Category: News Feeds

That last year was a bad one for Deutsche Bank should come as no surprise. For one, it’s Deutsche Bank. For another, the steady drumbeat of disaster emanating from the Taunusanlage should have been a clue: bad bank units, failed mergers, more money laundering, laying off 18,000 people, Jeffrey Epstein, more fines, less future, Donald Trump, attempted murder convictions, still more fines. If all of that wasn’t sufficient, the fact that it lost more than €3 billion in the second quarter alone might have provided a clue as to how bad things would be. Still, as ever, Deutsche Bank exceeds expectations.

Matthew Rosenbaum served on the New York Supreme Court for 14 years, but was relieved of his duties and vacated his office after state officials began an investigation into allegations of “improper and at times abusive personal demands of court staff, directly or indirectly conveying that continued employment required submitting to such demands, and creating a hostile workplace environment.” The complaint says this has gone on since he arrived on the bench in 2005.

Now Rosenbaum’s resigned and signed a stipulation agreeing to never seek judicial office again, a serious concession in the ongoing investigation.

Rosenbaum was named “Jurist of the Year” by the regional New York State Supreme Court Judge’s Association in 2018. Life comes at you fast.

What “abusive personal demands” did this judge make? The proceedings are confidential with the exception of the stipulation which Rosenbaum consented to allow the state to release. We’re guessing it wasn’t using the clerk’s office copier for hundreds of fliers for his garage band.

Accused of harassing court staff, Justice Matthew Rosenbaum officially resigns [City Newspaper]

---

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.

It’s that time of year again! Now that the scene has officially been called on 2019, the financial performance of Biglaw is up for scrutiny. It’s still early in 2020 of course, so not everyone is ready to report their results, but the  venerable firm of Morrison & Foerster is ready to report a pretty darn good 2019.

MoFo’s numbers are up across the board. Revenue is up 10 percent, bringing their number to $1.15 billion. Revenue per lawyer? Also up by a margin of 4 percent to $1.14 million. Average partner compensation is up 4.9 percent to ~$1.5 million. And the gold standard of Biglaw, profits per equity partner, also saw an increase of 3.3 percent to $2.05 million.

And as Larren Nashelsky, the firm’s New York-based chairman, told Law.com, the great 2019 is part of a trend, “Our 2019 performance comes on the heels of two prior exceptional years.”

Speaking of 2018, last year the firm posted a 14 percent increase in PEP, but that boost was on the back of a drop in equity partner head count — by 25 percent — and ballooning nonequity ranks by 50 percent. But that doesn’t seem to be part of a trend. In 2019, the firm only lost one nonequity partner and 14 equity partners were added. The change wasn’t part of some grand strategy, according to the firm:

Nashelsky said the change in the equity partnership numbers was not part of any overall plan.

“I don’t know that it was a conscious strategy. We really are recruiting the best and the brightest. In some years they fall more in one category than the other,” Nashelsky said.

Speaking of hiring the best and brightest, MoFo made some power moves this year on that front, growing the number of attorneys to over 1,000 and opening two new offices in the process:

It hired 42 lateral partners and opened two offices. Its new Boston office, which opened in February of last year, has grown to roughly 40 attorneys, including notable pick-ups such as Proskauer Rose corporate partner Ori Solomon and Todd Boudreau, former co-chair of Foley & Lardner’s private funds and buyout practice.

The new Miami office launched in June as it poached nine Greenberg Traurig attorneys, including Greenberg’s Miami corporate co-chair Randy Bullard, who made the jump to help serve firm client SoftBank. Since their move, Bullard and his team have advised on several SoftBank deals, with the latest being a $125 million Series B investment into Latin American fintech company AlphaCredit.

Congrats to MoFo on its stellar 2019.

---

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).

