*
Sullivan
&
Cromwell
argues
that
Trump’s
state
criminal
charges
—
over
behavior
he
undertook
when
he
wasn’t
president
—
belongs
in
federal
court
because
jurors
heard
testimony
about
his
attempts
to
cover
up
the
crimes
as
president.
[New
York
Law
Journal]
*
ICE’s
secret
weapon?
Databases
of
often
anonymous
and
unsupported
“gang”
traits
cited
to
keep
people
indefinitely
detained.
[Balls
and
Strikes]
*
Trump’s
proposed
executive
order
to
regulate
AI
will
“face
legal
hurdles,”
which
is
the
nice
way
of
noting
that
this
is
not
how
executive
orders
work.
*
Lawsuit
alleges
Chipotle
bowl
delivered
by
DoorDash
had
a
rodent
in
it.
DoorDash
immediately
regrets
not
inventing
rodent
surcharge
for
the
extra.
[Law360]
*
Supreme
Court
wants
to
know
JD
Vance’s
political
plans
so
they
can
bolt
some
kind
of
standing
on
his
effort
to
erase
campaign
finance
reforms.
[Supreme
Court
Brief]
Kellogg
Hansen
Comes
In
Over
The
Market!:
Big
money
from
a
small
firm!
Boutique
Money
Is
Bigger
In
Texas:
Check
out
Yetter
Coleman’s
bonus
compensation!
The
Sotomayor
“Gotcha”
Moment
Doesn’t
Hold
Up
Under
Scrutiny:
A
handful
of
examples
over
230
years
isn’t
the
stare
decisis
ender
the
gov’t
thinks
it
is.
Wait
A
Little
Longer
Before
You
Use
Your
Locker:
White
Supremacist’s
return
to
school
gets
put
on
pause.
Mind
Who
You
Clerk
For:
The
Legal
Accountability
Project
can
help
you
navigate
the
1
in17
abusive
judges
offering
clerkships.
Mind
Your
Taxes!:
A
couple
of
small
changes
could
save
you
thousands
in
the
long
run.
Holiday
Reminder:
Make
sure
to
place
your
entry
in
our
17th
Annual
Holiday
Card
contest!
We’re
in
early
December,
which
means
you
have
a
few
weeks
left
to
make
meaningful
adjustments
to
your
2025
tax
situation.
This
is
the
perfect
time
to
estimate
your
taxable
income
for
the
year
and
see
where
you
land
in
the
tax
brackets.
A
little
planning
now
can
save
you
thousands
in
April.
If
you’re
not
weaving
tax
planning
into
your
overall
retirement
and
investment
strategy,
you’re
most
likely
leaving
money
on
the
table.
And
I’m
not
talking
about
the
returns
that
show
up
on
your
401(k)
statement.
Having
a
401(k)
or
IRA
doesn’t
mean
you
have
a
retirement
plan.
A
proper
financial
plan
is
multifaceted—it
incorporates
investment
strategy,
tax
optimization,
estate
planning,
and
risk
management.
If
you
think
financial
planning
is
just
about
choosing
between
a
handful
of
stocks
or
an
index
fund,
you’re
missing
the
bigger
picture.
With
that
in
mind,
here
are
five
year-end
tax
planning
areas
to
focus
on.
These
are
the
low-hanging
fruit—the
opportunities
that
show
up
in
my
client
base
year
after
year.
This
isn’t
an
exhaustive
list,
and
not
everything
will
apply
to
your
situation,
but
chances
are
at
least
a
few
of
these
will
be
worth
exploring.
As
always,
consult
your
tax
planning
professionals
before
implementing
any
of
these
strategies.
This
outline
is
for
educational
purposes
only.
1.
Tax-Loss
Harvesting
Tax-loss
harvesting
involves
selling
investments
at
a
loss
within
your
brokerage
account
to
offset
realized
gains
elsewhere
in
your
portfolio.
This
can
minimize
your
overall
capital
gains
tax
bill.
Nobody
invests
hoping
for
losses,
but
they’re
inevitable.
Historical
analysis
shows
us
that
markets
rise
about
70%
of
the
time,
but
the
average
intra-year
drop
is
around
14%
according
to
JP
Morgan’s
Guide
to
the
Markets
research.
Taking
advantage
of
these
dips
can
create
tax
benefits.
But
just
because
you
sell,
it
doesn’t
mean
you’re
trying
to
sit
out
of
the
market.
You
sell
the
losing
position
and
immediately
buy
something
similar
but
substantially
different
to
maintain
your
market
exposure.
Just
watch
out
for
the
wash
sale
rule:
in
summary,
if
you
buy
the
same
or
a
substantially
identical
security
within
30
days
before
or
after
the
sale,
the
IRS
won’t
allow
you
to
claim
the
loss.
Any
losses
you
don’t
use
this
year
can
be
carried
forward
indefinitely,
and
you
can
deduct
up
to
$3,000
annually
against
ordinary
income.
2.
Tax-Gain
Harvesting
Tax-loss
harvesting
gets
all
the
attention,
but
tax-gain
harvesting
deserves
more.
Sometimes
it
makes
sense
to
intentionally
realize
gains
or
pull
income
into
the
current
year.
Why
would
anyone
want
to
increase
their
taxable
income?
Let
me
show
you
with
an
example:
For
long-term
capital
gains,
a
couple
filing
jointly
in
2025
can
have
up
to
$96,700
in
taxable
income
and
pay
0%
in
capital
gains
tax.
Remember,
taxable
income
is
what’s
left
after
deductions.
For
a
couple
both
age
65
in
2025,
the
deduction
math
looks
like
this:
Standard
deduction:
$31,500
Age
65+
additional
deduction:
$3,200
($1,600
per)
New
senior
bonus
deduction:
$12,000
($6,000
per,
subject
to
income
limitations)
Total
deductions:
$46,700
This
means
a
couple
could
have
adjusted
gross
income
of
$143,400
and
still
be
in
the
0%
capital
gains
bracket.
That’s
over
$10,000
per
month
in
spending—pretty
reasonable
for
many
couples
in
retirement.
