Author: TSA Press

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

Which
U.S.-based
firm
has
moved
up
the
Global
100
the
most
places
since
2019-20?

Hint:
The
firmed
moved
up
25
places
since
2019
—
thanks
in
no
small
part
to
a
major
merger.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

They’ve
certainly
been
taking
their
sweet
time
with
the
YSL
case.
Because
the
jury
selection
process
that
took
almost
a
calendar
year
wasn’t
enough,
we
are
now
on
day
140
of
the
affair.

Onlookers
are
understandably
taken
aback
by
the
length
of
the
trial:

Even
one
of
the
state’s
investigators
is
complaining:

There
are,
of
course,
cases
that
take
a
long
time
because
hard
hitting
evidence
and
complex
stories
can
take
their
toll
on
jurors.
Unfortunately,
this
is
a
case
where
some
of
the
strongest
evidence
stems
from
song
lyrics
and
no
one
went
that
far
with
investigating
the
racketeering
part
of
the
whole
RICO
thing:

You
mean
the
prosecution
had
the

nerve
to
make
a
witness
define
SLIME,
but
nobody
took
the
time
to
realize
what
the
R
in
RICO
for?
This
is
the
sort
of
shoddy
case
building
you’d
expect
of
a
team

that
so
heavily
relied
on
lyrics
to
make
their
case.
In
that
time,
they’ve
also
racked
up
an
insane
number
of
motions
for
mistrial:

I
don’t
know
when
this
will
be
over,
but
can
we
hurry
it
up
a
bit?
Not
only
because
of
the
right
to
a
speedy
trial,
but
I
need
to
hear
whatever
music
Young
Thug
will
turn
this
charade
in
to.

Earlier:

Rap
Lyrics
Will
Be
Key
Evidence
For
RICO
Trial.
Looks
Like
A
Pretty
Flimsy
Key

---

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.

Society
is
officially
out
of
ideas
and
that
means
we’re
inundated
with
reboots
and
reimaginings
of
classics.
The
Andy
Griffith
lawyer
classic,

Matlock,
which
ran
from
1986-1995,
is
the
most
recent
to
get
a
facelift
for
the
20s.

The
new
Matlock,
which
stars
Kathy
Bates
as
Maddy
Matlock,
is

doing
well
for
CBS.
The
show
exists
in
a
post-Matlock
world,
meaning
it
explicitly
references
the
80s
iteration
as
it
makes
societal
commentary
about
aging,
sexism,
and
the
opioid
crisis.
Another
big
change
is
the
major
plot
twist
that
comes
at
the
conclusion
of
the
pilot
episode.

For
the
majority
of
the
episode
Bates
plays
a
down-on-her-luck,
unassuming,
low
key
brilliant
lawyer
that
chit-chats
her
way
into
success
during
a
high
profile
lawsuit.
Cute,
but
entirely
what
you’d
expect
from
a
Matlock
reboot.
But
then
comes
the
twist.

SPOILERS
BELOW

At
the
end
of
the
premiere
episode
it’s
revealed
that
Maddy
Matlock
is
a
fake
name,
and
Kathy
Bates
is
a
wildly
successful
attorney
that
faked
her
identity
to
get
hired
at
a
big
firm.
She
expositions
that
one
of
the
three
partners
that
are
now
her
bosses
at
the
firm
hid
documents
on
behalf
of
a
pharmaceutical
company
client.
The
character
we
know
as
Matlock
believes
the
hidden
documents
could
have
removed
opioids
from
the
market,
potentially
saving
her
daughter
that
died
of
an
overdose.
She
lied
her
way
into
a
job
at
the
firm
at
the
top
of
the
episode
to
expose
whichever
lawyer
is
responsible.

It’s
an
okay
twist
for
a
CBS
show,
as
long
as
you
know
exactly
nothing
about
legal
ethics.

“Matlock”
used
a
fake
identity
to
get
the
job,
and
used
subterfuge
to
have
reference
requests
routed
to
family
members.
That’s
not
something
bar
licensing
authorities
tend
to
look
favorably
upon
—
something
about
honesty
and
integrity
being
foundations
of
the
profession.

