Newsletter Signup
Subscribe and get breaking news, commentary, and opinions on law firms, lawyers, law schools, lawsuits, judges, and more.
We will never sell or share your information without your consent. See our privacy policy.
Thanks To Our Generous Advertisers
We truly appreciate your support.
We’d like to express gratitude to our fantastic sponsors here at Above the Law:
If you’re interested in advertising on Above the Law or any other site in the Breaking Media network, please download our media kits or email advertising.
—ADVERTISEMENT—
Love ATL? Let’s make it official.
Sign up for our newsletter.
We will never sell or share your information without your consent. See our privacy policy.
Hedge Funds Continue To Enjoy The Brexit World They Helped Create
Boris Johnson is worth his substantial weight in gold to these people.
Who could have guessed that the elevation of a pathologically lying buffoon to Number 10 Downing Street in advance of the most consequential and probably catastrophic moment for the United Kingdom since Dunkirk could have a negative effect on one of the things that Brexiters most prize, the pound Sterling? Well, uh, pretty much anyone, of course. But who among them is best-positioned to engineer such an outcome, and then profit from it, much like they helped engineer Brexit (and profit from it) in the first place? Why, hedge fund managers and other traders, of course.
Boris Johnson’s push towards a no-deal Brexit is a “free lunch” for hedge funds and currency traders trading off the collapse of the pound, the former chairman of Goldman Sachs’ Asset Management Sir Jim O’Neill has said….
O’Neill told the BBC Radio 4 World at One programme that UK government figures “deliberately promoting the no-deal Brexit risk” were allowing traders to benefit.
“I’m pretty sure that a lot of big foreign exchange and hedge fund type people are… probably looking at what’s being said coming out the UK as almost close to a free lunch,” O’Neill said.
“The world I was in a lot of them are saying thank goodness for Boris, he’s giving us a chance to make some money.”
‘Thank goodness for Boris’: Hedge fund managers see Brexit chaos as a ‘free lunch’ for traders [BI]
Pound Pushed Toward Historic Low as Investors Worry Over Brexit [WSJ]
Make Money Monday: Look Ahead Or Be Left Behind
Recently in one of my online lawyers groups, an attorney lamented that her state bar association had made self-help forms available for family law litigants at no cost and in addition, had started conducting free trainings to help users complete the forms. The attorney reported that many of her family law attorney colleagues are up in arms about this recent development because the forms and training are available just to indigent clients who can’t afford lawyers but also (horrors!) to clients who have the money to retain attorneys – meaning that the bar’s program will detract business from family law attorneys. Other lawyers seemed more hopeful, snarkily anticipating that additional work would result from cleaning up the mess that the DIY forms would inevitably cause.
These kinds of attitudes are troubling on many levels. First, even if clients can afford a lawyer, they may simply prefer to devote the money on other expenses -like college tuition for their kids, a home remodel or retirement. Here’s an analogy – when I vacation, I can afford to stay at fancy, all-inclusive hotels with meals and other extras included. But invariably, I choose cheaper to stay at accommodations with a kitchen where I can prepare some of my own meals – and then use the money saved for a second trip. Indeed, I’m not alone; my proclivities explain the popularity of platforms like Air BNB. But just as pricey hotels have no right to expect consumers to continue paying those rates when they have more affordable options, lawyers likewise are not entitled to continue to receive high fees because that was customary in the past.
Moreover, why should clients pay pay $350/hour for work that technology now enables them to do on their own? Before technology, DIY forms weren’t realistic or convenient for many clients who either had to purchase forms from an office supply store or trek down to the courthouse during the work day to procure them, and then spend hours and bottles of whiteout to complete them. Today, online forms are much more accessible and user-friendly; clients can download them from the Internet and complete them after hours from the comfort of their home or on the go via their phones.
What lawyers simply fail to realize is that times have changed. We can’t stop this train nor should we try to stand in the way of initiatives that expand access to law. But there’s another problem too. As lawyers fritter away precious time trying to turn back the clock, they lose the opportunity to gain a first mover advantage in the new world that’s emerging.
