Author: TSA Press

Some legendary retailers destroyed by hedge fund manager owners are allowed to finally die, sold for scrap, their inventories liquidated at marginally discounted prices. And then there is Sears. For more than a decade, it has been in a spiraling, mutually self-destructive relationship with its owner and former CEO, Eddie Lampert, although it must be said that most of the destruction has been on the Sears end of things. And for some time now, it’s been pretty clear to everyone except Eddie Lampert that this is a lost cause. Still, Lampert clings, and clings, and clings, keeping her on life support, providing the occasional infusion of life-giving money and sawing off the gangrenous parts as they appear, either for love or because he’s managed to financially engineer this patently disastrous situation into something he’s still making money on.

Rep. Devin Nunes remains super angry about a satirical internet cow. Earlier this year, we wrote about his lawsuit against the satirical cow on Twitter (and against Twitter itself) as well as a bunch of other lawsuits Nunes has been filing against critics in the intervening months. The cases appear to be fairly obvious SLAPP lawsuits; that is lawsuits that are designed solely to silence critics, rather than based on any legitimate legal basis. As we’ve noted, the venues in which Nunes has focused his lawsuits (mostly Virginia, and now Iowa) have either weak or non-existent anti-SLAPP laws. Tragically, the original case, against two satirical Twitter accounts, including one called “Devin Nunes’ Cow” (a satirical reference to Nunes’ oft-repeated claim of being a California dairy farmer, even as his family farm has uprooted itself to Iowa) was not thrown out by the judge on jurisdictional grounds, allowing the case to move forward.

According to the Fresno Bee, however, even as that lawsuit is ongoing, Nunes’ lawyer in the case has sent a threatening demand letter to Andrew Janz, a lawyer and state prosecutor who ran against Nunes in the last election and lost (much more narrowly than many people seemed to expect). The full letter is truly a piece of work, demanding Janz make the @DevinCow account stop making fun of Devin Nunes and issue an apology.

I only wish I was joking. The letter is amazing in so many ways, starting from the opening lines:

I represent Devin G. Nunes.

I write again – this time to address a matter of grave import and enormous consequence.

A matter of grave import and enormous consequence?!? Do tell! Oh, it’s the fact that a thin-skinned public official can’t take pretty modest mockery:

As you well know, for over two years, Mr. Nunes has been maliciously harassed, stalked, bullied online, threatened and egregiously defamed on Twitter by the user or users who post day and night, through the anonymous Twitter account, @DevinCow. [https://twitter.com/DevinCow].

I mean, how could anyone think this letter was a good idea?

The letter then notes that a PAC connected to Janz appeared to be helping to raise legal defense funds for whoever is behind the @DevinCow account. If true, that wouldn’t violate any laws, but Nunes and his lawyer imply that something terrible is happening here.

Based upon the evidence I have reviewed, it appears that you or an agent or agents acting at your direction is coordinating, instigating, aiding and abetting the user or users of the @DevinCow Twitter account in the malicious harassment, cyberbullying, stalking and defamation of Mr. Nunes.

Malicious harassment, cyberbullying, stalking and defamation? Get over yourself Nunes. What happened to supporting free speech and the 1st Amendment? A satirical cow mocking you is none of the above. It is not harassment. It is not cyberbullying. It is not stalking. And it is most definitely not defamation. It’s satire. It’s the mocking of public officials, which is something we’ve celebrated in this country basically since the very beginning. It’s also all entirely protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. You know? The document that Devin Nunes has sworn to protect?

Now come the demands to Janz. Because he’s apparently helping to organize the legal funding to protect whoever is behind the @DevinCow account from this obvious SLAPP suit, Nunes’ lawyer is now making patently ridiculous demands:

Demand is hereby made upon you as follows:

1. Immediately cause the user or users of @DevinCow to cease and desist from publishing any further false or defamatory statements of and concerning Mr. Nunes;

2. Immediately cause the @DevinCow Twitter account to retract all harassing, disparaging, false and defamatory tweets and retweets of and concerning Mr. Nunes, and apologize for the harm done to Mr. Nunes and his family;

3. Within one (1) business day of retraction and public apology, cause the termination of the @DevinCow Twitter account.

It also notes to Janz that he should reveal who is behind the account:

As a Deputy District Attorney, it would be egregious and irresponsible for you to continue to keep secret from the public the identity of @DevinCow.

