Author: TSA Press

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

According
to
a
survey
by
the
Association
of
Corporate
Counsel,
what
percentage
of
surveyed
in-house
legal
department
leaders
say
they
have
“high
or
severe”
levels
of
stress?

Hint:
The
report
warns,
high
stress
levels
“amplify
the
risk
of
attrition
by
a
factor
of
3
to
5
compared
to
moderately
or
mildly
stressed
staff.”

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

CMS
has
been
trying
to
scale
value-based
care
for
decades
with
mixed
results
—
but
the
agency’s
newly
announced

ACCESS
model
could
represent
a
more
meaningful
step
toward
aligning
payment
with
outcomes
and
costs.

Over
the
past
20
years,
CMS’
steady
progression
of
payment
and
care
delivery
reforms
include
pay-for-performance,
bundled
payments,
accountable
care
organizations
and
alternative
payment
models.
While
many
of
those
efforts
layered
incentives
on
top
of
providers’
fee-for-service
models,
ACCESS
is
a
more
explicit
attempt
to
rewire
traditional
Medicare
itself
around
patient
outcomes,
total
cost
of
care
and
flexibility
in
how
care
is
delivered.

ACCESS
stands
for
Advancing
Chronic
Care
with
Effective,
Scalable
Solutions.
It
will
allow
providers
to
use
digital
tools,
nontraditional
services
and
care
teams
that
are
not
typically
reimbursed
under
fee-for-service.
Participating
providers
will
take
on
responsibility
for
quality
and
the
total
cost
of
care,
with
the
opportunity
to
share
in
savings
if
they
improve
outcomes
and
decrease
spending. 

The
model,
which
is
slated
to
begin
on
July
1,
is
designed
to
promote
prevention,
continuous
engagement
and
technology-enabled
care
rather
than
episodic
visits. 

Experts
think
it
is
CMS’
clearest
attempt
yet
to
move
traditional
Medicare
fee-for-service
toward
an
outcomes
model,
as
well
as
a
key
effort
to
help
expand
care
beyond
the
four
walls
of
a
hospital
or
clinic.
However,
they
provide
a
caveat:
the
success
of
ACCESS
will
depend
on
sustained
participation,
clear
metrics
and
the
ability
to
integrate
data
and
digital
tools
across
fragmented
care
settings.

How
does
the
model
work?

CMS
said
its
ACCESS
program
will
initially
focus
on
conditions
affecting
more
than
two-thirds
of
people
on
Medicare,
including
depression,
diabetes,
high
blood
pressure
and
chronic
musculoskeletal
pain.

Under
the
program,
CMS
will
evaluate
participating
providers
based
on
whether
their
patients’
conditions
meaningfully
improve
over
time
and
whether
those
improvements
translate
into
lower
use
of
costly
services.
That
includes
tracking
changes
in
clinical
metrics
tied
to
each
condition,
as
well
as
downstream
effects
like
fewer
hospitalizations,
fewer
emergency
department
visits
and
lower
overall
Medicare
spending
for
patients
seeing
an
ACCESS-enrolled
provider.

Providers
that
meet
or
exceed
these
quality
and
cost
benchmarks
can
earn
shared
savings,
but
those
that
fall
short
could
face
reduced
payments.

Rather
than
paying
solely
for
individual
visits
or
procedures,
CMS
ties
reimbursement
to
performance
on
these
outcomes
—
incentivizing
care
that
is
more
preventive
and
coordinated.

The
model
also
encourages
the
use
of
technology
like
remote
monitoring,
digital
behavioral
health
programs
and
virtual
care
management
teams.
All
of
these
are
known
to
help
improve
patient
outcomes
but
are
not
typically
reimbursed
under
fee-for-service. 

For
this
reason,
companies
providing
tech-enabled
care
are
bullish
on
ACCESS.
One
leader
—
Ankoor
Shah,
vice
president
of
clinical
excellence
at
virtual
care
provider

Included
Health
—
said
the
model
is
the
first
serious
move
within
traditional
Medicare
fee-for-service
toward
flexibility,
outcome-based
payment
and
coverage
for
services
that
historically
weren’t
paid
for.

He
pointed
out
that
ACCESS
is
different
from
prior
CMS
initiatives
meant
to
promote
value-based
care.
One
reason
is
that
it
is
focuses
on
Medicare
Part
B
fee-for-service
rather
than
capitation.

Part
B
has
historically
operated
under
a
fee-for-service
model
that
reimburses
providers
for
each
outpatient
visit,
with
little
consideration
for
long-term
patient
outcomes.
Unlike
capitation
models,
which
give
providers
a
fixed
budget
per
patient,
ACCESS
keeps
Part
B’s
fee-for-service
structure
but
ties
payments
to
measurable
outcomes.
This
means
providers
are
still
reimbursed
for
each
service,
but
they
can
earn
additional
shared
savings
—
or
incur
penalties
—
based
on
how
well
patients’
conditions
are
managed
over
time. 

This
approach
allows
providers
to
use
technology
and
care
coordination
services
in
ways
that
have
never
been
financially
supported
under
traditional
Part
B,
Shah
declared. 

Connected
devices
can
help
save
money

Shah
also
highlighted
the
new
model’s
emphasis
on
what
happens
outside
clinical
settings,
as
ACCESS
recognizes
that
wearables,
digital
programs,
specialty
care
models
and
ongoing
patient
engagement
all
play
an
important
role
in
outcomes.

For
example,
this
new
coverage
could
allow
a
Medicare
patient
with
heart
failure
to
receive
a
combination
of
remote
monitoring
and
in-person
care
rather
than
relying
solely
on
office
visits.

A
provider
participating
in
ACCESS
might
use
connected
devices
—
such
as
smart
scales
and
blood
pressure
monitors
to
track
weight
and
blood
pressure
at
home
—
paired
with
nurse-led
check-ins,
during
which
clinical
staff
can
make
medication
adjustments
and
referrals
to
nutrition
or
cardiac
rehab
programs.

These
types
of
interventions
help
prevent
chronic
conditions
from
worsening
to
the
point
of
hospitalization,
Shah
remarked.

CMS’
goal
is
to
generate
savings
from
the
eventual
reduction
in
unnecessary
hospital
stays,
emergency
visits
and
complications,
though
the
magnitude
of
those
savings
has
yet
to
be
determined. 

However,
results
from
the
Medicare
Shared
Savings
Program,
CMS’
largest
and
longest-running
alternative
payment
model,
suggest
there
is
significant
potential
to
bring
costs
down.
CMS
reported

$2.1
billion
and

$2.5
billion
in
net
savings
from
the
program
in
2023
and
2024,
respectively.

