Category: News Feeds

July feels like a long time from now. Hell, last week seems like an eon ago. But for those charged with administering the July bar exam, that date must seem right around the corner. With July barreling down on them, they’re in a jam to quickly decide to postpone — or even cancel — this administration of the bar exam.

But if they do decide to cancel the bar exam, what happens next? In a recently published paper on the issue, as part of the working paper series is co-sponsored by the Center for Interdisciplinary Law and Policy Studies at the Moritz College of Law, authors Claudia Angelos, Sara J. Berman, Mary Lu Bilek, Carol L. Chomsky, Andrea A. Curcio, Marsha Griggs, Joan W. Howarth, Eileen Kaufman, Deborah Jones Merritt, Patricia E. Salkin, and Judith Welch Wegner present several options — and their pros and cons — for consideration.

The first option considered is a simple postponement. However, the authors cite a potential wave of outbreaks of COVID-19 that would stymie a postponed exam:

The probable wave-like nature of the pandemic means that it is impossible to predict a time in 2020 when any jurisdiction could safely schedule an exam administered to large groups of people. Postponing the exam until early fall 2020, in fact, might situate the exam squarely in the second wave of the disease. Postponing and then cancelling the exam would be devastating for bar exam offices, exam-takers, employers, low-income clients, and small businesses. Exam offices in many jurisdictions are leanly staffed and funded; asking those offices to prepare for a postponed exam, only to have it cancelled and perhaps rescheduled, might overwhelm those offices.

There’s also an option to take the bar exam fully online, and allow applicants to take the exam from their homes. Though that is what the GRE is doing, the bar exam is more old school. The National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) hasn’t yet moved the Uniform Bar Exam (UBE) online (which many jurisdictions rely upon) and local components of various jurisdictions’ bar exams are also not online. Having to make that monumental shift under the pressure of a pandemic is likely to be a move fraught with danger.

The paper also considers administering the bar exam to small groups (no more than 10 people). If that sounds like a logistical nightmare at best and an impossibility at worst (can you even imagine dividing up all the New York test takers into groups of 10?!) you aren’t alone. Besides, even small groups may run afoul of shelter-in-place orders, and it remains unclear whether we’ll still need them come bar exam time.

Also considered is extending emergency diploma privileges or diploma privileges plus some additional requirement (such as completion of bridge-the-gap programs or submission of affidavits) to law school graduates within the jurisdiction that they attended law school. The authors certainly see this as the most straightforward way to keep churning out new lawyers:

This option [emergency diploma privileges] is straightforward and easy to administer; based on Wisconsin’s experience, risks to the public are minimal. It would also be the most efficient way to get teams of licensed new lawyers on the front lines to help meet the legal challenges faced by our society as we first wage war to combat the virus and then rebuild profoundly damaged economic, social, and legal systems.

And while that will do wonders for law schools’ bar passage rates, it’s unclear how much support that option would have in the legal community. After all, some folks like the gate-keeping function of the bar exam, and this would be a radical departure.

They also discuss potentially expanding supervised practice rules for recent graduates:

Jurisdictions could temporarily modify these supervised practice rules to: (a) allow 2020 graduates of accredited law schools (including those who graduated in December 2019) to use these licenses through November 15, 2020; and (b) permit those graduates to use those licenses for any type of employer that provides close supervision by a licensed lawyer.

This could also potentially be used to allow those who successfully complete a supervised practice program to be permanently admitted to the bar.

But regardless of which option is ultimately selected, the authors urge the decision to be made quickly:

The progress of the COVID-19 pandemic makes one point abundantly clear: It is imperative to act quickly and plan ahead. It is already time to make decisions about the July 2020 bar exam. In addition to protecting the public health, we need to preserve the mental health of the candidates hoping to join our profession this year. Those candidates are already suffering educational, family, and financial disruptions. Some have lost part-time jobs needed to support themselves and their families. Others are struggling to care for children or older relatives. All are panicked about whether they will be able to take the bar exam this summer and, if not, how they will cope. Will they be able to find jobs without a law license? Will they study intensely for the bar only to discover that the exam has been cancelled or postponed? This emotional stress is building by the day: some students report that they are struggling to focus on their remaining classes because they are so worried about whether they will be licensed later this year.

It’s true — any certainty would be welcomed in these tumultuous times.

---

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).

