Why One Startup CEO Is Excited About the White House’s New AI Czar Role – MedCity News

This
month,
President-elect
Donald
Trump

appointed

former
Paypal
executive
and
Silicon
Valley-based
venture
capitalist
David
Sacks
as
the
White
House’s
first-ever
czar
for
AI
and
cryptocurrency.
Sacks
will
be
in
charge
of
guiding
policy
for
AI
and
cryptocurrency,
which
are
“two
areas
critical
to
the
future
of
American
competitiveness,”
Trump
recently
wrote
in
a

post

on
his
Truth
Social
platform.

There
are
still
many
unknowns
about
how
the
incoming
Trump
administration
will
affect
the
country’s
AI
regulation,
but
analysts
think
restrictions

will
probably
loosen
.
Just
last
month,
Trump

promised

to
dismantle
Biden’s
AI
safeguards
once
in
office. 

It
is
likely
that
Sacks
will
employ
a
looser
approach
to
AI
regulation,
as
he
has
been
an

outspoken
critic

of
regulation
in
the
tech
industry
throughout
his
career. 

One
healthcare
tech
expert

Ryan
Tarzy,
CEO
of

Avandra
Imaging
,
a
federated
network
for
de-identified
imaging
data

thinks
that
this
appointment
will
ultimately
benefit
the
healthcare
industry.

“While
both
campaigns
spoke
to
the
importance
of
AI
and
innovation,
there
is
much
more
evidence
that
the
Trump
administration
understands
the
significance
of
AI
innovation
and
the
consequences
of
falling
behind

especially
in
healthcare.
While
there
is
a
need
for
common
sense
regulations,
if
we
lean
towards
regulation
over
innovation,
we
are
actually
costing
more
lives,”
Tarzy
declared.

For
example,
if
it
takes
three
years
instead
of
one
for
a
new
AI
model
that
improves
cancer
detection
to
be
approved,
all
the
patients
who
could
have
been
saved
over
those
two
extra
years
of
lag
become
“literally
casualties”
of
that
regulation,
he
explained.

To
Tarzy,
the
pace
of
healthcare’s
technological
revolution
is
simply
too
slow.
He
pointed
out
that
he
recently
heard
a

NVIDIA

representative
say
that
healthcare
is
about
three
technological
generations
behind
other
industries. 

“This
is
very
credible,
given
that
a
lot
of
the
industry
still
uses
fax
machines.
It
is
a
human
tragedy.
We
need
to
ensure
we
leverage
all
the
technology
available
to
improve
lives,”
Tarzy
stated.

He
said
he
is
optimistic
that
Sacks’
appointment
will
create
a
“more
innovation-friendly
environment.” 

Tarzy
noted
that
this
belief
was
shaped
by
comments
Sacks
has
made
on

his
podcast
,
in
which
he
has
voiced
support
for
reducing
regulations
that
make
it
harder
for
startups
to
compete
with
established
tech
giants.

“Though
his
influence
as
AI
czar
is
still
uncertain,
his
background
as
an
investor
suggests
he
will
take
a
results-driven
approach,
particularly
when
it
comes
to
supporting
AI
solutions
that
demonstrate
direct
improvements
to
patient
outcomes.
Because
of
this,
I
think
he
is
well-positioned
to
make
healthcare
AI
regulation
more
efficient,
encouraging
compliance
and
innovation
while
bridging
industry
and
government
together,”
Tarzy
stated.

He
added
that
he
thinks
the
U.S.
is
about
to
enter
a
“golden
age”
for
medical
AI.

In
Tarzy’s
view,
looser
AI
regulation
could
help
the
U.S.
healthcare
system
to
catch
up
to
its
counterparts.
More
specifically,
relaxed
regulations
would
enable
innovators
to
accelerate
the
availability
of
tools
that
directly
improve
patient
outcomes,
such
as
early
disease
detection,
he
said.

“For
example,
in
Taiwan,
technology
exists
for
early-stage
pancreatic
cancer
detection,
but
it
is
unavailable
in
the
U.S.
because
of
the
current
regulatory
environment.
It
is
not
a
matter
of
having
the
tools
available

but
establishing
proper
guidelines
that
support
innovation,”
he
declared.

