Author: TSA Press

He may not have known what one was when he became president—and, let’s face it, that’s true of pretty much every subject—but, unlike many other things, Donald Trump has learned a thing or two about cryptocurrencies, and he doesn’t like them any more than he likes Nancy Pelosi or people with dark skin. Hates them enough to have ordered Steve Mnuchin to do something about them, which he’s finally gotten around to. Of course, consistency and competence haven’t been any more hallmarks of this administration than open-minded curiosity or learning, and so does it surprise you to learn that two different divisions of the very same Cabinet department—the best-run one we’ve got, or so we are terrifyingly told—would be operating at totally cross-purposes when it comes to imaginary money?

It is sometimes difficult for lawyers to evaluate how our actions affect other people. Indeed, the decisions lawyers make can have a massive impact on others, but we are often unable to observe the consequences of those acts. I, like many attorneys, regularly send certified letters asking for a return receipt to be signed confirming delivery. Sometimes, I send mail this way because I am required to by court rules or statutes, and other times, I use this method as a matter of preference. Although I have not received a certified letter that required a signature in years, I recently got two such letters in the mail. The experience has shown me that lawyers should try to send fewer certified letters with return receipt requested during the pandemic because of public health considerations and other reasons.

I have been an enthusiastic subscriber of Informed Delivery®, a service of the United States Postal Service, for years. This capability is amazing, and it basically allows you to see all of the mailpieces you will receive for a given day by email each morning. A few weeks ago, I noticed that I would be receiving two certified letters from a random attorney in my area that would be delivered that day.

All throughout the day, I racked my brain thinking about why I would be receiving such certified letters. I was pretty sure that the letters were part of a mass mailing, since the addresses on the letters were in a weird format that is listed on public records related to my condo. Unfortunately, my suspense about the purpose of the certified letters did not end that day because the mail carrier left me a note in my mailbox indicating that I would have to come to the post office to pick up my letters because a signature could not be obtained when the letters were delivered.

Normally a trip to the post office isn’t a big deal, but several weeks ago, I suffered my annual “back attack” which left me pretty sprung out for a handful of days (thankfully I have since recovered!). The post office in my town is over a mile away, and up a hill, and since the parking situation on the main drag of my town is a nightmare, I knew I would have to walk to the post office. After slowly making my way to the post office with my bad back, I discovered that the line at the post office was so long that it extended outside.

I stood in line at the post office for over an hour, my back hurting unbelievably the entire time, just to sign for the certified letters. I noticed that many of the people in line at the post office had the same slip of paper that I received directing us to come to the post office to sign for our mail. While in line, all of us had to stand inside for a long period of time next to dozens of other people, and post offices are not known for their good ventilation.

After finally signing for my certified letters, I discovered that I was receiving a notice because a developer wanted to make changes to the area in which my condo was located, and I was being given notice of a zoning board hearing to discuss the issue. I was pretty upset! I had absolutely no intention of attending the hearing that discussed this mundane issue. In addition, I did a cursory search of all the laws cited in the letter, and I could find no requirement that any notices be sent by certified mail with return receipt requested (although I readily admit I could have missed something!). In my frustration at wasting hours over these certified letters, I thought about sending the lawyer who wrote that letter a certified letter of my own with return receipt requested so she could get a taste of what I experienced. However, I soon thought better of the situation, and licked my wounds by heading to the White Castle near the post office to satisfy my craving. At least the trip was not a total waste!

There are some situations in which lawyers need to send certified letters with return receipt requested because a law or court rule requires this method. In addition, there are certain situations in which it is advantageous to use this method. As my adversaries will readily convey, I am a practitioner in the dark arts of spoliation, which often requires that a party be put on notice about a claim and their obligation to preserve evidence. One of the best ways to prove that a party has notice about a claim is to send them a spoliation letter and use the return receipt card to prove that the other party received the letter. In addition, sometimes parties wish to send certified letters with return receipt requested in order to broadcast to the other party that the letter is important.

However, we are currently enduring one of the worst public health crises in over a century. Forcing people to wait in line at the post office does not help with social distancing, and when lawyers send hundreds or even thousands of certified letters with return receipt requested in one community, it can overburden the postal service, which does not need any additional issues right now. As a result, lawyers should carefully evaluate if they really need to send letters by certified mail return receipt requested for the remainder of the pandemic.

---

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.

Today, we’ve got some unfortunate news from the law school community in Connecticut, where a young law student was killed about a mile from campus after being hit by a commercial truck.

