Category Added in a WPeMatico Campaign
(Image via Getty)
What now defunct law school’s alumni include two U.S. Vice Presidents, 101 congressmen, 28 senators, six cabinet secretaries, three justices of the United States Supreme Court, 14 state governors, and 13 state supreme court chief justices?
Hint: The law school closed in 1833, but the legacies of its alums live on.
See the answer on the next page.
Assistant Attorney General John Demers announces indictments of Russian military intelligence (GRU) operatives.
WASHINGTON: The head of the Justice Department task force on China pledged today to continue prosecuting espionage cases regardless of trade negotiations with Beijing.
“I don’t do trade, and I try to keep our cases well apart from what’s going on the trade front,” Assistant Attorney General John Demers told the CyberTalks conference this morning, “because we didn’t bring one of these cases because of what’s going on on the trade front. And we’re not going to drop them even if we reach an agreement.”
John Demers
“We’re going to stop doing cases about China intellectual property theft when the Chinese stop doing intellectual theft,” Demers continued. “If they agree to a trade agreement and they actually change their behavior, great…That’s ultimately what we’re really looking at.”
The Trump administration has been accused of inappropriately entangling trade, national security, domestic politics, and the president’s family business in its dealings with foreign powers. Demers himself was a presidential nominee, working at Boeing before Trump tapped him to head Justice’s National Security Division. He’s not a career DOJ lawyer. But Demers had significant experience, having previously worked in what was a brand-new division under President George W. Bush from 2006 to 2009, right after he clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
Since Demers took charge in February 2018, the National Security Division has
Demers and his division have also worked with the Commerce Department to impose sanctions on a Chinese company tied to industrial espionage against the US. Last year, after Jinhua Integrated Circuit Co. was accused of stealing intellectual property from US chipmaker Micron, Commerce placed Jinhua on its Entity List of companies restricted from doing business in the US. Unable to import US-made equipment for its factory, Jinhua was unable to use the stolen secrets to actually make chips, Demers said.
“The practical effect of that is this Chinese company…. is unable to import the tooling from the United States that it needs to produce a product that it stole the intellectual property to create,” Demers said today. “That means Micron is not facing that competition.”
(That said, Micron’s stock price has still slumped, in part because of rising Chinese competition and in part because it can no longer sell to Chinese tech giant Huawei, a major customer for many US firms until it, too, was put on the Entity List.)
The Micron case is an example of the kind of public-private cooperation Demers deems essential to combating Chinese espionage. “We crucially need that cooperation of the private sector to bring these cases,” he said, because it’s the companies that often detect the first signs that a network or an employee is being subverted.
Likewise, he went on, the companies need government help to counter the skills and resources of Chinese intelligence agencies like the Ministry of State Security, which has taken the lead in industrial espionage from the People’s Liberation Army.
“Looking at the way in which Chinese intelligence officers recruit employees of American companies, and comparing that to what we’re used to seeing on the traditional political espionage side,” Demers said, “it’s really the same tradecraft that’s now being aimed not at the government but being aimed at you all, being aimed at the private sector.”
“It’s hard sometimes for government employees to understand what’s going on and resist,” he said. “It’s just much harder for [private sector] employees who haven’t been trained in counterintelligence.”
Anyone who calls themselves a lawyer who would say that should not be a lawyer — let’s start with that. If you shoot someone, that’s a crime, and no one is above the law. He would be arrested, period.
— Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City, criticizing arguments given before the Second Circuit by Donald Trump’s lawyer, William Consovoy, where he claimed the president could not be prosecuted even if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue. “If anybody shoots someone, they get arrested. I don’t care if they’re the president of the United States or anybody else,” de Blasio said. “If you shoot someone, you should get arrested, and we would arrest him.”
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.
(Image via Getty)
Many lawyers do not think about crafting a business plan until they make partner at a firm. Starting this process sooner, even as a mid-level associate, will at worst be a superfluous intellectual exercise. Having a well-thought-out business plan can mean the difference between landing your dream position and missing the chance to lateral at all. It can also mean the difference between success and lost opportunities at any stage in your career. Here’s why.
