Category: News Feeds

Another day, another Biglaw firm’s associates are told to wait on COVID appreciation bonuses. Last month it seemed like all the elite in Biglaw would just have to spread their considerable wealth with associates in the fall, but now the tide has turned.

Let’s go through a little special fall bonus history, shall we? Cooley started the COVID appreciation bonus game, and it was exciting when Davis Polk came over the top of the Cooley scale. And firms quickly started piling on this new bonus scale. Weil did their own, seemingly unpopular, hours-based bonus, but, still, it was better than no bonuses at all.

But, sigh, Kirkland — the world’s richest law firm — begged off fall special bonuses, and seemed to be asking the market not to follow the trend. And Cravath seconded that. And that was… pretty much all she wrote. With the exception of Willkie Farr, the only bonus news Biglaw has had is a lot of nothing, as firms are just asking associates to wait for market bonuses.

So it really isn’t a surprise that Cahill announced on Friday that their associates will have to wait until the year-end bonuses to see any financial appreciation for their hard work during this difficult time. But the firm did note that, whenever 2020 bonuses happen, they’ll “reflect prevailing market bonus activity across the New York area (including covid related bonuses).” But what that means is up for debate. One tipster told Above the Law “Cahill is paying COVID bonuses!”

Others…. well they took a harsher view on the firm’s note:

The firm has repeatedly said this has been our best year ever throughout the year, so it’s kind of hard to understand why they are deciding to delay this, but not super surprising given how unbelievably cheap they are.

The least they could have done is respect us enough to give us an explicit answer as opposed to referring to “prevailing market bonus activity”. Nice seeing a “market leader” in compensation proudly announce they’re a second tier firm.

Hopefully when year-end bonuses roll around, Cahill associates will find the wait was worth it.

You can read the firm’s full announcement 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).

“The heresy of heresies was common sense.” — George Orwell, 1984

Just when you think you have seen everything, something else pops up that surprises you. Admit it — many of us have found ourselves in this place and being amused at the discovery.  That said, rarely is this occurrence something so confounding, so jaw-droppingly unbelievable that it literally stops you in your tracks. I must admit, this happened to me this past week when I read that Yelp posted that it has rolled out a new feature that can only be described as wokeism gone wild — a consumer alert designed “to warn consumers about businesses associated with egregious, racially charged actions.” The alert? A new “Business Accused of Racist Behavior Alert” (BARBA) to be placed on the Yelp page of the accused business. You read that correctly.

If you are thinking that this article is going to be political, relax in the knowledge that your worries are misplaced — I prefer to present my musings on law and technology so you can think about the issue presented and engage in (hopefully) legitimate discourse. For the record, I despise racism in all its forms — it is simply abhorrent to me. My focus in this article will be the problems and commensurate liability that Yelp has now willingly decided to foist upon itself by this ill-conceived policy, no matter how well-intentioned. I will leave the politics to the Beltway pundits.

Before I delve into the legal absurdity of this policy, let’s start with some additional context from Yelp on it. As Yelp states in its blog post about this new policy: “As the nation reckons with issues of systemic racism, we’ve seen in the last few months that there is a clear need to warn consumers about businesses associated with egregious, racially charged actions to help people make more informed spending decisions.” Under the guise of “ensur[ing] the trust and safety of [its] users” and “provid[ing] them with reliable content to inform their spending decisions, including decisions about whether they’ll be welcome and safe at a particular business,” Yelp has decided to take the step of flagging businesses with the scarlet letter of “racist.” Here is the crux of their new policy.

If someone associated with a business is accused of, or the target of, racist behavior, we will place a Public Attention Alert on the business page to warn consumers that the business may be receiving an influx of reviews as a result of increased attention. For businesses accused of overtly racist actions, where we can link to a news article, we will escalate our warning with the Business Accused of Racist Behavior Alert. (emphasis added).

In sum, if someone merely accuses a business of racist behavior, the business gets a Public Attention Alert; if the accusation rises to the level of “overtly racist actions,” then they get the dreaded BARBA.

No matter how well-intentioned, Yelp’s execution leaves a lot to be desired. Here are three big reasons that Yelp may have taken on much more than social justice in its new policy:

1. Mere accusations are not enough. Perhaps there most chilling part of this policy is that accusations can trigger an initial alert, and accusation-plus-media article can trigger the BARBA. Anyone who follows the litigation involving Yelp reviews knows that businesses have sued reviewers for defamatory reviews (prompting the passage of the Consumer Review Fairness Act in 2016). Businesses taking exception to negative reviews is one thing, but being labeled as exhibiting “racist behavior” takes things to a whole new level. Without question, applying the BARBA to a business will impact the bottom line of that business, all premised upon an accusation ostensibly corroborated by “resounding evidence” supported by an article from a “credible media outlet.” What does all that mean? How is the evidence authenticated? What is a “credible media outlet? What qualifies as “”resounding evidence”? I find it hard to believe that Yelp did not consider these points extensively and the likelihood of litigation that will be brought against them for applying a BARBA to a business. And as you will see, Section 230 immunity may not be Yelp’s friend under such circumstances.

2. Reliance on Section 230 immunity is misplaced. As I have written numerous times before (and most recently here), Section 230 provides a broad immunity to online service providers from civil liability for damages arising out of defamatory, tortious, and even illegal content that its users post onto the platform (such as third-party comments posted in response to an article posted on a social media platform). It also protects such providers from civil liability for damages for the moderation or restriction of content posted on the platform. The problem here is that the provider is the one posting the content, making its own editorial decision based on the “evidence.” Although current Section 230 jurisprudence continues to reflect broad immunity for online service providers, the current political climate has brought this issue to the fore, and it is highly unlikely that actions taken by such platforms to moderate speech will remain untouched (let alone content in the nature of a BARBA). In fact, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai recently announced that the FCC is asserting jurisdiction of the interpretation of Section 230 and will be promulgating rulemaking to address the scope of immunity conferred under the statute. I don’t know about you, but when the FCC chairman states that such providers “do not have a First Amendment right to a special immunity denied to other media outlets, such as newspapers and broadcasters,” I would not be changing policies that rely on current Section 230 protections.

3. Subjective moderation without objective guidance equals trouble. Odd as it may seem, Yelp may arguably be a victim of its own new policy. As reported in the Tampa Bay Times, searches for “dog meat” brought up Korean restaurants and “cat meat” brought up Chinese restaurants. “Credible media outlet”? Check. Ostensible evidence (let alone accusation) of racist conduct? Seems like it. Before you jump to the conclusion that Yelp was being overtly racist and should BARBA itself, it seems that these unfortunate search results stemmed from its own algorithm and how it “learns” from user-generated reviews. But that is the point — although Yelp is not relying on algorithms to make this determination but on content moderators to make these subjective determinations, they are doing so based upon fuzzy criteria and opaque guidance. Any way Yelp approaches this issue, it seems impossible to avoid the prospect that many of its business users will be deeply distrustful of this new policy without more guidance.

It does not take a stretch of the imagination to realize that this new policy will be quickly tested and will create some significant legal headaches for Yelp. Why are third-party Yelp reviews that may flag potential racism not enough?  Yelp claims that “[m]aintaining the trust consumers have in Yelp is a top priority.” Unfortunately, this policy in its current form is rife with problems and can easily foster consumer distrust in the Yelp platform if not executed properly. Time will tell whether they succeed.

---

Tom Kulik is an Intellectual Property & Information Technology Partner at the Dallas-based law firm of Scheef & Stone, LLP. In private practice for over 20 years, Tom is a sought-after technology lawyer who uses his industry experience as a former computer systems engineer to creatively counsel and help his clients navigate the complexities of law and technology in their business. News outlets reach out to Tom for his insight, and he has been quoted by national media organizations. Get in touch with Tom on Twitter (@LegalIntangibls) or Facebook (www.facebook.com/technologylawyer), or contact him directly at tom.kulik@solidcounsel.com.

