'Diversity' has been a buzzword in the legal profession for decades. However, a  recent article in GP Solo, published by the American Bar Association, asserts diversity efforts have largely been aimed at law schools, large law firms and corporate counsel, thereby ignoring small law firms and solo practitioners.

Many small firm attorneys and private practitioners often wonder why or how they play a role in the diversification of the legal profession, according to Sandra Y. Yamate,  the Executive Director of the ABA Commission on Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Profession, and the author of that article, 

"It is misguided, however, to think that sole practitioners and small firm lawyers cannot do as much to advance diversity as their colleagues in larger organizations. Nothing could be further from the truth," she writes.

In an attempt to get some answers, Above the Law recently released a Small Law Firm Diversity Survey. Respondents were asked to consider several general statements pertaining to diversity, then provide long-form answers.

An example of the statements includes "'Having attorneys or staff from diverse backgrounds is a competitive advantage for small law firms.'" Of the more than 300 respondents who participated in the survey, nearly half strongly agreed with the contention. Just over 21% indicated they agreed and 19% stated they had no opinion. The remaining responses were divided between 'disagree' and 'strongly disagree.'

One response in favor of the statement asserted that a diverse workforce encourages a range of attitudes and potential solutions. The author concluded that “can only help client service.” Conversely, a comment from a respondent against the proposition indicated there is no evidence to support the contention.

Ambrose Moses, III, an African-American solo practitioner in Columbus, expressed dismay with the survey. "Some of the attitudes and mindsets illustrated by some of the comments included in the report are disappointing because it appears that some trained and licensed lawyers are ignorant of American history or have no desire to remedy the societal and individual harm caused by bias, discrimination and injustice."

He labeled some of the comments as "troublesome hindrances to our nation achieving legal, social and economic justice for all." He also express dismay that some of the responses might have been made by judges, court personnel, government attorneys (such as county prosecutors and their assistants), attorneys general (and their assistants), U.S. attorneys and their aides, general special counsel and more.

"This is not to ignore the impact of such attitudes and mindsets held by private attorneys in large and small firms. Rather, it is essential to recognize that when such attitudes and mindsets infect the ranks of our judges, government attorneys, and court personnel, then the bias, discrimination, and injustice continues to be systemic and, I submit, both de facto and de jure,” sums Moses.

Steve Smith, President and Founder of Los Angeles-based GrowthSource Coaching, mentors business people from a myriad of professions, including law. He too dismissed much of what was highlighted in the survey, although for different reasons than Moses.

"Most of what I’ve experienced runs counter to these findings but that could be the legal crowd I’m running around with," says Smith. “Small firms and solo practitioners are usually only focused on a few things: can I find someone I can work with; can I afford the best person I can find; will they stay with me after I teach them all my secrets,” he says.

That’s not to say Smith dismisses the importance of diversity for small firms or solo practitioners. However, he says, "I’m not sure it leaks into the daily practice of running a law firm."

The general consensus in the business world is to be "considered inclusive," says Smith. However, "when it comes to running a business, diversity isn’t usually the first consideration when deciding who to employ. Most of the time, a law firm’s first consideration is whether the candidate fits with the brand and whether they will get along."

Another school of thought in the business world, he says, is that "unless a person has a degree from a name university, maybe (the employer) can pay them less. They won’t pay top dollar unless the (candidate) is bringing a big pedigree.”

According to Smith. "Diversity is fine unless it creates big inconveniences for me and my business." In expressing support for diversity, in general, Smith urges people to be honest when discussing the topic.

"I’m not down on diversity but I want the discussion to be real. It’s one thing to say it but another to live it," he says.

Tami Kamin Meyer is an Ohio attorney and writer.

There's nothing more annoying than a deadbeat client. But, there are steps you can take to make this situation less onerous or to even avoid such situations altogether.

Identifying Problematic Clients Before You Get Stiffed

“The best time not to represent a client is at the beginning,” says Terry Zimmerman, a collections attorney from Akron, Ohio, who recently retired after 39 years of practicing law. Although the adage of ‘not judging a book by its cover’ might be appropriate when selecting reading material, there are telltale indications a would-be client may not pay his or her bill, Zimmerman says.

“If a client tells you they went to an attorney who has a good reputation but that attorney did not take the case, consider there’s probably a good reason why," he says. "The client might not be a good risk.”

A client who admits to have spoken with other lawyers prior to coming to you is likely shopping for the best price. "That’s another red flag,” Zimmerman says. Another clue is “when they ask the cost of a ‘simple divorce’ or a ‘simple bankruptcy,’” he says. The general public doesn’t generally appreciate what truly constitutes a case as ‘simple’ or ‘complex,’ so asking for a price upfront without explaining the variables of the matter are a red flag they won’t pay, Zimmerman suggests.