It’s no secret that immigration enforcement is a top priority for the Trump Administration. Interior enforcement – which includes the regulation of worksite compliance – is at an all-time high. Any employer would be wise to ask itself the following question: Are we prepared if ICE comes knocking? Whether it’s an I-9 audit or worksite raid, Amy Peck of Jackson Lewis breaks down all the essentials any employer needs to know to respond properly and maintain compliance in her critically insightful CLE program What To Do When ICE Comes Knocking: The Rise in Worksite Raids and I-9 Audits. Here are just a few helpful hints:

1. Take the I-9 form very seriously.

The I-9 is not just a simple, ordinary form. It has the potential to bring more liability to a company than anything else. It can severely harm a company’s reputation and result in large fines or criminal liability. The average I-9 form fine is approximately $1,400 per form. Those fees can add up very quickly for large companies.

2. There are more than 80 ways to make an error on the I-9 form.

Yes, you read that right. 80 ways to make a mistake on the form. Moreover, studies have shown that 55% of paper I-9 forms have errors on them. Why is it so hard, you ask? Well, there are so many easy-to-miss nuances. And the instructions – over 600 pages worth in total – are even more complicated.

3. Investigations are surging dramatically and will continue to rise.

In 2018, investigations surged by 500 percent! Immigration and Customs Enforcement opened 6,848 worksite investigations and initiated 5,981 I-9 audits in fiscal year 2018.. 

4. The top five targeted industries.

What are the top five industries being targeted for I-9 audits?

1. Critical infrastructure (i.e. power plants, airport vendors, companies involved with national security in any way)
2. Hospitality/Restaurant
3. Construction
4. Manufacturing/Production
5. Temporary/Staffing Agencies

Remember – if your industry or your client’s industry isn’t in the top five, you’re not necessarily out of the woods.

5. What’s the difference between a raid and an audit?

A raid is the culmination of a criminal investigation (often 18 – 24 months long) of either of the company or the company’s owners or managers. Rather than use the term “raid,” the government typically calls them judicial warrant enforcement actions. This is because obtaining a judicial warrant is essential in order to gain access to the property. Contrary to popular belief, the investigation is of the company and not the workers.

An I-9 audit is a civil inspection of the company’s I-9 forms. During an audit, the government enters with a notice of inspection rather than a warrant. Still, any employer in this situation would be wise to call a lawyer. An I-9 audit can escalate quickly, potentially resulting in hefty fines or even a criminal investigation.

If you’re an employer or if you represent employers, hopefully you’re now asking yourself some very important questions such as – how do we prepare for an audit? What do we do if we’re served with a notice of inspection? How do we respond? What are our rights during a raid? What do we do right after a raid? 

For answers to those questions and to dig deeper into any of the points above, be sure to watch Amy’s entire program What To Do When ICE Comes Knocking: The Rise in Worksite Raids and I-9 Audits. 

And for a broader overview of the immigration landscape today – tune into our can’t miss Election Year 2020: immigration Law Event next month. You’ll get up-to-date on the fundamentals of family-based immigration, immigration pathways from education to employment, alternatives to the H1-B Visa, and more.

Related Content:

1. A Practitioner’s Guide to the I-9 Form
2. Best Practices for I-9 Audits
3. An Attorney’s Practical Guide to the Hiring, Management, and Termination of Employees

We have to remember the racism that John Boalt expressed. But that doesn’t mean we honor him by putting his name on the building.

— Dean Erwin Chemerinsky of Berkeley Law, in comments given about the decision to remove the name of its former namesake, “Boalt Hall,” from the elite law school. Per Berkeley Law lecturer Charles Reichmann, Boalt’s “most significant legacy” was his “advocacy for Chinese exclusion.” Boalt’s name was removed today from the law school.

---

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.

This is some truly upsetting horse hockey.

In 2016, a woman appeared in the courtroom of New Jersey Superior Court Judge John Russo Jr. seeking a restraining order against a man she says sexually assaulted her. Russo took this as an invitation to interrogate the woman about what she could have done to prevent the alleged attack. Talk about some victim blaming BS. The details of the exchange are distressing:

According to a transcript of the exchange, when the woman described her encounter with the man, Russo asked her, “Do you know how to stop somebody from having intercourse with you?”

