Category: News Feeds

Before you can build a successful product, you have to know who you’re building it for. I’m not talking about just identifying a segment of the market; rather, you need to understand, in depth, just what your intended audience needs from your product. Audiences aren’t one-size-fits-all, so products shouldn’t be either.

When it comes to lawyers, they don’t tend to care about how sleek or advanced or next-generation their technology is. In fact, “[s]uccessful law firms … use legal technology not because it’s cool but because they know legal tech makes their work better.” 

But how, exactly, can software help lawyers work better? What are the main pain points to keep in mind when designing technology that lawyers use? To answer that, let’s look at what technologies lawyers have adopted and what they indicate about lawyers and their priorities. 

What Technologies Have Lawyers Embraced? 

Lawyers will adopt technology that makes their work better and their lives easier. Take smartphones, for example: with mobile phone service and increasing computing power, lawyers can stay in touch with their clients and get work done anytime and anywhere. As a result, most lawyers are inseparable from their phones. 

That trend continues in the office. Lawyers no longer write documents out in longhand or bang out drafts on a typewriter. While a few may still dictate content, most have become proficient in Microsoft Word as well as document assembly and document management tools. Instead of typing out the same basic document multiple times, lawyers usually start a new document from an existing template. They also save their preferred clauses in emails, documents, and local folders to insert into the new document. Similarly, Bates numbering and redaction have been transformed from laborious arts-and-crafts projects to one-click digital processes. 

Then there’s legal research. Lawyers readily abandoned the dusty stacks of legal reporters for online case law resources and have never looked back. Like word processing software, digital research improves client outcomes, providing on-point precedents and compelling arguments, and simultaneously reduces the workload for lawyers, putting that relevant case law at their fingertips in moments.

What does it say about lawyers that these technologies have successfully permeated their practice?

What We Can Learn About Lawyers From the Tech They Use

Lawyers are focused on client service. 

Lawyers have no tolerance for incompetent representation. Despite lawyers’ affection for their Westlaw and LexisNexis subscriptions, if a client needed something that could only be found in a book, you’d better believe their lawyer would be nose-deep in that book. The first priority for lawyers is that technology should enhance the services they provide to their clients. 

Lawyers are pressed for time and driven by billable hours.

Lawyers — under the ever-present pressure of the billable hour — don’t have time for repetitive, rote tasks like retyping contracts or clauses. They also don’t have time to figure out how to use a complex or non-intuitive system. This isn’t a statement about whether lawyers are tech-averse or tech-resistant; it’s about their need to be efficient and effective with their time.

Lawyers put a premium on convenience and functionality over bells and whistles.

Lawyers are busy people who are pulled in multiple directions. They’ll often pass on overhyped, trendy tools in favor of tried-and-true time-savers. In fact, the 2019 Aderant Business of Law and Legal Technology Survey found that most lawyers weren’t interested in artificial intelligence or blockchain; instead, they were looking for “the tools lawyers use day in and day out, the bread-and-butter tools of a modern law practice,” including document management, e-billing, and knowledge management solutions. Lawyers also favor convenient tools that save them time by fitting within their existing workflows.

So, what should technology companies keep in mind when designing software for lawyers?

Designing Technology That Works for Lawyers

If you want lawyers to actually use your technology, it has to be effective in providing better results for their clients. Usefulness—as measured by client outcomes—is the bottom line for legal software solutions. If a tool allows lawyers to provide better service to clients, improves client results, or increases the firm’s profitability either directly or by reducing write-offs, you’re halfway there.

But no technology works unless the user uses it. To that end, legal technology must also be efficient with lawyers’ time. It should be easy to launch, easy to learn, and ultimately easy to use on a daily basis. If it requires a laborious setup or a long, slow learning curve, it’ll be hard for lawyers to recognize any client service benefits because they just won’t have the time to seek it out in the press of daily work.

On that note, legal software solutions should be convenient to use. Lawyers spend too much time looking for the right clause and then sifting through them meticulously looking for information that needs to be adjusted. When your technology is integrated within existing workflows, your audience doesn’t have to remember to look for it or switch screens to use it: it’s right there when they need it.

These are the considerations we think about every day at Litera. How can we create technology that lawyers want to use? How can we improve client outcomes, reduce the barriers to adoption, and fold our products into lawyers’ workflows and processes so that they’re available when and where they’re needed?

