Author: TSA Press

If
you’ve
been
following
the

financial
and

legal
woes
of
SCOTUSblog
co-founder

Tom
Goldstein,
you
probably
assumed
that
legal
media
institution’s
independence
wasn’t
long
for
this
world.
Earlier
today,
Ben
Mullin
of
the
New
York
Times

reported
that
the
right-wing,
subscription-based
publication
The
Dispatch
purchased
SCOTUSblog.

Along
with
the
domain
saved
in
every
attorney’s
favorites
list,
The
Dispatch
also
acquired
the
talents
of
Amy
Howe,
the
other
SCOTUSblog
co-founder
(and
still
spouse
to
Goldstein).
As
Steve
Hayes,
CEO
and
editor
of
The
Dispatch,
notes,
“As
part
of
the
acquisition, The
Dispatch will
invest
in
Amy,
her
team,
and
additional
staff
to
ensure
that
SCOTUSblog
remains
the
go-to
authority
on
the
Supreme
Court.”

With
SCOTUSblog’s
acquisition
by
the
conservative
blogosphere,
many
worry
that
the
neutral,
fact-driven
reporting
at
the
blog
will
be
eroded
under
new
ownership.

I
use
SCOTUSblog
a
lot
but,
oh
well,
guess
that
era
is
over.
It’s
fine.
I
also
used
Twitter
a
lot
before
the
fascists
took
over.Times
change.
The
way
I
look
at
it,
every
time
the
white-wing
takes
over
a
new
media
space,
it
just
makes
what
I
do
more
rare
and
thus
more
valuable.

—

ElieNYC
(@elienyc.bsky.social)

2025-04-23T17:12:52.368Z

But
that
isn’t
the
only
expansion
touted
by
The
Dispatch
today.
Former
ATL
colleague
David
Lat
also
inked
a
deal
with
the
conservative
publication.

In
the
coming
weeks,
we’ll
announce
additional
talent—including
a
partnership
with Original
Jurisdiction
founder
and
legal
commentator
David
Lat—to
help
us
grow
SCOTUSblog’s
capabilities,
and
these
expanded
offerings
will
be
reserved
for Dispatch members. 

It’s
clear
The
Dispatch
is
looking
to
grow
its
influence
both
among
lawyers
and
beyond
to
the
general
public.
And
those
looking
for
ahem,
a

different
perspective
than
the
one
The
Dispatch
monetizes
will
have
to

look
elsewhere.

---

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].

On
the
first
day
of
President
Donald
Trump’s
second
term,
then
IRS
Commissioner
Danny
Werfel
resigned.
IRS
commissioners
by
law
serve
five-year
terms
although
customarily
they
step
down
sometime
during
their
fourth
year.
It
is
also
common
for
IRS
commissioners
to
stay
on
when
a
new
president
takes
office.
So
Werfel’s
resignation
is
unusual.

President
Trump’s
pick
to
replace
Werfel
is
Billy
Long,
a
former
congressman
from
Missouri.
But
he
has
not
yet
received
Senate
confirmation
nor
is
there
a
confirmation
hearing
scheduled.
Until
then,
an
acting
IRS
commissioner
is
selected.

But
since
Werfel’s
resignation,
there
have
been
four
acting
commissioners
in
three
months.

The
first
was
Douglas
O’Donnell,
a
40-year
IRS
veteran.
He
previously
served
as
acting
commissioner
from
November
2022
until
March
2023,
filling
in
after
former
Commissioner
Charles
Rettig
stepped
down
until
Werfel’s
confirmation.
During
his
short
tenure,
the
IRS
laid
off
thousands
of
workers,
mostly
new
hires.
Furthermore,
he
had
to
deal
with
the
Department
of
Government
Efficiency’s
(DOGE)
demands
to
obtain
access
to
IRS
data
systems
that
may
include
sensitive
taxpayer
information.
O’Donnell
retired
from
the
IRS
on
February
28,
2025.

Replacing
O’Donnell
was
Melanie
Krause
who
was
the
IRS’s
Chief
Operating
Officer.
Krause
served
as
acting
commissioner
until
April
8,
2025.
Krause
resigned
shortly
after
the
IRS
reached
an
agreement
with
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security
where
the
IRS
would
share
taxpayer
data
with
Immigration
and
Customs
Enforcement.
It
is
believed
that
the
information
would
be
used
to
find
people
for
deportation
purposes.
Krause’s
decision
to
resign
was
also
influenced
by
the
future
direction
of
the
agency
in
addition
to
the
resignation
of
other
senior
officials
at
the
IRS.

