Category: News Feeds

It’s been 15 years since I stood on the steps of Langdell Hall as a newly minted Harvard Law School graduate. Along with 500 of my classmates, I naturally assumed we would launch our careers, rise through the ranks, and then make partner — all at the same firm where we started. Little did I realize that the path to success is not a linear one, but rather a series of well-intentioned moves in a complex landscape where legal expertise is only one facet.

Here are my suggestions for recent graduates as they navigate the next decade of their legal careers:

1. Build Your Network. Though I am no longer a practicing attorney, the network of friends and peers I built in my short stint in Biglaw pays dividends even outside the practice of law. For attorneys, the payoff is even greater; attorneys live and die by their reputation and maintaining a group of advocates, mentors, and friends will both embed your reputation in the legal community — for better or worse, so be careful — and open new opportunities to you from lateral movement, referrals, career advice, or even just moral support.
2. Keeping On Climbing. Perhaps the most apt metaphor I’ve heard to describe a Biglaw career is that it is akin to climbing a mountain. It is a constant uphill battle that becomes steeper the higher up you climb. While attempting to climb the ranks in Biglaw, you will get outpaced by your coworkers if you fail to recognize that steady endurance and constant commitment are the keys to success. Our clients measure attorneys based on their future expected performance, which is often demonstrated by tangible benchmarks from their past, such as originations and hours. Try to maintain an even pace that allows you to hit both the quantity and quality requisites for working in Biglaw.
3. Death of a Salesman. Young lawyers often think of sales and marketing as ignoble and would rather devote their time strictly to the practice of the law. While an endearing sentiment, the reality is that any partner worth his or her salt has developed sales prowess. In my dealings with rainmakers, the one thing they all possess is the ability to communicate with clarity and act with authenticity. It takes a track record of expertise to get in front of a client, but once you’re there, you have to close the deal and pass up when you cannot deliver. Look for partners with a demonstrated record of procuring large clients, and see if they are willing to mentor you — then ride their coat tails.
4. Play Chess, Not Checkers. Navigating your legal career requires finesse and foresight. From elementary school to law school, your path has likely been fairly linear. The game of law is not so much — it requires a deft touch to get you where you want to go. You may have to sacrifice short-term happiness for long-term gains. For instance, though you may be enamored with your overly leveraged firm, you have few opportunities for servicing meaningful work and practicing your client development skills. Come your eighth year, the firm is not going to make you partner just because you love the firm so much. We have had clients that lateral away from their dream firm to gain the requisite experience at another firm to later come return to that firm as a partner. Think three moves ahead, not just one.
5. Always Explore Your Options. The days of the lifer are pretty much over. Staying with one firm for eight years in hopes of becoming a partner won’t boost your chances as much as you might hope. In making your career plan, remember that there are always opportunities for more substantial work, higher pay, and better mentorship. It never hurts to be aware of your career options and check in on the marketplace from time to time. Worst-case scenario, you stay at your firm if the current opportunities are not quite the right fit.

As you embark on your law careers, remember there is no singular piece of advice that will fit every attorney. Much of your career will be reacting to new information with little notice. We counsel our candidates based on each individual’s current situation and goals, and we invite you to explore your options with us.

Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series of posts from Lateral Link’s team of expert contributors. Michael Allen is the CEO of Lateral Link. He is based in the Los Angeles office and focuses exclusively on Partner and General Counsel placements for top firms and companies. Prior to founding Lateral Link in 2006, he worked as an attorney at both Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and Irell & Manella LLP. Michael graduated summa cum laude from the University of California, San Diego before earning his JD, cum laude, from Harvard Law School.

---

Lateral Link is one of the top-rated international legal recruiting firms. With over 14 offices world-wide, Lateral Link specializes in placing attorneys at the most prestigious law firms and companies in the world. Managed by former practicing attorneys from top law schools, Lateral Link has a tradition of hiring lawyers to execute the lateral leaps of practicing attorneys. Click here to find out more about us.

