Author: TSA Press

When
SFFA
v.
Harvard
was
first
decided,
we
were
flooded
with
what
were
effectively
solidarity
posts
—
Biglaw
firms
and
universities
sent
out
statements
reaffirming
their
steadfast
commitment
to
fostering
diversity
no
matter
what
the
Supreme
Court
decided.
Then
the
lawsuits
happened.
Since
then,
big-name
firms
like

Morrison
Foerster
skipped
the
courtroom
and
decided
to
remove
the
diversity
language
that
was
getting
them
in
trouble.
The
ABA
even
tried
to
adapt
on
the
fly
and
floated
the
idea
of
diversifying
diversity,

whatever
that
means.
Well,
enough
time
has
passed
and
the
party
is
over.
The
ABA’s
recent
judicial
clerkship
revision
gets
rid
of
even
needing
to
worry
about
minorities
all
together.

Reuters
has
coverage:

The
American
Bar
Association
has
revised
the
criteria
for
its
Judicial
Clerkship
Program,
opens
new
tab
to
eliminate
references
to
minority
students
and
“communities
of
color”
after
a
conservative
legal
group
alleged
that
the
ABA
was
illegally
discriminating
by
using
racial
quotas…Now,
law
schools
are
“encouraged
to
select
a
diverse
group
of
students,”
and
judges
have
no
hiring
parameters.

That
encouragement
will
have
about
as
much
force

as
asking
Supreme
Court
justices
to
divulge
how
generous
their
friends
are
on
time.
References
to
minority
students
usually
get
treated
as
referring
to
racial
minorities,
but
don’t
be
fooled
—

this
is
gonna
hurt
women
and
a
bunch
of
other
students
too.
An
attorney
working
with
the
Wisconsin
Institute
for
Law
and
Liberty
(because
of
course
it’s
them)
saw
the
change
as
a
win,
saying
that
“all
students
deserve
a
fair
shot
at
employment
and
no
one
should
be
judged
based
on
the
color
of
their
skin.”
That
sounds
great
in
a
vacuum.
It
is
facially
true
—
no
one’s
resume
should
be
judged
differently
because
of
their
race
or
gender
—

but
that’s
not
how
the
world
works
right
now.
Getting
rid
of
inclusion
efforts
is
marketed
as
a
way
to
make
choosing
from
the
hiring
pool
fairer,
but
it
actually
just
makes
it
easier
to
leave
minority
applicants
to
drown.

ABA
Strikes
‘Minority’
And
‘Of
Color’
From
Clerkship
Criteria
Amid
Lawsuit
Threat
[Reuters]

Earlier:

ABA
Council
Proposes
Language
Change
To
Nix
‘Diversity’
From
Law
School
Considerations

ABA
Committee
Decides
To
Diversify
Diversity.
It
Should
Come
With
A
Clear
Reason
For
Why
That’s
Important

---

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.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

Should
never
have
picked
Garland.

—
President
Joe
Biden,
in
words

reportedly
shared
with
a
colleague
in
the
wake
of
Attorney
General
Merrick
Garland’s
decision
to
appoint
a
special
prosecutor
to
handle
Hunter
Biden’s
case.
Washington
Post
associate
editor
Bob
Woodward
includes
this
quote
in
his
new
novel,

“War”
(affiliate
link),
chronicling
the
political
climate
in
the
U.S.
amid
foreign
conflicts
in
Ukraine
and
Israel.

---

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
may
have
taken
40
years,
but
federal
courts
are
finally
pushing
back
on
the
legal
theory
that
the
CEOs
of
major
corporations
are
simply
too
important
to
testify.
Back

in
1985,
the
apex
doctrine
was
codified.
In
a
personal
injury
has
against
Chrysler,
top
exec
Lee
Iacocca
was
shielded
from
having
to
sit
for
a
deposition
because
he
was
a
“singularly
unique
and
important”
individual.

Since
then,
C-suite
individuals
like
Elon
Musk
and
Mark
Zuckerberg
have
invoked
the
doctrine
to
avoid
testifying
in
various
litigation.
However,
the
tides
are
changing.
As
federal
Judge
Iain
D.
Johnston

told
Bloomberg
Law,
“Single
moms,
single
dads,
who’ve
got
part
time
jobs,
are
taking
classes,
are
taking
kids
to
daycare—is
their
time
less
valuable
than
the
CEO
of
a
major
corporation
sitting
in
a
meeting?
There
should
be
a
healthy
skepticism
of
people’s
self-importance.”

Biglaw
partners
are
seeing
that
shift
happening
in
real
time.

David
Fertig,
a
partner
at
BakerHostetler
who’s
litigated
both
sides
of
the
apex
doctrine,
said
the
question
in
litigation
is
shifting
to
whether
the
apex
witness
has
unique
information
relevant
to
a
case,
rather
than
if
the
CEO
is
too
busy
or
otherwise
important
to
be
deposed.
In
some
instances,
legal
fights
ensue
over
limiting
the
scope
and
length
of
the
deposition,
rather
than
whether
the
deposition
can
happen,
Fertig
said.

