Author: TSA Press

Elon
Musk
will
get
away
with
it.

The
world’s
richest
man
will
dole
out
several
more
thinly
disguised
bribes
in
an
attempt
to
sway
the
election
results,
and
he
will
face
no
consequences.
But
he
did
get
unceremoniously
chucked
back
to
state
court
by
Judge
Gerald
Pappert,
who
flicked
the
thin-skinned
billionaire
aside
like
a
bit
of
noxious
pet
dander
clinging
to
his
judicial
robes
—
which
is
something
anyway.

The
case
involved
a

civil
action
by
Philadelphia
District
Attorney
Larry
Krasner,
who
is
seeking
to
enjoin
Musk
from
engaging
in
an
illegal
lottery
through
daily
giveaways
to
registered
voters
who
sign
a
petition
pledging
“support
for
the
First
and
Second
Amendments.”

Musk
has
been
stumping
for
Donald
Trump
across
Pennsylvania,
donating
upwards
of
$130
million
to
support
the
former
president’s
campaign,
even
as
he
rails
against
interference
by
philanthropist
George
Soros.

Judge
Angelo
Foglietta
of
the
Philadelphia
Court
of
Common
Pleas
ordered
Musk
to
appear
in
Court
on
Thursday
morning,
but
by
then
the
case
had
been
removed
to
federal
court,
where
it
landed
on
Judge
Pappert’s
docket.

Musk’s

theory
of
jurisdiction
is
that,
while
the
DA’s
complaint
is
nominally
about
violating
Pennsylvania’s
consumer
protection
laws,
it
really
pertains
to
the
election,
and
thus
presents
an
important
federal
question.
He
made
an
equally
inscrutable
argument
that
the
DA
is
acting
in
his
personal
capacity
as
a
citizen
of
Pennsylvania,
and
thus
there
is
diversity
between
the
parties.
This
requires
ignoring

Moor
v.
Alameda
County,
411
U.S.
693,
717
(1973),
in
which
the
Supreme
Court
held
that
“a
State
is
not
a
citizen
for
purposes
of
[]
diversity
jurisdiction.”
But
Musk
and
his
lawyers
are
up
to
the
task!

Last
night,
Krasner
filed
an

emergency
motion
to
remand
the
case
to
state
court,
pointing
out
that
the
amount
in
controversy
is

zero
dollars,
because
the
only
relief
sought
is
injunctive,
and
noting
that
there
is
Third
Circuit
precedent
for
sanctioning
a
party
who
removes
a
case
without
any
objectively
reasonable
basis.
And
this
morning,
as
per
the
court’s
order,
Musk

responded
by
speculating
that
he

could
theoretically
be
fined,
and
so
the
court
should
simply
infer
that
the
case
meets
the
$75,000
federal
threshold.

Judge
Pappert

declined
to
make
such
an
inference,
remanding
the
case
to
state
court
because
there
is
no
federal
question
implicated
and
no
jurisdiction
for
his
court.
But
as
it
is
now
Friday,
it’s
more
or
less
impossible
that
Judge
Foglietta
will
schedule
a
hearing
and
enjoin
Musk
by
election
day.
And
so
Musk’s
gambit
to
delay
the
case
with
a
pointless
field
trip
to
the
Eastern
District
of
Pennsylvania
appears
to
have
worked.

Now
we
get
to
wait
and
see
whether
he
was
able
to
buy
enough
Pennsylvania
voters
to
put
Trump
back
in
the
White
House.

---

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

Elon
Musk
will
get
away
with
it.

The
world’s
richest
man
will
dole
out
several
more
thinly
disguised
bribes
in
an
attempt
to
sway
the
election
results,
and
he
will
face
no
consequences.
But
he
did
get
unceremoniously
chucked
back
to
state
court
by
Judge
Gerald
Pappert,
who
flicked
the
thin-skinned
billionaire
aside
like
a
bit
of
noxious
pet
dander
clinging
to
his
judicial
robes
—
which
is
something
anyway.

The
case
involved
a

civil
action
by
Philadelphia
District
Attorney
Larry
Krasner,
who
is
seeking
to
enjoin
Musk
from
engaging
in
an
illegal
lottery
through
daily
giveaways
to
registered
voters
who
sign
a
petition
pledging
“support
for
the
First
and
Second
Amendments.”

Musk
has
been
stumping
for
Donald
Trump
across
Pennsylvania,
donating
upwards
of
$130
million
to
support
the
former
president’s
campaign,
even
as
he
rails
against
interference
by
philanthropist
George
Soros.

Judge
Angelo
Foglietta
of
the
Philadelphia
Court
of
Common
Pleas
ordered
Musk
to
appear
in
Court
on
Thursday
morning,
but
by
then
the
case
had
been
removed
to
federal
court,
where
it
landed
on
Judge
Pappert’s
docket.

Musk’s

theory
of
jurisdiction
is
that,
while
the
DA’s
complaint
is
nominally
about
violating
Pennsylvania’s
consumer
protection
laws,
it
really
pertains
to
the
election,
and
thus
presents
an
important
federal
question.
He
made
an
equally
inscrutable
argument
that
the
DA
is
acting
in
his
personal
capacity
as
a
citizen
of
Pennsylvania,
and
thus
there
is
diversity
between
the
parties.
This
requires
ignoring

Moor
v.
Alameda
County,
411
U.S.
693,
717
(1973),
in
which
the
Supreme
Court
held
that
“a
State
is
not
a
citizen
for
purposes
of
[]
diversity
jurisdiction.”
But
Musk
and
his
lawyers
are
up
to
the
task!

