Author: TSA Press

Access
to
justice
is
at
risk.
If
you’ve
been
paying
attention,
you
know
this
isn’t
a
new
issue.
Nonprofits
that
provide
legal
services
to
underserved
populations
have
been
in
jeopardy
for
years.
Funding
cuts
have
become
the
norm,
and
they
just
keep
coming.

With
the
installation
of
the
new
administration,
the
threat
of
a
full
freeze
to
all
federally
funded
access-to-justice
programs
looms
large.
If
this
happens,
creative
and
unconventional
approaches
will
be
essential
to
bridge
a
gap
that
will
quickly
become
a
chasm.

In
recent
Above
the
Law
columns,
I’ve
explored
efforts
to
use
emerging
technology
to
solve
this
problem.
Artificial
intelligence
(AI)
tools,
in
particular,
have
the
potential
to
offer
some
relief.

For
example,
in
October,
I
asked

whether
generative
AI
could
expand
access
to
justice.
I
concluded
that
generative
AI

could
enhance
efficiency
for
public
interest
lawyers,
enabling
them
to
serve
more
clients
effectively.
But
as
I
explained,
in
my
experience,
capitalism
always
trumps
altruism.
While
technology
has
long
been
touted
as
a
solution
for
improving
legal
access,
financial
incentives
often
shift
innovation
toward
profit-driven
models
rather
than
public
service. Without
careful
implementation
and
a
commitment
to
accessibility,
AI’s
benefits
will
inevitably
be
unevenly
distributed,
limiting
the
ability
to
truly
impact
the
lives
of
those
who
need
it
most.

In
November,
I
once
again
wondered

whether
generative
AI
provided
incremental
solutions
to
access
to
justice
or
whether
its
proponents’
claims
were
simply
overhyped
promises.
I
took
a
closer
look
at
whether
AI
is
actually
bridging
the
justice
gap
and
found
that
some
legal
aid
organizations
and
courts
are
putting
AI
to
practical
use.
Tools
like
Legal
Aid
of
North
Carolina’s
Legal
Information
Assistant
and
the
Nevada
Supreme
Court’s
AI
chatbot
are
helping
self-represented
litigants
navigate
the
system
more
easily.
While
AI
isn’t
a
magic
fix,
it
does
show
promise
in
small
but
meaningful
ways.

The
threat
of
large-scale
federal
funding
cuts
has
since
gained
momentum,
making
the
search
for
an
out-of-the-box
solution
all
the
more
pressing.
As
you
can
probably
imagine,
my
interest
was
piqued
when
I
stumbled
upon
a
New
York
State
Bar
Ethics
opinion
released
in
December
that
addressed
a
unique
technology-driven
approach
to
solving
the
access-to-justice
problem,
one
case
at
a
time.

In

Ethics
Opinion
1277,
the
inquiring
attorney
asked:
“May
a
non-profit
legal
defense
organization
set
up
and
administer
GoFundMe
pages
intended
to
help
the
organization’s
indigent
clients
raise
funds
from
the
public
to
cover
their
living
expenses
upon
release
from
incarceration?”

What
a
question!
This
tactic
is
not
one
I’d
have
envisioned,
and
it’s
undoubtedly
an
unconventional
approach
to
leveraging
technology
to
support
access
to
legal
representation.
As
I
suggested
above,
“creative
and
unconventional”
ideas
are
exactly
what
we
need
right
now,
and
this
certainly
fits
the
bill!

Of
course,
it
doesn’t
matter
if
it’s
a
great
idea
unless
it
passes
ethical
muster.
So
does
it?
According
to
the
Committee
on
Professional
Ethics,
under
certain
circumstances,
it
can.

The
committee
explained
that
generally
speaking,
New
York
lawyers
“shall
not
advance
or
guarantee
financial
assistance
to
the
client.”
However,
the
rule
has
four
exceptions,
one
of
which
is
the
“humanitarian
exception”
set
forth
in
Rule
1.8(e)(4).

This
rule
applies
to
not-for-profit
legal
services
or
public
interest
organizations
that
serve
indigent
clients
and
are
providing
legal
services
for
free.
It
permits
them
to
offer
financial
assistance
to
their
clients.
Any
financial
assistance
provided
under
this
exception
must
be
in
the
form
of
gifts,
not
loans,
and
cannot
come
from
“[f]unds
raised
for
any
legal
services.”

The
committee
also
addressed
another
caveat
to
this
exception:
the
rule
expressly
prohibits
the
legal
organization
from
promising
or
assuring
financial
assistance
to
the
client
before
its
services
are
retained,
nor
can
it
promise
financial
assistance
to
induce
the
client
to
continue
the
lawyer-client
relationship
once
retained.

The
committee
applied
this
analysis
to
the
question
posed
and
concluded
in
the
affirmative:
“A
non-profit
criminal
defense
organization
may
set
up
and
administer
GoFundMe
pages
for
the
benefit
of
indigent
current
clients,
provided
that
the
financial
assistance
is
rendered
as
gifts,
not
loans,
and
the
financial
assistance
does
not
promise
financial
assistance
prior
to
retention
or
as
an
inducement
to
continue
the
lawyer-client
relationship.”

So
once
again,
technology
saves
the
day
—
or
at
least
offers
that
potential.
While
it
may
not
be
a
silver
bullet,
technology
continues
to
offer
new
and
unexpected
ways
to
support
access
to
justice
—
especially
as
traditional
funding
sources
become
increasingly
unreliable.
AI
tools
are
slowly
proving
their
value
in
legal
aid
settings,
and
now
crowdfunding,
under
the
right
circumstances,
has
been
deemed
ethically
viable
for
nonprofit
legal
organizations
in
New
York.

