Author: TSA Press

A
wise
man
once
said
(probably),
that
it’s
a
long
road
from
doing
the
work
to
actually
getting
paid.

That’s
especially
true
for
law
firms,
where
most
attorneys
are
still
billing
by
the
hour,
and
taking
payment
in
arrears. 

But
there’s
a
better
way
to
ensure
you
get
paid
for
more
of
what
you
do,
and
it
starts
and
ends
with
time,
billing,
and
payment
software
for
law
firms.

So,
for
this
episode
of
the
Non-Eventcast,
we
brought
on
a
quartet
of
popular
guests
to
the
show,
to
talk
all
about
how
modern
law
firms
are
managing
these
three
essential
components
for
running
a
law
practice:
Matt
Spiegel
of
Lawmatics,
Scott
Clasen
of
TimeSolv,
Tomas
Suros
of
AbacusNext,
and
Sam
Mallen
of
MyCase. 

I
kicked
things
off
by
asking
each
of
our
guests
how
important
it
is
for
law
firms
to
build
and
lean
on
systems
in
their
practices,
especially
when
it
comes
to
time
capture,
billing,
and
collection
(15:26). 

Next,
we
talked
about
how
to
simplify
time
tracking
(23:28). After
that,
everybody
tossed
off
some
suggestions
for
creating
invoices
that
are
ultra-compelling
to
legal
consumers
(31:05). And,
finally,
each
guest
offered
up
some
tips
for
making
more
money
in
the
final
business
quarter
of
2022
(36:14).

There’s
nothing
more
important
than
revenue
to
the
average
law
firm
owner,
so
maybe
this
is
the
most
important
LegalTech
podcast
you’ll
ever
listen
to. 
(Too
strong? Yeah,
maybe
–
we’ll
workshop
that
one.)

And
while
you’re
here,
feel
free
to
visit
the

Legal
Billing
Software
section
of
the
Above
the
Law
Non-Event,
where
we
show
you
just
how
easy
an
upgrade
can
be.

---

Jared
Correia,
a
consultant
and
legal
technology
expert,
is
the
host
of
the
Non-Eventcast,
the
featured
podcast
of
the
Above
the
Law
Non-Event
for
Tech-Perplexed
Lawyers. 

It’s
September,
and
the
signs
of
autumn
are
here.
Kids
are
back
in
school,
pumpkin
spice
is
back
on
the
menu
at
Starbucks,
and
the
latest
crop
of
first-year
associates
are
showing
up
for
work
at
law
firms
across
the
country.
And
it’s
to
those
new
attorneys
that
this
column
is
most
directed.

If
you
can
name
an
emotion,
you’re
probably
going
to
be
feeling
it
sometime
in
the
next
few
months.
Joy,
confusion,
anxiety,
fear,
stress,
triumph.
These
first
steps
on
the
journey
of
your
practice
will
be
rich
with
experiences,
many
of
which
you’ll
carry
for
the
rest
of
your
career.
With
that
in
mind,
here
are
some
thoughts
from
a
former
first-year
associate
on
how
to
make
this
next
year
everything
you
want
it
to
be.

Hold
On
To
What
You’ve
Accomplished

Last
summer
was
all
about
landing
a
job,
and
guess
what?
You
did
it.
A
law
firm
composed
of
experienced,
successful
attorneys
has
given
you
its
vote
of
confidence
and
is
willing
to
pay
for
your
work.
They’re
going
to
train
you
to
become
a
better
lawyer,
and,
if
everything
goes
well,
they
may
one
day
offer
you
a
share
of
the
partnership.
You’re
through
the
first
major
challenge
of
any
lawyer’s
career
—
you’re
getting
paid.

These
first
few
months
are
going
to
be
filled
with
challenges,
and
you’re
probably
not
going
to
crush
it
on
every
one
of
them.
You’re
going
to
be
given
a
lot
of
opportunity
to
doubt
yourself,
and
if
you’re
prone
to
imposter
syndrome,
the
transition
out
of
school
and
into
the
actual
practice
of
law
can
be
deeply
difficult.
Self-reflection
is
a
useful
tool,
but
self-doubt
isn’t.
Don’t
let
anyone
tell
you
that
you
can’t
do
this,
especially
yourself.
You’ve
got
a
long
way
to
go,
but
you’ve
come
a
long
way,
too.
Remember
that,
and
trust
yourself
that
you’re
going
to
grow,
get
better,
and
make
it
through.

Become
Someone’s
Go-To

Success
in
the
world
of
private
law
boils
down
to
one
essential
question:
when
people
have
problems,
which
of
those
people
calls
you
first?
If
enough
of
the
right
people
think
of
you
as
their
go-to
solution
for
the
challenges
they’ll
pay
someone
else
to
fix,
then
baby,
you’ve
got
a
book
of
business.

Chances
are
you’re
not
there
quite
yet,
but
the
goal
of
becoming
someone’s
go-to
person
is
still
what
you
should
be
aiming
for.
Instead
of
paying
clients,
what
you’re
trying
to
develop
now
are
relationships
with
the
partners
and
senior
associates
within
your
firm.
When
they
need
research,
briefing,
or
other
work
that’s
in
the
first-year’s
wheelhouse,
you
want
them
thinking
of
you
as
their
first
option.
Even
if
you’re
not
charging
them
by
the
hour,
your
colleagues
are
your
first
clients.
Be
responsive,
respectful,
and
attentive
to
their
needs.