Last
night,
Krasner
filed
an

emergency
motion
to
remand
the
case
to
state
court,
pointing
out
that
the
amount
in
controversy
is

zero
dollars,
because
the
only
relief
sought
is
injunctive,
and
noting
that
there
is
Third
Circuit
precedent
for
sanctioning
a
party
who
removes
a
case
without
any
objectively
reasonable
basis.
And
this
morning,
as
per
the
court’s
order,
Musk

responded
by
speculating
that
he

could
theoretically
be
fined,
and
so
the
court
should
simply
infer
that
the
case
meets
the
$75,000
federal
threshold.

Judge
Pappert

declined
to
make
such
an
inference,
remanding
the
case
to
state
court
because
there
is
no
federal
question
implicated
and
no
jurisdiction
for
his
court.
But
as
it
is
now
Friday,
it’s
more
or
less
impossible
that
Judge
Foglietta
will
schedule
a
hearing
and
enjoin
Musk
by
election
day.
And
so
Musk’s
gambit
to
delay
the
case
with
a
pointless
field
trip
to
the
Eastern
District
of
Pennsylvania
appears
to
have
worked.

Now
we
get
to
wait
and
see
whether
he
was
able
to
buy
enough
Pennsylvania
voters
to
put
Trump
back
in
the
White
House.

---

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

When
Americans
step
into
the
voting
booth
(or
fill
out
their
mail-in
or
absentee
ballots),
many
will
be
aware
of
how
this
election
could
impact
healthcare
issues
like
abortion
rights
or
the
Medicare
trust.
But
the
vast
majority
won’t
realize
that
this
election
could
affect
healthcare
data
interoperability,
pointed
out

Arcadia
CEO
Michael
Meucci.

“I
don’t
think
that
the
average
American
understands
how
a
specific
administration’s
view
on
data
sharing
interoperability
directly
impacts
them,”
he
declared
last
week
during
an
interview
at
the

HLTH
conference
in
Las
Vegas.

For
example,
an
administration
that
is
supportive
of
open
data
sharing
could
lead
to
better
care
continuity,
improved
outcomes
and
lower
costs.
An
administration
that
has
a
more
restrictive
approach
to
data
sharing
may
do
a
better
job
of
addressing
some
Americans’
privacy
concerns,
but
it
could
also
lead
to
fragmented
care
and
slower
innovation
timelines,
Meucci
explained.

When
it
comes
to
healthcare
data
interoperability,
there
is
common
ground
across
both
sides
of
the
aisle,
he
noted
—
both
presidential
candidates
agree
that
there
needs
to
be
more
government
action
to
curtail
anti-competitive
behavior
and
data
blocking.

But
they
might
not
see
eye-to-eye
on
how
to
go
about
this,
Meucci
noted.

“There’s
been
tremendous
progress,
in
my
eyes,
made
over
the
last
three
to
five
years
on
the
launch
of
the
quality
health
information
networks,
as
well
as
on

TEFCA.
But
there’s
a
lot
of
work
still
to
do,”
he
explained. 

Meucci
said
that
many
healthcare
organizations
“have
built
a
lot
of
dependency”
on
federal
data
sharing
regulations
that
have
been
established
in
the
past
few
years
—
especially
provider
organizations
that
rely
on
these
measures
to
ensure
they
can
treat
their
patients
in
a
timely
manner.

“If
we
roll
that
back,
we
might
get
sent
back
to
the
drawing
board
of
how
to
drive
sustainable,
cost-effective
and
patient
centered
data
exchange,”
he
remarked.

He
added
that
there’s
no
guarantee
that
Kamala
Harris,
if
elected,
would
continue
to
advance
data
sharing
policies
that
require
healthcare
organizations
to
cooperate
with
each
other.
She
is
different
from
Joe
Biden,
but
“we
know
that
there
may
be
some
common
threads,”
Meucci
noted.

If
Donald
Trump
gets
elected,
his
administration
may
want
to
roll
back
some
of
these
data
sharing
requirements
in
the
name
of
smaller
government,
though
this
isn’t
certain,
he
said.

Looking
back
at
Trump’s
presidency,
there
was
“a
lot
of
focus
on
private
innovation
in
healthcare,”
Meucci
pointed
out.

“You
saw
that
with
the

DCE
contract
model,
and
that
drove
a
bunch
of
private
investment
and
technology
innovation
in
healthcare.
I
think
that
on
a
very
optimistic
note,
I
actually
think
both
administrations
will
be
good
for
continued
healthcare
innovation,”
he
declared.

Photo:
LeoWolfert,
Getty
Images

Jonathan
Turley
had
a
broken
clock
moment
this
week
when
he
delved
into
the
debacle
unfolding
at
the
Washington
Post,
where
the
venerable
publication
is
hemorrhaging
subscribers
after
announcing
an
11th
hour
decision
to
shelve
an
editorial
endorsement

conveniently
after
Trump’s
people
chatted
with
executives
within
the
Jeff
Bezos
empire.
As
outraged
subscribers
fled
the
paper,

Bezos
penned
a
response
that
is,
correctly,
being
widely
mocked.
Turley
has
offered
Bezos
backup

with
a
Fox
News
post,
writing
that
“Bezos
could
do
for
the
media
what
Musk
did
for
free
speech.”

