Category Added in a WPeMatico Campaign
Mark Zuckerberg, Supervillain: Just has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it?
Supreme Court Continues To Hires Clerks: That’s just what they do.
Get Ready For Tuition Hikes, California: The same education will cost a lot more.
Biglaw And Mental Health: Tell us what’s really going on.
“You know when we knew a round of layoffs was? It was when they started locking the Coke in the meeting room cabinets. It was a big omen,” I was once told by a paralegal who worked at a prominent Silicon Valley law firm during the dotcom and dotbust.
As she was telling me the details of what happened, I couldn’t help but think of 2009 and 2010. By then, I was in my third year of working in Biglaw. For almost two years, the gossip in my and neighboring law firms revolved around sudden, increasingly frequent departures of numerous legal professionals and reports of cost-cutting measures, such as discontinuation of dinner allowances.
And always in the mix was a lot of fear and anxiety. What if I’m next?, we all thought as we helplessly watched the numbers in our law class dwindle. Surely, if I work extra hard, then I would be spared. This thinking made sense to recent law graduates, who had found success in their own lives by working harder than everyone around them for their entire education and professional careers.
All of this became real to me when the Atrium layoffs were announced. There were a lot of discussions. Many conversations focused on who broke the news first and who saw it coming. There were some nods to the future of the legal field and agreement that this may happen again as legal tech comes to play a more prominent role.
Yet, layoffs are not a blood sport to be enjoyed by spectators. We failed to discuss things that really matter.
Layoffs involve people with families, dreams, and ambitions. There is a distinct lack of humanity when we report that somewhere between 10 and 50 professionals have been affected and then focus on “who reported it first” and “who saw this coming.” It feels too cold, sterile, and inhuman. Hiding behind the numbers and predictions is a tad insensitive.
If you have ever spoken to any legal professional that has been affected by a layoff, you would know how uncomfortable, insecure, and full of anxiety this discussion can be. After all, many lawyers, when laid off, take it as a sign of weakness, incompetence, or shame. Many feel alone and isolated in the process. We do nothing to support or guide. All we offer them is tabloid-quality sentential articles.
Most importantly, critical discussions are missing. For example, how come after years of layoffs, there are very few legal institutions, including law schools or state bars, that have a plan, let alone a good plan, to help lawyers cope, transition, or acquire new skills? Not having a plan for legal layoffs is akin to living in Northern California and not have an emergency plan for earthquakes.
We know that legal layoffs happen; how come we don’t prepare ourselves to deal with them? How come law schools don’t teach you what to do when you know that the partners will be meeting tomorrow to decide whom to cut? How come these institutions have nothing to offer after the unfortunate events happen.
Finally, we know that the legal field is changing. With its new processes and technologies, we know that we are in the midst of a fundamental transformation. We know it will affect all of us. We know that there will be layoffs, restructures, and changes. What do we do as a profession to make sure that we successfully transition together? What do we do to make sure that everyone acquires missing skills? What do we do to make sure that all members of the legal profession are prepared to practice law in the future?
Olga V. Mack is the CEO of Parley Pro, a next-generation contract management company that has pioneered online negotiation technology. Olga embraces legal innovation and had dedicated her career to improving and shaping the future of law. She is convinced that the legal profession will emerge even stronger, more resilient, and more inclusive than before by embracing technology. Olga is also an award-winning general counsel, operations professional, startup advisor, public speaker, adjunct professor, and entrepreneur. Olga founded the Women Serve on Boards movement that advocates for women to participate on corporate boards of Fortune 500 companies. Olga also co-founded SunLaw, an organization dedicated to preparing women in-house attorneys to become general counsels and legal leaders, and WISE to help female law firm partners become rainmakers. She authored Get on Board: Earning Your Ticket to a Corporate Board Seat and Fundamentals of Smart Contract Security. You can email Olga at olga@olgamack.com or follow her on Twitter @olgavmack.
(Image via Getty)
According to data collected by Law School Transparency, for law school students starting in 2020, which school’s students are projected to have the largest debt as a result of their law school education?
