Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature
Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!
According
to
a
report
from
Fairfax
Associates,
in
what
year
were
there
the
most
law
firm
mergers
(71
were
completed
that
year)?
Hint:
Law
firm
merger
mania
hit
a
low
in
2020
(40)
and
has
been
gaining
steam
ever
since.
See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.
America’s
official
Spirit
Halloween
pop-up
has
taken
over
the
Department
of
Justice,
and
the
most
popular
costume
is
“fake
U.S.
Attorney.”
It’s
another
day,
so
we
have
another
Trump
DOJ
appointee
found
illegally
cosplaying
as
a
U.S.
Attorney.
This
time
it’s
Sigal
Chattah,
the
District
of
Nevada’s
interim
top
federal
prosecutor,
who
follows
in
Alina
Habba’s
ignominious
footsteps
by
overstaying
the
120-day
limit
on
her
interim
appointment
and
forcing
a
federal
judge
to
explain
“that’s
not
how
any
of
this
works.”
Just
like
Habba’s
debacle
in
New
Jersey,
the
administration
tried
to
get
around
the
expiration
of
Chattah’s
appointment
by
naming
her
simultaneously
as
her
own
first
assistant
and
claiming
the
Federal
Vacancies
Reform
Act
then
allowed
her
to
automatically
ascend
to
the
acting
U.S.
Attorney
role
when
her
own
job
ended
by
force
of
law.
Make
sense?
Yeah,
a
federal
judge
didn’t
think
so
either.
“The
Court
cannot
accept
the
government’s
assertion
that
the
Attorney
General
has
power
to
designate
anyone
she
chooses
as
first
assistant
and
have
that
person
become
the
acting
U.S.
Attorney,”
the
judge
wrote
in
a
32-page
ruling.
“The
[Federal
Vacancies
Reform
Act]
was
enacted
to
put
an
end
to
precisely
such
Executive
actions.”
Chattah
earned
her
temporary
position
as
the
top
prosecutor
in
Nevada
the
same
way
most
Trump
appointees
did:
by
being
a
shameless
loyalist
with
few
qualifications.
Before
her
appointment,
Chattah
made
a
name
for
herself
in
MAGAhead
circles
for
challenging
public
health
mandates
during
COVID
and
flirting
with
election
denialism.
With
support
from
such
unimpeachable
supporters
as
Matt
Gaetz,
Chattah
got
herself
on
the
Republican
National
Committee
and
then
appointed
to
the
interim
U.S.
Attorney
job
despite
a
lack
of
prosecutorial
experience.
Alas,
these
jobs
still
require
Senate
approval
to
become
permanent
and
the
Senate
still,
for
now,
respects
the
blue
slip
process
for
these
jobs.
Neither
Nevada
senator
had
any
interest
in
supporting
Chattah’s
confirmation.
In
part
because
of
Chattah’s
past
text
messages
saying
Nevada
Attorney
General,
Aaron
Ford,
“should
be
hanging
from
a
fucking
crane.”
Which
is
weird
because
we’ve
spent
the
last
few
weeks
hearing
all
about
how
political
violence
is
exclusively
a
Democrat
problem,
so
it’s
just
crazy
to
think
a
Trump
appointee
would
casually
joke
about
lynching
a
Black
man.
Could
that
have
just
been
a
disingenuous
lie
spread
by
an
administration
attempting
to
stir
up
its
own
personal
Reichstag
fire?
Next
thing
you’re
going
to
tell
me
Portland
isn’t
really
a
war-torn
hellhole!
Those
texts
about
Ford
became
public
in
2022,
by
the
way.
So
she
got
this
job
after
everyone
knew
about
that.
Judge
David
Campbell,
a
fellow
Republican
appointee,
but
one
who
was
actually
capable
of
being
confirmed
by
the
Senate
because
the
W.
Bush
administration
is
somehow
a
halcyon
era
of
lawfulness,
put
a
stop
to
Chattah’s
attempt
to
seize
the
job
through
adverse
possession.
In
a
challenge
brought
by
criminal
defendants
challenging
their
indictments
on
the
grounds
that
Chattah,
you
know,
isn’t
really
the
U.S.
Attorney,
Judge
Campbell
ruled
that
Chattah
cannot
legally
oversee
their
cases.
More
or
less
exactly
how
the
Habba
case
went
down.
Judge
Campbell
did
keep
the
indictments
intact,
which
speaks
to
the
judiciary’s
unwillingness
to
let
go
anyone
that
a
grand
jury
has
already
decided
very
well
could
be
criminals.
Unfortunately,
that
just
emboldens
the
administration
to
keep
their
fake
U.S.
Attorneys
on
the
job
and
just
let
Todd
Blanche
or
someone
else
in
D.C.
absent-mindedly
co-sign
their
decisions.
But
if
the
calls
are
coming
from
people
without
the
legal
authority
to
pursue
those
cases,
they
are
tainted
—
full
stop.
