Author: TSA Press

Quick,
what
does
being
really
good
at
sudoku
have
to
do
with
being
able
to
study
the
law?
Now
that
logic
games
don’t
factor
into
the
LSAT
anymore,
not
much
at
all!
That
welcome
realization
may
be
the
reason
behind
why
this
year’s
cohort
of
LSAT
takers
is
so
big.

Reuters
has
coverage:

This
year’s
law
school
admission
cycle
is
off
to
a
strong
start
with
a
26%
increase
in
the
number
of
people
applying
for
a
spot
next
fall
compared
with
this
time
last
year,
while
the
number
of
applications
sent
to
schools
is
up
37%.
…
Another
reason
for
the
sharp
increase
early
on
may
be
due
to
the
removal
of
the
so-called
logic
games
from
the
LSAT
in
August,
as
people
rushed
to
take
the
new
version
of
the
test,
said
law
school
admissions
consultant
Mike
Spivey.
Logic
games,
which
involved
mind-bending
hypotheticals,
were
considered
by
many
to
be
the
most
difficult
section
of
the
LSAT,
and
the
council
opted
to
eliminate
them
following
a
2019
settlement
with
two
blind
LSAT
takers
who
claimed
they
violated
the
Americans
with
Disabilities
Act.

The
logic
games
section
going
the
way
of
the
Dodo
isn’t
the
only
factor
in
this
year’s
strong
start:
we
need
foot
soldiers
to

fight
the
draconian
laws
preventing
routine
healthcare
and
face
an
election
where
both
parties
say
its
outcome
will
determine
the
nation’s
future.
Those
things
alone
can

drive
people
to
pick
up
horn
books.
But
removing
those
annoying
deduction
puzzles
that
rarely
have
any
bearing
on
the
preparation
or
practice
of
being
a
lawyer
is
no
small
feat.

Congratulations
to
all
of
the
aspiring
lawyers
who
completed
the
LSAT!
Another
question:
now
that
the
logic
games
are
gone,
will
a
significant
number
of
law
school
applicants
even
bother
taking
the
GRE
to
go
to
law
school?
Time
will
tell.

Law
School
Applicant
Numbers
Surge,
End
Of
LSAT
Logic
Games
Is
Possible
Factor
[Reuters]

Earlier:

LSAC
Will
Eliminate
Logic
Games
From
LSAT
In
2024!

---

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.

*
Law
school
applications
are
up
and
some
suggest
it
might
be
due
to
the
end
of
the
logic
games
section.
Look,
logic
games
were
dumb
but
if
the
thing
holding
you
back
from
applying
to
law
school
was
not
wanting
to
deal
with
one
LSAT
section
then
maybe
law
school
isn’t
your
bag.
[Reuters]

*
Wait,
the
former
CEO
of
a
company
that
marketed
itself
with
shirtless
teenagers
might
be
involved
in
sex
trafficking?
[Law360]

*
Firms
need
to
tell
the
truth
about
which
partners
are
on
salary.
[Law.com]

*
Law
professor
files
ethics
complaint
against
former
legal
counsel.
[Columbia
Daily
Spectator]

*
Georgia
Supreme
Court
tosses
contempt
ruling
against
Young
Thug
attorney.
[AJC]

*
UK
firms
have
upped
billable
rates
by
40
percent
over
the
last
five
years.
[LegalCheek]

*
Lawyers
donate
$27
million
to
Harris
over
the
last
two
months.
Sadly
it
did
not
stop
the
fundraising
emails
in
their
inboxes.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
Law
school
applications
are
up
and
some
suggest
it
might
be
due
to
the
end
of
the
logic
games
section.
Look,
logic
games
were
dumb
but
if
the
thing
holding
you
back
from
applying
to
law
school
was
not
wanting
to
deal
with
one
LSAT
section
then
maybe
law
school
isn’t
your
bag.
[Reuters]

*
Wait,
the
former
CEO
of
a
company
that
marketed
itself
with
shirtless
teenagers
might
be
involved
in
sex
trafficking?
[Law360]

*
Firms
need
to
tell
the
truth
about
which
partners
are
on
salary.
[Law.com]

*
Law
professor
files
ethics
complaint
against
former
legal
counsel.
[Columbia
Daily
Spectator]

*
Georgia
Supreme
Court
tosses
contempt
ruling
against
Young
Thug
attorney.
[AJC]

*
UK
firms
have
upped
billable
rates
by
40
percent
over
the
last
five
years.
[LegalCheek]

*
Lawyers
donate
$27
million
to
Harris
over
the
last
two
months.
Sadly
it
did
not
stop
the
fundraising
emails
in
their
inboxes.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

How
many
people
argued
before
the
Supreme
Court
before
becoming
president
of
the
United
States?

