Legal Profession

Subterms

    Latest story

    113 Shares14 Views

    Top Law Firms Defend Overhaul of America’s Business Court

    by

    After backlash from Elon Musk and companies like Meta, Big Law is publicly supporting a bill seeking to reform the Delaware Court of Chancery.As Delaware lawmakers prepare to hold hearings tomorrow about a bill that could reshape corporate America, some of the biggest corporate law firms are coming out in favor of it.On Tuesday, 21 law firms — including Simpson Thacher and Bartlett; Cravath, Swaine & Moore; and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison — will publish a letter strongly supporting legislation that would override a series of decisions by the Delaware Court of Chancery. These rulings have prompted backlash from companies and led many, including Meta, to contemplate moving their incorporation outside the state.The bill is “an important step in maintaining Delaware’s status as the jurisdiction of choice for sophisticated clients when they create companies,” the law firms write.Delaware has been ensnared in controversy after several rulings, including Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick’s decision last year to nullify a big payout for Elon Musk at Tesla. While Mr. Musk’s ire over that decision brought attention to the chancery court, many corporate lawyers say they’re more broadly frustrated with the court’s treatment of companies with controlling shareholders, arguing that it has been overly deferential to noncontrolling shareholders.Given how corporate America fuels Delaware’s budget, a group of Delaware state senators proposed a bill last month to amend the state constitution that would effectively override years of case law by the Delaware Court of Chancery. The group sidestepped the usual process for proposing bills, allowing it to move swiftly — but critics say that it also left out early input from key members of the influential Delaware bar.The issue was a major topic at Tulane University’s Corporate Law Institute conference, a big gathering of deal makers held last week in New Orleans. “We are disempowering Delaware courts,” said Ned Weinberger, a partner at the plaintiffs’ law firm Labaton Keller Sucharow, arguing that the amendment would erode the voice of minority shareholders.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 150 Shares88 Views

      in Elections

      Jay-Z Sues Rape Accuser and Lawyers, Saying They Knew Claim Was False

      by

      The anonymous woman withdrew her sex abuse suit last month, but the entertainer says in court papers she has since admitted her account was fabricated. She and her lawyer deny that.Jay-Z filed a lawsuit on Monday against the anonymous woman who withdrew her rape lawsuit against him last month, asserting that she and her lawyers knew the allegations were false but proceeded with the claim anyway.The lawsuit, brought in federal court in Alabama, where the woman lives, was filed against both the accuser and her lawyers, Tony Buzbee and David Fortney. In the suit, Jay-Z, born Shawn Carter, said the woman had admitted to his representatives that she had made up the story.But in a statement, Mr. Buzbee said the suit has “no legal merit” and that the woman continues to stand by her account.The woman originally sued Jay-Z last year, naming him as a defendant in one of the dozens of cases that have accused Sean Combs of sexual abuse. In this case, the plaintiff accused Mr. Carter and Mr. Combs of raping her when she was 13, at an after-party following the MTV Video Music Awards in 2000. After an NBC News interview with the plaintiff highlighted inconsistencies in her account, the plaintiff acknowledged that she had “made some mistakes” in presenting the allegations.For about two months, the plaintiff’s lawyers defended the veracity of her allegations in court papers, but last month, they withdrew her claim with no public explanation.In the new lawsuit, lawyers for Mr. Carter assert that the plaintiff — who is not identified — has “voluntarily admitted directly to representatives of Mr. Carter that the story brought before the world in court and on global television was just that: a false, malicious story.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Turns to His Personal Lawyers to Stock Top Ranks of Justice Dept.

      by

      For more than two years, President-elect Donald J. Trump’s lawyers did the job they were hired to do, defending him against a barrage of criminal charges with an aggressive strategy of confrontation and delay.But in working for Mr. Trump, they also used the tools of their trade — their legal briefs and courtroom hearings — to advance a political message that ultimately helped their client get back into the White House.Now, after fighting for Mr. Trump in case after case that they helped turn into a form of political theater, some of those lawyers are being rewarded again for their work. Mr. Trump has said he intends to nominate them to high-ranking posts in the Justice Department, which he has made clear he wants to operate as a legal arm of the White House rather than with the quasi-independence that has been the post-Watergate norm.After the president-elect’s announcement this week that he wants Matt Gaetz, the controversial former Florida congressman and a longtime ally, to be his attorney general, he named Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, two experienced former federal prosecutors who took the lead in defending Mr. Trump at his state trial in Manhattan and against two federal indictments, to fill the No. 2 and No. 3 positions in the department.A third lawyer, D. John Sauer, who was the Missouri solicitor general and oversaw Mr. Trump’s appellate battles, was chosen to represent the department in front of the Supreme Court as the U.S. solicitor general.Another lawyer, Stanley Woodward Jr., who defended several people in Mr. Trump’s orbit and helped in the process of vetting his vice-presidential pick, has also been mentioned for a top legal job, though it remains unclear if he will actually receive a role.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Lawyers Should Not Assist Trump in a Potential Power Grab

