After
closely
reading
the
Constitution,
the
Supreme
Court
informed
us
that
the
speech
the
First
Amendment
protects
comes
in
many
modes.
Speech
may
look
like
an
arm
band
worn
to
protest
a
war
(Tinker
v.
Des
Moines).
Speech
might
even
look
like
corporations
throwing
a
bunch
of
money
at
their
preferred
candidates
(Citizens
United
v.
FEC).
Hell,
Speech
might
even
pop
up
as
something
morally
objectionable
of
unsavory
like
burning
the
American
Flag
(Texas
v.
Johnson).
But
does
any
of
that
matter
if
the
President
decides
to
handwave
away
silly
things
like
“binding
precedent”
or
judicial
review?
Well
no,
so
long
as
you
do
a
little
lipservice
and
pretend
as
if
the
Court
would
be
cool
with
his
carve
out
anyway.
This
is
straight
from
the
White
House:
Burning
[the
American
Flag]
may
incite
violence
and
riot…Notwithstanding
the
Supreme
Court’s
rulings
on
First
Amendment
protections,
the
Court
has
never
held
that
American
Flag
desecration
conducted
in
a
manner
that
is
likely
to
incite
imminent
lawless
action
or
that
is
an
action
amounting
to
“fighting
words”
is
constitutionally
protected.
See
Texas
v.
Johnson,
491
U.S.
397,
408-10
(1989).
My
Administration
will
act
to
restore
respect
and
sanctity
to
the
American
Flag
and
prosecute
those
who
incite
violence
or
otherwise
violate
our
laws
while
desecrating
this
symbol
of
our
country,
to
the
fullest
extent
permissible
under
any
available
authority.
“May”
is
doing
a
lot
of
work
here
—
many
things
ranging
from
parking
spot
competition
to
an
Eagles
Superbowl
win
“may”
incite
violence
and/or
riot.
Will
there
be
legal
consequences
for
a
hearty
“E-A-G-L-E-S
EAGLES!”
yell
at
AT&T
Stadium?
Things
don’t
suddenly
amount
to
“fighting
words”
just
because
you
imagine
some
eggshell
crowd
member
whose
world
will
upend
if
he
hears
love
for
the
wrong
team
or
if
kerosene
and
sparks
burn
some
“Made
In
China”
Americana
—
which
applies
just
as
well
to
a
football
jersey
or
the
Stars
and
Stripes.
Our
day
to
day
is
so
warped
by
the
Culture
War
that
damn
near
anything
can
be
framed
as
affirming
or
desecrating
our
country.
Just
earlier
this
year,
wearing
masks
for
public
safety
or
not
was
discussed
on
the
level
of
choosing
liberty
or
death:
Yeah,
we
didn’t
comply
the
first
time
here
in
Texas,
and
we
won’t
be
this
or
any
other
time
either.
They
know
where
they
can
stick
their
masks…
若
pic.twitter.com/Sv4s1N80OS
How
far
is
the
administration
from
deciding
that
mask
wearing
—
unless
it’s
an
ICE
agent,
naturally
—
is
just
as
unAmerican
as
flag
burning
or
not
investing
in
TrumpCoin,
tacitly
blessing
whenever
some
rando
gets
so
mad
about
it
that
they
start
punching
people?
Because
something
as
simple
as
mask
wearing
is
already
being
treated
as
“fighting
words”
by
some:
Fortunately,
we
won’t
have
to
wait
long
to
see
how
game
changing
this
decree
will
be
for
the
right
to
protest
—
a
veteran
has
already
burned
an
American
flag
in
front
of
the
White
House
to
spite
the
order:
BREAKING:
A
veteran
was
just
arrested
outside
the
White
House
for
burning
the
American
flag.
In
1989,
the
Supreme
Court
ruled
flag
burning
is
protected
speech
under
the
First
Amendment.
Trump’s
crackdown
doesn’t
override
the
Constitution,
it
violates
it.
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.
The
One
Big
Beautiful
Bill
Act’s
new
$50
billion
rural
hospital
fund
is
a
positive
step
toward
advancing
rural
health
infrastructure
—
but
short-term
injections
of
cash
won’t
fix
deeply
rooted
systemic
challenges,
one
expert
pointed
out.
“Money
is
not
the
only
answer,”
said
Jason
Griffin,
managing
director
at
consulting
firm
Nordic
Global.
During
his
time
at
Nordic,
Griffin
has
worked
alongside
organizations
like
Microsoft
and
CHIME
to
help
modernize
rural
hospitals’
IT
infrastructure
and
expand
the
use
of
digital
health
tools
amid
ongoing
workforce
and
reimbursement
challenges.
