Author: TSA Press

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

Between
the
2004
and
2019
Supreme
Court
Terms,
at
how
many
oral
arguments
did
Clarence
Thomas
speak?

Hint:
There
were
1,100+
arguments
during
that
window
of
time,
and
Justice
Thomas
authored
a
combined
417
majority
and
separate
opinions.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Rudy
Giuliani
is
ready
to
start
2025
off
with
a
bang.
America’s
mayor
is
courting
contempt
in
two
federal
courtrooms,
and
he’s
on
the
verge
of
getting
himself
a
default
judgment
to
boot.
Squad
goals!

Rudy’s
been
at
this
passion
project
since
November
of
2020,
when
he
falsely
accused
Ruby
Freeman
and
Shaye
Moss,
two
Atlanta
poll
workers,
of
tabulating
thousands
of
fraudulent
ballots.
In
August
of
2023,
Judge
Beryl
Howell
ordered
a

default
judgment
against
him,
thanks
to
his
utter
refusal
to
comply
with
his
discovery
obligations.
And
in
December
a
jury
awarded
the
plaintiffs
$148
million
in
damages.

Freeman
and
Moss
have
been
trying
to
collect
on
the
judgment
for
a
year,
with
Giuliani
stumbling
into
and
out
of
bankruptcy
in
an
effort
to
halt
collections
while
he
pursues
his
doomed
appeal.
Rudy
has
long
since
worn
out
his
welcome
with
Judge
Lewis
Liman
in
the
Southern
District
of
New
York,
including
by
showing
up
at
Mar-a-Lago
in
a
Mercedes
the
court
had
already
ordered
him
to
hand
over
to
the
plaintiffs.

“There
should
be
no
higher
priority
for
your
client
than
complying
with
the
court’s
orders,”
the
judge

warned
Rudy’s
new
counsel,
a
Staten
Island
divorce
lawyer
named
Joseph
Cammarata.
That
admonition
came
at
a
hearing
two
weeks
ago
when
Rudy’s
prior
lawyers
got
their
exit
visas
stamped
after
convincing
Judge
Liman
that
they
could
not
ethically
continue
to
represent
him
in
his
bid
to
claim
the
homestead
exemption
for
his
Florida
condo.

Things
have
not
improved
since
then.
On
December
5,
the
plaintiffs
filed
a

motion
requesting
that
the
court
hold
Giuliani
in
contempt
and
impose
death
penalty
sanctions,
barring
him
from
arguing
at
his
January
16
trial
that
he
actually
lived
in
Florida
last
year.

Giuliani
responded
by
emptying
his
pockets
and
hoping
a
wad
of
used
tissues
and
an
expired
Metro
card
would
satisfy
the
plaintiffs.

It
did
not:

Mr.
Giuliani’s
production
of
19
“exhibits”
(produced
without
Bates
stamps
or
metadata)
is
facially
incomplete
and
nothing
more
than
an
exercise
in
cherry-picking
the
documents
that
will
be
available
to
adjudicate
Plaintiffs’
claims.
As
one
notable
example,
the
production
does
not
include
a
single
text
message
or
email.

Judge
Liman
rebuffed
the
letter,
sniffing
that
he’d
already
scheduled
a
contempt
hearing
for
the
19th,
and
“The
Court
did
not
contemplate
nor
did
it
permit
“updates”
–
from
either
side
–
regarding
the
state
of
Defendant’s
compliance
with
the
Court’s
orders.”

And
it
looks
like
they’ll
have
a
packed
agenda
for
that
hearing,
since
Rudy
has
suddenly
announced,
that
he’ll
be
calling
six
witnesses,
including
himself
at
the
trial
on
January
16.
Rudy’s
already
blown
through
discovery
deadlines
without
meaningfully
responding,
and
his
dingbat
henchmen
have
all
ignored
subpoenas.
And
so
it’s
hardly
surprising
that
the
plaintiffs
were
apoplectic:

