Author: TSA Press

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

Which
state’s
House
of
Representatives
voted
to
pass
a
resolution
expressing
their
“commitment
to
restoring
the
definition
of
marriage
as
a
union
between
one
man
and
one
woman,
urging
the
Supreme
Court
to
reconsider
the

Obergefell
v.
Hodges
decision
and
return
authority
over
marriage
laws
to
the
states
and
their
citizens”?

Hint:
The
resolution
continues,
“Obergefell
relies
on
the
dangerous
fiction
of
treating
the
Due
Process
Clause
of
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
to
the
Constitution
as
a
font
of
substantive
rights,
a
doctrine
that
strays
from
the
full
meaning
of
the
Constitution
and
exalts
judges
at
the
expense
of
the
people
from
whom
they
derive
their
authority.”

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

“This
is
going
to
be
a
big
year
for
redefining
our
relationships
with
governments,”
Facebook
Sith
Lord
Mark
Zuckerberg
told
investors
on
an
earnings
call
yesterday.
And
he
wasn’t
kidding!
Zuck
discovered
a
new
and
innovative
way
to
bribe
the
sitting
president. 

What
if
you
pretend
to
lose
a
lawsuit
you
already
won,
and
then
agree
to
fork
over
a
massive
settlement,
while
rolling
over
to
show
your
belly?
It
might
not
maximize
shareholder
value,
but
it
will
definitely
“redefine”
your
relationship
with
the
despot
who
only
recently
threatened
to
throw
you
in
jail.

The


Wall
Street
Journal’s
Annie
Linskey
and
Rebecca
Balhaus
were
first
to
report
details
of
the

settlement
between
the
social
media
company
and
President
Trump.
The
case
was
originally
filed
in
Florida
in
2021,
along
with

similar
complaints
against
Twitter
and
YouTube. 

Trump’s
theory
was
that
the
social
media
platforms
violated
his
First
Amendment
rights
by
tortiously
deplatforming
him
after
he
mounted
a
coup
to
stay
in
power
and
sent
his
goons
to
lay
siege
to
Congress.
Of
course,
only
the
government
can
violate
the
First
Amendment,
and,
according
to
linear
time
—
fake
news!
—
Trump
was
president
when
he
got
booted
on
January
7,
2021.
But
Trump
had
a
solution
for
that,
and
it
was
to
blame
Adam
Schiff.

See,
some
members
of
Congress,
most
notably
Senators
Josh
Hawley
and
Ted
Cruz
called
for
social
media
platforms
to
lose
their
immunity
under
Section
230
of
the
Communications
Decency
Act.
Trump
himself
actually
vetoed
the
defense
budget
in
2020
because
Congress
refused
to
include
a
repeal
of
Section
230.
But
then-Congressman
now-Senator
Schiff
also
made
noises
about
that
a
couple
times,
and
suggested
that
the
platforms
should
do
more
about
COVID
misinformation.
And

that
was
a
threat
that
turned
Facebook,
Twitter,
and
YouTube
into
government
agents,

ipso
fatso
…
First
Amendment
violation!

Perhaps
unsurprisingly,
courts
didn’t
see
it
that
way.
First,
the
cases
were
booted
to
California
consistent
with
the
websites’
terms
of
service.
And
then
Judge
James
Donato
nuked
the
Twitter
suit
in
2022
for
being

defective
in
more
or
less
every
way.
Trump

appealed,
and
the
Meta
and
YouTube
suits
were

put
on
hold
pending
review
by
the
Ninth
Circuit,
since
the
three
cases
were
functionally
identical.
That
case
has
been
languishing
forever,
as
the
parties
bat
around
the
Fifth
Circuit’s
batshit
decision
in

Missouri
v.
Murthy
(AKA
“the
jawboning
case”),
and
then
the
Supreme
Court’s

reversal
on
standing
grounds.
But
in
the
meantime,
Twitter
and
Facebook
(or
X
and
Meta,
if
you’re
opposed
to
deadnaming,
which
is
perfectly
fine
on
both
platforms)
appear
to
have
decided
that
it
would
be
better
to
lose
than
bother
litigating
against
the
mad
king.
And
so
Twitter
filed
a

notice
of
proposed
settlement
in
November,
presumably
because
Twitter
and
the
government
are
now
fused
in
the
imperial
singularity
of
Elon
Musk.
And
yesterday
Zuckerberg
got
out
Meta’s
checkbook
and
cut
a
check
for
$25
million
—
$22
million
for
Trump’s
presidential
library,
and
$3
million
for
legal
fees
and
the
other
plaintiffs,
including
Naomi
Wolf.

