Author: TSA Press

As
we
enter
year
three
of
the
pandemic,
we
know
all
the
tropes.
Yes,
we’ve
made
sourdough.
We’ve
binged
Tiger
King.
And
a
bunch
of
folks
got
dogs.
Now
that
going
back
to
the
office
is
looking
like
more
and
more
of
a
reality,
the
question
is,
what
do
we
do
with
little
Fluffy
now?

The
ABA
Journal

reports
on
a
growing
trend
of
lawyers
who
simply
refuse
to
go
back
to
the
office
if
Fido
can’t
come
along.
Like
Ruth
Carter,
who,
when
offered
a
new
job
said
simply,
“Great,
I
come
with
a
dog.”

The
stories
of
attorneys
and
their
pets
really
show
the
lengths
some
will
go
to
in
order
to
ensure
their
dog
can
be
with
them:

David
Reischer,
an
attorney
and
CEO
with
LegalAdvice.com,
says
he
always
planned
on
being
self-employed,
specifically
because
he
wanted
to
be
with
his
dog
at
all
times.
He’s
had
six
dogs
since
childhood,
and
now
he
can’t
imagine
being
separated
from
his
pet.

Reischer’s
current
dog
is
Winter,
a
pit
bull
terrier
mix
with
lots
of
energy
who
just
turned
7.
She
needs
to
go
to
the
park
twice
a
day—or
else
she
becomes
rambunctious
and
will
tear
up
the
house—and
Reischer
is
happy
to
oblige.

“Working
at
home
with
Winter
is
so
important
because
her
breed
is
a
very
energetic
type,
and
she
needs
constant
walks
to
burn
off
energy,”
Reischer
says.
“Thankfully,
I
am
self-employed,
so
I
am
able
to
bring
Winter
to
the
office
when
I
need,
and
I
mostly
work
from
home.”

Or
this
attorney
who
would
move
offices
if
there
were
no
pets
allowed:

Kris
Parker,
a
co-founding
attorney
and
partner
at
Hendry
&
Parker
in
Dunedin,
Florida,
has
a
12-year-old
Boston
terrier
whom
he
brings
to
the
law
office
daily.
Parker
says
Dunkin
is
a
cheerful
dog
who
lifts
the
morale
of
visitors
and
attorneys
alike.
The
clients
know
his
name
and
look
forward
to
seeing
him.

“Law
offices
and
legal
matters
can
be
intimidating,
and
Dunkin
takes
some
of
that
edge
off
for
most
of
our
clients,”
Parker
says.
“If
he
were
not
permitted
in
our
office,
I
would
probably
look
into
working
somewhere
he
is
welcome.”

This
attorney
uses
her
dog
as
a
screening
tool
for
new
hires:

Maria
Barlow,
a
Chicago
solo,
got
two
pandemic
puppies
during
the
lockdown.
When
she
returned
to
the
office,
she
brought
her
terriers
without
blinking
an
eye.

“I
will
not
hire
new
staff
who
do
not
like
dogs—or
whom
my
dogs
do
not
like,”
Barlow
says.
If
clients
are
scared
of
her
dogs,
she
leaves
the
puppies
at
home
briefly
during
her
lunch
break,
meets
with
the
clients
and
runs
home
to
grab
her
dogs.
She
also
doesn’t
take
in-person
cases
if
she
knows
they
are
in-person
in
advance—so
that
she
can
always
be
present
with
her
dogs.
If
absolutely
necessary,
Barlow
says,
she
sends
her
dogs
to
their
pup
nanny.
And
if
she
ever
needs
to
quickly
run
to
court
because
someone
is
going
into
custody,
she
leaves
her
dogs
with
her
staff.

But
most
of
these
anecdotal
stories
feature
small
practices
or
self-employed
attorneys.
Not
sure
Biglaw
would
be
nearly
as
accommodating
of
Spot.

---

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).

Last
night
New
York
Attorney
General
Letitia
James
filed
her

opposition
to
Donald
Trump’s Hail
Mary
pass
to
the
federal
judiciary
demanding
that
it
enjoin
her
investigation
and/or
force
James
to
recuse
herself
from
all
matters
Trump-related.

As
the
AG
points
out
in
the
first
paragraph,
this
issue
is
currently
being
adjudicated
by
the
New
York
Supreme
Court,
where
Justice
Arthur
Engoron
forced
Eric
Trump
to
sit
for
a
deposition
and
already
adjudicated
multiple
privilege
disputes.
In
fact,
the
Trump
Organization
has
largely
cooperated
with
the
OAG
during
the
34
months
of
the
investigation,
and
only
decided
that
it
was
illegally
tainted
by
bias
when
Trump,
Ivanka,
and
Don
Jr.
got
subpoenaed
late
last
year.

