Under Pressure From Students, NALP Adds Data on Mandatory Arbitration at Law Firms
The National Association for Law Placement's upcoming Directory of Legal Employers will include questions about law firms' use of mandatory arbitration for summer associates and associates, which is the result of a campaign by the People's Parity Project to expose the use of such agreements in the legal profession.
December 03, 2019 at 01:08 PM
4 minute read
Figuring out whether a legal employer requires summer associates or associates to sign mandatory arbitration agreements is about to get easier.
The National Association for Law Placement will start including data about the use of such agreements in its Directory of Legal Employers—a key resource for law students in their employment searches.
Starting in 2020, the directory, which provides information about recruiting practices, demographics and other metrics on thousands of law firms and legal organizations, will include three additional questions. The first centers on the firm's policies surrounding employment disputes and workplace misconduct for summer associates, associates and non-partner attorneys. The second asks whether those employees must sign nondisclosure agreements, while the third asks if they are required to submit to mandatory arbitration.
The addition of those questions is another win for the People's Parity Project—a national organization of law students that began at Harvard Law School who seek to end the use of mandatory arbitration in the legal field and elsewhere. The group, which now has chapters at eight law schools, launched a petition earlier this year asking NALP to help students identify which firms use mandatory arbitration so they can make informed decisions during the on-campus interview process. Nearly 1,000 people signed the petition.
"Making information about which firms use forced arbitration more accessible to all law students helps raise awareness of the problem, which gets us one step closer to our goal of ending forced arbitration, once and for all," said Harvard law student Sarah Bayer, in an announcement of the change.
NALP executive director James Leipold was unavailable to comment on the change Wednesday, but he did confirm the addition of the three questions to its upcoming employer questionnaire. NALP informed its members of the addition last month.
Leaders of the People's Parity Project said that NALP initially rejected its request to add mandatory arbitration questions to the directory, but officials said the organization would reconsider the matter when its board of directors met in November.
The NALP push is among other attempts by law students to get more information about the use of mandatory arbitration in the legal profession. The movement began in the spring of 2018 when Ian Samuel, a former Harvard Law lecturer and professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, sparked the movement with a tweet in March 2018 revealing that Munger, Tolles & Olson required summer associates to submit to mandatory arbitration agreements. (Samuel resigned from Indiana in May following a university-led misconduct probe, while Munger Tolles quickly did away with the arbitration agreements.) Law students from 50 schools then surveyed large firms and legal organizations about their use of mandatory arbitration for summer associates, but fewer than half of the firms responded. The students have encouraged their classmates to boycott interviewing with firms such as DLA Piper that require associates to sign such agreements.
Since then, some law schools themselves have begun requiring firms to disclose any use of mandatory arbitration. But the inclusion of that data in NALP's Employer Directory will make that information available to a much wider swathe of law students.
NALP has rejected the request by the People's Parity Project to include a questions about the use of mandatory arbitration for nonlawyers, it said.
"We wish NALP had heeded our advice to ask legal employers about their policies regarding nonlawyer employees as well, because we don't think employees with J.D.s should have more rights than those without," said New York University law student Marwa Farag.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'What Is Certain Is Uncertainty': Patchwork Title IX Rules Face Expected Changes in Second Trump Administration
5 minute read'No Evidence'?: Big Law Firms Defend Academic Publishers in EDNY Antitrust Case
3 minute readLaw Firms Are Turning to Online Training Platforms as Apprenticeship Model Falters
'Substantive Deficiencies': Judge Grants Big Law Motion Dismissing Ivy League Price-Fixing Claims
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Eckert Seamans Sues Former Client Over $300K in Unpaid Legal Fees
- 2Federal Judge Rejects Teams' Challenge to NASCAR's 'Anticompetitive Terms' in Agreement
- 3Ben & Jerry’s Accuses Corporate Parent of ‘Silencing’ Support for Palestinian Rights
- 4Gold Medal Grift? Caitlyn Jenner Accused in Crypto Fraud Scheme
- 5Jay Clayton, Ex-SEC Chief and Sullivan & Cromwell Lawyer, Eyed For Manhattan US Attorney's Office
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250