Category: News Feeds

—ADVERTISEMENT—

According to data collected by the Internet Legal Research Group, which law school has the highest percentage of female faculty?

Hint: Sixteen law schools have women in 50 percent or higher of their faculty positions, but at the law school at the top of this list, 64.6 percent of the faculty are women.

See the answer on the next page.

I realize that for many readers of this website, “rural” is more of a concept than a daily lived experience. If you don’t encounter it for yourself, I can assure you that, even now, support for Donald Trump runs high in the agrarian communities of America.

To paraphrase comedian Sarah Silverman on this situation, you don’t have to like the liar to have compassion for the lied-to. And few have been lied to more than rural populations about what Donald Trump is supposedly doing for them.

Trump’s Policies Have Been An Economic Disaster For Farmers And Agricultural Economies

Back in 2017, Donald Trump told a fawning audience in Iowa, “We will rebuild rural America.” That same year, his budget blueprint called for a 21 percent cut to the Agriculture Department, including cuts to rural infrastructure spending, a bar on a popular bipartisan program that buys farmers’ crops to send them abroad as food aid to some 2.2 million people in need, and the elimination of the Rural Business and Cooperative Service loan initiative.

Also in 2017, China imported $19.5 billion worth of U.S. farm goods. However, as Trump ramped up his trade war with China, U.S. agricultural exports slumped. In 2018, American farmers exported just $9.2 billion worth of farm goods to China. In August, 2019, in retaliation for Trump’s latest pledge to slap an additional 10 percent tariff on Chinese imports worth $300 billion, China officially canceled all purchases of U.S. agricultural products.

Trump did promise subsidies to farmers to help offset the effects of his trade war. However, most of the subsidies delivered so far have gone to the richest, largest corporate farms, not to mom-and-pop operations. Of the $8.4 billion in payments made to U.S. farmers through the end of April, more than half went to the top 10 percent in the farm economy, the farms that are already the biggest and most successful. According to Department of Agriculture data analyzed by Washington non-profit Environmental Working Group, the top one percent of farm aid recipients received average payments of more than $180,000. The bottom 80 percent got average payments of less than $5,000.

While farmers are a relatively small voting block — only about one percent of the U.S. population — for many rural and quasi-rural communities, farming is the backbone upon which a vast array of other economic activity is supported. Iconic tractor-maker John Deere, for instance, is based in what passes for a city on the Iowa border: Moline, Illinois, population 42,000. This year, John Deere explicitly blamed the trade war when it slashed its full-year profit and sales outlook. Meanwhile, John Deere rival CNH Industrial, registered in the Netherlands with corporate offices in London, has faced similar production slowdowns in its North American market. On the other hand, CNH reported a swollen order book for tractors and combines in its South American Market, particularly in Brazil, which China has turned to instead of the U.S. to fill its demand for soybeans.

By almost any objective measurement, Trump has been bad for farmers and farming economies. According to the chief economist for the American Farm Bureau Federation, the median U.S. farm income will be -$1,449 this year. Most farmers are working just to lose money. Last week, Trump’s Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue met the issue with the trademark tact of this administration, telling a room full of Minnesota farmers:

What do you call two farmers in a basement? A whine cellar.

Classy.

Presidential Candidate Elizabeth Warren Meets Rural Concerns With Plan For Action

Of course, ask farmers what a Democrat has done for them lately, and they might be as hard-pressed to give you an answer as they would be if you asked them to name one Trump policy that has actually helped them. But at least a number of the Democratic presidential contenders have been making overtures to rural America.

“Trade war by tweet is not working for our farmers,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren in remarks to Iowans this August. When it comes to a concrete plan to build up rural America, she is a standout in the Democratic field (as she is in many other things). Warren’s plan includes breaking up corporate agribusiness monopolies, supporting family farms, and moving away from farm subsidies to instead guaranteeing prices for farm goods that at least match the cost of production. Her plan also includes improvements to education and affordable housing in rural communities, and an $85 billion grant designated to construct broadband networks in rural communities which still lack reliable, high-speed internet access.

Warren’s plan for rural America is untested, and nobody can blame rural Americans for being suspicious of politicians’ promises. But if Elizabeth Warren could implement one-tenth of what her plan calls for in rural America (or even just didn’t actively damage rural America), she would be a hell of a lot better for farmers and the economies they support than Donald Trump.

