Category: News Feeds

Clarence
Thomas
failed
to
show
up
to
this
morning’s
Supreme
Court
session,
depriving
the
advocates
of
any
questions
that
he
would

inevitably
not
ask
anyway.
It’s
a
shame,
because
Thomas
missed
out
on


Snyder
v.
U.S.,
a
case
about
whether
or
not
it’s
bribery
to
funnel 
payments
to
an
official
“in
recognition
of
actions
a
state
or
local
official
has
already
taken
or
committed
to
take,
without
any
quid
pro
quo
agreement
to
take
those
actions.”
Just
seems
like

a
subject
Thomas
might
have
thoughts
on,
that’s
all.

According
to
CNN,
the
Supreme
Court
did
not
respond
to
a
request
for
additional
information
about
Thomas’s
whereabouts.

The
most
obvious
excuse
would
be
an
illness.
That
was

the
basis
of
his
past
absences.
Though
if
the
justice
has
the
sniffles,
one
would
expect
the
Court
to
just
go
ahead
and
say
so
in
order
to
tamp
down
on
reckless
speculation
—
already
seeping
onto
social
media
—
that
Biden
is
going
to
end
up
making
a
Supreme
Court
nomination
this
year.

And
while
it’s
possible
that
Thomas
skipped
out
on
his
job

because
he
couldn’t
find
parking
—
he
does
drive

an
RV
financed
by
a
rich
health
care
executive
and
those
are
a
bear
to
back
into
a
slot
—
let’s
go
ahead
and
assume
that’s
not
the
case.
Perhaps
he
had
to
do
a
little

testifying
of
his
own
this
morning
in
the
probe
into
an
unnamed
judge’s
illegal
financial
disclosure
omissions
that
we’re
all
pretty
positive
is
him.

Maybe
most
plausibly,
he
took
a
look
at
a
case
about
whether
or
not
it
should
be
a
crime
to
give
an
official
money
for
past
actions
in
a
world
where
ProPublica
has
tagged
the
justice
with

telling
GOP
lawmakers
to
make
sure
the
justices
get
more
money
or
one
or
more
of
the
reliable
ones
—
like
you
know
who
—
might
quit
and
then
he
suddenly

started
getting
all
kinds
of
gifts
that
he
refused
to
disclose
and
thought…
yeah
I
don’t
want
my
name
hitched
to
this
case.

Though
if
he’d
recused
himself
formally
the
Court
would
have
to
disclose
that
because
the
Supreme
Court’s

SUPER
DUPER
NEW
ETHICS
CODE
requires
the
justices
to
disclose
why
they’ve
recused
themselves.
And
it’s
not
like
one
of
the
justices
would
just
ignore
that
basic
standard
of
ethical
behavior.

Ahem!

On
the
other
hand,
maybe
Thomas
lacks
Alito’s
brazenness
for
flouting
the
newly
adopted,
entirely
toothless
rule
and
decided
that
he
didn’t
want
to
have
to
explain
bailing
on
a
political
corruption
case
that
hit
a
little
close
to
home
so
he
just
took
a
sick
day
instead.
Has
anyone
seen
Clarence,
Ginni,
and
Harlan
Crow
zipping
around
Chicago
in

a
1961
Ferrari
250
GT
California
Spyder
today?

Or
maybe
he
just
realized
this
morning
that
he’d
forgotten
to
fill
out
his
taxes
and
started
scrambling.
Do
you
count

a
megadonor
giving
your
mom
free
rent
as
income?
Asking
for
a
friend.

Clarence
Thomas
misses
Supreme
Court
arguments
without
explanation
[CNN]

Earlier:

Clarence
Thomas
Thinks
He
Was
Practically
Forced
To
Take
All
That
Under
The
Table
Money

Clarence
Thomas
RV
Financed
By
Rich
Health
Care
Executive
In
Least
Shocking
Development
Ever

Judicial
Conference
Probes
Ethical
Breaches
Of
Unnamed
Judge…
But
It’s
Almost
Certainly
Clarence
Thomas

Paragon
Of
Virtue
Clarence
Thomas
Has
Been
Given
Half
Million
In
Value
Off
The
Record
And
It
Totally
Hasn’t
Impacted
His
Judging.
Not
One
Bit.
Nope.

---

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.

Our

Easter
egg
queen
is
back
at
it.
Taylor
Alison
Swift
is
releasing
a
hotly
anticipated
album
on
Friday,
April
19th:
The
Tortured
Poets
Department.
And
you
may
think,
for
obvious
reasons,
the
breakup
album
marks
the
start
of
the
singer’s
Poet
Era,
but
there’s
reason
to
believe
she’s
taking
a
more
lawyerly
tract.

As
part
of
the
promotion
for
TTPD,
Team
Taylor
has
hidden
words
in
the
lyrics
of
Apple
Music
playlists.
From 

Billboard:

The
daily
word
can
be
found
somewhere
in
Swift’s
five
playlists
exclusively
released on
Apple
Music
last
week,
which
explore
the
five
stages
of
heartbreak:
denial
(“I
Love
You,
It’s
Ruining
My
Life”
playlist),
anger
(“You
Don’t
Get
to
Tell
Me
About
Sad”
playlist),
bargaining
(“Am
I
Allowed
to
Cry?”
playlist),
depression
(“Old
Habits
Die
Screaming”
playlist)
and
acceptance
(“I
Can
Do
It
With
a
Broken
Heart”
playlist).

With
one
word
uncovered
daily,
the
full
message
is
to
be
revealed
on
April
18,
the
day
before
Swift’s
The
Tortured
Poets
Department
is
here.

The
first
word
is
the
old
legal
drafting
standby,
“Hereby.”

