Category: News Feeds

The online bar exam is a creature of the coronavirus outbreak.

In one sense, that’s obvious to the extent that this exam process wouldn’t exist absent the health crisis. But the ties between this week’s test and the pandemic response run deeper and more philosophical. From the start, officials told everyone that they weren’t going to let the disease stop them from living their lives or holding their in-person tests. When some states got too bad to ignore the virus, examiners begrudgingly agreed to try an untested, experimental workaround to get the test up and running this year. When early exams crashed, these examiners and their complicit state supreme courts just ploughed ahead. The nationwide voice of the bar exam responded to concerns that this week’s simultaneous exams could be a disaster with, “I would be very surprised if that happened, given all the good and thoughtful professionals who are working on this. Why don’t you interview me Oct. 6?”

That interview probably won’t happen, but we can already scribble out what it would say. Yesterday would be declared a “success” because most people were fine. That those who struggled didn’t just face inconvenience, but endured catastrophic results will just get dismissed with a shrug. “It affects virtually nobody!” we’d be told.

But any bar applicant having to withdraw because the platform wouldn’t work — especially for technical problems that were explicitly pointed out ahead of time — is an unacceptable breakdown. That it appears to have happened to so many makes it a complete disaster regardless of the cheery spin oozing out of bar examiner officers over the coming days.

And so much of this was preventable. From tips we’re getting directly or via social media, the first day of the bar exam went smoothly for a lot of people. However, it went disastrously for a lot of other people. As reports trickled in the issues bore an eerie resemblance to everything we’ve predicted all along: trouble opening the platform, overwhelmed and unavailable tech support, a complete failure to formulate any contingency plan, and racially discriminatory monitoring.

The most tragic of the pandemic parallels is seeing how racism lends its shoulder in propping up the callousness of it all. That COVID has proven more deadly among people of color — likely due to overrepresentation in “essential” jobs and comparatively worse health care options — undergirds the dismissive response in large swaths of this country. And, despite repeated warnings that ExamSoft’s plan to use facial recognition software to flag examinees for cheating would just carry known racial biases in the construction of these algorithms into the exam, officials seemed totally blindsided yesterday when exactly this happened.

This was a known flaw that was pointed out repeated-f**king–ly. I wrote about it. Law.com wrote about it. It was discussed on podcasts. It was raised in filings. After all of these warnings, the abject inability to address it has caused people to withdraw. Absolutely zero high-priced crisis management firm talking points can get around how flatly wrong and discriminatory this is.

Consistently throughout this process, examiners were cautioned to perform a stress test. They refused. Courts and examiners deemed the “mock exams” applicants had to upload as sufficient to test the platform. But many thought that the mock exam process was never going to identify and correct the sorts of problems that would crop up on exam day. And guess what?

Even more important than resolving the technology issues, they needed a stress test for the quality of the technical support response. Reports came in all day of people on the phone for an hour or more trying to get problems resolved. Many were told that the time on the phone came out of their test-taking time.

In California, one older applicant’s troubles went unheeded so long that a friend turned to Twitter and received a less than encouraging response:

A lot of people dunked on ExamSoft here by saying, “I didn’t know having Twitter was required for the exam.” And, yes, the better way to ask would have been “can you provide her name and phone number so we can call her?” but at least they were trying. The bigger problem is that the phone lines were so jammed up that she had to resort to using a third party to publicly call out the company on social media just to get an answer.

Did she get an answer? No friends, she did not.

One of the few truly positive stories of the day involved an applicant who spent hours on the phone between ExamSoft and the bar examiners trying to get the system to work. After being told that even if they could make it work, all the time spent trying to find a solution would not be given back to him for the test, he posted a tragic final update. “I “talked” to ExamSoft again. Got transferred to tech support. After another ~15 minute hold, I realized that I just wouldn’t be able to complete the MPT in time. I’ve withdrawn.” Thankfully, the story had a happy ending as the issue got resolved and the bar examiners reversed the earlier message and restored his full time for the test.