Once
you’ve
got
those
relationships
established,
you’ll
naturally
start
moving
on
to
the
next
phase
of
developing
your
go-to
reputation:
becoming
a
subject
matter
guru.
As
senior
attorneys
learn
to
trust
you
more,
you
can
gain
the
experience
necessary
to
take
on
more
complex
tasks.
If
you
do
that,
then
chances
are
you’re
going
to
start
developing
expertise
on
topics
that
few
in
your
firm,
or
potentially
your
entire
bar,
have
experience
with.
Find
those
niches,
develop
your
expertise,
and
then
let
the
market
know
that
anyone
with
questions
in
that
area
just
needs
to
give
you
a
call.
Once
the
attorneys
know
you’re
the
person
to
handle
a
certain
kind
of
problem,
they’ll
send
their
clients
who
need
help
with
those
problems
over.
And
once
the
clients
start
calling
you,
you’re
in
control
of
your
own
destiny.
All
of
that
starts
today.
Be
the
one
who
people
keep
top
of
mind
and
rely
on
to
solve
their
problems.

Be
Deliberate
About
Your
Work-Life
Balance

The
first
years
of
private
practice
in
law
are
notoriously
demanding
of
young
attorneys’
time,
and
discussions
about
the
proper
balance
of
work
and
home
life
have
been
part
and
parcel
of
Biglaw
life
for
decades.
Most
of
the
financial
and
career
incentives
of
law
(and
basically
all
of
the
business
world)
push
attorneys
to
work
extraordinarily
hard,
while
few
things
besides
ourselves
are
pushing
us
to
take
appropriate
care
of
our
outside
lives
or
our
mental
and
physical
well-being.
Burnout
is
real,
but
so
are
the
benefits
that
come
from
getting
off
to
a
strong
start.
There
are
no
one-size-fits-all
answers
when
it
comes
to
work-life
balance.

The
best
you
can
do
for
yourself
at
this
stage
is
to
be
deliberate
and
have
a
plan.
Some
people
want
to
work
all
hours
of
the
day,
generate
huge
bonuses,
and
live
the
life
of
the
hard-charging
Biglaw
attorney,
and
that’s
OK
if
that’s
their
choice
to
do
so.
Some
people
want
to
work
hard
for
a
few
years
while
they’re
young,
then
transition
to
a
more
balanced
lifestyle
as
their
skill
and
experience
have
hopefully
increased
enough
to
compensate
for
those
lower
billables.
Some
people
choose
to
prioritize
their
home
lives
out
of
the
gate,
even
if
it
means
their
career
development
may
be
on
a
slower
track,
because
that’s
what
matters
the
most
to
them.
Any
of
those
choices
can
be
the
right
one
for
you,
and
they’re
all
approaches
that
I
would
hope
your
firms
would
be
willing
to
support
within
reason.

Don’t
drift
along
in
your
career
wherever
happenstance
takes
you.
The
key
for
you
is
to
figure
out
your
priorities,
self-assess
on
whether
you’re
where
you
want
to
be,
and
communicate
with
your
colleagues
about
where
you
want
to
go.
If
your
home
life
or
mental
health
are
suffering
and
you
need
to
step
back,
talk
to
the
people
who
can
make
that
happen.
If
you’re
feeling
fresh
and
want
to
dive
in
harder,
let
people
know.
You’ve
worked
hard
to
get
this
job,
so
keep
working
at
making
sure
it’s
the
job
you
want.

Every
Impression
Matters

 The
opportunity
to
make
a
first
impression
is
a
gift,
and
you’re
about
to
be
flooded
with
those
opportunities.
Now
is
when
you
start
building
your
reputation
as
a
professional,
as
an
attorney,
as
a
colleague,
as
opposing
counsel,
and
it
is
entirely
within
your
control
to
ensure
the
reputation
you’re
building
is
a
good
one.
Treat
people
kindly
and
courteously.
Do
your
homework.
Treat
everyone
you
meet
like
they
might
one
day
become
one
of
the
most
important
people
in
your
lives
because
life
is
unpredictable
and
they
very
well
might
be.

We’re
only
clean
slates
at
so
many
times
in
our
lives.
Now
is
when
you
get
to
build
the
story
of
who
you
are.
It’s
about
to
be
one
of
the
most
exciting
times
in
your
career,
and
I
hope
you
look
back
on
it
one
day
fondly.
Until
then,
take
care
of
yourself.
The
rest
will
follow.

---

James
Goodnow is the
CEO
and
managing
partner
of NLJ
250
firm Fennemore
Craig. At
age
36,
he
became
the
youngest
known
chief
executive
of
a
large
law
firm
in
the
U.S.
He
holds
his
JD
from
Harvard
Law
School
and
dual
business
management
certificates
from
MIT.
He’s
currently
attending
the
Cambridge
University
Judge
Business
School
(U.K.),
where
he’s
working
toward
a
master’s
degree
in
entrepreneurship.
James
is
the
co-author
of Motivating
Millennials,
which
hit
number
one
on
Amazon
in
the
business
management
new
release
category.
As
a
practitioner,
he
and
his
colleagues
created
and
run
a
tech-based plaintiffs’
practice and
business
model.
You
can
connect
with
James
on
Twitter
(@JamesGoodnow)
or
by
emailing
him
at James@JamesGoodnow.com.

Historically,
in
weaker
economies,
firms
have
had
cover
to
counsel
out
of
the
firm
people
who
have
been
underperforming
relative
to
expectations.
Usually
the
worst
offenders
go
first,
with
firms
working
their
way
up
from
the
bottom,
starting
with
those
who
have
been
weak
performers
over
a
number
of
years.

Layoffs
mean,
to
me,
mass
firings
of
people.
I
think
here
it
is
more
a
list
of
people
and
offices
and
what
they
contribute
to
the
firm.
The
people
at
the
bottom
of
that
list
are
ones
that
have
been
weak
performers
for
years.
Targeted
firings
of
weak
performers
are
more
likely.

