As
much
as
any
other
workplace,
attorneys
at
law
firms
sometimes
need
to
be
reminded
about
the
basics
of
polite
interactions.
Over
at
Ask
A
Manager,
Alison
Green
recently
answered
a
question
from
an
associate
at
a
boutique
law
firm.
The
associate
attended
a
work
event
with
colleagues,
and
she
did
not
drink
alcohol.
That
led
to
speculation
that
the
letter
writer
was
forgoing
drinking
because
she’s
pregnant.
And
it
became
a
whole
thing.
When
we
left
dinner,
one
of
the
colleagues,
Sara,
asked
me
outright
if
this
was
true.
I
asked
her
why
she
would
think
that
and
explained
that
I
wasn’t
drinking
because
I
was
going
to
a
big
party
tomorrow,
and
drinking
two
nights
in
a
row
is
just
too
much
for
me.
Another
colleague,
Rose,
cornered
me
and
said
that
she
heard
I
was
pregnant.
I
asked
where
she
heard
something
like
that,
and
she
proceeded
to
tell
me
all
the
associates
was
talking
about
it,
she
heard
I
was
“trying,”
and
she
thought
it
better
to
go
straight
to
the
source
than
just
speculate.
Rose
has
been
very
open
about
her
own
fertility
issues,
so
I
found
her
questions
absolutely
shocking.
I
told
her
that
if
I
have
something
to
announce,
she’d
hear
about
it.
I
repeated
to
her
that
I
was
going
to
a
party
tomorrow
and
didn’t
want
to
drink
two
nights
in
a
row.
Sara,
standing
nearby,
said,
“You
don’t
have
to
explain
yourself.”
Which
…
apparently
is
not
the
case!
Rose
proceeded
to
remind
me
that
if
our
boss
found
out
by
way
of
gossip,
he
would
be
livid.
Great.
That
feels
pretty
icky.
No
one
should
be
forced
to
disclose
the
details
of
their
reproductive
choices
before
they’re
ready.
And,
in
this
specific
case,
it’s
complicated
because
the
letter
writer
actually
*is*
pregnant,
but
she’s
early
in
the
process
and
not
at
the
sharing
stage
yet.
Green’s
response
is
appropriately
indignant,
which
makes
sense,
since
the
letter
writer’s
colleagues
are
out
of
pocket.
Not
only
is
it
rude
and
invasive
to
speculate
on
whether
someone
is
pregnant,
let
alone
confront
them
to
ask
them
about
it
(and
no,
Rose,
it’s
not
better
to
“go
straight
to
the
source”),
but
it’s
also
ridiculous
to
assume
someone
is
pregnant
just
because
they’re
not
drinking.
There
are
a
ton
of
reasons
someone
might
not
be
drinking
on
any
given
occasion:
your
own
reason
of
not
wanting
to
drink
two
nights
in
a
row,
or
they’re
on
a
medicine
that
prevents
it,
or
they’re
trying
to
drink
less,
or
they’re
driving
later,
or
they
didn’t
eat
a
lot
today
and
don’t
want
to
drink
on
an
empty
stomach,
or
they
prefer
not
to
lower
their
inhibitions
at
work
events,
or
they
just
don’t
feel
like
it.
It’s
bizarre
that
your
coworkers
care
so
much.
Even
if
they
see
drinking
together
as
an
enjoyable
bonding
ritual
at
work
conferences,
it’s
extremely
weird
to
be
so
put
off
that
someone
else
doesn’t
feel
like
it
—
and
I
wonder
if
you
not
drinking
made
them
feel
defensive
about
how
much
they
were
all
drinking,
given
that
you
described
them
as
“VERY
drunk.”
Some
people
get
like
that.
Just
a
reminder
—
a
law
degree
doesn’t
stop
some
people
from
being
gossipy
and
invasive.
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].
Let’s
apply
common
sense
to
some
things
you’ve
heard
recently.
Unlike
those
silly
politicians
who
just
call
each
other
names,
let’s
think
about
who
asks
you
to
believe
ridiculous
things
—
things
that
insult
your
intelligence.
Donald
Trump
says
that
he
won
the
election
in
2020.
Trump
says,
among
other
things,
that
Dominion
Voting
Systems
rigged
its
machines
to
throw
thousands
of
votes
to
Biden
from
Trump.
That’s
the
only
reason
Trump
lost
the
election;
the
Democrats
cheated.
Trump
wants
you
to
believe
this;
some
of
you
do.
I
spent
my
career
as
a
litigator.
When
you
get
retained
in
a
new
lawsuit,
you
frequently
ask
yourself
a
question:
Does
the
lawsuit
make
sense?
If
a
neutral
person
heard
the
facts,
would
that
neutral
person
naturally
believe
the
plaintiff
or
the
defendant?
Common
sense
can
help
you
think
about
a
case.
Let’s
apply
common
sense
to
Trump’s
allegations
of
cheating
in
the
2020
election.
Supposedly,
voting
machines
switched
thousands
of
votes
from
Biden
to
Trump.
But
in
the
down-ballot
races
—
the
races
for
lower
federal
and
state
offices
that
appeared
on
the
same
ballot
as
Trump
and
Biden
—
Republicans
performed
spectacularly
well
in
2020.
Democrats
did
not
flip
any
of
the
state
legislative
chambers
that
they’d
targeted.
Republicans
gained
seats
in
the House
of
Representatives.
In
some
competitive
districts,
incumbent
Republicans
won
reelection
at
the
same
time
that
Trump
was
losing those
areas.
I’m
assuming
that
you
support
Trump,
and
you
hate
Democrats.
Democrats
are
all
lying,
thieving,
scums
of
the
earth.
But
could
anyone
—
no
matter
how
stupid
—
really
have
rigged
voting
machines
to
change
votes
for
Trump
into
votes
for
Biden
without
simultaneously
rigging
those
machines
to
change
the
results
in
the
down-ballot
races?
As
long
as
Democrats
were
going
to
steal
elections,
why
didn’t
they
steal
a
bunch
of
them?
Trump
has
never
explained
that
to
you
because,
of
course,
he
can’t.
But
he
wants
you
to
believe
it.
If
Trump
thinks
you’ll
believe
that
nonsense,
he
must
really
think
that
you’re
an
idiot,
huh?
It’s
a
good
thing
that
people
other
than
Trump
respect
you.
But
that
was
how
Trump
treats
your
memory
of
the
past.
