Author: TSA Press

As
generative
AI
continues
to
evolve,
we
keep
learning
about

more
ways
in
which
this
technology
will
change
our
lives
and
workplaces. 

This
week,
Gartner
unveiled
its


top
10
strategic
predictions

on
the
impact
of
AI
(gavel
bang:
Cybersecurity
Dive).

Gartner’s
predictions
include
some
expected
fallout
(e.g.,
job
loss)
as
well
as
more
surprising
scenarios,
such
as
employee
mood
monitoring,
royalty
clauses
for
use
of
avatars,
and
compulsory
digital
detox
programs.

Here
are
four
of
Gartner’s
top
10
predictions
for
2025
and
beyond:

• 
  20%
  of
  organizations
  will
  use
  AI
  to
  eliminate
  more
  than
  half
  of
  middle
  management
  positions
  and
  flatten
  their
  organizational
  structure.
• 
  40%
  of
  large
  enterprises
  will
  deploy
  AI
  to
  perform
  sentiment
  analysis
  on
  workplace
  interactions
  and
  communications
  to
  ensure
  that
  employees
  are
  exhibiting
  the
  appropriate
  level
  of
  motivation
  and
  engagement.
• 
  70%
  of
  employment
  contracts
  will
  include
  licensing
  and
  fair
  use
  clauses
  for
  digital
  representations
  of
  employees’
  personas.
• 
  70%
  of
  organizations
  will
  introduce
  mandatory
  digital
  detox
  policies,
  such
  as
  email-free
  Fridays,
  screen-free
  meetings,
  and
  a
  ban
  on
  after-hour
  communications,
  to
  combat
  widespread
  digital
  addiction
  and
  social
  isolation.

4
ways
AI
could
impact
employees,
workflows:
Gartner
[Cybersecurity
Dive]


Gartner
Unveils
Top
Predictions
for
IT
Organizations
and
Users
in
2025
and
Beyond

When
I
first
started
my
own
law
firm
almost
six
years
ago,
I
was
not
that
busy
with
work.
It
took
almost
three
weeks
to
secure
my
first
client,
and
to
be
honest,
I
kind
of
liked
the
free
time.
Eventually
I
fell
into
a
groove
with
keeping
myself
busy,
but
throughout
my
practice,
there
have
been
times
when
I
was
slow
with
work,
and
times
when
I
could
barely
keep
up
with
client
responsibilities.
Some
lawyers
at
small
firms
may
fear
being
slow
with
work,
but
lawyers
can
do
several
things
in
such
instances
to
productively
use
the
time.

Marketing

One
of
the
best
things
lawyers
at
small
firms
can
do
with
any
free
time
from
a
work
slowdown
is
to
focus
on
marketing
and
business
development.
Marketing
can
come
in
a
variety
of
different
forms,
including
social
media
posts
and
blogging
on
a
law
firm
website.
When
I
was
getting
my
firm
off
the
ground,
I
invested
considerable
time
on
blogging.
In
the
beginning,
I
blogged
on
a
pretty
consistent
basis,
but
as
I
got
busier
with
client
work,
I
would
only
devote
time
to
it
when
there
was
a
slowdown
with
work.
This
helped
me
fill
time
and
be
productive,
and
I
can
trace
a
decent
amount
of
business
I
originated
as
a
result
of
these
efforts.
Lawyers
at
small
firms
do
not
need
to
blog
like
I
did
when
filling
time
with
useful
tasks,
but
keeping
busy
with
activities
that
can
benefit
a
law
firm
is
a
good
use
of
slowdowns.

Networking

Lawyers
should
always
be
networking,
and
I
have
witnessed
some
lawyers
allow
their
contacts
to
grow
cold
since
they
did
not
invest
too
much
time
in
networking
during
busy
periods.
However,
networking
can
definitely
become
a
focus
of
lawyer
time
during
slow
periods
since
such
activity
can
lead
to
referrals
as
well
as
just
being
plain
fun.
When
I
am
slower
with
work,
I
am
much
more
likely
to
accept
invitations
to
network,
and
I
am
hungrier
for
new
business
development
leads.