—
Kent
Zimmermann,
a
legal
industry
consultant
at
Zeughauser
Group,
in
comments
given
to
the

American
Lawyer
on
what
we
can
expect
to
see
happen
when
it
comes
to
personnel
as
a
result
of
the
slowdown
in
demand
for
legal
services,
especially
in
M&A.
On
that
note,
an
anonymous
global
M&A
practice
head
told
Am
Law,
“We
are
not
interested
in
firing
people,”
while
at
the
same
time
saying
that
overall
performance
was
being
looked
at
closely,
including
office
attendance
and
hours
expectations.

---

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.

Well,
this
has
got
to
be
a
fly
in
John
Roberts’s
“I
swear
the
Supreme
Court
is
legitimate”
tour:
Marquette
Law
School
just
published

the
results
of
its
latest
survey
on
the
Supreme
Court
and
fans
of
the
Court
won’t
be
happy.

First
of
all,
overall
approval
isn’t
great
—
40
percent
of
respondents
approve
of
the
Court.
But,
in
a
post-Roe
world,
SCOTUS’s
tanking
polling
is
nearly
a
given.
What
truly
stood
out
is
that
a
majority
of
Americans
—
barely
at
51
percent,
but
count
it
nevertheless
—
now
support
expanding
the
number
of
justices
on
the
Supreme
Court.

I’ll
tell
you,
in
history
class
when
we
learned
about
the
New
Deal
and
how
FDR
tussled
with
the
Supreme
Court
over
the
expansion
of
executive
power,
I
never
thought
Court
packing
would
come
back.
…Then
again,
I
never
thought
one
party
would
callously
leave
a
Supreme
Court
seat
open
for
over
a
year
in
an
openly
political
move
to
steal
a
place
on
the
Court.
Mostly
people
also
probably
didn’t
expect
the
vitriolic
—
and
poorly
reasoned
—
decision
in

Dobbs that
stripped
millions
of
people
of
rights
and
launched
us
into
a

dystopian
reality
of

ever
worse

stories
of

women
who
can’t
receive
abortion
care
in
their
home
state.
Time
makes
fools
of
us
all.

Faced
with
lifetime
appointments
of
jurists
who
seem
way
more
interested
in
political
victories
than
in
rights
and
the
law,
well,
diluting
the
power
of
each
individual
justice
just
may
be
the
fastest
way
to
rebalance
the
Court.
And
it
looks
like
most
Americans
agree.

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
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).

Most
of
the
buzz
around

retired
Justice
Stephen
Breyer’s
exclusive
CNN
interview
revolves
around
his
comment
warning
former
colleagues
that
some
recent
opinions
will
“bite
you
in
the
back.”
Ever
the
cautious
and
responsible
jurist,
Breyer
doesn’t
say
turning
the
Supreme
Court
over
to
naked
ideologues
will
do
the
biting
but
“writing
too
rigidly.”

If
this
was
meant
as
a
euphemism,
it
falls
short.

But
while
this
back-biting
pull
quote
has
folks
talking,
the
rest
of
the
interview
reveals
that
Justice
Breyer
still
doesn’t
seem
to
get
how
the
Supreme
Court
works
these
days.
Breyer
placed
this
blissful
ignorance
on
full
display
during
the
interview:

“What
you
do
is
what
I
learned
from
(Justice)
Arthur
Goldberg
when
I
was
his
law
clerk,
and
I’ve
tried
to
live
up
to
it.
And
I
learned
it
as
well
from
Sen.
(Ted)
Kennedy,
when
I
worked
for
him,”
Breyer
said.
“You
do
your
best,
you
know,
and
maybe
people
will
agree.
And
maybe
they
don’t.
And
maybe
you’ll
win.
And
maybe
you’ll
lose.
And
then
what
you
do
is
you
think
about
it
for
a
while.”

“Go
on
to
the
next
thing,
so
that
you
can
do
a
decent
job
on
the
next
thing,”
he
added.
“And
just
keep
going.”

Just
do
your
best
and
maybe
you
win
or
maybe
you
lose?
That’s
the
message
behind
his
work
on
the
Court?
The
body
charged
with
safeguarding
the
rule
of
law?

Here,
let’s
put
that
content
in
a
more
appropriate
setting:

Because
it
is
absolutely
not
a
message
befitting
a
Supreme
Court
justice
holding
the
line
against
injustice.

And
this
defines
the
tragedy
of
Stephen
Breyer.
Because
in
reality,
he
was
exactly
what
a
Supreme
Court
justice

should
be,
stuck
in
an
era
where
that’s
just
not
what
the
Supreme
Court’s
all
about.

“And
you
say
did
I
like
this
Dobbs
decision?
Of
course
I
didn’t.
Of
course
I
didn’t,”
the
retired
justice
said,
his
voice
rising.

“Was
I
happy
about
it?
Not
for
an
instant.
Did
I
do
everything
I
could
to
persuade
people?
Of
course,
of
course.
But
there
we
are
and
now
we
go
on.
We
try
to
work
together.”

Good
heavens,
this
guy
would
bring
a
gift
basket
to
a
gun
fight.

How
much
“working
together”
went
down
this
Term?
Breyer
served
with
Republicans
like
O’Connor
and
Souter
who
approached
the
job
willing
to
negotiate
in
good
faith
and,
occasionally,
temper
their
opinions
to
forge
half-measure
compromises.
Justices
like
Scalia
or
Thomas
demanding
maximalist
stances
on
everything
and
railing
against
long-settled
precedent
that
they
didn’t
like
must
have
felt
like
outliers
to
Breyer.

But
they
were
canaries
and
the
mine
is
now
teeming
with
toxic
fumes.

“Working
together”
is
a
one-way
street.
Justice
Kagan
has
sided
with
conservatives
for
years

to
build
a
record
of
respect
for
precedent
even
when
it
cuts
against
her
core
values
just
to
watch
the
conservatives
jettison
decades
of
precedent
on
a
whim
once
the
tables
turned.
All
it
earned
her
was
the
right
to
call
her
colleagues
hypocrites.
Combined
with
around
2
bucks
that
will
get
her
a
cup
of
coffee.