Of last week’s Clio Cloud Conference, here’s the TL;DR: It didn’t suck. In fact, quite the opposite.

This, the eighth annual conference presented by the law practice management company Clio, was to have been a grand gathering in sunny San Diego. Last year’s event there drew 2,000 legal professionals, and Clio targeted even higher attendance for this year.

We all know what happened next. But as Clio came to grips with the need to cancel its live conference, it did not automatically switch gears to going virtual.

“Every virtual conference I’ve attended has sucked,” cofounder and CEO Jack Newton told his staff. “If we can’t make virtual ClioCon not suck, we won’t do it.”

Well, it didn’t suck. In my opinion, it was the best virtual conference the legal industry has seen so far. And, based on social media buzz and conversations I’ve had with others who attended, that seems to be the consensus.

Sure, there were technical glitches. Sound — or lack thereof — was a recurring issue, starting with the first session on the first day. Clio’s staff was always quick to address these issues when they arose and to keep attendees on notice of their efforts. My personal nit was a schedule page on the conference platform that offered to remember my time zone, then repeatedly reneged on that offer.

Enabling Connections

But these issues were minor in the scheme of things. They were glitches in a platform that is probably the best virtual conference platform I’ve seen so far. I wrote a preview post before the conference in which I praised the platform — developed by a company called Social27 — for doing something I have not seen in other virtual platform, which is put the attendees on almost equal footing with the speakers.

Each attendee got their own “spotlight” page where they could post a brief video greeting and through which they could connect with and message others. Attendees could also create their own scheduled or spontaneous group discussion rooms, to which they could invite specific individuals or open them to others with shared interests.

“For me, a conference is about more than just consuming content,” Newton had told me then. “It’s about enabling the connections and the interpersonal exchanges that happen at the in-person conference to happen in a virtual environment. That’s our goal.”

Those connections were palpable last week, despite the virtual environment. They were most evidence in the conference chat, which was a nonstop scroll of introductions and comments and discussion and even at times of contention. The chat thrived with energy and enthusiasm that felt much like the energy and enthusiasm of past years’ live conferences.

Compelling Keynotes

Clio’s conference has come to have a reputation for scoring compelling keynote speakers, and this year’s lineup did not disappoint. Civil rights lawyer Ben Crump, attorney for the families of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and others, and speaking on what would have been Floyd’s 47th birthday, delivered a moving and powerful call to action.

Crump’s keynote was followed by what was supposed to be a Q&A session moderated by Shaka Senghor — who was one of last year’s keynotes and whose own story of empowerment and redemption is itself moving and powerful — but which felt more like an intimate conversation about racism, racial injustice, and their costs and consequences.

Another keynote speaker, Seth Godin, one of the world’s leading experts on marketing and bestselling author of 19 books, was inspiring in an entirely different way. Godin is perhaps the most tweetable speaker I’ve ever seen, every sentence a perfectly formed thought, all the while delivering a strong message of marketing through authenticity.

And if you thought Godin would know nothing of legal marketing, think again. His wife, Helene Godin, spent much of her career as a lawyer, including as general counsel for Audible when it was sold to Amazon, before she left law to start a bakery.

The third keynote speaker was Angela Duckworth, New York Times best-selling author of Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance. Unfortunately for me, other work caused me to miss most of Duckworth.

Parties and Programming

Clio’s live conference is also known for its after-hours events, and while the virtual version could not replicate a beachside bash in San Diego, it did offer four nights of virtual entertainment that included a Friday virtual dance DJ’d by Questlove, whose band The Roots is the in-house band for The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon.