You are legally, ethically and morally responsible to act now.

This is all, of course, utter nonsense. And this is all strategically bizarre. Who could possibly think that getting this freaked out by a satirical account could ever possibly lead to anything good? It appears to show Devin Nunes is scared of fairly mild criticism and mockery. And the idea that such a ridiculous letter would have any good results, other than leading to even more mockery of Nunes for his thin-skinned freak out, and raising serious questions about Nunes’ own fitness for office. If you can’t take a bit of criticism from satirical constituents, maybe you don’t belong in public office.

Also, even if this is all performative, all it’s really served to do is get a lot more people paying attention to the satirical cow. Before the lawsuit, the account had about 1,200 followers. It now has over 630k — which is pretty close to Nunes himself (there was a point in which the cow surpassed Nunes himself, but both have increased their follower counts quite a bit since then. Either way, encouraging over 600,000 users to follow an account designed solely to make fun of you, and then continuing to throw a legal temper tantrum over the account is not a good look for a sitting Congress member.

In the meantime, it certainly doesn’t look like the DevinCow account has any interest in backing down or apologizing:

In the meantime, Nunes continues to be wrong about Twitter as well. In a recent interview he spouted a bunch of nonsense about the case:

He claims he had no choice but to sue. That’s wrong. He could have not sued, for instance. He could have ignored the mockery. Or he could have responded to it. He could have shown why they were wrong if they were. There are many options short of suing — especially for a Congressman who once introduced a bill to stop frivolous lawsuits. He says he’s “been slandered and defamed” which is also just wrong. Slander is spoken defamation. If there was defamation (and there wasn’t) it would be libel, not slander. But even more to the point, he’s arguing that Twitter is negligent and that’s why he’s suing Twitter as well. Why negligent? Because something something bots. No, really.

“Twitter’s case, it’s even worse because they’re negligent to the fact. I mean, they’re allowing these bot farms, both large and small bot farms, and they allowed it to go on, knowing that the people behind it are operatives.”

First off, even if that’s true, so what? How is that “negligence”? How is that against the law? The interviewer even seems a bit surprised by this and asks if there “evidence to that effect” and Nunes doesn’t actually say that there’s evidence, but seems to suggest that Twitter protecting the anonymity (a 1st Amendment right, by the way) of its users is proof of negligence.

“We know they’re operatives. Twitter knows they’re operatives. And they refuse to give us the people behind it…. And they’ve had six months to come clean and shut all this down and tell us who are these political actors that they’re hiding from the public? And from their investors? I think people will want to know why did you knowingly hide what, one we believe is a smaller political operation and one we believe is a much larger political operation. And Twitter knows the names of them and they oughta come clean and give them to us. And that’s why we’re in court. And so, they’re proving our case for us. [Chuckles] I mean, this is like the definition of negligence, what Twitter and their high priced lawyers have been doing over the last six months.”

Spoiler alert: what Twitter and their high-priced lawyers have been doing over the last six months is certainly not negligence. Protecting the 1st Amendment protected anonymity of your users, who include some satirical accounts mocking a thin-skinned Congressman, seems like good practice in protecting free speech and the all-American tradition of being able to speak up and criticize our elected officials.

Devin Nunes Demands Satirical Internet Cow Stop Making Fun Of Him… Or Else

A Decade Later, AT&T Pays A Pittance For Lying About Its Unlimited Data Plans
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Apologizes And Unblocks Critic Who Sued Her
ACLU Sues DOJ Over Facial Recognition Documents

After fighting to get pro se litigants a better break from the federal judiciary — joining Judge Posner and Matthew Dowd in the William Bond case — David Boies is going to experience life as a pro se litigant himself, filing suit on his own behalf against Alan Dershowitz.