A great example of legal technology that just works for lawyers is the new Anonymize feature in Clause Companion. With Anonymize, lawyers can designate a document as a template and have the software automatically extract dates, names, numbers, and other case-specific data, creating a fillable form for future use. This improves client results by producing clean, up-to-date templates, saves lawyers time, and fits easily within our unified Microsoft Word ribbon. We think it exemplifies how software companies can learn from their audience and design technology that meets that customer’s unique needs.

About Litera

Litera is the leading provider of software for law firms and document-intensive organizations across the globe, helping them satisfy the demands of clients. Our document drafting products empower users to create, proofread, compare, clean, and distribute high-quality content quickly and securely, from any device, while our transaction management platform converts the manual, tedious process of managing transactions by creating a secure, collaborative workspace and automating the entire signature process. Learn more at litera.com.

A Texas judge facing a seven-count wire fraud indictment has successfully made it onto the Fall ballot because some people just know how to run a campaign!

Judge Alexandra Smoots-Thomas was tagged with wire fraud over allegations that she embezzled $26,000 from her campaign. But this didn’t stop 33 percent of the voters from supporting her reelection — enough to get her into a runoff against an assistant county attorney who got 41 percent.

From Texas Lawyer:

Kent Schaffer, Smoots-Thomas’ criminal defense lawyer, said that her prosecution is political, and he thinks she will beat the charges.

“I don’t think the average voter had any idea that Judge Smoots-Thomas was under indictment,” said Schaffer, a partner in Schaffer Carter & Associates in Houston. “I didn’t hear it mentioned at all.”

This was never mentioned? What kind of campaign wouldn’t bring this up? Apparently the judge’s opponent claimed that she “didn’t want to be perceived as the one with the ax to grind” which sounds noble but given her job is more likely the nice way of saying “a representative of the prosecutor’s office can’t be going around calling people guilty pre-trial.”

As of now, the Smoots-Thomas trial is scheduled for September. Her attorneys are hoping to have her cleared before the election.

No word on whether or not this has put a crimp in her fundraising…

Voters Supported Suspended Texas Judge, Who’s Also Been Indicted [Texas Lawyer]

---

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.

A hallmark of an important professional development is when definitive statements proclaiming a new reality are made by serious sources. If anyone was unsure of whether the litigation finance phenomenon had reached that tipping point, they can now feel free to rid themselves of any uncertainty. No lesser a source than the New York City Bar Association Litigation Funding Working Group has spoken, declaring that “the New York Rules of Professional Conduct should be modified to accommodate the reality of litigation funding.” Lest you think that this impactful statement is the product of unserious thinking, please understand that the members of this working group include prominent academics, practitioners, litigation funders, and former jurists. A group that collectively worked over a year to conduct a “comprehensive study and review of the issues and practices surrounding litigation funding” before issuing their report, while also soliciting input on numerous occasions “from a range of guest speakers, including practitioners, scholars, and experts in the fields of commercial and consumer finance.”

Their just-issued report on litigation finance represents serious effort, by a serious team, on perhaps the most serious issue confronting the legal profession today. One that comes just after the City Bar’s Committee on Professional Ethics’ notorious (at least in litigation finance circles) prior decision that “non-recourse financing agreement secured by legal fees in a matter — i.e., an arrangement in which it is contemplated that the lawyer will make future payments only if the lawyer recovers fees — constitutes an impermissible fee-sharing arrangement” in violation of ethics rules. While that decision did not seem to have much of a chilling effect on the spread of litigation finance nationwide (or even in New York,) it did stand out as the clearest statement of concern that litigation finance arrangements could constitute ethics violations. Not the greatest messaging for a burgeoning industry attracting immense investor interest — or for the lawyers and firms eagerly lining up for a shot of that sweet nonrecourse manna being doled out by flush funders in an effort to generate returns for those investors.

But as I referenced above, the new recommendation is that the ethical rules be modified, not that litigation funding be restricted. Bending to the new reality, if you will. While serious questions still remain about the impacts on (distortions of) the attorney-client relationship that are engendered by litigation finance arrangements, it seems clear for now that both the bar and funding industry are committed to working together to minimize the potential negatives so that the glorious positives can be realized. Is there self-interest on all sides motivating the relationship? Of course. But there must also be a committed response to what is actually going on in the legal industry in the US — one that takes into account both the historical record and treatment of third-party funding of lawyers and claims, as well as the lessons that can be learned from the development and deployment of litigation funding overseas.

