Nutrition,
diet
and
Medicare
Advantage
plan
ethics
were
prominent
themes
in
this
week’s
episode
of
the
Debunked
podcast.
MedCity
News
Editor
in
Chief
Arundhati
Parmar
was
joined
by
Paul
Markovich,
president
and
CEO
of
Ascendiun
—
the
nonprofit
parent
company
of
Blue
Shield
of
California.
Debunked
co-host
Samir
Batra,
managing
partner
of
Health
Innovation
Pitch,
was
away
on
vacation.
When
he’s
not
scrapping
medical
research,
Secretary
of
Health
and
Human
Services
Robert
Kennedy
Jr
is
keen
on
reducing
food
additives,
such
as
artificial
flavors
and
colors,
as
part
of
the
administration’s
initiative
Make
America
Healthy
Again
(MAHA).
In
June,
Texas
Gov.
Greg
Abbott
signed
a
bill
into
law
requiring
that
groceries
containing
one
or
more
of
40
ingredients
include
a
warning
label
in
addition
to
requiring
nutrition
education
and
exercise
to
be
taught
in
elementary,
secondary
schools
and
medical
schools.
Other
states
are
looking
into
similar
legislation.
That
kicked
off
a
wider
discussion
about
the
relationship
between
diet,
exercise
and
obesity.
Markovich
cited
a
Duke
University
study
that
looked
at
“correlations
between
economic
development,
daily
energy
expenditure
and
the
rise
in
a
country’s
obesity
level”.
The
study
concluded
that
changes
in
diet
is
the
main
cause
of
obesity
in
the
U.S.
and
other
developed
countries.
Arundhati
and
Paul
also
discussed
some
of
the
highlights
of
the
July
House
Ways
and
Means
Joint
Health
and
Oversight
Subcommittee
Hearing
on
Medicare
Advantage
plans.
One
issue
is
that
providers,
unhappy
with
reimbursement
rates,
are
dropping
MA
plans.
But
a
larger
concern
rests
with
a
DoJ
investigation
into
alleged
MA
plan
practices,
such
as
sending
physicians
to
home
visits
and
reporting
diagnoses
codes
with
increased
risk
adjustment
scores
without
providing
the
treatment
based
on
those
diagnoses.
No
one
in
their
reasonable
mind
would
like
to
take
the
bar
exam
—
not
only
is
the
test
so
stressful
it
could
give
you
a
heart
attack,
they
don’t
even
have
protocol
to
timely
assist
you
if
that
actually
happens!
Ideally,
law
schools
would
be
good
enough
to
vet
which
of
their
students
are
competent
to
practice
upon
graduation.
Until
then,
there
has
to
be
some
mechanism
for
sifting
the
minimally
competent
from
the
people
who
need
to
do
a
couple
more
close
reads
of
their
hornbooks.
NextGen
wants
to
be
that
mechanism
but
they
still
need
some
tweaking
to
make
the
most
out
of
the
test,
and
they’re
willing
to
pay
test
takers
to
help
them
out.
The
only
caveat?
You
had
to
take
the
January
bar
exam:
If
you’re
willing
to
sit
through
a
mock
exam
for
$1500,
set
an
alarm
for
a
week
from
now!
As
stated
above,
you
can
apply
to
take
the
NextGen
bar
between
August
15th
and
September
8th.
Given
that
the
stakes
of
this
bar
are
much
lower
than
determining
if
the
time,
effort,
and
six
figures
you
invested
in
law
school
were
all
for
naught,
you
might
even
enjoy
taking
this
test.
Probably
not,
but
getting
paid
to
take
a
test
could
be
enough
to
help
you
get
through
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.
Law
firms
and
in-house
counsel
are
light
years
apart
on
the
role
of
the
billable
hour,
but
the
two
groups
still
find
some
encouraging
common
ground
on
pricing
models.
A
new
survey
by
iManage
and
Above
the
Law
asked
law
firms
and
corporate
law
departments
which
arrangements
would
better
drive
alignment
between
the
two
groups.
Private
practice
lawyers
were
more
than
five
times
as
likely
as
their
in-house
counterparts
to
choose
hourly
billing,
while
in-house
counsel
were
more
than
twice
as
likely
to
choose
value-based
or
outcome-driven
pricing.
Other
models,
however,
had
the
two
groups
more
aligned.
“Perhaps
negotiating
a
blended
model
that
combines
alternative
fee
arrangements
and
hourly
rates
is
where
the
two
groups
can
ultimately
come
together,”
the
report
says.
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.
“Start
of
indicted
Supreme
Court
judge
Hantz
Marconi’s
trial
delayed”: Paul
Feely
of
The
New
Hampshire
Union
Leader
has this
report.
“Gov.
Laura
Kelly
selects
Leawood
attorney
to
fill
vacancy
on
Kansas
Supreme
Court;
Democratic
governor
makes
fourth
appointment
to
the
state’s
highest
court”: Tim
Carpenter
of
Kansas
Reflector
has this
report.
“DOJ
tells
judge
it
will
ask
Supreme
Court
to
quickly
rule
on
constitutionality
of
Trump’s
birthright
citizenship
order”: Devan
Cole
of
CNN
has this
report.
