Category: News Feeds

Josep
Borrell,
High
Representative
of
the
Union
for
Foreign
Affairs
and
Security
Policy,
has
appointed
Mr
Fabio
Castaldo,
Member
of
the
European
Parliament,
as
Chief
Observer
for
this
mission.

High
Representative
Josep
Borrell
stated:

“The
deployment
of
an
EU
Election
Observation
Mission
to
the
general
elections
in
Zimbabwe
shows
the
EU’s
commitment
to
support
democracy
and
the
rule
of
law.
Under
the
leadership
of
Chief
Observer
Castaldo,
the
EU
EOM
will
contribute
to
enhancing
citizens’
trust
in
the
process
and
to
further
strengthening
Zimbabwe’s
democratic
institutions.
The
Zimbabwean
authorities
have
expressed
their
commitment
to
credible,
transparent,
inclusive
and
peaceful
elections.
This
is
what
is
expected
and
the
Zimbabweans
deserve”

The
Chief
Observer,
Mr
Castaldo
declared:
“Democracy
requires
more
than
elections,
but
a
country
cannot
be
a
democracy
without
holding
genuine
elections.
That
is
why
I
feel
honored
to
head
an
EU
EOM
to
Zimbabwe.
Credible,
transparent
and
inclusive
elections
are
a
cornerstone
of
democracy
and
play
a
critical
role
to
promote
a
peaceful
and
democratic
path
towards
greater
stability
and
prosperity,
not
only
for
the
individual
countries,
but
also
for
the
broader
regions.
On
the
basis
of
an
impartial
and
objective
assessment
of
the
election
process,
we
hope
to
continue
working
with
the
Zimbabwean
authorities
after
the
elections
to
encourage
the
implementation
of
the
observation
mission’s
recommendations. The
EU
can
play
a
pivotal
role
in
this
process,
and
we
will
always
be
by
the
side
Zimbabwean
people.”

With
the
service
provider
of
the
EOM
arriving
in
Harare
the
first
week
of
July,
the
Core
Team
of
the
EU
EOM
will
consist
of
11
election
experts
that
will
arrive
in
Zimbabwe
shortly
after.
Towards
the
end
of
July,
46
Long-Term
Observers
will
join
the
mission
and
are
to
be
deployed
across
the
country
to
follow
the
electoral
campaign.
44
Short-Term
Observers
are
also
foreseen
to
be
deployed
closer
to
election-day.
Finally,
a
number
of
Locally-Recruited
Short-Term
Observers
from
the
EU
Member
States
accredited
in
Zimbabwe
may
integrate
the
mission
on
Election
Day.
The
EU
EOM
will
remain
in
the
country
until
the
completion
of
the
electoral
process.

Following
the
EU
election
observation
methodology,
the
mission
will
issue
a
preliminary
statement
and
hold
a
press
conference
in
Harare
after
the
elections.
The
final
report,
which
will
include
a
set
of
recommendations
for
future
electoral
processes,
will
be
presented
and
shared
with
stakeholders
after
the
finalisation
of
the
entire
electoral
process.

Post
published
in:

Featured

And
just
like
that
…
producer
Abby
Grossberg’s
defamation
suit
against
Fox
News
has
settled
for
$12
million,
according
to
the

New
York
Times,
which
broke
the
news.
The
agreement
was
memorialized
in
a

filing
in
the
Southern
District
of
New
York
noting
Grossberg’s
voluntary
dismissal
of
her
claims,
with
prejudice.

It’s
a
relatively
small
settlement,
particularly
compared
to
the
whopping
$787
million
check
Fox
just
wrote
to
Dominion
Voting
Systems.
And
it’s
not
entirely
clear
why
they
didn’t
just
give
it
to
her
back
in
March
before
she
put
all
Tucker
Carlson’s


ish
on
main
with
her

complaint.
In
the
event,
Grossberg
described
a
classic
hostile
work
environment,
rife
with
sexism
and
bigotry.