Now,
more
than
a
month
after
the
deadline
to
make
initial
disclosures—on
December
8,
2024—
Mr.
Giuliani
served
amended
disclosures,
adding
five
new
witnesses
who
he
now
says
may
possess
discoverable
information
that
he
may
use
at
trial:
Maria
Ryan,
Ryan
Medrano,
Joseph
Ricci,
Michael
Ragusa,
and
Robert
Wagner
(the
“Newly-Disclosed
Witnesses”).
Mr.
Giuliani
disclosed
that
each
“is
likely
to
have
discoverable
information
regarding
but
not
limited
to
the
Rudolph
W.
Giuliani
moving
to
Florida
as
his
permanent
residence
which
he
actually
and
does
actually
occupy
as
his
domicile.”
None
of
these
new
witnesses
have
been
deposed
and
only
one
has
produced
documents…
Further,
Mr.
Giuliani
did
not
provide
any
address,
telephone
number,
or
other
contact
information
for
either
Mr.
Ragusa
or
Robert
Wagner.
And
although
Plaintiffs
are
familiar
with
Mr.
Ragusa
from
earlier
proceedings,
Plaintiffs
do
not
know
who
Mr.
Wagner
is
or
how
to
distinguish
him
from
the
multitude
of
others
who
share
that
common
name,
much
less
locate
him
for
the
purpose
of
serving
a
subpoena.

Meanwhile,
Rudy
has
continued
to
defame
the
women,
prompting
them
to
return
to
Judge
Howell
in
DC
to
ask
her
to
make
him
knock
it
off
already.
Rudy’s
been
representing
himself
pro
se
in
that
action,
but
he
wangled
a
few
more
days
to
respond
to
the
contempt
motion
by
promising
to
hire
a
(non-disbarred)
lawyer.
Maybe
he
can
finds
someone
who
understands
Bates
stamps!

Freeman
v.
Giuliani
[New
York
Docket
via
Court
Listener]

Freeman
v.
Giuliani
[DC
Docket
via
Court
Listener]

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

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

Any
firm
that
is
New
York-centric
and
under
$1
billion
in
revenue
is
exposed.
You
are
already
seeing
some
…
larger
firms,
like
Latham,
like
Kirkland,
like
Paul
Weiss
grabbing
talent.
Those
smaller
firms
are
exposed
to
what
is
happening
in
the
industry
right
now:
Profitability
at
scale.

—
A
legal
industry
insider,
who
spoke
anonymously
to
the

American
Lawyer
in
order
to
speak
freely,
commenting
on
what
could
happen
to
smaller
New
York
firms
if
they
fail
to
strike
while
the
iron
is
hot
and
consider
a
merger,
especially
if
their
profitability
has
tapered
out.

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.

Lawyers
often
rely
on
a
number
of
legal
professionals
in
order
to
more
efficiently
complete
legal
tasks.
Many
lawyers
employ
secretaries
who
handle
administrative
tasks,
and
some
attorneys
employ
paralegals
as
well
who
handle
basic
legal
work
associated
with
files.
In
the
past,
I
appreciated
the
help
of
secretaries
and
paralegals
who
made
my
job
easier
by
handling
some
of
the
basic
tasks
associated
with
running
a
law
practice.
However,
paralegals
can
make
mistakes,
usually
because
they
have
less
legal
experience
since
they
did
not
attend
law
school
and
do
not
have
the
same
wealth
of
knowledge
that
most
lawyers
possess.
Lawyers
should
not
excuse
mistakes
made
by
paralegals
when
a
lawyer’s
name
is
on
the
papers
filed
with
a
paralegal’s
errors.

Earlier
in
my
career,
I
worked
on
a
relatively
routine
matter.
However,
when
I
got
the
papers,
I
noticed
that
there
were
mistakes
in
how
the
papers
were
written.
The
case
was
based
on
a
lesser-used
provision
in
the
law,
and
I
had
never
before
in
my
career
encountered
a
case
that
had
been
initiated
on
this
basis.
After
reading
the
statute
upon
which
the
case
was
based
and
after
researching
the
provision
on
Lexis,
I
knew
that
the
timing
of
a
given
application
was
wrong
and
that
it
required
information
had
been
excluded
from
the
papers.

