Author: TSA Press

As technology continues to integrate itself into the practice of law, law schools are the latest to get on board with the digital revolution. We sat down with Ken Randall, former Dean of the University of Alabama School of Law and founder of distance learning company iLaw (a BARBRI Company), to discuss the rise of hybrid J.D. programs and how iLaw is helping law schools to expand their offerings in today’s digital era. 

You’re one of the pioneers in online learning for law schools. Can you give us a little bit of your background in this area?

I was Dean at the University of Alabama School of Law for 20 years, and during that time, the law school improved 75 spots in U.S. News and World Report. A large part of that improvement came from online resources. Alabama was among the first law schools to use distance education (education where the instructor and student are not in the same place) for non-J.D. graduate work. We took a residential tax LL.M. program and started incorporating distance learning, and this generated a lot of revenues to improve the school.

Around 2000, the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar named me the first chair of their Technology Committee. The committee that provided the origins of Standard 306, which regulates distance or online education at accredited law schools. That was the origins of online regulation in the J.D. space.

For those who aren’t familiar, what are hybrid J.D. programs and what does Standard 306 say about them?

Hybrid education simply means education that uses two platforms. There’s no strict definition of what constitutes a hybrid J.D. program — it’s really anything that’s a blend of residential and online learning. ABA Standard 306 is the relevant standard governing online education at accredited law schools. In its first iteration, the ABA allowed for only 11 credits to be offered by distance education. By 2018, that was expanded so that law schools can now offer at least ⅓ of the J.D. program online, and 10 of those online credits in the first year. Law schools can also apply to the ABA for a variance to do offer even more credits online. Today, law schools are experimenting and innovating with having a large part of their J.D. programs come from an online platform.

How many law schools are offering hybrid J.D. programs today?

In terms of schools that have true hybrid programs that offer a significant amount of the program online, there are probably 8-10 schools that stay within Standard 306. There are other schools that may have certain online courses, but have not designated an official hybrid program. There are also about five schools that have an ABA variance to do even more than ⅓ of their program online. So, in total, about 10 percent of the 200 ABA-accredited law schools are offering some kind of hybrid program or distance learning today. It’s important to note, though, that these schools also continue to offer their traditional programs. 

Why did you found iLaw and how does it fit into the hybrid J.D. landscape?

I created iLaw in 2013 because very few people were focusing on distance learning in legal education at the time. There were a lot of good online vendors focusing on undergraduate institutions, but not on legal education. iLaw was founded to provide law schools with an online learning platform.

We specialize in two areas. The first is providing J.D. content to law schools. We hire subject matter leaders from around the country, the ones who wrote the casebooks, to create online content, and we license that content to law schools. The second thing we do is partner with law schools on LL.M and J.M. programs for lawyers and non-lawyers, helping them to recruit students, design courses, and show courses through our learning management system. Those two strands come together in the hybrid J.D space, wherein we become a comprehensive partner for law schools looking to offer a hybrid program.

We’re now doing in the hybrid J.D. space what we’d been doing in the masters space for six or seven years. In 2017, we were acquired by BARBRI, and together we provide comprehensive solutions for students both during and after law school to help them prepare for and take the bar exam.

Why are more law schools moving to online learning and what do they stand to gain from it?

Legal education has been slower to move to distance education as compared to other disciplines. Standard 306 didn’t exist until 2002, and it wasn’t until 2018 that a law school could deliver at least ⅓ of the program was online. As you know, law school applications saw a sharp decline five or six years ago. The movement to innovate and experiment, including in the online space, has a lot to do with the fact that admissions numbers really started to disrupt legal education.

Going forward, I expect we’ll see more and more schools entering the online space with hybrid programs. We tend to focus on the number of credits a person can take online, but equally if not more important is what’s going on in that online classroom. That’s why iLaw is putting a lot of resources into the pedagogy of teaching online. Today we can really replicate online the kind of engagement and interactivity that a student has with a faculty member on campus. When people think of distance education, they think of a talking head and a PowerPoint, but that’s not the high-quality work we’re doing. There’s absolutely outstanding, innovative teaching going on online today. So much of the practice of law today is conducted online and through technology, so we’re marrying an online pedagogy with the online skills that the students will use when practicing law. There’s no better way to teach technology skills than through technology. 