Unfortunately, his story was more of an exception as social media was littered with people announcing that they had withdrawn and an even more disturbing number of those said that they had withdrawn at the suggestion of bar examiners.

That’s not a contingency plan.

If anyone in a position of authority is telling applicants to just try again in February, it amounts to a complete dereliction of duty. However this turns out, the time is now for officials to have a serious conversation about the licensing process. Because while the pandemic may be the proximate cause of these failures, the breakdowns being exposed carry over into normal times as well. If this is how authorities handle easily preventable emergencies, how can any state have confidence in the handling of licensing writ large?

---

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.

According to the 2019 Law Department Operations Survey, LDO professionals are increasingly starting to appreciate more quantitative approaches to their work, providing additional value to their organizations. For example, more have instituted formal metrics programs, which allow for more quantitative decision-making. In 2019, slightly more than half of respondents, 52%, reported having formal metrics programs, up from 46% the prior year.

These programs are also growing in terms of sophistication. When asked to rank the maturity of their use of reporting and metrics, about a third considered themselves a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale, and almost another third ranked themselves a 3. This compares favorably to 2018, when only 18% ranked themselves as a 4 or 5, and 20% listed themselves as a 3.

When we published our results last year, LDO Survey Advisory Board member Kiran Mallavarapu, senior vice president and manager of legal strategic services at Liberty Mutual Insurance, pointed out that there is a wide range of elements within metrics/reporting programs. “Metrics tracked by departments range from financial expenses to department productivity. It is easy to track financial metrics due to their ready availability. However, financial metrics … do not always provide help to departments with operational needs,” he said.

While the economic downturn may tempt legal operations professionals to focus exclusively on financial metrics, it is still critical to track operational ones, which are the engine that drives good financial performance. 

Are legal operations professionals continuing to track productivity, turnaround, client demand, complexity of requests, and client satisfaction? This question and many more will be answered in the 13th Annual Law Department Operations Survey. If you’re an in-house legal ops professional, all you have to do is take the survey, and we will deliver the answers, along with 300+ additional data points, back to you at no charge.

Please follow this link and take the survey today.

There seem to be two ways to interpret Justice Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito’s response within a unanimous Supreme Court Order refusing to take up the case of Kim Davis v. David Ermold. One interpretation issued by Mark Stern, is that with the imminent ascension of arch conservative Amy Barrett to the Court, this new super conservative majority will overturn Obergefell v. Hodges “which recognized same-sex couples’ right to marry.” The other interpretation made by Scott Shackford, dismisses such concerns about same-sex marriage recognition being overturned as “panic.” As is so often the case, however, the truth lies somewhere in the middle (for the record I am well aware of how cliché this sentence sounds but bear with me). No, I do not think gay marriage will be overturned even though I think Thomas, Alito, and Barrett are eager to do so if given the chance. But with a new super conservative court, it is all but certain that gay marriage recognition/protections will be afforded so many religious exceptions that in many areas of the country such recognitions/protections will exist in name only.

First, let us dive into a little bit of background of the Kim Davis case. As many will undoubtedly remember, Davis was a clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who refused to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple based “on God’s authority” shortly after the Obergefell ruling. As a result of her refusal, Davis was held in contempt and jailed for five days. Upon her release from jail, Davis was met by then president hopeful Mike Huckabee who loudly praised her defiance of the law (for those keeping score Huckabee has now completely “reversed” his stance on defiance to the law because, you know, LAW AND ORDER IS NOW ALL THAT MATTERS!). Since her release from jail, Davis has also faced civil litigation over her refusal to follow the law, and it is over the matter of her civil liability that the Supreme Court addressed in its order.

Davis had been trying to invoke qualified immunity, which is a court-fabricated immunity that almost always protects government actors from facing consequences when they violate a citizen’s rights leaving victims “violated but not vindicated.” The Sixth Circuit made an exception, however, and denied Davis this immunity which the Supreme Court refused to overturn via an order where Thomas and Alito agreed with the refusal but nevertheless ranted about how the Obergefell decision has made Christians victims of official stigmatization. Glancing over the transparent absurdity of claiming that official stigmatization is unlawful against Christians but up to the states when it comes to same-sex couples, let’s explore why Obergefell is not at all likely to be overturned.