Other nights featured an intimate acoustic set by Ben Harper broadcast from the Folk Music Center that his family has owned since 1958, cooking lessons from award-winning chef Stephanie Izard, executive chef of five popular Chicago restaurants, and a performance by singer-songwriter Nathaniel Rateliff.

Of course, one comes to a conference for the programs, and this conference offered an array of them spread over the course of four days. They covered thought-provoking topics such as the future of courts online, the future of the Main Street law practice, improving diversity and inclusion in legal, and adapting to the new normal.

In past years of this conference, I have noted that, although produced by Clio, it is not just a customer conference. Last year, roughly a third of attendees were not Clio customers, and there was plenty of programming on generic issues of law practice and technology.

This year’s agenda felt more heavily skewed to Clio customers. By my count, the conference had 85 programs in total. If you exclude entertainment and wellness programs, there were 73 substantive programs. Of those, 50 were specifically focused on training and tips for using Clio products. So, roughly two-thirds of programs focused on Clio. I cannot say how this compared to past years’ agendas.

What Made It ‘Not Suck’

By numbers alone, the conference was a success. It drew 4,500 attendees, spanning every U.S. state and territory and more than 40 other countries. It was the largest virtual legal conference to date.

But beyond the keynotes, beyond the entertainment, beyond the programs, beyond the attendance, there was something else that made this conference “not suck.”

For every year of the live Clio conference, I’ve struggled to put into words the energy that makes it feel different than other conferences. Last year, I settled on the word “cult” to describe it — not in the pejorative sense of blind adherence but in its suggestion of devotion to an idea or movement.

“It is a cult in the most positive sense — a devotion to the idea of being better in their practices and for their clients — a devotion to innovation,” I wrote.

This year, I saw a tweet from an attendee, Seattle family lawyer Elise Buie, that struck me as capturing the essence of what made the virtual version work:

That combination of the practical with a profound and provocative human side says it all. It was a conference that made you think not only about how to improve your practice, but also about why to improve your practice – why to strive to build a better world for your clients, your colleagues and your communities.

Clio’s CEO Newton took this even further. “Clio itself is becoming a movement,” he said in his closing remarks, reiterating the motto the company adopted in 2017: “Let’s transform the practice of law, for good.”

The motto’s double meanings of permanent change and meaningful change were the themes that prevailed though much of last week’s conference. Regardless of whether you attended the conference, they are themes that should strongly resonate for all of us at this moment in time.

---

Robert Ambrogi is a Massachusetts lawyer and journalist who has been covering legal technology and the web for more than 20 years, primarily through his blog LawSites.com. Former editor-in-chief of several legal newspapers, he is a fellow of the College of Law Practice Management and an inaugural Fastcase 50 honoree. He can be reached by email at ambrogi@gmail.com, and you can follow him on Twitter (@BobAmbrogi).

As Assistant Program Director for the Cornell Law School and Cornell Tech LL.M. program in Law, Technology & Entrepreneurship, I’m embedded in an institution with deep ties to the technology field. I see every day how lawyers engage with the flourishing tech industry — and with old industries that are increasingly tech dependent.

Law firms and businesses pursue lawyers who understand the varied needs of tech companies and even more importantly, who understand technology and the development process.  Building on my 15 years as an attorney recruiter and career coach, I help Cornell Tech graduates and alumni pursue careers in tech law.

Our graduates are lawyers who have committed nine months to expanding their knowledge in this area while working alongside their colleagues in business and tech to solve real world problems. From that experience, I’ve seen a number of ways lawyers can find and excel in tech-related careers.

There’s not one answer to what a “tech lawyer” is.  There are data privacy lawyers, tech transactions lawyers, IP specialists, corporate or in-house lawyers working with high-growth startups, product counsel, employment lawyers navigating a newly remote workplace, digital media lawyers, legal technologists using new tools to enhance legal practice, and many others.  What do you want to be, and where do you start?

