Got
that
morning
coffee…
time
to
discuss
my
plea
deal!
Here
at
Kaleidoscope,
the
newly
minted
8am’s
inaugural
conference,
lawyers
gathered
to
hear
about
the
dangers
lurking
in
their
pockets.
Rather
than
being
happy
to
see
us,
the
phones
they
lug
around
carry
a
ticking
ethical
timebomb
poised
to
erupt
as
their
terminally
Millennial
clients
demand
to
talk
about
their
cases
over
SMS.
It’s
not
an
outlier
scenario
anymore.
Mark
Palmer,
Chief
Counsel
of
the Illinois Supreme
Court
Commission
on
Professionalism,
explained
that
59
percent
of
clients
want
to
communicate
with
their
lawyers
by
text.
And
not
just
to
reschedule
depositions,
but
to
make
key
substantive
decisions
despite
the
security
and
recordkeeping
risks
involved.
Like
any
good
service
professional,
the
secret
for
lawyers
hoping
to
navigating
troublesome
client
demands
lies
in
redirection.
“That’s
such
a
great
question…
it
requires
more
detail
than
I
can
get
into
here,
how
about
we
schedule
a
call
for
tomorrow
morning?”
Keep
the
client
happy
by
routing
scheduling
and
general
information
through
the
convenience
of
text,
but
shunt
their
serious
questions
over
to
an
in-person
meeting,
or
at
least
an
email,
as
soon
as
possible.
The
medical
profession
would
never
let
you
text
the
doctor’s
cell
phone,
Palmer
explained,
lawyers
have
to
catch
up.
But
until
every
firm
runs
through
a
clunky
portal
like
your
HMO,
take
some
steps
to
protect
yourself
and
the
client.
Turn
off
notifications.
Definitely
kill
the
message
previews.
Disable
those
laptop
echoes
that
mirror
your
client’s
latest
text
onto
multiple
devices.
And
tell
your
client
to
do
the
same.
Conduct
your
law
practice
as
if
you’re
hiding
an
affair
better
than
the
Coldplay
couple.
While
that’s
a
bit
glib,
the
stakes
are
serious
in
family
law.
One
attendee
asked
about
managing
communications
when
texting
could
jeopardize
the
client’s
safety.
As
Palmer
noted,
in
the
old
days,
firms
might
slap
big
red
letters
on
the
file
warning
any
future
associate
or
admin
to
only
contact
this
client
at
their
office
number.
Attorneys
need
to
be
a
bit
more
creative
in
the
digital
age,
but
the
obligation
remains.
If
the
younger
and
younger
clients
—
the
march
of
time
comes
for
us
all
—
can’t
understand
the
importance
of
keeping
conversation
limited
to
more
secure
channels,
consider
adding
a
“communication
policy”
to
the
engagement
letter.
The
kids
crave
boundaries,
even
if
those
boundaries
are
just
keeping
your
litigation
war
plans
from
getting
Pete
Hegseth-ed
to
the
other
side.
Clients
crave
the
personal
touch
and
the
immediacy
that
comes
from
texting.
As
service
professionals,
lawyers
need
to
nurture
that…
responsibly.
Which
means
making
sure
the
client
feels
seen
with
scheduling
reminders,
but
discouraged
before
they
slide
privileged
communications
into
your
DMs.
Photo
by
Collection
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
United
States
via
Getty
Images
There’s
a
pretty
clear
hierarchy
in
the
federal
judiciary,
with
the
nine
justices
on
the
Supreme
Court
sitting
at
the
top
of
the
pyramid.
So
much
so
that
a
district
court
judge
recent
took
the
unusual
step
of
apologizing
to
the
Supreme
Court
for
not
divining
precisely
what
a
shadow
docket
decision
—
sans
a
written
opinion,
natch
—
meant.
So
it’s
unusual
for
lower
court
judges
to
talk
smack
about
the
High
Court.
But
that’s
what
a
bunch
of
judges
did
—
anonymously
—
to
NBC
News
about
the
foreshadowed
shadow
docket.
(Yes,
we
will
continue
to
refer
to
SCOTUS’s
emergency
docket
as
the
shadow
docket–
a
term
penned
by
Professor
William
Baude
from
the
University
of
Chicago,
no
matter
the
desires
of
Brett
Kavanaugh
because
it
more
accurately
reflects
the
shady
ass
shit
the
Court
is
doing
with
it.)
See,
they’re
miffed
that
despite
the
hard
work
the
district
courts
are
doing
on
the
contentious
issues
that
are
flooding
to
the
courts
thanks
to
the
Trump
administration’s
flouting
of
a
wide
variety
of
laws,
political
norms,
and,
you
know,
the
Constitution,
as
soon
as
they
rule
against
the
administration,
the
shadow
docket
swoops
in.
Those
unbriefed
decisions
without
written
opinions
are
overwhelmingly
going
in
favor
of
the
administration
and
are
leaving
the
lower
courts
in
the
lurch.
Ten
of
the
12
judges
who
spoke
to
NBC
News
said
the
Supreme
Court
should
better
explain
those
rulings,
noting
that
the
terse
decisions
leave
lower
court
judges
with
little
guidance
for
how
to
proceed.
But
they
also
have
a
new
and
concerning
effect,
the
judges
said,
validating
the
Trump
administration’s
criticisms.
A
short
rebuttal
from
the
Supreme
Court,
they
argue,
makes
it
seem
like
they
did
shoddy
work
and
are
biased
against
Trump.
“It
is
inexcusable,”
a
judge
said
of
the
Supreme
Court
justices.
“They
don’t
have
our
backs.”
That’s
especially
true
given
the
mounting
threats
against
federal
judges.
And
when
the
shadow
docket
overturns
the
lower
courts
without
explaining
themselves,
they
open
the
door
to
the
increasingly
heated
rhetoric
coming
from
the
administration.
And
the
MAGA
faithful
have
taken
the
bait,
amping
up the
threats aimed
at
the
judiciary.
For
example,
two
judges
received
extra
security
details
after their
rulings put a
pause on
the DOGE
takeover and
resulted
in
right-wing
backlash.
And
the
administration’s
response
to
the
judicial
threats
has
been absolutely
unhinged.
One
judge
said,
“Certainly,
there
is
a
strong
sense
in
the
judiciary
among
the
judges
ruling
on
these
cases
that
the
court
is
leaving
them
out
to
dry.
They
are
partially
right
to
feel
the
way
they
feel.”
The
Supreme
Court,
a
second
judge
said,
is
effectively
assisting
the
Trump
administration
in
“undermining
the
lower
courts,”
leaving
district
and
appeals
court
judges
“thrown
under
the
bus.”
The
Supreme
Court
has
an
obligation
to
explain
rulings
in
a
way
the
public
can
understand,
a
third
judge
said,
adding
that
when
the
court
so
frequently
rules
for
the
administration
in
emergency
cases
without
fully
telling
people
why,
it
sends
a
signal.
The
court
has
had
strong
left-leaning
majorities
in
the
past,
but
what
is
different
now
is
the
role
emergency
cases
are
playing
in
public
discourse.
It’s
stunning
that
lower
court
judges
feel
the
need
to
call
out
SCOTUS
like
this.
Alicia
Bannon,
Director
of
the
Kohlberg
Center
on
the
U.S.
Supreme
Court
at
the
Brennan
Center
for
Justice
at
NYU
Law,
pointed
out
it’s
“clear
that
lower
court
judges
are
sounding
the
alarm.”
“Our
democratic
institutions
are
facing
unprecedented
threats
and
federal
judges
are
on
the
front
lines.
This
means
lots
of
fast-moving
cases
and
novel
legal
issues.
It
has
been
VERY
striking
to
see
the
disconnect
between
lower
courts
and
SCOTUS
in
how
to
approach
this
rule
of
law
emergency.”
And
it’s
a
terrible
indicator
for
our
legal
system.
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].
Ed.
Note:
A
weekly
roundup
of
just
a
few
items
from
Howard
Bashman’s
How
Appealing
blog,
the
Web’s
first
blog
devoted
to
appellate
litigation.
Check
out
these
stories
and
more
at
How
Appealing.
“What
Birthright
Citizenship
Gave
to
Me:
MAGA’s
effort
to
restrict
citizenship
rights
defies
the
Constitution
—
and
endangers
an
essential
part
of
America’s
greatness.” Law
professor Akhil
Reed
Amar has this
essay online
at
The
Wall
Street
Journal.
“For
Donald
Trump,
Everything
Is
an
Emergency;
He’s
exploiting
a
diabolical
problem
in
our
legal
system
to
expand
presidential
power”: Adam
B.
Kushner
of
The
New
York
Times
has this
report.
“Donna
Adelson
trial
live
updates:
Closing
arguments
before
jury
deliberates
for
a
verdict”: Elena
Barrera
of
The
Tallahassee
Democrat
has this
report.
“Supreme
Court
asked
to
hear
case
of
Alaska
taking
plane
from
man
for
transporting
beer;
State
had
seized
$95K
aircraft
over
three
cases
hidden
in
passenger’s
luggage”: Alex
Swoyer
of
The
Washington
Times
has this
report.
“Favorable
views
of
Supreme
Court
remain
near
historic
low”: Joseph
Copeland
of
Pew
Research
Center
has this
report.
“Ex-Solicitors
General
Parse
Recent
Emergency
Rulings’
Value”: Eric
Heisig
of
Bloomberg
Law
has this
report.
“Senate
Democrats
grill
Third
Circuit
nominee
Mascott
on
qualifications;
Jennifer
Mascott,
a
law
professor
and
White
House
counsel
nominated
to
an
appellate
vacancy
in
Delaware,
faced
sharp
questions
from
lawmakers
about
her
lack
of
legal
experience
in
the
First
State”: Benjamin
S.
Weiss
of
Courthouse
News
Service
has this
report.
Last
summer,
when
Judge
Amit
Mehta
ruled
that
Google
had
violated
antitrust
laws
through
its
search
distribution
agreements,
I
was
left
wondering what
the
hell
any
reasonable
remedy
would
look
like.
The
case
always
struck
me
as
weird—Google
was paying billions
to
Apple
and
Mozilla
to
be
the
default
search
engine
because
users
actually
wanted
Google
as
the
default.
Any
remedy
seemed
likely
to
either
do
nothing
useful
or
actively
harm
the
very
competitors
it
was
supposed
to
help.
Well,
Mehta just
dropped
his
remedial
ruling,
and
honestly?
It’s
more
reasonable
than
I
expected,
though
still
messy
in
predictable
ways.
The
Big
Picture:
No
Chrome
Breakup
Or
Android
Sell
Off,
But
Real
Constraints
The
DOJ
had
pushed
for
some
truly
bonkers
structural
remedies,
including
forcing
Google
to
sell
off
Chrome
or
Android.
Mehta
wasn’t
having
it:
Google
will
not
be
required
to
divest
Chrome;
nor
will
the
court
include
a
contingent
divestiture
of
the
Android
operating
system
in
the
final
judgment.
Plaintiffs
overreached
in
seeking
forced
divesture
of
these
key
assets,
which
Google
did
not
use
to
effect
any
illegal
restraints.
This
makes
sense.
As
discussed
before,
under
antitrust
law,
structural
breakups
should
relate
to
the
actual
violation.
The
problem
wasn’t
Chrome
or
Android—it
was
the
exclusive
deals
that
locked
up
search
distribution.
Breaking
up
unrelated
business
units
would
be
pure
punishment
without
purpose
and
could
(again)
do
more
damage
to
competitors
than
to
Google
itself.
The
Exclusive
Deals
Ban:
Logical
But
Concerning
The
core
remedy
targets
the
actual
problem—Google’s
exclusive
distribution
agreements:
Google
will
be
barred
from
entering
or
maintaining
any
exclusive
contract
relating
to
the
distribution
of
Google
Search,
Chrome,
Google
Assistant,
and
the
Gemini
app.
This
tracks
the
violation,
which
is
good.
But
here’s
where
it
gets
tricky.
The
ruling
also
says:
Googlewill
not
be
barredfrom
making
payments
or
offering
other
consideration
to
distribution
partners
for
preloading
or
placement
of
Google
Search,
Chrome,
or
its
GenAI
products.
So
Google
can
still
pay
Apple
and
Mozilla,
just
not
exclusively?
That
seems
like
a
distinction
that
might
not
make
much
practical
difference.
If
Google
can
outbid
everyone
else
(which
they
can),
and
Apple/Mozilla
have
admitted
users
get
pissed
when
they
don’t
use
Google
as
default,
what
exactly
changes
here?
The
court
was
clearly
aware
of
this
problem.