When the woman answered affirmatively and said one method would be to run away, Russo continued, “Close your legs? Call the police? Did you do any of those things?”

What’s even worse, is after the proceeding (where Russo denied the protective order), he continued to joke about it with courtroom staff.

Now a three-judge panel has recommended Russo be removed from office for “severe misconduct” following multiple incidents, including the “close your legs” comment. Some of the other improper conduct the panel found, as reported by the Asbury Park Press:

The panel also found beyond a reasonable doubt that Russo used his position as a judge to attempt to influence the scheduling of a guardianship hearing in Burlington County involving his son, that he failed to recuse himself in a spousal support matter involving a couple he went to high school with, and that he had improper communications with only one of two parties to a paternity matter.

This isn’t the first look into Russo’s conduct. In 2018, the state supreme court’s Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct held hearings on the same incidents as the panel. Though the Committee found improper behavior, same as the panel, they were split on the punishment, with the majority recommending a three-month suspension, and the minority holding out for a six-month suspension. Despite those recommendations, the state supreme court instituted removal proceedings and Russo was suspended, without pay, pending the outcome of the proceedings. Russo objected to this harsher penalty, which is something the three-judge panel addressed when making their recommendation:

Russo contended no judge has ever been removed from the bench when the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct recommended a lesser sanction. The three-judge panel responded that Russo’s testimony “lacked candor, fabricated after-the-fact explanations for events, and displayed a lack of integrity that is unworthy of judicial office.”

The state supreme court has scheduled hearings on the disciplinary recommendation for March 30 and 31.

---

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).

It was inevitable we’d wind up here. After months of protesting that there was no quid pro quo! and no firsthand witnesses! and no problem asking a foreign government to investigate corruption!, we have reached our final destination. Republicans are now openly insisting that the president has every right to ask a foreign government to intervene on his behalf, as long as he earnestly believes it’s in America’s best interest that he win reelection.

It was not inevitable, however, that Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz throw his personal legacy on the pyre in service of this inane argument. But he did it anyway, for one last moment in the spotlight.

In response to Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s question — “As a matter of law, does it matter if there was a quid pro quo? Is it true that quid pro quos are often used in foreign policy?” — Dershowitz launched into a rabid defense of unchecked presidential power.

If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment. I quoted President Lincoln, when President Lincoln told General Sherman to let the troops go to Indiana so that they can vote for the Republican party — let’s assume the president was running at that point, and it was in his electoral interest to have these soldiers put at risk the lives of many many other soldiers who would be left without their company, would that be an unlawful quid pro quo? No! Because the president (A) believed it was in the national interest, but (B) he believed that his own election was essential to victory in the Civil War.

Because preserving the Union in wartime is exactly the same as pressuring a dependent foreign nation to gin up a fake scandal about an electoral opponent and announce it publicly.

This morning, the esteemed professor is angrily ranting at the media for “[t]aking advantage of the fact most of their viewers didn’t actually hear the senate Q and A,” saying, “They characterized my argument as if I had said that if a president believes that his reelection was in the national interest, he can do anything. I said nothing like that, as anyone who actually heard what I said can attest.”

Who ya gonna believe, Dersh or your own lyin’ eyes?

Arguing that naked solicitation of bribery or violation of law is the only case in which an impeachment doesn’t require senators to “psychoanalyze a president,” Dershowitz insisted that any effort to determine motives is “dangerous.” Which is a pretty strange position for a guy who spent 45 years explaining the concept of mens rea at the most prestigious university in the country. He went on:

But a complex middle case is: ‘I want to be elected. I think I’m a great president. I think I’m the greatest president there ever was. And if I’m not elected, the national interest will suffer greatly. That cannot be an impeachable offense.

And then he was mercifully gonged off by the Chief Justice before he could expound further on the unitary executive’s exclusive right to determine what’s best for America. But the internet never forgets!

Many commentators today are quoting a passage from Dershowitz’s 2018 book, “The Case Against Impeaching Trump.”

Assume Putin decides to “retake” Alaska, the way he “retook” Crimea. Assume further that a president allows him to do it, because he believed that Russia has a legitimate claim to “its” original territory. That would be terrible, but would it be impeachable? Not under the text of the Constitution.

