Category: News Feeds

Maybe
this
was
inevitable.
After
Cravath
—
a
firm
once
known
for
its
lockstep
partner
compensation
—

ditched
the
model
in
favor
of

increased
flexibility
for
its
“partners,”
perhaps
the
collegial,
true
partnership
of
Biglaw
was
doomed.

In
any
event,
another
major
law
firm
is
reportedly
changing
up
what
it
means
to
be
partner
there.
Rumors
are
swirling
that
Clifford
Chance
is
thinking
about
changing
up
its
lockstep
partner
compensation
model
to
better
attract
the
top
rainmakers
who
can
demand
mega
paydays
at
firms
unencumbered
by
the
lockstep
method.

In
fairness,
the
changes
to
Clifford
Chance
partnership
have
been
in
the
works
for
a
while,
as

reported
by
Law.com:

In
2015,
the
firm
introduced
a
mechanism
to
its
100-point
lockstep
that
allowed
the
firm’s
leaders
to
move
partners
up
to
115
and
130
equity
points,
but
also
down
to
70
points.
Then
in
2017
a
‘super-pointer’
tier
was
introduced
to
reward
star
performers
in
London
and
New
York.
The
change
seven
years
ago
enabled
the
firm’s
best
partners
to
exceed
130
points.

Since
then,
the
firm
has
further
lengthened
its
lockstep
to
around
280
points,
one
person
said.
Those
at
the
top
of
this
scale
earn
in
the
region
of
£2.8
million,
two
of
the
people
said,
with
the
strongest
performers
able
to
break
through
the
280-point
plateau;
the
firm’s
current
top
of
equity
stands
at
£4.8
million.
Now,
with
partner
retention
a
growing
concern
for
law
firm
leaders,
the
firm
is
expected
to
once
again
lengthen
its
super-pointer
ladder,
allowing
for
more
competitive
pay.

The
firm
itself
is
tightlipped
about
the
potential
change,
saying,
“The
details
of
partner
compensation
are
a
private
matter
for
the
partnership
and
we
won’t
be
commenting
on
this.”
But
if
the
firm
starts
attracting
some
big-name
legal
talent
to
its
partner
ranks
over
the
next
few
years,
we’ll
have
all
the
confirmation
we
need.

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.

On
Monday
night,
CES,
the
massive
consumer
electronics
show
in
Las
Vegas,
kicked
off
in
high
gear
with
a
keynote
address
by


Dr.
Roland
Busch,
the
CEO
of


Siemens
AG.
Siemens
is
a
leader
in
various
technological
areas,
including
automation,
healthcare,
and
mobility,
and
has
always
been
at
the
forefront
of
cutting-edge
solutions.
It
is
a
technology
company
in
every
sense
of
the
word.

That’s
why
when
its
CEO
talks
about
how
Siemens
solves
problems
and
develops
innovative
solutions,
you
take
notice.
The
thrust
of
Dr.
Busch’s
presentation
was
the
opportunity
the
Metaverse,
or
as
he
called
it,
the


industrial
Metaverse,
presents.
Dr.
Busch’s
keynote
highlighted
three
key
elements
of
the
industrial
Metaverse:
digital
twins,
software-defined
automation,
and
AI-powered
data
analysis.

The
Industrial
Metaverse

The
concept
of
the
industrial
Metaverse
involves
creating
virtual
models
to
test
and
refine
projects
before
actual
implementation.
Coupled
with
Gen
AI’s
rapid
software
modification
capabilities
and
data
analysis,
this
approach
allows
for
the
perfection
of
designs
in
a
virtual
space,
leading
to
efficient
and
cost-effective
real-world
applications.
This
methodology
isn’t
just
theoretical;
it
has
practical
applications
as
seen
in
the
accelerated
development
of
COVID-19
vaccines.

Because
the
model
is
virtual
and
can
be
easily
manipulated,
it
is
easy,
quick,
and
cheap
to
test,
iterate,
and
perfect.
Problems
can
be
found,
analyzed,
and
fixed
quickly
—
or,
better
yet,
discovered
before
they
arise.
And
without
serious
consequences.
The
Metaverse
provides
a
unique
platform
for
both
testing
and
training,
enhancing
performance
in
reality.

Using
the
Metaverse
for
Legal

So,
this
works
great
with
products
and
tangible
things,
but
can
it
work
with
personal
performance?
Could
we
use
the
Metaverse
to
enable
lawyers,
for
example,
to
perfect
their
courtroom
performance
before
they
go
live
in
the
real
world?

