Ed. Note: Welcome to our daily feature Trivia Question of the Day!
According to Vault’s 2021 practice area rankings, which Biglaw firm tops the Emerging Companies & Venture Capital list?
Hint: This California-based firm now has over 1,100 attorneys worldwide and is known for its tech practice.
See the answer on the next page.
Do you remember your first?
For me, it was an accomplished older gentleman who had worked for various contractors on marine-related projects and now hoped to start a non-profit organization to support educational activities on ocean thermal energy. We met at a lunch that I hadn’t intended to attend – the venue was an hour away by metro and I was feeling under the weather and mildly depressed.
Still, I donned my bright red business suit and trekked over to the event hoping for the best. I arrived late and frazzled and grabbed one of the few available spots at a crowded table. After the speaker, the gentleman next to me struck up a conversation and when I mentioned that I was an attorney, things clicked: he took my business card and promised to call. A week later, after a meeting in an impressive conference room overlooking Pennsylvania Office in my virtual office shared suite, I secured my very first client for the princely fee of $100/hour which was my billing rate back in 1994. I was so green I didn’t even think to accept advance payment.
Fortunately, my first client was a dream. He paid his bill on time and didn’t dispute the cost. He made me part of his team, inviting me to board meetings staffed by some former government higher-ups for the non-profit that I’d formed for him. He also had a penchant for fine dining, and during the two years that we worked together, I enjoyed some delicious expense account lunches at some of D.C.’s finest establishments.
Without clients, a law firm isn’t much more than a dream waiting to happen or an idea unexecuted. That’s one reason why that first client is so special — because they transform those dreams into a reality. That first fee – whether it’s more money than you ever earned at a job, or will barely cover your bar dues – feels more valuable than any coin you’ve ever received because you produced it entirely through your own effort.
Some lawyers start with business waiting for them. But others – like me – wonder whether you might ever find a client. Let me assure you that you will – and it will be easier than you think. Once that first client comes through the door, you’ll be on your way.
But as far as you travel, you’ll always remember that first time; that client who made you a real law firm owner.
We’re gearing up for next year here at MyShingle by celebrating beginnings. Check out Instagram at @theoneinamillionlawyer or www.facebook.com/myshingle for daily inspiration on new beginnings. And whether it’s finding Client No. 1, or getting a new law firm off the ground, MyShingle will be announcing a surprise offering later this week, and new programs for 2021. Stay tuned by joining the mailing list here.
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.
The potential benefits of litigation funding are increasingly well-known to litigators and in-house counsel. But until you have been through the process of raising funding, it can be difficult to know what to expect. Lake Whillans has years of experience introducing claimholders and counsel to the funding process and helping to determine whether litigation finance makes sense for their claim. In this article, we outline the main steps in raising funding.
The template we set out here is based on the Lake Whillans process — other funders may operate somewhat differently, but the general features are common to all reputable litigation finance providers. Keep in mind that litigation funding comes in many flavors. For example, some funding deals pertain to a standalone case, whereas others encompass a portfolio of cases brought by the same claimholder or litigated by the same counsel. Some claimholders seek funding before initiating litigation; others approach funders midway through a case. The details of the funding process will vary depending on the structure of the proposed investment and stage of litigation.
Initial Screening: Does your case meet the basic criteria for funding? (Typical duration: 1 to 2 days)
As a first step, after we have received an email or a phone call, we will determine whether the case meets our basic criteria. First, we determine whether the case (or portfolio) fits into the categories of cases we fund. For example, Lake Whillans does not fund patent litigation, but we do fund international arbitration, which are two areas where funders’ preferences may differ. We also screen how much capital is needed: our minimum investment amount is approximately $1 million, so a case that is seeking $200,000-$300,000 is one we are unlikely to examine further.
