Category: News Feeds

The stakes were high when a Second Request required Hire Counsel to procure staff, technology, and infrastructure in a single market, and be up and running in one week.

• They tapped their national database of 50,000 legal professionals, sourcing a candidate pool of 1,500 experienced document reviewers.
• Employed more than 300 legal professionals prepared for work on time and within budget.
• Acquired a 12,000 square foot review center, equipped with state-of-the art technology and ensured that all security measures were in place.
• Stocked the review center with supplies to make it a comfortable working environment.
• The center was open 7 days/week, 6am to midnight, for several months to accommodate the large number of document reviewers.

Efficiency is essential, as Second Requests can be costly and disruptive to your organization.

WHAT MATTERS MOST

Timeliness of Response

Hire Counsel has national scalability and flexibility to implement Second Requests anywhere, anytime. With a 96% staffing fill rate on Day 1 (vs. 64% industry average*), their team is ready when you need them.

Qualified Review Staff

Their pool of candidates have significant experience in antitrust and Second Request matters. And Project Managers are attorneys in good standing and Certified E-Discovery Specialists.

Security Measures

Security protocols ensure your matter is kept confidential. From environmental controls and visitor management to secure server connections and data system protection, their data control and security staff certifies that data is protected.

Defensible, Reliable Process

Hire Counsel’s project management, workflow, quality control, and documentation processes reduce risk and increase output of the review team while also providing a defensible process on time and on budget.

*Bullhorn 2018 North American Staffing & Recruiting Trends Report: The Industry’s Outlook for 2018.

When you need the right legal talent, in the right place, at the right time, you need Hire Counsel.

Lawyers have long been the gatekeepers of legal services, which, as licensed professionals, make sense. But with alternative legal service providers all the rage, and the Big Four accounting firms clamoring for some of Biglaw’s lunch, the winds of change are in the air. And Utah is leading the charge.

The state has announced they are beginning a program to test nonlawyer ownership of law firms. The Utah Work Group on Regulatory Reform has recommended the expansion of legal service providers as part of an access to justice initiative. Last week, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System announced a new “Unlocking Legal Regulation” project to meet those goals. As reported by Big Law Business:

“The restrictive rules that dictate how legal advice can be given, and by whom, need to change,” said IAALS manager Zachariah DeMeola in an Oct. 31 blog post. “For too long the rules have prevented the profession from taking a responsibility in this crisis.”

“This is our moment. The tipping point is here,” DeMeola wrote.

The program is not without regulation, and is designed to be a model for other states dipping their toes in the alternative legal services providers model:

Utah and IAALS officials hope the new office will be a model for a multi-state regulatory body.

IAALS will help Utah develop and test a “risk-based regulation system” based on a model the group created. IAALS’ goal is to see a system that ensures high-quality services, but doesn’t limit service providers to just lawyers.

IAALS also plans to evaluate how the new system is working over time.

There have also been working groups in Arizona and California that have pushed for nonlawyers in the legal market for the same access to justice reasons. However, push back from attorneys has prevented any further action on the matter.

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).

Could today be the day that kicks off the 2019 Biglaw bonus season? To be frank, it’s still quite early for that, but based on your responses to our survey, it really depends (how lawyerly). While 39 percent of survey respondents thought bonuses would be announced before Thanksgiving, a nearly equal number of survey respondents thought bonuses would be announced the last week of November. Perhaps this was a bit of a trick question since Thanksgiving happens to fall during the last week of November this year. Last year, bonuses were announced just before Thanksgiving, in the second to last week of November.

 Loading …

Based on past precedent, it seems much more likely that bonuses will be announced on either Monday, November 25, or Monday, December 2. Cravath tends to stick a schedule as far as these things are concerned, and in recent years, it has announced its bonus news on either the last Monday in November or the first Monday in December. Either way, Biglaw associates can soon look forward to their bank accounts being stuffed like the Thanksgiving turkeys they’ll gobble down in a few weeks.