In
fact,
Mehta’s
analysis
of
the
downstream
effects
reads
like
a
catalog
of
unintended
consequences
that
would
make
any
antitrust
reformer
wince:
The
complete
loss
or
reduction
of
payments
to
distributors
is
likely
to
have
significant
downstream
effects
on
multiple
fronts,
some
possibly
dire.
They
could
include:
Lost
competition
and
innovation
from
small
developers
in
the
browser
market.
…
(stating
that
for
Opera
the
loss
of
payments
from
Google
“would
make
it
hard
for
[it]
to
continue
to
invest
in
innovative
solutions
that
[it]
provide[s]
for
the
US
audience”).
Mozilla,
in
particular,
fears
that
lower
revenue
share
payments
could
“potentially
start
a
downward
spiral
of
usage
as
people
defected
from
our
browser,
which
.
.
.
could
at
the
end
of
the
day
put
Firefox
out
of
business.”
…
(“Mozilla
has
repeatedly
made
clear
that
without
these
[revenue
share]
payments,
it
would
not
be
able
to
function
as
it
does
today.”).
Fewer
products
and
less
product
innovation
from
Apple.
…
(Cue)
(stating
that
the
loss
of
revenue
share
would
“impact
[Apple’s]
ability
at
creating
new
products
and
new
capabilities
into
the
[operating
system]
itself”).
The
loss
of
revenue
share
“just
lets
[Apple]
do
less.”…
Less
investment
in
the
U.S.
market
by
Android
OEMs,
which
would
reduce
competition
in
the
U.S.
mobile
phone
market
with
Apple.
…(“[I]f
[Samsung
is]
not
getting
paid
from
Google
in
the
revenue
share
that
[it’s]
currently
getting,
I
think
it
will
probably
make
[Samsung’s]
position
much
weaker
to
innovate
and
provide
.
.
.
the
latest
technology
and
better
services
to
our
customer.
.
.
.
[W]e
might
face
.
.
.
a
very
difficult
situation
to
continue
our
business.”);
…
(“If
[Motorola]
were
not
to
receive
[revenue
share
payments],
it
would
have
significant
financial
burdens
on
[its]
business.
.
.
.
[A]dvanced
resources
in
North
America
.
.
.
would
be
put
at
risk
if
[it]
were
to
lose
this
funding.”);
…
(“It
is
much
more
costly
for
[Verizon]
to
promote
an
[Apple]
device
than
an
Android
device
.
.
.
.
So
the
more
the
Android
ecosystem
loses
share
in
the
Verizon
customer
base,
the
more
costly
it
is
for
Verizon,
and
that
weighs
on
our
[profit
and
loss].”).
Higher
mobile
phone
prices
and
less
innovative
phone
features.
…
(“[S]ome
of
[Samsung]
product[s]
could
end
up
increasing
prices
or
defeature
our
product[s]
to
manage
the
profit,
which
will
make
our
position
very
weaker
in
the
market
and
especially
in
U.S.”);
…
(“[O]ne
of
the
ways
[AT&T]
can
help
offset
some
of
the
cost
of
th[e]
device
subsidy
and
make
the
devices
more
affordable
to
consumers
is
to
have
the
ability
to
seek
distribution
or
revenue
share
agreements
with
search,
but
also
other
services.”);
…
(“[T]hose
restrictions
would
prevent
Google
from
entering
into
agreements
similar
to
what
[T-Mobile]
ha[s]
with
the
Android
Activation
Agreement,
.
.
.
the
revenues
from
which
[it]
use[s]
to
help
prop
up
the
Android
ecosystem
through
subsidies
.
.
.
et
cetera.”);
…
(stating
that
Verizon’s
RSA
with
Google
“help[s]
and
fund[s]
the
promotion
of
devices
and
offset[s]”
billions
in
subsidies).
The
court
cannot
predict
to
any
degree
of
certainty
that
one
or
more
of
these
effects
will
in
fact
occur.
But
the
risk
is
far
from
small,
which
is
reason
enough
not
to
proceed
with
the
remedy.
Think
about
the
weird
logic
here:
Google’s
current
payment
structure
has
created
an
ecosystem
where
cutting
off
those
payments
would
likely
kill
Firefox
(a
key
browser
competitor),
leave
Samsung
and
other
Android
manufacturers
financially
weakened
against
Apple,
and
potentially
raise
phone
prices
for
consumers.
Meanwhile,
Google
would
save
billions
in
payments
and
still
likely
retain
most
users
anyway.
In
such
a
scenario,
keeping
the
money
flowing
is
actually
essential
to
greater
competition.
Data
Sharing:
The
Actually
Interesting
Bit
But
here’s
where
Mehta
may
have
found
the
real
lever
for
change.
Google
will
have
to
share
search
index
and
user
interaction
data
with
“Qualified
Competitors”:
Google
will
have
to
make
available
to
Qualified
Competitors
certain
search
index
and
user-interaction
data,
though
not
ads
data,
as
such
sharing
will
deny
Google
the
fruits
of
its
exclusionary
acts
and
promote
competition.
This
could
be
genuinely
transformative,
but
there
are
lots
of
questions
about
how
it
will
actually
work
in
practice.
The
biggest
barrier
to
competing
with
Google
isn’t
just
the
exclusive
deals—it’s
the
chicken-and-egg
problem
of
needing
massive
scale
to
build
a
decent
search
index,
but
needing
a
decent
search
index
to
attract
users
that
create
scale.
Google’s
search
index
represents
decades
of
crawling,
indexing,
and
learning
from
user
interactions
across
billions
of
queries.
No
startup
can
replicate
that
from
scratch.
As
DuckDuckGo
noted
in
their
remedies
proposal,
access
to
Google’s
search
results
via
API could
actually
level
the
playing
field in
ways
that
breaking
up
Chrome
or
Android
never
could
(though
DuckDuckGo
has
said
that
this
remedy
ruling
is
insufficient
in
its
eyes).
A
competitor
could
potentially
build
a
differentiated
search
experience—better
privacy,
different
ranking
algorithms,
specialized
vertical
search—while
leveraging
Google’s
underlying
index
as
a
foundation.
The
court
was
careful
to
limit
this:
The
court,
however,
has
narrowed
the
datasets
Google
will
be
required
to
share
to
tailor
the
remedy
to
its
anticompetitive
conduct.
The
key
word
here
is
“narrowed.”
Mehta
isn’t
requiring
Google
to
hand
over
everything—which
would
raise
legitimate
privacy
and
security
concerns—but
specifically
the
datasets
that
flow
from
the
scale
advantages
Google
gained
through
its
anticompetitive
conduct.