“There’s
increasing
concern
and
public
outcry
for
people
of
significant
wealth
and
power
to
answer
for
corporate
conduct,”
Fertig
said.
“Courts
have
therefore
shown
some
reluctance
to
the
idea
that
merely
by
virtue
of
their
status
as
senior
executives,
apex
witnesses
are
immune
from
deposition.”

And
Duane
Morris
partner
Gerald
Maatman
Jr.
said,
“There’s
no
free
pass
anymore.
There’s
no
presumption
that
just
because
you’re
the
CEO,
you
get
to
avoid
depositions.”

When
trying
again
to
invoke
the
doctrine
earlier
this
year,
Zuckerberg
wasn’t
as
successful
as
he
was
in
the
past.
And
he’s
not
the
only
CEO
ordered
to
be
deposed
this
year.

The
tech
titan’s
change
in
fortune
reflects
a
backlash
against
the
apex
doctrine
by
judges
swayed
by
populist
arguments
that
it
unfairly
favors
the
powerful.
McDonald’s
Corp.
CEO
Christopher
Kempczinski,
Microsoft
Corp.
CEO
Satya
Nadella,
activist
investor
Carson
Block,
Madison
Square
Garden
chief
James
Dolan,
and
now
Zuckerberg
all
lost
bids
in
the
past
year
to
duck
depositions
under
the
apex
doctrine
in
federal
courts.

It
may
not
be
as
radical
as
plaintiffs
attorneys
might
like
—
Robbins
Geller
attorney
Jason
Forge
said
“the
entire
concept
is
a
disgrace”
—
but
there’s
still
been
significant
progress
pushing
against
the
notion
that
corporate
executives
are
(sigh)
above
the
law.

---

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].

It’s
the
record-setting
first
day
of
a
Minnesota
State
Fair
that
will
see

many
attendance
records
toppled.
Based
on
the
size
of
the
crowd
already
gathered
an
hour
before
his
show,
Phil
Vassar
had
a
little
something
to
do
with
that.

Fairgoers
were
lucky.
Substitute
a
few
moments
of
hesitation
for
decisive
action
under
pressure,
and
Vassar
would
not
have
been
there
to
headline
these
first
two
nights.

“Touring
means
more
to
me
now
than
ever,
honestly,”
says
Vassar,
62.
“I
don’t
know
if
you
know,
but
I
had
a
heart
attack
last
year.
I’m
the
guy
who
never
drank.
All
my
buddies,
ha,
they
pounded
it
hard,
they’re
still
rocking.
And
I’m
the
one
who
just
drops
dead.”

It
took
10
shocks
from
an
AED
to
restart
Vassar’s
failing
heart.
On
his
tour
bus
—
once
owned
by
country
music
legend
George
Jones
—
I
speak
to
the
woman
who
found
him,
ashen,
unconscious,
as
he
succumbed
to
his
cardiac
event.
She
performed
CPR,
did
it
the
right
way:
with
multiple
ribs
fractured.
She
saved
Vassar’s
life.
She
is
shy,
and
I
don’t
think
would
want
to
be
named
in
print.

“It
was
very
humbling,”
says
Vassar.
“You
think
you’re
bulletproof,
but
you’re
not.
I’m
very
blessed.
Very,
very
thankful.”

The
heat
of
the
day
has
dissipated.
A
cool
breeze
wafts
in
the
scent
of
damp
wood
chips
from
the
nearby
car
dealership
booths
where
shredded
trees
protect
the
earth
from
the
weight
of
multi-ton
SUVs.
To
the
south,
the
capsule
atop
the
Space
Tower
ride
spins
lazily.
Onstage,
Vassar’s
piano
awaits.

Vassar
is
a
Virginia
native
and
Nashville
transplant,
but
he
practices
“Minnesota
nice”
as
though
born
to
it.
Friends
and
well-wishers
stream
in
and
out
of
the
green
room
before
the
show.
One
of
them,
a
former
math
teacher
from
Eau
Claire
named
Mr.
Kent,
met
Vassar
at
one
of
his
concerts
20
years
prior.
Mr.
Kent
has
been
welcomed
backstage
warmly
ever
since.
Tonight,
he
bears
a
gift:
a
brand-new
Eau
Claire
Bears
baseball
cap.

With
10
minutes
’til
showtime,
Vassar
steps
out
to
change.
His
bandmate
David
Black
cranks
up
the
music
and
begins
assaulting
an
easy
chair
with
a
pair
of
drumsticks.

Five
minutes
to
showtime.
“Time
to
make
the
donuts!”
Black
shouts,
before
the
thwacking
stops
abruptly
and
he
sprints
out
of
the
room.
“Break
a
leg!”
I
call
after
him.
“I’ll
certainly
try,”
comes
echoing
back
down
the
hallway.