The law student — a 25-year-old male whose name has not yet been released — was riding a bicycle when he was struck in an intersection close to the Yale-New Haven Hospital. The Yale Daily News has the details on the fatal crash:

A 10 p.m. news release from the NHPD indicated that the bicyclist was traveling north on York Street in the far-right, right-turn only lane. He continued to ride straight through the intersection.

Meanwhile, the 35-year-old truck operator was driving northbound in the center lane on York, which is both a straight and a right-turn lane. The cyclist collided with the truck’s passenger side as the driver turned right onto South Frontage.

Prior to the arrival of New Haven emergency responders, a passing North Branford Fire Department ambulance and a American Medical Response supervisor stopped to render aid. After New Haven police and fire departments arrived on the scene, the victim was transported to a nearby hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

The Yale Law student was killed in the same intersection where a Yale Medical School student was struck and killed by a car in 2008. We will offer updates on the victim’s identity when they are released by authorities.

We here at Above the Law would like to extend our condolences to this law student’s family, friends, and colleagues during this incredibly difficult time.

Yale Law School student killed in car crash Tuesday afternoon [Yale Daily News]

---

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.

So, what, exactly is going on with Biglaw bonuses? After the September rash of special COVID-19 appreciation bonuses, we’ve gone silent. After Cravath followed Kirkland into the whole “let’s just wait till the end of the year” camp, no other firm has stepped up with a Fall bonus. But speculation continues among the rank and file associates as to why the firms are delaying anteing up market bonuses.

A sort of answer came when Paul Weiss told their associates no Fall bonuses were coming. Firm Chair Brad Karp said special bonuses would not be “appropriate” and “[p]roviding a special cash reward in direct response to the pandemic does not feel right at this time.”

Above the Law has also heard murmurings from tipsters at other elite Biglaw firms that espouse a similar logic:

[H]ave heard from a few partners who would be in the know that partnership view is that giving COVID bonuses would not be a great look in this economic / social climate

I’m sorry, whaaaaa? Are these firms also not collecting on outstanding bills during a pandemic? Are they donating all of the firm’s profits this year to charities supporting those hit hard by COVID-19? Or is the money sitting in the firms’s coffers rather than being distributed to people who actually did the work? Cool. Cool. Coo-coo-cool.

It’s just so backwards for the top of the Biglaw pyramid to suggest giving money to the bottom rungs isn’t a “good look.” Real talk: if the money isn’t going to employees, it just gets divvied up between the (equity) partners. And here’s the thing, for the most part, Biglaw firms are doing pretty well during the pandemic, so there’s even more money to go around. In fact, revenue went up in the first half of 2020 over 2019, due, in part to annual rate hikes, as Sara Randazzo writes for the Wall Street Journal:

At 125 firms surveyed by Wells Fargo Private Bank’s legal specialty group, revenue rose an average of 6.4% in the first half of the year, compared with a year earlier. With demand roughly the same from last year, according to Wells Fargo, the boost stemmed from annual hourly-rate increases and momentum from a lucrative 2019.

And net income is up even more than that — 25.6 percent — largely because of lower expenses like travel.

King & Spalding’s chair also told the Journal the firm is doing well during the pandemic:

“It’s like building bridges in wartime—you prefer a different environment,” said Robert Hays, the Atlanta-based chairman of King & Spalding LLP. “But we’ve built the bridge. So in terms of the business of the firm, we’re doing quite well.”

And no, King & Spalding isn’t one of the firms that have handed out special bonuses. And yes, insiders at the firm have absolutely noticed:

K&S Chairman has large picture and indicates that the firm is doing quite well, but has not mentioned sharing any largesse with associates (as most people assumed, all bonus announcement have ceased since the cravath announcement). The article also mentions that firms have saved millions on routine costs (i.e., travel). Further, despite the fact that cravath and kirkland partners pocket 4-5 million/year, they are unwilling to share 7.5k with the first year associate who is saddled in law school debt, working day and night in his/her tiny NYC apartment, and potentially taking care of kids or family simultaneously. Please make a bigger deal out of this. Demonstrates that law firm partners are making out like bandits in his pandemic and keeping all the record profits to themselves (outside of the dozen firms that are paying bonuses)

Biglaw firms can talk all they want about how appreciation bonuses are somehow gauche, but the truth is they’re making more money. (And obviously, this rant only applies to firms on strong financial footing. No firm should collapse itself trying to keep up with the Davis Polks of the legal world. Though note, just because firms are laying off people does not necessarily mean there are rocky financials.  As Janet Stanton, a New York-based legal consultant, said, “I think a lot of firms are using 2020 as cover to do things they wanted to do anyway.” If we want to talk about things that are a bad look, that’s a far better target.)

