The Ethics 8: Which Trump Administration Lawyer Most Deserves To Lose Their License? – Above the Law

The
first
round
of
our
bracket
challenge
is
in
the
books
and
the
carnage
was…
mostly
non-existent.
It’s
bittersweet
for
someone
setting
up
a
tournament
because
you’re
proud
of
yourself
for
properly
seeding
the
field,
but
you
regret
not
giving
the
audience
more
excitement.
But
pour
one
out
for
Ed
Martin.
He

leaked
grand
jury
material
,

dropped
charges
against
his
own
former
client
,
and

dressed
up
like
Inspector
Gadget
to
intimidate
the
New
York
Attorney
General
,
but
he

still

couldn’t
make
it
out
of
the
first
round.
When
we’re
talking
about
ethical
investigations,
the
competition
among
Trump’s
lawyers
is
just
that
stiff.

But
now
the
field
is
down
to
eight
and
the
matchups
are
getting
serious.
This
is
where
the
tournament
gets
interesting

where
“merely”
defying
court
orders
has
to
compete
with
fabricating
criminal
prosecutions,
where
undisclosed
conflicts
of
interest
square
off
against
telling
federal
judges
to
go
f***
themselves.

Voting
is
open
now
until
Monday
at
7:59
p.m.
Eastern.
Here’s
how
the
regional
championship
round
shakes
out.


ROY
COHN
REGION:
(1)
Pam
Bondi
vs.
(3)
Brendan
Carr

Bondi
cruised
past
DHS
General
Counsel
James
Percival
in
the
first
round.
Carr,
meanwhile,
pulled
off
the
tournament’s
lone
upset,
knocking
off
Ed
Martin
by
fewer
than
a
hundred
votes.

At
first
glance,
this
looks
like
a
mismatch.
Bondi
is
the

Attorney
General
of
the
United
States


the
person
who

fired
a
career
DOJ
lawyer
for
telling
a
federal
judge
the
truth
,
sending
the
unmistakable
message
that
DOJ
lawyers
must
lie
or
lose
their
jobs.
The
whole
point
of
this
tournament
is
to
highlight
the
lawyers
most
in
need
of
state
disciplinary
action,
and
Bondi
is
now

cartoonishly
proposing
a
rule
to
block
state
bars
from
investigating
government
lawyers
altogether
.
If
your
response
to
potential
bar
discipline
is
to
ban
bar
discipline,
you
might
be
telling
on
yourself.

But
don’t
sleep
on
Carr.
The
FCC
Chair
has
turned
broadcast
regulation
into
a
weapon
for
punishing
political
speech
the
president
doesn’t
like.
He
pressured
CBS
into
settling
Trump’s
personal
lawsuit,
tried
to
get
ABC
to
fire
Jimmy
Kimmel,
and
has
now
threatened
to
revoke
broadcast
licenses
over
news
coverage
of
the
Iran
war.
Ted
Cruz
called
Carr’s
conduct
dangerous
and
compared
it
to
a
mafia
extortion
scheme.

One
fun
wrinkle:
a
state
bar
authority
already
declined
to
pursue
Carr’s
misconduct

because
it
was

too
obvious

to
justify
further
action.
That’s
the
ethical
equivalent
of
a
cop
declining
to
write
you
a
ticket
because
you
were
going
so
fast
the
radar
gun
couldn’t
clock
you.



VOTE
HERE


RUDY
GIULIANI
REGION:
(1)
Lindsey
Halligan
vs.
(2)
Alina
Habba

This
is
the
matchup
we’ve
all
been
waiting
for.
The
Battle
of
the
Fake
Prosecutors.
Two
lawyers
with
zero
criminal
law
experience,
both
installed
as
top
federal
prosecutors
by
presidential
fiat,
and
both
told
by
federal
judges
that
their
appointments
were
illegal.

