Category Added in a WPeMatico Campaign
(Photo
by
Justin
Sullivan/Getty
Images)
Neil
Gorsuch
Is
A
Jerk:
COVID
edition.
Amy
Wax?
In
Trouble?
Seems
like
Penn
Law’s
patience
may
have
finally
run
out.
Lawyer
Of
The
Year
Revealed:
It’s
Britney,
bitch.
Well,
her
lawyer,
that
is.
Inglourious
Basterds,
But
Make
It
Boring:
Supreme
Court
hears
argument
on
Eerie
doctrine.
In
The
Battle
Between
Associate
And
Client,
Associate
Wins:
Kudos
to
Cooley.
Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature
Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!
According
to
the
Thomson
Reuters
Institute
and
the
Georgetown
University
Law
Center
on
Ethics
and
the
Legal
Profession’s
2022
Report
on
the
State
of
the
Legal
Market,
how
much
are
profits
per
equity
partner
up
in
2021
—
over
2020
—
for
the
Am
Law
100?
Hint:
Profits
per
equity
partner
were
also
up
for
the
Am
Law
Second
Hundred
(ranks
101-200),
but
not
by
as
much.
See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.
Sales
of
US
made
weapons
abroad
could
be
impacted
from
the
Biden
administration’s
new
CAT
policy.
(DVIDS)
In
the
coming
weeks,
the
Biden
administration
is
expected
to
release
its
newest
version
of
the
Conventional
Arms
Transfer
(CAT)
policy,
which
will
serve
as
a
clear
sign
on
how
the
administration
will
differentiate
itself
from
the
Trump
administration
on
arms
sales
issues.
In
this
op
ed
Josh
Kirshner
of
Beacon
Global
Strategies
lays
out
a
history
of
the
CAT
policy
and
offers
some
predictions
on
how
it
could
change.
The
Biden
administration
is
expected
to
soon
release
its
version
of
the
US
Conventional
Arms
Transfer
(CAT)
policy,
which
sets
the
guardrails
for
how
America
sells
arms
to
foreign
militaries. While
the
administration
has
held
its
cards
close
on
what
the
new
policy
will
entail,
it
is
widely
expected
to
put
a
renewed
emphasis
on
the
human
rights
records
of
potential
arms
buyers.
This
is
not
only
because
the
President
has
been
committed
to
promoting
human
rights
throughout
his
career,
including
by
convening
the
first-ever
Summit
for
Democracy
in
December,
but
also
so
he
can
make
clear
that
his
commitment
to
human
rights
differs
from
the
Trump
administration’s,
which
largely
overlooked
such
concerns.
The
question
is,
will
the
Biden
CAT
policy
be
revolutionary,
or
like
most
presidents’
arms
sales
policies,
evolutionary?
Reflecting
the
concerns
of
the
immediate
post-Vietnam
War
period,
President
Jimmy
Carter
followed
through
on
a
campaign
promise
by
publishing
Presidential
Directive/NSC-13
[PDF]
and
a
“policy
statement”
on
conventional
arms
transfers
–
the
first
from
a
US
president.
Carter
made
clear
his
intent:
“The
United
States
can
and
should
take
the
first
step”
in
order
to
reduce
the
supply
of
arms
globally.
He
drew
a
direct
link
to
human
rights,
stating
that
US
security
assistance
programs
“will
promote
and
advance
respect
for
human
rights
in
recipient
countries.”
Not
surprisingly,
President
Ronald
Reagan
took
a
very
different
tact,
and
his
presidential
directive
on
CAT
allowed
for
significantly
more
defense
exports.
Of
the
five
CAT
policies
after
Carter,
this
is
the
only
truly
revolutionary
one.
Reagan
boldly
refuted
Carter’s
rhetoric,
stating
that
the
US
“will
deal
with
the
world
as
it
is,
rather
than
as
we
would
like
it
to
be”
and
proclaimed
that
arms
transfers
would
not
be
“discrete,”
but
instead
an
“essential”
and
“indispensable”
part
of
the
United
States’
effort
to
strengthen
its
national
security
and
defend
the
free
world.
Reagan’s
revolutionary
policy
introduced
the
concept
of
a
“case-by-case”
review
of
sales,
giving
the
government
the
flexibility
to
ignore
its
own
CAT
policy
if
it
sees
fit.
Just
weeks
after
releasing
this
policy,
Reagan
approved
the
world’s
then-largest
arms
sale,
a
$8.5
billion
package
to
Saudi
Arabia
that
included
AWACS
surveillance
aircraft.
The
sale
was
controversial
on
the
Hill,
with
44
senators
—
including
then-Senator
Joseph
Biden
—
cosponsoring
a
bill
to
block
the
sale.