While associates are busy counting down the hours until Bonus Day, they’re likely even busier counting up the hours they’re on track to bill in 2019 to meet their targets for bonus eligibility. In the summer of 2018, many firms announced increased billing requirements to go hand in hand with their increased salaries, and some associates continue to scramble to make up the difference. That being said, about 63 percent of survey respondents are on track to bill 2000 hours or more in 2019.

Here are the full results from our survey:

 Loading …

Remember these strong numbers when bonuses begin to hit bank accounts. You may have worked your Biglaw bums off, but 72 percent of survey respondents thought that this year’s bonuses would be no different than last year’s bonuses. Keep this in mind, associates (and Biglaw management): If 2019’s year-end bonuses are the same as 2018’s year-end bonuses, total bonus compensation in 2019 will be substantially lower than in 2018, since associates at many high-end firms also received special summer bonuses in generous amounts. You may have forgotten, but we didn’t….

As a little reminder, we love covering the Biglaw bonus season, but we need your help. As soon as your firm’s bonus memo comes out, please email it to us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Bonus”). We always keep our sources on bonus stories anonymous. There’s no need to send the memo using your firm email account; your personal email account is fine. Please be sure to include the memo as proof; we like to post complete bonus memos as a service to our readers. You can take a photo of the memo and attach as a picture if you are worried about metadata in a PDF or Word file.

Don’t forget, if you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Bonus Alerts, please enter your email address in the box below. 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 — including, of course, the first such announcement.

Keep your fingers crossed for happy bonus news this season!

Earlier: Associate Bonus Watch 2019: Bonus Season Is Here!

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.

Writing Yelp reviews of Biglaw firms as though they were functioning NYC restaurants started off as a bit of a lark. But after Yelper Samuel G. got started, he couldn’t help himself and put together a few more narratives of a hapless patron stumbling into law firms thinking they’re restaurants.

Hey, it beats stumbling into firms and thinking they’re mid-grade shoe stores.

This isn’t entirely inaccurate. What law firm isn’t opting for an “eat what you kill” model? But with only 4 stars, I don’t think Samuel got the full V&E experience. The last patron who felt they made a mistake going to Vinson & Elkins walked away with $30 million.

Note that the S&C people didn’t look up from their monitors long enough to say anything meta to Samuel like the V&E folks did. That tracks.

On the other hand, how was he walking so close to other pedestrians by the S&C offices. It’s a ghost town down there.

A 5-star review! Just goes to show you the importance of a clean bathroom.

But kidding aside, this gives us an idea if any of the big NYC firms are up for it. Let’s have a cafeteria competition! If we get a critical mass of interested firms, we’ll put together a panel of judges and sample, say, your best two dishes and award the best cafeteria in Biglaw. We can work out the precise details later. Would firms be willing to put their money where their mouths are — and by that I don’t mean talk, but, you know, the food they eat.

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.

Corporate legal departments are looking beyond the largest firms for outside counsel. The reasons for this trend are various, and include the widespread unbundling of legal work as well as the transformation of the in-house/law firm relationship, with increasing expectations of collaboration and transparency. What is indisputable is that smaller and mid-sized practices have unprecedented opportunities to compete for the most sophisticated and lucrative work. The key to seizing this opportunity is the strategic leveraging of technologies, including:

• Advanced security measures;
• The cloud;
• Advanced filetype support; and
• Automation

Join us on November 21st at 1 p.m. ET for a free webinar hosted by Jared Correia, who will be joined by Morgan Churma from Scharf Banks, and AJ Shankar, CEO and Co-Founder of Everlaw. Our expert panel will share insights and case studies on how your smaller firm can level the playing field with technology in today’s fiercely competitive market.

Trump has lost his appeal to shield his tax returns from a criminal investigation started by Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance.

Again.

This time in front of the Second Circuit.

The appeal is from U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero’s ruling that Trump’s argument was: “repugnant to the nation’s governmental structure and constitutional values.” This is the case where Trump lawyer William Consovoy argued in an open appellate hearing that Trump could in fact shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not be investigated by authorities.

Apparently, that argument was a dud. From Law.com:

The Second Circuit judges noted that their ruling is not a blanket determination of the extent of presidential immunity.

