(Image
via
Getty)
Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature
Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!
Of
the
graduates
of
American
Bar
Association-accredited
law
schools
that
sat
for
the
New
York
bar
exam
in
July
for
the
first
time,
what
percentage
passed
the
bar?
Hint:
It
was
the
highest
passage
rate
in
New
York
since
2009.
See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.
Who
is
supposed
to
have
a
say
on
the
interpretive
models
students
learn
in
law
schools?
Judges
apparently!
Right
wingers
used
to
attack
lefties
for
boycotts
and
cancel
culture,
but
those
are
core
right-wing
policing
strategies
these
days,
with
Republican
judges
wearing
their
politics
on
their
sleeves
when
it
comes
to
bullying
law
schools
into
doing
what
they
want.
First
it
was
boycotting
the
students
from
law
schools
deemed
too
liberal,
now
they’re
trying
to
get
school
funding
cut
if
professors
don’t
teach
the
way
the
judges
prefer.
Bloomberg
Law
has
coverage:
Conservative
appeals
court
Judge
Amul
Thapar
called
on
donors
to
withhold
support
from
law
schools
that
don’t
hire
an
ideologically
diverse
faculty
and
teach
originalist
theory.Thapar,
a
Trump
appointee
to
the
US
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Sixth
Circuit
and
Supreme
Court
short
lister,
criticized
what
he
said
is
an
absence
in
originalist
teaching
at
top
law
schools
during
remarks
Wednesday
at
the
Heritage
Foundation.
Thapar
went
on
to
lament
that
the
failure
to
teach
law
students
an
Originalist
approach
to
the
text
ultimately
hurts
them
because
judges
may
be
more
amenable
to
matters
if
they
hear
history
based
analysis.
Nice
theory,
but
we
regularly
see
judges
craft
opinions
getting
the
history
wildly
wrong.
At
least
according
to
the
actual
historians.
Here
are
just
a
few
times
that
judges
opted
to
ignore
historical
context
to
arrive
at
the
policy
outcomes
they
preferred:ignoring
the
history
of
the
14th
Amendment
to
read
it
as
colorblind,
ignoring
the
history
of
gun
regulation
to
get
their
desired
policy
outcome
in
Bruen,
not
to
mention
making
ahistorical
arguments
about
the
role
of
special
counsel
if
it
helps
Trump
avoid
trouble.
Oh,
and
just
for
shiggles,
because
those
are
some
heavy
cases,
no
one
even
tried
to
invoke
history
to
potentially
correct
the
flawed
textualism
of
simple
words
like
“boneless.”
Promoting
Originalism
and
“diversity
of
thought”
are
the
bits
of
velvet
on
the
glove.
“Do
what
we
say
or
we
attack
your
bottom
line.”
Read
his
own
words:
“Make
no
mistake:
money
talks.
Only
when
the
taxpayers
and
donors
alike
demand
it
will
law
schools
start
to
change,”
Thapar
said.
“When
law
schools
do
change,
the
hefty
price
paid
for
a
law
degree
might
actually
be
worth
it,
because
lawyers
will
leave
law
school
equipped
to
practice
in
today’s
courts.”
If
you
really
want
to
prepare
law
students
for
today’s
courts,
originalism
is
the
least
of
their
concerns.
You
need
to
teach
them
how
to
bankroll
judges,
romance
them,
have
ex-parte
chats
with
the
prosecution,
or
find
a
way
to
get
all
of
their
colleagues
to
agree
they
aren’t
mentally
fit
if
they
write
too
many
dissenting
opinions.
In
a
word,
you’ve
gotta
teach
students
how
to
politic.
Because
the
judiciary
stopped
being
focused
on
historical
meaning
a
long
time
ago.
Judge
Urges
Law
School
Donation
Halt
Until
Originalism
Taught
[Bloomberg
Law]
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.
Seventy-six
percent
of
legal
professionals
in
corporate
legal
departments
and
68%
in
law
firms
are
using
generative
AI
at
least
once
a
week,
with
a
third
of
those
professionals
using
it
daily.
