Author: TSA Press

Magistrate
Judge
William
Fitzpatrick
just
dropped
a
legal
mic
on
prosecutors
in
the

James
Comey
case.
In
a
blistering
24-page
opinion,
he
ordered
the
Department
of
Justice
to
turn
over

all
grand
jury
materials
related
to
the
Comey
indictment
to
the
defense.
(Though
the
government
has

asked
for
a
stay
in
complying
with
the
order
while
the
file
their
objections.)
Because,
despite
the
Trump
administration’s
best
efforts,
due
process
is
still
a
thing.

And
if
this
seems
highly
unusual,
well,
you’re
not
wrong!
But
prosecuting
your
political
enemies
over
the

objections
of

career
prosecutors
is
also
highly
unusual
(or
at
least
it
used
to
be,
pre-2025)
so
that’s
where
we’ve
landed.

Fitzpatrick’s
opinion
reads
like
a
cold
call
of
a
law
student
who
spent
the
semester
playing
Fortnite
instead
of
doing
the
reading.
He
all
but
accuses
the
investigative
team
of
fumbling
their
way
into
a
constitutional
ditch:

“The
record
points
to
a
disturbing
pattern
of
profound
investigative
missteps,
missteps
that
led
an
FBI
agent
and
a
prosecutor
to
potentially
undermine
the
integrity
of
the
grand
jury
proceeding.”

That
is

spectacularly
harsh
judicial
language.
When
a
judge
says
your
work
“undermined
the
integrity”
of
the
grand
jury,
that’s
not
a
critique
—
that’s
a
diagnosis.

And
the
cure?
Full
disclosure
of
all
the
grand
jury
materials.

Lest
anyone
miss
the
severity,
Fitzpatrick
says
the
quiet
part

loud:

“The
court
recognizes
this
is
an
extraordinary
remedy,
but
given
the
factually
based
challenges
the
defense
has
raised
to
the
government’s
conduct
and
the
prospect
that
government
misconduct
may
have
tainted
the
grand
jury
proceedings,
disclosure
of
grand
jury
materials
under
these
unique
circumstances
is
necessary
to
fully
protect
the
rights
of
the
accused.” 

Judges
don’t
casually
throw
around
phrases
like
“tainted
the
grand
jury.”
That
Fitzpatrick
is
using
the
term
at
all
should
make
DOJ
attorneys
want
to
crawl
under
the
table
and
rethink
their
career
choices.
Because
“extraordinary
remedy”?
That’s
judge-speak
for
“you
left
me
no
choice.”

Read
the
full
benchslap
—

the
second
in
the
case,
it
should
be
noted
—
below.

---

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].

Fifteen
years
ago this
week, David
Lat,
who
then
ran
Above
the
Law,
asked
me,
a
veteran
big-firm
partner
who
had
recently
gone
in-house,
if
I’d
write
a
column
for
this
online
publication.

I
agreed. This
link to
my
first
column
shows
how
I
started
back
in
2010.

Originally,
I
wrote
two
columns
every
week. And
I
wrote
almost
exclusively
about
life
as
an
in-house
lawyer
or
things
I
had
learned
in
my
previous
life
at
a
large
firm.

I
wrote
about
“How
to
Drive
Clients
Nuts!” Once
you
come
up
with
an
idea,
you
might
as
well
fill
a
few
Mondays
with
it. So
I
also
cranked
out,
“What
Drives
Partners
Nuts!” And,
fair
being
fair,
“How
to
Drive
Associates
Nuts!”  

I
used myself
as
a
case
study in
developing
a
legal
practice
at
a
large
firm. Since
I
was
no
longer
in
the
game,
I
could
afford
to
be
mercilessly
honest.

I
had
started
a
blog
when
I
was
at
a
law
firm. I
wrote
about blogging
as
a
business
development
tool. Again,
since
I
had
nothing
at
stake,
I
could
afford
to
be
honest. (After
I
moved
in-house,
my
co-blogger
kept
the
experiment
alive. He’s still
at
it
now,
with
help
from
others,
20
years
after
we
started
that
puppy.)

Very
occasionally,
I
veered
off
topic
onto
other
subjects. In
15
years
at
Above
the
Law,
I
stand
by this
as
the
cutest
column I’ve
ever
written,
even
though
it
touches
on
the
law
only
tangentially. Perhaps this
one is
a
close
second,
and
it’s
more
legally
relevant.

In
2012,
the
company
that
I
worked
for
moved
its
headquarters
(and
me)
overseas
to
London. I
reduced
my
writing
schedule
from
two
columns
per
week
to
one. When
you
live
in
London,
weekends
are
made
for
Paris,
not
cranking
out
columns
for
Above
the
Law.

After
my
move
to
the
U.K.,
I poked
fun
at
the
Brits. I
took
a
lot
of
grief
for
that
one.

At
about
the
same
time,
I
decided
to
collect
some
of
my
columns
in
a
book. (Here’s the
link to
the
book
at
Amazon, but
the
book
is
now
out
of
print,
so
you
couldn’t
buy
a
copy
if
you
wanted
to. Happily,
my
other
book,
“The
Curmudgeon’s
Guide
to
Practicing
Law,”
is
a
bigger
seller,
so
you
can
still grab
a
copy (affiliate
link)
if
you’re
interested.)

Long-time
readers
will
remember
that
Above
the
Law
originally
permitted
folks
to
click
on
an
icon
and
post
comments
about
every
column. 
The
comments
ranged
from
vicious
to
insightful
to
vicious
to
intelligent
to
vicious
to
hysterically
funny
to
vicious. 
My
book
reproduced
both
some
my
columns
and
some
of
my
readers’
comments,
because
I
accept
wisdom,
humor,
and
insights
from
all
sources,
and
even
viciousness
can
be
revealing.  

