*
Fifth
Circuit
bucks
rest
of
judiciary,
precedent,
and
basic
statutory
interpretation
to
authorizing
indefinite
detention
for
anyone
suspected
of
being
in
the
country
illegally.
[One
First]
*
Speaking
of
“Fifths,”
Ghislaine
Maxwell
heading
to
Congress,
but
not
going
to
answer
any
questions.
[Reuters]
*
HBCU
law
school
tells
student
not
to
use
the
word
“Black”
in
“Black
History
Month”
materials.
Sorry,
the
law
school
probably
prefers
to
be
called
an
“H…CU.”
*
The
fascinating
“pay
it
forward”
story
that
gave
us
the
iconic
fictional
lawyer.
[Tedium]
*
CFTC
taking
on
prediction
markets.
I’ve
got
$20
on
they
won’t
end
up
doing
anything.
[National
Law
Journal]
*
Lawyers
getting
sick
and
tired
of
people
using
AI
for
legal
advice.
[Axios]
*
Court
blocks
administration
effort
to
halt
NYC
infrastructure
until
Penn
Station
is
renamed
after
him.
[Law360]
DOJ
Lawyer
Invites
Judge
To
Hold
Her
In
Contempt
Just
To
Get
Some
Rest:
Government
attorney
called
out
the
challenges
preventing
her
from
complying
with
court
orders
and
begs
for
rest.
The
DOJ
immediately
fired
her.
Brad
Karp
Era
Ends
At
Paul
Weiss:
Paul
Weiss
undergoes
impromptu
leadership
shuffle
after
Epstein
files
reveal
conversations
with
Epstein.
Republicans
Get
Huffy
About
Justice
Jackson
Attending
The
Grammys:
GOP
decides
the
real
scandal
is
a
Supreme
Court
justice
hearing
musicians
as
mad
about
ICE
as
the
rest
of
the
country.
Biglaw
Epstein
Victim
Drafted
Own
Sex
Contract:
Clifford
Chance
alum
went
on
to
law
school
at
Berkeley,
paid
for
by
Epstein.
Anthropic
Enters
Legal
Tech,
Creates
Immediate
Freakout:
New
twist
in
AI
arms
race
as
one
of
the
big
players
enters
the
fray
directly.
DOJ
Hiring
Prosecutors
Based
On
Sliding
Into
DMs:
Federal
hiring
hits
new
low.
GOP
Wants
Investigation
Of
Justice
Jackson
Because
She
Attended
The
Grammys:
Attending
because
she
was
nominated
for
best
audio
book
isn’t
enough
of
an
excuse
for
these
people.
Epstein
Victim
Was
A
Biglaw
Attorney
Turned
“Recruiter”:
At
one
point,
Epstein
gave
her
feedback
on
a
sex
contract
she
drafted.
What
Are
You
Waiting
For,
Free
Speech
Absolutists?:
The
DHS
is
hunting
down
dissent
and
rights
enthusiasts
are
pretty
quiet.
Jumping
Ship
Before
Ships
Merge:
Partners
defect
from
Perkins
Coie
as
merger
details
solidify.
Appalachian
Law
School
Gets
Some
Financial
Support:
This
could
be
the
turn
of
luck
the
school
needs!
The
Covid-19
pandemic
spurred
a
rapid
expansion
of
health
tech
companies,
and
new
market
realities
post
pandemic
meant
it
was
only
a
matter
of
time
before
some
consolidated.
Indeed,
investors
in
recent
years
predicted
greater
M&A
activity
only
to
never
see
it
materialize
either
in
2024
or
2025.
But
2026
may
be
the
year
the
predictions
do
come
true.
Consider
the
deals
announced
in
just
over
a
month:
Musculoskeletal
provider
Sword
Health
acquired
Kaia
Health,
another
musculoskeletal
company,
for
$285
million
Spring
Health
acquired
Alma,
both
of
which
are
mental
health
companies
OCD
provider
NOCD
acquired
Rebound
Health,
a
provider
focused
on
trauma
Women’s
health
company
Wisp
acquired
TBD
Health,
a
sexual
health
startup
OpenAI
acquired
Torch,
a
health
data
company,
for
$60
million
According
to
one
investor,
the
uptick
in
dealmaking
signals
a
maturation
of
the
sector.
“The
acquirers
are
venture-backed
digital
health
companies,”
said
Neil
Patel,
head
of
ventures
at
Redesign
Health.