“Trump
Asks
Supreme
Court
to
Lift
Restrictions
on
L.A.
Immigration
Stops;
A
lower
court
had
ordered
agents
not
to
make
indiscriminate
stops
relying
on
factors
like
race
or
speaking
Spanish”: Adam
Liptak
of
The
New
York
Times
has this
report.
“Sixth
Circuit
says
Second
Amendment
doesn’t
cover
machine
guns;
An
appellate
panel
in
Cincinnati
upheld
a
man’s
conviction
for
owning
a
machine
gun
and
limited
the
protections
of
the
Second
Amendment
in
the
process”: Destiny
DeVooght
of
Courthouse
News
Service
has this
report.
“This
Is
No
Way
to
Run
a
Country”: Online
at
The
New
York
Times,
columnist
David
French
has an
essay that
begins,
“Have
you
ever
written
words
that
you
thought
might
get
you
killed?
Have
you
ever
written
words
that
you
worry
might
get
someone
you
love
killed?
That’s
the
reality
that
federal
judges
are
facing
across
the
nation.”
It
has
been
over
two
years
since
large
language
models
(LLMs)
burst
onto
the
technology
scene,
giving
many
of
us
our
first
taste
of
AI
and
sparking
our
imagination
about
how
it
could
transform
the
way
we
work
and
do
business.
The
legal
industry
quickly
recognized
AI’s
ability
to
streamline
repetitive
tasks,
draft
documents,
categorize
content,
turbocharge
ediscovery,
and
efficiently
sift
through
large
amounts
of
information.
Today,
almost
every
type
of
software
used
by
lawyers
incorporates
some
form
of
AI,
as
technology
continues
to
evolve.
Nearly
every
firm
has
made
significant
investments
in
AI
tools.
Have
those
investments
been
effective?
The
answer
is
yes
and
no.
While
the
tools
are
improving
exponentially,
many
firms
are
struggling
with
some
fundamental
questions:
Which
AI
do
we
use?
How
can
we
get
our
lawyers
to
adopt
it?
What
workflow
improvements
can
we
make?
To
effectively
shape
the
future
of
legal
practice
with
AI,
firms
must
first
identify
the
problems
that
need
to
be
solved
and
define
the
strategic
business
outcomes
they
aim
to
achieve
by
implementing
AI-powered
technology.
Successful
AI
adoption
depends
not
only
on
the
technology
itself,
but
also
on
how
strategically
it
is
deployed.
In
this
article,
we
examine
four
strategies
that
can
help
legal
professionals
optimize
the
return
on
their
AI
investments,
ensuring
that
innovation
translates
into
meaningful
impact.
Know
Your
Outcome
Implementing
an
AI
tool
requires
a
clear
understanding
of
expected
returns
on
investment.
Defining
strategic
outcomes
at
the
project’s
outset
will
simplify
technology
selection
and
guide
implementation,
including
change
management
and
adoption.
It
also
sets
realistic
expectations
for
AI
capabilities.
The
market
for
AI
in
the
legal
field
is
increasingly
crowded.
As
with
any
new
technology,
AI
capabilities
are
often
misunderstood.
It
is
essential
to
have
a
clear
understanding
of
the
various
types
of
AI
available.
•
Generative
AI
can
summarize
documents,
create
content,
and
is
often
paired
with
advanced
search
platforms. •
Agentic
AI
can
act
independently
on
your
behalf
by
making
decisions
and
performing
tasks.
These
technologies
can
automate
tedious
processes
for
both
lawyers
and
business
professionals. •
Extractive
AI
identifies
and
extracts
specific
content
from
a
document,
such
as
deal
terms
or
parties.
When
selecting
AI
solutions,
it
is
crucial
to
consider
how
the
tools
will
access
content,
whether
through
integration
with
firm
systems
or
uploading
to
vendor
systems.
The
costs
of
some
AI
features
can
be
surprisingly
high.
Comparing
defined
outcomes
with
available
products
and
resources
helps
firms
determine
the
feasibility
of
implementing
a
particular
tool.
Practice
Productivity
By
efficiently
sifting
through
large
volumes
of
information
and
streamlining
repetitive
tasks,
AI
can
help
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
focus
on
more
substantive
and
strategic
aspects
of
their
work.
AI
tools
can
generate
content,
summarize
documents,
and
streamline
the
production
of
client
work.
When
coupled
with
advanced
search
platforms,
these
tools
enable
legal
professionals
to
quickly
and
accurately
retrieve
relevant
documents
and
information,
drastically
reducing
the
time
spent
on
manual
searches.
Agentic
AI
can
take
actions
on
behalf
of
users,
make
decisions,
and
perform
tasks
autonomously.
This
transforms
how
lawyers
manage
workflows,
schedule
appointments,
and
reduce
data
entry.
Such
technologies
remove
time-consuming
tasks
for
both
legal
professionals
and
business
staff,
enhancing
overall
productivity.
Knowledge
management
systems
that
incorporate
AI
and
advanced
search
functionalities
are
becoming
essential
tools
for
creating
work
products.
These
tools
often
include
workflows
that
allow
legal
professionals
to
work
effectively
with
the
document
sets
they
retrieve,
further
simplifying
the
drafting
process.
