Author: TSA Press

A
good,
hard-hitting
dissent
can
make
us
think
about
the
law
in
a
different
way
and
give
us
a
pathway
forward.
[It
can
remind]
the
court
of
who
they
are
and
what
they
should
be
doing.
Dissents
become
our
vision
for
the
law.

—

Judith
Browne
Dianis,
a
civil
rights
attorney
who
leads
the
liberal
non-profit
Advancement
Project,
commenting
on
the

importance
of
dissents
at
the
Supreme
Court.
If
confirmed,
a
future
Justice

Ketanji
Brown
Jackson
would
become
part
of
the
liberal
bloc
of
the
Supreme
Court
with
a
6-3
conservative
majority,
and
writing
many
a
dissent
would
likely
become
a
part
of
her
job.

---

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.

In
the
past
two
weeks,
state
courts
in
Pennsylvania
and
North
Carolina

redrew
the
electoral
maps
so
that
citizens
would
have
a
fair
opportunity
to
choose
their
politicians,
and
not
the
other
way
around.
This
had
the
effect
of
reversing
a
decade
of
gerrymandering
which
gave
Republicans
in
those
states
a
majority
of
federal
and
state
representatives
despite
making
up
just
half
of
the
electorate.

Rebuffed
by
the
lower
federal
courts
and
with
the
filing
deadline
right
around
the
corner,
Republicans
have
thrown
a
Hail
Mary
pass
to
the
Supreme
Court.
Well,
two
passes,
in
fact,
since
legislators
from
both
states
have
filed
emergency
petitions
asking
the
Justices
to
wade
in
and
toss
out
the
maps
based
on
the
“independent
state
legislature”
theory.

As
described
by
election
law
expert
Richard
L.
Hasen
at

Slate,
the
GOP
has
lately
argued
that
Article
I’s
reference
to
the
state
legislature
directing
the
“Manner”
of
elections
and
Article
II,
Section
4’s
dictate
that
“The
Times,
Places
and
Manner
of
holding
Elections
for
Senators
and
Representatives,
shall
be
prescribed
in
each
State
by
the
Legislature
thereof”
grant
legislatures
exclusive
control
of
elections.

In
their
telling,
judges
have
no
right
to
interpret
state
election
law,
much
less
impose
fair
maps.
Team
Trump
also
relied
on
this
reasoning
when
it
advocated
sending
swing
state
electoral
votes
back
to
legislatures
to
recast
them
for
the
incumbent
in
2020
based
on
bogus
claims
of
widespread
vote
fraud.

On
Friday,
the
Republican
Speaker
of
the
North
Carolina
House
of
Representatives
and
the
President
Pro
Tempore
of
the
state
Senate
filed
an

emergency
application
for
stay
with
Chief
Justice
Roberts
seeking
to
have
the
state
court’s
maps
declared
illegal.

“If
a
redistricting
process
more
violative
of
the
U.S.
Constitution
exists,
it
is
hard
to
imagine
it,”
they
argue,
citing
a

concurrence
written
by
Justice
Gorsuch
and
joined
by
Justice
Kavanaugh
which
tossed
out
a
Wisconsin
state
court’s
decision
on
early
voting
on
the
ground
that
“state
legislatures—not
federal
judges,
not
state
judges,
not
state
governors,
not
other
state
officials—bear
primary
responsibility
for
setting
election
rules.”

Yesterday
Pennsylvania
legislators
followed
suit,

asking
Justice
Alito
to
block
fair
maps
and
a
new
filing
deadline
imposed
by
the
court
after
Democratic
Governor
Tom
Wolf
and
the
Republican
legislature
failed
to
agree
on
a
redistricting
plan.

The
Elections
Clause
prohibits
the
defendants
from
implementing
the
Carter
Plan
because
it
has
not
been
“prescribed”
by
“the
Legislature”
of
Pennsylvania.
The
Supreme
Court
of
Pennsylvania
is
not
part
of
“the
Legislature,”
and
the
General
Assembly
has
not
delegated
any
of
its
map-drawing
powers
to
the
state
judiciary
or
authorized
the
state
courts
to
involve
themselves
in
the
redistricting
process.
The
state
supreme
court
cannot
arrogate
to
itself
powers
that
the
Constitution
specifically
assigns
to
“the
Legislature,”
and
it
cannot
step
into
the
shoes
of
the
legislature
and
impose
a
congressional
map
merely
because
the
General
Assembly
and
the
governor
have
failed
to
reach
agreement
on
a
map
to
govern
the
2022
elections.

Just
to
make
that
totally
clear,

some
sort
of
way
a
state
with
almost

600,000
more
registered
Democrats
than
Republicans
always
winds
up
with
a
legislature
that
is
56
percent
Republican.
And
those
Republican
legislators
insist
that
the
Constitution
allows
them
to
keep
it
that
way
forever
without
pesky
state
courts
butting
in
to
ensure
that
their
maps
comply
with
state
law.

