Author: TSA Press

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.

Skip
to
main
content

*
Demand
for
legal
services
dropped
in
2022.
Which
you
already
knew,
but
now
there’s
a
report!
[Reuters]

*
Look
to
your
left,
look
to
your
right…
one
of
these
law
firms
won’t
be
here
next
year.
[Law.com]

*
Federal
Circuit
strikes
down
Quinn
Emanuel’s
class
action
fees
as
“excessive.”
Quinn
Emanuel
had
sought
FIVE
percent.
[Law360]

*
Looks
like
Trump
finally
realized
Alina
Habba
isn’t
the
answer
to…
well
any
question
worth
asking.
[Business
Insider]

*
The
Wooly
Mammoth
will
be
de-extincted
in
2027.
Because
no
one
saw
Jurassic
Park.
[Popular
Mechanics]

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

According
to
analysis
by
law
firm

Oberheiden
P.C.
of
law
school
applicants
in
the
50
states
and
the
District
of
Columbia,
where
do
the
most
law
school
applicants
over
the
last
12
months
(per
100,000
residents)
live?

Hint:
Per
100,000
people
in
this
location,
there
were
129.4
law
school
applicants.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Fresh
off
getting

slapped
with
a
million
dollars
in
sanctions
for
filing
garbage
civil
tort
suits,
Donald
Trump,
the
OG
vexatious
litigant,
is
back
for
another
round.
This
time,
he’s
taking
a
run
at
reporter
Bob
Woodward,
as
well
as
his
publisher
Simon
&
Schuster,
and
S&S’s
parent
company
Paramount,

demanding
$50
million
from
the
publication
of
recorded
interviews
the
reporter
conducted
between
December
of
2019
and
August
of
2020.
Naturally
the
case
was
filed
in
the
Northern
District
of
Florida,
where
none
of
the
parties
reside.

Woodward
published

“Rage,” a
book
based
on
the
interviews
in
2020.
But
in
2022,
he
packaged
the
recordings
of
the
interviews
in
“The
Trump
Tapes.”
Or,
as
Trump’s
lawyers
put
it:

Specifically,
SSI
and
Woodward
conspired
to,
and
did,
collate
and
cobble
together
more
than
eight
hours
of
“raw”
interviews
with
President
Trump.
Without
President
Trump’s
permission,
on
October
25,
2022,
Defendants
released
the
recordings
as
an
audiobook
dubbed
The
Trump
Tapes:
Bob
Woodward’s
Twenty
Interviews
with
President
Donald
Trump
(“Audiobook”).

It’s
a
conspiracy
to
collate
and
cobble!

As
is
par
for
the
Trump
course,
this
case
is
long
on
conclusory
bluster,
but
short
on
specifics.
The
former
president
slags
Woodward’s
book
as
“a
complete
and
total
failure”
(it
wasn’t),
and
asserts
without
evidence
that
“the
only
way
to
rectify
the
failure
of
Rage
was
for
experienced
publishers
and
authors
to
throw
their
values
to
the
wind
and
trample
on
established
rights
for
the
sake
of
profit.”

“Woodward
was
not
telling
anything
new;
it
was
who
was
doing
the
telling
that
made
the
difference,”
he
goes
on.
“Accordingly,
President
Trump
has
been
harmed.”

But,
like
…
how
has
he
been
harmed?
(And
why
does
this
pleading
sound
like
it
was
drafted
by
a
septuagenarian
on
an
iPhone?)

Trump
claims
that
his
agreement
with
S&S
only
permitted
the
use
of
the
recordings
as
a
basis
for
Woodward’s
book,
not
their
separate
publication
or
the
“systematic
usurpation,
manipulation,
and
exploitation
of
audio
of
President
Trump
gathered
in
connection
with
a
series
of
interviews
conducted
by
Mr.
Woodward.”
The
former
president
alleges
breach
of
contract,
although
he
does
not
attach
the
contract
as
an
exhibit,
or
refer
to
any
specific
provision
therein.

Instead,
he
says
that
he
“made
Woodward
aware
on
multiple
occasions,
both
on
and
off
the
record
of
the
nature
of
the
limited
license
to
any
recordings,
therefore
retaining
for
himself
the
commercialization
and
all
other
rights
to
the
narration.”