Then
there’s
the
whole
revenge
plot,
which,
obviously
as
only
the
pilot
has
aired
we
don’t
know
much
about
yet,
but
seems
designed
to
expose
various
client
confidences.
Blowing
up
attorney/client
privilege
also
isn’t
encouraged.
If
“Matlock”
has
evidence
of
wrongdoing
by
members
of
the
firm,
there
are
authorities
that
it
should
be
reported
to
without
ignoring
professional
responsibility
rules.

Matlock
might
be
an
okay
show
to
watch
with
your
parents
when
visiting
them
over
the
holidays,
but
it’s
a
terrible
model
for
how
attorneys
should
act.

---

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].

New
York
Mayor
Eric
Adams
faces

a
five-count
indictment
that
boils
down
to
a
bribery
scheme
involving
illegal
foreign
donations.
As
this
Supreme
Court
has
made
pretty
clear
that
it

doesn’t
think
most
bribery
is
a
crime,
Adams
and
his

high-powered
lawyers
are
leaning
into
recasting
all
those
payments
as

innocent
gratuities
from
Turkey
for
good
government
service
rendered.

And
by
“good
government
service
rendered”
we
mean
“waiving
fire
codes.”

The
allegations
in
the
indictment
include
specific
references
to
a
dizzying
array
of
incriminating
messages
grabbed
from
phones
seized
from
the
mayor
and
his
team.
Making
the
whole
affair
a
valuable
reminder
that
some
—
if
not
most
—
people
are
very,
very
stupid
about
their
phones.
Or
what
they
think
they’ve
deleted
or
otherwise
kept
hidden
on
their
phones.

That’s
a
big
deal
for
everyone
who
isn’t
stupid.
Because
phones
are
increasingly
taking
over
as
our
discoverable
evidence
repositories.
And
forensics
expert
David
Greetham
of

Level
Legal
sees
this
transition
from
paper
to
computer
to
phone
as
the
primary
vector
of
evidence
as
accelerating.
“Last
year,
it
was
52%
of
mobile
devices
—
the
first
time
it
had
been
more
than
half
—
and
so
far
this
year
we’re
at
64%,”
he
said.

Whether
it’s
a
criminal
conspiracy
leaving
a
glaring
digital
paper
trail
or
civil
litigants
creating
themselves
a
nightmare
discovery
problem,
let’s
consider
a
few
of
the
ridiculous
data
collection
issues
involved
in
this
case.

Do
Not
Passcode,
Do
Collect
Several
Million
Dollars

When
Adams
handed
over
his
personal
cellphone
to
the
FBI,
he
told
them
it
was
locked
because
he’d
forgotten
the
passcode
because
he’d
recently
changed
it
to

protect
the
evidence
from
his
staff
potentially
deleting
it.

ADAMS
claimed
that
after
he
learned
about
the
investigation
into
his
conduct,
he
changed
the
password
on
November
5,
2024,
and
increased
the
complexity
of
his
password
from
four
digits
to
six.
ADAMS
had
done
this,
he
claimed,
to
prevent
members
of
his
staff
from
inadvertently
or
intentionally
deleting
the
contents
of
his
phone
because,
according
to
ADAMS,
he
wished
to
preserve
the
contents
of
his
phone
due
to
the
investigation.

How
conscientious
of
him!

Note
that
he
also
doesn’t
have
his
phone
set
up
to
open
through
facial
recognition,
complicating
the
process
since
forcing
someone
to
open
their
phone
through
facial
recognition

avoids
a
lot
of
Fifth
Amendment
self-incrimination
issues
if
it’s
non-testimonial.
Surely
this
is
coincidence.

So
far,
the
government
hasn’t
cracked
the
code
yet.

Bathroom
Break
To
Do
A
Number
3
(Delete
Incriminating
Evidence)

Among
the
more
comical
episodes
included
in
the
indictment
involved
an
Adams
staffer
who
allegedly
showed
up
to
chat
with
the
government
and
then
tried
to
take
a
quick
break
to
shed
some
potential
evidence

The
Adams
Staffer
also
agreed
to
speak
with
FBI
agents
and
falsely
denied
the
criminal
conduct
of
herself
and
ADAMS,
among
others.
At
one
point
during
her
voluntary
interview,
the
Adams
Staffer
excused
herself
to
a
bathroom
and,
while
there,
deleted
the
encrypted
messaging
applications
she
had
used
to
communicate
with
ADAMS,
the
Promoter,
the
Turkish
Official,
the
Airline
Manager,
and
others.