How
does
he
view
your
intellect
as
it
relates
to
tomorrow’s
election?
Trump
says
that
tens
of
thousands
of
undocumented
workers
are
registering
to
vote
to cast
illegal
ballots
in
tomorrow’s
election,
making
the
election
results
fraudulent
(if,
and
only
if,
Trump
loses).
Let’s
apply
the
common-sense
test
to
this.
Millions
of
American
citizens
who
actually
have
the
right
to
vote
simply
don’t
bother.
Voting
is
a
pain
in
the
neck,
it
takes
time,
no
individual’s
vote
makes
a
difference
anyway,
whatever.
So
lots
of
American
citizens
don’t
vote.
But
tens
of
thousands
of
illegal
aliens
are
supposedly
champing
at
the
bit
to
vote.
I
guess
for
those
folks,
voting
is
not
a
pain
in
the
neck,
it
doesn’t
take
time,
their
votes,
unlike
yours,
really
do
matter.
Remember:
Those
undocumented
workers
are
not
only
itching
to
vote,
when
many
American
citizens
are
not,
but
they’re
itching
to
vote
illegally
at
risk
of
terrible
penalties
if
they’re
caught.
These
undocumented
workers,
who
presumably
traveled
a
fair
distance
to
get
into
this
country,
face
the
risk
of
deportation
or
imprisonment
(or
both)
if
they’re
caught
voting
illegally.
Trump
wants
you
to
believe
that
millions
of
American
citizens
who
could
vote
without
risk
don’t
bother
casting
a
ballot,
but
tens
of
thousands
of
illegal
immigrants
will
insist
on
casting
illegal
ballots
at
risk
of
being
punished
in
a
life-altering
way.
Trump
says
that
crap,
and
he
expects
you
to
believe
it.
He
must
really
think
that
you’re
an
idiot,
huh?
Tomorrow,
don’t
vote
for
the
guy
who
thinks
you’re
deplorable.
Either
vote
for
Kamala
Harris
—
who
shows
you
some
respect
—
or
just
stay
home.
The
whole
system’s
fraudulent
anyway,
and
your
vote
doesn’t
really
count.
Why
bother?
Last
week,
Republicans
congratulated
themselves
for
their
YUUUGE
courtroom
victory
in
Pennsylvania.
The
Trump
campaign
successfully
petitioned
for
an
injunction
extending
the
deadline
to
cast
their
absentee
ballots
in
person
—
essentially
a
labor-intensive
workaround
for
Pennsylvania’s
ban
on
early,
in-person
voting.
Churlish
commentators
(it
me!)
noted
that
the
GOP
is
not
usually
in
the
habit
of
increasing
access
to
the
ballot,
and
their
whole
schtick
is
that
the
2020
election
was
#RIGGED
because
courts
changed
the
rules
in
the
middle
of
the
game
to
accommodate
COVID
safety
protocols.
But
fear
not!
Trump
and
his
minions
have
returned
to
form
and
are
now
spamming
state
and
federal
dockets
with
garbage
lawsuits
seeking
to
prevent
ballot
access.
The
fun
began
Friday
in
Georgia
where
regular
Trump
campaign
lawyer
Alex
Kaufman
sought
emergency
relief
on
behalf
of
the
Fulton
County
Republican
Party
and
the
Georgia
GOP.
The
petition
(via
Democracy
Docket)
alleged
that
county
election
officials
were
illegally
accepting
hand-delivered
absentee
ballots
over
the
weekend
in
violation
of
O.C.G.A.
§21-2-385.
Which
makes
complete
sense,
except
that
the
provision
of
law
cited
applies
to
ballot
drop
boxes
only,
not
absentee
ballots
hand
delivered
to
the
registrar.
Indeed,
the
very
statute
cited
in
this
case
says
“the
elector
shall
then
personally
mail
or
personally
deliver
same
to
the
board
of
registrars
or
absentee
ballot
clerk.”
Which
is
exactly
what
Judge
Kevin
Farmer
told
Kaufman
when
he
tossed
the
case
this
weekend.
But
Kaufman
was
not
deterred!
Instead
he
marched
into
the
Southern
District
of
Georgia,
this
time
on
behalf
of
the
RNC,
and
filed
the
same
damn
complaint.
Only
this
time
he
added
an
extra
14
pages
complaining
that
allowing
people
to
hand
deliver
absentee
ballots
in
some
counties
but
not
others
violates
the
Equal
Protection
Clause.
Plus
he
added
election
officials
in
Chatham,
Cobb,
Clarke,
Clayton,
Gwinnett,
and
DeKalb
Counties
as
defendants.
Because
if
the
registrars
responsible
for
counting
a
tiny
minority
of
counties
refuse
to
keep
their
offices
open
on
election
day,
then
election
officials
representing
the
vast
majority
of
the
state’s
residents
must also
keep
their
doors
closed.
It
says
so
in
the
Constitution!
(It
does
not.)
Georgia
Secretary
of
State
Brad
Raffensperger
noted
that
the
issue
was
not
ambiguous
as
a
matter
of
state
law.
Under
state
law,
election
officials
can
receive
absentee
ballots
in
person
at
govt
facilities
if
the
county
chooses.
Several
counties
have
chosen
to
do
this.
We
are
working
with
the
counties
and
the
political
parties
to
ensure
this
is
done
transparently
and
within
Georgia
law.
—
GA
Secretary
of
State
Brad
Raffensperger
(@GaSecofState)
November
2,
2024
“To
be
clear,
no
election
laws
were
broken
in
Georgia
today,”
echoed
his
deputy
Gabriel
Sterling.
“The
law
clearly
states
that
govt
buildings
can
be
used
to
receive
absentee
ballots.
A
judge
said
so
this
morning.”
This
afternoon,
the
parties
appeared
before
US
District
Judge
R.
Stan
Baker
for
a
scheduling
hearing.
The
defendants
will
have
until
9am
tomorrow
to
file
their
responses
opposing
the
motion
for
preliminary
injunction/TRO,
with
a
hearing
to
follow
at
12.
Lawyers
for
Fulton
County
pushed
back
hardest
in
court,
stating
upfront
that
they
do
not
believe
Judge
Baker
has
jurisdiction
and
refusing
to
voluntarily
sequester
the
ballots
at
issue,
since
Judge
Farmer
already
told
them
they
had
no
obligation
to
do
so
as
a
matter
of
Georgia
law.
