Category: News Feeds

Dear
Colleagues,

We
at
University
Administration
are
now
prepared
to
issue
our
Academic
Freedom
guidelines
for
your
classes. As
you
know
from
last
year’s
memo,
we
in
administration
are
strong
advocates
of
free
speech
on
campus. With
some
guidance
from
us,
we
believe
you
will
feel
more
empowered
to
speak
your
mind,
with
proper
limits.   

While
the
previous
provost,
president,
and
general
counsel
have
“resigned,”
we
assure
you
our
commitment
to
education
remains
steadfast. The
new
president
even
helped
draft
the
law
titled
“De-Woke
the
Campus
for
Academic
Freedom
Act.”  

With
your
help,
we
can
ensure
the
campus
has
vibrant
and
open
discourse
about
subjects
that
do
not
matter
to
anyone.

REGULATIONS
FOR
THE
EMPOWERMENT
OF
TEACHING

Recording
Policy: Your
syllabus
must
read
as
follows:“Students
are
encouraged
to
record
my
class. Where
appropriate,
students
may
submit
my
class
session
to
administrative
officials
and
the
appropriate
Turning
Points
USA
chapter
and
to
the

Professor
Watchlist. Students
will
be
held
harmless
in
the
event
of
my
receipt
of
death
threats
or
wrongful
termination.”

Preferred
Names: Your
syllabus
must
read
as
follows:
“I
will
address
you
by
your
preferred
name,
so
long
as
it
has
nothing
to
do
with
LGBTQ+
issues
and
does
not
involve
transgender
identity. Thus,
if
you
are
Matthew,
I’ll
still
call
you
Matt,
if
you
want.”  

Note:
We
don’t
want
to
make
Matt
uncomfortable. His
dad’s
a
donor.

Course
Names:
If
your
course
name
appears
controversial,
we
encourage
you
to
change
it. For
example,
if
you
teach
“Abortion
Law,”
please
consider
naming
it
“Abortion
is
Wrong
and
the
Law.” If
you
teach
“Family
Law,”
consider
naming
it
“Nuclear
Family
Law.”

Course
Topics:
Please
ensure
that
your
course
description
and
course
assignments
closely
match. Otherwise,
you
risk
disciplinary
action. For
example,
in
the
course
“Constitutional
Law,”
stop
assigning
the
dissent. That’s
just
some
liberal’s
view,
not
the
law. Also,
do
not
use
cases
that
relate
to
university
conduct,
as
the
Board
views
that
as
a
direct
threat.

Controversial
Topics: Please
avoid
controversial
topics. For
example,
if
you
teach
“International
Law,”
please
do
not
use
the
words
“war
crimes,”
“genocide,”
“ICC,”
“The
Hague,”
or
“international
law”
in
your
course
assignments.  

Also,
we’ve
taken
the
liberty
of
eliminating
some
courses
that
are
de
facto
controversial
and
cannot
be
taught.
That
includes
“Women
and
the
Law,”
“Critical
Race
Theory,”
“First
Amendment
Law,”
and
“Water
Law”
(the
governor
is
big
into
AI).  

You’ll
probably
notice
we
no
longer
teach
“Transgender
Law,”
and
the
dean
and
professor
who
authorized
that
course
have
been
fired. Your
new
dean,
as
you
know,
is
a
former
legislator
and
proud
author
of
the
“Bathroom
Bill.”

If
your
course
offends
someone
on
the
basis
that
our
great
United
States
is
not
a
meritocracy,
your
course
is
canceled.
Thus,
we
will
no
longer
be
teaching
courses
in
“Employment
Discrimination”
or
“Civil
Rights
Law.”  

If
you
teach
“Family
Law,”
please
ensure
that
all
cases
involve
a
traditional
nuclear
family. 

For
your
interdisciplinary
“History
and
the
Law”
course,
avoid
mention
that
Nazi
Germany
brutally
vilified
and
tortured
the

LGBTQ+
community
in
ways
similar
to
the
United
States
southern
states
today. Avoid
mention
that
Nazi
Germany
targeted
communists. Do
not
mention
that
anti-fascists
fought
fascism. Our
state
legislators
have
a
hard
time
understanding
the
difference
between
antifa,
communism,
and
fascism,
as
the
high
school
history
courses
in
this
state
were
destroyed
30
years
ago.  

If
you
teach
“Bankruptcy
Law”
or
“Tax
Law,”
avoid
commentary
related
to
the
impact
of
tariffs
on
the
economy.  

Controversial
Words: To
avoid
misunderstanding
and
triggering
of
unfortunate
termination
proceedings,
please
avoid
the
words
“trans,”
“transatlantic,”
“transoceanic,”
“transportation,”
and
“Transylvania.”  

