Category Added in a WPeMatico Campaign
More Lawyers?: The pandemic may have a curious side effect.
Dog Bites Man: Boies Schiller said it wants to refocus and get smaller and then people started leaving… so where’s the twist?
Keeping His Day Job: Senior associate reaches out to the world through song.
Summering Inside: How to be a summer associate in quarantine.
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. She founded the Women Serve on Boards movement that advocates for women to participate on corporate boards of Fortune 500 companies. She authored Get on Board: Earning Your Ticket to a Corporate Board Seat and Fundamentals of Smart Contract Security. You can follow Olga on Twitter @olgavmack.
(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Law enforcement officers and officials are given a considerable amount of discretion. Too bad they so rarely use it.
The sheriff of Marquette County, Wisconsin decided to exercise his considerable discretion by threatening a teenager’s parents with jail over her Instagram posts. And for that misuse of his discretion, Sheriff Joseph Konrath is being sued. (h/t SBWisLaw)
A high school sophomore sued the Marquette County sheriff Thursday after he threatened to take her or her family to jail for her post on Instagram warning that she believed she had been infected with coronavirus.
The student, Amyiah Cohoon, went on a spring break trip with her class to Florida. It was cut short due to coronavirus concerns. Once she returned home, she developed COVID symptoms and went to the doctor. After a couple of hospital trips, she tested negative for the virus but was advised it was possible she had had it earlier but had been tested too late to get a positive result.
As was the style at the time, Cohoon made some social media posts about her health situation that weren’t entirely accurate.
She posted three messages on Instagram about her situation — one saying she wouldn’t be back for a while because she had coronavirus, one saying she might have to stay in the emergency room and one with her wearing an oxygen mask.
“I am still on breathing treatment but have beaten the coronavirus. Stay home and be safe,” she wrote in the last post.
These may have been slightly exaggerated. But they also could have been 100% truthful. The teen probably had no way of knowing. The lawsuit [PDF] quotes a release form from the ER saying Cohoon showed symptoms “consistent with COVID-19.” Not only that, but health experts have discovered some infected patients are testing negative for the virus.
Consistent with what the doctors told the Cohoons, some health experts believe that “nearly one in three patients who are infected [with COVID-19] are nevertheless getting a negative test result.” See Christopher Weaver, Questions About Accuracy of Coronavirus Tests Sow Worry, Wall Street Journal (Apr. 2, 2020).
Whether or not the posts were 100% accurate, the response from the Sheriff’s Department was 100% idiotic.
During the evening on March 27, Defendant Patrol Sergeant Cameron Klump from the Marquette County Sheriff’s office came to the Cohoons’ home. Amyiah answered the door, and Sergeant Klump said he needed to speak with her father.
After Mr. Cohoon came outside, Sergeant Klump explained that the school “superintendent” had complained to Defendant Sheriff Joseph Konrath about one of Amyiah’s Instagram posts. Sergeant Klump showed Mr. Cohoon a screenshot of Amyiah’s third Instagram post (described in paragraph 33 above). A true and accurate copy of the cropped screenshot Sergeant Klump showed Mr. Cohoon is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.
Sergeant Klump stated that he had direct orders from Sheriff Konrath to demand that Amyiah delete this post, and, if she did not, to cite Amyiah and/or her parents for disorderly conduct and to “start taking people to jail.”
The sergeant also claimed Sheriff Konrath wanted the post removed “because there were no confirmed COVID-19 cases in the county at the time.”
The sergeant then told Amyiah directly that the sheriff had ordered him to issue citations for disorderly conduct if her post was not removed. Fearing her parents would be arrested, Amyiah deleted her posts.
Clearly, this conduct violated Amyiah’s First Amendment rights. If the best you can offer is something vague about “disorderly conduct,” you really have no case. Whether or not the posts were 100% medically accurate is beside the point. And the statements made by the sheriff’s deputy suggest the only reason the sheriff was demanding their removal was to keep the county’s case numbers at zero. Secondary to that was mollifying the school, which has issued its own stupid statement about Amyiah’s posts.
Administrator Meicher’s update stated that, “It was brought to my attention today that there was a rumor floating out there that one of our students contracted Covid-19 while on the band trip to Florida two weeks ago. Let me assure you there is NO truth to this. This was a foolish means to get attention and the source of the rumor has been addressed. This rumor had caught the attention of our Public Health Department and she was involved in putting a stop to this nonsense. In times like this, the last thing we need out there is misinformation…”
The lawyer representing the sheriff has confirmed the actions taken by the sheriff violated Amyiah’s rights… if only inadvertently. Not all lawyers are Constitutional experts, but any lawyer engaged in defending someone against First Amendment claims should know better than to say something like this:
Sam Hall, an attorney for the sheriff, said the teenager “caused distress and panic” among other parents by claiming she had contracted the coronavirus despite getting a negative test result. (And the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel — beneficiary of First Amendment protections — should definitely know better than to state this refers to speech not protected by the Constitution.)
