Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature
Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!
According
to
data
collected
by
ALM,
which
Am
Law
100
firm
has
the
highest
number
of
billable
hours
per
lawyer?
Hint:
Dividing
the
total
number
of
hours
billed
by
attorneys
by
the
total
number
of
attorneys
at
the
firm
yields
an
impressive
average
of
1787
hours
billed.
See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.
In
a
previous
column,
I
wrote
about
how
California
is
starting
to
go
after
its
residents
dodging
sales
taxes
and
automotive
emissions
rules
by
getting
Montana
license
plates
for
their
cars.
After
various
news
outlets
published
the
story,
many
people
got
the
impression
that
the
police
would
pull
over
every
car
that
had
an
out-of-state
license
plate.
While
that
impression
might
be
true,
historically
police
in
California
have
seldom
pulled
over
drivers
simply
for
having
out-of-state
plates.
For
example,
last
January,
News
Channel
3
in
Coachella
Valley
obtained
records
from
the
California
Highway
Patrol
(CHP)
on
investigations
for
possible
registration
violations.
The
response
from
the
CHP records
division
showed
there
were
91
cases
last
year
in
the
local
CHP district, 93
letters
sent,
103
cases
resolved,
and no
citations
were
written.
Why
do
police
in
California
seem
to
be
lax
in
investigating
out-of-state
license
plates
to
check
for
registration
violations?
I
looked
at
online
forums
and
asked
a
few
traffic
officers
in
Southern
California
to
get
some
answers.
It
turns
out
that
a
majority
of
cars
with
non-California
license
plates
are
there
legally.
In
major
cities
with
high
tourism
or
business
travelers,
it
is
not
unusual
to
see
many
cars
with
out-of-state
plates.
People
visiting
from
other
states
will
usually
bring
their
cars
with
them.
Also,
many
of
these
cars
are
rented.
Then
what
about
cars
with
out-of-state
plates
that
police
officers
see
regularly?
A
lot
of
these
people
are
staying
temporarily.
Most
of
them
are
visiting
relatives
for
an
extended
time
or
are
college
students.
Others
have
temporary
jobs,
particularly
those
in
the
military.
A
few
cities
in
California
have
placed
restrictions
on
police
officers
pulling
over
people
based
on
minor
infractions
or
pretextual
stops.
In
2022,
the
Los
Angeles
Police
Department
adopted
more
restrictive
rules
for
pretext
stops,
requiring
a
higher
threshold
of
suspicion
and
specific
documentation
by
officers
before
and
after
the
stop.
San
Francisco
has
issued
a
similar
restriction
on
pretextual
stops.
Police
departments
and
the
DMV
have
limited
resources,
and
investigating
out-of-state
plates
is
probably
not
a
high
priority.
These
new
policies
have
discouraged
police
officers
from
pulling
over
people
simply
for
having
out-of-state
plates.
In
most
cases,
a
traffic
officer
will
inquire
about
a
non-California
plate
when
the
driver
is
pulled
over
for
something
else
such
as
speeding.
Also,
a
traffic
stop
for
out-of-state
plates
could
violate
the
Fourth
Amendment’s
rule
against
unreasonable
searches.
Police
officers
need
reasonable
suspicion
that
a
specific
law
is
broken
to
justify
a
traffic
stop.
Since
out-of-state
plates
are
legal
in
California,
a
police
officer
will
need
to
have
additional
evidence
to
show
that
the
driver
was
required
to
register
their
car
in
California.
Then
there’s
the
matter
of
officer
discretion.
One
police
officer
I
talked
to
was
ex-military
and
he
said
that
he
tends
to
be
flexible
to
servicemen
and
women
on
active
duty
since
they
may
be
in
California
temporarily.
Another
police
officer
who
admits
to
being
a
car
enthusiast
generally
tends
to
give
warnings
and
advise
drivers
that
myths
they
heard
about
Montana
license
plates
are
incorrect.
Some
suggested
that
police
officers
show
up
to
car
shows
or
Cars
and
Coffee
gatherings
where
at
least
some
cars
with
Montana
plates
will
show
up.
But
that
is
easier
said
than
done.
A
police
officer’s
safety
may
be
in
jeopardy
if
he
tries
to
give
tickets
among
a
group
of
car
enthusiasts.
Lastly,
another
police
officer
said
to
me
that
drivers
with
out-of-state
plates
who
may
be
California
residents
tend
to
be
the
best
drivers.
They
do
not
speed
nor
do
they
drive
obnoxiously.
They
always
give
the
right
of
way
to
other
drivers
and
pedestrians.