These
solutions
won’t
fix
the
system,
but
they
can
help
fill
the
gaps
in
a
world
where
the
demand
for
legal
help
far
exceeds
the
resources
available.
With
the
possibility
of
federal
funding
freezes
becoming
more
imminent
than
ever,
the
legal
community
needs
to
continue
to
pursue
creative,
ethically
sound
innovations
that
ensure
access
to
justice
is
available
to
everyone
—
not
just
the
small
minority
who
can
afford
it.

---

Nicole
Black


is
a
Rochester,
New
York
attorney
and
Director
of
Business
and
Community
Relations
at



MyCase,
web-based
law
practice
management
software.
She’s
been



blogging


since
2005,
has
written
a



weekly
column


for
the
Daily
Record
since
2007,
is
the
author
of



Cloud
Computing
for
Lawyers,
co-authors



Social
Media
for
Lawyers:
the
Next
Frontier,
and
co-authors



Criminal
Law
in
New
York.
She’s
easily
distracted
by
the
potential
of
bright
and
shiny
tech
gadgets,
along
with
good
food
and
wine.
You
can
follow
her
on
Twitter
at



@nikiblack


and
she
can
be
reached
at




[email protected].

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

The
decisions
being
made
by
law
firms
with
regard
to
the
timing
of
their
recruitment
could
easily
have
negative
personal
ramifications
on
students
and
student
well-being.

It’s
possible
that
those
interviews
were
really
much
more
about
pre-recruiting
for
2L
summer
associates
and
scouting
talent
than
necessarily
being
about
an
increase
in
1L
summer
associate
opportunities.
But
the
impact
was
the
same:
Students
had
to
miss
a
lot
of
class
in
order
to
do
interviews.
If
the
outcome
was
that
there
weren’t
more
opportunities
out
there,
then
it
negatively
impacted
students,
because
you
are
still
graded
on
a
curve.

—

 David
Diamond,
assistant
dean
of
the
Career
Strategy
Center
at
Northwestern
Pritzker
School
of
Law,
in
comments
given
to
the

American
Lawyer,
on
Biglaw
firms’

increased
use
of
pre-recruiting
at
the
school
and
its
effect
on
students.
Diamond
said
that
while
1L
summer
placements
at
the
school
remained
flat
between
2023
and
2024,
last
year,
there
were
50%
more
interviews
for
1L
summer
associate
positions.

---

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 Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

Brittany
Courville
has
had
an
interesting
career
path.
The
University
of
Pennsylvania
Law
grad
began
her
legal
career
at
Winston
&
Strawn
but
has
since
left
the
practice
of
law.
Courville
got
caught
up
in
the

Free
Britney
movement
—
the
online
activism
that
agitated
for
the
end
of
pop
star
Britney
Spears’s
conservatorship.
And
when
that
passion
butted
up
against
her
legal
work,
she
dipped
out
of
life
as
an
attorney
to
try
her
hand
as
an
influencer.

As
she’s
said
on
her
platform,
“Let’s
just
say
my
law
tube
career
and
my
legal
career
collided
almost
immediately,
and
I
chose
to
leave
my
first
lawyer
job
after
Britney
Spears’
manager
personally
requested
I
stopped
making
investigation
videos
about
her
on
YouTube.
And
I
refused.
So
I
quit,
and
that
sucked.
That
sucked,”
she
said.
“I’m
retiring
from
the
practice
of
law.
Moving
forward,
I
will
seek
to
make
more
decisions
that
allow
me
to
experience
true
freedom.”

With
163,000
subscribers
on
her
YouTube
channel,
Courville
continues
to
speak
about
celebrity
conservatorships.
Yes,
Britney
is,
in
fact

free
now,
but
a
frequent
subject
of
Courville’s
content
is Lima
Jevremovic,
who
served
one
year
as
a
court-appointed
guardian
of
Bam
Margera,
of
MTV’s
Jackass
fame.

As

reported
by
Law.com:

In
her
discussion
of
the
Margera
case,
Courville
has
alleged
that
Jevremovic
has
conspired
with
Margera’s
family
and
friends
to
gain
control
of
his
assets,
according
to
a
2022
suit
by
Jevremovic.
Courville
has
also
suggested
Jevremovic
was
criminally
liable
in
connection
with
the
treatment
she
provided
to
a
former
homeless
woman,
Amanda
Rabb,
who
died
in
2021,
the
suit
claimed.
Jevremovic’s
suit
claims
she
and
her
family
have
had
to
move
multiple
times
due
to
death
threats
from
Courville’s
followers.

Which,
has
led
to
some
legal
issues.
Jevremovic
filed
a
lawsuit
against
Courville
alleging
the
former
attorney
“created
a
scandal
concocting
ersatz
villains
out
of
Ms.
Jevremović
and
her
wellness
supplements
and
healthcare
solutions
software
business,
AURA.” 

But
in
a
series
of
related
cases,
U.S.
District
Judge
Zahid
Quaraishi dismissed
them
without
prejudice,
relying
on

Sciore
v.
Phung,
holding
that
“Internet
forums
…
conveys
a
strong
signal
to
a
reasonable
reader
that
the
statements
are
defendant’s
opinion”
and
are
given
“less
credence”
than
“similar
remarks
made
in
other
contexts.”

And
Corville’s
attire
played
a
role
in
his
thinking:

The
judge
noted
that
Courville,
when
speaking
on
her
videos,
“can
be
seen
wearing
either
panda
ears
or
bunny
ears
while
making
her
statements,
while
a
sparkly
unicorn
piñata
rests
prominently
in
the
background.”

