If Financial Treason Exists, The ‘Sell-Off Senators’ Committed It With Pre-Coronavirus Stock Dump

(Image via Getty)

Guess I struck a nerve with my last column. I think I set a new personal record for hate mail (and fan mail too, thanks very much for that). At any rate, I figured I’d slow it down a bit this week with the totally noncontroversial subject of suggesting that several sitting senators may have committed a capital offense.

Federal and state governments have only ever brought about 40 treason cases since our Constitution was ratified in 1789. That’s not a lot, but it still averages out to about one every six years, more than you might expect for a crime that is a national event every time it is committed.

The last person convicted of treason in the United States was Tomoya Kawakita, who was sentenced to death in 1952 for his abuse of American prisoners of war in Japan during World War II (he was later deported by the Kennedy administration). Before that, Americans convicted of treason ran the gamut, from devoted abolitionist John Brown, who was convicted of treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia and hanged in 1859 for leading an armed rebellion (he was, actually sort of heroically, trying to start a slave revolt), to William Bruce Mumford, who was hanged for treason in 1862 after removing an American flag from a mint building in New Orleans (harsh, right?). Both Missouri and Illinois charged founder of Mormonism Joseph Smith with treason, but it was a rougher form of justice that ultimately got him: an angry mob stormed the jail Smith was being held at in 1844 and killed him.

Today, treason isn’t thought of as much as a serious crime as it is as an insult to hurl liberally at political opponents. Yet, treason is in the U.S. Constitution, and is similarly defined in most state constitutions:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

U.S. Const. art. III, § 3, cl. 1.

Under federal statutes, whoever is guilty of treason “shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.” (18 U.S.C. § 2381). So, in addition to a wide range of behavior being considered treasonous over the years, there’s a wide range of potential penalties, although it’s that last one that really interests me in the present context.

On February 4, Republican Senator Richard Burr, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, gathered with several other lawmakers to hear reports from intelligence officials about how foreign nations were responding to the budding coronavirus health crisis. In the following days, Burr sat through a number of additional committee sessions focused on coronavirus, including an update on February 12, the same day the Dow hit its last record high. On February 13, when President Donald Trump and Burr himself were still publicly downplaying the coronavirus threat, Burr sold off 33 stock holdings worth between $628,000 and $1.7 million, including significant positions in businesses like hotel companies whose stocks were particularly ravaged just a few days later. Four other senators (three Republicans and one Democrat) mirrored Burr’s timing with significant stock sell-offs, although unlike Burr, these other senators said they do not personally manage their own portfolios and were unaware of the sales. However, in pretty much the definition of “suspicious,” GOP Senator Kelly Loeffler, whose husband Jeffrey Sprecher is chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, took some of the proceeds of her pre-crash stock dump and put them into shares of telework company Citrix. Citrix shares have since increased by about 15 percent now that everyone is on coronavirus lockdown working from home.

Burr is now facing an investor lawsuit, and he and the others are reportedly the subject of a joint probe from the Justice Department and the SEC. Burr has denied wrongdoing, and also asked for a Senate Ethics Committee investigation. New legislation has even been introduced to ban members of Congress from trading individual stocks entirely. But maybe that’s not enough.

Our president, among others, has been quite explicit about his view on the nature of the struggle we’re in against COVID-19. “It’s a war,” Trump said at a recent White House press conference. And perhaps it is. It seems Burr used the information afforded by his position to take resources out of the hands of hard-hit American businesses at a time when they needed investment the most, so he could profit at the expense of those businesses and other American investors. He adhered to the enemy we currently face. Coronavirus, and the economic collapse associated with it, aren’t conventional national threats. But conventional or not, they’re very real, and are more dire than anything we have faced in recent memory. What Burr and the others did, in a small way, made these threats worse. It was disloyal to the national spirit we all owe our society during this fight. We need to demand better from our lawmakers. And an official censure isn’t going to cut it.


Jonathan Wolf is a litigation associate at a midsize, full-service Minnesota firm. He also teaches as an adjunct writing professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, has written for a wide variety of publications, and makes it both his business and his pleasure to be financially and scientifically literate. Any views he expresses are probably pure gold, but are nonetheless solely his own and should not be attributed to any organization with which he is affiliated. He wouldn’t want to share the credit anyway. He can be reached at jon_wolf@hotmail.com.