Robert B. Walker, an estate planning, collections and creditor’s rights bankruptcy attorney in Reston, Virginia, says he “worries about the ones who have been paying regularly but suddenly become slow pay.” When that happens, the client is generally not happy with the representation they are receiving or perhaps believe they are being overcharged.

Another clue a client isn’t likely to pay their legal fees? “If a client nit-picks your bill, you probably have a problem,” Walker says. One way to minimize financial exposure, Zimmerman says, is to “get some money up front.” Besides, he says, that’s a great way to learn where the client banks, useful information in case the lawyer pursues a collection matter against the client in the future.

What to Do When a Client Doesn’t Pay

It might seem elementary, but before initiating any type of litigation, it’s imperative to know who the actual defendant is. If, for example, a lawyer represents Joe’s Autobody, but not Joe himself, it’s wrong to pursue an action against Joe rather than the business, Zimmerman says.

Therefore, when representing a company, Zimmerman says it’s imperative the lawyer obtain a personal guarantee in writing that Joe has the authority to hire the attorney on behalf of the business. Once a determination is made as to whom the defendant is, the next step is to review the fee agreement signed by the client and the attorney.

According to the Code of Professional Responsibility, written agreements are only required in contingency fee cases, “but it’s a good practice” to use them in all matters, Zimmerman says.

Walker says “he comes and goes” on the use of written fee agreements. On one hand, they spell out the terms governing the professional relationship between the lawyer and client. However, they can also lengthen the attorney’s malpractice exposure in states like Virginia, where the statute of limitations for collecting fees and pursuing legal malpractice matters differs depending on whether a written fee agreement was used or not.

Zimmerman also cautions lawyers contemplating legal action against deadbeat clients to consider whether it might also expose them to a malpractice claim initiated by a disgruntled client. Another matter to consider is whether the debt in question is consumer-oriented or not, Walker says.

“There should be a determination made as to whether the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and any state version, govern such collection by one attorney for a client attorney,” he says. When a lawyer tries to collect legal fees owed, such legislation does not apply. However, an outside collection agent might be deemed a ‘collector’ subject to Federal and state laws. Other rules govern the collection of past due legal fees, says Steve Smith, President and Founder of GrowthSource Coaching, a California company that educates business owners and other professionals about improving their companies.

For example, ABA Model Rule 1.5 governs fee types and fee arrangements. “One of the overriding principles is the concept of the reasonableness of fees. The overwhelming, number one reason why people avoid paying their bill is the client has decided the fees were unreasonable for the service they received,” he says.

Absent exigent circumstances, such as being up against a statute of limitations, Walker likes to send a demand letter to the client, now potential defendant, when legal fees are overdue. If nothing else, doing so helps determine whether the lawyer has the debtor’s correct address.

Smith’s approach is similar. First, he suggests sending a pleasant letter reminding or informing the client of their past due account. If a week passes with no response, he advises placing a personal call to the client to try to determine why they haven’t paid their bill or responded to the letter.

“Get them on the phone to discuss installments or even reduce the overall balance,” Smith says. No matter what is said during the conversation, he implores the lawyer to maintain a “good business decorum.” Follow up with one email a week for the next three weeks, imploring the client to pay their bill. Each missive should communicate the “increasing severity” of the matter so the client understands the gravity of the situation.

If, after 30 days, payments are still not forthcoming, it’s “time to make an assessment,” about whether to sue the client for the fees they owe, Smith says. Factors to consider include the size of the past due balance and the costs involved with hiring an outside agency or lawyer to collect the debt, assuming the case will be farmed out.

Walker cautions lawyers about handling their own collection matters. “The ability to be objective is not as great when you are representing yourself," he says. "When your professionalism is challenged, it’s hard to be objective.” 

What Not to Do

There are several steps to avoid when seeking to collect an overdue client balance. According to Smith, do not:

• Contact the client’s family members or friends to discuss
• Contact an employer to seek the garnishment of wages, since a judgment is needed to initiate a garnishment
• Allow the situation to impact your effectiveness in representing other clients

It’s also not wise to argue with the client over the past due account. Not only is that unprofessional, such behavior will likely infuriate the client and increase the likelihood he or she might file a malpractice claim. Lastly, if a lawyer seeks to hire you to collect his or her past due accounts, be sure to conduct a conflicts search before taking on the case. Do not pursue a collections case against a defendant if you represented him or her or a related entity in the past, Zimmerman advises.

Tami Kamin Meyer is an Ohio attorney and writer.

With three groups of attorneys leaving BigLaw to start their own boutique firms in January alone, legal industry experts are predicting that 2016 might be a year of major big firm-to-boutique migration. So reports Bloomberg BNA.

