Category: News Feeds

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

According
to
Law360
Pulse,
in
review
of
federal
police
misconduct
lawsuits
compiled
by
Lex
Machina,
which
10
Biglaw
firms
represented
the
most
police
and
defendants
in
the
900+
lawsuits
reviewed
over
a
two-year
period?

Hint:
For
these
purposes,
Biglaw
is
defined
as
one
of
the
400
largest
law
firms
by
U.S.
head
count
—
though
there
are
a
few
Am
Law
100
firms
that
have
regularly
defended
the
police.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

A
third
city
in
Los
Angeles
County
has
increased
minimum
wages
to
$25
per
hour
for
certain
private
healthcare
workers,
stirring
controversy
about
the
impact
on
healthcare
workers
at
public
hospitals. 

On
Monday,
the
city
council
of

Monterey
Park,
about
seven
miles
from
downtown
Los
Angeles,
voted
in
favor
of
a
$25
minimum
wage
for
healthcare
workers
in
the
city,
just
two
weeks
after
the
city
of
Downey
did
the
same.
The
wave
of
wage
increases
follows
the
lead
of

Los
Angeles
Mayor
Eric
Garcetti
who

signed

an
ordinance
on
July
8
establishing
a
$25
minimum
hourly
wage
for
workers
at
eligible
privately
owned
healthcare
facilities. 

Though
the
wage
increase
is
a
win
for
some,
questions
remain
about
where
the
money
will
come
from.

“They’re
gonna
have
to
cut
costs
and
services,”
said


Erin
J.
McLaughlin,
attorney
and
shareholder
for
Buchanan
Ingersoll
&
Rooney’s
healthcare
practice,
specializing
in
labor
and
employment.
“And
I
think
it’s
going
to
really
put
an
additional
strain
on
what
is
an
already
strained
industry
so
then
the
question
becomes,
‘can
a
patient
receive
adequate
care
based
on
where
they’re
located?’”

The
coalition,
“No
on
the
Los
Angeles
Equal
Pay
Measure,”
is
a
group
of
hospitals
and
healthcare
workers
opposing
the
wage
increase.
The
group
estimates
that
the
ordinance
excludes
90%
of
healthcare
workers.
According
to
McLaughlin,
this
disparity
will
lead
to
an
even
greater
workforce
shortage. 

“If
you’re
guaranteed
a
higher
minimum
wage
at
a
private
facility,
you’re
going
to
see
those
workers
go
seek
jobs
at
private
facilities
and
we’re
going
to
have
what
is
even
more
dreadful
of
a
situation
in
terms
of
the
labor
shortage
at
the
federally
qualified
health
centers,”
McLaughlin
said.

The
healthcare
community
is
divided
by
the
wage
increases,
with
some
groups
such
as
the

SEIU-United
Healthcare
Workers
West,
a
labor
union,
lauding
the
pay
hikes.

“The
pandemic
has
worsened
staffing
shortages
in
local
hospitals
and
many
workers
have
left
the
industry
due
to
chronic
stress,
burnout,
and
low
pay,”
said
Dave
Regan,
president
of
SEIU-United
Healthcare
Workers
West
in
a


news
release.

“We
commend
the
Monterey
Park
City
Council
for
voting
to
protect
public
health
for
residents
and
addressing
a
staffing
shortage
that
threatens
patient
care.
By
ensuring
healthcare
workers
earn
a
fair
wage
that
reflects
their
vital
work,
Monterey
Park
can
retain
and
attract
the
workers
needed
to
ensure
the
quality
of
healthcare
doesn’t
decline
in
the
city.” 

The
union

collected
the
required
number
of
signatures
to
put
the
minimum
wage
increase
on
each
of
the
ballots
where
votes
have
taken
place
so
far.

Opponents
say
unequal
wages
will
worsen
the
already
dire
healthcare
worker
shortage
because
the
wage
increase
only
affects
a
small
number
of
hospitals. 