He
knows
that
rural
providers’
stability
is
deeply
threatened
by
looming
Medicaid
cuts.
While
last-minute
funding
was
added
as
a
stopgap,
Griffin
noted
it
will
only
cover
about
37%
of
these
providers’
potential
losses
over
the
next
five
years.
In
the
future,
he
said
he
would
like
to
see
federal
and
state
governments
invest
in
infrastructure
—
such
as
reliable
broadband
connectivity
and
stable
EHR
systems
—
instead
of
leaving
rural
hospitals
to
shoulder
costs.
Better
infrastructure
would
enable
sustainable
telehealth
and
value-based
care,
Griffin
added.
Federal
and
state
funding
should
also
support
healthcare
workforce
development
in
rural
communities,
including
partnerships
with
universities
and
medical
training
programs,
he
stated.
“All
of
that
really
would
be
needed
to
support
long-term
sustainability
with
that
cash
injection.
I
mean,
we
can
spend
a
lot
of
money,
and
then
five
years
from
now,
be
in
the
same
boat,”
Griffin
remarked.
Cybersecurity
is
one
area
where
rural
hospitals’
staffing
challenges
are
especially
acute,
he
noted
—
pointing
out
that
these
providers
often
have
only
four
or
five
people
in
their
IT
departments
Most
rural
providers
struggle
to
manage
third-party
risk,
which
is
now
a
leading
cause
of
healthcare
data
breaches,
Griffin
said.
“Extended
downtime,
even
over
a
week,
can
shut
your
organization
down
permanently.
And
we’ve
seen
these
breaches
cause
up
to
five
or
six
weeks
of
downtime
—
and
it
just
can’t
be
sustained,”
he
declared.
Rural
hospitals
must
constantly
choose
between
investing
in
clinical
equipment
or
cybersecurity
—
which
is
a
burden
urban
hospitals
don’t
face,
Griffin
added.
He
also
noted
that
there
are
no
requirements
for
state-by-state
reporting
or
for
measuring
outcomes
tied
to
the
funding.
He
stressed
the
need
for
metrics
—
such
as
emergency
department
wait
times
and
maternal
health
outcomes
—
to
track
whether
this
funding
improves
care
for
rural
communities.
In
Griffin’s
view,
a
one-time
cash
injection
risks
being
wasted
without
clear
investment
strategies.
He
believes
investments
should
go
toward
infrastructure
improvements,
workforce
development
and
shared
services.
The
Fed
was
designed
to
operate
insulated
from
political
pressure
so
that
it
can
make
tough
decisions
based
on
data
and
the
long-term
health
of
the
economy,
not
the
whims
of
any
one
president.
This
outrageous
and
unprecedented
attempt
to
fire a
member
of
the
independent
Federal
Reserve
on
the
flimsiest
of
unproven
pretexts
is
clearly
the
latest
scheme
from
a
president
determined
to
subvert
the
institutions
that
have
kept
our
democracy
strong
and
our
economy
the
envy
of
the
world.
—
Sen.
Mark
R.
Warner
(D-VA), a
member
of
the
Senate
Finance
and Banking committees
and
Harvard
Law
School
grad,
sounds
off
on
the
awful
justification
President
Donald
Trump
made
in
his
attempt
to
fire
Fed.
Governor
Lisa
Cook.
As
the
Trump
administration
prepares
to
wrongfully
deport
Kilmar
Abrego
Garcia
for
the
second
time
after
apparently
realizing
they
had
no
real
case
against
him
in
court,
the
Maryland
resident,
unlike
last
time,
was
not
whisked
away
to
foreign
shores
before
he
had
a
chance
to
challenge
the
effort.
Judge
Paula
Xinis
reminded
the
administration
that
it
was
“absolutely
forbidden”
from
removing
Abrego
Garcia
until
she
could
hold
a
hearing.
The
federal
judges
in
Maryland
have,
for
their
part,
issued
a
standing
order
requiring
that
all
potential
deportations
must
wait
at
least
48
hours
to
give
the
courts
an
opportunity
to
hear
a
habeas
petition
from
a
potential
deportee.
Given
the
administration
already
attempted
to
secretly
fly
people
out
of
the
country
and
use
international
waters
as
an
attempt
to
skirt
jurisdiction,
the
Maryland
judges
felt
it
prudent
to
impose
a
two-day
period
to
get
ahead
of
a
matter
before
the
petitioner
wakes
up
in
a
bathtub
in
Uganda
with
note
from
Kristi
Noem
explaining
that
she’s
keeping
their
kidney.