This
nonsense
is
going
to
continue
until
a
judge
is
willing
to
let
a
drug
kingpin
loose
over
this.
Not
that
the
federal
government
is
even
trying
to
stop
drug
kingpins
at
this
point.
(Check
out
the
opinion
on
the
next
page…)
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.
This
week,
I’m
at
the
Filevine
User
LEX
Summit
in
Salt
Lake
City.
Two
announcements
were
particularly
significant
for
the
legal
tech
landscape.
These
announcements
reflect
the
desire
of
customers
to
have
seamless
AI
tools
for
a
number
of
uses
within
a
single
platform,
and
separately,
address
some
key
pain
points.
(I’ll
provide
my
overall
impressions
of
the
conference
and
cover
other
announcements
in
a
separate
piece.)
I
had
a
chance
to
talk
to
Alex
McLaughlin,
Filevine’s
VP
of
Product,
and
Keegan
Chapman,
Filevine’s
Chief
Marketing
Officer,
at
some
length
about
both
of
these
tools.
Legal
Research
Yes,
you
read
that
subheading
correctly:
Filevine
is
entering
the
highly
competitive
legal
research
provider
field
along
with
Thomson
Reuters,
LexisNexis,
and
vLex.
The
new
tool
is
housed
within
Filevine’s
Chat
with
My
Case
platform.
This
platform
generally
enables
users
to
ask
questions
of
all
the
internal
materials
and
documents
housed
in
a
law
firm’s
Filevine
system.
But
the
legal
research
end
of
this
goes
further.
According
to
McLaughlin,
the
platform
bundles
the
information
contained
in
the
internal
case
files
of
a
firm
with
the
legal
research
inquiry.
This
enables
the
prompt
response
to
be
better
tailored
to
the
actual
facts
of
the
case,
according
to
McLaughlin.
That
sounds
pretty
interesting
and
reflects
the
needs
of
law
firms
to
be
able
to
effectively
use
the
mass
of
information
contained
in
their
files
with
publicly
available
materials.
I
have
written
about
this
need
before.
Those
bundled
inquiries
then
go
to
public
LLMs
and
data
sources
to
obtain
final
responses.
According
to
McLaughlin,
the
tools
will
be
able
to
search
though
statutes,
regulations,
and
federal
and
state
case
law
to
come
up
with
an
answer.
It
will
also
handle
things
like
social
media
searches
without
leaving
the
platform.
Filevine
hopes
to
make
this
tool
available
later
this
year.
Some
Questions
Of
course,
a
couple
of
issues
immediately
come
to
mind.
First
is
the
data
source.
McLaughlin
told
me
that
Filevine
is
working
on
partnering
with
a
combination
of
sources
for
the
data
base.
This
ability
to
leverage
multiple
data
sources,
McLaughlin
argues,
will
make
for
more
effective
answers,
which
also
makes
sense.
The
deal
(or
deals)
are
not
yet
done,
however.
Filevine
hopes
to
announce
the
agreements
in
the
near
future.
Secondly,
because
the
queries
are
bundling
internal
data
which
could
very
well
include
client
confidences
and
work
product,
there
are
confidentiality
concerns.
But
McLaughlin
counters
that
by
saying
Filevine’s
scale
has
enabled
it
to
negotiate
agreements
with
leading
LLM
providers
to
ensure
that
the
inquiries
are
not
used
for
training
and
will
not
be
retained
or
stored.
Any
confidential
data,
says
McLaughlin,
will
only
be
used
in
processing,
so
no
worries.
I
hope
that’s
the
case
although
I
haven’t
reviewed
the
actual
contracts,
of
course.
I
asked
about
hallucinations
and
inaccuracies.
McLaughlin
told
me
that
the
tool
will
cross
check
the
LLM
responses
against
the
data
bases
of
legal
materials
to
catch
any
variance
from
the
actual
data.
Conceptually
that
sounds
good,
but
time
will
tell
how
robust
the
tool
will
really
be.
This
is
a
significant
development
since
it
enables
firms
to
marry
their
internal
case
data
with
publicly
available
AI
processing
to
get
results.
It
will
eliminate
the
need
to
recreate
internal
information
for
use
with
the
sophisticated
LLM
tools.
It
will
eliminate
the
need
to
purchase
one
AI
system
for
internal
data
and
one
system
for
legal
research
needs.
And
it
will
enable
access
to
that
important
internal
data.
That’s
big.
It
should
make
other
legal
research
companies
that
don’t
have
the
capacity
to
access
and
mine
that
internal
data
take
note.
Depositions
by
Filevine
The
second
set
of
announcements
centers
around
Filevine’s
deposition
tool.
Last
year
when
I
attended
this
conference,
Filevine
announced
CoPilot,
a
tool
that
sits
on
an
attorney’s
laptop
and
could
suggest
questions
based
on
predetermined
goals.
