Supreme Court Legalizes Political Corruption In Continuing Effort To Make America Great

(Photo by Jeff Zelevansky/Getty Images)

COVID, murder hornets, a May snowstorm… how can 2020 get any worse? Maybe the Supreme Court could issue a unanimous decision declaring political corruption totally legal. Yeah, that’s a fun twist on this noxious cocktail.

Justice Kagan just delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court overturning the convictions of the “Bridgegate” officials, holding that federal corruption laws require officials to try to profit off of their misdeeds making petty revenge well within an official’s legal rights. To recap, Bridgegate involved New Jersey political appointees using their official authority to cripple a New Jersey city because the mayor was a political rival of Governor Chris Christie. They were eventually convicted of fraud, but now the Supreme Court informs us that no amount of corruption can land you in jail if you don’t make money off it. Huzzah!

The crux of the opinion is that the “object of the fraud” must be to obtain money or property. Prosecutors argued that the efforts to close down traffic in Fort Lee resulted in seizing government assets, but since that was merely a side effect of the effort to punish a Democratic politician, there’s nothing wrong with it.

It’s another entry in the McDonnell line of cases legalizing corruption on the premise that, once elected, nothing’s really illegal. No doubt this is necessary to enforce the Voting Rights Act.

The decision, like most Supreme Court opinions, carries weight far beyond the George Washington Bridge. With a president who told top aides “to think of each presidential day as an episode in a television show in which he vanquishes rivals” and at this moment is floating a trial balloon for cutting off COVID aid to Democratic-leaning states, this could not be a more welcome opinion. Now there’s no corruption without profit, and as soon as the Court gets around to kicking the emoluments case on standing, there will be no corruption with profit. The imperial presidency can sally forth unfettered by the strictures of law!

And through it all, Chris Christie must marvel at how well this has all turned out for him.


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.

Gender Equality in Law and the Precedent of Pandemic

Earlier this week, my colleague Bob Ambrogi blogged about seven ways that the pandemic will change the practice of law. Bob argues that post pandemic, lawyers will no longer fear technology, firms will embrace remote practice and reduce physical footprints, more legal services will be delivered online and courts will accelerate innovation.  But there’s one change notably lacking from Bob’s post: the impact of pandemic on gender equality within the legal profession.

As the coronavirus pandemic shut down schools and law firms and quarantined families, a few things changed.  For starters, the burden of childcare in many households by necessity fell to men as well as women. Granted, the impacts may not have been 50-50 down the middle – in many cases, women were still stuck with more responsibilities than their partners – but even so, for the first time, men discovered what it was like even for brief spurts to live the life without seams that most lawyer moms regularly endure.  

But there’s a second thing that’s changed as well.  We’ve also become more tolerant of kids in the background on the Zoom call, or a brief delivered at two o’clock in the morning because a lawyer-parent was trying to make the seven year old sit through class earlier in the day.  Where I once sweated over the big reveal – i.e., whether to disclose that I had kids — over the past few weeks, I found myself throwing caution to the wind and blithely explaining that I needed to reschedule a virtual deposition call because it conflicted with my daughter’s Phd exams and I’d promised to be on call to keep the dog from barking and distracting her. And just before pandemic reached my state, I told a judge that I would not be traveling to a status conference because I had to be available at home to take care of my daughter after her wisdom teeth were pulled. In pandemic, we’ve lifted the curtain separating our personal and professional lives, and for me, the transparency is liberating.

Now don’t get me wrong – I don’t expect these forgiving attitudes to continue when we eventually return to work. We humans have short memories, and six months from now when we’re largely back to normal, the days of dad tussling with a screaming infant while negotiating a deal on the phone will long be forgotten.  Courts will once again demand physical appearances; law firms will demand in-office facetime or withhold benefits from those who choose to work off site.

But here’s what won’t change – women lawyers’ belief that we can be just as professional on a conference call with the three year old scribbling under the desk. That we can be just as persuasive in a brief that’s been churned out from home while burning the midnight oil after the kids have gone to bed as we can if it was written from a desk. That we can rock the networking scene just as effectively by scheduling Zoom happy hours with other lawyers to discuss business as we could face to face hobnobbing at an after-hours conference.  Of course, many of us (like me) believed this all along and demanded our due anyway — but now women’s confidence in ourselves has become universal.

So what does that mean?  The next time a woman asks to remain on a high profile case while she’s out on maternity leave, she’ll make a powerful case that she can handle it just like  during pandemic. She won’t take no for an answer.   The next time a judge schedules a 5 pm in-person scheduling hearing, a woman lawyer will insist on the ability to do it remotely because she has to pick up her kids from school at three.  She won’t take no for an answer either. If women receive push back on their demands, they can cite to the pandemic precedent and fight back with the absolute conviction born of actual experience that they can make it work.

