Author: TSA Press

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

Anyone
who
has
worked
with
Chase
knows
the
intelligence,
compassion,
and
courage
he
brings
to
every
fight
for
the
rights
and
well-being
of
his
plaintiffs.

—
James
Esseks,
the
co-director
of
the
ACLU’s
LGBTQ
&
HIV
Project,
in
comments
given
concerning

Chase
Strangio,
co-director
for
transgender
justice
with
the
ACLU’s
LGBTQ
&
HIV
Project,
who
will
soon
become
the

first
openly
transgender
lawyer
to
argue
before
the
Supreme
Court.
On
December
4,
he
will
share
time
with
the
Biden
administration,
arguing
that
Tennessee’s
ban
on
gender
affirming
care
for
minors
violates
the
equal
protection
clause
of
the
Constitution.
Strangio,
a
Northwestern
Law
graduate,
has
been
with
the
ACLU
since
2013.

---

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
is
a
very
strong
tendency
for
the
discourse
surrounding
protests
to
fixate
on
their
form
rather
than
their
content.
The
criticism
usually
begins
and
ends
with
an
assessment
of 
how
polite
or
convenient
the
protest
was.
Sure,

human
rights
are
important
or
whatever,
but
was
the
Olympics
really
the
best
place
to
raise
a
fist?
Or
“Yes,
cops
murdering
unarmed
people
is
bad
or
whatever,
but
can
you
believe
Kaepernick
is
ruining
Sunday
Night
Football?”
If
the
politeness
check
isn’t
met,
people
act
as
if
it
permits
all
sorts
of
rude
responses
that
range
from

state
sanctioned
ridicule
to

state
actors
hurting
or
killing
protestors.

Despite
disruption
being
a

vital
component
in
the
history
of
protesting,
the
demand
that
protests
be
polite
and
convenient
(in
addition
to
the

fire
hoses
and
dogs,

tear
gas
and

attacks
on
university
faculty
and
students
that
buttress
the
demands
for
protestors
to
be
polite
and
patient)
has
incentivized
less
and
less
invasive
forms
of
protest.
We’ve
moved
from

blocking
roads
and

sit-ins as
objectionable
protests
to
studying
with
the
wrong
scarves
and
laptop
decor
as
deserving
scrutiny.

If
we
are
to
have

any
meaningful
discussion
about
free
speech
on
campus
that
isn’t
just

a
shorthand
excuse
for
FedSoc
judges
being
able
to
spew
Fox
News
talking
points
without
being
expected
to
respect
pedagogical
norms
like
explaining
your
legal
decision
to
law
students,
students
quietly
studying
as
protest
has
to
be
the
bare
minimum
of
what’s
allowed,
right?
Doesn’t
seem
to
be
the
case
at
Harvard.

The
good
news
is
that
the
students
are
supported
by
some
of
the
faculty
—
Harvard
Law
professor
Andrew
Crespo,
joined
by
Harvard
Businness’
Reshmaan
N.
Hussam
did
a
write
up
on
the
protest
for

The
Crimson:

[A]
few
weeks
ago,
at
least
twelve
of
our
students
were
suspended
from
the
same
library
for…reading
quietly,
with
small
signs
taped
to
their
laptops.

We
strongly
disagree
with
Harvard’s
decision
to
ban
our
students
from
the
library
over
this
conduct.
A
university
should
never
deny
access
to
scholarly
resources
as
a
mode
of
punishment.
In
fact,
we
believe
these
sanctions
violate
the
American
Library
Association’s
Bill
of
Rights.
…
If
there
is
one
noteworthy
difference
between
our
study
session
and
theirs,
it
is
that
the
students
all
wore
traditional
Palestinian
keffiyehs
around
their
necks,
while
we
and
our
colleagues
wore
black
scarves.
We
did
this
with
intention,
to
underscore
the
unequal
and
repeated
disciplinary
threats
and
actions
targeting
students
who
have
expressed
a
particular
point
of
view
this
last
year.

It
is
refreshing
to
see
law
professors
going
to
bat
for
their
students,
much
better
than
having
to
cover

another
Amy
Wax
“Hate
speech
is
good,
actually!”
story.
The
professors
go
on
to
say
that
there
is
no
reasonable
way
to
frame
students
quietly
studying
and
sharing
ideas
as
disruptive
since…that’s
kinda
the
fundamental
purpose
of
universities.
It
is
so
fundamental
that
there
is
a
legitimate
question
of
if
the
student’s
study
group
constituted
a
“protest,”
framing
it
as
such
may
already
be
ceding
to
the
University’s
framing
of
the
shared
silent
study.
For
example,
would
a
group
of
students
studying
together
that
have
“Don’t
tread
on
me”
stickers
or
even
a
sign
in
front
of
them
that
says
“Sic
Semper
Tyrannis”
in
front
of
their
laptop
amount
to
a
protest?
Probably
not,
even
if
they
all
happen
to
be
very
enthusiastic
libertarians.
What
makes
this
“protest”
any
different?

Harvard
isn’t
the
only
place
where
the
expression
of
a
particular
point
of
view
has
resulted
in
an
uncharacteristically
aggressive
response.
Ta-Nehisi
Coates
recently
came
under
fire
for
sharing
the
apparently
controversial
opinion
that
Apartheid
is
categorically
bad
on

CBS.
The
fall
out
has
resulted
in
some
in-depth
discussions
about
why
and
how
dissent
is
policed
in
public
forums:

If
reading
quietly
in
a
library
can
be
framed
as
a
punishable
form
of
protest,
what
places
and
methods
remain
for
peacefully
voicing
dissent?
Or
for
that
matter,
merely
studying?