“This case is nothing more than a 2020 version of screaming fire in a crowded theater,” he said, referring to speech that is not protected by the First Amendment.
This is a tell that your litigation opponent is the sucker at the table. That line is pulled from a Supreme Court decision that treated certain anti-war speech as a criminal offense, rather than protected speech. This precedent was walked back in a later Supreme Court decision. And it’s notable that everyone who quotes this line to defend their First Amendment violations omits one key word: “falsely.” It’s not illegal to truthfully scream fire in a crowded theater or even to do so while the existence of an actual fire may still be in dispute. The smell of smoke alone can justify shouts of fire.
If this is the legal defense the sheriff plans to mount (“aggressively,” according to his legal rep), he’s screwed. The school could have spoken to the student’s family directly and expressed its concerns with the post. And that may have been resolved amicably. Or everyone could have done nothing and lived through the apparent panic Amyiah’s posts failed to provoke. But everyone got stupid and now there’s a Constitutional lawsuit to be dealt with. Discretion is only a positive when it’s exercised in a way that’s beneficial.
More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:
From Tiger King To Censorship King: Copyright Lobbyist Cheers On SLAPP Copyright Suit Featured In Tiger King
NY AG Opens Inquiry After Charter Spectrum Bungles Its Coronavirus Response
UNESCO Suggests COVID-19 Is A Reason To Create… Eternal Copyright
Workers at a pork processing plant in Milan, Missouri seeking safer working conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic sued agribusiness giant Smithfield Foods yesterday in federal court, bringing further bad publicity to a company whose South Dakota plant recently became the epicenter of the worst coronavirus cluster in the country.
Last week, a Smithfield spokesperson laid the blame for the outbreak at its Sioux Falls plant, where more than 700 workers tested positive for COVID-19 and two died, on the workers themselves, telling Buzzfeed, “Living circumstances in certain cultures are different than they are with your traditional American family.” Which is a case study in How To PR Like a Pro!
But according to workers in the Missouri plant, the issue is Smithfield’s refusal to take basic protective measures, like slowing down the line so workers can sneeze into a tissue or cough into their sleeves while packaging meat for America’s supermarkets.
If Smithfield slowed the line, workers, including RCWA members, could be spaced farther apart and have time to take effective preventive measures, like wiping spittle from their mouths and covering their mouths when they cough or sneeze. However, since the closure of other Smithfield plants due to pandemic flare ups, Smithfield has only increased the line speed at the Milan Plant, placing more pressure on its workers at the Milan Plant and subjecting them to greater risk of disease. Smithfield also implements punitive measures to ensure its preferred line speed is maintained, including that missing even one piece of meat to clean one’s face could result in punitive employment action.
Bacon, anyone?
According to the suit, filed by the Rural Community Workers Alliance and an anonymous plaintiff, who fears retaliation by her managers if her identity were known, Smithfield “packs many workers together in cramped spaces along processing lines,” with so little social distancing that they risk being cut by each other’s butchering knives. The company provides no tissues for coughs or sneezes, and only began offering surgical masks to workers on April 15. But only surgical masks, and only one per week.
The company did install Plexiglass dividers between working stations and in the cafeteria. But as they come down from the ceiling and/or bisect the tables lengthwise, they provide little protection for short people or workers eating lunch side by side, since the company refused to stagger break times to allow for social distancing during meals.
But lest Smithfield be accused of not caring about its employees, in March as the rest of country was entering lockdown, the company offered a $500 “Responsibility Bonus” for “all of its workers, but with an important catch: the bonus would not be available to any worker who misses a shift for any reason between April 1 and May 1.”
#ThankaFoodWorker! The suit alleges that $500 is a strong incentive for employees at the non-union plant to come to work sick, and, although Smithfield later claimed that workers who missed shifts due to illness would not lose eligibility, workers report being told the opposite by their managers on the floor.
Under a novel theory of public nuisance law, plaintiffs seek an injunction ordering Smithfield to provide PPE, reconfigure the line to allow for social distancing, provide adequate sanitization stations and tissues for workers to wipe their noses, pay for shifts missed due to illness, implement a contact tracing plan, and allow for inspection of the plant by health and safety experts. They’re not seeking any money damages. But if these food service employees are so essential to the nation’s food supply that they have to show up for work during a pandemic, they’re asking for the company to follow the CDC guidelines to to protect their health and the health of their small, rural community. At the very least, Smithfield could provide its employees with a box of tissues and two seconds to turn their heads away instead of sneezing on America’s dinner.
