Category: News Feeds

Last week, a 73-year-old Indian woman gave birth to twins. It was shocking reproductive news. And since you’re wondering, yes, that’s a record for the oldest person to deliver a baby, much less two babies. The new mom, Mangayamma Yaramati, and her husband, Sitarama Rajarao — who is actually nine years older than her, at age 82 — turned to assisted reproductive technology to conceive their twin daughters. Familiar concerns about medical ethics, along with the idea of reproductive technology generally, often emerge after cases like this make the news.

When the press came calling, the couple explained that they married in 1962, and then spent decades together trying to conceive without success. The couple said they recently learned of a neighbor in her fifties who used IVF to conceive, and they found renewed hope, along with the most crucial part of the process: a doctor willing to work with them. Using donor eggs and Rajarao’s sperm, the IVF treatment was successful on the very first round.

Unfortunately, in a turn of very bad luck (or perhaps a natural reaction to having newborn twins at age 82), Rajarao, the new dad, had a stroke the day after the birth. He is in the hospital being treated for the stroke while his wife Yaramati is expected to remain at the hospital for another few weeks for monitoring. That’s a rough start for the new family of four. And actuarial charts are not predicting much improvement for the family, at least not for long. Given the parents’ advanced age, it’s hard to know how much of their daughters’ lives they will actually see.

How Old Is Too Old?

While lawmakers in India have considered placing age restrictions on the use of assisted reproductive technology, no such law currently exists that would have prevented the IVF doctor from undertaking the treatment in response to the Yaramati-Rajarao’s plea for assistance.

Advances in technology have ushered in possibilities not previously conceived of (a little pun humor there) — gametes from a person who died decades ago can be used to conceive a child. And it gets even more interesting: not only can an embryo be carried to birth by a person genetically unrelated to the resulting child, and, as we see here, octogenarians are no longer necessarily being sidelined to the role of grandparents.

The Ian Malcolm character from Jurassic Park is best remembered for this apt observation: your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.

I spoke with Professor Judith Daar, dean of Northern Kentucky University’s Chase College of Law and chair of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) Ethics Committee, about this case. Professor Daar pointed to the ASRM guidelines which, while not binding, are the standards that most American fertility professionals look to for guidance. The ASRM guidelines discourage IVF using donor eggs or embryos (which are presumably required for a patient of advanced years) past a certain age, explaining that:

In view of the limited data regarding maternal and fetal safety, as well as concerns related to longevity and the need for adequate psychosocial supports for raising a child to adulthood, providing donor oocytes or embryos to women over 55 years of age, even when they have no underlying medical problems, should be discouraged.

When the woman does have underlying medical problems, the guidelines discourage treatment past the age of 50. And the guidelines specifically provide that it is “ethically permissible for programs to decline to provide treatment to women of [advanced reproductive age] based on concerns over the health and wellbeing of the patient and offspring.”

But discouraging isn’t banning. And this is an area where the world is nowhere close to a consensus as to where the line should be drawn, or whether there should be a line at all. On one side, some countries do provide a solid limit as to the age of a woman when assisted reproductive technology will no longer be permitted for conception. In Israel, that age is 45. In Japan, 43. On the other hand, it is not an uncommon argument that there should be no limit. After all, there is no limit on the age men are allowed to reproduce the old fashion way. And studies of children born to older parents generally do not demonstrate a negative impact on the children. So for those of you concerned with research-based policy making, it’s hard to find the data to support an age cutoff.

Professor Daar does not shy away from being a strong supporter of reproductive freedom. However, she told me, even through that lens, that this case seems to go too far. It probably doesn’t help that when Rajarao was asked who would raise the twins should something happen to him and Yaramati, he replied: “Whatever should happen will happen. It is all in the hands of God.” Well, sure. But that isn’t exactly a comprehensive parenting plan.

In any event, technological advances will continue to push forward, and will continue to challenge our ideas of ethical conception in new ways. I doubt Yaramati will be the oldest maternal birth recordholder for long. But let’s also hope that we see significant scientific breakthroughs in average lengths of life, so that she can spend a lot more time with her newborn twin daughters.

