Kate Reder Sheikh

If it wasn’t already confusing enough for California employers trying to figure out who can be an independent contractor and what test applies (when in doubt treat everyone like a W2 and if you need a legal analysis, reach out, because these are not easy questions to answer), SB 988, the “Freelance Worker Protection Act”, was just signed into law last month.  (https://lnkd.in/g9aC6ADR) Starting January 1, 2025, the FWPA requires a written contract for all new or renewed agreements involving freelance workers earning $250 or more within a 120 day period.  (In the past, only certain categories of independent contractors required written agreements.)  And the contract must include (on top of any other requirements already codified into law): 1. “The name and mailing address of each party.”  (Yes, an actual mailing address, not just an email address.) 2. “An itemized list of all services to be provided by the freelance worker, including the value of those services and the rate and method of compensation.” 3. The date payment is due or a description of how that date will be determined.  (If unspecified, then payment is due no later than 30 days after completion of the services.) 4. The  date the services are to be completed by to allow for timely payment. Freelance workers are also to be protected from retaliation and hiring parties cannot, as a condition of timely payment, change the terms of the agreement (specifically the amount of compensation, the services to be performed, or the IP rights) once performance has begun. Additionally, and unlike traditional contracts, there are specific mandated damages for breaches of both a freelance contract and the FWPA by the “employer”, including a $1,000 penalty for failing to provide a written contract prior to the commencement of work. So if you need help putting together your new independent contractor contracts, reach out and let’s get your 2025 off to a compliant start. Photo by Chris Liverani on Unsplash.

10

3 Comments

As I shared with The American Lawyer and Amanda O'Brien, the path to equity partnership is getting harder. Why? Because BigLaw expects that equity partners: * Understand the business of law, and are able to work to meet their firm's expectations and financial goals; * Have a substantial book of business that is likely to be sustained over the long term; and * In many firms, have spent time as non-equity partners, demonstrating their capabilities and ability to contribute as a shareholder of the firm. #biglaw #amlaw #lawfirmpartners #lawfirmequitypartners #lawfirmincomepartners #lawfirmnonequitypartners #pathtopartnership #lawfirms #lawyerlife #biglawlife #lawfirmlife #lawfirmgrowth #lawfirmstrategy #lawfirmhiring #legalmarket #legalindustry #lawfirmindustry #lawyercoaching #lawyercoach

5

1 Comment

Hiring a lateral attorney who has moved law firms several times already can be a risky proposition. What are the costs if a candidate decides to jump again to another firm pretty quickly? And how can you apply better due diligence to assessing if a candidate is the right fit for your firm, and is motivated to deliver on what they promise in their practice? Thanks to Tom Spigolon, The American Lawyer, and Daily Report | ALM for reporting on this key issue as lateral hires continue to escalate in a very active hiring market for law firms - and for sharing my thoughts on what firms may need to be concerned about. #lateralhiring #biglaw #lawyerlife #amlaw #lawfirmhiring #americanlawyer #dailyreportalm #legalnews #lawfirmmoves #biglawhiring #lawfirmpartners #lawfirmstrategy #lawfirmgrowth #attorneys #lawyers #georgialawyers #fultoncountylawyers

5

1 Comment

Ever considered 🤔 stepping into a staff management role as a lawyer? Here are five key factors to deliberate 🧐 before making that pivotal move: - **Understand the Shift** 🔄: Transitioning from fee earner to manager implies a strategic shift. You're no longer just responsible for your caseload; you're directing team efforts and nurturing talent. Are you ready to trade files 📂 for people management 👥? - **Skillset Evaluation** 💪: Effective management requires a distinct skill set - think communication 🗣️, leadership 🔝, and conflict resolution 🕊️. Self-assessment is crucial; assess your strengths 💪 and any areas needing development 🛠️. - **Work-Life Balance** ⚖️: Managing a team often means extended hours and greater commitment. Analyse 🕵️‍♂️ how this role will impact your personal life and whether you're in a position to accommodate these changes. - **Firm's Culture & Values** 🌟: Alignment with your firm's ethos is vital. Does the management philosophy resonate with you? Remember, you'll be steering the ship 🚢 in accordance with these ideals. - **Career Aspirations** 🚀: Consider how this move fits into your long-term goals. Will a management role pave the way for advancement, or do you thrive in the hands-on legal work? 🔍 If these resonate with you or you're curious to explore more, let's have a conversation 💬: Jump over to www.thorntonlegal.co.uk to discover how these insights align with your career trajectory - our door's always open for a chat 🚪🤝. #LegalCareer #CareerAdvice #ManagementRoles

1

All - reminder that simply including an attorney in your (company / work) communications does not attach privilege. . Attorney-Client Communication Privilege = 1. A communication, in any form; 2. Made between a client and that client’s attorney; 3. With a reasonable expectation of confidentiality; 4. For the purpose of seeking, obtaining, or providing legal assistance to the client. Work-Product Doctrine = 1. Documents or tangible things; 2. Prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial; 3. By or at the direction of counsel; 4. Outside of the ordinary course of business.

