Category: News Feeds

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

It
was
recently
revealed,
which
major
Biglaw
firm
is
representing
the
creditors
committee
in
the
FTX
bankruptcy?

Hint:
The
firm
hired
40
bankruptcy
lawyers
from
Stroock
&
Stroock
&
Lavan
earlier
this
year
—
a
decision
that
seems
to
be
paying
off.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

---

Olga
V.
Mack
is
the
VP
at



LexisNexis and CEO
of Parley
Pro,
a
next-generation
contract
management
company
that
has
pioneered
online
negotiation
technology.
Olga
embraces
legal
innovation
and
had
dedicated
her
career
to
improving
and
shaping
the
future
of
law.
She
is
convinced
that
the
legal
profession
will
emerge
even
stronger,
more
resilient,
and
more
inclusive
than
before
by
embracing
technology.
Olga
is
also
an
award-winning
general
counsel,
operations
professional,
startup
advisor,
public
speaker,
adjunct
professor,
and
entrepreneur.
She
founded
the Women
Serve
on
Boards movement
that
advocates
for
women
to
participate
on
corporate
boards
of
Fortune
500
companies.
She
authored Get
on
Board:
Earning
Your
Ticket
to
a
Corporate
Board
Seat, Fundamentals
of
Smart
Contract
Security,
and 



Blockchain
Value:
Transforming
Business
Models,
Society,
and
Communities. She
is
working
on
Visual
IQ
for
Lawyers,
her
next
book
(ABA
2023).
You
can
follow
Olga
on
Twitter
@olgavmack.

I
had
resolved
for
2023
that
I
would
spend
less
time
nattering
about
the
various
trials
and
tribulations
of
the
State
Bar
of
California.
A
good
resolution
in
theory,
but
it’s
just
not
going
to
work,
especially
after
the

latest
headline
story
in
the
Los
Angeles
Times
about
how
the
discipline
system
in
this
state
is
a
joke.
And
it
is.

The
headline
makes
it
clear
that
the
discipline
system
goes
after
minority
attorneys,
especially
Black
lawyers.
That’s
not
news
for
us
lawyers,
but
it
is
for
the
public.
And
some
of
the
charges
are
technicalities,
not
major
violations
such
as
stealing
client
funds.
In
the
almost
30
years
between
1990
and
2018,
a
study
released
by
the
bar
three
years
ago
showed
that
Black
male
lawyers
were
nearly
four
times
likelier
to
be
either
disbarred
or
resign
with
charges
pending.
Black
male
lawyers

were
placed
on
probation
more
than
three
times
more
often
than
whites.
You
do
the
math.

It’s
an
open
secret
that
the
discipline
system
goes
after
easy
pickings,
the
lawyers
who
don’t
have
name
recognition,
publicists,
and
juice
(not
the
breakfast
kind).
The
discipline
system
prosecutes
cases
that
don’t
require
a
lot
of
work
up,
a
lot
of
investigation,
a
lot
of
time,
and
the
corollary,
a
lot
of
money.
The
Legislature
seems
to
be
unwilling
to
shake
loose
additional
funds
for
that.

Since
discipline
matters
are
funded
by
attorney
fees,
there
is
a
finite
amount
of
money
available
for
discipline,
and
it
shows.
That’s
one
reason,
and
there
are
others,
why
Tom
Girardi
was
able
to
skate
for
decades,
avoiding
discipline
while
stealing
client
funds
and
living
the
high
life
as
the
husband
of
a
real
housewife
of
Beverly
Hills.

Another
issue
that
the
LA
Times
article
pointed
out,
and
this
again,
is
no
secret
in
the
legal
community
here,
is
that
the
discipline
system
comes
down
harder
on
the
solos
and
small
firm
practitioners
than
it
does
on
Biglaw.
Solos
and
small
firms
don’t
necessarily
have
all
the
support
staff
and
resources
to
make
sure
all
the
“i’s”
are
dotted
and
the
“t’s”
crossed.
That’s
not
to
excuse
major
faux
pas
like
embezzlement,
but
there
should
be
ways
to
help
lawyers
become
better
at
the
nonlegal
parts
of
the
business.
Years
ago,
the
bar
required
several
hours
of
law
office
management
for
CLE
compliance.
Not
any
more.
Time
to
reinstitute?
The
goal
should
be
to
have
lawyers
succeed,
not
fail,
but
the
result
is
that
solos
and
small
firm
lawyers
get
the
shiv,
while
big
firm
lawyers,
well-connected
lawyers,
get
a
pass.

The
discipline
backlog
of
thousands
of
cases
has
always
been
an
issue.
In
2012,
the
bar
announced
that
the
backlog
had
been
cleared.
Say
what?
Miraculous?
A
few
short
years
later,
the
backlog

returned
with
a
vengeance.
Trying
to
tame
the
backlog
is
wrestling
with
alligators.

