December 2019 Archives

Welcome to the December 2019 Issue of Electronically in Touch

| No Comments

We are pleased to submit the December 2019 issue of Electronically in Touch. This issue consists of informative articles regarding law students making a plea to remove mental health questions and substance abuse questions from state bar applications, a brief discussion into the Civil Rights Act and how there is a federal cause of action for employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and a look into a young lawyer's experience with the NYSBA Young Lawyers Section's Supreme Court Admissions event this past November. In addition, this issue includes a message from the YLS chair, Lauren E. Sharkey and details on upcoming events by the New York State Bar Association.

Electronically In Touch is a member driven publication. We welcome submissions from members on any relevant topic, including practice tips, substantive legal articles, case updates, work/life balance, and information regarding upcoming meetings and events. Please submit inquiries and articles to Julie T. Houth at or Mansi Parikh at

By Lauren E. Sharkey, Esq.

Our Section hosted the U.S. Supreme Court Admission's Program on November 18th in Washington D.C. Thirty-six people in our group were admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court before eight of the nine Justices. Afterwards, Chief Justice Roberts greeted us all in the lawyer's lounge and we took a picture with him. I think I can speak for the group when I say that it was a once in a lifetime experience, for which I am truly grateful.

Our Executive Committee also met in person in D.C. and virtually through the new conference line platform, Zoom. We heard from the developers of a new Wellness App, seeking to pilot the app with members of the Young Lawyers Section. While we are interested in the app, our Executive Committee decided we needed to review the app's compliance and privacy standards before moving forward. NYSBA's general counsel will review the app for compliance issues as well before our Section's Executive Committee votes on it.

Turning towards Annual Meeting, we'll have a CLE Program on the morning of Wednesday, January 29th from 8:45AM to 12:15PM. Josephine Bahn is chairing the Annual Meeting Half Day Program entitled "Social Media Ethics: How the New Civility Standards Impact Lawyers." Afterwards, we'll present the Outstanding Young Lawyer Award to a deserving recipient and conduct our Executive Committee meeting over lunch.

Planning for the 11th Annual Trial Academy at Cornell Law is also underway. Sponsors, speakers, and critique faculty have been contacted and all are excited to support another year of this fantastic program.

If you would like to be involved in the YLS Executive Committee or any of our sub-committees, please reach out to me at

Law Students Make Plea to Get Mental Health Questions Removed

| No Comments

By Samantha Braver

One of my favorite stories is about three bricklayers. A young girl walks up to the first, asking him what he's doing. "Laying bricks," he says gruffly. She walks up to the second. "I'm building a wall." Finally, the girl shuffles over to the third bricklayer. The man replies, "I'm building a castle, of course."

I came to law school because I wanted to build a castle out of words, or "palaces out of paragraphs," as my favorite line from Hamilton puts it. I wanted to stack enough jargon-y Latin phrases on top of each other until I had a solid foundation of legal knowledge to help others cross the moats that diverted their paths in life.

After my first semester of law school, however, I temporarily lost sight of the castle. Talking to my peers, I learned a lot of us felt the same way. Sometimes, it felt like we were all just laying brick upon brick, learning contract upon contract, tort upon tort, forgetting why we were working so hard in the first place.

When we returned to school from winter break, I received an email from an upperclassman who had become a peer mentor to me and some of my friends. He told us that he had personally found it hard to return to school in January when he had been a 1L. Grades were coming out, summer job interviews were coming up, anxiety levels were high.

My mentor pointed to a range of resources that the law school offered, encouraging us to take advantage of them. He casually mentioned that the law school had drop-in counseling and that you probably wouldn't have to report going to counseling on the character and fitness questionnaire that is part of the New York State bar application.

Probably? What did that mean? Curious, I began asking my friends if they knew anything about having to report seeking mental health treatment on the bar application. "Oh yeah," one of them said. "That's why I haven't gone to therapy." I was shocked. As the daughter of a psychiatrist, this required mental health disclosure seemed so archaic and wrong to me.

Why would a student have to tell a New York bar examiner if they had "any condition or impairment including, but not limited to a mental, emotional, psychiatric, nervous or behavioral disorder or condition, or an alcohol, drug or other substance abuse condition or impairment or gambling addiction, which in any way impairs or limits your ability to practice law?"

Why, if they answered yes, would they then have to answer if they had sought treatment and be told that they might have to reveal their health information to the Committee on Character and Fitness? Why were we still stigmatizing mental health? After all, the bar was not asking candidates if they had a physical health issue that could impact their ability to practice.

