What
fictional
lawyer
once
said,
“I’ve
argued
in
front
of
every
judge
in
this
state.
Often
as
a
lawyer.”?
Hint:
The
TV
attorney,
of
questionable
legal
skill,
also
once
noted:
“Don’t
you
worry.
I
watched
Matlock
in
a
bar
last
night.
The
sound
wasn’t
on,
but
I
think
I
got
the
gist
of
it.”
See the
answer
on
the
next
page.
The
2024
presidential
election
is
less
than
three
weeks
away.
Whether
Kamala
Harris
or
Donald
Trump
win
the
race,
the
U.S.
healthcare
system
is
certain
to
undergo
some
changes
as
a
result
of
the
election.
This
week,
international
consultancy
BRG
hosted
a
webinar
in
which
its
experts
discussed
some
of
the
candidates’
key
stances
on
healthcare.
Corporate
governance
and
payer
ramifications
A
Harris
presidency
would
be
more
active
on
the
antitrust
front
than
a
Trump
presidency,
said
Thomas
O’Neil,
managing
director
at
BRG.
During
the
Biden-Harris
administration,
the
Department
of
Justice
has
initiated
an
“unprecedented
number”
of
antitrust
and
anticompetitive
behavior
investigations,
he
noted.
Although
the
prior
Trump-Pence
administration
initiated
significantly
fewer
antitrust
investigations,
it
did
challenge
key
deals,
such
as
the
CVS
Caremark-Aetna
deal,
O’Neil
pointed
out.
He
also
noted
that
both
presidential
candidates
have
demonstrated
a
commitment
to
improving
Medicare
Advantage.
The
current
Biden-Harris
administration
is
increasing
transparency
in
the
Medicare
Advantage
insurance
market,
as
well
as
working
toward
strengthening
programmatic
data,
O’Neil
remarked.
As
for
Trump,
he
signed
executive
orders
that
improved
Medicare
Advantage
beneficiaries’
access
to
tax
advantaged
savings
accounts
and
paid
for
limited
long-term
care
expenses,
he
said.
Additionally,
O’Neil
pointed
out
that
a
Harris
presidency
would
probably
be
tougher
on
healthcare
fraud
than
a
Trump
presidency.
The
Biden-Harris
administration
has
increased
the
enforcement
of
regulations
related
to
healthcare
fraud,
waste
and
abuse
—
particularly
in
response
to
the
Covid-19
pandemic,
he
said.
A
Trump
presidency
would
most
likely
mean
“more
regulatory
flexibility”
and
“looser
standards”
for
the
enforcement
of
fraud
protection
laws,
O’Neil
remarked.
He
noted
that
the
Trump
administration
increased
regulatory
flexibility
for
the
Anti-Kickback
Statute
and
Physician
Self-Referral
(Stark)
Law.
Value-based
care
and
CMS
The
candidates
have
different
stances
on
Affordable
Care
Act
exchange
subsidies.
The
Biden-Harris
administration
expanded
subsidies
through
the
end
of
2025,
and
Harris
would
likely
support
extending
them
if
she
is
elected
president,
said
Patrick
Dooley,
managing
director
at
BRG.
The
Trump
administration
unsuccessfully
attempted
to
repeal
the
ACA,
he
added.
As
for
Medicaid,
Harris
would
probably
work
to
expand
access,
while
Trump
would
work
to
reduce
access,
Dooley
said.
He
noted
that
Harris
is
likely
to
expand
Medicaid
in
states
that
have
not
already
done
so,
as
well
as
extend
more
Medicaid
benefits
to
cover
health-related
social
needs.
As
for
Trump,
Dooley
said
that
he
is
likely
to
continue
efforts
from
his
first
term
to
increase
work
requirements
for
Medicaid
enrollees.
He
also
said
that
Trump
may
make
cuts
to
the
Medicaid
program
or
explore
block
grants
for
states.
AI
regulation
Despite
their
stark
differences
in
rhetoric,
Harris
and
Trump
campaigns
have
pretty
similar
views
when
it
comes
to
AI,
pointed
out
Amy
Reeder
Worley,
managing
director
at
BRG.