Which
is
true!
Except
Turley
doesn’t
understand
that
this
is
a
damning
indictment.
So
maybe
it’s
not
a
true
broken
clock
moment.
Is
there
a
“wounded
clock”
concept?

What
does
it
even
mean
to
do
for
the
media
what
Musk
did
for
free
speech?
Because
Musk
has
used
his
resources
to
promote
a
brand
of
“free
speech
absolutism”
that
dangerously
undermines
the
concept
of
“free
speech”
as
understood
as
a
bedrock
principle
of
democratic
governance.

Free
speech
traditionally
means
preventing
government
barriers
to
expression,
allowing
the
marketplace
of
ideas
to
function
without
interference.
Good
ideas
rise
to
the
top,
bad
ideas
flounder.
Musk
has
deployed
his
resources
in
service
of
a
pernicious
trend
to
flip
“free
speech”
into
essentially,
affirmative
action
for
unpopular
views
(and
only

certain
unpopular
views,
mind
you).

It’s
the
same

authoritarian
articulation
of
“speech”
trafficked
by
certain
federal
judges,
that
the
right
should
be
flipped
in
favor
of
obligating
the
government
(or
similarly
situated
authorities)
to
promote
unpopular
speakers
and
crack
down
on
protest
or
criticism.

To
Turley’s
point
about
“what
Musk
did
for
free
speech,”
the
billionaire
purchased
one
of
the
largest
social
media
platforms
and
proceeded
to
watch

racial
slurs
explode
on
the
site,
right-wing
messaging

go
increasingly
(and…
algorithmically?)
viral,
and

white
supremacist
messaging
appear
next
to
trusted
brand
advertisements.
Musk’s
tweeted
himself

about
the
Great
Replacement
Theory!

Which
is
all
certainly
within
Musk’s
rights
as
the
proprietor
of
a
private
company.
He
can
do
what
he
wants
and
deal
with
the
consequences.
Though
he
seems
unwilling
to
do
so,
which
is
why
he’s
filed
a
federal
lawsuit
complaining
that
big,
respected
brands
aren’t
giving
him
advertising
dollars
anymore.
Again,
this
is
free
speech
backwards.

Musk
and
his
fanboy
Turley
suggesting
that
a
private
entity
openly
promoting
fringe
ideas
is
a
“victory”
of
some
kind
for
free
speech
gets
it
all
wrong.
That’s
like
reading

Skokie
and
thinking
the
moral
was
“it’s
good
that
there
are
Nazis.”
There’s
no
intrinsic
value
in
being
unpopular.

That’s
incel
thinking.

It’s
also
exactly
why
Turley
sees
connections
between
Bezos
and
Musk:

I
used
to
write
regularly
for
the
Post,
and
I
wrote
in
my
new
book
about
the
decline
of
the
newspaper
as
part
of
the
“advocacy
journalism”
movement:
“Our
profession
is
now
the
least
trusted
of
all.
Something
we
are
doing
is
clearly
not
working.”

It’s
telling
that
someone
paid
to
be
a
law
professor
describes
banging
out
opinion
columns
for
newspapers
as
“our”
profession.
Though
he’s
not
alone
in
that.
From
the
Bezos
response
piece:

In
the
annual
public
surveys
about
trust
and
reputation,
journalists
and
the
media
have
regularly
fallen
near
the
very
bottom,
often
just
above
Congress.
But
in
this
year’s
Gallup
poll,
we
have
managed
to
fall
below
Congress.
Our
profession
is
now
the
least
trusted
of
all.
Something
we
are
doing
is
clearly
not
working.

You’re
also
not
a
journalist,
dude.
What’s
with
all
the
stolen
valor?
You
boys
ever
been
working
for
a
local
paper
in
Topeka
waiting
on
a
source
to
call
back
and
confirm
while
a
deadline
looms?

“Our”…
get
outta
here
with
that
noise.

Turley
continues:

Washington
Post
publisher
and
CEO
William
Lewis
promptly
delivered
a
truth
bomb
in
the
middle
of
the
newsroom
by
telling
the
staff,
“Let’s
not
sugarcoat
it…
We
are
losing
large
amounts
of
money.
Your
audience
has
halved
in
recent
years.
People
are
not
reading
your
stuff.
Right?
I
can’t
sugarcoat
it
anymore.”

Lewis
is
full
of
shit.
The
audience
for
legacy
media
undoubtedly
shrunk
as
cable
media
expanded
and
then
went
into
something
of
a
free
fall
as
social
media
created
a
whole
new
ecosphere
of
short
clips
and
independent
news
(or
fake
news)
regurgitators.
When
everyone
gets
their
news
from
a
Facebook
post
with
a
short
Newsmax
clip
featuring
a
story
from
some
right-wing
Substack…
yeah,
the
national
newspapers
are
going
to
suffer.

BUT
when
he
says
“We
are
losing
large
amounts
of
money”
it’s
not
an
audience
issue,
it’s
an
advertising
issue.
The
only
reason
Jeff
Bezos
owns
the
Post
is
that
the
Graham
family
couldn’t
overcome
the
loss
of
advertising
revenue
that
followed
Google
cornering
the
market
on
digital
ads.