You
don’t
have
to
squint
hard
to
see
the
chaos
that
the
Supreme
Court
will
unleash
if
it
entertains
these
petitions.
State
legislatures
will
effectively
become
the
only
election
law
in
the
land,
unrestrained
by
courts
or
state
executives.
Election
procedures
will
be
exactly
what
gerrymandered
legislatures
say
they
are,
notwithstanding
the
will
of
the
voters.
Had
this
been
the
prevailing
view
in
2020,
the
legislatures
in
Georgia,
Pennsylvania,
Wisconsin,
Arizona,
and
Michigan
could
simply
have
declared
the
electoral
certifications
signed
by
the
secretaries
of
state
a
nullity
and
thrown
the
election
to
Donald
Trump.

Not
to
put
too
fine
a
point
on
it,
but
that
is insane.
And
yet,
here
we
are,
with
a
non-negligible
chance
that
the
highest
court
in
the
country
will
do
just
that.

North
Carolina
Republicans
Ask
SCOTUS
To
Decimate
Voting
Rights
in
Every
State
[Slate]

Toth
v.
Chapman
[SCOTUS
Docket]

Moore
v.
Harper
[SCOTUS
Docket]

---

Elizabeth
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
writes
about
law
and
politics.

Ed.
note:
This
is
the
latest
in
a
new
article
series,


Cybersecurity:
Tips
From
the
Trenches,
by
our
friends
at

Sensei
Enterprises,
a
boutique
provider
of
IT,
cybersecurity,
and
digital
forensics
services.

Yes,
the
Sky
is
Falling
Ever
since
cyberinsurance
came
on
the
scene,
law
firms
have
been
fretful
about
the
rising
costs.
Through
most
of
2021,
we
were
seeing
price
increases
of
30-40%.
But
according
to
global
insurance
company
Marsh,
the
price
of
cyberinsurance
in
the
U.S.
grew
by
a
stunning
130%
in
the
4th
quarter
of
2021.
Commercial
insurance,
by
contrast,
rose
only
13%
in
the
final
quarter
of
2021.
The
cyberinsurance
carriers
will
say
that
the
market
was
undervalued
to
begin
with,
and
the
increases
are
value
adjustment
corrections.

Insurance
companies
often
have
reinsurance
policies
they
buy
to
protect
themselves
from
steep
claims
–
and
the
price
of
reinsurance
has
increased
as
well,
further
spooking
insurers,
some
of
whom
have
withdrawn
from
offering
commercial
insurance,
leaving
less
capacity
in
the
marketplace.

Basically,
we’ve
been
watching
a
train
wreck
in
cyberinsurance,
with
no
end
in
sight.

Is
This
All
About
Ransomware?
Pretty
much.
London
based
Beazley
has
said
that
prices
will
increase
as
claims,
especially
ransomware
claims,
increase.
The
financial
impact
has
been
so
severe
that
some
insurance
companies
have
decided
simply
to
drop
cyberinsurance
as
an
offering.

Others
have
taken
Draconian
measures.

The
Register
reported
on
November
30,
2021,
that
Lloyd’s
of
London
may
no
longer
extend
insurance
coverage
to
companies
affected
by
acts
of
war.

The
insurer’s
“Cyber
War
and
Cyber
Operation
Exclusion
Clauses”
include
an
alarming
line
suggesting
policies
should
not
cover
“retaliatory
cyber
operations
between
any
specified
states”
or
cyber-attacks
that
have
“a
major
detrimental
impact
on…
the
functioning
of
a
state.”

Lloyds
published
four
different
clauses
as
suggestions
for
insurers
in
Lloyd’s-underwritten
policies.
It
seems
likely
that
some
insurers
will
adopt
some
of
the
clauses.

According
to
The
Register,
“The
policy
clauses
also
raise
the
idea
of
insurance
companies
attributing
cyber-attacks
to
nation
states
in
the
absence
of
governments
carrying
out
attribution
for
specific
incidents,
an
idea
that
seems
extremely
unlikely
to
survive
contact
with
reality.”

Truer
words
were
never
spoken.
This
would
be,
as
our
British
friends
would
say,
a
bloody
mess.
Nation
state
attacks
are
common
–
and
the
line
between
a
Russian
state
attack
and
an
attack
by
ransomware
gangs
harbored
by
Russia
could
get
very
blurry.

Increased
Premiums,
Increased
Deductibles
and
Decreased
Coverage
Read
the
header
above
again
because
that’s
what
you’ll
be
facing
when
you
go
to
renew
your
cyberinsurance
coverage.
Take
a
close
look
at
the
exclusions,
because
they
may
have
expanded
significantly
so
paying
a
hefty
increase
in
premiums
may
be
buying
much
less
than
you
think.

Exclusion
clauses
now
often
include
acts
of
war,
failure
to
maintain
standards
(more
on
that
later),
payment
card
industry
(PCI)
fines
and
assessments
and
prior
acts.
Prior
acts
exclusions
prevent
a
claim
for
activity
that
took
place
before
the
retroactive
date
or
the
first
date
of
a
policy.
This
exclusion
is
important
because
data
breaches
are
often
not
detected
until
long
after
they
occur.