Outside,
a
slash
of
crimson
paints
the
horizon.
Right
on
time
at
8:30,
the
band
takes
the
stage.
The
crowd
erupts,
and
the
first
notes
of
“That’s
When
I
Love
You”
drown
out
the
cheers.
Then
comes
“Carlene.”
“C’mon!”
Vassar
cries
into
the
microphone
after
the
first
verse
of
“Bye
Bye.”
The
crowd
howls.

By
the
time
they
launch
into
“In
a
Real
Love”
the
sky
looks
like
a
week-old
bruise.
Vassar
asks
the
crowd
to
sing
along
to
“My
Next
30
Years”
—
which
you
might
know
as
a
Tim
McGraw
song,
though
Tim
McGraw
knows
it
as
a
Phil
Vassar
song.
On
Vassar’s
30th
birthday,
the
song
came
tumbling
out
of
him
in
10
or
20
minutes,
“as
fast
as
[he]
could
write
it.”

“Love
Is
a
Beautiful
Thing”
follows,
and
“Six-Pack
Summer.”
People
shout
out
requests.
Vassar
banters
with
the
crowd,
tells
them
how
he
wrote
this
song
after
his
kitchen
flooded,
and
pounds
out
the
unmistakable
opening
notes
of
“Just
Another
Day
in
Paradise.”

“Thanks
again
for
having
us
to
the
state
fair,”
Vassar
purrs
into
the
microphone.
“We
appreciate
this.”
I
try
to
keep
track
of
how
many
times
he
says
“thank
you”
or
otherwise
expresses
gratitude.
I
lose
count
somewhere
into
the
second
dozen.

More
music
pours
from
the
keys.
It’s
hit
after
hit
from

Vassar’s
storied
career,
along
with
a
few
carefully
selected
covers.
On
the
final
lyrics
of
“American
Child,”
fireworks
go
off,
literally.
Boom,
crack,
pop!
Reds,
blues,
greens,
and
yellows
light
the
sky
overhead.
Each
explosion
accentuates
a
line
of
“For
a
Little
While.”

A
security
guard
who
I’d
been
chatting
with
earlier
saunters
up
and
pulls
out
her
earplugs.
“The
fireworks
mean
the
concert’s
over,”
she
yells
directly
into
my
ear.
Nope.

More
old
favorites
reverberate
into
the
fairgrounds.
Nearly
unique
in
country
music
of
his
era,
Vassar’s
lyrics
tackle
complex
topics
—
aging,
introspection,
maintaining
long-term
friendships,

even
LGBTQ+
tolerance
—
not
just
partying,
falling
in
love,
and
heartbreak
(of
course,
there
are
a
few
excellent
examples
of
those
ones
too).
Despite
occasionally
heavy
subject
matter,
the
energy
never
ebbs.
“It’s
fun,
and
it’s
supposed
to
be
fun,”
Vassar
had
said
earlier
of
his
music.
“People
take
everything
so
seriously.”
At
the
end
of
“I’m
Alright”
there’s
a
big
drum
solo.
Had
he
been
playing
it
back
in
the
green
room,
Black
would
have
reduced
that
easy
chair
to
splinters.

“Scream
for
the
band
up
here
too!”
says
Vassar.
They
scream.

It’s
pitch
black
now,
and
this
time
the
end
really
is
near.
They
close
out
the
show
with
a
cover
of
“Piano
Man.”
The
crowd
sways,
the
crowd
sings,
all
of
them
entranced.

Vassar
addresses
everyone
one
last
time.
“Thank
you
all
so
much,
God
bless
you
guys!”
One
row
stands
up,
then
another,
then
another,
in
a
rapidly
swelling
wave.
I
peer
at
my
watch
and
see
the
second
hand
make
a
couple
loops.
Eventually
the
standing
ovation
subsides.
He’s
barely
offstage
before
he’s
inviting
me
onto
the
tour
bus.

“I
feel
great
now,”
says
Vassar.
“I’ve
never
felt
this
good.”

In
trying
to
describe
what
took
place
on
the
first
night
of
the
fair,
the
word
“triumph”
comes
to
mind.
A
year
prior
Vassar
was
a
tenth
shock
away
from
never
making
it
to
this
time,
this
place.
Three
years
before
that,
the
Minnesota
State
Fair
itself
fell
to
the
coronavirus.
Yet,
here
we
all
are:
the
first
day
of
the
fair
finally
recovered
to
surpass
its
prepandemic
glory;
Phil
Vassar,
risen
from
the
dead,
never
missing
a
beat
as
its
opening
late-night
act.
It’s
an
unarticulated
celebration
of
the
joy
in
everything
that
might
not
have
been,
but
is.

Vassar
is
being
considered
for
the

ASCAP
Nashville
Songwriters
Hall
of
Fame,
and
I
truly
hope
he’s
inducted.
No
one
deserves
it
more.
Whatever
happens,
though,
whatever
life
has
in
store
for
Phil
Vassar’s
second
act,
one
aspect
of
his
legacy
is
now
written
in
stone:
Phil
Vassar
is
a
state
fair
legend.