Boies will probably not face the same challenges as most pro se litigants.

Until recently, Boies had represented Virginia Giuffre, a victim of Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking ring, in her lawsuit against Dershowitz for defamation. Giuffre claims Epstein made her sleep with Dershowitz while she was a child — Dershowitz publicly claimed she was alternately confused or blackmailing him and then demanded that she file a defamation suit against him for calling her a liar. She filed a defamation suit and Dershowitz started in with the “whoa, I didn’t mean that literally” act.

After roping Boies into the argument by claiming Giuffre’s famous lawyer was running an extortion ring, Dershowitz argued that Boies had to be disqualified as an advocate-witness. Judge Preska indulged this theory and Giuffre secured Chuck Cooper to take over the case. Yesterday, Dershowitz filed a counterclaim citing emotional distress. Cooper responded:

Recycling the same false claims from his increasingly stale playbook, Alan Dershowitz has once again launched an attack on Virginia Giuffre and her lawyers. Lets call his counterclaim what it is:  a failed attempt to make something old and tired look new.

Meanwhile, Boies filed a defamation complaint of his own today against Dershowitz because, you know, Dershowitz went to the press repeatedly and claimed that Boies was running an extortion racket. He actually said, “I believe the law firm of Boies Schiller is a RICO” which is… just wow.

Yet somehow, it feels as though Dershowitz is going to be surprised to learn of this suit. Maybe Dershowitz is playing nine-dimensional chess, but it sure seems like every argument he makes creates even worse fallout: Don’t just deny… demand they sue you! Then get sued. Don’t just litigate the case… get Boies kicked off! End up facing Chuck Cooper. Don’t just claim Giuffre’s mistaken… accuse Boies of blackmailing you! Get sued by Boies.

Plus, if you assume what Dershowitz was hoping to avoid in disqualifying Boies was allowing Boies to conduct discovery — he’ll still get to see everything anyway.

But this is setting up a truly epic disqualification motion!

(Check out the full pro se complaint on the next page.)

Earlier: Dershowitz Wanted To Get Boies Disqualified… So Now He Has To Deal With Another Famous SCOTUS Litigator
Judge Mocks That Bonkers Republication Argument Dershowitz Made
Alan Dershowitz Says He Has A ‘Perfect Sex Life,’ Answering The Question Literally No One Asked
Who’s Up For A Fun Night Out Watching Alan Dershowitz Talk About Sex Trafficking?
Dershowitz’s Motion To Disqualify Boies Schiller Immediately Dumped For Hilarious Reason
Harvard Law School’s Dershowitz Moves To Disqualify Boies Schiller In Sex Trafficking Case
Dershowitz Wanted A Trial Over Sex Trafficking Accusations — He’s Getting One
Some (Tentative) Good News For Alan Dershowitz… And Some More Bad News
I Just Had To Think About Alan Dershowitz’s Underwear And Now So Do You
Alan Dershowitz Says He Thinks He Should’ve Gotten Epstein A BETTER Deal In Wild Doubling-Down Interview
After Publicly Demanding His Accusers Sue Him, Dershowitz Is Arguing That His Accusers Have No Basis To Sue Him

As many of you know, I favor strong First Amendment protections for journalists and protesters and especially students. But I’m also very much against the President of the United States’ and his followers’ repeated attempts to get Congresswomen of color harmed or killed.

Legally, these two ideals appear to be in conflict. Would you like to see me try to square them? Would you like to hear a fully thought-through articulation of why free speech does not, or at least should not, include personal threats made against any person who dares to oppose Donald Trump? Would you like to hear an expert in First Amendment law tell me why I’m wrong?

If so, please join me and Ken White (aka @Popehat) at Berkeley Law on Monday, November 18th at 5:30 p.m. We will be having a spirited debate about what free speech does mean, should mean, and must mean in the age of Donald Trump. We’ll be playing some of our old hits like: Can a gun store suggest killing Congresswomen if it didn’t actually threaten them? And some new ones like, well, whatever dangerous, hateful thing Trump says in the next 10 days, probably.

