Category: News Feeds

There
is
a
quiet
but
growing
problem
in
our
profession:
too
many
young
lawyers
want
to
be
trial
lawyers,
yet
too
few
ever
get
near
a
trial.

           
That’s
not
a
knock
on
them.
It’s
a
structural
reality.
Cases
settle.
Clients
are
risk-averse.
Firms
are
cost-conscious.
And
the
traditional
training
ground,
years
of
incremental
courtroom
exposure,
has
eroded.
Yet
we
still
hold
up
“trial
lawyer”
as
a
gold
standard.
We
still
market
courtroom
experience.
We
still
expect
lawyers
to
step
up
when
a
case
doesn’t
settle.

           
That
disconnect
matters
a
lot.

           
Trial
experience
isn’t
just
about
standing
in
front
of
a
jury.
It
teaches
judgment,
decisiveness,
accountability,
and
perspective.
It
forces
you
to
live
with
outcomes
instead
of
endlessly
revising
drafts.
It
sharpens
instincts
in
ways
no
memo
ever
will,
even
lawyers
who
never
try
a
case
benefit
from
the
discipline
that
trial
experience
imposes.

           
So,
if
you’re
a
young
lawyer
who
wants
trial
experience,
and
most
litigators
should,
you
have
to
be
intentional.
You
have
to
pursue
it.
It
will
not
be
handed
to
you.

           
Here’s
how
it
actually
happens.

First,
Understand
Why
Trial
Experience
Is
Different

           
Trial
work
compresses
time,
stakes,
and
responsibility.
There
is
no
“I’ll
fix
it
later.”
There
is
no
hiding
behind
email
chains
or
redlines.
Decisions
are
made
in
real
time,
often
with
incomplete
information,
in
front
of
judges
and
juries
who
don’t
care
how
many
hours
you
billed
preparing.

           
That
environment
changes
you.
It
teaches
you
how
to
prioritize.
It
teaches
you
how
to
simplify.
It
teaches
you
how
to
read
people,
not
just
cases.
And
it
teaches
you
that
perfection
is
a
myth,
as
clarity
and
credibility
matter
far
more.

           
You
can’t
learn
that
secondhand.
You
have
to
feel
it.

Start
Small,
and
Say
Yes
More
Than
No

           
Young
lawyers
often
think
trial
experience
starts
with
opening
statements.
It
doesn’t.
It
begins
with
covering
hearings,
arguing
motions,
handling
evidentiary
issues,
and
examining
minor
witnesses.

           
If
someone
asks
you
to
cover
a
hearing
on
short
notice,
say
yes.
If
a
partner
asks
whether
you’re
comfortable
handling
a
non-critical
witness,
say
yes.
If
an
opportunity
looks
small
or
inconvenient,
say
yes
anyway.

           
Those
early
reps
matter.
Judges
remember
who
shows
up
prepared.
Partners
remember
who
doesn’t
panic.
And
trust
compounds
quickly
once
you’ve
demonstrated
competence
under
pressure.

           
No
one
hands
meaningful
trial
responsibility
to
lawyers
who
have
never
stood
up
in
court.
Standing
up
early
and
often
is
how
you
earn
the
next
opportunity.

Find
the
Equivalent
of
Open
Mic
Night

           
Every
craft
has
low-stakes
environments
where
you
learn
by
doing.
Musicians
have
open
mic
nights.
Comedians
have
small
clubs.
Trial
lawyers
have
equivalents,
too;
you
have
to
find
them.

           
Traffic
court.
Small
claims
court.
Administrative
hearings.
Pro
bono
matters.
Volunteer
opportunities
through
legal
aid
or
bar
associations.
These
are
places
where
you
can
develop
courtroom
instincts
without
the
pressure
of
a
seven-figure
verdict.

           
You
might
bomb.
You
probably
will
at
least
once.
That’s
the
point.

           
Better
to
stumble
in
a
small
room
with
low
consequences
than
freeze
later
when
the
stakes
are
real.
Skill
is
built
through
repetition,
not
observation.

Be
the
Associate
Who
Wants
the
Courtroom

           
Many
young
lawyers
quietly
hope
someone
will
notice
their
interest
in
trial
work.
That’s
not
how
it
works.

           
You
have
to
say
it
out
loud,
respectfully,
and
consistently.

           
Tell
partners
you
want
to
try
cases.
Tell
them
you
want
to
handle
witnesses.
Tell
them
you’re
willing
to
do
the
work
to
prepare.
Then
back
it
up
by
being
excellent
at
everything
else
you’re
assigned.

           
No
one
gives
trial
work
to
lawyers
who
miss
deadlines,
blow
details,
or
treat
preparation
casually.
Trial
lawyers
trust
people
who
make
their
lives
easier,
not
harder.

           
Credibility
earns
opportunity.

Preparation
Is
How
You
Buy
Confidence

           
Here’s
a
hard
truth:
nervousness
doesn’t
come
from
inexperience
alone.
It
comes
from
being
unprepared.

