Author: TSA Press

If
you’re
planning
to
take
the
upcoming
California
bar
exam,
congratulations!
You’re
part
of
a
grand
tradition
of
applicants
thrown
into
chaos
by
that
state’s
unique
blend
of
poor
planning,
bureaucratic
dithering,
and
a
near-mystical
ability
to
make
a
bad
situation
worse.

On
that
last
count,
remember
that
the
upcoming,
outside
administered
test
is
the
product
of
the
California
bar
exam
hemorrhaging
money
like
a
midlevel
associate
buying
rounds
at
a
summer
event.
With
this
crackerjack
budgeting,
the
bar
examiners
managed
—
surprisingly
but
somehow
also
predictably
—
to
drive
the
program
bankrupt.
Rather
than
immediately
seek
a
solution,
they

waited
until

close
to
the
last
minute,
only
to
have
state
bar
authorities
and
the
California
Supreme
Court
dither
long
enough
that
it

crossed

well
beyond
the
last
minute
to
produce
the
chaotic
mess
we’re
in
now.

In
a
vacuum,
the
decision
to
transition
to
a
test
produced
by
Kaplan
and
then
administered
by
Meazure
Learning
is
sound.
Kaplan
has
a
solid
track
record
in
bar
exam
prep
and
that
includes
writing
sample
questions
that
reliably
reflect
exam
success.
And
most
if
not
all
of
the
California
bar
exam’s
problems

could
be
traced
to
its
relationship
with
previous
bar
exam
author,
the
National
Conference
of
Bar
Examiners
—
a
non-profit
with
roughly $151
MILLION
in
net
assets.
Not
only
did
the
NCBE
charge
big
fees,
but
it
imposed
rules
upon
state
exams
that
stifled
remote
testing
locations
in
favor
of
massive
venues,
which
in
California
resulted
in
huge
rental
charges.
 

And
yet,
we
do
not
live
in
a
vacuum.
A
transition
of
this
magnitude
needed
a
year
(or
two)
lead
time.
Instead,
it
got
about
five
months.

Tipsters
report
remote
applicants
unable
to
successfully
take
mock
exams
and
left
with
no
sense
that
a
real
one
will
even
work.
Not
that
things
worked
much
better
for
the
in-person
examinees.
The
in-person
exam
portal
wasn’t
even
functioning
when
it
was
supposed
to
open.
Even
when
the
online
system
works,
there
are
accommodation
concerns,
as
users
can’t
adjust
font
sizes
for
the
essay
box.
So
far,
reports
suggest
the
California
bar
is
mostly
rejecting
those
requesting
paper
copies
of
the
exam
for
accommodation
reasons.

But
we
might
be
getting
ahead
of
ourselves…
one
applicant
wrote
ATL,
“we
don’t
yet
know
where
we
are
taking
the
exam.”
Why
worry
about
the
in-person
exam
portal
when
applicants
don’t
even
know
WHERE
they’re
taking
the
in-person
test?
A

Reddit
post
goes
further,
claiming
that
Meazure
“lied
about
having
several
locations
which
led
people
to
pick
in
person
because
they
thought
it
would
be
close
to
home.”

Another
notes,
“…it’s
entirely
unforeseeable
to
me
that
the
convention
center
is
the
only
option
when
Meazure
Learning
boasts
that
they
have
1000+
testing
locations….”

Getting
out
of
giant
convention
centers
was
one
of
the
primary
selling
points
of
this
plan!
Applicants
are
reporting
that
more
convenient
locations
like
Anaheim
and
Long
Beach
have
disappeared
since
they
first
chose
to
take
the
test
in-person.
Instead,
everyone
in
LA
has
to
go
to
Ontario,
which
is…
not
LA.
I’m
not
even
sure
LA
residents
consider
it
in
the
same
time
zone.

