Thanksgiving
is
in
the
rearview,
and
the
December
holidays
are
upon
us. Consider
this
your
holiday
lawyer’s
guide. In
no
particular
order,
a
few
thoughts
and
some
advice.
Gift
Giving.
Your
staff
works
hard. Don’t
rely
solely
on
your
firm
to
provide
holiday
gifts. Get
your
legal
assistant
and
paralegal
a
gift
to
show
you
appreciate
them.
Beyond
your
staff,
give
gifts
to
anyone
else
who
has
made
your
job
easier
this
year.
Holiday
Cards.
If
your
firm
still
provides
its
lawyers
with
holiday
cards,
secure
some
and
send
them
out.
If
not,
purchase
a
box
or
two
of
holiday
cards
and
send
them
to
colleagues
and
friends. And
please,
no
e-cards.
Handwritten
Notes.
It’s
a
great
time
of
year
to
mail
handwritten
notes
to
others.
Guard
Your
Calendar.
It’s
easy
to
get
buried
in
holiday
commitments
—
office
parties,
bar
association
events,
happy
hours
—
go
to
what
you
want
and
need
to
go
to,
and
do
not
overcommit.
Respect
Others’
Calendars.
If
you
do
litigation
as
I
do,
many
folks
are
out
of
pocket
from
mid-December
through
the
end
of
the
year.
Understand
and
respect
this.
Holiday
Blues.
You
may
love
the
holidays. Some
suffer
through
them. Appreciate
others’
perspectives
and
feelings
toward
the
holidays
and
respect
them.
Your
Waistline.
It’s
easy
to
overindulge
over
the
holidays
and
think
you’ll
lose
weight
as
part
of
your
New
Year’s
resolutions.
It
never
quite
works
that
way.
The
more
holiday
events
you
attend,
the
more
cognizant
you
should
be
about
that
second
serving
of
dessert.
Make
Time.
The
holidays
are
supposed
to
be
about
friends
and
family. Make
time
for
them
and
for
yourself.
Plan.
December
is
a
great
time
to
plan
for
the
following
year. Devise
a
plan
for
2026
so
you
can
hit
the
ground
running
come
January.
Treat
Yourself.
No
one
knows
better
than
you
what
you
want
for
the
holidays.
Buy
yourself
a
gift
for
making
it
through
another
year
of
practice.
Prepare
A
Budget.
Create
a
budget
for
yourself
for
the
coming
year. Many
firms
ask
their
lawyers
to
prepare
a
marketing
budget.
Online
Shopping.
Unless
you
like
the
malls,
you
can
do
your
holiday
shopping
online
and
save
time
for
your
other
interests
and
obligations.
Donate.
During
the
holidays,
lots
of
folks
don’t
have
enough
to
buy
their
kids
gifts
or
put
food
on
the
table. Donate
food,
toys,
etc.
Traditions.
The
holidays
are
imbued
with
traditions. Lean
into
them
or
create
your
own.
Lower
Expectations.
Don’t
let
culture,
media,
or
social
media
define
what
the
holidays
should
be. It
can
be
simple,
low-key,
and
different. Lower
expectations
of
what
holidays
should
be,
and
let
them
just
be.
The
holidays
should
be
fun,
invigorating,
and
life-affirming. So
often
we
let
the
stress
and
demands
of
the
holidays
make
them
unenjoyable. Let’s
focus
on
what
matters,
and
let’s
focus
on
the
true
meaning
of
the
holidays.
Frank
Ramos
is
a
partner
at
Goldberg
Segalla
in
Miami,
where
he
practices
commercial
litigation,
products,
and
catastrophic
personal
injury. You
can
follow
him
on LinkedIn,
where
he
has
about
80,000
followers.
Technological
advancements
have
occurred
at
unprecedented
rates
over
the
past
decade,
and
the
release
of
generative
AI
has
only
accelerated
this
trend.
Judges
are
finally
paying
attention,
but
the
response
is
as
unhinged
as
you’d
expect.
Since
the
turn
of
the
century,
computers
and
the
online
world
have
become
inextricably
intertwined
with
our
lives.
From
communicating
and
shopping
to
obtaining
information
and
conducting
business,
the
ubiquity
of
technology
is
inescapable,
creating
a
digital
footprint
for
nearly
everything
that
we
do.