In the first month of the year, when there’s typically a flurry of lateral movement between big law firms, groups of lawyers from Arent Fox in California, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, and Schiff Hardin have all instead opted to form of new, small firms.

Legal industry experts note that while former BigLaw attorneys often do find that a small firm partnership is better suited to their personal needs, business development challenges and day-to day administration duties can make small firm life challenging.

Read the full article from Bloomberg BNA.

Bigger might be better in some things in life, but not necessarily when it comes to employment opportunities for attorneys.

Small law firms are coming up big as places for lawyers to find work, according to a recent article on Law Crossing. The article cited the National Association of Law Placement as saying small law firms are providing “the majority of law firm jobs taken by recent graduates.”

Economic uncertainties continue to inject volatility in the legal landscape, making large law firms wary of over-hiring. There is also tremendous fear the number of clients capable of affording or willing to pay big firm rates is dwindling.

Meanwhile, there continues to be an escalating need for legal services among the general population, who not only can’t afford huge hourly fees but who are also uncomfortable in the swanky downtown offices of The Bigs. So where do these clients turn? Small law firms or solo practitioners whose rates are usually lower than those charged by big law firms and whose lawyers are generally more accessible.

View from the Trenches

Joseph Dreitler didn’t always practice law in the small firm setting. In fact, he spent 17 years in-house at Procter & Gamble and Anheuser-Busch and another 14 toiling in various large, general practice firms. However, for the past four years, he has practiced law in a two-person trademark, copyright and patent law firm in Columbus, Ohio. The namesake of Dreitler True says his current situation is “the most fun” he’s had while practicing law, for a few reasons.

They include:

• Lack of bureaucracy
• No conflicts of interest
• Lower overhead
• The lower fees he can charge due to reduced overhead costs
• No need to try and ‘leverage’ associates to bring in revenue for the firm

Dreitler also relishes the fact he doesn’t feel pressured to bill an astronomical number of hours yearly like he did when he worked in a big firm. Something else he doesn’t miss about big firm life is partners who are supposed to behave like a team but who are really out for their own best interests.

“I don’t feel the disappointment in other partners not cross-selling my services to their client,” he says, adding that in every firm he worked, the consistent mantra was that everyone was on the same team. However, eventually Dreitler became dismayed when he finally realized that was not really the case in any of the firms where he worked. “Partners hoarded work. They did not want any other partner to even meet their clients for fear they would screw something up. Partners who had no idea of the difference between a trademark and a copyright would take on that kind of work and never call partners who specialized in that work because they wanted the hours and could care less about the clients getting the most qualified lawyers on the matter,” Dreitler laments.

Early in Evan Schwartz’s legal career, he was a small fish in a very large pond. In actuality, he was more like a guppy in a huge sea of the gigantic law firm where he worked for several years. In those days, he toiled in a firm with 300 to 500 lawyers nationwide. When he left, he was a solo practitioner for a time. His firm grew to ten lawyers, including a law partner, but today he is the namesake of Schwartz Law PC.

His firm, with offices in Manhattan and Garden City, NY, is comprised of six lawyers whose work focuses on disability law and other insurance-related matters. There are several aspects of practicing in the small firm setting that Schwartz finds appealing. He enjoys the collegiality of working in a small group, which also means attorneys have the opportunity to accept greater responsibility for their cases and clients than occurs in large firms.

“Large firms can also be collegial but are frequently more regimented and both pay and responsibility are typically more lockstep,” says Schwartz. Like Dreitler and Schwartz, Caroline Z. Worley didn’t always practice law in the small firm setting. After the namesake of Worley Law LLC, a small firm in Westerville, Ohio, graduated law school, she toiled as a staff attorney for a Common Pleas Judge.

Following that, she joined a large law firm in Columbus. Since then, everywhere she has practiced law has employed five or fewer lawyers. Worley cites the “team and family atmosphere” with all employees, both attorneys as staff, as what she enjoys most about the small firm setting.

She also relishes the lack of bureaucracy and the flexibility that working in a small group engenders. “Also, since our overhead is lower, an attorney can offer the same or better services for half the cost. There is also plenty of time to get out and serve on nonprofit boards and to give back by volunteering your time,” she says.

Those experiences differ greatly from what she underwent in the big firm setting. For example, “you usually have to run all ideas up a chain of command and change is harder and slower,” she laments. Working for a small firm, especially her own, offers Worley the flexibility to work different hours and at locations other than her brick-and-mortar location.

Pitfalls of Small-Firm-Life

While all three lawyers agree their professional lives are happier as small firm attorneys, they do admit there are pitfalls to working in such an environment. For Worley, working with a small “marketing and business development budget” is challenging. She would also like to hire additional support staff, but that is cost-prohibitive.

