Author: TSA Press

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

According
to
Supreme
Court
data
collected
by
Jake
S.
Truscott
and
Adam
Feldman,
which
justice
was
part
of
the
majority
decision
the
least
this
Term?

Hint:
This
justice
was
only
in
the
majority
72%
of
the
time
(and
the
Court
issued
unanimous
decisions
in
42%
of
cases).

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Many
evangelical
Christians
insist
that God
anointed Donald
Trump
to
save
America.

It’s
a
little
hard
to
write
—
let
alone
believe
—
those
words,
but
that’s
what
some
evangelicals
say.

What,
you
might
ask,
is
the
argument
in
favor
of
Trump
being
God’s
messenger?

First,
last
July,
an
assassin
took
aim
at
Trump
and
missed. Evangelicals
say
that
you
can
almost
sense
God’s
hand
at
work.

Of
course
assassins
also
tried,
but
failed,
to
kill
a
bunch
of
other
presidents. Richard
Lawrence,
for
example,
tried
to
shoot Andrew
Jackson at
close
range
with
two
pistols. Both
misfired. Jackson
fought
back
with
his
cane,
and
bystanders
subdued
Lawrence.

Now
that’s
a
miracle! Two
pistols,
and
they both misfired?
Surely
Jackson
was
anointed
by
God,
no?

Or,
in
1864,
a bullet
passed
through Abraham
Lincoln’s
top
hat
during
a
late-night
ride
in
Washington,
D.C. That
must
count
as
an
attempted
assassination,
even
if
it
was
later
overshadowed
by
John
Wilkes
Booth’s
successful
effort
in
1865. Lincoln
pursued
a
noble
cause
and
actually
held
the
country
together. Anointed,
or
no?

But
I’m
just
getting
warmed
up
here. A
would-be
assassin
shot Teddy
Roosevelt in
the
chest
in
Milwaukee
in
1912. The
bullet
was
slowed
by
a
folded
speech
and
an
eyeglass
case
in
his
pocket
before
it
entered
his
chest. Roosevelt
finished
giving
his
84-minute
speech
before
seeking
medical
attention
and
surviving
the
attempt.  

He
finished
giving
his
speech
after
having
been
shot? I
can
feel
God’s
hand
at
work.

Attempted
assassins
also
went
after
FDR,
and
Truman,
and
Ford,
and
Reagan. Were
all
those
presidents
anointed? Some? Just
one? If
just
one,
which
one,
and
how
do
we
distinguish
between
the
one
who
survived
by
the
grace
of
God
and
the
others
who
merely
had
good
luck?

Can
we
agree
that
Trump
having
survived
an
assassination
attempt
is
not
proof
that
he
was
anointed
by
God?

Evangelicals
go
on
to
say
that
God
sometimes
uses
imperfect
messengers
as
vessels
to
pursue
his
divine
purposes. King
David,
for
example,
had
an
adulterous
affair
with
Bathsheba
and
later
murdered
her
husband,
but
God
chose
David
to
lead
the
nation
of
Israel
and
to
write
scripture. And Moses killed
a
man
and
later
disobeyed
the
Lord’s
directive,
but
God
chose
Moses
to
lead
his
people
out
of
Egypt.

I
grant
you
that
Donald
Trump
is
an
imperfect
messenger. Criminal
convictions,
multiple
other
criminal
indictments,
civil
liability
for
business
fraud
and
sexual
assault,
multiple
accusations
of
sexual
misconduct
—
stop,
you’ve
convinced
me! Trump’s
imperfect.

But
how
much
imperfection
are
we
looking
for? If
we
need
a
lot
of
imperfection,
why
weren’t
Attila
the
Hun,
or
Genghis
Khan,
or
Vlad
the
Impaler
messengers
of
God? Or,
if
we
need
slightly
less
imperfection,
how
about
Lincoln? He
was
an
imperfect
person,
as
are
we
all,
and
he
survived
that
assassination
attempt. Was
he
anointed
by
God? (Or
maybe
Lincoln
was,
and
Trump
was,
too,
and
there
are
a
few
others
that
evangelicals
can
identify
for
us. If
so,
speak
up,
evangelicals! We’re
all
ears.)