           
When
young
lawyers
get
trial
opportunities,
they
sometimes
underprepare
because
they
assume
the
assignment
is
minor.
That’s
a
mistake.
Treat
every
courtroom
appearance
as
if
it
matters,
because
it
does.

           
Know
the
file
cold.
Anticipate
questions.
Rehearse
out
loud.
Think
about
how
your
argument
sounds,
not
just
how
it
reads.
Judges
and
juries
don’t
experience
cases
on
paper;
they
experience
them
through
people.

           
Preparation
doesn’t
eliminate
fear,
but
it
gives
fear
less
room
to
operate.

Learn
From
Trial
Lawyers,
Not
Just
Litigators

           
Not
all
litigators
are
trial
lawyers.
That
distinction
matters.

           
Trial
lawyers
think
differently.
They
simplify
earlier.
They
care
about
themes
and
storytelling.
They
obsess
over
how
things
look
and
sound
to
non-lawyers.
Spend
time
with
those
lawyers.
Watch
how
they
prepare.
Listen
to
how
they
talk
about
cases.

           
Ask
questions.
Most
trial
lawyers
are
generous
with
younger
lawyers
who
show
genuine
interest
and
humility.
They
remember
how
hard
it
was
to
get
reps.

           
And
if
your
environment
doesn’t
offer
access
to
trial
lawyers?
Find
mentors
outside
your
firm.
Bar
associations,
Inns
of
Court,
and
trial
lawyer
organizations
exist
for
a
reason.
Use
them.

Accept
That
Trial
Experience
May
Require
Tradeoffs

           
If
trial
experience
is
significant
to
you,
you
may
have
to
make
choices
that
aren’t
purely
economic
or
prestigious.

           
That
could
mean
taking
a
job
at
a
smaller
firm
where
you
get
courtroom
time
earlier.
It
could
mean
doing
pro
bono
work
on
nights
or
weekends.
It
could
mean
staying
later
to
prepare
for
a
hearing
no
one
else
wants
to
handle.

           
There
is
no
free
version
of
this
path.
Experience
costs
time,
effort,
and
occasionally
money.
But
it
pays
dividends
over
an
entire
career.

Don’t
Romanticize
Trial
Work
—
But
Respect
It

           
Trials
are
stressful.
They
are
exhausting.
They
are
unpredictable.
Anyone
who
tells
you
otherwise
hasn’t
tried
many
cases.

           
But
they
are
also
clarifying.
They
strip
away
noise
and
force
you
to
focus
on
what
actually
matters.
That
clarity
makes
you
better
at
everything
else
you
do
as
a
lawyer:
advice,
strategy,
negotiation,
and
judgment.

           
Even
if
you
never
become
a
career
trial
lawyer,
trial
experience
will
shape
how
you
think
and
practice.
It
gives
you
credibility
with
clients
and
colleagues
alike.
And
it
grounds
you
in
reality.

Final
Thought

           
If
you’re
a
young
lawyer
waiting
for
permission
to
get
trial
experience,
stop
waiting.

           
Seek
it
out.
Ask
for
it.
Prepare
for
it.
Earn
it.

           
The
profession
still
needs
lawyers
who
can
stand
up,
speak
clearly,
think
on
their
feet,
and
own
outcomes.
Those
skills
don’t
develop
by
accident.
They
develop
because
someone
decided
they
mattered
and
acted
accordingly.

           
If
you
want
to
be
that
lawyer,
start
now.

---

Frank
Ramos
is
a
partner
at
Goldberg
Segalla
in
Miami,
where
he
practices
commercial
litigation,
products,
and
catastrophic
personal
injury. You
can
follow
him
on LinkedIn,
where
he
has
about
80,000
followers.

This
AGM
was
held
at
an
exceptionally
critical
moment
for
Zimbabwe,
farmers,
workers,
women,
youth,
business,
the
pro-democracy
movement,
and
the
nation
as
a
whole.
The
meeting
acknowledged,
with
candour,
that
the
gains
of
18
April
1980-
freedom,
democracy
and
prosperity-
are
under
attack.
Zimbabwe
remains
mired
in
deepening
socio-economic
decline,
democratic
regression,
and
political
repression.

The
enactment
and
enforcement
of
various
pieces
of
legislation,
including
the
Private
Voluntary
Organisations
(PVO)
Act,
have
significantly
curtailed
civic
space,
criminalised
legitimate
civil
society
work,
and
undermined
constitutionally
guaranteed
freedoms
of
association,
expression,
and
participation.
Statutory
Instrument
156
of
2023
unconstitutionally
removed
Parliamentary
oversight
on
the
Mutapa
Investment
Fund,
the
people’s
$16
billion
conglomerate.
This
is
the
greatest
state
robbery
since
independence.
Citizens
are
the
greatest
losers,
as
defined
by
the
state
of
public
transportation,
education,
health
and
the
welfare
sectors.

