Category: News Feeds

Lawyers deserve all the flack they get for foisting legalese and other statutory conventions upon society. So when it comes time to explain the meaning of Christmas to a cold-hearted lawyer, maybe we should try to translate for the attorneys out there.

This image was kicking around social media over the last few days…

Alas the spirit of this statute will crumble at the Supreme Court when Justice Alito explains that the original public meaning of naughty was “possessing nothing” and lead the Court in declaring that poor people are automatically on the naughty list.

---

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.

Have you considered legal recruiting as a profession? As 2020 gets started, Kinney Recruiting is in growth mode. We (may) want you…and vice versa. Here are a few things about us, what we do, and how we do it that might help you decide whether working with us is for you or for the birds. If interested, write me directly and let’s start a conversation!

First of all, please know that plenty of us, me included, were insulted when someone first said, “You’d make a great headhunter for lawyers.” My first thought was to ask whether the question implied I was not so great at actually practicing law. Now, I can definitely say, “Thanks, Marisa, for raising the idea! You changed my life for the better!” So can everyone who works with us. If you’re a people-person, someone has probably already told you that you should consider legal recruiting. What else does it take?

For us, it’s important that the people on our team be smart but not stuck-up. You’re going to take a lot of abuse if you’re doing what you’re supposed to do. People won’t return your calls, clients will refuse to pay you for deals you are 100% owed a fee for, and people like a certain “Bert” I dealt with awhile back might even accuse you of violating the Canned Spam Act and threaten legal process. If you’re too full of yourself, you won’t make it. On the other hand, every truly successful recruiter I have ever seen has a pretty high IQ, good self confidence, and an even higher EQ. There’s a lot of data you need to know to make matches work. You also have to listen first, talk second, and lead always by example. It’s a delicate balance done right. Our style is not pushy; we try to be the most trusted broker. It works.

At Kinney Recruiting, we back up our trusted broker role with data and back office support. Our knowledge management and support team is second to none. Our recruiters also earn at the highest levels in the industry. We do not have strict restrictions based on territories, and our structure is designed to reward teamwork. Many of our competitors of much larger size are little more than a big brand-sharing arrangement; internally, the work is done in silos. Not us.

This is a full time job and a profession. To do well, you will need to work at least 40 hours per week, travel regularly across town or across oceans, and always be available. Our recruiters don’t just work 9-5 and become hard to reach after hours. We may not be in the office, but people can always reach us.

We have a lot of fun doing what we do, but we don’t do it only for fun. Our recruiters’ average earnings rival or exceed those of the attorneys they typically place. If you think you might be a fit, let us know. If you have a friend who you think would be AMAZING at legal recruiting, refer them to us for a conversation. For any successful referral, we pay a referral fees (the amount will depend on how well they do) which you can keep or donate to the charity of your choice. So, whether for yourself or someone else, get in touch and start a conversation!

***

Robert Kinney is the founder of Kinney Recruiting LLC. He can be reached day or night on robert@kinneyrecruiting.com.

The president of the United States was impeached for only the third time in history. Let the obscure legal theorizing begin! Joe and Elie break down the curious argument that the House doesn’t even need to hand over the articles.

And since recording this, Trump’s leaned into the idea that refusing to hand over the articles means the impeachment hasn’t happened, which adds a whole new layer to procedurally stupid to this era in American history.

When I was a summer associate over eight and a half years ago, I received my first smartphone. Even though I was only going to work at a firm for a few months, the firm decided to issue me a brand-new Blackberry, and since I only had dumb phones up until that point, I was really excited to finally get that phone. When I expressed excitement at receiving the device, the technology person at the firm told me that having a smartphone was a blessing and a curse. Although I would now have the convenience of a smartphone, people at the firm now knew that I could be reached around the clock and would expect me to respond to emails outside of normal working hours.

In the present day, pretty much every attorney has a smartphone, and communicating with people outside the office at all times of day is easier than ever. As a result, partners may wish to send emails to attorneys after hours so that associates can begin working on matters as soon as possible. However, barring truly extraordinary circumstances, bosses shouldn’t send emails over holidays or weekends, and that includes the holiday breaks many people in the legal industry take at the end of the year.