Hint:
The
most
recent
person
to
do
so
was
Richard
Nixon,
in

Time,
Inc.
v.
Hill.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

When

Avaneesh
Marwaha

stepped
down
as
CEO
of
legal
tech
company Litera
in
2022,
becoming
chairman
of
the
company’s
board
of
directors,
it
was
a

surprise
to
many
in
the
legal
technology
community. 

Now
Marwaha
and
Litera
have
another
surprise:
He
has
returned
as
CEO
“to
lead
the
company
through
the
next
chapter
of
integration
and
innovation,”
the
company
said
today.

The
woman
who
had
succeeded
him
as
CEO,

Sheryl
Hoskins,
a
veteran
technology
executive,
will
continue
to
advise
the
Litera
board
through
the
end
of
2024,
the
company
said.

---

Related
LawNext
episodes:

---

I
asked
a
company
spokesperson
if
Hoskin’s
departure
was
her
decision
or
the
board’s.
He
replied:
“Sheryl,
the
board
and
Avaneesh
have
been
working
very
closely
together
for
the
past
two
years
to
achieve
operational
excellence
and
build
out
Litera’s
leadership
team.
This
was
a
decision
based
on
market
dynamics
and
what
we
believe
is
best
for
our
customers.
Sheryl
and
Avaneesh
will
continue
to
do
so
as
she
transitions
out
of
Litera.”

Redefining
the
Market

During
his
nearly
six
years
as
Litera
CEO,
from
2016
to
2022,
Marwaha
brought
about
almost
a
complete
transformation
of
the
company,
including
14
acquisitions
in
just
his
last
four
years
that
expanded
the
company
from
an
exclusive
focus
on
document
productivity
tools
to
a
much
broader
range
of
products
spanning
transaction
management,
due
diligence,
litigation,
and
firm
intelligence.

During
his
tenure,
the
company
grew
global
users
by
over
1,500%,
annual
revenue
by
1,200%,
and
headcount
from
85
employees
to
over
850
worldwide.

In
the
announcement
released
today,
the
company
said:
“His
industry
expertise
and
passion
for
driving
best-in-class
customer
experience
will
be
key
assets
in
Litera’s
next
chapter
of
growth
as
the
company
focuses
on
transforming
the
legal
experience.”

The
announcement
said
that
he
will
focus
on
optimizing
legal
workflows
with
enterprise-grade
solutions,
further
integrating
Gen
AI
into
Litera’s
product
ecosystem,
accelerating
user
adoption,
and
securing
a
foundation
of
innovation.

The
announcement
credited
outgoing
CEO
Hoskins
for
having
brought
a
focus
on
operational
excellence,
building
out
the
organization’s
leadership
team,
and
streamlining
Litera’s
processes,
product
portfolio
and
customer
support.

“I’m
proud
of
the
achievements
we’ve
accomplished
in
the
last
two
years
at
Litera,
putting
the
company
in
a
position
to
adapt
to
dynamic
shifts
in
the
legal
tech
market,”
Hoskins
said.

In
an

interview
I
conducted
with
Marwaha
when
he
moved
out
of
the
CEO
role,
he
said
that
he
believed
that
Litera,
under
his
leadership,
had
redefined
the
legal
tech
market
and
its
potential
–
both
for
investors
looking
to
get
into
the
market
and
for
startups
looking
to
launch
products.

“We’ve
built
a
lot
of
trust
in
the
marketplace
with
our
approach,
and
we’ve
given
a
lot
of
opportunities
to
startups
that
create
businesses
because
they
know
there
can
be
a
good
outcome
for
them,”
he
said.