Sure,
it’s
only
lawyerly
in
that
faux

Bill
S.
Preston,
Esquire sense,
but
with
the
second
word

rumored
to
be
“conduct”
it’s
giving
out
contract-y
vibes.
And,
it
should
be
noted,
a
track
on
TTPD
is
inspired
by
the
AHEM
1989
Disney
classic,
The
Little
Mermaid.

Especially
since
other
TTPD
promotional
materials
have
built
upon
that
legal
theme.

But
it
*could*
have
been
better.

---

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

@Kathryn1@mastodon.social.

In
an
age
where
acquiring
certificates
has
become
as
commonplace
as
scrolling
through
social
media,
a
pertinent
question
arises
for
legal
professionals:
Is
an
AI
certification
essential
for
lawyers? 

The
debate
surrounding
education
versus
practical
application
in
the
legal
profession
is
not
new.
However,
the
rapid
advancement
of
technology,
especially
in
AI,
cybersecurity,
and
privacy,
brings
a
renewed
focus
to
this
discussion. 

The
Case
For
AI
Certification

The
proponents
of
AI
certification
argue
that
the
legal
profession
cannot
remain
insulated
from
technological
advancements.
With
AI
increasingly
becoming
a
part
of
daily
life,
its
implications
for
privacy,
security,
intellectual
property,
and
even
for
criminal
law
are
profound. 

An
AI
certification
for
lawyers
could
serve
as
a
testament
to
their
understanding
of
these
complex
intersections
between
technology
and
law.
It
could
help
legal
professionals
advise
clients
more
effectively,
navigate
through
AI-related
legal
challenges,
and
even
leverage
AI
tools
for
litigation
and
contract
analysis. 

Moreover,
specialized
certifications
can
set
a
lawyer
apart
in
a
competitive
market.
They
signal
to
potential
employers
or
clients
that
the
lawyer
possesses
up-to-date
knowledge
and
a
proactive
approach
to
learning
and
adapting.
In
sectors
like
tech
startups,
fintech,
and
cybersecurity,
where
AI
plays
a
critical
role,
having
legal
advisors
who
understand
the
technology
could
be
invaluable.

The
Critique:
Is
More
Learning
Less
Doing?

Critics,
however,
argue
that
the
obsession
with
certifications
might
lead
to
a
paradox
where
more
learning
equates
to
less
doing.
Drawing
from
the
insights
shared
in
the
discourse
on
the
drawbacks
of
excessive
certification,
there’s
a
growing
concern
that
the
pursuit
of
endless
qualifications
could
become
a
loop.
This
loop
ensnares
professionals
in
a
perpetual
state
of
preparation,
delaying
their
direct
engagement
with
the
real-world
challenges
and
opportunities
that
define
their
careers.

The
critique
is
not
against
learning
per
se
but
against
a
linear
and
traditional
approach
to
education
that
prioritizes
credentials
over
practical
experience
and
application.
The
argument
is
that
in
the
fast-evolving
field
of
AI,
hands-on
experience,
adaptability,
and
the
ability
to
apply
theoretical
knowledge
in
practical
scenarios
are
far
more
valuable
than
a
certificate.
After
all,
AI
itself
is
about
innovation,
experimentation,
and
learning
by
doing. 

There’s
also
a
financial
and
temporal
aspect
to
consider.
Certifications
can
be
expensive
and
time-consuming,
potentially
diverting
resources
from
more
productive
investments
like
building
a
portfolio,
networking,
or
even
starting
a
tech-driven
legal
initiative. 

Bridging
The
Gap:
Strategic
Learning
and
Application

Perhaps
the
resolution
doesn’t
lie
at
the
extremes
but
in
a
balanced
approach.
Lawyers
don’t
necessarily
need
an
AI
certification
to
excel
in
their
profession,
but
they
do
need
a
foundational
understanding
of
how
technology
affects
the
law.
Strategic
learning
—
where
education
is
closely
aligned
with
career
goals
and
is
immediately
applied
in
practice
—
could
be
the
way
forward. 

This
approach
entails
being
selective
about
learning
opportunities,
focusing
on
those
that
offer
practical
skills
and
insights
directly
applicable
to
work.
It
also
means
applying
what’s
learned
in
real-world
settings
as
soon
as
possible,
whether
through
pro
bono
projects,
tech-based
legal
solutions,
or
innovative
service
offerings.
Such
an
approach
ensures
that
learning
leads
to
tangible
outcomes,
keeping
professionals
relevant
and
ahead
of
the
curve.

So,
The
Middle
Path,
Maybe?

In
the
debate
on
whether
lawyers
need
AI
certification,
the
answer
may
well
be
personal
and
contextual.
The
classic
“it
depends”
may
be
the
answer.
For
example,
it
may
depend
on
the
individual’s
career
path,
area
of
specialization,
and
how
they
intend
to
apply
their
knowledge
of
AI
in
their
legal
practice.
While
certifications
can
play
a
role
in
professional
development,
they
are
not
the
be-all
and
end-all.  

As
the
legal
community
navigates
the
complexities
of
a
technology-driven
world,
the
focus
should
be
on
continuous,
strategic
learning
and
the
practical
application
of
knowledge.
In
doing
so,
legal
professionals
can
ensure
they
remain
effective,
relevant,
and
prepared
to
tackle
the
challenges
and
opportunities
that
AI
presents
in
the
legal
domain.