Streamline
Nonbillable
Tasks
and
Improve
Client
Service
There
is
potential
for
AI
to
enhance
a
lawyer’s
workflow
beyond
document
creation.
Lawyers
wear
many
hats
in
an
organization.
Partners
manage
their
client
relationships,
ensure
they
are
running
a
profitable
book
of
business,
supervise
teams,
and
develop
new
clients,
among
other
responsibilities.
If
that
partner
leads
a
practice,
they
have
additional
responsibilities.
To
be
successful,
lawyers
of
all
types
interact
with
numerous
systems
daily.
Many
of
these
tasks
can
be
easily
enhanced
by
leveraging
various
forms
of
AI.
For
example,
rather
than
reviewing
dozens
of
emails,
a
bot
can
be
created
to
prompt
the
lawyer
about
key
activities
due
across
all
the
firm’s
systems.
In
some
cases,
an
agentic
AI
bot
can
monitor
emails
for
potential
issues
and
take
action
to
resolve
them
without
requiring
lawyer
intervention.
Developing
these
AI
assistants
may
have
a
significant
impact
on
the
lawyer’s
job
satisfaction
and
overall
firm
productivity
by
streamlining
many
individual
tasks
that
distract
and
divert
lawyers
from
their
billable
client
work.
Build
a
Strong
Foundation
for
the
Future
Like
any
information-driven
solution,
AI
is
only
as
valuable
and
accurate
as
the
content
it
leverages.
This
is
why
most
AI
solutions
use
a
curated
set
of
documents
rather
than
the
entire
DMS.
Therefore,
creating
a
data
platform
with
clean,
well-governed
data
is
essential.
It
ensures
that
the
data
feeding
into
the
AI
system
is
accurate,
reliable,
and
up-to-date,
thus
enhancing
the
quality
of
AI
outputs.
Firms
that
have
invested
in
and
built
knowledge
banks,
which
organize
and
maintain
the
most
valuable
of
a
firm’s
knowledge,
will
capitalize
on
their
investments
and
likely
achieve
success
with
AI
more
quickly
by
feeding
the
AI
with
good,
structured
content
to
build
upon.
The
combination
of
data
work
and
a
knowledge
bank
not
only
modernizes
workflows
but
also
empowers
AI
to
make
precise
and
informed
decisions,
ultimately
leading
to
more
efficient
and
high-quality
legal
services.
AI
is
advancing
at
an
incredible
pace.
Many
technologies
a
firm
chooses
to
invest
in
will
eventually
become
obsolete,
but
the
data
and
documents
that
drive
AI
solutions
will
always
be
key
for
any
future
AI
innovation.
Shaping
the
Future
Taking
all
of
this
into
account,
the
lawyer
of
the
future
is
going
to
have
different
experiences
in
almost
every
aspect
of
the
practice
of
law.
Essential
tasks
required
today,
including
matter
management,
monitoring
health
status
updates,
document
consolidation,
matter
openings,
and
conflict
checks,
all
have
the
potential
to
be
either
replaced
or
considerably
enhanced
by
AI.
Bots
can
be
created
to
provide
clients
with
basic
answers
to
legal
questions.
The
evolution
of
increasingly
capable
AI
technologies
will
enable
lawyers
to
focus
on
more
sophisticated
and
complex
client
work
that
demands
human
creativity
and
legal
expertise.
Jim
Tuvell
is
the
Managing
Director
of
Fireman,
an
Epiq
Company,
where
he
leads
a
team
of
experts
in
knowledge
management
and
technology
strategy
for
the
legal
industry.
With
over
25
years
of
experience,
Tuvell
has
a
proven
track
record
of
aligning
technology
investments
with
law
firms’
strategic
goals
to
drive
efficiency,
quality,
and
revenue.
Originally
printed
in
ILTA’s
summer
issue
of
Peer
to
Peer
Magazine.
Corporate
and
particularly
M&A
has
been
a
little
softer
this
year
than
people
thought,
but
that
being
said,
many
firms
are
very
busy
and
I
think
bonuses
are
always
a
way
to
reward
associates.
[Bonuses
are
also
a
way
to]
further
separate
the
most
profitable
firms
that
are
paying
associates
market
from
those
firms
that
are
either
paying
market
but
don’t
necessarily
have
the
same
profitability
or
the
firms
that
aren’t
necessarily
paying
market
at
all.
—
Stephanie
Biderman,
a
partner
in
the
associate
recruiting
practice
at
Major
Lindsey
&
Africa,
in
comments
given
to
the
American
Lawyer,
concerning
Milbank’s
decision
to
offer
summer
bonuses
to
associates
and
counsel
globally.
Milbank’s
bonuses
range
from
$6,000
to
$25,000,
depending
on
class
year.
Thus
far,
three
other
firms
have
announced
summer
bonuses:
Vartabedian
Hester
&
Haynes
($5,000),
Otterbourg
($15,000),
and
Hueston
Hennigan
($10,000
to
$30,000).
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.
The
next
generation
of
lawyers
will
approach
the
same
old
problems
in
very
different
ways.