Researchers
have
also
been
proving
connected
devices’
ability
to
lower
costs
over
the
past
decade.
One
recent
study,
published
last
year
in
the


Journal
of
Cardiac
Failure,
found
that
remote
patient
monitoring
for
heart
failure
patients
was
associated
with
a
52%
reduction
in
monthly
healthcare
costs,
mainly
by
reducing
hospital
stays
and
adverse
events
like
heart
attacks.

And
just
last
month,
virtual
care
provider

Cadence
published
a
peer-reviewed

study
on
its
collaboration
with
Mayo
Clinic,
and
it
showed
that
the
startup’s
remote
monitoring
programs
resulted
in
a
27%
drop
in
hospital
admissions. 

Raising
the
bar
on
accountability

Fewer
inpatient
visits
and
shorter
hospital
stays
are
outcomes
that
directly
lower
spending
on
costly
acute
care,
noted
Cadence
CEO
Christopher
Altchek.
CMS
is
looking
for
ways
to
save
money,
which
is
why
ACCESS
fits
into
a
broader
policy
shift,
he
stated.

He
pointed
to
a
couple
of
parallel
developments
—
higher
2026
reimbursement
for
remote
patient
monitoring
and
advanced
primary
care
management
in
CMS’
Physician
Fee
Schedule,
as
well
as
HHS’

$50
billion
rural
health
transformation
fund
prioritizing
chronic
disease
management.

In
Altchek’s
view,
ACCESS
will
help
raise
the
bar
on
accountability.
Two
implications
stood
out
for
him,
the
first
being
that
CMS
will
publish
annual
standardized
performance
results,
which
will
quickly
separate
high-quality
participants
from
weaker
ones.

The
second
is
that
clinical
outcomes
will
be
measured
by
improvement
over
time.
For
example,
CMS
will
be
paying
attention
to
whether
patients’
blood
pressure
or
A1c
is
lower
at
the
end
of
the
program
than
it
was
at
the
beginning.
Altchek
said
this
is
a
more
precise
and
meaningful
approach
than
current
CMS
Star
Ratings. 

“The
way
Stars
metrics
are
calculated
is
not
detailed
enough.
A
Stars
metric
is
like
what
percentage
of
your
hypertension
population
is
under
control
— 
it
doesn’t
give
you
any
credit
for
the
movement
within
the
population
or
how
effective
you
are.
It’s
a
very
crude
metric.
This
is
a
much
more
precise
metric,
and
that’s
really
helpful
to
have
—
standardized
at
the
level
of
CMS,”
he
explained.

Altchek
said
ACCESS
could
reset
how
payers
and
providers
evaluate
chronic
disease
management
by
creating
an
“apples-to-apples”
standard
for
outcomes
and
cost
savings.

ACCESS
bets
on
digital
care
—
but
only
if
the
data
flows

In
addition
to
raising
the
bar
for
accountability,
ACCESS
also
sets
higher
standards
for
digital
health
providers,
said

Lark
Health
CEO
Julia
Hu.
Lark
offers
a
digital
platform
for
chronic
disease
management
and
prevention. 

Hu
said
she
welcomes
being
held
to
stricter,
outcomes-based
standards
and
believes
ACCESS
could
force
underperforming
digital
health
and
AI
vendors
out
while
rewarding
those
that
can
prove
their
value.

She
thinks
that
data
integration
will
be
the
biggest
challenge
to
adoption. 

“How
do
we
mesh
the
traditional
[primary
care
provider]
channels
with
these
technologies
to
create
a
seamless
experience
for
the
patient
while
working
through
the
clinical
workflow
so
that
providers
can
point
to
the
correct
services?
I
think
that
will
be
a
challenge
that
we
should
all
work
on,”
Hu
remarked.

There
is
time,
though.
She
pointed
out
that
CMS
has
laid
out
a
10-year
timeline
for
this
project.
This
duration
is
critical,
she
said,
because
it
gives
providers
time
to
mature
and
work
through
operational
and
integration
challenges.

Another
healthcare
startup
CEO
—
Jason
Prestinario,
CEO
of
data
platform

Particle
Health
—
said
that
the
model’s
success
will
hinge
on
the
ability
to
seamlessly
share
patient
data
across
various
providers
and
care
settings.

He
argued
the
model
cannot
work
without
seamless
data
flow
across
all
those
touchpoints.
While
there
has
been
progress
in
nationwide
data
exchange,
gaps
remain
—
especially
around
individual
access
and
persistent
information
blocking
by
EHR
vendors,
Prestinario
noted.

“There’s
going
to
be
a
lot
of
different
sources
of
information,
and
ways
and
tools
and
technology
that
providers
are
going
to
use
to
holistically
treat
the
patient
—
so
we
need
to
make
sure
that
EHRs
can’t
block
that
access
in
ways
that
we
still
see
today.
I
think
we
are
making
a
lot
of
strides
and
a
lot
of
improvements,
but
there’s
still
work
to
be
done,
for
sure,”
he
declared.

Prestinario
called
for
stronger
enforcement
on
the
“supply
side”
of
data.
He
argued
that
CMS
has
focused
heavily
on
stimulating
demand
for
better
data
use
through
its
initiatives
aimed
at
improving
personal
data
access
and
better
clinician
workflows
—
but
that
it
has
not
done
enough
to
ensure
the
supply
of
data
is
actually
available. 

He
said
value-based
care
models
like
ACCESS
will
only
work
if
regulators
more
aggressively
enforce
information-blocking
rules
and
require
EHR
vendors
and
providers
to
make
patient
data
readily
accessible
when
patients
receive
care
across
different
settings.

Prestinario
added
that
he
expects
the
model
to
benefit
value-based
and
digitally
native
providers
first.
He
thinks
providers
that
are
already
focused
on
outcomes
—
particularly
in
CMS’
target
areas
like
cardiac
disease,
diabetes,
behavioral
health
and
musculoskeletal
—
will
benefit
most.
He
is
less
certain
how
commercial
payers
and
Medicare
Advantage
will
ultimately
adapt,
given
that
they
have
different
incentive
structures
and
typically
lack
standardized
requirements
around
data
sharing
and
outcomes
measurement. 

Ultimately,
ACCESS
could
give
Medicare
the
tools
to
pay
for
outcomes
instead
of
volume
—
but
its
success
will
depend
on
how
CMS
follows
through
on
measurement,
enforcement
and
data
sharing.

