Alan Dershowitz Demands Time To Write Law Review Article Explaining Why He Can’t Be Sanctioned – Above the Law

(Photo
by
John
Lamparski/Getty
Images
for
Hulu)

Alan
Dershowitz
cannot
be
sanctioned,
and
if
the
court
will
just
grant
him
the
minor
concession
of
30-60
days
to
wrangle
a
bunch
of
retired
law
professors,
he’ll
explain
why.
Maybe
he’ll
even
get
a
good
law
review
article
out
of
it!

Oh,
you
think
we’re
kidding? Nope!

We
therefore
respectfully
submit
that
before
this
court
considers
imposing
any
career
ruining
sanctions
on
someone
of
Dershowitz’s
esteemed
record
and
history,
now
also
facing
Bar
inquiry
in
Arizona
as
well
as
Massachusetts
over
this
same
issue,
that
there
should
be
clear
guidance
and
consensus
as
to
what
SHOULD
be
done
under
these
circumstances.

The
issues
posed
by
the
choices
available
to
Dershowitz
in
such
a
circumstance
appear
to
be
a
proper
subject
for
a
law
review
article,
or
a
formal
ethical
opinion
by
the
Bar,
or
by
a
reasoned
decision
from
this
Court,
to
lend
guidance
on
a
subject
not
at
all
presently
clear.
Indeed,
Professor
Dershowitz
intends
to
do
just
that:
write
a
law
review
article
on
the
complexities
of
the
decision
that
must
be
made
by
an
increasing
number
of
retired
professors,
judges
and
lawyers
who
have
consulting
practices
that
are
limited
to
providing
legal
advice
without
wishing
to
undertake
the
core
responsibilities
of
lead
counsel,
counsel
of
record
or
full
counsel,
and
who
wish
to
not
be
subjected
to
the
full
responsibility
of
potential
sanctions
on
other
issues
they
are
not
involved
with
or
familiar
with
or
have
any
expertise
on.

That
is
from
a
supplement
filed
by
the
emeritus
Harvard
professor
last
week
in
the
case
of

Lake
v.
Fontes
,
which
sought
to
force
Arizona
to
use
only
paper
ballots
and
ban
the
use
of
machines
both
to
cast
and
tabulate
votes
on
the
eve
of
the
2022
primary.
The
case
was
the
culmination
of
Pillow
salesman
Mike
Lindell’s
promise
to

“sue
all
the
machines,”

and
he
hired
his
regular
legal
team
of
Andrew
Parker,

MAGA
troll

Kurt
Olsen,
and
Dershowitz
for
the
mission.

US
District
Judge
John
Tuchi dismissed
the
case
for
lack
of
standing,
holding
that
Kari
Lake
and
secretary
of
state
candidate
Mark
Finchem,
the
named
plaintiffs,
had
“articulated
only
conjectural
allegations
of
potential
injuries
that
are
in
any
event
barred
by
the
Eleventh
Amendment,”
and
he

granted

Maricopa
County’s
request
for
sanctions,
excoriating
the
plaintiffs’
counsel
for
failing
to
undertake
“the
factual
and
legal
pre-filing
inquiry
that
the
circumstances
of
this
case
reasonably
permitted
and
required,”
which
would
have
revealed
that every
vote
in
Arizona
is
cast
on
a
paper
ballot
and
leaves
an
auditable
record.

Furthermore,
the
court
found
that
the
attorneys
had
unreasonably
multiplied
the
proceedings
in
violation
of
Rule
11
by
filing
the
complaint
in
April
and
then
waiting
until
June,
just
four
months
before
the
primary,
to
seek
a
preliminary
injunction.
Citing
as
“proof
of
concept”
the
notorious
Maricopa
County
“audit”
performed
by
the
Cyber
Ninjas

which
took
six
months

didn’t
help
matters
either.

Almost
immediately,
Dershowitz
started
howling
that
he
couldn’t
be
sanctioned
because
he’d
only
signed
up
to
be
“of
counsel”
on
the
“constitutional
issues”
posed
by
this
fakakta
case,
and
anyway


he’s
old
.

In
fact,
he
was
sometimes
“of
counsel,”
and
sometimes
just
“counsel”

not
that
it
makes
any
difference.

Dershowitz
demanded
and
got(!)
a
show
cause
hearing
last
week
on
his
request
to
be
exempted
from
the
sanctions
order.
And
then
when
that
was
over,
he
submitted
the
above-quoted
“supplement.”
Not
because
he’d
discovered
some
intervening
authority
or
ruling,
but
because
he
had
some
more
words
to
whine
at
Judge
Tuchi.