Pandemic may not permanently change the profession when it comes to work life balance and gender equality. But pandemic has changed us – the women who internalized the legal profession’s notion that having kids prevents us from being effective, or makes us appear unprofessional because it was drummed into our heads so many times. After pandemic, women now finally believe in ourselves.  Which is what it takes for change to happen for real. Hear us roar!

Florida Promises Most Packed July Bar Exam Ever To Own The Libs

While law school deans bristle at the grave injustice of New York (and Massachusetts) considering a staggered exam schedule in the era of COVID, Florida is fulfilling its mission to Make America Great Again by promising to hold the bar exam in July… and packing convention centers to do it!

It’s a move that’s applauded by the state’s law school deans who chose not to lobby the state for a delay or to explore alternative licensure, but instead wrote only that they’d prefer a September exam in addition to the July exam. Way to go! Really grasping the core issue.

Perhaps it’s time for the Grim Reaper to haunt the bar examiners.

• Administration in Tampa and Orlando. The Board will administer the July 2020 General Bar Examination at the Tampa Convention Center and the Orange County Convention Center to create additional space for social distancing. The Board will assign each applicant to either Tampa or Orlando.

• Screening Questions and Temperature Checks. FDOH officials will ask screening questions and check the temperature of all applicants, administrators, and proctors before they can enter an exam site. Applicants with a temperature of 100.4° or higher will not be allowed to sit for the exam. Applicants who leave the exam site will be required to be screened again before re-entry.

It’s not like there’s a problem with asymptomatic transmission or anything! Apparently the whole “Florida Man” meme applies to the bar examiners too.

• Social Distancing. Only one applicant will sit at a table, and tables will be at least six feet apart in all directions. Applicants must remain six feet apart when in line to enter or exit an exam site and during the administration of the exam.

• Wearing Masks. All applicants will be required to wear a mask during the exam and when in line to enter or exit an exam site. Applicants will not be allowed to sit for the exam if they do not wear masks. Applicants will be asked to leave the exam if they remove their mask during the exam. Administrators and proctors also must wear masks.

Over 2,600 people sat for the last July administration of the bar examination. Assuming an equal distribution of folks, that means each location will have 1,300 applicants which means the line will be around a mile and a half long. That seems… unlikely.

And what about out-of-state applicants — that category that so rankles deans — well, they had best budget for an extended stay in Florida!

• Out of State Applicants. The Governor of the State of Florida has issued Executive Orders 20-82 and 20-86 relating to persons traveling to Florida from out of state. Based on these or any subsequent Executive Orders, applicants traveling to Florida for the bar exam may be required to quarantine for 14 days or some other time period prior to the start of the examination.

A petition exists to get the state to reconsider this madness. You should probably sign it.

This is one of those slow-motion disasters that the NCBE could easily prevent by declaring that they simply won’t provide a July examination to the states, requiring everyone to move to September. But they’ve exhibited the sort of backbone we’ve come to expect and proclaimed that they’re here to support July bar exams for anyone willing to hold them.

Good luck, Floridians.

Florida Schedules July Bar Exam, With No Plans for September Test [Daily Business Review]


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.

More Associate Salaries Slashed At Am Law 100 Firm

We are now several months into the COVID-19 health crisis, and it’s increasingly clear there’s no solution on the immediate horizon. Faced with the prospect of even more economic uncertainty caused by the novel coronavirus, Biglaw firm are making tough choices to cut costs and maintain, as much as possible, their cash flow.

The latest firm making these COVID-19 austerity measures is Locke Lord, ranked 76th on the most recent Am Law 100 ranking. But as we’ve seen over and over, even historically successful firms have deemed it prudent to start making cuts now.

So what is going on at Locke Lord? According to Above the Law tipsters, they’re doing a 10 percent cut in associate salaries that began May 1 and are anticipated to continue through the end of the year. (And tipsters say this move is “in addition to the 15 percent of associate salary tied up in ‘automatic bonuses’ that get paid out Dec 31 at the 2050 hours threshold.”)

Plus, sources at the firm say there have been some staff furloughs that were initially described as folks who could not do their jobs remotely. However, tipsters describe the situation as “confusing” and they’re learning exactly who was let go “by getting automatic bounce back emails.” Not exactly the model of transparency one might hope for.

We reached out to the firm for comment, but have yet to hear back.

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.


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).