THERE’S
A
WHOLE
FEDERAL
CASE
ABOUT
IT
RIGHT
NOW!
Lewis,
a
Rupert
Murdoch
acolyte,
clings
to
the
belief
that
brought
the
Murdoch
empire
so
much
success
in
past
decades:
if
you
trash
it
up
and
appeal
to
the
lowest
common
denominator,
good
things
happen!

But
those
days
are
gone.
The
Washington
Post
isn’t
going
to
get
a
million
more
subscribers
by
turning
it
into
The
Sun.
And
even
if
it
did,
it’s
not
closing
its
revenue
shortfall
without
advertisers
coming
back.

And
you
know
why
advertisers
might
not
come
back
(even
aside
from
Google
being
a
more
efficient
advertising
play)?
BECAUSE
THEY
DON’T
WANT
TO
BE
ASSOCIATED
WITH
THAT
CONTENT.

Maybe

that’s
how
Bezos
will
do
for
media
what
Musk
did:
piss
off
all
the
advertisers!

Fox
News
built
its
advertising
bundle
on
reverse
mortgages
and
erection
pills.
There’s
not
enough
of
that
to
go
around,
and
the
audience
that
might
want
to
buy
the
Washington
Post
isn’t
the
audience
those
advertisers
want
anyway.

Anyway,
Turley
has
a
different
theory:

He
could
create
a
bulwark
against
advocacy
journalism
in
one
of
the
premier
newspapers
in
the
world.
Students
in
“J
Schools”
today
are
being
told
to
abandon
neutrality
and
objectivity
since,
as
former
New
York
Times
writer
(and
now
Howard
University
journalism
professor)
Nikole
Hannah-Jones
has
explained, “all
journalism
is
activism.”

Interesting
that
Turley
snidely
dismisses
the
critique
of
“objective
journalism”
by
quoting
a
notable
Black
woman
in
the
field.
Almost
as
though
he
wants
to
dress
up
the
notion
in
racist,
misogynist
baggage.
In
fact,
the
clear-eyed
critique
of
the
industry’s
flawed
reliance
on
contrived
objectivism
goes
back
much
further.
To
quote
an
esteemed
Doctor
of
Journalism
covering
the
1972
election
(who
was
also
a
white
guy
to
the
extent
Turley’s
audience
would
care):

Some
people
will
say
that
words
like
scum
and
rotten
are
wrong
for
Objective
Journalism—which
is
true,
but
they
miss
the
point.
It
was
the
built-in
blind
spots
of
the
Objective
rules
and
dogma
that
allowed
Nixon
to
slither
into
the
White
House
in
the
first
place.
He
looked
so
good
on
paper
that
you
could
almost
vote
for
him
sight
unseen.
He
seemed
so
all-American,
so
much
like
Horatio
Alger,
that
he
was
able
to
slip
through
the
cracks
of
Objective
Journalism.
You
had
to
get
Subjective
to
see
Nixon
clearly.

The
blindspots
that
Hunter
S.
Thompson
outlines
have
grown
more
pronounced
with
time.
It’s
how
Trump’s
remarks
get
routinely
“sanewashed”
into
something
vaguely
resembling
a
policy
rather
than
directly
quoting
insane
ramblings
about
how

Democrats
are
banning
windows
and
cows.
Media
that
won’t
call
out
that
one
candidate
is
batshit
insane
for
fear
of
reprisal

that
does
a
lot
more
to
erode
its
credibility.

Few
can
stand
up
to
this
movement
other
than
a
Bezos
or
a
Musk.
However,
the
left
has
long
created
their
own
monsters
by
demanding
absolute
fealty
or
unleashing
absolute
cancel
campaigns.
Simply
because
Bezos
wants his
newspaper
to
restore
neutrality, the
left
is
calling
for
a
boycott
of
not
just
the
Post
but
all
of
his
companies.
That
is
precisely
what
they
did
with
Musk.

You
know…
a
“cancel
campaign”
sounds
a
whole
lot
like
free
speech.

Turley
here
is
really
arguing
that
billionaires
should
use
unchecked
market
power
to
force
citizens
to
accept
viewpoints
they
otherwise
would
disagree
with.
Presumably
Turley’s

principled
stance
would
be
the
same
when
evangelicals
boycott
Disney
for
accepting
gay
people
as
human
beings.
Spoiler:
he
thought

consumers

should
punish
Disney
for
its
political
stance.

James
Clavell
wrote
a
cautionary
tale
called
The
Children’s
Story
back
in
the
60s.
Clavell
imagined
a
classroom
transformed
into
servants
of
a
totalitarian
invader
simply
by
cleverly
twisting
the
words
of
the
Pledge
of
Allegiance.
Basically,
he
warned
that
empty
patriotic
pablum
lights
an
easy
path
to
authoritarianism.
I
think
about
that
story
whenever
these
free
speech
debates
come
up.
When
guys
like
Turley
take
a
civic
virtue
and
cynically
contort
the
language
around
it,
play
on
our
reverence
for
the
concept,
and
then
twist
it
all
into
calls
for
billionaires
to
stifle
dissent
and
schools
to
punish
picketers,
it
moves
the
country
a
little
closer
to
the
brainwashed
kids
at
the
end
of
that
Clavell
story.

