Author: TSA Press

*
You’re
not
imagining
it…
a
lot
of
firms
still
haven’t
announced
bonuses.
[National
Law
Journal]

*
Another
federal
judge
in
Texas
recuses
from
Elon’s
“it’s
illegal
for
advertisers
not
to
give
me
money”
lawsuit.
[Reuters]

*
ABA
Prez
argues
that
electronic
messages
from
lawyers
to
inmates
should
be
covered
by
attorney-client
privilege.
[ABA
Journal]

*
ACLU
says
prisons
are
holding
people
past
their
release
date.
[NY
Times]

*
Why
hire
one
lateral
partner
when
you
can
hire
the
whole
group?
[American
Lawyer]

*
Biden
will
exceed
Trump’s
record
for
judicial
appointments
by
one
after
trading
some
key
circuit
nominations
for
a
path
to
confirm
more
district
judges.
[Law360]

*
But
his
collection
of
confirmations
were
more
diverse
than
ever
before.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

According
to
comments
by
Sen.
Josh
Hawley
(R-Mo.),
which
Trump
cabinet
pick
committed
to
to
reinstating
anti-choice
rules
designed
to
limit
access
to
mifepristone?

Hint:
Behind
closed
doors,
the
pick
—
an
attorney
—
reportedly
said,
“there
are
far
too
many
abortions
in
the
U.S.
and
that
we
cannot
be
the
moral
leader
of
the
free
world
with
abortion
rates
so
high.”

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

WASHINGTON
—
A
bipartisan,
bicameral
group
of
lawmakers
today
introduced
legislation
aimed
at
strengthening
the
American

shipbuilding
and
commercial
maritime
industries
following
what
they
characterized
as
“decades
of
neglect.”

The
bill
in
question,
dubbed
the

Shipbuilding
and
Harbor
Infrastructure
for
Prosperity
and
Security
for
America
Act,
is
being
sponsored
by
Sens.
Mark
Kelly,
D-Ariz.,
and
Todd
Young,
R-Ind.,
as
well
as
Reps.
John
Garamendi,
D-Calif.,
and
Trent
Kelly,
R-Miss.
Rep.
Mike
Waltz,
R-Fla.,
who
has
been
tapped
by
the
new
Trump
administration
to
be
national
security
advisor,
has
also
previously
expressed
support
for
the
bill.

“This
historic
bipartisan
proposal
would
restore
American
leadership
across
the
oceans
by
establishing
national
oversight
and
consistent
funding
for
U.S.
maritime
policy,
incentivizing
domestic
shipbuilding,
enabling
U.S.-flagged
vessels
to
better
compete
in
international
commerce,
rebuilding
the
U.S.
shipyard
industrial
base,
and
expanding
the
mariner
and
shipyard
workforce,”
according
to
a
written
statement
from
the
lawmakers.

The
bill
would
establish
a
maritime
security
advisor
within
the
White
House
tasked
with
coordinating
inter-agency
decisions
for
how
to
implement
a
national
maritime
strategy.
It
would
also
create
a
“Strategic
Commercial
Fleet
Program”
focused
on
expanding
a
US-flagged
international
fleet
to
250
ships
within
10
years.
The
four
lawmakers
said
that
fleet
currently
sits
around
80
ships
compared
to
China’s
5,500.
The
bill
would
also
require
that
government-funded
cargo
be
moved
aboard
US-flagged
vessels
as
well
as
requiring
a
portion
of
imported
goods
from
China
to
do
the
same,
among
other
things.

“We’ve
always
been
a
maritime
nation,
but
the
truth
is
we’ve
lost
ground
to
China,
who
now
dominates
international
shipping
and
can
build
merchant
and
military
ships
much
more
quickly
than
we
can,”
said
Sen.
Kelly.
“The
SHIPS
for
America
Act
is
the
answer
to
this
challenge.”

Outgoing
Navy
Secretary
Carlos
Del
Toro
has
made
commercial
shipping
and
shipbuilding
a
focus
area
of
his
this
year.

“I’m
very
pleased
the
bipartisan
SHIPS
for
America
Act
is
making
progress
in
Congress
since
it
was
announced
in
September
and
look
forward
to
the
day
when
it
is
signed
into
law. 
From
my
perspective,
the
SHIPS
for
America
Act
and
the
Navy’s
Maritime
Statecraft
complement
each
other
perfectly. 
Both
speak
to
the
growing
momentum
of
a
national
conversation
around
American
Maritime
Power,”
Del
Toro
said
in
a
statement
published
subsequent
to
the
bill’s
filing.