Gary
Shapley
replaced
O’Donnell
as
acting
commissioner
on
April
16,
2025.
Shapley
spent
most
of
his
career
working
at
the
IRS’s
criminal
investigation
division.
But
he
was

better
known
for
testifying
before
Congress
about
the
Hunter
Biden
tax
investigation.
His
appointment
was
endorsed
by
Elon
Musk.
But
a
few
days
later,
his
appointment
was
rescinded
after
Treasury
Secretary
Scott
Bessent
complained
that
Shapley’s
appointment
was
made
without
his
knowledge.
But
despite
his
removal,
Shapley
will
remain
as
a
senior
advisor.

Lastly,
Shapley
was
replaced
by
Deputy
Treasury
Secretary
Michael
Faulkender
who
is
the
current
acting
commissioner.
Faulkender
was
Bessent’s
choice
for
the
role.
During
Trump’s
first
term,
he
appointed
Faulkender
to
be
the
Assistant
Secretary
of
the
Treasury
for
Economic
Policy.

The
IRS
commissioner
is
a
senior
management
position,
so
he
or
she
will
rarely
be
in
contact
with
an
average
IRS
employee.
But
every
IRS
employee
will
wonder
whether
the
new
commissioner
will
support
President
Trump
and
DOGE’s
efforts
to
cut
IRS
staff
numbers.
Or
will
he
or
she
try
to
convince
the
president
to
reconsider
his
strategy?

And
how
is
the
public
reacting
to
this?
Half
of
the
population
sees
this
as
an
example
of
Trump’s
incompetence
or
as
a
sign
that
the
experienced
IRS
leadership
has
no
confidence
in
the
direction
the
agency
is
going.
Some
taxpayers
may
wonder
whether
they
can
be
more
aggressive
and
creative
when
preparing
their
tax
returns.

Every
tax
professional
worth
their
salt
will
tell
opportunistic
taxpayers
not
to
falsify
their
tax
returns
and
that
the
IRS
can
be
surprisingly
resourceful.
If
their
returns
are
selected
for
audit,
the
lack
of
staff
can
likely
prolong
their
audit
or
result
in
getting
an
auditor
who
is
overworked.

So
how
long
will
Faulkender
last?
He
is
not
part
of
the
old
guard,
has
worked
with
Trump
before,
and
has
the
Treasury
Secretary’s
blessing.
So
it
is
probable
that
he
will
remain
in
the
position
until
a
permanent
commissioner
is
selected.

The
new
acting
commissioner
will
have
a
lot
of
work
to
do.
He
or
she
will
oversee
one
of
the
IRS’s
largest
reductions
in
force
in
the
agency’s
history
and
will
have
to
decide
where
to
allocate
funding
and
resources.
Also,
the
commissioner
may
be
involved
in
controversial
matters.
For
example,
Trump
recently
suggested
that
the
IRS
revoke
Harvard
University’s
tax-exempt
status
because
he
thinks
the
university
is
not
doing
enough
to
address
campus
antisemitism.
The
commissioner
will
have
to
assure
the
public
that
the
IRS
is
fair
and
will
not
be
politically
weaponized,
despite
the
president’s
occasional
social
media
posts
that
suggest
otherwise.

---

Steven
Chung
is
a
tax
attorney
in
Los
Angeles,
California.
He
helps
people
with
basic
tax
planning
and
resolve
tax
disputes.
He
is
also
sympathetic
to
people
with
large
student
loans.
He
can
be
reached
via
email
at




[email protected].
Or
you
can
connect
with
him
on
Twitter
(@stevenchung)
and
connect
with
him
on LinkedIn.

I
wonder
how
many
times
Donald
Trump
will
say
something
that
massively
moves
the
stock
market
only
to
say
the
exact
opposite
thing
a
few
days
(or
hours)
later,
spurring
a
massive
market
recovery.
Perhaps
traders
will
eventually
figure
out
that,
hey,
the
dude
lies
a
lot.