The effort to rehabilitate the reputation of alleged serial sexual harasser, former Ninth Circuit judge Alex Kozinski continues a pace. In 2017, Kozinski retired amid a sexual harassment scandal that rocked the legal world. While the jurist was somewhat famous in legal circles for his bawdy sense of humor, the extent of the alleged harassment — asking women clerks to view pornography with him in his chambers, making inappropriate sexual comments, and verbal abuse heaped on females working in his chambers — was more hidden. However, the Washington Post’s exposé on the judge sparked an avalanche of over a dozen women coming forward to share their experiences with the judge. But his retirement stunted any real investigation into the allegations.

Last year, the first step in the rehabbing his reputation began when he appeared as a co-author on an appellate brief on behalf of the heirs of Pulitzer Prize-winning author Paul Zindel, in their case claiming the Oscar Award-winning movie “The Shape of Water” stole copyrighted parts of Zindel’s “Let Me Hear You Whisper.” Now it’s reported that he’ll be returning to the Ninth Circuit in an oral argument in that case.

Kozinski’s attempt to ingratiate himself back into the legal community — without any investigation — is what Kozinski accusers warned us would happen:

“Where formal processes fail or are subverted, the legal community should insist on informal reckonings before any rehabilitation, rather than turn a collective blind eye to allegations of harassment,” wrote Leah Litman, a professor now at the University of Michigan Law School, Emily Murphy, a professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, and Katherine Ku, a partner at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

And some see this attempt as a deliberate flip of the bird:

“The issue right now that faces our sort of  #metoo world is the issue of normalization after certain allegations have been made and after certain consequences have occurred,” said UC Hastings professor Rory Little, who is currently a visiting professor at Yale Law School this semester.

“My overall reaction is one of some sadness that [Kozinski] somehow feels it necessary to thrust himself back in the public eye,” Little said. “It seems like poking a stick in the eye of the community.

“You can just imagine this his return is going to upset some people,” Little said.

But there isn’t any formal process designed to hold Kozinski accountable. Once he retired, the investigation ended and, as a industry, there is not much that can currently be done. However, Fix the Court executive director Gabe Roth thinks it shows the need for congressional action:

“That a serial harasser is allowed to make a comeback without making amends is shameful. It’s also the exact reason we’ve called for an amendment to the judicial misconduct statute that would ensure judges can’t simply retire to make their misconduct cases disappear.

“Keeping complaints alive post-retirement would send a strong signal to current and former members of the judiciary that there are long-term consequences for their actions and that any attempt to return to public life may be marred by a thorough misconduct investigation — and not merely a banal dismissal of charges, as happened with Kozinski.

“Continuing the misconduct process would also signal to other legal bodies, like state bar associations, that they’d be welcome to act, as well.”

But until that happens there’s little recourse but good, old-fashioned shaming.

---

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).

Plaintiffs in the gender discrimination case filed against Biglaw firm Jones Day have filed a motion in federal court to conditionally certify the case as a collective action under the Equal Pay Act. The purported class-action gender discrimination lawsuit alleges a “fraternity culture” at the firm and unequal pay behind the firm’s notorious “black box” compensation system.

There are currently six named plaintiffs in the case (there had been seven, but one anonymous plaintiff dropped out rather than reveal her name). The plaintiffs are spread throughout the country — Nilab Rahyar Tolton, Andrea Mazingo, Meredith Williams, and Jaclyn Stahl worked in California offices of the firm, while Saira Draper was an associate in Atlanta, and Katrina Henderson was in the firm’s New York office — and allege the same black box compensation systems kept their pay below that of men working at the firm:

“Plaintiffs worked in multiple Jones Day offices and practice groups, and each has been subjected to a common compensation practice that results in women earning less than men for substantially equal work,” they said in the filing. “All are challenging the same compensation policy, under which every associate’s compensation is determined in a ‘black box,’ with final decisions made by the Firm’s Managing Partner, Stephen J. Brogan.”

If the collective action is certified, female associates who have worked at Jones Day since April 3, 2016, would be able to opt into the litigation.

In their response to the First Amended Complaint, Jones Day denied the plaintiffs’ allegations, going after the notion the plaintiffs should be paid on the market scale set by Cravath, and highlighting the professional failings of the plaintiffs.

