Category: News Feeds

In a bit of exciting news for those of you registered for the DC Bar Exam for the primary purpose of using the full portability of the UBE, the Court of Appeals just released a new order allowing applicants to request refunds.

DC announced a few days ago that it would cancel its September UBE administration and offer a non-portable online exam in October. Despite being the prudent public health decision, this caused an uproar among those applicants who signed up for the DC administration because their home jurisdictions, for example New York, had announced that certain applicants wouldn’t be able to take the test in the autumn.

For those applicants, removing portability from the DC bar exam eviscerated the whole value proposition. Rather than take an online exam in October and still need to take another exam at a later date, they may as well wait until they can take the home exam and then waive into DC with that score. Unfortunately, in its original order pushing off the exam, DC stuck to its deadline on issuing no refunds. Thankfully, that’s been clarified today.

If, despite these ongoing efforts to establish reciprocity, applicants wish to withdraw from the October D.C. Bar Exam, the court has made arrangements to refund fees. The court had previously indicated in the May 4th order that fees would be creditable to a future application for admission, but not refundable. Applicants may withdraw and request refunds by emailing BarExamRefund@dcappeals.gov. The deadline to request a refund is September 15, and applicants should allow 14 to 21 days for processing. Applicants who wish to withdraw and credit their fees to a future application, no later than July 2021, may do so by emailing BarExamWithdrawal@dcappeals.gov.

Good news for all those who were worried that they were out the money. And an impressive show of responsiveness from the Court!

Earlier: DC Bar Exam Manages To Screw Up Doing The Right Thing
Law School Deans Rail Against Grave Injustice Of… Waiting A Few Months To Take The Bar Exam

---

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.

There is no such thing as a “high-functioning,” impaired lawyer. There are only degrees of loss of functioning.

---

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 black men and women of Harvard Law School’s class of 2021 posed for a pair of pictures recently. Photos like these have become popular expressions of black celebration and inspiration. They’re also the sort of thing that white people tend to get really freaked out about for no apparent reason.

Before we get going on this journey, place your bets on what some random white guy is going to say about this picture. Will it be (a) “they’d never allow a picture of just the white students”; (b) “why do people have to focus so much on race like this… true equality is colorblind”; (c) “as Martin Luther King would say…”; (d) some Amy Wax-spirational screed about affirmative action; or, (e) none of the above. Let’s find out!

Not to delay the big reveal any longer, but we should take a second to appreciate that this person is about to pop off on LinkedIn. The professional networking site! Unlike Facebook, where one tends to curate the like-minded, this guy is so confident in what he’s about to say that he’s comfortable with colleagues and clients seeing it. Make of that what you will.

Anyway, this image prompted someone named Gene Smith to opine:

None of the above! Collect your winnings.

This got a lot of folks angry, but he’s got a point. Harvard Law School graduates have committed numerous crimes against the country. Pillaging the economy, masterminding illegal arms sales, Ted Cruz’s hair — just 200 years of death and misery doled out by a group of people who’ve anointed themselves as literally above the law. Harvard Law is an ongoing criminal operation that must be stopped!

Oh, wait, he just means because they’re black, doesn’t he?

If pressed, Smith and those like him would probably retreat to asserting that he’s not suggesting that they look like gang members simply because they’re black, but because of “what they’re wearing.” This is what people mean when they talk about respectability politics. The fictional “dress code” for black men is always more formal than the context calls for. I’m pretty sure everyone here has a suit they wear to court, but since they’re not complete tools they don’t walk around in suits casually and they certainly don’t need to be wearing suits to take a picture to satisfy Gene Smith. Jeans and sunglasses are markers of criminality? Is that where the Gene Smith apologists want to make their stand?

Put another way, this argument is just that it’s not because they’re black, but because they don’t look white.

So, yeah, he just means because they’re black.

Why I Resist Casual Friday and Other Thoughts on Diversity and Inclusion: A Black Partner’s Perspective [American Lawyer]

---

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.

When COVID-19 is finally defeated, 2020 will certainly be remembered for the tremendous loss of life, significant economic pain, and massive community fear. More innocuous memories include the copious amount of time we spent binging television series, devouring movies, and being glued to cable news. Anyone in tune with television trends is aware of Netflix’s Tiger King Murder, Mayhem and Madness, a docuseries about eccentric, big cat owner and wildlife park operator, Joe Exotic. Joe is currently in prison for conspiring in the attempted murder of his nemesis, big cat owner and wildlife activist, Carol Baskin who was recently awarded control of Exotic’s  16-acre animal property.

Although Tiger King mainly revolves around Exotic’s wildlife park and his alleged plans to bring down his nemesis, Baskin’s personal life sparked great interest, resulting in talks of a spinoff, a Tik Tok dance, and even threats of litigation. An episode of Tiger King was devoted to Baskin’s first husband, Don Lewis, who went missing in 1997. Recently, Tiger King has made new legal news in the field of trusts and estates as it relates to Lewis’ last will and testament.

