Author: TSA Press

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 Georgia Connally to our pages. Click here if you’d like to donate to MothersEsquire.

I hit “delete” again, erasing the phrase: “and for social studies homework” from the motion draft. This was the 400th time that I typed dicta from my child’s NTI lesson into a brief since March of last year. Luckily, I previously avoided filing a motion for leave that incorporated a sentence reading “Jason, you do not have to ask to go potty during NTI.”

And honestly, accidentally incorporating Ms. Robinson’s second-grade classroom into my legal writing is the least of my concerns. During the pandemic my children have made appearances in more than one court appointment. They have been lively participants in family, circuit, and criminal court across the Commonwealth. And, I am not alone — nor are my children alone in Zoom court. Mothers, and Practitioners, statewide endeavor in the daily struggle to silence their tiny co-counsels, consistently screaming for applesauce, during every motion hour. Other attorneys are logging into Zoom court under the same usernames that their children created for NTI — I have personally showed up to court as “Mister Fartpants.”

This experience has illuminated a deeper question at the core of practicing law as a mother — does virtual court really make it accessible?

Imagine being simultaneously expected to: (1) provide childcare services; (2) perform our duties as attorneys — be it court, meetings, or writing; (3) teach virtual learning to our school-aged children; and (4) ensure that our house does not burn to the literal ground. Can you simultaneously change a diaper and argue a complex legal matter? Can you simultaneously teach some sort of weird, block drawing, second-grade, chart-making math and write a dispositive brief? No? I didn’t think so. Law school doesn’t prepare you for this. But, perhaps motherhood does?

Prior to COVID-19, women were still the primary caregivers of household children. But, recent data shows that COVID-19 related childcare shortages and school changes have disproportionately affected working mothers, as opposed to working fathers. In other words, the data shows that more woman are working from home, teaching from home, and parenting from home. The legal field is not immune from impacts of the pandemic. The data shows that more law moms have taken to working from home — via zoom — than ever before. What is the impact (In a professional field not known for its congeniality)?

Early in the pandemic, I asked a male counterpart to roll a court appearance until the following week, when I would not have my children for quarantine.  “It’s Zoom court,” he replied, “there is no reason why you cannot make it to internet court.” In reality, sir, there was a reason I could not make it to internet court. I, and all hard-working law-mothers fearlessly trying to tame wailing toddlers, still have to speak on Zoom court. I still have to unmute myself and give the court an inside look — or listen — into my chaotic, loud, and “unprofessional” household.

This puts us in a tough position as mothers and advocates. As advocates, we have an ethical obligation to make only those decisions in the best interest of our clients in any given matter. But how far does the obligation extend? It may be in my client’s best interest to lock my toddler in a dog crate during mediation, but it certainly isn’t in my children’s best interest.

Of course, then, it is of no surprise that more mothers are choosing their children. Data from the pandemic shows that more than 1 million mothers have left the workforce since the pandemic started. And, that is a bad — very bad — thing.

The truth is Zoom did not improve the mother’s predicament. It merely added to her responsibilities. And, more importantly, Zoom gave the government an excuse for not providing childcare or parenting resources during this time.  Why would they need to provide childcare subsidies or resources when mothers are able to bear the brunt of both virtual employment, childcare, and parenting responsibilities.

The solution in this situation, unlike in many others, is the old-fashioned solution — grace.

(1) Allow that parent to roll her court date to the next week. Remember that people do not forget how you treat them when they ask you for help.

(2) Don’t flinch when law mom brings her child onto motion hour. Don’t comment and embarrass her when her children are screaming for applesauce during a hearing. Let her focus. Let her tune them out. If she can parent, and tune out her children, then you should be able to successfully ignore them through your computer screen.

1. Do not comment on her screaming children unless she does it first. She doesn’t need you to remind her that they are present. She hasn’t forgotten — trust me.
2. Do not publicly make fun of her screen name. Do not make her into a meme or an internet sensation over her kids’ Zoom background, username, or filter. She gracefully ignores your pleated khakis, so you can ignore her screen name.
3. Be patient. Take a deep breathe. There are no jury trials right now — for the most part. Courts are backed up and court staff is equally overwhelmed. Ultimately, lawyering in the pandemic isn’t a sprint. It is a damn marathon, and we are all in it together.

Most of all, please remember that everyone has “Zoom to grow.” The technology is new, and it isn’t meant for everyone. Be reasonable about your expectations and patient with your staff, opposing counsel, and overworked clerks.