---

Olga
V.
Mack


is
a
Fellow
at
CodeX,
The
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics,
and
a
Generative
AI
Editor
at
law.MIT.
Olga
embraces
legal
innovation
and
had
dedicated
her
career
to
improving
and
shaping
the
future
of
law.
She
is
convinced
that
the
legal
profession
will
emerge
even
stronger,
more
resilient,
and
more
inclusive
than
before
by
embracing
technology.
Olga
is
also
an
award-winning
general
counsel,
operations
professional,
startup
advisor,
public
speaker,
adjunct
professor,
and
entrepreneur.
She
authored Get
on
Board:
Earning
Your
Ticket
to
a
Corporate
Board
Seat, Fundamentals
of
Smart
Contract
Security,
and  Blockchain
Value:
Transforming
Business
Models,
Society,
and
Communities. She
is
working
on
three
books:


Visual
IQ
for
Lawyers
(ABA
2024), The
Rise
of
Product
Lawyers:
An
Analytical
Framework
to
Systematically
Advise
Your
Clients
Throughout
the
Product
Lifecycle
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024),
and
Legal
Operations
in
the
Age
of
AI
and
Data
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024).
You
can
follow
Olga
on



LinkedIn


and
Twitter
@olgavmack.

In
an
age
where
acquiring
certificates
has
become
as
commonplace
as
scrolling
through
social
media,
a
pertinent
question
arises
for
legal
professionals:
Is
an
AI
certification
essential
for
lawyers? 

The
debate
surrounding
education
versus
practical
application
in
the
legal
profession
is
not
new.
However,
the
rapid
advancement
of
technology,
especially
in
AI,
cybersecurity,
and
privacy,
brings
a
renewed
focus
to
this
discussion. 

The
Case
For
AI
Certification

The
proponents
of
AI
certification
argue
that
the
legal
profession
cannot
remain
insulated
from
technological
advancements.
With
AI
increasingly
becoming
a
part
of
daily
life,
its
implications
for
privacy,
security,
intellectual
property,
and
even
for
criminal
law
are
profound. 

An
AI
certification
for
lawyers
could
serve
as
a
testament
to
their
understanding
of
these
complex
intersections
between
technology
and
law.
It
could
help
legal
professionals
advise
clients
more
effectively,
navigate
through
AI-related
legal
challenges,
and
even
leverage
AI
tools
for
litigation
and
contract
analysis. 

Moreover,
specialized
certifications
can
set
a
lawyer
apart
in
a
competitive
market.
They
signal
to
potential
employers
or
clients
that
the
lawyer
possesses
up-to-date
knowledge
and
a
proactive
approach
to
learning
and
adapting.
In
sectors
like
tech
startups,
fintech,
and
cybersecurity,
where
AI
plays
a
critical
role,
having
legal
advisors
who
understand
the
technology
could
be
invaluable.

The
Critique:
Is
More
Learning
Less
Doing?

Critics,
however,
argue
that
the
obsession
with
certifications
might
lead
to
a
paradox
where
more
learning
equates
to
less
doing.
Drawing
from
the
insights
shared
in
the
discourse
on
the
drawbacks
of
excessive
certification,
there’s
a
growing
concern
that
the
pursuit
of
endless
qualifications
could
become
a
loop.
This
loop
ensnares
professionals
in
a
perpetual
state
of
preparation,
delaying
their
direct
engagement
with
the
real-world
challenges
and
opportunities
that
define
their
careers.

The
critique
is
not
against
learning
per
se
but
against
a
linear
and
traditional
approach
to
education
that
prioritizes
credentials
over
practical
experience
and
application.
The
argument
is
that
in
the
fast-evolving
field
of
AI,
hands-on
experience,
adaptability,
and
the
ability
to
apply
theoretical
knowledge
in
practical
scenarios
are
far
more
valuable
than
a
certificate.
After
all,
AI
itself
is
about
innovation,
experimentation,
and
learning
by
doing. 

There’s
also
a
financial
and
temporal
aspect
to
consider.
Certifications
can
be
expensive
and
time-consuming,
potentially
diverting
resources
from
more
productive
investments
like
building
a
portfolio,
networking,
or
even
starting
a
tech-driven
legal
initiative. 

Bridging
The
Gap:
Strategic
Learning
and
Application

Perhaps
the
resolution
doesn’t
lie
at
the
extremes
but
in
a
balanced
approach.
Lawyers
don’t
necessarily
need
an
AI
certification
to
excel
in
their
profession,
but
they
do
need
a
foundational
understanding
of
how
technology
affects
the
law.
Strategic
learning
—
where
education
is
closely
aligned
with
career
goals
and
is
immediately
applied
in
practice
—
could
be
the
way
forward. 

This
approach
entails
being
selective
about
learning
opportunities,
focusing
on
those
that
offer
practical
skills
and
insights
directly
applicable
to
work.
It
also
means
applying
what’s
learned
in
real-world
settings
as
soon
as
possible,
whether
through
pro
bono
projects,
tech-based
legal
solutions,
or
innovative
service
offerings.
Such
an
approach
ensures
that
learning
leads
to
tangible
outcomes,
keeping
professionals
relevant
and
ahead
of
the
curve.

So,
The
Middle
Path,
Maybe?

In
the
debate
on
whether
lawyers
need
AI
certification,
the
answer
may
well
be
personal
and
contextual.
The
classic
“it
depends”
may
be
the
answer.
For
example,
it
may
depend
on
the
individual’s
career
path,
area
of
specialization,
and
how
they
intend
to
apply
their
knowledge
of
AI
in
their
legal
practice.
While
certifications
can
play
a
role
in
professional
development,
they
are
not
the
be-all
and
end-all.  

As
the
legal
community
navigates
the
complexities
of
a
technology-driven
world,
the
focus
should
be
on
continuous,
strategic
learning
and
the
practical
application
of
knowledge.
In
doing
so,
legal
professionals
can
ensure
they
remain
effective,
relevant,
and
prepared
to
tackle
the
challenges
and
opportunities
that
AI
presents
in
the
legal
domain.