The
collegiality
of
the
Supreme
Court
is
all
form
and
no
substance
at
this
point.
They’re
quick
to
brag
about
small
talk
over
lunch,
but
there
hasn’t
been
a
substantive
constitutional
decision
that
bears
the
markings
of
prudent
compromise
for
years.
More
than
half
the
justices
came
to
the
Court
determined
to
rewrite
the
nation
tossing
text,
precedent,
and
even
relevant
U.S.
history
aside
to
elevate

medieval
pamphleteers.
Breyer
may
wish
for
a
Supreme
Court
dominated
by
his
brand
of
conscientious
judicial
reasoning,
but
if
wishes
were
horses,
everyone
would
ride…
to
a
ballot
box
because
we’d
still
have
a
Voting
Rights
Act
to
speak
of.

Bringing
us
to
the
ever
annoying
“leak”
discourse:

Breyer
also
condemned
the
leak
earlier
this
year
of
the
draft
opinion
of
the
decision
overturning
Roe,
saying
the
unprecedented
breach
of
court
protocol
“was
very
damaging.”

“Was
there
an
earthquake
inside
the
court?”
Wallace
asked.

“An
earthquake?”
Breyer
responded.
“It
was
very
damaging
because
that
kind
of
thing
just
doesn’t
happen.
It
just
doesn’t
happen.
And
there
we
are.”

It’s
telling
that
the
justices
are
united
in
condemning
the
leak
but
not
a
single
one
of
them
have
offered
a
reason

why
other
than
it
being
a
break
from
tradition.
Some
comments
nod
toward
early
leaks
frustrating
ongoing
negotiations
—
which
was
certainly
the
hope
of
whichever
conservative
leaked
it
—
though
you’d
be
hard
pressed
to
get
a
single
justice
to
swear
under
oath
that
the
opinion
was
seriously
up
for
discussion
at
that
point.
These
weren’t
early
memos
circulating
around
the
Court,
it
was
a
fully
formed,
lengthy
opinion.
It
was
done.
None
of
these
justices
can
credibly
claim
it
wasn’t.

And
once
again
we
come
back
to
decrying
the
leak…
“just
because.”

Other
justices
have
also
blasted
the
leak
– including
Justice
Elena
Kagan, who
earlier
this
month
called
it
“horrible”
–
and public
opinion
of
the
high
court
worsened after
it
occurred.

Hm.
I
wonder
if
the
Court
did
anything
else
—
maybe
some
“substantive
decision”
—
that
could
be
responsible
for
its
unpopularity?
Look,
just
because
the
justices
engage
in
this
stupid
fiction
doesn’t
mean
anyone
else
should.
CNN
is,
ostensibly,
a
news
outfit!
It
borders
on
journalistic
malpractice
to
write
a
sentence
implying
that
releasing
an
opinion
a
few
weeks
early
shook
the
public
more

than
the
actual
opinion
itself.

As
posted
on
Reddit:

The
country
would
be
a
better
place
if
Justice
Breyer’s
vision
of
the
Supreme
Court
reflected
reality,
but
it
doesn’t.
And
while
he’s
obviously
smart
enough
to
recognize
when
decisions
will
bite
back,
it
seems
like
he
hasn’t
quite
shaken
the
misconception
that
good
faith
efforts
still
matter
on
this
Court.
They
don’t.

And
they
haven’t
for
a
long
time.

An
earnest
institutionalist
might
think
the
country
is
better
off
if
the
Court
sells
the
public
on
the
idea
that
they’re
all
friendly,
even-handed
people
just
working
together
behind
closed
doors
to
make
everything
work.

But
the
emperor
has
no
robes
anymore.

Everyone
knows
that’s
not
how
it
works
these
days.
And
not
because
of
any
leak,
but
because

Alito’s
blasting
vitriol
all
over
the
place.
Except
for
John
Roberts,
the
conservatives
on
the
Court
have
all
but
taken
out
billboards
advertising
their
us
vs.
them
approach
to
rewriting
the
Constitution.
No
amount
of
collegiality
spin
is
going
to
fool
anyone
anymore.

For
institutionalists
like
Justice
Breyer,
the
first
step
is
admitting
the
institution
has
a
problem.
Thankfully,
it
seems
like
we’re
seeing

some
early
signs
that
this
message
might
finally
be
coming
through.

And
the
second
step
is
realizing
that
“you
win
some,
you
lose
some”
is
never
an
acceptable
philosophy
when
millions
of
people
are
watching
their
rights
disappear.

Breyer
warns
justices
that
some
opinions
could
‘bite
you
in
the
back’
in
exclusive
interview
with
CNN’s
Chris
Wallace
[CNN]

---

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.

Last
week
marked
the
beginning
of
National
Hispanic
Heritage
Month,
which
extends
from
September
15
to
October
15.
Now
is
the
perfect
time
to
discuss
the
contributions
of
Latinos
and
Latinas
in
Biglaw
and,
in
particular,
to
highlight
our
community’s
representation
in
top
Am
Law
firm
leadership
roles.
As
a
Cuban-American,
this
is
a
topic
close
to
my
heart.
Undoubtedly
there
is
still
much
room
for
improvement,
but
the
good
news
is
that
we
increasingly
have
reason
to
celebrate!

Over
the
past
couple
of
years,
Am
Law
100
firms
have
redoubled
their
efforts
to
increase
diversity
in
their
ranks.
And
when
it
comes
to
Latino
and
Latina
lawyers,
we
are
starting
to
see
progress
at
various
levels.
The
American
Lawyer’s
2022
Diversity
Scorecard
indicated
the
most
significant
year-over-year
improvement
since
2001.
Large
law
firms


hired
1.5%
more
Hispanic
associates,
which
was
a
greater
rate
of
increase
than
for
any
other
racial/ethnic
group.
At
the
partnership
level,
there
was
a


2.6%
increase
in
Hispanic/Latino
equity
partners

from
2019
to
2020.