Hint: LST predicts students will come out of this very good law school with $389,673 in debt.
See the answer on the next page.
We’re not out here to try and be the biggest firm in the world or get the scraps of Big Law. We see ourselves as white-shoe law firm 2.0.
—Co-founding partner and CEO of alternative law firm Rimon, Michael Moradzadeh, sounding off about the cloud-based firm’s ability to compete with Skadden. Rimon has made a series of international lateral hires as part of their aim to be a full-service firm for clients in finance, tech, entertainment, and the international corporate space. One lateral partner, former Gibson Dunn partner Richard Ernest said, “To me, it is clear that Rimon gives senior, experienced partners (20-plus years), who are seen by their clients as go-to practitioners, the chance to work freely, flexibly and collaboratively with like-minded souls in order to vastly improve upon the service and fee flexibility demanded by global clients.”
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).
Legalweek is two weeks away and there’s plenty of things to do for people interested in legal technology.
For the unenlightened, Legalweek is American Lawyer Media’s annual conference devoted to everything related to legal technology. It used to be called simply Legaltech, but now it has morphed into three conferences in one week: Legaltech, LegalCIO and Legal Business Strategy.
Legalweek brings together legal professionals, law firm and corporate leaders and technologists from around the world to explore the use of technology in the business of law. According to their website, Legalweek has 8,000 registered attendees and more than 300 speakers from 36 countries. It is by far the largest legal technology conference of the year. So, if you’re in town the week of February 3, make your way to the Hilton Hotel on 6th Avenue and 54th Street. Explore registration options here.
Pre-Conference Workshops
Things get off to a roaring start on Monday, February 3, with several pre-conference workshops, including an AI Bootcamp, a workshop on Cloud Systems, and a workshop on Legal Project Management (full disclosure: I am closing out the LPM workshop at 3:00 pm on Monday).
Legaltech
The Legaltech agenda includes something for everyone. There are 42 sessions starting on Tuesday, February 4, at 10:00 am, following opening remarks and a keynote by a certain former US Deputy Attorney General. The sessions range from legal automation to e-discovery, AI and analytics. There’s a legal operations track, an information governance track by Consilio, a data privacy track from Relativity and an E-Discovery and AI track from OpenText. ARMA is presenting several IG sessions, and our friends at ILTA have a track of sessions as well on Tuesday, including one entitled “Women Who Lead in Technology.”
LegalCIO
The LegalCIO sessions also kick off on Tuesday and include topics geared toward the CIOs who might be interested in managing technological change, the use of AI, blockchain and cybersecurity threats, as well as the regulatory schemes in privacy that are on the rise.
Legal Business Strategy
For those more interested in the business of law firm and legal operations, the Legal Business Strategy sessions are focused on marketing and business development, law firm strategy and talent advancement strategies. The Business Strategy segment culminates in a session that brings together stakeholders from each of the tracks to discuss modernizing the delivery of legal services in 2020 and beyond.
Networking Events
And I probably don’t need to mention the dozens of networking and social events that will take place each evening. It’s impossible to make it to every event, but I have tried it several times. Some of the highlights for me will be Zapproved’s Corporate E-Discovery Hero Awards Dinner, which is held on Monday night. On Tuesday, I recommend the Consilio event at The Rainbow Room. And Wednesday, the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS) is hosting a cocktail hour at 48 Lounge (again, more full disclosure: I am the president of ACEDS). There are tons of other evening events as well.
For me, Legalweek has become a part of life in legal technology. I cannot remember a time when it did not exist, and I’ve been in this business for 20 years. So, whether you’re looking for the latest software, a new service provider, or just want to meet and network with your peers, Legalweek is the place to be February 3 through 5.
Mike Quartararo
Mike Quartararo is the President of the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS), a professional member association providing training and certification in e-discovery. He is also the author of the 2016 book Project Management in Electronic Discovery and a consultant providing e-discovery, project management and legal technology advisory and training services to law firms and Fortune 500 corporations across the globe. You can reach him via email at mquartararo@aceds.org. Follow him on Twitter @mikequartararo.