In
addition,
Courville
calls
herself
a
“legal
edutainer,”
and
refers
to
her
opinions
about
Margera
and
Jeremovic
as
mere
“theories,”
the
judge
said.

Jevremovic
is
currently
on
the
fourth
amended
complaint,
and
the
pleadings
on
Corville’s
motion
to
dismiss
are
ongoing.
But
Jeremovic
is
determined
to
chart
out
how
defamation
works
online:

Boiling
down
the
defamatory
statements
against
Jeremovic
is
difficult
because
Corville
made
“hour
after
hour”
of
claims,
“except
to
say
that
Ms.
Jeremovic
is
the
devil
incarnate,
trying
to
steal
money
and
take
advantage
of
people
with
addiction
problems,”
said
[Jeremovic’s
attorney
Elliot
Ostrove,]
of
Epstein
Ostrove
in
Edison,
New
Jersey.

“She’s
trying
to
be
a
social
media
personality
and
internet
star,
basically
trying
to
make
a
living
by
riling
up
other
people,
and
it
seems
to
work
to
some
degree,”
Ostrove
said.
“Defamation
laws
need
to
exist
online.
Just
because
somebody’s
puts
themselves
online
and
uses
their
finger
quotes
or
uses
silly
backgrounds
or
pretend
like
they’re
saying,
‘well,
it’s
just
my
opinion,’
they
can’t
then
spew
falsehoods
that
…
actually
harm
people,
and
hide
behind
the
fact
that
they’re
doing
it
on
the
Internet.
If
they’re
going
to
put
information
out
there,
and
they’re
going
to
put
it
out
there
in
a
way
to
try
to
rile
people
up,
they
need
to
make
sure
what
they’re
saying
is
true
and
accurate.”

Because
if
you
can’t
trust
a
washed-out
Biglaw
attorney
in
bunny
ears,
who
can
you
trust?

---

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].

Chronicling
the
Adelson
trial
has
had
its
fair
share
of
clever
legal
arguments
and
delays,
but
this
development
happened
out
of
court.
Being
incarcerated
comes
with
its
stressors.
Being
in
a
cell
and
having
your
day
dictated
to
you
take
their
toll,
but
sometimes
it’s
the
good
rapport
(or
lack
thereof)
with
your
fellow
inmates
that
really
gets
you.
Donna
Adelson
recently
had
a
less-than-stellar
interaction
with
a
fellow
inmate
—

Tallahassee
has
coverage:

Donna
Adelson,
an
alleged
mastermind
behind
the
2014
contract
killing
of
law
professor
Dan
Markel,
claimed
she
was
“grabbed”
and
extorted
late
last
year
at
the
Leon
County
Detention
Facility.
…
“On
Feb.
3,
Donna
Adelson
alleged
another
inmate
grabbed
her
by
the
arm
in
relation
to
an
attempt
to
extort,”
Knight
said.
“She
said
this
happened
back
in
December.
She
said
it
happened
in
the
bathroom
area,
not
in
the
shower.
She
would
not
provide
any
information
regarding
the
alleged
suspects.”

Adelson
has
since
been
placed
in
protective
custody.
Being
protected
from
aggression
shouldn’t
stop
once
you’re
behind
bars
—
and
we’re
a
better
country
for
protecting
people
in
vulnerable
positions.
Whatever
justice
she
deserves
should
be
meted
out
in
a
courtroom
by
a
judge
and
jurors,
not
by
a
fellow
inmate
in
a
bathroom
area.

Donna
Adelson
Moved
To
Protective
Custody
At
Jail
After
Alleged
Assault,
Extortion
[Tallahassee]
Earlier:

---

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:
This
is
the
latest
installment
in
a
series
of
posts
on
motherhood
in
the
legal
profession,
in
partnership
with
our
friends
at MothersEsquire.
Welcome
Faith
Bentley
to
our
pages.
Click


here

if
you’d
like
to
donate
to
MothersEsquire.

The
adage
that
women
are
expected
to
work
like
they
do
not
have
children
and
mother
like
they
do
not
have
work
has
some
relevance
when
considering
female
participation
in
the
legal
field.
As
noted
by
MothersEsquire’s
current
president,
Sarah
Mannion,
any
number
of
law
firms
make
all
of
the
right
noises
but
fail
to
act
in
actually
supporting
mothers,
demonstrating
that
the
motherhood
penalty
is
alive
and
still
prevailing.
The
broadening
social
acknowledgement
of
this
penalty
has
initiated
reform
solutions,
such
as
the
Mansfield
Rule.
Additionally,
there
has
been
a
gradual
economic
recognition
of
the
nuanced
wage
gap
associated
with
the
penalty.

The
“work
family”
narrative
has
prevailed
in
many
different
avenues
of
the
legal
profession,
with
the
main
culprit
of
endorsement
being
the

culture
surrounding
the
practice
of
law.
After
spending
18
hours
with
a
global
consulting
firm,
one
study
determined
that
women’s
stalled
advancement
in
their
professions
was
derived
from
the
“culture
of
overworking.”
Although
most
can
relate
to
the
pressures
of
falling
victim
to
heavy
time
constraints
in
the
legal
profession,
mothers
in
the
law
are
directly
impacted
by
this
environment. 