According
to
this
officer,
so
long
as
they
obey
the
law
to
the
letter
and
do
not
cause
trouble,
the
police
are
not
inclined
to
pull
them
over
or
take
steps
to
have
the
car
deported
to
the
state
where
it
is
registered.
Does
that
mean
police
officers
will
let
out-of-state
drivers
do
whatever
they
please?
Of
course
not.
If
a
driver
commits
a
traffic
violation,
they
could
risk
an
inquiry
about
his
out
of
state
license
plates,
particularly
if
he
has
a
California
driver’s
license
or
if
his
car
is
insured
in
California.
Those
who
engage
in
excessive
speeding,
reckless
driving,
street
racing,
driving
with
loud
exhausts,
or
participating
in
street
takeovers
will
not
get
sympathy
from
a
police
officer.
Traffic
officers
are
the
first
to
see
non-California
license
plates,
and
they
should
see
if
the
drivers
are
committing
a
registration
violation
or
even
tax
evasion.
But
most
of
these
cars
are
in
the
state
for
legal
reasons.
Also
legal
and
policy
restrictions
discourages
traffic
stops
based
on
out-of-state
license
plates
alone.
So
the
police
are
inclined
to
only
go
after
the
few
who
engage
in
egregious
behavior.
Any
wholesale
crackdown
will
only
take
place
if
it
is
ordered
from
the
top.
My
next
column
will
look
at
how
lawmakers
can
close
the
Montana
license
plate
loophole.
They
can
do
it
by
changing
insurance
laws.
Also,
California
can
coordinate
with
other
states
to
impose
a
new
fee
structure
to
discourage
registering
their
car
in
a
state
where
they
are
not
living.
Steven
Chung
is
a
tax
attorney
in
Los
Angeles,
California.
He
helps
people
with
basic
tax
planning
and
resolve
tax
disputes.
He
is
also
sympathetic
to
people
with
large
student
loans.
He
can
be
reached
via
email
at [email protected].
Or
you
can
connect
with
him
on
Twitter
(@stevenchung)
and
connect
with
him
on LinkedIn.
Legal
teams
today
face
a
fundamental
shift.
In
product-led
companies,
speed
is
everything
—
and
traditional
legal
processes
simply
can’t
keep
up.
In
this
week’s
episode
of
UpLevel
View,
Betsy
Cantrell
(VP
of
Legal
at
HighLevel)
shares
how
she
transformed
her
legal
function
from
a
reactive
bottleneck
into
a
proactive
growth
partner.
AI
as
a
Force
Multiplier
AI
is
transforming
legal
work
at
every
level.
Here,
Stephanie
shares
one
way
she’s
using
it
in
her
legal
operations
consultancy
—
and
how
GCs
are
lowering
their
outside
counsel
bills
with
this
technology.
AI
Versus
Human
Lawyers
Many
legal
teams
hesitate
to
adopt
AI
due
to
concerns
about
accuracy.
Here,
Betsy
and
Stephanie
offer
a
counterpoint.
For
the
Full
Conversation
Curious
to
learn
more?
Check
out
this
episode
below.
In
its
entire
250-year
history,
the
United
States
of
America
has
never
suffered
even
a
single
year-to-year
decline
in
population.
Throughout
the
centuries,
here,
births
and
immigration
have
always
outweighed
deaths
and
emigration.
While
we
slaughtered
each
other
in
the
Civil
War,
our
population
increased.
During
the
Great
Depression,
our
population
increased.
As
we
were
ravaged
by
the
Revolutionary-era
smallpox
epidemic,
the
Spanish
flu
outbreak,
and
the
COVID-19
pandemic,
our
population
increased.
Now,
we
could
be
in,
or
at
least
very
close
to,
our
first-ever
annual
decrease
in
population.
According
to
the
U.S.
Census
Bureau,
from
July
of
2024
to
July
of
2025,
the
population
grew
an
anemic
0.5%.
Rarely
have
America’s
people
added
so
few
to
their
numbers.
Though
growth
was
even
lower
at
0.2%
during
2021,
that
historically
low
rate
can
be
attributed
to
the
pandemic,
which
caused
migration
to
nearly
grind
to
a
halt
in
addition
to
causing
thousands
of
excess
deaths.
We
are
obviously
a
long
way
from
having
a
complete
statistical
picture
for
2026.
However,
the
Census
Bureau’s
already
low
net
immigration
projection
for
the
year
has
already
been
revised
further
downward
by
about
17%.
Fertility
rates
have
been
declining
in
the
U.S.
and
around
the
world
for
a
long
time.
Yet,
they
are
falling
here
even
faster
than
expected.