Let’s
say
you
add
up
all
your
income
and
you’re
only
at
$110,000.
Does
it
make
sense
to
realize
some
capital
gains?
It’s
at
least
something
to
explore.
You’ll
increase
taxable
income,
but
if
done
correctly,
you
won’t
pay
a
dime
in
additional
capital
gains
tax.
This
strategy
works
particularly
well
in
the
early
years
of
retirement
if
you’re
delaying
Social
Security
or
IRA
distributions
and
spending
from
after-tax
brokerage
accounts.
And
just
like
tax-loss
harvesting,
the
goal
is
not
to
sell
your
positions
and
sit
out
of
the
market.
Remember
the
wash
sale
rule
mentioned
above
only
applies
to
losses.
If
you
like
an
investment
that’s
appreciated,
you
can
sell
it,
realize
the
gain
tax-free,
and
immediately
buy
it
back
without
missing
out
on
future
growth.
3.
Income
and
Expense
Timing
You
can’t
always
control
when
income
arrives
or
expenses
hit,
but
when
you
can,
timing
matters.
For
example,
the
One
Big
Beautiful
Bill
passed
earlier
in
2025
increased
the
state
and
local
tax
(SALT)
deduction
limit
to $40,000
(up
from
$10,000)
for
2025,
subject
to
income
limits.
If
you’re
in
a
high-tax
state
and
you
haven’t
maximized
this
benefit
for
the
current
year,
you
might
consider
prepaying
your
2026
first-quarter
taxes
if
your
jurisdiction
allows
it.
This
lowers
your
2025
taxable
income
and
lets
you
maximize
the
deduction
again
in
2026.
This
benefit
only
runs
through
2028,
so
use
it
while
you
can.
You’ll
need
to
itemize
to
claim
this,
but
with
the
OBBB
changes,
it’s
worth
running
the
numbers
even
if
you
typically
take
the
standard
deduction.
On
the
income
side,
that
new
senior
bonus
deduction
might
make
it
worthwhile
to
pull
some
income
into
2025
to
take
full
advantage
of
your
available
deductions.
Or
consider
a
Roth
conversion
to
fill
up
lower
tax
brackets
in
low-income
years.
A
Roth
conversion
involves
moving
money
from
a
traditional
IRA
to
a
Roth
IRA,
paying
taxes
now
at
today’s
rates,
and
enjoying
tax-free
growth
and
withdrawals
later.
4.
Charitable
Giving
Strategies
If
you’re
charitably
inclined,
Qualified
Charitable
Distributions
(QCDs)
are
powerful.
Once
you’re
70½,
you
can
donate
directly
from
your
IRA
to
charity.
The
distribution
doesn’t
count
as
taxable
income,
and
it
satisfies
your
required
minimum
distribution
if
you’re
over
73.
Another
charitable
giving
strategy
involves
donating
appreciated
investments
from
your
brokerage
account
directly
to
a
Donor
Advised
Fund.
The
charity
gets
the
full
value,
you
avoid
capital
gains
tax
on
the
appreciation,
and
you
increase
the
cost
basis
in
your
brokerage
account.
Two
birds,
one
stone.
One
more
item
to
know—starting
in
2026,
there’s
a
new
0.5%
AGI
floor
and
a
35%
cap
for
top-bracket
donors.
For
example,
if
you
have
$400,000
in
income,
you’d
only
be
able
to
deduct
amounts
given
over
$2,000.
And
if
you’re
in
the
highest
tax
bracket,
your
deduction
is
capped
at
35
cents
per
dollar
donated.
Cash-gift
deductions
continue
to
be
capped
at
60%
of
AGI;
that
limit
has
not
changed.
This
creates
an
opportunity
to
accelerate
giving
in
2025
before
these
restrictions
kick
in.
5.
Retirement
Plan
Contributions
The
basics
still
matter.
Maximize
your
401(k)
employee
deferrals
before
December
31st.
Health
Savings
Accounts
and
529
education
funds
are
also
great
year-end
moves.
While
529
contributions
don’t
provide
a
federal
tax
deduction,
most
states
offer
a
state
income
tax
benefit—check
your
specific
state
rules.
One
exception
to
the
December
31st
deadline:
if
you
have
an
Individual
401(k)
and
it’s
the
plan’s
first
year,
you
have
until
the
tax
filing
deadline
to
establish
and
fund
it
for
the
prior
year.
This
can
be
useful
if
you
find
yourself
with
extra
cash
after
the
new
year.
Planning
ahead
makes
all
the
difference.
These
strategies
won’t
all
apply
to
everyone,
but
most
lawyers
approaching
or
in
retirement
will
benefit
from
at
least
a
few
of
them.
If
you
found
this
helpful
and
want
more
retirement
and
tax
planning
insights,
follow
along
with
Money
Meets
Law,
my
weekly
newsletter
where
I
dig
into
these
topics
in
more
detail.
I’ll
be
highlighting
several
of
them
over
the
next
few
weeks.
DISCLOSURE:
The
information
in
this
article
is
not
intended
as
tax,
accounting,
retirement
or
legal
advice,
as
an
offer
or
solicitation
of
an
offer
to
buy
or
sell,
or
as
an
endorsement
of
any
company,
security,
fund,
or
other
securities
or
non-securities
offering.
This
information
should
not
be
relied
upon
as
the
sole
factor
in
an
investment
making
decision
or
your
decision
to
retire.
In
any
examples
or
case
studies
used,
all
client
names
have
been
changed.
David
Hunter,
CFP®
is
a
CERTIFIED
FINANCIAL
PLANNER™
and
owner
of First
Light
Wealth,
LLC,
a
financial
planning
&
wealth
management
firm
with
a
unique
focus
on
serving
attorneys
nationwide.
David
has
over
a
decade
of
experience
helping
clients
build
financial
plans
and
has
been
featured
in
publications
such
as
Attorney
at
Work,
ThinkAdvisor,
MarketWatch,
Financial
Planning,
and
InvestmentNews.