The
culture
of
overworking
reiterates
and
further
facilitates
gender
inequalities
in
the
legal
profession,
as
mothers
are
encouraged
to
take
career-derailing
accommodations
to
meet
the
demands
of
both
work
and
family,
imposing
a
dual
identity
onto
them.
Although
there
is
recognition
of
the
roles
imposed
upon
mothers
in
the
legal
field,
it
is
the
repercussions
that
follow
when
they
take
these
accommodations
that
are
encouraging
gender
discrepancies
in
the
practice
of
law.
Upon
having
a
child,
women
are
often
encouraged
to
take
make
adjustments
—
such
as
working
part-time
and
shifting
to
internally
facing
roles,
thereby
derailing
their
careers
as
they
once
were.
Although
these
arrangements
are
intended
to
best
serve
mothers,
parental
support
policies
are
unserviceable
if
they
are
disadvantaging
the
people
that
they
are
intended
to
help.

In
2023,
a
report
by
the
ABA
found
that
56.2%
of
law
school
students
were
women
—
outnumbering
their
male
counterparts.
Additionally,
it
was
found
that
41%
of
all
U.S.
lawyers
were
women.
However,
the
prevailing
issue
is
not
the
recruitment
of
women
to
the
legal
profession,
it
is
the
retention
of
women

within
the
legal
profession.
In
2023,
only
28%
of
all
law
firm
partners
were
women.
Sharon
Rowan,
an
award-winning
director
and
practicing
trial
attorney
in
Atlanta,
conducted
research
for
over
two
decades
and
found
that
the
core
reasons
why
women
leave
the
practice
of
law
are
due
to
the
tedious
work-life
balance,
the
unconscious
bias,
and
the
wage
gap.
Women
stay
where
they
feel
appreciated,
their
successes
are
recognized,
and
their
outside
lives
are
valued. 

Additionally,
more
attention
is
being
brought
to
the
nuanced
“motherhood
penalty”
in
regard
to
wage
disparities
over
time.
Research
has
shown
that
when
employers
make
a
job
offer
to
mothers,
they
offer
a
lower
salary
than
they
do
to
other
women.
In
contrast,
men
do
not
suffer
a
penalty
when
they
become
fathers
—
it
is
actually
the
opposite.
The
“fatherhood
bonus”
prevails,
in
which
their
earnings
actually
increase
upon
being
a
father.
A
key
reason
behind
this
is
the
positive
perception
and
social
respect
that
generally
surrounds
fathers.
This
reality
could
greatly
diminish
by
bringing
awareness
to
this
issue,
encouraging
transparency
in
earnings,
and
redefining
society’s
understanding
of
motherhood. 

A
previous
professor
and
current
mentor
of
mine
disclosed
her
struggles
with
this
dilemma
to
my
class
during
the
first
year
of
law
school,
which
consisted
largely
of
women,
sharing
how
she
used
this
conflict
as
motivation
to
become
her
own
boss.
Newly
returned
from
maternity
leave,
the
partner
—
who
was
a
male
—
initiated
many
deadlines,
phone
calls,
and
standards
without
regard
to
the
fact
she
had

just
had
a
child.
Torn
between
her
lifelong
ambition
and
the
reality
that
so
many
women
in
the
legal
field
experience
upon
shifting
titles
to
“mother,”
she
began
her
own
firm.
Her
act
of
bravery
and
resilience
is
admirable;
however,
upon
hearing
her
predicament,
I
could
not
stop
pondering
how
mothers
should
not
have
to

feel
compelled
to
make
such
a
decision. 

This
dilemma
also
prevails
in
what
has
best
been
coined
as
the
“returnity”
crisis.
When
mothers
return
from
work
after
taking
accommodations
—
such
as
maternity
leave
—
they
return
to
a
newly
accelerated
environment,
with
more
priorities,
and
the
same
fast-paced
culture
of
overworking
that
was
waiting
for
them
when
they
got
back.
This
is
not
to
say
that
a
universal
conflict
is
placed
upon
all
women
in
the
legal
profession;
however,
there
is
a
dialogue
that
deserves
more
recognition
and
awareness
when
having
these
conversations.

The
Solution

A
national
initiative,
the
Mansfield
Rule,
is
designed
after
Arabella
Mansfield,
the
first
female
lawyer
in
the
United
States.
The
rule
is
devoted
to
affirmative
action,
measuring
whether
law
firms
consider
at
least
30%
of
women,
lawyers
of
color,
LGBTQ+
lawyers,
and
lawyers
with
disabilities
for
leadership
and
governance
roles,
promotions,
and
entry-level
and
lateral
hiring.
In
2023,
Diversity-Lab
announced
that
more
than
240
law
firms
had
achieved
certification
for
the
Mansfield
Rule,
with
that
number
increasing
annually.
This
is
a
step
in
the
right
direction,
as
it
is
bringing
awareness
to
the
social
discrepancies
within
the
practice
of
law. 

---

Faith
Bentley
is
in
her
second
year
at
the
Brandeis
School
of
Law
at
the
University
of
Louisville.
She
is
passionate
about
advocating
for
children
and
hopes
to
pursue
her
career
in
Family
Law.
She
is
a
first-generation
law
student
and
when
she
is
not
studying,
Faith
enjoys
spending
time
with
her
friends
and
painting.

Southern
California
communities

ravaged
by
life-threatening
wildfires
now
have
a
Biglaw
firm
to
thank
for
coming
to
the
rescue
when
FireAid
—
the
star-studded
benefit
concert
that’s
raised
more
than
$60
million
thus
far
—
hired
them
to
assist
on
a
pro
bono
basis,
just
two
weeks
before
the
event.

Armed
with
a
team
of
six
associates,

Stephen
Fackler,
a
Gibson
Dunn
partner
based
in
Palo
Alto
and
New
York,
volunteered
to
take
the
lead,
advising
on
media
distribution
contracts,
tax
strategy,
and
charity
solicitation
regulations.
The
task,
as
Fackler
explained
to

The
Recorder,
wasn’t
an
easy
one.