In
a
normal
world,
this
would
be
the
sort
of
de
minimus
restriction
that
the
administration
would
take
in
stride.
In
this
world,
Trump
sued
all
the
federal
judges
in
Maryland
explaining
that
Article
II
should
allow
him
to
deport
anyone
he
decides
should
qualify
for
deportation
without
review.
Since
every
judge
was
a
defendant,
the
case
was
moved
to
Virginia
and
assigned
to
Trump-appointed
judge
Thomas
Cullen.
Cullen
dismissed
the
case,
offering
a
rebuke
of
the
administration
along
the
way:
Indeed,
over
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.
Since
the
judge’s
name
is
Cullen,
let’s
talk
about
vampires
for
a
bit.
Not
the
sparkly
Twilight
kind,
but
the
old
school
variety.
Count
Dracula
needed
permission
to
enter
a
house.
Likewise,
Republicans
yearn
for
permission
to
wallow
in
their
own
crapulence.
It’s
not
strictly
necessary,
conservatives
are
willing
to
embark
on
unconstitutional
power
grabs
sua
sponte,
but
if
they
had
their
druthers,
they
want
to
be
able
to
trace
every
excess
back
—
however
disingenuously
—
to
something
they
can
blame
on
Democrats.
Make
an
offhand
comment
in
the
early
90s
about
not
confirming
a
justice
during
an
election
year…
hold
open
a
seat
for
a
whole
year.
Explain
that
this
was
never
a
real
policy
and
it’s
a
bullshit
excuse…
confirm
a
justice
a
week
before
the
election.
Pack
key
geographic
areas
with
hack,
unqualified
appointees
and
embark
on
a
nakedly
political
effort
to
legislate
through
the
courts
until
liberals
call
it
out…
then
call
impeccably
qualified
“liberal”
judges
illegitimate.
Professional
niceties
have
obscured
judicial
abuses
for
years,
so
you
won’t
catch
a
lot
of
people
—
least
of
all
me
—
crying
over
judges
being
called
“rogue”
or
“unconstitutional.”
But
those
epithets
need
to
be
supported
by
the
record.
It’s
one
thing
to
call
a
specific
judge
“radical”
for
using
an
imaginary,
astroturfed
plaintiff
to
overturn
FDA
drug
safety
decisions
from
Amarillo
and
another
to
say
it’s
radical
for
a
whole
district
worth
of
judges
to
set
themselves
2
business
days
to
appropriately
calendar
a
hearing.
You’ve
got
to
show
your
receipts
if
you
want
to
throw
around
burns
like
that.
Let’s
call
it
the
Kendrick
Doctrine.
Cullen
is
right
that
this
recent
run
is
unprecedented,
but
it’s
a
disservice
to
reduce
it
to
a
critique
of
name-calling.
The
problem
isn’t
the
names,
but
that
the
administration
can’t
back
up
its
tone
with
hard
facts.
That’s
a
pretty
important
line
to
draw.
Relatedly,
the
issue
is
“smear[ing]
and
impugn[ing]
individual
judges
who
rule
against
it,”
because
insulting
individual
judges
as
individuals
that
implies
a
level
of
specific,
focused
criticism.
It’s
that
the
Trump
administration
rhetoric
is
never
meant
to
be
limited
to
a
singular
judge.
Any
individual
judge
they
put
on
blast
is
impliedly
a
stand-in
for
a
broader
conspiracy.
Matthew
Kacsmaryk
is
an
“activist”
because
before
the
bench
his
job
was
literally
“lawyer
for
an
activist
group.”
When
Trump
uses
the
term
it’s
a
placeholder
for
a
generic
category
of
judges
that
should
be
presumptively
distrusted
until
and
unless
they
rule
in
Trump’s
favor.
In
any
event,
Cullen
offered
the
Trump
administration
a
lifeline:
Fair
enough,
as
far
as
it
goes.
If
these
arguments
were
made
in
the
proper
forum,
they
might
well
get
some
traction.
And
under
normal
circumstances,
it
would
not
be
surprising
if
the
Executive
raised
these
concerns
through
the
channels
Congress
prescribed—that
is,
by
challenging
the
orders
as
applied
to
a
particular
habeas
proceeding
through
a
direct
appeal
to
the
Fourth
Circuit
or,
as
expressly
authorized
by
federal
statute,
by
petitioning
the
Judicial
Council
of
the
Fourth
Circuit,
which
has
the
authority
to
rescind
or
modify
local
court
rules.See
28
U.S.C.
§§
2071(c),
332(d)(4).