Fourteen
years
later,
after
the
end
of
the
Cold
War
in
1995,
President
Bill
Clinton
released
the
nation’s
next
CAT
policy,
which
in
true
Clintonian
fashion
triangulated
between
the
Carter
and
Reagan
policies.
While
his
policy
echoed
elements
of
Carter’s
intent
of
restraint,
Clinton
emphasized
Reagan’s
case-by-case
concept
by
including
it
in
the
very
first
sentence
of
his
criteria,
and
then
reinforced
the
Republican
president’s
philosophy
by
stating
that
“transfers
of
conventional
arms
[are]
a
legitimate
instrument
of
US
foreign
policy,”
and
reaffirmed
the
link
between
the
health
of
the
defense
industrial
base
and
the
overall
economy.
In
practice,
Clinton
approved
several
significant
arms
sales,
including
$500
million
in
fighter
aircraft
to
Chile. This
reversal
of
Carter’s
refusal
to
sell
advanced
weaponry
to
Latin
America
resulted
in
Senate
legislation
to
show
liberal
opposition
to
the
shift. One
of
the
co-sponsors? Senator
Joseph
Biden.
President
Obama’s
CAT
policy
was
the
first
of
the
post
9/11
era,
more
focused
on
defense
exports
as
a
tool
to
build
partner
capabilities
to
fight
terrorism,
restating
Reagan’s
mantra
that
arms
transfers
are
a
“legitimate
instrument”
of
national
security
policy.
While
the
Obama
policy
discusses
human
rights
in
more
detail
than
previous
versions,
stating
a
need
for
“restraint
against
the
transfer
of
arms
that
would…
serve
to
facilitate
human
rights
abuses…,”
it
does
not
state
that
the
US
should
leverage
defense
export
decisions
to
push
recipients
to
improve
their
human
rights.
The
human
rights
community
would
like
to
see
Biden’s
policy
clearly
state
that
it
will
take
such
an
approach.
For
all
of
the
differences
between
Presidents
Obama
and
Trump,
and
despite
the
commentary
that
President
Trump’s
CAT
policy
was
radically
pro-industry,
the
text
of
his
policy
was
in
truth
evolutionary,
continuing
many
elements
of
the
Obama-era
policy
and
actually
copying
some
language
verbatim.
Where
Trump
differed
from
Obama
significantly
was
in
his
implementation
of
the
policy,
specifically
with
his
White
House’s
willingness
to
work
directly
with
defense
companies,
instead
of
directing
them
to
State
or
Defense.
Senior
White
House
staff
also
made
the
case
to
push
defense
exports
publicly,
making
them
a
key
part
of
Trump’s
economic
agenda.
In
this
COVID
era,
how
closely
Biden
ties
defense
exports
to
job
creation
and
improving
the
manufacturing
sector
is
an
area
to
watch.
What
Might
Biden’s
CAT
Policy
Look
Like?
A
CAT
policy
centrally
focused
on
human
rights
would
be
revolutionary,
recalling
the
views
of
the
senator
from
Delaware
who
consistently
pushed
back
against
presidents
as
they
attempted
to
sell
arms
abroad
in
the
1980s
and
1990s.
However,
there
are
several
reasons
to
believe
that
Biden
will
instead
favor
an
evolutionary
CAT
policy.
First,
Biden
has
made
repairing
frayed
international
partnerships
and
countering
China
core
foreign
policy
tenets.
Increased
defense
cooperation
with
partners,
including
arms
sales,
is
one
way
to
show
the
US
commitment
to
rebuilding
these
relationships.
Second,
as
part
of
his
effort
to
repair
a
US
economy
ravaged
by
COVID-19,
the
president
has
specifically
targeted
assistance
to
the
manufacturing
sector.
The
aerospace
and
defense
industry
supports
over
2.5
million
domestic
jobs
[PDF],
including
highly
skilled
manufacturing,
creating
a
significant
economic
incentive
for
the
White
House
to
enable
this
industry
to
grow.
Third,
he
served
as
Obama’s
vice
president,
and
both
National
Security
Advisor
Jake
Sullivan
and
Secretary
of
State
Tony
Blinken
served
in
prominent
roles
during
the
Obama
administration.
They
had
a
hand
in
crafting
and
implementing
Obama’s
CAT
policy;
it
is
unlikely
their
views
on
arms
sales
have
changed
dramatically
over
the
past
four
years.
Other
changes
we
may
see
in
Biden’s
CAT
policy
include
an
increased
focus
on
protecting
US-origin
military
technology
from
Chinese
intellectual
property
theft,
further
developing
the
US
position
on
exporting
surveillance
technology
(as
discussed
at
the
Summit
for
Democracy),
and
more
detail
on
how
the
government
will
consider
the
export
of
cyber
technologies
to
foreign
militaries.