“They
are
not
health
systems
or
payers
playing
defense.
That’s
a
sign
of
category
maturation.
It’s
tempting
to
compare
this
to
the
telehealth
wave
seven
or
eight
years
ago,
when
video
tech
commoditized
and
became
a
land
grab
for
distribution.
We’re
not
there
yet.
There’s
still
real
product
differentiation.
These
deals
are
more
surgical.
Each
has
its
own
logic:
geographic
expansion,
category
expansion,
supply-side
acquisition.”
Investors
anticipate
seeing
more
M&A
activity
throughout
the
year.
However,
the
IPO
market,
which
saw
a
slight
resurgence
last
year
with
announcements
from
Hinge
Health
and
Omada
Health,
will
likely
be
a
less
popular
route
this
year.
Why
companies
are
combining
Keith
Figlioli,
managing
partner
of
LRVHealth,
believes
there
are
two
main
reasons.
Many
digital
health
companies
are
merging
in
an
effort
to
scale
or
extend
their
financial
runway
after
struggling
to
grow
quickly,
raise
more
capital
or
reach
cash-flow
breakeven,
he
said.
Meanwhile,
larger
and
more
established
players
“are
starting
to
see
real
value
in
tuck-in
acquisitions
that
broaden
their
platform
with
unique
capabilities
or
talent
usually
on
the
AI
front.”
This
seems
to
track
with
Sword
and
Spring
Health’s
acquisitions.
A
spokesperson
for
Sword
told
MedCity
News
that
the
company
acquired
Kaia
to
strengthen
its
leadership
in
AI
care
and
allow
the
company
to
enter
the
German
market.
For
Spring
Health,
the
acquisition
of
Alma
brings
established
health
plan
relationships
and
in-network
provider
infrastructure,
allowing
the
company
to
reach
more
patients.
“In
mental
health
care,
demand
continues
to
outpace
supply,
and
access
alone
is
not
enough,”
said
Adam
Chekroud,
president
and
co-founder
of
Spring
Health.
“Quality
and
continuity
matter
just
as
much.
As
people
move
between
coverage
types
or
levels
of
care,
too
many
experience
disruption.
Bringing
together
complementary
strengths
allows
us
to
build
stronger
infrastructure
that
supports
consistent,
high-quality
care
across
those
transitions.”
Define
Ventures
Partner
Chirag
Shah
echoed
this,
stating
that
mental
health
companies
stand
to
benefit
the
most
from
scale
“because
our
persistent
supply
demand
imbalance
means
that
larger
companies
disproportionately
benefit
from
differential
payer
relationships.”
Flare
Capital
Partners’
co-founder,
Michael
Greeley,
noted
that
he’s
been
expecting
this
increase
in
M&A
activity
in
digital
health
for
sometime
now,
and
this
movement
is
positive
as
liquidity
in
this
segment
has
long
been
absent.
He
noted
that
the
industry
is
starting
to
see
a
separation
of
“winners”
from
the
rest
of
the
pack.
More
successful
deals
are
when
companies
that
already
have
significant
scale
buy
smaller
assets.
He
pointed
to
the
Sword
deal
as
an
example.
However,
a
less
successful
deal
is
when
two
subscale
companies
combine,
though
Greeley
declined
to
cite
examples.
“Those
are
really
hard
transactions
to
pull
off,”
he
said.
“In
2021,
we
set
up
something
like
900
companies.
A
more
normalized
rate
of
new
companies
in
the
sector
should
be
like
300
to
400.
So
it’s
fully
expected
that
you’d
see
consolidation,
but
combining
two
companies
that
are
struggling
doesn’t
mean
you’re
going
to
have
one
company
that’s
thriving.
You
may
just
have
a
slightly
larger
company
that’s
still
struggling.
And
when
I
say
struggling,
its
growth
is
slower,
and
they
still
need
to
raise
significant
capital.”
He
added
that
with
payers
facing
more
financial
pressure
—
particularly
after
it
was
recently
announced
that
Medicare
Advantage
plans
will
see
essentially
flat
payment
rates
in
2027
—
digital
health
companies
that
want
to
partner
with
them
will
need
to
be
in
a
stronger
position.
“Payers
are
going
to
have
to
kind
of
repurpose
a
lot
of
their
benefit
designs,
and
that
means
they
may
have
to
cut,
drop
some
of
these
capabilities
that
the
digital
health
companies
are
bringing
to
market
or
pay
less
for
them,”
Greeley
said.
