Morning Docket: 10.09.20

The Cryptkeeper in courtroom attire via YouTube screenshot

* A $50 million lawsuit is being filed on behalf of a woman who was declared dead and later found alive at a funeral home. This sounds like an episode of Tales from the Crypt… [Fox News]

* A Maine lawyer is accused of sexual misconduct and other unethical acts against indigent clients he represented. [ProPublica]

* Michael Flynn’s lawyer is calling for the disqualification of a judge overseeing Flynn’s criminal case. [National Law Journal]

* A New Jersey lawyer has been suspended from practice for accepting retainers from clients and performing no work on the files. [New Jersey Law Journal]

* The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Yale University yesterday over admissions practices that are allegedly unfair to Asian and white applicants. Yale must have some decent lawyers that can represent it… [Wall Street Journal]


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.

The Surprising Upside Of The Online Bar Exam — See Also

Say What You Will About The Online Bar Exam (And There’s A Lot Bad To Say): But this woman finished taking the exam after her water broke DURING the test, and that’s only because it was online.

More Biglaw Layoffs: At Baker Botts this time.

Sidley Settles Diversity Claims: Not that they admit they did anything wrong, mind you.

The Question Is The Whole Damn Point: Why Kamala Harris should have absolutely agreed to Court packing, for now.

The Trump Administration Really Can’t Govern: DHS edition.

The Plot To Kidnap The Michigan Governor: 2020, amirite?!?!

This Biglaw Firm Is Showing Some Impressive Growth

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 Biglaw firm has increased its headcount the most (as a percentage) over the last 12 months across all offices, without a merger to boost their numbers?

Hint: This firm’s headcount went up 17 percent the last 12 months and the firm made $183,761,000 in gross revenue in 2019.

See the answer on the next page.

New Tech Tool Helps Organizations Achieve Diversity and Inclusion | LawSites

A technology platform unveiled today is designed to help organizations develop and implement plans to achieve greater diversity, equity and inclusion.

The platform helps organizations assess their diversity and inclusion efforts, create a plan of action, and generate the policies and paperwork they need to move forward.

The platform was developed by SixFifty, the technology subsidiary of the law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, in collaboration with employment attorneys at Wilson Sonsini, and with additional assistance from an independent diversity consultant.

“We’re hoping that this will help companies make meaningful progress on diversity and inclusion in a way that doesn’t take up substantial resources, time or money,” said Kimball Dean Parker, SixFifty’s CEO. “Companies that wouldn’t be able to do this before will now be able to do it at an affordable price.”

The platform guides users through a series of questions regarding the key legal and other considerations involved in implementing a diversity and inclusion program. It then produces an assessment and plan of action that a business can use to guide its implementation of a program.

The platform also uses the answers to create custom policies and supporting employment paperwork that an organization would need to launch the program and communicate about it with employees. SixFifty will work with Wilson Sonsini to ensure that all of these materials are kept up to date with developments in the law.

Another feature is an online employee feedback portal by which companies can confidentially collect and manage comments and concerns submitted by employees about the company’s diversity and inclusion efforts. The platform logs all communications to create a record of the company’s efforts around diversity.

In addition to the platform, SixFifty will provide customers with consulting services to customize the program to their business needs.

SixFifty is offering the platform for free to nonprofit organizations. For all other organizations, the price starts at $5,000 and ranges up to $15,000 depending on the organization’s size.

SixFifty has previously developed tools to:

LawNext Episode 32: Kimball Parker, Head of Wilson Sonsini’s New Tech Subsidiary SixFifty

Does The Bar Exam Need More Than A Facelift?

When I was a reporter for an all-news AM radio station in the early 1970s, and there was a story that needed some “man on the street” comments (remember that this was the early 1970s and women were still pretty much seen but not heard), a street reporter would head out to a location where there might be a variety of different people to speak with. This was in the pre-Starbucks days. Reporters would ask citizens for their thoughts on a particular topic, usually something in the headlines to get a sense of how they felt. The results could be surprising.

