New
allegations
in
an
ongoing
case
against
Swedish
telecommunication
giant
Ericsson
suggest
Simpson
Thacher
attorneys
were
aware
that
the
multinational
company
made
illegal
payments
to
terrorist
organizations.
The
suit,
filed
in
August
on
behalf
of
American
service
members
and
civilians
killed
or
wounded
by
al-Qaeda,
al-Qaeda-in-Iraq,
and
Islamic
State,
claims
that
Ericsson
agreed
to
pay
protection
money
to
these
groups
in
order
to
maintain
its
business
prospects
in
Iraq
and
Afghanistan,
despite
knowing
that
these
payments
funded
terrorist
activity.
Beyond
the
payments,
Ericsson
also
allegedly
facilitated
the
“direct
transfer
of
high-tech,
U.S.
military-grade,
U.S.
origin
communications
technologies”
to
terrorist
groups.
And
this
all
happened
over
the
course
of
at
least
15
years.
Earlier
this
week,
the
plaintiffs
through
their
attorneys
at
Sparacino
PLLC
filed
a
779-page
Amended
Complaint
alleging
that
Simpson
Thacher
was
aware
of
these
practices
by
2014
—
at
least
five
years
before
they
ceased
—
and
helped
the
company
as
a
“reputation
launderer”
by
virtue
of
its
standing
in
the
legal
community.
There’s
a
bit
of
alphabet-soup
with
different
Ericsson
entities
allegedly
acquiring
knowledge
of
the
scheme
at
different
times,
but
there
are
paragraphs
like
this
one:
On
information
and
belief,
Ericsson
AB
also
directly
retained
Simpson
Thacher
and/or
Ericsson
AB
assented
to
the
retention
of
Simpson
Thacher
on
Ericsson
AB’s
behalf
by
LM
Ericsson.
When
Ericsson
AB
did
so,
Ericsson
AB
had
the
specific
intent
that
Simpson
Thacher
deflect
any
United
States
government
scrutiny
concerning
Ericsson’s
illicit
payments
in
Iraq,
including
those
relating
to
al-Qaeda,
al-Qaeda-in-Iraq,
and
Islamic
State.
Infra
at
Part
V.
Ericsson
AB
and
Simpson
Thacher
agreed
as
to
that
course
of
conduct,
and
thereafter
successfully
obstructed
the
United
States
government’s
counterterrorism
operations.
This
conduct
was
a
but-for
cause
of
Defendants’
protection
payments
in
Iraq
by
no
later
than
2014,
when
Ericsson
AB,
on
information
and
belief,
retained
Simpson
Thacher
alongside
LM
Ericsson
or,
alternatively,
assented
to
LM
Ericsson’s
retention
of
Simpson
Thacher
on
behalf
of
Ericsson
AB.
Ericsson
AB
and
Simpson
Thacher
were
aware
of
Defendants’
payments
to
al-Qaeda,
al-
Qaeda-in-Iraq,
and
Islamic
State,
Ericsson
AB
and
Simpson
Thacher
both
knew
such
payments
were
illegal
and
foreseeably
aided
acts
of
terrorism
against
Americans,
and
both
Ericsson
AB
and
Simpson
Thacher
both
affirmatively
chose
to
conceal
such
information
from
the
United
States
government
even
though
Ericsson
AB
and
Simpson
Thacher
both
had
an
affirmative
duty
of
disclosure
given
Ericsson
AB’s
assertion
that
Ericsson
was
fully
cooperating
with
the
then-
existing
U.S.
government
investigation
of
Ericsson.
The
“U.S.
government
investigation”
resulted
in
the
Department
of
Justice
entering
a
deferred
prosecution
agreement
with
Ericsson
and
the
company
agreeing
to
pay
$1
billion
for
multiple
FCPA
violations
involving
bribes
to
officials
around
the
world,
but
pointedly
not
the
terrorist
organizations
involved
here.
Simpson
conducted
the
internal
investigation
in
conjunction
with
the
DOJ
inquiry
and
finalized
its
report
after
the
DPA
was
signed.