It
also
identifies
inconsistencies
in
testimony,
flags
vague
or
unresponsive
answers,
suggests
follow-up
questions
and
even
lets
you
know
if
your
questions
need
clarifying.
All
in
real
time
while
the
deposition
is
being
taken.
In
many
respects,
it’s
like
having
a
very
capable
second-chair
person
in
the
deposition
that
can
listen
and
help
the
questioner
out.
(Without
getting
tired
or
being
inattentive.)
I
wrote
about
it
at
the
time
and
felt
it
was
a
significant
advance
in
the
use
of
AI
in
litigation.
I
also
interviewed
McLaughlin
on
my
podcast
late
last
year.
Filevine
has
renamed
this
tool
as
Depositions
by
Filevine
and
added
some
additional
features.
At
first
glance,
these
features
don’t
seem
all
that
significant.
But
their
significance
lies
in
the
fact
that
Filevine
took
a
hard
look
at
individually
minor
pain
points
and
addressed
them
in
what
appear
to
be
good
ways.
The
first
is
a
deposition
scheduling
tool.
This
tool
automates
noticing
the
deposition,
getting
the
court
reporter,
and
calendaring
the
deposition
for
all
involved.
You
merely
input
the
time,
date,
and
involved
parties,
and
the
tool
automatically
does
the
rest.
It
even
contacts
the
other
side
and
automates
the
process
of
agreeing
on
a
date.
I
know
from
experience
that
all
these
things
if
done
manually
take
time
for
someone,
either
a
lawyer
or
legal
professional,
to
do.
It’s
irritating
and
frustrating
work
to
have
to
call
a
court
reporter,
then
the
other
side,
then
wait
for
the
return
calls,
etc.
McLaughlin
told
me
another
new
feature
is
the
ability
to
create
a
live
transcript
within
approximately
90
minutes
of
the
deposition
that
can
be
immediately
searched
and
analyzed.
It
beats
waiting
two
weeks
to
get
a
transcript
that
you
then
often
have
to
convert
to
a
different
format
to
use.
It
also
automates
the
ability
to
request
a
certified
transcript
that
can
be
obtained
within
a
week
or
so.
Certified
transcripts
can
be
expensive
and
are
often
not
needed
unless
a
case
goes
to
trial.
Automating
the
request
for
one
means
you
can
wait
until
you
are
sure
a
matter
is
going
to
trial
before
you
spend
the
money.
The
tool
automatically
places
all
the
depositions
in
a
matter
in
a
central
library
that
can
be
accessed
with
natural
language
inquires.
Filevine
also
announced
a
video
clipping
tool
that
makes
that
process
so
much
easier.
And
one
final
and
not
insignificant
point:
Law
firms
can
purchase
the
Depositions
by
Filevine
tool
as
a
stand-alone
product.
They
don’t
have
to
buy
the
whole
Filevine
suite
of
products.
It
allows
firms
to
use
a
Filevine
product
without
a
full
commitment.
That
shows
confidence.
These
deposition
tools
target
genuine
friction
points
in
litigation
practice.
None
of
them
involve
skills
for
which
these
folks
have
been
trained.
Many
of
these
involve
activities
and
time
for
which
clients
are
increasingly
unwilling
to
pay.
Why
These
Particular
Announcements
Are
Significant
I
can’t
speak
to
how
well
both
the
legal
research
and
deposition
tools
will
actually
work.
But
they
reflect
a
recognition
by
Filevine
of
some
important
marketing
opportunities
that
are
often
overlooked
by
other
vendors.
First,
lawyers
and
law
firms
want
tools
that
work
entirely
within
one
vendor’s
platform.
No
one
likes
moving
from
one
vendor
to
another
to
get
work
done.
Secondly,
it’s
a
classic
example
of
looking
for
and
addressing
pain
points
even
when
those
pain
points
don’t
initially
appear
to
look
significant.
By
doing
so,
it
builds
trust.
And
finally,
offering
a
standalone
tool
that
addresses
real
needs
is
golden.
Law
firms
can
put
their
toe
in
the
water
with
a
tool,
see
how
well
it
works,
and
whether
it
addresses
a
real
need
they
have.
When
it
comes
time
to
look
at
tech
tools
for
other
needs
now
or
in
the
future,
where
are
they
going
to
look?
At
unknown
providers?
Or
at
a
provider
that
gave
them
something
good
even
if
for
a
limited
need?
Again,
I
can’t
talk
about
implementation
and
execution.
But
I
do
applaud
the
thinking
and
approach.
I
only
wish
more
vendors
would
do
the
same.
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.
Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,
Quote
of
the
Day.
A
swing
justice
— that
makes
it
sound
like
you
sort
of
are
swinging
back
and
forth,
and
you
can’t
make
up
your
mind.
And
that
is
not
my
approach
to
judging.
People
might
agree
or
disagree
with
either
the
philosophy
or
the
result
that
I
reach
in
applying
that
philosophy
in
an
individual
case,
but
I
don’t
think
of
myself
as
a
swing
justice.