The
rhetoric
of
Biden’s
CAT
policy
will
likely
make
clear
that
the
Trump
era
of
defense
exports
is
over,
and
human
rights
will
be
a
more
significant
criteria.
Indeed,
sales
went
down
21%
in
fiscal
year
2021,
which
spanned
the
last
three
months
of
the
Trump
administration
and
the
first
nine
months
of
Biden’s.
But
ultimately,
the
practical
result
of
the
policy
will
come
down
to
implementation,
as
Biden
and
his
team
grapple
with
how
to
balance
his
commitment
to
human
rights
with
a
rapidly
evolving
landscape
of
domestic
and
international
challenges.
Josh
Kirshner
previously
served
as
special
assistant
to
the
Under
Secretary
of
State
for
Arms
Control
and
International
Security
and
as
a
professional
staff
member
on
the
House
Permanent
Select
Committee
on
Intelligence.
He
is
currently
a
senior
vice
president
at
Beacon
Global
Strategies.
(Photo
by
Win
McNamee/Getty
Images)
Bill
Barr
has
never
lacked
for
chutzpah.
This
is
a
guy
who
worked
for
the
CIA
and
Justice
Department,
but
sailed
to
office
as
someone
who
would
take
on
the
“Deep
State.”
He’s
a
former
Verizon
lawyer
who
threatened
to
bring
the
government
down
on
Big
Tech.
FFS,
this
is
a
guy
who
pretending
he
was
rooting
out
corruption
even
as
he
booked
a
$30,000
Christmas
party
at
his
boss’s
hotel
—
the
one
that
was
leased
from
the
federal
government.
But
even
by
his
own
standards,
Bill
Barr’s
latest
book
is
an
exercise
in
just
goin’
for
it.
Amazon’s
blurb
for
“One
Damn
Thing
After
Another:
Memoirs
of
an
Attorney
General”
promises
a
“vivid,
forthright”
comparison
of
his
first,
normal
stint
in
the
executive
branch,
where
he
came
in
at
the
end
to
help
sweep
the
Iran-Contra
affair
under
the
rug,
to
his
second,
when
he
helped
hide
the
president’s
attempted
extortion
of
a
foreign
government.
Apparently
Barr’s
“second
tenure
under
President
Donald
Trump
[was]
a
deliberate
and
difficult
choice.”
Cue
the
world’s
tiniest
violins.
But
at
least
he
got
to
lock
up
a
whole
bunch
of
Black
and
brown
people
both
times,
right?
Lest
we
forget,
Bill
Barr
presided
over
an
absolute
orgy
of
inappropriate
interference
with
the
supposedly
independent
Justice
Department.
From
the
mash
note
cum
job
application
he
sent
to
Trump
in
June
of
2018,
expounding
on
his
theories
unlimited
presidential
power
and
crapping
on
the
Mueller
investigation,
to
his
obsequious
resignation
letter
in
December
of
2020,
offered
up
as
a
bribe
to
get
him
out
the
door
without
being
fired
via
tweet,
Barr
never
failed
to
put
his
own
political
interests
first.
Before
the
Mueller
Report
was
even
released,
Barr
famously
announced
hopped
in
front
of
a
microphone
to
announce
that
the
it
had
fully
exonerated
the
president.
In
reality
Mueller
laid
out
multiple
counts
of
obstruction
of
justice,
before
concluding
that
only
congress
had
the
right
to
try
a
sitting
executive.
Barr
then
proceeded
to
blow
up
the
prosecution
of Michael
Flynn
and
undercut
line
prosecutors’
sentencing
recommendation
for
Roger
Stone.
And
for
good
measure,
he
tried
to
Saturday
Night
Massacre
the
SDNY
in
an
apparent
attempt
to
protect
Rudy
Giuliani.
The
president’s
enemies
got
a
different
treatment,
however.
The
investigation
into
Hillary
Clinton’s
email
server
went
on
until
October
of
2019.
And
the
Durham
investigation
looking
for
someone
—
anyone!
—
to
punish
for
the
Russia
investigation,
is
ongoing.
Perhaps
Perkins
Coie
should
be
grateful
they
didn’t
get
teargassed.
Unfortunately
the
protestors
in
Lafayette
Park
weren’t
so
lucky
the
day
Trump
needed
to
trespass
at
a
church
so
he
could
get
his
photo
taken
manhandling
a
bible.
In
the
Ukraine
scandal,
Trump’s
trusty
adjutant buried
the
whistleblower
complaint
about
his
“perfect,
perfect
phone
call”
in
the
Criminal
Division
and
obediently
dummied
up
memos
insisting
that
the
executive
branch
was
immune
from
congressional
oversight.
And
he
wasn’t
above
helping
his
boss’s
reelection
efforts
either,
even
going
so
far
as
to
set
up
an
intake
mechanism
at
DOJ
for
Rudy
Giuliani’s
fantastical
slanders
about
Joe
Biden
and
his
son.