Kaufman
tried
mightily
to
convince
the
court
to
order
the
County
to
do
it
anyway
—
effectively
a
pre-preliminary
injunction
—
but
Judge
Baker
refused.
So
tomorrow
we
can
hear
the
RNC
explain
to
a
federal
judge
why
eligible
voters
who
cast
their
ballots
in
accordance
with
the
law
as
understood
by
local
election
officials,
the
Georgia
Secretary
of
State,
and
a
Georgia
state
judge
should
be
disenfranchised.
This
demand
was
voiced
at
the
recent
Zimbabwe
Alternative
Mining
Indaba,
held
under
the
theme,
“Energy
Transition
Minerals:
Putting
Communities
First
for
Community
Development.”
Temper
Gonde,
a
villager
from
Bubi
in
Matabeleland
North,
described
how
community
members
often
hear
of
new
mining
claims
in
their
region
but
are
restricted
from
accessing
these
sites.
“We’ll
hear
news
of
a
claim,
and
as
people
from
Bubi,
we’ll
be
told
to
go
and
benefit
from
it.
But
before
we
even
arrive,
police
trucks
are
sent
to
tell
us
to
leave.
Next,
the
councillors
step
in,
and
soon,
we
see
council
contractors
working
at
the
claims,”
he
explained.
Gonde
noted
that
while
communities
are
promised
infrastructure
improvements,
such
commitments
are
rarely
kept.
“We’re
told
they’ll
do
things
for
us,
but
then
we
see
police
and
others
with
political
influence
benefiting
instead.
The
community
sees
nothing
from
these
projects,”
he
said.
He
added
that
when
community
members
inquire
about
promised
projects,
like
borehole
drilling,
they’re
directed
to
follow
formal
procedures.
“Yet,
it’s
the
councillor,
police,
and
influential
figures
who
benefit,
not
us,”
Gonde
stated,
pointing
out
that
young
people
who
speak
out
are
sometimes
arrested
and
given
community
service
as
punishment.
“Our
roads
are
dilapidated,
we
lack
clean
water,
and
we
don’t
know
who
to
approach
because
those
meant
to
protect
us
are
the
ones
causing
harm,”
Gonde
said,
emphasizing
the
need
for
district-wide
benefits.
“Our
schools
are
overcrowded,
hospitals
are
in
poor
condition—who’s
going
to
help
us?”
Gonde
called
for
transparency
in
mining
disclosures,
stating,
“We
want
to
know
what’s
being
mined
and
its
value
so
that
we
can
also
benefit.
The
devolution
policy
is
supposed
to
empower
communities,
but
that’s
not
happening
here.”
He
added
that
while
some
companies
claim
to
assist,
there’s
little
clarity
on
their
contributions.
“I
argue
that
it’s
not
the
Chinese
at
fault—they’re
given
permission—but
we
should
know
what
they
bring
so
we
can
hold
them
accountable
for
repairing
our
roads,”
he
said.
Gonde
urged
the
government
to
intervene
and
ensure
mining
activities
benefit
local
communities.
“Maybe
the
government
isn’t
aware
of
the
gold
being
mined
in
Bubi,
but
we
must
inform
them.”
However,
another
villager
from
Mashonaland
Central
shared
a
more
positive
view,
noting
that
some
mining
companies
do
contribute,
by
providing
fire
trucks
and
supporting
community
programs.
“Some
companies
give
back
to
the
community,
but
others
take
much
more
than
they
give,
causing
environmental
degradation
and
water
pollution,
leading
to
conflicts
with
farmers,”
he
explained.
He
added,
“While
we’re
grateful
for
some
support,
companies,
especially
Chinese
ones,
could
do
more.
We’ve
seen
incidents
of
workplace
violence
and
insufficient
worker
protections.”
He
also
raised
concerns
about
whether
the
money
from
mining
operations
truly
benefits
the
economy,
adding,
“If
managed
properly,
our
economy
would
be
stronger,
but
right
now,
it’s
the
community
bearing
the
costs
of
mining.”
Everything
old
is
new
again.
That’s
more
than
some
cliche
thrown
at
you
by
an
aging
millennial
lamenting
the
return
of
low
rise
jeans.
It’s
also
descriptive
of
Biglaw’s
stance
on
lateral
partner
compensation.
Law.com
has
an
article
explaining
that
multiyear
guarantees
—
whether
in
guaranteed
points,
shares,
or
specific
amounts
—
are
back
again
for
partners
they’re
hoping
to
lure
to
the
firm.
There
was
a
time
not
terribly
long
ago
that
partner
guarantees
were
frowned
upon
—
and
for
a
very
real
reason.
Dewey
LeBoeuf
was
overextended
on
lavish
lateral
partner
guarantees,
and
that
fact
played
a
key
role
in
its
collapse.
It’s
hard
to
overstate
how
shocking
it
was
to
the
legal
industry
when
a
100+-year-old
law
firm
filed
for
bankruptcy.
But
apparently
those
scars
heal
after
12
years,
because
now
they’re
back.
While
many
Am
Law
100
firms
have
offered
guarantees,
certain
firms
are
more
widely
spoken
of
for
using
multi-year
deals,
including
Kirkland
&
Ellis
and
Paul
Hastings,
both
of
which
often
lure
candidates
from
top
rivals.
According
to
a
person
familiar
with
Paul
Hastings’
lateral
approach,
the
firm
generally
does
not
give
guarantees
for
longer
than
two
years.
The
person
added
that
many
of
the
firm’s
laterals,
successful
upon
joining,
are
receiving
discretionary
bonuses
that
may
exceed
their
guarantees.
“The
commitment
[guarantee]
is
viewed
as
a
floor,
not
a
ceiling,
if
a
lateral
performs,”
the
person
said.
Given
the
reality
of
the
current
lateral
partner
market,
partner
guarantees
are
pretty
much
a
necessity
for
a
firm
that
wants
to
attract
the
most
lucrative
legal
talent.
That
means
even
firms
that
have
been
burned
by
guarantees
have
to
get
back
on
board.
“In
my
experience,
they
go
in
and
out
of
favor
depending
on
the
market,”
said
Alisa
Levin,
founder
and
partner
at
legal
recruiting
firm
Greene-Levin-Snyder.
“When
it’s
a
seller’s
market,
you
get
more
guarantees.”
Levin
said
that
firms
that
are
more
active
in
the
lateral
market
are
often
more
likely
to
use
guarantees.
