Category Added in a WPeMatico Campaign
(Image via Getty)
What percentage of law school students paid full sticker price for their education in 2018-19?
Hint: In 1999-2000 ~58 percent of law students paid full price, but with the decline in popularity of J.D.s following the recession, law schools have increasingly offered scholarships and discounts to entice students to enroll.
See the answer on the next page.
It’s still early in 2020, so you may still be feeling the whole “new year, new me” vibe. And that’s cool, I’m still feeling the resolutions myself. But when it comes to the law firm merger landscape, 2020 is shaping up to look a lot like 2019. We saw a lot of law firm mergers last year, and now, not even a full week since the calendar flipped over there are two more mergers to talk about.
The first is the combination of Cincinnati-based Taft Stettinius & Hollister merging with Minneapolis-based Briggs & Morgan. The new entity, known simply as Taft, has 600+ lawyers and 12 offices. The combined revenue of the new firm will likely place them in the Am Law 100.
As reported by Law.com, the powers in charge of the merger say there’s been a smooth transition:
“There were no hiccups or problems we didn’t anticipate,” said Steven Ryan, the partner in charge of Taft’s Minneapolis office. Taft managing partner Robert Hicks expressed similar sentiments, saying while there was some “scrambling” at one point, “it couldn’t have gone any better.”
The second merger of 2020 sees the marriage of Kansas City, Missouri-based Lathrop Gage and Minneapolis-based Gray Plant Mooty, now known as Lathrop GPM. They newly expanded firm has ~400 lawyers across 14 offices. Lathrop GPM managing partner Cameron Garrison had good things to say about the change:
“As you can image, a combination of this size takes a lot of heavy lifting, and attorneys and staff throughout the organization have done a phenomenal job implementing the combination in a short amount of time,” Garrison said.
And don’t expect the merger madness to slow down any time soon.
Apart from Taft and Lathrop GPM, 10 more law firm mergers are scheduled to close in the first quarter of 2020, according to consultancy Fairfax Associates. This includes Dentons’ combinations with Indianapolis-based Bingham Greenebaum Doll and Pittsburgh-based Cohen & Grigsby, as a part of Dentons’ “Golden Spike” strategy to ostensibly create the first national law firm in the U.S.
A Dentons spokeswoman said they “continue to anticipate launching sometime in January,” but wouldn’t give a specific date.
Plus, on February 1st, we expect to see the merger of two Biglaw firms Faegre Baker Daniels and Drinker Biddle & Reath. The new firm, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath, is expected to take its place in the top Am Law 50 with 1,300+ lawyers and 22 offices.
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).
I recently spoke on the Reinventing Professionals podcast with Ari Kaplan about meaningful contract management. The podcast is designed to offer ideas, guidance, and perspectives on how to effectively navigate a perpetually shifting professional landscape, and it has a unique focus on the legal industry and the technology that is driving its evolution. Here are some of the insights I shared.
Why is there so much change occurring specifically in the contract management space?
Contracts are important. Money may be the blood of a business, but contracts are the bones. If you think about a company, underlying almost every asset or every important relationship is a contract. Every business, every nonprofit, and every government entity has lots of contracts. They hold the business together. They generate assets for the business.
Yet, as critical as they are, they’re still not actionable. In fact, even in 2020, they are still quite manual. Professionals who create, negotiate, or manage usually don’t use data analytics, or even modern technology. That’s why you see a lot of interest in technology for contract management. Contracts matter.
At the same time, there is a trend in general counsel in-house legal operators wherein in-house attorneys are demanding twenty-first-century tools, maturing technologies like cloud, AI, and blockchain, and increasing the critical business role of legal departments. It’s no coincidence that contract management is having a moment; in-house attorneys are seeing its importance and seeing the enormous potential for technological advancements.
What are some of the characteristics of a modern contract management platform?