—
Justice
Amy
Coney
Barrett,
in
comments
given
during
the
inaugural
SCOTUSBlog Summit,
concerning
the
times
she
has
made
decisions
that
go
against
the
Trump
administration’s
wishes.
This
has
sparked
harsh
criticism,
of
which
the
justice
said,
“I’ve
had
to
just
learn
to
tune
it
out
because
it’s
the
job
of
a
judge
to
ignore
that
and
not
be
influenced
by
public
opinion.”
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.
Donald
Trump’s war
on
Biglaw,
through unconstitutional
Executive
Orders designed to
break
major
law
firms unless
they bend
a
knee to
Trump,
has
already
had
a
tremendous
impact
on
the
industry.
In
the face
of
financial
harm, nine
major
firms sought Trump’s
seal
of
approval,
providing
pro
bono
payola,
that
is,
free
legal
services
on
behalf
of conservative
clients
or
causes in
order
to
avoid
Trumpian
retribution.
But the
chilling
effect is
even
greater
than
those
capitulating
firms,
because
pro
bono
and
public
interest
representations by
Biglaw
firms are
down
— significantly —
as
firms
don’t
want
to
risk
Trump’s
ire.
There
have
been
a
few
examples
of
Biglaw
firms
that
capitulated
to
Trump
stepping
up
to
provide
the
kinds
of
legal
representation
the
nation
is
particularly
desperate
for
in
2025,
but
it’s
far
from
enough
to
cover
the
need
that
exists.
It’s
clear
that
Biglaw isn’t
going
to
be our
savior,
and
small
and
boutique
law
firms
have
helped
fill
in
the
gap.
But
the
legal
landscape
keeps
on
getting
worse,
and
it’s
really
an
all-hands-on-deck
moment.
Good
thing
there’s
Democracy
Forward,
a
501(c)(3)
legal
organization
that
has
more
than
100
actions
against
the
Trump
administration
in
2025.
As Skye
Perryman,
CEO
and
president,
told
Law.com,
“The
demand
for
our
work
has
grown
much
greater.
There
are
a
number
of
law
firms
that
are
not
taking
on
the
level
of
pro
bono
work,
the
level
of
pro
democracy
work
that
they
did
in
the
first
Trump
administration,
or
that
they
have
historically,
as
a
result
of
the
president’s
strategy
to
try
to
intimidate
institutions.”
And
Democracy
Forward
is
filling
in
the
void
created
by
Biglaw’s
withdrawal,
Perryman
continued,
“We
have
a
number
of
clients
and
people
and
communities,
diverse
groups,
coming
to
us
needing
that
representation
that
they
would
have
otherwise
got
from
the
private
sector.”
Democracy
Forward,
which
was
created
in
the
wake
of
the
first
Trump
administration,
is
staffed
by
many
former
Biglaw
and
government
attorneys.
And
they’ve
expanded
to
150
staff
members,
putting
them
in
an
excellent
position
to
continue
the
legal
fight
against
Trump.
“We
have
always
prioritized
having
full-time
legal
staff
so
that
we
could
be
able
to
take
on
matters
ourselves
when,
for
instance,
larger
institutions
like
some
of
the
elite
law
firms
that
are
not
taking
on
pro
bono
matters,
pull
back,”
said
Perryman.
“That’s
why
the
demand
for
our
work
has
exponentially
grown.”
And
it
only
looks
like
Democracy
Forward
will
get
busier.
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].
Biglaw
firms
want
their
attorneys
to
have
more
of
a
physical
presence
in
the
office,
and
attendance
mandates
continue
to
be
rolled
out
—
not
just
in
the
United
States,
but
abroad
as
well.
Now,
one
of
the
world’s
top
firms
is
upping
its
facetime
requirements,
but
the
policy
isn’t
as
harsh
as
it
could
be…
not
yet,
at
least.
Starting
in
November,
DLA
Piper
—
a
firm
that
brought
in
$4,239,832,000
gross
revenue
in
2024,
putting
it
at
No.
3
on
the
Global
200
—
will
increase
its
in-person
attendance
policy
to
three
days
for
all
personnel
in
its
offices
outside
of
America.
The
firm
is
one
of
the
last
of
the
global
elites
to
resist
a
four-day
work
week
for
non-U.S.
attorneys
and
staff.
This
news
comes
hot
on
the
heels
of
the
firm’s
decision
to
require
that
its
U.S.
corporate
attorneys
work
from
the
office
four
days
each
week.
Per
Law.com
International,
a
DLA
Piper
spokesperson
offered
the
following
comment
on
the
firm’s
move:
“We
are
updating
our
international
approach
to
hybrid
working
as
of
November
2025
to
ask
our
people
to
attend
the
office
at
least
three
days
a
week,
moving
from
our
previous
requirement
of
at
least
50%.“This
update
reflects
the
value
we
see
in
face-to-face
collaboration
and
the
benefits
of
an
engaged
office
culture,
while
still
maintaining
flexibility
for
our
people.
