Lawyer Turkeys, Silly Perks and the Pinkest of Pink Ghettos
Nothing goes better with Thanksgiving than some good old legal industry news and gossip.
November 20, 2018 at 04:57 PM
5 minute read
It's almost Turkey Day, so who wants serious discourse? Here's my take on some recent news items:
Face it: This latest crop is not the best and the brightest. Oh, the shock and outrage about those abysmal bar pass rates! How is it possible that takers of the July 2018 California bar exam hit a 67-year low (only 40.7 percent passed)? And it's not just flakey, laid-back California: From Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida, Indiana to New York, scores are also plummeting.
And, according to Law.com's Karen Sloan, scores on the Multistate Bar Exam are also falling, hitting “a recent low in February, and now the average for the July 2018 test has dropped more than two points to the lowest figure since 1984.”
All over the land, law school deans are racking their brains about these awful results.
Harry Ballan, dean of Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (48.6 percent bar pass rate), told New York Law Journal: “We will be re-examining in minutest detail everything we do, in and outside of the classroom, to assure that the continued implementation of reforms [to improve pass rates].” And Gail Prudenti, dean of Hofstra Law School (62 percent bar pass rate), pledged “to think in terms of a multi-year strategic plan” to fix the problem.
Sorry, but isn't it obvious why the bar pass rates are so crummy? Let's remember that those taking the bar in recent years entered law school when schools were begging for students. As I wrote a few years, your dog probably could have gotten into some law school at that time.
So stop the chest beating and just admit you let in a lot of duds.
Those latest perks are so awesome! Not! I'm sorry to be a party pooper, but I'm not at all impressed by the most recent goodies that law firms are throwing at associates.
First, wasn't it clever that Kirkland & Ellis unveiled its concierge service for its busy lawyers? Law.com reports that the service gives “lawyers and senior staff access to a group of on-call assistants who can help with (nearly) every personal task or errand a busy lawyer could think of”—such as buying gifts, finding a nanny or moving.
I must say “concierge” has a nice ring, suggesting a personal maid or butler at your beck and call. If nothing else, Kirkland deserves credit for coming up with something snazzy.
But like all “concierge” service, I suspect this is probably more hype than reality. I mean, how often do you avail yourself of the “concierge” service on your AmEx Platinum card? And isn't it just as easy to buy stuff yourself on Amazon.com?
While Kirkland opted for splash, Weil Gotshal went the opposite direction, coming up with most anticlimactic perk in the land: The firm just announced that associates can now work one day a week from home! Whoopty doo!
First of all, isn't flex-time so 2008? Second, permission to work “one day a week”—as if that's such a huge give?
I have a feeling that lawyers at Weil (and most firms) have been working from home or elsewhere for quite a while. From what I've seen, firms don't give a damn whether you're working from home, a boat or a yurt, so long as you keep billing.
Even in the pinkest of pink ghettos, women make less. No, I'm not even talking about practice areas like labor/employment or family law. I'm talking about legal marketers.
According to ALM Intelligence, in collaboration with Calibrate Legal Inc., female marketing heads at law firms make less than their male counterparts. That's particularly striking, considering that women make up almost 80 percent of the professionals in legal marketing departments. In fact, “74 percent of directors in marketing and business development departments are women, and 69 percent of department heads are women.”
And the reason men make more? Oh, the usual possible explanations: men move around more or are more adept at playing the political game.
Anyway, the authors of the report write: “This finding should give law firm leaders pause. Firms need to examine their compensation systems to ensure discrimination and bias are not impacting pay.”
Oh, I'm sure firm leaders will put this on top of the priority list.
See you at the NYC Bar, Nov. 29, 5:30 p.m. I'll be moderating a panel on women and business development. Among the hot potato topics: Is it time for quotas in client credit allocation?
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 AllQuinn Emanuel Has Thrived in China. Will Trump Help Boost Its Fortunes?
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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