Once
you’re
talking
to
the
FBI…
they
already
know
about
the
messaging
apps.

But
it’s
even
more
futile
than
that.
Greetham
explained
that
people
don’t
seem
to
understand
that
removing
the
app

from
the
phone
is
pretty
much
useless.

I
think
what
people
forget
is
that,
if
you
destroy
your
phone,
or
you
forget
your
passcode,
or
you
upgrade
your
phone,
the
messaging
apps
survive
that.
Messaging
apps
like
Signal,
Telegram,
Snapchat,
ephemeral
messaging
—
you
can
log
on
on
a
different
phone.
It’s
not
built
into
the
OS
in
the
same
way
SMS
or
iMessage
for
iPhone
is.

And
even
iMessage
messages
can
be
recoverable
through
iCloud
if
the
user
employs
that
system.

Even
without
getting
into
the
user’s
account
through
another
device,
an
FBI
document
uncovered
by
a
FOIA
request
a
few
years
ago
suggested
that
the
government

may
have
limited
access
to
information
on
these
encrypted
services
already.

But
the
moral
of
the
story
is
that
removing
the
app
as
a
cute
icon
on
the
phone
is
not
doing
much
to
clear
that
evidence.

It
will
go
a
long
way
toward
making
you
look
like
you’re
engaged
in
spoliation
generally
though!

Gone
But
Not
Forgotten

In
addition,
in
March
2019,
while
exchanging
text
messages
to
plan
another
possible
to
trip
to
Turkey
in
which
the
Airline
Manager
would
arrange
travel
for
ADAMS,
the
Adams
Staffer
texted
ADAMS,
“To
be
o[n
the]
safe
side
Please
Delete
all
messages
you
send
me.”
ADAMS
responded,
“Always
do.”

Pobody’s
nerfect!

Unfortunately,
this
is
one
of
those
moves
where
99
percent
still
isn’t
enough.
Because
the
existence
of
even
one
message
like
this
sets
up
the
prosecutor
or
adversary
counsel
to
seek
negative
inferences
and
it
sets
up
a
forensics
expert
to
do
a
little
more
digging.
Greetham
compared
it
to
a
situation
that
“happens
more
than
you
think,”
where
a
computer
may
appear
clean
but
“you
check
some
internet
history,
and
you’d
find
the
recent
search
terms
were,
‘how
do
I
delete
data
without
being
caught?’”

But
if
Adams
really
meant
“USUALLY
do.”
It
turns
out
there
are
still
ways
to
potentially
recover
deleted
messages.
But
there
is
a
cost.
Greetham
explains:

In
cases
where
you
need
deleted
messages,
you
take
more
of
full
forensic
image
like
the
old
way
of
doing
laptops
and
desktops.
The
downside
to
that
is
that
the
iOS
updates
that
come
out
very
frequently
have
added
security
every
time
[ed.
note:
we
were
using
the
example
of
an
iPhone,
but
the
issue
is
similar
for
other
phones].
And
with
the
current
iOS
version,
the
only
known
way
to
do
that
is
to
jailbreak
the
phone.
And
technically
jailbreaking
the
phone
is
changing
the
evidence.

That
said,
“changing
the
evidence”
in
this
manner
isn’t
the
end
of
the
world.
There
are
procedures
for
authenticating
the
results
involving
witnesses
supervising
the
project
that
can
affirm
that
nothing
in
the
process
compromised
the
ultimately
relevant
data.
But
it’s
an
additional
consideration
to
evaluate
before
rooting
around
in
a
phone
looking
for
deleted
messages
still
buried
in
the
database.

Of
course,
maybe
the
government
won’t
need
to
get
all
the
way
into
the
deleted
messages…

Some
people
are
very
stupid
about
their
phones.
It’s
possible
that
some
people
are
just
very
stupid
generally.

Earlier:

Eric
Adams
Argues
That
Turkish
Delights
Slipped
Into
His
Pasties
Were
Tips,
Not
Bribes

---

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.