Earlier coverage: Jones Day Hit With Explosive Gender Discrimination Case
Jones Day Facing Second Class-Action Lawsuit Over ‘Fraternity Culture’ Of The Firm
Partner Whose Behavior Features Prominently In Jones Day Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Is Out At The Firm
Jones Day Wants Gender Discrimination Plaintiffs To Reveal Themselves To The Public
Plaintiffs Throw Shade At Jones Day In Gender Discrimination Lawsuit
Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Against Jones Day Gets Yet Another Plaintiff
Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Against Jones Day Dropped — Well, One Of Them At Least
Jones Day Gender Discrimination Case Spreads To New York
Amended Gender Discrimination Case Brings The Real Scoop On Jones Day Compensation
Jones Day To Gender Discrimination Plaintiffs: You Don’t Deserve To Be Paid On The Cravath Scale
Plaintiff Backs Out Of Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Against Jones Day Rather Than Reveal Her Name

---

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 Friday afternoon, and you know what that means during bonus season: Biglaw associates across the country have been counting down the hours and repeatedly refreshing their email accounts to see if they’ve received any welcome news about whether their firm will match the market or come in over the top.

Today, lucky associates at one firm discovered that they’d wind up with some extra cash on top of their regular bonuses if they worked really, really hard this year. Which firm could be offering up the bountiful bonuses, and how much extra money are we talking?

It’s Akin Gump, and the firm has matched Milbank for 2019 year-end bonuses. In case you’ve forgotten, this is what the scale looks like:

Class of 2019 – $15,000 (pro-rated)
Class of 2018 – $15,000
Class of 2017 – $25,000
Class of 2016 – $50,000
Class of 2015 – $65,000
Class of 2014 – $80,000
Class of 2013 – $90,000
Class of 2012 – $100,000
Class of 2011 – $100,000

Associates at the firm need to have worked 1950 or more hours (including pro bono hours, general counsel hours, business development hours, and up to 100 hours of time spent on recruiting, diversity & inclusion, and/or innovation activities to be considered eligible for a full bonus this year.

Now, about the additional money highly productive associates at the firm can expect, let’s turn to an excerpt from this year’s bonus memo:

This year, as in the past, the firm will reward truly outstanding performers with bonuses that exceed the market bonus for their respective class (as set forth above). Those associates and counsel whose performance and productivity is deemed extraordinary will receive additional bonus amounts ranging from $5,000 – $25,000 above the market level for their class.

Congratulations to everyone at Akin — this seems like a fantastic cash haul. Bonuses at the firm will hit associate bank accounts in early 2020.

(Flip to the next page to see the full memo from Akin Gump.)

Remember everyone, we depend on your tips to stay on top of important bonus updates, so when your firm matches, please text us (646-820-8477) or email us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Matches”). Please include the memo if available. You can take a photo of the memo and send it via text or email if you don’t want to forward the original PDF or Word file.

And if you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Bonus Alerts (which is the alert list we also use for salary announcements), please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the bonus alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each bonus announcement that we publish. Thanks for all of your help!

---

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.

There is a misperception in the legal industry that there is an imbalance of economic information as between law firms and their clients. The truth of the matter is that both law firms and their clients have access to comparable data. This billing data could be using more effectively if buyers and sellers of legal services collaborated around it using modern data analytics tools. This level of transparency will make the practice of law value driven and will benefit all parties.

Legal spend analytics is not about taking sides. Corporations want their law firm as a partner in a long-term relationship, not a fungible vendor where they continually beat down the fees. Similarly, law firms want to differentiate themselves in the market by providing exceptional value. The perceived imbalance of available information occurs because law firms and clients view the situation from different perspectives with focuses on different things. At bottom, the same raw data memorialized in the invoice can be strategically transformed into mutually beneficial business intelligence.

Legal Decoder helps clients and law firms re-imagine data to see the whole picture from both sides. Our technology neutrally and objectively surfaces unique insights helping law firms and their clients see both spend and value. This affords law firms and their clients an unbiased, accurate depiction of the entire situation. With the ability to see it from each other’s viewpoint they can use the available data in a coordinated manner to yield better economic results as well as improved value for every dollar spent.