It may seem like common sense that bosses shouldn’t send unnecessary emails over weekends or holidays. Just because someone works for an employer does not mean a boss should expect their employees to be on call all the time, and managers should determine if an email is important before sending it over weekends or holidays. However, I have worked with many partners at several law firms who feel it is okay to send nonemergency (and sometimes completely unnecessary) emails whenever they wish, including weekends or holidays.

One time, earlier in my career, I had to attend a virtual training run by one of our firm’s biggest clients. A handful of associates and I attended the virtual training on a Friday, and the training was like pretty much any other type of workplace training in the legal profession. It lasted about an hour, and afterward, all of the associates went about their day.

The next morning (a Saturday), the main boss in our office decided to send an email to the attorneys who attended the training. The partner asked what everyone thought of the training and if there were any suggestions for improvement for future trainings. I was on a run at the time, but because I wanted to impress the boss by showing I was accessible on a Saturday, I stopped jogging and typed out a response on my phone. Within a half hour or so, most of the other associates responded to the partner, since they also probably wanted to impress the boss.

However, one attorney did not respond that day. This associate didn’t even respond to the partner the next day (Sunday). Rather, the attorney waited until first thing Monday morning to respond to the partner. This delay became the scuttlebutt around the office, since the other attorneys wanted to know if that associate had failed to review email over the weekend or if the associate was trying to make a point by not responding sooner.

However, the partner was in the wrong here, and thinking about this story now, I have a lot of respect for that associate. There was no compelling reason for sending that email on a Saturday, since there was absolutely no advantage to receiving feedback about the presentation over the weekend instead of during the workweek. Maybe the partner wanted to send the email out while the presentation was still fresh in everyone’s minds, but that seems like a poor excuse for interrupting everyone’s weekends when we could have provided this feedback on Monday or after the presentation on Friday.

Not all bosses flippantly send emails over holidays and weekends. One time, at a different firm, a partner emailed me on a Sunday about an emergent matter that needed to be handled the next day. An answer needed to be filed in a case, and the partner related some important details about the lawsuit and told me that he had placed relevant materials on my desk. This partner apologized profusely for disturbing my weekend, and I of course understood that the nature of the matter required that the partner email me over the weekend. It was extremely rare to receive an email outside of working hours at that firm, and partners respected their associates’ time off.

In any case, just because associates are accessible through email pretty much all the time does not mean partners should send emails to associates whenever they want. Employees deserve time off, and receiving emails from work can make it more likely that an attorney will burn out and provide less dedication during normal business hours. If a partner wishes to send an email to an associate over a weekend or holiday (or even at night during the workweek), the partner should evaluate if the email is absolutely necessary to send at that time or if it could wait until normal business hours. In that way, partners can respect the work-life balance of their associates while ensuring that emergent matters are handled as soon as possible.

---

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.

* Corey Lewandowski is suing his lawyer for malpractice. Maybe he should ask his former boss for a list of lawyers he can use. [Boston Globe]

* Attorneys for the House Judiciary Committee have hinted that more articles of impeachment may be filed against President Trump. [NBC News]

* Am attorney who abandoned his client after receiving $8,000 in settlement funds has been disbarred. [Bloomberg Law]

* Actor Edward Norton is set to be deposed in a case involving a deadly Harlem fire. He should be fine, he played attorneys on screen. [New York Post]

* A Minnesota “revenge porn” law has been struck down on First Amendment grounds. This is definitely what the founders intended… [Pioneer Press]

---

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.

Under Illinois law, how long should Kevin’s parents be going to jail for leaving their child alone to galavant to Paris?

Hint: Illinois Chapter 720 §12C-10 covers child abandonment which occurs when “he or she acts without regard for the mental/physical health and safety of the child and knowingly leaves that child (under the age of 13) without supervision for 24 hours or more.” In this case, “knowingly” should be met by the unbelievable level of recklessness.

See the answer on the next page.

