On April 1, 2004, the Glastonbury Citizen, a weekly newspaper, reported that John Sakon, a real estate developer, was planning to build a 250,000-square-foot Walmart and the state’s largest Hooters restaurant in the Connecticut town. The story wasn’t true. Sakon demanded a retraction. When he didn’t get one, he filed suit for defamation.
Two years have passed since the onset of the pandemic, and no matter how you look at it, things will never be quite the same. COVID-19 changed everything. In many cases, the only way for lawyers to continue to practice law and maintain business operations during the pandemic has been to take advantage of remote working technologies.
Ari Kaplan recently spoke with Marla Crawford, the general counsel at Cimplifi, an integrated legal services provider that aligns e-discovery and contract analytics for corporate legal departments and law firms.
I was a kid in the early 1990s. More accurately, I was a kid raised by kids. My parents were young, and I saw the gap in age (or lack thereof) as a blessing and a curse. They were young enough that it was difficult for our family at times, but I was able to find an awesome balance between “parent” and “friend.”
When the COVID-19 pandemic stormed into our lives in 2020, many U.S. law firms saw increased demand for their services and a greater need for efficient operations.
The legal profession. All good? Maybe not all, at least according to some observers, such as Shakespeare, who said something like, “First, let’s kill all the lawyers.” I retired about five years ago after spending more than 40 years in the Ontario court trenches, and I would now like to share some thoughts on what’s good about our profession.
It isn’t easy getting a seat in a classroom at Harvard Law School. Len Elmore did. But then the 6-foot-9-inch student was choosey about the one he took. “I tried to sit on the end of the row,” he says. “There was more legroom.”
In a term likely filled with blockbuster cases, West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency is an enigma: It could turn out to be unimportant and dismissed without a decision; it may be a major ruling on the scope of the EPA’s power; or it could be a huge decision about judicial review of agency decisions. The case, which was argued on Feb. 28, arose in an unusual procedural posture that may cause the court to dismiss it. But if the justices reach the merits, it could be a decision of great significance about environmental and administrative law.
This article was originally going to be about the dangers of TikTok (I’m not a fan), and I may still come back to that in a future column. But as I prepared to write, my research led me to a more general and widespread issue I felt compelled to cover.
Law had an attrition problem before the pandemic hit. Now it’s in hyperdrive, dovetailing with a wider movement of dissatisfied workers quitting their jobs in the wake of lockdown restrictions, in what economists have dubbed the “Great Resignation.”