A
New
Jersey
Superior
Court
judge
recently
ruled
on
an
acts
of
war
exclusion
lawsuit.
The
case
dealt
with
the
2017
Russian
cyberattack
on
Ukraine,
known
as
the
NotPetya
attack,
which
impacted
U.S.
businesses
including
pharmaceutical
giant
Merck
&
Co.

Merck
claimed
it
incurred
$1.4
billion
in
damages
and
filed
a
claim
with
its
insurer.
The
insurer
denied
coverage
based
on
the
acts
of
war
exclusion.
Merck
sued.
In
January
2022,
the
judge
ruled
that
the
insurer
can’t
claim
the
act
of
war
exclusion
because
the
language
in
the
policy
applied
to
traditional
forms
of
warfare,
not
cyberattacks.
The
insurer
was
required
to
pay
the
claim
to
Merck.

You
can
be
sure
insurers
are
altering
that
kind
of
exclusion
as
we
write
this
article.

The
Failure
to
Maintain
Security
Standards:
An
Escape
Route
for
Insurers
A
typical
day
in
the
office
includes
a
call
from
a
worried
lawyer
at
a
law
firm
telling
us
the
firm
has
received
a
20
page
cybersecurity
application
form
with
questions
no
one
really
understands.
Managing
partners
have
the
dismal
feeling
that
they
can’t
truthfully
answer
the
questions
the
way
the
insurance
company
wants
them
to.

No
question
about
it
–
the
insurers
now
have
a
long
list
of
questions
designed
to
help
them
deny
claims
if
you
don’t
keep
up
with
required
security
measures.
The
language
of
a
“failure
to
maintain
standards”
exclusion
varies
widely.

You
should
ask
an
insurer
to
remove
any
ambiguous
language
in
a
cyber
policy
to
ensure
that
the
standards
are
clear.
Does
the
insurer
require
use
of
basic
controls
like
encryption
or
multifactor
authentication?
Do
they
specify
the
MFA
methods
that
are
acceptable
or
is
the
MFA
question
silent
on
the
type,
therefore
allowing
you
to
implement
SMS
text
messages
which
are
subject
to
SIM
swapping
attacks?
Are
there
specific
regulatory
obligations
required
for
compliance?
Does
the
insurer
require
periodic
training,
testing,
or
upgrades
in
technology
during
the
policy
period?

How
much
room
is
there
for
negotiation?
Not
much,
in
our
experience.
Presumably,
the
insurance
companies
have
qualified
cybersecurity
experts
helping
them
design
the
required
security
standards,
but
we’ve
seen
many
standards
which
do
NOT
indicate
a
deep
understanding
of
cybersecurity
or
reasonable
ways
to
reduce
risk.

Nonetheless,
it
is
almost
a
take
it
or
leave
it
proposition
from
the
insurer’s
point
of
view.
Our
own
prominent
insurance
company
wrote
these
words:
“If
we
do
not
hear
back
from
you
by
02/24/2022
or
unacceptable
answers
are
received
to
these
questions,
we
will
need
to
send
notice
of
non-renewal
for
the
Professional/Cyber
policy.”

Charming
after
decades
of
loyalty
to
an
insurer
without
a
single
cyber
claim,
isn’t
it?
And
this
scenario
is
being
repeated
at
law
firms
of
all
sizes.

How
Does
a
Law
Firm
Protect
Itself?
It
remains
to
be
seen
whether
cyberinsurance
companies
will
mandate
so
many
exclusions,
co-pays
and
deductibles
that
their
policies
aren’t
worth
purchasing.
As
it
is,
64%
of
small
and
medium-sized
businesses
do
not
have
cyberinsurance
coverage,
according
to
an
August
2021
report
by
Statista.

Too
many
law
firms
are
now
buying
insurance
and
thinking,
“We
are
good
to
go
now.”
That’s
a
mistake.
We
need
to
change
that
mindset.
Cyberinsurance
is
fine
if
you
can
find
good
insurance
at
a
reasonable
price
but
proactive
security
is
critical
to
law
firms
–
and
often
under-emphasized.

Get
a
security
assessment
from
a
reputable
cybersecurity
firm
–
you
should
be
able
to
get
a
reasonable
flat
fee
that
includes
a
detailed
report
of
critical
vulnerabilities
to
be
addressed
immediately,
medium
vulnerabilities
that
you
can
take
a
little
time
to
budget
for,
and
more
minor
vulnerabilities
that
you
can
deal
with
later.

If
you
been
avoiding
MFA,
stop
avoiding
it.
It
may
be
a
minor
nuisance,
but
it
is
usually
free
–
and
very
effective.
If
you
don’t
have
technology
to
monitor
and
respond
to
cyberattacks,
you’re
asking
to
be
breached.
If
you’re
not
yet
implementing
Zero
Trust
Architecture,
don’t
wait
another
day
to
embark
on
that
inevitable
journey.

