Category Added in a WPeMatico Campaign
Has
the
thought
of
starting
a
law
firm
ever
crossed
your
mind?
There
are
plenty
of
reasons
for
starting
your
own
law
firm,
whether
you
want
to
focus
more
on
one
practice
area
or
you’re
ready
to
be
your
own
boss.
If
you’re
curious
about
going
out
on
your
own,
this
checklist
from
our
friends
at
8am
will
help
you
get
started.
Sign
up
here
to
get
started!
We’re
collecting
information
for
our
annual
law
firm
compensation
report
and
need
your
help.
If
you
are
a
lawyer
at
a
firm
with
fewer
than
250
attorneys
and
haven’t
yet
taken
our
compensation
survey,
please
click
here
to
do
so
now.
The
survey
is
open
to
solo
practitioners
as
well
as
attorneys
at
midsize
and
small
law
firms.
The
survey
is
completely
anonymous
and
won’t
take
more
than
a
few
minutes
of
your
time.
This
month,
two
of
the
hottest
AI
companies
in
San
Francisco
announced
a
major
push
into
healthcare
—
moves
that
experts
say
were
not
only
inevitable,
but
also
timely
and
high-stakes.
These
AI
rivals
—
Anthropic
and
OpenAI,
the
makers
of
the
widely
used
large
language
models
Claude
and
ChatGPT,
respectively
—
unveiled
new
suites
of
tools
for
healthcare
organizations
and
everyday
consumers.
These
moves
reflect
a
shift
in
how
patients
are
accessing
medical
guidance
—
one
that
experts
agree
is
simultaneously
expanding
access
to
information
while
raising
new
questions
about
trust
and
control.
Anthropic
and
OpenAI’s
healthcare
buildouts
are
forcing
startups
across
the
health
tech
market
to
reassess
where
they
truly
have
defensible
advantages,
one
investor
pointed
out.
Kamal
Singh,
senior
vice
president
at
WestBridge
Capital,
thinks
consumer
wellness
and
nutrition
startups
are
the
most
vulnerable,
saying
that
these
types
of
broad,
chat-based
platforms
are
likely
to
be
commoditized.
Startups
offering
nutrition
or
wellness
advice
without
deep
specialization
now
face
weakened
value
propositions
—
given
that
Claude
and
ChatGPT
have
massive
distribution
and
habitual
usage,
he
pointed
out.
Some
examples
include
apps
like
Noom,
Fay
and
Zoe.
Others
will
probably
remain
insulated
—
or
even
strengthened
—
depending
on
how
robust
their
models
are,
Singh
said.
In
his
view,
companies
focused
on
specialized
clinical
areas,
such
as
chronic
disease
management,
will
be
far
more
resilient
to
large
tech
incumbents
entering
the
space.
These
types
of
companies
rely
on
deep
patient
data,
longitudinal
insights
and
disease-specific
expertise
—
capabilities
that
we
still
don’t
know
if
general
purpose
tech
companies
will
be
able
to
replicate
at
scale,
Singh
remarked.
He
also
pointed
to
care
coordination
and
care
management
as
areas
where
startups
can
maintain
an
edge,
particularly
when
they
combine
AI
with
human
clinicians.
Rather
than
competing
directly
with
large
language
models,
Singh
believes
startups
should
differentiate
by
prioritizing
outcomes
and
delivering
end-to-end
care
experiences.
Another
emerging
battleground
is
AI-driven
primary
care.
Singh
said
this
category
sits
between
consumer
wellness
and
specialized
medicine
—
sophisticated
enough
to
resist
full
commoditization,
but
still
vulnerable
to
pressure
from
popular
AI
platforms.
“On
the
startup
side,
you
don’t
really
have
any
winners
yet
—
there
are
a
couple
of
companies
like
Counsel
Health,
who
are
kind
of
inching
towards
that
goal,
but
these
announcements
make
it
a
very
interesting
dynamic
there,”
he
declared.
Counsel
Health
is
a
virtual
care
company
that
combines
AI
with
human
physicians
to
give
users
quick,
personalized
medical
advice.
To
survive,
Singh
said
startups
in
this
space
will
need
creative
business
models,
including
hybrid
approaches
that
integrate
real
clinicians
with
AI-powered
guidance.
It
was
inevitable
that
OpenAI
and
Anthropic
would
deepen
their
presence
in
healthcare.
Trends
in
user
activity
made
this
unavoidable
—
hundreds
of
millions
of
people
per
week
were
turning
to
their
chatbots
to
answer
their
health-related
inquiries.
