If
you’ve
ever
laughed
at
a
phrase
like
“Be
honest
with
your
therapist,
but
not
so
honest
that
you
end
up
in
the
Grippy
Sock
Hotel,”
this
is
the
update
you’ve
been
waiting
for!
Juggling
the
obligation
to
be
forthright
so
you
can
get
the
assistance
you
need
without
being
punished
for
your
honesty
isn’t
just
a
danger
in
therapy,
it
can
also
hurt
your
career.
The
character
and
fitness
questions
have
spawned
much
anxiety
and
many
Reddit
threads
about
how
mental
health
and
substance
abuse
histories
could
stop
law
students
from
getting
ahead
in
their
careers,
even
if
they’ve
done
the
hard
work
of
managing
their
situations.
Thankfully,
recent
changes
to
the
Character
Report
should
ease
some
of
the
stress.
ABA
Journal
has
coverage:
The
National
Conference
of
Bar
Examiners’
updates
to
its
standard
Character
Report
Application
template
used
by
many
jurisdictions
significantly
changed
questions
related
to
mental
health
and
substance
abuse
that
previously
put
off
many
law
students
from
receiving
help. … Now,
the
applications
preamble
page
encourages
applicants
to
seek
help.
And
in
the
updated
version,
two
questions
relate
substance
use
and
mental
health,
but
they
focus
on
potential
misconduct
in
limited
time
periods
before
bar
admission,
and
that
aligns
“with
the
spirit
and
law
interpreting
the
Americans
With
Disabilities
Act,”
the
blog
post
authors
wrote.
There
is
also
a
question
related
to
drug
and
alcohol
related
traffic
violations.
“These
positive
changes
to
character
and
fitness
questions
enable
us
to
double
down
on
communicating
to
our
students
that
they
should
seek
help
while
in
law
school
without
fear
that
their
condition
or
impairment,
in
and
of
itself,
will
delay
admission
to
the
bar,”
the
blog
post
authors
wrote.
This
is
a
step
in
the
right
direction.
On
balance,
lawyers
have
struggled
with
mental
health
and
drug
abuse
for
decades.
Last
year,
73%
of
attorneys
and
staff
said
they
felt
their
work
environment
contributed
to
mental
health
issues.
Here’s
the
kicker
—
that
number
is
progress
compared
to
the
prior
year’s
79%.
As
the
culture
pushes
to
make
it
easier
for
people
to
get
the
help
that
they
need,
removing
unnecessary
roadblocks
that
complicate
the
process
like
the
old
application
questions
is
a
much
needed
change.
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boat
builder
who
is
learning
to
swim
and
is
interested
in
rhetoric,
Spinozists
and
humor.
Getting
back
in
to
cycling
wouldn’t
hurt
either.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at
[email protected]
and
by
Tweet/Bluesky
at @WritesForRent.
Tuesday
was
a
big
day
for
Kash
Patel’s
legal
portfolio…
just
not
in
the
direction
he
intended.
As
we
noted
earlier
this
week,
the
$250
million
defamation
complaint
against
The
Atlantic
filed
by
Patel
and
his
lawyer
Jesse
Binnall
was
already
straining
credulity
before
the
ink
dried.
The
19-page
document
opened
with
what
amounted
to
a
LinkedIn
post,
may
have
been
drafted
with
AI
assistance,
and
contained
the
word
“feable”
—
which
is
not,
for
the
record,
how
you
spell
“feeble”
especially
not
in
a
quarter-billion-dollar
lawsuit.
Tuesday
brought
two
new
developments
that
managed
to
make
the
whole
enterprise
look
even
worse.
While
Patel
was
busy
promoting
his
shiny
new
Atlantic
suit,
a
federal
judge
in
the
Southern
District
of
Texas
dismissed
his
other
defamation
lawsuit
—
the
one
against
former
FBI
counterintelligence
assistant
director
Frank
Figliuzzi,
who
said
on
Morning
Joe
that
Patel
had
“been
visible
at
nightclubs
far
more
than
he
has
been
on
the
seventh
floor
of
the
Hoover
building.”
U.S.
District
Judge
George
Hanks
Jr.
was
not
impressed.
The
court
found
that
Figliuzzi’s
comment
“when
taken
in
context,
cannot
have
been
perceived
by
a
person
of
ordinary
intelligence
as
stating
actual
facts
about
Patel.”
A
reasonable
person,
the
judge
continued,
“would
not
have
taken
his
statement
literally:
that
Dir.
Patel
has
actually
spent
more
hours
physically
in
a
nightclub
than
he
has
spent
physically
in
his
office
building.”
In
other
words:
it
was
a
joke.
A
sarcastic,
hyperbolic
quip.
The
kind
of
thing
that
is
not
defamation,
but
is,
in
fact,
just
someone
clowning
on
a
public
official
on
cable
television,
something
Americans
are
constitutionally
permitted
to
do.
Figliuzzi
had
requested
attorneys’
fees
under
the
Texas
anti-SLAPP
law,
but
the
court
denied
that
request,
finding
the
state’s
anti-SLAPP
statute
inapplicable
in
federal
court.
So
Patel
walks
away
empty-handed,
but
without
a
fee-shifting
penalty.
Lucky
him.
Or,
to
adopt
the
Director’s
preferred
legal
framing:
a
complete
layup,
narrowly
avoided.
Now
here’s
where
the
Atlantic
suit
comes
back
into
the
picture.
Patel’s
complaint
explicitly
cites
the
Figliuzzi
litigation
to
support
his
assertion
of
The
Atlantic‘s
actual
malice,
arguing
that
the
magazine
knew
about
the
pending
lawsuit,
knew
that
similar
nightclub-adjacent
allegations
had
been
“retracted”
by
MSNBC,
and
published
anyway.
From
the
complaint:
the
FBI
“warned
Defendants
that
these
allegations
echoed
a
similar
fabrication
previously
aired
by
MSNBC’s
Frank
Figliuzzi
on
Morning
Joe
—
anonymously
sourced
reporting
that
was
later
retracted
by
MSNBC
and
that
is
the
subject
of
pending
defamation
litigation
—
yet
Defendants
published
it
anyway.”
Got
that?
The
Figliuzzi
lawsuit
was
Exhibit
A
in
the
actual
malice
argument
against
The
Atlantic.
The
lawsuit
Patel
just
lost.
The
one
a
federal
judge
just
ruled
was
based
on
protected
rhetorical
hyperbole.
The
precedent
that
the
nightclub-adjacent
criticism
of
Patel
is
the
kind
of
thing
a
reasonable
person
doesn’t
take
literally.
You
might
want
to
take
that
exhibit
out
of
the
binder,
Jesse.
Meanwhile,
on
Tuesday
afternoon,
Patel
and
Acting
Attorney
General
Todd
Blanche
held
a
press
conference
to
announce
what
Blanche
is
framing
as
a
sweeping
fraud
indictment
against
the
Southern
Poverty
Law
Center.