Deep Dive Call/Term Sheet: Is your case an attractive candidate for funding? (Typical duration: 3 to 7 days)
Once we’ve established that the opportunity meets our basic criteria, we will enter into a non-disclosure agreement and set up a call (usually 60-90 minutes) (which we call the “deep dive call”) to learn more about the opportunity. Prior to the call, we will typically review any key documents concerning the claim or budget that the claimholder has provided concerning the proposed investment.
During the deep-dive call, we are seeking to understand four things: the underlying facts and basis for liability, the theory and amount of damages, the collection/enforcement risks, and the amount and structure of a potential investment.
Depending on the material we’ve already received and reviewed, the discussion around the facts and basis for liability may vary in depth, ranging from a general discussion of the narrative of the case to more specific targeted questions. During the call, we will be seeking to understand the background to the relationship that led to the dispute, the events that gave rise to the dispute, and the key issues in dispute, legal theories, and the litigation history to date. The aim is to conclude whether liability is likely (assuming everything represented is true).
Litigation outcomes are inherently uncertain, but some cases have a higher probability of success than others. Naturally, we seek to fund strong claims. To that end, we assess factors such as the quality of the claimholder’s counsel (are they experienced, professional, and prepared?) and the strength of the evidence (is there documentary evidence to support the claim?).
Regardless of a claim’s legal strength, it will not be a viable candidate for funding if the likely damages are too modest. For a single-case investment, Lake Whillans targets claims for which a reasonable estimate of likely damages exceeds $15 million. Other funders may set a different threshold, but all will have some lower limit. When pricing a deal, funders are careful to structure it such that the claimholder retains the majority of litigation proceeds. That constraint, along with the need to expend resources to underwrite each claim, generally makes lower-value cases less attractive.
The proposed budget for litigation expenses is also an important consideration. Do the expense projections seem realistic? What is the ratio of the budget to the likely damages? A general rule of thumb is that funders seek a damages to investment ratio of 10:1, though matters with a lower risk profile may suffice with a smaller ratio.
Finally, we seek to get initial comfort that the defendants have sufficient assets to satisfy any judgment or award, which can be enforced. For example, a matter that involves an insolvent defendant or a defendant who is expected to resist enforcement and is located in a jurisdiction unlikely to honor a judgment or award may not make an attractive investment.
Following the deep dive call, we will internally evaluate the opportunity. If the case seems attractive, we would make an investment proposal that outlines the economic terms of the proposed investment and provides for a due diligence period. Once acceptable terms have been reached, the term sheet is executed and the due diligence period begins.
Due Diligence (Typical duration: 30 to 45 days)
The purpose of due diligence is to verify that the underlying facts and materials support the claimholder’s theory of the case. At the outset of the due diligence period, we provide an outline setting out the anticipated steps. To the extent that our review of materials reveals additional items for discussion, the outline is updated. The process will also include calls with the claimholder and/or its counsel. We do not ask for written materials to be prepared.
We aim to make this process transparent in terms of sharing areas where we want to focus, concerns we need addressed, and overall progress toward wrapping up the diligence process.
Generally, we are able to complete due diligence within 30 to 45 days. Factors that affect the length of the process include the complexity and stage of the claim, any urgency to secure funding, as well as the responsiveness of the claimholder and counsel.
Investment Documentation (Typical duration 5 to 10 days)
Once diligence is successfully completed, we circulate transaction documents to the claimholder and counsel for review. Over the following days, the documents are finalized and the investment funds released.
Once, the case is funded, you can read about what to expect here.
* * *
We hope this general description of what to expect when raising litigation funding is a helpful starting point. Each case has unique elements, and we are happy to discuss how the process is likely to proceed in your particular circumstances. The best way to determine if your company or firm could benefit from litigation finance is to contact us.
(Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
Today, the First Circuit rang the Pavolvian bell that got inveterate racists all over the country salivating like it was potluck day at the MAGA rally. In upholding the district court ruling in favor of Harvard, the appellate court set the clock ticking on the all but inevitable showdown at the Supreme Court to put an end to affirmative action once and for all. Finally, Harvard won’t be able to put the thumb on the scale in favor of racial diversity in admissions and will have to return to just putting the thumb on the scale to admit legacy candidate Thurston Warrington Cabot IV and his C+ average from Philips Exeter.