When
I
started
writing
this
column,
I
had
to
give
it
a
name,
which
was
included
every
week
along
with
a
subtitle
hinting
at
the
subject
of
that
particular
column. Above
the
Law
believed
that
naming
a
column
was
important
for
branding
purposes. (The
branding
exercise
stopped
many
years
ago.)
My
column
was
originally
titled
“Inside
Straight.” When
the
time
came
to
name
my
book,
I
wrote
a
column
explaining
that
the
title
of
my
book
would
start
with
the
name
of
the
column,
“Inside
Straight,”
but
would
then
have
a
colon
and
a
short,
snappy,
subtitle. I asked
readers
to
suggest
subtitles in
the
comments. As
you
might
imagine,
I
received
a
variety
of
suggestions. One
of
my
favorites
was
from
the
commenter
who
proposed: “Inside
Straight: The
Annoying
Ramblings
of
an
Uber
Douche.” I
confess
that
I
used
a
different
title
when
the
book
was
actually
published.

Many
subjects
are
static;
they
just
don’t
advance
quickly,
and
you
eventually
exhaust
what
you
have
to
say. Life
as
an
in-house
lawyer
is
that
way. But
two
subjects
change
all
the
time: Sports
(with
a
game
every
night)
and
politics
(basically
the
same). I
bet
that’s
why
you
see
so
many
columns
about
sports
and
politics. After
Donald
Trump
was
elected
president
and
I
returned
to
the
United
States,
I
shifted
the
subject
of
my
column
from
“life
as
an
in-house
lawyer”
to
“how
could
we
have
elected
that
clown?”
(although
I
occasionally gave
Trump
his
due —
eliminating
the
penny,
for
example,
was
a
good
idea). By
then,
I
had
no
more
to
say
about
in-house
life
and,
with
Trump
as
president,
the
lure
was
irresistible.

My
columns
became
more
widely
read
when
I
started
writing
political
opinion. My
single
most
widely
read
column
ruminated
on
how Trump
might
react to
being
indicted. But
I
thought
this
column
was
OK,
too,
posing
a few
questions
to
my Trump-supporting
friends. Judging
from
the
reaction
to
that
column,
my
Trump-supporting
friends
don’t
like
being
questioned.

Years
ago,
I
published
annual
columns
celebrating
each
anniversary
of
my
time
at
Above
the
Law. I
titled
most
of
those
columns,
“Happy
Birthday
to
Me!” But
the
statistics
showed
that
nobody
read
those
columns. One
year,
I
tried
to sucker
people
into
reading my
anniversary
celebration. That
didn’t
work
either.  

I
gave
up
the
tradition.

But
today,
on
my
15th
anniversary
at
Above
the
Law,
I’m
reverting
to
form
and
noting
the
occasion
out
loud. I
guarantee
you
that
I’ll
no
longer
be
writing
these
columns
in
2040,
so
you
won’t
be
seeing
any
30th
anniversary
post
from
me. Once
in
a
lifetime
is
enough.

For
a
once-in-a-lifetime
occasion,
let’s
celebrate.  

Break
out
the
cake. Light
the
candles. Cut
yourself
a
slice.

Happy
birthday
to
me!  

And
thanks
for
having
come
along
for
the
ride.

---

Mark Herrmann spent
17
years
as
a
partner
at
a
leading
international
law
firm
and
later
oversaw
litigation,
compliance
and
employment
matters
at
a
large
international
company.
He
is
the
author
of The
Curmudgeon’s
Guide
to
Practicing
Law and Drug
and
Device
Product
Liability
Litigation
Strategy (affiliate
links).
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected].

Ed.
note:
Please
welcome
Renee
Knake
Jefferson
back
to
the
pages
of
Above
the
Law.
Subscribe
to
her
Substack,
Legal
Ethics
Roundup, here.

Welcome
to
what
captivates,
haunts,
inspires,
and
surprises
me
every
week
in
the
world
of
legal
ethics.

Hello
from
San
Francisco.
I’m
writing
you
as
I
wrap
up
my
week
with
the
Council
for
the
ABA
Section
on
Legal
Education
and
Admission
to
the
Bar,
which
is
the
independent
body
that
accredits
law
schools.
If
you
are
curious
about
our
work,
you
can
read
about
some
of
it here and
learn
more
about
the
Council
generally here.

In
addition
to
the
headlines
below,
the Fred
C.
Zacharias
Memorial
Prize
for
Scholarship
in
Professional
Responsibility was
recently
announced.
For
more
on
that,
see
last
week’s LER
Bonus
Content
No.
20.
Congratulations
again
to
the
winner Matthew
Liebman (University
of
San
Francisco)
for
his
article Representing
Animals and
honorable
mention
awardees Milan
Markovic (Texas
A&M)
and Nuno
Garoupa (George
Mason)
for
their
article Legal
Market
Decartelization.

