Author: TSA Press

The coronavirus crisis really threw the legal profession for a loop in 2020. Now that the new year is just around the corner, there finally seems to be a light at the end of the tunnel when it comes to the austerity measures that were instituted due COVID-19’s economic upheaval. Now, one of the wealthiest firms to cut salaries is doing a complete about face when it comes to compensation.

Since March, Reed Smith — which raked in $1,246,926,000 in 2019 gross revenue, making it 26th on the Am Law 100 ranking — has announced not one, not two, not three, but FOUR rounds of salary reductions for partners, associates, and staff. First, the firm announced that partner cash distributions would be slowed as a “precaution” to “brac[e] for the short-term and potential long-term economic impacts of COVID-19. A short time later, in mid April, the firm came for associate salaries, announcing 15 percent cuts that would last from May through the end of August. About two weeks later, the firm announced that partner bonuses were being deferred and split into separate payments (and the same would happen for staff discretionary bonuses). Then, on June 1, the firm announced that its salary cuts for associates would not only last through the end of the year, but they’d increase to 20 percent. On top of that, staff earning more than $100,000 would take a 10 percent salary hit while other professionals would see reduced workweeks, reduced salaries, and furloughs.

Back in August, Reed Smith walked back its salary cuts for some — but not all — those affected, as of September 1. On October 1, the firm further reduced those cuts for attorneys and eliminated them entirely for staff earning more than $100,000. Now, the firm has decided to do something that’s sure to make all of its associates, counsel, and partners as happy as can be.

Sandy Thomas, Reed Smith’s global managing partner, has just announced that all salaries at the firm will be fully restored as of November 1. Here’s a statement:

Throughout the pandemic, the firm has been dedicated to protecting the health and safety of our people and supporting our clients around the globe. Because of the incredibly hard work, shared sacrifice and commitment of our people, we are pleased to announce that we are fully restoring compensation to the 100% level for all of our lawyers and professional staff.

This is exciting news for everyone at the firm. “As we move into 2021, we will continue to be vigilant in protecting the health and safety of our people, conducting our business prudently and providing exemplary service to our clients,” Thomas said.

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.

Ed. note: Litigation finance is transforming the fields of both law and finance. To help our readers gain a better understanding of what litigation finance entails, we’ve partnered with Lake Whillans to present an ongoing series detailing how litigation funding works, its pros and cons, and its past, present, and future.

Much of the discussion of litigation finance naturally focuses on the underwriting phase of the funding process.  We’ve written previously about the variety of flavors of litigation finance deals and the fact that it’s never too early or too late to seek funding.  We’ve also discussed the pricing that a claimholder should expect in negotiating a litigation funding agreement.

But what about when all the terms have been agreed and both claimholder and funder have signed the funding agreement?   What role does the funder play?  Who controls settlement?  What type of interaction should a claimholder expect to have with the funder on an ongoing basis?  And how do the mechanics of funding work?  How does the money flow both for covering litigation expenses and for dividing the proceeds from a successful claim?   Lake Whillans has seen many litigation funding investments through to their conclusion, and although each case has unique elements, there are some standard practices.

Control Over Settlement and Strategy 

Unless the funder has acquired the claim in its entirety, generally the funder has no right to control the litigation, and an experienced and reputable funder will not normally attempt to direct case strategy.   For example, the funder should generally not have the contractual right to dictate things like what motions to file or not file, arguments to make or not make, experts to retain or witnesses to call.  A good funder is in the business of making investments and not litigating cases, and will let the lawyers do the litigating.  A typical Lake Whillans funding agreement will disclaim all rights to direct or control the conduct of the litigation.  (Whether the funder’s non-binding input is requested is a matter of preference and is discussed below).

Most importantly, in a Lake Whillans transaction, the claimholder generally retains full freedom to decide whether to accept any settlement offer.  While most funders operate this way, some may nonetheless include punitive economic terms or “hammer terms” if settlements that are beneficial to the funder are rejected by the claimholder.  