We
remain
committed
to
supporting
our
people
with
the
tools
and
working
arrangements
they
need
to
balance
productivity
and
wellbeing.”
At
least
six
U.S.-based
firms
have
already
transitioned
employees
to
a
four-day
office
presence
in
London
(Covington;
Kirkland;
Ropes
&
Gray;
Skadden;
Vinson
&
Elkins;
and
Weil
Gotshal).
It
is
unknown
at
this
time
whether
additional
firms
plan
to
go
this
route.
As
soon
as
you
find
out
about
office
attendance
plans
at
your
firm,
please email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Office
Reopening”)
or
text
us
at (646)
820-8477.
We
always
keep
our
sources
on
stories
anonymous.
There’s
no
need
to
send
a
memo
(if
one
exists)
using
your
firm
email
account;
your
personal
email
account
is
fine.
If
a
memo
has
been
circulated,
please
be
sure
to
include
it
as
proof;
we
like
to
post
complete
memos
as
a
service
to
our
readers.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
attach
as
a
picture
if
you
are
worried
about
metadata
in
a
PDF
or
Word
file.
Thanks.
DLA
Piper
Ups
In-Office
Attendance
to
3
Days
A
Week
[Law.com
International]
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.
Known
firebrand
leftist
Ronald
Reagan
stacked
the
courts
with
woke
activist
judges
who
keep
blocking
Donald
Trump’s
glorious
agenda!
First,
Judge
John
Coughenour
blocks
the
executive
order
erasing
the
Fourteenth
Amendment’s
citizenship
guarantee
as
if
some
“Constitution”
constrains
presidential
action.
Now,
Judge
William
Young
of
the
District
of
Massachusetts
unleashes
a
massive
excoriation
of
the
Trump
administration’s
effort
to
use
immigration
law
to
attack
campus
free
speech.
Meanwhile,
somewhere
out
there,
the
Democratic
Party’s
elected
leaders
considered
sending
Trump
a
polite
letter
of
concern.
Judge
Young’s
161-page
decision
ripped
the
administration
for
flexing
immigration
laws
to
abduct
and
threaten
to
deport
individuals
legally
within
the
United
States
based
on
pro-Palestinian
statements.
The
sweeping
opinion
comes
after
a
bench
trial
conducted
to
determine
if
the
administration
acted
to
unconstitutionally
chill
the
free
speech
rights
of
non-citizen
members
of
plaintiff
educational
associations.
Judge
Young
doesn’t
waste
much
time
getting
to
the
crux
of
it:
This
case
-–
perhaps
the
most
important
ever
to
fall
within
the
jurisdiction
of
this
district
court
–-
squarely
presents
the
issue
whether
non-citizens
lawfully
present
here
in
United
States
actually
have
the
same
free
speech
rights
as
the
rest
of
us.
The
Court
answers
this
Constitutional
question
unequivocally
“yes,
they
do.”
“No
law”
means
“no
law.”
The
First
Amendment
does
not
draw
President
Trump’s
invidious
distinction
and
it
is
not
to
be
found
in
our
history
or
jurisprudence.
See
Section
III.A
infra.
No
one’s
freedom
of
speech
is
unlimited,
of
course,
but
these
limits
are
the
same
for
both
citizens
and
non-citizens
alike.
Armed
with
this
established
principle
of
law,
Judge
Young
determined
that
officials
up
and
down
the
administration
acted
“deliberately
and
with
purposeful
aforethought”
to
chill
First
Amendment
rights.
Judge
Young
received
some
flak
online
for
his
decision
to
open
the
opinion
with
an
anonymous
postcard
he
received:
We
finally
have
a
rhetorical
successor
to
“John
Marshall
has
made
his
decision;
now
let
him
enforce
it!”
and,
appropriate
to
the
2025
America
milieu,
it’s
an
anonymous
postcard
in
all
caps,
haphazardly
hand-scrawled
by
a
lunatic.
Critics
chided
the
judge
for
using
this
as
a
framing
device.
We’re
the
first
to
criticize
judges
for
getting
cute
when
holding
someone’s
life
or
livelihood
in
the
balance.
When
a
judge
decides
to
go
off
with
a
bunch
of
puns
while
denying
a
stay
of
execution,
that’s
wildly
inappropriate.
That’s
not
really
the
case
here.
If
anything,
Judge
Young
is
doing
his
part
to
bring
more
attention
to
the
elevated
threat
level
faced
by
federal
judges
face
in
light
of
the
feckless
Supreme
Court.
The
White
House
has
used
the
Supreme
Court’s
unwillingness
to
explain
its
rubberstamping
of
the
administration
as
a
jumping
off
point
to
whip
Trump’s
followers
into
threatening
any
court
that
might
invoke
existing
precedent
to
place
brakes
on
executive
action.