While he wouldn’t trade his current situation for a return to big-firm life, Schwartz says there are challenges working in a small firm. For example, the small firm scenario affords “less predictability of the business,” he says. In other words, says Schwartz, running a small firm is “more risky.”

Another pitfall of the solo and small firm environment is that, typically, attorneys receive less training before they are thrown into the fire. According to Schwartz, there is “typically less training and supervision, which can be exhilarating or disastrous, depending on the person you are and the particular circumstances of the matters you are handling.”

While certainly no one is saying Big Law is dead, there is no doubt small and solo law practices are gaining increasingly popularity among lawyers. At least that’s what Schwartz thinks. “In general, small firms help make the legal system more accessible to the general public by offering lower fees and more direct contact between attorneys and their clients. When I weighed the pros and cons of big firm life versus working in a small firm, I decided I wanted to own my own firm and control my own destiny. I have more autonomy and greater job security because I develop my own book of business,” Schwartz says.

Tami Kamin Meyer is an Ohio attorney and writer.

General Electric's general counsel's 2012 compensation package afforded him almost $11 million in cash, making him the highest paid general counsel on Corporate Counsel magazine's latest list of the nation's 100 highest paid GCs. So reports Law.com.

At $1,853,671, the average take-home pay enjoyed by the lawyers on the list this year is the highest it has ever been.

Read the full article from Law.com here.

After entering a guilty plea, John Farahi, founder of Newpoint Financial Services Inc., was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison on March 20, according to a National Law Journal story. The Beverly Hills businessman admitted his role in a $20 million Ponzi scheme and the plea could have ramifications for former Nixon Peabody securities partner David Tamman, who was found guilty for his role in the scheme.

Tamman’s lawyer, though, insists the two instances are different and “suspect the judge will listen to what we have to say and make a decision accordingly."

Read the full article from the National Law Journal here.

A Los Angeles nutrition company is locked in a legal battle with billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman, who has accused the company of perpetuating a pyramid scheme. Herbalife officials said the company will up their legal defense costs from $25 million to $40 million in the wake of Ackman’s accusations, according to a Los Angeles Times article.

Ackman, who reportedly bet $1 billion the company is a sham, has said most of the company’s sales people lose money and expects the company’s shares to fall to zero.

Read the full article from the Los Angeles Times here.

Food and Drug Administration logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When attorney F. Lee Bailey was indicted for mail fraud in 1973, he quoted a popular aphorism referencing the difference between how England and the U.S. treat their criminal defense lawyers.  “In England they are apt to be knighted; in the United States they are apt to be indicted.”  There is quite a bit of truth in the saying and the dangers inherent in practicing law in the U.S. are not only faced by defense lawyers.  Sensing an opportunity, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has recently set its sights on corporate in-house counsel.

In November, 2010, Lauren Stevens, a former vice president and general counsel for pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, was indicted on federal charges of making false statements and obstructing a federal investigation.  Stevens was accused of making false and misleading statements in a series of letters to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on behalf of her employer.  Despite it having been obvious from the beginning that Stevens was only relaying information furnished by her client and had no intent or motive to mislead federal investigators, she was enthusiastically pursued by the DOJ.  “Where facts and law allow, the Justice Department will pursue individuals responsible for illegal conduct just as vigorously as we pursue corporations,” Tony West, assistant attorney general for the civil division, said in a statement.  It should be noted that despite the DOJ’s stated commitment to pursue corporations, GlaxoSmithKline’s name was noticeably absent from the Stevens indictment.  West continued, “Criminal charges are appropriate when false statements such as those alleged here are made to the FDA.”

Read the full article here...

The intersection of law, innovation and technology has always naturally created friction, as changes to one do not necessarily accompany changes to the other. To that end, it is incumbent upon principals in the industries to constantly audit the others for the sake of the consumers and constituents who operate in those spaces.

Recently, the Rock Center for Corporate Governance, along with the Stanford Graduate School of Business and United States Department of Justice (DOJ) hosted a workshop examining one such intersection—that of antitrust law and venture capitalism. Academics, investors, legal and business experts gathered for the Wednesday, Feb. 12 event, according to Stanford University.

Makan Delrahim, Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust at the Department of Justice, touched on a broad array of challenges facing both regulators and venture capitalists, and further, what to do about them as they emerge. “In any case whether a merger is harmful, a restraint is unreasonable, or a course of conduct is exclusionary, antitrust enforcers have to ask the same question—what do we do about it now?” he asked. “In doing so, we focus on trying to restore competition in the market going forward. That often involves asking what new competitors need to thrive in a constantly changing marketplace. It is a difficult challenge, but one familiar to many investors who support early-stage companies.”