Trump
made
the
same
arguments
about
Tish
James’s
supposed
bias
at
the
state
court,
where
he
lost.
So
in
addition
to

res
judicata,
he
may
have
a
wee
tiny
abstention
doctrine
problem.
And
good
luck
arguing
that
you’ve
been
deprived
of
due
process
when
your
motion
to
quash
a
subpoena
for
testimony
is
scheduled
for
February
17.

How
much
more
process
do
these
people
think
they’re
entitled
to?
And
when
did
an
almost
three-year
investigation
become
an
emergency
requiring
judicial
intervention
—
or more
judicial
intervention,
to
be
precise?

As
for
the
supposed
harms,
the
motion
skewers
the
claim
that
the
OAG
is
somehow
chilling
the
plaintiffs’
First
Amendment
right
to
speak
since
Donald
Trump
and
his
namesake
son
literally
never
shut
up.

“[I]t
is
not
readily
apparent,
given
Mr.
Trump’s
frequent
public
statements
and
appearances,
how
Plaintiffs
could
plausibly
establish
any
such
chill,”
the
OAG
writes,
dropping
a
footnote
to
Trump’s
speech
Saturday
in
which
he

promised
riots
in
the
streets
if
he
were
ever
indicted.

The
motion
failed
to
allude
to
Jr.’s
frequent
attempts
to
hold
his
jaw
in
place
while
livestreaming

ad
hominem
attacks
on
the
current
president.

He
should
only
be
so
lucky
as
to
have
someone
who
cared
enough
to
stifle
him!
And
his
brother,
too,
since
Eric
Trump’s

public
tantrum
about
all
the
subpoenas
he
was
defying
is
what
prompted
the
OAG
to
sue
in
the
first
place,
publicly
docketing
a

motion
to
compel which
outlined
the

laughable
real
estate
valuations and
possible
undeclared
loan
forgiveness
which
formed
the
basis
of
her
investigation.

Unfortunately
this
motion
wasn’t
full
of
juicy
details
like
the
state
filings,
including
one
last
week
that

detailed
the
sweet
deal
Ivanka
Trump
got
on
her
Park
Avenue
penthouse
and
described
her
as
“the
primary
contact
for
the
Trump
Organization’s
largest
lender,
Deutsche
Bank”
from
which
position
she
caused
“misleading
financial
statements
to
be
submitted
to
Deutsche
Bank
and
the
federal
government.”

But
it
does
include
multiple
references
to
“substantial
evidence
establishing
numerous
misrepresentations
in
Mr.
Trump’s
financial
statements
provided
to
banks,
insurers,
and
the
Internal
Revenue
Service.”
So
much
for
the
claim
that
the
public
interest
favors
enjoining
the
investigation.

In
fact,
this
case
is
so
transparently
ridiculous,
that
the
OAG
concludes
by
reminding
the
court
that
there’s
a
pending
motion
to
dismiss,
so
if
Judge
Brenda
Sannes,
an
Obama
appointee,
wants
to
yeet
this
whole
stinker
off
the
federal
docket
at
once,
that
would
probably
be
the
most
efficient
use
of
time.

Of
course,
that
would
deprive
ATL
readers
of
the
pleasure
of
making
fun
of
another

batguano
insane
Trump
filing,
but
it
seems
unlikely
that
the
plaintiffs
will
point
to
that
as
a
public
interest
favoring
the
continuation
of
this
turkey
of
a
lawsuit.

Trump
v.
James
[Federal
Docket
via
Court
Listener]

People
v.
Trump
Org
[State
Docket]

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
writes
about
law
and
politics.

Ed.
note:
This
is
the
latest
in
a
new
article
series,


Cybersecurity:
Tips
From
the
Trenches,
by
our
friends
at

Sensei
Enterprises,
a
boutique
provider
of
IT,
cybersecurity,
and
digital
forensics
services.

Going
on
the
Offensive:
A
New
Development
in
Combatting
Ransomware
For
as
long
as
ransomware
gangs
have
been
around,
we’ve
been
rocked
back
on
our
heels
in
defensive
mode.
No
longer.
Following
the
old
adage
about
taking
the
fight
to
the
enemy,
we
have
set
out
to
make
it
painful
to
be
in
a
ransomware
gang.
We
have
taken
the
gloves
off
in
our
quest
to
disrupt
the
cyber
criminals.