---

Jonathan
Wolf
is
a
civil
litigator
and
author
of Your
Debt-Free
JD


(affiliate
link).
He
has
taught
legal
writing,
written
for
a
wide
variety
of
publications,
and
made
it
both
his
business
and
his
pleasure
to
be
financially
and
scientifically
literate.
Any
views
he
expresses
are
probably
pure
gold,
but
are
nonetheless
solely
his
own
and
should
not
be
attributed
to
any
organization
with
which
he
is
affiliated.
He
wouldn’t
want
to
share
the
credit
anyway.
He
can
be
reached
at [email protected].

Spooky
season
is
upon
us,
and
you
know
what
that
means:
Above
the
Law’s
annual
Halloween
costume
contest
will
soon
be
here.

For
more
than
a
decade,
the
ATL
editors
have
solicited
legally
themed
costumes
from
our
readers,
and
we’re
continually
impressed
with
how
creative
lawyers
and
law
students
can
be
when
when
it
comes
to
bringing
the
law
to
life.

As
a
little
reminder,
here
are
some
of
the
very
best
winning
looks
from
past
years
of
the
contest:
the Donald
J.
Trump
College
of
Law
(2016),

Brett
Kavanaugh’s
calendar
and
his
beer
(2018),

Ruth
Baby
Ginsburg
(2020),
and

Warhol’s
Soup
Law
(2023).

Stay
tuned
for
instructions
on
how
to
submit
your
fabulous
legally
themed
Halloween
costumes.
We
look
forward
to
judging
you!

---

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.

Biglaw
firms
with
single
partnership
tiers
are
now
few
and
far
between,
with
more
big-name
firms
showing
that
they’re
ready,
willing,
and
able
to
welcome
nonequity
partners
to
their
ranks.

Cravath
was
one
of
the
first
longtime
holdouts
to
cut
bait
and
create
a
“salaried
partner
tier”
(i.e.,
nonequity
partners)
back
in
November
2023.
That
move
gave
other
highly
ranked
firms
permission
to
tread
the
same
path,
including
Paul
Weiss,
which
announced
its
new

two-tier
partnership
plan
in
March,
and
WilmerHale,
which
made
its

two-tier
partnership
announcement
in
August.
Now,
Cleary
Gottlieb
is
announcing
its
own
new
partnership
platform.

Last
year,
profits
per
equity
partner
at
Cleary
came
in
at
$4.5
million,
and
the
firm
—
which
brought
in
$1,491,568,000
gross
revenue
in
2023,
putting
it
at
No.
32
on
the
most
recent
Am
Law
100
—
decided
that
it
was
time
to
move
forward
with
a
two-tier
partnership
to
“create
more
opportunities
in
promotion
and
development,”
per
managing
partner
Michael
Gerstenzang.
According
to
the

,
the
changes
are
“effective
immediately.”
Here
are
some
additional
details:

[Gerstenzang]
said
the
nonequity
tier
will
see
its
first
candidates
when
the
firm
has
its
annual
partnership
evaluations,
which
are
currently
transpiring.
Last
year
in
late
October,
the
firm
announced
the
promotion
of
15
lawyers
to
partner.

“It
is
meaningful
to
say
that
we
think
Big
Law
is
in
a
period
that
calls
for
innovation
and
adaptation,”
Gerstenzang
said
in
an
interview.
“That
is
true
across
the
board
and
has
to
extend
to
talent
development
and
management.
It’s
not
the
only
example,
but
it
is
one.”
…

Overall,
he
said
Cleary
is
not
looking
for
a
certain
critical
mass
(or
percentage
of
the
partnership)
to
be
non-equity,
but
rather
allowing
those
that
go
into
that
track
to
“grow
as
professionals
in
the
non-equity
tier
and
to
have
the
opportunity
to
become
a
partner.”

He
said
nonequity
partner
salaries
—
which
he
declined
to
specify
—
would
be
commensurate
with
the
market,
including
factoring
in
practice
area
and
geography.

Gerstenzang
went
on
to
say
that
the
expectations
for
nonequity
partners
at
the
firm
will
be
“very
consistent
with
how
we
think
about
junior
partners.”
He
continued,
explaining,
“Almost
no
one
is
promoted
to
partner
as
a
full-fledged
partner.
We
all
grow
into
our
positions.
That
is
true
today
and
true
under
the
new
program.”

Biglaw
firms
are
making
major
moves
on
partnership
and
compensation
in
order
to
recruit
and
retain
rainmakers
and
to
calm
dissension
within
their
ranks
—
and
we
can
expect
more
firms
to
follow
the
leader
in
the
years
to
come.
According
to
the
2024
Client
Advisory
from
Hildebrandt
Consulting
and
Citi’s
Global
Wealth
at
Work
Law
Firm
Group,
83%
of
Biglaw
firms
expect
to

increase
the
size
of
their
income
partner
roles
in
the
next
two
years.