It’s like going to the doctor; they can only help if you truthfully disclose what is going on. Our clients have noticed the following using our Legal Spend Analytics engine:

• Better economic results for everyone;
• Improved efficiency and value for each dollar spent;
• Access to actionable data that informs legal spend decisions;
• Budgets that are informed by what should have happened;
• A stronger, tighter relationship with increasing trust and engagements on more matters; and
• Powerful and honest conversations.

When it comes down to it, law firms and their clients are on the same side fighting a common enemy (e.g., the counter-party plaintiff or defendant, buyer vs. seller, the IRS, etc.). With aligned data insights, it is the client and their law firm against their opponent not the firm versus client. Analytics generated by Legal Decoder become a resource for law firms and their clients. A collaboration around data is an effective tool for law firms and their clients to defeat their shared opponent. The duality of legal spend analytics generate results that speak for themselves.

We’ve been covering all the various SLAPP suits filed by Devin Nunes against his critics, journalists, political operatives, and (most famously) a satirical internet cow. As we’ve noted, despite Nunes being a Representative from California, and despite the fact that many of the people and companies he’s targeting are California-based, he’s filed most of the suits in Virginia state court. The reasons for this seemed fairly obvious to many commentators. Virginia has a very weak anti-SLAPP law. California has a very robust one.

We were actually a bit surprised to see Nunes file one lawsuit in California, but he quickly dropped it to file a related lawsuit… back in Virginia. His one other non-Virginia lawsuit was filed in Iowa which has no anti-SLAPP law at all.

And while these lawsuits all appear to be frivolous attempts to intimidate critics and journalists, they may actually have a potentially good result. Legislators in Virginia have been inspired by this abuse of the judicial system to consider beefing up Virginia’s weak anti-SLAPP law:

Sen. John Edwards,… who will chair the Senate Courts of Justice Committee in the 2020 legislative session, said he’s already hearing from lawyers who want Virginia’s anti-SLAPP law strengthened in the wake of Nunes’ actions.

One is Roanoke lawyer Mark Cathey, chairman of the Roanoke School Board. He emphasized he was speaking for himself and not for the board.

“Our courts shouldn’t be taken advantage of this way,” Cathey told me regarding Nunes’ lawsuits.

The article also notes that another legislator, Scott Surovell, is also Adam Parkhomenko’s lawyer, the one who wrote that wonderful motion to quash Nunes’ subpoena of Parkhomenko, pointing out that cows don’t have opposable thumbs.

A Virginia lawmaker who’s urging legislative action is Sen. Scott Surovell, D-Fairfax. As an attorney, Surovell represents Adam Parkhomenko, a Democratic strategist whom Nunes has subpoenaed in an effort to learn the identity of the person behind Devin Nunes’ Cow, a Twitter parody account that has lampooned the congressman.

Surovell called Nunes “a serial SLAPP abuser” and added, “There’s no question he specifically forum-shopped this SLAPP lawsuit [against Twitter] in Virginia.”

While these frivolous nuisance suits are a pain, and certainly unbecoming of a sitting member of Congress, it would be nice if the end result is the creation of another good state anti-SLAPP law.

Devin Nunes’ Virginia SLAPP Suits Causing Virginia Legislators To Consider A New Anti-SLAPP Law

More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:

The Fate Of EU Legislation Designed To Bolster Data Protection Beyond The GDPR, The ePrivacy Regulation, Hangs In The Balance
NYPD Finally Releases A Body Camera Policy That Gives The Department Plenty Of Ways To Withhold Footage
Why Won’t Creative Future’s Members Comment About This Hollywood Front Group Smearing A Well Respected Law Professor?

Elon Musk is a billionaire entrepreneur, and as such is not used to be called to account for his actions, whether those actions are alleged securities law violations or smoking weed on camera while under scrutiny for a Twitter habit at the heart of those alleged securities law violations or inability to meet either profit or production goals. Certainly, he’s not interested in being called to account for rather apparently alleging that a man seeking to rescue children from a cave is an actual child rapist.