---

Olga
V.
Mack


is
a
Fellow
at
CodeX,
The
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics,
and
a
Generative
AI
Editor
at
law.MIT.
Olga
embraces
legal
innovation
and
had
dedicated
her
career
to
improving
and
shaping
the
future
of
law.
She
is
convinced
that
the
legal
profession
will
emerge
even
stronger,
more
resilient,
and
more
inclusive
than
before
by
embracing
technology.
Olga
is
also
an
award-winning
general
counsel,
operations
professional,
startup
advisor,
public
speaker,
adjunct
professor,
and
entrepreneur.
She
authored Get
on
Board:
Earning
Your
Ticket
to
a
Corporate
Board
Seat, Fundamentals
of
Smart
Contract
Security,
and  Blockchain
Value:
Transforming
Business
Models,
Society,
and
Communities. She
is
working
on
three
books:


Visual
IQ
for
Lawyers
(ABA
2024), The
Rise
of
Product
Lawyers:
An
Analytical
Framework
to
Systematically
Advise
Your
Clients
Throughout
the
Product
Lifecycle
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024),
and
Legal
Operations
in
the
Age
of
AI
and
Data
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024).
You
can
follow
Olga
on



LinkedIn


and
Twitter
@olgavmack.

Clarence
Thomas
failed
to
show
up
to
this
morning’s
Supreme
Court
session,
depriving
the
advocates
of
any
questions
that
he
would

inevitably
not
ask
anyway.
It’s
a
shame,
because
Thomas
missed
out
on


Snyder
v.
U.S.,
a
case
about
whether
or
not
it’s
bribery
to
funnel 
payments
to
an
official
“in
recognition
of
actions
a
state
or
local
official
has
already
taken
or
committed
to
take,
without
any
quid
pro
quo
agreement
to
take
those
actions.”
Just
seems
like

a
subject
Thomas
might
have
thoughts
on,
that’s
all.

According
to
CNN,
the
Supreme
Court
did
not
respond
to
a
request
for
additional
information
about
Thomas’s
whereabouts.

The
most
obvious
excuse
would
be
an
illness.
That
was

the
basis
of
his
past
absences.
Though
if
the
justice
has
the
sniffles,
one
would
expect
the
Court
to
just
go
ahead
and
say
so
in
order
to
tamp
down
on
reckless
speculation
—
already
seeping
onto
social
media
—
that
Biden
is
going
to
end
up
making
a
Supreme
Court
nomination
this
year.

And
while
it’s
possible
that
Thomas
skipped
out
on
his
job

because
he
couldn’t
find
parking
—
he
does
drive

an
RV
financed
by
a
rich
health
care
executive
and
those
are
a
bear
to
back
into
a
slot
—
let’s
go
ahead
and
assume
that’s
not
the
case.
Perhaps
he
had
to
do
a
little

testifying
of
his
own
this
morning
in
the
probe
into
an
unnamed
judge’s
illegal
financial
disclosure
omissions
that
we’re
all
pretty
positive
is
him.

Maybe
most
plausibly,
he
took
a
look
at
a
case
about
whether
or
not
it
should
be
a
crime
to
give
an
official
money
for
past
actions
in
a
world
where
ProPublica
has
tagged
the
justice
with

telling
GOP
lawmakers
to
make
sure
the
justices
get
more
money
or
one
or
more
of
the
reliable
ones
—
like
you
know
who
—
might
quit
and
then
he
suddenly

started
getting
all
kinds
of
gifts
that
he
refused
to
disclose
and
thought…
yeah
I
don’t
want
my
name
hitched
to
this
case.

Though
if
he’d
recused
himself
formally
the
Court
would
have
to
disclose
that
because
the
Supreme
Court’s

SUPER
DUPER
NEW
ETHICS
CODE
requires
the
justices
to
disclose
why
they’ve
recused
themselves.
And
it’s
not
like
one
of
the
justices
would
just
ignore
that
basic
standard
of
ethical
behavior.

Ahem!

On
the
other
hand,
maybe
Thomas
lacks
Alito’s
brazenness
for
flouting
the
newly
adopted,
entirely
toothless
rule
and
decided
that
he
didn’t
want
to
have
to
explain
bailing
on
a
political
corruption
case
that
hit
a
little
close
to
home
so
he
just
took
a
sick
day
instead.
Has
anyone
seen
Clarence,
Ginni,
and
Harlan
Crow
zipping
around
Chicago
in

a
1961
Ferrari
250
GT
California
Spyder
today?

Or
maybe
he
just
realized
this
morning
that
he’d
forgotten
to
fill
out
his
taxes
and
started
scrambling.
Do
you
count

a
megadonor
giving
your
mom
free
rent
as
income?
Asking
for
a
friend.

Clarence
Thomas
misses
Supreme
Court
arguments
without
explanation
[CNN]

Earlier:

Clarence
Thomas
Thinks
He
Was
Practically
Forced
To
Take
All
That
Under
The
Table
Money

Clarence
Thomas
RV
Financed
By
Rich
Health
Care
Executive
In
Least
Shocking
Development
Ever

Judicial
Conference
Probes
Ethical
Breaches
Of
Unnamed
Judge…
But
It’s
Almost
Certainly
Clarence
Thomas

Paragon
Of
Virtue
Clarence
Thomas
Has
Been
Given
Half
Million
In
Value
Off
The
Record
And
It
Totally
Hasn’t
Impacted
His
Judging.
Not
One
Bit.
Nope.

---

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.

