Biglaw Firm Sets The Record Straight On Layoffs — See Also

Offhand Lie About Central Park 5 Lands Trump Back In Legal Trouble – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Win
McNamee/Getty
Images)

There’s
a
big
buzz
right
now
about
Trump
serving
McDonald’s
french
fries
to
fake
McCustomers.
Cute
PR
move,
but
it
is
a
little
too
close
to
election
day
to
get
caught
up
in
camera
shutters.
But
do
you
know
what’s
evergreen?
Lawsuits!

Reuters

has
coverage:

The
five
Black
and
Hispanic
teenagers
who
were
wrongfully
convicted
for
the
1989
rape
of
a
white
jogger
in
New
York’s
Central
Park
sued Donald
Trump

for
defamation
on
Monday
over
statements
he
made
at
last
month’s
U.S.
presidential
debate.

Trump,
the
Republican
nominee
for
the
White
House,
falsely
said
at
the
Sept.
10
debate
with
Democrat
Vice
President
Kamala
Harris
that
the
Central
Park
Five
had
killed
a
person
and
pleaded
guilty.

The lawsuit
filed
in
federal
court
in
Philadelphia
by
Yusef
Salaam,
Raymond
Santana,
Kevin
Richardson,
Antron
Brown
and
Korey
Wise,
called
Trump’s
statements
“demonstrably
false.”
Salaam
is
now
a
member
of
the
New
York
City
Council.

In
case
you
aren’t
familiar,
the
Central
Park
5
were
accused
of
assaulting
and
raping
a
jogger
in
1989.
Trump
proceeded
to
buy
ads
in
newspapers
saying
that
they
should
get
the
death
penalty.
They
were
exonerated
in
2002
after
DNA
evidence
and
someone
else’s
confession
showed
they
weren’t
to
blame.
Despite
this,

Trump
opted
not
to
apologize
for
needlessly
dragging
their
reputations
through
the
mud
.
No
clue
why
he
decided
to
double
down
on
falsehoods
5
years
later,
but
hitting
him
in
his
pockets
is
as
good
a
response
as
any.


Central
Park
Five
sue
Trump
for
defamation
over
debate
remarks

[Reuters]



Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor
,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

The City That’s The Exception To The Biglaw Lateral Partner Hiring Boom – Above the Law



Ed.
Note:

Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!


According
to
a
recent
report
by
recruiting
firm
Macrae,
lateral
partner
moves
at
Am
Law
50
and
Magic
Circle
firms
through
September
of
this
year
are
down
15%
over
last
year
in
which
major
U.S.
city?


Hint:
Macrae
is
reporting
upswings
in
the
lateral
partner
market
in
other
markets,
including
New
York
and
London.
But
the
lateral
market
in
down
here,
led
by
dips
in
partner
lateral
moves
in
antitrust
(down
36%),
tax
(down
44%),
and
litigation
(down
23%).



See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Meet The First-Ever Openly Transgender Lawyer To Argue Before SCOTUS – Above the Law

Chase
Strangio
(Photo
by
MICHAEL
TRAN/AFP
via
Getty
Images)



Ed.
note
:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day
.


Anyone
who
has
worked
with
Chase
knows
the
intelligence,
compassion,
and
courage
he
brings
to
every
fight
for
the
rights
and
well-being
of
his
plaintiffs.




James
Esseks,
the
co-director
of
the
ACLU’s
LGBTQ
&
HIV
Project,
in
comments
given
concerning

Chase
Strangio
,
co-director
for
transgender
justice
with
the
ACLU’s
LGBTQ
&
HIV
Project,
who
will
soon
become
the

first
openly
transgender
lawyer

to
argue
before
the
Supreme
Court.
On
December
4,
he
will
share
time
with
the
Biden
administration,
arguing
that
Tennessee’s
ban
on
gender
affirming
care
for
minors
violates
the
equal
protection
clause
of
the
Constitution.
Strangio,
a
Northwestern
Law
graduate,
has
been
with
the
ACLU
since
2013.



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

X/Twitter

and

Threads

or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn
.