Lastly,
evangelicals
insist
that
Trump
is
a
strong
man
who
can
defend
Christian
values
against
threats
of
secularism
or
liberal
policies. To
me,
this
sounds
an
awful
lot
like
political
beliefs
wearing
a
religious
disguise,
but
what
do
I
know? Moreover,
if
you’re
an
evangelical
Christian,
you
might
think
that
Christian
values
include
things
like
loving
your
neighbor,
humility,
and
mercy. Evangelicals
who
hold
those
silly
values
might
think
that
it
wasn’t
God,
but
rather
the
guy
who
inhabits
the
other
place,
who
anointed
Trump.

I
guess
it’s
pretty
easy
to
use
the
justification
that
God
anointed
a
person
to
forgive
essentially
everything
that
a
person
has
ever
said
or
done
in
his
life.  

How
long
will
it
take,
do
you
suppose,
for
evangelicals
to
apologize
for
having
spouted
this
nonsense?

An
eternity,
perhaps?

---

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

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

I’m
definitely
taking
more
work
in-house
and
having
law
firms
bid
on
specific
projects.
Previously,
I
might
have
sent
something
out
to
a
firm
by
default.
Now,
I’m
asking
how
far
we
can
take
it
internally
before
turning
to
outside
counsel.

—
Jerry
Levine,
general
counsel
and
chief
evangelist
at
ContractPodAi,
in
comments
given
to

Law.com,
concerning
the
rising
rates
being
charged
by
outside
counsel.
“I’m
giving
more
work
to
smaller
firms
or
regional
offices
of
larger
firms,”
he
went
on
to
say.
“It’s
often
the
same
quality
of
attorney,
but
if
I
can
pay
Cincinnati
rates
instead
of
Manhattan
rates,
that
matters.”

---

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.

First
they
came
for
our
nuclear
secrets,
and
I
did
not
speak
out
—
because
I
did
not
have
nuclear
secrets.
And
they
were
on
the
Mar-a-Lago
bathroom
floor.
Then
they
came
for
the
AI
algorithms,
and
I
did
not
speak
out
—
because
I
was
not
burning
venture
capitalist
money
on
a
word
generator.
Then
they
came
for
Yale
Law
School
—
and
there
was
no
one
left
to
speak
for
me.

After
years
of
warnings
about
Chinese
hacking
operations
targeting
America’s
most
closely
held
secrets,
it
turns
out
we
should’ve
been
watching
“access
to
lectures
about
the
fertile
octogenarian.”
The
Law
School
Admission
Council
took
a
break
from

being
sued
over
price-fixing
allegations
to
announce
that
it

suspended
online
LSAT
testing
in
mainland
China
after
discovering
organized
cheating
efforts.
Cue
the
most
pretentious
senior
lawyer
you
know
to
explain
“this
never
happened
when
we
had
a
logic
games
section!”
Perhaps,
though
real
world
lawyering
usually
has
less
to
do
with
identifying
the
third
man
in
a
six-person
seating
arrangement
and
more
to
do
with
telling
a
partner
“fine,
I’ll
cancel
my
weekend.”

“We
have
been
increasingly
concerned
about
organized
efforts
by
individuals
and
companies
in
mainland
China
to
promote
test
misconduct,”
wrote
LSAC
executive
VP
Susan
L.
Krinsky.
“While
security
is
always
a
concern,
these
enterprises
are
becoming
increasingly
aggressive.
This
type
of
activity
is
not
limited
to
the
LSAT;
these
enterprises
purport
to
offer
cheating
services
for
virtually
every
standardized
test.
We
are
taking
steps
to
shut
down
these
operations
and
will
pursue
appropriate
legal
remedies.
LSAC
also
has
processes
in
place
to
monitor
and
respond
to
individual
score
irregularities
for
all
LSAT
candidates,
and
we
will
continue
to
evolve
our
security
measures.”

Sounds
like
it’s
time
to

take
the
GRE.

It’s
unclear
what
the
end
game
would
be
in
an
environment
where
the
Trump
administration
is
actively

trying
to
end
international
student
enrollment.
Congratulations
on
that
ill-gotten
178…
your
reward
is
still
not
going
to
be
a
Georgetown
degree.
Still,
it’s
interesting
if
China
thought
infiltrating
bastions
of
American
legal
education
would
matter
at
a
time
when
the
rule
of
law
is
increasingly
vibes-centric.

Or
perhaps
that
was
the
point.

