Category: News Feeds

Omnicare will pay $15 million to settle allegations that it allowed controlled substances to be dispensed to patients without a valid prescription.

The Cincinnati, Ohio-based company provides pharmacy services for long-term care facilities, such as nursing homes and assisted living facilities. It was acquired by CVS Health in 2015.

The settlement was reached on May 6 after an investigation by Drug Enforcement Administration field officials and U.S. Attorney’s Offices in Colorado, Oregon, Utah, and Central and Southern California.

The allegations focus on Omnicare’s prescription deliveries to long-term care facilities, which includes “emergency kits”—limited stockpiles of controlled substances that can only be dispensed with a valid prescription on an emergency basis.  Omnicare allegedly failed to control the emergency kits by allowing long-term care facilities to remove opioids and other controlled substances days before doctors provided a valid prescription.

The company also reportedly violated the federal Controlled Substances Act by processing written prescriptions that lacked certain required information, such as the prescriber’s signature or DEA number.

As part of the settlement, Omnicare will pay $15.3 million and will enter into a memorandum of agreement with the Drug Enforcement Administration that would require Omnicare to increase its monitoring of emergency kits placed at long-term care facilities.

“Omnicare failed in its responsibility to ensure proper controls of medications used to treat some of the most vulnerable among us,” DEA Acting Administrator Uttam Dhillon said in a news release.  “DEA is committed to keeping our communities safe by holding companies like Omnicare accountable for such failures, while ensuring continuity of care and necessary access to emergency prescription drug supplies.”

In an emailed statement, CVS Health emphasized the allegations date back to before it acquired Omnicare, and did not involve any of its other businesses.

“Omnicare has entered into a settlement agreement with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and certain U.S. Attorneys’ Offices to resolve allegations dating back to 2012 concerning the handling and processing of controlled substance prescriptions at some of its long-term care pharmacy locations. CVS Health acquired Omnicare in 2015,” the company stated. “The company is committed to the highest standards of business practices and meeting the needs of its long term care patients.  The matter was settled to avoid the expense and uncertainty of potential litigation and there was no admission of wrongdoing.”

This isn’t the first time Omnicare’s dispensing practices have come under fire. Another, separate lawsuit filed in December by the Department of Justice accused Omnicare of dispensing non-controlled prescriptions that were expired, out of refills or otherwise invalid.

Photo credit: Mykola Velychko, Getty Images

This article has been updated with a statement from CVS Health.

Ed. note: Litigation finance is transforming the fields of both law and finance. To help our readers gain a better understanding of what litigation finance entails, we’ve partnered with Lake Whillans to present an ongoing series so you can better understand how litigation funding works, its pros and cons, and its past, present, and future

In light of the rapidly shifting economy, many law firms and their clients are facing greater challenges in financing meritorious litigation.  Litigants are taking stock of their cases and the path forward, mindful of increased pressure to reduce and conserve budgets.  Law firms are assessing potentially heightened collection risks.  In this uncertain environment, litigation funders like Lake Whillans stand ready to serve as a resource to both claimholders and law firms.

If you lead a corporation that holds monetizable litigation claims, the potential advantages of litigation finance as a risk-reduction mechanism merit careful attention.  Similarly, if you lead a law firm that is bringing claims on a contingent fee basis, you may wish to explore the benefits of receiving upfront, non-recourse funding collateralized by a portfolio of the firm’s contingent fee cases.

As claimholders review their portfolios of pending and potential litigation, they should be aware that litigation funding is an option not just at the outset of a case, but at any stage prior to collecting on a judgment or arbitral award.  This article will consider the pros and cons of three potential entry points for litigation funding: at the outset of the case, midstream, and post-judgment.  Lake Whillans has experience funding cases at every stage.

At the outset

Engaging a funder at the outset of litigation—before the case is filed—has several advantages.  Most obviously, the earlier the funder is engaged, the sooner the company or law firm can receive funding and reduce or stop entirely its own spend.  Claimholders may be reluctant to initiate litigation or arbitration without a well-developed plan for funding fees and costs, so funding at this stage may be necessary to enable cases to go forward.  Litigation finance enables a claimant to conserve more of its capital for use in core business operations, a benefit that is particularly valuable in times of economic uncertainty.  Potential claimholders should note that some litigation funding agreements provide working capital to the claimant corporation in addition to covering litigation expenses.

