Author: TSA Press

All
rise!
The
competition
for
2022
Lawyer
of
the
Year
honors
was
not
a
close
one,
not
even
one
little
bit.
Our
top
candidate
took
home
more
than
50%
of
the
vote,
while
our
second-place
finisher
(another
worthy
contender)
had
just
16%
of
the
total
tally.
In
fact,
the
new
titleholder
secured
almost
300
more
votes
than
this
year’s
silver
medalist.

Before
we
announce
which
luminary
lawyer
prevailed,
let’s
review
Above
the
Law’s
past
Lawyers
of
the
Year:

In
a
year
where
the
legitimacy
of
the
Supreme
Court
was
repeatedly
questioned,
it
makes
sense
that
the
lawyer
who
came
out
on
top
may
be
the
one
to
breathe
new
life
into
the
highest
court
in
the
land.
America
needed
a
break
from
Supreme
ethics
scandals
and
voted
for
an
attorney
who
instead
made
Supreme
history.

In
the
end,
it
was
Justice

Ketanji
Brown
Jackson,
the
high
court’s
newest
associate
justice,
who
took
home
the
title
in
our
2022
Lawyer
of
the
Year
competition.
After
more
than
two
centuries,
Jackson
is
the
sixth
woman
—
and
more
momentously,
the
first
Black
woman
—
to
serve
as
a
justice
on
the
Supreme
Court.
Jackson
is
not
your
typical
SCOTUS
justice
—
and
not
just
because
she’s
not
a
white
male.
She
is
also
the
first
former
federal
public
defender
to
ever
serve
on
the
Court.

Congratulations
to
our
Lawyer
of
the
Year
finalists,
and
very
special
congratulations
to
our
2022
Lawyer
of
the
Year,
Justice
Ketanji
Brown
Jackson.
With
her
elevation
to
the
Supreme
Court,
Jackson
offers
a
new
hope
for
women
and
for
democracy
in
America.
Each
and
every
day,
she
inspires
a
new
generation
of
women
of
color
to
consider
going
into
the
legal
profession,
and
that’s
something
that’s

truly
Supreme.
Thank
you,
Justice
Jackson.

Earlier:

Above
The
Law’s
2022
Lawyer
Of
The
Year
Contest:
The
Finalists!

---

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.

More
than
30,000
votes
were
cast,
so
it’s
fair
to
say
our
2022
holiday
card
contest
was
a
great
success.
Voting
went
right
down
to
the
wire.
With
39%
of
the
vote,
our
top
contender
was
separated
from
the
second-place
finisher
by
12
percentage
points.

Our
victor
joins
the
company
of
previous
holiday
card
contest
winners:

2021:

McBrayer
2020: Wolf
Greenfield
2019: Goodman
Allen
Donnelly
2018: Wolf
Greenfield
2017: Wolf
Greenfield
2016: Gowling
WLG
2015: Wolf
Greenfield
2014: Haynes
&
Boone
2013: Akin
Gump
2012: Van
Winkle
Law
Firm
2011: Haynes
&
Boone
2010: Proctor
Heyman
2009: Akin
Gump

Congratulations
to…
“Lambert
&
Lambert”!
The
fictional
firm
belongs
to
Eric
Lambert,
who
works
in-house
as
division
counsel
at
Trimble,
a
technology
company.
With
more
than
12,000
votes,
Lambert
is
the
deserving
winner
of
our
2022
competition
—
and
the
first
in-house
attorney
to
ever
do
so.
You
can
check
out
his
excellent
submission
—
a
threat
to
sue
Santa
—
below.

Lambert
Holiday
Card

Earlier:

ATL
Holiday
Card
Contest:
The
Finalists!
(2022)

---

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.

Gone
are
the
days
of
eDiscovery
solutions
that
only
a
technologist
could
love
(or
use
effectively).

While
AI-driven
chat
technology
continues
to
make
headlines,
advances
in
eDiscovery
tech
are
similarly
striking
—
particularly
regarding
ease
of
use
for
small
firms
and
solos. 

Curious
about
where
to
start? 

Above
the
Law
and
LegalTech
Publishing
are
pleased
to
share
this
eDiscovery
Special
Report
—
available
for
download
below
and
at
the
eDiscovery
section
of
the
Non-Event. 

See
for
yourself
just
how
user-
(and
lawyer-)
friendly
this
technology
has
become.

The
Chief
Justice’s

annual
report
on
the
federal
judiciary
is
not
so
much
an
“annual
report”
as
a
pamphlet
of
pro-judiciary
propaganda
that
he
foists
on
the
public
every
year.
In
2021,
Roberts
closed
out
a
year
overflowing
with
ethical
scandals
by
scolding
the
public
for

daring
to
question
the
judiciary’s
ability
to
regulate
itself.
This
year,
he
chose
to
trumpet
the
heroism.

Obviously,
he
had
to
go
back
almost
three
quarters
of
a
century
to
find
any.

