Author: TSA Press

Oh
boy,
here
we
go
again.
Another
Supreme
Court
ethics
scandal.
But
unlike…

everything
about
Ginni
Thomas,
this
one
leaves
me
decidedly
unconcerned.

Yesterday,
the
New
York
Times

published
a
story
about
the
“ethics
questions”
surrounding
the
work
of
Jane
Sullivan
Roberts,
wife
of
the
Chief
Justice,
John
Roberts.
For
those
that
may
not
be
aware,
Jane
was
once
a
Biglaw
partner
at
Pillsbury
Winthrop
Shaw
Pittman
but
two
years
after
her
husband
was
appointed
to
the
Supreme
Court
she
left
that
role,
saying,
it
was
“awkward
to
be
practicing
law
in
the
firm.”

Like
many
who
no
longer
want
to
use
their
J.D.
to
practice
law,
Jane
Roberts
turned
to
legal
recruiting,
first
at
Major,
Lindsey
&
Africa
then
at
Macrae.
Now
her
work
as
a
recruiter
is
coming
under
fire.
The
Times
got
a
copy
of
a
letter
sent
by
a
former
colleague
of
Jane
Roberts’s,
Kendal
Price,
to
Congress
and
the
Justice
Department
raising
the
flag
that
Jane
Roberts
receives
commissions
from
law
firms,
some
of
which
have
business
before
the
Court.

To
which
I
say,
duh.
Were
people
confused
about
how
recruiting
works?

But
Price
wrote,
“I
do
believe
that
litigants
in
U.S.
courts,
and
especially
the
Supreme
Court,
deserve
to
know
if
their
judges’
households
are
receiving
six-figure
payments
from
the
law
firms.”

Listen,
I’ve
written
extensively
about
the
recusal
disaster-cluster-fuck-o-rama
that
Clarence
Thomas
is
distinctly
not
doing
despite
his
wife’s
advocacy
work
on
behalf
of
issues
destined
to
appear
before
the
Supreme
Court.
It’s
a
repeated
pattern,
with
Ginni’s
post-election
advocacy
making
Clarence’s
votes
on

matters
related
to
the
January
6th
committee
super
suspect.
But
even
before
that
made
headlines,
she
led
a
grassroots
movement
in
support
of

Trump’s
travel
ban,
worked
for right-wing
think
tanks, and
led
efforts
to defeat
the
Affordable
Care
Act.
And
nary
a
recusal
in
sight.
That
is
clearly
bad.

But
that
is
worlds
different
than
what
Jane’s
been
up
to.

Yes,
Jane
Roberts
gets
paid
a
ton
of
money
for
placing
partners
at
Biglaw
firms,
and
some
of
those
firms
also
argue
before
the
Court.
But
that’s
not
advocacy
work.
When
Biglaw
firm
X
pays
the
recruiting
firm
for
Jane’s
work
they’re
not
trying
to
curry
favor
with
her
husband,
they’re
paying
for
the
value
of
that
new
cog
in
their
Biglaw
machine.
There’s
no
access
or
insight
into
the
Court’s
workings
being
given
away
when
Jane
Roberts
places
a
Private
Equity
partner
at
a
firm.
Hell,
she
may
even
have
placed
candidates
at
two
firms
working
on
opposite
sides
of
a
case
before
the
Court.

Sure,
it
might
be
nice,
for
the
sake
of
transparency,
to
have
additional
information
about
the
work
of
the
justices’
spouses.
But
blowing
up
what’s
ultimately
a
nothingburger
of
an
ethics
issue
runs
the
risk
of
undermining
real
ethical
problems,
like
the
aforementioned
Ginni
Thomas.

Also,
Jane
Roberts
has
been
doing
the
same
job
for
15+
years.
So,
why
is
it
all
of
a
sudden
news?

Mr.
Price
and
Mrs.
Roberts
both
had
worked
as
legal
recruiters
for
Major,
Lindsey
&
Africa,
a
global
firm
based
in
Maryland.
According
to
the
letter,
Mr.
Price
was
fired
in
2013
and
sued
the
firm,
as
well
as
Mrs.
Roberts
and
another
executive,
over
his
dismissal.

He
lost
the
case,
but
the
litigation
produced
documents
that
he
sent
to
Congress
and
the
Justice
Department,
including
spreadsheets
showing
commissions
attributed
to
Mrs.
Roberts
early
in
her
headhunting
career,
from
2007
to
2014.
Mrs.
Roberts,
according
to
a
2015
deposition
in
the
case,
said
that
a
significant
portion
of
her
practice
was
devoted
to
helping
senior
government
lawyers
land
jobs
at
law
firms
and
that
the
candidates’
names
were
almost
never
disclosed.

“I
keep
my
placements
confidential,”
she
said
in
the
deposition.

Ahhhh.
There
it
is.

There
are
some
ethics
absolutists
that
get
the
ick
pretty
much
whenever
a
judicial
spouse
works
in
the
legal
industry
at
all.

An
ethics
opinion
by
Bennett
L.
Gershman,
a
Pace
University
law
professor
and
former
Manhattan
prosecutor,
accompanied
the
letter
and
said
“it
is
plausible
that
the
Chief
Justice’s
spouse
may
have
leveraged
the
‘prestige
of
the
judicial
office’”
to
“raise
their
household
income.”
He
added
that
those
concerns,
coupled
with
what
he
described
as
the
chief
justice’s
lack
of
disclosure
of
potential
conflicts,
“threaten
the
public’s
trust
in
the
federal
judiciary,
and
the
Supreme
Court
itself.”