It’s
an
elegant
solution
that
addresses
the
actual
harm
without
creating
new
ones.
Google
will
also
have
to
offer
search
and
ads
syndication
services
to
qualified
competitors:
Google
shall
offer
Qualified
Competitors
search
and
search
text
ads
syndication
services
to
enable
those
firms
to
deliver
high-quality
search
results
and
ads
to
compete
with
Google
while
they
develop
their
own
search
technologies
and
capacity.
Such
syndication,
however,
shall
occur
largely
on
ordinary
commercial
terms
that
are
consistent
with
Google’s
current
syndication
services.
Think
of
this
as
mandated
training
wheels
for
search
competitors.
Google
has
to
help
rivals
build
their
own
search
capacity
using
Google’s
infrastructure,
but
only
until
they
can
develop
their
own.
The
“ordinary
commercial
terms”
language
is
crucial—it
prevents
Google
from
pricing
competitors
out
while
ensuring
the
remedy
doesn’t
become
a
permanent
subsidy.
The
AI
Wrinkle
What’s
fascinating
is
how
much
generative
AI
looms
over
this
entire
ruling.
As
Mehta
notes
(GSEs
is
“general
search
engines”):
The
emergence
of
GenAI
changed
the
course
of
this
case.
No
witness
at
the
liability
trial
testified
that
GenAI
products
posed
a
near-term
threat
to
GSEs.
The
very
first
witness
at
the
remedies
hearing,
by
contrast,
placed
GenAI
front
and
center
as
a
nascent
competitive
threat.
These
remedies
proceedings
thus
have
been
as
much
about
promoting
competition
among
GSEs
as
ensuring
that
Google’s
dominance
in
search
does
not
carry
over
into
the
GenAI
space.
Many
of
Plaintiffs’
proposed
remedies
are
crafted
with
that
latter
objective
in
mind.
This
timing
accident
may
have
saved
the
case
from
irrelevance.
When
the
DOJ
first
filed
this
lawsuit,
Google’s
search
dominance
seemed
unshakeable.
By
the
time
Mehta
was
crafting
remedies,
generative
AI
had
created
the
first
credible
alternative
to
traditional
search
in
decades.
Suddenly,
preventing
Google
from
extending
its
search
monopoly
into
AI
distribution
became
just
as
important
as
addressing
its
existing
dominance.
Dozens
of
pages
are
devoted
to
the
rise
of
LLM
technology,
as
well
as
chatbots
and
agents.
While
it
notes
the
limits
of
comparing
Generative
AI
tech
to
search,
it
also
notes
how
competitive
the
market
is:
The
GenAI
space
is
highly
competitive.
See
id.
at
503:25–504:4
(Turley)
(Q.
And
let’s
talk
about
the
[GenAI]
space
.
.
.
.
You
consider
that
space
to
be
very
competitive;
correct?
A.
Yes,
absolutely.”);
id.
at
3335:19-23
(Collins)
(“[Q.]
How
would
you
describe
the
current
level
of
competition
with
respect
to
foundation
models
as
compared
to
the
course
of
competition
over
the
years
that
you’ve
seen?
A.
[It]
is
the
most
competitive
market
I’ve
ever
worked
in.”);
id.
at
685:4-8
(Hsiao)
(“Q.
How
would
you
describe
the
competitive
space
that
the
Gemini
app
occupies?
A.
I
would
say
I
don’t
think
I’ve
seen
a
more
fierce
competition
ever
in
my
20-some
years
of
working
in
technology.”).
There
have
been
numerous
new
market
entrants.
See
id.
at
685:9-13
(Hsiao)
(“It’s
explosive
growth.
There’s
new
entrants.
.
.
.
You
know,
Grok,
DeepSeek,
all
sort
of
new
emerging
models
that
are
really,
really
strong.”
….
(Hitt)
(“You
see
entrants
like
Grok
or
DeepSeek,
that
may
not
have
existed
six
months
ago,
are
now
able
to
reach
the
level
of
performance
to
wind
up
in
the
top
ten
of
these
models.”);
id.
at
2459:21-23
(Pichai)
(“You
have
seen
over
the
last
few
months
as
many
people
have
launched
chatbots.
Very
quickly,
these
chatbots
reach
tens
of
millions
of
users.”).
Again,
the
ruling
makes
it
clear
that
Generative
AI
tools
and
search
aren’t
exactly
direct
competitors
yet,
but
there
are
signs
of
the
market
heading
that
way:
GenAI
products
may
be
having
some
impact
on
GSE
usage.
…
(Cue)
(testifying
that
the
volume
of
Google
Search
queries
in
Apple’s
Safari
web
browser
declined
for
the
first
time
in
22
years
perhaps
due
to
the
emergence
of
GenAI
chatbots).
But
GenAI
products
have
not
eliminated
the
need
for
GSEs.
…
(“ChatGPT
already
expanded
what
is
possible
for
parts
of
Search,
but
users
don’t
yet
use
ChatGPT
for
the
full
range
of
Search
needs.”);
…
(Hsiao)
(testifying
that
Google
tracks
so-called
“cannibalization”
of
Google
Search
by
GenAI
chatbots
and
the
Gemini
app
is
not
diverting
queries
from
Google
Search
to
a
significant
degree
today);
…
(Cue)
(attributing
the
recent
decline
in
Safari’s
search
volume
to
increasing
usage
of
GenAI
apps
but
recognizing
these
apps
must
improve
to
compete
with
Google
Search);
…
(Opening
Arg.)
(Plaintiffs’
counsel
acknowledging
that
general
search
and
GenAI
“are
different
but
overlapping
products”
and
that
GenAI
“is
not
a
replacement
for
[s]earch
today);
Again,
it
seems
like
Judge
Mehta
is
properly
trying
to
respond
to
the
actual
violations
here
and
trying
to
make
sure
any
remedies
match
that,
without
getting
in
the
way
of
actual
market
forces
at
work.
Some
Judicial
Humility
Is
Nice
To
See
Throughout
the
ruling,
Mehta
acknowledges
the
fundamental
challenge
of
antitrust
remedies:
Notwithstanding
this
power,
courts
must
approach
the
task
of
crafting
remedies
with
a
healthy
dose
of
humility.
This
court
has
done
so.
It
has
no
expertise
in
the
business
of
GSEs,
the
buying
and
selling
of
search
text
ads,
or
the
engineering
of
GenAI
technologies.