In
fact,
there
was
no
Republican
culture
war
issue
that
Barr
didn’t
weigh
in
on.
From
his
preposterous
lies
about
Antifa
supersoldiers
flying
around
America
wreaking
havoc,
to
his
preposterous
lies
about
election
fraud,
Barr
was
willing
to
put
the
credence
of
his
office
behind
any
GOP
talking
point.
He
even
went
on
Fox
and
whined
about
a
“jihad”
on
hydroxychloroquine.
And
what
Grand
Old
Party
would
be
complete
without
“Black
on
Black
crime?”
Drink!
And
now
for
just
$35
you
can
get
a
hard
copy
of
Bill
Barr’s
“candid
account
of
his
historic
tenures
serving
two
vastly
different
presidents,
George
H.W.
Bush
and
Donald
J.
Trump.”
Because
if
there’s
one
thing
Bill
Barr
is
known
for,
it’s candor.
Or
you
could
take
that
money
and
spend
it
on
literally
anything
else.
Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
writes
about
law
and
politics.
I
did
that
[violating
legal
ethics
rules]
on
my
own,
nobody
held
a
gun
to
my
head.
I
wouldn’t
wish
an
indictment
and
a
conviction
on
my
worst
enemy,
and
if
I
could
wave
a
magic
wand
and
make
it
all
go
away,
even
if
it
meant
removing
all
the
personal
growth
I
had,
I
would
wave
that
magic
wand.
—
Robert
M.
Schulman,
who
once
worked
as
an
intellectual
property
litigation
partner
at
Hunton
&
Williams
and
Arent
Fox,
in
testimony
given
before
the
Board
on
Professional
Responsibility
of
the
D.C.
Bar
late
last
week.
Schulman
was
convicted
of
conspiracy
and
securities
fraud
in
2017,
and
later
agreed
to
a
three-year
suspension
of
his
license
to
practice
law,
retroactive
to
June
28,
2018.
In
2010,
Schulman
allegedly
got
drunk
before
sharing
insider
information,
and
continues
to
deny
criminal
liability.
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.
To
borrow
from
The
West
Wing,
“Let’s
forget
the
fact
that
you’re
coming
a
little
late
to
the
party
and
embrace
the
fact
that
you
showed
up
at
all.”
We’re
several
years
into
the
Penn
Law
School’s
slow-motion
Amy
Wax
train
wreck.
It’s
a
well-worn
cycle:
Wax
says
something
wildly
offensive
in
an
entirely
non-academic
setting,
students/alumni/media/people
with
souls
complain,
the
school
wrings
its
hands
and
does
little
to
nothing,
and
then
Wax
ups
the
stakes
and
the
cycle
repeats.
But,
finally,
Wax
might
have
pushed
administrators
too
far,
with
Dean
Ted
Ruger
announcing
today
that
he
will
file
a
formal
complaint
launching
the
school’s
process
to
consider
sanctions
against
Wax.
One
might
have
thought
the
final
straw
would
be
when
she
spoke
at
the
white
nationalism
conference.
Or
when
she
claimed
—
in
seeming
violation
of
blind
grading
policies
—
to
know
that
Black
students
can’t
succeed
in
law
school.
Alas,
it
was
declaring
that
the
United
States
needs
“fewer
Asians”
that
ultimately
triggered
a
review
with
potentially
serious
ramifications.
So,
if
that
was
on
your
Amy
Wax
BINGO
card,
congrats!
The
school
has
a
detailed
process
for
dealing
with
faculty
conduct.
A
board
will
review
the
matter
and
consider
a
response
that
could
range
from
reprimand
to
termination.
Per
the
Philadelphia
Inquirer:
“Her
conduct
has
generated
multiple
complaints
from
members
of
our
community
citing
the
impact
of
pervasive
and
recurring
vitriol
and
promotion
of
white
supremacy
as
cumulative
and
increasing,”
Ruger
said.
“The
complaints
assert
that
it
is
impossible
for
students
to
take
classes
from
her
without
a
reasonable
belief
that
they
are
being
treated
with
discriminatory
animus.
These
complaints
clearly
call
for
a
process
that
can
fairly
consider
claims,
for
example,
that
her
conduct
is
having
an
adverse
and
discernable
impact
on
her
teaching
and
classroom
activities.”
Now
begins
the
annoying
stage
of
the
proceedings
where
Wax
supporters
flood
the
zone
with
disingenuous
slippery
slope
arguments
about
how
academic
freedom
requires
schools
to
sit
back
and
watch
institutional
goodwill
evaporate
while
professors
promote
views
undermining
the
school’s
scholarly
reputation.