“Almost
5%
of
their
traffic
is
healthcare-related.
There
are
about
40
million
unique
healthcare
questions
asked
by
users
in
a
day.
Given
that,
it
really
does
seem
that
they’re
in
the
healthcare
business,
and
so
if
they’re
seeing
that
much
traffic
to
their
sites
related
to
healthcare,
they
had
to
increase
their
capabilities
in
that
space,”
explained
healthcare
AI
expert
Saurabh
Gombar.
So
what
did
the
Anthropic
and
OpenAI
actually
roll
out?
OpenA
launched
two
new
offerings.
One
is
ChatGPT
Health,
a
dedicated
health
experience
within
ChatGPT
that
combines
a
user’s
personal
health
information
with
the
company’s
AI,
with
the
promise
of
helping
people
better
manage
their
health
and
wellness.
The
other
is
OpenAI
for
Healthcare,
a
suite
of
AI
tools
designed
to
help
healthcare
providers
reduce
administrative
burnout
and
improve
care
planning.
OpenAI
also
announced
its
acquisition
of
medical
records
startup
Torch
this
month
—
a
deal
that
is
reportedly
worth
$100
million.
Anthropic
followed
with
a
healthcare
splash
of
its
own,
unveiling
a
new
suite
of
Claude
tools.
The
company
is
releasing
new
agent
capabilities
for
tasks
like
prior
authorization,
healthcare
billing
and
clinical
trial
workflows,
as
well
as
letting
its
paid
users
connect
and
query
their
personal
medical
records
to
get
summaries,
explanations
and
guidance
for
doctor
visits.
Gombar,
the
AI
expert
mentioned
above,
believes
that
large
language
models
are
becoming
the
new
“front
door”
to
healthcare.
“The
LLMS
are
now
becoming
the
front
door
for
medical
advice
and
treatment
options,
and
the
actual
provider
is
becoming
the
second
opinion.
Because
chatbots
are
easier
to
interact
with,
and
they’re
free,
and
you
don’t
have
to
schedule
around
them,”
Gombar
stated.
Gombar
is
a
clinical
instructor
at
Stanford
Health
Care
and
chief
medical
officer
and
co-founder
of
Atropos
Health,
a
healthcare
AI
startup
that
generates
real-world
evidence
at
the
bedside.
In
his
eyes,
tech
companies
developing
public-facing
chatbots
are
already
in
the
healthcare
business,
whether
they
formally
acknowledge
it
or
not.
This
could
fundamentally
alter
the
physician-patient
relationship.
Gombar
noted
that
clinicians
are
already
beginning
to
see
more
and
more
patients
who
arrive
already
convinced
they
need
specific
tests
or
treatments
based
on
chatbot
advice.
He
thinks
traditional
providers
have
limited
control
over
this
shift,
given
consumer
behavior
is
clearly
changing
at
a
rapid
pace.
Not
only
has
the
use
of
chatbots
like
ChatGPT
and
Claude
skyrocketed
in
the
past
couple
of
years,
but
Americans
are
also
finding
it
more
difficult
to
access
healthcare
amid
sweeping
Medicaid
cuts
and
a
worsening
labor
shortage.
The
rise
of
large
language
models
in
healthcare
is
already
well
underway,
but
that
doesn’t
mean
there
aren’t
risks
involved.
Asking
for
medical
guidance
from
an
intelligent
software
program
is
very
different
than
asking
for
a
recipe
—
wrong
answers
can
cause
real
harm.
Traditional
healthcare
providers
have
accountability
mechanisms
—
such
as
medical
malpractice
rules,
audit
trails
and
liability
protocols
—
while
chatbots
rely
heavily
on
disclaimers
that
say
their
outputs
should
not
be
considered
medical
advice,
Gombar
pointed
out.
However,
in
practice,
many
users
treat
chatbot
responses
as
actual
medical
advice,
often
without
cross-checking
with
other
sources
or
their
providers,
he
added.
Gombar
hopes
companies
like
Anthropic
and
OpenAI
move
beyond
disclaimers
and
take
greater
responsibility
for
how
their
tools
handle
medical
information.
In
the
future,
he
would
like
to
see
them
be
more
transparent
about
the
limitations
of
their
systems
—
including
how
often
they
hallucinate,
when
answers
are
not
grounded
in
strong
evidence
and
when
medical
evidence
itself
is
uncertain
or
incomplete.
He
also
suggested
that
large
language
models
be
designed
to
more
clearly
communicate
uncertainty
and
gaps
in
knowledge,
rather
than
presenting
speculative
answers
with
unwarranted
confidence,
he
said.
