then spent an hour or two translating these handwritten submissions into the system.

In order to do this, I had to use each of my personal email addresses to set up new accounts for all of these friends and family members of the partner. To this day, I still get spam email to my personal email addresses that I think are a result of these efforts. If I recall correctly, I even had to contribute my own money to the March Madness pool until the partner paid me back for the submissions made by his friends and family members. I have absolutely no idea why these folks could not make their submissions through the easy-to-use online system we were using to run the pool, but because partners viewed junior associates as their errand people, I got tasked with performing this role myself.

I think partners in Biglaw are more guilty of making associates complete personal chores than managers at other types of firms. Biglaw partners know that associates owe their big paychecks and their lifestyles to them, and they likely feel more enabled to order associates to complete their own personal chores. When you pay associates lower salaries, there is less of an expectation that attorneys will go above and beyond to please their bosses, such as completing personal tasks of the partners.

It should be noted that other attorneys have told me many (extremely entertaining) examples of associates completing personal chores for partners, but in order to preserve the confidentiality of those who told me their stories, I won’t mention them here. I hope people will share their own experiences on social media posts related to this article, or email me directly about their stories. Many attorneys I know have their own horror stories about completing personal chores for partners, and I’d love to learn about the experiences of others.

Before someone accuses me of being a “snowflake” online, I don’t think that partners ever crossed any lines with ordering me to complete personal chores (although, some of the stories I’ve heard from others definitely do!). However, just because associates are at the bottom of the law firm hierarchy does not mean that they should be required to complete personal chores for the partners. Unless you work for a boss like the one depicted in The Devil Wears Prada, partners should only require associates to complete legal work as part of their law firm jobs.

---

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.

Greenberg Traurig partner Joel Katz is the center of a new sexual harassment Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint. The Biglaw partner, who also previously served as the former chair of the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences Academy’s board and who continues to serve as the Academy’s outside general counsel, faces allegations from Deborah Dugan, the first woman to serve as the Academy’s president and CEO who was placed on administrative leave.

According to the complaint, during a May 2019 business dinner Katz repeatedly called Dugan “baby” and made comments on her appearance. Additionally, the complaint alleges Katz made overtures to Dugan, saying they should spend time together” and travel to one of his “many homes.” The complaint alleges that despite Dugan’s lack of interest in Katz’s advances, he still attempted to kiss her at the end of the meal.

But that incident was not the end of Katz’s allegedly inappropriate behavior towards Dugan:

Despite the fact that Ms. Dugan rejected all of Mr. Katz’s advances, he continued to act inappropriately towards her.

Indeed, in every one-on-one conversation Ms. Dugan had with Mr. Katz following the May 18, 2019, dinner, he told her that she was pretty and referred to her as “baby.”

Dugan says she complained to Human Resources in an email on December 22, 2019 about the harassment she alleges she endured, which notes a “’boys’ club’ mentality and approach to governance at the Academy.” Three weeks later, Dugan was put on leave:

Only three weeks after sending her complaint to HR, on January 16, 2020 Ms. Dugan was put on administrative leave by the members of the Board’s Executive Committee. The decision to put Ms. Dugan on leave was clearly made in retaliation for her complaint, and came with thinly veiled threats of termination in the event that Ms. Dugan persisted in pursuing claims against the Academy.

In public statements about Dugan’s suspension, the Recording Academy pointed to alleged allegations made against Dugan saying she was released “in light of concerns raised to the Recording Academy board of trustees, including a formal allegation of misconduct by a senior female member of the Recording Academy team.” The complaint characterizes this explanation for her departure as “completely false and defamatory… designed to retaliate against Ms. Dugan, threaten her, and malign her reputation.”

As reported by Law.com, Greenberg Traurig executive chairman, Richard Rosenbaum, issued a statement on the allegations calling Katz “legendary in the music industry” and said he helped the Academy “achieve previously unprecedented business results.” Rosenbaum also spoke about the allegations:

“The personal allegations recently made were not previously known to us and, if true, would of course offend our culture and values.” Rosenbaum said. “But our values also require a full and fair investigation before conclusions are reached. We understand this investigation is being conducted by the Academy and await the results.”

The Academy had its own statement that it had “immediately launched independent investigations to review both Ms. Dugan’s potential misconduct and her subsequent allegations. Both of these investigations remain ongoing.”

Read the full complaint below.

---

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).

* Officials in Flint, Michigan are in “hot water” after the Supreme Court denied their efforts to have a lawsuit against them dismissed. [The Hill]

* Rose McGowan has been sued for defamation for saying that her former lawyer was bought off by Harvey Weinstein. [Chicago Sun Times]

* Aaron Hernandez’s lawyer has some tough words about the Netflix documentary concerning the late football player and convicted murderer. [Men’s Health]

* An Indiana lawyer has been suspended from practice for stealing money from disabled and special-needs clients after setting up trusts for these individuals. [Indiana Lawyer]

* A lawsuit filed by Apple is testing whether an employee can plan a rival company while still on the payroll. This sounds like a plot line from Silicon Valley. [New York Times]

---

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.

Nelson Chamisa told hundreds of Movement for Democratic Change party supporters in the capital, Harare, that he will use the protests to push for a “transitional authority” to run the southern African nation until credible elections are held.

“This year is going to be a year of demonstrations and action,” he said to cheers. “It is time to fight for a Zimbabwe we all want, and have been dreaming of. Come what may, we will not be intimidated.”

Zimbabwe held largely peaceful elections in 2018 in a transition from former leader Robert Mugabe’s nearly four-decade rule. But days later the military shot dead several people in Harare as opposition supporters protested a delay in releasing results.