Will
Harvard
Punish
Its
Professors
for
Reading
in
the
Library?
[The
Crimson]

---

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.

Ed.
note:
This
is
the
latest
in
a
series
providing
a
comprehensive
guide
to
networking
at
conferences.

Read
the
previous
installment
here. 

In
this
next
chapter
of
“Conquering
Conferences,”
we
focus
on
a
crucial
yet
often
overlooked
aspect
—
making
a
graceful
exit.

Whether
it’s
leaving
a
group
or
ending
a
one-on-one
conversation,
the
art
of
the
goodbye
is
about
departing
as
smoothly
as
you
arrived.

Exiting
Chats
Without
the
Cringe

Mastering
the
art
of
a
graceful
exit
is
like
perfecting
the
smooth
steps
of
a
dance.
It’s
all
about
leaving
on
a
high
note,
without
awkwardness
or
stumbling.

Whether
you’ve
just
shared
a
laugh,
exchanged
some
intriguing
insights,
or
simply
found
the
conversation
winding
down,
knowing
how
to
bow
out
gracefully
is
key
to
maintaining
your
social
finesse.

Here’s
how
to
make
your
exit
smooth,
leaving
a
lasting
impression
that’s
as
positive
as
it
is
professional:

• 
  The
  Appreciative
  Exit:
  When
  you’re
  ready
  to
  leave
  a
  group,
  interject
  at
  a
  natural
  pause
  in
  the
  conversation
  with
  a
  comment
  like:
  “I’ve
  really
  enjoyed
  this
  discussion,
  especially
  the
  insights
  on
  [specific
  topic].
  I
  need
  to
  mingle
  a
  bit
  more,
  but
  it
  was
  great
  connecting
  with
  all
  of
  you.
  Enjoy
  the
  rest
  of
  the
  event!”
  This
  approach
  shows
  appreciation
  for
  the
  conversation
  and
  allows
  for
  a
  smooth
  exit
  without
  making
  it
  seem
  abrupt.
• 
  The
  Connector’s
  Departure:
  A
  strategic
  way
  to
  exit
  is
  to
  connect
  others
  before
  you
  leave.
  Say
  something
  like,
  “Before
  I
  head
  off,
  I
  just
  want
  to
  introduce
  [Person
  A]
  to
  [Person
  B].
  I
  think
  you
  both
  have
  some
  interesting
  ideas
  on
  [specific
  topic].
  I’ll
  leave
  you
  to
  it
  —
  great
  chatting
  with
  everyone!”
  This
  not
  only
  adds
  value
  to
  the
  group
  but
  also
  provides
  a
  natural
  and
  thoughtful
  way
  to
  excuse
  yourself.
• 
  The
  Schedule
  Excuse:
  Use
  your
  schedule
  as
  a
  polite
  way
  to
  exit.
  You
  can
  say,
  “I
  just
  realized
  I
  have
  a
  session
  I
  can’t
  miss
  starting
  in
  a
  few
  minutes.
  It’s
  been
  great
  talking
  with
  everyone.
  Hopefully,
  we’ll
  run
  into
  each
  other
  again
  during
  the
  conference.”
  This
  gives
  you
  a
  clear
  reason
  to
  leave
  and
  is
  generally
  well-accepted
  in
  a
  busy
  conference
  setting.
  
• 
  The
  Open-Ended
  Goodbye:
  Leave
  the
  conversation
  open
  for
  future
  interactions
  with
  a
  line
  like,
  “I’ll
  have
  to
  step
  away
  now,
  but
  if
  anyone
  wants
  to
  continue
  this
  conversation
  later,
  feel
  free
  to
  catch
  me
  during
  the
  break
  or
  connect
  on
  LinkedIn.
  Enjoy
  the
  rest
  of
  the
  session!”
  This
  indicates
  that
  you’re
  open
  to
  further
  discussions,
  just
  at
  a
  later
  time.
• 
  The
  Polite
  Interruption:
  If
  the
  conversation
  is
  ongoing
  and
  finding
  a
  natural
  pause
  is
  difficult,
  you
  can
  politely
  interject
  with:
  “Excuse
  me
  for
  interrupting,
  I’ve
  got
  to
  head
  out
  now,
  but
  this
  has
  been
  a
  great
  conversation.
  Have
  a
  wonderful
  day,
  everyone!”
  This
  is
  a
  direct
  yet
  polite
  way
  to
  make
  your
  exit
  without
  waiting
  for
  a
  perfect
  moment.

Now
that
we’ve
mastered
the
art
of
the
graceful
exit,
let’s
turn
our
attention
to
the
next
step
in
our
networking
journey.
Next
week,
we’ll
explore
how
to
keep
the
conversation
alive
and
fresh
with
each
new
interaction,
ensuring
a
dynamic
and
fulfilling
conference
experience.

Exiting
Chats
Smoothly

✔️
Master
the
skill
of
leaving
conversations
gracefully,
maintaining
positive
impressions.


✔️

Use
tactful
strategies
to
exit
without
causing
disruption.

---

Sejal Patel is
the Founder
of
Sage
Ivy,
a
New
York-based
consultancy
specializing
in
empowering
attorneys
with
innovative
practice
development
strategies.
With
over
20
years
of
experience,
Sejal
applies
her
expertise
in
assisting
clients
convert
their
relationships
into
revenue
by
applying
individualized
strategies
to
their
networks
and
leveraging
their
unique
styles
authentically.  