First,
he
blamed
the
clerks
at
the
courthouse
for
forcing
him
to
apply
for
pro
hac
vice
admission
if
he
wanted
to
sign
onto
the
pleadings.

“Because
the
clerk’s
office
specifically
accepted
the
‘of
counsel’
designation
and
demanded
the
pro
hac
vice
admission,
Dershowitz
reasonably
believed
his
usual
use
of
this
term
to
convey
his
limited
role,
was
at
least
consistent
with
the
clerk’s
acceptance
of
that
specific
designation,
as
distinct
from
requiring
his
appearance
as
‘counsel,’
which
term
connoted
to
him
a
full
responsibility
for
the
pleadings
as
a
whole
under
Rule
11,”
he
huffed,
adding
that,
“in
fairness,
his
“of
counsel”
filing
should
have
been
rejected
outright,
if
there
is
no
such
designation
that
is
acceptable.”


It’s
a
bold
strategy,
Cotton
.

He
then
turned
to
the
“law
review
question,”
attaching
a

survey
 he
intends
to
distribute
to
his
fellow
eminences
grise,
on
what
a
retired
professor
should
do
when
asked
to
put
his
name
on
a
filing
which
he
has
neither
the
time
nor
the
inclination
to
verify.

Attorneys
for
Maricopa
County

responded

that

that’s
not
what
a
supplement
is:

Here,
Dershowitz
has
found
no
new
authority.
Rather,
he
improperly
uses
his
Supplement
to
announce
that,
in
fact,
there
is
no
new
authority
to
be
found,
but
he
wants
the
Court
to
give
him
time
to
create
some.
Specifically,
Dershowitz
wants
to
write
a
law
review
article,
which
presumably
will
support
Dershowitz’s
position
that
he
is
somehow
exempt
from
the
ethical
rules
that
apply
to
all
attorneys
who
sign
filings
made
to
a
court.
Dershowitz
will
then
presumably
cite
his
law
review
article
to
this
Court
to
argue
that
he
should
not
be
sanctioned
for
signing
on
to
a
Complaint
and
Motion
for
Preliminary
Injunction
(“MPI”)
that
this
Court
found
“made
false,
misleading,
and
unsupported
factual
assertions[,]”
with
“claims
for
relief
did
not
have
an
adequate
factual
or
legal
basis
grounded
in
a
reasonable
pre-filing
inquiry,”
in
violation
of
Rule
11
and
28
U.S.C.
§
1927.
Dershowitz
will
then
likely
argue
that
Rule
11
does
not
apply
to
him,
despite
the
fact
that
Rule
11
on
its
face
applies
to
every
attorney
who
signs
a
filing
made
to
a
federal
court
(as
Dershowitz
did
here).

The
county
goes
on
to
note
that
Dersh
could
have
filed
an
amicus
brief,
or
acted
as
a
consultant
for
the
plaintiffs.
And
in
fact,
we
know
he
understands
this,
because
the
professor
declined
to
put
his
name
on
the

RICO
LOLsuit

Mike
Lindell
filed
in
Minnesota
against
Dominion
Voting
Systems
in
response
to
the
company’s
defamation
suit
against
him
in
federal
court
in
DC.
Dersh
opted
to
simply
“consult”
on
that
little
field
trip.

Because
he
was
willing
to
tell

Newsweek,
 “Remember
too
that
the
First
Amendment
doesn’t
only
give
Lindell
the
right
to
express
his
views.
It
gives
50
million
people
the
right
to
hear
his
views.”
But
he
wasn’t
going
to
actually
say
it
in
a
federal
filing,
because,

Oh,
come
on
.

Next
he’ll
be
whining
that
it’s
not
his
fault,
he
just
fell
in
with
a
bad
crowd.
Which
he
did,
BUT
STILL.


Lake
v.
Fontes

[Docket
via
Court
Listener]





Liz
Dye
 lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
writes
about
law
and
politics
and
appears
on
the Opening
Arguments
 podcast.