Another benefit to seeking funding at the outset is the opportunity to test the merits and likely damages using the funder’s expertise.  The diligence process that experienced funders like Lake Whillans conduct before making an investment decision can be an invaluable opportunity to receive feedback from a sophisticated, impartial outsider on the strengths and weaknesses of the claimholder’s case.  Counsel can adjust the framing of the claims in response to that feedback, strengthening the case before it is presented to the court or arbitral tribunal.  This stress test and external validation can also help overcome internal reluctance some company management may have to bringing claims in this uncertain environment.

Pricing for an early stage case may be more expensive than for later stage cases.  This is primarily due to two factors: risk and time to return.   From a risk perspective, early stage claims are generally viewed as riskier than later stage claims that have been tested in court—for example, by surviving a motion to dismiss and engaging in discovery—and where a defendant’s defenses are generally known.  From a time to return perspective, early stage claims are generally viewed as taking longer to return than cases that are closer to final resolution.  Of course, each case is unique and specific pricing would turn on the specific circumstances attendant to each claim.

Midstream

In some cases, an opportune time to seek funding is midstream, often after the case has survived initial procedural hurdles and fact discovery is well underway or complete, but before a trial begins.  Litigation fees and expenses may be climbing steadily amidst discovery, depositions and the need to retain experts — an unwelcome fact to businesses already struggling to cope with the current environment.  In some instances, claimants that initially planned to fund a case to completion find an unexpected mismatch between the actual litigation costs and its initial budget, which may have been underestimated or necessarily reduced in the current economic climate.  Litigation fatigue may be setting in as hope for an early settlement has faded.  Mitigating risk at this stage may simply be prudent for the claimant, while a litigation funder can enable such a claimant (and its counsel) to continue to optimally pursue the case.  The good news: at this stage, the funder’s capital may be cheaper because the claims have demonstrated greater viability than at the outset of the case, especially if discovery and court rulings have been favorable to the party seeking funding.

Post-judgment/award

A claimant may also decide to seek funding after securing a favorable judgment or arbitral award but before collecting the proceeds.  Such funding can be used not only to finance further proceedings, but to monetize a claim, thereby hedging the risk of loss and bringing significant dollars onto the balance sheet today.  Bringing in a funder at this stage can be especially prudent if there are appellate, enforcement or collection risks.  Common instances of litigation finance at this stage include (i) monetizing a case that has had a favorable trial outcome but for which a (perhaps lengthy) appeals process is yet to play out; (ii) funding for enforcement and collection efforts that may require proceedings in multiple jurisdictions of uncertain length and cost; and (iii) monetizing a company’s share of a proposed settlement in a large class action, where the anticipated payout may be subject to appellate and time risk.  In all of these scenarios, the corporation may prefer to monetize all or some of the judgment/award immediately, especially if its liquidity needs have changed.

Generally, funding at this stage of the case can yield the most favorable pricing for the claimholder.  The main downside of waiting until this late stage to engage a funder is that the claimant likely had to invest significant capital to fund the pre-judgment phase of the case and is at risk for not recouping its capital if an unfavorable outcome ensues, and may have already suffered opportunity costs by not allocating that capital to core business activities.

* * *

Whatever the stage of the case, claimholders should bear in mind that litigation funders are available to assist at any stage of their case.  An experienced provider of litigation finance like Lake Whillans will be happy to discuss the optimal timing of a potential investment, considering the nature of the claim, the expected timetable of the litigation, and the claimant’s risk tolerance.  The best way to determine the timing that is most appropriate to your situation is to contact us.

In this week’s edition of The Jabot podcast, I talk with Kori S. Carew, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw’s chief inclusion and diversity officer and leader of The Belonging Project. The initiative is a nationwide collaborative effort to proactively combat the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on diversity in the legal profession.

Kori and I chat about why the initiative is necessary during COVID-19, how the global pandemic overlaps with diversity issues, the goals of the initiative, why diversity in Biglaw is so important, and why “we must double-down on our efforts during this challenging time.”