There’s also a huge focus on inclusivity and opportunity and bringing down the cost of education. The optimal way to do that is through distance education. Full-time residential learning is not an option for a lot of people, so online learning really provides an inclusive and more diverse education. In terms of law schools, it’s also a great thing, because online learning provides a way for schools with diminishing applicant pools to diversify their revenue streams and improve their ability to draw students from broader markets.

Are there any success stories you can highlight for us?

The University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law has been highly successful with online learning. They’re one of the top five intellectual property law schools in the country, but they’re in a place that’s more remote. They’ve secured a variance under Standard 306 to offer more than half their coursework online through a hybrid program, and this has been an extremely successful way for them to share their IP expertise with the rest of the country. It’s a great example of inclusive education, because innovators, people working in IP-related fields, and people working in tech now have a way to attend a top-5 IP law school through distance education.

What advice do you have for law schools who might want to partner with iLaw to expand their online programming or offer a hybrid J.D. program?

We believe that online learning has a place in every law school. This doesn’t mean it should replace traditional learning, but innovation is important, particularly if you want an inclusive and diverse student body or to attract non-traditional learners. Investigating online offerings is especially important for schools that have part-time or evening programs, because they play a critical role in educating non-traditional students.

Every law school has different challenges based on their goals, geography, or mission, so we don’t take a one-size-fits-all approach to online learning. You need to create a program that works with your particular challenges, and iLaw is an expert in doing that. What distinguishes us is that we only deal with law schools. Our staff are experienced in all aspects of legal education and we know how to design and build J.D. courses.

Can we expect to see law schools that are 100 percent online in the future?

It will ultimately depend on the ABA, but I would imagine that over the next five years there will be some accredited J.D. programs that are allowed to be 100% online. This won’t be to the exclusion of traditional learning, but rather giving faculty the freedom to experiment with online learning in addition to the traditional teaching they’re already doing.

It’s that time of year again where we look back, take stock of the year in law, count the bonuses rolling in and order another round. With that in mind, we’re throwing a holiday party here in New York, and you’re invited!

So, if you want to grab some drinks and food on ATL, RSVP here! This year we’ll have our party on December 10th at Houndstooth Pub on 8th Avenue at 37th Street.

Want to brag about your bonus? Share a war story? Take a break from studying for finals? Catch up with your favorite (it’s me, I know it is) ATL editor? All are welcome!

Here are the details:

When: Tuesday, December 10th
Where: 520 8th Avenue, New York, NY 10018
Time: 6pm – whenever we stop drinking

Remember to RSVP soon to guarantee your spot and we’ll see you in December.

Kathryn 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).

I’m not big on apologies in my professional life. Mainly, because I’ve learned that nothing good ever comes of them. This tried-and-true life experience is compounded by the issue of having lady parts. I don’t want to make any broad, sweeping generalizations here (hint: I’m going to anyway), but I think those of us with lady parts apologize too much, and it’s not a good look. So, I have worked long and hard to eradicate this word from my knee-jerk reaction list (which includes such gems as, “Why in the hell would you do that,” “It’s your funeral,” and my patented look of equal parts of horror and disgust).

For me, an apology boils down to a formal admission of wrongdoing. I don’t know about you, but when it comes to my business partners, there’s about a zero chance I’m going to open myself up to that. Like dogs, bees, and toddlers, business partners can smell weakness, and who in the hell has time for that? I waste enough oxygen and brain cells justifying to business partners why we should do something when I’m in the right. That leaves me no time to grovel when I’m in the wrong.

The same goes for the word “sorry.” Because we lawyer types are word nerds, I’m in the camp that thinks there’s a subtle different between an apology and a sorry. Sorry implies an additional requirement of regret and remorse, and, frankly, I have even less time for that. Yes, I may have effed up, but I like to take the comparative negligence approach. If I’ve effed up, chances are that the business partner has effed up even more. Do you really think the sales rep is going to say he’s sorry for leaving out half the conversation he had with a vendor and making you look like a baboon’s ass in front of their counsel? I think not.