I
ended
up
drafting
opposition
papers
based
on
the
mistakes
made
by
the
other
side,
and
I
cited
a
voluminous
number
of
cases
and
other
authorities
to
show
that
the
other
side
really
messed
up.
It
was
possible
that
the
court
would
excuse
such
mistakes,
since
courts
sometimes
exercise
leeway
to
excuse
technical
issues
in
the
interests
of
justice.
However,
I
found
numerous
instances
in
which
courts
dismissed
actions
because
of
such
technical
issues,
which
would
be
great
for
my
client
since
I
was
defending
this
action
on
my
client’s
behalf.

Eventually,
the
lawyer
whose
name
appeared
on
the
error-filled
papers
reached
out
to
me.
He
said
that
his
paralegal
drafted
the
documents
and
that
was
why
so
many
errors
were
included
in
the
papers.
The
lawyer
requested
that
I
consent
to
amended
papers
as
a
courtesy
so
that
hopefully
the
court
would
be
more
inclined
to
not
dismiss
the
case,
and
presumably,
this
lawyer
could
save
face
in
front
of
his
client.

I
am
the
type
of
lawyer
who
likes
to
extend
courtesies,
but
in
this
instance,
accepting
amended
documents
would
lead
my
client
to
forgoing
substantive
arguments.
I
ended
up
declining
to
accept
the
amended
papers,
which
put
my
adversary
in
a
difficult
position.
He
attempted
to
rectify
the
errors
in
his
reply
papers,
which
is
the
tactic
of
many
lawyers
who
mess
up
their
moving
papers,
but
this
tactic
is
not
always
successful.
Reply
papers
are
not
supposed
to
be
used
to
correct
errors
found
in
moving
papers,
and
this
exposed
the
errors
made
in
the
initial
submission.

I
am
not
sure
how
my
adversary
missed
all
of
the
errors
made
in
the
moving
papers.
Some
were
glaring
errors
that
pretty
much
every
lawyer
reading
the
papers
would
recognize
instantly.
I
know
that
my
adversary
ran
a
high-volume
practice,
and
this
was
likely
the
reason
why
this
lawyer
employed
paralegals
in
the
first
place.
However,
since
this
lawyer
signed
the
papers,
he
is
just
as
responsible
as
the
paralegal
(and
perhaps
moreso)
for
the
errors
contained
in
those
papers.

All
told,
I
know
firsthand
that
paralegals
can
be
a
helpful
addition
to
a
legal
team,
and
I
do
not
want
this
article
to
be
construed
as
arguing
that
paralegals
should
not
be
employed
to
complete
legal
tasks.
However,
lawyers
need
to
closely
supervise
their
paralegals
to
ensure
that
their
work
is
error-free
since
lawyers
should
not
be
able
to
excuse
errors
because
they
are
attributed
to
a
paralegal.

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].

There
are
a
lot
of
innocent
people
imprisoned
in
the
federal
prison
system.
Sometimes

the
Supreme
Court
goes
ahead
and
kills
them.
But
most
people
in
the
federal
system
are,
you
know,
actual
criminals.
So
when
a
president
issues
blanket
clemency
to
1500
people
because
they’re
low
recidivism
risks,
that
means
a
lot
of
actual
criminals
are
going
to
be
released.

Like
former
Pennsylvania
judge
Michael
T.
Conahan.

Conahan
spent
his
time
on
the
bench
sending
children
to
for-profit
prisons
in
exchange
for
kickbacks
from
the
prison
industry.
All
told,
Conahan
(and
his
co-conspirator
also
former
judge
Mark
Ciavarella)
took
in
almost
$3
million.
He
contributed
to
years
of
human
misery
exploiting
children
for
personal
profit
and
he
was
sent
away
for
17.5
years.

This
week,
he
found
his
sentence
commuted
by
Biden’s
broad
clemency
drive.
It’s
angered
liberals
who
otherwise
support
clemency
but
have
responded
with
“no,
not
like
that!”
as
though
presidential
leniency
wouldn’t
involve
mercy
to
people
who’ve
done
horrible
things.
And

right-wing
media,
who
generally
cheer
private
prisons
and
jailing
children,
have
jumped
on
this
story
to
sow
more
rage
at
Biden:

The
mother
of
a
victim
of
Conahan’s
disturbing
crime
fumed
upon
hearing
of
his
commutation.

