An International Perspective: Stop hiring immigrants

By Kwabena Appenteng, Greene and Letts

Every April 1, for around 100,000 immigrant workers, the world stops turning. As the rest of the world spends the day before April 1 placing the finishing touches on their April Fools Day tricks, immigration lawyers across the United States frantically ­assemble applications for H-1B work visas for their foreign clients.

Less than 24 hours later, over 65,000 H-1B work visa applications are approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the world, slowly, starts to turn once again.

This year, things are different.

Unemployment rates in some states exceed an astronomical 10 percent, as the national unemployment rate hovers around a scary 8 percent quotient. To compound the misery of the statistics, job cuts continue to prevail across the economy, and competition for the scant number of jobs left is becoming vicious. With unemployment as bad as it currently is, a new solution is being encouraged by the U.S. government: stop hiring immigrants.

Somewhat ironically, leading up to this year’s Group of 20 nations summit held in London, the U.S. vociferously proclaimed its valiant commitment to fight against trade protectionism and the threat of nations putting up barriers to trade goods and services with other countries in order to stimulate and sustain their own dwindling economies.

Now, the same administration is taking steps to implement a different form of protectionism: employment protectionism, to prevent U.S. companies from hiring immigrant workers under the H-1B visa program.

Under the Employ American Workers Act, a component of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 — the stimulus package, for short — companies that receive federal funds through TARP, through section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act, or even from money borrowed through one of the Federal Reserve’s financial rescue programs, must jump through additional, congressionally stamped hoops in order to hire immigrant workers.

Specifically, these companies must prove that they have tried to recruit American workers at prevailing wages and that the immigrant workers they seek to hire are not replacing American citizens.

In the most unbiased tone I can muster, I ask you, is this right?

To proponents of the new legislation, the argument is simple: hiring a foreign worker deprives an American of a job. As American taxpayers are the ones funding the current bailout of the U.S. financial system, the cog that keeps the rest of the economy turning, it is not fair to deprive these same taxpayers from jobs being offered by employers who received taxpayer funding.

Conversely, critics of the legislation contend that granting jobs to foreign workers through the H-1B visa program will help the economy and lead to the creation of more jobs for Americans.

As a past recipient of the H-1B visa, it is hard to masquerade my feelings toward this new legislation, and my rationale for writing this column. However, for the remaining 300 words of this column, I promise to put away my British and Ghanaian passports, and remain as neutral as possible.

The U.S. economy is demonstrating an incipient recovery, and some sectors are beginning to hire once again. Whether our firms choose to hire an American taxpayer or a foreign worker, the result remains the same — an increase in tax revenue, consumer spending, and investment in the U.S. capital markets: the U.S. economy wins.

Although the foreign worker may have been awarded a job that an American worker could have earned, the existence of the foreign worker does not detract from the fact that the mere creation of a job helps the U.S. economy.

With that said, it is easy to appreciate the inherent unfairness of giving a job to a foreign worker within the current economic climate, and leaving American workers without a job in their nation, and at a company that they paid to bail out. On the other hand, as scant as jobs may be, it seems unlikely that employers across the nation will suddenly decide to expend the few jobs they have at their companies — or in our case, law firms — on foreign workers, especially given the additional cost employers must suffer to hire foreign workers. With or without the government’s current protectionism measure, American workers will remain the first choice of American employers.

The government’s decision to put up barriers to employ foreign workers not only looks like economic-crisis-induced xenophobia, but also goes against the spirit of global cooperation being promoted by the U.S. government and needed to restart the global economy.

Even scarier, however, are the long-term effects of such employment protectionism. As a nation built on the innovation and talent of immigrants, the United States — of all nations — can appreciate the diversity of thought and talent that foreign workers can add to an economy.

If the United States truly seeks to incite a stimulation of its own economy and the global economy, then employment of any eligible individual, irrespective as to where they are from, surely must be the priority.

Gearing up for influx of associates

By Maria Kantzavelos

Even though Emily Garrison was among the big firm associates who were laid off earlier this year, amid the worst economic downturn in decades, she counts herself among the lucky ones.

Garrison, who thought she might spend her career as a corporate lawyer in a big firm after a summer in the Chicago office of McDermott Will & Emery, is reassessing that notion while putting her legal skills to work for clients of limited means at the Chicago Volunteer Legal Services Foundation.

Her nine-month stint in the legal aid arena is being underwritten by the firm that laid her off, with a stipend of $7,000 a month.