Become a tech specialist in your practice

“Tech lawyers” exist in every specialty.  Build your experience within your existing domain by being the lawyer who can help your clients meet these needs.

• Spend time with your clients to learn their business. This is always good client development advice; here, it’s helping you to understand how clients interact with technology and to identify how that interaction with technology impacts their legal needs.
• Volunteer for the work. Once you’ve identified your client’s needs, how do you meet them?  You’re not (yet) an expert, so you need to learn from others.  Seize opportunities to stay involved even if others are doing the work. You may have to spend days on due diligence or other projects, but it is an investment that will increase your understanding of the work you hope to do.
• Consider legal technology. Every law firm is also a client of tech-related services. Many of our graduates have found legal tech careers that permit them to engage with technology and practice in a whole new way.

Get the information and training you need to serve a tech-centric world

Cornell Tech LL.M. students engage in active and experiential learning, and they also do a lot of reading. You should do the same.

• Comb the internet for free, reputable sources of practicums, lectures, etc. in areas of interest. (Check out Cornell Tech’s Digital Life Initiative seminars!)
• Subscribe to newsletters, feeds, and podcasts, like ATL’s Evolve the Law and Cornell Tech’s “Good Code” podcast.  Many law firms also have news feeds featuring top practitioners writing on the latest practice developments.
• Build your privacy skills. Every client with employees or customers has potential privacy issues, and we are at a historic moment where privacy law is about as complicated as it could possibly be. The US has a fragmented state law system, while the EU has a complex system of its own.  To make yourself a strong candidate for privacy lawyer jobs, data privacy CIPP certifications issued by the IAPP are valued by law firms and industry players alike.
• To really accelerate your capabilities, consider advanced degrees like Cornell Tech’s LLM in Law, Technology & Entrepreneurship which provide a deep dive into technology law.

Track your progress like no one is watching

Keep a master list of everything you do no matter how small. It will become the foundation of your annual review discussion and your new, focused, resume. You are helping your firm to comprehensively serve existing clients and to appeal to new clients (and new employers). Show that you are serious and make your case for a change.

At the end of the day, it’s your career. You are in control and have to decide for yourself what opportunities to pursue, what training to get, and what experiences to build. There are many paths.

At the Cornell Tech LL.M. program, students embark on a two-semester intensive study of technology, law and business, learning the legal fields and skills to extend their practice into a variety of tech-related disciplines. They also build relationships with future entrepreneurs (or become entrepreneurs themselves), thus opening up a wide-range of possibilities.

If you are ready to commit the time to pivot toward those opportunities, we invite you to visit the Cornell Tech LL.M. website and sign up for information on upcoming webinars for more program info.

The hits keep on coming for 2020.

Both sides of the landmark showdown over marriage equality have announced that whatever differences they may have had, the one thing we can all agree on is that Amy Coney Barrett doesn’t belong within an abortion protest buffer zone of the United States Supreme Court.

Jim Obergefell and Rick Hodges are joining Family Equality in opposing the nomination based on the threat Barrett poses to fundamental liberties:

Didn’t see that one coming, did you?

Well, you probably should have. After the opinion shifted the spotlight off the key players, Hodges and Obergefell became friends. Hodges actually supported marriage equality all along and only landed on this caption because he served as director of the Ohio Department of Health which was barred by the Ohio constitution from recognizing same-sex marriages. Still, there’s no denying the symbolic value of a Republican politician who once held the job of denying rights to same-sex couples speaking out about the threat of confirming Barrett. “How backward is Amy Coney Barrett? These famous adversaries agree she’s bad news!” That’s a pretty compelling headline.

Though it’s almost certainly one that the Republican Senators prepared to install Justice Karen this week won’t bother to read.

---

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.

Biglaw firms across the country have delayed the start dates of their incoming associates to January 2021 (or later) out of an abundance of caution thanks to the coronavirus. At the time these announcements were made, remote work was still new and we were in a state of economic upheaval. Now that almost a year has passed, these COVID accommodations are no longer so novel and there’s plenty of of work to be had. That said, several firms have decided to start their first-years remotely in 2020 — and one is even bringing its freshmen attorneys into the office.