Judge Marilyn Milian of television’s The People’s Court is well-known for proclaiming: “I wouldn’t believe you if you came in here with your tongue notarized.” As if such a physical interaction were ever possible, COVID-19 has rendered the thought of it not only gross, but dangerous. New York’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s recent executive order extinguishes the need for anything close to such an interaction, now permitting online/video notarization.

In order to deal with the spread of COVID-19 and the resulting social distancing, quarantining, and closing of businesses, the executive order — in effect until April 18, 2020 — allows notaries to acknowledge documents via audio-video conferencing. There are procedures set in place for this temporary allowance, including  the signers being present in New York State, identification for the signer at the video meeting and direct interaction between the signer  and the notary. The signer must email or fax the signed document directly to the notary on the same date it was signed. The notary may notarize the forwarded copy and she may repeat the notarization of the original signed document as of the date of the original execution when she receives the original signed document together with the electronically notarized copy within 30 days. This executive order is significant for several reasons. Unlike some other jurisdictions, New York does not generally permit online notarizations. Cuomo’s order will allow business transactions, real estate deals, and estate planning to proceed while citizens are heeding instructions to stay home.

Anyone who has ever attended a real estate closing can attest to the series of documents requiring notary acknowledgments for the several individuals usually all seated around the table. For estate planning, video notarization has significant effects as well. Documents that require notaries include powers of attorney, health care proxies and trusts. Last wills require witnesses, however, the affidavits of attesting witnesses to the last wills require a notary, when signed. During this time, when we are anchored at home, having the ability to take care of our personal affairs without jeopardizing our own health by traveling to meetings or offices, is helpful if not necessary.

New York’s parlay into video notarizing, albeit temporary, could indicate changes for the future. Several states already use online notaries and online document execution platforms. Some states have also transitioned into electronic wills, signing the documents online with a notary and witnesses present. For example, Florida recently passed the Electronic Documents Act.  Nevada and Indiana already permit electronic wills.

In recent years there has been a movement to depend less on in-person last will executions in favor of online video ceremonies. The Uniform Law Commission is a nonprofit association that has established the Uniform Electronic Wills Act which  endorses the execution of electronic wills. The plan is for legislation to allow a testator to execute his last will and testament  using an online notary, witnesses who may not be present in the same location, and encrypted technology.

As we continue our efforts to stay safe in our homes, let us embrace all that technology has to offer. It keeps us connected and  informed, and it also permits the continuance of our businesses and personal dealings. One of the United States’ most famous authors — Mark Twain (aka Samuel Clemens) — was also a notary. He became a notary in Nevada in 1864. Twain’s words always resonate, but in these uncertain times his wise advice is especially palpable: “Don’t wait. The time will never be just right.”

---

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 appreciate that students at all levels of their studies are concerned about the impact COVID-19 might have on how they might be assessed in the future. We wanted to move swiftly and put their minds at rest.

— Allison Friend, chief human resources officer at Hogan Lovells, in a message assuring law students that the firm looks at more than just grades and is willing to work with prospective candidates during these difficult times. Hogan Lovells further noted that during interviews, students will have the opportunity to “tell … [their] story when the time comes.”

---

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.

With states going on lockdown and forbidding nonessential businesses from opening their doors amid the coronavirus crisis, we knew it was only a matter of time before more law firms started conducting layoffs. Today, we can report on two more New York firms that have decided to part ways with their personnel thanks to the global health crisis.

Sources tell us that Am Law 200 firm Goldberg Segalla conducted staff layoffs “in large numbers” this past Friday. In an email to Law.com, managing partner Richard Cohen said the people who lost jobs were “largely … those whose responsibilities would be unessential or moot in the current work environment.”

He said the cuts “followed the firm’s previously established business continuity plan, which outlined reductions across various departments based on the circumstances for invoking the plan.”

He said the firm has provided severance but said it hopes to rehire once the situation improves. “Our expectation is that many of these team members will return to our firm as soon as possible,” Cohen said.

We’re told that those who were laid off at the firm will receive health insurance benefits through April.

Another firm that’s decided to conduct layoffs in the wake of COVID-19 is Belkin Burden Goldman, a Manhattan-based real estate firm. While co-managing partner Jeffrey Goldman politely said the firm had made “some adjustments to staffing,” former employees were a little more blunt:

Two sources, including a person who previously worked at the firm, told Law.com that about two-thirds of the firm’s professional staff, which had totaled about 25 people, was laid off without severance, while some staff and lawyers had their salaries halved.