There are plenty of ways that lawyers can leverage these new tools to capture clients. These include:
1. Holding workshops for clients explaining the forms and potential drawbacks and then charging for attorney review of the forms;
2. Creating an assessment test (which can easily be done through a tool like Typeform) that can identify, based on the lawyers’ experience, those scenarios where forms are likely to work well and those where they do not and explaining the differences to clients so that they can make an informed decision;
3. Developing a service like FormsPlus – where clients complete forms on their own and then receive personalized advice from attorneys if they have any questions; or
4. Creating a subscription service where clients receive ongoing review and support for a set monthly fee
By entering the market now, lawyers can get a leg up on competitors who may not realize that their business will decline until the phone stops ringing and it’s too late.
But this post isn’t only about the steps lawyers can take to future-proof a practice. More importantly, it’s about the mindset that lawyers must adopt to confront what the future has in store for our profession. And here’s the thing: no matter how grim the future may appear, we need to keep in mind that no one has ever achieved fortune or success by looking backwards. When the Pilgrims sailed to the new world, they faced hardship beyond what they ever imagined – yet when the Mayflower sailed back to England, none of the Pilgrims returned. Countless entrepreneurs launch businesses – many of which fail spectacularly – yet few rego back to the 9 to 5 jobs where they started out. By contrast, in popular lore, those who cling to the past even for a brief glance are punished: think John Henry who defeated the steam engine with his bare hands only to die of a heart attack or Lot’s wife who turned into a pillar of salt when she turned to look back while fleeing Sodom.
Nothing good has ever come of looking backwards and longing for a past that was never all that great to begin. Today, we stand on the cusp of making law widely accessible in a manner that was never possible and opportunities abound. But we must keep our eyes fixed on the open horizon and never ever look back.
Image courtesy of Shutterstock
Related
Want A Job At Cravath? Maybe You Should Check Out These Law Schools
(Image via Getty)
Outside of the top 14 law schools, at which law schools will Cravath be conducting on-campus interviews during the 2019 recruiting season?
Hint: This is separate from the law school job fairs, which add a number of additional stops on the firm’s recruitment calendar.
See the answer on the next page.
Eating Disorders Took My Daughter And Changed My View Of Lawyer Wellness
I first met Steven Dunn through my eating disorder advocacy. I was actively bulimic for over two decades and have been in recovery for just over 12 years.
Steven had not long before lost his daughter Morgan to anorexia nervosa. We talked often about advocacy issues and supported each other in our work to raise awareness. However, I never spoke with him about how he dealt with tragic, heart-breaking loss as a father and lawyer. Here is his story.
The legal profession demands excellence. It requires intelligence, guile, compassion, integrity, and a sense of duty and honor. Trial work particularly tests all aspects of the human condition.
Those qualities, and the trials and tribulations we attorneys face, can steel us as we face the greatest challenge a parent can possibly encounter — the mortality of our beloved child. And the stress and mental strain of that battle far exceeds anything our law practice can possibly throw at us.
I had carved out a niche law practice, representing corporate debt collectors for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. I had been admitted pro hac vice in over 20 federal courts outside the State of Texas. Respected and passionate, or so I thought, I believed I had found a calling. And then, life got in the way.
I am the proud father of a vivacious, beautiful, intelligent daughter who was 17 years old at the time when eating disorders first made their way into our life. She had the benefit of a private school education, a comfortable house, good friends. Unfortunately for her father, she was far too much like me, was far too brash, embraced life fully and yet had obvious flaws. (A future litigation attorney if ever there was one!)
In February of 2011, while attending a movie with a friend, Morgan began to feel light-headed and dizzy. She left the theater and while walking out, passed out. She fell forward fracturing her jaw. Paramedics rushed her to the emergency room where blood was taken.
Her diagnosis? A combination of her weight being 86 pounds, her losing consciousness, and her decreased level of potassium, were all indicative of Anorexia Nervosa. A probable eating disorder. I didn’t know enough at the time to be deathly afraid. I should have been.