That
report
leaked
to
reporters
in
February
and
it
kinda
sorta
mentioned
the
whole
“paying
off
terrorists”
stuff.
Though,
as
the
Amended
Complaint
puts
it,
“Many
of
the
‘findings’
were
written
in
the
passive
voice
to
obfuscate
the
culpability
of
particular
Ericsson
personnel.
Other
findings
were
obvious
examples
of
Simpson
Thacher
pulling
punches.”
As
one
might
imagine,
the
DOJ
had
some
additional
concerns
at
that
point.
DOJ
has
publicly
taken
the
position
that
LM
Ericsson
breached
its
ongoing
obligations
to
the
U.S.
government
under
the
DPA
by
having
concealed
the
existence
of
that
investigation
and
the
findings
set
forth
therein
(representing
the
second
time
in
roughly
two
years
DOJ
has
accused
LM
Ericsson
of
breaching
the
DPA).
That’s
all…
well,
that’s
all
not
good.
If
the
firm
learned
of
the
conduct
after
the
fact
and
helped
Ericsson
keep
it
from
the
government
it’s
bad
and
if
the
firm
had
any
knowledge
of
these
payments
before
they
stopped
it’s
way,
way
worse.
We
reached
out
to
Simpson
for
comment
yesterday
but
have
not
heard
back.
We’ll
update
this
story
if
we
do.
You
can
read
the
full
Amended
Complaint
on
the
next
page.
We’re
more
than
halfway
through
Hanukkah,
Christmas
is
nearly
upon
us,
and
Biglaw
bonus
season
is
still
going
strong.
In
fact,
it’s
going
really
strong
at
some
firms.
Irell
&
Manella
is
making
sure
that
its
associates
end
the
year
on
a
high
note
with
bountiful
bonuses.
Irell
pulled
in
$143,500,000
gross
revenue
in
2021,
putting
it
in
184th
place
on
the
Am
Law
200
ranking.
Once
again,
the
firm
is
offering
its
associates
major
bonus
bucks.
“In
consideration
of
your
exceptional
contributions
to
the
firm’s
success
over
the
last
year,
we
are
thrilled
to
once
again
be
paying
bonuses
that
are
substantially
above
market
at
all
associate
class
levels,”
writes
partner
Keith
Orso,
who
serves
on
the
firm’s
management
committee. “More
specifically,
while
the
exact
ratios
vary
by
class
level,
our
total
bonuses
across
the
associate
classes
this
calendar
year
(spring
plus
end
of
year
2022)
average
more
than
twice
(2x)
the
total
‘market’
bonuses
being
paid
by
most
other
high-end
firms
this
year.” Here’s
the
bonus
scale
the
firm
is
offering
up
in
2022:
New
Associate:
$39,000
(pro-rated)
Class
of
2021:
$39,000
Class
of
2020:
$51,000
Class
of
2019:
$89,000
Class
of
2018:
$110,000
Class
of
2017:
$128,000
Class
of
2016:
$156,000
Class
of
2015:
$168,000
But
that’s
not
all,
folks.
Irell
is
continuing
to
offer
spring
bonuses
to
associates,
based
on
profit
sharing.
In
April
or
May,
bonus-eligible
associates
will
receive
supplemental
bonuses
when
the
firm’s
fiscal
year
has
closed.
Associates
will
receive
their
bonuses
on
December
27,
which
will
put
a
cap
on
their
holiday
season
and
make
for
an
even
happier
new
year.
Congratulations
on
the
above-market
bonuses,
Irell
associates!
(Flip
to
the
next
page
to
see
the
memo
from
Irell
&
Manella.)
Remember
everyone,
we
depend
on
your
tips
to
stay
on
top
of
important
bonus
updates,
so
when
your
firm
announces
or
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
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.
We
finally
have
an
interesting
edition
of
the
Twitter
files!
When
the
Twitter
Files
began,
I
actually
expected something interesting
to
come
out
of
them.