“I
am
shocked
and
I
am
hurt,”
Sandy
Fonzo,
whose
son
committed
suicide
after
he
was
locked
up
as
part
of
the
scheme
orchestrated
by
Conahan
and
former
judge
Mark
Ciavarella,
said
in
a
statement.

“Conahan‘s
actions
destroyed
families,
including
mine,
and
my
son‘s
death
is
a
tragic
reminder
of
the
consequences
of
his
abuse
of
power,”
she
added,
according
to The
Citizen’s
Voice.
“This
pardon
feels
like
an
injustice
for
all
of
us
who
still
suffer.”

From
the
perspective
of
victims,
no
sentence
can
ever
be
enough.
If
we
listened
exclusively
to
victims
when
it
comes
to
sentencing,
no
one
would
ever
be
released.
And
yet,
Conahan
was
not
serving
a
life
sentence.
The
law
determined
a
term
of
years
and
he’d
already
served
around
80%
of
his
sentence.
He’s
in
his
70s,
he
will
never
be
a
judge
again,
and
he
would
be
out
in
three
years
anyway.

He’s
not
been
vindicated
by
this
Biden
action.
Biden
likely
never
considered
the
substance
of
any
of
these
1500
or
so
people.
He
just
ratified
an
existing
policy
that
deemed
them
not
worth
keeping
in
a
prison
cell.

Biden
—
who
faced
criticism
for
issuing
a
historically
low
set
of
pardons
and
commutations
—
issued
this
mass
tranche
to
avoid
the
logistical
nightmare
of
returning
folks
to
prisons
who
have
been
serving
home
detention
under
the
CARES
Act,
which
released
select
low-risk
inmates
to
house
arrest
at
the
height
of
COVID
when
prisons
risked

indirectly
imposing
the
death
penalty.
In
fact,
this
is

the
exact
policy
many
were
asking
Biden
to
adopt
a
few
weeks
ago.
Former
Acting
Director
of
the
Bureau
of
Prisons
Hugh
Hurwitz
wrote
in
The
Hill:

But
there
is
one
group
they
mentioned
that
seems
like
an
easy
decision
for
the
president,
and
the
first
group
President
Biden
pardons.

During
the
Pandemic,
the
Bureau
of
Prisons
moved over
36,000
people to
home
confinement
under
the CARES
Act.
The
CARES
Act
expanded
the
amount
of
time
individuals
could
be
placed
in
home
confinement
during
the
pandemic.

Under
the criteria
established by
the
Trump
Administration’s
Department
of
Justice,
these
people
were
carefully
selected
as
low
or
minimum
security
risk,
non-violent
offenders.
They
have
completed
more
than
half
their
sentences,
with
high
risk
for
complications
of
COVID.
Most
were
older
(over
age
50)
or
had
underlying
health
conditions.
All
had
clean
conduct
while
in
prison
and
were
deemed
to
not
be
of
risk
to
the
community.

Oh
yeah.
Trump
actually
signed
the
CARES
Act
and
made
the
decision
to
let
Conahan
out
of
prison.
The
NY
Post’s
coverage
above
didn’t
mention
that
part
or
find
any
quotes
from
victims
decrying
that
leniency.
Weird
oversight.

Putting
these
people
back
in
prison
—
especially
when

most
are
elderly
and
have
served
the
overwhelming
majority
of
their
sentences
—
is
a
waste
of
government
resources.
Ideally,
they
could
keep
continuing
serving
their
full
sentences
at
home,
except
the
incoming
Trump
administration
raised
the
prospect
of
returning
everyone
to
prison
with
all
the
attendant
taxpayer
costs
that
entails.
If
home
detention
is
off
the
table
and
it’s
about
prison
or
commutation
of
those
who’ve
served
most
of
their
sentence,
Biden
chose
the
former.

Personally,
I
think
there
are
many
people
in
the
prison
system
more
deserving
of
presidential
clemency
than
Conahan,
who
deserves
to
live
in
a
cell
the
same
way
he
wrongfully
consigned
children
to
live.
It’s
a
cruel
irony
that
he’s
the
beneficiary
of
the
same
leniency
that
he
denied
so
many.
That
said,
if
he’s
released
as
part
of
a
general
policy
to
ratify
a
decision
to
release
low-risk
inmates…
I
understand
that
it’s
probably
the
right
policy
for
the
country.