Morgan’s mother and I scheduled appointments with specialists, with counselors, and nutritionists. Amongst the scheduled counseling sessions were mandatory family counseling sessions.
And yet, her counselor became more alarmed and strongly recommended that we contact a heart specialist. And then you hear those words that chill any parent to their very core. “Mr. Dunn, your daughter’s condition has worsened to a point where she needs extensive, hospitalized treatment. One of her heart valves is leaking. She continues to lose weight. She is malnourished. Without this treatment, it’s not a matter of if, but a matter of when she is going to die.”
And just like that, your law practice, the professional life you had built for over 30 years, seemed not so important after all. Helping a multimillion-dollar corporation save $5,000 on a case? Engaging in discussions about objections to interrogatories? Convincing opposing counsel that their client has no actual damages and the case is simply about his own attorney’s fees? You start to realize that those “professional truths” which you held so dear throughout your career have very little meaning. And you wonder who you really are.
Especially when compared with the task before you. You find that for females between the ages of 15 and 24 who suffer from Anorexia Nervosa, the mortality rate is 12 times higher than the death rate of ALL other illnesses. You find that Anorexia Nervosa has the highest premature fatality rate of any mental illness.
And if you think we attorneys or law students are immune from it, you are mistaken. This past February, Brian Cuban wrote an article published here on Above the Law. He quoted some alarming statistics: “We can look to a recent study of mental health issues in law school published by the Journal of Legal Education, which found 27% of law students (18% of male respondents and 34% of female respondents) screened positive for eating disorders. Yet only 3% of respondents had actually been diagnosed.”
And so, the journey began. Morgan fought these eating disorders for seven long years. There were so many hospitals and treatment centers, doctors and nurses. There were so many prescription drugs. The seizures she began to experience frightened us. And my focus on the practice of law continued to wane. So many family counseling sessions. So few individual sessions for me. And the stress and mental strain mounted.
The last two years of her young life were spent exclusively with me. I took her to weekly doctors and counseling appointments, many of which I attended. And yet, Morgan and I still laughed. Countless hours were spent playing backgammon. And how this emaciated waif so ill, could manage to whip me two out of every three games will forever remain a mystery. We watched Game of Thrones together every week. We shared a love of Mambo Taxis. She laughingly referred to me as “her twin.” When she walked into a room, people knew she was there. Though her body was slight, her personality was huge. And during that time, my once comfortable law practice continued to deteriorate.
I consulted with doctors and fought seemingly daily battles against this disease and the insurance providers which routinely denied payment for life-saving treatment. With each denial of authorization, with each deterioration in her health, the stress level increased. I wrongly believed this was my form of therapy. I could use these battles as my own form of counseling. I am a warrior. My perceived strength and perseverance would sustain me. How foolish I was.
I had never been a proponent of pharma drugs unless absolutely necessary. No drugs for anxiety or depression for me! Instead, I read internet sites on coping with fear, anxiety, depression. By sheer force of will I would beat back those emotions. They were signs of weakness! They would not control me!
And yet, my focus on the practice of law continued to blur and erode. Motions to continue hearings, extensions to respond to discovery, rescheduled depositions. A greater loss of focus and clarity. And the mounting realization that I could no longer serve my clients as they needed. I started to refer clients to other law firms. I realized that “fear” was constantly present — and it was becoming my master instead of my servant.
Fear can be a trial attorney’s best friend. We harness it to research more deeply, to motivate us to look for every possible legal angle in a case, to explore how we, and our opponent, are going to argue a case. Fear is that driving force that finds you up at 2:00 a.m. the night before a trial begins going over your opening argument one last time. It hones our skills. As attorneys, we learn to embrace it because we can control it.
But when your child’s life hangs in the balance, fear escapes your control and gets you in its icy grip. No stirring closing argument is going to deter fear and bring your child back to health. No well-researched brief is going to persuade this disease to leave your loved one in peace.
