Category: News Feeds

It may seem like we spend an inordinate amount of time piling on Jones Day; I mean, we’ve written eight stories (and counting) about allegations of gender bias at the firm. But the initial complaint was juicy, alleging a “fraternity culture” at the firm and unequal pay behind the firm’s notorious “black box” compensation system, and so much has been happening in the case with more women being added as named plaintiffs and/or opting into the class action that we simply had to write more stories.

On Monday, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against the Biglaw giant. In addition to named plaintiffs Nilab Rahyar Tolton and Andrea Mazingo, who were identified in the earlier version of the complaint, three of the four anonymous Jane Doe plaintiffs have chosen to reveal themselves. Meredith Williams and Jaclyn Stahl were associates in the firm’s Irvine office, while Saira Draper worked for Jones Day in Atlanta. The decision to publicly identify themselves has been a fraught one, with Jones Day pushing for the names of the plaintiffs to become public. In a statement about the complaint, the plaintiffs say they were bolstered by others coming forward:

“It is time to do away with the stigmatization of women who challenge discrimination and harassment in their workplaces. We will not stay silent; we will not be bullied. And we are empowered by our solidarity.”

One plaintiff, Jane Doe 4, has maintained her anonymity. In previous filings, plaintiffs analogized their position to that of a whistleblower.

Additionally, plaintiffs formally picked up former New York associate, Katrina Henderson, as a named plaintiff. Another woman, Jessica Jardine Wilkes, was the first non-named plaintiff to opt-in to the lawsuit earlier this month.

The amended complaint alleges the firm’s notorious “black box” compensation system is used to pay women less than men at the firm. And, as reported by Law.com, the amended complaint brings receipts:

The seven women now on the complaint also provided details of their salaries and bonuses during their time at the firm, illustrating that their pay did not compare with the Cravath scale. They said Jones Day’s “black box” system of compensation allows the firm to depart from its stated commitment to reward top performers with pay that matches market leaders.

So, just how much does compensation at Jones Day diverge from the Cravath scale? Well, the complaint provides helpful charts to show just how underpaid plaintiffs were at Jones Day.

While all plaintiffs were paid below market all the years they were at the firm, you can see the issue gets more pronounced the more senior the associate. This isn’t surprising as the firm has historically enjoyed the ability to say it at least meets the market for first-year associates (never mind those pesky bonuses) in its recruitment efforts, and once the associate is ensconced in the firm, the salary crunch is on.

Regardless of what happens on the merits of the case, in publicly revealing their salary information, plaintiffs have dramatically increased the transparency of Jones Day. Something anyone considering working at the firm should be appreciative of.

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

---

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).

— Kelly Barnett, a recent graduate of Golden Gate University School of Law who is a single mother, summarizing her law school journey in a Facebook post that has since gone viral after being shared on the Pantsuit Nation group page, where it has more than 82K likes.

---

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.

As technology has advanced and there’s been an increased push toward efficiency and cost-savings in the legal industry, the market for alternative legal services has grown exponentially. However, while there may be a lot of alternative legal service providers (ALSPs) out there, not all are created equal.

Too often with ALSPs, there’s no way to ensure the quality of the work you’re getting and you run the risk of outsourcing important tasks to vendors who just aren’t up to the job. You end up with anonymous freelancers doing your work with little accountability, when what you really need is the right team of lawyers with the right technology doing high-quality work in the right location and at the right price.

That’s where Mindcrest comes in. Strategically designed to bring skilled management and sophisticated technology to the world of alternative legal services, Mindcrest provides fully project-managed legal services and it excels at handling large-volume and increasingly sophisticated legal work with the levels of technology, process, and oversight that top clients need and expect. If you’re looking for a worthy law firm or in-house alternative, look to Mindcrest.