Is
your
firm
planning
to
move
to
a
black-box
compensation
system
for
partners
or
increase
its
nonequity
partnership
ranks?
Please
please
text
us
(646-820-8477)
or email
us and
let
us
know.
Thanks.

Cleary
Creates
Nonequity
Partner
Tier,
Calling
For
‘Innovation
and
Adaptation’
[American
Lawyer]

---

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.

The
2024
election
is
nearing
the
corner
and
has
major
implications
for
the
healthcare
industry,
from
abortion
to
drug
pricing.

During
the

Reuters
Total
Health
Conference
held
in
Chicago
on
Tuesday,
Ceci
Connolly,
CEO
of
the

Alliance
of
Community
Health
Plans,
shared
five
things
she
thinks
the
healthcare
industry
should
know
about
the
upcoming
election.

1.
The
election
is
“Trump’s
to
lose”

Former
President
Donald
Trump
started
this
election
with
the
advantage,
but
this
shifted
when
President
Joe
Biden
dropped
out
of
the
race
and
Vice
President
Kamala
Harris
became
the
Democratic
nominee.
Currently,
Harris
has
a
lot
of
momentum,
but
what
really
matters
from
now
until
the
election
is
“the
way
that
Trump
behaves,”
Connolly
said. 

“He
is,
in
fact,
an
almost
larger-than-life
player
on
our
political
stage,
if
you
will,”
she
said.
“And
he
is
so
dominant,
both
positively
and
negatively,
that
it
will
likely
come
down
to
him.
At
the
moment,
I
would
say
the
race
is
tied
dead
even,
no
doubt
about
it.
Ignore
the
national
polls.
They
mean
absolutely
nothing.
If
you
are
a
junkie,
you
can
look
at
the
polling
in
those
seven
swing
states.
Those
are
the
only
ones
that
matter.”

2.
A
divided
government
might
be
good
for
healthcare

It’s
possible
that
the
House
may
flip
from
Republican
to
Democrat
and
that
the
Senate
may
flip
from
Democrat
to
Republican
this
election.
This
means
the
U.S.
will
likely
continue
to
have
a
divided
government,
which
could
actually
be
good
for
healthcare
because
it
means
less
happens,
according
to
Connolly.

“If
you’re
in
business,
what
you
don’t
like
is
the
unpredictability
and
the
uncertainty
and
the
constant
change
that
we
are
often
going
through
when
it
comes
to
regulation
and
laws
with
respect
to
healthcare
and
the
health
sector,”
she
said.
“So
this
notion
of
divided
government
truly
is
the
way
the
founding
fathers
designed
it.
It’s
checks
and
balances.”

Connolly
added
that
if
the
Democrats
take
control
of
the
House,
there
could
be
an
extension
on
the
enhanced
subsidies
for
people
buying
their
health
coverage
on
the
Affordable
Care
Act
Marketplaces.
These
enhanced
subsidies
are
currently
slated
to
expire
at
the
end
of
2025,
and
if
they
do,
there
will
be
a
major
increase
in
the
number
of
uninsured
in
the
U.S.,
Connolly
said.
This
could
lead
to
more
people
receiving
care
at
the
emergency
room,
which
they
probably
won’t
be
able
to
pay
for
and
providers
will
go
uncompensated.

3.
The
courts
are
the
new
“playing
field”
for
health
policy

In
a
recent
ruling,
the
Supreme
Court

overturned
the
Chevron
deference.
In
the
past,
federal
agencies
like
CMS
and
the
FDA
were
given
the
flexibility
to
“interpret
statutes
and
issue
more
detailed
regulations,”
Connolly
said.

In
the
short
term,
not
much
is
going
to
happen
due
to
this
ruling,
but
there
are
important
implications
long
term.

“People
are
really
kind
of
looking
out
in
the
landscape
and
they’re
thinking
about,
‘Well,
which
regulation
are
we
going
to
challenge,
saying
that’s
not
what
Congress
meant
when
it
passed
that
law
and
we
think
it
should
be
changed?’”
Connolly
said.
“So
there’s
going
to
be
time,
and
I’m
going
to
forecast
to
you
that
the
biggest
players
in
any
industry
—
healthcare
or
any
other
industry
—
with
the
deepest
pockets
are
the
ones
that
will
spend
to
start
challenging
individual
regulations
that
they
don’t
like,
but
that’s
going
to
be
a
slow
and
a
very,
very
expensive
process.”

This
means
policymaking
will
have
to
be
looked
at
differently.
Courts
are
doing
a
lot
of
the
policymaking
now,
and
“many
players
are
court
shopping
for
where
they
think
they
will
find
a
ruling
that
applies,”
Connolly
argued.

4.
Congress
may
act
on
telehealth,
PBMs
and
patent
reform
during
lame
duck

Regardless
of
who
wins
the
election,
there
will
be
a
lot
of
turnover
in
the
federal
government.
That
means
those
who
are
currently
in
power
will
likely
try
to
get
some
policies
“across
the
finish
line”
during
the
lame
duck
period
(the
period
between
the
election
and
inauguration).

