ABA Journal Counts Coup on Womyn Lawyers

Some may remember the recent Internet shitstorm over the column published by ABA Journal which suggested that womyn lawyers, rather than the evil patriarchy, might be a cause of the non-advancement of womyn in BigLaw. Indeed, Refo Wom'n and the Horrible Ten signed a missive proclaiming the column contrary to "ABA's core values." Twitter and LinkedIn users called for the column to be purged, and for the author and the editor who allowed its publication to be cut loose. A law student named "Lippy" initiated a change.org petition calling upon ABA to "denounce" the column, and some Weiner over at Glawker also complained most bitterly of its offensiveness.

However, despite all the performative virtue-signaling and gnashing of teeth, the column was not removed, and the author and editor were not fired. Lippy's petition ran out of steam and missed its signature target. Refo Wom'n and the Horrible Ten went quietly off to whatever hole they had crawled from, leaving the ABA Journal columnist in possession of the field. The hill was not taken. The village was not saved. The column remained online, continuing to traumatize the womyn of the legal profession.

It wasn't nearly enough. So the ABA Journal staff must have reasoned. They quickly sighted in a follow-up salvo, just to show the trouble-making womyn who's who. This time, it was the magazine cover story, not just some stray ruminations posted by a columnist online. This time, it explained, with citation to scientific support from some academics, that the root of the problem is the submissive complacency of the womyn, and their attitude of "unentitlement." That is, the womyn are getting screwed because they naturally and instinctively accept their role as the ones to be screwed.

https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/how-pandemic-practice-left-lawyer-moms-on-the-verge

I personally emailed a link to the Weiner over at Glawker, pointing out very specifically what the article said, and noting that ABA Journal seemed to be unconvinced by the prior criticisms. Crickets. Nothing. No reaction. Nothing from Lippy either. Nothing from Refo Wom'n or the Horrible Ten.

I can only conclude that the womyn were so exhausted by the failure of their previous effort that they saw a renewed contest as futile, accepting their "unentitlement," and allowing the ABA Journal staff to rub their noses in it. 

Bravo. Could we get another log on the fire here? Maybe some bacon or some beans? I'm feeling very peckish this evening.

Florida Court to ABA: "We got Your 'Value Proposition' Right Here"

In a reaction to ABA's attempt to force every CLE presenter to sign up "diverse" panelists, the Florida Supreme Court adopted a rule change that nixes credit for CLE sponsored by organizations that impose such quotas.

Strictly speaking, the ABA moronity, though imbecilic in its own left, did not actually impose "quotas," since a wide range of persons from various groups deemed "marginalized" would satisfy the ABA "diversity" requirement. However, the court did not see it that way, and unlike the slack-jawed yokels in the ABA House of Delegates, the court can make binding rules. This one effectively sends a torpedo through the side of the ABA "value proposition," as all ABA-blessed CLE hatched after the date of the rule change is not going to be recognized for Florida credit.

In a hyperbolic (but likely futile) "comment" on the change, ABA decried the new rule as barring "access" to its valuable CLE. No such thing of course. Whatever number of dues-paying Florida members are still tolerating the ABA, they can access its CLE programs all day every day. Just not for credit.

Perhaps additional states will take note, and follow along with like actions of their own. I am sure ABA can be counted on to stand by its "diversity" requirements to the last dollar of declining dues revenue.

https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/content/download/732072/opinion/sc21-284.pdf

ABA Membership Model Failing; Rives Blames Pandemic

If you prefer to skip the shit-talking happy fluff and the labored cicada/butterfly analogies, just go right to the 11:50 time marker to hear the admission that operating dues revenues for fiscal year 2020 are down 9.6% and the number of members is down (again) by 4.4%. Despite the general statistical assertions that senior members and membership groups are more likely to renew, Rives specifically acknowledges group non-renewals were a major cause of the membership loss. Likewise, we can tell from the relationship of the 9.6% and the 4.4% that these weren't newbie members, but senior lawyers stuck with the age-discriminatory, ultra-high dues rates. Note that the decreases are despite the "new members" number Rives claims from their marvelous CLE and the "paywall" that now hides 78% of all their content from the public.

Notably, no mention of the fact that the CLE is worthless is some jurisdictions, with Florida most recently joining that club. Although Rives seeks to blame "the pandemic," what this really looks like is a continuation of the annual decline that was an established pattern in the years prior to the "New Membership Model." That is, all their re-branding shit, and their "value proposition" shit and their paywall and "New Membership Model" shit, is all failing.

Blaming it on the pandemic may help Rives get to the witless fools for another year of salary, but it isn't going to address the continuing death spiral. ABA will get to the point at which denial will not pay the light bill, and then the game will be up.

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2021/08/annual-meeting-2021--executive-director-address-house-of-delegat/

   

Coverage of Avenatti trial

 There is excellent, annotated and detailed coverage of the CA Avenatti wire fraud trial by reporter Meghann Cuniff. Here is day11 (a barn burner) in the thread-roll:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1423667690355318788.html 

Will ScarJo's Disney Case Be Heard in Court or in a Concrete Arbitration Bunker Miles Below the Earth's Surface ?

 ​So here's what I've learned: ScarJo has a direct deal with Marvel but not with Disney. Marvel is a subsidiary of Disney. Since nobody has leaked her contract with Marvel, we dont know if there is an arbitration clause in it, but it seems likely. 