So Much For Free Speech: Harvard Law Students Punished For Reading Together At Campus Library – Above the Law

Basically
this

There
is
a
very
strong
tendency
for
the
discourse
surrounding
protests
to
fixate
on
their
form
rather
than
their
content.
The
criticism
usually
begins
and
ends
with
an
assessment
of 
how
polite
or
convenient
the
protest
was.
Sure,

human
rights
are
important
or
whatever
,
but
was
the
Olympics
really
the
best
place
to
raise
a
fist?
Or
“Yes,
cops
murdering
unarmed
people
is
bad
or
whatever,
but
can
you
believe
Kaepernick
is
ruining
Sunday
Night
Football?”
If
the
politeness
check
isn’t
met,
people
act
as
if
it
permits
all
sorts
of
rude
responses
that
range
from

state
sanctioned
ridicule

to

state
actors
hurting
or
killing
protestors
.

Despite
disruption
being
a

vital

component
in
the
history
of
protesting,
the
demand
that
protests
be
polite
and
convenient
(in
addition
to
the

fire
hoses
and
dogs
,

tear
gas

and

attacks
on
university
faculty
and
students

that
buttress
the
demands
for
protestors
to
be
polite
and
patient)
has
incentivized
less
and
less
invasive
forms
of
protest.
We’ve
moved
from

blocking
roads

and

sit-ins
 as
objectionable
protests
to
studying
with
the
wrong
scarves
and
laptop
decor
as
deserving
scrutiny.

If
we
are
to
have

any

meaningful
discussion
about
free
speech
on
campus
that
isn’t
just

a
shorthand
excuse
for
FedSoc
judges
being
able
to
spew
Fox
News
talking
points
without
being
expected
to
respect
pedagogical
norms
like
explaining
your
legal
decision
to
law
students
,
students
quietly
studying
as
protest
has
to
be
the
bare
minimum
of
what’s
allowed,
right?
Doesn’t
seem
to
be
the
case
at
Harvard.

The
good
news
is
that
the
students
are
supported
by
some
of
the
faculty

Harvard
Law
professor
Andrew
Crespo,
joined
by
Harvard
Businness’
Reshmaan
N.
Hussam
did
a
write
up
on
the
protest
for

The
Crimson
:

[A]
few
weeks
ago,
at
least
twelve
of
our
students
were
suspended
from
the
same
library
for…reading
quietly,
with
small
signs
taped
to
their
laptops.

We
strongly
disagree
with
Harvard’s
decision
to
ban
our
students
from
the
library
over
this
conduct.
A
university
should
never
deny
access
to
scholarly
resources
as
a
mode
of
punishment.
In
fact,
we
believe
these
sanctions
violate
the
American
Library
Association’s
Bill
of
Rights.

If
there
is
one
noteworthy
difference
between
our
study
session
and
theirs,
it
is
that
the
students
all
wore
traditional
Palestinian
keffiyehs
around
their
necks,
while
we
and
our
colleagues
wore
black
scarves.
We
did
this
with
intention,
to
underscore
the
unequal
and
repeated
disciplinary
threats
and
actions
targeting
students
who
have
expressed
a
particular
point
of
view
this
last
year.

It
is
refreshing
to
see
law
professors
going
to
bat
for
their
students,
much
better
than
having
to
cover

another
Amy
Wax
“Hate
speech
is
good,
actually!”

story.
The
professors
go
on
to
say
that
there
is
no
reasonable
way
to
frame
students
quietly
studying
and
sharing
ideas
as
disruptive
since…that’s
kinda
the
fundamental
purpose
of
universities.
It
is
so
fundamental
that
there
is
a
legitimate
question
of
if
the
student’s
study
group
constituted
a
“protest,”
framing
it
as
such
may
already
be
ceding
to
the
University’s
framing
of
the
shared
silent
study.
For
example,
would
a
group
of
students
studying
together
that
have
“Don’t
tread
on
me”
stickers
or
even
a
sign
in
front
of
them
that
says
“Sic
Semper
Tyrannis”
in
front
of
their
laptop
amount
to
a
protest?
Probably
not,
even
if
they
all
happen
to
be
very
enthusiastic
libertarians.
What
makes
this
“protest”
any
different?