For
lawyers,
the
implications
and
opportunities
are
significant.
As
I
have


discussed
before,
young
lawyers
simply
aren’t
getting
the
courtroom
and
trial
experience
that
litigators
used
to
get.
There
are
simply
fewer
trials.
And
when
there
are
trials,
the
costs
are
so
high
that
letting
inexperienced
lawyers
do
much
is
too
great
a
risk.
So,
the
more
experienced
lawyers
take
over.

The
problem,
of
course,
is
that
at
some
point,
there
won’t
be
enough
older
lawyers
to
do
what
trial
work
and
litigation
there
is.
At
that
point,
we
will
have
even
fewer
trials. 
Having
fewer
trials
is
a
problem
since
you
can’t
assess
trial
exposure
without
current
trial
data. 

Without
trial
data,
there
is
no
accurate
way
to
determine
the
risk
of
the
case
and
its
true
value.
Without
knowing
the
trial
risk,
you
can’t
evaluate
settlement
value
or
even
know
what
resources
should
be
allocated
to
the
case. 

Sound
familiar?
Just
as
the
use
of
the
industrial
Metaverse
can
be
used
to
test
out
an
actual
product,
it
could
also
be
used
to
test
and
hone
the
courtroom
skills
of
younger
lawyers.
It
could
provide
a
safe
place
where
they
could
practice,
and
gain
experience
and
confidence.

Creation
of
the
Courtroom
Metaverse

To
create
this
courtroom
Metaverse,
we
would
first
need
a
realistic
digital
courtroom.
Dr.
Busch
described
technology
developed
by
Pixar
that
creates
realistic
digital
places.
It
should
not
be
hard
to
do
the
same
thing
for
courtrooms.
Given
access,
a
digital
courtroom,
just
like
the
courtroom
where
a
particular
trial
or
hearing
would
take
place,
could
be
created.

Next,
it
would
be
necessary
to
create
realistic
avatars
of
the
judge,
perhaps
a
jury,
opposing
counsel,
etc.
While
these
avatars
might
not
be
a
particular
person
but
a
composite,
the
technology
already
exists
to
create
realistic
avatars.
As
I


previously
wrote,
Meta
has
already
developed
the
technology
that
can
create
avatars
that
closely
resemble
what
we
really
look
like.
Watch
a


video
podcast

interview
of
Mark
Zuckerberg
by
Lex
Friedman
to
see
how
this
works.
Friedman
and
Zuckerberg
were
not
in
the
exact
physical
location,
but
when
they
were
videoed
in
the
Metaverse,
it
was
almost
like
they
were
together.
The
faces
were
realistic,
down
to
the
movement
of
eyes
and
eyebrows
and
facial
movements.

Then,
it
would
be
a
matter
of
placing
the
avatars
in
the
virtual
courtroom.
This
approach
isn’t
just
conjecture;
I
witnessed
a
product
demonstration
at
CES
showcasing
realistic
avatars
in
a
virtual
board
meeting.

I
asked


Mitch
Jackson,
a
California
trial
lawyer
and
mediator
who
uses
the
Metaverse
extensively,
about
the
present
day
capability
of
the
technology.
Mitch
told
me
that
even
today
the
technology
exists.
“The
courtroom
is
very
real
and
the
avatars
are
amazing.
The
tools
to
collaborate work
just
like
a
real
court
room…
While you
can
access
the
venue
from
a
laptop
or
desktop
it
feels
99%
real
with
a
headset
on.”

Honing
Skills
in
the
Metaverse

Imagine
a
realistic
digital
courtroom
in
which
young
lawyers
could
hone
their
skills
within
a
true-to-life
setting.
Younger
lawyers
could
practice
making
an
opening
in
a
case.
Or
examining
a
witness
on
direct
or
even
cross. 

And
with

Gen
AI
and
analytics,
lawyers
could
craft
arguments
that
could
resonate
with
a
jury
or
judge
and
identify
weaknesses
in
opposition
strategies.
The
lawyers
could
then
practice
applying
this
knowledge
in
the
virtual
courtroom.

Of
course,
having
a
full-blown
trial
simulation
may
be
more
than
could
be
realistically
accomplished
in
one
sitting.
But
targeted
practice
sessions
in
bite
sized
increments
could
easily
be
achieved.
And
real
time
feedback
by
more
experienced
lawyers
could
be
provided
in
ways
simply
not
achievable
in
the
real
world.