---

Sharon
D.
Nelson
(snelson@senseient.com)
is
a
practicing
attorney
and
the
president
of
Sensei
Enterprises,
Inc.
She
is
a
past
president
of
the
Virginia
State
Bar,
the
Fairfax
Bar
Association,
and
the
Fairfax
Law
Foundation.
She
is
a
co-author
of
18
books
published
by
the
ABA.



John
W.
Simek
(jsimek@senseient.com)
is
vice
president
of
Sensei
Enterprises,
Inc.
He
is
a
Certified
Information
Systems
Security
Professional
(CISSP),
Certified
Ethical
Hacker
(CEH),
and
a
nationally
known
expert
in
the
area
of
digital
forensics.
He
and
Sharon
provide
legal
technology,
cybersecurity,
and
digital
forensics
services
from
their
Fairfax,
Virginia
firm.



Michael
C.
Maschke
(mmaschke@senseient.com)
is
the
CEO/Director
of
Cybersecurity
and
Digital
Forensics
of
Sensei
Enterprises,
Inc.
He
is
an
EnCase
Certified
Examiner,
a
Certified
Computer
Examiner
(CCE
#744),
a
Certified
Ethical
Hacker,
and
an
AccessData
Certified
Examiner.
He
is
also
a
Certified
Information
Systems
Security
Professional.

The
unfounded
attack
on
the
Ukrainian
people
by
Russia
and
the
horrifying
humanitarian
crisis
that
is
unfolding
there
come
on
the
heels
of
another
global
catastrophe
that
hit
Afghanistan
less
than
a
year
ago.
Though
these
crises
may
seem
insurmountable
to
most
Americans,
elements
of
immigration
laws
can
be
used
to
bring
at-risk
people
to
safety.

While
world
leaders
struggle
to
find
diplomatic
solutions,
lives
are
being
lost
in
Ukraine.
Poland,
Moldova,
Hungary,
Bulgaria,
and
Romania
have
given
a
warm
welcome
and
refuge
to
many
Ukrainians.
I
believe
those
who
want
to
come
to
the
U.S.
should
be
afforded
the
opportunity.

Here
are
three
strategies
U.S.
leaders
could
consider:

B1/B2
visa:

A
B1/B2
visa
allows
people
to
visit
the
U.S.
on
a
temporary
basis.

Firstly,
anyone
in
possession
of
a
valid
B1/B2
visa
should
be
allowed
to
enter
the
United
States.
U.S.
Customs
and
Border
Protection
officers
should
be
given
guidance
to
allow
such
visitors
to
enter
without
difficulty.
Utmost
compassion
should
be
extended
to
them.

Secondly,

evacuation
of
the
U.S
embassy
in
Ukraine
means
that
no
one
can
apply
for
a
visa
from
within
the
country.
Anyone
who
has
the
opportunity
and
ability
to
apply
for
a
B1/B2
visa
at
any
neighboring
embassy
should
be
given
compassionate
interviews.
In
fact,
the
U.S.
Department
of
State
should
consider
waiving
those
interviews
and
issue
visas
promptly.
The
usual
scrutiny
should
be
waived,
and
as
long
as
Ukrainians
have
family
or
friends
in
the
U.S.,
we
should
admit
them.

Temporary
Protected
Status

Ukrainians
already
in
the
U.S
—
whether
as
visitors,
students,
or
under
some
other
visa
status
—
should
be
allowed
to
remain
here
as
long
as
is
necessary.
The
law
allows
for
such
measures
under
the
provisions
of
“temporary
protected
status”
(TPS).
TPS
is
a
temporary
immigration
status
provided
to
people
from
certain
countries
experiencing
disasters,
catastrophes,
or
other
problems
that
make
it
difficult
or
unsafe
for
their
citizens
to
return
home.
TPS
holders
are
allowed
to
work
and
live
here
until
their
TPS
status
is
removed.

There
are
several
grounds
under
which
countries
can
be
designated
TPS.
One
of
them
is
an
ongoing
armed
conflict,
such
as
a
civil
war,
that
poses
a
serious
threat
to
the
personal
safety
of
returning
nationals.
Another
is
extraordinary
and
temporary
conditions
that
prevent
its
citizens
from
safely
returning
unless
the
U.S.
government
finds
that
permitting
these
nationals
to
remain
temporarily
in
the
United
States
is
contrary
to
the
U.S.
national
interest.
The
U.S.
Secretary
of
Homeland
Security
has
the
authority
to
make
such
a
designation.

We
don’t
know
how
long
this
crisis
will
last
and
how
it
will
continue
to
unfold.
As
I
write
this,
talks
between
Ukrainian
and
Russian
leaders
have
ended,
and
the
delegations
are
returning
home
to
consult.
Yet,
Russian
forces
continue
their
attack
on
Ukraine.
Providing
Ukrainians
already
in
the
U.S.
with
TPS
protection
will
go
a
long
way
in
bringing
security
to
some
people.
Since
this
provision
is
immediately
available,
the
administration
should
not
delay
in
making
the
designation.