Aside
from
accuracy,
there
are
also
concerns
related
to
data
privacy,
as
consumers’
growing
distrust
of
Big
Tech
companies
and
their
data
privacy
practices
remains
an
ongoing
issue.
Anthropic
said
that
its
new
health
products
are
designed
with
strict
safeguards
around
user
consent
and
data
protection.
“Users
give
express
consent
to
integrate
their
data
with
full
information
about
how
Anthropic
protects
that
data
in
our
consumer
health
data
privacy
policy.
Anthropic
does
not
train
on
user
health
data.
Period.
We
also
protect
sensitive
health
data
from
inadvertent
sharing
to
other
integrated
model
context
protocols
by
requiring
user
consent
to
each
integration
in
conversations
where
integrated
health
data
is
being
discussed.
Users
can
disconnect
the
integration
any
time
in
settings,”
an
Anthropic
spokesperson
explained
in
an
emailed
statement.
Even
before
it
rolled
out
ChatGPT
Health,
OpenAI
had
been
building
user
data
protections
across
ChatGPT,
including
permanent
deletion
of
chats
from
OpenAI’s
systems
within
30
days
and
training
its
models
not
to
retain
personal
information
from
user
chats,
a
company
spokesperson
said
in
a
statement.
For
its
new
consumer
health
offering,
OpenAI
has
added
more
encryption
protections,
as
well
as
isolated
the
chats
to
keep
health
conversations
and
memory
protected
and
compartmentalized.
Conversations
in
ChatGPT
Health
are
not
used
to
train
its
foundation
models,
the
spokesperson
said.
As
for
OpenAI’s
new
platform
for
healthcare
providers,
customers
will
have
full
control
over
their
data.
When
clinicians
enter
patient
information,
for
example,
it
will
stay
within
the
organization’s
secure
workspace
and
will
not
be
used
for
model
training.
By
releasing
tools
for
consumers
as
well
as
for
healthcare
providers,
OpenAI
is
signaling
that
it
understands
consumers
have
different
needs
and
goals
than
hospitals.
Patients
want
general
guidance
and
convenience,
while
providers
need
accurate,
actionable
information
that
can
be
safely
integrated
into
the
clinical
record,
noted
Kevin
Erdal,
senior
vice
president
of
transformation
and
innovation
services
at
Nordic,
a
health
and
technology
consultancy.
When
deploying
new
large
language
models,
he
recommended
hospitals
watch
out
for
shadow
workflows.
“Clinicians
may
start
informally
relying
on
patient-generated
summaries
or
AI-assisted
interpretations
without
clear
standards
for
validation
or
documentation.
If
no
one
validates
where
patient-reported
information
came
from,
or
oversees
how
that
information
is
reviewed,
incorporated
or
rejected,
risk
quietly
accumulates,”
Erdal
said.
When
it
comes
to
Anthropic
and
OpenAI’s
consumer-facing
healthcare
tools,
the
biggest
risk
isn’t
misinformation
so
much
as
missing
context,
he
remarked.
“Context,
intent
and
reasoning
can
live
in
a
chat
while
the
clinical
record
captures
only
the
outcome,
weakening
care
continuity
and
the
trust
between
patient
and
provider,”
Erdal
stated.
This
gap
in
context
underscores
why
consumer-facing
chatbots
are
ill-suited
for
clinician
use.
For
hospitals
and
other
providers,
Erdal
thinks
the
right
response
to
the
rise
of
consumer-facing
healthcare
AI
is
integration.
“It
will
look
like
health
systems
accepting
that
these
tools
already
exist,
and
designing
responsible
ways
to
absorb
their
output
without
fragmenting
care.
The
bar
is
continuity,
and
the
patient/provider
relationship
is
what’s
at
stake,”
he
declared.
If
consumer-facing
AI
models
help
patients
walk
into
healthcare
interactions
more
informed
and
better
prepared,
but
then
their
providers
are
unprepared
to
integrate
that
into
the
healthcare
conversation
in
a
thoughtful
or
deliberate
way,
access
to
healthcare
information
improves
while
trust
drops
off,
Erdal
explained.
At
a
deeper
level,
OpenAI
and
Anthropic’s
healthcare
push
reflects
a
broader
shift
in
the
healthcare
industry.
The
question
is
no
longer
whether
AI
will
become
part
of
the
patient
journey
—
it’s
clear
that
the
shift
is
already
underway.
The
real
question
is
who
will
control
it,
who
will
be
accountable
for
it,
and
how
much
influence
it
will
have
over
decisions
that
were
once
firmly
in
the
hands
of
clinicians.