---

Georgia Connally is a civil rights lawyer and the founder of Connally Law Offices, a Kentucky—Lexington and Louisville law firm devoted to making quality legal representation accessible to all Kentuckians. CLO is income based and bridges the gap between those who qualify for pro-bono legal services, and full priced services.  CLO prides itself on its LGBTQ advocacy, civil rights, and family law advocacy—in addition to minority owned business formation services. In her free time, Georgia serves as an adjunct professor of political science at a local university.  As a bisexual feminist, Georgia also enjoys LGBTQ advocacy and sits on the Boards of multiple LGBTQ organizations. At home, Georgia has three (3) daughters and one on the way.  She prides herself in cleaning up legos and wiping crayon off of walls. See www.connallylawoffices.com for more information.

Can a media entity like Barstool Sports ever be effectively sued for defamation? The answer is obviously yes, but satirical media sources such as the one presided over by David Portnoy have certain built-in protections that may not be enjoyed by others, making it much more difficult for a potential plaintiff to prevail.

On March 29, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a memorandum and order in the pending case of Michael Rapaport v. Barstool Sports, Inc. et al. on cross-motions for summary judgment, which granted the defendants’ motion to remove Rapaport’s counts of fraud and defamation. The 64-page opinion was either the most difficult or enjoyable document that the federal judge ever issued, as it was laced with profanity and very vulgar images since it was important for the judge to recount the salient facts in the background section.

The interesting, defamation-related analysis, begins on page 29 of the memorandum. Rapaport’s cause of action for defamation was based on approximately 80 statements made by the defendants, and Buchwald said none of them were actionable. The statements included accusations that Rapaport was being racist, a fraud, a hack, and a wannabe, as well as Rapaport having herpes and abusing his ex-girlfriend.

A basic way for a defendant to avoid liability for an alleged defamatory statement is to show that the statement itself was not one of fact but instead grounded in opinion. Under New York law, the court must decide whether the claimed defamatory statements would have been understood by a reasonable audience as assertions of fact that were proffered for their accuracy, and the court is to focus on the overall context in which the assertions were made to determine whether a reasonable reader would have believed that the challenged statements conveyed facts, as opposed to opinions, about the plaintiff.

The tone and apparent purpose of the publication should be taken into consideration, such as when the tone of the publication indicates that the writer is presenting information as satire or fiction. Furthermore, the court is to acknowledge that there are circumstances where the audience may anticipate the use of epithets, fiery rhetoric, or hyperbole, which leads to a statement being classified as opinion rather than a statement of fact.

Buchwald began applying the above to statements concerning Rapaport being a racist, a fraud, a hack, a wannabe, and a liar. She concluded that these types of labels cannot be statements of fact, because they cannot be objectively proven true or false. The discussion on race is particularly interesting. Rapaport introduced evidence that he is married to a Black woman and that he has had many Black guests on his podcast. Buchwald said that such evidence cannot rise to the level of establishing objective proof that Rapaport is not a racist (while carefully indicating that she also does not intend to suggest that Rapaport is a racist).

While one cannot easily objectively prove that someone is a racist, it is somewhat easier to prove whether someone has herpes or has committed domestic abuse. Rapaport met his burden of proof by providing a negative test result for herpes and demonstrating that he was never convicted of battery. Yet, the allegations of defamation were still kicked out by Buchwald because she held that the statements, in the context they were provided, would not have been understood by the audience as assertions of fact proffered for their accuracy. Basically, the defendants were given a win here because they are generally spewing overtly biased viewpoints full of epithets, vulgarities, hyperbole, and nonliteral language and imagery.

The specific language used by Buchwald to shield the defendants could be important for future litigants involved in allegations of defamation arising from blogs, podcasts, and social media. She wrote, “the statements were largely laden with epithets, vulgarities, hyperbole, and non-literal language and imagery; delivered in the midst of a public and very acrimonious dispute between the Barstool Defendants and Rapaport that would have been obvious to even the most casual observer; and published on social media, blogs, and sports talk radio, which are all platforms where audiences reasonably anticipate hearing opinionated statements.”

Buchwald dove deep into many specific statements such as those uttered by the defendants in what was referred to as a “Fire Rap” diss track, which included calling Rapaport a “herpes-having motherf**ker giving girls the heebie jeebies,” a “herpes-ridden f**k,” the “perp with the herp,” and a “75-year old, herpe-having piece of shit.” First, Buchwald noted that these comments were made while the parties were engaged in a hostile public feud, which would cause the audience to anticipate the use of hyperbole. Second, Buchwald examined the tone and apparent purpose of the diss track and concluded that the audience would not come to think the claims reflected an accurate factual assessment of Rapaport. In what must have been an extremely awkward or entertaining experience for Buchwald, she highlighted that the defendants used other sensational assertions surrounding the alleged defamatory material, such as that Rapaport was a “f**king 10 gallon drum of curdled milk” and a “walking blob of jizz.” Third, with regard to the allegation that Rapaport had herpes, Buchwald pointed to a post that the defendants made highlighting a red lesion under Rapaport’s lip, impliedly stating that the defendants at least had some grounds for their theory.