“They could’ve just said: ‘See ya — good luck,’” Garrison said.

Instead, McDermott offered the option of a three-month severance package, or the monthly stipend in exchange for participation in a newly created public interest law ­fellowship available to its laid-off lawyers who graduated law school in 2008.

“They had just joined us, they were just beginning their careers with us, and unfortunately they arrived and we were all hit by this economic tsunami,” said Quentin “George” Heisler, partner-in-charge of McDermott’s Chicago office. “We all recognized these were and are terrific young lawyers and we want to treat them as fairly as we possibly can, while still doing what is prudent in the management of our business.”

Some law firms nationwide, in a new approach to a drop-off in business, are paying their lawyers — at reduced salaries — to work in public interest jobs.

While McDermott offered stipends to the junior associates it let go — so long as they rolled up their sleeves in public interest work — more firms are offering stipends to this year’s incoming associates whose start dates have been delayed, and encouraging them to spend the interim time working in the public sector.

The potential for an influx of lawyers coming to Chicago’s legal aid and public interest law community — at a time when the demand for services is escalating and funding sources are dwindling — is viewed as a positive development. But the ongoing law firm phenomenon that started earlier this year with announcements of deferred employment, layoffs and furloughs also comes with a host of logistical challenges for the organizations that are in the business of helping the disadvantaged with access to justice.

“It’s both an opportunity and a challenge,” said Robert B. Acton, ­executive director of Cabrini Green Legal Aid. “The opportunity is that we are, daily, contacted by scores of individuals who very much need free legal assistance, and we have limited capacity to serve. The challenge is that we have limited capacity. With each deferred attorney will come a range of expenses.

“At the very moment when we are struggling to raise the necessary funds to meet current obligations, we’re also taking on an additional financial burden to place the deferred attorneys in our organizations.,” Acton said.

Hidden costs of free lawyers

Providing office space and computer equipment, training, supervision, and support for new attorneys can be a difficult proposition for legal aid agencies, many of which are operating with overstretched resources.

“You can’t just throw people into the trenches without training and support, and a barrack they can come back to,” said Diana White, executive director of the Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago. “The idea that we have the excess space, and supervisory time, and resources to create decent experiences for all these people is kind of unrealistic.”

White, who oversees the operations of the largest legal aid agency in the Chicago area, and one of the largest in the country — with a downtown office and five additional sites scattered around the county — said it’s unlikely that the organization would be able to accept any deferred associates any time soon.

Along with potential problems that could come with placing volunteers in long-term positions at a unionized shop, she said, there are the issues of budget and space constraints.

“I do not have so much as an empty carrel in my whole organization,” she said. “Because of the summer interns we committed to long before this flood of firm attorneys turned up, I’ve got no space.”

But some legal aid entities have greater flexibility than others when it comes to their capability to absorb associates into their organizations.

At CVLS, incorporating volunteers into the practice is “what we do,” said Margaret C. Benson, the foundation’s executive director.

Still, while Benson said she would be happy to take in large batches of “big law firm refugees,” she acknowledged that the issue of space constraints is a main obstacle.

For now, Benson said, CVLS has the capacity to accommodate about four to six deferred associates or laid-off attorneys full time, and additional ones on a part-time basis.

Creating a sense of inclusiveness

By Olivia Clarke

When Lisa A. Linsky started practicing law in the mid-’80s it was unusual for gay attorneys to be open with their ­colleagues about their sexual orientation.

For the first five years of her career she didn’t tell her co-workers that she was a lesbian, and people assumed she was dating a man.

“At that time I was fearful that it would have a negative impact on my career advancement,” said Linsky, a partner at McDermott Will & Emery. “After about five years, and when I was in a committed relationship, I realized the toll that this secret was taking on me personally and on my career. It was preventing me from really connecting with my clients and from bringing my full self to the workplace.

“It’s very challenging in the beginning, but most of us get to a point where we don’t want to have dual lives. We want to have an integration of our lives just like everybody else. We want to be able to talk about our partners and children and homes just like any other straight colleague would.”

Times have improved for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) lawyers. Most of today’s large law firms participate in job fairs for lawyers who define themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. Firms have affinity groups and diversity committees geared

to these lawyers, and they sponsor events organized by local LGBT organizations.

The Human Rights Campaign, a national civil rights organization working to achieve LGBT equality, tracks law firms in its Corporate Equality Index. The index analyzes and rates large U.S. employers and their policies and practices pertinent to LGBT employees.