---

Highlights
from
Last
Week –
Top
Ten
Headlines

#1
“Why
I
Am
Resigning.” An
op-ed
from Judge
Mark
Wolf in The
Atlantic: “In
1985, President
Ronald
Reagan appointed
me
as
a
federal
judge.
I
was
38
years
old.
At
the
time,
I
looked
forward
to
serving
for
the
rest
of
my
life.
However,
I
resigned
Friday,
relinquishing
that
lifetime
appointment
and
giving
up
the
opportunity
for
public
service
that
I
have
loved.
My
reason
is
simple:
I
no
longer
can
bear
to
be
restrained
by
what
judges
can
say
publicly
or
do
outside
the
courtroom. President
Donald
Trump is
using
the
law
for
partisan
purposes,
targeting
his
adversaries
while
sparing
his
friends
and
donors
from
investigation,
prosecution,
and
possible
punishment.
This
is
contrary
to
everything
that
I
have
stood
for
in
my
more
than
50
years
in
the
Department
of
Justice
and
on
the
bench.
The
White
House’s
assault
on
the
rule
of
law
is
so
deeply
disturbing
to
me
that
I
feel
compelled
to
speak
out.
Silence,
for
me,
is
now
intolerable.”
Read
more here.

#2
“McDermott
Will
&
Schulte
Considers
Outside
Investment
in
Firm.” From Bloomberg
Law: “McDermott
Will
&
Schulte
said
Wednesday
it
is
in
preliminary
discussions
about
selling
a
stake
in
the
law
firm
to
outside
investors,
a
novel
move
that
could
advance
acceptance
of
non-lawyer
backing
of
Big
Law
operations.
…
The
Financial
Times
earlier
Wednesday
said
the
firm
is
exploring
a
restructuring
that
would
let
it
sell
a
stake
to
private
equity
groups,
based
on
reporting
from
five
unidentified
people.
The
approach
under
consideration
would
split
the
firm
into
a
business
owned
by
lawyers
that
advise
clients
and
a
separate
operation
that
would
sell
administrative
services
to
the
lawyer-owned
firm,
according
to
the
FT.
…
Such
an
embrace
of
non-lawyer
investment
would
represent
a
sea-change
in
the
traditional
business
model
the
legal
industry
has
embraced.
Big
Law
firms
in
the
US
are
strictly
lawyer-owned,
which
critics
say
stifles
innovation
and
makes
legal
services
overly
expensive.”
Read
more here.

#3
“Judge
Accused
of
Helping
Immigrant
Avoid
ICE
Didn’t
Know
About
Plan,
Hearing
Officer
Concludes.” From
the ABA
Journal: “A
judge
accused
of
helping
a
defendant
avoid
immigration
detention
at
her
courthouse
in
Newton,
Massachusetts,
didn’t
know
about
the
escape
plan
and
didn’t
mislead
court
authorities
about
the
incident,
according
to
a
hearing
officer
in
the
ethics
case
against
her. Judge
Shelley
M.
Richmond
Joseph of
Massachusetts
should
nonetheless
receive
a
public
reprimand
for
inadvertently
creating
the
appearance
of
impropriety
and
bias,
partly
by
allowing
an
off-the-record
sidebar
in
violation
of
a
court
rule
during
the
2018
incident,
the
hearing
officer
said
in
an Oct.
31
report released Nov.
6.”
Read
more here.

#4
“New
Non-Profit
Launches
First-Ever
Public
Database
Documenting
Executive
Branch
Attorneys’
Conduct.” From Fox
News
40: “A
team
of
legal
and
technology
professionals
today
announced
the
launch
of
GLOW
–
Government
Lawyers
Oversight
Watchdog,
a
501(c)(3)
organization
dedicated
to
holding
government
attorneys
accountable
to
their
fundamental
duty
to
the
public
and
the
rule
of
law.
Along
with
the
organization,
GLOW
is
unveiling
The
Government
Lawyers
Database. Available
at glowlaw.org, the
database
is
a
freely
accessible
public
record
of
how
government
lawyers
have
conducted
themselves
while
representing,
or
supporting,
U.S.
Executive
branch
legal
positions.”
Read
more here.

#5
“Cleveland
Attorney’s
Use
of
AI
in
Court
Filings
Raises
Ethical
Questions
for
Legal
Profession.” From Cleveland.com: “A
Cleveland
defense
attorney
is
under
scrutiny
in
two
counties
after
submitting
court
filings
containing
fabrications
generated
by
artificial
intelligence
—
a
case
that’s
prompting
broader
questions
about
how
lawyers
are
ethically
navigating
the
use
of
AI
tools
in
legal
practice. William
Norman admitted
that
a
paralegal
in
his
office
used
ChatGPT
to draft
a
motion to
reopen
a
murder
conviction
appeal.
The
document
included
quotes
that
did
not
exist
in
the
trial
transcript
and
misrepresented
statements
made
by
the
prosecutor.
Prosecutors
in
both
Ashtabula
and
Cuyahoga
counties
argue
that
Norman’s
failure
to
supervise
the
use
of
AI
violated
Ohio’s
rules
for
lawyers,
particularly
those
governing
truthfulness
and
oversight
of
nonlawyer
staff.”
Read
more here.

#6
“Judging
The
Justice
System
In
The
Age
Of
Trump:
Nancy
Gertner.” From David
Lat in Original
Jurisdiction: “How
are
the
federal
courts
faring
during
these
tumultuous
times?
I
thought
it
would
be
worthwhile
to
discuss
this
important
subject
with
a
former
federal
judge:
someone
who
understands
the
judicial
role
well
but
could
speak
more
freely
than
a
sitting
judge,
liberated
from
the
strictures
of
the
bench.
Meet Judge
Nancy
Gertner (Ret.),
who
served
as
a
U.S.
District
Judge
for
the
District
of
Massachusetts
from
1994
until
2011.
I
knew
that
Judge
Gertner
would
be
a
lively
and
insightful
interviewee—based
not
only
on
her
extensive
commentary
on
recent
events,
reflected
in
media
interviews
and
op-eds,
but
on
my
personal
experience.
During
law
school,
I
took
a
year-long
course
on
federal
sentencing
with
her,
and
she
was
one
of
my
favorite
professors.
When
I
was
her
student,
we
disagreed
on
a
lot:
I
was
severely
conservative
back
then,
and
Judge
Gertner
was,
well,
not.
But
I
always
appreciated
and
enjoyed
hearing
her
views—so
it
was
a
pleasure
hearing
them
once
again,
some
25
years
later,
in
what
turned
out
to
be
an
excellent
conversation.”
Read
more
and
listen
to
the
interview here.