The ruling seems to provide broad protections to statements made on generally satirical and over-the-top blogs and social media accounts. It almost feels as though the defendants could have gotten away with saying anything as long as the statements had any chance of being classified as opinions with the authors not explicitly saying, “I know this to be true.”

---

Darren Heitner is the founder of Heitner Legal. He is the author of How to Play the Game: What Every Sports Attorney Needs to Know, published by the American Bar Association, and is an adjunct professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. You can reach him by email at heitner@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter at @DarrenHeitner.

There is one universal truth for all lawyers: You have many, many documents. 

While there are varied ways you may create, edit, manage, and share them, today’s technology can meet pretty much any requirement you can come up with. 

In this new installment of the Non-Event, we provide you with the resources you need to streamline what can be incredibly time-consuming tasks while minimizing any legal risks. 

The Non-Event features our main stage “panel”: the Non-Eventcast, in which host Jared Correia is joined by experts who provide high-level guidance on everything from document assembly to creating one “source of truth” in your system. 

We also feature articles from the industry’s top commentators and companies. 

Finally, you can download the industry’s premier buyers guide in partnership with our friends at Legal Tech Publishing.    

While you’re at the Non-Event, feel free to browse our Practice Management section as well and shore up the core of your business operations.

The Premier Spot for Tech-Perplexed Lawyers

For most lawyers, the prospect of a tech conference triggers thoughts of boredom and missed billables. And as a group, attorneys’ tech adoption is often begrudging, at best. 

That’s why we’ve launched the ATL Non-Event. 

We’re bringing the technology conversation to lawyers directly: in plain English and geared to meet a fully booked schedule. 

The Non-Event is conducted in partnership with our affiliate Evolve the Law, as well as Legal Tech Publishing, whose buyers guides are the go-to resource for all purchasers of legal tech.

This month, you’ll hear from:

• Filevine
• Foxit
• iManage
• Moxtra
• MyCase
• NetDocuments
• Pathagoras
• WealthCounsel

Swag bags, unfortunately, are still a work in progress.

ATL Non-Event, Document Management, Legal Technology, Non-Event, Non-Eventcast, Podcasts, Technology

The special bonuses are still coming, fast and furious, to Biglaw firms around the country! Now we’ve gotten word that a Texas-based firm has gotten in on the action, showering its associates with extra money — on top of the regular year-end bonuses — as a thank you for their hard work during the pandemic.

Yesterday, Vinson & Elkins announced special bonuses, payable in two tranches. Associates’ special payday will come at the end of May and October, with the second payment larded up. The payment schedule is as follows:

Associates need to bill 1,900 hours, annualized, to be eligible for the special bonuses with the opportunity for a make-up payment if an associate’s hours come later in the year.

You can read the firm’s full memo on the next page.

Please help us help you when it comes to bonus news at other firms. As soon as your firm’s bonus memo comes out, please email it to us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Bonus”) or text us (646-820-8477). Please include the memo if available. You can take a photo of the memo and send it via text or email if you don’t want to forward the original PDF or Word file.

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

---

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).

Why do firms announce compensation news over voicemail? It’s not like these bonuses will never leak out if only they avoid leaving a paper trail. No one actually likes listening to long voicemails. The best feature of modern smartphones is that they transcribe the voicemails for you so you don’t have to listen to figure out what’s going on.

And yet some firms stand by the self-indulgent voicemail speech, failing to appreciate that every associate is rolling their eyes with the message on speaker just waiting for the good part.

O’Melveny apparently opted for the voicemail.

Since the firm technically has “Myers” in the name, we’ll give the bonus its proper Myers-Briggs name of a MSBLDPWM.

	May 31	Sept 30	Total
Class of 2020	$4,500	$7,500	$12,000
Class of 2019	$6,000	$10,000	$16,000
Class of 2018	$12,000	$20,000	$32,000
Class of 2017	$16,500	$27,500	$44,000
Class of 2016	$19,500	$32,500	$52,000
Class of 2015	$22,200	$37,000	$59,200
Class of 2014 & up	$24,000	$40,000	$64,000

Though maybe it’s more fair to say it’s “JO” since that’s functionally a June/October breakdown. In any event, back-loaded DPW matches for all U.S. and Asia associates and counsel hitting an annualized 1900 hours based on detection points of April 30 and August 31.