Delrahim also spoke about some of the common ground between investors and enforcers with respect to the role of antitrust regulation and the state of the industry. He said one characteristic they both share is a constant urge to prognosticate. The Supreme Court often has to, in its judicial capacity, predict how a merger will impact competition in both the near- and long-term. “We measure harm based on how the market might respond to a merger or to a course of conduct. This is not guesswork,” he said. “Neither is venture capital investment. Instead, we both look at the market, draw from economics, and make educated predictions.”

He pointed out other areas of overlap in the address: “Not only do venture capitalists and antitrust enforcers often ask similar questions, I think we share similar values. Dynamic competition should drive markets. Investment should go to the best ideas. Disruption can create consumer value,” said Delrahim. “These are the principles I have continually returned to in both of my tenures at the DOJ, and most recently as AAG. I first outlined these principles in my New Madison Approach to the intersection of antitrust enforcement and intellectual property rights. They are also part of venture capital’s DNA.”

FROM TWITTER

Thibault Schrepel @LeConcurrential

Very pleased to share "The Fundamental Unimportance of Algorithmic Collusion for Antitrust Law", published at the @HarvardJOLT. While algorithmic collusion creates no fundamental challenge, blockchain-based collusion does. Let's end the publication bias!

According to the organizers, other presenters included Michael Moritz of Sequoia Capital, Stanford Law Professor Doug Melamed and Dean Jonathan Levin of the Stanford Graduate School of Business. Melamed spoke on trends in the venture capital sector. Among some of the considerations he noted are the legal framework venture capitalists must work in, and the underlying principles of those investments. He touched on “kill zones;” investing in platform-dominated markets and monetizing data.

According to information from the Department of Justice, comments from the public are welcome. Parties are able to submit comments online through March 14, 2020, here: ATR.VCworkshop@usdoj.gov.

Attorney Carrie LeRoy started the Cyber Dignity Program in 2012 to educate teenagers on the possible legal consequences of cyberbullying, and now she hopes to take the Bay Area program national. So reports Bloomberg.

LeRoy was moved to action after a teen, who had been sexually bullied, committed suicide in Saratoga, California. LeRoy has partnered with other attorneys to spread information about cyberbullying litigation, and her program has already reached 13,000 high school students.

Read the full article from Bloomberg.

A new report from Exterro and FTI Consulting projects the e-discovery industry is going to hit $19 billion by 2023, up from $10 billion last year, as demand for technology and services is soaring.

The report also shows robust activity across the industry, noting that the number of investments, mergers and acquisitions in the space jumped from 24 to 44 between 2017 and 2018. The study, titled 'The State of E-Discovery 2019 Report,' examined the state of the emerging legal sector and highlighted trends, relevant legislation and case law.

“The challenges facing legal and e-discovery teams are broadening as the intersection of e-discovery, data security, and data privacy increases,” reads the report. “But embracing technologies and effective business processes can give legal teams exciting new capabilities to address these challenges.”

Globally, two landmark pieces of legislation, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which governs how organizations collect and use data of citizens of the European Union, and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which has bolstered residents rights with respect to their data, are likely to be key factors influencing the direction of the industry, according to the report.

Further, 10 additional states have introduced similar legislation, and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) has introduced a draft “Consumer Data Protection Act” as “a growing number of US technology giants are calling for a domestic version of GDPR.” But, striking a balance between users’ rights and protecting sensitive information may require a good deal of finesse. “Despite the major risks of non-compliance with privacy regulations, cybersecurity still remains the top concern for information governance teams,” reads the report.

From Twitter
HaystackID @HaystackID
“While the challenges of document review vary from day-to-day, six fundamental challenges appear to be common to all legal departments dealing with the discipline of #eDiscovery during document reviews.” https://buff.ly/2PSaq8i #LegalTech

Another key trend in e-discovery is an increased reliance on alternative legal service providers over law firms. According to the report, legal services providers are pulling in more money spent on e-discovery than law firms to the tune of 33% to 23%. In that vein, lawyer management of e-discovery is also down, with attorneys managing the process for only 34% of in-house legal departments, a number down 8% between 2017 and 2018.

Where Do Judges Stand?

According to the report, more than 1 in 5 judges reported feeling they should “act as an ‘active e-discovery case manager.’” As such, 56% said a separate case manager who promptly addresses issues as they arise is preferable. Another report from earlier this year found judges have reported an overall improvement in e-discovery “competence,” perhaps reducing the need to mitigate conflicts altogether. Reportedly, “lawyers who have appeared before the judges in the past year exhibited ‘an adequate level of knowledge’ 56% of the time, with only 18% lagging,” according to previous coverage of that survey from Progressive Law Practice.

Georgetown Law and Exterro Partner in e-Discovery Education Initiative

A new “legal thought leadership educational initiative” called edTalks, will feature discussions surrounding best-practices and cutting edge ideas and concepts, according information from Exterro. The 15 minute talks will be moderated by Mollie Nichols of Hogan Lovells, Nancy Patton at Exterro and David Greenwald of Jenner & Block. The next webcast is set for September 18, at 1 p.m. EST.