On
Monday,
Trump

called
Federal
Reserve
Chair
Jerome
Powell
a
“major
loser,”
following
up
on
his
threat
from
last

Thursday
seeking
Powell’s
“termination”
for
not
cutting
interest
rates
quickly
enough.
The
stock
market
tanked.

The
Fed
is
an
independent
agency.
Trump
himself
first
appointed
Powell
in
2018.
Then
there
is
the
little
matter
of
the
90-year-old
Supreme
Court
precedent
that
says
the
opposite
of
Trump’s
claim
that
“if
I
want
him
out,
he’ll
be
out
of
there
real
fast,
believe
me.”
Certainly
some
obstacles
stand
in
the
way
of
Trump
trying
to
fire
Powell,
like
the
fact
that
it
would
be
illegal,
though
Trump
has
done
crazier
shit
in
the
past
and
gotten
away
with
it.

But
whoa,
slow
down
a
minute
there,
hoss,
because
on
Tuesday
evening
the
same
Trump
said
he
had
“no
intention”
of
firing
Powell.
When
pressed

while
speaking
at
the
Oval
Office
on
whether
he
had
plans
to
remove
Powell
from
his
Federal
Reserve
position,
Trump
said,
“None
whatsoever.”
Stock
futures
surged.

This
tactic
has
become
the
monkey
wrench
of
Trump’s
political
toolbox:
say
one
thing,
then
say
the
exact
opposite.
One
or
the
other,
the
first
thing
or
its
opposite,
will
obviously
eventually
take
place,
then
Trump
can
point
to
whichever
of
his
positions
turned
out
to
be
accurate
so
he
can
bask
in
having
been
right
all
along.
He’ll
ignore
the
inaccurate
statement,
knowing
that
he’s
flooded
the
airwaves
with
so
much
disinformation
that
it
will
never
filter
through
to
his
dumbass
base,
and
will
call
anyone
who
brings
the
inconsistency
up
a
lunatic.

This
time,
I
believe
the
second
thing.
I
don’t
think
Trump
has
any
intention
of
trying
to
fire
Jerome
Powell.
For
one
thing,
that
would
be
hard
and
might
cut
into
golf
time.
More
importantly,
Trump
is
just
smart
enough
to
realize
that
a
politically
captured
Fed
is
as
bad
for
him
as
for
anyone.

The
Fed
can
stem
inflation
by
raising
interest
rates
or
can
spur
economic
growth
by
lowering
them.
Trump’s
tariffs
are
set
to
massively

increase
prices
for
consumers
at
the
same
time
as
his
trade
war
is
slowing
global
growth.

The
Fed
cannot
simultaneously
fight
inflation
and
attempt
to
prop
up
growth.
However,
if
the
Fed
really
lowered
interest
rates
more
quickly,
like
Trump
was
yelling
at
them
to
last
week,
consumers
very
well
could
face
a
double-whammy
price
hike
for
everyday
goods
from
both
the
tariffs
(a
tax
increase)
and
an
overheating
economy.
What
do
you
think
working
class
Americans
are
more
likely
to
notice:
a
large
increase
in
the
cost
of
things
they
buy
every
day,
or
a
1%
slowdown
in
quarterly
GDP
growth?

Trump
can
yell
online
about
how
the
Fed
should
lower
interest
rates
sooner
all
he
wants,
I
don’t
buy
it.
He’s
an
actor
—
you
didn’t
really
think
“The
Apprentice”
was
actually
anything
remotely
close
to
reality,
did
you?

Trump
wants
interest
rates
to
stay
up
there
for
a
while.
That
could
absorb
some
of
the
inflationary
blow
he’s
dealing
the
American
working
class
with
his
trade
war.

Meanwhile,
if
he
loses
too
much
support
on
the
economy
he
can
blame
the
Fed,
knowing
his
hardcore
base
does
not
have
an
advanced
enough
understanding
of
what
the
Fed
does
to
point
out
why
that
does
not
make
sense,
even
if
any
of
them
had
the
spine
to
contradict
him,
which
they
don’t.
Then,
when
the
Fed
does
cut
rates
again
—
which
almost
everyone
expects
to
happen
at
least
once
and
probably
multiple
times
before
the
end
of
the
year
—
Trump
can
point
to
the
crazy
threats
he
made
on
Truth
Social
and
take
credit
for
the
Fed
bending
under
the
toughness
of
his
onslaught.