Who
is
Fighting
Ransomware?
Everyone
knew
that,
under
the
Biden
administration,
cybersecurity
was
a
priority
–
one
of
the
few
things
that
both
political
parties
could
agree
upon.
Notable
has
been
the
elevation
of
the
Cybersecurity
and
Infrastructure
Security
Agency
(CISA),
which
is
part
of
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security.
CISA
has
risen
to
great
prominence
producing
all
sorts
of
resources,
one
of
them
noteworthy
for
this
article.
The
resource
is
Stop
Ransomware,
a
site
full
of
helpful
advice
in
plain
English
found

here.

But
what
we
didn’t
know
until
December
of
2021
was
that
the
U.S.
military
is
taking
on
ransomware
as
well,
particularly
worried
about
attacks
on
critical
infrastructure.
Mind
you,
the
military
doesn’t
want
to
tell
us
exactly
what
it
is
doing
which
is
unsurprising.
General
Paul
M.
Nakasone,
the
head
of
the
US
Cyber
Command
and
director
of
the
National
Security
Agency,
has
said
that
one
of
the
goals
of
the
current
operations
is
to
“impose
costs”
for
ransomware
groups.

We
have
also
added
private
companies
to
the
fight,
including
Amazon,
Google
and
Microsoft.
CISA
is
teaming
with
private
companies
in
the
Joint
Cyber
Defense
Collaborative,
which
will
focus
first
on
combatting
ransomware
and
attacks
on
cloud
providers
–
concurrently
working
on
information
sharing
between
the
government
and
the
private
sector.

The
Department
of
Justice
Had
a
Very
Good
Month
in
November
2021
In
a
series
of
moves,
the
DOJ
sent
ransomware
gangs
a
strong
message.
It
arrested
an
affiliate
of
the
ransomware
gang

REvil
in
Poland
to
be
extradited
to
the
U.S.

It
seized
$6.1
million
in
cryptocurrency
from
another
REvil
associate.

Finally,
it
offered
a
bounty
of
$10
million
for
the
name
or
location
of
any
key
REvil
leader
and
up
to
$5
million
for
information
about
REvil
affiliates.
That’s
some
serious
money!

January
2022:
The
Russians
Say
They
Shut
Down
REvil
with
Information
Provided
by
the
U.S.
Eyebrows
no
doubt
went
up
everywhere
when
that
news
was
reported.
The
Federal
Security
Service
(FSB)
of
the
Russian
Federation
announced
that
REvil
was
now
shut
down
and
“the
information
infrastructures
used
for
criminal
purposes
was
neutralized.”

Fourteen
REvil
members
were
arrested,
apparently
based
on
information
provided
by
the
U.S.
Russian
authorities
confiscated
cryptocurrency
and
fiat
money,
including
more
than
426
million
rubles
(approximately
$5.5
million),
600
thousand
U.S.
dollars
and
500
thousand
euros
(approximately
$570,000).

They
also
confiscated
20
luxury
cars
purchased
with
money
obtained
from
cyberattacks,
computer
equipment
and
cryptocurrency
wallets
used
to
develop
and
maintain
the
ransomware
operation.

Chatter
on
the
Dark
Web:
The
Criminals
are
Worried
Not
surprisingly,
members
of
ransomware
gangs
are
worried
about
being
tracked
down
and
arrested.
They
expressed
in
their
dark
web
chatter
that
they
had
no
desire
to
go
to
jail
(imagine
that).
Previously,
jail
had
never
seemed
a
possibility
as
Russia
turned
a
blind
eye
to
the
activities
of
ransomware
gangs.

Some
mentioned
moving
out
of
Russia.
Others
worried
that
criminals
who
are
arrested
will
rat
out
their
comrades.
That
seems
likely.
Suddenly,
there
was
a
ripple
of
fear
pervading
in
the
ransomware
cartels
that
didn’t
exist
before.
Crime
may
indeed
have
consequences.

What
Do
Recent
Developments
Portend
for
the
Longstanding
Battle
of
Law
Firms
Against
Ransomware?
It
is
hard
to
know
this
early
on
how
law
firms
may
be
impacted
by
the
recent
victory
against
REvil.
Bear
in
mind
that
the
Russian
cooperation
may
have
much
to
do
with
diplomacy.
It
may
have
been
a
good
moment
to
give
the
Americans
something
they
wanted
(Russia
doing
something
about
the
many
ransomware
gangs
it
harbors)
while
plans
to
attack
Ukraine
were
clearly
underway.