To that end, the Working Group’s report is a major contribution. At minimum, it serves as a handy primer on the historical concerns surrounding the use of third-party funding as a driver of litigation, along with a useful overview of how litigation funding is being handled by other common law legal systems such as Australia. For that alone it is a must-read for anyone whose practice is impacted  by litigation finance — i.e. nearly every litigator practicing today, as well as an increasingly wide swath of nonlitigators, such as in-house counsel or those corporate types who serve the litigation finance industry, just to start. But the report’s main contribution, at least in my view, revolves around its competing proposals for amending the ethical rules in New York to allow for certain permissible litigation funding structures. A detailed analysis of those proposals will have to wait for a future column, especially as they relate to the reality of litigation funding in today’s IP industry. For now, however, I think it is very important to highlight a few critical observations about the nature of litigation finance underlying the need to amend the ethical rules at all.

First, the report provides confirmation that the very existence of litigation funding implicates ethical concerns. Indeed, those concerns primarily manifest themselves in the answers to a simple set of questions, such as: Could a funder “improperly influence the legal representation?”

“Of course” is the only rational answer, which is why both proposals make clear that the existence of a funding relationship should not influence the decision-making of the lawyer, or somehow vest the funder with decision-making authority on critical issues such as settlement or litigation strategy. Whether a funder can advise on those issues is addressed more permissively, but there remains a fundamental unease with the idea that a litigation funder can somehow displace the “client” and become the lawyer’s true client just because they are contributing to the cause financially. For now, at least, the Working Group is endorsing ethical rules that would allow some forms of what I term “passive” litigation funding, Where that leaves funders and investors in favor of more activist approaches is a very important question that will likely need addressing over time.

Second, the report is also a tacit acknowledgment of what has been said about the true aims of the litigation funding industry. Namely that it is effectively an elaborate workaround of the traditional ethical stricture around nonlawyer investment in law firms. In what I think is implicit recognition of that tension, it was not surprising to see a split between the two proposals on how litigation funding can be used. One proposal seeks to limit the use of litigation funding to only those expenditures incurred for the benefit of the client during the representation — and proposes limiting language to that effect. The second, however, suggests that a more expansive use of litigation funding be sanctioned, which would allow for law firms to make operational investments that more indirectly benefit the client’s interests. This is a critical issue, since we know that both funders and law firms are always looking for ways to diversify their exposure to the risks they each face, which has led to heightened interest in things like portfolio financing of a law firm’s entire contingency book of business, as just one example.

Ultimately, these are just preliminary thoughts based on an initial reading of the entire report. At the same time, just how important a contribution this report is to the vital discussion around the issue of litigation funding can’t be overstated. Those of us — particularly those of us in IP where litigation funding has already transformed the patent litigation landscape — have no choice but to become informed about all the contours of this career-defining issue. Because failure to accept the “reality of litigation funding” dooms uninformed lawyers — and their unfortunate clients — to both a difficult present and challenging future.

Please feel free to send comments or questions to me at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or via Twitter: @gkroub. Any topic suggestions or thoughts are most welcome.

---

Gaston Kroub lives in Brooklyn and is a founding partner of Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov PLLC, an intellectual property litigation boutique, and Markman Advisors LLC, a leading consultancy on patent issues for the investment community. Gaston’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and related counseling, with a strong focus on patent matters. You can reach him at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or follow him on Twitter: @gkroub.

Ed. note: Please welcome Nathalie Bougenies to the pages of Above the Law. She will be writing about the legalities surrounding cannabis and hemp CBD. This post is the first in a series dedicated to the federal and state legality and regulation of hemp-derived cannabidiol, more commonly known as “hemp CBD.”

The enactment of the 2018 Agricultural Improvement Act (the “2018 Farm Bill”) and the legalization of hemp and hemp derivatives, including hemp CBD, in some states has led to a massive hemp CBD health craze in the United States. The highly coveted cannabinoid is currently infused into everything from bath bombs to dog treats, and even workout clothes (yes, workout clothes!). According to a 2019 survey conducted by Cowen, the sales of these products are expected to reach $16 billion by 2025.