“I
think
we’ve
taken
an
industry
that
may
not
have
always
been
looked
at
by
investors
as
a
place
that’s
investible,
and
I
think
we’ve
changed
that
and
shown
that,
look,
there’s
real
stuff
here.
The
legal
market’s
big
enough
and
it’s
exciting
and
firms
and
lawyers
are
looking
for
innovation
and
new
ways
of
doing
work.”

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

Regardless
of
what
happens
in
the
election,
there’s
going
to
be
a
change
in
the
White
House,
and
with
that,
in
the
case
of
Trump,
clearly
a
change
of
focus
and
direction.
In
the
case
of
Harris,
there
may
be
marginal
changes,
but
changes
nonetheless,
and
they
still
need
to
deal
with
some
of
these
big
issues
that
are
hanging
over,
like
the
expiration
of
all
these
tax
provisions
next
year
and
super
large
budget
deficits.
These
are
issues
that
are
really
maintaining
interest
in
Washington,
D.C.,
but
everybody
is
holding
their
breath
to
see
what
happens
in
two
weeks.

—

Will
Moschella,
co-chair
of
Brownstein
Hyatt
Farber
Schreck’s
government
relations
department,
in
comments
given
to
the

National
Law
Journal,
concerning
what
may
happen
in
the
lobbying
space
as
a
result
of
the
upcoming
presidential
election.
Moschella
went
on
to
say
that
a
“small
handful
of
our
clients”
were
taking
“a
wait
and
see
approach”
when
it
comes
to
the
election,
but
are
“prepared
to
re-engage
post-election.”
Brownstein
is
likely
to
see
a
record
lobbying
year
in
2024,
and
saw
$17
million
in
revenue
in
the
third
quarter.

---

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.

When
law
meets
theater,
the
result
is
a
whirlwind
of
humor,
absurdity,
and
hard-hitting
truths.
In

“Dirty
Legal
Secrets:
Based
in
True
Startups,”

director
and
co-producer
Jianing
Zhao
—
fresh
from
law
school
graduation
—
melds
her
legal
expertise
with
her
passion
for
storytelling.
This
isn’t
just
another
startup
drama.
With
a
sharp
eye
for
the
intricacies
of
law,
tech,
and
gender
dynamics,
Zhao
brings
a
fresh,
comedic,
and
thought-provoking
look
at
the
real-world
chaos
behind
startup
culture.
I
sat
down
with
Jianing
to
explore
how
her
legal
training
shaped
the
play,
how
humor
exposes
the
truth,
and
why
representation
on
stage
—
and
behind
the
scenes
—
matters
now
more
than
ever.

Olga
V.
Mack:

Jianing,
thank
you
for
joining
me!
So
let’s
dive
right
in.

“Dirty
Legal
Secrets”

is
an
intriguing
title
for
a
play.
I
understand
you’re
fresh
out
of
Cornell
Law
and
just
took
the
bar
exam.
How
did
your
legal
training
inform
your
approach
to
directing
this
production?
Did
it
add
a
unique
flavor
to
how
you
shaped
the
play?

Jianing
Zhao:
Absolutely,
Olga!
Directing
this
play
fresh
out
of
law
school
has
been
a
unique
experience.
I
studied
theater
in
undergrad
at
Princeton,
and
while
pursuing
my
JD
from
Cornell
Law,
I
co-founded
Cellunova
Productions
with
a
group
of
fellow
immigrant
artists
in
NYC
—
each
with
a
professional
background
outside
of
theater.
This
interdisciplinary
approach
is
what
makes
our
storytelling
multifaceted,
allowing
us
to
tackle
complex
social
issues
from
fresh
angles.

“Dirty
Legal
Secrets”
is
the
fourth
professional
play
I
directed,
and
the
third
full
production
I
co-produced
at
Cellunova. 

Of
course,
my
legal
training
did
help
me
get
a
solid
grasp
of
Sarah’s
brilliant
script,
especially
when
it
comes
to
the
role
of
a
general
counsel
or
the
intricacies
of
confidentiality
rules
in
a
startup.
But
the
real
connection
between
law
and
theater
goes
beyond
that.
Both
disciplines
are
about
storytelling,
giving
voice
to
the
voiceless,
and
representing
the
underrepresented.
I
focus
on
balancing
humor
and
nuance,
making
sure
that
the
essence
of
the
characters
and
their
situations
come
through
authentically.
My
goal
was
to
ensure
that
the
audience
finds
both
laughter
and
deeper
reflections
on
the
true
stories
behind
these
characters.