#7
“Law
School
Admissions
Cycle
is
Red-Hot,
Driven
by
Politics,
Says
Kaplan
Survey.” From
the National
Jurist: “Kaplan’s
recent
survey
of
law
school
admissions
officers
said
the
current
law
school
application
boom,
fueled
by
a
nearly
20%
surge
in
applicants
last
cycle,
shows
no
signs
of
cooling.
… Krystin
Major,
director
of
LSAT
programs
at
Kaplan,
said
over
the
past
year
the
company
has
seen
a
massive
increase
in
the
number
of
students
preparing
for
the
LSAT,
a
strong
indication
that
the
number
of
law
school
applicants
will
remain
at
historically
high
levels,
making
it
imperative
for
prospective
students
to
put
together
the
strongest
application
possible.”
Read
more here.

#8
“Watchdog
Group
Files
Bar
Complaint
Against
Prosecutor
Lindsey
Halligan
Over
Comey,
James
Cases.” From ABC
News: “The
Justice
Department
prosecutor
handpicked
by President
Donald
Trump to
lead
the
criminal
cases
against New
York
Attorney
General
Letitia
James and
former FBI
Director
James
Comey is
now
the
subject
of
a
bar
complaint
that
alleges
she
is
unfit
to
be
an
attorney
and
that
her
actions
constitute
an
‘abuse
of
power.’
The
progressive
watchdog
group Campaign
for
Accountability filed
a
complaint
against Interim
U.S.
Attorney
Lindsey
Halligan on
Tuesday
and
requested
that
the
state
bars
in
Florida
and
Virginia
initiate
investigations
into
her
conduct.
The
complaint
alleges
that
Halligan
repeatedly
violated
the
professional
and
ethical
rules
that
govern
the
legal
profession,
including
by
making
false
statements
and
by
bringing
cases
that
are
unsupported
by
probable
cause.”
Read
more here.

#9
“Ex-Judges
See
‘Grave
Threat’
in
Trump
Official’s
‘War’
Talk.” From Bloomberg
Law: “A
group
of
former
federal
judges
is
pushing
back
against
a
Trump
administration
official’s
call
for
attorneys
to
join
the
‘war’
against
the
judiciary.
The Keep
Our
Republic’s
Article
III
Coalition said
Thursday
that
the
language
used
by Deputy
Attorney
General
Todd
Blanche ‘poses
a
grave
threat
to
the
rule
of
law
and
the
judiciary.’
Blanche
said
at
a
Federalist
Society
conference
on
Nov.
7
that
young
lawyers
should
join
the
Justice
Department
‘because
it
is
a
war,
and
it’s
something
we
will
not
win
unless
we
keep
on
fighting.’
The
group,
which
features
50
former
federal
judges,
said
that
language
‘especially
when
voiced
by
high-ranking
officials—not
only
endangers
individual
judges
and
court
staff,
but
also
undermines
the
public’s
trust
in
the
judiciary
as
an
impartial
and
co-equal
branch
of
government.’”
Read
more here.

#10
“The
SCOTUS
Ethics
Code
Two
Years
On:
The
Justices
Can
and
Must
Do
Better.” From Fix
the
Court: “Ahead
of
tomorrow’s
two-year
anniversary
of
the
release
of
the
justices’ Code
of
Conduct,
Fix
the
Court
is
reflecting
on
changes
to
the
justices’
ethical
behavior
in
light
of
the
Code
and
what
remains
inadequate
in
terms
of
their
ethical
policies
and
practices.
The
main
deficiency
is
that
there
remains
no
enforcement
mechanism.
It
would
not
be
difficult
for Chief
Justice
Roberts to
appoint
‘some
sort
of
committee
of
highly
respected
judges
with
a
great
deal
of
experience
[and]
with
a
reputation
for
fairness,’
as Justice
Kagan contemplated
last
year,
to
do
that
work.
This
committee
would
receive
complaints,
separate
the
meritorious
from
the
frivolous
and
review
the
meritorious
ones,
after
which
they
could
recommend
remedial
steps,
like
recusal,
disclosure
amendments
or
ethics
training.
(More
on
that here.)
Another
deficiency
is
that
there’s
been
no
update
on
whether
the
Court
has
conducted
an
‘examination
of
best
practices’
in
judicial
ethics,
as
mentioned
in
the
commentary
to
the
Code,
which
implied
that
the
document
wasn’t
going
to
be
the
justices’
final
word
on
ethics.”
Read
more here.

---

Get
Hired

Did
you
miss
the
350+
job
postings
from
previous
weeks?
Find
them
all here.

---

Upcoming
Ethics
Events
&
Other
Announcements

Did
you
miss
an
announcement
from
previous
weeks?
Find
them
all here.

---

Keep
in
Touch

News
tips?
Announcements?
Events? A
job
to
post? Reading
recommendations? Email [email protected] –
but
be
sure
to
subscribe
first,
otherwise
the
email
won’t
be
delivered.