RURAL COMMUNITY WORKERS ALLIANCE and JANE DOE v. SMITHFIELD FOODS, INC. AND SMITHFIELD FRESH MEATS CORP. [No. 5:20-cv-06063, Complaint (W. D. Mo. April 23, 2020)]
Elizabeth Dye (@5DollarFeminist) lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.
(Image via Getty)
Just because it is Friday afternoon and the week is almost over, doesn’t mean that Biglaw cost-cutting measures have taken a break. Austerity, particularly in the time of COVID-19, waits for no one.
Akerman LLP, ranked 88th in the nation on the 2020 Am Law 100 ranking, is not immune to the COVID-19 austerity measures. The Chair and CEO of the firm, Scott A. Meyers, delivered a video message to employees last night, and tipsters say the message was focused on salary cuts.
So what are the salary cuts? According to multiple tipsters, they’re tiered by position with equity partners seeing a 35 percent cut to their draws; nonequity partners, of counsel, and consultants making over $150,000 will have a 25 percent salary cut; consultants making less than $150,000 are getting a 15 percent pay cut; associates are also seeing a 15 percent pay cut, as are staff making $150,000+; and staff making less than $150,000 are seeing a 10 percent cut.
Though salary cuts are becoming increasingly common in Biglaw, that doesn’t mean folks aren’t pissed about it. Especially when it’s a top 100 firm known for paying associate below top of the market:
Scott A. Meyers, Chairman and CEO at Akerman LLP just send a video message to all Employees from announcing salary cuts. Employees are devastated; Akerman salaries were already less than what firms of that level are paying.
Additionally, multiple sources note that Meyers’s message about the austerity measures included a reference to “adjustments to right size our workforce,” which tipsters rightly characterize as “layoffs in other words.” But exactly who or how many or even which positions were impacted by the layoffs was left unsaid.
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.
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).
(Image via Getty)
In the short-term, going to professional school—be it business school, law school or something else—is a good idea because it’s a refuge from an inhospitable job market, and the job market will be better three years from now. And I believe the legal job market will be better. It’s going to be very bad this fall, and then it will improve.
— Bernie Burke, a former University of North Carolina law professor who studies the economics of legal education, commenting on the fact that law schools may see more applicants over the course of the next two years, just like they did during the last recession, due to the dreadful state of the current job market.
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.
Let’s be honest – insurance is one of those things no one likes thinking about. It’s also one of those things everyone knows they need. Law firms are no exception – the ABA estimates that 80% of lawyers will be sued for malpractice at some point in their careers, with the biggest targets being small firms and solo practitioners.
No firm wants to be caught without professional liability insurance when something goes wrong, but the process of obtaining it has always been time-consuming, antiquated, overly expensive, and just downright dreadful.
Until now. Insurtech company Embroker is radically changing the way companies, including law firms, find insurance. By replacing antiquated processes and high overhead costs with technology and algorithms, Embroker allows law firms to find the right coverage at a fraction of the hassle and cost they’re used to.
If you’re like most firms, you’ve incorporated plenty of legal tech into your practice because it saves time and money. Now it’s time to add some insurtech to your arsenal and break free from the dreaded insurance cycle.
If you’ve ever applied for insurance for your firm, you know how it goes: a broker sends you a PDF of the application that ranges anywhere from 9 to 40 pages long, you spend up to 10 hours answering questions and providing information that will never be used (or a lot more if you’re a large firm), you send the PDF back to the broker, the broker sends it to the underwriter, then you wait weeks until you eventually receive a quote. If you want to make any modifications, the cycle repeats, and you finally end up with coverage a month or more later.
While the ultimate cost of your insurance depends on factors like how many lawyers you have, where you practice, and the kinds of law you practice, only half of the money you’ve been spending on any insurance policy has been going toward actually paying claims.
That’s right – half. So, what’s the other half? Overhead and distribution costs – personnel and manual, antiquated processes like all that back-and-forth with the brokers and underwriters.
This other half is where Embroker comes in. By injecting technology, Embroker eliminates the processes that have long been overly expensive and allows you to pay just for the thing you really want – the insurance.
Remember that tedious, lengthy PDF application? Embroker has done away with that. Instead, Embroker’s landing page for legal customers takes you straight into the online application.
