Author: TSA Press

This
roundup
is
published
monthly.
It
is
meant
to
highlight
some
of
healthcare’s
recent
hiring
news
and
is
not
intended
to
be
comprehensive.
If
you
have
news
about
an
executive
appointment,
resignation
or
layoff
that
you
would
like
to
share
for
this
roundup,
please
reach
out
to

[email protected].

Hires

CVS
Health
welcomed
Jeffrey
Fernandez
as
senior
vice
president
of
Medicare
at
Aetna.
He
is
joining
the
organization
from

Ochsner
Health,
where
he
served
as
senior
vice
president
of
population
health
and
CEO
of
Ochsner
Health
Plan.
Before
Ochsner,
he
spent
16
years
at
Humana,
serving
most
recently
as
senior
vice
president
of
its
Medicare
West
segment.

Digital
health
startup


Drive
Health
hired
James
Stringham
as
chief
strategy
officer.
He
is
coming
to
the
organization
from

Banner
Health
Plans,
where
he
served
as
CEO.
Before
that,
he
spent
more
than
a
decade
in
various
leadership
roles
at

Magellan
Health.

HCA
Healthcare
appointed
Yauheni
“Owen”
Solad
as
system
vice
president
of
clinical
artificial
intelligence.
Previously,
he
served
as
vice
president
of
innovation
at

UC
Davis
Health.

Healthcare
software
company


symplr
welcomed
Theresa
Meadows
as
its
new
CIO
in
residence.
She
joins
the
company
from

Cook
Children’s
Health
Care
System
in
Texas,
where
she
serves
as
CIO.

Women’s
telehealth
company


Wisp
hired
Jennifer
Peña
as
chief
medical
officer.
In
the
past,
served
as
medical
director
for

Oscar
Health
and
chief
medical
officer
for

Nurx,

K
Health
and

Vault
Health.

Promotions

Cone
Health
appointed
Preston
Hammock
to
the
newly
created
role
of
senior
vice
president
of
business
and
partnership
development.
He
joined
the
health
system
in
2013
when
Cone
acquired
Alamance
Regional
Medical
Center
—
he
was
serving
as
its
president
at
the
time.

Cardiac
remote
monitoring
company


PaceMate
named
JR
Finkelmeier
as
its
new
CEO.
He
joined
PaceMate
last
year
as
its
chief
commercial
officer.
Before
that,
he
spent
more
than
a
decade
at
medical
device
company

BioTelemetry,
which
was
acquired
by

Philips
in
2021.

Tenet
Healthcare
promoted
Lisa
Foo
to
the
COO
role.
She
joined
the
health
system
in
2019
as
its
chief
commercial
and
strategy
officer.
In
the
past,
she
held
various
leadership
positions
at

McKinsey
&
Company.

The
University
of
Miami
Health
System
named
Dipen
Parekh
as
its
new
CEO.
He
first
began
working
at
the
health
system
in
2012
as
chair
of
the
urology
department.

Exits

Ascension
CEO
Joseph
Impicciche
announced
that
he
will
retire
at
the
end
of
the
year.
He
joined
the
health
system
more
than
20
years
ago
as
senior
vice
president
of
legal
services
and
general
counsel.
Ascension’s
current
president,
Eduardo
Conrado,
will
step
into
the
CEO
role
on
January
1.

CommonSpirit
Health
CFO
Daniel
Morissette
will
retire
on
October
31,
and
the
health
system
has
begun
a
search
for
his
successor.
He
has
served
as
CommonSpirit’s
CFO
since
2019,
when
Catholic
Health
Initiatives
(CHI)
and
Dignity
Health
merged
to
create
the
organization.
He
joined
Dignity
in
2016
as
CFO.

Lovelace
Health
System
CEO
Troy
Greer
resigned
from
his
position
after
two
years
in
the
role
and
at
the
health
system.
Michael
Kueker,
previously
the
CEO
of
Lovelace
Medical
Group,
has
assumed
the
role
of
interim
CEO.
Notably,
this
is
the
Lovelace’s

fourth
announcement
of
a
CEO
change
in
just
three
years.

Optum
Health
CEO
Amar
Desai
left
his
role
after
two
years,
having
now
become
president
of
Optum’s
integrated
care
unit,
as
well
as
vice
chair
of
Optum
Health.
Optum
CEO
Patrick
Conway
has
taken
over
as
the
leader
of
Optum
Health.
Prior
to
Optum
Health,
Desai
was
president
of
healthcare
delivery
at

CVS
Health.

Layoffs

Prime
Healthcare
is
laying
off

more
than
100
roles
across
the
eight
Illinois
hospitals
that
it
acquired
from

Ascension
earlier
this
year.
The
health
system
said
these
positions
are
being
eliminated
because
they
are
duplicative
or
incongruent
with
Prime’s
care
model.