---

Renee
Knake
Jefferson
holds
the
endowed
Doherty
Chair
in
Legal
Ethics
and
is
a
Professor
of
Law
at
the
University
of
Houston.
Check
out
more
of
her
writing
at
the Legal
Ethics
Roundup.
Find
her
on
X
(formerly
Twitter)
at @reneeknake or
Bluesky
at legalethics.bsky.social. 

Where
do
you
go
once
you
successfully
infiltrate
the
T14?
Wherever
you
want
to!
After
establishing
themselves
as
the
go-to
AI
program
for
law
school
classrooms,
Harvey
is
setting
up
shop
in
law
schools
around
the
UK.
Based
on
their
placement,
they’re
off
to
a
very
strong
start.
From

Harvey:

Harvey
is
proud
to
announce
the
international
expansion
of
the
Harvey
Law
School
Program
to
the
United
Kingdom,
marking
the
company’s
first
formal
partnerships
with
leading
UK
law
faculties.
This
next
chapter
in
the
program
reflects
Harvey’s
global
focus
and
brings
together
a
diverse
set
of
institutions:
Oxford
University
Faculty
of
Law,
The
University
of
Law,
The
Dickson
Poon
School
of
Law
at
King’s
College
London
and
BPP
University
Law
School.

As
an
American
it
is
easy
to
think
that
the
T14
is
also
a
shortlist
for
the
top
law
schools
in
the
world.
And
while
there
is
some
truth
to
that,
a
quick
primer
on

law
school
rankings
internationally
helps
to
ground
how
big
of
an
accomplishment
this
is
for
Harvey.
Oxford
(you’ve
probably
heard
of
it),
is
ranked
at
#7.
The
Dickson
Poon
School
of
Law
is
one
of
the
oldest
law
schools
in
England
—
goes
to
show
that
even
old
dogs
are
capable
of
learning
new
tricks!

Let’s
hope
that
these
successes
have
some
staying
power.
As
nice
as
it
is
to
see
Harvey
build
a
meaningful
presence
in
law
schools
globally,
it
is
unclear
how
AI
will
fare
generally
moving
forward.
Will
the
AI
bubble
pop?

Did
it
already
happen,
and
if
so,
what
does
that
mean
for
schools
that
have
integrated
LLMs
into
their
curricula?
As
much
as
I’d
like
to
give
you
the
answers
now,
it
looks
like
we’ll
just
have
to
wait
and
see.
In
the
meantime,
get
to
studying!

Harvey
Expands
Law
School
Program
to
the
United
Kingdom
[Harvey.ai]

Earlier:

Harvey
Snags
Even
More
Seats
In
The
T14!

Harvey
Begins
Law
School
Program
To
Get
Students
Hooked

---

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.

Law
firms
that
embrace
professional
business
platforms
like
8am
are
reclaiming time,
reducing
risk,
and
delivering
standout
client
experiences.

Our
friends
at
8am
have
recently
created
this
list
of
the
benefits
modern
solutions
can
bring
to
your
firm.

Sign
up
today
and
get
your
free
copy!

  

On
Friday
afternoon,
cosplay
US
Attorney
Lindsey
Halligan
defended
her
A-plus
prosecuting
chops.

“There
are
no
missing
minutes,
contrary
to
the
suggestion
raised
by
the
court,”
she

huffed,
insisting
that
there
was
definitely
no
gap
in
the
record
of
her
presentation
to
the
grand
jury
that
indicted
Jim
Comey.

Halligan
was
so
indignant
that
she
docketed
three
filings
attesting
to
her
fitness
—

twice.

Or
perhaps
she
did
it
to
correct
this
embarrassing
typo
in
the

first
batch.

Simply
stated,
inability
to
proofread
is
the
least
of
the
problems
here.
Halligan’s
appointment
as
US
Attorney
for
the
Eastern
District
of
Virginia
was
almost
certainly
illegal.
And
even
if
Halligan

was
legally
appointed,
her
own
incompetence
and
missteps
might
well
doom
this
case
anyway.

Mind
the
gap

Initially
Halligan
tried
to
secure
a
three-count
indictment
charging
the
former
FBI
director
with:
1)
false
statements
under
questioning
by
Senator
Lindsey
Graham;
2)
false
statements
under
questioning
by
Senator
Ted
Cruz;
and
3)
obstruction
of
Congress.
The
jurors
rejected
the
first
charge,
but
indicted
on
the
second
and
third.
And
then
things
went
totally
sideways.

As
Empty
Wheel’s
Marcy
Wheeler

notes,
there
are
at
least
three
signed
versions
of
the
Comey
indictment.
The

first
contains
three
counts,
labeled
Count
1,
Count
2,
and
Count
2.
The

second
labels
them
as
Counts
1,
2,
and
3.
And
the

third
correctly
states
that
the
jury
returned
charges
on
just
two
counts.

Judge
Cameron
McGowan
Currie,
who
was
seconded
from
South
Carolina
to
hear
the
disqualification
motion,
signaled
that
something
went
awry
when
either
Halligan
or
her
first
assistant
Maggie
Cleary
was
negotiating
to
get
a
clean
“true
bill.”
After
first

ordering
the
government
to
produce
the
grand
jury
record
on
October
28,
the
judge
issued
a

second
order
calling
the
prior
production
incomplete
and
directing
Halligan
to
produce
everything,
including
“statements
made
prior
to
and
after
the
testimony
of
the
witness
and
during
the
presentation
of
the
three-count
and
subsequent
two-count
indictments.”