While
he
understands
people’s
concerns
surrounding
reduced
regulations,
Tarzy
thinks
it’s
essential
to
balance
fostering
innovation
and
ensuring
safety. 

“We
are
still
in
the
early
stages
of
AI
development,
and
often,
regulators
do
not
fully
grasp
the
nuances
of
the
technology.
We
should
allow
tech
companies
to
explore
and
truly
understand
what
is
possible
with
this
technology,”
he
declared.


Photo:
Eva
Almqvist,
Getty
Images

Supreme Court Won’t Help Big Telecom Kill NY Law Requiring Affordable Broadband For Poor People – Above the Law

During
peak
COVID
in
2021,
when
everybody
was
freaking
out
about
how
shitty
and
expensive
U.S.
broadband
was
for
telecommuting
and
home
education,
NY
state
officials
had
an
idea:
what
if
we
pass
a
law
demanding
that
ISPs
try
to
provide
cheap
broadband
(a
piddly
25
Mbps
for
$15)
to
low
income
families.

Some
particulars
of
NY’s Affordable
Broadband
Act
:
ISPs
with
less
than
20,000
subscribers
are
exempt.
Only
Americans
on
existing
low-income
programs
could
qualify.
And
the
price
increases
had
to
be
capped
at
two
percent
per
year,
though
this
was
to
be
renegotiated
on
an
ongoing
basis.
This
was
a
limited
form
of
rate
regulation,
and
not
particularly
radical.

But
NY
State’s
Affordable
Broadband
Act
didn’t
last
long.
In
2021
a
US
District
Court
judge blocked
the
law
,
claiming
that
the
first
Trump
administration’s
2017
net
neutrality
repeal
banned
states
from
trying
to
regulate
broadband.
But
courts repeatedly
have
shot
down
that
claim
,
stating
that
the
feds
can’t
abdicate
their
authority
over
broadband
consumer
protection and pre-empt
state
authority.

So
in
April
of
2024,
that
judge’s
ruling
was reversed by
the
US
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
2nd
Circuit.
Last
week
the
Supreme
Court
refused
to
hear
the
case, leaving
the
2nd
Circuit’s
ruling,
and
the
law,
intact
.
It’s
not
clear
when
or
if
New
York
State
will
actually
start
enforcing
it.

As Ars
Technica
 notes,
this
case
has
particular
importance
given
all
the
planned
looming
dismantling
of
the
federal
regulatory
state
during
Trump
2.0:


“The
appeals
court
ruling
is
an
important
one
for
the
broader
question
of
how
states
can
regulate
broadband
providers
when
the
Federal
Communications
Commission
isn’t
doing
so.
Trade
groups
claimed
the
state
law
is
preempted
by
former
FCC
Chairman
Ajit
Pai’s
repeal
of
net
neutrality
rules,
which
ended
Title
II
common-carrier
regulation
of
ISPs.


In
a
2-1
opinion,
a
panel
of
2nd
Circuit
appeals
court
judges
said
the
Pai-era
FCC
“order
stripped
the
agency
of
its
authority
to
regulate
the
rates
charged
for
broadband
Internet,
and
a
federal
agency
cannot
exclude
states
from
regulating
in
an
area
where
the
agency
itself
lacks
regulatory
authority.”

As
Trump
2.0
regulators
like
the
FCC
and
FTC
give
up
on
consumer
protection,
it’s
going
to
punt
many
of
these
fights
to
the
state
level.
Given
corporations spent
so
much
money
gutting
Chevron
deference
in
a
bid
to
turn
federal
regulators
into
decorative
gourds
,
they’re
not
going
to
like
it
much
if
consumer
protection
remains
healthy
and
strong
on
the
state
level.

The
idea
of
“rate
regulation”
is
just
about
the
most
terrible
phrase
imaginable
if
you’re
a
telecom
executive
or
“free
market”
Libertarian
think
tanker
type.
Limiting
price
gouging
in
this
fashion
is
repeatedly
brought
up
as
a
terrifying
bogeyman
in
telecom
policy
conversations,
though
it
very
rarely
manifests.
NY’s
effort
to
help
people
during
COVID
was
a
pretty
far
outlier
in
terms
of
policy
proposals.