Even
firms
that
had
sworn
off
guarantees
are
back
to
using
them,
some
said.
“We
routinely
run
into
firms
that
utilize
guaranteed
compensation
arrangements
and
then
suddenly
have
a
bad
experience,
so
they
ban
them
completely.
Only
to
later
on
go
back
to
them
because
they
can
be
fundamental
to
a
firm’s
ability
to
attract
recruits,”
said
Blane
Prescott,
a
MesaFive
managing
shareholder
and
consultant
to
firms
on
compensation.
But
these
contracts
come
with
risks.
Beside
the
purely
financial
bet
the
firm
is
making
on
the
new
lateral
partner,
they
can
also
be
divisive
amongst
the
existing
partnership.
Professor
Tom
Sharbaugh,
at
Penn
State
Law,
said,
“Very
few
‘rank
and
file’
partners
have
multi-year
deals,
so
there
is
resentment
even
if
a
particular
lateral
partner
is
not
paid
an
exorbitant
amount.”
So
lateral
partner
guarantees
might
be
necessary
but
firms
should
use
them
judiciously
for
maximum
impact.
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].
When
we
think
of
the
perks
that
an
elite
law
firm
might
offer
to
its
attorneys,
our
minds
often
(quickly)
wander
to
the
realm
of
compensation.
While
big
bonuses
and
even
bigger
salaries
are
highly
regarded
in
the
legal
profession,
perhaps
it’s
time
to
expand
our
horizons
and
consider
a
firm’s
culture
and
learning
opportunities
as
major
selling
points.
Your
firm
may
offer
extensive
benefits
of
all
kinds,
but
do
attorneys
feel
like
they’re
growing
in
their
trade?
Are
lawyers
at
your
firm
being
truly
taught
to
excel
in
the
field?
Holwell
Shuster
&
Goldberg
—
the
elite
boutique
founded
in
2012
by
former
Southern
District
of
New
York
Judge
Richard
Holwell,
along
with
former
White
&
Case
colleagues
Mike
Shuster,
Dan
Goldberg,
and
Dorit
Ungar
Black
—
is
a
destination
firm
for
litigators.
More
than
a
decade
later,
HSG
is
an
award-winning
firm,
having
recently
claimed
the
title
of
Benchmark
Litigation’s
New
York
Law
Firm
of
the
Year,
and
boasts
nearly
80
lawyers
peeled
away
from
Biglaw
mainstays.
Associates
at
the
firm
are
also
getting
paid
like
their
Biglaw
brethren.
The
firm
has
matched
the
Cravath
salary
and
bonus
scale
since
2016,
but
the
compensation
isn’t
the
only
major
draw
for
talent
at
the
firm.
Holwell
Shuster
focuses
on
really
training
its
attorneys
for
a
lifetime
of
success
in
court,
and
makes
a
conscientious
effort
to
make
each
of
them
feel
empowered
through
early
career
experience.
Holwell
Shuster
&
Goldberg
is
completely
committed
to
developing
the
finest
associates
by
putting
complete
trust
in
them
at
the
earliest
opportunity,
allowing
them
to
grow
exponentially
as
litigators.
We
recently
had
the
chance
to
chat
with
several
associates
at
the
firm,
who
spoke
incredibly
highly
of
the
many
opportunities
that
have
been
afforded
to
them
through
the
firm’s
unique
training
style.
It’s
often
said
that
the
best
lawyers
learn
by
doing.
How
does
Holwell
Shuster
&
Goldberg’s
model
embody
that
sentiment?
LAUREN
COLE:
I
came
to
HSG
because
I
wanted
the
opportunity
to
learn
more
by
doing.
I
wanted
the
opportunity
to
lead
my
cases
and
take
the
lead
on
important
parts
of
the
case,
like
depositions
and
motion
practice.
Right
away,
I
was
put
in
the
position
of
being
a
key
strategic
mind
on
my
cases.
I
was
helping
to
craft
our
discovery
and
deposition
strategy.
I
was
learning
how
to
manage
a
case
and
plan
ahead,
not
just
reacting
whenever
I
was
given
an
assignment.
One
of
my
best
experiences
came
when
I
was
a
fourth-year
associate.
I
had
been
working
on
a
case
for
the
better
part
of
two
years
and
knew
the
documents
and
our
story
inside
and
out.
It
was
a
billion-dollar
international
arbitration
hearing,
so
there
was
a
lot
at
stake,
but
the
lead
partner
on
the
case
gave
me
my
own
witness
to
take
at
trial
and
had
me
prep
our
key
witnesses
in
the
case.
That
opportunity
was
indicative
of
my
experience
here
as
a
whole.
Partners
and
more
senior
associates
do
not
keep
opportunities
at
bay
for
more
junior
associates.
If
you
show
that
you
are
eager
for
the
work
and
the
opportunities,
they
will
come
to
you.
I
have
yet
to
ask
for
an
opportunity
that
I
did
not
get,
whether
that
be
oral
arguments,
taking
depositions
or
writing
dispositive
motions.
That
is
part
of
the
reason
I
have
truly
enjoyed
growing
my
practice
here.
HSG
is
a
place
where
the
partnership
really
invests
in
the
development
of
its
associates
early
on
in
their
careers.
What
makes
trial
work
fun?
IAN
MILLER:
I
had
a
blast
at
our
trial
representing
a
small
supplier
against
Walmart.
I
loved
that
the
intense
pace
meant
that
I
saw
the
impact
of
my
work
immediately,
as
my
research
done
one
night
would
be
immediately
tested
in
my
argument
in
court
the
next
morning.
Our
lean
trial
team
was
a
true
team
effort,
and
because
the
partners
took
everyone’s
strategic
ideas
seriously,
the
whole
team
was
motivated
to
stay
focused
on
how
their
individual
pieces
of
the
trial
fit
into
the
broader
strategic
vision.
I
was
really
invested
in
each
twist
and
turn
of
the
trial,
and
each
night
during
trial
I
drafted
part
of
an
outline
of
the
closing
argument
and
sketched
a
few
potential
slides
for
the
closing.
Closing
arguments
landed
on
a
Monday,
and
we
had
a
furious
push
over
the
weekend
to
get
everything
ready.
Because
I
had
already
developed
an
outline
and
some
slides
throughout
trial,
my
work
helped
shape
the
final
themes
and
narrative.