Anyway,
Bezos

could
do
for
the
media
what
Musk
did
for
“free
speech.”
Hopefully
he
doesn’t.

---

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.

Applicants
to
law
school
have
various
reasons
for
pursuing
a
legal
education.
Some
are
genuinely
interested
in
the
law
and
believe
they
would
enjoy
a
career
in
the
legal
profession.
Such
individuals
should
be
encouraged
to
attend
law
school,
as
they
might
find
fulfillment
in
a
legal
career.
However,
many
people
attend
law
school
simply
because
they
are
unsure
of
what
to
do
after
graduating
from
college
or
are
seeking
a
career
that
offers
decent
pay
and
some
level
of
prestige.
These
individuals
may
be
better
suited
for
careers
in
finance
or
other
industries,
allowing
them
to
achieve
their
desired
lifestyle
without
the
challenges
associated
with
a
legal
education.

Many
people
are
attracted
to
law
school
by
the
prospect
of
a
high
salary.
Indeed,
the
employment
statistics
from
various
law
schools
can
create
an
inflated
perception
of
how
easily
someone
can
secure
a
top
salary
at
a
prestigious
firm.
In
reality,
only
a
small
minority
of
those
in
the
legal
profession
secure
positions
in
Biglaw,
and
an
even
smaller
percentage
of
Biglaw
attorneys
become
partners
who
earn
substantial
incomes.

In
fact,
the
vast
majority
of
lawyers
earn
a
low
six-figure
salary,
or
potentially
even
less.
While
this
respectable
income
can
provide
a
good
quality
of
life,
many
other
careers
offer
similar
or
higher
compensation.
Additionally,
law
school
typically
lasts
three
years,
during
which
most
students
accumulate
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
in
debt.
If
individuals
pursue
careers
in
finance
or
other
lucrative
fields,
they
may
begin
earning
money
sooner
and
incur
less
student
debt
from
graduate
school.

I
know
numerous
finance
professionals
who
are
very
successful.
For
instance,
one
individual
I
know
in
finance
earns
an
income
comparable
to
mine
but
did
not
attend
graduate
school
and
only
borrowed
money
for
college.
The
burden
of
student
loans
was
significant
for
me,
both
financially
and
psychologically,
and
I
envied
this
individual
for
avoiding
that
experience
while
still
earning
the
same
income
as
I
did.

I
also
know
finance
professionals
who
earn
astonishing
amounts
of
money.
I
would
bet
that
only
the
top
partners
at
the
most
prestigious
law
firms
can
match
the
salaries
of
friends
and
acquaintances
in
finance
who
earn
seven-
and
eight-figure
annual
incomes.
If
law
school
applicants
are
motivated
by
the
best-case-scenario
Biglaw
salaries,
they
should
definitely
consider
careers
in
finance,
where
salaries
can
be
significantly
higher.

Historically,
people
pursued
certain
industry
careers
based
on
their
promise
of
a
good
lifestyle.
For
example,
some
commentators
have
discussed
a
“golden
age”
of
dentistry
in
the
past,
during
which
people
were
drawn
to
dental
school
with
promises
of
a
comfortable
life
and
easy
access
to
money.
Similarly,
individuals
once
flocked
to
pharmacy
schools
in
large
numbers
in
search
of
high
salaries.

If
there
was
ever
a
“golden
age”
of
the
legal
profession,
it
was
likely
before
the
2008
financial
crisis.
At
that
time,
Biglaw
firms
had
large
summer
classes,
and
associates
at
these
firms
were
offered
high
salaries
that
remained
unchanged
for
years.
A
significant
percentage
of
law
school
graduates
during
that
period
were
able
to
secure
coveted
Biglaw
positions,
giving
them
a
decent
chance
to
pay
off
their
student
debt
and
lead
comfortable
lives.

However,
that
“golden
age”
is
now
over.
Law
students
should
not
consider
attending
law
school
merely
because
a
law
degree
can
lead
to
a
stable
income.
Based
on
my
own
experiences,
pursuing
a
career
in
finance
appears
to
be
a
more
straightforward
path
to
a
good
living,
especially
since
some
positions
in
finance
do
not
even
require
a
graduate
degree.
Of
course,
many
people
may
not
possess
the
skills
needed
to
succeed
in
finance;
my
own
challenges
with
math
likely
influenced
my
decision
to
attend
law
school!
However,
if
law
school
applicants
have
the
skills
to
succeed
in
multiple
fields,
they
should
seriously
consider
finance
or
other
alternatives
to
legal
education.

---

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].

On
Halloween,
we
wondered
what
our
readers
thought
would

scare
a
lawyer
the
most.
As
first
seen
on
Facebook’s

Shit
Women
With
Law
Degrees
Say,
there
are
some
phrases
that
will
make
lawyers
look
like
they’ve
seen
a
ghost.

But
which
phrases
are
the
scariest
of
all?
As
luck
would
have
it,
we’ve
got
a
contest
for
that.

These
are
some
of
the
very
best
submissions
we’ve
received
thus
far:

• “I
  need
  it
  Monday.”
• “We
  destroyed
  those
  documents.”
• “Was
  this
  AI
  generated?”
• “You
  missed
  the
  hearing.”
• “Order
  to
  Show
  Cause”
• “Your
  fees
  are
  rejected.”
• “We’ll
  waive
  due
  diligence.”
• “You
  failed
  the
  bar.”
• “But
  Google
  said
  that…”
• “President
  Trump
  retained
  you.”