All
of
the
big
tech
companies
have
been
unfortunately
unwilling
to
be
as
transparent
as
they
could
be
about
how
their
content
moderation
practices
work.
Much
of
the
transparency
we’ve
received
has
been
either
through
whistleblowers
leaking
information
(which
is often
misinterpreted
by
journalists)
or
through
the
companies
partnering
with
academics,
which
often
leads
to
rather
dry
analysis
of
what’s
happening,
and
which
maybe
a
dozen
people
read.
There
have
been
moments
of
openness,
but
the
messy
stuff
gets
hidden.
So
I
had
hoped
that
when
Elon
took
over
and
announced
his
plans
to
be
transparent
about
what
had
happened
in
the
past,
we
might
actually
learn
some
dirt.
Because
there’s
always some dirt.
The
big
question
was
what
form
that
dirt
might
take,
and
how
much
of
it
was
systemic
rather
than
one-time
errors
and
mistakes.
But,
until
now,
the
Twitter
Files
have
been
worse
than
useless.
They
were
presented
by
journalists
who
had
neither
the
knowledge
nor
the
experience
to
understand
what
they
were
looking
at,
combined
with
an
apparent
desire
to
present
the
narrative
in
a
certain
framing.
Because
of
that,
I’ve
written
multiple
posts walking
through
the
“evidence” presented,
and
showing
how
Musk’s chosen
reporters
didn’t
understand
things and
were misrepresenting
reality.
Given
that
most
journalist
know
to
put
the
important
revelations
up
top,
and
that
each
new
“release”
in
the
Twitter
files
seemed
more
breathless,
but
less
interesting,
than
the
previous
ones,
I
was
basically
expecting
nothing
at
all
of
interest
to
come
from
the
files.
Indeed,
that
was
a
disappointment.
As
Stanford’s
Renee
DiResta
noted,
this
was a
real
missed
opportunity.
If
the
files
had
actually
been
handed
over
to
people
who
understand
this
field,
what
was
important,
and
what
was
banal
everyday
trust
&
safety
work,
the
real
stories
could
have
been
discussed.
The
Twitter
Files
thus
far
are
a
missed
opportunity.
To
settle
scores
with
Twitter’s
previous
leaders,
the
platform’s
new
owner
is
pointing
to
niche
examples
of
arguable
excesses
and
missteps,
possibly
creating
far
more
distrust
in
the
process.
And
yet
there
is
a
real
need
for
public
understanding
of
how
platform
moderation
works,
and
visibility
into
how
enforcement
matches
up
against
policy.
We
can
move
toward
genuine
transparency—and,
hopefully,
toward
a
future
in
which
people
can
see
the
same
facts
in
similar
ways.
So
when
the
Intercept’s
Lee
Fang
kicked
off
the
8th
installment
of
the
Twitter
files,
I
was
not
expecting
much
at
all.
After
all,
Fang
was
one
of
the
authors
of
the
very
recent garbage
Intercept
story that
totally
misunderstood
the
role
of
CISA
in
the
government
and
(falsely)
argued
that
the
government
demanded
Twitter
censor
the
Hunter
Biden
laptop
story.
The
fact
that
the
evidence
from
the
Twitter
files totally
disproved his
earlier
story
should
at
least
result
in
Fang
questioning
his
understanding
of
these
things.
And
yet…
it
appears
that
he
may
have
(finally)
legitimately
found
a real story
of
malfeasance
in
the
Twitter
files
in
his
most
recent
installment.
Like
all
the
others,
he
initially
posted
his
findings
—
where
he
admits
he
was
granted
access
to
Twitter’s
internal
systems
via
a
Twitter-employed
lawyer
who
would
search
for
and
access
the
documents
he
requested
—
on
Twitter
in
a
messy
and
hard
to
follow
thread.
He
then
posted a
more
complete
story on
The
Intercept.
The
story
is
still
somewhat
messy
and
confused,
and
it’s
not
entirely
clear
Fang
even
fully
realizes
what
he
found,
but
it
does
suggest
serious
malfeasance
on
the
part
of
the
government.