We have reached the “LOL, nothing matters” stage of impeachment. What could be done, has been done. Now politicians are just making mouth noises, trying to show “toughness” to their bases, even as nearly everybody has tuned out for the Holidays.

In a world where this old people staring contest was “important,” Mitch McConnell, of all people, seems to have made the first blanch. McConnell came out this weekend to say that the Senate was at an impasse and everybody should go home. But the way he did it showed that he fundamentally accepted the premise of the Democratic proposition. From the Washington Post:

“The papers have to be physically brought over to the Senate, and we can’t go forward until the speaker does that,” McConnell said during an appearance on Fox News’s “Fox & Friends.” “She’s apparently trying to tell us how to run the trial. You know, I’m not anxious to have this trial, so if she wants to hold onto the papers, go right ahead.”

“Look, we’re at an impasse. We can’t do anything until the speaker sends the papers over, so everyone enjoy the holidays,” McConnell added.

Well, well, well. It might not sound like it, but that there is McConnell fundamentally agreeing with Larry Tribe, that the Senate cannot move forward until the House delivers the impeachment papers.

I’ll just remind people that McConnell did not have to agree to that position. If McConnell just wanted to start a Senate trial, with or without the formal transmission of the Articles of Impeachment, who would stop him? Iron Man? The media would cover a “fake” impeachment trial just as breathlessly as it will cover the “real” one. The Republican Senators who have debased themselves to committing to protect Trump, no matter what, would still act like Trump has been “acquitted,” transmission of papers be damned. McConnell acceding to the parliamentary game here is news.

Of course, McConnell is letting Pelosi’s argument win the day for a couple of reasons. First of all, McConnell is a Republican. Never forget the nihilist nature of the Republican party. Doing nothing IS A VICTORY in Republican logic. It always is. Like a swallow to Capistrano, Republicans always default to getting nothing done over something done. Making government not work usually plays to Republican advantages, so it’s actually not all that surprising that McConnell’s instinct here is to do nothing and see how that works out for him.

McConnell also likely believes he can get some mileage out of Professor Noah Feldman’s argument that the President isn’t really impeached until the House sends the articles over. I think Professor Feldman has the wrong of the argument. Feldman came out over the weekend to say that if the President has been impeached, then the Senate could start its trial now. He used the argument to highlight his position that the President hasn’t really been impeached yet. But, as I just said, the Senate could start its trial now, and literally nobody would show up to stop them.

McConnell is choosing not to start the trial because of McConnell, not because of the laws. As I’ve written previously, we are well beyond the safety and protection of the rule of law. All of this is just an exercise in raw political power. Right now, Nancy Pelosi has the power to make things difficult for McConnell, and McConnell evidently agrees. For now, McConnell thinks he’s better off letting impeachment hang over the President, while arguing to Republicans that the time we all saw the President impeached was just a false memory. Hey, it’s worked for Republicans before. Their ability to get their stupid voters to believe whatever McConnell and Trump wants them to believe is legendary.

Still, I think McConnell will eventually lose this particular battle. McConnell’s strategy requires patience, but his overlord, President Trump, is one of the most impatient men on the planet. Every day that Pelosi holds the articles is another day we talk about the thin-skinned President being impeached, without allowing any of his sycophants the opportunity to officially defend him. Remember when Republicans hired a “female assistant” to handle the questioning during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings? But Republican men became annoyed about not being able to scream their rape apologist defenses into the camera? So, they eventually sidelined the assistant so Lindsey Graham could have a nutty and then all the Republican men felt a lot better? You could see the same thing playing out here. Trump is a small, stupid man, the Republicans are small, angry men, being denied their opportunity to scream and yell “on the record” really pisses them off.

As it is right now, Pelosi has the power to… “re-impeach”(??) Trump whenever she damn well pleases. Maybe it’ll be after she gets some pro forma concession from the Senate? Maybe it’ll be after the Democratic primary field has settled to the point where half the Senators won’t have to stop campaigning to be at the trial? Maybe it’ll be at the time where Pelosi determines it will do the most damage to Trump’s re-election campaign? I was highly critical of how Pelosi handled the Mueller impeachment potential, but it turns out that Trump did in fact “self-impeach.” I’d be a fool who was unable to learn to assume anything other than the fact that Pelosi will send the Articles over, precisely at the best time to do so. “A wizard is never late, nor is [s]he early, [s]he arrives precisely when [s]he means to.”