A Good Business Plan Takes Time
Designing a solid business plan is not just about putting your ideas on paper. A business plan is a process, it’s an ever-evolving organism, not just an end product. It’s about stretching your brain to the max, being creative, thinking outside the box, connecting dots, and engaging in analytic reasoning. It takes time to get it right. You’ll want to seek feedback from multiple trusted advisors and put the plan aside at some stage so you can return to it with fresh eyes. For this reason, I believe it is never too early to start working on your business plan, even if it’s for your eyes only. You want to start the process well before you start thinking about making a move.
Your Business Plan Can Highlight a Key Skill or Specialty
A business plan is not just a summary of your résumé and deal sheet. It goes above and beyond a list of your legal skills and your contacts. Through a business plan, you have the opportunity to convince a prospective employer that you will add value to the new firm as a business generator and not just as a legal practitioner. You should explain how your particular specialties will lead to business the firm is not currently able to secure. The more specific, the better.
I recently worked with a counsel-level litigator who was asked by a top firm where he was interviewing to give a presentation to a group of partners on a niche specialty that he proposed to develop at the new firm. The litigator’s niche specialty only came to light through his in-depth business plan.
A Business Plan Is Also a State of Mind
A business plan must have substance. A horribly crafted business plan is worse than none at all. But your only excuse for a bad business plan is not starting the process early enough.
Substance is important, but a business plan is not solely about the substance. The fact that you have a business plan at all shows a firm you are serious about the process of lateraling and that you understand that to be a value to the firm, your business development skills are as important as your legal skills. It is hard enough to lateral as a senior associate without business. Having a business plan helps overcome presumption that you don’t have what it takes to bring in business.
A business plan also puts you in the right mindset to interview well and hit the ground running in a new position. The exercise of compiling and refining a business plan is a fantastic preparation for interviews. You have your recent work, contacts, and historical metrics right at your fingertips.
A Business Plan Is Necessary to Succeed, Not Just to Switch Jobs
Isn’t a business plan a waste of time if you’re not looking to lateral? Absolutely not. As I argue also regarding deal sheets, a business plan is a great way to take stock of your experience and your connections, and to visualize where you have holes in your skills and your network and where you can best build.
Even if you could lateral without a business plan, you’re going to need one eventually to succeed as a counsel or partner. Give yourself the best chance at success by having a roadmap before you make the move so you can hit the ground running. And don’t be afraid to revisit the business plan frequently throughout your career. Remember, it’s not a static document. It’s an adaptable roadmap.
Even if you go in-house, the exercise of crafting a business plan can prove to be useful. In-house, you are not subject to hourly billing requirements. Success is more results-driven. You’ll need to learn to work closely with your business counterparts and understand their mindsets, pressures, and perspectives. Highlighting your strengths and contemplating potential business strategies for your own “brand” can help you rise to the next level.
***
You should seek feedback on your advanced draft business plan from as many trusted sources as you can — in and outside of your specific field. If you work with a recruiter, that recruiter can help. A good recruiter can provide you with sample business plans to get you started. I usually share with my candidates a one-page template, as well as some longer examples. I review my candidates’ drafts and give them suggestions as to tone, style, and substance. We often go through multiple drafts of the document before sending it to any prospective employers. Where I do not have the necessary level of expertise in a particular legal field to give detailed substantive suggestions, I may call upon one of my colleagues to help out; this is one benefit of working with a recruiting firm composed of multiple recruiters who are former practicing attorneys in a range of fields. I cannot stress this enough: Start early. A persuasive business plan can make or break your next career move.
Please reach out to me at agordon@laterallink.com to learn more about the best lateral opportunities for your specific skills and experience, and to give me the green light to start nagging you for your business plan draft.
Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series of posts on lateral associate and partner moves from Lateral Link’s team of expert contributors. As a Senior Director, Abby Gordon works with attorney candidates on law firm and in-house searches, primarily in Boston, New York and Europe. Prior to joining Lateral Link, Abby spent seven years as a corporate associate with Cleary Gottlieb, focusing on capital markets transactions for Latin American clients in New York and for the last five years for European clients in Paris. A native of Boston, Abby holds a J.D., cum laude, from Georgetown University Law Center and a B.A. in government and romance languages, magna cum laude, from Dartmouth College. Abby also worked with the International Rescue Committee as a Fulbright Scholar in Madrid, Spain. She is a member of the New York, Massachusetts and Maine Bars and is fluent in French and Spanish (and dabbles in Portuguese and Italian). You can view additional articles by Abby here.
Lateral Link is one of the top-rated international legal recruiting firms. With over 14 offices world-wide, Lateral Link specializes in placing attorneys at the most prestigious law firms and companies in the world. Managed by former practicing attorneys from top law schools, Lateral Link has a tradition of hiring lawyers to execute the lateral leaps of practicing attorneys. Click here to find out more about us.
We’ve talked before about the over-reliance on tech to do certain jobs that cannot be simplified to the sum of mathematical parts. The criminal justice system is starting to turn over sentencing to algorithms — something that seems like the smart thing to do but removes judicial and prosecutorial discretion from the mix, leaving defendants with the unpalatable option of challenging software they’re never allowed to examine.
Police departments are also moving towards predictive policing. Relying on historical data, cops are hoping to head off future crimes by allocating resources to areas where crime appears to be more likely to be committed. Sounds good on paper, but in reality, all it does is reinforce biases and push law enforcement to treat everyone in targeted areas as criminals. If the data being fed in reflects biased policing, crunching the numbers even harder isn’t going to erase that. It’s only going to reinforce it. And, again, suspected criminals aren’t able to access the data or software that puts them in law enforcement’s crosshairs.
A certain amount of automation is expected as government agencies seek to streamline public services. The problem isn’t necessarily the tech. It’s the removal of human interaction. As has been stated here frequently, moderation at scale is impossible. So is automated governing. Automated processes are as prone to failure as the people overseeing them. But when you decide software is going to do almost all of the work, those who need the assistance of other humans most are cut out of the loop.
Citizens looking for government assistance have grown accustomed to jumping through red tape hoops. Now, the hoops are inaccessible, but still must be jumped through. The most marginalized members of society are given URLs instead of contact names and numbers when many of them have no reliable access to the internet or a computer. A new series by The Guardian shows the human cost of going paperless. It’s happening all over the world, and it’s literally killing people.
The most disturbing story comes from Dumka in India. Here, we learn of the horrifying human impact that has befallen families as a result of Aadhaar, a 12-digit unique identification number that the Indian government has issued to all residents in the world’s largest biometric experiment.
Motka Manjhi paid the ultimate price when the computer glitched and his thumbprint – his key into Aadhaar – went unrecognised. His subsistence rations were stopped, he was forced to skip meals and he grew thin. On 22 May, he collapsed outside his home and died. His family is convinced it was starvation.
That’s the worst case scenario. But there is plenty of ugliness in between. Governments aren’t looking to defense budgets or law enforcement agencies to make cuts. Instead, they’re adding to their bottom lines by pursuing citizens they think have screwed the government. Another process being automated is governments’ attempts to collect alleged overpayments of social services funds. There’s a statute of limitations on most debt, but software is being used to resurrect ancient debt governments feel they’re owed. This is resulting in the destruction of people’s lives and finances as they find themselves unable to challenge these automated determinations.
In Illinois, the Guardian has found that state and federal governments have joined forces to demand that welfare recipients repay “overpayments” stretching back in some cases 30 years. This system of “zombie debt”, weaponized through technology, is invoking fear and hardship among society’s most vulnerable.
As one recipient described it: “You owe what you have eaten.”
