Category: News Feeds

This case was shocking when it hit the news earlier this year. A Chinese megacelebrity actress, Shuang Zheng, was called out on social media by her ex, Heng Zhang (whom I’ll call, as the court did, “Father”) that she had abandoned their two surrogacy-born children in the United States. In China, the scandal was not that Zheng had abandoned her babies, but that she had used a surrogate to have a child — or, in this case, two surrogates to have two children. After the news broke, Zheng’s career plummeted, she lost roles and lucrative sponsorships, including one with Prada.

Almost a year after the babies’ births, Zheng brought a case in Denver County Court, arguing for her parental rights to the children. And, in February 2021, more than a year after their births, Zheng traveled to Denver, where the children reside with Father. After two well-attended (over 300-plus onlookers) public hearings over Zoom focused on parenting time and decision-making, the Denver court issued an order for allocated parental rights in the case.

A Romance Gone Very Wrong

The 30-page court opinion tells a heartbreaking story. Back when Zheng and Father were in a romantic relationship, they decided to have children together. Owing to a heart condition related to dieting for her work, as explained by Zheng to the court, the couple turned to surrogacy to have children. And since surrogacy is not permitted in China, they made arrangements in the United States.

The couple chose to work with two different surrogacy agencies, matching them with two different surrogates (one in Nevada, and one in Colorado). The couple had plans to have a girl and a boy, born close together, and in the Year of the Pig. Interestingly, that was apparently a common request from hopeful Chinese intended parents as the Year of the Pig approached. Apparently that year — approximately February 2019 to January 2020 under the Chinese zodiac calendar — was especially auspicious. I looked it up on Google like any good attorney, and found that children born in the Year of the Pig are said to be extremely pleasant, and do what their parents tell them.

Narrator: not every child born in the Year of the Pig was extremely pleasant and obedient.

The couples’ plan was right on track until the couple split — and not amicably — in September 2019. What followed was, at least for my fellow surrogacy professionals, the stuff of nightmares. Zheng testified that after the breakup, she panicked. Zheng contacted the surrogacy agencies and asked them if the pregnancies could be terminated. Even if that had been an option earlier on (which at least one agency pointed out, by contract, was not), at this point, mere months from each child’s due date, it was not possible. Zheng then inquired as to the process to place the children up for adoption, intentionally excluding Father from the communications. The agency — good for them! — wrote to both parties to be clear that if the children were going to be placed for adoption, both parents must be involved. At that point, Father started communicating with the agencies, letting them know he would be there to take care of the children and was not giving up his parental rights.

Prebirth Parentage Determination Drama

Of course, in the meantime, another legal process was on the horizon. During a surrogacy, it is customary that attorneys for the parties file a petition for a prebirth parentage determination in order to have intended parents recognized as the surrogate-born child’s parents from birth. Zheng told her Nevada attorney to stop working on the case, forcing the attorney to withdraw from representation. Only after at least one of the agencies explained the serious consequences — including the possibility of the children being considered abandoned and the parties being at risk for criminal charges — did Zheng cooperate in signing the prebirth parentage petition documents.

When The Babies Were Born, Dad Was There

Traveling to the United States in time for the births, Father was there. First, he was present for his son’s birth in Colorado in December 2019 and then, briefly leaving his baby son in his mother’s and a nanny’s care, he traveled to Nevada to be there for his daughter’s birth. He then brought his daughter back to his home in Colorado.

Zheng on the other hand, the court explained, “decided not to travel to the United States for the birth because she felt she could not be seen with Father at this time and did not trust him, and had accepted work and intended to proceed with it, claiming that if she did not do so many people would have lost their jobs.” When Dad attempted to notify Zheng by social media that the babies were born, she blocked him on WeChat.

After facing public outrage when the story broke in January 2021, Zheng finally arrived in Denver in February 2021 and contacted Father through her counsel to make arrangements to see the children. At the time of the hearings in April and May, Zheng had only experienced two short, supervised visits with the young children.

In the trial for parental allocation and decision-making, Father sought sole custody of and decision-making for the children but did not oppose Zheng having limited supervised visitation with the children. Zheng’s attorney presented an elaborate six-phase parenting plan quickly stepping up visitation and care every few weeks. The court, however, found that Zheng’s proposal lacked “in therapeutic support or evidence that it is in the children’s best interest,” not considering basic scheduling needs of the young children, such as naptime.