But
Amanda
Frost,
law
professor
at
the
University
of
Virginia,
has
a
relevant
comment
that
has
a
much
more
realistic
ring
to
it
for
me,
“It
feels
hard
to
imagine
how
this
would
corrupt
his
vote.”

The
Supreme
Court
would
be
better
off
with
clear
ethics
rules
and
recusal
standards,
that
is
true.
But
the
recruiting
work
Jane
Roberts
is
doing
is
simply
not
the
problem.

---

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

@Kathryn1@mastodon.social.

Every
high
schooler
has
a
group
text
chain
and
then
a
chain
where
they
complain
about
the
people
they
don’t
like
on
the
group
chain.
Brett
Kavanaugh
is
unaware
of
the
second
chain.
Because
when
you
have
to
do
public
tours
to
convince
people
that
you
have
friends,

you
don’t
have
friends.
Meanwhile,
a
law
professor

didn’t
take
too
kindly
to
a
student
request.
And
while
cursing
at
students
isn’t
acceptable,
the
frustration
probably
was
justified.
Finally,
there
are
a
lot
of
thorny
ethical
challenges
in
this
world,
but
some
conflicts
are
pretty
clear.
Like,

$62
million
clear.

It
would
appear
that
Donald
Trump’s
lawyer
Alina
Habba
is
out
of
E.
Jean
Carroll’s
defamation
case
against
the
former
president
…
sort
of.
As
with
every
other
procedural
aspect
of
this
case,
it’s
substantially
fakakta,
and
seems
all
but
guaranteed
to
piss
off
Judge
Louis
Kaplan.
And
he
was
already
pretty
pissed!

To
recap:
In
2019,
advice
columnist
E.
Jean
Carroll
alleged
that
Trump
raped
her
in
a
New
York
department
store
decades
earlier.
Trump
immediately
branded
Carroll
a
liar
and
implied
she
was
too
ugly
to
rape
—
an
allegation
slightly
undercut
when
he
examined
a
picture
of
Carroll
close
to
the
time
of
the
alleged
assault
and

mistook
her
for
his
former
wife,
Marla
Maples.
Carroll
sued
that
year,
and
the
government
sought
to
substitute
itself
as
defendant.
That
case,

Carroll
I,
is
currently
on
hold
pending
a
determination
by
the
DC
Court
of
Appeals
as
to
whether
Trump
was
acting
within
the
scope
of
his
official
duties
when
he
slagged
Carroll.

In
2022,
Trump
repeated
those
same
allegations,
once
again
undercutting
his
position
by
proving
that
he
was
only
fulfilling
his
presidential
obligation
to
talk
smack
about
sexual
assault
victims
three
years
earlier.
And
on
Thanksgiving,
New
York
passed
the
Adult
Survivors
Act,
granting
victims
whose
claims
would
otherwise
be
time
barred
a
chance
to
file
civil
suits
against
their
assailants.
Carroll
then
filed
a
second
suit,

Carroll
II,
with
claims
under
the
ASA
plus
another
defamation
count.

Yesterday,
attorneys
Joseph
Tacopina,
Matthew
DeOreo,
and
Chad
Seigel

entered
their
appearances
in Carroll
II,
but
not Carroll
I,
although
the
cases
are
likely
to
be
joined
if
the
DC
Court
of
Appeals
rules
in
Carroll’s
favor.
In
correspondence
which
appeared
briefly
on
the
docket
—
don’t
worry,
your
ATL

snagged
it
before
it
got
yanked
—
we
got
a
window
into
the
tussle
between
the
parties.

By
practice,
Judge
Kaplan

does
not
docket
letter
correspondence.
So
Carroll’s
lawyer
Roberta
Kaplan
(no
relation)
did
not
put
the

ish
out
to
the
public
when
she
got
a
call
from
Habba
saying
that
she
was
going
to
be
replaced
by
Tacopina
and
requesting
that
Carroll’s
deposition
scheduled
for
the
following
day
be
postponed.
Attorney
Kaplan
responded
with
a
HELL
NO,
noting
that
Trump
has
tried
everything
from
ducking
the
process
server
to
claiming
that
New
York
courts
have
no
jurisdiction
over
him
as
a
Florida
resident
to
drag
this
thing
out
for
more
than
three
years
already.

She
also
sent
a
letter
to
the
judge’s
chambers
noting
that
“we
are
concerned
that
Defendant
may
seek
to
use
this
late-stage
substitution
of
counsel
as
yet
another
tactic
to
attempt
to
delay
the
proceedings”
and
reminding
the
court
of
its
previous
finding
that
“Defendant’s
litigation
tactics
‘strongly
suggest
that
he
is
acting
out
of
a
strong
desire
to
delay
any
opportunity
plaintiff
may
have
to
present
her
case
against
him.’”

Habba
responded
on
the
public
docket,
protesting
that
“the
transition
of
counsel
is
not
in
any
way
intended
to
delay
or
hinder”
the
case,
but
hinting
obliquely
at
“several
scheduling-related
issues
that
have
arisen
recently
that
we
would
like
to
raise
and
seek
appropriate
intervention
by
this
Court.”

