Bonus season began in Biglaw over a week ago when Milbank gave the industry with a little kick in the pants with an early bonus announcement. Now Baker McKenzie has made their associates happy with a match to the industry standard with a change to the firm’s usual bonus payday. Because everyone loves a big bonus announcement, but getting the money earlier than expected makes it even sweeter.
The bonus scale is as follows:
Class of 2019 – $15,000 (pro-rated) Class of 2018 – $15,000 Class of 2017 – $25,000 Class of 2016 – $50,000 Class of 2015 – $65,000 Class of 2014 – $80,000 Class of 2013 – $90,000 Class of 2012 – $100,000 Class of 2011+ – $100,000
As noted in the full memo, bonuses will be paid by the firm on January 31st. Sure, some firms are paying bonuses in December, but considering the firm’s tradition of paying bonuses in March, this has come as a welcomed surprise, from a tipster:
People are happy the money is coming earlier this year — usually paid in mid-March.
Plus! The firm will pay above these market rates for “exceptional performance.”
Remember, we depend on your tips to stay on top of important bonus updates, so when your firm matches, please text us (646-820-8477) or email us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Matches”). 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 (which is the alert list we also use for all salary announcements), 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. Thanks for your help!
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).
“What’s key for these brands is to be nimble, to be flexible and be able to fail fast.”
Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images
As news of Barneys’s bankruptcy and subsequent sale spread, the collective mourning for a bygone retail era was tinged with at least some delight over the promised sales and steals that would clear Barneys stores of its unsold inventory before its new owner, ABG Group, closed the retailer’s doors for good. But what does that mean for the brands that supplied that inventory?
Well, some of the most powerful fashion companies, like those owned by LVMH, won’t be included in the margin-slashing liquidation sales that apply to other products sold at Barneys; their goods are protected by contracts negotiated long before the Barneys bankruptcy rumors ever erupted.
Meanwhile, emerging designers and independent labels, locked into less favorable contracts with Barneys which tipped towards the benefit of the now-dead wholesaler, are left in the lurch as the liquidation operators decide how and when to discount fashion items, many of which are still available at full price elsewhere on the market.
“This has been a wake-up call for small businesses that haven’t yet weathered a downturn,” says Susan Scafidi, director of the Fashion Law Institute, referring back to the Great Recession that challenged the retail environment a decade ago. “If we indeed have a recession on the horizon, whatever that may mean, Barneys’s [bankruptcy] may be a bellwether of things to come and may give lots of small brands a heads-up on how to think strategically and defensively going forward.”
The Barneys bankruptcy is hardly an isolated instance of failure in the current state of retail. Coresight Research found that the major factors which led to retail bankruptcies in the last two years included the saturation of the physical retail space in the United States, changing consumer trends, burgeoning e-commerce sales and rising debt among retail companies, each of which is still evident today. And according to a 2019 BDO Survey, more than half of U.S. retail executives surveyed believe bankruptcies will rise through the end of the year, as just as many are preparing for an economic downturn.
Given the outlook, it’s necessary that smaller brands — who may not have the parachute afforded by a cash-rich parent company — prepare for trouble in the retail market. Here are a few tips for how to protect against another disaster like the one happening at Barneys.
Diversify your retail presence
Much like an individual might do when investing, the best thing a smaller fashion brand can do to protect itself in a challenging market is to diversify its retail approach. Gone are the days in which the only way a brand could reach consumers was through a prestige physical department store based in a major city, says Charcy Evers, a New York-based retail consultant and trend analyst.
“The danger first and foremost is for any brand to get in bed with any retailer so deeply that if something happens to the retailer, it has a detrimental effect to a significant chunk of its business,” Evers says.
Building out a robust retail channel strategy necessitates, at the very least, a direct-to-consumer channel through a brand’s own website or store, while working with a mix of specialty and e-commerce retailers, as well as social media platforms which help brands meet their consumers where they are.