Last
year,
the
average
number
of
children
an
American
woman
will
have
over
her
lifetime
fell
to
a
record
low
of
1.57.
However,
in
January
of
last
year,
the
Congressional
Budget
Office
had
predicted
U.S.
fertility
would
decline
only
to
1.62
children
per
woman.
Now,
if
there
are
any
MAGA
dopes
out
there
who’ve
somehow
gotten
through
five
paragraphs
of
reading,
they
are
probably
thinking
that
a
decline
in
population
is
good
and
attributable
to
President
Donald
Trump’s
immigration
crackdown.
Well,
deportations
certainly
are
a
factor
in
net
migration.
However,
it’s
not
as
though
Trump
has
deported
that
many
people
historically:
President
Barrack
Obama
deported
more
than
70,000
more
people
during
the
first
year
of
his
second
term
than
Trump
did
last
year.
What
Trump
has
done
is
far
more
impactful
than
just
stepping
up
deportations.
Though
it
can
be
broken
down
into
countless
variables
and
individual
decisions,
what
is
really
going
on
is
not
fundamentally
very
complicated.
People
don’t
want
to
raise
children
here,
and
people
from
other
countries
no
longer
want
to
come
here
to
live
and
work,
as
much
as
they
once
did.
I
myself
am
very
close
to
someone
who
was
literally
bankrupted
by
the
costs
of
giving
birth.
Meanwhile,
parents
can
bring
their
children
into
the
world
for
next
to
nothing
abroad.
Good
luck
paying
for
health
care,
higher
education,
and
housing.
There
are
tons
of
other
places
in
the
world
where
this
stuff
can
be
had
on
the
cheap,
but
here,
you’re
on
your
own.
We’ve
got
pointless
wars
to
finance,
after
all.
Wait
a
second,
isn’t
opportunity
what
immigrants
have
always
come
here
for,
to
chase
the
American
dream?
Well,
although
Elon
Musk
and
a
few
other
immigrants
do
luck
out
occasionally,
the
myth
has
pretty
much
been
busted
at
this
point.
If
you
really
hustle
you
can
probably
get
a
job
in
America
right
now,
but
it
isn’t
likely
to
be
one
that
is
particularly
stable
or
well-paying.
Of
course,
all
the
things
I’ve
brought
up
so
far
are
financial,
and
there’s
more
to
life
than
money.
MAGA
has
ruined
most
of
that
stuff
too.
America
has
become
a
very
unwelcoming
place.
For
example,
it
does
not
attract
the
best
and
brightest
to
send
a
federal
army
of
masked
goons
to
terrorize
left-leaning
cities,
kidnap
anyone
who
looks
vaguely
ethnic,
and
murder
the
U.S.
citizens
who
try
to
intervene.
I
don’t
feel
welcome
in
the
land
of
my
birth,
and
I’m
a
reasonably
well-heeled
white
man.
This
is
because
the
president
of
my
country
says
just
about
every
day
that
people
like
me
—
really,
any
people
other
than
those
enthralled
to
him
—
aren’t
welcome
here.
Then
his
hordes
of
followers
applaud
and
carry
the
harassment
down
into
the
capillaries
of
democracy.
I
can’t
imagine
what
it
must
feel
like
to
be
a
member
of
more
easily
identifiable
targeted
groups.
It’s
necessary,
not
pleasant,
to
resist
America’s
descent
into
authoritarianism.
I
would
never
father
offspring
if
I
thought
they
might
have
to
continue
this
struggle
their
whole
lives.
Oppression
is
oppressive.
The
slowing
U.S.
population
growth,
and
perhaps
decline,
is
concerning
for
a
number
of
reasons.
Chief
among
them
is
why
it
is
happening,
and
this
part
is
pretty
simple.
If
the
U.S.
continues
to
become
a
worse
place
to
live,
then
it
will
ultimately
have
fewer
people
in
it.
Jonathan
Wolf
is
a
civil
litigator
and
author
of Your
Debt-Free
JD (affiliate
link).
He
has
taught
legal
writing,
written
for
a
wide
variety
of
publications,
and
made
it
both
his
business
and
his
pleasure
to
be
financially
and
scientifically
literate.
Any
views
he
expresses
are
probably
pure
gold,
but
are
nonetheless
solely
his
own
and
should
not
be
attributed
to
any
organization
with
which
he
is
affiliated.
He
wouldn’t
want
to
share
the
credit
anyway.
He
can
be
reached
at [email protected].
The
2026
Super
Rich
list
has
37
firms
clearing
$1.45M
RPL
and
$625K
PPL
thresholds
after
Am
Law
had
to
raise
because
last
year’s
bar
was
too
easy.