“Both
Vice
President
Harris
and
President
Trump
have
been
focused
on
what
I’ll
call
the
supply
side
of
AI
in
healthcare
—
really
focusing
on
initiatives
to
drive
innovation
for
better
care,
for
patients,
for
providers
and
for
payers.
I
would
say
both
Vice
President
Harris
and
President
Trump
are
optimistic
about
AI’s
promises
to
help
more
than
it
hurts,”
she
declared.
Both
candidates
would
support
further
AI
innovation
if
elected,
Reeder
Worley
added.
She
noted
that
Harris
is
a
Californian
with
knowledge
of
the
tech
sector,
and
J.D.
Vance
has
connections
to
Silicon
Valley
leaders
who
have
historically
opposed
regulation.
Drug
pricing
reform
Whoever
wins
the
presidential
election
will
be
tasked
with
implementing
the
Inflation
Reduction
Act,
which
allows
for
the
negotiations
of
Medicare
drug
prices,
said
John
Barkett,
managing
director
at
BRG.
“If
the
person
receiving
that
baton
is
Vice
President
Harris,
I
expect
her
to
build
off
President
Biden’s
and
her
administration’s
drug
pricing
reform
efforts.
She’s
talked
about
how
she
would
want
to
see
Medicare
drug
negotiations
expanded
—
meaning
more
drugs
for
negotiations.
It
could
also
mean
selecting
drugs
that
have
been
on
the
market
for
less
time.
It
could
also
mean
lowering
the
ceiling
price
for
offers
that
the
Secretary
could
make
to
drug
manufacturers
when
they
negotiate,”
he
explained.
He
also
noted
that
Harris
would
likely
expand
the
$35
insulin
price
cap
to
all.
This
means
she
would
support
legislation
applying
the
$35-or-less
co-pay
policy
to
non-Medicare
populations.
Barkett
added
that
Harris
would
support
efforts
to
reform
pharmacy
benefit
managers
—
including
more
oversight
from
federal
competition
authorities.
As
for
Trump,
he
might
try
to
establish
international
reference
pricing
policies,
Barkett
said.
These
are
policies
in
which
Medicare
wouldn’t
pay
any
more
for
a
drug
than
the
prices
charged
for
that
same
drug
in
other
countries.
Trump
may
also
try
to
bring
back
policies
that
his
previous
presidential
administration
failed
to
establish.
Some
of
these
include
policies
eliminating
rebates
and
relaxing
formulary
standards
in
Medicare
Part
D,
as
well
as
laws
that
would
increase
state
adoption
of
drug
importation
policy,
Barkett
remarked.
Photo:
Niyazz,
Getty
Images
Navigating
the
world
of
legal
technology
implementation
can
feel
overwhelming,
but
with
a
clear
strategy,
success
is
within
reach.
We’ve
worked
with
numerous
legal
teams
and
distilled
our
experience
into
four
key
pillars
for
a
smoother,
more
successful
rollout
—
especially
when
dealing
with
emerging
technologies
like
Generative
AI
(GAI).
Before
diving
into
these
pillars,
it’s
important
to
note
that stakeholder
alignment,
training
and
change
management
(CM),
and
leadership
buy-in
are
non-negotiable.
However,
the
way
these
components
are
addressed
will
vary
by
organization.
Leadership
support,
ongoing
communication,
and
a
well-executed
change
management
plan
ensure
your
tech
rollout
has
the
foundational
support
it
needs.
The
specifics
of
how
each
company
handles
these
elements
will
depend
on
its
culture
and
structure,
but
their
importance
remains
universal.
Define
Success
Before
you
begin,
be
crystal
clear
about
what
success
looks
like.
Too
often,
legal
departments
set
goals
like
“improving
efficiency,”
but
that’s
too
vague.
Instead,
ask: How will
we
measure
efficiency?
What
specific
processes
will
improve?
