Category: News Feeds

Lawyer
Tells
Attorneys
They
Will
Burn
In
Hell:
Don’t
remember
covering
that
in
law
school.
A
Lesson
In
Transferable
Skills:
Former
adult
movie
actress
passes
the
bar.
Trump
Allegiance
And
Owing
Money
Go
Hand
In
Hand:
Time
for
this
Trump
PAC
to
pay
up!
Do
You
Know
The
Super
Rich
Firms?:
Here
they
are!
Ty
Cobb
Says
The
Guardrails
Are
Gone:
Who
is
taking
advantage
of
the
President’s
weaknesses?

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

According
to
data
collected
by
ALM,
how
many
firms
in
the
Am
Law
100
increased
their
profits
per
equity
partner
(PEP)
in
2025?

Hint:
Across
the
Am
Law
100,
the
average
PEP
in
2025
was
$3,588,162.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

For
people
who
don’t
watch
online
videos
designed
to
enrage
people,
you
may
not
have
heard
of
Johnny
Somali.
Somali
is
infamous
for
his
rage
bait
or
nuisance
livestream
videos
in
other
countries.

But
Somali
learned
that
South
Korea
does
not
play
around.

On
April
15,
2026,
the
Seoul
Western
District
Court
convicted
Somali
(whose
real
name
is
Ramsey
Khalid
Ismael)
on
four
counts
of
obstruction
of
business,
two
under
the
Minor
Crimes
Act,
and
two
sexual
violence
offenses
involving
nonconsensual
deepfakes.
Somali
was
sentenced
to
six
months
in
a
labor
prison,
plus
20
extra
days
in
detention.
He
was
taken
into
custody
immediately
as
a
flight
risk.

Somali
first
went
viral
in
2023
in
Japan.
He
rode
Tokyo
trains
blasting
racist
taunts
about
Hiroshima
and
Nagasaki
saying
“We’ll
do
it
again”
while
filming
commuters’
reactions
for
views.
He
trespassed
on
an
Osaka
construction
site,
yelling
“Fukushima!”
at
workers.
The
trespassing
charge
was
dropped,
but
he
was
convicted
in
January
2024
of
obstructing
business
after
storming
into
a
gyudon
restaurant,
cranking
his
phone
volume
to
ear-splitting
levels,
and
refusing
to
turn
it
down.
Osaka
District
Court
fined
him
¥200,000
(about
$1,400).
Japan
banned
him
from
returning.

In
2024,
Somali
was
briefly
detained
at
a
Tel
Aviv
protest
after
making
crude,
sexually
harassing
remarks
to
a
female
police
officer,
calling
her
names
and
threatening
to
“slap
that
a**.”

Then
he
went
to
Seoul.
There,
he
live-streamed
himself
kissing,
twerking,
and
performing
a
lap
dance
on
the
“Statue
of
Peace,”
a
monument
honoring
Korean
“comfort
women”
forced
into
sexual
slavery
by
the
Japanese
military
during
World
War
II.
He
later
claimed
ignorance
of
its
meaning
and
issued
a
half-hearted
apology.
South
Koreans
were
not
amused.
For
this,
Somali
was
charged
for
public
nuisance
in
November
2024.

He
later
went
on
a
nuisance
spree
in
Korea
doing
things
like
blasting
loud
music
and
dumping
noodles
on
a
table
inside
a
convenience
store,
harassing
staff
and
visitors
at
an
amusement
park,
playing
North
Korean
propaganda
in
public,
and
causing
disturbances
on
buses
and
subways.
This
led
to
the
charges
that
eventually
landed
him
in
jail.

So
is
the
six-month
sentence
too
light?
Some
seem
to
think
so
and
believe
he
should
have
been
sentenced
to
three
years
as
recommended
by
the
prosecutor.

The
prosecutor
has
the
right
to
appeal
the
sentence
and
request
a
longer
one.
The
Constitution
of
the
Republic
of
Korea
has
a
double
jeopardy
clause.
But
since
Korea
follows
a
civil
law
system
unlike
the
U.S.,
the
double
jeopardy
clause
kicks
in
once
the
Supreme
Court
of
Korea
rules
on
the
issue.