As
Relativity
Fest
concluded
last
week,
the
legal
journalists
in
attendance
sat
down
with
Relativity’s
David
Horrigan
to
discuss
the
events
of
the
conference
for
a
live
edition
of
the

Legaltech
Week
Journalists’
Roundtable.
We
discuss
this
year’s
iteration
of
the
famous
Judicial
Panel,
where
the
gathered
judges
shared
their
personal
views
on
the
state
of
the
judiciary
in
the
world
of
social
media
and
shrinking
mainstream
legal
journalism
outfits,
as
well
as
the
prospect
of

generativeAI
coming
for
discovery
work,
and
the
role
of
technology
providers
in
advancing
access
to
justice.

It’s
the
first
live
version
of
the
Roundtable
so
there
were
a
few
technical
issues
to
iron
out,
but
a
fun
talk
about
one
of
the
foremost
gatherings
on
the
calendar
focused
on
discovery
issues.

The
law
practice
management
platform
MyCase
rolled
out
three
product
updates
today
that
include
MyCaseIQ,
an
AI
conversational
interface;
enhancements
to
its
accounting
module;
and
an
immigration
add-on.
It
also
announced
the
beta
release
of
Smart
Spend,
a
product
that
marries
a
business
credit
card
to
expense
tracking
within
MyCase.

Generative
AI
Enhancements

Last
January,
AffiniPay,
the
parent
company
of
MyCase,
announced
AffiniPay
IQ,
its
strategic
initiative
to
embed
generative
artificial
intelligence
across
all
of
its
products
and
make
AI
a
native
component
of
legal
professionals’
daily
workflows,
along
with
the
beta
versions
of
the
first
two
features
of
that
initiative,
document
summarization
and
text
editing.

Now,
those
two
features
are
coming
out
of
beta
under
the
name
MyCase
IQ.
The
text
editing
feature
is
already
out
of
beta
and
available
within
MyCase,
and
document
summarization
will
launch
within
a
few
weeks.

In
addition,
early
next
year,
MyCase
will
release
an
AI-driven
conversational
interface
will
allow
users
to
source
case
information,
timelines,
and
data,
all
within
the
case
file
itself,
by
asking
questions
in
a
conversational
style.

The
interface
will
be
embedded
directly
in
the
case
detail
page.
It
will
have
suggested
prompts
that
users
can
select,
such
as
to
request
a
summary
of
the
case
or
a
detailed
timeline.

“We
are
on
a
mission
to
make
our
clients
financially
well,
and
to
use
cutting
edge
technology
to
achieve
that
goal
in
partnership
with
them,”
Dru
Armstrong,
chief
executive
officer
of
AffiniPay,
parent
company
of
MyCase,
told
me
during
a
briefing
yesterday.

“So
our
whole
thesis
for
generative
AI
is
to
not
do
it
because
everyone’s
doing
it,
but
to
do
it
because
it
makes
firms
be
able
to
leverage
automation
and
intelligence
to
give
them
time
back
so
they
can
serve
their
clients.”

From
beta
testing
these
generative
AI
features,
Armstrong
said,
one
major
takeaway
has
been
that
attorneys
really
need
to
trust
the
accuracy
of
the
information
the
AI
is
providing.

“So
we’ve
done
a
lot
of
work
to
make
sure
that
everything
that
goes
full
GA
[general
availability]
meets
those
very
high
standards
that
our
attorneys
have,”
she
said.

Accounting
Enhancements

MyCase
also
today
introduced
enhancements
to
its
native
accounting
software.
Among
these
enhancements:

• 1099
  vendor
  reporting:
  To
  help
  simplify
  bookkeeping,
  MyCase
  Accounting
  will
  soon
  offer
  1099
  vendor
  reporting
  directly
  within
  the
  platform.
• Automatic
  deposit
  slip
  creation:
  MyCase
  accounting
  now
  offers
  automatic
  deposit
  slip
  creation
  for
  vendors.
  When
  funds
  are
  deposited
  into
  the
  firm’s
  bank
  account,
  the
  slip
  is
  created
  automatically.
• Automatic
  bank
  reconciliation:
  Once
  the
  deposit
  slip
  is
  created,
  it
  is
  matched
  to
  the
  corresponding
  bank
  feed
  transaction
  from
  LawPay,
  eliminating
  the
  sometimes
  time-consuming
  task
  of
  reconciling
  deposit
  slips
  and
  transactions.