Click here to RSVP. Especially if you agree with me! But, even if you don’t. I will defend forever your right to oppose me… just so long as you don’t think you can use the n-word without catching some hands.

---

Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and a contributor at The Nation. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling in hiQ v. LinkedIn, granting hiQ’s injunction against LinkedIn and its review of the tortious interference with contract alleged against LinkedIn, is a huge win for the data mining industry, and an overwhelming affirmation that the public has the right to access public data. This landmark ruling is also a massive win for legal tech companies aggregating public data to build legal analytics, as well as their clients who rely on those analytics for business development, competitive intelligence, and many other innovative uses.

On the facts, LinkedIn could not have been more egregious in the way it specifically blocked hiQ from mining publicly available data that it also expressly does not claim an ownership interest over. LinkedIn studied the business model of hiQ, sent senior representatives to presentations on hiQ’s products for large enterprise clients like eBay, and then turned off hiQ’s access to data right as they released a competing product offering. 

But the larger picture is not about what LinkedIn did in this particular instance – it’s about how similar attempts to circumvent and prevent data mining by large court technology providers, contracted by states to provide access to court records, are also having a chilling effect on innovation in legal analytics.

Without being able to aggregate millions upon millions of data points from court records, certain litigation analytics products would not be possible without paying exorbitant costs for bulk access to data (that most courts do not offer), and innovation will continue to languish where restrictive costs and practices preclude all but a handful of incumbents to obtain meaningful access to public data.

Putting hiQ in Perspective

hiQ vs. LinkedIn matters just as much as Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org matters for legal data aggregation. We know that if past is prologue, a handful of incumbents will continue to assert copyright in the law; they will divvy up shares of the legal analytics market, just as they did for decades with legal research to prevent others from entering the market. 

Public means public, and public data is no different. For better or for worse, the United States has one of the most free and open information societies across the globe. We respect the public’s Right to Know and we weigh the public’s interest in our law, just as the Ninth Circuit in hiQ, and the Eleventh Circuit in Public Resource, measured how allowing copyrighting of the law would be detrimental to the public interest.

If larger players can corner off the market by preventing data mining or by copyrighting the law, access to meaningful analytics will be at stake, and there will be legal technology deserts in certain states and locales.

It’s not hard to picture a situation where the large court technology providers develop repressive Terms of Service, throw around threats of civil and criminal penalties for aggregating and publishing public data, and seek to prohibit selling competing legal analytics derived from public data, because that already exists.

There are countless counties and states across the U.S. where providers and/or the state and local governments contracting with them claim ownership over public court data and maintain that you can’t scrape, resell, or use it for commercial purposes. In other words, no one is allowed to compete with them without paying a handsome amount for bulk access, without putting themselves at risk of prosecution and/or crippling litigation, or without waiving their basic constitutionally protected rights of freedom of expression. 

The changing structure of the legal profession, from what’s happening in Utah and Oregon, to the California State Bar’s ATILS Task Force and other pushes to open access to legal services, are important strides forward for promoting access to justice, but they would fall short of their potential if not paired with open access to data. Legal innovation in the legal profession hinges on access to data, and really bulk access to data to make use of it at scale.

What We Know

We already know from LinkedIn what the playbook is – turn off the hose and starve competitive innovation. And we already have prominent examples of how this is being executed in the legal profession with Georgia and LexisNexis locking arms to squash all comers. But there are other examples. Tyler Tech in Texas, Judici in Illinois, and others have erected technical barriers at the outset to prevent and/or put a price tag on competitive innovation.

They’ve thrown in the kitchen sink in their Terms of Service and threaten against using bots to grab data or reselling that data, even though it’s public data and only in their possession because of lucrative contracts secured with state and local governments. They know that without access to public data, smaller legal tech companies won’t be able to survive, let alone thrive, and take their market share. 

The good news is that Courts have repudiated these efforts, and the facts could not be clearer in favor of open access in hiQ and Public Resource, but the fight is not yet over. hiQ still has a case to litigate against LinkedIn (we’ve only had a ruling on the initial injunction), and SCOTUS needs to land the plane to once and for all assert that the law can’t be copyrighted. 