It’s not just “zombie debt.” It’s also “robodebt.” The determinations of owed debt are made by automated processes. The collection process is also automated, separating those suddenly facing possibly undeserved clawbacks from the human assistance they need to determine whether or not the claim is valid. Bureaucracies have always been faceless. With the addition of cold calculations, they’ve weaponized this facelessness to deter citizens from pushing back against a decision-making process composed of 1s and 0s. This, too, is linked to a rising human cost.
Compare and contrast the public statements with reality. Here’s how the UK government is pitching its transition to automated governance:
“We are striking the right balance between having a compassionate safety net on which we spend £95bn, and creating a digital service that suits the way most people use technology,” said a DWP [Department for Work and Pensions] spokesperson. “Automation means we are improving accuracy, speeding up our service and freeing up colleagues’ time so they can support the people who need it most.”
If this sounds like a positive development, it’s only because you haven’t seen it in action.
[C]laimants have warned the existing automation in UC’s “digital by default” system has already driven some to hunger, breakdown and even attempted suicide. One described the online process as a “Kafka-like carousel”, another as “hostile” and yet another as a “form of torture”. Several said civil servants already appeared to be ruled by computer algorithms, unable to contradict their verdicts.
The same thing is going on in Australia. The government’s embrace of “austerity,” combined with its fondness for automating social services and debt collection processes has resulted in a world of hurt for the many Australians unable to challenge automated determinations or connect with actual humans willing to help them through the process. Asher Wolf’s Twitter feed is an invaluable resource for these issues, detailing the fallout of automated social assistance programs all around the world.
It’s not that all automation is bad. It’s that automation without strict oversight or human control isn’t making anything better for the most vulnerable members of society. When governments pay millions to let machines make decisions affecting humans, humans almost always seem to come out on the losing end. Legislators may proudly display charts showing incremental gains in efficiency, but few are willing to discuss the constituents they’ve sacrificed on the altar of automation. No system is perfect, but one that relies more on math than human discretion isn’t an improvement.
Skynet, But For Welfare: Automating Social Services Is Killing People
More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:
TV Network Declares IPTV Tool Copyright Infringing, Even Though It’s Just A Tool
Federal Lawsuit Targets Vicious Gang Composed Of… Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputies
Steak With A Side Of Surveillance: Outback Restaurants Adding Employee-Tracking Analytics To Its Cameras
Marketa Lindt (Photo via Sidley Austin)
“We want our leaders to save the day / But we don’t get a say in what they trade away / We dream of a brand new start / But we dream in the dark for the most part / Dark as a tomb where it happens / I’ve got to be… in the room where it happens!”– Lin-Manuel Miranda (Hamilton)
On Wednesday, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights released its report, Trauma at the Border: The Human Cost of Inhumane Immigration Policies. As highlighted in its press release:
Testimony received from asylum seekers, legal experts, and other witnesses to the impacts of changes in immigration policy at the southern border. The report focuses on the separation of thousands of migrant children from their parents, and the housing and medical care provided to asylum seekers and other immigrants while detained. The report concludes that the impact of separating immigrant families and indefinite detention is widespread, long-term, and may inflict irreversible physical, mental and emotional trauma.
Despite an Executive Order purporting to stop family separation, there remain credible allegations that family separations continue. The Commission also heard directly from immigrant detainees who confirmed traumatic experiences as a result of enduring inhumane conditions at detention facilities and cruel treatment by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) personnel….
Further, these policies disparately impact people of color, particularly Latinos, and agencies continue inequitable treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals, individuals with disabilities, and non-English speakers.
As I’ve previously stated, although seeking asylum is legal, we have now begun to treat this process as criminal. We have not only violated international treaties (Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees) for those fleeing persecution and seeking safe harbor — but we have ripped away people’s kids from them with suspect plans for reunification. Not even in the Japanese internment camps did we separate innocent actors from their children.
The Trump administration has been executing its immigration restriction plans at a record pace. From its intent on reducing asylum application and increasing “public charge” requirements to establishing a “zero tolerance” policy and third version of a travel ban, one needs a guide to keep up with the consequential and collateral damage resulting from this administration’s attack on current immigration laws and conventions. If you have some time today, I highly recommend you review the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report.
