Category: News Feeds

Some
Firms
Need
A
Strong
Social
Media
Team:

The
Rafi
Law
Firm
is
not
one
of
them.

Affirmative
Action
Might
Be
Over,
But
Diversity
Isn’t:

Colleges
are
still
focused
on
diversifying
classrooms.

Once,
Twice,
Three
Times
A
Bad
Lawyer:

Keith
Chance
Hardy
should
not
be
the
guy
you
model
your
career
on.

If
You
Dare
Someone
To
Sue
You,
Be
Prepared
For
Them
To
Play
Ball:

The
Washington
Commanders
are
headed
to
court.

Want
To
Be
An
Informed
Member
Of
The
BeyHive?:

You
better
brush
up
on
tax
law.

Need
A
Why
For
The
Wave
Of
Bye-Bye?:

Hope
this
provides
some
closure.

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

According
to
the
NALP
Foundation’s
study,
Law
School
Alumni
Employment
and
Satisfaction,
for
the
Class
of
2019,
what
percentage
of
employed
alumni
report
they
are
actively
seeking
a
new
job?

Hint:
Those
seeking
a
new
job
is
at
an
historically
low
level,
with
alumni
of
color
seeking
new
jobs
at
a
higher
rate
than
their
white
peers.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

When
you
delve
into
the
details,
there
isn’t
much
overlap.
We,
compared
to
Shearman,
are
small
in
the
U.S.,
and
the
practices
are
in
fact
compatible.
In
the
rest
of
the
world,
our
practices
are
substantially
larger
than
Shearman’s,
and
the
overlap
is
very
limited.
There
isn’t
a
plan
for
redundancy,
but
rather
strengthening
our
capabilities
in
the
areas
we
operate.

—

Wim
Dejonghe,
global
senior
partner
of
Allen
&
Overy,
in
comments
given
to
the

American
Lawyer
on
the
prospect
of
layoffs
taking
place
after
the
firm
combines
with
Shearman
&
Sterling
to
form
A&O
Shearman.
Both
Dejonghe
and

Adam
Hakki,
Shearman’s
senior
partner,
have
said
that
redundancies
aren’t
really
a
concern
of
theirs
because
of
their
complementary
office
locations
and
practice
areas.
“We
are
positive
about
where
the
vote
will
end
up.
And
we
are
having
conversations
about
integration,
culture
and
clients,”
Dejonghe
said.
“The
partnership
is
asking
the
right
questions
with
the
right
focus.”

---

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

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on

Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

Yesterday,
the
16
cosplay
Trump
2020
electors
from
Michigan
got
a
nasty
surprise
in
the
form
of
an

eight-count
indictment
charging
them
with
forgery,
uttering
or
publishing
a
false,
forged,
or
counterfeit
record,
conspiracy,
and
election
crimes.
Because,
as
so
many
Trump-era
figures
have
discovered,
f-in’
around
is
fun,
but
finding
out’s
a
bitch.

The
indictees
are
all
old
enough
to
know
better,
with
the
youngest
clocking
in
at
a
sprightly
55.
Worse
still,
their
ranks
include
state
Republican
party
officials,
a
mayor,
a
school
board
official,
and
a
town
clerk.
Nevertheless,
when
the
Trump
campaign
asked
them
to
disregard
President
Biden’s
154,000
vote
victory
margin,
even
after
it
was
confirmed
by
multiple
recounts,
they
rushed
to
comply.

(It’s
perhaps
less
surprising
that
the
certificate
was
signed
by
Timothy
King,
the
named
plaintiff
in

King
v.
Whitmer,
the
disastrous
Kraken
lawsuit
that
got
Sidney
Powell
and
the
legal
derp
squad

sanctioned.)

Here
they
are
unsuccessfully
attempting
to
convince
a
security
guard
to
let
them
into
the
state
Capitol
so
they
can
sign
their
fake
electoral
certificate
on
December
14,
2020.

Their
prior
plan,
which
was
also
thwarted,
had
been
to
sleep
in
the
building
overnight.
As
Just
Security’s
Ryan
Goodman

points
out,
that’s
because
Michigan

law
specifies
that
the
electors
“shall
convene
in
the
senate
chamber
at
the
capitol
of
the
state
at
2
p.m.,
eastern
standard
time,
on
the
first
Monday
after
the
second
Wednesday
in
December
following
their
election.”