“These
initiatives
are
about
working
together
in
the
Department
of
the
Navy,
interagency,
Congress,
industry,
and
academia
to
find
innovative
ways
to
re-vitalize,
strengthen
and
expand
our
maritime
power.
 
The
SHIPS
for
America
Act
is
a
vital
step
forward
in
our
Maritime
Statecraft,
and
I
think
this
critical,
bipartisan
piece
of
legislation
will
reshape
our
nation’s
maritime
future,”
the
statement
continued.

During
an
event
last
week
hosted
by
the
American
Society
of
Naval
Engineers,
he
urged
the
new
administration
to
continue
his
efforts,
theorizing
that
the
neglect
the
commercial
shipbuilding
sector
has
faced
in
recent
decades
presents
an
opportunity
for
the
White
House
to
boost
the
economy
with
new
jobs.

“If
we
want
to
expand
our
economy,
you’ve
got
to
expand
the
supply
chain.
You’ve
got
to
expand
the
number
of
companies
that
are
participating
in
the
growth
of
the
economy
itself,”
he
said.
“And
there
aren’t
a
lot
of
places
where
you
could
effectively
do
that
here
in
the
United
States,
[but]
because
we
have
abandoned
the
commercial
shipbuilding
industry
since
about
the
1980s,
that
creates
a
new
opportunity
for
growth
in
a
significant
way.”

Given
the
limited
time
the
current
Congress
has
left
in
session,
the
bill
will
almost
certainly
need
to
be
refiled
next
year
before
it
can
be
considered
by
the
relevant
committees
or
the
larger
chambers.
Legislation
related
to
national
security
often
doesn’t
receive
standalone
votes,
but
rather
is
included
in
the
annual
defense
policy
bill.

Updated
12/20/2024
at
9:04
am
ET
with
comments
from
Navy
Secretary
Carlos
Del
Toro.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

You
have
to
have
the
financial
strength
to
pay
people
what
they’re
worth
in
the
market.

—

Frank
Lopez,
chair
of
Paul
Hastings,
in
comments
given
to

Bloomberg
Law,
on
his
firm’s
aggressive
recruiting
of
rainmaker
partners
for
top
dollar,
which
was
one
of
the
top
trends
of
2024
across
the
Biglaw
landscape.
At
some
firms,
highly
sought-after
partners
were
able
to
collect
$20
million
or
more
to
make
a
key
lateral
move.

---

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.

I
am
generally
a
very
courteous
lawyer,
and
I
like
to
extend
courtesies
whenever
I
can.
The
practice
of
law
is
difficult
enough
at
baseline,
and
lawyers
can
make
it
easier
to
practice
if
they
extend
small
favors
to
each
other
and
treat
adversaries
and
other
stakeholders
in
a
legal
matter
with
some
kindness.
However,
sometimes
lawyers
ask
me
to
waive
substantive
rights
that
my
clients
might
have,
under
the
guise
of
granting
adversaries
a
courtesy.
I
generally
do
not
believe
a
lawyer
has
a
duty
to
extend
a
courtesy
that
waives
a
client’s
substantive
right,
and
this
usually
extends
to
not
automatically
accepting
service
of
process
or
waiving
defenses
parties
might
have
involving
service
of
process.

In
some
instances,
rather
than
make
an
adversary
go
through
the
process
of
serving
my
clients,
I
will
accept
it.
For
instance,
if
an
adversary
gives
me
an
extension
of
time
to
answer,
I
generally
repay
the
favor
by
waiving
service
of
the
summons
and
other
initiating
papers.
In
addition,
some
clients
want
their
lawyers
to
waive
service
of
process
since
they
do
not
want
to
be
chased
down
by
process
servers.
However,
if
a
client
does
not
care
about
being
served,
and
lawyers
are
not
getting
anything
in
return,
it
seems
fine
to
refuse
waiving
service
of
process.

Several
times
in
my
career,
I
have
defended
clients
who
were
not
properly
served
with
process.
Sometimes,
my
clients
encourage
me
to
fight
service
of
process
since
they
want
to
advance
any
defense
they
have
to
a
given
legal
claim.
Usually,
I
will
not
file
a
motion
to
dismiss
solely
on
the
basis
of
ineffective
service
of
process,
but
if
I
am
filing
a
motion
to
dismiss
anyways,
I
might
throw
in
the
lack
of
service
of
process
as
an
additional
defense.
In
some
instances,
service
of
process
is
waived
if
it
is
not
contested
early
in
litigation,
so
it
typically
pays
to
preserve
the
argument,
especially
if
a
motion
to
dismiss
is
filed
for
other
reasons.