Also,
a
new
ransomware
group
has
popped
up
called
the
“Ransom
Cartel.”
DataBreachToday
reported
on
January
24
that
“Security
experts
say
the
new
group
has
technical
and
other
crossovers
with
REvil.
But
whether
the
new
group
is
a
spinoff
of
REvil,
bought
the
tools,
or
is
simply
copying
how
they
work,
remains
unclear.”
As
we
have
always
said,
shutting
down
ransomware
gangs
amounts
to
playing
a
game
of
“whack-a-mole.”

Law
firms
are
still
being
attacked
every
day.
We
know
that
because
of
what
we
do
for
a
living.
But
the
actions
we’ve
seen
taken
in
the
U.S.
are
significant
–
and
over
time,
they
may
have
their
intended
effect,
disrupting
the
gangs
through
arrests,
siphoning
their
cryptocurrency,
etc.
The
clear
advice
for
law
firms
is
“don’t
let
your
guard
down.”

Law
firms
are
still,
as
Forbes
once
noted,
a
great
“one
stop
shopping”
way
to
get
the
data
of
many
corporations,
government
entities,
etc.
They
remain
the
crown
jewel
prize
for
ransomware
gangs,
so
while
we
applaud
the
commendable
actions
taken
thus
far,
the
war
against
ransomware
is
far
from
over.
In
many
ways,
it
has
just
begun.

---

Sharon
D.
Nelson
(snelson@senseient.com)
is
a
practicing
attorney
and
the
president
of
Sensei
Enterprises,
Inc.
She
is
a
past
president
of
the
Virginia
State
Bar,
the
Fairfax
Bar
Association,
and
the
Fairfax
Law
Foundation.
She
is
a
co-author
of
18
books
published
by
the
ABA.


John
W.
Simek
(jsimek@senseient.com)
is
vice
president
of
Sensei
Enterprises,
Inc.
He
is
a
Certified
Information
Systems
Security
Professional
(CISSP),
Certified
Ethical
Hacker
(CEH),
and
a
nationally
known
expert
in
the
area
of
digital
forensics.
He
and
Sharon
provide
legal
technology,
cybersecurity,
and
digital
forensics
services
from
their
Fairfax,
Virginia
firm.


Michael
C.
Maschke
(mmaschke@senseient.com)
is
the
CEO/Director
of
Cybersecurity
and
Digital
Forensics
of
Sensei
Enterprises,
Inc.
He
is
an
EnCase
Certified
Examiner,
a
Certified
Computer
Examiner
(CCE
#744),
a
Certified
Ethical
Hacker,
and
an
AccessData
Certified
Examiner.
He
is
also
a
Certified
Information
Systems
Security
Professional.

All
classes
at
UCLA
School
of
Law,
and
the
rest
of
the
university,
will
be
held
online
after
former
lecturer
and
postdoctoral
fellow
Matthew
Harris
posted
a
video
referencing
a
mass
shooting
and
making
specific
threats
against
members
of
the
philosophy
department.
As

reported
by
the
Los
Angeles
Times,
a
unified
response
from
the
university
was
lacking,
with
different
departments
canceling
today’s
in-person
classes
at
different
times
—
and
well
after
Harris’s
video
and
manifesto
were
circulating
on
social
media.

Vice
Dean
David
Marcus
sent
an
email
(available
in
full
below)
informing
folks
that
in
an
“abundance
of
caution,”
classes
at
the
law
school
will
be
virtual
today.
But
as
a
tipster
reports,
the
response
took
some
time:

The
person
who
made
the
threat
referenced
specific
members
of
UCLA’s
philosophy
department,
which
is
located
in
Dodd
Hall.
The
law
school
shares
a
courtyard
with
Dodd
Hall
and
there
are
some
law
school
office
in
that
building.
Students
were
aware
and
terrified
about
this
threat
for
hours
and
we
received
no
information
or
acknowledgment
of
the
threat
from
admin
until
SBA
sent
an
email
to
admin.

The
Times
describes
the
disturbing
materials
Harris
sent
to
members
of
the
UCLA
philosophy
department
and
posted
online:

A
video
titled
“UCLA
PHILOSOPHY
(MASS
SHOOTING)”
was
posted
Sunday
and
contained
disturbing
imagery,
including
footage
of
the
2017
mass
shooting
at
a
Las
Vegas
music
festival
and
clips
from
the
2003
movie
“Zero
Day,”
which
is
loosely
based
on
the
Columbine
High
School
mass
shooting.

The
Times
obtained
a
partial
copy
of
Harris’
email
to
the
UCLA
philosophy
department.