Because settlement control will lie with the claimholder, it’s important to make sure funder and claimholder incentives are aligned throughout the litigation and especially with respect to settlement offers.  Funders seek to avoid the situation where the claimholder is incentivized to reject a fair settlement offer because the funder is the only one who will be paid from the settlement.  For example, Lake Whillans would be unlikely to fund a case if a reasonable settlement is only $5 million, and the claimholder is seeking an investment of $3-4 million.  In that scenario, a $5 million settlement would likely be almost entirely used to satisfy obligations to Lake Whillans and thus the claimholder would have no reason to accept that settlement, potentially taking unwarranted risk.  As part of the diligence process, Lake Whillans estimates and discusses with the claimholder what a reasonable settlement might be and only makes an investment if the economic terms of the deal allow the claimholder to share the benefit from such settlements.  

Communication With Claimholders

Claimholders and counsel often wonder (worry over) the role the funder will play once a case is funded.  While ongoing communication is to be expected, funders like Lake Whillans will not play an intrusive role.  At a minimum, the funding agreement will specify that the funder has a right to information about the progress of the case and to be informed of any major developments.  Such communication is generally protected from disclosure to adversaries: Communications with the funder are understood to be protected at a minimum by the work product privilege.  

Beyond the contractually required updates, the frequency of communication between funder and claimholder is driven largely by the preferences of the claimholder and counsel, the size and experience of the claimholder’s in-house legal team, the stage/activity level of the litigation or arbitration, and other idiosyncratic factors.   Claimholder and counsel often come to view the funder as a valuable sounding board, between its deep familiarity with the case, its focus on the big picture as opposed to the day-to-day battles of litigation, and its experience with similar situations in prior investments.   Lake Whillans has engaged in a range of communication styles across its investments — from formal and less periodic updates, to ad-hoc communications as needed, to scheduled phone calls (generally monthly).    It’s been our experience that the process of getting to a transaction often forms a mutually respectful relationship that naturally lends itself to continuing constructive and desired communication. 

Disbursing Funds

Once the funding agreement is in place, the funder is of course under an obligation to disburse funds according to the parties’ investment agreement.  Lake Whillans will at the outset establish a reserved facility, representing an amount set aside to cover the full amount of the funder’s commitment.  Some funders do not reserve the full amount of capital for the investment and, instead, rely on financial management to meet their investment commitments.  It is always worthwhile for claimholders to ask prospective funders how they ensure that the investment commitment will be available.  Funders typically make a series of payments over the course of the case, drawing down on the reserved facility, which payments are triggered by different events depending on the nature of the investment.

If the transaction involves an upfront payment (which can be all or part of a transaction), that payment will be made promptly after the transaction closes, usually within 10 business days. Upfront payments can include full or partial monetization of a claim paid to the claimholder or be used to pay counsel outstanding accrued legal costs. 

In a single-case investment that involves payments to the claimholder’s counsel at hourly rates and/or for expenses, the law firm will send its standard periodic invoices to the claimholder, which are either forwarded or copied to the funder.  The funder will pay those bills directly to the firm as they come due after being approved by the claimholder.  If the funder has transacted with a  law firm related to a portfolio of cases, payments will typically be made according to a specified schedule (including in some cases, all upfront), when the firm requests draws, or when certain milestones are reached.  

Distributing Proceeds 

If the case succeeds and proceeds from the successful claim are collected, the recovery is usually placed in escrow and distributed to the funder, counsel, and claimholder as specified in the  funding agreement.  The agreement will contain a  negotiated “waterfall” laying out the order of priority the recovery is to be paid to entitled parties. Typically, the funder recoups any capital it disbursed before any other party is paid and its profit either gets priority over the remaining stakeholders or, in some cases, shared pro rata with counsel (assuming that counsel has a contingent stake in the litigation) and/or the claimholder.  The claimholder takes any remainder. 

* * *

Ensuring a smooth interaction between funder, claimholder, and counsel begins with pre-investment due diligence.  A claimholder seeking funding should assess whether a potential funder has a track record of working effectively with claimholders and counsel.  Lake Whillans is happy to discuss its experiences in this regard and what you should expect given your particular circumstances.  The best way to determine if your company or firm could benefit from litigation finance is to contact us.

When I first heard that the Slate team of Josh Levin, Aaron Mak, and Jonathan L. Fischer cracked the redactions in the newly released 2016 deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell, I assumed it was some technical issue that allowed the seemingly redacted words to be cut and pasted into a word document unredacted, because, well, that’s happened before. Like a bunch of times — and those are just the famous cases. But no, there’s a new way they’ve completely screwed the pooch on this one.