Watching
the
jury’s
reaction
to
those
ideas
during
our
closing
argument
and
then
waiting
for
their
verdict
was
equal
parts
exciting
and
excruciating,
but
it
was
all
worth
it
when
the
foreperson
announced
a
$101
million
verdict
for
our
client.
Trial
work
isn’t
the
only
thing
that’s
fun
at
Holwell
Shuster.
Here’s
the
firm’s
London
Luxury
trial
team
viewing
the
total
solar
eclipse
between
closing
arguments
in
the
case.
Miller
is
the
associate
taking
the
selfie
shot
here,
along
with
the
rest
of
the
trial
team.
In
the
front
row
(from
left
to
right)
are
Brendon
DeMay,
HSG
partner;
Karen
Sebaski,
HSG
counsel;
and
Priyanka
Timblo,
HSG
partner.
In
the
back
row
(from
left
to
right)
are
Scott
Richardson,
Arkansas
counsel;
Christine
Sun,
former
HSG
paralegal;
Ben
Allen,
former
HSG
associate;
Mike
Pusterla,
FTI
trial
graphics;
and
Gordon
Lewis,
London
Luxury.
(Courtesy
photo)
How
has
the
firm’s
early
trial
exposure
for
associates
impacted
your
career
development?
BRIAN
GOLDMAN:
HSG’s
early
trial
exposure
has
positively
impacted
my
career
development
in
innumerable
ways.
The
key
adjective
in
that
question
is
“early,”
because
when
you
get
stand-up
trial
experience
towards
the
start
of
your
career,
the
next
time
you
do
it
—
and
then
the
third
and
fourth
time
you
do
it
—
you
can
start
to
hone
your
style,
all
while
still
being
an
associate,
which
is
really
rare
these
days
in
high-impact
litigation
practices.
I’ve
experienced
this
firsthand.
When
I
was
a
junior
associate,
I
second-chaired
a
bunch
of
examinations
in
a
major
federal
antitrust
jury
trial.
I
got
to
see
so
many
different
styles
and
approaches
from
all
types
of
good
lawyers
—
both
at
HSG
and
from
our
opposing
counsel
—
and
filed
that
away
as
sort
of
live
practice
tips.
And
then
a
few
months
later,
I
actually
took
a
witness
in
an
international
arbitration
seated
in
Switzerland.
I
was
across
from
the
senior
partner
on
the
matter,
who
worked
at
a
Biglaw
firm.
I
was
highly
focused
on
doing
the
examination
technically
correctly
—
getting
out
all
the
questions,
and
hopefully,
the
answers
we
needed
—
and
just
wanted
to
avoid
any
hiccups.
Following
that,
across
the
years,
I
had
other
opportunities,
including
examining
witnesses
in
a
different
international
arbitration
merits
hearing,
and
then
in
a
bankruptcy
trial
in
federal
court
in
Houston.
In
all
these
instances,
you’re
continually
honing
your
style,
finding
the
pitch
that
is
comfortable
for
you,
and
also
just
becoming
more
confident.
Things
slow
down
a
bit.
And
so,
by
the
time
I
examined
witnesses
in
a
jury
trial
in
Seattle
federal
court
a
few
months
ago,
I
remember
one
of
the
witnesses
who
I
was
examining
asked
me
if
I
was
his
first
—
and
I
very
proudly
said
“nope!”
As
you
go
on,
you’re
still
focusing
on
getting
down
to
brass
tacks
and
making
sure
the
examination
is
technically
sound,
but
the
experience
that
you
have
is
a
reed
you
can
lean
on
and
learn
from,
and
lets
you
look
beyond
the
outline
and
adjust
based
on
what
the
witness
is
saying,
how
the
jury
or
judge
is
reacting,
why
you’re
drawing
an
objection
from
opposing
counsel,
and
that
type
of
thing.
And
building
that
confidence
and
familiarity
while
you’re
an
associate
is
invaluable.
What
does
it
feel
like
to
work
at
a
firm
where
you’re
entrusted
with
a
substantial
role
in
a
high-stakes
litigation
matter
so
early
in
your
career?
CHARLOTTE
BAIGENT:
It’s
both
motivating
and
humbling.
I
am
so
grateful
to
work
with
incredibly
talented
lawyers
I
admire,
who
are
also
kind,
supportive,
and
encouraging
mentors
and
colleagues.
Working
at
a
firm
where
I’ve
been
entrusted
with
significant
responsibilities
in
high-stakes
litigation
early
on
has
pushed
me
to
become
a
better
lawyer
as
quickly
as
I
can
—
to
learn
to
trust
my
instincts,
to
lead,
to
really
understand
my
clients,
and
to
make
strategic
decisions
with
the
full
life
of
the
case
in
mind.
Since
joining
HSG,
I
have
had
opportunities
to
take
and
defend
many
depositions,
examine
expert
witnesses
at
trial,
argue
evidentiary
issues
at
trial,
draft
trial
and
appellate
briefs,
and
help
manage
complex,
high-stakes
litigation.
At
each
of
those
moments
in
my
career,
I
had
mentors
and
colleagues
who
invested
a
great
deal
of
their
time
to
help
me
develop
my
skills
and
reach
the
next
stage
in
my
career
development.
Congratulations
to
Holwell
Shuster
&
Goldberg
for
its
willingness
to
put
its
attorneys’
trial
experience
and
career
development
first,
above
all
else.
With
a
firm
culture
like
this,
it
makes
it
a
lot
easier
for
employees
to
feel
truly
valued
as
attorneys.
What
does
the
culture
at
your
law
firm
look
like?
We’d
love
to
profile
what
life
looks
like
at
your
firm.
Please
get
in
touch
with
us
—
via
text (646-820-8477)
or email (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Culture”)
—
and
let
us
know.
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.
During
the
height
of
the
pandemic,
Biglaw
firms
were
eager
to
hire
associates
to
work
remotely
—
after
all,
a
talent
war
was
afoot
amid
the
battle
against
COVID-19,
and
firms
were
willing
to
try
anything
to
staff
cases.
Some
firms,
like
Quinn
Emanuel,
even
created
“work
from
anywhere”
policies
for
associates.
But
now,
in
2024,
these
remote
work
policies
are
few
and
far
between,
as
younger
associates
are
being
ushered
back
to
the
office
in
favor
of
hybrid
work
policies
and
face-time
mandates.
These
days,
true
remote
work
programs
are
a
dying
breed.