The Jabot podcast is an offshoot of the Above the Law brand focused on the challenges women, people of color, LGBTQIA, and other diverse populations face in the legal industry. Our name comes from none other than the Notorious Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the jabot (decorative collar) she wears when delivering dissents from the bench. It’s a reminder that even when we aren’t winning, we’re still a powerful force to be reckoned with.

Happy listening!

This year may have begun solidly, but we are now in an unanticipated recession and the landscape looks very different for law firms in this second quarter and beyond. We anticipate that first-half results will be challenging. Managing cash flow—from recording time to collecting on inventory to managing expenses—will be key. And as we hear from many law firms, so will staying close to clients and finding ways to bring value to them in these unprecedented and troubling times.

— Gretta Rusanow, managing director and head of advisory services within Citi Private Bank’s Law Firm Group, noting that while Biglaw had a decent first quarter, many challenges lie ahead, with median projections of 15 percent declines in second-quarter demand and revenue, both of which are driven by an estimated 11 percent lengthening of the collection cycle.

---

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.

This is an article we published in 2009, at the bottom of the last hiring market for attorneys. It seems apropos to update it now as some of the market dynamics are present during this time of economic duress during the Covid-19 crisis. As a historical note, 2009 turned out to be an outstanding year from the lateral partner recruitment perspective, and associate recruitment also returned with a vengeance in China as the Chinese government flooded the markets with liquidity. Today, we have the Federal Reserve and Congress quickly flooding the markets in the US with liquidity, so this may be an altogether different ride.

Partner recruiting season is never closed, and there’s normally no restriction on hiring capacity. [Back in 2009, we said there was “no season and no bag limit” in partner recruiting, but it occurs to us that this might be too folksy for these times.] Nevertheless, as new partner allocations (whether they be called shares, sharing ratios, points, or just cold hard currency) get set to be announced over the coming months, this is the time of year that many ultimately fruitful and plenty of fruitless discussions between law firms and potential lateral partners begin. The meat of these discussions varies little, whether in Asia, the United States, or Europe. Unfortunately, many of the partners who are looking at their options could be saved a lot of time for themselves and the firms that they are considering with some introspection. Particularly in this über-cautious economic environment, prospects for marginal players are slim. With this in mind, since many of our readers are partners and some of our associate readers ultimately will be partners, it seems that now is a particularly useful time to discuss what makes a partner a viable lateral candidate.

Every firm asks for some of the same data points which give them information about the financial picture of a lawyer’s practice. All of the relevant, basic economic factors can be determined using three critical pieces of information:  personal billable hours for each team member, working attorney collections for each, and billing and/or originating attorney collections for the partners. From these pieces of information, one can derive hourly rate, revenue per lawyer, and most other relevant raw data. But each situation is different and distilling the data to these simple figures is rarely enough. One example (not necessarily from Asia, but very possibly…) may illustrate the point. 

The candidate team was from an international law firm. The lead partner came to us with a sizable book of business and a loyal team. He was around 50 years in age. His skill set, the size of the business, his ability to move it to several of our client firms, and his well-constructed team all looked promising because it folded well into the business plan of a couple of our client firms, at least tangentially. 

The lead partner was billing and collecting about 2,000 hours per year and his team was nearer 2,300 hours a year. All this work was driving a sizable amount of business and the collections were strong in part because of a large governmental client. However, the group was cutting fee deals, such that the lead partner’s effective billable rate was $350 per hour on a rack rate of $675 per hour [Note: 11 years later, in 2020, these rates would not get a sniff at any firm in the Amlaw 100]. The effective billable rates of the team were also low. On behalf of our clients, we did a five year history on the billings and collections and we saw that the effective billable rate had dropped each year for the last five years, showing that the partner was losing pricing power in the market and competing for work more often on a commodity basis. The large governmental client was bidding out the work and driving rates downward as a result. 