If you’ll recall, Maxwell, a onetime associate of Jeffrey Epstein, is currently facing six federal charges, including enticing a minor to engage in illegal sex acts. Prior to the current criminal case, Maxwell gave a deposition in a defamation suit brought by Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who alleges sexual abuse at the hands of Epstein. The Miami Herald sued for the depo (and other documents) to be released, which was done after “days of wrangling over redactions.” Turns out those negotiations may have been in vain.

It all boils down to the depo index. As Slate notes, “It turns out, though, that those redactions are possible to crack. That’s because the deposition—which you can read in full here—includes a complete alphabetized index of the redacted and unredacted words that appear in the document.” So, nestled between clients and clock is another “cl” word….

Do you think it’s Clinton? I think it’s Clinton.

Oh, look, an instance of the word on page 135 that was (likely inadvertently) left unredacted reveals, it is, in fact, Clinton.

They were also able to sniff out the the Alan Dershowitz redactions:

Consider the example of Alan Dershowitz. The index indicated that there’s a redacted word that comes after airport and before alcohol.

There’s also a redacted word that comes after depth and before describe.

The A-word and the D-word, the index reports, appear consecutively on pages 211, 299, 368, and 407. Based on context, we can easily deduce that those two words are Alan and Dershowitz.

They also were able to figure out the below referenced Prince Andrew/Andrew’s:

This one was cracked because of a lawyer’s address. That’s right, because the address for Farmer Jaffee is on N. Andrews Avenue, which was left unredacted, they were able to piece it together.

So far, using these methods, Slate has determined the redactions for the following:

• Doug Band (page 137)

• Nadia Marcinko, also known as Nadia Marcinkova (pages 40-47, 87, 255, 396)

• Marvin Minsky (page 145)

• Kevin Spacey (page 266)

• Leslie Wexner (pages 117, 314, 380, 381, 403, 404)

So let this be a warning to all lawyers out there: sometime the best negotiated plans fall apart with just a bit of critical thinking.

---

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).

The enduring power of Donald Trump’s “drain the swamp” mantra is the visceral appeal it has to the vast majority of Americans who see the government as a hodge-podge of competing elite interests that either actively sell out the average person or throw those interests into a bureaucratic hole of persistent inaction. That Trump’s administration embraced these forces with a ferocity unlike any other doesn’t diminish the fact that it’s a solid tagline.

Joe Biden, on the other hand, comes from a brand of Democratic Party politics that affirmatively believes that the Washington model is a good thing. Where most people see detached elites, he sees “experts.” Where most people see industry lobbyists, he sees a neo-Madisonian reflection of the will of the public. And where most people see inaction, he sees “collaboration!” A commitment to institutionally vetted expertise and bland bureaucracy is, perhaps, a welcome change from hyperactive conspiracy mongering, but it doesn’t exactly scratch the itch that’s brought America to this crossroads.

Unfortunately, with the Republicans lighting their own norms aflame to ram an underqualified ideologue onto the bench and liberals demanding a commitment to undo this through expanding the size of the Supreme Court, Biden has been touched by the more mundane angels of his nature:

“If elected, what I will do is I’ll put together a national commission of — bipartisan commission of scholars, constitutional scholars, Democrats, Republicans, liberal, conservative. And I will ask them to over 180 days come back to me with recommendations as to how to reform the court system because it’s getting out of whack — the way in which it’s being handled and it’s not about court packing.

You know what we don’t actually need? A commission.

Of all the hackneyed, corporate nonsense out there, the “referral to committee” is among the most derided. It’s so universally and durably hated they made fun of it in a Star Wars movie and that was a long time ago. I mean 1980… not the setting of the film.

There’s a lot of ink spilled on this question already… go make a decision about it! Biden got a lot of flack for not immediately committing to court expansion one way or the other, but his eventual articulation of “well, it depends on what Mitch does with this nomination” was actually pretty good. It established that Biden prefers to keep the current rules but if he has to make changes that’s on Trump and McConnell. There’s a clearly delineated threat: accept a 5-4 conservative majority or be handed a 7-6 liberal majority. And now that’s all getting thrown out in favor of a promise to follow a “commission.”

People don’t like commissions. They convey the opposite of conviction. Despite what politicians may think, they tell the country just how little you prioritize an issue by signaling that it’s not important enough for you to have bothered to worry about before. With COVID as a backdrop, Democrats want to sell that they listen to expertise, but you don’t need an artificially bipartisan commission for that, you just need to read a Laurence Tribe book and say, “This guy convinced me.”