But
Big
Telecom
is
clearly
worried
that
if
NY’s
law
is
allowed
to
stand,
the
years
of
rate
regulation
being
off
the
table
to
address
telecom
monopolization
will
come
to
an
end:


“ISPs
are
worried
that
their
success
in
blocking
federal
rules
will
allow
New
York
and
other
states
to
regulate. Telco
groups
told
the
Supreme
Court
 that
the
New
York
law
being
upheld
while
federal
rules
are
struck
down
“will
likely
lead
to
more
rate
regulation
absent
the
Court’s
intervention.
Other
States
are
likely
to
copy
New
York
once
the
Attorney
General
begins
enforcing
the
ABA
[Affordable
Broadband
Act]
and
New
York
consumers
can
buy
broadband
at
below-market
rates.”

Telecoms
want
to
have
their
cake
(no
federal
regulation)
and
eat
it
too
(no
state
laws
filling
the
obvious
void
they
created).
To
be
clear,
there
are
several
cases
currently
ongoing
where
telecoms,
freshly
emboldened
by
a
corrupt
Supreme
Court,
are
arguing
that
the
FCC
has
no
federal
authority
to
do
much
of anything that
helps
real
people
(net
neutrality
wireless
privacy
issues
,
and low-income
affordability
programs
).

So
we’re
kind
of
looking
at
a
dog
caught
the
car
situation.
Telecom
giants
spent
thirty
years
arguing
for
the
complete
dismantling
of
coherent
federal
consumer
protections.
Falsely
claiming
that
gutting
federal
corporate
oversight
would
bring
vast
untold
benefits
to
markets
and
consumers
(spoiler:
that
didn’t
happen
and
will
never
happen).

They
created
this
problem
of
states
passing
a
discordant
number
of
fractured
state-level
laws,
the
resulting
complications
on
pre-emption,
and
all
the
legal
headaches
that
will
now
result.
And
they’re crying
about
the
problem
they
created
.

Corporate
power
(telecom
or
otherwise)
is
at
the
ledge
of
a
generational
quest
to
kill
coherent
federal
governance.
And
they’re
not
much
going
to
like
the
new
world
they
built,
where
states
like
Washington,
California,
Oregon,
and
Maine
all
craft
different
and
inconsistent
laws
filling
the
new
federal
void
on
consumer
protection,
labor
rights,
environmental
law,
public
safety
restrictions,
and
everything
else.

There
will
be
chaos.
And
in
many
markets
where
we’re
not
talking
about
net
neutrality,
but
life
and
death
situations.
Especially
in
states
where
leaders
don’t
believe
in
consumer
protection,
environmental
protections,
or
corporate
accountability
either.

Again,
U.S.
broadband
is
a
failed
market
thanks
to
regulatory
capture.
Regional
telecom
monopolies
dominate
a
region,
then
lobby
to
ensure
market
competition
can’t
take
root,
resulting
in
high
prices,
slow
speeds,
spotty
access,
and
terrible
customer
protection.
Absolutely
any
time
anyone
proposed ANY
FIX
WHATSOEVER
 in
the
last
30
years,
telecoms
and
their
allies
had
embolisms.

Ideally,
you’d
want
to
fix
this
problem
via
antitrust
reform,
stricter
merger
review,
and
policies
that
encourage
free
market
competition.
But
the
“free
market!”
telecom
policy
type
guys
don’t actually want
that.
They’ve
advocated
for
the
total
dismantling
of
federal
oversight.
Now
that
they’ve
got
it,
state
rights,
once
such
a
precious
thing
in
center-right
ideology,
will
be
the
next
target.

Because
the
goal
here
for
corporate
power has
never
been
“free
markets.”
 It’s
market
domination.
They
want
to
be
able
to
behave
anti-competitively
and
price
gouge
captive
customers
free
from any sort
of
state
or
federal
intervention.
After
decades
of
lobbying
Trump
2.0
is
poised
to
deliver
that
goal
on
the
federal
level.
State
autonomy
will
be
next.
People
will
die.
But
the
legal
billable
hours
will
be
epic.