This week, we spent some time with Pitt Law alum and Sidley Austin partner Marketa Lindt, who shared her current thoughts on immigration law and how her background shaped her career, as well as advice for others who are passionate about diversity and inclusion.
Lindt currently serves as the national President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). She regularly speaks at national and regional conferences regarding business immigration law and I-9 compliance. She is a primary author of the immigration law and practice treatise Business Immigration Law. She has also authored articles for a number of leading immigration texts, including AILA’s Guide to Worksite Enforcement and Compliance, the Guide to PERM Labor Certification, and numerous annual editions of the Immigration & Nationality Law Handbook.
In addition to her business practice at Sidley, Lindt is committed to providing access to counsel for underserved immigrants. She serves in an advisory capacity to several Chicago-area cultural institutions and organizations that provide assistance to underserved immigrant communities. For a number of years, she has served as a member of the Leadership Board of the National Immigrant Justice Center in Chicago.
Without further ado, here is a (lightly edited and condensed) write-up of our conversation:
Renwei Chung (RC): Your family immigrated from the Netherlands to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. What was that like?
Marketa Lindt (ML): I was nine when I left the Netherlands to move to my new life in the U.S. with my parents and my two younger sisters. Leaving my grandmother, my friends, my school, and life as I knew it was both exciting and scary. I had started to learn a little English — Dutch kids begin English classes in the 4th grade — but I didn’t speak the language when I arrived. And everything seemed very different.
Moving to the U.S. was a good career opportunity for my father, who had finally achieved his goal of working as an engineering professor at a university. And kids are very adaptable and resilient. I actually watched Sesame Street as a 4th grader to learn English and understand American culture better. So I learned English, began to make friends, and soon learned all kinds of interesting things about my new home.
RC: After you graduated University of Pittsburgh School of Law, you moved to Chicago. Can you tell us more about this and how you decided to embark on your career path?
ML: I had obtained my JD and a master’s degree in international affairs with the goal of working in human rights law. I had initially planned to work for an international organization in refugee law, but after working with Haitian refugees during law school decided to stay in the U.S. and work in the immigration field.
During law school, I worked with an immigration law firm in Pittsburgh and had intended to continue working there after graduation, when suddenly a job presented itself with a nonprofit organization working in the Chicago immigrant communities. I was young and unattached and couldn’t refuse an opportunity to live in one of America’s great cities.
I fell in love with Chicago the moment I arrived — the grit, the energy, the diverse urban communities — and have been thrilled to live and work in this amazing city ever since.
RC: In June, you became the AILA president. What has AILA been focusing on this year?
ML: I am serving as national president of AILA during a very challenging time in immigration law, where the agency is focused on limiting immigration to the U.S. in asylum, family reunification, and even business immigration. In my role as AILA president, my primary priority is to push back on these harmful policies and to work toward lawful, fair, and humane implementation of the immigration law for families and U.S. businesses.
We just hired an impact litigator and are working to educate and train the immigration bar to better challenge the implementation of these restrictive, and sometimes unlawful, policies in federal court.
We are focusing on the humanitarian crisis on the southern border and advocating for the transition of the politicized administrative immigration courts to an Article I court. And we are increasing our wellness and practice management programs to help immigration lawyers survive this very difficult time in our practice.
RC: As with many of my discussions, we somehow hit upon our mutual adoration of the musical Hamilton. Any particular scenes or themes you enjoy about this musical?
ML: One of my favorite parts of seeing Hamilton in Chicago was that I had a very special evening with my daughter, who was extremely excited to be there. But I personally was amazed at the number of interesting themes packed into a historical rap musical.
Of course, as an immigration lawyer, I loved the famous Hamilton quote, “Immigrants — we get the job done,” as it reminded me of all of the hardworking and talented clients that I have the privilege to represent.
But I also appreciated the themes of seizing your opportunities when they arise; of forgiveness and reconciliation; and most of all, of working hard and making sacrifices for a cause that you believe during the time you have.
