Author: TSA Press

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

She’s
in
great
health,
and
the
court
needs
her
now
more
than
ever.

—
A
source
close
to
Justice

Sonia
Sotomayor,
70,
the
most
senior
liberal
jurist
on
the
Supreme
Court,
in

comments
given
to
CNN,
in
response
to
calls
for
her
to
step
down
and
be
replaced
with
a
younger
successor
by
President
Joe
Biden
before
President-elect
Donald
Trump
takes
office.

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

X/Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

She’s
in
great
health,
and
the
court
needs
her
now
more
than
ever.

—
A
source
close
to
Justice

Sonia
Sotomayor,
70,
the
most
senior
liberal
jurist
on
the
Supreme
Court,
in

comments
given
to
CNN,
in
response
to
calls
for
her
to
step
down
and
be
replaced
with
a
younger
successor
by
President
Joe
Biden
before
President-elect
Donald
Trump
takes
office.

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

X/Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

She’s
in
great
health,
and
the
court
needs
her
now
more
than
ever.

—
A
source
close
to
Justice

Sonia
Sotomayor,
70,
the
most
senior
liberal
jurist
on
the
Supreme
Court,
in

comments
given
to
CNN,
in
response
to
calls
for
her
to
step
down
and
be
replaced
with
a
younger
successor
by
President
Joe
Biden
before
President-elect
Donald
Trump
takes
office.

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

X/Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

She’s
in
great
health,
and
the
court
needs
her
now
more
than
ever.

—
A
source
close
to
Justice

Sonia
Sotomayor,
70,
the
most
senior
liberal
jurist
on
the
Supreme
Court,
in

comments
given
to
CNN,
in
response
to
calls
for
her
to
step
down
and
be
replaced
with
a
younger
successor
by
President
Joe
Biden
before
President-elect
Donald
Trump
takes
office.

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

X/Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

It’s
never
a
good
look
for
a
Biglaw
firm
when
something
goes
from
internal
gossip
to
reportable
news.
But
what
probably
started
as
some
relatable,
if
nosy,
office
whispering
has
devolved
into
a
whole
thing
in
the
South
African
offices
of
Norton
Rose
Fulbright.

It
seems
some
enterprising
associate(s)
discovered
they
could
access
confidential
emails
and
other
sensitive
internal
documents
that
were
saved,
but
not
locked,
on
the
firm’s
document
management
platform.
Law.com
International

has
the
IT-specs:

Norton
Rose bought a
license
for
iManage’s
full
product
suite
in
the
early
2000s
after
it
switched
from
rival
software
Hummingbird,
citing
the
need
for
a
robust
system
architecture
and
collaboration
functionality.

FileSite,
a
major
collaborative
function
of
the
iManage
package,
gives
staff
access
to
their
colleagues’
emails
and
folders—except
when
a
digital
lock
is
activated,
according
to
Norton
Rose
employees.
Some
of
the
directors
and
other
lawyers
who
are
not
tech-savvy
do
not
usually
activate
the
necessary
privacy
measures,
they
added.

When
the
firm
figured
out
that
associates
could,
and
apparently
did,
access
these
confidential
docs,
they
went
into
damage
control
mode.
There
was
an
internal
meeting:

According
to
sources,
the
management
team
held
a
brief
meeting
with
a
group
of
junior
lawyers
at
the
firm
on
October
28,
where
it
gave
those
implicated
in
the
IT
probe
until
midday
on
November
1
to
disclose
the
amount
of
information
they
accessed,
the
frequency
of
access
and
what
they
did
with
the
information.

They
were
told
those
who
came
forward
with
full
disclosure
would
be
offered
forgiveness
and
leniency,
but
those
who
withheld
further
information
about
their
involvement
could
face
disciplinary
action,
according
to
someone
close
to
the
matter.