David
also
writes
weekly
to
attorneys
in
his
popular Money
Meets
Law newsletter.
For
more
about
David,
visit firstlightwealth.com/lawyers or
connect
with
him
on LinkedIn.
More
proof
that
boutique
law
firms
can
play
with
the
Big(law)
boys
when
it
comes
to
associate
bonuses!
Today,
Texas-based
litigation
boutique
Yetter
Coleman
announced
its
year-end
bonus
scale
for
associates.
Yetter,
one
of
the
top
litigation
firms
by
law
school
pedigree,
told
associates
the
bonus
scale
was
the
result
of
an
“exceptionally
busy
and
exciting
year”
at
the
firm.
The
year-end
bonus
scale
at
Yetter
is,
at
first
blush,
higher
than
the
standard
making
its
way
through
Biglaw.
But,
once
you
add
it
the
special
bonuses
most
of
the
Biglaw
firms
are
dishing
out,
the
take-home
amounts
are
the
same.
The
Yetter
scale
is
as
follows:
Bonuses
will
be
paid
December
11th
at
the
firm.
Read
the
full
memo
below.
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!
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].
Soon
after
I
launched
The
Legal
Accountability
Project
(LAP),
I
met
with
a
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law
(WashU
Law)
professor
to
talk
about
LAP’s
work.
There’s
no
love
lost
between
me
and
my
alma
mater:
after
I
was
harassed
and
fired
from
my
clerkship,
I
learned
WashU
Law
administrators
and
professors
knew
the
judge
who
harassed
me
had
harassed
another
alum
a
few
years
earlier
—
but
chose
not
to
share
that
with
me
before
I
accepted
the
clerkship.
I
could
have
gotten
over
that,
but
for
the
fact
that
three
separate
deans
subsequently
told
me
they
“don’t
believe”
I
was
mistreated
by
the
judge
I
worked
for.
And
the
law
school
cancelled
four
LAP
events
in
just
three
years,
including
one
with
another
alumnus
who’s
a
federal
judge.
So,
it
was
unsurprising
that
this
professor
said:
“You
seem
to
think
clerkships
are
a
hazard,
whereas
I
think
there’s
a
clerkship
for
everybody.”
That
framing
stuck
with
me
as
LAP
struggled
to
convinced
law
schools
to
subscribe
to
our
Clerkships
Database
(“Glassdoor
for
Judges”).
Some
even
tried
to
bar
students
from
subscribing.
Before
LAP
launched
the
Clerkships
Database
—
serving
thousands
of
students
annually
while
collecting
data
on
the
incidence
of
negative
versus
positive
clerkship
experiences
—
school
administrators
framed
LAP
as
“dissuading”
students
from
clerking.
Not
exactly.
I
encourage
students
to
be
mindful
of
who
they
clerk
for
and
to
be
empowered
consumers
of
clerkship
information,
in
ways
they
historically
were
not.
I
discourage
applicants
from
clerking
for
abusive
judges.
It’s
disturbing
that
schools
refuse
to
warn
students
about
abusive
judges,
and
all
but
two
refuse
to
subscribe
to
LAP’s
database
—
showing
how
little
they
care
about
students’
well-being,
and
forcing
students
to
pay
individually.
Fortunately,
students
no
longer
rely
solely
on
their
schools
for
information,
as
long
as
they
pay
$50
to
subscribe
to
LAP’s
database.
Once
LAP
launched
the
Clerkships
Database
in
April
2024,
applicants
finally
saw
for
themselves
just
how
hazardous
some
clerkships
are,
firsthand
from
clerks.
Our
data
suggest
around
30%
of
clerkship
experiences
are
negative,
based
on
over
2,000
surveys
about
more
than
1,200
judges
and
information
from
every
state,
federal
circuit,
and
U.S.
district
court.
Our
data
also
indicate
that
around
1
in
17
federal
judges
are
abusive,
which
aligns
with
the
federal
judiciary’s
own
data:
as
many
as
106
judges
(out
of
around
1,700)
committed
actionable
misconduct
by
mistreating
clerks
in
2023,
according
to
a
climate
survey
released
earlier
this
year.
I
shared
that
statistic
with
around
30
students
at
a
LAP
event:
statistically,
at
least
one
or
two
in
this
room
will
endure
abusive
clerkships.
Let
that
sink
in.
It’s
no
surprise
so
many
judges
abuse
their
power:
judicial
chambers
are
particularly
conducive
to
mistreatment.
There’s
an
enormous
power
disparity
between
young
law
clerks
and
life-tenured
judges.
Importantly,
federal
clerks
are
exempt
from
Title
VII
of
the
Civil
Rights
Act
of
1964
and
all
federal
anti-discrimination
laws:
if
they
are
harassed,
discriminated
against,
unjustly
fired,
or
retaliated
against
(or
all
of
the
above,
in
my
case),
they
cannot
sue
to
seek
redress.
Law
clerks
basically
have
no
rights,
and
judges
have
legal
immunity
for
harassing
them.
Title
VII
can
seem
abstract.
Here’s
the
reality:
laws
deter
bad
behavior.
Workers
don’t
harass
their
co-workers
(or,
less
often
than
they
otherwise
might),
if
for
no
other
reason
than
they
don’t
want
to
get
sued.
Title
VII
puts
the
onus
on
the
employer,
if
an
employee
complains
about
harassment,
to
investigate,
address
the
problem,
and
discipline
the
offender:
otherwise,
the
wronged
employee
can
sue
for
damages.
Exempting
an
entire
branch
of
government
means
federal
judges
do
not
face
this
deterrent
—
there’s
literally
nothing
legally
preventing
or
dissuading
them
from
mistreating
staff.
Consider
three
recent
examples
that
made
news
—
representing
a
miniscule
fraction
of
judicial
misconduct:
Second
Circuit
Judge
Sarah
Merriam
was
disciplined
and
publicly
reprimanded
in
December
2023
for
creating
an
“overly
harsh
work
environment.”
In
July
2024,
former
Alaska
judge
Joshua
Kindred
resigned
in
scandal,
after
a
Ninth
Circuit
Judicial
Council
found
that
he
sexually
harassed
and
retaliated
against
clerks.
