Category: News Feeds

There’s a new sheriff in town at the Securities and Exchange Commission, and it’s Chairman Gary Gensler, who we all learned a little more about a couple weeks ago when he was sworn in.

At any organization, hiring decisions are among the first things new leaders need to tackle, and the SEC is no exception. One of Gensler’s first new hires at the SEC was Alex Oh. Oh was tapped to lead the Division of Enforcement at the SEC.

Oh was a commendable choice in some ways. She was the first woman of color to lead the SEC’s enforcement division, and diversity is important. But there are many kinds of diversity, and when it came to diversity of background, Oh looked very similar to the same pool the SEC has been drawing on for years to find its lawyers.

Before her very brief stint at the SEC, Oh was a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. In other words, she was a private defense attorney at a very large, very expensive white-shoe law firm. For 17 years at the firm, Oh defended numerous Fortune 100 companies and other corporations from a variety of regulatory efforts targeting them.

Within the system we all inhabit, there is not necessarily anything wrong with working for a big private law firm and making a lot of money doing it. But the revolving door that separates private corporate lawyers who represent the companies that are supposed to be being regulated from the SEC staff attorneys who are supposed to be doing the regulating is problematic. It has been problematic for a long time, and Oh’s recent departure starkly highlights this rather obvious issue.

Alex Oh didn’t even last a week at the SEC. She resigned on April 28, with the previous Acting Director of the Enforcement Division, Melissa Hodgman, set to take over her duties. The resignation has to do with one of Oh’s cases from her very recent past as a white-collar defense attorney.

Oh helped defend ExxonMobil from a lawsuit filed by Indonesian villagers. The villagers said that the company should face liability for murder and torture that took place some years ago within their country after ExxonMobil hired soldiers — well, mercenaries, let’s call them what they were — to guard its natural gas facilities in Indonesia.

Now, believe it or not, none of that was apparently any problem for Oh or the SEC. The problem was that within that case, the villagers’ lawyers recently told a U.S. federal district judge that Oh, as part of ExxonMobil’s legal team, had called her opposing counsel “agitated, disrespectful and unhinged” during a deposition, without providing evidence, and on April 26, the federal judge ordered Oh to demonstrate why she should not be sanctioned for this.

Let’s recap: It’s perfectly acceptable to represent a giant fossil fuel company to help them get away with allegedly hiring mercenaries to torture and kill people in the course of protecting their bottom line, but you better not dare say some mean things about opposing counsel, because that could get you in some real trouble. Pretty much tracks with my experience in the legal profession.

Oh’s former firm issued the standard lavish praise of her integrity and ethics which is, of course, what a white-collar defense firm would say. Oh herself did not admit any wrongdoing, instead stating in her resignation letter that she did not want her role in “this development” to become “an unwelcome distraction” from the work of the SEC division she was supposed to lead. Progressive groups, who questioned Oh’s hiring in the first place, cheered her departure.

In the wake of Alex Oh’s days-long tenure at the SEC, several progressive groups renewed their calls to curb the longstanding practice of hiring Wall Street defense lawyers as SEC enforcers. Indeed, the propensity of government regulators to zealously enforce laws against the companies they once represented, and often return to representing after they leave the SEC, has long been questioned, including during a semi-humorous poolside scene in the 2015 hit film “The Big Short.”

At least Gary Gensler’s hiring of Alex Oh to lead the SEC’s Enforcement Division was a short-lived mistake. Hopefully he learned to look a bit further than the nearest white-shoe corporate defense firm for his next SEC division head.

---

Jonathan Wolf is a civil litigator and author of Your Debt-Free JD (affiliate link). He has taught legal writing, written for a wide variety of publications, and made it both his business and his pleasure to be financially and scientifically literate. Any views he expresses are probably pure gold, but are nonetheless solely his own and should not be attributed to any organization with which he is affiliated. He wouldn’t want to share the credit anyway. He can be reached at jon_wolf@hotmail.com.