Online
Exam
for
Admission
to
US
Law
Schools
to
be
Suspended
in
Mainland
China
Amid
Cheating
Crackdown
[Law.com
International]

---

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.

Associates
at
King
&
Spalding
recently
received
an
update
to
firm
policy
that
is
worrying
folks.
The
firm
told
associates
they
are
responsible
for
2,400
“productive”
hours
(broader
than
“billable”
hours,
but
narrower
than
all
working
hours)
in
order
to
be
in
good
standing
at
the
firm.
And
“good
standing”
is,
of
course,
linked
to
bonuses.

The
firm’s
policy
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.

Formally,
K&S
hasn’t
changed
their

requirement
of
1,950
billable
hours
to
be
bonus
eligible,
leaving
confusion
(along
with
anger)
in
the
wake
of
the
new
policy.
But
this
isn’t
the
first
time
the
firm’s
policies
have
sown
discontent.

Last
month,
we
told
you
about
the
passive
aggressive
campaign
at
the
firm
to
get
associates
to
come
into
the
office,
despite
hyping
a
“no
facetime”
culture,
and
holding
bonuses
over
attorneys’
heads
to
get
them
to
comply.
This
follows
a
similar
model,
with
attorneys
feeling
blindsided
by
a
new
operating
procedure
that
puts
their
bonuses
at
risk
—
although
the
exact
penalties
for
noncompliance
remain
opaque
and
the
rollout
has
been
criticized
internally
for
its
lack
of
transparency.

Folks
at
the
firm
are
NOT
taking
this
well.
Tipsters
at
the
firm
have
described
it
as
“insane,”
“not
doable,”
“inhumane,”
and
one
insider
even
said
this
is
part
of
the
firm’s
glorification
of
attorneys
who
“never
see
their
families.”
These
may
seem
like
some
pretty
harsh
words
from
the
K&S
rank
and
file,
but
an
ill-defined
2,400
hours
requirement
with
a
nebulous
enforcement
mechanism
is
harsh,
and
this
is
a
commensurate
response.

This
lack
of
clarity
on
what
it
takes
to
remain
in
good
standing
at
the
firm,
and
the
penalty
for
noncompliance
—
communicated
more
than
halfway
through
the
year,
no
less
—
is
just
wild.
And
leadership
at
K&S
*has*
to
know
they
aren’t
winning
the
hearts
and
minds
of
the
associates
when
they
play
fast
and
loose
with
hours
targets
and
in-office
requirements.
No
wonder
insiders
say
morale
is
in
the
toilet.

---

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].

“Our
capital
city
has
been
overtaken
by
violent
gangs
and
bloodthirsty
criminals,
roving
mobs
of
wild
youth,
drugged-out
maniacs
and
homeless
people,”
the
president

ranted
last
week.

It
has
not.
Violent
crime
in
DC
is
down
sharply
from
last
year,
and
is,
in
fact,
at
a

30-year
low.
But
one
of
the
teenage
DOGE-bros
—
that

odious
little
shit
Edward
“Big
Balls”
Coristine
—

got
mugged
a
couple
weeks
ago.
And
that
was
just
the

Reichstag-fire-but-dumber
excuse
the
Trump
administration
needed
to
invoke
emergency
powers
to
seize
control
of
DC’s
police.

On
August
11,
Trump

declared
a
“Crime
Emergency
in
the
District
of
Columbia”
in
which
he
purported
to
take
over
the
entire
Metropolitan
Police
Department
(MPD)
“for
Federal
purposes,
including
maintaining
law
and
order
in
the
Nation’s
seat
of
Government;
protecting
Federal
buildings,
national
monuments,
and
other
Federal
property;
and
ensuring
conditions
necessary
for
the
orderly
functioning
of
the
Federal
Government.”
This
was
followed
up
by

Order
6370-2025
from
Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi,
purporting
to
cancel
all
of
the
MPD’s
“sanctuary
city”
orders
and
putting
“Terrence
Cole,”
the
administrator
of
the
Drug
Enforcement
Administration,
in
charge
of
the
MPD.
(His
name
is
Terrance
Cole,
but
why
should
the
AG
bother
to
learn
the
names
of
her
underlings,
right?)

How
this
will
save
Coristine’s
balls
was
left
as
an
exercise
for
the
reader.