But
it
took
a
notable
detour
when
NBC
News
reporter
Ryan
Reilly
had
some
questions
about
Patel’s
lawsuit
instead.
Specifically,
Reilly
asked
Patel
whether
on
April
10,
Patel
“had
a
routine
technical
problem
logging
into
a
government
system,
which
was
quickly
fixed.”
The
Atlantic
had
reported
that
this
login
issue
triggered
a
“freak-out”
in
which
Patel
believed
he’d
been
fired.
REILLY:
Can
you
explain
the
computer
log
in
issue?
Your
lawsuit
contends
you
were
not
able
to
log
into
the
system PATEL:
Let’s
have
a
survey.
How
many
of
you
people
believe
that’s
true? REILLY:
Did
you
communicate
with
anyone
you
thought
you
were
fired? PATEL:
It’s
an
absolute
lie.
It
never
happened.
You
are
lying. REILLY:
The
lawsuit
says
the
opposite!
The
lawsuit
denies
the
freak-out
characterization,
but
it
does
not
deny
the
login
problem.
It
admits
it,
right
there
on
the
page,
in
the
document
Binnall
filed
in
federal
court
that
Patel
suffered
a
“routine
technical
problem
logging
into
a
government
system.”
Patel,
it
seems,
does
not
believe
the
allegations
in
his
own
complaint.
When
Reilly,
reasonably,
one
would
think,
pointed
this
out,
Blanche
took
over.
The
Acting
Attorney
General,
sensing
an
opportunity
to
demonstrate
the
administration’s
commitment
to
collegial
discourse,
stepped
forward
and
told
the
reporter:
“Stop.
You’re
being
extraordinarily
rude.
And
I
know
maybe
that’s
part
of
your
profession,
but
please
just
stop.
If
you
ask
a
question,
he
can
answer
it…
Just
a
little
bit
of
respect,
man,
just
a
tiny
little
bit.
Try
it
some
time.”
Ryan
Reilly
was
asking
the
FBI
Director
to
explain
his
own
lawsuit.
That
is
the
rude
behavior
in
question.
As
we’ve
covered
from
the
start,
this
suit
always
looked
less
like
litigation
and
more
like
a
message
to
Trump
that
Patel
is
a
fighter.
Nothing
about
Tuesday
changed
that
read.
It
did,
however,
raise
a
new
question…
has
Kash
Patel
actually
read
his
own
complaint?
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
Bluesky @Kathryn1
Law
school
deans
have
a
weird
job
description.
Technically,
they
lead
the
law
school
in
its
academic
mission.
But,
more
realistically,
they
fundraise,
game
the
U.S.
News
rankings,
and
manage
the
law
school
bureaucracy.
Ideally,
they
keep
the
alumni
happy
at
football
games
—
or
basketball
games
depending
on
the
school
in
question.
A
unicorn
dean
also
serves
as
a
leading
intellectual
light
carrying
the
program’s
scholarly
banner,
but…
all
else
equal,
the
university
will
prefer
someone
who
knows
how
to
get
that
local
car
dealer
from
the
class
of
’72
to
slap
their
name
on
a
new
building.
When
Kentucky
Law
announced
that
Judge
Gregory
Van
Tatenhove
of
the
Eastern
District
of
Kentucky
would
assume
the
deanship,
it
seemed
like
the
school
had
finally
gotten
its
ducks
in
a
row.
After
all,
the
school
hasn’t
had
permanent
dean
since
Mary
J.
Davis
stepped
back
from
the
role
back
in
2024,
and
a
pair
of
previous
dean
searches
failed
to
find
anyone.
Stability
appeared
to
be
on
the
horizon.
But
underneath
the
surface,
the
announcement
kicked
a
hornet’s
nest.
According
to
the
Louisville
Courier
Journal,
weeks
before
that
March
6
announcement,
UK
law
faculty
told
university
officials
that
a
“substantial
majority”
of
them
found
Van
Tatenhove
“unacceptable”:
In
a
February
email
obtained
by
The
Courier
Journal,
UK
law
school
associate
deans
Joshua
Douglas
and
Beau
Steenken
told
law
faculty
they
had
sent
an
email
to
DiPaola
and
others
involved
in
the
dean
search
informing
them
that
a
“substantial
majority
of
the
faculty
expressed
that
Candidate
D
does
not
meet
the
standards
of
the
candidate
profile”
the
university
put
forward.
Candidate
D,
obviously,
was
Judge
Van
Tatenhove.
The
other
three
finalists
—
Michael
Higdon,
Mary
Graw
Leary,
and
Milena
Sterio
—
were
all
conventional
academic
picks
and
rated
as
acceptable
to
the
faculty.
The
university
disregarded
the
faculty
pick
and
announced
Option
D
anyway.
Did
we
mention
that
the
judge
served
as
a
legislative
aide
to
Mitch
McConnell
and
chief
of
staff
to
GOP
Rep.
Ron
Lewis?
Well,
he
did.
From
the
university’s
perspective,
a
politically
connected
former
judge
could
be
a
boon
to
fundraising.
From
the
faculty’s
perspective,
during
an
active
Republican-led
assault
on
academia,
a
Republican
dean
reads
a
lot
like
a
white
flag.
This
controversy
has
now
roped
in
Kentucky’s
governor,
who
publicly
inquired
about
the
University
of
Kentucky’s
decision-making
citing
the
judge’s
appointment
and
the
elevation
of
the
school’s
athletic
director
to
a
vague
“executive
in
residence”
role
earning
$950,000
a
year
through
2030.
The
selection
matters
for
the
school’s
accreditation
because
ABA
Interpretation
203-1
notes:
“Except
in
circumstances
demonstrating
good
cause,
a
dean
should
not
be
appointed
or
reappointed
to
a
new
term
over
the
stated
objection
of
a
substantial
majority
of
the
faculty.”
There’s
also
an
accreditation
standard
requiring
the
dean
to
hold
tenure
“except
in
extraordinary
circumstances,”
which
should
be
unavailable
to
the
judge,
as
he
lacks
the
necessary
scholarly
qualifications.
Provost
Robert
DiPaola,
who
ran
the
search,
decided
to
roll
past
both
of
those
standards.
Faculty
member
Ramsi
Woodcock
flagged
the
problem
to
the
UK
president
and
wrote
an
op-ed
in
the
Courier
Journal
making
these
procedural
arguments.
But,
according
to
the
email,
a
“substantial
majority”
of
the
faculty
“expressed”
that
Judge
Van
Tatenhove
“does
not
meet”
the
job
requirements advertised by
the
university
because
he
lacks
“experience
arising
from
a
senior-level
administrative
role
such
as
department
chair,
center
director,
associate
dean,
or
dean.”
The
email
also
stated
that
Van
Tatenhove
“does
not
possess
the
necessary
qualifications
(including
a
record
of
scholarship)
to
be
granted
tenure
under
the
Rosenberg
College
of
Law’s
current
rules.”