Will
it
mean
quicker
contract
approvals,
reduced
manual
tasks,
or
fewer
emails
clogging
inboxes?
In
Legal
Operations,
metrics
are
critical.
Some
essential
metrics
you
can
track
include:
Define
success
in
stages.
For
example,
stage
one
could
focus
on
reducing
the
time
spent
on
routine
inquiries
by
20%.
Stage
two
could
be
increasing
the
speed
of
contract
execution
by
30%.
When
you
break
down
success
into
specific,
measurable
outcomes,
tracking
progress
and
making
necessary
adjustments
becomes
easier.
Assess
Your
Readiness
Rolling
out
a
new
technology
without
a
readiness
check
is
a
recipe
for
frustration.
Before
implementing
anything,
take
stock
of
your
current
workflows.
What’s
running
smoothly,
and
where
are
the
bottlenecks?
Conduct
a
readiness
assessment
to
identify
where
new
tech
will
enhance
your
department
and
where
it
might
create
more
friction.
Also,
make
sure
your
data
and
materials
are
updated.
GAI
is
powerful,
but
it
works
best
when
fed
clean,
structured
data.
Test
your
workflows
and
policy
materials
first
and
start
with
a
limited
scope
before
expanding
—
especially
if
you’re
automating
processes
like
FAQs
or
legal
request
intake.
Encourage
Simplicity
Implementing
every
shiny
new
feature
that
tech
offers
is
tempting,
but
more
complexity
often
leads
to
longer
timelines
and
higher
chances
of
failure.
Focus
on
simplicity.
If
your
goal
is
faster
responses
to
employment-related
inquiries,
build
the
basic
framework
first
—
start
with
high-frequency,
high-impact
workflows
and
leave
the
edge
cases
for
later
phases.
Remember:
Simplicity
is
not
a
lack
of
ambition
—
it’s
about
achieving
your
goals
efficiently.
You
can
continually
iterate
and
expand
once
you’ve
established
a
strong
foundation.
Avoid
letting
perfection
get
in
the
way
of
progress.
Let
It
Go
No
implementation
will
go
off
without
a
hitch,
and
that’s
OK.
The
key
to
success
is
flexibility.
Be
prepared
to
let
go
of
things
that
aren’t
working
as
planned.
Maybe
a
key
feature
doesn’t
perform
as
expected,
or
you
need
more
time
to
get
the
team
on
board.
Instead
of
holding
rigidly
to
the
initial
plan,
allow
room
for
adjustments.
Iterate.
Gather
feedback.
Stay
agile.
Your
tech
rollout
should
evolve
as
you
learn
what
works
and
what
doesn’t.
Building
in
this
flexibility
not
only
prevents
project
burnout
but
also
ensures
long-term
success.
Success
Starts
with
a
Practical
Approach
Legal
tech
implementation
doesn’t
have
to
be
a
headache
if
you
approach
it
with
clear
goals,
an
understanding
of
your
department’s
readiness,
and
a
commitment
to
simplicity
and
flexibility.
When
done
right,
legal
tech
will
transform
how
your
team
works
—
allowing
them
to
focus
on
high-value
tasks
and
leave
repetitive
work
to
automation.
Sumi
Trombley practiced
in
law
firms
and
in-house
legal
departments
for
more
than
a
decade
before
coming
to
UpLevel
Ops.
Sumi
previously
served
as
Director,
Legal
at
enterprise
legal
services
provider
Marshall
Denning,
LLC,
where
she
managed
and
trained
a
team
of
junior
and
senior
attorneys
and
developed
and
implemented
resource
optimizing
processes
for
RFPs
and
pre-litigation
disputes.
She
is
known
for
her
ability
to
provide
strategic
guidance
and
cost-effective
solutions.
Brian
Hupp
was
a
founding
leadership
team
member
of
the
Corporate
Legal
Operations
Consortium
(CLOC)
and
served
for
many
years
on
the
CLOC
Board
of
Directors.