“The
time
challenge
was
extreme,”
Fackler
told
The
Recorder.
“I
was
reviewing
contracts
as
late
as
…
hours
before
the
concert
started.”
Despite
many
difficulties
involved
with
such
short
timeframe,
Fackler
and
his
team
were
able
to
get
the
job
done
—
and
done
well. 

Congratulations
to
Gibson
Dunn,
and
an
even
bigger
congratulations
to
the
many
beneficiaries
of
the
FireAid
concert.

How
Gibson
Dunn
Lawyers
Helped
Assemble
the
LA
FireAid
Benefit
Concert
in
‘Extreme’
Time
Crunch

[The
Recorder]

---

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 Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

Well,
they
made
it
official:
The
Justice
Department
no
longer
serves
the
United
States,
it
serves

Donald
Trump
personally.

Buried
in
new
Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi’s
memo
dump
between
the
empty
platitudes
about
“justice”
and
the
barely
concealed
threats
against
career
prosecutors
is
a
single
phrase
marking
a
tectonic
shift
in
the
DOJ’s
purpose.
Bondi
advises
the
DOJ
that
they
cannot
deprive
“the
President
of
the
benefit
of
his
lawyers”
(memo
available
here).

What
the
Nixon
is
this?

While
this
step
is
brazen,
it’s
not
necessarily
unexpected.
At
this
point,
everyone
running
the
DOJ

actually
are
Trump’s
personal
lawyers.
Emil
Bove
and
Todd
Blanche
will
serve
as
top
deputies
at
the
DOJ
after
working
as
Trump’s
personal
defense
attorneys.
Trump’s
appellate
lawyer
John
Sauer
gets
to
be
Solicitor
General
and
file
weekly
Supreme
Court
briefs
in
cases
like

Trump
v.
People
Who
Hurt
His
Feelings.
And
Bondi
herself
represented
Trump
in
his
first
impeachment
—
a
gig
she
got
after
conveniently

dropping
an
investigation
into
Trump
University
after
receiving
a
sizable
donation
from…
oh,
you
don’t
even
need
me
to
finish
that
sentence,
do
you?

At
this
point,
it
would
be
more
honest
to
slap
a
“Trump
Legal
Services”
sign
on
the
DOJ
building
and
start
running
TV
ads
promising
to
“Make
Your
Indictments
Disappear!”
Now
that

Cellino
&
Barnes
lost
its
iconic
phone
number,
maybe
the
DOJ
could
take
it.
If
there’s
any
administration
eager
to
lean
into
“88”
iconography,
it’s
the
Musk/Trump
administration.

Even
after
stacking
the
DOJ
with
personal
cronies,
calling
them

“his
lawyers”
out
loud
delivers
a
Constitutional
Law
jump
scare.
The
Department
of
Justice
generally
engages
in
a
subtle
balancing
act.
The
Attorney
General
serves
at
the
pleasure
of
the
President,
but
the
department
itself
speaks
for
the
government
as
a
whole.
This
distinction
usually
manifests
as
a
limited
or
not-so-limited
independence.
It’s
why
Merrick
Garland’s
DOJ
spent
half
its
time
trying
to
put
Hunter
Biden
in
jail
based
on
charges
that
barely
merit
probation
against
average
citizens.
Even
the
most
aggressive
executives
try
to
pay
lip
service
to
the
idea
that
Justice
enjoys
independence
from
the
personal
whims
of
the
White
House.

This
memo
shatters
that
illusion.
And
while
the
most
stunning
admission
comes
toward
the
end,
Bondi
lays
the
groundwork
for
this
shift
earlier
in
the
memo:

It
is
the
job
of
an
attorney
privileged
to
serve
in
the
Department
of
Justice
to
zealously
defend
the
interests
of
the
United
States.
Those
interests,
and
the
overall
policy
of
the
United
States,
are
set
by
the
Nation’s
Chief
Executive,
who
is
vested
by
the
Constitution
with
all
“[E]xecutive
Power.”
More
broadly,
attorneys
are
expected
to
zealously
advance,
protect,
and
defend
their
client’s
interests.
Department
of
Justice
attorneys
have
signed
up
for
a
job
that
requires
zealously
advocating
for
the
United
States.

Without
the
second
sentence,
that
paragraph
is
a
standard
high
school
civics
course
description
of
the
DOJ.
But,
as
any
successful
high
school
civics
student
knows,
“the
overall
policy
of
the
United
States”
is
not,
in
fact
“set
by
the
Nation’s
Chief
Executive.”
The
“executive
power”
means
enforcing
laws
passed
by
Congress,
not
making
up
new
ones.
Orwellian
is
a
term
that
gets
overused,
usually
to
suggest
some
a

1984-style
omnipowerful
dictatorial
regime.
This
is
more
Orwellian
as
in
a
bunch
of
pigs
clumsily
rewriting
rules
as
they
go
along.

The
responsibilities
of
Department
of
Justice
attorneys
include
not
only
aggressively
enforcing
criminal
and
civil
laws
enacted
by
Congress,
but
also
vigorously
defending
presidential
policies
and
actions
against
legal
challenges
on
behalf
of
the
United
States.
The
discretion
afforded
Department
attorneys
entrusted
with
those
responsibilities
does
not
include
latitude
to
substitute
personal
political
views
or
judgments
for
those
that
prevailed
in
the
election.

Yeah,
but
it’s
not
THE
election.
There
are
a
lot
of
elections
involved
in
enforcing
the
law.
The
2024
election
does
not
—
or
at
least
should
not
—
relieve
a
DOJ
lawyer
from
enforcing
the
Voting
Rights
Act
of
1965.
Laws
do
not
cease
to
exist
until
the
legislature
passes
a
new
one.
Bondi’s
already
adding
a
porcine
touch
to
the
concept
of
prosecutorial
discretion
that
all
laws
are
equal
but
some
are
more
equal
than
others.