Specializing in What They Do Best

One of the things that differentiates Mindcrest from other ALSPs is that they don’t try to be a jack-of-all-trades, purporting to cover every niche area of law, plus HR issues, finance, technology development, and administrative issues to boot. Instead, they stick to what they know best and have been doing well for nearly 20 years.

Mindcrest offers services in four distinct and finely honed practice areas: compliance, contract management, legal analytics, and litigation and investigations. By refining and building up these specialty subject matters over time, Mindcrest has positioned itself to offer the best legal services available in some of law’s most critical practice areas. Successful legal practice requires focus and expertise, and Mindcrest has built itself around that notion.

The Secret Ingredient? The Mindcrest Method

Much of Mindcrest’s success can be attributed to what it calls the Mindcrest Method — the project management aspect of their services that they’ve refined over the years and are always continuing to refine in order to bring forth coordinated combinations of the right  lawyers in the right locations at the right price to best handle each specific client engagement. Mindcrest has devised a unique methodology for combining project management, process, workforce management, technology, analytics, reporting, and metrics on every project — and, if their satisfied clients across the globe are any indication, the method works.

Simply put, Mindcrest looks at every unique engagement individually and comes back with a tailored solution. Relying on highly qualified lawyers spread across Chicago, New York, London, and India, Mindcrest assembles the best possible team with expertise in the practice area involved, layered with the right project management approach and the right technology. This is alternative legal services that are not merely convenient, but actually built around the client’s needs.

Superior Training

Unlike many ALSPs, Mindcrest takes the time to invest in their lawyers and train them to the highest standards in the industry, in the process giving them career paths that allow them to grow within the organization. They do this through a thing called Mindcrest University — a massive initiative designed to offer learning and training for both new and experienced lawyers.

After passing a rigorous hiring process, Mindcrest hires are put through a stringent on-boarding program and trained in Mindcrest’s key practice areas and the way the company does business. The training program has been built and refined with input from clients, and today is unlike anything else in the industry. They also offer over 100 courses for lawyers within the company on substantive legal issues, leadership training, project management training, and technology training, both in-class and online. They even offer a fellowship for U.S. lawyers to go to India to help design the training and train the India-based team.

The result of all this training is that many lawyers who started as entry-level trainees with Mindcrest are today leading major client engagements. For the client, this means the ability to reap the benefits of years of investment and training in high-quality lawyers who bring the best skills and expertise to alternative legal services.

The Right Technology Makes All the Difference

Modern legal practice relies on technology, and Mindcrest is focused on providing the best of the best. A dedicated team, dubbed mTech, is devoted to reviewing new technologies and choosing the best third-party tools available to incorporate into their solutions.

Because everything Mindcrest does is driven by technology, they’re constantly evaluating tools and partnering with the right vendors that fit with the Mindcrest Method. These are not lawyers dabbling in software development — instead, they choose the best-in-breed product available on the market and build their services around that software, in order to produce the best possible result for the client.

The Takeaway

What really sets Mindcrest apart and makes them so good at what they do is their ability, honed over many years, to assemble the best possible team at the right price point to handle high-volume work that requires a particular skillset, complete with the right technology and superior management from start to finish. Mindcrest delivers the whole package in ways that most other providers can’t.

Mindcrest isn’t just a clearinghouse for contract attorneys or freelance lawyers looking to supplement their incomes or pick up some extra work between jobs. It functions in every engagement as a well-oiled machine, thanks to superior project management skills — a key element to successful, high-volume projects with lots of moving parts, and one that many law firms lack. Mindcrest is fully invested in their workers and their method, and what clients see as a result is high-quality work project performed by a highly skilled and managed team of lawyers who work efficiently and for the right price.

Not all ALSPs offer fully managed services that combine both project management and quality legal deliverables. When you’re looking for an ALSP, be mindful of what you’re getting. When you want it done right, you want Mindcrest.

Well, mark you calendars for July 17th. That is the day that Robert Mueller will testify in front of the U.S. House of Representatives about the his report. I think I’ll wear a tux to my television.