Supreme
Court
Won’t
Help
Big
Telecom
Kill
NY
Law
Requiring
Affordable
Broadband
For
Poor
People


More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:


NYC
Gov’t
Sends
Legal
Threat
To
Artist
For
Telling
People
How
To
Use
Traffic
Cams
To
Take
Selfies


Lane
Kiffin
Defeats
Keith
Bell
In
‘Winning
Isn’t
Normal’
Copyright
Case


Federal
Judge
Says
NSO
Group
Violated
CFAA,
Holds
It
Liable
For
Malware
Delivered
Via
WhatsApp’s
Servers

Morning Docket: 12.27.24 – Above the Law

*
Someone
pretending
to
represent
Nintendo
is
filing
fake
DMCA
takedown
notices…
just
like
we
hope

“United
Healthcare”
was
a
fake
for
going
after
Luigi
merchandise
.
[The
Verge
]

*
Judge
Pauline
Newman
claims
the
Federal
Circuit
hid
documents
in
a
bid
to
control
the
media
narrative.
If
they
did,
they
did
a
bad
job
of
it
because
almost
every
media
account
of
the
story
begins
with
“So
anyway,
the
Federal
Circuit
illegally
sidelined
Judge
Newman…”
[Bloomberg
Law
News
]

*
Judge
calls
out
Jay-Z
over
complaints
against
Tony
Buzbee.
[Variety]

*
Microsoft
and
the
ABA
set
up
new
project
to
help
asylum
speakers
before
the
new
administration
tries
to
eliminate
asylum.
[ABA
Journal
]

*
New
York
to
begin

engaging
in
protracted
litigation
with
fossil
fuel
companies

fining
fossil
fuel
companies.
[Reuters]

*
LegalCheek’s
most
read
stories
of
the
year.
[LegalCheek]

*
Social
media
stars
head
to
court.
[Daily
Business
Review
]

Seeking to Expand Access to Justice, Washington State Pilot Will Allow Non-Lawyer Entities to Practice Law

Similar
to
regulatory
reform
initiatives
in

Utah

and

Arizona
,
the

Washington
Supreme
Court

has
entered
an
order
approving
a
pilot
program
that
will
allow
companies
and
nonprofits
that
are
not
owned
by
lawyers
to
provide
legal
services
under
carefully
monitored
conditions.

The
court’s
order
(Order
25700-B-721
),
entered
Dec.
5,
approves

a
framework
proposed

by
the
Supreme
Court’s

Practice
of
Law
Board

and
the

Washington
State
Bar
Association

for
a
data-driven
regulatory
reform
pilot,
and
directs
those
bodies
to
collaborate
in
setting
up
the
program.
The
pilot
will
last
for
10
years
from
the
date
the
first
entity
is
approved
to
participate.

“This
Court
has
determined
that
a
pilot
project
to
test
entity
regulation
under
the
proposed
Framework
will
assist
the
Board,
the
WSBA,
and
this
Court
in
determining
whether
entity
regulation
will
increase
access
to
justice
by
enhancing
access
to
affordable
and
reliable
legal
and
law-related
services
consistent
with
protection
of
the
public,
and
whether
entity
regulation
will
create
risks
of
consumer
harm,
regulatory
challenges,
or
other
risks
that
would
serve
as
barriers
to
implementing
reform,”
said
the
order,
signed
by
Chief
Justice
Steven
González.

The
pilot
creates
an
exception
to
Rule
5.4
of
the
Washington
Rules
of
Professional
Conduct,
by
which
only
entities
owned
by
lawyers
can
practice
law
and
deliver
legal
services.

It
authorizes
entities
not
owned
by
lawyers,
if
approved,
to
practice
law,
but
under
strict
conditions
that
limit
the
duration
of
their
operations
and
that
require
active
monitoring
and
oversight.

Each
entity
will
be
required
to
appoint
a
compliance
officer
who
will
be
responsible
for
ensuring
the
entity’s
adherence
to
the
court’s
authorizing
order
and
applicable
ethical
rules,
and
for
reporting
data
on
the
entity’s
operations
to
the
WSBA.

A
key
focus
of
the
pilot
is
on
collecting
data,
the
court’s
order
says.