Van
Tatenhove’s
only
academic
publication
appears
to
be
a note he
penned
as
a
law
student
forty
years
ago.
The
ABA requires that
a
dean
be
a
tenured
law
professor.
At
any
school
interested
in
protecting
its
accreditation,
that
would
have
been
the
end
of
Van
Tatenhove’s
candidacy.
But
Judge
Van
Tatenhove
doesn’t
have
the
scholarly
record
because
he’s
spent
the
last
two
decades
as
a
federal
judge.
I
don’t
know
as
though
there
are
established
canons
of
construction
for
interpreting
ABA
accreditation
rules,
but
a
standard
probably
should
not
be
read
to
prevent
a
school
from
appointing
a
federal
judge.
That
said,
the
school
couldn’t
leave
well
enough
alone
and
extended
this
defense
of
Judge
Van
Tatenhove
to
an
absurdist
end.
A
Kentucky
spokesperson
argued
that
Van
Tatenhove’s
judicial
record
is,
a
kind
of
scholarship
in
itself,
because
“hundreds
of
his
judicial
opinions
have
been
effectively
peer-reviewed
by
the
Sixth
Circuit
with
an
affirmation
rate
above
80%.”
Insert
a
head-smack
emoji
here.
The
“Sixth
Circuit
as
peer
review”
claim,
makes
you
worry
that
they
maybe
they
don’t
understand
how
scholarship
works.
Also,
as
a
soon-to-be-former
Kentucky
professor
notes
of
Dean
Davis,
“the
last
permanent
dean
of
the
law
school
has
not
published
any
legal
scholarship
in
decades.”
It’s
hard
to
hang
a
hat
on
a
standard
that
the
faculty
hasn’t
worried
about
for
years.
This
afternoon,
Above
the
Law
has
learned,
the
provost
has
called
an
emergency
meeting.
Presumably,
the
goal
is
to
convince
everyone
to
stop
taking
this
fight
to
the
Courier
Journal.
Judge
Van
Tatenhove
seems
more
than
qualified
to
run
a
law
school.
But
even
if
faculty
shouldn’t
be
able
to
unilaterally
pick
their
boss,
they
should
be
able
to
nix
one.
That’s
a
balance
that
the
ABA
standard
gets
right
—
a
substantial
majority
just
needs
to
not
actively
reject
the
choice.
That’s
a
low
bar,
and
Kentucky
couldn’t
clear
it.
A
law
school
can’t
function
if
the
majority
of
the
faculty
doesn’t
have
confidence
in
the
dean.
Maybe
Judge
Van
Tatenhove
is
prepared
to
stand
up
to
the
anti-intellectual
broadside
his
fellow
Republicans
have
launched,
but
the
faculty
has
ample
reason
to
prefer
—
at
this
moment
in
history
—
a
candidate
from
within
the
legal
academy.
The
board
of
trustees
meets
April
24
to
formally
confirm
the
appointment.
As
long
as
he’s
got
a
plan
for
the
cockroaches,
he’ll
be
fine.
Lawyers
love
rankings,
and
there’s
nothing
they
love
more
than
rankings
about
prestigious
job
placement
rates
and
the
law
schools
that
helped
graduates
land
those
impressive
jobs.
Readers
are
in
luck,
because
today,
we’ve
got
yet
another
ranking
on
the
subject.
For
more
than
a
decade,
Law.com
has
published
a
list
of
the
best
law
schools
to
go
to
if
you
want
to
work
in
Biglaw
after
graduation.
Law.com
refers
to
these
institutions
of
higher
education
as
the
“go-to
law
schools,”
and
this
year,
they’re
ranked
by
the
percentage
of
2025
graduates
who
took
associate
positions
within
the
Am
Law
200,
the
nation’s
top
200
law
firms
based
on
gross
revenue.
(Compare
this
to
last
year,
when
the
rankings
were
based
on
the
percentage
of
graduates
who
landed
as
associates
at
NLJ
500
firms,
the
500
largest
firms
in
the
country.)
Before
we
get
to
the
list
of
the
go-to
law
schools,
it’s
worthwhile
to
speak
about
the
landscape
for
entry-level
employment
in
the
legal
profession.
The
ABA
recently
released
the
data
for
the
class
of
2025,
and
their
success
in
the
job
market
was
quite
strong.
That
said,
things
are
going
great
for
the
Top
10
Go-To
Law
Schools:
Columbia:
75.55%
Northwestern:
67.80%
Penn:
66.93%
UVA:
65.26%
NYU:
61.87%
Chicago:
61.11%
UC
Berkeley:
60.42%
UCLA:
55.72%
Vanderbilt:
55.62%
Georgetown:
53.77%
You
can
access
the
full
list
of
the
Top
50
Go-To
Law
Schools
by
clicking here.
Columbia
is
back
to
ruling
this
ranking,
reclaiming
its
decade-long
roost
at
No.
1
after
a
one-year
absence
(namely
because
the
school
decided
to
participate
this
year,
unlike
last
year).
USC
Gould,
on
the
other
hand,
which
landed
in
4th
place
last
year,
declined
to
participate
this
year,
opening
up
the
field
for
other
top
schools.
Berkeley
and
Georgetown
might
have
been
kicked
out
of
the
U.S.
News
T14,
but
they’re
both
here
to
play
in
the
Top
10
for
prestigious
employment
outcomes.
Congrats!
Perhaps
even
more
notable
than
these
numbers
are
the
tuition
figures
appended
to
this
year’s
ranking.
Law
school
costs
versus
employment
percentages
can
vary
greatly.
Unless
you’re
tied
to
a
specific
location,
why
pay
~$83,000
to
go
to
a
school
that
sends
about
53%
of
its
graduates
to
Biglaw
when
you
can
spend
~$59,000
less
to
go
to
a
school
that
sends
about
55%
of
its
graduates
to
Biglaw?
Either
way
you
slice
it,
this
list
is
incredibly
useful.
It’s
a
great
way
for
law
students,
both
current
and
prospective,
to
gauge
their
employment
prospects.
Use
these
rankings
wisely
—
or
ignore
them,
at
your
peril.
Staci
Zaretsky is
the
managing
editor
of
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 Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.
Every
year,
the
NALP
Foundation
drops
its
annual Update
on
Associate
Attrition,
and
every
year,
it
feels
like
law
firms
should
be
desperately
wringing
their
hands
over
all
those
associates
walking
out
the
door
—
especially
as
the
departures
hit
record
levels.
But
before
we
get
into
the
2025
numbers,
let’s
remember:
for
a
significant
portion
of
Biglaw,
associate
attrition
isn’t
a
bug.
It’s
a
feature.
Biglaw
firms
make
enormous
amounts
of
money
off
junior
and
midlevel
associates
billing
at
rates
that
have
little
to
do
with
their
actual
compensation.