Lawyers
typically
have
a
number
network
outlets.
Attorneys
can
network
with
alumni
communities
associated
with
their
college
and
law
school.
I
spend
the
vast
majority
of
my
networking
energy
in
that
way.
This
works
best
if
you
have
an 
existing
contact
with
someone
at
a
networking
event
rather
than
going
to
an
event
cold,
but
it
is
also
possible
to
create
new
connections
at
such
events.
I
have
also
networked
with
bar
associations,
but
I
find
that
such
events
are
not
as
good
at
making
business
development
contacts
since
it
seems
that
everyone
there
is
also
chasing
leads
to
generate
new
work.
Regardless
of
the
events
you
choose,
networking
can
be
an
extremely
beneficial
use
of
your
time
during
a
slowdown.

Administrative
Tasks

Many
attorneys
have
a
difficult
time
completing
administrative
tasks
when
they
are
busy
with
client
work
since
they
feel
that
their
energy
should
be
primarily
spent
on
generating
revenue.
Lawyers
may
even
put
off
critical
tasks
until
a
slowdown
that
permits
them
enough
time
to
focus
energy
on
administrative
activities.
A
slowdown
is
a
great
opportunity
to
clear
a
lawyer’s
desk
of
administrative
tasks.
At
the
beginning
of
every
new
year,
I
generally
wait
for
a
slowdown
before
completing
all
of
the
tax
activities
required
for
the
previous
year
so
that
I
complete
these
tasks
when
it
might
not
take
me
away
from
client
work.
This
requires
a
little
foresight,
but
slowdowns
can
be
helpful
to
lawyers
when
completing
administrative
tasks.

In
the
end,
pretty
much
every
lawyer
experiences
a
slowdown
in
their
practice,
and
extended
slowdowns
might
be
harmful.
However,
there
are
activities
lawyers
can
complete
during
brief
slowdowns
to
ensure
that
their
time
is
being
spent
productively.

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
have
been
countless
documentaries
and
true-crime
TV
series
made
about
the
Menendez
brothers
—
the
infamous
case
concerning
the
brutal
1989
slaying
of
Jose
and
Kitty
Menendez
by
their
sons,
Erik
and
Lyle,
in
their
Beverly
Hills
home.
The
brothers
were
convicted
of
murder
after
a
mistrial
and
have
been
imprisoned
for
decades,
and
a
great
number
of
analysts
and
experts
believe
that
the
Menendez
brothers
should
be
freed
—
even

would-be
lawyer
Kim
Kardashian
has

weighed
in
on
the
issue.
Now,
with
new
light
(and
new
evidence)
being
shined
on
the
case
after
all
these
years,
an
important
question
is
finally
being
asked:
Are
the
Menendez
brothers
truly
victims,
as
opposed
to
the
villains
they’ve
been
portrayed
as?

In
light
of
very
recent
resentencing
efforts,
the
answer
to
that
question
may
be
yes.

Los
Angeles
County
District
Attorney

George
Gascón
is
seeking
resentencing
for
Lyle
and
Erik,
and
filed
a
motion
yesterday
asking
that
the
brothers
be
resentenced
to
50
years
to
life.
They
are
currently
serving
life
sentences
without
the
possibility
of
parole.
Because
they
were
younger
than
26
when
they
killed
their
parents,
Gascón
says
that
if
a
judge
follows
his
resentencing
recommendation,
they
would
be
eligible
for
parole
immediately.

NBC
News
has
additional
details:

Gascón
said
his
recommendation
Thursday
for
resentencing
was
not
universally
backed.

“There
are
people
in
the
office
that
strongly
believe
that
the
Menendez
brothers
should
stay
in
prison
the
rest
of
their
life,
and
they
do
not
believe
that
they
were
molested,”
Gascón
said.

“And
there
are
people
in
the
office
that
strongly
believe
that
they
should
be
released
immediately
and
that
there
were
in
fact
molested.”

He
added,
“I
believe
that
they
have
paid
their
debt
to
society.”

In
his
resentencing
motion,
Gascón
noted
that
the
Menendez
brothers
no
longer
pose
a
public
safety
risk,
writing,
“When
Erik
and
Lyle
Menendez
were
sentenced
to
Life
Without
the
possibility
of
Parole
in
1996
their
sentences
were
aligned
with
what
was
considered
the
best
public
safety
practices.
What
is
considered
best
practices
for
public
safety,
however,
has
evolved.”