Florida
Governor
Ron
DeSantis
is
getting
spanked
in
court
again.
And
once
again
it’s
at
the
hands
of
Judge
Mark
Walker,
who
granted
a

temporary
restraining
order
against
the
state’s
Department
of
Health
on
Friday.

“To
keep
it
simple
for
the
State
of
Florida:
it’s
the
First
Amendment,
stupid,”
the
judge
wrote
scornfully.

It
would
appear
that
DeSantis
(HLS
’05)
requires
the
court
to
explain
the
concept
of
free
speech
to
him,
as
if
to
a
toddler.
Because
the
governor
and
his
minions
are
under
the
impression
that
that
they
can
censor
their
constituents
simply
by
rebranding
their
speech
as
a
“sanitary
nuisance,”
akin
to
pollution
dumped
in
the
waterways.

The
ruling
comes
in
response
to
the
state’s
efforts
to
dissuade
voters
from
supporting
Amendment
4,
a
ballot
referendum
which
would
enshrine
the
right
to
an
abortion
in
the
state’s
constitution.
DeSantis
and
his
cronies
are
engaged
in
extensive
shenanigans
to
block
it
including:
a

taxpayer-funded
advertising
campaign;

threats
to
prosecute
the
ballot
organizers
for
signature
fraud;
and

screwing
with
the
financial
impact
statement
to
include
the
litigation
cost
of
defending
the
law
in
court
from
the
very
people
pushing
for
its
passage.

That
last
one
is
ironic
in
light
of
the
fact
that
DeSantis’s
pre-enactment
antics
include

hiring
a
law
firm
which
calls
itself
First
&
Fourteenth
PLLC
—

get
it?
get
it?
—
to
attack
supporters
of
the
referendum,
at
a
projected
cost
of
about
$1
million.

The
debacle
started
on
October
3,
when
John
Wilson,
the
now-former
general
counsel
for
the
Florida
Department
of
Health,
sent

multiple
cease
and
desist
letters to
local
television
stations
threatening
them
with
prosecution
if
they
failed
to
take
down
an
ad
in
which
a
woman
named
Caroline
describes
needing
an
abortion
after
a
cancer
diagnosis.
The
woman
says
that
she
would
have
been
denied
this
medically
necessary
treatment
under
Florida’s
Heartbeat
Protection
Act.

Wilson
threatened
to
prosecute
the
stations
for
continuing
to
air
the
ad
under
a
provision
of
 the

Florida
Clean
Air
Act
usually
reserved
for
slaughterhouses
and
factories
releasing
effluent.
His
theory
was
that
Caroline
was
lying
about
the
Heartbeat
Bill
(she
wasn’t),
and
that
this
lie
harmed
public
health
by
leading
women
“to
believe
that
such
treatment
is
unavailable
under
Florida
law,
[so
that]
such
women
could
foreseeably
travel
out
of
state
to
seek
emergency
medical
care,
seek
emergency
medical
care
from
unlicensed
providers
in
Florida,
or
not
seek
emergency
medical
care
at
all.”

Floridians
Protecting
Freedom
(FPF),
the
group
which
pushed
the
ballot,
sued
in
federal
court
to
block
the
state,
and
Judge
Walker
granted
the
TRO
through
October
29.

This
case
pits
the
right
to
engage
in
political
speech
against
the
State’s
purported
interest
in
protecting
the
health
and
safety
of
Floridians
from
“false
advertising.”
It
is
no
answer
to
suggest
that
the
Department
of
Health
is
merely
flexing
its
traditional
police
powers
to
protect
health
and
safety
by
prosecuting
“false
advertising”—if
the
State
can
rebrand
rank
viewpoint
discriminatory
suppression
of
political
speech
as
a
“sanitary
nuisance,”
then
any
political
viewpoint
with
which
the
State
disagrees
is
fair
game
for
censorship.
Moreover,
the
record
demonstrates
that
Defendant
has
ample,
constitutional
alternatives
to
mitigate
any
harm
caused
by
an
injunction
in
this
case.
The
State
of
Florida
has
actively
undertaken
its
own
anti-Amendment
4
campaign
to
educate
the
public
about
its
view
of
Florida’s
abortion
laws
and
to
correct
the
record,
as
it
sees
fit,
concerning
pro-Amendment
4
speech.
The
State
can
continue
to
combat
what
it
believes
to
be
“false
advertising”
by
meeting
Plaintiff’s
speech
with
its
own.

In
the
meantime,
Wilson
has
not
only
resigned
his
position
with
the
Department
of
Health;
he’s
filed
an

affidavit claiming
that
the
letter
bearing
his
name
came
directly
from
the
governor’s
office;
that
he’d
been
instructed
to
hire
outside
counsel
to
actually
sue
the
TV
stations
for
running
the
ads;
and
that
he’d
resigned
rather
than
obey
a
direct
order
to
send
further
threatening
letters.

It
would
probably
be
churlish
to
point
out
that
Wilson
knew
damn
well
that
the

first
letter
was
a
gross
violation
of
the
First
Amendment,
and
it
didn’t
seem
to
bother
him
until
every
major
media
outlet
in
the
country
picked
up
the
story
and
started
pointing
out
how
wildly
inappropriate
it
was.
The
important
thing
is
he’s
here
now.
And
I
think
we’ve
all
learned
a
valuable
lesson
here.
And
that
lesson
is
…

…
STREISAND
EFFECT.

Because
if
Florida
voters
weren’t
paying
attention
to
this
bill
before,
they
sure
are
today.