People usually call lawyers to help them get out of trouble. Others contact them to help plan for such things as setting up a business, minimizing taxes, or estate planning. But every once in a while, someone reaches out to a lawyer hoping that he or she can help further their illegal schemes.

I recall a long time ago, I got a call from someone who wanted legal counsel regarding his business plan. After talking to him for a few minutes, I suspected that his business plan involved fraud. I also didn’t like the caller’s aggressive tone of voice. So I told him that his plan probably didn’t sound like a good idea. He wanted to meet for a more detailed conversation so I quoted him an abnormally high consultation fee (to be paid in advance) hoping that it will scare him away. Surprisingly, he paid it so we set up an appointment.

At the appointment, the caller came with his partner. They both looked young. If I were to guess, they were in their mid-twenties. After talking with them for almost half an hour, I was pretty sure that their business plan involved fraud. I also got a feel for their personalities.

The caller — let’s call him Costello — looked as aggressive as he sounded and seemed like he was the one calling the shots. I think he knew that what he was doing is illegal and wanted to know how to minimize or hide the illegality. He also asked a lot of questions that suggested that he was doing a risk analysis. For example, he asked what the chances were of getting caught. Or what activities would arouse suspicions by others. And whether there were criminal penalties.

His partner — we’ll call him Abbott –- seemed like the more sensible of the two. He wanted to know how to run the business legitimately and asked about how to comply with the laws. But I suspected that he was being pressured by Costello as he sometimes had a cringey look when Abbott was talking. I recall Abbott and I exchanging eyerolls whenever Costello was asking about the chances of getting caught for the eighth time.

I think Abbott and Costello told me enough to know that I did not want to be a part of their get rich quick scheme. So my objective for our remaining time together was to try to convince them to either ditch their questionable plan altogether or at least help them adjust their plan so it won’t land them in jail or behind the defendant’s table. And if Abbott still wants to move forward with his plan, at least try to convince Costello to get out of the way.

I remember telling them that good business plans do not require breaking laws, devising strategies for minimizing jail time, or getting sued for fraud.

I then told them that they were still young and they had plenty of time and opportunities to make money legitimately. Having a criminal record or a large civil judgment could prevent them from doing other things when they were older. Even if they don’t get sued or sentenced, they shouldn’t spend what’s left of their carefree years looking over their shoulders or having sleepless nights because of what they did. But if they get an adrenaline rush from this, maybe they should consider going to law school instead.

Finally, we discussed some alternatives to business ideas that were legal. Of course, it would take some additional work and money on their part. While discussing this subject, I looked mostly at Abbott since I probably wouldn’t get through to Costello. Hopefully the advice would at least give him an option to do something on his own.

I have not heard from either of them since that meeting. Recently, I thought about contacting them to see what they were up to but I decided not to. Instead, I googled their names. Unfortunately, their names are fairly common (like John Roberts) so I couldn’t locate them. But then I remembered that what I didn’t see is also important. Such as not seeing their names on a criminal indictment or on the local news. So I’ll assume that they didn’t follow through with their plan. On the other hand, it is possible that they went through with their plan, made a quick buck, and then disappeared back to their normal lives.

Once in a while, someone will reach out to a lawyer hoping to get advice on doing something illegal. You can quickly tell them that it is a bad idea and end the conversation. In some cases, that is the best course of action. But sometimes, people don’t know any better (or don’t have other options) and need someone knowledgeable to give them alternatives. Of course, this is easier said than done as there will always be con artists who will try to take advantage of a lawyer’s expertise. For these people, ask for an abnormally high consultation fee up front.

---

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.

If you’re a law student who’s interested in a clerkship, but you’ve missed the boat on landing a coveted position with a federal judge, worry not — there are still plenty of options for you at the state level. It’s not only the strength of your application that matters for securing a state clerkship. Attending a law school with high placement rates for state and local clerkships can be very helpful too, as it reflects past graduates’ reputation with judges, and the law school’s pull within the local community. But which law schools have the greatest influence when it comes to state clerkships?