America
has
always
had
cranks,
but
the
volume
of
cranks
preemptively
mouthing
off
to
judges
in
cases
that
don’t
even
involve
them
is
a
new
phenomenon.
Judges
don’t
have
a
lot
of
opportunities
to
share
what’s
going
on
behind
the
scenes
on
a
stage
as
impactful
as
a
written
opinion.
It
is,
paradoxically,
why
the
conservatives
on
the
Supreme
Court
are
so
adamant
about
not
writing
them.
A
footnote
in
the
opinion
directly
addresses
the
impact
the
shadow
docket’s
“governance
via
Post-It
note”
approach
has
in
emboldening
the
administration’s
lawlessness:
The
flurry
of
activity
on
the
Supreme
Court’s
emergency
docket
is
itself
a
tacit
admission
that,
when
dealing
with
an
administration
that
is
admittedly
seeking
to
“flood
the
zone,”
it
needs
to
intervene
to
correct
rulings
that,
if
not
immediately
remedied,
will
remain
in
effect
far
too
long.
He
leaves
open
to
the
reader
to
work
out
how
the
shadow
docket
is
being
used
instead
to
guarantee
incorrect
ruling
remain
in
effect
far
too
long.
Judge
Young
does
not
take
lightly
the
privilege
he
enjoys
to
enter
his
opinions
into
the
unbroken
line
of
American
jurisprudence.
To
that
end,
he
goes
beyond
the
mere
abuse
of
the
Immigration
and
Nationality
Act
—
which
he
notes
is
unprecedented
in
its
unconstitutional
gall
—
to
call
out
the
tactics
that
the
administration
adopts
to
add
to
the
sense
of
terror
they
can
impose
in
the
name
of
squelching
speech:
And
there’s
the
issue
of
masks.
This
Court
has
listened
carefully
to
the
reasons
given
by
Öztürk’s
captors
for
masking-up
and
has
heard
the
same
reasons
advanced
by
the
defendant
Todd
Lyons,
Acting
Director
of
ICE.
It
rejects
this
testimony
as
disingenuous,
squalid
and
dishonorable.
ICE
goes
masked
for
a
single
reason
—
to
terrorize
Americans
into
quiescence.
Small
wonder
ICE
often
seems
to
need
our
respected
military
to
guard
them
as
they
go
about
implementing
our
immigration
laws.
It
should
be
noted
that
our
troops
do
not
ordinarily
wear
masks.
Can
you
imagine
a
masked
marine?
It
is
a
matter
of
honor
—
and
honor
still
matters.
To
us,
masks
are
associated
with
cowardly
desperados
and
the
despised
Ku
Klux
Klan.
In
all
our
history
we
have
never
tolerated
an
armed
masked
secret
police.
Carrying
on
in
this
fashion,
ICE
brings
indelible
obloquy
to
this
administration
and
everyone
who
works
in
it.
“We
can
not
escape
history,”
Lincoln
righty
said.
“[It]
will
light
us
down
in
honor
or
dishonor,
to
the
latest
generation.”
Abraham
Lincoln,
Second
Annual
Message
to
Congress
(Dec.
1,
1862).
For
those
keeping
score,
this
is
a
Republican-appointed
judge
comparing
the
Republican
administration
to
the
Ku
Klux
Klan.
Remember
this
when
the
White
House
inevitably
blasts
this
as
a
partisan
opinion.
Speaking
of
partisanship,
aside
from
Judge
Young
being,
in
fact,
a
Republican,
some
critics
did
scold
the
judge
for
not
appearing
appropriately
neutral.
This
is
gaslighting.
Judges
shouldn’t
exhibit
bias
—
something
the
Supreme
Court’s
current
majority
consistently
refuses
to
consider
—
but
that’s
not
the
same
thing
as
betraying
a
point
of
view.
An
opinion
about
politicians
making
a
political
decision
to
abuse
their
role
of
public
servants
to
squelch
political
speech
will
always
sound
in
politics.
Without
condemning
the
actions
of
these
politicians,
the
extent
of
the
viewpoint
discrimination
on
display
takes
on
a
“view
from
nowhere”
quality.
It
becomes
the
sort
of
sterile
artifact
casually
tossed
in
the
dustbin
of
history
rather
than
standing
as
an
ongoing
touchstone
in
constitutional
jurisprudence.
To
borrow
from
another
old
Republican
who
would
be
loudly
protesting
this
administration,
“extremism
in
calling
out
constitutional
violations
is
no
vice.”
Vague
demands
of
“neutrality”
are
an
act
of
sentiment
policing
pitched
over
Chick-fil-A
in
the
Federalist
Society
writers’
room
to
help
mute
the
severity
of
constitutional
violations.
It’s
cheap,
bothsiderism
rhetoric
designed
to
normalize
authoritarian
creep
by
scolding
everyone
who
dares
describe
it
as
anything
but
politics
as
usual.