Harris
makes
references
to
race
and
uses
several
profanities.
He
included
links
to
his
manifesto
and
videos,
including
the
video
that
appeared
to
threaten
a
mass
shooting.

“da
war
is
comin,”
he
wrote.
“forward
dis
[expletive]
to
our
tha
goldhead
caucasoid
princess.”

Harris
was
placed
on
administrative
leave
by
the
university
last
year
while
the
school
investigated
allegations
he
sent
pornographic
materials
to
a
student.

A
university
spokesperson,
Steve
Ritea,
said
university
police
are
aware
of
“a
concerning
email
and
posting
sent
to
some
members
of
the
UCLA
community
today
and
actively
engaged
with
out-of-state
law
enforcement
and
federal
agencies.”

---

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).

A
new
year
is
upon
us,
but
COVID-19
is
still
making
Biglaw
firms
to
adjust
their
return-to-office
plans
in
our
“post”-pandemic
world.
The
omicron
variant
remains
a
disruptive
force
across
the
country.
Many
law
firms
were
once
hopeful
that
January
2022
would
be
when
they’d
finally
be
able
to
get
their
workforces
back
to
the
office.
Those
plans
—
like
most
plans
related
to
returning
to
our
pre-corona
lives
—
have
been
foiled
yet
again.

Quite
a
few
US
firms
have
already
revised
their
return-to-office
plans
(see

here,

here,

here,
and

here).
The
latest
firms
to
announce
changes
to
their
office
return
plans
are
just
going
with
the
viral
flow,
and
will
reconsider
their
efforts
if
and
when
they
can.

Morrison
&
Foerster
and
Paul
Weiss
were
hoping
to
make
their
grand
returns
to
the
office
in
January
and
February,
and
those
plans
are
now
being
rescheduled
(again).

Reuters
has
the
details:

Morrison
&
Foerster,
which
previously
set
an
office
return
date
of
Feb.
14,
will
keep
attendance
voluntary
until
at
least
March
1,
a
firm
representative
confirmed
on
Friday.
…

San
Francisco-founded
Morrison
&
Foerster
is
requiring
COVID-19
vaccinations,
and
“strongly”
encouraging
boosters,
for
those
going
into
its
U.S.
offices,
the
representative
said.

As
for
Paul
Weiss,
the
firm
is
now
extending
its
work-from-home
orders
to
February
14.
Employees
were
previously
told
they
could
work
remotely
until
January
24.
Once
everyone
is
back
to
the
office,
they’ll
be
expected
to
work
there
at
least
three
days
each
week.
Paul
Weiss
is
requiring
everyone
to
be
boosted
before
entering
the
office.

Other
firms
still,
like
Sheppard
Mullin,
are
adopting
indefinite
delays
for
their
RTO
plans.

The
Los
Angeles-founded
firm
pushed
its
office
return
from
Feb.
7
to
a
date
to
be
determined,
firm
chair
Lucantonio
Salvi
said
in
an
internal
memo
dated
Jan.
14.

Vaccinated
employees
are
free
to
work
in
Sheppard
Mullin’s
offices
if
they
prefer,
Salvi
said.
The
firm
will
give
30
days’
notice
before
setting
a
new
return
date,
after
which
employees
will
have
to
work
in
the
office
at
least
three
days
per
week,
the
memo
said.

What
has
your
firm
announced
as
far
as
a
revised
reopening
plan
due
to
the
omicron
variant?
The
more
information
is
out
there,
the
more
likely
it
is
that
firms
will
be
able
to
establish
a
new
market
standard
for
a
return.

As
soon
as
you
find
out
about
reopening
plans
at
your
firm,
please email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Office
Reopening”)
or
text
us
at
(646)
820-8477.
We
always
keep
our
sources
on
stories
anonymous.
There’s
no
need
to
send
a
memo
(if
one
exists)
using
your
firm
email
account;
your
personal
email
account
is
fine.
If
a
memo
has
been
circulated,
please
be
sure
to
include
it
as
proof;
we
like
to
post
complete
memos
as
a
service
to
our
readers.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
attach
as
a
picture
if
you
are
worried
about
metadata
in
a
PDF
or
Word
file.
Thanks.