There
are
also
concerns
about
Meazure’s
proctoring,
with
complaints
that
applicants
were
unable
to
complete
the
exam
in
time
or
had
to
wait
hours
to
take
the
mock
exam
and
some
were
kicked
out
of
the
exam
randomly
with
no
explanation.
Meanwhile,
multiple
applicants
say
help
is
impossible
to
find
with
the
California
officials
directing
everyone
to
Meazure
Learning
and
Meazure
directing
everyone
to
California.

Thousands
of
applicants
took
part
in
a
recent
Q&A
session
with
bar
officials,
hoping
for
clarity.
They
do
not
seem
to
have
gotten
it.
Posts
complain
that
the
admins,
who
presumably
had

one
job
—
explain
how
this
test
will
work
—
couldn’t
even
answer
basic
questions
like
what
applicants
are
allowed
to
bring
to
the
exam.

One
tipster
delivered
an
understatement:

“Does
not
feel
well
thought
thru.”

All
of
this
frustration
is
justified,
but
this
rage
shouldn’t
be
limited
to
this
transition
effort…
it
always
sucks
like
this.

The
new
system
promised
more
flexibility
for
in-person
administration
and
seems
to
have,
so
far,
failed.
But
this
just
puts
them
right
back
where
they
would
be
if
they
hadn’t
made
any
changes
at
all.
And

examinees
would
be
suffering
through
freezing
conditions
because
no
one
figured
out
how
to
properly
heat
a
stadium.

Proctoring
issues?
Remember
when
they
ran
an
online
exam
during
COVID
and

decided
to
arbitrarily
flag

one-third
of
applicants
for
cheating?
The
facial
recognition
software
used
by
the
bar
seemed
to
think
“suspicious
behavior”
meant

being
a
human
person
sitting
for
a
test.
Some
applicants
were
flagged
for
looking
away
from
the
screen,
others
for
being
too
quiet
—
which
is
an
odd
standard
to
apply
when
the
exam
instructions
explicitly
tell
you

not
to
make
noise.
And
what
did
the
bar
do?
Rather
than
investigating
the
false
positives
themselves,
they
threw
the
burden
on
the
applicants
to
“prove”
they
weren’t
cheating.

While
saving
money
was
the
impetus
for
the
bar
examiners
making
the
change,
we
welcomed
the
move
it
because
the
previous
system
was
so
thoroughly
broken.
The
issues
might
have
been
slightly
different,
but
the
impact
on
applicants
was
nonetheless
inhumane.
That
doesn’t
justify
what’s
happening
to
the
current
test-takers
but
when
angry
applicants
post
demands
to
undo
the
transition,
bear
in
mind
that
the
prior
system
wasn’t
great
either.

Instead
of
blasting
the
new
guard
and
implicitly
pining
for
the
past,
the
pressure
needs
to
be
on
the
California
authorities
who
allowed
it
to
get
to
this
point.
Why
was
this
done
in
less
than
half
a
year?
Why
didn’t
state
authorities
or
the
courts
either
think
ahead
or
develop
a
contingency
for
being
late?
Once
this
got
pushed
to
the
wall,
why
wasn’t
there
an
emergency
appropriation
to
let
the
test
continue
running
in
the
red
while
the
transition
got
smoothed
out?

This
whole
mess
could
have
been
avoided
if
the
bar
had
planned
ahead
instead
of
waiting
until
financial
ruin
forced
their
hand.
If
they’d
transitioned
to
new
providers
over

years
instead
of

months,
they
might
have
actually
pulled
this
off.
Frankly,
while
it’s
cold
comfort
to
the
current
applicants,
the
new
providers
still
might
successfully
pull
this
off…

Next
February.

---

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.

We
have
some
incredibly
unfortunate
news
to
report
out
of
the
Washington,
D.C.,
legal
community,
where
a
two
boutique
law
firm
associates
and
a
law
school
professor
recently
passed
away. 

According
to
news
reports,

Sarah
Lee
Best,
33,
and

Elizabeth
Keys,
33,
both
associates
of
Wilkinson
Stekloff,
and

Kiah
Duggins,
30,
an
aspiring
professor
at
Howard
University
School
of
Law,
are
among
the
victims
of
the
American
Airlines
flight
that
collided
midair
with
an
Army
helicopter
in
Washington,
D.C.,
on
Wednesday
evening.