Halligan
earned
the
1
seed
through
sheer
volume
of
incompetence.
She

suggested
James
Comey
had
no
Fifth
Amendment
rights
.
She
submitted
an
indictment
that
the
full
grand
jury
never
voted
on.
A
federal
judge
ruled
she
possessed
no
more
authority
than
any
private
citizen
off
the
street
.”
She
then

continued
using
the
title
anyway

until
another
judge
called
her
out.
Eventually
she

got
benchslapped
out
of
a
job
.

Habba,
though,
is
no
slouch.
Before
her
illegal
appointment
as
New
Jersey’s
top
federal
prosecutor,
she
was
already
famous
for

flopping
so
spectacularly
in
the
E.
Jean
Carroll
trial

that
the
judge
had
to
explain
basic
trial
procedure
to
her.
She
and
her
team
also
earned

$1
million
in
sanctions

for
the
frivolous
RICO
suit
against
Hillary
Clinton.
Her
tenure
as
phony
U.S.
Attorney
ended
when
she

quit
the
job
she
never
legally
held
.

This
is
a
genuinely
tough
call.
Halligan’s
disasters
were
louder;
Habba’s
have
been
more
sustained.
Think
of
it
as
choosing
between
a
spectacular
car
wreck
and
a
slow-motion
demolition
derby.



VOTE
HERE


JOHN
EASTMAN
REGION:
(1)
Todd
Blanche
vs.
(2)
Jeanine
Pirro

Two
very
different
paths
to
professional
disgrace.

Blanche
was
a
Cadwalader
partner
before
becoming
Trump’s
personal
criminal
defense
attorney
and
then
the
number
two
at
the
Justice
Department.
He’s

keeping
Epstein
files
under
wraps

despite
the
explicit
text
of
a
congressional
statute,

declaring
“war”
on
federal
judges
,
and

threatening
Trump’s
hecklers
with
organized
crime
charges
.
Whenever
the
administration
needs
someone
with
actual
legal
credentials
to
say
something
utterly
deranged,
Blanche
steps
up.

Pirro,
meanwhile,
squeaked
past
Kash
Patel
by
fewer
than
20
votes
in
the
first
round,
which
is
impressive
for
someone
whose
primary
professional
skill
appears
to
be
losing
cases
before
they
even
start.
Her
old
bosses
at
Fox
privately
called
her
a
reckless
maniac
,”
which
at
the
time
seemed
harsh
but
seems
like
a
letter
of
recommendation
for
this
bracket.
She’s
been

collecting
no-bills
like
frequent
flyer
miles
,
including
the
botched
effort
to
prosecute
Democratic
lawmakers
for
accurately
describing
the
law.

Your
call.



VOTE
HERE


STEPHEN
MILLER
REGION:
(1)
Emil
Bove
vs.
(2)
Chad
Mizelle

The
man
who
told
government
lawyers
to
say
“f***
you”
to
federal
judges
versus
the
man
who
couldn’t
be
bothered
to
disclose
his
potential
conflicts
until
he
left
the
job.

Bove
is
now
a
Third
Circuit
judge

a
lifetime
appointment!

which
is
an
impressive
bit
of
failing
upward.
Before
ascending
to
the
bench,
he
reportedly
told
senior
DOJ
lawyers
that
deportation
flights
under
the
Alien
Enemies
Act
would
be
leaving
“no
matter
what”
and
if
any
court
tried
to
stop
them,
the
response
should
be…
well,
we
covered
this
already.
He’s
already

earned
bar
complaints

that
amounted
to
a
punt
from
authorities.
And
now
he’s
got
life
tenure.
Cool
system
we’ve
got
here.

Mizelle,
meanwhile,
left
the
DOJ
after
a
stint
as
Chief
of
Staff
marked
by

undisclosed
conflicts
with
companies
the
DOJ
was
actively
suing
,
including
Apple,
Meta,
and
Visa.
He
didn’t
file
his
financial
disclosure
until
after
leaving
government,
which
is
sort
of
like
turning
in
your
marathon
registration
after
the
race.
He
also
tried
to

recruit
AUSAs
over
Twitter
,
which
isn’t
necessarily
cause
for
discipline
but
certainly
undermined
the
public’s
perception
of
the
profession.