And then … your child breathes her last breath. On that day, you feel your soul, the very best part of your heart, leaving as well. For me, that day was October 30, 2016. A fog descends upon you. The practice of law is out of the question. You merely … exist. A few visits to a grief counselor and you believe they are reading from a book studied in a Philosophy 101 Class.
A short time after Morgan’s death, a friend gave me a card which in essence said: When confronted with an unspeakable tragedy, one of three things happens: 1. It destroys you; 2. It defines your existence in a negative way, or 3. It fills you with incredible strength and unshakeable resolve.
Grief destroying a person is far too common. The local Dallas legal community felt the sting of grief taking a life far too soon. One month after Morgan was taken, well-known attorney Brian Loncar was found dead of an accidental drug overdose just two days after he buried his own beloved youngest daughter, Grace. Grace had taken her own life. Those who knew Brian believe that it was a broken heart that claimed him.
For me, I was left with a shattered law practice, a shattered life, and broken heart. The number of times I have thought, “if I got to do it all over again.”
And yet, in one of the many journals Morgan left behind, one of the many messages of hope she stated, “I can seem to help everyone else … I just can’t save myself.” And so, the mission for The Morgan Foundation came to fruition. And with that, perhaps a purpose for continuing Morgan’s legacy was born.
After all of these years, and so many false starts and missteps, I learned to get out of my way and let my soul find me. And when it did, its purpose was made clear. Advocacy dedicated to helping those suffering from eating disorders and at the hands of the dysfunctional mental health system. Using 35 years of courtroom experience to cajole, convince, and push companies and treatment centers to focus on the patients — and not just their profits. Giving two TEDx talks. Writing weekly articles on the mental health industry. Using the skills we attorneys learn as negotiators and researchers to help those who suffer.
The practice of law is slowly reemerging even as grief continues to hound me every day. But just as we attorneys learn to use fear to motivate us, so too I must use grief to motivate me, to inspire me, to live a life of substance and purpose. And perhaps at the end of my journey, the words on my tombstone can read, “Steven Dunn, He Was a Damned Good Daddy and In His Beloved Daughter’s Name, He Saved Lives.”
Steven Dunn is a Dallas-based attorney and founder of The Morgan Foundation. It is dedicated to developing and implementing community-based counseling and assistance programs involving community leaders, university professionals, counseling communities, and families. Our goal is to increase the accessibility of adolescent mental health care in schools, churches, and communities with free to low-cost services in accordance with the newly created Texas Health Care Consortium.
Brian Cuban (@bcuban) is The Addicted Lawyer. Brian is the author of the Amazon best-selling book, The Addicted Lawyer: Tales Of The Bar, Booze, Blow & Redemption (affiliate link). A graduate of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, he somehow made it through as an alcoholic then added cocaine to his résumé as a practicing attorney. He went into recovery April 8, 2007. He left the practice of law and now writes and speaks on recovery topics, not only for the legal profession, but on recovery in general. He can be reached at brian@addictedlawyer.com.
Free Webinar: How Can You Modernize Your Law Firm’s Business Development?
Law firm marketing is at an inflection point. Today’s legal clients scrutinize their spending and are well informed about prices, value, and competitive alternatives. This necessitates insight-driven marketing and business development strategies.
Modern chief marketing officers (CMOs) are the change agents who can advance marketing from a supportive function to a strategic partnership. With a birds-eye view across the entire client lifecycle, CMOs are best positioned to champion data-driven decision making and the requisite infrastructure and process changes.
As client become more demanding and less loyal, investing in ways to identify opportunities, predict client habits, develop market insights and facilitate client outreach is paramount. In fact, with an average return of $47 million on $1 million of marketing and business development spending for an Am Law 200 firm, the investment pays off.
On Wednesday, August 7, at 1 p.m. EST, please join us for a free webinar presented by Intapp. Speakers include Darryl Cross, Intapp’s Practice Group Lead for Professional Services Firm Leaders and Partners, and Bob Ambrogi, technology columnist for Above the Law, who will explores topics including:
- Opportunities to integrate data into the culture of the firm;
- Change management strategies to build firm-wide support; and
- Advancing smart collaboration and key-client planning (industry use cases).