Then
Kirkland
proved
what
super
rich
really
means
by
dropping
a
guaranteed
$80M
over
three
years
to
snatch
a
star
lawyer
from
Wachtell.
The
PAC
Trump
uses
to
pay
lawyers
is
nearly
$500K
in
the
red
and
owes
roughly
$1.6M
to
12
firms.
When
will
lawyers
learn
that
he’s
never
going
to
pay
his
bills…
at
least
with
money.
Will
Sam
Alito
retire
to
cheer
on
insurrections
as
a
private
citizen?
If
he
does,
Senate
Republicans
are
ready
to
embrace
the
hypocrisy
and
ram
through
a
replacement.
Could
it
be
Ted
Cruz?
Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature, Quote
of
the
Day.
She
wasn’t
working
right
away,
and
like
many
new
grads,
she
had
student
debt
and
credit
card
debt
from
getting
through
school.
Market
rent
in
the
Los
Angeles
area
wasn’t
realistic,
even
with
a
job
offer
lined
up.
So,
the
studio
became
her
first
home.
It
gave
her
stability
and
independence
during
a
major
transition.
—
Tina
LaMonica,
in
comments
given
to
the
Los
Angeles
Times,
concerning
the
reasons
why
her
daughter,
Sophie
Wellen,
moved
into
the
family’s
backyard
accessory
dwelling
unit
(ADU)
rather
than
pay
egregious
rent
prices
in
Los
Angeles.
Wellen,
now
an
associate
at
Gibson
Dunn,
says
she
felt
“lucky”
to
have
this
as
an
option,
because
it
was
“right
after
the
bar
exam,”
and
she
was
“really
stressed.”
On
top
of
that,
she
didn’t
have
to
“rush[]
to
grab
the
first
place
[she]
could,
like
so
many
of
[her
fellow]
associates
had
to
do.”
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.
If
you’ve
ever
laughed
at
a
phrase
like
“Be
honest
with
your
therapist,
but
not
so
honest
that
you
end
up
in
the
Grippy
Sock
Hotel,”
this
is
the
update
you’ve
been
waiting
for!
Juggling
the
obligation
to
be
forthright
so
you
can
get
the
assistance
you
need
without
being
punished
for
your
honesty
isn’t
just
a
danger
in
therapy,
it
can
also
hurt
your
career.
The
character
and
fitness
questions
have
spawned
much
anxiety
and
many
Reddit
threads
about
how
mental
health
and
substance
abuse
histories
could
stop
law
students
from
getting
ahead
in
their
careers,
even
if
they’ve
done
the
hard
work
of
managing
their
situations.
Thankfully,
recent
changes
to
the
Character
Report
should
ease
some
of
the
stress.
ABA
Journal
has
coverage:
The
National
Conference
of
Bar
Examiners’
updates
to
its
standard
Character
Report
Application
template
used
by
many
jurisdictions
significantly
changed
questions
related
to
mental
health
and
substance
abuse
that
previously
put
off
many
law
students
from
receiving
help.
…
Now,
the
applications
preamble
page
encourages
applicants
to
seek
help.
And
in
the
updated
version,
two
questions
relate
substance
use
and
mental
health,
but
they
focus
on
potential
misconduct
in
limited
time
periods
before
bar
admission,
and
that
aligns
“with
the
spirit
and
law
interpreting
the
Americans
With
Disabilities
Act,”
the
blog
post
authors
wrote.
There
is
also
a
question
related
to
drug
and
alcohol
related
traffic
violations.“These
positive
changes
to
character
and
fitness
questions
enable
us
to
double
down
on
communicating
to
our
students
that
they
should
seek
help
while
in
law
school
without
fear
that
their
condition
or
impairment,
in
and
of
itself,
will
delay
admission
to
the
bar,”
the
blog
post
authors
wrote.
This
is
a
step
in
the
right
direction.
On
balance,
lawyers
have
struggled
with
mental
health
and
drug
abuse
for
decades.
Last
year,
73%
of
attorneys
and
staff
said
they
felt
their
work
environment
contributed
to
mental
health
issues.
Here’s
the
kicker
—
that
number
is
progress
compared
to
the
prior
year’s
79%.
As
the
culture
pushes
to
make
it
easier
for
people
to
get
the
help
that
they
need,
removing
unnecessary
roadblocks
that
complicate
the
process
like
the
old
application
questions
is
a
much
needed
change.