After
more
than
25
years
in
the
legal
industry,
Brian
has
developed
an
expertise
in
building
corporate
legal
operations
functions
from
the
ground
up
and
has
built
a
reputation
for
collaboration
with
legal
technology
partners
to
turn
nascent
technologies
into
essential,
cutting-edge
components
of
the
legal
operations
arsenal.
Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,
Quote
of
the
Day.
The
market
and
variation
is
utterly
bewildering.
Some
household
name
firms
that
are
near
and
dear
to
clients’
hearts
are
proposing
whopping
increases
over
30%
while
similarly
situated
firms
are
proposing
a
zero
percent
increase.
—
Jason
Winmill,
managing
partner
of
Boston
consultancy
Argopoint,
in
comments
given
to
Corporate
Counsel,
concerning
the
“scattershot”
rate
hikes
general
counsel
have
seen
across
firms.
“It’s
a
complicated,
highly
fragmented
industry
with
tens
of
thousands
of
people
making
different
decisions
every
day,”
said
Winmill,
who
has
advised
legal
departments
for
more
than
two
decades.
“Variations
in
pricing
are
are
reflected
by
geography,
by
fields
of
law
and
by
individual
practices—and
certain
practices
are
doing
better
than
others.”
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.
(Photo
by
Win
McNamee/Getty
Images)
That’s
it? That’s
what
Donald
Trump’s
lawyers
threw
such
a
tantrum
over?
This
afternoon,
Judge
Tanya
Chutkan
unsealed
the
redacted
Appendix
to
the
special
counsel’s
immunity
brief
in
the
election
interference
case.
It
is
1,889
pages,
the
vast
majority
of
which
are
sealed.
What
is
unsealed
is
a
heavily
redacted
version
of
documents
already
in
the
public
domain,
largely
transcripts
from
the
January
6
Select
Committee
and
Trump’s
own
tweets.
And
while
Special
Counsel
Smith
used
the
brief
itself
to
weave
a
damning
narrative
about
the
former
president’s
efforts
to
overturn
the
last
election,
the
four-volume
appendix,
at
least
in
its
public
form,
is
simply
a
few
pages
of
disjointed
snippets
among
upwards
of
1,000
pages
that
simply
say
“SEALED.”
It’s
not
even
a
nothing
burger
—
it’s
a diet
nothing
burger.
Fittingly,
the
only
new
episode
involves
a
valet
getting
Trump
a
Diet
Coke
at
approximately
1:21pm
on
January
6,
2021,
and
apologizing
that
the
recording
of
his
speech
on
the
Ellipse
cut
off
because
the
networks
switched
over
to
covering
the
riot
unfolding
at
the
Capitol.
It
was
“sir,
they
cut
if
off
because
they’re
rioting
down
at
the
Capitol.”
…
And
he
was
like,
“What
do
you
mean?”
I
said,
“It’s,
like,
They’re
rioting
down
there
at
the
Capitol.”
And
he
was
like
“Oh,
really?”
And
then
he
was
like
“All
right,
let’s
go
see.”
This
makes
it
all
the
weirder
that
Trump’s
lawyers
threw
such
a
pointless
hissy
fit
about
the
documents
being
released
on
a
Friday
in
October
when
everyone
is
preoccupied
with
the
election
anyway.
Yesterday,
on
the
seventh
day
of
the
seven-day
stay
Judge
Chutkan
gave
Trump
and
his
lawyers
to
pursue
their
“litigation
options,”
they
filed
a
motion
to
continue
the
stay
until
November
14,
when
Trump’s
own
rebuttal
is
due
to
be
released.
The
court
had
already
rejected
multiple
requests
to
do
just
that,
making
clear
that
she
would
not
consider
the
exigencies
of
the
political
calendar
in
this
case.
Trump’s
counterargument
was
essentially,
“but,
your
honor,
have
you
considered
the
exigencies
of
the
political
calendar
as
a
matter
of
public
interest?”
“[L]imiting
the
public’s
access
to
only
one
side
of
this
important
debate,
even
temporarily,
would
grievously
harm
its
understanding
of
this
case,”
he
mumbled.