Ellen Trachman is the Managing Attorney of Trachman Law Center, LLC, a Denver-based law firm specializing in assisted reproductive technology law, and co-host of the podcast I Want To Put A Baby In You. You can reach her at babies@abovethelaw.com.

Being a lawyer is the most stressful yet boring job in the world. I’d never recommend it to anyone. Ever.

— an answer given in response to Legal Week’s job satisfaction survey by a female associate at an international Biglaw firm. The survey of 248 corporate lawyers concluded that 44 percent of the United Kingdom’s top attorneys struggled depression and stress due to their work, with more than half of female respondents saying those mental health issues applied to them. Nearly half (47 percent) of male associates claimed to work more than 50 hours each week, while more than a third (34 percent) of female associates said they worked more than 50 houes each week. “The better you perform the more in demand you are from clients and internally. This means more hours,” said one male associate. “It feels like success at work directly leads to a worsening home life and work/life balance. The worst lawyers in our firm have the best lifestyle.”

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.

Ohio State University tried to get a trademark on the word “the” so they could license merchandise with the word “THE” on it, playing off the school’s ridiculous insistence on calling themselves “The Ohio State University.” At the time, the University of Michigan brutally trolled their rival for its attempt to pervert IP law to its whims. Today, the USPTO agreed with Michigan.

The application never made much sense, as IP attorney Josh Gerben methodically explained. The school will have to go back to relying on its multimillion dollar empire of established IP sales made off the backs of unpaid athletes.

And so ends one of the stupidest chapters in intellectual property history.

Earlier: Ohio State Tries To Trademark The Most Common Word In The English Language
University Of Michigan Deals Devastating Intellectual Property Blow To Ohio State Legal Department

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.

When we last checked in with Florida Coastal School of Law in February 2019, the struggling law school had recently announced its plans to convert to a nonprofit institution, having already submitted an application to the American Bar Association for the change. At the time, the law school was out of compliance with with the ABA’s accreditation standards pertaining to its admissions practices and risked facing similar consequences as its defunct InfiLaw sister schools, Charlotte School of Law, which closed in August 2017, and Arizona Summit Law School, which had its accreditation revoked in June 2018 and will officially close by spring 2020.

As luck would have it, in June 2019, Florida Coastal found itself back in the ABA’s good graces after adopting higher admissions standards, but there was still no word on its would-be conversion to a nonprofit in affiliation with a yet-to-be publicly named “university located in the Southeast.” All that was known was that the affiliate school could potentially give Florida Coastal the ability to double or triple in size.

After months of waiting, Florida Coastal finally has an answer, and it seems that chaos has erupted in its wake.

Under the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar’s Applications for Substantive Change page, this brief statement on the matter is listed for August 2019: “The Council denied the application of Florida Coastal School of Law to convert to a non-profit law school.” This information was communicated to students via email by Dean Scott DeVito on September 9:

Dear Students and Colleagues,

I received a letter this afternoon from the ABA informing us that they have denied our application to convert to a non-profit. This was an extremely disappointing outcome given how hard so many of us worked on the application. We are currently asking regulatory counsel to review the documents to provide insight into our next steps.

Once I have a clearer understanding of what our next steps will be, I will update you.

Dean DeVito

We’re told that students were supposed to receive their student loan disbursements for the Fall 2019 semester by or before September 9, but such funds were never deposited into student accounts. Sources say that on September 10, Dean DeVito called students into a town hall meeting, presumptively to speak about their missing student loan funds, but that was not what was discussed.

At that meeting, without resolving the student loan situation, DeVito unexpectedly announced that he would be resigning as dean, and students claim that he left the building with his things shortly thereafter. Sources say that following the shocking meeting, James Artley, Assistant Dean of Student Affairs, was asked what was going on, and he allegedly replied, “If we are here in seven days, then we will be good,” leading them to wonder about the school’s future.