The
same
tools
could
be
used
by
more
experienced
lawyers
as
well.
Despite
thorough
preparation,
trials
are
always
a
roll
of
the
dice.
Lawyers
don’t
get
do-overs
when
it
comes
to
the
court.
But
using
a
courtroom
Metaverse
would
provide
just
that.

For
example,
it
is
easy
to
see
how
a
witness
could
be
mock
examined
in
a
virtual
courtroom
setting
with
a
jury
present.
Both
lawyer
and
witness
could
practice
in
front
of
a
jury,
gauging
jurors’
reaction
and
then
tweaking
the
examination.
According
to
Jackson,
“add
AI
voice
venue
creation
(‘bring
up
exhibit
1’or 
‘take
us
to
the
location
of
the
building
where
the
matter
took
place’)
and
things
get
really
interesting.”

The
same
could
be
done
with
opening
and
closing
statements.

All
too
often,
lawyers,
out
of
hubris
or
just
shortsightedness,
fail
to
iterate
and
adapt
what
other
industries
have
developed.
Here’s
a
chance
to
do
just
that
and
solve
the
inexperience
problem.
Borrowing
from
what
companies
like
Siemens
are
doing
and
then
applying
the
concepts
to
legal
may
be
an
effective
way
to
train
lawyers
and
get
better
results
for
clients.

Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.

*
Judge
in
Trump’s
civil
trial
receives
bomb
threat.
Probably
because
he
wouldn’t
let
Trump

bomb
his
own
closing.
[Daily
Beast]

*
Bob
Menendez
hires
Jones
Day
lawyer
from
McDonnell
team
that
got
the
Supreme
Court
to
functionally
legalize
public
corruption.
Hope
the
firm
likes
being
paid
in
gold
bars.
[Politico]

*
Ron
DeSantis
keeps
on
losing.
Today
it’s
the
Eleventh
Circuit
ruling
that,
as
governor,
he
cannot
just
fire
local
officials
from
office.
Next
week
it’s
Iowa. 
[Reuters]

*
Bankruptcy
partners
charging
up
to
$2400
per
hour.
No
wonder
the
client
went
bankrupt.
[American
Lawyer]

*
Ohio
law
requiring
parental
consent
to
obtain
a
social
media
account
blocked
like
it
was
an
anti-vaxx
high
school
acquaintance.
[CNN]

*
Biglaw
may
have
failed
to
recognize
as
clients
began
sending
some
work
elsewhere.
Probably
too
busy
rolling
around
naked
in
piles
of
cash
to
notice.
[ABA
Journal]

*
The
mass
exodus
from
Fisher
Broyles
suggested
that
fully
distributed
firms
carry
instability
along
with
their
promise.
This
piece
carries
that
idea
further
and
suggests
that
it’s
the
faster
evolution
of
these
firms
as
a
concept
that
holds
seeds
of
any
one
entity’s
destruction
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

On
the
eve
of
the
first
E.
Jean
Carroll
defamation
trial,
Donald
Trump
wandered
off
a
golf
course
in
Ireland
to
inform
reporters
that
he
would
soon
be
returning 
to
America
to
testify
in
his
own
defense.

“I
have
to
go
back
for
a
woman
who’s
made
a
false
allegation
about
me.
And
I
have
a
judge
that’s
extremely
hostile,”
he
vowed.
“And
I’m
going
to
go
back
and
confront
this
woman.”

Back
in
New
York,
his
lawyer
Joe
Tacopina

sweated
bullets.

“Mike,
I
just
told
you
he
is
not,”
he

said
testily
in
response
to
a
question
by
Carroll’s
attorney
Michael
Ferrara.
He
urged
the
court
to
take
his
word
as
an
officer
of
the
court
that
his
client
would
not
be
appearing,
and
indeed
Tacopina
made
damn
sure
that
Trump
never
showed
his
face
during
the
case.
As
an
experienced
trial
lawyer,
he
knew
that
the
only
thing
more
repellant
to
jurors
than
a
video
of
the
former
president
bragging
that
“when
you’re
a
star,
they
let
you”
grab
women
by
the
genitals,
“unfortunately
or
fortunately,”
would
be
a
live
performance.

Sadly
Tacopina
will
not
be
back
for
an
encore
in
the
second
Carroll
trial,
which
involves
Trump’s
original
defamatory
statements
in
2019
when
Carroll
first
accused
him
of
sexual
assault.
Trump
recently

trashed
his
lawyer
on
Truth
Social,
blaming
Tacopina
for
barring
him
from
the
courtroom,
where
he’d
have
wowed
the
jurors
with
his
magnetic
personality
and
animal
charm.