The
court
responded
by
pointing
out
that,
once
again,
Trump
and
his
counsel
had
failed
to
engage
with
the
actual
legal
standard
for
rebutting
the
assumption
in
favor
of
public
access
to
court
records.
The
judge
also
noted
that,
if
Trump
is
so
worried
about
presenting
“simultaneous
releases”
to
ensure
that
“the
public
fully
understand
the
arguments
and
documents
on
both
sides
of
this
momentous
issue,
and
is
not
misled
by
one-sided
submissions,”
he’s
perfectly
free
to
turn
in
his
homework
early.
But
she
was
most
indignant
at
the
suggestion
that
doing
her
job
amounted
to
“political
interference,”
and
so
to
counter
the
appearance
that
she
was
timing
her
rulings
to
impact
with
the
election,
she
should
schedule
her
rulings around
the
election.
If
the
court
withheld
information
that
the
public
otherwise
had
a
right
to
access
solely
because
of
the
potential
political
consequences
of
releasing
it,
that
withholding
could
itself
constitute—or
appear
to
be—
election
interference.
The
court
will
therefore
continue
to
keep
political
considerations
out
of
its
decision-making,
rather
than
incorporating
them
as
Defendant
requests.
This
morning
she
ordered
the
heavily
redacted
document
unsealed,
where
it
promptly
broke
PACER
as
thousands
of
reporters
furiously
tried
to
download
thousands
of
blank
pages
at
once.
Meanwhile,
Trump’s
screechman
Stephen
Cheung
put
out
a
statement
howling
that
“Radical
Democrats
are
hell-bent
on
interfering
in
the
presidential
election
on
behalf
of
Lyin’
Kamala
Harris.”
“As
mandated
by
the
Supreme
Court’s
historic
decision
on
Presidential
Immunity
and
other
vital
jurisprudence,
this
entire
case
is
a
sham
and
a
partisan,
Unconstitutional
Witch
Hunt
that
should
be
dismissed
entirely
—
as
should
ALL
of
the
remaining
Democrat
hoaxes,”
he
went
on.
Please
don’t
let
them
put
in
the
paper
that
I
got
mad.
US
v.
Trump [Docket
via
Court
Listener]
Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.
A
good
marriage
is
about
having
each
other’s
back.
A
good
judge
knows
how
to
maintain
impartiality
(or
remove
themselves
from
matters
where
they
can’t
be
neutral).
Usually
these
two
boats
pass
each
other
in
the
night,
but
every
once
in
a
while
you
get
a
power
couple
that,
by
nature
of
their
stations,
is
tested
by
circumstances.
Put
plainly,
you
can’t
encourage
prosecutors
to
hurry
up
a
trial
just
because
the
guy
in
trouble
is
your
husband.
Law
&
Crime
has
coverage:
A
New
Hampshire
Supreme
Court
justice
who
is
married
to
a
long-embattled
state
official
has
been
indicted
for
interfering
with
a
criminal
investigation
into
her
husband.
…
The
indictment
charges
that
[Justice
Anna
Barbara]
Hantz
Marconi
told
“Gov.
Christopher
Sununu
that
an
investigation
into
Geno
Marconi
was
the
result
of
personal,
petty,
and/or
political
biases;
that
there
was
no
merit
to
the
allegations
against
or
subsequent
investigation
into
Geno
Marconi;
and/or
that
the
investigation
into
Geno
Marconi
needed
to
wrap
up
quickly
because
she
was
recused
from
important
cases
pending
or
imminently
pending
before
the
New
Hampshire
Supreme
Court.”
She
was
indicted
on
a
series
of
offenses
—
two
of
them
were
felonies:
attempting
to
commit
improper
influence
and
criminal
solicitation
of
improper
influence.
This
isn’t
the
first
time
that
judges
have
used
their
influence
to
thumb
the
scale.
Earlier
this
year,
a
judge
was
caught
blessing
officers
to
commit
some
light
§1983
violations
and
Eric
Adams
is
in
a
lot
of
trouble
over
things
we
wouldn’t
even
blink
at
if
Clarence
Thomas
did
them.