What comes next is states following suit to take the much needed position that private companies contracted to facilitate public access to public data don’t own the law, that they can’t prevent others from mining that data, and that they can’t prevent competitors from developing new and innovative products capable of advancing and improving the legal system.  

---

Josh Blandi is the CEO and Co-Founder of UniCourt, a SaaS offering using machine learning to disrupt the way court records are organized, accessed, and used. UniCourt connects attorneys, businesses, and consumers to the records they need and enables them to tap into the mountain of court data generated everyday for legal analytics, business intelligence and development, background checks, case research, and many other innovative uses.

As a legal recruiter, I help attorneys prepare for interviews all the time.  I also speak with employers after each interview, and hear firsthand why a candidate did (or in some cases, did not) make a good impression.  While I always cover the basics of interview preparation with attorneys (see 12 Lateral Interview Tips from a Legal Recruiter), I also cover the aspects of interview preparation which some may find obvious, but others often overlook.  Having been in the legal recruiting profession for several years, I’ve learned that even the most basic tenets of interview etiquette are often forgotten.  But employers are paying attention, and you only get one chance to make a good first impression. Below are helpful interview tips you must keep in mind if you want to land your dream legal job:

1)  Dress the Part. For a legal interview, you must wear a suit.  I have had employers complain to me after an interview when candidates do not dress professionally.  Even if the firm is casual and everyone else is in jeans and flip flops, you must wear a suit.  YOU MUST WEAR A SUIT.  Did I mention that you have to wear a suit?  While you’re at it, a good shoe shine can go a long way.  Like it or not, our physical appearance is the biggest factor that influences others’ first impressions of us, so every little detail counts.  In addition, studies also show that how you dress can change the way you see yourself.  The clothes you wear can affect your confidence, so if you look the part, then you’ll be more likely to feel the part and ultimately be perceived in a better light.  I often get asked by female attorneys if they should wear a pant or skirt suit, and my answer is to wear whatever makes you feel the most comfortable and confident.  You don’t want to feel self-conscious during an interview, so you have to feel good about whatever you wear.  Along those lines, women should keep hair and makeup simple, and accessories to a minimum so the interviewer can make an assessment of you based on your words and skills.  Men should wear a tie and either be clean-shaven or if you have facial hair, keep it trimmed and clean.  An unprofessional look can distract the interviewer from your qualifications, so be sure to take the time to pull your look together in advance.

2) Watch Your Language.  While you may have a great rapport with your interviewer and feel very comfortable, you have to keep a professional tone — no matter what.  This includes refraining from using profanity or other inappropriate language.  While dropping F-bombs may be a part of your regular vernacular, you need to rein it in during an interview.  Remember, this is an interview for a job in a client-services industry.  If a firm does not feel comfortable putting you in front of a client, they won’t hire you.  You must also keep in mind that a job interview is not a casual conversation between friends in a bar.  It’s a highly formal exchange where the interviewer is assessing your professionalism, among other things.  Even if your interviewer uses profanity, don’t get too comfortable and start following suit.  As a lawyer, there will be plenty of opportunities to swear after you land the job.

3) Less Is More.  Do not feel the need to overshare about your personal life or extracurricular activities.  While you may love partying and getting toasted with your friends on the weekends, it’s best at this stage to keep your personal life just that — personal.  An interview is not an appropriate place to discuss your partying ways or your recent divorce woes.  While it may be appropriate in some instances to talk about your hobbies or interests outside of work, you have to remember to keep it PG and keep it positive, as you don’t want it to overshadow the entire interview.  If you do share personal details, make sure they are relevant to the question.  The risk of making the conversation too personal is that you may lose focus and start sharing too many irrelevant details, which will oftentimes do more harm than good.  If you are asked to share personal information about yourself, It’s important to keep it light, make it interesting, and show an equal interest in the person interviewing you.