At
the
hearing
on
Thursday,
she
suggested
that
the
record
still
contained
a
139-minute
gap.
According
to

Politico,
“Currie
said
that
it
appeared
at
about
4:28
p.m.
on
the
day
the
indictment
was
returned
in
September,
there
was
no
court
reporter
in
the
room
to
transcribe
the
proceedings,
leaving
no
record
of
the
final
minutes
of
the
grand
jury’s
session.”

Many
observers
interpreted
this
as
indicating
that
Halligan
presented
the
case
without
a
court
reporter
present
—
an
almost
insane
level
of
incompetence
(or
malice).
The
DOJ
rushed
out
a
statement
denying
it,
and
on
Friday,
Halligan
docketed
a
declaration
insisting
that
“the
period
in
question
consisted
solely
of
the
grand
jury’s
private
deliberations,
during
which
no
prosecutor,
court
reporter,
or
other
person
may
be
present
pursuant
to
Rule
6(d)
of
the
Federal
Rules
of
Criminal
Procedure.”

She
says
she
concluded
her
presentment
at
4:28pm
and
then
wandered
off
to
do

very
serious
prosecutor
stuff
until:

Approximately
two
hours
later,
at
06:40
PM,
I
was
notified
by
then-First
Assistant
United
States
Attorney
Maggie
Cleary
that
the
grand
jury
had
returned
a
true
bill
as
to
the
presented
Count
Two
and
Count
Three
of
the
indictment
and
that
the
grand
jury
had
not
returned
a
true
bill
as
to
the
presented
Count
One.
I
then
proceeded
to
the
courtroom
for
the
return
of
the
indictment
in
front
of
the
magistrate
judge.

Good
to
know
that
she
took
the
court
reporter
in
there
for
her
case
in
chief!
And
yet
…
this
does
not
explain
how
she
came
to
have
three
signed
copies
of
the
same
indictment.

There
are
a
lot
of
ways
that
this
could
have
gone
down,
but
that’s
not
one
of
‘em.
Some
sort
of
way,

someone
went
back
to
the
jury
foreperson
and
got
another
signature.

Here’s
how
the

Washington
Post
said
it
happened:

[Halligan]
and
First
Assistant
U.S.
Attorney
Mary
M.
“Maggie”
Cleary
were
in
the
Alexandria
courtroom
when
the
indictment
was
delivered
to
U.S.
Magistrate
Judge
Lindsey
R.
Vaala
on
Thursday
evening.
[…]
The
grand
jury
foreperson
told
Vaala
that
the
panel
had
rejected
one
of
three
counts
in
the
originally
submitted
indictment.

Prosecutors
then
presented
a
revised
indictment,
the
foreperson
said,
containing
only
the
two
counts
that
the
grand
jury
had
agreed
on
and
with
which
Comey
was
eventually
charged.

The
judge
received
both
indictments
Thursday
evening
and
noted
she
was
puzzled
by
the
outcome.

“This
has
never
happened
before.
I’ve
been
handed
two
documents
…
with
a
discrepancy,”
Vaala
said.
“I’m
a
little
confused
why
I
was
handed
two
things
…
that
were
inconsistent.”

Halligan
said
at
the
lectern
she
hadn’t
seen
the
first
indictment
that
was
rejected,
but
Vaala
noted
Halligan
appeared
to
have
signed
that
original
document.
[Emphasis
added.]

In
her
declaration,
Halligan
insists
that
“During
the
intermediary
time,
between
concluding
my
presentation
and
being
notified
of
the
grand
jury’s
return,
I
had
no
interaction
whatsoever
with
any
members
of
the
grand
jury.”
That
might
well
be
true.
And
it
might
also
be
true
that
“At
every
moment
I
was
in
front
of
the
grand
jury,
the
court
reporter
was
also
present.”

But
that
still
leaves
a
hole
in
the
record,
and
that
hole
has
other
implications
for
the
case.

Lipstick
on
a
pig

Judge
Currie
was
assigned
from
South
Carolina
to
hear
the
motion
to
dismiss
based
on
Halligan’s
unlawful
appointment
as
US
Attorney
for
the
Eastern
District
of
Virginia.
During
his
second
term,
Trump
has
largely
ignored
his
statutory
and
constitutional
obligation
to
get
Senate
approval
for
US
Attorneys.
Instead,
Bondi
does
a
sort
of

three-hat
dance
to
ensure
that
Trump’s
preferred
prosecutors
can
exercise
the
power
of
the
office
past
the
120-day
interim
term
set
out
in
28
USC
§
546.

First
she
appoints
the
crony
under
§
546;
then
she
purports
to
make
the
crony
their
own
first
assistant,
so
that
they
are
automatically
promoted
to
acting
US
Attorney
when
the
120
days
expires;
and
then
for
good
measure,
she
designates
the
crony
as
a
special
counsel
under
28
USC
§
515.

Bondi’s
relied
on
this
gambit
since
July,
when
she
first
used
it
for
John
Sarcone,
III
in
the
Northern
District
of
New
York.
And
even
when
courts
ruled
that
the
crony
can’t
hold
the
position
of
US
Attorney,
the
office’s
prosecutions
have
survived.
But
for
whatever
reason,
on
September
22
Bondi
appointed
Halligan
based
on
§
546
alone.
And
she’s
been
trying
to
undo
the
damage
ever
since.

On
Halloween,
Bondi
attempted
to
clean
up
the
mess
by

ratifying
the
indictment
and
retroactively
installing
Halligan
as
special
attorney
under
§
515
as
of
September
22.
Trick
or
treat!