“Regardless
of
what
one
thinks
about
Professor
Wax’s
personal
political
views,
the
only
appropriate
action
that
the
University
of
Pennsylvania
should
take
in
this
situation
is
to
publicly
reaffirm
the
free
speech
rights
of
the
members
of
its
faculty,”
said
Keith
Whittington,
chair
of
the
[Academic
Freedom
Alliance’s]
academic
committee.
“It
is
quite
clear
that
her
public
comments
as
a
private
individual
on
matters
of
public
concern
cannot…
be
understood
to
constitute
a
‘flagrant
disregard
of
the
standards,
rules,
or
mission
of
the
University
or
the
customs
of
scholarly
communities’
that
might
give
rise
to
disciplinary
action
under
the
Faculty
Handbook.”
Oh
yeah?
Where
does
“publicly
claiming
the
school
lies
about
the
grades
of
its
Black
students”
come
in?
Because
that
seems
like
it
might
slide
somewhere
into
the
“standards,
rules,
or
mission”
section.
An
even
more
flagrant
bout
of
whataboutism
featured
in
the
Inquirer
the
other
day:
Even
some
academics
who
ardently
despise
Wax’s
comments
say
they
would
rather
she
retains
the
right
to
say
them
than
allow
her
to
be
fired.
Removing
her
could
open
the
door
to
censorship
for
professors
who
espouse
views
opposed
by
conservatives,
such
as
critical
race
theory.“How
in
the
same
breath
do
you
oppose
those
measures
but
also
say
you
should
fire
Amy
Wax,”
said
Jonathan
Zimmerman,
a
Penn
professor
of
the
history
of
education,
who
has
ardently
defended
free
speech.
“I
don’t
think
we
can
have
it
both
ways.”
Right…
because
scholarly
works
by
Black
law
professors
are
of
an
academic
kind
with
Amy
Wax
going
on
a
webcast
to
say
America
needs
fewer
Asians.
Totally
equivalent!
In
reality,
there
is
a
clear
distinction
between
those
examples.
Amy
Wax
long
composed
controversial
scholarship,
cobbling
together
objectionable
but
at
least
facially
serious
arguments
about
family
law
and
discrimination.
Yet
her
date
with
a
faculty
review
board
has
nothing
to
do
with
any
of
these
edgy
law
review
articles.
That’s
because
this
all
started
when
she
traded
any
pretense
of
serious
academic
work
to
just
rant
about
minorities.
When
Wax
systematically
got
every
factual
premise
wrong
in
her
first
“big
break”
op-ed,
that’s
where
she
started
down
the
path
to
today.
At
some
point,
reality
and
data
clearly
became
problems
for
her
academic
work
(as
her
sometimes
co-author
recently
learned
when
a
review
rejected
his
article
for
its
failure
to
meet
minimum
standards
of
evidentiary
support).
But
Wax
realized
she
didn’t
need
to
clear
those
hurdles
to
get
a
platform
at
Tucker
Carlson’s
Make
America
White
conference.
Once
she
walked
away
from
the
scholarly
angle,
she
could
just
cite
Wikipedia
and
move
on.
In
a
sense,
her
supporters
are
correct
that
this
may
be
a
referendum
on
academic
freedom,
but
it’s
about
the
“academic”
part
and
not
the
“freedom”
part.
She’s
not
being
“silenced”
just
for
holding
unorthodox
views.
If
Wax
confined
herself
to
work
that
could
pass
the
minimum
academic
muster
or,
at
the
very
least,
made
sure
her
public
comments
had
some
factual
foundation
she’d
not
be
in
this
mess.
Wax’s
cardinal
sin
is
not
her
views
in
a
vacuum,
it’s
the
“cumulative
and
increasing”
provocations
disrupting
the
school’s
pedagogical
mission
while
adding
exactly
zero
to
the
school’s
scholarly
mission.
If
anything,
the
school’s
watched
its
credibility
erode
while
Wax
spouts
knockoff
“academic-ish”
drivel
under
the
school’s
banner.
Academia
has
profound
patience
for
objectionable
scholarship
as
long
as
it
plays
the
game
and
tries
to
be
“scholarship.”
The
fact
that
Wax
went
years
before
a
formal
complaint
is
a
testament
to
that
patience.
But
the
protections
afforded
to
promote
scholarly
inquiry
only
extend
so
far
when
the
professor
decides
to
trade
law
reviews
for
webinars
on
Substack.