The Biglaw Firms Where Lawyers Did The Most Meaningful Pro Bono Work (2020)

Over the course of the last year — and especially during the past few months — members of the legal profession have sprung into action to deal with crisis after crisis after crisis, offering their services without cost to those in need. From challenging immigration policies to dealing with the ongoing fight for reproductive rights to securing freedom for the wrongfully convicted, lawyers in America were inspired to do their very best to help those who needed their assistance the very most.

But which law firms were able to contribute the most to society?

Each year, the National Law Journal honors the Biglaw firms that have taken on some of the biggest issues of our time, recognizing the firms that have made the most meaningful strides in offering access to justice. Here are the 18 firms that landed on the 2020 Pro Bono Hot List thanks to their expert handling of pro bono emergencies:

Please click on each firm name to read about the work they did to make our society more just. Congratulations to everyone involved in these worthy pro bono efforts.

The 2020 Pro Bono Hot List [National Law Journal]


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 Legal Profession’s Reckoning

Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series of posts on motherhood in the legal profession, in partnership with our friends at MothersEsquire. Welcome Lauren Stiller Rikleen to our pages.

What a difference a few months and a global pandemic can make in thinking about the future of the legal profession and diversity. When approached earlier this year by MothersEsquire about writing this article, it seemed an opportune time to reflect on why inequalities remain in the legal profession.

As someone who has been working in, writing about, and consulting to this profession for decades, I welcomed the chance to analyze why the two key measures of success — compensation equality and achieving equity partnership — remained an intractable challenge for women and minorities. I wrote the piece, sent it off mid-February, and promptly got on a flight to speak at a bar leadership retreat. Now, all those activities feel like they were from another time.

Ironically, the earlier draft observed that the diversity data was reminiscent of the classic movie Groundhog Day in which Bill Murray lives the same day over over. I wrote that the part of Murray was instead played by the thousands of women and diverse attorneys who daily faced the unaddressed institutional impediments that thwarted their careers because the fix required difficult conversations about money and power that leaders have avoided.

The irony, of course, was that, within a few weeks of submitting the article, all of us were living a very real Groundhog Day drama of social isolation. The question now is whether, in today’s frighteningly altered world, these challenges still matter.

My answer remains a resounding yes. The landscape may have changed dramatically, but if ever there was a good time for difficult conversations, it is now, as we learn to rebuild a drastically altered work environment.

Key impediments to a diverse and inclusive culture have always included a management structure unwilling to holding leaders accountable for diversity and inclusion metrics, a failure to insist that everyone adhere to a culture of mutual respect, a failure to eliminate workplace misconduct, and an unwillingness to offer flexibility without stigma. Nothing about the insidious coronavirus has made this less important.

My original article expressed optimism that changing demographics would shift attitudes. I observed a growing activism among law students that demonstrated a willingness to use their voices more strategically and effectively than ever before. For example, students had protested against law firms that required summer associates and new lawyers to sign arbitration and nondisclosure agreements in the face of misconduct. Law students were avoiding judicial clerkships with newer judges whose appointments may have been based more on their social agenda than their legal qualifications. Law student activism even extended into efforts to boycott a global firm for its representation of an oil company alleged to have misled investors about climate change.

I also wrote that challenges long labeled as “women’s issues” now reflected the aspirations of both men and women who seek flexibility without stigma and technology without strangulation. I observed a possible link between how young families were structuring their lives at home and what they seek and expect once in the workplace.

The article recommended — as I have for decades — that firms redefine the vague but career-damaging concept of “commitment” as a measure of someone’s value at work. Too many years and careers have been lost to the false assumption that motherhood equates to a lack of commitment unless accompanied by inhumane demonstrations of devotion that have no relationship to one’s capabilities and desire to succeed.

The past months have supported how arcane that notion of commitment actually is. Men and women have both been home, balancing client demands and firm needs while unexpectedly home-schooling their children and checking on their parents. The personal and professional have merged in ways that could never have been imagined, yet nonetheless handled with grit and grace.

Law students and young lawyers are now immersed in an unprecedented world of fear and uncertainty. Can they dare hold onto the aspirations they had before COVID-19 crashed their world? Will firms become so immersed in the crisis that diversity and inclusion are seen as the well-meaning concerns of a bygone era?

My original conclusion still holds. The successful emergence from this merciless pandemic will require creative minds and a willingness to rethink every structural component of the workplace. In a world where the mightiest have been humbled, there has never been a greater need for the talented, creative thinking that can only come from a diverse, multigenerational talent pool.

The tight constraints of an inflexible culture must be abandoned to fight a common enemy and then rebuild. The virus that paralyzed us has also forced a reckoning.

Firms must compete for talent, and the talented will want to vet firm culture.  Those with a reputation for respect and inclusion will hold a competitive advantage and a greater opportunity for institutional sustainability.

So, I remain optimistic that firms will respond to this grave challenge, take stock of their legacy, and create a better future for the profession. There really is no other choice.


Lauren Stiller Rikleen, president of the Rikleen Institute for Strategic Leadership, speaks, trains, and consults on diversity, inclusion, strengthening multi-generational teams, and the creation of a respectful workplace culture.  She is the author of the recently released book The Shield of Silence: How Power Perpetuates a Culture of Harassment and Bullying in the Workplace, as well as the author of You Raised Us, Now Work With Us: Millennials, Career Success, and Building Strong Workplace Teams. Her first book was Ending the Gauntlet: Removing Barriers to Women’s Success in the Law.

MDC Alliance disengage interaction with Zanu PF – The Zimbabwean

Job Sikhala

The National Standing Committee of the MDC -Alliance met today in Harare and made the following resolutions

1. The Standing Committee noted the perverse and insidious attempt by ZANU-PF and its proxies to dismember the MDC Alliance by executing a coup against the legitimately elected leadership of the MDC Alliance under the guise of implementing the equally insidious judgement of the Supreme Court which seeks to foist ZANUPF proxies as leaders of the MDC Alliance in brazen violation of the MDC Constitution.

2. The MDC Alliance Parliamentary Caucus shall forthwith suspend its participation in all Parliamentary processes, programmes and activities pending the party’s consultations with its structures and a final resolution of the National Council on the way forward given the ZANU-PF insidious attempted coup against the elected and legitimate leadership of the MDC Alliance.

3. The MDC Alliance shall forthwith disengage from all platforms in which the party has to interact with Zanu PF.

4.The Standing Committee noted that Zanu PF staged an illegal and unconstitutional coup against Robert Mugabe in November 2017 and yet another one on the 30th July 2018 against the people’s sovereign will by which the people had elected Nelson Chamisa as the President of the country.
5. The Standing Committee further noted the in progress attempt to stage yet another coup, this time against the leadership of the MDC Alliance duly elected at the party’s Congress in Gweru in May 2019, a Congress which has not been set aside by any Court of law.

6. The Standing Committee resolved to reject in toto and with utter contempt the ZANUPF and its proxies attempt to foist modern day Muzorewas as leaders of the MDC Alliance.

7. The Standing Committee maintains the truism that only the MDC Alliance has the power and authority to recall iMPs elected under its ticket.

*8*The Standing Committee resolved to urgently consult the structures of the party at Provincial and constituency levels through the National Executive Committee and the National Council on appropriate responses to the attempts to dismember the party by staging a coup against its elected leadership.

*9.*The MDC Alliance will not allow Zanu PF to hold a Congress under the name of the MDC. Zanu PF cannot write another political party’s constitution and hold a congress under its name.

*10.*The Standing Committee noted that Morgen Komichi, Douglas Mwonzora and Elias Mudzuri expelled themselves from the MDC Alliance by joining another party and thereby automatically expelled themselves from the party which has accordingly resolved to relieve them of their positions in the party and to withdraw them from all positions to which they had been deployed by the party.

*11.*The Standing Committee resolved to demand all monies due to the MDC Alliance under the Political Parties Finance Act and to take all necessary steps and measures to lain claim to its money.

*12.*The Covid-19 Supreme Court judgement has engendered an illegality by seeking to extend the mandates of the 2014 structures which had since expired. The terms of office of all 2014 structures expired in October 2019 and the toxic judgement illegally seeks to give a Lazarus moment by seeking to resurrect the expired mandate of the 2014 MDC-T structures.

*13*The meeting took note of the COVID19 pandemic and the dislocated livelihoods of the vulnerable and the majority of Zimbabweans who are surviving in the informal sector. The illegitimate regime has provided no safety nets whatsoever to assist the despondent Zimbabweans. They have instead destroyed the vending stalls where the majority of Zimbabweans are eking a living through informal trading

Post published in: Featured

​​​Africa: Government responses to COVID-19 should guarantee the protection of women’s rights – The Zimbabwean

Spokespeople available for interviews

Authorities in Sub-Saharan Africa must ensure their responses to the COVID-19 pandemic include specific protections for the rights of women and girls, Amnesty International, Women’s Link Worldwide and the International Planned Parenthood Federation Africa Region (IPPFAR) said in a report published today.