Talk about surprising. The National Committee of Bar Examiners conducted a poll to see how people felt about an in-person bar exam. Why the NCBX thought that nonlawyers would have opinions on this and why those opinions would matter is a mystery.

Any sense at all that the NCBX is trying to justify its own existence?

Just like any other lawyer, I like being right, but sometimes, I wish not. And that’s the case with the online bar exam given earlier this week. I had hoped that everything would have run smoothly but no such luck. I hate being right in this case.

There were snafus, there were fubars, there were choices made by examinees who ended up dropping out of the exam. After all the angst of the past months, to decide to drop out of the exam is disheartening and dispiriting, not to mention the economic consequences. Two words: it sucks.

For the examinees who had pinned their hopes on successful, albeit delayed, bar passage, dropping out must have been an excruciating decision. Apparently, examinees withdrew for the same reasons that Joe Patrice and I had predicted all along: trouble opening the platform, overwhelmed and unavailable tech support, a complete failure to formulate any contingency plan, and racially discriminatory monitoring. And, shockingly, but it probably shouldn’t be, some examinees withdrew at the suggestion of the bar examiners.

Here’s what really irritates me: the cavalier attitude that seems to permeate the realm of bar examiners. The total lack of empathy, lack of any Plan B, lack of anything that seems to understand the reality of an online bar exam in a pandemic world. I seriously doubt that an in-person bar exam will happen next February or even next summer given the problems with reducing the spread and the uncertainty of a vaccine timetable. What are the bar examiners going to do differently next time?

As Joe pointed out, the blatant racial discrimination based on failing to distinguish color is shocking. There can be and should be no excuse for not being able to discern differences of color. For a profession so lacking in attorneys of color to not be jumping up and down and yelling that this is unacceptable is unacceptable. How can we even say the profession is working on diversity and inclusion when examinees of color can’t even be seen on camera? Is this “do what we say, not what we do?” What’s wrong with us?

How about these for essay questions? What if an online bar exam were not able to discern examinees of color and as a result, they couldn’t take the exam? What if an online bar exam had tech support issues and examinees couldn’t reach tech support for an extended period, if at all? What if an in-person exam exposed examinees to COVID-19 or some other highly infectious contagious virus that we don’t even know about yet? Discuss all potential theories of liability.

Why should examinees have to “try again,” when this disaster has not been of their making? Anything unfair about making them go through the drill yet again? What guarantees (ha!) can ExamSoft and the bar examiners make that these snafus won’t repeat themselves? They may be able to fix these, but what about other snafus that may crop up?

Does anyone care about the plight of the examinees, especially those who withdrew, through no fault of their own?

Anyone draw any connection between fraternity hazing and the bar exam?  The bar exam is a form of hazing. The bar exam can certainly be hazardous to health. Failure to pass has resulted in death by suicide. If you need help going through this tough time, please seek it. Don’t wait. You are not alone.

As Joe’s post points out — and this is not the first time he has made this argument — there needs to be a serious re-evaluation of the purpose of the bar exam and whether it truly tests the skills that lawyers need to have. I don’t think any lawyer would give an off-the-cuff opinion without research, and yet, in a very real sense that’s what the exam asks. I also don’t think that the bar exam tests for the necessary “soft skills” that lawyers need to have if they are going to be successful practitioners.

What kind of lawyers do we want among us? Do we want someone who can rattle off the Rule Against Perpetuities or someone who can counsel clients in the most effective, efficient way? Ironically, the bar exam can be a bar to those who could contribute to the profession.

Living as I do in in LA-LA land, aka plastic surgery central, perhaps the bar examiners need to take a good long look at themselves and figure out whether an exam facelift is sufficient, or whether a total makeover is needed. I think it’s the latter.


Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.