Zimbabwe’s white farmers angered by ‘racist’ edict – The Zimbabwean

The offer sparked heated debate in parliament, with legislators demanding that for it to be viable, the country’s constitution had to be changed to reverse the land reform programme.

The Sadc Tribunal Rights Watch, a group that had successfully challenged Mugabe’s land seizure in international courts, however, now says the new regulations to apparently restore farms to their owners “are misleading and provide false hope to dispossessed farmers, many of whom are now destitute.

The group, representing nearly 4,500 dispossessed commercial farmers, said the new regulations only affect ‘’indigenous’’ farmers and foreigners protected by Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements (BIPPAs) and Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs).

Misleading

The farmers are demanding nearly $7 billion in compensation for their properties.

Ben Freeth, the Sadc Tribunal Rights spokesperson, said the farmers will reject government’s offer because it was racist and did not offer dispossessed farmers any legal protection.

“Regrettably, this piece of misleading legislation is another attempt at window dressing to make it appear that the Zimbabwe government is going to return farms to their owners and re-establish property rights – but this is not the case,” Mr Freeth said.

“More than 40 years after Independence, one would legitimately expect that Section 56 of our Constitution concerning ‘equality and non-discrimination’ would apply with full force.

“The reality is that so-called ‘indigenous’ Zimbabweans have more rights than ‘white’ citizens who have been deprived of their homes, businesses and livelihoods, as well as compensation for their losses.”

He said the regulations also favoured foreign land owners whose farms were covered under BIPPAs and BITs as the white Zimbabweans who were violently thrown out of their farms during the Mugabe era.

“As such, this legislation is discriminatory,” Freeth said. “It also goes against the Southern African Development Community (Sadc) Treaty and the landmark Campbell Case judgment of November 2008 in the SADC Tribunal, the regional human rights court.”

The Sadc Tribunal ruled that Zimbabwe violated the regional body’s treaty by denying the dispossessed farmers access to the courts. It also said Zimbabwe’s land reforms discriminated against the southern African country’s white minority population.

“Discriminatory laws can quickly lead to institutionalising racial discrimination. We need to do everything we possibly can to test these counterproductive laws against our Constitution and international law,” said Freeth.

“Furthermore, the government cannot convince international investors from countries like the UK ̶ who are discriminated against because there’s no bilateral investment treaty ̶ that Zimbabwe is a secure investment destination when it fails to respect the rights of both international investors and its own citizens.”

Some of the dispossessed farmers were from Germany, Netherlands and Switzerland, and whose properties were protected by treaties between Harare and Western countries.

“While the regulations do not define the meaning of the term ‘’indigenous,’’ the government has consistently referred to ‘’black’’ Zimbabweans exclusively as ‘’indigenous’’ persons,” the Sadc Tribunal Rights Watch said.

“This is despite the fact that the standard definition of ‘’indigenous’’ applies to persons born and residing in a particular place or region, and is not exclusive to a particular race, gender or ethnicity.

“A significant number of the dispossessed white farmers were born in Zimbabwe and many were second, third or even fourth generation who knew no other home,” the group said.

Agriculture minister Perrance Shiri said 440 farms belonging to ‘’indigenous’’ people were seized during the land reform programme.

Mr Shiri said 350 of the farmers were still on the acquired land while 90 farms had resettled people, but the Sadc Tribunal Rights Watch said only three black farmers were forced off their land.

For years, Zimbabwe has ignored rulings by regional and international courts compelling it to reverse the takeover of farms protected by BIPPAs and BITs.
The International Centre for Settlement of Investment

Disputes (ICSID) – part of the World Bank Group – in 2009 and 2015 ruled against Zimbabwe in cases involving Dutch farmers.

In 2008, the now defunct Sadc Tribunal ruled that Zimbabwe’s land reform programme was patently racist and Harare was ordered to compensate the dispossessed farmers.

“The reason that BIPPA and BIT-protected properties are now being considered for compensation is that the bankrupt government needs the support of foreign donors and international lending institutions,” the Sadc Tribunal Rights Watch added.

The EU, Britain and the US put the issue of compensation of the white commercial farmers as one of the pre-conditions for re-engagement with Zimbabwe after Mugabe’s fall in a military coup in 2017.

International lenders such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have also emphasised that Zimbabwe must compensate the dispossessed land owners if it wants loans.