RC: How do you think we can effectively advance diversity and inclusion efforts in today’s political climate?
ML: Diversity and inclusion is a critical value and goal, both within the legal profession and within the immigration bar. First, I think we need to continue to push forward the ongoing efforts to diversify the legal profession — the research, analysis, program development and implementation, education, and dialogue about diversity and inclusion that has helped us make progress to date.
Second, allies of diversity and inclusion are more important than ever and we should be working to mobilize them in support of our goals.
And, third, we need to keep working to engage across the spectrum on this critical issue, both with those who agree that diversity and inclusion are important values and goals as well as those who question those values or have not thought about them.
RC: What advice do you have for attorneys who want to begin a career in public service?
ML: My main advice is to know what drives you and to follow your passion. I have worked both in non-profit and in private practice, and I enjoyed both at different times in my career.
For some people, civic engagement means working at a law firm or in-house and then supplementing it with performing pro bono work, serving on a board or becoming engaged politically. Many lawyers in private practice find these activities to be a very meaningful and rewarding aspect of their professional lives. But for some the mission drives them to dedicate their full professional life to public service.
One of my former law partners, John Gallo, left a very successful career as a litigator at Sidley to become executive director of the Legal Aid Chicago, because he felt strongly that this was the way that he could best give back to the community.
RC: I have quite a few friends at your firm in Chicago. Do you recall what drew you to Sidley back in 1999?
ML: I originally met my current partner in the Sidley immigration group, Tim Payne, at a Saturday morning pro bono immigration workshop in Chicago. When an opportunity presented itself to work at Sidley in its business immigration practice some time later, I was impressed not only with its national-level immigration practice but the collegiality among the lawyers and the firm’s commitment to pro bono work.
The Sidley immigration group’s founding partner and statesman, Doug Donenfeld, was a very inspiring and exciting figure, and I was honored to have the chance to practice with and learn from him. All these years later, even though Doug has retired, I still draw inspiration from his leadership, generosity, and friendship. And I continue to work closely with Tim and the other attorneys and staff in our immigration group.
RC: You mentioned that it’s a very challenging time for those practicing and dealing with immigration law in our country. What areas do you think can be addressed in the near future and improved over time to strengthen the rule of law on this front?
ML: In my view, it is critical that the business community begins to actively challenge denials of business immigration petitions in federal court. We have seen a substantial increase in agency denial rates for visa petitions, particularly for H-1B professionals, without any change in standards in the law or regulations.
Companies are losing long-term employees due to denials of extensions for workers who have held H-1B visas for the same job for years. Many of these agency denials are overreaching and do not have a basis in the law or regulations.
Many U.S. businesses that have challenged these types of denials have obtained reversals. I believe that challenging agency denials through federal court litigation will be both helpful for companies to obtain the immigration benefit to which they are entitled in the individual case, but will also hold the government accountable and result in better adjudications in this important area.
RC: What is one thing that only your friends and family know about you?
ML: I have recently started taking fiddle lessons with my daughter in the hopes of someday forming a family bluegrass band. It has been a fun experience, but my progress so far suggests that I should probably keep my day job.
On behalf of everyone here at Above the Law, I would like to thank Marketa Lindt for taking the time to share her story with our audience. We look forward to following her successes and wish her continued achievements in her career.
Renwei Chung is the Diversity Columnist at Above the Law. You can contact Renwei by email at projectrenwei@gmail.com, follow him on Twitter (@renweichung), or connect with him on LinkedIn.
It’s time again to check in on some of the best content being produced by the brave men and women of Law School Memes For Edgy T14s. These law students risk an embarrassing cold call every day to produce high-quality memes for the world. As always, we’ll not name the creators so they won’t have their digital footprint attached to Above the Law —- you never know what an interviewer might think when a Google search points to this website — unless they reach out and ask to be acknowledged.
First of all, allow us to present the law school journey in four images.