As
early
as
2006,
rules
were
introduced
to
address
this
growing
volume
of
digital
evidence.
The
new
amendments
to
the
Federal
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure
established
procedures
for
identifying,
preserving,
producing,
and
handling
electronically
stored
information
in
civil
litigation.
Since
then,
the
pace
of
change
has
been
dramatic,
and
the
number
of
court
rules
aimed
at
addressing
technology’s
impact
has
grown
just
as
quickly.
However,
unlike
the
relatively
uniform,
top-down
framework
created
for
ediscovery,
the
approach
to
newer
technologies
has
been
rushed,
piecemeal,
and
adopted
only
after
problems
became
apparent.
Every
time
new
technology
is
released,
including
social
media
and
now
generative
AI,
another
round
of
rules
and
standing
orders
tends
to
follow.
The
result
is
a
steady
buildup
of
tech-focused
mandates
that
vary
widely
from
one
courtroom
to
the
next.
A
recent
case
from
the
Northern
District
of
California
exemplifies
how
court
rules
on
technology
can
complicate
litigation.
In
a
matter
pending
before
Judge
Orrick,
the
law
firm
Alston
&
Bird,
LLP
hired
a
consultant
to
conduct
juror
research.
Orrick
had
issued
a
standing
order
prohibiting
the
research
of
jurors
on
LinkedIn.
His
rationale
was
that
the
platform
alerts
users
when
someone
views
their
profile,
and
even
if
the
viewer
can’t
be
identified,
the
notification
still
amounts
to
impermissible
juror
contact.
Lawyers
from
the
firm
were
aware
of
the
judge’s
order,
but
failed
to
alert
the
consultant
to
it.
The
consultant
unwittingly
reviewed
the
prospective
jurors’
public
LinkedIn
profiles.
Upon
discovering
that
the
research
had
occurred
in
contravention
of
the
order,
the
attorney
involved
attempted
to
rectify
the
mistake
by
disclosing
this
information
to
opposing
counsel
and
notifying
the
judge
prior
to
jury
selection.
Despite
those
efforts,
Orrick
found
the
order
had
been
breached
and
imposed
a
$10,000
sanction.
With
courts
struggling
to
manage
technology
issues
as
basic
as
social
media
evidence,
it’s
no
surprise
that
the
impact
of
generative
AI
has
been
even
more
chaotic.
The
rise
in
the
submission
of
briefs
with
AI-related
citation
hallucinations
has
led
to
an
ad
hoc
assortment
of
knee-jerk
responses
by
judges,
resulting
in
a
surge
in
new
court
orders
and
sanctions.
Responsible
AI
in
Legal
Services
(RAILS)
tracked
many
of
these
orders,
which
range
from
simple
guidance
on
AI
usage
or
disclosure
requirements
to
outright
bans.
A
review
of
the
orders
shows
that
each
judge
seems
to
be
taking
a
different
approach,
and
while
their
intentions
are
good,
the
lack
of
consistency
is
problematic.
This
constant
stream
of
new
mandates
leads
to
unnecessary
confusion.
Lawyers
who
appear
in
multiple
courts
are
required
to
sort
through
a
growing
mix
of
expectations,
and
what
passes
in
one
courtroom
might
violate
a
standing
order
in
the
next.
These
cases
illustrate
how
court
restrictions
can
stifle
curiosity
about
technology
and
negatively
impact
adoption
rates.
Keeping
up
with
emerging
technologies,
evolving
ethical
obligations,
and
busy
caseloads
is
challenging
enough.
When
the
rules
are
inconsistent
and
vary
from
court
to
court,
some
lawyers
may
decide
that
the
safest
path
is
to
avoid
technology
altogether.
To
be
clear,
the
issue
isn’t
whether
courts
should
offer
guidance
on
technology
use
in
the
courts;
instead,
it
is
the
lack
of
a
uniform
approach.
Without
consistent
standards,
every
new
rule
adds
uncertainty
and
indirectly
discourages
technology
adoption.
Instead
of
individual
rules,
courts
need
consolidated,
consistent
guidance
at
the
statewide
or
national
level.
A
unified
framework
would
give
everyone
a
clear
understanding
of
what’s
permitted,
what
isn’t,
and
how
to
use
modern
tools
without
fear
of
stumbling
into
an
unexpected
violation.