“I
was
asked
by
my
lawyer
not
to
attend—’It
was
beneath
me,
and
they
have
no
case’”
he

groused.
“That
was
not
good
advice.”

The
honor
of
defending
Trump
in
the
second
case
falls
to
Michael
Madaio
after
his
partner
Alina
Habba

wandered
off
to
shout

inanities
on
TV.
The
defense
has
been
somewhat
shambolic,
with
Madaio
putting
forward
the
same
expert
witness
who’d
been
tossed
in
the
first
case,
affecting
shock
and
amazement
when
that
witness
got
booted
a
second
time,
and
then
unsuccessfully

seeking
to
substitute
another
expert
on
the
eve
of
trial.
Most
recently
he

tried
to
get
Trump’s
damaging
deposition
testimony
excluded
on
the
theory
that
Trump

might
show
up
next
week
to
speak
in
his
own
defense.

That
effort
was
also
a

failure.

The
Court
overrules
Mr.
Trump’s
broad
objection
under
Federal
Rule
of
Civil
Procedure
32
to
the
use
of
any
portion
of
his
deposition
transcript.
His
contention
that
its
use
would
be
improper
because
he
is
listed
as
a
possible
witness
is
utterly
frivolous.
Rule
32(a)(3)
provides
that
an
“adverse
party
may
use
for
any
purpose
the
deposition
of
a
party,”
whether
they
are
available
to
testify
live
or
not.
Thus,
Ms.
Carroll
will
be
permitted
to
play
her
otherwise
admissible
deposition
designations
at
trial
even
were
Mr.
Trump
to
testify.

Madaio
has,
however,
managed
to
get
Judge
Lewis
Kaplan
to

call
his
client
a

rapist
in
multiple
public

filings.
So
much
winning!

Carroll’s
counsel
have
fared
much
better.
Yesterday
the
court
issued
another
devastating

ruling
barring
Trump
from
introducing
evidence
about

litigation
funding
or
Trump’s
post-discovery

offer
to
undergo
the
DNA
testing
he’d
avoided
for
three
straight
years.
It
also
blocked
Trump’s
plan
to

argue
that
Carroll’s
damages
arose
not
from
his
defamatory
statements,
but
“that
it
was
Plaintiff
coming
forward
with
allegations
against
Defendant,
and
not
Defendant’s
denial,
that
caused
her
any
damages
(to
the
extent
there
is
any
damage).”

“As
an
initial
matter,
and
assuming
arguendo
that
plaintiff
made
such
claims,
defendant’s
suggestion
that
such
claims
might
have
resulted
in
greater
media
attention
than
otherwise
would
have
occurred
and
that
any
such
increase
would
have
benefitted
plaintiff’s
reputation
ultimately
is
purely
speculative,”
the
court
noted
dryly.

The
section
headed
“Defendant’s
Testimony
and
Behavior”
was
even
more
disastrous.
Noting
that
the
first
jury
found
him
liable
for
sexual
abuse
and
defamation
and
that
he’d
already
granted
summary
judgment
as
to
the
issue
in
this
case,
Judge
Kaplan
put
the
kibosh
on
Trump’s
plan
to
hop
on
the
witness
stand
and
tell
the
jurors
that
the
assault
never
happened
and
Carroll
is
a
liar.

Mr.
Trump
and
his
counsel
are
precluded,
in
the
presence
of
the
jury,
from
claiming
that
Mr.
Trump
did
not
sexually
abuse
(“rape”)
Ms.
Carroll;
that
he
did
not
make
his
June
21
and
22,
2019
statements
concerning
Ms.
Carroll
with
actual
malice
in
the
constitutional
sense
of
that
term;
or
that
Ms.
Carroll
fabricated
her
account,
whether
in
consequence
of
a
political
agenda,
financial
interests,
mental
illness,
or
otherwise.
Mr.
Trump
and
his
counsel
are
precluded
also
from
offering
testimony
or
advancing
any
argument
inconsistent
with
the
Court’s
collateral
estoppel
decision
determining
that
Mr.
Trump,
with
constitutional
malice,
lied
about
sexually
assaulting
Ms.
Carroll.
This
includes
any
evidence
or
argument
concerning
whether
Mr.
Trump
believed
Ms.
Carroll’s
allegations
or
questioned
her
motives,
as
these
issues
will
not
be
before
the
jury
in
the
present
case.