It Will Be Harder To Hold People Like ‘The Wig Ripper’ Accountable Once This Court Has Its Way – Above the Law

It
is
very
easy
to
get
the
feeling
that
the
legal
industry
is
an
old
boys’
club.
It
especially
doesn’t
help
when
you
hear
a
bunch
of
3rd
or
4th
generations
talking
about
how
they
got
an
associate
position
at
a

white
shoe
firm

while
you’re
stuck
trying
to
figure
out
what
all
the
industry
jargon
still
means.
One
of
the
things
about
old
boys’
clubs
is
that
there
are
uplifted
traditions
that
are
usually
maintained
by
others
having
to
bear
the
weight
of
them.
For
example,
you
can
have
all
the
panels
about
how
hate
speech
is
good
for
democracy
all
you
want,
but
as
soon
as
someone
gives
a
graduation
speech
in
favor
of
Palestine
and
against
the
police,
those
same
people
try
to
get
a
school’s
funding
pulled
over
hate
speech.

We
are
at
a
turning
point

somewhere
around
the
eve
of
affirmative
action
being
overturned.
Several
anti-discriminatory
laws
actually,


303
Creative

and
the
coming
cases
like
it,
will
drive
wedges
between
protections
minorities
once
had
and
the
ones
they
no
longer
will.
And
with
them,
unless
there
are
some
cultural
or
legal
measures
taken
to
prevent
it,
the
legal
environment
is
likely
to
slip
backward
toward
the
days
when
you
could
harass
and
exclude
whomever
you
wanted.
While
the
risk
of
those
abuses
has
never
left,
they’ve
been
far
less
brazen.
If
the
wig-snatching
incident
involving
former
Leader
Berkon
Colao
and
Silverstein
LLP
employee
Anthony
P.
Orlich
happened
just
a
couple
of
years
ago,
the
response
probably
would
have
been
that
what
attorneys
do
off
the
clock
is
their
own
business.
Sure,
there
would
have
been
an
understanding
that
the
firm
owns
your
weekdays
and
weekends,
but
as
accountable
as
burnout
culture
is
to
firms
and
partners,
not
much
was
really
expected
of
employee
accountability
toward
non-clients.
Today,
some
work
emails
of

partners
brazenly
discriminating
against
women,
minorities,
Jews,
and
the
LGBTQ
community
results
in
them
stepping
down
from
a
freshly
minted
firm
.
Will
that
same
social
pressure
exist
in
a
couple
of
years
from
now?
Based
on
which
laws?
Do
you
really
think
a
court
that
has
upheld
racial
gerrymandering
and
dismantled
affirmative
action
will
really
care
that
much
about
discrimination
cases
once
even
more
civil
liberties
have
been
rolled
back?

It
is
one
thing
to
see
some
asshole
try
and
rip
some
random
person’s
wig
off
like
he
didn’t
learn
the
elements
of
battery
like
the
rest
of
us.
And
just
in
case
you
don’t
intuitively
know
how
much
force
you’d
have
to
do
what
he
did,
here
is
a
clear
explanation
from
the
person
it
happened
to:

I
am
thankful
that
Lizzy
Ash
was
taken
seriously
and
her
alleged
batterer
faced
consequences.
But
it
also
makes
me
wonder
how
often
this
happens

along
with
what
a
world
would
look
like
where
there
were
not
legal
protections
in
place
that
penalize
discriminating
against
people
in
times
of
need.
The
end
of
affirmative
action
and
the
start
of
cases
that
secure
the
right
to
discriminate
are
about
more
than
college
attendance
and
not
having
to
help
gay
people
plan
weddings.
It
is
the
end
of
a
legal
framework
that
offers
accountability
and
security
to
people
that
would
otherwise
have
been
disenfranchised.



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.

Barber Ranen Leaders Resign From Their Own Firm After Racist, Sexist, Antisemitic Emails Are Leaked – Above the Law

Earlier
today,
we
reported
on
the

dozens
of
offensive
emails

exchanged
between
John
Barber
and
Jeffrey
Ranen,
former
Lewis
Brisbois
partners
who
left
the
firm,

leading
more
than
100
lawyers
away

to
join
their
new
firm,
Barber
Ranen.
While
still
at
Lewis
Brisbois,
Barber
and
Ranen’s
emails
ran
the
gamut
from
racist
to
sexist
to
homophobic
to
antisemitic.

Per

Reuters
,
Barber
and
Ranen
have
now
tendered
their
resignations
from
Barber
Ranen,
at
the
request
of
the
firm’s
CEO
Tim
Graves.