In
other
words,
if
the
administration
wants
to
argue
that
the
judges
have
to
issue
a
new
stay
every
time
they
receive
a
new
habeas
petition,
they
can
go
to
the
appellate
court
and
try
their
luck
with
that…
in
an
appropriate
case.
But
what
they
can’t
do
is
lodge
a
free-standing
complaint
against
ALL
THE
JUDGES
complaining
about
a
standing
order
like
a
sovereign
citizen
microdosing
ketamine.
But
as
events
over
the
past
several
months
have
revealed,
these
are
not
normal
times—at
least
regarding
the
interplay
between
the
Executive
and
this
coordinate
branch
of
government.
It’s
no
surprise
that
the
Executive
chose
a
different,
and
more
confrontational,
path
entirely.
Instead
of
appealing
any
one
of
the
affected
habeas
cases
or
filing
a
rules
challenge
with
the
Judicial
Council,
the
Executive
decided
to
sue—and
in
a
big
way.
It’s
the
vacuity
of
it
all.
The
insults
aren’t
rhetorical
flare
for
these
people,
they’re
an
end
to
themselves.
Another
bit
of
the
tacky,
gold-plated
trim
around
empty
spectacle.
Trump
sued
“all
the
judges”
because
it
gave
him
a
few
days
of
free
headlines
to
rant
about
judges
and
bolster
his
overarching
claim
that
judges
who
rule
for
him
are
good
and
those
that
rule
against
him
are
bad
—
regardless
of
the
merits.
It
was
never
a
serious
response,
because
these
are
not
serious
people.
Which
is
all
to
say
that
Judge
Cullen
probably
would
prefer
that
we
not
focus
on
his
status
as
a
Trump
nominee,
but
to
hide
that
would
let
the
White
House
get
away
with
it.
This
isn’t
a
left-wing,
liberal,
activist,
radical.
He
cannot
and
should
not
be
looped
into
the
generic
broadside
against
judges
just
because
he
honors
the
rule
of
law.
According
to
a
recent
Above
the
Law
article
by
Kathryn
Rubino,
an
AmLaw
100
firm
recently
announced
that
it
expected
its
associates
to
work
at
least
2400
hours
a
year
to
be
in
“good
standing.”
Just
when
you
thought
Biglaw
couldn’t
get
more
tone
deaf
about
work
life
balance
and
technology
adoption,
we
get
this.
The
policy,
as
quoted
by
ATL,
is
as
follows:
To
ensure
that
our
lawyers
develop
professionally
and
meet
client
needs,
associates
are
expected
to
contribute
a
minimum
of
2,400
total
productive
(“all–in”)
hours,
which
generally
includes
at
least
2,000
billable
hours.
The
remaining
hours
should
be
dedicated
to
productive
non-billable
contributions,
such
as
practice
and
business
development,
professional
development,
recruiting,
and
other
practice
and
firm
initiatives.
While
it’s
not
unusual
for
firms
to
set
billable
hour
quotas
for
associates
and,
for
that
matter,
partners,
this
announcement,
particularly
right
now,
sends
all
the
wrong
messages.
Let’s
Do
the
Math
In
the
age
of
work
life
balance
and
lawyer
health
concerns,
doing
the
math
is
enlightening.
Assuming
52
weeks
a
year,
working
2400
hours
means
working
over
46
hours
a
week,
week
in
and
week
out.
That’s
a
little
over
9
hours
a
day
assuming
a
five-day
week.
I
know,
what
big
law
associate
works
5
days
a
week?
At
6
days
a
week,
your
daily
grind
is
manageable
7.6
hours
a
day.
Of
course,
that
means
working
what
most
people
would
consider
a
full
day
every
single
Saturday.
But
of
course,
there’s
those
pesky
things
called
holidays
(5
days
a
year
if
you
grudgingly
decide
to
celebrate
the
most
important
ones)
and
vacations
(two
5-6
day
weeks
wasted).
Not
to
mention
time
wasters
like
taking
care
of
kids,
personal
hygiene,
and
that
overrated
activity
called
sleep.
It’s
no
wonder
younger
lawyers
who
are
juggling
several
balls
are
gagging.
Work-life
balance?
Meh.
Concerns
for
mental
health?
As
long
as
you
get
your
quota
you
are
free
to
do
whatever
you
want.
No
wonder
so
many
associates
are
burned
out
and
fleeing
Biglaw.
What
About
AI?
But
there’s
another
reason
this
announcement
and
indeed
any
imposition
to
arduous
billable
quotas
is
wrong.
Firms
trumpet
their
adoption
and
interest
in
AI
tools.