Goldman declined to comment on the number of layoffs, severance or salary cuts, but wrote, “Our firm is committed to making every effort to retain all staff at the highest salaries possible until this crisis passes, with an intention of trying to return to full staffing as soon as economic circumstances permit.”

We wish all of the individuals who may be affected at both firms the best of luck while they seek new job opportunities in the legal industry and beyond.

If your firm or organization is 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 — we’ll never ignore you. You can email us or text us (646-820-8477).

2 NY Law Firms Cut Staff, Salaries Amid Coronavirus Crisis [New York Law Journal]

---

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.

Sen. Richard Burr continues to insist that his decision to liquidate nearly all of his investments on Feb. 13 was based solely on public news reports about the coronavirus—albeit not his own—and definitely not on all the confidential information he was getting as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a member of its Health Committee. Well, he’s certainly in good company there, and not only the company of the people running his colleague Kelly Loeffler’s blind trust.

Top executives at U.S.-traded companies sold a total of roughly $9.2 billion in shares of their own companies between the start of February and the end of last week, a Wall Street Journal analysis shows.

The selling saved the executives—including many in the financial industry—potential losses totaling $1.9 billion…. By far the largest executive seller was Amazon.com Inc. Chief Executive Jeffrey Bezos, who sold a total of $3.4 billion in Amazon shares in the first week of February, shortly before the stock market peaked, allowing him to avoid paper losses of roughly $317 million if he had held the stock through March 20, according to the Journal analysis….

More than 150 executives and officers individually sold at least $1 million worth of stock in February and March after having sold no stock in the previous 12 months, the Journal analysis found.

Five years ago, when we started this podcast, our first guest was Ryan Morrison aka Video Game Attorney. At the time he was just starting out, so we brought him back on to talk about where he is now. His firm, Morrison Rothman, provides trusted expertise in digital entertainment, intellectual property, and brand protection. If you’re wondering what you’re about to become way too into during the lockdown, it’s eSports.

And maybe he was the second guest… it depends on whether or not you count Above the Law columnists as guests. I’m going ahead and counting them as “contributors” and not guests, so there you go.

Thanks to Logikcull for sponsoring this episode.

The landscape of Biglaw recruiting is rapidly changing amid COVID-19. As law schools struggle with teaching students amid a pandemic, “normal” expectations have been thrown out the window. One of the biggest questions for many law students is what will happen with summer associateships.

While Biglaw firms are still contemplating what to do with 2Ls who have accepted offers for this summer’s programs, 1Ls are also wondering what’s going on. Summer associate interviewing starts nearly a year before students are slated to start at the firms, with the pre-coronavirus trend being to push those dates earlier and earlier. But in an email to students, Columbia Law School announced they’re pushing back their on-campus recruitment program until January 2021.

Columbia has decided to make that move because the law school’s spring semester is being graded on a pass/fail basis. Without a change to their recruitment calendar, students would be interviewing based only one one semester’s worth of grades. In order to better serve students that may need more than a semester to acclimate to law school, the new recruitment schedule will allow Biglaw firms to make hiring decisions with knowledge of the students’ Fall 2020 grades.

And Skadden, at least, is likely on board. Gavin White, global hiring partner at that firm already noted the ways the move to a pass/fail system will likely impact the summer associate opportunities students will have:

“Unless we change the timetable for hiring, you are hiring off of one semester of grades,” he said. “That probably hurts the students who have a less-than-stellar first semester, but otherwise would have been able to show an improvement for the second semester. They are sort of being robbed of that opportunity. That’s something we look at at—particularly students who don’t come from a privileged background may have a slower start at law school, but they figure it out in the second semester.”

And White suggested the exact move that Columbia has made:

“If you only have one semester of grades, it’s hard to get a meaningful and realistic assessment of someone’s academic performance,” White said. “What I would really like to see is schools move on-campus interviews into January and February, where we would have 2L fall grades.”

And the email from Marta Ricardo, Columbia’s career services dean, also notes that the move was based on “feedback from many employers,” so hopefully the move will not negatively impact the employment opportunities for Columbia students. Now we just have to see if the move is matched by any other elite law schools.

Read the full email from Columbia on the next page.

---

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).

