Listen…
mandatory
arbitration
agreements
are
garbage.
They
invariably
favor
established
parties
with
entrenched
power.
That’s
why
—
even
before
Disney’s
shady
attempt
to
use
one
in
a
wrongful
death
case
made
headlines
—
the
fight
against
them
has
been
a
focus
of
progressive
politics.
The
practice
of
mandatory
arbitration
agreements
in
Biglaw
has
also
had
its
moment
in
the
spotlight.
Back
in
2018,
Munger
Tolles
was
called
out
on
social
media
for
the
practice.
That
firm
changed
their
policy
as
a
result,
and
other
firms
voluntarily
did
away with
the practice.
The
People’s
Parity
Project
—
an
activist
group
for
law
students
and
new
attorneys
—
has
kept
the
pressure
on
the
industry.
And
their
tactics
have
proven
successful.
Of
course,
there
have
been
some
firms
that
have
held
fast,
despite
complaints.
But
mandatory
arbitration
employment
agreements
are
still
controversial
in
the
legal
industry.
Above
the
Law
received
information
that
a
high-profile
boutique
recently
made
the
decision
to
implement
mandatory
arbitration.
The
Elias
Law
Group,
the
firm
founded
in
2021
by
Democrat
election
lawyer
Marc
Elias
to
advance
Democratic
and
liberal
causes,
told
employees
on
December
19th
about
the
change
in
policy
(which
includes
a
class
action
waiver
and
non-disclosure
agreement),
and
only
gave
folks
through
December
30th
—
over
the
holidays
when
most
employees
are
taking
a
well-deserved
break
—
to
sign
the
agreement.
How…
awkward.
The
firm
that
bills
itself
as
the
one
to
“help
progressives
make
change,”
doing
something
so
distinctly
regressive.
Not
to
mention
that
firm
clients
have
introduced
legislation
to
ban
mandatory
arbitration.
Maybe
the
Elias
Law
Group
has
more
in
common
with
Republicans
than
they
think.
And
the
attorneys
at
the
firm
agree.
The
associates
and
counsel
at
the
firm
sent
a
letter
to
firm
leadership
in
response
to
the
policy
change,
noting
their
objection
to
the
policy
and
particularly
to
the
timing.
According
to
an
insider
at
the
firm,
the
request
for
a
meeting
with
leadership
about
the
agreements
was
“coldly
refused.”
The
firm
went
another
route,
per
a
tipster:
“Adopting
a
common
union-busting
tactic,
management
rebuffed
the
request
for
a
group-wide
conversation
and
began
calling
individual
attorneys
to
ask
who
was
organizing
the
resistance
and
to
pin
down
who
would
refuse
to
sign
the
agreement.”
The
initial
deadline
to
sign
the
arbitration
agreement
has
passed,
and
management
extended
the
deadline
to
January
10th.
But
insiders
say
the
firm
is
playing
hardball
to
get
associates
and
counsel
on
board.
Our
annual
seniority-based
salary
step-up
is
conditioned
on
signing
the
arbitration
agreement.
Attorneys
are
paid
once
a
month
at
the
end
of
the
month,
so
we
can
still
get
our
January
raise
if
we
sign
by
Jan
10.
Staff
are
paid
twice
a
month
however,
so
anyone
who
did
not
sign
by
the
beginning
of
January
forfeit
their
raise
for
the
first
January
paycheck.
Insiders
at
the
firm
report
sinking
morale
and
a
deep
suspicion
the
move
will
motivate
attorneys
who
want
to
use
their
law
degree
to
advance
progressive
ideals
to
leave
the
firm.
Just
goes
to
show,
just
because
the
firm
gets
paid
to
fight
the
good
fight
it
doesn’t
mean
those
are
the
values
they
manage
with.
Kathryn
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].