Omicron
still
vexes
large
law
firms
as
more
office
returns
delayed
[Reuters]

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
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

Twitter
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

Back
in
September
of
last
year,
I

reiterated
my
exhortation
“that
any
IP
lawyer
practicing
today
needs
to
get
educated
quickly
on
litigation
finance”
in
a
column
highlighting
the
agenda
of
a
then-upcoming
litigation
finance
conference.
The
need
for
increased
education
on
litigation
finance
remains,
for
both
in-house
counsel
and
law
firms,
especially
in
light
of
this
week’s
RPX
newsletter
stating
that
RPX
has
identified
over
30
funded
patent
litigation
campaigns
in
2021
via
publicly
available
information.
That
number
is
a
significant
reflection
of
the
growing
role
litigation
finance
has
in
patent
monetization
efforts
—
and
we
can
be
sure
that
many
more
funded
cases
exist
where
the
role
of
the
funder
has
not
yet
been
publicly
disclosed.

An
effective
way
for
folks
interested
in
litigation
finance
to
get
a
cutting-edge
education
in
the
area
would
be
to
attend
a
conference,
but
that
can
be
a
challenge
if
travel
is
required
to
do
so.
While
the
industry
has
seen
significant

conferences
take
place
on
both
coasts
in
the
past
few
months,
it
is
nice
to
see
that
an
ambitious

agenda
has
been
set
for
a
major
new
litigation
finance
event,
scheduled
for
early
March
in
Houston.
Put
differently,
it
is
nice
to
see
that
those
interested
in
litigation
finance
may
have
access
to
a
conference
closer
to
home,
especially
with
the
continued
travel
challenges
posed
by
the
pandemic.
But
even
coastal
denizens
would
do
well
to
consider
attending
this
particular
conference,
considering
the
quality
and
breadth
of
the
content
on
offer.

Styled

LITFINCON,
the
event
promises
to
help
explore
the
topics
of
interest
for
litigation
finance
as
2022
gets
underway.
As
the
glimmers
of
a
post-pandemic
world
start
to
take
root
in
our
professional
consciousness,
there
is
no
doubt
that
2022
will
be
a
pivotal
year
for
the
litigation
finance
industry,
both
in
terms
of
continuing
to
develop
investment
opportunities,
as
well
as
in
terms
of
starting
to
show
existing
participants
results
from
investments
made
to
date.
Attendees
at
LITFINCON
can
safely
expect
frank
discussion
on
the
successes
and
areas
for
improvement
of
this
burgeoning
sector,
along
with
a
jam-packed
agenda
and
diverse
speaker
roster.
(Myself
included,
on
the
topic
of
why
corporate
legal
departments
should
consider
litigation
finance,
which
dovetails
nicely
with
the
extensive
work
I
have
been
doing
on
the
patent
monetization
front
—
work
that
often
brings
together
corporate
legal
departments
and
litigation
funding
partners.)

In
addition
to
the
networking
opportunities
—
including
access
to
a
robust
and
aggressive
Texas-based
investor
ecosystem
—
attendees
at
LITFINCON
will
also
benefit
from
getting
insights
from
one
of
the
most
important,
yet
seldom-heard
from,
groups
impacted
by
the
rise
of
litigation
finance
in
the
United
States
—
jurists.
It
is
fitting
that
a
panel
of
active
federal
and
state
judges
will
help
kick
off
the
conference,
sharing
their
insights
on
what
litigation
finance
means
for
them,
both
in
terms
of
conducting
cases
before
themselves
and
with
respect
to
broader
questions
of
access
to
justice.
That
panel
is
followed
by
a
full
afternoon
of
discussion
on
how
law
firms
and
corporate
legal
offices
can
and
should
be
accessing
litigation
funding,
including
a
closer
look
at
diligence
best
practices
and
a
forward-looking
discussion
on
how
litigation
finance
will
continue
to
develop
as
an
asset
class
over
the
next
few
years.
In
short,
LITFINCON’s
Day
One
is
packed
with
content.

Day
Two
promises
more
of
the
same,
with
an
emphasis
on
the
financial
side
of
litigation
finance.
From
an
opening
panel
on
why
litigation
finance
continues
to
enjoy
a
reputation
as
an
attractive,
uncorrelated,
asset
class,
to
a
discussion
of
what
impact
the
secondary
and
public
markets
could
have
on
litigation
finance,
there
should
be
a
lot
to
dig
into.
With
litigation
funders
stepping
into
the
role
of
at
least
quasi-clients
for
litigators
and
their
firms, 
it
is
as
important
as
ever
that
those
same
lawyers
gain
a
deeper
understanding
of
how
litigation
finance
works
as
an
asset
class.
Here
again,
the
old
tenet
about
the
importance
of
understanding
their
client’s
business
is
just
as
applicable
for
lawyers
working
with
litigation
funders
as
it
is
for
those
lawyers
working
with
their
legacy
clients.
And
a
key
part
of
understanding
the
business
of
litigation
finance
is
getting
a
handle
on
the
investor-facing
side
of
things,
not
only
the
litigator-facing
side.
Rounding
out
the
day
are
an
important
discussion
around
the
value
that
litigation
finance
brokers
can
add
to
a
deal,
as
well
as
a
look
at
the
impact
that
crypto
and
other
technologies
can
have
on
the
litigation
finance
market.
And
for
those
interested
in
starting
their
own
litigation
funds,
the
closing
panel
on
fund
formation
should
be
a
must-listen.