For those increasingly profitable firms, the question is really about who gets the benefits of those profits, not whether making money during a pandemic is a good look. And yes, maybe — hopefully — these firms will account for the fall bonuses their competitors have doled out at the end of the year. But, as they well know, times are hard out there. And while it’s true Biglaw associates are generally well-compensated, even absent bonuses, you have no idea what someone else is going through. Maybe an associate has a relative who’s facing eviction or is supporting an out-of-work family member, or any other hardship, and the bonus money now — not in 3-5 months from now — could make a difference.

---

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).

I had a test recently — actually, the day of that time that I was coughing — I coughed twice, actually, and I was clearing my throat — I had a test maybe two hours earlier, it came back yesterday, and I’m negative. That’s the second one I’ve had since I was with the group in the White House, and unfortunately most of them came down with it, I feel very bad for them.I almost feel a little guilty. I was one of the few along with Jared and Ivanka that didn’t, but so far I don’t, and I’ll go back and get tested again on Friday, and I’ll be out of the woods.

— Rudy Giuliani, who currently serves as President Donald Trump’s personal attorney, offering some insight on his COVID-19 test results. Earlier this week, Giuliani coughed his way through an interview on Fox News, while admitting, “I don’t wear masks as much as probably I should.” Giuliani says he’s been prescribed hydroxychloroquine as a preventative measure.

---

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 survivors of domestic violence, legal assistance can change – or even save – a life. This is especially true for women living in poverty during the COVID-19 pandemic. We spoke with Hamra Ahmad, Director of Law and Policy with Her Justice,  a nonprofit organization that stands with low-income women in New York City by training and mentoring volunteer lawyers to represent them and address individual and systemic barriers. 

Who does Her Justice serve? 

Our clients are the working poor with very limited resources. More than half are foreign-born, a quarter of them need interpreters in court, and most are mothers who are, or become, the heads of their households. We call them “survivors” for a reason; they have experienced unspeakable trauma and violence and have come through it because they are resilient, resourceful and focused on creating better futures for themselves and their children. 

What are some key concerns in the time of COVID-19?

The current crisis continues to create situations that force many of our clients over the edge of poverty and health – both mentally and physically. 

Many of them must engage with the New York City Family Courts to get legal relief that is critical to their safety and well-being, such as orders of protection, financial support from partners, or clear schedules for access to children, and the courts are operating with limited capacity.

Though remote access is essential, technology is often unaffordable for our clients. Paying for cell phones, often their only way to access the internet, is increasingly difficult. Without access to the internet or phone, and with libraries closed (where they previously used free computers) our clients can’t access food assistance, legal assistance, mental health support and health care for themselves and their children. Our clients need access to these services and support now more than ever. 

What don’t lawyers know about domestic violence that they should?

Domestic violence isn’t only physical abuse. Many of our clients experience financial abuse – the control by one intimate partner of the other’s access to economic resources, which diminishes the survivor’s capacity to support themselves and forces them to depend financially on the abuser. This makes it even more difficult for survivors to leave the relationship; for example, with a low credit score, women cannot rent an apartment, get a job or buy a house or car.

Survivors also often shoulder the burden of supporting children; fair and consistent child support can mean the difference between remaining safe and independent or returning to a dangerous situation. In ordinary times, there are more than 70,000 filings for child support in the New York City Family Courts each year. But during this crisis, court closures mean that many families have no access to this needed support.

Can you share tips for working with pro bono clients during the pandemic? 

Safety and confidentiality are key considerations when working with clients remotely. We encourage our staff and pro bono attorneys to ensure a safe, confidential, and comfortable meeting space and to ask the client if she is in a safe place where she has privacy. It’s critical to build trust, identify who you are, and make clear your role and expectations when you meet. For example, if you will be taking notes or typing, it’s important to explain why you are looking away from the camera. 

Determine the best method to speak with her – does she have a reliable phone number or access to a safe computer with a camera? Many clients have prepaid cell phones that may run out at a moment’s notice, so try to obtain a safe, alternate phone number. Can she be reached via a safe email address or through texting (using a secure, confidential platform)? Some clients, especially survivors of digital violence, may feel more comfortable communicating by phone rather than video. If she needs an interpreter, identify one available by the client’s preferred communication method (e.g., phone or video conference). 