We reached out to DeVito to speak about students’ loan funds and his sudden departure from the school he’d loyally championed since 2015, only to receive this automatic response:

Thank you for reaching out to me. Scott DeVito is no longer employed by Florida Coastal School of Law.

We reached out to the remaining members of the administration at the school, as well as its marketing liaison, and have yet to receive a response to our media inquiries.

According to an email sent to students by Dean Artley shortly after DeVito publicly resigned, Florida Coastal is “currently working with our parent company (Infilaw) regarding this announcement and the appointment of new leadership. We ask for your patience, as we work through this transition. We will be communicating more information within the next 24 – 48 hours.”

What does this mean for the future of Florida Coastal School of Law? Some sources have speculated that the Department of Education is refusing to release federal student loan money to Coastal because of its relationship to two other failed law schools. Others still believe this means the final flame in InfiLaw’s for-profit law school fire will soon be snuffed out. Either way, we’re told that students’ “dream[s] [have] been crushed” by this disheartening news, and no one is sure what will happen.

Past is precedent with InfiLaw schools, and this doesn’t look good for Florida Coastal.

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.

Most work has a cadence and flow. Step One followed by Step Two followed by Step Three. Repeat. Complete. It’s a distinguishable harmony one you recognize it, and that instills a sense of comfort. A familiar flow that you can recite in your sleep.

Sometimes that means using a brief that you have used before. You know there’s no shame in reusing quality work product, especially one that has proven to be successful. You always do due diligence to ensure that it accurately reflects the current state of the law. Of course, that research takes time, but you give what time you have. That old familiar process kicks in once again.

The process as it was

Once you have determined the facts of your case, you know what legal issues you need to research. You use your preferred search tool to find caselaw and court decisions that will help shape your argument.

You tailor your brief for this specific case and cite your authorities. You pore over the research, checking and cross-checking, trying to ensure that you don’t mistakenly cite bad law. But there’s only so much you can do, because there’s only so much time in a day.

When does “done” mean done?

In the old world, even after you had spent days finalizing your arguments, ensuring you had the strongest authority and cases, it was difficult to feel like you were done. Because “done” meant there was nothing more you could do, and you know there is always more you can do.

Time constraints and competing priorities often meant that “done” happened only when time was up. But did you feel done? Or did you stay up at night wondering if there was something important you missed?

More likely than not, you’re working up until the very last second because you want to be sure you haven’t missed anything. You write your conclusion, proofread your work, and make sure you have accurately represented the state of the law. It’s here that attorneys turn a final critical eye against their own work. Best-case scenario — any mistakes you find are small.

In the worst-case scenario, when you check your work and determine that you’ve centered your argument around a case that has been overruled by a higher court or overturned by statute, you’re forced to start the process again. While it’s frustrating and time consuming, it’s definitely not optional. Therefore, you do it again and again because there is no alternative.

Until there is.

Meet Quick Check

Westlaw Edge Quick Check™ is a new tool that will immediately transform how you do your job. Quick Check offers state-of-the-art AI technology combined with more than 100 years of attorney-editor annotations. It doesn’t just suggest authority, it highlights additional details for why that authority might be important to your case, such as from a higher court, cited more frequently, or available within the last two years.

Quick Check also shows you the outcome of the case and the relevant portions, making review easy. Additionally, you can quickly filter by what matters most to you at the time: jurisdiction, date of the opinion, or documents you’ve viewed in the last 30 days.

Quick Check does things that the average human would struggle greatly to do for a number of reasons: a lack of time, efficiency, finances, or resources. It looks at more things than you can reasonably look at, in ways you simply cannot look, in places you might not look.

To learn more about Quick Check and see how it can set you on a faster path to finished, download your free white paper.

You may have heard that three law schools — Columbia, Stanford, and the University of Chicago — reported that their cost of attendance for the current academic year exceeds $100,000. And some of their peer schools are coming close.

Their numbers are based on tuition, fees, and estimated living expenses. These three schools are in some of the most expensive cities in the country. And since they attract students nationwide, I doubt many of them are living with nearby relatives who will provide free food and a place to sleep.