Indeed,
New
York
lawyer
Kenneth
Chesebro,
one
of
John
Eastman’s
confederates,
observed
that
“Michigan
is
much
more
specific
about
the
location
in
which
electors
must
meet,
which
could
be
a
bit
awkward,”
in
a
December
9,
2020

memo
entitled
“Statutory
Requirements
for
December
14
Electoral
Votes.”

After
getting
turned
away
at
the
Capitol,
the
electors
met
in
the
basement
of
the
RNC
headquarters
and
signed
their
names
on
the

fake
certificate,
attesting
not
only
that
they
were
the
official
electors,
but
that
“we
convened
and
organized
in
the
State
Capitol,
in
the
City
of
Lansing,
Michigan,
and
at
2:00
p.m.
Eastern
Standard
Time
on
the
14th
day
of
December,
2020,
performed
the
duties
enjoined
upon
us.”

“That
was
a
lie.
They
weren’t
the
duly
elected
and
qualified
electors,
and
each
of
the
defendants
knew
it,”
State
Attorney
General
Dana
Nessel

said
yesterday
in
a

videotaped
statement
announcing
the
charges.
“They
carried
out
these
actions
with
the
hope
and
belief
that
the
electoral
votes
of
Michigan’s
2020
election
would
be
awarded
to
the
candidate
of
their
choosing,
instead
of
the
candidate
that
Michigan
voters
actually
chose.”

Nessel
also
took
time
to
differentiate
this
case
from
the
oft-cited
1960
electoral
certification
in
Hawaii,
when
there
were
ongoing
recounts
and
litigation,
necessitating
two
slates
of
electors
being
sworn
in:
one
for
Kennedy,
one
for
Nixon.

No
state
or
federal
court
had
provided
credence
to
even
a
single
claim
that
could
have
impugned
the
authority
of
the
rightful
slate
of
Biden
electors.
The
United
States
Supreme
Court
itself,
the
highest
court
in
all
of
America,
had
issued
an
order
3
days
earlier
declining
to
hear
a
challenge
to
the
certification
of
Michigan’s
presidential
election.
There
remained
no
question
of
the
outcome
of
this
election
and
no
reason
to
necessitate
the
creation
of
a
back-up
slate
of
electors,
other
than
to
unlawfully
overturn
the
election.
That
the
effort
failed,
and
democracy
prevailed
does
not
erase
the
crimes
of
those
who
enacted
the
False
Electors
plot
to
overturn
the
election
and
circumvent
the
will
of
Michigan
voters.

Former
state
GOP
chair
Meshawn
Maddock
remained
defiant,
calling
the
charges
“political
persecution”
and
telling

NBC
“The
democrats
know
they
can’t
beat
Trump
in
24
so
they
have
to
use
lawfare
to
try
to
imprison
their
opponents.”
She
also called
Transportation
Secretary
Pete
Buttigieg
a
“weak
little
girl,”
so
…
consider
the
source.

In
the
meantime,
the
states
appear
to
have
run
out
of
patience
waiting
for
Merrick
Garland.
Nessel
referred
the
electors
case
to
the
Justice
Department
in
2021,
but
resumed
her
investigation
in
2022
when
the
DOJ
appeared
to
ignore
it.
In
Georgia,
Fulton
County
District
Attorney
Fani
Willis
has
sent
target
letters
to
multiple
signatories
to
her
state’s
fake
electoral
certificate.
And
in
Arizona,
Attorney
General
Kris
Mayes
has

announced
that
she
is
looking
into
that
state’s
fraudulent
electoral
certificate
as
well.

---

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

One
of
my
favorite
podcasts
(other
than
Above
the
Law’s
“Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer,”
of
course)
is
“The
Daily,”
which
is
a
production
of
the
New
York
Times.
Each
weekday,
“The
Daily”
covers
a
story
that
is
relevant
to
the
recent
news,
and
on
Sundays,
“The
Daily”
includes
an
oral
reading
of
an
article
from
the
New
York
Times
Magazine.
This
week’s
Sunday
episode
was
about
how
some
healthcare
professionals
suffer
from
moral
injury,
which
is
a
negative
feeling
associated
with
working
in
a
system
that
might
not
be
promoting
the
morals
that
people
hold
dear.
The
episode
mostly
discussed
how
the
commercialization
of
healthcare
has
forced
physicians
to
forgo
human-based
decisions
in
favor
of
efficiency
and
making
the
most
money
possible.
Listening
to
this
episode
got
me
thinking:
do
many
lawyers
also
experience
moral
injury
throughout
the
course
of
our
careers,
and
can
this
explain
the
high
rate
of
burnout
experienced
by
many
attorneys?