OVM:

That’s
fascinating
—
especially
the
parallel
between
law
and
theater
as
tools
for
giving
a
voice
to
those
who
might
otherwise
go
unheard.
Speaking
of
balance,
legal
issues
—
particularly
in
startups
—
can
be
pretty
heavy
and
high-stakes.
How
do
you
keep
the
play
funny
while
dealing
with
such
serious
themes?
What
role
does
humor
play
in
revealing
truths
about
the
legal
profession?

JZ:
Humor
is
essential!
It’s
such
a
powerful
tool
for
connecting
people.
Everyone
loves
a
good
laugh,
right?
More
importantly,
humor
puts
the
audience
in
a
relaxed,
receptive
mood,
which
helps
them
absorb
topics
they
might
otherwise
shy
away
from.
The
script,
based
on
real
stories,
highlights
funny,
crazy,
and
sometimes
troubling
situations
that
employees
have
encountered
in
both
law
and
tech
startups.

In
my
directing,
I
try
to
distinguish
the
somber
moments
from
the
more
absurd
comedic
ones.
I
guide
the
actors
to
reflect
on
why
their
characters
are
telling
these
stories
and
what
emotions
are
driving
them.
For
audience
members
with
a
legal
background,
I
want
these
moments
to
hit
close
to
home
—
the
frustrations
with
the
legal
system,
the
absurdities
we
all
know
too
well.
But
it’s
also
important
for
these
stories
to
feel
relatable
to
everyone,
regardless
of
their
professional
background.

We’ve
embraced
a
wide
array
of
comedic
styles
—
physical
comedy,
standup,
improv,
sketch,
and
even
audience
interactions.
With
creative
props
and
costumes,
we’ve
crafted
a
hilarious
and
thought-provoking
experience
for
anyone
who’s
ever
stepped
foot
into
a
workplace
or
hopes
to.
You
don’t
need
to
be
a
lawyer
to
laugh
—
or
to
learn
something
along
the
way.

OVM:

It
sounds
like
you’ve
created
a
show
that’s
both
hilarious
and
insightful,
which
is
no
small
feat.
Now,
both
you
and
your
team
have
experience
in
male-dominated
spaces
like
law
and
tech.
How
does
“Dirty
Legal
Secrets”

address
the
gender
dynamics
or
social
issues
within
these
industries?

JZ:
This
is
something
I
care
about
deeply.
Before
law
school,
I
worked
at
a
fintech
startup
where,
at
the
start,
I
was
the
only
woman
on
the
team.
It
could
feel
isolating,
and
I
wished
for
colleagues
or
mentors
who
shared
my
background.
Even
now,
as
we
both
know,
law
firms
are
still
struggling
with
diversity
—
fewer
than
5%
of
law
firm
partners
are
women
of
color,
according
to
NALP’s
2023
stats.

For
me,
representation
is
key.
It’s
not
just
about
telling
these
stories
on
stage
—
it’s
about
showing
up,
taking
up
space,
and
making
our
presence
known.
That’s
what
“Dirty
Legal
Secrets”
does.
The
script
addresses
problematic
gender
dynamics
in
law
and
tech,
but
we’ve
also
been
intentional
about
representation
in
our
production
process.
The
majority
of
our
cast
is
female
or
nonbinary,
as
well
as
people
of
color.
And
our
production
team
at
Cellunova
Productions?
Also
majority
women
of
color.

The
message
is
clear:
we’re
here,
we’re
speaking,
and
these
are
our
stories.
This
play
is
about
more
than
just
exposing
the
dirty
secrets
of
the
startup
world.
It’s
also
about
saying,
as
minorities
in
tech,
law,
and
theater
—
“Look
at
us.
Listen
to
us.
This
is
our
story.”