In
2020,
Zuckerberg’s
family
charity

funded
various
voting
access
initiatives
through
the
Center
for
Tech
and
Civic
Life.
Helping
Americans
to
vote.
Plus
Facebook
briefly
suppressed
the
virality
of
the
Hunter
Biden
Laptop
(From
Hell!)
story.
And
so
Zuck
became
an
enemy
of
the
right,
even
as
he
leaned
over
backward

not
to
apply
his
platform’s
rules
to
conservatives.
And
when
he
trooped
down
to
Mar-a-Lago
in
November,
Trump
“signaled
that
the
litigation
had
to
be
resolved
before
Zuckerberg
could
be
‘brought
into
the
tent,’”
according
to
the
WSJ. 

To
be
clear,
this
is

not
like
ABC
settling
the
trollsuit
over
the
Stephanopoulos
calling
Trump
and
“adjudicated
rapist”
— or
at
least,
not
exactly. 

That
was
a
credible
claim
that
might
well
have
survived
a
motion
to
dismiss.
This
is
Zuckerberg
writing
a
ten-figure
check
to
buy
off
the
Dear
Leader
and
ensure
that
there
will
be
no
further

antitrust
or
regulatory
actions,
much
less
threats
of
imprisonment.
Zuck
can
integrate
vertically,
horizontally,
or
whichever
way
he
pleases.
He
can

steal
to
feed
his
AI,
with
no
fear
of
prosecution.
And
all
it
takes
is
the
further
enshittification
of
his
platform
and
reckless
endangerment
of
minorities,
plus
the
change
he
dug
out
of
the
couch
in
the
Meta
breakroom.

Sure
it’s
a
bribe.
But
considering
what
he
got
for
it,
it’s
the
deal
of
the
century!

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

Shiva
is
the
Hebrew
word
for
Judaism’s

week-long
mourning
period
for
the
deceased’s
relatives.
With
the
“off
with
their
heads”
attitude
of
the
new
administration,
many
of
us,
regardless
of
religious
affiliation,
are
in
mourning
for
the
killing
off
of
DEI
initiatives.

So
many
questions.
Is
DEI
dead?
Seems
that
way.
If
two
absolutely
equally
qualified
lawyers
interview
for
the
one
vacant
position,
who
gets
it?
Female
or
male?
Majority
or
minority?
Women
lawyers
have
not
been
as
successful
as
men
in
the
rainmaking
aspect
of
the
profession.
With
the
ever-increasing
emphasis
on
business
development,
what
does
that
mean
in
choosing
that
successful
candidate?
You
tell
me.

If
the
law
schools
are
now
majority
women,
what
does
this
order
do
to
all
those
women
and
minority
lawyers
looking
to
succeed and
finding
that
doors
may
once
again
be
hard
to
pry
open.
Do
firms
and
corporate
legal
departments
continue
to
observe
DEI
principles
but
on
a
sub
rosa
basis?
Or
do
they
choose
to
not
continue
DEI
efforts
concerned
about

antagonizing
those
in
power
and
those
who
can
and
do
control
where
legal
business
goes?
What
does
this
say
about
the
lack
of
appetite
for
speaking
truth
to
power?
And
what
does
this
say
about
how
the
administration
views
efforts
to
level
the
playing
field
for
those
who
weren’t
even
allowed
on
the
field
for
so
many
years?

Efforts
by
the
ABA
and
state
and
local
bar
associations
to
increase
diversity? What
happens
to
them?
What
about
the
Mansfield
Rule
that
requires
women
and
minority
attorneys,
along
with
disabled
and
LGBTQ+
attorneys
be
considered
for
leadership
roles?
There’s
been
some
wordsmithing
about
the

Mansfield
certification
at
the
Diversity
Lab
website.
   