Harvard
isn’t
the
only
place
where
the
expression
of
a
particular
point
of
view
has
resulted
in
an
uncharacteristically
aggressive
response.
Ta-Nehisi
Coates
recently
came
under
fire
for
sharing
the
apparently
controversial
opinion
that
Apartheid
is
categorically
bad
on

CBS
.
The
fall
out
has
resulted
in
some
in-depth
discussions
about
why
and
how
dissent
is
policed
in
public
forums:

If
reading
quietly
in
a
library
can
be
framed
as
a
punishable
form
of
protest,
what
places
and
methods
remain
for
peacefully
voicing
dissent?
Or
for
that
matter,
merely
studying?


Will
Harvard
Punish
Its
Professors
for
Reading
in
the
Library?

[The
Crimson]



Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor
,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Conquering Conferences: The Art Of The Graceful Exit – Above the Law



Ed.
note
:
This
is
the
latest
in
a
series
providing
a
comprehensive
guide
to
networking
at
conferences.

Read
the
previous
installment
here


In
this
next
chapter
of
“Conquering
Conferences,”
we
focus
on
a
crucial
yet
often
overlooked
aspect

making
a
graceful
exit.


Whether
it’s
leaving
a
group
or
ending
a
one-on-one
conversation,
the
art
of
the
goodbye
is
about
departing
as
smoothly
as
you
arrived.


Exiting
Chats
Without
the
Cringe


Mastering
the
art
of
a
graceful
exit
is
like
perfecting
the
smooth
steps
of
a
dance.
It’s
all
about
leaving
on
a
high
note,
without
awkwardness
or
stumbling.


Whether
you’ve
just
shared
a
laugh,
exchanged
some
intriguing
insights,
or
simply
found
the
conversation
winding
down,
knowing
how
to
bow
out
gracefully
is
key
to
maintaining
your
social
finesse.


Here’s
how
to
make
your
exit
smooth,
leaving
a
lasting
impression
that’s
as
positive
as
it
is
professional:


  • The
    Appreciative
    Exit
    :
    When
    you’re
    ready
    to
    leave
    a
    group,
    interject
    at
    a
    natural
    pause
    in
    the
    conversation
    with
    a
    comment
    like:
    “I’ve
    really
    enjoyed
    this
    discussion,
    especially
    the
    insights
    on
    [specific
    topic].
    I
    need
    to
    mingle
    a
    bit
    more,
    but
    it
    was
    great
    connecting
    with
    all
    of
    you.
    Enjoy
    the
    rest
    of
    the
    event!”
    This
    approach
    shows
    appreciation
    for
    the
    conversation
    and
    allows
    for
    a
    smooth
    exit
    without
    making
    it
    seem
    abrupt.

  • The
    Connector’s
    Departure
    :
    A
    strategic
    way
    to
    exit
    is
    to
    connect
    others
    before
    you
    leave.
    Say
    something
    like,
    “Before
    I
    head
    off,
    I
    just
    want
    to
    introduce
    [Person
    A]
    to
    [Person
    B].
    I
    think
    you
    both
    have
    some
    interesting
    ideas
    on
    [specific
    topic].
    I’ll
    leave
    you
    to
    it

    great
    chatting
    with
    everyone!”
    This
    not
    only
    adds
    value
    to
    the
    group
    but
    also
    provides
    a
    natural
    and
    thoughtful
    way
    to
    excuse
    yourself.

  • The
    Schedule
    Excuse
    :
    Use
    your
    schedule
    as
    a
    polite
    way
    to
    exit.
    You
    can
    say,
    “I
    just
    realized
    I
    have
    a
    session
    I
    can’t
    miss
    starting
    in
    a
    few
    minutes.
    It’s
    been
    great
    talking
    with
    everyone.
    Hopefully,
    we’ll
    run
    into
    each
    other
    again
    during
    the
    conference.”
    This
    gives
    you
    a
    clear
    reason
    to
    leave
    and
    is
    generally
    well-accepted
    in
    a
    busy
    conference
    setting.

  • The
    Open-Ended
    Goodbye
    :
    Leave
    the
    conversation
    open
    for
    future
    interactions
    with
    a
    line
    like,
    “I’ll
    have
    to
    step
    away
    now,
    but
    if
    anyone
    wants
    to
    continue
    this
    conversation
    later,
    feel
    free
    to
    catch
    me
    during
    the
    break
    or
    connect
    on
    LinkedIn.
    Enjoy
    the
    rest
    of
    the
    session!”
    This
    indicates
    that
    you’re
    open
    to
    further
    discussions,
    just
    at
    a
    later
    time.