According
to
the

New
York
Post

and

Forward
,
Barber
and
Ranen
sent
emails
using
incredibly
offensive
language.
Here
are
just
a
few
of
the
derogatory
emails
called
out
by
the
Post:

“Kill
her
by
anal
penetration,”
Barber
emailed
Ranen
in
June
2012,
reacting
to
an
overtime
request
from
another
Lewis
Brisbois
attorney.
On
at
least
three
occasions,
Ranen
described
female
attorneys
as
“c–ts.”

In
a
March
2022
missive,
a
Los
Angeles
judge
was
described
as
“sugar
t-ts.”
when
Barber
joked
about
how
the
judge
liked
to
be
addressed.

In
a
November
2012
note,
Ranen
noted
to
Barber
that
another
partner
has
“huge
t–s.”
That
female
partner
has
since
decamped
to
Ranen
and
Barber’s
new
firm.

The
Post
then
details
several
racist
and
anti-LGBTQ
emails
exchanged
between
Barber
and
Ranen,
where
the
N-word
is
used
frequently
and
homophobic
remarks
are
made
gratuitously.

These
are
just
some
of
the
antisemitic
passages

Forward

reprinted:

In
a
Sept.
13,
2012
email,
for
example,
Ranen
wrote
to
Barber,
“I
forgot
to
write
that
we
will
not
hire
Jews”
after
the
latter
recommended
a
person

his
or
her
identity
was
redacted
by
the
company

for
a
litigation
contract.
In
another
email
earlier
that
year,
Ramen
told
Derek
Sachs,
a
former
partner
at
Lewis
Brisbois,
“This
is
the
reason
why
people
don’t
like
Jews,”
in
response
to
an
invoice
submitted
to
them.
In
a
June
2012
email
thread
that
begins
with
discussing
a
new
hire,
Ranen
referred
to
Barber
as
a
“Jew”
for
owing
him
money.

The
pair
also
singled
out
observant
Jews.
In
a
January
2014
email,
Ranen
boasted
to
Barber
that
he
deliberately
emails
a
Jewish
opposing
counsel
on
Shabbat
after
the
person
requested
that
he
not
be
sent
material
related
to
a
deposition
on
Saturdays.
“This
Jew
is
cracking
me
up,”
Ranen.
“I
almost
ONLY
write
to
him
on
Saturday
mornings.”
Barber
responded,
“Jew
hater.”

In
a
statement,
Graves
said
in
a
statement
that
Barber
Ranen

itself
a
very
new
firm

will
“form
a
new
firm,”
and
went
on
to
note
that
its
equity
partners
have
expressed
“their
disappointment
and
disdain
for
the
language
Mr.
Barber
and
Mr.
Ranen
used.”


Ex-Lewis
Brisbois
partners
resign
from
new
firm
after
racist,
sexist
emails
found

[Reuters]

‘Woke’
LA
firm
partners
routinely
used
vile
language
to
refer
to
women,
POC,
emails
show

[New
York
Post]

Prominent
law
firm
partners
routinely
made
offensive
comments
about
Jewish
people,
internal
emails
show

[Forward]


Earlier
:

Leaders
Of
Barber
Ranen
Exchanged
Racist,
Sexist,
Antisemitic
Emails
For
Years


Partners
Lead
Mass
Defection
From
Biglaw
Firm,
With
Up
To
140
Lawyers
Set
To
Join
New
Boutique



Staci ZaretskyStaci
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

or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn
.

This Prestigious Biglaw Firm Saw A ‘Steep Decline’ In Gross Revenue – Above the Law



Ed.
note:

Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!


According
to
the
latest
Am
Law
100
ranking,
which
Biglaw
firm
had
the
largest
loss
in
gross
revenue?


Hint:
The
elite
firm
saw
a
double-digit
drop
in
gross
revenue
in
2022.



See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.



Staci ZaretskyStaci
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

or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn
.

Biglaw Partner Arrested In Sexual Predator Investigation – Above the Law


Bryan
Cave
partner
Daniel
Waxman
is
on
“indefinite
leave”
after
being
arrested
last
week


allegedly
attempting
to
meet
a
14-year-old
girl


he’d
carried
on
a
text
conversation
with
for
the
past
month.
In
reality,
he’d
been
chatting
with
an
undercover
cop.

He’s
charged
with
attempted
dissemination
of
indecent
material
to
minors.