Controversial
Club
Sponsorship: Please
avoid
sponsoring
controversial
clubs.
Such
club
names
include
“LGBTQ+
Outlaw
Club,”
“Critical
Race
Theory
Study
Group,”
or
“Rights
for
Everyone
Club.”
Sponsorship
of
the
“TPUSA
Chapter”
and
“Charlie
Kirk
Worship
Club”
is
strongly
encouraged.  

Accuracy
of
Materials: Please
ensure
your
choices
of
materials
is
accurate
but
balanced.
For
example,
if
you
teach
a
“Health
Law”
course,
please
balance
your
assignment
of
peer-reviewed
resources
that
demonstrate
that
vaccines
do
not
cause
autism
with
at
least
one
non-peer-reviewed
resource,
preferably
ones
endorsed
by
RFK
Jr. Under
no
circumstances
are
you
to
quote
Charlie
Kirk,
as
we
are
unsure
as
to
the
accuracy
of
any
of
his
quotes.

Clinics: The
Immigration
Law
clinic
will
be
repurposed
to
require
mandatory
service
in
ICE
to
get
a
better
understanding
of
how
immigration
works
on
the
ground
and
not
in
the
ivory
tower
of
academia.
Being
improperly
arrested
by
ICE
will
not
count
toward
service
hours.

Faculty
Bios
and
CVs: Please
ensure
that
your
bios
and
CVs
do
not
have
any
reference
to
preferred
pronouns,
any
work
you
have
done
for
LGBTQ+
causes,
or
any
“left
leaning”
causes
such
as
the
Federalist
Society. We
also
encourage,
but
do
not
require,
donations
to
a
right-wing
conservative
candidate
of
over
$200
or
more
to
demonstrate
faculty
intellectual
diversity.

DEI:
Thanks
to
a
generous
grant
from
the
Koch
Foundation,
we
have
established
a
“Drug
Enforcement
and
ICE”
(DEI)
program
that
examines
the
positive
ways
ICE
interacts
with
our
communities. All
DEI
links
will
now
automatically
repost
there.  

Thank
you
all
for
your
attention
to
this
matter!

Administration

---

LawProfBlawg is
an
anonymous law professor.
Follow
him
on X/Twitter/whatever (@lawprofblawg).
He’s
also
on
BlueSky,
Mastodon,
and
Threads
depending
on
his
mood. Email
him
at [email protected]. 
The
views
of
this
blog
post
do
not
represent
the
views
of
his
employer,
his
employer’s
government,
his
Dean,
his
colleagues,
his
family,
or
himself. 
This
piece
is
satire,
hopefully.

If
you’re
a
Biglaw
associate
in
the
fall
of
2025,
two
things
are
probably
true:
(i)
you’re
billing
your
life
away
while
considering
if
a
lateral
move
is
right
for
you
while
the
market
is
still
hot,
and
(ii)
you’re
eagerly
waiting
to
receive
news
about
your
annual
bonus
(that
may
or
may
not
include
a

special
bonus
on
top),
which
may
be
right
around
the
corner.

To
kick
off
our
coverage,
we’re
asking
you
to
take
this
(always)
confidential,
(always)
brief
survey
to
share
your
thoughts
on
the
upcoming
bonus
season.
And
if
you’d
like
to
stay
on
top
of
any
changes
this
bonus
season,
enter
your
email
below
to
sign
up
for
our
free
bonus
alerts.

And
as
a
little
reminder,
we
love
covering
the
Biglaw
bonus
season,
but
we
need
your
help.
As
soon
as
your
firm’s
bonus
memo
comes
out,
please email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Bonus”).
We
always
keep
our
sources
on
bonus
stories
anonymous.
There’s
no
need
to
send
the
memo
using
your
firm
email
account;
your
personal
email
account
is
fine.
Please
be
sure
to
include
the
memo
as
proof;
we
like
to
post
complete
bonus
memos
as
a
service
to
our
readers.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
attach
as
a
picture
if
you
are
worried
about
metadata
in
a
PDF
or
Word
file.

Don’t
forget,
if
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Bonus
Alerts,
please
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
the
bonus
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
bonus
announcement
that
we
publish
—
including,
of
course,
the
first
such
announcement.

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
the
managing
editor
of
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

Last
week,
Lindsey
Halligan,
the
acting/interim/special/imaginary
US
Attorney
for
the
Eastern
District
of
Virginia

indicted
New
York
Attorney
General
Letitia
James
for
mortgage
fraud,
fulfilling
a
long-held
goal
of
her
client,
Donald
Trump.