At
its
heart,
the
profession
isn’t
all
that
different
than
it
ever
was.
Look
up
caselaw,
match
clauses
to
market,
get
yelled
at,
fill
out
timesheets…
sunrise,
sunset.
But
how
they
do
those
tasks
keeps
evolving.
Hardbound
copies
of
Shepard’s
gave
way
to
online
research,
tools
scour
thousands
of
contracts
to
find
the
language
the
client
needs,
Zoom
opened
up
new
frontiers
in
accepting
verbal
abuse,
and
bots
track
billable
hours.
A
whole
new
assortment
of
technologies
to
perform
essentially
age-old
tasks.
But
where
do
they
learn
about
these
new
technologies?
The
National
Society
for
Legal
Technology
maintains
a
Legal
Research
Technology
curriculum
employed
by
more
than
350
universities,
law
schools,
and
other
legal
education
programs
across
11
countries.
And
this
week,
Descrybe
joined
the
list
of
tools
alongside
Lexis+,
Westlaw,
Bloomberg
Law,
Fastcase,
and
HeinOnline
as
one
of
the
six
core
research
tools
in
the
curriculum.
It
takes
this
place
as
the
replacement
for
Casetext,
which
joined
the
Westlaw
family
when
Thomson
Reuters
acquired
the
company
for
$650
million.
TR
has
pulled
the
plug
on
the
independent,
free
Casetext
tool
and
brought
their
technology
fully
under
the
TR
roof.
For
that
matter,
Fastcase
became
vLex
and
now
becomes
Clio
because
legal
tech
moves…
fast.
“It’s
a
proud
moment
to
see
Descrybe
joining
the
ranks
of
the
world’s
most
respected
research
tools
—
and
to
know
we’re
helping
move
the
field
forward,”
said
Kara
Peterson,
Descrybe
co-founder
and
a
2024
ABA
Women
of
Legal
Tech
honoree.
Descrybe’s
toolkit
offers
natural
language
search,
simplified
case
summaries,
citation
analysis,
issue-level
insights,
a
brief
checker,
and
bilingual
access
to
over
3.6
million
federal
and
state
court
opinions.
Like
Casetext
before
it,
Descrybe
has
a
free
option,
but
its
power
is
in
the
low
cost
—
$20/month
—
option
that
gives
users
extra
features
and
access
to
tools
like
Cytator,
which
sounds
like
a
Marvel
villain
who
subpoenas
planets.
“As
a
legal
technology
education
expert
and
industry
consultant,
I’ve
evaluated
countless
tools
that
promise
to
streamline
legal
research
and
analysis—but
few
deliver
with
the
precision
and
practicality
of
Descrybe,”
said
Doug
Lusk,
Founder
and
CEO
of
NSLT.
“This
platform
stands
out
for
its
ability
to
distill
complex
court
opinions
into
clear,
accessible
summaries
while
preserving
the
nuance
and
legal
significance
of
the
original
text.
Descrybe
empowers
attorneys,
paralegals,
and
law
students
to
engage
with
judicial
content
more
efficiently
and
with
greater
confidence.
In
an
era
where
time
and
clarity
are
at
a
premium,
Descrybe.ai
is
setting
a
new
standard
for
how
legal
information
is
consumed
and
understood.”
The
subtext,
of
course,
is
as
loud
as
an
online
legal
research
price
quote:
the
industry
is
slowly,
grudgingly
realizing
that
it
needs
$20-a-month
tools.
The
most
consistent
tech
complaint
in
my
inbox
involves
a
small
or
solo
practice
lawyer
rending
garments
and
gnashing
teeth
over
the
loss
of
Casetext.
Descrybe
smelled
blood
and
filled
the
gap
faster
than
a
Supreme
Court
clerk
opening
a
FedEx
package
from
Leonard
Leo.
Because
there’s
a
price
point
in
this
market
that
needs
lower
cost
options.
Not
every
client
is
made
of
money.
In
fact,
most
of
them
aren’t.
And
it’s
not
just
indigent
clients…
with
the
rising
cost
of
legal
services,
there
are
middle
class
clients
who
balk
at
the
cost
of
lawyers.
The
last
thing
they
need
is
to
be
covering
a
firm’s
massive
online
research
overhead.
There
will
be
law
students
who
end
up
serving
that
market
and
they
need
to
know
how
to
get
winning
results
with
the
tools
built
to
take
advantage
of
that
space.
Which
is
all
to
say
that
there’s
a
perfect
—
perhaps
Casetext-sized
place
—
for
Descrybe
to
fill
in
this
curriculum.
Yesterday,
Texas
Attorney
General
(and
2026
Republican
Senatorial
hopeful!)
Ken
Paxton
asked
an
Illinois
state
trial
court
to
initiate
“contempt
proceedings”
against
the
Democratic
state
legislators
who
decamped
to
that
state
“on
an
emergency
basis.”
Those
lawmakers
traveled
to
Illinois
to
deny
Republicans
a
quorum
as
they
seek
to
cram
through
a
gerrymandered
map
that
will
hand
five
more
Congressional
seats
to
Republicans
in
2026.
Just
like
Dear
Leader
Trump
ordered
them
to,
with
an
assist
from
the
DOJ,
which
declared
Texas’s
current
districts
racist
against
white
people.