Despite
these
escalating
challenges,
the
Coalition
has
remained
steadfast
in
its
mission
to
promote
inclusive
national
development,
uphold
human
rights,
and
defend
the
Constitution—now
under
direct
and
sustained
attack
as
the
ruling
elite
aggressively
pursues
a
2030
agenda
aimed
at
entrenching
life
presidency
and
permanent
authoritarian
rule.

Historical
Role
and
Democratic
Legacy

The
AGM
reflected
on
the
Coalition’s
journey
since
its
formation
in
2001,
recognising
its
pivotal
role
in
Zimbabwe’s
democratic
struggles.
The
Coalition
was
instrumental
in
major
civic
interventions,
including
the
Save
Zimbabwe
Campaign,
which
contributed
significantly
to
the
political
pressure
that
led
to
the
Government
of
National
Unity
(GNU).

CiZC
has
consistently
championed
constitutional
reform,
actively
mobilised
citizens,
and
engaged
regional
bodies—including
SADC
platforms—to
internationalise
Zimbabwe’s
democratic
crisis.

However,
members
also
acknowledged
the
systematic
repression,
intimidation,
and
obstruction
that
has
defined
the
Coalition’s
operating
environment
over
the
years.

Political
and
Economic
Repression

Since
2001,
the
Coalition—alongside
other
democracy
and
governance-focused
civil
society
organisations—has
operated
under
shrinking
democratic
space,
the
weaponisation
of
repressive
laws,
and
the
consolidation
of
authoritarian
rule.

These
conditions,
exacerbated
by
severe
funding
constraints,
have
had
a
chilling
effect
on
civil
society
operations.

Members
have
endured
state
surveillance,
arbitrary
arrests,
meeting
bans,
disruptions,
and
harassment,
all
designed
to
silence
dissent
and
prevent
accountability.

This
repression
has
gravely
undermined
advocacy
for
transparency,
accountability,
constitutionalism,
and
the
protection
of
fundamental
rights.
The
AGM
unequivocally
noted
that
this
trajectory
represents
a
direct
assault
on
the
gains
of
18
April
1980.
Zimbabwe’s
liberation
promise
is
under
threat,
and
the
defence
of
the
Constitution
has
become
an
urgent
national
duty.

Socio-Economic
Crisis
and
State
Capture

The
AGM
expressed
deep
concern
over
the
collapse
of
living
standards,
with
the
majority
of
citizens
sinking
further
into
poverty
amid
declining
incomes
and
rising
costs
of
living.

While
official
narratives
boast
of
6%
GDP
growth,
this
growth
is
illusory
and
exclusionary,
benefiting
less
than
10%
of
the
population.
Ordinary
workers
earning
as
little
as
US$100
per
month
are
heavily
taxed,
while
vast,
unexplained
cash
movements
and
elite
wealth
transfers
remain
untouched.

The
Constitution
has
been
systematically
shredded
as
a
ruling
cartel
loots
public
resources
through
fraudulent
tenders—including
election,
water,
construction,
and
infrastructure
contracts.
An
estimated
25,000
children
remain
out
of
school,
while
nearly
half
of
those
enrolled
miss
classes
due
to
unaffordable
fees.
Zimbabwe’s
public
health
system
has
deteriorated
to
the
point
where
admission
into
a
public
hospital
has
become
a
life-threatening
gamble.

Women,
youth,
persons
with
disabilities,
and
orphans
bear
the
heaviest
burden
of
this
crisis.
Faced
with
poverty
and
hopelessness,
many
Zimbabweans
are
“voting
with
their
feet”,
joining
a
growing
exodus
to
Botswana,
South
Africa,
and
Europe.
The
AGM
stated
unequivocally:
these
crises
are
man-made.
While
citizens
suffer,
the
political
elite
squander
public
funds
on
luxury
vehicles
and
patronage.

Unresolved
Historical
Injustices

The
AGM
further
noted
that
longstanding
national
wounds—including
Gukurahundi
and
other
post-1980
political
injustices—remain
unresolved.

While
attempts
have
been
made
to
address
these
issues,
they
have
been
tokenistic,
unconsultative,
and
devoid
of
genuine
political
will,
deepening
national
trauma
rather
than
promoting
healing
and
justice.

Way
Forward

In
light
of
the
intensifying
repression,
shrinking
civic
space,
and
the
systematic
use
of
the
law
to
crush
pro-democracy
forces,
the
membership
unanimously
resolved
that
it
is
in
the
best
strategic
interest
of
the
Crisis
in
Zimbabwe
Coalition
to
dissolve
its
current
organisational
structure
with
immediate
effect
and
deliberate
on
a
renewed
strategic
direction.