Take Area, the New York-based brand which Beckett Fogg and Piotrek Panszczyk founded in 2013, well after the Great Recession ended and just as the luxury and fashion spaces were finding new market traction. Area, with its celeb-beloved Instagrammable accessories and unique sense of glitzy glamour, attracted what would have once been considered the Holy Grail of wholesale relationships — from fashion-focused Barneys and Opening Ceremony to the more approachable Nordstrom. For its part, Area says some of its smallest wholesale accounts are as valuable as the brand’s larger retail partners, depending on how closely a particular retailer can get to Area’s target shopper.
Though the brand declined to provide specifics, co-founder Fogg explained that Area plans to grow its recently-launched direct-to-consumer channel and rely less on wholesale buyers who may ignore some of the essential products that give Area its unique aesthetic. The brand also plans to carry products that are exclusive to it e-commerce platform (and might have once been found at a retailer like Barneys) to attract shoppers to its site. As for its remaining third-party relationships, Fogg says Area is approaching its wholesalers more cautiously today.
“Of course, it is important to nurture specific relationships, but you must maintain exclusivity in a fiscally responsible way,” Fogg tells Fashionista via email. “The current turbulent retail landscape must be respected…it’s constantly changing and you have to be ready to adapt and reactively shift strategies. In order for that to happen, you have to have growth strategies in place that do not rely on the success of another company.”
Try alternative sales models
It’s also important that brands explore non-traditional formats for working with wholesalers. Evers explains that several department stores have created marketplaces within their retail spaces (different than the shop-in-shop model) to drive foot traffic while also helping shoppers discover new brands. Macy’s has its version, called “The Market,” while Bloomingdales has “Carousel,” and Kohl’s has “Curated by Kohl’s.” For the brands, it allows them access to the department store channel (meaning they get in front of more shoppers than they would on their own) without necessarily selling clothes to a retailer that may not be able to move the product. And if the department store channel isn’t where your brand’s customer shops, there are alternative models; think retail-as-a-service companies like B8ta, which help brands showcase their products in stores across the country and understand retail analytics to develop new products.
Alternatively, fashion and beauty brands might explore the consignment model, more commonly employed by jewelry brands, which allows the brand to “loan” its products to the department store until they are sold. Doing so requires a brand to file a Uniform Commercial Code Financing Statement with a detailed description of the brand’s goods that are consigned, explains Adrienne Montes, an attorney at New York-based law firm Gabay & Bowler and Chair of the Fashion Law Committee of the New York City Bar Association. “The financing statement once filed and perfected notifies other creditors that those goods are not owned by that retailer,” Montes explains. “It is crucial that the statement is perfected properly and regularly renewed, and that the brand keeps a detailed record of every item on consignment.”
Protective financial strategies are another way that brands can insure themselves, literally and figuratively, against the risks they face working with wholesale partners. Scafidi explains that purchasing credit insurance may be a cost-effective way to cover a wholesaler’s unpaid invoices, should it get to that, as was the case with Barneys. Another option is factoring. As Scafidi explains, it’s a common form of financing in which a factor pays you a percentage of the money a wholesaler may owe you after a purchase is completed so you don’t have to wait for the funds to keep the lights on in your showroom. Once the wholesaler pays its invoice, the factor collects a percentage of that money and gives you a remaining percentage, assuming the wholesaler does, in fact, pay its outstanding invoices.
In essence, “You have your money earlier, the factor is typically secondarily insured against loss, and the factor bears the risk of the store not paying,” Scafidi says.
When retailers go under, seek legal help
Ideally, a brand’s existing contract with a third-party seller will stipulate how the brand’s products are repurchased or discounted in the event of a bankruptcy or poor sales quarter, though that may not always be the case. In many instances, smaller fashion brands have less leverage when approaching a wholesaler in the throes of bankruptcy, left to pick up whatever financial scraps are left after a retailer’s secured creditors are paid.