OVM:

I
love
that
message
—
so
powerful
and
important!
It’s
wonderful
to
see
that
you’re
not
only
telling
these
stories
but
also
living
the
values
of
inclusion
and
representation
through
the
entire
production
process.
Jianing,
thank
you
so
much
for
taking
the
time
to
share
your
journey
and
insights
with
us.
I
can’t
wait
for
everyone
to
experience
“Dirty
Legal
Secrets”!

JZ:
Thank
you,
Olga!
I’m
excited
for
people
to
see
it
and
hopefully
walk
away
with
both
laughs
and
some
new
perspectives.

As

“Dirty
Legal
Secrets”

takes
the
stage,
it’s
clear
that
this
is
more
than
just
a
play
about
the
pitfalls
of
startups
and
legal
gray
areas
—
it’s
a
reflection
of
the
complex,
often
messy
world
we
live
in.
With
a
mix
of
sharp
wit,
laugh-out-loud
moments,
and
deeper
truths,
Jianing
Zhao
has
created
a
production
that
speaks
to
anyone
who’s
ever
been
part
of
a
workplace,
legal
or
otherwise.
Whether
you’re
a
lawyer,
a
tech
enthusiast,
or
simply
someone
who
loves
a
good
story,

“Dirty
Legal
Secrets”

promises
to
entertain,
challenge,
and
leave
you
reflecting
long
after
the
final
bow.
The
show
runs
through
October
27
at
Room
52
(212
East
52nd
Street,
New
York,
NY).
So,


get
your
tickets,
because
this
is
one
legal
drama
you
won’t
want
to
miss!

---

Olga
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.

ABC
News
is
getting
in
the
Halloween
spirit
with
a
list
of
lawyers
serving
in
a
potential
Trump
administration.

Attorney
General
Aileen
Cannon?

JUMP
SCARE!

Trump
rewarding
the
judge
who
blew
up
his
documents
case
on
the
theory
that
special
counsels
are

unlegal
with
the
top
law
enforcement
position
in
his
administration
is
probably
a
troll
—
it
seems
unlikely
that
she
could
get
confirmed,
for
one
thing.
But
if
Trump
loses
the
election
and
the
11th
Circuit
revives
the
case,
the
rumor
might
find
its
way
into
a
motion
for
recusal.

Liberals
might
actually
prefer
an
AG
Cannon
to
some
of
the
other
ghouls
on
the
list,
though.
Jeff
“Oil
Spill”
Clark’s
name
has
been
bandied
about,
despite
the
fact
that
he
will
likely
be

banned
from
practicing
law
for
a
couple
years
thanks
to
his
efforts
to
overturn
the
last
election.

Other
potential
AGs
include

venomous
troll
Mike
Davis,
a
regular
on
Steve
Bannon’s
“War
Room”
podcast,
who
promises
to
use
the
power
of
the
federal
government
to
rain
vengeance
down
upon
Trump’s
enemies,
and
Mark
Paoletta,
currently
flouncing
around
spitting
“How
dare
you
question
sainted
Justice
Clarence
Thomas’s
ethics?
Have
you
no
shame,
sir!”

Or
words
to
that
effect.
Paoletta
already
proved
his
loyalty
in
the
first
Trump
administration
as
general
counsel
for
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
where
he

greenlit
withholding
defense
funds
for
Ukraine
allocated
by
congress
until
the
country’s
president
promised
to
“do
us
a
favor,
though”
and
announce
sham
investigations
into
Joe
Biden
and
his
son
Hunter.

Truly
the
least
terrifying
choice
on
this
list
is
Jay
Clayton,
the
former
head
of
the
SEC
under
Trump.
Clayton
would
be
a
preposterous
shill
for
big
business
and
an
antitrust
nightmare,
and
he
appears
to
have
been
complicit
in
Bill
Barr’s
efforts
to

ratfuck
the
Southern
District
of
New
York
to
stop
it
from
investigating
Giuliani
and
other
Trumpworld
henchmen.
But
he
doesn’t
look
like
someone
who
would
slip
razor
blades
into
Halloween
candy
to
teach
kids
a
lesson
about
the
evils
of
socialist
handouts.