Every 1L orientation promises to solve the access to justice gap with an abundance of eager volunteers. Every 3L graduation is beset by hungover cynics preparing to join Jones Day in the fall. In between were highs and lows, debts and mock trials — a journey of self-discovery that ended, inevitably, in realizing you’re not nearly as good a person as you’d hoped.
On the other hand… that’s a pretty sweet bonus.
Next up, I was told there would be no math:
Rudy’s having a rough go of it lately, but this is just cruel. The caption was “when you’re cold called about the dissent.”
Continuing with that theme: “When you get cold called and have no idea what the case is about so you frantically scroll through Quimbee in a feeble attempt to look like you’ve got your shit together”
Now this is going to keep me up at nights.
This is less funny “ha ha” than funny “boo hoo.”
Remember, if you need help and support, there are plenty of resources out there for you.
This next one… wow.
So Amber Guyger had hoped she’d avoid punishment for gunning down her neighbor by arguing that the Castle Doctrine applied because she thought she was in her home.
And, since it’s Halloween, we’ll close on this cute tribute.
Happy Halloween.
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.
Is your law firm considering a move towards Legal Project Management (LPM)? If not, it should be. There are good reasons why this business strategy is trending among progressive practices. LPM has a proven track record of improving efficiency, increasing profits, and strengthening relationships between your firm and its clients.
Project planning offers significant opportunity for profit maximization and substantial revenue growth. With profitability analysis, your firm can increase profitability by:
Click here or sign up below to receive a complimentary eBook on how TimeSolv can help you explore the profitable benefits of Legal Project Management.
Every generation has its “defining moment.” For my parents it was the Beatles’ appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show or the assisination of John F. Kennedy. For Generation X, it was Madonna’s Like a Virgin or the fall of the Berlin Wall. For millenials, 9/11 or the election of Barack Obama. For my generation, I guess it was . . . Oregon Trail(?).
I’ve been watching the legal technology and innovation for seven or eight years – my defining moment being following ReInvent Law Silicon Valley via my relatively newly-created Twitter account in 2013.
At least, it was until September 4, 2019. That’s the day that law practice management leader Clio announced a whopping $250 million dollar Series D funding from TCV and JMI Equity.
The implications of this fundraising event are pretty staggering. Is Clio the legal technology sector’s first unicorn? What are we to make of Mark Britton, former Avvo CEO, joining the Clio board? Should we soon expect the launch of Clio Legal Services? How much better can the Clio Conference get with $250 million cool ones?
My point is this: $250 million is a lot of money. While we’ve seen other legal technology companies raise large sums before (see here or here), this deal represents the largest growth investment in Canadian history and probably in legal as well. With this investment, Clio is poised to dramatically reshape the legal ecosystem.
And that reshaping will almost certainly mean that the transformation we have seen and continue to see in legal employment will only increase. In a post-Clio world, the evolution of the professional in the 21st century legal ecosystem will probably only accelerate. And with that acceleration comes a need to unpack, discuss and prepare for the future.
That’s where we come in. On November 15, 2019 Above The Law, my event co-chairs, Bill Henderson and Bernadette Bulacan, and I will host the second ever Law Jobs for Humans event in New York City. This half-day event – part symposium, part job fair – is designed to create a space where those interested in exploring a 21st century legal technology career or those who increasingly feel the need to explore how to future-proof their legal careers can meet, learn, and prepare.
With legal renegades taken from a variety of different roles and areas in the law, Law Jobs for Humans is an attempt to capture the zeitgeist of a rapidly changing legal professional landscape.
It’s true that the defining moments for this decade of legal technology may have already past – with ReInvent Law and the Clio Series D in the rearview, they feel like they certainly may have for me – but the question about what to do remains very much in front of us.
So, join us at Law Jobs for Humans on November 15, 2019 in New York City. We’ve put together an amazing slate of speakers surrounded by an audience that, if ticket sales are any measure, already exceeds the audience for the first version of Law Jobs for Humans in Chicago in the spring. And speaking of ticket sales, early bird prices end this Sunday (October 27th), so make sure you grab those before the offer expires!