In
1957,
Judge
Ronald
Davies
of
the
Eastern
District
of
Arkansas
ordered
the
integration
of
Little
Rock
Central
High
School
as
required
by

Brown
v.
Board.
Folks
in
Arkansas
didn’t
like
it,
but
the
judge
applied
the
law.

It’s
a
cool
story.
It’s
also
not
the
top
judicial
story
of
2022.

An
annual
report
covering
the
judiciary
in
2022
would,
one
would
suspect,
address

the
Court’s
dwindling
legitimacy
and
the
lingering
ethical
concerns
throughout
the
judiciary.
One
of
the
judges
implicated
in
the
ethics
scandal
that
Roberts
blew
off
in
2021
had
one
of
her
compromised
decisions
challenged
and
the
Fifth
Circuit
ruled
that

it
would
be
too
messy
to
unravel
all
the
corruption
and
that
these
opinions
should
stand.
It
might
even
acknowledge
the
expanding
scandals

surrounding
Ginni
Thomas.

Or,
you
know,
acknowledged
the

Dobbs
leak
investigation
that
the
justices
continue
to

wave
around
as
some
heinous
crime,
even
though
the
Court
is
searching
out
the
leaker
with

the
same
vigor
O.J.
employs
for
finding
the
real
killers.
There
actually
was
a
credible
tip
about
a
leaked
Supreme
Court
opinion
this
year
and
the
Supreme
Court

spent
all
of
10
seconds
considering
it
before
clumsily
announcing
they
basically
outsourced
the
investigation
to
Politico.

Shoehorned
into
the
report,
Roberts
adds
this
curious
nugget:

Judicial
opinions
speak
for
themselves,
and
there
is
no
obligation
in
our
free
country
to
agree
with
them.
Indeed,
we
judges
frequently
dissent—sometimes
strongly—from
our
colleagues’
opinions,
and
we
explain
why
in
public
writings
about
the
cases
before
us.

I
guess
that’s
true
of
dissents…
because
majority
rulings
don’t
necessarily
elicit
explanation
these
days.
The
Supreme
Court
has
gone
on
a
shadow
docket
rampage
reordering
society

without
a
whiff
of
written
explanation
for
some
time
now.

But
also…
doesn’t
this
strike
at
the
heart
of
why
no
one
really
cares
about
the
leak?
Because
the
substance
of
the
opinion
is
all
that
actually
mattered?
I
don’t
think
Roberts
understands
the
damage
he’s
doing
to

his
own
fixation.

Ostensibly,
the
Judge
Davies
story
is
a
segue
for
Roberts
to
talk
about
enhanced
security
to
protect
federal
judges
from
the
sort
of
threats
leveled
at
Davies.
Toward
the
end
of
the
report,
the
Chief
cites
Judge
Esther
Salas,
whose

son
Daniel
was
murdered
by
a
disgruntled
litigant,
leading
to
the
Daniel
Anderl
Judicial
Security
and
Privacy
Act.

If
security
was
the
purpose
of
this
little
homily,
why
wasn’t
the
whole
thing
about
Judge
Salas
and
her
son?
That
would
at
least
ground
the
piece
in
the
21st
century.
But
the
Chief
really
wanted
to
use
this
line
and
the
tragic
events
surrounding
Judge
Salas
and
her
family
would
get
in
the
way
of
the
Roberts
narrative:

The
events
of
Little
Rock
teach
about
the
importance
of
rule
by
law
instead
of
by
mob.

Because
there
was
no
“mob”
for
Judge
Salas.
Instead,
the
judge
faced
the
much
more
salient
risk
for
judges
that
lone
wackos
upset
over
their
own
very
personal
cases
have
unfettered
access
to
guns
in
every
state.
A
reality
that
the
Supreme
Court
exacerbated
when
it rewrote
the
Second
Amendment
last
year.
Roberts
wants
to
talk
about
people
protesting
outside
his
house
—
something
the
Supreme
Court

explicitly
ruled
was
constitutional
when
it
applied
to
doctors
providing
abortions
—
and
he
has
to
invoke
Judge
Davies
to
sell
that
story.

Even
the
“attempted
murder”
of
Brett
Kavanaugh
—
a
case
where
the
public
facts
seem
far
more
inchoate
than
those
charges
—
couldn’t
cut
it
for
Roberts
because
it’s
just
another
armed
individual.
Roberts
is
much
more
interested
in
painting
picketers
as
a
threat
than
addressing
the
possibility
that
the
real
menace
out
there
isn’t
hot
button,
controversial
opinions
that
rile
up
the
rabble,
but
the
fact
that
any
outlier
litigant
can
easily
acquire
a
gun
and
attack
judges.

Yet
there
may
be
a
simpler,
more
craven
reason
why
a
Wikipedia-level
history
lesson
about
1957
makes
up
two-and-three-quarters
pages
of
his
three-and-a-half-page
statement.
John
Roberts
knows
he’s
writing
a
propaganda
piece
and
he’s
also
clever.