“AS IT SHOULD BE!” shout a million sixth-generation Vanderfucks in unison.
After watching Becky with the Bad Grades fail to overcome affirmative action in 2016 with the last minute assistance of Justice Kennedy, padding his cherished reputation as a “swing vote” that not one serious person should ever repeat again after he announced his retirement to push America under the Brett Kavanaugh Brewsky Express. But now Kennedy is gone, Gorsuch has replaced Antonin Scalia — who had died before the Fisher opinion — and Typhoid Amy has taken RBG’s seat. This is now the House That Susie Built, and after Susan Collins whined about “respect for precedent” she’s going to watch as stare indeterminata reigns and practices affirmed for DECADES are demolished one after the other.
In SFFA v. Harvard, affirmative action foes took a different tack and replaced the white woman whose middling grades that kept her out of a state school in favor of Asian American students who couldn’t get into Harvard and think the problem is all the Black and Latinx students that got in, rather than the aforementioned inbred white legacy applicants. Hey, part of the strategy is building the sympathetic test case! The district court ruled against SFFA, noting that the plaintiffs couldn’t find a single individual candidate disadvantaged by the policy and, indeed, found it more likely that many Asian American students actually benefitted from Harvard’s policy (e.g., Asian American women).
The First Circuit unanimously (2-0, one judge did not take part in the opinion) affirmed and now this case that should simply rest on the strength of the district court’s considered opinion will be scooped up by the Supreme Court to allow Clarence Thomas to finally cap his odious career by putting the symbolic garnish on the concept that racial diversity is a laudable value that, ironically, was the precise reason George H.W. Bush selected him to replace Thurgood Marshall. What good is a ladder if you can’t kick it over for all the people behind you?
Or maybe Chief Justice Roberts will hold onto it to add to his “What’s Racism” series that he kicked off in his Shelby County opinion. Either way, we all know what’s coming. We knew it last year when Elie Mystal wrote:
Technically, [anti-affirmative action litigation mastermind Ed] Blum failed. If you actually care about why affirmative action is Constitutional, read this opinion. But Blum and the conservatives are playing a long game here. This case was never set up to win at trial, again, the white people pushing this do not actually care about Asian-American concerns. This case was set up to give the Supreme Court an opportunity to end affirmative action on appeal, and that project still very much goes forward.
And there’s nothing that can be done about it right now. There is no magic fix to repair decades of liberal apathy about the courts and it certainly isn’t some half-cocked court packing scheme that actually looks like it may have cost the Democrats the Senate in three races that focused on the issue down the stretch. Right now, all that’s left is to get more Americans to care about the courts and vote with those issues in mind. A key part of that mission would be to orient around the massively popular proposal to require Supreme Court service term limits that would foreground the courts every election in an orderly and democratic way.
As the passage above notes, America is in this mess because the enemies of diversity have been playing the long game. At this point, it’s time for everyone else to come together and organize around a similar strategic approach to repairing the damage this aberrant regression to segregationist jurisprudence has wrought. There isn’t an immediate fix, but there’s an opening for a lasting one.
(The full First Circuit opinion is on the next page.)
Earlier: Harvard Won, But Affirmative Action Is Still Set Up To Lose
Congress Introduces First Supreme Court Term Limits Bill!
Court Packing Advocates Probably Cost Democrats The Senate
Liberal Calls For Court Packing Gain Steam, And Mitch McConnell Couldn’t Be Happier
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.
The latest spike in coronavirus cases is upon us, casting doubt on holiday travel plans around the country. That is, of course, deeply worrying, but the reality of it has been tempered by some recent good COVID news. I’m talking about the latest from Pfizer who announced their vaccine has a 90 percent efficacy rate and could be approved before the end of this forsaken year.