Getting Mueller to testify in front of Congress has seemingly been the goal of Congressional Democrats since the Mueller report was released back in April. Now, it’s happening in three weeks.

Which will give the Democrats three weeks to move the goalposts on impeachment yet again.

Let me tell you what’s not going to happen on July 17th. Robert Mueller will not say, “I think you losers should impeach the president already and let me go home.” He probably won’t even say, “The president should be indicted for obstruction of justice.” He’s just going to come up with 34 different ways to say, “You should read my report”/”It’s in my report”/”As I said in my report.” Robert Mueller will be better at saying nothing than Congress is at making him say something. I’ve said before that the Mueller report already gave Democrats enough ammunition to move forward with impeachment proceedings against Trump. But Congressional Democrats aren’t looking for ammo, they’re looking for cover. The want Robert Mueller to make it “okay” for them to move forward. But Robert Mueller isn’t about that life.

Some Democrats think Mueller’s mere audio recitation of the report will be enough to change minds. They’re operating under the assumption that if the American people, especially the American people who watch Fox News, would just read the report, they’ll see the clear and convincing case that Donald Trump should be impeached.

I believe these Democrats are wrong, because they believe that low-information Americans are persuadable by information. I don’t think that belief is supported by evidence of what America is in 2019. Mueller will give voice to his report, people who already know that Trump should be impeached will say, “SEE, I TOLD YOU!” But people who have already made their peace with supporting the president even as he holds children in inhumane conditions will not be swayed because some gumshoe sternly recites planned talking points.

And the Democrats’ months long strategy of being too scared of Mitch McConnell to take a piss without his say-so will hold the day for moderates who just want things to get back to “normal.”

But I’ll still watch. Partially because it’s my job. But also because I’m interested to see which Democratic Congresspeople have the guts to bloody up Robert Mueller a little bit. There are a lot of questions about his investigation, beyond its conclusions. There’s a lot of work Mueller left “unfinished,” if I’m being kind. I want somebody to ask Mueller:

* Why did he wuss out and let Trump off the hook with written responses instead of a sit down interview?
* Why did he wuss out and let Don Trump Jr. off with no interview at all?
* Why didn’t he interview Jared Kushner, who even Sean Hannity wants to know if he did something?
* Why didn’t he follow the money? Why didn’t he interview Allen Weisselberg?
* Why didn’t he look more into the inauguration committee?
* And how much pressure did Matthew Whitaker and Bill Barr apply to get him to wrap things up?

‘Cause let me tell you, the answers to those questions are not “in his report.”

If Democratic Congresspeople have a coordinated strategy, we might actually learn why the Mueller report was so incomplete. But, instead of showing the failures of the Mueller report, Democrats will be motivated to hype it in desperate attempts to make the obstruction that is obvious in the report obvious to the viewers at home.

July 17th will be intense. July 18th, I expect Nancy Pelosi will come out and tell us that she can’t impeach Trump until she takes the auspices under a black sky when Mars is in the house of Aquarius and Mitch McConnell’s spilled entrails augur good tidings.

Mueller to Testify to Congress, Setting Up a Political Spectacle [New York Times]

---

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.

With on-campus recruiting season nearly upon us, rising 2Ls across the country are trying to create some meaningful distinction between the firms they hope to score interviews with. May we suggest looking at the firms’ pro bono numbers?

Over the course of the last year, members of the legal profession have sprung into action to deal with crisis after crisis after crisis, offering their services without cost to those in need. From travel bans to natural disasters to border family separations to the fight for reproductive rights, lawyers in America were inspired to do their very best to help those who needed their assistance the very most.

But which law firms were able to contribute the most to society?

The American Lawyer has compiled a ranking of Am Law 200 firms based on their pro bono work in 2018. Half of their scores come from the average number of pro bono hours per lawyer, while the other half represents the percentage of lawyers who performed more than 20 hours of pro bono work.