Law.com produced several helpful charts based on law school employment data for the class of 2020. Today, we will take a look at one of the most valuable charts for those who are interested in staying local, the law schools that sent the highest percentage of their most recent graduating class into state clerkships.

Here are the top 10 law schools that appear on the list:

1. Seton Hall: 51.50%
2. Rutgers: 41.26%
3. Baltimore: 35.98%
4. Nevada: 33.06%
5. Drexel: 29.77%
6. Widener-Delaware: 29.22%
7. Montana: 23.19%
7. St. Thomas (Minnesota): 23.19%
9. Maryland: 22.99%
10. Kentucky: 20.72%

Click here to see the rest of the law schools with the highest percentage of graduates employed in state clerkships, plus other informative charts detailing the law schools with the highest percentage of graduates working in Biglaw, federal clerkships, and government and public interest, as well as the law schools with the most unemployed and most underemployed graduates.

Are you a recent law school graduate who landed a state clerkship? What did your law school do to help you? We’re interested in learning about your experiences — good or bad — and may anonymously feature some of your stories on Above the Law. You can email us, text us at (646) 820-8477, or tweet us @atlblog. Best of luck in your clerkship, and enjoy your time with your judge!

Law Grads Hiring Report: Job Stats for the Class of 2020 [Law.com]

---

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.

Many lawyers, especially litigators, are likely familiar with the ambiguous term “law office failure” from their experience practicing law. Law office failure usually refers to an attorney not being able to timely file papers or meet another deadline because of issues calendaring, tracking, or otherwise handling a matter. The concept has been traditionally applied to failing to timely file an answer, notice of claim, or other legal document, but the concept is sometimes used more broadly to refer to some kind of breakdown in the operation of a law firm due to disorganization, overwork, or other issue. At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, lawyers used the virus as a blanket excuse for failing to timely file papers, meet deadlines, and satisfy other requirements of practicing law. As conditions normalize and attorneys prepare to go back to offices in the coming months, COVID-19 should no longer be an excuse for law office failure in most instances.

At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was absolutely appropriate to use extraordinary conditions as an excuse for law office failure. In some jurisdictions, courts refused to permit filings in the early months of the pandemic, which threw deadlines and timeframes into disarray. During this time, my office was charged with filing an answer during a period in which it was literally impossible to file nonemergent documents in a jurisdiction in which I practice. I simply emailed the papers to other lawyers on the case and related that the papers would be properly filed when the electronic filing system was open to new filings again.

Moreover, it was extremely reasonable that lawyers would fail to receive legal papers that may have been served on them. Law firms needed to shut offices without much notice, and people ended up working from home for extended periods even though they did not initially expect to work remotely in the long term. Many attorneys did not have established systems in place to go to the office from time to time to check if papers had been mailed to them. Moreover, many attorneys toward the beginning of the pandemic were less likely to email courtesy copies of documents because this norm of operating during the pandemic had yet to be established. As such, it was easy for papers to be missed, and lawyers were often excused for being unable to timely respond.

Courts understood the situation that many attorneys faced, and many of the stricter parts of practicing law were relaxed in the early months of the pandemic. Timeframes during which parties needed to serve documents and complete other procedural steps needed to prosecute and defend a lawsuit were relaxed because court operations were less efficient, and it was almost impossible for normal timeframes to be followed. In addition, many jurisdictions allowed service and filing to be accomplished in new ways to account for the fact that many attorneys and court officers were working from home and could not operate under the ordinary procedures. Many attorneys may have become reliant on the fact that COVID-19 could be an excuse for failing to meet deadlines or satisfy other legal requirements. Earlier in the pandemic, there was a sense that lawyers should excuse law office failure and procedural irregularities due to the unprecedented circumstances under which attorneys were operating.