The month-long initiative, running under the theme Homecoming, will hold events in Harare, Bulawayo, Victoria Falls, Chimanimani, Nyanga and Kariba, among other destinations, from 1-30 April.

The move is part of strategic efforts for the diaspora to collaborate with Zimbabwean artists, entertainers, businesses and community organisations, as well as to attract more tourists to the country for a month of family-friendly, music, sports, arts, business, fashion and cultural events.

Started in 2017 by USA based Mildred Mujanganja and Mike Tashaya, who resides in the United Kingdom, the platform has been established to bring Zimbabweans who live in various countries around the world together, and encourage them to gather in the southern African country at the same time, with the aim of reinforcing unity, building new and old friendships, and creating a stronger and self-sufficient nation.

Mildred said: “We are less than six months away and the team has been working closely with our partners and key stakeholders to populate an exciting and inclusive calendar of events that allows families and friends to come together and create long lasting memories.”

She added: “Many of us left Zimbabwe many years ago and in some cases, have not been back for years. At a time when Zimbabwe is going through a critical transition, we need to unite and work together to put our country back on the map, and this is just the start of engaging a global presence to be part of something bigger than them.”

The Zimbabwe Achievers Awards (ZAA) announced their homecoming campaign at an event held at the Zimbabwean Embassy in London. The organisation, which is present in five countries, will celebrate its 10^th anniversary next year. The awards ceremony will take place at the picturesque Elephant Hills resort in Victoria Falls on 10 April 2020.

Other events scheduled to take place in April include, the Vic Falls Carnival, which is coming on board with a dynamic festival over the Easter weekend. The International CEO Eatout, Zimbabwe Unplugged Festival, EnjoyMoreGolf festival, KitesForPeace family fun day, Harare Restaurant Week, Chimanimani Festival and Zimbabwe International Trade Fair (ZITF), are just some of the events taking place.

There will also be a variety of workshops, business, dance and fashion masterclasses run by some of the world’s leading experts and professionals.

All schools, colleges and universities encouraged to participate

The ZimThrive organisers have also launched a school reunion initiative and are calling all education institutions in Zimbabwe to come on board and host reunions at their respective schools.

The campaign is a wider public initiative to encourage both local and international alumni to work closely with their former schools, and to help boost engagement across the board. This includes creating international programmes that afford students the opportunity to travel abroad on placements and learn from alumni through workshops, seminars, and other integrated schemes.

Mike said: “This is a chance for all schools and former students, to work in partnership to create ongoing dialogue that will benefit current and future pupils, apprentices and graduates.

He added: “It is also an  opportunity to create universal ventures that open intercontinental dialogue, so that a wide range of students in Zimbabwe are afforded the opportunity to study overseas, or go on exchange programmes that could open doors for them in the future.”

Zimbabwe Foreign Office backing

The Zimbabwean Foreign Office has recognised the initiative and will be running a campaign concurrently over the next four months as it enters the final phase.

Earlier in the year, the  Zimbabwe Tourism Authority, along with the Ministry of Tourism and Hospitality, endorsed the project and embarked on a series of roadshows in the UK in line with their campaign, to engage the diaspora and encourage diasporans to invest in the country. They commended the apolitical organisation for creating a platform that encourages further engagement and that promotes Zimbabwe as a tourist destination

Last year saw a positive rise for the tourism industry in Zimbabwe, with the sector recording growth of 6% from 2, 422 930 in 2017 to 2, 579 974 in 2018, grossing close to US$1, 4 billion.

Sponsorship opportunities are available and details of the packages can be found on the ZimThrive website. Travel packages, which will include discounted flight deals and accommodation packages, will be released in the coming weeks. Members of the public who are interested in the initiative and would like to get involved, host an event, or keep up to date with the organisations activity can register their interest at www.zimthrive.com or email [email protected]

For all calendar events visit https://zimthrive.com/events-calendar /

Post published in: Featured

More than two years after California’s surprise-billing law took effect, there’s one thing on which consumer advocates, doctors and insurers all agree: The law has been effective at protecting many people from bills they might have been saddled with from doctors who aren’t in their insurance network.