Multiple
times
in
my
career,
adversaries
have
reached
out
and
asked
that
I
waive
service
of
process,
even
though
they
concede
service
of
process
was
wrongly
performed
and
I
filed
a
motion
to
dismiss
on
this
basis.
Adversaries
have
suggested
that
it
is
a
common
courtesy
to
waive
service
of
process,
and
that
I
was
not
being
kind
with
contesting
service
of
process.
I
usually
respond
by
saying
that
it
was
not
typical
to
unilaterally
waive
service
of
process
without
getting
any
benefit
in
return,
and
that
if
the
adversary
did
not
want
to
make
service
of
process
an
issue
in
this
case,
the
lawyer
could
have
followed
the
service
of
process
rules
correctly.

I
am
not
the
type
of
lawyer
who
really
cares
if
another
lawyer
waives
service
of
process.
If
the
other
lawyer
wants
to
waive
service,
I
prepare
an
acknowledgement
of
service
document,
and
if
they
do
not,
I
reach
out
to
a
vendor
in
order
to
properly
effectuate
service
of
process.
Guilting
someone
to
accept
service
of
process
is
not
a
tactic
that
I
employ,
but
this
has
happened
to
me
on
multiple
occasions.
I
generally
want
to
be
seen
as
a
courteous
lawyer,
but
at
the
same
time,
I
have
a
duty
to
diligently
represent
my
client,
and
waiving
service
of
process
can
forgo
a
critical
defense.

I’d
love
to
hear
responses
from
practitioners
about
whether
waiving
service
of
process
is
a
courtesy
that
should
be
done
unilaterally
and
when
no
benefit
is
conferred
on
the
lawyer
waiving
service.
My
feeling
is
that
lawyers
should
not
be
asked
to
waive
a
substantive
right,
and
this
is
different
from
when
a
lawyer
asks
for
an
adjournment
due
to
unforeseen
circumstances
or
other
similar
situations.
Although
lawyers
can
sometimes
waive
service
of
process
for
practical
reasons,
if
a
client
wants
to
fight
service
of
process,
lawyers
should
not
be
pressured
to
waive
this
argument
in
order
to
promote
courtesy.

---

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




[email protected].

Biglaw
firms
have
been
announcing
bonus
matches
left
and
right
since
earlier
this
month,
so
associates
at
top
firms
that
have
been
silent
on
year-end
compensation
thus
far
are
getting
pretty
antsy.
Where’s
the
money,
you
mofos?
Well,
at
one
firm
that
literally
goes
by
MoFo,
the
money
has
finally
arrived.

We’ve
now
confirmed
that
Morrison
&
Foerster
—
a
firm
that
brought
in
$1,343,000,000
gross
revenue
in
2023,
putting
it
at
No.
38
in
the
most
recent
Am
Law
100
—
has
chosen
to
match
Milbank’s
generous

year-end and special
bonus
scales
this
holiday
season.
On
top
of
their
base
bonuses,
associates
at
the
top
firm
are
also
eligible
to
receive
not
one,
but

two
additional
bonuses
on
top
of
their
special
bonus
payments.
Here’s
what
the
bonus
grid
looks
like
at
the
firm:

Now
THIS
is
a
law
firm
that’s
willing
to
go
above
and
beyond
to
offer
compensation
incentives
to
reward
its
hardworking
attorneys.

As
noted
in
the
firm’s
bonus
memo,
“[t]his
structure
allows
us
to
reward
our
highest
performing
associates
for
their
extraordinary
work
this
year.”
MoFo’s
most
senior
associates
will
have
the
opportunity
to
walk
away
with
bonuses
up
to
$218,200,
which
is
simply
amazing.

Congratulations
to
everyone
at
Morrison
&
Foerster!

(Flip
to
the
next
page
to
see
the
full
memo
from
the
firm.)

Remember
everyone,
we
depend
on
your
tips
to
stay
on
top
of
compensation
updates,
so
when
your
firm
announces
or
matches,
please
text
us
(646-820-8477)
or email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Bonus/Matches”).
Please
include
the
memo
if
available.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
send
it
via
text
or
email
if
you
don’t
want
to
forward
the
original
PDF
or
Word
file.

And
if
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Bonus
Alerts
(which
is
the
alert
list
we
also
use
for
salary
announcements),
please
scroll
down
and
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below
this
post.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
the
bonus
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
bonus
announcement
that
we
publish.
Thanks
for
your
help!

---

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.