Floridians
Protecting
Freedom
v.
Ladapo
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

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

You
know
you’d
rather
be
mindlessly
scrolling
through
TikTok
instead
of
mindlessly
billing
hours.
Saturday
Night
Live
knows
it
too,
and
tackled
TikTok
and
its
many
influencers
in
its
latest
parody
sketch.

Women
lawyers
may
find
the
video
particularly
entertaining
at
around
the
2:53
mark,
when
a
tradwife
—
i.e.,
a
woman
who
believes
in
traditional
gender
roles
and
marriages
and
is
focused
on
subservient
homemaking
and
childrearing
—
makes
an
appearance.
Her
law
degree
from
an
apparent
past
life
makes
an
appearance
too,
but
not
necessarily
in
the
way
you’d
expect.

“As
a
22-year-old
mother
of
10,
I
like
to
do
everything
by
hand,”
the
tradwife
says.
“Today,
my
kids
wanted
to
color,
but
we
were
all
out
of
paper.
So
I
mashed
up
my
law
degree
to
make
more
paper
for
my
kids.”

Friends,
as
frustrating
as
it
can
sometimes
be
as
a
full-time
lawyer
and
a
full-time
mother,
please
don’t
mash
up
your
law
degrees.
It’s
much
easier
to
order
a
fresh
ream
of
coloring
paper
on
Amazon
—
not
to
mention
the
fact
that
you
don’t
even
need
a
rolling
pin
to
do
it.

---

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.

Attorneys
from
Boies
Schiller,
Quinn
Emanuel,
and
Ropes
&
Gray
are
on
a
federal
judge’s
shit
list.
The
trio
of
firms
work
on
behalf
of
Servicios
Funerarios
GG
in
its
suit
against
private
equity
firm
Advent
International
Corp.
in
a
case
involving
the
sale
of
a
Mexican
funeral
company,
Grupo
Gayosso.
And
Judge
Indira
Talwani
of
the
District
of
Massachusetts
isn’t
happy
with
the
Biglaw
firms.
In
a
hearing
on
Friday,
she
ripped
into
the
attorneys
for
over-litigating
the
case
—
and
necessarily
running
up
those
legal
fees.

As

reported
by
Law360:

The
judge
said
seemingly
endless
motions
and
filings
in
the
case
had
the
effect
of
relitigating
points
and
appeared
to
be
“an
effort
to
try
to
gum
up
the
works.”

“I
don’t
understand
how
11
lawyers
can
jointly
make
what
we
are
doing
here
difficult,”
Judge
Talwani
said.
“It
is
not
serving
you
well
—
your
clients
paying
your
bills
—
and
I
do
want
you
to
pass
this
message
to
your
client:
In
order
to
try
to
keep
your
bills
down,
it
would
be
helpful
to
try
and
figure
out
whether
there
are
some
things
that
don’t
have
to
be
fought
about.”

“That
might
serve
your
clients,”
the
judge
added.
“It
might
not
serve
your
pocketbooks,
and
you
can
tell
your
clients
that
was
my
comment.”

Not
the
kind
of
comments
you
want
to
see
on
record.

Now,
admittedly,
it’s
a
complicated
case
with
arrest
warrants,
sanctions
motions,
finagling
over
deposition
dates,
so
many
delays
and
lots
of
entries
on
the
docket.
That
seemed
to
be
the
tipping
point
for
the
judge.

Judge
Talwani
complained
Friday
that
the
parties’
efforts
to
confer
on
issues
have
been
of
little
help
to
her
court’s
management
of
the
docket.
A
pair
of
letters
filed
an
hour
before
the
status
conference
appeared
to
spark
the
judge’s
public
fuming
and
dressing
down
of
the
attorneys.

Lawyers
for
Advent
International
sent
the
court
a
letter
explaining
they
had
conferred
with
Servicios
about
a
timeline
that
would
govern
how
the
case
advanced
through
the
end
stages
of
fact
discovery,
expert
witnesses
and
pretrial
dispositive
motions.
It
said
Advent
and
Servicios
disagreed
on
the
exact
schedule,
and
it
then
attached
a
table
that
included
only
Advent’s
proposal.

Half
an
hour
later,
Servicios
also
filed
a
letter
outlining
its
proposed
schedule,
including
a
May
trial
date.

“I’m
just
not
sure
why
it
wouldn’t
occur
to
you,
just
give
me
that
on
one
single
piece
of
paper,”
the
judge
said.

Boies
Schiller
attorney
Carlos
Sires
said
their
client
“shares
the
court’s
frustration”
—
and
they’re
the
ones
footing
the
bill.

---

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].

Is
Goodwin
doing
layoffs
right
now?
This
time
around,
we
can
confidently
say
that
the
answer
to
that
question
is
no.

Many
Biglaw
firms
—
some
more
than
others,
of
course
—
are
often
besieged
by
by
rumors
of
layoffs.
One
of
those
firms
is
Goodwin
Procter,
which
brought
in
$2,244,196,000
gross
revenue
in
2023,
putting
it
at
No.
16
in
the
most
recent
Am
Law
100.
The
firm
became
the
most
recent
“poster
child”
for
layoffs
after
kicking
off
the
year
in
2023
with
a

reduction
in
force
that
eliminated
about
5%
of
the
firm’s
timekeepers,
including
associates
and
all
manner
of
other
attorneys.
In
2024,
Goodwin
opened
the
year
by
conducting

performance
reviews
that
resulted
in
“an
unknown
number”
of
out-of-work
associates
(and
to
us,
this
reeked
of
stealth
layoffs).