Photo:
Charday
Penn,
Getty
Images

Earlier
this
month,
we
released
our

2025
Outside
Counsel
Rankings,
highlighting
the
go-to
law
firms
for
in-house
counsel.

In
addition
to
telling
us
which
firms
they
engage
for
legal
services,
in-house
lawyers
were
also
asked
to
share
some
feedback
about
these
firms:
“What
are
the
firm’s
particular
strengths
(or
weaknesses)?
Would
you
recommend
hiring
the
firm(s)
to
peers?”

In
this
brief
quiz,
we’ve
included
a
selection
of
comments
about
the
firms
featured
in
the

Top
Tier
of
the
latest
rankings.
See
if
you
can
match
the
firm
to
the
feedback.
We’ll
reveal
the
results
after
the
new
year.

Click

here
to
take
the
quiz.

We
were
Jews
before
we
were
anything
else,
one
Pennsylvania
Supreme
Court
Justice
remarked
at
a
Democratic
Jewish
event
in
Philadelphia
on
October
6,
2025.
The
justice,
then
a
candidate
for
retention
election,
spoke
about
our
moral
obligation
to
condemn
antisemitism,
particularly
as
we
approached
the
second
anniversary
of
October
7,
2023,
the
largest
massacre
of
Jews
since
the
Holocaust.
It
was
a
rousing
Zionist
speech
and
a
call
to
action.
But
some
attendees
weren’t
thrilled. 

Several
non-Jews
told
me
the
justice
“shouldn’t
be
retained
if
he
believes
that.”

But
he
protects
their
religious
freedoms
from
the
bench,
fairly
and
impartially
interpreting
the
law.
His
religious
beliefs
should
be
respected,
too. 

Was
that
exchange
antisemitic?
Anti-Zionist?
Is
there
a
difference?
Even
Jews
disagree.
But
most
Jews

do
agree
that
antisemitism
is
surging
—

more
than
55%
of
us
experienced
antisemitism
in
the
past
year
—
yet
our
subjective
experiences
of
anti-Jewish
hate
are
often
minimized
or
downright
dismissed. 

I
can’t
hide
my
Judaism,
nor
do
I
wish
to:
my
Hebrew
name
gives
me
away
immediately.
My
grandmother
was
a
Holocaust
survivor
who
passed
away
a
few
years
ago;
and
my
cousin’s
husband
is
an
Israeli
Defense
Force
(IDF)
soldier.
Particularly
since
October
7,
2023,
I’ve
used
my
large
platform
to
ensure
the
Democratic,
pro-Israel,
millennial
perspective
is
represented
in
public
life.
I
have
a
moral
obligation
to
keep
my
grandmother’s
memory
alive
through
storytelling.
For
most
Jews,
Israel
is
inextricably
linked
with
the
cultural
significance
of
the
Holocaust
—
the
largest-ever
genocide,
when
6
million
Jews
were
exterminated
—
and
our
larger
Jewish
story. 

I
don’t
remember
when
I
first
learned
about
Israel
or
the
Holocaust,
because
both
are

integral
to
the
fabric
of
being
Jewish.
Israel
as
it
exists
today
was
founded
in
1948,
soon
after
the
Holocaust.
Afterward,
many
Jews
emigrated
to
Israel
—
theoretically,
a
haven.
Israel
remains
heavily
populated
by
Holocaust
survivors
and
their
descendants.
But
Israel
is
surrounded
by
nations
that
hate
it
and
seek
to
wipe
it
off
the
map.
It
exists
in
near-perpetual
conflict
with
neighbors.
Israel,
the
sole
Middle
East
democracy,
has
the
right
to
exist
and
defend
itself
against
aggression.

As
I
was
growing
up
in
Montgomery
County,
Pennsylvania,
my
Jewish
identity
was
a
nonissue.
But
being
Jewish
in
my
grandmother’s
generation
in
Europe
was
literally
a
death
sentence.

I’ve
always
been
painfully
aware
that,
were
I
born
two
generations
ago
in
Nazi
Europe,
I
probably
would
not
have
survived
to
adulthood.
We’re
just
two
generations
removed
from
the
Holocaust.

It
could
happen
again. 

I’m
a
proud

Zionist
and
Democrat.
Yet
Jews
from
my
generation
struggle
to
reconcile
those
identities,
because
the
“progressive”
position
on
Israel
is,
nonsensically,

anti-Israel.
I’ve
dedicated
my

life
and
career
to
advocating
for
increased
rights
and
protections
for
tens
of
thousands
of

vulnerable
judicial
branch
employees
who
are

exempt
from
all
federal
anti-discrimination
laws,
including
laws
against
religious
discrimination.
Ironically,
those
I
advocate
for
—
law
students
and
young
lawyers
—
don’t
necessarily
believe
I
deserve
those
same
rights,
like
religious
freedom
and
anti-discrimination
protection.

My
nonprofit’s
work
democratizing
judicial
clerkship
information
and
opportunities
takes
me
to

law
school
campuses
nationwide,
where
some
students
are
willing
to
go
without
essential
career
information
—
even
disinviting
me
as
a
speaker
—
just
to
make
their
anti-Zionist
point.
One
of
the
last
acceptable
forms
of
discrimination
is
against
Jews.
And
it’s
particularly
ironic
coming
from
Democrats,
who
pride
themselves
on
values
like
religious
freedom,
equality,
minority
rights,
and
freedom
from
discrimination
—
unless
you’re
Jewish. 

This
year,
we
witnessed
the
antisemitic

murder
of
two
Israeli
embassy
employees
outside
the
Capital
Jewish
Museum
in
Washington,
D.C.;
an
antisemitic
flamethrower
attack
in

Boulder,
Colorado;
and
an
antisemitic

firebombing
of
Pennsylvania
Jewish
Governor
Josh
Shapiro’s
residence
on
Passover.
And
last
weekend,
antisemitic
terror
claimed
at
least
16
lives
in

Sydney,
Australia,
including
a
Holocaust
survivor,
a
rabbi,
and
a
child,
who
were
gunned
down
during
a
Hanukkah
celebration
at
Bondi
Beach. 

Too
many
demonize
Israel
—
not
just
its
leader
—
fomenting
hate
and
encouraging
antisemitic
violence
like
these
attacks
—
wrongfully
conflating
the
actions
of
Prime
Minister
Benjamin
Netanyahu
with
the
beliefs
of
all
Israelis,
and
all
Jews.