Unfortunately, it’s risky for any group of independent fashion brands to join as consumers might in a class-action lawsuit, as it could be seen as price-fixing or restraint against trade, which violates antitrust laws, Scafidi says. That said, fashion brands may pool their resources to hire legal help under the circumstances of a shared retailer’s bankruptcy to recoup money or pursue a clawback (a legal stipulation a brand may include in its wholesale contracts which require retailers to send merchandise back) or a buyback, though instances of this are rare.
For a cash-strapped brand, there are subsidized and free legal resources that may help a designer pursue litigation against a faulty retailer. Montes says that local bar associations and law schools may offer pro-bono legal advice (In New York City, for example, that might include the NYC Bar Association’s Neighborhood Entrepreneur Law Project or its Fashion Law Committee, which works with the Fashion Law Institute at Fordham Law School to host clinics throughout the year.)
“What’s key for these brands is to be nimble, to be flexible and be able to fail fast,” Evers advises. “You do need to try, you need to experiment and expose yourself, but you can’t have your whole body in the water, you just need to dip your toe in it, so to speak. I think that’s the smart way to move into uncharted territory.”
If you thought that Milbank’s decision to announce their 2019 year end bonuses early — November 7th to be precise — would slow the rest of their Biglaw colleagues from matching, well, you were wrong. Sure, it took Cravath the weekend to decide to match that standard, but once that happened the bonus announcements for the top of the Biglaw heap have been coming fast and furious.
The latest firm to make their associates’ bonus dreams come true is Weil, Gotshal & Manges. Earlier today, the elite firm matched the market bonus scale.That bonus schedule is as follows:
Class of 2019 – $15,000 (pro-rated) Class of 2018 – $15,000 Class of 2017 – $25,000 Class of 2016 – $50,000 Class of 2015 – $65,000 Class of 2014 – $80,000 Class of 2013 – $90,000 Class of 2012 – $100,000 Class of 2011 – $100,000 Class of 2010 and senior – case by case
Remember, we depend on your tips to stay on top of important bonus updates, so when your firm matches, please text us (646-820-8477) or email us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Matches”). 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 (which is the alert list we also use for all salary announcements), 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. Thanks for your help!
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).
When I arrived, I noticed the cafeteria did not serve pizza. I thought, “What an outrage.” My legacy is secure. It’s fine by me if I’m ever known as the pizza justice.
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.
Oh, not President Trump, who Mueller let off the hook by refusing to indict or call for the indictment of a president he found to commit multiple acts of obstruction of justice. Not Donald Trump Jr., who Mueller shamefully refused to question or prosecute. No, the last gasp of the Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election ended today with the conviction of Roger Stone, a Trump aide and longtime professional troll. Stone was convicted on seven counts of witness tampering and lying to Congress. Good job, Bobby Mulls, you prosecuted the sizzle, but not the steak. I hope you’re happy with yourself.
To do a quick, non-comprehensive recap of Russia-probe criminality: Donald Trump’s campaign CEO, Paul Manafort, has been convicted of financial crimes; Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen has been convicted of lying to Congress to cover up campaign finance violations; Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to investigators; Trump campaign aide Rick Gates has pleaded guilty of lying to investigators; Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos was convicted of lying to investigators; and now Trump confidant and fluffer, Roger Stone, has been convicted of lying to investigators and tampering with witnesses.
The common thread here seems to be that they all lied to investigators ON BEHALF OF DONALD TRUMP. And yet, somehow, Donald Trump has not been charged for his conduct. Legally speaking, Mueller and the Republicans would apparently have us believe that all these people independently decided to lie, FOR NO REASON, about conduct done at the behest of Donald Trump. If you believe that all these men are guilty but Trump is somehow innocent, I have a bridge to sell you that is due for some traffic problems.