While
I
could
be
wrong,
I
don’t
think
Trump
is
actually
going
to
try
to
fire
Powell.
Trump,
like
he
always
does,
is
going
to
try
to
have
it
both
ways.

---

Jonathan
Wolf
is
a
civil
litigator
and
author
of Your
Debt-Free
JD


(affiliate
link).
He
has
taught
legal
writing,
written
for
a
wide
variety
of
publications,
and
made
it
both
his
business
and
his
pleasure
to
be
financially
and
scientifically
literate.
Any
views
he
expresses
are
probably
pure
gold,
but
are
nonetheless
solely
his
own
and
should
not
be
attributed
to
any
organization
with
which
he
is
affiliated.
He
wouldn’t
want
to
share
the
credit
anyway.
He
can
be
reached
at [email protected].

It
is
pretty
hard
to
get
a
judge
off
of
a
high-profile
trial.
It
isn’t
impossible
—
Young
Thug
managed
to
get
Judge
Glanville
removed
from
his
case
—
but
that
followed
some
extraordinary
events.
Barring
something
going
extremely
wrong,
you’d
be
hard
pressed
to
get
a
judge
to
admit
fault
or
broadcast
their
impartiality.
Donna
Adelson
and
her
legal
team
recently
tried
their
hand
at
the
dismissal
gambit.
Sure,
you
might
miss
100%
of
the
shots
you
don’t
make,
but
the
odds
might
not
be
that
much
better
when
you
do
try.

WTXL
has
coverage
on
the
attempt:

A
recent
motion
by
the
defense
to
disqualify
the
judge
overseeing
the
high-profile
case
of
Donna
Adelson
is
denied.

Court
records
said
the
motion
had
insufficient
evidence.

She
is
set
to
go
to
trial
June
3,
accused
in
the
murder
of
her
son-in-law
Dan
Markel
in
2014.

This
is
the
most
recent
point
in
a
long
line
of
delays.
There
was
an
earlier
hiccup
when

Charlie
Adelson
decided
to
revoke
his
blessing
for
his
mom
to
use
his
lawyer.
Alex
Morris
picked
up
the
representation
shortly
after,
but
he,
too,
was

conflicted
out
of
representing
her.
Donna
is
slated
to
go
to
trial
on
June
3rd,
but
don’t
be
too
surprised
if
something
else
comes
up
and
delays
the
date.

Motion
Denied
To
Disqualify
Judge
In
Donna
Adelson
Case
[WTXL]

Earlier:

Donna
Adelson’s
Lawyer
Pushes
To
Exclude
Divorce
Evidence
From
Trial

Revoked
Conflict
Waiver
Means
Delays
In
Slain
Law
Professor
Case

Lawyer
Conflicts
Create
More
Delay
In
Murdered
Law
Professor
Case

---

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
is
learning
to
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.

We’ve
got
key
financial
data
from
the
top
law
firms
and
the
takeaway
is
that
it’s
good
to
be
a
big
firm.
The

Am
Law
100
this
year
revealed
that
more
and
more
firms
have
joined
the
super
rich
and
things
look
bright
for
Biglaw.
Unless
someone
triggers
a
global
depression
or
something.
We
also
discuss
what
it
means
to
be
“bipartisan”
in
an
environment
where
the
intellectual
stars
of
the
conservative
legal
movement
are

ALSO
lining
up
to
call
out
the
Trump
administration
as
a
threat
to
the
rule
of
law.
Finally,
we
flag
a
troubling
law
school
story
about

scholarships
getting
cut
when
admissions
gets
blindsided
by
applications.

Rankings
season
is
officially
upon
us,
and
this
time
around,
even
U.S.
News
&
World
Report
has
rolled
out
additional
rankings
on
top
of
their

influential
law
school
rankings.
Given
that
a
legal
education
can
land
the
average
law
school
graduate
in
up
to
six
figures
of
debt,
it
makes
sense
that
would-be
lawyers
are
eager
to
snag
Biglaw
jobs,
where
salaries
at
leading
firms
begin
at
$225,000.

But
which
law
schools
offer
graduates
the
greatest
opportunity
to
work
in
Biglaw?