What
about
the

Rooney
Rule?
Since
NFL
football
is
the
quintessential
“old
boys
club,”
will
Roger
Goodell
and
the
league
get
a
pass? (Pun
intentional)

Cynical
about
all
this?
Yup. One
example:
MCLE
programming,
which
30
years
ago,
was
exclusively
all
white
men
as
speakers.
When
pressed
as
to
why
no
women
or
minorities
were
on
panels,
the
lame
excuse
was
that
they
couldn’t
find
any.
Really?
It
was
only
when
women
lawyers
started
jumping
up
about
the
lack
of
panel
diversity
that
speakers
became
more
diversified.
Nothing
is
worse
than
a
panel
of
homogeneous
speakers
who
drone
on
in
the
same
monotonous
tones.
So
are
program
chairs
now
free
to
ignore
DEI
in
putting
panels
together?
Is
there
no
longer
any
need
or
desire
to
put
panels
together
that
resemble
the
changing
face
of
this
country?
And
like
it
or
not,
our
face
is
indeed
changing.

What
about
law
schools?
What
happens
to
their
DEI
efforts/programs?
If
DEI
efforts
are
being
dismantled,
then

how
will
law
schools
react?
Since
women
now
make
up
the
majority
of
incoming
law
school
classes,
what
happens
now?
Will
the
federal
student
loan
program
look
at
law
school
composition
and
decide
that
it
won’t
lend
to
students
at
certain
schools
because
the
law
schools
pride
themselves
as
diverse
student
classes?

Businesses
now
wimp
out
on
their
purported
promises
for
diversity
and
equal
opportunity.
Is
“equal
opportunity”
an
oxymoron?
Think
about
it.
How
can 
you
have
equal
opportunity
if
you’re
not
even
allowed
in
the
room?
How
do
you
change
the
mindset
of
cultures
that
backslap
the
old
boys
network
and
ignore
changing
demographics?
The
field
is
once
again
tilted
in
favor
of
those
who
have
always
had
the
deck
stacked
in
their
favor.
It’s
not
back
to
the
future,
it’s
back
to
the
past,
a
past
that
many
of
us
dinosaurs
would 
prefer
to
not
relive.  

On
another
topic
perfect
for
ranting,
AI
is
imperiling
the
work
of
the
junior
puppies.
Remember
those
hours
and
days
of
necessary
drudge
work
that
we
all
did
as
a
rite
of
passage
as
new
lawyers?
Learning
how
to
write
motions,
craft
discovery
and
responses
thereto,
researching 
the
law
for
that
one
case
the
partner
knew
was
out
there.
And
then
the
partner
cutting
the
hours
that
she
could
bill
on
that
case
because
that
junior
puppy
took
way
too
long
to
find
the
answer?
It
looks
as
if
AI
(aka
ALSP
—
Alternative
Legal
Service
Providers)
may
soon
have
even
a
lock
on
the
grunt
work
we
all
did.
DEI
initiatives
are
in
tatters,
and
jobs
for
new
associates
may
be
even
tougher
to
come
by.

Not
an
appetizing
future
for
women
who
comprise
more
than
50%
of
incoming
law
school
classes
and
certainly
no
better
for
minority
attorneys.

So
between
the
death
of
DEI
and
the
ever
increasing
prominence
of
AI,
why
would
anyone
want
to
navigate
law
school,
the
bar
exam,
and
student
loans?
Would
a
career
performing
frontal
lobotomies
with
ice
cream
scoops
be
a
better
career
path?

---

Jill
Switzer
has
been
an
active
member
of
the
State
Bar
of
California
for
over
40
years.
She
remembers
practicing
law
in
a
kinder,
gentler
time.
She’s
had
a
diverse
legal
career,
including
stints
as
a
deputy
district
attorney,
a
solo
practice,
and
several
senior
in-house
gigs.
She
now
mediates
full-time,
which
gives
her
the
opportunity
to
see
dinosaurs,
millennials,
and
those
in-between
interact
—
it’s
not
always
civil.
You
can
reach
her
by
email
at




[email protected].