Bove
has
to
be
the
heavy
favorite
here.
The
“f***
you”
alone
is
doing
a
lot
of
heavy
lifting,
but
even
without
it,
his
trajectory
from
DOJ
attack
dog
to
federal
appellate
judge
perfectly
encapsulates
the
accountability
vacuum
this
whole
bracket
is
designed
to
highlight.



VOTE
HERE


Polls
are
open
now.
Voting
will
continue
through
Monday
at
7:59
p.m.
Eastern.
Get
in
there
and
vote.


HeadshotJoe
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
.

The Path To AI Maturity: What Leaders Should Consider In The Coming Year – Above the Law

AI
has
reached
a
tipping
point
in
the
legal 
industry.
What
was
once
experimental
is
now 
shaping
how
legal
teams
operate,
compete,
and 
deliver
results.
But
while
adoption
is 
accelerating,
maturity
levels,
use
cases,
and 
confidence
in
AI
still
vary.

Please
join
us
on

March
31st
at
1
p.m.

and
we’ll
break
down
the
most
important
findings
from
Litify’s
2025
State
of
AI
in
Legal
Report
and
examine
what
they
mean
for
legal
teams.
Moderated
by
Litify
and
featuring
voices
from
across
the
legal
industry,
the
conversation
will
explore
what’s
driving
AI
adoption,
the
challenges
teams
are
facing,
and
what
law
firms
and
legal
teams
should
prioritize
in
the
next
3–12
months.

We’ll
discuss:

>Why
AI
has
become
unavoidable
in
legal
operations
>How
legal
teams
are
progressing
along
the
AI
maturity
curve
>Why
teams
started
using
AI
and
what
their
approach
looks
like
today
>The
biggest
challenges
and
misconceptions
around
AI
adoption
>What
leaders
should
be
doing
now
to
prepare
for
what’s
next

Whether
you’re
early
in
your
AI
journey
or
looking
to
scale
more
advanced
use
cases,
this
session
will
provide
data-backed
insights
and
peer
perspectives
to
help
you
move
forward
with
confidence.

1
hour

CLE
credit

is
available
for
live
attendees.

  

Jay Clayton’s SDNY Throws ICE Under The Bus To Save Face In Court – Above the Law

Who
is
to
blame
for
this
material
misstatement
of
fact?
Not
the
SDNY!
(image
via
ChatGPT)

In
a

March
24
letter

to
Judge
P.
Kevin
Castel,
the
U.S.
Attorney’s
Office
for
the
Southern
District
of
New
York,
led
by
Jay
Clayton,
did
something
rather
remarkable.
Clayton
let
the
court
know
that
the
government’s
representations
about
a
material
fact
was
wrong.
Like,
completely
erroneous.
Yikestown.

The
federal
government’s

relationship
with
the
truth

in
the
Trump
II
era
when
standing
in
front
of
a
federal
judge
continues
to
be,

let’s
say,
flexible
.
In

African
Communities
Together
v.
Lyons
,
the
government
had
repeatedly
represented
in
both
briefing
and
oral
argument,
that
ICE
policy
restricted
immigration
arrests
in
or
near
courthouses.
That
position
leaned
heavily
on
a
2025
ICE
guidance
memo.
The
only
problem
with
that?
According
to
ICE,
that
policy
never
actually
applied
to
immigration
courts
regardless
of
where
they’re
located.

The
SDNY
is
now
“correct[ing]
a
material
mistaken
statement
of
fact,”
which
basically
involves
a
litigation
reset
as
the
government
has
to
withdraw
chunks
of
its
prior
filings
and
conceded
that
the
court’s
earlier
decision
(which
relied
on
those
representations)
will
now
have
to
be
revisited.

