Back in July, we brought our readers news of Kurzon LLP’s defamation lawsuit against the Thomas M. Cooley Law School. The suit claimed that the Cooley Law administration had engaged in a “misguided effort” to stem the tide of forthcoming class action suits against it and similarly situated schools by sending out an allegedly defamatory school-wide announcement.
Much has happened since the filing of Kurzon’s defamation complaint: the underlying suit over Cooley’s employment statistics was dismissed (a decision that is now being appealed by Team Strauss/Anziska), the school moved to dismiss Kurzon’s defamation action, and Kurzon’s small New York firm recently filed a motion to amend its suit to add additional causes of action.
But that’s not the only thing that managing partner Jeffrey Kurzon did in what’s being called a “David versus Goliath” litigation. You see, Kurzon decided to write a letter to the chief judge of the state’s highest court, a man who’s been hailed for mandating a first-in-the-nation pro bono requirement for would-be lawyers, asking him to weigh in on the problems law schools are currently facing.
Did we mention that in his letter, Kurzon used Cooley as an example of everything that’s currently wrong with legal education in our country?
Shortly after the ads were posted, Cooley Law fired back with a defamation complaint against the firm, alleging in a school-wide announcement that Team Strauss/Anziska and Kurzon Strauss had been “unethically soliciting former and present Cooley students to join in a class action lawsuit.” One month later, that very class-action lawsuit was filed, and rocked the world of legal education as we know it — calls for reform were made, and career services offices scrambled to clean up their employment statistics.
Perhaps Cooley Law wasn’t as superstitious as it should have been, because now, one year later, the little law firm that could has launched an additional suit against Cooley Law and its dean, Don LeDuc, this time alleging that the law school’s public claims against Kurzon LLP were false and defamatory….
The legal industry is being disrupted at every level by technological advances. While legal tech entrepreneurs and innovators are racing to create a more efficient and productive future, there is widespread indifference on the part of attorneys toward these emerging technologies.
Ed. note: The Asia Chronicles column is authored by Kinney Recruiting. Kinney has made more placements of U.S. associates, counsels and partners in Asia than any other recruiting firm in each of the past seven years. You can reach them by email: email@example.com.
We at Kinney Asia have made a number of FCPA / White Collar US associate placements in Hong Kong / China thus far in 2014. Most of such placements have been commercial litigation associates from major US markets, fluent in Mandarin, switching to FCPA / White Collar litigation. Some have already had FCPA experience, but those are difficult candidates for firms to find (this will change in coming years as US firms are now promoting FCPA / White Collar to their 2L summers who are fluent in Mandarin and have an interest in transferring to China at some point).
Legal Week quoted Kinney’s Head of Asia, Evan Jowers, extensively in the following relevant article here.
There is a new trend in the market, though, where mid-level transactional US associates, fluent in spoken Mandarin and written Chinese, are interviewing for and in some cases landing junior FCPA / White Collar spots in Hong Kong / China at very top tier US firms.
When the LexisNexis Cloud Technology Survey results were reported earlier this year, it showed that attorneys were starting to peer less skeptically into the future, and slowly but surely leaning more toward all the benefits the law cloud has to offer.
Because let’s face it, plenty of attorneys are perhaps a bit too comfortable with their “system” of practice management, which may or may not include neon highlighters, sticky notes, dog-eared file folders, and a word processing program that was last updated when the term “raise the roof” was still de rigueur.