But
the
most
visible
achievements
have
come
at
the
top
of
the
Biglaw
pyramid,
with
an
increasing
number
of
Am
Law
firms
now
featuring
Latino
or
Latina
managing
partners.
Let’s
take
a
look
at
these
luminaries
whose
success
is
proof
that
the
pinnacle
of
the
profession
is
open
to
Latino
and
Latina
attorneys,
notwithstanding
the
inevitable
challenges.

Yvette
Ostolaza
—
Chair
of
the
Management
Committee,
Sidley
Austin

As
the
sole
Latina
at
the
helm
of
an
Am
Law
firm,


Yvette
Ostolaza’s
journey
is
particularly
inspiring.
Born
in
Miami
to
Cuban
parents,
Ostolaza
attended
the
University
of
Miami
School
of
Law
and
first
made
partner
as
a
litigator
in
the
Dallas
office
of
Weil,
Gotshal
&
Manges.
She
joined
Sidley
in
2013
as
managing
partner
of
the
Dallas
office
and
served
as
global
co-leader
of
Sidley’s
litigation
practice
before
her
elevation
to
Chair
of
the
Management
Committee
in
April
2022.
She
was
recently
honored
by
the
Hispanic
National
Bar
Association
with
the
Mari
Carmen
Aponte
Award,
which
recognizes
a
“Latina
lawyer
who
is
the
first
to
break
a
glass
ceiling.”

Miguel
A.
Zaldivar,
Jr.
—
CEO,
Hogan
Lovells

Born
in
Venezuela
to
Cuban
refugee
parents,


Miguel
Zaldivar

did
not
emigrate
to
the
United
States
until
adulthood.
After
graduating
from
the
University
of
Miami
School
of
Law,
he
joined
Hogan
Lovells
and
set
about
building
a
Miami-based
Latin
America
project
finance
practice.
As
a
partner,
he
became
co-leader
of
the
Hogan
Lovells
Infrastructure,
Energy,
Resources
and
Projects
practice.
In
2018,
he
relocated
to
Hong
Kong
to
manage
the
firm’s
14
offices
in
Asia
and
the
Middle
East.
Zaldivar
began
serving
as
Hogan
Lovells
CEO
in
2020.

Frank
Lopez
— Managing
Partner
and
Chair-Elect,
Paul
Hastings

Currently
in
the
number-two
role
at
Paul
Hastings,


Frank
Lopez

will
assume
the
top
leadership
post
(Chair)
on
October
15.
The
New
York
securities
lawyer
and
former
investment
banker
only
arrived
at
the
firm
in
2019.
A
graduate
of
Georgetown
University
Law
Center,
Lopez
spent
15
years
at
Proskauer
Rose
before
jumping
to
Paul
Hastings.
In
his
relatively
short
Paul
Hastings
tenure,
Lopez
has
succeeded
in
raising
the
firm’s
profile
in
leveraged
finance
and
has
played
a
key
role
in
attracting
lateral
partners
from
firms
such
as
Skadden
and
Covington
&
Burling.

Wally
Martinez
— Managing
Partner,
Hunton
Andrews
Kurth

Unlike
his
colleagues
on
this
list,


Wally
Martinez’s
ascent
to
the
helm
of
a
major
law
firm
is
not
a
recent
development.
Born
in
Manhattan
and
raised
in
New
Jersey
by
Cuban
emigre
parents,
Martinez
graduated
from
the
University
of
Pennsylvania
Law
School.
He
first
made
partner
at
Holland
&
Knight
in
Miami
before
leaving
to
found
a
new
Hunton
&
Williams
Miami
office
in
1999.
Martinez
served
briefly
as
general
counsel
at
Diageo
North
America
before
returning
to
Hunton
&
Williams
as
managing
partner
in
2006.
He
has
remained
at
the
helm
through
the
merger
with
the
former
Andrews
Kurth
Kenyon.
For
many
years,
Martinez
was
the
only
Latino
leading
an
Am
Law
firm,
so
the
fact
that
he
now
has
significant
company
in
the
Am
Law
leadership
ranks
is
especially
noteworthy. 

A
rising
generation
of
leaders

The
four
leaders
profiled
above
occupy
particularly
visible
roles,
but
it
is
worth
acknowledging
in
addition
the
rising
generation
of
Latino
and
Latina
lawyers
poised
to
ascend
to
top
posts
in
the
coming
years.
To
take
just
one
example
of
a
Latino
partner
to
watch,


Eduardo
Fernandez

currently
serves
as
co-head
of
the
European
Committee
at
Willkie
Farr
and
co-managing
partner
of
the
Paris
office.
A
native
New
Yorker
who
received
his
J.D.
from
NYU,
Fernandez
began
his
career
as
a
Wilkie
Farr
associate
in
New
York.
He
is
now
recognized
as
one
of
the
leading
M&A
and
private
equity
lawyers
in
France.

A
masked
journalist
is
seen
in
London
on
April
7,
2020.
As
journalists
face
the
challenges
of
covering
COVID-19,
CPJ
and
other
organizations
are
working
to
assess
the
global
impact.
(AP/Kirsty
Wigglesworth)

Around
2
p.m.
on
September
11,
in
Chinhoyi,
a
city
about
72
miles
(116
kilometers)
northwest
of
the
capital
of
Harare,
a
CCC
security
agent
denied
Muchenje,
a
reporter
for
privately
owned
website
NewsHawks,
access
to
the
Gadzema
stadium
to
cover
a
rally
held
by
party
leader
Nelson
Chamisa,
according
to news reports,
statements
by
the
Zimbabwe
chapter
of
the
regional
press
freedom
group, Media
Institute
of
Southern
Africa
(MISA),  the International
Federation
of
Journalists,
and
the
journalist,
who
spoke
to
CPJ
via
messaging
app.