It
actually
combines
a
few
other
stories
we’ve
covered
recently.
First,
towards
the
end
of
the
summer,
Twitter
and
Meta
announced
that
they
had found
and
taken
down
a
disinformation
campaign running
on
their
platforms
—
and
all
signs
suggested
the
campaign
was
being
run
by
the
US
government.
As
was
noted
at
the
time,
the
propaganda
campaign
did
not
appear
to
be
all
that
successful.
Indeed,
it
was
kind
of
pathetic.
From
the
details,
it sounded like
someone
in
the
US
government
had
the
dumb
idea
of
“hey,
let’s
just
create
our
own
propaganda
social
media
accounts
to
counter
foreign
propaganda
accounts,”
rather
than
embracing
“hey,
we’re
the
US
government,
we
can
just
speak
openly
and
transparently.”
The
overall
failure
of
the
campaign
was…
not
surprising.
And
we
were
happy
that
Twitter
and
Meta
killed
the
campaign
(and
now
we’re
hearing
that
the
US
government
is
doing
an
investigation
into
how
this
campaign
came
to
be
in
the
first
place).
The
second
recent
story
we
had
was
about
Meta’s
“Xcheck”
program,
which
was initially
revealed in
the
Facebook
files
as
a
special
kind
of
“whitelist”
for
high
profile
accounts.
Meta
asked
the
Oversight
Board
to
review
the
program,
and
just
a
few
weeks
ago
the
Oversight
Board finally
released
its
analysis and
suggestions
(after
a
year
of
researching
the
program).
It
turns
out
that
it’s
basically
just
like
what
we
said
when
the
program
was
first
revealed:
after
a
few
too
many
“false
positives”
on
high
profile
accounts
became
embarrassing
(for
example,
then
President
Obama’s
Facebook
account
was
taken
down
because
he
recommended
the
book
“Moby
Dick”
and
there
was
an
automated
flag
on
the
word
“dick”),
someone
at
Facebook
instituted
the
Xcheck
program
to
effectively
whitelist
high
profile
individuals
so
that
flags
on
their
account
would
need
to
be
reviewed
by
a
human
before
any
action
was
taken.
As
we
discussed
in
our
podcast
about
Xcheck,
in
many
ways,
Facebook
was
choosing
to
favor
“false
negatives”
for
high
profile
accounts
over
“false
positives.”
The
end
result,
then,
is
that
high
profile
accounts
are
effectively
allowed
to
get
away
with
more,
and
violate
the
rules
with
a
larger
lag
for
consequences,
but
they’re
less
likely
to
be
suspended
accidentally.
Tradeoffs.
The
entire
content
moderation
space
is
full
of
them.
Again
as
we
noted
when
that
story
first
came
out,
basically every social
media
platform
has
some
form
of
this
in
action.
It
almost
becomes
necessary
to
deal
with
the
scale
and
not
accidentally
ban
your
most
high
profile
users.
But,
it
comes
with
some
serious
risks
and
issues,
which
are
also
highlighted
in
the
Oversight
Board’s policy
recommendations regarding
Xcheck.
Thus,
it’s
not
at
all
surprising
that
Twitter
clearly
has
a
similar
whitelist
feature.
This
was
actually
somewhat
revealed
in
an
earlier
Twitter
File
when
Bari
Weiss,
thinking
she
was
revealing
unfair
treatment
of
the
@LibsOfTikTok
account, actually revealed
it
was
on
a
similar
Xcheck
style
whitelist
that
clearly
showed
a
flag
on
the
account
saying DO
NOT
TAKE
ACTION
ON
USER
WITHOUT
CONSULTING an
executive
team.
That’s
all
background
that
finally
gets
us
to
the
Lee
Fang
story.
It
reveals
that
the
US
government
apparently
got
some
of
its
accounts
onto
this
whitelist
after
they
had
been
dinged
earlier.
The
accounts,
at
the
time,
were
properly
labeled
as
being
run
by
the
US
government.