Lawyers
in
career
jeopardy
is
not
new,
but
can
you
provide
the
question
to
this
final
jeopardy
answer,
which
is
“California”?
The
final
jeopardy
question:

What
is
the
only
state
bar
that
does
not
either
require
or
encourage
lawyers
to
turn
in
their
peers
for
wrongdoing/misconduct?

California
lawyers
have
resisted
such
a
rule
since
the
1980s
when
it
first
became
used
in
other
states.
Is
it
a
“snitch”
rule
that
allows
attorneys
to
obtain
an
unfair
example
when
opposing
counsel
does
something
that
the
complaining
attorney
does
not
like?
Can
it
be
used
as
a
cudgel
to
force
cooperation
or
face
discipline?
How
does
that
square
with
the
rule
that
attorneys
should
not
seek
an
unfair
advantage
in
litigation?

The
attorney
chair
of
the
California
Senate
Judiciary
Committee,
Tom
Umberg,
has
introduced
legislation
to
bring
California
in
line
with
the
forty-nine
other
states
that
have
such
a
rule.
This
would
be
more
than
just
an
ethical
rule;
it
would
be
an
addition
to
the
State
Bar
Rules
of
Professional
Conduct,
e.g.,
Business
and
Professions
Code
section
6068.

The
Girardi
mess
prompted
Umberg’s
introduction
of
the
bill,
but
would
attorneys
rat
on
others?
And
where
to
draw
the
line?
Umberg
said
that
the
snitch
rule
would

not
be
applied
to
an
attorney
who
is
obnoxious
in
a
deposition.
Really?
What
if
that
attorney
is
a
habitual
offender,
but
never
with
the
same
opposing
counsel?
Where
is
the
line
between
zealous
representation,
which
is
our
obligation
as
lawyers,
and
misconduct?
Would
perception
be
enough
to
trigger
the
rule?
And
what
about
the
attorney
who
chooses
not
to
report?
Would
that
attorney
be
disciplined
for
the
failure
to
do
so
if
the
attorney
had
a
good
faith
belief
that
opposing
counsel’s
actions
or
inactions
were
neither
wrongful
nor
misconduct?

Although
the
intent
of
SB
42
is
to
follow
ABA
Model
Rule
8.3,
there’s
a

big
difference
in
the
language.

The
model
rule
requires
that
there
be
a
“a
substantial
question
as
to
that
lawyer’s
honesty,
trustworthiness
or
fitness
as
a
lawyer
in
other
respects”
for
there
to
be
a
referral.
Right
now,
there’s
no
such
qualification
in
SB
42.
Amendments
are
sure
to
come.

So,
apologies
to
my
editor,
who
thought
that
once
I
was
through
with
Girardi
(is
that
even
possible?),
I’d
write
on
topics
other
than
the
California
bar.
But
it’s
the
gift
that
keeps
on
giving.
Happy
Hanukkah
and
Merry
Christmas.

---

Jill
Switzer
has
been
an
active
member
of
the
State
Bar
of
California
for
over
40
years.
She
remembers
practicing
law
in
a
kinder,
gentler
time.
She’s
had
a
diverse
legal
career,
including
stints
as
a
deputy
district
attorney,
a
solo
practice,
and
several
senior
in-house
gigs.
She
now
mediates
full-time,
which
gives
her
the
opportunity
to
see
dinosaurs,
millennials,
and
those
in-between
interact
—
it’s
not
always
civil.
You
can
reach
her
by
email
at



oldladylawyer@gmail.com.

Nearly
three
years
into
the
Covid-19
pandemic,
25
governors
on
Monday
wrote
a


letter

urging
President
Joe
Biden
to
put
an
end
to
the
public
health
emergency.

The
public
health
emergency
is
set
to
expire
on
January
11.
However,
the
Biden
administration
has
said
that
it
will
provide
a
60-day
notice
before
it
decides
to
end
the
emergency.
Since
no
warning
was
issued
in
November,
it
will
likely
be
extended
to
April.

The
governors
are
asking
Biden
to
allow
the
public
health
emergency
to
expire
in
April,
and
to
provide
states
with
advance
notice
of
the
decision
so
they
can
prepare.
The
signatories
include
Chris
Sununu
of
New
Hampshire,
Ron
DeSantis
of
Florida
and
Greg
Abbott
of
Texas. 

“While
the
virus
will
be
with
us
for
some
time,
the
emergency
phase
of
the
pandemic
is
behind
us,”
the
governors
declared.
“We
have
come
so
far
since
the
beginning
of
the
pandemic
–
we
now
have
the
tools
and
information
necessary
to
help
protect
our
communities
from
Covid-19.”