Better,
from
a
pure
profit
standpoint,
to
have
a
constant
stream
of
fresh
first-
and
second-years
hungry
to
prove
themselves
than
to
accumulate
too
many
expensive
senior
associates
who
might
start
asking
uncomfortable
questions
about
the
partnership
track.
The
up-or-out
model
didn’t
become
the
industry
standard
by
accident.
The
splashy
number
this
year
is
that
a
record-breaking
83%
of
associates
who
departed
in
2025
did
so
within
five
years
of
being
hired,
up
from
2024’s
80%.
The
NALP
Foundation’s
own
Fiona
Trevelyan
calls
this
a
“talent
management
imperative”
worth
close
attention.
Which,
sure.
But
it’s
worth
asking
which
firms
are
actually
alarmed
by
that
figure
and
which
accept
it
as
business
as
usual.
The
overall
attrition
rate
landed
at
19%,
down
a
hair
from
last
year’s
20%.
The
smallest
firms
(100
or
fewer
attorneys)
still
showed
a
much
higher
rate
at
24%,
while
the
larger
cohorts
came
in
between
16%
and
18%.
The
gap
between
small
and
large
isn’t
mysterious
—
smaller
firms
can’t
readily
match
the
compensation
or
platform
of
their
bigger
competitors
—
but
it’s
also
worth
noting
that
for
a
firm
printing
money
on
associate
billing,
16–18%
annual
attrition
is
a
perfectly
calibrated
churn
rate.
Not
so
fast
it
creates
chaos,
not
so
slow
that
expensive
senior
associates
start
clogging
the
pyramid.
Here’s
the
data
point
that
actually
deserves
scrutiny:
firms
classified
47%
of
2025
associate
departures
as
“unwanted”
—
meaning
they
genuinely
didn’t
want
those
people
to
leave.
That’s
less
than
half.
A
substantial
27%
were
flagged
as
“desired”
departures.
In
plain
English:
more
than
one
in
four
associate
departures
in
2025
was
a
firm
quietly,
or
not
so
quietly,
showing
someone
the
door
or
at
minimum
being
perfectly
fine
watching
them
walk
out.
And
the
report
notes
that
firms
more
often
designated
lateral
associates,
male
associates,
and
associates
of
color
as
“desired”
departures
compared
to
their
entry-level,
female,
and
white
peers.
Make
of
that
what
you
will.
Associates
of
color
departed
at
a
25%
rate
versus
16%
for
White
associates
—
a
gap
that
has
persisted
stubbornly
across
multiple
years
of
this
report.
Associates
of
color
also
made
up
just
33%
of
2025
hires,
down
from
36%
in
2024.
So
they’re
being
hired
at
lower
rates and leaving
faster.
This
is
the
definition
of
a
leaky
pipeline,
and
no
amount
of
affinity
group
programming
is
patching
it.
On
the
hiring
side,
lateral
hires
(3,296)
outpaced
entry-level
hires
(3,039)
in
2025,
reversing
last
year’s
trend.
Firms
are
buying
experience
off
the
shelf
rather
than
growing
it,
which
makes
sense
if
your
junior
associate
factory
is
producing
people
who
leave
before
year
five
anyway.
Lateral
hires
cost
more
upfront,
especially
given
that
headhunters
and
search
firms
remain
the
top
source
for
them
at
39%,
but
firms
can
better
control
quality
and
the
practice
areas
they
grow
with
laterals.
The
boomerang
associate
trend
—
firms
rehiring
their
own
former
people
—
cooled
significantly.
In
2024,
former
associates
made
up
11%
of
all
hires.
In
2025,
just
6%.
The
share
of
firms
reporting
at
least
one
rehire
dropped
from
49%
to
44%.
Whether
that’s
fewer
former
associates
wanting
back
in,
or
fewer
firms
willing
to
take
them,
is
an
interesting
question.
For
the
first
time,
this
year’s
survey
asked
whether
a
desire
for
AI
training
or
support
influenced
associates’
decisions
to
leave
their
firms.
That’s
smart
future-proofing
on
NALP
Foundation’s
part,
because
this
is
only
going
to
become
a
bigger
factor.
Associates
who
feel
their
firms
are
dragging
their
feet
on
AI
tools
and
training
while
simultaneously
using
AI
to
justify
staffing
fewer
associates
will
not
quietly
accept
that
bargain.
The
2025
attrition
data
shows
firms
hiring
more,
losing
more,
and
doing
so
at
a
pace
their
business
model
was
more
or
less
designed
to
sustain.
The
record
early-departure
rate
is
worth
watching.
The
diversity
gap
is
inexcusable
and
persistent.
And
the
next
time
a
firm’s
managing
partner
tells
you
associate
retention
is
a
top
priority,
you
might
want
to
ask
them
what
percentage
of
their
departures
they
flagged
as
“desired.”
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
Bluesky @Kathryn1
(Photo
by
Evelyn
Hockstein/For
The
Washington
Post
via
Getty
Images)
Running
a
confidential
informant
program
inside
hate
groups
is
expensive
and
dangerous
work.
For
about
four
decades,
the
Southern
Poverty
Law
Center
has
done
it
anyway.
Its
work
contributed
to
the
dismantling
of
the
Ku
Klux
Klan
as
a
political
force.
The
SPLC’s
work
is
so
important
that
it
routinely
shared
what
it
learned
with
the
FBI.
On
Tuesday,
the
Trump
Justice
Department
indicted
them
for
it.
A
federal
grand
jury
in
the
Middle
District
of
Alabama
returned
an
11-count
indictment
charging
the
SPLC
with
six
counts
of
wire
fraud,
four
counts
of
false
statements
to
a
federally
insured
bank,
and
one
count
of
conspiracy
to
commit
concealment
money
laundering.
Acting
Attorney
General
Todd
Blanche,
taking
a
break
from
shielding
Epstein’s
sex
trafficking
network
from
public
scrutiny,
announced
the
charges
alongside
FBI
Director
Kash
Patel,
whose
flimsy
defamation
lawsuit
against
The
Atlantic
has
earned
him
the
online
nickname
of
“J.
Edgar
Boozer.”
“The
SPLC
is
manufacturing
racism
to
justify
its
existence,”
Blanche
told
the
cameras.
“Using
donor
money
to
allegedly
profit
off
Klansmen
cannot
go
unchecked.”
Of
note,
the
federal
government,
through
the
DOJ
and
FBI
specifically,
have
also
paid
confidential
informants
inside
hate
groups.
Does
the
Trump
administration
manufacture
racism
to
justify
its
existence?
OK,
well,
yeah.
But
they
don’t
do
it
by
investigating
hate
groups.
Indeed,
under
Harmeet
Dhillon’s
leadership
of
the
DOJ’s
Civil
Rights
Division,
its
unclear
whether
the
DOJ
even
keeps
passing
tabs
on
hate
groups
at
this
point.
REPORTER:
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
understand.
You’re
alleging
that
the
Southern
Poverty
Law
Center
was
paying
the
leaders
of
KKK
and
other
groups?