Former
federal
prosecutor
Mitchell
Epner,
a
current
partner
at
the
firm
Rottenberg
Lipman
Rich
PC,
calls
this
a
non-sanctionably
frivolous
argument,
since
the
caselaw
and
the
copyright
office
take
different
positions
on
the
ownership
of
recorded
interviews.

“While
certain
aspect
of
this
latest
law
suit
are
ridiculous,
including
the
place
where
it
was
filed,
the
fundamental
claim
that
Donald
Trump
holds
a
copyright
interest
in
his
answers
in
the
interview
is
actually
a
respectable
position
that
the
copyright
office
agrees
with,”
he
told
ATL.

Of
course,
Trump
takes
the
maximal
position
that
he
had
the
exclusive
right
to
sell
the
recordings,
or,
in
the
alternative,
a
declarative
judgment
that
he
holds
the
rights
to
his
own
responses
and
is
thus
entitled
to
a
pro
rata
share
of
the
profits.

And
how
does
he
estimate
those
profits?

Published
sources
indicate
that
the
Fear
sold
more
than
two
(2)
million
copies,
which
is
the
amount
of
copies
that
the
Audiotape
can
be
estimated
to
sell.
Based
upon
the
purchase
price
of
the
Audiotape,
$24.99,
the
damages
President
Trump
has
sustained
due
to
the
actions
of
the
Defendants
as
set
forth
herein
are
estimated
to
be
at
least
$49,980,000.00,
exclusive
of
punitive
damages,
attorney’s
fees,
and
costs.

Sure,
you
“can”
estimate
that
there
are
two
million
Americans
willing
to
plunk
down
$25
to
hear
Trump
yammer
two
years
after
he
left
office.
Just
like
you
“can”
pretend
that
Amazon
doesn’t
take
a
cut
of
that
$25
for
getting
the
book
to
consumers.
And
if
you
were,
say,
trying
to
get
that
$50
million
figure
into
headlines,
you
might
do
just
that!

As
with
every
Trump
LOLsuit,
his
lawyers
swing
for
the
fences,
arguing
both
promissory
estoppel
and
violation
of
the

Florida
Deceptive
Trade
Practices
Act.
This
last
is
a
favorite
of
Trump’s,
who
made
FDUTPA
claims
against
Twitter,
YouTube,
and
Meta
in
his

tortious
deplatforming
lawsuits.
The
logic
here
seems
to
be
that
Trump
is
a
“consumer”
and
Woodward’s
book
is
sold
in
the
state, ipso
facto
the
state
law’s
fee
shifting
provisions
should
apply.

For
its
part,
S&S
seems
to
be
taking
the
case
in
stride.
First
the
company
“brazenly
refused
to
recognize
President
Trump’s
copyright
and
contractual
rights”
and
instead
“doubled
down;
in
an
avaricious
attempt
to
reap
more
benefits
from
their
ongoing
violation
of
President
Trump’s
rights.”

“All
these
interviews
were
on
the
record
and
recorded
with
President
Trump’s
knowledge
and
agreement,”
the
publisher
went
on
in
a
statement
yesterday.
“Moreover,
it
is
in
the
public
interest
to
have
this
historical
record
in
Trump’s
own
words.
We
are
confident
that
the
facts
and
the
law
are
in
our
favor.”

Meanwhile,
the
case
has
been
assigned
to
Judge
Clyde
R.
Vinson,
a
senior
judge
and
former
chief
jurist
in
the
Northern
District
who
was
appointed
to
the
bench
by
Ronald
Reagan.
If
Trump’s
lawyers
filed
this
case
in
Pensacola
in
an
attempt
to
avoid
Judge
Middlebrooks,
the
gambit
was
a
success,
even
though
the
former
president
failed
to
luck
onto
the
docket
of
either
of
the
two
judges
he
himself
appointed
to
the
bench.
But
Judge
Vinson
is
an
extremely
hard-nosed
jurist,
which
is
probably
not
ideal
if
Trump’s
lawyers
are
planning
shenanigans.

Luckily,
there
are
never
any
shenanigans,
not
to
say
frivolity,
in
a
Trump
law
suit.

AHEM.

Trump
v.
Simon
&
Schuster
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

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

Yesterday,
the
Boston
Globe
published
a
piece
by
Above
the
Law
alum
David
Lat
lamenting
“cancel
culture”
and
advancing
the
claim:
“Simply
put,
Big
Law…
is
currently
seized
by
ideological
intolerance
and
groupthink.”

Simply
put,
it
is
not.