Best
and
Keys
were
returning
home
from
a
work
trip.
Best,
a

summa
cum
laude
graduate
of
the
University
of
Pennsylvania
Law
School,
clerked
for
three
federal
judges
(Judge
Eugene
E.
Siler
Jr.
on
the
U.S.
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Sixth
Circuit;
U.S.
District
Judge
Paul
S.
Diamond
of
the
Eastern
District
of
Pennsylvania;
and
U.S.
District
Judge
John
P.
Cronan
of
the
Southern
District
of
New
York)
prior
to
joining
Wilkinson
Stekloff.
Keys,
a
graduate
of
the
Georgetown
University
Law
Center,
clerked
for
one
federal
judge
(U.S.
District
Judge
Amy
Berman
Jackson
of
the
District
of
Columbia)
before
joining
Wilkinson
Stekloff.
Keys
tragically
died
on
her
birthday.

As
noted
by
the

National
Law
Journal,
founder
Beth
Wilkinson
offered
a
statement
on
behalf
of
the
firm:

Duggins,
a
graduate
of
Harvard
Law
School,
worked
as
a
civil
rights
attorney
with
the
non-profit
Civil
Rights
Corps
where
she
challenged
unconstitutional
policing
and
bail
practices,
and
was
preparing
to
join
the
Howard
University
School
of
Law
in
the
fall
as
a
professor.
University
President
Ben
Vison
III
issued
a
statement
on
her
untimely
death,
per

CBS
News:

It
is
with
profound
sadness
that
the
Howard
University
community
and
the
Howard
University
School
of
Law
have
learned
of
the
passing
of
Professor
Kiah
Duggins,
who
was
among
those
lost
in
the
mid-air
plane
collision
at
Reagan
National
Airport.
We
ask
for
privacy
and
respect
for
Professor
Duggins’
family,
students,
and
colleagues
during
this
difficult
time.

We
here
at
Above
the
Law
would
like
to
extend
our
condolences
to
the
family,
friends,
and
colleagues
of
Sarah
Lee
Best,
Elizabeth
Keys,
and
Kiah
Duggins
during
this
incredibly
difficult
time.

Two
Wilkinson
Stekloff
Associates
Among
Victims
of
DC
Plane
Crash
[National
Law
Journal]

Howard
University
Law
professor
among
victims
of
D.C.
plane
crash
[CBS
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 Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

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.

“Arkansas
Supreme
Court
chief
justice
says
dispute
over
her
authority
could
lead
to
litigation;
Baker
again
says
she
hopes
to
pick
new
Administrative
Office
of
the
Courts
director”: Tess
Vrbin
of
Arkansas
Advocate
has this
report.

“President
Trump
expects
to
end
birthright
citizenship
with
support
from
Supreme
Court”: Bart
Jansen
of
USA
Today
has this
report.

“Kim
Davis’
lawyer
eager
for
next
step
as
he
argues
same-sex
marriage
case
before
appeals
panel”: Sarah
Ladd
of
Kentucky
Lantern
has this
report.

“Donna
Adelson
gives
surprise
testimony
about
jailhouse
talk
and
family
‘blackmail’”: Jeff
Burlew
of
The
Tallahassee
Democrat
has this
report.

“Justice
Jackson
punches
out
her
frustrations
with
the
conservative
Supreme
Court
in
the
boxing
ring”: Mark
Sherman
and
Lindsay
Whitehurst
of
The
Associated
Press
have this
report.

“Atlanta
family
in
mistaken
FBI
raid
gets
case
before
U.S.
Supreme
Court;
Ruling
could
set
national
precedent
in
cases
against
the
federal
government
and
its
employees”: Rosie
Manins
of
The
Atlanta
Journal-Constitution
has this
report.

