Morning Docket: 12.10.19

* A GOP lawyer brought files to an impeachment hearing yesterday in grocery bags. Pretty sure the bags weren’t from Whole Foods… [New York Post]

* A lawyer is saying that booze led him to swindle elderly clients out of millions. Sounds like this attorney is taking his defense from Jamie Foxx. [Albany Times Union]

* The Supreme Court has declined to review a Kentucky law that requires doctors to play the sound of a fetal heartbeat to individuals seeking abortions. [Slate]

* Attorney General Barr has rescheduled a Justice Department holiday party that was to occur at the Trump International Hotel in DC. I guess my invitation got lost in the mail… [Washington Post]

* An appellate court seemed skeptical Monday about an Emoluments Clause lawsuit filed against President Trump. [NPR]

* A mistrial has been declared in a murder case after the defense lawyer was struck by a car. Hopefully, this does not give criminal defendants any ideas. [Boston Globe]


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.

SAA may only be offered 5% of money owed by Zim – The Zimbabwean

The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe’s Monetary Policy Committee plans to “reject the majority of debts” owed to institutions, a move it hopes will save the southern African nation much-needed foreign currency, Eddie Cross, a member of the committee, said.

The country is unable to pay for adequate fuel and wheat imports.

“We will ask that a haircut be taken by creditors,” said Cross in a December 5 interview in the capital, Harare.

Tlali Tlali, a spokesman for SAA, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

In February, the central bank took over $1.2bn (R17.49bn) of legacy debt when it dropped the 1:1 parity between its currency and the US dollar. The Zimbabwe dollar now trades at 16.42 to the greenback.

Cross put the legacy debt at $2.6bn, more than double the central bank’s previously stated figure. He didn’t provide further details.

His comments on legacy debt echo similar views made last month by George Guvamatanga, the permanent secretary in the finance ministry, that institutions owed legacy debt should consider writing down some of the amount.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) in July said foreign airlines were owed $196m by the southern African nation.

Why is there food insecurity in Zimbabwe?

Post published in: Featured

Another Stupid ‘Warren Made Money’ Story — See Also

Findings from the 12th Annual Law Department Operations Survey – Webinar

Findings from the 12th Annual Law Department Operations Survey – Webinar

The 2019 LDO Survey reveals how law departments are leveraging legal operations, including insights on: Artificial Intelligence ,Technology, Effectiveness, Legal Project Management, and more.
Join us on December 11th at 1pm ET to learn more!

The 2019 LDO Survey reveals how law departments are leveraging legal operations, including insights on: Artificial Intelligence ,Technology, Effectiveness, Legal Project Management, and more.
Join us on December 11th at 1pm ET to learn more!

Not The Legal Inspiration You’re Looking For

What fictional lawyer once said, “I’ve argued in front of every judge in this state. Often as a lawyer.”?

Hint: The TV attorney, of questionable legal skill, also once noted: “Don’t you worry. I watched Matlock in a bar last night. The sound wasn’t on, but I think I got the gist of it.”

See the answer on the next page.

Big-Time Bonus Bucks For Associates

(Image via Getty)

The Milbank compensation scale isn’t just for Biglaw firms. Elite litigation boutiques are more than happy to show their associates the money. Now that we’re a full month into bonus season, we’ve already seen boutique firms that have either matched or exceeded the current market compensation dictated by Milbank and affirmed by Cravath.

Today, we’ve received word on yet another boutique firm that will be paying big-time bonuses to its associates. The firm in question is Greenberg Gross, which is doing a straight Milbank match. Bonuses at Greenberg Gross will be paid to associates on January 15, 2020. In case you’ve somehow managed to forget, this is what the 2019 bonus scale looks like:

Class of 2019 – $15,000 (pro-rated)
Class of 2018 – $15,000
Class of 2017 – $25,000
Class of 2016 – $50,000
Class of 2015 – $65,000
Class of 2014 – $80,000
Class of 2013 – $90,000
Class of 2012 and senior – $100,000

If you recall, back in 2017, Greenberg Gross was beating the market on bonuses. This time around, the firm is offering additional bonus cash to associates based on “extraordinary performance.” As noted in the bonus memo, congratulations to everyone at the firm for their “magnificent work and dedication.”