That
title
might
sound
like
a
relatively
light
charge,
but
the
relevant
NY
penal
code
provision

includes

“intentionally
us[ing]
any
computer
communication
system…
to
initiate
or
engage
in
such
communication
with
a
person
who
is
a
minor,
and
by
means
of
such
communication…
intentionally
importunes,
invites
or
induces
a
minor
to
engage
in
sexual
intercourse,
oral
sexual
conduct
or
anal
sexual
conduct,
or
sexual
contact….”


Partner
in
NYC
law
firm
arrested
in
Rockland
sexual
predator
sting

[Westchester
News
12]


HeadshotJoe
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
.

Biglaw Associates Under ‘Constant Pressure’ To Bill, Bill, Bill – Above the Law



Ed.
note
:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day
.


During
slower
periods,
I
feel
constant
pressure
that
I
will
be
under
my
billable
hour
expectations,
and
it
is
difficult
to
relax
and
enjoy
my
free
time.
On
the
other
hand,
when
I
am
billing
enough
hours
to
meet
my
annual
requirement,
the
amount
of
work
that
I
am
doing
makes
it
difficult
to
maintain
relationships
in
my
personal
life.




An
anonymous
DLA
Piper
associate,
in
comments
given
to
the

American
Lawyer

in
its
survey
about
what
associates
would
change
about
the
legal
profession
to
benefit
their
mental
health.
Associates
are
increasingly
worried
about
their
billable
hours
as
the
threat
of
“performance-based”
layoffs
loom
large
across
Biglaw.



Staci ZaretskyStaci
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

or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn
.

Scissors Cut Money

Enter
your
email
address
to
sign
up
for

ATL’s
Layoff
Alerts
.

Summer Associate Drinking Etiquette Debate – Above the Law

It’s
that
time
of
year
where
law
students
flock
to
the
firms
to
get
hands-on
experience
with
practical
legal
work…
but
mostly
go
to
lunch
and
firm
parties.

Which
has
experienced
attorneys
sharing
their
homespun
summer
associate
advice.
Nothing
big…
stuff
like
“don’t

slap
attorneys
,”
“avoid

initiating
a
love
triangle
with
the
managing
partner
,”
or
“never

involve
the
Coast
Guard
.”

But
one
bit
of
advice
kicked
off
a
social
media
debate:
should
summers
avoid
drinking
at
firm
events?
Cybersecurity
law
professor
Jeff
Kosseff
thought
no:

Certainly
would
underscore
the
second
point.
And
I
can
think
of

a
couple
lawyers
who
used
ChatGPT
in
a
filing

who
would
probably
agree
right
about
now.

But
should
law
students
really
go
fully
on
the
wagon
for
the
sake
of
the
summer?
It
turns
out
there
are
some
strong
feelings
on
the
subject:

While
some
heartily
endorsed
the
advice,
others
questioned
whether
refraining
from
alcohol
at
events
designed
around
open
bars
could
undermine
their
career
prospects.
A
firm
wouldn’t
consciously
no-offer
someone
for
not
drinking,
but
could
a
summer
assiduously
avoiding
happy
hours
and
being
“out
of
step”
with
the
sobriety
level
around
them
get
dinged
for
“not
fitting
in”?

They
shouldn’t.
Firms
are
far
more
conscious
of
substance
abuse
and
peer
pressure
than
they
were
in
the
past

arguably

a
little
too
conscious


so
there
is
little
risk
that
you’re
compromising
your
career
by
passing
on
the
free
drinks.

Well,
unless
you’re
the
guy
Lawprofblawg
is
snarking
on
here.

It’s
also
arguably
an
ADA
violation
to
not
hire
someone
because
you
think
they’re
a
recovering
alcoholic,
so
don’t
do
this.

Speaking
of
opening
the
firm
up
to
legal
action,
asking
after
a
non-drinking
associate
is
fraught
with
opportunities
to
land
in
hot
water.

Folks
had
a
lot
of
thoughts
and
there
were
a
lot
of
lengthy
threads
(not
this
one
though):

So
should
summers
drink
at
firm
events?
Sure…
if
they
want
to.
Or
don’t
if
you
don’t
want
to.
As
long
as
you
don’t
end
up
gracing
the
pages
of
Above
the
Law
in
the
bad
way,
do
whatever
you
want.
The
firms
expect
summers
to
drink,
so
don’t
abstain
for
fear
of
getting
tipsy.
But
firms
also
don’t
want
to
fish
you
out
of
the
river,
so
don’t
get
drunk.