BLANCHE:
I’m
not
alleging
it.
The
grand
jury
returned
an
indictment
that
says
that
pic.twitter.com/RwiQLpxCYR
Ah.
Yes.
Grand
juries
famously
go
out
and
draft
their
own
legal
theories
from
scratch
as
opposed
to
ratify
charges
that
the
DOJ
drafts.
Blanche
is
so
allergic
to
responsibility
he
won’t
even
take
credit
for
a
prosecution
he’s
holding
a
grandstanding
press
conference
to
tout.
Contrary
to
Blanche’s
thesis,
the
Ku
Klux
Klan,
the
National
Socialist
Movement,
the
National
Alliance,
or
the
Aryan
Nations-affiliated
Sadistic
Souls
Motorcycle
Club
—
all
groups
named
in
the
indictment
—
all
got
into
the
white
supremacist
business
with
zero
help
from
a
civil
rights
nonprofit.
It’s
a
beloved
reactionary
fairy
tale
that
all
these
hate
groups
wouldn’t
exist
if
it
weren’t
for
lefty
agitators
like
the
SPLC
propping
them
up
to
keep
the
donations
flowing.
It’s
a
convenient
story
for
conservatives,
because
it
allows
them
to
pawn
off
responsibility
for
the
right-wing
domestic
terrorists
living
comfortably
under
the
Republican
Party
platform
(and
collecting
the
Trump
administration’s
pardons
and
conviction
purges).
When
it
comes
to
the
SPLC,
the
conservative
movement
wants
to
have
its
cake
and
eat
it
too.
The
civil
rights
group
is
supposedly
the
real
mastermind
behind
universally
reviled
hate
groups
like
the
Klan,
but
when
the
SPLC
flags
hate
groups
like
the
Alliance
Defending
Freedom,
the
organization
is
just
“attacking”
innocent
conservatives.
The
group,
we’re
intended
to
believe,
is
simultaneously
nefarious
and
clueless.
But
therein
lies
the
real
motive
behind
this
broadside
against
the
SPLC.
There
was
a
day
when
the
Republican
Party
tried
to
keep
the
most
radical
of
right-wing
bigots
at
arms
length.
Over
the
years,
and
accelerated
by
the
Trump
MAGA
approach,
the
GOP
has
embraced
support
from
more
radical
collections
of
bigots.
Groups
like
the
ADF
don’t
appreciate
the
well-known
“SPLC
designated
hate
group”
brand,
and
the
administration
wants
to
make
the
SPLC
pay
for
it.
The
wire
fraud
statute
—
a
law
with
enough
malleability
to
shame
Reed
Richards
—
is
being
invoked
to
claim
the
SPLC’s
donors
were
defrauded
because
they
gave
money
for
general
civil-rights-y
representations,
but
the
SPLC
spent
some
of
it
on
paid
informants
embedded
in
violent
extremist
groups.
The
DOJ
argues
that
the
SPLC
kept
those
payments
off
the
books,
routed
through
shell
companies,
to
keep
donors
in
the
dark,
as
opposed
to,
for
example,
KEEPING
THOSE
SOURCES
ALIVE.
Grand
Wizard:
Hey,
Cletus,
what’s
that
check
you’ve
got
there? Cletus:
Oh,
um,
this
one…
it’s
nothing. Grand
Wizard:
Why
does
it
say
“Southern
Poverty
Law
Center?”
Understanding
why
this
would
be
a
poor
strategy
is
beyond
Kash
Patel’s
crackerjack
sleuthing
skills.
If
you
donated
money
to
the
Southern
Poverty
Law
Center
and
did
not
think
that
it
supported
gathering
inside
intelligence
on
hate
groups,
then
you
are
a
special
kind
of
naive.
The
SPLC’s
dossiers
on
these
groups
establish
that
they’ve
got
more
information
on
these
secretive
groups
than
a
Wikipedia
search
turns
up.
This
“undisclosed
to
donors”
framing
only
works
if
you
assume
a
reasonable
person
donating
to
an
organization
known
for
infiltrating
hate
groups
expects
a
line-item
disclosure
of
how
much
it
spends
every
year
on
confidential
informants
in
each
specific
organization.
Patel
was
pointedly
asked
at
the
presser
about
the
SPLC
sharing
information
with
law
enforcement.
He
shrugged
that
he
was
“not
surprised”
the
SPLC
“never
told
anybody
that
they
were
paying
off
the
Ku
Klux
Klan.”
This
is
not
an
answer
the
actual
question
posed,
and
that
was
almost
certainly
by
design.
Of
course,
as
SPLC’s
interim
CEO
Bryan
Fair
pointed
out,
the
organization
“frequently
shared
what
we
learned
from
informants
with
local
and
federal
law
enforcement,
including
the
FBI.”
In
bringing
this
prosecution,
the
DOJ
is
burning
a
long-standing,
successful
vector
of
actionable
intelligence
into
hate
groups
in
order
to
kneecap
a
civil
rights
organization.
It
fits
perfectly
within
Patel’s
publicly
stated
priority
to
pursue
social
media
buzz
over
terrorists.
In
a
draft
report
from
a
task
force
on
“anti-Christian
bias”
that
CBS
News
has
seen,
Patel
accused
the
SPLC
and
the
Anti-Defamation
League
of
providing
the
bureau
with
“false
information.”
He
said
analysts
used
that
information
to
generate
an
internal
intelligence
memo
that
raised
concerns
about
a
possible
link
between
racially
or
ethnically
motivated
violent
extremists
and
radical
Catholic
ideology.
And
yet,
the
indictment
sure
seems
to
be
based
on
information
from
the
SPLC
that
the
DOJ
considers
very
reliable!
The
document
includes
details
about
the
activities
of
several
anonymized
informants
—
presumably
informants
that
the
government
is
leaning
on
to
flip
against
the
SPLC
—
and
it
strains
credulity
to
imagine
the
DOJ
uncovered
these
people
from
anything
but
information
the
SPLC
previously
conveyed
to
the
FBI.
F-9
was
affiliated
with
the
neo-Nazi
organization,
the
National
Alliance
and
served
as
an
F
for
the
SPLC
for
more
than
20
years.
F-9’s
activities
included
fundraising
for
the
National
Alliance.
Between
2014
and
2023,
the
SPLC
secretly
paid
F-9
more
than
$1,000,000.00.
In
2014,
F-9
entered
the
headquarters
of
a
violent
extremist
group
and
stole
25
boxes
of
their
documents.
F-9
coordinated
payment
for
the
copying
of
the
materials
with
a
high-level
SPLC
employee
who
had
knowledge
the
documents
had
been
stolen.
The
original
stolen
materials
were
returned
to
the
violent
extremist
group
in
a
second
illegal
entry
by
F-9.
Thereafter,
the
high-level
SPLC
employee
utilized the
documents,
in
part,
as
the
basis
for
a
story
published
on
the
SPLC’s
Hatewatch
website
and
authored
by
the
employee.