Many lawyers said this rating helped advance inclusiveness of LGBT lawyers in large law firms because these firms wanted to participate in the index, and wanted to earn a favorable rating.

“From the perspective of clients, many of the clients who we service or would otherwise like to serve are themselves on the Corporate Index,” said Linsky, who started McDermott’s firm-wide LGBT diversity ­committee three years ago. “By McDermott getting onto this list we are demonstrating that we are mirroring our commitment to LGBT diversity much like our clients and prospective clients are.”

The changing world

When Judge Tom Chiola moved to Chicago in 1978 people in the legal community didn’t speak directly about the topic of sexual orientation.

When Chiola worked in the Illinois attorney general’s office, for example, he had a partner, but it was an unspoken fact that he was gay.

“I never really hid anything,” he said. “My partner was part of my life and he came to office functions. I had a picture of us available on my desk. What was important to me at the time was being some place where I did not have to change the pronouns when we were having conversations.

“Pretty much throughout my career any move that I made, I made it fairly clear by asking questions about what the policies were, or being very direct about my relationship so that there wouldn’t be problems that arose in the future.”

When he was elected as a judge in 1994 he became the first openly gay candidate elected to an office in Illinois.

He said he heard about ­ignorant comments made by some of the other judges about whether the chief judge would place him in the ­juvenile division. But, he said, when then-Chief Judge Donald O’Connell heard about those comments O’Connell was appalled and very supportive of Chiola.

“My feeling has always been that the more matter-of-fact I made my life, the more matter-of-fact it became to everybody else,” Chiola said. “When you appear to be hiding something, that becomes uncomfortable for the people around you.”

Today times have improved. Chiola says there are 15 openly gay and lesbian circuit court judges, and they plan to form their own association, the Alliance of Illinois Judges.

In the Woodpile: Like a blister in the sun

By Shawn Wood of Seyfarth Shaw

After spending years representing business owners in the Cook County Chancery Division in what are sometimes called “business divorces” (but more often ­resemble the battle scenes in “Braveheart”), I find myself tracking similar brawls throughout the country.

I especially take an interest in such cases when the litigants are rock-and-roll heroes of my youth.

So I can’t seem to look away from the current clash pending in the Southern District of New York between members of the seminal post-punk band Violent Femmes.

The Femmes were a college radio staple for at least two decades following their 1982-debut release, which featured such near-hits as “Gone Daddy Gone” and “Add It Up,” and the ubiquitous “Blister in the Sun.” Their raw sound and angst-ridden lyrics placed the Femmes in a category all their own. Plus, they could blend romance and humor all at the same time, as in “American Music,” where lead singer and guitarist Gordon Gano famously crooned:

You were born too late

I was born too soon,

But every time I look at that ugly moon,

It reminds me of you.

Now the laughs have stopped, as Gano is being sued by bass player Brian Ritchie in an intra-Femmes dispute that has already lasted more than 18 months. According to his complaint, Ritchie seeks exclusive control over administration of the band’s songs and assets, and payment of past and future royalties from the “exploitation” of said songs and assets.

Ritchie’s complaint also maintains that a 2001 agreement that he and Gano executed should be declared null and void due to coercion, or in the alternative, mutual mistake, or in the alternative, fraud in the inducement, or in the alternative, unconscionability. Ritchie gives new meaning to “alternative” rocker.

Gano, on the other hand, has filed counterclaims alleging that he is the sole author and owner of nearly all of the songs in the Femmes catalogue, pointing to songwriter credits contained on the band’s albums and publishing credits in public databases.

Gano further alleges that, despite the band having toured under the name “Violent Femmes” for 26 years, Ritchie obtained a trademark registration in 2002 under false pretenses and in violation of the parties’ agreements.

Aside from these punches and counter-punches, Violent Femmes fans may find it strange to read legal documents referring to raucous songs like “Kiss Off” or “Old Mother Reagan” as “compositions.” It may be even stranger to read about corporate entities with names like “Add It Up Productions, Inc.” and allegations regarding the need to protect the band’s “business reputation.”

To date, most of the activity in the case has related to Ritchie’s attempt to disqualify Gano’s counsel. Such detours are common in any dispute among business owners, but should come as no surprise with the action pending in New York (where, I understand, a motion to disqualify is known as a responsive pleading).