Here are the top 10 firms when it came to pro bono emergencies in 2018:

1. Jenner & Block
2. Covington & Burling
3. Patterson Belknap
4. WilmerHale
5. Orrick
6. Hughes Hubbard
7. Skadden
8. Paul Hastings
9. Dechert
10. Ropes & Gray

It should be noted that at each firm listed, the average attorney performed about 100 hours or more of pro bono work last year, and the Am Law 200 as a whole contributed more than 5.3 million hours of pro bono work. Congratulations!

The American Lawyer’s 2019 National Pro Bono Rankings [American Lawyer]

---

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.

for the Setting-up of a Youth Commission: 30th June to 8th July

Parliament has published the following self-explanatory notice:

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE YOUTH COMMISSION

The Portfolio Committee on Youth, Sports, Arts and Recreation will hold public consultations in response to a petition on the setting up of a Youth Commission from 30 June 2019 to 8 July 2019. The Committee will cover various areas as follows:

Date	Place	Venue	Time of Public Hearing
Sunday 30 June	Hwedza	Sunshine Inn	1200hrs
Monday 1 July	Mutare	Queens Hall	0800hrs
Tuesday 2 July	Ngundu	Roman Catholic Church	0830hrs
Wednesday 3 July	Gweru	Gweru Theatre	0900hrs
Thursday 4 July	Bulawayo	Stanley Hall, Makokoba	0830hrs
Friday 5 July	Gwanda	Jaunda Hall	1000hrs
Saturday 6 July	Kadoma	Waverly Hall	1300hrs
Monday 8 July	Harare	Senate Chamber	0830hrs

ALL THOSE WHO WILL BE PUTTING ON MILITARY UNIFORMS, SIGNS OF RANKS, FLAGS OR BADGES AND POLITICAL PARTY REGALIA WILL NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

The public, interested groups and organizations are invited to attend these consultations. Written submissions and correspondences are welcome and should be addressed to:

The Clerk of Parliament

Attention: Portfolio Committee on Youth, Sports, Arts and Recreation

P.O. Box CY 298

Causeway

Harare

Submissions can also be made by email through email address [email protected]

Telephone: (0242) 700181-8, 252936-50

Paul Munjenge (Committee Clerk) Ext. 2253

Mercy Chidemo (Public Relations Officer) Ext. 2236

Fax: (0242) 252935

Veritas makes every effort to ensure reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied.

Post published in: Featured

Apparently, Sarah Fabian has taken to her Facebook wall to defend herself against the slings and arrows that she’s facing after appearing before an incredulous panel of the Ninth Circuit and arguing that, maybe, immigrant kids don’t deserve basic human dignity.

It’s time to fire up the world’s tiniest violin.

“I think that many many people believe I was in court Tuesday arguing against providing certain hygiene items to kids,” the lawyer wrote. “I do not believe that’s the position I was representing. … I will say that I personally believe that we should do our very best to care for kids while they are in our custody, and I try to always represent that value in my work.”

Many people believe that because they, you know, watched it happen. In Fabian’s defense, she may not have set out to ride or die on the “no beds” argument, but when she was pushed by the panel… that’s where she went. Where we go with our backs against the wall is arguably the most telling and when asked if there would ever be a scenario where it might be acceptable to subject children to human rights abuses, she cobbled together a bunch of exceptions that had no basis in reality except to provide a legal fig leaf to the travesty at the border.

She literally argued that the words “safe and sanitary” might not include soap or beds.

“I’m not going to try in vain to fight back against that other than to try to look out for my own safety and to hope that people take it easy on my family,” she wrote. “I think I share many people’s anger and fear at times over the future of our country, and I want to work to make it better too.”

First of all, she doesn’t deserve to be threatened over doing her job. People and their families shouldn’t be made to feel unsafe for just wanting a secure life for their loved ones. But painfully poignant irony aside, this whole “I’m not engaging”-as-defense trend needs to stop. It’s a private post to your friends! Feel free to defend yourself in that forum and if you can’t, don’t give us the whole “I could explain myself, but that would be letting the terrorists win” malarkey.