She
also
insisted
that
“it
is
Plaintiff
who
seeks
to
‘leverage’
the
shift
in
counsel
to
her
advantage,”
and
attached
a
copy
of
Kaplan’s
letter
to
her
own
public
filing.

As
of
this
morning,
all
of
that
correspondence
has
disappeared,
consistent
with
Judge
Kaplan’s
regular
practice.
But
it
sure
looks
like
Habba,
who
just
argued
this
case
before
the
DC
Court
of
Appeals,
is
going
to
be
replaced
at
trial
by
Tacopina
et
al.
We
can
certainly
speculate
that
the

$1
million
in
sanctions
she
and
her
client
just
got
slapped
with
by
a
federal
judge
in
Florida
might
have
something
to
do
with
this.
She
also
seems
to
have
wandered
into
a

second
sanctions
request
in
a

month
by
the
New
York
Attorney
General
in
the
state
civil
prosecution.
Oops!

On
the
one
hand,
Joseph
Tacopina
makes
perfect
sense
as
counsel
for
Trump.
He’s
an
experienced,
hard-charging
lawyer
who
has
represented
plenty
of
high
profile
clients,
including
rapper
Meek
Mill,
baseball
player
Alex
Rodriguez,
and
Donald
Trump
Jr.’s
fiancée
Kimberly
Guilfoyle
in
her
dealings
with
the
January
6
Committee.
And
Tacopina
was
willing
to
throw
elbows
from
the
jump,

threatening
to
sue
former
prosecutor
Mark
Pomerantz
for
“defamatory”
statements
about
Trump
in
his
upcoming
book.

But
Tacopina
has
made
some
public
statements
about
Trump
which
are
not
particularly
flattering.
As

Politico
points
out,
he
recently
represented
January
6
rioter
Julian
Khater,
arguing
in
a

sentencing
memo
that
his
client
was
provoked
to
a
“feverish
pitch”
after
“A
climate
of
mass
hysteria,
fueled
by
the
dissemination
of
misinformation
about
the
2020
election,
originating
at
the
highest
level,
gave
rise
to
a
visceral
powder
keg
waiting
to
ignite.”

And
more
to
the
point,
he
made
public
comments
about

Carroll
I
to

CNBC
in
2020,
mocking
Trump’s
claim
that
talking
smack
about
his
accuser
was
part
of
his
official
duties
and
decrying
then
Attorney
General
Bill
Barr’s
effort
to
substitute
the
government
as
defendant
and
remove
the
case
to
federal
court.

“The
DOJ
was
not
meant
to
serve
as
the
president’s
personal
in-house
counsel,
particularly
on
the
taxpayer’s
dime,”
scoffed
Tacopina,
adding
that
“Trump
calling
an
alleged
victim
of
rape
…
a
liar
is
not
an
act
in
his
official
capacity.”

“Although
ad
hominem
attacks
on
members
of
the
regular
public
may
be
a
regular
occurrence
in
the
Oval
Office
these
days,
Article
II
of
the
Constitution
does
not
include
within
the
functions
of
the
presidency
the
role
of
Chief
Mudslinger,”
he
continued.

So
…
that’s
weird.
But
it’s
a
safe
bet
that
Roberta
Kaplan
is
going
to
remind
the
jury
about
that
“ad
hominem
attack”
line
early
and
often.

Carroll
v.
Trump
I [Docket
via
Court
Listener]

Carroll
v.
Trump
II [Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
writes
about
law
and
politics.

The
timeline
for
redemption
is
a
funny
thing.
The
factors
for
forgiveness
are
manifold
—
egregiousness
of
violation,
passage
of
time,
moves
made
to
right
wrongs,
what
have
you.
A

Michigan
judge
came
under
fire
last
month
for
moral
high
horsing
the
hiring
of
a
clerk
who
did
his
best
to
repay
his
debt
to
society
after
shooting
at
a
cop
30
years
ago.
This
story
is
different
though;
a
Georgia
judge
is
being
recommended
to
leave
his
post
because
of
something
he
did

not
too
long
ago.

A
judicial
ethics
panel
is
recommending
removal
of
a
suspended
Georgia
appeals
judge
for
exploiting
an
elderly
client
before
joining
the
bench
and
using
campaign
cash
when
he
was
a
state
legislator
to
pay
for
personal
expenses,
including
a
family
trip
to
Hawaii.

In
a Jan.
30
report
and
recommendation,
a
hearing
panel
of
the
Georgia
Judicial
Qualifications
Commission
said
Judge
Christian
A.
Coomer
of
the
Georgia
Court
of
Appeals
had
used
the
client
and
the
campaign
funds
as
a
“personal
ATM,”

That
is

super
grimy.
This
isn’t
even
one
of
those
grey
areas!
Not
using
client
and
campaign
funds
as
a
personal
ATM
is
so
basic
that
even
Arby’s
School
Of
Meats
and
Law
grads
know
better
than
that.
The
only
person
that
wants
this
judge
in
an
embezzlement
case
is
Robert
Vesco.
Coomer
thinks
that
since
his…
creative
trip
financing
happened
before
he
robed
up
and
took
the
bench
it
shouldn’t
be
factored
in.
The
ethics
panel,
understandably,
thinks
otherwise.

“That
the
bulk
of
[Coomer’s]
improper
conduct
occurred
before
he
began
serving
as
a
judge
does
not
change
the
sanction
equation:
Removal
from
office
is
still
necessary
to
safeguard
the
public’s
perception
of
the
judiciary,”
the
hearing
panel
said.