U.S.
News
has
compiled
a

new
ranking
for
that,
and
it’s
not
at
all
shocking
that
some
of
the
most
elite
law
schools
in
the
country
top
the
list.
As
noted
by
the
publication,
these
are
the
law
schools
whose
graduates
were
“most
likely
to
obtain
full-time,
long-term
jobs
at
law
firms
with
greater
than
500
attorneys.”
Only
the
Top
40
schools
(including
ties)
were
included
in
this
ranking,
due
to
the
“limited
share”
of
graduates
headed
to
Biglaw
that
each
school
produces.

That
said,
here
are
the

Top
15
law
schools
with
the
most
graduates
working
in
Biglaw
(and
because
this
is
U.S.
News,
there
are
multiple
ties
listed
here):

1.
Northwestern:
67%

2.
Columbia:
65%

2.
Penn:
65%

2.
UVA:
65%

5.
Cornell:
63%

6.
Duke:
59%

8.
Georgetown:
56%

8.
Harvard:
56%

8.
Chicago:
56%

11.
Vanderbilt:
54%

12.
Michigan:
53%

13.
Howard:
52%

13.
NYU:
52%

15.
UCLA:
50%

Click

here
to
see
the
rest
of
the
Top
40
law
schools
with
the
most
graduates
working
in
Biglaw
firms.

Is
this
ranking
useful?
If
you’re
able
to
look
past
the
incessant
ties
that
tend
to
plague
all
U.S.
News
rankings,
then
yes
—
especially
if
you’re
able
to
get
into
these
law
schools,
and
especially
if
you’re
able
to
successfully
navigate
the
new
Biglaw
recruiting
system,
that
now

relies
more
upon
direct
application
than
formal
interview
programs.
It
could
certainly
serve
as
a
way
for
law
students,
both
current
and
prospective,
to
gauge
their
employment
prospects.
Best
of
luck
out
there!

Law
Schools
With
the
Most
Graduates
at
Big
Law
Firms
[U.S.
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.

It’s
no
secret
that
most
small
firms
would
see
big
financial
gains
if
they
could
just
collect
the
money
they’re
already
owed. 

While
effectively
following
up
on
unpaid
invoices
can
be
challenging,
there
is
one
no-brainer
in
becoming
more
profitable:
recouping
—
or
at
least
attempting
to
recoup
—
your
advance
expenses. 

In
fact,
the

2025
Legal
Industry
Report
from
MyCase
found
that
68%
of
surveyed
firms
cited
fee
collection
as
a
major
hurdle.
Even
if
these
are
just
a
thousand
dollars
a
month,
they
will
add
up
to
transformative
amounts
of
money
over
time. 

The
culprits
vary
—
a
misplaced
receipt,
a
forgotten
charge
on
a
personal
credit
card,
or
a
lack
of
communication
between
accounting
and
case
management
systems. 

With

MyCase’s
Smart
Spend,
however,
your
firm
can
invoice
for
all
of
these
expenses
with
no
additional
work.
(Actually,
the
workload
will
probably
be
lessened
in
the
process.)

Here’s
a
look
at
how
you
could
incorporate
MyCase
Smart
Spend.
If
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
a
free
trial
of
MyCase,

feel
free
to
do
so
here. 

Viewing
Each
Expense

Smart
Spend
is
powered
by
a
LawPay
Visa®
Business
Card,
which
is
embedded
directly
in
your
case
management
system.
Cards
can
be
distributed
to
all
of
your
lawyers
and
staff. 

The
card
allows
your
lawyers
to
perform
a
number
of
financial
transactions
synced
directly
with
your
overall
system
for
easy
reporting.
You
can
also
add
all
of
your
reimbursable
expenses
to
client
invoices
with
a
few
clicks. 

All
of
the
purchases
with
the
card
are
automatically
tracked
in
an
opening
dashboard. 

The
overall
balance
can
be
filtered
to
view
it
in
many
ways
—
by
lawyer,
by
merchant,
and
more.
On
the
same
screen,
each
transaction
is
tracked
in
a
ledger.

If
an
expense
has
not
been
fully
processed
by
the
system,
an
exclamation
point
will
mark
that
issue
on
this
screen. 

This
notifies
the
user
to
upload
a
receipt,
select
an
accounting
category,
and
otherwise
log
the
transaction.
Once
this
data
is
entered
into
the
system,
expenses
will
be
pulled
into
the
full
MyCase
system,
which
will
process
them
as
appropriate.

