ATL Special Report Podcast: Tactical Use Cases And Machine Learning With Lexis+

Welcome back listeners to this exclusive Above the Law Lexis+ Special Report Podcast: Introducing a New Era in Legal Research, brought to you by LexisNexis. This is the second episode in our special series.

Join us once again as LexisNexis Chief Product Officer for North America Jeff Pfeifer (@JeffPfeifer) and Evolve the Law Contributing Editor Ian Connett (@QuantumJurist) dive deeper into Lexis+, sharing tactical use cases, new tools like brief analysis and Ravel view utilizing data visualization, and how Jeff’s engineering team at Lexis Labs took Google machine learning technology to law school to provide Lexis+ users with the ultimate legal research experience.

This is the second episode of our special four part series. You can listen to our first episode with Jeff Pfeifer here for more on Lexis+.  We hope you enjoy this special report featuring Jeff Pfeifer and will stay tuned for the next episodes in the series.


Links and Resources from this Episode

Review and Subscribe

If you like what you hear please leave a review by clicking here

Subscribe to the podcast on your favorite player to get the latest episodes.

NY Bar Exam Defenders In Full-Blown Spin Mode

(Image via Getty)

With New York state legislators getting fed up with state bar examiners after a year of pandemic stress revealed long-standing rot in the process, there was bound to be reports from “working groups” assigned to study the issue and make recommendations on the future of the bar exam. Comprehensive studies are always welcome and necessary when considering broad reform to a licensing procedure that, while anachronistic, is all that many people have known.

But at what point is a “working group” just a lobbying group trying to pen a defense of the indefensible? Working groups are infamously drawn from the ranks of existing stakeholders inviting all sorts of thinly veiled mischief. We properly respond with eyerolls when the NCBE produces slick white papers declaring that the best way to license attorneys is the one that they just so happen to have a monopoly over. One would hope that anyone providing an ostensibly objective report wouldn’t be using the opportunity to push their own agenda in spite of the evidence.

Alas, it looks as if there may already be some spin at play. A since locked down Tweet purporting to convey the internal dialogue of the Court of Appeals appointed bar exam working group revealed some pretzel-twisting acrobatics in an effort to get around the legislator-commissioned bar exam survey that showed the exam to be a complete mess. In an effort to wave away the 75 percent disapproval rating, the group is seemingly going to claim that the fact that the poll had a final sample size of only 10 percent or so justifies discounting the disapproval rating completely. The “squeaky wheels” hypothesis. It’s certainly a factor to consider, but ignores the fact that people fail to respond to polls for any number of reasons. If the sample size justifies discounting the results, it’s only marginally. Indeed, assuming an unjustifiably extreme selection bias in favor of unhappy applicants — say half of all unhappy people took part in the 10 percent sample — that would still show around 15 percent of all takers have a negative view of the process which should be unacceptable in any event. That it’s more accurately much higher than that is a raging red flag.

More incredible was the suggested response to the poll’s finding that 40 percent of respondents experienced tech problems of claiming that these were entirely the fault of the applicants having old computers. Never mind that everyone took the exam with technology that met the posted system requirements and everyone uploaded a mock exam successfully to even get to exam day. In other words, there’s a suggestion to write off tech problems with the classic Delta House motto, “you f**ked up, you trusted us.”

Maybe this report oversold how widespread this sentiment is within the working group and is instead a rogue bar exam defender. Let’s hope so. But for anyone hoping that neutral working groups are approaching the data on its merits and not brainstorming ways to dismiss it out of hand, stories like these should remind everyone to take future reports with a grain of salt. There’s a lot of disgruntled bar exam defenders out there trying to salvage the test they’ve staked their careers upon and if they aren’t directly involved in these discussions, they’re trying to work the refs.

Earlier: So It Turns Out The Online Bar Exam Totally Sucked, Like Quantifiably


HeadshotJoe 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 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.

Last Call For Game-Changing Insights

Time is running out to take part in the Law Department Operations Survey, the original and most respected benchmarking tool in the in-house legal department operations space.  

Participants will receive exclusive access to proprietary results — an unparalleled resource for insight into legal operations trends. 

See below for additional insights from the Blickstein Group, which conducts the survey, and click the button below to participate. The survey closes on Oct. 31

Like Nostradamus, Legal Ops Professionals Predicted The Downturn

Will COVID-19 Mark The End Of Operations Growth And Maturity?