They
talk
about
how
they
will
lead
to
improved
efficiencies
and
higher
quality
work.
They
talk
about
how
they
are
embracing
AI
throughout
the
firm.
Yet
getting
associates
to
use
AI
tools
that
save
time
means
less
billable
hours
to
meet
quota.
Less
interest
in
efficiency.
Less
interest
in
using
the
tools.
And
as
I
have
written
before,
if
checking
AI
work
isn’t
billable
due
to
client
pressures,
then
there’s
the
temptation
not
to
use
it.
And
it
runs
deeper
than
that.
The
same
pressure
applies
to
the
use
of
any
technology
that
saves
time.
It
applies
to
such
things
as
training
and
experimenting
with
using
the
tools
that
frankly
is
crucial
to
using
them
effectively.
Who
wants
to
do
anything
that
detracts
from
hitting
your
9+
per
day
quota
which
appears
to
be
all
that
matters?
And
lest
we
forget,
while
partners
may
not
have
to
work
2400
hours
per
year,
most
large
firms
have
quotas
for
them
as
well.
The
same
pressures
apply.
Time
to
call
the
“can’t
have
it
both
ways”
police.
You
can’t
in
good
faith
say
you
embrace
AI
while
imposing
2400
hour
work
requirements
Innovation?
Forget
It
Not
to
mention
the
stifling
effect
on
innovation
and
the
development
of
alternative
fee
structures
that
these
kinds
of
quotas
may
have.
Associates
are
rewarded
for
billing
hours
period.
They
aren’t
rewarded
for
coming
up
with
innovative
techniques
to
help
the
client,
to
be
more
efficient,
to
work
smarter
not
harder.
The
message
from
firm
management
is
just
the
opposite.
Wonder
why
so
many
legal
tech
companies
are
started
by
disgruntled
associates?
It
may
be
because
their
law
firm
had
little
interest
in
products
and
innovations
they
were
coming
up
with.
Or
in
rewarding
them
for
their
ideas.
Alternative
Fees?
Right
Then
there
is
the
great
hue
and
cry
for
the
use
of
alternative
fees.
Flat
fees
and
fees
based
getting
things
done
quickly.
Fees
that
allow
you
to
make
more
money
by
spending
less
time
not
more.
Try
getting
an
associate
(or
a
partner)
who
needs
2400
hours
per
year
to
work
on
a
matter
where
the
firm
makes
more
money
by
getting
the
work
done
faster,
not
slower.
When
I
managed
a
nationwide
flat
fee
engagement,
I
saw
one
of
two
things
happen:
either
lawyers
ran
like
the
plague
to
avoid
working
on
it.
Or
they
rolled
up
their
sleeves
and
billed
like
the
dickens
since
there
was
no
client
looking
over
their
shoulder
at
the
time
spent.
And
in
most
firms,
even
if
the
alternative
fee
yields
a
healthy
profit,
the
workers
on
the
file
aren’t
necessarily
rewarded
since
their
time
records
don’t
show
as
many
hours
as
those
who
work
on
bill
by
the
hour
matters.
Help
make
the
firm
$500,000
in
profit
on
a
flat
fee
matter
but
don’t
meet
your
quota
as
a
result?
Not
a
path
to
advancement.
As
I
have
written
before,
the
culture
of
most
large
law
firms
is
just
not
set
up
to
encourage
and
manage
alternative
fees.
Clients
And
then
there’s
the
client.
You
know,
the
guys
who
pay
the
fees.
Instead
of
incentivizing
lawyers
to
work
in
the
best
interest
of
the
client
and
produce
quality
work
in
an
efficient
manner,
just
the
opposite
is
encouraged.
Rather
than
rewarding
and
encouraging
value
to
the
client,
you
reward
time
spent.
In
the
age
of
AI
which
provides
the
means
enhance
value,
the
approach
is
at
very
least
inconstant
and
at
worst
downright
disingenuous.
Frankly,
if
I
were
a
client,
I
would
be
looking
closely
at
the
billable
quotas
and
reward
system
of
any
firm
I
was
thinking
about
hiring.
But
It’s
Not
All
Billable
Time,
Right?
But
wait,
the
2400
hour
quota
is
not
composed
of
only
billable
time.
There’s
a
400
hour
work
portion
for
“productive
non-billable
contributions,
such
as
practice
and
business
development,
professional
development,
recruiting,
and
other
practice
and
firm
initiatives.“
So
you’re
really
only
talking
about
2000
billable
hours.
Much
more
manageable,
right?
Wrong.
Work
is
still
work.
It’s
not
2000
and
do
what
you
want
with
the
rest.