There
are
several
problems
with
this
stratagem.
First
of
all,
that’s
not
how
linear
time
works,
Pam!
Second,
by
this
logic,
any
rando
off
the
street
could
present
a
case
to
a
grand
jury
—
which
is
more
or
less
what
happened
here
—
and
it
would
be

fine
as
long
as
the
AG
blessed
it
after
the
fact.
Why
bother
to
nominate
a
US
attorney
at
all?

At
Thursday’s
hearing
last
week,
Judge
Currie
suggested
Bondi
could
not
have
ratified
the
indictment
(or
indictments)
on
October
31
because
she
hadn’t
seen
the
full
presentment
to
the
grand
jury.

“It
became
obvious
to
me
that
the
attorney
general
could
not
have
reviewed
those
portions
of
the
transcript
presented
by
Ms.
Halligan,”
the
judge
said,
according
to

Politico.

By
the
government’s
own
admission
the
DOJ
did
not
request
a
transcript
of
the
“entire
recording”
until
after
being
ordered
to
do
so
in
Judge
Currie’s

second
order
on
November
4.
And
so,
on
Friday
Bondi
submitted
yet

another
declaration
purporting
to
re-ratify
the
indictment
based
on
a
review
of
the
“full”
record.

“For
the
avoidance
of
doubt,
I
have
reviewed
the
entirety
of
the
record
now
available
to
the
government
and
confirm
my
knowledge
of
the
material
facts
associated
with
the
grand
jury
proceedings,”
she
wrote
“Based
on
that
knowledge,
I
hereby
exercise
the
authority
vested
in
the
Attorney
General
by
law,
including
28
U.S.C.
§
509,
510,
and
518(b),
to
ratify
Ms.
Halligan’s
actions
before
the
grand
jury
and
her
signature
on
the
indictment
returned
by
the
grand
jury.”

Which
is
all
well
and
good
if
the
court
accepts
that
the
attorney
general
can
ratify
an
illegally
obtained
indictment
post
facto.
And
that
she
can
retroactively
appoint
someone
as
a
special
counsel.
And
that
there
really
are
no
more
“gaps”
in
the
record.

If
not
…
this
indictment
is
DOA.

Oh,
and
PS,
Cleary
was fired two
weeks
later.
Prolly
just
a
coincidence,
right?

Aaaaaaand
right
on
time,
Magistrate
Judge
Fitzpatrick

ordered
the
government
to
release
the
grand
jury
transcripts
to
Comey
based
on
a
mere
11
independent
grounds.

Subscribe
to
read
more
at
Law
and
Chaos….

---

Liz
Dye produces
the
Law
and
Chaos Substack and podcast. You
can
subscribe
by
clicking
the
logo:

Kim
Kardashian
is
back
on
her

“I’m-going-to-be-a-lawyer-dammit”
grind,
and
this
time
she’s
giving
the
world
exactly
what
the

California
Bar
never
will:
transparency.
Earlier
this
month,
Kim

failed
the
bar
exam,
but
instead
of
slinking
away,
she
posted
a
full
emotional
montage
of
her
study
saga:
handwritten
notes,
panic
spirals,
and
the
ugly
crying
she’s
famous
for
included.

Kim’s
video
proudly
features
pages
of
handwritten
notes,
as
though
she
just
discovered
the
pedagogical
magic
of
“writing
things
down.”
It’s
very
earnest.
Very
“I
bought
the
pastel
highlighters
so
now
I’m
basically
Elle
Woods.”
Honestly,
it’s
almost
wholesome
watching
the
billionaire
who
built
an
empire
on
overpriced
loungewear
embrace
the
radical
act
of…
making
flashcards.

Then
we
get
the
waterworks.
Like,
full
meltdown.
She’s
exhausted,
terrified,
and
mumbling
about
her
brain
dissolving…
which,
to
be
fair,
is
a
universal
bar
exam
experience.
She
even
shows
off
a
back
brace,
because
apparently
torts
aren’t
the
only
thing
causing
pain
here.

If
you’ve
ever
stared
at
a
bar
prep
essay
question
and
wondered
why
your
life
choices
brought
you
to
this
moment,
congratulations:
you
and
Kim
Kardashian
now
have
something
in
common.

As
always,
the
wild
part
of
the
Kardashian
bar
journey
is
that
she’s
not
doing
this
the
normal
way.
No
law
school.
No
cold
calls.
No
gunners.
She’s
apprenticing
her
way
into
the
legal
profession
like
it’s
still
1827.
It’s
admirable!
It’s
unconventional!
It’s…
perhaps
not
the
optimal
approach
for
the
nation’s
most
notoriously
sadistic
bar
exam,
but
hey,
points
for
dedication.

And
Kardashian
has
documented
much
of
the
process on
social
media.
She
shared
her
hatred
of con
law,
struggles with
evidence,
and
a criminal
law
issue
spotter that
cast
Justin
Bieber
as
a
criminal
mastermind.
She’s
complained
about
the
fact
that law
student
life
sucks,
explained
that
she
neglected
her Keeping
Up
With
the
Kardashians livetweeting
duties
to keep
up
with
torts
homework, bailed
on
summer holiday
festivities as
she continued
with
her
contracts
homework,
and
dealt
with
personalized questions
all
about
her.
She
even
has
a
favorite
law
professor
—
University
of
Washington
contracts
professor Steve
Calandrillo —
who she’s
shouted
out
on
Insta. Kardashian
even
has
her
“just
like
us”
moment,
like
when she
posted
about
shooting
tequila
while
studying
torts.