Until
that
happens,
lawyers
will
continue
to
be
wary
of
adopting
technology
that
could
improve
accuracy,
efficiency,
and
access
to
justice.
Consolidated
guidance
would
cut
through
the
confusion,
support
responsible
use,
and
modernize
court
processes,
allowing
lawyers
to
view
every
new
technology
as
an
opportunity
rather
than
yet
another
hurdle
to
navigate.
Biglaw
firms
are
busy
matching
the
prevailing
market
rate
for
bonuses,
but
at
some
firms,
matching
the
market
scale
set
by Cravath is
only
the
start.
If
you
want
money,
money,
and
even
more
money,
a
firm
like
Cahill
Gordon
&
Reindel
is
the
place
to
be.
The
firm
has
come
over
the
top
yet
again
on
its
special
bonuses
—
by
quite
a
bit
compared
to
what’s
being
offered
by
Milbank,
which
has
become
the
firm’s
calling
card
in
recent
years.
Here’s
what
the
bonus
scale
looks
like
at
Cahill:
But
that’s
not
all.
The
firm
is
going
even
farther
this
year,
but
offering
up
even
more
cash
for
deserving
associates.
Here’s
a
relevant
excerpt
from
Cahill’s
bonus
memo:
[A]
select
number
of
associates
in
the
Classes
of
2018
through
2021
who
have
demonstrated
extraordinary
performance
this
past
year
will
be
eligible
to
receive
a
super
bonus
of
up
to
$200,000
(based
on
performance
and
seniority),
which
will
be
in
lieu
of
the
Special
Bonus….
Wow
—
a
six-figure
super
bonus
really
is
super!
A
big
congratulations
to
everyone
at
Cahill!
Remember
everyone,
we
depend
on
your
tips
to
stay
on
top
of
compensation
updates,
so
when
your
firm
announces
or
matches,
please
text
us
(646-820-8477)
or email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Bonus/Matches”).
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
Bonus
Alerts
(which
is
the
alert
list
we
also
use
for
salary
announcements),
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.
Thanks
for
your
help!
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.
WASHINGTON
—
As
part
of
a
new
initiative
aimed
at
bolstering
national
security,
JPMorganChase
has
pledged
to
invest
$10
billion
over
the
next
decade
in
areas
like
defense
and
advanced
manufacturing
—
and
the
financial
giant
isn’t
just
going
to
be
looking
at
venture-backed
startups
as
potential
recipients
for
capital,
executives
told
Breaking
Defense.
The
planned
investments
are
part
of
a
wider
$1.5
trillion
effort
known
as
the
Security
and
Resilience
Initiative
(SRI),
which
was
announced
by
the
world’s
largest
bank
in
October.
Days
after
launch,
J.P.
Morgan
revealed
its
first
investment
as
part
of
initiative:
a
$75
million
equity
investment
in
Perpetua
Resources,
which
is
aiming
to
become
the
first
US-based
producer
of
the
versatile
critical
mineral
antimony,
which
has
applications
in
the
defense
sphere
for
items
like
batteries
and
ammunition.
In
a
new
interview
with
Breaking
Defense,
Jay
Horine,
who
leads
the
Security
and
Resilience
Initiative,
and
Mark
Marengo,
who
oversees
the
effort’s
aerospace
and
defense
portfolio,
detailed
the
strategy
behind
the
new
initiative
and
some
critical
focus
areas,
including
a
big
ticket
Pentagon
push:
nuclear
submarine
construction.
This
Q&A
has
been
edited
for
length
and
clarity.
BREAKING
DEFENSE:
How
did
the
Security
and
Resiliency
Initiative
come
about,
and
what
are
its
goals?
JAY
HORINE:
The
reality
is
J.P.
Morgan
has
been
doing
this
for
a
long
time.
We
have
been
supporting
America,
America’s
companies,
our
entire
ecosystem.
[JPMorganChase
CEO]
Jamie
[Dimon]
wrote
an
op-ed
piece
on
Oct.
13,
when
he
announced
the
formation
of
the
Security
and
Resiliency
Initiative,
where
he
talked
about
the
need
to
provide
America
and
these
companies
with
an
acceleration
in
response
to
the
understanding
that
we
had
of
being
behind
on
a
variety
of
—
we
named
four
—
but
a
variety
of
critical
areas,
in
defense,
in
a
number
of
others.