James
is
charged
with
two
felonies
relating
to
the
purchase
of
an
investment
property
in
Norfolk,
Virginia:
one
count
of
bank
fraud
in
violation
of

18
U.S.C.
§
1344,
and
one
count
of
making
a
false
statement
on
a
mortgage
application
in
violation
of

18
U.S.C.
§
1014.

As
with
the
recent
indictment
of
James
Comey,
another
Trump
nemesis,
the
James
indictment
was
so
weak
that
regular
prosecutors
—
i.e.,
ones
who
have
actually
tried
criminal
cases
—

refused
to
touch
it.
And,
as
in
Comey’s
case,
Halligan
was
the
only
lawyer
willing
to
sign
off
on
it.
So
if

conservative
commentators
and

Sam
Alito(!)
are
right,
and
her
appointment
was

unlawful,
the
case
may
get
dismissed
long
before
trial.

Meet
Virginia

Prior
to
this
indictment,
it
was
presumed
that
Halligan
would
indict
James
with
respect
to
a
different
Virginia
property.
Bill
Pulte,
head
of
the
Federal
Housing
Finance
Agency,
as
well
as
Fannie
Mae
and
Freddie
Mac,
has
been
spelunking
through
financial
records
of
Trump’s
enemies,
and
he
sent
a

criminal
referral
to
Attorney
General
James
regarding
a
house
in
Norfolk.
But
apparently
Halligan
punted
on

The
Case
of
the
Errant
Power
of
Attorney,
an
extraneous
document
which
erroneously
described
the
property
as
a
personal
residence,
when
every
other
piece
of
the
loan
application
correctly
described
it
as
a
rental.
Worst
Nancy
Drew
mystery
ever!

Instead
she
charged
James
with
lying
on
a
mortgage
application
for
a
different
house
in
Norfolk,
which
James
purchased
in
August
of
2020
for
$137,000.
She
received
a
loan
for
80
percent
of
the
purchase
price
from
Old
Virginia
Mortgage
(now
known
as
OVM
Financial),
which
she
appears
to
have
paid
off
in
2024.

According
to
the
indictment,
James
falsely
claimed
that
she
planned
to
use
the
house
as
a
second
home
in
order
to
lower
her
interest
rate
from
3.815
to
3.0
percent,
saving
herself
$17,837
over
the
four-year
life
of
the
loan.
In
a
conclusory
fashion,
but
without
providing
any
evidence,
it
states
that
James
“knowingly”
made
false
statements
on
the
loan
document.
This
has
a
certain
irony,
since
James
prosecuted
Trump
for
falsely
inflating
his
net
worth
on
mortgage
applications,
something
he
claimed
was
a
victimless
crime
so
long
as
the
lender
was
paid
in
full.
The
government
also
claims
that
the
reduced
rate
netted
James
just
over
an
extra
$1,000
in
the
seller’s
credit
at
settlement.

The
problem
is
that
the
indictment

yaddayaddayaddas
over
several
elements
of
the
supposed
crime,
which
strongly
suggests
that
it
was
done
on
purpose
because
filling
in
the
blanks
would
fatally
undermine
the
prosecution.

The
Low
Rider

Paragraph
6
of
the
indictment
alleges
that:

The
loan
was
originated
by
OVM
Financial
under
a
signed
Second
Home
Rider,
which
required
James,
as
the
sole
borrower,
to
occupy
and
use
the
property
as
her
secondary
residence
and
prohibited
its
use
as
a
timesharing
or
other
shared
ownership
agreement
or
agreement
that
requires
her
to
rent
the
property
or
give
any
person
any
control
over
the
occupancy
or
use
of
the
property.

That
language
roughly
mirrors

Fannie
Mae
Form
3890,
which
James
almost
certainly
signed
as
part
of
her
mortgage
application.
It
says:

6.
Occupancy.
Borrower
must
occupy
and
use
the
Property
as
Borrower’s
second
home.
Borrower
will
maintain
exclusive
control
over
the
occupancy
of
the
Property,
including
short-term
rentals,
and
will
not
subject
the
Property
to
any
timesharing
or
other
shared
ownership
arrangement
or
to
any
rental
pool
or
agreement
that
requires
Borrower
either
to
rent
the
Property
or
give
a
management
firm
or
any
other
person
or
entity
any
control
over
the
occupancy
or
use
of
the
Property.
Borrower
will
keep
the
Property
available
primarily
as
a
residence
for
Borrower’s
personal
use
and
enjoyment
for
at
least
one
year
after
the
date
of
this
Security
Instrument,
unless
Lender
otherwise
agrees
in
writing,
which
consent
will
not
be
unreasonably
withheld,
or
unless
extenuating
circumstances
exist
that
are
beyond
Borrower’s
control.

Plainly
the
intent
of
that
rider
is
that
the
borrower
agrees
to
“maintain
exclusive

control”
over
the
property.
So,
while
James
couldn’t
turn
the
home
into
a
time-share
or
sign
an
agreement
that

required
her
to
rent
the
property,
there
was
no
bar
to
renting
it
in
the
short
term.
That’s
why
the
rider
says
that
James
agreed
to
keep
the
property
“available

primarily
as
a
residence.”