The
Menendez
brothers
alleged
innumerable
episodes
of
sexual
abuse
by
their
father
at
their
first
trial,
but
those
allegations
were
limited
at
their
second
trial.
Additional
allegations
of
sexual
abuse
have
also
been
presented
to
prosecutors.
From

NBC
News:

The
evidence
provided
to
Gascón’s
office
included
a
photocopy
of
a
letter
from
one
of
the
brothers
to
another
family
member
that
alleged
sexual
abuse,
Gascón
said.

Defense
attorneys
also
provided
evidence
that
one
of
the
members
of
the
Menudo
boy
band
alleged
he
was
sexually
abused
by
José
Menendez,
Gascón
said.

Roy
Rosselló,
a
member
of
the
pop
group
from
1983
to
1986,
said
on
the
2023
Peacock
series
“Menendez
+
Menudo:
Boys
Betrayed”
that
he
was
raped
by
José
Menendez,
who
was
then
an
executive
at
RCA.

The
Menendez
brothers
have
been
behind
bars
for
35
years
and
counting.
They
were
tried
at
a
time
when
the
sexual
abuse
of
boys
and
young
men
was
deeply
misunderstood
—
if
Lyla
and
Erika
Menendez
had
killed
their
parents
and
alleged
extended
periods
of
sexual
abuse,
they
would
never
have
been
sentenced
to
life
in
prison.
Times
have
changed,
and
people’s
compassion
for
victims
has
changed
along
with
it.

A
hearing
date
has
not
yet
been
scheduled,
but
Lyle
and
Erik’s
lawyer,

Mark
Geragos,
shared
words
of
hope
for
his
clients,
saying,
“Today
is
a
monumental,
monumental
victory
on
that
path
[toward
their
freedom.]”

DA
wants
Menendez
brothers
resentenced,
which
could
free
them
from
prison
for
parents’
murders
[NBC
News]

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.

There’s
a
natural
push
and
pull
between
students
and
the
administration
of
a
law
school.
Each
group
has
different
goals
and
needs,
and
the
most
successful
institutions
balance
those
competing
interests.
But,
according
to
a
student
petition
at
the
University
of
Chicago
Law,
the
administration
there
is
striking
a
terrible
balance.

This
year,
the
law
school
announced
a
new
policy
regarding
the
recordings
of
classes.
Students
can
only
get
recordings
in
the
following
circumstances:
(1)
observance
of
religious
holidays,
(2)
approved
disability
accommodations,
(3)
approved
Title
IX
accommodations,
and
(4)
when
two
make-up
classes
are
scheduled
at
the
same
time.

The

open
letter
—
signed
by
over
100
students
—
seeks
to
change
that
policy.
They’d
like
some
additional
exceptions
to
the
law
school’s
rather
strict
policy.
The
signatories
are
specifically
seeking
access
to
recorded
classes
(1)
during
medical
emergencies
and
illnesses,
(2)
during
extraordinary
personal
or
family
circumstances,
and
(3)
when
students
are
taking
mandatory
professional
examinations.

That
seems…
entirely
reasonable.
Listen,
I
am
incredibly
sympathetic
to
institutions
trying
to
prioritize
the
intangible
benefits
of
in-person
education/work/life
in
general.
But
this
strikes
me
as
a
bridge
too
far.
After
all,
the
ubiquity
of
recorded
classes
became
a
reality

because
of
the
COVID
pandemic.
Now
at
UChicago
Law
someone
who
has
COVID
cannot
access
the
recordings
of
the
classes
they
miss
because
of
the
disease.
Which,
in
turn,
encourages
high
achieving
students
(which
they
have
plenty
of
at
UChicago)
to
go
to
school
sick
and
spread
the
illness.
From
the
petition:

Already
this
year,
students
have
been
denied
access
to
class
recordings
after
contracting
COVID-19
or
other
illnesses,
and
one
student
was
denied
recordings
after
missing
a
week
of
class
due
to
emergency
surgery.
Failing
to
provide
recordings
for
medical
illness
unfairly
penalizes
students
for
missing
classes
due
to
circumstances
beyond
their
control,
and
places
undue
stress
on
students
when
their
focus
should
be
on
recovery.
This
policy
also
puts
the
larger
Law
School
community
at
risk
by
incentivizing
students
to
come
to
campus
while
sick
and
spreading
their
illness
to
others.