Experts
agree
that
the
companies
that
adapt
—
by
integrating
AI
thoughtfully,
strengthening
trust
and
clarifying
responsibility
—
may
help
build
a
more
accessible
healthcare
system.
Those
that
don’t
may
find
themselves
left
behind.
Photo:
Pakorn
Supajitsoontorn,
Getty
Images
*
Kirkland
drama
reveals
that
when
the
bell
rings,
private
equity
clients
trump
litigation
clients.
[Financial
Times]
*
Lawyer
representing
the
agent
who
killed
Renee
Good
drops
out
of
GOP
race
for
governor,
says
ICE
has
gone
too
far.
[WSJ]
*
ABA
convenes
with
a
hefty
agenda.
[ABA
Journal]
*
A
look
at
how
Minnesota
firms
are
dealing
with
the
disruption
brought
on
by
ICE’s
operation.
[American
Lawyer]
*
As
Minnesota
situation
worsens,
congresswoman
attacked
at
town
hall
meeting,
sprayed
with
unknown
substance.
[CSPAN]
*
State
lawmakers
look
for
avenues
to
bring
local
charges
against
federal
agents
who
commit
crimes.
[Reuters]
*
New
York
considers
legalizing
dancing.
[Lowering
the
Bar]
An
Attempted
Take-Off
Turns
Tragic:
We
send
our
condolences
to
their
family
and
friends.
Trump
Administration
Leaves
Transportation
Regulation
Up
To
AI:
No
way
this
will
pan
out
well.
Bush-Appointed
Judge
Benchslaps
ICE:
He
got
so
fed
up
that
ICE
followed
the
court
order!
Torts
Professor
Doesn’t
Let
History
Of
Being
Wrong
Stop
Him:
Nor
will
he
let
history
get
in
the
way
of
his
trash
birthright
citizenship
take.
Judge
Tells
Government
To
“Be
Serious”
About
West
Wing
Demolition
Justification:
And
it
was
seriously
funny!
Mind
Your
Parents:
Everyone
benefits
when
parental
leave
actually
supports
working
parents!
Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature
Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!
In
what
movie
does
James
Stewart
play
defense
attorney
Paul
Biegler?
Hint:
The
book
the
screenplay
was
based
on
was
written
by
Robert
Traver
—
the
pen
name
of
Michigan
Supreme
Court
Justice
John
D.
Voelker.
See the
answer
on
the
next
page.
Federal
judges
are
not
known
for
flying
off
the
handle.
Which
is
why,
when
a
federal
judge
announces
that
his
patience
is
at
an
end,
everyone
should
probably
sit
up
straight.
Enter
Judge
Patrick
Schiltz,
Chief
of
the
District
of
Minnesota,
a
George
W.
Bush
appointee
who
has
apparently
reached
the
“I
am
absolutely
done
with
this”
stage
of
dealing
with
the
Trump
administration’s
approach
to
immigration
enforcement.
In
a
sharply
worded
order,
Schiltz
took
the
“extraordinary
step”
of
ordering
the
Todd
Lyons,
acting
director
of
Immigration
and
Customs
Enforcement,
to
personally
appear
in
court
to
explain
why
he
should
not
be
held
in
contempt.
See,
it
turns
out
judges
don’t
love
litigants
ignoring
court
orders.
The
order
stems
from
ICE’s
arrest
of
a
man
earlier
this
month
and
placed
in
immigration
detention.
On
January
14,
Judge
Schiltz
ordered
the
government
to
provide
the
detainee
with
a
bond
hearing
within
seven
days.
He
was
very
clear
about
the
stakes.
If
the
government
failed
to
comply,
the
man
was
to
be
immediately
released.
But
the
government
went
and
pulled
a
Bartleby
the
Scrivener
and
preferring
not
to
do…
anything
about
the
court’s
order.
Schiltz
did
not
mince
words
about
what
this
represents.
He
noted
that
the
administration
has
developed
an
“unfortunate
habit”
of
ignoring
court
orders
literally
dozens
of
times
in
immigration
cases
during
the
course
of
ICE’s
occupation
of
Minnesota.
Time
and
again
courts
have
issued
directives
and
the
government
has
just
shrugged.
All
of
which
is
why
Schiltz
wrote,
“The
Court’s
patience
is
at
an
end.”
Hauling
the
head
of
a
federal
agency
into
court
is
not
something
judges
do
lightly.
But,
as
Schiltz
put
it,
“the
extent
of
ICE’s
violation
of
court
orders
is
likewise
extraordinary,
and
lesser
measures
have
been
tried
and
failed.”