Another
F,
F-39,
was
blamed
for
the
theft
and
was
paid
approximately
$6,000.00
by
the
SPLC
to
falsely
take
responsibility
for
the
theft.
That
sure
reads
like,
“the
SPLC
gave
the
FBI
these
documents
and
told
us
they’d
secured
them
from
an
informant,
and
that’s
how
we
know
they
have
an
informant
within
the
National
Alliance.”
Even
with
all
the
latitude
the
government
has
under
these
statutes,
the
legal
theory
outlined
in
the
indictment
is
tenuous.
But
this
is
beside
the
point,
because
even
if
this
case
eventually
collapses,
the
DOJ
already
got
what
it
came
for.
The
indictment
explicitly
puts
a
number
of
hate
groups
on
notice
that
they
have
moles
inside
their
organizations,
allowing
them
to
begin
reverse-engineering
the
identities
of
their
leaks.
The
DOJ
materially
improved
the
ability
of
these
hate
groups
to
operate
and
put
any
existing
informants
in
grave
danger.
Any
groups
not
included
in
the
indictment
will
also
take
a
hard
look
at
their
ranks
to
see
if
they’ve
got
informants
that
the
DOJ
missed.
Moreover,
the
indictment
serves
as
a
deterrent.
Anyone
currently
considering
turning
on
their
violent
extremist
group
or
contemplating
joining
a
group
to
help
expose
it
will
now
lack
both
a
financial
incentive
and
face
as
a
serious
disincentive
the
likelihood
that
the
Justice
Department
will
expose
them.
This
chilling
effect
is
a
feature
and
not
a
bug.
The
indictment
severely
curtails
the
SPLC’s
hate-mapping
work,
removing
an
irritant
for
groups
that
the
MAGA
movement
hopes
will
be
prepared
to
run
back
January
6.
But
there
is
one
encouraging
aspect
of
the
indictment:
F-37
was
a
member
of
the
online
leadership
chat
group
that
planned
the
2017
“Unite
the
Right”
event
in
Charlottesville,
Virginia
and
attended
the
event
at
the
direction
of
the
SPLC.
F-37
made
racist
postings
under
the
supervision
of
the
SPLC
and
helped
coordinate
transportation
to
the
event
for
several
attendees.
Between
2015
and
2023,
the
SPLC
secretly
paid
F-37
more
than
$270,000.00.
Oh.
The
administration
considers
the
Unite
the
Right
rally
organizers
a
hate
group
now?
A
little
bit
of
growth
from
“very
fine
people
on
both
sides,”
I
guess!
Spring
has
sprung,
and
you
know
what
that
means:
we’re
now
seeking
submissions
for
our
annual law
revue
video
contest.
As
far
as
last
year’s
submissions
are
concerned,
some
of
them
were
funny,
some
of
them
were
“meh,”
and
some
of
them
made
us
want
to
close
our
heads
inside
of
our
laptops.
Trust
us
when
we
say
you
do
NOT
want
to
be
in
the
last
category.
If
you
think
you
can
carry
a
tune
or
tell
a
joke,
we
ask
that
you
send
us
your
very
best
law
revue
videos
so
that
we
—
and
the
Above
the
Law
audience
—
may
pass
judgment
upon
them.
Prepare
for
the
worst,
but
hope
for
the
very
best.
Those
responsible
for
the
winning
video
will
get
Above
the
Law
prizes
and
the
pleasure
of
knowing
they’re
the
envy
of
their
law
school
peers.
As
always,
there
will
be
complete
and
total
exoneration
for
the
losers.
There’s
always
next
year.
Before
you
start
sending
us
your
videos,
we’ve
got
some
rules.
As
future
members
of
the
legal
profession,
we
hope
you’ll
be
able
to
follow
them.
Your
video
must
be publicly
available
online somewhere.
Send
us
the
link
at [email protected] with
the
subject
line “Law
Revue
Video
Contest
Submission
–
[School
Name].” We’ll
accept
submissions
of
any
videos
posted
after
April
25,
2025
(the
deadline
for
our
last
contest).
To
avoid
complaints
from
competitors
(see,
e.g., West
Virginia’s
2013
winning
entry),
your
primary
performers
must
come
from
within
the
law
school
community
(but
cameos
from
outsiders
are
okay).
How
do
we
define
a
“primary
performer”?
Don’t
test
us,
gunners.
We’ll
know
a
violation
when
we
see
it.
Send
us
your
submission
by FRIDAY,
MAY
1,
at
5:00
P.M. (Eastern
time).
That’s
not
a
soft,
law
school
deadline;
it’s
a
hard,
law
firm
deadline.
(NO
EXCEPTIONS,
so
don’t
even
try
pleading
with
us;
if
you’re
reading
this
post
after
the
deadline,
you
don’t
read
ATL
frequently
enough.)
Your
editors
here
at
ATL
will
make
a
list
of
our
favorites,
the
competition
finalists,
and
post
them.
We
will NOT watch
videos
longer
than 5
minutes.
Use
editing
tools,
people.
Please
submit no
more
than
two
entries
per
school (one
per
school
is
even
better).
Try
to
collaborate
with
your
fellow
students
and
submit
no
more
than
two
entries.
If
the
leadership
of
Law
Revue
can
come
up
with
“official”
submissions,
that
would
be
ideal.
ATL
readers
will
then
vote
to
choose
the
funniest
of
the
finalists.
The
winning
team
will
receive
ATL
prizes
(limit
five
prizes).
Here
are
some
unofficial
rules:
Please
send
funny
videos
only.
You
have
no
idea
how
short
our
attention
spans
are.
If
you
use
the
full
five
minutes,
it
better
be
absolutely
freakin’ HILARIOUS.
Gratuitous
shout-outs
to
Above
the
Law
are
appreciated
and
encouraged.
Video
quality
matters.
A
shaky
clip
shot
on
a
handheld
from
a
third-floor
balcony
is
probably
not
going
to
make
the
cut.
Don’t
make
us
hate
you.
Send
those
videos
in.
Best
of
luck
—
we
have
a
feeling
the
competition
will
be
even
fiercer
than
usual,
so
you’re
going
to
need
it!!!
We
look
forward
to
judging
you.
Staci
Zaretsky is
the
managing
editor
of
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 Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.
Jonathan
Turley
says
the
darnedest
things.
He
fully
embraced
the
“hot
take”
economy,
mortgaging
his
credibility
as
a
law
professor
to
parrot
whatever
half-baked
talking
points
might
earn
him
a
5-minute
hit
as
a
cable
news
talking
head
for
the
night.
Election
law
attorney
Marc
Elias
dubbed
Turley
“Mike
Lindell
with
tenure,”
which
is
funny,
but
always
seemed
a
tad
unfair.
Turley’s
takes
oscillate
between
ragebait
cynicism
and
comical
dullardry.