4) Lose the Gum.  While it’s great to have fresh breath before an interview, nothing will be more distracting than chomping away at a Juicy Fruit during an interview.  So ditch the gum altogether and pop a breath mint instead, finishing it before you even get to the reception desk.  If you find yourself at the interview and you’ve forgotten to lose the gum, be sure to visit the restroom before an interview and throw it out.  You need to be able to speak clearly during an interview when answering questions, and gum won’t do you any favors.

5) Unplug.  Turn your phone off or on silent — not on vibrate — during an interview.  Many of us are addicted to our smartphones, but the emails, voicemails, and texts will still be there after the interview.  Avoid the temptation to be distracted by the quiet buzz of a vibrating phone and allow yourself to be present in the moment and focus on the interview.  While it may not be an immediate dealbreaker if your phone goes off during the interview, it can raise a red flag to the interviewer.  It can also distract you and cause you to lose your train of thought, so don’t risk it.

6) Timing is Everything. Be sure to show up on time, and ideally 10 minutes before your interview. You’ll want to give yourself enough time to check-in, use the restroom, and have a few moments to compose yourself and collect your thoughts before diving into the interview.  But be careful not to show up too early.  There’s a fine line between being eager and looking desperate, and you don’t want to send the wrong message.  Arriving more than 15 minutes early can also be frustrating for a hiring manager, so try to stick to the scheduled time.   On the flip side, you don’t want to show up late, as that can signal poor attention to detail or poor time management skills, and worse, a disregard for other people’s time. If it’s raining or the area is prone to traffic or unpredictable travel times, then be sure to give yourself extra time to get to the interview.  Of course snafus can happen beyond our control, so if you are running late don’t panic.  Call your recruiter or interviewer and let them know your ETA, asking if that time will still work and if not, offering to reschedule.

7) Don’t Watch the Clock. Sure, we’re all super busy and taking time away from our current jobs to interview elsewhere is always difficult, but it’s part of the process that you’ve committed to in order to land a great job.  So forget about how long you’re away from the office and the work that’s waiting for you, and keep your gaze on the interviewer, not on a clock or your watch.  Looking at your watch during an interview gives negative signals about your ability to focus, your respect for the interviewer, and your desire to get the job.  If you can’t avoid the temptation to glance down at your wrist every two minutes, then leave your watch at home.

8) Mind Your Manners. Many job seekers forget the importance of being polite (or perhaps let their nerves get the better of them).  But to give yourself the edge during an interview, you’ve got to mind your Ps and Qs.  So shake the hand of everyone you meet, maintain good eye contact, listen well, don’t talk over someone, and say “please” and “thank you” when appropriate.  If a meal is part of the interview process, then good table manners are mandatory.  Interviewers are assessing the overall package, not just your skills and experience.  Make sure you’re on your best behavior, and if you need an etiquette refresher course, Emily Post is just a click away.

9) Send Thank You Notes. Job search etiquette is very clear on this point:  Every interview must be followed by a thank you note/email, ideally within 24 hours.  I’m always surprised by the number of job applicants who want to skip this simple yet important step.  Employers pay close attention to the thank you note, so take this opportunity to remind your interviewers what a great applicant you are, and show them how much you want the job.  Employers find it rude when applicants don’t send thank you notes, and may question your interest in the position.  If you want the job, then there shouldn’t be any question in the employer’s mind about that.  The thank you note is the perfect ending to an interview process where you’ll get the final word and stay on the forefront of the employer’s mind, so don’t miss out on that opportunity.

If you’d like to learn more detailed interview tips or discuss a possible lateral move, I’m here to help.  Please feel free to contact me at zatassi@laterallink.com.

Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series of posts from Lateral Link’s team of expert contributors. Zain Atassi is a Principal based in Chicago where she oversees attorney placements and client services throughout the Midwest. She recruits and places high-level attorneys with leading AmLaw firms, high-end boutiques, regional firms, and Fortune 500 companies. Her market intelligence and deep understanding of the Midwest market, along with her considerable connections with both firms and companies throughout the region, has allowed her to help numerous attorneys achieve their ultimate career goals. Zain holds a J.D. from Washington University School of Law and a B.A. with Honors from Washington University in St. Louis. Prior to recruiting, she spent six years as a litigation attorney with Chicago-based law firms. Zain resides on the Northshore of Chicago with her husband and two children, and she is fluent in Arabic.

