Disgraced Former New York Attorney General Has Law License Suspended

Eric Schneiderman (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman was forced to resign from his position in 2018 following a scandal in which four women accused him of physically abusing them in the course of their relationships. Ultimately, the special prosecutor appointed to look into the allegations, Nassau County District Attorney Madeline Singas, said Schneiderman would not face criminal charges (pesky statute of limitations), but that doesn’t mean there were no consequences for his actions.

According to an order issued by the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department, the former AG has agreed to a one-year suspension of his law license, following a petition of charges filed against him by the Attorney Grievance Committee in August 2020. The order reportedly contains an affidavit submitted by Schneiderman “acknowledging his admission” to certain facts:

“Between July 2013 and December 2014, respondent was involved in a long-term, consensual sexual relationship with M.B. On a number of occasions during their relationship respondent slapped M.B, placed his hands on her neck and applied pressure without obtaining consent, and at times he was verbally and emotionally abusive,” the order states.

And:

“Between August 2016 and September 2017, respondent was involved in a longterm, consensual sexual relationship with T.S.,” the order states. “During their relationship, respondent slapped T.S., placed his hands on her neck and applied pressure without obtaining consent, and at times he was verbally and emotionally abusive.”

Schneiderman also admitted he “slapped an unidentified attorney twice” in the course of a 2016 romantic encounter.

Schneiderman’s one-year suspension begins May 28, 2021. And the court took it a step further:

“It is further ordered that during his period of suspension, and until further order of this Court respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or agent, clerk or employee of another; that respondent is forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority; and respondent is forbidden to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto.”

Schneiderman’s actions were found to be a violation of the rules of professional conduct’s prohibition of “conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer.”

The Law Schools With The Most Underemployed Graduates (2020)

Most law students dream of passing the bar exam after graduating from law school and finding a job in the legal industry as a lawyer. They don’t dream of only being able to put the “bar” in “barista” because their law school pedigree is limiting them in the job market. They especially don’t dream of their job searches being made pointless because of an ongoing pandemic. When you’ve got up to six figures of nondischargeable debt to service after graduation, you want to know that your résumé will make it to a hiring partner’s desk — not the nearest garbage pail.

How can you be certain that the school your law degree is from won’t be a hindrance in your job search — either in good times, or especially turbulent times? Are graduates of your school capable of being hired for law jobs and putting their degrees to use, even during worldwide crises? Sadly, these questions must be asked.

Law.com produced several helpful charts based on law school employment data for the class of 2020. Today, we will highlight one of the more concerning charts, the law schools with the highest percentage of underemployed graduates. These law school graduates are either unemployed, employed in temporary or part-time work, or working in nonprofessional jobs. Here are the top 10 law schools that have helped graduates land rather underwhelming positions:

1. Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico: 66.42%
2. North Carolina Central University: 65.25%
3. Inter American University of Puerto Rico: 50.27%
4. Western State College of Law: 43.68%
5. University of Massachusetts – Dartmouth: 42.37%
6. Golden Gate University: 41.94%
7. California Western School of Law: 41.55%
8. University of Puerto Rico: 41.24%
9. Charleston School of Law: 38.25%
10. Western Michigan University: 38.17%

If you think that’s bad, then look just further down the list. There are actually 22 law schools where 30% of more of 2020 graduates are considered “underemployed” by Law.com’s methodology. It’s not a good look, even during the COVID era.

Click here to see the rest of the law schools with the highest percentage of underemployed graduates, plus other informative charts detailing the schools with the highest percentage of graduates working in Biglaw and in state and federal clerkships, as well as the schools with the most unemployed graduates.

Are you a recent law school graduate who hasn’t been able to find a full-time legal job or a job in the legal profession? What has your law school done to help? We’re interested in learning about your experiences — good or bad — and may anonymously feature some of your stories on Above the Law. You can email us, text us at (646) 820-8477, or tweet us @atlblog. Best of luck in your job search!

Law Grads Hiring Report: Job Stats for the Class of 2020
 [Law.com]


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 Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Joshua Schiller Case Dropped, But Remains Case Study For Law Firms

Joshua Schiller’s January arrest on domestic violence charges seemed destined to be dropped. Before the news even got out, Schiller’s wife was already saying the whole thing was a misunderstanding and it’s difficult to bring a case when the alleged victim is saying nothing happened. Add in a police report that offered little in the way of allegations of serious injury and it was highly unlikely that prosecutors would proceed with charges.