If
a
billionaire
throws
out
two
Nazi
salutes
at
an
extremely
public
political
rally
and
says
some
kind
words
afterward,
does
it
change
the
meaning
of
the
Nazi
salute?
A
normal
person
would
say
no.
Tim
Walz,
famously
known
for
showing
how
in
step
with
the
common
man
he
is
by
calling
alt-righters
“weird,”
is
back
in
the
public
eye
after
describing
what
quacks
and
walks
like
a
duck
what
it
was
—
a
Nazi
salute.
He
wasn’t
the
only
one
either;

far-right
agitator
Nick
Fuentes
was
happy
to
call
it
what
it
was.

You’d
think
Elon
is
thinking
about
suing
Fuentes
too,
right?
Nope,
just
Walz.

NY
Daily
News
has
coverage:

Elon
Musk
is
mulling
legal
action
against
“creepy”
Minnesota
Gov.
Tim
Walz
for
suggesting
he
performed
the
Nazi
salute
during
his
speech
after
President
Trump’s
inauguration
earlier
this
month…“We,
spent
three
days
debating,
or
trying
to
debate
that
‘President
Musk’
gave
a
Nazi
salute.
Of
course
he
did,”
said
Walz[.]

If
you’ve
somehow
managed
to
see
what
Elon
did,

you
can
gauge
the
similarities
for
yourself.

Actually
following
through
with
suing
Walz
for
accurately
characterizing
his
Trump
Heil
wouldn’t
be
the
dumbest
thing
Elon
has
done,
but
that’s
only
because

you
could
teach
a
class
worth
of
the
lawsuits
this
guy
has
been
involved
in.
It’s
obvious
that
he
knows
what
a
Nazi
salute
looks
like
—
the
website
he
bought
is
full
of
people
doing
it
—
and

he’s
recently
been
vocally
supportive
of
Germany’s
AfD
party.
Now,
the
ADL
was
strangely
neutral
on
calling
out
Elon’s
“throwing
his
heart
out”
as
Nazi
behavior,
but
they’re
very
thorough

when
it
comes
to
the
AfD’s
tendency
to
use
Nazi
slogans.

The
mature
thing
for
Walz
to
do
in
this
situation
is
to
have
a
couple
of
lawyers
on
speed
dial
in
case
Musk
takes
him
to
court.
What
I
hope
he
does
is
hold
a
press
conference
where
he
gives
Elon
Musk
the
middle
finger.
But
it’s
not
really
the
middle
finger,
it’s
just
his
idiosyncratic
way
of
using
his
hand
to
show
that
Elon
towers
above
the
rest.
You’ve
seen
Walz
speak,
sometimes
he
just
gets
so
excited.

Elon
Musk
Considers
Suing
Gov.
Tim
Walz
Over
Nazi
Salute
Accusation
[NY
Daily
News]

---

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.

If
a
billionaire
throws
out
two
Nazi
salutes
at
an
extremely
public
political
rally
and
says
some
kind
words
afterward,
does
it
change
the
meaning
of
the
Nazi
salute?
A
normal
person
would
say
no.
Tim
Walz,
famously
known
for
showing
how
in
step
with
the
common
man
he
is
by
calling
alt-righters
“weird,”
is
back
in
the
public
eye
after
describing
what
quacks
and
walks
like
a
duck
what
it
was
—
a
Nazi
salute.
He
wasn’t
the
only
one
either;

far-right
agitator
Nick
Fuentes
was
happy
to
call
it
what
it
was.

You’d
think
Elon
is
thinking
about
suing
Fuentes
too,
right?
Nope,
just
Walz.

NY
Daily
News
has
coverage:

Elon
Musk
is
mulling
legal
action
against
“creepy”
Minnesota
Gov.
Tim
Walz
for
suggesting
he
performed
the
Nazi
salute
during
his
speech
after
President
Trump’s
inauguration
earlier
this
month…“We,
spent
three
days
debating,
or
trying
to
debate
that
‘President
Musk’
gave
a
Nazi
salute.
Of
course
he
did,”
said
Walz[.]