Part
of
Coomer’s
response
was
to
get
some
compelling
character
testimony
on
his
behalf:

The
panel
noted
that
character
evidence
from
Coomer’s
superior
officer
when
Coomer
was
in
the
U.S.
Air
Force’s
Judge
Advocate
General’s
Corps.
The
superior
officer
saw
Coomer
as
a
smart,
capable
leader
who
excelled
in
everything
he
did.
The
superior
officer
also
put
Coomer
among
the
top
1%
of
officers
he
has
met.

Now,
this
is
the
part
that
made
me
laugh.
The
panel
immediately
pivoted
to
a
Chidi
moment.

They
read
Coomer’s
stellar
character
as
proof
that

he
should
have
known
that
it
was
wrong
to
dip
in
the
pockets
of
the
elderly.

If
that’s
true,
the
hearing
panel
said,
Coomer
“knew
exactly
what
he
was
doing
when
he
convinced
[the
client]
to
loan
his
assetless
and
judgment-proof
limited
liability
company
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
on
those
unreasonable
terms,
when
he
drafted
and
executed
those
ethically
impermissible
and
indefensible
estate
documents,
…
and
when
he
used
thousands
of
dollars
held
in
public
trust
to
fly
his
entire
family
over
4,000
miles
away
to
the
beaches
of
Hawaii
for
a
private
vacation
at
a
time
when
he
had
already
been
appointed
to
be
a
judge
on
the
[Georgia]
Court
of
Appeals.”

Coomer’s
“long-term
pattern
of
violating
attorney
ethics
rules
and
campaign
finance
laws
to
his
own
financial
benefit,
his
lack
of
remorse,
and
his
payment
of
restitution
only
after
his
wrongdoing
came
to
light
outweigh
mitigating
factors
and
demand
removal
from
office,”
the
hearing
panel
said.
The
hearing
panel
found
that
ethics
regulators
had
proven
29
counts
but
found
for
Coomer
on
seven
other
counts.

Yeah…
I
can
get
why
folks
wouldn’t
want
this
guy
with
a
gavel
in
his
hand.
Regardless
of
the
ethics
panel’s
conclusion,
the
Georgia
Supreme
Court
will
ultimately
decide
the
matter.
We
will
keep
you
up
to
date
on
the
highest
court’s
decision.

Appeals
Judge
Should
Be
Removed
For
Using
Client
And
Campaign
Account
As
A
‘Personal
ATM,’
Ethics
Panel
Says
[ABA
Journal]

---

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
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

As
this
website
has
reported
numerous
times,
and
as
many
people
within
the
legal
profession
already
know
firsthand,
many
law
firms
are
nudging
employees
to
return
to
offices
as
COVID-19
fears
fade.
This
has
created
much
tension
between
management
and
employees
at
many
shops
since
numerous
employees
do
not
understand
why
they
need
to
spend
time
commuting
to
offices
when
they
can
just
as
easily
perform
their
work
from
home.
I
was
talking
to
a
colleague
recently
who
noted
that
it
is
much
more
difficult
to
get
gossip
about
a
workplace
when
people
work
remotely
than
when
they
are
in
an
office,
and
forcing
people
to
come
to
offices
is
making
it
easier
for
workers
to
gossip.

I
worked
at
four
different
law
firms
before
starting
my
own
practice,
and
the
rumor
mill
and
gossiping
at
all
of
these
firms
was
intense.
People
spent
a
fair
amount
of
time
during
the
workday
kibitzing
with
coworkers
and
exchanging
rumors
about
compensation,
who
would
be
promoted,
who
would
be
picked
for
certain
assignments,
and
other
subject
matters.
When
a
firm
was
doing
poorly,
the
rumor
mill
was
even
more
intense.
Each
time
someone
was
let
go
at
a
law
firm
at
which
I
worked,
it
was
immediately
apparent
to
everyone,
and
the
rumor
mill
churned
such
that
everyone
had
an
opinion
about
the
matter.

Rumors
and
gossiping
are
not
good
for
law
firms.
Perhaps
most
importantly,
this
can
lead
to
attorneys
and
staff
devoting
less
time
to
their
assignments
if
they
are
engaged
in
gossiping
with
coworkers.
Moreover,
gossiping
can
have
a
negative
impact
on
a
law
firm
since
it
can
impact
the
perception
people
have
for
a
firm.
Law
firms
have
gone
under
because
rumors
about
finances
and
other
issues
have
forced
them
into
a
death
spiral
as
partners
and
staff
leave
for
other
shops.
People
naturally
like
to
gossip
and
spread
rumors
either
because
it
makes
someone
feel
important
that
they
know
something
that
someone
doesn’t
or
just
to
pass
the
time.

However,
it
is
much
more
difficult
to
gossip
with
coworkers
when
people
work
remotely.
This
is
partially
because
people
often
gossip
when
they
organically
see
someone
around
the
halls
of
an
office
or
someplace
else.
It
is
much
harder
to
have
these
organic
interactions
when
people
only
interact
over
the
phone
or
through
text.