Numerous
lawyers
are
forced
to
represent
interests
that
might
not
necessarily
sync
with
their
moral
background.
For
instance,
criminal
defense
attorneys
often
need
to
represent
people
who
may
have
committed
serious
crimes,
and
our
entire
system
of
justice
depends
upon
everyone,
including
people
who
might
have
done
heinous
acts,
receiving
the
best
legal
representation.
Even
though
individuals
in
such
positions
may
recognize
that
they
promote
one
public
good
in
representing
someone
who
may
have
committed
bad
acts,
this
does
not
mean
that
lawyers
do
not
suffer
on
a
deeper
level
from
these
types
of
representations.

Even
if
lawyers
do
not
practice
criminal
defense
law,
numerous
other
attorneys
face
representations
which
do
not
completely
align
with
well-established
moral
principles.
Numerous
lawyers
represent
large
companies,
insureds,
and
other
parties
in
the
civil
system
of
justice
which
are
accused
of
doing
bad
things.
Even
though
it
is
important
that
every
party
is
represented,
and
the
civil
system
of
justice
might
ultimately
lead
to
wronged
people
being
fairly
compensated,
representing
a
client
in
such
situations
can
inflict
some
amount
of
moral
injury.

For
instance,
numerous
times
in
my
career,
I
have
represented
clients
that
were
accused
of
pretty
heinous
claims,
and
in
all
likelihood,
had
at
least
some
level
of
culpability
in
the
acts
complained
of
in
the
litigation.
In
certain
instances,
the
faults
of
my
clients
possibly
resulted
in
deaths
or
serious
injuries
to
others.
Throughout
the
course
of
the
representations,
I
would
routinely
make
legal
arguments
that
would
try
to
minimize
the
amount
of
exposure
my
clients
had.
In
some
instances,
I
would
get
cases
dismissed
on
procedural
grounds
with
the
understanding
that
this
would
greatly
reduce
or
completely
eliminate
a
recovery
for
people
who
have
suffered.

At
other
times
in
my
career,
I
had
very
personal
exposure
to
the
problems
that
may
have
been
caused
by
my
clients.
At
an
earlier
role
in
my
career,
I
worked
in
a
given
mass
torts
matter
in
which
I
took
the
depositions
of
numerous
plaintiffs
who
claimed
that
my
client
and
others
had
at
least
partially
caused
the
illnesses
from
which
the
plaintiffs
were
suffering.
Some
of
these
depositions
would
go
on
for
a
long
time,
and
I
would
really
get
to
know
the
deponents,
and
sometimes,
their
families
as
well.
In
some
instances,
I
would
even
take
the
depositions
in
the
plaintiffs’
homes,
or
other
times,
in
hospitals.

I
am
not
going
to
say
that
these
situations
were
particularly
soul-crushing,
and
of
course,
some
professionals
and
other
lawyers
need
to
deal
with
bigger
issues
throughout
their
careers.
However,
I
definitely
did
not
go
home
from
work
everyday
feeling
good,
and
this
experience
did
make
me
think
at
times
that
I
was
an
instrumentality
for
some
bad
outcomes
like
clients
not
paying
restitution
to
people
who
were
harmed
by
the
client’s
bad
acts
or
negligence.
This
feeling
definitely
traveled
with
me
throughout
my
days,
since
it
was
difficult
to
block
out
the
unease
I
somewhat
felt
by
certain
work
tasks
when
I
was
in
my
personal
life.

Since
starting
my
own
practice,
I
have
much
more
autonomy
to
choose
which
types
of
matters
I
handle,
and
I
now
generally
work
on
matters
that
do
not
involve
moral
injury.
However,
people
should
definitely
be
more
cognizant
that
even
though
lawyers
serve
a
vital
public
function
in
ensuring
that
individuals
and
businesses
receives
representation,
this
does
not
mean
that
lawyers
do
not
feel
the
impact
of
taking
on
certain
types
of
cases.
Many
lawyers
can
feel
the
downsides
of
moral
injury,
which
might
explain
some
of
the
burnout
that
seems
to
be
so
ubiquitous
in
the
legal
profession.