If
you’ve
somehow
managed
to
see
what
Elon
did,

you
can
gauge
the
similarities
for
yourself.

Actually
following
through
with
suing
Walz
for
accurately
characterizing
his
Trump
Heil
wouldn’t
be
the
dumbest
thing
Elon
has
done,
but
that’s
only
because

you
could
teach
a
class
worth
of
the
lawsuits
this
guy
has
been
involved
in.
It’s
obvious
that
he
knows
what
a
Nazi
salute
looks
like
—
the
website
he
bought
is
full
of
people
doing
it
—
and

he’s
recently
been
vocally
supportive
of
Germany’s
AfD
party.
Now,
the
ADL
was
strangely
neutral
on
calling
out
Elon’s
“throwing
his
heart
out”
as
Nazi
behavior,
but
they’re
very
thorough

when
it
comes
to
the
AfD’s
tendency
to
use
Nazi
slogans.

The
mature
thing
for
Walz
to
do
in
this
situation
is
to
have
a
couple
of
lawyers
on
speed
dial
in
case
Musk
takes
him
to
court.
What
I
hope
he
does
is
hold
a
press
conference
where
he
gives
Elon
Musk
the
middle
finger.
But
it’s
not
really
the
middle
finger,
it’s
just
his
idiosyncratic
way
of
using
his
hand
to
show
that
Elon
towers
above
the
rest.
You’ve
seen
Walz
speak,
sometimes
he
just
gets
so
excited.

Elon
Musk
Considers
Suing
Gov.
Tim
Walz
Over
Nazi
Salute
Accusation
[NY
Daily
News]

---

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.

Unlimited
pro
bono
hours
are
a
lot
like
unlimited
vacation
days.
Everyone
knows
that
they’ll
never
all
get
used,
but
it’s
the
principle
of
the
thing.
It’s
a
nice
signal
to
associates
that
the
firm
cares
about
public
service
work
or
work-life
balance
respectively.

Linklaters
used
to
have
no
limit
on
the
number
of
pro
bono
hours
that
could
count
toward
bonuses.
But
on
Tuesday
evening,
associates
received
an
update
from
firm
leadership
laying
out
the
requirements
for
next
year’s
bonus
and
pro
bono
hours
now
have
an
upper
bound.

Henceforth,
only
400
hours
of
pro
bono
work
will
count
toward
billable
requirements
(or
200
if
combined
with
business
development
or
other
non-billable
activities).

That
DEI
language
is
still
in
there,
huh?
I
guess
some
firms
aren’t
in
a
hurry
to
offer
superficial

allegiance
to
the
administration.

Again,
the
limit
on
pro
bono
hours
is
not
problem

per
se.
Even
with
unlimited
hours,
Biglaw’s
insatiable
billing
monster
always
ends
up
extracting
its
pound
of
flesh
—
sorry,
Linklaters
is
UK-based
—
its
stone
of
flesh.
And
a
cap
places
the
firm
in
line
with
industry
norms.
In
fact,
it
still
exceeds
the
cap
imposed
by
some
firms.

But
the
overlooked
problem
with
installing
a
pro
bono
cap
out
of
the
blue
is
the
signal
that
the
firm
is
hoping
to
reduce
the
number
of
complex,
potentially
time-intensive
pro
bono
fights
it
takes
on.
The
firm
policy
notes
that
exceptions
can
be
made
for
larger
pro
bono
cases,
but
the
burden
now
falls
on
attorneys
to
advocate
for
those
exceptions
—
an
effort
many
might
just
forego
in
favor
of
something
quick
and
easy.

The
timing
couldn’t
be
worse
given
the
legal
and
political
climate,
where
access
to
pro
bono
representation
is
more
critical
than
ever.

The
new
policy
also
tightens
office
attendance
requirements:

Strongly
encourage?
At
least?
What
kind
of
“policy”
is
this?