Moreover,
people
might
be
nervous
if
they
gossip
with
one
another
virtually
rather
in
person.
People
might
not
want
to
send
text
messages
because
lawyers
especially
know
that
such
messages
can
come
back
to
haunt
them.
Moreover,
since
many
law
firms
require
attorneys
and
staff
to
install
tracking
software
on
their
personal
phones,
people
might
justifiably
be
concerned
that
their
bosses
might
be
able
to
see
things
that
they
text
to
coworkers.

People
are
also
less
likely
to
gossip
while
speaking
over
the
phone
than
in
person.
There
is
a
greater
fear
of
being
recorded
when
conversations
happen
over
the
phone
since
people
cannot
see
what
is
being
done
on
the
other
end
of
the
line.
Moreover,
it
is
much
harder
for
people
to
open
up
to
one
another
when
they
are
not
seeing
each
other
face
to
face.

There
are
also
just
some
people
that
other
people
do
not
interact
with
when
they
are
not
in
an
office.
For
instance,
there
were
many
staff
members
in
an
office
that
I
did
not
ever
interact
with
unless
I
was
in
an
office.
However,
staff
often
have
the
best
gossip
around
an
office
since
they
overhear
conversations
or
talk
with
brass
in
a
way
that
is
impossible
for
an
associate
attorney.
As
a
result,
being
away
from
this
channel
of
information
can
seriously
impact
the
amount
of
gossip
that
spreads
around
an
office.

Of
course,
no
law
firm
boss
is
going
to
base
their
decision
on
whether
to
bring
attorneys
and
staff
back
to
an
office
based
on
how
easy
or
difficult
it
is
to
spread
gossip.
However,
one
of
the
main
reasons
why
law
firms
are
forcing
attorneys
and
staff
back
to
offices
is
to
build
culture
and
so
that
it
is
easier
for
people
to
share
information.
Nevertheless,
in-person
work
can
also
make
it
easier
for
attorneys
to
gossip
and
share
rumors
about
a
law
firm.

---

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@rothmanlawyer.com.

ChatGPT
isn’t

delivering
robot
lawyers
any
time
soon.
In
fact,
it’s

pretty
depressed
about
working
in
Biglaw.
But
after
clearing
away
the
media
hype,
it’s
clear
that
the
technology
will

transform
the
legal
workflow
as
users
imagine
new
and
more
interesting
ways
to
deploy
OpenAI’s
technology
to
solve
lawyerly
problems.
Which
is
always
the
trick.
AI
has
a
“garbage
in,
garbage
out”
problem
and
when
it’s
using
the
internet

to
figure
out
what
Clarence
Thomas
thinks…
it’s
gonna
have
a
bad
time.
Maybe
in
time
that’ll
get
sorted
out.

That
said,
when
paired
with
a
market-tested
platform
to
understand
and
properly
respond
to
specific
circumstances,
lawyers
can
see
significant
gains
in
productivity
right
away.

Ironclad
just
issued
a
major
announcement
about
its
contract
lifecycle
management
product
integrating
with
OpenAI’s
tech.
Apparently,
this
has
been
a
while
in
the
making
and
now
that
everyone
is
talking
about
GPT3,
it’s
the
perfect
time
to
raise
the
curtain.
As
CTO
and
co-founder,

Cai
GoGwilt
explained:

There
has
been
a
“race
for
novelty”
in
our
industry,
but
Ironclad
has
always
prioritized
investing
in
technology
that
drives
impact
and
real
business
results
for
our
customers.
After
testing
GPT
within
Ironclad
for
several
months,
it’s
clear
that
this
is
much
more
than
novelty
–
it
is
a
groundbreaking
innovation.

In
that
spirit,
we
have
been
quietly
working
to
bake
GPT3
into
our
product
across
a
number
of
areas
–
and
I
am
thrilled
to
announce
Ironclad’s
latest
AI
advancement,
which
harnesses
this
groundbreaking
technology
from
OpenAI:
AI
Assist.

Now
in
beta,
AI
Assist
will
allow
users
to
generate
redlined
versions
of
contracts
with
language
drawn
from

pre-approved
clauses
set
by
the
legal
team.
The
user
can
then
simply
review
the
tracked
changes
and
approve
or
reject
as
needed.

More
wild
is
the
system’s
ability
to
generate
changes
in
response
to
open-ended
prompts.
That’s
a
fancy
way
of
saying
the
user
can
type
“make
all
of
the
confidentiality
clauses
mutual”
or
something
like
that
and
the
system
instantly
spits
out
a
redline
with
the
right
pre-cleared
language.

We’d

already
covered
Ironclad’s
AI-driven
layer
and
back
then
we
were
genuinely
impressed
that
the
system
promised
to
instantly
identify
unacceptable
clauses
in
outside
contracts
based
on
one’s
in-house
playbook,
automatically
loop
in
the
correct
approvers
at
the
right
times,
and
pull
and
tag
data
from
agreements
like
value,
dates,
and
parties.
This
is
a
whole
other
level.

Good
stuff
in,
good
stuff
out
is
exactly
what
you
want.

Earlier:

ChatGPT:
What
It
Is
And
Why
It
Matters
To
Lawyers

ChatGPT
Has
Pretty
Depressing
Thoughts
About
Biglaw
And
The
Billable
Hour

ChatGPT
Crowns
Clarence
Thomas
As
Champion
Of
Gay
Rights
In
Feedback
Loop
Of
Stupid

Ironclad
Unveils
New
AI-Driven
Layer
Across
Entire
Contract
Lifecycle

---

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 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.