So
we’ve
always
done
this,
but
we
actually
formalized
it
and
put
forth
the
$1.5
trillion
support
of
these
various
industries
over
a
10-year
period,
[including]
$10
billion
of
our
own
money,
not
third
party
money,
$10
billion
of
our
own
money
to
make
investments.
U.S.
President
Donald
Trump
stands
next
to
Jamie
Dimon,
chief
executive
officer
of
JPMorgan
Chase
&
Co.,
left,
as
he
greets
attendees
during
a
Strategic
and
Policy
Forum
meeting
in
the
State
Dining
Room
of
the
White
House
in
Washington,
D.C.,
U.S.,
on
Friday,
Feb.
3,
2017.
(Andrew
Harrer/Bloomberg
via
Getty
Images)
Beyond
that
$10
billion
for
investments,
how
should
we
think
about
that
$1.5
trillion?
Where
is
that
going
toward?
HORINE:
We’re
going
to
count
money
that
we
raise
on
behalf
of
companies.
We’re
going
to
talk
about
the
value
of
the
advice
that
we
give.
It’s
going
to
be
a
combination
of
M&A
[mergers
and
acquisitions]
support,
capital
support,
as
well
as
our
own
money
to
help
concentrate
and
bring
about
more
investment
in
these
critical
areas.
What’s
the
strategy
for
the
defense
and
aerospace
vector?
What
kinds
of
technologies
are
you
looking
to
invest
in,
and
are
there
any
specific
Defense
Department
programs
that
are
underlying
that?
MARK
MARENGO:
I’d
point
to
a
couple
of
different
areas.
And
this
isn’t
meant
to
be
exhaustive,
but
these
are
certainly
some
of
the
higher
priority
ones.
Number
one:
submarine
production.
If
you
think
about
what
is
one
of
the
biggest
deterrents
to
China,
longer
term,
and
the
defense
complex
that
they’re
building
up,
submarines
are
probably
one
of
the
highest
priorities.
If
you
look
at
the
stated
goal
of
the
DoW,
to
take
submarine
production
from
two-a-year
to
three-a-year
…
we
don’t
have
the
infrastructure
in
place
to
be
able
to
accommodate
that
today,
and
it’s
going
to
require
a
lot
of
investment
in
bricks
and
mortar.
It’s
going
to
require
a
lot
of
investment
in
processes.
We
need
to
become
more
efficient,
and
it’s
going
to
require
a
lot
of
investment
in
employment
and
talent
and
making
sure
that
we
have
the
skills,
the
welding
skills
and
[other]
things
necessary,
in
order
to
be
able
to
hit
that
long
term
target.
As
we
look
at
that
ecosystem,
we
think
there’s
going
to
be
a
lot
of
opportunities
within
the
supply
chain
because
you
have
hundreds
and
thousands
of
smaller
suppliers
that
don’t
necessarily
have
the
capital
to
be
able
to
increase
their
production
by
a
half.
And
so
we
think
there’s
going
to
be
opportunities
to
be
able
to
invest
alongside
them,
invest
equity
in
them,
to
help
them
expand
their
industrial
footprint
so
that
they
can
hit
those
increasing
build
rates.
Similarly,
I’m
sure
you’ve
probably
read
about
some
of
these
war
game
scenarios
that
have
been
published
where
in
a
war
with
China,
it’s
anticipated
that
we
would
basically
run
out
of
missiles
and
some
weapons
and
munitions
within
a
week.
We
just
don’t
have
an
industrial
base
and
a
supply
chain
that’s
capable
of
ramping
up.
In
many
cases,
they
may
need
additional
capital
to
be
able
to
make
those
investments.
And
so
we’re
spending
time
within
all
of
those
supply
chains
to
make
sure
it’s
secure,
they
have
adequate
capacity
and
it’s
resilient
to
be
able
to
hit
those
needs.
I’ve
been
doing
this
for
roughly
30
years.
There
are
more
startup
defense
companies,
VC-backed
defense,
defense
tech
companies,
than
I’ve
seen
at
any
point
in
time
over
that
career.
At
J.P.
Morgan,
we
have
an
innovation
economy
team
that
spends
time
with
many
of
these
companies,
and
that
are
very
much
aligned
with
the
team
that
Jay
and
I
work
with.