These
actions
have
resulted
in
a
frequent
ebb
and
flow
of
layoff
rumors
at
the
top
Biglaw
firm
—
in
fact,
whispers
of
layoffs
at
the
firm
are
once
again
circulating
on
social
media.
Goodwin,
however,
is
sick
and
tired
of
the
firm
being
dragged
through
the
mud,
so
its
PR
team
is
on
the
case
to
shut
down
the
rumor
mill
at
the
very
source.

As
reported
by
the

American
Lawyer,
Goodwin’s
chief
marketing
and
communications
officer,
Konstantin
Shishkin,
took
to

Reddit
and

Fishbowl
to
put
an
end
to
the
layoff
talk.
We
believe
this
may
the
first
time
a
high-ranking
member
of
a
Biglaw
firm’s
staff
has
entered
the
fray
on
these
social
media
sites
using
their
own
name
and
title
to
quell
rumors
of
layoffs
and
job
loss.

In
his
statement,
available
in
full
on
the
next
page,
Shishkin
notes
that
Goodwin,
which
“just
closed
a
record
financial
year,”
is

not
conducting
outright
layoffs.
He
goes
on
to
speak
about
how
the
firm
has
grown
in
size
since
January
22,
and
will
continue
to
grow
when
it
welcomes
nearly
200
incoming
associates
later
this
month.
“[A]ny
talk
about
“continued
layoffs”
or
“stealth
layoffs”
at
Goodwin
is
both
misinformed
and
untrue,”
he
writes.
“We
hope
this
clears
things
up
for
all
of
you
who
are
curious
about
what’s
going
on
at
Goodwin.”
Shishkin
went
on
to
officially
confirm
that
“the
firm
did
not
ask
anyone
from
the
classes
of
2022
and
2023
to
leave
the
firm
—
for
any
reason
—
in
any
of
its
U.S.
offices
in
the
past
24
days.”

If
you’re
still
not
convinced
that
Goodwin
is
in
no
way,
shape,
or
form
conducting
layoffs
of
any
kind,
be
wary
that
these
incredibly
forthcoming
statements
tend
to
be
few
and
far
between
when
actual
reductions
are
afoot.
This
is

what
a
layoff
looks
like
at
the
firm.
This
is
what
a

stealth
layoff
may
look
like
at
the
firm.
A
firm
representative
stating
on
a
public
forum
that
no
layoffs
of
any
kind
are
happening
at
the
firm
is
sufficient
evidence
that

NO
LAYOFFS
are
occurring
at
this
time.

Rest
assured
that
if
actual
layoffs
occur
at
this
firm
—
or
any
firm
—
the
Above
the
Law
team
will
be
here
to
provide
coverage.
At
this
time,
we
thank
Shiskin
for
going
to
bat
for
Goodwin
on
Fishbowl
and
Reddit.
We
wish
more
high-ranking
Biglaw
staff
members
were
willing
to
do
the
same.

(Flip
to
the
next
page
to
read
Konstantin
Shishkin’s
statement
in
full.)

If
your
firm
or
organization
is
reducing
the
ranks
of
its
lawyers
or
staff,
whether
through
deferrals,
open
layoffs,
stealth
layoffs,
or
voluntary
buyouts,
please
don’t
hesitate
to
let
us
know.
Our
vast
network
of
tipsters
is
part
of
what
makes
Above
the
Law
thrive.
You
can email
us or
text
us
(646-820-8477).
Thank
you
for
your
assistance.

If
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Layoff
Alerts,
please
scroll
down
and
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below
this
post.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
the
layoff
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
layoff
announcement
that
we
publish.

Goodwin
Rebuts
Layoffs
Rumors
Head
On
[American
Lawyer]

---

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.

Elon
Musk
has
thrown
his
energy
behind
the
Trump
candidacy,
adding
a
certain
“pasty-rich-white-man-fudning-a-platform-for-bigots”
energy
that
the
campaign
was
absolutely
not
lacking.
Musk’s
efforts
to
aid
Trump’s
bid
include
a
dedicated
super
PAC
and
paying
door
knockers
in
swing
states
who

apparently
just
took
the
money
and
ran.
But
he
also
concocted
a
new
“lottery”
to

pay
$1
million
a
day
to
lucky
people
who
sign
his
petition
about
defending
the
“Constitution”
—
which
is
to
say
the
First
Amendment
and
the
Second
Amendment
and
none
of
that
pesky
stuff
about
voting
rights
or
equal
protection
(unsurprisingly
the
stuff
that
the
“Constitution”
reprinted
in
the

Trump
Bible
skips
too).

Oh,
and
yeah,
this
is
totally
illegal.

Election
law
expert

Rick
Hasen
addressed
Musk’s
million-dollar
initiative
over
the
weekend
at
the
Election
Law
Blog:

Though
maybe
some
of
the
other
things
Musk
was
doing
were of
murky
legality,
this
one
is
clearly
illegal.
See 52
U.S.C.
10307(c):
“Whoever
knowingly
or
willfully
gives
false
information
as
to
his
name,
address
or
period
of
residence
in
the
voting
district
for
the
purpose
of
establishing
his
eligibility
to
register
or
vote,
or
conspires
with
another
individual
for
the
purpose
of
encouraging
his
false
registration
to
vote
or
illegal
voting, or
pays
or
offers
to
pay
or
accepts
payment
either
for
registration
to
vote or
for
voting
shall
be
fined
not
more
than
$10,000
or
imprisoned
not
more
than
five
years,
or
both…”
(Emphasis
added.)

