Legal Industry Not First in Line as Cuomo Outlines Reopening Plan for New York Businesses
The reopening plan could have widespread impacts for when—and in what ways—law firms and attorneys across New York return to in-office work.
April 27, 2020 at 06:11 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
Manufacturing and construction operations would be the first industries to be put back into business under a reopening plan outlined by Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Sunday. The legal profession, particularly in New York City, would have to wait for a while until freely using offices for services defined as "nonessential."
New York state remains under sweeping lockdown measures spurred by the coronavirus pandemic, which has infected at least 291,000 people statewide.
The measures, which are aimed at reducing the in-person interactions that spread the virus, sharply curtail gatherings and require nonessential workers to stay home. The measures are in place until mid May through an executive order.
At a coronavirus briefing Sunday, Cuomo traced details of the state's plan to reopen New York's paralyzed economy, saying the first phase would include reopening manufacturing and construction operations that are low risk.
More businesses would open in the second phase, but those reopening decisions will be based on how essential the business is and the infection risk associated with operating the business, he said.
The legal industry's adaptation to working from home and virtual courts has eased some of the strictures wrought by Cuomo's "New York on Pause" order, but it is also anticipating benefits if reopening can widen.
Hank Greenberg, president of the New York State Bar Association, said the reopening period carries "enormous" importance to the legal profession statewide.
Many lawyers have transitioned to virtual operations, he said, but the benefits office operations are unavoidable. In-person interactions make it easier to empathically listen to a distressed client, he said, and brainstorming ideas and collaboration is more effective in a physical law office.
"The perfect truth is [that] practicing law is a team effort in many cases," he said.
He anticipated that commercial lawyers are going to be immersed in a raft of issues from their clients, including human resources, public health and liability topics.
The reopening plan could have widespread impacts for when—and in what ways—law firms and attorneys across New York return to in-office work.
According to guidance from the state government, legal service providers are considered essential businesses, but only if their work is tied to specific topics like supporting a criminal defendant in a court proceeding. It also includes supporting the essential functions of "health care providers, utilities, state and local governments, the federal government" and other businesses that have been deemed essential.
Even as the state looks ahead to opening businesses, the state's court system is angling toward expanding its virtual operations, instead of emphasizing the widespread reopening of physical courthouse operations.
Chief Judge Janet DiFiore said Monday in video speech that they are working to improve the temporary virtual operations.
DiFiore reported that 168 court staff and judges have tested positive for the new coronavirus. A court spokesman said judges made up 17 of those positive COVID-19 cases.
And New York's Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence Marks said Wednesday that there have been no conversations around the widespread opening of courthouses.
State officials said a two-week period between the phases can be expected in order to monitor the effects. The reopening plan is also set to leave out attractions and openings that would draw a large number of people.
Despite plans of restarting the economy, Cuomo on Monday cautioned that a bungled reopening plan could cause the infection rate to turn upward once again.
"There is no light switch where you flick a switch and everybody goes back to doing what they're doing," he said Monday. "We have to take these circumstances into consideration. We have to learn the lessons."
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 AllBaltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
3 minute readFederal Judge Sends Novel Damages Question in Employment Dispute to State Court
5 minute readCounty Reps: Appeal Likely Following State Court's Sales Tax Ruling for Retail Marijuana
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1NY District Attorneys Are Still No Fans of Revamped Misconduct Watchdog
- 2ICC Issues Arrest Warrants for Israel's Prime Minister Over Alleged War Crimes in Gaza
- 3Attorney Responds to Outten & Golden Managing Partner's Letter on Dropped Client
- 4Attracted to Thompson Hine's Fee Flexibility, Morgan Lewis Litigator Switches Firms in Chicago
- 5Phila. Attorney Hit With 5-Year Suspension for Mismanaging Firm and Mishandling Cases
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