So I avoid apologies and sorry like the plague. Nor do I ever expect them from business partners because, again, that would imply some realization of wrongdoing or remorse. And there’s nothing quite like a half-assed apology that someone offers when they need something from you. “Kay, I’m so sorry I sat on this request for a month, but I really do need that merger agreement in four hours.” See? It’s like being punched in the intellect and the stomach at the same time.

But far worse than a half-assed apology, is a forced one.

We have this shiny, new sales SVP and like most of our sales SVP, this guy looks and sounds like he just got his learner’s permit. He’s been brought in to “shake things up.” Read: break the current system without any analysis as to what is working well. I give Thom about nine months before he’s out for failing to shake things up.

In the meantime, Thom has posted these larger-than-life, Technicolor canvas boards all over his team’s walls with such inspirational offerings as, “You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take,” and “Great things never come from idling in your comfort zone.” My personal favorite (the one over by the restroom) is “DREAM BIGGER.” I’m just saying that I probably wouldn’t have posted this one over by the men’s restroom. Snicker.

Well, I’m sorry to report that despite all these snazzy signs designed to inspire his team, I got into an epic showdown with one of Thom’s direct reports. I’m not going into the gory details, but let’s just say it involved changing a significant amount of language in a settlement agreement after it was approved by Legal. Let’s just say those changes were caught after the document was signed by the vendor but before we inked it, and a shitstorm ensued. The immediate result was me spending my Friday night and weekend renegotiating with a righteously (and rightfully) pissed vendor’s counsel. This resulted in me being righteously (and rightfully) pissed at Thom’s direct report for ruining my weekend because he decided that being a sneaky ass waffle was the way to go, rather than find an adult when the deal went south.

The following Monday morning, I was treated to a meeting in which the offending business partner was forced to apologize to me in front of Thom. Absent from the proceedings was an admission of wrongdoing or sense of remorse. Not only that, the ass waffle in question couldn’t make eye contact with me, and I got the distinct impression that it wasn’t remorse, but general pissiness, that was preventing him from looking me in the eyes. The lowlight (there were no highlights) was Thom wasting twenty minutes of my life explaining what it’s so important to take ownership of one’s mistakes and learn from them. I’m just going to say that I have lived through some awkward shit in my career (including having to coach a Midwestern-born VP that he couldn’t refer to his female employees as “gals” no matter how highly he regarded them), but this was up there.

Unsurprisingly, this didn’t fix anything. If anything, Thom’s direct report has been more of an ass waffle than before. He now starts every call and meeting with, “Kay, am I allowed to do the following, I wanted to check first, it’s not like I have ten years of experience in this field or anything …” in the snottiest tone imaginable. As if I’m the one who made this guy apologize or who tried to sneak one by his boss with a bogus settlement agreement. Nope, nope, nope. I’m just the poor sucker who spent her weekend fixing the mistake and her Monday morning listening to an SVP who clearly wanted to be one of those college basketball coaches making impassioned speeches to his team on the sidelines.

This experience, while mortifying, did give me a great outlet for my creativity. If you do happen to find yourself by the men’s restroom on the second floor of our building, you’ll find a new sign. It’s not as fancy as Thom’s airbrushed ones, but I think my, “SORRY IS NOT ENOUGH, SOMETIMES, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO CHANGE” sign gets the job done.

Kay Thrace (not her real name) is a harried in-house counsel at a well-known company that everyone loves to hate. When not scuffing dirt on the sacrosanct line between business and the law, Kay enjoys pub trivia domination and eradicating incorrect usage of the Oxford comma. You can contact her by email at KayThraceATL@gmail.com or follow her on Twitter @KayThrace.

In a recent column, I shared some IP-related takeaways from a major litigation finance-focused conference I attended recently, the LF Dealmakers Forum. A few weeks ago, the team behind that conference hosted the latest installment of the IP Dealmakers Forum, the 6th annual edition of that event. As always, it was a well-attended gathering of IP professionals representing law firms, IP owners, IP media, and litigation financiers. Like with LF Dealmakers, the organizers were gracious enough to allow me to attend in my capacity as author of this IP column. My attendance was limited to just two sessions, however, as I was laid low for days before the conference by a resilient bout of the flu. 