In
fact,
Fannie
Mae
revised
this
rider
in
2019
to
make
it
clear
that
buyers
were
free
to
rent
out
their
second
homes
on
sites
like
Airbnb.
As
one
mortgage
specialist

noted
at
the
time,
the
new
rider
“explicitly”
allows
for
those
sorts
of
short-term
rentals
of
second
homes.
And
so,
even
if
James

had
rented
out
the
Norfolk
property,
she
probably
wouldn’t
have
violated
the
Fannie
Mae
rider.

But
Did
James
Even
Rent
Out
Her
Second
Home?

The
short
answer
is:

We
don’t
know.

The
indictment
says
that
James
rented
the
property
to
a
family
of
three
and
collected
“thousand(s)
of
dollars
in
rents
received.”
That
seems
deliberately
vague,
suggesting
perhaps
that
James
netted
tens
or
even
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars.

In
fact,
she
netted
somewhere
between
$1,000
and
$5,000,
according
to
a

2020
financial
disclosure
dug
up
by
a
“forensic
accountant”
named
Sam
Antar.
In
2023,
Antar
was
convicted
of

securities
fraud
in
connection
with
the
Crazy
Eddie
electronics
chain,
of
which
he
was
CFO.
He’s
since

rebranded
himself
as
an
“investigator
of
financial
fraud,”
presumably
on
the
theory
of

it
takes
one
to
know
one.
(Yes
that)
Roger
Stone’s
“Stone
Zone”
recently
ran
an

exposé
on
James
drafted
by
Antar
which
included
such
trenchant
observations
as:

Adding
to
the
mystery,
James
consistently
reported
this
mortgage
in
the
range
of
$100,000-$150,000
for
three
consecutive
years
(2020–2022),
but
then
in

2023,
the
reported
value
inexplicably
drops
to
$75,000-$100,000
without
explanation.
While
this
could
potentially
be
related
to
payment
of
principal,
the
absence
of
any
official
record
of
this
mortgage
in
ACRIS
[New
York’s
real
property
registration
site]
makes
it
impossible
to
verify
the
actual
terms,
origination
date,
or
even
existence
of
this
substantial
financial
obligation.

She
paid
down
her
mortgage?

Lock
her
up!

Here’s
Antar’s
smoking
gun:

Note
that
James
discloses
“rental
income”
for
a
property
in
Brooklyn,
but
describes
income
on
the
Norfolk
property
as
“investment.”
According
to
the
indictment,
James
rented
the
property
to
a
family
of
three.
But
Halligan
never
says
for
how
long,
and
she’s
pretty
hand-wavey
about
how
much
rent
James
took
in
—
two
things
she
almost
certainly
knows,
since
her
predecessor
Erik
Siebert
interviewed
multiple
witnesses
about
this
case.
Income
of
less
than
$5,000
is
consistent
with
a
short-term
rental
explicitly
permitted
by
the
Fannie
Mae
Second
Home
Rider.
And
indeed
the
second
half
of
2020,
during
the
height
of
Covid,
was
a
time
when
many
people
were
making

ad
hoc
living
arrangements.
We
simply
don’t
know
what
happened
here.
But
Lindsey
Halligan

does
know,
and
she
chose
not
to
mention
it
in
this
indictment.

In
any
event,
James
has
not
disclosed

any
income
from
the
Norfolk
property,
rental
or
otherwise,
since
2020.

The
“Crimes”

Suppose
for
the
sake
of
argument,
that
James

was
prohibited
from
renting
the
Norfolk
property
and
did
so
anyway.

The
bank
fraud
statute,
18
U.S.C.
§
1344,
makes
it
a
crime
to
“knowingly
execute”
a
“scheme
or
artifice”
to
either
defraud
a
bank
or,
more
broadly,
to
obtain
funds
from
the
bank
“by
means
of
false
or
fraudulent
pretenses,
representations,
or
promises.”
And
18
U.S.C.
§
1014
similarly
makes
it
a
crime
to
“knowingly
make[]
any
false
statement
or
report…
for
the
purpose
of
influencing
in
any
way”
a
covered
mortgage
lender.

To
convict
James,
the
government
must
not
only
prove
that
she
lied
on
the
mortgage
application,
but
that
she
did
so
“knowingly”

and
as
part
of
a
corrupt
“scheme”
to
improperly
influence
the
mortgage
lender.
Prosecutors
would
have
to
show
that
James
knew
she
was
going
to
rent
out
the
Norfolk
property
at
the
time
she
signed
the
loan
application
but
covered
up
that
fact
and
that
she
did
so

for
the
purpose
of
defrauding
the
bank
into
offering
her
a
lower
rate
of
interest
on
the
loan.

In
other
words,
if
this
case
were
to
somehow
go
to
trial,
prosecutors
would
have
to
prove
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
James
concocted
a
fraudulent
scheme
in
advance
to
get
an
eight-tenths-of-one-percent
reduction
on
a
modest
loan
that
she

voluntarily
paid
off
11
years
early
…
all
so
that
she
could
earn
a
couple
thousand
dollars
in
rental
income.