Immigration Complication

The immigration status of both parties added a complicating factor. While both children are natural U.S. citizens by birth on U.S. soil under the 14th Amendment, Zheng and Father are Chinese citizens, legally in the U.S., but only temporarily, on short-term visas. At the time of the hearing, Father had received an extension to his original visa and had a pending application for another extension. Zheng was in the United States on a six-month visa, with a possibility of an extension.

The Decision

So what did the court decide? Despite all the extra international attention and intrigue, the court ultimately treated the case like any other messy divorce and parenting situation, working to find a solution most in line with the best interests of the children. The court determined that:

• Father is designated primary residential parent. If Father leaves the United States, the children will go with him. Presumably Zheng would then also return to China and reside near enough to Father to continue her parenting time with the children.
• Both parties are to complete a parenting class within 60 days of the order. (Seems paternalistic but probably fair under these circumstances!)
• Phased parenting time for Zheng. Three days a week supervised parenting time, increasing in visitation length after a proven record.

Next up, the Denver court is set to dive into the issue of child support. While the probability is that that phase will be just as acrimonious, we can hope (like we hope for all parents in a messy divorce case) that Zheng and Father are able to put their history and differences aside to focus on the best for their children.

---

Ellen Trachman is the Managing Attorney of Trachman Law Center, LLC, a Denver-based law firm specializing in assisted reproductive technology law, and co-host of the podcast I Want To Put A Baby In You. You can reach her at babies@abovethelaw.com.

You can think of your firm’s legal billing system in terms of this classic commercial: Two broke shoppers are forced to choose between buying a six pack and restocking their toilet paper supply. (Guess which one they opt for?) 

That’s because if your firm is those shoppers, your legal billing software is their beer. 

While it’s not something they taught in law school, your billing system is the core element of your firm’s business operations.

But with so many technical advancements, it can be overwhelming to consider making a change or selecting a new, more profitable system. 

To help your evaluation process, we bring you the Legal Billing Software installment of our Legal Technology Non-Event. 

Join us here for expert commentary, panel discussions, and the top buyers guides in the business. An improved bottom line awaits.  

If you found yourself walking through Times Square this morning, you were treated to an unusual display as the walls of NASDAQ’s 4 Times Square headquarters lit up with a presentation for a (not quite) law firm.

LegalZoom, the company that’s decidedly not a law firm, yet still the go-to legal services resource for many Americans — in particular small businesses — took over the space this morning as it debuts on NASDAQ as “LZ.”

As we pointed out recently, 10 percent of all new LLCs and 5 percent of all new incorporations in the United States last year used LegalZoom along the way, which is an amazing stat.

CEO Dan Wernikoff rang the bell to kick off the day after delivering remarks praising the “Zoomers” that helped get the company to this landmark accomplishment over the last two decades.

Check out the bell-ringing ceremony here. Which is actually a button-pushing ceremony. So maybe we’ll call it appropriately a (Not Quite) Bell-Ringing.

Earlier: The (Not Quite) Law Firm That Americans REALLY Use Announces IPO

---

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.

[We will] require that all employees, other than those who cannot be vaccinated due to medical or religious reasons, be fully vaccinated before Sept. 13. …

Having all of our employees vaccinated not only helps protect the health and safety of the Mintz community, this requirement also safeguards the health of our clients and others who visit our offices. We will expect clients, vendors and others who enter our offices to provide proof of vaccination (and we will provide for protocols for visitors who cannot provide such proof).

— an excerpt from a memo written by Bob Bodian, managing partner of Mintz, detailing what the firm’s return to the office will look like. Employees may return voluntarily starting on July 6, and at that time, those who are vaccinated will no longer need to wear masks or socially distance from colleagues. Those who are unvaccinated will not be allowed in the building and will continue to work remotely until September, because “some employees … have compromised immune systems, and we have an obligation to do our best to protect them, and everyone else, particularly when protection is readily available.”

---

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.

It’s put up or shut up time for Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr.

As the Wall Street Journal was first to report, the first indictments are dropping tomorrow against the Trump Organization and its longtime CFO Allen Weisselberg. Cue the howls from Rudy Giuliani — Rudy Giuliani! — about destroying the reputations of good men via perp walk.

There are two versions of this story: one from Trump’s lawyer Ronald Fischetti, who says this is Vance putting all his cards on the table; and one where Vance is tightening the screws on Weisselberg and other executives in an attempt to make them flip on the boss.