Penn
law
dean
starts
process
that
could
lead
to
sanctions
on
professor
Amy
Wax
[Philadelphia
Inquirer]
Earlier:
Dean
Calls
Amy
Wax’s
Remarks
‘Xenophobic
And
White
Supremacist,’
Passes
World’s
Easiest
Issue-Spotter
Law
Professor
Amy
Wax
Expands
Racism
Portfolio
To
Declare
That
America
Needs
‘Fewer
Asians’
Penn
Law’s
Holiday
Letter
Adroitly
Avoids
That
Whole
‘Superior
Culture’
Incident
This
Year
Law
School
Professor
Amy
Wax
Cites
Wikipedia
And
We
Need
To
Stop
Pretending
Tenure
Was
Made
For
This
Amy
Wax’s
Racist
Remarks
Force
Penn
Law
School
To
Let
Her
Take
A
Paid
Vacation
T14
Law
Professor
Goes
To
White
Nationalism
Conference
And
Says
White
Nationalist
Things
And
Somehow
Still
Has
A
Job
Academia
Means
Never
Having
To
Say,
‘I
Got
Fired’
Professor
Amy
Wax
And
The
Bell
Curve
Law
Professors
Say
White
’50s
Culture
Is
Superior,
Other
Racist
Stuff
Penn
Law
School
Prof
Amy
Wax
Stumbles
Into
A
Truth…
Before
Delving
Back
Into
Vile
Conspiracy
Theories
Amy
Wax
Relieved
Of
Her
1L
Teaching
Duties
After
Bald-Faced
Lying
About
Black
Students
Professor
Declares
Black
Students
‘Rarely’
Graduate
In
The
Top
Half
Of
Law
School
Class
Dog
Whistling
‘Bourgeois
Values’
Op-Ed
Gets
Thorough
Takedown
From
Other
Law
Professors
Law
Students
Seek
To
Ban
Professor
From
Teaching
1Ls
Law
School
Professor
Says
Dr.
Ford
‘Should
Have
Held
Her
Tongue’
In
Latest
Embarrassment
To
Her
School
Berkeley
Law
School
Group
Invites
Amy
Wax
To
Headline
Event
In
Effort
To
Lower
The
Bar
Even
Further
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.
(Photo
by
Chip
Somodevilla/Getty
Images)
This
information
probably
does
not
surprise
Supreme
Court
watchers
—
like
even
a
little
bit
—
but,
Neil
Gorsuch
is
a
real
jerk
of
a
coworker.
Folks
have
noted
that
since
the
omicron
COVID
surge,
Neil
Gorsuch
was
the
only
Supreme
Court
justice
not
to
mask
up
during
oral
arguments.
And
we’ve
also
noted
that
Sonia
Sotomayor,
who
has
type
1
diabetes
and
is
over
65
(both
risk
factors
for
COVID
complications),
was
participating
in
Court
business
virtually.
Turns
out
you
are
100%
correct
to
assume
those
facts
are
related.
And
Gorsuch
has
refused
to
mask
up
despite
being
specifically
asked
to
do
so
by
the
Chief
Justice,
as
reported
earlier
today
by
Nina
Totenberg:
Now,
though,
the
situation
had
changed
with
the
omicron
surge,
and
according
to
court
sources,
Sotomayor
did
not
feel
safe
in
close
proximity
to
people
who
were
unmasked.
Chief
Justice
John
Roberts,
understanding
that,
in
some
form
asked
the
other
justices
to
mask
up.They
all
did.
Except
Gorsuch,
who,
as
it
happens,
sits
next
to
Sotomayor
on
the
bench.
His
continued
refusal
since
then
has
also
meant
that
Sotomayor
has
not
attended
the
justices’
weekly
conference
in
person,
joining
instead
by
telephone.
Now
Gorsuch
is
trending
on
Twitter
as
his
asshole
status
comes
into
focus:
The
eye-popping
super
irony
here,
of
course,
is
that
GORSUCH
HAS
WRITTEN
A
BOOK
ON
CIVILITY.
He
recounted
a
story
in
the
book
that
his
wife’s
grandmother
told
him
he’d
never
be
sorry
for
being
kind.
I
guess
that
was
all
lip
service
until
he
could
use
a
stolen
lifetime
appointment
to
stick
it
to
an
elderly
immunocompromised
coworker!
But
really,
the
one
that
gets
me
is
Gorsuch’s
reported
fondness
for
a
particular
rule
of
civility
that
George
Washington
is
said
to
have
written
as
a
child:
And
[Gorsuch]
notes
that
George
Washington
had
to
copy
by
hand
all
110
rules
of
civility
that
were
written
by
the
Jesuits
in
1595.
In
the
interview,
Gorsuch
paraphrased
one
rule
that
he
particularly
liked.“Do
not
speak
so
closely
to
another
person
with
such
enthusiasm
that
you
bedew
the
other
man
with
your
spittle,”
he
said,
from
a
safe
distance.
“It’s
a
good
rule.
It’s
a
good
rule.”
You
know
what
else
helps
with
that
spittle
problem?
A
goddamned
mask.
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).
Elon
Musk
(Photo
by
Diego
Donamaria/Getty
Images
for
SXSW)
Elon
Musk
is
a
very
rich
man
with
a
very
big
platform.