Apparently
the
personal
judgments
that
are
on
the
outs
includes
stuff
like
“the
Civil
Rights
Act”
or
“laws
against
foreign
bribes.”

And,
of
course,
one
big
policy
“that
prevailed
in
the
election”
that
DOJ
staff
are
expected
to
wholeheartedly
embrace
is
a
holy
crusade
against
anyone
who
thinks
former
presidents
shouldn’t
be
able
to
sell
nuclear
secrets
to
hostile
foreign
governments.
After
years
of
characterizing
Trump’s
theft
of
classified
materials
and,
much
more
importantly,
repeated
refusal
to
turn
them
over
once
asked
about
it
as
the
“weaponization”
of
the
Justice
Department,
Bondi
has
breezily
slid
the
Department
into

weaponizing
the
Justice
Department.
Because
another
memo
pumped
out
by
Bondi
sets
the
stage
to
punish
those
who
prosecuted
Trump
cases
and
to
chill
any
future
effort
if/when
Trump
or
his
allies
commit
future
crimes.

They’ve
finally
found
the
outer
limit
of
qualified
immunity.
It’s
not

literally
setting
a
man
on
fire,
it’s
Trump’s
feelings.

Which
is
weird
because
a
couple
weeks
ago,

Bondi
couldn’t
even
begin
to
answer
a
question
about
special
counsel
investigations
and
now
she
has
very
detailed
and
official
thoughts
about
it.
If
one
didn’t
know
any
better,
it’s
almost
like
she
openly
lied
to
the
U.S.
Senate!

Would
Pam
Bondi
try
to
weaponize
the
legal
system?
She

weaponized
the
legal
system
against
hurricane
victims
over
their
pet
dog,
she’s
more
than
capable
of
turning
DOJ
action
into
political
ordnance.

The
nation’s
top
law
enforcement
agency
has
been
converted
into
a
legal
defense
team
for
a
single
individual,
run
by
people
who
literally
represented
him
in
court.
It’s
a
bit
of

an
(un)ethical
trend
with
this
department
these
days.
Nixon
sparked
a
constitutional
crisis
when
he
started
a
firing
spree
until
someone
at
DOJ
would
do
his
bidding.
Trump
avoided
Nixon’s
mistake
by
making
sure
he
didn’t
install
anyone
in
the
job
with
enough
backbone
to
refuse
him.

So
when
Bondi
talks
about
“his
lawyers,”
believe
her.
Because
this
Justice
Department
isn’t
for
America
anymore.
It’s
for

him.

(Memo
available
on
the
next
page…)

---

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.

The

highly
anticipated
transatlantic
merger
between
U.K.-based
Herbert
Smith
Freehills
—
No.
34
on
the
Global
200
—
and
New
York-based
Kramer
Levin
Naftalis
&
Frankel
—
No.
141
on
the
Global
200
—
will
be
voted
on
by
partners
this
month,
and
if
approved,
the
combination
will
go
live
in
May.

There’s
just
one
little
problem:
HSF
recently
suffered
its
second
year
in
a
row
of
operating
losses
here
in
the
U.S.
The

American
Lawyer
has
the
details:

Realistically
speaking,
the
firm’s
limited
financial
losses
shouldn’t
have
that
much
of
an
impact
on
the
impending
tie-up.
HSF
Kramer
will
have
2,700
lawyers
and
is
expected
to
have
at
least
$2
billion
in
revenue,
putting
it
on
track
to
rank
in
the
top
25
on
a
global
scale.
HSF
operates
in
16
countries,
while
Kramer
Levin
has
three
offices
in
the
U.S.
As
HSF’s
chair
and
senior
partner,
Rebecca
Maslen-Stannage,
previously
noted,
the
merger
would
be
“transformational”
for
both
firms.
It
seems
unlikely
at
this
point
that
either
firm
would
walk
away
from
the
deal. 

We
look
forward
to
welcoming
HSF
Kramer
later
this
month,
if
everything
goes
according
to
plan.
Best
of
luck
to
both
firms
as
the
voting
process
unfolds.

HSF
Accounts
Show
Operating
Loss
in
America
For
2024
[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 Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

In
the
least
surprising
news
of
the
day,
Litera
has
acquired
a
company.
Litera’s
strategic
vision
—

sometimes
more
like
a
mythic
quest
—
involves
building
the
ultimate
end-to-end
law
firm
software
empire
and
the
company
is
always
on
the
lookout
for
providers
offering
unique
technologies
that
fit
into
the
overall
mosaic.
Over
the
years,
they’ve
steadily
added
to
their
growing
suite
of
legal
technology
solutions,
from

bringing
AI-powered
contract
analysis
into
the
fold
with
Kira
Systems
to

expanding
their
grip
on
firm
management
with
BigSquare.

The
holiday
season
may
be
in
the
rearview
mirror,
but
Litera
still
has
a
hankering
for
some
peppermint.
Specifically,
Litera
has
now
acquired
Peppermint
Technology,
a
UK-based
Microsoft
partner
specializing
in
cloud-based
CRM,
matter
management,
and
business
development
tools.
With
Peppermint,
they’re
doubling
down
on
deep
Microsoft
integration
—
because
lawyering
in
the
2020s
is
a
never-ending
cycle
of
living
inside
Word,
Outlook,
and
Teams
and
stepping
away
from
the
computer
to
complain
about
Word,
Outlook,
and
Teams.