Mr Mugabe, who had ruled Zimbabwe since Independence from Britain in 1980, championed the land reform programme saying it was meant to correct colonial injustices.

Critics, however, say the government parcelled the productive farms to ruling party officials and supporters who had no interest in farming.

A land audit initiated by President Mnangagwa showed that a number of top politicians owned multi-farms that remained underutilised. Some of the multiple-farm owners include Mugabe family members. President Mnangagwa hinted late last year that former first lady Grace Mugabe owned at least 16 farms.

He said the farms would be taken back in line with the government’s “one family, one farm” policy. The government has also been seizing farms owned by Mugabe’s loyalists who fled into exile during the military coup.

The agrarian reforms led to the collapse of the country’s agriculture-based economy and cased mass food shortages that persist to date. Aid agencies say at least eight million Zimbabweans or half the population will need food aid this year after consecutive seasons of poor harvests.

Coronavirus Can’t Stop Ruth Bader Ginsburg From Hitting The Gym

(Screenshot via The Late Show)

If you thought a little pandemic would stop 87-year-old Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg from going to the gym, then you’d be wrong. Although her personal trainer attempted to stop her from working out, the justice apparently “ain’t having it.”

According to Bryant Johnson, Ginsburg’s longtime trainer, the pair go to the Supreme Court’s private gym twice a week. Here’s more from Law360 (sub. req.):

The two are taking extra precautions to wipe down equipment and keep their distance. Johnson, a federal judiciary employee, has canceled appointments with his other clients and now is only working with Justice Ginsburg.

“Everybody’s been shut down. The only reason why I didn’t shut the justice down is because, hey, she ain’t having it,” said Johnson, who spent over 30 years in the U.S. Army and now works in D.C.’s federal district court. “She has that grandfather status to me and if she wants to train, that‘s the least that I can do.”

“Her choice is, she doesn’t make excuses not to do it,” Johnson said. “So we find ways to do it.”

Now, you may be worried about how Johnson is keeping our national treasure safe during a public health crisis. Don’t worry, because he says he’s taking very good care of her. “Well it’s like this: Before I go in, I wipe down every piece of equipment that I think she is going to touch and come in contact with,” he said. “Then I go back in and wash my hands.” Ginsburg knows her workouts so well that all Johnson has to do is set up the room. “It doesn’t require me to grab her, hold her, get up close and personal.”

The Supreme Court is currently on hiatus from oral arguments for the first time since the 1918 Spanish flu outbreak, but COVID-19 won’t keep Ginsburg from working out, which is the most Supreme flex of them all.

Coronavirus Isn’t Stopping RBG From Working Out [Law360 (sub. req.)]


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.

Global Biglaw Firm Freezes Associate Salaries, Delays Bonuses, Reduces Partner Pay Amid Coronavirus Crisis

(Image via Getty)

Wouldn’t it be nice if the recession 2.0 were a big April Fools’ joke? Unfortunately, it’s not, and Biglaw is trying to figure out how to deal with the economic consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak that’s left many firms reeling. Some have opted for layoffs and furloughs, while others have chosen to cut salaries (some by 10 percent, some by 20 percent, some by 25 percent, and some partners have slowed or eliminated their distributions). Even benefits have taken a hit in this new normal.

The latest firm to make a move is Allen & Overy, and they’re pulling out all the stops. To make sure the Magic Circle firm remains financially secure, partners are holding a capital call and reducing their profit distributions at the same time. The firm has also frozen pay for associates and support staff, and upcoming bonuses people were expecting to receive this summer will now be split into two payments (one in July and one in October). The firm will also be delaying and canceling some recruitment and other events.

“The COVID-19 global crisis is an unprecedented situation for us and our clients,” a firm representative said in a statement. Law.com International has more:

“The firm is in a very strong financial position but given the unknown nature of the evolving challenges, and their long term impact on our markets, it is sensible to introduce some prudent management measures as part of our ongoing scenario planning.

“A&O retains good diversification across practices and one of the broadest international offerings among the global elite firms, so we are confident in our resilience if economic conditions worsen.”

Allen & Overy has no debt and yet the firm is still trying to avoid prospective catastrophe by going through with all of these financial maneuvers. Just imagine what would have happened if A&O had completed its merger with O’Melveny & Myers.