He
added
that
consolidation
will
create
stronger
companies
that
will
have
more
leverage
in
negotiating
with
partners.
Another
accelerant
for
M&A
activity
is
the
“hyper
kinetic”
pace
of
change
in
the
technology
space,
Greeley
declared.
Companies
that
launched
three
to
five
years
ago
with
technology
once
considered
state-of-the-art,
such
as
traditional
SaaS
models,
may
now
struggle
to
compete
with
the
latest
AI
capabilities.
Like
others,
Greeley
anticipates
more
mergers
to
create
comprehensive
solutions
that
can
be
brought
to
the
market.
What
to
watch
out
for
So
which
sectors
could
see
more
consolidation?
Primary
care,
post-acute
care,
ancillary
services
and
the
technology
that
supports
those
areas
are
markets
that
would
benefit
the
most,
per
Shah
of
Define
Ventures.
Figlioli
also
called
out
revenue
cycle
management,
imaging/radiology,
robotics
and
consumer
health
as
areas
to
watch.
Meanwhile,
the
IPO
market
that
showed
signs
of
life
last
year
may
see
less
activity.
Greeley
expects
more
exits
via
M&A
this
year,
rather
than
through
the
public
markets.
“I
think
it’s
less
a
reflection
of
the
category,
but
more
of
the
geopolitical
turmoil
that
we’re
all
going
through,”
he
said.
When
it
comes
to
IPOs,
Abundant
Venture
Partners
Senior
Vice
President
Katie
Edge
expects
them
to
be
“targeted
and
well-validated
exits”
amid
the
lack
of
headline-dominating
IPOs.
But
IPO
or
M&A,
the
same
fundamentals
hold
true.
“Companies
with
strong
execution,
clinical
impact,
and
economic
clarity
remain
the
best
positioned
for
IPO
windows
or
strategic
sales,”
she
stated.
Lawyers
typically
understand
basic
technologies
that
make
it
easier
to
practice
law
and
work
with
adversaries. For
instance,
many
lawyers
adopt
certain
technologies
to
easily
share
documents
or
conduct
conferences
remotely,
and
pretty
much
everyone
within
the
legal
profession
knows
how
to
use
such
technologies.
Along
similar
lines,
individuals
usually
know
how
to
redline
documents
electronically
so
that
lawyers
can
see
proposed
changes
and
comment
on
them. One
of
my
biggest
pet
peeves
when
negotiating
documents
is
when
lawyers
send
PDF
versions
of
documents
that
clearly
need
to
be
negotiated. Although
this
is
unavoidable
in
some
situations,
if
a
Word
version
of
the
document
is
available,
that
should
be
sent
instead.
Earlier
in
my
career,
I
was
tasked
with
negotiating
a
lease
for
a
client. I
connected
with
the
landlord’s
lawyer,
who
said
he
would
soon
send
me
his
proposed
documents. Later,
the
landlord
sent
me
the
proposed
lease
as
a
PDF,
and
gave
me
instructions
on
how
my
client
could
sign
the
document
and
pay
money
owed
under
the
proposed
lease. This
was
a
significant
lease,
so
I
had
no
idea
why
this
attorney
believed
it
was
appropriate
to
send
the
PDF
document
with
signing
instructions
when
this
lease
would
obviously
need
to
be
negotiated.
I
asked
the
lawyer
to
send
a
copy
of
the
lease
in
Word
format,
and
the
attorney
eventually
complied. However,
it
took
time
for
this
lawyer
to
flip
back
a
Word
version
of
the
document,
and
the
timeframes
involved
in
the
matter
were
tight. I
tried
to
convert
the
PDF
into
a
Word
version
by
myself,
but
this
did
not
work
out
too
well.
The
resulting
document
had
a
formatting
issues
that
made
it
difficult
to
review
—
a
typical
problem
when
converting
PDF
documents
into
Word.
I
eventually
asked
this
lawyer
why
he
sent
me
the
PDF
document
with
signing
instructions
instead
of
sending
a
Word
version
of
the
document
in
the
first
instance. He
attorney
told
me
that
there
was
a
chance
that
my
client
would
just
sign
the
document
without
revisions
and,
so
to
facilitate
this
possibility,
the
lawyer
wanted
to
make
it
more
difficult
for
me
to
review
and
revise
the
lease.
This
made
very
little
sense
to
me.