Which is exactly what ended up happening.

Schiller’s attorneys released this statement:

“We are clearly pleased, though not surprised, by the decision to drop the charge in light of the facts and circumstances. The district attorney dismissed the case after a thorough review in the interests of justice because there was no case to prove. As we’ve stated from the beginning, there was no physical harm or instance of domestic violence in this case. Mr. and Ms. Schiller are glad to put this behind them.”

Schiller had already cleared the firm’s internal investigation conducted by Danya Perry of Perry Guha that found no evidence of physical abuse.

But as this case closes, it should remain a case study for how firms deal with abuse allegations against partners. As lawyers, firms don’t want to prejudge a defendant. Yet, as businesses, firms have obligations to employees and clients to treat these allegations seriously. Honoring both impulses is difficult.

In this case, the firm quickly released this statement back in January:

The Firm has been made aware of recent events related to our partner, Josh Schiller. While we have been informed by him and his wife that this was a misunderstanding, the firm will be conducting its own review to better understand what happened. While that review is ongoing, Josh has asked for a leave of absence to focus on his family, and we have agreed to give him this time.

Producing a timely official response announcing an independent inquiry is important. It assures everyone that the firm takes the allegations seriously and recognizes that the high burden of proof that applies to the criminal justice system is not necessarily the standard that applies to the duty of representing the firm. An ideal response would include a more direct condemnation of abuse as a general matter up to and including a strong statement that it has no place within the firm. This statement also put the entire ownership of Schiller’s leave on him, phrasing it as his request that the firm accepted. A better response for future firms in this situation would be to announce that the partner was put on leave by the firm or, at best, that the partner and firm mutually agreed to a leave.

Hiring outside counsel to conduct the investigation was another sound decision. Perry is a prominent white collar litigator with a background at the SDNY U.S. Attorney’s Office as Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division. That’s exactly the resume a firm should seek out in conducting an internal review.

Some controversy emerged around this matter when news broke that Schiller was continuing to circulate conflict checks, suggesting he never stopped generating business while supposedly on leave. As we’ve pointed out before, putting aside the underlying claims, showing a lack of respect for the process undermines the firm investigation. The firm rejected the claims about conflict checks, which may resolve the issue, but it all goes back to the problem of phrasing the leave as the attorney’s decision as opposed to the firm’s. Clear boundaries need to be set for any leave.

Hopefully firms will not have to confront the situation of partners accused of serious out-of-the-office crimes. But realistically something like this is going to come up again and whether or not the allegations ultimately result in criminal action, what happened here should be top of mind when firms craft their responses.

Earlier: Biglaw Partner Arrested On Domestic Violence Charge


HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

The Extravagant Gifts In The Academy Awards Swag Bags Can Result In A Tax Bill

For those who watch the Academy Awards, there is more to it than who wins the Oscar. Celebrities are scrutinized for what they wear and who they bring with them. Recently, people are eyeing the swag gift bag, an assortment of products and services provided to the nominees of the Best Actor, Best Actress, and Best Director awards. With an estimated value of $205,000, the swag bag is also attracting the eyes of the taxmen, who want their pound of flesh.

The swag bag is provided by Distinctive Assets, a celebrity product-placement marketing company. In the past, the Academy provided the gift bags themselves. But they stopped in 2006 when the IRS began to investigate whether these gift bags could be taxable. Eventually, the agency announced that receipt of these gift bags could be taxable income to the recipients.

So what are in these swag bags? Mostly they are regular consumer products and some novelty items. But there are also some lavish and outlandish gifts that are attracting media attention. This includes workout sessions with a celebrity trainer, a liposuction procedure, home renovation management services, complimentary vacation packages worth several thousand dollars, and a 24-karat gold vape cartridge to name a few. And perhaps the most modern gift in this package is a nonfungible token containing a digital artwork of the late Oscar nominee Chadwick Boseman.

Since these bags contain such exquisite items, one can see why tax agencies would want to know whether receipt of these items are taxable. These raises some interesting tax questions.