The
City
immediately

sued
and

sought
a
temporary
injunction
blocking
the
order,
and,
after
a
hearing
before
Judge
Ana
Reyes
on
Friday
afternoon,
the
Trump
administration
largely
backed
down.

But
the
whole
episode
is
a
reminder
of
the
precarious
situation
the
more
than
700,000
residents
of
our
nation’s
capital
live
under
as
citizens
of
no
state.

Taxation
without
representation

In
1790,
the
Founding
Fathers,
in
their
wisdom(?)
located
the
nation’s
capital
in
the
swampy
armpit
of
the
Potomac
River.
To
assure
the
existing
thirteen
states
that
one
of
their
number
was
not
about
to
reap
a
fantastic
bounty
by
hosting
the
seat
of
federal
government,
Washington
would
be
an
independent
district
governed
directly
by
Congress
itself.
That’s
Article
I,
Section
8,
Clause
17
of
the
Constitution,
also
known
as
the
“Enclave
Clause.”

At
the
time,
that
wasn’t
necessarily
the

craziest
idea
—
Congress
was
only
a
part-time
gig
in
those
days,
and
the
city
was
home
to
far
fewer
than
the
50,000
residents
needed
to
admit
a
state.
But
within
a
few
decades
it
became
clear
that
this
jury-rigged
solution
wasn’t
going
to
work
long
term.

DC
government
has
gone
through
multiple
instantiations
since
then,
several
of
which
were
very
weird.
Between
1874
and
1967,
it
was
governed
by
a

tripartite
system
consisting
of
three
“commissioners,”
two
appointed
by
the
president
and
one
by
the
Army
Corps
of
Engineers.
But
it
was
Congress
which
drafted
the
city’s
laws
and
funded
local
government,
meaning
that
US
Senators
and
Representatives
from

other
states
were
left
fielding
calls
from
DC
residents
about
everything
from
potholes,
to
trash
pickup,
to
enforcing
local
leash
laws.
Members
of
Congress,
answerable
only
to
their
own
constituents,
were
largely
indifferent
to
complaints
by
DC
residents.
For
example,
Congress
frequently

forgot
to
authorize
daylight
savings
time
in
DC,
leaving
the
District’s
residents
in
a
weird
Twilight
Zone,
an
hour
behind
everyone
else
on
the
East
coast.

Finally
in
1973,
Congress
enacted
the

Home
Rule
Act,
ceding
a
little
of
its
powers
over
DC
to
local
citizens.
Residents
gained
the
right
to
elect
a
mayor
and
city
council
to
manage
the
District’s
day-to-day
affairs,
but
Congress
retained
ultimate
authority
to
approve
local
laws
and
set
the
city’s
budget.
For
good
measure,
Congress
also
devolved
some
of
its
authority
over
the
city
to
the
president
for
use
in
an
emergency,
which
is
why
the
city
remains
uniquely
vulnerable
to
the
depredations
of
President
Emergency
Powers.

Section
740

Because
the
federal
government
lacks
its
own
police
force,
the
Home
Rule
Act
contains
an
obscure
emergency
provision
at
Section
740
empowering
the
president
to
conscript
local
police
under
certain
conditions:

Whenever
the
President
of
the
United
States
determines
that
special
conditions
of
an
emergency
nature
exist
which
require
the
use
of
the
Metropolitan
Police
force
for
Federal
purposes,
he
may
direct
the
Mayor
to
provide
him,
and
the
Mayor
shall
provide,
such
services
of
the
Metropolitan
Police
force
as
the
President
may
deem
necessary
and
appropriate.

Until
last
week,
no
president
had

ever
invoked
Section
740,
so
there
is
no
case
law
interpreting
it.
But
the
plain
text
of
the
statute
sets
three
preconditions
for
the
president’s
invocation:

1. There
   must
   be
   “special
   conditions
   of
   an
   emergency
   nature”
   that
   require
   the
   assistance
   of
   the
   DC
   Metro
   police;
2. The
   President
   must
   “direct”
   the
   DC
   Mayor
   to
   provide
   police
   “services”
   in
   support
   of
   such
   emergency;
   and
3. Those
   services
   must
   be
   in
   support
   of
   a
   “federal
   purpose.”