Truth be told, I was definitely not feeling my best during my short stint at the conference. But that did not stop me from enjoying two excellent panels on the closing day of the event. The first discussed how startups and established companies are looking to leverage their IP to drive growth. And the second addressed how corporations are approaching IP monetization in the ongoing challenging environment that today’s IP practitioners find themselves in. (I have no doubt that the other material presented at the conference was of a similar high caliber, just as I am sure that the one-to-one meetings that are an important part of the conference for attendees will lead to some actual deals.) In fact, these panels were the ones I circled when I first had a look at the conference agenda, so I was glad I was able to drag myself to catch those discussions. They did not disappoint.

For one, there were a wide range of perspectives offered by the panelists, with representatives from multinational corporations sharing the stage with domestic-based IP owners. Both panels featured frank discussion of the challenges the panelists and their companies face in an IP market defined by licensee skepticism and significant legal risk to IP assets, particularly in the United States, where both IPRs and Alice continue to confound patent owners looking to monetize their expensive (to obtain and maintain), wasting assets. As interesting as it was to hear about the challenges, however, it was more interesting to hear how the different companies represented are attempting to solve for them. As one can imagine, a number of different approaches were discussed.

We can start with the insights shared by the inimitable Raymond Millien, chief of IP for Volvo. He emphasized the importance of the IP department working closely with company engineers to identify promising internally developed technologies for outbound licensing, or to identify areas where inbound licensing could help improve the company’s product offerings. He also spoke about the importance of a company’s IP professionals helping to spread the message, both internally and externally, that the company’s IP is valuable. This marketing function may seem trivial in the grand scheme of things, but I for one agree that in a challenging IP environment it is important to maintain a company’s internal IP morale and competitive positioning as an innovator. Doing so helps give the company a head start when the IP environment becomes more favorable, while continuing to ensure the company’s inventors to keep inventing. His insights were echoed by others, particularly in terms of demonstrating how important it can be for startups to develop IP early on in their corporate lifecycle, in order to both attract outside investment and to give the company options if confronted by infringers or IP claims raised by others.

On the monetization front, it was interesting to hear certain themes echoed over and over. At the forefront was the message that companies interested in monetization are best served by having a concrete strategy in place for their efforts — one that takes into account how the company will handle the costs of their monetization efforts while remaining realistic about the expected returns and the company’s place in the IP ecosystem. At the same time, even representatives from non-traditional IP plaintiffs evinced a greater willingness to consider IP assertion, either directly or through divesting assets to non-practicing entities skilled in that endeavor. At least one panelist, Siemens’ Gerhard Tschiedel, spoke of an evolution within his company in its approach to patent divestment, including an increased willingness to divest assets generally — especially those generated by business units no longer offering products — as well as a willingness to at least explore use of litigation finance. Likewise, other corporate representatives indicated similar developments at their own companies, including at least one panelist who conceded that their company had come to understand that successful monetization will typically involve at least some level of investment by the IP owner, especially in the face of recalcitrant licensees. Interestingly, there was a consensus that while IPRs are a challenge for patent owners, they are also potential vehicles for unlocking patent value, considering that patents that survive IPR gain an immediate boost to their licensing prospects as a result.

Ultimately, IP conferences are only as good as the willingness of the presenters to speak frankly about how they and their organizations are dealing with the fluctuating market conditions in our field. At that level, IP Dealmakers did not disappoint, as both panels that I attended contained panelists that were more than willing to tell the truth about what is happening in the IP market. While it is sometimes more important as a conference attendee to confirm that the right questions are being asked, it is also helpful when fellow professionals at least attempt to share some of the answers to those questions. Yes, today’s IP dealmakers are dealing with a challenging market and significant obstacles to unlocking maximum value from IP. But it is heartening that there is a cadre of dealmakers still willing to deal. For those interested, seeking out those fellow dealmakers is more important than ever.

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.

To be honest, I do not care if Don McGahn ever actually testifies in front of Congress. The House Judiciary Committee screwed up the McGahn testimony a long time ago. As soon as the Mueller report was released, they should have compelled him to testify. As soon as he refused, they should have arrested him and sued him. Instead of playing hardball with Donald Trump’s reluctant accomplice, Democrats played footsie. They didn’t sue him until August. We’ve had to wait until November for his whackadoodle, blanket assertion of executive privilege to be rejected by a court. The government will now appeal to the Supreme Court. Even if the Supreme Court eventually rules against him, McGahn’s actually testimony will basically be a series of questions McGahn refuses to answer, citing various privileges. Moreover, McGahn is a key witness to Trump’s obstruction of justice, a charge that Democrats have all but abandoned in their new search to convince Trump Republicans to finally do the right thing and hold the criminal president accountable.