That
is
among
the
findings
of
the
2024
Future
Ready
Lawyer
Survey
from
Wolters
Kluwer,
the
sixth
edition
of
a
report
that
offers
an
annual
view
of
the
legal
industry’s
evolving
landscape,
with
a
particular
emphasis
on
technology,
especially
generative
AI,
and
how
these
advancements
are
reshaping
law
firms
and
corporate
legal
departments.
Based
on
responses
from
712
legal
professionals
in
10
countries,
the
report
outlines
significant
trends,
challenges,
and
opportunities
the
industry
is
facing
over
the
next
three
years.
These
include
technology
integration,
evolving
client
expectations,
talent
management,
environmental,
social,
and
governance
(ESG)
considerations,
and
information
security.
Not
surprisingly,
the
report
finds
that
the
integration
of
gen
AI
is
one
of
the
most
significant
trends
in
the
legal
industry,
offering
the
potential
to
streamline
processes,
improve
efficiency,
and
reduce
manual
tasks.
Increasingly,
the
legal
industry
is
adopting
gen
AI
to
handle
routine
legal
processes,
such
as
legal
research,
document
review,
and
drafting.
This
shift
allows
legal
professionals
to
focus
on
more
complex,
value-added
tasks,
the
report
says.
According
to
the
report,
76%
of
legal
professionals
in
corporate
legal
departments
use
gen
AI
at
least
once
a
week,
compared
to
68%
of
those
in
law
firms.
A
third
of
respondents
use
it
daily.
In
addition,
65%
of
legal
professionals
expect
AI
technology
investment
to
increase
over
the
next
three
years.
But
despite
all
the
enthusiasm
around
gen
AI,
many
challenges
remain,
the
report
says.
Among
the
challenges
most
frequently
cited
by
respondents
were
issues
related
to
integration,
trust
in
AI-generated
outcomes,
and
concerns
over
ethics
and
data
privacy.
Integrating
gen
AI
into
existing
legal
systems
and
workflows
remains
difficult,
the
survey
says,
with
37%
of
respondents
in
law
firms
and
42%
in
corporate
legal
departments
citing
this
as
a
significant
challenge.
Two
other
major
issues
are
concerns
over
the
accuracy
of
gen
AI
outputs
and
the
ethical
implications
of
using
AI
in
legal
work.
Around
41%
of
law
firm
professionals
and
37%
of
corporate
legal
professionals
expressed
doubts
about
the
reliability
of
gen
AI
results.
Despite
these
challenges,
the
report
underscores
that
gen
AI
is
no
longer
an
optional
tool
but
a
necessary
component
for
future-ready
legal
organizations.
To
fully
leverage
the
benefits
of
gen
AI,
legal
professionals
will
need
ongoing
training,
ethical
guidelines,
and
robust
review
processes
to
mitigate
issues
like
AI
“hallucinations.”
Gen
AI’s
ability
to
drive
efficiency
is
expected
to
have
a
profound
impact
on
traditional
legal
business
models,
particularly
the
reliance
on
billable
hours,
the
report
concludes.
The
reliance
on
billable
hours,
once
a
staple
of
the
legal
profession,
is
expected
to
decline
as
law
firms
adopt
new
pricing
models,
such
as
flat
fees
and
value-based
billing.
It
finds
that,
overall,
60%
of
legal
professionals
expect
AI
to
reduce
the
dominance
of
the
billable
hour
model,
with
67%
of
corporate
legal
departments
and
55%
of
law
firms
believing
that
AI-driven
efficiencies
will
significantly
impact
the
prevalence
of
the
billable
hour.
More
than
half
of
the
respondents
feel
prepared
to
adapt
their
business
practices,
workflows,
and
pricing
models
to
accommodate
these
changes.
On
another
topic,
the
report
finds
at
attracting
and
retaining
top
legal
talent
remains
a
challenge
in
an
industry
undergoing
transformation.
