Author: TSA Press

Justice
Barrett
Shares
Concerns
About
Lawyers
Using
AI
To
Prep
For
Oral
Argument:
Can’t
blame
the
software
for
predicting
obvious
questions.
Nothing
Says
Competency
Like
Lawsuits:
Kash
Patel
gets
the
FBI
sued.
Rookies
Can
Learn
From
Rooks:
Here’s
what
chess
has
to
teach
us
about
lawyering.
Kanye
West
Deposition
Incoming:
This
is
going
to
be
a
great
read.
Passionate
About
Human
Rights?:
These
schools
should
be
on
your
radar!

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

According
to
the
latest
ALM
Midlevel
Associate
Survey,
which
Biglaw
firm
ranks
the
best
in
Miami?

Hint:
The
international
law
firm
has
dual
headquarters
—
in
London
and
Washington
D.C.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Are
you
struggling
to
bring
order
to
the
chaos
of
a
litigation
practice
and
build
long-term
client
relationships?

Adam
Hersh,
the
owner
of
Blue
Chip
Law,
joined
host
Jared
Correia
in
this
episode
of
“Adventures
in
Legal
Tech”
to
discuss
how
he
handles
crisis
litigation
in
his
practice,
how
he
keeps
clients
from
walking
out
the
door,
and
words
of
wisdom
inspired
by
“The
Office.”

How
to
Keep
Clients

What
is
the
secret
to
longevity
in
client
relationships?
Here,
Adam
shares
why
upfront
communication
is
key.

‘Somehow
I
Manage’

Inspired
by
“The
Office’s”
Michael
Scott,
Adam
shares
his
advice
for
helping
your
practice
reach
its
potential.

Hear
the
Full
Conversation

Curious
to
learn
more?
Check
out
this
episode
below.

Decades
ago,
when
I
was
a
baby
lawyer,
I
thought
that
I
wanted
to
be
a
judge.
Judges
ran
courtrooms,
or
the
clerks
did.
The
judge
was
almost
always
a
white
male
(female
judges
hadn’t
really
cracked
the
judicial
glass
ceiling,
let
alone
had
a
person
of
color).
He
belonged
to
the
right,
white
clubs,
could
leave
early
for
a
tee
time
if
all
the
cases
had
either
been
settled,
trialed,
or
off
calendar.
A
judicial
appointment
was
the
cherry
on
top
of
a
legal
career.

Remember
when
being
a
judge
was
something
to
aspire
to?
To
work
hard,
be
recognized
for
that
hard
work
and
superior
ethics
and
be
awarded
a
judgeship
where
you
then
made
less
than
associates
at
a
law
firm?
However,
the
prestige,
respect,
and
encomiums
helped
to
bridge
that
financial
gap.
You
were
no
longer
an
attorney
but
a
judge,
deciding
cases,
settling
disputes,
and 
presiding
over
jury
trials.
That
black
robe
signified
a
number
of
milestones,
and
being
called
“Your
Honor”
never
hurt.
You
were
respected
by
your
peers
and
the
larger
community.

Today,
do
you
think
that
being
a
judge
is
still
something
you
want
to
do? Impressing
the
right
peeps,
building
the
right
CV,
garnering
favorable
comments
from
attorneys
on
both
sides
of
the
aisle?
Being
a
judge
has
always
been
hard
work,
but
in
these
times,
is
the
juice
worth
the
squeeze?

It’s
not
an
idle
question,
given
the
ever-increasing
attacks
(verbal,
threatened
physical,
and
real
physical).
Are
you
willing
to
put
yourself
potentially
in
harm’s
way
to
uphold
the
rule
of
law

and
the
Constitution?

District
Court
Judge
Thomas
Cullen,

in
a
lengthy
dissenting
opinion
and
a
Trump
appointee,
minced
no
words
in
his
defense
of
judges.
Thanks
to
David
Lat
at
Original
Jurisdiction
for
pointing
out
Cullen’s
disgust
with
the
way
things
are.