Best of luck to everyone at Allen & Overy as the firm attempts to pull off the greatest magic trick of all by beating a floundering economy.

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.

Allen & Overy Holds Capital Call, Cuts Partner Payouts and Freezes Associate Pay [Law.com International]


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.

Summer Associate Programs — And Pay — Cut Short Thanks To Coronavirus

(Image via Getty)

It was just one week ago that many a Biglaw firm seemed confident that their summer associate programs would go forward as originally planned, despite the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. Perhaps there would be fewer festive outings and extravagant meals due to social distancing guidance, but some truly believed that things would be “just fine.” Others were more realistic, embracing the possibility of remote work and even givng credence to delayed start dates. Now that firms have started announcing salary reductions, furloughs, and layoffs, the game has changed.

Which firms have decided to start their summer programs late — and pay their law student employees less?

First up is Cooley, which according to sources recently decided to cut its 10-week summer associate program back by four weeks. Law students will begin their work at the firm on June 15, and end their summers on July 24, as previously scheduled. We’re told that in addition to the firm’s deferred start date, law students’ paychecks will also come up a little short. Instead of receiving pay for the 10 weeks they were supposed to be working as detailed in their offer letters, Cooley summers will only receive pay for the length of their shortened programs.

Compare this to what’s going on at Sidley, where tipsters say summers will be starting their programs later than expected, on June 1, although the firm isn’t quite clear yet on how the program will operate (i.e., whether it will all remote or whether modifications will be made so in-person meetings can occur). Regardless of any possible abbreviated program length, we’ve heard that Sidley summers will be paid for the number of weeks indicated in their offer letters.

As more firms make strategic financial moves in the weeks to come, we suspect we’ll hear more about the fate of their summer associate programs. We sincerely hope that law students will receive the experiences — and pay — they were expecting to receive, but please bear in mind that the unexpected circumstances brought about the coronavirus outbreak could very well put an end to summer associate programs at some firms, so be thankful your job is still waiting for you.

Is your firm planning to hold its summer associate program as planned, despite coronavirus concerns? Please text us (646-820-8477) or email us (subject line: “Coronavirus Summer Associate Program”) and let us know. Stay safe.


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.

The cost of coronavirus in Africa: What measures can leaders take? – The Zimbabwean

In addition to the health challenges posed by COVID-19, Africa is already feeling the effect on its economies. With industries shutting down in Asia, America and Europe demand for raw materials and commodities is declining, but it is also hampering Africa’s access to industrial components and manufactured goods (including medical equipment).

Initial actions in Africa have focused on slowing viral contagion with measures, including the closing of borders. These actions come as the continent has been making bold moves to increase economic integration, with African Union officials recently swearing in the first-ever Secretary-General of the newly created Secretariat of the African Free Continental Free Trade Agreement. The coronavirus could represent a risk for the continental project but leaders could also turn it into an opportunity for stronger collaboration if certain policies are fast-tracked. Quick gains could be achieved by consolidating the regional integration initiatives they are already implementing.

The closing of borders, for instance, can send a very different signal depending on how governments do it. Where leaders of neighbouring nations close borders together, as those of Portugal and Spain have done, it is a symbol of partnership in the fight against a pandemic. Reducing flows of people while keeping borders open for goods signals continued faith in the importance of economic activities and trade in providing the goods people need to continue their daily lives. In Africa, such collaboration will be crucial, especially for the continent’s sixteen landlocked countries

The crisis may also provide African leaders with an opportunity to look at regional value chains differently. Reliable regional supply chains characterize North America, Asia and Europe. In Africa, however, integration in international markets mostly entails integration in global, not regional, value chains – with Africa providing the raw products for processing elsewhere around the world.

Opportunities for creating regional value chains exist, notably for making motor vehicles or in aerospace activities in Northern Africa. But designing regional strategies may mean agreeing on which component of the value chain is produced where, and can involve trade-offs that policymakers do not always find it easy to make.

But the exceptional nature of the pandemic could provide fertile ground for regional collaboration by policymakers in the fields of pharmaceuticals, disinfectants, diagnostic testing equipment or protective garments. Such decisions will have to be taken and implemented very rapidly.

African leaders can also act in unison in the fight against the economic consequences of the pandemic. Nobody knows how much the pandemic will affect global GDP, but any impact is sure to be significant. Estimated losses in GDP growth for the world as a whole – but also for Africa as a region – currently hover around between 1.5 and 2 percentage points. Those figures are most likely to be revised to include even greater losses.