Kindred
was
recently
disbarred.
And
former
Minnesota
federal
bankruptcy
judge
Kesha
Tanabe
resigned
in
scandal
in
early
2025
after
bullying
and
retaliating
against
clerks.
That
case
never
would
have
made
news
—
and
Tanabe
would
have
evaded
accountability,
after
the
Eighth
Circuit
tried
to
protect
her
by
pressuring
a
law
clerk
to
withdraw
their
JC&D
complaint
—
but
for
my
Above
the
Law
article.
These
examples
—
just
a
fraction
of
what
comes
over
my
transom
at
LAP
—
should
tell
you
how
seriously
the
federal
courts
take
accountability
and
safe
workplaces
(not
at
all);
how
effective
judicial
complaint
processes
and
discipline
are
at
preventing
and
addressing
misconduct
(not
at
all);
and
the
importance
of
selecting
a
clerkship
based
on
the
judge’s
management
style
and
workplace
conduct
(all-important).
Not
all
clerkships
are
hazardous.
But
as
someone
who
does
this
for
a
living,
far
more
are
treacherous
than
anyone
else
would
admit.
Even
most
mistreated
clerks
never
tell
anyone
they
were
mistreated:
they’ve
only
shared
in
LAP’s
Clerkships
Database.
Law
schools
and
legal
industry
leaders
paint
an
overly
rosy
and
one-sided
picture
of
clerking
—
often
while
knowing
realities
they
won’t
admit
—
misleading
students
to
believe
clerkships
confer
only
professional
benefits,
and
they’ll
develop
a
lifelong
mentor/mentee
or
“familial”
relationship
with
the
judges
they
clerk
for.
Clerks
refer
to
judges
fondly,
years
later,
as
“my
judge”
(sometimes
even
after
they
were
mistreated)
—
a
term
of
affection
that
lionizes
judges
unnecessarily
and
contributes
to
the
dangerous
perception
that
judges’
workplace
conduct
should
not
be
questioned,
no
matter
how
unethical.
But
this
may
be
the
exception,
not
the
rule.
In
reality,
most
clerkships
are
jobs
like
any
other:
you’ll
work
for
a
year
or
two
to
check
a
box
before
advancing
in
your
career.
Creating
unrealistic
expectations
sets
clerks
up
to
fail.
Clerks
take
desperate
measures
to
force
a
bond,
including
“nonjudicial
tasks”
like
fetching
judges’
dry
cleaning,
tutoring
their
children,
and
walking
their
dogs.
They
self-internalize
failure,
thinking
they
did
something
wrong,
if
those
relationships
don’t
materialize.
I
don’t
believe
there’s
a
clerkship
for
everybody.
Not
everyone
should
clerk.
If
the
choice
is
between
an
abusive
clerkship
and
no
clerkship
at
all
—
don’t
clerk.
Ask
why
you
want
to
clerk
and
what
your
goals
are.
At
the
same
time,
no
one
who
wants
to
clerk
should
count
themselves
out.
In
fact,
LAP’s
database
fosters
greater
equity
by
ensuring
any
applicant,
regardless
of
law
school,
can
pay
$50
to
access
the
same
baseline
information
about
clerkships
—
rather
than
the
pre-LAP
status
quo,
which
restricted
access
to
just
a
handful
of
students
from
top
law
schools.
What
are
the
right
questions
to
ask
yourself
before
clerking?
Why
do
I
want
to
clerk?
What
are
my
goals
for
the
clerkship?
Where
do
I
want
to
live
after
my
clerkship,
and
will
this
clerkship
help
me
get
a
job
in
this
jurisdiction?
What
type
of
law
do
I
want
to
practice,
and
will
this
clerkship
help
me
hone
the
right
skills
and
get
a
job
in
my
chosen
field?
What
kind
of
work
environment
am
I
looking
for?
How
do
I
like
to
be
supervised
and
receive
feedback?
When
do
I
want
to
clerk
—
straight
out
of
law
school,
or
can
I
wait
for
a
few
years?
If
I
wait,
how
will
I
fill
those
gap
year(s)
before
my
clerkship
begins?
How
far
am
I
willing
to
move
to
clerk?
Where
am
I
willing
to
live
for
a
year
or
two?
There’s
nothing
wrong
with
clerking
for
the
credential,
rather
than
(or
in
addition
to)
seeking
writing
and
research
experience,
litigation
or
appellate
training,
and
insight
into
judges’
decision-making
—
as
long
as
you
don’t
accept
an
abusive
clerkship
for
the
prestige.
There
is
a
wrong
question
to
ask:
What
am
I
willing
to
put
up
with
to
clerk?
Given
the
scarcity
of
federal
jobs
right
now,
some
will
still
ask.
If
everyone
applying
for
clerkships
subscribed
to
LAP’s
Clerkships
Database,
far
fewer
would
endure
mistreatment,
because
they’d
truly
understanding
just
how
awful
some
clerkships
are.
Frankly,
knowing
the
trash
law
schools
provide,
I
worry
about
students
who
haven’t
subscribed.
Where
are
they
getting
information,
if
not
from
LAP,
and
how
do
they
verify
it?
Sadly,
some
will
say,
“I
can
handle
it,”
or
“It’s
worth
it
for
the
prestige.”
Still
others
think
it
won’t
happen
to
them.
But
I’ve
counseled
hundreds
of
mistreated
clerks:
they
all
said
if
they
knew
how
bad
it
would
be,
they
wouldn’t
have
accepted
the
clerkship.
Frankly,
my
experience
is
not
rare:
it’s
just
one
that’s
rarely
shared
publicly,
due
to
the
culture
of
silence
and
fear
surrounding
the
judiciary
—
one
of
deifying
judges
and
disbelieving
law
clerks.
To
put
it
bluntly:
if
you’re
applying
for
clerkships
and
you
choose
not
to
take
agency
over
your
career
by
fully
informing
yourself,
you’re
taking
an
enormous
career
risk,
given
the
outsized
influence
of
clerkships
—
a
career
you
sacrificed
three
years
and
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
to
build.