We won’t guarantee that Law Jobs for Humans will represent a huge cultural shift for the legal sector, but for us, the event will not be measured from the outside but by those who attend. If we can create that defining moment for just one or two people, if only one or two decide to stand up and explore the new frontier of legal employment, we’ll call it a success.
It starts out so innocuously — Pepper Hamilton sent around an invitation for an event in their Philadelphia office. It should be super easy — if you’re interested in the event and are free on that day, mark it in your calendar. If you aren’t? Just ignore it. That’s it, that’s all you have to do to avoid a Reply-All scandal. But this being Above the Law, of course that isn’t what actually happened.
You see, the event that Pepper Hamilton was advertising is a judicial diversity panel. And, the event is sponsored by a few groups at the firm: the African-American/Black Affinity Group, Asian Pacific American Affinity Network, Pepper Latina/o Caucus, Pepper Pride, South Asian Affinity Group, Veterans Group, and Women’s Initiative. Which are pretty much exactly who you’d expect to sponsor an event like this. But one partner, David Stratton, just couldn’t leave well enough alone.
Stratton forwarded the message to two other partners with a derisive comment about the affinity groups, “I never knew we had so many groups who want to be treated specially.” Which is just a shitty thing to say. Affinity groups are a wonderful opportunity for folks to network and find mentorship (which is one of the best ways to keep diverse attorneys at a firm) and ask for pretty little in exchange. But because it isn’t something Stratton is personally involved with or cares about, he writes them off with a nasty little comment he intended to send to friends (I presume) at the firm.
Then, he replied-all with an apology, but, as one of the many, many tipsters who wrote in about Stratton’s comments reveal, not everyone was even aware of his original, wildly inappropriate comments until the apology was sent.
The worst part is, no one knew he felt that way until he REPLIED ALL with an insincere APOLOGY that INCLUDED his original message. Just wow….
Two thumbs way up for diversity and inclusion at Pepper Hamilton.
You can take a look at the email chain below.
As you might imagine, the firm administration was not pleased at all about this turn of events. They quickly sent their own email from managing partner Thomas Cole, distancing themselves from Stratton’s off-color comments, and assuring everyone the matter is being properly handled behind the scenes.
We are disappointed by the inappropriate email sent earlier today by one of our attorneys regarding the Pepper Judicial Diversity Panel. The comments in the email are not reflective of Pepper Hamilton’s culture, which prioritizes diversity and inclusion as core values. We are proud of our Diversity Committee and the firm’s affinity groups to advance diverse perspectives at Pepper. We want to assure all of you that we are handling this incident appropriately, in a private manner, consistent with our values. We also want to encourage all of you to attend the Pepper Judicial Diversity Panel, which is a great event that contributes to the firm’s continuing efforts to overcome biases and ensure an inclusive environment for all attorneys and staff. If you wish to discuss this matter, I encourage you to reach out….
The firm is really trying, I get that. And as Cole’s email signature even says, the firm is Mansfield Rule Certified, meaning they’re committed to take concrete steps to meaningfully diversify the firm. But, as much as the powers-that-be may wish that this email is “not reflective of Pepper Hamilton’s culture,” they have to face the hard truth that, at least in pockets of the firm, it might be. A firm’s management can’t dictate firm culture from on high, and Biglaw is often filled with fiefdoms that are insular from the larger environment (this is why it’s common to see entire groups lateral to a new firm together, as a piece that can be plugged into a new superstructure). The work lives of associates in a group are impacted way more by the attitudes and opinions of the partners they work for than the management committee.
It would be nice, and certainly easier, to think of Stratton’s email as a singular bad act. But for a firm that seems as committed to diversity as Pepper Hamilton, it would behoove them to treat this incident not as a one-off, but as something potentially indicative of the attitudes of more than just Stratton. This should be an opportunity for the firm to have more of the difficult conversations and bias trainings that ensure the inclusive atmosphere they want is what is really happening on the ground.
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).