Despite this strong consumer interest, the Food and Drug Administration consistently takes the position that the sale and marketing of these hemp CBD products is unlawful and that the use of hemp CBD is dangerous. That was until the newly appointed FDA Commissioner, Stephen Hahn, M.D., publicly announced on February 26 to a roomful of representatives from state Departments of Agriculture that the FDA’s current approach to hemp CBD is not sustainable:

“We’re not going to be able to say you can’t use these products. It’s a fool’s errand to even approach that[.] We have to be open to the fact that there might be some value to these products and certainly Americans think that’s the case.”

The FDA’s new stance on the regulation of the sale and marketing of hemp CBD products raises the question in the minds of many of whether the agency will cease its enforcement actions against hemp CBD companies, which to date have been limited to sending warning letters to those companies that make egregious, unfounded health claims about the therapeutic value of hemp CBD.

Although Commissioner Hahn’s statements are promising, they did not ultimately do away with the FDA’s current moral position on hemp CBD, which is one of extreme consumer caution. Indeed, in his February 26 speech, the FDA Commissioner reiterated the agency’s goal of providing consumers with sound information about the effects of these products so they can make educated decisions about their purchases.

But what exactly gets the FDA’s hackles up around Hemp CBD?

According to the FDA, hemp CBD foods and dietary supplements can neither be lawfully sold nor marketed. The FDA takes issue with these products because of the Drug Exclusion Rule. The Drug Exclusion Rule provides that an article that has been approved or investigated as a drug cannot be a dietary supplement or be added to food unless the article was marketed as a supplement or food before it was investigated. Hemp CBD has been approved as a drug ingredient in the treatment of epilepsy (i.e., Epidiolex) and the FDA does not believe that hemp CBD was marketed as a food or dietary supplement prior to that investigation. Nevertheless, the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) gives the FDA Commissioner the authority to override the Drug Exclusion Rule by issuing “a regulation, after notice and comment, finding that the article would be lawful under [the FDCA].” As the head of the FDA, Commissioner Hahn has the ability to regulate hemp CBD, so his recent statements certainly suggest he may eventually act on that conferred power.

Despite its position on food and dietary supplements, the FDA indicated that hemp CBD can be added to topicals, which fall under the FDCA definition of “cosmetics,” so long as these products (1) do not contain marijuana, (2) are not adulterated (i.e., unsafe) or misbranded or intended to be used as drugs, and (3) if no claims are made about these products regarding diseases or bodily structure/function on their packaging, labeling, or in their marketing materials. Not making health claims on a product label or other marketing materials will significantly reduce the risk of an FDA enforcement action because any claim made about the therapeutic value of hemp CBD will lead the FDA to conclude that the product is a “drug.” And because no hemp CBD products have been approved by the FDA for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of any disease (other than Epidiolex), those products will be deemed unlawful by the FDA if such claims are made.

The FDA has yet to address the sale and use of hemp CBD smokables. This is likely due to the fact that the FDA has the authority to regulate the sale, manufacture, and marketing of tobacco products, but has repeatedly refused to extend its authority to products free of nicotine or tobacco. Accordingly, it seems unlikely that hemp CBD smokables devoid of tobacco would be considered “tobacco products.” Although the FDA is not likely to regulate most hemp CBD smokables like it does tobacco products, it could potentially regulate them as a drug under the FDCA if any health claims are made about the therapeutic value of the products.

Therefore, until the FDA adopts a formal legal path for the sale and marketing of hemp CBD products, industry players will need, at a minimum, to comply with those loose FDA guidelines and applicable state laws, which, as I will explain in the second portion of this series on hemp CBD, are all over the map.

---

Nathalie Bougenies practices in the Portland office of Harris Bricken and was named a “2019 Rising Star” by Super Lawyers Magazine, an honor bestowed on only 2.5% of eligible Oregon attorneys. Nathalie’s practice focuses on the regulatory framework of hemp-derived CBD (“hemp CBD”) products. She is an authority on FDA enforcement, Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act and other laws and regulations surrounding hemp and hemp CBD products. She also advises domestic and international clients on the sale, distribution, marketing, labeling, importation and exportation of these products. Nathalie frequently speaks on these issues and has made national media appearances, including on NPR’s Marketplace. Nathalie is also a regular contributor to her firm’s Canna Law Blog.