Humanitarian
Parole
Program

We
have
learned
many
immigration
policy
lessons
in
the
aftermath
of
last
summer’s
U.S.
troop
withdrawal
from
Afghanistan
and
the
resulting
disaster
that
left
many
Afghans
in
peril.
Those
conditions
remain
ongoing.
Applications
for
humanitarian
parole
for
Afghan
nationals
have
had

little
success,
proof
that
the
individual
application
process
is
not
the
answer
in
a
mass
crisis.

For
months,
immigration
advocates
have
been
advocating
for
something
different,
a
humanitarian
parole
program,
with
established
parameters
that
allow
certain
groups
of
people
into
the
U.S.
rather
than
filing
individual
applications
for
approval
as
a
prerequisite
to
entry.
It’s
now
past
time
that
we
create
such
a
program.
The
emergency
situation
in
Ukraine
necessitates
swift
action.

DHS
has
established

special
parole
programs
in
the
past.
Examples
include
the
Cuban
Family
Reunification
Parole
Program
(CFRP)
created
in
2007
and
the
Haitian
Family
Reunification
Parole
Program
(HFRP)
created
in
2014.

Given
the
humanitarian
crises
we
are
encountering,
it’s
important
that
we
seek
ways
to
address
novel
problems
with
novel
solutions.
I
believe
the
administration
has
stellar
leadership
at
the
helm.
Though
there
are
many
priorities
for
the
DHS
to
address,
saving
lives,
especially
when
there
are
nuclear
threats
at
hand,
should
rise
to
the
top
of
the
list.

---

Tahmina
Watson is
the
founding
attorney
of Watson
Immigration
Law in
Seattle,
where
she
practices
US
immigration
law
focusing
on
business
immigration.
She
has
been
blogging
about
immigration
law
since
2008
and
has
written
numerous
articles
in
many
publications.
She
is
the
author
of Legal
Heroes
in
the
Trump
Era:
Be
Inspired.
Expand
Your
Impact.
Change the
World and The
Startup
Visa:
Key
to
Job
Growth
and
Economic
Prosperity
in
America.  She
is
also
the
founder
of
The
Washington
Immigrant
Defense
Network
(WIDEN),
which
funds
and
facilitates
legal
representation
in
the
immigration
courtroom,
and
co-founder
of Airport
Lawyers,
which
provided
critical
services
during
the
early
travel
bans.
Tahmina
is
regularly
quoted
in
the
media
and
is
the
host
of
the
podcast Tahmina
Talks
Immigration.
She
is
a
Puget
Sound
Business
Journal
2020
Women
of
Influence
honoree.
 Business
Insider recently
named
her
as
one
of
the
top
immigration
attorneys
in
the
U.S.
that
help
tech
startups.


You
can
reach
her
by
email
at tahmina@watsonimmigrationlaw.com,

connect
with
her
on
LinkedIn or
follow
her
on
Twitter
at
@tahminawatson.

My
first
week
working
here,
I
got
a
kind
email
from
a
longtime
ATL
reader.
He
welcomed
me
to
the
team
and
asked
for
a
small
favor
—
he
wanted
me
to
turn
ATL’s
comment
section
back
on.
Not
only
did
it
occasion
a
good
chuckle
(the
answer
to
reinstating
the
comment
section
was
and
will
remain
no),
it
perked
my
ears
and
sights
for
chances
to
get
real
time
comments
and
questions
about
the
legal
community
at
large.
And
where
better
to
look
than
Reddit,
the
front
page
of
the
internet?

On
r/LawSchool,
u/Newlawyermoney
asked:

How
important
is
morality
and
social
responsibility
to
you
with
regard
to
your
practice?
I’m
a
2nd
year
healthcare
corporate/M&A
attorney
and
sometimes
feel
it
conflicts
with
my
desire
to
do
good
in
the
world.

They
are
far
from
the
first
lawyer
or
law
student
to
ask
someone
else

how
much
a
dollar
cost.
I
remember
being
in
one
of
those
three-credit
interim
negotiations
roleplaying
classes
your
law
school
makes
you
take
a
couple
years
ago.
I
don’t
remember
the
exact
details
of
the
conflict
but
I
know
the
gist
—
Money
McMoneyson
had
a
legal
problem
and
I
had
just
the
know-how
to
make
it
evaporate.
For
him,
it
would
be
a
few
pennies,
for
me,
a
world
of
difference.
The
simulation
was
a
joy.
I’ve
been
many
a
teacher’s
bane
since
Pre-K.
I
liked
talking
back
as
a
kid
and
the
intellectual
prodding
continued
well
into
an
undergraduate
debate
career
—
the
JD
is
just
the
recent
proof
of
a
longstanding
commitment
to
rhetoric
and
sophistry.
I’ve
read
my
Robert
Greene
and
my
3D
Negotiation
—
it
all
came
together
in
the
simulation
such
that
I
did
not
achieve
my
client’s
goals.
I