Viewing
Each
Card

You
can
also
track
each
individual
card
on
a
separate
dashboard. 

Cards
can
be
physical
or
virtual,
and
will
operate
like
any
credit
card
—
it
can
also
be
added
to
Apple
Pay®
or
Google
Pay®,
or
just
be
a
digital
card.

The
system
also
enables
you
to
set
spending
limits
for
each
user,
and
will
show
you
each
transaction,
sorted
by
user. 

When
any
card
is
used,
the
expense
is
automatically
added
to
the
expenses
sections
of
the
MyCase
and

MyCase
Accounting
systems
as
well. 

Anatomy
of
a
Transaction

To
demonstrate
Smart
Spend,
here’s
an
example
of
using
the
system
to
purchase
a
$5
Starbucks
gift
card.  

After
using
the
LawPay
Visa®
Business
Card
to
complete
the
purchase
at
the
Starbucks
website,
the
transaction
can
be
viewed
in
the
MyCase
system.
Here
is
the
smartphone
app
view: 

Once
the
transaction
is
complete,
it
will
automatically
populate
in
the
MyCase
system
and
can
be
viewed
there. 

The
Starbucks
transaction
is
the
top
item
in
the
view
below
in
the
desktop
system.
(Note
the
exclamation
point,
meaning
that
no
receipt
has
been
uploaded
and
no
accounting
category
specified.) 

The
smartphone
interface
allows
you
to
upload
a
photo
of
a
receipt
from
your
camera
roll
—
and
that’s
it. 

Once
you
submit
the
receipt
and
other
information,
the
app
will
let
you
know,
while
reminding
you
of
any
other
expenses
that
are
lacking
some
details. 

The
card
has
no
annual
fees
and
simply
requires
a
subscription
to
the
MyCase
system
in
addition
to
the
standard
credit
approval
process. 

A
Complete
System

MyCase
Smart
Spend
demonstrates
the
advantages
of
having
one
unified
system
for
all
of
your
firm’s
business
needs. 

All
of
your
reimbursable
case
expenses
can
be
added
to
your
client
invoices,
while
your
firm’s
other
operational
spending
can
be
seamlessly
organized.

Curious
about
the
possibilities
for
your
firm
to
save
more
time
and
money? 

Sign
up
for
a
free
trial
here. 

The
LawPay
Visa®
Business
Card
is
issued
by
Emprise
Bank,
pursuant
to
a
license
from
Visa
U.S.A.,
Inc.

Spring
has
sprung,
and
you
know
what
that
means:
we’re
now
seeking
submissions
for
our
annual

law
revue
video
contest.
As
far
as
last
year’s
submissions
are
concerned,
some
of
them
were
funny,
some
of
them
were
“meh,”
and
some
of
them
made
us
want
to
close
our
heads
inside
of
our
laptops.
Trust
us
when
we
say
you
do
NOT
want
to
be
in
the
last
category.

If
you
think
you
can
carry
a
tune
or
tell
a
joke,
we
ask
that
you
send
us
your
very
best
law
revue
videos
so
that
we
—
and
the
Above
the
Law
audience
—
may
pass
judgment
upon
them.
Prepare
for
the
worst,
but
hope
for
the
very
best.

Those
responsible
for
the
winning
video
will
get
Above
the
Law
prizes
and
the
pleasure
of
knowing
they’re
the
envy
of
their
law
school
peers.
As
always,
there
will
be
complete
and
total
exoneration
for
the
losers.
There’s
always
next
year.

Before
you
start
sending
us
your
videos,
we’ve
got
some
rules.
As
future
members
of
the
legal
profession,
we
hope
you’ll
be
able
to
follow
them.