Moreover,
the
powers
authorized
by
Section
740
expire
after
just
48
hours,
although
they
can
be
extended
up
to
30
days
if
the
President
notifies
Congress
in
writing
as
to
the
“reason
for
such
direction
and
the
period
of
time
during
which
the
need
for
such
services
is
likely
to
continue.”
After
30
days,
the
emergency
terminates
“unless
the
Senate
and
the
House
of
Representatives
enact
into
law
a
joint
resolution”
extending
the
emergency.

Shout
“Emergency!”
Break
the
law.
Rinse
and
repeat.

Pursuant
to
Section
740,
AG
Bondi
issued
her
August
14
order
purporting
to:

1. Appoint
   DEA
   Administrator
   Cole
   as
   the
   “Emergency
   Police
   Commissioner”
   of
   MPD
   with
   all
   the
   powers
   of
   the
   Chief
   of
   Police;
2. Revoke
   three
   MPD
   orders
   regarding
   local
   police
   cooperation
   with
   immigration
   enforcement;
   and
3. Instruct
   the
   MPD
   to
   enforce
   “to
   the
   maximum
   extent
   permissible
   by
   law”
   local
   laws
   regarding
   the
   “unlawful
   occupancy
   of
   public
   spaces.”

Targeting
homeless
people
is
consistent
with
Trump’s

yelling
at
clouds
about
“too
many
tents
on
the
lawns
—
these
magnificent
lawns,”
but
would
appear
to
have
precious
little
to
do
with
“special
conditions
of
an
emergency
nature.”
And
so
the
very
next
morning,
the
District
of
Columbia

raced
into
federal
court
seeking
a

temporary
restraining
order
blocking
Bondi’s
order
from
going
into
effect.

They
drew
Judge
Ana
Reyes,
last
seen
on
these
pages

brutally
eviscerating
the
government’s
slipshod
reasoning
in
support
of
the
ban
on
trans
service
members.
(But
not
too
slipshod
for
SCOTUS).
The
judge
promptly
cancelled
her
upcoming
vacation,
postponed
a
pizza
party
for
her
departing
law
clerks,
and
scheduled
a
hearing
on
the
District’s
motion
for
later
that
afternoon.

Know
when
to
fold
‘em

At
the
hearing,
Judge
Reyes
gave
the
government
the
maximum
benefit
of
the
doubt.
She
refused
to
even
discuss
the
issue
of
whether
there
was
a
genuine
emergency
sufficient
to
invoke
Section
740,
or
whether
the
uses
demanded
by
the
president
were
in
support
of
a
“federal
purpose.”
Because
DC
requested
an
immediate
temporary
restraining
order
before
the
benefit
of
any
discovery,
Judge
Reyes
just
assumed
(for
now)
that
the
Trump
administration
had
satisfied
those
preconditions.

And
despite
all
of
that,
it
was
clear
that
Judge
Reyes
thought
no
part
of
the
order
was
likely
to
survive

as
written.
There
is
nothing
in
the
Home
Rule
Act
giving
the
president
the
power
to
unilaterally
appoint
a
new
Chief
of
Police
or
issue
commands
directly
to
the
MPD.
Nor
does
the
Home
Rule
Act
empower
the
president
to

rescind
previous
police
directives;
he
can
only
order
MPD
to
provide
police
“services.”
So
the
administration
can’t
just
wipe
out
the
offending
“sanctuary
city”
policies
with
the
stroke
of
a
pen
—
although
it
might
be
able
to
affirmatively

order
MPD
to
do
things
that
violate
those
policies.

The
court
made
it
pellucidly
clear
that,
if
the
administration
didn’t
walk
back
Bondi’s
garbage
demands,
it
was
going
to
find
itself
on
the
pointy
end
of
a
TRO.
And,
as
Judge
Reyes
reminded
Deputy
AG
Yaakov
Roth,
the
penalty
for
noncompliance
with
a
judicial
order
is
contempt
of
court.
And
so
the
government
caved
and
agreed
to

rescind
Bondi’s
August
14
order,
effectively
stipulating
to
most
of
the
city’s
demands,
and
replacing
it
with

Order
6372-2025,
hammered
out
with
DC’s
Attorney
General
Brian
Schwalb.

