WilmerHale adds non-equity partner tier, SCOTUS revives Arizona citizenship voter law, ex-bankruptcy judge worried about prosecution, and more ➡
Illustration: Meriam Telhig/REUTERS

WilmerHale adds non-equity partner tier, SCOTUS revives Arizona citizenship voter law, ex-bankruptcy judge worried about prosecution, and more ➡

☀️ Good morning from The Legal File! Here is the rundown of today's top legal news:

🏢 WilmerHale latest law firm to add non-equity partner tier

Signage is seen outside of the law firm WilmerHale in Washington, D.C., U.S., August 30, 2020. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr said it has added a non-equity partnership tier, becoming the latest large U.S. law firm to eschew the traditional model in which all partners share ownership.

The non-equity tier will apply to WilmerHale's new hires, and its existing 253 equity partners will not be affected by the change, a firm spokesperson told Reuters.

Many U.S. law firms internally designate some partners as non-equity or "income" partners. Such partners typically earn far less than full equity partners, whose compensation is tied directly to firm profits.

The number of top law firms sticking with single-tier partnerships has been dwindling. Among the 200 highest-grossing law firms in the U.S., 86% have at least two tiers of partnerships, according to a 2023 report from law firm consultancy Adam Smith, Esq.

Bruce MacEwen, president of Adam Smith, said that a sizable non-equity tier gives law firms several economic advantages. He added that income partners can charge clients at higher rates than associates but they don't receive a cut of the firm's profits. And in tough times, the firm can more readily lay them off or reduce their salary, MacEwen said.

Read more.


🏛️ US Supreme Court partly revives Arizona's proof of citizenship voter law

A "vote here/aqui" sign is set up at Burton Barr Central Library in Phoenix, Arizona, U.S., July 30, 2024. REUTERS/Caitlin O'Hara

The U.S. Supreme Court revived part of an Arizona voter law requiring documented proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote, in response to a request from the Republican National Committee and Arizona Republicans.

The justices in a 5-4 ruling agreed to reinstate a provision of the law after a federal judge blocked it in response to legal challenges by Democratic President Joe Biden's administration and advocacy groups.

Arizona's Republican-controlled legislature adopted new restrictions on voter registration in 2022. The law requires applicants who submit a federal registration form to provide evidence of U.S. citizenship to vote in presidential elections or vote by mail in any federal election.

Voter registrants who use a separate, state-created form face even tighter restrictions. Without proof of U.S. citizenship, state applications are rejected in their entirety, and officials who fail to do so face a minor felony charge under the law.

The Supreme Court's ruling revived the restriction related to the state voter registration form, but kept intact a judicial decision blocking the provision that sought to tighten limits on the federal form.

Read more.


⚖️ Ex-bankruptcy judge worried about prosecution, embarrassment

Former U.S. bankruptcy judge David Jones is seen during a virtual interview with Reuters in December 2020. REUTERS/Staff

Former U.S. bankruptcy judge David Jones confirmed he was under criminal investigation at a recent court hearing in which he tried to ward off public questions about his once-secret romantic relationship with a Houston bankruptcy lawyer.

Jones was summoned to the hearing to explain why he volunteered for an "off the record" July 18 meeting with Jackson Walker, his romantic partner Liz Freeman's former law firm, related to a legal battle over fees that the law firm earned from cases filed in Jones' Houston court.

According to the transcript of the Aug. 7 hearing, Jones said he wanted to discuss his relationship with Freeman in private so that he could avoid public embarrassment and legal expenses over questions that had little to do with the fee dispute. The transcript, initially sealed so the court could redact sensitive information, was unsealed on Aug. 21.

Jones said at the August 7 hearing that he was concerned that the U.S. Trustee would ask him questions that would expose him to federal criminal charges without helping the investigation into Jackson Walker's legal fees.

"I'm under criminal investigation," Jones said. "And then the other arm of the Justice Department wants to depose me about a whole series of topics that have nothing to do with what Jackson Walker knew. ... That puts me in a horrible position."

Jones was once the busiest bankruptcy judge in the U.S. and had recently presided over the bankruptcies of JCPenney, Neiman Marcus, Party City and Chesapeake Energy, among many others. He resigned from the bench last October after admitting to sharing a home with Freeman.

Read more.


💵 Legal Fee Tracker: Sanctions pile up for Texas patent lawyer

A picture illustration shows U.S. 100 dollar bank notes taken in Tokyo August 2, 2011. REUTERS/Yuriko Nakao

A Houston-based patent lawyer who has filed more than 100 lawsuits this year alone is on the hook for Volkswagen's legal bills after a federal judge dismissed his client's lawsuit against the German automaker, marking the latest in a series of sanctions against him or his clients for litigation misconduct.

William Ramey and his client VDPP were ordered last week to pay $207,000 in legal fees for their dismissed case claiming Volkswagen's 2020 backup camera system infringed a VDPP patent.

VDPP's case was "frivolous" and riddled with errors, the federal judge in Houston found last week.

"VDPP’s misconduct infected the entire litigation," U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal wrote in an Aug. 13 ruling, calling the lawsuit "a case that never should have been filed."

Ramey, whose law firm Ramey LLP has filed at least 25 lawsuits on VDPP's behalf this year, said in an email that he and his client "respect all court orders. We appeal those orders we think are incorrect, as we have done in this case."

In a statement, Volkswagen said the court's decision was "appropriate given the facts of this case."

Volkswagen was represented in the case by lawyers from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, an intellectual property-focused law firm, and Houston-based Trent & Taylor.

Read more.


👋 That's all for today, thank you for reading The Legal File, and have a great weekend!

For more legal industry news, read and subscribe to The Daily Docket.

To view or add a comment, sign in

Insights from the community

Others also viewed

Explore topics