The Supreme Court released its opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby on Monday, holding that the HHS contraception mandate violates an employer’s rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, even when the employer is a for-profit corporation closely held by individuals who object to the mandate on religious grounds. Following the decision in McCullen v. Coakley, the abortion clinic buffer zone case, Hobby Lobby is the second case in a week where the Court told us how much each side of a fundamentally divided issue can ask of the other, under the law. They are hard cases to talk about without questioning the good faith or good sense of the other side. Nearly everyone thinks either Hobby Lobby or McCullen was a bad decision.
The only thing more frustrating than a bad high-profile Supreme Court decision may be the public’s response to any high-profile Supreme Court decision. For proof, one need only look as far as some of the tweets on SCOTUSblog’s Twitter feed….
* If you’ve been looking to complete your collection of Second Circuit bobbleheads, behold Judge Denny Chin! If this wasn’t sponsored by the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, I’d worry this pic was a little racist…. [Squareup]
Hey, guys, do you remember that time a partner from Reed Smith thought SCOTUSblog’s Twitter feed was an official Twitter feed of the U.S. Supreme Court? That was so much fun. We always enjoy it when the words “go f@ck yourself and die” come from a Biglaw partner’s mouth — or keyboard, as it were.
This time around, everyone and their mother and their dog mistook the SCOTUSblog Twitter feed for an official Twitter feed of the U.S. Supreme Court in the wake of the Hobby Lobby decision. Members of the public were enraged, and took to the social media platform to shake their virtual fists in anger in tweets directed at SCOTUSblog.
Whoever is in charge of the SCOTUSblog account responded with the second language that is innate to all lawyers: sarcasm. The result was absolutely fabulous…
* You may have missed this because you were busy lamenting yesterday’s Supreme Court decisions, so here are just a few of the high-profile cases for which the high court refused to grant cert. [WSJ Law Blog]
* A judge tossed a defamation suit filed against Cooley Law by the original law school litigation dream team. That’s too bad, it would’ve been interesting watch the trial. [National Law Journal]
* George Zimmerman lost his defamation suit against NBC. As it turns out, the network didn’t need to edit those phone calls to make it seem like the acquitted artist was racist. [Chicago Tribune]
* Listen, if you really feel like you need include an addendum to your law school application, you should try not to use too much flowery bullshit to explain away each of your misdoings and missteps. [Law Admissions Lowdown / U.S News & World Report]
* Unfortunately, things aren’t exactly getting much better for women in Silicon Valley. A former vice president over at Tinder alleges that the company’s CEO called her a “whore” at a party. Eww! [Reuters]
Today’s majority cannot resist taking potshots at Abood… but it ignores the petitioners’ invitation to depart from principles of stare decisis. And the essential work in the majority’s opinion comes from its extended (though mistaken) distinction of Abood… not from its gratuitous dicta critiquing Abood’s foundations. That is to the good — or at least better than it might be. The Abood rule is deeply entrenched, and is the foundation for not tens or hundreds, but thousands of contracts between unions and governments across the Nation. Our precedent about precedent, fairly understood and applied, makes it impossible for this Court to reverse that decision.
– Justice Elena Kagan, using her dissent in Harris v. Quinn to shore up the compelling case that Abood cannot be reversed. Which is going to be downright hilarious next term when the Court goes ahead and reverses it.
Last year at about this time, Justice Samuel Alito authored one of the most sneaky anti-woman decisions in recent memory. In Vance v. Ball State University, Justice Alito made it much more difficult for women to sue their employers for workplace harassment. At the time, I said it’s the kind of decision Chris Brown would be proud of, but on reflection, that may have been unfair to Chris Brown.
Today, Alito once again puts in the heavy lifting to make the world worse for working women. Apparently, in Alito’s world, it’s not only okay for employers to try to have sex with their female employees, they also get to regulate what medications they take…
As we work on coverage of today’s opinions as I write this, let’s take a quick look back. In advance of this morning’s Supreme Court decisions, there were many thoughtful pieces on how the Court would rule. And most of those thoughtful pieces boasted equally serious and thoughtful headlines.