And,
unlike
the
typical
case
where
the
court’s
job
is
to
resolve
a
dispute
based
on
historic
facts,
here
the
court
is
asked
to
gaze
into
a
crystal
ball
and
look
to
the
future.
Not
exactly
a
judge’s
forte.
This
is
refreshingly
honest.
Courts
suck
at
designing
technology
markets.
The
best
they
can
do
is
try
to
remove
barriers
and
let
competition
happen,
rather
than
micromanage
outcomes.
Still
A
Long
Road
Ahead
Of
course,
none
of
this
matters
immediately.
Google
will
likely
appeal
(though,
honestly,
the
result
here
might
be
worth
not
having
to
spend
on
an
appeal
and
the
uncertainty
it
would
bring),
and
we’re
looking
at
years
more
litigation
before
anything
actually
happens.
By
then,
the
entire
search
landscape
might
have
been
transformed
by
AI
anyway.
But
if
this
ruling
does
eventually
stick,
it’s
not
the
disaster
I
feared
it
might
be.
It
targets
the
actual
problem
(exclusive
distribution
deals),
creates
some
potentially
useful
competitive
tools
(data
sharing
and
syndication
with
proper
limitations
for
privacy
reasons),
and
avoids
the
worst
structural
remedies
that
would
have
helped
no
one.
The
question
remains
whether
any
of
this
will
actually
create
more
competitive
search
engines.
But
at
least
it’s
not
actively
making
things
worse,
which,
honestly,
was
my
biggest
fear
going
in.
I
had
feared
that
the
court
wouldn’t
properly
thread
the
needle
on
remedies,
and
yet…
this
seems
to
have
been
done
very
thoughtfully
and
strikes
what
is
likely
a
good
balance.
*
Man
who
wishes
we
had
a
new
term
for
attempted
rape
wishes
we
had
new
term
for
“shadow
docket.”
[Bloomberg
Law
News]
*
The
law
isn’t
an
“opinion
poll”
says
woman
plugging
a
book
where
she
literally
says
that
constitutional
rights
should
turn
on
whether
they
enjoy
“broad
public
support.”
[CBS
News]
*
In
a
shock
to
no
one
with
a
brain,
the
Trump
surrendering
Biglaw
firms
are
suffering
with
midlevel
approval.
[American
Lawyer]
*
DOJ
Acting
Deputy
Chief
says
on
hidden
camera
that
the
administration
moved
Ghislaine
Maxwell
to
keep
her
quiet.
But
he
wants
you
to
know
it
was
just
to
impress
an
au
pair
from
Georgetown
he
picked
up
on
an
online
dating
app.
I
don’t
know
if
people
know
what
this
whole
Epstein
case
is
about,
but…
[X]
*
Judge
calls
Neil
Gorsuch’s
shadow
docket
aside
“unhelpful
and
unnecessary.”
[MSNBC]
Law
Firm
Matches
Milbank
And
Raises
Salaries:
Bet
you
wish
you
worked
here!
Court
Cracks
Down
On
Military
Police
Takeover:
Gotta
love
the
rule
of
law!
Harvard
Just
Landed
A
Yuge
Legal
Victory:
Billions
in
federal
funding!
Lobbyist
Defends
Firms
Capitulating
To
Trump:
An
argument
was
made.
Not
particularly
strong,
but
there
is
one.
Donald
Trump
Really
Gets
Those
Numbers
Up:
He’s
the
reason
so
many
are
applying
to
law
school.
The
federal
judiciary
cannot
“self-police”
workplace
conduct.
In
no
other
workplace
are
employees
entrusted
with
sole
authority
to
judge
their
colleagues’
alleged
misconduct.
But
judicial
reforms
require
congressional
action
and
oversight.
In
its
absence,
the
courts
vociferously
defend
their
biased
complaint
processes
and
dismiss
calls
for
reform
—
including
by
dismissing
a
lawsuit
filed
against
the
federal
judiciary
by
former
North
Carolina
federal
public
defender
Caryn
Strickland
in
2020,
alleging
harassment
and
retaliation
by
her
supervisors
at
the
Federal
Defender’s
Office
and
deliberate
indifference
when
she
spoke
up.
In
August,
a
circuit
panel
dismissed
Strickland’s
lawsuit.
Five
years
of
litigation
spanned
several
presidential
administrations
and
two
presidential
elections;
a
global
pandemic;
a
change
in
counsel;
congressional
testimony;
and
the
rare
deposition
of
several
judicial
branch
officials.
Strickland
asserted
her
Fifth
Amendment
right
to
a
safe
and
respectful
workplace,
free
from
discrimination
and
harassment
—
rights
not
guaranteed
to
judicial
branch
employees,
since
more
than
30,000
law
clerks,
permanent
court
staff,
and
federal
public
defenders
are
exempt
from
Title
VII
of
the
Civil
Rights
Act
of
1964
and
all
federal
anti-discrimination
laws.
Ironically,
judges
who
interpret
anti-discrimination
laws
are
above
those
same
laws;
and
public
defenders
who
defend
their
clients’
rights
in
court,
lack
rights
themselves.
Simply
put,
judiciary
employees
support
the
daily
functioning
of
our
courts
while
lacking
workplace
protections;
and
judges
rule
on
issues
affecting
litigants’
lives,
livelihoods,
and
liberty,
while
themselves
not
required
to
abide
by
anti-discrimination
laws.
How
did
Strickland
get
here
—
arguing
her
own
case
in
federal
court
opposite
her
former
employer?
While
working
as
a
federal
public
defender,
Strickland
was
harassed
and
discriminated
against
by
the
office’s
first
assistant.
When
she
complained,
the
fFederal
defender
(his
boss)
sided
with
his
second-in-command.
Strickland
filed
a
complaint
under
a
previous
version
of
the
Employee
Dispute
Resolution
(EDR)
Plan.
But,
considering
EDR
lacked
meaningful
redress
for
Strickland
and
punishment
for
the
first
assistant;
and
the
federal
defender
himself,
not
a
neutral
third
party,
would
make
the
final
decision,
Strickland
ultimately
quit.
Strickland
then
sued
the
Fourth
Circuit.
She
argued
the
EDR
Plan,
lacking
procedural
due
process,
was
both
facially
unfair,
and
unfair
as
applied
to
her.
Importantly,
internal
dispute
resolution
is
not
one
of
several
options
for
judicial
branch
employees:
it’s
their
only
option,
misleadingly
peddled
as
an
“alternative”
to
Title
VII
and
its
robust
procedural
and
due
process
guarantees.