At
the
meeting,
the
junior
attorneys
were
reportedly
told,
“There
can
be
no
excuse
for
reading
something
pertinently
marked
as
confidential
and
which
was
not
addressed
to
you.”
And
it
was
followed
up
with
an
email
from
the
firm
CEO
that
read,
“An
internal
investigation
has
confirmed
that
some
associates
and
candidate
attorneys
indeed
accessed
information
and
directors’
non-matter
folders
over
a
projected
period
of
time.
We
have
an
extensive
list
of
who
accessed
what.”
But
despite
saying
they
had
the
list
of
who
accessed
what
and
when,
associates
were
still
urged
to
come
forward
if
they’d
done
so.

All
of
this
has
created
some
understandable
tension
at
the
firm.
An
insider
told
Law.com,
“People
are
scared
and
anxious.
They
also
feel
that
they
are
being
treated
unfairly.”
Another
NRF
source
pointed
the
finger
not
at
the
snooping
junior
attorneys
but
at
the
senior
attorneys
who
didn’t
protect
the
confidential
material.

Another
lawyer
involved
explained
that
the
firm’s
policy
specifies
that
it
is
the
responsibility
of
the
person
saving
a
document
on
iManage
to
secure
it.
“It’s
not
the
associates’
fault
for
seeing
it
when
it
is
saved
on
a
public
platform,”
the
lawyer
said.

A
firm
spokesperson
confirmed
that
some
attorneys
had
accessed
internal
documents
but
said
no
client
information
was
compromised.
They
also
said
the
matter
is
resolved.
Which,
it
may
be!
But
some
of
those
bad
feelings
about
how
the
matter
was
handled
are
sure
to
linger.

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

@[email protected].

Quick,
what’s
the
difference
between
a
punishable
protest
and
a
study
group
at
Harvard?
Turns
out,
all
you
have
to
do
is
not
advertise
your
presence
in
advance
or
show
your
ID!
Despite
the
institution’s
previous
framing
as
studying
while
wearing
a
scarf
or
having
a
stickered
laptop
as
“protest”
and
“distracting,”
a 
legal
cohort
of
over
50
people
was
able
to
quietly
study
in
the
law
library
while
the
staff
seemed
none
the
wiser.

The
Crimson
has
coverage:

More
than
50
Harvard
Law
School
students
quietly
protested
in
Langdell
Hall’s
library
Friday
afternoon,
the
third
study-in
protest
to
occur
at
HLS
this
semester.

The
protest,
which
lasted
for
roughly
40
minutes,
ended
without
library
administrators
checking
the
IDs
of
participants.
While
activists
were
quick
to
celebrate
the
lack
of
ID
checks
as
a
victory
over
the
administration,
an
HLS
official
said
library
staff
did
not
have
prior
knowledge
of
the
protest.
…
Students
entered
Langdell
at
12:20
p.m.,
where
they
silently
studied
with
fliers
taped
to
their
laptops
condemning
Israel’s
war
in
Gaza.
More
than
20
students
also
wore
white
t-shirts
that
read:
“We
were
banned
from
Harvard
Library
for
dreaming
of
a
free
Palestine.”

It
is
hard
to
read
the
HLS
official’s
“we
didn’t
have
prior
knowledge”
excuse
for
not
carding
the
students
and
take
it
seriously.
The
university
is
defining
protest
as
“an
attempt
to
send
a
common
message”
and
anyone
who
is
literally
being
paid
by
one
of
the
world’s
most
premier
universities
to
help
students
sift
through
complex
information
in
a
timely
manner
shouldn’t
need
a
heads
up
via
email
to
figure
out
that
20
people
in
the
library
wearing
“We
were
banned
from
Harvard
Library
for
dreaming
of
a
free
Palestine”
shirts
at
the
same
time
should
count
as
a
protest
under
the
school’s
goofy
definition.

The
school
is
also
heading
toward
another
blunder:
perverse
incentivization.
A
protest
is
one
thing,
but
a
protest
that
spawns
collectible
in-group
memorabilia?
That’s
cool.
And
you
know
what
cool
protests
do?