The first question is why these swag gift bags are subject to income tax when they are gifts. First, calling something a gift doesn’t mean that it is. Just like putting a turbo badge on your Prius or pet turtle won’t increase its quarter-mile time.

Also, the tax law has its own definition of what qualifies as a gift. It comes from the Supreme Court case of Commissioner v. Duberstein where it ruled that a transfer is a gift when the transferor’s intent comes from a “detached and disinterested generosity, out of affection, respect, admiration, charity, or like impulses.”

So do the businesses that participate in the swag bags have this sense of detached and disinterested generosity toward the nominees? Are they providing these gifts with the same intent as they would for someone celebrating an anniversary or seeing a homeless child begging for food on a snowy street? It is theoretically possible but highly unlikely. They participate (and pay up to $25,000 for the privilege) hoping that the celebrities that use them will directly or indirectly promote them on mainstream media or to their millions of followers on social media.

The second question is when the taxable event is triggered. Generally, the taxable event occurs when you receive the product. But this can get confusing for some of the more expensive service gifts, such as the free liposuction services and the vacation packages. Does the gift recipient get taxed when they get the gift certificate? Or when they actually redeem it? Thankfully, the IRS has ruled that the recipient must include the fair market value of the services at the time it is redeemed.

Finally, there are some international tax issues as well. A few of the nominees are not U.S. residents, which means they could be subject to income taxes in both the U.S. and their home countries. This double tax threat is usually mitigated by tax credits for foreign income taxes paid. There are also income tax treaties between the U.S. and other countries which usually limit how much the U.S. can tax nonresidents with reciprocal rules for U.S. citizens earning income at a treaty country.

But generally, the IRS does not like to collect taxes owed by nonresidents. So instead, they impose a withholding requirement on the payor (or a withholding agent) if the income (or gifts in this case) is considered fixed, determinable, annual, or periodic income. Since these swag bags do not contain cash, how the withholding will be done will be problematic. For a dozen cookies, will the donor have to give four of them to the IRS? Or when it comes to a three-day vacation package, does one day have to be given to a government employee? The most likely case is that the payor will have to withhold a percentage of the cash value of the gift and pay it to the IRS and possibly the state.

There are more issues than the ones mentioned above. But the receipt of swag bags at awards shows raises a host of tax issues because it is not a case where the recipient is compensated in exchange for goods and services in the usual sense. While these bags are somehow valued at over $200,000, whether they will be taxed on the entire amount upon receipt is questionable. They can decline the bag, give some of the gifts to charity, or use some of the services at a later time, any of which can change how the recipients are taxed. But if they do accept these gifts, they are not really free. While the recipients may not have to compensate the donors, they will have to pay taxes to the government.


Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and resolve tax disputes. He is also sympathetic to people with large student loans. He can be reached via email at sachimalbe@excite.com. Or you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) and connect with him on LinkedIn.

Stock Market Roars Six Months After Biden Election, Trump Fans Who Pulled Investments Lick Wounds

There are people who know something about the stock market, and then there are people who think they know something about the stock market. In my experience, the former know enough about the stock market to realize they can’t possibly predict what it’s going to do in the long term (at least not beyond recognizing that it will just generally go up over a long enough period). The latter, well, sometimes they get lucky. I mean, there are only two possibilities, right? The stock market, or even an individual stock, is either going to go down or up over time. So, it can be really easy to convince yourself you’ve got some skills as an investor that are beyond the grasp of the algorithms and the Wall Street pros. Really though, it’s not that unusual to just get lucky on a few coin flips.

That being the case, I was a little amused last November by all the people I heard saying they were going to pull all their money out of their 401(k)s if Joe Biden won the election (I return to my hometown for deer hunting season every November, so I tend to encounter rural sentiments right around election time). I might have told a handful of these people the facts: that over the past century, stock market returns have been positive over the terms of more than 80 percent of presidents, and all three presidents who led the country to negative stock market returns during their terms were Republicans. But for the most part, why bother? They weren’t going to believe me over Fox News anyway.