And
he
frequently
uses
both
of
those
things
to
aggressively
demand
that
folks
do
exactly
what
he
wants
them
to
do.
Like
remember
back
in
season
1
of
the
pandemic
when
he
was
salty
that
Alameda
County
shut
down
the
Tesla
plant
located
there
to
stop
the
spread
of
COVID.
He
kept
the
plant
open
in
defiance
of
local
rules,
sued
the
county
and
eventually
—
in
a
move
that
I
am
sure
is
COMPLETELY
COINCIDENTAL
—
the
county
allowed
the
plant
to
remain
open.
Or
when
Dr.
Mary
“Missy”
Cummings
was
appointed
as
an
advisor
to
the
National
Highway
Traffic
Safety
Administration.
Dr.
Cummings
authored
a
study
that
found
Tesla’s
autopilot
operated
inconsistently.
When
her
appointment
became
public,
Musk
set
off
an
onslaught
on
social
media
vitriol
aimed
at
Dr.
Cummings.
She’s
since
recused
herself
from
an
investigations
involving
Tesla.
Anyway,
the
point
is
when
Musk
complains
about
something
loudly
enough,
it
tends
to
go
his
way.
But
it
seems
like
he
misunderstood
the
resolve
of
a
Biglaw
firm.
The
Wall
Street
Journal
reports
that
Cooley
LLP
got
an
“ultimatum”
from
Musk.
The
firm
represents
Tesla
in
a
number
of
matters,
and
Musk
felt
that
entitled
him
to
demand
they
fire
an
attorney
that
never
worked
on
any
matters
on
behalf
of
Tesla.
That’s
because
the
firm
hired
an
associate
with
previous
Securities
and
Exchange
Commission
experience,
and
while
at
the
SEC
the
attorney
interviewed
Musk
as
part
of
an
investigation:
At
the
SEC,
the
attorney
had
interviewed
Mr.
Musk
during the
agency’s
investigation of
the
Tesla
chief
executive’s
2018
tweet
claiming,
wrongly,
to
have
secured
funding
to
potentially
take
the
electric-vehicle
maker
private.The
probe
resulted
in
a
settlement
in
which
Mr.
Musk agreed
to
resign
as
chairman and
pay
a
$20
million
fine.
He
also
agreed
to
have
a
Tesla
lawyer
review
in
advance
tweets
about
certain
topics,
including
the
company’s
financial
results,
sales
numbers
and
proposed
business
combinations.
When
Cooley
refused
to
bow
to
this
demand,
Musk
reportedly
retaliated
by
pulling
work
from
the
firm:
Cooley
has
declined
to
fire
the
attorney,
who
remains
an
associate
at
the
firm,
the
people
said.
Since
early
December,
Tesla
has
begun
taking
steps
in
several
cases
to
replace
Cooley
or
add
additional
counsel,
legal
documents
show.
Mr.
Musk’s
rocket
company
Space
Exploration
Technologies
Corp.,
also
known
as
SpaceX,
has
stopped
using
Cooley
for
regulatory
work,
according
to
people
familiar
with
the
matter.
Good
for
Cooley
for
not
allowing
Musk
to
dictate
their
hiring.
Listen,
Biglaw
firms
get
a
lot
of
(deserved)
flack
from
people
(me,
I’m
people)
for
their
problematic
cultures.
And
when
an
attorney’s
value
to
a
firm
is
measured
in
six-minute
increments,
it’s
easy
to
see
how
that
can
turn
south.
But
in
standing
up
against
a
high-profile
client,
Cooley
put
their
money
where
their
mouth
is.
In
a
hot
lateral
market,
details
like
this
about
a
firm
that
can
really
make
a
difference.
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).
Bausch
+
Lomb,
a
company
that
started
as
a
small
optical
goods
shop
in
upstate
New
York
and
grew
to
become
a
global
ophthalmic
products
business,
is
returning
to
the
public
markets.
The
company
has
filed
preliminary
paperwork
for
an
IPO,
a
deal
that
could
become
one
of
the
biggest
ever
in
the
healthcare
field.
The
IPO
filing
was
expected.
Bausch
Health
Companies
(BHC),
the
parent
company
of
Bausch
+
Lomb,
announced
in
2020
its
plans
to
spin
off
the
eye
health
business
as
an
independent
and
publicly
traded
company.
In
documents
filed
with
securities
regulators
on
Thursday,
Vaughan,
Ontario-based
Bausch
+
Lomb
said
it
has
applied
to
list
its
shares
on
both
the
New
York
Stock
Exchange
and
the
Toronto
Stock
Exchange
under
the
stock
symbol
“BLCO.”
Bausch
+
Lomb
is
one
of
two
separations
and
IPOs
BHC
is
preparing.
Last
August,
the
company
announced
plans
to
spin
off
Solta
Medical,
its
skin
care
business.