So
it
is
possible
that
Somali
can
get
a
longer
jail
sentence
which
many
people
seem
to
want.
But
Somali
is
a
foreigner.
After
his
six
months
are
up,
he
will
be
on
the
first
plane
leaving
Korea
likely
never
to
return
again.
There
is
a
good
possibility
that
he
when
he
returns
to
the
U.S.,
he
will
rage
against
Korea,
the
judge,
the
prosecutor,
and
the
people.
But
assuming
he
stays
relevant,
at
least
no
one
in
Korea
will
have
to
worry
about
Somali
again.

Somali
is
probably
one
of
a
few
foreigners
in
a
Korean
jail.
The
language
barrier
can
make
following
prison
staff
orders
difficult.
And
some
prison
staff
and
inmates
may
know
about
his
antics.
So
the
longer
he
stays
in
jail,
the
more
likely
the
chance
of
something
happening
to
him.
If
Somali
gets
hurt
or
worse
in
jail,
it
may
create
a
diplomatic
incident.
President
Trump
has
recently

criticized
South
Korea
for
not
helping
the
U.S.
in
its
war
with
Iran.

In
addition
to
his
six
months,
Somali
is
also
required
to
register
as
a
sex
offender
in
Korea.
Somali
may
not
care
since
he
is
likely
to
be
permanently
banished
from
the
country
anyway.
But
he
may
have
to
register
as
a
sex
offender
when
he
returns
to
the
U.S.
pursuant
to
the
Sex
Offender
Registration
and
Notification
Act
(SORNA).
And
his
antics
will
probably
prevent
him
from
getting
a
visa
to
travel
to
other
countries
as
well.

Somali’s
conviction
should
serve
as
a
warning
to
nuisance
streamers.
What
happened
to
Somali
in
Korea
will
likely
be
followed
in
other
countries.
While
it
is
easier
to
send
a
foreigner
nuisance
back
to
where
they
came
from,
countries
may
be
more
willing
to
send
them
to
jail
where
they
will
face
a
language
barrier,
be
singled
out
by
staff
and
inmates,
and
worst
of
all,
be
away
from
their
precious
audience
as
they
are
forced
into
irrelevancy.

---

Steven
Chung
is
a
tax
attorney
in
Los
Angeles,
California.
He
helps
people
with
basic
tax
planning
and
resolve
tax
disputes.
He
is
also
sympathetic
to
people
with
large
student
loans.
He
can
be
reached
via
email
at [email protected].
Or
you
can
connect
with
him
on
Twitter
(@stevenchung)
and
connect
with
him
on LinkedIn.

If
you
feel
like
“America’s
Insane
Tax-Filing
Process”
is
a
drain
on
both
your
time
and
your
wallet,
you’re
not
alone.
Even
the
government
recognizes
the
effort
that
tax
compliance
places
on
Americans,
publishing
an

estimated
total
annual
cost
burden
for
U.S.
individual
income
tax
returns. 

It
turns
out
that
preparing
and
submitting
individual
income
tax
returns
costs
taxpayers
more
than
$91
billion
a
year
—
nearly
half
of
which
represents
the
opportunity
cost
of
all
those
lost
hours
spent
tracking
down
receipts,
reviewing
instructions,
and
filling
out
and
submitting
the
return. 

According
to
the
IRS,
it
takes
taxpayers
an
average
of
12
hours
to
prepare
and
file
their
return.
Most
also
pay
an
average
of
$290
for
related
costs
(e.g.,
tax
software,
third-party
preparers,
printing,
mailing).

Collectively,
Americans
spend
1.95
billion
hours
and
$49.76
billion
to
file
their
returns.
The
IRS
estimates
that
the
total
monetized
time
and
out-of-pocket
costs
for
taxpayers
filing
a
Form
1040
for
the
2025
tax
year
is
$91.79
billion. 