According
to
Clayton,
it
was
only
after
months
of
litigation,
briefing,
and
a
judicial
opinion
already
on
the
books
that
SDNY
learned
of
the
“regrettable
error”
that
“appears
to
have
occurred
because
of
agency
attorney
error.”
Back.
That.
Bus.
Up.
Seriously,
Clayton
is
not
being
subtle.
This
is
Jay
Clayton
tossing
ICE
under
the
nearest
available
bus
in
a
move
that
reads
like
reputational
self-preservation.

And,
to
be
fair,
you
can
see
why.
SDNY’s
brand
is
built
on
credibility.
When
that
starts
to
crack,
the
whole
enterprise
is
in
trouble.

Clayton’s
move
here
is
both
savvy
and
revealing.
By
documenting
that
SDNY
lawyers
relied
on
ICE’s
representations

and
even
got
sign-off
from
ICE
counsel

he’s
building
a
record
that
attempts
to
shield
his
office
from
judicial
ire.
It’s
a
preemptive
strike
against
the
inevitable
question…
How
the
fuck
did
you
let
this
happen?

But
the
cost
of
that
strategy
is
obvious.
It
publicly
exposes
a
breakdown
inside
the
federal
government
so
severe
that
one
component
can
mislead
another
into
misleading
a
federal
judge.

Judge
Castel’s
reaction
to
this
debacle
remains
to
be
seen.
Despite
Clayton’s
best
effort
to
save
the
SDNY’s
hide,
it
may
not
be
enough…
because
someone
sure
has
to
pay
for
the
wild
disrespect
of
the
judicial
process.




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].

Trump Says Justices Barrett & Gorsuch ‘Sicken’ Him – Above the Law

Donald
Trump
continued
his
temper
tantrum
against
the

Supreme
Court’s
tariff
decision
,
taking
an
opportunity
last
night
to
specifically
call
out
two
of
his
appointees
for
joining
the
majority.
“Two
of
the
people
that
voted
for
that,
I
appointed,”
Trump
slurred
during
his
speech
to
the
National
Republican
Congressional
Committee dinner,
“And
they
sicken
me…
They
sicken
me
because
they’re
bad
for
our
country.”

As
a
reminder,
this
is
the
second
time
for
Amy
Coney
Barrett,
who

literally

sickened
Trump
when

her
nomination
party
turned
into
a
COVID
superspreader
event

that
sent
Trump
to
the
hospital.

It’s
true
that
tariffs
had
provided
the
government
billions
in
revenue,
because
that’s
how
massive
tax
increases
work.
What
Trump
never
seemed
to
figure
out
is
that
those
costs
aren’t
paid
by
other
countries,
but
by
importers
who
then
pass
it
on
down
the
chain
to
the
consumer
in
higher
prices.
Tariffs
can
punish
other
countries
for
their
trade
practices

if

the
price
increase
on
imported
goods
causes
consumers
to
shift
to
domestic
products,
but
since
the
administration

didn’t
realize
America
can’t
grow
bananas

for
almost
a
year,
it’s
safe
to
say
these
rocket
scientists
weren’t
carefully
crafting
a
strategy
to
protect
homegrown
products.

For
Gorsuch
and
Barrett
(to
a
slightly
lesser
extent
since
she
did
not
join
the
most
expansive
part
of
the
Trump
immunity
opinion),

they
join
Chief
Justice
Roberts

in
learning
that,
no
matter
how
much
you
debase
yourself
to
rewrite
the
rule
of
law
to
help
this
guy,
it’s
never
enough.
These
justices
went
full
Nicholas
Cage
to
find
language
in
some
hidden
version
of
the
Constitution
to
totally
immunize
a
president
for
stealing
classified
documents

apparently

for
the
purpose
of
helping
your
private
business
interests


and
having
your
lawyer
lie
to
the
government
about
that
fact,
participating
in
a
scheme
to
defraud
voters,
and
even

assassinate
political
rivals
.
But
they
were
still
one
decision
away
from
him
deciding
that
they
“sicken”
him.