For
instance:

[Senior
Executive
Producer
Justin]
Wells
and
[Managing
Editor
Alexander]
McCaskill
often
remarked
that
[a
female
employee],
a
TCT
Booker
who
reported
to
Ms.
Grossberg,
should
use
her
sex
appeal
to
the
TCT
team’s
advantage,
such
as
by
“sleep[ing]
with
Elon
Musk
to
get
[an]
interview”
and
that
she
could
be
his
“next
wife.”
[The
employee]
herself,
likely
feeling
as
if
she
needed
to
“fit
in”
and
add
commentary
matching
her
misogynist
work
environment,
would
respond
that
men
“masturbated”
to
her.

Grossberg
also
alleged
misconduct
by
Fox’s
lawyers,
whom
she
claimed
encouraged
her
to
shade
the
truth
and
lie
by
omission
in
her
deposition
with
Dominion’s
lawyers.
Moreover,
she
claimed
that
they
refused
to
allow
her
to
amend
the
transcript
of
her
testimony
after
the
fact,
in
violation
of
Delaware’s
rules
of
civil
procedure.

It’s
not
clear
whether
that’s
why
Fox
and
its
counsel
absolutely
flipped
their
shit
when
she
threatened
to
sue.
But
before
she
and
her
attorney
Parisis
G.
Filippatos
could
docket
her
claim,
lawyers
for
Fox
News
raced
into
New
York
state
court

seeking a
TRO
to
block
her
divulging
information
about
the
deposition,
claiming
that
it
would
violate
attorney-client
privilege.
And
then,
having
failed
to
head
her
off
in
advance, Fox
filed
an
emergency

motion
to
seal
the
relevant
portions
of
Grossberg’s
federal
complaint
after
the
fact.
US
District
Judge
Jesse
Furman

waved
them
off,
noting
that
“the
cat
is
now
firmly
out
of
the
bag;
given
that
the
Complaint
is
widely
and
publicly
accessible,
the
appropriate
remedy
for
any
improper
disclosure
of
privileged
and
confidential
communications
is
not
sealing.”

Since
Grossberg
filed,
Fox
settled
with
Dominion
and
exiled
Carlson
to
wander
the
frozen
wasteland
of
Twitter.
Her
suit,
and
the
damaging
recordings
she’s
release
to
the
media
since
then,
were

reportedly
a
factor
in
both
of
the
above.
But
that
doesn’t
explain
why
they
would
ever
let
it
get
this
far
when
the
plaintiff
could
be
made
to
go
away
for
what
is
essentially
a
rounding
error
for
the
network.

Carlson
has
now
been
replaced
by
Jesse
Watters,
who
once

laughed
on
air
about
the
time
he
let
the
air
out
of
his
wife’s
tires
so
she’d
have
to
accept
a
ride
from
him.
At
the
time,
he
was
married,
and
she
was
a
colleague
more
than
a
decade
younger
than
him.

Maybe
Fox
should
keep
that
settlement
checkbook
handy.

Grossberg
v.
Fox
Corp [Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

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

---

Olga
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.

If
you
feel
your
costly
marketing
strategies
are
not
providing
the
expected
results
for
your
law
firm,
you
may
be
making
some
serious
mistakes.
An
effective
marketing
plan
must
be
evaluated
regularly.
Adjustments
must
be
made
based
on
the
market,
the
economy,
and
what
is
working
for
your
specific
industry.
Learn
how
to
avoid
expensive
legal
marketing
mistakes
in
this
article.

Outdated
Websites
An
outdated
website
will
have
higher
bounce
rates
than
a
consistently
current
website.
A
high
bounce
rate
will
lower
Search
Engine
Optimization
(SEO)
because
when
visitors
bounce,
it
means
that
your
potential
clients
are
not
receiving
the
answers
they
are
looking
for
on
your
website.