Not
to
sound
like
a
liquor
commercial,
but
be
responsible.
If
that
means
not
drinking,
no
one
(at
a
serious
firm
anyway)
is
going
to
mind.
And
if
it
means
drinking
for
you,
stay
professional.


HeadshotJoe
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
.

Why People Close To You Give Bad Advice – Above the Law

I
understand
why
people
give
bad
advice
to
a
boss
who’s
comforted
by
the
bad
advice.

The
military,
for
example,
advised
President
Lyndon
Johnson
about
the
Vietnam
War:
“We
can
win!
We
can
win!
More
troops!
We
can
win!
We
can
win!

Oops!
We
lose.”

No
one
wanted
to
deliver
bad
news
to
the
boss

and
he
didn’t
want
to
hear
it

so
they
didn’t.

When
the
post-mortems
are
written
about
the
war
in
Afghanistan,
I
bet
it’ll
be
the
same:
Twenty
years
of
“we
can
win,”
followed
by
“oops,”
when
the
United
States
withdrew
and
Kabul
was
immediately
overrun.

I
wonder
what
Donald
Trump’s
advisers
are
telling
him
now
about
speaking
publicly
on
issues
that
are
the
subject
of
criminal
investigations
(or,
in
one
case,
an
indictment).
Competent
counsel
generally
advise
clients
not
to
speak
publicly
about
pending
criminal
matters.
Trump,
for
example,
is
digging
himself
a
bigger
hole
each
time
he
speaks
about
the
documents
at
Mar-a-Lago.
He
should
stop
talking.

It’s
entirely
possible
to
give
that
advice
even
to
a
political
candidate:
“Talk
about
anything
you
like,
other
than
the
subjects
of
criminal
investigations.
Build
a
wall;
save
Social
Security;
end
the
war
in
Ukraine
in
24
hours;
own
the
libs.
But,
when
asked
about
the
payment
to
Stormy
Daniels,
or
the
documents
at
Mar-a-Lago,
or
the
events
of
January
6,
say,
‘I’m
sorry,
but
I
can’t
comment
on
that.
My
lawyers
have
advised
me
not
to
talk
about
issues
that
are
the
subject
of
criminal
investigations.’

Of
course
Trump
should
do
that.
But
is
anyone
near
him
courageous
enough
to
give
that
advice?
(Perhaps
they
are,
and
Trump
simply
isn’t
listening.
Or
perhaps
the
advisers
stopped
giving
that
advice
long
ago,
when
they
realized
that
it
was
hopeless.)

How
about
advice
on
more
personal
issues?

Should
Dianne
Feinstein
resign
her
seat
in
the
Senate?
Of
course.
But
I
doubt
anyone’s
giving
her
that
advice.
She
probably
doesn’t
want
to
hear
the
advice,
so
it
takes
courage
to
deliver
it.
And,
if
you’re
one
of 
Feinstein’s
aides,
the
advice
runs
against
your
self-interest:
You’re
currently
a
high-level
political
aide
to
a
United
States
senator.
If
that
senator
takes
your
advice
and
resigns,
then
you’re
a
schlub,
just
like
the
rest
of
us.
Do
you
really
think
anyone
close
to
Feinstein
is
advising
her
to
resign?

Should
Joe
Biden
run
for
another
term
as
president?
He’ll
be
82
on
Election
Day
and,
if
he
wins,
86
at
the
end
of
his
second
term.
The
average
life
expectancy
at
birth
for
an
American
male
is
about
78
years.
(The
average
life
expectancy
of
a
guy
who’s

already
made
it
to
82
is
seven
years


to
89.)
Life
expectancy,
of
course,
speaks
only
to
how
long
you’ll
be
breathing;
you
could
be
in
pretty
bad
shape
by
the
time
the
end
comes.

I
wish
Biden
all
the
best.
But
my
father
died
at
80,
and
the
last
five
years
weren’t
so
good.
I
know
painfully
few
85-year-olds
who
are
still
in
both
mental
and
physical
shape
to
handle
a
job
that’s
awfully
tough,
even
if
you’re
surrounded
by
top-notch
aides.

But
who’s
telling
Biden
that?
Do
you
think
that
Biden’s
chief
of
staff,
who’s
currently
one
of
the
most
powerful
people
in
the
world,
is
telling
Biden
not
to
run,
and
the
chief
of
staff
should
lose
his
job?
What
do
you
think
about
any
other
high
political
aides,
who
are
in
exactly
the
same
position?