This
decision
does
not
represent
defeat.
Rather,
it
is
a
deliberate,
strategic
repositioning
aimed
at
safeguarding
the
continuity,
relevance,
and
effectiveness
of
the
people’s
aspirations
in
line
with
the
Preamble
of
the
Constitution
of
Zimbabwe: “
We
the
people
of
Zimbabwe….commit
ourselves
to
fight
for,
and
guard
the
supremacy
of
the
Constitution,
rule
of
law,
and
principles
of
good
governance”.

The
struggle
for
democracy,
justice,
and
prosperity
in
Zimbabwe
continues.

Post
published
in:

Featured

Within
our
ranks,
some
attorneys
want
not
only
a
low
profile
but
no
profile
in
the
media,
social
or
otherwise.
But
many
have
no
trouble
when
it
comes
to 
getting
and
retaining
clients.
There
are
others
who
have
a
modest
presence
on
line
and
may
do
some
advertising,
and
then
there
are
those
who
have
a
gigantic
media
presence
of
their
own
making,
be
it
radio
or
television
advertising,
billboards,
call
centers,
or
any
other
means
to
reach
the
public.
Some
crave
attention
in
whatever
format,
and
I
have
a
particular
person
in
mind
as
I
type
this.

However,
regardless
of
our
personal
preferences
for
publicity,
I
think
we
have
all
cautioned
clients
to
beware
of
landing
on
a
newspaper’s
(yes,
some
still
do
exist)
front
page.
Rarely
does
anything
good
ever
come
of
that.
Just
ask

California
disbarred
attorney
Tom
Girardi,
whose
front
page
LA
Times
stories
of
a
few
years
ago,
eventually
landed
him
in
prison
and
resulted
in
well-deserved
shakeups
in
the
State
Bar
of
California’s
discipline
processes.

Now
comes

another
front
page
LA
Times
investigation
about
a
law
firm
that
has
made
a
name
for
itself
in
plaintiff
personal
injury
practice.
The
article
should
have
law
firms
that
have
similar
kinds
of
practices
using
similar
techniques
pause
for
a
moment.
The
deets
are
in
the
link.
(And
please
don’t
use
the
excuse
of
TL;DR.)

Why
is
this
news?
The
Downtown
LA
Law
Group
has
represented
many
clients
in
Los
Angeles
County’s
$4
billion
(not
a
typo)
settlement
of
thousands
of
sexual
abuse
cases
in
various
county
government
facilities.
Juvenile
sexual
abuse
victims
spanned
decades,
especially
at
various
probation
department
facilities
and
at
McLaren
Children’s
Center,
a
facility
where
sexual
abuse
was
common,
and
which
was
finally
closed
in
2003.
Children
who
were
in
the
dependency
court
system
ended
up
there
until
placement
in
a
foster
home.
Imagine
the
trauma
of
being
removed
from
your
home
through
no
fault
of
your
own
and
then
ending
up
in
a
place
that
was
worse.
There
are
no
words.

In
2020,
California
enacted
legislation
that
provided
a
three-year
window
for
such
claims,
the
majority
dating
from
the
1980s,
1990s,
and
2000s,
thereby
waiving
the
applicable
statute
of
limitations.
While
that’s
helpful
to
plaintiffs,
it
made
it
much
harder
to
defend
such
cases,
given
the
passage
of
time
and
lack
of
available
evidence. 

DTLA
Law
Group
is
also
now
the
subject
of
an
investigation
by
the
LA
County
District
Attorney’s
office
into
the
firm’s

alleged
misconduct
in
recruiting
clients
and
other
potential
misdeeds.
   

The
DA’s
investigation
is
a
“head’s
up”
not
only
for
DTLA
Law
Group
but
for
others
who
may
have
been
involved
in
false
claims,
that
is,
lawyers,
recruiters,
and
health
care
professionals.
Not
a
good
look
if
the
allegations
are
true
and
which
the
law
firm
has
emphatically
denied.

Some
clients
claim
that
they
were
approached
at
various
locations,
and
were
paid,
in
varying
amounts,
to
join
the
sex
abuse
litigation.
As
the
Times
investigation
notes,
California
law
prohibits
“capping,
which
the
firm
has
denied.
In
some
cases,
the
law
firm
advanced
money
to
clients,
which
is
not
illegal
in
this
state.

At
the
end
of
2024,
one
of
the
firm’s
former
paralegals
sued
DTLA
Law
Firm
for,
among
other
things,
ignoring
her
complaints
about
illegal
solicitation
of
clients,
misrepresentation,
and
unethical
and
deceptive
practices.
If

any
of
the
allegations
in
the
paralegal’s
complaints
are
proved
to
be
true,
that
could
create
more
trouble
for
the
law
firm,
which
has
said
that
the
complaint
is
baseless.

What’s
also
in
the
settlement
stew
are
private
investors.
One
of
the
five
county
supervisors,
Kathryn
Barger,
was
contacted
by
a
private
investor
who

wondered
if
investing
in
Los
Angeles
County
litigation
would
be
a
good
investment.
On
which
side,
I
wonder?