It’s
2400
hours
worked.
And
think
about
this:
when
it
comes
time
to
evaluate
an
associate,
how
much
will
those
400
non
billable
hours
really
count.
In
my
experience
not
much.
Let’s
put
it
this
way,
an
associate
who
has
2400
billable
hours
is
going
to
get
a
more
favorable
review
and
advancement
opportunity
than
one
who
bills
2000
and
has
a
400
non
billable
component.
The
hidden
message:
bill
2400
hours.
The
other
unstated
message:
those
hours
better
be
collectible.
Even
if
400
non
billables
is
a
credible
and
valued
number,
once
again,
the
incentive
is
not
to
use
technology
to
be
more
efficient
in
doing
non
billable
work.
It’s
just
the
opposite.
One
final
thing
to
think
about:
the
temptation
to
fudge.
Let’s
face
it,
there’s
no
one
going
to
complain
if
you
pad
the
time
on
a
non
billable
matter.
There’s
no
one
going
to
monitor
to
see
if
the
time
spent
was
reasonable
for
the
task.
And
that
can
lead
to
bad
habits
when
it
comes
to
billable
hours.
By
the
way,
one
thing
you
don’t
see
in
the
acceptable
work
for
non
billable
time
is
any
reference
to
technology—learning,
employing
or
innovating
with
it.
Arduous
Billable
Quotas
Are
Just
Wrong
Extreme
billable
quotas
are
just
wrong
in
today’s
world.
They
discourage
work
like
balance
enhances
worker
productivity
and
improves
output.
They
discourage
the
use
of
technology
and
AI.
They
preclude
the
effective
use
of
alternative
fees.
They
breed
worker
discontent
and
mistrust.
They
result
in
the
loss
of
valuable
associates
in
which
you
have
invested
time
and
money.
And
last
but
far
from
least,
they
detract
from
client
service
and
value-based
billing.
If
and
when
clients
wake
up
to
what
firms
are
really
incentivizing,
there
may
be
hell
to
pay
and
a
reckoning
about
what
legal
service
should
cost
and
deliver.
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.
Taking
advantage
of
people
asking
for
help
with
immigration
issues
is
low.
Unfortunately,
that
isn’t
enough
to
stop
people
from
posing
as
immigration
attorneys
to
take
advantage
of
those
in
need.
The
ABA
has
taken
note
and
sent
out
a
warning
to
the
public
that
fraudsters
may
be
among
the
people
calling
themselves
immigration
attorneys.
From
the
American
Bar
Association:
The
increase
in
fraud
cases
is
attributed
to
rising
enforcement
actions,
and
bad
actors
are
seeking
to
take
advantage
of
immigrant
communities
desperately
seeking
legal
assistance.
The
use
of
more
sophisticated
technology
also
has
contributed
to
the
growing
number
of
fraud
cases,
particularly
among
noncitizens. … Fraudsters
are
using
ABA
branding
and
office
addresses
to
trade
on
the
ABA’s
reputation,
often
charging
thousands
of
dollars
for
services
that
are
never
provided,
said
Adonia
R.
Simpson,
deputy
director
for
policy
and
pro
bono
for
the
ABA
Commission
on
Immigration.
Given
the
challenges
in
determining
whether
a
person
is
competent
at
their
job
or
just
making
their
best
out
of
an
opportunity
to
grift
without
actual
authority
(looking
at
you
Alina
Habba),
the
ABA
offered
some
guidelines
to
suss
out
if
the
immigration
attorney
you’re
in
communication
with
sees
you
as
a
future
client
or
an
easy
lick.
They
include
scrutinizing
communication
methods
(your
immigration
lawyer
shouldn’t
be
reaching
out
to
you
through
Whatsapp
or
Messenger),
meeting
with
the
lawyer
in
person
and
asking
to
see
proof
that
they
are
actually
licensed
to
practice.
Getting
legal
help
is
scary
enough
without
the
threat
of
being
sent
to
Uganda
looming
over
your
head.
And
while
it
is
understandable
to
feel
lost
in
the
sea
of
legalese
that
your
(hopefully
real)
potential
attorney
is
saying
to
you,
do
your
best
to
stay
focused
on
what’s
being
said
and
your
surroundings
—
you
are
not
required
to
leave
your
street
smarts
at
the
entrance
to
an
attorney’s
office.
There
are
signs
to
look
for
if
you
think
the
person
claiming
to
represent
you
is
a
scammer
in
disguise:
If
this
information
comes
a
bit
too
late
and
you’ve
been
scammed
by
a
fraudster
posing
as
an
attorney,
your
best
bet
may
be
to
contact
your
state
Attorney
General’s
office.