“Quorum
breaking”
has
a
long
history
in
Texas
as
a
means
of
protest.
Article
III,
Section
10
of
the
Texas
Constitution
requires
that
two-thirds
of
the
legislature
be
present
in
order
to
conduct
any
legislative
business.
The
Texas
House
of
Representatives
has
150
members,
so
100
must
be
in
the
room
to
constitute
a
quorum.
Under
Rule
5,
Section
8
of
the
Texas
House
rules,
when
there
is
no
quorum
present,
“no
business
shall
be
transacted,
except
to
compel
the
attendance
of
absent
members
or
to
adjourn.”
Which
the
Texas
House
Republicans
promptly
did,
issuing
so
called
“quorum
warrants”
to
that
chamber’s
sergeant-at-arms
to
effectuate
the
civil
arrest
and
return
of
the
Democratic
legislators.
Those
warrants
–
and
the
sergeant-at-arms’s
authority
–
are
only
effective
in
Texas,
which
is
why
the
legislators
left
the
state.
So
Paxton
ran
to
a
court
in
Illinois
insisting
that
it
enforce
the
House
warrants
under
the
Full
Faith
and
Credit
Clause
of
the
Constitution,
which
commands
that
“Full
Faith
and
Credit
shall
be
given
in
each
State
to
the
public
Acts,
Records,
and
judicial
Proceedings
of
every
other
State.”
Paxton
calls
the
civil
quorum
warrants
a
“public
Act,”
and
demands
that
Illinois
courts
enforce
them.
Although
not
just
any
Illinois
court
—
Paxton
made
darn
sure
to
file
his
trollsuit
in
tiny
Adams
county,
250
miles
from
liberal
Chicago
where
the
legislators
are
staying.
This
may
be
because
the
Texas
law
man
is
aware
that
the
Full
Faith
and
Credit
clause
has
been
used
almost
exclusively
to
enforce
valid
legal
judgments
issued
by
a
court.
An
“Act”
by
the
Texas
Congress,
isn’t
a
court
order
or
even
a
law.
It
simply
enables
the
sergeant-at-arms
or
its
designee
to
arrest
the
lawmakers
in
Texas
and
bring
them
to
the
chamber.
Paxton,
who
has
been
threatening
doctors
across
the
country
for
providing
abortion
and
gender
affirming
care
to
Texas
residents,
may
be
confused
about
where
his
authority
ends.
But
despite
all
his
keening
that
“If
the
Quorum
Order
and
Quorum
Warrants
are
not
given
full
faith
and
credit
and
are
not
enforced
in
Illinois,
Texas
is
threatened
with
immediate
and
irreparable
harm
for
which
damages
are
an
insufficient
remedy,”
he’s
still
trying
to
turn
the
narrow
reed
of
the
sergeant-at-arms’
power
over
House
Members
into
the
sword
of
a
judicial
warrant.
And
that
dog
won’t
hunt.
In
the
meantime,
Paxton
seems
to
have
been
outflanked
by
his
rival,
Senator
John
Cornyn,
who
claims
that
he’s
convinced
the
FBI
to
hunt
these
demoncrats
down
wherever
they
may
be.
@FBIDirectorKash
has
responded
to
my
request
to
assist
state
&
local
law
enforcement
locate
the
runaway
Texas
House
Democrats
and
investigate
potential
offenses.
Thank
you
Director
Patel
for
your
swift
response
&
action!
Cornyn
has
been
tweeting
up
a
storm
accusing
Democrats
of
everything
from
fraud
to
putting
ketchup
on
their
nachos.
He
also
had
some
choice
words
for
his
rival.
Welcome
home
from
your
European
golf
vacation
@KenPaxtonTX
.
While
you
were
AWOL
the
runaway
Democrat
Texas
House
members
have
absconded.
Fortunately
@GregAbbott_TX
has
stepped
into
the
breech
and
pursued
action
in
the
Texas
Supreme
Court
while
you
were
neglecting
your…
Case
in
point:
there’s
an
interesting
item
buried
in
the
Judicial
Conference
of
the
United
States
(JCUS)
recently
released
biannual
meeting
minutes:
“the
Subcommittee
on
Workplace
Conduct
approved
a
request
on
behalf
of
the
Committee
…
to
allow
an
additional
term
law
clerk
and
career
law
clerk
to
be
assigned
to
a
chief
district
judge’s
chambers
through
August
2026
in
order
to
address
a
workplace
conduct
matter.”
Occasionally,
the
judiciary
reassigns
clerks
who
allege
serious
mistreatment
—
addressing
one
discrete
situation
and
separating
judge
from
clerk
while
failing
to
solve
broader
systemic
problems.
Without
establishing
legal
guardrails
to
prevent
judges
from
mistreating
clerks
and
getting
away
with
it,
these
problems
persist,
committed
by
the
same
repeat
offenders.
What’s
most
interesting
about
this
reassignment
isn’t
who
this
abusive
district
court
judge
who
hires
for
two-year
terms
might
be,
but
the
systemic
problems
it
illustrates.