If you share everyone’s anger, go get another job. Main Justice is a perfectly reasonable career launching point — get your résumé out there.

But she won’t because there aren’t many jobs that let you keep children crying for their parents at night while you go f**king dog sitting. Fabian’s made her stance. She can hedge around what she “meant” to say all she wants, but she’s been carrying water for increasingly inhumane policies for the sake of her personal comfort for years. That’s where she stands. Facebook posts aren’t going to change that.

Justice Department lawyer defends herself after viral video on child migrant treatment [NBC News]
DOJ Lawyer Who Said Migrant Kids Don’t Need Soap Says Words Taken Out Of Context [Huffington Post]

Earlier: DOJ Lawyer Earns 15 Minutes Of Infamy Arguing In Front Of Exactly The Wrong Panel

---

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.

Last week, Vault released the 2020 edition of its closely watched law firm rankings, proving that money — in the form of Cravath’s perennially competitive pay scale — can buy prestige.

But can that money buy happiness?

In a companion ranking to the Vault 100, associates were asked to rank their own law firms based on categories most relevant to their overall quality of life, including satisfaction, firm culture, compensation, hours, quality of work, business outlook, career outlook, associate/partner relations, formal and informal training, pro bono, transparency, and overall diversity. So many associates responded to this year’s survey (about 20,000), that Vault has expanded its Overall Best Law Firms to Work For ranking from 25 firms to 50 firms. This may be surprising for some, but almost none of the firms that made the Top 10 list for being the most prestigious made the Top 10 list for being the best firms to work for.

There was a huge amount of movement in the Top 10 this year. Which firms made the cut? Without any further ado, here are the Top 10 Best Law Firms to Work For based on Vault’s Annual Associate Survey for 2020:

1. O’Melveny & Myers (no change)
2. Latham & Watkins (+8)
3. Clifford Chance US (no change)
4. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (+2)
5. Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson (-3)
6. Ropes & Gray (+2)
7. Paul Hastings (-3)
8. Jackson Walker (not ranked; first time in Top 10)
9. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (+5)
10. Choate Hall & Stewart (not ranked; first time in Top 10)

Once again, Latham is the only law firm that made it into the Top 10 on both of Vault’s rankings. Kudos on keeping your own associates so incredibly happy.

It’s also worth noting that O’Melveny made history this year, as the first firm to ever earn the No. 1 spot in the overall ranking for each major category (Overall Best Law Firm to Work For, Overall Diversity, and Overall Best Summer Associate Program). Latham, on the other hand, was the only firm to rank in the Top 10 for every quality of life ranking. That said, here are the No. 1 firms in each Quality of Life category:

Congratulations to each of the Biglaw firms that made the latest edition of the Vault Best Firms to Work For rankings, and a huge congratulations to O’Melveny for completely sweeping the rankings. How did your firm do? Email us, text us at (646) 820-8477, or tweet us @atlblog to let us know how you feel.

Check back with us tomorrow to see the Best Summer Associate Program rankings.

Best Law Firms to Work For (2020) [Vault]

---

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.

New York’s bill in support of regulated compensated gestational surrogacy — the Child-Parent Security Act (CPSA) — had the vocal support of Governor Andrew Cuomo, passed the State Senate, and likely had the votes in the House. But it never made it to the floor before the legislative session ended last week. What the heck happened?!

Some Background.

New York is one of the few states in the country that legally prevents a woman from carrying a hopeful parent’s or couple’s embryo to birth, and receiving compensation for her nine months of intense effort and … labor. Other jurisdictions that had previously banned the practice have since changed course in the last few years — including New Jersey, Washington State, and D.C. In the meantime, New York continues to be one of the few surprising holdouts, with an outdated law based on outdated notions and outdated technology.