New October CLE: Attorney Impairment During COVID, Hot Topics in Trade Secrets, and More

October is here, and the 2020 election is right around the corner. This month, Lawline is bringing you election-themed content, while continuing to keep you up-to-date on shifts in the legal landscape due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Whether you want to gain insight into recent immigration updates, help your clients stay compliant with political donations, or learn about recent developments in trade secrets law, something is sure to pique your interest. Check out these highlights:

  • Surveying the Impact of COVID-19 on Immigration Compliance (Update). This program identifies the impact that COVID-19 has had on immigration issues, such as changes to the Form I-9, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) policies, USCIS operations, and more. Airing October 8, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. (EST).
  • Political Issues for 501(c)(3) Nonprofits. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit can do a lot of good in this country, however, they are often advised not to engage in political action. This program will walk attorneys through tools, tricks, and avenues attorneys can find for political engagement by a 501(c)(3) organization. Airing October 15, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. (EST).
  • Hot Topics in Trade Secrets: The In-House Counsel Perspective. The COVID-19 pandemic has made it more challenging for businesses to keep trade secrets private due to new methods of working. This program will discuss the many recent challenges and opportunities businesses face in protecting trade secrets. Airing October 22, 2020 at 4:00 p.m. (EST).

If you can’t attend a live webcast, don’t worry! All of our courses go on-demand within 48 hours after airing (and you can check them out with our free trial). Check out some recent highlights:

  • Estate Planning and Pandemics: What Lawyers Should Consider for Both Their Practice and Personal Affairs. The fear of contracting COVID-19 has prompted many people to re-examine their planning documents and advance directives. This program will review how to best protect client assets, and which estate planning documents are most important. Originally aired on September 10, 2020.
  • Understanding Congressional Oversight and Presidential Immunity. Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Vance were two major 2020 Supreme Court decisions dealing with congressional oversight and presidential immunity. This program reviews both cases in detail, analyzes legal theories at play, the Court’s decisions, and the impact these cases might have on congressional oversight and presidential power moving forward. Originally aired on September 24, 2020.
  • Election Protection for Attorneys: How to Help Voters in 2020. The 2020 election is fast-approaching and highly contentious. This program will identify the major problems that many voters are facing and how to overcome them, and discuss voting mechanics such as voter registration, provisional ballots, early voting, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and more. Viewers are encouraged to sign up as poll workers or Election Protection volunteers! Originally aired on September 25, 2020.

Related Content:

  1. Are You Prepared for the Impact of the 2020 Election on Your Practice?
  2. What New Jersey Attorneys Are Watching Now
  3. Advocating for Employees in the Workplace During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Sorry, Associates, But Fall Bonuses Are Probably Over

Some firms didn’t want or need to give the bonuses so they didn’t. And then, once firms like those three did not give them, it was cover for most firms not to give them if they didn’t want to give them, and most didn’t want to give them.

— Kent Zimmermann, a legal consultant wth the Zeughauser Group, commenting on the recent dearth of special fall bonuses for associates after Kirkland & Ellis, Cravath, and O’Melveny declined to match the Davis Polk scale. This week, both Paul Weiss and Fried Frank declined to match as well, with Paul Weiss chairman Brad Karp noting that “[p]roviding a special cash reward in direct response to the pandemic does not feel right at this time.”


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.

GE Would Probably Have Been Better Off Doing No Accounting At All

Rightwing Militia Planned To ‘LIBERATE MICHIGAN’ By Kidnapping The Governor

(Photo by Handout/DNCC via Getty Images)

Six Michigan men were arrested by federal officials today and charged with conspiring to kidnap and kill Governor Gretchen Whitmer. Multiple informants and undercover agents recorded the alleged plotters surveilling the governor’s vacation home, assembling explosive devices, and plotting to take her to a secure location in Wisconsin to put her on “trial” for “treason.”

Or perhaps not.

“Have one person go to her house. Knock on the door and when she answers it just cap her . . . at this point. Fuck it,” Adam Fox, the alleged leader of the group, said.

We were given to understand that it was Antifa BLM anarchist supersoldiers who were the real danger to democracy. But apparently it’s a bunch of crazed militia dudes in northern Michigan plotting to overthrow the government.

“In all honesty right now . . . I just wanna make the world glow, dude. I’m not even fuckin’ kidding. I just wanna make it all glow dude,” Fox said. “I don’t fuckin’ care anymore, I’m just so sick of it. That’s what it’s gonna take for us to take it back, we’re just gonna have to everything’s gonna have to be annihilated man. We’re gonna topple it all, dude. It’s what great frickin’ conquerors, man, we’re just gonna conquer every fuckin’ thing man.”