That
said,
Justice
Marconi
could
be
facing
some
serious
consequences
—
up
to
seven
years
for
each
felony,
and
that’s
before
you
weigh
the
additional
misdemeanors!
Sentencing
someone
to
time
behind
bars
is
a
grave
matter,
but
so
is
enforcing
the
expectation
that
everyone
—
judges
included
—
is
subject
to
the
rule
of
law.
(Image
via
Getty)
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.
“Charlie
Adelson
lawyer
says
conflicts
that
derailed
mom’s
trial
‘infected’
his
trial
too”: Jeff
Burlew
of
The
Tallahassee
Democrat
has this
report.
“Harris
or
Trump,
next
president
will
have
less
impact
on
shape
of
US
judiciary”: Nate
Raymond
of
Reuters
has this
report.
“San
Francisco
is
battling
with
itself
over
a
Supreme
Court
appeal
it
will
likely
win”: John
Fritze
of
CNN
has this
report.
“Supreme
Court
Leans
Toward
Truck
Driver
Fired
Over
Drug
Test;
The
driver,
Douglas
Horn,
sued
the
maker
of
a
product
said
to
be
free
of
THC
under
a
federal
racketeering
law,
saying
he
had
suffered
a
business
injury”: Adam
Liptak
of
The
New
York
Times
has this
report.
“NC
Supreme
Court
candidates
face
off
over
partisanship,
politics
and
philosophy”: Kyle
Ingram
of
The
News
&
Observer
of
Raleigh,
North
Carolina
has this
report.
“Neil
Gorsuch’s
New
Book
Is
an
Embarrassment;
The
conservative
Supreme
Court
justice
produced
a
tendentious
account
of
the
legal
system
in
service
of
a
political
narrative
—
and
he
won’t
answer
his
critics”: Ankush
Khardori
has this
essay online
at
Politico
Magazine.
Don’t
be
upset,
honey.
You’re
doing
it
for
increased
representation
in
the
House!
Conservative
lawyers
—
with
the
help
of
five
out-of-state
groups
who
formed
a
dummy
organization
in
Amarillo,
Texas,
to
take
advantage
of
that
district’s
ironically
liberal
forum
shopping
rules
—
filed
a
lawsuit
challenging
the
FDA’s
approval
of
mifepristone
with
a
1-in-1
chance
of
landing
before
Trump
appointed
activist
judge
Matthew
Kacsmaryk.
That
process
ultimately
didn’t
work
out,
but
now
there’s
a
complaint
brought
by
three
Republican
state
attorneys
general
—
not
from
Texas
—
who
have
run
to
Texas
in
a
bid
to
grandstand
a
little
for
right-wing
media
clicks.
But
have
they
solved
the
standing
problems
from
the
first
suit?
They
think
they
have,
and
the
answer
is:
the
state
has
a
compelling
interest
in
getting
teen
girls
pregnant!
The
first
time
around,
Kacsmaryk
did
what
he
was
groomed
to
do
and
ordered
the
pill’s
approval
yanked
on
the
grounds
that
medical
scientists
aren’t
as
good
at
medicine
stuff
as
he
is.
The
Fifth
Circuit
rubberstamped
his
opinion
and
James
Ho
introduced
a
new
cockamamie
theory
of
standing
based
on
“random
bystanders
think
babies
are
cute,”
which
may
be
true
but
is
more
a
function
of
being
able
to
give
them
back
once
they
start
crying.
The
Supreme
Court
rejected
the
standing
theory
in
the
case
because
it
was,
of
course,
gibberish
cobbled
together
in
crayon
by
a
clutch
of
judges
that
the
Court’s
conservative
majority
keeps
striking
down.
But
Justice
Kavanaugh
set
down
his
beer
to
draw
a
rough
map
for
Kacsmaryk
to
try
again
with
less
risk
of
faceplanting.
After
inviting
state
AGs
to
enter
the
case
with
a
slightly
better
shot
of
establishing
standing,
we’re
back
at
the
beginning.