I think of it as three things: visibility, efficiencies, and process control. While there are numerous other characteristics, these are the main reasons that an in-house counsel, whether it be general counsel, legal operators, or in-house counsel, decides to acquire a contract management solution.
Visibility: If you find that you are doing a job and your peers in other departments have no idea what you are working on, when it’s going to be done, and what the process looks like, you probably have a visibility problem. A contract management solution can help.
Efficiencies: If you find that your peers in other departments, or even in your department, think that you are taking a little too long or that contracts process is a black box, you likely have an efficiency challenge. It can probably be addressed by a contract management solution.
Process control: If you find yourself cutting and pasting, reconciling versions, going back and forth between email and other applications, you probably have process problems. A contract management solution can definitely help.
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.
(Photo by TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP/Getty Images)
Harvey Weinstein appeared in NY court today on charges of rape and sexual assault while on the other side of the country, Los Angeles prosecutors filed separate charges related to the alleged sexual assault of two women in 2013.
As charges continue to mount against Weinstein and additional women whose claims would be time-barred keep coming forward detailing their encounters with Weinstein, his attorneys are approaching his defense as a never-ending public relations tour supposedly intended to shape public opinion about Weinstein, though it’s hard not to think it all has more to do with giving the attorneys a free advertising campaign for the next rich guy whose sexual misdeeds catch up to them. When Ricky Gervais is ripping the client in front of his former friends on national TV, a hit on the Michael Smerconish show isn’t really going to turn down the heat.
Undeterred, Weinstein attorney Donna Rotunno, who has made her career out of taking shots at the MeToo phenomenon and turning it into lucrative representations, went on CNN to tell Michael Smerconish that she thinks that the ever-increasing number of women accusing Weinstein is actually going to help her client because when things are at their bleakest, there’s always refuge in batshit insanity:
“In some ways, that number sort of helps us, because once the jury sits down and the jury hears that this is only about two women, I think they start to wonder how truthful those other circumstances are,” Rotunno said. “Or, if there were so many, why aren’t they a part of the criminal case?”
That worked out so well for Bill Cosby.
There are a lot of reasons to doubt the legal acumen of the general public, but the concept of a statute of limitations ranks right up there with the first half of Miranda rights as something everyone’s had beaten into their head by decades of terrible courtroom dramas. And when I say “decades” I’m not even going beyond the Law & Order franchise.
Rotunno is an accomplished defense attorney who handled the claims against Sidley Austin partner Stan Stallworth — who was acquitted — and has found a powerful marketing niche in the response to MeToo. Still, it’s possible to promise too much in this world and “over 80 accusers is actually awesome” might be that bridge too far.
Perhaps the Hollywood imagination has infected Rotunno’s cynical Chicago outlook.
Harvey Weinstein charged with sexual assault in Los Angeles [BBC News]
Harvey Weinstein’s Lawyer Says Number of Accusers ‘Helps’ Mogul in Criminal Trial (Video) [The Wrap]
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.
Sad news from Illinois. Over the weekend, attorney Randy Gori, 47, was found dead of an apparent homicide. Authorities received a 911 call around 9 p.m. on Saturday and arrived at a home in Edwardsville, Illinois where they found Gori dead. The Major Case Squad of Greater St. Louis is investigating the death.
Police say that “a strong person of interest” was detained on Sunday, and a black 2020 Rolls-Royce Cullinan SUV belonging to Gori, that was missing from the crime scene, was recovered.
Gori received his J.D. from the Saint Louis University School of Law and his legal practice focused on nationwide asbestos litigation. Gori had recently made a donation to the city of Edwardsville’s “A Better Place to Play” campaign, which Mayor Hal Patton referenced in a statement on Gori’s death, as reported by the Edwardsville Intelligencer:
“We are struggling to get our heads around this sickening and senseless murder,” he said. “Our hearts go out to Randy’s family and to his loved ones. I knew Randy as a friend and a tireless businessman. He was heavily involved in our Downtown Edwardsville Revitalization, but more importantly, his investments were secondary to his philanthropy.”