Trump, for his part, isn’t even defending Stone’s conduct. He’s just making the useless and false argument that other people ALSO LIE to Congress and are not in jail:
So they now convict Roger Stone of lying and want to jail him for many years to come. Well, what about Crooked Hillary, Comey, Strzok, Page, McCabe, Brennan, Clapper, Shifty Schiff, Ohr & Nellie, Steele & all of the others, including even Mueller himself? Didn’t they lie?….
“But, what about [X]” IS NOT A DEFENSE. And it’s weird that Trump isn’t even trying to challenge the ruling that Stone lied to Mueller, because if Stone lied to investigators it ALSO PROVES Trump lied to investigators. Stone’s conviction should be the start of a new round of inquiry into the president’s perjury and obstruction of justice, not the end of that inquiry.
But I guess Trump is just going to get away with it. Roger Stone will now join Cohen and Manafort in jail while their benefactor, Donald Trump, remains free.
Stone’s convictions carries with them a maximum sentence of 50 years in prison. But Stone, a 67-year-old non-violent offender, is unlikely to get anything close to that. He will be released until his sentencing in February, and I wouldn’t expect him to get more than 10 years, at the absolute top-end, and I’d put the over/under at 7.5.
A “light” sentence for Stone will piss a lot of people off, and I appreciate that. Stone is a bad guy who lied about a serious investigation and jauntily flaunted authorities while doing it. His activities played a key role in bringing about the election of a bigoted misogynist and, seeing as that president is unlikely to be held accountable, the impulse will be to make sure Stone spends every last day of his natural life in lock-up. For sure, if Stone does end up dying in jail, I will not cry about it.
But, I caution people to remember the justice equities involved in this case. As Vito Corleone might say: “Stone is a pimp. He never could have outfought the entire criminal justice system. It was Trump all along.” The problem is Trump. The criminal is Trump. The threat to American democracy is Trump. Stone is a henchman. He should be punished, but no amount of punishment now will do anything about Donald Trump.
And a particularly harsh sentence will not further deter current Trump henchmen from lying to protect Trump, more than they already are. I subscribe to the belief that “jail” is bad, but there are diminishing marginal returns for “more jail” when it comes to deterrence. U.S. Envoy to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, surely noted Stone’s conviction today. Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney noticed too. These men are on notice that if you lie for Trump, somebody will eventually come for you, even if your boss remains free. Sondland and Mulvaney should now be on notice that they must choose their words carefully if they want to avoid jail.
If Stone gets 20 years, instead of 10, it’s not like Sondland and Mulvaney will be “more” worried. I just do not think that they’re sitting at home thinking “Yo, I’m totally willing to do 10 years for Trump, but 20, come on, that’s just crazy talk.” Trump’s henchmen who are currently free should be scared straight by Trump’s henchmen who are currently incarcerated. If they’re not already intimidated by the threat of incarceration, the threat of additional incarceration is unlikely to change their behavior.
Again, if Stone has to ask permission to take a piss for the rest of his life, that would also be okay. But Stone was never the point. We can’t forget that, as Mueller apparently did.
Hey @BillGates do you have a spare $126 million? If so, we could be the “William H. Gates Definitely Did Not Go Here But Who Cares He’s Rich School of Law”. Think about it.
(Upon changing the school’s name to the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School after a $125 million donation from the W.P. Carey Foundation, the Twitter account @PennLaw was abandoned, and disgruntled students quickly stepped in and began tweeting. The account was then suspended, and @PennLawSchool was created, and continues to tweet out amusing parody content.)
(Thousands of students and alumni have signed a petition asking that the school maintain its Penn Law branding. Click here if you’d like to add your name.)
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.
I recently got together for lunch with a longtime friend. He is a senior partner at a very respected, mid-size firm in Dallas of about 60 lawyers. In the course of catching up, we discussed my work/advocacy with regards to wellness in the legal profession. I asked him if he or his firm had taken notice of the push for more awareness. Here is what he had to say:
He cares that his colleagues and friends are doing well as individuals. If they are struggling with addiction or problem drinking issues, he hopes they would come to him. However, he does not care about lawyer wellness as a profession-wide initiative.