Some
people
misleading
students
to
believe
there’s
a
clerkship
for
everybody
have
misaligned
incentives
and
questionable
motives:
they
want
as
many
students
as
possible
to
clerk,
for
example.
Others
just
lack
frame
of
reference:
clerks
don’t
regularly
share
negative
experiences
with
them,
or
their
clerkships
were
wonderful
so
they
don’t
understand
how
others’
couldn’t
be.
But
the
judiciary’s
and
LAP’s
data
both
suggest
that
for
every
17
students
applying
for
federal
clerkships,
one
will
be
mistreated.
That’s
a
lot
of
destroyed
lives
and
careers.
Maybe
it’s
time
lawyers
were
honest
about
the
realities
inherent
in
workplaces
exempt
from
workplace
laws.
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.
This
development
reflects
the
different
strategic
horizons
of
our
firms.
We
thank
the
Australian
firm
for
the
years
of
teamwork
and
partnership.
We
sincerely
appreciate
the
long-term
support
and
trust
shown
by
our
clients.
We
will
continue
to
put
clients
first
while
striving
for
excellence
in
everything
we
do.
We
remain
committed
to
our
international
strategy
and
will
continue
to
expand
our
geographic
coverage
through
both
organic
growth
and
collaboration
with
other
leading
firms
globally.
King
&
Wood’s
Hong
Kong
office,
the
largest
law
firm
in
Hong
Kong
by
number
of
lawyers,
will
continue
to
take
on
a
strategic
role
in
this
effort.
-WJ
We
thank
the
partners
and
colleagues
of
KWM
China
for
their
professionalism,
collegiality
and
friendship
over
the
past
14
years.
Mallesons
is
a
trusted
and
respected
brand
with
nearly
two
centuries
of
legal
excellence
and
50
years
of
international
experience
and
relationships.
We
will
continue
to
build
on
this
proud
legacy
as
we
become
the
only
top
tier
independent
firm
operating
from
Australia
with
the
flexibility
to
collaborate
more
broadly
with
global
elite
firms
to
meet
the
needs
of
our
clients
and
our
people
here,
across
the
region
and
around
the
globe.
-RL
—
Statements
issued
by
King
&
Wood
Mallesons
leaders
Wang
Junfeng,
Global
Chairman,
and
Renae
Lattey,
Chief
Executive
Partner,
Australia,
concerning
the
decision
to
split
up
and
revert
back
to
being
separate
firms,
as
of
March
31,
2026.
King
&
Wood
and
Mallesons
merged
in
2012,
and
now
they’ve
agreed
to
formally
separate.
King
&
Wood
will
control
the
firm’s
offices
in
Mainland
China,
Hong
Kong,
Japan,
and
the
U.S.
A
former
partner
at
the
firm
said
the
separate
will
end
“a
decade
and
a
half
of
strategic
drift”
for
the
firm.
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.
The
oral
argument
in
Trump
v.
Slaughter
lived
up
to
the
hype.
Not
so
much
like
a
sporting
event,
but
a
wrestling
match
where
everyone
knew
the
conservative
majority
would
reverse
engineer
their
way
to
the
result
they
wanted.
The
excitement
is
seeing
how
they
manage
to
do
it.
For
Slaughter,
those
obstacles
appeared
insurmountable
to
a
good
faith
actor.
The
Constitution,
mirroring
the
English
tradition
of
limited
executive
power
developed
during
the
English
Civil
War,
placed
restrictions
on
the
president
to
“take
Care
that
the
Laws
be
faithfully
executed.”
An
honest
Originalist
would
say
the
Framers
inserted
this
language
to
make
sure
presidents
could
not
ignore
legislative
edicts
by
simply
ignoring
laws.
The
Supreme
Court
justices,
as
it
happens,
are
Originalists
of
a
quite
dishonest
flavor.
And
so
the
stricture
that
presidents
can’t
ignore
Congress
transmogrifies
into
the
power
to
ignore
Congressional
commands.
And,
of
course,
the
Court
has
no
interest
in
allowing
Trump
to
replace
the
Federal
Reserve
with
the
sort
of
idiots
who
think
the
market
buying
Treasuries
at
a
record
clip
is
somehow
a
good
sign.
That
sort
of
executive
authority
could
crash
the
stock
market
and
the
justices’
healthy
investments.
Gutting
collective
bargaining
rights
or
transforming
antitrust
law
into
a
cudgel
for
Republican
donors
to
buy
media
companies…
those
are
acceptable
assaults
on
the
economy
because
who
cares
about
consumers,
am
I
right?
Justice
Keggerator
seemed
most
interested
in
laying
the
faux
academic
groundwork
for
distinguishing
the
Federal
Reserve,
appearing
satisfied
with
Solicitor
General
Sauer’s
response
that
“There’s
two
adjectives
there
or
an
adjective
and
an
adverb,
unique
and
distinct,”
which
is
gibberish
but
sounds
better
after
a
few
beers.
Justice
Kagan
seemed
to
understand
the
majority’s
sensitivity
to
the
Federal
Reserve
issue
—
she
has
already
humiliated
the
majority
on
this
point
in
a
shadow
docket
opinion
about
substantively
similar
NLRB
firings
—
and
twisted
the
knife,
running
Sauer
through
a
number
of
hypotheticals
to
demonstrate
the
government’s
complete
lack
of
any
limiting
principle
in
their
argument.
When
Sauer
responded
that
the
administration
isn’t
currently
litigating
any
of
those
cases,
Kagan
responded
with
a
withering,
“I
know
what
you
don’t
challenge.
You’re
missing
the
point.”
The
Chief
Justice
seemed
concerned
about
limits
too…
but
not
enough
for
anyone
to
think
his
sense
of
shame
grew
three
sizes
this
day.
With
Kagan
handling
the
Fed
issue,
Justice
Sotomayor
focused
on
the
absurdity
of
the
effort
to
overturn
a
near
century
of
precedent.