Without having revealed their identities, we were able to determine that our international firm clients who might have been fits would take a pass on this group. We saved them the trouble of getting their names out into the market with many firms that would not have initiated discussions, and we ultimately placed the group at a firm that was much more suitable to their set of skills and practice structure. Naturally, the international firms we work with were not interested in a practice based on high hours and low billable rates with a trend line indicating that the practice was going to come under more pricing pressure in the future. The money collected was decent, even moderately appealing, but the view of the firms that were possible fits (not shared by all firms, I recognize) is that 2,300 billable hours from associates is not sustainable every year. And because this was a lateral move, the partners naturally wanted a raise. But at international firms, the partner’s pay expectations were not in line with what the practice was currently generating and where the trend line was pointing. 

It was clear in the end that the group in question had been “bought” by their existing firm without that firm having done enough work on what the trend might be in the practice. The pressure to have a foothold in a new market had been overpowering, and not enough diligence had been done. With the pressured rates and poor trend line on income, and the expectation by the group members of a steady increase in their own income each year, the business was looking worse and worse as the years went by. In retrospect, the likely catalyst for our discussions with the group was recognition by the group’s current firm that some painful changes needed to be made in order to prevent dilution of the overall profitability of the firm by this poorly performing group. 

I hope this example provides some insight into the thinking of some of our smarter clients and a window into some of the analysis you may need to do of your own practice before taking a step to discussing a move with a potential employer. Since the lows of 2009, we have had a decade of unparalleled law firm growth and many of our lateral partner candidates benefited with multi-year guarantees and tremendous compensation increases as a result of their timely moves in the marketplace. But in today’s marketplace, law firms are much more sophisticated in their economic analysis of lateral candidates and the components of their practice. Recognizing these foundational components within your own practice can ensure that the process of lateraling is as efficient as possible. In our representation, we also seek to drive efficiency, which largely results in saving you and our clients precious time.  

Please feel free to email us (asia at kinneyrecruiting.com hits our whole Asia team, or you can write to me at robert at kinneyrecruiting.com) or call so we can talk about some other examples of issues that arise in evaluating partners’ practices and, if appropriate, assist you confidentially with your evaluation of a practice (yours or someone else’s). If history shows us the way forward, now is the time to be evaluating your relative position within this quickly changing marketplace. 

Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series of posts on motherhood in the legal profession, in partnership with our friends at MothersEsquire. Welcome Wendy D. Kalwaitis to our pages, with a brief introduction from Browning Coughlin, founder of MothersEsquire.

In 2013, I felt utterly alone in a firm of more than 200 attorneys. I looked around me and did not see other mothers who were associates, and didn’t have the first clue how I was supposed to simultaneously be the stridently ambitious, “work-above-all-else” attorney and the “perfect mom” at the same time, much less the devoted wife, community and school volunteer, devoted daughter, and all the other hats I wore. I looked for national guidance about motherhood and the law, and found little. It seemed to me that the societal pendulum had shifted far to the side of requiring women not to speak of motherhood and children, as if not speaking about the challenges of the motherhood penalty would make the unconscious bias towards mothers go away. Out of this moment, out of truly my own need for help, MothersEsquire was born. I started a small Facebook group with just five other moms I knew personally who were also lawyers, with the hopes that I would find some secret answers. What I found instead was friendship, joy, brilliance, humor, anger, hope, frustration, and thousands of women who often inspire me with their talents and brilliance. And that is why reading Wendy’s words fill me with immeasurable joy. At a time when we feel more disconnected than ever, MothersEsquire and other social media groups like ours provide needed connection and support. I know that I no longer feel alone, like the only person I know juggling untenable expectations. I’ve got my girls, my sisters, my mommas, my community — the moms of MothersEsquire. And they’ve got me, and my promise to always use my voice to fight for gender equity and an end to the motherhood penalty in the law.

---

Few things in life come without work and determination, Law and motherhood are no exception. They both are more similar then many realize and for those who carry the title of both Attorney at Law and Mom, it can sometimes feel like you are sailing uncharted waters. The beginning quest to endeavor into either title requires willpower, stamina, determination, and emotional strength that few others truly get.  Sleepless nights, never-ending to-do lists, calendars that do not bend to your will, and duties or conduct that carry dire consequences should one not meet the minimum standards.