Mainstream
media
outlets
only
report
what’s
in
front
of
them.
We
can
quibble
the
relative
journalistic
merits
of
this
approach,
but
it’s
the
reality.
So
when

the
New
York
Times
covers
the
annual
report,
it
can’t
avoid
devoting
a
hefty
chunk
of
the
report
to
fleshing
out
the
story
of
Judge
Davies
and
Little
Rock.
There’s
no
version
of
the
story
that
can
avoid
handing
the
readers
a
tidy
account
of
how
the
courts
render
justice…
or
at
least
how
they
did
in
1957.
That
gives
the
Roberts
report
the
nice,
happy
frame
he
wants.
And
a
lot
of
readers
will
take
that
noble
legacy
away
with
them.

A
more
discerning
audience
zeroes
in
on
the
fact
that,
in
2022,
when
John
Roberts
set
out
to
make
the
federal
judiciary
look
good,
he
had
to
launder
his
institution
with
the
robe
of
a
judge
born
in
1904.

2022
Year-End
Report
on
the
Federal
Judiciary
[Supreme
Court]

Earlier:

Chief
Justice
Wants
You
To
Know
He
Has
The
Utmost
Contempt
For
You

---

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.

*
Welcome
to
2023!
We’re
getting
a
new
USNWR
ranking
system
in
response
to
the
quasi-boycott.
Among
the
changes,
the
magazine
says
it
will
no
longer
consider
student
debt,
which
critics
claimed
incentivized
admitting
rich
students.
Weird
that
we
call
them
the
1%
for
a
reason
but
they’re
just
coming
out
of
the
woodwork
when
law
schools
want
cover
for
high
tuition.
[NY
Times]

*
Alan
Dershowitz
argues
that
he
shouldn’t

be
sanctioned
in
the
Kari
Lake
suit
because
when
his
name
ended
up
on
the
court
filings
he
had
only
meant
to
opine
on
a
limited
legal
issue
that
wasn’t
cited
in
the
sanctions
order.
It
seems
to
me
that
the
right
conclusion
is
that
he’s
got
a
claim
against
the
other
lawyers
if
they
really
put
his
name
on
it
without
his
consent…
but
not
a
claim
to
be
shielded
from
sanctions.
[Arizona
Capitol
Times]

*
Lawsuits
continue
pursuing
insurance
payouts
for
lost
business
during
COVID.
Even
with
policies
that
had
no
protection
against
pandemics,
courts
have
so
far
taken
the
stance
that
the
only
“business
losses”
protected
against
COVID
are
the
risk
of
insurers
losing
revenue.
[Reuters]

*
New
Hogan
Lovells
spinoff
seeks
more
rate
flexibility.
That
possibly
adds
some
color
to
this
rumored
Shearman
merger.
[Law.com]

*
Did
you
know
that
all
crimes
against
opossums
were
legal
for
the
last
five
days
in
North
Carolina?
[NC
Rabbithole]

*
Associated
Press
wants
you
to
know
that
legalizing
marijuana
has
led
to
a
spike
in
kids
accidentally
eating
edibles.
Weird
that
“guns”
remain

the
leading
cause
of
death
among
children
but
we’re
not
hearing
the
same
moral
panic
as
when
a
kid
turns
off
Paw
Patrol
to
zone
out
to
Phish.
[AP]

*
Welcome
to
2023!
We’re
getting
a
new
USNWR
ranking
system
in
response
to
the
quasi-boycott.
Among
the
changes,
the
magazine
says
it
will
no
longer
consider
student
debt,
which
critics
claimed
incentivized
admitting
rich
students.
Weird
that
we
call
them
the
1%
for
a
reason
but
they’re
just
coming
out
of
the
woodwork
when
law
schools
want
cover
for
high
tuition.
[NY
Times]

*
Alan
Dershowitz
argues
that
he
shouldn’t

be
sanctioned
in
the
Kari
Lake
suit
because
when
his
name
ended
up
on
the
court
filings
he
had
only
meant
to
opine
on
a
limited
legal
issue
that
wasn’t
cited
in
the
sanctions
order.
It
seems
to
me
that
the
right
conclusion
is
that
he’s
got
a
claim
against
the
other
lawyers
if
they
really
put
his
name
on
it
without
his
consent…
but
not
a
claim
to
be
shielded
from
sanctions.
[Arizona
Capitol
Times]

*
Lawsuits
continue
pursuing
insurance
payouts
for
lost
business
during
COVID.
Even
with
policies
that
had
no
protection
against
pandemics,
courts
have
so
far
taken
the
stance
that
the
only
“business
losses”
protected
against
COVID
are
the
risk
of
insurers
losing
revenue.
[Reuters]

*
New
Hogan
Lovells
spinoff
seeks
more
rate
flexibility.
That
possibly
adds
some
color
to
this
rumored
Shearman
merger.
[Law.com]