Incidentally, when the book came out, Dershowitz indignantly insisted that he was not defending Donald Trump’s conduct, he was defending civil liberties, and anyone who said otherwise was a damn, dirty liar.

You are implying in a kind of Mccarthyite way that I am somehow defending Trump and that I am making his case. Shame on you. I am making a civil liberties case. I am not part of the Trump defense team and don’t you dare accuse me of doing that. I am not making a case for anybody.

My how times do change!

Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series of posts on motherhood in the legal profession, in partnership with our friends at MothersEsquire. Welcome Lindsay Kennedy to our pages.

Yesterday, after getting my kids on the buses for kindergarten and preschool, I went to a Korean tea house for my once-a-month self-care outdoor yoga class. Afterwards, I sent out 23 MothersEsquire emails. Then, I spent a couple hours proofreading a motion for summary judgement for Florida and researching a Kentucky tax law issue. Then my kids came home. … I am a stay-at-home mom and a lawyer. And I am so much more.

I live in Korea with my active-duty military husband and kids. When switching from being a lawyer to a stay-at-home mom, my life drastically changed. There were a lot of changes that I expected –- diaper changes, feedings, and baby snuggles, but there are many unexpected changes to my life.

I suddenly felt super weird spending money on anything but absolute essentials. The loss of a second income made me feel like I had to be extra frugal and didn’t dare think of getting something for myself. In hindsight, I was being a bit ridiculous, and it would have been fine to buy that $30 dress that looked great on me (and had pockets!).

While I am a social person, at work I was always the person thinking, “get out of my office so I can be productive.” When I experienced entire days only talking to a small being, I found myself accosting my poor husband the moment he walked in the door, crushing him with story after story about inane things and parenting articles I read.

Checking email became a waste of time and eventually I stopped, so when I did receive a personal email, it would take a week or two before I noticed. My to-do list became useless. Laundry. Check. Wait, it’s been 5 minutes so there’s more. Run Errands. Check. Wait, now we need velcro for my husband’s uniform. The household part of life never ends for everyone, but when that became the main part of my life, the lack of accomplishment became maddening.

I’ve always had a lot of self-confidence –- too much, perhaps. When I switched to a non-legal job with significantly less pay due to living in Germany, it didn’t faze me. But then, motherhood. It’s all I was. And I wasn’t even very good at it, or so I felt. I couldn’t even get my baby to sleep!

With all those changes, the absolute hardest part of becoming a SAHM, was enduring being treated like I was dumb. “And what do you do?” The question I began dreading most because it followed with the same, awful look of disappointment in me as a human being. Then, they would catch themselves and put on a fake smile and say in a high-pitched voice, “oh, how fun.” No, it is not fun. It is a lot of exhausting work. There are moments that are precious, moments that are joyous beyond description, moments filled with laughter, but hours filled with screams and tantrums and whining.

I was surprised how many working moms would avoid me. Here I was interested in hearing about their life and job, and I could provide help in transporting kids or insight on a project (where I would work for free or cheap if you just treated me like an equal!). But time after time it was made clear that we were not to be allies.

In hindsight, I can admit I overdid the SAHM thing. All parents want the best for their kids, but as a lawyer, I was going to research every little thing related to parenting to guarantee success. All those things they do at daycare with a full staff, I did solo. I had charts galore and a well thought out curriculum involving critical thinking development and art and science and reading and limited screen time and … too dang much.

I was a Stay-at-Home-Mom for five exhausting years with some occasional legal work and am now transitioning into being a part-time lawyer (until my husband is out of the Army, then I will be a real full-time all-in lawyer!). I am proud I did it. But I will never do it again. It was harder than anything I’ve ever done.

Shout out to all the stay-at-home parents and thank you for working so hard! Working parents, please recognize that life on that side of the fence is not easier, the grass is not greener, but we can work together to help each other.