  • The
    Polite
    Interruption
    :
    If
    the
    conversation
    is
    ongoing
    and
    finding
    a
    natural
    pause
    is
    difficult,
    you
    can
    politely
    interject
    with:
    “Excuse
    me
    for
    interrupting,
    I’ve
    got
    to
    head
    out
    now,
    but
    this
    has
    been
    a
    great
    conversation.
    Have
    a
    wonderful
    day,
    everyone!”
    This
    is
    a
    direct
    yet
    polite
    way
    to
    make
    your
    exit
    without
    waiting
    for
    a
    perfect
    moment.


Now
that
we’ve
mastered
the
art
of
the
graceful
exit,
let’s
turn
our
attention
to
the
next
step
in
our
networking
journey.
Next
week,
we’ll
explore
how
to
keep
the
conversation
alive
and
fresh
with
each
new
interaction,
ensuring
a
dynamic
and
fulfilling
conference
experience.


Exiting
Chats
Smoothly


✔️
Master
the
skill
of
leaving
conversations
gracefully,
maintaining
positive
impressions.


✔️


Use
tactful
strategies
to
exit
without
causing
disruption.




Sejal PatelSejal Patel is
the Founder
of
Sage
Ivy
,
a
New
York-based
consultancy
specializing
in
empowering
attorneys
with
innovative
practice
development
strategies.
With
over
20
years
of
experience,
Sejal
applies
her
expertise
in
assisting
clients
convert
their
relationships
into
revenue
by
applying
individualized
strategies
to
their
networks
and
leveraging
their
unique
styles
authentically.  

Judge Rebukes DeSantis Admin: ‘It’s The First Amendment, Stupid.’ – Above the Law

Florida
Governor
Ron
DeSantis
is
getting
spanked
in
court
again.
And
once
again
it’s
at
the
hands
of
Judge
Mark
Walker,
who
granted
a

temporary
restraining
order

against
the
state’s
Department
of
Health
on
Friday.

“To
keep
it
simple
for
the
State
of
Florida:
it’s
the
First
Amendment,
stupid,”
the
judge
wrote
scornfully.

It
would
appear
that
DeSantis
(HLS
’05)
requires
the
court
to
explain
the
concept
of
free
speech
to
him,
as
if
to
a
toddler.
Because
the
governor
and
his
minions
are
under
the
impression
that
that
they
can
censor
their
constituents
simply
by
rebranding
their
speech
as
a
“sanitary
nuisance,”
akin
to
pollution
dumped
in
the
waterways.

The
ruling
comes
in
response
to
the
state’s
efforts
to
dissuade
voters
from
supporting
Amendment
4,
a
ballot
referendum
which
would
enshrine
the
right
to
an
abortion
in
the
state’s
constitution.
DeSantis
and
his
cronies
are
engaged
in
extensive
shenanigans
to
block
it
including:
a

taxpayer-funded
advertising
campaign
;

threats
to
prosecute

the
ballot
organizers
for
signature
fraud;
and

screwing
with
the
financial
impact
statement

to
include
the
litigation
cost
of
defending
the
law
in
court
from
the
very
people
pushing
for
its
passage.

That
last
one
is
ironic
in
light
of
the
fact
that
DeSantis’s
pre-enactment
antics
include

hiring

a
law
firm
which
calls
itself
First
&
Fourteenth
PLLC


get
it?
get
it?


to
attack
supporters
of
the
referendum,
at
a
projected
cost
of
about
$1
million.

The
debacle
started
on
October
3,
when
John
Wilson,
the
now-former
general
counsel
for
the
Florida
Department
of
Health,
sent

multiple
cease
and
desist
letters
 to
local
television
stations
threatening
them
with
prosecution
if
they
failed
to
take
down
an
ad
in
which
a
woman
named
Caroline
describes
needing
an
abortion
after
a
cancer
diagnosis.
The
woman
says
that
she
would
have
been
denied
this
medically
necessary
treatment
under
Florida’s
Heartbeat
Protection
Act.