In
some
cases,
we
actually
lend
to
these
companies.
And
so
I
think
that
gives
us
better
insights
than
most,
to
be
able
to
assess
…
where
the
investment
opportunities
are,
and
we’re
spending
a
lot
of
time
in
that
regard.
I
would
fully
anticipate
that
when
we
project
forward
here,
you’re
probably
going
to
see
some
SRI
related
investments
in
some
of
these
earlier
stage
companies.
So
is
the
focus
more
on
newer,
venture-backed
startups
or
legacy
players
in
the
supply
chain?
MARENGO:
It’s
all
of
the
above,
because
in
some
instances
where
you
have,
especially
in
the
nuclear
submarine
side,
you’ve
got
suppliers
who
have
been
qualified,
right?
Those
are
not
easy
qualifications
to
get.
So
in
some
cases,
it
may
not
be
reasonable
to
assume
that
some
of
the
emerging
tech
companies
will
be
able
to,
you
know,
get
qualified
and
put
themselves
in
a
position
where
they
can,
they
can
ramp
up
to
hit
those,
those
delivery
requirements.
But
that’s
the
nice
thing
about
SRI,
is
that
we
have
the
ability
to
invest
whether
it’s
the
early
stage
upstart
company
or
it’s
the
more
mature
supplier
that’s
been
supplying
General
Dynamics
or
HII,
for
decades.
What
does
the
timeline
look
for
your
next
investment?
HORINE:
We’re
just
talking
about
defense
right
now,
but
across
healthcare
and
natural
resources
and
some
of
the
other
areas
that
we’re
focused
in,
including
frontier
and
strategic
technologies,
I
think
we’ve
been
gratified
by
the
outreach
from
clients,
gratified
from
the
response
to
our
outreach
as
well.
We’ve
literally
had
hundreds
of
fantastic
companies
talk
to
us
about
their
hopes
and
dreams
and
what
they
can
do,
and
that’s
also
in
consultation
with
people
down
at
Department
of
War,
Department
of
Commerce,
[and]
amongst
other
agencies.
What
kinds
of
conversations
are
you
having
with
the
Pentagon?
MARENGO:
I
think
this
is
an
administration
and
a
DoW
that
is
very
receptive
to
input
from
the
private
sector,
right?
They
know
we
can
be
part
of
the
solution.
They
want
us
to
be
part
of
the
solution.
I
think
you’re
going
to
see
a
little
bit
more
of
this
kind
of
public
private
partnership,
similar
to
what
you
saw
in
kind
of
the
MP
Materials
deal,
where
the
government
is
investing
alongside.
We
are
spending
a
lot
of
time
down
with
the
DoW.
We
are
trying
to
find
ways
in
which
we
can
be
helpful
and
provide
solutions
to
various
problems.
In
some
cases
that
may
be
debt
financing,
in
some
cases
that
may
be
equity
financing,
in
some
cases
that
need
may
be
in
partnership
with
the
government,
where
they’re
looking
to
provide
a
capital
solution
through
the
different
pockets
of
capital
that
they
have.
*
Should
lawyers
take
a
civility
oath
to
cut
down
on
bad
behavior?
Please
stop
laughing.
[Reuters]
*
Republicans
launch
bid
to
end
dual
citizenship.
[Newsweek]
*
Taking
the
temperature
of
London
Biglaw
associates.
Unlike
all
most
temperatures
from
London,
this
doesn’t
require
a
calculator
to
convert
into
something
comprehensible.
[Law.com
International]
Law
Professor
Files
Title
IX
Complaint
Mid
Divorce:
The
school
is
ready
for
the
court
battle.
Today’s
Bonus
Announcement!:
McKool
Smith
is
sharing
the
wealth!
Biglaw
Firm
Moves
For
Texas!:
Fennemore
Craig
associates
are
about
to
eat
a
lot
of
good
barbecue!
College
Quarterback
Asks
Trump
To
Make
Playoffs
Great
Again:
That’s
not
how
the
government
works.
FTC
Sets
Its
Sights
On
ABA
Accreditation:
They
say
its
about
consumer
protection,
but
its
probably
just
administration
vindictiveness.
During
the
Civil
War,
Abraham
Lincoln
commissioned
Francis
Lieber,
a
professor
at
what
law
school,
to
draft
what
became
General
Order
No.