“We
all
agree
that
healthcare
workers
are
heroes
—
but
these
unequal
pay
measures
are
inequitable
for
workers,
harmful
and
costly
for
patients,
and
risky
for
our
communities,”
George
Greene,
the
president
of
the
Hospital
Association
of
California
said,
after
the
vote
in
LA.

The
concern
is
whether,
or
when,
healthcare
workers
at
public
healthcare
systems
will
quit
since
they
aren’t
receiving
a
pay
increase. 

Healthcare
providers
filed
a
lawsuit
on
July
14,
claiming
Mayor
Garcetti’s
ordinance

violates
the
equal
protection
and
due
process
clauses
of
the
U.S.
and
California
constitutions
that
say
a
law
must
treat
similarly
situated
persons
the
same. 

“The
hastily
approved
ordinance
is
unequal
and
unfair.
It
excludes
workers
at
90%
of
healthcare
facilities
in
the
City
of
Los
Angeles
for
no
apparent
reason,”
Greene
said.
“It
discriminates
against
healthcare
workers
and
providers
alike,
and
we
are
asking
the
courts
to
overturn
it.” 

California
isn’t
the
only
state
grappling
with
how
to
compensate
healthcare
workers.
In
Ohio
last
week,

Adena
Health
System
announced
it
would
raise
its
caregiver
wages
to
$15
per
hour.

The
increased
minimum
wage
will
impact
14%
of
Adena’s
workers,
who
will
see
their
hourly
pay
increase
in
a
phased
rollout
plan
beginning
in
September. 

Photo:
FG
Trade,
Getty
Images

 

Being
a
lawyer
can
be
an
extremely
stressful
job.
Attorneys
often
need
to
contend
with
antagonistic
adversaries
who
can
make
the
life
of
a
counterpart
a
living
hell.
In
addition,
lawyers
may
have
to
handle
clients
who
can
make
it
difficult
to
complete
a
representation.
As
mentioned
in
a
prior
article,
it
is
not
uncommon
for

clients
to
provide
gifts
to
lawyers
in
order
to
thank
them
for
a
job
well
done.
However,
most
of
the
time,
the
only
thank
you
a
lawyer
gets
from
a
client
(even
if
the
attorney
goes
above
and
beyond
normal
expectations)
is
getting
paid
on
time,
and
this
is
almost
always
a
sufficient
expression
of
gratitude
from
clients.

I
learned
this
fact
of
practicing
law
earlier
in
my
career
when
I
was
an
associate
at
a
smaller
shop.
The
partner
and
I
were
working
for
a
particularly
needy
client,
the
type
of
person
who
would
email
you
a
second
time
if
the
first
email
was
not
responded
to
within
a
few
hours.
We
needed
to
spend
three
times
the
energy
on
this
client
than
on
any
other
client
we
worked
for
at
that
firm
because
the
client’s
demands
were
over
the
top,
and
the
client
made
a
mountain
out
of
a
mole
hill
for
each
stage
of
the
litigation
process.

I
think
I
said
offhand
that
the
client
should
be
grateful
that
we
were
willing
to
handle
such
issues
from
the
client
and
that
we
still
did
quality
work
on
the
file.
The
partner
said
that
the
client
thanked
us
by
paying
us
on
time.
The
partner
was
of
course
right,
and
lawyers
often
need
to
work
with
needy
clients
as
well
as
solid
clients
when
building
their
practice.

On
numerous
times
in
my
career,
I
have
gone
above
and
beyond
for
my
clients,
and
receiving
on-time
payment
was
just
about
the
only
expression
of
thanks
I
ever
got
(which
was
fine
by
me).
One
time,
right
at
the
beginning
of
the
COVID-19
pandemic,
I
handled
a
deal
for
a
flat
fee.
Due
to
the
complexities
of
COVID-19,
the
deal
required
around
quadruple
the
time
that
a
typical
closing
took.
Moreover,
because
of
the
uncertainty
of
the
economic
climate
in
the
early
months
of
the
pandemic,
my
client
wanted
out
of
the
deal.