However, we are now over a year into the COVID-19 pandemic, and everyone has had the chance to adapt to the times. Lawyers should have systems in place to ensure that they check mail that comes into their office to make sure that nothing is missed if important papers are served on them. In addition, law firms have had more than enough time to standup work-from-home operations so that lawyers can be almost as efficient working from home as they were in the office. In addition, with mass vaccinations underway in this country, many law firms are planning a return to the office in the coming months, and normal operations of many legal organizations should resume in the not-too-distant future.

However, some lawyers are still relying on COVID-19 to excuse all manner of law office failure, which is not fair to some adversaries in the current environment. I heard of a case not too long ago in which a colleague filed a motion for summary judgment that was not timely opposed. The motion was eventually granted without opposition, and an order to this effect was issued.

Sometime later, the other attorney in the case related that their office had not received the papers because of law office failure due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is unclear how this is possible since an email notice is sent to the attorney of record in this jurisdiction whenever a filing is made, but this was apparently the argument. In any event, this adversary alleged that due to the ongoing pandemic, they had not received the papers or did not have the ability to respond, and as a result, the summary judgment order should be vacated. Of course, if someone in a law firm was exposed to COVID-19 or experienced other extraordinary conditions, current circumstances may still provide an excuse for such law office failure. However, absent such circumstances, it is difficult to see how the pandemic at this stage could prevent an attorney from receiving, reviewing, and responding to motion papers.

All told, as courts across the country have made clear, lawyers and judicial officers need to restore normal operations as the pandemic wanes to ensure that justice is properly administered. As conditions normalize, lawyers should not ordinarily use COVID-19 as an excuse for law office failure anymore since attorneys have had a chance to adequately adopt to current circumstances.

---

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.

In our latest installment of the Above the Law Legal Technology Non-Event, we explore the critical legal operations topic of contract lifecycle management. 

And in the accompanying episode of the Non-Eventcast, host Jared Correia is joined by Jerry Levine of ContractPodAi, who answers Luddite-friendly questions like, “What the heck is ‘contract lifecycle management’?” Listen to their full conversation here, and read on for insights on its three stages.

Phase 1 — Operational 

If you’re trying to get your contracts into a repository so you know where they are, you’re probably in the operational stage. 

For many in-house attorneys, Jerry notes, just determining where documents are can consume large amounts of time. Shoring up this function with top contract lifecycle software has an obvious value proposition. 

“On a very basic level, you’re speeding things up,” Jerry says. 

Phase 2 — Tactical 

While Jerry notes the lines between the phases can be “blurry,” you are likely in the tactical stage if you have organized your documents and are just starting to figure out how to optimize related processes.

“Tactical is kind of that midpoint, where you’re trying to get out of the operational stage of just knowing where your contracts are, but you’re not quite at the stage of doing deep analysis, or deep extraction,” Jerry says.

For outside counsel at law firms, familiarity with varied contract lifecycle management software can be key for working with clients that have their own established systems. 

“You have to know what’s out there,” Jerry says. “You have to come up with a way to manage it. Because ultimately your clients are coming to you and saying, ‘I’m going to send you a contract or a system and I’d like you to work in there. I don’t want you to just send me emails back and forth.’”

“So having a working knowledge of the technology, as far as that’s concerned, I think is the key thing.”

Phase 3 — Strategic

Are you using machine learning to gather and analyze information from hundreds of thousands of documents to gain actionable insights about your business? 

If so, congratulations! You are officially in the strategic phase of contract lifecycle management. 

For corporate lawyers, implementing a regime that reaches this phase has a very clear value proposition, Jerry notes. 

“You’re speeding up your sales cycle, generating revenue, knowing what’s in your documents faster, and knowing where they are,” he says. 

The Premier Spot for Tech-Perplexed Lawyers 

For most lawyers, the prospect of a tech conference triggers thoughts of boredom and missed billables. And as a group, attorneys’ tech adoption is often begrudging, at best. 