Think
you
can
do
better?

You
can
text
us
(646-820-8477),

email
us
(subject
line:
“4
Words
to
Scare
a
Lawyer”),
or

tweet
us
with
four
words
that
will
really
scare
a
lawyer
by

SUNDAY,
NOVEMBER
3,
at
11:59
PM,
then
we’ll
vote
on
the
scariest
phrase
of
all.
Thanks!

---

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

X/Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

Sonoma
County,
California
Superior
Court
Judge
James
G.
Bertoli
is
now
the
proud
owner
of
a
public
admonishment
(available
in
full
below).
Listen,
Above
the
Law’s
“judicial
ethics”
tag
is
filled
with
a
wide
variety
of
questionable
behavior
from
jurists,
but
I’m
pretty
confident
this
is
the
first
time
that
a
judge’s
love
of
their
high
school
alma
mater
gets
them
in
hot
water
with
professional
responsibility
authorities.
The
California
Commission
on
Judicial
Performance
issued
a
public
admonishment
of
the
judge
after
he
led
an
effort
block
the
renaming
of
his
high
school.

This
may
not
seem
like
the
sort
of
development
to
devolve
into
name
calling
and
protests
but
that’s
what
happened.
Bertoli’s
high
school,
Analy
High
School
was
merging
with
its
rival,
El
Molino
High
School.
El
Molino
students
would
go
to
the
Analy
campus,
and
the
school
board
temporarily
renamed
the
combined
school,
West
County
High
School.
And,
as

reported
by
Law360,
this
is
when
the
hard
feelings
started.

The
proposed
consolidation
and
renaming
became
a
“controversial
and
emotionally-charged”
local
issue
that
“involved
lawsuits,
protests,
and
petitions
to
recall
members
of
the
school
board,”
and
played
out
for
the
rest
of
2021.

For
roughly
eight
months,
Judge
Bertoli
was
a
major
figure
in
the
movement
to
preserve
the
Analy
name.

He
served
on
the
board
of
directors
of
the
Analy
Alumni
Association
and
repeatedly
made
his
position
known
at
in-person
events,
some
of
which
he
helped
organize,
and
on
social
media.

Many
local
residents
were
well
aware
he
was
a
sitting
judge
and
local
newspaper
coverage
always
identified
him
as
such,
creating
the
appearance
Judge
Bertoli
was
“lending
the
prestige
of
[his]
office
to”
the
alumni
association,
the
decision
said.

The
commission
said
Bertoli
“demeaned
the
judicial
office”
with
his
behavior.
That
included
calling
opponents
“a
bunch
of
frickin’
(I
cleaned
that
up)
morons!”
on
social
media,
calling
the
school
board
“myopic,
analytical,
and
self-aggrandizing,”
and
claiming
outside
actors
had
“greased
the
palms
of
school
administrators,
board
members,
athletic
directors,
etc.”

Judge
Bertoli’s
attorney,
James
A.
Murphy,
said
of
the
admonishment,
“The
biggest
problem
we
have
with
this
is
the
chilling
effect
it
could
have
on
the
speech
of
other
judges.”

But,
for
my
money,
the
best
revelation
about
Bertoli
and
his
judicial
temperament
isn’t
even
about
the
high
school.

The
commission
also
said
Judge
Bertoli
should
have
known
better,
because
in
2021
he
received
an
advisory
letter
warning
him
about
using
his
status
as
a
judge
to
promote
his
band,
“Court
‘n’
Disaster.”

“The
band’s
website
identified
Judge
Bertoli
as
a
sitting
superior
court
judge,”
the
commission
said.
“Photographs
on
the
website
identified
the
judge
as
‘Judge
Jimmy
Bertoli.’
Marketing
and
promotional
materials
also
identified
the
band
as
‘your
standard
courthouse
band.’”

But
in
the
end,
despite
the
questionable
nature
of
the
judge’s
behavior,
his
campaign
was
successful.
In
December
2021,
the
school
board
voted
to
keep
the
Analy
name.

judge
bertoli
admonishment

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
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 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

In
the
final
sprint
before
election
day,
Donald
Trump
is
still
finding
time
for
his
second
favorite
hobby.

No, not

fantasizing
on
television
about
his
enemies
getting
executed
by
firing
squad.
After
golf,
Trump’s
favorite
thing
in
the
world
is
filing
frivolous
lawsuits.
Nothing
makes
this
man
happier
than

suing
the
Pulitzer
Prize
board
for
defamation.
Or

suing
Facebook
for
tortious
deplatforming.
Or

suing
Hillary
Clinton
for
doing
the
RICO
to
him.

And
Trump
definitely

had
the
time
yesterday,
filing
a

complaint
against
CBS
for
daring
to
edit
an
interview
with
Kamala
Harris
on
its
October
5
news
show

60
Minutes.
Trump,
whose
constant
stream
of
invective
and
verbal
diarrhea
is
routinely
“sanewashed”
by
the
press,
was
incensed
that
Harris’s
more
nuanced
answer
on
the
war
in
Gaza
was
truncated
during
the
original
broadcast.
On
Truth
Social,
he
screamed
that
CBS’s
non-existent
broadcast
license
should
be
revoked.