The
pharma
business
of
BHC
that
remains
will
also
be
a
standalone,
publicly
traded
company.
Speaking
during
a
fireside
chat
at
the
annual
J.P.
Morgan
HealthCare
Conference
on
Wednesday,
BHC
Chairman
and
CEO
Joe
Papa
said
the
next
step
would
be
the
filing
of
registration
statements
with
securities
regulators.
Bausch
+
Lomb
ended
up
being
filed
ahead
of
Solta.
“We
are
substantially
complete
in
our
planning
and
preparation
to
launch
the
Bausch
+
Lomb
and
the
Solta
IPOs,
obviously
those
will
be
subject
to
market
conditions
and
appropriate
approvals,”
Papa
said.
“But
we
are
positioned
to
move
forward
with
either
the
Bausch
+
Lomb
or
the
Solta
IPO
quickly
when
market
conditions
are
right
for
each
of
them.”
In
the
filing,
Bausch
+
Lomb
set
a
$100
million
placeholder
figure
for
proposed
stock
offering.
IPO
research
firm
Renaissance
Capital
estimates
that
the
company’s
return
to
the
public
markets
could
raise
about
$3
billion.
According
to
research
from
Reuters,
the
biggest
U.S.
IPO
ever,
in
terms
of
dollars
raised,
was
Alibaba
Group’s
$25
billion
stock
market
debut
in
2014.
Visa
is
next
with
$19.6
billion,
followed
by
General
Motors
with
$18.1
billion.
Bausch
+
Lomb
traces
its
origins
to
1853
when
John
Jacob
Bausch
set
up
an
optical
goods
shop
in
Rochester,
New
York.
According
to
the
company’s
corporate
history,
Bausch’s
friend,
Henry
Lomb,
loaned
him
$60
to
keep
the
business
going;
as
it
grew,
Lomb
became
a
full
partner.
From
its
eyeglasses
frames
beginnings,
the
company
went
on
to
become
a
pioneer
in
contact
lenses.
Those
products
are
part
of
what
is
now
Bausch
+
Lomb’s
vision
care
business,
one
of
three
operating
segments.
The
other
two
segments
are
pharmaceutical
and
surgical.
According
to
a
BHC
investor
presentation,
Bausch
+
Lomb
has
about
12,500
employees
in
100
countries.
For
nearly
50
years,
Bausch
+
Lomb
traded
on
the
New
York
Stock
Exchange
until
the
company
was
taken
private
in
2007
via
a
$4.5
billion
acquisition
by
Warburg
Pincus
and
Welsh,
Carson,
Anderson
&
Stowe.
In
2013,
Valeant
Pharmaceuticals
paid
$8.7
billion
to
buy
Bausch
+
Lomb
from
the
private
equity
firms,
making
it
its
eye
care
division.
Five
years
later,
Valeant
adopted
the
name
of
its
subsidiary,
changing
the
corporation’s
name
to
Bausch
Health
Companies.
Valeant
was
rebranding
after
weathering
an
accounting
scandal
and
facing
scrutiny
for
its
practice
of
acquiring
drugs
then
steeply
hiking
their
prices.
When
Valeant
acquired
Bausch
+
Lomb,
the
eye
products
company’s
annual
revenue
was
nearly
$1.3
billion.
Revenue
in
2020
topped
$3.3
billion,
according
to
the
IPO
filing.
That’s
a
9.3%
decline
compared
to
the
prior
year,
a
change
the
company
attributes
to
the
impacts
of
Covid-19.
However,
sales
are
recovering.
For
the
nine
months
ending
September
30,
2021,
revenue
was
about
$2.7
billion,
a
nearly
12%
increase
over
the
same
period
in
2020.
Bausch
+
Lomb
won’t
receive
any
proceeds
from
its
IPO.
The
money
raised
will
go
to
BHC,
according
to
the
filing.
Papa
said
in
his
JPM
presentation
that
proceeds
from
both
the
Bausch
+
Lomb
and
Solta
IPOs
would
be
used
to
pay
down
BHC’s
debt.
Though
Bausch
+
Lomb
is
separating
from
its
parent,
the
two
entities
will
continue
to
be
closely
linked.
The
number
of
shares
for
the
offering
and
pricing
details
have
not
yet
been
set,
but
Bausch
+
Lomb
said
in
the
filing
that
it
will
be
what’s
called
a
controlled
company—after
the
IPO,
the
majority
of
shares
will
be
owned
by
BHC.
Meanwhile,
the
rebranding
will
continue.
Once
the
separations
of
Bausch
+
Lomb
and
Solta
are
complete,
BHC
said
its
remaining
pharma
business
will
take
on
a
new
name.
Photo
by
Flickr
user
Ken
Teegardin
via
a
Creative
Commons
license