In
particular,
legal
professionals
emphasized
the
value
of
work-life
balance,
competitive
compensation,
and
opportunities
for
continuous
learning.
The
report
says
that
81%
of
respondents
emphasized
the
importance
of
work-life
balance,
and
82%
believed
their
organization
performed
well
in
this
area.
And,
in
an
age
when
AI
is
becoming
more
integrated
into
legal
work,
72%
of
respondents
stated
that
technological
proficiency
is
increasingly
essential
when
hiring
new
talent.
There
continues
to
be
growing
demand
for
expertise
in
environmental,
social,
and
governance
(ESG)
issues,
and
that
demand
is
putting
pressure
on
both
corporate
legal
departments
and
law
firms,
the
survey
finds.
That
said,
corporate
legal
departments
feel
better
prepared
to
address
ESG
demands
than
law
firms,
with
41%
of
corporate
respondents
feeling
“very
prepared”
compared
to
only
29%
of
law
firm
respondents.
However,
both
sectors
face
challenges,
particularly
in
terms
of
training
staff
and
aligning
with
regulatory
changes.
While
the
need
for
ESG
training
is
clear,
the
report
says,
less
than
half
of
law
firms
currently
offer
such
programs.
Among
corporate
legal
departments,
56%
offer
ESG
training.
The
report
cautions
that,
as
ESG-related
demands
grow,
firms
that
fail
to
adapt
may
struggle
to
meet
client
expectations.
Another
challenge
faced
by
respondents
in
the
survey
is
information
security.
With
the
rise
of
cyberattacks
and
data
breaches,
74%
of
legal
professionals
see
escalating
information
security
challenges
as
a
major
trend,
with
33%
expecting
a
significant
impact
on
their
organization.
However,
only
29%
of
respondents
feel
“very
prepared”
to
meet
these
security
challenges,
despite
80%
believing
that
their
organization
is
generally
prepared.
This
gap
between
general
readiness
and
complete
preparedness
underscores
the
need
for
ongoing
improvements
in
information
security
practices.
“The
question
of
whether
legal
professionals
are
future-ready
remains
relevant
and
compelling,
even
after
six
years
of
Future
Ready
Lawyer
research,”
the
report
concludes.
Clearly
that
is
so,
as
the
survey
paints
a
picture
of
an
industry
in
the
midst
of
profound
transformation,
due
most
strikingly
to
the
rapid
proliferation
of
gen
AI,
a
development,
the
report
says,
that
has
put
lawyers
to
the
test.
“Judging
from
the
2024
Future
Ready
Lawyer
Survey
results,
they
seem
to
have
jumped
on
the
gen
AI
train
more
rapidly
than
they’ve
ever
jumped
on
new
technology
before.
It
is
a
promising
development,
which
says
a
lot
about
the
agility
and
adaptability
of
legal
professionals.”
Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,
Quote
of
the
Day.
People
wanting
basic
changes
to
the
job
description
and
other
accommodations
to
help
them
live
a
more
balanced
life
for
their
mental
health—that’s
a
really
different
phenomenon
from
what
firms
were
seeing
five
years
ago,
and
it’s
only
going
to
increase.
It’s
not
out
of
malice
or
ill
will,
they
simply
are
not
seeing
how
it’s
possible.
The
job
is
the
job.
With
the
model
of
large
law
firms
right
now,
time
demands
and
time
pressures
are
often
very
significant,
and
the
expectations
of
constant
availability
are
very
real.
—
Patrick
Krill,
a
law
firm
mental
health
adviser,
in
comments
given
to
the
Legal
Intelligencer,
on
whether
Biglaw
firms
are
fully
equipped
to
deal
with
the
mental
health
accommodations
being
requested
by
their
youngest
attorneys.
“I
just
don’t
think
most
firms
are
fully
aware
of
the
challenge
that
is
staring
them
in
the
face,”
Krill
concluded.