“RELEASE
THE
TAPES
FOR
THE
GOOD
OF
AMERICA,”
he
continued
menacingly.
“We
can
do
it
the
nice
way,
or
the
hard
way!”

But
apparently
CBS
refused
to
play
ball,
and
so
Trump
had
to
do…
whatever
the
hell
this
is.

The
former
president
is
a
Florida
resident,
and
CBS
is
headquartered
in
New
York.
So
naturally
the
trollsuit
was
filed
in
Texas,
specifically
the
Amarillo
division
of
the
Northern
District,
where
it
was
guaranteed
to
draw
Trump’s
handpicked
viper,
Judge
Matthew
Kacsmaryk.
Kacsmaryk
famously
reversed
the
2000
authorization
for
mifepristone,
the
drug
relied
upon
for
medication
abortions,
because
sometimes
women
come
into
the
emergency
rooms
bleeding
out
of
their
whatevers,
and
it
makes
anti-choice
doctors
feel
icky.

“Venue
is
proper
in
this
district
under
28
U.S.C.
§1391(b)(2)
and
(b)(3)
because
a
substantial
part
of
the
events
or
omissions
giving
rise
to
President
Trump’s
claims
occurred
in
this
District
by
virtue
of
the
Interview
being
transmitted
by
CBS
into
this
District
(and
elsewhere)
and
because
CBS
is
subject
to
this
Court’s
personal
jurisdiction
with
respect
to
this
action,”
Trump’s
lawyers
wrote
glibly.

The
complaint
alleges
that
CBS
violated
Texas’s
Deceptive
Trade
Practices-Consumer
Protection
Act
by
failing
to
“provide
honest
services
by
engaging
in
false,
misleading,
deceptive,
and,
therefore,
unconscionable
and
detrimental
news
distortion.”

But
how
does
a
national
news
broadcast,
which
enjoys
the
highest
level
of
First
Amendment
protection,
violate
a
state
law
meant
to
shield
Meemaw
from
unlicensed
roofing
contractors?

President
Trump
is
a
“consumer”
within
the
meaning
of
the
DTPA,
since
he
is
an
individual
who
sought
and
received
CBS’s
broadcast
services.
Moreover,
as
the
leading
presidential
candidate,
President
Trump
will
be
evaluated
by
the
Texas
electorate
–
and
the
electorate
in
all
states—on
November
5,
2024.
As
such,
President
Trump
stands
in
the
shoes
of
each
Texas
voter
entitled
to
the
honest
services
expected
from
CBS-owned
and
affiliated
television
stations
in
Texas.

Well,
obviously.

The
complaint
is
full
of
string
cites,
not
to
federal
or
state
cases,
but
to
tweets
by
Fox
News
anchors
and
Breitbart
articles,
as
well
as
an
FCC
complaint
filed
by
Trump’s
allies.
There
are
pages
and
pages
of
indignant
snorting
about
“Kamala’s
‘word
salad’
weakness.”
This
indulgent
hackery
is
perhaps
unsurprising
from
Daniel
Epstein,
the
lawyer
who

bragged
to
Maria
Bartiromo
that
Trump
was
going
to
sue
the
DOJ
for
$100
million
plus
punitive
damages
for
the
Mar-a-Lago
raid,
seemingly
unaware
that
the
Federal
Tort
Claims
Act
specifically
bars
punitive
damages.
Indeed
Trump,
who
is
not
the
president,
is
referred
to
throughout
as
“President
Trump.”
Vice
President
Harris
is
referred
to
as
“Kamala.”

Trump,
whose
entire
campaign
apparatus
including
PACs,
raised
just
over
a
billion
dollars
during
the
entire
electoral
cycle,
demands
that
CBS
pay
him
$10
billion
because
one
interview
a
month
before
the
campaign

“damaged
President
Trump’s
fundraising
and
support
values
by
several
billions
of
dollars,
particularly
in
Texas.” 

A
stickler
might
note
that
the
putative
billions
in
lost
donations
would
have
accrued
to
the
campaign
itself,
not
to
Trump
personally.
And
that
stickler
might
also
note
that
the
DTPA
specifically
excludes
businesses
with
more
than
$25
million
of
assets
from
recovery.
But
presumably
the
jurisdiction,
venue,
and
First
Amendment
issues
will
doom
this
clunker
before
picayune
issues
of
state
law
come
into
play.

On
the
other
hand,
Judge
Reed
O’Connor
is
allowing
Twitter
to
get
discovery
on
Media
Matters
in
Fort
Worth,
so…
who
TF
knows.

---

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

There
are
many
different
and
exciting
ways
to
rank
law
firms.
How
prestigious
are
they?
How
much
money
are
they
making?
How
much
do
partners
earn?
How
much
are
associates
earning
in
cash
compensation?
How
big
are
they?

Yes,
size
matters,
and
because
the
legal
profession
is
obsessed
with
every
single
measurable
and
quantifiable
factor
law
firms
have
to
offer,
there’s
obviously
a
ranking
for
that.

So,
which
Biglaw
firm
is
the
biggest
in
the
European
Union?

Law.com
International
recently
released
the

EU
Top
30,
its
inaugural
ranking
of
the
largest
law
firms
in
the
European
Union
covering
the
current
calendar
year.
If
you’ve
ever
wondered
about
precise
law
firm
headcounts,
this
is
the
ranking
for
you.