---

Lateral Link is one of the top-rated international legal recruiting firms. With over 14 offices world-wide, Lateral Link specializes in placing attorneys at the most prestigious law firms and companies in the world. Managed by former practicing attorneys from top law schools, Lateral Link has a tradition of hiring lawyers to execute the lateral leaps of practicing attorneys. Click ::here:: to find out more about us.

(This is the largest gift ever made to a law school, and Penn Carey Law is now the highest-ranked law school to be renamed for a donor. In case you were wondering, a Carey Law already exists at the University of Maryland, but the one at Penn is a little more prestigious.)

---

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 Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

As my colleague Andrew aptly noted last week, civility in litigation is a dying art. As I am introduced to world of litigation and interact with more fellow lawyers, I have been very surprised at how lawyers treat one another. There seems to be a pervasive attitude that to zealously represent your client means that you should treat opposing counsel with disrespect and to fight for the sake of fighting. Thus, I decided to write this piece on how I try to be more civil with opposing counsel, while still representing my client’s interests to the best of my abilities.

I believe in the common principle that you should treat opposing counsel as you would want to be treated. This applies not only to the legal profession but to life. Respect breeds more respect. When you first speak to opposing counsel, be friendly. There is way too much posturing when counsel meet or speak for the first time. A little respect in the beginning may lead to a much more pleasant experience through the course of the litigation.

To that end, always be mindful of your tone on phone calls and emails. This is more difficult in emails, but try to be respectful of your opponent. Don’t be a bully. Lawyers (and generally people) tend to react negatively to being bullied or treated with less respect. Contempt leads to more contempt and so forth. To counter this growing trend in emails, while proofreading my emails, I try to imagine how opposing counsel will perceive my communication. If I know I’m ratcheting up the intensity and tension, then I should expect a similar response. Try to take this into account when you are drafting anything. I know it’s difficult to predict how opposing counsel will react but be mindful of your tone.

In terms of respecting your opponent, I think it’s also common to have misperceptions about your opponent’s age. Whether you are the younger, newer lawyer or you are the older, more experienced lawyer, you should not treat the other lawyer with any disrespect based on that. Just because you may have vastly more experience in a particular legal subject area, does not mean that you should talk down to you opponent. And that goes for younger lawyers as well. Just because your opponent is older and may not be as tech savvy, that does not mean you should try to get anything past him or her.

I believe that following some basic form of these tips will do much to improve all lawyers’ lives. First, you should always return phone calls or respond to emails from opposing counsel in an appropriate fashion time-wise. Ignoring the emails of opposing counsel does nothing but create consternation between the parties. Second, always be courteous to opposing counsel. As a child, I was taught that kindness is contagious, and I feel that applies in the legal profession as well. As much as I want to get down to business on a call, when I start a phone call with opposing counsel, I always start with some pleasantries. That goes a long way to building a good working relationship with your opponent. Third, be respectful of the opposing counsel’s schedule. There is a tendency not to trust what the opposing counsel sometimes says regarding scheduling court appearances or deadlines. But if a lawyer says he or she has commitments and cannot do a certain date, then it’s very lawyerly of you to accept his or her word for it.

Overall, even though we are representing different parties and opposing interests, we are all lawyers. We are the only ones who can change the way we treat one another. We should not give in to the public’s stereotype of the angry, untrustworthy, or sleazy lawyer. With more a little more respect and courtesy in our profession, we can make a major change in many lawyer’s lives.

---

Peter S. Garnett is an attorney at Balestriere Fariello who represents clients in trials, arbitrations, and appeals. He focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation and contract disputes from pre-filing investigations to trial and appeals. You can reach Peter at peter.s.garnett@balestrierefariello.com.

It’s been a moment since we checked in on our old pal, former Uber CEO Travis Kalanick.