Try to determine what times she is likely to be available, who else will be home, and if she can speak privately or if children will be around. It’s important to ask these questions before every conversation in which you anticipate discussing traumatic or sensitive matters.

If she doesn’t have safe access to technology, you may have to factor in time to send documents via regular mail to review and/or sign. Digital photographs of documents are acceptable as long as the quality is good enough for the document to be legible.

To learn more about Her Justice and how you can help, visit https://herjustice.org/. 

PLI has a number of resources that can prepare attorneys to assist domestic violence survivors, including the following on-demand programs: 

---

About PLI

Practising Law Institute is a nonprofit learning organization dedicated to keeping attorneys and other professionals at the forefront of knowledge and expertise. PLI is chartered by the Regents of the University of the State of New York and was founded in 1933 by Harold P. Seligson. The organization provides the highest quality, accredited, continuing legal and professional education programs in a variety of formats which are delivered by more than 4,000 volunteer faculty including prominent lawyers, judges, investment bankers, accountants, corporate counsel, and U.S. and international government regulators. PLI publishes a comprehensive library of Treatises, Course Handbooks, Answer Books and Journals also available through the PLI PLUS online platform. The essence of PLI’s mission is its commitment to the pro bono community. View PLI’s upcoming live webcasts here. 

World War II was the deadliest armed conflict in world history. Almost all of the world’s countries were involved, and the United States played a major role. From the surprise attack at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, to Japan’s eventual signing of formal surrender documents onboard the USS Missouri on September 2, 1945, U.S. troops fought and died during nearly four years of brutal combat in theaters that spanned the globe.

According to the National WWII Museum, the United States suffered 416,800 military deaths throughout the course of the conflict. With civilian deaths included, the U.S. lost 418,500 to World War II. At the time, there were hardly any American families that didn’t have members serving in uniform. By the end of WWII, almost everyone knew someone who had perished in the war effort.

The war deaths were an immediate, stinging reminder of the stakes. But the historical echoes of World War II reverberate even today, eight decades later. It profoundly changed the world.

There were those who spoke out against the U.S. becoming involved in WWII. Most of them fell silent after Pearl Harbor. Later, when it became clear what the Germans were doing to Jews under Nazi leadership, a virulent strain of right-wing Holocaust denial took root — it survives (and in some dark circles, thrives) to this day.

But even among those who thought the U.S. should stay out of World War II, or who denied the full depth of the atrocities committed by the Nazis, almost nobody simply denied that World War II was happening. Almost nobody downplayed its seriousness. Almost nobody said that we should not worry about WWII, because it was mostly killing only young men within a certain age range, and therefore the vast majority of Americans had nothing to worry about.

The first U.S. case of COVID-19 was reported in January, but the deaths did not begin to trickle in on a large scale until late March of this year. New York recorded its first COVID-19 death on March 14, and from there things quickly got worse. There were many days this spring when more than 2,000 Americans were dying of the virus every day. Throughout the summer and into the fall, there have been repeated spikes of more than 1,000 deaths per day.

As I write this, the United States has lost at least 209,600 people to the coronavirus. By the time this article goes to print, that number will have increased by hundreds, and by the time you’re reading it, that number likely will have increased by thousands. From mid-March of this year to early October, we lost half as many Americans to COVID-19 as we lost to WWII, with no end in sight.

In response to a previous column about COVID-19, I got a piece of hate mail. The medical examiner apparently deemed the cause of death of this correspondent’s loved one to be COVID-19, whereas he claimed, using some pretty colorful language, it was “dementia.” President Donald Trump, who is himself laid up with a case of COVID-19, was an early and vocal denier of the seriousness of the coronavirus, and his legions of unthinking supplicants were quick to follow suit. There are millions of these people in the U.S. They will defend the backward idea of COVID-19 being a hoax that every educated person everywhere is in on, even as they’re losing their own family members and as their president convalesces with the virus. I bet no grieving family members during WWII ever got together at a wake and waved away the seriousness of war because their loved one would have died of something else eventually anyway.

The deaths matter though. The U.S. was a very different place in the early 1940s. We had a smaller population. We had a president who was a tested leader, not one who is a failed, barely literate real estate developer. We were more united (maybe more united than at any other time in our national history). But then, just like now, we couldn’t simply soak up the deaths of hundreds of thousands of our countrymen without effect.

It took less than seven months to lose half as many Americans to COVID-19 as we lost to almost four years of WWII. Even if the deaths stopped today, this pandemic is going to change America. I just hope enough of us make the right decision as to how.