It’s
a
strategy
that’s
enjoyed
undue
success:
Behold
President
Trump’s
successes
in
limiting
free
speech
-–
law
firms
cower,53
institutional
leaders
in
higher
education
meekly
appease
the
President,54
media
outlets
from
huge
conglomerates
to
small
niche
magazines
mind
the
bottom
line
rather
than
the
ethics
of
journalism.5553
But
not
all
of
them.
See
infra.
54
But
not
all
of
them.
See
infra.
55
But
not
all
of
them.
See
infra.
We’ve
talked
a
lot
about
the
cowering
ones.
The
most
important
thing
to
remember
though
is
that
it’s
not
just
the
Nefarious
Nine
firms
who
struck
deals
with
Trump.
Firms
across
the
industry
took
steps
to
avoid
Trump’s
ire
entirely,
quietly
deleting
hiring
initiatives,
firing
HR
staff
who
worked
on
anti-discrimination
efforts,
and
eschewing
social
justice
pro
bono
work.
It
is,
“not
all
of
them,”
but
it’s
a
lot
of
them.
Unfortunately,
the
judge
seems
to
feel
a
little
less
than
enthusiastic
about
the
rule
of
law
right
now.
In
the
golden
age
of
our
democracy,
this
opinion
might
end
here.
After
all,
the
facts
prove
that
the
President
himself
approves
truly
scandalous
and
unconstitutional
suppression
of
free
speech
on
the
part
of
two
of
his
senior
cabinet
secretaries.
One
would
imagine
that
the
corrective
would
follow
as
a
matter
of
course
from
the
appropriate
authorities.
Yet
nothing
will
happen.
The
Department
of
Justice
represents
[]
the
President,
and
Congress
is
occupied
with
other
weighty
matters.
By
“other
weighty
matters,”
he
means
“covering
up
the
Epstein
files.”
The
161-page
missive
ends
on
an
ominous
note:
Freedom
is
a
fragile
thing
and
it’s
never
more
than
one
generation
away
from
extinction.
It
is
not
ours
by
way
of
inheritance;
it
must
be
fought
for
and
defended
constantly
by
each
generation,
for
it
comes
only
once
to
a
people.President
Ronald
Reagan,
Inaugural
Address
as
Governor
of
the
State
of
California
(January
5,
1967).I
first
heard
these
words
of
President
Reagan’s
back
in
2007
when
my
son
quoted
them
in
the
Law
Day
celebration
speech
at
the
Norfolk
Superior
Court.
I
was
deeply
moved
and
hold
these
words
before
me
as
a
I
discharge
judicial
duties.
As
I’ve
read
and
re-read
the
record
in
this
case,
listened
widely,
and
reflected
extensively,
I’ve
come
to
believe
that
President
Trump
truly
understands
and
appreciates
the
full
import
of
President
Reagan’s
inspiring
message
–-
yet
I
fear
he
has
drawn
from
it
a
darker,
more
cynical
message.
I
fear
President
Trump
believes
the
American
people
are
so
divided
that
today
they
will
not
stand
up,
fight
for,
and
defend
our
most
precious
constitutional
values
so
long
as
they
are
lulled
into
thinking
their
own
personal
interests
are
not
affected.Is
he
correct?
Probably.
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.
The
battle
between
Harvard
and
the
Trump
administration
may
soon
be
coming
to
an
end.
Our
great
leader
recently
announced
that
negotiations
are
very
close
to
being
finished:
you
know
things
are
serious
because
he
delivered
the
news
in
person
instead
of
via
a
Truth
Social
post.
New
York
Times
has
coverage:
President
Trump
said
Tuesday
that
his
administration
was
close
to
reaching
a
multimillion-dollar
agreement
with
Harvard
University,
which
would
end
a
monthslong
standoff
that
had
come
to
symbolize
the
resistance
to
the
White
House’s
efforts
to
reshape
higher
education.
…
“We
are
in
the
process
of
getting
very
close,”
President
Trump
said
in
an
appearance
from
the
Oval
Office.
He
added
that
the
details
were
being
finalized
and
said,
“They
would
be
paying
about
$500
million.”
Big
if
here
—
he
said
negotiations
with
Harvard
should
be
done
in
a
week
or
so
back
on
June
20th
—
but
if
the
school
goes
through
with
paying
out
$500M
to
the
Trump
administration,
they
should
expect
a
lot
of
push
back
from
all
of
the
donors
that
dug
deep
and
donated
to
try
and
make
up
for
the
government
playing
hardball
with
their
grants.
And
sure,
the
million
or
so
they
got
in
April
is
a
far
cry
from
the
billions
that
the
government
put
on
hold,
but
the
summary
judgment
ruling
that
the
government’s
funding
freeze
was
unlawful
gave
some
hope
that
the
law
was
on
their
side.
Protracted
fights
suck,
but
this
hardly
seems
like
the
time
to
throw
in
the
towel.
Even
the
prospect
of
surrender
alone
will
have
reputational
consequences:
If
there
is
any
saving
grace
it
would
be
that
the
$500M
is
earmarked
for
trade
schools.