That
said,
the
piece
succeeds
—
perhaps
unintentionally
—
as
an
exploration
of
“cancel
culture”
as
a
touchstone
of
modern
American
life.
As
a
pithy,
alliterative
slogan,
“cancel
culture”
always
tickles
a
search
engine,
but
it
also
offers
people
a
comforting
and
quotable
deflection
from
the
terror
of
confronting
their
own
accountability.
Lost
a
job,
a
friend,
a
family
member…
it’s
not
you,
it’s

them.
Them
and
their
pesky
“cancel
culture.”

And
Lat’s
article
cites
some
of
these
maligned
and
silenced
cancel
culture
victims
—
who
were
coincidentally
offered
space
in
the
Wall
Street
Journal
to
publish
their
stories
—
to
back
up
his
central
thesis.
Yet,
upon
further
review,
the
narratives
he’s
relying
on
elide
critical
details,
as
one
might
expect
from
self-serving
accounts,
undermining
the
vast
left-wing
conspiracy
out
to
get
these
whiny
attorneys.
The
Lat
article
opens
by
recounting
Paul
Clement
and
Erin
Murphy
leaving
Kirkland
&
Ellis
in
the
immediate
aftermath
of
winning
the

Bruen
case:

You
might
have
expected
the
lawyers
who
won
the
case,
celebrated
Supreme
Court
litigators
Paul
Clement
and
Erin
Murphy,
to
receive
congratulations
within
their
firm
for
such
a
major
victory.

Instead,
they
received
walking
papers.
That
afternoon, Clement
and
Murphy
announced
in
The
Wall
Street
Journal
that
they
were
leaving
Kirkland
&
Ellis,
the
nation’s
highest-grossing
law
firm.
Why?
Because
Kirkland
presented
them
with
an
ultimatum:
withdraw
from
representing
clients
in
Second
Amendment
cases,
including
existing
clients
in
ongoing
representations,
or
withdraw
from
the
firm.

This
rests
on
the
shaky
assumption
that
a
multibillion-dollar
business
should
prefer
winning
one
Supreme
Court
case
to,
you
know,
making
multiple
billions
of
dollars.

Clement
and
Murphy
worked
hard
to
secure
a
very
public
Supreme
Court
victory.
In
the
process,
Clement
and
Murphy
tied
the
firm’s
name
to
a
deluge
of
press
coverage
about
the
helping
hand
Kirkland
offered
to
the
next
spate
of
school
shooters.
While
this
likely
didn’t
sit
well
with
all
of
Kirkland’s
partners,
it
also
wasn’t
going
to
sit
well
with
Kirkland’s
current
and
future
clients.
Somehow
the
role
that
clients
might
play
in
a
service
industry
didn’t
make
it
into
this
version
of
the
story.

Because
there
was
an
ultimatum
involved
here:
risk
millions
upon
millions
in
future
deals
or
ditch
a
high
(though
negative)
publicity
passion
project?

As
one
might
imagine,

Kirkland
&
Ellis
chose
the
money.

Just
like

King
&
Spalding
chose
the
money
when
Clement

left
there
in
a
huff
after
that
firm
realized
its
client
base
wasn’t
psyched
to
be
working
with
the
firm
fighting
against
marriage
equality
in
21st
century.

It’s
not
just
representing
unpopular
clients;
even
articulating
an
unpopular
opinion
might
be
a
fireable
offense
today
in
the
world
of
large
law
firms
(aka
“Big
Law”).
Take
support
for
the Supreme
Court’s
decision
in
Dobbs
v.
Jackson
Women’s
Health
Organization,
which
overturned
Roe
v.
Wade and
sent
abortion
back
to
the
states.
At
least
two
antiabortion
women
partners
allege
—
one
in The
Wall
Street
Journal and
one
in Original
Jurisdiction,
my
newsletter
about
the
legal
profession
—
that
their
support
for
Dobbs
played
a
major
role
in
their
being
forced
out
of
their
firms.

This
glosses
over
a
bit.
Hogan
Lovells

parted
ways
with
Robin
Keller
after
she
started
hammering
the
racist
“Black
genocide”
trope,
recasting
abortion
as
the
“fault”
of
Black
women.
Which
is,
you
know,
a
bit
more
of
a
hostile
workplace
problem
than
a
“support
for

Dobbs”
problem.