Clarence
Thomas
failed
to
show
up
to
this
morning’s
Supreme
Court
session,
depriving
the
advocates
of
any
questions
that
he
would

inevitably
not
ask
anyway.
It’s
a
shame,
because
Thomas
missed
out
on


Snyder
v.
U.S.,
a
case
about
whether
or
not
it’s
bribery
to
funnel 
payments
to
an
official
“in
recognition
of
actions
a
state
or
local
official
has
already
taken
or
committed
to
take,
without
any
quid
pro
quo
agreement
to
take
those
actions.”
Just
seems
like

a
subject
Thomas
might
have
thoughts
on,
that’s
all.

According
to
CNN,
the
Supreme
Court
did
not
respond
to
a
request
for
additional
information
about
Thomas’s
whereabouts.

The
most
obvious
excuse
would
be
an
illness.
That
was

the
basis
of
his
past
absences.
Though
if
the
justice
has
the
sniffles,
one
would
expect
the
Court
to
just
go
ahead
and
say
so
in
order
to
tamp
down
on
reckless
speculation
—
already
seeping
onto
social
media
—
that
Biden
is
going
to
end
up
making
a
Supreme
Court
nomination
this
year.

And
while
it’s
possible
that
Thomas
skipped
out
on
his
job

because
he
couldn’t
find
parking
—
he
does
drive

an
RV
financed
by
a
rich
health
care
executive
and
those
are
a
bear
to
back
into
a
slot
—
let’s
go
ahead
and
assume
that’s
not
the
case.
Perhaps
he
had
to
do
a
little

testifying
of
his
own
this
morning
in
the
probe
into
an
unnamed
judge’s
illegal
financial
disclosure
omissions
that
we’re
all
pretty
positive
is
him.

Maybe
most
plausibly,
he
took
a
look
at
a
case
about
whether
or
not
it
should
be
a
crime
to
give
an
official
money
for
past
actions
in
a
world
where
ProPublica
has
tagged
the
justice
with

telling
GOP
lawmakers
to
make
sure
the
justices
get
more
money
or
one
or
more
of
the
reliable
ones
—
like
you
know
who
—
might
quit
and
then
he
suddenly

started
getting
all
kinds
of
gifts
that
he
refused
to
disclose
and
thought…
yeah
I
don’t
want
my
name
hitched
to
this
case.

Though
if
he’d
recused
himself
formally
the
Court
would
have
to
disclose
that
because
the
Supreme
Court’s

SUPER
DUPER
NEW
ETHICS
CODE
requires
the
justices
to
disclose
why
they’ve
recused
themselves.
And
it’s
not
like
one
of
the
justices
would
just
ignore
that
basic
standard
of
ethical
behavior.

Ahem!

On
the
other
hand,
maybe
Thomas
lacks
Alito’s
brazenness
for
flouting
the
newly
adopted,
entirely
toothless
rule
and
decided
that
he
didn’t
want
to
have
to
explain
bailing
on
a
political
corruption
case
that
hit
a
little
close
to
home
so
he
just
took
a
sick
day
instead.
Has
anyone
seen
Clarence,
Ginni,
and
Harlan
Crow
zipping
around
Chicago
in

a
1961
Ferrari
250
GT
California
Spyder
today?

Or
maybe
he
just
realized
this
morning
that
he’d
forgotten
to
fill
out
his
taxes
and
started
scrambling.
Do
you
count

a
megadonor
giving
your
mom
free
rent
as
income?
Asking
for
a
friend.

Clarence
Thomas
misses
Supreme
Court
arguments
without
explanation
[CNN]

Earlier:

Clarence
Thomas
Thinks
He
Was
Practically
Forced
To
Take
All
That
Under
The
Table
Money

Clarence
Thomas
RV
Financed
By
Rich
Health
Care
Executive
In
Least
Shocking
Development
Ever

Judicial
Conference
Probes
Ethical
Breaches
Of
Unnamed
Judge…
But
It’s
Almost
Certainly
Clarence
Thomas

Paragon
Of
Virtue
Clarence
Thomas
Has
Been
Given
Half
Million
In
Value
Off
The
Record
And
It
Totally
Hasn’t
Impacted
His
Judging.
Not
One
Bit.
Nope.

---

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.

Clarence
Thomas
failed
to
show
up
to
this
morning’s
Supreme
Court
session,
depriving
the
advocates
of
any
questions
that
he
would

inevitably
not
ask
anyway.
It’s
a
shame,
because
Thomas
missed
out
on


Snyder
v.
U.S.,
a
case
about
whether
or
not
it’s
bribery
to
funnel 
payments
to
an
official
“in
recognition
of
actions
a
state
or
local
official
has
already
taken
or
committed
to
take,
without
any
quid
pro
quo
agreement
to
take
those
actions.”
Just
seems
like

a
subject
Thomas
might
have
thoughts
on,
that’s
all.

According
to
CNN,
the
Supreme
Court
did
not
respond
to
a
request
for
additional
information
about
Thomas’s
whereabouts.

The
most
obvious
excuse
would
be
an
illness.
That
was

the
basis
of
his
past
absences.
Though
if
the
justice
has
the
sniffles,
one
would
expect
the
Court
to
just
go
ahead
and
say
so
in
order
to
tamp
down
on
reckless
speculation
—
already
seeping
onto
social
media
—
that
Biden
is
going
to
end
up
making
a
Supreme
Court
nomination
this
year.

And
while
it’s
possible
that
Thomas
skipped
out
on
his
job

because
he
couldn’t
find
parking
—
he
does
drive

an
RV
financed
by
a
rich
health
care
executive
and
those
are
a
bear
to
back
into
a
slot
—
let’s
go
ahead
and
assume
that’s
not
the
case.
Perhaps
he
had
to
do
a
little

testifying
of
his
own
this
morning
in
the
probe
into
an
unnamed
judge’s
illegal
financial
disclosure
omissions
that
we’re
all
pretty
positive
is
him.