Additionally,
if
you
do
not
upkeep
your
website
regularly,
links
stop
working,
the
material
becomes
disorganized,
and
navigation
is
difficult.
This
will
turn
users
away
from
your
site
and
onto
another
competitor’s
site.
Make
sure
that
whoever
you
have
updating
your
law
firm’s
website
is
doing
so
consistently
and
accurately.

Wrong
Demographics
Smart
marketing
efforts
include
demographic
research
to
ensure
you
are
reaching
quality
leads.
Content,
tone,
and
voice
will
draw
your
targeted
audience
to
your
site.
An
effective
way
to
lure
ideal
future
clients
is
to
provide
user-friendly
legal
content
like
question/answer
posts
that
provide
straightforward
responses
to
common
questions.
This
allows
you
to
establish
credibility
while
providing
a
useful
service
to
possible
customers.
They
will
remember
your
clear,
concise
advice
when
it
is
time
to
hire
or
recommend
a
lawyer.

Disorganization
and/or
Lack
of
Planning
Not
having
a
clear
digital
marketing
plan
is
a
mistake.
It
is
important
to
set
goals
and
incorporate
strategies
to
meet
those
goals.
If
your
plan
is
unclear,
your
marketing
efforts
will
seem
disjointed
and
will
not
generate
quality
leads.
If
you
are
unsure
how
to
create
a
digital
marketing
plan,
consider
visiting
with
a
professional
legal
SEO
agency
that
can
work
with
you
to
create
a
structured
plan
and
help
you
to
follow
it.

Low-Quality
Content
Relevant
and
useful
content
is
a
must.
Getting
sloppy
with
your
content
can
lead
to
a
high
bounce
rate.
You
must
establish
your
firm
as
an
expert,
and
providing
irrelevant
or
low-quality
content
will
harm
your
reputation,
and
your
SEO
rankings
will
plummet.

Discounting
Social
Media
Social
media
is
an
efficient
way
to
generate
traffic
to
your
site.
Linking
blogs,
posts,
and
important
content
to
your
social
media
accounts
is
like
free
advertising
and
should
never
be
overlooked.
Consumers
spend
a
lot
of
time
on
social
media
accounts
and
often
click
on
posts
and
links
that
interest
them,
often
leading
to
buying
services
and/or
products.

Not
Being
Mobile
Friendly
Most
people
use
their
phones
for
more
than
just
texting
or
talking.
They
shop,
search,
and
buy
services
on
their
mobile
devices.
If
your
law
firm’s
website
is
not
mobile-friendly,
Google
will
drop
your
SEO
ranking.
This
will
keep
you
from
acquiring
the
targeted
potential
clients
you
need.
What
potential
clients
see
on
their
mobile
devices
must
match
what
is
seen
on
their
desktop
computers.
A
mobile-friendly
site
should
be
easy
to
use,
quick,
and
professional.

Not
Using
Google
Business
Profile
If
you
want
your
law
firm
to
appear
on
Google
searches
and
maps,
you
must
claim
your
Google
Business
Profile,
which
is
a
free
business
profile
provided
by
Google.
A
Google
Business
Profile
allows
you
to:

• Complete
  and
  claim
  your
  business
  profile
  listing
• Utilize
  current
  contact
  information
• Add
  pertinent
  and
  timely
  links
• Post
  consistent
  and
  regular
  posts
• Add
  relevant
  images
  and
  pictures
• Stand
  out
  from
  the
  competition

Not
using
this
free
service
could
be
the
difference
between
first-page
search
results,
3rd-page
search
results,
and
not
showing
up
on
a
Google
map.

Not
Optimizing
Search
Engines
To
compete
in
the
digital
marketplace,
your
law
firm
must
rank
high
on
search
engine
results
pages.
Your
website
must
appear
early
on
a
search,
so
potential
clients
have
the
ability
to
find
you
easily.
Search
engine
optimization
is
crucial
to
successful
marketing
plans
and
cannot
be
ignored.

How
Can
You
Optimize
for
Search
Engines?