What
makes
this
moment
especially
striking
is
who
Schiltz
is
not.
He
is
not
a
Democratic
appointee
itching
for
a
fight.
He
is
not
a
new
judge
trying
to
make
a
name.
He
is
a
two-time
Antonin
Scalia
clerk
and
a
George
W.
Bush-era
conservative
jurist
who
appears
to
have
had
just
about
enough
of
an
executive
branch
that
treats
court
orders
as
optional
suggestions.
Schiltz
did
offer
the
administration
an
off-ramp.
Lyons
can
avoid
this
entire
mess
if
the
government
simply
complies
with
the
original
order
and
releases
the
detainee.
TL;
DR
version:
respect
the
authority
of
the
court
and
this
all
goes
away.
And
ICE
blinked.
According
to
reports,
the
government
has
released
the
detained
man.
Wonder
if
this
newfound
conciliatory
tack
will
extend
to
the
“dozens”
of
other
orders
the
government
is
flouting.
Read
the
full
order
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
@[email protected].
Richard
Epstein
is
back
and
as
opinionated
as
ever.
Or
maybe,
more
accurately,
“as
willing
to
share
his
opinion
as
ever
regardless
of
expertise.”
The
NYU
Law
professor
who
famously
predicted
that
only
500
Americans
would
die
of
COVID-19
and
then
adjusted
his
estimate
to
5000
when
that
didn’t
pan
out
and
then
just
shrugged
and
stopped
talking
about
it
when
his
amateurish
dabbling
in
public
health
theory
ended
up
being
off
by
hundreds
of
thousands
more.
The
intellectual
gadfly
just
flitted
on
to
another
subject
rather
than
grapple
with
being
profoundly
and
embarrassingly
wrong.
Tragically,
the
White
House
reportedly
took
Epstein’s
baseless
ramblings
at
face
value,
delaying
a
proper
response
to
COVID
on
the
pseudoscientific
ramblings
of
a
neophyte.
A
few
years
later,
Epstein
enthusiastically
applauded
the
death
of
Chevron,
allowing
judges
to
use
their
law
school
degrees
to
second-guess
scientists
and
engineers.
Truly
inspiring
to
see
how
much
someone
can
achieve
without
a
sense
of
irony.
Or
shame
as
the
case
may
be.
In
any
event,
he’s
back
with
a
Supreme
Court
amicus
brief
backing
up
one
of
Donald
Trump’s
pet
constitutional
law
theories:
that
the
guarantee
of
birthright
citizenship
enshrined
in
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
doesn’t
really
say
that.
To
be
clear,
Epstein’s
not
an
expert
in
this
field,
but
he
views
his
own
law
degree
as
a
sort
of
academic
“stayed
at
a
Holiday
Inn
Express
last
night”
allowing
him
to
weigh
in
and
enjoy
presumptive
credibility
without
any
of
the
heavy
lifting
involved
in
going
out
and
engaging
with
experts.
The
birthright
citizenship
fight
bears
a
lot
of
similarities
to
Trump’s
effort
to
seize
Greenland.
Both
are
topics
that
absolutely
no
one
was
talking
about
until
Trump
took
them
up,
but
now
generate
a
whole
industry
of
sycophantic
support.
For
roughly
a
century-and-a-half,
everyone
agreed
that
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
clearly
meant
what
it
said
about
birthright
citizenship.
Indeed,
Richard
Epstein
never
thought
anything
about
the
subject
either
—
having
never
written
anything
even
hinting
at
it
throughout
his
career.
But
since
Trump
embraced
the
subject,
Epstein’s
written
a
whole
book
on
it!
Because
when
you’ve
been
catastrophically
wrong
about
epidemiology,
why
not
try
your
hand
at
constitutional
history?
The
brief
itself
argues
that
“subject
to
the
jurisdiction
thereof”
in
the
Citizenship
Clause
should
be
read
to
exclude
children
of
immigrants
because
naturalization
laws
historically
required
people
to
renounce
foreign
allegiances.
Because
the
children
of
naturalized
citizens
got
to
be
citizens,
he
takes
the
leap
that
children
must
not
be
citizens
unless
their
parents
are
fully
naturalized.
Georgia
State
law
professor
Anthony
Michael
Kreis,
an
actual
constitutional
history
scholar,
explains
how
English
common
law
—
beyond
reading
the
Cliff’s
Notes
of
Blackstone’s
Commentaries
—
does
not
support
this
conclusion:
Children
born
in
the
king’s
realm
were
generally
subjects,
no
matter
the
parents’
identity.