Experts are cautioning that even with a vaccine it’ll be a while until we “get back to normal.” But still, between the soon-to-be approved vaccine and a president-elect that believes in science, normal — finally — seems attainable. Part of that normalcy that people are craving is travel and good old-fashioned vacations. Pretty much all of those got cancelled in 2020, but maybe — just maybe — in 2021 we can all dust off our passports, or hit the open road or do whatever it is you like to get away from the house you’ve spent quarantine hiding out in.
Unfortunately, Cravath just made the dream of a long, overdue vacation that much more difficult.
The Biglaw firm recently announced some changes to their vacation and sick time policy. Associates still get four weeks of vacation time, but the amount of carryover days allowed from one year to the next has been cut in half, from 10 down to 5. Given the dearth of vacation opportunities in 2020, lots of folks were probably planning on banking those days. Plus they’ve changed how those days are accounted for — now any carryover days will be counted as being used last, when they’d previously been the first days associates used.
As you might imagine, according to tipsters, people at the firm are pissed off at the changes:
To do this during a pandemic when people can’t actually go on vacation has a lot of people pissed off. To add insult to injury they also changed the policy to use those days last instead of first so it makes it harder to carry over days two years in a row. There’s no reason that should be the case and they’ve given zero rationale for it.
Now, it’s true that Biglaw associates often leave vacation days on the table (if a firm even has a formal limit) given the “billable hours above all else” mentality the permeates the industry. And, yes, four weeks is a nice chunk of vacation time even if there’s no ability to bank vacation days. So, in practice, very little may actually be different for associates. But a change to the vacation policy now, when vacations are the dream of most of the country, just feels like kicking somewhen when they’re down.
You can read Cravath’s new vacation policy on the next page.
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 understand that law firms need to retain their top talent. That is certainly a benefit to clients as well. The question becomes—and this is always the tension with law firms and their clients—how much, if any, of the bonuses do they try to pass along to clients in the form of increased rates?
— Chaka Patterson, general counsel of Chicago-based Adtalem Global Education, commenting warily on the special bonuses that several firms handed out to associates earlier this fall in appreciation for their hard work during the pandemic. “There certainly can be the perception of a little salt being added to the wound—particularly if clients are finding themselves having to cut back, furlough, or eliminate positions or take other drastic cost-saving steps—to see law firms so outwardly rewarding people with extra bonuses,” said the GC of a major security company, who offered thoughts anonymously due to a working relationship with some of the firms that had offered these bonuses. “They could have tried to pass savings back to clients, and it doesn’t seem like that’s the way they’re going.”
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.
Andrew Ross Sorkin writes the DealBook column for the New York Times. In a recent newsletter he linked to an article by Rich Handler, the CEO of Jefferies Financial. Handler writes about the 20 things he wished someone had told him on his first day on the job as an analyst.
What Handler wishes he had known applies to newbie lawyers starting out or the more-seasoned lawyer starting a new gig. Space constraints don’t allow me to discuss all 20, but I’ve chosen some that I think are particularly relevant to lawyers.
If there’s a theme that runs through Handler’s wish list, it’s learning, both on the job and off. He wishes that he had made a stronger effort to develop relationships with the junior people at every client. “When you take the time to truly develop a relationship with someone who is also at the age of fighting to become relevant, that bond can become a foundation that lasts a lifetime.”
Learn as much as you can about everything. Yes, put your head down to get your work done and out, but the more you learn about what your colleagues are doing means that you will have a much better chance to proactively manage your career and make the best choices for you.
Collaboration and collegiality are vital. Looking back, Handler says that there was never really any competition among his peers; get to know them, he says, and support them as best you can. “The sharp-elbowed, game-playing, hypercompetitive people who may have been first out of the gate are generally the ones who washed out.” Tortoise v. hare anyone?
Do your own thinking. It’s fine to ask opinions of people you trust, but at the end of the day, it’s your work product based upon your thinking. “If you just do and rarely think and process, you cannot grow.” Thinking is not an idle act.