In
2020,
the
Families
First
Coronavirus
Response
Act
was
passed
due
to
the
pandemic.
It
banned
states
from
disenrolling
people
from
Medicaid
during
the
public
health
emergency
and
gave
states
a
temporary
increase
in
the
federal
Medicaid
match
rates.
States
have
added
20
million
people
to
Medicaid
since
the
beginning
of
the
pandemic,
according
to
the
letter.
This
is
hurting
states,
the
governors
argued.

“The
[public
health
emergency]
is
negatively
affecting
states,
primarily
by
artificially
growing
our
population
covered
under
Medicaid
(both
traditional
and
expanded
populations),
regardless
of
whether
individuals
continue
to
be
eligible
under
the
program,”
the
letter
stated.
“While
the
enhanced
federal
match
provides
some
assistance
to
blunt
the
increasing
costs
due
to
higher
enrollment
numbers
in
our
Medicaid
programs,
states
are
required
to
increase
our
non-federal
match
to
adequately
cover
all
enrollees
and
cannot
disenroll
members
from
the
program
unless
they
do
so
voluntarily.”

The
governors
added
that
a
“considerable
number”
of
people
have
returned
to
employer-sponsored
coverage
or
are
receiving
insurance
through
the
individual
market. 

“Yet
states
still
must
still
account
and
pay
for
their
Medicaid
enrollment
in
our
non-federal
share.
This
is
costing
states
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars,”
the
governors
said.

About
18
million
people


could
lose

Medicaid
coverage
once
the
public
health
emergency
expires,
including
3.8
million
who
would
become
completely
uninsured,
a
recent
Urban
Institute
report
predicted.

The
American
Hospital
Association
pushed
for
the
most
recent
extension
of
the
public
health
emergency,
stating
in
a
July


letter

that
hospitals
would
be
largely
impacted.

Credit:
Geber86,
Getty
Images

It’s
been
quite
a
week
for
Stefan
Passantino,
the
former
White
House
ethics
lawyer
who
went
on
to
represent
the
Trump
campaign,
members
of
the
Trump
family,
and
Cassidy
Hutchinson,
the
former
Mark
Meadows
aide
whose
blockbuster
testimony
rocked
the
January
6
Select
Committee
hearings
this
summer.

On
Monday,
at
the
conclusion
of
the
final
public
hearing,
Rep.
Zoe
Lofgren
alluded
to
a
witness
whose
lawyer
tried
to
manipulate
her
testimony
to
help
Donald
Trump
and
his
allies
hide
the
truth
about
the
events
leading
up
to
the
Capitol
Riot.
Approximately
five
minutes
later,
Passantino’s
bio
disappeared
from
the
website
of
his
law
firm

Michael
Best.
Then
yesterday,

CNN confirmed
that
Lofgren
was

referring
to
him.
And
today
the
committee
released
Hutchinson’s
transcript
of
a
interview
she
gave
in
September
describing
her
interactions
with
Passantino.

It’s…
a
lot.
So
we’re
going
to
structure
this
post
like
a
mini-MPRE
issue
spotter
exam.
Given
the
allegations
laid
out
in
this
testimony,
let’s
see
how
many
potential
problems
we
can
spot
in
these
few
excerpts.
Ready?

Let’s
not
make
this
whole
attorney-client
thing too
formal,
it
ruins
the
magic,
right?

He
had
called
and
let
me
know
that
he
was
my
attorney.
And
it
was
a
really
brief
call.
And
that
–
in
that
–
on
that
call,
though,
I
had
asked
him
who
–
well,
I
had
asked
him
about
signing
the
engagement
letter,
because
I
had
said,
“This
would
be
great
if
we
can
meet
in
person
soon.”

My
document
deadline
date
at
that
time
was,
I
believe,
Tuesday,
February
8th.
I
let
him
know
that,
and
I
was
like,
“I
probably
should
sign
an
engagement
letter.
And
he
said,
“No,
no,
no.
We’re
not
doing
that.
Don’t
worry.
We
have
you
taken
care
of.”

And
I
said
–
remember
asking
him,
“I
don’t
have
to
sign
an
engagement
letter?”
Because
that
was
sort
of
the
first
alarm
bell
in
my
head
that
went
off,
because
I
wanted
something
in
writing
for
myself,
because
I
already
was
–
I
kind
of
sometimes
have
a
tendency
to
overthink
things.
And
I
had
never
had
to
retain
an
attorney
before.
But
do
know
enough
to
know
that
you
are
—
you
should
be
signing
an
engagement
letter.

Some
things
are
better
left
a
mystery.
Like
who’s
paying
for
representation.

So
then
I
had
asked
him,
“All
right.
Well,
that’s
perfectly
fine.
Would
you
mind
letting
me
know
where
the
funding
for
this
is
coming
from?
I
want
to
thank
them.
want
to
thank
whoever
it
is,
because
I’m
just
trying
to
kind
of
like
figure
things
out.”