Assuming these students fully finance their law school education with federal loans at a 6-7 percent interest rate, along with undergraduate debt, they will likely graduate with $400,000 in debt. You will need to pay around $4,500 per month to pay it off in 10 years. Or around $2,600 per month to pay it off in 30 years.

The fact that these three schools cost this much shouldn’t be a cause for concern. A good portion of these students will not leave with debt that high. Some come from wealthy families who will pay the tuition up front. Others will have substantial scholarships. And others will pay down their debt with their summer associate salaries at a major law firm. Or all of the above.

Even if they have that level of debt, it is assumed that most will land a high-paying job at some point in their careers and will eventually pay it off while living comfortably.

And some people will gladly get into this level of debt as they consider a law degree from one of these schools to be a status symbol.

What is worrisome is that other law schools will follow suit because they can claim they have to in order to stay competitive. Most schools have been gradually (and quietly) raising tuition every year. And it’s not always the schools’ fault. There are some costs that schools cannot control such as off-campus housing. And inflation plays a role.

But when word gets out that a school costs six figures per year, it crosses a psychological line. People will talk about it. Applicants will think harder about whether they will get their money’s worth. Some schools don’t need to explain themselves, at least not yet. If my alma mater, the late Whittier Law School, cost that much, everyone, including some alumni, would be up in arms. Other schools will be ridiculed mercilessly so they will not dare unless they absolutely have to.

I wonder how law school administrators of the future are going to argue with a straight face that a six-figure cost of attendance is necessary to promote diversity in the legal profession. Does the grand diversity plan involve young lawyers of color being enslaved with $400,000 in nondischargeable student loan bondage? Is a $2,600 minimum monthly payment for 30 years going to encourage them to work in underserved areas? The way things are going now, Income Based Repayment plans, including the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, are overdue for serious reform and are likely to be very different in a few years. And I think that half of Americans are hostile to forgiving student loans in any form and will make their anger known at the voting booth.

I will close by sharing that I have been contacted by young lawyers who are owing over $400,000 in student loans. They have high salaries but they also live in expensive cities. After their expenses, they are basically living paycheck to paycheck. If they can stay at their high-salary firm for five years, they will then be in a position to pay off the loans quickly. Otherwise they will likely be on an income-based repayment plan with a huge tax bomb at the end. Needless to say, they are not happy people.

They haven’t told their friends and family that they owe so much because of the shock factor. No one is “supposed” to owe that much. When I graduated law school many years ago, owing $100,000 in student loans  would be considered shocking. Nowadays, owing “only” $100,000 is considered low. Sadly, recent law school graduates feel somewhat comfortable admitting that they owe $300,000.

One day, law school will cost more than $100,000 per year. I am hoping that people from inside the academy will figure out a way to delay the inevitable for the sake of their students. But in the meantime, it is the student’s responsibility to control their costs so they won’t have to pay $2,600 per month for 30 years.

Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and resolve tax disputes. He is also sympathetic to people with large student loans. He can be reached via email at sachimalbe@excite.com. Or you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) and connect with him on LinkedIn.

As this website has covered at length for over a decade, layoffs are common within the legal profession.  Mass reductions in force can occur at law firms for a wide variety of reasons.  For instance, economic conditions, such as those experienced during the Great Recession, might lead to less demand for legal service.  As a result, law firms may need to reduce their headcount in order to account for the decrease in demand.  In addition, clients often choose to work with different legal counsel, and this might mean that firms must eliminate attorneys who worked on matters that are no longer handled by a firm.  Furthermore, cases settling or partners retiring can all impact a firm’s decision to reduce headcount.

Although there are many times when firms need to terminate employees due to performance, in the vast majority of instances, layoffs have absolutely nothing to do with a lawyer’s work.  Indeed, attorneys usually have no impact on the more global conditions that influence layoff determinations.  However, attorneys who are laid off may still face biases and stigma when searching for new positions.