We must continue to pursue McGahn on general principles, but his part in this drama is no longer relevant.

Former National Security Adviser John Bolton still has a part to play. The McGahn ruling gives all the legal cover Bolton needs to testify in the impeachment inquiry about his knowledge of the bribery scheme implemented by President Trump and his personal lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani. Unfortunately, Bolton still appears to be too chickenshit to do the right thing. From the New York Times:

Charles J. Cooper, a lawyer who represents Mr. Bolton, said that a court decision on Monday ordering another former White House official to appear before Congress under subpoena did not apply to Mr. Bolton because of the nature of his job. Mr. Cooper said Mr. Bolton would therefore wait for another judge to rule in a separate case that could take weeks more to litigate…

“Any passing references in the McGahn decision to presidential communications concerning national security matters are not authoritative on the validity of testimonial immunity for close White House advisers” whose “responsibilities are focused exclusively on providing information and advice to the president on national security,” Mr. Cooper said.

John Bolton is most well-known for his aggressive foreign policy positions. There’s nary a problem on the global stage that Bolton doesn’t think can be bombed or shot out of existence. But Bolton’s reticence to provide Congressional testimony — a timidity not shared by his deputy Fiona Hill or former ambassador Marie Yovanovitch or ambassador Bill Taylor or Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman or numerous others who willingly told the truth to the American people — exposes Bolton as a cheap schoolyard bully. He’s happy to fight when he enjoys an advantage of institutional strength over his adversary. But when the odds are even? When the outcome is unclear? No, Bolton shrinks from that challenge to hide under the apron of his lawyer.

To be clear, the argument from Bolton and lawyer Charles Cooper is a bad one. They’re contemplating the same kind of blanket immunity from testimony that was just rejected in the McGahn case. If anything, as not only a top adviser but a lawyer, McGahn has a stronger legal argument to avoid testimony all together. If McGahn can be expected to at least sit there and be asked questions, whether or not he’ll answer them, so must Bolton. Nobody is going to ask Bolton about national security secrets. Trump already declassified his solicitation of bribes; Bolton will just be asked to confirm the obvious.

But Bolton doesn’t want to do his duty — he wants to be a diva. He wants to drag this out. He wants to sell his book. He wants to avoid being seen by fellow Republicans as the man who sunk Trump’s presidency. John Bolton doesn’t want cover, he wants to run away like a coward.

Ruling Will Not Lead Bolton to Testify Soon, Lawyer Says [New York Times]

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.

While we all understandably fixate on salary and bonuses, benefits can be just as critical to an attorney’s job satisfaction. To the extent we talk about benefits at all, we usually talk about parental leave expansions, but there’s a much wider array of offerings firms could be putting on the table for associates — benefits that will impact attorneys with far more regularity than parental leave. Unless you’re a Duggar or something.

Goodwin just announced its You@Goodwin program with a number of new benefits for employees in its U.S. offices. Given that we’ve not heard about bonuses from Goodwin yet, most associates probably saw the email to all and felt a little teased when it was just a benefits announcement, but keep your heads up because there’s some good stuff in here:

Expanded paid parental leave policy. All lawyers will be eligible to take up to 18 weeks and all GO! Team members will be eligible to take at least 12 weeks of paid child bonding leave. In addition, all birth mothers will be eligible to take at least six additional weeks of disability leave.

Of course parental leave is still getting top billing. At 18 weeks, the policy falls a little shy of some others, but it’s certainly following the trend toward expanded leave. The policy does reflect the industry-standard gap between attorneys and staff, which never makes sense because “having a baby” seems to have very little to do with post-graduate degrees. Even vacation tiers make sense — attorneys are under more stress day-to-day than staff and may need more vacation — but there isn’t much reason to tier parental leave. Maybe to reflect that they’ll be home more often during the first year? I guess that makes some sense, but is it six weeks’ worth?

The firm is also offering 12 weeks of leave to all employees for close family members with serious health conditions.