Wilson
threatened
to
prosecute
the
stations
for
continuing
to
air
the
ad
under
a
provision
of
 the

Florida
Clean
Air
Act

usually
reserved
for
slaughterhouses
and
factories
releasing
effluent.
His
theory
was
that
Caroline
was
lying
about
the
Heartbeat
Bill
(she
wasn’t),
and
that
this
lie
harmed
public
health
by
leading
women
“to
believe
that
such
treatment
is
unavailable
under
Florida
law,
[so
that]
such
women
could
foreseeably
travel
out
of
state
to
seek
emergency
medical
care,
seek
emergency
medical
care
from
unlicensed
providers
in
Florida,
or
not
seek
emergency
medical
care
at
all.”

Floridians
Protecting
Freedom
(FPF),
the
group
which
pushed
the
ballot,
sued
in
federal
court
to
block
the
state,
and
Judge
Walker
granted
the
TRO
through
October
29.

This
case
pits
the
right
to
engage
in
political
speech
against
the
State’s
purported
interest
in
protecting
the
health
and
safety
of
Floridians
from
“false
advertising.”
It
is
no
answer
to
suggest
that
the
Department
of
Health
is
merely
flexing
its
traditional
police
powers
to
protect
health
and
safety
by
prosecuting
“false
advertising”—if
the
State
can
rebrand
rank
viewpoint
discriminatory
suppression
of
political
speech
as
a
“sanitary
nuisance,”
then
any
political
viewpoint
with
which
the
State
disagrees
is
fair
game
for
censorship.
Moreover,
the
record
demonstrates
that
Defendant
has
ample,
constitutional
alternatives
to
mitigate
any
harm
caused
by
an
injunction
in
this
case.
The
State
of
Florida
has
actively
undertaken
its
own
anti-Amendment
4
campaign
to
educate
the
public
about
its
view
of
Florida’s
abortion
laws
and
to
correct
the
record,
as
it
sees
fit,
concerning
pro-Amendment
4
speech.
The
State
can
continue
to
combat
what
it
believes
to
be
“false
advertising”
by
meeting
Plaintiff’s
speech
with
its
own.

In
the
meantime,
Wilson
has
not
only
resigned
his
position
with
the
Department
of
Health;
he’s
filed
an

affidavit
 claiming
that
the
letter
bearing
his
name
came
directly
from
the
governor’s
office;
that
he’d
been
instructed
to
hire
outside
counsel
to
actually
sue
the
TV
stations
for
running
the
ads;
and
that
he’d
resigned
rather
than
obey
a
direct
order
to
send
further
threatening
letters.

It
would
probably
be
churlish
to
point
out
that
Wilson
knew
damn
well
that
the

first

letter
was
a
gross
violation
of
the
First
Amendment,
and
it
didn’t
seem
to
bother
him
until
every
major
media
outlet
in
the
country
picked
up
the
story
and
started
pointing
out
how
wildly
inappropriate
it
was.
The
important
thing
is
he’s
here
now.
And
I
think
we’ve
all
learned
a
valuable
lesson
here.
And
that
lesson
is


STREISAND
EFFECT.

Because
if
Florida
voters
weren’t
paying
attention
to
this
bill
before,
they
sure
are
today.


Floridians
Protecting
Freedom
v.
Ladapo

[Docket
via
Court
Listener]





Liz
Dye
 lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

SNL Nails The Dumbest Thing To Do With Your JD – Above the Law

You
know
you’d
rather
be
mindlessly
scrolling
through
TikTok
instead
of
mindlessly
billing
hours.
Saturday
Night
Live
knows
it
too,
and
tackled
TikTok
and
its
many
influencers
in
its
latest
parody
sketch.

Women
lawyers
may
find
the
video
particularly
entertaining
at
around
the
2:53
mark,
when
a
tradwife

i.e.,
a
woman
who
believes
in
traditional
gender
roles
and
marriages
and
is
focused
on
subservient
homemaking
and
childrearing

makes
an
appearance.
Her
law
degree
from
an
apparent
past
life
makes
an
appearance
too,
but
not
necessarily
in
the
way
you’d
expect.

“As
a
22-year-old
mother
of
10,
I
like
to
do
everything
by
hand,”
the
tradwife
says.
“Today,
my
kids
wanted
to
color,
but
we
were
all
out
of
paper.
So
I
mashed
up
my
law
degree
to
make
more
paper
for
my
kids.”