Zionism
—
the
belief
that
Israel
has
a
right
to
exist
—
has
become
a
dirty
word.
But
anti-Zionism
is
just
antisemitism
with
a
new
haircut.
To
oppose
Israel’s
right
to
exist
as
a
Jewish
state,
when
Israel
is
part
of
the
fundamental
fabric
of
Judaism,
is
antisemitic.
Because
when
anti-Israel
critics
talk
about
destroying
the
Jewish
state,
that
necessarily
means
killing
millions
of
Jews.
Hateful
rhetoric
inverted
and
weaponized
the
word
“genocide”
against
Israel.
Yet
this
term
bears
historical
significance
for
Jews
because
of
the
Holocaust,
the
largest
genocide
in
history,
when
6
million
Jews
were
exterminated
—
burned
alive
in
ovens
and
suffocated
in
gas
chambers
—
for
the
“crime”
of
being

other. 

Ironically,
while
many
on
the
left
rightfully
advocate
equality
for
other
marginalized
groups,
apparently
Jews
—
a
religious
minority
—
aren’t
deserving
of
protection.

Rights
for
you,
unless
you’re
a
Jew.
Paradoxically,
many
quote

Pastor
Martin
Niemoller’s
poem,
“First
They
Came,”
a
warning
about
speaking
up
for
oppressed
minorities
before
there’s
no
one
left
to
speak
for
you,
aimed
at
Trump
administration
policies
—
written

about
the
Nazis
following
the
Holocaust. 

Some
lack
historical
context
about
the
Holocaust:

according
to
one
recent
survey,
one-fifth
of
people
have

never
heard
of
the
Holocaust.
Many
have
never
met
a
Holocaust
survivor,
nor
heard
their
stories
—
especially
considering

the
last
are
quickly
dying
out.
Holocaust
education

is
not
taught
in
all
public
schools.
If
we
do
not
learn
from
the
past,
we
are
doomed
to
repeat
it. 

We
should
not
demonize
an
entire
country
for
its
leader’s
actions
—
let
alone
an
entire

religion.
Many
Jews
disagree
with
Netanyahu’s
wartime
tactics.
Yet
too
many
in
the
U.S.
dangerously
demonize
Israel’s
10
million
residents.
Criticize
Netanyahu

without
criticizing
Israel.
Plenty
of
us
criticize
President
Donald
Trump
without
criticizing
all
United
States
residents.
We
cannot
hold
all
Israelis,
let
alone
all
Jews,
responsible
for
Netanyahu’s
actions,
unless
we

all
want
to
be
held
accountable
for
Trump’s
actions.
It’s
a
logical
fallacy
of
deadly
proportions. 

I’ve
experienced
my
share
of
religious
intolerance.
Last
year,
I
worked
with
Michigan
Law
student
leaders
to
host
a
clerkship
transparency
event
with
my
nonprofit,

The
Legal
Accountability
Project
(LAP).
Then,
I
was
basically
disinvited
as
a
speaker
because
of
my
religious
views,
evidenced
by
social
media
posts
about
Israel,
antisemitism,
and
the
Holocaust.
The
student
leader
said,

Your
views
make
students
uncomfortable,
and
we
have
a
lot
of
Muslim
students
at
Michigan.
But
the
event
was
to
talk
about

judicial
clerkships,
not
Israel.
For
students
of

all
faiths
and
races.
I
was
disheartened
that
law
students
—
including
some
who
aspire
to
be
civil
rights
lawyers
—
tasked
with
defending
religious
and
ideological
freedom,
and

law
clerks
—
a
position
where
you’re
expected
to
be
impartial
or
take
the
judge’s
position
even
if
you
disagree
—
couldn’t
separate
my
religious
beliefs
from
the
topic
of
clerking.
As
a
result,
the
entire
student
body
at
Michigan
Law
was
precluded
from
learning
candid
clerkship
information
through
a
LAP
event
which,
frankly,
they
need.

Disturbingly,
too
many
elected
leaders,
on
both
the
left
and
right,
amplify
virulent
anti-Israel
rhetoric
and
failed
to
condemn
hateful
campus
protests
that
made
universities
inhospitable
for
Jewish
students.
It’s
no
wonder
young
progressives,
including
law
students,
share
antisemitic
views

espoused
by
progressive
icons.
Misinformation
spreads
like
wildfire
on
social
media.
Hateful
rhetoric
like,
“From
the
river
to
the
sea”
and
“Globalize
the
intifada”
—
which
glorifies
terror
and
normalizes
antisemitism,
and
which

inevitably
lead
to
violence
—
are
proudly
chanted
and
amplified,
rather
than
properly
condemned.

Violent,
hateful
rhetoric
stokes
violent,
hateful
acts.
Both
parties
certainly
bear
responsibility,
but
frankly,
I
hold
Democrats
—
my
own
party
—
to
a
higher
standard,
given
their
professed
commitment
to
religious
freedom,
diversity,
equity,
and
inclusion.
While
there’s
only
so
much
I
can
do
to
pressure
Republicans
to
act,
when
it
comes
to
Democratic
politics,
my
vote
is
my
voice.  

The
vocal
minority
may
be
the
loudest
voices,
but
their
views
do
not
represent
the
majority.
Sadly,
there
are
few
outspoken
advocates
for
Israel
in
Congress,
particularly
among
Democrats
—
and
too
few
Jewish
elected
leaders.
My

congressional
delegation
in
Pennsylvania,
for
example,
has
no
Jewish
representation.
Decisions
about
domestic
and
foreign
policy
impacting
millions
of
Jews
are
made
without
Jews
at
the
table. 

Last
weekend,
we
witnessed
both
a
school
shooting
at
Brown
University
and
the
attack
in
Sydney.
Every
elected
official,
cultural
and
local
leader,
and
candidate
for
office
should
unequivocally
condemn
both.
But
while
public
figures
get
“likes”
on
social
media
for
saying
we
should
vote
out
anyone
who
prioritizes
guns
over
people,
the
same
must
be
true
for
antisemitic
apologists,
including
Democrats.   

Elected
Democrats
are
partly
responsible
for
failing
to
quell
rising
antisemitism
—
failing
to
both
unequivocally
affirm
Israel’s
right
to
exist
and
defend
itself,
and
to

educate
the
public
that
support
for
Israel
is
synonymous
with
religious
freedom,
minority
rights,
and
democracy.
We
look
to
elected
leaders
to
educate
and
uplift:
they
failed.
Congress
should
use
all
the
tools
in
the
toolbox,
including
the
bully
pulpit,
to
combat
antisemitism.
Social
media
can
be
weaponized
to
spread
hate.
But
it
can

also
spread
the
truth,
if
elected
leaders
had
more
courage. 