Make sure, to the extent possible, to sit in on client meetings, phone calls, and pitches. Be assertive. The senior member of the team can always refuse your request, but it’s the old story of “if you don’t ask, you don’t get.”
If you have ideas for improving something, speak up. As Handler notes, “It may be more work [for you], but it could also be the difference maker so why not try.”
Learn to keep in touch with all the people you work with. You never know how paths may cross in the future.
Understand the business. Many times, I suggested to outside counsel that they spend some time in a branch to learn about the operational side (which is where most of the claims arise). Understand the teller’s job, the operations manager’s job, and the pressure they are always under to never make a mistake while cross-selling products. Having an appreciation and understanding for the business makes it easier to understand when claims arise, how they arose, and how to resolve. No one ever took me up on my suggestion.
Consider the real-life implications of the work you are doing. Are you structuring a deal? Representing the client in litigation? Think about what happens if the deal craters, if there’s a smoking gun in the litigation. What are the real-life consequences for the people involved? Don’t think that it’s less than what it is. It’s not.
Learn and understand the culture of your firm or legal department, why it does things the way it does. Are you comfortable with the culture, or do you feel like a fish on a bicycle? Fitting into the culture is essential, whether it’s been around forever or a startup. If you don’t share the same values, you won’t be happy. Huge paychecks do not salve discomfort.
Handler encourages people to get to know your co-workers out of the office: coffee, lunch, someplace away from there. And leave your smartphone on your desk. Can you ever imagine a time when there were no smartphones? Unless you have a deal imminently closing or some litigation issue that needs immediate attention, give your co-workers the courtesy of your complete attention. (Being an old lady lawyer, I not only imagine a time when there were no smartphones, I lived those days … rotary phones, long-distance operators, encyclopedias rather than Wikipedia, no fax, no internet, etc.)
About health, both physical and mental, Handler says that even though all the pressures created by peers, managers, and yourself are real, the failure to find some degree of balance for family, relationships, and health leads to burnout. Your value diminishes as your burnout level increases.
Don’t let people treat you badly. If you are treated like a doormat, then you become one. Don’t let that happen to you. If it’s unacceptable behavior to you, say so. I’m reminded of an old cartoon, I don’t recall what one, in which the mouse character was asked: “Are you man or mouse? Well, squeak up.”
Take vacations. Detach from the office. Put the smartphone somewhere out of reach. The world will continue to spin while you’re gone. Remember that no one is irreplaceable, even though you might think otherwise.
Appreciate the opportunity that the job provides. Handler says that “Despite all of the aggravation, endless work and living so low on the totem pole, if you do your job right at a quality firm … it will truly provide your with experience, skills, perspective and relationships that will last a lifetime.” He is spot on.
Handler reminds us all that even if you are told something is “life and death,” it isn’t. Trust me on that.
Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.
Nikola Corp., which is not Tesla but which would no doubt like to be, says the allegations leveled against it by short-seller Hindenburg Research are false. That there is nothing behind words like “ocean of lies,” “intricate fraud” and “total farce.” Still, it all seemed like enough to have founder Trevor Milton resign from the company, and for General Motors to have at least a hint of a second thought about its planned partnership with the company, and so the Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice thought they’d have a little look, you know, just to be sure that the words “false and misleading” are not a few more drops in the aforementioned body of untruths.
Nikola Motor Company, a manufacturer of electric and fuel cell trucks, announced in a regulatory filing Monday that it has received subpoenas from the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice in connection to fraud allegations leveled at the company by a short-seller.
Nikola’s founder, Trevor Milton, who resigned from the company in September amid the fraud allegations, also received grand jury subpoenas from the Department of Justice…. Nikola said in the filing that it cooperated and will continue to cooperate with any regulatory or government requests.
Relatedly, if anyone’s got some extremely expensive and outlandish request to make of Elon Musk, now’s the time to do it.