Before
closing
out,
Yale
earns
an
aside:

This
fall,
Yale
Law
School,
which
had significant
problems last
year
relating
to free
speech,
redesigned
its orientation for
new
students
“to
center
around
discussions
of
free
expression
and
the
importance
of
respectful
engagement.”
Perhaps
law
firms
should
follow
suit.

Except…

it
didn’t.
Popular
right-wing
accounts
breathlessly
claimed
Yale
Law
students
“shouted
down”
a
speaker
and
bemoaned
the
death
of
free
speech
on
campus.
Federal
judges
cynically
seized
on
it
to

boost
their
own
sagging
profiles.
Yet,
after
the
first
two
disruptions
—
provided
for
by
then-existing
rules
to
avoid
silencing
the
speech
rights
of
dissenters
—
the
event
ultimately
continued
as
scheduled.

But
back
to
the
law
firm
world…

As
the
majority
within
Big
Law,
left-leaning
lawyers
might
be
perfectly
happy
to
enjoy
dominating
their
workplaces.
But
they
should
keep
in
mind
that
beyond
Big
Law,
a
“majority
rules”
approach
to
free
speech
can
lead
to
terrible
outcomes,
including
bans
on
everything
from
teaching
critical
race
theory
to
the
novels
of
Toni
Morrison.

The
conservatives
behind
these
bans
share
the
same
reasoning
as
progressives
in
Big
Law:
If
something
offends
us,
it
must
be
cast
out.

How
would
you
like
some
apples
with
those
oranges?
The
First
Amendment
only
applies
to
government
and
not
private
interference
—
which
Lat
acknowledges
elsewhere
in
the
article
—
but
“cancel
culture”
discourse
consistently
ignores
that
this
is
a
feature
and
not
a
bug.
One
the
most
compelling
justifications
for
protecting
speech
from
government
action
is
that
it
keeps
the
state
from
tilting
the
scales
as
democratic
societies
grapple
with
ideas.
But
for
this
process
to
work,
private
actors
being
able
to
cast
out
bad
ideas
is
just
as
important
as
keeping
the
government
out
of
the
process.
Imposing
a
moral
duty
on
private
actors
to
passively
accept
every
opinion
they
encounter
collapses
this
free
marketplace
of
ideas.

So,
no,
the
idea
that
a
company
cannot
fire
someone
making
racist
remarks
or
else
they’re
just
as
bad
as
the
state
of
Florida
going
“don’t
say
gay”
does
not
track.

But
this
passage
is
also
where
all
those
omissions
from
the
earlier
examples
add
up.
What
happened
to
these
lawyers
is
not
about
a
shadowy
cabal
of
leftists
“dominating
their
workplaces,”
it’s
about
making
money.
Clement
and
Murphy
did
not
fit
into
Kirkland’s
business
strategy.
That
a
former
solicitor
general
opened
his
own
firm
rather
than
find
another
welcoming
Biglaw
home
is
a
pretty
good
indication
that
no
one
else
wanted
to
touch
his
client-repelling
advocacy
either.
Robin
Keller
didn’t
support

Dobbs,
she
made
racist
remarks
that
jeopardized
the
firm’s
relationship
with
its
talent
and
—
not
for
nothing
—
raised
concerns
that
she
might
alienate
clients
with
more
loose
cannon
behavior.

Here’s
the
thing:
none
of
these
folks
became
fire-breathing
conservatives
overnight.
For
years,
Biglaw
firms
smiled
and
nodded
as
these
lawyers
went
about
their
business.

Then
these
folks
each
got
between
a
firm
and
its
money.

Because
the
Am
Law
100
is
seized
by
groupthink
and
that
groupthink
is
“we
need
to
keep
making
enough
money
to
stay
in
the
Am
Law
100.”

Big
Law’s
cancel
culture
[Boston
Globe]

Earlier:

Paul
Clement
Laments
Kirkland’s
Cancel
Culture…
Or
‘Capitalism’
As
The
Case
May
Be

White
Counsel
At
Biglaw
Firm
Spreads
‘Inappropriate
And
Offensive’
Theories
About
Abortion,
Gets
Suspended

---

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.

Need
a
quick
hit
of
serotonin
this
afternoon?
If
so,
may
I
suggest
taking
a
quick
break
to
watch
this
utter
ownage
of
Matt
Gaetz
(R-Fla.)
at
the
hands
of
MSNBC’s
Ari
Melber
on
“The
Beat.”