The law does not always keep pace with reality. In the instance of deepfakes, it’s the law’s ability to keep pace with virtual reality that’s being called into question.

On Thursday, June 13, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence took a deeper look at the deceptive chaos the emerging technology might bring and convened a panel of experts to look at ways to prevent its abuse. Deepfakes are hyper-convincing videos doctored to show something that never actually happened.

Per the committee, the meeting took place regarding manipulated media, national security and artificial intelligence components associated with the deepfake” technology. The law and technology panelists lined up to offer testimony included:

• Danielle Citron, a law professor at the University of Maryland’s Francis King Carey School of Law and an Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) board member
• Jack Clark, the policy director for OpenAI
• David Doermann, a professor at SUNY Empire Innovation and a director at the Artificial Intelligence Institute for the University at Buffalo
• Clint Watts, a Distinguished Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and a Senior Fellow for the Alliance for Securing Democracy, German Marshall Fund

More Than One Approach to Exposing Deepfakes

Citron said a combination of factors, including the law, will be needed to combat the malicious intent of the doctored information. "We need a combination of law, markets, and societal resistance," said Citron, according to information from EPIC, adding that "the phenomenon is going to be increasingly felt by women and minorities."

EPIC has called for the “Universal Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence” as the foundation of any federal laws governing its use. Artificial intelligence is a key component in the spreading of misinformation. The guidelines include several tenants such as the:

• Right to Transparency
• Right to Human Determination
• Identification Obligation
• Fairness Obligation
• Accuracy, Reliability, and Validity Obligations
• Public Safety Obligation
• Termination Obligation

At the hearing, Clark called for funding, education and “institutional intervention” in order to mitigate the confusion caused by misinformation spread through the tech.

From Twitter:
Ashley Pilipiszyn ‏ @apilipis 
"@jackclarkSF calls for institutional interventions, increased funding, measurement, norms, and comprehensive AI education as pathways to address the national security challenges of AI, manipulated media, and 'deepfakes': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLS9MlIWOk …

House Committee’s Purview is Expansive, Scope Wide

According to information provided by the Congressional committee, topic associated with deepfake technology will cover the law, politics, security and human interest. They include:

• Future advancements
• Detecting and tracking
• How deepfakes might allow individuals to deny media
• Its psychological impact
• Counterintelligence fears
• Internet platforms’ role in mitigating fake information
• Legal challenges
• The appropriate role of the federal government.

“Deepfakes raise profound questions about national security and democratic governance, with individuals and voters no longer able to trust their own eyes or ears when assessing the authenticity of what they see on their screens,” reads information from the committee.

Promotional materials for the hearing state this is a first-of-its-kind hearing as there has not, to date, been a House committee meeting dedicated specifically to deepfake technology and other AI-generated faux data.

Virtual Law, artificial intelligence and Mary Shen O’Carroll, Google’s director of legal operations, technology and strategy, are among some of the highlights of an upcoming four-day-long legal technology exhibition.

Shen O’Carroll is set to deliver the keynote at the ABA TECHSHOW in Chicago, scheduled for Wednesday, Feb. 26 to Saturday, Feb. 29 at the Hyatt Regency Chicago, according to the American Bar Association (ABA). “Technology is becoming fully integrated in the practice of law. Our legal work is now more dependent on the use of technology, in and out of the office,” according to the ABA. “It helps us to practice more efficiently, serve clients more effectively, and better manage our daily lives. ABA TECHSHOW is where lawyers, legal professionals, and technology all come together. For three days, attendees learn about the most useful and practical technologies available.”

ABA President Judy Perry Martinez will also deliver comments during the event. Further, the Keane Award will be given to Hello Divorce founder Erin Levine during the conference. The award recognizes online legal service innovation.

Among some of the programs being presented at this year’s showcase are:

• “Online Dispute Resolution: Changing the Status Quo and Defining the Future of Work in the Legal Profession”
• “Implicit Bias: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You”
• “Risk Managed: Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery”
• “How to Create + Run a Virtual Law Practice”
• “Tech Forward: New Jobs for New Lawyers”
• “Does It Compute: The Limits of AI”
• “Bridging the Justice Gap: AI and A2J”
• “Using Data to Develop Your Law Firm Growth Strategy”
• “Innovation Foundation: Forward-Thinking Law School Curriculum”

The entire schedule is available online.

FROM TWITTER

Justice Department @TheJusticeDept
Today at the “Justice in Cyberspace” Symposium, Principal Deputy Chief Josh Goldfoot of DOJ’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section moderates a panel discussion about how law enforcement can use emerging technologies to locate perpetrators and solve crimes.