“[O]ver
the
past
several
months,
principal
officers
of
the
Executive
(and
their
spokespersons)
have
described
federal
district
judges
across
the
country
as
“left-wing,”
“liberal,”
“activists,”
“radical,”
“politically
minded,”
“rogue,”
“unhinged,”
“outrageous,
overzealous,
[and]
unconstitutional,”
“[c]rooked,”
and
worse.
Although
some
tension
between
the
coordinate
branches
of
government
is
a
hallmark
of
our
constitutional
system,
this
concerted
effort
by
the
Executive
to
smear
and
impugn
individual
judges
who
rule
against
it
is
both
unprecedented
and
unfortunate.” 

Sure,
attorneys
criticize
judges
for
their
rulings;
that’s
par
for
the
course
when
you
lose.
However,
Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi
has

decided,
or
rather
derided,
Chief
Justice
John
Roberts
for
what
she
considers
his
failings.

Slings
and
arrows
go
with
being
a
judge.
If
you
doubt
that,
then
check
out
the
website The
Robing
Room.
No
shortage
of
slings
and
arrows
there.
Obviously
some
of
the
comments
are
by
petulant
sore
losers,
but
it’s
hard
to
believe
that
every
single
comment
was
dumped
there
by
ingrates.
Some
judges
are
rightly
called
out
for
their
ineptness,
their
lack
of
judicial
temperament
and
other
qualities
needed
on
the
bench.

However
in
today’s
politically
charged
environment,
does
anyone
still
want
to
be
a
judge?
Why?
Several
examples
should
give
lawyers
pause:

In
2020,
Esther
Salas,
a
federal
district
judge
in
New
Jersey,

survived
an
assault
in
her
home,
but
her
son
was
not
so
lucky.
A
man
posing
as
a
delivery
driver
opened
fire,
killing
Daniel,
her
only
child,
and
wounding
her
husband. Her
efforts
and
those
of
others
resulted
in
the 
passage
of
The
Daniel
Anderl
Judicial
Security
and
Privacy
Act. 

Unfortunately
that
was
no
one-off.

Chicago
2005:
a
disgruntled
loser
in
a
malpractice
case
shot
the
mother
and
husband
of
the
federal
district
judge
who
had
presided
over
the
case.

Just
a
few
examples.
There
are
others
out
there. 
Judges
must
be
circumspect
in
responding
to
criticism,
if
at
all.
At
this
point
in
our
history,
judges
are
not
revered,
they
are
reviled,
especially
if
they
don’t
agree
with
the
administration’s
view
of
what
the
law
is
in
any
particular
case.
Are
judges
who
have
the
temerity
to
disagree
with
the
current
administration
a
dying
breed? 

Growing
up
if
I
showed
a
lack
of
respect
to
my
elders,
I
paid
a
price
for
that
disrespect.
Whether
it
was
being
grounded
or
some
other
consequence,
I
learned
the
hard
way
to
treat
people
with
the
respect
they
deserved,
regardless
of
philosophy.
Maybe
every
judicial
officer
should
have
a
bottle
of
liquid
soap
on
the
bailiff’s
desk
to
use
in
times
of
disrespect.
What
has
happened
to
polite
and
ethical
conduct?
Whoops,
I
forgot,
that
conduct
is
now
modeled
in
47’s
image.

---

Jill
Switzer
has
been
an
active
member
of
the
State
Bar
of
California
for
over
40
years.
She
remembers
practicing
law
in
a
kinder,
gentler
time.
She’s
had
a
diverse
legal
career,
including
stints
as
a
deputy
district
attorney,
a
solo
practice,
and
several
senior
in-house
gigs.
She
now
mediates
full-time,
which
gives
her
the
opportunity
to
see
dinosaurs,
millennials,
and
those
in-between
interact
—
it’s
not
always
civil.
You
can
reach
her
by
email
at




[email protected].

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

I
thought
it
would
be
awful,
and
it’s
mostly
ok.

—




An
anonymous
Am
Law
100
associate’s
response
to
a
question
found
in
the American
Lawyer
Midlevel
Associates
Survey about
what
surprised
them
the
most
about
working
at

their
current
firm.
More
notable
and
quotable
responses
can
be
found here.