And
he
said,
“If
you
want
to
know
at
the
end,
we’ll
let
you
know,
but
we’re
not
telling
people
where
funding
is
coming
from
right
now.
Don’t
worry,
we’re
taking
care
of
you.
Like,
you’re
never
going
to
get
a
bill
for
this,
so
if
that’s
what
you’re
worried
about.

I
was
like,
“Okay.
That’s
what
I
was
worried
about.”
Wasn’t
the
only
thing
I
was
worried
about.

The
substance
of
your
testimony,
though,
should
be
a
mystery
to
exactly
no
one
in
Trumpland.

Hutchinson: 
Later
that
day,
sort
of
put
together
that
the
“they”
he
was
referring
to
then
were
Justin
Clark,
Alex
Cannon,
Eric
Herschmann.
I
think
that’s
–
yeah,
I
think
that’s
all
of
them.

Rep.
Cheney: 
And
how
did
you
put
that
together?

Hutchinson: 
 Because
he
–
he
had
said
that
—
Justin
—
yeah,
Justin
Clark.
Stefan
had
told
me
that
–
towards
the
end
of
the
day
that
because
he
was
involved
with
Elections,
LLC,
and
tangentially,
I
guess
Trump’s
PACs,
he
had
law
partners.
And
unless
I
was
extremely
unwilling
for
him
to
share,
he
said
it
would
be
natural
for
him
to
have
to
share
that
information
with
the
people
that
he
works
with
that
are
his
partners
that
are
involved
in
Trump
world.

Don’t
print
out
your
calendar.
Or
think
too
hard.

And
he
had
said.
“Well,
we’re
not
building
out
timelines.
So,
unless
you
remember,
like,
a
very
specific
day
with
a
very
specific
event,
like,
“I
don’t
recall’
is
your
answer.
So
that’s
when
he
sort
of
—
sort
of
had
went
into
the
“I
don’t
recalls.”

And
he
said,
“If
you
don’t
100
percent
recall
something,
even
if
you
don’t
recall
a
date
or
somebody
who
may
or
may
not
have
been
in
the
room,
that’s
an
entirely
fine
answer,
and
we
want
you
to
use
that
response
as
much
as
you
deem
necessary.”
I
said.
“But,
if
I
do
recall
something
but
not
every
little
detail,
Stefan,
can
I
still
say
I
don’t
recall?”

And
he
had
said,
“Yes.
And
I
said,
“But
if
I
do
remember
things
but
not
every
little
detail,
and
I
say
I
don’t
recall,
wouldn’t
I
be
perjuring
myself?”

And
he
had
—
Stefan
had
said
something
to
the
effect
of,
“The
committee
doesn’t
know
what
you
can
and
can’t
recall,
so
we
want
to
be
able
to
use
that
as
much
as
we
can
unless
you
really,
really
remember
something
very
clearly.
And
that’s
when
you
give
a
short,
sweet
response.
The
less
you
remember
the
better.
I
don’t
think
you
should
be
filling
in
any
calendars
or
anything.”

Who’s
the
client
here?

And
in
that
same
conversation,
he
said,
“So
if
you
have
any
conversations
with
any
of
them,
especially
Eric
Herschmann,
we
want
to
really
work
to
protect
Eric
Herschmann.
And
I
remember
saying
sarcastically
to
him,
“Eric
can
handle
himself.
Eric
has
his
own
resources.
Why
do
I
have
to
protect
Eric?”
He
said,
“No,
no,
no.
Like,
just
to
keep
everything
straight,
like,
we
want
to
protect
Eric
with
all
of
this.”

No,
but
seriously,
WHO
IS
THE
CLIENT?

And
he
kept
saying
to
me,
like,
“Cass,
you’re
a
good
person.
I
don’t
want
you
to
feel
like
you
have
to
bear
the
weight
of
responsibility
for
all
these
other
people.
Like,
the
committee
is
talking
to
so
many
people
that,
even
if
you
were
entirely
forthcoming
with
them,
they’re
going
to
have
all
this
by
the
end
from
someone
else
anyway.
I
don’t
want
you
to
be
put
through
the
ringer
on
this.
It’s
not
fair
to
you.
It’s
not
fair
that
Mark
put
you
in
this
position.

We
just
want
to
focus
on
protecting
the
President.
We
all
know
you’re
loyal.
Let’s
just
get
you
in
and
out,
and
this
day
will
be
easy,
I
promise.
Like,
you
really
have
nothing
to
worry
about.”

Oh,
right.
The
client
is
the
one
who
calls
the
shots.

He
was
like,
“But,
if
we
–
if
we
even
think
about
engaging
with
them,
there
is
no
way
that
we
can
do
this
without
a
second
subpoena.
Trump
world
will
not
continue
paying
your
legal
bills
if
you
don’t
have
that
second
subpoena.”

So
that
was
the
first
moment
in
my
mind
where
I
had
it
sort
of
corroborated.
Now,
I
had
had
my
strong
suspicions
that
the
funding
was
coming
from
Trump
world.
He
never
gave
any
indication
that
it
was,
the
actual
financials
of
it
was
coming
from
Trump
world,
until
he
said
it
that
night.