NCBE
Updates
Character
Report,
Changes
Questions
Related
To
Mental
Health
And
Substance
Abuse
[ABA
Journal]
Earlier:
Mental
Health
May
Be
Improving
For
Lawyers,
But
Severe
Stressors
Remain
—
And
They’re
Getting
Worse
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
boat
builder
who
is
learning
to
swim
and
is
interested
in
rhetoric,
Spinozists
and
humor.
Getting
back
in
to
cycling
wouldn’t
hurt
either.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at
[email protected]
and
by
Tweet/Bluesky
at @WritesForRent.
Tuesday
was
a
big
day
for
Kash
Patel’s
legal
portfolio…
just
not
in
the
direction
he
intended.
As
we
noted
earlier
this
week,
the
$250
million
defamation
complaint
against
The
Atlantic
filed
by
Patel
and
his
lawyer
Jesse
Binnall
was
already
straining
credulity
before
the
ink
dried.
The
19-page
document
opened
with
what
amounted
to
a
LinkedIn
post,
may
have
been
drafted
with
AI
assistance,
and
contained
the
word
“feable”
—
which
is
not,
for
the
record,
how
you
spell
“feeble”
especially
not
in
a
quarter-billion-dollar
lawsuit.
Tuesday
brought
two
new
developments
that
managed
to
make
the
whole
enterprise
look
even
worse.
While
Patel
was
busy
promoting
his
shiny
new
Atlantic
suit,
a
federal
judge
in
the
Southern
District
of
Texas
dismissed
his
other
defamation
lawsuit
—
the
one
against
former
FBI
counterintelligence
assistant
director
Frank
Figliuzzi,
who
said
on
Morning
Joe
that
Patel
had
“been
visible
at
nightclubs
far
more
than
he
has
been
on
the
seventh
floor
of
the
Hoover
building.”
U.S.
District
Judge
George
Hanks
Jr.
was
not
impressed.
The
court
found
that
Figliuzzi’s
comment
“when
taken
in
context,
cannot
have
been
perceived
by
a
person
of
ordinary
intelligence
as
stating
actual
facts
about
Patel.”
A
reasonable
person,
the
judge
continued,
“would
not
have
taken
his
statement
literally:
that
Dir.
Patel
has
actually
spent
more
hours
physically
in
a
nightclub
than
he
has
spent
physically
in
his
office
building.”
In
other
words:
it
was
a
joke.
A
sarcastic,
hyperbolic
quip.
The
kind
of
thing
that
is
not
defamation,
but
is,
in
fact,
just
someone
clowning
on
a
public
official
on
cable
television,
something
Americans
are
constitutionally
permitted
to
do.
Figliuzzi
had
requested
attorneys’
fees
under
the
Texas
anti-SLAPP
law,
but
the
court
denied
that
request,
finding
the
state’s
anti-SLAPP
statute
inapplicable
in
federal
court.
So
Patel
walks
away
empty-handed,
but
without
a
fee-shifting
penalty.
Lucky
him.
Or,
to
adopt
the
Director’s
preferred
legal
framing:
a
complete
layup,
narrowly
avoided.
Now
here’s
where
the
Atlantic
suit
comes
back
into
the
picture.
Patel’s
complaint
explicitly
cites
the
Figliuzzi
litigation
to
support
his
assertion
of
The
Atlantic‘s
actual
malice,
arguing
that
the
magazine
knew
about
the
pending
lawsuit,
knew
that
similar
nightclub-adjacent
allegations
had
been
“retracted”
by
MSNBC,
and
published
anyway.
From
the
complaint:
the
FBI
“warned
Defendants
that
these
allegations
echoed
a
similar
fabrication
previously
aired
by
MSNBC’s
Frank
Figliuzzi
on
Morning
Joe
—
anonymously
sourced
reporting
that
was
later
retracted
by
MSNBC
and
that
is
the
subject
of
pending
defamation
litigation
—
yet
Defendants
published
it
anyway.”
Got
that?
The
Figliuzzi
lawsuit
was
Exhibit
A
in
the
actual
malice
argument
against
The
Atlantic.
The
lawsuit
Patel
just
lost.
The
one
a
federal
judge
just
ruled
was
based
on
protected
rhetorical
hyperbole.
The
precedent
that
the
nightclub-adjacent
criticism
of
Patel
is
the
kind
of
thing
a
reasonable
person
doesn’t
take
literally.
You
might
want
to
take
that
exhibit
out
of
the
binder,
Jesse.
Meanwhile,
on
Tuesday
afternoon,
Patel
and
Acting
Attorney
General
Todd
Blanche
held
a
press
conference
to
announce
what
Blanche
is
framing
as
a
sweeping
fraud
indictment
against
the
Southern
Poverty
Law
Center.