Muchenje
told
CPJ
that
a
security
agent
outside
the
stadium
refused
to
allow
her
in
despite
her
producing
her
press
pass,
which
was
supposed
to
grant
access
to
the
event.
When
Muchenje
tried
to
move
past
and
enter
the
stadium,
the
agent
grabbed
and
pulled
her
hair,
and
threw
her
to
the
ground,
she
said.
A
second
agent
joined
after
Muchenje
fell
to
the
ground.

When
a
driver
for
another
journalist
sought
to
intervene,
the
agent
who
attacked
her
defended
his
actions,
saying
that
Muchenje
had
been
“disrespectful,”
the
journalist
said,
adding
that
CCC
supporters
watched
but
did
not
intervene
during
the
attack.

The
attack
lasted
several
minutes
before
the
agents
allowed
Muchenje
to
stand,
but
one
held
her
by
her
belt,
she
said.
She
was
released
when
Stanley
Gama,
a
former
editor
of
the
Daily
News
who
recognized
Muchenje,
intervened
and
persuaded
the
agents
to
let
her
go,
Gama tweeted and
told
CPJ
via
messaging
app.

“Zimbabwe’s
authorities
should
transparently
investigate
and
hold
accountable
the
security
personnel
responsible
for
attacking
journalist
Ruvimbo
Muchenje,”
said
Muthoki
Mumo,
CPJ’s
sub-Saharan
Africa
representative,
in
Nairobi.
“Journalists
should
not
be
unduly
denied
access
to
events
of
public
interest
and
are
too
often
harassed,
attacked,
or
arrested
simply
for
doing
their
job.”

Separately
on
the
same
day,
Voice
of
America
reporter
Nunurai
Jena
was
similarly
denied
entry
to
the
stadium
to
cover
the
rally
and
harassed
by
coalition
security
personnel,
according
to media reports.

Coalition
spokesperson
Fadzayi
Mahere
told
CPJ
over
the
phone
that
the
incidents
involving
the
journalists
at
the
stadium
were
“unfortunate”
and
the
party
had
apologized.
Muchenje
said
she
had
received
an
apology
via
messaging
app,
but
CPJ
could
not
confirm
whether
Jena
had
received
an
apology.
CPJ
tried
to
reach
Jena
via
messaging
apps
and
phone
calls
but
received
no
response.

Mahere
also
promised
to
ensure
the
safety
of
all
journalists
who
cover
the
coalition’s
rallies,
Mahere
and
a
Bulawayo24 report said.

Zimbabwe’s
information
minister,
Monica
Mutsvangwa,
condemned
the
incidents
in
a
statement,
saying
attacks
on
female
journalists
“border
on
gender-based
violence,”
according
to news reports and
a
copy
of
the statement posted
on
Twitter.

For
years,
there
have
been incidents of
repeated
harassment,
arrest,
and
detention
of
journalists
in
Zimbabwe,
including
in
March,
when
a
member
of
Chamisa’s
security
detail attacked
journalist
Courage
Dutiro for
photographing
a
party
member
at
a
rally.

Post
published
in:

Featured

We
know
what
you’re
thinking,
and
we’ll
come
right
out
and
say
it:
No,
not

that
lawyer
and
no,
not

that
defamation
trial.

The
lawyer
you’re
probably
thinking
of
is

Camille
Vasquez
of
Brown
Rudnick,
who
represented
Depp
in
court
in
Virginia.
During
his
weeks-long
defamation
trial
against
his
ex-wife,
Amber
Heard,
the
press
went
wild
with
speculation
that
the
famed
actor
was
dating
Vasquez.
The
Biglaw
associate
did
not,
in
fact,
win
Depp’s
heart
—
nor
was
she
trying
to
do
so,
and
she
went
so
far
as
to
call
the
rumors
of
a
lawyerly
romance
“sexist”
—
but
she
did
help
win
his
case,
and
was
rewarded
with
partnership
for
it.

The
lawyer
who
Depp
is
actually
dating
is

Joelle
Rich,
the
Schillings
partner
who
represented
the
star
during
his
defamation
case
in
the
UK
against

The
Sun.
Depp
may
have
lost
in
that
trial
but
it
looks
like
he
found
love
along
the
way.
According
to

Us
Magazine,
insiders
say
of
Depp
and
Rich
that
“[t]heir
chemistry
is
off
the
charts.”
Here
are
some
additional
details:

[Rich]
was
not
part
of
the
legal
team
who
represented
him
in
his
defamation
trial
against
ex-wife
Amber
Heard
earlier
this
year.
She
was,
however,
present
in
the
Virginia
courtroom
to
show
her
“support”
for
the
Oscar
nominee.

“There
was
no
professional
obligation
for
her
being
there.
It
was
personal,”
the
source
tells
Us,
adding
that
the
duo
“discreetly”
met
up
in
hotels
during
the
early
stages
of
their
romance.

The
insider
notes
that
Rich
was
married
when
she
met
Depp,
but
is
now
divorcing
her
husband.
She
and
her
estranged
spouse
share
two
children.

“It’s
serious
between
them.
They
are
the
real
deal,”
the
source
continued.

Yo
ho,
yo
ho,
will
it
be
a
pirate
life
for
this
attorney?
Depp
has
learned
that
it’s
always
a
good
idea
to
have
a
lawyer
close
on
hand,
so
we
imagine
that
this
is
one
attorney/client
relationship
that
will
go
the
distance.

Johnny
Depp
Is
Dating
Married
Lawyer
Joelle
Rich
Who
Worked
on
His
U.K.
Libel
Trial:
‘It’s
Serious’
[Us
Magazine]

---

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.