Intapp has also published a new white paper covering these subjects, which is available for download here.
Please click here to register for the free webinar. We can’t wait to see you there!
Sometimes It’s Fine To Use Humor In Judicial Opinions
Every couple of months, this website and other legal news outlets cover a judge cracking jokes or using some other kind of humor in a judicial opinion. Since legal decisions are usually tedious to read, it is typically a welcome treat to find humor when reading this otherwise serious content. However, it sometimes seems inappropriate for judges to use humor in their opinions, since this could demean the legal process, and this might be unfair to the parties involved in a case.
The codes of judicial conduct do not seem to explicitly cover humor in judicial decisions, so I thought I would provide some opinions on this topic based on my own experiences. Although I contributed to the Georgetown Law Weekly’s humor column, and I had a short-lived career as a stand-up comic in law school, I am no expert on legal comedy. As such, I would really appreciate any feedback from judges or other legal practitioners about when they think humor is appropriate in legal opinions.
Funny Facts
The subject matter of the case is probably the most important factor to determining if humor is appropriate in a legal opinion. For instance, many legal practitioners are familiar with the famous New York haunted house case involving purchasers of a house suing the sellers for not notifying them that the house was haunted. In ruling on the matter, the court made a number of ghost jokes and references to pop culture. Of course, the subject matter of the case was kind of silly. Although the issue of latent defects in real property is a serious matter, it is somewhat funny that attorneys would try to apply those standards to the context of a haunted house. Since the subject matter of the case was funny in nature, the court did not really shatter the dignity of the legal profession by making some “Ghostbusters” references and using language associated with ghosts. If anything, the court showed that judges are real people that have a sense of humor, and in this context, humor was appropriate in the judicial opinion.
References to the PARTIES IN a Case
Sometimes, it is funny when courts reference people or things associated with a case, and this is appropriate in a number of contexts. For instance, many judges when deciding cases involving musicians cite to lyrics of the musicians involved in the lawsuit. One such case that I stumbled upon a few months ago involved a plaintiff trying to assert hearing loss from attending a concert. The judge in the opinion rather skillfully included lyrics of the subject musician’s songs, which was pretty funny. Of course, it is not good that a plaintiff appears to have suffered from hearing loss, but the subject matter of the case opened the matter up for humor. More recently, a judge used Taylor Swift lyrics in a case involving this singer. This humor also seemed appropriate, since the court was merely making references to the parties in the case. As these examples show, humorous references to the subject matter of a case can be appropriate in a number of contexts.
Judges Shouldn’t Use Comedy to Ridicule Lawyers
One inescapable fact of being a lawyer is that you sometimes need to make silly arguments for the benefit of the client. Sometimes, lawyers make silly arguments on their own volition as a last-ditch effort at promoting the client’s interests. Other times, clients put their lawyers up to making silly arguments, since they might not know about some legal issues. In any cases, judges should understand that this is a reality of our adversarial process, and cut attorneys some slack about silly arguments they might need to make.
In law school, I had to read the Texas jackrabbit decision, an opinion that involved an effort to change the location of a given matter. The judge uses colorful language and comedy to excoriate the defense lawyers for filing the motion to transfer the case to a different judicial division. However, there must have been some reason why the defense lawyers wanted to transfer the division of the matter. Perhaps it was truly out of convenience for the individuals involved in the case, and perhaps there was some deeper legal significance to this motion. In any case, I always felt bad for the lawyers who were on the receiving end of this comedic “benchslap” and judicial humor should probably not be used to ridicule lawyers.
Subject Matter
Sometimes, the subject matter of a case is so serious and so grave that any use of humor by a judge seems to be in poor taste. When I was in law school, I read one such case involving a serious situation in which one of the parties needed to use a bow and arrow to fend off an attack. The court cited a Shakespeare quote from “Hamlet” about the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” and made other Shakespeare references. However, the parties in this case were seriously injured, so this use of humor seems misplaced. If a court is charged with reviewing a serious criminal law matter, it might not make sense to use comedy in a judicial opinion.