Gori and his family recently donated $2.5 million to the city for its proposed ice rink and teen center, which includes naming rights.
“Randy and his firm gave generously of their time and resources to causes for which Randy was passionate,” Patton continued. “From a local family in need to causes fighting cancer, Randy would always step up because he truly cared about others.
“The city of Edwardsville will offer any and all of our resources to the county and Major Case Squad in their efforts to apprehend the person or persons responsible for this despicable act.”
Gori’s law firm, Gori Julian & Associates, issued the following statement:
“It is with an incredibly heavy heart that we communicate the passing of our managing partner and co-founder, Randy Gori. Randy was a true leader, a wonderful attorney and friend and a champion of our community. He gave so much to everyone he knew both personally and professionally. We will continue the legacy that Randy created and ask the community to join with us in supporting his family during this difficult time.”
And Illinois Third Judicial Court Chief Judge William A. Mudge remembered Gori’s generosity and sense of justice:
“He approached everyone with a smile and was dedicated to the pursuit of justice for his clients,” Mudge said. “Randy’s generosity and support of this community was second to none. He will be missed here at the courthouse.
“Our collective heart goes out to Randy Gori’s family, law firm and friends.”
Our thoughts go our to Gori’s family and colleagues during this difficult time.
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).
Hospital mergers failed to improve the quality of patient care, or in some cases, made it worse, according to a study published today in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study dealt a blow to oft-cited reasons for healthcare mergers, with hospital systems touting better patient outcomes or care coordination.
Harvard University researchers looked at hospital performance between 2007 and 2016, a period punctuated by several hospital mergers. They studied 246 hospitals that had been acquired and 1,986 control hospitals, looking at their performance in four categories: clinical process, patient experience, mortality and rate of readmission after discharge.
“The hospital industry has consolidated substantially during the past two decades and at an accelerated pace since 2010,” the study stated. “Multiple studies have shown that hospital mergers have led to higher prices for commercially insured patients, but research about effects on quality of care is limited.”
According to the results, hospital acquisitions were associated with a modest decline in patient experience. That decline was concentrated in hospitals acquired by health systems with low-ranking scores for patient experience.
On top of that, acquired hospitals didn’t see a significant change in 30-day readmission rates or mortality rates. The effect on clinical process quality was inconclusive.
Study co-author Leemore Dafny, a professor of business administration at Harvard Business School, summed up the results in a tweet:
“There is no systematic evidence that acquired hospitals improve in quality,” she wrote. “The reorganization of our hospital landscape is not, on average, helping consumers.”
Notably, this study did not consider the effect of hospital M&A on patient costs. But several other studies have. An analysis conducted by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission showed that both mergers of hospital systems and acquisitions of physician practices were correlated with higher healthcare costs.
The study was funded by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services. Nancy Beaulieu of the Department of Health Care Policy at Harvard Medical School served as the study’s lead author.
Photo credit: JustHappy, Getty Images
(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
After a “will he or won’t he” game worthy of the laziest Hollywood rom-com, former UN Ambassador and National Security Advisor John Bolton has informed the public that “I have concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify.” It’s a concession that means… well, probably nothing.
Bolton had danced around his obligation to honor any hypothetical congressional subpoena to testify in the ongoing impeachment investigations (not that defying with congressional subpoenas bears much practical consequence these days). His attorney Chuck Cooper argued in the past that court opinions waving off former White House Counsel Don McGahn’s flimsy arguments didn’t apply to Bolton because his role as a national security figure placed him in a separate bucket than a run-of-the-mill lawyer. The argument that Bolton’s national security conversations deserve separate treatment goes that if executive privilege — the idea that president’s should be able to bounce insane and potentially politically damaging ideas off their advisors all the time without the brainstorming process becoming public — means anything, it definitely means that national security strategizing should be kept under wraps until the administration reaches a final decision. It’s the kind of “protect how the sausage is made” privilege that meant something when presidents might say, “let’s go commit war crimes” in the privacy of the Oval Office before being talked into a new round of mediated negotiations by diplomatic professionals, but probably means less when the exact opposite happens.