Several executives have told me that employees at all of his companies check Musk’s Twitter account first thing in the morning to see what disaster happened the night before—and to decipher if it will lead to a new lawsuit, affect Tesla’s stock price, or add to growing public resentment toward their CEO. “We all wake up and look at it every day, thinking, Oh, God, now what? You really had no idea what you were going to see,” one former employee said. At SpaceX and Tesla, another Tesla executive told me, employees from both companies keep one another abreast of Musk’s moods so that they’ll know if Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde is coming into the office that day. “On [SpaceX] launch days, you have everyone at Tesla tuned in to see if the launch is successful, not because we are vested in the rockets, but because it directly impacts Elon’s mood for the next few days,” the Tesla executive told me. “If there was a failure on a launch, there’d be hell to pay; you didn’t want to have a phone call set up with Elon afterward.” On the other hand, if the rocket launch was successful, Musk’s inbox would fill with budget requests. The same is true for SpaceX employees when new production numbers are set to be released for Tesla.
Nikola Motor reveals it received subpoenas from DOJ, SEC [CNN Business]
Elon Musk’s Totally Awful, Batshit-Crazy, Completely Bonkers, Most Excellent Year [Vanity Fair]
Nikola Aims To Close GM Deal But Has Backup Battery, Fuel Cell Suppliers [Forbes]
(Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)
Don’t let anyone tell you America’s campaign finance laws are broken. They’re working exactly as intended — to funnel unlimited amounts of cash into candidates’ coffers to enrich everyone in their orbit.
Oh, sorry, not “cash.” That should be speech. Thanks to the Supreme Court, individuals and corporations are entitled to rain virtually unlimited amounts of “speech” down on political candidates, who are in turn free to use that “speech” to pay their friends and family lucrative consulting fees. Love the smell of the First Amendment in the morning!
Last week, the Wall Street Journal and NBC noted that the Trump campaign was plastering its donors with solicitations to contribute to the legal defense fund to overturn the election results. But instead of going to the “Official Election Defense Fund” dedicated to “make sure we have the resources to protect the integrity of the Election!” the fine print revealed that donations would be used to pay off campaign debt and shore up the RNC’s bottom line.
Contributions to TMAGAC made by an Individual/Federal Multicandidate Political Committee will be allocated according to the following formula:
60% to DJTP for deposit in DJTP’s 2020 General Election Account for the retirement of general election debt (up to a maximum of $2,800/$5,000) or, if such debt has been retired or any portion of the contribution would exceed the limit to the 2020 General Election Account, for deposit in DJTP’s Recount Account (up to a maximum of $2,800/$5,000); 40% to the RNC’s Operating account (up to a maximum of $35,500/$15,000); and any additional funds to the RNC for deposit in the RNC’s Legal Proceedings account or Headquarters account (up to a maximum of $213,000/$90,000).
But the AP reports that the campaign has gone a step further. Now scrolling down reveals that the bulk of money is going straight into Trump’s Save America PAC.
Contributions to TMAGAC made by an Individual/Federal Multicandidate Political Committee will be allocated according to the following formula:
60% of each contribution first to Save America, up to $5,000/$5,000, then to DJTP’s Recount Account, up to a maximum of $2,800/$5,000.
40% of each contribution to the RNC’s Operating account, up to a maximum of $35,500/$15,000.
Any additional funds will go to the RNC for deposit in the RNC’s Legal Proceedings account or Headquarters account, up to a maximum of $213,000/$90,000.
So the first $45,500 from any individual donor is going to straight to Trump’s PAC and the RNC’s general account before a single nickel goes to the president’s Bullshit Time Waster Vexatious Litigation Jones Day Reputational Suicide Fund. Or, as they refer to it, the “Recount Account.”
And the cool thing about PAC money is that Uncle Sam doesn’t much care how it gets spent. As the AP notes, it can used for personal expenses. Or, say, to funnel $15,000/month to Lara Trump and Don Jr.’s ladyfriend Kimberly Guilfoyle.