And,
hey,
the
Supreme
Court
sickens
me
too.
The
difference
is

Above
the
Law

readers
are
highly
intelligent,
beautiful
people,
and
Trump’s
audience
are
the
people
who
tried
to
hang
Mike
Pence
and
then
received
pardons
for
it.
The
phrase
hits
a
little
different
for
those
folks.
It’s
the
“will
no
one
rid
me
of
these
troublesome
judges?”
drumbeat
his
administration
has
lobbed
at
lower
court
judges
for
months,
finally
leveled
up
to
the
Supreme
Court.

But
they
have
no
one
to
blame
but
themselves.




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
.

Iran conflict disrupts economies, but experts predict rise in defense spending – Breaking Defense

BEIRUT

Amid
the
conflict
in
Iran,

oil
production
facilities

and
shipping
lanes

namely
the
Strait
of
Hormuz

have
been
targeted,
disrupting
economies
both
locally
and
globally.

Exports
like
liquefied
natural
gas
from
Qatar
and
the

United
Arab
Emirates
,
along
with
oil
from
Kuwait,
Bahrain,
Saudi
Arabia
and
the
UAE
have
seen
total
or
partial
interruptions,
Kristian
Coates
Ulrichsen,
fellow
for
the
Middle
East
at
Rice
University’s
Baker
Institute,
told
Breaking
Defense. The
interruptions
come
in
part
from
attacks
on

Ras
Laffan

in
Qatar,
which
decreased
the
country’s
LNG
exports
by
17
percent,
per
BBC,
and
attacks
on
the
Strait
of
Hormuz,
through
which
more
than
20
percent
of
the
world’s
oil
and
LNG
pass,
according
to
the

US
Energy
Information
Administration
.

“Damage
to
critical
energy
infrastructure
is
another
factor
that
has
risen
considerably
and,
in
Qatar’s
case,
will
be
costly
both
in
terms
of
the
cost
of
repair
and
foregone
revenues
from
the
planned
expansion
of
LNG
output,
which
was
set
to
come
onstream
later
this
year
and
next
year,”
Ulrichsen
said.

These
disruptions
have
also
caused
economic
effects
across
the
globe
including
an
increase
in

US
gas
prices

of
over
a
dollar
per
gallon
from
last
month.

Such
economic
disruptions
are
likely
to
have
an
impact
on
the
national
budgets
for
several
Gulf
nations,
but
experts
told
Breaking
Defense
the
nature
of
the
threat
means
one
industry
in
particular
will
likely
be
spared
from
any
cost
cutting:
defense.

“Defense
spending
may
go
up
rather
than
down
and
will
as
a
matter
of
urgency
be
reassessed
to
better
focus
on
the
challenges
of
a
drawn-out
conflict
that
now
face
the
Gulf
States,”
Ulrichsen
said.

Ulrichsen
and
others
said
spending
should
only
increase
especially
when
it
comes
to
capabilities
to
counter
attacks
on
energy
infrastructure
in
the
future.

“To
counter
these
[Iran’s]
asymmetric
threats,
Gulf
states
are
compelled
to
accelerate
military
modernization,
prioritizing
advanced
air
defenses
like
Patriot
and
THAAD
upgrades,”
Retired
Kuwaiti
air
force
Col.
Zafer
Al
Ajami
told
Breaking
Defense.
“This
strategic
pivot
necessitates
fiscal
reallocation;
non-essential
public
projects,
social
subsidies,
and
welfare
expansions
may
face
significant
cuts
to
preserve
space
for
defense
spending.”

As
part
of
that
investment,
Sascha
Bruchmann,
a
research
fellow
for
defense
and
military
analysis
at
the
International
Institute
for
Strategic
Studies
explained
that
Gulf
nations
will
have
to
also
focus
on
replenishing
missile
defense
capabilities. 

He
added
that
“military
spending
will
also
look
closer
at
c-UAV
solutions
that
are
battle-proven
and
effective.
It
was
a
trend
at
shows
and
in
academic
discussions
over
the
past
years,
but
many
governments
failed
to
truly
implement
at
scale.”