As
more
millennials
join
the
partnership
ranks,
we
want
to
know
how
unique
—
or
not
—
the
generation’s
outlook
on
law
firm
life
truly
is.

Do
shared
generational
attitudes
transcend
the
partner-associate
divide?
What
impact,
if
any,
is
that
having
on
law
firm
policies?

In


the
final
installment

in
this
year’s
series
of
surveys
conducted
in
partnership
with
our
friends
at
Major,
Lindsey
&
Africa,
we’d
like
your
views
on
such
topics
as
compensation
practices,
associate
workloads,
bias
in
the
legal
industry,
and
firm
leadership. 

Please
take
a
few
minutes
to


share
your
thoughts
here.
As
always,
the
survey
is

completely
anonymous.

(And
please
note
we
are
not
only
interested
in
hearing
from
millennials;
lawyers
of
all
ages
are
encouraged
to
take
the
survey!)

If
you
have
not
taken
the
first
survey
in
this
series,
“Priorities,”



you
can
do
so
here.
And



click
here
to
take
the
second
survey,
“Goals.”

First,
let
me
save
a
few
of
you
a
little
time.
I
Googled
my
prospective
title
of
this
column
before
writing
it
to
see
if
anything
similar
had
been
used
lately
by
someone
writing
about
this
subject.
I
came
up
clean
there,
but
if
you’re
looking
for
the
firearm
accessory
forums,
I’m
going
to
save
you
a
whole
lot
of
indecision.
Get
the
flashlight
and
learn
to
use
the
sights.

For
the
rest
of
you,
I’m
not
talking
guns,
and
I’ll
be
getting
a
bit
more
esoteric
than
usual.
I’m
talking
about
people.
You,
me,
all
of
us.

They
say
there
are
two
kinds
of
people:
the
sort
who
divide
the
world
into
two
kinds
of
people,
and
everyone
else.
Although
I’m
not
sure
who
is
right,
today
I’m
going
to
indulge
the
former.

A
laser

produces
a
very
narrow
beam
of
light.
Laser
beams
stay
focused
—
they
do
not
spread
out
much
at
all.
Laser
light
can
travel
extremely
long
distances.
Lasers
are
capable
of
concentrating
a
tremendous
amount
of
energy
in
a
very
small
area.

Flashlights,
on
the
other
hand,
well,
you
know
what
a
flashlight
is.
You
probably
have
one
sitting
under
your
kitchen
sink
from
back
before
we
all
had
one
in
our
pockets
on
our
phones.
A
flashlight,
sure,
not
so
many
fancy
scientific
applications
compared
to
a
laser.
But
if
the
power
goes
out
after
dark,
we
all
know
which
one
you’d
prefer
to
have.

I’ve
been
thinking
lately
that
people
are
either
flashlights
or
lasers.
This
is
about
more
than
just

multitasking
versus
focusing
on
a
single
task
at
a
time.

It’s
life.
I’m
37
and
am
only
starting
to
realize
that
I
barely
know
myself.
This
laser
analogy
really
seems
to
fit
though.
I
can
move
it
around,
but
when
it’s
focused
on
something,
everything
else
seems
to
stay
in
the
dark.
My
writing’s
going
really
well,
and
my
day
job
starts
to
slide
into
mediocrity.
I’m

knocking
it
out
of
the
park
on
pro
bono
work,
and
my
personal
relationships
suffer.
Five
marathons
completed
somehow
translates
into
drinking
too
much.

You’ve
got
to
keep
it
moving
around.
You
leave
the
laser
aimed
at
one
thing
too
long,
everything
else
decays.
Even
worse,
whatever
the
laser
is
pointed
at
eventually
starts
to
burn.

Meanwhile,
all
these
flashlights
out
there,
man.
They
seem
to
have
everything
under
control.
Not
exactly
distinguishing
themselves
in
every
arena,
perhaps.
Nothing’s
at
risk
of
catching
fire
though.

I’m
sure
the
flashlight
people
have
their
complaints.
We
all
do.
Everyone
struggles.
Still
sounds
easier,
to
a
laser
guy
over
here
anyway.

Can
a
laser
become
more
like
a
flashlight,
or
vice
versa?
To
stick
with
the
metaphor,
no
amount
of
tinkering
is
going
to
have
that
old
Maglite
beneath
your
sink
cutting
diamonds.
Neither
is
any
laser
pointer
ever
going
to
illuminate
the
room
when
the
lights
flicker
out
during
a
thunderstorm.
Maybe
we’re
all
one
way
or
the
other,
trapped
within
ourselves,

as
the
people
we
are
destined
to
remain.

I
clearly
don’t
believe
balance
is
something
you
can
simply
choose
if
you
want
it.
Wouldn’t
everyone
make
that
choice
if
they
could?
And
nothing
is
more
natural
than
wanting
something
you
can’t
have.

We
can
still
be
better
at
the
application
of
whatever
we’ve
got,
I
suppose.
In
other
words,
don’t
shine
a
laser
down
the
drain
thinking
it
will
help
you
see
what’s
causing
the
clog
in
there,
and

don’t
try
to
shoot
down
a
drone
with
a
flashlight
beam.
Figure
out
how
to
use
the
right
tool
for
the
right
job.

Think
about
it.
Likening
your
life
to
different
types
of
light
might
strike
you
as
dumb.
But
who
knows?
Gave
me
something
to
focus
the
laser
on
for
a
few
hours,
at
least.