This is where I’d usually say that the memo is attached on the next page, but there is no memo. Maybe I’ll just record myself doing a dramatic reading of this article and post that later.

Please help us help you when it comes to bonus news at other firms. As soon as your firm’s bonus memo comes out, please email it to us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Bonus”) or text us (646-820-8477). Please include the memo if available. You can take a photo of the memo and send it via text or email if you don’t want to forward the original PDF or Word file.

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

---

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.

Usually when a Biglaw firm announces special bonuses, associates rejoice. After all, saying thank you for hard work during a pandemic with cold hard cash is generally the way to associates’ hearts. But, that’s not always the case.

You see, once there’s momentum in the market for a certain standard for special bonuses, anything less can feel like an insult. This is something Kramer Levin is learning the hard way. They announced special bonuses yesterday, but not everyone is happy about it. As one Kramer Levin tipster called them, they’re “the SHIT bonuses.” But let’s take a look at the details:

Hmmm, everything looks pretty standard, so why are folks so pissed? Well, it comes down to the fine print. Associates have to bill 1,900 hours (950 by June, 950 by year end) to qualify — which isn’t even the most arduous requirement we’ve seen so far — but only client-billable hours count. Though at least a make-up bonus is available for associates who hit their billable target only in the back half of the year.

Here’s what more tipsters have to say:

Kramer Levin comes out weak and clearly way off market. Bonuses for ONLY client billable work – if 950 by June end. And if 950 between June and Dec. catch up. If pure client billable is 1900 by end of December. This is ridiculous. The firm was off market last year too with COVID bonuses limited to client and business dev work. And at this point it’s pay is just way below market. Even below some of the lower ranked firms

Firm morale is extremely low and associates are heavily disappointed specially because there was no loss in earnings last year.

If you’re a Kramer associate and want to sound off on your special bonuses, feel free to send a line to tips@abovethelaw.com — a fun or insightful response may make it into an update of this article.

You can read the firm’s full memo on the next page.

Please help us help you when it comes to bonus news at other firms. As soon as your firm’s bonus memo comes out, please email it to us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Bonus”) or text us (646-820-8477). Please include the memo if available. You can take a photo of the memo and send it via text or email if you don’t want to forward the original PDF or Word file.

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

---

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).

Money, money, money: It’s something Biglaw associates love to hear good news about, especially when more of it is about to land in their bank accounts for all of their hard work during the pandemic. Dozens of firms have already offered special bonuses to their associates and counsel, and one more firm recently joined in the bonus craze.

McDermott Will & Emery — a firm that brought in $1,172,114,000 gross revenue in 2019, putting it in 30th place in the most recent Am Law 100 ranking — emailed attorneys to share the wealth yesterday afternoon. The firm is matching the Davis Polk scale. Here’s what that looks like at MWE (full memo on the next page):

Associates at the firm are expected be on track to meet a threshold of 1850 annualized client-billable hours to receive these bonuses, which are payable in late June and late October. Additional details, like whether catch-up payments are available if associates miss the mark for the June payment, will be announced later this week. Congratulations to everyone at McDermott!

(Flip to the next page to see the full memo from McDermott Will & Emery.)

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

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

---

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.

Goldman Sachs has been a bit skeptical of the cryptocurrency revolution, but has also shown itself to be, at times, bit-curious. Well, the former’s all out the window now that the Elect’s only real competition on Wall Street is dipping its toe into the providing-fake-and-probably-worthless-entries-on-blockchain-ledgers-to-our-rich-but-impossibly-stupid-clients water, D.J. D-Sol & co. need to keep up with the Gormans.

* The New York Attorney General has settled a lawsuit with the maker of Life Alert. Maybe the company’s defenses have fallen and they can’t get up… [WIVB]

* A driver has pleaded guilty in a crash that killed a prominent Ohio lawyer. [Enquirer]

* LGBTQ students are suing the Department of Justice over alleged discrimination at federally funded religious colleges. [NBC News]

* A lawyer for the New York Attorney General alleges that the leader of the National Rifles Association kept its board in the dark about plans to put the group into bankruptcy. [Wall Street Journal]

* A lawyer who said disbarment would be an “honor” has had his law license revoked. Be careful what you wish for… [ABA Journal]

---

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.