But
it
took
a
notable
detour
when
NBC
News
reporter
Ryan
Reilly
had
some
questions
about
Patel’s
lawsuit
instead.
Specifically,
Reilly
asked
Patel
whether
on
April
10,
Patel
“had
a
routine
technical
problem
logging
into
a
government
system,
which
was
quickly
fixed.”
The
Atlantic
had
reported
that
this
login
issue
triggered
a
“freak-out”
in
which
Patel
believed
he’d
been
fired.
REILLY:
Can
you
explain
the
computer
log
in
issue?
Your
lawsuit
contends
you
were
not
able
to
log
into
the
system
PATEL:
Let’s
have
a
survey.
How
many
of
you
people
believe
that’s
true?
REILLY:
Did
you
communicate
with
anyone
you
thought
you
were
fired?
PATEL:
It’s
an
absolute
lie.
It
never
happened.
You
are
lying.
REILLY:
The
lawsuit
says
the
opposite!
The
lawsuit
denies
the
freak-out
characterization,
but
it
does
not
deny
the
login
problem.
It
admits
it,
right
there
on
the
page,
in
the
document
Binnall
filed
in
federal
court
that
Patel
suffered
a
“routine
technical
problem
logging
into
a
government
system.”
Patel,
it
seems,
does
not
believe
the
allegations
in
his
own
complaint.
When
Reilly,
reasonably,
one
would
think,
pointed
this
out,
Blanche
took
over.
The
Acting
Attorney
General,
sensing
an
opportunity
to
demonstrate
the
administration’s
commitment
to
collegial
discourse,
stepped
forward
and
told
the
reporter:
“Stop.
You’re
being
extraordinarily
rude.
And
I
know
maybe
that’s
part
of
your
profession,
but
please
just
stop.
If
you
ask
a
question,
he
can
answer
it…
Just
a
little
bit
of
respect,
man,
just
a
tiny
little
bit.
Try
it
some
time.”
Ryan
Reilly
was
asking
the
FBI
Director
to
explain
his
own
lawsuit.
That
is
the
rude
behavior
in
question.
As
we’ve
covered
from
the
start,
this
suit
always
looked
less
like
litigation
and
more
like
a
message
to
Trump
that
Patel
is
a
fighter.
Nothing
about
Tuesday
changed
that
read.
It
did,
however,
raise
a
new
question…
has
Kash
Patel
actually
read
his
own
complaint?
Earlier:
FBI
Director
Promises
To
Pound
‘The
Atlantic’
Like
A
Six
Pack
On
A
Tuesday
Kash
Patel’s
$250
Million
Defamation
Lawsuit
Looks
Better
With
Beer
Goggles
Did
Kash
Patel’s
Lawyers
Have
ChatGPT
File
A
$250
Million
Lawsuit?
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
Bluesky @Kathryn1
Law
school
deans
have
a
weird
job
description.
Technically,
they
lead
the
law
school
in
its
academic
mission.
But,
more
realistically,
they
fundraise,
game
the
U.S.
News
rankings,
and
manage
the
law
school
bureaucracy.
Ideally,
they
keep
the
alumni
happy
at
football
games
—
or
basketball
games
depending
on
the
school
in
question.
A
unicorn
dean
also
serves
as
a
leading
intellectual
light
carrying
the
program’s
scholarly
banner,
but…
all
else
equal,
the
university
will
prefer
someone
who
knows
how
to
get
that
local
car
dealer
from
the
class
of
’72
to
slap
their
name
on
a
new
building.
When
Kentucky
Law
announced
that
Judge
Gregory
Van
Tatenhove
of
the
Eastern
District
of
Kentucky
would
assume
the
deanship,
it
seemed
like
the
school
had
finally
gotten
its
ducks
in
a
row.
After
all,
the
school
hasn’t
had
permanent
dean
since
Mary
J.
Davis
stepped
back
from
the
role
back
in
2024,
and
a
pair
of
previous
dean
searches
failed
to
find
anyone.
Stability
appeared
to
be
on
the
horizon.
But
underneath
the
surface,
the
announcement
kicked
a
hornet’s
nest.
Or,
at
Kentucky
Law,
a
cockroach
nest.
According
to
the
Louisville
Courier
Journal,
weeks
before
that
March
6
announcement,
UK
law
faculty
told
university
officials
that
a
“substantial
majority”
of
them
found
Van
Tatenhove
“unacceptable”:
In
a
February
obtained
by
The
Courier
Journal,
UK
law
school
associate
deans
Joshua
Douglas
and
Beau
Steenken
told
law
faculty
they
had
sent
an
to
DiPaola
and
others
involved
in
the
dean
search
informing
them
that
a
“substantial
majority
of
the
faculty
expressed
that
Candidate
D
does
not
meet
the
standards
of
the
candidate
profile”
the
university
put
forward.