Note
that
this
figure
doesn’t
include
actual
tax
liabilities,
“economic
inefficiencies
caused
by
sub-optimal
choices
related
to
tax
deductions
or
credits,”
or
the
“psychological
costs”
of
doing
your
taxes.

When
I
started
my
first
job
in
the
legal
industry,
I
was
extremely
excited
to
order
business
cards.
Even
though
I
worked
at
a
Biglaw
shop,
attorneys
were
given
some
leeway
with
the
information
they
wished
to
include
on
the
business
cards. I
remember
including
my
cellphone
number,
which
my
colleague
criticized,
since
she
thought
this
would
make
it
more
difficult
to
maintain
a
work-life
balance. Although
my
colleague
had
a
point,
in
this
day
and
age,
it
is
often
unavoidable
to
give
cellphone
numbers
to
clients
and
counsel. However,
in
a
variety
of
circumstances,
lawyers
should
avoid
texting
clients
and
counsel
since
this
can
have
an
impact
on
the
quality
of
a
representation.

Texting
clients
and
counsel
about
small
things
is
often
unavoidable
and
harmless.
For
instance,
I
routinely
text
clients
about
meeting
up
at
a
courthouse
or
at
other
places,
and
sometimes
lawyers
leave
their
phone
numbers
in
courthouses
so
that
counsel
can
text
them
when
a
matter
is
ready
to
proceed. For
more
substantive
matters,
I
rarely
text
clients
and
counsel,
since
I
do
not
want
to
be
constrained
by
space
limitations,
and
I
do
not
want
to
breach
someone’s
personal
space.

However,
clients
and
counsel
sometimes
text
me
about
more
substantive
matters,
and
in
many
instances
this
is
fine. If
a
message
does
not
need
much
space
to
be
conveyed,
and
the
text
occurs
during
business
hours,
there
is
not
much
of
a
difference
between
text
messaging
and
emailing. However,
in
my
experience,
texting
can
often
lead
to
a
slippery
slope
where
most
communications
are
conducted
via
text
and
at
inappropriate
times.

I
once
had
a
client
who
preferred
to
text
rather
than
speaking
on
the
phone
or
emailing. I
wanted
to
facilitate
this
client’s
preferences,
and
I
responded
to
all
of
the
text
messages
she
sent. However,
she
began
texting
me
at
inappropriate
times.
I
distinctly
remember
being
at
a
bar
on
a
Saturday
night
and
seeing
a
text
message
from
this
client
light
up
my
phone!
I
definitely
felt
like
it
was
a
breach
of
my
personal
space
to
be
texting
me
on
a
Saturday
night,
and
if
this
person
had
emailed
me,
I
would
have
an
easier
time
separating
my
work
life
from
my
personal
life.

I
have
had
a
few
adversaries
over
the
years
who
also
prefer
text
messaging
over
email. I
have
no
idea
why
a
lawyer
would
want
to
do
this,
but
perhaps
the
attorney
thinks
that
text
messaging
builds
more
rapport
among
counsel
than
conducting
business
through
email. Of
course,
if
the
text
was
about
something
small
and
it
was
during
business
hours,
I
did
not
mind
receiving
a
text
from
an
adversary,
especially
about
time-sensitive
things
I
needed
to
address
immediately.

However,
some
adversaries
have
mixed
texting
about
personal
things
with
work-related
matters,
which
I
do
not
appreciate
in
some
circumstances. Moreover,
some
of
the
text
messages
from
adversaries
would
come
outside
of
working
hours. I
completely
understand
that
some
attorneys
finish
work
at
odd
hours,
and
adversaries
might
be
getting
around
to
tasks
outside
of
the
workday. However,
again,
if
the
adversary
had
emailed
me
instead
of
texting,
I
would
have
a
better
ability
to
filter
out
work
matters
from
my
personal
space.