Providence
cut

about
600
jobs
as
part
of
a
restructuring
brought
on
by
declining
reimbursement
rates
and
rising
expenses.These
layoffs,
which
impact
less
than
1%
of
the
health
system’s
overall
workforce,
are
mainly
in
nonclinical,
administrative
departments.

UC
San
Diego
Health
laid
off

about
230
employees
as
a
result
of
financial
challenges.
The
job
cuts,
which
affected
about
1.5%
of
the
health
system’s
total
workforce,
included
some
clinical
positions.

Financial
hardships
drove


UCSF
Health
to
eliminate

200
positions,
which
is
about
1%
of
the
health
system’s
workforce.
About
a
quarter
of
the
employees
who
were
laid
off
worked
part
time,
and
about
half
of
the
impacted
full-time
employees
worked
in
management
roles.

Vanderbilt
University
Medical
Center
cut

about
650
employees,
which
is
less
than
2%
of
the
health
system’s
workforce.
Impacted
employees
are
mainly
in
research,
administrative
and
other
support
roles.
Vanderbilt
said
the
layoffs
are
due
mainly
to
medical
research
funding
cuts
and
expected
reductions
in
Medicaid
payments.

Virginia
Mason
Franciscan
Health
is
laying
off

116
workers
in
the
virtual
care
services
division
in
an
effort
to
become
more
financially
stable.

One
of
the
many
secrets
(or
maybe
not-so
secret
depending
upon
whom
you
talk
to)
is
the
issue
of
enforcing
judgments
—
not
winning
them
but
collecting
on
them
—
which
is
comparable
to
walking
barefoot
across
a
field
of
rusty
nails
without
a
tetanus
shot
beforehand.

The
client
is
deliriously
happy;
the
case
has
been
won,
the
defendant
vanquished,
and
now
all
that’s
left
is
to
collect
that
judgment.
Then
the
client
asks
when
he
will
receive
payment.
Uh-oh;
the
lawyer’s
face
may
well
turn
red.
That’s
when
our
two
favorite
words
are
used:
“it
depends.”

Some
losing
defendants
will
pay
promptly
to
avoid
interest
accumulation
and
possible
reputational
risk,
but
others
don’t
and
won’t.
Then
it
becomes
a
game
(and
not
a
happy
one)
to
get
paid,
incurring
additional
expenses
along
the
way,
expenses
that
the
client
never
anticipated
and
for
which
the
client
is
really
peeved
at
having
to
pay
to
get
what
the
court
already
said
was
his.
There’s
no
getting
around
the
reality
that
having
to
enforce
a
judgment
…
sucks.
Clever
defendants
(aka
debtors)
have
all
sorts
of
ways
to
delay,
stall,
or
file
bankruptcy
before,
during
and
after
the
inevitable
enforcement
mechanisms
are
set
in
motion.
A
winning
but
unhappy
plaintiff
will
often
take
less
on
the
dollar
(aka
haircut)
to
get
something,
rather
than
wait
and
wait
and
wait.

Cue
the
unhappy
clients;
cue
the
even
unhappier
lawyer. Did
the
attorney
ever
explain
to
the
client
that
a
check
for
the
full
amount
of
the
judgment
may
not
magically
appear?
Did
the
client
understand
that
the
amount
of
time,
money,
and
effort
may
make
it
hard
to
collect
on
all
or
any
part
of
the
judgment?
Any
need
to
call
the
E&O
carrier?

And
here’s
a
“not
a
Tom
Girardi”
story
about
a
California
lawyer
being
disbarred
for
making
promises
he
could
not
keep
(or
never
having
any
chance
of
having,
because
he
couldn’t). Aaron
Spolin
agreed
to
disbarment
because
he
promised
families
of
incarcerated
people
the
one
thing
he
couldn’t
promise:
chances
for
release.
He
had
no
hesitancy
to
take
money
from
a
vulnerable
population
(these
folks
did
not
commit
the
crimes)
when
the
reality
was
that
few
inmates
are
released. 

Spolin
whitewashed
bad
news,
giving
the
families
hopes
where
there
was
truly
little.
Spolin

pled
no
contest
to
defrauding
eight
clients,
all
current
or
former
inmates.
Just
as
with
Girardi,
I
wonder
what
motivates
a
lawyer
to
give
false
hope
to
those
who
desperately
want
to
believe
in
such
hope?

Daffy
Duck
says
it
best.

Tomorrow
is
the
Fourth
of
July.
Are
you
going
to
celebrate
it
this
year?
There
will
be
the
usual
barbecues,
holiday
parties,
keggers, even
fireworks.
BTW,
drones
are
now
the
newest
and
safest
way
to
have
a
fireworks
show.