When
you
say
it
out
loud,
it
doesn’t
make
much
sense.
And
it’ll
probably
make
even
less
sense
when
James
herself
starts
talking.

Subscribe
to
read
more
at
Law
and
Chaos….

---

Liz
Dye and Andrew
Torrez produce
the
Law
and
Chaos Substack and podcast. You
can
subscribe
to
their
Substack
by
clicking
the
logo:

RelativityFest
kicked
off
last
week
with
a
song
and
dance
number
—
well,
a
keynote
followed
by
a
song
and
dance
number,
anyway
—
welcoming
some
1,834
attendees
to
Chicago’s
Hyatt
Regency.
As
with
most
user
conferences,
the
opening
keynote
offered
a
platform
to
rile
up
the
crowd
with
exciting
new
announcements.
And
the
announcements
were
indeed
significant,
though
they
will
end
up
making
more
waves
with
the
people

outside
the
ballroom
this
week.

Unlike
the
last
couple
years,
where

Relativity
showed
off
the
promise
of
new
AI-enabled
products
in
the
“aiR”
family
—

aiR
for
Review,

aiR
for
Privilege,
and

aiR
for
Case
Strategy
—
this
year’s
big
announcement
was
less
about
what’s
coming
and
more
about
what’s
here
right
now.
The
products
we’ve
heard
about
as
speculative
forays
into
an
AI-assisted
eDiscovery
future
are
going
to
become
the
baseline
from
now
on,
with
aiR
for
Review
and
aiR
for
Privilege
moving
to
a
standard
offering
in
RelativityOne.
And
aiR
for
Case
Strategy,
in
Limited
General
Availability
since
March,
will
likely
soon
to
follow.

For
Relativity
customers
across
the
legal
industry,
this
is
a
big
deal.
The
problem
with
an
announcement
like
this
at
a
customer
conference
is
that
the
folks
in
the
room
represent
the
self-selecting
population
of
super
users
who
already
jumped
at
access
for
these
products
during
their
limited
run.
For

this
crowd,
the
announcement
isn’t
changing
much
about
their
day-to-day
practice.
Relativity
aiR
Privilege
and
Review
have
already
been
used
by
200+
customers
in
1,500+
workspaces
and
made
some
100M+
review
predictions,
and
those
are
the
flavor
of
customers
who
fly
to
Chicago
for
a
show.
With
the
audience
reacting
more
with
nods
of
approval
than
raucous
applause,
a
disinterested
observer
in
the
room
might
have
dismissed
this
as
a
relatively
—
see
what
we
did
there?
—
mundane
announcement.

But
for
the
Relativity
users
out
there
who
aren’t
sending
their
people
to
RelativityFest
—
the
sort
of
firms
that
may
harbor
some
wariness
over
shelling
out
for
new-fangled
AI
tools
—
it’s
monumental.
CEO
Phil
Saunders
stressed
that
customers
shouldn’t
be
satisfied
with
improvements
when
they
really
want
perfection.
Part
of
that
approach
is
Relativity’s
cautious
product
roll
out,
holding
products
in
limited
availability
status
until
leadership
is
confident
that
those
tools
are
ready
for
primetime.
Understood
through
that
lens,
the
announcement
wasn’t
about
adding
a
new
offering
to
a
tier
of
customers,
but
a
signal
that
Relativity
decided
that
its
aiR
products
have
passed
all
the
internal
quality
control
benchmarks
to
warrant
general
release.

That’s
a
milestone
moment
and
one
that
the
customers
who
aren’t
on
the
bleeding
edge
will
appreciate.

Purpose
Legal
reportedly
used
Relativity
aiR
for
Review
to
complete
a
300,000-document
review
in
just
one
week,
which
is
the
sort
of
task
that
used
to
require
an
army
of
junior
associates,
a
lot
of
luck,
and
a
truckload
of
Red
Bull.
And
probably
cocaine.
With
these
products,
it’s
about
to
become
routine.
“Relativity
aiR
for
Review
helped
us
and
our
client
address
demands
that
otherwise
would
have
been
impossible
to
meet,
enabling
our
team
to
complete
a
large-scale,
complex
review
under
an
extremely
tight
deadline,”
said
Jeff
Johnson,
Chief
Innovation
Officer
at
Purpose
Legal.
“We
reduced
review
time
by
85%,
eliminated
more
than
4,000
hours
of
manual
work,
and
delivered
cost
savings
of
more
than
$70,000.”
Now
those
sorts
of
gains
are
coming
for
everybody.