The
client
is
the
one
who
gets
kept
abreast
of
the
details
of
her
case
and
gets
to
decide
if
she
wants
to
risk
going
to
jail
or
not.

Stefan
texted
me
Monday,
June
6th,
in
the
morning.
He
said,
“With
DOJ
refusing
to
hold
Mark
and
Scavino
in
contempt
and
with
the
committee
talking
about
you
to
the
press
again,
I
don’t
see
why
we
do
anything
more
with
them.
There’s
a
small
element
of
risk
to
refusing
to
cooperate,
but
I
think
it’s
the
best
move
for
you.
Do
you
agree?”

I
said,
“Did
they
reach
out
about
a
live
hearing?
I
don’t
want
to
gamble
with
being
held
in
contempt,
Stefan.
I’m
sorry,
but
I
just
don’t
think
I
can
do
it.”

It’s
not
a
lie
if
it’s
…
circumstantial?

He
was
like,
“Did
you
overhear
things?”

And
I
said,
“Yes.

And
he
said,
“Were
you
in
the
meetings?”

I
said.
“Not
all
of
them,
but
I
was
in
some
of
them.”

He
was
like,
“Well,
if
you
had
just
overheard
conversations
that
happened,
you
don’t
need
to
testify
to
that.”

“So,
if
I
overheard
it
from
a
Member,
do
I
have
to?”

And
he
said,
“It’s
circumstantial.
We
can
talk
about
it.”
So
I
said,
“Okay.”

It’s
not
a
lie
if
…
they
can’t
prove
it?

I
looked
at
Stefan,
and
I
said,
“Stefan,
I
am
fucked.”

And
he
was
like,
“Don’t
freak
out.
You’re
fine.”

I
said.
“No,
Stefan,
I’m
fucked.
I
just
lied.”

And
he
said,
“You
didn’t
lie.

I
said,
“No,
Stefan.
Do
you
know
how
many
times
they
just
asked
me
that
question?
I
just
lied.”

And
he
said,
“They
don’t
know
what
you
know,
Cassidy.
They
don’t
know
that
you
can
recall
some
of
these
things.
So
you
saying
‘I
don’t
recall’
is
an
entirely
acceptable
response
to
this.”

He’s
like,
“They’re
prodding.
They
want
there
to
be
something.
They
don’t
know
that
there
is
something.
We’re
not
going
to
give
them
anything
because
this
is
not
important.
You’re
doing
great.
You’re
doing
fine.
You’re
doing
exactly
what
you
should
be
doing.”

Okay,
pencils
down.

WOW.

Transcript

---

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

For
some
employees
of
legal
tech
companies,
the
holidays
have
been
far
from
merry,
as
their
employers
have
trimmed
headcounts
and
sent
out
layoff
notices.

The
exact
number
of
layoffs
in
legal
tech
are
unknown.
It
is
difficult
to
track
and
confirm
layoffs,
as
companies
are
often
secretive
about
them.
Although,
in
the
U.S.,
the
federal
Worker
Adjustment
and
Retraining
Notification
(WARN)
Act
requires
employers
to
report
layoffs,
it
generally
applies
only
to
employers
of
100
or
more
employees
that
layoff
50
or
more
employees.

So,
although
this
may
not
be
a
comprehensive
list
of
recent
legal
tech
layoffs,
here
are
the
ones
that
have
been
reported.

Contractbook.
Two
weeks
ago,

Niels
Martin
Brochner,
founder
and
CEO
of
the
Danish
contract
lifecycle
management
company

Contractbook,
took
to
LinkedIn
to

announce
the
layoff
of
32
employees.

“Like
many
other
companies
in
our
industry,
we
must
reduce
our
headcount
and
grow
in
a
more
efficient
way.
I’m
sorry
to
take
this
step,
and
I
wish
it
could
have
been
avoided.
At
the
same
time,
I
take
full
responsibility
for
the
decision.”

Last
year,
the
company

raised
$30
million
in
a
Series
B
round,
just
a
few
months
after
it

raised
a
$9.4
million
Series
A
round
in
December
2020.

“There
is
no
good
way
to
lay
off
good
people,
but
I
would
at
least
like
to
express
my
gratitude
and
appreciation
towards
the
people
leaving
Contractbook
today,”
Brochner
wrote
on
LinkedIn.
“You’ve
had
a
massive
impact
and
helped
us
grow
into
what
we
are
today.”

Filevine.
The
news
site

Axios
Salt
Lake
City
recently
reported
that

Filevine
is
among
several
Utah-based
tech
companies
that
are
laying
off
workers.
However,
in
an
interview
with
me,
founder
and
CEO

Ryan
Anderson
denies
the
company
had
layoffs.