---

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.

On
July
29th,
the
Supreme
Court
got
rid
of
affirmative
action
in
higher
ed
student
admissions
with
a
resounding…
kinda?
Everyone
understands
that
affirmative
action
is
pretty
much
over,
but
has
the
Court
entirely
done
away
with
any
possible
attempt
to
balance
admitting
students
with
equity
in
mind?
Not
so
much.
What’s
for
sure
is
that
there
is
some
gap
between
the
Court’s
decision
in
Harvard/UNC
and
however
America
First
Legal
and
company
are
interpreting
it
—
and
colleges
are
preparing
to
walk
that
line.
From

Law.com:

The
Association
of
American
Law
Schools
held
an
affirmative
action
conference
July
10
to
explore
law
school
recruiting
options
following
the
U.S.
Supreme
Court’s
June
29
ruling
condemning
affirmative
action
in
higher
education.

Representatives
from
big
schools
were
in
attendance:
UC
Davis,
University
of
Michigan,
UCLA,
and
others.
With
the
equity
endeavors
that
they’ve
deployed
since
the
passing
of
Proposition
209,
California
schools
are
well
versed
when
it
comes
to
figuring
out
how
to
cultivate
diversity
without
choosing
applicants
based
on
their
race.
One
big
part
of
that,
especially
in
this
climate,
is
doing
damage
control:

One
concern
is
that
many
underrepresented
students
may
not
understand
what
the
ruling
means
and
not
realize
how
welcome
they
are
in
law
school,
so
admissions
folks
and
others
need
to
reach
out
to
prospective
students,
or
there
may
not
be
many
underrepresented
people
applying
to
law
school,
Schwartz
said.

“The
Supreme
Court
made
it
harder.
It
didn’t
make
it
impossible,”
Lynch
said.
“So
that
means
we
all
have
to
work
harder
and
that
is
just
one
of
the
challenges
in
life.

The
schools
are
not
alone
in
their
attempt
to
help
applying
students
figure
out
how
they
can
discuss
the
importance
of
diversity
without
running
afoul
of
the
Court’s
new
ruling.
The
Law
School
Admissions
Council
has
done
its
part
to
ease
the
growing
pains
by
releasing
several
race
neutral
questions
that
still
give
applying
students
an
opportunity
to
distinguish
themselves
from
their
peers.
While
this
is
not
an
exhaustive
list,
here
are
a
couple
of
example
questions:

Are
or
were
you
a
first-generation
college/university
student?

Will
you
be
a
first-generation
law
student?

Since
starting
college,
have
you
ever
participated
in
a
prelaw
program
designed
for
individuals
underrepresented
in
the
field
of
law
(such
as
a
pipeline
program)?

When
enrolled
in
college,
were
you
a
Pell
Grant
recipient
in
any
semester?

Students
can
look
at
these
questions
to
get
a
head
start
on
their
diversity
statements.

Republican
AGs
can
look
at
this
list
to
figure
out

the
next
designer
case
they
want
to
use
to
keep
minorities
out
of
higher
ed.
Who
are
we
kidding,
that’s
already
in
the
works.
Part
of
America
First
Legal’s
preemptive
threat
to
law
schools
was
meant
to
scare
them
into
not
using
proxies
for
race
like
socioeconomic
status.
Being
a
Pell
grant
recipient
was
argued
to
be
a
proxy
for
being
Black
back
when

Wisconsinites
were
still
mad
about
Biden’s
student
loan
relief
plan
—
I’m
not
surprised
that
made
it
to
LSAC’s
list.
Other
proxies,
like
being
first
generation
or
having
prior
experience
in
a
community
college
will
likely
be
some
of
the
next
contested
and
litigated
issues
in
the
fight
to

bring
back
segregation
prevent
universities
from
paying
attention
to
race
in
admissions.

‘The
Supreme
Court
Made
It
Harder,
Not
Impossible’:
Law
School
Leaders
Talk
Recruiting
Without
Affirmative
Action
[Law.com]

Earlier:

The
Slippery
Slope
Of
Ending
Affirmative
Action
Has
Moved
On
To
Its
Next
Target:
Women
And
‘Proxies
For
Diversity’

---

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.

Holland
&
Knight
partner
John
L.
Brownlee,
along
with
his
client
—
NFL
team
the
Washington
Commanders
—
are
the
named
defendants
in
a
recently
filed
defamation
lawsuit.
The
complaint
was
filed
earlier
this
month
by
former
Commanders
executive,
Jason
Friedman.