But,
hey,
they
aren’t
talking
about
Hunter
anymore.

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.

Lawyers
who
work
in
boutique
firms
tend
to
be
happier
than
those
who
practice
at
Am
Law
100
firms,
according
to
a
recent
ATL
survey.
But
attorneys
at
regional
law
firms
are
less
satisfied
than
their
counterparts
at
national
and
global
firms.

More
than
700
attorneys
took
part
in
the
survey,
whose
results
were
published
this
fall
in
the
Above
the
Law/Lateral
Link
Report,


Ranking
the
Law
Firms
Lawyers
Love.

Lawyers
were
asked
to
indicate
how
happy
they
are
at
their
current
firm
by
rating
their
level
of
satisfaction
on
a
5-point
scale.
Respondents
working
in
boutique
firms
had
the
highest
average
rating
(3.81),
while
those
at
regional
firms
had
the
lowest
(3.13).

The
average
rating
among
attorneys
at
Am
Law
100
firms
(3.42)
was
the
second-lowest,
just
below
the
overall
survey-wide
average
of
3.43.
Am
Law
200
firms
(3.58)
fared
better,
as
did
national
non-Am
Law
(3.47)
and
especially
global
non-Am
Law
firms
(3.69). 

It
is
worth
noting
that
this
survey
was
conducted
before
the
latest
rounds
of


bonuses

were
announced
—
especially
since
the
same
survey
underscores
the


significance
of
compensation

to
lawyers
weighing
whether
to
remain
where
they
are
or
to
change
firms.

For
more
insights
into
attorney
satisfaction,
including
which
firms
attorneys
most
want
to
work
for
and
what
makes
them
so
desirable,


download
a
free
copy
of
the
report.

Ranking
The
Law
Firms
Lawyers
Love
[Above
the
Law]

Earlier:

Stat(s)
Of
The
Week:
That’s
What
I
Want
[Above
the
Law]

Whether
they’re
responding
to
basic
questions,
keeping
track
of
contract
deadlines,
or
simply
searching
their
own
email
archives,
in-house
lawyers
face
numerous
distractions
from
their
most
valuable
tasks.

Which
got
us
asking:
How
are
legal
departments
performing
when
it
comes
to
getting
high-level
legal
and
business
guidance
from
their
in-house
attorneys? 

Are
your
lawyers
buried
in
administrative
chaos,
or
are
they
operating
at
peak
efficiency? 

Please
share
your
thoughts
in
this
(always)
brief
and
anonymous
survey.
Respondents
will
receive
a
chance
to
win
a
$250
gift
card. 

Boutique
firms
are
still
offering
Biglaw
money
to
their
associates
this
bonus
season,
with
many
continuing
to
match
Milbank’s
generous

year-end
and

special
bonuses.

The
latest
boutique
to
share
its
largesse
with
associates
is
Cohen
Ziffer
Frenchman
&
McKenna.
Here’s
what
the
bonus
scale
looks
like
at
the
young
firm,
which
is
about
to
close
out
its
fourth
year:

• Class
  of
  2023
  –
  $20,000
• Class
  of
  2022
  –
  $30,000
• Class
  of
  2021
  –
  $57,500
• Class
  of
  2020
  –
  $75,000
• Class
  of
  2019
  –
  $90,000
• Class
  of
  2018
  –
  $105,000
• Class
  of
  2017+
  –
  $115,000

While
special
bonuses
are
not
specifically
mentioned,
the
firm
goes
on
to
note
in
its
memo
that
“in
exceptional
circumstances,”
associates
may
receive
higher
bonuses
“based
on
individual
performance.”

Bonuses
at
the
firm
will
hit
bank
accounts
today,
on
December
13.
Congratulations
to
all
Cohen
Ziffer
associates!

(Flip
to
the
next
page
to
see
the
firm’s
memo
in
full.)

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.

Enter
your
email
address
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s

Bonus
&
Salary
Increase
Alerts.