First, you provide your basic, high-level information, like your name, address, industry, revenue details, and contact information, and Embroker immediately analyzes and confirms your business profile to make sure you’re eligible as a law firm for professional liability insurance. Once you pass that initial step, you answer some simple questions about your law firm’s practice, including areas of law, how many attorneys you have, where they practice, the kind of cases the firm handles, the firm’s risk management processes, and past legal incidents. These questions aren’t designed to disqualify you from coverage, but rather to quantify your risk and determine your coverage qualifications. If you currently have insurance, Embroker will try to align any new policies with your current coverage.
The entire application process takes about 10 minutes – a fraction of the time even the simplest PDF application has historically taken. Your application then goes through an automated underwriting process and you get an actual premium quote in a matter of seconds. From there, you can tweak your requirements by increasing limits, decreasing deductibles, requesting loss-only deductibles, designating your claims expense treatment, adding claims and defense limits, and much more – adjustments you might not have even known were options for lowering your incremental costs and better protecting your firm and its finances.
The automated underwriting process again quickly generates your premium quote. You can print a PDF of the customized quote and your specimen policy if you need to obtain approval, or you can bind your policy then and there, digitally paying through the Embroker website. Your policy is immediately available and accessible at any time.
Better yet, this speedy process is even faster if you’re a returning customer. Your renewal application will have your basic information pre-filled for you, and the underwriting process takes as little as three to five minutes.
What’s glaringly missing from this process is all the back and forth you’re used to with traditional insurance applications, and that’s a great thing. Even with multiple rounds of tweaking coverage requirements, you can still obtain a quote in well under an hour and get coverage that’s binding today.
By now you might be asking yourself why you would ever apply for insurance the traditional way again. The answer? You wouldn’t, and you shouldn’t.
Professional liability insurance is usually one of the first purchases law firms make, and one of their largest expenses. Having 50% of that expense go to overhead, distribution, and costs that have nothing to do with actual coverage just makes no sense. The cost of insurance that represents actual claims you face will always be a reality of practice, but Embroker’s technology and algorithms can dramatically reduce the other half.
You still get quality insurance from the same top, A+-rated carriers, and you often get better coverage because you can easily pick the policy terms you want. You just spend a lot less money to get it. If you’re a Clio user, you save even more – as the endorsed broker for Clio, Embroker offers Clio users a 10% discount.
In addition to professional liability coverage, Embroker offers digital products for law firms’ other property and casualty needs, handled the same way through Embroker’s fast, automated underwriting algorithms. With it all, you get technical support and helpful risk management resources.
When it comes to running a law firm, you want all your processes to be better, faster, and cheaper. For malpractice insurance, Embroker fits the bill. You get a more cost-effective product without sacrificing coverage.
No one earned a law degree to spend time getting bogged down in administrative tasks like applying for professional liability coverage. With Embroker on your side, insurance is one less hassle to worry about. With the time you save, you can focus on serving your clients and growing your firm.
As is true of many, from the president of the United States on down, who enjoy a good courtroom scrape, Highland Capital Management has won some and lost some. But the former hedge fund doesn’t sweat the latter, because it has an uncanny ability to avoid paying anything when it does lose. Unfortunately for James Dondero & co., two can play at that game, and its $351 million real-estate fraud payday from Credit Suisse just got a major trim by the Texas Supreme Court.
Credit Suisse Securities USA won’t have to pay a unit of hedge fund Highland Capital Management LP $287.5 million for a bungled land appraisal ahead of a 2007 Las Vegas real estate deal, but it can’t shake a jury’s $40 million fraud verdict, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday. The high court wiped out the $211 million in damages and $75 million in prejudgment interest awarded to highland subsidiary Claymore Holdings LLC after a Dallas County District Court bench trial, finding the award overcompensated Claymore for the fraudulent appraisal.
It must be so very annoying to be unable to collect when you’ve been ripped off.
Credit Suisse Wipes Out $288M Loss Over Flawed Appraisal [Law360]
It’s always good to keep up with Legal Evolution, a blog edited by Indiana-Maurer’s Professor Bill Henderson. A great repository of commentary on legal industry innovation, often with a heavy dose of hard data which is generally lacking when lawyers talk about themselves.
With layoff stories coming at us from every angle these days, a video posted on the site this week offers a nice change up and reminds everyone to put things in perspective and do something nice. It’s a “call to action” video from Professor Henderson’s class and it asks everyone to take the time out of their day to remember to reach out to older folks — an important message generally but an especially poignant one now, with seniors often locked away from contact with the outside world.
As we close out the week of bad news and snark, here’s something nice and genuine.
A nursing home changed this law student’s life (149) [Legal Evolution]