• Keyword
  research
  –
  this
  is
  an
  important
  aspect
  of
  SEO.
  An
  effective
  legal
  SEO
  agency
  will
  know
  just
  how
  to
  research
  the
  best
  keywords
  and
  pinpoint
  the
  terms
  you
  need
  to
  capitalize
  on
  to
  drive
  that
  targeted
  traffic
  to
  your
  site.
• Relevant
  content
  –
  a
  successful
  marketing
  plan
  identifies
  targeted
  demographics
  and
  what
  type
  of
  content
  they
  want
  to
  read.
  Your
  content
  should
  be
  aligned
  with
  the
  needs
  of
  your
  potential
  clients.
• Meta
  descriptions
  and
  title
  tags
  –
  meta
  descriptions
  and
  title
  tags
  are
  the
  first
  things
  users
  see
  when
  they
  search.
  It
  is
  crucial
  to
  pay
  attention
  to
  these
  features
  of
  your
  site.
  Keywords
  in
  the
  descriptions
  and
  tags
  help
  your
  site
  with
  searches.
• Efficiency
  –
  many
  factors
  are
  considered
  when
  Google
  establishes
  a
  ranking
  for
  a
  website,
  but
  usability
  is
  a
  key
  factor.
  Slow
  speeds
  and
  missing
  links
  will
  lower
  your
  rankings.
  Be
  sure
  to
  provide
  potential
  customers
  with
  an
  efficient,
  user-friendly
  desktop
  and
  mobile
  site.
• Backlinks
  and
  internal
  links
  –
  strong
  internal
  backlinks
  will
  improve
  a
  visitor’s
  experience
  on
  your
  website.
  Ensure
  your
  links
  work
  and
  send
  users
  to
  relevant
  and
  current
  online
  places.

In
addition
to
the
above
aspects
of
your
site,
you
must
also
optimize
all
other
features,
including
alt
tags,
URLs,
and
images.

Not
Being
Data-Driven
Free
platforms
like
Google
Analytics
and
Google
Search
Console
will
provide
important
data
regarding
your
site’s
rankings
and
features.
This
data
will
help
you
to
update
and
improve
your
website
to
warrant
higher
SEO
rankings.
Using
this
data
will
provide
you
with
a
better
understanding
of
how
your
website
works
to
generate
quality
leads.
You
can
create
client
lists
and
profiles
and
use
marketing
strategies
to
drive
them
to
your
website.
Today’s
businesses
and
law
firms
are
data-driven.
Make
good
use
of
this
crucial
information,
as
disregarding
it
could
be
costly.

Digital
Marketing
Next
Steps
Are
you
aware
of
the
mistakes
your
firm
might
be
making
when
it
comes
to
marketing?
If
not,
you
could
be
costing
your
firm
thousands
of
dollars
in
misspent
digital
marketing
dollars.
Consider
taking
time
to
do
an
analysis
of
what
is
working
(and
what
is
not
working)
for
your
law
firm
with
regards
to
your
digital
marketing
strategy.

---

Annette
Choti,
Esq.
graduated
from
law
school
20
years
ago,
and
is
the
Founder
of

Law
Quill,
a
legal
digital
marketing
agency
focused
on
small
and
solo
law
firms.
Annette
wrote
the
bestselling
book

Click
Magnet:
The
Ultimate
Digital
Marketing
Guide
For
Law
Firms,
and
hosts
the
podcast

Legal
Marketing
Lounge.
She
is
a
sought-after
keynote
and
CLE
speaker
throughout
the
United
States
and
Canada.
Annette
used
to
do
theatre
and
professional
comedy,
which
is
not
so
different
from
the
legal
field
if
we
are
all
being
honest.
Annette
can
be
found
on

LinkedIn
or
at
at


annette@lawquill.com.