It’s just such bad politics. To the extent the country has undecided voters anymore they care more about the fact that a candidate has a stand than what that stand is. Because if someone is undecided at this point, they pretty clearly don’t pay attention to policy particulars. If America votes for Joe Biden they don’t want to hear what Leonard Leo thinks about court reform, they’re saying they want to hear what Joe Biden thinks about court reform, so just go ahead and do that and dispense with the fantastical bipartisan charade.

Because people don’t actually like bipartisanship as much as Democrats like to think. Republicans hate it. Democrats hate it. Everyone else doesn’t really care. You want a bipartisan discussion of court reform? Put a bill on the floor and vote on it! Anything else is the sort of empty academic masturbation that only interests Jeffrey Toobin figuratively and literally.

“There’s a number of alternatives that are — go well beyond packing … The last thing we need to do is turn the Supreme Court into just a political football, whoever has the most votes gets whatever they want. Presidents come and go. Supreme Court justices stay for generations.”

Maybe the crux of the problem is that last sentence.

I’ve been outspoken in preferring a term limits option for court reform. The tit-for-tat nature of responding to de facto court packing with de jure court packing just locks us in the Treehouse of Horror scenario of constant retaliatory expansion until we make “a board with a nail so big it will destroy them all!” Something that sets a new, durable standard that returns the Court to its proper role as a lagging reflection of national elections. It’s also in the best interest of basic democracy to put an end to the idea that the country’s future turns on a life-tenured aristocracy. Court expansion still has a role to play in convincing the Court that its institutional credibility hinges upon accepting reform or becoming an expanded farce, but it’s the backup strategy, not the front line response.

Maybe someone on the commission can forward it before it gets buried under a sea of empty hypothetical alternatives and we’re right back where we started.

---

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.

Like most lawyers, you’ve likely worked remotely on more than one occasion since March, when quarantines were put in place due to COVID-19. Since then, lawyers across the country continue to work remotely from different locations at least part-time, while others continue working remotely full-time. Of course, when lawyers work remotely, ethical and security issues relating to how confidential data is handled and shared may be triggered. This is especially so now that the ethical standards regarding electronic communication are changing.

It used to be that unencrypted email was sufficient when communicating with clients electronically, but in recent years, the tide has begun to turn. Technology has improved significantly, and more secure electronic communication methods have emerged, rendering unencrypted email insufficient for certain types of client communication, as the ABA concluded 2017 in Formal Opinion 477R.

In this opinion, the Ethics Committee determined that unencrypted email may not always be sufficient for client communication. Instead the Committee advised that lawyers need to assess the sensitivity of the information that they’re sharing on a case-by-case basis, and in many cases, may want to consider using more secure, encrypted methods of communicating and collaborating with clients, including a “secure internet portal.”

In April of this year, the Pennsylvania Bar Association followed suit when it issued a much-needed opinion addressing the ethics of practicing law virtually. In Formal Opinion 2020-300, the Pennsylvania Bar Association Committee on Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility provided guidance on how lawyers and their staffs can ethically provide legal services while working remotely.

Notably, the committee adopted the ABA’s rationale regarding secure communication and concluded that because of improved technology, unencrypted email is insufficient for particularly sensitive information:

(L)awyers must exercise reasonable efforts when using technology in communicating about client matters … (and use) a fact-specific approach to business security obligations that requires a ‘process’ to assess risks, identify and implement appropriate security measures responsive to those risks, verify that they are effectively implemented, and ensure that they are continually updated in response to new developments…A fact-based analysis means that particularly strong protective measures, like encryption, are warranted in some circumstances.

I recently discovered that the Michigan State Bar Association  joined the fray earlier this year when it issued Ethics Opinion RI-381. In this opinion, the committee adopted the analysis set forth in ABA Formal Opinion 477R and concluded that because of improved technology, unencrypted email is insufficient for discussing particularly sensitive information, and in those cases more secure communication methods such as encrypted email or secure online client portals will be required:

“What constitutes ‘reasonable measures’ in fulfilling the duty to exercise reasonable care regarding client (electronically stored information) depends on the circumstances, including the degree of sensitivity of the information to the client, potential threats, the risk of harm to the client in the event of unauthorized disclosure … and the availability of protective technology … . As noted in ABA Formal Opinion 477R … ‘the use of unencrypted routine email generally remains an acceptable method of lawyer-client communication,’ but ‘particularly strong protective measures, like encryption, are warranted in some circumstances.’”