(Flip to the next page to see the full memo from Greenberg Gross.)

Remember everyone, we depend on your tips to stay on top of important bonus updates, so when your firm matches, please text us (646-820-8477) or email us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Matches”). Please include the memo if available. You can take a photo of the memo and send it via text or email if you don’t want to forward the original PDF or Word file.

And if you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Bonus Alerts (which is the alert list we also use for salary announcements), please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. 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. Thanks for all of your help!


Staci ZaretskyStaci 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.

House Judiciary Impeachment Hearing Devolves Into Farce

Jerry Nadler (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Honestly, I don’t even know what the hell that was.

The House Judiciary Committee is holding impeachment hearings today, arguably to consider whether to bring impeachment charges against President Donald Trump. Heading into today, I was led to believe that the point was to bring in witnesses, significantly House Intelligence Committee lawyer Daniel Goldman, to explain the 300-page “Schiff report” that details the impeachable offenses committed by Trump.

If there was a legal point behind today’s hearing, it was unclear and useless. If there was a political point for the hearings, the Republican minority quickly ruined it. Their entire game, led by Republican Doug Collins, has been to scream, obfuscate, and make the hearings seems disorderly with useless and disingenuous parliamentary procedures.

For the most part, the Republican “strategy” has worked. I mean, to the extent that knocking over other people’s Legos at playtime is a “strategy.” The Republicans are fighting a guerrilla war here — they don’t have to “win” any ground, they just have to harass and frustrate the opposition. Doug Collins, Louie Gohmert, Jim Sensenbrenner, and the objectively detestable Matt Gaetz: Their interruptions and protestations are just designed to cast aspersions on anybody or anything that is not Donald Trump.

In response, House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler has, like, a gavel. He bangs it sometimes. He asks that Republicans stop their shenanigans, but doesn’t have a lot of power to make them stop. When Republicans like Devin Nunes tried to pull this crap on the House Intelligence Committee, Chairman Adam Schiff was ready with an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules, able to recite them from memory, and able to calmly punt misbehaving Republicans into the Sun.

Nadler doesn’t have anywhere approaching Schiff’s command of the proceedings. Nadler knows the objections are baseless, but sometimes he lets them talk, sometimes not. Most often he starts to overtalk them, only to later decide or be told that he has to let them actually make their objections on the record, then proceed to a tabling vote, during which the Republicans always ask for the entire roll call.

Nadler also did a weird thing with House Judiciary counsel Barry Berke. Both Nadler and Collins had opening statements. Then both were allowed to to cede their first 30 minutes of “questioning” to counsel. The counsels’ statements were in lieu of statements from the committee chairs and ranking member. Normally, you’d see such statements made from the dais, but Nadler had Berke (and Republican Counsel Stephen Castor) speak from the witness table. This lead to some confusion — confusion that Republicans on the committee had no reason to be confused about in good faith, but viewers at home might have — about whether Berke and Castor were “witnesses” (they were not), or making opening statements for the committee (they were).

THEN, the committee called witnesses. It was decided that the witnesses for today’s (whatever the hell this was) hearing were to be the lawyers who prepared the House Intelligence reports. For Republicans, that was Steve Castor, so Castor just stayed right where he was when it was time for “witnesses.” But for Democrats, the House Intelligence lawyer was Dan Goldman. So Goldman replaced Berke at the witness table. BUT THEN, the Committee decided to let their opening questions be handled by counsel. Republicans chose George Mason Law graduate Ashley Hurt Callen for their time, but Democrats choose… Barry Berke. For questioning, Berke was back up on the dais.

Technically, Berke was performing the same role, speaking and questioning on behalf of Committee Chairman Nadler, both times, from both different positions. But the confusion allowed Republicans to pitch an actual fit throughout.

That’s the thing about fighting asymmetrical wars. Republicans have no arguments, but when you give them something to argue about, they’re going to throw up histrionics to the fullest extent. Schiff handled it with the calm and relative smoothness of a veteran parent who is used to baby Republicans spreading Gerber’s all over the dining room. Nadler handled it like a manager who is exasperated that kids started a food fight in his restaurant.

Whatever, none of it matters. Democrats are going to impeach. Republicans are going to cry foul on state-run propaganda TV. Nothing actually happened today. The toilet has already been flushed. Today was just another swirl around the bowl for American democracy.