Ultimately,
LITFINCON
will
surely
be
a
few
days
well-spent
for
attendees
and
presenters.
The
discussions
around
litigation
funding
are
important
ones,
irrespective
of
whether
you
represent
plaintiffs
looking
for
funding,
do
support
work
for
funders
on
diligence,
or
represent
defendants
that
may
be
targeted
in
funded
cases.
For
those
who
can
attend,
participation
in
LITFINCON
should
be
a
worthwhile
investment
of
time
and
attention.
Registration
remains

open,
and
if
you
do
make
it,
please
make
sure
to
say
hello.

Please
feel
free
to
send
comments
or
questions
to
me
at
gkroub@kskiplaw.com
or
via
Twitter:

@gkroub.
Any
topic
suggestions
or
thoughts
are
most
welcome.

---

Gaston
Kroub
lives
in
Brooklyn
and
is
a
founding
partner
of



Kroub,
Silbersher
&
Kolmykov
PLLC,
an
intellectual
property
litigation
boutique,
and Markman
Advisors
LLC,
a
leading
consultancy
on
patent
issues
for
the
investment
community.
Gaston’s
practice
focuses
on
intellectual
property
litigation
and
related
counseling,
with
a
strong
focus
on
patent
matters.
You
can
reach
him
at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or
follow
him
on
Twitter: @gkroub.

Historically,
UBS
hasn’t
had
much
time
for
you
if
you
weren’t
a
multimillionaire.
This
was
fine
when
it
was
also
a
full-service
investment
bank,
but
over
the
past
few
years
it’s
decided
to

stop
being
that.
To
plug
the
gap,
it’s
going
to
have
to
appeal
to
poor
people,
by
which
it
means
those
with
less
than
$2
million,
but
still
at
least
a
quarter
of
a
million.

Now,
that’s
a
fairly
big
group,
one
that
would
require
quite
a
lot
of
headcount
to
serve.
But,
being
Dutch
and
all,
UBS
CEO
Ralph
Hamers
is
a
practical,
parsimonious
man.
And

robots
don’t
need

office
space
and
are
also
presently
incapable
of

embarrassing
racist
outbursts
in
Connecticut
smoothie
shops.

UBS
Group
AG
agreed
to
buy
U.S.
robo-adviser
Wealthfront
for
$1.4
billion
in
cash….
The
deal
will
add
more
than
$27
billion
in
assets
under
management
and
over
470,000
clients
in
the
U.S….
Hamers,
in
his
second
year
running
the
bank,
wants
to
use
artificial
intelligence
to
better
pitch
services
to
the
world’s
wealthy.

UBS
Agrees
to
Buy
Robo-Adviser
Wealthfront
for
$1.4
Billion
[Bloomberg]

For
more
of
the
latest
in
litigation,
regulation,
deals
and
financial
services
trends,

sign
up
for
Finance
Docket,
a
partnership
between
Breaking
Media
publications
Above
the
Law
and
Dealbreaker.

Your
LinkedIn
profile
provides
you
with
enormous
visibility
—
for
job
searches,
leadership
roles,
community
involvement,
board
seat
opportunities,
and
of
course,
networking.
I’m
a
firm
believer
and
advocate
that
your

LinkedIn
profile
should
be
updated
on
a
regular
basis.
Whether
you’ve
been
given
increased
responsibilities
at
the
law
firm,
promoted
from
senior
counsel
to
assistant
general
counsel,
or
you’ve
handled
a
major
merger
or
acquisition,
a
robust
and
powerful
LinkedIn
profile
is
the
conduit
for
greater
opportunities
along
the
career
highway.

The
question
I
receive
most
often
from
clients
who
are
job
searching
(typically
rising
general
counsels
and
those
already
at
the
general
counsel
level):
how
do
they
avoid
sending
smoke
signals
to
their
company
when
updating
their
LinkedIn
profile?