She
actually
had
Sauer
cornered
on
a
question
of
precedent
at
one
point,
but
the
moment
slipped
away.
JUSTICE
SOTOMAYOR:
Ninety
years.
What
other
cases
have
we
overturned
that
have
had
a
pedigree
of
a
hundred
years? GENERAL
SAUER:
Pennoyer
against
Neff
was
overruled
by
Shaffer
against
Heitner
on
its
hundredth
birthday
by
the
– JUSTICE
SOTOMAYOR:
That
was
an
economic
case.
What
other
case? GENERAL
SAUER:
For
example,
Erie
against
—
Erie
overruled
Swift
v.
Tyson
96
years
later. JUSTICE
SOTOMAYOR:
That
—
that
—
that
—
so
too
again
— GENERAL
SAUER:
Those
are
two
examples.
There’s
at
least
13
or
—
Considering
the
eye-rolling
“adjective
and
an
adverb”
conversation,
it’s
particularly
galling
that
we’re
still
engaging
in
the
charade
of
calling
the
Solicitor
General,
“General”
even
though
it’s
an
adjective
modifying
“Solicitor.”
You
went
to
law
school,
you’re
not
Patton.
At
this
point
Sotomayor
focuses
on
the
distinction
that
a
case
fundamentally
changing
the
organization
of
government
makes
this
unique.
Which
is
too
bad,
because
this
is
a
devastating
exchange
from
a
different
perspective.
How
often
do
we
overturn
cases
that
are
almost
a
hundred
years
old?
So
infrequently
that
they’re
super
famous
and
are
taught
as
examples
of
how
the
Court
only
disturbs
precedents
like
these
when
the
passage
of
time
renders
the
original
opinion
fundamentally
nonsensical.
Not
only
has
nothing
changed
about
the
relationship
between
the
president
and
the
concept
of
an
independent
agency
since
Humphrey’s
Executor,
this
case
is
about
THE
SAME
GODDAMNED
AGENCY.
In
her
defense,
she
has
inside
information
and
knows
the
stooges
she’s
sitting
with
have
no
coherent
intellectual
approach.
They
intend
to
overturn
Humphrey’s
Executor
because
it
appeases
their
patron
in
the
White
House
and
the
only
thing
giving
them
any
pause
is
coming
up
with
some
that
makes
it
easier
to
rule
the
exact
opposite
way
when
a
Democratic
president
starts
firing
everyone
Trump
put
on
these
commissions.
If
they
decide
to
allow
another
real
election,
of
course.
Sotomayor
went
into
these
questions
fully
aware
that
the
majority
had
no
interest
in
respecting
precedent.
She
likely
made
the
calculated
decision
to
ask
about
this
being
such
a
long-standing
precedent
to
set
up
this
“disrupting
the
government”
angle
in
the
hopes
that
it
could
frighten
the
majority
that
their
intended
course
of
action
would
deliver
havoc.
But
sometimes
you’ve
got
to
shift
gears
when
the
answer
is
this
bad.
Predictably,
right-wing
social
media
celebrated
this
as
though
Sauer
dunked
on
Sotomayor
for
coming
up
with
two
examples
and
vaguely
promising
“at
least
13”
total.
Over
the
course
of
235
years…
maybe
13
examples.
That’s
not
the
flex
the
government
thinks
it
is.
Especially
when
you
scratch
the
surface
of
the
two
he
could
actually
think
of,
both
of
which
turn
on
identifiable
and
defensible
historical
changes.
Interstate
commerce
and
corporate
capitalism
rendered
Pennoyer
anachronistic.
That’s
a
story
an
advocate
could
easily
stand
up
and
explain.
What’s
changed
about
the
FTC
in
2025?
Nothing.
Unless
the
Court
wants
to
count
the
president’s
stated
interest
in
using
antitrust
law
arbitrarily
and
capriciously
to
support
consolidation
for
his
cronies.
In
that
case,
the
Take
Care
clause
might
inspire
a
Supreme
Court
to
see
the
original
statutory
protections
on
the
FTC
as
—
to
pull
two
words
at
random
—
necessary
and
proper
to
prevent
the
executive
from
circumventing
the
constitutional
duty
to
execute
the
laws
passed
by
Congress.
But
no
one
wanted
to
deal
with
any
of
that
yesterday.
Hypocrisy
wasn’t
going
to
stay
the
majority’s
hand,
but
when
the
lawyer
hands
over
an
answer
like
“two…
I
dunno,
I’m
sure
there
might
be
11
more
over
the
last
couple
centuries,”
it’s
worth
changing
tack
and
asking
them
to
explain
how
a
case
like
this
resembles
Justice
Stone
acknowledging
that
airplanes
were
invented
since
Pennoyer.
Make
Sauer
explain
what’s
changed,
and
when
he
inevitably
refuses
—
retreating
to
a
vapid
“well,
we
think
it
was
wrong
for
the
whole
90
years
and
no
one
noticed”
—
ask
then
how
it
meshes
with
these
cases
he’s
citing
that
infamously
devote
hours
worth
of
law
school
lecture
time
to
understanding
in
proper
historical
context.
Sotomayor’s
strategy
makes
sense
if
she’s
still
hoping
to
influence
this
opinion,
but
that’s
just
not
the
job
description
anymore.
It’s
just
like
Kagan’s
nods
to
conservative
judicial
philosophies,
which
she
pulls
out
from
time
to
time
hoping
the
majority
will
return
the
favor
later
even
though
they
never
will.
They’re
still
trying
to
stanch
the
Constitutional
bleeding,
but
right
now
the
only
case
worth
making
is
the
case
for
Supreme
Court
reform.
At
the
hearing,
it
played
for
laughs
when
Justice
Kagan
asked
Sauer
to
agree
that
the
Framers
intended
to
create
a
government
of
separated
powers
and
he
responded
with
the
“caveat”
that
“the
one,
you
know,
sort
of
exception
to
all
this
division
was
the
presidency
itself,
where
the
Framers
consciously
adopted
a
unified
and
energetic
executive.”