Today, Bolton decided to give up that argument, even though the courts never opined on the specific contours of his claim because Dr. Charles Kupperman, who unlike Bolton was actually subpoenaed and advanced this argument, had his case dismissed as moot when the Dems dropped the subpoena rather than let Judge Leon potentially rule against them. Nonetheless, Bolton’s willing to testify now even though he conveniently withheld this decision until after the House passed its articles of impeachment. His new statement even cabins this concession to the existence of a Senate trial.
the House has concluded its Constitutional responsibility by adopting Articles of Impeachment related to the Ukraine matter. It now falls to the Senate to fulfill its Constitutional obligation to try impeachments, and it does not appear possible that a final judicial resolution of the still-unanswered Constitutional questions can be obtained before the Senate acts.
In other words, Bolton isn’t prepared to help the House uncover more potential wrongdoing — and the House could absolutely draft more articles of impeachment making this a critical distinction — but will spill his guts to the Senate if Mitch McConnell is willing to hold a trial that allows witnesses to testify… which he has no inclination to allow. Bolton’s just fluffing his reputation knowing that he has a remarkably slim chance of being called upon explain what he meant when he called the administration’s Ukraine policy a “drug deal.”
Bolton, who like most war hawks dodged the draft in Vietnam, is all about the cut and run. Today’s announcement is just another in a long line of occasions in his adult life where he talked big armed with the knowledge that he almost certainly wouldn’t have to take responsibility for his decisions.
If the House Intelligence Committee is looking for free advice, they should probably subpoena Bolton today. Trying to square his statement today with a subpoena from the House would put him in an Iraq-level quagmire. His failure to consider the possibility that the House could draft additional articles of impeachment seems to undermine his effort to limit this concession to a Senate subpoena. His efforts to distinguish the two would provide a laugh at the very least.
But it’s a great story to tell. About the day his name appeared above the fold right next to a headline announcing an imminent war with Iran! Everything’s really coming up Bolton.
Earlier: Michael Flynn And The Lessons Of Oliver North
State Department Names New Top Lawyer Now That Trump’s Already Threatened War Crimes
McGahn Ruling Gives Bolton Cover, Exposes Bolton’s Cowardice
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.
The proposed amendments approved by Cabinet relating to the appointments of Vice Presidents, the Prosecutor General, Public Protector, promotion of judges and the terms of office of judges. The proposed amendments include the rejected Constitution Amendment Bill No.1 of 2016. Any amendments to the Constitution must seek to further entrench democracy and deepen the enjoyment of rights by citizens.
We remind political parties and Cabinet that the 2013 Constitution of Zimbabwe was bred out of popular and concerted advocacy by citizens and civil society and through its adoption in 2013 is an expression of the will of citizens. In our view, the proposed amendments seek to entrench the interests of individuals and dent the independence of an already captured judiciary.
As an umbrella body of civic society organizations in Zimbabwe advocating for democratic development, we reiterate that the preservation and full implementation of the Constitution is a duty of every citizen regardless of political preferences and that the Constitution, if fully implemented and adhered to, is a lasting solution to Zimbabwe’s problems.
We further reiterate that as calls for dialogue increase such dialogue must be anchored on preserving and strengthening Zimbabwe’s constitutional order guided by an agreed all stakeholders roadmap to the resolution of the Zimbabwe crisis.
In this regard, we hold the firm view that while citizens and stakeholders are allowed to develop and proffer transitional alternatives to the national crisis, such alternatives must never be anchored on mutilating the Constitution by suspending key democratic processes that allow citizens to choose leaders of their choice timeously. Attempting to address the national crisis by suspending the Constitution is counter to the very foundations of our nation.