I
cautioned
that
backing
out
of
the
deal
could
create
significant
legal
liability
for
my
client.
My
client
was
unhappy
to
hear
my
advice
and
said
some
hurtful
comments
to
me.
This
was
tough
to
hear,
especially
since
I
was
working
so
hard
on
his
deal
for
a
very
modest
fee.

The
deal
ended
up
going
on
without
a
hitch,
and
as
we
all
know,
the
economy
rebounded
pretty
quickly
after
the
initial
downturn.
This
made
my
client’s
deal
much,
much
more
favorable
than
what
the
client
could
have
gotten
six
months
in
the
future,
and
it
would
have
been
extremely
misguided
to
cancel
the
deal.
The
client
never
apologized
for
saying
hurtful
comments
and
never
thanked
me
for
giving
him
good
advice
about
the
deal.
And
I
never
needed
such
thanks
since
on-time
payment
by
the
client
was
enough
of
a
thank
you
for
me.

Another
deal
I
handled
also
required
me
to
go
above
and
beyond
the
normal
workload
for
lawyers.
For
deals
of
this
type,
it
was
typical
to
handle
payments
through
wire
transfer.
However,
I
once
represented
a
client
who
wanted
me
to
go
to
the
closing
in
person
and
pick
up
the
client’s
payment.
It
was
a
schlepp
to
go
to
the
closing,
but
I
wanted
to
make
the
client
happy,
so
I
agreed.

The
client
also
required
that
I
hand-deliver
the
check
with
the
closing
proceeds
to
the
client
to
avoid
the
possibility
that
the
check
would
be
lost
in
the
mail.
The
whole
ordeal
took
almost
an
entire
day
since
I
had
to
drive
to
attend
the
closing,
attend
the
closing
for
about
an
hour,
and
the
drop
off
the
check
to
the
client
before
driving
home.
When
I
delivered
the
check
to
the
client,
I
never
received
gratitude
of
any
kind
despite
all
of
my
effort.
Perhaps
the
client
did
not
know
how
atypical
all
of
this
work
was,
but
in
my
mind,
I
was
fine
with
just
accepting
the
client’s
payment
as
gratitude
enough
for
all
of
this
work.

All
told,
sometimes
lawyers
go
above
and
beyond
for
their
clients
in
extraordinary
ways,
and
clients
do
not
explicitly
thank
their
lawyers
for
such
efforts.
However,
lawyers
should
have
a
mindset
that
payment
by
a
client
is
enough
of
a
thank
you,
since
we
are
in
a
service
industry
where
compensation
and
repeat
business
is
usually
thanks
enough.

---

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.

How
hard
it
is
to
get
fired.

—
a
midlevel
associate
at
Alston
&
Bird,
in
response
to
a
question
found
in
the

American
Lawyer
Midlevel
Associates
Survey
about
what
most
surprised
them
about
working
at
their
current
firm.
More
notable
and
quotable
responses
can
be
found

here.

---

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.

Why
do
we
care
about
what
the
Nine
Robed
Figures
have
to
say?
There
are
the
routine
answers:

Marbury,

Plessy,

Roe,

Dobbs,

Bruen, Gideon,

Bakke,
etc.
But
to
answer
in
this
way
already
misses
the
point.
One
could
go
on
and
analyze
the
merits
of
the
decisions
to
undercut
the
authority
of
the
decisions
handed
down
—

Marbury
could
have
easily
been
resolved
differently
if
the
judges
ordered
a
dude
to
deliver
some
mail,
after
all.
What
grants
their
opinions
the
power
of

judgment
as
such?
As
it
turns
out,
it
doesn’t
have
much
to
do
with
them.
It
has
to
do
with
us.

[W]hen
the
Supreme
Court
itself
has
discussed
legitimacy,
the
case
in
which
the
Court
gave
its
longest
discussion
of
the
term
legitimacy
before

Dobbs was Planned
Parenthood
v.
Casey…three
Republican
appointees,
Anthony
Kennedy,
David
Souter,
and
Sandra
Day
O’Connor,
authored
this
joint
opinion
in
which
they
asked
the
question,
why
do
people
listen
to
the
Supreme
Court?
Why
don’t
they
just
treat
our
opinions
as
no
different
from
a
press
release
by
a
conservative
senator,
or
a
liberal
senator?
Why
do
they
take
our
opinions
and
do
things
with
it?