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.
Hitting
the
group
running
works
until
you
trip
up.
After
some
soul
searching
and
number
crunching,
the
State
Bar
of
California
realized
that
their
needs
would
be
better
met
if
they
ditched
the
NBCE
for
a
cost-effective
approach
to
licensing.
They
partnered
up
with
Kaplan
and
set
an
expected
test
date,
but
got
sent
back
to
the
drawing
board
by
California’s
Supreme
Court.
The
Bar
took
the
steps
they
needed
to
fix
the
problems
and
it
looks
like
things
are
paying
off.
Reuters
has
coverage:
The
California
Supreme
Court
on
Tuesday
approved
a
controversial
plan
by
the
state
bar
to
switch
to
a
new
lawyer
licensing
exam
that
will
be
delivered
both
remotely
and
in-person
at
test
centers
starting
in
February.The
high
court
also
approved
the
State
Bar
of
California’s
proposal
to
give
a
score
boost
for
those
who
take
the
new
bar
exam
if
they
agree
to
sit
for
a
beta
test
next
month
and
perform
well.
First
off,
shouts
out
to
accessibility!
Lots
of
people
are
fully
committed
to
the
bit
where
we
pretend
COVID
isn’t
still
a
threat
so
the
economy
goes
brr,
but
it
is
nice
to
know
that
the
COVID
conscious
don’t
have
to
be
distracted
by
stranger
sniffles
while
they
sit
for
an
experimental
licensing
test.
The
remote
option
also
bodes
well
for
people
who
intend
to
practice
in
California
but
happen
to
be
out
of
state
for
test
day.
If
you
can
sit
for
the
beta
test,
go
for
it,
but
the
score
boost
isn’t
worth
getting
FOMO
over
if
you
can’t
make
it.
Good
luck
on
the
bar!
California’s
New
Bar
Exam
Gets
Court
Approval
To
Move
Ahead
[Reuters]
Earlier:
California
Needs
To
Focus
On
Procedurals
Before
Administering
Bar
Replacement
California
Bar
Takes
Steps
To
Continue
With
Its
Bar
Replacement
Bar
Exam
Offers
Extra
Credit
With
A
Catch
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.
Jenna
Ellis
Last
we
heard
from
former
MAGA
attorney/election
denier
Jenna
Ellis,
she
was
making
a
tear-soaked
guilty
plea
in
the
Georgia
election
interference
RICO
case
—
becoming
the
third
attorney
to
flip
on
the
former
president,
Donald
Trump
(behind
Sidney
Powell
and
Ken
Chesebro).
But
her
desperate
bid
for
attention
continues,
this
time
with
an
interview
with
Politico
as
she
opines
on
the
state
of
the
2024
election.
At
least
her
answers
about
*this*
presidential
election
don’t
immediately
lean
towards
election
denial.
Look
at
that
personal
growth!
Ellis
notes
the
risk
of
Christian
voters
sitting
out
this
election,
and
throws
out
this
piece
of
advice
for
the
former
president’s
campaign.
In
2016
[Trump]
won
in
part
because
judicial
appointments
was
a
key
issue,
so
(in
addition
to
the
border
and
the
economy)
he
should
draw
attention
to
how
extreme
a
Harris
administration’s
federal
nominees
would
be.
Trump
has
already
re-made
the
Supreme
Court
in
his
image….
and
the
approval
rating
of
the
Court
has
been
sinking
accordingly.
We’re
at
a
shockingly
low
38%
approval
for
the
Court
—
down
a
whopping
20%
from
the
high
water
mark
of
58%
in
March
of
2017.
And
45%
say
the
current
Court
is
too
conservative.
Maybe
focusing
on
making
the
judiciary
even
more
conservative
isn’t
a
winning
strategy.
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].
Image
courtesy
of
NetDocuments.
As
we
close
in
on
the
second
anniversary
of
ChatGPT’s
release,
the
generative
AI
conversation
—
at
least
when
it
comes
to
the
legal
industry
—
is
starting
to
shift.