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.

Results Are In: Here Are The Winners Of The 2020 ABA TECHSHOW Startup Alley Competition

(Image via Getty)

Three weeks ago, we invited readers to vote to select the 15 legal technology startups that will get to participate in the fourth-annual Startup Alley at the American Bar Association’s TECHSHOW conference, which is Feb. 26 to 29, 2020, in Chicago. Vote you did. Voting ended Friday night and we received a total of 38,715 votes.

We are now pleased to announce the winners. These 15 startups will be provided space at a steeply discounted cost to exhibit their product or service in the special Startup Alley located within TECHSHOW’s exhibit hall. In addition, each startup will face off in an opening night pitch competition judged by an audience of TECHSHOW attendees. The winner of the pitch competition wins a package of marketing and advertising prizes, including a free both at the 2021 TECHSHOW.

Here are the winners in order of their vote tallies. Descriptions were provided by each company. The full ballot with more details on each company is here.

  1. WoodpeckerWoodpecker is an AI-enabled legal document automation platform that helps lawyers get back to doing what they love. Our platform enables firms to automatically turn frequently used legal documents into standardized “smart-templates,” all from the comfort of Microsoft Word with no implementation or training overhead.
  2. FirmTRAKFirmTRAK seamlessly integrates with your practice management system and other strategic vendors, automatically generating diagnostic and predictive KPI visualizations designed to accelerate performance, increase efficiencies and drive profits.
  3. Proxy. NMBL Technologies was founded by a diverse group of Am Law 100 lawyers and technologists. We recently released our first product, Proxy. Proxy is a cloud-based legal workflow management tool that supports the more effective adoption of legal operations concepts. Proxy optimizes four key day-to-day legal functions: (1) organizing and managing legal tasks; (2) delegation and status tracking; (3) visual prioritization; and (4) effective reporting and search.
  4. LawCoLawCo was developed to efficiently and ethically solve the access to justice problem by creating a way to connect live leads to lawyers instantly. LawCo’s platform matches people in need of legal help with lawyers on-demand, in real-time, and at no connecting cost to the consumer. With no monthly commitment fee to the attorney and no lengthy sales pitch, we built LawCo for small firms and solo lawyers, seeking to cost-effectively and rapidly build their books of business.
  5. LawgoodLawgood is a web app that makes it easy for lawyers to draft and review contracts by allowing them to adjust important clause language with the push of a button and tap into crowdsourced best practices and trends.
  6. JosefJosef is a legal automation platform that enables lawyers and legal teams to create and launch their own conversational bots. Lawyers have already built more than 5,000 automation tools on the platform to streamline processes, improve client experience and eliminate repetitive tasks. Bots built on Josef automate lawyer-client interactions, draft documents and provide legal guidance and advice.
  7. DueCourseDueCourse is a learning platform that empowers attorneys to take control of their career by helping them map and advance their professional development through personalized learning. We’re building an adaptive learning platform that designs personalized development paths, allows lawyers and professional development teams to track their progress, and pushes incremental, custom content that encourages consistent learning and professional growth.
  8. Justice For MeJustice for Me (JFM) exists to close the justice gap. JFM removes the financial obstacles that prevent clients and attorneys from connecting, by using technology and a network of lawyers and financial partners that work with clients who cannot afford traditional legal representation. We provide a line of credit that gives clients affordable monthly payments and we pay attorneys quickly and directly, simplifying billing and collections. We enable customers and attorneys to focus on outcomes.
  9. SimplyConvertSimplyConvert is the first automated intake legal case qualification platform powered by an “all-knowing” AI chatbot. Casey, our chatbot, is currently versed in the legal criteria of 50 practice areas/litigations and her knowledge has no limit. Casey is also backed by a robust CRM that automates the entire legal intake process from initial conversation to signed contract, resulting in increased efficiency and conversion rates on signed cases.
  10. Discovery GenieDiscovery Genie solves the document production problem facing 750,000+ lawyers and paralegals litigating cases involving 35,000 pages or less: reviewing, producing, organizing and indexing emails, attachments and efiles. The Genie’s lawyer-designed system automates conversion to PDF, Bates numbering, privilege-log generation, and more, saving 75-90% of the time, cost and tedium of using Acrobat — but without the overkill costs and complexity of an e-discovery system. No IT department needed.
  11. IntakerIntaker uses artificial intelligence to capture and qualify prospective clients for consumer law firms on autopilot and 24/7; saving attorneys time, money and frustration.
  12. Parley ProParley Pro is the contract management platform that automates documents and workflows around them. It is the only solution that enables real-time, multi-party contract negotiation powered by our proprietary, modular product design and architecture. This approach provides unprecedented visibility into a contract at a clause level. In addition, Parley Pro maintains a detailed audit trail for all contract changes throughout negotiations and after, preserving the history of all negotiations.
  13. ECFXECFX is a one-stop, enterprise-class solution for electronic court filing (ECF). ECF is a time-consuming and complex process that varies from court to court. ECFX solves this problem by providing a SaaS B2B platform that automates the processing of receipts of service and the filing of documents with the court with firmware administration and control. ECFX obtains huge efficiencies and cost savings for the firm, eliminates the risk of missed receipts, and reduces filing rejections.
  14. BillseyeSay for instance you’re working out, running an errand, or picking up your daughter from daycare and you receive a call from an important client. Do you stop what you are doing to document the call? I bet you’re too busy to stop and you end up losing hours of billable time as a result. This dilemma can be solved with one touch. Download Billseye for automatic, real-time call tracking, documenting, and billing solutions that can integrate into your existing case management software.
  15. KnoviKnovi was created by attorneys for attorneys to ease their caseload and bring an influx of valuable leads. Using artificial intelligence, Knovi matches clients with the right legal representation. Knovi then streamlines client communications with messaging and video chat capabilities, all the way from inquiry to settlement. An intuitive, built-in CRM documents the case from start to finish, so attorneys can focus on what truly matters: their client’s case.