Rather,
he
said
that,
as
part
of
a
strategic
plan
announced
to
employees
last
January
to
focus
on
being
a
software
company,
not
a
services
company,
certain
employees
who
work
in
services
roles
with
customers
on
product
implementation
and
data
migration
were
notified
earlier
this
year
that
their
work
would
be
transitioned
to
third-party
Filevine
partners
who
specialize
in
implementation
and
migration.
Filevine
offered
to
assist
those
employees
in
finding
positions
with
partner
companies,
and
many
have
already
been
successfully
placed,
Anderson
said.

While
a
layoff
is
typically
driven
by
a
need
to
reduce
costs
due
to
a
reduction
in
revenue,
Anderson
said,
this
transition
was
driven
by
a
strategic
decision
regarding
the
company’s
focus
and
mission.
He
noted
that
it
is
common
for
companies
such
as
his
to
rely
on
third-party
partners
to
handle
implementation
and
migration,
pointing
to
NetDocuments
and
Salesforce
as
examples.

From
a
business
standpoint,
Filevine
is
strong,
Anderson
said.
With
much
of
the
$108
million
it

raised
earlier
this
year
still
in
the
bank,
it
is
about
to
hit
$60
million
in
annual
recurring
revenue,
with
59%
ARR
growth
year
over
year.
It
has
just
had
its
two
strongest
quarters
ever,
and
has
seen
75%
revenue
growth
year
over
year.

Bottom
line:
Anderson
said
these
were
not
economically
driven
layoffs,
but
strategically
driven
transitions
of
certain
service
functions
to
companies
in
Filevine’s
partner
ecosystem.

Lawgeex.
In
September,
the
Israel-based
contract
review
automation
company

Lawgeex
announced
plans
to
lay
off
30
employees,
or
about
a
third
of
its
total
staff.

“We
had
to
lower
the
number
of
employees
so
that
the
product
could
soon
be
profitable
—
remove
the
auxiliary
wheels
and
let
it
work
on
its
own,
founder
and

CEO
Noory
Bechor
told
the Israeli
news
publication
Tech12
(as
translated
and
reported

by
Legaltech
News).

Onit.
The
website

TrueUp
Tech
reports
that
Texas-based
enterprise
legal
management
and
contract
lifecycle
management
company

Onit
laid
off
19
people,
citing
employee
reports
as
its
source.
I
reached
out
to
Onit
seeking
to
confirm
the
report,
but
a
spokesperson
declined
to
comment.

Relativity.
Earlier
this
month,
the
e-discovery
company
Relativity

laid
off
150
employees,
or
about
10%
of
its
total
staff.

In
a
statement

provided
to
Law.com,
the
company
said:

“To
support
our
core
business
strategy
going
forward,
we
will
reduce
and
realign
our
investments
in
certain
parts
of
the
business
and
adjust
our
overall
cost
structure.
We
believe
these
changes
will
prepare
Relativity,
which
is
healthy
and
growing,
for
any
headwinds
from
what
is
becoming
an
increasingly
uncertain
macroeconomic
environment.
It
will
also
better
position
the
company
to
focus
on,
invest
in,
and
continue
to
lead
in
our
core
areas
where
we
have
the
best
product-market
fit
and
that
are
most
valued
by
our
customers
and
partners.”

Reynen
Court.
As
I

reported
Nov.
22,

Reynen
Court,
the
so-called
app
store
of
law,
is
reducing
its
headcount,
cutting
expenses,
and
telling
vendors
on
its
platform
they
might
experience
service
delays.
The
company
has
not
said
how
many
employees
it
is
letting
go,
but
reports
from
various
sources
have
suggested
it
is
a
substantial
percentage
of
its
workforce.

Andrew
D.
Klein,
the
company’s
founder
and
CEO,
denied
that
the
company
is
going
out
of
business
or
discontinuing
support
for
its
platform,
and
he
said
he
is
seeking
new
investment
capital
to
help
the
company
manage
through
the
economic
downturn.

“As
a
result
of
the
delay
in
raising
capital,
we
are
reducing
headcount
and
other
operating
expenses
to
manage
through
the
economic
downturn,”
he
said.

The
last
year
was,
for
better
or
worse,
a
big
year
in
legal
news.
So
it
should
come
as
no
surprise
to
see
big
names
dominating
our
list
of
finalists
for
2022
Lawyer
of
the
Year.
Thanks
to
everyone
who
responded
to
our
request
for
nominations
for
2022
Lawyer
of
the
Year.
We
narrowed
the
many
excellent
nominees
to
a
slate
of
nine
(yes,
that’s
how
eventful
this
year
was)
lawyers
—
distinguished,
despicable,
or
debatable,
depending
on
your
point
of
view.