The
answer
is
simple:
if
someone
mentions
it,
acknowledge
that
you’re
highly
visible
at
the
company
and
therefore
need
to
put
both
yourself
and
the
company
or
firm
in
the
best
light
possible.
It’s
the
truth,
isn’t
it?
That
means
having
a
clearly
articulated
brand
message,
details
of
what
you
do
at
the
firm
or
company,
and
deep
insights
into
your
career
trajectory
(after
all,
that
is
what
impressed
the
firm
or
company
to
hire
you
in
the
first
place).
Clients
(current
and
prospective)
might
be
scoping
you
out
on
LinkedIn,
organizations
might
be
looking
for
someone
with
your
speaking
background,
and
you
might
even
be
pursuing
future
board
opportunities
for
enhanced
professional
leadership.
Why
wouldn’t
your
company
or
law
firm
want
your
LinkedIn
profile
to
be
better?

Updating
your
legal
resume,
your
executive
bio,
and
your
LinkedIn
profile
are
basic
elements
of
routine
maintenance
and
professional
development
for
your
career.
LinkedIn
is
an
ever-changing
platform
with
new
features
rolling
out
every
quarter.
With
those
changes
come
a
greater
commitment
that
you
must
make
to
yourself.
Think
about
the
impact
LinkedIn
has
had
on
all
our
careers
in
the
current
legal
market
versus
seven,
eight,
even
10
years
ago.
A
lackluster
LinkedIn
profile
didn’t
make
you
or
break
you
back
then,
but
in
the
current
times,
it
can
lead
to
missed
opportunities.

Today,
an

optimized
LinkedIn
profile
makes
you
even
more
impressionable
for
your
law
firm
or
company.
For
example,
if
you’re
the
general
counsel,
a
powerful
LinkedIn
profile
is
key,
especially
since
you’re
the
face
of
the
legal
department
and
the
trusted
partner
to
the
C-suite
and
business
enterprise.
That
means
you’re
heavily
researched
on
the
platform
and
on
Google.
If
you’re
a
partner
at
a
law
firm,
you
want
to
be
present
(and
relevant)
on
LinkedIn
to
help
drum
up
more
business
and
share
the
firm’s
accolades
to
enhance
the
firm’s
brand
and
reputation.
If
you’re
a
law
firm
owner,
you
want
a
professional
profile
as
well
as
a
business
page
for
your
firm
(two
opportunities
to
get
seen
and
noticed).

Thus,
whether
you
own
a
law
firm,
you’re
a
rising
senior
associate
at
a
midsized
firm,
or
an
aspiring
corporate
counsel,
your
visibility
on
LinkedIn
matters.

Plan
to
update
your
LinkedIn
profile
at
least
once
every
six
months
—
keep
track
of
the
projects
you’re
working
on,
the
promotions
you’ve
received,
when
you’ve
been
in
the
news
at
the
company,
and
other
major
initiatives
you’re
working
on.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
your
professional
image
matters
—
and
having
an
updated
LinkedIn
profile
doesn’t
just
benefit
you,
but
your
company
or
law
firm
and
its
brand
as
well.

---

Wendi
Weiner
is
an attorney,
career
expert,
and
founder
of The
Writing
Guru,
an
award-winning
executive
resume
writing
services
company.
Wendi creates
powerful
career
and
personal
brands
for
attorneys,
executives,
and
C-suite/Board
leaders
for
their
job
search
and
digital
footprint. She
also
writes
for
major
publications
about
alternative
careers
for
lawyers, personal
branding,
LinkedIn
storytelling,
career
strategy,
and
the
job
search
process. You
can
reach
her
by
email
at wendi@writingguru.net,
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn,
and
follow
her
on
Twitter @thewritingguru.  

*
Hit
the
road
Jack,
but
know
you
can’t
track
no
more.
If
you’re
an
employer
in
New
Jersey
and
don’t
have
permission,
that
is.
[NLR]

*
Don’t
like
having
money?
Check
out
this
list
to
see
if
your
school
is
one
of
the
most
expensive
to
attend
for
that
JD!
[News-Daily]

*
A
judge
recently
decided
that
two
students
suing
Yale
Law
school
won’t
be
granted
anonymity.
Hope
the
news
doesn’t
get
out
too
bad.
[Yale
Daily
News]

*
A
Jersey
firm
is
suing
TD
bank
for
allegedly
letting
people
steal
$200k+
from
the
firm’s
account.
Talk
about
overdraft
fees.
[Law360]

*
Know
anybody
in
Philly
that
could
be
facing
eviction?
They
might
be
able
to
get
the
pro
bono
help
they
need.
Spread
the
word!
[Inquirer]

---

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.