EDR
puts
the
onus
on
law
clerks
(or
permanent
employees,
in
Strickland’s
case)
to
blow
the
whistle
on
their
powerful
superiors
—
judges
or
federal
defenders
—
while
lacking
legal
protection
against
retaliation.
The
judiciary
gives
employees
no
confidence
that,
if
they
stick
their
necks
out,
their
concerns
will
be
taken
seriously
and
robustly
investigated.
Nor
will
they
receive
meaningful
redress
since,
unlike
under
Title
VII,
which
provides
for
monetary
remedies
to
address
harms
to
one’s
career,
no
monetary
remedies
are
available
under
EDR.
Mistreated
employees
might
ask
themselves:
why
file
a
complaint
at
all?
The
best
one
can
reasonably
hope
for
is
reassignment
to
a
different
judge
or
office.
That’s
cold
comfort
when
judiciary
policies
do
nothing
to
prevent
the
judge
or
supervisor
who
harassed
you
—
probably
angry
about
the
complaint
—
from
retaliating
against
you
by
badmouthing
you
to
prospective
employers,
getting
you
blackballed
from
your
dream
job,
or
derailing
your
career,
as
Strickland
experienced.
The
EDR
process,
Strickland
argued,
lacks
meaningful
due
process
and
impartiality.
An
employee
is
not
guaranteed
a
real
opportunity
to
be
heard
—
the
presiding
judicial
officer
(PJO)
isn’t
required
to
hold
a
hearing.
And,
importantly,
at
least
for
law
clerk
complaints,
the
PJO
is
another
judge
in
the
court
—
the
friend
and
colleague
of
the
judge
you’re
complaining
about.
Mistreated
clerks
regularly
tell
me
they
wouldn’t
file
complaints
because
the
judge’s
friends
and
colleagues
are
not
impartial
decisionmakers,
so
they
don’t
believe
they’ll
get
a
fair
shake.
It’s
no
different
for
public
defenders
—
the
decision-maker
is
your
boss.
To
correct
this,
the
judiciary
could
transfer
every
complaint
to
a
different
circuit,
so
judges
less
likely
to
know
the
judge
at
issue
would
review
them.
Or,
the
courts
could
remove
EDR
entirely
from
the
judiciary’s
chain
of
command:
neutral
third-party
civil
rights
investigators,
rather
than
judges,
could
review
and
adjudicate
complaints.
But
the
judiciary
has
historically
resisted
these
reforms.
The
EDR
Plan
is
fundamentally
flawed.
Yet,
while
the
court
in
Strickland
conceded
various
procedural
“imperfections”
and
“missteps”
by
the
circuit
handling
Strickland’s
complaint,
they
determined
these
did
not
rise
to
the
level
of
fundamental
unfairness.
Disturbingly,
while
the
EDR
Plan
has
theoretically
been
revised
since
2018,
the
revised
Model
EDR
Plan
isn’t
meaningfully
different.
The
issues
Strickland
raised
—
including
delays
and
lack
of
impartiality
among
decision-makers
—
haven’t
been
corrected.
The
plan
puts
far
too
little
in
writing
and
leaves
too
much
to
the
discretion
of
individual
PJOs,
who
routinely
give
fellow
judges
the
benefit
of
the
doubt.
EDR
is
a
sham.
Consider
the
results
of
the
federal
judiciary’s
own
2023
workplace
climate
survey:
while
at
least
106
law
clerks
and
139
public
defenders
experienced
wrongful
conduct
that
year,
just
seven
law
clerks
and
around
20
public
defenders
filed
EDR
complaints
in
the
two-year
period
between
2021
and
2023.
This
discrepancy
between
mistreatment
experienced
and
complaints
filed
is
partially
due
to
the
lack
of
protection
against
retaliation;
and
partially
to
employees’
lack
of
confidence
in
the
process.
In
fact,
only
42%
of
employees
said
they’d
be
willing
to
report
misconduct.
And
among
employees
who
used
the
EDR
Plan,
only
20%
described
their
experience
as
positive.
When
asked
why,
most
either
said
“nothing
was
done”
after
they
complained,
or
they
were
“never
told
what
was
done.”
The
federal
judiciary
has
done
nothing
since
releasing
these
results
in
March
to
explain
how
they’ll
foster
increased
confidence
in
and
use
of
the
plan.
The
Third
Branch
regularly
expounds
on
rules
and
processes:
if
they
wanted
to
make
changes,
they
would.
Refusing
to
implement
meaningful
workplace
reforms
is
part
of
a
concerted
effort
by
the
judiciary
to
maintain
the
broken
status
quo
and
shield
abusive
judges
from
accountability.
The
diagnosis
is
simple:
judiciary
employees
will
not
file
complaints
until
they’re
legally
protected
against
retaliation
under
Title
VII.
It’s
one
reason
why
the
judiciary
opposes
extending
these
protections
to
employees:
they
shield
abusive
judges
from
accountability
through
both
legal
action
and
internal
complaints.
The
courts
have
effectively
chilled
complaints
by
making
it
nearly
impossible
for
employees
to
safely
file
them:
they
boast
about
low
complaint
numbers
while
actively
suppressing
them.
Strickland’s
landmark
lawsuit
raises
two
fundamental
questions.
First,
why
are
30,000
judiciary
employees
who
support
the
daily
functioning
of
our
courts
still
exempt
from
all
federal
anti-discrimination
laws?
Second,
in
the
absence
of
Title
VII,
does
EDR
provide
employees
with
a
meaningful
alternative
that
guarantees
their
constitutional
and
fundamental
rights?
The
answers
to
these
questions
are
unsatisfying
to
anyone
who
believes
in
workers’
rights,
civil
rights,
democracy,
and
the
rule
of
law.
There
is
no
substitute
for
Congress
extending
federal
anti-discrimination
protections
to
judicial
branch
employees.
Those
who
help
ensure
a
functioning
judiciary
deserve
workplace
protections,
and
judges
should
not
be
above
the
laws
they
interpret.
Yet
every
day,
congressional
Democrats
obsess
about
the
dismantling
of
our
democracy,
while
failing
to
realize
there
are
fewer
greater
threats
to
our
democracy
than
exempting
1,700
unaccountable,
ungoverned
federal
judges
who
interpret
our
laws
from
those
laws.