What
shall
we
celebrate
this
Fourth?
The
shredding
of
the
rule
of
law?
The
evisceration
of
the
First
Amendment?
The
obliteration
of
concepts
of
equality,
diversity,
and
inclusion?
For
all
of
us
who
have
been
in
the
profession
for
decades
and
decades
and
who
have
fought
hard
for
those
concepts
only
to
be
rebuffed
so
completely
now,
there
is,
IMHO,
nothing
to
celebrate
this
holiday.
While
some
may
celebrate,
others
will
mourn.
How
did
this
happen?
Lots
of
possible
answers
depending
on
your
point
of
view.
You
can
color
me
blue
this
holiday.

In
this
forthcoming
law
school
term,
what
are
constitutional
law
professors
going
to
include
in
their
curricula?
Given
that
concepts
of
precedent
and
stare
decisis
have
now
gone
pretty
much
the
way
of
the
VHS
(remember
that?)
what
will
be
taught?
How
do
you
teach
precedents
when

they
don’t
seem
to
matter
much
any
more?

This
holiday
weekend,
take
a
look
at
Charlie
Chaplin’s
(Google
him)
film,
“The
Great
Dictator.”
It’s
on
YouTube.
Released
in
1940,
it
is
both
a
satiric
and
sobering
look
at
the
world
then.
Chaplin
plays
both
a
Jewish
barber
in
the
ghetto
and
Adenoid
Hynkel.
Parallels
to
today
are
obvious,
even
though
the
film
was
made
85
years
ago,
and
they
hit
close
to
home. 

A
British
citizen,
Chaplin
was
exiled
from
the
United
States
in
1952
for
purported
Communist
sympathies,
among
other
things,
and
was
denied
a
re-entry
permit.
(And
no,
he
wasn’t
picked
up
by
ICE.)
His

stirring
monologue
in
the
movie
speaks
truth
to
power,
something
we
especially
need
today
in
this
world
of
vitriol
and
nastiness.
Happy
Fourth?
Bah
humbug.
(I
know,
I
am
six
months
early.
Live
with
it.)

---

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




[email protected].

When
I
first
started
my
own
law
practice
over
six
years
ago,
several
attorneys
were
instrumental
in
helping
me
launch
my
law
firm. Some
lawyers
gave
me
valuable
advice
in
the
early
months
of
launching
the
firm,
and
other
lawyers
referred
work
to
me
that
helped
generate
revenue
in
my
first
years
of
self-employment. Over
the
past
several
years,
I
have
also
assisted
numerous
lawyers
launching
their
own
practices
with
referrals
or
advice. Helping
other
lawyers
launch
their
own
practices
is
not
only
the
right
thing
to
do,
but
it
can
also
yield
a
multitude
of
benefits
to
the
lawyer
assisting
another
in
launching
their
own
practice.

Referrals

Most
lawyers
rely
on
referrals
from
other
lawyers
for
a
substantial
amount
of
work
they
perform
for
clients. I
once
spoke
to
a
lawyer
who
described
referrals
as
a
pyramid. The
best
work
is
taken
by
people
on
the
top,
and
less-desirable
work
keeps
getting
referred
down
the
pyramid
until
someone
finds
the
work
worthwhile. When
a
lawyer
starts
their
own
practice,
they
are
usually
on
the
bottom
of
the
pyramid
and
are
more
likely
to
accept
work
rather
than
refer
work
to
other
lawyers.

However,
as
a
practice
matures,
it
is
possible
that
a
lawyer
who
began
their
own
practice
will
move
up
the
pyramid
such
that
they
are
in
a
position
to
refer
work. Indeed,
there
have
been
times
in
my
career
when
people
to
whom
I
referred
work
later
referred
work
to
me. 
Moreover,
lawyers
often
specialize
in
a
given
practice
area
and
find
themselves
needing
to
refer
work
outside
this
practice
area
to
others. 
Accordingly,
there
are
numerous
ways
lawyers
can
be
a
valuable
referral
source
for
other
attorneys,
and
assisting
lawyers
in
launching
their
own
firms
can
be
an
invaluable
way
to
be
part
of
the
referral
process.

Reputation

Helping
lawyers
launch
their
own
practices
is
a
great
way
to
build
a
positive
reputation
in
a
legal
community. Lawyers
who
receive
such
help
are
likely
to
be
appreciative
for
the
assistance,
and
they
might
tell
other
people
about
the
help
that
a
lawyer
is
providing. Although
the
legal
profession
might
seem
huge,
it
is
actually
quite
small. In
many
of
the
matters
I
encounter
in
my
practice,
I
either
know
lawyers
for
other
stakeholders
to
a
deal
or
I
know
people
who
know
these
attorneys. Knowing
other
lawyers,
and
having
a
good
reputation,
can
be
important
when
it
comes
time
to
ask
for
courtesies
or
even
when
a
lawyer
evaluates
whether
they
want
to
try
to
resolve
a
case
rather
than
litigate
it
to
a
disposition. Few
acts
of
a
lawyer
have
a
more
positive
impact
than
helping
lawyers
begin
their
own
practices.