surpassed
them.
And
it
felt
good.
Very
good.
Until
I
realized
what
I
did.
Even
though
it
was
just
a
simulation,
I
got
that
yucky
feeling
in
my
stomach.
Some
viscous
element
of
the
experiment
got
stuck
in
my
skull
and
I
just
had
to
ask
the
teacher
about
it.
How
do
people
go
about
doing
this,
like
actually

doing
this,
everyday?
She
felt
my
concern
and
responded
with
an
“everyone
deserves
representation”
response
which
mind
you,
is
all
some
folks
need.
But
the
unease
didn’t
pass.
Responding
to
OP’s
question,
u/greengirl213
responded
with
this
gem:

If
you
are
feeling
like
it
is
conflicting
with your
moral
compass,
it
doesn’t
matter
how
other
people
feel.
A
lot
of
people
(and
a
lot
of
lawyers)
see
themselves
as
just
cogs
in
the
system,
and
that
the
system
will
exist
whether
they
participate
or
not.
One
of
my
best
friends
worked
at
a
major
law
firm
in
NYC
after
graduating
from
law
school
and
after
about
5
years,
she
had
to
leave.
She
felt
like
every
day
she
went
into
work
and
helped
make
insanely
rich
people
richer,
defend
even
richer
people
from
being
held
accountable,
and
just
generally
did
not
feel
like
her
work
was
having
a
positive
impact.
She
works
at
a
non-profit
now
and
is
happier
than
ever.
She
said
every
day
she
wakes
up
excited
to
go
to
work
and
even
when
things
don’t
go
her
way,
she
can
go
to
bed
at
night
knowing
that
she’s
making
a
difference,
even
if
it
is
a
tiny
one.
This
was
really
eye
opening
for
me
(when
she
told
me
about
this)
and
therefore,
morality
&
social
responsibility
is
#1
on
my
list
of
priorities
with
regards
to
where
I
want
to
work.
Everyone
has
a
different
calculus.

This
is
a
hell
of
an
answer.
One
in
that
it
poignantly
gets
at
the
heart
of
a
complicated
ethical
and
pragmatic
problem.
Also
in
that
it
rebounds
the
question
onto
the
asker.
It’s
one
of
those
perennial
questions
that
sprouts
back
up,
be
it
because
your
reflection
catches
your
eye
in
a
way
it
usually
doesn’t
after
you
finally
submit
that
complaint
on
behalf
of
a
sketchy
client
or,
you
know,
a
country
decides
to
invade
another
country.
But
it’s
an
important
one
to
mull
and
ruminate
over
when
it
presents
itself.

Is
it
a
question
you
think
about
often?
How
satisfied
are
you
with
how
you
answered
it?
Let
me
know
at
cwilliams@abovethelaw.com.
Answers
will
be
anonymous
unless
you
request
otherwise.
Let’s
figure
it
out
together.

How
important
is
morality
and
social
responsibility
to
you
with
regard
to
your
practice?
I’m
a
2nd
year
healthcare
corporate/M&A
attorney
and
sometimes
feel
it
conflicts
with
my
desire
to
do
good
in
the
world.
[Reddit]

---

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 cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

For
the
past
few
years,
law
student
recruitment
for
summer
associate
programs
has
been
incredibly
successful,
harkening
back
to
a
time
when
law
students
quickly
accepted
the
offers
that
Biglaw
firms
handed
out
like
candy.
Amid
an
unprecedented
cash
rush
for
associates
and
high
demand
for
legal
services,
the
2021
recruitment
cycle
was
no
different
—
offers
were
plentiful,
and
acceptance
of
those
offers
was
even
higher.
Things
are
going
smashingly
well
in
the
Biglaw
sphere
when
it
comes
to
recruitment.

According
to
the
latest
recruiting
figures
from
the
National
Association
for
Law
Placement
(NALP),
offer
rates
from
Biglaw
summer
programs
remained
close
to
historic
highs,
with
97%
of
second-year
law
students
receiving
offers
for
full-time
employment
as
associates
after
graduation.
Acceptances
of
those
offers
reached
an
all-time,
historic
high
of
89%.
What’s
even
more
exciting
is
that
this
historic
acceptance
rate
is significantly
higher
than
acceptance
rates
measured
before
the
Great
Recession,
which
tended
to
hover
between
73
to
77
percent.

Here’s
what
James
Leipold,
NALP’s
executive
director,
had
to
say:

“Law
firms
have
been
scrambling
for
talent
at
both
the
lateral
and
entry
levels.
As
a
result,
recruiting
activity
in
2021
was
robust,
with
offer
rates
for
summer
spots
reaching
their
highest
mark
since
2007.
…
The
pandemic
has
changed
some
of
the
methodologies
of
the
law
firm
recruitment
process,
but
it
has
not
dampened
any
of
the
competition.
The
OCI
screening
interview
process
is
likely
to
remain
virtual,
or
at
least
partially
so,
and
2L
recruiting
is
likely
to
continue
to
happen
early
and
fast.
For
1Ls,
recruiting
is
also
likely
to
be
robust,
particularly
for
diversity
fellowships,
and
with
a
little
luck,
the
renewed
energy
around
3L
recruiting
will
remain
for
some
time.”