The
tide
will
only
turn
when
people
of
all
faiths
call
out
antisemitism.
Jews
are
only
2%
of
the
U.S.
population;
we
need
non-Jewish
allies
to
stand
with
us.
This
obsession
with
demonizing
Israel
is
not
just
wrongheaded:
it’s
hateful
and
dangerous.
As
lawyers,
we’re
encouraged
to
use
our
training
to
do
justice.
The
enforcement
levers
of
the
Department
of
Justice
and
Department
of
Education
should
be
used
to
investigate
and
prosecute
antisemitic
acts.
Funds
could
be
withheld
from
schools
that
fail
to
protect
Jewish
students,
in
a
manner
that
ensures
due
process.
We
should
support
a
national
definition
of
antisemitism
that
includes
anti-Zionism
for
the
enforcement
of
federal
anti-discrimination
laws,
including
for

Title
VI
investigations
into
universities,
because
equivocating
around
anti-Jew
hate

costs
lives.
And
we
should
mandate
Holocaust
education
in
public
schools
nationwide,
so
the
next
generation
learns
tolerance
of
all
faiths
—
including
Judaism.  

It’s
easy
to
speak
out
following
a
tragedy.
I’m
sure
many
will,
including

those
who
fomented
hate
in
the
past.
But
we
cannot
wait
until
the
next
tragedy
occurs
to
take
a
stand.
You
can
criticize
Israel’s
leadership
without
demonizing
an
entire
nation
and
putting
millions
of
Jews

worldwide
at
risk.
Online
spaces
don’t
facilitate
nuance.
But
amplifying
hateful
speech
and
glorifying
violence
gets
Jews
killed.

Words
have
consequences,
and
violent
words
lead
to
violent
acts.
Equivocating
around
antisemitism
is
deadly. 

---

Aliza
Shatzman
is
the
President
and
Founder
of The
Legal
Accountability
Project,
a
nonprofit
aimed
at
ensuring
that
law
clerks
have
positive
clerkship
experiences,
while
extending
support
and
resources
to
those
who
do
not.
She
regularly
writes
and
speaks
about
judicial
accountability
and
clerkships.
Reach
out
to
her
via
email
at [email protected] and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@AlizaShatzman.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

It’s
putting
students
in
a
position
to
make
choices
and
present
themselves
in
a
way
they’re
just
not
ready
to.

—
Anna
DiSalvo
Konschak,
director
of
career
services
at
Temple
University
Beasley
School
of
Law,
in
comments
given
to

Reuters,
concerning
Biglaw
recruiting
pushing
into
students’
first
semesters
at
school.
About
80%
of
summer
associate
recruiting
now
takes
place
outside
of
the
typical
law
school
interview
programs.

---

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.

But
I
am
Omus.
Emperor
of
Delta
Three.
I
don’t
want
to
hear
any
more.
I
don’t
think
I
even
know
you;
you’re
some
sentimental
old
fool
who
doesn’t
understand
anything.
I,
I
am
the
world
of
the
future,
you’re
back
in
some
dark
past.
People
are
no
longer
necessary. —
H.G.
Wells,
“The
Shape
of
Things
to
Come”

Just
because
something
has
always
been
so
doesn’t
necessarily
mean
it
always
will
be.
Take
the
traditional
law
firm
with
partners,
associates,
and
a
slew
of
support
staff.
Is
that
really
the
model
for
the
future?
Or
is
that
just
a
sentimental
view
from
the
dark
past
that’s
no
longer
necessary?

I
read
an

article
recently
about
a
legal
tech
start
up
that
announced
it
was
launching
an
independent
law
firm
that
would
offer
“AI-native”
legal
services.
The
legal
tech
company,

Norm
Ai, focuses
primarily
on
compliance
work.
It
claims
it
can
turn
“regulations
into
AI
agents
…
that
can
make
compliance
determinations”
according
to
its

website. 

The
law
firm,
Norm
Law
LLP,
will
use
Norm’s
AI
tools
to
do
legal
work
for
Blackstone
(a
Norm
Ai
investor)
and
other
financial
service
clients.
According
to
the
article,
the
law
firm
will
offer
alternative
legal
services.

Lawhive
And
Woodstock

Some
time
ago,

I
wrote
about
the
acquisition
of
a
law
firm
in
the
UK
by
a
legal
tech
company.
The
idea
was
that
the
firm
would
become
more
or
less
an
“AI
first”
law
firm,
handling
most
matters
with
AI
tools.
The
firm
would
use
the
technology
developed
by
the
tech
company
to
achieve
these
ends.
That
deal
involved 
Lawhive,
a
legal
tech
company
buying
a
law
firm,
Woodstock.

I
wondered
about
the
impact
of
this
development
and
whether
it
would
be
the
shape
of
things
to
come
as
legal
tech
companies
began
to
discover
they
can
play
a
greater
role
(and
take
a
greater
share
of
the
profits)
by
owning
law
firms
that
do
the
work
with
AI
tools
or
even
doing
the
legal
work
themselves. 

Norm
Ai

The
Norm
Ai
deal
is
very
similar
to
that
I
described
in
my
previous
article.
Of
course,
since
Norm
Law
is
a
U.S
firm,
it
has
to
exist
independently
of
Norm
with
no
ownership
interests
by
those
dreaded
“nonlawyers.”
But
that’s
form
over
substance.
Norm
Law
is
Norm’s
law
firm,
using
its
tools
and
no
doubt
being
largely
directed
by
Norm
AI,
just
as
the
Woodstock
firm
is
under
the
control
of
Lawhive.

It’s
Just
The
Beginning

We’ll
see
more
and
more
of
these
arrangements.
The
tech
company
ensures
its
tech
will
be
used
by
the
law
firm.
The
tech
company
can
ensure
that
the
firm
capitalizes
on
AI,
reducing
the
cost
of
personnel
and
overhead.
The
profit
comes
from
the
reduced
cost
of
the
overhead
and
the
ability
to
scale
the
lower
overhead
services
across
a
broad
spectrum.

And
as
AI
gets
more
and
more
sophisticated,
the
role
and
number
of
the
human
lawyers
in
such
arrangements
gets
less
and
less.
These
tech-affiliated
firms
can
thus
offer
cost
advantages
to
their
owners
and
can
leverage
alternative
fee
structures
in
new
and
different
ways.
They
have
an
advantage
over
traditional
slow-moving
large
firms.
They
have
an
advantage
over
standalone
AI-first
law
firms
in
that
they
have
a
steady
client
and
access
to
the
tech
companies’
customers
who
need
legal
services
as
well. 

What
Does
This
Mean
For
Lawyers
In
The
Loop?