      by

      As the presidential campaign begins its final sprint, Donald Trump has made crystal clear how he will respond if he loses. He will refuse to accept the results; he will make baseless claims of voter fraud; and he will turn, with even more ferocity than he did in 2020, to the courts to save him.Mr. Trump has made clear that he views any election he loses — no matter how close or fair — as by definition illegitimate. The question then is whether there will be lawyers willing to cloak this insistence in the language of legal reasoning and therefore to assist him in litigating his way back to the White House.Republican lawyers have already unleashed lawsuits ahead of Election Day. These legal partisans have pursued their efforts across the country but have concentrated on swing states and key counties. The moves are clearly intended to lay the groundwork for Mr. Trump’s post-election efforts in states where the margins of victory are close.Such post-election efforts will be credible only if credible attorneys sign on to mount them. So it is critical that lawyers of conscience refuse to assist in those endeavors. As Mr. Trump’s rhetoric grows ever more vengeful and openly authoritarian, a great deal turns on the willingness of members of the legal profession to make common cause with him.At least since 2000, every close presidential election has involved recounts or litigation. Both sides lawyer up, and a high-stakes game of inches ensues.Although the lawyers engaged in those efforts are playing hardball, their work is predicated on a shared set of premises: In elections, the candidate who gets the most votes prevails (whether that means winning state or federal office or winning a state’s electoral votes). And in a close election, skilled lawyers will seek to develop legal arguments that determine which votes count, and therefore who emerges as the winner.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      How to Avoid a Drawn-Out Divorce

      by

      The sticking points in a breakup aren’t the same for every couple, but lawyers who have brokered countless divorces have some advice for keeping things simple.Ask any divorce lawyer: The only people who control how long a divorce takes are the two parties going through the divorce.Although many divorces are finalized through mediation, a process in which lawyers try to broker a resolution without having to go to court, those negotiations can sometimes take years, prolonged by things like child custody battles, when emotions can be expected to run high. Perhaps less explicable is when the holdup arises over the splitting of assets like homes, vintage cars or art collections.About six years after they were declared legally single, the formerly married actors Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt continue to be legally entangled. The reason: a French vineyard they bought while together; Mr. Pitt is suing Ms. Jolie for having sold her stake in the property without his consent, according to reports by Us Weekly and People. Ms. Jolie is asking him to drop the suit so the family can heal.Although your average split isn’t likely to be held up by a fight over a winery, many couples find that certain jointly held assets can be sticking points in the event of a breakup or divorce. So what precautions — if any — are couples taking to avoid a bruising battle after they’ve decided to part ways?Alan Feigenbaum, a divorce lawyer in New York City, has seen divorce proceedings drag out over the division of valuable art collections. But things can become absurd, he said, when negotiations are dragged out over property that isn’t even particularly valuable.“Some of the most ridiculous things I’ve seen,” he added, “is arguing over who gets to keep their children’s toys.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      A Wall Street Law Firm Wants to Define Consequences of Anti-Israel Protests

      by

      Sullivan & Cromwell is requiring job applicants to explain their participation in protests. Critics see the policy as a way to silence speech about the war.For as long as students at colleges across the United States have protested the war in Gaza, they’ve drawn the fury of some of the financial world’s mightiest figures — investors, lawyers and bankers — who have flexed their financial power over universities, toppling school leaders in the process.It didn’t stop the students. The protests intensified this year until campuses emptied out for the summer.Now, a prominent Wall Street law firm is taking a more direct approach with protesters. Sullivan & Cromwell, a 145-year-old firm that has counted Goldman Sachs and Amazon among its clients, says that, for job applicants, participation in an anti-Israel protest — on campus or off — could be a disqualifying factor.The firm is scrutinizing students’ behavior with the help of a background check company, looking at their involvement with pro-Palestinian student groups, scouring social media and reviewing news reports and footage from protests. It is looking for explicit instances of antisemitism as well as statements and slogans it has deemed to be “triggering” to Jews, said Joseph C. Shenker, a leader of Sullivan & Cromwell.Candidates could face scrutiny even if they weren’t using problematic language but were involved with a protest where others did. The protesters should be responsible for the behavior of those around them, Mr. Shenker said, or else they were embracing a “mob mentality.” Sullivan & Cromwell wouldn’t say if it had already dropped candidates because of the policy.“People are taking their outrage about what’s going on in Gaza and turning it into racist antisemitism,” Mr. Shenker said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      How a Trump-Beating, #MeToo Legal Legend Lost Her Firm