*
Did
you
know
that
all
crimes
against
opossums
were
legal
for
the
last
five
days
in
North
Carolina?
[NC
Rabbithole]

*
Associated
Press
wants
you
to
know
that
legalizing
marijuana
has
led
to
a
spike
in
kids
accidentally
eating
edibles.
Weird
that
“guns”
remain

the
leading
cause
of
death
among
children
but
we’re
not
hearing
the
same
moral
panic
as
when
a
kid
turns
off
Paw
Patrol
to
zone
out
to
Phish.
[AP]

---

Olga
V.
Mack
is
the
VP
at



LexisNexis and CEO
of Parley
Pro,
a
next-generation
contract
management
company
that
has
pioneered
online
negotiation
technology.
Olga
embraces
legal
innovation
and
had
dedicated
her
career
to
improving
and
shaping
the
future
of
law.
She
is
convinced
that
the
legal
profession
will
emerge
even
stronger,
more
resilient,
and
more
inclusive
than
before
by
embracing
technology.
Olga
is
also
an
award-winning
general
counsel,
operations
professional,
startup
advisor,
public
speaker,
adjunct
professor,
and
entrepreneur.
She
founded
the Women
Serve
on
Boards movement
that
advocates
for
women
to
participate
on
corporate
boards
of
Fortune
500
companies.
She
authored Get
on
Board:
Earning
Your
Ticket
to
a
Corporate
Board
Seat, Fundamentals
of
Smart
Contract
Security,
and 



Blockchain
Value:
Transforming
Business
Models,
Society,
and
Communities. She
is
working
on
Visual
IQ
for
Lawyers,
her
next
book
(ABA
2023).
You
can
follow
Olga
on
Twitter
@olgavmack.

Everywhere
you
turned
this
year,
Jonathan
Turley
was
there.

The
George
Washington
University
law
professor
continued
his
all-consuming
passion
to
stay
relevant
with
countless
cable
news
hits,
a
flurry
of
vacuous
articles
in
The
Hill,
and
an
unfiltered
string
of
Tweets
and
personal
blog
posts.
Wherever
a
far-right
talking
point
needed
the
imprimatur
of
a
fading
scholar,
Turley
jumped
at
the
opportunity
to
spout
all
manner
of
nonsense
to
get
another
taste
of
that
sweet,
sweet
attention.

He’s
the
legal
equivalent
of
a
down-and-out
doctor
writing
oxy
scrips
in
exchange
for
the
hard
stuff
that
he
really
craves.
Here’s
some
quasi-intellectual
analysis
of
how
John
Durham
is
going
to
take
down
Hillary
Clinton
in
exchange
for
5-minutes
on
Hannity.

AHHHHHHH!
Take
a
deep
breath
and
ride
that
high,
buddy.

In
any
event,
as
we
close
out
20-Turley-2,
let’s
look
back
on
the
professor’s
greatest
hits.
Mostly
because
I’d
even
forgotten
some
of
these
gems
from
the
past
year.

Martin
Luther
King
Jr.
Had
Never
Been
Arrested
—
5
TURLs

When
Canada
threatened
to
clamp
down
on
the
handful
of
truck
drivers
obstructing
traffic
to
protest
COVID
restrictions,
Fox
News
needed
someone
willing
to
concoct
a
legal
defense
for
the
anti-vaxxers.

Turley
stepped
up
to
the
plate.

By
this
rationale,
they
could
have
cracked
down
on
the
Civil
Rights
movement.
They
could
have
arrested
Martin
Luther
King.

Could
have!

Two
Turls
right
out
of
the
gate
for
opining
on
Canadian
law
without
stepping
one
inch
—
or
centimeter
—
outside
the
First
Amendment.
Another
couple
of
Turls
for
failing
to
grasp
that
“yes,
they
can
arrest
you
for
this”
was
a
core
part
of
the
Civil
Rights
movement’s
strategy.
Turley
even
uses
the
phrase
“good
trouble”
in
the
interview
without
a
spark
of
recognition
over
what
“trouble”
means.

But
achieving
a
perfect
score
requires
something
special.
Anyone
could
cynically
claim
that
another
country
can’t
make
public
disturbance
arrests
based
on
U.S.
law
that
—
coincidentally
—
would
also
have
justified
those
arrests.
It
takes
another
level
to
rewrite
history
and
stir
up
the
MAGA
audience
with
a
new
coat
of
whitewash
on
their
imagination
of
MLK
as
some
sort
of
proto-Herman
Cain.

“They
could
have
arrested
Martin
Luther
King.”
Brilliant.

Ketanji
Brown
Jackson’s
“Thin”
Judicial
Qualifications
—
4
TURLS

A
Democratic
nomination
to
the
Supreme
Court
is
a
4-alarm
fire
at
Fox
and
the
concept
of
a
successful
Black
woman
is
basically
the
Towering
Inferno.
Obviously,
Turley
is
a
cable
booker’s
first
call.