The series describes how Don Lewis disappeared and that his body has not been found. He was declared dead in 2002. Baskin inherited his estate, to the chagrin of his adult children from a prior marriage. The children alleged various claims against the proffered last will and testament which left everything to Baskin, and they also appeared on the series with regard to their father’s death. Lewis was extremely wealthy, with an estate worth reportedly $10 million. His disappearance has sparked many rumors as to what happened to him, some of which were explored on the series. Some allege (as does a Tik Tok Dance)  that Baskin was involved in his disappearance, although she has denied these allegations.

Recently, Florida’s Hillsborough County Sheriff Chad Chronister informed news outlets that he is aware that experts have stated that Lewis’ last will and testament was forged. Additionally questions have emerged as to whether the notary was actually present for the signing in addition to the presence of the witnesses. Lewis’ signature has been questioned, and it is suggested that it is a tracing from his 1991 marriage record. Moreover, the power of attorney apparently includes a provision giving Baskin authority in the event of Lewis’ disappearance. Generally, disappearances are not contemplated when executing a power of attorney, which gives authority to an agent in the event of incapacity, while a last will and testament controls when someone is declared dead.

Lewis’ last will and testament was admitted to probate and approved by a judge, so it is unclear if anything can be done to reopen the file. Similarly, criminal allegations of forgery have a statute of limitations. Questions persist as to Lewis’ disappearance.

Tiger King continues to give viewers a glimpse of the drama that surrounds a will contest where allegations of forgery, fraud, and undue influence abound. Probate contests are dramatic, emotional, and often frustrating because the main witness to the cause of action, the decedent, is and will remain silent.  Handwriting analysts, employees, notaries, friends, and family create a vivid cast of characters that probate practitioners see all the time.

Legal matters, specifically trusts and estates issues,  are great content for television. Particular to the characters of Tiger King, there are a host of themes that may be explored, such as the will contest, pet bequests, jailhouse-written last wills and testaments, forgeries, and slayer statutes. There’s definitely enough in this field of law to spurn at least a few seasons of enjoyment, hopefully without COVID-19 hanging over us.

---

Cori A. Robinson is a solo practitioner having founded Cori A. Robinson PLLC, a New York and New Jersey law firm, in 2017. For more than a decade Cori has focused her law practice on trusts and estates and elder law including estate and Medicaid planning, probate and administration, estate litigation, and guardianships. She can be reached at cori@robinsonestatelaw.com.

We have some incredibly unfortunate news from Georgia, where a woman who overcame historic obstacles to succeed in the world of law recently passed away.

Edith Jacqueline Ingram Grant, 78, was the first black probate judge in America and the first black female judge in the state of Georgia. Grant, who left her job as a teacher to embark upon a journey in the law, was encouraged to run against an incumbent judge who, in a decision that was “laced with racial epithets,” barred black members of the community from serving as poll workers on Election Day in 1966.

Grant’s Daily Report obituary details the turbulent start of her judicial career:

Grant won the 1968 election, seven months after Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. But when she went to the courthouse to ask her predecessor to brief her on court operations, the judge cursed her and ordered her to get out of the office, Grant recalled. The defeated judge then closed down the court, locked the doors and turned the keys over to the Superior Court clerk, a white man, Grant said. “I just had to wait until I got in there and hit the books,” Grant recalled.

Grant served as judge for the next 36 years. In 1973, the ordinary court was renamed the probate court. She also served as president of the Georgia Coalition of Black Women. She retired in 2004.

“When I think of the strength of character and determination that it took, and the loneliness that she must have had to endure to become the first black female judge in Georgia history, I am truly awestruck and humbled,” Georgia Supreme Court Justice Harold Melton said. “The history of our country, this state, and our class of court are much better because of her contributions,” Cobb County Chief Probate Judge Kelli Wolk, president of the state Council of Probate Court Judges, said of Grant.

We here at Above the Law would like to extend our sincere condolences to Edith Jacqueline Ingram Grant’s family, friends, and colleagues during this difficult time.

‘True Advocate of Equality’: Nation’s First African American Probate Judge Dies at 78 [Daily Report]

---

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.

The urgent call comes after three female opposition activists – member of parliament Joanna Mamombe, Cecilia Chimbiri and Netsai Marova – were stopped at a police checkpoint in Harare and subsequently abducted, tortured and sexually assaulted. The three women were going to participate in a peaceful protest organised on 13 May 2020 by the Alliance Youth Assembly of the main opposition party, Movement for Democratic Change.