Even
his
most
conspiratorial
takes
—
like
swallowing
hook,
line,
and
sinker
the
wingnut
theories
about
Hunter
Biden’s
laptop
—
carried
a
faux
intellectual
energy,
that
separated
him
from
the
frothing
conspiracy
theory
vibe
that
the
MyPillow
guy
brings
to
everything.
But
that
tenuous
grip
on
reality
seems
to
be
slipping,
as
the
professor
delivers
his
contrarian
love
letter
to
the
recently
deposed
Viktor
Orban.
Sure,
Orban
had
ties
to
Putin
and
a
reputation
for
“authoritarianism
and
corruption,”
Turley
concedes,
but
the
Hungarian
prime
minister
formed
the
last
firewall
against
“global
governance,”
a
term
Turley
invokes
with
all
the
tin
foil,
black
helicopter
baggage
you’d
expect
from
Alex
Jones,
not
a
GW
Law
professor.
Maybe
he
really
is
as
cooked
as
Lindell.
The
defeat
of
Viktor
Orban
in
Hungary
last
weekend
was
celebrated
by
many
who
saw
the
former
president
as
establishing
single-party
rule
in
his
central
European
nation.
The
irony
is
that
this
claimed
victory
for
democracy
may
fuel
the
establishment
of
a
global
governance
system
that
is
neither
democratic
nor
accountable
to
citizens.
Orban
was
the
prime
minister,
not
the
president.
Turley
is
no
stranger
to
publishing
articles
with
basic
factual
errors.
He
once
penned
a
New
York
Post
article
accusing
Joe
Biden
of
abusing
his
office
as
Vice
President…
in
2018.
But
kudos
to
Turley
for
properly
setting
the
audience’s
expectations
for
the
intellectual
rigor
to
follow.
However,
the
unintended
consequence
of
this
election
could
be
the removal
of
a
single
autocrat
in
favor
of
a
global
bureaucracy.
Now
by
“global,”
Turley
means
the
European
Union.
If
you’re
a
student
of
the
English
language,
you’ve
probably
clocked
that
Europe
is
not
“the
globe,”
and
a
regional
intergovernmental
body
regulating
member
nations
in
Europe
is
very
specifically
not
a
global
bureaucracy.
In
“Rage
and
the
Republic,”
I
discuss
the
dangers
posed
to
the
American
republic
this
century
by
the
rise
of
global
governance
systems
like
the
EU.
The
book
explores
how
globalists
planned
to
gradually
get
nations
to
yield
their
authority
to
the
EU
—
destroying
national
identity
and
sovereignty
in
favor
of
an
EU
bureaucracy
in
Brussels.
He’s
citing
his
book
about
America’s
founding
without
a
hint
of
irony.
The
path
the
United
States
took
to
becoming
a
world
superpower
was
charted
by
“destroying
state
identity
and
sovereignty
in
favor
of
a
federal
bureaucracy
in
Washington.”
The
EU
isn’t
a
globalist
government,
it’s
an
attempt
to
turn
the
historically
fractured
continent
into
a
modern
economic
power
by
borrowing
the
same
federalist
principles
that
made
America
successful.
As
the
EU
moves
to
kill
off
national
sovereignty,
EU
commissioners
are
calling
for
a
single
European
military
command,
completing
a
longstanding
globalist
goal.
Like
the
Holy
Roman
Empire,
this
is
neither
longstanding,
nor
globalist,
nor
a
goal.
To
the
extent
Europe
is
flirting
with
military
coordination,
it’s
a
recent
development
brought
on
by
the
Dementia-Patient-in-Chief
that
Turley
has
spent
the
last
decade
fluffling.
That’s
the
guy
who
publicly
threatens
to
cut
off
Europe’s
military
support,
abandon
the
continent
to
Russian
imperialism,
and
—
and,
this
is
a
real
sentence
one
has
to
type
in
the
year
2026
—
invade
Greenland.
Europe
never
needed
a
single
military
command
because
NATO
worked.
Cause,
meet
effect.
The
250th
anniversary
of
our
republic
is
occurring
as
we
face
an
unprecedented
EU
threat.
Our
revolution
was
fought
against
a
foreign
empire.
It
now
faces
an
even
greater
threat
from
a
global
government
asserting
the
right
to
compel
American
companies
to
censor
Americans
and
comply
with
environmental,
social
and
governance
or
ESG
policies.
ESG
policies
pose
“an
even
greater
threat”
to
America
than
the
British
Empire.
This
is
not
a
serious
person.
Newsflash
about
this
terrifying
“global”
threat:
American
companies
don’t
have
to
do
business
in
Europe!
If
Meta
and
X
or
any
of
the
other
persecuted
trillion-dollar
companies
don’t
want
to
comply
with
European
rules
while
operating
inside
Europe,
they
are
free
to
not
operate
inside
Europe.
That
is
how
sovereignty
—
the
thing
Turley
claims
he’s
worried
about
—
actually
works.
You
can’t
simultaneously
argue
that
sovereign
nations
shouldn’t
have
to
follow
EU
rules
and
that
sovereign
European
nations
shouldn’t
be
allowed
to
make
rules
for
the
companies
doing
business
within
their
borders.
Pick
a
lane,
bro.
The
EU
has
worked
very
hard
to
dismantle
national
sovereignty
and
identity
in
its
member
states.
Historically,
such
collapses
have
been
followed
by
different
forms
of
tyranny.
Well,
we’re
at
250
years
and
running.
Turley’s
thirsty
quest
for
attention
has
long
centered
on
the
Fox
News,
NY
Post,
and
The
Hill
axis
of
conservative
politics,
where
he
postures
as
a
“Democrat”
who
happens
to
validate
Republican
talking
points
by
wholly
agreeing
with
them.
It’s
a
right-wing
audience,
but
not
really
a
QAnon
audience.
But
this
“global
governance”
kick
—
he
uses
some
version
of
“global”
10
times
in
this
piece
—
is
chemtrails
and
one-world
government
stuff.
So
the
question
is:
has
Turley
gone
full
loon
or
has
the
Fox
audience
become
so
indistinguishable
from
Infowars
(pre-Onion)
that
Turley
has
just
accepted
that
this
is
now
price
he
has
to
pay
to
keep
in
that
spotlight?
At
the
annual
Medicarians
conference
in
Las
Vegas
on
Monday,
an
analyst
on
Medicare
Advantage
policy
research
sounded
the
alarm
about
how
there’s
a
fundamental
shift
in
attitude
towards
MA
at
the
federal
level.
It’s
a
combination
of
several
factors:
deep
concerns
over
overpayment
and
fraud,
resulting
in
legislative
and
political
scrutiny
on
insurers;
3
million
seniors
losing
their
MA
coverage
in
2026
because
health
insurers
pulled
out
of
their
counties;
and
large
and
small
public
insurance
companies
faring
badly
at
the
stock
market.
