Category: News Feeds

According to data collected by the Internet Legal Research Group, which law school has the highest acceptance rate?

Hint: This law school granted acceptance to 86.1 percent of applicants as full-time students for the class beginning in the fall of 2018.

See the answer on the next page.

What technology tools rank most important to lawyers in driving efficiency? Given all the hype these days around artificial intelligence, it must be at or near the top of the list, right?

Actually no. In a survey being released today, AI and another much-ballyhooed technology, blockchain, rank at the bottom of the list.

Out today is the 2019 Aderant Business of Law and Legal Technology Survey, published by Aderant, a global provider of business management software for law firms.

As with last year’s survey, which I wrote about here, the 2019 survey covers a range of business and technology topics, including the business health of firms, their challenges and competition, billing processes, and change management.

But I, predictably, went right to the section on technology tools and cloud adoption, where the survey asked lawyers about the technology tools that have the greatest impact on their ability to work efficiently and manage their work effectively.

And here is what stood out there: Out of 18 categories of tools, the two lowest ranked were AI and blockchain.

So which tools did lawyers rank as having the greatest impact on their efficiency? Turns out they are the tools lawyers use day in and day out, the bread-and-butter tools of a modern law practice:

1. Document management.
2. Time and billing.
3. Case management.
4. Financial management.
5. E-discovery.
6. Docketing.
7. Knowledge management.
8. Mobility and mobile applications.
9. Business intelligence.
10. Matter pricing and planning.

The survey also asked law firms about their adoption of cloud technologies. Three-quarters say their firm is “somewhat” or “slightly” in the cloud. But only 2% say their firm is completely cloud based and just 12% are mostly cloud based. Another 12% do not use the cloud at all. These numbers were generally consistent across firms of all sizes, the survey reported.

When asked the follow-up question about their plans to move to the cloud in the future:

• 7% said 6-12 months.
• 4% said 12-18 months.
• 14% said 18-24 months.
• 37% said not in the foreseeable future.
• 1% said never.
• 28% said they were unsure.

On the topic of ebilling, the survey found that 29% of law firms process half or more of their invoices through client spend-management or ebilling systems. That is up 9 percent from the prior year.

Another area of inquiry in the survey involved the challenges and benefits of change management. One question asked whether it is a challenge to obtain leadership support or partner buy-in for new business initiatives or technology projects. Here is how they answer:

• Yes, 32%.
• No, 18%.
• Sometimes, 43%.
• Unsure, 7%.

Interestingly, the firms that answered no to that question were also 24% more likely to say that their business this year was better than last.

Other topics covered in the survey included:

• Business compared to last year. More than 90% of respondents said this year is at least as good
  as last year.
• Top challenges facing firms. Operational efficiency (31%) and pricing (29%) are the top challenges facing law firms in 2019. Cybersecurity dropped to seventh place with 18%. Other top challenges were technology adoption (26%), change management (22%), and growing business from existing client accounts (19%).
• Where firms see competition. Law firms see other firms as the top source of competition (53%), followed by clients taking work in-house (22%) and alternative service providers (15%).
• Time to publish an invoice. Including prebills, about 38% of law firms say they publish client invoices within a week or less.

The survey questioned 147 business-of-law and legal professionals from law firms all over the world, with 87% of responses from North America. Most respondents (87%) were from larger firms in the U.S.

The “screamer” was a creature that existed in law firm lore to terrorize new associates and staff. There was always some partner — or partners — within the firm structure whose book of business shielded them from common workplace courtesy. Screamers didn’t have to actually scream at anyone. Sure, there were tales of partners hurling objects out the window — or at other attorneys — but more often than not the abuse manifests in the sort of passive-aggressive dress downs that systematically undermine a person’s basic sense of self-worth.

While mental health initiatives are getting some press these days, but these programs almost always focus on providing wellness services to those facing stress, without directly confronting those in management positions about treating employees better, and by extension, keeping stress down.

A series of tips received here at Above the Law — hodgepodged together into one cohesive narrative below — tell a story that, if true, would be a stark reminder that in Biglaw circles, management maintains a stigma when it comes to mental health and a significant blindspot when it comes to the possibility that a partner might be contributing to a hostile environment:

An associate left the office in an ambulance. An abusive partner had pushed the associate hard for years and it apparently became too much on the latest matter. The group is dismissing it and trying to sweep it under the rug as the associate’s shortcomings because it was mental health related.

We’ve only heard from people sympathetic to the associate in this instance so we’re not going to speculate on the truth of the matter, but the fact that associates feel that the firm would not only downplay an abusive relationship, but would see mental health as an excuse to shift blame entirely upon the victim, speaks to the fractured sense of trust in the work environment. If mental health enters the vocabulary of the legal profession, it can’t come in only as a means to whitewash bad management.

In another story, a legal secretary has filed suit over a pair of Venable partners who “yelled, humiliated and demeaned her to such an extent that their conduct constituted sex discrimination under California’s fair employment law.”

“The days when an attorney can make enough money to excuse the verbal abuse and humiliation of the women that work for him are over,” the suit says. “Legal staff is not required to tolerate and even babysit lawyers through tantrums supposedly caused by ‘stress’ or ‘pressure.’ Verbal abuse and humiliation alter the terms and conditions of employment. When this conduct is directed at women, it is sex discrimination.”

While there are certainly scenarios where this sort of abuse comes from a place of gender dynamics and only targets women, this abuse is not always a matter of sex discrimination and it’s unfortunate that this rubric is one of the only effective means of addressing it. Too many instances can slip through the cracks when sex isn’t the clear impetus behind the abuse.