So yeah, enjoy the holidays. There’s nothing to see here, folks. And really, I can’t think of a better present than not having to think about Trump for a couple of weeks.

McConnell accuses Pelosi of holding ‘absurd position’ [Washington Post]

---

Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and a contributor at The Nation. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.

Nancey Watson works with law firms on proposal strategy and in-house legal counsel to produce the best request for proposals (RFPs) possible. According to Watson, for in-house lawyers to find legal services providers that can meet their needs, it’s key to define goals and maintain clear communications about needs and wants.

Take Time To Define Your Goals

“Defining your goals is critical,” Watson said. “For example, if in-house counsel is looking for strategic advice, what exactly are they looking for? Are they looking for general regulatory insights? Or are they looking for information about the regulatory impact in a particular country?”

When in-house professionals refer to strategic advice, once again they have to be specific about what kind of strategic advice they are they looking for. “For example, if the goal is to improve efficiency, they need to specify what that looks like,” she explained.

Watson also pointed out that efficiency is a big, broad topic. “Are you talking about using technology to assist with matters such as contract management? And if so, what kinds of systems are being used and what kind of benefits might they present? How does it actually help improve efficiency for the company?”

Clarity about the process is also important. “What processes would a law firm have in place?” Watson asked. “Are they looking to process manual work faster and better using technology?” She continued, “For example, in contract management, we have been able to use technology to implement contracts much more efficiently than an individual could by cutting and pasting from a huge database of clauses and paragraphs.”

“Law practices are really being transformed by technology,” Watson said. “A huge number of new software companies are coming into this field. Some of these providers are new but others have been in the technology field for quite a while and have experience working with law firms. Now vendors recognize that on the corporate side, they need to work with in-house attorneys.”

Watson advised, “For example, if you are asking for improved efficiency in technology for RFPs, consider specifying how you want to use that technology. Will you post answers in the tool or platform? Will you want to provide templates and checklists? What kind of technology does the legal department already have? Have they grown it themselves or have they purchased it?”

She added, “I generally support RFP software because I’ve responded to a lot of proposals, and I can see firsthand that it is a great technological advancement for in-house counsel. In-house counsel can take the RFP response data and later on compare proposals to the actual performance. Using today’s technology, you can run a much more efficient, data-driven legal operation.”

Communicate The Key RFP Information Clearly

Once you have identified your goals, communicating them clearly in the RFP is critical. “The vaguer the questions are, the vaguer -– and less useful the information coming back from the law firm and other vendors will be,” Watson said. “The more specific they are, the more specific vendors can be when responding to the request for proposal.”

“For example,” she added. “RFPs often don’t state the purpose of the RFP. They think it goes without saying or is unnecessary. But it’s helpful to know upfront whether the RFP is looking for a lower fee, whether it’s for a panel firm, or whether they’re just looking for local representation.” She continued, “A lot of times they just give a brief overview of the company. Then they go right into questions. But it can be helpful and effective to discuss the overall goal of the request for proposal.”

“I love RFP requests that include upfront what they are looking for,” Watson said. According to her, not all proposals focus on the same thing.

“Some legal departments are looking for a 10% to 15% discount across the board. In many cases, when in-house procurement professionals or lawyers can say ‘we saved 10%’ on our annual legal spend they get kudos from management.” Watson said.

“And that is really because they’re getting pressured by either the GC or the CFO or management that they need to cut their overall legal fees by a certain percentage,” she explained. “Discounts are not the best way to cut down on the legal fees, but it is easy to calculate, and everyone seems satisfied. I recommend that in-house and law firms look seriously at alternative fee arrangements (AFAs) for a more flexible way of getting assurances for legal spend going forward and it does not have to be an annual occurrence but can be spread over the year.”