The
deposit
slip
feature
is
available
now,
and
the
other
enhancements
will
be
rolled
out
between
now
and
the
first
quarter
of
next
year.

Armstrong
said
the
bank
reconciliation
is
particularly
powerful
for
its
ability
to
solve
a
core
practice
management
challenge
of
IOLTA
compliance
by
combining
invoicing
within
MyCase,
electronic
payments
via
LawPay,
which
is
also
owned
by
AffiniPay,
and
automatic
reconciliation
within
the
native
accounting
feature.

“When
you
have
MyCase
with
the
invoice
and
billing
engine
combined
with
LawPay,
and
then
having
the
legal
accounting
package
built
natively
in
the
platform,
it
really
makes
it
a
pretty
automagical
experience
to
be
able
to
reconcile
the
invoices
with
the
transactions
with
the
bank
account,”
she
said.

Immigration
Add-On

The
immigration
add-on
uses
an
application
programming
interface
(API)
to
connect
MyCase
with
its
sibling
company
Docketwise,
a
case
management
platform
for
immigration
lawyers.

The
add-on
integrates
immigration
case
management
into
the
MyCase
practice
management
platform,
enabling
immigration
attorneys
to
get
the
benefits
of
both
case
management
and
practice
management
without
having
to
switch
between
platforms.

Armstrong
said
that
many
immigration
customers
wanted
more
of
a
full
practice
management
platform,
while
keeping
the
immigration-specific
case
management
features
of
Docketwise,
such
as
its
Smart
Forms.

Ever
since
AffiniPay
acquired
MyCase,
which
already
owned
Docketwise,
bringing
together
the
capabilities
of
the
two
platforms
“had
been
a
core
part
of
our
vision,”
Armstrong
said.

To
take
advantage
of
the
integration,
MyCase
users
will
required
to
purchase
a
subscription
for
the
Docketwise
add-on.
The
monthly
cost
of
the
add-on
will
be
$79
per
user
or
$69
if
purchased
annually.

Once
purchased,
all
Docketwise
features
will
be
available
directly
within
MyCase,
without
having
to
switch
platforms
or
even
ever
use
the
Docketwise
platform.
Among
the
features
the
add-on
provides:

• Smart
  Forms:
  Users
  can
  auto-populate
  immigration
  forms
  with
  client
  data,
  eliminating
  manual
  entry.
• USCIS
  case
  tracking:
  Track
  the
  status
  of
  immigration
  cases
  through
  automatic
  USCIS
  updates,
  keeping
  attorneys
  and
  clients
  informed,
  from
  within
  MyCase.
• E-filing:
  Enables
  electronic
  submission
  of
  immigration
  forms
  directly
  to
  government
  agencies
  (USCIS,
  DOL
  FLAG,
  DOS
  CEAC)
  from
  within
  MyCase.
• Priority
  date
  tracking:
  Monitors
  key
  dates
  to
  ensure
  timely
  actions
  are
  taken
  on
  immigration
  cases,
  minimizing
  the
  risk
  of
  missed
  deadlines.

The
immigration
add-on
is
being
soft-launched
before
the
end
of
the
year
and
will
be
made
generally
available
to
all
users
sometime
next
year.

Smart
Spend
Beta

MyCase
also
said
today
that
the
Smart
Spend
feature

it
announced
last
February
will
become
available
for
beta
testing
by
select
customers
staring
Oct.
21.
It
will
be
released
for
general
availability
in
the
first
quarter
of
next
year.

MyCase
had
initially
said
it
would
be
released
in
beta
in
the
second
quarter
of
this
year
and
then
to
general
release
in
the
third
quarter.

The
Smart
Spend
feature
promises
to
offer
a
business
credit
card
for
law
firms
that
is
tied
to
software
that
directly
channels
client-related
expenses
into
the
associated
matters
and
invoices
within
the
MyCase
platform.

It
provides
law
firms
with
a
LawPay-branded
Visa
credit
card
for
their
attorneys
and
staff.
All
spending
on
the
card
is
tracked
to
a
dashboard
where
the
firm
can
monitor
all
of
its
business
and
client
expenses.

Spending
is
also
integrated
within
MyCase,
so
client
expenses
are
directly
tracked
to
the
matter,
including
the
nature
and
category
of
the
expense
and
any
associated
receipts.