The travel industry has been the first to be impacted. Airlines around the world are struggling, and tourism has been hit hard. The blow will not go unnoticed in African countries like Tunisia, Egypt and Kenya – where tourism represents around 14%, 11% and 10% of GDP respectively. For underperforming regional airlines, this could spell disaster.

Shutdowns in China and Europe, notably in the apparel, machinery and footwear subsectors, will significantly hit global supply chains – with consequences for Africa. Traditionally reliable sectors in Africa – like the cut flower industry – could also take a pummeling.

In countries that impose lockdowns, large parts of the services sectors are likely to suffer dire outcomes. The hospitality, sports and recreation sectors, and large parts of retailing, are among those most affected by partial or full lockdowns.

The drastic drop in oil prices – triggered by events independent of the coronavirus pandemic but now reinforced by the negative demand resulting from it – is set to compound these economic shocks. Oil exporters like Nigeria will see their revenues shrink.

Faced with this outlook, African policymakers may want to ask themselves how long businesses in their countries can survive in the absence of or with significantly reduced revenues and what the scale of job losses may be. For many micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), with fewer assets to ride out the storm, the survival rate may only be counted in weeks. That is why small businesses, more than larger businesses, will tend to go out of business or cripple their capacity to be competitive.

Yet, because MSMEs employ around 70% of the workforce in most countries, shedding workers will only aggravate the economic downturn brought on by the pandemic.

Knowing how small businesses act as a lynchpin connecting the pandemic to a broader economic recession, governments around the world have scrambled to reduce the operational stresses on them. They have introduced policies meant to help MSMEs cope with short-term financial risks and long-term business implications. This will, it is hoped, reduce layoffs, prevent bankruptcy, encourage investment and help economies get back on their feet as soon as possible. These measures include concessional financing; tax reductions and grants; employment incentives; technical assistance; and indirect measures.

Low-interest loans and other concessional financing, aimed at easing short-term liquidity issues, have been among the most popular policy measures announced to date. But the experience of the 1970s oil price shock shows that this can have a limited impact in the supply-shock, low-interest rate environments that exist today. Instead, the most effective way to prevent bankruptcies may be measures aimed at reducing costs for MSMEs – such as tax breaks. Investment in digital trade and investment facilitation must also continue – countries with such facilitating policies will be first off the mark in the post-crisis period.

All of these measures require funding. Countries with fiscal space will find it easier to introduce them than those without it. Unfortunately, global debt levels have continued to increase after the financial crisis over a decade ago. Though the bulk of global debt is held by the industrialized world, its increase has been more important in the developing world over the past decade. Concerted action among leaders may therefore be necessary in order for efforts to support small and medium sized businesses not to have negative repercussions on financial markets.

History shows us that cross-border collaborations often arise during or after significant crises. The First World War prompted the creation of the International Labour Office; the United Nations was formed in the aftermath of the Second World War. The construction of the European Union was also a reaction to that conflagration.

The African Union has already recognized that Africa will be stronger if countries are more integrated and unified with the birth of the African Continental Free Trade Area. A similarly strong commitment to joint action by leaders on the continent would undoubtedly benefit the fight against the coronavirus pandemic and its economic consequences for Africa.

These actions should include a recommitment to the Sustainable Development Goals, to multilateralism and a pledge to help those that will be most affected by the economic downturn: small businesses, women, young people and vulnerable communities. The International Trade Centre (ITC) with its mandate to build the competitiveness of small businesses in developing countries, emphasizing women-owned businesses and people at the base of the economic pyramid, stands ready to support these efforts.

Dorothy Tembo is the Acting Executive Director of the International Trade Centre, a joint agency of the United Nations and the World Trade Organization

 

This article originally appeared in Capital Ethiopia Newspaper.

Post published in: Featured

Every Law School Grading Policy Change In One Chart

Since we’ve got deans running around claiming that “very few” schools are instituting mandatory Pass/Fail policies, we thought it was high time to put out the comprehensive list of the tips we’ve received so everyone can peruse the policies in place out there.

But then, it turns out we didn’t have to.