But
don’t
get
too
excited,
because
Leipold
cautions
that
this
isn’t
likely
to
last
forever.
“Tempering
that
fairly
rosy
picture
is
the
inevitable
boom
and
bust
cycle
of
law
firm
profitability,”
he
said.
“This
hot
talent
market
will
inevitably
cool,
one
way
or
another.”

Here
are
some
interesting
facts
about
the
summer
programs
of
2021:

• What
  with
  the
  ongoing
  COVID-19
  pandemic,
  60%
  of
  law
  firms
  held
  a
  hybrid
  summer
  program
  with
  a
  mix
  of
  both
  in-person
  and
  virtual
  programming,
  while
  28%
  held
  an
  entirely
  virtual
  program.
  Just
  12%
  of
  firms
  held
  an
  entirely
  in-person
  program.
• The
  average
  summer
  program
  class
  size
  in
  2021
  was
  12,
  up
  from
  11
  in
  2020.
  Let’s
  not
  forget
  that
  the
  average
  summer
  program
  class
  size
  was
  13
  in
  2019,
  and
  it
  had
  previously
  been
  flat
  at
  14
  from
  2016
  to
  2018.
  (Compare
  this
  to
  the
  history
  of
  summer
  programs
  at
  the
  biggest
  of
  Biglaw
  firms
  (700+
  lawyers),
  where
  summer
  class
  sizes
  have
  continuously
  fallen
  since
  2016
  (from
  22
  in
  2016
  to
  20
  in
  2017
  and
  so
  on).)
• For
  1Ls
  who
  worked
  as
  summer
  associates,
  offer
  rates
  for
  a
  second
  summer
  at
  their
  firms
  were
  also
  history,
  at
  an
  all-time
  high
  of
  93%,
  with
  an
  acceptance
  rate
  of
  72%.
  According
  to
  firms,
  more
  than
  half
  (55%)
  of
  1L
  summers
  were
  diversity
  fellows.

Congratulations
to
all
law
students
who
went
through
the
entry-level
recruitment
cycle
in
2021,
as
things
seem
to
have
worked
out
marvelously
for
them,
no
matter
how
much
the
pandemic
may
have
tried
to
interfere.
Let’s
be
thankful
that
a
new
generation
of
associates
wasn’t
lost
thanks
to
COVID.

Robust
Entry-level
Law
Firm
Recruiting
Activity
Reflects
Broader
Competition
for
Legal
Talent
[NALP]

---

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.

Looking
for
a
free
resource
to
help
streamline
the
payment
experience
for
your
firm
and
its
clients?

Our
friends
at
LawPay
have
got
you
covered.

LawPay’s
free
attorney
billing
guide
includes
some
of
the
company’s
most-requested
resources,
packaged
together
to
help
small
firms
navigate
all
things
billing.

The
guide
is
designed
to
help
you
protect
yourself
from
chargebacks
and
create
efficient
processes,
all
while
setting
reasonable
expectations
and
generating
strong
communication
in
the
attorney-client
relationship.

We’re
pleased
to
offer
this
free
resource
for
download
below.

By
filling
out
the
form,
you
are
opting
in
to
receive
communication


from
Above
the
Law
and
its
partners.

Money,
money,
money
—
and
even
more
money:
that’s
what
Biglaw
firms
are
handing
out
to
associates
thanks
to
the
Cravath
salary
scale
that’s
quickly
being
matched
by
the
masses.
The
latest
firm
to
adopt
the
Cravath
scale
is
one
that
matched
the
Davis
Polk
scale
less
than
one
week
ago.

The
firm
we’re
speaking
about
is
Debevoise,
a
firm
that’s
ranked
at
No.
31
in
the
most
recent
Am
Law
100,
with
$1,224,942,000
gross
revenue
in
2020.
On

February
23,
the
firm
was
paying
salaries
of
up
to
$406,500,
and
today,
on
March
1,
the
firm
is
paying
salaries
that
are
much,
much
higher.

This
is
what
the
Cravath
scale
will
look
like
at
Debevoise:

2021:
$215,000

2020:
$225,000

2019:
$250,000

2018:
$295,000

2017:
$345,000

2016:
$370,000

2015:
$400,000

2014:
$415,000

2013
and
senior:
$425,000

Note
that
Debevoise
is
yet
again
offering
more
cash
to
its
most
experienced
associates.
Ninth-years
and
those
more
senior
will
receive
salaries
of
$425,000.

The
firm’s
re-raise
is
retroactive
to
January
1.
Congrats
for
the
second
time!