Maybe
most
plausibly,
he
took
a
look
at
a
case
about
whether
or
not
it
should
be
a
crime
to
give
an
official
money
for
past
actions
in
a
world
where
ProPublica
has
tagged
the
justice
with

telling
GOP
lawmakers
to
make
sure
the
justices
get
more
money
or
one
or
more
of
the
reliable
ones
—
like
you
know
who
—
might
quit
and
then
he
suddenly

started
getting
all
kinds
of
gifts
that
he
refused
to
disclose
and
thought…
yeah
I
don’t
want
my
name
hitched
to
this
case.

Though
if
he’d
recused
himself
formally
the
Court
would
have
to
disclose
that
because
the
Supreme
Court’s

SUPER
DUPER
NEW
ETHICS
CODE
requires
the
justices
to
disclose
why
they’ve
recused
themselves.
And
it’s
not
like
one
of
the
justices
would
just
ignore
that
basic
standard
of
ethical
behavior.

Ahem!

On
the
other
hand,
maybe
Thomas
lacks
Alito’s
brazenness
for
flouting
the
newly
adopted,
entirely
toothless
rule
and
decided
that
he
didn’t
want
to
have
to
explain
bailing
on
a
political
corruption
case
that
hit
a
little
close
to
home
so
he
just
took
a
sick
day
instead.
Has
anyone
seen
Clarence,
Ginni,
and
Harlan
Crow
zipping
around
Chicago
in

a
1961
Ferrari
250
GT
California
Spyder
today?

Or
maybe
he
just
realized
this
morning
that
he’d
forgotten
to
fill
out
his
taxes
and
started
scrambling.
Do
you
count

a
megadonor
giving
your
mom
free
rent
as
income?
Asking
for
a
friend.

Clarence
Thomas
misses
Supreme
Court
arguments
without
explanation
[CNN]

Earlier:

Clarence
Thomas
Thinks
He
Was
Practically
Forced
To
Take
All
That
Under
The
Table
Money

Clarence
Thomas
RV
Financed
By
Rich
Health
Care
Executive
In
Least
Shocking
Development
Ever

Judicial
Conference
Probes
Ethical
Breaches
Of
Unnamed
Judge…
But
It’s
Almost
Certainly
Clarence
Thomas

Paragon
Of
Virtue
Clarence
Thomas
Has
Been
Given
Half
Million
In
Value
Off
The
Record
And
It
Totally
Hasn’t
Impacted
His
Judging.
Not
One
Bit.
Nope.

---

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.

Clarence
Thomas
failed
to
show
up
to
this
morning’s
Supreme
Court
session,
depriving
the
advocates
of
any
questions
that
he
would

inevitably
not
ask
anyway.
It’s
a
shame,
because
Thomas
missed
out
on


Snyder
v.
U.S.,
a
case
about
whether
or
not
it’s
bribery
to
funnel 
payments
to
an
official
“in
recognition
of
actions
a
state
or
local
official
has
already
taken
or
committed
to
take,
without
any
quid
pro
quo
agreement
to
take
those
actions.”
Just
seems
like

a
subject
Thomas
might
have
thoughts
on,
that’s
all.

According
to
CNN,
the
Supreme
Court
did
not
respond
to
a
request
for
additional
information
about
Thomas’s
whereabouts.

The
most
obvious
excuse
would
be
an
illness.
That
was

the
basis
of
his
past
absences.
Though
if
the
justice
has
the
sniffles,
one
would
expect
the
Court
to
just
go
ahead
and
say
so
in
order
to
tamp
down
on
reckless
speculation
—
already
seeping
onto
social
media
—
that
Biden
is
going
to
end
up
making
a
Supreme
Court
nomination
this
year.

And
while
it’s
possible
that
Thomas
skipped
out
on
his
job

because
he
couldn’t
find
parking
—
he
does
drive

an
RV
financed
by
a
rich
health
care
executive
and
those
are
a
bear
to
back
into
a
slot
—
let’s
go
ahead
and
assume
that’s
not
the
case.
Perhaps
he
had
to
do
a
little

testifying
of
his
own
this
morning
in
the
probe
into
an
unnamed
judge’s
illegal
financial
disclosure
omissions
that
we’re
all
pretty
positive
is
him.

Maybe
most
plausibly,
he
took
a
look
at
a
case
about
whether
or
not
it
should
be
a
crime
to
give
an
official
money
for
past
actions
in
a
world
where
ProPublica
has
tagged
the
justice
with

telling
GOP
lawmakers
to
make
sure
the
justices
get
more
money
or
one
or
more
of
the
reliable
ones
—
like
you
know
who
—
might
quit
and
then
he
suddenly

started
getting
all
kinds
of
gifts
that
he
refused
to
disclose
and
thought…
yeah
I
don’t
want
my
name
hitched
to
this
case.

Though
if
he’d
recused
himself
formally
the
Court
would
have
to
disclose
that
because
the
Supreme
Court’s

SUPER
DUPER
NEW
ETHICS
CODE
requires
the
justices
to
disclose
why
they’ve
recused
themselves.
And
it’s
not
like
one
of
the
justices
would
just
ignore
that
basic
standard
of
ethical
behavior.

Ahem!