I have written before regarding the “peculiarities” of the focus of the pro-life movement. For example, insisting that the grossly failed policy of criminal prohibition is the only viable moral solution to abortion while at the same time rationing and restricting the best anti-abortion tool we have (birth control), strains credulity. Nevertheless, and for what it is worth, I personally do not blame most pro-life movement members for these peculiarities. In my personal experience, if you can get the facts in front of most pro-lifers (often no small feat), on things like the effectiveness of birth control versus prohibition in driving down abortion rates, they will generally support the most effective approach. The problem is the leaders of the “pro-life” movement consistently demonstrate they will not accept reason and the result is irreparable harm to the movement itself.

One of the most recognizable leaders of the “pro-life” movement in recent years has been David Green, CEO of the retail craft chain store Hobby Lobby. Green was thrust into the “pro-life” spotlight after he challenged, and eventually won against the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that employers provide contraceptive care coverage. What is important to keep in mind, is that when the Hobby Lobby case was going before the Supreme Court, Green stated that it was his Christian beliefs that kept him from “pay[ing]” for certain forms of birth control — that medically operates no differently than other forms of birth control — and thus if he lost his case he would be facing fines that would logically force his business to shut down. In other words, Green argued during the Hobby Lobby case that his religious belief would not allow him to engage in an act that “might end a life” and thus if he had to provide contraception coverage to just one employee his business would face fines that would force closure.

In the “pro-life” world, it is obvious to see why Green became a lionized figure. I mean this guy stood up against the government based on a supposed deeply held religious abhorrence against doing anything that might end a life and won! During the past week, however, the shallowness and hypocrisy of Green’s beliefs was laid bare for all to see. As has been already pointed out by Elizabeth Dye here in the pages of Above the Law, Green has decided that in the face of our current pandemic, “all 900-plus Hobby Lobbys are staying open.” Now I ask you to think about this for one second, a man who said he would face financial ruin and likely foreclosure rather than provide one employee with certain forms of birth control (because it “might end a life”) is now refusing to close his stores when it certainly means that by remaining open, he is substantially adding to a public health risk that will end lives. Make no mistake, the public health crisis we are currently facing is not the flu, the risk to life is great. Prioritizing a stand against contraception coverage over a stand against a pandemic cannot be rationally attributable to a person who views all life as some sacred gift.

As we have already seen, however, instead of calling out this behavior for what it clearly is many of the most prominent “pro-life” voices have chosen instead to defend Green and deny he is putting his profits over a clear risk to life. By defending the indefensible, these “pro-life” leaders/voices are, in my opinion, the cause of the “pro-life” movements failure to gain a wider acceptance. Adding to the absurdity is these same “pro-life” voices will advocate that others take “a different” path while utterly refusing to take that same path of compromise themselves (acknowledging the obvious — that prohibition doesn’t work — would be a great start). Worse still, is that these leaders will praise states as “pro-life” strongholds based solely on their abortion stance while ignoring or refusing to mention grotesque examples of how these same states act as though life is anything but sacred. Or place a focus on issues like pornography, as a scourge deserving of constant attention while saying nothing about how the states they claim set such a fine moral example have literally institutionalized the rape and torture of women.

I guess the simple point to be made here is that if you want to be seen as pro-life you have to take pro-life stances consistently. David Green at Hobby Lobby has made clear the rotting hypocrisy, and counterintuitive thinking that plagues the “pro-life” movement’s leadership. Until and unless that hypocrisy and thinking is challenged by those inside the movement (I fully understand my limitations in this debate), “pro-lifers” can expect their movement to continue its contraction, rather than expansion. I remain on the side of life, I want to keep driving down abortion rates by giving human beings the tools to make their own procreation decisions. Will the “pro-life” movement acknowledge its faults and make room for me? If the actions of their leadership is any indicator the answer is a resounding no.

---

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

Seyfarth Shaw wrote one of the worst motions of all time this month, explaining how women’s soccer players shouldn’t be paid men’s salaries because they get pregnant and stuff. It was a motion so bad it got the client fired, with U.S. Soccer president Carlos Cordeiro stepping down amid the uproar created by the filing. Given how this is playing out, it seems as though the women have got this covered, but a “private attorney general” is trying to elbow into the proceedings.

The gist of the motion is to get Donald Trump to focus on the national emergency Seyfarth Shaw has created with its brief:

This… isn’t a RICO thing, man.

The motion doesn’t make much sense seeing as it asks Trump to do something useful which is like asking Thailand to stop Alex Morgan. At least include a paragraph explaining how taking action makes money for his hotels or hurts Mitt Romney… something to get him interested.