And
for
good
measure,
the
court
admitted
the
infamous
“Access
Hollywood”
tape
as
“a
relevant
window
into
how
Mr.
Trump
views
women
that
he
allegedly
has
assaulted
–
including
women
like
Ms.
Carroll
–
and
that
it
therefore
is
relevant
under
Rule
401
as
tending
to
prove
his
common
law
malice,
which
is
essential
to
the
punitive
damages
claim.”

The
trial
begins
Tuesday.
Let’s
see
if
Trump
tries
the

shit
he
pulled
with
Justice
Engoron
in
New
York
Supreme
Court
in
front
of
a
federal
judge
down
the
block,
or
if
he
takes
the
advice
of
his
prior
competent
counsel
and
stays
on
the
golf
course.

Carroll
v.
Trump
I [Docket
via
Court
Listener]

Carroll
v.
Trump
II [Docket
via
Court
Listener]

Liz
Dye
lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
writes
the Law
and
Chaos substack
and
appears
on
the Opening
Arguments podcast..

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

According
to
Thomson
Reuters
2024
Report
on
the
State
of
the
US
Legal
Market,
what
percentage
of
in-house
respondents
say
they
anticipate
spreading
legal
work
to
lower
cost
law
firms
over
the
next
12
months?

Hint:
The
same
report
also
revealed
that
billing
rates
increased
6%
across
the
industry
last
year.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Donald
Trump
is
the
living
embodiment
of
the
concept
that
if
you
repeat
a
lie
loudly
enough
and
often
enough
many
people
will
come
to
believe
it.
He
owes
his
political
success
to
this
sad
weakness
of
the
human
material.

And
boy
has
Trump
told
some
whoppers.
In
terms
of
severity,
something
like
claiming
that
a
violent
mob
of
his
supporters
bent
on
overthrowing
democracy

were
“patriotic
and
peaceful”
is
probably
right
up
there
at
the
top.

Yet,
of
Trump’s
many
dumb
lies,
one
stands
alone
in
how
much
purchase
it
has
found
even
beyond
the
motley
ranks
of
his
most
fervent
supporters:
that
he
is
far
better
than
any
Democratic
challenger
at
promoting
economic
growth.

Trump
repeatedly

promised
that
his
policies
would
result
in
annual
economic
growth
of
more
than
3%.
They
didn’t.

During
the
first
three
years
of
the
Trump
presidency,
before
the
pandemic
hit,
the

average
quarterly
economic
growth
rate
was
2.5%.
This
was
almost
exactly
the
same
rate
of
growth
during
Obama’s
second
term,
when
the
quarterly
economic
growth
rate
averaged
2.4%.

Overall
the
gross
domestic
product
grew
by
only
1.6%
over
the
course
of
Trump’s
entire
term.
This
was

the
lowest
rate
of
growth
under
any
president
since
Herbert
Hoover
(although
it’s
not
entirely
fair
to
blame
the
economic
impacts
of
the
pandemic
on
Trump).

There
were
a
handful
of
quarters
in
which
the
growth
rate
did
temporarily
exceed
3%
under
Trump,
and
one
really
anomalous
quarter
during
which
the
GDP
clawed
back
the
pandemic-related
drop
from
the
previous
quarter.
But
there
was

never
the
sustained
growth
of
“much
higher
than
3%”
that
Trump
promised
on
the
campaign
trail,
and
it
certainly
was
not
“the
greatest
economy
in
the
history
of
our
country”
as

Trump
has
repeatedly
claimed.

Meanwhile,
what
is
the
latest
quarterly
growth
rate
under
the
Joe
Biden
presidency?
A

blockbuster
5.2%.

Though
the
5.2%
quarterly
growth
rate
was
quite
high
by
historical
standards,
it
will
be
some
time
before
final
numbers
are
calculated
for
all
of
2023,
and
in
2022
growth
was
significantly
slower.
Still,
the
first
year
of
the
Biden
presidency,
2021,
saw

the
U.S.
economy
grow
by
5.7%
—
the
largest
full-year
economic
expansion
since
1984.
A
quickly
growing
economy
during
a
Biden
presidency
is
not
a
single-quarter
fluke
or
a
temporary
anomaly.
Biden
has
been
able
to
deliver
on
sustained
rates
of
growth
that
Trump
promised
but
could
never
achieve
himself.