The
federal
judiciary
cannot
be
viewed
as
a
fair
and
neutral
arbiter
of
disputes,
when
judges’
workplace
conduct
is
so
lawless,
and
when
they
treat
their
employees
with
such
callous
disregard.
Sadly,
lawmakers
lack
relevant
lived
experience
and
sensitivity
to
workplace
harassment:
it’s
no
surprise
they’ve
abdicated
their
oversight
responsibility,
throwing
tens
of
thousands
of
vulnerable
judicial
branch
employees
—
their
own
constituents
—
under
the
bus.
The
court’s
ruling
in
Strickland,
and
the
federal
judiciary’s
hostility
to
workplace
reforms,
send
a
message
that
when
you’re
a
judge,
they
let
you
do
it.
And
that
being
a
judge
means
never
having
to
say
you’re
sorry.
For
every
Caryn
Strickland
who
speaks
up,
hundreds
—
thousands
—
of
judiciary
employees
suffer
in
silence.
The
drumbeat
for
reform
will
only
grow
louder
as
lawyers
and
nonlawyers
alike
realize
judges’
conduct
behind
the
bench
affects
all
of
us,
spilling
over
into
their
rulings
and
their
interpretation
of
anti-discrimination
laws,
thereby
further
threatening
already
shaky
public
confidence
in
the
judiciary.
We
do
not
have
to
accept
judicial
branch
lawlessness.
Solutions
exist,
if
we
care
to
fight
for
them.
Why
are
judges
still
above
the
law?
Aliza
Shatzman
is
the
President
and
Founder
of The
Legal
Accountability
Project,
a
nonprofit
aimed
at
ensuring
that
law
clerks
have
positive
clerkship
experiences,
while
extending
support
and
resources
to
those
who
do
not.
She
regularly
writes
and
speaks
about
judicial
accountability
and
clerkships.
Reach
out
to
her
via
email
at [email protected] and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@AlizaShatzman.
I’m
hearing
much
more
from
people
who
want
to
protect
the
environment.
They
want
to
protect
civil
liberties.
They
want
to
protect
immigrants’
rights.
Students
who
want
to
fight
back
are
saying,
‘Law
school
is
the
way
to
do
it.’
—
Dean
Erwin
Chemerinsky
of
the
University
of
California
Berkeley
School
of
Law,
in
comments
given
to
Reuters,
concerning
the
dramatic
increase
in
law
school
applicants
during
Donald
Trump’s
second
presidency.
According
to
LSAC,
applicants
surged
by
18%
since
last
year,
the
highest
year-over-year
increase
since
2002,
with
more
than
76,000
applicants
vying
for
admission
to
law
school.
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.
My
wife
and
I
have
become
increasingly
skeptical
about
television.
I’m
guessing
you
have
too.
We’re
all
on
the
same
endless
search
for
something,
anything,
worth
watching.
It’s
not
just
that
so
much
of
what’s
out
there
is
junk.
It’s
also
that,
once
we
figure
out
a
show’s
formula,
we’re
out.
Spoiler
alert:
most
writers
follow
formulas
that
carry
a
series
from
one
season
to
the
next.
Maybe
it’s
the
“Problem-Solution
Cycle,”
where
the
core
conflict
resolves
just
in
time
to
reset
again.
Or
it’s
“Character
Arc
Plus
World
Expansion,”
where
the
protagonist
evolves
through
new
dilemmas
and
settings.
But
here’s
the
twist.
While
a
predictable
formula
might
ruin
a
good
show,
it’s
really
the
secret
weapon
for
lawyers
looking
to
grow
their
books
of
business.
At
the
heart
of
every
successful
rainmaker
is
a
formula,
something
they
created,
borrowed,
or
straight-up
stole.
For
me,
it
started
with
wasting
an
absurd
amount
of
time
networking.
I
had
no
direction
and
no
results,
so
I
had
to
develop
a
formula
out
of
pure
necessity
to
reclaim
my
time
and
drive
real
business.
In
my
second
book,
“The
Attorney’s
Networking
Handbook,”
I
opened
with
a
truth
bomb:
no
one
I
knew
had
wasted
more
time
networking
than
I
had,
and
that
still
holds.
So,
I
committed
to
fix
it,
get
efficient,
and
build
something
that
actually
worked.
For
lawyers
buried
in
billables
who
understand
the
value
of
their
time,
there’s
no
reason
to
reinvent
the
wheel.
A
proven
process
beats
winging
it
every
time.
While
I
can’t
share
every
formula
I
use
with
clients,
I
will
give
you
one
that
captures
the
core
of
them
all:
Planning,
Process,
and
Performance.
Planning You’ve
heard
it:
failing
to
plan
is
planning
to
fail.
That
saying
exists
for
a
reason.
One
of
the
first
questions
I
ask
prospective
coaching
clients
is,
“Do
you
have
a
written
plan?”
The
most
common
answers?
Either
“No,”
or
“Yes,
the
one
my
firm
makes
me
write
every
year.”
Both
responses
usually
explain
why
they’re
talking
to
me
in
the
first
place.
A
real
plan,
one
that
works,
must
be
both
strategic
and
tactical.
It
should
clarify
what
you’re
doing
to
build
business,
where
you’re
spending
your
time,
and
list
the
actual
actions
you’ll
take
to
produce
results.
Without
it,
you’re
flying
blind.
Process This
might
be
the
most
overlooked
piece
of
the
puzzle.
You’ve
got
processes
for
brushing
your
teeth
and
running
a
trial.
But
you
don’t
have
one
for
business
development?
That’s
a
problem.
I
get
it.
You
didn’t
learn
this
in
law
school,
and
you
probably
didn’t
sign
up
for
it.
But
here
you
are.
And
if
you
want
control,
freedom,
and
long-term
sustainability
in
private
practice,
building
your
own
clients
is
nonnegotiable.
The
key
is
to
become
a
student
of
the
game.
Read.
Watch.
Listen.
Learn
from
people
who
have
figured
it
out.
Doing
this
will
save
you
years
of
trial
and
error
and
build
long-term
wealth.
If
you’re
not
sure
where
to
start,
check
out
my
blog
at
fretzin.com/blog,
my
YouTube
channel
@stevefretzin,
or
any
of
my
five
books
on
Amazon.
I
give
away
plenty
of
secrets
and
processes
to
help
you
succeed.
Performance Even
with
a
solid
plan
and
process,
execution
is
where
most
lawyers
fall
short.
Performance
is
about
showing
up
and
getting
it
done,
especially
when
things
get
busy.