As Shackford convincingly points out, given that the Bostock ruling (which included both Roberts and Gorsuch in the majority opinion), “says it violates the Civil Rights Act to discriminate against an individual for being gay or transgender, it’s hard to imagine how the Court could then restore a ban on same-sex marriage recognition. Not unless it overturned both precedents.” So, while a restoration of a complete ban is therefore all but certain to fail, what Shackford touches on but I think misses the point is the degree to which a super conservative court will afford religious exceptions to gay marriage recognition.

In Bostock for example, although Gorsuch agreed discrimination against gay or transgender citizens violates the Civil Rights Act, he also made a point to identify the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as a “super statute” that can displace “the normal operation” of federal laws for religious belief. In other words, Gorsuch was acknowledging that religious folks, and religious folks only, as RFRA has always denied to nombelievers, may not have to abide by the Civil Rights Act (though he expressly left the decision open to a future case).

It is the favoritism and extension of religious belief being held superior to the law that I find troubling, more so because at every turn this free conscience, free exercise right to defy the law is regularly being denied to nonbelievers. Where is the nonbeliever exception to laws that force then to financially support religious monuments, churches, and schools? If only religious people are afforded such rights to dissent, we cease to have a society committed to pluralism but rather one committed only to the protection of certain kinds of beliefs.

A case that could determine how far the Court is willing to make the professed doctrines of religion superior to the law is the upcoming Fulton v. City of Philadelphia case. In that case a religious organization is arguing that not only does it have the right to refuse to abide by the City’s anti-discrimination laws when operating a foster care center within a government program, but that unless the City allows it to deny foster children the right to have full access to all loving, and qualifying homes it is the City who are the bigots. Before Barrett’s nomination, I was fairly confident that the religious organization in Fulton would lose. Replace Ginsburg with Barrett however, and I would change my assumption entirely. More to the point, if the Court rules that churches can become countries unto themselves where the rules and the law do not apply, to the degree that foster children can be denied government benefits in a government program, then I would not hold out much hope for the future of gay marriage recognition.

---

Tyler Broker’s work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review, the Albany Law Review, and is forthcoming in the University of Memphis Law Review. Feel free to email him or follow him on Twitter to discuss his column.

Over the years, I have been fortunate to have attended a wide variety of conferences. Some, like Greenbuild or LD Micro, were not legal conferences in nature, while others, like various bench and bar conferences, really honed in on litigation practice in a particular jurisdiction. The majority of conferences I have attended, however, have focused on IP issues, with the overwhelming majority of attendees fellow IP lawyers. Often put on by various national or local bar associations, IP conferences usually have a pretty standard formula — tracks for patent or soft IP, litigation or prosecution, with keynotes by leading IP personalities. Considering the investment of time and money put into attending these conferences borne by my various law firms, I always felt a responsibility to make my time there productive. Indeed, I have even written about how to maximize one’s time at such conferences on these pages over the years.

One set of conferences I have been fortunate enough to attend (and write about) that bring a different energy have been the IP Dealmakers and LF Dealmakers Forums. From venue, to speaker lists and topics, to unparalleled networking, to a general attention to detail — these conferences have earned, at least in my view, a premium reputation in the IP industry. Part of what sets the respective Forum conferences apart is their embrace of the business side of IP practice, both in terms of the ever-increasing role of litigation finance, as well as the approaches being taken by sophisticated companies and IP counsel to generating value from IP-related investment.

At the helm of the Dealmakers enterprise is Wendy Chou, a long-time veteran in the IP conference hosting arena. Having gotten to know Wendy, I have long hoped to conduct an interview with her for this readership — and with both the 2020 LF and IP Dealmakers Forums fast approaching, I am pleased to have gotten the chance to do so now. (The 7th Annual IP Dealmakers Forum will be held virtually on December 1-10, and the 3rd Annual LF Dealmakers Forum kicks off virtually next week on October 13. For more details and to register, visit DealmakersForums.com. They are currently offering a limited number of LF Dealmakers passes for in-house executives and senior partners at law firms, so if you’re interested in litigation finance I’d encourage you to check out the program and sign up soon!)