1. Your
   video
   must
   be publicly
   available
   online somewhere.
   Send
   us
   the
   link
   at [email protected] with
   the
   subject
   line “Law
   Revue
   Video
   Contest
   Submission
   –
   [School
   Name].” We’ll
   accept
   submissions
   of
   any
   videos
   posted
   after
   April
   26,
   2024
   (the
   deadline
   for
   our
   last
   contest).
2. To
   avoid
   complaints
   from
   competitors
   (see,
   e.g., West
   Virginia’s
   2013
   winning
   entry),
   your
   primary
   performers
   must
   come
   from
   within
   the
   law
   school
   community
   (but
   cameos
   from
   outsiders
   are
   okay).
   How
   do
   we
   define
   a
   “primary
   performer”?
   Don’t
   test
   us,
   gunners.
   We’ll
   know
   a
   violation
   when
   we
   see
   it.
3. Send
   us
   your
   submission
   by FRIDAY,
   APRIL
   25,
   at
   5:00
   P.M. (Eastern
   time).
   That’s
   not
   a
   soft,
   law
   school
   deadline;
   it’s
   a
   hard,
   law
   firm
   deadline.
   (NO
   EXCEPTIONS,
   so
   don’t
   even
   try
   pleading
   with
   us;
   if
   you’re
   reading
   this
   post
   after
   the
   deadline,
   you
   don’t
   read
   ATL
   frequently
   enough.)
4. Your
   editors
   here
   at
   ATL
   will
   make
   a
   list
   of
   our
   favorites,
   the
   competition
   finalists,
   and
   post
   them.
5. We
   will NOT watch
   videos
   longer
   than 5
   minutes.
   Use
   editing
   tools,
   people.
6. Please
   submit no
   more
   than
   two
   entries
   per
   school (one
   per
   school
   is
   even
   better).
   Try
   to
   collaborate
   with
   your
   fellow
   students
   and
   submit
   no
   more
   than
   two
   entries.
   If
   the
   leadership
   of
   Law
   Revue
   can
   come
   up
   with
   “official”
   submissions,
   that
   would
   be
   ideal.
7. ATL
   readers
   will
   then
   vote
   to
   choose
   the
   funniest
   of
   the
   finalists.
   The
   winning
   team
   will
   receive
   ATL
   prizes
   (limit
   five
   prizes).

Here
are
some
unofficial
rules:

• Please
  send
  funny
  videos
  only.
• You
  have
  no
  idea
  how
  short
  our
  attention
  spans
  are.
  If
  you
  use
  the
  full
  five
  minutes,
  it
  better
  be
  absolutely
  freakin’ HILARIOUS.
• Gratuitous
  shout-outs
  to
  Above
  the
  Law
  are
  appreciated
  and
  encouraged.
• Video
  quality
  matters.
  A
  shaky
  clip
  shot
  on
  a
  handheld
  from
  a
  third-floor
  balcony
  is
  probably
  not
  going
  to
  make
  the
  cut.
• Don’t
  make
  us
  hate
  you.

Send
those
videos
in.
Best
of
luck
—
the
competition
will
be
even
fiercer
than
usual,
so
you’re
going
to
need
it!!!
We
look
forward
to
judging
you.

---

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.

ATL
readers
have
no
doubt
been
following
the
extraordinary
actions
taken
by
the
president
and
his
administration
to
retaliate
against
Trump’s

perceived
personal
legal
enemies
(or
the
law

firms
where
those
lawyers
once
worked)
and

intimidate
other
attorneys
who
might
challenge
him
by
threatening
to
revoke
security
clearances
and
terminate
government
contracts,
and
to
promote
his
own
ugly
brand
of
white
supremacy
by,
inter
alia,
having
the
EEOC
launch

supposed
Civil
Rights
Act
investigations
of
firms
who
have
championed
the
benefits
of
a
diverse
workforce.

Most
of
the
Biglaw
community
has
been

deafeningly
silent
in
the
face
of
this
“brazen
abuse
of
government
power.”
But
we
have
also
witnessed

legal
challenges
in
court;
public
condemnation

by
hundreds
of
associates
and
a
few

partners;
a
lot
of
quiet
surrender
(e.g.,

disappearing
diversity
initiatives,
presumably
in
hopes
no
one
will
even
remember
they
were
once
there);
and,
most
disappointingly,

outright
capitulation. 

To
help
keep
track
of
which
firms
have
taken
a
stand,
which
have
made
deals,
and
which
have
closed
their
eyes
to
it
all,
ATL
recently
introduced
the

Biglaw
Spine
Index.

Now,
we
want
to
hear
from
you. 

Amid
the
administration’s
unprecedented
efforts
to
punish
and
intimidate
law
firms
based
on
their
representation
of
clients
or
causes
with
which
the
president
disagrees,
tell
us
what
you
think
about
the
Biglaw
community’s
response
(or
lack
thereof).