Since
the
client
had
gone
through
the
trouble
of
hiring
a
lawyer
to
review
the
lease,
there
was
almost
no
chance
that
said
lawyer
would
not
have
any
revisions
to
the
lease. Moreover,
the
lease
had
extremely
unfavorable
language
for
my
client
as
many
leases
do
in
the
first
instance. It
is
unfathomable
that
a
lawyer
would
not
protest
some
of
the
language
in
this
lopsided
lease,
and
I
found
it
a
little
disrespectful
that
the
other
lawyer
thought
there
was
even
a
small
chance
I
would
consent
to
such
language
without
protest.
Additionally,
the
lease
included
basic
errors
that
did
not
reflect
the
letter
of
intent
that
was
signed
between
the
parties,
so
there
was
even
less
chance
this
lease
would
be
signed
without
any
alterations.
In
some
instances,
perhaps,
it
might
make
sense
for
a
lawyer
to
send
a
PDF
version
of
a
document
rather
than
a
Word
version.
For
instance,
if
the
document
is
brief,
the
counterpart
has
not
hired
counsel,
and
it
is
not
a
situation
in
which
clients
typically
negotiate
terms,
then
a
PDF
might
be
sufficient. However,
a
multi-year
lease
with
accompanying
documents
is
not
the
type
of
situation
in
which
parties
will
not
negotiate
terms. In
such
circumstances,
lawyers
should
just
send
Word
versions
of
documents
in
the
first
instance. This
saves
everyone
time
and
helps
make
it
easier
to
work
on
a
representation.
Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at jordan@rothman.law.
When
the
U.S.
men’s
curling
team
takes
the
ice
this
Wednesday,
a
Minnesota
trial
lawyer
will
have
his
sights
on
a
record.
At
54,
Rich
Ruohenon,
an
alternate
on
the
team,
would
be
the
oldest-ever
U.S.
athlete
to
compete
in
the
Olympics
if
he
were
to
enter
a
match.
Only
two
other
Americans
50
or
older
have
ever
competed,
Yahoo
Sports
reported,
citing
Olympic
historian
Bill
Mallon.
Ruohenon,
of
Brooklyn
Park,
has
had
several
near
misses
qualifying
for
prior
Olympics.
He
will
be
representing
the
U.S.
at
the
games
for
the
first
time,
and
he’s
bullish
on
his
prospects
for
getting
into
a
match.
“I’m
sure
they’re
going
to
try
to
make
it
happen,”
Ruohonen
told
Yahoo
Sports.
“I
have
a
pretty
good
feeling.
That’s
all
I
want.
I
want
them
to
be
healthy
and
I
want
them
to
win
it,
but
I’m
not
going
to
lie.
I
want
to
get
in
for
a
rock
or
two.”
You’re getting
ready
to
make
a
document
production
to
the
other
side.
You’re worried
though
that
the
other
side
may
use
GenAI
tools on
the
documents that
don’t
ensure they are
protected
from public disclosure.
You
ask
to
see
the
other
side’s
policies
just
to
be
sure.
They
refuse.
You
ask
the
judge
for
a
protective
order
since
some
of your documents
contain
trade
secrets.
The
other
side
argues
you
are
just
delaying
production
and
trying
to
make
it
hard
for
them
to
find
and
review
documents.
The
judge
denies
your
motion.
Six
months
later,
the
documents
turn
up
in
the
ChatGPT
database. You
move
for sanctions, but
the
economic
damage
is
already
done.
The
Reality
Think
this
couldn’t
happen?
Think
again.
We
live
in
a
world
of interconnected GenAI
tools where inadvertent or unintentional
disclosure can
easily happen.
And the
ease
of
use
makes the
temptation
to and
likelihood
of use of these
tools pretty great.
Moreover, it just
takes
one
slip
up for
documents
to
be
jeopardized. Finally,
while
you
may
be
able
to
control
your
shop,
you
have
little
control
once
the
documents
leave
your
hands.
I
talked
to Matt
Mahon, VP
of
Customer
Experience
at
Level Legal,
recently
about
these very
problems. Level
Legal
is an
e-discovery
provider; I
have
written
about
the
company before. I
have
found
its
people to
be some
of
the
most
insightful
in
the
business.
And it’s
refreshing to
find
a
company
in
the
space
that
is
long
on
substance
and
short
on
hype. Mahon
has
thought
a
lot
about
the
problems
GenAI
poses
in
the
discovery
context.