The
American
Lawyer
has
the
details:
“Firms
are
generally
doing
remote
hires
only
when
they
have
no
choice;
the
only
suitable
candidate
for
a
job
lives
nowhere
near
their
offices,
for
example,”
said
Darin
Morgan,
managing
partner
with
legal
recruiting
firm
Major,
Lindsey
&
Africa.
Exceptions
to
that
rule
do
exist,
and
Morgan
said
some
Big
Law
firms
are
continuing
to
permit
full-time
associate
work
schedules
in
cases
where
associates
relocate
to
a
geography
where
the
firm
has
no
physical
presence,
or
if
a
firm
desires
to
hire
an
associate
with
a
specialized
skillset
but
who
doesn’t
live
near
the
office.
Remote
work
arrangements
in
Biglaw
are
now
the
exception,
not
the
rule.
My,
how
quickly
things
change.
But
why
are
law
firms
pushing
for
an
office
presence
for
younger
associates?
It’s
all
about
the
face-to-face
training
and
mentoring,
with
most
early-year
(and
more
experienced)
associates
required
to
spend
time
at
the
office
three
or
more
days
each
week.
One
main
reason
behind
the
current
in-person
push
is
the
desire
to
have
young
associates
exposed
to
onsite
partner
supervision
and
training,
Morgan
said.
“I
don’t
think
there
are
many
top-tier
firms
out
there
that
are
still
recruiting
new
or
lateral
associates
to
work
exclusively
on
a
remote
working
basis,”
said
Scott
Yaccarino,
co-founder
of
Empire
Search
Partners.
“Although
there
were
plenty
of
associates,
and
partners,
that
valued
being
able
to
work
on
a
fully
remote
basis,
the
arrangement
was
never
ideal
from
a
training,
development,
and
team-building
perspective.”
Firms
are
still
willing
to
give
remote
associates
a
try,
but
those
who
can
commute
to
an
office
are
preferred.
One
of
those
firms
is
Orrick.
Siobhan
Handley,
chief
talent
officer,
said
that
the
firm
“continue[s]
to
both
hire
full-time
remote
talent
and
consider
requests
for
lawyers
to
move
to
remote
arrangements
when
family
and
other
considerations
mean
they
need
to
move
to
a
market
where
we
do
not
have
an
office.”
Ice
Miller
is
another
firm
that
continues
to
hire
remote
associates,
but
only
if
need
be
and
“under
extenuating
circumstances.”
As
noted
by
managing
partner
Michael
Millikan,
“You
go
where
you
can
find
talent.”
As
for
the
rest
of
Biglaw,
especially
the
most
elite
firms,
remote
work
may
simply
be
a
no-go
concept.
“Remote
work
is
something
that
is
no
longer
embraced
and
it
will
be
very
difficult
for
an
attorney
to
find
a
fully
remote
position
in
Big
Law,”
[Katherine]
Loanzon,
[managing
director
with
Kinney
Recruiting,]
said.
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.
For
11
years
between
1994
and
2005,
there
was
no
turnover
in
membership
on
the
Supreme
Court.
There
were
four
changes
to
the
Court’s
composition
between
2005
and
2010,
and
then
another
four
changes
between
2017
and
2022.
Of
the
four
newest
justices
on
the
Court,
three
were
appointed
by
President
Trump
and
one
by
President
Biden.
In
the
most
recent
Supreme
Court
term,
Justices
Neil
Gorsuch,
Amy
Coney
Barrett,
Brett
Kavanaugh,
and
Ketanji
Brown
Jackson
significantly
influenced
rulings
with
broad
implications.
The
conservative
supermajority,
including
Gorsuch,
Barrett,
and
Kavanaugh,
limited
federal
regulatory
authority,
restricted
prosecutorial
discretion,
and
expanded
presidential
immunity.
Gorsuch,
a
libertarian,
advocated
for
strict
limitations
on
agency
power
and
supported
overturning
the Chevron doctrine.
Barrett,
while
often
aligned
with
conservatives,
showed
independence
in
dissenting
on
obstruction
statute
interpretations
related
to
January
6.
Kavanaugh,
seen
as
more
of
a
moderate
on
the
right,
pragmatically
supported
federal
limits
while
maintaining
certain
rights.
Justice
Jackson,
the
only
Biden
appointee,
represents
a
progressive
counterpoint.
Her
dissents
emphasize
civil
liberties
and
deference
to
longstanding
legal
protections,
particularly
in
administrative
law.
Jackson’s
concurrence
on
the
obstruction
statute
reflected
her
commitment
to
statutory
interpretation
and
a
restrained
judicial
role,
indicating
her
willingness
to
collaborate
across
ideological
lines.
Now
a
look
back
at
the
differences
in
their
first
terms
on
the
Court
which
is
the
focus
of
the
remainder
of
this
article.
Justice
Jackson
Justice
Ketanji
Brown
Jackson’s
debut
term
on
the
Supreme
Court
was
dynamic,
marked
by
her
deep
involvement
and
distinctive
voice
in
oral
arguments
and
written
opinions.
Her
presence
reshaped
the
bench’s
rhythm,
frequently
questioning
the
impact
of
legal
arguments
on
marginalized
communities
and
historically
underrepresented
groups.
Known
for
her
rigorous,
probing
inquiries,
she
navigated
complex
cases
with
pointed
precision,
especially
in
decisions
surrounding
affirmative
action
and
voting
rights.
She
brought
her
legal
prowess
to
significant
cases
shaping
the
future
of
education
and
electoral
authority.
In Students
for
Fair
Admissions
v.
North
Carolina/Harvard,
she
pushed
for
race-conscious
admissions
policies,
highlighting
the
role
such
policies
play
in
countering
historic
inequities,
particularly
for
disadvantaged
communities.
In Moore
v.
Harper,
she
joined
a
majority
in
rejecting
the
“independent
state
legislature
theory,”
which
could
have
sharply
increased
state
legislatures’
power
over
elections,
a
decision
seen
as
a
reinforcement
of
judicial
checks
on
electoral
processes.
Both
cases
spotlighted
Jackson’s
approach
to
interpreting
the
law
in
ways
that
reflect
constitutional
protections
for
equality.
Justice
Barrett
In
specific
cases,
Barrett
joined
other
conservative
justices
in
several
pivotal
rulings
that
reinforced
free
exercise
rights,
property
rights,
and
the
separation
of
powers.
In Roman
Catholic
Diocese
of
Brooklyn
v.