Ah,
Steve
King.
Not
the
famed
author
of
horror
fiction,
of
course.
I’m
talking
about
the
former
representative
from
Iowa
who
authored all
kinds
of
political
horror,
instead.
This
fucking
guy
was
perhaps
best
known
for
wanting
a
fence
on
our
southern
border
to
be
of the
electrified
variety,
for
keeping a
Confederate
flag
on
his
desk despite
Iowa
never
being
in
the
Confederacy,
and
for
all
of
the barely-veiled
racism and
anti-Muslim
bigotry
you
can
stomach.

He
also
committed
copyright
infringement,
according
to
the
courts.
Or,
rather,
his
campaign
did
when
it
put
out
a
Facebook
post
using
the
“Success
Kid”
meme
in
order
to
raise
funds,
promising
to
keep
the
memes
flowing
so
as
to
best
trigger
the
libs.

Now,
you
will
notice
that
the
post
makes
what
is
essentially
a non-transformative
use of
the
famous
“Success
Kid”
meme.
That
image
is
also
registered
for
copyright
by
the
mother
of
the
boy
in
the
image,
Laney
Griner.
Griner
threatened
to
sue
and
eventually
did
so,
ultimately
winning
in
court.

Now,
we
cast
fairly
narrow
eyes
at
this
whole
thing.
Griner
was
very
public
that
she
took
action
against
King
not
primarily
out
of
respect
for
copyright
law,
but
because
she
rightly
found
King
to
be
an
abhorrent
person
and
didn’t
want
her
or
her
son
to
be
associated
with
his
campaign.
That
isn’t
a
great
look
in
general
for
the
way
copyright
law
is
supposed
to
work
(it’s
about
protecting
the
work,
not
suppressing
specific
types
of
speech,
even
abhorrent
speech)
but
it
does
help
to
explain
some
of
Griner’s
actions
during
the
court
proceedings.
In
particular,
while
she
sued
for
$50k,
King
offered
to
settle
for
$15k.
Griner refused
and
ultimately
instead
won
$750 in
damages.
No,
I’m
not
missing
a
“k”
in
there.
This
was
a
three-figure
outcome.

But
that
doesn’t
account
for
legal
fees,
which
both
sides
attempted
to
recover.
Both
were
rejected
by
the
court.
King
appealed
that
ruling,
with
the
appeal
making
all
kinds
of
claims
defending
his
use
of
the
meme
that
his
own
legal
team
had
already
conceded
in
court.
Then
King
attempted
to
cite Rule
68
of
the
Federal
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure.
That
failed
spectacularly
as
well.

Under
Rule
68,
if
one
party
declines
a
pre-trial
settlement
offer
and
later
receives
a
judgment
smaller
than
that
amount,
the
side
that
rejected
the
settlement
“must
pay
the
costs
incurred
after
the
offer
was
made.”
King
argued
on
appeal
that
attorney’s
fees
are
part
of
those
costs.
But
the
Eighth
Circuit
held
that
the
campaign
“cannot
recover
attorney’s
fees
because
it
is
not
a
prevailing
party.
Under
the
Copyright
Act,
only
prevailing
parties
may
be
awarded
a
reasonable
attorney’s
fee.”

Not
willing
to
take
no
for
an
answer,
but
apparently
very
willing
to
continue
to
pile
up
legal
fees,
King
then
petitioned
SCOTUS
to
hear
the
case
for
those
legal
fees.
He
chiefly
cited
Rule
68
again,
whereas
Griner’s
team
pointed
out
that
this
whole
thing
had
originally
been
decided
on
summary
judgment.
SCOTUS,
unsurprisingly,
declined
to
hear
the
case,
sending
King
packing.

In
comments
since
SCOTUS’
rejection,
King
demonstrates
that
he
hasn’t
changed
one
bit
since
leaving
Congress.

The
way
in
which
we
won
the
case
allowed
us
to
potentially
recover
our
attorneys’
fees
from
the
Plaintiffs.
Our
litigation
team
found
a
silver
bullet
for
lawfare,
but
the
trial
court
refused
to
implement
Rule
68,
under
the
opinion
that
it
could
not
do
so. 