On
the
other
hand,
maybe
Thomas
lacks
Alito’s
brazenness
for
flouting
the
newly
adopted,
entirely
toothless
rule
and
decided
that
he
didn’t
want
to
have
to
explain
bailing
on
a
political
corruption
case
that
hit
a
little
close
to
home
so
he
just
took
a
sick
day
instead.
Has
anyone
seen
Clarence,
Ginni,
and
Harlan
Crow
zipping
around
Chicago
in

a
1961
Ferrari
250
GT
California
Spyder
today?

Or
maybe
he
just
realized
this
morning
that
he’d
forgotten
to
fill
out
his
taxes
and
started
scrambling.
Do
you
count

a
megadonor
giving
your
mom
free
rent
as
income?
Asking
for
a
friend.

Clarence
Thomas
misses
Supreme
Court
arguments
without
explanation
[CNN]

Earlier:

Clarence
Thomas
Thinks
He
Was
Practically
Forced
To
Take
All
That
Under
The
Table
Money

Clarence
Thomas
RV
Financed
By
Rich
Health
Care
Executive
In
Least
Shocking
Development
Ever

Judicial
Conference
Probes
Ethical
Breaches
Of
Unnamed
Judge…
But
It’s
Almost
Certainly
Clarence
Thomas

Paragon
Of
Virtue
Clarence
Thomas
Has
Been
Given
Half
Million
In
Value
Off
The
Record
And
It
Totally
Hasn’t
Impacted
His
Judging.
Not
One
Bit.
Nope.

---

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.

Hey,
do
you
plan
on
protesting
some
general
injustice
and
happen
to
live
in
Texas,
Louisiana
or
Mississippi?
Unless
you
have
some
serious
insurance,
I’d
heavily
encourage
you
to
give
it
a
second
thought
—
the
shield
that
is
the
First
Amendment
just
got
a
major
dent
in
it.

Reuters
has
coverage:

The
U.S.
Supreme
Court
on
Monday
allowed
a
Black
Lives
Matter
activist
to
be
sued
by
a
Louisiana
police
officer
injured
during
a
protest,
opens
new
tab
in
2016
in
a
case
that
could
make
it
riskier
to
engage
in
public
demonstrations,
a
hallmark
of
American
democracy.

In
declining
to
hear
DeRay
Mckesson’s
appeal,
the
justices
left
in
place
a
lower
court’s
decision
reviving
a
lawsuit
by
the
Baton
Rouge
police
officer,
John
Ford,
who
accused
him
of
negligence
after
being
struck
by
a
rock
during
a
protest
sparked
by
the
fatal
police
shooting
of
a
Black
man,
Alton
Sterling.

Just
in
case
you
thought
the
introduction
was
a
little
over
the
top,
I’d
like
to
point
you
to

SCOTUSBlog’s
brilliant
and
concise
assessment
of
the
case’s
issue:

[Does]
the
First
Amendment
and
this
court’s
decision
in
NAACP
v.
Claiborne
Hardware
Co.
foreclose
a
state
law
negligence
action
making
a
leader
of
a
protest
demonstration
personally
liable
in
damages
for
injuries
inflicted
by
an
unidentified
person’s
violent
act,
when
it
is
undisputed
that
the
leader
neither
authorized,
directed,
nor
ratified
the
perpetrator’s
act,
nor
engaged
in
or
intended
violence
of
any
kind.

Now,
you
may
not
remember
the
Con
Law
module
where
your
professor
lamented
about
how
the
freedom
of
speech
and
the
right
to
assemble
inevitably
get
superseded
by
vicarious
liability
suits.
That’s
because
it
just
wasn’t
how
things
worked.
Now,
not
so
much
—
and
the
more
you
think
through
the
5th
Circuit’s
reasoning,
the
more
absurd
it
becomes.

Vox
shared
what
the
dissent
had
to
say
and
it’s
hard
to
see
the
hole
in
their
reasoning:

Fifth
Circuit
Judge
Don
Willett,
who
dissented
from
his
court’s
Mckesson
decision,
warned
in
one
of
his
dissents,
his
court’s
decision
would
make
protest
organizers
liable
for
“the
unlawful
acts
of
counter-protesters
and
agitators.”
So,
under
the
Fifth
Circuit’s
rule,
a
Ku
Klux
Klansman
could
sabotage
the
Black
Lives
Matter
movement
simply
by
showing
up
at
its
protests
and
throwing
stones.

A
restriction
on
free
speech
this
great
is
bound
to
return
to
the
Supreme
Court.
A
Republican
majority
might
not
care
when
the
person
facing
financial
ruin
is
some
Black
guy
in
a
blue
puffer
vest,
but
let’s
be
serious
guys:
the
states
are
Texas,
Louisiana
and
Mississippi.
It
is
only
a
matter
of
time
before
a
Klan
rally
turns
violent
and
a
hooded
figure
(who
may
or
may
not
be
a
cop)
gets
hit
with
some
serious
civil
liability.
And
when
that
happens,
you
can
be
sure
that
Thomas
or
Alito
will
manage
to
see
beyond
the
facts
and
strike
down
the
5th
Circuit’s
decision
as
the
free
speech
chilling
affront
to
liberty
that
it
is.
But
today
is
not
that
day.

US
Supreme
Court
Rejects
Black
Lives
Matter
Activist’s
Appeal
Over
Protest
Incident
[Reuters]

The
Supreme
Court
Effectively
Abolishes
The
Right
To
Mass
Protest
In
Three
US
States
[Vox]

---

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
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

In
an
age
where
acquiring
certificates
has
become
as
commonplace
as
scrolling
through
social
media,
a
pertinent
question
arises
for
legal
professionals:
Is
an
AI
certification
essential
for
lawyers? 

The
debate
surrounding
education
versus
practical
application
in
the
legal
profession
is
not
new.
However,
the
rapid
advancement
of
technology,
especially
in
AI,
cybersecurity,
and
privacy,
brings
a
renewed
focus
to
this
discussion. 