Like most things people say in support of Donald Trump, that was probably just talk. But I really hope some of them did actually pull their money out of their 401(k)s, because the past six months have been a period of nearly unprecedented growth in the stock market. From Election Day, Tuesday, November 3, 2020, to approximately the end of April 2021, the S&P 500 went from about 3,369 to around 4,187. That’s more than a 24 percent return in less than six months. The Nasdaq Composite went from 11,161 on November 3 to 14,090 on April 27, gaining more than 26 percent in less than six months. Biden’s first 100 days in office have seen the strongest stock market returns of any presidential administration’s first 100 days for at least 75 years.

I figure if a long-term capital gain never materializes because you irrationally pulled your money out of the market to spite Democrats or whatever, you will just have that much less money to donate to Trump next time around. But forgetting about Democrats and Republicans for a minute, to the extent that remains possible in our society, all Americans should finally learn the lesson that who the president is usually doesn’t matter all that much to the stock market. Based on historical data, your odds of realizing good returns in the equities markets might be a little better under a Democratic president than under a Republican one. But your odds of seeing positive returns under a president of either party are quite good.

The stock market has been on fire since Biden was elected, and while he inherited a stock market that was already making a solid recovery following the initial COVID-19 plunge, he probably still deserves some credit. But the lesson to take away here isn’t just that Biden has been far from the disaster for the stock market that some Trump supporters feared. The lesson is don’t pull your money out of the stock market because you are pouting about an election result. Why rub monetary losses in the open wound of an unfavorable election result?

Neither you nor I know better than however it is already priced into the market how the next president will affect the stock market. I didn’t pull my money out of the stock market when Trump was elected. I obviously didn’t pull it out when Biden was elected either. I certainly won’t convert my investments to cash after the election of whomever the next president is. Neither should you.


Jonathan Wolf is a civil litigator and author of Your Debt-Free JD (affiliate link). He has taught legal writing, written for a wide variety of publications, and made it both his business and his pleasure to be financially and scientifically literate. Any views he expresses are probably pure gold, but are nonetheless solely his own and should not be attributed to any organization with which he is affiliated. He wouldn’t want to share the credit anyway. He can be reached at jon_wolf@hotmail.com.

Don’t Throw Clients Under The Bus, Unless They’re Protesters

A couple of stories out of Littler Mendelson this week, as one partner disappears from the website after pointing the finger at his client in federal court while the firm itself ducks special bonuses for associates by handing out hats. By contrast, Kirkland went over the top on associate appreciation with free food. Joe and Kathryn unsurprisingly think the latter is a better approach. The team also discusses new anti-riot legislation legalizing running over protesters.

Hedge Fund Manager Spent Legitimate Earnings On Race Cars, Allegedly Needed To Commit Fraud To Buy A Place To Keep Them

There are so many things one can do with the proceeds of a hedge-fund fraud. You can buy enough teddy bears (and an appropriate place to keep them) to make you feel as safe and cuddly and loved as necessary. You can buy a one-of-a-kind Wu Tang Clan album. You could have the greatest weekend of your life in Las Vegas hanging out with Leonardo DiCaprio. You could drop six figures on tattoos and booze and getting your cat the most bitching grooming of all time and also some “firearms-related expenses.”

Morning Docket: 04.28.21

* A Wisconsin woman has filed a lawsuit against the maker of bagel bites pizza snacks alleging that they do not contain real mozzarella cheese and tomato sauce. Must be a true “Cheesehead”… [KIRO]

* Brittany Spears is asking for some facetime with the judge overseeing her conservatorship. [New York Daily News]

* A lawyer has been suspended from practice for five years for firing several bullets into a colleagues law office. [ABA Journal]

* A New York City lawyer has seemingly vanished leaving clients and their money in the lurch. [Haute Living]

* Donald Trump has lost his effort to avoid sitting for a deposition in a lawsuit filed by protesters who were allegedly assaulted outside of Trump Tower. Not a first for the Donald… [New York Post]


Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.

Lawyer Comes Through With Awful Disney Take — See Also

(Photo by Olga Thompson/Walt Disney World Resort via Getty Images)

Going Viral Isn’t Always A Good Thing: Anti-wokeness crusader/district attorney gets dragged.

Other Bad Legal Takes: Elon Musk edition.

More Bad Ideas: From Capitol rioters, a group *known* for bad ideas.

Law Schools Leading The Pack: With unemployed grads. Yikes.

Associates Aren’t Happy: With K&L Gates’ take on special bonuses.