The
second
pillar
of
the
keynote
announcement
dealt
with
the
company’s
drive
toward
the
left
of
the
whole
EDRM
equation.
The
newest
member
of
the
aiR
family
will
be
aiR
Assist,
a
natural
language
search
application
intended
to
deliver
insights
for
early
stage
case
assessment.
Along
with
aiR
for
Case
Strategy,
aiR
Assist
is
promises
“litigators
can
identify
the
‘who,
what,
and
when’
of
a
matter
much
earlier
in
the
discovery
process,
prepare
for
interviews
and
depositions
with
clarity,
and
dramatically
reduce
the
time
required
to
analyze
complex
case
materials.”
In
a
press
release
in
conjunction
with
the
keynote,
Antonio
Avant,
Director
of
Legal
Technology
at
Troutman
eMerge,
described
the
early
case
assessment
power
of
the
tools,
“From
early
case
assessment
to
deposition
prep,
the
platform
helps
us
see
the
story
we’re
trying
to
tell
while
helping
our
attorneys
ramp
quickly,
bring
clarity
to
data
sprawl
and
transform
how
we
build
our
cases.”

The
final
prong
of
the
keynote
addressed
the
company’s
long-term
vision.
Saunders
unveiled
Rel
Labs,
a
nod
to
the
famous
Bell
Labs,
to
embark
on
investment
and
innovation
projects.
As
he
explained,
the
pace
of
innovation
is
too
rapid
for
any
one
company
to
stay
ahead
of
it.
Through
the
Rel
Labs
initiative,
Saunders
hopes
to
identify
and
then
invest
in
better
and
better
tech.

The
keynote
wasn’t
a
flashy
spectacle
—
at
least
until
the
aforementioned
song
and
dance
number
—
lardered
up
with
future
product
announcements
promising
near
sci-fi
level
results
for
lawyers.
But
it
did
stick
to
another
unabashedly
Saunders-driven
theme:
“get
shit
done.”
This
was
a

get
shit
done
keynote
that
didn’t
leave
the
audience
with
a
ton
of
new
toys
to
talk
about,
but
a
company
explaining
its
own
grind
to
get
better
results
to
more
customers.

It’s
an
approach
you
don’t
see
often
in
the
middle
of
this
AI
hype
cycle,
but
it’s
a
refreshing
one.

---

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 or

Bluesky
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.

Ed.
note:
Please
welcome
Renee
Knake
Jefferson
back
to
the
pages
of
Above
the
Law.
Subscribe
to
her
Substack,
Legal
Ethics
Roundup, here.

Welcome
to
what
captivates,
haunts,
inspires,
and
surprises
me
every
week
in
the
world
of
legal
ethics.

Join
me
LIVE
this
week
at
the
University
of
Houston’s
virtual
program “Lawyers
Who
Lead:
Ethics,
Influence,
and
Impact” on
Thursday
10/16
from
3-5PM
central.
Learn
more
and
register here.
Other
speakers
include H.
Stephen
Grace
Jr. (President
and
Founder
H.S.
Grace
&
Co.)
and Andrew
Gratz (Founder
of
the
Initiative
on
Lawyers
as
Leaders).

Now
for
your
headlines. 

---

Highlights
from
Last
Week –
Top
Ten
Headlines

#1
“Court
Leans
Toward
Allowing
Trial
Judges
to
Limit
Attorney-Client
Discussions
During
Overnight
Recesses.” From SCOTUSBlog: “At
least
some
of
the
justices
at
Monday
morning’s
oral
argument
in Villarreal
v.
Texas appear
to
be
willing
to
permit
trial
courts
to
limit
what
defense
lawyers
may
discuss
with
their
clients
overnight
when
the
client
is
still
on
the
stand.
Specifically,
several
justices
seem
to
think
the
court
may
prohibit
lawyer
and
client
from
direct
discussions
of
the
client’s
testimony,
but
not
collateral
matters
of
trial
strategy
and
management
that
relate
to
the
testimony.”
Read
more here.
(Full
disclosure:
Along
with
several
other
legal
ethics
scholars, I
joined
an
amicus
brief in
this
matter.)

#2
“C.I.A.
Deputy
Director
Has
Replaced
Agency’s
Top
Legal
Official
With
Himself.” From The
New
York
Times: “It
was
not
clear
what
was
behind [Michael]
Ellis’s taking
personal
control
of
making
legal
judgments
for
the
agency
while
continuing
to
help
lead
it,
but
the
move
raised
alarms
among
some
current
and
former
intelligence
officials. Stephen
Gillers,
a
New
York
University
professor
of
legal
ethics,
called
the
arrangement
‘rather
bizarre.’
Pointing
to
rules
of
professional
conduct
for
lawyers
that
prohibit
conflicts
of
interest,
he
said
Mr.
Ellis
could
serve
as
C.I.A.
general
counsel
for
matters
in
which
he
had
no
interest,
but
could
not
ethically
give
himself
legal
advice
about
issues
that
concern
him
—
including
whether
policy
actions
he
wants
to
take
would
be
lawful.”
Read
more here (gift
link).