For
example,
Covid-19
telehealth
flexibilities
—
which
are
set
to
expire
at
the
end
of
the
year
—
are
likely
to
be
extended.
However,
they
probably
won’t
be
made
permanent
yet
because
Congress
is
looking
for
more
data
on
whether
virtual
care
actually
creates
savings
or
not.

There
has
also
been
bipartisan
support
for
addressing
pharmacy
benefit
managers,
with
bills
in
both
the
House
and
the
Senate.

“Americans
are
so
fed
up
with
drug
costs,
and
the
politicians
know
that,
and
they
hear
it
when
they
go
home
all
the
time
from
their
constituents,”
Connolly
said.
“And
so
there
is
bipartisan
sentiment
in
Washington
that
more
should
be
done
when
it
comes
to
drug
pricing.”

Similarly,
there
could
be
some
legislation
targeting
pharmaceutical
companies’
use
of

patent
thickets.
This
is
when
there
is
an
overlapping
set
of
patent
rights,
delaying
more
affordable
drugs
from
entering
the
market.
Connolly
gave
the
example
of
GLP-1s,
which
currently
have
market
exclusivity
for
19
years.

5.
Harris
and
Trump
actually
have
some
similarities
in
healthcare

Putting
abortion
aside,
Harris
and
Trump

aren’t
as
different
as
many
may
think
when
it
comes
to
healthcare,
Connolly
declared.
Neither
candidate
is
particularly
passionate
about
healthcare
and
neither
has
an
extensive
record
in
health
policy.
In
addition,
issues
like
the
economy
and
immigration
will
likely
take
precedence
when
one
of
them
takes
office.

However,
there
are
some
exceptions
to
this,
Connolly
noted.
On
drug
pricing,
she
predicts
that
Trump
will
try
to
“out-do”
the
Biden
administration
because
“he
understands
what
a
populist
issue
that
is,
and
he
wants
to
be
able
to
claim
that
he’s
done
something
even
bigger,
grander,
greater
when
it
comes
to
making
drugs
more
affordable.”
The
Biden
administration
has
also
used
its
regulatory
power
to
expand
Medicaid
coverage.

“I
don’t
think
that
you
would
see
that
in
Trump
too,”
Connolly
said.
“I
think
it
would
be
a
very
different
approach
to
Medicaid
in
as
much
as
the
Feds
play
a
role.” 

Photo:
MarianVejcik,
Getty
Images

For
someone
who
was
recently
disbarred,
Rudy
Giuliani
sure
does
spend
a
lot
of
time
in
court.
Unfortunately
for
him,
it’s
mostly
as
a
defendant,
since
he’s
being
sued
for
his
antics
in
the
last
election
by
Dominion
Voting
Systems,
its
competitor
Smartmatic,
and
Ruby
Freeman
and
Shaye
Moss,
the
Atlanta
poll
workers
he
defamed.

In
2023,
his
years-long
refusal
to
cooperate
with
discovery
in
the
Freeman/Moss
suit
resulted
in
a

default
judgment
against
him,
followed
by
a
$148
million
jury
verdict.
America’s
Mayor
appealed
to
the
DC
Circuit,
while
simultaneously
filing
for
bankruptcy
in
New
York.
It
does
not
seem
to
have
occurred
to
him
that
the
automatic
stay
under
Chapter
11
would
halt
his
appeal,
along
with
the
plaintiffs’
collection
efforts.

After
spending
the
summer
trying
and
failing
to
convince
US
Bankruptcy
Judge
Sean
Lane
to
un-stay
the
appeal,
he

flunked
out
of
bankruptcy
court
with
nothing
to
show
for
it
but
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
of
legal
and
administrative
fees.

Now
he’s
back
before
the
DC
Circuit,
where
he
hopes
to
convince
Judges
Millet,
Pillard,
and
Pan
that
Judge
Beryl
Howell,
who
presided
over
his
trial,
doesn’t
know
how
to
law
good.
His

argument
appears
to
be
that
there
was
no
actual
malice
in
his
continued
repetition
of
the
lies
about
the
plaintiffs,
even
after
Georgia
election
officials
told
him
he
was
wrong,
because
those
officials
—
all
of
whom
were
Republicans,
BTW
—
were
“biased.”

Defendant
had
no
obligation
to
accept
the
denials
of
the
biased
Georgia
officials.
At
the
time
the
officials
denied
election
misconduct,
Georgia
had
already
certified
the
election
results
in
favor
of
Biden.
Georgia
officials
had
an
obvious
motive
to
make
statements
that
supported
the
prior
institutional
determination
that
election
fraud
had
not
occurred.

Meanwhile
in
the
Southern
District
of
New
York,
Giuliani
is
contorting
himself
like
a
circus
clown
to
stop
Freeman
and
Moss
from
seizing
everything
but
his
toenail
clippings
to
satisfy
their
judgment.