Client
Retention

Many
lawyers
do
not
like
to
refer
matters
to
other
lawyers
since
they
might
be
afraid
to
lose
clients. Indeed,
if
a
client
gets
good
service
from
another
lawyer,
they
might
wonder
whether
they
should
use
this
attorney
for
other
legal
needs
faced
by
the
client
even
though
the
referring
lawyer
is
competent
to
handle
such
matters. However,
it
is
less
likely
that
a
lawyer
starting
their
own
practice
poses
such
a
risk
to
a
lawyer’s
business. A
client
might
understand
that
this
other
lawyer
is
just
starting
out,
so
they
should
stick
with
their
typical
attorney
for
other
matters. Moreover,
a
lawyer
just
starting
a
practice
might
be
so
grateful
for
the
referral
that
they
do
not
want
to
jeopardize
their
relationship
with
the
referring
attorney
by
hogging
additional
work. As
a
result,
referring
work
to
lawyers
starting
practices
can
be
self-interested.

All
told,
lawyers
need
to
consider
a
number
of
factors
when
deciding
to
whom
to
refer
a
client. For
a
variety
of
reasons,
lawyers
should
consider
assisting
lawyers
starting
their
own
practices
and
potentially
refer
work
to
these
attorneys.

---

Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at jordan@rothman.law.

Ed.
note:
This
is
the
third
post
in
a
series.

In
our
journey
to
create
a
compelling
CLE,
we’ve

laid
a
strong
foundation
by
selecting
the
right
topic,
structured
the
content
effectively,
and

incorporated
ethics
and
humor
to
add
depth
and
engagement.

Now,
as
we
move
forward,
it’s
time
to
elevate
your
CLE
by
making
it
truly
interactive.

This
article
focuses
on
using
dialogue
and
group
activities
to
transform
your
CLE
from
a
passive
lecture
into
an
immersive
experience
that
not
only
informs
but
resonates
with
your
audience.

CONSTRUCTING
CONVERSATIONS

While
structure
and
content
are
crucial,
true
engagement
comes
from
interaction
—
encouraging
your
audience
to
participate
in
discussions
and
share
their
insights.
This
is
the
mortar
that
holds
the
bricks
of
your
presentation
together,
creating
a
cohesive
and
engaging
experience.

Opening
the
Floor

Regularly
pausing
your
presentation
to
invite
questions
or
comments
transforms
your
CLE
into
an
interactive
forum.

This
approach
not
only
clarifies
any
points
of
confusion
but
also
encourages
participants
to
engage
with
the
material
on
a
deeper
level.

•

Scheduled
Q&A
Sessions:
Incorporate
Q&A
breaks
at
key
points
in
your
presentation.
This
helps
to
maintain
audience
attention
and
provides
natural
transitions
between
sections.

•

Discussion
Panels:
Consider
including
a
panel
discussion
to
diversify
perspectives
on
complex
topics.
This
can
enrich
the
conversation
and
provide
your
audience
with
a
broader
understanding
of
the
issues
at
hand.

The
Benefits

•

Increased
Engagement:
By
involving
your
audience
directly,
you
maintain
their
interest
and
ensure
they
are
actively
processing
the
information
rather
than
passively
receiving
it.

•

Enhanced
Understanding:
Interactive
dialogue
allows
for
real-time
clarification,
ensuring
that
participants
leave
with
a
clear
understanding
of
the
material.

Fostering
Collaboration

In
smaller
settings,
group
activities
can
be
highly
effective
for
fostering
collaboration
and
ensuring
that
participants
actively
engage
with
the
content.
Just
as
a
construction
team
must
work
together
to
erect
a
building,
your
audience
can
benefit
from
working
together
to
solve
problems
and
explore
ideas.

•

Breakout
Sessions:
Divide
your
audience
into
small
groups
to
discuss
specific
topics
or
case
studies.
This
allows
for
deeper
exploration
and
ensures
that
all
voices
are
heard.

The
Benefits

•

Deeper
Engagement:
Group
activities
encourage
participants
to
think
critically
and
creatively,
fostering
a
deeper
connection
with
the
content.

•
Collaborative
Learning:
Working
in
groups
helps
attendees
learn
from
one
another,
enriching
their
experience
and
understanding
through
shared
insights.

PREPARING
FOR
THE
FINAL
BUILD

As
we’ve
seen,
fostering
interaction
is
a
key
component
of
a
successful
CLE.
These
elements
help
to
create
an
engaging
and
dynamic
learning
environment
that
keeps
your
audience
involved
and
invested
in
the
material.
By
incorporating
these
strategies,
you
ensure
that
your
CLE
is
not
just
informative
but
also
memorable
and
impactful.