After
a
year
or
so
of
fretting
about
generative
AI
hallucinating
like
it
dropped
bad
acid
and
trying
to
figure
out
newer
and
better
legal
offerings,
autumn
has
ushered
a
new
narrative
as
the
AI
discourse
matures
and
providers
focus
on
taking
generative
AI
and
improving
the
whole
experience
of
using
the
tool.
This
emphasis
on
practical
integration
and
respecting
everyday
legal
workflows
dominating
this
week’s
NetDocuments
Inspire
Conference.
“It’s
not
about
bringing
content
to
your
AI,
but
about
bringing
AI
to
your
content,”
CEO
Josh
Baxter
explained
as
the
show
kicked
off.
The
era
of
lawyers
taking
material
and
feeding
it
into
external
AI-driven
applications
has
to
end.
“What
does
it
look
like
if
you
have
to
take
your
content
to
AI.
It
looks
like
you’re
starting
to
stand
up
a
bunch
of
point
solutions
to
solve
each
individual
problem.
And
its
not
a
scalable
approach.
It
created
governance
issues
and
security
risks
for
your
organization,
it
creates
an
environment
where
you’re
dealing
with
multiple
vendors
your
costs
start
to
pile
up,
the
workflow
and
the
experience
for
your
end
users
is
frustrating
and
inefficient.”
An
analogy
that
kept
coming
up
is
the
increasingly
disjointed
experience
with
streaming
services
with
users
hunting
and
pecking
between
apps
searching
for
a
single
show.
But
TVs
that
have
indexed
everything
and
can
jump
to
the
right
service
for
the
show
when
asked
make
the
user’s
experience
better.
The
company’s
guiding
mantra
to
build
an
“intelligent
document
management
system”
envisions
a
bunch
of
features,
but
the
most
straightforward
is
the
most
significant.
Taking
a
firm’s
corpus
of
documents
and
employing
semantic
search
to
deliver
the
material
a
lawyer
needs,
not
necessarily
the
material
that
they
can
pick
the
right
keywords
to
capture.
With
an
auto-profiling
capability,
Chief
Product
Officer
Dan
Hauck
explained,
NetDocs
will
be
able
to
vectorize
documents
in
real
time
to
empower
these
common
sense
searches.
So
when
a
lawyer
takes
a
new,
say,
deposition
transcript
dropped
into
the
system
and
enriches
the
document
so
it
doesn’t
get
missed
because
someone
forgot
to
tag
it
appropriately
at
the
time
or
crafted
the
wrong
query
down
the
road.
Earlier
this
year,
in
the
eDiscovery
context,
I
mused
that
generative
AI’s
most
powerful
application
might
be
as
a
user
experience
tool.
Lawyers
being
able
to
type
out
natural,
common
sense
queries
and
the
system
fill
in
all
those
nuanced
gaps
that
seniors
depend
(successfully
or
not)
upon
juniors
to
figure
out.
Applying
this
to
the
document
management
context
opens
the
door
for
a
more
simple
and
meaningful
interrogation
of
a
firm’s
stored
knowledge.
NetDocuments
also
introduced
the
ndMAX
Legal
AI
Assistant,
promising
to
provide
answers
and
insights
directly
within
the
document
management
system.
This
tool,
currently
in
beta,
will
be
available
by
the
end
of
the
year.
Issues
List
Generator
automatically
compiles
key
issues
from
contracts
or
case
files,
allowing
for
a
more
focused
review.
The
transactional
side
isn’t
left
out
of
the
fun,
with
the
Contract
Playbook
Generator
creating
customized
negotiation
playbooks
complete
with
clause
suggestions
and
fallback
positions,
while
the
Due
Diligence
app
automates
document
review
in
mergers
and
acquisitions,
flagging
risks
for
thorough
analysis.
This
is
all
on
top
of
the
apps
that
users
are
crafting
themselves
inside
the
system.