The

complaint
alleges
Friedman
was
called
a
“serial
liar”
and
his
credibility
was
called
into
question
after
he
testified
before
Congress
about
alleged
financial
improprieties.
Friedman
is
seeking
compensatory
and
punitive
damages
for
“economic
and
emotional
harm.”
As

reported
by
Law360,
the
actions
of
the
team
and
Brownlee
have
caused
him
“severe
anxiety
and
depression.”
And
he
says
he’s
been
“unable
to
find
a
comparable
job
due
to
the
team’s
deliberate
and
malicious
destruction
of
his
reputation.”

As
detailed
in
the
filing,
the
defamatory
statements
allegedly
began
when
Friedman
testified
about
the
team’s
handling
of
season-ticket
deposits.

In
March
2022,
Friedman,
who
had
been
fired
by
the
Commanders
in
2020,
testified
about
improprieties
in
their
handling
of
season-ticket
deposits.
After
his
testimony,
the
Commanders
in
early
April
released
a
statement
denying
the
allegations,
saying,
in
part,
that
anyone
who
made
such
accusations
against
the
team
had
“committed
perjury,
pure
and
simple.”

Lisa
Banks,
who
represents
Friedman
and
about
40
other
former
employees
accusing
the
team
of
sexual
abuse
and
harassment
and
a
toxic
workplace
environment,
replied
that
the
team’s
statement
defamed
Friedman
even
though
it
had
not
named
him.
The
Commanders
replied
with
a
statement
saying
that
if
Friedman
believed
that,
“he
should
bring
a
defamation
suit”
and
the
team
would
“vigorously
defend
any
such
claim.”

And
with
this
suit,
Friedman
said,
bet.

But
that
wasn’t
the
end
of
the
alleged
defamatory
statements.
In
a
letter
to
the
Federal
Trade
Commission,
the
team
wrote
Friedman’s
allegations
about
financial
impropriety
were
“a
lie
from
the
beginning,”
and
that
he
was
a
“serial
liar”
with
“notable
impediments
to
his
credibility.”
The
team
also
made
the
letter
to
the
FTC
public
“with
malice,
ill
will
and
spite,”
causing
Friedman
additional
reputational
harm.

Additionally,
according
to
the
complaint,
Brownlee
went
on
a
radio
show
and
said
of
Friedman
that
he
“became
the
very
toxic
work
environment
that
the
team
was
trying
to
rid
itself
[of].”

Since
the
Commanders/Brownlee’s
offensive
against
Friedman,
the
House
Oversight
Committee
released
a

report
into
the
work
environment
at
the
Commanders
which,
inter
alia,
included
accusations
the
team
retaliated
against
those
who
spoke
out
against
the
organization.
They’ve
also

settled
a
lawsuit
regarding
season-ticket
deposits.

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon

@Kathryn1@mastodon.social.

The
Supreme
Court’s
ethical
lapses
reached
such
heights
that
a
fellow
federal
judge
had
to
step
in
to

publicly
ask
what’s
wrong
with
these
people.
And
it’s
not
just
the
big
ticket
scandals
anymore,
with
the
Court’s
reputation
so
tarnished
that
folks
freak
out
over
non-scandals
(or
at
the
most
minor
ones)
like

Venmogate
and

Sonia’s
Book
Club.
Meanwhile,
more
Biglaw
firms
opt
for
a
4-day
mandatory
office
policy,
though
there’s
still
not
a
lot
of
momentum
behind
the
move.
And
Judge
Pauline
Newman
of
the
Federal
Circuit
continues
to
fight
against
her
colleagues
for
her
right
to
continue
to
hear
cases.

Earlier
this
summer,
several
firms
conducted
layoffs
and
deferred
their
incoming
associate
classes,
with
some
offering
more
transparency
than
others
as
to
the
reasons
why
such
decisions
were
made.
Now,
the
CEO
of
a
top
50
Am
Law
firm
that

cut
6%
of
its
global
workforce
in
June
is
offering
his
insights
on
why,
exactly,
layoffs
took
place
at
his
firm.

Mitch
Zuklie,
the
leader
of
Orrick
—
a
firm
that
brought
in
$1,379,702,000
gross
revenue
in
2022,
putting
it
at
No.
32
on
the
most
recent
Am
Law
100
ranking
—
recently
sat
down
for
an
interview
with
the

American
Lawyer
to
discuss
what
led
up
to
last
month’s
reduction
in
force.