Healthcare
organizations
must
be
wary
of
cybercriminals
exploiting
a
software
vulnerability
called
MOVEit.
The
Cybersecurity
and
Infrastructure
Security
Agency


issued

an
alert
this
month
warning
health
systems
about
this
vulnerability
—
the
alert
stated
that
Clop,
a
Russian
ransomware
gang
known
for
going
after
healthcare
providers,
has
been
exploiting
MOVEit.

Johns
Hopkins
University

and
its
health
system
were
recently


victims

of
a
data
breach
caused
by
hackers
targeting
this
vulnerability,
as
was
Texas-based


Harris
Health
System.

Johns
Hopkins
said
that
hackers
may
have
accessed
patients’
sensitive
personal
and
financial
information
during
the
attack,
including
names,
contact
information
and
health
billing
records.
The
health
system
also
said
that
the
cyberattack
“impacted
thousands
of
large
organizations
around
the
world.”

MOVEit
is
a
commonly
used
piece
of
software
that
allows
organizations
to
transfer
data
between
various
systems
and
networks.
Clop
found
a
vulnerability
in
the
software
before
most
organizations
could
update
it,
according
to
the
federal
government’s
alert.

Ransomware
attacks
can
be
“disastrous”
for
health
systems,
said
Aaron
Mendes,
CEO
and
co-founder
of
data
privacy
platform


PrivacyHawk,
in
a
recent
interview.
These
attacks
can
make
a
hospital’s
systems
go
offline,
force
clinicians
to
revert
to
paper
records
and
delay
patient
care.

“If
a
ransomware
attack
is
successful,
there’s
not
a
great
way
to
undo
the
damage
without
paying
the
ransom
most
of
the
time.
You
end
up
just
paying
the
ransom,
unfortunately.
And
then
[the
hackers]
unlock
your
systems
and
you
have
to
try
to
figure
out
how
they
got
it
and
then
put
things
in
place
to
try
to
prevent
it
from
happening
in
the
future,”
he
explained.

It’s
difficult
to
get
data
on
the
dollar
amounts
that
ransomware
gangs
typically
demand
because
hospitals
usually
don’t
disclose
this
information,
but
Mendes
said
these
sums
certainly
“aren’t
insignificant
amounts
of
money.”
According
to
him,
some
cybercriminal
groups
ask
for
millions
or
tens
of
millions
of
dollars.

He
noted
that
cyberattacks
often
lead
to
data
theft
—
when
hackers
steal
healthcare
records,
patients’
personal
and
medical
information
could
end
up
on
the
dark
web
or
public
web.
Cybercriminals
use
this
data
for
a
number
of
purposes,
including
blackmail,
extortion,
identity
fraud,
impersonation
and
doxing,
Mendes
explained.

Cyberattacks
also
create
a
major
legal
liability
for
healthcare
providers,
he
added.

“If
you
have
a
ransomware
attack
or
a
breach,
you’re
going
to
get
sued.
It’s
a
major
legal
risk,
and
those
class
action
lawsuits
are
extremely
expensive.
Unfortunately,
the
individual
patients
don’t
get
very
much
—
it’s
usually
the
lawyers
that
make
a
third
of
the
money,”
Mendes
declared.

In
his
view,
health
system
cyberattacks
aren’t
proliferating
because
hospitals
are
ignoring
security
protocols
—
they’re
happening
because
hackers
are
really
talented
at
their
jobs.

Most
hospitals
are
aware
that
hackers
are
posing
a
major
threat
to
the
sector
and
are
taking
precautions,
but
it’s
hard
for
them
to
protect
themselves
when
they
employ
thousands
of
people,
Mendes
pointed
out.
It
only
takes
one
human
mistake
to
give
a
hacker
access
to
a
hospital’s
systems,
he
said.

“Hackers
only
need
to
succeed
one
out
of
a
thousand
times
to
successfully
breach.
They
might
send
out
500
phishing
emails,
and
it
only
takes
one
click
to
give
them
the
access
that
they
want.
It’s
just
a
really,
really
hard
problem
to
make
100%
bulletproof,”
Mendes
declared.