Lower
down
in
the
demon
hierarchy,
ABC
suggests
that
attorney
Stan
Woodward
might
serve
as
White
House
Counsel.
Woodward
represents
various
midlevel
MAGA
dipshits,
including
Peter
Navarro
and
Kash
Patel,
as
well
as
multiple
January
6
defendants.
Most
notably,
Woodward
represented
Walt
Nauta,
Trump’s
codefendant
in
the
documents
case.
Previously,
he’d
represented
Mar-a-Lago’s
IT
head
Yuscil
Taveras,
who
recanted
his
prior
testimony
and
implicated
Nauta
and
Trump
about
five
seconds
after
Chief
Judge
James
Boasberg
appointed
him
a
different
lawyer
in
response
to
the
appearance
of
bias.
Judge
Cannon
saw
no
such
conflict,
and
allowed
him
to
stay
on
the
case
—
so
they’ll
already
have
a
good
working
relationship
when
they
get
to
the
White
House
in
January!

TRICK
OR
TREAT!

Judge
who
tossed
Trump’s
classified
docs
case
on
list
of
proposed
candidates
for
attorney
general
[ABC
News]

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

Rudy
Giuliani
is
the
gift
that
keeps
on
giving
for
Donald
Trump.
After
steering
him
into
two
separate
impeachments
and
failing
to
overturn
the
2020
election,
America’s
erstwhile
Mayor
has
just
saddled
the
Trump
campaign
and
the
Republican
National
Committee
with
a
collections
action
by
former
Atlanta
poll
workers
Ruby
Freeman
and
Shaye
Moss.

Karma’s
a
bitch,
man.

In
2020,
Giuliani
smeared
Freeman
and
Moss,
falsely
claiming
that
they
had
stolen
the
election
from
Trump
in
Georgia
by
tabulating
fraudulent
ballots.
Trump
himself
named
Freeman,
whom
he
described
as
a
“professional
vote
scammer,”
18
times
in
his
infamous
call
to
Georgia
Secretary
of
State
Brad
Raffensperger.

In
2021,
the
pair
sued
for
defamation,
and
the
following
year
Judge
Beryl
Howell
granted
them
a
default
judgment,
thanks
to
Rudy’s
complete
failure
to
comply
with
his
discovery
obligations.
A
jury
awarded
the
plaintiffs
$148
million,
after
which
Rudy
stumbled
into
and
out
of
bankruptcy
in
a
shambolic
attempt
to
evade
collections.
That
case
is
now
on
appeal
to
the
DC
Circuit,
but
Giuliani
is
in
no
financial
position
to
post
a
supersedeas
bond.
(Who
would
underwrite
an
80-year-old
disbarred
lawyer
who
is
functionally
insolvent?)

On
August
5,
Freeman
and
Moss
filed
a
collection
action
in
the
Southern
District
of
New
York,
along
with
a
contemporaneous
seizure
claim
in
Florida
with
respect
to
Giuliani’s
Palm
Beach
condo.
In
a
deposition,
Giuliani
admitted
that
he’d
never
been
paid
“about
two
million
dollars”
in
legal
fees
by
the
Trump
campaign
and
the
RNC
for
work
performed
in
2020
and
2021.
This
jibes
with
a
passage
from
the
special
counsel’s
latest

immunity
filing
in
the
election
interference
case:

 [Herschmann] 
repeatedly
gave
the
defendant
his
honest
assessment
that
[Giuliani]
could
not
mount
successful
legal
challenges
to
the
election.
For
instance,
when
the
defendant
told
[Herschmann]
that
he
was
going
to
put
[Giuliani]
in
charge
of
the
Campaign’s
legal
efforts
but
pay
him
only
if
he
succeeded,
[Herschmann]
told
the
defendant
he
would
never
have
to
pay
[Giuliani]
anything;
in
response,
the
defendant
laughed
and
said,
“we’ll
see.”

Up
until
now,
Herschmann
has
been
correct.
But
since
Freeman
and
Moss
own
Rudy’s
debts,
they
moved
the
court
for
an
order
allowing
them
to
collect
on
the
unpaid
legal
bills.