But
here’s
the
nefarious
bit:
sometime
after
that,
the
accounts
changed
to
no
longer
be
transparent
about
the
US
government
being
behind
them,
but because
they
were
on
this
whitelist it’s
likely
that
they
were
able
to
get
away
with
sketchy
behavior
with
less
review
by
Twitter,
and
it
likely
took
longer
to
catch
that
they
were
engaged
in
a
state-backed
propaganda
campaign.
As
the
article
notes,
in
2017,
someone
at
the
US
government
noticed
that
these
accounts
—
which,
again,
at
the
time
clearly
said
they
were
run
by
the
US
government
—
were
somehow
limited
by
Twitter:
On
July
26,
2017,
Nathaniel
Kahler,
at
the
time
an
official
working
with
U.S.
Central
Command
—
also
known
as
CENTCOM,
a
division
of
the
Defense
Department
— emailed a
Twitter
representative
with
the
company’s
public
policy
team,
with
a
request
to
approve
the
verification
of
one
account
and
“whitelist”
a
list
of
Arab-language
accounts
“we
use
to
amplify
certain
messages.”
“We’ve
got
some
accounts
that
are
not
indexing
on
hashtags
—
perhaps
they
were
flagged
as
bots,”
wrote
Kahler.
“A
few
of
these
had
built
a
real
following
and
we
hope
to
salvage.”
Kahler
added
that
he
was
happy
to
provide
more
paperwork
from
his
office
or
SOCOM,
the
acronym
for
the
U.S.
Special
Operations
Command.
Now,
it
seems
reasonable
to
question
whether
or
not
Twitter
should
have
put
them
on
a
whitelist
in
the
first
place,
but
if
they
were
properly
marked,
and
not
engaged
in
violative
behavior,
you
can
see
how
it
happened.
But
Twitter absolutely should
have
had
policies
stating
that
if
those
accounts
have
their
descriptions
or
names
or
whatever
changed,
the
whitelist
flag
should
automatically
be
removed,
or
at
least
sent
up
for
a
human
review
to
make
sure
it
was
still
appropriate.
And
that
apparently
did
not
happen.
As
The
Intercept
report
notes,
Twitter
at
this
time
was
under tremendous pressure
from
basically
all
corners
about
the
fact
that
ISIS
was
an
effective
user
of
social
media
for
recruitment
and
propaganda.
So
the
company
had
been
somewhat
aggressive
in
trying
to
stamp
that
out.
And
it
sounds
like
the
US
accounts
got
caught
up
in
those
efforts.
So
there
is
a
lot
of
interesting
stuff
revealed
here:
more
details
on
the
US
government’s
foreign
social
media
propaganda
campaigns,
and
more
evidence
of
how
Twitter’s
“whitelist”
program
works
and
the
fact
that
it
did
not
appear
to
have
very
good
controls
(not
that
surprising,
as
almost
no
company’s
similar
tool
has
good
controls,
as
we
saw
with
the
OSB’s
analysis
of
Xcheck
for
Meta).
But…
the
spin
that
“Twitter
aided
the
Pentagon
in
its
covert
online
propaganda
campaign,”
is,
yet
again,
kinda
missing
the
important
stuff
here.
Neither
the
Pentagon
nor
Twitter
look
good
in
this
report,
but
in
an
ideal
world
it
would
lead
to
more
openness
(a
la
the
OBS’s
look
into
Xcheck)
regarding
how
Twitter’s
whitelist
program
works,
as
well
as
more
revelations
about
how
the
DOD
was
able
to
run
its
foreign
propaganda
campaign,
including
how
it
changed
Twitter
accounts
from
being
public
about
their
affiliation
to
hiding
it.
This
is
where
it
would
be
useful
if
a
reporter
who
understood
how
all
this
worked
was
involved
in
the
research
and
could
ask
questions
of
Twitter
regarding
how
big
the
whitelist
is
(for
Meta
it
reached
about
6
million
users),
and
what
the
process
was
for
getting
on
it.
What
controls
were
there?