“It’s crazy that that’s all they had,” Fischetti told Politico earlier this week, adding later, “This is so small that I can’t believe I’m going to have to try a case like this.”

And indeed the indictments are reported to involve undeclared perks doled out to executives in lieu of salary, including company cars, tuition, and rent-free apartments in Trump properties — not exactly the crime of the century. But if prosecutors are looking to up the ante on Weisselberg and his family, this just might do the trick. Particularly since Weisselberg’s son Barry, who ran the Wolman Ice Rink in Central Park for the Trump Organization until New York City terminated the contract in January, is in the frame, too.

For running the all-cash operation, Barry Weisselberg was paid $200,000 in salary, plus approximately $40,000 in bonuses. He also lived rent-free for several years in Central Park South, a benefit worth upwards of $100,000 annually. And not for nothing, but this Barry fellow isn’t the brightest bulb in the bunch.

“I’m not an accountant. I know what I make. I’m not too sure of certain things,” he said in a deposition taken during his 2018 divorce from Jennifer Weisselberg, whom the Washington Post reports is working with Vance.

If the gambit works and Vance is able to leverage Weisselberg to finally flip on Trump, it will look like sound legal strategy. If it doesn’t, Vance could wind up looking worse than he did when a court dismissed the charges against Paul Manafort that were supposed to ensure that he didn’t get off scot free on the basis of Trump’s pardon.

Of course, there is another version of this story.

Radical Left New York City and State Prosecutors, who have let murderers, rapists, drug dealers, and all other forms of crime skyrocket to record levels, and who have just announced that they will be releasing hundreds of people involved in violent crime back onto the streets without retribution of any kind, are rude, nasty, and totally biased in the way they are treating lawyers, representatives, and some of the wonderful long-term employees and people within the Trump Organization. After hundreds of subpoenas, over 3 million pages of documents, 4 years of searching, dozens and dozens of interviews, and millions of dollars of taxpayer funds wasted, they continue to be “in search of a crime” and will do anything to frighten people into making up the stories or lies that they want, but have been totally unable to get.

[…]

Now they just leaked that we were given one day, today, to make our case about things that are standard practice throughout the U.S. business community, and in no way a crime.

Guess who!

Just your former president, copping to tax fraud and calling it “standard practice.” It’s a bold strategy, Cotton, for a guy whose defense appears to be a claim that he didn’t have personal knowledge of the perks doled out to his own employees.

We’ll see if it pays off.

Trump Organization and CFO Allen Weisselberg Expected to Be Charged Thursday

---

Elizabeth Dye (@5DollarFeminist) lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

Joe and Kathryn welcome Chris Williams, the newest writer to the Above the Law staff, to discuss the latest Above the Law law school rankings. Chris’s alma mater tied with Harvard this year and we discuss the ATL model and how it comes up with these numbers. We also discuss last week’s biggest story: an associate who billed for over a year to a closed matter. Yikes.

For many law departments, the pandemic era has combined increased workloads with new budget pressures, and alternative resourcing models are a key tool to address these types of challenges.

With our friends at Axiom, we’re pleased to bring you this guide for partnering with ALSPs to gain the right combination of consistency and flexibility.

The good news is that this isn’t experimental or bleeding-edge – it’s a tested and successful engagement model that has been pioneered by forward-thinking legal leaders at half of Fortune 500 companies.

You’ll learn how to:

• Assess key junctures where flexible legal talent can support your team
• Consider the benefits of flexible counsel beyond cost savings
• Get the in-house team on board with flexible talent
• Engage the right flex counsel and partner organization
• Invest in retaining your trusted flex counsel

Sign up today to download the white paper!

By filling out the form you are opting in to receive communication from Above the Law and its partners.

Jones Day announced raises, which at most firms is great news. And it is, to a degree, at Jones Day — after all, the base for junior associates has moved to the new market standard. But for the majority of associates, the firm’s notoriously opaque compensation system is a source of anger.

Just take a look at an exemplar of the complaints we are hearing:

[New raise is] well below what it should be. Have heard from at least one other with same experience who falls in same range and many others are unsatisfied and below market. Would love to see a collection of salaries like you did in 2016!