---

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.

Too
often,
my
colleagues
in
law
firms
push
back
on
going
in-house
because
they
want
to
stay
longer
to
make
more
money,
gain
experience,
or
find
a
more
fitting
position.
These
can
be
fair
reasons
to
delay
or
avoid
going
in-house
—
especially
if
one
genuinely
enjoys
most
aspects
of
their
law
firm
job.

But
many
don’t
appreciate
their
law
firm
work;
rather,
they
appreciate
the
predictability
law
firms
provide
over
going
in-house.
It
takes
only
a
few
clicks
to
see
which

top
law
firms
matched
Milbank’s
special
bonus
this
summer.
Even
if
your
firm
never
matches,
there’s
comfort
in
knowing
that
a
high
volume
of
work
promises
consistent
and
significant
pay
increases
each
year.
And
those
who
spent
a
few
(or
no)
years
working
before
law
school
may
not
understand
a
world
of
corporate
interviews,
middle
managers,
and
late-night
meals
that
you
cannot
expense.

Let’s
reframe
how
we
compare
in-house
and
law
firm
jobs,
starting
with
the
pay.
Here
are
three
ways
the
money
you
earn
in-house
is
worth
more
than
law
firm
money.

Competitive
Salaries
Exist

Many
in-house
positions
at
large
companies
offer
six-figure
compensation
that
surpass
figures
listed
on
job
postings,
which
often
omit
bonuses,
equity,
or
benefits
from
public
view.
These
positions
exist
for
attorneys
with
as
little
as
two
years
of
experience
and
can
have
compensation
packages
competitive
with
junior
and
mid-level
Am
Law
100
positions.

While
in-house
jobs
still
pay
significantly
less
than
law
firms,
particularly
for
senior
attorneys,
you
might
find
these
jobs
competitive
when
factoring
reduced
hours
and
improved
quality
of
life.

Opportunities
for
Multiple
Streams
of
Income

In-house
jobs
reward
results
over
hours.
So,
an
efficient
in-house
attorney
can
repurpose
extra
hours
for
other
income
opportunities
while
working
the
same
or
less
total
hours
as
they
would
at
a
law
firm.

I
have
in-house
colleagues
who
own
businesses
renting
properties,
running
online
stores,
coaching
junior
professionals,
and
writing
books.
These
pursuits
generate
income
growth
potential
that
they
wouldn’t
find
at
a
law
firm
unless
they
had
equity
or
a
generous
bonus
policy.

I
also
have
colleagues
who
freelance
or
work
part-time
with
skills
they
always
had
or
skills
they
gained
thanks
to
their
newfound
extra
time.
This
work
provides
them
income
predictability
and
the
flexibility
to
start
and
stop
work
depending
on
their
financial
needs.

Gaining
Experience
for
Higher
Income
Jobs

The
road
to
higher
income
over
time
can
be
paved
with
a
variety
of
experiences.
These
experiences
are
something
law
firms,
with
their
intense
specialization,
do
not
always
provide.
Going
in-house
sooner
creates
variety
sooner.
Foremost,
there
is
the
value
of
having
both
law
firm
and
in-house
experience.
You
broaden
your
perspective
and
skills
and
become
more
competitive
for
future
roles
because
you
are
wearing
multiple
hats
beyond
“lawyer”
and
understanding
all
the
facets
of
your
company’s
business.

The
value
of
the
in-house
experience
sets
you
up
for
larger,
higher-paying
companies
who
do
not
want
to
train
a
lawyer
on
how
to
practice
in-house.
Experience
in
a
larger
company
could
open
the
door
to
a
startup
that
pays
a
premium
for
the
risks
of
leaving
a
more
stable
employer.
And
diverse
in-house
legal
experience
could
lead
to
non-legal
roles
that
pay
a
premium
for
business-minded
former
attorneys.