The global day for commemorating International Women’s Day is March 8 and it celebrates the social, economic, cultural and political achievements of women. The day has been celebrated since 1911 all over the world challenging gender stereotypes and bias by all groups everywhere. “The story of women’s struggle for equality belongs to no single feminist nor to any one organization but the collective efforts of all who care about human rights?’’ – Gloria Steinman

 This March, not only are we taking action against gender-based bias and stereotypes but we are also reflecting on the progress made so far by women and women rights movements towards gender equality. This year we celebrate feminists, ordinary women, human rights activists and ambassadors who have had the courage and determination throughout history to change the conversation about gender stereotypes. Women such as Graca Machel who pioneered political movements in colonial and post-colonial Africa; Rose Parks who in 1955 played a pivotal role in resisting racial segregation; Elizabeth Smith Miller, the first modern woman to wear trousers in public as a symbol of resisting socially created gender-based norms and Marylyn Monroe the woman who confidently defied societal female moral standards and stood out as a remarkable Hollywood revered by many. We celebrate the great works by men and women all across the globe throughout history who took the responsibility to take action and dedicate their time and efforts to building forces that fought for gender parity and women’s rights.

The conversation of women’s rights over the past century has transformed from the 1995 Beijing Platform for Action, followed by the Millennial Development Goals and now the Sustainable Development Goals. Which makes 2020 a pivotal year for advancing gender equality as the world takes stock of the milestones reached over the years. Throughout the world, Civil Society Groups, Non-Governmental Organizations, Government Bodies and ordinary people have become signatories to various movements that forward gender sensitivity in policy drafting, decision making and socio-economic development. It is imperative to note that it cannot be ignored that while a multi-sectional approach is used in mitigation measures, problem-solving and decision making in both private and public sectors,  it is of paramount importance to structure gendered frameworks targeting women as vulnerable groups as a sector of its own.

Despite the milestones reached in gender sensitivity with regard to gender equity and representation of women in politics, decision making, policy drafting and access to resources and opportunities. The patriarchal nature of most African societies continues to challenge the dynamic nature in which gender equality can be achieved. Whilst it can be put down that there are over ten United Nations gender equality declarations that most African countries are signatories to, it remains apparent than less than 50% of African parliament seats are taken by women all over Africa. This challenges the conversations around addressing women’s challenges towards achieving equal access to resources if no one represents them from a gendered perspective.

Further on that, women are a diverse group with diverse challenges governed by race, religious affiliation, social stratum, age, political affiliation and geographic location. No two women are the same, no two women have the same socially constructed roles and neither do they have the same stereotypes nor responsibilities. As we move towards equality towards an enabled community, we must understand that women’s diversity should be celebrated and we should put the diversity and achievements of and by women and girls at the core of all efforts to achieve gender equality and equity. This year we celebrate women’s day – collectively founded by women – and the quest to advance women’s concerns and challenges to policymakers that gender sensitivity may be adopted across all sectors – private, public and civil society – for 108 years. Originally celebrated as National Women’s Month after in 1909 when 15 000 women protested long working hours, low pay and no voting rights in New York City, it was Russia that set the March 8 trend in 1913 after women experienced World War 1 difficulties such as starvation and bracing winter winds.

Today, with the dawn of the new millennium the conversation on women’s rights has transformed from just being about equality and equity but also includes gender inclusion and feminism. It is not just about equal participation or representation and access to resources anymore but it is also about challenging societal norms that break down social constructs of roles played by men and women, boys and girls. Today, women and girls’ rights run with the motto ‘Women’s Rights are Human Rights or We are all Feminists and No means No’.  All to foster a mind-set or household change in how communities all over the world perceive women. Although different notions are put forward by the different types of feminists and activists, they all speak the same language. Women should define what women can do, what they can wear and how they look. Women are not a collective group of people with one mind and one similar line of thought. From radical feminists who pioneered an anti-body shaming campaign on social media by pausing nude to the #metoo campaign, women demand control over their bodies and decisions with no interference.

 In one of her famous speeches, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie defines feminism as the belief in the political, economic and social equality of sexes. Gender equality is now defined by feminism and gender sensitivity in all aspects of the challenges women face in male-dominated spaces such as sexual harassment and lower wages. Gender equality and equity call for enabled women without fear discrimination or harassment.