“We have no occasion to decide today the precise contours and limitations of presidential immunity from prosecution, and we express no opinion on the applicability of any such immunity under circumstances not presented here,” the judges wrote.

“Instead, after reviewing historical and legal precedent, we conclude only that presidential immunity does not bar the enforcement of a state grand jury subpoena directing a third party to produce non‐privileged material, even when the subject matter under investigation pertains to the President.”

We’re still waiting for the Second Circuit to post it’s full decision, and will put it up here when they do.

The next steps for Trump will, inevitably, be the Supreme Court appeal. Trump has faced adverse rulings from the D.C. Circuit and the Second Circuit. The most non-political thing the Supreme Court could do would be to let those rulings stand — they are neither controversial nor contradictory — and deny cert on Trump’s appeals.

Instead, I expect the four arch-conservatives on the Supreme Court will take the case and see if they can convince John Roberts to bail out the Republican party, again.

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.

Corey Lewandowski admitted what we all know:  Lewandowski has “no obligation” to be honest when speaking to the news media.

Okay.  Let’s fix that.

At the beginning of every interview, let’s let the interviewer ask the interviewee whether the interviewee would like to be sworn in, under penalty of perjury, before the interview begins.

The interviewee thus has two choices:  The interviewee can decline to be sworn in and lie with abandon during the interview.  Or the interviewee can plan in advance to accept the oath, study to prepare for the interview, take the interview deadly seriously, and tell the truth during the interview.

Which interview would be more interesting to watch?

You’d think that audiences would have a preference:  Why listen to a person who’s planning to lie to you?  That a silly interview.  Tune in instead to the person who’s going to speak the truth.

Moreover, you’d think that interviewees would play the game differently when subjected to my rules.  Instead of rushing for the cameras, accepting every interview in sight, interviewees would necessarily become selective about the interviews they accepted.  An interview would become a dangerous thing, requiring real time and effort for preparation.  We’d probably have far fewer interviews, but they would be far more meaningful.

While we’re at it, let’s add a character to broadcast interviews:  The instant critic.  This person’s role would be to explain to the audience what the audience was seeing in interviews.

What do I have in mind?

Let me first offend the right:  Asked about whether it’s appropriate to make American military support for a foreign country expressly dependent on interfering with an upcoming election, the interviewee starts to talk about the need to investigate corruption.

The instant critic speaks:  “Unwilling to answer the question, the interviewee is changing the subject to a noncontroversial point.  This is evasive and gutless.  It shows you only that the interviewee is unwilling (or unable) to answer the question.”

Or the interviewee could choose to answer the question:  “I disagree with your underlying premise.  No one made aid dependent on interfering with an election.”  Or:  It’s “absolutely proper” or “absolutely improper” to “make American military support for a foreign country expressly dependent on interfering with an upcoming election.”

The critic could pipe up:  “Remarkable!  That was a responsive answer to the question!  You could agree or disagree with the substance of the response, but that politician showed real guts in choosing to give a responsive answer.”

Now let me offend the left.  The interviewer asks:  “How much would your proposal to provide free health care to everyone cost, and how would you pay for it?”

The interviewee could evade.  But the critic would immediately point out the evasion.

Or the interviewee could answer the question, and immediately win accolades from the critic for having the guts to say something.

(This happened back in 1976.  During the Democratic presidential primary, candidate Mo Udall told a pro-gun control audience at Harvard University that he knew he was going to lose much of the crowd with his answer to a question, but he opposed gun control.  See?  It’s okay.  You can tell the truth.  You lose to Jimmy Carter 28 percent to 22 percent, but at least you told the truth.  That story was legendary among those who worked for Udall in ’76; the closest I could come to finding something in print describing the event was this.)

The instant critic could critique the interviewer, too.  Suppose the interviewee answers a question.  The interviewer says, “Well, I think you’re wrong!  Now this.”  And cuts to a commercial.

The critic should explain:  “An interviewer is supposed to conduct an interview, not express his opinion, give the interviewee no chance to respond, and cut away to a commercial break.  That was both unfair and bad interview technique.”

We could straighten everyone out!