100
(widely
known
as
the
Lieber
Code),
the
first
modern
codification
of
the
laws
of
war
for
the
U.S.
military?
Hint:
The
code
explicitly
states
that
“[t]roops
that
give
no
quarter
have
no
right
to
kill
enemies
already
disabled
on
the
ground,”
or
hanging
off
the
side
of
a
disabled
boat,
as
the
case
may
be.
There
are
many
reasons
that
law
schools
cost
a
shit
ton
of
money
to
attend.
Books
are
expensive
and
inflation
plays
a
role,
but
the
largest
contributing
factors
are
a
combination
of
easy
money
in
the
form
of
federal
loans
for
grad
school
and
high
overhead
—
like
paying
professors
six
figures
to
teach
from
those
pricey
books
we
mentioned
earlier.
And
while
I’m
usually
for
whatever
cost-saving
solutions
people
proffer
to
fix
the
cost
of
learning
crisis,
the
most
recent
solution
from
the
FTC
doesn’t
really
seem
like
it
would
move
the
needle
much.
Reuters
has
coverage:
The
U.S.
Federal
Trade
Commission
on
Tuesday
called
the
American
Bar
Association’s
accreditation
of
law
schools
a
“monopoly”
that
increases
the
cost
of
a
law
degree
and
limits
the
supply
of
new
lawyers. … The
FTC
said
the
organization
requires
law
schools
to
“conform
to
controversial
ideological
views
prevalent
among
the
legal
elitists.”
It
cited
the
ABA’s
diversity
and
inclusion
rule
for
schools,
which
requires
law
schools
to
demonstrate
their
commitment
to
diversity
in
recruitment,
admissions
and
programming.
The
rule
has
been
suspended
since
February,
and
the
ABA
has
proposed
eliminating
it
altogether.
First,
let’s
get
in
to
the
FTC’s
cost
increasing
monopoly
designation.
Is
it
a
monopoly?
I
mean
yeah
—
it
is
the
only
recognized
law
school
accreditation
hander-outer,
but
merely
being
a
monopoly
doesn’t
justify
antitrust
intervention.
Some
monopolies,
natural
ones
for
example,
are
so
good
at
doing
what
they
do
that
their
normal
function
is
actually
beneficial
to
consumer
interests.
The
ABA
is
a
good
example
—
the
Department
of
Education
has
long
recognized
the
ABA
as
the
national
accreditor
of
law
schools,
hinging
loan
eligibility
on
attending
ABA
accredited
schools.
When
the
ABA
lets
people
know
which
schools
are
actually
good
at
getting
their
students
to
pass
the
bar,
students
are
more
likely
to
make
better
investments
and
the
government
is
more
likely
to
recoup
on
the
student
loan
money
once
the
graduate
gets
that
nice
Biglaw
job.
That
saves
consumers
money.
Might
be
a
monopoly,
but
everyone
wins;
it
is
a
waste
of
time
and
resources
to
go
after
a
model
like
that.
An
issue
only
arises
if
the
monopoly
is
operating
in
ways
that
are
anti-competitive
and
the
reasons
the
FTC
give
just
don’t
get
at
that.
To
the
argument
that
the
ABA
is
anti-competitive
because
it
limits
the
supply
of
new
lawyers,
you’ve
got
the
wrong
guy.
The
ABA
requires
law
schools
to
disclose
their
sizes,
but
it
does
not
set
minimum
or
maximum
class
size
—
bottlenecks
in
lawyer
output
have
more
to
do
with
how
many
students
law
schools
admit
than
it
does
with
the
ABA.
Blame
U.S.
News
for
the
fixation
on
class
sizes.
And
to
the
point
that
the
ABA
is
anti-competitive
because
it
encouraged
policies
that
tend
against
White
male
only
classes,
that’s
just
good
economics!
Diversification
is
just
a
normal
consequence
of
Capitalism
and
globalizing
markets
that
benefits
consumers.
A
commitment
to
diversity
has
purely
economic
benefits
with
more
long
term
value
than
whatever
pennies
could
be
saved
by
a
demographic
suggestion.
The
real
explanation
for
why
the
FTC
would
pick
now
to
go
after
the
ABA
has
nothing
to
do
with
its
monopoly
status
and
everything
to
do
with
the
fact
that
the
ABA
is
a
thorn
in
the
side
of
an
administration
that
likes
to
punish
its
political
enemies.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
what
are
the
“controversial
ideological
views”
the
ABA
is
pushing?