3

1 Comment

"We can’t offer any billing arrangement other than [slightly] modified hourly fees for litigation because we don't want to accept the risk of unreasonable conduct by the other side or unexpected case developments." I routinely hear some version of this when I ask outside counsel to propose an AFA (I do NOT consider fee caps to be AFAs, but that's a topic for another post). I'm never surprised when I hear it (because I used to say it to clients myself), but I'm getting pretty tired of it. Because it's lame. Let's rephrase it in a way that's more honest: "Whenever something unfavorable happens in litigation, the firm should receive a financial benefit at the client's expense." Does that sound harsh? Yes. Yes it does. But maybe it's time for us to acknowledge some of the harsh truths about hourly fees and litigation. I litigated for over a decade in Dallas, Texas, which is infamous for hard-charging, difficult litigators. In all my cases during that time, how many times do you think I had opposing counsel who was consistently "unreasonable" to the extent that it materially affected the hours that I spent on the case? Once. One time. Sure, there were individual incidents when I thought opposing counsel was unreasonable on a particular topic. But that unreasonableness rarely had a significant impact on the overall fees in the case. And if I'm going to be completely honest (which, if you know me, is usually how I roll), most of the time when opposing counsel was being unreasonable, I could have just let it go and it probably wouldn't have adversely impacted my client at all. The truth is that—when you are billing by the hour—unreasonable behavior by opposing counsel isn't a risk. It's a benefit! More billables for everyone! And "unexpected case developments"? It is exceedingly rare for something truly unexpected to happen in litigation. Mostly, when litigators say that something was "unexpected" what they really mean is "not what I was hoping for." The obvious solution is to offer an AFA based on a realistic assessment of the case. Don't price based on an optimistic "hope" that plaintiff's counsel is only going to take two depositions or that the court will agree to a restrictive discovery plan that you've only ever gotten in one case in your life. As a client, my control over what happens in litigation is virtually non-existent when compared to the influence available to my counsel. To try to push to all the financial risk to me via hourly fees is not acceptable. #AFABeyondCaps #LitigationTruths #HonestBilling #ClientFirstLaw #BeyondBillableHours

26

17 Comments

I hope you all had a wonderful and restful weekend. Figured I'd start this week with some interesting market intel on AmLaw 100 profitability: 🔹 Total Gross Revenue of AmLaw 100 firms is $139,720,251,209 (increased by about 9 billion since 2023) 🔹 Highest Grossing Firm-Kirkland & Ellis 🔹 Firms with the highest increase in PEP were Susman Godfrey, Quinn Emmanuel, Norton Rose, Cravath, & Akin 🔹 Total Number of Lawyers at AmLaw 100-115,043 (1.8% increase since 2022) 🔹 Firm with the highest profit margin is Susman Godfrey, funnily enough this firm also has the fewest lawyers. The average lawyers bills about 2018 hours here. 🔹 Firm with the highest compensation for all partners is Wachtell (approx. $8M)+ and lowest is Gordon Rees (approx. $415K). 🔹 Firms with the highest clocked billable hours are DLA (6.3M ), White & Case (4.5M), Greenberg Traurig (4.3M), Hogan Lovells (3.9M), & Holland & Knight (3.2M). 🔹 The lawyer with the most billable hours was at Cozen O'Connor and billed a whopping 3,792 hours! Wow! Follow: Rhea Bagaria, Esq. for everything law, legal trends, recruiting. Let's connect! #RecruitWithRhea

14

The only type of legal complaint that has more Sturm und Drang in it than that of pro se litigants is when the lawyers are suing on their own behalf. Here we have one step above that: lawyers suing the American Bar Association (ABA)! The allegation is that, because the ABA had a data breach, it must mean that the ABA failed to take proper security measures. While plaintiffs cannot trace it to the breach, they believe the breach caused them to receive more spam emails and one had a credit card number stolen. The EDNY court was not sympathetic. It held that the plaintiffs failed to show what specific security measures were required but not instituted. The court also didn't buy the argument that salting and hashing passwords was sufficiently secure. One takeaway lesson for companies from the case is to not specify in your Privacy Policy or Terms of Service particular security steps you will take unless you are definitely implementing those. I am surprised there was less of a res ipsa loquitur perspective from the court due the admission by all parties that a breach occurred.