In the end, I am no expert on what judges should and shouldn’t do in their decisions, and I am also no expert on comedy. I look forward to hearing from legal professionals, and hopefully some judges, about when they think it is fine to use humor in judicial decisions. However, it is undeniable that comedy can be a welcome treat in some legal opinions but should not be used by judges in other contexts.
Jordan Rothman is the Managing Attorney of The Rothman Law Firm, a New Jersey and New York litigation boutique. 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 jrothman@rothmanlawyer.com.
What toilet paper, coffee and other goods now cost in Zimbabwe compared to South Africa – The Zimbabwean
- Zimbabwe adopted the Zimbabwean dollar, and banned the use of the US dollar and the rand, at the end of June.
- It caused widespread confusion and cash shortages in the country.
- We compared prices for everyday household goods in Zimbabwe to what they cost in South Africa.
This brought to an end nearly a decade where these currencies were used as legal payment after the Zimbabwean dollar (Z$) became worthless.
The sudden change in currency has caused widespread cash shortages at banks in Zimbabwe, with citizens waiting in line from as early as 05:00 to withdraw cash.
Most banks have therefore introduced withdrawal limits of Z$100 per day for businesses and Z$60 for individuals per day.
It also left retailers and informal traders confused as they weren’t sure how much to charge after converting their prices to the Zimbabwean dollar.
The bureau de change exchange rate is currently between Z$9.5 to Z$9.7 for every US dollar, or roughly Z$0.70 for every rand.
On the Zimbabwean black market, the exchange rate is Z$10 for every US dollar.
Business Insider South Africa compared prices of everyday household goods in stores in Harare, Zimbabwe’s capital city, to prices in South Africa.
Huggies Gold nappies (52 in a packet)
Z$261.29 = roughly R373.27
Eet-sum-more cookies 200g
Z$42.50 = roughly R60.70
Baby Soft 2 ply toilet paper
Z$89.99 = roughly R128.56
Bokomo Weetbix 450g
Z$ 38.49 = roughly R54.98
Jacobs Kronung Instant coffee 200g
Z$99.99 = roughly R142.80
Mrs Balls Chutney 470g
Z$36.50 = roughly R52.14
Koo Baked Beans 410g
Z$26.09 = roughly R37.27
Fatti’s & Moni’s Macaroni 500g
Z$14.99 = roughly R21.41
Nivea body lotion 400ml
Z$84.49 = roughly R120.70
Post published in: Business
Struggling Biglaw Firm Begins The Process Of Dissolution
If you’ve been following along with the trials and tribulations of the Biglaw firm LeClairRyan, then news that the firm has begun the process of dissolution is not shocking at all. After all, partners have been deserting the firm en masse, including name partner Gary LeClair; their lender has prevented the firm from returning departing partners’ capital contributions; they gave staff WARN Act notice of coming mass layoffs; and they’re being sued for not paying rent on one of the firm’s office and for gender discrimination. So the writing has been on the wall.
Now comes a report that the wind-down process has begun and whatever lawyers are left at LeClairRyan are being encouraged to find new firms. As reported by Law.com:
Firm attorneys have been told a wind-down committee is in the works, sources said, and partners are eyeing a few different law firms where large groups might land. For instance, a group of attorneys is talking with Northeast regional firm Barclay Damon. That firm’s managing partner, John Langan, declined to comment.
The firm’s revenue has also been in decline, from $142 million in 2017 to $122 million in 2018. To stem some of the issues, the firm launched “law firm 2.0” and embarked on a strategic partnership with UnitedLex, an alternative legal service provider. But that hasn’t stopped the onslaught of problems for the firm, and alumni of the firm say the problems go back even further:
Michael Volkov, a white-collar partner in Washington, D.C., who left in 2013, blamed leadership and compensation decisions that long predated the firm’s partnership with UnitedLex. As for what’s unfolding there now, he summed up, “What a disaster.”
LeClairRyan has yet to offer a comment of the firm’s status.
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).