This
isn’t
the
first
such
reassignment:
several
years
ago,
two
district
court
clerks
were
simultaneously
reassigned
partway
through
their
two-year
clerkship
to
address
a
workplace
issue.
That
judge
was
not
disciplined
at
the
time:
she
hired
new
clerks
who,
due
to
the
judiciary’s
lack
of
transparency
and
accountability,
were
unaware
of
the
circumstances
surrounding
the
previous
clerks’
departure.
With
no
remedial
training,
the
judge
presumably
continued
to
mistreat
clerks.
However,
she
could
be
disciplined
now,
if
the
Fourth
Circuit
learns
from
past
failures.
Law
clerks
rarely
report
mistreatment
because
they
don’t
believe
their
concerns
will
be
taken
seriously
and
then
be
robustly,
impartially
investigated.
They’re
skeptical
the
process
will
be
fair,
since
fellow
judges
oversee
it:
judges
are
unable
to
impartially
judge
colleagues’
misconduct.
Importantly,
clerks
fear
retaliation,
which
they
lack
legal
protection
against
under
Title
VII.
Some
clerks
confide
in
a
court
point
of
contact
like
a
Director
of
Workplace
Relations
(DWR)
or
national
Office
of
Judicial
Integrity,
which
the
courts
misleadingly
conflate
with
reporting.
Sadly,
disclosure
often
stops
there,
since
court
administrators
dissuade
clerks
from
filing
complaints.
While
reassignment
may
assist
one
particular
clerk,
without
disciplining
or
training
the
problematic
judge,
problems
will
recur.
Abusive
judges
know
they
won’t
be
held
accountable
for
mistreating
clerks:
so,
they
continue
committing
misconduct.
Disturbingly,
judges
whose
clerks
were
reassigned
are
free
to
hire
new
ones,
who
unwittingly
enter
a
hostile
work
environment.
And
due
to
the
lack
of
judicial
transparency,
clerkship
applicants
have
no
way
of
knowing
from
the
courts
which
judges
have
been
reprimanded
for
misconduct.
Judiciary
workplace
conduct
policies,
clumsily
lumped
under
the
EDR
umbrella,
are
nothing
more
than
a
Band-Aid
over
a
bullet
hole
—
immediate,
short-term
solutions
that
fail
to
address
larger,
festering
systemic
problems.
And,
reassignment
lacks
the
meaningful
legal
and
financial
redress
mistreated
clerks
deserve,
for
which
Title
VII
provides.
While
the
judiciary
acknowledged
shortcomings
and
proposed
solutions
in
its
March
2025
Working
Group
Report,
including
a
searchable
database
of
EDR
and
Judicial
Conduct
&
Disability
(JC&D)
Act
disciplinary
orders,
without
congressional
oversight
or
benchmarks
for
progress,
these
proposals
aren’t
worth
the
paper
they’re
printed
on.
The
judiciary
benefits
from
this
broken
system
and
isn’t
properly
incentivized
to
fix
it.
Frankly,
judges
are
known
for
considering
long-term
implications
and
broad-based
solutions:
if
they
wanted
to
improve
policies
to
facilitate
robust
reporting
and
real
accountability,
they
would.
Importantly,
while
chief
judges
can
open
investigations
under
the
JC&D
Act
if
they
learn
of
misconduct,
absent
a
formal
complaint,
they
rarely
do.
That’s
why
judicial
discipline
must
be
taken
out
of
the
judiciary’s
chain
of
command
and
handled
by
neutral
third
parties
—
civil
rights
investigators
and
trained
workplace
conduct
experts
—
with
meaningful
congressional
oversight.
The
judiciary
will
never
discipline
its
own
unless
it’s
forced
to,
as
similar
problems
in
the
military
and
police
unions
illustrated.
Troublingly,
judiciary
policies
rely
on
vulnerable
subordinates
—
law
clerks,
dependent
on
judges
for
references
and
career
advancement,
lacking
legal
protection
against
retaliation
—
to
blow
the
whistle
on
their
powerful,
life-tenured
bosses.
But
clerks
fear
reputational
harm
and
career
destruction:
the
judiciary’s
refusal
to
meaningfully
discipline
abusive
judges
gives
them
no
confidence
they’ll
be
taken
seriously
if
they
stick
their
necks
out.
Court
administrators
understand
and
have
taken
advantage
of
clerks’
vulnerability,
repeatedly
dismissing
calls
to
make
complaint
processes
fair,
unbiased,
and
transparent.
The
EDR
Plan
must
be
overhauled.
We
know
clerks
are
not
empowered
to
file
complaints:
it’s
time
to
fix
the
system.
And
internal
dispute
resolution
cannot
be
clerks’
only
option.
There
is
no
substitute
for
extending
Title
VII
and
its
robust
due
process
guarantees
to
judiciary
employees
who
support
the
daily
functioning
of
our
courts
—
ironically,
ensuring
due
process
for
litigants
while
lacking
rights
themselves.
When
clerks
are
reassigned
due
to
mistreatment,
a
robust
investigation
and
publicly
accessible
reprimand
would
help
prospective
clerks
avoid
abusive
judges.