Giuliani

countered
that
the
court
should
stay
enforcement
until
after
the
election,
lest
his
creditors
“use
this
assignment
for
an
improper,
political
(or,
at
least,
collateral)
purpose,
creating
the
confusing,
and
inaccurate,
appearance
that
Defendant
is
now
somehow
suing
candidate
Trump,
thereby
generating
an
accompanying,
and
unnecessary,
media
frenzy.”
He
also
made
a
very
funny
series
of
claims
as
to
why
Freeman
and
Moss
should
be
barred
from
seizing
his
irreplaceable
“memorabilia,”
including
a
1980
Mercedes
alleged
to
have
belonged
to
the
actress
Lauren
Bacall.

Judge
Liman
was

deeply
unimpressed
with
Giuliani’s
suggestion
that
forcing
him
to
face
the
repercussions
of
his
lies
about
the
2020
election
would
amount
to
election
interference
in
2024.

“The
profound
irony
manifest
in
Defendant’s
alleged
concern
is
not
lost
on
the
Court,”
the
judge
wrote,
adding
that
“the
risk—if
any—that
the
public
would
be
misled
could
come
only
from
Defendant
himself
or
from
those
who
wish
the
Plaintiffs
not
to
pursue
their
claim.
But
that
is
not
a
risk
that
would
permit
Defendant
to
retain
his
claim,
nor
does
it
suffice
to
prevent
Plaintiffs
from
pursuing
a
claim
for
compensation
that
justly
belongs,
and
is
owed,
to
them.”

And
Rudy’s
not
keeping
the
Merc
either.

The
Court
also
does
not
doubt
that
certain
of
the
items
may
have
sentimental
value
to
Defendant.
But
that
does
not
entitle
Defendant
to
continued
enjoyment
of
the
assets
to
the
detriment
of
the
Plaintiffs
to
whom
he
owes
approximately
$150
million.
It
is,
after
all,
the
underlying
policy
of
these
New
York
statutes
that
“no
man
should
be
permitted
to
live
at
the
same
time
in
luxury
and
in
debt.”

Ah,
well.
They
can
take
his
18
watches
and
his
unpaid
legal
bills,
but
they’ll
never
take
his
dign—

HAHAHAHA,
nevermind.

Freeman
v.
Giuliani
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

The
election
is
about
two
weeks
away,
and
lawyers
are
opening
their
wallets

wide
for
Vice
President
Kamala
Harris,
the
Democratic
presidential
candidate.
In
fact,
lawyers
gave
more
to
Harris
in
the
first
10
days
of
her
campaign
than
to
Trump
in
almost
two
years.
It’s
clear
who
lawyers
favor
in
this
political
race.

Continuing
to
stand
firmly
with
their
fellow
attorney,
members
of
the
legal
profession
added
more
than
$27
million
to
Kamala’s
campaign
coffers
over
the
course
of
the
past
two
months,
between
August
and
the
end
of
September.
Many
of
Biglaw’s
best
are
leading
the
pack
when
it
comes
to
their
contributions.

Bloomberg
Law
has
the
details:

Harris’
PAC,
dubbed
the
Harris
Victory
Fund,
received
$250,000
from
Cravath’s
presiding
partner
Faiza
Saeed
and
another
$250,000
from
Sullivan
&
Cromwell
senior
chair
Rodge
Cohen
in
that
timeframe.
Paul
Weiss
chairman
Brad
Karp
gave
$25,000
in
September
to
the
Harris
Victory
Fund.

Congratulations
to
Kamala
Harris
on
the
massive
cash
haul
from
attorneys.
But
what
about
her
opponent,
Donald
Trump?

As
noted
by
Bloomberg,
while
a
few
Biglaw
partners
and
in-house
attorneys
quietly
donated
funds
to
the
former
president
this
past
spring
and
summer,
according
to
FEC
records,
between
August
and
the
end
of
September,
Trump’s
PAC,
the
Trump
47
Committee,
received

zero
contributions
from
self-identified
lawyers
or
attorneys.

Kamala
Harris
may
be
the
winner
when
it
comes
to
accumulating
campaign
cash
from
attorneys,
but
will
she
be
the
winner
where
it
counts
the
most,
at
the
polls?
Stay
tuned.

Lawyers
Ante
Up
$27
Million
for
Kamala
Harris
in
Past
Two
Months
[Bloomberg
Law]

---

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.