To
further
clarify,
“For
an
offer
or
a
payment
to
violate
Section
10307(c),
it
must
have
been
intended
to
induce
or
reward
the
voter
for
engaging
in
one
or
more
acts
necessary
to
cast
a
ballot….”
There
are
carveouts
to
protect
against
someone
twisting
the
law
to
include
“giving
your
employees
the
Election
day
off”
or
“driving
your
neighbor
to
the
polls.”
But
offering
a
chance
at
a
million
dollars
is
a
far
cry
from
those
safe
harbors.

How
could
Musk
find
himself
on
the
illegal
end
of
such
a
straightforward
question?
Remember,
he
owns
Twitter
right
now
because
he
blew
off
whatever
good
legal
advice
he
received
from
his
Biglaw
counsel
and

waived
due
diligence.
Then
he
dragged
out
his

obvious
loser
of
a
fight,
causing
Twitter
to
run
up

a
massive
Wachtell
bill
that
became
Elon’s
responsibility
when
he
ultimately
honored
his
legal
obligation
and
completed
the
purchase.
Since
then,
he’s

nearly
gotten
a
firm
sanctioned
and
launched
a

wide-ranging
suit
against
a
media
watchdog
for
accurately
pointing
out
how
Twitter
works.
At
least
in
that
case
his
lawyers
successfully
steered
the
case
to
a
judge
with

a
huge
chunk
of
Tesla
stock
and

shows
no
signs
of
having
qualms
about
the
appearance
of
impropriety.

Someone
out
there
who
cares
about
Musk
needs
to
step
in
for
his
sake.
And,
ideally,
that
person
would
have
a
law
degree.

Elon
Musk
Veers
Into
Clearly
Illegal
Vote
Buying,
Offering
$1
Million
Per
Day
Lottery
Prize
Only
to
Registered
Voters
[Election
Law
Blog]

Earlier:

Twitter
Complaint
Demonstrates
That
Every
Lawyer,
Everywhere,
Always
Is
Smarter
Than
Elon
Musk

Elon
Musk
Will
Beat
Twitter!
WSJ
Says
It’s
Obvious…
Assuming
You
Change
Every
Single
Fact
And
Law.

Elon
Musk
Says
Advertisers
Are
Doing
The
RICO
If
They
Don’t
Give
Him
Money

Elon
Musk
Sues
Wachtell
For
Being
Better
Lawyers

---

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.

Just
four
years
ago,
lawyers
were
somewhat
awestruck


when
they
tried
out

Casetext’s
AI-powered
legal
research
tool
for
the
first
time. 

The
product,
dubbed
“Parallel
Search,”
demonstrated
a
groundbreaking
ability:
conducting
research
based
on
the
meaning
of
a
phrase,
as
opposed
to
finding
an
exact
keyword,
which
had
been
the
process
for
decades.

But
as
impressive
as
this
advancement
was,
few
could
predict
just
how
quickly
artificial
intelligence
technology
in
the
legal
industry
would
continue
to
develop
and
grow
in
the
coming
years.  

This
progress
hit
a
high
point
with
the
launch
of
the
first
version
of
CoCounsel
by
Casetext
in
2023
—
and
the
tool’s
subsequent
addition
to
the
Thomson
Reuters
suite
of
technology
products. 

CoCounsel
aims
to
function
as
an
AI
legal
assistant
—
you
can
talk
to
it
as
you
would
a
colleague,
give
it
directions,
and
ask
it
to
complete
tasks,
which
it
will
do
with
superhuman
capabilities. 

And
as
generative
AI
technology
has
continuously
improved,
so
have
CoCounsel’s
offerings. 

Thomson
Reuters
recently
launched
CoCounsel
2.0,
which
contains
several
big
upgrades
made
possible
by
advances
in
the
underlying
tech. 

CoCounsel
2.0
is
three
times
faster
than
the
previous
version.
It
has
new
features
that
make
it
even
more
intuitive,
and
it
delivers
results
that
are
more
nuanced
and
thorough. 

In
response
to
users’
requests,
the
new
version
of
CoCounsel
integrates
directly
with
your
document
management
system,
and
it
can
now
compare
several
documents
and
provide
detailed
analysis
of
how
they
differ. 

Here,
we’re
sharing
a
tour
of
the
latest
version
of
CoCounsel,
guided
by
Jake
Heller,
who
co-founded
Casetext
and
is
currently
CoCounsel’s
head
of
product. 

Getting
Started

The
upgrades
in
CoCounsel
2.0
are
evident
from
when
you
first
log
in.

There
is
some
new
Thomson
Reuters
stylization,
but,
more
importantly,
CoCounsel
2.0
is
now
fully
supported
on
Thomson
Reuters
infrastructure. 

This
means
your
login
process
is
now
seamless.
CoCounsel
also
now
integrates
directly
with
Thomson
Reuters’
Westlaw
and
Practical
Law,
as
well
as
with
Microsoft
365. 

Additionally,
you
can
now
bring
in
files
for
CoCounsel
to
analyze
through
your
document
management
system. 

CoCounsel
users
previously
had
to
take
a
document
out
of
a
DMS,
save
it
to
their
hard
drive,
and
then
upload
it
into
CoCounsel.
Now,
CoCounsel
syncs
directly
with
systems
including
NetDocuments,
SharePoint,
and
iManage. 