At
the
time,
when
Biglaw
firms
were
feeling
the
effects
of
the
tech
industry’s
implosion,
Orrick
cited
“reduced
client
demand”
related
to
“market
uncertainty.”
Zuklie
got
real
about
that
in
his
chat
with
Am
Law.

“The
reality
is
tech
is
a
big
part
of
our
business,”
Zuklie
said.
According
to
the
firm,
the
tech
sector
accounts
for
about
half
of
its
overall
revenues.
The
firm’s
other
primary
sectors—energy
and
infrastructure,
and
finance—account
for
about
20%
and
25%
of
revenues,
respectively,
with
a
variety
of
other
sectors
accounting
for
the
remaining
5%.

“Things
haven’t
fallen
off
a
cliff,
but
they
haven’t
been
on
fire,”
Zuklie
said
of
the
tech
group.
“The
economy
is
at
a
moment
where
there
is
a
down
market
and
we’re
in
a
service
industry.
When
our
clients
are
pausing,
it’s
not
surprising
that
we
need
to
do
so
as
well.”

While
other
firms
overhired
during
the
2021
talent
wars
and
used
outright
and
stealth
layoffs
as
a
way
to
cut
their
oversized
head
counts
throughout
2023,
Orrick
took
a
more
reasoned
approach
to
hiring
and
is
using
its
own
layoffs
and
deferrals
as
a
service
to
its
remaining
attorneys
and
staff.

“The
truth
of
the
matter
is,
if
we
don’t
have
enough
work
for
everyone
to
get
the
required
experience
to
advance
their
careers
in
a
thorough
way,
it’s
not
healthy
and
it
doesn’t
provide
the
best
results
for
our
clients,”
Zuklie
said.
“We
want
inspired
lawyers
who
are
getting
opportunities
to
progress
with
a
full
plate
of
work,
not
a
situation
where
no
one
gets
those
opportunities.

“We
thought
it
was
the
responsible
thing
to
do
for
Orrick,
for
our
clients
and
for
the
people
who
are
relying
on
us
to
create
career
advancement
opportunities,”
Zuklie
told
Am
Law.
“We
hope
we
did
it
in
a
way
that
was
transparent
and
fair
to
everyone
with
whom
we’re
cutting
ties.”

Best
of
luck
to
Orrick
as
the
year
unfolds.
Zuklie
says
he’s
“optimistic”
about
it,
concluding
in
his
Am
Law
interview
that
he
“hope[s]
[the
firm
will]
emerge
from
2023
as
a
stronger
firm
than
we
started
the
year.”

Orrick
CEO
Unpacks
Latest
Layoff
Decision
in
the
Face
of
Uncertainty
[American
Lawyer]

Earlier:

Top
50
Am
Law
Firm
Announces
Reduction
In
Force,
Will
Cut
6%
Of
Global
Workforce

---

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

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on

Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

Since
before
the
first
E.
Jean
Carroll
defamation
trial,
Trump’s
lawyers
have
fixated
on
the
bizarre
theory
that
it
somehow

doesn’t
count
if
there’s
no
penis
involved.

He
made
that
argument
in
an
attempt
to

disqualify
testimony
by
other
women
who
accused
the
former
president
of
groping
but
not
raping
them.
He
made
it
in
his

counterclaim
in Carroll
I,
arguing
that
the
the
jury’s
verdict
that
Trump
sexually
abused
but
did
not
rape
the
advice
columnist,
meant
that
she
was
a
liar
who
defamed him.
His
minions
have
cheerfully
parroted
the
line,
with
Alan
Dershowitz

crowing
that
the
jury
only
found
Trump
“liable
on
kinda
molesting
her.”
And
he
made
it
in
his

motion
for
a
new
trial
or
remittitur,
arguing
that
the
jury

must
have
been
confused
when
it
assessed
$2
million
in
compensatory
damages
for
conduct
which
could
have
amounted
to
no
more
than
“groping
of
[Carroll’s]
breasts
through
clothing
or
similar
conduct,
which
is
a
far
cry
from
rape.”

After
more
than
three
years
of
shenanigans
from
Trump
and
his
lawyers,
this
motion
appears
to
have
landed
very
badly
with
Judge
Lewis
Kaplan.