Peppermint’s
flagship
product,
CX365,
functions
as
a
bit
of
a
legal
Swiss
Army
knife
built
on
Microsoft
technology.
The
offering
combines
CRM,
enterprise
relationship
management
(ERM),
and
case
&
matter
management
into
one
system
so
law
firms
can
track
clients,
manage
relationships,
and
streamline
workflows

without
toggling
between
different
apps.

For
Litera,
this
acquisition
looks
to
bolster
firm-wide
connectivity.
As
Litera
CEO
Avaneesh
Marwaha
put
it:

The
combined
offerings
from
Litera
and
Peppermint
Technology
will
empower
law
firms
to
excel
in
client
engagement
and
operational
efficiency
directly
in
the
Microsoft
tools
they
use
every
day.
We
are
excited
to
both
integrate
Peppermint’s
innovative
solutions
into
our
portfolio
and
partner
with
Microsoft,
accelerating
Litera’s
mission
to
transform
top-to-bottom
the
entire
legal
experience
and
give
our
clients
efficiencies
they
did
not
imagine
possible.

Mike
Wilson,
Managing
Partner
at

Blake
Morgan,
already
used
both
products
and
sees
nothing
but
upside
in
the
tie-up:

“As
mutual
customers
of
both
Litera
and
Peppermint,
we
are
excited
about
the
opportunities
this
acquisition
presents
for
our
lawyers,
enabling
seamless
access
to
some
of
our
most
utilised
applications
within
the
cloud.”

Steve
Jobs
once
challenged
engineers
to
cut
Mac
boot
times
by
pointing
out
that
if
five
million
people
used
Macs,
saving
just
10
seconds
a
day
turning
it
on
adds
up
to
100
lifetimes
a
year.
That
spirit
drives
Litera’s
seemingly
insatiable
appetite
for
other
companies,
attempting
to
give
lawyers
the
means
to
use
a

single
ecosystem
where
they
can
manage
everything
without
wasting
time
switching
around.

Or,
at
the
very
least,
fewer
tabs
open
in
Chrome.
Sorry…
Microsoft
Edge.

---

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.

Former
Food
and
Drug
Administration
Commissioner
Robert
Califf
was
in
Silicon
Valley
to
receive
an
award
from
the
Precision
Medicine
World
Conference
on
Wednesday.
In
a
fireside
chat,
Califf,
a
cardiologist
by
training,
addressed
a
range
of
issues
from
whether
precision
medicine
has
advanced
enough
to
how
he
would
advise
his
successor
at
the
FDA.

Prepare
for
Delays

The
FDA,
like
other
agencies,
is
being
reviewed
by
the
Trump
administration
to
weed
out
what
they
believe
federal
agencies
have:
inefficiency
and
worker
redundancy.
This
effort
may
shrink
the
agency
through
buyouts
—

the
legality
of
which
is
in
doubt
— or
layoffs
and
that
workforce
reduction
might
affect
timelines
of
products
submitted
for
regulatory
approval
to
the
agency.

“To
do
the
work,
you
actually
have
to
pay
people
and
they
have
to
exist.
So
if
enough
people
leave
FDA,
it
doesn’t
matter
what
the
law
says,
you’re
still
going
to
have
delays.
Remember
the
user
fees
came
into
existence
because
the
FDA
couldn’t
meet
the
timelines.
And
I
would
personally
love
it
if
the
taxpayer
paid
the
fair
share
and
we
didn’t
have
companies
paying
for
[regulatory]
activity.
On
the
other
hand,
user
fees
on
the
medical
product
side
have
made
an
enormous
difference.
It
is
like
a
business.
The
evaluation
is
done
by
civil
servants,
not
by
political
appointees,
but
it’s
done
on
a
timeline
and
those
metrics
are
watched
just
like
you
would
watch
any
other
business.
But
if
the
infrastructure
of
FDA
is
gutted,
it
won’t
be
possible
to
meet
those
timelines.”

Earlier
in
his
on-stage
interview,
Califf,
who
has
worked
in
the
private
sector
at
companies
like
Alphabet,
took
offense
at
how
federal
workers
are
being
portrayed.

“I
think
the
people
that
are
attracted
[to
the
FDA]
are
very
hardworking
people
and
I
also
have
to
say,
having
worked
in
all
sectors,
the
idea
that
federal
employees
are
lazy
or
not
as
good
as
other
employees
is
just
flat
out
wrong,”
he
said.
“But
that
is
the
rhetoric
that’s
going
on
right
now.”

He
recalled
how
his
career
at
the
FDA
began
as
a
deputy
commissioner
for
medical
products
and
tobacco.

“Despite
all
the
vilification
that’s
going
on
right
now
of
federal
employees,
it’s
an
amazing
experience
where
your
mission
is
the
public
health;
it’s
the
entire
American
public,”
he
said.

Abbott’s
Really
“Screwed
this
One
Up”

Califf
was
asked
about
the
lessons
he
learned
in
handling
the
infant
formula
shortage
and
he
explained
how
the
infant
formula
industry
was
hyper-concentrated
among
a
couple
of
players,
including
Abbott.

“The
industrial
base
for
manufacturing
the
formula
was
hyper-concentrated
in
a
small
number
of
plants
that
were,
let’s
just
say
out
of
date,”
he
said.
“And
so
when

chronobacter
[sakazakii]
was
going
all
over
the
plant
making
it
into
[the
infant]
formula
of
Abbot
—
and
I
say
this
as
a
cardiologist,
I’ve
used
a
lot
of
Abbott
products,
it’s
a
good
company
it
makes
a
lot
of
good
products
—
they
really
screwed
this
one
up
and
the
recall
was
necessary
because
you
can’t
send
out
bacteria-contaminated
formula
to
half
of
infants
or
more
[that]
are
heavy
users
of
formula
for
a
whole
variety
of
reasons
in
the
United
States.
The
shelves
were
bare
and
it
was
a
very
difficult
situation.”