Note to winners: You will be receiving emails from us with more details and event logistics.

Congratulations to all!


Robert Ambrogi is a Massachusetts lawyer and journalist who has been covering legal technology and the web for more than 20 years, primarily through his blog LawSites.com. Former editor-in-chief of several legal newspapers, he is a fellow of the College of Law Practice Management and an inaugural Fastcase 50 honoree. He can be reached by email at ambrogi@gmail.com, and you can follow him on Twitter (@BobAmbrogi).

Jones Day Files For Sanctions In Ongoing Gender Discrimination Lawsuit

Jones Day (Photo by David Lat)

No one ever said suing a Biglaw firm was going to be pretty. That’s a lesson the six named plaintiffs taking on Jones Day found out pretty quickly. The latest development has the Biglaw firm seeking sanction against the plaintiffs and their lawyers.

For those who need the primer on the case, the purported class-action gender discrimination case alleges a “fraternity culture” at the firm and unequal pay behind the firm’s notorious “black box” compensation system. There are currently six named plaintiffs in the case (there had been seven, but one anonymous plaintiff dropped out rather than reveal her name). The plaintiffs are spread throughout the country — Nilab Rahyar Tolton, Andrea Mazingo, Meredith Williams, and Jaclyn Stahl worked in California offices of the firm, while Saira Draper was an associate in Atlanta, and Katrina Henderson was in the firm’s New York office — and a core allegation is that the same black box compensation systems kept their pay below that of men working at the firm.

But the firm takes issue with the way the plaintiffs have, thus far, attempted to show the unequal pay. In filings they’ve pointed to Jones Day’s statement about paying market salaries, which they define as being in line with the Cravath scale, and the theory is that female associates who make below that mark are being unfairly compensated, as discussed in the deposition of plaintiff Meredith Williams:

“So just sort of combining Jones Day’s representation that top performing candidates are making market, neither myself nor any of the women I know are making market, I have to assume that Jones Day’s representation was truthful and someone is making market, and I would understand that that would be the male associates,” Williams testified.

But, as reported by Law.com, Jones Days takes issue with this theory, calling it “deeply flawed logic” and “pure speculation,” and alleging plaintiffs are aware of facts that contradict that theory:

“Their principal theory of the case—that the proof of discrimination is the fact that plaintiffs did not earn “Cravath scale”—was sophistry on its own terms,” the Jones Day attorneys said. ”And, to make matters worse, plaintiffs knew facts that contradicted their theory and knew no facts that supported it.”