Photo:
anyaberkut,
Getty
Images

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

According
to
2024
Vault
Best
Law
Firms
to
Work
For
ranking,
at
which
law
firm
are
associates
the
most
satisfied
with
their
wellness
programming?

Hint:
Associates
told
Vault
that
the
firm
“consistently
demonstrates
its
commitment
to
wellness
efforts”
and
that
firm
leaders
have
“solicited
attorney
and
staff
feedback
and
suggestions
on
new
wellness
initiatives.”

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

---

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
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

A
few
months
ago,
I
spoke
to
a
friend
who
is
a
small-firm
attorney
about
our
practices
and
how
we
each
develop
business.
Like
many
other
small-firm
lawyers,
my
buddy
and
I
rely
on
stable
referral
sources
in
order
to
generate
a
steady
stream
of
business.
My
friend
claimed
in
our
conversation
that
lawyers
rarely
refer
him
work
and
that
he
does
not
believe
that
attorneys
can
make
good
referral
sources
for
other
lawyers.
This
friend
claimed
that
most
lawyers
take
good
work
for
themselves,
and
all
of
the
matters
referred
by
other
attorneys
include
bad
clients
that
are
not
as
profitable
as
other
work.
However,
by
cultivating
the
right
network,
attorneys
can
rely
on
other
lawyers
for
a
steady
stream
of
referrals.

Out-Of-State
Lawyers

One
of
the
best
ways
to
obtain
referrals
from
other
attorneys
is
to
make
connections
with
lawyers
from
around
the
country.
The
practice
of
law
is
extremely
interjurisdictional,
and
a
lawyer
in
a
different
part
of
the
country
might
have
a
client
who
needs
counsel
in
another
part
of
the
country
to
effectively
handle
a
matter.
Since
lawyers
are
only
typically
admitted
to
practice
in
one
or
a
few
jurisdictions,
they
might
refer
such
matters
to
counsel
in
the
locale
where
the
client
needs
help,
or
at
least
engage
counsel
in
that
jurisdiction
to
get
advice
about
a
given
legal
matter.

I
am
fortunate
to
practice
law
in
the
New
York
City
area,
which
is
a
popular
jurisdiction
for
all
kinds
of
litigation
and
transactional
matters.
People
also
often
designate
New
York
in
forum-selection
clauses,
so
parties
from
all
over
the
country,
and
all
over
the
world,
might
need
to
litigate
in
this
venue
for
different
kinds
of
disputes.
I
have
contacts
in
several
different
jurisdictions,
and
when
a
client
of
one
of
these
lawyers
needs
to
litigate
a
matter
in
New
York
or
needs
to
understand
an
issue
under
New
York
law,
they
usually
reach
out
to
me
to
assist.
If
lawyers
keep
in
touch
with
law
school
friends
who
practice
in
different
jurisdictions,
or
they
cultivate
such
contacts
at
conventions,
they
can
set
themselves
up
for
referrals
if
a
geographic-specific
referral
is
required.

Retired
Lawyers

Eventually,
even
many
of
the
most
prolific
lawyers
need
to
wind
down
their
practices
and
retire.
In
my
career,
several
of
the
attorneys
who
used
to
employ
me
have
retired
upon
reaching
their
late
60s
or
early
70s,
and
they
needed
to
figure
out
what
to
do
with
their
files
and
clients
so
that
they
can
have
a
seamless
transition
into
retirement.
For
lawyers
who
work
at
larger
law
firms,
it
is
usually
easier
for
attorneys
to
hand
off
files
and
retire,
since
other
attorneys
at
the
firm
can
step
up
and
continue
working
on
the
retired
lawyer’s
matters.
However,
lawyers
who
retire
from
solo
practice
or
a
small
firm
might
need
to
refer
their
clients
to
other
practices
since
there
is
no
clear
succession
plan
in
place.