ScarJo sued Disney not Marvel, and while the complaint says that Marvel breached her contract, it doesn't assert a breach of contract claim against Marvel​.​

Instead, ​the complaint ​(link below) accuses big meanie Disney, the parent company, of interfering with Marvel’s contract with SJ​o​ and forcing Marvel to dump "Black Widow" on Disney's​ low-rent​ side-hustle (Disney +) the same day the movie opened in theaters​,​ basically sending SJ to the poorhouse.

So to keep this thing out of arbitration, SJ's lawyers are saying that Disney and Marvel are separate entities capable of interfering with each other’s contracts. Will this work? 

I have no idea but a sycophantic article in the Hollywood Reporter said it probably wouldnt.​

​It's pretty obvious any secret behind-the-scenes negotiations broke down and ScarJo was offered chump change to compensate her for ​her​ reduced box-office bonus. ​T​here's an email in the complaint from Marvel chief counsel guaranteeing her a "renegotiation" if they changed ​their​ release strategy...so if that even happened, it clearly went south.

So her lawyers figured they'd go public and threaten Disney with a court case and the risk of having all their juicy financial info made public. 

 And also force them into a ​juicy​ PR battle which Disney is already losing--ha ha​ ha​--as it's now accused of being anti-woman. 

Disney supposedly thought that leaking ScarJo's monster $20M upfront salary during Covid was a genius PR move.

 

 Naturally it immediately backfired and caused her talent agency (for the first time in entertainment history) to actually stick up for ​a​ client in public and and accuse Disney of  “weapon[izing] her success as an artist and businesswoman.”  ​A bunch of "Women in Film" group​s​ also started yelling at Disney.

Disney said that it did too live up to the agreement. That is, “Black Widow” did get a wide theatrical release, and nowhere in the contract does it say that the release would be ​​(THIS IS KEY WORD​--->​)​exclusive ​ to theaters. It would just be "in" theaters. And maybe some other places too!

​Here's the complaint: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21029535-johansson​

 

Avenatti gives spirited opening statement in CA fraud case

 Embattled lawyer Michael Avenatti offered a full-throated self-defense Wednesday during a 35-minute opening statement of the federal criminal fraud trial against the one-time media darling.

"I have pled not guilty for one reason – because I am not guilty," Avenatti told the socially-distanced jury. He portrayed himself as a legal avenger who took on the rich and powerful on behalf of the meek.  

"Let me be clear: no crime was committed by me and I never intended to steal or defraud any client of any money at all," he said.

Avenatti begins CA wire fraud trial representing himself

 Disgraced lawyer Michael Avenatti will defend himself as he faces the second of four federal criminal cases on Wednesday. 

Speaking to Fox News, as he entered the federal courthouse in Santa Ana, California, he explained his decision. 

"I’m pro se because I want the truth to be known," he said. 

The truth may not result in Avenatti’s desired result, though.

EDIT: Apparently, Avenatti's pro se request - origanitating as a spontaneous (appointed defense counsel told Avenatti to shut up) co-counsel request (denied), followed by Avenatti jumping in with both feet. See law dot com Twitter coverage of the hearing.

In Other Legal News, Britney Can Now Choose Her Lawyer. Plus Lawyer Pukes During Tesla Trial

 Re Britney, just when I was editing my resume to reflect my extensive probate experience some weasel name Matt Rosengart of Greenberg Traurig horned in on my client. The nerve.

And in super-embarrassing courtroom news, one of the plaintiff' lawyers puked during the Tesla trial and everyone had to flee the scene. Yuck.  There doesnt seem to be a courtroom sketch but I'll keep looking.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/14/arts/music/britney-spears-conservatorship-lawyer.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9784395/Tesla-trial-pauses-attorney-plaintiffs-VOMITED-juror-box.html

It’s Been A While

The wheels of justice turn slowly, but they do eventually run you over.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/michael-avenatti-faces-sentencing-for-trying-to-extort-millions-from-nike-11625743801

Bowing and Scraping to the Masters at ABA Journal

Heresy at the ABA Journal. One of their regular columnists wrote this piece in an apparent effort to be helpful to other women in the profession. Similar to a one-time "fashion" column commenting on the "rumpled and haggard" appearance of Hillary Clinton, this apostacy got by the witless ABA Journal editors.

However, it did not escape notice by the official keepers of the keys of ABA dogma. They understand that if there is a problem, it has to be systemic discrimination, and it is not the problem of womyn, but the problem of the profession to adjust as necessary in order to fix it.

Unlike the Hillary Clinton heresy, this column was out there too long to simply depublish it in a quiet but expeditious manner. So, instead, we now have the apologetic "Editor's note" added at the beginning. There is also now a separate, rebuttal piece, condemning the ++ ungood opinions in the disfavored column, signed by all the past ABA Presidents who identify as womyn. (Apparently, the male ABA officers could not see it, or are simply Shitlords who have never shared the organization's "core values," despite their grand pretensions to the contrary).

At some point, some weiner at Glawker apparently attacked this column as well. It remains to be seen whether the heretic columnist will still be "allowed" to write for the spineless, subsapient slugs at ABA Journal, or will have to be voted off the sinking garbage scow after some suitable shaming or burning at the stake.

Here is the piece that was deemed so "offensive" that Refo Wom'n and the rest of the Gang of Ten had to call it out en masse and force the ostensibly independent "editor" to add the disclaimer.

https://www.abajournal.com/columns/article/are-women-lawyers-paying-enough-attention-to-upward-mobility