Modified vacation policy. Lawyers will move to flexible vacation, while full-time non-exempt GO! Team members and paralegals with five or more years of service will be eligible to accrue up to 20 days per year. There will  be no specified limit to the total number of vacation days in a calendar year for lawyers.

Unlimited vacation, y’all. Realistically though, attorneys are rarely going to take all 20 days offered to staff let alone something on top of that. But it does open the door to a mid-level ahead on hours to book the sort of once in a lifetime two-month trek that attorneys can only afford once they’re working too hard to actually take. If you find yourself in this boat, why not try to get to South America or Africa to close out the year?

For its part, the firm is serious about pushing associates to at least take some sustained vacation:

First, we will encourage all of you to take a vacation of two consecutive weeks per year, in addition to other vacation time you take during the course of the year. Taking the time to relax and recharge is essential –  especially in our fast-paced industry. We firmly believe that well-being and balance are fundamental to our ability to do our best work for clients.

Even if work schedules find a way to mess that up, just making the statement represents a critical shift in thinking about mental health that too few firms would be willing to put out there.

Substance abuse and depression assistance. As an early signatory to the American Bar Association’s pledge to advance well-being in the legal profession, Goodwin will continue to offer training on signs of substance abuse and depression, and how to get help.

One of the more welcome trends in Biglaw is the institutional commitment to the obstacles the profession puts on mental well-being. And while we’re on record as disagreeing with Goodwin’s decision to go teetotaler in an effort to curb both substance abuse and reduce the risk of sexual harassment, we’ve also lauded the commitment to getting ahead of the problem. The new program offers services to the entire firm and household members including on-site behavioral health counselors.

Speaking of health, the firm announced an expansion in voluntary health plan add-ons and expanded elder care and special needs services.

Perhaps most importantly for young associates, the firm expanded its student loan refinancing options.

Congratulations to Goodwin employees on their new benefits, and a reminder to attorneys everywhere to keep us abreast of any new benefits.

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 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.

Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings. … This means that they do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control. Rather, in this land of liberty, it is indisputable that current and former employees of the White House work for the People of the United States, and that they take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. …

[A]s far as the duty to appear is concerned, this Court holds that Executive branch officials are not absolutely immune from compulsory congressional process—no matter how many times the Executive branch has asserted as much over the years—even if the President expressly directs such officials’ non-compliance.

This result is unavoidable as a matter of basic constitutional law…. Today, this Court adds that this conclusion is inescapable precisely because compulsory appearance by dint of a subpoena is a legal construct, not a political one, and per the Constitution, no one is above the law.

— Judge Kentanji Brown Jackson (D.D.C.), ruling in a sharp rebuke to the Trump administration’s repeated assertions that both current and former presidential aides — like former White House counsel Don McGahn, whom you may recall decided to resign after President Trump allegedly asked him to “do crazy shit” — have “absolute immunity” from compelled testimony as part of the House’s impeachment inquiry. McGahn’s lawyer said his client would comply with the ruling unless it is stayed pending appeal. The Justice Department has vowed to appeal.

(Flip to the next page to read the ruling in full.)

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.

* A federal judge has ordered former White House Counsel Don McGahn to testify in front of the House impeachment inquiry, stating that “Presidents are not kings.” [CNN]

* A North Carolina woman has been charged with pretending to be a lawyer in court. She probably told the judge her name was Jerry Callo (can’t resit a good My Cousin Vinny reference). [Charlotte Observer]

* It looks like there won’t be any more episodes of “Serial” — the Supreme Court announced yesterday that the high court would not be hearing the case of Adnan Syed, the subject of the viral podcast. [Vox]

* Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was back at the Supreme Court yesterday after a brief stay at the hospital over the weekend. [Reuters]

* More than a thousand Americans have signed onto a lawsuit against a number of companies for allegedly supporting terrorist groups. [Full Measure]

* Devin Nunes has threatened to sue CNN and the Daily Beast over news stories about him. Mr. Nunes may want to brush up on his First Amendment law (or just watch John Oliver). [Vox]

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.

By the end of this month, as more and more experts weigh in on the deep trauma suffered by captured elephants, a treaty governing international animal trade will halt the export of live elephants from Zimbabwe and other countries in Southern Africa.