      by

      Roberta Kaplan’s work as a lawyer made her a hero to the left. But behind the scenes, she was known for her poor treatment of colleagues.Last fall, senior partners at Kaplan Hecker & Fink, a New York law firm known for championing liberal causes, made a fateful decision: They were going to sideline their hard-charging and crusading founder, Roberta A. Kaplan.The reign of one of the country’s most prominent lawyers was coming to an end.Ms. Kaplan was already famous when she founded her law firm in 2017, having won a landmark Supreme Court case that paved the way for marriage equality for gay Americans. The firm soon gained national prominence because of her leadership in the #MeToo movement, and more recently for high-profile victories against white supremacists and former President Donald J. Trump.But those triumphs couldn’t overcome an uncomfortable reality, according to people familiar with the law firm’s internal dynamics.In the eyes of many of her colleagues, including the firm’s two other named partners, Ms. Kaplan’s poor treatment of other lawyers — ranging from micromanagement to vulgar insults and humiliating personal attacks — was impairing the boutique firm she had built, the people said. For one thing, they said, she was jeopardizing its ability to recruit and retain valuable employees.Ms. Kaplan and other partners had also clashed over issues of management and strategy, and some of her colleagues were frustrated by the difficulties of achieving consensus with her, several people said.Ms. Kaplan was told last fall that it had become untenable for her to remain on the firm’s management committee — a sharp rebuke for a founding partner. She agreed to step down from the committee. The decision began a monthslong chain of events that culminated this week with Ms. Kaplan’s announcement that she was leaving Kaplan Hecker to start a new firm.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Insurance Companies and the Prior Authorization Maze

      by

      More from our inbox:Elect the U.S. Attorney GeneralFriendship MemoriesA Leadership GapInsurance companies have weaponized a seemingly benign process to protect their profits, and it’s putting patients at risk.To the Editor:Re “‘What’s My Life Worth?’ The Big Business of Denying Medical Care,” by Alexander Stockton (Opinion video, March 14), about prior authorization:Mr. Stockton’s video captures a current snapshot of an important truth about medical insurance in our country and in doing so does a service to all citizens by making them aware of this threat to themselves and their families.The immediate truth is that medical insurance companies are inadequately regulated, monitored and punished for their greed. In their current iteration they are bastions of greed, power and money. They need to be reined in.But there are other truths as well. Some physicians, just like some pharmaceutical companies, are unable to contain their greed and allow avarice to cloud their judgment, compromise their ethics and in some cases cross the line to Medicare fraud or other illegal activity.Medical care in our country is very big business involving billions of dollars. Without proper controls, regulation and monitoring, malfeasance follows. The challenge in such a complex and multifaceted context is how to implement such controls and monitoring without making things worse.Ross A. AbramsJerusalemThe writer, a retired radiation oncologist, is professor emeritus at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago.To the Editor:The Times’s video exploits tragic outcomes and does not mention basic important facts about the limited yet key role of prior authorization in ensuring that patients receive evidence-based, affordable care.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Larry H. Parker, Famed Personal Injury Attorney, Dies at 75

      by

      In the Los Angeles area, Mr. Parker was a common sight on billboards and television commercials in which he promised to stand up to faceless insurance companies.Larry H. Parker, an accident and personal injury lawyer whose television commercials promised he’d “fight for you” and became staples in living rooms across Los Angeles, died on March 6 in San Juan Capistrano, Calif. He was 75.His death was confirmed by his son, Justin Parker, who did not cite the cause.Over the years, Angelenos became familiar with Mr. Parker’s personal brand of braggadocio and promise, as his face could be seen on billboards across the city and on television ads.“When it comes to the law, you want someone who carries a big stick,” a narrator says in one commercial that cuts from a hockey brawl to a shot of Mr. Parker in a suit and glasses, standing with both hands on a desk, ready for a courtroom showdown.“People sometimes ask me why I seem so angry in my television commercials,” Mr. Parker said in another ad. “Well the truth is I am angry. I’m angry when big insurance companies take advantage of little people.”His ads cultivated an image of a legal brawler whose menacing presence on the screen could be used in a plaintiff’s favor.It appeared that those who were injured were eager to engage the services of his firm, the Law Offices of Larry H. Parker. Since its founding 50 years ago, the firm has recovered more than $2 billion in verdicts and settlements, according to its website.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More