Who
could
put
people
on
the
whitelist?
Were
there
ever
any
attempts
to
review
those
who
were
on
the
whitelist
to
see
if
they
abused
their
status?
All
of
that
would
be
interesting
to
know,
and
as
Renee
DiResta’s
piece
noted,
would
be
the
kinds
of
questions
that
actual
experts
would
ask
if
Elon
gave
them
access
to
these
files,
rather
than…
whoever
he
keeps
giving
them
to.
Now,
the
firm
is
apparently
docking
bonuses
for
associates
with
“insufficient”
compliance
with
the
mandatory
office
attendance
rule.
You
might
point
out
that
in
the
firm’s
bonus
announcement
this
month,
there’s
no
mention
whatsoever
of
reducing
bonuses
based
on
the
mandatory
attendance
policy.
According
to
the
memo,
bonuses
would
be
reduced
for
failing
to
meet
hourly
targets,
but
made
no
mention
of
physical
office
attendance.
Associates
received
no
follow-up
policy
amendment,
with
the
firm
telling
associates
in
their
individual
performance
reviews
that
bonuses
are
getting
docked
by
as
much
as
15
percent.
Which
is
exactly
why
associates
—
even
those
who
dutifully
complied
with
the
policy
and
received
the
full
bonus
—
are
so
irritated.
As
one
tipster
put
it:
There
was
no
warning
about
this
policy
which
is
making
some
people
pretty
mad….
If
they
wanted
to
force
people
in,
no
one
understands
why
they
didn’t
just
warn
us
about
this
policy
instead
of
being
silent
and
then
penalizing
people
without
any
warning.
Firms
do
need
to
get
associates
back
in
the
office.
There’s
too
much
“soft
learning”
that
new
associates
pick
up
by
the
happenstance
of
screwing
up
in
front
of
a
midlevel
who
may
not
even
be
in
the
same
practice
group.
Revamping
training
models
can
only
convey
so
much
when
it
comes
to
those
accidental
lessons.
There
are
also
critical
business
development
connections
forged
in
the
office
because
—
in
Biglaw
—
future
clients
are
generally
the
associate
you
have
lunch
with
who
will
one
day
be
the
Deputy
GC
somewhere
else.
Which
is
why
this
all
reads
like
an
origin
story.
The
best
villains
have
entirely
reasonable
motivations.
They
just
take
it
too
far.
Because
associates
generally
understand
all
these
concerns
and
that’s
why
very
few
voices
are
out
there
agitating
for
permanent
remote
work.
But
they
want
flexibility.
If
there
isn’t
any
business
reason
to
go
in
on
Tuesday,
they
want
to
be
able
to
go
in
Friday.
If
their
best
child-care
arrangement
involves
coming
in
Monday-Wednesday,
that’s
what
they
want
to
do.
Or,
perhaps
more
to
the
point,
they
want
to
be
treated
like
professionals
in
making
those
decisions.
We
reached
out
to
Ropes
multiple
times
for
comment
on
these
reports
yesterday
and
have
not
heard
back.
We
will
update
this
story
if
we
do.
(Photo
by
Chen
Mengtong/China
News
Service
via
Getty
Images)
*
January
6th
Committee
released
its
final
report
last
night.
Enjoy
some
light
800+
page
reading!
[NPR]
*
A
law
firm
paid
off
the
total
school
lunch
balance
at
a
local
junior
high,
which
is
both
a
nice
gesture
and
a
horrifying
reminder
that
this
country
routinely
runs
junior
high
kids
into
debt.
[KSL]
*
A
deep
dive
into
the
world
of
election
conspiracy
lawyer
Stefanie
Lambert
(no
stranger
to
these
pages)
as
she
faces
possible
disbarment.
[Reuters]
*
Conservatives
LOVE
the
Western
District
of
Louisiana
and
while
it
might
be
the
gumbo,
it’s
probably
the
deeply
right-wing
judge
roster
with
the
power
to
halt
national
policies.
Which
brings
us
too…
[ABA
Journal]
*
…
Rep.