Cuomo,
the
Court
ruled
in
favor
of
religious
groups
challenging
COVID-19
restrictions
on
worship,
while
in Fulton
v.
City
of
Philadelphia,
it
upheld
the
rights
of
Catholic
Social
Services
in
a
dispute
over
foster
care
services.
Moreover,
the
Court
underscored
protections
for
property
rights
in Cedar
Point
Nursery
v.
Hassid,
preventing
union
access
to
private
land,
and
affirmed
presidential
removal
power
in Collins
v.
Yellen.
Barrett’s
presence
influenced
a
clear
majority
that
consistently
leaned
toward
conservative
interpretations,
disproving
the
theory
of
a
fractured
Court
and
showing
unity
among
the
justices
on
key
constitutional
principles.
Justice
Kavanaugh
Justice
Brett
Kavanaugh’s
first
Supreme
Court
term
solidified
his
conservative
stance.
In
key
cases,
he
joined
with
conservatives
to
restrict
federal
court
intervention
in
partisan
gerrymandering
and
supported
adding
a
citizenship
question
to
the
2020
census.
Kavanaugh
also
backed
limits
on
abortion
in
a
Louisiana
case
and
opposed
a
death
row
inmate’s
appeal
regarding
lethal
injection
pain.
His
rulings
often
emphasized
reducing
federal
agency
power,
as
seen
in Gundy
v.
United
States and Kisor
v.
Wilkie,
where
he
sought
to
limit
agencies’
regulatory
authority.
Kavanaugh
occasionally
aligned
with
liberal
justices,
as
in
allowing
an
antitrust
case
against
Apple
and
advocating
for
a
fair
trial
in
a
race-charged
jury
selection
case,
though
his
decisions
overall
underscore
a
reliably
conservative
judicial
approach.
Justice
Gorsuch
Justice
Neil
Gorsuch
has
established
himself
as
a
strong
textualist
on
the
Supreme
Court,
following
in
the
footsteps
of
Justice
Antonin
Scalia.
His
opinions
emphasize
strict
adherence
to
legal
texts
and
a
restrained
judiciary,
evident
in
his
inaugural
decision
in Henson
v.
Santander
Consumer
USA,
where
he
affirmed
the
role
of
the
judiciary
as
interpreters
of
the
law.
Gorsuch
has
voiced
concerns
about
federal
overreach
and
the
preservation
of
states’
rights.
In
a
dissent
on
federal
courts
exercising
authority
over
state
law
claims,
he
criticized
the
erosion
of
boundaries
between
state
and
federal
power.
He
also
defended
individual
rights
in
cases
like Minnesota
Voters
Alliance
v.
Mansky,
where
he
questioned
the
state’s
authority
to
restrict
voter
attire,
and NIFLA
v.
Becerra,
where
he
challenged
California’s
mandate
on
private
advertising
of
state
services.
Justice
Gorsuch’s
early
years
demonstrate
a
commitment
to
conservative
principles,
particularly
in
First
Amendment
and
union-related
cases,
aligning
him
with
the
Court’s
conservative
ethos
on
free
speech
and
limiting
government
intervention.
However,
his
higher
dissent
rates
in
criminal
procedure
(35.29%)
and
economic
activity
cases
(19.44%)
reflect
a
libertarian
approach,
prioritizing
individual
rights
over
state
or
federal
authority.
His
dissents
regarding
judicial
power
(19.35%)
further
underscore
his
willingness
to
diverge
from
the
majority
in
advocating
for
limited
government
reach.
Justice
Kavanaugh
had
a
strong
majority
presence
on
high-stakes
issues,
with
a
100%
majority
vote
in
cases
involving
economic
activity
and
federalism.
His
pattern
reflects
a
tendency
to
uphold
existing
federal
authority
and
prioritize
stability
in
economic
regulations.
His
dissent
rates
in
civil
rights
(23.81%)
and
judicial
power
cases
(23.08%)
indicate
a
willingness
to
question
the
Court’s
majority
when
individual
liberties
or
judicial
authority
are
at
stake,
but
his
overall
alignment
signifies
a
stabilizing
influence
within
the
conservative
wing.
Justice
Barrett
was
frequently
in
the
majority
across
various
issue
areas,
including
civil
rights
and
criminal
procedure,
signaling
her
alignment
with
the
Court’s
conservative
leaning.
She
supported
the
majority
in
over
88%
of
First
Amendment
cases
and
95%
of
civil
rights
cases,
indicating
a
tendency
to
uphold
conservative
interpretations
impacting
individual
liberties.
Her
limited
dissents,
particularly
in
economic
activity
(13.64%)
and
criminal
procedure
(11.54%),
suggest
occasional
divergence
from
the
majority,
yet
her
votes
favored
foundational
issues
like
federalism
and
judicial
power.
Justice
Jackson’s
voting
record
reflects
a
more
mixed
alignment
with
the
Court’s
majority.
Her
higher
dissent
rates
in
criminal
procedure
(40.91%)
and
economic
activity
(23.33%)
suggest
a
progressive
inclination
toward
individual
rights.
While
she
aligned
with
the
majority
in
many
civil
rights
(76.19%)
and
First
Amendment
cases
(87.5%),
her
pattern
indicates
an
openness
to
dissenting
against
the
Court’s
majority,
particularly
in
criminal
justice
and
economic
regulations,
positioning
her
as
a
leftward
influence
on
the
Court.
Authorships
By
Issue
Area
Gorsuch
and
Kavanaugh
frequently
addressed
arbitration
issues,
particularly
in
employment
disputes.
Gorsuch
authored
two
opinions
on
labor-related
arbitration,
while
Kavanaugh’s
focus
was
broader,
indicating
a
conservative
approach
that
limits
litigation
and
promotes
private
dispute
resolution.
In
contrast,
Jackson
and
Barrett
engaged
with
arbitration
cases
only
once.
In
criminal
law,
Gorsuch
and
Kavanaugh
wrote
opinions
on
the
death
penalty’s
constitutionality,
underscoring
their
conservative
stance
on
sentencing.
Jackson
focused
on
defendants’
rights
and
protections,
while
Barrett
addressed
double
jeopardy.
Gorsuch
and
Barrett
also
authored
opinions
related
to
administrative
law
and
federal
preemption,
advocating
for
restricted
administrative
authority
and
state
sovereignty.