“And
blame
postmodern
things
I
can’t
relate
/
Like
summer
camp
in
coastal
states
/
Like
alcohol
and
coffee
beans
/
Dance
floors
and
magazines
/
I
think
it’s
safe
to
say
I’ve
only
got
myself
to
blame.”
—

The
Format

This
week,
I
had
the
opportunity
to
catch
up
with

Helen
Wan
—
an
author,
lawyer,
and
speaker
on
DEI
and
women
in
the
workplace.

Wan
is
a
graduate
of

Amherst
College
and

The
University
of
Virginia
School
of
Law.
Wan’s
novel,
“The
Partner
Track,”
follows
idealistic
young
lawyer
Ingrid
(played
in
the
series
by

Arden
Cho)
as
she
competes
to
climb
the
partner
track
at
a
New
York
law
firm,
premiered
as
an
original
Netflix
series

last
month.

I’ve
covered
the
lack
of
diversity
in
the
media
time
and
time
again
(see

here,

here,
and

here),
so
I
won’t
digress
on
how
critical

representation
is
to
our

industry
specifically
and

society
as
a
whole.

Wan’s
story
from
the
launch
of
her
book
to
the
landing
of
an
original
Netflix
series
is
a
testament
to
her
hard
work,
grit,
and
the
realization
of
dreaming
big.
It
was
incredible
to
learn
about
the
rocket
ship
and
roller
coaster
(rocket-coaster)
trajectory
of
“The
Partnership
Track”
as
well
as
the
trials
and
tribulations
she’s
faced
throughout
her
career.

After
speaking
with
Wan,
I
couldn’t
help
but
want
to
write
my
own
story.
And
I
believe
you
will
too
after
hearing
more
about
her
journey
of
bringing
her
novel
to
our
television
screens.
Without
further
ado,
here
is
a
(lightly
edited
and
condensed)
write-up
of
our
conversation:

Renwei
Chung:

You
started
writing
“The
Partner
Track”
23
years
ago,
it
was
published
in
September
2013,
and
premiered
on
Netflix
as
an
original
TV
series
last
month.
Can
you
believe
it?

Helen
Wan:
This
has
been
a
thrilling
roller
coaster
ride.
To
be
honest,
I
still
wake
up
some
mornings
not
quite
believing
any
of
it.
It’s
very
much
a
Cinderella-at-the-ball
feeling.

RC:
Can
you
discuss
the
process
of
bringing
the
book
to
life
on
our
living
room
screens?

HW:
Sure,
how
much
time
ya
got?
Ha.
It
only
took
me
23
years
from
the
day
I
originally
took
pen
to
paper,
on
my
subway
commute
to
and
from
work,
to
seeing
these
Parsons
Valentine
lawyers
live
and
breathe
on
my
TV.
There
were
so
many
stops
and
starts
along
the
way.

Even
when
an
author
is
lucky
enough
to
have
a
work
published,
let
alone
optioned,
all
the
stars
must
align
to
end
up
with
a
TV
series!
And
they
didn’t,
at
least
not
for
a
long
time.

By
the
morning
I
received
the
astounding
news
from
my
agent:
“Hi!
Are
you
sitting
down?
I
believe
Netflix
wants
to
make
a
show
out
of
your
book!”
I
had
honestly
almost
written
off
the
possibility.
I’d
never
truly
imagined
all
of
the
stars
aligning
the
way
they
did,
for
this
to
happen.

So
when
I
finally
curled
up
and
binge-watched
all
10
episodes
of
the
show
one
recent
weekend,
it
was
magical.
It
was
the
kind
of
smart,
sexy,
savvy
show
that,
if
I’d
just
randomly
stumbled
upon
it
one
night
while
looking
for
something
new
to
watch,
I
would
honestly
have
loved
it
then,
too.
And
that
was
a
happy
thing
to
find
out.

RC:
What
was
your
inspiration
for
the
epigraph
by
Ruth
Bader
Ginsburg:
“I
would
not
like
to
be
the
only
woman
on
the
Court.”

HW:
Oh,
I’ve
always
loved
that
quote
from
the
Notorious
RBG.
Her
life
and
legal
career
already
made
her
a
role
model.
But
that
epigraph
is
meaningful
to
me
for
another
reason.

I
dedicated
“The
Partner
Track”
in
memory
of
my
grandmother,
An
Ching
Chun,
who
was
14
years
older
than
RBG.
Both
of
them
were
amazing,
incredibly
intelligent,
resilient
women
who
inspired
me.

Through
circumstance,
one
of
them
fled
the
Chinese
Communist
Revolution
as
a
very
young
mother
and
ultimately
landed
as
a
stranger
in
Mei
Guo
(literally
translated:
the
“Beautiful
Country”)
and
the
other
ultimately
became
a
Supreme
Court
Justice
of
the
United
States.
I
like
to
write
a
lot
about
timing
and
circumstance,
and
how
they
impact
life
outcomes.

RC:
It
is
still
so
rare
to
see
an
AAPI
woman
protagonist
on
television
or
at
the
movies.
How
can
we
ensure
more
of
these
stories
are
told
in
Hollywood
and
the
media
in
general?

HW:
That
one’s
easy.
One
must
walk
the
walk
AND
talk
the
talk.
Meaning,
if
you
really
love
something,
and
you
believe
it’s
a
story
worth
telling,
and
you
wish
there
were
more
stories
like
it
out
there,
getting
in
front
of
eyeballs,
then
you
gotta
put
your
money
where
your
mouth
is.

Watch
the
show.
Buy
the
book.
Go
see
the
play
or
movie.
And
tell
all
your
friends
and
neighbors!
I
know
it’s
not
popular
to
say
this,
but
the
truth
is,
making
art
IS
also
a
business.

RC:
You
mentioned
the
1988
film
“Working
Girl”
as
a
strong
influence
on
some
of
the
themes
in
“The
Partner
Track.”
Can
you
elaborate?