But the consensus stops there.

“In general, the law is working as intended,” said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California, a patient advocacy group that pushed for the measure, AB-72. “Patients are protected and the providers are getting paid.”

Physicians beg to differ. They say the law’s constraints on what insurers now pay has given the companies an unfair advantage in negotiations with doctors, which is leading to major changes in the industry that may affect patients.

Recent analyses by some researchers, however, cast doubt on some of the doctors’ dire warnings.

“The problem is that AB-72 is creating imbalances in the health care marketplace that are decreasing access to care,” said Dr. Antonio Hernandez Conte, an anesthesiologist whose specialty is among those most affected by the law.

The California law, which took effect in July 2017, protects consumers who use an in-network hospital or other facility from being hit with surprise bills when cared for by a doctor who has not contracted with their insurer. If that happens, consumers are responsible only for the copayment or other cost sharing that they would have owed if they had been seen by an in-network doctor.

Federal lawmakers are eyeing the California law as a possible model as they debate legislative proposals that would address surprise billing at the national level.

The California law applies to nonemergency services, since most state consumers were already protected for emergency care through an earlier court ruling.

It’s not unusual for patients who visit a hospital or ambulatory surgical center that is covered by their insurance to encounter specialists who aren’t, even in nonemergency situations.

For example, someone who has knee replacement surgery with an in-network surgeon at an in-network hospital may not realize that the anesthesiologist and assistant surgeon also scrubbing in on the operation are not.

Or a couple may be surprised to learn that the neonatologist caring for their baby in intensive care is outside their insurance network, even though the hospital where they gave birth is inside it. Diagnostic specialists like radiologists and pathologists whom patients rarely see may be out-of-network at an in-network hospital as well.

Under the California law, the doctor’s payment from an insurer in those situations is based on either the average contracted rate for similar services in the area or 125% of what Medicare would have paid, whichever is greater.

In a California Medical Association online survey released last month in which 855 physician practices responded, nearly 90% of the doctors said that the law allowed insurers to shrink physician networks, thus limiting patients’ access to in-network doctors. Physicians blame the new law’s reimbursement rates for surprise out-of-network care. The payment standard made insurers less inclined to negotiate payments and reduced doctors’ bargaining power, the physicians say.

Those surveyed said they faced insurer payment rate cuts, refusal to renew their contracts and contract termination, among other problems.

This has led some physicians to try to gain leverage by consolidating practices, a move that can drive up health care costs significantly, the doctors warn.

The medical association did not respond to calls for comment on the survey.

Hernandez Conte, who chairs the legislative and practice affairs division of the California Society of Anesthesiologists, also pointed to data from the California Department of Managed Health Care showing that consumer complaints about access to care have risen from 415 in 2016 to 614 in 2018, a 48% jump.

Those complaints represent a minuscule number of consumers in the context of the more than 30 million Californians covered by commercial insurance or Medi-Cal, said Loren Adler, associate director at the University of Southern California-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy. Adler noted that there’s no way to know if the complaints had anything to do with the surprise-billing law.

Hernandez Conte also pointed to a study published in August by the research firm Rand Corp. that he said showed the law is eroding doctors’ leverage with insurers.

But that study, a series of 28 interviews with doctors and others about their experiences in the first year after the law took effect, wasn’t definitive, said author Erin Duffy, an adjunct policy researcher at Rand and postdoctoral fellow at the Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics at USC.

“It’s more a reflection of what are some of the potential things we should look at down the road,” she said.

Aside from individual examples of contracting problems cited by the physician group, researchers cite little evidence that patients are losing access to doctors who accept their insurance because of dwindling insurance networks.

The opposite appears to be true. USC-Brookings researchers published an analysis in September examining more than 17 million specialty claims by California physicians affected by the law. They found the share of services that specialty physicians delivered out-of-network at hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers declined by 17% after the law took effect.

When the law went into effect, there was a “precipitous” movement by affected physicians into insurance networks, said Adler, a co-author of the study.