He
wants
to
claim
the
homestead
exception
for
his
condo
in
Florida,
despite

the
fact
that
he
testified
in
the
bankruptcy
case
that
he
spends
70-80
percent
of
his
time
in
New
York,
his
bank
statements
all
list
his
New
York
address,
and
the
majority
of
his
podcasts
are
beamed
out
of
his
New
York
condo.

He
tried
to
sell
the
New
York
condo,
knocking
down
the
price
by
$525,000,
until
the
judge

ordered
him
to
knock
it
off
and
quit
moving
assets
around.

His
son,
Andrew
Giuliani,
filed
an

intervenor
motion
claiming
that
his
dad
gifted
him
his
four
World
Series
rings
in
2018,
and
Rudy
borrowed
back
the
one
from
2000’s
“Subway
Series”
against
the
New
York
Mets,
so
Freeman
and
Moss
should
not
be
able
to
seize
any
of
them.

And
Rudy

says
that
many
of
his
possessions
are
priceless,
even

irreplaceable,
so
the
court
should
just
put
them
under
the
control
of
the
receiver
who
will
release
them
once
Rudy
wins
his
appeal
at
the
DC
Circuit:

[S]ome
of
the
property
can
be
characterized
as
“collectibles.”
This
sub-category
includes,
for
example,
sports
memorabilia,
as
well
as
a
1980
Mercedes
automobile,
previously
owned
by
Lauren
Bacall.
Again,
sports
memorabilia
and
a
classic
car
can
be
priced
and
sold,
but
restitution
in
money
would
not
make
Defendant
truly
whole.
Again,
Defendant
asks
the
Court
to
couple
a
turnover/receivership
order
with
an
order
that
a
receiver
hold
the
property
at
issue,
but
not
sell
it
until
after
the
D.C.
Circuit
rules
on
Defendant’s
expedited
appeal.

Lauren
Bacall’s
Merc!

But
Rudy’s
lawyer
Ken
Caruso
saved
his

best
material
for
Donald
Trump.
Specifically,
he
wants
to
make
sure
that
Freeman
and
Moss
aren’t
allowed
to
embarrass
the
former
president
before
the
2024
election
by
dunning
him
for
the
legal
work
he
stiffed
Rudy
on
four
years
ago
as
he
tried
to
overturn
the
2020
election.

The
Court,
in
its
discretion,
should
postpone
a
turnover
of
this
claim
until
November
6,
2024,
the
day
after
Election
Day.
Otherwise,
Plaintiffs
will
or
may
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.
Plainly,
the
value
of
this
claim
will
not
depreciate
between
now
and
November
6,
2024.

It’s
not
clear
whether
this
is
a
cognizable
ground
for
Judge
Lewis
Liman
to
delay
ruling
on
the
motion.
But
it
is
very
funny,
particularly
in
light
of
Trump’s
apparent
admission
that
he
viewed
the
fee
as
contingent.
According
to
Special
Counsel
Jack
Smith’s
latest

filing
in
the
Trump
election
interference
case:

[White
House
lawyer
Eric
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
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.”

Indeed,
Rudy
was
not
successful.
But
perhaps
he’ll
get
a
mulligan
in
a
month.

Put
him
in,
Coach!
He’s
ready
to
play!*

Plus
he
really
needs
the
money.

*Offer
not
available
in
actual
courts
of
law.

---

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

For
someone
who
was
recently
disbarred,
Rudy
Giuliani
sure
does
spend
a
lot
of
time
in
court.
Unfortunately
for
him,
it’s
mostly
as
a
defendant,
since
he’s
being
sued
for
his
antics
in
the
last
election
by
Dominion
Voting
Systems,
its
competitor
Smartmatic,
and
Ruby
Freeman
and
Shaye
Moss,
the
Atlanta
poll
workers
he
defamed.

In
2023,
his
years-long
refusal
to
cooperate
with
discovery
in
the
Freeman/Moss
suit
resulted
in
a

default
judgment
against
him,
followed
by
a
$148
million
jury
verdict.
America’s
Mayor
appealed
to
the
DC
Circuit,
while
simultaneously
filing
for
bankruptcy
in
New
York.
It
does
not
seem
to
have
occurred
to
him
that
the
automatic
stay
under
Chapter
11
would
halt
his
appeal,
along
with
the
plaintiffs’
collection
efforts.

After
spending
the
summer
trying
and
failing
to
convince
US
Bankruptcy
Judge
Sean
Lane
to
un-stay
the
appeal,
he

flunked
out
of
bankruptcy
court
with
nothing
to
show
for
it
but
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
of
legal
and
administrative
fees.

Now
he’s
back
before
the
DC
Circuit,
where
he
hopes
to
convince
Judges
Millet,
Pillard,
and
Pan
that
Judge
Beryl
Howell,
who
presided
over
his
trial,
doesn’t
know
how
to
law
good.
His

argument
appears
to
be
that
there
was
no
actual
malice
in
his
continued
repetition
of
the
lies
about
the
plaintiffs,
even
after
Georgia
election
officials
told
him
he
was
wrong,
because
those
officials
—
all
of
whom
were
Republicans,
BTW
—
were
“biased.”