Gorsuch
expressed
skepticism
of
expansive
federal
power,
contrasting
with
Jackson
and
Kavanaugh,
who
did
not
author
opinions
in
this
area.
Kavanaugh
stood
out
with
multiple
opinions
on
First
Amendment
issues,
while
Gorsuch’s
rulings
on
the
Freedom
of
Information
Act
(FOIA)
showed
his
commitment
to
transparency.
Jackson
demonstrated
her
concern
for
accountability
through
civil
rights
cases.
Jackson
and
Gorsuch
engaged
with
interstate
conflict
issues,
with
Jackson
covering
federal
matters
like
veterans’
rights
and
bankruptcy,
while
Barrett’s
scope
was
more
limited.
Gorsuch
and
Kavanaugh
also
addressed
intellectual
property,
with
Gorsuch
focused
on
patents
and
Kavanaugh
on
copyrights.
The
majority
opinions
authored
by
Justices
Gorsuch,
Kavanaugh,
Barrett,
and
Jackson
reveal
distinct,
yet
sometimes
similar
judicial
philosophies
(at
least
for
Trump’s
nominees).
Gorsuch’s
opinions
relied
on
constitutional
protections
and
statutory
interpretations,
frequently
in
cases
related
to
the
Fifth
and
Sixth
Amendments.
Jackson’s
opinions
reflected
a
commitment
to
individual
rights
and
procedural
fairness,
citing
the
same
amendments
and
engaging
with
the
Federal
Arbitration
Act
and
FOIA.
In
contrast,
Kavanaugh
dealt
more
with
First
Amendment
issues
in
his
opinions,
examining
speech
and
the
judiciary’s
role
in
adjudicating
federal
matters.
Barrett’s
decisions
reflect
a
practical
approach
to
statutory
frameworks,
focusing
on
administrative
law
and
governmental
accountability.
Overall,
Justices
Gorsuch
and
Jackson
had
more
attention
in
their
majority
authorships
on
constitutional
rights,
while
Justices
Kavanaugh
and
Barrett
address
broader
societal
implications
and
regulatory
frameworks,
highlighting
their
distinct
responses
to
contemporary
legal
challenges.
Concluding
Thoughts
In
examining
the
decisions
of
Justices
Jackson,
Barrett,
Gorsuch,
and
Kavanaugh
over
their
initial
two
years
on
the
Supreme
Court,
distinct
patterns
emerge
that
highlight
their
differing
judicial
philosophies
and
priorities.
Justice
Jackson,
as
the
newest
member
of
the
Court,
has
demonstrated
a
strong
commitment
to
civil
rights
and
due
process,
often
aligning
with
majority
opinions
in
cases
involving
these
areas.
Her
judicial
approach
reflected
a
focus
on
the
nuances
of
criminal
law
and
the
implications
of
sentencing,
showcasing
a
propensity
to
advocate
for
the
rights
of
individuals
within
the
justice
system.
In
contrast,
Justice
Barrett’s
voting
patterns
suggested
a
more
traditional
conservative
approach,
with
a
notable
emphasis
on
federal
taxation
and
economic
activity.
Although
she
consistently
voted
in
the
majority,
her
willingness
to
dissent
in
cases
concerning
the
First
Amendment
illustrates
a
complex
engagement
with
free
speech
issues.
This
contrasts
with
Justice
Gorsuch,
who,
while
also
exhibiting
conservative
tendencies,
showed
a
more
libertarian
inclination
in
areas
like
habeas
corpus
and
judicial
power.
His
opinions
reflected
a
commitment
to
protecting
individual
liberties
against
government
overreach,
often
positioning
him
as
a
vocal
advocate
for
defendants’
rights.
Justice
Kavanaugh’s
decisions
exhibited
a
blend
of
conservative
principles
with
an
occasional
bridging
approach
across
ideological
lines.
While
he
frequently
aligned
with
the
majority
in
cases
concerning
civil
rights
and
economic
activity,
his
moderate
dissenting
votes
indicated
a
willingness
to
challenge
the
status
quo
when
he
perceives
a
significant
impact
on
judicial
authority
or
individual
rights.
Overall,
these
justices
reflect
the
ideological
spectrum
of
the
Supreme
Court.
Their
respective
experiences
underscore
the
complexities
of
navigating
legal
precedents
and
the
interpretation
of
constitutional
principles
in
an
increasingly
polarized
judicial
landscape.
Adam
Feldman
runs
the
litigation
consulting
company
Optimized
Legal
Solutions
LLC.
For
more
information
write
Adam
at [email protected]. Find
him
on
Twitter: @AdamSFeldman.
Maya:
Now,
Kamala,
take
my
palm-ala.
The
American
people
want
to
stop
the
chaos…
Kamala:
And
end
the
drama-la…
Maya:
With
a
cool
new
stepmom-ala
to
kick
back
in
our
pajama-las
and
watch
a
rom-com-ala…
Kamala:
Like
Legally
Blonde-ala…
Maya:
And
start
decorating
for
Christmas
—
fa
la
la
la
la.
Maya:
Because
what
do
we
always
say?
Maya
and
Kamala:
Keep
calm-ala
and
carry
on-ala.
Maya:
We
know
each
other
so
well,
we
even
finish
each
other’s…
Maya
and
Kamala:
Belief
in
the
promise
of
America.
—
An
exchange
between
comedian
Maya
Rudolph,
who
plays
Kamala
Harris
on
Saturday
Night
Live,
and
Vice
President
Kamala
Harris,
the
Democratic
presidential
nominee,
during
this
past
weekend’s
pre-election
cold
open
on
SNL.
After
the
skit
aired,
NBC
filed
an
“equal
time”
notice
with
the
FCC,
offering
to
provide
former
President
Donald
Trump
with
the
opportunity
to
make
a
brief
appearance
on
the
show.
Watch
the
full
clip,
below.
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.
Chief
Legal
Officers
and
professionals
in
Legal
Operations
are
instrumental
in
steering
organizations’
legal
departments
through
the
complexities
of
their
technology,
governance,
and
productivity
challenges.
Our
latest
whitepaper,
“The
Modern
CLO
&
Legal
Ops
Toolkit,”
delves
into
the
critical
role
CLOs
and
Legal
Ops
play
and
provides
strategic
insights
to
help
them
excel
in
this
evolving
landscape.
Download
the
full
whitepaper
to
learn:
The
role
of
technology
in
empowering
the
CLO
How
to
ensure
governance
and
regulatory
compliance
Kathryn