President Emmerson Mnangagwa, a former Mugabe protege, has said Chamisa should accept the election results, but the opposition leader still asserts the vote was rigged even though the constitutional court threw out his legal challenge.

Zimbabwe’s military and police have crushed subsequent anti-government protests, while opposition events are routinely banned.

Police were uncharacteristically absent at Tuesday’s rally, although officers mounted roadblocks on roads leading into downtown and circulated with loudspeakers shouting: “Don’t be used, please go to work.”

Local churches have failed to bring Mnangagwa and Chamisa to the negotiating table, while former South African president Thabo Mbeki, with the support of the regional Southern African Development Community, visited Zimbabwe late last year to push for dialogue.

The economy has continued to deteriorate, erasing hopes of improved fortunes that greeted the fall of Mugabe in 2017.

At the rally on Tuesday, his first this year, Chamisa said the military, which led the coup against Mugabe and continues to hold significant influence in political matters, should take part in any future dialogue

Post published in: Featured

“You know when we knew a round of layoffs was? It was when they started locking the Coke in the meeting room cabinets. It was a big omen,” I was once told by a paralegal who worked at a prominent Silicon Valley law firm during the dotcom and dotbust.

As she was telling me the details of what happened, I couldn’t help but think of 2009 and 2010. By then, I was in my third year of working in Biglaw. For almost two years, the gossip in my and neighboring law firms revolved around sudden, increasingly frequent departures of numerous legal professionals and reports of cost-cutting measures, such as discontinuation of dinner allowances.

And always in the mix was a lot of fear and anxiety. What if I’m next?, we all thought as we helplessly watched the numbers in our law class dwindle. Surely, if I work extra hard, then I would be spared. This thinking made sense to recent law graduates, who had found success in their own lives by working harder than everyone around them for their entire education and professional careers.

All of this became real to me when the Atrium layoffs were announced. There were a lot of discussions. Many conversations focused on who broke the news first and who saw it coming. There were some nods to the future of the legal field and agreement that this may happen again as legal tech comes to play a more prominent role.

Yet, layoffs are not a blood sport to be enjoyed by spectators. We failed to discuss things that really matter.

Layoffs involve people with families, dreams, and ambitions. There is a distinct lack of humanity when we report that somewhere between 10 and 50 professionals have been affected and then focus on “who reported it first” and “who saw this coming.” It feels too cold, sterile, and inhuman. Hiding behind the numbers and predictions is a tad insensitive.

If you have ever spoken to any legal professional that has been affected by a layoff, you would know how uncomfortable, insecure, and full of anxiety this discussion can be. After all, many lawyers, when laid off, take it as a sign of weakness, incompetence, or shame. Many feel alone and isolated in the process. We do nothing to support or guide. All we offer them is tabloid-quality sentential articles.

Most importantly, critical discussions are missing. For example, how come after years of layoffs, there are very few legal institutions, including law schools or state bars, that have a plan, let alone a good plan, to help lawyers cope, transition, or acquire new skills? Not having a plan for legal layoffs is akin to living in Northern California and not have an emergency plan for earthquakes.

We know that legal layoffs happen; how come we don’t prepare ourselves to deal with them? How come law schools don’t teach you what to do when you know that the partners will be meeting tomorrow to decide whom to cut? How come these institutions have nothing to offer after the unfortunate events happen.

Finally, we know that the legal field is changing. With its new processes and technologies, we know that we are in the midst of a fundamental transformation. We know it will affect all of us. We know that there will be layoffs, restructures, and changes. What do we do as a profession to make sure that we successfully transition together? What do we do to make sure that everyone acquires missing skills? What do we do to make sure that all members of the legal profession are prepared to practice law in the future?

---

Olga V. Mack is the CEO of Parley Pro, a next-generation contract management company that has pioneered online negotiation technology. Olga embraces legal innovation and had dedicated her career to improving and shaping the future of law. She is convinced that the legal profession will emerge even stronger, more resilient, and more inclusive than before by embracing technology. Olga is also an award-winning general counsel, operations professional, startup advisor, public speaker, adjunct professor, and entrepreneur. Olga founded the Women Serve on Boards movement that advocates for women to participate on corporate boards of Fortune 500 companies. Olga also co-founded SunLaw, an organization dedicated to preparing women in-house attorneys to become general counsels and legal leaders, and WISE to help female law firm partners become rainmakers. She authored Get on Board: Earning Your Ticket to a Corporate Board Seat and Fundamentals of Smart Contract Security. You can email Olga at olga@olgamack.com or follow her on Twitter @olgavmack. 

According to data collected by Law School Transparency, for law school students starting in 2020, which school’s students are projected to have the largest debt as a result of their law school education?

Hint: LST predicts students will come out of this very good law school with $389,673 in debt.

See the answer on the next page.

We’re not out here to try and be the biggest firm in the world or get the scraps of Big Law. We see ourselves as white-shoe law firm 2.0.

—Co-founding partner and CEO of alternative law firm Rimon, Michael Moradzadeh, sounding off about the cloud-based firm’s ability to compete with Skadden. Rimon has made a series of international lateral hires as part of their aim to be a full-service firm for clients in finance, tech, entertainment, and the international corporate space. One lateral partner, former Gibson Dunn partner Richard Ernest said, “To me, it is clear that Rimon gives senior, experienced partners (20-plus years), who are seen by their clients as go-to practitioners, the chance to work freely, flexibly and collaboratively with like-minded souls in order to vastly improve upon the service and fee flexibility demanded by global clients.”

---

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).