I recently went to an attorney social event and met a lawyer who had been laid off because of the collapse of LeClairRyan.  This attorney has been applying to jobs for weeks, and had some interviews lined up for a variety of roles.  I told this lawyer that he was looking for work in a relatively strong job market, and he should expect to have a new job before too long.  This attorney had an excellent background, and employers should know about all of the craziness at LeClairRyan that precipitated this attorney being let go.

However, I couldn’t help but think that this attorney might be at a disadvantage when looking for work.  Surely, any reasonable person should know that an associate at a bankrupt law firm was not terminated because of job performance, but because of a number of external factors.  However, people may think that this attorney might have landed at another firm with a departing partner if their work was up to snuff or that this attorney otherwise had some ownership over the situation.

I faced a similar sentiment when I was laid off at the beginning of my career.  A little more than a year after I started practicing, I was laid off in a mass reduction of force along with dozens of other attorneys and staffers.  The layoffs were motivated by a number of external factors, including a major matter settling and economic issues with our firm.

However, even though I was laid off with dozens of other lawyers, and many articles were published about the troubles at our firm, I couldn’t help but feel that people thought I was responsible for my situation.  Based on the questions I received at interviews, I felt like attorneys held the belief that I could have avoided my fate if I had worked harder.  Despite any logic to the contrary, I felt that it was impossible to shake this flawed perception among legal professionals, and this made it difficult to get hired at other shops.

Another unfair issue with being laid off is that it places an indelible dark mark on your career.  Attorneys are oftentimes addicted to prestige, and hiring partners like to recruit people who are on an upward trajectory in their careers.  Getting laid off along the way, even if the attorney had nothing to do with this process, can put a lawyer at a disadvantage when compared to attorneys who were never laid off.

Many lawyers, especially those who practiced during the Great Recession, were laid off at some point or another, or know someone close to them that was.  Being laid off is a traumatic experience that leads to isolation, depression, and a number of negative outcomes.  Attorneys who are laid off from firms deserve kindness and understanding, since the are likely experiencing a difficult time in their lives.

As a result, it is important for people making hiring decisions to understand that many layoffs have absolutely nothing to do with an attorney’s work performance.  In most instances, there is nothing that an attorney could have done to avoid getting laid off, since external factors beyond the attorney’s control contributed to the layoff.  Hiring partners should not hold an associate liable for the bad decisions of senior partners or the choices of clients that likely motivated the reduction in force.  In addition, hiring staff should understand that being laid off is not a huge blemish on a legal career, and will not affect an associate’s performance at a new firm.

I wish everyone searching for work as a result of the LeClairRyan bankruptcy and other mass reductions in force the best of luck in finding new jobs.  Professionals within the legal industry should be compassionate to these individuals and should not unfairly judge applicants because they were laid off.

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.

* Uh, no collusion? In a lawsuit over the TRUST Act, Trump’s lawyers have accused congressional Democrats and New York state officials of colluding to expose the president’s financial information. [New York Law Journal]

* “You may recognize some of this. I hope I’ve improved it a little bit since you’ve last seen it.” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg welcomed Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court by gifting to him the clerk manual that he was assigned to create for Justice Byron White while he was clerking, who later gave it to his successor, the Notorious RBG. [CNN]

* Was Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony against now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings politically motivated? Comments made by one of her lawyers reportedly seem to indicate that Ford spoke out to protect Roe. v. Wade. [Newsweek]

* “Being a lawyer is the most stressful yet boring job in the world. I’d never recommend it to anyone. Ever.” About half of attorneys working in U.K. Biglaw firms have experienced mental health issues like depression and stress due to their jobs. [Legal Week]

* “Can y’all play nice or do I have to attend these depositions?” A completely reasonable request from a judge after one of the lawyers on a case allegedly slapped another lawyer in the face before a prior deposition. [Texas Lawyer]

* Morrison & Foerster wants all of the employment records from the new firm of a former associate who’s anonymously for gender discrimination, claiming they’re relevant to her “negative reference” retaliation allegations. Sheesh… [Big Law Business]

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.