---

---

If
you
needed
a
reminder
that
bonuses
aren’t
entitlements,
look
no
further.
Arnold
&
Porter
Kaye
Scholer
announced
their
bonus
scheme
and
not
everyone
is
happy
about
it.
On
paper,
the
firm
is
matching
the
market’s
year
end
bonuses,
which
is
good!
But
sometimes,
good
actually

is
the
enemy
of
the
great.
Looks
like
A&P
is
being
stingy
by
adding
in
short-notice
hour
requirements
for
the
special
bonuses.
As
a
quick
example,
let’s
look
at
the
scale
being
used
by
a
firm
a
little
lower
on
the
AM
100 
—

Baker
Botts:

Deem Date	Year-End Bonus	Special Bonus
2023	$20,000	$6,000
2022	$30,000	$10,000
2021	$57,500	$15,000
2020	$75,000	$20,000
2019	$90,000	$25,000
2018	$105,000	$25,000
2017+	$115,000	$25,000

Meet
your
hours,
be
in
your
class,
collect
your
money,
and
pass
go.
Simple,
right?
A&P
is
doing
things
a
little
bit
different.
You’ll
need
at
least
2000
hours
to
hit
your
base
bonuses
(at
least
1800
of
those
must
be
client
billable)
and
2200
hours
(at
least
2000
hours
must
be
client
billable)
to
hit
the
special
bonus
rung.
It’s
one
thing
to
know
ahead
of
time
that
2200
hours
would
be
the
threshold
for
the
special
bonus,
but
the
associates
were
only
told
this
with

11
days
left
in
the
calendar
year!
As
one
tipster
put
it:

Under
the
policy,
an
associate
“merely”
in
good
standing
could
only
receive
a
special
bonus
by
forgoing
all
winter
holidays
and
billing
+18
hours
every
day
until
the
ball
(or
the
associate)
drops.
For
a
firm
that
shouts
about
well-being,
the
policy
sends
a
clear
message:
Unlike
associates
at
peer-ranked
firms,
A&P
associates
are
only
valued
while
the
meter
is
running.
Bah
humbug!

Way
to
ruin
Christmas,
A&P!

We
like
hearing
about
bonuses
almost
as
much
as
you
enjoy
spending
them.
As
soon
as
your
firm’s
memo
comes
out,
please email
it
to
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Bonus”)
or
text
us
(646-820-8477).
Please
include
the
memo
if
available.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
send
it
via
text
or
email
if
you
don’t
want
to
forward
the
original
PDF
or
Word
file.

And
if
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Salary
&
Bonus
Alerts,
please
scroll
down
and
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below
this
post.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
the
bonus
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
bonus
announcement
that
we
publish.

Full
memo
on
the
next
page.

---

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.

---

---

The

question
is:
Why
should
the
court
abstain
from
exercising
its
“inherent
authority
for
an
order
holding
Defendant
Rudolph
W.
Giuliani
in
civil
contempt
and
imposing
sanctions”
for

failing
to
comply
with
discovery
in
the
collection
action
filed
by
Ruby
Freeman
and
Shaye
Moss?

And
the

answer
is

Hunter
Biden.

This
Court
should
know
that
one
or
more
of
Plaintiffs’
counsels
was
partners
with
Hunter
Biden
as
Boies
Schiller
Flexner
LLC,
President
Joseph
Biden’s
son,
and
had
been
involved
with,
upon
information
and
belief,
Burisma
Holdings
and/or
Ukrainian
issues.
These
issues
became
very,
very
political
and
charged
during
the
2020
Presidential
Campaign
and
thereafter.
One
or
more
of
the
organizations
of
the
Plaintiffs’
counsels
are
politically
based
organizations,
such
as
the
organization
United
to
Protect
Democracy,
whose
website
states”
“Protect
Democracy
is
a…
group
dedicated
to
defeating
the
authoritarian
threat…
and
protecting
liberal
democracy.
Our
experts
and
advocates
use
litigation,
….
to
stand
up
for…
the
rule
of
law….
and
a
better
democracy
for
future
generations”.
No
matter
what
anyone
says,
the
truth
and
fact
is
that
Plaintiffs
are
represented
by
those
who
believe
in
liberal
democracy,
and
you
have
a
defendant
whose
beliefs
are
the
antithesis
of
the
Plaintiffs’
counsel.

The
answer
is
that
Judge
Lewis
Liman
got
more
Democratic
votes
to
confirm
him

in
2018
than
Republicans:

This
Court
should
try
to
avoid
the
politics
involved
in
this
case.
When
the
Honorable
Judge
of
this
Court
was
nominated
for
the
current
District
Judge
position,
no
Democratic
Senators
voted
against
the
nomination
of
the
Honor
Judge,
but
twenty
nine
(29)
Republican
Senators
voted
against
the
Honorable
Judge.
Hopefully,
the
Honor
Judge
will
be
able
to
be
unbiased
against
Defendant.
However,
even
subconsciously,
a
human
being
can
have
a
political
bias
and
the
rapid
rocket
docket
approach
by
this
Court
and
entertaining
so
many
of
Plaintiffs’
motions
and
letters
from
the
Plaintiffs’
counsel
and
ruling
against
the
Defendant
nearly
100%
of
the
time
is
troubling.

Also,
Judge
Liman’s
father

Arthur
Liman represented
clients
being
prosecuted
by
the
Southern
District
of
New
York,
when
Rudy
was
the
US
Attorney
for
that
office:

It
is
Defendant’s
recent
understanding
that
the
Honorable
Judge
is
the
son
of
the
late
Arthur
L.
Liman,
who
it
has
been
discovered
passed
away
at
a
time
when
Defendant
Rudolph
Giuliani
was
the
prosecutor
as
the
United
States
Attorney
for
the
Southern
District
of
New
York,
and
the
late
Arthur
L.
Liman
was
representing
certain
defendants
in
Drexel
Lambert
prosecution
cases
(Michael
Milken,
Ivan
Boesky,
Dennis
Levine).
Defendant
hopes
that
Defendant
is
afforded
every
right
under
the
law
by
this
Court
in
light
of
the
knowledge
that
the
Defendant
before
this
Court
is
the
person
who
was
prosecuting
the
Honorable
Judge’s
late
father
Arthur
L.
Liman
clients
when
or
around
the
time
that
the
Honorable
Judge’s
late
father
Arthur
L.
Liman
passed
away.

[Note:
Arthur
Liman,
the
renowned
public
interest
lawyer
who
served
as
chief
counsel
for
the
Senate
investigation
of
the
Iran–Contra
affair,
died
in
1997.
Giuliani
left
SDNY
in
1989.]

The
answer
is,
you
can’t
hold
Rudy
in
contempt
because
Willkie
Farr
&
Gallagher
is
just
representing
the
women
he
defamed
to
get
good
publicity
for
the
firm:

This
Court
should
see
that
Willkie
Farr
&
Gallagher,
allegedly
working
“pro
bono”
is
publicizing
this
case
and
all
cases
involving
Defendant
Rudolph
Giuliani,
which
likely
will
or
has
generated
probably
millions
of
dollars
for
Willkie
Farr
&
Gallagher
from
other
clients
who
dislike
Defendant
Rudolph
Giuliani
and/or
President
Trump.
Pro
bono
attorneys
would
not
spend
thousands
of
hours
on
a
pro
bono
assignment
without
an
ulterior
motive
–
a
profit
motive.

Plus
Willkie
Farr
is
worried
about
bad
publicity
because
Donald
Trump
will
be
president
in
January,
and
Rudy
is
Trump’s
favorite

pro
bono
lawyer:

This
Court
has
fast-tracked
this
case
and
it
is
perplexing
why
this
rapid
rocket
docket
approach
has
been
utilized,
but
the
fact
is
that
the
Plaintiffs
want
this
case
over
by
January
20,
2025
when
President
Trump
takes
office,
because
it’s
not
in
Willkie
Farr
&
Gallagher’s
best
interests
to
have
this
case
proceeding
once
there
is
a
new
administration
in
Washington,
as
clients
of
Willkie
Farr
&
Gallagher
who
would
have
to
work
with
the
new
administration
in
Washington
may
be
offended
by
the
approaches
taken
by
Willkie
Farr
&
Gallagher
with
their
manner
of
overly
aggressive
discovery
tactics,
designed
to
win,
not
on
the
merits,
but
on
default
or
sanctions,
because
they
cannot
win
based
on
the
facts.

Did
we
mention
Hunter
Biden?

Plaintiffs
and
their
counsel
are
seeking
to
take
every
asset
of
the
Defendant
before
there
is
a
change
in
administration
from
President
Biden
to
President
Trump.
The
fact
is
that
this
case
evolved
from
the
2020
election,
where
Defendant
worked
for
President
Trump
and
while
the
Plaintiffs’
counsel
was
to
believed
to
have
supported
President
Biden;
this
is
what
this
fierce
prosecution
of
this
case
derives
from.
Defendant
was
very
outspoken
against
Hunter
Biden
and
the
Hunter
Biden
laptop
which
many
people
said
was
Russian
disinformation,
when
the
truth
eventually
came
out
that
the
Hunter
Biden
laptop
was
authentic
and
real.
At
least
one
of
Plaintiffs’
counsel
has
emails
in
the
public
domain
with
Hunter
Biden
on
the
same
emails,
and
such
counsel
was
Special
Assistant
to
President
Barak
Obama
and
Associate
White
House
Counsel
.
The
fact
is
that
this
case
is
not
really
about
the
judgment
that
the
Plaintiffs
obtained
in
a
ghastly
sum,
among
the
largest
judgment
ever
against
an
individual
for
defamation
in
the
United
States.
This
is
a
battle
between
the
left
and
the
right
and
this
is
one
of
the
last
battles
that
exist
from
the
2020
election.

Rudy
should
not
be
sanctioned
because
it’s
his
old
lawyers’
fault
he
missed
every
discovery
deadline.
Now
that
he
has

Joe
Cammarata,
divorce
lawyer
to
the
stars
(of
Staten
Island),
on
the
case,
it’s
all
going
much
better:

It
appears
that
Plaintiffs’
counsel
made
it
very
difficult
for
Defendant’s
prior
counsel,
Kenneth
Caruso,
Esq.
and
David
Labkowski,
Esq.
with
motions
and
filings
consistently
done
until
Kenneth
Caruso,
Esq.
and
David
Labkowski,
Esq.
could
not
take
it
anymore,
and
they
had
to
withdraw
as
Defendant’s
counsel.
They
still
represent
the
Defendant
on
the
appeal
before
the
United
States
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
DC
Circuit.
Defendant’s
counsel
has
experienced
the
voluminous
filings
by
Plaintiffs’
counsel
and
knows
that
it
is
like
a
war
with
a
dozen
machine
guns
shooting
at
you,
and
only
one
person
to
defend
it.
It
is
respectfully
requested
that
this
Court
take
a
step
back
and
realize
that
this
is
what
is
happening.
Defendant
has
substantially
complied
with
court
orders
and
discovery
since
Defendant’s
present
counsel
began
to
take
over
the
representation
on
November
26,
2024.
Defendant
was
not
the
person
responsible
for
the
Plaintiffs
not
receiving
discovery
prior
to
November
26,
2024,
and
he
should
not
face
any
sanctions
or
penalties
of
any
kind.

The
answer
is
that
Rudy
should
not
be
sanctioned
because
you
gotta
stick
up
for
the
little
guy,
a
former
mayor
and
US
Attorney,
when
he
is
being
bullied
by
two
civil
servants
whose
lives
he
ruined
by
going
on
a
media
tour
to
accuse
them
of
stealing
an
election:

The
Honorable
Judge
once
said
that
“The
quality
of
our
system
of
justice
is
measured
by
the
service
it
provides
to
the
poorest
and
most
despised
members
of
society”.
There
are
many
individuals
who
were
against
President
Trump
and
as
such,
against
Rudolph
Giuliani,
and
many
members
of
society
despise
Defendant
Rudolph
Giuliani
and
President
Trump,
however,
the
quality
of
our
system
of
justice
is
measured
by
the
service
it
provides
to
defendants
like
Defendant
Rudolph
Giuliani,
who
the
Plaintiffs
and
their
counsel
apparently
likely
despise.

And
finally,
Rudy
should
not
be
sanctioned
in
this
case
where
he
is
trying
to
establish
Florida
residency
because
the
court
in
DC
refused
to
waive
bond,
allowing
Freeman
and
Moss
to
go
to
collections.
And
Rudy
can’t
pay
the
bond,
as
evidenced
by
the
attached
bankruptcy
filing
from
the
Southern
District
of
New
York
where
he
said
his
assets
were
less
than
$10
million
and
listed
his
residency
as
New
York:

The
fact
is
that
the
supersedeas
bond
would
have
had
to
be
in
an
amount
in
excess
of
$145
million,
and
as
stated
in
the
bankruptcy
petition
filed
by
Defendant,
his
assets
totaled
between
$1
million
and
$10
million
(Exhibit
“1”).
There
was
no
possibly
way
for
Defendant
to
have
obtained
any
bond
due
to
the
value
of
the
judgment,
which
on
appeal
it
is
anticipated
will
be
reversed
or
the
judgment
amount
will
be
greatly
reduced.

The
contempt
hearing
is
scheduled
for
January
3.
But
in
the
meantime,
what
with
Cammarata
and
Giuliani
(in
his

supporting
declaration)
making
public
representations
about
why
his
former
lawyers
peaced
out,
Judge
Liman
has

sua
sponte

given
them
until
tomorrow
to
explain
why
he
shouldn’t
unseal
the
documents
saying
exactly
why
prior
counsel
said
they

could
not
ethically
continue
to
represent
Rudy.

Freeman
v.
Giuliani [Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

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

The
last
year
was,
for
better
or
worse,
a
big
year
in
legal
news.
So
it
should
come
as
no
surprise
to
see
big
names
dominating
our
list
of
finalists
for
2024
Lawyer
of
the
Year.
Thanks
to
everyone
who
responded
to
our
request
for
nominations
for
2024
Lawyer
of
the
Year.
We
narrowed
the
many
excellent
nominees
to
a
slate
of
seven
(yes,
that’s
how
eventful
this
year
was)
lawyers
—
distinguished,
despicable,
or
debatable,
depending
on
your
point
of
view.

Here
are
the
nominees,
in
alphabetical
order,
with
a
brief
blurb
about
each:

ChatGPT:
Okay,
fine,
we
know
ChatGPT
isn’t
a
lawyer…
but
so
many
actual
lawyers
are
still
treating
the

AI
chatbot
like
co-counsel
that
we
had
to
include
it
in
this
year’s
competition.
From
fake
cases
to
very

real
sanctions
threats,
ChatGPT
proved
to
be
a
useful
tool
that
made
some
lawyers
look
like
not-so
useful
tools.

Matt
Gaetz:
Life
moves
pretty
fast
when
you’ve
been
accused
of
sexual
misconduct
and
an
ethics
investigation
report
is
hanging
over
your
head.
From

would-be
US
Attorney
General
to

far-right
talk
show
host,
Gaetz
had
quite
the
year.
When
one
of
the
first
reactions
to
your
nomination
for
a
cabinet
position
is

“Are
you
shittin’
me?”,
that’s
when
you
know
you’ve
made
it
bigly.

Rudy
Giuliani:
America’s
mayor
has
fallen
from
such
great
heights
that
it’s
not
just
disappointing,
but
sad.
The
past
year
has
been
especially
unkind
to
Rudy’s
legal
career,
with

two
disbarments
now
under
his
belt.
From

courting
contempt
to
trying
to

dodge
defamation
collections
in
bankruptcy
court,
Giuliani
is
a
walking
legal
ethics
quandary.

Ryan
Protter:
There’s
nothing
we
love
more
than
a
joke
nomination,
and
this
New
Jersey
lawyer’s
self-nomination
made
us
chuckle.
Has
he
done
anything
notable?
“No.
Not
at
all.”
Why
did
he
nominate
himself
for
this
honor?
“Because
my
wife
(Geena)
and
small
dog
(Elle)
tell
me
I
have
a
winning
personality
and
a
good
sense
of
humor.
And
I
am
extraordinarily
modest.”
Is
he
completely
unqualified
for
this
award
(his
words,
not
ours)?
“Yes.
But
it’s
2024.
Far
less
qualified
people
have
won
far
more
important
elections
this
year.”

Aliza
Shatzman:
The
founder
and
president
of
the

Legal
Accountability
Project
achieved
a
great
deal
of
progress
for
federal
law
clerks
this
year
after
launching
the

Centralized
Clerkships
Database,
essentially
a
“Glassdoor
for
Judges,”
a
tool
that
will
empower
clerkship
applicants
with
much-needed
transparency
and
inside
information
from
former
clerks
about
judicial
work
environments.
Click

here
to
read
some
of
her
excellent
ATL
columns.

Jack
Smith:
The
special
counsel
appointed
to
oversee
the
federal
election
subversion
and
mishandling
of
classified
documents
cases
against
Donald
Trump
tried
his
damndest,
but
thanks
to

countless
delays,
an

absurd
dismissal
(plus

an
appeal),
and
a

SCOTUS
immunity
decision
gone
wild,
he
was
foiled
at
every
turn.
Now,
because
the
DOJ
won’t
prosecute
sitting
presidents,
he
asked
for
the

cases
to
be
dismissed,
writing,
“This
outcome
is
not
based
on
the
merits
or
strength
of
the
case
against
the
defendant.”

Brian
Steel:
This
lawyer
defined
zealous
advocacy
when
he
earned
himself
a
contempt
sentence
and
asked
to

serve
the
time
alongside
his
client,
Young
Thug,
so
that
they
could
work
on
the
case
together.
Not
only
did
Steel
get
manage
to
get
the

original
judge
on
the
RICO
case
removed
after
learning
about
a
secret
meeting
he
attended
with
prosecutors
and
a
witness,
but
he
managed
to
get
an

unexpected
plea
deal
sorted
out.
Now,
he’s

modeling
his
client’s
clothing
line.

And
now,
the
moment
you’ve
all
been
waiting
for:
Who
should
be
named
Above
the
Law’s
Lawyer
of
the
Year
for
2024?
Cast
your
vote
below.
Polls
are
open
until

TUESDAY,
DECEMBER
31,
2024
at
11:30
p.m.
(EST).

CLICK
HERE
TO
VOTE.

---

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.