This
is
a
shame
because
the
solution
to
lawfare
may
not
be
passing
new
laws,
but
rather
utilizing
relatively
unused
rules
already
in
existence.
 

In
summary,
the
picture
at
issue
had
been
used
billions
of
times.
I
was
targeted
by
Leftist
copyright
trolls
who
through
the
use
of
lawfare
sought
to
drain
me
of
my
life
savings,
time
and
credibility.
I
will
always
wonder
if
the
jury
award
would
have
been
$1.00
if
the
law
would
have
allowed
it. 

He didn’t win
the
case,
Rule
68
doesn’t
apply
because
copyright
law
says
so,
and
if
he
had
just
let
the
summary
judgment
stand,
this
case
would
have
been
far
less
expensive
for
him
than
it
ended
up
being.

In
other
words,
the
only
one
that
appears
to
want
to
drain
Kings’
life
saving
is
King.
Somehow
I
don’t
think
he’s
quite
reached
the
need
for
those
foodstamps
he
wanted
to
defund
just
yet.

SCOTUS
Tells
Steve
King
To
Go
Away
In
‘Success
Kid’
Case
Over
Legal
Fees

More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:

The
Trump
FCC
Makes
It
Easier
For
Your
Landlord
And
Your
ISP
To
Collude
To
Rip
You
Off

M.
Night
Shyamalan,
Apple
Evade
Copyright
Lawsuit
By
Filmmaker
For
The
Most
Obvious
Of
Reasons

Advertisers
Aren’t
Thrilled
With
Zuckerberg’s
Embrace
Of
Hate
Speech

*
DOJ
tells
all
US
Attorneys
to
identify
line
prosecutors
to
be
redeployed
to
the
Southern
border.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
ABA
ordered
to
stop
providing
legal
services
to
immigrants.
[ABA
Journal]

*
Fifth
Circuit
rules
that
law
against
selling
guns
to
children
is
unconstitutional.
Because
what
is
a
militia
without
child
soldiers?
[Reuters]

*
Reed
Smith
joins
the
Atlanta
market
after
poaching
from
two
firms.
[Law360]

*
Coldplay
halts
concert
to
read
cease
and
desist
letter.
[LawFuel]

*
Plan
to
expand
Gitmo
to
hold
immigrants
faces
massive
challenges.
[One
First]

* 
Wilkinson
Stekloff
associates
among
victims
in
D.C.
plane
crash.
[National
Law
Journal]

Sullivan
&
Cromwell
Associates
Are
Pissed
About
The
Firm
Picking
Up
Trump:
This
was
obviously
going
to
happen.
Bonus
News!:
Latham
&
Watkins
associates
are
in
for
a
treat!
Elon
May
SLAPP
Tim
Walz
Over
Bad
Mouthing
His
Unique
“Palm
To
Shoulder
Then
Sky
At
45
Degrees”
Gesture:
When
you’re
rich,
you
can
use
the
courts
to
bully
honest
people!
Love
Has
Its
Consequences:
Jackson
Walker
gets
hit
with
a
lawsuit.
Mind
The
Help:
Biglaw
firm
places
limits
on
pro-bono
hours
&
starts
a
wishy
washy
in-person
requirement.

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

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

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

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

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

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

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

The


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

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

similar
complaints
against
Twitter
and
YouTube. 

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

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

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

ipso
fatso
…
First
Amendment
violation!

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

defective
in
more
or
less
every
way.
Trump

appealed,
and
the
Meta
and
YouTube
suits
were

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

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

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

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

In
2020,
Zuckerberg’s
family
charity

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

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

To
be
clear,
this
is

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Shiva
is
the
Hebrew
word
for
Judaism’s

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

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

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

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

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

Mansfield
certification
at
the
Diversity
Lab
website.
   

What
about
the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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




[email protected].

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

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

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

NY
Daily
News
has
coverage:

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

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

you
can
gauge
the
similarities
for
yourself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.