Facilitating
Dialogue:

✔️
Schedule
Q&A
sessions
at
key
points
in
your
presentation
to
encourage
audience
participation.
✔️
Consider
adding
a
discussion
panel
to
provide
diverse
perspectives
on
complex
topics.

Group
Activities:

✔️
Use
breakout
sessions
for
small
group
discussions
on
specific
topics
or
case
studies.

Benefits
of
Interactivity

✔️
Increased
Engagement:
Keep
the
audience
involved
and
attentive.
✔️
Enhanced
Understanding:
Ensure
clarity
and
comprehension
through
real-time
feedback.

✔️
Deeper
Connection:
Foster
critical
thinking
and
collaboration
among
participants.
✔️
Collaborative
Learning:
Enrich
the
experience
with
shared
insights
from
peers.

In
the
next
article
of
this
series,
we’ll
be
focusing
on
creating
visually
compelling
presentations
and
considering
an
ethics
component.

---

Sejal
Bhasker
Patel is
a
Rainmaking
Consultant
and
Author
of Rainmaker:
Unleashed
—
a
sharp,
strategic
playbook
for
attorneys
who
don’t
fit
the
traditional
mold.
She’s
the
founder
of
Sage
Ivy,
a
consulting
firm
that
works
directly
with
law
firms
and
attorneys
to
turn
relationships
into
revenue
—
without
selling
their
soul.
Her
work
is
blunt,
tailored,
and
built
on
one
core
belief:
Authenticity
isn’t
a
liability
—
it’s
your
strongest
competitive
edge.
www.sageivyconsulting.com

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

I aim to
do
things
outside
of
the law —
and
I
will
—
that
I
think
will
be
a bigger
business
than my
legal business.

—

Alex
Spiro,
a
partner
at
a
partner
at
Quinn
Emanuel,
in
comments
given
during
a
wide-ranging
interview
on

Bloomberg’s
The
Circuit
with
Emily
Chang,
on
what
he
aspires
to
do
next
in
his
career.
Spiro
declined
to
further
elaborate
on
what
he
meant,
but
he’s
on
the
board
of
several
companies,
serves
as
a
senior
advisor
at
investment
firm
Consello,
and
recently
attended
Jeff
Bezos
and
Lauren
Sanchez’s
wedding
as
a
guest
alongside
Tom
Brady.
Spiro
has
a
lot
going
for
him,
including
his

$3,000
hourly
rate.

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
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.

Justice
Stephen
Breyer
may
no
longer
sit
on
the
Supreme
Court,
but
he
still
has
thoughts
about
his
old
workplace.
Tomorrow,

Open
to
Debate
is
dropping
a
wide-ranging
interview
with
Breyer
covering
everything
from
his
personal
account
of
the
day
he
was
nominated
to
the
Supreme
Court
to
the
mechanics
of
the
conversations
justices
have.

He
also
gives
his
secret
strategy
for
making
sure
he’d
get
assigned
an
opinion
with
just
three
little
words.

However,
a
good
deal
of
the
conversation
explores
themes
from
his
latest
book

Reading
the
Constitution:
Why
I
Chose
Pragmatism
Not
Textualism.
Breyer’s
book
and
the
related
discussion
provide
a
frustrating
take
on
judicial
philosophy.
Not
because
the
justice
fails
to
lay
out
intellectual
case
against
either
textualism
or
originalism,
but
because
he
addresses
them
with
the
respect
they
have
done
nothing
to
deserve.

There’s
nobility
in
raising
the
level
of
discourse
through
professional
and
respectful
engagement.
But
it’s
also
the
kind
of
nobility
that
gets
offed
in
the
first
season
of
Game
of
Thrones.

It’s
a
matter
of
victory
conditions.
Textualists
don’t
care
about
convincing
everybody,
they
just
need
their
trash
ideas
treated
“fairly”
by
respected
people
so
they
can
pawn
off
their
worldview
as
reasonable
disagreement.
Defenestration
via
Overton
Window.

Efforts
to
unilaterally
elevate
the
conversation
miss
the
mark
because
they
fail
to
grasp
this
victory
condition
issue.
The
conservative
legal
movement
doesn’t
care
that
you
can
respectfully
poke
holes
in
their
chosen
interpretive
philosophy
—
they
more
or
less
know
it
sucks
—
they
just
want
it
treated
with
unearned
dignity
on
the
public
stage
so
they
can
trade
on
the
patina
of
credibility
that
affords.

The
Open
to
Debate
crew
notes
that
they
recorded
a
prior
debate
titled
“Should
SCOTUS,
the
Supreme
Court,
focus
on
the
original
meaning
of
the
Constitution?”
and
I
know
that
because

I
was
on
that
one!
I
recall
Professor
Randy
Barnett
laid
out
“five
normative
arguments”
for
originalism
and
I
was
allowed
to
ask
a
question
at
the
end
prompting
him
to
concede
his
“number
one”
argument.
If
only
I’d
been
able
to
ask
more
questions,
we
could’ve
knocked
them
all
out!
But
the
point
is
even
the
defender
of
originalism
was
willing,
when
pressed,
to
admit
he
wasn’t
even
persuaded
by
the
top
argument
he
presented.
It’s
just
throwing
pasta
on
the
wall
and
hoping
the
other
side
is
polite
about
it.