Some more background on Wendy before we get into the interview itself. As she puts it: “Well, although I earned a science degree (in behavioral biology) I somehow ended up in the conference space early in my career and started specializing in IP conferences, developing some of the earliest events focused on IP monetization and finance. I then had the opportunity to serve as Ocean Tomo’s first head of marketing, and led their branding and outreach efforts, including launching its internationally recognized live IP auctions business which was later sold to ICAP. After that, I founded CHOUmedia, which provided marketing and communications services to a variety of clients, many of which were IP-focused entities, including startups, professional service firms, publishers, and industry associations. I also founded Dealmakers and launched IP Dealmakers Forum in 2014 focused on bringing together a select group of decision-makers at the forefront of the IP market. In 2018, we launched LF Dealmakers Forum, which is focused on developments in litigation finance.”

As usual, I have added some brief commentary to Wendy’s answer below but have otherwise presented her answer to my first question as she provided it.

GK: Dealmakers has become known for its successful conferences in the IP and litigation finance spaces. What do you attribute that success to?

WC: What we do at Dealmakers is more than just conferences. We bring together the people at the intersection of legal and finance to discuss critical issues, exchange ideas, create best practices, and perhaps most importantly, get business done.

Early in my career, I spent time at commercial conference companies and based on that experience, I’ve developed a methodology that is almost the exact opposite of how many of those entities operate. Whereas a lot of conference companies turn around programs quickly, use junior level people to put sessions together, and don’t bother to research the relevant topics, we source thought leaders in the industry, curate our content extensively, and go to great lengths to bring together a cross-section of people in different sectors within an industry to create an environment where we can help move that industry forward.

GK: As you can see from my introductory paragraphs above, I really do feel that the Dealmakers events get the mix of attendees and speakers right. Add in the high-level content and networking opportunities with fellow attendees — that are there not only to attend a conference but to get a leg up on cutting deals — and the reputation that Wendy’s Dealmakers events have earned is easily understood. Again, as someone who has attended these events, I can testify that there is an energy “in the room” that is unique to the IP conference space, an energy that draws succor from the interest level (and capability) of the attendees in making IP deals happen.

While the realities of the current pandemic may make capturing that energy a little more difficult, we will hear from Wendy next week on how she and her team are rising to the COVID-19 challenge, as well as how she thinks Dealmakers’ programming has helped to make litigation finance more transparent.

Please feel free to send comments or questions to me at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or via Twitter: @gkroub. Any topic suggestions or thoughts are most welcome.

---

Gaston Kroub lives in Brooklyn and is a founding partner of Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov PLLC, an intellectual property litigation boutique, and Markman Advisors LLC, a leading consultancy on patent issues for the investment community. Gaston’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and related counseling, with a strong focus on patent matters. You can reach him at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or follow him on Twitter: @gkroub.

Seven days ago, Cravath entered the fall bonus scene empty-handed, announcing that associates would not receive an extra cent from the firm until the fourth quarter. Since that time, not a single firm has issued bonus payments to associates; instead, firms have only mimicked Cravath in saying that no bonuses will be issued prior to their customary timing. It now looks like Cravath may have crushed associates’ hopes and dreams for additional compensation this fall, because yet another Biglaw firm has stepped out to say bonuses won’t be coming.