For
those,
NetDocuments
announced
a
new
import/export
feature
allowing
apps
built
inside
one
repository
to
be
moved
to
another
easily
without
requiring
a
new
build.
All
of
which
is
to
reiterate
that
the
narrative
around
legal
industry
AI
has
moved
toward
improving
the
user
experience,
embedding
AI
in
ways
that
deliver
meaningful,
practical
results.
An
enabler
of
efficiency
and
accuracy,
without
requiring
a
steep
learning
curve
or
technological
juggling
—
perhaps
without
even
requiring
the
user
to
realize
that
they’re
using
AI
to
get
these
answers.
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.
‘You
need
to
take
care
of
this
cat
situation,
right
meow.’
We
may
be
on
the
other
side
of
the
pandemic,
but
much
like
a
cat
racing
across
the
keyboard
when
you’re
trying
to
type,
Zoom
court
mishaps
are
still
running
rampant.
In
the
wake
of
the
hilarious
cat
lawyer
filter
that
made
lawyers
rush
to
check
their
settings,
yet
another
potential
legal
catastrophe
recently
went
viral
on
Instagram,
courtesy
of
Attorney
Memes.
We’re
glad
everything
turned
out
purrrrrfectly
fine
and
that
Stan
the
“legal
assistant”
cat
had
a
stan
in
court
during
trial.
Has
anyone
else’s
cat
made
an
official
appearance
on
the
record?
Earlier:
Lawyer
Tells
Judge
‘I’m
Not
A
Cat’
In
The
Best
Zoom
Court
Mishap
Yet
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.
In
2021,
a
federal
judge
in
Michigan
sanctioned
Sidney
Powell
and
her
merry
band
of
dipshit
lawyers
for
docketing
bogus
evidence
that
they
had
not
bothered
to
verify
in
their
desperate
effort
to
overturn
the
results
of
the
presidential
election.
“It
is
one
thing
to
take
on
the
charge
of
vindicating
rights
associated
with
an
allegedly
fraudulent
election,”
Judge
Linda
Parker
seethed.
“It
is
another
to
take
on
the
charge
of
deceiving
a
federal
court
and
the
American
people
into
believing
that
rights
were
infringed,
without
regard
to
whether
any
laws
or
rights
were
in
fact
violated.
This
is
what
happened
here.”
Powell
and
her
team
got
dinged
for
spamming
the
docket
with
gobbledygook
“evidence”
of
fraud,
such
as
an
affidavit
about
an
unusually
cheerful
couple
handing
packages
to
the
UPS
guy
and
accounts
of
voters
casting
in-person
ballots
after
voting
by
mail
—
something
which
was
entirely
legal.
Republicans
are
now
gearing
up
to
do exactly
the
same
thing,
with
vigilantes
aiming
to
DO
UR
OWN
RESEARCH
their
way
into
proving
that
there
are
millions
of
illegal
votes
being
cast.
Here’s
Elon
Musk’s
pro-Trump
PAC
setting
up
an
online
repository
for
GOTCHAS.
And
one
of
the
first
entrants
in
this
game
is
a
guy
named
Cliff
Maloney,
who
left
a
group
called
Young
Americans
for
Liberty
under
dubious
circumstances
three
years
ago.
Maloney
is
now
running
something
called
“The
Pennsylvania
Chase,”
door-knocking
to
turnout
Republicans.
And
last
week
he
posted
what
he
figured
was
big
news:
a
convent
with
53
registered
voters!
When
it
was
pointed
out
to
him
that
convents
tend
to
have
multiple
individuals
residing
at
the
same
address,
he
insisted
that
no,
it
was
the
children
who
are
confused.
“Now
the
commies
are
coming
in
claiming
that
‘nuns
live
there’
or
‘you
idiot
just
google
it’
WRONG,”
he
huffed.
“Our
team
leader
spoke
to
the
one
person
there
and
they
claimed
‘NO
ONE
LIVES
HERE.’”