The
standard
thinking
is
that
we
need
not
worry
our
pretty
little
heads
about
AI
since
there
will
always
be
a
need
for
the
lawyer
in
the
loop.
But
rarely
does
anyone
stop
and
ask
just
what
this
means.
I
noted
in
my
previous
piece

some
thoughts
by
Jordan
Furlong
who
predicts
that
new
era
law
firms
may
offer
and
get
paid
for
output 
to
clients
with
no
lawyer
involvement
at
all.
He
added
that
many
of
the
services
provided
by
law
firms
already
can
be
done
by
AI.
In
a
more
recent

LinkedIn
post,
Furlong
wondered
if
the
slew
of
recent
law
firm
mergers
signals
that
Biglaw
is
in
“late
stage
decline
or
experiencing
a
platform
shift.”

All
of
this
is
to
say
that
the
whole
notion
of
lawyer
in
the
loop
will
soon
take
a
different
shape.
Indeed,
the
whole
idea
of
the
Lawhive
and
Norm
Ai
hinges
on
reducing
the
number
of
lawyers
in
the
loop.
Which
is
to
the
benefit
of
the
legal
tech
company
who
can
now
not
only
provide
the
product
but
any
legal
services
that
its
customers
may
need,
at
a
fraction
of
the
cost.
This,
in
turn,
ties
the
customer
more
and
more
to
the
legal
tech
company
and
its
lawyers.
It
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
And
as
I

mentioned
before,
it’s
only
a
matter
of
time,
regulations
permitting,
that
the
tech
company
just
provides
the
legal
services
itself
and
takes
all
the
profits. 

But
What
About
Atrium?

Another
“truism”
is
that
history
shows
these
deals
don’t
work.
And
yes,
it’s
been
frequently
pointed
out
that
a
similar
arrangement
was
tried
by
Atrium
in
2017
and
failed.

Reportedly
the
failure
was
caused
by
the
inability
of
the
law
firm
to
deliver
better
efficiency
than
a
traditional
law
firm.
So,
it
folded
in
2020.
The
argument
therefor
is
the
old
“we
tried
that
before,
and
it
didn’t
work”
refrain.

But
that
was
then
and
now
is
now.
We
have
much
more
sophisticated
AI
tools
that
can
do
much
more.
So,
the
likelihood
of
success
and
continued
expansion
of
these
kinds
of
deals
seems
much
higher.

An
Added
Benefit

There
is
one
significant
benefit
that
these
deals
could
bring.
There
is
a
great
underserved
market
for
legal
services
in
this
country.
Traditional
law
firms
encumbered
with
a
billable
hour
model
and
culture
have
not
figured
out
how
to
tap
this
market.
In
fact,
truth
be
known,
they
haven’t
even
tried.
But
legal
tech
companies
with
captive
AI
first
law
firms
very
well
could.
And
that
could
be
a
financial
bonanza
for
them
and
available
legal
services
for
millions.

The
Risk
And
Cost

But
the
decline
of
the
traditional
law
firm
that
may
be
inevitable
comes
with
a
cost:
the
loss
of
the
human
element
in
the
practice
and
advice
being
offered.
The
ability
to
understand
the
personalities
and
needs
of
the
clients.
The
ability
to
offer
high-end
strategy
and
expertise
across
various
fields
and
the
synergies
that
come
with
it.

The
Challenge

But
that’s
like
saying
horses
are
better
forms
of
transportation
because
they
are
mammals
like
us,
have
personalities,
are
nice
companions,
and
have
soft
hair.
All
of
which
is
true.
But
cars
get
us
where
we
need
to
go
faster
and
more
efficiently,
which
enables
us
to
do
all
sorts
of
other
things. 

The
real
challenge
isn’t
recognizing
that
the
traditional
law
firm
model
is
changing.
Indeed,
disruption
always
creates
winners
who
see
opportunities
early.
The
challenge
is
ensuring
legal
services
remain
human
centered
where
they
need
to
be
even
as
they
become
more
automated,
and
that
the
benefits
don’t
accrue
only
to
those
who
can
already
afford
premium
legal
services.

Traditional
firms
can
either
adapt,
or
they
can
continue
maximizing
short-term
distributions
to
wealthy
partners
while
the
market
moves
around
them.
The
choice
seems
obvious.

---

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. 

Pro
bono
matters
can
be
an
invaluable
experience
for
rookie
lawyers.
Depending
on
the
law
firm,
many
new
attorneys
might
not
have
the
chance
to
work
on
substantive
tasks
related
to
the
regular
matters
a
law
firm
handles,
since
partners
may
not
want
novice
lawyers
messing
things
up
for
law
firm
clients. However,
pro
bono
matters
often
give
rookie
lawyers
the
chance
to
handle
types
of
tasks
they
might
not
be
able
to
handle
for
a
firm’s
regular
clients.
If
the
opportunity
arises,
novice
lawyers
should
seek
out
the
chance
to
work
at
legal
aid
clinics,
since
this
experience
provides
even
more
critical
experience
that
can
be
helpful
to
the
development
of
a
lawyer.

Right
at
the
beginning
of
my
career,
I
worked
at
a
law
firm
that
encouraged
pro
bono
work,
and
even
counted
hundreds
of
hours
billed
to
pro
bono
matters
toward
a
lawyer’s
annual
billable
hour
requirement.
During
my
first
month
on
the
job,
Superstorm
Sandy
hit
our
area,
which
decimated
our
office
and
the
areas
where
many
of
the
lawyers
at
the
firm
resided. Numerous
people
in
our
area
had
legal
issues
related
to
the
storm,
such
as
insurance
cases,
foreclosure
matters,
and
the
like.
In
order
to
deal
with
all
of
the
people
seeking
advice
related
to
the
storm,
a
local
pro
bono
organization
decided
to
set
up
legal
aid
clinics
for
victims
of
the
storm
that
were
staffed
by
attorneys
at
that
organization’s
partner
law
firms.

I
attended
multiple
sessions
of
the
legal
aid
clinics,
and
the
experience
was
enriching.
Most
critically,
such
clinics
gave
me
firsthand
experience
interacting
with
clients. When
I
worked
on
regular
matters
at
the
law
firm,
partners
usually
facilitated
all
of
the
communications
with
clients. While
working
on
pro
bono
matters
at
the
firm,
I
was
also
often
associated
with
a
partner
who
would
handle
most
communications. However,
at
such
legal
aid
clinics,
I
had
firsthand
and
significant
communications
with
clients,
which
was
different
than
other
work
opportunities.

While
working
at
legal
aid
clinics,
I
also
had
to
think
on
my
feet
and
handle
a
multitude
of
matters
I
had
not
encountered
before. Often,
I
would
set
myself
up
at
the
legal
aid
clinics
with
my
laptop
and
listen
to
clients
speak
about
all
kinds
of
issues.
I
frequently
had
to
conduct
research
in
real
time
and
provide
advice
on
a
wide
spectrum
of
matters. This
type
of
quick
thinking
is
an
important
skill
that
is
not
usually
developed
while
working
on
regular
matters
at
many
law
firms.