The firm also says the plaintiffs’ theory does not take into account productivity and performance reviews, and how plaintiffs’ performance, not their gender, allegedly impacted their compensation.

In their request for sanctions, Jones Day also takes aim at what they deem a lack of research about the claims and, allegedly, not speaking with similarly situated men at the firm:

“No policy could have precluded plaintiffs’ counsel from contacting the alleged comparators, for example, to determine whether there was a good-faith basis for claiming that they were paid more than plaintiffs for equal work,” the Jones Day attorneys said. “Instead, counsel ‘fire[d] shots into the proverbial dark,’ making a host of baseless allegations which plaintiffs then touted in the media in a (largely unsuccessful) effort to drum up new plaintiffs.”

And though the plaintiffs’ lawyers at Sanford Heisler Sharp have not yet released a formal statement on the motion, attached to the sanctions motion is correspondence that reveals the plaintiffs’ position on the matter. They point to the “wealth of circumstantial evidence” about life at the firm including “gendered comments, gendered criticism, discriminatory allocation of work, discriminatory performance evaluations, and, as a result, severely limited advancement opportunities for women.” They also say Jones Day’s lack of compensation data to back up their point is damning:

“You are in possession of all of the relevant evidence and have known of Plaintiffs’ allegations for more than a year. We expect that you have long since analyzed the firm’s pay data and evaluated the degree to which men and women are paid comparably. We are confident that if you had a basis to deny plaintiffs’ allegations of firmwide pay discrimination you would do so, and that if you had evidence to disprove those allegations, you would produce it.”

We’ll be waiting — with popcorn — for the next development in the highly contested litigation.

Earlier coverage: Jones Day Hit With Explosive Gender Discrimination Case
Jones Day Facing Second Class-Action Lawsuit Over ‘Fraternity Culture’ Of The Firm
Partner Whose Behavior Features Prominently In Jones Day Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Is Out At The Firm
Jones Day Wants Gender Discrimination Plaintiffs To Reveal Themselves To The Public
Plaintiffs Throw Shade At Jones Day In Gender Discrimination Lawsuit
Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Against Jones Day Gets Yet Another Plaintiff
Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Against Jones Day Dropped — Well, One Of Them At Least
Jones Day Gender Discrimination Case Spreads To New York
Amended Gender Discrimination Case Brings The Real Scoop On Jones Day Compensation
Jones Day To Gender Discrimination Plaintiffs: You Don’t Deserve To Be Paid On The Cravath Scale
Plaintiff Backs Out Of Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Against Jones Day Rather Than Reveal Her Name
Plaintiffs In Jones Day Gender Discrimination Case Want It To Be A Class Action


headshotKathryn 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).

Layoffs Watch ’19: HSBC C-Suite

Hundreds Of Law School Professors Say Trump’s Conduct Is Not Just Impeachable, But ‘Clearly Impeachable’

(Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

There is overwhelming evidence that President Trump betrayed his oath of office by seeking to use presidential power to pressure a foreign government to help him distort an American election, for his personal and political benefit, at the direct expense of national security interests as determined by Congress. His conduct is precisely the type of threat to our democracy that the founders feared when they included the remedy of impeachment in the Constitution.

We take no position on whether the President committed a crime. But conduct need not be criminal to be impeachable. The standard here is constitutional; it does not depend on what Congress has chosen to criminalize.

If the House of Representatives impeached the President for the conduct described here and the Senate voted to remove him, they would be acting well within their constitutional powers. Whether President Trump’s conduct is classified as bribery, as a high crime or misdemeanor, or as both, it is clearly impeachable under our Constitution.

— an excerpt from an open letter to Congress signed by hundreds of law professors from schools across the country, sponsored by the government watchdog Protect Democracy, which reaches the conclusion that there is “overwhelming evidence that President Trump betrayed his oath of office” and that his conduct was “clearly impeachable.”

At this time, 768 law professors from schools like Columbia; Yale; Stanford; Harvard; Duke; Emory; Georgetown; Berkeley; University of Florida; University of Pennsylvania; Albany; University of Texas; Rutgers; and the University of Georgia have signed the letter.


Staci ZaretskyStaci 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.