Had
Epstein
dug
back
into
the
common
law
*before*
Blackstone,
there
are
some
good
examples
of
this
being
explained.
Instead,
he
treats
parents’
status
as
somehow
inherited
by
the
children.
He
suggests
that
Blackstone’s
articulation
tends
to
accord
with
the
brief’s
argument
that
“children
of
illegal
aliens”
are
“subject
to
a
foreign
power.”
That’s
entirely
unsupported
rubbish.
Kreis,
along
with
professors
Evan
Bernick
and
Paul
Gowder,
anticipated
and
eviscerated
precisely
this
style
of
argument
in
a
Cornell
Law
Review
piece.
Their
assessment
of
academics
who
suddenly
discovered
anti-birthright
citizenship
arguments
is
appropriately
brutal:
Under
the
guise
of
“originalism,”
[these
scholars]
propose
an
ahistorical,
revisionist
interpretation
of
the
Fourteenth
Amendment’s
Citizenship
Clause…
Their
efforts
to
radically
redefine
the
historical
understanding
of
citizenship
are
methodologically
flawed
and
undermine
core
principles
of
constitutional
law.
More
directly:
the
arguments
are
“wildly
inconsistent
with
constitutional
text,
history,
precedent,
and
unbroken
tradition.”
Epstein’s
brief
argues
that
Wong
Kim
Ark
—
the
1898
Supreme
Court
case
that
explicitly
held
the
Citizenship
Clause
grants
birthright
citizenship
—
was
“wrongly
decided,”
citing
Chief
Justice
Roberts’s
lament
that
gay
people
can
get
married
now
for
good
measure.
Until
a
few
years
ago,
even
the
most
die-hard
conservative
legal
movement
voices
would
acknowledge
it
as
both
settled
and
obvious.
Before
Trump’s
rise,
the
political
debate
over
birthright
citizenship
revolved
around
repealing
parts
of
the
Fourteenth
Amendment…
now
it’s
about
pretending
the
Amendment
doesn’t
really
exist
at
all.
The
Kreis,
Bernick,
Gowder
article
addresses
why
this
whole
“allegiance”
theory
peddled
by
Epstein
wouldn’t
even
accomplish
the
fundamental
purpose
of
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
here
—
namely,
nullifying
Dred
Scott:
Nullifying
Dred
Scott
thus
required
a
theory
of
citizenship
that
did
not
depend
upon
any
initial
consent
on
the
part
of
enslaved
people
to
obey
U.S.
law…
Enslaved
people
were
kidnapped
and
forced
into
the
United
States;
their
consent
was
neither
sought
nor
given.
In
other
words,
the
consent-based
citizenship
theory
Epstein
champions
would
struggle
to
explain
how
the
very
people
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
was
designed
to
protect
became
citizens
at
all.
This
kind
of
fly-by-night
constitutional
theorizing
springs
from
a
troubling
historical
precedent:
the
Dunning
School
of
Reconstruction
historiography.
And
while
all
conservative,
originalist
“history”
draws
from
the
Dunning-Kruger
School,
this
Dunning
is
unrelated.
The
Dunning
School
addressed
here
involves
the
work
of
an
early
20th
century
historian
named
William
Archibald
Dunning,
who
churned
out
a
series
of
racist
interpretations
of
post-Civil
War
history
that
got
picked
up
at
the
convenience
of
bad
faith
actors
hoping
to
wish
away
Reconstruction.
At
least
that
Dunning
was
trying
to
be
a
historian,
and
not
a
tourist
crashing
the
discipline
hoping
to
rewrite
history
with
a
law
degree.
Whenever
called
upon
to
speak
about
artificial
intelligence,
I
cite
Christine
Lemmer-Webber’s
description
of
LLMs
as
“mansplaining
as
a
service.”
It’s
going
to
give
the
user
answers,
and
if
they’re
wrong…
they’re
going
to
be
very
confidently
wrong.
Maybe
we
can
expand
that
phrase
to
cover
Epstein’s
public
work.
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.
Federal
judges
are
not
known
for
flying
off
the
handle.
Which
is
why,
when
a
federal
judge
announces
that
his
patience
is
at
an
end,
everyone
should
probably
sit
up
straight.
Enter
Judge
Patrick
Schiltz,
Chief
of
the
District
of
Minnesota,
a
George
W.
Bush
appointee
who
has
apparently
reached
the
“I
am
absolutely
done
with
this”
stage
of
dealing
with
the
Trump
administration’s
approach
to
immigration
enforcement.