Candidate
D,
obviously,
was
Judge
Van
Tatenhove.
The
other
three
finalists
—
Michael
Higdon,
Mary
Graw
Leary,
and
Milena
Sterio
—
were
all
conventional
academic
picks
and
rated
as
acceptable
to
the
faculty.
The
university
disregarded
the
faculty
pick
and
announced
Option
D
anyway.
Did
we
mention
that
the
judge
served
as
a
legislative
aide
to
Mitch
McConnell
and
chief
of
staff
to
GOP
Rep.
Ron
Lewis?
Well,
he
did.
From
the
university’s
perspective,
a
politically
connected
former
judge
could
be
a
boon
to
fundraising.
From
the
faculty’s
perspective,
during
an
active
Republican-led
assault
on
academia,
a
Republican
dean
reads
a
lot
like
a
white
flag.
This
controversy
has
now
roped
in
Kentucky’s
governor,
who
publicly
inquired
about
the
University
of
Kentucky’s
decision-making
citing
the
judge’s
appointment
and
the
elevation
of
the
school’s
athletic
director
to
a
vague
“executive
in
residence”
role
earning
$950,000
a
year
through
2030.
The
selection
matters
for
the
school’s
accreditation
because
ABA
Interpretation
203-1
notes:
“Except
in
circumstances
demonstrating
good
cause,
a
dean
should
not
be
appointed
or
reappointed
to
a
new
term
over
the
stated
objection
of
a
substantial
majority
of
the
faculty.”
There’s
also
an
accreditation
standard
requiring
the
dean
to
hold
tenure
“except
in
extraordinary
circumstances,”
which
should
be
unavailable
to
the
judge,
as
he
lacks
the
necessary
scholarly
qualifications.
Provost
Robert
DiPaola,
who
ran
the
search,
decided
to
roll
past
both
of
those
standards.
Faculty
member
Ramsi
Woodcock
flagged
the
problem
to
the
UK
president
and
wrote
an
op-ed
in
the
Courier
Journal
making
these
procedural
arguments.
But,
according
to
the
email,
a
“substantial
majority”
of
the
faculty
“expressed”
that
Judge
Van
Tatenhove
“does
not
meet”
the
job
requirements advertised by
the
university
because
he
lacks
“experience
arising
from
a
senior-level
administrative
role
such
as
department
chair,
center
director,
associate
dean,
or
dean.”The
also
stated
that
Van
Tatenhove
“does
not
possess
the
necessary
qualifications
(including
a
record
of
scholarship)
to
be
granted
tenure
under
the
Rosenberg
College
of
Law’s
current
rules.”
Van
Tatenhove’s
only
academic
publication
appears
to
be
a note he
penned
as
a
law
student
forty
years
ago.
The
ABA requires that
a
dean
be
a
tenured
law
professor.At
any
school
interested
in
protecting
its
accreditation,
that
would
have
been
the
end
of
Van
Tatenhove’s
candidacy.
But
Judge
Van
Tatenhove
doesn’t
have
the
scholarly
record
because
he’s
spent
the
last
two
decades
as
a
federal
judge.
I
don’t
know
as
though
there
are
established
canons
of
construction
for
interpreting
ABA
accreditation
rules,
but
a
standard
probably
should
not
be
read
to
prevent
a
school
from
appointing
a
federal
judge.
That
said,
the
school
couldn’t
leave
well
enough
alone
and
extended
this
defense
of
Judge
Van
Tatenhove
to
an
absurdist
end.
A
Kentucky
spokesperson
argued
that
Van
Tatenhove’s
judicial
record
is,
a
kind
of
scholarship
in
itself,
because
“hundreds
of
his
judicial
opinions
have
been
effectively
peer-reviewed
by
the
Sixth
Circuit
with
an
affirmation
rate
above
80%.”
Insert
a
head-smack
emoji
here.
The
“Sixth
Circuit
as
peer
review”
claim,
makes
you
worry
that
they
maybe
they
don’t
understand
how
scholarship
works.
Also,
as
a
soon-to-be-former
Kentucky
professor
notes
of
Dean
Davis,
“the
last
permanent
dean
of
the
law
school
has
not
published
any
legal
scholarship
in
decades.”
It’s
hard
to
hang
a
hat
on
a
standard
that
the
faculty
hasn’t
worried
about
for
years.
The
ABA’s
accreditation
body
declined
to
comment
on
a
specific
school,
as
the
ABA’s
accreditation
body
always
does.
