Category: News Feeds

I
know
that
people
might
wonder
(and
I
know
my
editor
certainly
does)
why
I
include
so
many
stories
about
Tom
Girardi.
For
those
who
have
practiced
for
some
time
(say,
a
minute
or
two),
he
is
a
cautionary
tale
for
all
lawyers,
whether
newbies
or
dinosaurs
or
anywhere
in
between.
It
doesn’t
take
much
to
get
sucked
into
a
downward
spiral,
whether
the
reasons
be
personal,
professional,
or
a
combo.
The
result
is
more
than
just
newspaper
and
online
stories,
it’s
the
lasting
reputational
risk
plus
the
bar
disciplinary
system
breathing
down
an
attorney’s
neck.
But
it’s
not
just
that
attorney’s
reputation
that
is
shredded;
it
doesn’t
help
how
we’re
viewed
by
the
public,
our
clients,
and
others.
The
crooked
lawyer
theme
survives
whatever
happens
to
the
particular
lawyer.
We
all
know
enough
lawyer
jokes
to
fill
a
book,
and
the

New
Yorker
published
a
book
of
lawyer
cartoons
30
years
ago.
Lawyer
jokes
are
not
new.
And
it’s

not
the
only
book
about
lawyer
jokes.
The
jokes
and
stories
are
hilarious,
but
we
are
the
butt
of
them.
Lawyers
aren’t
required
to
have
a
sense
of
humor,
but
they
should.

Sometimes
the
embezzled
funds
can
be
repaid,
sometimes
the
attorney
shows
sufficient
remorse
that
the
license
is
not
lifted
forever,
but
the
reputation
never
improves.
And
Girardi’s
situation
(I
won’t
use
the
word
“plight”
because
he’s
responsible
for
this
massive
fraud)
is
hopefully
the
exception
and
not
the
rule
for
lawyers,
the
vast
majority
of
whom
do
their
best
to
serve
their
clients.
But
the
stain
on
the
profession
is
not
easily
removed.

We
know
how
substance
abuse
can
wreck
professional
and
personal
lives.
We’ve
all
seen
the
statistics
over
the
years,
the
personal
stories
that
some
lawyers
have
been
brave
and
bold
enough
to
share,
but
there
is
still
too
much
that’s
hidden:
hidden
from
clients,
from
partners,
from
the
court,
from
family
and
friends.
I
have
no
idea
whether
substance
abuse
has
played
any
part
in
Girardi’s
fall,
but
it
continues
to
play
a
crucial
role
in
lawyer
discipline
and
the
reputational
risk
that
accompanies
it.

Last
week,
I
wrote
that
a
federal
district
court
here
in
Los
Angeles
had
determined
that

Girardi
was
competent
to
stand
trial
for
his
various
alleged
misdeeds,
but
the
ruling
was
under
seal
for
a
few
days.
Now
the
seal
has
been
broken.
Among
the
evidence
that
the
court
used
to
make
that
determination
is
what
I
will
call
“the
ill-fitting
and
raggedy
sweater”
determination.
One
of
the
things
that
the
court
considered
was
Girardi’s
dress.
Whenever
he
appeared
in
court
for
the
three-day
competency
hearing,
or
for
meetings
with
lawyers
and
medical
experts,
which
had
several
iterations,
Girardi
would
wear
what
the
court
saw
as
sloppy
compared
to
how
he
dressed
pre-scandal.
When
he
was
practicing,
Girardi
was
always
well-dressed,
in
fact,
dapper.

But
that
wasn’t
the
only
piece
of
evidence
that
the
judge
relied
upon
for
her
competency
determination.
Other
factors
included
Girardi’s
phone
calls
with
his
estranged
wife,
Erika
Jayne,
calls
where
there
didn’t
appear
to
be
any
memory
issues,
as
well
as
testimony
from
various
medical
experts.
Another
piece
of
evidence
was
that

Girardi
dropped
the
“F-Bomb”
on
one
of
the
prosecutors
during
the
hearing,
evidence
showing
that
Girardi,
an
experienced
trial
lawyer,
knew
the
importance
of
what
the
witness
was
asked.

The
court
found
that
Girardi
was
faking
the
extent
of
his
alleged
mental
competency
issues
and
“partially
malingering.”
The
court
also
found
that
the
timing
of
the
reported
symptoms
of
incompetency
was
“highly
suspect.”

The
court’s
conclusion:
Girardi
understands
the
nature
and
consequences
of
the
charges
against
him
and
can
assist
properly
in
his
defense.

I
saw
Girardi
on
a
Zoom
bar
association
event
in
December
2020,
in
the
midst
of
COVID-19,
honoring
the
California
chief
justice.
Girardi
appeared
to
be
in
fine
fettle
that
night,
talking
about
his
career
as
a
lawyer
and
how
fabulous
it
was
to
be
so.
If
he
had
any
difficulty
that
night,
it
was
well-concealed.

Girardi’s
trial
will
begin
in
May,
later
than
the
prosecution
wanted,
but
considerably
sooner
than
what
his
lawyers
sought.
The
prosecution
said
it
will
narrow
the
scope
of
the
case
to
focus
on

four
cases
brought
by
Girardi’s
clients.

While
we’re
in
the
courtroom,
so
to
speak,
here’s
an
evidence
question
for
you.

Is
“a
qualified
yes”
a
responsive
answer
for
a
question
that
calls
for
a
“yes
or
no”
answer?
What
do
you
think?
Is
this
a
case
of
wishful
thinking?

I
wonder
how
the
D.C.
Circuit
Court
regarded
this
answer
in
the
arguments
earlier
this
week
in
the
immunity
case.
Is
this
answer
akin
to
a
defendant
in
traffic
court
who
pleads
“guilty
with
an
explanation”?
That’s
an
answer
I
often
heard
when
trying
traffic
cases
so
many
years
ago.
The
court
told
the
defendant
that
guilty
is
still
guilty,
regardless
of
extenuating
or
explanatory
circumstances.
The
response
of
Trump’s
lawyer
to
the
court’s
hypothetical
of
whether
immunity
would
attach
to
a
president
who
ordered
SEAL
Team
6
to
assassinate
his
political
rival
was
“a
qualified
yes.”
As
the
court
pointed
out,
it
was
a
question
that
called
for
a
simple
yes
or
no,
the
inference
being
that
anything
beyond
a
simple
yes
or
no
could
be
stricken
as
nonresponsive.
No
is
a
complete
sentence.

---

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



oldladylawyer@gmail.com.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

One
of
the
exciting
aspects
of
our
combination
is
bringing
our
people
together
into
a
single
office
in
each
jurisdiction
where
we
operate.
[This
approach]
will
accelerate
our
integration,
foster
collaboration
and
create
powerful
financial
synergies
on
the
real
estate
side.

—
a
statement
from
A&O
Shearman
on
the
soon-to-be
combined
firm’s
decision
to

take
over
Shearman
&
Sterling’s

recently
renovated
office
in
New
York
and
occupy
Allen
&
Overy’s
current
office
in
London
before
moving
to
a
new
office
in
2027.
“Whether
we
will
be
in
the
legacy
Allen
&
Overy
or
legacy
Shearman
&
Sterling
space—or
entirely
new
space—will
vary
by
location,”
the
firm
said.
The
firm’s
goal
is
to
finish
all
moves
as
soon
as
possible.

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
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

Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

For
those
who
thought
Trump
was
just
pretending
to
want
to
address
the
court
in
his
civil
fraud
trial
—

IT
ME!
—
he
got
us
good.

As
New
York
litigator
Mitchell
Epner
said,
“That
was
not
on
my
bingo
card.”

Trump’s
attorney
Chris
Kise,
the
former
solicitor
general
of
Florida,
who
has
argued
before
the
Supreme
Court
and
knows
damn
well
how
trials go,
has
spammed
Justice
Arthur
Engoron’s
office
for
a
week
demanding
that
his
client
be

allowed
to
present
part
of
his
own
closing
argument.
After
flatly
refusing
to
agree
that
Trump
would
confine
his
topics
to
relevant,
factual
issues,
Kise
got
the
denial
his
client
desired.
Trump
immediately
howled
on
social
about
being
suppressed,
prompting
the
inevitable
bomb
threat
at
the
judge’s
home
this
morning.

But
Trump
and
his
lawyers
had
one
more
stunt
planned
for
the
day
in
their
bid
to
win
the
news
cycle.

First
Kise
and
Alina
Habba
had
yelled
for
more
than
two
hours
about
Trump’s
amazing
net
worth
and
the
supposed
witch
hunt
by
the
Attorney
General.
Then
with
just
six
minutes
left
in
their
allotted
time,
Kise
renewed
his
request
to
have
his
client
address
the
court.
This
was
Trump’s
cue.
Without
agreeing
to
the
required
preconditions,
he
launched
into
a
broadside
against
the
court
and
the
prosecutors.

“We
have
a
situation
where
I’m
an
innocent
man.
I’ve
been
persecuted
by
someone
running
for
office…
I’ve
built
buildings
all
over
the
city.
I’ve
never
had
a
problem.
Until
now…
they
want
to
make
sure
I
don’t
win
again.
This
is
election
interference,”
he
ranted,
as
reported
by
the

Daily
Beast’s
Jose
Pagliery,
who
was
in
the
room.

Kise
ignored
the
court’s
remonstrance
to
control
his
client,
counting
on
the
court’s
unwillingness
to
have
the
bailiff
tackle
a
man
with
Secret
Service
protection
—
particularly
with
a
hard
stop
at
1pm.

At
12:59,
the
judge
indicated
that
Trump
had
one
more
minute.

“You
can’t
listen
for
more
than
one
minute.
This
is
a
persecution,”
Trump
complained.
But
soon
enough
he
stormed
out
of
the
courtroom,
having
successfully
gotten
the
mic
drop
moment
he
came
for.

Slow
clap
for
an
excellent
troll,
sir,
you
won
the
news
cycle.
But
to
the
extent
that
the
trial
judge’s
entirely
discretionary
exercise
of
his
authority
to
bar
a
defendant
from
pinch
hitting
as
his
own
lawyer
was
ever
appealable,
that
issue
is
gone.
Trump
didn’t
save
his
real
estate
empire,
and
his
outburst
will
amount
to
little
more
than
a
couple
of
paragraphs
in
the
final
order
noting
that
the
defendant
is
clearly
not
remorseful
and
is
unlikely
to
change
his
behavior
if
allowed
to
retain
his
real
estate
holdings.

After
lunch,
the
prosecutors
resumed
their
closing
arguments.
In
the
end,
the
needle
never
moved,
and
Trump
is
just
as
likely
to
face
a
crippling
fine
and
the
demise
of
his
business
as
he
was
before
his
little
gimmick.

---

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

The
legal
status
of
marijuana
in
the
United
States
is
comparable
to
the
Korean
War:
The
conflict
ceased
long
ago,
yet
no
treaty
or
official
act
has
ever
formally
recognized
the
ending.

Now
comes
the
moment
that
the
conflict
between
federal
and
state
laws
over
cannabis
may
finally
have
its
de
facto
treaty
ratified
—
at
least
partially. 

Four
months
ago,
the
U.S.
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services
(HHS)


recommended
reclassifying
marijuana

to
Schedule
III,
a
categorization
for
drugs
with
“a
moderate
to
low
potential
for
drug
abuse.”

Under
the
Comprehensive
Drug
Abuse
Prevention
and
Control
Act
of
1970
(21
U.S.C.
§
812),
pot
has
been
relegated
to
the
same
bucket
of
allegedly
hazardous
substances
as
heroin
and
LSD
—
even
higher
than
for
the
classification
of
fentanyl
and
methamphetamine.

More
than
a
half-century
later,
the
feds
have
largely
turned
the
other
enforcement
cheek,
as
all
but
four
states
have


decriminalized
or
legalized
cannabis

for
either
medical
or
recreational
purposes
or
both. 

While
federal
law
remains
unaltered,
in
late
December,
President
Biden
announced
that
thousands
of
people
convicted
of
use
and
simple
possession
of
marijuana
on
federal
land
and
in
the
District
of
Columbia


would
be
eligible
for
pardons.

Biden’s
announcement
is
the
latest
in
his


ongoing
push
for
marijuana
legal
reforms.
With
the
national
election
months
away
and


70%
of
Americans

supporting
legalization,
2024
appears
perhaps
the
best
time
ever
for
the
incumbent
president
to
capitalize
on
public
support
for
change.

A
key
question,
of
course,
is
what
effect
further
reform
might
have
on
increasing
cannabis
treatments
for
a
growing
range
of
illnesses
and
conditions
that
may
respond
well
to
its
active
ingredients
tetrahydrocannabinol
(THC)
and/or
cannabidiol
(CBD).

Ever
since
Colorado
and
Washington
became
the
first
states
to
legalize
weed
for
recreational
use
in
2012,
scientists
and
private
groups
have
pursued
development
of
therapies
for
everything
from


Alzheimer’s
disease

to
the
tremors
of


Parkinson’s
disease

to
pain
management
for


cancer,
heart
disease,
diabetes,
arthritis,

and


endometriosis,
a
reproductive
ailment
affecting


an
estimated
10%
of
females.
Even
the


National
Institutes
of
Health

have
acknowledged
pot’s
therapeutic
potential.

Especially
encouraging
is
both
anecdotal
and
research
evidence
showing
that
THC,
marijuana’s
active
component,
can
be
effective
for
treatment
of
severe
forms
of


epileptic
seizures,
most
notably
in
children.
For
this
reason,
in
2018
the
U.S.
Food
and
Drug
Administration
(FDA)
approved
the
cannabidiol
drug
(not
the
psychoactive
THC)
Epidolex
for
treatment
of
the
rare
but
severe
forms
of
epilepsy
known
as
Lennox-Gastault
and
Dravet
syndromes.

Public
opinion
has
swung
a
long
way
from
the
Cheech-and-Chong
days
of
1969,
when
the
first
Gallup
poll
on
marijuana
showed
that
only
12%
of
Americans
supported
legalization.
As
usual,
the
wheels
of
law
and
justice
turn
far
more
slowly.

One
reason
for
changing
sentiments:
Since
its
first
recreational-marijuana
dispensaries
opened
10
years
ago
this
New
Year’s
Day
(medicinal
pot
had
been
legal
for
more
than
a
decade),
Colorado
has
taken
in


$2.6
billion
in
tax
and
revenue
on
$15
billion
in
pot
sales,
spurring
other
states
to
join
the
gold
rush
en
masse.
The
transition
stands
to
force
a
seismic
shift
in
the
national
legal
landscape
in
2024.

Photo:
Pablo
Porciuncula
BRUNE,/
AFP/Getty
Images

Editor’s
Note:
This
article
first
appeared
in
the
Healthcare
Docket
newsletter.



Click
here
to
subscribe
and
read
the
full
newsletter. 

Although
women
now
outnumber
men
when
it
comes
to

law
school
enrollment,
according
to
the

latest
data
from
the
American
Bar
Association,
the
legal
profession
remains
a
male-dominated
industry
by
a
measure
of
61.5%
to
38.3%.
Many
practice
areas
are
still
lacking
in
diversity
but
women
continue
to
try
to
level
the
playing
field.
How
can
this
be
done
when
the
odds
seem
to
be
against
them?

Who
better
to
answer
this
question
than
the
founder
of
an
enterprising
firm
who’s
leading
the
way
for
women
lawyers
in
music
and
entertainment?

I
recently
had
the
pleasure
of
chatting
with

Lisa
Alter,
founding
partner
of

Alter
Kendrick
&
Baron,
a
renowned
music
and
entertainment
firm.
Lisa
is
perennially
recognized
as
one
of
the
top
lawyers
in
the
music
industry,
having
earned
numerous
accolades
from

Billboard
and

Variety.
Here
is
a
(lightly
edited
and
condensed)
write-up
of
our
lively
conversation
on
the
unique
challenges
—
and
opportunities
—
she
and
her
firm
have
faced
in
the
historically
male-dominated
music
industry.

Staci
Zaretsky
(SZ):
Your
practice
is
focused
on
the
acquisition
and
sale
of
significant
music
assets.
How
did
you
decide
you
wanted
to
enter
into
such
a
niche
area?

Lisa
Alter
(LA):
My
father
was
an
entertainment
lawyer
in
the
film/theatre/theatrical
space.
I
worked
in
my
father’s
office
during
high
school
and
college,
and
through
that
work
developed
a
strong
background
in
copyright
law
–
as
well
as
the
opportunity
to
witness
a
brilliant,
thoughtful
attorney
at
work.

At
the
outset,
I
wanted
to
concentrate
my
practice
in
the
area
of
film
and
television.
Indeed,
I
expressly
did
not
want
to
focus
on
music
law,
largely
because
of
the
reputation
of
the
music
industry
as
an
“old
boy”/male-dominated
area.
However,
early
in
my
career
I
joined
The
Rodgers
&
Hammerstein
Organization
(now
part
of
Concord),
first
as
Associate
General
Counsel
and
then
as
General
Counsel.
Through
my
work
at
R&H,
I
not
only
greatly
expanded
my
working
knowledge
of
copyright
law,
but
I
also
fell
in
love
with
the
area
of
music
and
the
law.
This
inspired
me
to
return
to
private
practice,
with
a
focus
on
music
law.

SZ:
Given
that
the
music
industry
has
been
historically
male
dominated,
have
you
faced
any
challenges
in
your
practice?

LA:
As
I
discussed
above,
as
a
young
lawyer
I
intentionally
did
not
seek
out
opportunities
in
the
music
space
because
of
its
reputation
of
being
historically
male-dominated.
Once
I
began
to
work
in
the
area,
I
initially
gravitated
to
the
music
publishing
(as
opposed
to
recording)
side
of
the
business
because
there
were
a
greater
number
of
women
working
in
higher
level
executive
positions
in
this
area.
At
that
time,
however,
there
were
very
few
senior
women
practicing
law
in
the
music
space,
and
I
missed
the
lack
of
female
mentors.

That
said,
I
believe
that
my
ability
to
build
a
reputation
and,
ultimately,
a
career
in
the
music
industry
was
bolstered
by
a
few
factors.
First,
being
named
General
Counsel
of
R&H
at
such
a
young
age
gave
me
a
gravitas
that
I
would
not
have
been
accorded
as
a
junior
attorney
—
either
at
my
first
“Biglaw”
job
or
in
an
in-house
position.
Second,
when
I
returned
to
private
practice,
I
was
fortunate
to
count
among
my
first
clients
a
large
roster
of
some
of
America’s
greatest
musical
estates,
including
the
estates
of
Ira
Gershwin,
Hoagy
Carmichael,
and
Billy
Strayhorn.
Speaking
on
behalf
of
these
clients
opened
doors
for
me
in
the
industry
that
might
otherwise
have
taken
many
years
to
open.
Finally,
the
fact
that
my
practice
was
founded
in
copyright
law
gave
me
an
expertise
that
was
missing
among
many
of
my
older,
male
counterparts
and,
in
effect,
gave
me
a
voice
at
the
table.

SZ:
On
the
flip
side
of
the
coin,
what
opportunities
have
been
presented
to
you
considering
the
fact
that
the
lawyers
at
your
firm
are
predominantly
women?

LA:
I
am
not
sure
that
the
fact
that
the
lawyers
at
our
firm
are
predominantly
women
has
given
us
opportunities.
Rather,
our
success
as
a
firm
is
attributable
to
the
fact
that
we
hold
ourselves
to
a
very
high
standard
of
practice.
While
our
clients
are
predominantly
in
the
music
space,
including
some
of
the
most
powerful
music
publishers,
private
equity
companies,
and
financial
partners
with
interests
in
music
content,
as
well
as
legacy
songwriters
and
recording
artists,
we
approach
every
transaction
through
a
corporate
and
copyright
lens.
Indeed,
I
consider
our
practice
to
be
an
“MM&A”
practice
—
that
is,
Music
Mergers
&
Acquisitions
—
rather
than
simply
a
music
practice.