To the best of his knowledge, his firm as a whole, does not care. He is not aware of anyone at any level, ever broaching the topic.
He has had not heard of the ABA/Hazelden Betty Ford study on the subject.
He had no idea what the Texas Lawyers Assistance Program (TLAP) does.
He cares intensely about the following: a) his family, b) servicing firm clients, and 3) maintaining his lifestyle.
If a client project requires a 90-hour week, so be it. This is the nature of the profession we chose.
As he ticked through his viewpoints, I could feel the tips of my fingers begin to tingle. The temperature at our tiny table, in a small, crowded restaurant, seemed to rise 10 degrees. Sweat formed behind my ear lobes. I was angry.
I had no reason to be angry. He was being honest. Did I expect him to lie about the realities of the profession beyond my bubble of confirmation bias? The echo chamber of fellow warriors of wellness? He articulated the elephant in the room when we talk about such things. Other real-life priorities of diverse individuals. Mary Meditation, Millie Mindfulness, and Joe Yoga are great, but they don’t bill.
Whether this seems shortsighted in the face of the mental-health crisis the study lays out, many don’t know, or don’t care regardless. This seems to be especially the case outside of Biglaw. Friends and client service don’t leave much time for Mary, Millie, or Joe. Time is a prime asset that cannot be recovered. Within the billable and client responsive realm of our profession, it must be rationed to maintain the prime directives of day-to-day life. For my friends, family, clients, and lifestyle. Mortgage, rent, car payments, massive school debt, a sliver of social life. All threatened by any hint of not being a team player.
It becomes more complicated when we drop below Biglaw. A lawyer may not have an EAP. He/she/they/them may know about their lawyer’s assistance program but assume it’s only for “alcoholics and addicts.” I know many who don’t trust their LAP despite messaging that it is confidential.
The lawyer may not have health insurance or have such a high deductible that for anything major, they are de facto uninsured. All of this can add up to the fear, insecurity, and drive to put money in the bank that makes the high-hour work week an accepted reality for the majority of the profession. We get the resulting vacuum in which the practice of law is pretty much what it was 10 years ago in terms of priorities and views on wellness. I asked my friend to expand on our irritating lunch discussion. He graciously agreed.
When I first started practicing law in 1985, no lawyer I knew had a computer.
I worked for a large downtown law firm, which had a Word Processing division — but secretaries were obligated to type any document shorter than eight pages long (which meant retyping for any significant changes that could not be corrected with Wite Out).
Longer documents were put in your secretary’s outbox to be picked up by the intraoffice mail person, who would take it to the Word Processing room. A document that went in intraoffice mail at, say, 4:00 p.m. in the afternoon would be delivered back to your secretary’s inbox at around 10:00 a.m. the next morning. You would hand mark your changes — and then put it back in intraoffice mail.
As a result, trading documents with attorneys for the other side in litigation or a corporate transaction was slow, and delays were expected. In other words, the turnaround cycle for legal work matched the rhythms of life, and you could leave the office for dinner and socialization at a decent hour. A large corporate transaction might take five or six months.
Now, with ubiquitous computers and tablets, with editable Word documents that can quickly be duped and revised, cut and pasted by the attorneys themselves, documents have doubled and tripled in length, and the complexity has increased correspondingly. With email and texts, documents can be zipped around the world in different time zones with the click of a Send key, so the turnaround time for large corporate deals has shrunken to sometimes 60 days or fewer.
And now with ubiquitous WIFI and cellular hotspots, you can work anywhere: On a plane, in your car, on a dock by the bay — so clients, with compressed deal times, expect you to.