And
their
answer
to
that
question
was
legitimacy.
They
defined
the
term
legitimacy
as
basically,

the
general
understanding
among

the
American
public,
that
when
the
Court
issues
an
opinion,
what
it
is
doing
is
engaging
in
this
principled
analysis,
as
opposed
to
just
exercising
the
individual
views
of
the
justices.

This
reading,
assuming
that
what
grants
the
Supreme
Court
its
authority
is
more
than
a
line
or
two
in
the
Constitution
and
includes
the
people’s
belief
that
judges
are
doing
their
jobs
in
a
principled
manner
may
explain
why
the
justices
have
expended
so
much
hot
air
extolling
their
neutrality
—

despite
clear
evidence
otherwise.

[T]oday’s
Court
had
a
choice
of,
do
we
want
to
cultivate
this
public
perception
that
what
we
are
doing
is
different
from,
say,
what
five
Ted
Cruzes
would
do
if
he
were
on
the
Court?
Or,
you
know,
you
can
get
a
Supreme
Court
of
former
clerks
that
are
currently
in
Congress,
like
Josh
Hawley
or
Ted
Cruz,
and
then
like
Mitch
McConnell,
you
take
five
of
them,
give
them
robes
and
a
gavel
—
is
what
we’re
doing
different
from
what
they
would
do?

And
to
the
extent
that
the
public
believed
there
is
this
distinction
between
the
two,
then
yes,
I
think
that
today’s
Court
basically
does
not
care
about
that
distinction.
In
the Dobbs opinion,
Justice
Alito
explicitly
said,
it’s
not
our
job
to
care
about
public
opinion.
We
shouldn’t
take
that
into
consideration
at
all.

But
I
think
what
the
Court
is
realizing,
especially
in
the
last
few
weeks,
is,
if
you
do
not
care
about
public
opinion,
and
you
do
something
that’s
extremely
controversial,
you
risk
the
public
turning
on
you.
And
eventually
at
some
point,
if
you
anger
enough
people,
the
public
will
stop
listening
and
start
doing
something
to
reform
your
power.

I
think
two
big
points
stem
from
this.
The
first
is
that
I
doubt
it’s
a
coincidence
that
the
Court’s
handwaving
of
legitimacy
coincides
with

historically
low
approval
ratings.
And
while
talk
of
term
limits
and
codes
of
conduct
have
long
been
a
point
of
concern
about
regulating
the
behavior
of
Supreme
Court
justices,
the
uptick
in
these
conversations
could
be
explained
by
a
widespread
feeling
of
there
being
a

counter-majoritarian
problem
that
rises
in
relation
to
legitimacy’s
decline.
The
second
related
point
is
that
a
Court
that
not
only
operates
without
legitimacy,
but
wantonly
so
re:
Alito,
is
very
hard
if
not
impossible
to
distinguish
from
a
vigilante
or
rogue
court.
If
they
don’t
care
about
public
opinion,
what
keeps
them
in
check?

It’s
not
like
they
have
a
code
of
conduct
they
have
to
follow
or
anything.

Prof.
Bowie
thinks
that
if
we
want
to
live
in
a
democratic
nation,
rather
than
a
state
whose
laws
are
dictated
by
a
Rogue
9
with
no
real
check
against
their
authority,
we
ought
to
vest
more
legitimacy
in
a
different
branch.

Which
institutions
should
be
responsible
for
resolving
these
fundamental
disagreements?…[W]hat
do
other
countries
do?
In
most
other
democratic
societies,
national
legislatures
are
responsible
for
making
these
determinations,
particularly
democratically
responsive
national
legislatures.
From
the
United
Kingdom
to
France
and
Germany
and
New
Zealand
—
in
general,
these
sorts
of
questions
are
decided
by
national
legislation.
And
national
legislation
enacted
through
far
more
democratic
legislatures
than
the
United
States
Congress.

So
I
would
love
to
see
a
more
democratic
Congress.
I
would
love
to
see
reforms
to
Congress
to
make
it
more
democratic.

But
even
the
Congress
we
have
now,
I
think,
is
a
better
answer
to
the
question
of
who
should
resolve
these
questions
than
another
institution
like
state
legislatures,
or
local
governments,
or
neighborhood
associations,
or
federal
or
state
courts.

It
is
a
bold
solution
given
how
often
politicking
gets
in
the
way
of
common
sense
—
KBJ’s
confirmation
was
far
more
dramatic
than
it
needed
to
be.
But
I
think
that
something
has
to
happen.
And
it
has
to
happen
now.
Democracy
has
been
declining

globally
and
will
likely
continue
down
the
slope
if
barriers
are
not
erected
to
protect
it.

How
To
Save
Democracy
From
The
Supreme
Court
[VOX]

---

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Skip
to
main
content

During
closing
arguments
Wednesday
in
the
first
Sandy
Hook
defamation
case
against
rightwing
showman
Alex
Jones,
the
defendant’s
lawyer
Andino
Reynal
cautioned
the
jury
about

anchoring
bias.
He
warned
jurors
not
to
fixate
on
the
first
number
they
were
given,
in
this
case
the
demanded
$150
million
in
punitive
damages
for
Neil
Heslin
and
Scarlett
Lewis,
who
faced
years
of
harassment
after
their
son
Jesse
Lewiss
was
murdered
at
Sandy
Hook
Elementary
School,
and
Jones
called
the
massacre
a
“hoax.”

This
would
have
been
good
advice
for
people
watching
the
trial
as
well,
since
there
was
general
astonishment
when
the
jury
returned
a
$4.1
million
compensatory
verdict
in
favor
of
the
plaintiffs.
Jones’s
conduct
on
his
show
and
in
court
was
so
vile
and
outrageous,
it
created
an
expectation
that
perhaps
a
jury in
Texas
would
smack
the
crap
out
of
a
defendant
without
the
plaintiff
having
to
demonstrate
specific
and
substantial
economic
losses.
And
…
it
didn’t.

Heslin
and
Lewis’s
attorney
Mark
Bankston
purported
to
be
delighted
with
the
verdict
and
promised
that
the
real
action
would
be
the
jury
award
on
punitive
damages.
He
suggests
that
the
cap
on
damages
is
“a
reasonable
multiple”
of
the
punitive
award.

“A
practical
fear
for
Mr.
Jones
is,
is
he
going
to
walk
out
of
this
courtroom
paying
$50
million,
or
is
he
going
to
have
to
walk
out
of
this
courtroom
paying
$6
million?”

Others
have

pointed
out
that

Texas
law
caps
punitive
(“exemplary”)
damages
at
twice
the
compensatory
damage
award
plus
$750,000.
Moreover,
an
exemplary
damage
award
requires
an
unanimous
jury,
and
only
ten
of
the
twelve
jurors
agreed
on
the
original
$4.1
million
compensatory
award.
And
if
the
jury’s
original
award
was
for
non-economic
damages,
i.e.
to
compensate
them
for
pain
and
suffering,
then
they
may
only
get
the
$750,000
in
this
phase
of
the
trial.
Which
is
perhaps
why
plaintiffs’
counsel
tried
to
“anchor”
the
jury
at
$150
million
in
the
first
place.

But
Texas
law
prohibits
telling
the
jury
about
the
cap,
so
it
may
well
return
a
massive
verdict
which
will
then
be
reduced
to
comply
with
the
statute
—
sending
a
signal
about
Jones’s
moral
culpability,
but
allowing
him
to
walk
away
with
a
slap
on
the
wrist
in
light
of
the
company’s
annual
revenues
in
the
neighborhood
of
$65
million.

This
morning,
the
brief
punitive
phase
of
the
trial
began,
giving
the
jury
a
chance
to
punish
Jones
for
his
outrageous
conduct.
Forensic
economist

Bernard
Pettingill
testified
that
Infowars’s
parent
company
Free
Speech
Systems
is
wholly
reliant
on
Jones
agreeing
to
scream
into
a
microphone
forever.

“You
cannot
separate
Alex
Jones
from
the
company,”
he
told
the
jury,
valuing
Free
Speech
Systems
at
$130
million,
twice
annual
revenue,
agreeing
that
he’d
have
had
more
to
go
on
if
(a)
the
company
had
kept
“normal”
books,
or
(b)
the
company
had
actually
complied
with
discovery.

Plaintiffs’
counsel
Wesley
Ball
gave
an
impassioned
close,
urging
the
jury
to
put
an
end
to
Jones’s
“monetization
of
misinformation
and
lies.”

“Speech
is
free,
lies
you
pay
for,”
he
said,
urging
the
jury
to
“not
only
take
Alex
Jones’s
platform
away,
I
ask
that
you
make
sure
he
can’t
rebuild
the
platform.”

“That
is
punishment,
that
is
deterrence,”
he
roared.

In
his
close,
Reynal
sought
to
bring
down
the
temperature
in
the
room,
urging
the
jurors
to
“look
at
the
facts
and
the
law.”
Where
Ball
sought
to
make
Jones
an
avatar
for
misinformation
itself,
Reynal
painted
his
client
as
merely
a
talkshow
host,
suggesting
that
the
Clinton
campaign
and
the
Megyn
Kelly
show
bore
equal
responsibility
for
republishing
Jones’s
words
and
adding
to
the
plaintiffs’
pain.

Didn’t
Scarlett
Lewis
get
the
“award”
of
confronting
Jones
from
the
witness
stand,
he
wondered.
Plus
she
got
an
invitation
to
come
on
his
show!

“That’s
the
good
that
can
come
from
this
case,”
he
intoned
somberly,
before
the
case
went
to
the
jury.

In
the
meanwhile,

CNN
reports
that
US
Bankruptcy
Court
Judge
Christopher
Lopez
reduced
Jones’s
take
home
pay
to
$10,000
per
week,
down
from
$1.3
million
annually.
He
also
cut
off
payments
to
the
company
AmEx
card,
which
was
apparently
being
used
to
pay
something
in
the
neighborhood
of
$350,000
per
month
for
Jones’s
personal
expenses,
including
housekeeping
at
his
home,
where
he
keeps
a
broadcast
studio.

The
jury
returned
its
compensatory
damage
award
relatively
quickly,
and
today
is
Friday
so,
perhaps
we
won’t
have
to
wait
long
to
get
to
the
end
of
this
ordeal
…
and
on
to
the
appeal,
because
these
poor
parents
have
been
through
so
much
already.

New
head
of
Alex
Jones’
company
faces
questions
from
lawyers
for
Sandy
Hook
families
[CNN]

---

Liz
Dye
lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
writes
about
law
and
politics.

Earlier
this
week,
we
provided

special
coverage
of
what
we
believe
was
the
first
firm
to
hand
out
special
bonuses
to
associates
this
summer.
Littler,
an
Am
Law
100
firm,
handed
out
special
bonuses
that
averaged
$10,000
to
eligible
associates
who
were
on
a
2,100-hour
pace
at
the
end
of
June.
It’s
been
about
a
full
business
week
since
we
publicized
those
special
bonuses,
and
to
our
knowledge,
not
a
single
other
firm
has
matched
or
even
hinted
at
handing
out
special
bonuses
to
associates.

A
source
at
a
top
Am
Law
firm
reached
out
to
us
to
let
us
know
why
they
think
this
could
be.
“Firms
continue
to
crush
associates,”
our
tipster
said.
“They
want
us
to
feel
‘grateful.’”
And
what
should
associates
be
grateful
for?
That
they’re
still
employed
at
the
firm,
of
course.
Our
informant
thinks
that
Biglaw
partners
are
socking
away
cash
without
sharing
the
wealth
and
instilling
fear
of
layoffs
in
associates.
“I
see
too
many
colleagues
suffering
and
struggling
under
the
merciless
hands
of
greedy
partners
in
the
Biglaw
setting,”
they
said.