You
can
even
take
your
in-house
experiences
back
to
a
law
firm
and
distinguish
yourself
for
higher
compensation.
You
not
only
offer
business-minded
skills
and
insights
that
are
much
harder
to
develop
as
a
traditional
associate,
but
also
a
potential
book
of
business
based
on
the
network
you
gained
while
in-house.

While
law
firms
can
provide
a
clear
and
predictable
way
to
earn
income,
early
in-house
experience
can
offer
flexibility
and
the
potential
to
grow
your
income
in
ways
that
create
greater
value
over
time.

---

Earl
Grey
(not
his
real
name)
is
an
in-house
attorney
at
a
Fortune
500 tech
company.
You
can reach him by
email
at [email protected].

At
a
time
when
hard-won
discrimination
protections
in
the
U.S.
are
being
steadily
eroded,
we’ve
never
needed
the
passion
and
commitment
of
young
lawyers
aspiring
to
build
careers
in
human
rights
more
than
we
do
today.

The

National
Jurist’s
preLaw
magazine
recently
released
its
ranking
of
the
best
law
schools
for
human
rights
on
its
Human
Rights
Law
Honor
Roll,
highlighting
schools
for
the
strength
of
their
programs.
Here’s
the
methodology
that
was
used:

preLaw
magazine
grades
law
schools
based
on
the
breadth
of
their
curricular
offerings.
Scores
are
weighted
as
follows:
30%
for
a
concentration,
24%
for
a
clinic,
12%
for
a
center,
12%
for
an
externship,
9%
for
a
journal,
8%
for
a
student
group,
5%
for
a
certificate
and
added
value
for
additional
offerings.

Without
further
ado,
according
to
preLaw
Magazine,
these
are
the
law
schools
that
earned
A+
grades
for
their
human
rights
law
programs
(listed
in
alphabetical
order):

• American
  University
• Case
  Western
  Reserve
  U.
• DePaul
  University
• Drake
  University
• Georgetown
  University
• Northeastern
  University
• Regent
  University
• Rutgers
  Law
• University
  of
  California
  Berkeley
• University
  of
  Iowa
• University
  of
  Minnesota
• University
  of
  Pennsylvania

Click here to
see
the
rest
of
the
Honor
Roll.

Congratulations
to
all
of
the
law
schools
that
made
the
cut
for
this
important
ranking.

Top
law
schools
for
health
law
[National
Jurist]

---

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.

It’s
a
new
day
at

8am.
That’s
true
generally,
but
in
this
case,
we’re
talking
about
tech
provider

we
used
to
call
AffiniPay.
Fresh
off
its
name
change,
the
company
hosted
its
inaugural
user
conference
last
week
in
Austin,
Texas.
While
everything
is
usually
bigger
in
Texas
—
the
wide-open
skies,
the
slabs
of
slow-cooked
brisket,
the

scale
of
the
failed
education
system
—
8am’s
Kaleidoscope
conference
clocked
in
on
the
cozier
side.
But
that’s
the
nature
of
first-time
shows.
There
will
always
be
a
slice
of
the
prospective
audience
who
sits
it
out,
keeping
their
powder
dry
until
they
hear
back
that
it’s
really
worth
it.

It
was
worth
it.

One
would
be
hard-pressed
to
point
to
anything
that
betrayed
a
rookie
conference.
A
convenient
venue,
excellent
food,
superb
panels,
and
an
exhibitor
layout
that
maximized
visibility
without
feeling
like
running
a
gauntlet.
In
a
subtle
stroke
of
genius,
the
programming
broke
from
the
customary
cookie-cutter
schedule
and
embraced
breakout
sessions
of
varying
lengths.
Some
subjects
just
don’t
merit
an
hour,
but
that
doesn’t
make
them
less
important.
Kaleidoscope
had
a

“content-first”
approach
to
panel
selection
and
built
a
schedule
to
accommodate
that.
From

ethical
approaches
to
texting
clients
to
using
AI
to
automate
small
firm
legal
marketing,
the
panels
covered
a
wide
range
of
practical
topics.