Meanwhile,
the
county
has
hired

a
retired
judge
to
vet
the
DTLA
settlements
and
county
counsel
has
requested
that
the
State
Bar
investigate
the
allegations
the
Times
has
raised.
This
situation
is
not
just
a
kerfuffle;
it
goes
beyond
that
to
the
very
essence
of
lawyering
and
our
ethical
and
professional
responsibilities. 

---

Jill
Switzer
has
been
an
active
member
of
the
State
Bar
of
California
for
over
40
years.
She
remembers
practicing
law
in
a
kinder,
gentler
time.
She’s
had
a
diverse
legal
career,
including
stints
as
a
deputy
district
attorney,
a
solo
practice,
and
several
senior
in-house
gigs.
She
now
mediates
full-time,
which
gives
her
the
opportunity
to
see
dinosaurs,
millennials,
and
those
in-between
interact
—
it’s
not
always
civil.
You
can
reach
her
by
email
at [email protected].

As
a recent
report
by
Deloitte notes,
today’s
dealmakers
must
“navigate
perpetual
uncertainty.” 

The
same
goes
for
law
departments
involved
with
a
corporate
transaction
—
or
even
preparing
for
the
possibility
of
one.

On

February
12th
at
1
p.m.
ET,
join
us
and
our
friends
at
Mercator
by
Citco for
a
panel
discussion
providing
a
step-by-step
look
at
key
challenges
and
strategies
in
modern
M&A
practice
including:

• Pre-merger
  due
  diligence
  best
  practices
• Post-closing
  integration
  strategies
• Entity
  management
  optimization
• Compliance
  risk
  mitigation
• The
  role
  of
  technology

We’ll
discuss
how
your
law
department
can
encourage
a
successful
transaction
–
from
early
due
diligence
through
to
long-term
governance
and
integration
planning.
 

Register
Here!
1
hour
of
CLE
credit
is
available
for
live
attendees.

  

Yesterday
Solicitor
General
John
Sauer
tried
to
convince
five
Supreme
Court
justices
to
let
President
Trump
burn
down
the
Federal
Reserve.

It
did
not
go
well.

Nota
bene:
Conservative
justices

can
do
real
law
when
they
actually
have
skin
in
the
game.

The

oral
argument
was
fascinating,
not
least
because
it
proved
once
again
that
the
entire
executive
branch
is
brain-poisoned
by
social
media
and
can’t
distinguish
between
online
and
real
life.
There
were
literally

eight
mentions
of
Truth
Social!

The
question
was
whether
a
social
media
post
accusing
Federal
Reserve
Governor
Lisa
Cook
of
mortgage
fraud
and
calling
for
her
resignation
counted
as
official
notice
prior
to
termination.
Under

12
USC
§
242,
members
of
the
Board
of
Governors
can
only
be
removed
“for
cause,”
giving
Cook
a
due
process
right
to
contest
her
removal.
But
Sauer
argued
that
tagging
Cook
and
giving
her
a
chance
to
clap
back
was
process
enough.

The
“notice”
came
on
August
20,
when
Trump
posted
a

Bloomberg
story
detailing
allegations
by
Bill
Pulte,
director
of
the
Federal
Housing
Finance
Agency,
that
Cook
made
false
claims
on
a
mortgage
application
to
score
a
lower
rate.

“Cook
must
resign,
now!!!”
he

screeched
on
Truth
Social.

The
government
says
the
post
put
the
onus
on
Cook
to
come
forward
and
clear
her
name.
And
since
she
failed
to
throw
down
in
the
comment
section
or
slide
into
Trump’s
DMs,
he
was
justified
in
firing
her
five
days
later
for
“deceitful
and
potentially
criminal
conduct
in
a
financial
matter.”

On
Truth
Social
of
course.

“Our
contention
is
that
there
already
has
been
a
process.
There
was
a
social
media
post
that
said,
look,
these
two
documents
contradict
each
other.
And
the
response
was
defiance,”
Sauer
wheedled.
“So
there
was
a
chance
to
tell
…
her
side
of
the
story.
It
just
wasn’t
adopted.”

Neither
of
these
arguments
persuaded
Judge
Jia
Cobb,
the
trial
judge,
who

scoffed
that
a
social
media
post
could
not
possibly
constitute
actual
notice.

“At
no
point
did
President
Trump
indicate
that
Cook
would
be
provided
an
opportunity
to
argue
that
the
allegations
were
untrue
or
did
not
merit
removal,
or
invite
Cook
to
submit
such
evidence,”
she
noted.

The
DC
Circuit
majority
treated
the
argument
as
functionally
abandoned,

writing
that
“the
government
does
not
dispute
that
it
provided
Cook
no
meaningful
notice
or
opportunity
to
respond
to
the
allegations
against
her.”

But
Sauer’s
back,
baby,
and
he’s
hanging
his
hat
on
the
claim
that
tagging
someone
on
the
socials

totally
counts
as
due
process.