4

If you use outside counsel, I GUARANTEE* that at least one of these conversations has taken place at every firm† that you use: 🤑 "Our new client requires that we give them a 10% discount on our hourly rates. So starting today, everyone's hourly rate for our new client is 15% higher than normal." 🤑 "Effective immediately, Bob is the only partner in the firm who provides audit response letters. Also effective immediately, Bob's hourly rate has doubled and he has a minimum billing increment of 1 hour." 🤑 "Just write down your time and we'll figure out how to bill it to the client later." 🤑 "The client didn't complain about this showing up on their last bill, let's keep doing it." 🤑 "The client still isn't complaining, bill 20% more for it on this invoice and see what happens." 🤑 "It's totally OK to estimate the number of hours that you spent in the office on a given day and divide all that time up among the clients you did work for that day." 🤑 "Record your time even though it took you too long. I'll write it down on the bill. [Maybe. If I remember.]" 🤑 "Don't ever record a billing entry of .1. It doesn't look like you did any real work. Putting down at least .2 looks better." Alternate version: "I'm going to write off all of the entries of .1 and then use that to justify not writing down all the entries that are excessive." 🤑 "Maybe it did take too long for us to complete this brief because we put it off until the last possible moment, but that's just the way the practice of law works." *Not an actual guarantee, just a figure of speech. †Of course not THAT firm. They are totally great. #BillableHourGames #LawFirmLingo #ClientCostCutting #LegalComedyGold #NotSoLegalEagles

40

44 Comments

NEW! ⚖#Legal #Jobs!⚖ We're #hiringnow 📣 #LegalRecruiter #Headhunter #legaljobs #lawjobs #Hiring #CaliforniaJobs #AttorneyJobs #JobAlert #CA #Socal #NorCal #WereHiring #Associates #Lawyers #Attorneys #medmal #Malpractice #MedicalMalpratice

1

Is "flexibility" a good thing when law firms look at how to compensate laterals? Well, yes and no. (How is that for a lawyerly answer?) Firms have always looked for ways to compensate with flexibility, and that can work to your advantage if you have a significant book of business in a practice area that is really key for the firm you're joining. And law firms historically have used not just flexible, but creative ways of structuring compensation, both for laterals and existing members of the firm. There are also often arrangements with partners for forgivable loans, stipulated business development budgets, and other items. But no matter how you structure it, many "guarantees" come with flexibility for the firm. Read those offer letters and firm policies carefully because they can include caveats about comp - such as conditioning it on meeting firm expectations (with those expectations being broadly or un-defined), linking it to the firm's overall profitability, or deferring it. Talk to your recruiter and make sure you understand the firm's history and approach on comp outside the four corners of that offer letter as well. Sometimes guarantees aren't really guaranteed, and flexibility doesn't seem so flexible for the partner making the leap to a new firm. #biglaw #lawfirmculture #lawfirmcompensation #lawyercompensation #attorneycompensation #lawfirmoffer #legalindustry #lawyerlife #lawyerworklife #lawyercoaching #lawyercoach

5

1 Comment

Our law student guests asked the in-house lawyers a question at our dinner in DC this week – what’s your best legal career advice? I was surprised by a common thread in their guidance. You might think that legal department leaders at companies like Microsoft, Autodesk, TikTok, Meta, Verizon, Boeing, Amazon, etc. set out with a crystal clear career objective and took direct routes to get there. But the shared sentiment? Be open-minded to the likelihood that your career may not be exactly (or at all) what you expected. Here’s a snapshot of some of the other great advice from the group: - Make career decisions based on what you’re good at, what you like, and what your day-to-day will look like, not prestige and what others say. - Where possible, write bullet points, not treatises. - Prioritize relationships with legal operations professionals, paralegals, and business team members – not just other lawyers. - When it feels like you’re not on the path you want, stay calm, keep learning, and be open to pivoting. Thank you to Christine Magume and Tian Bo Zhang for being the first (but not the last!) law students to join Basha and me at a Priori community event. PS - advice continued in the comments along with a shoutout to the incredible roster of people who joined us to offer their expertise.