We’ve
seen
a
lot
of
different
approaches
to
back-to-the-office
initiatives
and
say
what
you
will
about
them,
most
firms
can
at
least
pick
a
definitive
number
when
they
formulate
a
policy.
To
quote
from
the
cinematic
masterpiece

Office
Space:

Joanna:
You
know
what,
Stan,
if
you
want
me
to
wear
37
pieces
of
flair,
like
your
pretty
boy
over
there,
Brian,
why
don’t
you
just
make
the
minimum
37
pieces
of
flair?

Like
the
leadership
of
Chotchkie’s,
this
“management
by
guesswork”
does
not
inspire
confidence.
When
threatening
year-end
bonus
reductions,
the
standards
should
be
—
to
quote
the
very
memo
announcing
these
changes
—
“simple
and
predictable.”
Based
on
this
passage,
it’s
not
clear
that
the
firm
is
saying
three
days
per
week
fulfills
the
office
attendance
requirement
or
if
they
need
to
be
in
37
days
per
month
like
double-billing
pretty
boy
Brian
over
there.

What
happens
when
associates
have
matters
requiring
extended
periods
of
offsite
work?
Who
knows?
If
lawyers
could
understand
how
the
firm
kept
account
of
attendance
(keycards,
logins,
etc.)
then
they
might
be
able
to
figure
out
when
a
meeting
or
deposition
is
going
to
require
reaching
out
for
special
dispensation.
But
the
memo
remained
silent
on
the
particulars.

There’s
plenty
of
opportunity
for
the
firm
to
provide
necessary
transparency,
but
as
of
now,
Linklaters
might
just
end
up
with
a
lot
of
associates
quitting
while
offering
exactly
the
same
hand
gesture
Joanna
gave
Chotchkie’s.

---

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.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

[T]here’s
a
high
demand
[for
lawyers
with
Trump
ties].
I
even
had
somebody…
who’s
at
a
law
firm
tell
me
that
he’s
gotten
more
client
work
because
of
that,
because
of
the
perception
that
he’s
really
going
to
have
good
access
into
the
administration
and
decision
making
going
on
right
now.

—

 Justine
Donahue,
a
D.C.-based
recruiter
at
Macrae,
in
comments
given
to
the

American
Lawyer,
on
the
hot
lateral
market
for
former
administration
officials
from
Donald
Trump’s
first
term,
as
Biglaw
firms
attempt
to
leverage
their
government
experience
in
client
pitches..

---

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.

Entrepreneurship
often
conjures
images
of
fearless
risk-takers,
but
the
reality
is
more
complex.
Founders
frequently
juggle
the
weight
of
their
ventures
alongside
their
personal
struggles.
In
a
raw
and
insightful
episode
of
“Notes
to
My
(Legal)
Self,”
Collin
Williams,
co-founder
of
New
Era
ADR,
opens
up
about
his
journey
from
suffering
with
depression
to
living
with
it
—
and
how
he’s
using
that
awareness
to
navigate
the
turbulent
world
of
startups.

The
Journey
From
Suffering
To
Living
With

Collin
shares
that
his
depression
manifested
not
in
the
way
many
might
expect
but
through
anger.
For
years,
he
struggled
to
understand
his
emotions,
which
often
flared
up
in
ways
he
couldn’t
control.
It
was
his
wife
who
finally
urged
him
to
seek
help,
leading
to
a
life-changing
revelation:
his
symptoms
weren’t
just
anger
but
depression.

This
turning
point
helped
Collin
move
from
“suffering
with”
to
“living
with”
depression
—
a
reframe
he
credits
for
transforming
his
life.
As
he
explains,
suffering
comes
from
a
lack
of
answers
and
direction,
while
living
with
a
condition
means
taking
ownership
of
it,
creating
an
action
plan,
and
building
a
fulfilling
life,

“Life
is
miserable
when
you’re
suffering.
Life
is
great
when
you’re
living
with.
If
you
can
make
that
shift,
you’ll
solve
90%
of
your
problems.”

Redefining
Normal

One
of
the
most
striking
points
Collin
makes
is
that
mental
illness
is
far
more
common
than
we
acknowledge.
With
at
least
20%
of
the
population
experiencing
some
form
of
mental
health
challenge,
he
argues,
this
isn’t
the
exception
—
it’s
part
of
the
human
condition.

Collin
encourages
others
to
abandon
the
stigma
and
reframe
mental
illness
as
a
strength
rather
than
a
weakness.
For
him,
the
ability
to
seek
help,
manage
his
condition,
and
thrive
in
spite
of
it
is
a
superpower.

“This
is
no
different
than
having
a
broken
arm.
You
wouldn’t
let
a
broken
arm
linger
—
you’d
treat
it.
Mental
illness
deserves
the
same
attention.”

Building
A
Startup
With
Depression

The
entrepreneurial
journey
is
famously
stressful,
marked
by
intense
highs
and
lows.
For
someone
with
a
mental
health
condition,
these
challenges
can
be
magnified.
Collin,
however,
sees
his
depression
not
as
a
liability
but
as
something
manageable
with
the
right
tools
and
support.

Structured
routines
are
a
key
part
of
his
strategy.
Collin
sticks
to
a
daily
schedule
outside
work
—
exercise
in
the
morning,
consistent
evening
routines
—
to
maintain
stability
in
the
face
of
unpredictable
workdays.

And
while
entrepreneurship
might
seem
counterintuitive
for
someone
managing
depression,
Collin
explains
his
motivation
succinctly:


“I
was
afraid
of
practicing
law
for
40
years.
Entrepreneurship
was
the
scarier,
more
exciting
choice—but
it
was
the
right
one
for
me.”

Breaking
The
Stigma

Collin
has
been
candid
about
his
mental
health
journey,
sharing
openly
with
his
team,
partners,
and
even
investors.
His
goal?
To
normalize
these
conversations
and
dismantle
the
stigma
around
mental
illness
in
professional
settings.

“If
you
think
there’s
something
wrong,
don’t
let
the
worry
about
what
others
will
think
stop
you
from
getting
help.
Talk
about
it.
That’s
the
only
way
we’ll
make
this
a
nonissue
in
the
future.”

Collin’s
openness
has
been
met
with
support,
not
skepticism,
and
he
encourages
others
to
follow
suit.
Transparency,
he
believes,
not
only
builds
trust
but
also
fosters
a
healthier,
more
inclusive
workplace
culture.

Practical
Takeaways
For
Founders
And
Leaders

• 
  Reframe
  Your
  Mindset:
  
  Move
  from
  suffering
  to
  living
  with
  your
  challenges
  by
  seeking
  help
  and
  developing
  an
  action
  plan.
• 
  Establish
  Routines:
  
  Structure
  your
  nonwork
  hours
  to
  create
  stability
  and
  balance.
• 
  Be
  Open:
  
  Normalize
  conversations
  about
  mental
  health
  with
  your
  team,
  partners,
  and
  investors.
• 
  Focus
  On
  The
  Present:
  
  Let
  go
  of
  the
  “why”
  behind
  your
  condition.
  Focus
  instead
  on
  managing
  it
  and
  building
  a
  fulfilling
  life.

The
Bottom
Line

As
Collin
puts
it,
living
with
mental
illness
is
normal.
The
challenge
lies
in
recognizing
it,
seeking
help,
and
sharing
your
story
to
inspire
others.
If
you’re
struggling,
remember:
you’re
not
alone,
and
there’s
no
shame
in
asking
for
help.

For
more
of
Collin’s
insights
and
a
candid
look
at
the
intersection
of
mental
health
and
entrepreneurship,
watch
the
full
episode
of
“Notes
to
My
(Legal)
Self.”

(P.S.:
Feed
your
cat
—
and
your
mental
health
needs
—
daily.)