Mahon
agreed
that
using
GenAI
tools
to review your
own documents
pre-production
is
fine as
long
as you
have
a
good
policy
in
place,
you
train
your
people thoroughly,
and
“consistently
remind
team
members
of
how
to
use the
tools.”
But
he
gave
me
several
examples
of
how
your
documents could
end
up
in
public
once
they
get
in
the
other
side’s
hands.
Some
Problematic
Examples
Mobile
phones
are
a
prime
risk
says
Mahon.
“It’s
easy
to
download
an
email
attachment
to
your
phone,
import
it
into
your
ChatGPT
app,
and
risk
a
potential
breach.”
Another
common
example:
someone attaches a
photo
of
a
document to their phone
photo
app to review
later
or
for use
in
a
deposition.
Mahon legitimately asks, “Where
does
the
photo
go
when
you
do
that?
I
couldn’t
tell
you
for
sure.
Some
apps
could
allow
an
LLM
to
learn
from
the
picture.” Moreover, as he
points
out,
apps
update their
policies
all
the
time
and users often don’t
know
what
new
permissions
may
have
been
added.
Another
example: someone
on
the
other
side
uses a
GenAI
tool
to
summarize
some
documents,
letting
the
proverbial
horse
out
of
the
barn.
Mahon also talked
about
the
risk
of
providing
documents
to
experts which further widens
the
field
of
risks.
The
expert might use a GenAI tool to
be
efficient, for
example, making
the
documents
public.
Or
what
if
the
expert
or
even
one
of
the
lawyers
on
the
other
side
use
a
GenAI
bot
on
their
email to
help organize it
and help
with replies
and
calendaring.
If that email
has
a
sensitive
document
attached
as
a
PDF
—
picture
an associate
sending
a
hot
PDF
document
to
a
partner
with
a “look
at
this” statement
—
the
document is
now
in
the
public
domain.
Mahon also
told
me
that
tools
like
Dropbox may allow LLM
tools to run
in
the
background on
stored
documents.
“These
connections
between
different
systems
and
applications
can
result
in
data getting
downloaded in
all
sorts
of
ways.”
Yet
another
looming
risk
is
posed
by
the
proliferation
of
AI
agents,
says
Mahon.
“Agents can
be installed
on
systems
that
have
full
file
system
access. Others are
monitoring
emails
some
of
which
may
contain attorney-client
privilege communications,
and
these
AI
agents
are
reading
those
emails
too, which would
potentially jeopardize confidentiality
and risk waiving
privilege.”
So
many
ways
that
sensitive
documents
can
go public,
many
inadvertently. And
there’s
not
a
whole
lot
of good solutions.
Solutions Remain
Elusive
There
are some
ways
to
reduce risk, but
none
are
foolproof.
The
parties
could by
agreement
provide
and
ensure
reasonable
protections.
Or they
could retain
a third-party provider
to
hold
the
documents
and
allow
use
subject
to
certain
parameters,
according
to
Mahon. And
there’s
always
the
option
of
seeking
judicial
intervention.
But
all
these
solutions
are
all
too
often
difficult
to
obtain. A
fundamental problem
is
that
even
today,
after
years
of
dealing
with
e-discovery,
too
many practitioners don’t
understand
it,
don’t
want
to
deal
with
it,
and
remain
ignorant
of
basic principles.
They
don’t
get e-discovery in
general,
much
less
the
increased
risk
GenAI
poses. Moreover,
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
aren’t
exactly
known
for
being
proactive
with
technology
in
general. All
of
this
makes
agreement difficult.
The
problem
is also compounded
by
our
adversary
system. Trying
to ensure reasonable
protections by
agreement is
almost
always
going
to
be
met
with
opposition
given
that firms
use
some
many
different
systems
and
some
have
more
protections
in
place
than
others. And
agreement
requires revealing information
about
what
a
law
firm
is
doing
internally,
always
a
sensitive
topic. The
problems are compounded
even
more
where
one
side
in
a
case
has
lots
of documents and
the
other
side
few
as
in
most
personal
injury
cases.
And
most
lawyers
aren’t
going
to
be
happy
with
being
forced
into
using
a
third-party
provider
that
takes
time
and
energy
to
use
to
review
and
use
documents.
Trying
to
talk
a
judge
into
intervening
is
also
problematic.