But more important than finding the right legal redress, firm leadership across the industry needs to get its act together and start holding peers accountable. There’s no amount of rainmaking that justifies keeping a hurricane in a corner office. We often point out that a law degree doesn’t necessarily provide business acumen, but it also fails to train management skills. Biglaw firms should start taking this seriously too.

Legal secretary’s suit claims partners’ tirades constituted sex bias, caused panic attack [ABA Journal]

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.

Officials in Sacramento have been critical of the State Bar of California for not maximizing revenue from leasing space in its San Francisco headquarters, as I recently reported.

Apparently, the Howard Street Coffee Roastery was a victim of the State Bar altering its approach to real estate management.

The coffee shop long housed on State Bar property permanently closed its doors at the end of July.

Owner Jane Heng said the shop was told months ago its lease would not be renewed, which she suspected was because the bar wanted to raise its lease rates. She said the news the coffee shop would have to leave left her in tears.

“All of the small businesses are being kicked out, and the giants are coming in,” Heng said, speaking about broader trends in the city. “It is so sad.”

State Bar spokeswoman Teresa Ruano said the bar’s goal “is to maximize the profitability of its assets.”

“As leases expire, new leases are negotiated at current market rates,” Ruano wrote in an email. “The Coffee Roastery did not communicate a desire to continue leasing the space at current market rates. The State Bar is currently negotiating a lease for this space with another food operator.”

Attorneys who defend practitioners facing State Bar Court charges are among those disappointed to see the coffee shop go.

Samuel C. Bellicini, an ethics lawyer based in San Rafael, said he would visit the Coffee Roastery every time he visited the State Bar.

“I saw Jane, bought a cup of coffee and tipped her,” Bellicini said. “We loved and adored her.”

He questioned the bar’s priorities, amid all that is on the agency’s plate.

“Don’t we have bigger fish to fry than to kick out a coffee shop everybody loved?” Bellicini said.

Jonathan I. Arons, a San Francisco ethics lawyer, is another fan of the Coffee Roastery who bemoaned its closing.

“I’ve been a devotee almost since they opened,” he said. “When I had trial at the State Bar, I would go in every morning.”

“I’m a fan of the smaller places rather than the Starbucks-type places,” Arons added.

Heng said there are no plans for the Coffee Roastery to open in another location.

The news about the coffee shop’s closure comes in the aftermath of the state auditor reporting that the California bar is leasing spaces in its headquarters at below-market rates.

“In 2018 and 2019, [the] State Bar entered into four leases for its San Francisco building with below-market rates that range from $12 to $28 per square foot less than those of comparable properties,” the audit said. “Even if [the] State Bar had leased its space at the lowest of the appraiser’s market rates, it would have earned $777,000 in additional revenue in just the first year of the four leases.”

Meanwhile, the California Assembly recently amended the bar’s annual funding bill to express the Legislature’s intent that “all leases entered into by the State Bar for lease of State Bar property on and after January 1, 2020, be at or above market rate in order to reduce licensing fees.”

Lyle Moran is a freelance writer in San Diego who handles both journalism and content writing projects. He previously reported for the Los Angeles Daily Journal, San Diego Daily Transcript, Associated Press, and Lowell Sun. He can be reached at lmoransun@gmail.com and found on Twitter @lylemoran.

The Bankers Association of Zimbabwe, which represents the nation’s 21 lenders, “would defend the action,” the organization’s legal representatives said in the court documents, filed last week. The association had been served with a summons on July 24 giving them 10 days to respond to claims from Cambria’s Paynet and Payserv units in Zimbabwe.

The battle between London-based Cambria and the association reached boiling point in June when Paynet, one of the country’s largest providers of bulk payments such as salaries, suspended services to banks, citing unpaid bills. It forced the lenders to switch to smaller providers or resort to manually managing payments, hindering the flow of money in the cash-starved $31 billion economy, already grappling with rampant inflation and mass unemployment.

Cambria on Tuesday said banks had closed their Paynet gateway, preventing compliant lenders from transacting with them and hindering the orderly flow of payments. The company is betting a partnership with Ecocash, the mobile-money unit of Econet Wireless Ltd., will help it recover some of the lost revenue from the dispute with the banks.

“If not successful, Cambria will need to significantly downsize its operations in Zimbabwe, as it continues to pursue legal recourse through the courts of Zimbabwe,” the company said, adding it may also approach courts in neighboring South Africa, or the U.K..

Wearing a MAGA hat or any other conservative paraphernalia does not make me a white supremacist, anti-Semite, bigot or any other stereotype that may be misapplied. The purpose of wearing a MAGA hat is to identify as a supporter of Donald Trump and as a believer in conservative values. …

Freedom of speech is also what allows a student to wear a MAGA hat or a #BuildTheWall T-shirt. Freedom of speech allows me to tell [Professor] Omari that he is wrong, and that his interpretation of a MAGA hat is nothing but a grotesque attack on the politics of a student. …

This is my struggle and the struggle of the conservative law student. With an overwhelming majority of faculty falling left on the political spectrum, some will inevitably take strides to not only push their ideology on students, but to also ensure that conservative voices are not heard in the conversation. This happens through contrived dress codes and insinuating, or even enforcing, the mandatory removal of MAGA hats in the classroom.

— Austin Phelps, a third-year student at Gonzaga University School of Law, in response to Professor Jeffrey Omari’s commentary piece in the ABA Journal where he said he believed that Phelps, who was then unnamed, was attempting to “intimidate and/or racially antagonize” him by wearing a MAGA hat. Phelps, who was once reprimanded for wearing a T-shirt which read “#BuildTheWall” to his internship, goes on to note that conservative law students are hesitant to identify with their politics out loud because they want “untainted employment references,” “do not want a target on our back[s],” and “simply want to finish law school without any major incidents.”

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.