The cat-and-mouse game played by interviewers and interviewees has become unbearably silly.  You don’t hear honest answers to hard questions, and the main issue seems to be whether the politician being interviewed evades the question or lies.

If we cared, we could change all that.

Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Inside Straight: Advice About Lawyering, In-House And Out, That Only The Internet Could Provide (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.

* An Albuquerque DWI attorney has been arrested for his second DWI this year. His first DWI was dismissed; maybe this is just an advertising ploy… [KRQE Albuquerque]

* Joe Arpaio’s defamation lawsuit against several media outlets has been dismissed. [The Hill]

* Employment in the legal sector is flat even though the U.S. economy continues to add jobs. Still thinking about going to law school? [American Lawyer]

* A PA attorney has been disbarred for continuing to practice law even though his license was suspended 17 years ago. [Patriot News]

* Reed Smith has become the first American law firm to be allowed to raise outside investment and appoint non-lawyer partners in the UK. [Times]

* An Alaskan moose hunter spent $1.5M and 12 years in fighting for the right to hunt moose all the way to the Supreme Court. This guy is an American hero. [Washington Post]

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.

From preachers to teachers, those who stand up to Zimbabwe’s rulers risk being beaten, jailed or worse.

In the past few weeks alone, masked men have abducted and tortured a doctor, a female comedian and a singer whose lyrics were deemed to insult Emmerson Mnangagwa, the president.

A market trader in Harare was beaten so badly that he died.

Now, however, the regime faces a less vulnerable critic: the American ambassador.

His straight-talking upsets the government so much that it is threatening to kick him out.

Brian Nichols has visited victims of violence from state security forces, posting photographs of himself with them.

But what really upsets the regime is a series of tweets in which he has revealed extensive details of its corruption.

The trigger for this was an attempt by Mnangagwa to blame America and the EU for a looming famine that the UN describes as Zimbabwe’s “worst ever hunger crisis”.
Half the population is running out of food.

The real causes are years of mismanagement and a severe regional drought, but Mnangagwa has tried to pin responsibility on American and EU economic sanctions.

Although these apply only to members of his regime and related companies, the president has erected billboards across the country proclaiming “Sanctions — a crime against humanity”.

Nichols, experienced at fighting mafia as a former counter- narcotics expert, hit back, initially with a YouTube interview, pointing out that America is the biggest donor to Zimbabwe and the country’s real problems are corruption and economic mismanagement.

“If you don’t want people to say bad things about you, maybe don’t do bad things,” he suggested.

Nichols wrote, in a column for an independent newspaper, Newsday: “Our targeted sanctions are not responsible for Zimbabwe falling tragically short of its potential.

The fault lies in catastrophic mismanagement by those in power and the government’s abuse of its own citizens.”

The regime ramped up the confrontation nine days ago with an official Anti-Sanctions Day, closing schools and bussing people to a rally attended by Mnangagwa, his wife and the cabinet.

Nichols responded with almost hourly tweets with the hashtag #ItsNotSanctions, detailing corruption he said amounted to $1bn (about £775m) a year. “$2.8bn disappeared from agricultural subsidies,” he wrote.

“$25m from national road administration, $4.9m from the Zim electricity company for transformers never delivered.” Another tweet read: “Diamonds worth $10m would fund water treatment chemicals for Harare for 4 months that Zimbabweans desperately need.

But they were shipped out of the country for ‘training purposes’.” And: “$51m to lease three planes never used.”

The White House then added Owen Ncube, Zimbabwe’s state sunday november 3 2019
security minister, to the list of those sanctioned, banning him from travel to America.

The regime was furious. On Thursday night General Sibusiso Moyo, the foreign minister, wrote to the ambassador, accusing him of “behaving and conducting himself like some kind of opposition member, with complete disregard for all norms of permissible diplomatic protocol”.

He added: “Persistent behaviour of this nature will test the patience of even the most tolerant . . . We have the means to bring all this to an end.”
For Zimbabweans such words would be a clear warning — 17 people were killed in a crackdown this year. But an American envoy is a different matter.

The US State Department said: “Promoting freedom, democracy and transparency and the protection of human rights are central to US foreign policy.”

Post published in: Featured