Students
should
not
be
forced
to
choose
between
keeping
themselves
and
the
Law
School
community
safe,
or
keeping
their
grades
up.

This
feels
very
through
the
looking
glass.
If
law
schools
didn’t
understand
the
benefits
of
limiting
COVID
exposures
there
wouldn’t
be
classroom
recordings.
This
should
be
a
no-brainer.
Honestly,
so
are
the
other
exceptions
students
are
seeking.
Why
shouldn’t
someone
dealing
with
a
family
emergency
or
taking
the
MPRE
be
able
to
listen
to
a
class
recording?
It
doesn’t
diminish
the
quality
of
a
law
school’s
legal
education
to
show
the
bare
minimum
of
compassion
for
their
students.
Something
the
petition
notes
many
of
UChicago
Law’s
peer
school
do.

The
Law
School
has
insisted
on
maintaining
a
strict
recording
policy,
despite
the
fact
that
its
peer
institutions
have
rejected
such
an
unforgiving,
regressive
approach.


Harvard
Law
School

explicitly
allows
access
to
class
recordings
for
all
of
the
reasons
stated
in
this
letter:
severe
illness
and
medical
emergencies,
personal
emergencies,
and
professional
examinations.


Columbia
Law
School

directs
instructors
to
support
sick
students,
including
by
providing
access
to
recordings.


UC
Berkeley
School
of
Law

allows
class
recordings
to
be
created
“[d]uring
emergencies
and
disasters.”


Northwestern
Pritzker
School
of
Law

tells
students
to
listen
to
course
recordings
if
they
“miss
class
for
a
legitimate
reason.”
And
several
other
law
schools
(including


Yale
Law
School,


Stanford
Law
School,
and


Duke
School
of
Law)
permit
professors
to
record
classes
when
requested
by
students.

This
seems
like
a
pretty
easy
way
to
support
students.
It’s
hard
to
understand
why
the
law
school
is
dragging
its
heels.
Above
the
Law
reached
out
to
UChicago
Law
for
comment,
but
they
did
not
immediately
provide
one.

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].

Ed.
Note:

A
weekly
roundup
of
just
a
few
items
from
Howard
Bashman’s

How
Appealing
blog,
the
Web’s
first
blog
devoted
to
appellate
litigation.
Check
out
these
stories
and
more
at
How
Appealing.

“Trump
Seeks
to
Challenge
Jack
Smith’s
Appointment
in
Election
Case;
The
former
president’s
request
to
file
a
new
motion
contesting
how
the
special
counsel
got
his
job
came
on
the
same
day
he
vowed
to
fire
him
if
re-elected”: Alan
Feuer
of
The
New
York
Times
has this
report.

“Abortion
Pills
Are
Safe.
Post-Roe
America
Isn’t.” Chavi
Eve
Karkowsky
has this
guest
essay online
at
The
New
York
Times.

“Maine
Supreme
Judicial
Court
justice
violated
ethical
code,
committee
says;
A
judicial
conduct
panel
is
recommending
that
Justice
Catherine
Connors,
a
former
private
attorney
who
represented
banks,
be
sanctioned
for
not
recusing
herself
from
2
cases
that
upended
the
state’s
foreclosure
process”: Hannah
LaClaire
of
The
Portland
Press
Herald
has this
report.

“Supreme
Court
‘friends’
leave
justices
more
questions
than
answers;
Interactions
with
the
justices
are
few
and
far
between
but
just
about
anyone
can
inject
their
opinion
into
the
latest
Supreme
Court
legal
battle
set
to
shape
decades
of
American
life”: Kelsey
Reichmann
of
Courthouse
News
Service
has this
report.

“Fifth
Circuit
Divide
Sees
Bush
Judges
Check
Trump
Appointees;
Bush
appointees
thwart
some
legal
review
sought
by
Trump
judges;
They
act
as
key
votes
on
conservative
court”: Jacqueline
Thomsen
of
Bloomberg
Law
has this
report.

“Ohio
ban
on
most
abortions
ruled
unconstitutional
after
voters
approve
ballot
measure”: Jessie
Balmert
of
The
Cincinnati
Enquirer
has this
report.