These
are
the
10
largest
law
firms
in
the
EU,
according
to
Law.com
International:

1. CMS:
   2,869
   lawyers
2. DLA
   Piper:
   1,750
   lawyers
3. Hogan
   Lovells:
   1,659
   lawyers
4. Freshfields:
   1,314
   lawyers
5. Garrigues:
   1,273
   lawyers
6. Baker
   McKenzie:
   1,266
   lawyers
7. Linklaters:
   1,254
   lawyers
8. A&O
   Shearman:
   1,201
   lawyers
9. Clifford
   Chance:
   1,147
   lawyers
10. Bird
    &
    Bird:
    1,069
    lawyers

Three
of
the
Top
10
are
U.S.-based
firms
(and
No.
8
is
a
newly
merged
megafirm,
with
one
legacy
firm
based
in
the
U.S.).
Click

here
to
see
the
full
list
of
the
30
largest
law
firms
in
Europe.

Congratulations
to
all
of
these
firms
for
putting
the
“big”
in
Biglaw!

The
2024
EU
Top
30:
Ranking
the
Largest
Law
Firms
in
the
European
Union
by
Headcount
[Law.com
International]

---

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

X/Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

Ed.
note:
This
is
the
latest
in
a
series
providing
a
comprehensive
guide
to
networking
at
conferences. Read
the
previous
installment
here. 

In
this
part
of
our
“Conquering
Conferences”
series,
we
focus
on
embracing
the
small
victories
and
soothing
the
inevitable
nerves
of
networking.

As
the
final
song
plays
in
our
metaphorical
ballroom,
let’s
reflect
on
the
steps
taken
and
the
rhythm
found.

Embracing
Small
Wins 

Conferences,
much
like
a
high
school
dance,
can
stir
a
whirlpool
of
emotions,
including
anxiety
and
nervousness.

But
just
like
in
any
dance,
it’s
the
small
steps
and
the
individual
moments
that
create
the
most
memorable
experiences.

Celebrating
Every
Step

• 
  Each
  interaction,
  whether
  it’s
  a
  brief
  chat
  or
  a
  longer
  discussion,
  is
  a
  step
  forward
  in
  the
  dance
  of
  networking.
  Acknowledge
  these
  moments
  as
  successes
  in
  their
  own
  right.
• 
  Just
  like
  learning
  a
  dance
  routine,
  the
  first
  steps
  are
  often
  the
  hardest.
  Give
  yourself
  credit
  for
  every
  attempt
  to
  connect,
  no
  matter
  the
  outcome.

Keeping
the
Rhythm
Light

• 
  Networking
  is
  not
  about
  flawless
  performances
  or
  winning
  a
  popularity
  contest.
  It’s
  about
  finding
  your
  own
  rhythm
  and
  enjoying
  the
  process
  of
  meeting
  new
  people.
• 
  If
  the
  dance
  floor
  of
  networking
  feels
  overwhelming,
  remember
  it’s
  okay
  to
  take
  a
  break.
  Step
  aside,
  catch
  your
  breath,
  and
  rejoin
  when
  you’re
  ready.

Soothing
the
Stage
Fright

• 
  Feelings
  of
  anxiety
  are
  common
  in
  these
  settings.
  Use
  calming
  techniques
  like
  deep
  breathing
  or
  focusing
  on
  the
  present
  moment
  to
  steady
  your
  nerves.
• 
  Set
  manageable
  goals
  for
  yourself.
  Whether
  it’s
  initiating
  a
  conversation
  with
  at
  least
  three
  people
  or
  simply
  attending
  a
  particular
  session,
  these
  small
  objectives
  can
  make
  the
  overall
  experience
  more
  rewarding
  and
  less
  daunting.

Looking
Back
on
Your
Performance

• 
  After
  the
  conference,
  reflect
  on
  your
  interactions.
  Each
  one
  is
  a
  learning
  opportunity
  and
  a
  step
  toward
  becoming
  more
  at
  ease
  in
  networking
  scenarios.
• 
  Celebrate
  the
  connections
  you
  made,
  no
  matter
  how
  small.
  Networking
  is
  a
  skill
  that
  improves
  with
  practice,
  and
  every
  conference
  is
  a
  chance
  to
  refine
  your
  approach
  and
  build
  confidence.

Having
celebrated
our
small
wins
and
navigated
the
emotional
landscape
of
networking,
it’s
time
to
look
at
some
common
missteps
to
avoid.
Next
up,
we’ll
add
a
touch
of
humor
to
our
series
by
exploring
a
few
networking
faux
pas.

Enjoying
Small
Wins

✔️ Recognize
and
celebrate
each
interaction,
no
matter
how
brief.
✔️ Practice
calming
techniques
to
manage
anxiety
and
nervousness.
✔️ Set
achievable
goals
for
networking
and
acknowledge
your
efforts.
✔️ Reflect
on
your
experiences
and
learn
from
them,
building
confidence
over
time.

---

Sejal Patel is
the Founder
of
Sage
Ivy,
a
New
York-based
consultancy
specializing
in
empowering
attorneys
with
innovative
practice
development
strategies.
With
over
20
years
of
experience,
Sejal
applies
her
expertise
in
assisting
clients
convert
their
relationships
into
revenue
by
applying
individualized
strategies
to
their
networks
and
leveraging
their
unique
styles
authentically.