“The
purpose
and
focus
of
this
pilot
project
are
to
collect
data
and
information
to
inform
reform
efforts
related
to
the
regulation
of
the
practice
of
law,
and
more
specifically,
to
rules
and
regulations
governing
entities
engaging
in
activities
whether
or
not
they
constitute
the
practice
of
law.”

The
order
directs
the
WSBA
to
develop
a
complaint
procedure
for
members
of
the
public
to
report
any
alleged
violations
of
the
rules
by
entities
or
their
staff.
If
appropriate
after
investigating
a
complaint,
the
WSBA
would
be
authorized
to
recommend
removal
of
an
entity
from
the
pilot.

Entities
applying
to
participate
in
the
program
would
be
required
to
propose
Each
beta-test
applicant
shall
propose
a
“specific
hypothesis”
regarding:

  • reforming
    one
    or
    more
    regulatory
    rules
    governing
    entities
    practicing
    law
    and,
    if
    applicable,
    other
    related
    rules
    and
  • that
    reform’s
    impact
    on
    the
    accessibility
    of
    legal
    services
    in
    Washington.

Its
proposal
would
also
have
to
specify
a
study
to
test
its
proposed
reform.

“A
lot
has
changed
in
100
years,
but
not
when
it
comes
to
legal
regulation,”
said
WSBA
Executive
Director

Terra
Nevitt

in
a

statement
issued
by
the
bar
.
“Now
we
are
at
a
regulatory
crossroads.
The
technology
revolution
is
here,
as
well
as
exciting
new
business
models.

“This
pilot
will
help
us
understand
whether
and
how
we
can
harness
that
innovation

with
public
protection
as
our
top
priority

to
meaningfully
expand
legal
services
for
Washingtonians.”

The
WSBA
says
that
updates
about
the
logistics,
timing,
and
application
process
for
the
pilot
will
be
posted
at
www.wsba.org/pilot-project.

The Supreme Court’s ‘Teenager Term’ Could Leave A Lot Of Kids Really Angry – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Collection
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
United
States
via
Getty
Images)



Ed.
note
:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day
.


It
does
feel
like
the
biggest
cases
are
ones
that
will
directly
implicate
children’s
interests.
I
don’t
think
we
should
be
surprised
that
more
and
more
cases
are
going
to
get
to
the
court
directly
implicating
young
people
when
so
many
state
and
local
lawmakers
are
legislating
with
morality
and
young
people
on
their
minds.





Aaron
Tang
,
a
law
professor
at
the
University
of
California,
Davis,
in
comments
given
to

CNN
,
on
the
high-profile
cases
that
the
Supreme
Court
will
decide
before
its
“teenager
term”
is
up,
including
a
challenge
to
a
TikTok
ban
set
to
take
effect
in
mid-January,
whether
a
ban
on
transgender
care
for
minors
should
be
upheld,
and
if
the
FDA’s
decision
to
limit
access
to
vaping
products
may
stand.
Spencer
Rahim,
also
a
high
school
junior
from
Virginia,
had
this
to
say
of
the
high
court:
“They
need
to
listen
to
the
people
a
little
bit
more.”



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 BlueskyX/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

Ho, Ho, Ho-Cast – Above the Law

It’s
a
very
special
holiday
episode
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer,
with
three
straight
“Ho”
stories.
First,
Hogan
Lovells
irks
associates
with

a
bonus
announcement
without
matching
the
industry
standard
special
bonuses
.
Meanwhile,
law
enforcement
just
can’t
help
making
Luigi
Mangione
look
more
like
a
sexy
martyr
and
now
someone
claiming
to
be
UnitedHealthcare

is
trying
to
assert
ownership
of
his
likeness
.
And
Judge
James
Ho
walks
back
his
prior
support
for
birthright
citizenship
now
that
it
might
cost
him
a
job
on
the
Supreme
Court.

Above The Law’s 2024 Lawyer Of The Year Contest: The Finalists! – Above the Law

The
last
year
was,
for
better
or
worse,
a
big
year
in
legal
news.
So
it
should
come
as
no
surprise
to
see
big
names
dominating
our
list
of
finalists
for
2024
Lawyer
of
the
Year.
Thanks
to
everyone
who
responded
to
our
request
for
nominations
for
2024
Lawyer
of
the
Year.
We
narrowed
the
many
excellent
nominees
to
a
slate
of
seven
(yes,
that’s
how
eventful
this
year
was)
lawyers

distinguished,
despicable,
or
debatable,
depending
on
your
point
of
view.