Earlier: Mothers At Law: Achieving Meaningful Success In The Legal Profession

---

Lindsay Kennedy recently took a position with Eaker Perez Law, doing exclusively U.S. federal tax law. She is also the Executive Director of MothersEsquire. Lindsay’s favorite thing, besides her family, is working to support changes in the legal profession to allow for more non-traditional options so both parents are afforded the opportunity to enjoy their family. She’s a proud mom of two beautiful girls and married to a loving and supportive husband. You can reach her at lindsay@eakerperezlaw.com

Telemedicine efforts have been cropping up across the world with the goal of bringing specialty care to more underserved regions.

One such example comes from Yaya Mbaoua, CEO of The Mbaoua Group, which has been an integral part of a pilot program to bring telemedicine to Zimbabwe. He will be speaking about his experiences at HIMSS20 in his session “Transforming Africa’s Health Crisis with Telemedicine.”

In Zimbabwe over 65% of the population lives in rural areas. This means that healthcare facilities can be far away, and specialty care even further. Coupling this with the shortage of physicians (currently there are 1.6 doctors per every 10,000 citizens) creates challenges in getting people to the right care.

“Telemedicine program entail getting rural clinics access to specialists. Obviously in those clinics they usually don’t have any resident physician,” Mbaoua said. “The best care you typically have is a traveling nurse who would stop there and provide care. So, I think the premise of the program is to enable patients in those remote villages to be able to be seen by specialists in more advanced facilities.”

The pilot program meant bringing stakeholders from nongovernmental organizations, government agencies and healthcare systems together.

“The challenge was getting all of these government and humanitarian organizations together and establishing clear responsibilities,” Mbaoua said. “So that is number one. The second challenge is really getting a pilot project off the ground, which really … means finding a province in the country that is representive of the health system in Zimbabwe and selecting the participants, the providers, patients and staff involved.”

Getting the infrastructure set up to facilitate such an effort was key, as was education of both rural clinics and specialist physicians alike.

“We came into situations where we were confronted with generational gaps,” he said. “The older generation lacked the confidence in using technology altogether, and it really required hand-holding and spending time with them to get more comfortable and confident in using the systems.”

According to Mbaoua, the Zimbabwe pilot was successful and is expected to lead to an expansion of the effort down the line.

“Telemedicine has a future in Africa. There is really no way around it. I’ve been here for four years now and [when I began] there was a lot of skepticism about telemedicine. But there is growing interest in telemedicine across the continent. There is an understanding now of the value proposition and for good reasons,” he said.

Yaya Mbaoua will be talking about his experience implementing telemedicine programs at the session “Transforming Africa’s Health Crisis with Telemedicine” on Thursday March 12, from 11:30a.m. to 12:30p.m. in room W300. 

Post published in: Featured

What would you do if your long-suffering team finally made it to the Super Bowl? We’re talking about a football team whose one and only Super Bowl title was earned in 1970. We’re talking about a team that hasn’t made it to the Super Bowl in 50 years. We’re talking about the Kansas City Chiefs. What do you do? You file a motion to continue like this one.

Back in October 2019, Denise Kirby, a lawyer in Kansas City, Missouri, told a judge she’d be unable to appear for a trial on February 3, 2020, because she’d be in Miami to watch the Chiefs in the Super Bowl. At the time, the concept seemed a bit far-fetched, even laughable, but Kirby was all in for her team. The trial was scheduled for February 3 nonetheless — come on, the Chiefs never go to the Super Bowl.

Kirby must be clairvoyant, because as luck would have it, the Chiefs are going to the Super Bowl this year. Here’s the continuance motion she recently submitted:

We’ve learned the motion was granted, showing that she can convert in the clutch like Mahomes on third and long. In fact, judges in courthouses across the state are getting in on the continuance action thanks to the Chiefs:

We had the chance to chat with Denise and found out that even though she’s secured a place to stay in Miami, she’s still searching for a ticket to the game. Please help this superfan out with her legal Hail Mary. Go Chiefs!

In a quirky motion to continue a case, KC attorney expresses support for Chiefs [Kansas City Star]

---

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.