When
life
gives
you
unimpeachable
qualifications,

make
racist
dog
whistles.

Two
Turls
for
hypocrisy
as
Jackson’s
years
of
service
on
the
federal
judiciary
more
than
matched
Amy
Coney
Barrett’s
work,
yet
Turley
made
the
talk
show
rounds
for
ACB

explaining
that
her
judicial
philosophy
was
abundantly
clear.
Another
two
Turls
for
the
“just
asking
questions”
frame,
the
master
level
whistle
silencer.

Campus
Free
Speech
In
CRISIS!
—
2
Turls

Grumbling
about
campus
free
speech
is
table
stakes
to
become
a
Fox
News
pull-string
toy.

Turley’s
entries
in
the
genre
aren’t…
all
that
exciting.

Citing
the
academic
imperative
to

squelch
protest?
Check.

Bemoaning
anonymous
students
who
don’t
like
it
when
they
get
mocked
for
being
stupid?
Check.

Misuse
of
the
heckler’s
veto?
Check.
Comparing
students
uninterested
in
right-wing
seminars
to
the

Reign
of
Terror.
Check,
check,
check.

But
where’s
the
commitment
to
the
bit?
Volokh
is
out
here
explaining
how
students
can’t
possibly
learn
if

he’s
not
able
to
use
the
n-word
in
class.
Amy
Wax
is

inviting
white
supremacists
to
class.
Judge
Ho
is
cooking
up

fake
boycotts
so
Yale
Law
can
go
full
Orwell.
Turley’s
just
not
in
the
game
when
it
comes
to
free
speech
takes.

He
gets
a
bonus
point
for
calling
Above
the
Law
“one
of
the
most
vocal
anti-free
speech
sites
on
the
Internet.”
We
appreciate
the
comedy.

Twitter:
The
EVEN
GreateR-Est
Free
Speech
Crisis
Of
Our
Time
—
3
Turls

Turley
tried
to
salvage
his
right-wing
free
speech
gravitas
via
the
Twitter
takeover,
but
Elon
Musk’s
Twitter
tribulations
flummoxed
the
professor.
He
desperately
wanted
to
expand
his
simping
empire
to
include
an
honorary
post
as
Chief
Twit’s
Twit,
but
too
many
rivals
came
for
that
throne.

Turley
tried
though.
His
claim
that

private
companies
choosing
not
to
advertise
on
Twitter
amounted
to
a
grievous
blow
to
free
speech
—
a
claim
he
made
DURING
THE
WORLD
CUP
and
all
the
actual
speech
crackdowns
surrounding
that
—
generated
a
little
conservative
excitement.
He’s
also
lent
his
voice
to
the
conspiracy
theory
that

not
posting
Hunter
Biden’s
dick
pics
amounts
to
a
constitutional
crisis.

But
his
work
in
this
area
is
mostly
bland.
That’s
not
going
to
cut
it
with
an
audience
looking
for
someone
to
match
the
spectacle
of
Musk’s
own

bad
legal
takes
or
get
him
noticed
ahead
of
Bari
Weiss
and
late-stage
Matt
Taibbi.

Even
when
limited
to
purely
academic
analysis,
Turley
got

outcrazied
by
these
two
nitwits
and
their
“what
if
Delaware
corporate
law
didn’t
exist”
piece
in
the
Wall
Street
Journal.

Frankly,
Turley
would
only
have
one
Turl
on
this
but
for
his
pathetic
“no
one
took
me
seriously
enough
for
a
blue
checkmark
but
now
I
can
buy
one!”
post.
Hyping
up
verified
marks
like
they’re
some
kind
of
golden
ticket
and
casting
legacy
Twitter
as
a
censorship
machine
because
it
didn’t
find
Turley’s
decades-past-its-prime
career
worth
verifying.

Dr.
Turley
OB-GYN
Explains
Abortion
To
The
Ladies!
—
5
TURLS

After
the

Dobbs
decision,
multiple
GOP-led
states
started
learning
for
the
first
time
that
the
symbolic
abortion
legislation
they’d
written
to
juice
fundraising
for
years
would
actually
put
women
in
grave
peril.

But
Turley
offered
his
“credibility”
to
soothe
the
consciences
of
any
conservatives
out
there
second-guessing
the
wisdom
of
a
legal
regime
that
forces
10-year-old
rape
victims
to
give
birth
or
encourages
miscarrying
patients
to
bleed
out.
According
to
Turley,
the
laws
in
these
states
wouldn’t
really
prevent
that
sort
of
treatment,
and
he
based
this
analysis
on…

nothing.

“It
is doubtful the
courts
would
ignore.”
Well,
based
on
that
rock-solid
grounding,
I
guess
women
should
just
breathe
easy!
While
Turley
handwaves
away
all
the
states
that
don’t
have
explicit
ectopic
caveats,
he
ignores
that
medical
professionals
he’s
talking
about
hypothetically
are in
reality confused
as
to
the
scope
of
the
exceptions.