131

16 Comments

Happy Labor Day to all! Enjoy the day off! As we move towards the end of the year, the lateral market continues to heat up. If you'd like to make a lateral move or just chat about how the market looks, reach out by DM and we can set up a time. I've placed 21 Associates and Counsel Candidates in the last year. #legal #recruiter #biglaw #lawjobs #lawfirmjobs #lawfirm #legalrecruiting #lawyers #amlaw #amlaw100 #amlaw200 #attorney #lawyer #biglawjobs #legaljobs #careeropportunities #interview #offer #aardvarklegalsearch

2

🚫 Avoid These Common Pitfalls in Work-for-Hire Agreements! 🚫 As someone who's navigated the legal landscape of California, I've seen my fair share of work-for-hire agreements gone awry. Let's chat about some pitfalls you'll want to steer clear of when diving into these agreements. 1. Unclear Scope of Work: One major misstep is not clearly defining what work is covered under the agreement. Without a crystal-clear scope, misunderstandings can arise about what tasks are expected and what falls outside the contract. 2. Vague Payment Terms: Don't leave the financials up in the air! Unclear payment terms can lead to disputes down the line. Make sure you outline payment amounts, schedules, and any additional expenses upfront. 3. Fuzzy Intellectual Property Rights: Ah, the big one! Make sure it's crystal clear who owns the intellectual property created under the agreement. Without clarity here, you could end up in a messy legal battle over ownership rights. 4. Lack of Confidentiality Protection: Your secrets are your currency, right? Don't forget to include robust confidentiality provisions to safeguard sensitive information shared during the project. 5. Missing Termination Clause: Life happens, and sometimes agreements need to end prematurely. Without a proper termination clause, you could find yourself stuck in a never-ending commitment. 6. Forgetting About Independent Contractor Status: Be sure your agreement accurately reflects the working relationship. Misclassifying workers as independent contractors when they're actually employees can lead to serious legal headaches. 7. Ignoring California-Specific Regulations: Every state has its own rules, and California is no exception! Be sure your agreement complies with all relevant state laws to avoid potential legal issues. Don't let these pitfalls trip you up! Take the time to craft a solid work-for-hire agreement that protects both parties and sets clear expectations from the get-go. Got any horror stories or tips to share? Drop them in the comments below! #law #legal #legaltips #legalinsights #contracts #contractlaw #contractdrafting

14

The 2024 Midlevel Associates Survey is particularly enlightening because it contains the inner feelings of the first class of associates to begin working during the pandemic. Turns out that they really are not like those associates who began practicing prior to the pandemic. Instead, these associates are craving flexibility, healthy boundaries, reasonable flexibility to accommodate their personal lives and a clearly defined path to partnership. Who knew? #midlevels #associates #biglaw

1

Law firms and lawyers (and legal recruiters too): I hope this advice in my latest Fully Human Lawyer column lets you learn from others’ mistakes. A huge Thank You to my terrific coachees and law firm clients. I learn a ton from you every day. It’s my honor and pleasure to share it. And (as always!) thanks to Dave and the rest of the team at The American Lawyer for partnering with me to help humanize our legal profession. #leadership #lawfirms #legalmarketing #legalleadership #legalpd #pdclegal #lawyerwellbeing #diversityinlaw #lawyerprofessionaldevelopment #lawfirmstrategy #legalrecruiting #lateralpartners #lawfirmrecruiting #nalp

26

16 Comments

A New Supreme Court Ruling Lowers the Bar for Title VII Claims: What Employers Need to Know The United States Supreme Court recently clarified that an employee challenging a job transfer as “discriminatory” need only prove that they sustained “some” harm due to the transfer, not “significant” harm, to assert a Title VII violation. Although the bar may appear to have been lowered, mindful employers who assess the implications of a particular job transfer in advance may stop an employee from clearing this hurdle. What Happened In the Case? 🤔 The case is Muldrow v. St. Louis, and the plaintiff was a female police officer in the City of St. Louis Police Department’s Intelligence Division. The plaintiff claimed that she was moved out to a uniformed patrol officer supervisory position so a male officer could take her place in what the new commanding officer deemed a “very dangerous” position. The plaintiff’s rank and pay remained the same. However, among other things, she had a less regular schedule and lost a few “perks” from her prior position. The plaintiff alleged that her transfer was discrimination based on sex. The city initially won because the lower court said that the transfer did not cause plaintiff a significant employment disadvantage. The United States Supreme Court disagreed, holding that Title VII only requires the employee to show some harm resulting from the forced transfer. The court said that Title VII targets practices that treat a person worse than someone else because of sex or other protected characteristic, but the law does not define how much worse the person must be treated to state a claim. Thus, it was sufficient for plaintiff to show that the transfer left her worse off than before, even if it wasn’t significantly worse. What Do Employers Do Now ⁉️ Employees still must show that there was an adverse action and that that adverse action was for discriminatory reasons, that has not changed. That said, employers should carefully review job transfers and/or things like title changes to see if there are any negative impacts beyond just compensation and job duties. It may be that an employer can mitigate any minor negative impacts up front or alternatively, document the business reasons for the change and how those business reasons apply to the employee at issue. Yes, the Muldrow was a win for employees, but with a little extra diligence employers can remain compliant with Title VII and set themselves up to defend against claims. #law #hr

12