The case also features a fascinating sub-issue based on Ritchie’s claim that the use of the song “Blister in the Sun” in a fast-food commercial disrupted the band’s fan base. On this point, I couldn’t disagree more. What could be more subversive (and therefore in keeping with the Femmes’ ethos) than to sell a 25-year-old song that is widely construed as an ode to drug use and self-stimulation for use as a corporate pitch to sell cheeseburgers?

When I first read about this litigation, it triggered my memory of a songwriter’s show at Park West years ago. It featured musicians who performed acoustic versions of their best-known songs, and then fielded questions from the crowd. Most of the audience “questions” were as dopey as you’d expect, but one of the songwriters on stage that night was Gordon Gano, and, at one point, a crowd member asked him what advice he had for young musicians starting out in the industry.

In what seemed like the most un-rock-and-roll answer at the time, Gano responded, “The best advice I can give is get a good lawyer.”

Aside from my obvious bias (I was the sole law-nerd cheering this response profusely that night at the Park West), it seems now more than ever that Gano offered great advice.

Just last month, litigation was filed here in Cook County by former Wilco band member Jay Bennett against its lead singer-songwriter Jeff Tweedy; and Michael Jackson was sued twice inside of a week, once by his former publicist and once by Ola Ray, the woman Jackson danced around in the 1983 “Thriller” video, who claims she is entitled to contractual royalties from the video (in a case that may test whether the statute of limitations exists in California).

Meanwhile, back in New York, Gano’s lawyer, Robert Meloni, indicates he does not ­expect the Femmes dispute to settle any time soon. In fact, when I asked him how he and his client would respond to a settlement ­demand, Meloni said Ritchie could expect the same response offered by Michael Corleone to Senator Geary in Godfather Part II. (”Senator, you can have my answer now if you like. My final offer is this: nothing.”)

So like so many similar business divorces, it looks like the Femmes litigation will go on. … Like a blister in the sun.

The next generation of leaders

By Olivia Clarke

Visit our profiles of the next generation of leaders

In every law firm there are those lawyers who stand out among the pack because they get actively involved in the fabric of the firm.

They volunteer for committees, task forces, and firm-wide initiatives. They agree to mentor young lawyers, act as firm spokespeople, and recruit at job fairs.

They go above and beyond practicing law because they care about what their firm looks like today and will look like in the future. It is these same people who will most likely gain more responsibility in their firms as the years go on.

Chicago Lawyer cast a net out to law firms, lawyers, and bar associations, asking them who they considered to be part of the next generation of law firm leaders. Many lawyers were suggested and we selected six of them as representatives of the coming generation of leadership. The magazine asked them to weigh in about the law firm of the future, and what type of leader will be needed.

These six lawyers come from larger firms, and almost all of them have worked at the same firm their entire careers. They’ve built not only a strong practice, but also a strong resume of leadership positions. When asked why they get involved, most described a loyalty they have to their firms.

“Who wouldn’t want to help shape their firm’s future?” said Lance A. Zinman, a Katten Muchin Rosenman partner who has worked there for 11 years. “This is where you spend a lot of your time. It is a no-brainer. It is very rewarding to help your firm in whatever way you can to help it reach its goals. … I get a lot of pleasure in being involved, quite frankly, and being part of a team. I’m part of a team with my clients. It’s just as rewarding to be part of a team with my own firm.”

Profiles on the next generation of leaders

Amy Manning — McGuireWoods

Age: 41

Education: Monmouth College (1989);

University of Chicago Law School (1992).

Career: Partner at McGuireWoods. She’s been at the firm 16 years.

Leadership: Vice-chair of the firm-wide ­recruiting committee; co-chair of the life ­sciences industry group; partner-in-charge of Call to Action Commitment on Women; a member of the past strategic planning committee; a member of Women’s Leadership Forum; and former commercial litigation ­partner representative, ­associates committee.

---

Charles S. Hallab — Baker & McKenzie

Age: 38

Education: George Washington University (1994); Georgetown University McDough School of Business (MBA, 1998); Georgetown University Law Center (1998).

Career: Partner at Baker & McKenzie.

He’s been at the firm for 11 years.

Leadership: Hiring partner; chair of the Chicago recruitment and professional development committee; head of the Chicago joint venture, strategic alliance and international business combinations practice; head of the North American ­corporate and commercial practice for the Middle East; corporate lead for the North American climate change and environmental markets practice; partner advisor to the associates’ committee; administrative liaison, diversity committee; and practice liaison, international commercial group.