Kagan
replied
by
noting
that’s
not
what
the
word
“caveat”
means
(or
“codicil,”
which
Sauer
tried
to
pivot
into)
and
is
in
fact
“the
not
X
to
my
X.”
Except
it’s
not
funny.
The
official
representative
of
the
Trump
administration
is
failing
sixth
grade
civics.
This
stuff
can’t
continue
to
be
milked
for
chuckles.
These
are
batshit
claims
and
there’s
no
need
to
be
polite
about
it.
Catching
the
majority
in
hypocrisy
matters
now.
So
does
laying
bare
the
incoherence
of
their
brand
of
“Originalism”
and
their
contempt
for
the
rule
of
law.
The
minority
has
taken
on
a
more
confrontational
role
when
it
comes
to
the
shadow
docket,
but
there’s
no
reason
to
stop
there.
The
justices
may
want
to
salvage
America’s
faith
in
the
institution
without
watching
the
majority
use
that
good
will
to
burn
the
country
down.
But
it
doesn’t
work
that
way.
Sometimes
restoring
faith
requires
an
honest
assessment
about
the
extent
of
the
rot.
This
week,
the
10th
annual
AI
Summit
kicks
off
at
the
cavernous
Javits
Center
in
New
York
City.
The
promoters
describe
it
as
an
event
that
“[b]rings
together
visionary
leaders,
innovators
and
technologists
who
are
shaping
the
future
of
artificial
intelligence.”
The
Summit
Last
year,
there
were
over
5,000
attendees,
over
100
exhibitors,
and
350
speakers,
according
to
the
official
website.
This
year
promises
those
numbers
will
be
exceeded.
The
keynote
speakers
include
such
notables
as:
Matthew
C.
Fraser,
Chief
Technology
Officer,
The
City
of
New
York
Cecilia
Kushner,
Chief
Strategy
Officer,
NYC
Economic
Development
Corporation
Nitzan
Mekel-Bobrov,
Chief
AI
Officer,
eBay
Anusha
Dandapani,
Chief,
AI
Hub,
United
Nations
International
Computing
Centre
(UNICC)
Jorge
Reis-Filho,
Chief
AI
and
Data
Scientist,
Oncology
R&D,
AstraZeneca
Terry
Doyle,
Managing
Partner,
TELUS
Global
Ventures
The
overall
speaker
lineup
reflects
AI’s
extension
from
a
tech
curiosity
10
years
ago
to
being
embedded,
for
better
or
worse,
across
government,
commerce,
finance,
and
healthcare.
Legal
can’t
afford
to
ignore
this
shift
and
its
ramifications
and
risks.
I
will
be
there
covering
for
Above
the
Law
and
reporting
what’s
being
talked
about
and
perhaps
what’s
not.
But
before
we
get
to
that,
it’s
worth
pausing
to
see
how
far
we’ve
come
in
the
decade
since
that
first
Summit
in
2016.
The
Past
10
Years
We’ve
gone
from
AlphaGo
beating
a
grand
master
at
Go
(2016)
to
LLMs
(2022)
to
chatbots
(2023)
to
agentic
AI
(2025)
to
speaking
of
AGI
as
a
realistic
possibility,
all
in
one
decade.
As
for
technology
in
general,
here’s
where
we
were
in
2016:
Amazon
released
the
Amazon
Echo
Dot
Slack
was
the
hot
new
workplace
tool with
4
million
daily
active
users
iPhone
7 was
the
newest
phone
(no
Face
ID,
and
first
haptic
home
button)
Windows
10 was
still
a
relativity
new
operating
system
Netflix
was
starting
to
compete
seriously
with
cable
The
hottest
play
was
Hamilton.
Uber
was
becoming
a
real
thing.
In
early
2016,
a
bitcoin
was
about
$400
and
WeWork
was
reportedly
valued
at
$16
billion.
And
in
legal,
in
2016:
Clio
published
its
first
Legal
Trends
Report
Most
Biglaw
firms
were
still
debating
whether
to
allow
lawyers
to
use
things
like
Dropbox for
client
files
Document
review
was
still
almost
entirely
human-powered —
predictive
coding
was
“cutting
edge”
Legal
project
management
software
was
considered
“experimental” by
most
firms
We’ve
come
a
long
way.
Which
makes
this
year’s
Summit
particularly
interesting:
has
the
AI
industry
matured
along
with
the
technology,
or
are
we
just
experiencing
the
same
hype
cycles
at
higher
and
even
dangerous
volume?
What’s
a
Lawyer
Doing
at
the
AI
Summit
I
attended
and
wrote
about
this
conference
last
year.
First
and
foremost,
it’s
an
opportunity
to
escape
the
legal
tech
conference
bubble
and
see
and
hear
what
people
in
other
businesses
and
professions
are
thinking
about
and
doing.
Like
CES,
which
I’ll
cover
early
next
year,
it
often
provides
fresh
perspectives.
Of
course,
with
a
conference
this
size,
it’s
sometimes
hard
to
get
a
good
handle
on
what’s
really
important.
There
are
11
tracks
(the
Summit
calls
them
stages)
with
sessions
that
overlap.
That
makes
planning
challenging.
Indeed,
as
I
wrote
last
year,
I
have
the
feeling
that
the
conference
sometimes
tries
too
hard
and
to
do
too
much.
That
doesn’t
make
it
a
bad
conference,
just
a
challenging
one.
Also,
like
most
big
conferences,
the
AI
Summit
is
driven
by
vendors
and
exhibitors
and
is
by
design
a
bit
of
a
rah-rah
event
celebrating
AI.
That
also
doesn’t
necessarily
make
it
all
bad,
but
like
CES,
you
have
to
take
some
of
what’s
said
and
exhibited
with
a
grain
of
salt.
The
Sessions
There’s
a
huge
and
daunting
number
of
sessions.
Many
are
highly
technical
and
some
are
vendor
specific.
But
many
are
educational
focusing
on
where
we
are
with
AI
and
how
AI
platforms
can
be
practically
implemented.