Spread.
Did
we
learn
nothing
from
mandating
parental
advisory
stickers
on
music?
“It
actually
became
a
sales
tool
—
it
made
it
easier
for
teenagers
to
identify
the
cool
stuff.”

Not
only
will
Harvard
have
to
force
its
librarians
to
police
student
wardrobes
to
prevent
future
bad
PR,
they’ve
also
introduced
some
plausible
deniability
into
the
mix.
Is
that
person
wearing
a
“We
were
banned
from
Harvard
Library
for
dreaming
of
a
free
Palestine”
in
solidarity
with
the
protestors
as
an
act
of
solidarity
or
because
they
thought
the
shirt
was
cool?
Is
it
still
a
protest
if
the
attempt
to
send
a
common
message
is
just
to
signify
that
“this
shirt
is
cool”
or
“I’m
cool
for
wearing
it”?
If
so,
the
librarians
are
going
to
spend
more
time
focusing
on
wardrobe
choices
than
call
numbers.

Harvard
Law
School
Students
Protest
in
Library,
Leave
Before
ID
Checks
[The
Crimson]

Earlier:

So
Much
For
Free
Speech:
Harvard
Law
Students
Punished
For
Reading
Together
At
Campus
Library

Harvard
Doubles
Down
On
‘Protest’
Retaliation
&
Punishes
Teachers
For
Studying
In
Library

Harvard
Triples
Down
On
Punishing
Campus
Free
Speech,
Adds
Prayer
To
No-No
List

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.

Back
in
June,
the
UK’s
Solicitors
Regulation
Authority
(SRA)
referred
Nicholas
Williams,
a
former
Freshfields
partner,
to
its
Solicitors
Disciplinary
Tribunal
(SDT)
in
the
wake
of

allegations
of
inappropriate
conduct
that
took
place
in
December
2017.
Williams
left
the
Magic
Circle
firm
in
December
2019
following
an
internal
investigation
into
his
behavior.

As
noted
by
the

Global
Legal
Post,
the
SDT
has
reached
a
disciplinary
decision.

[Williams]
has
been
suspended
for
two
years
and
ordered
to
pay
costs
of
£66,000
by
the
[SDT]
in
relation
to
allegations
of
“inappropriate”
behaviour.
…

The
SRA
referred
the
matter
to
the
SDT
earlier
this
year,
according
to
a
notice
on
its
website,
saying
the
tribunal
had
certified
that
Williams
had
a
“case
to
answer
in
respect
of
allegations
that
…
between
20
and
21
December
2017,
[he]
engaged
in
conduct
towards
Person
A,
which
was
inappropriate
and
unwanted”.

Shortly
following
his
departure
in
2019
—
as
well
as
the extreme
inappropriate
behavior
of
ex-partner
Ryan
Beckwith
around
the
same
time
—
Freshfields
instituted
new
conduct
rules
for
partners,
inclusive
of
partners
facing
fines
of
20%
of
their
profit
shares.

Once
again,
Freshfields
distanced
the
firm
from
its
former
partner,
offering
the
following
statement:
“We
were
not
the
subject
of
the
SRA
investigation
or
involved
in
the
related
SDT
proceedings.
The
individual
left
the
firm
several
years
ago.
At
the
time,
we
looked
into
the
concerns
raised
and
took
appropriate
action.”

Ex-Freshfields
partner
suspended
by
tribunal
over
allegations
of
‘inappropriate’
behaviour
[Global
Legal
Post]

Earlier:

Former
Biglaw
Partner
Faces
Accusations
Of
‘Inappropriate
And
Unwanted’
Conduct

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

X/Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

More
than

60
million
people
tuned
in
for
this
past
weekend’s
historic
match
between
boxing
legend
Mike
Tyson
and
Youtuber-turned-boxer
Jake
Paul.
At
the
end
of
the
fight,
Paul
came
out
on
top,
but
the
real
winners
were
the
law
firms
that
were
able
to
display
their
logos
during
the
mega-event.