That’s because Reddit user “_Social_Distancing_” has done the work of a deity and already gathered all the grading policy changes into one omnibus Google spreadsheet. Check it out for all the data, but as a preview, here are the T14:

State University Change Caveat
1 CT Yale University P/F Mandatory
2 CA Stanford University P/F Mandatory Classes w/ no exams are optional
3 MA Harvard University P/F Mandatory
4 IL University of Chicago No Change No change for winter semester (ending 3/14/20). Pending decision re Spring semester (starts 3/30/20)
4 NY Columbia University P/F Mandatory
6 NY New York University P/F Mandatory
7 PN University of Pennsylvania P/F Mandatory
8 VA University of Virginia P/F Mandatory
9 CA University of California–Berkeley P/F Mandatory
9 IL Northwestern University P/F Mandatory C/NC
9 MI University of Michigan–Ann Arbor P/F Optional After grades posted
12 NC Duke University P/F Mandatory LARW optional
13 NY Cornell University P/F Mandatory
14 DC Georgetown University P/F Optional After grades posted

As of now, _Social_Distancing_ has data on 135 law schools, with either an “update pending” or “no report” on another 68 in the U.S. and Canada. If you have information on any of these remaining school, let S_D know.

Not all heroes wear capes.


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.

Another Am Law 100 Firm Turns To Furloughs And Salary Cuts Amid COVID-19 Crisis

It’s a crazy time in Biglaw. The global pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus has led to the shutdown of many industries and the economy is reeling. Biglaw has been far from unscathed — there’ve been layoffs and furloughs. Other firms have opted for salary cuts (10 percent pay reductions, 25 percent pay cuts, and partners who’ve slowed or eliminated their payday) and benefits have taken a hit. Now another firm is making big moves for the “financial stability” of the firm.

Am Law 100 firm Baker Donelson is taking a number of steps to reduce the financial burden of COVID-19. Partner salaries have already been slashed. But that isn’t the end of the salary reductions. In the coming weeks, the entire firm will take a pay cut — that is, if they still have jobs. That’s right, the firm is also furloughing employees (exact numbers remain unclear). Though the firm would like to bring the newly unemployed folks back “once this crisis subsides,” there is not currently a defined timeline or date for that.

A Baker Donelson spokesperson provided the following statement:

In the wake of the unprecedented and far-reaching impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, Baker Donelson has unfortunately been faced with some very difficult decisions. We have undertaken a number of measures to ensure the financial stability of the Firm moving forward, which includes shareholder reduction in draws and salary that have already been implemented. This will be followed over the next few weeks by temporary salary reductions across the Firm and with a furloughing of some employees. We are focused on doing all we can for all of our employees, while also ensuring uninterrupted service to our clients and meeting our temporary operating needs throughout this global crisis and beyond. Our hope is that, once this crisis subsides, we will eventually be able to bring the furloughed team members back to Baker Donelson. Until then, we are providing them with support to help minimize the impact of what we know is an extremely trying situation, particularly in these highly uncertain times.

Good luck to all those bearing the brunt of the economic downturn.

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).


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).

Morning Docket: 04.01.20

* Harley-Davidson has a new top lawyer —- hopefully he gets a few Harleys thrown into his compensation package. [Bloomberg Law]

* Federal courts have begun to promote teleconferencing for certain criminal and civil matters due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. [Indiana Lawyer]

* The New York Attorney General is looking into privacy settings on the popular Zoom videoconferencing app that may make it vulnerable to hackers. [New York Times]

* Zoom is having a rough week, as the videoconferncing app is also being sued for allegedly sharing user data with Facebook. [CBS News]

* A federal appeals court has temporarily allowed Texas to prohibit nonessential abortions amid the COVID-19 pandemic. [Dallas Morning News]

* Upcoming oral arguments before the Supreme Court are in limbo because of concerns surrounding COVID-19. The justices should just conduct their business through videoconferencing apps like everyone else in the world at the moment. [CNN]


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.

Biglaw’s Response To The COVID-19 Economic Downturn — See Also

Cadwalader Cuts Associate Pay By 25 Percent: And partners aren’t get paid at all.

Midsize Firms Are Also Slashing Salaries: To protect the firm’s viability.

Pryor Cashman Furloughs Associates: They’re hopeful they can be rehired, but who knows when that’ll happen.

Harvard Law School Moves On-Campus Recruitment: Now it’ll be in January.

Notre Dame’s COVID-19 Grading Policy: Leaves a lot to be desired.