So, why, exactly is compensation information so difficult to discern at the firm? Well, there is no official scale for older associates as the system is “closed comp” or “black box,” meaning that nobody knows what anyone else makes. Attorneys, both at the associate and partner level, are just supposed to live with the secrecy. Talking about your comp with colleagues is a violation of firm policy; the firm claims this promotes collegiality and teamwork by eliminating complaints over pay so lawyers can focus on their work and client service. Which sounds nice in theory, but, as we’ve seen, also breeds a lot of frustration.

After the 2016 raises, ATL spent a lot of timing digging into the numbers behind Jones Day’s compensation. What we found was — by and large — compensation below market rates and a lot of angry associates. Another key difference to the JD model: The firm doesn’t pay year-end or mid-year bonuses; you get just your base salary. Mid-year, you’re notified of what your base salary will be for the coming year, which, allegedly should be above market to reflect the lack of bonuses, but not so much the reality for associates on the ground. And especially in a year with special bonuses on top of year-end bonuses, the Jones Day compensation looks pretty grim from what we’re hearing. The new salary goes into effect on July 1 and then the following June you get your next pay raise letter, starting the cycle anew.

Associates at JD, please email us (subject line: “Jones Day”) or text us (646-820-8477) with any and all information you have about your compensation or comp for other associates you know. You can provide a range for pay if you prefer doing that over giving an exact number. As you can see from past efforts to shine light into the black box of associate compensation, providing us with your year, a sense of your hours (low: >1800, average: 1800-2000, high: 2000+), and salary range is very, very useful.

We’d love another crack at opening up Jones Day’s black box.

---

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).

For as long as I can remember, lawyers were told to specialize in a certain area of law because it was easier to manage and generally more profitable. A solo lawyer having a general practice was perceived to be a newbie or someone who couldn’t get enough clients. Or to put it more charitably, something every new solo lawyer had to do until they found their niche.

Some law firms have general practices, but most of them are just a bunch of specialty lawyers who are splitting the office lease payment.

But there are some people who want to have a general practice. These tend to be people who are fascinated by multiple areas of the law. Or they were exposed to different practice areas while doing internships or externships during college or law school.

So in the age of specialization, is it possible to have a profitable and fulfilling general practice? Let’s take a look at the pros and cons.

Having a broad knowledge of the law has its advantages. The main one being that the lawyer can provide more comprehensive advice. For example, if a senior citizen were to ask me, a tax lawyer, what the consequences of gambling winnings are on her social security payments, I would tell her that some of her winnings might be taxable, and it could make her social security income taxable. Fortunately, her taxes can be minimized or eliminated by keeping a record of her gambling losses to offset the winnings.

On the other hand, a general practice lawyer would also advise that her reported gambling winnings will increase her Medicare premiums regardless of whether she had losses to offset the winnings. Very few people do not learn this until the damage has already been done. After all, who consults a lawyer before they go to a casino?

Most people hire lawyers only a few times in their lives (mostly when they are in trouble) and then hope to never see one again. Thus, another advantage of having a general practice is that it allows lawyers to maintain a long-term relationship with their clients. This can work well for all parties. The lawyer has a steady source of income, although not a lot, which will be explained later. The client will not need to search for and vet multiple lawyers.

There are some problems with having a general law practice. The biggest problem is dealing with conflicts of interest. In short, if you try to help everyone with every legal issue, eventually you will be faced with a conflict. This is particularly the case in small communities with few people and fewer lawyers.

The classic example is where you help two (or more) people start a business by setting up a corporation or a limited liability company. You might likely be the general counsel to the business, providing advice on an as-needed basis. But some time later, the partners may have a falling out. You might be able to help by interpreting the by-laws or operating agreement to settle a dispute. Or you can act as a mediator. But if the parties won’t budge and a court has to get involved, you likely won’t be able to represent any of them.

The second problem is keeping up with all of the latest legal developments. Even specialist lawyers must spend considerable time reading new laws, administrative regulations and court decisions. Also, they must anticipate how those new items will affect their current and future clients. Imagine having to do this many times over as a generalist. For people who must know everything about everything, this can be a major time suck. However, this problem might be somewhat overblown. Many lawyers participating in specialty groups will announce and even analyze new developments, especially if they are important. Also, I’ve been told that if you know the basics of a certain field of law, then it will be easier to understand new developments and changes.