The
head-to-head
of
the
two
lawyers
—
Gaetz
got
his
J.D.
from
William
&
Mary
in
2007,
and
Melber
got
his
from
Cornell
in
’09
—
features
some
intense
grilling
on
the
subject
of
presidential
pardons,
and
you
love
to
see
it.
Gaetz
denied
the
allegations
made
by
multiple
people
that
he
sought
a
presidential
pardon
for
himself
in
the
waning
days
of
the
Trump
administration.
But
rather
than
just
accept
the
self-serving
assertions,
Melber
brings
the
receipts,
as

reported
by
HuffPost:

“Here’s
some
of
the
under-oath
testimony
from
Trump
insiders,”
Melber
said,
bringing
up
video.

“We’ve
got
multiple
people.
The
director
of
White
House
presidential
personnel,
[Johnny
McEntee],
who’s
a
Trump
loyalist.
Lawyer
Eric
Herschmann.
Cassidy
Hutchinson,
famously.
They
all
testified
under
oath
that
you
specifically
requested
a
pardon.”

After
showing
the
footage,
Melber
continued:
“So
the
question
is,
can
you
really
say
that
all
of
them
are
committing
perjury,
lying
on
you?
A.
And
B,
if
a
pardon
was
requested,
why
not
just
tell
us
what
were
you
worried
about?
What
was
it
that
you
thought
you
or
others
might
be
indicted
for?”

Gaetz
offers
a
lot
of
excuses,
but
from
my
perspective,
that
amounts
to
a
hill
of
beans.
See
for
yourself
below.

---

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.

What
I’m
hearing
from
law
firms
—
a
real
frustration
is
that
law
firm
leaders
do
want
people
back
in
the
office,
and
they
want
it
for
partners
as
well.
I’m
hearing
by
and
large
the
partners
are
more
on
board
than
the
associates.
So
in
terms
of
the
handful
of
partners
we
did
place,
in
terms
of
positions,
I
think
there
will
be
even
less
[remote
hires]
because
if
firms
are
taking
a
slightly
harder
line
with
associates,
they’re
not
going
to
want
to
hire
someone
[at
the
partner
level]
who
doesn’t
want
to
be
in
the
office.

—

Lauren
Drake,
a
legal
recruiter
and
partner
at
Macrae
in
Washington,
D.C.,
in
comments
given
to
the

American
Lawyer,
on
Biglaw
firms’
desire
to
have
associates
and
partners
working
from
within
their
physical
offices
as
they
step
away
from
pandemic-era
remote
work
proposals.

---

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.

If
your
social
circle
was
anything
like
mine,
NFTs
have
kinda
gone
the
way
of
cryptocurrency.
There
was
a
bunch
of
initial
hype
about
how
this
new
development
would
make
cash
go
the
way
of
the
dodo,
people
who
had
read
a
book
(yes,
just
one
book)
and
suggested
that
it
was
a
bunch
of
Ponzi
scheming
got
called
Luddites
for
not
getting
with
the
times
— a
sizeable
number
of
Crypto
Gurus™
were
Ponzi
scheming
by
the
way
—
and
then
radio
silence
once
the
trend
fell
off.
The
whole
thing
was
so
stressful,
content
like
this
can
calm
the
souls
of
folks
who
have
to
sit
with
the
fact
that
they
invested
money
that
could
have
paid
off
their
student
loan
debts
or
bought
a
home
into
magic
internet
money.

There
are
some
clear
differences
though
—
NFT
aficionados
have
a
much
deeper
hatred
of
the
Ctrl
+
C
and
Ctrl
+
V
functions
than
crypto
snobs
do.
Thankfully,
that
obsession
with
novelty
and
protection
of
that
individuation
has
led
to
much
more
interesting
legal
grounds.

In
June
2022,
Yuga
Labs
Inc.,
the
parent
company
of
the
Bored
Ape
Yacht
Club
non-fungible
token
collection,
filed
a
federal lawsuit
against
artist
Ryder
Ripps…Ripps
created
his
own
NFT
project
around
May
2022,
which
he
called
RR/BAYC,
using
online
digital
images
from
the
BAYC
NFT
collection
by
generating
new
NFTs
using
URLs
embedded
in Bored
Ape Yacht
Club
smart
contracts.

Look,
I
know
that
reading
NFT-related
stuff
can
immediately
make
some
people’s
eyes
glaze
over.
I’m
some
people
too.
Trust
me,
it
gets
interesting.