TorkLaw,
a
Los
Angeles-based
personal
injury
law
firm,
secured
ring-side
seats
as
well
as
a
spectacular
experience
package
—
including
amazing
opportunities
like
an
onstage
spot
at
weigh-in,
a
locker
room
visit
with
both
boxers
ahead
of
the
fight,
as
well
as
an
in-ring
photo
opportunity
after
the
fight
—
for
$2
million.
Senior
partner
Reza
Torkzadeh
and
partner
Korosh
Torkzadeh
wore
hats
with
their
firm
logo
that
were
given
some
pretty
prominent
airtime
during
the
fight.

USA
Today
has
comments
from
Korosh.

“Life
and
sport
often
reflect
each
other
in
their
unpredictability.
At
TorkLaw,
as
we
spend
our
days
fighting
for
our
clients
both
inside
and
outside
the
courtroom,
we
see
in
boxing
the
same
determination
required
to
face
life’s
toughest
battles,”
Korosh
…
said
in
a
statement
provided
to
USA
TODAY
Sports.
“Our
involvement
in
this
event
is
more
than
just
support
for
sport
—
it’s
a
celebration
of
the
human
spirit
and
the
strength
it
takes
to
keep
fighting,
no
matter
the
odds.”

Not
to
be
outdone,

Dimopoulos
Law
Firm,
a
Las
Vegas-based
personal
injury
firm,
sponsored
Iron
Mike
himself.
Tyson
wore
a
shirt
displaying
the
firm’s
name
during
a
pre-fight
press
conference,
and
firm
representatives
joined
him
in
the
ring
during
the
match.
Here
he
is,
posing
as
the
firm’s
“new
associate”
in
a
clip
filmed
before
the
fight.

This
sure
was
one
heck
of
a
successful
marketing
event.
What’s
the
next
sporting
event
that
innovative
small
law
firms
will
be
able
to
sponsor?

Mike
Tyson
vs.
Jake
Paul
VIP
fight
package
costs
a
whopping
$2M.
Here’s
who
bought
it.
[USA
Today]

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

X/Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

Legal
teams
are
overwhelmed
with
contracts,
facing
tighter
budgets
and
growing
workloads. 
AI
promises
to
be
a
solution
–
but
it’s
no
substitute
for
the
legal
judgment
your
contracts
require.
But
what
if
your
expertise,
combined
with
AI
assistance,
could
help
you
thoroughly
review
and
negotiate
a
complex
vendor
agreement
in
less
than
10
minutes?

Forward
thinking
legal
departments
and
law
firms
are
already
embracing
this
change,delegating
tedious
tasks
to
AI
without
losing
control
over
important
legal
decisions. 
Our
friends
at
LegalOn
Technologies
share
real
world
use
cases
on
how
legal
professionals
are
transforming
their
contract
review
process
in
their
new
guide:
The
10-Minute
Contract
Review. 
Is
AI
the
Key?

As
you
plan
for
2025,
the
timing
couldn’t
be
better
for
an
efficiency
revolution
in
contract
review.

Download
this
guide
to
discover:

•  How
  AI-powered
  tools
  can
  cut
  contract
  review
  time
  by
  up
  to
  90%
•  The
  three-stage
  process
  for
  reviewing
  complex
  contracts
  with
  AI
  collaboration
•  Real
  success
  stories
  from
  legal
  teams
  who’ve
  sped
  up
  their
  review
  processes
•  Why
  human
  expertise
  remains
  crucial
  in
  AI-assisted
  review

Plus:
See
how
the
in-house
legal
team
at
a
leading
data
center
services
provider
slashed
contract
review
time
by
90%
and
how
a
law
firm
increased
their
billable
hour
capacity
by
40%.