Frequently, you’ll see a client’s name pop up on your office phone. When you don’t answer, your cellphone will ring. When you don’t answer that, they text you. The expectation is that you’re always available. If you’re on vacation, great — but that just means that they expect you to get the document out before your wife and kids get up for breakfast. And if you’re not willing to be always accessible, you’ll lose the client to another lawyer who will. We’re all in a race to the bottom to ruin our lives.
And by the way, partners expect associates to be always on, too, so if a client needs something at 10:00 p.m. on a Sunday night, the partner expects the associate to hop right on it. We don’t care where the associate is. We’re feeling heat from the client, so we need always-on responsiveness from the junior attorney.
So, we drink to calm down at the end of a day. For some of us, every day. For senior attorneys who are in the later stages of our careers and are making a bunch of money, we can look at our brokerage statements and gut it out for the five or six years to retirement — as we grind the junior attorneys who work for us.
For the junior attorneys who work for us, life is miserable — and they’re looking at a long career of misery in front of them, so I can understand why they are likely depressed or have substance abuse problems.
But we don’t give much thought to that (and, at mid-sized or smaller firms, are not trained to look out for or give any thought to it). As noted above, clients are bombarding me with demands 24/7/365. I need my associates to be responsive in the same timeframe. If they are slow in responding, or are slow in turning work around, or turn in inadequate work, I don’t have time to counsel them. I move on to another associate. Too much emphasis on billing and collecting to add counseling services to the mix. It’s very Darwinian.
There you have it. It’s anecdotal, but don’t kid yourself. It’s not an outlier. Those who advocate are doing great in getting the message those in the rarified air of Biglaw. We have a lot of work to do below that where the majority of the profession resides.
Brian Cuban(@bcuban) is The Addicted Lawyer. Brian is the author of the Amazon best-selling book, The Addicted Lawyer: Tales Of The Bar, Booze, Blow & Redemption (affiliate link). A graduate of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, he somehow made it through as an alcoholic then added cocaine to his résumé as a practicing attorney. He went into recovery April 8, 2007. He left the practice of law and now writes and speaks on recovery topics, not only for the legal profession, but on recovery in general. He can be reached at brian@addictedlawyer.com.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average hit a fresh record high on Friday after White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow said China and the U.S. were getting close to reaching a trade deal.
Oh, DJIA, girl, you need to stop letting him do this to you. You know he’s lying but you at like everything is fine. In fact, you act like everything is better than fine, you act like it’s better than it’s ever been.
But, it’s not…
Kudlow, the National Economic Council director, said Thursday that a deal between the two nations was approaching, highlighting constructive discussions with Beijing. His comments came after multiple reports suggested both sides were at loggerheads over the terms of a phase one trade agreement.
The legal landscape has changed. Clients are demanding more from firms than ever before and it is critical for firms to bring the art and science of law together. Thoughtful and deliberate technology integrations with core firm functions yield opportunities to improve existing legal workflows that drive toward holistic matter and firm management. The future state of legal workflow comprises four components.
Formalized matter planning
Visibility and foresight into pricing and profitability
Collective knowledge management and support systems
Analytics to inform decision making
Read the white paper to learn how a focus on efficiency and delivering value will yield dividends for firms willing to embrace change.
Biglaw bonus season is the most exciting time of the year. After 365 days of billing madness comes the recognition from the firm that all those hours actually had a positive impact. And what better start to a Friday than hearing exactly how big those bonuses will be?
Class of 2019 – $15,000 (pro-rated) Class of 2018 – $15,000 Class of 2017 – $25,000 Class of 2016 – $50,000 Class of 2015 – $65,000 Class of 2014 – $80,000 Class of 2013 – $90,000 Class of 2012 – $100,000 Class of 2011 – $100,000
Remember, we depend on your tips to stay on top of important bonus updates, so when your firm matches, please text us (646-820-8477) or email us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Matches”). 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 (which is the alert list we also use for all salary announcements), 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. Thanks for your help!
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).
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).