---

Jonathan
Wolf
is
a
civil
litigator
and
author
of Your
Debt-Free
JD


(affiliate
link).
He
has
taught
legal
writing,
written
for
a
wide
variety
of
publications,
and
made
it
both
his
business
and
his
pleasure
to
be
financially
and
scientifically
literate.
Any
views
he
expresses
are
probably
pure
gold,
but
are
nonetheless
solely
his
own
and
should
not
be
attributed
to
any
organization
with
which
he
is
affiliated.
He
wouldn’t
want
to
share
the
credit
anyway.
He
can
be
reached
at jon_wolf@hotmail.com.

A
few
days
ago,
a
group
of
Stanford
University
professors
and
U.S.
Treasury
Department
officials
jointly
published
a

paper
stating
that
based
on
their
research,
Black
taxpayers
were
2.9
to
4.7
times
more
likely
to
be
audited
than
non-Black
taxpayers.

The
paper
specifically
focuses
on
audits
involving
the
Earned
Income
Tax
Credit
(EITC),
a
refundable
tax
credit
for
low-income
taxpayers.

The
authors
make
it
clear
that
the
IRS
is
not
intentionally
targeting
Black
taxpayers.
They
claim
that
the
racial
disparity
in
audit
selection
is
driven
by
a
set
of
internal
IRS
algorithms.
They
are
probably
referring
to
the
IRS’s
Discriminant
Function
System.
This
system
issues
what
tax
professionals
call
the
“DIF
score”
which
will
determine
whether
the
tax
return
should
be
audited.
How
the
DIF
score
is
calculated
is
a
closely
guarded
secret.

They
also
claim
that
the
IRS
may
be
increasing
EITC
audits
because
they
are
more
cost-effective
and
less
labor
intensive
than
an
audit
of
a
self-employed
business.
This
may
be
due
to
a
lack
of
IRS
funding.
Also,
lower-income
taxpayers
may
not
have
the
time
or
resources
to
fight
an
audit
to
the
end.

But
there
are
a
few
issues
with
this
paper
which
suggest
that
the
authors
seem
to
have
a
problem
with
the
EITC
using
the
racial
disparity
narrative.

First,
the
authors
do
not
have
definite
data
on
race
so
they
make
assumptions.
Since
tax
returns
do
not
have
race
or
ethnicity
information,
the
authors
look
at
the
name
and
address
on
a
tax
return
to
determine
whether
the
taxpayer
is
likely
to
be
Black.
They
note
that
first
names
are
more
informative
than
last
names
for
identifying
Black
individuals.
The
problem
is
that
they
could
exclude
many
Black
taxpayers
just
because
they
have
a
non-Black
sounding
name.

Second,
it
is
unclear
why
the
authors
use
the
EITC
as
their
target
because
the
IRS
tends
to
look
at
these
returns
more
closely
no
matter
who
claims
it.
The
IRS

estimates
that
21%
to
26%
of
EITC
claims
are
paid
in
error
due
to
mistake
or
fraud.
Tax
return
preparers
are
required
to
do
a
due
diligence
check
with
their
clients
whose
numbers
make
them
eligible
to
claim
the
credit.
Past
studies
of
EITC
audit
rates
suggest
that
these
audits

target
low-income
people
regardless
of
color
and
were
more
focused
on

areas
with
lower-income
populations.

Lastly,
the
paper
does
not
disclose
how
these
selected
audits
were
resolved
and
how
the
taxpayers
were
treated
during
the
audit.
How
quickly
(or
slowly)
were
the
audits
resolved?
How
many
of
the
assumed
Black
or
non-Black
taxpayers
successfully
defended
their
audit?
And
of
particular
importance
is
whether
Black
taxpayers
were
treated
differently
than
others.
It
should
be
noted
that
some
taxpayers
are
unable
to
win
EITC
audits
due
to
ignorance
of
the
law
or
circumstances
beyond
their
control.
They
may
have
a
harder
time
getting
documents
or
may
have
had
an
unreasonable
auditor.
Or
their
tax
preparer
filed
a
false
tax
return.
Were
these
taxpayers
treated
differently
than
those
who
committed
outright
fraud?

So
what
is
the
equitable
fix
to
the
IRS
algorithm?
The
authors
do
not
suggest
reducing
audits
in
areas
where
the
population
is
predominantly
Black.
Instead,
they
state
that
the
IRS
should
choose
to
audit
a
taxpayer
based
on
the
magnitude
of
underreported
income
rather
than
the
likelihood
of
it.
Also,
the
IRS
should
use
its
resources
to
audit
more
complex
returns
rather
than
simple
ones.

If
the
IRS’s
audit
algorithm
increasingly
targets
Black
Americans,
it
should
be
looked
into
and
addressed.
But
this
paper
uses
questionable
assumptions
to
determine
a
person’s
race
and
does
not
take
into
account
how
the
audits
were
resolved.
Also,
it
seems
to
highlight
the
faults
of
how
the
EITC
is
implemented
and
how
the
audit
process
causes
problems
for
taxpayers
who
may
not
have
the
time
or
the
resources
to
fully
defend
their
case.
Perhaps
the
EITC
should
be
replaced
by
adjusting
the
tax
brackets
so
that
low-income
families
pay
no
tax
at
all.

---

Steven
Chung
is
a
tax
attorney
in
Los
Angeles,
California.
He
helps
people
with
basic
tax
planning
and
resolve
tax
disputes.
He
is
also
sympathetic
to
people
with
large
student
loans.
He
can
be
reached
via
email
at



stevenchungatl@gmail.com.
Or
you
can
connect
with
him
on
Twitter
(@stevenchung)
and
connect
with
him
on LinkedIn.

It’s
a
brand
new
year,
and
that
means
it’s
time
for
some
brand
new
law
school
rankings.
The
Princeton
Review
recently
released
its
annual
law
school
ranking,
covering
the
best
168
law
schools
in
the
country
(but
disregarding
the
fact
that
there
are
~200
law
schools
with
varying
degrees
of
accreditation
by
the
ABA).
Our
condolences
to
the
30-odd
law
schools
that
were
unable
to
make
the
cut
for
the
Princeton
Review’s
2023
edition
of
the
rankings
—
it
must
sting
knowing
that
your
institution
is
part
of
the
small
sliver
of
law
schools
that
aren’t
among
the
“best.”

We’ve
focused
on
one
of
the
14
rankings
categories
that
we
thought
people
would
be
the
most
interested
in:
The
law
schools
where
graduates
have
the
best
career
prospects.
It
wasn’t
long
ago
that
the
Princeton
Review’s
loose
definition
of
“career
prospects”
meant
an
entire
class
of
law
graduates
could
be
putting
the
“bar”
in
“barista,”
but
thankfully
the
methodology
changed
about
seven
years
ago,
and
these
career
rankings
mean
something
now.

Princeton
Review’s
“Best
Career
Prospects”
results
are
now
based
on
highly
relevant
data
reported
by
law
school
administrators,
including
median
starting
salaries,
the
percentage
of
students
employed
in
jobs
requiring
bar
passage
(and
not
employed
by
the
school
—
a
factor
that
is
now
at
odds
with
the
U.S.
News
law
school
rankings),
and
the
percentage
of
students
who
were
able
to
pass
the
bar
exam
on
their
first
try.
The
Princeton
Review
also
relies
on
responses
from
student
surveys.

Here
are
the
top
10
law
schools
on
the
Princeton
Review’s
“Best
Career
Prospects”
list
for
2023.
Things
changed
a
bit
for
T14
schools
this
year:

1.
New
York
University
School
of
Law
(no
change)
2.
University
of
Virginia
School
of
Law
(ranked
#3
last
year)
3.
University
of
Michigan
Law
School
(ranked
#5
last
year)
4.
Stanford
University
School
of
Law
(ranked
#2
last
year)
5.
Duke
University
School
of
Law
(ranked
#4
last
year)
6.
University
of
Southern
California
Law
School
(not
ranked
last
year)
7.
University
of
California
Berkeley
School
of
Law
(ranked
#9
last
year)
8.
Northwestern
University
Pritzker
School
of
Law
(ranked
#7
last
year)
9.
Harvard
University
Law
School
(ranked
#6
last
year)
10.
Columbia
University
School
of
Law
(no
change)

What
happened
to
once
again
create
such
shuffling
in
the
rankings?
For
the
answer,
let’s
return
to
Princeton
Review’s
methodology.
Each
law
school
was
given
a

“career
rating,” which
on
top
of
all
of
the
statistical
data
reported
by
law
school
administrators,
includes
the
following
information:

This
rating
measures
the
confidence
students
have
in
their
school’s
ability
to
lead
them
to
fruitful
employment
opportunities,
as
well
as
the
school’s
own
record
of
having
done
so.
This
rating
takes
into
account
both
student
survey
responses
and
school-reported
statistical
data.
We
ask
students
about
how
much
the
law
program
encourages
practical
experience;
the
opportunities
for
externships,
internships,
and
clerkships;
and
how
prepared
to
practice
law
they
expect
to
feel
after
graduating.

Princeton
Review
continues
to
rely
much
too
heavily
on
students’
feedback
over
actual
data.
Once
again,
people
who

felt
like
they’d
get
great
jobs
were
more
important
than
the
people
who
were
actually
able
to

get
great
jobs.
For
example,
this
may
be
why
UVA
Law,
with
~89%
of
the
class
of
2021
employed
in
full-time,
long-term
jobs
where
bar
passage
was
required
(discounting
12
school-funded
positions)
is
in
second
place,
while
Columbia
Law,
with
~94%
of
the
class
of
2021
employed
in
full-time,
long-term
jobs
where
bar
passage
was
required
(discounting
five
school-funded
positions)
is
in
tenth
place.
(And
it
might
also
be
the
reason
why
Chicago
Law,
a
school
that
was
in
8th
place
last
year,
and
which
had
~91%
of
the
class
of
2021
employed
in
full-time,
long-term
jobs
where
bar
passage
was
required
(discounting
six
school-funded
positions)
was
booted
from
this
year’s
ranking
entirely.)

Did
your
law
school
make
the
cut?
If
it
did,
do
you
think
it
was
ranked
fairly?
If
it
didn’t
make
the
list
for
best
career
prospects,
do
you
agree
with
that
assessment?
Please email
us or
text
us
(646-820-8477)
with
your
thoughts.

Best
Law
Schools
2023
[Princeton
Review]

Best
Career
Prospects
2023
[Princeton
Review]

---

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

Twitter
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.