Such
judges
should
also
undergo
mandatory
remedial
managerial
and
workplace
training,
and
their
clerk
supervision
should
be
overseen
by
a
DWR
for
several
years.
In
fact,
this
punishment
was
imposed
on
Second
Circuit
Judge
Sarah
Merriam
several
years
ago.
Additionally,
judges
whose
clerks
are
reassigned
should
not
be
permitted
to
hire
new
clerks
for
at
least
six
months.
Some
cases
might
need
to
be
reassigned,
potentially
burdening
colleagues.
But
only
when
the
threat
of
punishment
is
real,
is
it
an
actual
deterrent.
This
would
shift
the
balance
of
power
back
from
an
unjust
system
where
judges
regularly
get
away
with
misconduct
and
cannot
be
disciplined
by
losing
their
jobs.
If
judges
actually
feared
discipline,
and
it
were
clear
that
judicial
misconduct
affected
all
judges
in
the
court
if
one
were
sidelined,
judges
might
take
these
problems
more
seriously
—
holding
themselves
to
higher
workplace
standards,
and
perhaps
even
blowing
the
whistle
on
colleagues’
misconduct.
Troublingly,
the
judiciary
hesitates
to
acknowledge
judges
retaliate
against
clerks.
Yet
the
judiciary’s
own
survey
indicates
only
42%
of
employees
would
report
mistreatment,
citing
fears
of
retaliation.
The
courts
should
create
a
point
of
contact
for
clerks
to
list
as
a
reference
for
future
jobs
rather
than
the
judge
they
clerked
for,
thereby
lessening
clerks’
concerns
about
retaliation
and
career
damage.
The
courts’
failure
to
act
on
evidence
that
mistreatment
is
not
rare
—
yet
rarely
reported
—
speaks
volumes.
The
judiciary
does
not
want
clerks
to
formally
report
misconduct,
because
then
they
might
need
to
modestly
discipline
some
judges,
which
they’re
loath
to
do.
Consider
this:
the
106
clerks
who
described
mistreatment
could
still
file
complaints
—
there’s
no
statute
of
limitations
under
the
JC&D
Act.
What
is
the
judiciary
doing
to
encourage
those
clerks
to
report?
Nothing.
And
the
courts
could
probably
not
only
identify
the
clerks,
but
who
they
clerked
for,
and
launch
some
investigations
into
the
most
problematic
judges.
Will
they
do
that?
Of
course
not.
The
courts
will
only
be
incentivized
to
act
through
aggressive
congressional
oversight,
sustained
media
scrutiny,
and
public
outcry.
While
judges’
ethical
lapses
have
generated
increased
scrutiny,
lawmakers
pay
little
attention
to
judges’
conduct
behind
the
bench.
Congress
must
reintroduce
the
Judiciary
Accountability
Act
(JAA)
and
extend
Title
VII
protections
—
including
protection
against
retaliation
—
to
more
than
30,000
exempt
employees.
To
be
clear:
clerks
do
not
file
complaints
because
they
are
not
protected
against
retaliation.
The
dearth
of
complaints
is
primarily
due
to
the
lack
of
Title
VII
protections.
Closing
this
disturbing
legal
loophole
will
increase
reporting
—
a
win
for
accountability
advocates,
and
a
loss
for
abusive
judges
who
currently
harass
clerks
with
impunity.
The
JAA
faces
an
uphill
battle
in
this
political
climate,
but
Congress
need
not
wait:
they
could
attach
its
crucial
anti-discrimination
protections
to
a
mandatory
annual
spending
bill,
like
the
National
Defense
Authorization
Act.
Congress
is
considering
the
judiciary’s
2026
budget
request
right
now
—
a
rare
annual
opportunity
to
tie
funding
to
meaningful
benchmarks
for
reform.
Disturbingly,
there
was
no
serious
discussion
about
this
—
despite
the
judiciary’s
request
for
more
workplace
conduct
funds.
Zeroing
out
the
judiciary’s
budget
until
they
make
meaningful
changes
might
get
their
attention.
Congressional
inaction
is
disappointing
but
not
surprising,
considering
that
Administrative
Office
of
the
U.S.
Courts
(AO)
Director
Robert
Conrad
wasn’t
asked
a
single
question
about
workplace
conduct
when
he
testified
before
Congress
this
spring,
even
though
it
was
the
second
item
in
his
written
testimony.
Nor
did
Congress
send
the
AO
an
oversight
letter
demanding
action
after
its
disturbing
workplace
survey
results.
Congressional
Democrats
will
throw
vulnerable
judiciary
employees
under
the
bus
to
keep
the
courts
happy
because
they’ve
ruled
against
Trump
administration
lawlessness.
Clerks
are
not
hapless
victims:
if
more
used
existing
processes,
we
could
highlight
flaws
and
actually
change
them.
For
example,
had
all
106
mistreated
law
clerks
in
2023
filed
EDR
complaints
seeking
reassignment,
and
were
the
judiciary
forced
to
reassign
and
allot
funding
for
106
additional
hires,
they’d
discover
just
how
broken
the
process
is
and
fix
it.
These
issues
are
particularly
urgent.
Right
now,
thousands
of
law
students
are
interviewing
for
and
accepting
clerkships.