The document provides a roadmap for governments and regional organisations for taking the necessary measures to protect the rights of women and girls, who are often disproportionately affected in crisis situations. It highlights states’ obligations to guarantee the right to live free from discrimination and violence and calls on governments to ensure access to essential sexual and reproductive health services, commodities and information during the pandemic.

“The current COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the vulnerability of women and girls. Their health and wellbeing is not only negatively impacted by the disruption of essential sexual and reproductive services such as contraceptives counselling, maternal and newborn health, gender-based violence (GBV), and testing and treatment for HIV and sexually transmitted infections, but also their livelihoods and even their lives are threatened when sexually based crimes go invisible and stay unpunished,” says Marie-Evelyne Petrus-Barry, the IPPF Africa Regional Director.

“This is why the African Union, regional economic commissions, governments and women rights defenders ​​must redouble their efforts in ensuring that the sexual reproductive health and rights of women and girls are protected and upheld​ and violations of these rights are documented dealt with by justice systems.”

The organisations are calling for governments to take urgent action to protect the rights of women and girls, highlighting the specific gender risks which the COVID-19 pandemic poses.

Example highlighted in the report includes the right to live free of violence and any form of torture, inhumane or degrading treatment.

“During times of crisis and turmoil such as the one we are living in, women and girls face an increased risk of suffering violations of their rights. This is especially true for women already living in marginalized situations. For this reason, it is urgent that we work to ensure that their  rights are respected and guaranteed,” said Viviana Waisman, President & CEO of Women’s Link Worldwide.

“These guidelines are a roadmap to allow us to carry out this monitoring and advocacy work and demand that governments comply with their obligations and maintain their commitment to the rights and lives of women and girls during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

According to the report, the implementation of measures such as curfews, lockdowns or travel restrictions may lead to police brutality and violence which ultimately poses a risk for women and girls to being subjected to sexual violence. There are also concerns of increase in teenage pregnancies, as previously observed in Sierra Leone following the lockdown imposed to halt the spread of the Ebola epidemic. Governments should put safeguards in place to ensure women and girls are protected from sexual violence and have access to sexual and reproductive health services and commodities.

The organisations also call for better protections for refugee and migrant women. Africa hosts more than 25.2 million refugees and internally displaced people and houses four of the world’s six largest refugee camps in Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and Ethiopia.  Refugee camps in the region usually provide inadequate and overcrowded living arrangements that present a severe health risk to inhabitants.

“As COVID-19 spreads across the region women and girls have reportedly already faced an increase in domestic violence. Restrictions on movement, social isolation and lockdowns can make it even harder for women to access essential services like sexual and reproductive healthcare and protection from domestic violence,” said Samira Daoud, Amnesty International West and Central Africa regional director.

“We call on governments in the region to act urgently to prevent gender gaps increasing. Any measures taken to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic must respect and protect women’s rights, including the right to live free of violence and torture and other ill-treatment, and the right to access justice.

ABOUT OUR ORGANISATIONS

Amnesty InternationalAmnesty International is a global movement of more than 7 million people who take injustice personally. We are campaigning for a world where human rights are enjoyed by all.

IPPFAR: The International Planned Parenthood Federation Africa Region (IPPFAR) as the leading sexual and reproductive health (SRH) service delivery organization in Africa, and the leading sexual and reproductive health and rights advocacy voice in the region.

Women’s Link WorldwideWomen’s Link Worldwide is an international nonprofit organization that uses the power of the law to promote social change that advances the human rights of women and girls, especially those facing multiple inequalities.

Post published in: Featured

Mike Bloomberg Spends Fraction Of Campaign Budget, Actually Gets Something For It

Morning Docket: 05.07.20

* A class-action lawsuit has been filed over a water main break that recently occurred in Hudson County, New Jersey. Please make it so I don’t have to boil water again anytime soon. [Jersey Digs]

* An attorney may face a three-month suspension for using foul language during a deposition. Feel like we all know a few lawyers who should be put on notice by this. [ABA Journal]

* The New York Attorney General is appealing a decision that reinstated the New York presidential primary. [Bloomberg Law]

* A fifth murder trial is expected against a Maryland man accused of killing a security guard. It’s been a while since I’ve seen the movie Double Jeopardy, but this must be an interesting set of facts. [Baltimore Sun]

* The Attorney General of Texas is calling for the immediate release of a salon owner who opened her shop despite closures related to COVID-19. Maybe the AG just needed a haircut? [CBS News]

* All lawyers in Virginia are now going to be required to maintain a valid email address. Seems like this rule is a little overdue. [Virginia Lawyers Weekly]


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.