The
focus
on
air
defenses
could
mean
shifting
investments
away
from
tanks
and
other
heavy
armored
vehicles,
Bahrain-based
strategic
expert
and
political
researcher
Abdullah
Al
Junaid
noted.

“We
may
also
[see
a]
beef
up
of
ISR
(integration
of
aerial
components
and
naval
forces).
The
Desert
Shield
Forces
role
may
change
to
a
more
robust
force
to
address
future
threats
as
a
rapid
deployment/crisis
containment,”
he
told
Breaking
Defense.
(Desert
Shield
Forces
is
the
US
and
international
coalition
deployed
to
Saudi
Arabia
in
1990
to
aid
Kuwait
in
stopping
the
Iraqi
invasion.)

But
an
increase
in
defense
spending
isn’t
a
guarantee
of
security,
Kristian
Alexander,
senior
fellow
at
the
United
Arab
Emirate-based
Rabdan
Security
and
Defence
Institute,
said.

“Effectiveness
increasingly
depends
on
integration,
coordination,
and
the
ability
to
sustain
defense
operations
under
prolonged
pressure.
In
doing
so,
Gulf
states
are
adapting
to
a
security
environment
in
which
economic
infrastructure
is
as
much
a
target
as
military
assets,
and
where
the
ability
to
absorb
and
mitigate
attacks
is
becoming
just
as
important
as
the
ability
to
deter
them,”
he
said.

Morning Docket: 03.26.26 – Above the Law

*
Having
faceplanted
once
already,
Trump
housing
chief
proposes
all
new
frivolous
criminal
charges
against
Letitia
James.
[Guardian]

*
Biglaw
drew
less
from
litigation
funders
last
year.
[American
Lawyer
]

*
Justice
Department
agrees
to
give
Michael
Flynn
a
chunk
of
taxpayer
money
over
a
crime
Flynn

confessed
to
committing
.
[CNN]

*
NAACP
hires
former
Civil
Rights
Division
chief
Kristen
Clarke.
[Reuters]

*
Elon
Musk
is
citing
LinkedIn
in
effort
to
get
rid
of
Delaware
chancellor.
[Delaware
Business
Court
Insider
]

*
As
the
Metaverse
ends,
is
this
the
fall
of
virtual
law
offices?
Did
they
ever
actually
exist?
[Legaltech
News
]

*
Lawyer
gets
prison
for
defrauding
clients.
[ABA
Journal
]

Susman Godfrey Ditches Giving 1Ls Exploding Offers – See Also – Above the Law

Proper
Evaluation
Takes
Time:
The
firm
has
enough
sense
to
not
force
1Ls
to
rush
their
careers.
Bill
Barred
From
Executive
Privilege
At
Airport:
Stand
in
line
like
everybody
else!
You
Can’t
Juggle
It
All:
Biglaw
partner
shares
refreshingly
honest
story
about
work/life
balance.
$50K
For
A
Public
Interest
Summer?:
Biglaw
stipends
are
bleeding
over
into
non-Biglaw
positions.
My
Cousin
Litera:
This
will
be
the
coolest
use
of
comparative
legal
AI
you’ve
seen
in
a
while.
This
Week
On
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer:
Afroman’s
huge
win
and
Elon’s
big
loss.

Jury Finds Meta And YouTube’s Negligence Led To Addiction In Kids – Above the Law

Millennials
grew
up
on
internet
that
required
heavy
computers,
monitors,
and
a
dial-up
connection.
Gen
Z,
however,
was
thrown
head
first
into
an
experiment:
how
will
growing
up
with
omnipresent
internet
access
turn
out?
Far
from
the
internet
being
the
thing
you
can
surf
in
your
parent’s
living
room,
they
grew
up
phones
aglow
with
mukbang
videos
to
keep
them
company
as
their
downed
their
french
fries.
And
while
growing
up
as
a
millennial
with
an
open
internet
posed
its
own
ethical
quandaries
(none
of
us
should
have
been
on
Rotten),
the
combination
of
corporate
interests,
social
media,
and
a
lack
of
protective
infrastructure
has
harmed
Gen
Z
in
ways
that
we
are
still
trying
to
figure
out.
Two
tech
giants,
Instagram
and
YouTube,
were
blamed
for
encouraging
addiction
in
young
consumers.
A
recent
jury
verdict
lays
fault
with
them.