Here
are
the
nominees,
in
alphabetical
order,
with
a
brief
blurb
about
each:



ChatGPT
:
Okay,
fine,
we
know
ChatGPT
isn’t
a
lawyer…
but
so
many
actual
lawyers
are
still
treating
the

AI
chatbot
like
co-counsel

that
we
had
to
include
it
in
this
year’s
competition.
From
fake
cases
to
very

real
sanctions
threats
,
ChatGPT
proved
to
be
a
useful
tool
that
made
some
lawyers
look
like
not-so
useful
tools.



Matt
Gaetz
:
Life
moves
pretty
fast
when
you’ve
been
accused
of
sexual
misconduct
and
an
ethics
investigation
report
is
hanging
over
your
head.
From

would-be
US
Attorney
General

to

far-right
talk
show
host
,
Gaetz
had
quite
the
year.
When
one
of
the
first
reactions
to
your
nomination
for
a
cabinet
position
is

“Are
you
shittin’
me?”,

that’s
when
you
know
you’ve
made
it
bigly.



Rudy
Giuliani
:
America’s
mayor
has
fallen
from
such
great
heights
that
it’s
not
just
disappointing,
but
sad.
The
past
year
has
been
especially
unkind
to
Rudy’s
legal
career,
with

two
disbarments

now
under
his
belt.
From

courting
contempt

to
trying
to

dodge
defamation
collections

in
bankruptcy
court,
Giuliani
is
a
walking
legal
ethics
quandary.


Ryan
Protter
:
There’s
nothing
we
love
more
than
a
joke
nomination,
and
this
New
Jersey
lawyer’s
self-nomination
made
us
chuckle.
Has
he
done
anything
notable?
“No.
Not
at
all.”
Why
did
he
nominate
himself
for
this
honor?
“Because
my
wife
(Geena)
and
small
dog
(Elle)
tell
me
I
have
a
winning
personality
and
a
good
sense
of
humor.
And
I
am
extraordinarily
modest.”
Is
he
completely
unqualified
for
this
award
(his
words,
not
ours)?
“Yes.
But
it’s
2024.
Far
less
qualified
people
have
won
far
more
important
elections
this
year.”



Aliza
Shatzman
:
The
founder
and
president
of
the

Legal
Accountability
Project

achieved
a
great
deal
of
progress
for
federal
law
clerks
this
year
after
launching
the

Centralized
Clerkships
Database
,
essentially
a
“Glassdoor
for
Judges,”
a
tool
that
will
empower
clerkship
applicants
with
much-needed
transparency
and
inside
information
from
former
clerks
about
judicial
work
environments.
Click

here

to
read
some
of
her
excellent
ATL
columns.



Jack
Smith
:
The
special
counsel
appointed
to
oversee
the
federal
election
subversion
and
mishandling
of
classified
documents
cases
against
Donald
Trump
tried
his
damndest,
but
thanks
to

countless
delays
,
an

absurd
dismissal

(plus

an
appeal
),
and
a

SCOTUS
immunity
decision
gone
wild
,
he
was
foiled
at
every
turn.
Now,
because
the
DOJ
won’t
prosecute
sitting
presidents,
he
asked
for
the

cases
to
be
dismissed
,
writing,
“This
outcome
is
not
based
on
the
merits
or
strength
of
the
case
against
the
defendant.”



Brian
Steel
:
This
lawyer
defined
zealous
advocacy
when
he
earned
himself
a
contempt
sentence
and
asked
to

serve
the
time
alongside
his
client
,
Young
Thug,
so
that
they
could
work
on
the
case
together.
Not
only
did
Steel
get
manage
to
get
the

original
judge
on
the
RICO
case
removed

after
learning
about
a
secret
meeting
he
attended
with
prosecutors
and
a
witness,
but
he
managed
to
get
an

unexpected
plea
deal

sorted
out.
Now,
he’s

modeling
his
client’s
clothing

line.