“We
believe
that
was
provided
in
the
five-day
window
between
the
Truth
Social
post
and
the
removal
letter,”
he
told
the
justices
yesterday,
insisting
that
anything
more
would
be
an
“intrusion
on
the
executive
branch.”

And
what
was
the
procedure
for
Cook
to
assert
her
objections?
She
was
supposed
to
post
through
it!

JUSTICE
JACKSON:
Was
Ms.
Cook
given
the
opportunity
in
some
sort
of
formal
proceeding
to
contest
that
evidence
or
explain
it?

GENERAL
SAUER:
Not
a
formal
proceeding.
She
was
given
an
opportunity
in
public
because
she
was
notified
—

JUSTICE
JACKSON:
In
the
world?

GENERAL
SAUER:
Yes.

JUSTICE
JACKSON:
Like,
she
was
supposed
to
post
about
it
and
that
was
the
opportunity
to
be
heard
—
that
you’re
saying
is
—
was
afforded
to
her
in
this
case?

GENERAL
SAUER:
Yes
…

Gosh,
why

wouldn’t
a
federal
official
facing
potential
criminal
liability
pop
off
about
the
details
of
her
case
on
a
commercial
website
owned
by
the
president
of
the
United
States?

As
Justice
Sotomayor
noted,
Cook

did
respond;
but
she
did
it
through
her
lawyers,
not
online.

“If
the
president
can
go
by
social
media
and
one
believes
that
that
is
adequate
notice
under
law,
I’m
hard
pressed
to
think
a
letter
from
a
lawyer
is
not
notice
from
the
adversary,”
she
observed
tartly.

Does
it
even
count
if
you
don’t
post
it?
Or,
conversely,
doesn’t
posting
substitute
for
literally
every
other
thing?
Sauer
wasn’t
even
sure
whether
the
supposed
smoking
gun
evidence
that
Cook
was
fired
“for
cause”
had
ever
been
docketed
anywhere
but
the
high
court
of
Truth
Social.

“I
know
that
the
text
of
the
social
media
post
that
screenshots
the
mortgage
applications
is
in
the
record.
But
I
don’t
recall
if
the
—
the
paperwork
itself
is
in
the
record,
in
the
district
court’s
record,”
he
said
to
an
uncharacteristically
unfriendly
(to
the
government)
Justice
Alito.

Former
solicitor
general
Paul
Clement,
who
argued
for
Cook,
was
substantially
faster
on
his
feet
than
his
successor.
He
doggedly
refused
to
get
cornered
on
the
issue
of
whether
social
media
posts

could
constitute
notice.
Instead
he
argued
that
this
supposed
notice
was
categorically
defective
“because
it’s
also
indisputable
evidence
that
the
President
prejudged
the
matter.”

Demanding
someone’s
resignation
is
different
from
posting
“I’m
going
to
convene
a
hearing
at
the
Roosevelt
Room
at
4pm
tomorrow,
please
bring
all
your
evidence,”
he
insisted.

Having
dodged
the
culture
war
ragebait
trap,
Clement
was
then
free
to
parry
with
Justices
Alito
and
Gorsuch
about
whether
conduct
before
the
official
takes
office
is
grounds
for
termination
for
cause.

It’s
amazing
what
a
decent
lawyer
can
do
if
he
LOGS
OFF
once
in
a
while.

Subscribe
to
read
more
at
Law
and
Chaos….

---

Liz
Dye produces
the
Law
and
Chaos Substack and podcast. You
can
subscribe
by
clicking
the
logo:

Congress
reached
a

bipartisan
agreement
this
week
on
a
healthcare
funding
and
policy
package
included
in
a
larger
$1.2
trillion
spending
bill
aimed
at
averting
a
government
shutdown.
The
package
includes
a
mix
of
funding
proposals,
policy
reforms
and
program
extensions
designed
to
support
healthcare
providers
and
public
health.

Below
are
seven
things
to
know
about
the
proposal.

—

The
bill
provides
roughly
$116 billion
in
funding
for
HHS
through
fiscal
year
2026.
This
is
$210
million
more
than
the
agency’s
funding
from
fiscal
year
2025,
including
a
$415
million
funding
increase
for
the
NIH.

—
The
agreement
does
not
extend
enhanced
Affordable
Care
Act
premium
tax
credits.
Those
subsidies
were
introduced
during
the
pandemic
to
boost
healthcare
affordability,
but
they
expired
at
the
end
of
last
year.
The
expiration
of
these
subsidies
doesn’t
just
push
coverage
out
of
reach
for
millions
of
Americans
—
but
it
could
also
create

significant
cash
flow
challenges
for
healthcare
providers
already
battling
financial
pressures.
As
premiums
rise
and
enrollment
falls,
hospitals
could
see
higher
uncompensated
care
and
bad
debt.
Last
year,

93%
of
ACA
marketplace
enrollees
received
the
tax
credits.