But
really
this
is
the
most
relatable
moment
in
her
quest
to
be
a
lawyer.
Her
struggle
looks
a
lot
like
everyone
else’s
struggle,
minus
the
millions
following
her
journey,
and
ready
to
indulge
in
schadenfreude
when
things
go
pear-shaped.

She’s
tired.
She’s
defeated.
She’s
still
going;
Kardashian
confirmed
she
will
tackle
the
notorious
exam
again.
And
if
Kim
Kardashian
—
a
woman
who
runs
five
companies,
films
two
shows,
and
never
seems
to
sleep
—
can
find
time
to
grind
out
IRACs
and
memorize
hearsay
exceptions,
then
maybe
there’s
hope
for
the
rest
of
us.

---

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].

Source: CBCEW,
CAFOD

After
the
bishops’
autumn
plenary
meeting,
in
a
short
video
interview,
Bishop
Wright
reflected
on
what
he
described
as
profound
and
life-changing
experiences:
“I
was
privileged
to
go
and
visit
the
CAFOD
projects
in
a
very
remote
and
poor
part
of
Zimbabwe,
in
the
northeast
part
of
the
country.”
After
a
six-hour
drive,
half
of
which
was
on
rough
dirt
tracks,
Bishop
Wright
arrived
at
his
destination.

“It’s
a
very
rural
area
–
there
are
no
towns
–
and
the
first
thing
that
strikes
you
is
the
level
of
poverty
that
people
are
living.
For
example,
women
and
children
will
walk
up
to
seven
kilometres
to
get
water.
Children
will
walk
up
to
10
kilometres
to
go
to
school,
and
it
truly
breaks
your
heart
to
see
them
making
their
way
to
and
from
school
–
children
as
young
as
four.”

Bishop
Wright
continued:
“It
was
a
great
privilege
to
see
the
CAFOD
projects
there,
they
were
truly
inspiring.
I
had
the
joy
of
visiting
three
primary
schools
and
a
maternity
unit.”

CAFOD
is
working
with
the
local
Caritas
agencies
in
Rushinga
District
to
provide
schools
and
communities
with
the
amenities
which
will
allow
them
to
flourish.

Bishop
Wright
explained:
“The
first
of
those,
and
by
far
the
most
important,
is
access
to
water.
Bores
are
drilled
down
to
the
water
table,
and
with
simple
water
pumps,
the
community
has
access
to
water,
and
that
is
life-changing
for
so
many
people.
The
second
is
to
provide
solar
panels
for
electricity,
and
the
children
can
even
have
basic
computers.
The
third
part
of
the
programme
is
to
provide
the
children,
and
indeed
the
staff,
with
a
healthy
meal
each
day,
a
very
basic
porridge,
which
is
made
of
millet
and
is
very
nutritious.”

An
important
element
of
the
work
which
CAFOD
and
Caritas
are
doing
in
the
local
communities
is
to
increase
education
and
awareness
about
safeguarding.
When
women
and
children
make
these
long
journeys
on
foot,
their
already
high
vulnerability
increases,
and
so
there
is
a
great
emphasis
placed
on
their
understanding
about
what
is
appropriate
behaviour
towards
them
and
what
is
not,
raising
that
awareness.

Bishop
Wright
described
how
children
are
told
to
share
information
“both
with
the
teachers
and
also
with
the
local
chief,
who
I
was
privileged
to
meet,
and
who
really
is
a
safeguarding
champion
in
his
district.
The
chief
gave
the
children
and
gave
me,
too,
the
assurances
that
he
would
pass
on
any
information
to
the
local
authorities
and
indeed
the
police.
You
can
see
that
that
is
taking
place.”

The
local
Church
is
also
playing
an
important
role
alongside
Caritas
in
the
empowerment
of
local
communities.

Describing
his
stay
with
the
local
parish
priest,
Bishop
Wright
said,
“They
are
committed
to
serving
the
poor.
It
is
inspiring.
Jesus
said
we
would
find
him
in
the
poorest
of
the
poor,
and
so
we
do.
CAFOD
speaks
about
nobody
being
beyond
reach,
and
truly
in
that
remote
part
of
Zimbabwe,
they
are
not
beyond
reach.”

Recalling
the
mission
of
Caritas
to
serve
the
poor
regardless
of
their
age,
belief
or
background,
Bishop
Wright
said,
“What
you
can
see
is
the
love
of
the
Lord
being
shared
with
others
and
you
can
see
in
those
small
steps
the
huge
impact
that
it
has
on
the
life
of
others.”

As
well
as
learning
about
the
work
of
CAFOD
and
Caritas
at
the
grassroots,
Bishop
Wright
described
the
visit
as
a
profound
and
life-changing
experience.

“I’ve
never
experienced
poverty
in
a
developing
country
like
I
experienced
in
Rushinga.
It
was
simultaneously
heart-breaking
to
see
the
poverty
that
these
people
live
with,
but
also
full
of
hope.
The
dignity
of
the
people
is
extraordinary.
The
welcome
and
the
joy
of
these
people
is
extraordinary.
Hope
–
real
hope
–
is
given
to
them
with
water,
with
electricity,
with
a
good
meal
each
day,
and
with
the
education
programmes…
you
can
see
how
these
communities
flourish.
The
Chief
Nurse
at
the
maternity
unit
that
I
went
to
took
me
aside
and
said,
‘Bishop
Stephen,
thank
you
for
CAFOD’s
work.
I
can
now
truly
do
my
work
as
I
should
be
able
to
do
it.’
And
that
will
stay
with
me
forever.”

Watch
Bishop
Wright’s
report
here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c_SWLxFZLM

Post
published
in:

Featured