This
doesn’t
mean
forfeiting
critique
or
descending
into
Twitter-thread
invective.
Refusing
to
engage
is
its
own
vice.
But
tone
matters.
If
the
argument
registers
as
polite
disagreement
rather
than
scathing
teardown,
textualists
can
declare
mission
accomplished.

If
there’s
a
quote
from
the
discussion
that
captures
this
disconnect,
it’s
this
one:

So
if
you,
you
say
to
the
textualists,
what,
uh,
“Do
you
agree
with
Brown
versus
Board
of
Education?”
They
say,
“Yes,
of
course.” 

Ahem.

This
isn’t
hyperbole.
During
the
first
Trump
administration,
Democrats
took
to
asking
his
judicial
nominees
if
they
would
at
the
very
least
agree
that

Brown
v.
Board
was
correct
and
they…

struggled
mightily.
They
weren’t
being
asked
if

Brown
required
a
return
of
bussing
or
anything,
just
if
—
on
its
own
facts
—
they
agreed
with
the
unanimous
Supreme
Court
opinion
against
Jim
Crow
education.
Koosh
balls
aren’t
even
that
soft.
And
yet
it
caused
much
hemming
and
hawing
among
Trump’s
nominees.
Indeed,
the
counsel
shepherding
GOP
nominees
through
the
Judiciary
Committee
at
the
time
threw
a
tantrum
that
it
was

unfair
“gutter
politics”
to
make
nominees
defend
desegregation
while
under
oath.

So
when
Justice
Breyer
grants
the
champions
of
textualism
and
originalism
the
benefit
of
the
doubt
that
they
would
“of
course”
say
they
support

Brown,
he
doesn’t
grasp
the
conservative
legal
movement’s
YOLO
era
where
they’ve
stopped
pretending
and
just
raw
dog
judicial
review.
There
are
certainly
still
originalist
wizards
willing
to
offer
lip
service
to

Brown
ending

de
jure
segregation
while
playing
semantic
games
to
guarantee

de
facto
segregation,
but
for
a
lot
of
them
the
hood
is
now
off.
Or
on
as
the
case
may
be.

Either
way,
it
renders
this
academic
sparring
session
with
textualism
a
naive
exercise.
He’s
saying
they
would
say
“of
course”
as
if
these
folks
have
some
good
faith
belief
in

Brown,
when
recent
events
make
pretty
clear
the
movement
only
ever
said
“of
course”
to
further
the
con
that
their
philosophy
had
any
depth
to
it.

The
whole
approach
feels
like
chiding
Orval
Faubus
that
his
articulation
of
states’
rights
misreads
the
Federalist
Papers.
As
the
ubiquitous
goose
meme
would
ask,
“A
STATE’S
RIGHT
TO
DO
WHAT?!?”
The
point
forcefully
expressed
by
our
feathered
friend
is
that
the
philosophy
is
inextricable
from
its
purpose.
That’s
the
nut
that
an
academic
conversation
about
this
stuff
can’t
get
at:
originalism’s
whole
appeal
is
that
constitutional
law
was
better
in
the
1700s.
“For
who?”
the
goose
might
ask.
Which
is
wrong
because
it
should
be
“for
whom”
but
geese
are
terrible
at
grammar.
But
when
someone
decides
they’re
an
originalist,
you
can’t
haggle
with
them
over
finer
points
of
workability
—
valid
though
those
points
may
be
—
because
they’re
in
it
for
the
value
it
represents.
They’re
in
it
because
they
actually
believe
in
a
backward-looking
world.
Tear
down
originalism
from
the
ivory
towers
and
they’ll
just
invent
a
new
mechanism
to
get
there.

Which
is
all
to
say
the
conversation
is
interesting
but
incomplete.
Until
someone
in
Breyer’s
position
delivers
their
sharp
argument
without
conceding
the
textualist/originalist
covert
demand
for
respectability,
these
discussions
do
little
to
derail
the
steady
advance
of
a

jurisprudence
of
witch-hunters.

The
episode
is
out
tomorrow
and
covers
this
and
much
more.
Check
it
out
here:

7/4: Thinking
Twice:
Reading
the
Constitution
with
Justice
Stephen
G. Breyer
[Open
to
Debate]

---

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.