Under
the
new
order,
Cole
is
no
longer
denominated
as
Chief
of
Police,
but
rather
the
AG’s
“designee”
to
the
Mayor
for
the
purposes
of
communicating
requests
made
during
the
duration
of
the
so-called
“emergency.”
(They’re
still
misspelling
his
name,
though!)
And
the
balance
of
the
order
now
requests
affirmative
“assistance”
from
MPD
with
the
enforcement
of
federal
immigration
law,
rather
than
unilateral
rescission
of
its
own
internal
edicts.
AG
Schwalb
then

withdrew
his
request
for
a
TRO,
and
everyone
got
to
go
home
for
the
weekend.

But
DC
isn’t
out
of
the
woods
yet.
As
Judge
Reyes
noted
during
the
hearing,
the
Home
Rule
Act

does
give
the
administration
special
powers
over
MPD.
The
Act
says
that
the
Mayor
“must”
provide
the
police
services
that
the
President
deems
“necessary
and
appropriate.”
And
so,
even
though
this
particular
order
was
overbroad,
the
government
almost
certainly
can
order
DC
Mayor
Muriel
Bowser
to
provide
local
police
support
for
ICE
raids
if
Section
740
of
the
Home
Rule
Act
has
been
properly
invoked.

Of
course
the
original
lawsuit
remains
pending,
even
after
the
District’s
motion
for
TRO
was
withdrawn.
The
court
will
still
have
to
decide
whether
there’s
a
legitimate
“emergency”
for
the
purposes
of
Section
740,
and
whether
enforcing
DC’s
vagrancy
laws
have
a
federal
purpose.
And
meanwhile,
the
30-day
clock
is
ticking
—
something
the
administration
will
surely
cite
as
a
reason
to
evade
judicial
review
by
an
unfriendly
judge.
Can’t
have
a
lot
of
fact-finding
about
whether
there’s
an
“emergency”
if
the
emergency
order
has
expired,
right?
(No,
not
right.)

TL,
DR?

DC
should
be
a
state.
It
has
more
residents
than
Wyoming
or
Vermont,
and
arguments
that
its
citizens
are
undeserving
of
representation
amount
to
a
naked
power
grab
wrapped
in

gutter
racism.
But
until
that
day
comes,
DC
residents
should
at
least
be
able
to
run
their
own
police
department.
And
for
now,
they
still
can.

While
we
all
know
the
expression
“monkey
see,
monkey
do,”
it
doesn’t
quite
hit
the
mark
for
me
as
I
sit
down
to
write
this.
The
word
I’m
really
searching
for
is
“emulate.”
The
definition?
To
match
or
surpass
someone
or
something,
typically
by
imitation.
There,
that’s
better.

Before
I
go
any
further,
let
me
be
clear:
this
isn’t
about
puffing
out
my
chest
or
boasting.
I
simply
believe
that
each
of
us
has
unique
talents,
and
part
of
life’s
purpose
is
to
share
them
with
the
world.

As
a
legal
business
development
coach,
my
role
is
to
teach
lawyers
behaviors,
skills
and
language
that
save
time,
increase
revenue
and
support
them
in
living
their
best
lawyer’s
life.
I
learned
early
on
that
if
I
wanted
my
clients
to
succeed,
I
had
to
walk
the
walk
myself.
If
I’m
not
someone
worth
emulating,
what
does
that
say
about
my
coaching?
Why
would
anyone
want
to
follow
my
lead
if
I’m
not
demonstrating
leadership?
With
that
in
mind,
here
are
a
few
key
habits
that
have
helped
me
grow—and
how
they
help
my
clients
follow
suit
on
their
own
journey
to
rainmaking
success.

1.
Positivity
Powers
Forward
Motion
If
you’re
saying
things
like
“I
can’t”
or
“I
won’t,”
you’re
setting
yourself
up
to
lose
before
you’ve
even
started.
We
all
have
tough
days
and
rough
stretches,
me
included.
(Have
I
mentioned
that
I
have
a
teenager?)
But
here’s
the
truth:
it’s
incredibly
difficult
to
succeed
in
business
development
with
a
negative
mindset.

One
of
the
most
effective
ways
I
shift
my
thinking
is
by
taking
positive
action.
Whether
it’s
working
out,
getting
chores
done
or
spending
time
on
business
development,
I
do
things
that
move
me
in
a
productive
direction.
And
the
mind
responds.