—
The
proposal
includes
reforms
for
pharmacy
benefit
managers,
requiring
greater
transparency
and
accountability
in
Medicare
Part D.
It
mandates
clearer
reporting
on
PBMs’
pricing,
rebates
and
fees,
as
well
as
directs
CMS
to
define
“reasonable
and
relevant”
contract
terms
that
better
reflect
pharmacy
costs.
The
bill
also
delinks
PBM
compensation
from
drug
list
prices
and
bans
certain
opaque
practices
like
spread
pricing,
aiming
to
reduce
incentives
for
PBMs
to
push
higher‑priced
drugs
and
retain
hidden
margins.
Additionally,
the
reforms
seek
to
improve
pharmacy
network
access
and
give
pharmacies
a
process
to
dispute
unfair
contract
terms. 

—
The
legislation
would
extend
telehealth
flexibilities
through
2027.
CMS’
pandemic-era
telehealth
waivers,
which
have
given
providers
the
coverage
they
need
to
offer
virtual
care
at
scale,
will
be
extended
another
two
years
if
the
bill
is
passed.
The
extension
would
give
providers
and
patients
more
certainty
as
virtual
care
remains
a
key
access
point
for
many
patients,
particularly
those
in
rural
communities.

—
Hospital-at-home
received
a
five-year
extension
in
the
bill.
The
extension
preserves
CMS
reimbursement
for
hospital-level
care
delivered
in
patients’
homes.
Hospital
leaders
have
argued
the
program
helps
reduce
capacity
strain,
lower
costs
and
improve
the
patient
experience,
particularly
for
patients
with
chronic
conditions.

—
The
proposal
would
delay
scheduled
Medicaid
Disproportionate
Share
Hospital
(DSH)
cuts
until
fiscal
year
2028.
DSH
payments
help
offset
uncompensated
care
costs,
and
hospital
groups
have

long
warned
that
cuts
could
destabilize
providers
that
serve
a
high
share
of
low-income
and
uninsured
patients. 

—
The
bill
extends
CMS’
rural
hospital
payment
programs
for
another
year.
The
proposal
issues
one-year
extensions
for
two
programs
designed
to
support
rural
hospitals:
the
Medicare‑dependent
hospital
payment
adjustment
program
and
the
low‑volume
hospital
payment
adjustment.
These
payments
are
designed
to
offset
higher
operating
costs
and
lower
patient
volumes
in
rural
areas,
where
access
to
care
is
often
limited. 

Photo:
halbergman,
Getty
Images

*
ICE
instructed
its
agents
that
they
don’t
need
warrants
to
bust
into
houses.
These
Crim
Pro
issue
spotters
are
just
getting
lazy.
[Civil
Discourse]

*
Meanwhile,
Eighth
Circuit
lifts
restriction
against
ICE
pepper
spraying
random
protesters.
[The
Guardian]

*
Elizabeth
Holmes
looking
for
Trump
to
offer
clemency.
Maybe
she
should
offer
to
cut
him
in
on
her
next
company.
[Law360]

*
The
conservatives
on
the
Supreme
Court
will
quickly
trade
in
their
contrived,
ahistorical
“philosophy”
to
save
their
personal
stock
portfolios.
[Balls
and
Strikes]

*
Biglaw
made
big
bucks
off
of
lobbying.
[National
Law
Journal]

*
Judge
blocks
government
from
searching
materials
seized
from
Post
reporter.
[Washington
Post]

*
Law
firm
hosted
its
annual
MLK
Day
oratory
competition
for
fourth-
and
fifth-graders.
[Foley
&
Lardner]

Benchslaps
Work
After
All!:
No
more
U.S.
Attorney
roleplay.
Shooter
Attacks
Judge
And
His
Spouse:
The
assailant
shot
them
in
their
home.
Looks
Like
Trump
Is
Taking
Liberties
With
The
IEEPA:
What
will
SCOTUS
decide?
Georgetown
Students
Wants
ICE
Out
Of
The
Career
Fair:
This
isn’t
the
first
time
the
students
have
stood
on
the
school’s
moral
principles.
LexisNexis
Wants
To
Help
You
Manage
Your
Workflow:
Think
of
all
the
time
you’ll
save
reading
this!

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

Which
two
Supreme
Court
justices
have
appeared
on
U.S.
currency?

Hint:
Neither
bill
is
currently
in
circulation,
but
justices
have
appeared
on
the
$500
and
$10,000
bill.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

On
the
campaign
trail,
Donald
Trump
repeatedly
promised
that
he’d
end
the
war
in
Ukraine
either
before
he
took
office
or
within
24
hours
of
taking
office.
Though
he
has
since
claimed
“it
was
said
in
jest,”
it
definitely
wasn’t.