That’s why we’ve launched the ATL Non-Event. 

We’re bringing the technology conversation to lawyers directly: in plain English and geared to meet a fully booked schedule. 

Our regular installments focus on everything from AI to PDFs to KPIs to CRM, creating an ever-growing and dynamic resource to upgrade all aspects of your practice. 

(If you don’t recognize any of those acronyms … even better.)  

While you’re here: Feel free to browse our Law Practice Management Software and Legal Document Management Software rooms as well. 

You often expect the utmost decorum in a courtroom. And even in cases where the participants lose their cool, the whole, you know, integrity of our judicial system kinda depends on judges’ ability to keep it together. But, unfortunately, that doesn’t always happen.

Judge Clifton S. Price II, a part-time municipal judge in Leeds, Alabama, is accused of threatening a traffic court defendant when they dared to bring up the judge’s son. You see, the defendant, appearing for allegedly driving on a suspended license, is a Waffle House employee (yes, this comes up later) and believed Judge Price’s son was involved in a hit-and-run incident that damaged her car (unrelated to the defendant’s appearance in court). Well, to be more specific, due to the credit card receipt for Price’s son’s meal, the defendant believes the son was the passenger in the hit-and-run. But as the defendant does not know the name of the driver, she told Judge Price she’d sue his son to find out the driver’s identity and that he should recuse himself from her suspended license case.

And, wow, Judge Price went bonkers (allegedly). ABA Journal describes the alleged scene — and you’ve got to read the whole thing, because it’s absolutely wild:

Price allegedly interrupted and told the defendant that, if she sued his son, he would sue “her ass.” The defendant said she had nothing against the judge’s son, but she had to know the name of the driver.

Price allegedly continued in a loud voice, saying, “Oh, yeah, I know who you are. You’re the lady that likes to flim-flam people.”

When the defendant said it isn’t true, Price allegedly replied, “If you sue my son, I will bust your ass.”

His face was very red, the complaint said.

During the continued discussion, Price said the defendant was a “goddamn liar,” the complaint said.

“Let me tell you something, lady,” Price allegedly said. “If you mess with my son, I’ll bust your ass. Do you hear me? I’ll bust your ass.”

Price asked the defendant whether she was the “Waffle woman” who tries to sue a lot of people, and the defendant said she does not. She said she only wanted the name of the driver.

Price finally gave the defendant the name of the driver while warning her not to mess with his son.

“You’re nothing but a scam flim-flam artist,” he said.

He told the woman that she could leave, and she would be given another judge.

After the incident, Price reportedly turned to the court clerk/chief magistrate and said, “I think I might have lost my cool.”

And, with understated brilliance, she replied, “You think?”

Now Price is facing an ethics charge that he exhibited “indecorous and discourteous behavior,” which is yet another delightful moment of understatement in this entire mess.

---

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).

Members of the legal profession are keenly aware that the pandemic has brought about even more stress and anxiety than usual. Working from home thanks to the coronavirus crisis completely stripped down the illusion of work-life balance, and many associates have found themselves forced into a situation where they’re constantly “on duty,” even more so than before the COVID-19 crush began.

But with a renewed focus on mental health, some Biglaw firms are trying to invest more heavily into their attorneys’ well-being. As luck would have it, May is Mental Health Awareness Month, and this week is Well-Being Week in Law. One top law firm, Goodwin Procter, is showing its lawyers the love this week, in the form of a $1,000 well-being payment for all eligible non-partner lawyers, science advisors, and science law clerks in good standing in the U.S., U.K., Hong Kong, and Luxembourg. Here’s an excerpt from a memo the firm sent out yesterday afternoon (full memo available on the next page):

As you continue to work extremely hard on behalf of our clients, we want to ensure that you are also taking care of yourself. To this end, we are awarding a one-time $1,000 wellbeing payment to all eligible non-partner lawyers, science advisors and science law clerks in good standing. The gross payment of $1,000 (minus applicable taxes) will be paid in the May payroll to those employed on this month’s payroll date who have not given notice.