Jonathan Wolf is a litigation associate at a midsize, full-service Minnesota firm. He also teaches as an adjunct writing professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, has written for a wide variety of publications, and makes it both his business and his pleasure to be financially and scientifically literate. Any views he expresses are probably pure gold, but are nonetheless solely his own and should not be attributed to any organization with which he is affiliated. He wouldn’t want to share the credit anyway. He can be reached at jon_wolf@hotmail.com.

As operations of criminal justice go, this is fine. I can be fine with this. It’s not ideal, but it could have been worse.

Acclaimed performer A$AP Rocky was found guilty by a court in Sweden of assault, but will face no additional jail time. A$AP Rocky, whose real name is Rakim Mayers, and members of his entourage were arrested and charged with assault in Stockholm, after a street altercation. Mayers claims that he was harassed by two men and one woman, which resulted in a fight of self-defense. The woman claims that a member of Mayers’s group grabbed her backside, which resulted in a confrontation during which Mayers’s group became violent.

The case gained national and international attention after Kim Kardashian and Kanye West and Donald Trump became involved, but I refuse to care about that aspect and you can’t make me.

What I do see is a complicated case. You have a famous person claiming he was harassed on the streets, and I have no reason not to believe him. You have a woman claiming she was inappropriately touched, and I have no reason not to believe her. And you have an “aftermath” video of Rocky and friends throwing a 19-year-old to the ground and giving him a few punches, and I have no reason to not believe my own eyes.

Look at this case from the perspective of Swedish authorities. One of the alleged victims, Mustafa Jafari, is a Muslim immigrant. Unlike in our country, Sweden is interested in making their Muslim community feel safe and protected. From their perspective, an American (and you have to remember that internationally being an “American” tourist is one of the dumbest things you can be) attacked one of their vulnerable communities in the street. And his only defense amounts to “they started it.” My gut tells me that Mayers got railroaded a bit here, but if I think about it from the Swedish perspective, I kind of see why. And again, I don’t think a bunch of other American celebrities and our international embarrassment of a president did anything to make the Swedish authorities feel more positively disposed to A$AP Rocky.

But, they did release him. And, while a “guilty” verdict stings, it’s not like they demanded that he be extradited back to Sweden to serve additional jail time. The court ruled that the assault was not “of such a serious nature” that it demanded more punishment. That’s pretty much as close as a court can come to saying “what you did was wrong so… don’t do it again.”

Given all the factors at play, again, this seems fine. A$AP Rocky is home and free. Sweden has stood up for its Muslim community. Nobody has international egg on their faces. For a criminal justice outcome, this isn’t bad.

Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and a contributor at The Nation. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.

On the 31st of July 2018, Zimbabweans overwhelmingly voted for President Nelson Chamisa. That election was stolen in broad daylight and since then, the crisis of legitimacy has manifested itself through multi-layered challenges that have manifested themselves through power outages, water and fuel shortages, indecent wages, high prices and the erosion of the people’s dignity, among other challenges.

Wow, the hits just keep on coming for Jones Day. In addition to the class-action gender discrimination lawsuit that’s been filed against the firm (and which we’ve been following closely), they’re now facing a new discrimination lawsuit that goes after the firm’s non-gender neutral parental leave policy and their alleged practice of altering firm photos to make their attorneys more attractive/white. There are a bunch of allegations in the lawsuit which make for a not-so-good look for the firm, so hold tight as I go through them all.

Julia Sheketoff and Mark Savignac are a married couple that both used to work in the appellate practice in Jones Day’s D.C. office. Both former Supreme Court clerks, they say the firm’s parental leave creates an improper distinction between mothers and fathers who seek to take leave, and when Savignac complained about the policy, he was promptly fired. According to the firm’s parental leave policy, biological mothers who are primary caregivers receive 10 weeks of paid family leave as well as eight weeks of disability leave, compared with biological fathers who are also primary caregivers but only get 10 weeks of leave, while new adoptive parents (any gender) who are primary caregivers get the full 18 weeks of paid leave. The EEOC says that an employer may give a biological mother eight additional weeks of disability if it is linked to their physical recovery, but as reported by the New York Times, plaintiffs allege the difference in leave time is based on antiquated assumptions about gender roles:

But in their legal complaint, Mr. Savignac and Ms. Sheketoff argue that Jones Day awards mothers eight additional weeks of paid leave without regard to whether their physical condition warrants it. The plaintiffs write that the policy gives “female associates more time to enable their husbands to prioritize their careers over child care” and “reflects and reinforces archaic gender roles and sex-based stereotypes.”