New
Superpowers

For
an
example
task,
CoCounsel
was
populated
with
a
100-page
proposed
merger
agreement,
along
with
a
letter
agreement
that
modifies
the
original
document,
based
on
Microsoft’s
acquisition
of
Activision
Blizzard. 

CoCounsel
was
asked
several
complex
questions
about
the
two
documents.
Without
this
technology,
manually
determining
these
answers
would
likely
occupy
an
associate
for
the
better
part
of
a
day. 

CoCounsel
was
able
to
answer
these
questions
in
less
than
a
minute,
providing
detailed
analysis
that
shows
its
work.

This
exercise
shows
off
many
of
the
advances
in
artificial
intelligence
that
are
reflected
in
CoCounsel
2.0.

First,
the
new
CoCounsel
is
simply
much
faster
than
the
previous
version,
meaning
this
search
happens
in
about
a
minute,
as
opposed
to
a
few
minutes.

The
advances
are
far
more
substantive,
however.
As
AI
becomes
faster,
CoCounsel
can
consider
larger
datasets
at
one
time
and
provide
more
intelligent
analysis. 

Heller
notes
that
in
the
prior
version
of
CoCounsel,
the
underlying
AI
would
process
a
document
in
four-
or
five-page
pieces
and
then
compile
its
answers
based
on
ongoing
notes.

Now,
the
AI
can
read
5,000
pages
at
a
time,
and
therefore
it
can
fashion
more
intelligent
answers
and
insights. 

With
these
advances,
AI
can
now
analyze
the
impact
of
amendments
to
documents,
or
find
patterns
that
imply
the
use
of
code
words
in
eDiscovery
data,
or
spot
inconsistencies
in
deposition
testimony. 

Even
with
these
advances,
though,
it’s
critical
to
keep
the
human
in
the
loop
to
verify
the
work
of
any
AI
tool.
CoCounsel
2.0
takes
big
steps
in
that
direction
as
well.

Every
answer
it
provides
is
accompanied
by
a
footnote
number.
A
click
on
the
number
takes
the
user
directly
to
the
relevant
portion
of
the
underlying
document,
allowing
the
human
user
to
review
the
information
directly. 

Comparing
Documents

If
you’re
looking
at
a
proposed
agreement
and
then
a
document
amending
it,
or
trying
to
compare
regulatory
rulings
across
jurisdictions,
listing
out
differences
in
these
documents
can
be
a
time-consuming
task.

The
new
version
of
CoCounsel
addresses
this
problem
with
the
same
intuitive
and
user-friendly
approach
found
elsewhere
in
the
product. 

CoCounsel
2.0
allows
users
to
simply
upload
multiple
documents,
and
the
tool
will
generate
a
detailed
table
comparing
the
documents
on
numerous
data
points,
with
easy
links
to
the
source
included. 

The
use
cases
abound.
Litigators,
for
example,
may
want
to
compare
decisions
across
jurisdictions
and
point
out
similarities
and
differences. 

Here’s
an
example
of
how
it
shows
rulings
from
Korea,
Japan,
and
the
U.S.
—
with
the
source
documents
uploaded
in
Korean,
Japanese,
and
English,
respectively. 

The
CoCounsel
Difference

It’s
clear
that
the
CoCounsel
legal
assistant
is
a
powerful
and
transformative
technology,
and
the
upgrades
in
the
latest
version
will
further
ease
the
rote
tasks
that
bog
down
legal
work. 

Curious
about
learning
more?


You
can
check
out
the
product
here. 

If
you
watch
an
interview
of
Kamala
Harris,
or
Donald
Trump,
or
any
other
politician,
the
politician
will
answer
some
questions
and
filibuster
in
response
to
others.
Instead
of
answering
a
difficult
question,
the
politician
speaks
endless
nonresponsive
words,
permitting
the
politician
to
make
a
point
—
or
simply
waste
time
—
while
the
interviewer’s
clock
runs.
(In
court,
of
course,
this
tactic
doesn’t
work
as
well:
There’s
no
time
limit,
and
there’s
a
judge
present
to
insist
on
responsive
answers.)

You
could
ask
Trump
or
Harris
hard
questions
in
interviews,
but
you’d
never
hear
an
answer.
They’d
filibuster.

What
are
the
truly
hard
questions
for
each
of
the
two
major
party
presidential
candidates?

A
terribly
difficult
question
for
Harris
is
this:
When
did
you
first
notice
Joe
Biden’s
cognitive
decline?

What’s
Harris
to
say?

“Biden’s
not
in
decline”?
We
all
saw
Biden
at
the
debate.
He’s
in
decline.
And
Biden
himself
was
ultimately
convinced
to
withdraw
from
the
race
(although
he
of
course
says
that
he
withdrew
because
of
the
polls,
rather
than
his
condition).
If
Harris
insists
that
Biden
hasn’t
lost
a
step
or
two,
everyone
knows
that
Harris
is
lying.
“Biden’s
not
in
decline”
can’t
be
the
answer.

So
when
did
Harris
notice
Biden’s
decline?

She
didn’t
notice?

Then
she’s
not
a
very
observant
person.
I’m
not
sure
I’d
care
to
have
her
in
charge.

Perhaps
Harris
noticed
Biden’s
decline
last
year?

Then
why
didn’t
she
say
something?
POTUS
can
no
longer
handle
the
job,
and
Harris
is
remaining
silent?
What
kind
of
patriot
is
she?

Can
Harris
say
that
she
thought
Biden
was
surrounded
by
good
people
and
could
thus
handle
the
presidency
even
though
he
personally
had
lost
a
step?
That
doesn’t
say
much
for
the
office
of
the
presidency.