Later
however,
the
company
cooperated
and
the
agency
began
co-managing
the
company’s
operations
tied
to
infant
formula
as
part
of
a
consent
decree.

But
the
FDA
wasn’t
blame-free
either.
Califf
said
that
there
was
a
structural
problem
at
the
agency
where
the
food
side
was
not
good
at
decision
making.
So
a
structural
reorganization
ensued.

“We
had
to
undergo
the
biggest
reorganization
in
the
history
of
the
FDA
—
that
happened
during
my
tenure
affecting
[many
thousands
of]
employees
—
to
create
a
structure
that
can
make
decisions
better,”
he
said.

FDA’s
Focus
on
Nutrition
is
Severely
Lacking

After
the
reorganization
of
the
food
side
of
the
agency,
there
are
three
components
within
it:
people
who
deal
with
food
safety
with
regard
to
microbiologic
and
viral
contaminants
of
food;
people
who
deal
with
chemical
safety;
and
those
who
focus
on
nutrition.

Food
safety
happens
to
be
the
“vast
majority”
of
what’s
funded
at
the
FDA,
followed
by
chemical
safety
and
then
there’s
nutrition.

“Chemical
safety
and
nutrition
at
the
FDA
have
been
dramatically
underfunded,”
Califf
said.
“And
nutrition
is
really
a
sad
thing
because
we
all
think
nutrition
should
be
better.
But
there
are
only
a
couple
of
dozen
people
at
FDA
who
are
paid
to
work
on
nutrition.”

What
Worries
Califf
the
Most
about
Artificial
Intelligence

Califf
is
not
worried
about
the
pre-market
aspect
of
artificial
intelligence
and
the
FDA
has
already
shared
guidelines
for
best
practices.
It’s
what
happens
after
the
products
are
deployed
in
the
real
world

“Health
systems
are
the
biggest
issue
here
because
as
we
get
more
and
more
into
generative
AI,
the
algorithms,
if
you
put
them
in
place,
they’re
going
to
change
and
you
don’t
know
whether
you’re
going
to
drift
in
a
better
or
worse
direction
unless
you
measure
it.
So
there’s
a
term
—
local
recurrent
validation
—
which
basically
means
the
algorithms
have
to
be
validated
as
close
to
continuously
as
possible
in
the
environment
in
which
they’re
deployed,”
Califf
explained.
“The
only
people
that
can
do
that
are
the
people
that
are
deploying
them.
That’s
our
health
systems.
I
don’t
know
of
a
single
health
system
in
the
US
today
that
has
the
tools
that
it
needs
to
do
this,
but
it’s
not
like
it’s
a
secret.”

He
Wasn’t
Optimistic
about
Precision
Medicine’s
Future
and
It’s
Been
That
Bad

An
audience
member
asked
how
Califf
would
evaluate
how
precision
medicine
has
evolved
in
the
past
decade.
The
answer
wasn’t
pretty.

“I
was
not
very
optimistic
10
years
ago
about
the
practical
application
of
precision
medicine.
And
I
would
say
it’s
been
just
as
bad
as
my
expectation,”
Califf
responded.

He
noted
that
there
has
been
tremendous
progress
in
the
understanding
of
human
biology
and
in
the
theory
of
how
precision
medicine
should
work.
But
that’s
as
far
as
the
benefits
go,
he
said,
noting
how
his
younger
brother
recently
died
of
pancreatic
cancer
despite
the
most
knowledgeable
experts
working
on
his
case.

“The
practice
of
precision
medicine
and
the
place
where
it
should
be
the
most
advanced
is
pathetic.
And
I
think
in
clinical
practice
we’re
still
in
an
era
where
just
getting
the
right
dose
of
drugs
for
serum
creatinine
is
a
major
problem.
The
idea
that
a
person
with
pancreatic
cancer
has
got
to
shop
around
to
our
best
cancer
centers
to
find
a
protocol,
it
is
just
not
right.
But
the
same
would
hold
for
a
person
that
comes
in
with
a
creatinine
of
two
and
needs
to
be
on
a
renally
adjusted
dose
of
a
drug.
And
the
idea
that
a
doctor
using
the
cerebral
cortex
of
one
individual
human
being
can’t
even
remember
that
is
not
a
very
smart
thing.
Let’s
let
machines
do
the
things
that
machines
do
better
and
let
the
human
part
focus
on
the
oversight
and
the
interaction
with
people
that’s
needed.
So
yeah,
I
think
it’s
just
as
bad
as
I
thought
it
was
going
to
be
back
then.”

His
Advice
for
his
Successor
at
the
FDA:
Marty
Makary

Califf
expressed
his
hope
that

Marty
Makary,
nominated
by
President
Trump
to
lead
the
agency,
would
trust
in
the
expertise
and
the
independence
of
the
FDA.

He
explained
that
a
big
part
of
the
job
is
fielding
calls
from
lobbyists,
from
people
trying
to
influence
Congress
and
even
deal
with
threats
of
budgetary
cuts
from
any
congressional
leader
who
feels
slighted
for
some
reason.

“So
the
main
advice
is
trust
in
the
expertise
of
the
people
that
work
at
the
FDA
and
get
to
know
them
well
and
when
making
changes,
make
sure
that
they’re
involved
in
it,
and
then
focus
on
evidence
—
[there’s]
still
a
lot
of
work
to
do
to
get
the
evidence
right,”
he
said.

Photo:
Win
McNamee,
Getty
Images