Most
judges
hate
discovery
disputes since
they
inevitably
devolve
into
“he
said,
she
said”
arguments.
And
the
constant
gamesmanship
from
both
sides
leads
judges
to
either
punt
the
issue
back
to
the
parties
or
maintain
the
status
quo by
not
entering orders
requiring
things beyond
that spelled
out
in the
rules.
But
Mahon
says
without
some
sort
of
protections
in
place, parties’
privacy could be
at
risk
in
virtually every case.
Granted,
many
documents
produced
in
litigation
carry
no
privacy
expectation
in
any
event.
And
we
are
all
used
to
less
privacy
in
general.
But
some
documents
—
like
those
containing
trade
secrets
—
are
highly
sensitive
and making
them
public
is
a
real
economic
threat
to
a
business
and
individuals. Medical
records
are
also
sensitive
and additionally
are covered
by
various privacy regulations.
What’s
Needed
What’s
really
needed
is
for
reputable
think
tanks
like
Sedona
to
become involved
and
offer
guidance.
What’s
really
needed
is
for
rulemaking
bodies
to
offer
procedural
and
discovery
rules that
clearly
state
expectations
and requirements.
Yet
thus
far,
the
rulemaking
bodies
ignore
real
risks
like GenAI
and
deepfakes
and
concentrate
on
things
like
requiring
lay witnesses using
GenAI materials
to
satisfy expert witness
standards.
While that
may
be
of
some
value,
it ignores far
more
serious threats as
I have
written.
Stronger
rules
and
statements from well-respected bodies
on
how
to
protect discovery documents would
at
least
provide
a
base
from
which
judges
could view
protection
requests.
It
would
validate
the
idea
that
firms
working
with
documents
obtained through discovery
need
to adequately protect
those
documents
from
disclosure. It
would
sensitize
courts
and
lawyers
for
that
matter
to
the
very
real
risk
of inadvertent disclosure.
It
has
long
been
the
case
that
turning
over
digital
documents
to
the
other
side
risks
disclosure
of
sensitive documents.
Now
though,
with
the
advent
of
GenAI
and
GenAI
agents,
that
risk
is
compounded
exponentially.
As
a
profession,
we
can’t
hide
our
heads
in
the
sand
and
ignore
that
reality.
Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger,
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.
The
latest
drop
of
Epstein
files
contains
all
manner
of
disturbing
revelations,
but
few
as
dark
as
the
correspondence
between
the
infamous
sex
trafficker
and
a
Biglaw
attorney.
In
the
files
there
are
a
number
of
emails
from
a
Clifford
Chance
email
address.
The
correspondence
between
the
Clifford
Chance
trainee
lawyer
in
the
Paris
office
and
Jeffrey
Epstein
do
not
show
an
attorney/client
relationship,
but
rather,
Epstein
grooming
a
young
woman.
As
spokesperson
for
Clifford
Chance
said,
“The
firm
has
never
acted
for
Epstein.
The
correspondence
is
not
related
to
the
business
of
the
firm.” And
Boies
Schiller
Flexner
told
RollOnFriday
on
the
woman’s
behalf
that
she
“was
a
victim
of
Jeffrey
Epstein”
and
a
survivor
of
abuse.
Given
this
lens,
the
emails
are
unsettling.
The
woman
met
Epstein
in
2011,
and
she
wrote
to
him,
“I
really
would
like
you
to
teach
me
new
things…
as
you
asked
I
googled
you.
well,
maybe
your
passion
is
Young
girls
as
Snowboarding
is
mine.
Im
not
scared
anyway.”
Epstein
flew
her
around
the
globe,
and
also
in
2011
she
wrote,
“You
and
the
girls
are
really
fun!
The
fashion
show
with
half
naked
models
walking
around…haha.”
She
also
said,
“Look
at
all
the
girls
how
much
they
love
you
and
me
becoming
one
of
them,
and
all
the
love
you
give
them,
make
them
feel
secure
delighted
thrilled
comfortable
and
loved
all
the
time,
impressive.”
Epstein
integrated
himself
into
the
woman’s
professional
ambitions,
having
her
draft
a
sex
contract,
for
which
Epstein
provided
typo-laden
feedback,
“not
a
bad
first
try,,
.
there
is
no
penalty
for
brach,?
no
third
part
mediation
in
case
of
dispute,…
no
quality
assuaranvce.
with
standard
practice.
,
no
time
limit,
a
no
complaining
clause,
etc.”