All
told,
emailing
and
phone
calls
are
a
much
more
preferrable
way
to
communicate
with
counsel
and
clients
since
they
allow
for
longer
discussions
and
are
typically
conducted
within
business
hours.
Once
lawyers
start
texting,
this
can
be
a
slippery
slope
that
can
lead
to
too
much
communication
by
text
and
exchanges
outside
of
business
hours. Accordingly,
lawyers
should
not
text
counsel
and
clients
about
substantive
matters
if
this
can
be
avoided.

---

Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at jordan@rothman.law.

John
Eastman
is
in
his
martyr
era.

Two
years
ago,
California
Bar
Court
Judge
Yvette
Roland

recommended
he
be
disbarred
for
his
role
in
the
plot
to
overturn
the
2020
election.
Eastman’s
adult
children
responded
with
a

hilariously
over-the-top
screed
in
Glenn
Beck’s

The
Blaze

comparing
their
father
to
Jesus
on
the
cross,
with
the
Roland
cast
as
Judas
Iscariot.

His

GiveSendGo
page
—
where
he
details
his
personal
stations
of
the
cross
and
has
raked
in
over
a
million
from
the
faithful
—
describes
the
attorney
discipline
proceedings
as
“my
own
Triduum.”

On
Wednesday,
the
betrayal
was
complete.
The
Pharisees,
AKA
the
California
Supreme
Court,

upheld
Judge
Roland’s
findings.
Eastman’s
name
has
been
stricken
from
the
roll
of
attorneys,
effective
immediately.
He’s
also
been
hit
with
a
$5,000
sanction,
which
seems
like
something
of
a
rounding
error
given
the
fundraising,
but
fine.

“While
it
may
seem
a
little
heavy-handed
to
compare
the
work
of
Eastman
and
others
to
the
passion
and
death
of
Jesus
Christ,
a
little
reflection
can
make
clear
the
connections,”
the
Eastman
kids
insist.
“Jesus
was
betrayed
and
unjustly
condemned
because
he
preached
a
gospel
message
that
was
contrary
to
the
desires
of
the
ruling
class
of
his
time.
Eastman
has
been
betrayed
and
indicted
for
speaking
up
about
election
illegality
and
fraud,
contrary
to
the
desires
of
the
political
establishment
and
the
mainstream
media.”

Not
exactly.

Their
sainted
papa
didn’t
just
push
an
aggressive-but-arguably-defensible
legal
theory
and
lose.
He
peddled
legal
arguments
he
knew
with
certainty
would
not
hold
up
under
scrutiny,
conceding
to
Mike
Pence’s
legal
advisor
Greg
Jacob
that,
were
the
scheme
to
reach
the
Supreme
Court,
it
would
fail
9-0.
And
he
took
pains
to
ensure
that
they
never
got
anywhere
near
a
federal
judge.

“The
main
thing
here
is
that
Pence
should
do
this
without
asking
for
permission
–
either
from
a
vote
of
the
joint
session
or
from
the
Court,”
he
wrote
in
one
of
his
infamous
memos.
Even
after
rioters
had
overrun
the
Capitol,
delaying
certification
of
Biden’s
win,
Eastman
urged
that
Pence
should
stay
the
proceedings,
for
“one
more
relatively
minor
violation”
of
the
Electoral
Count
Act.

Judge
David
Carter

called
Eastman’s
counsel
“a
coup
in
search
of
a
legal
theory”
and
abrogated
attorney-client
privilege
under
the
crime-fraud
exception.

And
yet,
Eastman
cries
that
he
is
a
poor
victim
of
the
evil,
woke
elite.

“This
partisan
weaponization
of
the
bar
disciplinary
process–not
just
against
me
but
hundreds
of
others,
including
current
Department
of
Justice
lawyers,
is
a
serious
threat
to
the
legal
profession,
because
one
of
its
very
purposes
is
to
discourage
other
lawyers
from
taking
on
controversial
causes
or
clients
—
controversial
to
the
leftist/Marxist
elites,
that
is,”
he

insists,
vigorously
shaking
his
tin
cup.
“Filing
a
cert
petition
with
the
U.S.
Supreme
Court
and
then,
hopefully,
getting
a
chance
to
have
the
case
heard
on
the
merits,
is
going
to
be
expensive,
perhaps
$1/4
million
or
more.”
[sic,
and
lolwut?]