From
interviewing
hundreds
of
rainmakers
on
the
“BE
THAT
LAWYER”
podcast,
one
theme
always
comes
up:
consistency.
Business
development
must
be
part
of
your
weekly
rhythm.
Block
time
on
your
calendar
for
lunch
meetings,
events,
or
even
just
LinkedIn
activity.
Stick
to
your
plan
to
avoid
falling
into
the
trap
of
“random
acts
of
marketing.”
And
don’t
forget
the
other
side
of
performance:
improvement.
Ask
yourself,
do
you
have
10
years
of
business
development
experience,
or
one
year
of
experience
10
times
over?
If
you’re
not
debriefing
after
calls
and
meetings
to
identify
what
went
well
or
what
tanked,
you’re
likely
repeating
costly
mistakes.
Case
in
point:
I
recently
evaluated
a
lawyer
who
wasn’t
asking
enough,
or
the
right,
questions
in
prospective
client
meetings.
After
some
quick
math,
we
realized
it
had
cost
her
millions
in
lost
originations.
Yes,
it
was
a
tough
pill
to
swallow,
but
we
agreed
that
the
past
is
the
past,
and
that
her
future
earnings
will
look
a
whole
lot
different.
There
are
formulas
all
around
us,
most
we
never
think
about.
But
when
it
comes
to
building
business,
my
“Three
Ps”
haven’t
failed
me
or
my
clients.
If
you
can
commit
to
planning
for
success,
following
a
process,
and
consistently
performing
and
improving,
business
development
becomes
second
nature.
And
if
you’re
looking
for
direct
help
applying
these
ideas,
shoot
me
a
DM
on
LinkedIn
or
email
me
at
[email protected].
I’m
here
to
help.
Steve
Fretzin
is
a
bestselling
author,
host
of
the
BE
THAT
LAWYER
Podcast,
and
business
development
coach
exclusively
for
attorneys.
Steve
has
committed
his
career
to
helping
lawyers
learn
key
growth
skills
not
currently
taught
in
law
school.
His
clients
soon
become
top
rainmakers
and
credit
Steve’s
program
and
coaching
for
their
success.
He
can
be
reached
directly
by
email
at [email protected].
Or
you
can
easily
find
him
on
his
website
at www.fretzin.com or
LinkedIn
at https://www.linkedin.com/in/stevefretzin/.
The
cowardice
of
the
Biglaw
firms
kissing
Trump’s
ring
has
been
a
major
taking
point
with
far-reaching
consequences
for
the
profession.
But
few
have
been
willing
to
offer
a
full-throated
defense
of
the
deals.
Until
now.
Lobbying
firm
Ballard
Partners,
a
firm
with
deep
MAGA
connections,
has
seen
a
spike
in
business
as
folks
try
to
navigate
the
ever-changing
currents
emanating
from
the
White
House
—
including
two
major
Biglaw
firms…
that
happen
to
be
among
those
that
inked
deals
with
Trump.
And
Brian
Ballard
spoke
with
Bloomberg
Law
to
defend
the
deals
with
Trump.
“If
you
are
in
the
business
in
Washington,
DC,
of
working
for
clients
that
have
issues
before
the
government,
it’s
better
to
be
someone
who
can
work
with
the
government
than
someone
who
just
says
screw
you,”
Ballard
said.
“I
think
it’s
pretty
smart
for
those
guys
to
have
done
what
they’ve
done—the
guys
we
represented
and
others.”
I
termed
the
Biglaw
deals
pro
bono
payola
because
that’s
what
they
are
—
paying
(through
pro
bono
services)
to
play.
And
while
that
may
may
grease
the
wheels
for
a
subset
of
a
Biglaw
firm’s
clients
(and
accentuate
the
difference
between
corporate
and
litigation
clients),
there
are
plenty
of
clients
that
see
this
as
a
problem.
If
a
firm
can’t
—
or
won’t
—
defend
themselves
against
an
administration
willing
to
use
unconstitutional
executive
orders
to
extort
free
legal
services,
then
how
will
that
firm
represent
a
company
who
finds
themselves
on
the
wrong
side
of
the
fickle
president?
This
is
also
a
reputational
hit
for
the
firms
that
signed
the
deals,
and
clients
*are*
steering
work
away
from
the
firms
that
bent
a
knee
to
Trump.
Perhaps
most
importantly,
there’s
the
whole
“fail[ing]
the
American
people” and
abandoning
the
rule
of
law
thing.
It
bears
repeating
that
the
EOs
Trump
weaponized
has
been
found
unconstitutional.
Repeatedly.
Trump
is
trying
to
punish
law
firms
for
taking
work
and
clients
he
personally
doesn’t
like,
and
four
different
district
court
judges
from across
the
political
spectrum have
all
ruled
the
orders
unconstitutional
on
a
variety
of
grounds
—
and
that
callous
disregard
for
the
foundations
of
our
legal
system
corrodes
those
rights,
particularly
for
the
profession
charged
with
safeguarding
the
law.
So
color
me
unimpressed
that
the
man
who
has
directly
benefitted
from
negotiating
the
deals
is
downplaying
the
harm
they
do
to
the
rule
of
law.
“It
always
makes
sense
to
try
to
resolve
things,”
Ballard
said.
“This
administration
wants
to
resolve
things.
They’re
looking
to
address
the
issues
that
they’ve
raised,
but
they’re
not
looking
for
battles.
They’re
looking
for
more
friends
than
enemies.”
Sure,
Jan.
But
even
more
galling
is
how
Ballard
denigrates
the
firms
that
have
stood
up
to
fight
the
EOs
aimed
at
them:
“Some
of
these
law
firms
like
the
idea
of
having
an
enemy,”
Ballard
said
of
the
firms
that
chose
to
fight
Trump.
“Either
for
business
reasons
or
political
reasons,
that’s
why
they
do
it.”
In
standing
up
to
Trump,
Perkins
Coie, Jenner
&
Block, WilmerHale,
and Susman
Godfrey
are
carrying
the
baton
for
the
legal
profession.
Most
lawyers
agree
with
the
stance
these
firms
have
taken
—
90%
of
respondents
in
a
recent
Above
the
Law
survey
said
other
firms
should
follow
their
lead.
Perkins,
Jenner,
Wilmer,
and
Susman
have
an
“enemy”
in
the
president
not
for
the
cynical
reasons
Ballard
outlines,
but
because
they’re
defending
the
constitution.
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].
Joe
Kathryn