It
doesn’t
matter
if
the
government
would
actually
prosecute
in
these
cases
—
they
will
—
because
the
fear
of
prosecution
is
enough
to
trigger
the
harm.
It’s
a
fallacy
he
pursues
with
some
vigor
—
he
also
tried
to

pawn
off
abortion
gag
laws
as
a
non-event
based
on
his
wish-casting
that
prosecutors
will
just
ignore
the
statutes
they
fought
to
create.

He
went
on
to
offer
a
bunch
of
WebMD
level
analysis
about
how
mifepristone
and
misoprostol
work
while
ignoring
methotrexate,
but
we
digress.

Turley
doubled
down
on
his
abortion
argument,
arguing
that
the
10-year-old
Ohio
case
was
fishy
because
he
decided
she
would
be
covered
by
Ohio
law.

Then
this
happened.

“HIPPA.”
Chef’s
kiss.

TRUMP
STEALING
NUCLEAR
CODES
IS
NO
WORSE
THAN
BILL
CLINTON
STEALING
A
COUCH
—
4
TURLS

Turley
also
lent
his
name
to
misrepresenting
the
whole
course
of
the
Trump
warrant.

Per
earlier
coverage:

He
then
adds
that
even
if
Trump
was
hoarding
classified
documents,
“the
question
still
remains:
why
couldn’t
you
have
done
that
with
a
less
intrusive
means?”
THEY
DID.
The
DOJ
went
to
Mar-a-Lago
and
removed
15
boxes
back
in
January!
THAT
was
the
less
intrusive,
negotiated
effort.
And
when
the
DOJ
had
reason
to
believe
Trump
still
had
multiple
boxes
of
sensitive
material
beyond
that
—
either
from
additional
investigation
or
because
the
Trump
team
affirmatively
told
the
FBI
it
would
withhold
the
rest
of
the
haul
—
then
the
DOJ
had
no
choice
but
to
seek
a
warrant
to
get
the
material
directly.

Missed
the
perfect
score
by
failing
to
argue
that
stealing
a
couch
was
worse
than
the
nuclear
codes.
Rookie
error.

But
he
doggedly
stuck
to
defending
Judge
Aileen
Cannon’s
comical
effort
to
derail
the
investigation
despite
objections
from
known
pinko
commie
firebrands
like

Bill
Barr
and

Above
the
Law
hater
11th
Circuit

Judge
William
Pryor.

He
also
twisted
the
basics
of
criminal
law
to

suggest
Merrick
Garland
had
an
obligation
to
tell
the
target
of
an
ongoing
investigation
everything
he
has
before
seeking
an
indictment.
While
it
would
be
a
great
legal
development
for
mob
kingpins,
it
is
not
actually
how
any
of
this
works.

January
6…
What’s
That?
—
3
TURLS

One
of

Turley’s
more
disappointing
outings
on
the
disingenuous
scale.
The
January
6
Committee’s
work
laid
out
a
bunch
of
potentially
criminal
acts
over
the
course
of
its
run.
Hell,
the
response
to
the
January
6
Committee
is

still
tripping
people
up.

As
we
noted
at
the
time,
Turley’s
analysis
isn’t
entirely
wrong,
it
just
cherry-picks
among
the
broadside
of
allegations
surrounding
Trump’s
actions:

By
leaning
into
the
talking
point
that
this
is
all
just
mean
talk
about
Trump,
Turley’s
relying
on
what
can
at
best
be
characterized
as
“legalish”
thinking.
Generally
casting
aspersions
on
the
election
process
isn’t
a
crime!
Conspiring
with
fake
slates
of
electors
and
trying
to
convince
the
Vice
President
to
hijack
the
Constitution…
would
be.
Criminal
liability
for
incitement
is,
correctly,
a
wildly
high
hill
to
climb!
Using
public
office
to
obstruct
a
response
that
put
lives
at
risk…
makes
for
a
different
story.
Campaigns
can
use
all
sorts
of
puffery
without
being
illegal!
Making
up
“funds”
to
raise
money
for
lawsuits
while
always
intending
to
funnel
the
money
to
yourself
and
your
cronies…
well,
you
get
the
idea.

Everyone
has
an
off
day.
Turley
resolved
to
do
better
the
next
time
he
discussed
January
6.

The
Secret
Service
Kidnapped
Trump
According
To
Federal
Kidnapping
Laws
—
6
OUT
OF
5
TURLS

Testimony
from
the
January
6
hearings
alleged
that
the
Secret
Service
refused
Trump’s
demand
to
be
taken
back
to
the
armed
mob.
This
is
an
entirely
reasonable
decision
and
well
within
the
mission
statement
of
the
Secret
Service.

But
that
sort
of
sober
analysis
isn’t
going
to
get
a
law
professor
on
TV!