Remember when Omarosa Manigault-Newman said she’d been offered a $15,000/month gig with the Trump campaign if she’d sign a non-disclosure agreement barring her from speaking publicly about her time in the White House? If the Trump campaign is going offline for the moment, the PAC is ideally poised as a vehicle for Trump’s donors to use their speechbux to keep potential Trump critics (and daughters-in-law) on-side.
“This is a slush fund. That’s the bottom line,” Paul S. Ryan, a campaign finance attorney with Common Cause told AP reporter Brian Slodysko. “Trump may just continue to string out this meritless litigation in order to fleece his own supporters of their money and use it in the coming years to pad his own lifestyle while teasing a 2024 candidacy.”
“They could pay (Trump) children consulting fees. They could pay the children’s significant others consulting fees. They could buy Don Jr.’s book, which the campaign can’t do,” Adav Noti, an attorney with the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center told the AP. “They could do anything with it. There’s no personal use restriction.”
Gosh, why would he mention Don Jr.’s book “Triggered?” Oh, right.
KA-CHING. KA-CHING. KA-CHING.
Money to support Trump court fight could flow to president [AP]
Elizabeth Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.
Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series of posts on motherhood in the legal profession, in partnership with our friends at MothersEsquire. Welcome Advocatus Matris to our pages. Click here if you’d like to donate to MothersEsquire.
It was 5:01 on the dot and I was, once again, headed down the office elevator with the same crew of support staff that clock out at 5:00 every day. I had exceeded my 5.6-hour billing target for the day, and was heading home to spend time with my husband and baby. It was a Wednesday (pre-pandemic), and I telework Thursdays and Fridays every week, so I would not be back in the office until Monday. I had no plans to log on to Citrix that night.
As an associate at an Am Law 100 firm in a top-of-market city (not New York City), this reality often felt much like a dream. I had a simple desire, yet one that is elusive to so many Biglaw attorneys: to spend meaningful time with my family on a near-daily basis while continuing to excel at my job.
Biglaw is, unfortunately, not known for being family-friendly, and it can be especially challenging for new mothers. But the horror stories you hear are not a universal experience. While I don’t claim to have all of the answers, my experience balancing motherhood and Biglaw for nearly three years now has been a success story. Of course, my idea of “balance” may not be yours. But I hope my story inspires you nonetheless.
When I was in law school, a Biglaw partner once tried to sell me on the family friendliness of his firm by explaining that an associate with whom he worked left at 5 every day and “just got right back online” after her kids went to bed each night. So … family friendly is working an eight-hour day, taking care of children for a few hours, and then working for a few more hours? Every day? That sounded miserable.
Flash forward a few years, and I was pregnant with my first child. It was a miserable pregnancy. Among other issues, my doctor kept sending me to the hospital midworkday for hours of monitoring and testing. Thankfully, my office was very accommodating; the message I received over and over again was to do whatever I needed to do to take care of myself and the baby.
While on maternity leave, I thought a lot about how to balance working with family upon my return. Ultimately, I decided to propose an alternate arrangement to the firm in which I would work at a 70% capacity and telework two days a week. If it worked as planned, I would be able to leave at 5 p.m. most days (instead of 6:30 or 7 p.m., as I had before), and work substantially reduced hours on my telework days to spend more time with my child.
Several people cautioned me that my plan was unwise. The risk, of course, is that I would do just as much work as before, but at 70% pay. Some friends suggested I would be better off in-house; others suggested sticking with a regular schedule and just mysteriously finding a way to make it all work. Thankfully, my experience has been quite positive. Often, when things are busy, I do log onto the computer after my kids go to bed to knock out the rest of a project; but it is (usually) with a feeling of enthusiasm for the work, rather than a compulsion to squeeze more hours into an already-long day. Other times, I take whole afternoons or Fridays off. And it is as marvelous as it sounds.
My advice to anyone considering an alternate path (whether a mother, father, or just because):
Ultimately, Biglaw will always be a hard job. Perhaps the biggest challenge is finding balance. But, in my experience, finding this balance provides the greatest reward.
Advocatus Matris (a pseudonym) is a senior associate at an Am Law 100 firm.