A
commitment
to
the
rule
of
law?
The
idea
that
the
profession
is
made
better
by
Women,
Latinos,
Blacks,
Asians
and
everyone
else?
Antitrust
shouldn’t
be
used
as
a
bludgeon
to
push
right-wing
culture
war
issues.
Using
the
FTC
to
attack
the
ABA
is
cover
to
solve
a
right-wing
first
mover
problem.
As
it
stands
Texas,
Florida
and
Tennessee
are
some
of
the
few
states
that
have
made
concrete
efforts
to
come
up
with
their
own
law
school
accreditation
system.
Even
if
they
come
up
with
their
own
individual
standards,
the
lack
of
reciprocity
between
their
standards
and
the
rest
of
the
union
would
be
a
disincentive
for
other
states
to
move
toward
adopting
their
own
requirements.
Why
reinvent
the
wheel,
right?
If
the
FTC
smashes
it.
The
antitrust
challenge
would
risk
throwing
the
working
accreditiation
system
in
disarray,
pushing
states
that
saw
no
need
to
drum
up
their
own
system
to
figure
out
how
they’ll
evaluate
if
their
law
schools
are
still
in
working
order.
Frankly,
the
effort
that
would
require
seems
like
it
would
lead
to
an
increase
in
costs
for
law
students
rather
than
lowered
tuition
—
it
isn’t
like
this
year’s
tuition
costs
were
that
much
lower
because
of
the
diversity
standard’s
moratorium.
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.
Jack
Smith
(Photo
by
Tom
Brenner
for
The
Washington
Post
via
Getty
Images)
Chairman
Jordan
has
denied
Special
Counsel
Jack
Smith’s
offer
to
speak
publicly
to
the
whole
Congress
and
the
whole
country
about
his
investigations
into
Donald
Trump,
instead
demanding
he
comply
with
a
subpoena
for
a
closed-door,
private
session
simply
so
Republicans
can
spin,
distort,
and
cherry-pick
his
remarks
through
press
leaks.
What
are
our
colleagues
so
afraid
of,
that
they
won’t
let
the
American
people
hear
directly
from
the
Special
Counsel?
—
Fresh
off
House
Judiciary
Committee
chair
Jim
Jordan
(R-Ohio)’s
announcement
that
former
special
counsel
Jack
Smith
would
comply
with
a
House
subpoena,
but
that
it
would
be
handled
behind
closed
doors,
Rep.
Jamie
Raskin
(D-Md.)
lashed
out
at
the
lack
of
transparency.
Jordan
sought
the
testimony
of
the
special
counsel
responsible
for
the
prosecution
of
Donald
Trump
in
October,
accusing
Smith
of
having
“sought
to
silence
President
Trump
by
restricting
his
public
statements
about
the
case,
conducted
an
unnecessary
and
abusive
raid
of
his
residence,
attempted
to
improperly
pressure
defense
counsel
with
the
promise
of
political
patronage,
and
manipulated
key
evidence
in
the
investigation.”
Smith’s
legal
team
responded
with
the
offer
of
a
public
hearing,
“Given
the
many
mischaracterizations
of
Mr.
Smith’s
investigation
into
President
Trump’s
alleged
mishandling
of
classified
documents
and
role
in
attempting
to
overturn
the
results
of
the
2020
election,
Mr.
Smith
respectfully
requests
the
opportunity
to
testify
in
open
hearings
before
the
House
and
Senate
Judiciary
Committees,”
but
that
level
of
openness
is
apparently
a
no-go
for
Republicans.
Vanderbilt
fancies
itself
the
“Harvard
of
the
South,”
but
perhaps
we’ve
let
the
institution
skate
on
that
epithet
for
a
bit
too
long.
Earlier
this
morning,
Vanderbilt
quarterback
Diego
Pavia
took
to
the
Artist
Formerly
Known
As
Twitter
to
tag
Donald
Trump
and
request
an
“Executive
Order”
to
reconfigure
the
college
football
playoffs
to
add
another
four
qualifiers.
Such
an
expansion
would,
in
theory,
bring
10-2
Vanderbilt
into
the
playoffs.