These roles of mother and lawyer are not interchangeable. One who takes on both roles does so with the idea that they must at all times carry both titles. What was it they told us in law school? “From now on you will always wear your lawyer hat.” And anyone who is a mom, knows that job is 24/7. The balance that both require is like a strictly choreographed dance, where one misstep can lead to the routine tumbling out of control. We live and die by our carefully crafted calendars and deadlines. Children and clients who look to us to guide and remedy all things from boo-boos on the knees to counseling them in the things that often times define their lives or businesses.

There are no breaks in motherhood and law. There is an expectation from both that we will give it our all and anything less is a breach of our fiduciary duties. This pressure can make mom attorneys feel isolated, especially from other moms and attorneys who do not carry the shared weight of the attorney’s oath juxtaposed with playdates, PTA, and parent teacher conferences.  It is a lot of pressure and few can empathize with just how demanding it can be except those who wake every morning and do the delicate dance daily.  But as I have found, social media is bridging that gap of isolation by connecting these alpha law moms where they can share, vent, question, and connect in ways I only dreamed of in the beginning of my career.

Twenty years ago when I graduated law school, I was lost in the maze of the inner workings of what was next.  How does this work and can I truly ask the questions that I am dying to know? I was single and did not have kids but I knew I wanted them.  There were rumors of what was required, which firms were good and which to stay away from as a female attorney who desired both accomplishment and motherhood. But they were just that, rumors. The very last thing on my mind was what would offer me the opportunity to also be a good mom. I naively thought that was implied and that I would just figure it out. The female partners were not approachable and there was a certain implied competition to rise above the fray and prove yourself as one of the boys. I am not proud that I played that game but I did not have female mentors to guide the decisions that best suited my future desire to have children.  At the most, what I witnessed or heard under whispered breaths was that kids derailed and postponed careers.

Social media wasn’t even a word. Back in the day, you would have networking lunches but many found it hard to pull away from the billable hours or work to meet up. There was the added issue of feeling somewhat more visible given you were face to face.  You could follow up those events with emails, but you were flying blind in that you didn’t really know if that female attorney had children and moreover if they even felt like taking the time to answer your question.  It was hard to connect without a social media profile giving out the subtle cues it does today.

But then social media platforms became our way to connect and sharing pieces of ourselves and even our daily lives became more commonplace. Likeminded people discovered each other and groups were formed. I recall stumbling upon MotherEsquire and thinking, “I finally found my people.” Women who truly understood the struggles and decisions I faced daily and an opportunity to ask “those” questions. I have seen the questions that I was dying to know 20 years ago fill in the gaps where rumors were all I knew. What was a doable billable hour as a mother of two? Was there really a chance to make partner and have more than one child? Was government work or in-house counsel that much less demanding? How do you handle breastfeeding and court? Here all of it is shared and it feels like a safe space where one can finally feel heard and understood.

It might not feel like the old stuffy networking roundtables of old where young attorneys did not dare speak and that is a good thing, I promise. My first job, I was hired straight out of law school by a female attorney with kids. She was a partner and I’m grateful she gave me a chance. But at the end of the day, she was my boss and I did not dare ask the tough questions that may paint me in an unprofessional or weak light.  In places like MotherEsquire, I see the tough questions asked and answered by women who know and who have been through this and understand what that female attorney who has kids is up against. There is power in knowledge and in numbers. Thru social media groups, I observe female attorney moms become more empowered every day to break that glass ceiling and redefine what it means to be both mom and counsel.  We were never alone, we simply needed to find “our people,” and I’m happy to report that I am enlightened a little more every day that I get to be a part of this distinct group of women who balance it all with power, grace, and humility.

Earlier: Mothers At Law: Achieving Meaningful Success In The Legal Profession

---

Wendy Kalwaitis graduated from Syracuse University Whitman School of Management in New York before returning to Southern California to attend law school at Southwestern University School of Law. She has been practicing law in Southern California for 20 years, half of those which she has balanced as a mom to her three daily saviors, her children, ages, 10, 8 and 3. She has practiced in both large and boutique firms in the areas of litigation, business, employment, and worker’s compensation law. When she is not balancing all things law and motherhood, she lets her husband do the cooking while she escapes to woodworking, renovating, and moments of alone time at Target or the tool aisle at Home Depot. You can also find her irreverent musings or reach her on her Instagram @found_and_followed or email at wdm711@yahoo.com.