Don’t Let The Downturn Distract From Operational Metrics

Will The Pandemic Change Law Department Views On Tech?

Will Remote Work Change Law Departments’ Tech Priorities?

Lawyer Tries To Fly On Airplane Without A Mask. It Does Not Go Well For Him.

Masks… it looks like they’ll be part of our lives for the foreseeable future. And there are lots of situations where wearing them isn’t optional. And one lawyer found that out the hard way.

Meet Louis Stead, a lawyer in the U.K. who reportedly styles himself as “just about the only man that truly challenges the status quo.” He was on a recent EasyJet flight from Egypt to the U.K. and refused to don a mask.

He was promptly confronted by crew members, and claimed a disability:

“What you need to do is tell the Captain that under the Equality Act 2010…you are not allowed to discriminate against a person with a disability as defined by that Act”, explained Stead.

“No, no, no, there’s more”, continued the lawyer when a flight attendant interrupted. “Don’t be pacifying and dismissive of me, it’s not right”.

“Sir, we’ve got to stop you”, insisted the crew member, “I’ve got to tell the Captain what you’re saying”.

EasyJet later said Stead didn’t provide adequate proof of disability. And they pointed out some holes in Stead’s legal argument, specifically that the Act Stead cited doesn’t apply on airlines and certainly doesn’t apply while the plane is in Egypt. Womp womp.

In a video of the confrontation, which you can watch below, the other passengers quickly get involved in the shenanigans, and come out pretty clearly in favor of the airline:

“Get him off!” shouted a woman, as others chanted, “Off! Off! Off!”

“People want you off. You’re off now”, snapped a flight attendant, as passengers chipped in with their views, which included, “Get off the plane!”, “Fuck off you twat!” and a baby wailing.

In the face of this mob justice, and the prospect of being kicked off the plane, Stead decided to wear a mask for the duration of the flight.

Stead has said he suffers from PTSD following a 2012 stabbing incident when oxygen masks were used to keep him alive. He says that as a result, wearing a mask is triggering for him:

‘I’m genuinely disabled. I struggle with my post-traumatic stress disorder. It’s not a made up condition but it’s a condition that’s invisible.

‘I dress well and I look perfectly normal, and people assume I’m just some wealthy guy who drives a nice car, walks perfectly fine, looks fine and I’m just pulling a fast one.’

Nice mask!

It’s now relevant to note that the reason Stead was in Egypt was to scuba dive and look at real estate investment opportunities.

Perhaps those airline passengers were on to something after all.

You can watch the now viral video of the airplane confrontation below.


headshotKathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. 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).

Trump Administration’s Commitment To Transparency On Full Display At SEC

3 Questions For A Patent Litigator Turned Political Director (Part I)

There is no doubt that we are fast approaching (indeed, due to early voting already in the midst of in a sense) one of the most consequential elections of our lifetimes. Yes, you can say that about any presidential election, but the stakes just feel higher this time around. Whether it is because of the COVID-19 pandemic, or the ongoing economic uncertainty, or the extreme partisanship that always seems to be roiling both D.C. and the general electorate, it is not an overstatement to say that America itself hangs in the balance. As a first-generation American — the son of refugees who were forced to flee their birth country at a young age due to religious persecution — I will never take the blessing of the democratic vote for granted. And I know that many of my fellow Americans feel the same way.

No matter your personal political beliefs, it is important that we do our utmost to respect those of a different ideological bent. Even if the only time we really think with any rigor about political issues is every four years around a political election. For those with more of an interest in politics, various content sources are available for real-time, in-depth consideration of political issues online, each geared toward an audience of varying degrees of partisan fervor. On the short list of relevant websites in that regard is the Daily Kos, which caters primarily to a progressive audience, but is also a must-read for principled conservatives interested in getting an informed progressive perspective on the issues of the day.