I’m
not
saying
that
Biden’s
position
is
crazy:
He’s
relatively
moderate,
and
a
Democratic
primary
could
easily
nominate
someone
to
the
far
left,
who
might
not
be
as
electable
as
Biden.
But
I
wonder
how
many
people
will
stay
home
on
Election
Day
in
2024
because
they’re
not
enthusiastic
about
casting
a
ballot
for
a
guy
who’s
82.

There’s
only
one
person
who
might
give
Biden
honest
advice
on
whether
he
should
run
again.

We
were
counting
on
you, Jill,
and
I
think
you
failed
us.




Mark 
Herrmann spent
17
years
as
a
partner
at
a
leading
international
law
firm
and
is
now
deputy
general
counsel
at
a
large
international
company.
He
is
the
author
of




The
Curmudgeon’s
Guide
to
Practicing
Law
 and Drug
and
Device
Product
Liability
Litigation
Strateg
y (affiliate
links).
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at 
inhouse@abovethelaw.com.

Tailor Your Legal Communications To Become A More Effective GC – Above the Law


“Why?”


“And
what
if
XYZ
happens?”


When
I
was
a
general
counsel,
that’s
all
I’d
hear
when
I
explained
new
legal
requirements
for
the
IT
team
to
Lois,
the
department
head.
She’d
immediately
ask
questions
and
examine
what-if
situations
after
every
policy
change,
needing
to
talk
it
all
through
in
person.


Kay,
the
HR
director,
was
different.
She
would
nod
and
agree
as
I
told
her
of
an
upcoming
change.
Later,
she’d
email
me
insightful
questions
that
showed
she’d
heard
every
detail.
Kay
just
needed
time
to
process
verbal
information
and
preferred
written
explanations.


It
was
my
first
GC
role,
and
I
was
learning
how
to
handle
companywide
communications
and
diverse
personalities.
Here’s
what
I
discovered:  


Everyone
Has
A
Preferred
Communication
Style


I
quickly
found
that
just
as
there
are
individual
learning
styles
(e.g.,
visual,
auditory,
read/write,
and
kinesthetic),
each
person
has
a
preferred
way
of
receiving
information.
My
job
was
to
communicate
with
each
in
the
most
effective
style.


This
requires
flexibility,
first
in
recognizing
the
diverse
preferences
of
those
I
worked
with
and
then
adjusting
my
communication
approaches
accordingly.
As
a
GC,
you
may
hear
from
the
CEO,
COO,
HR
director,
IT
leader,
worried
employees,
frustrated
managers,
board
members,
and
department
heads
across
the
company

all
in
a
single
day. 


Each
one
must
understand
your
legal
guidance
and
follow
your
advice.
That
result
is
so
critical
that
we
can’t
let
our
egos
get
in
the
way
of
our
effectiveness.
We
may
wish
for
everyone
to
form
an
orderly
queue
and
ask
nicely
for
our
time
and
advice.
But
executives
often
call
for
legal
counsel
during
a
crisis.
Cooler
heads
don’t
always
prevail
at
these
times.
And
unfortunately,
it
can
reflect
poorly
on
you
when
legal
issues
compound
and
escalate.  


In-house
lawyers
and
GCs
need
highly
versatile
communication
skills
to
explain
critical
information
clearly
and
efficiently
to
stakeholders
at
every
level.
These
skills
take
time
to
develop
and
practice
to
hone.
But
the
effort
is
well
worth
ensuring
your
advice
is
understood
in
various
interactions.



Flexibility
Means
Many
Things


You
may
discover
preferences
such
as
emails
versus
phone
calls,
early
morning
chats
versus
late
evening
conversations,
and
in-person
meetings
versus
conference
calls. 


Then,
there
are
situational
preferences.
C-suite
executives
may
prefer
concise
updates
on
only
the
most
pressing
legal
issues.
Employees
may
need
to
know
about
only
the
workplace
changes
that
affect
them
directly.
At
the
same
time,
managers
may
want
a
broader
perspective
on
the
organization’s
legal
issues. 


Ask
them
directly
or
observe
their
behavior
and
communication
patterns
to
determine
each
person’s
preferences.
If
an
executive
typically
responds
promptly
to
emails
but
rarely
takes
your
calls,
you
can
assume
they
prefer
email
communication. 


Another
approach
is
to
provide
the
same
information
in
multiple
forms
to
ensure
you
reach
each
person
in
the
ways
they
prefer.
However,
this
can
quickly
become
time-consuming,
and
the
repetition
can
cause
people
to
start
tuning
out
altogether.