Especially
at
the
Centers
for
Medicare
and
Medicaid
Services,
overpayments
have
become
a
sticking
point.
“CMS
has
begun
shifting
to,
I
think
a
more
adversarial
posture
when
it
comes
to
how
they
view
Medicare
Advantage,”
said
Tom
Kornfield,
founder
and
CEO
of
MAST
Health
Policy
Solutions.
“And
that’s
before
we
even
get
into
what
happens
under
an
election
season,
which
is
when
the
rhetoric
gets
turned
up
to
11,
to
quote
Spinal
Tap.”
The
Medicarians
conference
brings
together
healthcare
and
life
insurance
brokers,
agents,
owners
of
brokerages
as
well
as
independent
marketing
organizations
and
field
marketing
organizations
that
serve
as
a
liaison
between
an
insurance
carrier
and
an
agent.
The
attendees
are
united
by
the
single
goal
of
understanding
the
needs
of
seniors
and
fulfilling
those
needs
by
selling
insurance
products
—
whether
health
or
financial
—
to
them.
The
conference
also
draws
agents
and
companies
involved
in
the
Affordable
Care
Act
marketplace.
Kornfield
said
that
CMS’s
scrutiny
is
also
falling
on
Chronic
Care
Special
Needs
Plans.
“The
concern
about
them
from
CMS
is
that
they
are
bypassing
some
of
the
requirements
for
the
Dual
Eligible
Special
Needs
Plan,”
he
declared.
“So
I
think
we
could
see
some
activity
on
that
front.”
He
added
that,
depending
on
the
outcome
of
the
midterms
—
especially
if
Democrats
win
—
he
expects
to
see
a
lot
of
activity
in
terms
of
regulation
and
legislative
changes
affecting
MA.
While
more
seniors
are
enrolled
in
MA
plans
today
compared
with
traditional
Medicare,
enrollment
in
MA
plans
is
slowing
across
the
board,
except
in
Special
Needs
Plans
or
SNPs.
In
2021,
MA
enrollment
was
at
11%;
in
2026
it
was
3%.
Whether
CMS
and
other
federal
agencies
are
zeroing
in
on
fraud
or
controlling
overpayment,
a
lot
of
the
negative
headlines
about
MA
stem
from
the
fact
that
year
after
year,
costs
keep
going
up.
The
latest
MedPAC
report
shows
that
MA
payments
were
$76
billion
above
what
spending
would
have
been
if
those
same
seniors
were
enrolled
in
traditional
Medicare
instead.
And
that
is
especially
hard
to
stomach
given
that
when
Medicare
Advantage
was
conceived
legislatively,
it
was
not
only
to
provide
more
choice
to
seniors
but
also
to
hold
down
healthcare
costs
that
are
funded
by
taxpayer
dollars.
But
the
scrutiny
is
not
only
about
the
cost
of
MA.
“So
there
are
the
MedPAC
numbers
that
I
mentioned,
and
there’s
also
been
increased
scrutiny
by
the
administration
of
what
they
think
is
waste
going
on
within
the
Medicare
Advantage
plans
or
fraud
even
with
risk
adjustment,
data
validation
audits,
which
is
where
they
go
in,
review
medical
records,
see
if
that
diagnosis
is
supported
by
the
medical
record,”
Kornfield
pointed
out.
Other
than
ballooning
costs,
the
national
souring
on
MA
also
has
to
do
with
activity
of
health
insurance
marketing
organizations,
even
though
Kornfield
was
careful
not
to
castigate
his
audience
members,
the
overwhelming
majority
of
whom
were
agents
and
brokers.
“During
Covid,
unfortunately,
not
trying
to
assign
blame,
but
because
of
the
probably
call
center-related
[issues],
there
were
plenty
of
complaints
about
marketing
and
that
got
the
attention
of
people
on
the
Hill
and
that’s
a
real
problem.,”
he
said.
“And
that
may
not
be
as
big
of
a
problem
now,
but
I
think
there’s
still
a
hangover
from
that.”
All
in
all,
the
MA
market
is
in
the
middle
of
a
fundamental
shift.
“Medicare
Advantage
is
really
at
an
inflection
point,”
Kornfield
declared.
“So
this
isn’t
really
a
rough
patch.
It’s
not
a
cycle.
It’s
really
a
reset.”
Will
this
dynamic
shift
depend
on
the
outcome
of
midterms?
Will
it
be
better
for
brokers,
insurers
and
the
MA
industry
if
Democrats
sweep
the
midterms
or
Republicans
are
able
to
hold
the
line?
“I
would
think
that
the
Democratic
Congress
would
be
much
more
active
in
bringing
the
health
plans
up
there,”
Kornfield
said.
“There
is
concern
about
the
size
of
these
large-scale
companies,
these
insurers,
UnitedHealthcare.
There’s
been
a
lot
of
negative
publicity
about
the
health
insurers.”
But
the
host
of
the
compliance
track
where
Kornfield
was
speaking
saw
it
differently.
He
saw
equal
concern
from
both
sides
of
the
aisle.
“They
want
to
see
the
cost
to
the
taxpayer
of
Medicare
Advantage
as
a
program
go
down,
and
this
is
Democrats
and
Republicans,
guys
don’t
get
confused,”
Steve
Kaplan,
chief
legal,
compliance,
and
privacy
officer,
at
HealthPlanOne,
told
the
audience.
“And
so
they’re
like,
‘How
can
agents
and
brokers
help?’”
*
DOJ
announces
that
it
has
secured
an
indictment
of
the
Southern
Poverty
Law
Center,
alleging
the
organization
supported
hate
groups
by
using
funds
to
pay
people
to
infiltrate
those
hate
groups
—
which,
ironically,
is
something
the
DOJ
historically
does.
[AP
News]
*
Fifth
Circuit
rules
that
states
can
force
public
schools
to
hang
the
Ten
Commandments.
When
asked
about
the
ample
historical
record
that
Americans
at
the
time
the
First
Amendment
was
ratified
would
have
rejected
this
result,
the
originalists
on
the
court
declared
that
“original”
is
not
a
matter
of
“fact”
but
a
judge’s
individual
legal
assessment.
[Reuters]
*
Do
the
leaked
Supreme
Court
memos
really
show
Roberts
at
his
worst?
Because
Shelby
County
exists.
[Slate]
*
Have
advances
in
AI
threatened
the
legacy
legal
research
companies?
[Legaltech
News]
*
Another
law
school
ranking
is
right
around
the
corner.
[Law.com]
*
Roblox
settles
with
the
West
Virginia
AG’s
office
for
$11.5
million.
The
state
wants
more
child
safety
protections
in
the
video
game.
Last
year
West
Virginia
loosened
its
child
labor
laws.
Yearning
for
the
real
mines
is
good,
building
them
on
the
computer
is
bad.
[Law360]
*
Judge
who
handcuffed
child
in
Texas
has
charges
dropped
provided
she
never
attempts
to
judge
again.
[ABA
Journal]