You may use this $1,000 payment however you would like to engage in self-care and to defray costs you have incurred during this extended period of remote work – like takeout meals while working long hours or new exercise equipment. You will not need to submit receipts.

Goodwin is continuing to make an effort to support its employees during these trying times. If you recall, the firm previously handed out $1,500 in two separate payments to defray the costs of working from home (e.g., well-being, meals, technology, supplies, and other expenses incurred due to remote work). At the same time, the firm announced special bonuses for paralegals, ranging from $8,000 to $20,000, depending on seniority and hours billed (memo available on the next page). The firm is really doing its part to make up for the fact that it earlier conducted a series of staff and attorney layoffs during the height of the pandemic.

As always, we depend on 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.

---

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.

Burnout takes a heavy toll on lawyers. It is well known among practitioners that out of every swarm of new associates hired at any given firm, only a handful will ever last long enough to become equity partners. Some of the dropouts from Biglaw transition into less demanding legal roles, although many leave the profession itself behind too. One recent survey out of Florida (although wouldn’t just being in Florida add an extra level of stress for anyone?) found that close to 60 percent of young lawyers were considering leaving the profession entirely. Unlike most professions, the law has an entire “subprofession” aimed at getting people out of it, and into other careers.

But if burnout, cynicism, or lack of interest takes a person out of the practice of law, it does not usually take 30 or 40 years. If they have lasted long enough to make it into the partnership ranks, lawyers tend to continue to stick around. Everyone who works at a law firm of any size knows an aging colleague who seems determined to die at his or her desk, probably halfway through a large box of written discovery materials.

It’s not incredibly well-studied, but it makes sense when you think about it. Usually, older lawyers have far more autonomy and authority in their working lives compared to younger lawyers. They make far more money than younger lawyers. Although the ones who are really intent on practicing until they keel over are workaholics — a word I really don’t like grammatically, because there is no such thing as “workahol,” but we don’t have another term for it, so bear with me — they still don’t have to put in as many billable hours as new associates. If senior lawyers continue to work oppressive hours, it’s self-directed; it’s because they want to.

Older lawyers’ lives are better than those of younger lawyers: they’ve proven to themselves through experience that they can tolerate or even somehow enjoy what they’re doing, so it makes complete sense that a substantial number of them would hang on as long as they could. It’s actually become a bit of a problem as baby boomer lawyers refuse to hang up their spurs, with many firms considering or having mandatory retirement ages, and with those of us still in the profession having to read lots of articles in legal publications about what happens when lawyers start to go senile.

But can the notably stubborn legal profession maintain its legendary obstinance in the face of sweeping demographic change? It seems that fatigue with working through a pandemic, along with the currently high valuations of equities markets and the corresponding increase in retirement assets, has prompted a wide swathe of Americans to consider retiring long before they expected to. According to a recent analysis of government data, a year into this pandemic, about 2.7 million Americans age 55 or older are thinking about retiring years earlier than they had previously imagined.

Surely some of those 2.7 million Americans must be lawyers. The commentary on this data does not specifically mention the legal profession, but it does note that American baby boomers in general tend to retire later than their counterparts in Europe. If recent developments can reverse that general trend, perhaps they can have an effect on the more acute tendencies of legal professionals as well. More Americans are certainly able to retire if they want to these days thanks to surging equities and real estate markets. According to data from the Federal Reserve, the value of assets held by Americans ages 55 to 69 increased by $4.2 trillion in 2020 alone.

Time will tell whether older American lawyers will join with the masses and finally embrace the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of their labors. In the unlikely event any of them want my opinion about it, I’d say go for it. All the retired people I know seem pretty happy. Plus your paralegal really doesn’t need to be traumatized by finding you slumped over a stack of three-ring binders in your office someday. Go enjoy yourselves. You’ve earned it.