As previously discussed in my column, while gestational surrogacy is a big part of the New York bill, the CPSA includes other key protections for parents hoping to conceive using assisted reproductive technology. For example, it fixes the state’s legal loophole that allows sperm donors who donated to a single parent to seek legal rights to the resulting child! And vice-versa, it closes the loophole that currently allows single parents to seek child support from a donor. So these were improvements all around.

New York’s ban stems from the disastrous Baby M case in the 1980s. That case occurred in next door New Jersey, where a woman agreed to be inseminated and carry the resulting child for another couple. This type of arrangement is generally referred to as “traditional,” or “genetic surrogacy.” In the Baby M Case, the genetic surrogate changed her mind about giving up the baby, and fled the state with child. Both New Jersey and New York quickly over-corrected and outlawed all compensated surrogacy. Since then, genetic surrogacy has largely been abandoned across the U.S., while gestational surrogacy — where the surrogate is not genetically related to the child she carries — has flourished. Note that the CPSA only aims to legalize gestational surrogacy, not genetic surrogacy, the type found in the Baby M Case. Last year, New Jersey (ground zero for Baby M) recognized that the times and medical practices have changed, and reversed its position by passing supportive gestational surrogacy legislation.

So Close! 

The momentum for the bill was building, and supporters believed that the CPSA had a good shot at becoming law this year. So, what pulled the brakes? I spoke with Denise Seidelman, a prominent New York adoption and surrogacy attorney, and part of a coalition in support of the CPSA. Seidelman shared her experience advocating for the bill. “It was one the most profoundly inspiring, and also intensely disappointing experiences. Emotions were running high on both sides of the issue.”

Seidelman explained her view on some of the factors that led to this not being the CPSA’s year. For one, she noted that the author of the original New York surrogacy ban (from 30 years ago), Helene Weinstein, is still a current member of the Assembly, and she is outspoken in her position, perhaps colored by her experiences of a generation ago.

Seidelman felt another factor in this year’s failure was the timing of a letter by Gloria Steinem, famed author and feminist, against the CPSA. Steinem’s letter was disappointing, and really a bit shocking for those familiar with how surrogacy works. Her letter referred to a 1998 NY Task Force report that came out against surrogacy, with no mention of a more recent and more relevant 2017 NY Task Force report in support of gestational surrogacy, with measured regulation. Unfortunately, Steinem spoke not from firsthand knowledge of the recent experiences of women who choose to be gestational carriers for others, but from a perspective that has long since gone by the wayside.

The letter described how the bill would risk the well-being of the marginalized women in the state — those in conditions of poverty. However, as pointed out in the rebuttal letter written by RESOLVE, the national infertility association, of the women who raise their hands to be surrogates, only about 5 percent are determined to be medically qualified, and are able to move forward. And one of the requirements is that they are financially stable. Additionally, the 2017 Task Force report found that the women who are acting as surrogates are not the marginalized of society, but those not reliant on compensation that may be received from acting as a gestational surrogate. Steinem’s letter is an imagination of the Handmaid’s Tale, but ignores the current reality of what surrogacy is, and how it works.

While Steinem has no doubt historically been a force for good for women (and we are grateful!), the world is a changing place. Seidelman and others urged Steinem  — and will urge her again — to look closer into surrogacy, how it really works now, and to meet the women volunteering to help others experience parenthood. She is unlikely to find the trafficked, exploited women she imagines.

Next Year. 

To end on a positive note, Seidelman explained that her disappointment that the CPSA didn’t make it across the finish line is offset by the overall huge steps the CPSA has made. While this year might not have been the year, with the increased education and understanding for lawmakers, 2020 is looking good.

---

Ellen Trachman is the Managing Attorney of Trachman Law Center, LLC, a Denver-based law firm specializing in assisted reproductive technology law, and co-host of the podcast I Want To Put A Baby In You. You can reach her at babies@abovethelaw.com.