Let’s
see
how
long
it
takes
for
someone
to
discover
whatever
payola
scheme
they’d
have
to
do
to
keep
Trump
happy
was
illegal
the
whole
time.
Trump
Says
A
Deal
With
Harvard
Is
Close
[NYT]
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.
Perennially
embattled
Cooley
Law
School
once
again
called
out
by
the
ABA
over
sagging
bar
passage
rates.
The
school
has
been
out
of
compliance
with
ABA
standards
since
2020,
and
now
finds
itself
on
probation
with
its
accreditor.
And
that
matters
because
law
schools
that
take
student
money
and
then
don’t
set
them
up
for
a
career
are
failing
those
students.
The
last
time
something
like
this
happened,
Cooley
sued
the
ABA
into
relenting.
History
is
a
flat
circle.
After
learning
that
Paul
Weiss
and
Kirkland
were
providing
free
legal
services
to
the
Commerce
Department,
presumably
in
an
effort
to
satisfy
their
pro
bono
payola
obligations,
we
wondered
how
this
could
possibly
be
legal
in
light
of
31
U.S.C.
1342.
Apparently,
lawmakers
wondered
the
same
thing.
And
James
Comey
finds
himself
indicted
after
a
whirlwind
that
involved
removing
the
existing
top
federal
prosecutor
for
refusing
to
file
a
sham
case
and
replacing
him
with
an
in-over-her-head
Florida
insurance
lawyer.
The
exodus
of
Biglaw
heavyweights
into
the
boutique
arena
rolls
on,
with
Brown
Rudnick’s
top
litigators
leading
the
charge
this
time.
Michael
Bowe
and
Lauren
Tabaksblat,
formerly
co-chairs
of
the
Am
Law
200
firm’s
litigation
practice,
announced
earlier
this
week
the
opening
of
Brithem
LLP,
a
New
York-based
firm
devoted
exclusively
to
high-stakes
courtroom
advocacy.
At
launch,
Brithem
has
13
professionals
—
including
nine
lawyers,
two
investigators,
and
two
paraprofessionals
—
and
expects
to
reach
at
least
20
attorneys
by
the
first
quarter
of
2026.
Early
hires
include
a
former
Supreme
Court
clerk
joining
as
of
counsel
and
two
Quinn
Emanuel
alumni
stepping
in
as
partners.
Bowe
and
Tabaksblat
hope
to
make
a
big
impact
with
their
new
impact
litigation
firm,
and
Bowe
has
been
quite
direct
about
what
differentiates
Brithem
from
the
firm
he
and
Tabaksblat
left
behind.
“[Biglaw]
is
drunk
on
leverage
and
billables
that
deliver
little
bang
for
the
buck,”
he
said.
“Smart
consumers
of
legal
services
know
better,
want
an
alternative,
and
love
supporting
a
firm
that
is
also
heavily
committed
to
combating
child
abuse,
human
trafficking,
discrimination,
and
other
injustices.”
Perhaps
one
of
the
most
striking
details
of
the
new
boutique
is
its
compensation
model.
The
firm
will
pay
above
the
Cravath
scale,
and
in
a
sharp
departure
from
Biglaw
lockstep,
associates
will
not
be
slotted
strictly
by
class
year.
Bowe
explains
what
that
means:
“We
are
paying
above
the
Cravath
scale
and
are
not
ranking
by
class
year.
If
you
are
performing
above
your
class
level
that
is
where
you
get
paid.
Below
you
get
paid
there.
You
can
go
up
after
down
if
you
get
there.
And
it
is
based
on
performance
and
skill
value
not
billables.
We
want
a
system
that
rewards
associates
who
demonstrate
the
desire
to
become
autonomous
first-chair
lawyers.
We
are
convinced
this
will
result
in
a
product
clients
will
flock
to.”
That
merit-based
approach
is
designed
to
accelerate
the
development
of
young
trial
lawyers
—
a
message
reinforced
by
Tabaksblat,
whom
Chambers
sources
have
said
“commands
the
courtroom.”
She
noted
that
Brithem’s
structure
“offers
a
fast
track”
to
becoming
a
competent
trial
lawyer
and
has
already
attracted
significant
interest
from
ambitious
associates.
Tabaksblat
went
on
to
share
what
litigators
will
really
love
about
the
firm:
“Brithem
is
devoted
to
the
art
of
trial
lawyering
and
using
that
art
to
make
a
difference.
Our
name
is
not
on
the
door
because
the
firm
is
about
our
clients,
not
us.
Our
first
love
is
being
courtroom
advocates
who
deliver
results
for
clients
and
make
a
difference.”
By
pairing
premium
associate
pay
with
a
fast
track
to
the
courtroom,
Brithem
is
positioning
itself
as
both
a
client-focused
alternative
and
proving
ground
for
the
next
generation
of
trial
lawyers.
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.