In
a
sharply
worded
order,
Schiltz
took
the
“extraordinary
step”
of
ordering
the
Todd
Lyons,
acting
director
of
Immigration
and
Customs
Enforcement,
to
personally
appear
in
court
to
explain
why
he
should
not
be
held
in
contempt.
See,
it
turns
out
judges
don’t
love
litigants
ignoring
court
orders.
The
order
stems
from
ICE’s
arrest
of
a
man
earlier
this
month
and
placed
in
immigration
detention.
On
January
14,
Judge
Schiltz
ordered
the
government
to
provide
the
detainee
with
a
bond
hearing
within
seven
days.
He
was
very
clear
about
the
stakes.
If
the
government
failed
to
comply,
the
man
was
to
be
immediately
released.
But
the
government
went
and
pulled
a
Bartleby
the
Scrivener
and
preferring
not
to
do…
anything
about
the
court’s
order.
Schiltz
did
not
mince
words
about
what
this
represents.
He
noted
that
the
administration
has
developed
an
“unfortunate
habit”
of
ignoring
court
orders
literally
dozens
of
times
in
immigration
cases
during
the
course
of
ICE’s
occupation
of
Minnesota.
Time
and
again
courts
have
issued
directives
and
the
government
has
just
shrugged.
All
of
which
is
why
Schiltz
wrote,
“The
Court’s
patience
is
at
an
end.”
Hauling
the
head
of
a
federal
agency
into
court
is
not
something
judges
do
lightly.
But,
as
Schiltz
put
it,
“the
extent
of
ICE’s
violation
of
court
orders
is
likewise
extraordinary,
and
lesser
measures
have
been
tried
and
failed.”
What
makes
this
moment
especially
striking
is
who
Schiltz
is
not.
He
is
not
a
Democratic
appointee
itching
for
a
fight.
He
is
not
a
new
judge
trying
to
make
a
name.
He
is
a
two-time
Antonin
Scalia
clerk
and
a
George
W.
Bush-era
conservative
jurist
who
appears
to
have
had
just
about
enough
of
an
executive
branch
that
treats
court
orders
as
optional
suggestions.
Schiltz
did
offer
the
administration
an
off-ramp.
Lyons
can
avoid
this
entire
mess
if
the
government
simply
complies
with
the
original
order
and
releases
the
detainee.
TL;
DR
version:
respect
the
authority
of
the
court
and
this
all
goes
away.
And
ICE
blinked.
According
to
reports,
the
government
has
released
the
detained
man.
Wonder
if
this
newfound
conciliatory
tack
will
extend
to
the
“dozens”
of
other
orders
the
government
is
flouting.
Read
the
full
order
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
@[email protected].
The
other
day,
my
son
started
his
second
semester
of
college.
If
I
am
being
honest,
I
was
not
sure
he
was
going
to
make
it
through
the
first
one.
There
was
some
unsettling
phone
calls
about
missed
classes,
a
blown
midterm,
questionable
sleep
habits,
and
a
moment
where
he
miscalculated
something
as
basic
as
a
bibliography.
It
was
not
trending
well.
Then
something
shifted.
He
regrouped,
owned
the
mistakes,
adjusted
how
he
prepared,
and
quietly
pulled
his
grades
up
to
mostly
As
and
Bs.
He
saved
the
semester.
No
drama.
No
excuses.
Just
effort,
accountability,
and
better
habits.
Around
our
house,
we
call
him
the
comeback
kid.
That
story
matters
because
many
lawyers
feel
the
same
way
about
the
past
year.
Maybe
2025
did
not
go
the
way
you
planned.
Maybe
you
did
solid
work
but
did
not
originate
what
you
wanted.
Maybe
business
development
slipped
while
client
work
took
over.
The
key
point
is
this,
none
of
that
disqualifies
you
from
having
a
breakout
year
ahead.
There
is
a
fresh
calendar
sitting
in
front
of
you,
and
2026
can
absolutely
be
your
comeback
year.
Here
are
three
solid
ways
to
make
this
a
reality
not
just
another
year
of
hoping.
Mindset
Is
Not
Motivation,
It
Is
Behavior
When
lawyers
hear
“mindset,”
they
often
think
it
means
attitude
or
confidence.
Those
matter,
but
they
are
not
where
real
change
starts.
What
I
have
seen
after
working
with
thousands
of
attorneys
is
that
mindset
follows
behavior,
not
the
other
way
around.
When
you
start
doing
positive
business
development
actions
consistently,
your
mindset
improves.
When
you
send
a
few
thoughtful
emails,
post
something
useful
on
LinkedIn,
or
schedule
a
lunch
with
a
strategic
partner,
your
attitude
toward
business
development
changes.