Mondaire
Jones
introducing
the
Injunction
Reform
Act
to
limit
the
power
of
federal
judges
to
issue
national
injunctions
to
the
D.C.
District
and
Circuit
and
Supreme
Court.
[Huffington
Post]
*
Andrew
Cuomo
spent
years
empowering
conservatives
on
NY’s
high
court
with
disastrous
results
for
NY
Democrats.
Having
learned
exactly
nothing
from
the
experience,
Kathy
Hochul
wants
to
give
that
same
strategy
a
whirl!
[Slate]
Olga
V.
Mack
is
the
VP
at
LexisNexis and CEO
of Parley
Pro,
a
next-generation
contract
management
company
that
has
pioneered
online
negotiation
technology.
Olga
embraces
legal
innovation
and
had
dedicated
her
career
to
improving
and
shaping
the
future
of
law.
She
is
convinced
that
the
legal
profession
will
emerge
even
stronger,
more
resilient,
and
more
inclusive
than
before
by
embracing
technology.
Olga
is
also
an
award-winning
general
counsel,
operations
professional,
startup
advisor,
public
speaker,
adjunct
professor,
and
entrepreneur.
She
founded
the Women
Serve
on
Boards movement
that
advocates
for
women
to
participate
on
corporate
boards
of
Fortune
500
companies.
She
authored Get
on
Board:
Earning
Your
Ticket
to
a
Corporate
Board
Seat, Fundamentals
of
Smart
Contract
Security,
and
Blockchain
Value:
Transforming
Business
Models,
Society,
and
Communities. She
is
working
on
Visual
IQ
for
Lawyers,
her
next
book
(ABA
2023).
You
can
follow
Olga
on
Twitter
@olgavmack.
I
had
resolved
for
2023
that
I
would
spend
less
time
nattering
about
the
various
trials
and
tribulations
of
the
State
Bar
of
California.
A
good
resolution
in
theory,
but
it’s
just
not
going
to
work,
especially
after
the
latest
headline
story
in
the
Los
Angeles
Times
about
how
the
discipline
system
in
this
state
is
a
joke.
And
it
is.
The
headline
makes
it
clear
that
the
discipline
system
goes
after
minority
attorneys,
especially
Black
lawyers.
That’s
not
news
for
us
lawyers,
but
it
is
for
the
public.
And
some
of
the
charges
are
technicalities,
not
major
violations
such
as
stealing
client
funds.
In
the
almost
30
years
between
1990
and
2018,
a
study
released
by
the
bar
three
years
ago
showed
that
Black
male
lawyers
were
nearly
four
times
likelier
to
be
either
disbarred
or
resign
with
charges
pending.
Black
male
lawyers
were
placed
on
probation
more
than
three
times
more
often
than
whites.
You
do
the
math.
It’s
an
open
secret
that
the
discipline
system
goes
after
easy
pickings,
the
lawyers
who
don’t
have
name
recognition,
publicists,
and
juice
(not
the
breakfast
kind).
The
discipline
system
prosecutes
cases
that
don’t
require
a
lot
of
work
up,
a
lot
of
investigation,
a
lot
of
time,
and
the
corollary,
a
lot
of
money.
The
Legislature
seems
to
be
unwilling
to
shake
loose
additional
funds
for
that.
Since
discipline
matters
are
funded
by
attorney
fees,
there
is
a
finite
amount
of
money
available
for
discipline,
and
it
shows.
That’s
one
reason,
and
there
are
others,
why
Tom
Girardi
was
able
to
skate
for
decades,
avoiding
discipline
while
stealing
client
funds
and
living
the
high
life
as
the
husband
of
a
real
housewife
of
Beverly
Hills.
Another
issue
that
the
LA
Times
article
pointed
out,
and
this
again,
is
no
secret
in
the
legal
community
here,
is
that
the
discipline
system
comes
down
harder
on
the
solos
and
small
firm
practitioners
than
it
does
on
Biglaw.