And the filing points to more than just the policy as evidence of the way the firm reifies traditional gender roles; the complaint alleges a partner repeatedly made fun of the notion of men using parental leave:

The complaint, filed Tuesday, maintains that the firm and some of its partners promoted crude stereotypes about gender roles, with a prominent male partner asking rhetorically, “What would a man do on parental leave — watch his wife unload the dishwasher?” The same partner, the suit claims, teased a male associate for taking parental leave to care for a child.

The complaint also alleges that after Savignac complained about the firm’s leave policy — three days after, to be precise — he was fired, despite having a history of positive reviews:

“I was shocked; we truly never considered that they would fire me,” Mr. Savignac said. “We thought the law was so obvious.”

The firm has denied that its leave policy is discriminatory and said they fired Savignac over his attitude towards the firm:

Jones Day defended its policy, saying it grants birth mothers eight weeks of paid disability leave to avoid having to ask for medical evidence that they are still recovering from childbirth. The firm said the firing of Mr. Savignac had not been in retaliation for criticizing the leave policy, which it said he and Ms. Sheketoff had done in 2018 without repercussions. Rather, it said, it fired him because he had shown a “lack of courtesy” to colleagues and an “open hostility to the firm,” citing his email.

In an additional allegation that echoes other lawsuits against the firm, the complaint also takes aim at the firm’s infamous black box compensation system (yes, I’m going to continue calling it that despite what the firm says about it) saying that Sheketoff’s (who left the firm to work at a public defender’s office last year) compensation was lower than it should have been because she’s a woman:

Separately, the couple contends that the firm paid Ms. Sheketoff less than it would have paid a man because of her gender. “Julia’s salary was cut in relative terms based on a negative review from a partner who, in hindsight, clearly treated her worse because she is a woman,” said the couple’s email to the human resources director included in the complaint.

The firm denies Sheketoff’s salary was impacted by her gender, saying it was lower because of mixed reviews from partners.

And now for the most shocking allegation in the complaint, at least in my humble opinion: the complaint alleges that when Sheketoff had her picture taken for the firm’s website, the final image was edited to lighten her skin and narrow her nose. As the complaint notes, “[t]he apparent purpose of the alterations was to make was to make Julia appear more Caucasian and (in the opinion of the editor) more attractive.” The complaint says they edit the pictures of women at the firm on the reg (pointing to two of Sheketoff’s female friends at the firm) to make them prettier, while men are spared the photoshop treatment. In a perfect illustration on the way intersectionality works, in the case of this bi-racial woman, “prettier” = more white.

You can take a look at the original and edited versions of the picture for yourself:

As former SCOTUS clerks, the couple was once used to bolster the firm’s recruitment of other clerks. Now Savignac says he regrets trying to convince others to work at Jones Day, “I feel bad about having worked to persuade other people who may have been misled.” Well, maybe if they read Above the Law…

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).

* “The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it.” Senate Democrats have issued a warning to the members of the highest bench in the land: “heal [thy]self” lest you be restructured to reduce political influences. [Fox News]

* In case you missed it, the Trump and McConnell reelection campaigns are trying to turn the controversial Supreme Court confirmations of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh into a fashion statement — for $35 or more, that is. [Washington Post]

* Rather than continue in her quest for justice against Jones Day using her real name, Jane Doe 4 has been dropped as a named plaintiff in the $200 million gender bias suit against the firm. [Big Law Business]

* According to the latest statistics from the
American Bar Association, the federal judiciary is unsurprisingly overflowing with white male judges, but at least women seem to be catching up. [Law.com]

* For the first time in history, women make up the majority of the first-year entering class at the University of Alabama School of Law. Roll tide! [6WBRC]

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.

Biglaw or boutique law? While Biglaw still entices young lawyers (and even those not-so young) with the siren call of big money, the reality of what Biglaw costs attorneys is becoming more of a talking point for those already in the profession and entering it.