During
my
career,
I
have
received
a
number
of
great
referrals
from
retired
attorneys.
Some
of
these
lawyers
referred
matters
to
me
while
they
were
in
the
process
of
retiring,
and
other
attorneys
referred
clients
to
me
that
had
approached
the
retired
lawyer.
Since
people
might
naturally
approach
retired
lawyers
for
years
after
they
retire
because
clients
trust
these
individuals,
such
retired
lawyers
can
be
a
solid
source
of
regular
referrals
for
practicing
attorneys.

In-House
Or
Government
Lawyers

A
variety
of
lawyers
cannot
take
on
work
because
of
the
nature
of
their
jobs.
For
instance,
government
lawyers
might
be
approached
for
legal
advice,
but
they
are
unable
to
assist
prospective
clients
since
they
do
not
have
a
law
practice.
In-house
counsel
might
also
be
approached
about
assisting
prospective
clients,
but
they
might
not
have
the
knowledge
or
capacity
to
assist
prospective
clients
due
to
their
work
arrangements.
In
such
instances,
it
is
not
uncommon
for
such
lawyers
to
refer
prospective
clients
to
practicing
lawyers
they
know.
Since
these
attorneys
are
incapable
of
handling
the
matter
themselves,
lawyers
do
not
need
to
fear
that
the
matter
is
being
referred
to
them
since
it
is
not
worth
the
time
of
another
lawyer.
I
have
handled
numerous
matters
on
behalf
of
lawyers
who
are
not
in
private
practice,
and
this
can
be
a
solid
referral
source
for
practicing
attorneys.

In
sum,
certain
types
of
lawyers
can
be
solid
sources
of
substantial
and
recurring
referrals.
As
a
result,
lawyers
looking
to
expand
their
practices
should
try
to
keep
in
contact
with
other
lawyers
as
well
as
business
contacts
in
order
to
best
build
their
referral
networks.

---

Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of



The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of



Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at



jordan@rothman.law.

Donald
Trump’s
latest
effort
to
wriggle
out
of
liability
for
defaming
advice
columnist
E.
Jean
Carroll
met
the
same
fate
as
all
the
others,
with
Judge
Lewis
Kaplan

rejecting
his
motion
for
summary
judgment
and
refusing
to
allow
him
to
make
a
belated
argument
of
absolute
presidential
immunity
from
civil
suit.

In
the
pantheon
of
grumpy
Lew
Kaplan
orders,
this
one
hardly
charts.
But
it
does
convey
the
court’s
exhaustion
with
the
plaintiff
and
his
counsel
Alina
Habba
after
three
years
of
dilatory
maneuvers
and
shambolic
lawyering
across
two
lawsuits.
Faced
with
the
same
category
error
confusing
libel

per
se
and
slander per
se,
the
court
simply
quotes
its
own
ruling
from

Carroll
II
disposing
of
the
argument.
He
merely
sighed
at
Trump’s
argument
that
his
2019
statement,
virtually
indistinguishable
from
the
2022
claims
a
jury
just
found
him
liable
for,
was
a
non-defamatory
statement
of
opinion.
And
he
simply
bats
away
Trump’s
claim
that
Carroll
consented
to
be
defamed
by
dint
of
accusing
a
famous
man
of
sexual
assault.

Ms.
Carroll’s
generalized
concern
that
she
might
be
subject
to
the
same
attacks
that
other
women,
as
she
stated,
have
experienced
after
coming
forward
with
their
accusations
against
Mr.
Trump
does
not
demonstrate
her
awareness
of
and
agreement
to
the
possibility
that
Mr.
Trump
might
defame
her
in
response
to
her
specific
accusation
of
sexual
assault
and
rape.

But
Judge
Kaplan
did
manage
to
work
himself
into
his
usual
cantankerous
lather
over
Trump’s
untimely
effort
to
invoke
presidential
immunity.