---

Jonathan Wolf is a litigation associate at a midsize, full-service Minnesota firm. He also teaches as an adjunct writing professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, has written for a wide variety of publications, and makes 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.

Another day, another court reminding the president that yes, the laws of this country really do apply to you, a**hole.

Well, the a**hole is implied. But strongly!

This morning the Second Circuit affirmed U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero’s dismissal of the president’s suit to quash a grand jury subpoena for his tax returns and business records issued by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance in August of 2019.

As the court notes drily, “A party would ordinarily challenge a subpoena like the one at issue by filing a motion to quash before the state court that had impaneled the grand jury.” But instead, the president sued in federal court, asserting his magic cloak of presidential immunity all the way up to the Supreme Court, where even Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were forced to conclude that the emperor was wandering around with his prodigious flanks exposed.

Kicked back down to duke it out with the weapons of mere mortals, the president is now asserting that the subpoena is overbroad and was issued in bad faith. And because this is a federal 12(b)(6) motion, he’d like the court to simply accept those allegations as true facts.

Sadly the court declined to do so, noting that “A bare allegation of improper motive will not suffice if there is ‘an obvious alternative explanation for the conduct alleged.’” Nor was it persuaded, based on a single New York Times article, that the grand jury investigation begins and ends with the Michael Cohen hush money payment to Stormy Daniels, and thus subpoenas relating to anything else are out of bounds.

In a per curiam opinion, Judges Pierre Leval, Robert Katzmann, and Raymond Lohier wrote:

First, the President’s bare assertion that the scope of the grand jury’s investigation is limited only to certain payments made by Michael Cohen in 2016 amounts to nothing more than implausible speculation. Second, without the benefit of this linchpin assumption, all other allegations of overbreadth—based on the types of documents sought, the types of entities covered, and the time period covered by the subpoena, as well as the subpoena’s near identity to a prior Congressional subpoena—fall short of meeting the plausibility standard.

The court was no less skeptical of conclusory allegations of bad faith by Mr. Vance and a cabal of shady Democrats trying to take down the president.

We are similarly unpersuaded by the President’s reference to the ambient political motivations of third parties. To be sure, if the SAC plausibly alleged that the District Attorney sought to obtain the President’s tax returns for partisan political purposes, that would undoubtedly state a claim of bad faith. But as counsel to the President acknowledged at oral argument, the SAC nowhere alleges that the District Attorney was himself motivated by partisan considerations. The motivations of unspecified “Democrats” cannot be imputed to the District Attorney without specific factual allegations. And the fact that the Mazars subpoena was issued to a third-party custodian adds nothing to the President’s bad faith claim. Such subpoenas are routine.

And indeed, they are routine. Which is what makes this entire charade so infuriating — no one in Donald Trump’s orbit cared about prosecutorial overreach or overweening grand juries (or the FBI, or the FISA court, or coercive plea bargains, or “unmasking”) before Donald Trump and his pals wound up in the klieg lights. And while it’s perfectly legitimate to argue that the state has too much power, decrying bog standard exercises of that power which happen to involve the president is the epitome of bad faith.

Grand juries get to see whatever ever they want, and everyone knows it.

But in the meanwhile, the president will get to delay handing over his tax returns just a bit longer by filing another appeal to the Supreme Court. Vance has agreed to voluntarily stay compliance until the highest court rules, which likely means the grand jury will not be seeing the documents, much less dropping an indictment, until after the election.

And in this case … a delay is a win.

---

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

Anyone who owns a computer has probably heard the name McAfee. McAfee, Inc. is one of the major software companies providing antivirus protection programs. The company was founded by John McAfee although he has not been associated with the company bearing his name for many years.

After he left his company, he lived a lavish lifestyle, purchasing cars, artwork and real estate. At his peak, John McAfee was believed to have a net worth of over $100 million.

But over the years, he has been connected with disturbing events. In 2009, he moved to Belize where he set up a laboratory to make antibiotics from plants found in the Belize jungle. However, the local authorities raided the lab suspecting he was manufacturing methamphetamine. No illegal drugs were found but the lab was shut down. McAfee claimed that police raid was a sham because he wouldn’t accept their demands for bribes.

In 2012, McAfee was considered a person of interest by Belizean authorities for the murder of one of his neighbors. He went into hiding and fled to Guatemala but was not charged with the murder. He was later deported to Miami. After meeting his wife there, they eventually settled in Lexington, Tennessee.