In the same vein, restricting the dialogue process to political parties will only create a political pact that excludes the concerns of ordinary citizens. This therefore underlines the importance of a process accepted by all stakeholders and guarantor at the SADC, African Union or United Nations level.
We reiterate that efforts at arresting the multifaceted crisis facing the country must be hinged on a competitive national dialogue process which is seated on broad citizenry issues and key reforms agreed by stakeholders with clearly set timelines and a monitoring framework. We also raise our concerns over a national dialogue process that is facilitated by the National Peace and Reconciliation Commission on the basis of the following:
We further reiterate the importance of creating a conducive environment that will allow stakeholders to freely share ideas on transitional alternatives and as part of confidence and trust building in the national dialogue, the Zimbabwe must immediately meet the following conditions:
We reiterate that efforts at arresting the multi faceted crisis facing the country are hinged on a proper national dialogue process that seeks to put the concerns of ordinary citizens on board and preserve Zimbabwe’s Constitution.
Addressing the Zimbabwean crisis implies addressing the concerns of the ordinary citizens who have had to bear the brutal effects of an economic meltdown stemming from a constitutional and legitimacy crisis.
Public office bearers must honour their obligations in upholding, protecting and defending the Constitution.
On our part as Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition, we have set our minimum demands for the national dialogue process based on the defense and observation of the Constitution.
Our demands are highlighted below:
On the process:
1) It is our conviction that the national dialogue process must involve all stakeholders and a national visioning process that has civil society, government, political parties, business, religious groups and labour unions among other critical stakeholders. The dialogue process should produce a clearly timed roadmap to the demilitarisation of civilian political processes and the restoration of normalcy by focusing on key political, economic and social reforms. In this regard, we call for FULL CONSULTATION of all stakeholders rather than cosmetic processes.
On the Economy:
2) It is imperative to arrest the economic downturn in Zimbabwe based on a clear reform roadmap and implementation of pro-poor and inclusive economic policies. Efforts at economic transformation, stabilisation and growth should be aimed at achieving inclusive sustainable economic growth and development.
On Constitutionalism, Rule of Law, Human Rights and Human Security:
3) The Government of Zimbabwe must uphold and guarantee citizens’ rights as enshrined in the Zimbabwean Constitution and other regional and international human rights treaties and statutes. Full implementation of the country’s constitution is equally important in promoting democracy in Zimbabwe.
4) The Government of Zimbabwe must respect the fundamental right of access to information, freedom of expression as well as freedom of association.
5) There is need to immediately operationalise a comprehensive programme on national healing, reconciliation and nation building that will depolarise society and entrench the respect for diversity, inclusion and tolerance in all facets of life.
6) The army must desist from partisan politics and confine themselves to the barracks. There is an imperative need to de-militarise the Zimbabwean state.
7) There is need for non-interference into the work of institutions that support democracy. This again calls for full implementation and respect of the country’s constitution. Also, government must not be seen to be criminalising the work of civic society organisations.
8) CiZC holds the firm view that implementation of electoral reforms is critical as a way of doing away with disputed elections that often result in a legitimacy crisis which comes with negative impacts on democracy and economic development
Post published in: Featured
Firms, especially big, global Am Law firms, try to think about how to be recession- and downturn-proof with more balanced practices.
—David Walden, managing director of legal recruiter E.P. Dine, tells Law.com what he believes Biglaw’s strategic vision will be for the coming year. He says corporate restructuring, bankruptcy, finance, some litigation and intellectual property will be the hot practice areas in 2020. He said, “These all tend to be, as far as practice areas, in even higher demand now than they have been in the last 10 years due to expansive economies.” He also pointed to health care, data privacy and insurance spaces as areas with room for growth. Walden also noted that the practice areas likely to see a slow down are transactional and M&A.
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).
Notifications