Among
other
things,
I’m
approaching
the
Summit
with
three
questions
drawn
from
the
recent
series
I
co-authored
with
Melissa
Rogozinski:
Will
the
sessions
acknowledge
the
crisis
confronting
the
infrastructure
required
to
support
AI
ambitions?
Will
anyone
confront
the
verification
paradox,
the
reality
that
verifying
AI
outputs
often
costs
more
than
the
efficiency
gained?
And
third,
will
the
conversation
move
beyond
vendor
enthusiasm
to
implementation
reality?
In
that
regard,
there
are
several
sessions
that
look
particularly
interesting
that
I
plan
to
attend:
Who
Owns
Intelligence
Wins:
Escaping
the
AI
“Rent
Trap”
The
AI
Backbone:
How
Cutting-Edge
Infrastructure
is
Powering
the
Next
Wave
of
Innovation
in
Science
and
Industry
Betting
It
All
on
AI:
C-Suite
Confessions
on
Risk,
Reward,
and
Reality
Venture
Capitalist
Matchmaking:
Finding
Your
Perfect
Fit
The
Investor’s
Crystal
Ball:
What’s
Next?
I’m
hoping
that
at
least
some
of
these
sessions
will
get
at
the
very
things
we
talked
about
in
our
series:
infrastructure
requirements
that
may
not
be
met
as
AI
platforms
expand,
economic
models
that
don’t
quite
add
up,
and
the
persistent
gap
between
what
vendors
promise
and
what
businesses
can
actually
implement.
The
question
is
whether
presenters
will
confront
these
realities
or
perpetuate
comfortable
fictions.
What
Else
I
May
be
Watching
I
also
plan
to
attend
the
City
of
New
York’s
presentation
on
using
AI
to
improve
access
to
justice.
I
wrote
about
what
the
City
was
doing
last
year
and
its
impact;
it
will
be
interesting
to
see
where
the
City
is
this
year.
There’s
also
a
smattering
of
sessions
on
AI
and
its
impact
on
people
and
cybersecurity.
There
are
sessions
on
determining
ROI
of
AI,
how
it
can
be
used
to
enhance
storytelling
and
creativity,
along
with
more
philosophical
sessions
on
the
role
of
regulation.
Of
course,
agentic
AI
is
front
and
center.
I’ll
also
focus
on
sessions
covering
the
tension
between
innovation
and
regulation,
case
studies
in
real-world
deployment,
cross-industry
comparisons,
training,
and,
perhaps
most
critically,
sessions
addressing
hallucinations
and
the
verification
paradox
we’ve
been
writing
about.
Game
Time
Yes,
if
it
sounds
like
there’s
more
than
I
can
possibly
cover,
you’re
right.
My
conference
plan
isn’t
set
in
stone.
Like
most
of
these
conferences,
I’ll
make
game-time
decisions
based
on
where
the
substance
is
and
what
I’m
hearing.
It
should
be
interesting.
Will
the
Summit
confront
the
questions
about
AI
infrastructure,
verification
costs,
and
implementation
reality?
Or
will
it
be
another
celebration
of
potential
without
accountability?
Will
sessions
examine
AI
for
societal
good?
Or
will
it
be
all
AI
for
AI’s
sake?
Stay
tuned.
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.
In
a
surprising
turn
of
events,
class
will
not
be
in
session
for
Preston
Damsky!
For
now,
at
least.
To
recap,
Damsky
was
a
student
at
the
University
of
Florida’s
law
school
that
made
the
most
of
a
Trump-appointed
judge
teaching
a
class
by
rehashing
Klan
constitutionalism
—
he
CALI’d
the
class,
of
course.
And
while
the
paper
he
wrote
about
killing
Mexicans
and
disenfranchising
non-whites
got
him
some
notoriety,
he
wasn’t
in
trouble
over
it
per
se.
He
got
in
trouble
after
he
took
to
Twitter
to
announce
that
“Jews
should
be
abolished
by
any
means.”
That
tweet
was
read
as
a
threat
by
the
university
and
prompted
them
to
expel
Damsky
to
prevent
the
campus
from
becoming
hostile.
Damsky
pushed
back
and
sued
the
school
for
violating
the
First
Amendment
by
retaliating
against
his
political
beliefs.
That
case
came
out
in
his
favor;
Damsky
won
the
battle
and
the
school
was
told
to
reinstate
him.
But
the
war
isn’t
over!
Tallahassee
Democrat
has
coverage:
A
federal
appeals
court
has
paused
a
self-described
white
nationalist
law
student’s return
to
the
University
of
Florida,
a
week
after
a
lower-court
judge
ordered
the
law
school
to
reinstate Preston
Damsky by
Dec.
1.
The
11th
U.S.
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals
issued
an
administrative
stay
Dec.
3
–
a
temporary
hold
on
the
judge’s
ruling
–
until
a
three-judge
appellate
panel
weighs
in.
Preston
will
have
to
put
a
hold
on
any
potential
on-campus
goose-stepping
too.
University
of
Florida
PD
handed
Damsky
a
trespass
warning
in
the
meantime.
It
isn’t
clear
if
the
panel’s
decision
will
change
the
ultimate
outcome,
and
that’s
kind
of
a
big
deal.
I
think
that
answering
the
case’s
central
question
—
does
political
advocacy
for
removing
(or
abolishing)
a
class
of
people
constitute
an
immediate
enough
threat
to
be
actionable
—
will
add
some
definition
to
the
blurry
line
that
separates
acceptable
speech
suppression
and
obligations
for
universities
to
safeguard
their
faculty
and
students.
If
the
panel
rules
in
the
school’s
favor,
I
wonder
what
the
spillover
will
look
like.
This
is
Florida,
after
all.
If
some
student
tweets
“ICE
is
on
a
divine
mission
to
relieve
America
of
Mexican
illegals
and
if
they
do
it
by
feeding
them
to
alligators,
so
be
it,”
is
that
grounds
for
expulsion?
If
so,
UoF
students
better
be
cautious
about
retweeting
Laura
Loomer
content
as
they
finish
up
their
degrees.
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.
Kathryn