‘Big
Moves’
Ahead

In
July,
it
was
announced
that

Genstar
Capital
had
made
a
significant
investment
in
AffiniPay,
while
TA
Associates,
which
had
been
the
company’s
largest
investor
since
2020,
would
continue
to
retain
a
“meaningful
stake”
in
the
company.

During
our
briefing
yesterday,
Armstrong
said
that
she
was
“super
excited”
about
the
new
investor,
which
now
owns
the
larger
share
of
the
company.

“They’re
a
phenomenal
software
investor
with
just
an
amazing
track
record
of
helping
build
best-in-class,
high-growth
software
businesses,”
she
said.

She
said
the
driving
force
behind
the
deal
was
to
be
able
to
invest
more
in
product
research
and
development
in
order
to
deliver
more
for
the
company’s
customers.

“It’s
giving
us
an
opportunity
to
think
more
strategically
about
our
position
in
the
market,”
Armstrong
said.

“We
were
super
successful
with
our
MyCase
acquisition,
and
I
think
you’re
going
to
see
us
making
some
big
moves,
whether
it’s
in
products
that
we’ve
built
or
products
that
we’ve
partnered
with
or
products
that
we
bought.”

Remember
that
made
up
case
about
gay
marriages
and
websites?
There
were
some
glaring
issues.
One
was
standing,

which
the
Court
summarily
bracketed
and
got
to
the
outcome
they
wanted.
The
second
was
figuring
out
those

pesky
lawyer
fees.
That
problem
is
a
problem
no
more
—
Colorado
is
picking
up
the
tab.

NBC
has
coverage:

The
state
of
Colorado
has
agreed
to
pay
more
than
$1.5
million
in
legal
fees
to
a
web
designer
who
won
a
U.S.
Supreme
Court
ruling
last
year
that
found
the
right
to
free
speech
allows
some
businesses
to
refuse
to
provide
services
for
same-sex
weddings…A
state
board
approved
the
amount,
which
was
less
than
the
nearly
$2
million
that
Smith
had
originally
sought
after
her
free
speech
win
at
the
high
court.

If
your
gut-check
response
to
Colorado
footing
the
bill
is
disbelief,
it
shouldn’t
be.
Lawyer
fees
usually
get
covered
when
plaintiffs
win
a
civil
rights
suit.
Now
that
the
outstanding
balance
has
wrapped
up
on
this
matter,
conservative
think
tanks
can
move
on
to
the
next
pressing
civil
rights
issue

like
making
sure
that
IUDs
and
condoms
become
illegal
or
something.

Colorado
To
Pay
Web
Designer’s
Legal
Fees
After
Losing
LGBTQ
Anti-Bias
Law
Case
[NBC]

Earlier:

303
Creative
Web
Designer
Needs
Somebody
To
Cover
Her
Legal
Fees

The
Supreme
Court
Is
Lying
To
You
About
This
Web
Designer
Opinion

Supreme
Court
Cares
Less
About
The
Facts
Of
A
Case
Than
Hungover
1Ls

---

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.

In
short,
the
concerns
voiced
by
the
[Commodity
Futures
Trading
Commission]
are
understandable
given
the
uncertain
effects
that
Congressional
Control
Contracts
will
have
on
our
elections,
which
are
the
very
linchpin
of
our
democracy.

But
whether
the
statutory
text
allows
the
Commission
to
bar
such
event
contracts
is
debatable,
and
the
Commission
has
not
substantiated
that
risks
to
election
integrity
are
likely
to
materialize
if
Kalshi[Ex]
is
allowed
to
operate
its
exchange
during
the
pendency
of
this
appeal.

—U.S.
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
D.C.
Circuit
Judge
Patricia
Millett,
joined
by
Judges
Cornelia
Pillard
and
Florence
Pan,
ruling
that
commodities
exchange
KalshiEx

can
take
bets
on
which
party
will
take
control
of
Congress
following
the
November
election.
The
Commodity
Futures
Trading
Commission
argued
such
bets
incentivize
misinformation
“seeking
to
influence
perceptions
of
a
political
party
or
a
party
candidate’s
success.”
But
the
D.C.
Circuit
found
that
such
bets
were
not
in
violation
of
the
Commodity
Exchange
Act.