If
you’re
a
Biglaw
associate
in
the
fall
of
2024,
two
things
are
probably
true:
(i)
you’re
billing
your
life
away
while
considering
if
a
lateral
move
is
right
for
you
while
the
market
is
still
hot,
and
(ii)
you’re
eagerly
awaiting
news
of
your
bonus,
which
may
be
right
around
the
corner.

To
kick
off
our
coverage,
we’re
asking
you
to
take
this
(always)
confidential,
(always)
brief
survey
to
share
your
thoughts
on
the
upcoming
bonus
season.
And
if
you’d
like
to
stay
on
top
of
any
changes
this
bonus
season,
enter
your
email
below
to
sign
up
for
our
free
bonus
alerts.

And
as
a
little
reminder,
we
love
covering
the
Biglaw
bonus
season,
but
we
need
your
help.
As
soon
as
your
firm’s
bonus
memo
comes
out,
please

email
us
(subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Bonus”).
We
always
keep
our
sources
on
bonus
stories
anonymous.
There’s
no
need
to
send
the
memo
using
your
firm
email
account;
your
personal
email
account
is
fine.
Please
be
sure
to
include
the
memo
as
proof;
we
like
to
post
complete
bonus
memos
as
a
service
to
our
readers.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
attach
as
a
picture
if
you
are
worried
about
metadata
in
a
PDF
or
Word
file.

Don’t
forget,
if
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Bonus
Alerts,
please
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below.
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
—
including,
of
course,
the
first
such
announcement.

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.

Enter
your
email
address
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s

Bonus
&
Salary
Increase
Alerts.

Sometimes,
people
who

think they
know
things
about
defamation pursue
their own lawsuits,
making
fools
of
themselves
because
they
so
very
firmly
believe anything said
about
them that
they
don’t
like must be
libel.

Then
there
are
the
lawyers
who
do
the
same
thing.
They
should
know
better.
Even
if
they
don’t
specialize
in
defamation
law
or
First
Amendment
issues,
they
must
be
aware
of
the
general
principles.
Presumably,
this
sort
of
thing
is
addressed
during
their
years
at
law
school
and
some
aspects
must
be
part
of
testing
required
to
pass
the
bar
exam.

And
yet,
certain
lawyers
act
as
though
they’ve
never
heard
of
defamation
law
and
handle
it
like
the
most
ill-informed
of
laypeople.
They
forge
ahead
with
libel
lawsuits
where
their
only
argument
is
that
they
think it
must
be
actionable that
someone
else
said
mean
things
about
them.

This
case
involves
public
actions
by
a
real
estate
firm
that
followed
public
actions
taken
by
a
judge
against
the
lawyer-turned-litigant
in
a
prior
civil
case.
(via Courthouse
News
Service)
Here
are
the
facts
according
to
the
judge,
which,
ironically
enough,
happen
to
be
the same facts
attorney
Brett
Soloway
felt
he
needed
to
sue
over
after
they
were
reported
publicly.

Soloway
used
to
work
for
real
estate
giant
Cushman
and
Wakefield.
He
served
as
general
counsel
from
2014
to
2023
for
the
real
estate
firm.
While
still
employed
by
Cushman
and
Wakefield,
the
company
was
subpoenaed
by
the
New
York
Attorney
General
to
produce
documents
related
to
the
AG’s
fraud
case
against
the
Trump
Organization.

Cushman
and
Wakefield
was
less
than
fully
compliant,
leading
to
a
a
bit
of
benchslap
from
the
judge
and
a
contempt
of
court
order
for
failing
to
respond
to
the
subpoena.
This
happened
in
2022,
while
Brett
Soloway
was
still
employed
as
the
firm’s
general
counsel.
Seven
months
later,
Soloway
resigned
and
Cushman
issued
a
press
release
announcing
the
arrival
of
its
new
general
counsel.

The
day
after
that,
Law.com
journalist
Hugo
Guzman published
an
article that
delivered
several
factual
facts
about
Soloway’s
exit,
the
firm’s
entanglement
in
the
Trump
Organization
prosecution,
and
the
seemingly
apparent
connection
between
the
contempt
order
and
the
unexpected
exit
of
the
firm’s
general
counsel.
These
facts
—
bullet-pointed
in
the
federal
court decision [PDF]
—
form
the
basis
of
Soloway’s
(unfounded)
defamation
claims.