My
clients
see
this
consistency.
They
pick
up
on
the
optimism
that
these
habits
create.
I’m
part
coach,
part
therapist
and
full-time
optimist.
We
talk
about
everything,
billable
hour
pressure,
difficult
clients
or
partners,
and
why
business
development
efforts
may
be
stalling.
I
listen,
I
understand,
and
then
we
collaborate
to
create
a
clear
plan.
By
the
end
of
the
call,
my
clients
leave
with
more
clarity,
energy,
and
confidence
than
they
had
at
the
start.
That
transformation
from
skeptical
and
apprehensive
to
motivated
and
forward-looking?
That’s
the
magic.

2.
Becoming
An
Organizational
Assassin
I’ll
admit
it:
I
used
to
be
a
total
disaster
when
it
came
to
organization.
Stacks
of
business
cards.
Messy
file
folders.
A
cluttered
inbox.
Missed
follow-ups
with
potential
clients
and
strategic
partners.
Sound
familiar?

A
lot
of
my
clients
start
off
this
way.
But
it
doesn’t
take
long
before
they
realize
I’ve
become
the
master
of
organization.
No
paper
clutter.
Inbox
at
zero.
And
yes,
I
only
work
four
days
a
week
now
(humble
brag).
What
changed?
I
realized
that
in
order
to
teach
lawyers
business
development,
I
first
had
to
master
time
management
and
organization.
One
doesn’t
work
without
the
other.

So,
I
became
a
student
of
the
game.
I
studied
productivity
legends
like
David
Allen,
author
of
“Getting
Things
Done,”
and
James
Clear,
who
wrote
“Atomic
Habits.”
And
I
applied
their
lessons
relentlessly.
It
took
time,
but
it
was
a
game-changer.
Today,
my
clients
see
that
structure
in
everything
I
do,
and
they
want
in
on
the
secret
sauce.
The
best
part?
I
love
helping
them
get
there.

3.
Build
Your
Brand
To
Build
Your
Business
Imitation
isn’t
just
the
sincerest
form
of
flattery.
It’s
the
start
of
real
learning.
A
lot
of
my
clients
find
me
through
my
books,
podcast,
or
articles
—
like
this
one.
They’re
observing
someone
who’s
willing
to
put
himself
out
there,
and
that
matters.

I
would
never
ask
a
client
to
do
something
I’m
not
already
doing
myself.
That’s
part
of
why
the
results
we
get
are
so
strong.
Business
development
on
its
own
can
move
the
needle,
but
when
you
combine
it
with
marketing
and
brand-building,
you
see
transformation.
I’m
also
a
big
believer
in
automation
and
delegation.
My
virtual
assistant
handles
most
of
the
backend
work,
which
frees
me
up
to
focus
on
high-value
efforts
like
client
engagement,
content
creation,
and
relationship-building
with
referral
sources.

Many
of
the
lawyers
I
work
with
struggle
to
even
write
their
first
LinkedIn
post.
No
surprise
there.
As
you
are
well
aware,
perfectionism
and
risk
aversion
are
common
in
your
profession.
But
with
me
modeling
the
behaviors
and
strategies
in
real
time,
we
can
find
the
approaches
that
work
best
for
everyone.
And
because
I’ve
already
tested
and
refined
them,
they
can
hit
the
ground
running.

Where
We
Start
Isn’t
Where
We
End
If
you
asked
five
of
my
high
school
friends
how
successful
I’d
be
in
30
years,
not
one
of
them
would
have
predicted
I’d
be
a
five-time
author
and
coach
to
some
of
the
most
accomplished
lawyers
on
the
planet.
But
here
I
am,
and
I
don’t
take
it
for
granted.

In
order
for
my
clients
to
grow,
I
have
to
be
the
ultimate
role
model.
I
must
be
the
best
at
managing
time,
mastering
business
development,
and
building
a
brand,
so
they
can
trust
the
road
I’m
leading
them
down.
Their
ability
to
emulate
my
systems,
habits,
and
mindset
is
critical
to
their
success.

If
you’re
hungry
to
learn
and
improve,
check
out
my
books,
podcasts,
videos,
and
articles
at

www.fretzin.com.
Or
for
a
more
direct
path,
shoot
me
an
email
at

[email protected]
and
we’ll
schedule
a
30-minute
call
to
see
if
there’s
a
fit
to
work
together.

---

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/.