Here
are
the
nominees,
in
alphabetical
order,
with
a
brief
blurb
about
each:

Samuel
Alito:
Justice
Alito
is
the
author
of
the
opinion
in

Dobbs
v.
Jackson
Women’s
Health,
the
landmark
case
that
destroyed
nearly
50
years
of
precedent
in
holding
that

abortion
is
not
a
constitutional
right.
Did
Alito

leak
the
opinion
ahead
of
its
public
release
(perhaps
to
keep
other
justices
from
leaving
the
majority)?
He
claims
he
didn’t,
and
his
word
alone
is
apparently

good
enough
for
the
Supreme
Court.

Michael
Avenatti:
A
former

winner
of
this
very
contest,
Avenatti
is
back
again
as
a
finalist
for
going
from
Lawyer
of
the
Year
to
lawyer
behind
bars.
He’s
currently
serving
time
for
attempting
to

extort
Nike,
and
stealing
from
his
former
client,

Stormy
Daniels.
Because
the
hits
just
kept
coming
for
Avenatti
in
2022,
he was
recently
sentenced
to

14
years
in
prison
for
embezzlement
and
obstruction.

Aileen
Cannon:
The
Southern
District
of
Florida
judge
who
landed
the
Mar-a-Lago
case
and
made
questionable
decision
after
questionable
decision,
earning
herself
the
nickname
Loose
Cannon.
The

Eleventh
Circuit
stepped
in
several
times
to
issue
benchslaps
against
her
less-than
learned
rulings.

Cherelle
Griner:
This
recent
law
school
graduate
was
thrust
into
an
international
role
when
her
wife,
WNBA
star

Britney
Griner,
was
detained
and
imprisoned
in
Russia.
Britney
was
somehow
able
to
send
Cherelle
a

good
luck
wish
on
the
upcoming
bar
exam
from
a
Russian
jail
cell.
Her
constant
advocacy
was
absolutely
key
to
the
happy
ending
here,
when
Britney
was
brought
back
to
America.

Alina
Habba:
One
of
Donald
Trump’s
lawyers,
she’s
made

many,
many,

many
headlines
this
year,
but
not
for
the
best
reasons.
She
filed
LOLsuit
after
LOLsuit
and
joined
Newsmax
panels
to
make
statements
in
defense
of
her
client
that
were
quite
questionable,
to
say
the
least.

Ketanji
Brown
Jackson:
Say
hello
to
the

first
Black
woman
on
the
Supreme
Court.
From
her
first
day
on
the
highest
bench
in
the
land,
she’s
been

taking
control
of
oral
arguments
and
trying
to
guide
her
colleagues
to
see
the
light.
She
may
have
to
settle
for
writing
dissents
due
to
the
current
makeup
of
the
Court,
but
at
least
she’ll
be
an
inspiration
while
doing
it.

Clarence
Thomas:
Justice
Thomas
wrote
in
his

Dobbs
concurrence
that
the
justices
“should
reconsider
all
of
this
Court’s
substantive
due
process
precedents,
including

Griswold,

Lawrence,
and

Obergefell,”
putting
Americans
on
high
alert
that
other
constitutional
rights
were
on
the

Supreme
Court’s
chopping
block.
Thomas’s
legal
ethics
were
also
called
into
question
this
year,
thanks
to
his

refusal
to
recuse
in
cases
involving
his
“better”
half.

Ginni
Thomas:
A
far-right
activist
who
pushed
Big
Lie
conspiracy
theories,
this
Supreme
Court
spouse
—
and
law
school
grad
—
was

called
to
testify
before
the
January
6
Committee
for
her
involvement
in attempts
to
overturn
the
results
of
the
2020
election.
Now,
the
scope
of
her
employment
will
be
considered
a

state
secret
thanks
to
new
judicial
security
rules.
Being
a
justice’s
wife certainly
has
its
perks.

Camille
Vasquez:
Our
slate
of
finalists
wouldn’t
be
complete
without
the
lawyer
who
captured
the
nation’s
attention
as
she

zealously
represented
Johnny
Depp
in
court
in
his
defamation
case
against
Amber
Heard.
She
went
into
the
trial
as
an
associate,
and
she
left
it
with
a
win
under
her
belt,
earning
herself
the
brass
ring
of

Biglaw
partnership
a
short
time
later.

And
now,
the
moment
you’ve
all
been
waiting
for:
Who
should
be
named
Above
the
Law’s
Lawyer
of
the
Year
for
2022?
Cast
your
vote
below.
Polls
are
open
until

SATURDAY,
DECEMBER
31,
2022
at
11:59
p.m.
(EST).

Earlier:

Above
The
Law’s
2022
Lawyer
Of
The
Year
Contest:
Nominations
Needed

---

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.

Few
things
bring
joy
like
a
bit
of
unexpected
cash!
And
while
bonuses
are
expected
at
this
point…
it’s
still
pretty
nice
to
read
that
your
pockets
will
have
a
bit
of
extra
lining.
If
you’ve
seen
an
Orrick
associate
with
a
some
additional
pep
in
their
step,
this
is
probably
why.
Check
out
the
bonus
scale!