Thousands
of
federal
clerks
are
concluding
their
clerkships:
those
who
were
mistreated
will
take
that
trauma
to
their
next
jobs
—
and,
when
they
become
managers,
they
may
mistreat
subordinates,
because
hurt
people,
hurt
people.
And
thousands
of
recent
law
graduates
are
about
to
begin
clerkships
in
the
most
dangerous
white-collar
workplace
in
America
—
the
federal
judiciary.
The
legal
profession
historically
turned
a
blind
eye
to
judicial
misconduct,
wrongly
trusting
the
judiciary
to
self-police.
No
longer.
We
must
hold
the
judiciary
accountable
for
repeatedly
failing
to
discipline
misconduct.
We
cannot
allow
the
courts
to
quietly
reassign
clerks
year
after
year
while
shielding
judges
from
accountability.
No
judge
should
be
above
the
law.
Yet
judges
rule
on
issues
of
national
significance
and
interpret
the
law
while
themselves
not
subject
to
those
same
laws.
We
cannot
trust
judges
to
be
fair
and
neutral
arbiters
of
disputes
as
long
as
the
law
permits
their
unethical
workplace
behavior.
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.
Most
people
think
of
the
Law
School
Admission
Council
as
the
nerds
who
write
the
LSAT.
The
folks
that
had
to
be
dragged
kicking
and
screaming
from
forcing
another
generation
to
answer
questions
like
“if
Peter
is
taller
than
Nancy
but
shorter
than
Steve,
what
color
is
Sally’s
shirt?”
But
a
newly
filed
antitrust
class
action,
looks
beyond
the
LSAT
and
accuses
the
organization
of
skimming
fees
like
it’s
running
the
only
ATM
in
Vegas.
Back
in
the
day,
prospective
law
students
took
the
LSAT
and
then
bundled
up
their
own
law
school
applications.
These
days,
LSAC
isn’t
just
running
the
test,
it’s
helpfully
operating
as
the
clearinghouse
for
everyone’s
applications.
Send
in
your
materials
and
pick
your
schools
and
LSAC
tackles
the
rest.
Except
that
process
is
expensive
and,
according
the
the
complaint
filed
in
the
Eastern
District
of
Pennsylvania,
a
rent-seeking
affair
extracting
cash
from
prospective
law
students
by
virtue
of
being
the
only
game
in
town.
“In
2025,
more
than
60,000
aspiring
law
students
submitted
more
than
500,000
applications
to
law
schools,”
the
complaint
begins.
“Most
paid
application
fees
to
schools
that
cost
up
to
$105
per
school.”
But
wait!
This
does
not
include
the
“Credential
Assembly
Service,”
LSAC’s
application
clearinghouse.
Before
the
student
even
gets
to
the
$105
for
the
school,
they
have
to
shell
out
“a
$215
mandatory
subscription
fee
and
a
$45
per
report
fee”
to
LSAC.
Which
seems
like
a
lot
for
something
branded
as
mere
“Assembly.”
For
a
typical
applicant
applying
to
10
schools,
that’s
over
$600
straight
to
LSAC,
before
a
single
admissions
dean
has
the
chance
to
passive-aggressively
reject
you.
At
least
the
school
is
theoretically
charging
so
they
can
pay
those
admissions
deans
several
multiples
more
than
the
actual
faculty.
By
contrast,
$600
feels
extreme
for
a
glorified
“forward
email”
button.
In
fact,
undergraduate
admissions
run
on
a
similar
clearinghouse
system
that
charges
schools
a
$2,500
flat
fee
per
year,
about
4
bucks
per
application
and
a
$2.00
payment
processing
fee
—
the
applicants
only
pay
the
school’s
own
fee.
That’s
the
sort
of
apples
to
apples
comparison
that
raises
at
least
a
few
competitiveness
questions.
On
the
other
side
of
equation,
business
schools
have
no
clearinghouse
at
all
and
while
that
increases
the
costs
associated
with
each
individual
school,
the
most
competitive
schools
are
still
only
charging
around
$250
with
most
coming
in
far,
far
lower.
According
to
its
public
tax
filings,
LSAC
collected
$93
million
in
Credential
Assembly
Service
fees
over
just
the
last
three
reported
years.
LSAC
boasts
around
$250
million
in
net
assets
and
a
CEO
making
over
$1
million
a
year.
It
seems
bold
to
pay
hedge-fund
money
to
forward
a
resume.
LSAC
is
a
separate
legal
entity
from
the
Member
Law
Schools.
LSAC
has
conspired
along
with
the
Member
Law
Schools
to
fix
the
price
of
these
fees
for
its
Law
School
Application
Platform.
LSAC
benefits
from
the
supracompetitive
profits
it
earns
from
the
price-fixed
fees,
using
that
to
build
up
more
than
$250
million
in
net
assets,
pay
its
executives
lavishly
for
a
nonprofit,
and
kickback
money
to
the
Member
Law
Schools.
Applicants
have
little
choice
because
LSAC
runs
everything.
And
since
the
schools
get
LSAC’s
back-end
“Unite”
admissions
platform
for
free,
they
have
no
incentive
to
shop
around
or
pass
on
savings.
Everyone
wins!