Even
the
one
mistake
that
anyone
could
point
out
—
a
recurring
typo
on
some
of
the
signage
—
morphed
into
8am’s
opportunity
to
hand
out
more
swag.
They
couldn’t
even
make
a
mistake
without
turning
it
around.

Olympian
Gabby
Thomas
headlined
the
second
day
of
the
show.
Celebrity
speakers
tend
to
lean
into
tortured
metaphors
to
connect
their
careers
back
to
the
legal
industry.
Instead,
Thomas
saw
an
opportunity
to
talk
about
her
own
profession
and…
ran
with
it?
Which,
paradoxically,
made
it
far
more
relevant
to
the
job
of
lawyering
than
any
square-peg-round-hole
analogies.
Describing
the
life
of
an
elite
track
star,
she
stressed
that
the
average
spectator
watching
at
home
doesn’t
understand
that
everyone
in
those
high-profile
races
are
all
nearly
identical
in
ability.
Success
on
that
stage,
Thomas
explained,
comes
down
to
small
adjustments
for
fractional
gains.
And
a
heavy
dose
of
perspective
that
you
can’t
control
the
competition,
but
you
can
control
your
own
process.

That’s…
pretty
good
advice
for
running
a
legal
practice.
And
especially
important
to
lawyers
willing
to
keep
an
open-minded
approach
to
legal
technology.
Securing
that
fractional
improvement
—
either
in
the
substantive
practice
of
law
or
in
taking
some
of
the
administrative
tasks
off
your
plate
—
is
largely
a
function
of
tech
adoption.

Figuring
out
which
tech
is
the
challenge.
Thomas
provided
some
insights
there
too,
explaining
that
she
breaks
down
races
into
micro-moments,
visualizing
everything
from
the
walk
up
to
where
exactly
she
wants
to
be
positioned
on
the
blocks
to
where
she
wants
to
be
at
the
finish
line.
Legal
tech
is
moving
at
a
breakneck
pace,
and
if
Biglaw
firms
with
dedicated
tech
professionals
struggle
to
stay
on
top
of
it,
how
can
solo
practitioners
fit
it
into
the
already
overloaded
schedule?

One
solid
strategy
—
which
I
outlined
on
one
of
the
panels
I
sat
on
at
the
show
—
is
to
stop
trying
to
find
the
one-size
AI
solution
and
begin
researching
products
that
target
specific
use
cases.
To
borrow
from
the
visualization
discussion:
map
out
the
day.
Take
some
time
to
consciously
consider
the
steps
in
all
those
workflows.
Now,
where
do
you
see
opportunities
to
automate
that,
in
a
way
that
you
find
professionally
comfortable?
Thomas
also
talked
about
the
next-level
analytics
she
gets
about
every
running
movement,
but
stressed
that
while
she
considers
it
all,
she
won’t
accept
changes
that
she’s
not
comfortable
with.
The
tasks
you’re
ready
to
turn
over
to
technology
might
not
be
where
everyone
else
is…
and
that’s
fine.
But
figure
it
out.

Silicon
Valley
may
run
on
groupthink
—
and
these
days,

that
groupthink
is
mostly
very
weird
—
but
legal
technology
doesn’t
have
to.
There’s
plenty
of
room
to
disagree,
especially
given
how
quickly
the
landscape
is
evolving.
I
joined
several
other
legal
tech
writers
in
a
live
version
of
our

weekly
webcast
and/or

podcast
on
the
main
stage
and
we
had
several
actual
arguments
about
the
future
of
the
billable
hour
and
whether
or
not
“agentic
AI”
is
an
empty
buzzword
(it
is).

And,
of
course,
there
was
plenty
of
talk
about
the
8am
product
too
(which
Stephen
Embry
covered
in
more
depth
here).
And
partner
demos.
And
all
the
stuff
a
user
would
expect
of
a
conference.
A
user
show
is
a
delicate
balance
between
sales,
in-person
customer
service,
actionable
general
knowledge,
and
entertainment.
8am
—
and,
more
to
the
point,
the
various
companies
who
now
all
live
under
the
8am
banner
—
have
been
in
this
business
a
long
time.
But
with
Kaleidoscope,
the
company
signaled
that
it’s
ready
to
move
into
a
new
vector
of
client
engagement.
Beyond
just
providing
a
quality
suite
of
products,
the
company
wants
to
move
into
becoming
a
staple
appointment
on
their
clients’
calendar.