The
Benedictine
Sisters
of
Erie,
who
do
indeed
have
a
robust
online
presence,
responded
that
they
“take
no
issue
with
knocking
on
doors
to
increase
citizen
participation
in
elections”
but,
they
do
object
to
“claiming
false
information
as
true
in
an
effort
to
discredit
differing
views
or
affiliations.”
“We
want
to
call
Cliff
Maloney
to
account
for
his
blatantly
false
post
that
accuses
our
sisters
of
fraud.
We
do
live
at
Mount
Saint
Benedict
Monastery
and
a
simple
web
search
would
alert
him
to
our
active
presence
in
a
number
of
ministries
in
Erie,”
Sister
Stephanie
Schmidt,
prioress,
said
in
a
statement
published
online.
“We
also
want
to
alert
those
who
subscribe
to
X
and
other
social
media
platforms
to
be
vigilant
and
seek
additional
information
before
accepting
these
posts
as
truth.”
And
then,
when
reporters
from
the
Washington
Post
knocked
on
the
door,
the
prioress
invited
them
in
to
take
pictures
of
the
sisters
—
who
really
do
live
there!
—
at
chapel.
The
nuns
insist
that
no
such
interaction
with
a
door
knocker
ever
took
place,
but
Maloney
is
still
unwilling
to
back
down.
“If
the
53
people
registered
at
this
address
are
legal
voters…
then
I
encourage
them
to
participate
in
their
right
to
vote,”
he
sulked
last
night.
“Right
now,
we’ve
got
our
team
continuing
to
analyze
the
situation.”
All
of
which
is
hilarious,
or
would
be
if
millions
of
people
hadn’t
seen
Maloney’s
original
post
and
believed
it.
These
nitwits
are
already
trying
to
convince
their
supporters
that
there
are
millions
of
“illegal”
voters,
if
only
they
can
ferret
them
out.
And
no
matter
what
these
women
do
to
“prove”
that
they
actually
exist,
it
will
never
be
enough
for
Maloney
and
his
ilk
to
concede
that
they
got
it
wrong.
Odds
that
the
nuns
from
Erie
wind
up
in
an
affidavit
filed
by
some
Kraken-addled
idiot
in
Pennsylvania
court:
100
percent.
A
GOP
operative
accused
a
monastery
of
voter
fraud.
Nuns
fought
back.
[WaPo]
Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.
Terminally
online
lawyers
were
plagued
by
one
question
over
the
last
24
hours
—
who
is
Louis’
Nana
and
why
does
she
have
her
own
Supreme
Court?
If
that
sentence
makes
zero
sense
to
you,
well,
you
were
probably
too
busy
billing
to
see
the
viral
post
at
the
root
of
the
question.
An
image,
purportedly
from
the
recent
swearing
in
of
new
lawyers
in
the
great
state
of
Louisiana,
is
making
the
rounds
over
a
pretty
glaring
typo.
Now,
this
looks
to
be
a
projection
onto
a
curtain,
not
a
printed
(and
presumably
copyedited)
seal,
so
it
seems
feasible
that
the
mistake
really
happened
and
the
image
isn’t
the
result
of
internet
tomfoolery.
(Above
the
Law
reached
out
to
the
Louisiana
Supreme
Court,
and
they
did
not
immediately
provide
a
comment.)
And
here’s
the
thing
—
it
isn’t
the
only
time
spelling
the
name
of
the
state
was
an
issue.
Another
Reddit
user
produced
a
coaster
misspelling
the
state’s
name.
via
Reddit
user
buttercream-gang
And
“Louisiana”
also
proved
tough
at
the
2022
Essence
Festival.
(Photo
by
JADE
THIRASWAS/AFP
via
Getty
Images)
Maybe
Louisiana
needs
to
take
a
tip
from
its
neighboring
state,
Mississippi,
and
come
up
with
a
jaunty
little
tune
to
help
folks
learn
to
properly
spell
its
name.
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].