This question still bothered me when I returned to law school for my 2L year. My sister had just taken and passed the New York bar exam herself. I began to do research, and learned that in 2014, the American Bar Association conducted a survey of law student well-being. The ABA found that 42% of respondents stated they needed help for an emotional or mental health issue within the past year, but only about half received treatment. Forty-five percent of respondents feared that seeking assistance could threaten their admission to the bar. Sixty-three percent of respondents indicated they were discouraged from seeking treatment for alcohol or drug use due to the potential threat to bar admission. These numbers should astound all of us.

As a member of Columbia Law School Student Senate's Wellness Committee, I decided to start a petition asking for judges across the country to remove mental health and substance abuse questions from state bar applications. With the support from one of our deans, our student Senate emailed the petition out to the whole school. Soon, other law school student bodies, from Harvard to Stanford to New York University, wanted to sign on, too.

It turns out that the New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) has had a task force working on this issue since June.The group recommended that the questions on mental health be removed from the character and fitness questionnaire. I was delighted to learn that NYSBA's House of Delegates voted on November 2 to urge the state to remove the questions from the application. The administrative board of the New York State Unified Court System is considering the recommendations.

The legal profession talks a lot about how we can make others feel "whole" through providing a discrete remedy---whether that's damages, an injunction, a change in policy. Why aren't we asking this question to ourselves? How can we ensure we are getting the support we need as we help others cross the moats in front of them?

The castle isn't yet built. Maybe it never will be, for if there's one thing I've learned in law school, it's that the law is constantly changing, despite stare decisis and all those other jargon-y phrases. But we can make laying brick upon brick a bit easier for all of us. We can encourage each other to ask for help without fear of retribution. We can stop the stigma surrounding mental health and substance abuse treatment. No one should have to carry their weight entirely alone.

By Jonathan Sclar

Lawyers, whether seasoned or just beginners, should care about U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence for a few reasons. The first is a practical reason: the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and this decision will have a major impact on the lawyers practicing in the areas of employment law and, potentially, education law and other fields of law. Second, being knowledgeable about past, present, and future, Supreme Court jurisprudence will make you a better lawyer; it will give you a greater ability to make and understand arguments, to know the direction that your field is heading, and to be a more effective advocate for your clients. Finally, and most important, most of us went to law school because we have a deep passion for the law and the study of law; why should we give up on that passion merely because we've begun to practice? This article explains the pending Civil Rights Act case before the U.S. Supreme Court, which will have a strong impact on lawyers practicing in this field.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the "Civil Rights Act") prohibits employers from discriminating against their employees on, amongst other things, the basis of their sex.1 In the October 2019 term, the United States Supreme Court will interpret the meaning of this provision; specifically, it will determine if discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation constitutes discrimination "on the basis of sex" for the purposes of the Civil Rights Act. The case is called Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia and it is a consolidation of two lower-court cases that dealt with the same claim.

The first case is an Eleventh Circuit case named, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia.2 Gerald Bostock, a gay man, worked as a child welfare services coordinator for Clayton County, Georgia. Criticism for Mr. Bostock's sexual orientation derived in response to his participation in a gay recreational softball league. Shortly thereafter, the county fired Mr. Bostock for "conduct unbecoming of its employees." Mr. Bostock filed suit, alleging violation of the Civil Rights Act. The district court dismissed the lawsuit and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. 3

The second case is a Second Circuit case named, Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda. 4 Here, Donald Zarda, a gay man, worked as a skydiving instructor for Altitude Express. Part of Zarda's job was to fly in tandem with customers, some of whom were female. To ease the minds of his female customers, Zarda sometimes informed them of his sexual orientation. On one occasion, a customer complained that Zarda had inappropriately touched her and disclosed his sexual orientation as an excuse. In response to this complaint, Altitude Express fired Zarda. Zarda filed suit in district court, claiming that he was fired on account of his sexual orientation and in violation of the Civil Rights Act. The district court ruled for Altitude Express but the Second Circuit, on a rehearing en banc, overturned the decision of the district court and ruled for Zarda, holding that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily includes discrimination on the basis of sex. 5

The court's opinion, written by Judge Katzmann, was motivated by a finding that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation occurs, in part, because of the heteronormative expectations that society possesses for each sex. For example, discrimination on the basis of a man's homosexual orientation is based on the expectation that men should only be sexually attracted to women. Further, invoking the "but for" test, the court emphasized that Zarda would not have been fired but for his sex. The argument is as follows: if Zarda were a woman who was attracted to men, as opposed to a man who is attracted to men, he would not have been fired. It should be noted, as it was in the dissent, that the "but for" test, applied differently, would reach a different result. For example, Zarda was fired because he is a man who is attracted to men; if he were a woman who was attracted to women, he still would have been fired.

The main dissent, written by Judge Lynch, is based on originalism and textualism. Originalism is the interpretive philosophy, or tool, that says that the interpretation of a text is best accomplished by, in one version of the philosophy, discerning the intent of the drafters of the text and, in another version of the philosophy, discerning the meaning of the words of the text when the text was published or enacted. Textualism, often associated with originalism but not synonymous with it, is an interpretive philosophy, or tool, that interprets the text without reference to extrinsic sources attempting to explain such text.

Judge Lynch began his dissent by noting that the impetus behind the Civil Rights Act was the "movement for the equality of African-Americans." This essentially sets up an original intent argument: the drafters of this text were motivated, almost exclusively, by the desire to legislate equality for African-Americans; therefore, it is inapposite to argue that the drafters intended, without expressly writing, to legislate equality for gay people. The obvious rebuke to this argument is two-fold: (1) the drafters legislated not just for racial equality but also for sex, religion, and national origin; and (2) the drafters did legislate for the equality of gay people: the prohibition of discrimination based on sex includes the prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation, as the majority opinion held.

However, the dissent pointed to legislative history, and the history surrounding the enactment of the statute, that evidences that "sex" was an add-on to the monumental piece of legislation that is the Civil Rights Act. Further, according to the dissent, "same-sex sexual relations were criminalized in nearly all states" and both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association classified homosexuality as a mental illness or disorder. Against this backdrop, the dissent argued, it is erroneous to conclude that the drafters of the Civil Rights Act intended to prohibit, or even contemplated discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The dissent also pointed to original meaning and stated that "sex" was, and is, defined as "biologically male or female," and noting that the definition of sex does not include or refer to sexual orientation.

The underlying debate of discussion between the majority and the dissent, in this case, is the debate over how our society should confront new problems that arise as our society evolves. The first answer to this question, seemingly supported by the majority, is that the law currently on the books already deals with these new problems that arise. This is supported by the school of thought that says that legal texts are living and breathing documents. Law is more general than it is specific; therefore, courts must interpret the general law to cover specific problems, the argument goes. The phrase "on the basis of sex" covers discrimination on the basis of biologically-defined sex but also on the basis of sexual orientation, which is derived from sex, and, potentially, even covers discrimination on the basis of gender (i.e., if an employee is fired for being transgender). There is support for this school of thought in the jurisprudence of John Marshall from a case called M'Culloch v. Maryland. 6 In that case, Marshall stated: "[the Constitution's] nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves." He went on to say that "[the Constitution is] intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs." It should be noted that he referred only to the U.S. Constitution and not to any and every statute. It's possible that Marshall would have confined this analysis strictly to the Constitution; nevertheless, these statements from Marshall arguably support the school of thought that says legal texts are living and breathing and should continuously evolve.

The dissent would answer the same question in a different way. The dissent would say that the proper way to confront evolving problems in our society is for the legislatures to enact legislation to confront those problems. The democratically elected legislative branch is the branch of government that is charged to make law; the judicial branch, on the other hand, is charged with merely interpreting those laws enacted by the legislative branch. This school of thought believes in process over results. Judge Lynch, in his dissent, stated that he wishes the Civil Rights Act, or some other piece of legislation, would have outlawed the discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; but it simply had not and, therefore, it was not his role to interpret the statute in such a way as to make it outlaw that type of discrimination. The legislative branch is the place for that because, for one, it is closer to the people than the judicial branch is and, two, the legislative branch is responsible for "reading the pulse of the nation." At least some people would argue that this is not the role of the courts.7

The decision in this case will not only provide a federal cause of action for employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but it will also change the way young lawyers counsel their clients, whether employers or employees. Further, it could impact the way law is interpreted in general; that is, whether the meaning of texts remains constant over time or evolves as society evolves.

Jonathan Sclar recently graduated from St. John's University School of Law and is an associate at Cullen and Dykman LLP, pending admission to the New York State Bar.

1. 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e-2(a).

2. 723 Fed.Appx 964 (11th Cir. 2018).

3. Facts retrieved from Oyez:

4. 883 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2018).

5. Facts retrieved from Oyez:

6. 17 U.S. 316 (1819).

7. For a more in-depth, and eloquent, discussion of this school of thought and the opposing school of thought, watch the discussion between Justice Scalia and Justice Breyer, here:

By Julie T. Houth, Esq.

This Q&A session is with Tara L. Shaw, Esq. She is the owner of Shaw Legal Office in San Diego, CA focusing on Trusts & Estates. She is licensed in California, Arizona and New York and is a current section leader of the San Diego County Bar Association's Estate Planning, Trusts & Probate and Animal Law Sections. Tara is also a member of the Probate Attorneys of San Diego, the Animal Legal Defense Fund and enjoys giving back to the community by volunteering with Serving Seniors and Wills for Heroes.

(1) What made you decide to participate in the Supreme Court Admissions Program with the NYSBA YLS? Where did you first hear of the program?

I received an announcement that the NYSBA Young Lawyers Section was sponsoring an admission program. I felt that it would be an amazing experience to be a part of.

(2) Can you describe the application process of the program? What did you have to do first? How long did the process take?

The entire process took a few months. Initially I had to pre-register in May and application packets were mailed out in June. The application process included finding two local attorneys who were also admitted to the US Supreme Court to interview me and then become my sponsor for admission. All paperwork had to be completed and returned in August, and the first 50 applicants to return everything correctly and complete were guaranteed a spot, as long as the court approved your application.

(3) What were the fees and costs involved in the entire process?

The admissions program through the NYSBA was $200 and an additional $200 for a guest to attend, which included a welcome mixer the evening before the swearing in, breakfast at the Supreme Court and then a champagne brunch following the ceremony. The Supreme Court also had a $200 fee for the application.

(4) Once you were in Washington D.C. for the event, how was the process of getting sworn into the Supreme Court bar? Did you get to meet the Justices?

The morning of the swearing in all admittees met in the hotel lobby and then walked to the courthouse together. We were able to take a group picture on the court steps which was fun. Afterwards we lined up and were escorted by security in small groups inside where we were then brought to a holding room where the rules were explained to us (i.e. no phones or electronics, not even smart watches). After a light breakfast all of our guests were escorted into the courtroom and then the attorneys waited until it was our turn to enter (since we were seated in the front of the courtroom). Once seated we waited until it was exactly 10am and a gong went off, the velvet curtains opened and the supreme court justices appeared and took their seats. The chief justice started the session and there were a number of different groups getting sworn in that day. Each group's mouvant addressed the court and then read everyone's name, which you stood up and stayed standing when your name was called. Once all names were called the chief justice granted the motion and we all raised our hand and took the oath. After the admission ceremony Chief Justice Roberts spoke to us back in the holding room and we were able to take a group picture with him.

(5) What was your favorite part of this program?

Getting to experience the Supreme Court and having all of the justices (absent Judge Alito, Jr.) right in front of me. I had never been before so it was really amazing.

(6) Do you have any comments or advice for lawyers, young and seasoned, who are looking to get sworn into the Supreme Court? Would you recommend the NYSBA YLS' Supreme Court Program?

Yes, I would definitely recommend it. The entire experience was wonderful. The NYBSA staff did a great job putting everything together, I had a great time visiting DC and the experience of being sworn in at our nation's highest court was something I will never forget.

Julie T. Houth, Esq., LL.M (Taxation) is a staff attorney for Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, a law firm with over 200 lawyers across the nation specializing in complex litigation representing plaintiffs in securities fraud, antitrust, corporate mergers and acquisitions, consumer and insurance fraud, multi-district litigation, and whistleblower protection cases. Ms. Houth is based at the firm's headquarters in San Diego, California. She serves as one of the New York State Young Lawyers Delegate to the American Bar Association House of Delegates and is the Co-Editor in Chief of Electronically In Touch.

Please join the Young Lawyers Section at the NYSBA Annual Meeting next month from January 27-31, 2020 at the New York Hilton Midtown!

The YLS meeting is on Wednesday, January 29 from 8:45 a.m. - 12:15 p.m. The Executive Committee Meeting & Awards Luncheon is from 12:30 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.

More information about YLS specific events including CLEs that will take place at the Annual Meeting can be found here:

Another reason to attend the Annual Meeting is for the Gala! Legal luminaries like Benjamin N. Cardozo, and even former U.S. presidents like Dwight D. Eisenhower, all share a common bond special to the New York State Bar Association - they delivered addresses at Annual Meeting dinners. From 1877 to 1995, the Annual Dinner was the flagship event for NYSBA, sometimes drawing more than 1,000 people. In 2020, the tradition will return.

This year's guest of honor will be United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Elena Kagan, who will receive the Gold Medal for Distinguished Service in the Law.

The Gala will take place on Thursday, January 30th at 6:30 p.m. at the American Museum of Natural History located at Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY!

More information about the Gala including registration can be found here:

Register for the NYSBA Annual Meeting here:

The New York State Bar Association Trial Academy is a five-day trial techniques program. Geared toward new and young attorneys, participants will take part in sessions which will advance and improve their courtroom skills. With an emphasis on direct participation, the Trial Academy is a great learning experience for all involved.

Frequently asked questions about the Trial Academy
Please note: Seats are limited and the Trial Academy sells out each year.
Young Lawyers Section Member registration fee: $950 (NYSBA Membership required)
NYSBA member registration fee: $1,000
Non-NYSBA member registration fee: $1,100


Now accepting scholarship applications. Scholarship applications and resumes are due 2/1/2020 to Amy Jasiewicz at:

Scholarship application form:

The following Sections are offering scholarships:

Business Law Section
Torts, Insurance and Compensation Law Section
Young Lawyers Section

Under New York's MCLE rule, this program has been approved for a total of up to 37.5 MCLE credit hours, consisting of 2.0 credit hours in ETHICS and 35.5 credit hours in SKILLS. This program is transitional and therefore suitable for newly admitted attorneys. This program is accredited for MCLE credit in New York State only. Attorneys seeking credit in other jurisdictions may contact the governing body for CLE in their respective locations for credit application details.

Upcoming Recommended Events

| No Comments

Thursday & Friday, January 30-31, 2020

BRIDGING THE GAP - January 30-31, 2019 at the NYSBA Annual Meeting

The New York State Bar Association is pleased to offer newly admitted attorneys a two-day Bridging the Gap CLE program. Transitional courses are designed to help newly admitted attorneys develop a foundation in the practical skills, techniques and procedures that are essential to the practice of law.

The Bridging the Gap continuing legal education program offers 16.0 total credits. Newly admitted attorneys can satisfy all of their annual MCLE requirements by attending this two-day program which is ideal for "bridging the gap" between law school and the realities of practicing law in New York State. Experienced attorneys who have an interest in other areas of practice can also attend and benefit from this program by learning practical information from skilled and experienced practitioners.

Newly admitted attorneys must complete at least 16 transitional CLE credit hours in each of the first two years of admission to the Bar. The first set of 16 transitional CLE credit hours must be completed by the first anniversary of admission to the Bar, in the designated categories of credit. The second set of 16 transitional CLE credit hours must be completed between the first and second anniversaries. To receive skills credit, newly admitted attorneys must take accredited transitional CLE courses in traditional live classroom settings, or through attendance at fully interactive video conference locations that have been approved by the CLE Board for use by newly admitted attorneys. For more information about the CLE Rules, please go to

Bridging the Gap Day 1: 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. | Gramercy West, 2nd Floor | 8.0 MCLE Credits
Bridging the Gap Day 2: 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. | Gramercy West, 2nd Floor | 8.0 MCLE Credits

January 30-31, 2020
9:00 AM - 5:00 PM
Gramercy West, 2nd Floor

More specific information about the CLEs can be found here:

Register Here:

If you have any questions about this program, please contact Katherine Suchocki, Esq. Director of Continuing Legal Education, Patrick Boland, CLE Program Manager or Leanne Isabelle, CLE Program Coordinator.

Wednesday, February 5, 2020


1.5 MCLE credits in Diversity, Inclusion and Elimination of Bias
This program is co-sponsored by the Commercial and Federal Litigation Section, the Young Lawyers Section, and the Committee on Continuing Legal Education.