I
mean,
if
the
conference
was

good
enough
for
John
Steinbeck,
it
should
be
good
enough
to
bring
out
even
more
users
next
year.

---

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.

Kanye
West
goes
by
many
titles:
producer,
artist,
and
founder
of
Donda
Academy.
Named
after
his
late
mother,
the
now
closed
school
was
a
Christian
private
school
in
Simi
Valley,
California.
It
isn’t
the
easiest
thing
to
know
what
attending
the
school
was
like
considering
the
mandated
NDAs
parents
had
to
sign
to
enroll
their
children,
but
chances
are
the
students
didn’t
make
much
fun
of
each
other’s
clothes
considering
that
the
uniform
code
mandated
Balenciaga
—
sure,
your
shoes
may
be
goofy,
but
so
are
everyone
else’s:

I’m
sorry
to
inform
you
Balenciaga
have
been
making
footwear
again.
I’m
half
convinced
they
are
trolling
to
see
if
there
is
any
limit
to
what
idiots
will
buy.

pic.twitter.com/lcl5OJqjlo

—
Sartorial
Thug

(@SartorialThug)

December
6,
2023

Fashion
choices
aren’t
the
only
thing
that
have
Ye’s
structuring
of
Donda
Academy
under
a
microscope.

Baller
Alert
has
coverage:

According
to
court
documents
obtained
by

TMZ,
a
Los
Angeles
judge
has
given
West
30
days
to
appear
in
person
for
a
deposition.
The
ruling
comes
after
repeated
efforts
by
the
plaintiff
to
secure
the
rapper’s
participation.

The
lawsuit,
filed
in
April
2024
by

Trevor
Phillips,
a
former
employee
of
Donda
Academy,
accuses
West
of
creating
a
hostile
and
discriminatory
work
environment.

Phillips
claims
he
experienced
harassment
while
employed
at
the
school.
In
his
filing,
he
wrote
that
West
“spew
forth
hate,
profess
antisemitic
tropes
and
lies,
threaten
the
LGBTQ+
community,
and
even
on
one
occasion,
almost
sexually
stimulate
himself.”

It
would
be
easy
to
point
to
Ye’s

Heil
Hitler
track
and
accompanying
music
video
or
the
one
he
did
with
Lil
Pump
where
he
declared
that

“I’m
a
sick
f*ck”,
but
I’m
generally
against
the
use
of
song
lyrics
as
evidence
that
a
person
is
a
piece
of
shit.
Thankfully,
you
don’t
have
to
search
hard
to
find
Kanye
West’s
antisemitic
footsteps
on
Twitter
and
YouTube:

How
fucked
up
is
X?

It’s
so
fucked
up
that
Kanye
West
tweeted,
“I
hate
Jews.
I’m
a
Nazi.”
And
got
200K
likes.

—
Captain
Obvious™️
(@TheFungi669)

February
8,
2025

Now,
does
this
prove
that
he
was
descriminatory
at
the
school?
No,
but
that
deposition
could
provide
a
hell
of
a
lot
of
leeway!
Ye
has
had
a
longstanding
reputation
for
blurting
out
whatever
is
on
his
mind
when
the
cameras
are
rolling.
Question,
do
you
think

this
link
will
take
you
to
the
infamous
“George
Bush
doesn’t
like
Black
people”
blurt
or
the
Taylor
Swift
snub?
Oddly
enough,
neither!
It
was
the
time
Alex
Jones
had
to
quickly
distance
himself
from
Ye
because
he
was
being
too
Hitler-friendly.

Yeah,
whatever
lawyer
gets
tasked
with
deposing

Yedolf
Yitler
is
about
to
have
the
easiest
job
ever.

Kanye
West
Must
Testify
in
Lawsuit
Over
Donda
Academy
[Baller
Alert]

---

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.