By
tailoring
your
communications,
you
help
ensure
stakeholders
receive
valuable
legal
guidance
without
feeling
micromanaged,
overwhelmed,
or
lost
at
sea.
The
awareness
and
accommodation
of
individual
preferences
can
make
a
significant
difference
in
building
strong,
trusting
relationships. 


Embrace
flexible
communications
as
a
core
skill
to
become
a
more
effective
GC
and
forge
a
successful
career
path
in
today’s
competitive
legal
field,
where
remote
working,
flexible
work
hours,
and
online
collaboration
require
significantly
enhanced
skills.


How
do
you
deliver
legal
updates
in
your
organization?


What
are
some
of
the
communications
challenges
involved?


Do
you
have
any
tips
for
improving
one-on-one
and
companywide
communications?




Olga MackOlga
V.
Mack
is
the
VP
at




LexisNexis
 and CEO
of 
Parley
Pro
,
a
next-generation
contract
management
company
that
has
pioneered
online
negotiation
technology.
Olga
embraces
legal
innovation
and
had
dedicated
her
career
to
improving
and
shaping
the
future
of
law.
She
is
convinced
that
the
legal
profession
will
emerge
even
stronger,
more
resilient,
and
more
inclusive
than
before
by
embracing
technology.
Olga
is
also
an
award-winning
general
counsel,
operations
professional,
startup
advisor,
public
speaker,
adjunct
professor,
and
entrepreneur.
She
founded
the 
Women
Serve
on
Boards
 movement
that
advocates
for
women
to
participate
on
corporate
boards
of
Fortune
500
companies.
She
authored 
Get
on
Board:
Earning
Your
Ticket
to
a
Corporate
Board
Seat
Fundamentals
of
Smart
Contract
Security
,
and 




Blockchain
Value:
Transforming
Business
Models,
Society,
and
Communities
She
is
working
on



Visual
IQ
for
Lawyers
,
her
next
book
(ABA
2023).



You
can
follow
Olga
on
Twitter
@olgavmack.

Clifford Chance Lassos Latham Partners As It Expands Into Texas – Above the Law

Hot
on
the
heels
of
the

megamerger
announcement

made
between
Allen
&
Overy
and
Shearman
&
Sterling,
yet
another
Magic
Circle
firm
is
trying
to
stake
a
larger
claim
here
in
America.

Clifford
Chance

a
firm
that
came
in
at
No.
2
in
the
2021
UK
100
ranking
with
$2,711,508,000
gross
revenue

currently
offices
in
New
York
and
Washington,
D.C.,
but
will
soon
be
opening
its
third
U.S.
firm
in
Houston,
Texas.


Bloomberg
Law

has
additional
details
on
the
firm’s
plans:

The
move
to
Houston
is
aimed
at
bolstering
the
firm’s
400-lawyer
global
energy
and
infrastructure
practice—with
an
eye
on
the
transition
to
renewable
energy
sources—and
fueling
US
growth,
a
key
long-term
strategy.

“We
are
seeing
around
the
world
so
much
going
on
with
the
energy
transition,”
Sharis
Arnold
Pozen,
regional
managing
partner
for
the
Americas,
said
in
an
interview.
“In
Houston,
that’s
the
hub
for
energy
work
and
the
energy
transition.”

The
firm
has
hired
Latham
&
Watkins
partners
Jonathan
Castelan
and
Trevor
Lavelle
for
its
Houston
office,
and
several
Clifford
Chance
partners
will
be
relocating
from
New
York
and
Paris
to
join
their
colleagues
there.

“Expanding
our
global
energy
offering
in
Houston,
the
world’s
leading
energy
hub,
reflects
our
strategy
to
build
out
our
capability
in
geographies
and
sectors
critical
to
our
clients’
future
growth,”
Global
Managing
Partner
Charles
Adams
noted
in
a
press
release.
“Energy
transition
is
a
priority
for
our
clients
and
our
depth
of
knowledge
across
technologies
and
jurisdictions
in
this
sector
positions
Clifford
Chance
to
add
real
value
to
businesses
pursuing
a
sustainable
path.”

Congratulations
to
Clifford
Chance
as
the
firm
heads
to
Texas
to
conquer
the
growing
energy
industry.


Clifford
Chance
Launches
Houston
Office
With
10-Partner
Team

[Bloomberg
Law]



Staci ZaretskyStaci
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

or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn
.