Similarly, when the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans surveyed 11 large California health insurers about in-network providers during the two years after the law took effect, it found that the numbers grew or remained flat across specialties. There was a 16% increase in the number of in-network physicians overall, including a 26% rise in diagnostic radiologists and an 18% bump in anesthesiologists.

The plight of consumers who go to an in-network facility and, unbeknownst to them, receive treatment from out-of-network doctors has garnered plenty of attention in recent months.

In a typical scenario, the doctor charges the insurance company for services, then turns around and bills the patient for whatever amount the insurance company doesn’t pay, a practice called balance billing. With no contract between the insurer and the doctor to set payment rates, the amounts billed by physicians are often higher than market rates, and the balance bills that patients face are many times higher than the regular copayment they would owe for in-network care.

Federal lawmakers are debating a number of measures that would address the issues at the federal level. The leading House and Senate bills would set minimum payment standards based on insurers’ median in-network rate for a service for applicable out-of-network care, similar to the California law.

A federal law is key to broadening the surprise-billing protections provided by California’s law, Wright said.

More than half of states now provide some level of consumer protection against surprise bills, and the efforts vary. But state surprise-billing laws protect only people insured by state-regulated plans. In California, that means 5.5 million consumers whose employers self-fund workers’ health claims directly, rather than through an insurance plan, aren’t covered by the law.

Since AB-72 was implemented, the Department of Managed Health Care hasn’t taken any enforcement actions against physicians for balance-billing patients in nonemergency situations, according to agency spokeswoman Rachel Arrezola. It has pursued a handful of cases against doctors for out-of-network balance billing in emergency situations, however.

As doctors and patient advocates wrangle over AB-72, lawmakers are pressing new protections for consumers. A state law recently barred balance billing by air ambulance services.

Starting in January, California consumers who are airlifted by an out-of-network air ambulance won’t be responsible for any more than their regular cost sharing for in-network providers.

This KHN story first published on California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Photo: cat-scape, Getty Images

Even in the annals of judges behaving badly, a complaint like this stands out. Kentucky Family Court Judge Dawn Gentry was rung up by the Judicial Conduct Commission on nine charges. It’s not that offering appointments in a pay-to-play scheme and then retaliating against attorneys and other officials for not donating to a judge’s campaign aren’t serious charges, but you’ll forgive everyone for glossing right over that to the parts of the complaint about the rock band sex stuff.

Judge Gentry, who is also a bassist in a band called South of Cincy apparently, allegedly asked her case management specialist to resign so she could hire the band’s guitarist, former pastor Stephen Penrose. The allegations include inappropriate delegation of judiciary duties to Penrose too but, again, those serious allegations will have to wait because the investigators believe all of this was a cover for her to have a little in camera review of that dick.

The judge is also accused of approving false time sheets for her secretary, Laura Aubrey, but that dire allegation is also going to be totally ignored here because the investigators say Gentry, Penrose, and Aubrey were having threesomes during work hours. It reminds me of that joke, “a judge, a pastor, and a secretary walk into an office… yadda yadda yadda the Judicial Conduct Commission brings charges.”

This is the part of the “Behind the Music: South of Cincy” where they tell us “the band was living large, but storm clouds were gathering.”

If you’re wondering where the judge’s husband is in all of this, that involves telling the story of a government panel designed to help abused children that Judge Gentry appointed members to:

Katherine Schulz reportedly quit a panel the judge appointed her to after the judge flirted with her via Snapchat, pressured her to seduce the judge’s husband and asked her to join the judge and a former church pastor in a threesome.

Damn, South of Cincy makes Mötley Crüe look tame. Gentry is now divorced.

Frankly, the allegations of keeping and drinking liquor in the office barely even register in this thing.

For her part, Judge Gentry has denied the charges except for an allegation that she let Penrose jam on his six sting in his courthouse office which we’re pretty sure she doesn’t mean as a euphemism. She’ll face a hearing in the next few months.

Check out the whole complaint on the next page.

Judge Dawn Gentry faces misconduct charges. Here’s what happened and what happens next.
Kentucky judge accused of frat-house antics, threesomes with staffers [NY Post]

---

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.