---

Jonathan Wolf is a civil litigator and author of Your Debt-Free JD (affiliate link). He has taught legal writing, written for a wide variety of publications, and made it both his business and his pleasure to be financially and scientifically literate. Any views he expresses are probably pure gold, but are nonetheless solely his own and should not be attributed to any organization with which he is affiliated. He wouldn’t want to share the credit anyway. He can be reached at jon_wolf@hotmail.com.

Cigna won’t be getting a $1.85B breakup fee after its attempted merger with Anthem dissolved, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled on Monday. The five-judge panel upheld that neither company would get anything from the breakup, as decided by Chancery Court Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster last year.

In his decision last year, Laster wrote that each company “… must deal independently with the consequences of their costly and ill-fated attempt to merge.”

The two insurers struck a merger agreement back in 2015. Anthem had proposed to buy Cigna for more than $54 billion, in a deal that would have created the largest health insurer in the U.S.

But disagreements over who would lead the combined company, and an antitrust case, ultimately sunk the deal.

At one point, Cigna CEO David Cordani had expected to lead the combined company, starting as president and COO, and eventually succeeding former Anthem CEO Joseph Swedish. But as Anthem began to act more like an acquirer, and began to iron out the details of how the two companies would integrate, Cigna began to push back, according to court documents. Tensions between the two companies continued to escalate.

In 2016, the Department of Justice launched an antitrust case against the deal. A year later, Cigna filed a suit against Anthem, seeking to end the merger agreement, while Anthem filed its own lawsuit to keep the merger in place and appeal the DOJ’s lawsuit

Both companies had sought damages from the falling out; Cigna had sought a $1.85 billion breakup fee and $13 billion in damages for the loss to shareholders. For its part, Anthem sought $21 billion, claiming Cigna sunk the deal on purpose. Neither company will get anything, as per Laster’s ruling.

Will the decision by Delaware’s highest court finally bring an end to this “corporate soap opera,” as Laster called it?

There are still a few loose ends to sort out. An Anthem shareholder filed a derivative suit in 2018 against Swedish and other current and former Anthem leadership, alleging a breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment and corporate waste associated with the merger agreement. The case had been stayed while both companies awaited the Delaware court’s ruling, Anthem noted in its most recent quarterly report.

Cigna investors also sued over the deal, according to a case that was unsealed last year in the Delaware Chancery Court. The Massachusetts Laborers’ Annuity Fund, a pension fund, alleged that Cordiani intentionally worked to “blow up” the deal after he wasn’t picked to lead the combined company.

Cigna could not be reached for comment at the time of publication.

Photo credit: Kuzma, Getty Images

The spring 2021 special bonus trend officially started on Friday, March 19, 2021, when Willkie offered associates between $7,500 and $40,000. Willkie’s generosity was quickly one-upped by Davis Polk on Monday, March 22, 2021, when the firm announced it would be offering bonuses ranging from $12,000 and $64,000. It’s been more than a month, and now the world’s largest law firm has finally decided to weigh in on bonuses.

Good things come to those who wait, and Dentons — a firm with almost 11,000 lawyers spread across the globe, with most of them situated in the U.S. — announced yesterday that they’d be matching market bonuses for associates. Here’s what the bonus scale looks like at the firm:

To receive a full bonus, associates must meet 2,000 creditable billable hours by year and, and those who hit 2,250 hours or more will be entitled to a bit of a bonus boost. Only associates on track to hit their minimum hours will receive bonus money. As noted above, a separate, smaller bonus scale will apply for associates located in Honolulu, Kansas City, and St. Louis. Bonuses will be paid out in July 2021 and January 2022. Congratulations to everyone at Dentons!

Remember everyone, we depend on your tips to stay on top of important bonus updates, so when your firm matches, please text us (646-820-8477) or email us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Matches”). 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 (which is the alert list we also use for salary announcements), 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. Thanks for all of your help!

---

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.