It is important to note that civil society organizations have taken the time to study Sexual Harassment and its dynamic and unique nature. A recent study by Transparency International Zimbabwe and the Swedish Embassy has been a much-needed initiative in studying Sextortion as a form of bribery and the dynamic nature of this form of harassment. They have also taken note of the gendered perspective on corruption and how the use of fiscal funds in Zimbabwe for use in service delivery and humanitarian work affects women and girls more than it affects men if and when mismanaged. To date, various studies and frameworks dating back to 1995 have been used to structure development discourses all over the world on how we can create societies that enable women to be empowered economically and socially. As we celebrate women’s month this year, we must ask ourselves how far we want the conversation of equality to go before we can give a standing ovation to how much we have achieved but we should also celebrate how far this movement has come in realizing women’s needs all over the world.

Post published in: Featured

Last week, United States President Donald Trump renewed sanctions against several senior Zimbabwe government officials for another year, citing lack of reforms, economic mismanagement, and “accelerated persecution” of critics by security forces. Zimbabwe’s Foreign Affairs Minister Sibusiso Moyo expressed disappointment with the decision, saying it ignored evidence of major reforms.

But the US is not alone in highlighting Zimbabwe’s lack of political will to implement credible reforms. Last month, the European Union noted that lack of reforms, the further shrinking of democratic space, and corruption have contributed to Zimbabwe’s “current deteriorating humanitarian crisis.”

Similarly, following a visit in September 2019, the United Nations special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, Clément Nyaletsossi Voule, noted “a serious deterioration of the political, economic and social environment since August 2018.” He expressed concerns that reforms to the public order laws did not go far enough to address challenges to freedom of assembly, including broad discretionary law enforcement powers and the military’s involvement in managing public demonstrations. In March 2019, Human Rights Watch found that Zimbabwe security forces had used unnecessary lethal force to crush nationwide protests in January 2019. During the protests the security forces fired live ammunition, killing 17 people, and raped at least 17 women.

Among the few reforms carried out by the Zimbabwe government is the repeal of the draconian Public Order and Security Act which was replaced by the Maintenance of Peace and Order Act. The new law, however, still does not fully guarantee the right to peaceful assembly and continues to give law enforcement agencies broad regulatory discretion and powers.

Instead of being in denial, Zimbabwe authorities should focus on implementing key reforms that would improve respect for human rights. The reforms include, in line with section 210 of the Zimbabwe Constitution, the establishment of an independent mechanism for investigating and providing remedies for public complaints of misconduct by security services. They should implement the recommendations of the Motlanthe Commission of Inquiry, which investigated the post-election violence of August 1, 2018, including ensuring those responsible for abuses are held accountable, and set up the special committee to compensate victims.

Zimbabwe’s full reengagement with the international community will depend on real change and a clear commitment to respect for human rights, good governance, and the rule of law.

Post published in: Featured

As the coronavirus continues to infect people across the country, the law school community is working on ways to manage teaching the future lawyers of America who will someday turn pandemics into practice areas. Thus far, three law schools — including Columbia Law, one of the most elite schools in the nation — have closed their campuses for in-person classes and are moving their courses and exams to an online format.

We’ve now learned of four additional T14 law schools that are doing the same exact thing in an effort to spare their students and faculty members from possibily contracting COVID-19.

This past weekend, Stanford Law announced announced on its website that “[i]n-person classes will be moved to an online format for the last two weeks of the winter quarter.” Stanford is on a quarterly system, with spring semester beginning at the end of the month. That means students are entering their exam period right now, so we wonder how that’s working out for them. Surely the extra stress is doing wonders for their studying right now.

Next up, we’ve got Berkeley Law, which announced yesterday that it would be suspending all in-person classes:

• Beginning Tuesday, March 10, we will be suspending most in-person classes and will be offering ALL lecture courses (including discussion sections), seminar instruction and examination through alternative modalities (e.g., Zoom, course capture, etc.) through Spring Break.
• Instructors who do not have remote learning processes in place by March 10 will be given a two-day period (March 10 and 11) during which they may cancel classes, to allow them time to establish such processes and to ready their course(s) for resumption online by Thursday, March 12. Students, please look for communications from instructors about plans for individual courses.

Remote course instruction will last through spring break, which ends on March 29. Depending on what’s going on with the coronavirus situation at the end of the month, the school may or may not decide to end the suspension in-person classes.