After years — hell, generations — of ignoring mental health issues in Biglaw, it looks like the industry has finally turned a corner. It’s not like they’ve solved the problem, far from it, but it’s at least a part of the conversation now.
There’s been a proliferation of programs and pledges all designed to encourage lawyers to take care of themselves and their mental health issues. Given the stigma mental health has long had in the legal industry, these are all great steps headed in the right direction.
But we have to wonder, while firms are certainly saying the right things about mental health, what’s it really like on the inside. We recently had a tipster come forward with stories of a Biglaw firm that says they care about mental health, but on the ground fall far short of such lofty goals:
One [Biglaw firm] in particular that signed onto the ABAs pledge to do better in [mental heath] and has moved forward with an initiative (that of course is well marketed all over the legal periodicals), yet still keeps on at least 1 partner who verbally abuses staff and attorneys on a routine basis. Attrition under this person is common as a result of burn out anxiety stress inability to balance work life etc. No surprise, the partner particularly targets and polarizes women. The most senior levels of the firm know of this issue yet do nothing.
So take our poll, and let us know — how are Biglaw firms really doing when it comes to mental health?
Loading …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).
Unless you are living under a rock, you are probably aware that religion is experiencing a rapid decline in the United States, including in economic power. In order to counter ever-decreasing budgets, many churches have begun to seek financial support from the government, often in the form of direct cash grants. This situation has resulted in many high-profile legal challenges, such as in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, set for oral argument this week, to determine whether state funding mechanisms can be utilized to fund religious instruction. The Espinoza case comes to the U.S. Supreme Court after the Montana Supreme Court upheld the denial of state funds to religious schools as a valid exercise of the state right to enact “no aid” provisions that are “broader and stronger than the First Amendment prohibition.” Put simply, Montana is arguing that if it wants to expand and strengthen the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause with its own state specific statute, the Supreme Court has said that they can.
Those arguing to overturn the Montana Supreme Court decision focus their argument on the fact that Montana’s no aid provision is a byproduct of the prejudiced Blaine Amendment framework of the past. For any who are not aware, the Blaine Amendment framework was a bigoted state system that forced Protestant Bible reading and prayer in public schools and was only overturned once the First Amendment federal standard was incorporated to the states. Accordingly, the Petitioners in the Espinoza case are correct in pointing out that the Blaine Amendment framework, including its “no aid” provisions, were not intended to separate church and state. In fact, in the Blaine context where you have a state system of Protestant religious establishment in public schools, the only conceivable function of denials of government aid to all other religious schools, is to maintain the Protestant establishment as the only form of establishment.
If the forced Protestant Bible reading and prayer from the Blaine framework are stricken down, however, you also strike down everything that makes the Blaine framework prejudiced. What’s left is the system of secular schools we have today where government is barred from financing or imposing any religious practices. In other words, there is a major difference in the function of a “no aid” provision depending on whether it is operating within a bigoted establishment system or a secular one that denies aid to all religions as a matter of liberty.
For example, the secular, pre-Blaine, federal framework of “no aid” denials of government support to religion was originally enacted as an essential function of free conscience liberty, meant to guarantee citizens against the free conscience tyranny’s conducted by civil support of religion in the colonial past. James Madison could not have been more clear that under this standard, first adopted in Virginia and later enumerated in the First Amendment, viewed government support of religion as a sin and a per se violation of freedom of conscience regardless of whether any taxpayer objected. Accordingly, from an originalist lens, Espinoza becomes simple and rather uncontroversial. After all, if the First Amendment’s incorporation to the states means the prejudiced Blaine frameworks of the past can, and should, be struck down, it also means the First Amendment’s pre-Blaine prohibition against aid to religion must also be incorporated to the states. The Petitioners in Espinoza, many of whom claim to be originalists, have missed, or rather conveniently left out, this rather obvious point.