In
a
subsequent
article
that
is
currently
unavailable
online,
Turley
wrote
that
“In
the
end,
the
security
team
was
correct
on
the
merits
but
probably
wrong
on
the
law.”
It
will
not
surprise
you
to
learn
that,
in
fact,
Turley
is
wrong
on
the
law.

As
explained
in

our
earlier
article:

The
Secret
Service
is

mandated
by
law
to
protect
the
president
and
vice
president.
While
federal
law
authorizes
the
Secret
Service
to
protect
other
categories
of
individuals
too,
everyone
other
than
the
president
and
vice
president
may
decline
protection.
But
a
president
can’t
unilaterally
reject
the
protection
of
the
Secret
Service
just
like
the
president
can’t
reject
other
laws
on
a
whim.

Three
Turls
for
being
wrong.
But
a
perfect
score
for
going
the
extra
mile
to
tell
an
audience
of
insurrectionist
sympathizers
that

the
Secret
Service
was
violating
federal
criminal
statutes.

Bravura
performance.

We’re
not
even
getting
into
his
detailed
effort
to
rewrite
the
GOP’s
Midterm
collapse
as
a
win
for
his
fans,
an
effort
better
handled
in
Robert
Weisberg’s

What
Happened
To
Jonathan
Turley,
Really?
piece.

What
will
the
next
year
of
Turley
bring?
I,
for
one,
am
excited
to
find
out!

(But
it’s
going
to
be
a
lot
about
Hunter
Biden’s
laptop.)

What
Happened
to
Jonathan
Turley,
Really?
[Slate]

Earlier:

Remember
When
Martin
Luther
King
Was
Arrested?
Because
Jonathan
Turley
Sure
Doesn’t!

Turley
Advances
Nonsense
About
Judge
Ketanji
Brown
Jackson
To
Appease
His
Racist
Fanbase

‘Legal
Experts’
Need
To
Stop
Deliberately
Misleading
People
About
The
First
Amendment

Again,
People
Pointing
Out
That
You’re
Stupid
Is
Not
An
Attack
On
Freedom
Of
Speech

Clarence
Thomas
Quitting
GW
Law
School
Is
Just
Like
Robespierre’s
Reign
Of
Terror
Except
In
The
Way
It’s
Not
At
All
And
Jonathan
Turley
Is
A
Wildly
Unserious
Person

Jonathan
Turley
Ready
To
Pay
Elon
Musk
$8
For
Twitter
Credibility…
Which
Is
About
The
Value
Of
His
Credibility
These
Days

As
World
Cup
Shines
A
Light
On
Repressive
Regimes,
Jonathan
Turley
Focuses
On
REAL
Free
Speech
Struggle:
Private
Companies
Not
Advertising
On
Twitter

Jonathan
Turley
Is
Now
Just
Lying
About
Abortion
Laws
And
He’s
Going
To
Get
Someone
Killed

Jonathan
Turley
Still
Confused
By
Occam’s
Razor,
Spelling

State
Government
Bans
Teachers
From
Talking
About
Abortion
And
Jonathan
Turley
Is
Here
To
Blame…
The
Schools?

Jonathan
Turley
Sums
Up
January
6
Hearings
Like
He
Didn’t
Watch
January
6
Hearings

Someone
Kidnapped
Jonathan
Turley
And
Replaced
Him
With
The
Dumbest
Person
On
Earth
Who
Also
Happens
To
Be
Jonathan
Turley

Jonathan
Turley
Called
Out
For
Using
Law
For
‘Wrongful
Ends.’
As
If
Selling
Out
For
Publicity
Is
Wrongful!

Jonathan
Turley
Reminds
Us
That
Bill
Clinton
Took
A
Couch
So
Donald
Trump
Should
Be
Able
To
Take
Nuclear
Codes

Bill
Barr
Thinks
Judge
Cannon’s
Order
Is
Trump
Simping
Gibberish,
But
She’s
Still
Got
Jonathan
Turley
On
Her
Side!

Jonathan
Turley
Very
Upset
That
Merrick
Garland
Isn’t
Cartoonishly
Bad
At
His
Job

---

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.

Most
law
firms
have
a
billable-hour
requirement
under
which
attorneys
need
to
bill
a
certain
number
of
hours
over
a
specific
period,
usually
12
months.
Law
firms
have
various
periods
over
which
they
determine
if
attorneys
satisfied
the
billable-hour
requirement,
and
many
shops
judge
attorneys
from
a
period
starting
and
ending
before
the
holiday
season.
I
have
also
heard
of
some
firms
assessing
billable-hour
expectations
on
a
fiscal-year
basis,
and
this
12-month
period
starts
and
ends
in
the
summer.
For
a
variety
of
reasons,
it
usually
makes
sense
to
evaluate
attorneys
based
on
the
calendar
year
rather
than
any
other
period.