HW:
Oh,
I
could
go
on
all
day
about
that
brilliant
movie!
Talk
about
a
dream
team
of
director
Mike
Nichols
(who
also
directed
another
of
my
favorite
films,
‘The
Graduate”),
Melanie
Griffith,
Sigourney
Weaver,
Harrison
Ford,
Joan
Cusack,
and
the
list
goes
on.
Actually,
I
just
rewatched
it
recently.
Almost
35
years
later,
it
still
strikes
such
a
cultural
chord.

I
think
everyone
loves
a
great
Cinderella
story,
especially
when
our
hero
is
so
believably
flawed
and
vulnerable,
and
underestimated.
I
mean,
who
wants
to
read
(or
write!)
about
a
perfect
person,
who
never
makes
mistakes?
Boring!

That
end
scene,
when
Tess
meets
her
new
assistant,
goes
into
her
new
office,
takes
a
giddy
first
spin
in
her
swivel
chair,
and
that
gorgeous
Carly
Simon
song
swells
and
the
camera
breezes
out
to
a
view
of
the
whole
city,
still
gets
me.
Every
single
time.
That
movie
is
also
a
cinematic
valentine
to
New
York
City,
which
I
love.

RC:
You
read
a
snippet
of
the
summer
outing
scene
during

your
interview
with

Sunni
Yuen,
a
member
of
Google’s
Legal
Department
back
in
January
2014.
It
is
featured
in

Episode
5
“Out
of
Office”
—
how
did
it
feel
to
witness
this
scene
on
the
television
screen?

HW:
The
firm
retreat
was
my
favorite
chapter
to
write,
and
now
it’s
my
favorite
episode
of
the
show
(Episode
5:
“Out
of
Office”).
I
watched
it
and,
literally,
I
laughed,
I
cried,
it
was
better
than
“Cats.”
I
picked
up
the
remote
and
rewatched
it
immediately.
Then
I
called
Georgia
(Lee)
to
tell
her
how
much
I
loved
it.

I
still
find
myself
humming
that
beautiful
Lake
Scene
song
when
Rachel
and
Justin
are
stranded
on
the
water.
It’s
called

“Around
Here,”
by
a
really
talented
singer-songwriter
named
Matt
Holubowski,
and
I
think
his
music
adds
perfect
context
to
that
setting.

RC:
I
noted
three
references
to
Above
the
Law
in
your
book,
as
well
as
three
references
to
Audrey
Hepburn.
How
well
do
you
think
the
Netflix
series
captures
the
book’s
legal
culture
and
fashion
influences
and
references?

HW:
I
was
impressed
with
the
way
this
show
takes
a
book
about
a
law
firm
and
makes
it
an
entertaining
“TV
SHOW!!!”
Yet
it
still
captures
the
thornier
themes
and
topics
I
tried
to
address
with
my
novel.
I
think
it’s
a
fairly
successful
combination
of
“Hollywood
entertainment”
and
verisimilitude.

It
is,
after
all,
a
TV
series
that
seeks
to
entertain
and
enlighten.
And
who
wants
to
watch
a
“100%
authentic”
show
about,
say,
me
drafting
an
asset
purchase
agreement
at
2
A.M.
at
my
desk,
eating
takeout
in
my
gray
college
sweats?
I
mean,
I
personally
think
that
would
be
a
really,
really
boring
TV
show.
Haha.

RC:
I’ve
heard
many
law
schools
and
professors
leverage
last
month’s
series
premiere
of

“The
Partner
Track,”
based
on
a
book
published
almost
a
decade
ago,
to
teach
current
lessons
to
this
year’s
1Ls
and
other
legal
cohorts.
Why
do
you
think

“The
Partner
Track”
has
struck
such
a
chord
in
the
legal
community?

HW:
Yes,
I’m
hearing
from
a
lot
of
law
profs
and
law
partners
and
just
people
in
general
who
tell
me
my
novel
may
have
been
a
bit
“ahead
of
its
time.”

I
think
what
they
mean
is,
we’re
clearly
at
a
different
cultural
moment
right
now,
a
critical
moment
when
many
more
people
are
willing
to
both
read
and
listen
to
and
talk
about
stories
like
Ingrid’s.
And
Tyler’s.
And
even
Murph’s.
And
I
hope
we’ll
get
a
chance
to
continue
telling
these
stories!
There’s
a
lot
more
story
to
tell.

RC:
Of
course,
I
must
bring
up
the

A.1.
Sauce
scene!
Are
you
getting
as
much
response
to
it
nowadays
as
you
did
when
the
book
was
published?

HW:
Yes,
I
definitely
hear
from
a
lot
of
readers,
and
now
TV
viewers,
for
whom
that
A.1.
Sauce
scene
resonates.
And
I
don’t
just
mean
lawyers
and
law
students.

I
think
everyone
has
their
own
A.1.
Sauce
Moment
at
some
point
in
their
lives,
right?
I
don’t
know
anyone
who
hasn’t
felt
like
the
“Outsider”
in
one
way
or
another.
Not
even,
dare
I
say
it,
Dan
Fallon!

RC:
Any
advice
for
someone
wanting
to
balance
a
legal
career
with
a
creative
side
hustle?

HW:
Never
assume
it’s
impossible.
If
you
truly
believe
in
the
project,
don’t
give
up.
I’m
glad
I
didn’t.

On
behalf
of
everyone
here
at
Above
the
Law,
I
would
like
to
thank
Helen
Wan
for
sharing
her
story
with
our
audience.
We
wish
her
continued
success
in
her
career.
Helen
can
be
contacted
via
her
website:

www.helenwan.com,
Twitter

@helenwan1,
and
representation:

josh@hgliterary.com.

---

Renwei
Chung is
the
DEI
Columnist
at
Above
the
Law.
You
can
contact
him
by
email
at renwei@footnote4.com.