Now
that’s
a
reason
for
some
Christmas
cheer!
It
is
also
worth
mentioning
that
Orrick’s
annualized
hours
expectations
for
bonuses
is
set
at
1950
hours.
And
while
that’s
only
a
few
days’
less
worth
of
work
compared
to
firms
with
a
2000-hour
expectation,

it
is
also
a
few
days’
less
work.
Comparable
pay
and
a
functional
extra
couple
days
off?
Talk
about
the
holidays
coming
early.

Happy
Holidays!

(Turn
to
the
next
page
to
see
the
Orrick
memo.)

We
like
hearing
about
bonuses
almost
as
much
as
you
enjoy
spending
them.
As
soon
as
your
firm’s
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
Salary
&
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.

---

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

---

---

It
is
happening—all
the
firms
are
letting
people
go
and
letting
people
out
at
higher
rates
more
than
the
last
couple
of
years.
This
is
just
the
ordinary
course
when
the
markets
are
down
and
no
firm
wants
to
be
seen
doing
[layoffs],
so
they
are
simply
being
more
aggressive
in
their
reviews.

[When
demand
is
high,
law
firms]
turn
a
blind
eye
[to
low
hours]
and
don’t
do
anything
about
it.
When
things
are
slow,
hours
are
a
big
factor.
So
associates
with
extremely
low
hours
are
much
more
vulnerable.
When
things
are
really
busy,
even
weaker
associates
are
busy,
[but]
when
the
tide
is
low,
you
can
really
see
what’s
going
on
beneath
the
surface.

—
Matthew
Bersani,
a
legal
recruiter
and
consultant
at
Cliff
Group
and
former
Shearman
&
Sterling
partner,
in
comments
given
to
the

American
Lawyer,
on
how
Biglaw
firms
are
managing
their
associate
ranks
through
the
use
of
a
“tougher
review
cycle.”
Bersani
continued,
saying
that
“[w]ith
the
decrease
in
demand,
the
strong
associates
are
mainly
busy,”
but
that
other
associates
“naturally
have
lower
hours,
which
puts
a
target
on
their
back.”

---

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.

Despite
being
a
calling,
teaching
isn’t
always
a
living.
Ranging
from
issues
like

not
being
able
to
afford
the
supplies
required
to
do
the
job or

not
being
able
to
live
near
their
classrooms,
we
are
inundated
with
stories
detailing
how
difficult
it
is
to
make
a
dollar
as
a
teacher.
That
said,
a
lot
of
money
flows
through
schools.
Sometimes
directly
into
the
pockets
of
its
staff.

Seton
Hall
University
revealed
Wednesday
that
a
group
of
Seton
Hall
Law
employees
misappropriated
nearly
$1
million
over
several
years…

The
independent
review…uncovered
the
improper
activities
connected
with
these
individuals,
according
to
a
letter
signed
Wednesday
by
Kevin
H.
Marino,
chair
of
the
Board
of
Regents,
and
Joseph
E.
Nyre,
president
of
Seton
Hall
University.

Some
of
the
findings
included
“[a]
small
number
of
trusted,
long-time
employees
of
Seton
Hall
Law
engaged
in
a
series
of
schemes
and
improprieties
designed
to
enrich
themselves
at
the
expense
of
the
school
community” and
“misappropriated funds
of
the
school
in
excess
of
$975,000,”
the
statement
said
in
an
email
to
the
university
community
sent Wednesday
afternoon.

I
really
think
that
this
is
a
great
opportunity
for
Seton
Hall
to
set
themselves
apart
from
other
law
schools.
The
question
of
what
makes
a
law
school
better
than
others
is
ripe.
In
the
wake
of
Yale,
Harvard
and
Co’s
goofy
boycott
of
US
News,
Seton
could
definitely
finesse
this
into
a
selling
point.
I
can
see
the
brochure
now…

“At
other
law
schools,
law
professors
use
case
law
and
hypotheticals
to
instruct
their
students
on
criminal
law
and
embezzlement.
Here
at
Seton
Hall,
we
prefer
a
more
hands
on
approach
—
we
take
pride
in
knowing
that
our
fact
patterns
are
actually
factual!
Who
better
to
teach
about
embezzlement
than
our
trusted
and
(experientially)
qualified
staff?”

Seton,
do
a
better
job
of
zealously
defending
yourselves
from
the
inside.
Don’t
forget
to
run
me
my
royalties
if
you
decide
to
use
my
advertisement
bit.
Given
the
track
record
of
your
defenses
against
embezzlement,
I
doubt
you’d
fair
any
better
against
an
IP
suit.

‘Trusted
Employees’
Misappropriated
$1
Million
From
Seton
Hall
Law
School
[Taxprof.Typepad]

---

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