Legal
aid
clinics
can
also
be
a
much
more
fun
and
enriching
experience
than
ordinary
pro
bono
work. The
legal
aid
clinics
were
usually
held
in
the
evenings,
so
people
who
worked
could
attend
the
clinics
after
business
hours.
This
was
not
always
fun
to
attend
as
a
lawyer,
but
this
permitted
me
to
bond
with
other
attorneys
at
our
office
in
different
setting
than
we
were
used
to.
It
is
much
easier
to
form
bonds
and
memories
with
co-workers
when
you
break
the
routine
of
seeing
each
other
in
an
office,
and
this
is
another
benefit
of
staffing
legal
aid
clinics.

Of
course,
legal
aid
clinics
are
typically
a
less
frequent
pro
bono
opportunity,
but
they
can
provide
a
variety
of
benefits. In
order
to
learn
valuable
skills
and
enrich
their
experience
as
a
lawyer,
novice
attorneys
should
seek
out
opportunities
to
staff
legal
aid
clinics.

---

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.

Mike
Lee
is
a
United
States
Senator,
a
former
Supreme
Court
clerk,
and
a
deeply
unserious
clown.
Lee’s
new
“Patriots
of
the
Caribbean”
initiative
—
which
sounds
like
a
militia
group
that
got
lost
on
January
6
searching
for
its
lost
shaker
of
salt
—
seeks
to
help
the
Trump
administration
with
its
recent
campaign
to
blow
up
random
boats
(and

commit
war
crimes
in
the
process)
by
sending
in
a
secret
weapon.

PIRATES!

If
you’re
wondering
whether
this
is
a
bit,
it
is
not.
If
you’re
wondering
whether
Lee
understands
how
drug
trafficking
works,
international
law
works,
or
reality
works,
the
answer
is
also
no.

Lee’s
legislative
brainfart
—
in
which
he’s
joined
by
House
sponsor
Rep.
Tim
Burchett
—
is
the

Cartel
Marque
and
Reprisal
Reauthorization
Act,
dusting
off
the
“Letters
of
Marque
and
Reprisal”
power
listed
in
Article
I.
n
the
18th
century,
this
meant
authorizing
private
ships
to
harass
enemy
vessels
during
wartime.
In
2025,
it
means
handing
a
4Chan
message
board
of
armed
rednecks
a
treasure
map
where
X
marks
a
suspected
drug
lord.

Why
directly
implicate
the
U.S.
military
in
international
law
violations
when
you
can
outsource
them
to
unaccountable
dipshits
with
GoPros?

Now,
you
might
think
that
it’s
unfair
to
characterize
Lee’s
policy
as
piracy.
So

here’s
Lee
explaining,
“No,
no,
I
really
just
mean
pirates.”

“Privateers
is
what
they’re
called,”
he
said.
“Letters
of
marque
and
reprisal
are
authorized
under
Article
1,
Section
8,
Clause
10
of
the
Constitution.”

Lee
said
it’s
the
same
clause
that
gives
Congress
the
power
to
declare
war,
but
it
also
allows
the
legislative
branch
to
issue
letters
of
marque,
“authorizing
privateers,
pirates
essentially
…
to
carry
out
acts
of
piracy.”

As
former
deputy
secretary
of
state
Brian
P.
McKeon

pointed
out,
“Aside
from
the
fact
that
piracy
is
universally
recognized
worldwide
as
illegal
(see
also
title
18
of
the
US
Code),
what
a
great
idea
Mike!”
The
Paris
Declaration
of
1856
formally
banned
privateering,
and
while
the
United
States
never
formally
ratified
the
agreement,
it
has
committed
to
abide
by
its
principles
as
a
matter
of
accepted
international
law.

Undeterred
by
law
or
common
sense,
the
Senator
hopes
with
this
bill
to
enlist
some
scalawags
to
assist
Trump’s
anti-drug
efforts.
Does
the
Trump
administration
actually
care
about
fighting
drug
trafficking?
Of
course
not.
It’s
not
even
been
a
whole
month
since

Trump
pardoned
one
of
the
most
prolific
drug
traffickers
in
the
federal
prison
system.
The
sponsors
of
the
bill
also
don’t
seem
to
understand
how
drug
trafficking
works,

citing
fentanyl
for
this
policy
even
though
Venezuela
isn’t
a
source
of
fentanyl,
but

rather
a
cocaine
supplier
for
Europe.

But
Mike
Lee
sees
an
opportunity
to
save
the
sagging
economy
by
juicing
the
exotic
parrot
market.

If
we’re
serious
about
looking
for
drugs,
have
we
considered
searching
whatever
office
Mike
Lee
and
his
staff
were
in
when
they
brainstormed
sending
Jack
Sparrow
to
battle
21st
century
drug
cartels?
This
isn’t
the
first
time
Lee’s
talked
about
bringing
back
piracy.
Some
legislators
champion
universal
health
care
or
securing
voting
rights,
by
contrast
every
few
years,
like
cicadas
or
rebooting
the
DC
Universe,
Lee
proposes
MOAR
PIRATES
to
the
delight
of

the
likes
of
Elon
Musk
and
Donald
Trump
Jr.
—
two
people
who
are
also
definitely

not
psychologically
stunted
adolescents
crafting
policy
on
drug-fueled
benders.

The
text
of
the
bill
doesn’t
limit
these
letters
of
marque
to
the
seas,
and
Lee’s
office
explicitly
envisions
this
policy
deputizing
private
actors
to
extrajudicially
attack
drug
cartels
“on
land
or
sea.”
It
should
shock
you
not
at
all
that
Lee’s
piracy
kick
has

long
enjoyed
the
support
of
Erik
Prince,
the
founder
of
the
infamous
private
military
contractor
Blackwater,
channeling
his
inner
Blackbeard.
Private
military
contractors
have
been

implicated
in
torture
while
working
directly
under
federal
government
supervision.
Lee’s
proposal
would
untether
these
groups
to
do
whatever
they
want
and
collect
a
reward
whenever
these
blind
squirrels
gather
a
drug-laced
nut.
The
government
can
shrug
off
human
rights
abuses
that
might
arise
along
the
way
as
none
of
its
business
because
dead
men
tell
no
tales
or
testify
in
court.

Which,
of
course,
is
why
the
world
banned
privateers
in
the
first
place.
No
one
harbored
any
illusions
that
the
practice
amounted
to
anything
but
governments
pawning
off
accountability
by
making
deals
with
violent
mercenaries.