(Flip
to
the
next
page
to
read
the
full
memo
from
Debevoise.)

Remember
everyone,
we
depend
on
your
tips
to
stay
on
top
of
this
stuff.
So
when
your
firm
matches,
please
text
us
(646-820-8477)
or email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Matches”).
Please
include
the
memo
if
available.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
send
it
via
text
or
email
if
you
don’t
want
to
forward
the
original
PDF
or
Word
file.

And
if
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Bonus
Alerts
(which
is
the
alert
list
we’ll
also
use
for
salary
announcements),
please
scroll
down
and
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below
this
post.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
the
bonus
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
bonus
announcement
that
we
publish.

---

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.

---

---

Biglaw
firms
really
have
two
good
responses
when
an
international
crisis
shines
a
light
on
how
they’ve
gotten

hip-deep
in
Russian
government
clients
(or
at
least
involved
with
clients
facing
edicts
to
cut
off
existing
relationships
with
Russian
entities).
First,
they
can
announce
that
they’re
dropping
these
Russian
entities
immediately
in
light
of
the
overwhelming
international
economic
crackdown
on
Vladimir
Putin’s
regime.
Second,
they
can
keep
a
low
profile
while
trying
to
find
a

graceful
exit
strategy
if
the
specific
work
carries
professional
obligations
that
prevent
the
firm
from
dropping
the
client
on
a
dime.

What
firms
don’t
want
to
do
is
make
it
look
like
they’ve
got
something
to
hide
by
sending
a
confusing
message
to
their
thousands
of
attorneys
about
keeping
their
mouths
shut
about
what’s
going
on.

Norton
Rose
woke
up
and

chose
this
route.

Norton
Rose
Fulbright
has
issued
an
‘internal
notice
relating
specifically
to
external
commentary
on
sanctions’,
a
spokesperson
confirmed
to
the Gazette,
adding
that
the
firm
has
‘appropriate
risk
management
policies
in
place
across
our
global
business’.

They
said:
‘Our
sanctions
team
is
advising
clients
across
the
world
and,
given
the
rapidly
evolving
situation,
it
is
important
that
this
advice
is
provided
directly,
through
the
appropriate
channels.
We
therefore
recently
issued
an
internal
notice
relating
specifically
to
external
commentary
on
sanctions.

Um…
what
does
that
mean?
The
most
generous
interpretation
is
simply
that
attorneys
should
decline
to
offer
themselves
to
the
media
as
experts
on
the
sanctions
process
while
the
firm
is
trying
to
advise
clients
directly.
Ideally,
the
firm
would
clarify
that
this
only
relates
to
sanctions
and
not
the
crisis
itself.

But
without
that
clarity,
the
statement
certainly
seems
to
suggest
“we
don’t
want
to
see
any
NRF
employees
on
social
media
expressing
support
for
isolating
Putin.”
As
one
might
imagine,
this
got
people
very
angry.

And
at
least
one
of
those
people
appears
to
be
senior
Norton
Rose
management.

Biglawboiz
captured
this:

Hopefully,
Soliman’s
read
prevails
within
Norton
Rose.

Because
it’s
one
thing
for
a
sprawling
firm
to
tell
lawyers
that
the
right
hand
shouldn’t
offer
legal
advice
to
the
newspaper
while
the
left
hand
is
trying
to
sort
out
a
oil
and
gas
forward
contract.
It’s
another
to
tell
the
firm
to
not
talk.

Norton
Rose
tells
lawyers:
no
‘external
commentary’
on
Russian
sanctions
[Law
Society
Gazette]

---

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.

Nothing
brightens
the
first
of
the
month
quite
like
more
money
in
your
pocket.

Latham
&
Watkins,
which
grossed
a
whopping
$4,333,763,000
gross
revenue
in
2020,
continues
its
trend
of
money
moves
by
matching
Cravath’s
freshly
released
salary
scale.
(But
that’s
not
all
—
check
out
the
cash
that
9th
years
will
be
receiving…
$425K!)

The
raises
will
be
retroactive
to
January
1
and
will
hit
bank
accounts
in
March.
While
they
may
in
second
place
on
the
American
Lawyer’s
2021
Am
Law
100
ranking,
this
type
of
money
is
second
to
none.
Who
is
next
to
follow
(law)
suit?

(Turn
to
the
next
page
to
see
the
Latham
&
Watkins
memo.)

***
Wondering
if
the
grass
is
greener
on
the
in-house
side?
Click
here
for
a
look
inside
the
black
box
of
corporate
counsel
pay
in
our
2021
In-House
Compensation
Report.
***

We
like
hearing
about
salary
increases
almost
as
much
as
you
enjoy
spending
them.
As
soon
as
your
firm’s
memo
comes
out,
please email
it
to
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Matches”)
or
text
us
(646-820-8477).
Please
include
the
memo
if
available.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
send
it
via
text
or
email
if
you
don’t
want
to
forward
the
original
PDF
or
Word
file.

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

---

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 cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

---

---