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.
Last
week,
the
Trump
administration
broke
irony
when
it
raided
the
home
and
office
of
John
Bolton,
former
national
security
advisor
and
current
critic
of
Donald
Trump,
for
—
wait
for
it
—
suspected
wrongful
possession
of
classified
documents.
The
law
enforcement
action
was
largely
panned
as
retribution
for
Bolton’s
2020
book
“The
Room
Where
It
Happened,”
which
is
sharply
critical
of
Trump’s
lack
of
knowledge
on
all
things
foreign
policy-related.
Now
former
White
House
attorney
—
and
current
critic
of
Trump
—
Ty
Cobb
is
talking
about
the
“justifiable
paranoia”
of
those
that
dare
to
call
out
the
president.
Appearing
on
NPR,
Cobb
told
host
Steve
Inskeep
that
when
he
first
learned
of
the
Bolton
raid
he
“went
down
and
locked
my
door.”
The
deadpan
quip
is
played
for
a
laugh,
but
there’s
a
dark
truth
there.
“I
think
anybody
that’s
critical
of
the
president
has
justifiable
paranoia
at
this
stage
of
the
game,”
Cobb
noted.
And
it’s
a
sentiment
echoed
by
others
—
Norm
Eisen
and
Andrew
Warren
wrote for
MSNBC: “The
early-morning
knock
on
Bolton’s
door
should
be
a
wake-up
call
to
every
American.
This
escalation
in
the
Trump
administration’s
use
of
law
enforcement
to
target
political
opposition
marks
a
dangerous
new
front
for
American
authoritarianism.”
Cobb
softened
his
stance
a
bit,
saying
not
to
“overreact”
to
the
raid,
and
noting
that
he
doesn’t
believe
that
Bolton
will
ultimately
be
indicated.
But
despite
Cobb’s
optimism
on
Bolton’s
legal
fate,
it
feels
undeniable
that
retribution
was
part
of
the
motivation
and
that’s
unusual
—
and
deeply
disturbing.
“There’s
certainly
an
abandonment
of
traditional
norms
at
the
Justice
Department
in
going
back
and
doing
this,”
he
said.
Cobb
continued:
This
is
no
longer
a
Justice
Department,
you
know,
with
independent
thinkers,
you
know,
acting
ethically.
This
–
these
people
are
so
totally
devoted
to
Trump
and
his
campaign
of
vengeance.
And,
you
know,
they
made
that
clear
when
they
welcomed
him
into
the
Great
Hall
and
Pam
Bondi,
you
know,
declared
the
fealty
of
the
department
to
the
president
as
opposed
to
the
Constitution,
which
is
actually
what
their
oath
is
for.
It
is
definitely
a
new
—
and
troubling
—
frontier.
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].
A
few
weeks
ago,
former
fifth-year
associate
went
on
LinkedIn
and
accused
Covington
of
racial
harassment.
Now,
he
appears
in
an
Instagram
video
detained
by
law
enforcement
as
part
of
Trump’s
D.C.
takeover.
Paul
Bryant
claimed
that
a
partner
in
the
D.C.
office
called
him
a
racial
slur
as
part
of
a
campaign
to
convince
him
to
quit
after
he
informed
the
firm
that
he
would
no
longer
work
on
SEC
disclosures
for
“anti-minority
and
anti-women
based
initiatives.”
Which,
to
be
honest,
have
almost
certainly
seen
an
uptick
since
the
White
House
started
threatening
ESG
initiatives
with
legal
action
and
businesses
decided
that
retrograde
policies
might
garner
some
goodwill
with
the
administration.
Covington
denied
the
racial
harassment
ever
happened,
while
Bryant
sought
a
$30
million
settlement
in
now-deleted
social
media
posts.
In
those
posts,
he
also
put
his
faith
in
Donald
Trump,
stating
“I
will
solicit
the
help
of
the
President,
Donald
J.
Trump
to
strike
an
adequate
deal
with
Covington…
It
is
actually
my
faith
that
the
Commander-In-Chief
will
hear
of
this
story
and
provide
the
leverage
I
need
to
effect
needed
change
in
your
system,
a
system
which
the
President
has
rightfully
began
to
investigate.”
As
the
rambling,
bloated
impetus
of
the
very
anti-minority
and
anti-women
based
initiatives
at
issue,
Trump
was
a
curious
choice
as
a
potential
savior.
Now,
Bryant
might
be
prepared
to
recognize
that
Trump
may
actually
be
responsible
for
all
this.