The
last
year
was,
for
better
or
worse,
a
big
year
in
legal
news.
So
it
should
come
as
no
surprise
to
see
big
names
dominating
our
list
of
finalists
for
2024
Lawyer
of
the
Year.
Thanks
to
everyone
who
responded
to
our
request
for
nominations
for
2024
Lawyer
of
the
Year.
We
narrowed
the
many
excellent
nominees
to
a
slate
of
seven
(yes,
that’s
how
eventful
this
year
was)
lawyers
—
distinguished,
despicable,
or
debatable,
depending
on
your
point
of
view.

Here
are
the
nominees,
in
alphabetical
order,
with
a
brief
blurb
about
each:

ChatGPT:
Okay,
fine,
we
know
ChatGPT
isn’t
a
lawyer…
but
so
many
actual
lawyers
are
still
treating
the

AI
chatbot
like
co-counsel
that
we
had
to
include
it
in
this
year’s
competition.
From
fake
cases
to
very

real
sanctions
threats,
ChatGPT
proved
to
be
a
useful
tool
that
made
some
lawyers
look
like
not-so
useful
tools.

Matt
Gaetz:
Life
moves
pretty
fast
when
you’ve
been
accused
of
sexual
misconduct
and
an
ethics
investigation
report
is
hanging
over
your
head.
From

would-be
US
Attorney
General
to

far-right
talk
show
host,
Gaetz
had
quite
the
year.
When
one
of
the
first
reactions
to
your
nomination
for
a
cabinet
position
is

“Are
you
shittin’
me?”,
that’s
when
you
know
you’ve
made
it
bigly.

Rudy
Giuliani:
America’s
mayor
has
fallen
from
such
great
heights
that
it’s
not
just
disappointing,
but
sad.
The
past
year
has
been
especially
unkind
to
Rudy’s
legal
career,
with

two
disbarments
now
under
his
belt.
From

courting
contempt
to
trying
to

dodge
defamation
collections
in
bankruptcy
court,
Giuliani
is
a
walking
legal
ethics
quandary.

Ryan
Protter:
There’s
nothing
we
love
more
than
a
joke
nomination,
and
this
New
Jersey
lawyer’s
self-nomination
made
us
chuckle.
Has
he
done
anything
notable?
“No.
Not
at
all.”
Why
did
he
nominate
himself
for
this
honor?
“Because
my
wife
(Geena)
and
small
dog
(Elle)
tell
me
I
have
a
winning
personality
and
a
good
sense
of
humor.
And
I
am
extraordinarily
modest.”
Is
he
completely
unqualified
for
this
award
(his
words,
not
ours)?
“Yes.
But
it’s
2024.
Far
less
qualified
people
have
won
far
more
important
elections
this
year.”

Aliza
Shatzman:
The
founder
and
president
of
the

Legal
Accountability
Project
achieved
a
great
deal
of
progress
for
federal
law
clerks
this
year
after
launching
the

Centralized
Clerkships
Database,
essentially
a
“Glassdoor
for
Judges,”
a
tool
that
will
empower
clerkship
applicants
with
much-needed
transparency
and
inside
information
from
former
clerks
about
judicial
work
environments.
Click

here
to
read
some
of
her
excellent
ATL
columns.

Jack
Smith:
The
special
counsel
appointed
to
oversee
the
federal
election
subversion
and
mishandling
of
classified
documents
cases
against
Donald
Trump
tried
his
damndest,
but
thanks
to

countless
delays,
an

absurd
dismissal
(plus

an
appeal),
and
a

SCOTUS
immunity
decision
gone
wild,
he
was
foiled
at
every
turn.
Now,
because
the
DOJ
won’t
prosecute
sitting
presidents,
he
asked
for
the

cases
to
be
dismissed,
writing,
“This
outcome
is
not
based
on
the
merits
or
strength
of
the
case
against
the
defendant.”

Brian
Steel:
This
lawyer
defined
zealous
advocacy
when
he
earned
himself
a
contempt
sentence
and
asked
to

serve
the
time
alongside
his
client,
Young
Thug,
so
that
they
could
work
on
the
case
together.
Not
only
did
Steel
get
manage
to
get
the

original
judge
on
the
RICO
case
removed
after
learning
about
a
secret
meeting
he
attended
with
prosecutors
and
a
witness,
but
he
managed
to
get
an

unexpected
plea
deal
sorted
out.
Now,
he’s

modeling
his
client’s
clothing
line.

And
now,
the
moment
you’ve
all
been
waiting
for:
Who
should
be
named
Above
the
Law’s
Lawyer
of
the
Year
for
2024?
Cast
your
vote
below.
Polls
are
open
until

TUESDAY,
DECEMBER
31,
2024
at
11:30
p.m.
(EST).

CLICK
HERE
TO
VOTE.

---

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.