And
now,
the
moment
you’ve
all
been
waiting
for:
Who
should
be
named
Above
the
Law’s
Lawyer
of
the
Year
for
2024?
Cast
your
vote
below.
Polls
are
open
until

TUESDAY,
DECEMBER
31,
2024
at
11:30
p.m.
(EST)
.



CLICK
HERE
TO
VOTE
.



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 BlueskyX/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

Entitled Law School Hopeful With 150 LSAT Blames Imaginary Black Person For His Rejection Letters. Deletes Twitter Account In Shame. – Above the Law

Probably
this
guy’s
fault.
That
said,
he
scored
a
166.

Much
of
the
discourse
on
affirmative
action
boils
down
to
differing
theories
on
moral
desert
and
entitlement.
People
arguing
against
affirmative
action
often
remark
that

their

spot
has
been
unjustly
taken
by
some
other
person
based
on
criteria
that
shouldn’t
factor
into
the
decision
being
made.
As
tempting
as
it
is
to
evaluate
the
philosophical
merits
of
the
argument,
sometimes
you
have
to
bracket
all
of
that
and
stand
in
awe
of
the
audacity.
This
is
one
of
those
times.
A
law
school
hopeful
took
to
Elon’s
rapidly
declining
in
value
social
media
platform
to
give
one
hell
of
a
hot
take.
The
tweet
and
account
have
since
been
deleted,
but
the
internet
rarely
forgets
such
bold
displays
of
foolishness:

As
you
would
expect,
things
didn’t
go
quite
like
how
the
poster
expected
them
to:

And
while
a
lot
of
the
attacks
on
affirmative
action
complain
that
factoring 
diversity
into
the
choices
we
make
inherently
makes
things
worse,
it
goes
to
show
how
massive
the
change
in
discourse
has
been:

Now
is
there
anything
inherently
wrong
with
getting
a
150
on
the
LSAT?
Not
at
all!
Much
like
when
you’re
in
law
school,
the
bell
curve
exists.
Not
only
is
somebody
going
to
get
a
150
on
the
LSAT,
most
people
will


it
is
pretty
close
to
the
median,
after
all
.
But
to
get
an
average
score
and
blame
Black
people
rather
than,
I
don’t
know,
the
people
in
your
application
pool
who
scored
higher
than
you,
is
some
magical
thinking
that
might
suggest
you
aren’t
really
ready
to
think
like
a
lawyer

people
prepared
for
law
school
understand
that
factors
are
a
thing.
Sure,
you
have
a
great
GPA,
but
a
3.9
from
majoring
in
Basketweaving
isn’t
the
same
as
a
3.6
from
someone
who
double
majored
in
Physics
and
Math.
Also,
was
your
personal
statement
any
good?
Did
you
only
apply
to
T14s?
Because
there
is
definitely
some
school
that
would
have
taken
this
person
if
the
other
parts
of
their
application
were
up
to
par.
Maybe
not

Duke
,
but
probably

Drake
.



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 [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Inflation Is Here To Stay – What’s Your Legal Team Doing About It? – Above the Law

Inflation
isn’t
just
a
headline
anymore

it’s
sitting
at
the
table
in
your
boardroom,
reshaping
budgets,
and
quietly
wrecking
those
long-term
deals
we
all
thought
were
set
in
stone.
For
in-house
legal
teams,
this
isn’t
just
background
noise.
It’s
a
storm
we
need
to
navigate

and
fast.

The
challenges
are
everywhere.
CFOs
are
laser-focused
on
flexibility.
Sales
teams
want
airtight
contracts,
preferably
yesterday.
And
legal?
We’re
caught
in
the
middle,
trying
to
balance
risk,
compliance,
and
the
competing
priorities
of
the
business.
Inflation
has
put
an
uncomfortable
spotlight
on
our
processes,
but
it’s
also
a
chance
for
legal
teams
to
step
up
as
leaders.


Contracts
Are
Getting
Complicated

Inflation
has
turned
contracts
into
living,
breathing
documents.
Gone
are
the
days
when
you
could
sign
a
multiyear
agreement
and
forget
about
it.
Now,
everything
is
being
revisited.
Margins
are
shrinking,
costs
are
rising,
and
no
one
wants
to
be
locked
into
rigid
terms.