Trump’s
troops
detain
a
Black
lawyer
in
D.C.—swarmed
by
20
officers
just
for
walking
down
the
block.
Paul
Bryant
plans
to
press
charges
on
those
who
assaulted
him
“in
a
way
that
I
will
not
forget
anytime
soon.”
The
video
shows
Bryant
declaring
that
he
intends
to
press
charges
against
the
officers
holding
him.
The
video
cuts
in
after
he’s
already
being
held,
so
we
only
have
his
account
of
the
matter,
which
is
that
he
was
walking
down
the
street
when
roughly
20
cops/feds/troops/etc.
stopped
him.
While
he
states
that
the
police
wouldn’t
explain
the
potential
charges,
the
video
suggests
they
were
trying
for
some
sort
of
gun
charge,
because
Bryant
explains
for
the
record
that
his
magazine
is
in
the
trunk
of
his
car.
As
a
former
Army
officer,
he
understands
how
to
responsibly
handle
firearms,
and
as
a
lawyer
he
understands
the
significance
of
making
sure
his
ammunition
is
locked
away
from
his
weapon.
“This
is
what
calling
out
a
failed
system
looks
like,”
Bryant
says
in
the
clip.
Whether
or
not
it’s
what
“calling
it
out”
looks
like,
this
is
exactly
what
a
failed
system
looks
like.
A
former
Army
officer
and
Columbia-trained
attorney
who,
regardless
of
the
specific
allegations
against
Covington,
felt
genuinely
unable
to
ethically
perform
his
job
because
of
an
intimidation
campaign
being
either
waged
upon
or
smugly
acquiesced
to
by
corporate
America.
Unable
to
continue
in
Biglaw,
now
he’s
being
swarmed
by
an
occupying
force
—
who
are
actively
concealing
their
identities
per
the
video
—
patrolling
the
streets
over
what
seems
to
be
a
gun
charge
sent
by
a
political
movement
that
prides
itself
on
fighting
against
any
and
all
gun
regulations!
The
lax
access
to
guns
being,
of
course,
the
reason
D.C.
got
so
dangerous
in
the
first
place.
Just
a
vicious
cycle
of
policy
failure
designed
to
break
people.
Bryant
says
in
the
video
that
he
plans
to
press
charges
for
the
violation
of
his
civil
rights.
There
are
many
words
and
phrases
that
could
be
used
to
describe
the
federal
case
management
system.
“Up-to-date”
is
not
one
of
them.
That’s
why
no
one
was
surprised
when
PACER
got
hacked
earlier
this
month.
Who
knows,
maybe
someone
chucked
“maga2024!”
in
the
password
box
and
lucked
out?
What
you
can
be
sure
of
is
that
it
would
be
harder
for
hackers
to
do
their
namesake
if
the
government
did
a
better
job
of
securing
case
information.
A
senator
is
taking
his
complaints
to
the
top
of
the
federal
judiciary
in
the
hopes
of
getting
the
ball
rolling.
U.S.
Senator
Ron
Wyden
on
Monday
asked
Chief
U.S.
Supreme
Court
Justice
John
Roberts
to
commission
an
independent
review
of
the
federal
judiciary’s
cybersecurity
practices,
following
a
major
hack
of
the
court
system’s
electronic
case
management
system.
Wyden,
a
Democrat
from
Oregon,
in
a
letter
to
Roberts
said
the
recent
breach
of
the
federal
judiciary’s
filing
system
marked
the
second
time
since
2020
it
had
been
hacked
by
foreign
actors
exploiting
the
same
cyber
vulnerabilities.
Might
take
Roberts
a
while
—
he’s
probably
still
going
through
the
backlog
of
little
drawings
with
signatures
on
the
crotch
from
a
guy
that
was
super
appreciative
of
him
doing
a
big
favor.
That
said,
the
Chief
Justice
has
already
displayed
an
interest
in
technological
developments,
maybe
that
could
morph
in
to
an
interest
toward
cybersecurity.
Ron
Wyden
pointed
out
that
the
government’s
failure
to
strengthen
cybersecurity
puts
highly
sensitive
and
confidential
information
at
risk.
Frankly,
does
anyone
else
find
it
strange
that
people
managed
to
use
threats
of
data
vulnerability
as
a
rallying
point
to
ban
TikTok
before
they
went
to
check
the
lock
on
sensitive
court
information?
It
isn’t
like
this
month’s
hacking
was
the
first
time;
the
same
software
was
hacked
by
several
people
back
in
2020.
Priorities,
people.
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
is
learning
to
swim, is
interested
in
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.
Kathryn