In the wee hours of the morning, under cover of darkness, Paul Weiss announced that the firm would not be offering special bonuses this fall. Instead, chairman Brad Karp offered the usual old chestnuts about associates’ dedication and the firm’s values during these trying times (even naming two partners who had recently passed away). Here’s an excerpt from the memo Karp sent at 1:43 a.m. (available on the next page):

Over the past couple of weeks, some of our peer firms have announced special “pandemic” bonuses, while others have announced that they would not pay such bonuses.  We have considered whether to distribute such bonuses, in advance of our regular year-end bonuses.  After consulting with the Associates Committee and our partners and after hearing from several of our clients, I have concluded that announcing such a bonus now would not be appropriate.  So many of our clients and others across our community are experiencing unprecedented economic trauma, including the shuttering of their businesses and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, as a direct result of this pandemic.  Providing a special cash reward in direct response to the pandemic does not feel right at this time.  That said, please be assured that we will recognize your extraordinary contributions in December and we pledge to retain our position as a market leader in compensation, taking into account any special bonuses paid by our peer firms.

Paul Weiss is a firm that came in at #20 in the most recent Am Law 100 rankings, with $1,387,694,000 in gross revenue in 2019. On top of that, Paul Weiss came in third place in terms of profits per equity partner, with an eye-popping $4,699,000. Associates certainly kept these facts in mind because as could have been expected, they are less than thrilled with the firm skipping out on fall bonuses.

Here are just a few of their reactions:

• “Paul, Weiss won’t pay special bonuses. And invokes the names of a deceased partner and associate, and clients’ views for not paying them. But also spent the past six months talking about this is a banner year with billables up 10%.”
• “Using the death of two members of the firm to soften the blow is an all time low.”
• “Ew. He invokes the names of two deceased members of the firm as some sort of creepy guilt trip. Also, apparently billables have been up over 10% this year and he’s been bragging about that in the media. Seems like a move motivated by greed more than anything else.”
• “And what do clients think of your $5,000,000 in PPP?”
• “No fall bonus for Paul Weiss associates. Pretty interesting to see the chairman claim to be a market leader in comp while . . . not being a market leader in comp. I’m glad they’re considerate of the clients’ feelings as well, curious to see how the partners adjust their take home pay in order to be appropriate in this tough time.”
• “The partners can go to hell. So can our useless associates committee.”

At least the firm will be taking the fall bonuses into account when it’s time for year-end bonuses. Plus, it looks like staff will be receiving special year-end bonuses as well for all of their hard work during the pandemic.

So, what do you think? Is this yet another sign to other firms not to match? We think it could be. Feel free to sound off by email, by text message (646-820-8477), or by tweet (@ATLblog). A fun or insightful response — we’ll keep you anonymous — could find its way into an update to this story.

(Flip to the next page to read the Paul Weiss memo in full.)

Please help us help you when it comes to bonus news at other firms. As soon as your firm’s bonus memo comes out, please email it to us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Bonus”) or text us (646-820-8477). Please include the memo if available. You can take a photo of the memo and send it via text or email if you don’t want to forward the original PDF or Word file.

And if you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Bonus Alerts, please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the bonus alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each bonus announcement that we publish.

---

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.

In what has to be admitted is a strong field, none of the contentious, late-public-service-career innovations by Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Jay Clayton to increase opacity, kneecap shareholder democracy, and ensure snitches get stitches and not much else have proven as controversial and his plan to save a few thousand hedge funds the trouble of telling the world what they owned six weeks ago. Investors small and large hate it, by the thousands. Companies who’d be a bit more in the dark about who their owners are, hate it, too. Goldman Sachs, which runs a very successful little index based on the filings, hates it. The New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq hate it.

* A Michigan lawyer has changed his name to get more recognition from voters. This definitely worked for Eddie Murphy’s character in The Distinguished Gentleman. [ABA Journal]

* Eric Trump was deposed yesterday as part of a probe conducted by the New York Attorney General’s Office. [CNN]

* A Tennessee lawyer has been suspended from practice for allegedly forging a witness’ signature on a court document. [Bloomberg Law]

* A lawyer has been charged with allegedly trying to extort the University of Maryland Medical Center of $25 million. People should really read my article on attorney shakedowns… [Fox News]

* The Supreme Court is allowing a class action filed by minor league baseball players who allege they are being paid less than minimum wage to proceed. Bet they’re happy their lawsuit didn’t strike out… [Sports Illustrated]

---

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.

Ed. Note: Welcome to our daily feature Trivia Question of the Day!