At
least

53
times
Trump
said
he
would
settle
the
war
between
Russia
and
Ukraine
quickly,
at
the
very
latest,
on
his
first
day
in
office.
Not
once
did
he
say
this
in
an
even
vaguely
humorous
context.
Occasionally
he
addressed
those
who
wrote
the
24
hour
promise
off
as
a
boast
or
an
exaggeration
by
emphasizing
that
he
very
much
meant
it
literally.

To
the
grave
misfortune
of
the
entire
world,
Trump
took
office
for
his
second
term
on
January
20,
2025.
He
obviously
did
not
end
the
war
in
Ukraine
in
24
hours.
One
full
year
later
Russia
is
no
closer
to
ceasing
its
chosen
war
of
naked
aggression
against
Ukraine.

Trump

blames
heroic
Ukrainian
president
Volodymyr
Zelenskyy
for
his
inability
to
follow
through
on
his
campaign
pledge.
This
is
just
about
the
stupidest
thing
I’ve
heard
from
the
mouth
of
a
man
who
says
more
stupid
things
on
a
daily
basis
than
any
other
human
being
in
existence.

Zelenskyy
does
not
have
the
ability
to
end
the
war
quickly.
If
he
agreed
to
“peace”
on
Trump’s
terms
—
a
giveaway
of
Ukrainian
territory

and
people
to
Russia
—
the
Russian
military
would
only
pause
to
temporarily
lick
its
wounds
before
coming
back
for
the
rest.

For
the
sake
of
argument,
let’s
say
that
Zelenskyy
did
agree
to
Trump’s
surrender
plan
in
a
moment
of
delusion.
That
would
not
change
the
situation
on
the
battlefield
much.
Unlike
the
U.S.
military’s
top-down
structure
(which
seems
a
more
and
more
dangerous
configuration
by
the
day
given
who
is
currently
at
the
top)
Ukraine’s
armed
forces
are
segmented.
If
the
order
came
down
from
Zelenskyy
to
lay
down
arms
in
capitulation
to
Russia,
most
of
Ukraine’s
fighters
would
disobey
it
to
fight
on
under
regional
commanders.

There
are
only
three
ways
this
war
could
end.
First,
Russian
President
Vladimir
Putin
could
lose
his
grip
on
power.
He
could
be
removed
by
an
external
force,
his
own
people
could
get
so
sick
of
his
disastrous
policies
that
they
get
rid
of
him
themselves,
or
he
could
die
randomly.
No
Putin,
no
war:
Trump
would
be
able
to
use
U.S.
resources
to
make
Putin
go
away
if
he
really
wanted
to,
but
he
won’t,
because

he
seems
to
be
in
love
with
the
man.

Second,
Ukraine
could
defeat
Russia
in
combat,
pushing
its
forces
beyond
Ukraine’s
borders.
Once
again,
Trump
has
the
power
to
end
the
war
in
this
fashion
(maybe
not
constitutionally
if
he
tried
to
do
it
all
on
his
own,
though
we’ve
seen
him
go
well
beyond
his
constitutional
powers
time
and
again
without
consequence
in
support
of
far
less
noble
goals).
Trump
probably
wouldn’t
even
need
to
put
any
American
lives
at
risk.
He
has
no
interest
in
empowering
Ukraine
enough
to
make
this
happen
in
2026.

Which
leaves
the
third
possibility:
Russia
could
conqueror
all
of
Ukraine.
Although
this
is
possible
in
the
metaphysical
sense
of
the
word,
something
big
would
really
have
to
change
for
this
to
take
place
within
the
next
12
months,
or
ever,
and
it
wouldn’t
really
end
the
broader
conflict
anyhow.
Ukraine’s
European
allies
wouldn’t
let
this
happen,
even
if

its
fickle
American
ally
would,
knowing
they’d
be
next
on
Russia’s
chopping
block.
Furthermore,
this
outcome
would
merely
transform
the
war
into
an
insurgency
in
Ukraine.

Trump
was
never
going
to
be
able
to
end
the
war
in
Ukraine
during
his
first
24
hours
in
office.
He
could
have
ended
it
during
his
first
year
in
office,
but
he
chose
not
to.
He
won’t
end
it
during
his
second
year
in
office
either.

The
Ukrainian
people

are
nowhere
near
to
giving
up,
and
Russia
is
too
weak
to
overpower
them.
That
means
if
the
war
ends
in
2026,
it
will
be
because
of
a
chance
mishap
befalling
Putin,
not
anything
Trump
does.

---

Jonathan
Wolf
is
a
civil
litigator
and
author
of Your
Debt-Free
JD (affiliate
link).
He
has
taught
legal
writing,
written
for
a
wide
variety
of
publications,
and
made
it
both
his
business
and
his
pleasure
to
be
financially
and
scientifically
literate.
Any
views
he
expresses
are
probably
pure
gold,
but
are
nonetheless
solely
his
own
and
should
not
be
attributed
to
any
organization
with
which
he
is
affiliated.
He
wouldn’t
want
to
share
the
credit
anyway.
He
can
be
reached
at [email protected].