This was not one of them.
Indeed, this one was so bad, and yet so representative of the state of modern journalism, that it crossed the line into the dumbest headline ever….
* “They aren’t required to hear it, but this is the major social issue of the day.” The Supreme Court will likely hear a gay marriage case soon, and it’ll obviously be a vehement 5-4 opinion. [NBC News]
* But is SCOTUS really so bitterly divided now? Here’s a fun fact: The justices agreed unanimously in 66 percent of this term’s cases, and the last time that happened was in 1940. [New York Times]
* A partner has left the luxuries of earning up to $4.8 million per year at Wachtell Lipton to start his own executive compensation boutique, which we understand is basically like seeing a unicorn. [Am Law Daily]
* The post-merger world at Squire Patton Boggs is similar to the pre-merger world in that partners are still being churned in and out of the firm every other day. Check out the latest ins and outs. [WSJ Law Blog]
* The Fourth of July is coming up, and you know you want to light up some fireworks. Sure, it’s illegal to sell them in your state, but here’s where you can travel to go to buy some to celebrate freedom. [Yahoo!]
Kinney Recruiting’sEvan Jowers is currently in Hong Kong for client meetings and still has a few slots available through October 22. Evan will also be in Hong Kong November 14 to December 15. Further, Robert Kinney has been in Frankfurt and Munich this week and is available for meetings with our Germany based readers.
One of our key law firm clients has referred us to one of their important clients in the US, Europe and China – a leading global technology supplier for the auto industry – in order to handle their search for a new Asia General Counsel and Asia Chief Compliance Officer.
Kinney is exclusively handling this in-house search.
This position will have a lot of responsibility and include supervision of eight attorneys underneath them in the Asia in-house team. The new hire will report directly to the global general counsel and global chief compliance officer, who is based in the US. The new hire’s ability to make judgement calls is going to be as important as their technical skill set background.
The position is based in Shanghai and will deal with the company’s operations all over Asia and also in India, including frequent acquisitions in the region.
It is expected that the new hire will come from a top US firm’s Shanghai, Beijing or Hong Kong offices, currently in a top flight corporate practice at the senior associate, counsel or partner level. Of course, the candidate can be currently in a relevant in-house role.
It’s the legal profession’s equivalent of a long-term relationship.
When Michelle Waites, Senior Patent Counsel for Xerox Corporation, attended The LGBT Bar’s Lavender Law conference several years ago, she wasn’t sure what to expect. She left having forged a lasting business relationship that still endures today.
It was during The LGBT Bar’s event – an annual gathering of more than 1,600 lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and allied legal professionals – that Waites first met Marla Butler, a partner at Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP, who specializes in patent law.
Today, the two are still close friends as well as professional colleagues. Butler’s firm continues to work with Xerox – a business partnership forged via The LGBT Bar.
On November 19th, The Bar will present its first-ever conference outside the United States. Dubbed “A Lavender Law Experience for Europe,” the day-long Business Legal Conference will replicate programs such as the one that brought Waites and Butler together for legal professionals in Europe.
The JOBS Act created new tools for companies to publicly advertise securities deals online. As a result, thousands of new deals have hit the market and hundreds of millions in capital has been raised, spurring a wealth of new business development opportunities for attorneys.
Fund deals, startup capital raises, PIPE deals and loan syndicates are just a handful of the transactions benefiting from the JOBS Act. InvestorID FirmTM is a platform designed to help attorneys equip their clients with the workflow, marketing and compliance tools to publicly solicit a securities offering online. By providing clients with the tools to painlessly navigate the regulatory landscape of general solicitation, InvestorID FirmTM helps attorneys add value above just legal services.
The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act) went into effect in 2013 and permits Regulation D offerings of securities to be advertised publicly. This means that funds and companies can now use social media, emails and web sites to market transactions to new “accredited” investors.
However, with these new powers come new pain points. InvestorID FirmTM provides a secure, fully hosted, cloud-based platform with a breadth of tools for your clients, including: