On January 1, Ben Wilson will officially conclude his tenure as chairman of Beveridge & Diamond and retire from the firm.

As first reported by Bloomberg Law, Wilson, affectionately regarded as the dean of Black partners at major law firms, announced his retirement this fall after 45 years in legal practice, 35 of those years with the firm.

Wilson became chairman of the Washington, D.C.-based Beveridge & Diamond in 2017, 31 years after entering the firm as its first Black partner. But his impact stretches far beyond his firm. Over the years, the Harvard Law graduate has mentored generations of Black and other diverse law firm partners, general counsel and law students across the country, becoming known to many as a teacher, a coach and a friend.

In 2008, founded the Diverse Partners Network, which he’ll continue to lead after retirement, renamed as the Diverse Lawyers Network. He is also the founder of the African American Managing Partners Network, a tight-knit network of African American leaders of major law firms, and the African American General Counsel Network.

Lisa Helem, Bloomberg Law’s Executive Editor for Strategic Initiatives, spoke with Wilson about law firm leadership, his formative years growing up in Jackson, Mississippi, his work to improve diversity in the legal profession and his legacy.

We present that conversation here as a special episode of our award-winning “Black Lawyers Speak” series, hosted on UnCommon Law.

Some frustration with the bar exam comes not just because it’s a hard test. Differences in state licensing requirements can mean attorneys may have to take the bar exam multiple times.

In the final episode of [Un]Common Law’s three-part look at the bar exam, we ask why can't there be one bar exam for all U.S. jurisdictions? A national bar exam that eliminates the need for a patchwork of state tests? The answer turns in part on the test called the Uniform Bar Exam or UBE. Developed by the National Conference of Bar Examiners to solve the issue of portability, the UBE allows participant jurisdictions to accept exam scores from other participating jurisdictions. Still, some critics, such as the New York State Bar Association, have taken aim at the UBE for being “too universal,” and now recommend that their state withdraw.

In this episode we speak with:

***

Host/Producer: Adam Allington

Editor/Executive Producer: Josh Block

Cover Art: Jonathan Hurtarte

In the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, five U.S. jurisdictions opted to suspend their July 2020 bar exams. Instead, these jurisdictions granted licensure to new attorneys through "diploma privilege.” That's the practice of admitting new attorneys to the state bar, and allowing them to practice law, contingent on their graduation from an ABA-accredited law school only. It does not require taking and passing a bar exam. Wisconsin is currently the only state to permanently offer diploma privilege, and it is only available to graduates of its two in-state law schools, Marquette University Law School and University of Wisconsin Law School.

Critics of the bar exam have long argued that a timed test, based on short-term memorization of how to apply a vast amount legal rules, is not a true measure of legal competency. And now, with a string of remote testing snafus during the pandemic, many in the legal community are asking whether diploma privilege is a better option. Standing in the way of these fundamental changes are many state supreme courts and bar associations who have authority over who can practice law in their jurisdictions. Additionally, those opposed to diploma privilege argue that, whether it's accounting, medicine, or law, licensure exams are there for a good reason—to protect the public from incompetent practitioners.

In this second episode of our podcast series on the bar exam, [Un]Common Law will explore the arguments both for and against diploma privilege.

In this episode we speak with:

***

Host/Producer: Adam Allington

Editor/Executive Producer: Josh Block

Cover Art: Jonathan Hurtarte

In all U.S. jurisdictions except Wisconsin, passing a bar exam is a requirement to obtain a license to practice law. However, the Covid-19 pandemic forced some state authorities to adopt alternative paths to licensure for recent law school graduates.

In the wake of those changes, criticism of the bar exam has blossomed into a movement to reform or eliminate the test altogether. These critics argue that the bar exam, “is an outmoded, discriminatory, and simply ineffective as a barometer of legal competence,” according to Bloomberg Law’s Sam Skolnik.

While defenders of the status-quo argue that the bar is still the best way to evaluate would-be attorneys on the fundamental legal concepts that every lawyer should know.

In this first of a three-part series on the bar exam, the [Un]Common Law podcast will look at the arguments for and against preserving the bar exam.

In this episode we speak with:

***

Host/Producer: Adam Allington

Editor/Executive Producer: Josh Block

Cover Art: Jonathan Hurtarte

Frances Haugen, the whistleblower whose revelations have prompted a congressional investigation into Facebook revealed herself publicly in an interview that aired on CBS on Sunday night. Haugen is the source of thousands of internal company documents that were leaked to U.S. lawmakers and the Wall Street Journal.

A data scientist, Haugen was hired by Facebook in June of 2019 to lead the company’s civic integrity team, which was charged with cracking down on hate speech and misinformation. In practice however, she said that the company chose to downplay or ignore its own evidence detailing the rampant spread of misinformation on its platforms, as well as harms to children and teens. Haugen's lawyers have filed at least eight complaints with the Securities and Exchange Commission, should the agency choose to bring charges against Facebook for withholding information and misleading investors.

The public outcry over Facebook is not new. The social media giant has been on the receiving end of media exposes and Congressional inquiries for years. Last July, [Un]Common Law released a podcast series, called “Unchecked” looking into the legal and regulatory framework for social media, as well as changes to laws that could be implemented.

In this special episode of [Un]Common Law, Naomi Nix, a Washington, DC based reporter for Bloomberg News talks about the latest revelations. 

Concerns over the harmful impact of social media are rising to a fever pitch. In the past decade, everyone from conspiracy theorists to foreign governments have used social media to spread election disinformation, sow discord, and peddle viral conspiracies.

This month, the Biden administration and the U.S. Surgeon General accused social media platforms of being the primary source of misinformation about Covid-19 vaccines. Likewise, a July 6 paper warned that the invention of social media could cause human society to fail “catastrophically, unexpectedly, and without warning” if it continues down its current path.

In the fourth and final episode in our UnChecked series, we are looking at some of the public-policy solutions being proposed to rein in the threats posed by Big Tech and social media.

In this episode of [Un]Common Law we speak with:

Cracking down on large tech companies may be one of the few remaining areas of political consensus in Washington D.C. However, many legal experts caution that antitrust cases could take years to complete and the outcomes are far from certain.

Still others claim that the recent focus on antitrust is more about punishing tech platforms for being successful. They argue that it would have little impact on more pressing concerns, such as the spread of misinformation, the erosion of privacy, and the acceleration of political polarization.

In this episode of [Un]Common Law we speak with:

Permanently revoking users’ access to social media platforms— a practice known as “deplatforming “— isn’t a new concept, but the high-profile ban of President Donald Trump has raised new questions about censorship and free speech in the internet age.

For years Twitter famously clung to its identity as “the free speech wing of the free-speech party.” Meanwhile, Facebook employed a policy that mostly excluded politicians from content moderation rules that applied to other users. Yet, within days of the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms suspended the accounts of the president of the United States.

First Amendment lawyers point out that the Constitution protects against government censorship of speech. However, social media platforms are businesses run by companies. They have terms of service and aren't obligated to provide a platform to anyone. Still, whether one views the deplatforming of a U.S. president as necessary or not, many say the more important question is whether tech companies should be the ones deciding where to set the boundaries for online speech.

In this episode of [Un]Common Law we speak with:

In the months since the January 6 attack on the Capitol, one thing people on both sides of the political aisle seem to agree on, is that social media bears at least some responsibility for spreading the lies that led to the attack. But, is that true? And if it is, even a little bit, what should lawmakers do about it? Those questions are what [Un]Common Law will explore in our new series called “UnChecked.” A look at the legal doctrines, case history, and legislation that gave birth to the internet as we know it.

This first episode is all about Section 230, the law that makes it possible for companies like Facebook and Twitter to publish content created by their users. Specifically, Section 230 states that, "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." In other words, online platforms can’t be held liable for the speech that is posted on their sites. Almost as importantly, Section 230 also gives those platforms the freedom to moderate, or remove content as they see fit.

Many Republicans say Section 230 enables tech companies to censor conservative voices. While some Democrats say the law has allowed platforms to wash their hands of harms associated with hate speech, terrorism, and harassment. Many lawmakers, from both parties, have expressed a willingness to make changes to the status quo, but what those changes look like has yet to be determined.

In this episode of [Un]Common Law we hear from:

For our next season of [Un]Common Law, we’re wading into the thorny debate over Big Tech and social media. Companies like Facebook, Google, Amazon, Twitter are much bigger than they were 20 years ago, but is this a problem?

Is Big Tech impinging on your right to free speech? That depends on who you ask. And what about the increased influence of hate-speech, conspiracy theories and disinformation that spread like wildfire online.

Despite bipartisan consensus that something needs to be done, what that something actually might look like differs wildly. So, we’re asking experts, and trying to connect the dots to find out what new internet regulation might look like. 

We’re calling this series, UnChecked, and it will be reported out over a series of episodes starting June 14th.