Working in the favor of the Petitioners in the Espinoza case, however, is the fact that several members on this court do not seem to care at all about rather obvious points regarding federal anti-establishment religious liberty. For example, despite the fact that James Madison was clear the federal standard viewed civil support to religion as a contradiction to religion itself “for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world,” this Supreme Court has forced states to provide cash grants to churches for property enhancements. Accordingly, despite the fact that it can be shown original free conscience First Amendment liberty was drafted specifically to prevent the kinds of assessment frameworks that mirror the type the Petitioners in Espinoza are asking for, I suspect the Supreme Court will again ignore all history, all law, and simply choose the outcome that favors the Christian religion.
The reason many within the public will accept a decision that forces states to fund religious instruction is likely due to the hysteria that surrounds religion today. To hear some tell it, despite every conceivable advantage and favor in the law and in politics, they nevertheless exist in a state of continual peril. In the public-school context, at least once a week I personally see someone I know on Facebook share some meme or quote some figure (including the current president), that claims something to the effect of “God was taken out of our schools.” The fact is, God was never taken out of public schools, all American students can currently pray to any god they want with a guarantee against any government interference. Unfortunately, these facts won’t stop the president, nor many of his supporters from repeating the claim God has been taken out of public schools.
To understand what is going on in religious liberty cases these days requires understanding that the victim complex simply has to exist for many religious people, regardless of the facts. Without the victim label, the hateful discrimination and demonization against nonbelievers as the cause of all the country’s ills could not be justified. The victim label makes examining why private religious participation is declining secondary to manufactured outrage over forcing states to fund religious instruction. Moreover, given the state of religious decline, if religion is returned to its “primitive state” as Madison intended, where religion is maintained entirely by private donations, religious institutions will not have the economic resources they once did. For some, the decline of religious influence, even apparently over a willingly apathetic population, can only result in the country’s moral decline. In order to prevent this decline, it appears many are willing to undermine the law, free conscience liberty be damned. At this point all I can do is ask these folks, my fellow Americans, to consider the fact that forcing states and therefore the people to fund religious instruction, even if you think it is for their own good, has never turned out well for any country. The Espinoza case therefore represents a crossroad for the Court and for the country. On the one hand, we can choose to uphold the state of Montana’s pre-Blaine, First Amendment provision of anti-establishment liberty. Or we can succumb to irrational fear and hatred and choose to distort the law so as to force states to provide mechanisms for the financial support of religious instruction an increasing number of Americans are privately rejecting.
Tyler Broker’s work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review, the Albany Law Review, and is forthcoming in the University of Memphis Law Review. Feel free to email him or follow him on Twitter to discuss his column.
Looks like law students — especially out of state students — at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law; the University of California, Davis School of Law; the University of California, Irvine School of Law; and the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law should brace themselves for a tuition raise. As reported by Law.com, the University of California Board of Regents will vote tomorrow on proposed tuition hikes — to the tune of 17 percent between 2020 and 2023. Oof.
The proposed increases are not standard across all of the impacted law schools. Here’s how the increases would break down per school. At Berkeley Law, currently at $52,500 for residents and $55,000 for nonresidents jumps to $63,000 and $75,500, respectively, by 2023. At UC Irvine, California residents would go from $47,485 to $60,604 while nonresidents would see a 36 percent increase to $72,849 by 2023. UC Davis would see a 13 percent tuition hike to $55,735 for residents and $66,095 for nonresidents by 2023. UCLA Law’s would jump to $53,207 for residents and $61,477 for nonresidents by 2021 (the proposal does not include tuition information for UCLA past 2021).
The hike would raise the schools’ professional degree supplemental tuition, which was established to offset reductions in state funding. Berkeley Law dean Erwin Chemerinsky doesn’t seem phased by the change, saying it’ll put the law school more in line with their (incredibly expensive) peer schools:
But none of the four University of California law schools have raised that professional degree supplemental tuition since 2012, said UC Berkeley law dean Erwin Chemerinsky. At the same time, state funding has declined. Public funding now accounts for just 7% of Berkeley Law’s budget, he said. Without an increase in public support, the schools must raise tuition or risk reducing the quality of their programs, Chemerinsky said. The proposed tuition increase will bring UC Berkeley more in line with competitor schools, he added.