Biglaw firms that are onboarding their incoming associates in 2020 include:

• Fenwick & West
  • Start date of October 19
• Goodwin Procter
  • Start date of October 19
• Latham & Watkins
  • Start date in late October/early November
• McDermott Will & Emery
  • Start date of October 14 or January 2021 (up to associates)
• McGuireWoods
  • Start date in November — in person, if possible
• Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
  • Start date sometime in November

The American Lawyer has more information on what’s going on at McGuireWoods:

The firm has been working at a roughly 30% occupancy rate as of late, said managing partner Tracy Walker. Much like its hybrid summer associate program, the policy in completely voluntary, Walker added.

“We have these 40 new people coming in, and like our summer associates we want an environment where they can excel,” Walker said. “Working remotely in teams is a lot easier when the team [members] know each other.”

Walker added that the firm made the decision in May to start its associates in the fall, after projecting its finances in the depths of the pandemic-induced recession. He said it was important that associates had the certainty and job security to hold them steady through the extremely uncertain summer.

Does Walker have any concerns about starting new associates in person? “Looking back now in mid-October, I believe we made the right decision,” he said.

We know that more than half of the Am Law 100 will be bringing in their first-year associates come January or later. But will these first-years hosted remotely or in person? What is your firm up to? Please email us at tips@abovethelaw.com or text us at (646) 820-8477 to let us know.

As Others Delay, These Firms Proceed With First-Year Onboarding ‘At a Distance’ [American Lawyer]

---

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.

The COVID-19 winds have really changed at the Biglaw firm of Pillsbury Winthrop. The firm, which placed 62nd in the most recent Am Law 100 rankings, was early in the trend of rolling back their austerity measures, and now those cuts are completely over.

Back in the spring, the firm made series of austerity cuts, designed to avoid layoffs, that included reducing partner monthly draws by a minimum of 25 percent, cutting associate and counsel compensation by 20 percent, and cutting all staff compensation by up to 15 percent for those who make more than $100,000 and by 10 percent for those making between $75,000 and $100,000 (with chief officers volunteering to take higher reductions, commensurate with those of partners). In August, Pillsbury began the process of rolling back the measures by reducing the salary cuts and pledging to pay everyone back the money they missed out on.

Now the firm has completely reversed course. As of October 2, all of the salary cuts are officially over. What’s more, those promised payments of rebates of withheld pay have also been made — a feat the firm credits to its  strong year-to-date performance.

If your firm or organization is slashing salaries, closing its doors, or 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. Our vast network of tipsters is part of what makes Above the Law thrive. You can email us or text us (646-820-8477).

If you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Layoff Alerts, please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the layoff alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each layoff, salary cut, or furlough 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).

In my first year of law school, the liberal scholar Yale Kamisar told those of us gathered in his criminal procedure class that the Supreme Court would never overrule Miranda: “People have been watching ‘Dragnet’ for too long.  Everyone knows that, if you get arrested, the cops say something about you having the right to an attorney.  If the Supreme Court overruled Miranda, there’d be an uproar: It’s un-American! The Court can’t do that! So the Supreme Court will probably gut the hell out of Miranda, so the rights become meaningless, but the justices will never overrule it. Why should the Court unnecessarily create a public uproar?”

Yale, may he rest in peace, was right.

Although Yale’s not with us to say it, the same is true of Roe v. Wade. Why overrule it? Nobody’s ever actually read the Roe opinion, but everyone knows that it says something about protecting abortion rights, and the vast majority of Americans think that whatever Roe says is a good idea. So the Supreme Court won’t overrule Roe; why unnecessarily create a public uproar? The Supreme Court will gut the hell out of Roe, so its protections become meaningless, but the justices will never overrule it.