Momentum
builds.
Confidence
follows
action.
Consistency
is
what
separates
a
temporary
push
from
a
permanent
shift.
Anyone
can
have
a
good
week.
Rainmakers
build
habits
they
can
repeat,
even
when
they
are
busy.
Recommit,
Put
It
on
the
Calendar,
Write
It
Down
Recommitting
to
business
development
does
not
require
a
massive
overhaul.
It
requires
structure.
Start
with
your
calendar.
Schedule
time
with
yourself
and
treat
it
like
a
meeting
you
would
never
cancel
with
a
client.
Consider
a
time
in
the
day,
before
client
emergencies
and
wildfires
can
hijack
your
day
away.
Thirty
minutes
a
week
is
enough
to
start.
An
hour
is
even
better.
Use
that
time
to
do
the
things
you
already
know
matter,
follow
ups,
relationship
building,
visibility,
and
staying
top
of
mind.
When
lawyers
cancel
meetings
with
themselves,
it
quietly
chips
away
at
confidence.
You
may
not
notice
it
immediately,
but
over
time
it
erodes
belief
and
trust
in
your
own
commitments.
The
calendar
is
not
just
a
scheduling
tool;
it
is
a
confidence
tool.
Next,
write
a
simple
plan.
One
or
two
pages
is
plenty.
If
you
are
winging
it,
results
will
always
be
inconsistent.
A
written
plan
gives
direction
and
focus,
even
if
it
evolves.
Think
of
a
road
trip
with
or
without
a
GPS
in
place.
One
gets
you
there,
the
other
causes
panic
to
set
in.
I
cover
this
in
detail
in
my
first
two
books,
“Sales
Free
Selling”
and
“The
Attorney’s
Networking
Handbook.”
The
goal
is
not
perfection.
The
goal
is
clarity
and
consistent
execution.
Between
a
calendar
and
a
written
plan,
you
are
already
ahead
of
most
lawyers.
Go
After
What
Is
Already
Working
The
final
recommitment
is
the
easiest
one
to
overlook.
Go
after
the
low
hanging
fruit.
Your
best
opportunities
are
usually
right
in
front
of
you.
Existing
clients
who
love
your
work.
Strategic
partners
who
already
trust
you.
Friends
and
professional
contacts
who
know
your
value.
Invest
time
with
ten
to
twenty
of
the
right
people.
Ask
good
questions.
Be
genuinely
curious
about
what
they
are
working
on
and
who
they
are
connected
to.
Help
others
first
before
making
requests.
This
is
not
about
being
salesy.
It
is
about
being
intentional.
You
do
not
need
to
ask
for
business
directly.
Often
it
is
enough
to
say
that
you
are
focused
on
growing
this
year,
that
you
value
working
with
people
like
them,
and
that
you
are
open
to
conversations
if
they
know
others
who
might
benefit
from
what
you
do.
How
you
say
it
matters
far
more
than
what
you
say.
Rainmaking
is
relational,
not
transactional.
The
Comeback
Is
a
Choice
My
son
did
not
turn
things
around
because
he
waited
for
motivation.
And
it
certainly
wasn’t
because
Dad
said
so…
He
changed
how
he
showed
up.
Lawyers
can
do
the
same
thing.
Get
your
lawyer
brain
pointed
in
the
right
direction
by
not
overthinking
things.
Just
follow
my
direction
and
take
immediate
action.
Recommit
to
business
development
in
2026
and
make
this
your
year!
Focus
on
the
relationships
and
opportunities
that
are
already
within
reach.
You
do
not
need
to
reinvent
yourself
in
2026.
You
just
need
to
recommit.
If
you
want
additional
resources,
you
can
find
plenty
at
bethatlawyer.com
or
reach
me
directly
at
[email protected].
More
than
anything,
I
hope
you
decide
to
make
2026
the
year
you
go
from
comeback
kid
to
rainmaker.
Steve
Fretzin
is
a
bestselling
author,
host
of
the
“Be
That
Lawyer”
podcast,
and
business
development
coach
exclusively
for
attorneys.
Steve
has
committed
his
career
to
helping
lawyers
learn
key
growth
skills
not
currently
taught
in
law
school.
His
clients
soon
become
top
rainmakers
and
credit
Steve’s
program
and
coaching
for
their
success.
He
can
be
reached
directly
by
email
at [email protected].
Or
you
can
easily
find
him
on
his
website
at www.fretzin.com or
LinkedIn
at https://www.linkedin.com/in/stevefretzin.