The
court
first
quotes
Trump’s
motion
for
summary
judgement,
in
which
he
argued
that,
as
president,
he
simply

had
to
assure
the
public
that
Carroll
was
a
dirty
liar:

As
both
the
leader
of
the
nation
and
head
of
the
Executive
Branch,
[he]
could
not
sit
idly
while
a
‘media
frenzy’
erupted
around
allegations
that
attempted
to
paint
him
as
a
rapist.
Indeed,
faced
with
this
widely-reported,
unprovoked
attack
on
his
character,
the
President
had
a
duty
to
respond;
at
a
minimum,
this
action
was
necessary
to
‘maintain
the
continued
trust
and
respect
of
[his]
constituents’
and
to
‘preserve
his
ability
to
carry
out
his
[]
responsibilities.’
.
.
.
Thus,
it
cannot
be
reasonably
disputed
that
[Mr.
Trump’s]
conduct
was
‘presidential’
in
nature
because
he
was
addressing
an
issue
of
grave
public
concern
that
weighed
on
the
character
and
competency
of
the
leader
of
the
nation.

But
the
court
will
not
be
opining
as
to
whether
the
people
have
got
to
know
whether
or
not
their
President
is
a
crook,
for
the
simple
reason
that
“their
President”
didn’t
raise
this
defense
when
he
was
sued
in
2019,
nor
when
he
left
office
in
2021,
hoping
by
then
that
the
Second
Circuit
or
DC
Court
of
Appeals
would
rule
that
Trump
was
acting
within
the
scope
of
his
official
duties
and
disappear
the
case
under
the
Westfall
Act.

Only
when
that
failed
did
Trump
make
the
executive
immunity
argument,
insisting
that
he
could
not
have
waived
it
during
the
intervening
four
years
because
presidential
immunity
is
unwaivable
as
a
matter
of
separation
of
powers,
depriving
the
court
of
subject
matter
jurisdiction.

Scoffing
at
the
“patronizing”
claim
that
courts
have
the
ability
to
strip
the
executive
of
his
right
to
waive
immunity,
the
court
restates
its
prior
finding
that
Trump
and
his
counsel
have
acted
in
“dilatory”
fashion
throughout
the
proceeding.

“There
is
no
basis
to
risk
prolonging
the
resolution
of
this
litigation
further
by
permitting
Mr.
Trump
to
raise
his
absolute
immunity
defense
now
at
the
eleventh
hour
when
he
could
have
done
so
years
ago,”
Judge
Kaplan
writes,
noting
that,
if
given
leave
to
amend,
Trump
will
be
able
to
postpone
reckoning
yet
further
through
another
round
of
appeals.

The
undue
delay
in
asserting
the
defense
thus
was
inherently
and
unfairly
prejudicial
even
if
this
Court
is
mistaken
in
concluding
that
it
is
legally
insufficient.
Finally,
there
is
the
one
more
consideration.
If
Mr.
Trump
were
granted
leave
to
amend
and
this
Court
were
to
reject
his
absolute
immunity
claim,
the
order
doing
so
likely
would
be
appealable.
No
doubt
Mr.
Trump
would
appeal.
And
an
appeal
likely
would
cause
“significant
additional
delays
in
this
litigation
arising
from
a
defense
that
Trump
chose
not
to
assert
for
the
first
three
years
of
the
proceedings.

In
the
end,
the
entire
46-page
order
could
have
been
reduced
to
a
single
sentence
on
page
three:
“His
arguments
are
without
merit.”

Or,
as
Carroll’s
lawyer
Roberta
Kaplan
put
it,
“Judge
Kaplan’s
denial
of
summary
judgment
confirms
that
once
again,
Donald
Trump’s
supposed
defenses
to
E
Jean
Carroll’s
defamation
claims
don’t
work.
Trump
chose
to
waive
presidential
immunity
and
now
he
must
live
with
the
results
of
that
decision.”

Carroll
v.
Trump
I [Docket
via
Court
Listener]

Carroll
v.
Trump
II [Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

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