Man,
the
poor
ReliaQuest
Bowl
getting
marked
for
executive
action
like
it’s
an
elite
Am
Law
firm.
Pavia
has
been
playing
in
college
for
six
years
now,
and
is
currently
finishing
up
his
Masters
at
Vanderbilt.
Is
Civics
education
completely
broken
in
this
country
that
people
getting
graduate
degrees
from
elite
institutions
still
don’t
understand
that
executive
orders
aren’t
royal
decrees?
The
problem
is
actually
deeper
than
that,
but
yes.
Professor
Lindsey
Cormack,
author
of
How
To
Raise
A
Citizen,
conducted
research
on
American
Civics
education
and
it’s
bleaker
than
you’d
imagine.
The
country
spends
pennies
on
Civics
compared
to
other
subjects.
Not
a
great
recipe
for
a
healthy
Republic
when
just
watching
Schoolhouse
Rock
reruns
would
move
students
into
the
top
percentile
in
the
subject.
But
the
abject
failure
of
American
Civics
education
only
sets
the
table.
The
entree
of
toxic
sludge
is
the
byproduct
of
the
Trump
administration’s
attempt
to
normalize
executive
action
that
a
sixth
grader
in
the
1980s
would’ve
instantly
recognized
as
—
to
use
the
technical
term
—
bullshit.
Since
the
Donald
Trump
returned
to
office,
he’s
aggressively
issued
executive
orders
purporting
to
take
all
sorts
of
action
through
monarchical
edict.
While
presidents
enjoy
considerable
power
to
issue
orders
that
instruct
executive
agencies
how
to
perform
their
jobs,
these
orders
can’t
change
laws
because
that’s
the
exclusive
job
of
Congress.
Executive
orders
ARE
NOT
legislative
edicts
capable
of
performing
an
end
run
around
the
Constitution.
Just
as
Trump
cannot
wake
up
and
sign
an
order
functionally
repealing
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
in
between
proving
he
can
still
distinguish
between
a
tiger
and
an
elephant,
he
cannot
unilaterally
command
the
NCAA,
universities,
the
athletic
conferences,
ESPN,
and
Notre
Dame
reconfigure
their
playoff
agreements.
You
can’t
force
Notre
Dame
to
join
a
conference
let
alone
blow
up
its
role
in
the
playoff
agreement.
The
flurry
of
illegal
orders
have
—
mostly
—
failed
in
court.
And
the
administration
and
its
media
allies
have
taken
those
failures
and
converted
them
into
their
own
grievance
campaign,
attacking
the
federal
courts
for
issuing
an
historic
number
of
injunctions
blocking
executive
action
as
though
it’s
the
fault
of
the
courts
that
Trump
has
issued
almost
as
many
executive
orders
in
11
months
as
Barack
Obama
did
over
8
years.
The
administration
knows
that
most
of
Trump’s
orders
have
all
the
constitutional
authority
of
a
napkin
doodle,
but
that
doesn’t
matter
for
the
strategy.
And
let’s
not
put
all
the
blame
on
business
students
like
Pavia.
Here’s
a
Miami
Law
School
graduate
—
who
absolutely
knows
better
—
peddling
the
same
argument
that
a
president
can
possess
authoritarian
power
over
college
football.
Marco
Rubio
on
Miami
and
the
CFP:
“If
the
University
of
Miami
gets
screwed
out
of
the
College
Football
Playoff
after
going
10-2
and
beating
Notre
Dame,
the
whole
thing
should
be
scrapped
and
[President
Trump]
is
gonna
have
to
take
over
next
year.”pic.twitter.com/xE8wBmftB5
In
the
grand
scheme
of
things,
college
football
isn’t
the
biggest
issue
in
this
country,
but
this
conversation
has
grave
ramifications.
A
lot
of
America
cares
deeply
about
college
football
and
almost
all
of
them
think
it’s
broken.
Along
comes
a
cabinet
secretary
casually
suggesting
that
the
sleepy
strongman
sitting
next
to
him
has
the
power
to
wave
a
wand
and
fix
it.
And
people,
like
Pavia,
start
to
act
like
that’s
actually
possible
instead
of
a
dementia
dream
turned
official
policy.
This
is
how
authoritarianism
actually
gets
mainstreamed.
With
lower
stakes
issues
that
nonetheless
enflame
the
passions
of
many.
And
then
it
works
from
there.