The
Case
For
AI
Certification

The
proponents
of
AI
certification
argue
that
the
legal
profession
cannot
remain
insulated
from
technological
advancements.
With
AI
increasingly
becoming
a
part
of
daily
life,
its
implications
for
privacy,
security,
intellectual
property,
and
even
for
criminal
law
are
profound. 

An
AI
certification
for
lawyers
could
serve
as
a
testament
to
their
understanding
of
these
complex
intersections
between
technology
and
law.
It
could
help
legal
professionals
advise
clients
more
effectively,
navigate
through
AI-related
legal
challenges,
and
even
leverage
AI
tools
for
litigation
and
contract
analysis. 

Moreover,
specialized
certifications
can
set
a
lawyer
apart
in
a
competitive
market.
They
signal
to
potential
employers
or
clients
that
the
lawyer
possesses
up-to-date
knowledge
and
a
proactive
approach
to
learning
and
adapting.
In
sectors
like
tech
startups,
fintech,
and
cybersecurity,
where
AI
plays
a
critical
role,
having
legal
advisors
who
understand
the
technology
could
be
invaluable.

The
Critique:
Is
More
Learning
Less
Doing?

Critics,
however,
argue
that
the
obsession
with
certifications
might
lead
to
a
paradox
where
more
learning
equates
to
less
doing.
Drawing
from
the
insights
shared
in
the
discourse
on
the
drawbacks
of
excessive
certification,
there’s
a
growing
concern
that
the
pursuit
of
endless
qualifications
could
become
a
loop.
This
loop
ensnares
professionals
in
a
perpetual
state
of
preparation,
delaying
their
direct
engagement
with
the
real-world
challenges
and
opportunities
that
define
their
careers.

The
critique
is
not
against
learning
per
se
but
against
a
linear
and
traditional
approach
to
education
that
prioritizes
credentials
over
practical
experience
and
application.
The
argument
is
that
in
the
fast-evolving
field
of
AI,
hands-on
experience,
adaptability,
and
the
ability
to
apply
theoretical
knowledge
in
practical
scenarios
are
far
more
valuable
than
a
certificate.
After
all,
AI
itself
is
about
innovation,
experimentation,
and
learning
by
doing. 

There’s
also
a
financial
and
temporal
aspect
to
consider.
Certifications
can
be
expensive
and
time-consuming,
potentially
diverting
resources
from
more
productive
investments
like
building
a
portfolio,
networking,
or
even
starting
a
tech-driven
legal
initiative. 

Bridging
The
Gap:
Strategic
Learning
and
Application

Perhaps
the
resolution
doesn’t
lie
at
the
extremes
but
in
a
balanced
approach.
Lawyers
don’t
necessarily
need
an
AI
certification
to
excel
in
their
profession,
but
they
do
need
a
foundational
understanding
of
how
technology
affects
the
law.
Strategic
learning
—
where
education
is
closely
aligned
with
career
goals
and
is
immediately
applied
in
practice
—
could
be
the
way
forward. 

This
approach
entails
being
selective
about
learning
opportunities,
focusing
on
those
that
offer
practical
skills
and
insights
directly
applicable
to
work.
It
also
means
applying
what’s
learned
in
real-world
settings
as
soon
as
possible,
whether
through
pro
bono
projects,
tech-based
legal
solutions,
or
innovative
service
offerings.
Such
an
approach
ensures
that
learning
leads
to
tangible
outcomes,
keeping
professionals
relevant
and
ahead
of
the
curve.

So,
The
Middle
Path,
Maybe?

In
the
debate
on
whether
lawyers
need
AI
certification,
the
answer
may
well
be
personal
and
contextual.
The
classic
“it
depends”
may
be
the
answer.
For
example,
it
may
depend
on
the
individual’s
career
path,
area
of
specialization,
and
how
they
intend
to
apply
their
knowledge
of
AI
in
their
legal
practice.
While
certifications
can
play
a
role
in
professional
development,
they
are
not
the
be-all
and
end-all.  

As
the
legal
community
navigates
the
complexities
of
a
technology-driven
world,
the
focus
should
be
on
continuous,
strategic
learning
and
the
practical
application
of
knowledge.
In
doing
so,
legal
professionals
can
ensure
they
remain
effective,
relevant,
and
prepared
to
tackle
the
challenges
and
opportunities
that
AI
presents
in
the
legal
domain.

---

Olga
V.
Mack


is
a
Fellow
at
CodeX,
The
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics,
and
a
Generative
AI
Editor
at
law.MIT.
Olga
embraces
legal
innovation
and
had
dedicated
her
career
to
improving
and
shaping
the
future
of
law.
She
is
convinced
that
the
legal
profession
will
emerge
even
stronger,
more
resilient,
and
more
inclusive
than
before
by
embracing
technology.
Olga
is
also
an
award-winning
general
counsel,
operations
professional,
startup
advisor,
public
speaker,
adjunct
professor,
and
entrepreneur.
She
authored Get
on
Board:
Earning
Your
Ticket
to
a
Corporate
Board
Seat, Fundamentals
of
Smart
Contract
Security,
and  Blockchain
Value:
Transforming
Business
Models,
Society,
and
Communities. She
is
working
on
three
books:


Visual
IQ
for
Lawyers
(ABA
2024), The
Rise
of
Product
Lawyers:
An
Analytical
Framework
to
Systematically
Advise
Your
Clients
Throughout
the
Product
Lifecycle
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024),
and
Legal
Operations
in
the
Age
of
AI
and
Data
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024).
You
can
follow
Olga
on



LinkedIn


and
Twitter
@olgavmack.