#3
“Law
Firms’
Trump
Deals
Escape
NY
Lawyer
Ethics
Investigation.” From Bloomberg
Law: “A
disciplinary
body
for
New
York
lawyers
is
putting
off
an
ethics
probe
into
major
law
firms’
deals
with President
Donald
Trump.
A
New
York
Supreme
Court
committee
last
month
declined
to
take
up
a
complaint
against
nine
firms
that
pledged
nearly
$1
billion
in
free
legal
services
to
White
House
in
exchange
for
the
removal
of
administrative
probes
and
punishments,
according
to
documents
obtained
by
Bloomberg
Law.
The
complaint,
filed
by
a
group
of
law
professors,
accused
the
firms
of
violating
ethics
rules
by
‘capitulating’
to
Trump’s
‘bullying.’
‘The
business
decisions
of
law
firms,
such
as
the
selection
of
clients
or
the
allocation
of
pro
bono
resources,
generally
fall
outside
the
purview
of
this
Committee,’ Jorge
Dopico,
chief
attorney
for
the
committee,
said
in
a
Sept.
2
letter.”
Read
more here.

#4
“New
Law
Lets
California
Law
Students
Be
Paid
for
For-Credit
Externships.” From
the California
Lawyer Daily
Journal: “What
started
as
a
student
brainstorming
session
in
a
Sacramento
classroom
has
now
become
California
law.
On
Friday, Gov.
Gavin
Newsomsigned
AB
1155,
legislation
requiring
law
schools
across
the
state
to
allow
students
to
be
paid
for
professional
externships
even
while
earning
academic
credit.”
Read
more here.

#5
“Retired
Justice
Kennedy
Laments
Coarse
Discourse
of
Trump
Era
and
Its
Effects
on
the
Supreme
Court.” From
the Associated
Press: “Retired Supreme
Court
Justice
Anthony
Kennedy said
Wednesday
he
was
troubled
that
partisanship
seemed
to
be
‘creeping
its
way
into
the
court,’
and
that
the
state
of
political
discourse
in
the
country
has
gotten
so
vulgar
and
vile
that
he
worries
for
the
country.
The
tone
of
recent
opinions
bothers
him
more
than
outcomes
of
cases,
Kennedy
said
in
an
interview
with
The
Associated
Press
in
his
court
office
in
advance
of
next
week’s
publication
of
his
memoir, Life,
Law
&
Liberty.
‘The
justices
have
to
resist
thinking
of
themselves
as
being
partisan,’
he
said.
‘In
our
current
discourse,
it
seems
to
me,
partisanship
is
creeping
its
way
into
the
court.’”
Read
more here.

#6
“How
Letitia
James
Will
Do
Her
Day
Job.” From The
New
York
Times: “Letitia
James is
New
York’s
chief
legal
officer,
leading
an
office
of
1,700
people,
including
800
lawyers.
And
now
she’s
a
criminal
defendant.
After
Ms.
James,
who
has
been
New
York’s
attorney
general
since
2018,
was
indicted
on
Thursday
on
federal
charges
of
bank
fraud
and
false
statements,
she
vowed
to
keep
doing
her
job
leading
one
of
the
country’s
largest
prosecutor’s
offices.
The
case’s
impact
on
her
job
will
be
‘zero,’
said James
E.
Tierney,
a
former
Maine
attorney
general
who
teaches
about
the
position
at
Harvard
Law
School.
It
is
not
the
first
time
that
an
attorney
general
has
been
indicted
and
continued
to
lead,
Mr.
Tierney
said.
…Stephen
Gillers,
a
legal
ethics
expert
at
New
York
University’s
School
of
Law,
said
that
ethical
guidelines
would
not
require
Ms.
James
to
recuse
herself
from
those
cases.”
Read
more here (gift
link).
And
for additional
commentary on
the
indictment,
see
this
op-ed
from Richard
Zitrin (UC
San
Francisco)
in
the San
Francisco
Chronicle:
“With
the
Letitia
James
indictment,
Trump’s
politics
of
revenge
threaten
to
rewrite
justice
in
America.” Read
more here.

#7
“Golden
Gate
University
Seeks
California
Accreditation
to
Reopen
Law
School.” From Reuters: “The
Golden
Gate
University
is
aiming
to
revive
the
troubled
law
school
it
closed
last
year,
reopening
it
as
a
California-accredited
institution.
The
San
Francisco-based
university
has
asked
the
State
Bar
of
California
for
accreditation
—
which
would
enable
Juris
Doctor
graduates
of
the
school
to
sit
for
the
bar
in
California
but
not
in
most
other
states.
The
state
bar’s
Committee
of
Bar
Examiners
is
due
to
consider
the
university’s
application
on
Friday.”
Read
more here.