After almost 48 hours, the three women were dumped in a marketplace. They were immediately hospitalised to be treated for the injuries they sustained while they were abducted. A few days later, they were charged with violating COVID-19 regulations on public gatherings and for purportedly intending to promote public violence and breach of peace.

“The charges against the three women should be dropped,” the experts said. “Targeting peaceful dissidents, including youth leaders, in direct retaliation for the exercise of their freedom of association, peaceful assembly and freedom of expression is a serious violation of human rights law.”

The experts called on the authorities of Zimbabwe to “urgently prosecute and punish the perpetrators of this outrageous crime, and to immediately enforce a policy of ‘zero tolerance’ for abductions and torture throughout the country” to ensure the effective protection of women against sexual violence, and to bring those responsible to account.

The experts expressed grave alarm over concerns this was not an isolated instance. In 2019 alone, 49 cases of abductions and torture were reported in Zimbabwe, without investigations leading to perpetrators being held to account.
“Enforced disappearances of women often involve sexual violence, and even forced impregnation, with enormous harm inflicted not only on their physical health and integrity, but also in terms of the resulting psychological damage, social stigma and disruption of family structures,” the experts said.

“Under the absolute and non-derogable prohibition of torture and ill-treatment, which includes enforced disappearance and violence against women, Zimbabwe must take all measures in its power to prevent such abuse, to investigate suspected violations, and to bring any perpetrators to justice,” the experts said.

They also urged the government to allow official visits of UN human rights experts with a view to assessing the human rights situation in the country.

Post published in: Featured

The judge proposed that all matters involving rival MDC groups be consolidated into a single case to avoid the conflicting judgments.

Justice Mafusire took the view that MDC-A is a political party, which tallies with that taken by Justice Priscilla Manongwe in the dispute over party funds pitting Nelson Chamisa-led MDC-Alliance and the Khupe-led MDC-T.

He cited the fact that Parliament, Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) and the Executive had all recognised the party, as such.

Last week Justice Tawanda Chitapi ruled in the High Court that while the MDC-A was recognised as a political party, it lacks the legal capacity to sue and being sued, being in effect an electoral coalition.

Justice Mafusire made it clear that he thought the MDC-A had a more independent existence, but noted he was not being asked to rule on the matter.

Justice Mafusire found it undesirable that there should be conflicting decisions by judges from the same court over the same issue.

“It brings uncertainty in the law, causes confusion and adversely affects the integrity of the courts,” he said.

“One way to minimise the incidence of conflicting decisions is, where possible, to have all matters dealing with the same point or similar issues consolidated and heard by one judge. If not, and the conflicting decisions have been made, it is left to the Supreme Court, on appeal, to lay down the law authoritatively.”

Post published in: Featured

Now that few people seem to care about COVID-19 anymore, I would like to focus on some good news from the government instead. Last week, the federal government passed the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act (PPPFA). The PPPFA addressed many problems businesses had with the original Paycheck Protection Program. Also, the Small Business Administration issued a sample loan-forgiveness form for businesses wishing to seek forgiveness of the loans given to them.

For those who have not received a PPP loan yet, the deadline to apply is June 30, 2020. There is plenty of money left.

I will cover the major points of the PPPFA that I think will be the most useful to businesses and provide some general spending advice. If you have a large number of employees, have many part-time employees, or if you are scared of an SBA audit, contact a professional immediately.

Extension Of Spending And Hiring Deadlines

Before the PPPFA was passed, employers receiving PPP funds had eight weeks to spend it on payroll costs, rent, utilities, or business mortgage interest payments. They also had until June 30, 2020, to rehire employees that were laid off between February 15 and April 26, 2020. And all employees must be paid at least 75% of the wages they were paid in 2019 or the loan forgiveness amount would be reduced.

From my experience working on PPP repayment plans with several businesses, a timetable of eight weeks required a strict repayment schedule to qualify for full forgiveness. If one employee abruptly quits, due to COVID-19 or for otherwise, then the employer had to find a replacement quickly. That was under the assumption business would be back to normal again, including a business’s spending pattern.

It turns out that it was harder to spend the PPP funds as directed in eight weeks mainly because businesses could not meet the payroll cost requirement. In some sectors, like restaurants, business went down so much that they did not need their full work force. Also, it was also more difficult to rehire laid off employees by the June 30 deadline. Employees were reluctant to return because of the risk of contracting COVID-19 and the extra unemployment benefits they were receiving.

I’ve heard that some businesses had some backdoor workaround plans with highly trusted employees. Some would pay them for doing nothing. Or they would make side deals with highly trusted employees where the payments would be treated as advances and would be paid back later.

The PPPFA addressed the above by extending the timeframe to use the PPP funds to six months. Also, the rehiring deadline was extended to December 31, 2020. This expansion of deadlines makes it easier for businesses to use the PPP funds because they can rehire employees when they are actually needed.