Tune
into
The
Jabot
Podcast
for
a
must-listen
episode
with

Anna
Kirkland,
a
professor
at
the
University
of
Michigan.
Discover
how
her
new
book
reveals
the
complexities
and
failures
of
discrimination
law
in
healthcare.
Unpack
how
civil
rights
shape
healthcare
access,
and
learn
about
the
impact
of
algorithmic
bias.
Essential
for
those
keen
on
healthcare
policies
and
rights
protections.
Don’t
miss
it!

Highlights

• Anna’s
  academic
  journey:
  from
  law
  school
  to
  academia
• The
  intersection
  of
  civil
  rights
  and
  healthcare
  in
  Kirkland’s
  book
• Historical
  context:
  Transgender
  rights
  and
  public
  opinion
• Complexities
  of
  implementing
  nondiscrimination
  in
  healthcare
• Supreme
  Court
  involvement
  in
  gender-affirming
  care
  for
  youth
• Medicare
  as
  a
  tool
  of
  civil
  rights
  enforcement
  in
  history
• The
  role
  of
  rank-and-file
  employees
  in
  healthcare
  discrimination
• Patient
  experience:
  legal
  vs.
  customer
  service
  approach
• Challenges
  of
  addressing
  algorithmic
  discrimination
  in
  healthcare
• Key
  issues
  in
  healthcare
  discrimination
  today

The
Jabot
podcast
is
an
offshoot
of
the
Above
the
Law
brand
focused
on
the
challenges
women,
people
of
color,
LGBTQIA,
and
other
diverse
populations
face
in
the
legal
industry.
Our
name
comes
from
none
other
than
the
Notorious
Ruth
Bader
Ginsburg
and
the
jabot
(decorative
collar)
she
wore
when
delivering
dissents
from
the
bench.
It’s
a
reminder
that
even
when
we
aren’t
winning,
we’re
still
a
powerful
force
to
be
reckoned
with.

Happy
listening!

---

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].

Biglaw
firms
are
known
for
housing
their
offices
in
prime
real
estate
offerings,
with
beautiful
views
of
cityscapes
that
span
for
miles.
One
Am
Law
100
firm
is
using
its
location
for
good
to
help
children
with
sensory
processing
issues
celebrate
America’s
birthday
from
a
place
that’s
more
attuned
to
their
needs.

Barnes
&
Thornburg
—
a
firm
that
brought
in
$747,226,000
gross
revenue
in
2024,
putting
it
at
No.
73
on
the
Am
Law
100
—
is
spreading
the
wealth
by
using
its
33rd
floor
office
space
in
Columbus,
Ohio,
to
host
a
fireworks
viewing
party
for
the
city’s
Red,
White
and
BOOM! event
for
families
involved
with
the
Childhood
League
Center,
a
local
organization
that
works
with
young
children
who
have
developmental
disabilities.

Katrina
Thompson,
a
partner
at
the
firm
who
also
serves
as
chair
of
the
Childhood
League
Center’s
board,
is
honored
that
she’s
able
to
throw
the
July
4th
event
for
the
kids.
On
top
of
the
great
view
of
the
fireworks
display,
the
party
will
not
only
have
food,
games,
and
activities,
but
it
will
also
have
a
quiet
room
and
radio
volume
control
to
minimize
overstimulation.
She
recently
shared
her
thoughts
on
the
holiday
bash
with

NBC4
WCMH-TV:

“We’ve
got
air
conditioning,
a
little
temperature
control,
there’s
restrooms,
handicap
accessible
restrooms
that
people
can
use,”
said
Thompson,
who
also
has
a
daughter
with
autism.

She
said
events
like
Red,
White
and
BOOM!
with
large
crowds,
loud
sounds
and
summer
heat
can
cause
families
like
hers
to
miss
out
on
the
fun.

“This
is
often
a
stressful
time
for
families
with
autism
or
sensory
issues,”
Thompson
said.
“So
I
like
to
have
this
event
to
really
bring
the
families
together
to
experience
and
hopefully
have
a
core
memory
around
Red,
White
and
BOOM!”

Congratulations
to
the
Columbus
office
of
Barnes
&
Thornburg
for
finding
a
way
to
make
this
holiday
event
more
inclusive
for
children
with
special
needs.

Downtown
law
firm
providing
sensory
friendly
Red,
White
&
BOOM!
experience
[NBC4
WCMH-TV]

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
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.

Legal
technology
has
a
way
of
missing
the
vast
middle
of
the
legal
market.
Biglaw
has
the
resources
to
build
out
the
latest
and
greatest
in
tech.
Small
law
jumps
into
technology
to
keep
themselves
competitive.
But
like
Jan
Brady,
the

midsize
firms
are
often
in
an
awkward
position:
big
enough
not
to
need
technology
to
sink
or
swim,
but
not
big
enough
to
dump
resources
into
a
cutting
edge
infrastructure.
They’re
the
kind
of
firm
where
you
can
end
up
with
a
CIO
who
is
also
the
receptionist
and
last
got
the
firm
on
board
with
a
big
upgrade
when
they
moved
to
Windows
7.