Thus,
my
impossible
question
for
Harris:
“When
did
you
first
notice
Joe
Biden’s
cognitive
decline?”
Harris
can’t
answer
that
question,
and
you’ll
never
hear
her
try.
She’ll
filibuster
instead.

What’s
an
impossible
question
for
Trump?

There
are
a
ton
of
hard
questions
for
Trump,
but
he
has
answers
(that
convince
his
loyalists)
for
many
of
them:
Why
did
a
jury
find
that
you
committed
sexual
assault
(which
a
judge
later
found
was,
in
the
usual
sense
of
the
word,
rape)?
It
was
a
biased
New
York
jury!
Why
did
a
jury
convict
you
of
34
felony
charges? 
It
was
a
witch
hunt
by
the
prosecutors,
and
the
jury
was
biased!
Why
did
you
incite
an
insurrection
on
January
6?
I
didn’t
incite
an
insurrection!
I
told
the
crowd
to
walk
peacefully
and
patriotically
down
the
street!

But
I
think
the
hardest
question
for
Trump
is
this:

On
January
6,
why
did
you
say
absolutely
nothing
for
three
hours
while
you
watched
a
mob
attack
the
Capitol
Building?

There’s
no
answer
to
this.

None
of
Trump’s
answers
work:
Consider
“The
mob
was
antifa!”
or
“The
mob
was
the
FBI!”
or
“Nancy
Pelosi
didn’t
have
enough
police
at
the
Capitol
Building
that
day!”

It
doesn’t
matter.
There
was
still
a
mob.
The
mob
was
still
attacking
the
Capitol
Building.
Perhaps
you
didn’t
know
who
the
mob
was,
perhaps
the
Capitol
was
inadequately
defended.
You
still
should
have
immediately
said:
“I
don’t
know
who
you
people
in
the
mob
are.
But,
if
I
have
any
influence
over
you
at
all,
please
listen
to
me:
Don’t
attack
the
Capitol
Building!
This
is
wrong.
This
is
not
what
I
had
in
mind.
This
is
criminal.
You
will
be
prosecuted
for
this.
Please
leave
the
building
and
go
home!”

What
possible
(and
nonincriminating)
reason
is
there
for
Trump
not
to
have
said
that?

The
stuff
I’ve
heard
from
Trump
supporters
when
I
pose
this
question
is
all
drivel:
“It
was
only
three
hours.”
Yeah?
Trump
was
the
president;
he’s
supposed
to
care
about
the
country.
The
Capitol
Building
was
being
ransacked
and
people
were
getting
hurt.
Under
those
circumstances,
I
give
him
about
three
minutes
to
make
a
statement;
he
sure
doesn’t
get
three
hours.

Trump
supporters
also
say:
“Trump’s
got
a
big
ego.
He
didn’t
believe
he’d
lost
the
election.
It
took
him
three
hours
to
pull
himself
together
and
say
something.”
No,
no,
no:
Trump
knew
he
had
lost
the
election
shortly
after
election
day,
eight
weeks
earlier.
Trump
had
been
told
by
many,
many
people
that
he’d
lost.
I
might
give
a
person
with
the
emotional
capacity
to
be
president
a
few
hours
to
get
over
the
loss
—
after
all,
throughout
history,
losing
candidates
have
pulled
themselves
together
on
election
night
to
give
public
concession
speeches
—
and
the
loss
surely
stings
for
a
while.
In
fact,
I
suspect
that
the
loss
probably
stings
forever
—
you
probably
go
to
your
grave
regretting
the
night
you
lost
the
presidency.
But
that
doesn’t
mean
that
you
allow
a
mob
to
attack
the
Capitol
Building
for
three
hours.

Trump
simply
can’t
answer
this.

What
are
the
real
answers
to
my
two
questions?

Why
didn’t
Harris
tell
the
public
that
she
saw
Biden
suffering
from
mental
decline?

I
suspect
that
Harris
saw
that
Biden
was
weakening.
But
everyone
in
the
White
House
was
saying
that
they
could
hide
Biden
during
the
campaign,
prop
him
up
for
a
few
public
events,
permit
him
to
win
reelection,
and
then
cover
for
him
for
the
next
four
years.
That
was
the
company
line
among
all
of
Biden’s
staffers,
none
of
whom
wanted
to
lose
their
cushy
jobs.
Harris,
a
loyal
Democrat,
played
along.

Does
that
stink?
You
bet
it
does;
that’s
one
of
the
reasons
why
I
dislike
politicians.
I’m
nonpartisan
in
this
regard:
I
dislike
all
politicians.
How
many
Republicans,
for
the
sake
of
their
political
futures,
have
hidden
the
fact
that
Trump
is
unfit
for
the
presidency?

What
about
my
impossible
question
for
Trump?
Why
didn’t
Trump
ask
the
mob
to
call
off
the
attack
on
the
Capitol
Building
while
he
watched
for
three
hours?

Because
he
wanted
to
keep
power,
even
though
he’d
lost
the
election.

You
decide
whether
Harris
or
Trump
committed
the
greater
sin.

---

Mark Herrmann


spent
17
years
as
a
partner
at
a
leading
international
law
firm
and
later
oversaw
litigation,
compliance
and
employment
matters
at
a
large
international
company.
He
is
the
author
of



The
Curmudgeon’s
Guide
to
Practicing
Law and Drug
and
Device
Product
Liability
Litigation
Strategy (affiliate
links).
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected].