Category Added in a WPeMatico Campaign
Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature
Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!
As
of
2022,
what
percentage
of
lawyers
at
Am
Law
200
firms
are
equity
partners?
Hint:
Back
in
1999,
32
percent
of
Biglaw
attorneys
were
equity
partners.
See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.
Last
week
a
federal
judge
in
Iowa
blocked
a
sweeping
school
book
ban
from
taking
effect
in
state’s
public
school
system.
The
law,
known
as
Senate
File
496,
was
was
enacted
with
much
fanfare
after
Iowa
politicians
consulted
with
the
“extremist”
group
Moms
For
Liberty,
which
seeks
to
foment
culture
war
against
LGBTQ+
Americans
under
the
guise
of
“protecting
children.”
The
statute
bars
school
libraries
from
carrying
books
which
depict
“sex
acts”
and prohibits
“any
program,
curriculum,
test,
survey,
questionnaire,
promotion,
or
instruction
relating
to
gender
identity
or
sexual
orientation
to
students
in
kindergarten
through
grade
six.”
As
Judge
Stephen
Locher
noted,
the
book
ban
has
already
led
to
the
removal
of
“hundreds
of
books
from
school
libraries,
including,
among
others,
nonfiction
history
books,
classic
works
of
fiction,
Pulitzer
Prize
winning
contemporary
novels,
books
that
regularly
appear
on
Advanced
Placement
exams,
and
even
books
designed
to
help
students
avoid
being
victimized
by
sexual
assault.”
It
is
more
than
a
little
ironic
that
a
law
designed
to
“protect”
kids
has
led
to
the
removal
of
not
only
1984
but
also
books
designed
to
help
young
adults
avoid
sexual
violence,
such
as
The
Truth
About
Rape.
Meanwhile,
the
ban
on
“promoting”
gender
identity
caused
a
wave
of
self-censorship,
as
educators
removed
pride
flags
and
canceled
LGBTQ+
clubs
in
an
attempt
to
avoid
falling
foul
of
the
nebulously
worded
statute.
This
assault
on
conservatives’
new
favorite
hobby
was
lodged
by
two
sets
of
plaintiffs.
A
group
of
LGBTQ+
students
and
their
parents
represented
by
Lambda
Legal
and
the
ACLU
sued
on
November
28,
claiming
that
the
law
chills
student
speech
through
unlawful
viewpoint
discrimination.
They
were
followed
two
days
later
by
a
consortium
consisting
of
Penguin
Random
House,
several
authors
whose
books
have
been
removed,
and
local
educators,
who
challenged
the
statute
on
both
First
Amendment
and
due
process
grounds.
While
the
plaintiffs
and
the
student
defendants
agreed
that
the
law
is
intended
to
target
LGBTQ+
content
specifically,
Judge
Locher’s
opinion
largely
ignored
the
“groomer”
discourse
swirling
around
the
issue.
Instead
the
court
found
that
the
plain
language
of
the
statute
is
so
broad
that
it
not
only
bars
descriptions
of
any
relationship,
gay
or
straight,
but
it
functionally
bans
the
use
of
pronouns
at
all.
“Based
on
the
neutral
definitions
of
‘gender
identity’
and
‘sexual
orientation,’
Senate
File
496
unambiguously
prohibits
instruction
relating
to
any
gender
identity
(cisgender
or
transgender)
and
any
sexual
orientation
(gay
or
straight),”
he
wrote.
“This
would
include,
for
example,
teachers
or
other
licensed
professionals
like
the
Educator
Plaintiffs
who
make
books
available
to
students
that
refer
to
any
character’s
gender
or
sexual
orientation;
which
is
to
say,
virtually
every
book
ever
written,”
the
court
went
on.
“Similarly,
a
math
teacher
will
have
violated
the
law
by
requiring
students
to
take
an
exam
stating
that
Sally
bought
eight
apples
and
ate
three
and
asking
how
many
‘she’
has
left.
This
is
a
forbidden
‘test
.
.
.
relating
to
gender
identity.’”
Noting
that
the
court
“cannot
interpret
Senate
File
496
as
targeting
transgender
identities
and
homosexual
relationships
without
substituting
the
Court’s
own
choice
of
words
for
the
ones
chosen
by
the
Legislature,”
Judge
Locher
struck
the
provision
of
the
law
banning
“promotion”
of
gender
identity
as
void
for
vagueness.
The
book
ban
issue
is
not
so
simple.
Judge
Locher
attempted
to
parse
the
competing
SCOTUS
and
Eighth
Circuit
decisions,
concluding
that
the
various
plaintiffs
were
differently
situated.
In
the
end,
the
court
went
with
a
“obscenity-light”
standard,
reasoning
that
the
kids
are
being
deprived
of
access
to
literally
any
book
besides
the
Bible
that
depicts
or
describes
sex
at
all
under
a
“statewide
law
with
across-the-board
implications
for
publishers,
authors,
teachers,
and
students—as
opposed
to
an
isolated
decision
about
an
individual
book
by
a
local
school
board.”
“The
State
Defendants
have
not
identified,
nor
has
the
Court
been
able
to
locate,
a
single
case
upholding
school
library
restrictions
as
broad
as
those
set
forth
in
Senate
File
496,”
he
wrote.
“In
essence,
the
Iowa
Legislature
has
used
a
bulldozer
where
school
boards
in
prior
cases
merely
employed
a
scalpel.”
The
court
left
intact
a
provision
of
the
law
which
would
require
schools
to
out
gay
and
trans
kids
to
their
parents,
because
none
of
the
plaintiffs
had
standing
to
challenge
it
—
all
of
the
kids
who
sued
here
are
out
to
their
parents.
Iowa
Governor
Kim
Reynolds
pronounced
herself
“extremely
disappointed”
with
Judge
Locher’s
ruling.
“There
should
be
no
question
that
books
containing
sexually
explicit
content
—
as
clearly
defined
in
Iowa
law
—
do
not
belong
in
a
school
library
for
children.
The
fact
that
we’re
even
arguing
these
issues
is
ridiculous,”
she
fumed.
“The
real
debate
should
be
about
why
society
is
so
intent
on
over-sexualizing
our
young
children.”
She
did
not
explain
why
it’s
acceptable
for
libraries
to
stock
a
Bronze
Age
tome
that
describes
a
father
offering
his
daughters
to
be
gang
raped
by
a
mob
and
later
impregnating
them
in
a
cave
during
a
night
of
drunken
debauchery.
Won’t
someone
think
of
the
children!
Penguin
Random
House,
LLC
v.
Robbins
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]
GLBT
Youth
in
Iowa
Schools
Task
Force
v.
Reynolds
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]
Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
writes
the Law
and
Chaos substack
and
appears
on
the Opening
Arguments podcast.
(Photo
by
Bonnie
Cash-Pool/Getty
Images)
Last
week,
the
NY
Post
reported
that
“legal
scholar
Jonathan
Turley
becomes
latest
‘swatting’
victim.”
While
“scholar”
seems
like
a
bit
of
a
stretch
to
describe
the
GW
Law
professor
as
of
2024,
this
is
otherwise
a
disturbing
story
and
thankfully
Turley
was
all
right.
But
when
life
gives
Turley
lemons,
he
makes
half-baked
observations
to
any
media
outlet
willing
to
quote
him.
“Yes,
I
was
swatted
this
evening.
It
is
regrettably
a
manifestation
of
our
age
of
rage,”
the
George
Washington
University
law
professor
said
in
a
statement
on
Friday.
No,
it’s
not.
The
“age
of
rage”
—
a
hokey
catchphrase
wholly
detached
from
the
reality
of
the
declining
incidence
of
violent
crime
—
might
be
the
most
dunderheaded
takeaway
from
the
rise
of
swatting.
Put
aside
for
the
moment
the
idea
that
Americans
are
somehow
“more
mad”
than
in
the
past,
the
relevant
inquiry
when
it
comes
to
swatting
is
“why
are
people
now
using
police
departments
as
a
tool
to
violently
terrorize
others
when
a
mean
tweet
or
a
punch
in
the
mouth
used
to
do?”
“This
is
a
crime
that
flourishes
because
there
is
insufficient
deterrent,”
Turley told
the
outlet.
A
guy
whose
swatting
call
led
to
a
man’s
death
got
20
years
in
prison! To
the
extent
there’s
a
deterrence
problem
here,
it’s
not
in
the
lack
of
severity,
but
the
lack
of
assurance.
People
think
they
can
call
in
reports
anonymously
and
never
be
found,
which
is
both
increasingly
untrue
as
a
matter
of
technology
and
also
not
something
solved
by
beefing
up
available
sentences
or
whatever
Turley’s
advocating
in
this
report.
The
deeper
issue
is
that
in
days
gone
by,
a
false
police
report
wouldn’t
necessarily
cause
local
law
enforcement
to
descend
on
a
house
like
Cousin
Eddie
just
kidnapped
a
millionaire.
The
comedy
of
that
scene
in
Christmas
Vacation
is
the
absurdity
of
that
response.
It
doesn’t
hit
as
quite
so
absurd
these
days.
SWAT
teams
used
to
be
the
rare
province
of
the
biggest
police
departments.
Now
even
small
towns
have
SWAT
teams
showered
with
military
surplus.
When
armed
with
a
hammer,
everything
looks
like
a
nail
and
the
scumbags
who
swat
people
know
they
just
need
to
call
in
a
bogus
report
to
get
a
maximally
terrorizing
response.
But
it’s
not
fair
to
heap
all
the
blame
on
every
rural
sheriff
trying
to
play
a
deadly
game
of
“try
that
in
a
small
town.”
Law
enforcement
loads
out
like
Commander
Shepard
retaking
the
Citadel
because
it’s
actually
plausible
that
they’re
walking
into
a
military
grade
standoff.
In
a
country
where
no
one
is
even
surprised
anymore
to
read
about
somebody
holed
up
with
multiple
semiautomatics
and
ammo
for
days,
it’s
not
surprising
that
the
police
responding
to
these
calls
demand
more
lethal
equipment
and
are
more
skittish
about
what
they’re
walking
into.
Swatting
is
a
byproduct
of
a
nation
awash
in
more
and
more
powerful
weapons
and
more
and
more
edgy
cops.
And
that
makes
these
false
police
reports
regrettably
a
manifestation
of
our
age
of
failing
to
confront
the
disconnect
between
the
text
and
history
of
the
Second
Amendment
and
the
lazy
ahistorical
interpretation
of
this
Supreme
Court.
As
it
happens,
Turley
is
one
of
those
voices
chiding
gun
restriction
advocates
for
failing
to
understand
“reality.”
He’s
not
necessarily
opposed
to
common
sense
reform
mind
you…
he
just
leverages
his
dwindling
credibility
to
chill
everyone
into
accepting
that
no
common
sense
reform
is
actually
possible.
It’s
not
a
policy
problem…
it’s
the
“age
of
rage”
and
you
can’t
solve
that,
can
you?
“Thoughts
and
prayers”
with
an
academic
veneer.
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.
(Photo
by
Bonnie
Cash-Pool/Getty
Images)
Last
week,
the
NY
Post
reported
that
“legal
scholar
Jonathan
Turley
becomes
latest
‘swatting’
victim.”
While
“scholar”
seems
like
a
bit
of
a
stretch
to
describe
the
GW
Law
professor
as
of
2024,
this
is
otherwise
a
disturbing
story
and
thankfully
Turley
was
all
right.
But
when
life
gives
Turley
lemons,
he
makes
half-baked
observations
to
any
media
outlet
willing
to
quote
him.
“Yes,
I
was
swatted
this
evening.
It
is
regrettably
a
manifestation
of
our
age
of
rage,”
the
George
Washington
University
law
professor
said
in
a
statement
on
Friday.
No,
it’s
not.
The
“age
of
rage”
—
a
hokey
catchphrase
wholly
detached
from
the
reality
of
the
declining
incidence
of
violent
crime
—
might
be
the
most
dunderheaded
takeaway
from
the
rise
of
swatting.
Put
aside
for
the
moment
the
idea
that
Americans
are
somehow
“more
mad”
than
in
the
past,
the
relevant
inquiry
when
it
comes
to
swatting
is
“why
are
people
now
using
police
departments
as
a
tool
to
violently
terrorize
others
when
a
mean
tweet
or
a
punch
in
the
mouth
used
to
do?”
“This
is
a
crime
that
flourishes
because
there
is
insufficient
deterrent,”
Turley told
the
outlet.
A
guy
whose
swatting
call
led
to
a
man’s
death
got
20
years
in
prison! To
the
extent
there’s
a
deterrence
problem
here,
it’s
not
in
the
lack
of
severity,
but
the
lack
of
assurance.
People
think
they
can
call
in
reports
anonymously
and
never
be
found,
which
is
both
increasingly
untrue
as
a
matter
of
technology
and
also
not
something
solved
by
beefing
up
available
sentences
or
whatever
Turley’s
advocating
in
this
report.
The
deeper
issue
is
that
in
days
gone
by,
a
false
police
report
wouldn’t
necessarily
cause
local
law
enforcement
to
descend
on
a
house
like
Cousin
Eddie
just
kidnapped
a
millionaire.
The
comedy
of
that
scene
in
Christmas
Vacation
is
the
absurdity
of
that
response.
It
doesn’t
hit
as
quite
so
absurd
these
days.
SWAT
teams
used
to
be
the
rare
province
of
the
biggest
police
departments.
Now
even
small
towns
have
SWAT
teams
showered
with
military
surplus.
When
armed
with
a
hammer,
everything
looks
like
a
nail
and
the
scumbags
who
swat
people
know
they
just
need
to
call
in
a
bogus
report
to
get
a
maximally
terrorizing
response.
But
it’s
not
fair
to
heap
all
the
blame
on
every
rural
sheriff
trying
to
play
a
deadly
game
of
“try
that
in
a
small
town.”
Law
enforcement
loads
out
like
Commander
Shepard
retaking
the
Citadel
because
it’s
actually
plausible
that
they’re
walking
into
a
military
grade
standoff.
In
a
country
where
no
one
is
even
surprised
anymore
to
read
about
somebody
holed
up
with
multiple
semiautomatics
and
ammo
for
days,
it’s
not
surprising
that
the
police
responding
to
these
calls
demand
more
lethal
equipment
and
are
more
skittish
about
what
they’re
walking
into.
Swatting
is
a
byproduct
of
a
nation
awash
in
more
and
more
powerful
weapons
and
more
and
more
edgy
cops.
And
that
makes
these
false
police
reports
regrettably
a
manifestation
of
our
age
of
failing
to
confront
the
disconnect
between
the
text
and
history
of
the
Second
Amendment
and
the
lazy
ahistorical
interpretation
of
this
Supreme
Court.
As
it
happens,
Turley
is
one
of
those
voices
chiding
gun
restriction
advocates
for
failing
to
understand
“reality.”
He’s
not
necessarily
opposed
to
common
sense
reform
mind
you…
he
just
leverages
his
dwindling
credibility
to
chill
everyone
into
accepting
that
no
common
sense
reform
is
actually
possible.
It’s
not
a
policy
problem…
it’s
the
“age
of
rage”
and
you
can’t
solve
that,
can
you?
“Thoughts
and
prayers”
with
an
academic
veneer.
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.
THIS
IS
NOT
STEAMBOAT
WILLIE
“Hey,
did
you
hear!
Mickey
Mouse
is
public
domain
now!”
will
be
the
last
words
of
somebody’s
bank
account
—
let’s
make
sure
it
isn’t
yours.
This
year
started
off
with
a
new
entrant
to
the
public
domain:
Steamboat
Willie!
Cool
as
that
is,
it
bears
repeating
that
he’s
the
precursor
to
the
Mouse
we
know
and
love
to
see
dump
on
DeSantis’s
parade,
Mickey
Mouse.
In
plain
english,
Mickey
Mouse
is
not
yet
in
the
public
domain
and
using
Mickey
Mouse’s
likeness
would
be
a
great
way
to
get
dunked
on
by
the
legal
team
that
managed
to
make
understanding
the
Rule
Against
Perpetuities
enjoyable.
The
likely
candidates
to
be
the
first
to
feel
the
wrath?
NFT
Bros.
The
wise
words
are
courtesy
of
Oscar
Franklin
Tan
on
Cointelegraph:
Only
the
specific
1928
depiction
of
Mickey
Mouse,
the
scarier
black
and
white
character
with
a
longer
nose
and
no
gloves,
is
public
domain,
under
U.S.
law.
Mickey
Mouse,
the
trademark
and
brand,
separate
from
the
character,
is
still
private.
You
cannot
suddenly
make
your
own
Mickey
products.
The
rules
don’t
end
there:
“The
NFT
you
saw
was
specifically
called
‘Steamboat
Willie’,
and
it
was
made
clear
this
refers
only
to
the
1928
version,
even
if
‘Mickey’
is
on
his
T-shirt.
Anyone
using
Mickey
version
1928
would
want
to
make
it
clear
their
creation
or
product
is
not
affiliated
with
Disney,
the
trademark
owner.”
As
hilarious
as
it
would
be
to
see
someone
who
finally
came
up
on
their
bitcoin
“investment”
to
suddenly
lose
it
all
because
they
made
an
NFT
of
a
highly
recognizable
mouse
in
the
wrong
colorway,
I
doubt
the
subjective
experience
of
it
will
be
a
good
time.
Just
so
there’s
no
confusion:
black
and
white
old
timey
aesthetic
cool,
modern
rendition
with
red
pants
and
yellow
boots
means
you’re
gonna
get
some
high-powered
legal
mail
sent
to
your
house.
As
you’d
expect,
people
are
already
testing
the
waters.
Yes,
that
was
a
steamboat
joke:
Given
how
short
internet
attention
spans
are,
the
whole
new
world
Willie
offers
may
get
stripped
of
its
layers
and
end
up
part
of
the
same
Dream
Work:
Trust
me
—
whatever
gets
made
can’t
be
more
vertigo-inducing
than
the
Kingdom
Hearts
franchise:
There’s
literally
no
reason
they
had
to
have
his
shirt
come
off.
ney-nft-1928-mickey-mouse-steamboat-willie-lawyer-comments”>Lawyer
On
Mickey
Mouse
NFTs:
‘You
Cannot
Suddenly
Make
Your
Own
Mickey
Products’
[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.
(Photo
by
Isaac
Brekken/Getty)
A
week
from
today,
Donald
Trump
will
make
his
case
to
the
DC
Circuit
as
to
why
Judge
Tanya
Chutkan
erred
bigly
by
tossing
his
claims
of
presidential
immunity.
Trump’s
final
reply
brief,
in
which
he
will
once
again
insist
that
he
is
being
prosecuted
for
official
acts,
is
due
today.
In
reality,
the
former
president
is
charged
with
obstructing
the
congressional
certification
of
Biden’s
electoral
win
and
attempting
to
toss
out
20
million
swing
state
votes
—
something
which
is
clearly
not
part
of
his
official
duties.
But
moving
the
goalposts
isn’t
even
the
weirdest
part
of
this
appeal.
That
distinction
belongs
to
Trump’s
mishmash
of
claims
that
his
impeachment
by
the
House
in
January
of
2021
and
subsequent
acquittal
by
the
Senate
function
as
a
bar
to
the
current
prosecution.
The
argument
is
twofold
—
with
each
part
vying
to
out-crazy
the
other.
Trump
cites
that
the
Impeachment
Clause’s
language
that
“the
[impeached]
Party
convicted
shall
nevertheless
be
liable
and
subject
to
Indictment,
Trial,
Judgment
and
Punishment,
according
to
Law”
as
supporting
the
premise
that
the
party not
convicted
is
immune
from
prosecution
ever
after.
He
goes
on
to
insist
that
impeachment
in
the
House
functions
as
a
criminal
trial,
and
thus
jeopardy
attaches.
Never
mind
that
the
Impeachment
Clause
specifically
cabins
the
available
sanctions
to”removal
from
Office,
and
disqualification
to
hold
and
enjoy
any
Office
of
honor,
Trust
or
Profit
under
the
United
States,”
barring
all
criminal
penalties.
These
arguments
are
so
facially
ludicrous
that
the
Special
Counsel
barely
bothered
to
rebut
them
at
the
trial
court.
But
since
Republicans
have
now
trained
themselves
to
repeat
this
claptrap
with
a
straight
face
—
mostly
by
dint
of
practiced
repetition
at
high
decibel
—
the
Special
Counsel
is
being
forced
to
confront
it.
And
so,
with
no
small
note
of
exasperation,
Jack
Smith’s
team
devoted
a
fair
bit
of
the
response
filed
yesterday
to
these
“constitutional”
claims.
The
rebuttal
cites
authorities
as
diverse
as
Alexander
Hamilton
and
Senate
Minority
Leader
Mitch
McConnell.
The
former,
who
gets
repeatedly
name-checked
in
Trump’s
own
briefs,
specifically
argued
against
having
the
Supreme
Court
adjudicate
impeachments
—
reinforcing
the
conclusion
that
impeachment
is
a
legislative,
rather
than
criminal,
act,
and
thus
jeopardy
cannot
attach.
And
the
latter
claimed
that
the
Senate
lacked
jurisdiction
to
impeach
a
president
who
had
left
office,
explaining
away
his
vote
to
acquit
on
the
grounds
that
Trump
could
still
be
held
accountable
in
a
court
of
law.
“President
Trump
is
still
liable
for
everything
he
did
while
in
office.
We
have
a
criminal
justice
system
in
this
country,”
McConnell
said.
“We
have
civil
litigation.
And
former
presidents
are
not
immune
from
being
held
accountable
by
either
one.”
In
between
Hamilton
and
McConnell,
Judge
Randolph
Moss
(then
an
assistant
AG),
authored
an
OLC
Memo
in
2000
opining
that
a
former
president
could
indeed
be
criminally
prosecuted
for
the
same
conduct
which
had
gotten
him
impeached.
And
lest
this
be
dismissed
as
mere
partisan
hackery,
the
direct
implication
was
that
his
boss
Bill
Clinton
was
definitely
not
in
the
clear
despite
his
acquittal
by
the
Senate
for
lying
about
a
blow
job.
The
Special
Counsel
also
notes
that
Trump
was
impeached
for
incitement,
where
here
he
is
charged
with
obstruction
of
Congress.
And
much
as
the
former
president
would
like
to
yaddayaddayadda
over
the
distinction,
mumbling
that
this
is
“essentially
the
same
conduct,”
those
two
things
are
not
the
same.
It’s
all
so
offensively
stupid
and
so
transparently
generated
in
an
attempt
to
stall
the
trial
until
after
the
election.
And
speaking
of
offensively
stupid,
the
FedSoc
has
once
again
dusted
off
Reagan
AG
Ed
Meese
as
the
front
man
for
an
amicus
brief
making
the
exact
opposite
case
they’ve
all
made
for
25
years
when
the
subject
was
Bill
Clinton,
not
Donald
Trump.
They’ve
recently
discovered
that
special
counsels
are
illegal
because
they
aren’t
nominated
by
the
president
and
confirmed
by
the
Senate.
Which
is
ridiculous,
but
at
least
it’s
novel,
so
…
points
for
that,
at
least!
US
v.
Trump [District
Docket
via
Court
Listener]
US
v.
Trump [Circuit
Docket
via
Court
Listener]
Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
writes
the Law
and
Chaos substack
and
appears
on
the Opening
Arguments podcast.
(Photo
by
Mark
Wilson/Getty
Images)
Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,
Quote
of
the
Day.
This
is
the
slowest
admit
cycle
than
in
the
25
years
I’ve
been
doing
this.
It’s
because
of
[the
Supreme
Court
ruling]
and
all
the
change.
It
has
become
a
harder
job
for
admissions
offices.
—
Law
school
admissions
consultant
Mike
Spivey
of
the
Spivey
Consulting
Group,
in
comments
given
to
Reuters
on
the
delays
caused
by
the
additions
of
essays
and
interviews
that
weren’t
part
of
the
regular
law
school
admissions
process
prior
to
the
Supreme
Court’s
affirmative
action
ban
in
higher
education.
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.
Call
me
lucky.
Every
week,
I
get
to
sit
down
at
the
mic
for my LawNext
podcast
and
have
a
conversation
with
the
leading
“innovators
and
entrepreneurs
who
are
driving
what’s
next
in
law.”
For
me,
each
and
every
one
of
these
conversations
is
fun
and
fascinating.
But
I
am
equally
fascinated
to
add
up
the
numbers
at
the
end
of
the
year
and
see
which
topics
and
guests
you,
the
listeners,
found
most
interesting.
So,
as
I
do
every
year,
I’ve
compiled
two
lists
here.
The
first
lists
the
top
15
episodes
published
during
2023.
After
that,
I
list
the
top
15
episodes
of
all
time,
regardless
of
when
they
were
published.
(The
first
episode
of
LawNext
was
posted
on
July
16,
2018.)
In
each
case,
the
rankings
are
based
on
unique
downloads.
Most
popular
this
year:
My
interview
with Daniel
Martin
Katz and Michael
Bommarito
just
after
their
first
try
at
having
GPT
take
the
bar
exam.
Interestingly,
another
top
episode
was
my
interview
with
the
three
founders
of
Casetext
—
before
they
announced
their
$650
million
acquisition
by
Thomson
Reuters.
Also
popular
were
my
dueling,
back-to-back
interviews
with
DoNotPay
founder
Joshua
Browder
Kathryn
Tewson,
the
paralegal
who
investigated
DoNotPay’s
products;
an
interview
on
the
Fastcase-vLex
merger
with
the
founders
of
both
companies,
as
well
as
a
reprise
of
an
earlier
interview
with
Fastcase’s
founders;
an
interview
with
Clio
founder
Jack
Newton
on
the
lessons
he’s
learned
over
15
years;
and
a
2022
year-end
retrospective
with
LexFusion’s
founders
Joe
Borstein
and
Casey
Flaherty.
Rounding
out
the
most
popular
this
year
were
interviews
with
four
legal
innovation
leaders
recorded
live
at
the
NetDocuments
conference,
Axiom’s
Chief
Strategy
and
Legal
Officer
Catherine
Kemnitz
on
its
opening
a
law
practice
in
Arizona,
Smokeball’s
Chief
Revenue
Officer
Jane
Oxley
and
President
Ruchie
Chadha,
Theory
and
Principle
founder
Nicole
Bradick,
Documate
founder
Dorna
Moini
on
rebranding
as
Gavel,
BYU
Law’s
Gordon
Smith
on
stepping
down
as
dean,
and
AltaClaro
founder
Abdi
Shayesteh
on
training
lawyers
to
use
generative
AI.
You
can
also
check
out
the
most
popular
LawNext
episodes
of
2022, of
2021, of
2020 and of
2019.
Catch
all
the
episodes
of
LawNext
by
subscribing
at Apple
Podcasts or
wherever
you
listen
to
podcasts. For
a
visual
array
of
all
episodes,
see
the LawNext
Episode
Gallery.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
1. As
2. Jonathan
3. Joshua
4. How
5. The
6. How
8. As
9. Pro
10.
11. Kriti
12.
13.
14. Filevine
15. Carl
Colorado
supreme
court
(Photo
by
Hyoung
Chang/The
Denver
Post)
According
to
reports,
shortly
after
1
a.m.
this
morning,
police
were
called
to
the
Colorado
Supreme
Court
building
in
Denver.
When
they
arrived
a
suspect
opened
fire,
according
to
a
spokesperson
with
the
Denver
Police
Department.
During
the
incident,
a
fire
was
started
in
the
building
and
extinguished
by
the
building’s
sprinkler
system.
Police
did
not
return
the
gunman’s
shots,
and
two
hours
after
they
arrived
on
the
scene,
a
suspect
was
in
custody.
Authorities
have
not
identified
a
motive
for
the
incident,
but
I
mean…
come
on.
I
think
we
all
know
—
or
at
least
strongly
suspect
—
what’s
behind
it
all.
I
know
we’re
coming
off
the
time
of
year
where
time
loses
all
meaning,
but
it
wasn’t
*that*
long
ago
when
we
learned
that
Colorado
supreme
court
justices
were
the
subject
of
recent
death
threats
for
kicking
Donald
Trump
off
the
the
primary
ballot
due
to
the
14th
Amendment.
So,
if
it
were
seemly
to
bet
on
this
sort
of
thing,
well,
a
good
one
might
be
that
these
stories
are
related.
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.
Anyone
who
has
read
this
column
knows
how
much
importance
I
place
on
the
growing
role
of
insurance
in
the
IP
litigation
space.
Last
year,
I
had
the
pleasure
of
interviewing
a
leading
insurance
broker
—
himself
a
former
litigator
—
about
the
opportunities
created
when
insurance
is
brought
into
play
in
a
litigation
context.
As
we
have
arrived
at
2023’s
end,
it
became
clear
to
me
that
an
update
on
the
state
of
this
increasingly
important
slice
of
the
patent
litigation
ecosystem
was
in
order.
I
am
pleased,
therefore,
that
once
again
we
get
to
hear
from
Stephen
Kyriacou
Jr.,
a
managing
director
and
senior
lawyer
in
Aon’s
Litigation
Risk
Group,
where
he
structures
and
places
litigation
risk
insurance
policies.
Stephen
was
the
first
insurance
industry
hire
dedicated
solely
to
the
litigation
and
contingent
risk
insurance
market,
which
he
has
been
working
to
develop
and
grow
since
2019.
Stephen
has
twice
received
the
designation
of
“Power
Broker”
from
Risk
&
Insurance
Magazine
(in
2022
and
2023),
which
called
him
“a
pioneer
in
judgment
preservation
insurance,”
and
is
the
only
litigation
and
contingent
risk
insurance
broker
to
have
been
so
recognized.
While
Stephen
places
insurance
across
all
of
Aon’s
solution
lines,
he
specializes
in
single-case
judgment
preservation
insurance
and
adverse
judgment
insurance
placements.
Now
to
the
interview.
As
usual,
I
have
added
some
brief
commentary
but
have
otherwise
presented
Stephen’s
answer
to
my
first
question
as
he
provided
it.
Gaston
Kroub:
It’s
been
about
18
months
since
our
last
conversation,
where
you
gave
a
great
primer
on
the
litigation
and
contingent
risk
insurance
market
(Part
I
here
and
Part
II
here).
What’s
been
happening
in
the
space
since
then?
Stephen
Kyriacou:
Eighteen
months
doesn’t
sound
like
a
long
time,
but
given
that
the
litigation
and
contingent
risk
insurance
market
has
only
really
existed
in
its
current
form
since
2019,
it
actually
represents
about
a
third
of
the
life
of
the
market.
But
with
respect
to
how
things
are
progressing,
we
have
continued
to
see
“hockey
stick”
growth
in
terms
of
activity
in
the
space
over
the
last
18
months.
One
of
the
best
indicators
of
activity
in
the
market
is
looking
at
the
“submissions”
through
which
litigation
and
contingent
risk
insurance
brokers
like
Aon
seek
formal
coverage
quotes
from
insurance
carriers.
Aon’s
submission
flow
is
up
this
year,
as
it
has
been
year-over-year
since
we
started
building
out
this
market
in
earnest
five
years
ago.
And
while
we
don’t
have
great
visibility
into
submission
counts
from
other
brokers,
we
do
know
that
submission
flow
across
the
board
is
way
up,
with
several
leading
insurers
in
the
space
recently
reporting
to
us
that
they
expected
to
see
between
100
and
120
submissions
for
2023
by
the
time
the
calendar
turns
to
January,
which
is
10
per
month
at
the
high
end
of
that
range.
That
level
of
activity
would
have
been
unthinkable
in
the
early
days
of
this
market,
so
it’s
been
incredibly
gratifying
to
see
how
things
have
grown
over
the
years.
There
are
also
more
insurers
writing
this
coverage
than
ever
before,
more
insurers
who
used
to
be
excess-only
players
who
are
now
starting
to
write
primary
coverage
on
deals,
and
more
litigation
and
contingent
risk-focused
underwriters
at
insurance
companies,
as
well,
with
many
insurers
recently
hiring
from
the
litigation
funding
world.
And
as
deal
flow
continues
to
increase
and
insurers
get
more
sophisticated
in
their
underwriting,
we
expect
to
see
more
complex
and
creative
deals
getting
done
because,
in
the
past,
there
had
been
good
opportunities
that
insurers
passed
on
solely
due
to
lack
of
underwriting
bandwidth
or
expertise
in
a
given
area
of
the
law.
Policies
of
all
sizes
are
continuing
to
get
done,
as
well.
Our
team
at
Aon
has
closed
two
$500
million-plus
judgment
preservation
insurance
policies
this
year
alone,
and
we’re
seeing
tremendous
insurer
interest
in
smaller,
sub-$50
million
policies,
too,
including
several
that
have
been
led
by
insurers
who
were
either
new
to
the
space
or
who
had
previously
participated
only
as
excess
insurers
on
these
policies,
but
had
never
led
them.
And
we’re
seeing
increased
activity
in
the
U.K.
and
EMEA,
as
well,
and
increased
cross-border
activity
where
U.S.
insureds
are
buying
insurance
for
U.K.
or
European
litigation
risks
and
U.K.
or
European
insureds
are
taking
out
these
policies
to
insure
U.S.
litigation
risks.
This
uptick
in
cross-border
activity
has
been
a
big
boon
for
our
team
at
Aon
given
that
we
have
a
full
team
of
litigation
and
contingent
risk
brokers
in
the
U.K.
and
Europe,
several
of
whom
joined
Aon
from
industry-leading
litigation
funders.
Interest
in
these
solutions
is
rising
in
Asia,
as
well,
which
prompted
us
to
recently
hire
the
first
litigation
and
contingent
risk
broker
on
that
continent,
who
works
out
of
Singapore.
We
have
also
seen
increased
interest
in
and
awareness
about
the
use
of
insurance
to
ringfence
contingent
risks
as
a
means
for
releasing
capital
that
otherwise
would
be
tied
up
pending
the
outcome
of
a
litigation,
dispute,
regulatory
inquiry,
or
other
similar
situation.
These
tend
to
be
very
low-risk
situations
where
the
insured
benefits
from
accessing
funds
sooner
than
it
otherwise
would
be
able
to.
Increased
underwriting
bandwidth,
experience,
and
know-how
has
improved
the
market’s
ability
to
do
these
types
of
deals,
which
rarely
fit
into
a
simple
box.
And
perhaps
more
than
anything,
these
litigation
and
contingent
risk
insurance
solutions
—
particularly
judgment
preservation
insurance,
which
has
been
the
main
thing
that
I
have
focused
on
developing
during
my
time
in
the
insurance
industry
—
are
becoming
“mainstream”
in
the
sense
that
we
no
longer
need
to
provide
a
“101”-level
primer
every
time
we
discuss
a
potential
candidate
for
coverage
with
someone.
Lawyers,
C-suite
executives,
litigation
funders,
and
the
other
folks
who
we
deal
with
on
a
day-to-day
basis
now
more
often
than
not
come
into
their
first
conversation
with
us
knowing
at
least
the
fundamental
basics
of
whatever
kind
of
insurance
coverage
we’re
talking
about
—
how
it
works,
what
it
does
and
doesn’t
do,
what
it
costs,
and
how
it’s
placed.
Litigation
funders,
too,
are
now
especially
well-versed
in
the
coverage
that
is
available
to
them
in
the
market,
which
demonstrates
that
years
of
presenting
at
conferences
and
building
relationships
in
that
world
has
paid
off.
When
I
left
Boies
Schiller
to
take
this
job
back
in
2019,
I
felt
like
I
was
really
taking
a
risk
to
get
in
on
the
ground
floor
of
something
that
may
or
may
not
catch
on,
and
to
see
that
now,
five
years
later,
it
has
more
than
caught
on,
and
has
become
an
incredibly
active
and
robust
area
that
lots
of
people
know
about
and
are
talking
about
and
are
actively
involved
in,
it’s
just
amazing.
GK:
Thanks
to
Stephen
for
such
a
comprehensive
overview
of
all
the
fantastic
developments
in
these
markets
over
the
past
few
years.
More
than
anything,
I
hope
that
readers
will
consider
Stephen’s
recap
as
a
call
to
action.
For
those
already
participating
in
the
growth
of
the
litigation
risk
insurance
space,
2024
and
beyond
is
the
time
to
keep
the
momentum
going
in
a
responsible
and
growth-oriented
way.
And
for
those
for
whom
this
slice
of
the
market
remains
unfamiliar,
now
is
as
good
a
time
as
any
to
learn
more.
By
doing
so,
IP
professionals
will
be
able
to
provide
more
value
to
their
colleagues
and
clients,
for
now
and
the
foreseeable
future.
Next
week,
Stephen
discusses
where
the
challenges
have
arisen
in
this
space,
as
well
as
his
thoughts
on
what
the
future
might
hold
in
his
slice
of
the
profession.
Please
feel
free
to
send
comments
or
questions
to
me
at
gkroub@kskiplaw.com
or
via
Twitter:
@gkroub.
Any
topic
suggestions
or
thoughts
are
most
welcome.
Gaston
Kroub
lives
in
Brooklyn
and
is
a
founding
partner
of
Kroub,
Silbersher
&
Kolmykov
PLLC,
an
intellectual
property
litigation
boutique,
and Markman
Advisors
LLC,
a
leading
consultancy
on
patent
issues
for
the
investment
community.
Gaston’s
practice
focuses
on
intellectual
property
litigation
and
related
counseling,
with
a
strong
focus
on
patent
matters.
You
can
reach
him
at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or
follow
him
on
Twitter: @gkroub.