Andrew
Bailey
of
Missouri,
Raúl
Labrador
of
Idaho,
and
Kris
Kobach
of
Kansas
just
delivered
their
199-page
amended
complaint
and
they’ve
got
theories,
man.
These
estimates
also
show
the
effect
of
the
FDA’s
decision
to
remove
all
in-person
dispensing
protections.
When
data
is
examined
in
a
way
that
reflects
sensitivity
to
expected
birth
rates,
these
estimates
strikingly
“do
not
show
evidence
of
an
increase
in
births
to
teenagers
aged
15-19,”
even
in
states
with
long
driving
distances
despite
the
fact
that
“women
aged
15-19…
are
more
responsive
to
driving
distances
to
abortion
facilities
than
older
women.”
The
study
thus
concludes
that
“one
explanation
may
be
that
younger
women
are
more
likely
to
navigate
online
abortion
finders
or
websites
ordering
mail-order
medication
to
self-manage
abortions.
This
study
thus
suggests
that
remote
dispensing
of
abortion
drugs
by
mail,
common
carrier,
and
interactive
computer
service
is
depressing
expected
birth
rates
for
teenaged
mothers
in
Plaintiff
States,
even
if
other
overall
birth
rates
may
have
been
lower
than
otherwise
was
projected.
To
summarize,
they’re
arguing
that
there’s
a
study
showing
that
15-19
year-old
girls
are
less
likely
to
have
babies
when
mifepristone
is
available
online.
Which
might
be
true.
It
also
might
be
true
that
teen
pregnancy
is
just
down
because
of
birth
control
and
condom
availability
and,
just
for
shits
and
giggles
let’s
say
abstinence
education.
But
whatever
the
reason,
how
do
teen
pregnancy
rates
matter
to
this
case?
A
loss
of
potential
population
causes
further
injuries
as
well:
the
States
subsequent
“diminishment
of
political
representation”
and
“loss
of
federal
funds,”
such
as
potentially
“losing
a
seat
in
Congress
or
qualifying
for
less
federal
funding
if
their
populations
are”
reduced
or
their
increase
diminished.
Your
eyes
are
not
deceiving
you.
Republicans
are
arguing
that
teen
pregnancy
is
good
because
it
might
lead
to
another
House
seat.
If
you
told
young
me
that
in
the
Year
of
Our
Lord
2024
the
Republican
Party
would
be
all
in
on
“teen
pregnancies
are
necessary”
I’d
have
assumed
some
sort
of
dystopian
Children
of
Men
scenario
was
happening.
This
is
the
political
entity
that
spent
the
80s
and
90s
aggressively
demonizing
teen
pregnancy
as
the
final
disgrace
brought
on
by
all
the
pre-marital
sex
MTV
invented.
It
was
pathologized
from
the
White
House
as
an
“epidemic.”
Today,
with
a
straight
face,
the
same
party
argues
that
the
state
needs
to
knock
up
more
kids.
But
I
guess
it’s
the
same
party
that
fought
the
Cold
War
and
now
colludes
with
a
KGB
general
so
maybe
times
just
change.
As
shockingly
cynical
as
the
idea
of
cultivating
a
generation
of
unplanned
children
just
to
game
the
electoral
college
might
be,
the
federal
funding
claim
might
actually
be
worse.
This
shouldn’t
have
to
be
said,
but
when
the
federal
government
hands
out
more
funds
based
on
population,
the
expectation
is
that
the
funds
pay
for
the
growing
population.
In
other
words,
if
the
state
doesn’t
have
another
citizen,
it
wouldn’t
need
another
citizen’s
worth
of
funds.
Which
is
how
they’re
telling
on
themselves,
of
course.
Republican
state
governments
obsessively
seek
wealth
transfers
from
the
rest
of
the
country.
They
want
more
bodies
to
claim
more
funds
and
then
NOT
actually
spend
the
money
on
those
specific
bodies,
but
instead
to
funnel
funds
to
the
“people”
they
like.