“If you look at the other top 10 law schools, we’re priced, basically $10,000 less,” Chemerinsky said. “We can’t be priced substantially lower than our peer schools.
The good news, is that the Regents’ mandate — that there’s a larger difference between what California residents and nonresidents pay — isn’t a three year penalty. Most law students are able to qualify as California residents after only one year. So that’s nice, at least.
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).
Upon death, one’s assets may be transferred to beneficiaries in a variety of ways. Assets such as life insurance policies, trusts, annuities, and retirement accounts commonly have a beneficiary designation. This means that, upon death, title transfers to the named beneficiary (or multiple beneficiaries). Generally, the named individual will present a death certificate to the financial institution and complete proprietary paperwork, prior to the monies being released or rolled over into another account.
Assets that are held jointly between individuals pass to the surviving owner upon the first owner’s death. This applies to financial accounts and real estate. Often this kind of joint ownership is seen between spouses or an elderly parent and adult child. The account or property may be titled in a number of ways, but often as “joint tenants with rights of survivorship.”
Finally, assets held in an individual’s name listing no beneficiary and bearing no joint owner, must pass via a last will and testament or by the state’s laws of intestacy, depending on whether the decedent died with or without a last will and testament. Therefore, a house owned by an individual will need to be included in a petition for the probate of a last will and testament so that the probate court may issue Letters Testamentary to the nominated executor. Upon receiving authority, the executor will distribute the asset pursuant to the terms of the last will and testament.
Assets passing outside of the last will and testament, via joint ownership or named beneficiary, pass by what is often known as “operation of law.” These assets do not get included in an inventory of probate assets and with a properly named beneficiary, they do not fall under the jurisdiction of the probate court. Practically, the beneficiary designations of these assets are much more difficult to challenge because notice is not given to next-of-kin as to their existence. This is different than individually owned assets that pass via a last will and testament or by intestacy, wherein the next-of-kin is informed of the estate proceeding, regardless of whether they are listed in the last will and testament. The notice gives the relative the opportunity to challenge or accept the last will and testament and its provisions.
It is not impossible, however, to contest a beneficiary designation under an operation of law asset. The news reports that a lawsuit was recently filed in Pennsylvania by Lance Tittle, the brother of Kent Tittle, who died last year. Lance Tittle alleges that a Morgan Stanley beneficiary designation form discovered in his brother’s home after his brother’s death leaves his Morgan Stanley financial account to Lance. Morgan Stanley does not have a record of a designated beneficiary on the decedent’s IRA account. When there is no beneficiary listed on an account, the asset passes to the decedent’s estate, who in this case would be Kent Tittle’s children. Lance Tittle alleges that his brother wished to disinherit his children and his ex-wife. Morgan Stanley will not name Lance Tittle as beneficiary unless directed by a court. Lance Tittle has retained a handwriting expert to demonstrate the authenticity of the beneficiary designation document.
Questions as to beneficiary designations can arise after death. Often family members are surprised to find that they have been removed in place of someone else. Conversely beneficiaries are sometimes pleasantly surprised to find out that the beneficiary designation was never changed, despite the fact that there was a breakdown in the relationship between the account owner and the named beneficiary. Too often, no beneficiary is listed, and the last will and testament or state laws of intestacy determine who gets the asset. In this case, the beneficiary may not be in sync with what the owner intended.
When engaging in estate planning, it is imperative that one requests all beneficiary designation forms from their financial institutions to confirm who is the named beneficiary. Family structures change and relationships often fail. Assets that pass by beneficiary designation are supposed to make transfer of assets easy, as they avoid court. It is important to confirm that those listed are still a part of one’s life and are worthy of one’s hard earned estate.
Cori A. Robinson is a solo practitioner having founded Cori A. Robinson PLLC, a New York and New Jersey law firm, in 2017. For more than a decade Cori has focused her law practice on trusts and estates and elder law including estate and Medicaid planning, probate and administration, estate litigation, and guardianships. She can be reached at cori@robinsonestatelaw.com.
Notifications