So, too, in an odd way, with packing the Supreme Court.

It sounds so ugly: “Packing the Court.” Court-packing didn’t work back in the thirties. And how could you change the number of justices on the Supreme Court? The American public doesn’t quite know if the number of justices was established by divine intervention, the Constitution, a statute, or oral tradition, but, by God, there are nine justices on the Supreme Court! Why would the Democrats change that and unnecessarily create an uproar?

You might be thinking: “To avoid the impact of having a large majority of conservative justices on the Supreme Court, Herrmann, you idiot!”

Not so fast.  The question is how you could achieve the same result — protecting Roe — without causing a public uproar.

I thought first about passing a law that said, more or less, “the Supreme Court is not allowed to grant certiorari in any case involving abortion.” But then I got out the Constitution, and I suspect that some line of cases growing out of the “Exceptions Clause” of Article III probably prohibits Congress from passing laws that strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over cases that involve one particular subject matter. (I’m really not a constitutional scholar — perhaps you noticed? — and I took Con Law long ago, but that simply must be true.)

So what about option two? What about changing a rule of procedure for the Supreme Court to guarantee that Roe would never be overruled? Currently, four justices must vote in favor to grant certiorari in a case. I have no clue what law establishes that: A Supreme Court rule? A statute? Oral tradition?

Whatever the basis for that rule, however, surely a statute could change it.

So why pack the Court and unnecessarily create an uproar? Instead, pass a law that requires seven justices to vote in favor to grant certiorari.

That would guarantee that Roe would never be overruled. Indeed, that would basically freeze constitutional law in its tracks, because certiorari would never be granted in any politically charged case. Presto — Roe is preserved!  Without unnecessarily causing an uproar! Who cares about the number of votes needed to grant certiorari, and how could any politician possibly attract the attention of the American public on an issue as obscure as that one?

You might think, as I do, that America needs a Supreme Court, and permanently disabling the Court is a bad idea. Fair enough. So put a sunset provision into my proposal: Seven votes are needed to grant certiorari until the year 2070, and thereafter only four votes are needed. I have no clue what the political landscape will look like in 2070, but opinions about abortion, which are influenced by evolving science, would probably have changed by then, so Roe would probably be preserved forever. If not, my grandkids can worry about it.

Please remember that I’m neither particularly devious nor involved in politics for a living. If I’m ginning up ideas like this one, then smart folks who are actually paid to think about these issues are surely way ahead of me. Shame on them if someone can’t think of a way to preserve Roe without unnecessarily creating an uproar.

---

Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.

They knew. President Trump said so directly to Bob Woodward all the way back on Feb. 7, when he told the journalist that the coronavirus was “deadly stuff:” highly contagious, transmissible through the air, and “more deadly than even your strenuous flu.” You know, the exact opposite of what he was telling the country he “led” while simultaneously doing exactly nothing to stop it. Trump doubled down on it two weeks later in another little chat with Woodward, acknowledging that he “wanted to always play it down…. because I don’t want to create a panic.”

* This election cycle, we are reminded again that taking ballot selfies is illegal in many jurisdictions. Too bad, with the right insta filter, that ballot would look really good… [New York Times]

* A New York federal judge has denied a preliminary injunction to the Catholic Brooklyn Diocese seeking to reopen churches closed due to COVID-19 rules. [CNN]

* A lawsuit has already been filed over the forthcoming Borat sequel. [Wrap]

* A group in Louisiana has been charged for allegedly staging car accidents in order to generate legal payouts. [Times-Picayune]

* A lawsuit in Oregon alleges that a Portland gas station attendant purportedly refused to sell gas to black customers out of fear the gas might be used in rioting. [Fox News]

* The owner of a law firm named Legal Genius PLLC has pleaded guilty to defrauding the IRS and other charges. Hate to go for the low-hanging joke here, but the firm might want to change its name to something more accurate… [ABC News]

---

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.