“Mr.
Trump
is
right
that
a
$2
million
award
for
such
groping
alone
could
well
be
regarded
as
excessive,
that
undermines
rather
than
supports
his
argument,”
he

wrote,
adding
that
“Mr.
Trump’s
argument
therefore
ignores
the
bulk
of
the
evidence
at
trial,
misinterprets
the
jury’s
verdict,
and
mistakenly
focuses
on
the
New
York
Penal
Law
definition
of
‘rape’
to
the
exclusion
of
the
meaning
of
that
word
as
it
often
is
used
in
everyday
life
and
of
the
evidence
of
what
actually
occurred
between
Ms.
Carroll
and
Mr.
Trump.”

Judge
Kaplan
not
only
rejected
the
motion
for
new
trial,
he
took
the
occasion
to
recap
all
the
incredibly
damaging
testimony
and
point
out
that
Trump
presented
absolutely
no
defense
when
he
had
the
chance,
but
instead
seeks
to
undo
the
jury
verdict
by
eliding
the
difference
between
the
colloquial
definition
of
“rape,”
and
that
of
New
York’s
law.

“The
definition
of
rape
in
the
New
York
Penal
Law
is
far
narrower
than
the
meaning
of
‘rape’
in
common
modern
parlance,
its
definition
in
some
dictionaries,
in
some
federal
and
state
criminal
statutes,
and
elsewhere,”
the
court
noted,
citing
dictionaries
and
other
jurisdictions’
laws
defining
“rape”
as
non-consensual
penetration
of
any
kind.
“The
finding
that
Ms.
Carroll
failed
to
prove
that
she
was
‘raped’
within
the
meaning
of
the
New
York
Penal
Law
does
not
mean
that
she
failed
to
prove
that
Mr.
Trump
‘raped’
her
as
many
people
commonly
understand
the
word
‘rape.’
Indeed,
as
the
evidence
at
trial
recounted
below
makes
clear,
the
jury
found
that
Mr.
Trump
in
fact
did
exactly
that.”

The
court
scoffed
at
Trump’s
effort
to
reinterpret
the
jury’s
finding
that
he
did
not
successfully
manage
to
penetrate
Carroll
with
his
penis
as
a
wholesale
refutation
of
her
account
of
the
attack.
In
fact,
the
jury
clearly
believed
her
when
she
she
said
that
the
she
had
experienced
tremendous
pain
from
being
digitally
penetrated
by
the
former
president
in
the
long-ago
attack
in
a
department
store
dressing
room
—
hence
the
$2
million
verdict
on
the
sexual
abuse
count.
And
they
very
clearly
did
not
believe
Trump
when
he
said
he’d
never
met
her
and
that
she
had
concocted
the
story
as
part
of
a
political
hoax
—
hence
the
$3
million
defamation
award.

In
fact,
the
jury
could
have
interpreted
Trump’s
prior
statements
as
a
confession
that
he
“digitally
raped”
Carroll:

Mr.
Trump’s
own
words
from
the
Access
Hollywood
tape
and
from
his
deposition
–
that
(a)
stars
“[u]nfortunately
or
fortunately”
“c[ould]
do
anything”
they
wished
to
do
to
women,
including
“grab[bing]
them
by
the
pussy”
and
(b)
he
considers
himself
to
be
a
“star”
–
could
have
been
regarded
by
the
jury
as
a
sort
of
personal
confession
as
to
his
behavior.
Thus,
there
was
ample,
arguably
overwhelming
evidence,
that
Mr.
Trump
forcibly
digitally
penetrated
Ms.
Carroll,
thus
fully
supporting
the
jury’s
sexual
abuse
finding.

Finally,
the
court
observed
that
Trump
didn’t
deny
raping
Carroll
under
the
narrow
definition
of
New
York
Penal
Law
—
he
said
she
was
a
liar
and
he’d
never
met
her.
And
so
his
statement
could
be
reasonably
construed
as
defamatory
if
the
jury
found,
as
it
did,
that
this
conduct
only
met
the
legal
standard
for
sexual
abuse.

“There
is
thus
no
factual
or
legal
support
for
Mr.
Trump’s
made-up
version
of
Ms.
Carroll’s
defamation
claim,”
Judge
Kaplan
concluded,
kicking
closed
a
door
which
Trump
probably
wishes
he’d
never
opened.

One
among
so,
very
many.

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.