Yuga
claims
that
Ripps
and
co-founder
Jeremy
Cahen
used
some
of
the
same
digital
art
images
as
the
BAYC
collection,
and
relied
on
Yuga’s
trademarks
for
promotion
in
an
alleged
scheme
to
mislead
consumers,
harass
Yuga,
and
enrich
themselves.

Yuga’s
complaint
asserted
causes
of
action
sounding
in
false
designation
of
origin,
false
advertising,
cybersquatting,
trademark
infringement,
unfair
competition,
unjust
enrichment,
conversion
and
tortious
interference
against
RR/BAYC
founders.
Notably,
the
complaint
doesn’t
mention
copyright
infringement.

There
it
is!
If
you
were
hearing
about
this
story
at
the
watercooler
or
company-compelled
Zoom
socializing
effort,
you’d
expect
copyright
infringement
to
be
at
the
top
of
the
list,
no?
You
learn
something
everyday.
This
case
spins
on
if
RC/BAYC
has
any
merit-bearing
defenses
rooted
in
artistic
value
or
free
speech.
The
US
District
Court
for
Central
District
of
California
held
a
resounding
“Nah”:

A
notable
development
came
from
the
court’s
decision
on
the
defendants’
motion
to
dismiss
Yuga’s
suit,
where
they
argued
that
RR/BAYC
was
protected
free
speech
under
the
test
of Rogers
v.
Grimaldi,
as
well
as
that
the
project
is
entitled
to
nominative
fair
use
protection.

In
deciding
the
motion
to
dismiss,
the
US
District
Court
for
Central
District
of
California held that
the
defendants
failed
to
meet
the
threshold
showing
under Rogers because
the
Ninth
Circuit
requires
the
“artistic
expression”
be
at
issue
and
the
allegedly
infringing
use
must
be
part
of
the
expressive
work.

The
defendants
argued
that
they
meet
the
artistic
relevance
element
under Rogers because
their
activity,
taken
together—website,
NFTs
offered
for
sale,
social
commentary
the
NFTs
entail—should
be
viewed
as
an
expressive
artistic
work.

The
court
disagreed,
observing
that
the
defendants’
NFT
sale
was
the
only
conduct
at
issue
and
that
the
conduct
did
not
constitute
an
expressive
artistic
work
meriting
First
Amendment
protection.
In
fact,
the
court
found
that
RR/BAYC
does
not
express
an
idea
or
point
of
view
and
only
uses
an
exact
copy
of
Yuga’s
BAYC
marks
without
any
expressive
content.

This
is
what
happens
when
you
copy
other
folks’
homework,
people!
Imagine
spite
copying
a
competitor’s
work
and
then
getting
your
ass
handed
to
you
in
court
about
it
later.
And
while
this
does
not
constitute
a
final
say
on
the
matter,
this
ruling
should
strike
some
fear
into
the
hearts
of
people
looking
to
copy
NFTs
for
a
quick
buck
and
hide
behind
the
aegis
of
fair
use.

The Yuga
Labs and Hermes
decisions
are
important
because
many
creators
are
often
quick
to
duplicate
successful
projects
without
considering
the
potential
legal
ramifications.
In
light
of
decisions
in Rothschild,
and
now Yuga
Labs,
NFT
copycats
are
on
notice
that
their
First
Amendment
defenses
may
not
succeed
at
the
motion
to
dismiss
stage
and
that
they
cannot
easily
escape
litigation
at
an
early
stage.

The
holding
in Yuga
Labs
may
act
to
dissuade
copycats
from
stealing
intellectual
property
for
use
in
other
NFTs
for
monetary
gain.
The Yuga
Labs court
also
held
that
the
defendants
were
not
entitled
to
the
nominative
fair
use
defense…An
NFT
copycat
therefore
may
have
difficulty
being
protected
by
the
nominative
fair
use
doctrine
unless
they
are
selling
the
works
on
behalf
of
or
in
conjunction
with
the
original
project—i.e.,
the
trademark
owners—rarely
ever
the
case
in
the
NFT
space.

Bored
Ape
or
not,
it
is
hard
to
be
in
the
NFT
space
and
not
be
excited
about
how
this
case
—
and
ones
like
it
—
will
turn
out.

Bored
Apes,
Hermès
Suits
Foreshadow
What
Is
Coming
in
NFT
Claims
[Bloomberg
Law]

---

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.