Over at NYU Law, students will meet in their final in-person classes today, and beginning on Wednesday, the school will move to a remote course instruction system. From the school’s website:

[B]eginning on Wednesday, March 11 we will move to remote instruction. All classes should meet remotely at their regularly scheduled time.

Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, March 11 -13, will allow us to test for the transition to remote instruction.

Spring break will commence as planned at the end of this week. If students wish to leave following their last class on Tuesday, they can participate in classes remotely from their homes for the rest of the week.

After spring break, NYU Law will continue to hold classes online until March 27. Sometime during that week, the administration will let students know whether they’ll continue with remote class sessions.

Finally, Harvard Law announced this morning that all classes would move to an online format after spring break, with classes continuing on campus this week.

In accordance with the University’s decision, Harvard Law School will shift from in-person instruction to remote teaching and learning beginning Monday, March 23, the day classes are scheduled to resume after Spring Break.

We will continue to closely monitor this situation and may have additional updates.

What is your law school doing to protect students and faculty from coronavirus? Please text us (646-820-8477) or email us (subject line: “Coronavirus Response”).

---

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.

In the last few months, Phil Falcone has sold a house for almost $80 million and a bunch of paintings and other stuff, in spite of the fact that they were collateral for some loans, which he was also not paying. And still he lacks the scratch to pay those who won him that surprisingly lenient settlement over those taxes unpaid and paid with investor money, apparently by the canny strategy of legal malpractice. And now, it seems, he won’t be paying for anything until he pays those lawyers.

A New York judge has frozen assets belonging to hedge fund manager Philip Falcone and his Harbinger Offshore fund after he failed to pay millions in legal fees to a Manhattan law firm that defended him in high-stakes litigation against US regulators…. In his ruling, Judge Engoron upheld a decision handed down by an arbitrator earlier this year in which Mr Falcone and Harbinger were ordered to pay $13.6m in legal fees to Dontzin Nagy & Fleissig for work going back almost eight years.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy Delgado, 43, and his wife Tamara Delgado, 45, were found dead in their Granite Bay, California, home on Sunday. Officers from the Placer County Sheriff’s office found the couple, who’d only been married for five months, after Tamara Delgado’s mother requested a welfare check on her daughter.

According to the Placer County Sheriff, the deaths are being investigated as a murder/suicide. They believe Timothy Delgado shot his wife before killing himself, as the office tweeted out yesterday.

Timothy Delgado worked at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Eastern District of California in Sacramento.  The office made a statement on the deaths:

“The United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California was notified on Sunday, March 8, 2020, of the death of Assistant United States Attorney Timothy Delgado and his wife.  We were informed that Mr. Delgado and his wife were found deceased in their home.  The Placer County Sheriff’s Office is investigating with the assistance of FBI, and we are fully cooperating with the investigation.  Any questions regarding the investigation should be directed to the Placer County Sheriff’s Office.”

Friends of Tamara Delgado spoke with the local CBS affiliate about how much she’d be missed:

“My tears are for Tamara and losing her. My tears are for the situation. But mostly my tears are for her son because I know him so well,” the close friend’s husband said.

The close friend and her husband told CBS13 Delgado was a loving mother to her daughter and young son.

“The love that a mom gives to her children and they adored her. They just adored her. And she’s gone,” the close friend said.

As for a specific motive for the incident, sheriff spokeswoman Angela Musallam told the New York Post it was still too early to speculate:

“It’s still fresh,” Musallam said, adding that she was unaware if deputies had been previously called to the couple’s home. “We’re letting detectives contact whomever they need to find out what happened.”

Our condolences to all those impacted by the deaths.

---

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).

* Some are accusing Bernie Sanders of disparaging public defenders by alleging that the government does not provide “a decent lawyer” to those who are unable to pay for private counsel. [Fox News]

* The Miami Heat organization is facing an intense FMLA lawsuit brought by a former associate general counsel of the team. It is generally unwise to mess with a lawyer on your payroll. [Corporate Counsel]

* A U.S. Attorney is alleging that Prince Andrew is not voluntarily cooperating with federal authorities in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. [ABC News]

* Led Zeppelin has won the longstanding “Stairway to Heaven” copyright infringement lawsuit. [Vulture]

* A Florida prosecutor has been arrested for allegedly offering to help a criminal defendant in exchange for sex. [News-Press]

* A lawsuit over profits from The Walking Dead television series has almost as many twists and turns as the show itself. [Deadline]

---

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.