Oh, this is a fun one.

Massachusetts lawyer Ilya Liviz was suspended for failing to comply with a state bar misconduct investigation in April of 2019. And, according to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Liviz continued to render legal services, which led to his being held in contempt of court.

According to Bloomberg Law, Liviz argued he did comply with the misconduct probe because he wrote, “SILENCE. (BOOM SHAKALAKA).” Yup, that’s all.

Liviz argued that he did respond to the bar counsel’s investigation, the high court noted.

“The respondent alleged that he ‘DID COMPLY, and DID PROVIDE AN ANSWER, and my answer was provided in a form of SILENCE. (BOOM SHAKALAKA),’” the court said, adding, “He also stated that, to the extent an answer was required, he “formally den[ied], and demand[ed] a Jury Trial.”

But the court disagreed, finding Liviz made “no meaningful attempt to challenge on appeal the second single justice’s order adjudging him in contempt for failing to comply with the first single justice’s order of administrative suspension.” The court considered “the facts alleged in bar counsel’s complaint for contempt established for purposes of appeal.” And, “We need go no further.” Both the suspension and contempt order were affirmed.

And now I have this awful song stuck in my head. You’re welcomed.

---

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).

Malpractice insurance is one of the most important purchases a law firm can make, but probably one of the last things it wants to think about. Insurtech company Embroker, the leading commercial insurance broker on the market, is on a mission to make the insurance buying process less dreadful, single-handedly offering law firms a better, faster, and cheaper way to get the malpractice coverage they need. We recently sat down with Matt Miller, founder and CEO of Embroker, to discuss how the company is changing the malpractice game and revolutionizing the way firms find and purchase coverage.

Why did you create Embroker?

Embroker was founded in 2015 with the mission of making it radically easier for businesses to get the right insurance coverage at a lower cost. Having served on the board of a large insurance broker, I was well aware of the crucial role insurance plays in our economy, but was taken aback by how little the industry had changed over the last 30 years, particularly for commercial insurance. 

The impetus behind the company was to build technology that would modernize and streamline the insurance value chain and, in doing so, provide buyers of insurance with a much easier, much more transparent way of getting the coverage they need.

What are the main pain points Embroker addresses?

The primary pain points Emboker addresses are well known to anyone who’s had to buy insurance for their company – it’s a highly inefficient, painful process with very little transparency to the buyer on almost every level. From an industry perspective, the inefficiency from all of the manual steps and the layers of intermediation in the value chain means that a higher percentage of the premium goes to paying expenses than it should, and policies, therefore, cost more than they should. By digitizing the entire value chain from end to end, we’re able to provide better coverage at a lower cost, with much less hassle for the buyer. 

How is Embroker different from the traditional ways law firms have applied for malpractice insurance in the past?

Ultimately, the buyer gets better protection and better expertise while spending less money and less time, thanks to technology. 

Let’s be honest – applying and purchasing insurance for law firms is awful. It’s been the same process for the past several decades, with the biggest technological enhancement being the PDF. Law firms are asked to fill out a tedious application year after year. It gets passed to brokers and insurance companies, all who review it, get paid, and settle on a price, often arbitrarily, while passing back to the firm the heavy overhead involved.

With Embroker’s approach, we strip out much of that old process and overhead, which translates to less time spent on purchasing and savings passed to the law firm. The application only asks critical questions that actually affect the cost. Answers are calculated algorithmically and qualified firms get a price immediately. Firms can alter limits, deductibles, and policy features in real time and see how they affect cost. 

They can be assured they’re getting a great deal because our cost structure is fundamentally so much more efficient. We do this without sacrificing the human touch, as our law firm brokers are always available.

Let’s discuss malpractice insurance. Why do lawyers need it and are there differences in coverage that lawyers might not know about? 

The ABA has said that 80% of lawyers will face a legal malpractice suit in their career, and the majority of suits are against small law firms. Without insurance, the lawyer’s personal assets are on the line. For that reason, malpractice insurance is often a new law firm’s first purchase.