Wednesday, February 5, 2020
Foley & Lardner LLP
90 Park Avenue
New York, NY

In this program, four of New York's most noteworthy jurists discuss the importance of championing attorneys from historically underrepresented backgrounds. These jurists are:

Honorable Joel Cohen (Commercial Division, New York County)
Honorable Dora Irizarry (Chief Judge of the Eastern District of New York)
Honorable Saliann Scarpulla (Commercial Division, New York County)
Honorable Laura Taylor Swain (Southern District of New York)

This program will be an interactive discussion about topics relating to advancing female attorneys, attorneys of color, LGBTQIA+ attorneys, and attorneys with disabilities in the profession. The focus will be on how attorneys can work together to foster diversity and inclusion. The program will include hypotheticals with audience participation on a variety of areas such as how to be an ally, a sponsor, and a mentor. The program will also include hypotheticals about the importance of introducing attorneys from diverse backgrounds to clients.

5:30 p.m.: Registration and Reception
6:30 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.: CLE program

Free for Co-Sponsoring Section Members
$50 NYSBA Members | $150 Non-Members

If you have any questions about the content of this program, please contact Simone Smith, CLE Program Manager, or Bridget Donlon, CLE program Coordinator.

For any questions related to program registration, please contact the NYSBA's Member Resource Center by email at, or by phone at 800-582-2452.

Register here:

Wednesday-Sunday, February 12-17, 2020

Call for N.Y. Delegates to ABA Young Lawyers Division Assembly ABA Midyear Meeting in Austin, Texas, February 2020

The American Bar Association Young Lawyers Division (ABA YLD) Assembly Annual Meeting is being held on February 15, 2020, in Austin, TX. New York has one of the largest delegations in the ABA YLD Assembly, and we are seeking interested New York Young Lawyers who would like to represent the State and the Bar Association. The head of the New York YLD Delegation is Amanda Longo, Esq., the New York District Representative in the ABA YLD.

The Assembly is the policy-making body of the ABA Young Lawyers Division. The YLD Assembly precedes the ABA House of Delegates Annual Meeting, and the vote of the YLD Assembly binds the Delegates from the YLD to the ABA House.

All YLD Assembly Delegates from New York (other than the District Representative) are appointed on a per-meeting basis, meaning each Delegate must be re-appointed before attending any future meetings as a Delegate to the Assembly.

The New York State Bar Association Finance Committee will provide $500.00 stipends for up to eleven (11) New York Young Lawyer Delegates attending the ABA YLD Assembly Annual Meeting. Funding is contingent upon the Delegate being 1) a member of the NYSBA, 2) a member of the ABA YLD, and 3) satisfactorily attending the ABA YLD meetings (including the Assembly Meeting). The appointment of delegates and award of stipends are on a first-received basis for those individuals satisfying the above appointment criteria. We strongly encourage diverse candidates to apply.

All delegates who commit to attending the Assembly must fulfill that commitment. Last-minute emergencies are understandable, but backing out at the last minute prohibits other potential delegates from attending. Check your calendars closely before deciding. Also, if the list for funded delegates is full, you can still attend as an unfunded delegate and your name will be put on a wait list for a stipend in order of your registration in the event one of the funded positions becomes available.

If you are interested in seeking appointment as a New York Young Lawyer Delegate to the ABA YLD Assembly, please contact Amanda Longo, Esq. at

Join the Young Lawyers Section

| No Comments

Become the voice of newly-admitted and young attorneys in NYSBA. Designed to help make the transition from law school to practice an easier one for newly-admitted attorneys, the Young Lawyers Section connects you with experienced attorneys lending general advice, legal guidance, or expert opinions. Take advantage of educational programs, networking events, and the exclusive Young Lawyers Section Mentor Directory, which is just one of the Section's mentoring initiatives. The Section publishes Electronically In Touch and Perspective. Law students may also join the Section and get a jump start on their careers.


Are you interested in volunteering for a Section Committee? Please email Amy Jasiewicz at and indicate the committees you wish to join. The Young Lawyers Section has the following committees:

  • Executive Committee
  • Communications Committee
  • Community Service and Pro Bono Committee
  • Diversity Committee
  • Law Student Development Committee
  • Long-Range Planning Committee
  • Membership Committee
  • Mentoring Committee
  • Nominating Committee
  • Perspective Editorial Board


| No Comments

The Officers of YLS and the Editors of Electronically In Touch wish to make clear that the thoughts and opinions expressed in the articles that follow are those of the respective authors and do not necessarily represent the thoughts and opinions of the authors' employers or clients, the New York State Bar Association, Young Lawyers Section, or its Officers or Executive Committee.

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from December 2019 listed from newest to oldest.

November 2019 is the previous archive.

February 2020 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.