Exemptions From Loan Forgiveness Reductions Due To Employee Reduction

The PPP loan forgiveness amount will not be reduced based on employee reduction if the employer can show they either tried to rehire the laid off employees working on February 15, 2020, and was unable to find similar replacements for those employees by December 31, 2020. They can also qualify for an exemption if they can show that by the forgiveness date, they were unable to return to the same level of business activity before February 15, 2020.

Most have recommended to make an offer to rehire the employee in writing or by email and to request a response. A copy of the offer and rejection should be included in the forgiveness package. Some have suggested adding language that failure to accept the offer would result in reporting the rejection to their state’s unemployment benefit agency. This should be enough documentation to satisfy the rehiring attempt requirement.

As for proving the inability to return to previous business levels, there are no specifics. How much of a decline is necessary? This may be clarified by the SBA in future regulations or through the individual lender. As a common sense matter, if the business can show that their business income has dropped to the point where they cannot afford to hire an employee without incurring a net operating loss, that should be enough. Also, keep a close eye on bank statements and note gross income reductions compared to previous years. I would also recommend keeping a copy of the state’s shutdown order — particularly if your PPP lender is an out-of-state bank unfamiliar with your state’s shutdown rules.

Reduction Of Minimum Spending On Payroll

The PPPFA also reduced the minimum 75% expenditure requirement for payroll expenses to 60%. The remaining 40% must be spent on rent, business mortgage interest, or utilities. There was some concern that if all of the PPP funds were not used as directed, then the entire PPP loan must be paid back and not just the portion spent on ineligible expenses. However, a joint statement from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and SBA Administrator Jovita Carranza suggests that there can be partial loan forgiveness so long as at least 60% of the funds have been used for payroll purposes.

If businesses have already made plans to spend at least 75% of their PPP funds on payroll, they should stick with their original plans. The modest reduction of the payroll expenditure requirement is most likely to be helpful for businesses that have trouble finding full-time employees.

Since Congress missed this, I am hoping that the SBA in future regulations is able to include personal protective equipment (such as face masks, gloves, and disinfectant supplies) in the definition of utilities.

Now, I want to provide some general advice for PPP recipients in light of the PPPFA.

Have A Payment Plan Set Up

While the PPPFA makes using the PPP funds easier, it is wise to have a payment plan set up for the next six months. For businesses that have not been affected by COVID-19 and other current events, you may be able to spend the funds fairly quickly and easily. For businesses that are unstable or has many employees, several plans may need to be reviewed to deal with certain situations.

Apply For Loan Forgiveness As Soon As You Are Eligible

In addition, the business does not have to wait until the 24 weeks are over. As soon as the business has spent the PPP funds, it can request forgiveness from its lender. I would advise doing so as soon as possible before the SBA or Congress changes the rules again, sometimes to the employer’s detriment.

You Cannot Give Yourself A Raise With PPP Funds

The question I get the most by far in all kinds of permutations and semantic gymnastics is: “How can I keep as much of the PPP money for myself without having to pay anybody else?” The straight answer is the SBA forgiveness application states that employers can only pay themselves the lesser of eight weeks’ worth of their 2019 annual W-2 wage or self-employment income or $15,385 (which is a $100,000 annual salary prorated to eight weeks.) You cannot get around this by contributing to a retirement account like a SEP-IRA.

The remainder has to be spent on raises to additional employees, new employees, or the qualifying nonpayroll costs described above.

One option is to wait the full 24 weeks and hope that Congress or the SBA changes the rule. If the economy continues to sputter, then this may be in the next stimulus package.

Pay Close Attention To The PPP Forgiveness Application Form

The application form can be found here. Reviewing it can help prepare you to plan for forgiveness.

The PPPFA provided the payment flexibility that businesses have requested. Businesses won’t have to resort to side deals, or strict planning, and will not be at their employees’ mercy. With the right planning, it will be easier for businesses to use the PPP money in the manner they think is best for their business while maximizing chances for forgiveness.

---

Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and resolve tax disputes. He is also sympathetic to people with large student loans. He can be reached via email at sachimalbe@excite.com. Or you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) and connect with him on LinkedIn.

Hong Kong may not be the largest financial center in Asia. Hell, it’s not even the largest financial center in China anymore. But it is still the regional hub for the hedge fund industry, boasting more funds that Singapore, Japan or Asia, and more assets under management therein than all of the others combined.

And most of those hedge fund managers probably expected it to stay that way for another couple of decades, as under the treaty that returned Hong Kong to China in 1997, Beijing was bound not to incorporate the city-state into its own, rather more repressive political regime for 50 years. But China’s a good deal more powerful now than it was 23 years ago, and Britain a great deal less influential, and so it decided to accelerate things a bit. So, uh, how much should those hedgies worry?