Frighteningly,
Lee
is
sometimes
floated
as
a
possible
Supreme
Court
nominee
despite
his
constitutional
insights
amounting
to
turning
over
America’s
drug
policy
to
Long
Dong
Sliver.
No…
wait…
Long

John
Silver.
I
always
get
that
one
confused
with

that
other
prominent
figure
in
Supreme
Court
history.

---

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.

On
Wednesday,

Politico
was
first
to
report
that
cosplay
US
Attorney
Lindsey
Halligan
got

no-billed

again
in
her
pursuit
of
Letitia
James.

Since
Judge
Cameron
Currie

dismissed
the
original
indictment
of
the
New
York
Attorney
General
along
with
charges
against
Jim
Comey,
prosecutors
at
the
Eastern
District
of
Virginia
have
tried
twice
to
secure
a
new
indictment.
The
first
presentation
in
Norfolk,
where
the
supposed
mortgage
fraud
took
place,
fell
flat.
And
last
week
as
similar
effort
ran
aground
in
Alexandria.
But
as
with
so
much
that
Halligan
touches,
this
too
went
sideways
in
ways
no
one
could
have
anticipated.

For
reasons
not
entirely
clear
from
the
record,
no
attorney
from
EDVA
was
present
on
December
11
when
the
grand
jury
returned
the
no
true
bill
to
the
magistrate

in
open
court.
It
was
not
until
the
12th
that
the
government

moved
to
seal
the
failed
indictment.
By
then
it
had
already
been
reported
by
multiple
news
outlets,
and
so
Magistrate
Judge
William
Porter

rejected
the
request.

Hilariously,
the
government
argued
that
the
proceedings
must
be
sealed
to
further
the
public
policy
goal
of
protecting
“the
individual
accused
of
a
crime
from
the
expense
of
standing
trial
where
there
was
no
probability
of
guilt.”
Judge
Porter
noted
an
“important
corollary”
is
the
public
interest
in
vindicating
the
reputation
of
a
person
previously
indicted
on
bogus
charges.

“The
Court
will
not
speculate
why
the
grand
jury
disclosed
the
no
bill
in
open
court,”
he
wrote,
but
added
that
“The
grand
jury’s
decision
to
make
this
no
bill
public
serves
the
interest
of
transparency
when
an
individual
has
already
suffered
the
stigma
of
public
criminal
charges.”

Whatever
the
jury’s
thinking,
putting
the

no
bill
on
the
public
docket
reveals
the
evolution
of
the
government’s
position.
The
first
time
around,
Halligan
presented
the
case
herself
and
secured
an

indictment
for
mortgage
fraud
based
on
a
theory
that
James
falsely
claimed
she
was
buying
a
house
in
Roanoke
as
a
second
home,
when
in
fact
she
intended
to
use
it
as
a
rental
property.
The
government
claimed
that
James
netted
“thousands”
of
dollars
in
rental
income.
Halligan,
who
is
still
presenting
herself
as
a
US
Attorney,
even
texted
reporter
Anna
Bower
of

Lawfare
to
insist
that
the

New
York
Times
report
that
James’s
niece
had
always
lived
there
and
failed
to
pay
rent
was
wrong.

Now
the
government
has
changed
its
tune.
This
time
they
say
James’s
crime
was
telling
the
mortgage
company
that
she
was
buying
the
property
as
a
second
home
when
in
fact
she
“intended
to
purchase
a
home
for
a
family
member
who
would
not
otherwise
qualify
for
a
mortgage
loan
on
her
own
and
that
family
member
continuously
occupied
the
[]
property
after
JAMES
purchased
it.”
The
theory
is
that
James
got
a
lower
interest
rate
than
she
would
have
if
she’d
admitted
she
was
buying
the
house
for
her
niece,
although
the
government
makes
no
representation
that
she
actually
saved
any
money
on
the
loan.
The
only
mention
of
“rent”
is
the
government’s
claim
that
James
declared
the
property
as
a
rental
on
her
federal
income
taxes
and
said
she
occupied
the
property
zero
nights.

This
would
appear
to
concede
that
the
entire
first
case
was
bullshit.
It
also
suggests
that
Roger
Keller,
the
assistant
US
Attorney
on
loan
from
the
Eastern
District
of
Missouri,
had
qualms
about
presenting
a
theory
of
the
case
that
Halligan
did
not.
Specifically,
Halligan
may
have
secured
an
indictment
without
telling
grand
jurors
in
Alexandria
that
James’s
niece
testified
to
a
grand
jury
in
Norfolk
that
she
never
paid
rent,
as
reported
by
the

Times.
If
so,
it’s
not
a
strategy
Keller
was
willing
to
repeat.

But
Halligan
may
have
to
enter
the
arena
again
if
she
hopes
to
secure
an
indictment
of
Trump’s
enemies.

CNN
reports
that
on
Wednesday,
AUSA
Keller
was
back
in
Missouri,
where
he
told
a
judge
that
he’d
“just
recently
returned
from
a
six-week
detail
on
the
government’s
behalf
in
Virginia.”

If
there
are
to
be
more
no
bills,
it
won’t
be
his
name
on
’em.

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

You
know
why
you’re
here.
King
&
Spalding
just
hitched
onto
the
bonus
train!
They’ve
been
raking
in
the
cash,
$2,373,034,000
gross
revenue
in
2024
according
to
the
Am
Law
100,
and
they’re
divvying
up
the
coffers
this
holiday
season.

Here’s
the
scale:

To
the
hardworking
associates
at
King
&
Spalding,
enjoy
the
money!
And
if
you’re
thinking
of
stocking
stuffers
to
grab
with
that
firm
money,
consider
grabbing
Tonka
Cola
by
Mancera.
Not
only
will
it
show
some
thoughtful
gift
giving,
the
gourmand
will
be
an
easy
way
to
shoehorn
in
your
firm’s
history
with
Coca-Cola!

Here’s
a
review
of
the
fragrance
before
you
start
blind
buying.
Full
disclosure,
I
am
not
the
Chris
named
in
the
video
—
coincidences
do
happen.

We
like
hearing
about
bonuses
almost
as
much
as
you
enjoy
spending
them.
As
soon
as
your
firm’s
memo
comes
out,
please email
it
to
us
(subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Bonus”)
or
text
us
(646-820-8477).
Please
include
the
memo
if
available.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
send
it
via
text
or
email
if
you
don’t
want
to
forward
the
original
PDF
or
Word
file.

And
if
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Salary
&
Bonus
Alerts,
please
scroll
down
and
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below
this
post.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
the
bonus
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
bonus
announcement
that
we
publish.

---

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
is
learning
to
swim, is
interested
in
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.