But while it’s easy to pick at the flaws in the filing, at least the guy’s heart is in the right place. Not everyone understands the legal system, but everyone should all be capable of grasping that Seyfarth Shaw’s motion was a clumsy extension of an ongoing effort of “Intimidation [and] Hostility” toward the players. It’s just a gussied-up retread of all the sad misogyny the players hear every time they have to talk about pay. It’s nice to know people out there are hearing the players.

That said, pro se folks have enough troubles getting their own cases handled… maybe steer clear of intervening in someone else’s.

But hey, this private attorney general hasn’t tried to suspend habeas corpus yet so he’s got one up on the real attorney general.

Earlier: U.S. Soccer HAS To Pay Men More, Because Playing For A Crowd Of Hooligans Is A Big ‘Responsibility’
When You Write A Brief So Bad It Gets The Client Fired

---

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.

As I wrote in Part I of this series, the FDA firmly opines that the sale and marketing of most hemp-derived cannabidiol (hemp CBD) products is unlawful in the United States and has gone as far as describing CBD as a “potentially harmful substance.” Part II is dedicated to a brief examination of the state-by-state map of hemp CBD regulations across the country.

Even though hemp CBD is a no-no for the FDA, states have already adopted their own legal approaches to regulating hemp CBD products that are not necessarily consistent with the FDA’s current position and/or that altogether violate that position.

Some states, such as Colorado and Oregon, allow the manufacture and sale of all hemp CBD products, including foods, dietary supplements, smokable products, and cosmetics. Other states, like Idaho, Iowa, and Mississippi, strictly prohibit the production and/or sale of any such products unless hemp CBD is used for “medical treatment.”

A number of states, including California, Michigan, and Nevada, ban hemp CBD foods and dietary supplements but seem to take no issue, at least expressly, with the sale of other nonfood or nonbeverage products, such as hemp CBD cosmetics. And a handful of states, counting Kentucky and Texas, allow the sale and marketing of hemp CBD foods and dietary supplements but strictly prohibit the sale or restrict the processing and manufacturing of hemp CBD smokables within their borders.

To top it all off, some of the states that legalized the sale of hemp CBD products have their own set of regulations, including but not limited to registration and/or permitting, labeling, and testing requirements. In Louisiana, for example, hemp CBD cosmetics may only be sold by businesses that have established residence for two years prior to applying for and securing a CBD Dealer Permit from the Department of Revenue, Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Control.  In Oregon, any finished hemp CBD product must be free of certain pesticides and contain no more than 0.3 percent total THC before it can be sold to end-use consumers. And in Utah, hemp CBD products must meet very specific labeling and marketing requirements, including but not limited to, labels containing a scannable bar code, QR Code, or web address linked to a document containing information pertaining to the product name, batch identification number, and a downloadable link to a certificate of analysis for the batch identified.

This patchwork of state-by-state regulations forces manufacturers and distributors of hemp CBD products to follow a variety of hemp CBD regulations in each state where these products are sold and must limit sales to jurisdictions in which hemp CBD products are deemed lawful -– all in the face of the FDA’s current enforcement position.

This wide range of often conflicting state regulations, combined with the lack of any formal federal legal pathway for the sale and marketing of hemp CBD products, makes it nearly impossible for hemp CBD stakeholders to meet compliance standards. Yet, the industry is begging to be regulated by the Feds. So far, the FDA has received over 4,000 comments from shareholders on the safety, manufacturing, product quality, marketing, labeling, and sale of hemp CBD products. Clearly, a uniform federal regulatory framework would better ensure uniform compliance, help legitimize a stigmatized industry, protect and educate consumers, and ultimately, boost the US economy. Of course, the states will likely still be free to set their own hemp CBD regulations, but at least everyone would be then be on an even federally lawful playing field. So, here’s to hoping that the FDA starts to serve its role of “coxswain” to help the CBD industry follow its course and succeed.

---

Nathalie Bougenies practices in the Portland office of Harris Bricken and was named a “2019 Rising Star” by Super Lawyers Magazine, an honor bestowed on only 2.5% of eligible Oregon attorneys. Nathalie’s practice focuses on the regulatory framework of hemp-derived CBD (“hemp CBD”) products. She is an authority on FDA enforcement, Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act and other laws and regulations surrounding hemp and hemp CBD products. She also advises domestic and international clients on the sale, distribution, marketing, labeling, importation and exportation of these products. Nathalie frequently speaks on these issues and has made national media appearances, including on NPR’s Marketplace. Nathalie is also a regular contributor to her firm’s Canna Law Blog.