Actionstep,
a
cloud-based
law
firm
management
software
provider
with
a
soft
spot
for
that
midsize
market,
just
announced
its
new
AI
support
tool
Scout.

Scout
provides
users
with
an
in-platform
assistant
for
“the
joint
benefit
of
giving
our
customers
better
access
to
support,
along
with
more
relevant
and
timely
information
without
needing
to
make
a
request
through
traditional
support
avenues,”
according
to
Daniella
Bohill,
Actionstep’s
Senior
Vice
President
of
Customers.
The
company
says
the
tool
has
already
resolved
83%
of
queries
successfully
and
has
saved
approximately
140
customer
support
team
hours.

Built
with
OpenAI
technology,
Scout
is
trained
on
content
from
the
Actionstep
Practice
Management
Help
Center
and
Knowledge
Hub.
It’s
not
the
sexiest
AI
promise
out
there,
but
one
tailored
to
solve
a
precise
pain
point.

• 
  Instant
  Q&As: –
  Scout
  searches
  across
  Actionstep’s
  Practice
  Management
  Help
  Center
  to
  find
  the
  most
  relevant,
  accurate
  response
  in
  seconds,
  ranging
  from
  how
  to
  generate
  use
  case-specific
  reporting
  to
  creating
  contacts
  and
  matters
  with
  custom
  information.
• 
  Smart
  summaries:
  Scout
  pulls
  insights
  from
  multiple
  help
  articles
  and
  Knowledge
  Hub
  sources
  and
  combines
  them
  into
  easy-to-read
  and
  understand
  responses.
• 
  Step-by-step
  assistance:
  Scout
  helps
  users
  complete
  tasks
  in
  Actionstep
  Practice
  Management
  with
  thorough
  step-by-step
  guidance.
• 
  Simplify
  workflow:
  Scout
  is
  designed
  to
  enhance
  legal
  professionals’
  experience
  in
  Actionstep
  Practice
  Management
  by
  answering
  questions
  and
  providing
  in-app
  guidance,
  ensuring
  users
  can
  stay
  in
  the
  platform
  and
  remain
  on
  task.

The
first
hurdle
to
building
a
tech-infused
law
practice
is
keeping
the
technology
running
and
the
lawyers
engaged.
Minimizing
those
moments
where
a
frustrated
and
confused
lawyer
could
just
throw
up
their
hands
and
say
it’s
faster
to
do
this
the
old
way
is
a
win.
And
for
whatever
psychological
reason,
the

generative
AI
interface
makes
in-roads
with
lawyers
as
a
user
experience
that
nothing
else
has
before.

If
Scout
can
intervene
before
the
lawyer
calls
an
engineer
out
to
the
site
to
flip
a
switch
as
explained
on
page
4
of
the
manual
that
no
one
bothered
to
open,
it’s
an
achievement.

Not
that
a
lawyer
has
ever
wasted
an
engineer’s
time
before…

---

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.

If
you’re
still
playing
catch-up
with
your
competitors,
you’ve
already
lost.
In
today’s
saturated
legal
landscape,
the
firms
that
win
don’t
try
to
be
the
best
copycats
—
they
obsess
over
their
clients. 

“The
problem
with
obsessing
about
your
competition
instead
of
your
clients
is
that,
if
you
do,
you
are
almost
by
definition
falling
in
the
middle,”
says
legal
strategy
expert
Shireen
Hilal. “So
the
better
way
to
get
ahead
is
to
be
client-obsessed.”

In
this
episode
of
“Be
That
Lawyer,”
I
sit
down
with
Shireen
to
break
down
what
it

really
means
to
build
a
client-first
law
firm.

From
pricing
transparency
to
internal
collaboration,
Shireen
offers
a
practical
roadmap
for
lawyers
who
want
to
lead
in
service,
not
just
survive
the
race. 

Here
are
three
takeaways:

Stop
Watching
the
Competition,
Start
Listening
to
Clients 

Real
innovation
happens
when
you
focus
on
what
clients

need
next,
not
what
other
firms
are
doing
now. 

A
Golden
Age
for
Midsize
Firms 

While
the
billable
hour
has
been
debated
for
years,
Shireen
argues
we’re
finally
seeing
real
pressure
from
clients
to
rethink
pricing
models,
especially
in
the
corporate
market.

With
budget-conscious
clients
seeking
efficiency
and
talent,
midsize
firms
have
a
window
to
differentiate
and
scale. 

Make
Cross-Selling
Client-Centered 

Internal
lunches
and
expert
briefings
aren’t
about
pitching,
they’re
about
identifying
problems
you
can
help
solve
across
practice
areas. 

Ready
to
grow
your
firm
without
losing
your
identity?

Listen
to
the
full
conversation
here.

You
can
also

check
out
our
most
recent
episode
here. 

---

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.