This
afternoon,
Above
the
Law
has
learned,
the
provost
has
called
an
emergency
meeting.
Presumably,
the
goal
is
to
convince
everyone
to
stop
taking
this
fight
to
the
Courier
Journal.
Judge
Van
Tatenhove
seems
more
than
qualified
to
run
a
law
school.
But
even
if
faculty
shouldn’t
be
able
to
unilaterally
pick
their
boss,
they
should
be
able
to
nix
one.
That’s
a
balance
that
the
ABA
standard
gets
right
—
a
substantial
majority
just
needs
to
not
actively
reject
the
choice.
That’s
a
low
bar,
and
Kentucky
couldn’t
clear
it.
A
law
school
can’t
function
if
the
majority
of
the
faculty
doesn’t
have
confidence
in
the
dean.
Maybe
Judge
Van
Tatenhove
is
prepared
to
stand
up
to
the
anti-intellectual
broadside
his
fellow
Republicans
have
launched,
but
the
faculty
has
ample
reason
to
prefer
—
at
this
moment
in
history
—
a
candidate
from
within
the
legal
academy.
The
board
of
trustees
meets
April
24
to
formally
confirm
the
appointment.
As
long
as
he’s
got
a
plan
for
the
cockroaches,
he’ll
be
fine.
Earlier:
Federal
Judge
Steps
Up
To
Be
Law
School
Dean
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.
Lawyers
love
rankings,
and
there’s
nothing
they
love
more
than
rankings
about
prestigious
job
placement
rates
and
the
law
schools
that
helped
graduates
land
those
impressive
jobs.
Readers
are
in
luck,
because
today,
we’ve
got
yet
another
ranking
on
the
subject.
For
more
than
a
decade,
Law.com
has
published
a
list
of
the
best
law
schools
to
go
to
if
you
want
to
work
in
Biglaw
after
graduation.
Law.com
refers
to
these
institutions
of
higher
education
as
the
“go-to
law
schools,”
and
this
year,
they’re
ranked
by
the
percentage
of
2025
graduates
who
took
associate
positions
within
the
Am
Law
200,
the
nation’s
top
200
law
firms
based
on
gross
revenue.
(Compare
this
to
last
year,
when
the
rankings
were
based
on
the
percentage
of
graduates
who
landed
as
associates
at
NLJ
500
firms,
the
500
largest
firms
in
the
country.)
Before
we
get
to
the
list
of
the
go-to
law
schools,
it’s
worthwhile
to
speak
about
the
landscape
for
entry-level
employment
in
the
legal
profession.
The
ABA
recently
released
the
data
for
the
class
of
2025,
and
their
success
in
the
job
market
was
quite
strong.
That
said,
things
are
going
great
for
the
Top
10
Go-To
Law
Schools:
- Columbia:
75.55%- Northwestern:
67.80%- Penn:
66.93%- UVA:
65.26%- NYU:
61.87%- Chicago:
61.11%- UC
Berkeley:
60.42%- UCLA:
55.72%- Vanderbilt:
55.62%- Georgetown:
53.77%
You
can
access
the
full
list
of
the
Top
50
Go-To
Law
Schools
by
clicking here.
Columbia
is
back
to
ruling
this
ranking,
reclaiming
its
decade-long
roost
at
No.
1
after
a
one-year
absence
(namely
because
the
school
decided
to
participate
this
year,
unlike
last
year).
USC
Gould,
on
the
other
hand,
which
landed
in
4th
place
last
year,
declined
to
participate
this
year,
opening
up
the
field
for
other
top
schools.
Berkeley
and
Georgetown
might
have
been
kicked
out
of
the
U.S.
News
T14,
but
they’re
both
here
to
play
in
the
Top
10
for
prestigious
employment
outcomes.
Congrats!
Perhaps
even
more
notable
than
these
numbers
are
the
tuition
figures
appended
to
this
year’s
ranking.
Law
school
costs
versus
employment
percentages
can
vary
greatly.
Unless
you’re
tied
to
a
specific
location,
why
pay
~$83,000
to
go
to
a
school
that
sends
about
53%
of
its
graduates
to
Biglaw
when
you
can
spend
~$59,000
less
to
go
to
a
school
that
sends
about
55%
of
its
graduates
to
Biglaw?
Either
way
you
slice
it,
this
list
is
incredibly
useful.
It’s
a
great
way
for
law
students,
both
current
and
prospective,
to
gauge
their
employment
prospects.
Use
these
rankings
wisely
—
or
ignore
them,
at
your
peril.
The
2026
Top
50
Go-To
Law
Schools:
Big
Law
[Law.com]
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.