Of
course,
if
you
are
determined
to
convince
yourself
that
the
economy
was
better
under
Trump
than
Biden,
there
are
many
ways
to
do
so.
Perhaps
the
most
popular
is
to
note
that
inflation
has
been
high.

Though

the
Fed
seems
to
have
now
gotten
inflation
under
control,
it
was
indeed
a
problem.
Even
so,
you
can
cherry
pick
any
metric
and
conflate
it
with
the
health
of
the
entire
economy
until
the
cows
come
home.
Sure,
inflation
was
higher
under
Biden
than
Trump,
but
so
was
unemployment
—
you
could
go
all
day.

On
this
narrow
criterion,
however,
there
is
no
need
for
endlessly
redefining
what,
exactly,
constitutes
“the
economy”
or
to
argue
about
the
overall
state
thereof.
Trump
made
a
very
specific
promise:
economic
growth
well
above
3%.
We
can
and
do
measure
this
with
some
precision,
and
we
know
that
while
he
was
president,
Trump
failed
to
achieve
his
own
goal.

Biden,
on
the
other
hand,
has
achieved
a
sustained
rate
of
economic
growth
above
3%.
He
beat
Trump
at
his
own
game.
It
is
a
little
silly
to
judge
a
president
too
harshly
when
it
comes
to
GDP
growth,
since
many
factors
beyond
any
president’s
control
affect
the
economy’s
growth
rate.
Just
the
same,
when
Trump
is
losing
by
his
own
standard,
it’s
worth
pointing
out.

Unfortunately
for
Biden,
the
lie
that
Trump
brought
something
magical
to
the
economy
is
particularly
persistent.

Poll
after
poll
finds
that
more
Americans
trust
Trump
on
the
economy
than
Biden.

The
people
responding
to
these
polls
who
put
their
faith
in
Trump
are
dismally,
tragically
wrong.
But
there
is
one
thing
we
all
should
have
learned
over
the
past
eight
years:
if
you
have
MAGA
in
your
heart,
no
amount
of
data
or
facts
or
objective
reality
is
going
to
change
your
mind.

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 jon_wolf@hotmail.com.

By
now
everyone
knows
that
a
combination
of
Mitch
McConnell’s
machinations
and
RBG’s
ill-timed
date
with
mortality
afforded
Donald
Trump
the
opportunity
to
appoint
three
justices
to
the
High
Court.
Quite
a
coup
for
a
single
4
year
term.

Anyway,
Trump
may
act
like
the
judges

he
appoints
to
the
bench
are
his

personal
lapdogs,
but
that’s
not
the
way
lifetime
appointments
work.
And
now
there’s
data
to
support
the
independence
of
the
Supreme
Court.

University
of
Southern
California
Law
professors
Lee
Epstein
and
Rebecca
L.
Brown

recently
analyzed
SCOTUS
voting
records
from
1937-2021
and
found
the
“Roberts
Court
is
the
most
‘anti-president’
court
in
that
period.”

The

ABA
Journal
breaks
down
exactly
what
that
means:

The
average
win
rate
for
presidents
over
that
period
was
65.2%.
Trump
fared
the
worst,
with
a
win
rate
of
43.5%,
followed
by
former
President
Barack
Obama,
who
had
a
win
rate
of
52.4%,
and
President
Joe
Biden,
who
had
a
win
rate
of
56.5%
through
the
court’s
2021
term.

The
win
rates
are
based
on
orally
argued
cases
that
implicated
presidential
power,
including
cases
in
which
a
party
was
the
United
States,
an
executive
department
or
a
department
head,
an
independent
agency
or
the
president.

Trump
fared
even
worse
in
“high-stakes”
cases,
that
is
cases
about
presidential
power
that
appear
in
a
casebook
or
that
made
the
front
page
of
he
New
York
Times
the
day
after
they
were
decided.
In
those
big
ticket
cases,
Trump’s
win
record
was
only
35
percent.

Of
course,
the
“why”
behind
those
numbers
is
very
much
up
for
debate.
In
general,
the
Roberts
Court
has
been
generally
anti-administrative
state.
And
the
authors

told
the
New
York
Times
they
can’t
determine
whether
this
“speaks
to
the
court’s
view
of
him
and
his
administration
or
to
the
justices’
increasing
willingness
to
check
executive
authority.”
But
with
a
lot
of
noteworthy
case
involving
Trump
coming
up,
“the
data
suggest
a
bumpy
road
for
Trump
in
cases
implicating
presidential
power.”

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.