Friends,
as
frustrating
as
it
can
sometimes
be
as
a
full-time
lawyer
and
a
full-time
mother,
please
don’t
mash
up
your
law
degrees.
It’s
much
easier
to
order
a
fresh
ream
of
coloring
paper
on
Amazon

not
to
mention
the
fact
that
you
don’t
even
need
a
rolling
pin
to
do
it.



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

X/Twitter

and

Threads

or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn
.

Federal Judges Lays Into Biglaw Attorneys For Running Up Legal Bills – Above the Law

Attorneys
from
Boies
Schiller,
Quinn
Emanuel,
and
Ropes
&
Gray
are
on
a
federal
judge’s
shit
list.
The
trio
of
firms
work
on
behalf
of
Servicios
Funerarios
GG
in
its
suit
against
private
equity
firm
Advent
International
Corp.
in
a
case
involving
the
sale
of
a
Mexican
funeral
company,
Grupo
Gayosso.
And
Judge
Indira
Talwani
of
the
District
of
Massachusetts
isn’t
happy
with
the
Biglaw
firms.
In
a
hearing
on
Friday,
she
ripped
into
the
attorneys
for
over-litigating
the
case

and
necessarily
running
up
those
legal
fees.

As

reported
by

Law360:

The
judge
said
seemingly
endless
motions
and
filings
in
the
case
had
the
effect
of
relitigating
points
and
appeared
to
be
“an
effort
to
try
to
gum
up
the
works.”

“I
don’t
understand
how
11
lawyers
can
jointly
make
what
we
are
doing
here
difficult,”
Judge
Talwani
said.
“It
is
not
serving
you
well

your
clients
paying
your
bills

and
I
do
want
you
to
pass
this
message
to
your
client:
In
order
to
try
to
keep
your
bills
down,
it
would
be
helpful
to
try
and
figure
out
whether
there
are
some
things
that
don’t
have
to
be
fought
about.”

“That
might
serve
your
clients,”
the
judge
added.
“It
might
not
serve
your
pocketbooks,
and
you
can
tell
your
clients
that
was
my
comment.”

Not
the
kind
of
comments
you
want
to
see
on
record.

Now,
admittedly,
it’s
a
complicated
case
with
arrest
warrants,
sanctions
motions,
finagling
over
deposition
dates,
so
many
delays
and
lots
of
entries
on
the
docket.
That
seemed
to
be
the
tipping
point
for
the
judge.

Judge
Talwani
complained
Friday
that
the
parties’
efforts
to
confer
on
issues
have
been
of
little
help
to
her
court’s
management
of
the
docket.
A
pair
of
letters
filed
an
hour
before
the
status
conference
appeared
to
spark
the
judge’s
public
fuming
and
dressing
down
of
the
attorneys.

Lawyers
for
Advent
International
sent
the
court
a
letter
explaining
they
had
conferred
with
Servicios
about
a
timeline
that
would
govern
how
the
case
advanced
through
the
end
stages
of
fact
discovery,
expert
witnesses
and
pretrial
dispositive
motions.
It
said
Advent
and
Servicios
disagreed
on
the
exact
schedule,
and
it
then
attached
a
table
that
included
only
Advent’s
proposal.

Half
an
hour
later,
Servicios
also
filed
a
letter
outlining
its
proposed
schedule,
including
a
May
trial
date.

“I’m
just
not
sure
why
it
wouldn’t
occur
to
you,
just
give
me
that
on
one
single
piece
of
paper,”
the
judge
said.

Boies
Schiller
attorney
Carlos
Sires
said
their
client
“shares
the
court’s
frustration”

and
they’re
the
ones
footing
the
bill.




Kathryn Rubino HeadshotKathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast
,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer
.
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
 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

Top Biglaw Firm Shuts Down Layoff Rumors By Issuing Statement On Fishbowl, Reddit – Above the Law

Is
Goodwin
doing
layoffs
right
now?
This
time
around,
we
can
confidently
say
that
the
answer
to
that
question
is
no.