The conference keynote speaker, Mary Shen O’Carroll, is “responsible for overseeing key aspects of financial performance management, outside counsel management, systems/tools, and internal operations” at Google, according to her bio. She has been recognized by the ABA several times, including as a “Legal Rebel” in 2016. She was honored by LegalTech News as the Legal Department Operations Director of the Year in 2016 as well.

CNBC Report: Law Schools Trying to Keep Up with Growing Legal Automation

Advances in technology like artificial intelligence, streamlined communication and scanning software are reshaping how law schools approach their education models, according to an article from CNBC. Estimates from McKinsey show 23% of legal work could become automated, according to the article.

Law schools, at the same time, have become increasingly costly, with annual tuition and fees for the 2018-2019 academic year at $48,869 for private schools and $27,591 for in-state students at public law schools. As such, law schools are looking at lower-cost options for students as the field changes. UCLA Law School recently announced a new one-year Master of Legal Studies program which would “provide students with a master’s degree, but not a law degree, at a fraction of the cost, and in a fraction of the time.”

Technology, and large law firms “thinking more like businesses” were among some of the reasons for the shift.

The controversy surrounding deported Iranian student Shahab Dehghani has again put federal law enforcement’s treatment of non-citizens in the spotlight.

This time, protestors and advocates are calling foul due to Dehghani’s largely unexplained denial into America. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), since August there have been nearly a dozen Iranian students sent back to Iran despite valid Visas. The ACLU specifically called out President Donald Trump and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for blocking the students. “The Trump administration’s recent targeting of Iranians and Iranian Americans is shameful, and CBP must be held accountable for its actions. Shahab is only the most recent victim,” said Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts.

Rose said the student was sent back despite a federal court order prohibiting the action. He was coming to the U.S. to study at Northeastern University and arrived at Boston Logan Airport on Sunday, Jan. 19. “Customs officials detained him and questioned him for hours, abruptly revoking his student visa, which the State Department granted after a year of intense vetting,” Rose said. “As CBP tried to put Shahab on the next available flight, supporters and friends gathered at night in the arrivals hall at Logan to demand that CBP stop deporting students with valid visas while attorneys filed an emergency lawsuit to halt his removal.”

As reported by Time, a statement from CBP stated Dehghani Hossein was “deemed inadmissible,” processed and sent back to his point origin. “Every applicant for admission is subject to inspection upon arrival in the United States,” the statement said. “The issuance of a visa or participation in the visa waiver program does not guarantee entry to the United States."

“We believe that a clear explanation is needed, especially because the deportation took place after a 48-hour extension was granted by a federal judge,” said Renata Nyul, vice president for communications at Northeastern. “Only in the most extreme instances should students have their academic pursuits interrupted by government intervention.”

Amir Fakhravar, a Constitutional Law professor, writer and Senate Chairman of the National Iranian Congress raised some questions about the student and took to Twitter to offer his take on the matter.

From Twitter

Amir Fakhravar @Fakhravar

Mohammad Shahab Dehghani is not just an Iranian Student w valid F1 Visa as Elizhabeth Warm and NIAC trying to paint him. He’s an active member of Islamic regime’s militia in Iran called Basij! Question is what the hell he was doing since Nov in IRGC’s Quds territory?#DeportBasiji

“The Basij Resistance Force is a volunteer paramilitary organization operating under the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC)," according to The United States Institute of Peace. "It is an auxiliary force with many duties, especially internal security, law enforcement, special religious or political events and morals policing.”

According to Northeastern University, U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Edward Markey and Reps. Joseph Kennedy III and Ayanna Pressley have all come out in support of Dehghani. “ … In the United States, nobody is above the law—not even CBP. We will continue to fight in legislatures, in courtrooms, and on the streets to defend against the whims of a racist administration, and to hold CPB and other immigration agencies accountable for their deplorable and illegal behavior,” said Rose.

A package of bills dealing with the controversial future of marijuana use and legalization were the focus of a recent congressional meeting as states across the nation continue to weigh their options about how to individually deal with the drug.

The hearing, which was directed by the Health Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, was held Wednesday, January 15. Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr., the chairman of the committee, spoke at the hearing on “Cannabis Policies for the New Decade,” which covered a broad array of pot related policy changes.

Among those changes, according to information from Pallone, are the descheduling, rescheduling, researching and medical benefits of marijuana. “While state laws and public perception around cannabis and its derivatives have evolved over the years, much of the federal framework that regulates cannabis has stayed the same,” he said. He went on to discuss how his home state of New Jersey has approached the topic, noting voters will now see the use of marijuana questioned on the 2020 ballot.