Since its founder’s unseemly tie to the late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein became public, Apollo Global Management’s response has been clear, unequivocal and unchanging: Nothing to do with us. Whatever Leon Black decided to do with several tens of millions of his own dollars vis-à-vis a noted sex criminal, Epstein never provided any of his mysterious and amorphous professional services to the private equity giant, and it never provided him with a nickel, and anyway no one really cares. It even held an investigation into the matter to put things to well and truly to bed. And yet:

Typically, when someone says “you got robbed” when referring to a lawyer, they’re talking about a case that went poorly or a huge bill. After a series of bank robberies in South Florida, one former Biglaw associate is allegedly bringing a whole new meaning to the phrase.

Earlier this week, the FBI arrested Aaron Honaker, 41, on suspicion of robbing, and attempting to rob, five banks. Honaker’s alleged crimes happened between September 30 and October 15 at four banks in Coral Gables (Citibank, Wells Fargo, Chase Bank, and HSBC Bank) and one bank in Aventura (Chase Bank).

Is this guy trying to become the next Shon Hopwood?

In interviews with Local 10 News, Honaker’s colleagues described him as a “highly intelligent” and “brilliant” attorney. “I have no explanation as to how he got to this point,” a former colleague said.

Honaker claims to be a graduate of Duke University and Duke Law on his LinkedIn profile, but the elite school says it has no record of him ever attending. Instead, it seems that he’s a graduate of Wake Forest University and Wake Forest Law. Honaker began his legal career as an associate at Greenberg Traurig, where he practiced business reorganization and financial restructuring. According to the FBI, he’s now allegedly involved in a different kind of financial restructuring.

The Miami Herald has the details on Honaker’s alleged robbery attempts:

Aaron Honaker (Image via Miami-Dade Corrections)

▪ Sept. 30 — Citibank, 396 Alhambra Circle, Coral Gables.

The criminal complaint says Honaker, described as a 6-foot white male in his 30s, sat in the lobby for 15 minutes. He eventually handed a handwritten note to a teller warning against touching the alarm or calling the police while he asked for $10,000.

The teller said she told him she “didn’t have the money; it is in the machine.” Honaker left the bank with only his note.

▪ Oct. 3 — Chase, 20880 Biscayne Blvd., Aventura.

The complaint says Honaker told the teller he wanted to make a withdrawal, but lacked his debit card. He said, however, this note he was handing her would have instructions on how to help him withdraw cash. This time, the note requested all the $50 bills and $100 bills in the teller’s drawer be put in an envelope.

The teller did as asked. Honaker left with his note and $1,050.

▪ Oct. 5 — Wells Fargo, 2555 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Coral Gables.

This time, the complaint says, Honaker donned “a floppy hat and a blue, short-sleeved shirt” but kept a similar note. This one said, “Keep calm and give me all the money in the drawer. I have a gun.”

The teller feigned trouble with English, giving her an excuse to talk with her manager. While she informed her manager that the guy in the floppy hat was trying to rob them, Honaker backed away, appeared to get on his phone, then left the bank.

▪ Oct. 10 — Chase, 355 Alhambra Circle, Coral Gables.

The complaint says Honaker went back to asking for “$50s and $100s.” And he walked out with $800.

▪ Thursday, Oct. 15 — HSBC, 2222 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Coral Gables.

This time, the complaint says, Honaker’s note confused the teller.

The teller “glanced at the note and, without realizing its true meaning, asked (Honaker) to fill out a withdrawal slip first because she needed an account number.”

So, Honaker did. On the withdrawal slip, he wrote, “read the note.” The note asked for all $100s, $50s and $20s.

The teller told Honaker, the complaint said, “The bank kept its cash in counting machines” so she couldn’t give him what he wanted.

He left.

Honaker’s Florida Bar says he’s a senior associate at Martinez Morales, a business and real estate litigation firm. Per the Daily Business Review, partner Raul Morales says Honaker hasn’t worked at the firm for at least two years. “He disappeared. He was one day here, one day gone. I had no idea where he went,” Morales said.