“Denied;
disbarred.”
With
that
cursory
ruling,
the
Cal.
S.Ct
declined
to
take
my
case
despite
clear
First
Amendment
violations.
So
Bar
Court
disbarment
recommendation
now
takes
effect.
We
will
appeal
to
U.S.
S.Ct.
Costly,
but
important.
Please
help
here.

https://t.co/XgROh6CLs4

—
John
Eastman
(@DrJohnEastman)

April
16,
2026

Oh,
dear!
What
will
poor
John
Eastman
do
with
only
an
endless
stream
of
FedSoc
events,
podcasts,
wingnut
welfare
fellowships,
and
Ginny
Thomas

speaking
gigs
to
sustain
him?

Naturally,
Jeff
“the
Oil
Spill”
Clark
has
thoughts.

“He
did
what
lawyers
are
supposed
to
do
—
represent
disfavored
individuals,”
Clark

tweeted.
“And
make
no
mistake,
the
elites,
especially
in
bar
apparatuses,
disfavor
and
hate
President
Trump
and
anyone
associated
with
him
with
a
burning
passion.”

Clark,
an
extremely

non-elite
graduate
of
Harvard
and
Georgetown,
served
as
head
of
the
DOJ’s
Civil
Division
in
the
aftermath
of
the
2020
election.
He
urged
his
colleagues
to
send
letters
to
swing
state
legislatures
falsely
claiming
to
have
found
evidence
of
vote
fraud,
and
he’s
been
fighting
his
own
disbarment
proceedings
in
DC
for
two
years
now.

Send
cash!

Meanwhile,
Eastman
vows
to
appeal
to
the
Supreme
Court,
where
his
onetime
boss,
Justice
Thomas,
may
be
able
to
do
him
a
solid.
Blessed
are
the
martyrs,
for
they
shall
inherit
the
cert
petition.

---

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

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature, Quote
of
the
Day.

Our
hope
with
sharing
our
story
is
not
to
promote
or
glorify
ourselves.
Our
intention
is
to
inspire
others
to
generosity.

[Post-surgery,]
it
felt
like
we
had
pulled
of
the
biggest
project
of
our
careers.
I
had
a
tremendous
feeling
of
achievement.

— 

Hope
Watson,
an
associate
at
Thompson
Coburn,
in
comments
given
to
the

ABA
Journal,
concerning
her
July
kidney
donation
to

Bernie
Citron,
a
partner
at
the
firm
she’d
never
met
before.
“For
someone
you
have
never
met?
Who
is
younger
than
my
kids?
To
do
this?”
Citron
said
of
Watson.
“It’s
just
out-and-out
amazing
that
there
are
people
like
Hope
out
there
who
would
do
something
like
this.”
Christopher
Hohn,
chair
of
Thompson
Coburn,
said
of
the
situation
in
a
statement,
“What
Hope
did
for
Bernie
is
an
extraordinary
act
of
generosity,
but
it’s
also
true
to
who
we
are
as
a
firm.
We
have
a
deeply
collegial
culture,
and
we
look
out
for
one
another,
both
professionally
and
personally.”
Thompson
Coburn
donated
$25,000
to
the
National
Kidney
Foundation
in
the
wake
of
this
touching
story.

---

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.