Epstein
also
advised
the
woman
on
her
application
to
U.S.
law
school.
“I
do
work
on
it
now,”
she
replied,
“standing
on
the
balcony
of
the
meeting
room
of
Clifford
Chance…
then
closing
my
eyes
and
visualizing
getting
an
acceptance
letter
from
HLS.”
The
woman
even
said
to
Epstein
at
one
point,
“Older
men
can
abuse
us…how
to
figure
out
whom
to
trust
is
hard.”
RollOnFriday
also
documents
the
woman’s
(who
they
refer
to
as
“V”)
descent
into
become
a
recruiter
for
Epstein.
A
feature
of
Epstein’s
crimes
was
his
curation
of
a
vast
network
of
victims,
and
he
quickly
groomed
V
into
becoming
one
of
his
recruiters.
Emailing
her
at
work
in
2011,
he
asked,
“Did
you
find
the
my
new
girlfrined?”
V
replied,
“Oh
i
dont
like
sharing,
would
like
to
keep
you
all
for
me
There
might
be
two
candidates
if
you
want,
russian
and
austrian
girls,
both
smart
and
blond”.
Epstein’s
preferences
became
normalised:
on
another
occasion
she
asked
him,
“what
would
you
like
me
to
bring
you
from
sweden?
except
for
girls?”
V
became
overt
about
her
purpose,
asking
Epstein
in
2012,
“Do
you
want
to
see
me
or
you
are
interested
in
me
only
because
I
found
pretty
girls
for
you?”
This
is
a
role
the
woman
would
have
for
a
number
of
years.
She
continued
to
search
for
women
for
Epstein,
updating
him
in
2013,
“There
is
one
who
is
into
finances
and
investments,
very
intelligent
and
super
hot.
others
are
law
students,
all
beautiful
and
interesting
people.
I
give
English
classes
to
one
of
them.
She
is
thrilled
to
speak
English
to
you,
lol,
her
French
accent
is
so
cute.”
“You
can
make
them
do
catwalks
for
you
or
we
go
to
gym
and
you
play
Mr
Coach,
ahah”,
said
V.
By
2017
she
was
helping
Epstein
procure
“young
attractive
assistant[s]”,
forwarding
him
details
of
lingerie
models
(he
told
her
one
of
her
candidates
was
“too
old”,
and
she
acknowledged,
“no
more
over
24!
Sorry
for
that”).
“The
CVs
and
candidates
keep
on
coming…i
feel
like
a
recruitment
agency
now
:-)”
she
wrote.
After
the
woman
left
Clifford
Chance,
she
continued
to
the
U.S.
to
continue
her
legal
studies.
As
reported
by
Law.com,
she
asked
Epstein
to
finance
them.
In
response
to
one
email
which
asks
if
Epstein’s
organisation
could
sponsor
her
studies
at
Berkeley,
Epstein
writes:
“I
will
do
it
personally.
,
I
am
disappointed
that
you
have
yet
to
produce
assistants
as
partn
of
our
understanding.
now
that
you
are
a
lawyer
i
woudl
have
thought
you
recognized
that
an
agreement
had
two
sides,
each
with
their
own
obligations.
)):”
The
woman
continued
to
correspond
with
Epstein
until
2019,
six
months
before
Epstein
was
arrested
on
child
sex
charges,
when
she
thanked
him
“for
bringing
so
much
joy,
inspiration
and
care
in
my
life.”
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].
He
can
be
abrasive
and
does
not
have
Brad’s
diplomatic
flair,
[but
he]
has
an
amazing
practice
and
is
great
with
client
relationships.
As
a
cultural
matter,
the
litigators
have
never
been
led
by
a
corporate
partner.
Will
the
litigation
team
have
an
issue
with
the
firm
becoming
really
a
corporate
shop
with
a
litigation
arm,
rather
than
the
other
way?
— A
former
Paul,
Weiss
attorney,
in
comments
given
to
the
American
Lawyer,
concerning
Scott
Barshay’s
rise
to
the
chairmanship
of
Paul,
Weiss,
where
he’ll
be
the
first
M&A
partner
to
lead
the
firm
in
recent
history.
Barshay
is
taking
the
reins
at
the
firm
after
Brad
Karp’s
sudden
resignation
as
chair,
in
light
of
his
presence
in
the
Epstein
files.
Staci
Zaretsky is
the
managing
editor
of
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to email her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.
Kathryn