I
do
take
great
pride
in
the
fact
that
as
a
predominantly
female
firm,
we
are
helping
to
dispel
the
notion
that
the
music
industry
is
a
male-dominated
area.
Moreover,
we
take
our
role
as
mentors
and
role
models
for
future
generations
of
women
who
want
to
work
in
this
area
very
seriously.
Given
the
opportunity,
we
actively
support
the
inclusion
of
qualified
women
attorneys
and
music
industry
executives
in
industry-wide
conferences
and
in
leadership
roles
in
music
industry
initiatives.

SZ:
Do
you
have
any
advice
for
women
who
may
be
interested
in
following
in
your
footsteps?

LA:
First,
develop
strong
lawyering
skills:
understanding
the
legal
principals
informing
the
matters
that
you
work
on
is
fundamental
to
your
role
as
an
attorney.
Second,
listen
well
—
to
your
clients,
opposing
counsel,
and
colleagues
alike.
Third,
learn
to
be
a
strong
advocate
without
being
“argumentative.”
You
do
not
need
to
be
the
loudest
voice
in
the
room
to
be
the
most
powerful
voice
in
the
room.
Fourth,
become
a
great
writer.
Whether
you
are
drafting
a
contract
or
an
email,
words
matter
and
the
more
precise
your
drafting
is,
the
less
likely
that
there
will
be
confusion
interpreting
the
document
in
the
future.
Fifth,
always
think
outside
the
box
—
whether
it
is
in
the
context
of
identifying
legal
risks
in
transactions
and
devising
mechanisms
for
mitigating
those
risks,
or
simply
in
the
context
of
drafting
a
document
that
reflects
the
intention
of
the
parties,
never
simply
“follow
a
form.”
And,
finally,
always
act
with
integrity.
The
music
bar
is
relatively
small,
and
acting
with
fairness
while
still
advocating
for
your
client
is
essential
to
building
a
reputation
that
you
will
be
proud
of.

On
behalf
of
everyone
here
at
Above
the
Law,
we’d
like
to
thank
Lisa
Alter
of
Alter
Kendrick
&
Baron
for
taking
the
time
to
help
answer
some
pressing
career
questions
on
achieving
success
in
a
male-dominated
practice
area.

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
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

Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

For
the
last
few
days,
billionaire
Bill
Ackman
has
slowly
developed
the
callouses
that
a
lifetime
spent
as
a
prep
school
and
Ivy
League-educated
finance
bro
denied
him.
Taking
full
advantage
of
the
expanded
character
limit
for
Bluechecks,
Ackman’s
busy
thumbs
have
typed
out
lengthy
screeds
against
Business
Insider
for
reporting
that
Ackman’s
wife,
MIT
professor
Neri
Oxman,

lifted
passages
from
others
without
attribution
for
her
dissertation
and

lifted
directly
from
Wikipedia.

Best
$8/month
this
guy
ever
spent!

Ackman’s
even
asked
“the
@X
legal
community”
if
he
should
file
a
defamation
suit.
If
he
ever
gets
around
to
talking
to
a
real
lawyer,
they
might
want
to
tell
him
to
shut
up.

Ackman’s
social
media
frenzy
began
last
month
when
he
threw
himself
into
the
effort
to
fire
Harvard
president
Claudine
Gay,
ostensibly
for
giving
bad
answers
to
questions
to
legislators

deeply
concerned
about
antisemitism
on
campus.
That
the
legislator
in
question,
Elise
Stefanik,
has

openly
pushed
the
Great
Replacement
Theory
didn’t
seem
to
factor
into
the
equation.

Gay,
like

now-former
Penn
president
Liz
Magill,
delivered
entirely
accurate
accounts
of
how
free
speech
is
supposed
to
work
—
to
wit,
no
matter
how
vile
the
statement,
it’s
not
punishable
unless
it
crosses
into
harassment.
Reasonable
minds
can
quibble
about
when
speech
constitutes
harassment,
but
there’s
at
least

some
point
where
speech
is
just
speech.

Magill
resigned,
but
Harvard
stood
behind
Gay,
prompting
critics
like
Ackman
to
seek
out
new
attacks
against
her,
ultimately
settling
on
allegations
that
she
committed
plagiarism.
While
Gay
would
ultimately
resign,
the
accusation
was…
comical:

Not
to
go
all
Frank
Easterbrook-textualist
here,
but
when
you
write
about
statutes,
you’re
kind
of
limited
to
THE
TEXT
OF
THE
STATUTE.

But
Ackman
ate
this
stuff
up,
becoming
social
media’s
biggest
defender
of
academic
purity
in
the
name
of
forcing
Gay
out.

And
then
along
came
Business
Insider
asking
the
reasonable
question:
“I
wonder
if
Ackman’s
wife
has
ever
copied
anything
that
would
meet
Ackman’s
standard?”
The
investigation
appears
to
have
turned
up
some
verbatim
or
near
verbatim
copying.
Like…

This
is,
by
the
way,
more
sloppy
than
pernicious.
She
cites
Mattheck
elsewhere
so
it’s
not
like
she’s
trying
to
lift
those

ideas
without
attribution.
Many
of
the
examples
turned
up
by
BI
include
citations,
but
just
not
quotation
marks.
Though,
here’s
the
thing…
when
Claudine
Gay
did
this,
Ackman
declared
it
a
fireable
offense.

Goose,
meet
Gander.

And
at
least
Gay
wasn’t
copying
from
Wikipedia.
Which,
whatever
you
think
about
plagiarism
—
and
there
are

very
sound
arguments
that
plagiarism
a
dumb
thing
to
obsess
over
—
is
just
embarrassing.

Ackman
took
the
accusation
about
his
own
hypocrisy
in
stride.
Just
kidding,
he
went
ballistic. This
is
one
of
several
rants Ackman
has
posted
on
this
subject
over
the
last
week:

A
fun
fact:

Spoiler:
this
will
not
be
a
fun
fact.

Our
lawyers
used
the
Wayback
Machine
to
check
@MIT’s
plagiarism
policy
back
when
Neri
wrote
her
thesis
in
2009.

Note
that
he
suggests
that
he
has
lawyers
here.
This
will
come
up
later.

It
turns
out
that
MIT’s
academic
integrity
handbook
did
not
require
citation
or
even
mention
Wikipedia
until
2013,
four
years
after
Neri
wrote
her
dissertation
and
used
Wikipedia
for
the
definitions
of
15
words
and/or
terms.
Bear
in
mind
that
2009
was
still
pretty
early
days
for
Wikipedia.

Do
plagiarism
policies
need
to
name
every
possible
source?
It
seems
like
“don’t
copy
stuff
without
attribution”
is
a
bit
of
a
catch-all,
isn’t
it?

Skipping
over
76
more
words
—
unlimited
character
posts
must
be
stopped!
—
Ackman
continues:

What
are
the
chances
that
Business
Insider
examined
the
MIT
handbook
“as
far
back
as
2007”
and
didn’t
notice
that
there
was
no
requirement
to
cite
Wikipedia
nor
was
it
even
mentioned
until
April
4,
2013
when
the
following
language
was
added:

“Wikipedia
is
Not
a
Reliable
Academic
Source

This
is
NOT
helping.
When
your
argument
hinges
on
the
idea
that
until
2013
the
jury
was
out
on
whether
a
crowd-sourced
database
could
be
“a
reliable
academic
source,”
you’re
not
winning.

Skipping
ahead
AGAIN…

To
be
clear,
Neri
did
not
use
Wikipedia
as
a
source,
but
only
for
the
definitions
of
15
words
and/or
terms
for
her
dissertation.

That’s…
what
the
word
“source”
means?

According
to
the
Cornell
Law
Legal
Information
Institute:

In
order
to
prove
“prima
facie
defamation,”

“a
plaintiff
must
show
four
things:

1)
a
false
statement
purporting
to
be
fact;
2)
publication
or
communication
of
that
statement
to
a
third
person;
3)
fault
amounting
to
at
least
negligence;
and
4)
damages,
or
some
harm
caused
to
the
reputation
of
the
person
or
entity
who
is
the
subject
of
the
statement.”

Right.
It
also
requires
actual
malice
when
the
subject
is
a
public
figure.
When
folks
pointed
that
out,
Ackman
tweeted,
“.@NeriOxman
is
not
a
public
figure.
She
is
an
intensely
private
person
married
to
a
public
figure.”

Swing
and
a
miss.

Public
figures
do
not
have
to
have
voluntarily
inserted
themselves
into
a
conversation.
Oxman
got
dragged
into
this
when
Ackman
decided
to
use
plagiarism
as
his
justification
to
wage
war
on
Claudine
Gay.
Even
if
Ackman
hadn’t,
a
court
would
most
likely
find
Oxman
a
public
figure
at
least
for
the
purpose
of
academic
ethics
claims
because
she
is
definitely
a
prominent
figure
within
academia.

Remember
how
Ackman
said
up
top
that
he
had
lawyers?
Have
they
not
explained
this?

This
leads
me
to
a
few
question
for
the
@X
legal
community.

Dude,

I
know
rates
are
up,
but
you
can
afford
a
real
lawyer
before
crowdsourcing
this
one.
On
the
other
hand,
this
is
a
family
who
really
loves
Wikipedia
so
maybe
crowdsourcing
is
just
their
thing.

This
dweeb
wrote

over
4000
words
about
how
diversity
is
destroying
the
world
by
elevating
people
“not
qualified
to
serve
in
that
role”
and
then
goes
to
“THE
@X
LEGAL
COMMUNITY”
instead
of
picking
up
the
phone
and
calling
an
actual
defamation
lawyer?

Anyway,
a
lawyer
would
tell
Ackman
all
about
the
public
figure
problem.
They’d
also
explain
that
it’s
a
problem
for
a
defamation
claim
when
he’s
publicly
(and
at
length)
admitting
that
the
FACT
of
the
copied
passages
alleged
by
BI
is
true,
but
that
he
just
doesn’t
think
it
should
constitute
“plagiarism.”
And
they’d
definitely
let
him
know
that
the
lawsuit
he’s
describing
in
this
and
other
posts
is
just
a
SLAPP
suit.

But
most
importantly,
a
real
lawyer
would
tell
him
that
all
of
these
posts
are
just
making
it
worse.
Entering
“Neri
Oxman”
on
a
search
engine
now
delivers
a
bunch
of
hits
about
“plagiarism”
which
is
exactly
what
he

doesn’t
want
to
be
teaching
the
algorithm.
Even
if
some
cognizable
defamation
claim
exists
here
—
and
it’s
not
apparent
that
it
does
—
scrolling
Ackman’s
social
media
provides
a
ton
of
troublesome
admissions
that
would
undermine
a
future
case.

Sometimes
lawyers
aren’t
just
there
for
the
“legal”
advice.
Telling
someone
to
stop
making
their
wife
famous
for
all
the
wrong
reasons
is
sage
counsel
too.

---

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.

Retaliation
claims
can
get
messy.
After
being
fired
from
Davis
Polk
in
2019,
Kaloma
Cardwell
claimed
that
the
firing
was
in
response
to
his
complaints
about
racial
discrimination
at
the
firm.
I
feel
like
most
people
will
complain

after
allegedly
being
excluded
from
the
team
emails
involving
the
cases
they
were
assigned
to
and
having
a
harder
time
getting
eye
contact
reciprocated
from
higher-ups
than
having
a
staring
context
in

the
Birdbox
universe.
Cases
like
these
usually
get
settled
before
they
see
the
light
of
the
courtroom.
This
is
not
one
of
those
times.
The
trial
is
already
under
way,
and
some
of
the
complaints
about
his
work
are
already

extremely
nit-picky.
From
the

ABA
Journal:

[Rocio]
Clausen[,
a
lawyer
who
was
a
professional
development
manager
for
the
law
firm,]
said
Cardwell
thought
that
the
assignment
would
take
away
from
his
work
with
the
mergers
and
acquisitions
group,
in
which
he
was
involved.
Cardwell
said
“African
American
men
were
generally
disadvantaged”
in
the
legal
field,
and
he
didn’t
want
to
hurt
his
M&A
prospects,
Clausen
testified.

Clausen
said
Cardwell
was
working
fewer
hours
than
other
M&A
lawyers,
and
his
refusal
to
help
“was
very
upsetting
to
me.”

Clausen
said
Cardwell’s
relaxed
body
language
during
the
meeting
was
“cavalier.”
She
demonstrated
by
leaning
back
in
her
chair,
according
to
Law.com.

Truly
a
missed
career
path
—
why
is
she
a
lawyer
when
she
could
have
been
an
actor!
The
only
other
way
Cardwell’s
alleged
demeanor
could
have
been
accurately
described
is
this
timeless
Simpsons
clip:

The
concrete
issue
of
if
Cardwell
was
working
less
than
his
peers
is
one
thing,
but
taking
someone
to
task
for
not
being
visibly
stressed
out
isn’t
the
own
you
think
it
is.
Reminder:

you
cannot
tell
how
busy
or
stressed
someone
is
just
by
looking
at
them.

Witness
for
fired
BigLaw
associate
describes
‘cavalier’
body
language,
refusal
to
help
in
a
pinch
[ABA
Journal]

Earlier:

Davis
Polk
Hit
With
Racial
Discrimination
Lawsuit

---

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.

On
the
final
day
of
Donald
Trump’s
civil
fraud
trial
in
New
York,
the
judge
presiding
over
his
case
woke
up
to
a
bomb
threat.

As
first
reported
by
the

Daily
Beast,
the
Nassau
County
Police
Department
showed
up
at
the
home
of
Justice
Arthur
Engoron
with
the
bomb
squad
in
tow,
just
hours
after
the
former
president

complained
on
social
media
that
“THE
TRUMP
HATING
JUDGE
AND
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
ARE
WORKING
CLOSELY
TOGETHER
TO
“SCREW
ME”
and
called
the
jurist
“MEAN
&
NASTY.”

Although
Trump’s
lawyers

play
dumb
about
the

specter
of
violence
that
lurks
behind
Trump’s
social
media
attacks,
his
targets
are
routinely
subject
to
an
avalanche
of
threats
and
harassment.
Justice
Engoron
isn’t
even
the
first
judge
this
year
to
get
swatted
by
Trump
supporters.
That
honor
belongs
to
US
District
Judge
Tanya
Chutkan,
who
presides
over
Trump’s
election
interference
case
and
who
was
visited
by
police
on
January
7
after
a

false
report
of
a
shooting
at
her
home.
Special
Counsel
Jack
Smith
was

swatted
on
Christmas
day,
and
Maine’s
Secretary
of
State
Shenna
Bellows
was
the
subject
of
a

fake
emergency
call
on
December
29,
the
day
after
she
removed
Trump
from
the
state’s
2024
ballot.
In
this
very
case,
Justice
Engoron’s
law
clerk
has
been
subject
to
a

vicious
campaign
of
harassment,
much
of
it
antisemitic,
after
Trump
and
his
lawyers
made
her
the

target
of
their
campaign
to
undermine
the
trial.

The
threat
follows
the

weeklong
kerfuffle
over
Trump’s
ostensible
demand
to
deliver
his
own
closing
argument.
Increasingly

inappropriate
emails
from
his
lawyer
Chris
Kise
reveal
that
the
plan
was
never
to
get
his
client
a
speaking
role.
They
aimed
to
provoke
a
denial,
and
then
enlist
their
media
allies
to
claim
that
the
court
was
stifling
his
speech.
And
Laura
Ingraham,
a
former
Supreme
Court
clerk
who
certainly
knows
better,
was
only
too
happy

to
oblige.