---

Olga
V.
Mack


is
a
Fellow
at
CodeX,
The
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics,
and
a
Generative
AI
Editor
at
law.MIT.
Olga
embraces
legal
innovation
and
had
dedicated
her
career
to
improving
and
shaping
the
future
of
law.
She
is
convinced
that
the
legal
profession
will
emerge
even
stronger,
more
resilient,
and
more
inclusive
than
before
by
embracing
technology.
Olga
is
also
an
award-winning
general
counsel,
operations
professional,
startup
advisor,
public
speaker,
adjunct
professor,
and
entrepreneur.
She
authored Get
on
Board:
Earning
Your
Ticket
to
a
Corporate
Board
Seat, Fundamentals
of
Smart
Contract
Security,
and  Blockchain
Value:
Transforming
Business
Models,
Society,
and
Communities. She
is
working
on
three
books:


Visual
IQ
for
Lawyers
(ABA
2024), The
Rise
of
Product
Lawyers:
An
Analytical
Framework
to
Systematically
Advise
Your
Clients
Throughout
the
Product
Lifecycle
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024),
and
Legal
Operations
in
the
Age
of
AI
and
Data
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024).
You
can
follow
Olga
on



LinkedIn


and
Twitter
@olgavmack.

Back
in
the
day,
S&C
reportedly
refused
to
represent
Trump,
allowing
them
to
avoid
having
to
trade
deep-pocketed
clients
anxious
to
distance
their
brands
from
the
most
toxic
client
in
America,
in
exchange
for
the
honor
of

getting
stiffed
on
the
bill.
But
this
time
around,
corporate
America
appears
actively
interested
in
currying
favor
with
the
White
House
any
way
they
can
and
a
cozy
relationship
with
Trump
is
not
only
no
longer
a
negative,
it
might
actually
be
a
firm
selling
point.
And
so
Sullivan
&
Cromwell
publicly
announced
that
it’s
going
to

represent
Trump
as
he
challenges
the
hush
money
conviction.

For
their
sake,
I
hope
they’ve
already
written
off
any
potential
fees.

Firm
leadership
might
see
this
matter
as
an
opportunity
to
show
clients
that
they
have
Trump’s
ear,
which
remains
surprisingly
pristine
one
for
a
guy
who
swears
it
was
shot
off
by
a
sniper.
But
the
decision
is
already
alienating
the
firm’s
attorneys.

According
to
one
S&C
attorney
who
purports
to
have
spoken
with
multiple S&C colleagues,
the
mood
is
that
everyone
is
“upset
with
the
announcement
that
we’ll
be
representing
Trump.”
Another
notes
that
it
will
“likely
to
grow
into
a
morale
drain
among
associates.”
An
attorney
on

Reddit
put
it
bluntly,
“Is
it
dramatic
to
want
to
leave?
I’m
a
POC
and
I
know
everyone
has
a
right
to
a
fair
trial
but
(in
my
eyes)
he
is
a
sexual
predator/fascist/criminal/threat
to
democracy
and
I
feel
a
little
too
uncomfortable
considering
just
how
much
damage
this
man
has
done.” 

And
while
there
may
be
general
dismay
with
representing
Trump
as
a
person,
for
one
S&C
lawyer
it’s
less
about
the
client
than
that
client’s
history
of
forcing
his
lawyers
to

publicly
debase
themselves
by
litigating
cases

his
way.

It
does
not
appear
that
we
are
treating
this
like
a
normal S&C appeal
where
we
stay
quiet
and
do
great
legal
work.
To
have
the
head
of
the
Firm
talking
about
D.A.
Bragg
“target[ing]”
President
Trump
is
completely
antithetical
to
anything
I
have
experienced
in
my
time
at
the
Firm
before. 
I
had
always
been
proud
that
we
emphasize
precision
and
accuracy
in
what
we
say—eschewing
exaggerations,
hyperbole
and
personal
attacks. Very
alienating
to
see
senior
management
abandoning
that.

It
seems
S&C
has
entered
its
Roy
Cohn
era.

S&C
pays
market
and
provides
matching
bonuses
so
they’ll
not
find
themselves
bereft
of
talent
right
away.
But
when
the
next
up-and-coming
talent
weighs
their
summer
offers
or
a
thriving
associate
gets
a
call
from
a
recruiter…
are
they
going
to
be
interested
in
a
career
with
Roy
Cohn
Lite,
LLP
or
somewhere
else?

Earlier:

Sullivan
&
Cromwell
Joins
Trump
Defense
As
Age
Of

Obsequiousness

Begins!

---

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.