Honaker is represented by a federal public defender and had his first court appearance on Wednesday. He currently remains in custody, and his bond hearing is scheduled for Friday.

FBI Announces the Arrest of an Alleged Serial Bank Robber [FBI]
Miami attorney arrested as Coral Gables and Aventura bank robbery suspect [Miami Herald]
FBI Arrests Florida Lawyer for Bank Robberies [Daily Business Review]

---

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.

How many law firms know their lead conversion rates?  How about the number of leads they lost in the previous month?

The answer is “close to none”
— an inexcusable state of affairs, particularly considering their typical investment in marketing and lead generation.

Learn more on December 2nd at 1 p.m. ET / 10 a.m. PT where the panel will focus on how law firms, particularly small firms and plaintiffs firms, are dropping the ball on client intake, and how they can convert their marketing budgets into conversions.

Join Tom Ball, SVP of Business Development of Alert Communications,
and Bob Ambrogi, lawyer and legal journalist, as they provide a soup-to-nuts overview of the client intake process and its key inflection points.

By submitting the form below, you are opting in to receive communication from Above the Law and its partners.

I’m hesitant to even write this story. The last thing I want to do is give more attention, clicks, and revenue to this trash, but well, we also need to know what’s going on. Yes, the legendary Ruth Bader Ginsburg has only been dead just over a month, but that isn’t going to stop the far right from gloating over Donald Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee.

A grossly named podcast, co-hosted by none other than Mitch McConnell’s former chief of staff Josh Holmes and another right-wing commentator, has launched. “RUTHLESS” promises to bring “next generation conservative talk to the next level.” Which, if by “next level” you mean “wildly inappropriate” and “tasteless,” then yes.

Just today, in record-breaking pace and despite a COVID-19 outbreak, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 12-0 to advance the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the full senate (Democrats on the committee did not attend the vote, putting photos of people who’ve benefitted from the Affordable Care Act in their place).

November 3rd can’t come fast enough.

---

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).

Remember, about 100 subjective years ago, the summer of 2018? That June, public outrage against the Trump administration’s family separation policy was so intense that it forced Donald Trump to write an executive order pretending to stop it. The lead lawsuit on that issue, Ms. L v. ICE, forced the administration to start accounting for the separated families in a way that we now know they hadn’t even bothered with on their own.

More than two years later, this issue continues to hurt young people — and not just a few. A filing from Ms. L this week tells us that there are still 545 separated children in the United States whose parents the lawyers involved can’t find.

Let’s rewind a bit. Ms. L was actually settled about two years ago (along with two related cases), after the ACLU forced the Trump administration to admit in court that asylum-seekers have due process rights even if their skin isn’t white. But originally, that order applied to families separated in 2018, when the Trump administration (except Kirstjen Nielsen) was admitting it was separating families. They also had a “pilot program” for this in 2017, which affected 1,556 families, and the ACLU eventually got the settlement expanded to include those families.

The 545 missing parents come from that group. The bulk of those — 470 — has been designated as unreachable by phone, which could be ordinary federal recalcitrance, but may also reflect how much poverty there probably is in this group. (Rich people don’t immigrate by walking 1,500 miles to south Texas and then throwing themselves on CBP’s mercy; they buy themselves investor or ”genius” visas.) To find them, the steering committee has enlisted organizations with people on the ground in Central America.

That effort had some success — and then came the novel coronavirus. The Trump administration cannot be blamed for the virus itself, but I can’t help noticing that it wouldn’t be an issue if the families had been either deported together or permitted to go through the asylum process together.

By the way, that 545 number doesn’t mean that about 1,000 families have already been reunited. The filing says the steering committee has reached families of 485 kids, who then decide whether to reunite or have the child stay in the United States. (Staying might be a good choice if there’s a competent relative in the U.S., and the home country is still dangerous. Recall that these were mostly asylum-seekers fleeing unchecked violence in Central America.) The government has not provided a phone number for 104 of the families.

But the bulk of this group, 422 kids, has not been reunited because the government disputes that they even belong on this list in the first place. It’s hard to imagine a lawyer making that argument and being able to live with themselves. However, if the Trump administration has taught us anything, surely it’s that people’s capacity for self-deception is bottomless.

Please vote.

---

Lorelei Laird is a freelance writer specializing in the law, and the only person you know who still has an “I Believe Anita Hill” bumper sticker. Find her at wordofthelaird.com.