Joe Patrice wrote about it in a recent post about how there’s a title shell game in Biglaw: “partner” in name only. Should that be called “PINO”? As Joe points out, the deequitization trend is anything but transparent. When is a partner not a partner? When the firm says she isn’t, and the use of that misleading term when that it is not the case does no one any good, neither the “partner,” nor the firm. A client may think her matter is in the hands of a “partner,” and it is in the hands of a partner, but a PINO. Does anyone in the firm ever explain to the client the differences between a real partner and a PINO? Do you think that would be a good idea so that the client knows exactly what a PINO is and where that person is in the hierarchy and the extent of what a PINO can do without an equity partner’s supervision?

Sara Randazzo’s article in the last Saturday’s print edition (West Coast) of the Wall Street Journal is “The Flip Side of Making Partner.” Dinosaurs will remember that there was an “A” side and a “B” side of records and almost always it was the “A” side that was promoted and sold the most copies. You had to have a “B” side, but oftentimes that side was just there because you had to have a “B” side. So, are PINOs the “B” side?

As Randazzo points out, it’s all about “bill, baby, bill” today, and the camaraderie that was an essential part of the fit (and partners would look for that in prospective hires) is gone. Collegiality doesn’t mean what it used to, long live billable hours. She writes that “all partners are not created equal, and that data and money rule.”

Randazzo notes that in the mid-1980s, The American Lawyer started its comparisons of revenue and profits of the Biglaw firms. It was then off to the races, and the profession has never been the same since. I think we lost something that we will never retrieve.

Steven Brill was the founder of The American Lawyer. In his book Tailspin, subtitled “The People and Forces Behind America’s Fifty-Year Fall—and Those Fighting to Revise It,” he acknowledges the role that The American Lawyer has played in the transformation of the law practice. Writing about the very first report that the magazine published in the summer of 1985, he says that “there is no denying that the fallout of this report and those that have followed since The American Lawyer and other trade publications was significant and double-edged. The new flow of market information about these businesses made those who ran them more accountable to their partners, their employees and their clients, but it also transformed the practice of law by the country’s most talented lawyers in ways that had significant drawbacks.” You think? What was lost in what was gained?

Question: When you have a firm of thousands of lawyers, how do you avoid client conflicts when there are lawyers all over the world handling all sorts of different transactions, different litigation, different regulatory issues? Is it ever possible to have a clean conflict check? Your client is your client and you don’t want to relinquish that work because a partner (and not a PINO) in another part of the country or somewhere else in the world outranks you and you lose the work. What is your client’s reaction? Your client knows you are a “partner.” Yes, but….

Take the poll that ATL is running now, asking the question, “What do you wish you had known about Biglaw before you started?” Tell ATL how you really feel.

What is happening is that associates are now taking themselves and their work to “boutique law firms,” where these associates do not get lost in the shuffle but get to do meaningful work from the get-go. Law.com has a podcast now about three lawyers (early in their careers) who left Biglaw to join boutique firms that do much more to satisfy both their professional and personal needs.

Why make the switch? Boutiques provide the experience that newer lawyers crave and cannot get in Biglaw — there are opportunities to do both paid and pro bono work, and in these smaller firms, the associates often drive the pro bono work. In boutiques, they not only do the depo prep but they take the deposition. There’s a partner by your side at the depo, but you’re taking it, not the partner. You go to court with a partner and argue the motion, but you are arguing, not the partner. All three of the lawyers said making the switch gave them the opportunity to get “boots on the ground” experience, rather than just observing others. They are doing, not watching.

Benefits play a part as well in the decisions to switch — availability of both childcare and elder care, flexible schedules, to name just a few.

It’s easier to have a voice in a smaller firm, and, as one lawyer noted, it’s harder to get buy-in for a project, an idea for associate development, across a ginormous firm. It’s also easier for newer lawyers in a boutique firm to build business, to be entrepreneurial, because the firm can be flexible, especially when representing startups and billings can be deferred. Smaller firms are nimbler in what they’re willing to do to get their associates up and running, to help them succeed.

And implicit in what all three lawyers said is the collegiality that a boutique law firm can provide. Yes, we all became lawyers to do good and, as a collateral benefit, to have a comfortable lifestyle. We knew we were all in this together. At least, we were. Not so much any longer.

Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.