The
subheadline
read,
“The
real
estate
services
giant
says
it
has
hired
former
Archer
Daniels
Midland
attorney
Noelle
Perkins
as
legal
chief.
It
didn’t
explain
the
departure
of
GC
Brett
Soloway,
who
has
been
removed
from
the
company’s
website.”

An
introductory
section
was
titled
“What
You
Need
to
Know”
and
referenced,
in
bullet
points,
Cushman’s
“long-standing
relationship
with
the
Trump
Organization,”
the
“deluge”
of
subpoenas
Cushman
had
received
from
the
New
York
Attorney
General,
the
July
2022
contempt
holding,
and
the
later
lifting
of
the
contempt
holding.

The
first
paragraph
noted
that
Cushman
“replaced”
plaintiff
as
general
counsel
in
“a
move
that
c[ame]
eight
months
after
a
judge
found
the
company
in contempt
of
court
for
not
complying
with
subpoenas
in
New
York
Attorney
General
Letitia
James’
Donald
Trump
investigation.”

The
second
paragraph
identified
plaintiff’s
successor;
noted
that
Cushman’s
press
release
announcing
her
appointment
“made
no
reference
to
[plaintiff],
who
had
been
general
counsel
for
nine
years”;
and
added
that
“[h]is
bio
was
removed
from
the
company’s
website.”

The
third
paragraph
claimed
that
“Cushman
did
not
respond
to
requests
for
comment,
and
[plaintiff]
could
not
be
located
for
comment.”

The
rest
of
the
article
detailed
Cushman’s
role
in
the
Trump
Organization
litigation;
its
response
to
the
contempt
holding,
including
a
statement
from
a
Cushman
spokesman
that
“the
firm
‘disagrees
with
any
suggestion
that
the
firm
has
not
exercised
diligence
and
good
faith
in
complying
with
the
court’s
order’”;
the
contempt
holding’s
eventual
reversal
(accompanied
by
a
hyperlink
to
a
more
detailed
article
on
that
development);
and
the
professional
background
of
Cushman’s
new
general
counsel.

The
decision
also
notes
the
reporter
didn’t
contact
either
Soloway
or
his
former
employer
before
going
to
publication.
I
don’t
note
this
because
it
means
anything
in
terms
of
defamation.
I
only
note
it
because
it’s
something
lots
of
spurious
defamation
lawsuits
tend
to
claim
are
smoking
guns
of
actual
malice,
when
there’s
absolutely
nothing
in
defamation
law
precedent
that
has
ever
demanded
journalists
offer
subjects
of
coverage
an
opportunity
to
comment
before
going
to
press.
It’s
a
stupid
thing
to
assert
in
court.
It’s
not
much
better
than
the
court
decided
to
add
this
meaningless
sentence
to
its
decision
which
finds
firmly
in
favor
of
the
Law.com
reporter.

Four
months
after
publication,
ex-GC
Brett
Soloway
sent
a
letter
to
Law.com
demanding
the
article
be
retracted.
Law.com
refused
to
do
so.
However,
it
did
make
some
alterations
to
the
original
article
to
soften
some
of
the
language
but
without
undercutting
any
of
its
original
inferences.
It
simply
noted
the
real
estate
firm
had
refused
to
comment
publicly
on
the
reasons
for
Soloway’s
exit
and
replacement.

That
didn’t
satisfy
Soloway,
who
insisted
—
in
court
—
that
the
original
and
altered
article
had
“prevented
him
from
working
with
recruiters
and
securing
employment”
because
Guzman’s
post
“falsely
claimed”
he
was
“fired
for
his
job
performance….
in
a
highly
publicized
New
York
case
involving
Trump.”

But,
of
course,
the
article
—
even
in
its
original
form
—
never
made
that
claim.
It
simply
said
Soloway
had
resigned,
had
been
replaced,
and
that
these
events
had
happened
a
few
months
after
the
real
estate
firm
had
been
hit
with
a
contempt
order
for
failing
to
comply
with
the
New
York
AG’s
subpoenas
in
the
Trump
case.

The
court
is
left
with
the
unenviable
task
of
patiently
explaining
in
small-ish
words
concepts
a
long-term
lawyer
should
already
know
and
understand.