Things
are
getting
bad
in
Biglaw.
I
am
a
midlevel
associate
at
an
Am
Law
20
firm
and
all
I
see
are
partners
using
the
economy
as
an
excuse
to
drive
fear
into
all
of
us
—
just
so
they
can
extract
every
last
ounce
of
flesh
(dignity,
health,
outlook)
from
associates.

The
partners
are
using
media
highlight
reels
of
a
pending
recession,
inflation,
and
layoffs
to
make
us
work
harder
than
ever
before,
and
that’s
saying
A
LOT
after
what
they
had
us
do
in
2021.
My
entire
group
is
clocking
in
rates
just
as
high,
if
not
higher,
than
what
we
were
doing
in
2021.
The
relentless
pressures
have
not
waned
in
the
slightest.
Things
are
even
worse
now
because
of
the
added
pressures
we
have
in
our
personal
lives
(rising
rents,
grocery
bills,
car
payments,
geopolitical
uncertainty
and
distress,
foreign
wars,
pending
student
loans,
etc.).

At
least
in
2021
we
were
shown
some
appreciation
in
the
form
of
special
bonuses
that
came
trickling
in
throughout
the
year.
But
in
2022,
the
firms
have
replaced
special
bonuses
with
fear,
intimidation,
and
gamesmanship.
We
all
see
what
these
partners
are
doing:
they
are
using
fear
to
drive
the
associate-powered
gulag.
We
are
all
concerned
that
they
will
simply
pack
away
the
cash,
to
ensure
their
own
well-being,
and
then
toss
us
all
aside
using
stealth
layoffs
—
the
stench
of
pretense
(in
the
form
of
“poor
work
performance”)
has
already
started
to
ruminate.

For
firms
to
continue
to
rake
in
the
cash
and
not
share
it
with
the
workforce
that
allows
them
to
get
rich
is
wrong.

---

Does
this
sound
like
what’s
going
on
at
your
Biglaw
firm?
Pretty
alarming
if
so.

We
depend
on
your
tips
to
stay
on
top
of
this
stuff.
If
your
firm
matches
summer
special
bonuses,
please
text
us
(646-820-8477)
or email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Special
Bonuses”).
On
the
flip
side
of
the
coin,
if
your
firm
is
reducing
the
ranks
of
its
lawyers
or
staff,
whether
through
open
layoffs,
stealth
layoffs,
or
voluntary
buyouts,
please
don’t
hesitate
to
let
us
know.
You
can

email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Layoffs”)
or
text
us
(646-820-8477).
Please
include
the
memo
if
available.
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
or
Layoff
Alerts,
please
scroll
down
and
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below
this
post.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
these
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
announcement
that
we
publish.

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on

Twitter
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

---

---

In
this
episode,
I
welcome
Joann
Selleck,
a
mediator
from
Selleck
Mediation,
to
talk
about
the
ins
and
outs
of
being
a
mediation
professional.
Joann
narrates
how
she
came
into
the
practice
area.
She
cites
the
qualities
a
person
should
have
to
be
a
facilitator,
as
well
as
why
people
are
handling
litigations
differently.
Joann
also
describes
what
challenges
specific
to
the
mediation
practice
she
faced,
as
well
as
the
greatest
accomplishments
she
had
in
her
career.

The
Jabot
podcast
is
an
offshoot
of
the
Above
the
Law
brand
focused
on
the
challenges
women,
people
of
color,
LGBTQIA,
and
other
diverse
populations
face
in
the
legal
industry.
Our
name
comes
from
none
other
than
the
Notorious
Ruth
Bader
Ginsburg
and
the
jabot
(decorative
collar)
she
wore
when
delivering
dissents
from
the
bench.
It’s
a
reminder
that
even
when
we
aren’t
winning,
we’re
still
a
powerful
force
to
be
reckoned
with.

Happy
listening!

---

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).