Fox is alleged to be a member of the Three Percenters, a rightwing militia network which fancies itself America’s patriotic guardians.

In addition to federal charges by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Michigan, Michigan State Attorney General Dana Nessel promises further charges under Michigan’s anti-terrorism act.

The complaint barely mentions the link between the militia activity and the covid lockdown measures Whitmer imposed in the spring — much less the president’s incendiary agitation against it — but the timing is very clear.

Whitmer (aka “this tyrant bitch”) issued the first lockdown order on March 10, around the same time that Fox and alleged co-conspirator Barry Croft came under FBI surveillance because the agency” became aware through social media that a group of individuals were discussing the violent overthrow of certain government and law-enforcement components.”

In April, Trump encouraged his followers to “liberate” their states from tyrannical public health edicts.

And on June 6, anti-government radicals from several states met in Ohio to discuss creating “a society that followed the U.S. Bill of Rights and where they could be self-sufficient.”

At one point, several members talked about state governments they believed were violating the U.S. Constitution, including the government of Michigan and Governor Gretchen Whitmer. Several members talked about murdering “tyrants” or “taking” a sitting governor. The group decided they needed to increase their numbers and encouraged each other to talk to their neighbors and spread their message. As part of that recruitment effort, FOX reached out to a Michigan based militia group (the “militia group.”)

Throughout the summer, the group attempted to mobilize “200 men” to storm the State Capitol building in Lansing. But, having failed to reach their numbers, the group turned its attention instead to locating Governor Whitmer’s vacation home, where they planned to kidnap her.

“Snatch and grab, man. Grab the fuckin’ Governor. Just grab the bitch. Because at that point, we do that, dude — it’s over,” Fox said on July 27.

The plotters purchased a taser, built explosive devices, discussed sending mail bombs to the governor, and planned to blow up a bridge to delay a police response to the scene.

“If the ???? go????, it also ❌  the ????,” wrote Ty Garbin, another co-conspirator.

Which is funny, because these goobs were under FBI surveillance from the jump, with multiple undercover officers and informants in their ranks recording every interaction.

But it’s also not funny at all, because the Justice Department is publicly warning about the dangers from groups of racial justice protestors, while heavily armed militias are plotting to literally overthrow the government.

Criminal Complaint [US v. Fox, Case 1:20-mj-00416-SJB (W. D. MI, October 6, 20200]


Elizabeth Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

50 Positions Will Be Eliminated By October 15th At This Biglaw Firm

With increasing frequency, we are seeing Biglaw firms revamp their model of business to become leaner. That means that staff often find themselves recipients of pink slips as the changes brought on by COVID-19 become permanent. The latest firm to cut staff jobs is Baker Botts, a firm that placed 58th on the latest Am Law 100 ranking.

After recently announcing bonuses for exceptional performance and walking back their COVID-19 austerity measures, the firm has decided to make some more big changes. Yesterday, leadership at the firm sent around an email, describing the new world the firm finds itself in:

Today’s environment is requiring that essentially all businesses re-examine every aspect of their operations and traditional assumptions, as we now see our daily work habits changing on a long-term basis. The way our lawyers and our support staff work together has experienced a fundamental shift.

As a prudent business, we must be responsive to this shift and ensure that we align our supporting resources with our clients’ and the Firm’s business needs in this changed environment.

That can mean only one thing: layoffs. According to the internal email, available on the next page, approximately 50 staff positions have been eliminated, and impacted employees will find themselves out of work next week (October 15th).

A spokesperson for the firm had this statement on the layoffs:

“Yesterday, approximately 50 staff members across the firm, in Office Services and Secretarial Services, were informed that their positions will be eliminated effective October 15. We will be parting ways with some wonderful people to whom we are deeply grateful for all they have done for the firm. However, we must be responsive to the fundamental workplace shift created by the pandemic to ensure that we align our supporting resources with our clients’ and our own business needs in this changed environment.”

As always, best wishes to those that suddenly find themselves out of work.

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).