Selecting panel firms is another possible purpose for sending out a request for a proposal. “It is important to know upfront if it is a panel firm RFP,” Watson said. “Then the law firms know that they are going to get a shot at a decent volume of work. Many big legal departments have relatively small panels with five or six members.” She continued, “Of course, it’s important that that panel firms actually get the work, rather than assign work to non-panel firms who have an established relationship with in-house lawyers.”

Requests for local counsel is another particularity. “It’s important to define what you mean when you say that you are looking for a local counsel,” Watson said, adding, “Do they partner with a local law firm that they have worked with previously? Do they work through an organization? Or are they are really looking for law firms that have offices that are located locally and have local feet on the ground and bricks and mortar?”

Specification and communication are key when you’re soliciting legal services proposals. In the RFP process, all sorts of opportunities exist for miscommunication, redundancies, and inefficiencies. To cut through it all and ensure a smooth RFP process, be sure to communicate upfront as much as possible about what you want.

---

Olga V. Mack is the CEO of Parley Pro, a next-generation contract management company that has pioneered online negotiation technology. Olga embraces legal innovation and had dedicated her career to improving and shaping the future of law. She is convinced that the legal profession will emerge even stronger, more resilient, and more inclusive than before by embracing technology. Olga is also an award-winning general counsel, operations professional, startup advisor, public speaker, adjunct professor, and entrepreneur. Olga founded the Women Serve on Boards movement that advocates for women to participate on corporate boards of Fortune 500 companies. Olga also co-founded SunLaw, an organization dedicated to preparing women in-house attorneys to become general counsels and legal leaders, and WISE to help female law firm partners become rainmakers. She authored Get on Board: Earning Your Ticket to a Corporate Board Seat and Fundamentals of Smart Contract Security. You can email Olga at olga@olgamack.com or follow her on Twitter @olgavmack. 

JOHANNESBURG — The president of newly-formed Movement for Democratic Change Zimbabwe (MDC Zimbabwe), Thulani Ndebele, says his party is expected to beat Zanu PF in the 2023 harmonized elections as he has the people of Zimbabwe at heart.In his first-ever interview after registering his party last month with the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, Ndebele said he has already hit the ground running and is optimistic that his party would win the presidential and parliamentary elections.

“I decided to enter the political field after realizing that millions of Zimbabweans are suffering, millions of people are unemployed, people cannot buy basic commodities, people are facing a lot of challenges due to the current harsh economic situation in the country. This makes me believe that we will win the next elections as people want positive transformation in the country.

“I have realized that the MDC led by Khuphe is fighting against the MDC led by Nelson Chamisa, Zanu PF is fighting against the MDC led by Chamisa and as a result people are completely neglected. They are left out. As a result, I believe that we are the only alternative to these parties. We are getting a lot of support from the people and we will do our best to make sure that their dreams of a better Zimbabwe are met.”

He denied allegations that he is being used by the ruling Zanu PF party, saying he is looking for positive social, economic and political change in Zimbabwe.

Ndebele, who was supposed to contest the 2018 general elections under the National People’s Party led by Joice Mujuru, said he withdrew his name in the last minute after realizing that there were chances of splitting votes among opposition parties.

“I withdrew in favour of the MDC candidate. I realized that we were going to split the votes as the opposition. I resigned after I was quizzed by the NPP why I supported an MDC candidate.”

Asked why he chose the name MDC Zimbabwe, Ndebele said, “There is nothing wrong in using the name MDC. We are the true MDC and not these other MDCs.”

However, MDC activists are viewing Ndebele as a ruling party project designed to create confusion among MDC formations.

Douglas Mabuza, a member of the MDC formation led by Thokozani Khupe, said, “I only support the MDC led by Khupe, it’s the only legitimate MDC … This MDC Zimbabwe is fake.”

His views were echoed by Zanu PF member, Joseph Tshuma, who noted that all MDC formation won’t dislodge Zanu PF from power. “These parties are very confused. They don’t know what they want.”

The MDC was formed by various stakeholders in Zimbabwe in 1999 but has split over the years due to differences over political ideologies and push for change.