NBC
News

has
coverage:

A
jury
found
Meta
and
YouTube
negligent
in
the
design
or
operation
of
their
social
media
platforms,
producing
a
bellwether
verdict
in
the
first
lawsuit
to
take
tech
giants
to
trial
for
social
media
addiction.
The
jury
stated
that
Meta’s
and
YouTube’s
negligence
were
a
substantial
factor
in
causing
harm
to
the
plaintiff,
identified
in
court
by
her
initials,
K.G.M.

They
awarded
K.G.M.
$3
million
in
compensatory
damages,
finding
Meta
70%
responsible
for
harm
caused
to
the
now
20-year-old
plaintiff,
and
YouTube
responsible
for
30%.

Wow,
Mom
was
right.
It
really
was
that
damned
phone.
She
may
have
left
out
the
bits
about
social
media
algorithms
that

copied
casino
strategies
to
create
psychological
cravings

and

all
the
weight
loss
drug
advertisements
,
but
she
knew
what
was
up!

The
jury
found
that
the
plaintiff’s
social
media
use
contributed
to
experiencing
depression,
anxiety,
and
body
dysmorphia.

Parents
in
the
courtroom
were
satisfied
with
the
verdict,
but
Meta
and
Google
(they
own
YouTube)
disagree
and
likely
plan
to
appeal.
It
makes
sense
that
the
companies
would
push
to
appeal
the
decision.
The
$3M
in
compensatory
damages
is
chump
change
for
these
corporate
giants,
but
the

$3M
in
punitives
is
a
whole
different
story

considering
how
many
children
with
stories
similar
to
K.G.M.
could
be
out
there
emboldened
to
get
their
day
in
court.
It
isn’t
like
it
should
be
that
hard
to
prove
harm
in
civil
cases
either

you
don’t
have
to
go
far
to
find
stories
of

tech
CEOs
explaining
why
they
limit
their
kids’
YouTube
usage
to
15-20
minutes
a
day
.

Be
mindful
of
your
social
media
usage!
And
if
you
know
any
children
who
can’t
seem
to
put
their
phones
down,
it
might
be
a
good
idea
to
be
mindful
for
them.


Jury
Finds
Meta
And
YouTube
Neligent
In
Landmark
Lawsuit
On
Social
Media
Safety

[NBC
News]


Jury
Orders
Meta
And
Google
To
Pay
Woman
$6
Million
In
Social
Media
Addiction
Trial

[NPR]



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
boat
builder
who
is
learning
to
swim
and
is
interested
in
rhetoric,
Spinozists
and
humor.
Getting
back
in
to
cycling
wouldn’t
hurt
either.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

AI Training Is A Must At This Biglaw Firm, But Lawyers Won’t Receive Any Billable Hours For It – Above the Law



Ed.
note
:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature, Quote
of
the
Day
.


They
need
to
be
very,
very
good
at
utilizing
these
tools
and
investing
in
themselves.
If
you
need
motivation
to
learn
how
to
use
AI
in
your
career
right
now,
we
probably
have
other
things
that
we
should
be
concerned
about
with
you.



— 

Chase
Simmons
,
chair
of
Polsinelli,
in
comments
given
during
an
appearance
on

Bloomberg
Law’s
On
The
Merits
podcast
,
concerning
attorneys’
use
of
artificial
intelligence
at
the
firm.
He
went
on
to
say
that
lawyers
at
the
firm
won’t
receive
billable
credit
for
their
AI
training,
noting,
“[t]his
should
just
be
every
day
you
wake
up
and
have
breakfast
and
think
about
how
to
incorporate
this
into
your
career.”





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 BlueskyX/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.