Considering the timing of things relative to the election, I am extremely pleased to present to this audience a written interview I did with David Nir, Daily Kos’ political director — who happens to be a former patent litigator. During my Biglaw days, I had the pleasure of working closely with David on a major patent case that ultimately went to trial and appeal. Thoughtful, professional, and intellectually creative, David was a pleasure to work with as part of a joint defense group in that case, and I have long been pleased to see how he has been harnessing his considerable talents for a broader audience with his work at the Daily Kos. After taking his undergraduate degree from Yale, David attended Georgetown Law, followed by stints as a patent litigator at both Morgan Lewis and Ward & Olivo. From there it was off to the Daily Kos, where he blogs, oversees the site’s election coverage, and runs the influential candidate endorsement program. Despite his heavy workload, David was kind enough to agree to this interview, which I am honored to present to this audience.

As usual, I have added some brief commentary to David’s answer below but have otherwise presented his answer to my question as he provided it.

GK: How has your litigation experience come into play in your current work at Daily Kos?

DN: If you cover elections, you inevitably find yourself covering election law, and 2020 has demonstrated that to an unprecedented degree. Given the massive flood of election-related litigation this year brought on by the pandemic, I’m grateful every week for everything I learned in law school and as an attorney because my experience has been invaluable in explaining thorny legal topics to readers who by and large don’t have that sort of background.

The topics range from gerrymandering to voter ID laws to election procedures to ballot access and so much more. To pick a recent example, the state of Minnesota has a law on the books that requires elections to be postponed if a candidate dies. But that likely runs afoul of a federal law — that dates to the 1870s — setting a specific date in November for congressional elections. A good analyst therefore needs to describe a concept like pre-emption without jargon in a way accessible to lay readers. When this issue arose last month, we immediately grasped this conflict of laws and elucidated it for our audience, several days before one of the remaining candidates filed suit making this exact argument (a federal judge agreed with her and reinstated the election for November).

While I worked in the field of intellectual property litigation, most substantive sorts of issues you see in election law of course did not come up. But the knowledge of procedure that I gained on the job has been vital, like the significance of surviving a motion to dismiss, or what it means when a court decides to hear a case en banc, or how an administrative stay differs from a traditional stay. These sorts of details are often not well-explained in most legal reporting, but they can play an unseen yet important role in how cases unfold.

GK: David’s answer is a reminder that one of the underrated skills developed by IP litigators is often their knowledge of Federal Court procedure. Because at bottom — despite our focus on IP issues — we are federal court litigators, who are often lucky enough to have experience working in district courts nationwide. In addition, patent lawyers are generally experienced in dealing with local patent rules, which command attention to procedure in a way that other forms of litigation may not demand. It is interesting to hear how that sensitivity to procedural issues has spilled over into David’s current work, even as the focus has shifted for him toward election law from IP.

Next week, we will hear from David about how the skills he developed as a patent litigator have served him well in his current role, as well as about what he misses most about life as a patent litigator.

Please feel free to send comments or questions to me at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or via Twitter: @gkroub. Any topic suggestions or thoughts are most welcome.


Gaston Kroub lives in Brooklyn and is a founding partner of Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov PLLC, an intellectual property litigation boutique, and Markman Advisors LLC, a leading consultancy on patent issues for the investment community. Gaston’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and related counseling, with a strong focus on patent matters. You can reach him at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or follow him on Twitter: @gkroub.

Morning Docket: 10.27.20

* The judge in the Google antitrust case just set the first hearing in the lawsuit. Maybe the parties scheduled it through Google Hangouts… [Fox Business]

* Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed by the Senate and sworn in last night as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. [New York Times]

* Another lawyer, who accused the Attorney General of Texas of criminal acts, has resigned. [Seattle Times]

* A lawsuit filed by the estate of a Holocaust survivor featured in the new Borat movie has been dismissed. [Deadline]

* A former employee at Goldman Sachs is suing the company for sexual misconduct allegedly committed by a top lawyer at the shop. [Business Insider]

* The Idaho Attorney General is warning of fake COVID-19 cures. It’s like the Carbolic Smoke Ball all over again… [Idaho Statesman]


Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.

Antitrust Litigation Associate

Kinney Recruiting is representing the DC office of an AmLaw firm on its search for an anti-trust associate to join its busy practice.

We are seeking a candidate with at least four years of experience with antitrust counseling and M&A including governmental litigation with the DOJ, FTS, and Attorneys General.

The hired attorney will work with the firm’s nationwide litigation group and practice at high level. If you are considering a lateral move, then this opportunity is an excellent option.

To learn more, please submit your resume to jobs@kinneyrecruiting.com.