The
American
Bar
Association
represents
itself
as
an
organization

committed
to
setting
the
legal
and
ethical
foundation
for
the
American
nation.
They
aspire
to
do
this
by
promoting
a
quality
legal
education
to
people
who
want
to
pursue
it.
It
isn’t
a
perfect
system
—
securing
funding
to
learn
what
you
need
to
learn
is
the
lion
share
of
the
battle,
but
the
ABA
does
its
part
by
assuring
that
law
schools
do
a
good
enough
job
of
teaching
their
students
what
they
need
to
know
to
pass
the
bar
and
practice.
This
is
all
very
duh
and
obvious
until
you
try
dealing
with
the
root
inequalities
that
product
disparities
in
access
to
education
and
the
profession.
One
of
the
ways
that
the
ABA
has
tried
to
mitigate
racial
discrimination
from
keeping
lawyers
out
of
the
profession
was
to
require
that
schools
make
a
good
effort
to
incorporate
historically
disenfranchised
folks
in
to
the
fold.
But
there’s
a
lot
of
money
and
influence
dedicated
to
being
angrier
at
corrective
measures
than
the
skewing
processes
that
produce
disparity,
kind
of
like
how

Sotomayor
had
to
apologize
for
her
comments
about
Kavanaugh
green
lighting
racial
profiling
before
he
was
ever
pushed
to
apologize
for
his
actual
opinion.

The
ABA
has
been
pussyfooting
about
its
commitment
to
diversity
for
a
year
now,
and
could
finally
vote
to
end
the
diversity
accreditation
requirement
as
early
as
May
15th.
Doing
so
wouldn’t
do
much
in
itself
—
there’s
been
a
moratorium
on
the
provision
having
any
real
effect
for
a
while
now
—
but
it
would
signal
a
turn
in
the
organization’s
commitment
to
“the
legal
and
ethical
foundation
[of]
the
American
nation.

Reuters
has
coverage:

Hundreds
of
law
professors,
deans,
students,
lawyers
and
bar
associations
are
urging
the
American
Bar
Association
not
to
eliminate
its
longstanding
diversity
and
inclusion
requirement
for
law
schools,
which
has
come
under
fire
amid
the
Trump
administration’s
widespread
​campaign
against
DEI.

The
arm
of
the
ABA
that
oversees
U.S.
law
schools
received
47
written
comments
from
individuals
‌and
groups
asking
it
to
retain
or
strengthen
the
law
school
diversity
standard
and
two
comments
in
support
of
repealing
the
rule
during
a
30-day
public
comment
period
that
ended
on
Monday.
…
Eliminating
⁠the
rule
“will
be
rightly
viewed
as
capitulating
to
a
rightwing
movement
hostile
to
civil
rights
and
the
rule
of
law,”
a
​national
organization
of
law
professors
called
the
Critical
Legal
Collective
wrote
in
one
of
the
public
comments.

That’s
the
short
and
long
of
it.
There
have
been
attempts
to
re-frame
the
motivation
for

closing
the
racial
umbrella
on
other
grounds.
One
of
the
more
interesting
pieces
of
spaghetti
thrown
against
the
wall
was

that
the
diversity
requirement
was
an
antitrust
violation,
but
if
and
when
the
ABA
abandons
its
commitment
to
diversity,
some
think
tanker
at
the
Heritage
Foundation
is
going
to
fire
up
the
grill,
cook
bland
food
and
order
Chick-Fil-A
so
the
group
doesn’t
have
to
eat
their
shameful
cooking
in
celebration.

If
pressures
from
the
administration
or
moneyed
right
wing
interests
were
all
it
took
for
the
ABA
to
change
its
tune,
how
long
until
the
next
domino
falls?
Will
they
stop
paying
lip
service
to
the
importance
of
the

rule
of
law
just
like
they’ve
given
up
on
the
importance
of
increased
access
to
the
profession?
They
can
hem
and
haw
about
how
difficult
their
decisions
are,
but
they
won’t
have
the
excuse
of
saying
that
they
didn’t
know
the
consequences
of
their
actions.

Law
Professors
Defend
ABA’s
Law
School
Diversity
Rule
Ahead
Of
Elimination
Vote
[Reuters]

Earlier:

ABA
President
Says
They
Aren’t
‘Retreating’
From
Diversity
Promises.
Does
He
Know
What
The
ABA
Has
Been
Up
To?

ABA
Strikes
Back
At
Trump,
Condemning
His
Attacks
On
Lawyers
And
The
Rule
Of
Law

---

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.