The last we’d heard was that Travis was pretty pissy about not being able to ring the bell at Uber’s IPO, which in retrospect appears to have been a case of saving him from himself. But by spending the last few years not being in the headlines for doing anything dumb, Kalanick [and -let’s face it- Adam Neumann] has made it easier to forget all the dumb stuff he did that got him booted from his own multi-billion dollar startup.

For those who do not follow sports, there is an important, titanic college football game happening this weekend. The Alabama Crimson Tide take on the LSU Tigers in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. LSU has a decent quarterback, Joe Burrow, this year. So, when ‘Bama inevitably boat races them and reduces Burrow to a twitchy, human recreation of Fiver from Watership Down, the defeat will be particularly bitter.

I’d like to talk more about the game, but unfortunately we live in a world where the President of the United States is a jejune narcissist who refuses to let us have nice things. Donald Trump is continuing his national tour of looking for a sports audience to cheer him. He got booed at the World Series. He got booed at UFC, which is only surprising to those who think Dana White is representative of actual UFC fans. And so now Trump intends to go to Tuscaloosa to watch the big game.

A sporting event in Alabama might seem like a “safe space” for Trump. But we must remember that going to college seems to be the key factor in making white people understand that Trump is terrible. People who have schooling do not like Trump. Alabama draws a lot of fans who never went to the university or any college at all, but one might expect the Alabama students section, at least, to be vocally against the bigoted president when he comes to campus.

It would appear that a member of the Alabama Student Government Association, Vice President Jason Rothfarb, anticipated some anti-Trump feelings among the student body. This week, ahead of the game, Rothfarb sent out this letter, that was later widely circulated on social media:

“Any organizations that engage in disruptive behavior during the game will be removed from block seating instantly for the remainder of the season,” he wrote.

The only thing that could have made this more chilling to free speech is if Rothfarb had gotten Peter Thiel to cosign the message.

A firestorm erupted, justifiably so, because the free speech rights on the campus of a public university, while attending a sporting event, are among the most ironclad you can get without the aid of Russian interference. Trust me, I’m a Mets fan — the right to boo is among our most scared.

The pushback caused Rothfarb to clarify his statement, blaming others for “misinterpretation” as we’re now all trained to do when caught being stupid in public:

“Some have misinterpreted my comment regarding “disruptive behavior.” As with other games this season, Organization’s Block Seating locations will be clearly marked, but at certain times, other students can and should have access to open seats. By disruptive behavior, we are asking students to be respectful to all students and staff and avoid altercations.

Normally, I’d dismiss this walk-back out of hand. But… BUT… I mean… this is ‘Bama/LSU. Earlier this year, LSU played Vanderbilt in Nashville and, apparently, DRANK A BAR OUT OF VODKA BY 9:00 A.M.! The specter of hooliganism is real when these two programs meet. Young people will be drunk, rowdy, and one faction or the other will be losing. Bad things can happen. After a Harvard/Yale game one year, we lost and the Yale fans rushed the field and mooned our side and I started throwing dog biscuits at their asses until I was escorted out by “friends” (who were maybe “security guards,” but I remember them as friends). And drunken Harvard/Yale is to drunken Bama/LSU as a scented candle is to a flamethrower.

Rothfarb’s retcon of his warning is believable, I suppose. Except, you know who doesn’t believe it? The President of the United States:

Trump retweeted that after the retraction or clarification or whatever was made.

Regardless of what Rothfarb and Alabama actually intended, Trump is using it as an opportunity to chill free speech on campus.

I imagine most Alabama and LSU students just want to go to the game and… stick to sports. And, that’s their right. It’s unfortunate that we live in a country where the president is so desperate for attention that he intrudes himself on every aspect of our lives and culture.

But I’d just remind game attendees that they don’t have to focus on the game and nothing else. Alabama is not run by Jim Spanfeller. If you want to voice your displeasure at the current president, that is your right to do so.

You don’t even have to go full Nika Riot. You can leave that work to the people present should Trump ever be foolish enough show up to a WNBA game.

---

Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and a contributor at The Nation. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.