I
recently
spoke
with
a
legal
team
that
got
ahead
of
this
by
building
inflation
triggers
directly
into
their
agreements.
They
added
cost-plus
pricing
models
and
capped
escalators
tied
to
market
data.
It
wasn’t
a
flashy
change,
but
it
gave
them
enough
flexibility
to
renegotiate
with
vendors
without
tanking
relationships

or
their
budgets.
These
are
the
kinds
of
proactive
moves
legal
teams
need
to
champion.

If
your
contracts
aren’t
adaptable,
you’re
not
just
risking
business
friction

you’re
leaving
your
company
vulnerable
to
costly
disputes.
And
with
tools
like
contract
management
platforms,
it’s
easier
than
ever
to
analyze
terms,
track
renewal
dates,
and
pinpoint
where
you
might
need
to
negotiate.


Compliance
Challenges
Are
Heating
Up

Inflation
isn’t
just
a
financial
strain

it’s
also
a
regulatory
risk.
Price
increases
tied
to
inflation
can
raise
eyebrows,
especially
in
sectors
already
under
scrutiny
for
antitrust
or
unfair
practices.
Regulators
are
paying
attention
to
how
companies
adjust
their
pricing
models,
and
legal
teams
need
to
be
ready.

This
is
where
having
a
clear,
documented
rationale
for
pricing
decisions
can
make
all
the
difference.
One
GC
I
know
started
keeping
detailed
notes
on
every
price
adjustment
tied
to
inflation,
backed
by
market
data.
When
regulators
started
asking
questions,
the
company
was
ready
with
a
solid
defense.

If
you
don’t
have
a
system
in
place
to
track
and
justify
these
changes,
you’re
flying
blind

and
that’s
not
a
position
you
want
to
be
in
when
a
regulator
comes
knocking.


Legal
Teams
Are
Expected
To
Do
More
With
Less

Inflation
isn’t
just
reshaping
business
strategy

it’s
hitting
budgets,
too.
Legal
teams
are
no
exception.
We’re
being
asked
to
deliver
the
same
high-quality
work
with
fewer
resources.
That’s
why
efficiency
isn’t
just
a
buzzword
anymore;
it’s
a
survival
strategy.

This
is
where
investing
in
the
right
tools
can
make
a
difference.
Legal
technology

like
e-billing
systems,
compliance
trackers,
or
AI-powered
contract
review
tools

can
free
up
time
and
help
your
team
focus
on
strategic
work
instead
of
getting
bogged
down
in
the
weeds.
For
example,
I’ve
seen
teams
use
automated
invoice
systems
to
flag
errors
and
save
thousands
in
duplicate
charges.
Another
team
slashed
contract
review
times
by
using
AI
to
analyze
terms
and
flag
potential
issues.

These
aren’t
just
cost-saving
measures;
they’re
opportunities
to
show
how
legal
can
bring
real
value
to
the
business.


What’s
Your
Next
Move?

Inflation
isn’t
going
away,
and
there’s
no
magic
solution
to
make
it
easier.
But
legal
teams
are
in
a
unique
position
to
lead
the
charge,
helping
their
companies
stay
flexible,
compliant,
and
resilient
in
the
face
of
economic
uncertainty.

So,
how’s
inflation
impacting
your
team?
Are
you
renegotiating
contracts,
shoring
up
compliance
processes,
or
finding
creative
ways
to
do
more
with
less?
I’d
love
to
hear
what’s
working
for
you

or
what
challenges
are
keeping
you
up
at
night.
Let’s
talk
about
how
we
can
tackle
this
together.




Olga MackOlga
V.
Mack



is
a
Fellow
at
CodeX,
The
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics,
and
a
Generative
AI
Editor
at
law.MIT.
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
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
three
books:



Visual
IQ
for
Lawyers
(ABA
2024), The
Rise
of
Product
Lawyers:
An
Analytical
Framework
to
Systematically
Advise
Your
Clients
Throughout
the
Product
Lifecycle
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024),
and
Legal
Operations
in
the
Age
of
AI
and
Data
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024).
You
can
follow
Olga
on




LinkedIn



and
Twitter
@olgavmack.