Solos
and
small
firms
don’t
necessarily
have
all
the
support
staff
and
resources
to
make
sure
all
the
“i’s”
are
dotted
and
the
“t’s”
crossed.
That’s
not
to
excuse
major
faux
pas
like
embezzlement,
but
there
should
be
ways
to
help
lawyers
become
better
at
the
nonlegal
parts
of
the
business.
Years
ago,
the
bar
required
several
hours
of
law
office
management
for
CLE
compliance.
Not
any
more.
Time
to
reinstitute?
The
goal
should
be
to
have
lawyers
succeed,
not
fail,
but
the
result
is
that
solos
and
small
firm
lawyers
get
the
shiv,
while
big
firm
lawyers,
well-connected
lawyers,
get
a
pass.
The
discipline
backlog
of
thousands
of
cases
has
always
been
an
issue.
In
2012,
the
bar
announced
that
the
backlog
had
been
cleared.
Say
what?
Miraculous?
A
few
short
years
later,
the
backlog
returned
with
a
vengeance.
Trying
to
tame
the
backlog
is
wrestling
with
alligators.
Lawyers
in
career
jeopardy
is
not
new,
but
can
you
provide
the
question
to
this
final
jeopardy
answer,
which
is
“California”?
The
final
jeopardy
question:
What
is
the
only
state
bar
that
does
not
either
require
or
encourage
lawyers
to
turn
in
their
peers
for
wrongdoing/misconduct?
California
lawyers
have
resisted
such
a
rule
since
the
1980s
when
it
first
became
used
in
other
states.
Is
it
a
“snitch”
rule
that
allows
attorneys
to
obtain
an
unfair
example
when
opposing
counsel
does
something
that
the
complaining
attorney
does
not
like?
Can
it
be
used
as
a
cudgel
to
force
cooperation
or
face
discipline?
How
does
that
square
with
the
rule
that
attorneys
should
not
seek
an
unfair
advantage
in
litigation?
The
attorney
chair
of
the
California
Senate
Judiciary
Committee,
Tom
Umberg,
has
introduced
legislation
to
bring
California
in
line
with
the
forty-nine
other
states
that
have
such
a
rule.
This
would
be
more
than
just
an
ethical
rule;
it
would
be
an
addition
to
the
State
Bar
Rules
of
Professional
Conduct,
e.g.,
Business
and
Professions
Code
section
6068.
The
Girardi
mess
prompted
Umberg’s
introduction
of
the
bill,
but
would
attorneys
rat
on
others?
And
where
to
draw
the
line?
Umberg
said
that
the
snitch
rule
would
not
be
applied
to
an
attorney
who
is
obnoxious
in
a
deposition.
Really?
What
if
that
attorney
is
a
habitual
offender,
but
never
with
the
same
opposing
counsel?
Where
is
the
line
between
zealous
representation,
which
is
our
obligation
as
lawyers,
and
misconduct?
Would
perception
be
enough
to
trigger
the
rule?
And
what
about
the
attorney
who
chooses
not
to
report?
Would
that
attorney
be
disciplined
for
the
failure
to
do
so
if
the
attorney
had
a
good
faith
belief
that
opposing
counsel’s
actions
or
inactions
were
neither
wrongful
nor
misconduct?
Although
the
intent
of
SB
42
is
to
follow
ABA
Model
Rule
8.3,
there’s
a
big
difference
in
the
language.
The
model
rule
requires
that
there
be
a
“a
substantial
question
as
to
that
lawyer’s
honesty,
trustworthiness
or
fitness
as
a
lawyer
in
other
respects”
for
there
to
be
a
referral.
Right
now,
there’s
no
such
qualification
in
SB
42.
Amendments
are
sure
to
come.
So,
apologies
to
my
editor,
who
thought
that
once
I
was
through
with
Girardi
(is
that
even
possible?),
I’d
write
on
topics
other
than
the
California
bar.
But
it’s
the
gift
that
keeps
on
giving.
Happy
Hanukkah
and
Merry
Christmas.
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.
Joe
Olga
Jill