“New Jersey is not alone in its state-level changes. In fact, the National Conference of State Legislatures reports that 33 states as well as Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia approved medical cannabis programs while 11 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands approved adult-use cannabis,” he added. “Although some states have changed their own policies, national laws, such as the Controlled Substances Act, have yet to change in the same way.”

According to the House Committee in Energy & Commerce, the bills, which enjoy diverse political sponsorship, being considered are:

• H.R. 171, the "Legitimate Use of Medicinal Marihuana Act" or the "LUMMA"
• H.R. 601, the "Medical Cannabis Research Act of 2019"
• H.R. 1151, the "Veterans Medical Marijuana Safe Harbor Act"
• H.R. 2843, the "Marijuana Freedom and Opportunity Act"
• H.R. 3797, the "Medical Marijuana Research Act of 2019"
• H.R. 3884, the "Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act of 2019" or the "MORE Act of 2019"

“Given the evolving landscape in the states, these bills are worthy of further discussion. I am particularly interested in hearing about how federal agencies are reducing barriers to research and enabling research on cannabis to thrive,” said Pallone. “I am also interested in how the agencies are working together to regulate a cannabis derivative recently removed from the Controlled Substances Act—cannabidiol, or CBD.”

From Twitter
Tom Angell @tomangell
JUST IN: New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham is formally calling on lawmakers to legalize marijuana during the short 30-day legislative session beginning this month. That means the state could be the next to legalize cannabis, and soon.

Recently, the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act of 2019, which would decriminalize marijuana at the state level and take it off the federal government’s list of controlled substances, was hotly debated amongst policy makers.

Jerrold Nadler, the House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. said that particular piece of legislation is critical in addressing racial disparity in the criminal justice system related to marijuana arrests. “Removing marijuana from the federal list of controlled substances is especially just because the same racial animus motivating the enactment of marijuana laws also led to racially disparate enforcement of such laws, which has had a substantial, negative impact on minority communities. In fact, nationwide, the communities that have been most harmed by marijuana enforcement benefit the least from the legal marijuana marketplace,” he said.

Among some of the features of the MORE Act would be the creation of an Opportunity Trust Fund to fund programs in the Small Business Administration and the Department of Justice to “empower communities of color and those most adversely impacted by the War on Drugs,” said Nadler.

Just days after the targeted killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, and the subsequent flaccid response by the middle eastern country, Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for a resolution aimed at limiting President Donald Trump’s military actions in the region.

“Last week, the Trump Administration conducted a provocative and disproportionate military airstrike targeting high-level Iranian military officials. The Administration took this action without consulting Congress,” said Pelosi. “This action endangered our servicemembers, diplomats and others by risking a serious escalation of tensions with Iran. Since then, the President has made clear that he does not have a coherent strategy to keep the American people safe, achieve de-escalation with Iran and ensure stability in the region.”

According to CNBC, the chamber passed the measure by a 224-194 vote. It calls for the President to stop the use of military force against Iran within 30 days unless he gains congressional approval. “Members of Congress have serious, urgent concerns about the Administration’s decision to engage in hostilities against Iran and about its lack of strategy moving forward,” said Pelosi. "Our concerns were not addressed by the President’s insufficient War Powers Act notification and by the Administration’s briefing today.”

Pelosi also noted the possibility of taking up additional pieces of legislation to reform the way military actions are sanctioned. She said Rep. Barbara Lee’s resolution to repeal the 2002 Iraq Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) as well as Rep. Ro Khanna’s proposal to prohibit funding for military actions in Iran not approved by Congress are both on the table.

Legitimacy of the War Powers Resolution (Act) Called Into Question

John Bolton, a former assistant to the President for national security matters, took to social media to question the oft-debated, The 1973 War Powers Resolution. According to the Law Library of Congress, the law was passed on Nov. 7, 1973 over a presidential veto by Richard Nixon and has since been frequently maligned by the nation’s top executive.

From Twitter 
John Bolton @AmbJohnBolton
The 1973 War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Constitution allocated foreign affairs authority between the President and Congress. The Resolution should be repealed.

Although sometimes referred to as a resolution, it carries the full force of law, reads an explanation from the Law Library of Congress. Trump, though, agreed with Bolton, calling his analysis “smart” and indicated he too believes the measure violates the Constitution.

Passed in response to the Vietnam War, the law specifically addresses the President’s authority to deploy forces into hostile situations without a formal declaration of war or Congressional approval. Per the law library: “Of particular interest is Section 1544(b), which requires that U.S. forces be withdrawn from hostilities within 60 days of the time a report is submitted or is required to be submitted under Section 1543(a)(1), unless Congress acts to approve continued military action, or is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States.”

“The Administration must work with the Congress to advance an immediate, effective de-escalatory strategy that prevents further violence," Pelosi added during her remarks regarding the recently passed 2020 resolution. "America and the world cannot afford war.”