I
am
fortunate
to
have
only
worked
at
a
law
firm
that
assessed
the
billable
hours
of
attorneys
based
on
the
calendar
year.
When
I
was
starting
at
a
firm,
I
welcomed
this.
My
first
day
of
work
was
in
or
around
the
middle
of
October,
and
it
was
reassuring
to
know
that
I
had
a
few
months
during
which
I
would
not
be
assessed
when
it
came
to
billable
hours.
During
this
time,
I
was
freer
to
take
on
pro
bono
matters
and
was
not
too
stressed
about
billing
time
since
everyone
knew
that
I
would
only
start
to
be
assessed
in
the
new
year.

After
the
new
year,
people
naturally
want
to
hustle
and
devote
more
time
to
work.
Most
people
take
time
off
to
recharge
during
the
holidays,
and
they
are
more
energized
after
the
new
year
to
attack
their
work
headfirst.
This
means
that
an
attorney
is
more
likely
to
begin
the
billing
season
strong
and
build
a
comfortable
cushion
of
billable
hours
early
during
the
period
in
which
they
are
assessed.

Each
year
I
worked
at
a
law
firm
that
had
a
calendar-year
billable-hour
cycle,
I
made
sure
to
begin
each
year
billing
tons
of
hours.
I
let
the
new
year
energy
naturally
motivate
my
work,
and
I
would
set
myself
up
with
a
solid
cushion
of
billable
hours
after
the
first
few
months
of
the
year.
This
was
helpful
to
me
when
I
planned
the
rest
of
my
year.
It
was
easier
to
take
time
off
for
vacation
or
personal
reasons
when
I
knew
that
I
had
banked
billable
hours
and
did
not
need
to
be
at
the
grind
as
much
to
satisfy
the
billable-hour
requirement.

Another
benefit
of
a
calendar-year
billable-hour
cycle
is
that
this
takes
advantage
of
the
fact
that
many
clients
wait
until
the
end
of
the
year
to
pay
their
outstanding
bills.
Some
shops
do
not
just
assess
attorneys
based
on
the
number
of
hours
of
time
they
bill.
Rather,
certain
firms
judge
attorneys
based
on
whether
a
client
pays
the
bills
associates
with
the
hours
billed
by
a
lawyer.
On
the
one
hand,
this
practice
is
somewhat
unfair
since
an
associate
often
does
not
have
control
over
whether
a
client
pays
their
bills.

On
the
other
hand,
law
firms
likely
need
to
keep
track
of
budgets
when
making
compensation
decisions,
and
so
firm
collections
are
important.
In
any
case,
by
waiting
until
the
end
of
the
calendar
year,
law
firms
maximize
the
chances
that
straggler
clients
will
pay
their
bills,
which
would
positively
reflect
on
associates.
Of
course,
not
all
law
firms
evaluate
associates
based
on
deeper
billing
metrics,
but
those
shops
that
do
should
give
associates
the
best
chance
possible
to
meet
firm
metrics.

One
of
the
main
reasons
why
law
firms
choose
time
periods
other
than
the
calendar
year
to
assess
billable
hours
is
because
they
likely
do
not
want
to
make
bonus
decisions
around
the
holidays.
Moreover,
shops
may
not
want
attorneys
to
feel
pressured
into
billing
more
hours
around
the
holidays
so
that
they
can
be
eligible
for
a
bonus.

However,
if
law
firms
establish
a
certain
threshold
above
the
billable-hour
requirement
to
receive
a
bonus,
there
will
not
be
much
assessment
needed
around
the
holidays
to
determine
if
an
attorney
will
be
receiving
a
bonus.
Moreover,
it
is
not
too
much
of
an
imposition
to
receive
a
bonus
paycheck
or
two
after
the
holidays.
Indeed,
this
was
the
practice
at
a
law
firm
at
which
I
once
worked,
and
it
was
honestly
nice
to
know
that
a
bonus
paid
early
in
the
new
year
would
not
appear
on
my
taxes
for
the
preceding
year.
Any
downside
of
having
a
billable-hour
cycle
during
the
calendar
year
is
outweighed
by
the
benefits
of
assessing
billable
hours
during
this
natural
period.

All
told,
it
is
unfortunately
too
late
for
law
firms
to
change
how
they
evaluate
billable
hours
this
year
since
the
new
year
is
right
around
the
corner.
However,
law
firms
should
strongly
consider
evaluating
the
billable
hours
output
of
attorneys
during
the
ordinary
calendar
year.

---

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.

“The
nominations
send
a
powerful
message
to
the
legal
community
that
this
kind
of
public
service
is
open
to
a
lot
of
people
it
wasn’t
open
to
before…What
it
says
to
the
public
at
large
is
that
if
you
wind
up
in
federal
court
for
whatever
reason,
you’re
much
more
likely
to
have
a
judge
who
understands
where
you
came
from,
who
you
are,
and
what
you’ve
been
through.”
–


Ron
Klain,
White
House
Chief
of
Staff

discussing
the
significance
of
a
more
diverse
judiciary.