Maybe
some
retired
athlete
is
looking
to
build
a
volleyball
stadium
or
something.
That
sound
you’re
faintly
hearing
might
just
be
Kavanaugh
and
Roberts
smacking
their
heads
wondering
how
the
rest
of
the
conservative
legal
movement
can’t
help
but
invent
increasingly
embarrassing
quotable
material
in
their
bid
to
own
the
libs.
For
anyone
concerned
about
reproductive
health,
it’s
a
dangerous
world
out
there
but
as
they
say,
for
now,
“it
helps
that
our
enemy
is
very
stupid.”
(Amended
complaint
on
the
next
page…)
Earlier:
MAGA
Judge
James
Ho
Unveils
New
Injury
Based
On
Conservative
Tears
The
Fifth
Circuit’s
Mifepristone
Decision
Is
A
Disgrace
Supreme
Court
Rejects
World’s
Dumbest
Legal
Theory,
Accidentally
Protecting
Birth
Control
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.
Money
is
the
main
motivator
for
Biglaw
lawyers
deciding
whether
to
remain
where
they
are
or
to
change
firms,
according
to
a
recent
Above
the
Law/Lateral
Link
Report.
In
a
survey
of
more
than
700
lawyers,
the
majority
at
Am
Law
100
firms,
attorneys
were
asked
what
would
make
them
consider
a
lateral
move.
Higher
compensation
was
the
most
influential
factor,
cited
by
61%
of
respondents.
Better
work-life
balance
followed,
at
57%.
Money
also
plays
a
key
role
in
the
reasoning
of
attorneys
who
plan
to
remain
at
their
current
firms.
Although
many
appreciate
the
work
environment
(48%),
the
work-life
balance
(39%),
and
their
firm’s
prestige
in
specific
practice
areas
(38%),
compensation
(58%)
was
the
number
one
reason
attorneys
gave
for
staying
put.
For
more
insights
into
the
lateral
market,
including
which
firms
attorneys
most
want
to
work
for
and
what
makes
them
so
desirable,
download
a
free
copy
of
the
report.
Ranking
The
Law
Firms
Lawyers
Love
[Above
the
Law]
Biglaw
firms
are
continuing
to
leave
China,
closing
offices
there
left
and
right
—
and
this
firm
is
not
only
shuttering
one
office,
but
it’s
also
conducting
additional
layoffs
across
the
country.
As
noted
by
Law.com
International,
Skadden
is
calling
it
quits
in
Shanghai
and
parting
ways
with
lawyers
in
its
corporate
practice,
the
firm’s
main
practice
area
in
China.
These
moves
are
being
driven
by
“market
conditions.”
The
firm
offered
the
following
statement:
“Skadden
is
committed
to
a
strong
presence
across
Asia
and
to
serving
our
clients
in
the
region
with
excellence,”
a
Skadden
spokesperson
told
Law.com
International.
“We
continually
examine
the
scope
and
scale
of
our
practices
and
operations
around
the
world
to
ensure
that
they
are
aligned
with
our
clients’
needs
and
our
strategic
plans.”“Shifting
market
dynamics
have
led
us
to
the
decision
to
begin
winding
down
our
operations
in
Shanghai
and
rescale
our
China
corporate
practice.
We
will
continue
to
provide
outstanding
service
to
our
clients
from
our
other
five
offices
in
the
region.”
For
the
time
being,
Skadden
will
retain
its
offices
in
Hong
Kong
and
Beijing.
Those
affected
by
the
Shanghai
office
closure
have
been
offered
the
opportunity
to
move
to
one
of
the
firm’s
other
offices.
At
this
time,
it
is
unknown
how
many
lawyers
will
be
affected
by
the
corporate
layoffs.
Which
Biglaw
firm
will
be
the
next
say
zàijiàn
to
its
offices
in
China?
You
can email
us or
text
us
(646-820-8477)
if
you
have
any
intel.
Thank
you.
Skadden
to
Close
in
Shanghai
and
Make
Cuts
to
China
Corporate
Practice
[Law.com
International]
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.