Standard insurance has a typical deductible and a regular eroding limit for a set price. Altering limits and deductibles are known to be levers for adjusting price. 

But what about protecting your firm from costs on frivolous lawsuits? Or the exorbitant costs of defending yourself? Our program allows you to assess the price of either of those features by selecting options such as a loss-only deductible or a claims expense in addition to the limit. Unlike other insurance products, we make these risk mechanisms available, and often they’re more affordable than people might assume. Our program is one of the very few where lawyers are offered these features and the ability to adjust them.

What kind of savings do firms see with Embroker in terms of cost and time? 

For pure premium cost, we’re seeing average savings of 20% for qualifying firms. Clio users save an additional 10%.  

On timing, we’re often seeing new firms start and submit an application to purchase in 8-10 minutes. That time goes up slightly as the firm gets bigger, but not by much. Renewals are incredibly easy and even quicker, since all application data is retained and reused.

That said, we also work with plenty of complex firms who like a bit more of a personal consultation, which we absolutely welcome.

Does Embroker offer products other than malpractice insurance?

Yes, Embroker offers all lines of commercial insurance that businesses need, including standard lines like workers’ compensation and general liability, as well as specialty lines like D&O liability insurance and cyber insurance. We also offer health insurance and employee benefits through our same advanced digital experience. 

Is there anything new we can expect to see from Embroker in the near future?

We’re always working to improve our offerings. In the near term, we’re going to roll out a number of major improvements to the platform that should make it even easier and more intuitive for our customers to use. 

Why should lawyers turn to Embroker the next time they need malpractice insurance?

Since we launched our legal professional liability offering earlier this year, we’ve signed up hundreds of law firms, and each of them would attest to the benefits Embroker offers: expert service, an average of 25% cost savings, greater transparency on pricing, and a much easier process than what they’re used to.

The early contender for dumbest thing I have to deal with today is Trey Gowdy baying into the wind that he’s “never seen anything like this.” By “this,” he means the idea that a judge would appoint an independent actor to argue in favor of continuing the prosecution of a guy who HAS ALREADY ENTERED A GUILTY PLEA. Twice.

It’s almost like Gowdy has not paid attention to the Supreme Court for, like, a decade. The federal judiciary is more than happy to appoint counsel to argue orphaned arguments, and while that usually doesn’t happen in criminal trials, usually the federal government isn’t walking away from straight-up guilty pleas from sophisticated actors with competent counsel.

Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order last night appointing Debevoise’s John Gleeson to serve as amicus on the case, and basically explain why Judge Sullivan shouldn’t throw Michael Flynn in prison for perjury since the former National Security Advisor took an oath in federal court to tell the truth and then admitted to all the elements of a federal crime. While represented by Covington.

Attorney General Bill Barr may not care about lying to law enforcement any more, having moved on to offering shadow support to his Republican cronies trying to make “unmasking” a scandal, which anyone with two brain cells and basic research skills can piece together isn’t a scandal, but maintaining the sanctity of the federal court as a place where people don’t lie willy-nilly is still a valid concern. The judge could, of course, just accept Barr’s half-hearted excuse and let this whole case disappear. That’s certainly the easy way out. But the federal judiciary used to have a backbone and Judge Sullivan managed to find it somewhere in the wreckage of the Trump tax case oral argument. There’s a good argument that federal judges wield too much power in this world, but “punishing people who lie to them” is exactly the power they need to prevent the whole system from becoming a joke.

Fox News has already started pretending that this is a crisis of the separation of powers, but it’s not. Unlike the Supreme Court keeping non-justiciable claims alive to please Tucker Carlson, Judge Sullivan is explicitly asking Debevoise to brief out whether or not he should use the judiciary’s contempt power to penalize someone who, if the Department of Justice is to be believed, lied to the court under oath. Because as I pointed out on Twitter as soon as the Flynn decision got announced, either he’s guilty or he perjured himself but it’s one or the other.

And Trey Gowdy is probably not stupid enough that he doesn’t know this distinction. He’s just positive the average Fox viewer is.

(Check out the order on the next page.)

---

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.