---

Christina Martini — DLA Piper

Age: 38

Education: University of Illinois at Chicago (1991); Northwestern University School of Law (1994).

Career: Partner at DLA Piper. She’s been at the firm 15 years.

Leadership: Vice chair, Chicago intellectual property practice group; co-hiring partner, Chicago office; the firm’s diversity and ­inclusion ombudsperson; a member of the firm’s policy committee; a member of the national diversity steering committee; a member of the Chicago office diversity committee; on the board of advisors for the Marbury Institute, the firm’s professional education arm; and the firm’s liaison for the Chicago Chapter of the ­Association of ­Corporate Counsel.

---

Michael Wolf — Jenner & Block

Age: 40

Education: University of Illinois (1990); DePaul University’s Kellstadt Graduate School of Business (MBA, 1994); Chicago-Kent College of Law (1998).

Career: Partner at Jenner & Block. He’s been at the firm for six years.

Leadership: Co-chair of the hiring ­executive committee; co-chair of the firm’s hiring committee; co-chair of the firm’s lateral hiring committee; a member of the opinion committee; a member of the associate retention subcommittee; a member of the associate development and evaluation committee; and a member of the marketing and business development committee.

---

Jennifer Kenedy — Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell

Age: 41

Education: University of Illinois (1990); Northwestern University School of Law (1993).

Career: Partner at Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell. She’s been at the firm 16 years.

Leadership: A member of the board of ­directors; co-founder and co-chair of the women’s initiative; co-chair of the integration committee; chair of the flexible work committee; a member of the practice development committee; and a member of the vision statement committee.

---

Lance A. Zinman — Katten Muchin Rosenman

Age: 36

Education: Michigan State University (1995); Northwestern University School of Law (1998).

Career: Partner at Katten Muchin ­Rosenman. He’s been at the firm for

11 years.

Leadership: A member of the recruiting committee; head of the Chicago marketing committee for financial ­services; helps train associates in his group; heads the hedge fund practice in Chicago; and on the firm-wide business development committee.

Largest Law Firms in Illinois - 2009 Large Firm Survey

Despite the startling number of layoffs in recent months, this year’s survey of Illinois’ largest law firms shows law firms in a stronger position than might be expected. Certainly, because the cutoff date for the survey is Jan. 1, a number of the serious layoffs, particularly among the top 20 firms, are not reflected in these numbers.

Nonetheless, while it does indicate the beginnings of the trend that hit hard in the first five months of 2009, the overall picture is relatively healthy.

The survey was sent to the 200 largest firms in Illinois, which included firms with at least 19 lawyers. 

Visit this link to obtain the survey.

One hundred-fifteen firms responded, and of those firms - 21 completed the survey for the first time.

In total, 52 of the reporting firms grew, 30 lost numbers, and 12 stayed even.

Among Illinois’ 15 largest firms (those with more than 200 lawyers in Illinois), seven showed an increase in the number of lawyers in their Illinois offices. Kirkland & Ellis, which remains the largest firm in the city, grew by the largest amount - 10 percent - adding 24 partners and 38 associates; Sidley Austin added seven lawyers; McDermott Will & Emery grew by 12; Vedder Price by five; Baker & McKenzie grew by one lawyer; and Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom grew by 7 percent, from 198 to 212.

Those large firms that recorded the greatest declines, by percentage, were Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, which merged with K&L Gates: 8.4 percent, from 226 lawyers to 207. And Schiff Hardin also fell by 8.4 percent, from 283 to 259.

Among the firms in the range from 100 to 199 lawyers, 14 firms grew, seven lost lawyers, and one stayed even. The most dramatic increase occurred with Dykema, which grew from 90 to 132, a 47 percent increase. Jones Day grew by 7.6 percent, from 170 to 183. Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell saw the largest decline, from 180 lawyers to 149, a decrease of 17 percent.

In the 50 to 99 lawyers category, 15 firms grew and only five declined in numbers. Perkins Coie grew by 19 percent, from 63 to 75. Other increases were Much Shelist, from 73 to 81 (11 percent); Bryan Cave, from 57 to 64 (12.2 percent); and Quarles & Brady, from 54 to 60 (11 percent). The firm that lost the greatest percentage of lawyers was Leydig, Voit & Mayer, which fell from 77 to 66, a 14.2 percent drop.

Of the firms with less than 50 lawyers, 17 firms reported an increase, nine a decrease, and 10 stayed even.

Visit this link to obtain the survey.