Lastly, you may need to apply a number of alternative fee structures. In most cases, generalists serve the middle class and the indigent. And unfortunately, most Americans live paycheck to paycheck so they may not have the budget to hire an attorney unless it’s a very serious situation. What this means is that you may not get many clients who can pay a large amount up front. So you will have to take cases on contingency, payment plans, or flat-fee consults. If you are just starting out, you may get burned by a client a few times. But eventually you will be able to turn away potentially problematic clients or structure a fee arrangement that is fair to everyone.

So based on the above, a general practice is not a default practice area for new or failing lawyers. It can be profitable but it depends on many factors, many of which the lawyer cannot control. Lawyers will have to spend more time keeping up with the law, and likely serve clients who cannot afford to pay lawyer fees up front. But being able to provide multidisciplinary legal advice is a skill that few lawyers today have.

---

Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and resolve tax disputes. He is also sympathetic to people with large student loans. He can be reached via email at sachimalbe@excite.com. Or you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) and connect with him on LinkedIn.

David Reidy, formerly the Chief Legal & Compliance Officer at fintech startup Payactiv and before that a partner at McGuireWoods leading the national fintech practice, has joined Scale LLP as its new managing partner.

“The chance to lead Scale LLP is a once-in-a-career opportunity,” said Reidy. “We are living through a generational change in workplace culture,” said Reidy, “and the time has come for a top-tier virtual firm.”

Reidy takes the reins of a rapidly growing law firm with around 50 lawyers across 10 states that doubled its partnership over the last year. Founding partner Adam Forest describes the firm as heavily influenced by its Silicon Valley roots. “Innovation is in our DNA,” he said.

Part of innovation is adapting to the changing legal landscape by bringing in leadership with experience running a national Biglaw practice group and an in-house department. Reidy is quick to note that his legal department experience Scale’s complement of former in-house lawyers — including six former GCs — are critical to the firm’s business. When it comes to building relationships with new clients, it helps to have “worn the business hat” in the past he said.

While Scale LLP endeavors to continuing growing as “a top-tier virtual firm,” it’s an open question how long the word “virtual” is really going to matter.

Traditional, brick-and-mortar — or more accurately “steel-and-glass” — law firms are tentatively adopting three- and four-day office weeks. Some are embracing remote working arrangements to lure and retain top-notch talent outside of the law’s customary power centers. Meanwhile, a virtual law firm cracked the Am Law 100 this year earning one of the most recognizable chits of an establishment law firm. So what does it even mean to be a “virtual” firm at this point?

Oh, right, the way lawyers can keep 80 percent of their fees.

But putting that admittedly important detail aside, how are virtual law firms really all that different, in terms of work product, from the way traditional firms have operated for years.

As Forest explains, the bulk of a traditional Biglaw lawyer’s work day is spent working with attorneys on different floors, in different cities, and at different firms. The law firm was already moving toward what we call “virtual” already… only with higher commercial lease outlays. We only needed a little bit of a push to get to a model where technology replaced even that small portion of daily face-to-face communication. As Reidy put it, “The pandemic proved the model can work but the need for it has been there.”

“I wouldn’t trade my experience at an Am Law 50 firm, but there are room for different approaches,” Reidy said. “50 percent of service professionals considering a change,” he said citing a recent survey, “not because they don’t want to work it’s that they want to explore alternatives.” Of all the reasons to develop alternative paths to practice, Reidy makes a point of flagging is the impact that the old face time model has had on representation and diversity in the workplace.

But the pandemic also proved that most people do crave the sort of community that virtual working doesn’t necessarily encourage. While loneliness is bad enough as a mental health factor, the strength of the law firm model is collaboration and cross-promotion, and virtual work can easily slip into siloed work. Of all of Scale LLP’s efforts to evolve the virtual law firm, its approach to maintaining community might be the most consequential for the long-term success of the model.

“We’re built with attorneys in mind,” Forest explains. “We put a heavy emphasis on community and getting to know and trust one another.” To make that happen, the firm employs full-time staff focused on building the community. Virtual meetings, celebrations, events, smaller “elevator meets” are run to get the attorneys to feel connected and build real relationships. It seems to be working. “Last year, half of all work was on someone else’s client.” That’s exactly the kind of collaboration and cross-promotion that virtual firms aren’t expected to have.

So maybe, by next year, Scale LLP will have shown us that there’s no need to tag firms with the “virtual” label any more and we can just call them all “law firms.”

---

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.