According to the Leopard Law Firm Index, presented by Leopard Solutions in partnership with Above the Law and Adam Smith, Esq., which practice area has experienced the most headcount growth to date in 2020 at the Top 200 law firms?

Hint: The practice area has seen headcount balloon by 61 percent this year.

See the answer on the next page.

“You have an impressive resume …” said Judge Noonan of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, his gaze fixated on the piece of paper, sliding down the page in what felt like slow motion.

What was I thinking, detailing just about EVERY achievement since birth?!

He continued going line-by-line through my resume, painstakingly s-l-o-w-l-y.

S-L-O-W-L-Y. . .

Slowly enough for me to admire his historic chambers, notice the woodcutting on his antique mahogany furniture, and approximate (and then actually count!) his numerous leather-bound books.

He was still in the preamble.

What was I thinking?!

More complimenting.

I am making this now-centenarian (he was only 80 at the time!) suffer through my 8.3 font (and 6.1 spacing!).

I no longer felt clever …

The steady flow of (very slow!) compliments continued.

I was at the edge of my seat.

He was ONLY about one third through page 1.

“Judge Noonan, if you like me so much, why don’t you give me an offer on the spot?” I blurted out and regretted it immediately.

What kind of desperate person (let alone future lawyer!) says this to an esteemed federal appellate judge?! Who did I think I was?

Judge Noonan lifted his head (very slowly!), smiled knowingly, and said, “If you want it so much, the job is yours.”

I got lucky that day, to be sure. Judge Noonan was open to my hijinks and had a playful side himself. But I learned a valuable lesson that day: it turns out that the future belongs to the doers and builders. It belongs to those who demonstrate initiative and then take steps to make them come true and have an impact. And then once you’re in a position to show that impact — when you’re in Judge Noonan’s chambers with your resume in his hand — you just need to make your power felt.

Today, as the legal field is crowded with talent and extraordinary capabilities, it is more important than ever to show your own ability to take initiative and following through with actions.

But this is especially true for in-house legal positions. Fortunately, there are endless ways to do it.

Focus On Impacting The Outside In The World Or Your Industry

For example, I recently spoke to Simon Zinger about the General Counsel Oath. He explained that following the global pandemic and developments in the United States, it is clear that many companies struggle with, among other things, diversity, equity, and inclusion. The General Oath is a tool for the legal leaders to lead the change and move in the right direction. It encourages legal leaders to lead, highlight small wins, and celebrate progress.

Also available on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and Spotify.

Embrace The Internal Opportunities To Impact Operations And The Bottom Line

Other times, showing initiative internally is effective. In talking with Lourdes Fuentes Slater, it became apparent that in-house lawyers can take initiative, make progress, and have a significant impact on digital transformation. Redefining a modern legal department is a real opportunity. Legal technology is no longer an option, it’s a necessity. Companies are often hesitant to implement innovation, but more and more, that hesitation will create unnecessary roadblocks to success. Take the chance to do so.

Also available on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and Spotify.

Pursue Unconventional Adventures In And Out Of Law

Why limit your initiatives to law? Heather Stevenson first ran a business and then found her way back to law. When she returned, she did so with a more rounded point of view and was thus able to create a broader impact. It is hard to find the courage to stray from the traditional legal career path, but there are numerous and unpredictable rewards available to those who make atypical choices, especially in the legal field.

Also available on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and Spotify.

Where there’s an opportunity for innovation and growth, there’s an opportunity to take initiative. This is true in all walks of life, but especially in a field like law that is constantly seeing fundamental changes.

I encourage you to learn a new skill, bring it to your workplace, and make an impact. Doing so will not only improve your current environment and make a real difference in real time, but it’ll show future employers and bosses that you are willing to take initiative and leave a positive change in your wake. That’s a timeless skill.

---

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. She founded the Women Serve on Boards movement that advocates for women to participate on corporate boards of Fortune 500 companies. She authored Get on Board: Earning Your Ticket to a Corporate Board Seat and Fundamentals of Smart Contract Security. You can follow Olga on Twitter @olgavmack.