#8
“Independence
First:
An
Ethical
Test
for
Litigation
Funding.” From Bailey
Glasser: “Of
the
handful
of
ethics
authorities
that
have
issued
opinions
directly
addressing
litigation
financing,
one
issue
remains
paramount:
attorney
control
of
litigation
and
independence
in
attorney
judgment.
Although
ethics
bodies
apply
varying
ethics
rules
to
address
the
pertinent
issues,
a
common
theme
between
them
is
an
emphasis
that
funding
agreements
will
be
impermissible
if
they
imperil
or
restrict
attorney
independence.
Below
are
highlights
from
a
few
of
the
states
that
have
addressed
the
issue
and
prioritize
the
importance
of
protecting
attorney
independence.”
Read
more here.

#9
“Lawyer
AI
Competence:
Training
Is
Becoming
Mandatory
—
But
Lawyers
Still
Get
Burned.” From Attorney
at
Work: “If
you
think
knowing
something
about
artificial
intelligence
is
optional
for
lawyers,
think
again.
A
growing
number
of
U.S.
law
schools
have
decided
that
AI
training
is
not
a
luxury
or
an
elective
—
it
is
becoming
a
requirement.
Meanwhile,
lawyers
continue
to
face
discipline
or
fines
because
they
lack
basic
AI
competence.
The
contrast
couldn’t
be
more
stark:
Students
are
being
taught
the
rules
while
practicing
lawyers
are
still
struggling
to
understand
them.”
Read
more here.

#10
“Deepfakes,
Data,
and
Duty:
Navigating
AI
Ethics
in
Law,
with
Merisa
Bowers.” From Lawyerist
Podcast: “Zack
Glaser talks
with Merisa
Bowers,
Loss
Prevention
and
Outreach
Counsel
at
the
Ohio
Bar
Liability
Insurance
Company,
about
how
artificial
intelligence
is
reshaping
lawyers’
ethical
duties.
Merisa
explains
how
deepfakes
and
realistic
scams
are
creating
new
challenges
for
diligence
and
verification,
why
unregulated
chatbots
can
accidentally
create
attorney-client
relationships,
and
what
disclosures
lawyers
should
make
when
using
AI
tools.
She
also
shares
practical
steps
to
maintain
confidentiality,
protect
client
data,
and
apply
long-standing
ethics
rules
to
fast-changing
technologies.”
Read
more here.

---

Get
Hired

Did
you
miss
the
350+
job
postings
from
previous
weeks?
Find
them
all here.

---

Upcoming
Ethics
Events
&
Other
Announcements

Did
you
miss
an
announcement
from
previous
weeks?
Find
them
all here.

---

Keep
in
Touch

• 
  News
  tips?
  Announcements?
  Events? A
  job
  to
  post? Reading
  recommendations? Email [email protected] –
  but
  be
  sure
  to
  subscribe
  first,
  otherwise
  the
  email
  won’t
  be
  delivered.

---

Renee
Knake
Jefferson
holds
the
endowed
Doherty
Chair
in
Legal
Ethics
and
is
a
Professor
of
Law
at
the
University
of
Houston.
Check
out
more
of
her
writing
at
the Legal
Ethics
Roundup.
Find
her
on
X
(formerly
Twitter)
at @reneeknake or
Bluesky
at legalethics.bsky.social. 

*
Barack
Obama
weighs
in
on
capitulating
law
firms.
[The
Hill]

*
A
look
at
the
lawyers
giving
up
big
money
to
challenge
the
administration.
[The
New
Republic]

*
Lawyers
discover
AI
produces
little
time
savings.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
Totally
serious
and
not-at-all
frivolous

lawsuit
against
Michigan
Law
Review…
dropped.
[Reuters]

*
Donna
Adelson
gets
life
sentence.
[CNN]

*
AI
artist
asks
Supreme
Court
for
copyright
protection.
[Law.com]

*
Trump
business
partner
liable
in
money
laundering
scheme.
[Law360]

Who?
Never
Heard
Of
‘Em:
Kirkland
decides
not
to
name
the
new
partners.
Disappearing
Lawyers
The
Old
Fashioned
Way:
Cadwalader
loses
nearly
40
in
raid.
DOJ
Gets
Creative:
And
annoys
judge
in
the
process.
We
Expect
Fake
History,
But
This
Is
Ridiculous!:
Federal
judges
asked
to
explain
how
fake
cites
ended
up
in
their
opinions.
We’re
Not
Saying
They’re
Connected,
But…:
Judge’s
home
burns
down
after
she
ruled
against
Trump
administration
and
Stephen
Miller
told
the
faithful
that
judges
are
shielding
terrorists.
I
Used
To
Bullseye
Womprats:
Harvard
Law
professor
arrested
after
going
rat
hunting.
Don’t
Take
The
Brown
Acid:
Deloitte
caught
issuing
report
with
AI
hallucinations.