In
a
last
ditch
effort
to
get
the
hearing
postponed,
Kise
pointed
to
the
death
of
Trump’s
mother-in-law
“who
he
was
very
close
to.”
After
this
failed,
Trump
dispensed
with
any
pretense
of
grief
over
this
“deeply
personal
family
matter”
and
went
ahead
with
his
Fox
News
town
hall
as
planned.
This
morning
he

announced
that
he
was
“Heading
down
to
the
Unconstitutional
Witch
Hunt
in
Lower
Manhattan.
ELECTION
INTERFERENCE!!!”

In
a
rambling
address
to
reporters
outside
the
courtroom
this
morning,
Trump
continued
to
pretend
that
he
intended
to
speak
in
court.

“At
this
point,
the
judge
is
not
letting
me
make
the
summation
because
I’ll
bring
up
things
that
he
doesn’t
want
to
hear.
It’s
a
very
unfair
trial,
nobody’s
seen
anything
like
it,”
he
babbled.

What
Trump
did
not
say,
and
has
not
said
even
once,
is
that
his
supporters
should
stop
threatening
violence
to
the
judge
and
the
law
clerk,
or
any
of
his
other
political
enemies.
Because
of
course,
that
is
exactly
what
he
intends
when
he
spews
lies
about
the

judge’s
wife
and

his
son
and
his

law
clerk.
He’s
deliberately
enlisting
his
goons
in
a
campaign
of
intimidation,
and
he’s
counting
on
them
to
keep
it
up
forever.

---

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

DRS
Law
Personal
Injury
Lawyers,
a
US
Personal
Injury
firm
out
of
Nashville
Tennessee,
is
a
four-attorney
team
with
a
legacy
of
passionate
and
fearless
advocacy.
With
over
30
years
of
success
and
$500M+
in
recoveries,
the
firm
has
been
focusing
on
increasing
its
digital
presence
to
usher
in
a
new
era
of
growth.

Mid-2023,

David
Anthony
Smith
was
searching
for
a
solution
that
could
help
reshape
how
DRS
Law
engages
with
new
clients.
One
of
the
biggest
sources
of
revenue
for
the
firm
was
referrals,
but
with
a
large
wave
of
consumers
shopping
for
law
firms
online
(78%
of
legal
consumers
start
their
search
on
Google),
David
and
his
team
needed
a
new
way
to
engage
potential
clients
to
appropriately
compete
against
other
firms
in
the
area.

DRS
Law
faced
a
common
challenge
within
the
legal
industry
–
uneducated
legal
consumers
wanted
experiences
similar
to
what
they
are
used
to
when
it
came
to
other
purchase
decisions
made
online.

DRS
Law
partnered
with


Lawbrokr,
a
pre-intake
platform
that
helps
guide
consumers
through
their
legal
buying
journeys
to
optimize
the
way
leads
interact
with
you
digitally.
“With
one
simple
change,
replacing
our
traditional
contact
forms,
and
leveraging
Lawbrokr’s

conversational
workflows,
we
saw
4x
more
web
traffic
convert
into
qualified
leads.”

Law
firms
invest
significant
time
and
resources
into
software
that
enhances
their
practice,
including
intake
and
practice
management
systems
like
Lawmatics,
Clio,
MyCase,
and
Filevine.
However,
many
firms
have
yet
to
fully
embrace
technology
that
elevates
the
online
client
experience
(CX),
a
crucial
factor
in
today’s
digital
world.
Notably,
73%
of
consumers
consider
CX
a
decisive
factor
in
making
online
purchases,
a
trend
that
undoubtedly
extends
to
the
selection
of
legal
services.
Enhancing
online
interactions
and
service
delivery
can,
therefore,
be
a
key
differentiator
for
law
firms
looking
to
attract
and
retain
clients.

For
DRS
Law
and
others,
it
also
comes
down
to
time
management.
The
frustration
of
dedicating
resources
to
dead-end
consultations
and
misprioritized
leads
is
all
too
common.
When
teams
waste
time
on
leads
that
ultimately
cannot
be
serviced
due
to
jurisdictional
or
practice
area
constraints,
they
incur
an
opportunity
cost
by
not
focusing
on
more
suitable
leads,
which
can
result
in
a
loss
of
revenue.
If
you
implement
a
solution
that
can
act
as
a
bridge
between
the
client
and
your
intake
team,
not
only
will
you
provide
a
better
client
experience,
but
you
have
the
opportunity
to
take
the
lead
to
conversion
that
much
faster.

When
it
comes
down
to
it,
if
you’re
a
firm
that
is
investing
time
and
resources
into
building
an
exceptional
website
and
creating
valuable
content,
but
lack
an
effective
means
of
converting
visitors
into
leads,
you
are
likely
not
optimizing
your
efforts.

“Lawbrokr
serves
as
the
vital
missing
piece
in
the
customer
experience
puzzle,
ensuring
that
every
website
visitor
has
a
pathway
to
engage
and
provide
essential
case
information
to
your
team.”

For
more
on
digitizing
your
client
experience
visit

the
Lawbrokr
website.