Defendant
had
no
obligation
to
accept
the
denials
of
the
biased
Georgia
officials.
At
the
time
the
officials
denied
election
misconduct,
Georgia
had
already
certified
the
election
results
in
favor
of
Biden.
Georgia
officials
had
an
obvious
motive
to
make
statements
that
supported
the
prior
institutional
determination
that
election
fraud
had
not
occurred.

Meanwhile
in
the
Southern
District
of
New
York,
Giuliani
is
contorting
himself
like
a
circus
clown
to
stop
Freeman
and
Moss
from
seizing
everything
but
his
toenail
clippings
to
satisfy
their
judgment.

He
wants
to
claim
the
homestead
exception
for
his
condo
in
Florida,
despite

the
fact
that
he
testified
in
the
bankruptcy
case
that
he
spends
70-80
percent
of
his
time
in
New
York,
his
bank
statements
all
list
his
New
York
address,
and
the
majority
of
his
podcasts
are
beamed
out
of
his
New
York
condo.

He
tried
to
sell
the
New
York
condo,
knocking
down
the
price
by
$525,000,
until
the
judge

ordered
him
to
knock
it
off
and
quit
moving
assets
around.

His
son,
Andrew
Giuliani,
filed
an

intervenor
motion
claiming
that
his
dad
gifted
him
his
four
World
Series
rings
in
2018,
and
Rudy
borrowed
back
the
one
from
2000’s
“Subway
Series”
against
the
New
York
Mets,
so
Freeman
and
Moss
should
not
be
able
to
seize
any
of
them.

And
Rudy

says
that
many
of
his
possessions
are
priceless,
even

irreplaceable,
so
the
court
should
just
put
them
under
the
control
of
the
receiver
who
will
release
them
once
Rudy
wins
his
appeal
at
the
DC
Circuit:

[S]ome
of
the
property
can
be
characterized
as
“collectibles.”
This
sub-category
includes,
for
example,
sports
memorabilia,
as
well
as
a
1980
Mercedes
automobile,
previously
owned
by
Lauren
Bacall.
Again,
sports
memorabilia
and
a
classic
car
can
be
priced
and
sold,
but
restitution
in
money
would
not
make
Defendant
truly
whole.
Again,
Defendant
asks
the
Court
to
couple
a
turnover/receivership
order
with
an
order
that
a
receiver
hold
the
property
at
issue,
but
not
sell
it
until
after
the
D.C.
Circuit
rules
on
Defendant’s
expedited
appeal.

Lauren
Bacall’s
Merc!

But
Rudy’s
lawyer
Ken
Caruso
saved
his

best
material
for
Donald
Trump.
Specifically,
he
wants
to
make
sure
that
Freeman
and
Moss
aren’t
allowed
to
embarrass
the
former
president
before
the
2024
election
by
dunning
him
for
the
legal
work
he
stiffed
Rudy
on
four
years
ago
as
he
tried
to
overturn
the
2020
election.

The
Court,
in
its
discretion,
should
postpone
a
turnover
of
this
claim
until
November
6,
2024,
the
day
after
Election
Day.
Otherwise,
Plaintiffs
will
or
may
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.
Plainly,
the
value
of
this
claim
will
not
depreciate
between
now
and
November
6,
2024.

It’s
not
clear
whether
this
is
a
cognizable
ground
for
Judge
Lewis
Liman
to
delay
ruling
on
the
motion.
But
it
is
very
funny,
particularly
in
light
of
Trump’s
apparent
admission
that
he
viewed
the
fee
as
contingent.
According
to
Special
Counsel
Jack
Smith’s
latest

filing
in
the
Trump
election
interference
case:

[White
House
lawyer
Eric
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
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.”

Indeed,
Rudy
was
not
successful.
But
perhaps
he’ll
get
a
mulligan
in
a
month.

Put
him
in,
Coach!
He’s
ready
to
play!*

Plus
he
really
needs
the
money.

*Offer
not
available
in
actual
courts
of
law.

---

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

*
Lawyer
suspended
for
slapping
another
attorney
on
courthouse
steps.
[ABA
Journal]

*
Clarence
Thomas
spent
Glossip
hearing
making
up
stuff
about
the
record
despite
being
corrected
multiple
times.
These
are
not
serious
people.
[Slate]

*
You’ve
got
to
Hawk
Tuah
and
hire
some
IP
lawyers
for
that
thing.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
Biglaw
learning
that
just
because
that
they’re
not
the
answer
to
every
hot
market.
[American
Lawyer]

*
Diddy
accuses
DHS
of
leaking
grand
jury
materials.
[Rolling
Stone]

*
Musk’s
zombie
Twitter
will
avoid
classification
as
a
gatekeeper
product
under
EU
regulation.
Which
seems
like
a
backhanded
acknowledgement
that
the
company
isn’t
financially
relevant
any
more.
[Reuters]

*
S&C
dropped
from
FTX
suit.
[Law360]