Plaintiff
takes
great
issue
with
the
headline’s
use
of
the
phrase
“in
the
wake
of.”
According
to
plaintiff,
the
phrase
can
be
read
only
to
mean
“because
of”
and,
as
a
result,
the
headline
can
only
be
understood
as
stating
that
plaintiff
left
Cushman
“because
of”
his
performance
with
respect
to
the
Trump
Organization
litigation.

Read
as
a
whole,
however,
the
April
2023
article
contextualizes
plaintiff’s
exit
from
Cushman
within
the
firm’s
latest
legal
and
personnel
developments.
It
accurately
describes
plaintiff’s
professional
background,
Cushman’s
relationship
with
the
Trump
Organization,
the
events
that
led
to
the
contempt
holding,
the
overturning
of
the
contempt
holding,
plaintiff’s
exit
from
Cushman
eight
months
later,
his
nonappearance
in
Cushman’s
press
release
and
on
Cushman’s
website,
and
the
professional
background
of
Cushman’s
new
general
counsel.

In
fact,
plaintiff
is
only
mentioned
in
the
first
three
paragraphs
of
the
13-paragraph
article.
Even
if
a
reader
were
to
understand
the
headline
to
imply
that
plaintiff
was
fired
because
of
the
contempt
holding,
that
misconception
would
be
cured
once
the
reader
read
the
actual
article
and
learned
that
Cushman
publicly
defended
the
manner
in
which
its
attorneys
responded
to
the
subpoenas
in
the
Trump
Organization
litigation;
the
initial
contempt
holding
was
later
set
aside
by
another
court;
and
after
it
was
set
aside,
plaintiff
departed
Cushman
for
unannounced
reasons.

Just
because
you
—
the
allegedly
injured
person
—
can
construe
innocent
construction
to
be
something
far
more
nefarious subjectively doesn’t
mean
you
have
an
actionable
case.
What
you
have
is
some
hurt
feelings,
a
vague
sense
of
injustice,
and
the
desire
to
make
other
people
pay
for
imagined
slights
that
probably
have
little
to
nothing
to
do
with
your
inability
to
immediately
find
work
that
pays
you
as
handsomely
as
a
general
counsel
position
at
large
real
estate
firm.

While
the
plaintiff/lawyer
might
be
able
to
make
factual
reporting
sound
like
actionable
disparagement,
the
court
isn’t
willing
to
turn
his
inferential
extrapolations
into
a
plausible
defamation
lawsuit.

[P]laintiff’s
interpretation
requires
a
reader
to
make
several
linguistic
and
logical
leaps:
that
“replaced”
really
meant
“removed”;
that
“in
the
wake
of”
really
meant
“because
of”;
that
“rebuke”
really
meant
“contempt
holding”;
that
because
plaintiff’s
departure
was
not
explained
in
Cushman’s
news
release
and
his
biography
was
unavailable
on
Cushman’s
website,
he
must
have
left
on
bad
terms;
that
because
he
left
on
bad
terms,
he
must
have
been
fired;
that
because
the
article
discussed
the
contempt
holding,
the
contempt
holding
must
have
instigated
his
firing;
and
that
because
he
was
fired,
he
must
have
performed
poorly
in
his
job.
None
of
these
implications
are
spelled
out
in
the
article
and
instead
require
plaintiff’s
extensive
annotations
to
follow.

The
court
does
give
this
aggrieved
but
extremely
incorrect
lawyer
a
chance
to
amend
his
lawsuit.
But
not
with
an
eye
on
re-establishing
any
defamation per
se allegations.
He
can
go
for
the
longer
defamation per
quod shot
if
he
feels
it’s
worth
it
—
a
legal
standard
that
allows
some
outside
information
to
be
considered
as
part
of
the
allegedly-defamatory
whole
—
but
it
doesn’t
say
anything
that
even
remotely
suggests
this
will
be
less
of
a
waste
of
time
than
his
original
lawsuit.

Brett
Soloway
is,
of
course,
free
to
continue
spending
his
own
time
and
money
trying
to
sue
Guzman
for
his
truthful
reporting.
And
that’s
unfortunate,
because
it
means
Guzman
must
spend
his
own
time
and
money
defending
against
himself
against
this
bullshit
lawsuit.
Once
again,
it’s
far
past
time
to
pass
a
federal
anti-SLAPP
law,
which,
at
the
very
least,
would
double
Soloway’s
losses
by making
him
pay the
journalist
for
wasting
his
time.