No one really knows McAfee’s net worth today although most internet rumors speculate that he is worth about $4 million. The drop might have been due to the Great Recession of 2008. But some speculate that McAfee may have squandered or hidden his assets in order to avoid a wrongful death lawsuit in connection with his neighbor’s murder.

McAfee later got involved in the cryptocurrency scene. He reportedly charged $105,000 per tweet to promote a cryptocurrency, possibly relying on his tech expertise and past success to establish credibility among investors. Some people suspected that he was involved in pump and dump schemes where he would promote a cryptocurrency, entice unknowing investors to purchase them, and then cash out leaving the investors with a worthless digital coin.

Last Monday, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged McAfee with promoting fraudulent initial coin offerings (ICO) to investors. McAfee allegedly promoted multiple ICOs on Twitter, pretending to be impartial and independent even though he was paid more than $23 million in digital assets for the promotions. When certain investors asked whether he was paid to promote the ICOs, McAfee allegedly denied receiving any compensation from the issuers.

And if that wasn’t bad enough, the Department of Justice Tax Division simultaneously announced that McAfee was indicted for criminal tax evasion and filing false tax returns. He was arrested in Spain and is awaiting extradition.

According to the indictment, McAfee earned millions of dollars between 2014 and 2018 from speaking engagements, consulting fees, selling the rights to his life story for a documentary, and from promoting cryptocurrencies. He also failed to file tax returns for those years and did not pay taxes.

He allegedly evaded taxes by depositing the money he earned into a third party’s bank account, and purchasing real estate and a car using a third party’s name.

McAfee knew this day was coming but decided to defy the tax man. In January 2019, McAfee made a video tweet stating that the IRS has convened a grand jury to decide whether he will be charged with tax crimes. He also openly states that he did not file income tax returns nor pay any income taxes.

Well, now we know why McAfee’s net worth is so low. He has little assets under his name.

So how did McAfee get the criminal investigation division of the IRS involved? Generally, they get involved when they suspect a taxpayer is engaging in fraud when preparing tax returns or avoiding payment. Hiding assets by putting them in another person’s name is a major red flag. So is providing false information to the IRS.

Also, tax crime indictments generally follow most white collar crime indictments such as securities fraud, money laundering, and embezzlement to name a few. This is usually because these investigations tend to take place at the same time. Income tax laws also apply to money earned from criminal activity. And it is believed that people who profit from crime are not going to report income or pay taxes on their illegally earned money.

The fact that the IRS has secured grand jury indictments means that they have investigated this matter for a substantial amount of time. A criminal investigation normally begins with the IRS’s criminal investigation division where special agents make a recommendation to the Department of Justice on whether to prosecute. The Department of Justice then makes its own decision. Generally, the Department of Justice prosecutes a small number of tax crime cases but the ones they pursue are very likely to result in sentencing. The 2019 IRS Annual Criminal Investigations Report stated that the agency conducted 1,500 tax crime investigations. Of those, 942 were prosecuted, and 848 resulted in sentencing.

McAfee has a lot to answer for in the next few months. Although I don’t think he will be tweeting about this anytime soon.

---

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.

As we move closer and closer to the end of 2020, it seems that Biglaw firms are doing one or more of three things: 1) rolling back austerity measures instituted to survive the economic upheaval caused by the pandemic; 2) doling out COVID-19 appreciation bonuses (or refusing to do so); or 3) outsourcing or laying off their staffing roles to improve their operating efficiencies.

Today, we’ve received word that Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner has chosen the first option. After first assuring employees that the firm would be able to weather the storm without making associate or staff salary cuts, furloughs or layoffs, Bryan Cave proceeded to cut salaries for all employees making over $40,000 by 15 percent, conduct associate and staff layoffs, and even close an office. On the bright side, after laying out the bad news, BCLP decided to reduce its pay cuts to 7.5 percent, and now, the firm will be completely rolling back those compensation cuts. Here’s an excerpt from a memo that co-chairs Steve Baumer and Lisa Mayhew sent out yesterday:

Sources say that during the video conference, it was announced that they’d be “getting back a lot of the salary withheld” by the firm during the height of the pandemic. It’s also worth noting that Bryan Cave plans to fully fund its 2020 bonuses (and there’s of no mention of special fall bonuses, so we assume that’s completely off the table).

Congratulations to everyone at the firm. Let’s hope more firms are able to announce good news like this in the future.

If your firm or organization is slashing salaries or restoring previous cuts, closing its doors, or reducing the ranks of its lawyers or staff, whether through 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).

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, salary cut, or furlough 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.