Many
Biglaw
firms

some
more
than
others,
of
course

are
often
besieged
by
by
rumors
of
layoffs.
One
of
those
firms
is
Goodwin
Procter,
which
brought
in
$2,244,196,000
gross
revenue
in
2023,
putting
it
at
No.
16
in
the
most
recent
Am
Law
100.
The
firm
became
the
most
recent
“poster
child”
for
layoffs
after
kicking
off
the
year
in
2023
with
a

reduction
in
force

that
eliminated
about
5%
of
the
firm’s
timekeepers,
including
associates
and
all
manner
of
other
attorneys.
In
2024,
Goodwin
opened
the
year
by
conducting

performance
reviews

that
resulted
in
“an
unknown
number”
of
out-of-work
associates
(and
to
us,
this
reeked
of
stealth
layoffs).

These
actions
have
resulted
in
a
frequent
ebb
and
flow
of
layoff
rumors
at
the
top
Biglaw
firm

in
fact,
whispers
of
layoffs
at
the
firm
are
once
again
circulating
on
social
media.
Goodwin,
however,
is
sick
and
tired
of
the
firm
being
dragged
through
the
mud,
so
its
PR
team
is
on
the
case
to
shut
down
the
rumor
mill
at
the
very
source.

As
reported
by
the

American
Lawyer
,
Goodwin’s
chief
marketing
and
communications
officer,
Konstantin
Shishkin,
took
to

Reddit

and

Fishbowl

to
put
an
end
to
the
layoff
talk.
We
believe
this
may
the
first
time
a
high-ranking
member
of
a
Biglaw
firm’s
staff
has
entered
the
fray
on
these
social
media
sites
using
their
own
name
and
title
to
quell
rumors
of
layoffs
and
job
loss.

In
his
statement,
available
in
full
on
the
next
page,
Shishkin
notes
that
Goodwin,
which
“just
closed
a
record
financial
year,”
is

not

conducting
outright
layoffs.
He
goes
on
to
speak
about
how
the
firm
has
grown
in
size
since
January
22,
and
will
continue
to
grow
when
it
welcomes
nearly
200
incoming
associates
later
this
month.
“[A]ny
talk
about
“continued
layoffs”
or
“stealth
layoffs”
at
Goodwin
is
both
misinformed
and
untrue,”
he
writes.
“We
hope
this
clears
things
up
for
all
of
you
who
are
curious
about
what’s
going
on
at
Goodwin.”
Shishkin
went
on
to
officially
confirm
that
“the
firm
did
not
ask
anyone
from
the
classes
of
2022
and
2023
to
leave
the
firm

for
any
reason

in
any
of
its
U.S.
offices
in
the
past
24
days.”

If
you’re
still
not
convinced
that
Goodwin
is
in
no
way,
shape,
or
form
conducting
layoffs
of
any
kind,
be
wary
that
these
incredibly
forthcoming
statements
tend
to
be
few
and
far
between
when
actual
reductions
are
afoot.
This
is

what
a
layoff
looks
like

at
the
firm.
This
is
what
a

stealth
layoff
may
look
like

at
the
firm.
A
firm
representative
stating
on
a
public
forum
that
no
layoffs
of
any
kind
are
happening
at
the
firm
is
sufficient
evidence
that

NO
LAYOFFS

are
occurring
at
this
time.

Rest
assured
that
if
actual
layoffs
occur
at
this
firm

or
any
firm

the
Above
the
Law
team
will
be
here
to
provide
coverage.
At
this
time,
we
thank
Shiskin
for
going
to
bat
for
Goodwin
on
Fishbowl
and
Reddit.
We
wish
more
high-ranking
Biglaw
staff
members
were
willing
to
do
the
same.

(Flip
to
the
next
page
to
read
Konstantin
Shishkin’s
statement
in
full.)

If
your
firm
or
organization
is
reducing
the
ranks
of
its
lawyers
or
staff,
whether
through
deferrals,
open
layoffs,
stealth
layoffs,
or
voluntary
buyouts,
please
don’t
hesitate
to
let
us
know.
Our
vast
network
of
tipsters
is
part
of
what
makes
Above
the
Law
thrive.
You
can email
us
 or
text
us
(646-820-8477).
Thank
you
for
your
assistance.

If
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Layoff
Alerts,
please
scroll
down
and
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below
this
post.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
the
layoff
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
layoff
announcement
that
we
publish.


Goodwin
Rebuts
Layoffs
Rumors
Head
On

[American
Lawyer]



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

X/Twitter

and

Threads

or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn
.

Scissors Cut Money

Enter
your
email
address
to
sign
up
for

ATL’s
Layoff
Alerts
.