Federal
Court
Tells
Lawyer
Something
He
Already
Should
Know:
Facts
Aren’t
Defamation

More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:

Prosecutors
In
Washington
State
Tell
Cops
They’d
Better
Not
Be
Using
AI
To
Write
Their
Reports

Elon’s
Demands
For
Media
Matters’
Donor
Details
Hits
A
Surprising
Hurdle:
Fifth
Circuit
Says
‘Not
So
Fast’

24,000
Abandoned
Redbox
DVD
Rental
Kiosks
Are
Leaking
Sensitive
Customer
Information

*
“Would
you
like
e.
Coli
with
that?”
McDonald’s
lawsuits
begin.
[

Law360]

*
Trump
says
that
if
elected
he’d
fire
Jack
Smith
in
least
surprising
news
dump.
[ABA
Journal]

*
Despite
progress,
convincing
lawyers
to
buy
in
to
technology
remains
a
challenge.
Never
mind,
that
might
actually
be
the
least
surprising
news
dump.
[Law.com
International]

*
Court
blocks
acquisition
that
would’ve
further
consolidated
the
handbag
market.
[Reuters]

*
Judgment
insurance
market
suffers
another
loss…
which
will
happen
when
insurance
companies
just
start
gambling.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
“Constitutional
sheriffs”
—
local
officials
who
claim
their
office
grants
them
the
power
to
unilaterally
override
all
the
rest
of
the
federalist
system
described
in
the
Constitution
have
spent
the
last
four
years
building
ties
with
the
election
denial
movement.
[WIRED]

*
Company
charges
big
bucks
for
paralegal
training
and
some
students
aren’t
impressed.
[Roll
on
Friday]

Speaking
to
the
ZANU
PF
Central
Committee,
Mnangagwa
urged
members
to
guard
against
infiltration
while
ensuring
they
strictly
follow
the
party’s
Constitution.
He
said:

We
must
always
guard
against
infiltration
and
waywardness
within
party
structures.
We
need
to
address
abuses
decisively
without
abandoning
our
structures.
Hidden
agendas
create
such
abuses.

The
solution
to
challenges,
for
example
within
the
DCC,
is
not
to
dismantle
the
structure
but
to
correct
the
issues
through
strict
adherence
to
the
party
Constitution,
rules,
and
procedures.

As
a
key
decision-making
body
of
our
party,
ZANU
PF,
it
is
our
responsibility
as
the
Central
Committee
to
ensure
that
all
members
stay
on
the
right
path.

Mnangagwa’s
calls
for
party
members
to
respect
the
Constitution
seem
insincere,
especially
since
he
hasn’t
condemned
influential
figures
like
Midlands
Provincial
Affairs
Minister
Owen
Mudha
Ncube
and
Local
Government
Minister
Daniel
Garwe.

These
officials
have
called
for
an
extension
of
his
term,
even
though
the
Constitution
limits
presidents
to
two
terms.

In
Masvingo
Province,
there
have
been
calls
for
Mnangagwa
to
stay
in
power
beyond
2028
when
he
will
finish
his
two
terms.

The
slogan
“ED
2030”
was
first
heard
in
Masvingo
and
is
now
commonly
used
at
ZANU
PF
meetings
across
the
country.

Mnangagwa’s
warnings
come
as
reports
indicate
growing
divisions
within
ZANU
PF.
Allegedly,
one
group
supports
his
2030
agenda,
while
another
backs
Vice
President
Constantino
Chiwenga.

Meanwhile,
Job
Sikhala,
the
Chairperson
of
the
National
Democratic
Working
Group
(NDWG),
has
advised
Zimbabweans
to
avoid
getting
involved
in
ZANU
PF’s
internal
conflicts.
Said
Sikhala:

ZANU
PF’s
infighting
should
be
observed
from
a
distance.
Let
them
battle
each
other.
I
caution
every
Zimbabwean
to
be
careful
not
to
be
used
again,
as
happened
in
2017.

The
masses
took
to
the
streets
in
November
2017,
believing
they
were
removing
Mugabe
for
their
benefit,
only
to
be
told
by
Patrick
Chinamasa
that
it
was
a
ZANU
PF
issue.

Post
published
in:

Featured